[Senate Hearing 106-831]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-831
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 4635, 4733, and 5483
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
Nondepartmental witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
62-775 WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
SLADE GORTON, Washington FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JON KYL, Arizona
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
James H. English, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi HARRY REID, Nevada
SLADE GORTON, Washington ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
CONRAD BURNS, Montana HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota
TED STEVENS, Alaska (ex officio)
Professional Staff
Clay Sell
W. David Gwaltney
Drew Willison (Minority)
Administrative Support
Lashawnda Leftwich
Liz Blevins (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, March 21, 2000
Page
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of
Engineers--Civil............................................... 1
Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation................ 73
Tuesday, March 28, 2000
Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration... 95
Tuesday, April 11, 2000
Department of Energy:
Office of Science............................................ 187
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy............. 187
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology............. 187
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.............. 323
Office of Environmental Management........................... 323
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
California navigation and related projects....................... 399
California water resource development projects................... 439
Department of Energy programs and activities..................... 505
New York and New Jersey water resource projects.................. 529
Nationwide water projects........................................ 540
Midwest U.S. water resource development projects................. 542
Southwest U.S. water resource development projects............... 573
Pacific Northwest water resource projects........................ 585
Southeastern U.S. water resource development projects............ 610
Ohio River Valley inland navigation projects..................... 630
Mississippi and Louisiana water resource projects................ 634
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Domenici, Gorton, McConnell, Burns,
Craig, Stevens, Reid, and Dorgan.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
STATEMENTS OF:
DR. JOSEPH WESTPHAL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL
WORKS)
LT. GENERAL JOE N. BALLARD, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
ACCOMPANIED BY:
GENERAL HANS A. VAN WINKLE, DEPUTY COMMANDING GENERAL FOR CIVIL
WORKS
THOMAS F. CAVER, JR., CHIEF, PROGRAMS MANAGEMENT DIVISION,
DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL WORKS
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. Senator Reid is opening the Senate this
morning on the minority side and he will be here shortly. In
the meantime, I have an opening statement and then we'll
proceed with your testimony.
First of all, it's a pleasure to welcome representatives of
the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation to the
subcommittee to review their budget request for fiscal year
2001.
Following our normal procedure of rotating the lead-off
witnesses each year, we will first hear from the Corps of
Engineers followed by the Bureau of Reclamation. I'm pleased to
welcome you, Dr. Westphal, the Assistant Secretary for the Army
for Civil Works. Likewise, you, Lieutenant General Joe Ballard,
Chief of Engineers, and Major General Hans Van Winkle, the
Director of Civil Works for the Corps.
Gentlemen, it is truly a pleasure to have you here this
morning to present and testify on the fiscal year 2001 budget
request for the Corps of Engineers.
RECOGNITION OF LT. GEN. BALLARD
General Ballard, it's indeed an honor to recognize you
today, this being your final appearance before the
subcommittee. I understand that you will be leaving the Army
and the Corps of Engineers shortly after completing 4 years as
the Chief of Engineers and 35 years of service to our country.
General, your dedication to the Corps and to our country is
to be commended, and I and the entire subcommittee thank you
for your assistance and hard work over the years. We wish you
well in your future endeavors and hope that you will have more
time to spend with your family and doing whatever you would
like.
MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE CORPS
Gentlemen, we are all aware of the recent Washington Post
articles which covered certain aspects of the Corps' program.
We will get into that, I'm sure, during the questioning, but I
want to say that while these articles raised some issues of
concern, namely influencing the outcome of the study process
and alleged activities of the Corps to ``grow'' their civil
works program, the fundamental purpose of the Corps to oversee
the development, management, protection and enhancement of our
Nation's water resources is, in my opinion, very sound.
For over 200 years, the Corps has been the primary agency,
along with the Bureau of Reclamation, for translating the
Nation's water resources infrastructure needs into reality and
getting things done.
The Corps' Civil Works program continues to provide
billions of dollars of benefits to the Nation from deepdraft
and inland navigation, billions of dollars of flood damages
prevented annually and millions of dollars of forgotten
environmental and recreational benefits that are provided as an
integral part of each water resource project that is
constructed. The project development process, established by
Congress and carried out by the Executive Branch, is designed
to maximize the benefits to our Nation--and we all understand
that--while at the same time allowing review and input by
Federal and State agencies and the general public.
And I'm hopeful, if we have time, we'll go through the
Upper Mississippi Navigation Study Process and indicate in the
record with diagrams, et cetera, where that is, show that the
public input process is intact, it is strong and it has still
got a long way to go in terms of that participation before the
project is completed.
MAINTAINING ENGINEERING CAPABILITY
Another important but overlooked purpose of the Corps is to
retain and maintain the capability to provide engineering and
construction services to the Armed Services in support of the
national defense.
Dr. Westphal, General Ballard and General Van Winkle, it is
good to have you here this morning to talk about the Corps
Civil Works program. And I hope that you, General Ballard in
particular, will help the subcommittee understand the current
state of the Corps of Engineers.
When Senator Reid arrives, we will do whatever he likes. If
he wants to make a statement, we will interrupt and do that. If
not, he will be here to do what he chooses today.
Having said that now, we're going to proceed to hear first
Assistant Secretary Westphal and then you, General Ballard.
Would you proceed? Your entire statement is going to be made a
part of the record you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH WESTPHAL
Dr. Westphal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a great
pleasure to be with you here today and also I join you in
recognizing and commending General Ballard for his 30-plus, 35
years of service to the Nation and to the Corps of Engineers,
and we've worked together now almost 2 years since I've been on
this job and so there is no question I'm going to miss him and
I think the country is going to miss him in that regard.
Mr. Chairman, back in 1824, 176 years ago--and I'm not
going to follow whatever statements you got, because I rewrote
my statement last night so I'm just going to kind of tell you
some different things here
Senator Domenici. Do you want to stand by that statement or
do you want to throw it away?
Dr. Westphal. The original statement is sort of cut and dry
and all that.
Senator Domenici. It's in the record
Dr. Westphal. It's in the record. But back in 1824, 176
years ago, Congress made its first appropriations to the Army
Corps of Engineers for the ``removal of snags, sawyers,
planters and other impediments of that nature'' from the Ohio
and Mississippi Rivers.
That appropriations, Mr. Chairman, was $75,000. This year,
the President's budget request for fiscal year 2001 totals
$4.063 billion. It is $160 million above last year's budgeted
request to you. And we expect that the non-Federal
contributions and other sources to be approximately $395
million in fiscal year 2001, bringing the total funding to
approximately $4.5 billion. So from the initial $75,000
appropriations in 1824, our investment in water and related
land resources is estimated to be worth today over $124
billion.
From that initial job of clearing snags on the Ohio River,
the Army Corps of Engineers now works to serve the Nation's
needs in such areas as toxic and hazardous waste cleanup,
recreation, disaster relief, shoreline protection, hydropower
generation, flood protection, environmental restoration, and
provides support for other functions of technical oversight and
management of engineering, environmental and construction
contracts performed by the private sector firms on a totally
reimbursable basis.
Today, the Army Corps of Engineers is providing support to
about 60 Federal, State and local governments. This year the
President is requesting your support in funding three important
initiatives that will greatly help our ability to integrate
planning priorities, help us address an important backlog in
maintenance of our infrastructure and protect lives, save
money, and improve the environment through a nonstructural
flood damage reduction program.
WATERSHED STUDIES
First, with the budget we are proposing to undertake four
comprehensive watershed studies. In 1997, my predecessor,
Martin Lancaster, made a presentation to the World Water Forum.
He stated, ``As we approach the 21st century, the need for new
modes of interstate cooperation grows in both humid and arid
areas. Reliance on court judgments has proved too expensive,
inflexible, time consuming and precedent-bound to meet new
needs realistically.'' I think he was right.
Strengthening our ability to work with our Federal, State
and Tribal partners early in the process is critical. I believe
our proposal can serve as a model for future planning efforts
that yield positive results and quicker and more effective
solutions to problems that will enable us to design and build
good projects in the future.
Congresses and Presidents have greatly expanded the ability
of the Corps of Engineers to meet both engineering demands as
well as the environmental goals of society. Adding economics to
the mix, we must now use an integrated approach to balancing
all three priorities.
Our population continues to increase, we continue to be
vulnerable to droughts as well as to many effects of
unacceptable water as a result of storm water drainage,
combined sewer overflows, non-point source pollution, and lack
of modern water delivery and sanitation infrastructure.
We also have the needs of agriculture, flood control,
industrial uses of water, and water supply for urban areas.
These complex basin-wide issues can only be solved through a
process that integrates the efforts of local stakeholders and
State and Federal agencies.
Our strategy is simple. We have selected four major
watersheds that face many of the problems listed above. The
four pilot projects will undertake a comprehensive study of the
water resources needs of the basin. We will identify Federal,
Tribal, State and local partners that will share the costs and
we will focus on solving problems.
The four pilot projects are the Rio Grande, the Lower
Missouri-Middle Mississippi River basin, the White River in
Arkansas, and the Yellowstone River in Montana.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have discussed
these projects with many of you, seeking your advice and
counsel. I want to work with Congress on the best possible plan
to establish a partnership with the States involved and
facilitate practical results that will enhance water resources
for multiple uses and ensure the protection of the ecosystem.
I commit to work with you to expedite the study process and
to produce tangible and workable solutions to already existing
constraints on these great river basins.
MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
The second initiative is aimed at reducing our significant
backlog of maintenance on our recreation areas. The Corps of
Engineers is responsible for 4,340 recreation areas at 456
lakes in 42 States. These recreation areas host 377 million
visitors annually.
We are requesting $27 million in fiscal year 2001 to
initiate the recreation modernization program which will
replace or rehabilitate facilities at some of the more than
2,389 recreation areas that the Corps of Engineers manages
directly.
Many of these facilities were constructed in the 1960s and
1970s and the combination of heavy use, lack of routine
maintenance, and changes in visitor needs has caused
significant deterioration of recreation facilities and the
natural resource base of our lakes.
We hope to modernize about half the Corps-managed
recreation areas over the next 5 to 10 years. These
improvements include upgrading facilities, installing more
family oriented facilities, and providing more access to water-
related recreation activities.
CHALLENGE 21 INITIATIVE
The third initiative is our Challenge 21 program better
known as the Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard
Mitigation Program.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request includes $20 million to
initiate Challenge 21 authorized in WRDA 1999. This initiative
expands the use of nonstructural flood hazard mitigation
options and restoration of riverine ecosystems to allow more
natural recession of floodwaters and provide other benefits to
communities and the environment. Challenge 21 will create
partnerships with communities and establish a framework for
more effective coordination with key agencies.
The fiscal year 2001 budget for the Army Civil Works
program includes $82 million to initiate new investments with a
total of $1.6 billion--for a total of $1.6 billion. Of that
total, $410 million will be financed directly by non-Federal
sponsors, including lands, easements, rights of way and
relocations.
In addition to the four comprehensive studies and two new
programs I noted earlier, the fiscal year 2001 budget will
include four new surveys, one new special study, one new
preconstruction engineering and design (PED) project and 12
construction new starts.
The Administration is committed to the traditional missions
of improving our navigation and transportation system,
protection of local communities from floods and other
disasters, and maintaining and improving hydropower facilities
across the country.
Together with these important national priorities, the Army
Corps of Engineers is also the Nation's premier environmental
restoration agency.
PREPARED STATEMENT
This budget provides for continued development and
management of the Nation's water resources infrastructure and
the continuation of our work to enhance, protect and restore
the environment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph W. Westphal
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee: Good
morning. It is an honor and a pleasure to testify before this esteemed
subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee and to present the
President's budget for the Civil Works program of the Army Corps of
Engineers for fiscal year 2001. It funds a strong program for Civil
Works and is comparable to the funding levels enacted by Congress in
recent years.
Accompanying me this morning are Lieutenant General Joe N. Ballard,
Chief of Engineers; Major General Hans A. Van Winkle, Deputy Commanding
General for Civil Works; and Mr. Thomas F. Caver, Jr., Chief of the
Programs Management Division, Directorate of Civil Works.
My statement covers the following subjects: the Fiscal Year 2001
Civil Works Program, the Harbor Services Fund Proposal, New Initiatives
in the Army Civil Works Program, Other New Civil Works Investments, and
Highlights of the fiscal year 2001 Continuing Program.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM
The President's budget for the Army Civil Works program for fiscal
year 2001 includes nearly $4.1 billion in the discretionary program,
comparable to the amount appropriated for the program in fiscal year
2000 and $160 million above last year's budget proposal. Details are
presented in Table A.
Last year I began by stating that Civil Works programs and policy
must be based on strong partnerships with states and local communities
as well as among federal agencies. We worked hard to build those
partnerships, and the commitment of our non-Federal sponsors to cost
share Civil Works projects demonstrates the strong support our program
has across the country. With the non-Federal contributions and other
sources, the total fiscal year 2001 funding for the Army Civil Works
program is nearly $4.5 billion.
I remain committed to ensuring responsive and timely allocation of
our resources to meet the Nation's needs. I look forward to working
with both Houses of Congress to make this happen.
ARMY CIVIL WORKS NEW INITIATIVES
The Fiscal Year 2001 Civil Works program includes funding for three
initiatives: Comprehensive River Basin Planning; Recreation
Modernization; and Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard
Mitigation.
Comprehensive River Basin Planning
The first is an initiative that I strongly support and the Nation
sorely needs. It has been nearly 20 years since the last major effort
was initiated to understand and assess the complex relationships among
various water resources problems and opportunities. On a river-basin
wide basis, the Federal Government needs a comprehensive approach to
water resources to work effectively with states, counties, tribes, and
river basin authorities in assessing today's competing water uses.
The Army Civil Works fiscal year 2001 budget commits $2 million to
initiate four broad river basin studies. These studies, which will be
carried out in coordination with other federal agencies and regional
stakeholders, will adopt a holistic approach and include multi-
jurisdictional and trans-national considerations in resolving water
resources issues. Two of these, the Rio Grande River Basin and the
White River Basin in Arkansas, would proceed under the authority of
section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986. The
other two, the Yellowstone River Basin, Montana, and the Missouri and
Middle Mississippi River Basins, would proceed under specific
authorizations.
Recreation Modernization
I am also pleased to announce that we will invest construction
dollars in an area long-overlooked our Nation's recreation areas. The
Corps of Engineers is responsible for 4,340 recreation areas at 456
lakes in 42 states. These recreation areas host 377 million visitors
annually.
The Civil Works fiscal year 2001 budget includes $27 million to
initiate the Recreation Modernization Program. Under this program, we
will replace or rehabilitate facilities at some of the 2,389 recreation
areas that the Corps of Engineers manages directly. Most of the
facilities at Corps managed recreation areas were constructed in the
1960s and 1970s. The combination of heavy use, lack of routine
maintenance, and changes in visitor needs has caused significant
deterioration of recreation facilities and the natural resource base at
some of our lakes.
The $27 million in the fiscal year 2001 budget will begin to
implement this program. We hope to modernize many of the Corps managed
recreation areas over the next 5 to 10 years. These improvements
include upgrading facilities, installing more family oriented
facilities, and improving general access to water-related recreation
opportunities.
Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard Mitigation
I am also pleased to tell you that this year's budget includes $20
million to initiate the Challenge 21 Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and
Flood Hazard Mitigation Program authorized by WRDA 1999. This
initiative expands the use of nonstructural flood hazard mitigation
measures and restoration of riverine ecosystems to allow natural
moderation of floods and provide other benefits to communities and the
environment. Challenge 21 will create partnerships with communities and
create a framework for more effective coordination with key agencies to
develop comprehensive flood damage reduction solutions, while restoring
natural values of flood plains and wetlands.
NEW INVESTMENT PROGRAM
The fiscal year 2001 budget for the Army Civil Works includes $82
million for new investments with a total cost of $1.6 billion. Of that,
$412 million will be financed directly by non-Federal sponsors
(including lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations). The
Federal share is $1.2 billion. Details are presented in Table B.
The fiscal year 2001 budget includes four new surveys, one special
study, one new Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED) start, four
comprehensive studies, the three new programs that I have discussed,
and 12 new construction starts. The new construction starts include:
--2 environmental restoration projects;
--2 commercial navigation projects;
--4 flood damage reduction projects;
--1 shore protection of critical environmental resources;
--2 major rehabilitation projects, and
--1 deficiency correction.
HARBOR SERVICES FUND PROPOSAL
Like last year, a significant portion of the Civil Works budget is
based on enactment of the proposed Harbor Services User Fee legislation
that was transmitted to Congress. This new user fee would replace the
Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT), a portion of which was found
unconstitutional. The HMT has also been the subject of questions raised
by U.S. trading partners regarding claims that it violates the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. This fee would collect about the same
total amount of revenue as would have been collected under the HMT
prior to the Supreme Court's decision.
The new user fees would make up $950 million of the fiscal year
2001 Budget ($700 million for maintenance and $250 million for
construction) and would enable commercial harbor and channel work to
proceed on optimal schedules. I urge you to enact legislation to
replace the Harbor Maintenance Tax with the Harbor Services User Fee.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2001 CONTINUING PROGRAM
The Army continues to be committed to the Civil Works missions of
navigation and flood damage reduction. Other missions that contribute
net economic benefits to the Nation are investments in hydropower,
water supply, shore protection and recreation. In recent years, the
Army's Civil Works responsibilities increasingly have expanded to
include the restoration of the environment, with particular emphasis on
restoring aquatic and wetland ecosystems.
Environmental programs make up about 18.2 percent of the fiscal
year 2001 Army Civil Works budget, or more than $740 million. This
includes $125 million for the Regulatory Program; $140 million for the
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program; $91 million for the
Columbia River Fish Mitigation program in the Pacific Northwest; and
$158 million to restore, preserve and protect the Everglades and South
Florida ecosystem. Also included are $28 million to fund the
environmental restoration continuing authorities programs.
General Investigations
The budget for the Civil Works study program is $138 million, $3
million more than last year's request. Overall, the level of funding we
propose for the General Investigations account is consistent with our
plan to stabilize the Civil Works budget in the future. There is a
large amount of construction work waiting for funding--more than the
funds we can reasonably expect in the future. The study program feeds
this pipeline of construction work. This budget keeps project study
funding at a lower level, in order to reduce the backlog of potential
construction projects that are beyond our capacity to budget within a
reasonable time frame. Once the backlog of costly projects is worked
down somewhat, then we expect to resume funding for studies at a higher
level.
We believe that keeping study funding at this level is the right
thing to do for our local sponsors, who expect timely construction of
projects, once studies are completed and the projects are authorized.
We are also requesting a $6.6 million supplemental appropriation to
conduct studies of an outlet for Devil's Lake, North Dakota, as well as
$1.5 million to study the feasibility of a flood damage reduction
project for Princeville, North Carolina.
Construction, General
The fiscal year 2001 budget for the Civil Works Construction,
General program is $1.346 billion, of which $1.268 billion is for the
continuing program. Of the total, $250 million would be derived from
the proposed Harbor Services Fund, allowing port related projects to
proceed at optimal rates. This will enhance the competitiveness of our
Nation's ports and harbors.
Continuing construction of inland waterway, flood damage reduction
and other projects is budgeted at a level that will, on average, result
in completion of projects on about the same schedules as proposed in
last year's budget.
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration.--The Everglades is an
ecosystem of international importance. It is also one that has
dramatically deteriorated since the turn of the 20th Century. It is
very important that we aggressively restoring this treasure that is so
important to the Nation. Construction funding for the projects that
will restore the Everglades and South Florida ecosystem is $135
million. This amount includes $90 million for the Central and Southern
Florida project to continue construction work at West Palm Beach Canal,
South Dade County, and manatee pass-through gates, as well as planning,
engineering and design work on the Comprehensive Restoration Plan, also
known as the ``Restudy''; $20 million to continue construction on the
Kissimmee River Restoration project; and $20 million for critical
restoration projects authorized under the Everglades and South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration program. Of the overall amount for Everglades
restoration, $5 million is included in the new investment program to
initiate construction of the Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer Storage
and Recovery pilot project to demonstrate aquifer storage and recovery
technology.
Columbia River Basin Fish Mitigation.--The budget includes $91
million for Corps construction activities associated with Columbia
River Fish Mitigation at 8 Corps dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers
and to continue the mitigation analysis which evaluates additional
measures to increase fish survival at those dams. This includes $41
million for studies of surface bypass facilities, turbine passage, gas
abatement, adult passage, spillway survival, and Lower Columbia
configuration.
Continuing Authorities Program.--The budget includes $72 million
for a full program of continuing and new work under the 9 activities in
the Continuing Authorities Program. This amount includes $2.5 million
for beach erosion control projects (Section 103), $9 million for
emergency streambank and shoreline protection projects (Section 14),
$25 million for flood damage reduction projects (Section 205), $0.3
million for navigation mitigation projects (Section 111), $7 million
for navigation projects (Section 107), $0.2 million for snagging and
clearing projects (Section 208), $10 million for aquatic ecosystem
restoration (Section 206), $14 million for project modifications for
improvement of the environment (Section 1135), and $4 million for
beneficial uses of dredged material (Section 204).
Operation and Maintenance, General
The overall funding for the Operation and Maintenance, General,
account is at a healthy level: $1.85 billion, $18 million more than
last year's request and equal to the fiscal year 2000 appropriation.
This demonstrates the Administration's commitment to maintaining the
Corps' existing infrastructure, much of which is aging and requires
greater upkeep. Of the $1.85 billion, $700 million would be derived
from the Harbor Services Fund. In addition to these funds, operation
and maintenance of hydropower facilities in the Pacific Northwest will
be directly financed by a transfer of approximately $108 million from
Bonneville Power Administration revenues, pursuant to an agreement
signed three years ago.
We are also requesting a $19.2 million emergency supplemental
appropriation for fiscal year 2000 for emergency dredging and repairs
to Corps projects along the Atlantic seaboard that sustained hurricane
damage.
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T)
The Army is pleased that the fiscal year 2001 budget for the MR&T
account is at the same level of funding as that provided by Congress
for fiscal year 2000. Within the total, there are some differences in
proposed allocation of these funds. The fiscal year 2001 budget
emphasizes main stem Mississippi River flood protection in the
Atchafalaya River basin. No funding is provided to continue the
Demonstration Erosion Control program. The Administration believes this
program has fulfilled its purpose and should be discontinued. Any
further streambank erosion control projects should be a local
responsibility. Within the MR&T program, the allocation was reduced for
work on those projects that primarily involve the drainage of wetlands
to increase the production of surplus crops, particularly where
lawsuits and continuing environmental studies have resulted in a hiatus
on scheduled activities.
Regulatory Program
The Army Civil Works Regulatory Program is funded at $125 million
to ensure that we continue to provide effective and equitable
regulation of the Nation's wetlands. Through the Regulatory Program,
the Army is committed to serving the public in a fair and reasonable
manner while ensuring the protection of the aquatic environment, as
required by laws and regulations. In fiscal year 1999, the Regulatory
Program authorized over 90,000 activities in writing, the most in any
year, and over 90 percent of all actions were authorized in less than
60 days. Under the President's budget, this level of service is
maintained. Regional and nationwide general permits help streamline the
regulatory process. By the end of fiscal year 2000, we will have
established a full administrative appeals process that will allow the
public to challenge permit decisions and jurisdiction determinations
without costly, time-consuming litigation.
Under the Regulatory Program, we are also active in the preparation
of Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs) to address development in
environmentally sensitive areas. In particular, the Corps has been
asked to chair a task force to work with the Environmental Protection
Agency and Riverside County, California in the development, funding,
and implementation of a SAMP for the Santa Margarita and San Jacinto
watersheds.
Again this year, we are proposing to undertake a revision to the
Regulatory User Fee, which has not changed since 1977. We ask the
Subcommittee's support for this effort.
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP)
FUSRAP is an environmental cleanup program that was transferred by
Congress from the Department of Energy to the Army in fiscal year 1998.
We are continuing the implementation of needed clean-up of contaminated
sites. This year's budget includes $140 million in new appropriations
for this program. This amount will be supplemented by approximately $10
million from a Potentially Responsible Party settlement reached at one
site.
Flood control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE)
No new funding is requested for the FCCE program for fiscal year
2001. Sufficient carry over funding remains from prior year
appropriations to finance the normal costs of emergency planning and
preparation.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the President's fiscal year 2001 budget for the Army
Civil Works program is a good one. It demonstrates commitment to Civil
Works with a strong program of new construction; a plan to solve the
constitutional problem with the existing Harbor Maintenance Tax;
maintenance of existing infrastructure; continuing support for
historical Civil Works missions; and increased reliance on the Army
Corps of Engineers' environmental restoration expertise. Thank you.
TABLE A--DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CIVIL WORKS FISCAL YEAR 2001 DIRECT PROGRAM PRESIDENT'S PROGRAM FUNDING
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Trust General
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Trust
Program Sd Transfer Rivers
Permit Rcrtn Coastal trrstrl Bnnvll and Total
Harbor Permanent applctn user wetlands Inland wldlf Ultimate \4\ Initial \5\ Power harbors
services \1\ apprprtns fees \2\ fees rstrtn \3\ waterway hbtt Administrtn cntrbtns
rstrtn
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMBINED (discretionary and mandatory):
DEFENSE: Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action ............ ......... ........ ....... .......... ........ ....... 140,000 140,000 ........... ......... 140,000
Program..........................................
DOMESTIC:
General Investigations........................ ............ ......... ........ ....... .......... ........ ....... 137,700 137,700 ........... 44,000 181,700
Construction, General......................... 250,000 ......... ........ ....... .......... 74,000 ....... 1,022,000 1,346,000 ........... 153,000 1,499,000
Operation and Maintenance, General............ 700,000 ......... ........ 35,700 .......... ........ ....... 1,118,300 1,854,000 108,000 8,000 1,970,000
Flood Control, Mississippi River and ............ ......... ........ ....... .......... ........ ....... 309,000 309,000 ........... 45,000 354,000
Tributaries Project..........................
Regulatory Program............................ ............ ......... ........ ....... .......... ........ ....... 125,000 125,000 ........... ......... 125,000
General Expenses.............................. ............ ......... ........ ....... .......... ........ ....... 152,000 152,000 ........... ......... 152,000
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies......... ............ ......... ........ ....... .......... ........ ....... ............ ........... ........... ......... ..........
Revolving Fund................................ ............ ......... ........ ....... .......... ........ ....... ............ ........... ........... ......... ..........
Permanent Appropriations...................... ............ 16,000 ........ ....... .......... ........ ....... ............ ........... ........... ......... 16,000
Coastal Wetlands Restoration.................. ............ ......... ........ ....... 55,000 ........ ....... ............ ........... ........... 9,000 11,000
South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat ............ ......... ........ ....... .......... ........ 10,000 ............ ........... ........... ......... 10,000
Restoration..................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL........................................... 950,000 16,000 ........ 35,700 55,000 74,000 10,000 3,004,000 4,063,700 108,000 251,000 4,458,700
DISCRETIONARY............................... ............ ......... ........ ....... .......... ........ ....... 3,004,000 3,004,000 ........... ......... 3,004,000
MANDATORY................................... 950,000 16,000 ........ 35,700 55,000 74,000 10,000 ............ 1,069,700 108,000 251,000 1,454,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Proposed special fund to replace Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
\2\ Proposed fees for processing permit applications, to be paid to General Fund receipt account, not available to Corps.
\3\ Total for interagency task force; Corps' piece is reflected under ``Total.''
\4\ Net direct Congressional appropriation after reimbursement from mandatory ``Special'' and ``Trust'' funds, as applicable.
\5\ Direct Congressional appropriation. The total for all accounts comes from the General Fund, initially. Ultimately, it is reimbursed from mandatory accounts in the amount shown opposite
``Mandatory.''
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T10MA21.001
STATEMENT OF JOE N. BALLARD
Senator Domenici. Thank you, very much, Mr. Secretary.
General Ballard, we welcome your testimony. Your written
remarks will be made a part of the record as you read them.
Proceed as you see fit.
General Ballard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Byrd. I'm
honored to testify on the President's fiscal year 2001 budget
for the Civil Works Program.
Senator Domenici. Just one moment. Senator Burns, did you
want to make any remarks.
Senator Burns. I think we ought to complete the statements
and I'll submit my points I want to make. I think we should
hear their testimony. Thank you very much.
Senator Domenici. Please proceed, General.
General Ballard. Mr. Chairman, I'm honored to testify on
the President's fiscal year 2001 budget for the Civil Works
program. As you noted, this is my last appearance before you as
the Chief of Engineers and I very much appreciate your very
kind remarks.
Leading the Corps has been an inspirational experience as
well as a rewarding personal and professional challenge. I take
great pride in the results of our work with this Committee to
ensure the Civil Works program remains strong, balanced,
responsive and highly productive. Until my watch is over,
however, I will continue to work with you to that end and I
look forward to your continued partnership in this great
program. My complete statement will cover three topics: the
summary of the Civil Works program budget, reducing the Corps
maintenance backlog, and I'll have some comments on meeting the
Nation's water and related land resources management needs. And
with your permission, I will submit this statement for the
record.
I would like to talk to you today about some significant
challenges in water resource management and I will also address
the recent media coverage on the Corps' work.
MEETING THE NATION'S WATER AND LAND RESOURCE NEEDS
First, a few words about the challenge of meeting the
Nation's water and related land resource management needs.
Public concerns about water resource investments continually
change and, as a result, national needs and priorities must
also be continually reevaluated to ensure that we provide the
best possible service to the Nation. And we're examining
national needs and priorities for water and land resource
solutions.
But based on our current assessment, we have identified
five significant challenges that are currently facing the
Nation. And these are navigation, which deals with the
capacity, the efficiency, and the volumes needed in the
national marine transportation system; flood protection,
dealing with continued development of flood plains and coastal
planes and coastline erosions; environmental management,
dealing with restoration of habitat, especially protection of
wetlands; wetland--I mean, infrastructure renovation, which is
maintaining the Nation's water management infrastructure,
including recreation facilities and the effects of global
climate change; and disaster response assistance, dealing with
increased severity and frequency of national disasters.
We must meet these challenges in order to preserve and
promote our future national welfare. And to that end, I believe
that we need to carefully evaluate our level of investment in
water resource management. We need to invest in improving our
water resource infrastructure, many parts which have outlasted
their 50-year design lives.
Now, this comes at a time when national need for their
continued benefits are growing and we need to meet new
challenges for water resource management brought about by
increasing trade, population and population shifts and
environmental values. We need to invest, in addition to our
water resource infrastructure, to the extent that improving
existing infrastructure will not meet national needs. We also
need to better manage existing infrastructure, where to invest
and how to decide which facilities have outlived their
usefulness.
MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE CORPS
Now, to address very quickly some recent media coverage of
the Corps. First, the allegation that I or members of my
command are trying to grow the Corps with respect to the number
of employees is absolutely ludicrous. For one thing, the Civil
Works Program work force is only 24,000 strong, not 37,000 as
implied by the media.
More importantly, over the past 4 years, we have reduced
the size of the organization by nearly 10 percent while
streamlining and improving our business processes. We have
pursued our mission to address the Nation's growing water
resource management needs in an environment of deliberate
downsizing. The Nation's work load for our mission is certainly
growing, but we are not.
Next, there are allegations of wrong-doing in the Upper
Mississippi and the Illinois Navigation Studies. These
allegations are very troubling to me, as they challenge the
fundamental value of the Corps of Engineers to the Nation. The
foundation for that value is trust in our absolute integrity to
provide the Administration and the Congress with water resource
investment recommendations that are unbiased and technically
sound.
Now, while the widely published allegations and the media
reports attempt to erode that foundation, I know beyond a doubt
that your trust has not been misplaced. I, therefore, welcome
and will fully support all independent outside investigations
of the allegations and any review of our processes. I will take
prompt corrective action if wrongdoing is discovered and will
make improvement in our processes, if warranted.
However, I assure you that when all the facts are in, you
will see that there is no need to do either and that your
traditional trust in the Corps remains as always, very well-
founded.
Now, let me explain the reasons for my confidence. First of
all, I believe in the professionalism and dedication of the
Corps team and have great trust in my leaders. Additionally,
our planning processes provide for multiple reviews to ensure
objectivity. And these include independent technical reviews, a
minimum of two formal public reviews, Washington-level policy
review, State and agency coordination requirements and,
finally, the review by the Executive Branch under Executive
Order 12322.
Notably, for the study in question, the draft report has
not yet been completed, much less undergone these reviews. As a
rule, there are no easy, clear-cut answers to the complex
issues we face in water resource management.
Technical experts often disagree on specifics.
Nevertheless, our planning process ensures that all sides of
any technical disagreement are competently analyzed and
subjected to proper peer, public and policy reviews. And
ultimately, after full and open debate, balanced professional
judgment must enter the process.
And dealing with technical disagreement is the role of our
field commanders. They must make tough decisions on whether to
recommend investments in a project, often in the face of
strongly held opposing views. Our processes ensure that all
interests are heard and that final recommendations are
unbiased, based on the best science available and in the public
interest.
In our business, invariably there is an interest group that
is opposed to some aspect of our work. However, the
accommodation and fairness of the Corps' planning process
delivers recommendations that address the national interest
based on sound engineering judgment. And for these reasons, I'm
sure you will find the integrity of our process and of the
leaders who guide it to be indisputable.
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY
Now, let me take a few minutes to report on the status of
activity related to the Upper Mississippi River Navigation
Study. There have been two significant intentional reviews.
Senator Domenici. General, do you have the project
development flow chart?
General Ballard. I have the chart, sir.
Senator Domenici. Do you have it over here? Why don't you
put it up. This is the project development process, right?
[The chart follows:]
General Ballard. That is the process, Senator.
Senator Burns. Let the rest of us see it.
Senator Domenici. You all don't mind in the audience if we
look at it, do you? There you go.
General Ballard. Bring it closer and I'll just talk off of
it. I'll just deviate just for a second from my statement so I
can explain this chart to everyone.
Inside of the box there, is where we are with this study.
We're in the feasibility portion of it. The large white arrow
points out that we're in the study phase. What is important
here is that we have not really had the appropriate oversight
reviews that normally accrue to the public. And I'm talking
about the public review process, the agency coordination or
anything of that nature.
We're in the preliminary stage. We are scheduled to
submit--to complete a draft of this study in December of this
year. The bottom line is, we're just starting this process. The
dialogue is just beginning. So the comments that we have
received from the media regarding ``cooking the books'' and all
the other things that you read is definitely premature. We're
not there yet.
Senator Domenici. General, you meant by your statement
that--you didn't mean that we have not done the public input.
You meant that the time has not yet arrived according to the
process and it's still to be done?
General Ballard. The public comment, once we address the
report, is still to be done. Thank you, sir, for correcting me.
We have received public input to this process.
Senator Domenici. But there will be a chance for more,
won't there?
General Ballard. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. If people are wondering what you're
doing----
General Ballard. We will have a chance to submit this for
agency review, we will have at least two more opportunities for
public comment as we move to point those out. After the draft
report is out, that next dark black arrow there, we will have a
period of public review. We're scheduled to have the final
report out by December of this year. And after that, we will
release it again to the public one more time and we will
release it to State and agency reviews.
Senator Domenici. One more time.
General Ballard. Yes, one more time. And we are projected
to have a final Chief's Report by February 2001. Then it goes
from me to the ASACW office for Administration review. And then
finally to OMB for clearance and review before it is submitted
to the Congress. So as you can see, if I can quickly count
that, after we address, there are one, two, three, four, five
more opportunities for public review and input by others.
Senator Domenici. We're going to make this one part of the
record. We can't put that one in.
ALLEGATIONS FOR WRONGDOING
General Ballard. Yes, sir. In addition to the clarification
on the review process, there have been some allegations of
wrongdoing by some of our employees and I've directed an
internal investigation according to my authority to take a look
at that. The investigation is complete and I can submit that
for the record if you desire. And we found no misconduct.
There are several external investigations and reviews that
are in process. The Office of Special Counsel [OSC] requested
that the Secretary of Defense investigate the allegation and
report the finding back to OSC. This investigation is being
done by the Army Inspector General and we are providing
information requested by the Army Inspector General in support
of his investigations and we're scheduled to meet with him and
provide some additional answers.
In addition, the Survey and Investigations staff of the
House Committee on Appropriations has begun its investigation.
We have met with the staff, provided information and documents
requested, and we remain committed to fully supporting it
throughout the investigation.
Finally, the Secretary of the Army has directed that an
independent assessment be made of the economics of the study.
The bottom line is, sir, I'm convinced that the findings of
these investigations will confirm that our planning process and
execution of that process are fundamentally sound.
In conclusion, we need to invest in water resource
management infrastructure to meet the challenges based on
national needs. And through a deliberate streamlining and
improvement of our business processes and downsizing of our
work force, we continue to maximize actual and potential values
of our organization to the Civil Works program, to the Army,
and to the Nation.
And finally, we are pursuing this mission with the utmost
professionalism and integrity. And I'm confident that our
planning process and the judgment of our leaders are sound and
will yield balanced recommendations for wise water resource
investments.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Committee. This concludes my statement.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lt. General Joe N. Ballard
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I am honored to be
testifying on the President's fiscal year 2001 (fiscal year 2001)
Budget for the Civil Works Program. This is my last of four appearances
before you as Chief of Engineers. Leading the Corps has been an
inspirational and rewarding challenge for me personally and
professionally. I take great pride in results of our work together to
ensure that the Civil Works Program remains strong, balanced,
responsive, and highly productive. Until my watch is over, I will
continue to work with you to that end, and look forward to your
continued partnership in this fine program, so broadly beneficial to
our nation.
In this, my final statement, I will depart from the usual practice
of presenting details on such things as the budget, program execution,
organizational restructuring, and improvement of business systems and
operations, to focus on significant challenges for the nation in water
and related land resources management, which I feel the Corps is
eminently qualified to address. I will say just a few words about the
budget and reducing the Corps' maintenance backlog, then devote the
balance of my testimony to an assessment of national water and related
land resources management needs. Accordingly, my statement covers just
these three topics: Summary of the Civil Works Program Budget; Reducing
the Corps' Maintenance Backlog; and Meeting the Nation's Water and
Related Land Resources Management Needs.
SUMMARY OF CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM BUDGET
This is a good budget. New funding for the Civil Works Program,
including the Direct and Reimbursed programs, is expected to approach
$5.20 billion.
Direct Program funding, including discretionary and mandatory
amounts appropriated directly to the Corps, totals $4.46 billion.
Discretionary amounts total $4.06 billion; mandatory amounts total $395
million.
Reimbursed Program funding is projected to be $700 million.
DIRECT PROGRAM
The proposed budget reflects the Administration's commitment to
continued sound development and management of the nation's water and
related land resources. It provides for continued efficient operation
of the nation's navigation, flood protection, and other water resource
management infrastructure, fair regulation of the nation's wetlands,
and restoration of the nation's important environmental resources, such
as the Florida Everglades. It is supported by a proposal to establish a
Harbor Services User Fee (HSUF) and Harbor Services Fund (HSF) to fund
the federal share of construction as well as operation and maintenance
cost of our harbors and ports. Lastly, it is consistent with the
President's overall domestic priorities and continued commitment to a
balanced budget.
The budget provides for continued funding of nearly all studies and
projects underway, including many started in fiscal year 2000. It also
provides for funding of new starts under the General Investigations
(GI) and Construction, General (CG), programs.
REIMBURSED PROGRAM
Through the Interagency and Intergovernmental Support Program we
help non-DOD federal agencies, States, and other countries with timely,
cost-effective implementation of their programs, while maintaining and
enhancing capabilities for execution of our Civil and Military Program
missions. These customers rely on our extensive capabilities,
experience, and successful track record. The work is principally
technical oversight and management of engineering, environmental, and
construction contracts performed by private sector firms, and is fully
funded by the customers.
Currently, we provide reimbursable support for about 60 other
federal agencies and several State and local governments. Total
reimbursement for such work in fiscal year 2001 is projected to be $700
million. The largest share--nearly $270 million--is expected from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for cleanup of wastes at numerous
sites under its Superfund program. 90 percent of Reimbursed Program
funding is provided by other federal agencies.
REDUCING CORPS' MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
Our fiscal year 2001 budget request for $1.854 billion matches the
amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000. In the short term, despite
level funding, we will be able to sustain customer services. However,
in the long term, given the vast and aging infrastructure needing
attention and care, this becomes increasingly difficult. As stewards of
a diverse and widespread complex of water and related land resources
management facilities, the Corps must do its best to preserve the
nation's investment and ensure the continued flow of intended benefits.
Toward that end, I have recently completed a comprehensive review of
the O&M program, as explained below.
Over the past year, I conducted an in-depth review of the O&M
program. I spent a full day with each of my eight division commanders,
along with their district commanders, covering every aspect of the O&M
program. My purpose was to instill heightened interest in making this
program as efficient and effective as possible, and to ensure that my
commanders are fully engaged to that end. As a result, we are pursuing
improvements throughout the program. For example, we are reviewing our
inventory of property and equipment to determine the minimum required
for mission accomplishment. We have compiled a list of over 300
examples of cost-saving measures, resulting in $124 million in annual
savings and $24 million in one-time savings. These examples have been
publicized throughout the Corps, so that everyone might apply them to
his/her own situation. Division and district commanders are continually
reviewing their programs to determine best business practices to be
employed in responding to the ever-changing marketplace.
Improving the O&M program is not a one-time effort. It is a
continuing commitment that will challenge the entire organization.
Everyone involved in the O&M program will be looking for better ways to
provide public services and products at least cost. The Corps'
dedicated workforce takes pride in carrying out its stewardship
responsibilities. It is up to this challenge and will continue to do
its best.
Notwithstanding these efforts, we still face a growing O&M backlog.
We are making a concerted effort to identify the highest priority
backlog and concentrate available resources on addressing the most
critical needs. Improved program execution is helping. In fiscal year
1999, we succeeded in reducing the unexpended carryover by $110
million, and applied a good portion of this toward the backlog.
Nevertheless, we now estimate that required funding for our highest
priority backlog will be about $450 million in fiscal year 2001--up
from $329 million in fiscal year 2000. I will continue to do all I can
to make the O&M program as efficient as possible, and look forward to
continued support of this committee in our endeavor to reverse the O&M
backlog growth.
MEETING NATION'S WATER AND RELATED LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT NEEDS
CORPS' HISTORIC ROLE IN SERVICE TO THE NATION
The Army Corps of Engineers began its distinguished public service
in the New England Provincial Army, before our nation existed, with
construction of fortifications for the Battle of Bunker Hill in 1775.
Since then, for more than 225 years, the Corps has responded ably to
the Army's and nation's needs.
Throughout this period, the mission of the Corps has evolved from
military only to both civil and military. What began as a military
mission in birth of the nation in the 18th century grew into civil and
military missions of building and preserving the nation in the 19th
century. We mapped the frontier and laid out roads, canals, and
railroads for westward expansion. We aided national commerce through
development of a vast navigation system of coastal and inland channels,
ports, and harbors. We initiated development of the first national
parks. We built many public buildings of the nation's capital,
including the Capitol. We also assisted in preserving the Union. In the
20th century, we built the daunting Panama Canal, after others had
failed. More importantly, based on our performance over the years, the
Administration and Congress expanded both the civil and military
missions dramatically.
Civil Works project purposes included flood, hurricane, and shore
erosion protection; water and related land environmental management;
hydropower generation; water-based recreation; municipal and industrial
water supply; irrigation; hazardous and toxic waste cleanup; and
technical support for other federal agencies, States, and other
nations. As a result of these and earlier duties, our water and related
land management infrastructure has grown to include over 400 multi-
purpose reservoirs, 12,000 miles of navigation channels, hundreds of
ports and harbors, and 11.6 million acres of land.
As our national needs and priorities have changed, the Corps has
been at the leading edge to meet them.
We have increasingly focused on developing and honing our project
management expertise. Concurrently, we have contracted with private
sector architectural, engineering, and construction firms to accomplish
our work, until, now, much of our design and all of our construction
are done by such firms. Contracting gives us ready access to a force
much larger than our own to accomplish our mission, resulting in the
so-called force multiplication effect. Given that we can leverage civil
program assets in support of our military mission, this effect, already
available to our military program, can be doubled for execution of our
military mission. For example, during the Persian Gulf War, we employed
readily available force-multiplied assets from the civil program to
assist U.S. forces. This enhanced our nation's readiness,
responsiveness, effectiveness, and efficiency in the ``mother of all
battles,'' won by the allies in 100 hours, and remains a powerful
strength for future service to the Army, federal government, our
nation, and other nations.
Always, we have striven to stay at the leading edge in service to
the Army, federal government, and our nation.
Success in meeting our challenge depends principally upon our
business operations. In recognition of this, we have improved our
business processes for more responsive, expeditious, and productive
performance. Additionally, we have improved partnerships with project
sponsors and partnering with all stakeholders in project execution.
These improvements are the foundation of our recently fielded project
management business process, providing an orderly, logical, and
reasoned approach to managing projects to meet the nation's water and
related land resource management needs. Finally, we remain vigilant for
and eager to explore other improvement opportunities.
To facilitate improved business operations, we have restructured
our organization at all levels to provide for more pertinent, flexible,
and timely operations resourcing. Concurrently, we have tailored our
resources to workload and eliminated surpluses, downsizing our
workforce by over 16 percent since 1993. In addition to promoting
improved operations, this has reduced our cost of doing business. Our
goal has been, and remains, to stay fit for and in step with our
nation's future.
As we enter the 21st century, we envision that the Corps will
continue in its longstanding and exemplary leadership role as the
nation's problem solver.
CURRENT CIVIL PROGRAM MISSION
The goal of our Civil Program is to contribute to the welfare of
our nation by providing, in partnership with customers, desired goods
and services of highest quality, designed to be economic, technically
sound, and environmentally sustainable. We do this through:
--formulation, development, and operation of facilities and practices
for management of the nation's water and related land resources
(including protection, restoration, and management of
environment resources);
--administration of water resources management programs (including
resource use regulation, hazardous waste cleanup, and
assistance with natural disaster response and recovery); and
--engineering and technical services for other federal agencies and
States.
The Civil Program is prosecuted through subordinate programs
established expressly for accomplishment of distinct phases of work,
such as investigation, construction, and operation and maintenance.
These programs are designed to address needs of all purposes
thoroughly, fairly, and timely. They are executed by a talented team of
multidisciplinary staff specialists and private sector contractors.
This team develops comprehensive perspectives across technical,
socioeconomic, cultural, political, geographic, and environmental
boundaries, in examination and recommendation of solutions to problems
in all phases of our work.
We address all relevant purposes within appropriate ``frameworks''
in a multiojective trade-off process, ensuring optimum multipurpose
solutions. The frameworks include regions, watersheds, coastal zones,
and ecosystems. Our many partners participate in this process. They
include customers; other stakeholders such as local, State, and federal
agencies; and the general public. As a result, competing goals of many
interests are balanced without bias to satisfy needs and desires of
multiple constituencies for a wide variety of water and related land
resource management goods and services that contribute directly to the
national welfare.
In light of the broad responsibility entrusted to us by the
Administration and Congress for national water and related land
resources management the breadth and depth of our experience in
executing that responsibility, and national needs for water and related
land resources management as we enter the new century, we feel obliged
to present the following assessment.
NATIONAL TRENDS
Throughout its history, our Civil Works Program has been affected
by external forces. The most important of these have been, and continue
to be, customer demands for goods and services and taxpayer concern
that investment in such goods and services be advisable. Our customers
include direct beneficiaries of our projects, most of whom are cost-
sharing partners. Taxpayers include the general public and taxpayer
advocates. For our program to remain a relevant and viable contributor
to national welfare, we must remain sensitive to these forces,
continually reorienting, rescoping, and refocusing the program in light
of them.
As customer demands for, and taxpayer concerns about, water and
related land resources management investment continually change, so,
too, do national needs and priorities for such management. In light of
this, in the coming months we intend to hold public listening sessions
around the country with our customers, other partners, and concerned
taxpayers to refine current national needs and priorities for water and
related land resources management. These sessions will provide a forum
for a national dialogue intended to produce more widespread discussion
of needs and priorities, choices, constraints, tradeoffs, impacts, and
challenges facing the nation and the implications they have for our
national welfare.
Meanwhile, our current assessments of current trends follow.
Current Assessments
As the world's climate changes, changing hydrology and water
distribution and, in turn, environmental and socioeconomic conditions,
necessary changes in and additions to the nation's water and related
land resources management facilities, systems, and practices must be
anticipated and effected as opportunely as feasible.
As global markets expand, international commerce will demand more
efficient domestic ports and harbors and improved vessel and intermodal
cargo handling facilities.
With many properties and major populations located in the nation's
floodplains, flooding will continue to threaten national welfare.
Moreover, as pressures continue to develop flood-prone lands and
natural flood management systems are compromised, the threat of flood
damage will increase.
Ongoing migration of the nation's population to coastal plains and
coasts, and attendant property development, will increase risks of loss
from coastal erosion, floods, and hurricanes.
The ongoing migration to coastal plains and coasts will put
increasing pressure on coastal habitat, especially wetlands, and other
fish and wildlife ecosystems.
Through Water Resources Development Acts of 1996 and 1999 (WRDA 96
and WRDA 99), the American public placed national environmental health
near the forefront of social priorities. These acts, providing
additional authorities to the Corps for ecosystem and watershed
protection and restoration, increase emphasis on national need such as
for ecosystem restoration, wetlands management, and nonstructural
floodplain management.
As the nation's population grows, there will be growing conflicts
among multiple interests within watersheds wanting to use available
water for diverse needs.
As the nation's water and related land management infrastructure
ages, it must be rehabilitated, modified, replaced, or removed.
Given the American public's strong and growing interest in
downsizing the federal government and, in turn, its workforce, ongoing
outsourcing and privatizing for accomplishment of government work,
including engineering, will increase. Also, the nonfederal sector will
have to take on more water resources responsibilities.
Current Challenges
In light of our current assessments of trends in the nation's water
and related land resources management, we have identified 5 significant
challenges currently facing the nation. These are:
--Navigation--dealing with capacity and efficiency needs;
--Flood Protection--dealing with existing and continued development
of floodplains, including coastal plains and coasts, and
increased demand for protection from flooding, erosion, and
winds;
--Environmental Management--dealing with restoration of habitat,
especially protection of wetlands;
--Infrastructure Renovation--maintaining the nation's water and
related land management infrastructure and effects of global
climate change; and
--Disaster Response Assistance--dealing with increasing severity and
frequency of natural disasters.
We must meet these challenges in order to preserve and promote our
future national welfare. In cases that other federal agencies have
authorities to address them, we promote interagency alliances and
partnerships. Each challenge is discussed next.
NAVIGATION
The National Marine Transportation System (NMTS) comprises
approximately 1,000 harbor channels; 25,000 miles of inland,
intracoastal, and coastal waterways; and 238 locks. This system serves
over 300 ports with more than 3,700 terminals for cargo and passenger
movement, and connects to 152,000 miles of rail, 460,00 miles of
pipelines, and 45,000 miles of interstate highways.
The system annually provides enormous national benefits:
--creating employment for more than 13 million citizens and
contributing about 8 percent of national Gross Domestic Product
(GDP);
--moving more than 2 billion tons of domestic and international
freight having a value of approximately $1.01 trillion;
--moving over 60 percent of the nation's grain exports;
--importing 3.3 billion barrels of oil to meet national energy
demands;
--providing 3-20 times less pollution per ton of cargo moved, as well
as reduced accident risk compared with alternate transportation
modes;
--supporting 110,000 commercial fishing vessels and recreational
fishing together contributing $111 billion to State economies;
--transporting 134 million passengers by ferry;
--serving 78 million Americans engaged in recreational boating; and
--hosting more than 5 million cruise ship passengers.
However, the system is nearing capacity, while demands on it will
grow substantially. The Corps estimates that total volume of domestic
and international marine trade is expected to more-than-double in the
next twenty years to more than 4 billion tons per year by 2020. We
project that inland shipments will increase over that same period by
200 million tons, to 830 million tons. This increase in shipment volume
will severely stress the NMTS.
International trade and competition are key factors in our economic
growth and impacting foreign relations. Currently, 20 percent of our
GDP and nearly that much of our employment are associated with
international trade.
Increasingly, the containerships of choice are mega-vessels with
50-55 foot drafts. Few of our ports have sufficient depths for this,
but key international ports do, including those of Halifax, Freeport,
and Vancouver. These ports are able competitors for our international
trade. A major hurdle in meeting demand for deeper channels required by
mega-vessels will be in meeting dredging requirements themselves. Over
the past 10 years an average of 275 million cubic yards of spoil has
been dredged for deep-draft channels. With deeper and wider channels
greater spoil quantities will be produced, stressing both the physical
capacity of our dredge fleet, and our ability to dispose of the spoil
economically and in an environmentally acceptable way.
Also, unfortunately, more than 44 percent of our inland waterway
locks and dams are at least 50 years old. Many locks are undersized for
modern commercial barge movements. Yet, they are carrying beyond their
original designs, and according to the Corps' calculations, will be
asked to carry 30 percent more by 2020. Annual lock delays associated
with aged facilities currently total over 550,000 hours, representing
an estimated $385 million in increased operating costs borne by
shippers, carriers, and ultimately consumers.
Among the 36 locks with high average delays in 1998, 19 are on the
Upper Mississippi River--Illinois Waterway system, 5 are on the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) or its connecting channels, and 12 are on
the Ohio River system. Since the passage of WRDA 86, with $1.7 billion
has been invested in 14 locks to date, and an additional $3.4 billion
is programmed for ongoing construction at an additional 13 locks.
Adequate and timely investments are needed to address the need for an
efficient inland waterway system.
There is much that the federal government can do to ensure that our
NMTS will continue to make positive contributions to our national
prosperity and global competitiveness.
FLOOD PROTECTION
Flooding is the most destructive and costly natural disaster in our
nation, accounting for 85 percent of all natural disasters that occur
annually. We have made a major investment in flood protection
infrastructure, including, for the Corps only, nearly 400 major
reservoirs and 8,500 miles of levees and dikes, as well as hundreds of
smaller local flood protection improvements. We estimate that, since
1950, the Corps' infrastructure has prevented nearly $500 billion in
riverine and coastal flood damage, returning nearly $6.00 in flood
protection benefit for every $1.00 invested, and preventing, on
average, $16 billion in flood damages annually.
Despite its considerable success in flood protection, the nation
still has an extensive residual flood damage problem. Costs of floods
(emergency assistance costs plus property losses) still average over $4
billion annually. News coverage of recent flood disasters, including
the 1993 Mississippi River Flood and the 1997 catastrophe in Grand
Forks, North Dakota, have shown, graphically, the enormous economic
costs of flooding. Unquantifiable social costs include, in addition to
injury and loss of life, stress on individuals and families caused by
disruption, evacuation, and life in temporary quarters. It also
includes trauma caused by injury and death, loss of irreplaceable
property, and destruction of homes, neighborhoods, and entire
communities.
Major reasons for the nation's continuing flood damage problem
include extensive and growing unprotected development in ``100-year''
floodplains along the nation's streams, rivers, and shorelines, as well
as development just outside 100-year floodplains where use regulations
do not apply, but risk of less frequent more damaging floods exists.
Urban development in floodplains is increasing by 1.5-2.5 percent
annually. In addition, the nation's population is migrating to coastal
plains. Presently, more than 36 million people live in coastal areas
subject to flooding, hurricanes, and shore erosion. Along the East and
Gulf coasts, about $3 trillion in infrastructure is located along
shores vulnerable to erosion from flooding and other natural hazards.
During the 20th century, 23 hurricanes caused economic damages in
excess of $1 billion, each, in today's dollars. Most recently, Floyd, a
category 4 hurricane that ravaged the East Coast in September, 1999,
caused loss of 75 lives and economic damages estimated at $6 billion.
Populations of the coastal states of California, Florida, and Texas are
each expected to grow by more than 36 percent over the next 25 years.
In recent years, these states have sustained the greatest amount of
total flood damages.
The nation needs to develop policies to address floods, erosion,
and hurricanes, and the social, economic, and environmental bases
associated with them.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Protection and restoration of the environment is an important goal.
Indeed, restoration of native ecosystems and, possibly, creation of new
ones, is crucial to sustaining natural systems and habitats for future
generations. Our nation has more than 3.6 million miles of rivers and
streams that, along with floodplains and upland areas, comprise
corridors of great economic, social, and environmental value. These
corridors are complex ecosystems that perform vital environmental
functions, including modulating streamflows, storing water, removing
harmful materials from water, and providing habitat for aquatic and
terrestrial plants and animals. Until passage of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1970, however, development of these
corridors proceeded without concern, resulting in degradation of water
quality, decreased water conveyance and storage capacity, loss of
habitat for fish and wildlife, and decreased recreational and aesthetic
values. NEPA prescribed integration of environmental protection and
social goals with economic ones in the development of water and related
land resource management projects. However, despite the shift in
emphasis toward environmental benefits in such projects, much work
remains to be done. The environment has suffered heavily. In order that
it might sustain future generations, it must be cleaned up and
restored, and further development must be tempered by an ethic of
ensuring environmental sustainability of any such development.
Over the years, human activities have significantly stressed
aquatic environments across the nation and contributed to detrimental
changes in their dynamic equilibria. Environmentally stressing
activities have included physically changing habitats, including
converting them to something else; over-enriching waters with oxygen-
demanding nutrients; contaminating waters with bacteria; polluting
lands and waters with chemicals; elevating the temperature of waters
with oxygen-depleting heat; and spilling oil in oceans. For example,
dredging of the nation's ports and harbors for cargo vessels, and
disposal of the spoil, much of which is contaminated sediment, has
adversely impacted coastal ecosystems. Bigger ships on the horizon will
require deeper ports, more dredging, and more places to dispose of
spoil. Such sites are quickly filling.
Within the contiguous United States, over 100 million acres (53
percent) of wetlands--an area the size of California--have been lost
since colonial times, primarily from farming and urban development.
Coastal areas have been particularly hard hit, although the rate of
loss there has slowed since the 1980s. In addition to serving as
habitats and spawning grounds for fish, waterfowl, and mammals,
wetlands help reduce flood damage, protect shorelines from erosion, and
improve water quality. About 35 percent of all federally listed rare
and endangered species either live in or depend upon wetlands. The
reduction in wetlands has allowed flooding to affect habitats and
species populations adversely. The American Fisheries Society lists 364
species or subspecies of fish as threatened, endangered, or of special
concern, or at risk of habitat destruction. In all, about 600 species
have been lost or endangered. Diminished flows to river deltas and
estuaries from dams dry up wetlands, deteriorate water quality, reduce
crucial habitat, and reduce fisheries.
On average, coastal areas are twice as productive (ecologically) as
inland areas. Coastal oceans and estuaries, among the most productive
and valuable of natural systems, are also among the most threatened by
human development. Over half of our population lives within 50 miles of
a coastline, in areas collectively representing only 11 percent of the
nation's total land area. This population concentration puts a great
strain on many local ecosystems and coastal environments, leaving them
more vulnerable to damage from coastal storms and chronic erosion.
The nation needs a healthy environment, capable of sustaining its
development for socioeconomic purposes, for current and future
generations. Potential for restoring beneficial conditions of our
nation's environment, focusing on floodplains including rivers,
streams, wetlands, and coastal areas, and protecting them from further
damage, is boundless.
INFRASTRUCTURE RENOVATION
Water resources management infrastructure has improved the quality
of our citizens' lives and provided a foundation for the economic
growth and development of this country. Our systems for navigation,
flood protection, hydropower generation, and recreation management all
contribute to our national welfare. The stream of benefits is realized
as reduced transportation costs, avoided flood damages, electricity,
and recreation services. For example:
--Navigable channels provide an efficient and economic corridor for
moving a staggering 2.3 billion tons of the nation's domestic
and foreign commerce.
--For every $1 invested to improve navigation infrastructure, our GDP
rises more than $3.
--Flood protection, on average, prevents $16 billion in damages per
year, saving $6 for every $1 spent.
--Thousands of cities, towns and industries benefit from the 9.5
million acre-feet of water supply storage from 116 of our lakes
and reservoirs.
--Hydroelectric power dams produce enough electricity to supply 4.64
million homes with power.
--Coastal projects protect 426 miles of the nation's shoreline.
--Over 30 percent of the recreation and tourism occurring on federal
lands takes place on Corps water and related land resources
management facilities.
Quality of American urban and rural life is enhanced by the
availability of high-quality recreational opportunities for users of
all economic means. Recreational opportunities abound near reservoirs
and other places where boating, swimming, and fishing otherwise might
not be available. More than 180 million Americans visited ocean and bay
beaches in 1993. It is estimated that coastal recreation and tourism
generate $8 to $12 billion annually. In 1996, an estimated 77.7 million
recreational boaters spent approximately $17.8 billion on products and
services related to recreational boating, while recreational fishing
contributed another $13.5 billion to the economy. Growing population
will place a greater demand on performance of the national water and
related land management infrastructure used for recreation.
Investment in economically justified and environmentally sound
maintenance, major rehabilitation, and new infrastructure is needed to
maintain and improve our capital water and related land resources
management stock, and, in turn, benefits received from it.
DISASTER RESPONSE ASSISTANCE
In recent years, our nation has suffered a series of major
disasters whose impacts have been measured officially in terms of lives
lost and high costs of damage to property and relocations. In addition,
impacts have included disruption of family life; loss of jobs; business
failures; disruption of safe water, sanitation, food, and shelter, and
transportation; chaos in communities for weeks; changing of lives
forever; public health risks due to diminished capability of public
health care systems; loss of income and tax revenues; and impacts on
other government programs from diversion of tax dollars to disaster
response, relief, and recovery.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency reports that 25 major
disasters occurred between 1988-1997 totaling $140 billion in damages.
In the past 10 years, the nation has experienced the Loma Prieta and
Northridge earthquakes in California; record flooding in the Midwest,
California, and other regions; and hurricanes Andrew, Inicki, Marilyn,
Fran, and Georges, among others. The Atlantic region alone saw 65
tropical storms during the period 1995-1999, of which 20 were Category
3-5 major hurricanes.
The cost of disasters runs high. The National Science and
Technology Council estimates that the structural losses from natural
disasters averaged $1 billion weekly between August, 1992 and December,
1995. Given the magnitude of disasters in recent years, new ways are
needed to address disaster response, recovery, and mitigation. In fact,
every federal, State, and local agency charged with emergency
management responsibilities is stepping up to the task, with the
support of the private sector. On one hand, the nation must avoid,
withstand, and minimize economic losses on humans and property from
disasters to the extent feasible; and on the other, it must be prepared
to respond to and recover quickly from disasters when they occur.
Disasters are a fact of life, especially in our country which is
subject to more major storms than in any other on Earth. With the
threat of major floods and hurricanes, potential damages are severe.
Recognized experts in the field of natural hazards assessment predict
that losses from disasters will continue to grow over the next 10-20
years, despite the best efforts of our emergency management
practitioners. The Southern California Earthquake Center forecasts a
high probability of a major catastrophic earthquake in California
within the next 20 years. The repetitive nature of damages in many
parts of the country illustrates need for new strategies to mitigate,
respond to, and recover from the many looming hazards.
Several trends are increasing our vulnerability to disasters. One
is global climate change. Extreme events believed to have been exceeded
but once in a hundred years, on average, are occurring far more
frequently, threatening the lives, property, natural resources, and
vitality of local and regional economies throughout the nation. There
is also a trend of increased development in risk-prone areas. As stated
previously, the coastlines are particularly attractive to development
and also especially vulnerable to disasters. Warning systems and shore
protection efforts have made people feel more comfortable about
development along shorelines, and, along with mitigation and insurance
measures to alleviate short-term risks associated with living near the
ocean and floodplains, may actually encourage concentrations of
development in vulnerable areas.
Adequate investment in emergency management is needed to ensure the
capability of federal agencies to respond fully and quickly when
disasters strike. Coordinated planning is needed among key agencies who
must work together to perform the readiness requirements under the
Federal Response Plan, avoiding needless duplication of
responsibilities, and undue hardship for State, county, and city
agencies. Our nation, subject to more major storms than any other,
needs the federal capability to deal with multiple emergency
contingencies.
CONCLUSION
The President's Budget for the Corps of Engineers is a good one.
However, we must continue to find ways to reduce our costs and shift
more of those remaining to direct beneficiaries of our services.
Meanwhile, we will do our very best to execute the Civil Works Program
for maximum benefit to the nation.
With funding provided for our Operation and Maintenance Program in
the fiscal year 2001 budget, we will be able to sustain customer
services. However, we estimate that required funding for our highest
priority maintenance backlog will increase to $450 million in fiscal
year 2001--up by over $120 million from fiscal year 2000. I will
continue to do all I can to make the O&M program as efficient as
possible.
Based on our assessment of the nation's current water and related
land resources management needs, we feel strongly that the nation faces
significant, and demanding challenges in dealing with those needs. We
also know that the Corps has many unique assets from which to draw in
tackling those challenges. These include our longstanding and exemplary
leadership role in water and related land resources management; highly
competent multi-disciplinary workforce complemented through contracting
by a large public sector workforce; world-class research and
development laboratories; highly developed and continually improved
business processes including the recently fielded project management
process; geographically dispersed organization, recently restructured
to provide more pertinent, flexible, and timely operations resourcing;
and capital infrastructure including thousands of completed facilities.
Finally, we are committed to improvement in performance and
customer satisfaction within available resources--continually
maximizing actual and potential values of our organization to the Civil
Works Program, the Army, and the nation.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. This concludes
my statement.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Now, Senator Reid,
would you like to comment on any observations before we start
questions?
Senator Reid. I will, in the interest of time, Mr.
Chairman, submit my statement and questions for the record.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Senator Burns, do
you want to have any comments first?
Senator Burns. I'm just going to make mine in the form of a
question, a couple of questions. I think it moves the process
along.
Senator Domenici. Senator McConnell.
Senator McConnell. Same here, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Same.
Senator Domenici. Senator Dorgan. Can I ask, are the
Senators here interested in a specific item that they're going
to inquire about? If it's a specific item, I'll let you proceed
and I'll wait to do my indepth questioning.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET
I have very big concerns about this budget. Once again, the
Administration funds all of its initiatives and projects it
likes at either 100 percent, or 92 percent of the Corps
capability, and they take 30 or 40 high priority congressional
projects and don't request funds for them.
Now, I don't think we can afford to just fund every one of
the Administration's programs totally intact as they asked for
and have a huge number of congressional priorities that aren't
taken care of. Having said that, Senator McConnell, you wanted
to ask about one project, one item?
Senator McConnell. It's not one item, Mr. Chairman. It's
related to the possibility of the Corps doing some of the
cleanup at the Paducah uranium enrichment plant
Senator Domenici. Let's go in order. We don't want to be
here beyond maybe 11:30 or 11:45. You can start any questions
if you have any, Senator Reid. Mr. Burns, you can proceed.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. I would ask that my full statement be made
part of the record, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. It will be.
Senator Burns. I have a couple of comments and will start
by apologizing that I am unable to stay for the whole hearing
so I will address my questions to both the Bureau of
Reclamation and Corps of Engineers now to get them in the
record. Maybe we can take some of the responsibilities off the
Bureau of Reclamation's shoulders, general. I notice they are
still in the business of administrating grazing permits in
Montana. Why? They aren't in that business. Shouldn't it be
done by the BLM and could it be moved to the Bureau of Land
Management?
Senator Reid. You hope so.
Senator Burns. Well, if it takes an amendment to do that,
let us know and we'll be happy to try including it.
Also, I'm still having some concerns about the overtures I
hear of flirting with reducing the budgets for purchase power
and wheeling in the Administration's budget.
With the Corps, the issuance of permits in Montana
continues to concern me. That is our biggest problem. I guess
probably what has happened here, the attention to the Upper
Mississippi Valley is carrying over into other smaller projects
where the permits could be issued, yet we're just not getting
any kind of timely issuance of those permits. We are having a
hard time even receiving a decision whether a permit is needed
or not. That's frustrating to a lot of folks along our rivers
in Montana.
Also, I'm wondering if we can get assurances from the BOR
on the ownership transfer of intake? The intake diversion dam,
Glendive, Montana, was supposed to have been done years ago. We
have legislation in the works authorizing this to be done and
we're wondering about BOR's willingness to do this is a timely
manner.
Now, saying all that, I want to end on a high note and
thank the Corps for your interest in the fish hatchery at Fort
Peck and other projects up and down the river. I think you've
got a tremendous leadership team on the upper Missouri and we
want to continue to work with you on those things. But there
are additional things that I think we should direct your
attention toward. I've heard from my constituents in Montana
and they agree.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I do continue to have some concerns about the priorities
the Corps of Engineers are setting and look forward to working
with you and trying to work our way through it with the
Chairman of the Committee. Nobody works as hard on this
particular subcommittee as our chairman does. And thank you
very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to address the committee
today. As you well know, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corp of
Engineers both play vital roles in the management of the West's water
resources. Overall, these agencies are a great asset to the West and
have historically helped us in the management of our most valuable
resource, water. I have been especially pleased with the working
relationship that has developed between my office and the Corp of
Engineers in our mutual effort to help the citizens of Montana.
However, as is generally the case when dealing with a valuable
resource, contentions do arise between my constituents and these
agencies. With some attention to management details, I believe we have
the opportunity to smooth out these rough spots.
First, I would like to address some of the concerns with the Bureau
of Reclamation. As most members of this committee are aware, many of
the Bureau of Reclamation projects in my state are in dire need of
repair. Unfortunately, I don't believe the Bureau has a comprehensive
plan in place to address these needs. Additionally, the Bureau is
consistently running into cost overruns and passing these added costs
on to my state's constituents. In a time of economic hardship within
our agriculture communities, these costs can be the difference between
making ends meet and having to shut the family farm down. I would hope
that the Bureau would examine their methods of cost estimation and
construction costs and look for ways to keep our projects operational
at a reasonable cost.
Additionally, I am curious as to why, in this time of reinventing
government, that the redundant activities of various agencies aren't
being consolidated. I make this point in relation to the Bureau because
we actually have Reclamation administrating grazing permits in some
areas of Montana. Why aren't we turning this activity over to the
Bureau of Land Management, an agency much more suited to the task? I
have been asked numerous times by my ranchers why they operate under
two sets of rules on BLM and BOR grazing land. It just doesn't make
good sense. I believe we can streamline these processes and better
address the needs of the public. This is only one example of a non-
traditional Bureau activity, I am sure that many others exist that are
better provided by other agencies.
The Bureau also is continuing to flirt with the idea of addressing
wheeling concerns through administrative means. I have made the point
previously that any wheeling changes must be done legislatively and we
will not tolerate an administrative rule change. I stand by my prior
comments and feel they must be reiterated for the benefit of the
Bureau. The questions surrounding wheeling are extremely important to
my constituents and any administrative decision that does not allow
them the representation due to them will only create divisiveness
between the agency and my state's residents.
Last year I mentioned that I was curious as to what is holding up
the ownership transfer on the Intake Diversion Dam north of Glendive,
Montana. Supposedly this transfer was to take place in a fairly
straightforward manner, yet we continued to wait for it to be
finalized. In response I introduced legislation to transfer title to
these projects, but I feel that it could have been done more quickly
had the Bureau acted in better faith with the local irrigators.
In regards to the activities of the Corps of Engineers in Montana,
I have to commend the Corps on their efforts to deal with many
competing interests. As the permitting process in the Yellowstone area
illustrates, it is hard to make a decision that will make everyone
happy. The stakes are high and everyone has something to lose. I don't
envy the position of the Corps in that regard. However, whether it is
addressing an eroding landfill near Billings, or working to balance the
needs of flood mitigation and wildlife habitat, the Corps has continued
to shoot straight in dealing with most of our locals.
That being said, I must relay some of the frustration being felt
due to the lack of timeliness in receiving permits. When we apply for
permits in Montana, it is generally an urgent situation. Flooding may
be threatening the land we earn our livelihoods off of. It may also be
threatening our very homes. Unfortunately, I don't believe the Corps
has a fast-track process in place that can address these urgent needs.
I hate to go home and hear horror stories of bureaucratic inaction and
work that didn't get done in time because the permit process moved too
slowly. These are real people who have worked their lives for what they
have. It is a tragedy when they watch it all disappear because the
bureaucracy moved a little too slowly.
I urge the Corps to examine this problem and look at ways to fix
it. To be fair, last year was a better year for permitting. Of the 600
404 permit requests in Montana last year, I am told that all were
approved. This is good, however, I still have heard from numerous
ranchers that they were given the run around in finding out whether
they needed permits or who to contact to get the green light to move
ahead on important projects. I would hope that the Corps would put a
process in place and let this be known to Montanans that may need to
apply for permits.
Another wrinkle in the relationship with Montanans and the Corps
was the redirection of $400,000 of Section 33 money from an extremely
important study on the Missouri River. The time lost in this study as a
result will only lead to more erosion and problems on the stretch of
the Missouri below Fort Peck. This is an important project and the
money must be restored as soon as possible.
Finally, I would like to end on a high note and thank the Corps for
their work on the Fort Peck Fish Hatchery. This project will be a great
boon to Montana's fisheries and the Corps has moved forward quickly and
professionally at the request of the State of Montana, local citizens
and myself. I look forward to passing authorizing legislation this year
and hopefully including beginning construction money in the fiscal year
2001 appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to address the
committee.
Senator Domenici. Thank you. We're going to proceed, then,
with first arrival, is that fair enough? You proceed, Senator.
PADUCAH GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary
Westphal and General Ballard, I'm sure you've read the articles
in The Washington Post documenting the wide stream
contamination and radiation exposure to the work force at
Paducah, Kentucky gaseous diffusion plant.
As you can imagine, the workers and their families are
justifiably outraged by the Department of Energy's misconduct.
What is worse, up until the articles ran in the Post, the
Department spent the past 50 years denying this sort of thing
could have happened. Following the damaging press accounts, the
Department of Energy committed more funding to cleanup and
worker health testing.
Perhaps predictably, DOE has absolutely failed to make any
headway on the conversion of the 57,000 cylinders of depleted
uranium hexafluoride that are stacked outside along the fence
of the plants. These cylinders contain a potent cocktail of
hazardous chemical and radiological material. DOE began
accumulating these 14-ton cylinders since the day the plants
began production 50 years ago. Today, if you lined up these
contaminated cylinders end to end, they would stretch from
Washington, DC, to Ocean City, Maryland, 136 miles away.
In July 1998, I drafted legislation which was signed into
law mandating that DOE begin converting this material into a
nonhazardous state. To date, DOE has done little except study
the situation. Already DOE has missed its self-prescribed
timetable to have a contract award cleanup by the year and the
fiscal year 2001 budget fails to provide sufficient funding to
keep the cleanup on track. Frankly, I'm disappointed by DOE's
inaction and lack of accountability. They have waited 50 years
for cleanup and desperately needs a job. More importantly, the
community deserves a start to the cleanup which by DOE's own
projection will last more than 20 years.
Now, I raise all this because the Corps of Engineers has a
cleanup track record and I'm looking to the Corps for
assistance in cleaning up DOE's environmental legacy. So with
that backdrop, let me propound a few questions. General
Ballard, does the Army Corps----
Senator Reid. Senator McConnell, what was Paducah
originally used for? Why do they have 57,000 drums? What was
the plant initially established for?
Senator McConnell. It's been a uranium enrichment plant for
50 years. General Ballard, does the Army Corps have the
expertise to undertake the conversion of 57,000 cylinders of
depleted uranium cylinders immediately and convert this
material to a benign state and to dispose of it permanently?
General Ballard. The short answer is yes, Senator. And the
long answer is that we've had quite a bit of experience not
only working at the FUSRAP program but we are currently
involved in--you may be aware of this--in doing a nuclear
fissile storage facility in the former Soviet Union as part of
the Nunn-Lugar amendment. So we have experience inside of the
Corps, plus we have a number of our consultants and partners
with us who have engaged in this type of work before.
Senator McConnell. In fact, there is every reason to
believe you could accomplish this task faster than the
Department of Energy and better than the Department of Energy,
is there not? Go ahead and brag if you want to.
General Ballard. Well, we do have a fairly good track
record of aggressively moving out on this type of work and I
feel confident that we could accomplish the job now faster and
I would rather not brag to that respect but we can do it.
Senator McConnell. Are there legal impediments to--if I
were to try to assign this task to you all rather than the way
it's currently being done so ineptly, are there legal
impediments to the Corps undertaking these kinds of tasks?
General Ballard. Not if we do it as a contractor or support
to DOE so we don't run into the regulatory issues. And I would
have to look at it even deeper but I don't believe there are
any legal impediments that would prevent me from doing this
type work for DOE.
Senator McConnell. The Department has prepared an
environmental impact study, a Record of Decision and a cleanup
plan. Have you or your staff reviewed this material and is
there anything that you are unfamiliar with or unable to deal
with from a technological standpoint?
General Ballard. My staff has reviewed quite a bit of data
surrounding the Paducah facility and another one in Ohio. So I
don't think that there is anything that's there that we are not
really familiar with. I think we understand what the process is
pretty good.
Senator McConnell. Finally, the Department of Energy has
made a big deal and has just notified the Army of the potential
threat to our men in uniform since the metal armor was produced
from the depleted uranium from the plant. Are you familiar with
recent evaluation by the U.S. Army radiation research office?
General Ballard. I am somewhat familiar with it, Senator. I
am not an expert on it but I read the documentation surrounding
that testimony.
Senator McConnell. Does what you've read give you any
concern about proceeding with the conversion?
General Ballard. No, it does not.
Senator McConnell. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Domenici. Senator Dorgan.
RED RIVER VALLEY, GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I
want to thank you, Chairman Domenici, and also Senator Reid for
the assistance on the projects that we've been working on in
North Dakota and I want to thank General Ballard and Dr.
Westphal and General Van Winkle and others.
At one point in my congressional career, I was one of those
who would use inappropriate language from time to time when I
would reference the Corps because there are a number of things
that I worked on, it just seemed to me like nothing quite got
done. And then we got involved in a very significant flood
fight in Grand Forks. The Red River Valley, particularly in the
Grand Forks area caused us some problems. And I tell you,
having the Corps involved in a flood fight with you is
something to watch and I have deep admiration for the men and
women who serve in the Corps of Engineers and I want to thank
you for that.
DEVILS LAKE, NORTH DAKOTA
We have been struggling mightily in North Dakota with a
lake flood called Devils Lake. And my colleagues know it well
because we continue to talk a great deal about it. But in human
terms, it's not taking lives but it's destroying lives in many
ways.
Duane Howard, one of the great rodeo champions in America--
perhaps one of the best bull riders you would ever see in this
country--lost 80 percent of his ranch. Eighty percent of it is
gone. Now it's under the lake. He's lost his livelihood, lost
his ability to make a living.
And Randy Meyers is a gunsmith and a paraplegic who watched
his home torched as a health hazard, as the water from the lake
enveloped his home. These are real consequences and so we've
been struggling mightily to address something we don't see in
this country very often--a lake flood with no inlet and no
outlet for which there is not an easy solution.
And I want to thank you, Dr. Westphal and General Ballard,
General Van Winkle. You all have been helpful. We're struggling
to try to produce an outlet that would provide major releases
of water in a manner that would not affect others but would
take some pressure off that lake. And this is turning out to be
a very, very difficult task but we must continue to work on it.
I would ask a couple of brief questions. With respect to
the outlet that we've been working on, I know it is alleged by
some, that the proposed outlet, will send the boundary's waters
to Canada. It is our intention and your intention and the
intention of anyone who is talking about an outlet that we
would be required to comply with the boundary waters treaty.
And we would have to go through an EPA process and be in full
compliance with the boundary water treaty. Will you concur with
that?
Dr. Westphal. Yes.
General Ballard. Yes.
Senator Dorgan. And it is also the case that if we
construct an outlet to take the pressure off this lake
successfully it will prevent this lake from going to the 1,460
level, which it has done some many, many years ago. I believe
the Corps has indicated that the cost of the 1,460 level is
somewhere around 500 and a quarter million dollars additional
damage. Is that correct?
General Ballard. That's correct.
Senator Dorgan. And the reason I ask these questions is, it
describes the fact that this investment, in an attempt to
address this flooding, is an investment that's good for the
country. If we don't take some proactive measures here, we will
certainly have to bear a much larger cost later. And we have to
build dikes, raise roads, raise roads again, do all of these
things to try to respond to the needs of people and we're still
not able to keep up.
So I just wanted to make the point, Mr. Chairman, that I
have appreciated your attention to this and appreciate the
attention of the Corps as we work forward here. The
Administration has asked for some $4\1/2\ million for some
front end planning design. I understand from speaking with the
Chairman that the construction itself has to be approved by
Congress. We have to deal with that at a later time but the
design, we hope we can keep that in this process.
That's a long way of saying thanks. I appreciate the work
you're doing and the assistance you're giving us, both you and
also Mr. Chairman and others in the committee
Senator Domenici. Well, let me assure you, Senator, that
Devils Lake is imprinted on my brain. I have seen more of
Devils Lake for never having visited it than any project in
America. And in an effort to know about it, I finally have
pledged to you that if I visit another State on a Corps
project, I will stop over first at Devils Lake because it's a
phenomenon that is very difficult to understand but it is real.
And we will do our very best to get it started in an
appropriate way and in this bill.
You keep reminding us but I think we won't have to work
very hard. It will be in the Chairman's draft when we get the
appropriation bill ready. If it's something that belongs in the
supplemental, it will be there. I don't know what we're going
to do in the supplemental. Some way we're not going to have any
at all. So it won't be in there if there is none.
Senator Dorgan. The recommendation in the supplemental is
actually where the small amount of money is--the larger amount
of money is requested in the regular appropriations. But I look
forward to working with you.
Senator Domenici. Senator Craig here next, please.
SNAKE/COLUMBIA CORRIDOR
Senator Craig. I'll be only brief. I came to listen but
also to express to the Army Corps the importance I place on
their missions and their responsibilities in the Pacific
Northwest and especially in the Snake/Columbia corridor. My
colleague from Washington is with me this morning. He and I
watch you all very, very closely. We like our dams, we like our
slack water, we like our fish, we like our hydro and we expect
you to handle them responsibly. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. And that was even better than you did the
last time in the Energy Committee. We can quote you on this.
Senator Gorton?
Senator Gorton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you in
saying I've learned a great deal about Devils Lake. I perhaps
have even more understanding than Senator Dorgan coming from a
wet State than you do coming from a dry State. But the problems
that he faces there are very real and do deserve our help and I
wanted to say that.
Senator Domenici. Incidentally, it's snowing in Albuquerque
this morning, so don't call this dry. We're trying very hard to
get a little water.
COLUMBIA/SNAKE RIVER PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Senator Gorton. But I do have some questions on the subject
that Senator Craig rose, General Ballard. Two weeks ago, I met
General Strock in my office to discuss the status of the Corps'
environmental impact statement on the Columbia and Snake. He
advised me that the Corps may be issuing a preferred
alternative on whether to breach the Snake River dams this
fall.
Can you specify for me a more precise time frame during
which the Corps intends to release this preferred alternative
and whether the public will have an opportunity to comment on
it before it becomes final?
General Ballard. Yes. Let me take the second part of your
question. Most certainly the public will have an opportunity to
comment on the preferred alternative when we release it.
Senator Gorton. Before it becomes final.
General Ballard. Before it becomes final. The date--I'm
looking at my colleagues now to give me the exact date.
General Van Winkle. Sir, we have a tentative date of
October of this year but again, there are some negotiations
ongoing and we have to make some decisions. So this is very
tentative. I would give you that date as a rough estimate at
this point
Senator Gorton. Can you tell me if there is additional
information that the Corps will incorporate into its final
decision or will it be based on what you know already?
Dr. Westphal. Senator, let me try and answer that. We
believe that the Corps really has most of the information it's
going to need. Now, the biological opinion is going to be
coming out here in a couple of months and how that would affect
the EIS, we're not sure, but we believe that we are really
ready to go forward with a final EIS. We've done the study, the
analysis. This is not a decision document. This is an
information document. So to expedite this, we think we can put
out a final EIS probably in the October/November time frame.
Senator Gorton. You said a little later. It was September/
October 2 weeks ago. Now it's October or November?
Dr. Westphal. Well, only because before we were thinking
about coming out with a draft EIS, another draft EIS, but if we
go to a final, we could probably get it done by October. I
don't want to speak for General Strock because they're still
churning a lot of information and public comment, a significant
amount of public comment from the recent meeting they had. So
partly it's a function of that.
General Ballard. But getting to the final rather than the
draft, Senator, will get us into the dialogue much quicker.
Senator Gorton. Now, can any of you here provide me with an
estimate as to whether the natural runs for spring and summer
Chinook salmon on the Snake River will increase or decrease
this year?
Dr. Westphal. Well, the expectations were that they were
going to increase this year, but there is some new research
coming out now that CRI is coming out and I am not sure exactly
when that will be public. But we are being told that there may
be some--that the news from that may not be that good. But I
don't know what it is. I couldn't tell you today what the CRI
will tell us.
Senator Gorton. Will whatever happens this year be factored
into the feasibility study and your recommendations?
Dr. Westphal. No, because the CRI--well, we already have
the analysis on the Snake River salmon. We don't really need to
account for the remainder of the species in the Columbia River
basin in our EIS because our EIS is lower Snake River EIS. So
we've got what we need and we need to proceed forward with the
EIS.
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM
Senator Gorton. One last question on this subject. I
understand there are reports that the Oregon State Fish and
Wildlife Department questions your analysis or may question
your analysis on the John Day study drawdown and it is pressing
the Corps to pursue further study on this issue. I don't
believe any more study is warranted. Can you explain the Corps'
position on the drawdown and when we can expect the final
decision?
Dr. Westphal. We completed John Day phase 1 study and as
you know, there is language in last year's appropriations bills
that prohibits us from going to a phase 2 or a McNary drawdown
study without permission of the Congress.
Senator Gorton. I'm familiar with that.
Dr. Westphal. I thought you might be. But we intend to
adhere to that language and we are not proceeding further.
COLUMBIA RIVER NAVIGATION CHANNEL DEEPENING
Senator Gorton. Now something on which I wanted to
congratulate you and say how much I want you to succeed, and
that is the deepening of the Columbia River, the navigation
channel. I'm delighted with your reports and it seems to me
that you're doing very, very well. Some environmental features
of the project which obviously are important may be ready for
construction in fiscal year 2001 but the Chief's report was
completed so late in the budget preparation cycle that it
couldn't be included in the President's budget as a new
construction start.
If Congress were to appropriate a small amount of
construction funds for fiscal year 2001, would the Corps be
capable of beginning construction of these environmental
features during that fiscal year?
Dr. Westphal. I think so but let me defer to General Van
Winkle.
General Van Winkle. Senator, we could. We have some
capability estimates of around $4.5 million to do that in 2001.
CAPABILITY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Senator Gorton. Thank you. The National Marine Fisheries
Service included a requirement that the Corps and local
sponsors find and improve 5,000 acres of the habitat as
mitigation. What are you doing to meet that requirement?
Dr. Westphal. Sir, I'm not sure. I would have to get an
answer for the record, unless you have one.
General Van Winkle. No, we'll have to get the details for
the record on that.
[The information follows:]
CAPABILITY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Although project and study capabilities reflect the readiness of
the work for accomplishment, they are in competition for available
funds and manpower Army-wide. In this context, the fiscal year 2001
capability amounts shown consider each project or study PY itself
without reference to the rest of the program. However, it is emphasized
that the total amount proposed for the Army's Civil Works Program in
the President's budget for fiscal year 2001 is the appropriate amount
consistent with the Administration's assessment of national priorities
for Federal investments. In addition, the total amount proposed for the
Army's Civil Works Program in the President's Budget is the maximum
that can be efficiently and effectively used. Therefore, while we could
utilize additional funds on individual projects and studies, offsetting
reductions would be required in order to maintain our overall budgetary
objectives.
Hereafter, this statement is referred to as ``the usual
qualifications.
______
COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL DEEPENING
The biological opinion for the Columbia River Channel Deepening
project clearly states in the terms and conditions that the Corps will,
``as part of the Corps' ecosystem restoration mission and
responsibility under separate authority, independent of the Channel
Improvements Project, expedite the attainment of the objectives of the
Lower Columbia River Estuary Program by restoring 1,500 acres of tidal
wetlands by 2005, and 3,000 acres between 2005 and 2010, subject to
Congressional authority and appropriation''. The Corps intends to
request funds for a new General Investigation (GI) study in order to
fulfill this term and condition. This GI study would specifically
address environmental restoration in support of the Lower Columbia
Estuary Program. The restoration of habitat is not considered part of
``mitigation for the deepening project''. We will also use Section
1135, Project Modifications for Improvements to the Environment and
Section 206, Aquatic Restoration, both part of our Continuing
Authorities Program, for habitat restoration.
Senator Gorton. If you will get an answer on how you are
working with local sponsors, I would appreciate it. But I do
want to say I'm very enthusiastic about your enthusiasm and I
want to congratulate you. And Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank
you very much.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, could I do a follow up to an
answer?
Senator Domenici. Could I just comment before you do that,
Senator? Senator Gorton, we were having a hearing not too long
ago on the purchase of the Boca, that big ranch in New Mexico,
and I sat next to you as you questioned a U.S. Representative
from the district that Boca is from, it's in his district, and
I curtailed him and anybody present that it is not an easy
thing around here and will never be to tear down the poor dams
that are up there in your part of the country. Our Congressman
got a lot of press that he was for tearing them down but your
comments got in the paper also. I just wanted you to know you
were pretty tough on that Congressman. But apparently this is
one of the most important issues you have going, is that right?
Senator Gorton. It is very easy to say that and we did not
appreciate the Congressman referring to it in that way. But as
I told him then, he was extremely fortunate that he had you as
a Senator because that means that he doesn't get punished with
respect to the Boca ranch interference in our business.
Senator Domenici. I understand.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, I was chairing that hearing
and I must say that Senator Gorton, it was one of his finest
hours, without question. In relation to final draft versus
draft and public comment, what is it, what will it be, have you
decided, and if it's a final, why then go back out for public
comment?
Dr. Westphal. When you do a final, you just simply put it
out, not for public comment. You put it out for public review.
Senator Craig. Consumption but not reaction?
Dr. Westphal. Exactly.
Senator Craig. So what are you doing?
Dr. Westphal. We're heading towards a final. We believe
we've got enough public comment and enough information to go
right to a final. We don't need to put it out for more public
comment and do another draft this time. That's my belief and
that's what I would like to see happen.
Senator Craig. So that is what we should expect to happen?
Dr. Westphal. I think so.
Senator Craig. All right. That it will be a final draft not
for public comment, but for public consumption?
Dr. Westphal. Right.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. Senator Stevens, I and Senator Reid have
reserved our questions but if you would like to go, we would
welcome them.
ALASKA NATIONAL DEFENSE SYSTEM MISSILE SITES
Senator Stevens. I just came over from another subcommittee
because I saw my friends Dr. Westphal and General Ballard are
here and I would just like to ask you a couple of questions.
I just visited, General Ballard, with the Pacific Ocean
Division of the Corps and, Secretary, this applies to you too.
I believe the decision has been made that the Corps will handle
the Alaska portion of the national defense system in terms of
developing the site for the missiles and the support base that
is necessary.
I want to make sure that there is adequate funding here to
carry out that process and that we have thought about the
staffing in the Alaska District and the Pacific Ocean Division
that will be needed to do that. I think they have the expertise
to do it and they've gone to construction in Alaska and I want
to make certain that these people have the knowledge, and that
we're supporting them in getting the kind of people they need
to assure this is getting done in time and done properly.
General Ballard. Senator, I'll address that. As I informed
your staff, about 2 weeks ago, I moved the project management
for that work from Huntsville to the Alaska District and we are
currently evaluating the appropriate staff that they require.
As you know, this project is much too important for us to fail.
So I'm putting the appropriate oversight and staffing in Alaska
for them to handle this work.
Senator Stevens. I want to make sure that people understand
construction.
Let me bore you all with a story. When I was a brand-new
Senator, we got a new Federal building for Nome. I don't know
if I told you this, but it was a really beautiful building for
this small, historic town and they were going to have an
opening in the spring. They decided to get the whole building
warmed up before the opening. I went up there for the opening
and guess what? The building had sunk about a foot and a half.
No one understood the problems of permafrost and stability of
soils and that's something we can't have happen on the national
defense system.
General Ballard. Absolutely.
Senator Stevens. And so we have the ability and we have
people who work in the Arctic who are contractors. And if we
have people who have done beautiful work in Central America and
they start doing it up there, we're going to pay the price. So
I hope you really put some people in there that understand the
Arctic, General, because this is going to be a big, big thing
for the country if it happens. It's not that big for Alaska.
The money is really going into the systems rather than into the
ground but we want it to be done right when it's done.
General Ballard. I understand, sir.
Senator Stevens. Do you believe we have the supervision
that will be necessary to do this job right?
General Ballard. I'm confident that we will.
U.S. ARMY COLD REGIONS RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING LABORATORIES
Dr. Westphal. Senator, when you and I went up there last
year, if I recall, I took a half a day away from being with you
and went to visit the Corps of Engineers Cold Regions
Laboratory there, and what we have is you basically go
underneath the mountain and they study permafrost.
You can go inside this mountain and you can see the ice
sitting in layers of dirt. And as you see, if you don't account
for that, you put something on top of it and it melts, you've
got a serious problem. So I think the Corps has the expertise
and the ability and has it on site to deal with these issues.
Senator Stevens. Well, we think that you ought to make
trips often, make sure you inspect those sites.
Senator Reid. Senator Stevens, did they ever fix the
courthouse?
Senator Stevens. As a matter of fact, we built a new one
and used the other one--it has a nice basement, it does--it is
still used but not for a courthouse.
Senator Craig. Keeps sinking?
Senator Stevens. I don't have any other questions,
gentlemen. I appreciate your response to requests for
information I've made and I do have great confidence in the
work that's done by the Army through the Corps of Engineers.
They're our neighbors and do a great many things. We're hopeful
in time we'll have reports to you on developments of perhaps a
new port on the northwest coast so we can open up some of those
mines up there. But that's still coming through the stage of
design and research and it's not ready to come to the committee
yet.
I would like to have you all come up there and see that
sometime. You ought to see this area of Alaska. Very few people
come up to see the northwest coast of Alaska. It's beautiful.
Tremendous mineral content. The problem is access.
Senator Reid. Is that where Nome is?
Senator Stevens. It's actually above Nome. It's north of
Nome. But Nome is on the Seward peninsula in northwest Alaska.
Senator Domenici. We appreciate you coming to our committee
today. We look forward to working with you on the budget.
Senator Stevens. I'm your humble servant if you're ready to
talk about the budget.
Senator Domenici. The Corps of Engineers funding for your
missile project will be in Senator Burns' committee in military
construction.
Senator Stevens. Yes, but these two were both in your
subcommittee.
Senator Domenici. I'm with you. Senator Reid, please. Thank
you.
Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all,
General Ballard, I want to join with the others to congratulate
you on a stunning military career. It's not often that you find
someone who finishes their career with three stars and you
should be very proud that you've rendered a great service to
the country.
General Ballard. Thank you, sir.
RURAL NEVADA WATER SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE
Senator Reid. This question could be answered by anyone who
cares to. The Federal Government is imposing increasingly
strict regulations on water supply. In areas like Las Vegas and
Reno, they can handle that. But for 10, 15 percent of the
population of Nevada covering 70 million acres, they have a
real burden. And I'm particularly interested in one of the
provisions for rural Montana and Nevada in section 595 of WRDA,
9299. But, of course, there are a host of others around the
country that are concerned in addition to Montana and Nevada.
Do we have any reason that we haven't budgeted money to take
care of these problems? Do we have threats, for lack of a
better description, that we're going to have higher
restrictions on arsenic content and other things and we have no
money to cover all this?
Dr. Westphal. Let me take a stab at that. I think these
questions--and I'm going to get on a limb here but I think
these questions, such as the one you posed, Senator Reid, and
some of the ones that I'll have to deal with throughout
testimony here and in the House will require, I think, some
greater dialogue between the Administration and the Congress as
to how far out we want to get into this type of work.
This is not traditional mission work of the Corps of
Engineers. However, there is a national need for this. There is
no question that the need you just outlined is there. It's
there in many rural areas. It's there in many parts of the
country. We operated, putting together our budget, on the
premise that we have a very tight budget and we needed to fund
the projects we already had in the works. So these types of
authorities that have been in previous WRDA bills simply didn't
get the funding.
But I think there is an increasing debate about doing this
kind of work and I believe that the only way we're going to
successfully attack it nationwide is to have a dialogue with
you and to come to some understanding as to how far we want to
get into it and how we want to do that work.
Senator Reid. All I know is that we're going to have a
crisis because when these restrictions in effect come into it
and local companies are trying to--water companies are trying
to meet these standards. Impossible, can't meet them. The
amount of money, the cost is more than the water districts are
worth just to solve one of the water problems.
Do you think the Corps has the capability and expertise, if
you had the money, to address these problems?
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
Dr. Westphal. I think the Corps does have the capability
and expertise. Now, again, we have to face the argument that
some pose that say, well, you've got a huge backlog of work and
construction and O&M. How do you reconcile putting money into
other things when you've got this backlog?
So I think we need to address both those issues. We need to
address the backlog issue and how much it is and how much we
have to--how much we're going to need to really make a dent on
that. But we also have to--we can't stay still. We can't not
support the needs of the country as they arise in the future.
So we have to look to the future. We also have to address the
past. And for us, it's a simple game of mathematics. We just
have not had enough money to put in the budget to address all
of these adequately.
Senator Reid. Dr. Westphal, estimates range up to $45
billion in backlog water resources this country needs. That
doesn't take into consideration what I've just talked about,
some of the new rules that will go into effect. And you have in
your budget request $4 billion. It's without any question that
this is inadequate funding, $4 billion.
Do you have a plan to do away with this huge backlog? I
mean, are we going to see additional requests in the years to
come or are we going to continue doing less than one tenth of
what is needed?
Dr. Westphal. Well, there are a number of things we could
do. We can certainly address the backlog from the standpoint of
greater efficiencies and I think the Chief has done that. He
has done a very good job of trying to find ways to make the
program more efficient and use those gains to make up some of
the backlog. But that's a very small dent into a big problem.
Second, I think we can look at--you mentioned the $45
billion. That includes a lot of projects that are absolutely
not moving. They are simply--they are deferred or there is just
nothing going on there. So there is a lot of--perhaps half of
that work is work that we probably aren't going to do certainly
in the near future and we need to address to determine with you
if we are going to go forward with that work and at what pace
and at what level and is there a Federal--non-Federal sponsor
for the work.
So we also need to look at the authorized projects that are
simply not going to happen. They're not going to get built,
they're not going to get constructed, because of the
environmental issues or because there is no local sponsor. So
there is a variety of ways of dealing with it, and as I
requested from Chairman Smith of our authorizing committee,
we're going to be looking at that backlog pretty seriously,
taking a look at the lists of projects out there and making
some analyses that we hope to be able to provide some
recommendations on.
WETLAND PROPOSALS
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I have a number of other
questions. One includes some technical answers that I need
regarding wetlands proposals and whether or not, again, you
have the adequate personnel to meet these demands. When
problems arise regarding the wetlands rules, it's taking too
long to resolve, and in the process of resolving these wetlands
problems, people are literally going broke. They have to borrow
money, waiting until there is some definitive answer from the
Corps and, in the process, the interest payments are going up.
So I have 12 other questions that we'll submit to you in
writing because the Chairman hasn't had a chance to ask
questions. I'm going to stop now. But if you would get back to
me within the next couple of weeks with written responses to
these written questions, I would appreciate it.
RIGID REGULATORY STANDARDS
Senator Domenici. Senator, thank you so much for your being
brief. I want to also say that inherent in what I see of the
rural communities with smaller water systems and the new rules
is a serious question as to whether the standards that have
been set up are too rigid. I mean, nobody wants to look at it.
I mean, they just want to say, how much is it going to cost to
do what somebody is telling us to do.
But the question may be, for a whole lot of America, are
those standards that are being insisted upon, are they really
necessary. And I'm not going to ask any of you. That's not your
expertise. But it's obvious we're asking rural areas to build
some rather fantastic facilities for very small systems that
cannot achieve the kind of things that a major system can in a
city. And I don't know who is going to look at it because it
would seem to me the Administration doesn't want to look at it,
at least for a while.
FALLON, NEVADA
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, just in one rural committee, an
agricultural community in Nevada, Fallon, Nevada, they have an
arsenal and they've had it for many years. It's estimated that
it will cost each water user in Fallon $100 a month to meet the
requirements that they have. That's $1,200 a year. They can't
do it.
Senator Craig. I've been to Fallon. No, they can't afford
it.
Senator Domenici. The question, however, is that arsenic
standard, is that reasonable and rational and does it make
common sense? We have background arsenic in many communities
that have been there forever. I imagine that community and many
areas around it have a level of arsenic in the water that has
not been dangerous and we come along and say--and you can't get
it out of the natural environment. We say you've got to do it
in the water system.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, I assume in Fallon, that's a
very mineralized area, that that's a natural water level, is it
not?
Senator Reid. In Fallon, it's not a mineralized area, but
for reasons we don't fully understand, it's always been heavy
in arsenic. Like up where I'm from it is mineralized, we have
an arsenic problem there.
Senator Craig. But it is considered a natural State.
Senator Reid. Totally.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET PRIORITIES
Senator Domenici. Okay. Let me just say, I have a series of
questions for you, Dr. Westphal, with reference to the
Administration's budget. I've alluded to them, but I'm just
going to mark three points.
The $4.064 million budget request has funds for high
priority Administration environmental projects such as the
Everglades funded at 100 percent of the Corps capability for
2001, and deepwater ports, 92 percent of your capability. But
its severely underfunded ongoing flood control and inland
waterways--funding them at only 62 percent of the Corps'
capacity, and it excludes from the budget requests 40 projects
which are high priority for the Congress.
Now, frankly, Dr. Westphal, you're to be commended for your
efforts to put forth a somewhat better budget than we had last
year, and I compliment you for it. I think in areas where you
put some pressure on, we've got a better budget. But how are we
going to deal with this enormous disparity between the
Administration's priorities and Congressional priorities?
Now, if they all meet the same tests, cost/benefit ratios
and the rest, I mean, why are the President's more important
than these items the Congress has continually supported? How am
I going to do that? What do you recommend?
Dr. Westphal. Well, Senator, I think that we did fully fund
the Everglades and that's because we're at a point where that
particular project is absolutely critical to get that
comprehensive study underway. It's a 20-year project. The State
is cost sharing that at a 50/50 rate, so we felt that's a very
high priority to go forward. It's a national priority.
In the navigation area, of course, we are still relying on
the use of the new Harbor Services User Fee proposal which
would allow us then to fully fund at capability levels all our
navigation of our harbor projects. So we're able to make use of
that fund for that. Last year, I think you appropriated
somewhere in the vicinity of about $700 million out of the fund
for the O&M part of that. This year, if the fund were
implemented, it would be about $900 million out of the fund for
O&M construction.
Senator Domenici. The Everglades has $1.8 billion in new
authorization for the Everglades.
Dr. Westphal. It's $158 million in this particular year.
Senator Domenici. But the new authorization is $1.8
billion. Look, I'm not critical of the Everglades. It's a
fantastic project and I'm sure this Committee wants to fund it
mightily. But we're in a real spot when the Administration
takes 40 projects that you have gone through and you've signed
cost benefit sharing agreements with great fanfare. People are
waiting, anticipating continued construction. They've got cost
sharing agreements that you have signed, they're ready to put
up their share. And all of a sudden they disappear from the
President's budget.
I can tell you right now, that's not going to happen. I'm
not going to fund them unless we get some more money from the
allocation, we're not going to fund the Administration's at its
request and fail to fund Congressional priorities. You all are
going to take a little cut in order to fund some of ours. There
is no evidence that the President picks out better water
projects in terms of those that have clear cost benefits than
Congress can. So we have some prerogatives and I want you to
know it's going to be tough. We'll work with you as best we
can.
I had a series of questions I was going to ask you about
the integrity of the Corps process. I think you've satisfied my
concerns. I'll submit them for the record .
General Ballard. Thank you, sir.
CORPS REVIEW
Senator Domenici. I would want to know, there is a serious
internal study, Dr. Westphal, occurring within the
Administration because of the articles about the Corps, perhaps
The Washington Post story. Now, who is conducting the review?
Is it the Defense Department that's conducting the review or
who within the Administration is conducting that?
Dr. Westphal. There are three things underway. The first
is--and General Ballard alluded to them. The first is the
Secretary of the Army has asked the National Academy of
Sciences to do an independent review of the Upper Mississippi
Navigation Study, of that process.
Senator Domenici. National Academy of Sciences?
Dr. Westphal. Right. The National Academy has done some
work for the Corps of Engineers in the past on assessing the
current principles and guidelines so they have some expertise
in this area. There was a feeling that there was a need to have
a totally independent and outside review of this study. So
that's been ordered and that's underway, I believe, or will be
underway shortly.
The second matter is that there are--and I can't tell you
specifically because I don't know, but there are investigations
of these allegations of misconduct and that's being handled
through the appropriate Inspector General and those types of
organizations within the Department of Defense and the Army.
The third matter is simply that the Secretary said, because
there were also allegations that the Army may not have been in
control of the program or something to this effect, that the
Secretary simply said, we will assess, we will ensure that the
management and oversight of the Corps of Engineers is there.
And that is not a study. That is simply looking at the
regulations, I assume. And again, I'm not a part of that. I
don't know when the Secretary is going to put that out or make
a statement about that.
Senator Domenici. But I want to state for the record here,
so there is no misunderstanding, Senator Reid has just agreed
with me, and I'm sure that I will get Chairman Stevens and
ranking minority member Byrd, we're going to make sure the
Administration understands that if, as a result of this study,
there are any serious recommendations regarding restructuring,
that we want a review process for the Congress, and we will
make sure they know that. I don't know whether it should be 6
months or what, but clearly we support what you do, yet we
think we have good oversight. There still remain people who
think the Corps shouldn't be doing so much work in America and
what they do is not necessarily in the best interest of our
country. So there are a few of those in the Administration.
That's their business, not mine.
But you understand that we would be very concerned that
from an investigation should any restructuring occur without
Congress understanding why and what it's going to do to the
Corps as it's conducting itself. We're pretty proud. The Corps
went through a difficult year about 25 years ago and I was here
for about 8 or 9 years. And it's highly respected and Congress
respects it tremendously for the kind work it's been doing and
that's thanks to you and your predecessors, Mr. Secretary, and
the good Generals who have been in charge.
RIO GRANDE RIVER BASIN STUDY
I'm going to ask you a couple of questions, but I'm going
to move for a minute to your requests for Comprehensive Red
River Basin studies. And let me just suggest, I'm going to ask
you about them in writing. And I do want you to know that you
included a river in my State called the Rio Grande River.
I don't know what I'm going to do with your request as I
share my concerns with the subcommittee members and the full
committee members but I do want to suggest that there are large
numbers of stakeholders that some of whom are Federal agencies
who are equal stakeholders, if not more so than the Corps, and
I have to try to figure out whether we're going to get
something constructive out of a comprehensive river basin study
that you all would do. No aspersions on you. It's just when you
look at all the players, are we apt to get something better or
something that's just going to make the stakeholders more upset
and angry?
I, myself, am looking for a way to bring the stakeholders
together. Bureau of Reclamation is involved, I should know,
because they control the water flows in some facilities. And
the Commissioner will testify next, and he's been doing a
yeoman's job trying to allocate the water shortage in the Rio
Grande. You're aware of that and I very much appreciate your
personal knowledge on the subject. But you understand that your
operations may not be what I, as a Senator, think are going to
solve any problems.
Dr. Westphal. And Senator, as I said in my oral statement,
I want to proceed by working first with you and the other
members, I've engaged Senator Burns and Senator Baucus on the
issues on the Yellowstone because I think we need that input.
And if for some reason you think that we ought to change this
plan in some way, I'm very, very attentive and very willing to
do that.
PICATINNY ARSENAL HEAVY METAL CLEANUPS
Senator Domenici. Now, do any of you have any further
comments? I will submit questions if you'll answer them. I just
have one question about the heavy metals cleanup at the
training ranges. Last year $3 million was included in the
defense appropriation bill for work of extracting heavy metal
from soils at various training ranges. This is a joint project
between the heavy metals office at the Picatinny Arsenal in New
Jersey and New Mexico State University. Evidently someone in
the office of the Secretary of Defense saw this term
``remediation'' in the title of this project and sent the $3
million to the Corps of Engineers. I'm not sure that's what was
intended, but that's where it is.
While you do remediation work for the Department of
Defense, the $3 million is earmarked for heavy metals office at
the Picatinny arsenal and it was not intended for the Corps--I
know it was not intended for the Corps but it ended up there.
We had been unsuccessful in having the funds transferred back
to Picatinny. Are either of you, General Ballard or Secretary
Westphal, familiar with the issue? And I understand that
funding was directed to the Corps of Engineers by someone else
in the Department of Defense, but I want to make it clear that
this $3 million must be transferred back without delay so we
can get something done.
General Ballard. I'm familiar with it, Senator, and I was
briefed on it this morning. We didn't go looking for it. I
thought it was $3 million filed on post, but I'll quickly
return it. We'll get it returned by----
Senator Domenici. You can check it out and make sure what
I'm saying is right.
General Ballard. Yes, sir.
Senator Craig. The check is in the mail.
Senator Domenici. I do want to comment, with reference to
cleanup that involves low level nuclear waste and the like.
Somebody in the U.S. House had an ingenious idea that maybe we
ought to experiment and let the Corps of Engineers do some of
this cleanup because we had been involved in many of these
projects, I mean, it's safe to say, but we never got anything
done. We kept turning the soil and nothing happened.
FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM
And now we have a program called FUSRAP and we've
appropriated $150 million for the current year and the Corps is
doing cleanup work. I want to suggest that from everything we
know, you're doing a good job. And as compared with the huge
delays and the kind of circuitousness of the Energy
Department's efforts and cost increases, I mean, we get an
estimate of $300 or $400 million, turns out $2 or $3 billion by
the time the 10 years is examined.
So are you confident that you all are monitoring this
program and that the work is being done properly? And I ask
both of you that. Do you have any complaints of a serious
nature that you might want to put on the record?
Dr. Westphal. I think we're finding great success with this
program, doing it on time and in a very efficient manner. I
think that the Corps has taken this task on very seriously and
has done a great job.
General Ballard. I share those concerns, those comments. We
have taken this program on now and we, in fact, we are quite a
bit further ahead of schedule. Probably the most important
thing we did with then-existing authority and capacity, is that
we did not grow one FTE for doing this program.
Senator Domenici. Well, I want the record to show that
nobody from the Corps, indirectly or directly, ever came to see
me and ask me to fund this program. So if somebody thinks you
all are lobbying for this cleanup, I never heard it. I believe
the House came up with the idea. We transferred about $130
million from DOE to the Corps.
General Ballard. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. So I think it's very, very important that
you do that job right and that you monitor it very, very
closely because these kind of programs have a tendency--you
know, something seeps out and it becomes a very big eyesore for
big groups of people and we don't want that on the Corps for
having stepped up to the plate and doing a better job than
anybody else in this regard.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Unless you, Senator Craig, have anything, I'm going to
submit the questions.
Senator Craig. I do not, Mr. Chairman
Senator Domenici. You're excused. And thank you very much.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Question. The budget request for fiscal year 2001 totals $4.064
billion for programs and activities of the Corps of Engineers compared
to a total appropriation for fiscal year 2000 of $4.142 billion. The
budget structure and the approach taken by the Administration in
funding projects are very similar to the fiscal year 2000 budget.
Specifically, the Corps' budget request: funds high priority
Administration environmental projects such as the Everglades
Restoration at 99 percent of the Corps capability for fiscal year 2001;
funds selected deep water port projects at 92 percent of the Corps
capability for fiscal year 2001; severely under funds ongoing flood
control and inland waterway projects (funded at only 60 percent of the
Corps capability), and excludes from the their budget request about 40
projects which are high priorities of the Congress. Dr. Westphal, you
are to be commended for your efforts to put forth a somewhat better
budget request for the Corps in fiscal year 2001. Yet similar to last
year, there are a number of concerns as I have listed above. Can you
explain to the Committee why there is such a significant disparity in
the balance between various elements of the ongoing construction
activities of the Corps water resource program?
Dr. Westphal. In an ideal world, we would very much like to finish
all our continuing projects on optimum schedules and start new projects
to meet additional needs as they arise. However, in the real world
where we have funding constraints, we must try to balance the need for
new projects proposed by the Administration and Congress with the needs
of our continuing projects. Ultimately, we blend the priorities
together as best we can to meet the most urgent needs in both areas.
For the fiscal year 2001 budget, 24 port development projects and
activities are funded to meet near optimum completion schedules in
accordance with the proposed Harbor Services User Fee, which would
cover all federal construction costs. In addition, 8 high priority
continuing projects and 1 high priority new start project for
mitigation, ecosystem restoration, and other purposes are funded to
meet optimum completion schedules. However, there are also 6
environmental projects and 4 environmental programs that are not funded
at optimum levels. Amounts for 168 flood damage reduction, inland
waterways, and shore protection projects, as well as the 6 delayed
environmental projects and 4 environmental programs, are constrained to
a level that is, in the aggregate, about 63 percent of what is needed
to maintain optimum completion dates. The varied funding schedules for
different types of projects primarily reflect the sources of funds
available to implement them.
PROJECT DELAYS
Question. How many projects in this budget proposal have extended
completion dates compared to the fiscal year 2000 program level? What
would it take to fund all ongoing projects at a level which would
maintain completion schedules anticipated by the appropriation for
fiscal year 2000?
Dr. Westphal. There are 57 projects in the fiscal year 2001 budget
that have extended completion dates compared to the fiscal year 2000
program level. About $158 million would be required to maintain the
completion schedules anticipated for these projects by the
appropriation for fiscal year 2000.
Question. Now Dr. Westphal, as I understand it you are required to
enter into a cost sharing agreement with a local sponsor before
constructing a project, and that you do this with much publicity and
fanfare. Is this correct? Why then, does this Administration not feel
it is important to carry through on the commitment made when signing
the cost sharing agreement by funding many of these projects at optimum
or even near optimum rates? What do you expect these communities who
have put themselves into debt to cover their share of the project costs
to do? Since there is no funding requested in your budget for fiscal
year 2001, how do you expect construction to continue to meet your
commitment to these communities?
Dr. Westphal. You are correct, we are required to enter into
project cooperation agreements with non-Federal sponsors before
initiating construction projects. However, public signing ceremonies
for these agreements are held only when the sponsors desire such
events. We do feel that it is important to carry through on the
commitment made when signing the project cooperation agreement.
Nevertheless, budget constraints do not allow us to implement all
projects at optimum or near optimum rates. We hope that sponsors can be
patient and work with us to complete their projects as soon as possible
within the context of our budget ceilings. Some projects for which
Congress has added funds in previous years are not included in the
Corps budget. Generally, these are projects that are not economically
justified or could be accomplished by local interests, and consequently
have low budget priority. Projects of this nature may continue to the
extent that funds are added by Congress.
INTEGRITY OF CORPS' STUDY PROCESS
Question. In January and again in February, the Washington Post
published articles that raised serious allegations regarding the
integrity of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and its process for
developing recommendations related water resource projects. If true,
the validity of the investment of resources in carrying out projects
resulting from the study and planning process is brought into question.
Dr. Westphal and General Ballard, do you agree with these
allegations as they relate to the broader study and evaluation process,
excluding for the moment the Upper Mississippi River Navigation Study
which was specifically mentioned?
Dr. Westphal. I have great confidence in the Corps. With regard to
the allegations in the press, I strongly believe we should withhold
judgement until completion of the review and inquiry directed by the
Secretary of the Army.
General Ballard. No Sir, I continue to stand behind the integrity
of the Corps and its processes. The Corps planning process is based on
the Principles and Guidelines (P&G) that were adopted by the President
on March 10, 1983. These Principles and Guidelines are the culmination
of a series of earlier efforts to develop a coherent planning process
beginning in 1958 that resulted in the publication of Senate Document
No. 97 in 1962. This document established the principles, standards,
and procedures for planning water projects. This evolutionary
development of the planning process has had the support of the Congress
and has stood the test of time. As recently as 1999, the National
Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences produced a report
entitled ``New Directions in Water Resources Planning for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers''. Overall, the findings of that report were an
endorsement of the Corps planning process.
Within the framework established by the P&G, the Corps has
established procedures for implementing cost-effectiveness analyses for
environmental restoration projects and is continuing efforts to improve
the quantification of restoration outputs. The Corps has also made
great advances in evaluating potential flood damage reduction projects
in a risk framework beyond what is called for in the P&G.
Question. General Ballard, the Washington Post articles suggest
problems with your study process. Are you concerned about the current
process, and, if so, how do you intend to identify and correct possible
deficiencies? Is the current study process sound, recommending the best
projects possible?
General Ballard. I believe that the current Corps study processes
are sound and determine the best projects possible. However, reviews of
these processes are underway. While I firmly believe that through these
investigations the Corps will be vindicated of all allegations,
appropriate actions will be taken if deficiencies or opportunities for
improvement are identified.
Question. Dr. Westphal, I understand that Secretary of the Army
Caldera has initiated a review of the Army's management of the Corps of
Engineers to ensure there is appropriate leadership and oversight. I
believe it is fair to say that the appropriate Committees of the
Congress expect to be consulted prior to the Army making any changes,
but what are the specific concerns regarding the current leadership and
oversight structure? What changes are being considered? Have any
changes been instituted or approved for implementation?
Dr. Westphal. I believe Secretary Caldera is looking for
opportunities to improve the Army Civil Works program by clarifying
responsibilities, improving communications, and strengthening
accountability. No changes have at this time been instituted or
approved for implementation, to my knowledge.
Question. Specifically, who is conducting this review, and what
Federal agencies or Executive Offices are involved?
Dr. Westphal. The Secretary has assigned this review to the Under
Secretary of the Army. No other Federal agencies or Executive Offices
are involved.
Question. What is the schedule for completing the review?
Dr. Westphal. I am not aware of a definite schedule, although I am
sure that Secretary Caldera wishes to implement whatever changes he
recommends in a timely way.
Question. Why is this review being conducted by an internal Army/
group instead of an outside independent entity?
Dr. Westphal. The Secretary considers this to be an internal Army
management issue.
``GROWING `` THE CORPS CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM
Question. Another allegation put forth in the post inferred that
the Corps of Engineers is involved in some secret, dark of the night
plan to grow the Civil Works program from $4.0 billion annually to $6.0
billion.
Dr. Westphal, the Post article leads one to believe that the Corps
of Engineers is out of control, running around without any oversight.
Do you believe this to be the case?
Dr. Westphal. No, Sir, I do not believe that the Corps of Engineers
is out of control. The Civil Works program receives oversight from my
office on a regular and continuing basis.
Question. Dr. Westphal, your response to the Post reporter on this
issue was, ``Oh my God. My God. I have no idea what you're talking
about. I don't believe this.'' Could you explain your response? How is
it possible that you could not know of such an effort if it were true?
Dr. Westphal. First, let my say that the Post reporter caught me by
surprise. I certainly knew that General Ballard and his staff had
undertaken an analysis of the Nation's water resource needs and an
evaluation of what the Corps could do to be more responsive to the
needs. I had not been briefed on the specifics of their analysis, which
I'm told was still in the formative stages at the time.
Question. General Ballard, please explain any plans you may have
underway to ``grow'' the Civil Works program. How would it be possible
to carryout such an undertaking to double the size of the Corps program
without the knowledge and approval of the Army, the Administration, and
the Congress?
General Ballard. First, let me state emphatically, growth in the
Civil Works program is only possible if the Congress appropriates the
funds. The ``growing'' the program referred to by the Washington Post
was an internal presentation to me and the members of my Board of
Directors aimed at generating discussion of National water resources
needs and what the Corps could do to satisfy these needs. It is
incumbent upon us in the Corps, as public servants, to lay out for the
Army, the Administration and the Congress our assessment of water
resources needs so that national decision makers can act in an informed
manner. And, as I pointed out in my statement, I believe there are
substantial needs that today are not being met.
Question. Dr. Westphal, both you and General Ballard have spoken
with me regarding the need to address serious and significant backlogs
in the operation and maintenance, and recreation programs. Is this part
of what the Post had in mind? What is the amount of authorized, but
unfunded work the Congress has approved for the Corps of engineers to
undertake?
Dr. Westphal. I am not sure just what the Washington Post reporter
had in mind, but the national needs that General Ballard and the Corps
staff have laid out include the growing maintenance backlog and the
seriously degraded recreation system. The backlog of deferred critical
maintenance on projects will rise to $450 million in fiscal year 2001.
These are a very important part of the water resources needs, along
with new requirements for navigation, flood damage prevention,
environmental restoration and enhancement, and others.
The total estimated Federal cost of completing unfinished projects
that Congress has authorized for construction by the Corps of Engineers
is about $37 billion. This amount includes $23 billion for projects
classified in the active category that are included in the fiscal year
2001 budget, $7 billion for projects classified in the active category
that are not included in the fiscal year 2001 budget, and $7 billion
for projects classified in the deferred or inactive category that are
also not included in the fiscal year 2001 budget.
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY
Question. Now with regard to the Upper Mississippi River Navigation
Study, the Washington Post and I believe, an employee of the Corps have
implied that certain Corps officials have inappropriately tried to
influence the outcome of this study. General Ballard, do you believe
this to be the case? Please explain.
General Ballard. No, Senator, I do not. I have the utmost
confidence in the professionalism and integrity of the members of the
Corps of Engineers--both Civilian and Military. I am confident that the
various investigations that have been launched to look into those
allegations will show to everyone's satisfaction that the Corps has
pursued this study properly and prudently. Having said that, I also
want to state that if the investigations should uncover any wrongdoing
by anybody in the Corps, I would not hesitate to take swift and
decisive corrective action.
Question. What actions have you taken to review this matter and
when can we expect to know the outcome of your review?
General Ballard. Actually, Senator, along those lines there have
been two significant internal events. For one, the headquarters has
completed its policy review of some of the study team's draft products.
Our review found that the District conducted the study in consonance
with the Principles and Guidelines. Nevertheless, additional
information and explanation are required. The complete findings were
provided to the Division for further action. This, by the way, is a
normal step in our process for a study of this size and complexity.
Additionally, due to the serious nature of the allegation of
wrongdoing in reference to one of our employees, I directed an internal
investigation in accordance with Army Regulation 15-6. The
investigation is complete and found no misconduct. I am willing to
provide you with the results of the investigation. There are also a
number of external investigations or reviews in progress. First, the
Office of Special Counsel (OSC) has requested that the Secretary of
Defense investigate the allegations and report his findings back to
OSC.
Second, the Surveys and Investigation Staff of the House Committee
on Appropriations has begun its investigation. We have met with them,
provided them information and documents they requested, and remain
committed to fully supporting them as they continue their
investigation.
Third, we have provided information requested by the Department of
the Army Inspector General in support of their investigation and are
scheduled to meet with them to answer any additional questions they may
have.
Finally, the Secretary of the Army has directed an independent
assessment of the economics of the study.
Question. As I understand, the major allegation is that Corps
officials directed changes to an economic model, thereby creating the
appearance of manipulating the process to gain a favorable benefit-cost
analysis. How do you answer this allegation?
General Ballard. The economic model that was developed for this
study appears to be a good one, and many notable economists have
applauded it. On the other hand, other economists differ with the
application of the model. Models are merely analytical tools. What is
of importance is the analytical methodology employed by a model and the
accuracy of the data that is fed into it. Apparently at the heart of
the controversy is a mathematical formula which is designed to predict
the likelihood, based on changes in the costs of shipping, that
shippers would change modes and destinations for shipments of given
commodities that could otherwise use the waterway. Specifically, there
is a term in the formula--often referred to as the ``N-value''--that
reflects the elasticity of demand for river-borne commerce for a given
commodity. To estimate this variable, assumptions must be made about
future demand for commodities that move on the waterway as well as
assumptions about alternative markets these commodities could move
into. While the Corps economist who developed the model has his own
ideas of what the ``N-value'' should be, other economists have
complained that his assessment of the ``N-value'' is incorrect. Various
examples for this divergence of opinions exist, but it appears to me
that the ``N-value'' is not really a constant number, but is rather a
function of many variables that are difficult to reliably predict for
the 50-year economic life of the project. I should note many of the
variables that determine N-values are also used in the commodity
forecast for the study. This uncertainty in our analytical process is
exactly why we require sensitivity analyses in our inland navigation
studies to better understand the effect the assumptions have on the
ultimate results. What has been averred as an attempt to manipulate the
model is really an attempt by the people who ultimately will have to
formulate the Corps recommendation to gain a better understanding of
its operation and how it responds to alternative assumptions. These
decision-makers must be sure that the model neither understates nor
overstates the economic effects--especially considering that these
effects are monetarily significant and will get compounded well into
the future. Before we can make any recommendations, we need to have a
firm grip on the sensitivity that the model will show toward the
various assumptions.
Question. Did anyone with the Corps of Engineers direct changes in
the economic model with the intent to inappropriately influence the
economic justification of the Upper Mississippi River Navigation Study?
General Ballard. I don't believe so, Senator. Let me explain the
reason for my confidence that such is the case. First I believe in the
professionalism and dedication of the Corps team. While my trust in my
own team is high, I am a realist enough to know that individuals can
and do make mistakes. My confidence is high even in this regard, in
that our process has a series of built in checks or ``safety nets''.
These include independent technical reviews, a minimum of two formal
public reviews, Washington level policy review, State and Agency
coordination requirements, and a final review by the Executive Branch
under Executive Order 12322. I note that, for the on-going study in
question, we are in the midst of preparing the feasibility report,
assimilating data, examining alternatives, and developing costs and
benefits. A draft feasibility report has not been completed, much less
undergone all of the aforementioned reviews. The allegations appear to
be based around what the Corps intends to recommend. The Corps'
recommendation is still almost a year away, and there is much outside
input to be gathered, analyzed and incorporated into the decision
making process.
Question. General Ballard, this is an interesting charge given the
fact that the study is not complete and, I believe, you have more than
a year to go before you expect to set forth your recommendations. Let
me ask this question: Has there ever been an occasion where the Corps
of Engineers has been told or ordered to change their recommendations
or outcome of a completed study with or without a Chief's report? Could
you give us the details of those instances, including who ordered the
change and the justification for making the changes?
General Ballard. Certainly not that I am aware of.
Question. What is the current status of the Upper Mississippi
Navigation Study? Has the Study's integrity been damaged to the point
that the nearly $54 million spent to date will have been wasted?
General Ballard. We are continuing with the study. The impacts of
the investigations or reviews should not appreciably affect the
schedule or usefulness of the study. I assure you that when all the
facts are in, the integrity of the Corps will be intact, and you will
know that the trust you have traditionally placed in the Corps is well
founded.
Question. What assurances can you give the Committee that the Study
can be completed in a way that results in an unbiased recommendation?
General Ballard. I assure you that it will be, and the process
guarantees that it will be.
CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS
Question. For the past several years the Committee has been
concerned with the growing use of credits and reimbursements as a way
to initiate and perform work on a project. The last estimate the
Committee has was that the Corps had executed agreements totaling over
$800 million and had another $500 million under negotiations. General
Ballard, have these estimates changed substantially over the past year?
General Ballard. The total of both executed and proposed credit and
reimbursement agreements has grown only slightly to about $1.4 billion.
We are closely monitoring the situation to identify projects that non-
Federal sponsors desire to construct in this manner.
Question. Gentlemen, do you see an increasing trend to use this
approach to funding projects, and does this concern you?
Dr. Westphal. There has been an increasing trend over the past few
years for non-Federal sponsors to use credit and reimbursement
agreements to undertake projects. We are concerned about the impacts
such activities may have on the Corps of Engineers construction
program.
Question. General Ballard, what impacts to the Civil Works program,
and the Corps of Engineers would result from allowing non-Federal
interests to perform work for credit or reimbursement or to advance
funds for projects to a greater degree?
General Ballard. If many non-Federal sponsors of large projects
elected to undertake their projects using credit or reimbursement
procedures, the funding requirement for such cases could consume a
large part of the Corps construction program. We are concerned about
the adverse impact such a scenario would have on our Districts. If the
Corps became predominantly a grant agency, it would erode our ability
to maintain a high level of technical expertise, in both our project
management and engineering roles.
Question. Congress enacted legislation in the Energy and Water Act
for fiscal year 2000 that placed limitations on the use of this type of
project financing. Have there been any problems implementing the
Congressional directions? Do you see any future issues or problems
complying with these limitations?
Dr. Westphal. To date, there have been no problems implementing the
Congressional directions. We do not foresee any problems with the
credit or reimbursement limitations through fiscal year 2001. However,
in fiscal year 2002 we estimate that local sponsors will seek credits
and reimbursements subject to section 102 of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act that exceed the $50 million limit. We
are working with the Office of Management and Budget to prioritize
proposed work that is subject to section 102 and monitor the credit and
reimbursement requirements so that we manage the program to not exceed
the section 102 limits on a per project or fiscal year basis.
RECREATION MODERNIZATION PROGRAM
Question. The budget request for fiscal year 2001 includes $27
million to initiate the Recreation Modernization Program. I believe
this is a new program with the objective of upgrading old, worn out and
obsolete recreation facilities managed by the Corps of Engineers.
Can you give the Committee some idea of the deteriorated conditions
at your recreation areas, and the level of annual visitation at your
facilities?
Dr. Westphal. Most of the facilities at Corps managed recreation
areas were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s. The combination of heavy
use, lack of routine maintenance, and changes in visitor needs has
caused significant deterioration of recreation facilities and the
natural resource base at many of our lakes. Deteriorated conditions
include antiquated facilities such as shower buildings, campsites, day
use areas, shelters and playgrounds that were built 30 years ago and
have been maintained with a ``Band-Aid'' maintenance program. These
facilities have barely been kept functional, with no funds available to
improve or replace as visitation has tripled and types of users have
evolved. Restrooms are not large enough to accommodate the numbers of
campers, and they have little or no ventilation, heat, or hot water.
Many campsites have been lost to erosion and compaction from over-use.
Electric service at Corps sites remains at 20 and 30 amps while the
industry standard is now 50 to 100 amps. Most of the Corps sites were
designed to accommodate tents and pop-ups trailers while most campers
today are using 30 to 45-foot units that can't drive through the
campgrounds, let alone fit on a campsite. Users today are asking for
full hook-ups to include water, electricity, sewer, cable, and even
Internet access, which the Corps 1960's vintage units are unable to
provide.
Question. How does visitation at Corps Facilities compare with
other Federal agencies?
Dr. Westphal. The Corps of Engineers is responsible for 4,340
recreation areas at 456 lakes in 42 states. These recreation areas host
380 million visitors annually. In terms of water-based recreation, the
Corps is the Nation's number one provider. The Corps is second in
overall visitation at 21 percent of the national total, with the Forest
Service being first at 48 percent. But, an important part of this
number is that the Corps manages only 2 percent of total Federal acres,
yet its visitation is greater than the National Park Service, Bureau of
Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of
Reclamation. One in ten Americans visits a Corps lake each year.
EXAMPLES OF PROPOSED WORK
Question. What types of problems will be addressed with this
funding?
Dr. Westphal. Generally, all of the inadequacies just mentioned
will be addressed. We will not only repair the broken and worn out
facilities, but will also modernize the facilities to meet the ``new
customers'' of this era.
More specifically, a good example would be recommended work at Pool
Knobs Recreation Area within the J. Percy Priest Lake project in
Tennessee. Reflecting the nature of current unacceptable conditions,
corrective measures at Pool Knobs Recreation Area will include: (a)
replacement of asbestos roof tiles with a new roof, (b) reworking 45
campsites to allow greater spur length and provide modern hookup zones
with less erosion, (c) providing some sites free of barriers to the
handicapped, (d) stabilizing the shoreline, (e) reworking entrance
registration and security measures and (f) renovating playground and
beach areas. The total estimated cost of the rehabilitation and
modernization is estimated at $660,000.
Other repairs and modernization recommendations common to many
other sites include: (a) replacement or updating of toilet/shower
buildings, (b) replacing deteriorating walks, steps and access ways,
(c) providing safe access walkways to restrooms, (d) updating water,
sewer, electric and phone utilities, (e) renovating the sanitary dump
stations, (f) replacing sand filters at water treatment plants, (g)
installing trash collection stations, sodding and seeding to stabilize
eroded and impacted zones, (h) improving access road systems and
parking areas to alleviate unsafe driving conditions and constant
congestion, (i) renovating severely deteriorated interior drainage, (j)
renovating boat launching areas, (k) enlarging picnic shelters and (l)
providing amphitheater, walking trail, fishing piers, fish cleaning
stations, bulletin boards and road signs.
FUNDING PRIORITIES AND SCHEDULE
Question. What is the level of the backlog of improvements needed?
Dr. Westphal. Of the 4,340 recreation areas at Corps projects
nationwide, the Corps manages 2,389 of them. Currently, 1,000 areas are
in need of modernization. The proposed five-year program will provide
for completion of 225 of those areas most in need of modernization at a
total estimated cost of $330 million.
Question. Does the Corps have a plan in place which identifies the
most critical work to be undertaken first?
Dr. Westphal. Each division, district, and field project stands
ready with prioritized lists of work needing to be done. Obviously,
their attention is drawn to those situations where public safety,
sanitation, overcrowding and environmental impacts are major factors.
Currently the Corps is are developing standards for facilities and
levels of service which will be used in a formal evaluation and
selection process to ensure the most efficient and effective use of
these funds. Of the recommendations submitted to the Corps
Headquarters, selection criteria for sites to be included in the first
year of implementation are as follows: (a) Addresses customer feedback/
needs. (b) Projects positive impact on fee collections. (c) Projects
positive impact on long term operation and maintenance. (d) Corrects
environmental shortfalls. (e) Takes advantage of consolidation
opportunities. (f) Provides accessibility for persons with
disabilities. (g) Executes plan, and potential/contractual tools exist
or can be developed to execute modernization activities quickly.
Question. Have you developed an annual funding profile through
completion? If so, please provide it for the record.
Dr. Westphal. Mr. Chairman, I will provide that information for the
record.
[The information follows:]
RECREATION MODERNIZATION FUNDING PROFILE
The proposed five-year program will provide for completion of 225
areas most in need of modernization, at a total estimated cost of $330
million. The proposed funding profile to complete the modernization
program, subject to change due to future budgetary decisions, is as
follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Fiscal year Estimate
2001.............................................................. 27
2002.............................................................. 63
2003.............................................................. 80
2004.............................................................. 80
2005.............................................................. 80
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM
Question. The budget request also proposed initial funding of $20
million for the Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard
Mitigation program. The Administration has been trying to get the
program funded over the past several years, but Congress provided
program authorization only last year. Can you describe the need for
this program?
Dr. Westphal. Despite all of our efforts to reduce flood damages,
there are still many communities susceptible to flood damage.
Recognizing the significant role of natural floodplains in ameliorating
flood peaks and thus damages, this program provides the opportunity to
take a more holistic approach to the problem. In particular, it is
hoped that in areas where relocation was not economically justified on
its own that in combination with ecosystem restoration, projects may be
implemented. It also provides a mechanism through which we hope to
achieve results in a somewhat shorter time frame than through the
traditional study and project authorization process.
Question. How will the funding requested for fiscal year 2001 be
utilized.
Dr. Westphal. The funding requested for fiscal year 2001 will
primarily be utilized for studies, however it is possible that some
projects may reach the design or even the construction phase during the
year.
Question. Are there specific projects to which the funding will be
allocated, if so, can you provide a list for the record which shows how
the proposed Finding will be allocated?
Dr. Westphal. Specific studies and projects to be funded have not
yet been identified. We are still working on the eligibility and
ranking criteria that will be used to select studies and projects for
participation in the program.
Question. The justification supporting the funding request for
fiscal year 2001 seems to limit consideration of these funds to non-
structural projects. Is this true, and, if so, why? Doesn't the program
authorization provide authorization of structural projects as well?
Dr. Westphal. While the justification supporting the funding
request failed to mention structural flood control, this was not meant
to imply that structural flood control features would be excluded from
consideration since as noted, the authorization does allow structural
projects. However, in accordance with the language of Section 212(b)(3)
we would expect the studies and projects to emphasize, to the maximum
extent practicable and appropriate, nonstructural approaches to
preventing or reducing flood damages.
Question. Will the program be managed similar to other Continuing
Authority Programs?
Dr. Westphal. With the full funding limit and requirement to notify
the committees and in some cases obtain a resolution prior to
implementation of these projects, the program management will likely be
something of a hybrid between the processes used for specifically
authorized projects and other Continuing Authority Programs.
Question. What are the Corps' plans to develop criteria and
procedures under which proposals will be selected?
Dr. Westphal. Corps staff is working with my staff to develop a
draft list of rating criteria that will be coordinated with state and
local agencies and tribes prior to submission to the committees.
Additionally the process of drafting policies and procedures for
implementing this program has been initiated and the Corps plans to
have them in place prior to receipt of program funding.
FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (FUSRAP)
Question. Bring the Committee up to date on the Corps progress in
cleaning up former sites under the FUSRAP program. How did your
performance compare to the work schedules planned for fiscal year 1999
and how are you progressing with work planned for fiscal year 2000?
General Ballard. Our overall execution of FUSRAP since October 1997
has been excellent. All of the $140 million appropriated, both in
fiscal year 1998 and in fiscal year 1999, was expended and over 80
percent of our expenditures in fiscal year 1999 were used for actual
remedial activities, including the removal, shipment and disposal off-
site of FUSRAP materials. In addition, the Corps completed remediation
at two sites during fiscal year 1999, the Ashland 2, Tonawanda, New
York site and the Bliss and Laughlin, Buffalo, New York site. At all
except two sites, scheduled work was completed with only minor schedule
adjustments. The two exceptions were the Painesville, Ohio and the
Ashland 2 sites. Remediation at the Painesville site was not completed
as scheduled due to increased quantities of material to be remediated.
We are now doing additional site characterization at Painesville and
preparing a revised cleanup plan. At Ashland 2, a substantial increase
in quantities of soil requiring remediation caused a delay in
completing remediation and in initiating remediation at the Ashland 1
site. This delay will not have a significant impact on the completion
schedule at Ashland 1.
Total program execution to date in fiscal year 2000 is well ahead
of work scheduled. Initiation of soils remediation at the Linde,
Tonawanda, New York site, under a Record of Decision (ROD) has been
delayed to permit the Corps to address concerns regarding the level of
cleanup that were raised by the state. The Linde ROD was signed in
March 2000. As a result of this delay in finalizing the ROD, we
anticipate there may be some minor delays in the remediation schedule
at Linde during fiscal year 2000. In addition, remediation of the
commercial/industrial properties at the Maywood, New Jersey site, which
was scheduled to be initiated in fiscal year 2000, has been delayed
while the Corps resolves issues pertaining to Nuclear Regulatory
Commission licensed storage pits at Maywood. Remediation of the
commercial/industrial properties is now scheduled for initiation in
fiscal year 2001. With funds available from the slippage at the Maywood
site, we will accelerate cleanup at other sites.
Question. How many sites are in the program? I believe you have
indicated that you could complete 16 sites by 2002, is that correct?
Does the budget request of $140 million support this schedule? If not,
please explain.
General Ballard. The Department of Energy (DOE) designated 46
FUSRAP sites. The DOE had completed remedial activities at 25 of these
sites at the time responsibility for executing FUSRAP was transferred
to the Corps in October 1997. Our testimony that the Corps could
complete 16 sites of the remaining 21 sites by 2002 was predicated on
receipt of an annual appropriation necessary for program execution at
an optimum level of effort. However, the funding actually provided in
the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act,
as well as the amount budgeted for fiscal year 2001 fall short of that
required to support an optimum schedule. As a result it is no longer
feasible to complete 16 sites by fiscal year 2002.
Question. What will it take to complete the remaining sites after
2002 and over what period of time? What is OMB's 5-year funding
projection for the FUSRAP program?
General Ballard. At current funding levels, with the remaining
requirement adjusted for anticipated cost growth but not adjusted for
items not previously included in the Corps cost estimates, such as
potential new sites referred to the Corps by the Department of Energy
(DOE), it is estimated it will take until 2010 to complete remedial
activities and require $1.2 billion. At current funding levels, without
factoring in the possible impact of potential new sites referred by
DOE, the Corps will complete 12 sites by 2002, and 4 additional sites
by 2007.
OMB's 5-year funding projection for FUSRAP provides $140 million
annually in new budget authority, adjusted for inflation starting with
fiscal year 2003. It also reflects estimated offsetting collections of
$10 million annually, adjusted for inflation starting in fiscal year
2003. The Corps has received and anticipates receiving $10 million
annually, fiscal year 1999-fiscal year 2001, offsetting collections
from the potentially responsible party (PRP) settlement negotiated with
the W.R. Grace Corporation for use at the Wayne, New Jersey site. While
the Corps continues with PRP activities at several FUSRAP sites, we
have no expectation that additional PRP funds will be available in
fiscal year 2002 or thereafter to supplement new budget authority. The
PRP process can be protracted, and its outcome uncertain.
Question. Why does the justification material continue to indicate
that schedules to complete site remediation are still being determined?
General Ballard. Out-year program ceilings had not been established
at the time the justification material was being prepared;
consequently, completion dates could not be determined.
Question. Do you expect any problems in turning the Ashland #2 site
to DOE for long term maintenance? Are there any issues in this regard
that the Committee should be aware of?
General Ballard. The Corps does not anticipate any problems in
turning the Ashland #2 site over to the Department of Energy for long
term maintenance. The Record of Decision (ROD) for Ashland 2 also
includes the Ashland 1 site and a small area within the boundaries of
the Seaway Landfill, Area D. The Corps will wait until the remediation
of Ashland 1 and Seaway D are completed before starting the 2-year
short term surveillance and maintenance clock at the Ashland 2 site.
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS PROCESS
Question. Public Law 106-60, the Energy and Water Development Act
for fiscal year 2000 directs that $5 million be used to fully implement
an administrative appeals process including a single level appeal of
jurisdictional determinations. Has this process been implemented as
directed? If not, why?
General Van Winkle. We expect to publish the final regulation by
the end of March. It will implement the full appeals process, including
appeal of jurisdictional determinations. We implemented the appeal of
permit denials in fiscal year 1999.
REGULATORY PROGRAM STUDIES
Question. The budget request for fiscal year 2001 includes an
increase of $3 million over fiscal year 2000 for further development of
specialized tools and studies to manage the aquatic environment in
sensitive areas. Can you be more specific in describing what these
tools and studies consist of and why they are needed? Also, how much
has been spent over the last several years in this area, and
specifically how the $3 million requested for fiscal year 2001 will be
allocated?
General Van Winkle. The Corps of Engineers has, for many years,
conducted studies of watersheds where they involved high-value aquatic
ecosystems and substantial pressure for development. These studies
include watershed studies, Special Area Management Plans, or SAMPs, and
similar efforts. Examples of substantial efforts include the SAMP for
the City of Anchorage, Alaska, conducted in the late 1980s; a SAMP for
wetlands west of Miami, called the Bird Drive Basin, completed in the
mid 1990s; and studies of the vernal pools in central California's
Santa Rosa Plain, conducted in the late 1990s. In each of these cases,
the Corps, in cooperation with State, local and Federal agencies,
studied the functions and values of aquatic ecosystems in the
geographic areas, then worked toward issuing regional general permits
for development in some of the moderate to lower value aquatic areas.
The higher value aquatic ecosystems can be identified, mapped, and
generally avoided or subjected to critical and comprehensive evaluation
by the Corps if development is proposed. The advantage of this approach
is that moderate to lower value aquatic ecosystems can be subjected to
streamlined authorization by regional general permits and mitigation to
improve degraded or lost portions of the aquatic ecosystems in
watershed areas.
The results of watershed studies allow more predictability for the
regulated public and better, more focused protection of the aquatic
environment. A substantial study will cost up to $1 million over
several years. A more modest effort may cost $20,000 to $100,000. Over
the last three years, we estimate that the total amount spent on these
kinds of studies averaged less than $1 million per year, primarily due
to funding limitations. A number of our districts have a need for these
kind of studies in fiscal year 2001. However, due to the projected
workload impacts of the replacement nationwide permits, we will have to
do some careful prioritizing of program requirements. We may have to
reprogram funds from these studies, as well as from other areas of the
program, to handle the increase in individual permit applications.
Question. The budget justification implies that these studies help
reduce the workload for the Corps and reduce duplication for the
regulated public. Specifically, how do these studies accomplish this
outcome?
General Van Winkle. Watershed-type studies provide more
predictability for the regulated public by identifying the portions of
the aquatic environment that have higher aquatic functions and values,
as well as those with lower aquatic functions and values. Someone in
the regulated community can make more informed decisions about future
development by knowing the geographic areas in which the Corps will
have greater concerns for impacts to the aquatic environment. The
studies ultimately reduce Corps workload in the Regulatory Program by
streamlining regulation in the area studied. Specifically, the Corps
issues regional general permits for development in lower-value aquatic
environment. These regional general permits typically specify
mitigation measures that will help improve the watershed over time.
Therefore, the process is expedited because general permits require
less evaluation to authorize activities and mitigation measures are
already identified.
COMPREHENSIVE RIVER BASIN STUDIES
Question. The budget request for fiscal year 2001 includes funding
to initiate four new comprehensive river basin studies. It is estimated
that the studies will take 4 years and $2 million to complete. These
studies, as I understand, are interagency efforts to address a host of
water resource needs and issues in a particular river basin.
Why are you requesting funding for comprehensive basins studies?
Given the large and diverse interests in some of these river basins,
how will you control the process so that one or a small group of
interests don't inappropriately impact the outcome and pace of the
study effort?
Dr. Westphal. In an effort to be responsive to the national needs,
the Corps is broadening the scope of Civil Works planning to address
watershed issues and comprehensive impacts of multiple development
decisions. These studies will address not only impacts of particular
infrastructure projects, but also the impacts of permit decisions and
non-Federal development plans. The other Federal agencies and state and
local agencies involved would provide in-kind services to finance their
own participation in the study. By calling on the expertise of
interested Federal, state and local agencies to participate in these
river basin studies, we will create a synergistic process through which
the Army Civil Works program can make a major contribution. Study costs
and schedules will be controlled using the recently developed Corps of
Engineers automation and management procedures. We will leverage the
responsibilities of the respective participants for the future benefit
of the region and the wise use, development, preservation and
conservation of the water and related land resources.
Question. In your view, what are the benefits to undertaking a
comprehensive basin study? What criteria were used in selection the
four basin studies included in the fiscal year 2001 budget request?
Dr. Westphal. We are now enjoying the economic benefits reaped from
the wisdom and foresight of our predecessors who provided a strong
federal role in national water resources development and management.
Future generations will rely on our vision to maintain and improve the
quality of life for them. Initiating studies of water resources needs
for river basins or regions of the United States signals a return to
proactive participation to address the future needs of the Nation. The
difficult selection of these studies was based upon the existence of
authorizations, the complexity of the watershed challenges, and the
overall strength of the case presented in the new start justification
sheets.
Question. Now, your budget indicates that these studies are
expected to cost $2 million. My experience is that these types of
studies take a long time and cost much more than the $2 million dollar
Federal cost put forth in your budget justification. How confident are
you that these studies can be completed for $2 million?
Dr. Westphal. Mr. Chairman, we do not intend these to be replicas
of the long, drawn-out watershed studies of the past. Our proposal is
to engage with States, local entities and other Federal agencies to
take a watershed-based look at the complex interrelationship of the
problems and opportunities for resource development and restorations.
These studies are not intended to be decision documents in themselves.
However, we fully expect comprehensive basin studies to identify
numerous water resource problems and opportunities. If these turn out
to be appropriate projects for the Civil Works program, the Corps would
propose in-depth studies through our normal cost-shared feasibility
process.
RIO GRANDE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE STUDY
Question. Specifically, as it relates to the Rio Grande River Basin
Comprehensive Study, how will the Corps of Engineers be able to manage
the study schedule given the diverse interests in the basin which runs
from Colorado into Mexico?
Dr. Westphal. In cooperation with our local sponsors, the Corps
will integrate the concerns of the various basin interests in a
comprehensive study scope and apply Corps project management procedures
to the ultimate benefit of all stakeholders. Communication and
coordination will be key. In addition to an intensive public outreach
program, the Corps will conduct periodic focus group sessions with
local agencies, non-governmental interests and the general public
including our local sponsor and other interests on the multidisciplined
study team.
Question. What is the objective of the Rio Grande River Basin
Comprehensive study?
Dr. Westphal. The objective of the Rio Grande Comprehensive Study,
in cooperation with others, is to evaluate current conditions and make
recommendations for improving water management on the Rio Grande in
order to improve environmental quality, prevent flooding, and protect
the water deliveries required by the Rio Grande Compact and
international treaty obligations.
Question. Does the State of New Mexico support this effort?
Dr. Westphal. Yes, the Corps is currently engaged in dialogue with
the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission concerning their
involvement in this study as the local cost sharing sponsor.
Question. Your budget justification indicates that the Study will
be closely coordinated by the Consortium of the Rio Grande in
accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement signed with federal
agencies and the CoRio as part of the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative. Who makes up the Consortium of the Rio Grande?
Dr. Westphal. Members include Federal and local interests who have
chosen to work cooperatively based upon the designation of the Rio
Grande as an American Heritage River.
Question. Who are the signatories of the Memorandum of Agreement?
Dr. Westphal. The following are signatories of the Memorandum of
Agreement: Ty Fain, General Secretary of the Consortium of the Rio
Grande, Inc.; Representative Silvestre Reyes; Representative Ciro
Rodriguez; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. Department of
Agriculture; U.S. Department of Commerce; Environmental Protection
Agency; Housing and Urban Development; U.S. Department of Interior;
NASA; Department of Health and Human Services; Department of Energy;
U.S. Department of Education; International Boundary and Water
Commission; Mayor of El Paso; and Mayor of Laredo; Mayor of
Brownsville.
Question. Was this Agreement coordinated with the State of New
Mexico?
Dr. Westphal. I have been informed the Agreement was not
coordinated with the State of New Mexico.
Question. I understand that the Study is to be cost shared on a 75
percent Federal-25 non-Federal basis. Have any of the state of
Colorado, Texas or New Mexico agreed to share the Study cost?
Dr. Westphal. To date, the Corps has not received a commitment from
any of the states to cost share this study. However, the Corps has been
working with the State of New Mexico to establish its support.
Question. Given the fact that a non-Federal cost share will be
required, how does the Corps of Engineers plan to control and limit the
costs of this effort?
Dr. Westphal. The Corps is currently working with the State of New
Mexico to develop a scope of activities and a funding schedule which
will more clearly define the criteria on which decisions are made
within existing agreements such as Rio Grande Compact and international
treaty requirements.
Question. Is it the Corps of Engineers' position that no additional
work should be undertaken in the basin until this comprehensive study
is completed?
Dr. Westphal. No, Sir. Though we see the need for a comprehensive
approach to Rio Grande watershed management, there are critical ongoing
studies and projects which should proceed.
Question. What assurances can you give that this study will not
adversely impact New Mexico water law, and the State's entitlement and
use of Rio Grande River water?
Dr. Westphal. Mr. Chairman, we are extremely sensitive to the issue
of state water law. I understand the Interstate Stream Commission, as
the most probable local sponsor of studies under this authority within
the State of New Mexico, would be interested in using this study to
develop data and analyses which would assure adherence with New Mexico
water law. Furthermore, the Army remains, as always, committed to
supporting and preserving all provisions of the Rio Grande Compact.
Question. Why shouldn't New Mexico evaluate the competing needs for
water within New Mexico instead of submitting to this international,
multi-national effort?
Dr. Westphal. There are some very complex issues in this area.
Diverse intrastate interests will influence the study direction
significantly. However, those interests simultaneously recognize the
need to mesh local concerns with interstate and international
agreements. Addressing local needs in the larger forum will provide New
Mexico additional opportunities to articulate the state's water
requirements.
ESPANOLA VALLEY, RIO GRANDE AND TRIBUTARIES STUDY
Question. Funding was added to the fiscal year 2000 budget based on
the City of Espanola expressing support for resumption of the Study and
its willingness to cost share the feasibility phase studies on a 50-50
basis. Do you expect any problems with the City providing its cost
share as was the case in past years?
General Ballard. The problem in past years was not funding but the
inability of the City and Santa Clara Pueblo agreeing on the use of the
necessary right-of-way for the project. However, now there is a concern
that the City will be unable to provide funding to cost share the
study. Previous assistance from the State may no longer be available.
Question. I note that the budget justification shows only $24,000
remaining after fiscal year 2001 to complete the feasibility stage of
the study. Does the Corps have the capability to complete this work in
fiscal year 2001?
General Ballard. The budget request of $50,000 in fiscal year 2001
and a follow-on funding of $24,000 in fiscal year 2002 reflects a basic
level of effort due to the uncertainty of not executing the Feasibility
Cost Sharing Agreement as scheduled. The Corps does not have the
capability to complete this study in fiscal year 2001. The study will
be a multi-year effort based on sponsor requested changes since the
completion of the 1995 draft feasibility report.
Question. If so how much would be needed?
General Ballard. If the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement is
executed as scheduled in fiscal year 2000, it is estimated that funds
of $200,000 could be used to continue the feasibility study in fiscal
year 2001.
ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Question. As you are aware, there have been problems in the past in
developing and finalizing cost sharing agreements of the Acequias
Irrigation System project. Have the cost sharing agreement problems
been resolved?
General Ballard. Yes, Sir. The State of New Mexico has established
a new procedure to resolve these problems by prioritizing projects for
rehabilitation. This enables the State to select and prioritize
qualified participants early in the process and avoid delay during
project implementation.
Question. Are there any issues and problems with the State or other
non-Federal entity providing their portion of the non-Federal cost?
General Ballard. State legislation was proposed in fiscal year 2001
limiting annual state expenditures per project to $250,000. This would
jeopardize local funding for larger projects and lengthen construction
duration. Although the bill was not enacted, further discussion is
expected in the upcoming special session of the State legislature.
Question. What is the Corps capability on the project in fiscal
year 2001?
General Ballard. The Corps capability of $900,000 is the same as
our budget request.
ALAMOGORDO FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM
Question. The budget request includes $3 million to continue work
on the Alamogordo flood control project in New Mexico. Why doesn't the
budget justification show an estimated completion date to the project?
General Ballard. Completion dates were listed as ``being
determined'' because program ceilings beyond fiscal year 2001 were not
available when justification materials were finalized. Because of this,
outyear schedules could not be established in time to be reflected in
the budget justifications, although the schedules are now available.
Question. Has the completion schedule changed from the date
anticipated by the appropriation for fiscal year 2000 and, if so, why?
General Ballard. The completion schedule of September 2009 is the
same as presented to Congress last year.
Question. What is the Corps capability to continue construction in
fiscal year 2001?
General Ballard. The Corps capability for fiscal year 2001 is $3
million, the same as the budget request.
LAS CRUCES
Question. The budget request for fiscal year 2000 included $2.4
million to complete the Las Cruces, New Mexico flood control project.
Yet I note that the budget request for fiscal year 2001 includes an
additional $2.841 million to again complete the project. Why won't the
project be completed as scheduled?
General Ballard. Additional time was required for acquisition of
real estate and to incorporate design changes requested by the City of
Las Cruces. Construction is now underway, but due to the delay, surplus
funds were reprogrammed from the project.
Question. Do you expect any cost increases or other problems that
would prevent you from completing the project in fiscal year 2001?
General Ballard. No, Sir.
rio grande floodway, san acacia to bosque del apache unit
Question. Can you explain why the effort on the Rio Grande
Floodway, San Acacia to Bosque del Apache project continues at such a
low level, particularly when construction was initiated in fiscal year
1992?
General Ballard. There are many diverse and competing interests for
water in this area. Meeting our local sponsor's requirements while
addressing various concerns from other interests has impacted design of
the recommended plan. The listing of two new endangered species has
also given rise to environmental issues not considered during project
formulation.
Question. What is the 5-year budget profile for this project?
General Ballard. The 5-year program, subject to change as a result
of future budget decisions, is listed below:
Fiscal year
2001...................................................... $600,000
2002...................................................... 4,500,000
2003...................................................... 8,300,000
2004...................................................... 7,000,000
2005...................................................... 5,600,000
Question. What is the Corps fiscal year 2001 construction
capability?
General Ballard. Although our fiscal year 2001 capability is
$600,000, the same as the budget request, physical construction would
not be initiated until project issues have been resolved.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
CORPS OF ENGINEERS FINANCE CENTER
Question. Mr. Secretary, would you please explain the proposed
capitalization of the Corps of Engineers Finance Center by the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service and the impact that it would have on the
Corps and it contractors?
Answer. DFAS has proposed to capitalize the operating finance &
accounting functions performed by the Corps of Engineers Finance Center
(UFC) in Millington, Tennessee, on June 30, 2000, as one of the final
actions under Defense Management Review Directive 910. With the
capitalization, DFAS would assume all finance and accounting operation
functions including disbursements performed by the UFC. Under this
scenario, the UFC would become a DFAS operating location (OPLOC)
reporting to DFAS, Indianapolis.
The Army has worked closely with DFAS to review the savings already
achieved by the Corps in its consolidation of its nationwide financial
actions into the UFC and to identify any additional savings that might
be realized by capitalizing the UFC into DFAS. The Army has noted to
DFAS the unique nature of the Corps Civil Works and Support for Others
financial actions and has expressed concerns about potential impacts on
accuracy, timeliness and integrity of the financial data and timeliness
of payments to contractors.
Question. Would it have any impact on the Corps' ability to respond
to emergencies?
Answer. The Army and DFAS would make certain before any such
capitalization occurs that the Corps emergency response capability,
specifically the ability to procure/contract for goods and services
very rapidly and to pay for those goods and services upon receipt,
would not be compromised.
Question. What impact could it have on the current workforce and
service?
Answer. There are about 300 hundred Corps of Engineers employees
currently performing the functions which would be capitalized. These
positions would become part of DFAS. Any future actions affecting these
positions would be within the purview of DFAS, rather than the Corps.
Question. How would the proposal impact local sponsors, which cost
share most Corps projects?
Answer. The Army has expressed to DFAS concerns that such a
capitalization has the potential to increase costs, which would affect
non-Federal sponsors as well as the Federal Government.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Slade Gorton
TIMEFRAME FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Question. Two weeks ago I met with General Carl Strock in my office
regarding the status of the Corps' EIS. He advised at that time that
the Corps may be issuing a (preferred alternative( on whether to breach
the Snake River dams this fall. Can you specify a more precise
timeframe as to when the Corps intends to release this information, and
whether the public will have an opportunity to comment on it before it
becomes final? What additional information, if any, will the Corps
incorporate into its final decision?
Dr. Westphal. There are a number of factors that make it difficult
to precisely determine when the Corps will identify a Preferred
Alternative. For example, the Corps must analyze all the comments
received during the public review period. Therefore, the schedule is a
function of the number and the complexity of the comments. To date we
have received over 40,000 comments and we fully expect that the final
number will be in the range of 100,000. We have granted the requested
30 day extension of the public comment period until April 30. This will
delay completion of the Final EIS. Additionally, the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) is expected to release a Biological Opinion
for the operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System this
summer, which could significantly effect future actions for the lower
Snake River dams. Although we considered preparing a Revised Draft
Environmental Impact Statement with a preferred alternative, the
current plan is to proceed directly to a Final EIS unless new
information is received that would dictate otherwise. In either event,
the public will have an opportunity to review the proposed federal
action before a Record of Decision is prepared. It is anticipated that
the document will be available for public review late this fall.
It is our intent to use the best available information. New
information arising from public and agency comments will be used in our
decision process.
SNAKE RIVER PREDICTED CHINOOK RUNS VS. COLUMBIA RIVER
Question. Can you provide an estimate as to whether the natural
runs for spring and summer chinook salmon in the Snake River will
increase or decrease this year? How will the Snake River salmon runs
compare this year to the runs on the Columbia? If the runs on the Snake
River are improved from last year, will this new information be
factored in on any additional feasibility studies?
Dr. Westphal. The spring and summer chinook salmon adult returns to
both the Snake and Columbia rivers are expected to be higher this year
than in 1999. That includes both the hatchery and naturally-produced
fish. All available scientific information will be factored into the
feasibility studies; however, I must caution that the Summer of 2000
adult returns are only estimates at this time, based on the jack
returns in 1999, and subject to revision as the runs progress. Jacks
are juvenile salmon that return a year early and serve as a predictor
of the returns for the following year. There are natural fluctuations
in salmon returns from year to year. Despite the encouraging returns
for 2000, the National Marine Fisheries Service's modeling analyses
(CRI) show that long term population trends indicate a decline for
these salmon stocks.
COMPARISON TO UPPER SNAKE RIVER DAMS
Question. Your draft EIS states that you have a very high rate of
survival for juvenile and adult salmon through all four of the Snake
River projects. I am assuming that some of this success may be
attributed to the fish passage improvements at Ice Harbor, Lower
Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite Dams over the past few
years. Isn't it true that no fall chinook may pass through on any of
the dams further upstream on the Snake River because they have no such
improvements?
Dr. Westphal. That is correct. The Hells Canyon Project, which is
the next complex of dams on the Snake River above Lower Granite
Project, is made up of three dams: Hells Canyon, Oxbow and Brownlee.
These projects, owned by Idaho Power Company, do not include passage
facilities for either adult or juvenile salmon. All salmon and
steelhead runs into Idaho above the Hells Canyon complex have been
eliminated.
DELAYED MORTALITY OF SALMON THROUGH DAMS
Question. Will any additional scientific data be used in a final
Corps EIS to explain the delayed mortality of salmon, which the Corps
acknowledges in its draft EIS? Which agencies will the Corps be
coordinating with to get this information?
Dr. Westphal. The Corps has relied, and will continue to rely, on
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as the Federal biologist
on anadromous fish issues. The short answer to your question is no. We
do not anticipate that there will be additional scientific data
available for the Final EIS on delayed mortality. NMFS has indicated
that ``. . . the extent to which transported fish suffer differential
delayed mortality is a crucial question because the answer strongly
influences the possible advantage to be accrued by dam drawdown
[breaching]. Ongoing direct experiments that contrast the return rates
of tagged fish that pass through the hydrosystem versus the return
rates of transported fish can resolve this question in a clear and
unambiguous manner. It will, however, require several years to obtain
sufficient data because sample sizes of recaptured returning fish are
typically low, the magnitude of differential delayed transportation
mortality may vary with climate, and measurements from only a few years
may fail to capture extreme values that could have important ecological
effects.''
CASPIAN TERNS
Question. The Corps issued an Environmental Assessment in January,
which reveals that some 1,200 terns were moved from Rice Island, and
about 77 percent of the salmon population in that area was recovered.
We understand that the Corps has an even more aggressive plan to remove
terns this year. Will this information be incorporated into the Corps'
final EIS?
Dr. Westphal. The Portland District is proceeding with the Caspian
Tern fiscal year 2000 Management Plan, which includes preventing
Caspian Terns from nesting on Rice Island, Miller Sands Spit and Pillar
Rock for the 2000 nesting season. Last year, 8,100 pairs nested on Rice
Island while 1,400 pairs nested on prepared habitat on East Sand
Island. Research indicated that in 1998 the Caspian Tern colony on Rice
Island consumed between 7.7 percent (7.4 million) to 15.8 percent (10.8
million) of the estimated 96.6 million salmonid smolts that reached the
Columbia River estuary. The best estimate of smolts consumed by the
terns is 11.2 percent (10.8 million).
Analysis of Caspian Tern diets from the 1999 pilot project
indicates that the consumption of salmonids by terns nesting at East
Sand Island was 44 percent of their diet versus 75 percent of that of
terns continuing to nest at Rice Island. Consequently, we expect that
the avian management actions to be implemented this year will result in
a significant reduction in juvenile salmonid loss due to bird
predation. We are looking to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
describe a long-term management plan for the terns with the hope that
areas outside the Columbia River estuary can be found for the bird
colony.
We will continue to look at and include any new scientific
information on bird predation that could affect study results in the
final EIS. That includes the effect of predation on the juvenile fish
and actions that could reduce predation.
OCEAN CLIMATE CHANGES & EIS
Question. Why hasn't the Corps incorporated information regarding
the impact of ocean climate changes on the decline of salmon runs in
its EIS? Are there any plans to use research in a final EIS?
Dr. Westphal. The Draft EIS does contain information on the ocean
and climatic effects on salmon and steelhead. This information is
referred to in a number of locations throughout the report, with the
lengthiest discussion starting on page 5.4-62 and in Appendix A. As the
primary study objective is to improve migration conditions through the
lower Snake River, the study does not seek to develop a life-cycle
recovery plan.
If more detailed information becomes available on ocean conditions
and how it effects salmon populations, we will incorporate it into our
Final EIS. The CRI analysis suggests ``. . . survival of adults in the
ocean is a key life history stage. Unfortunately, ocean conditions are
little more than a black box for all salmonids, and there is a need for
long-term research focused on the relationship between ocean conditions
and salmonid population dynamics. This research will not help inform
decisions over the next few years, but could help place population
fluctuations in a broader context over the long term. So management
actions might better respond to those threats that are best mitigation
by non-ocean actions.'' Research efforts have recently begun on ocean
conditions.
JOHN DAY DRAWDOWN STUDY
Question. I am concerned reports that the Oregon State Fish and
Wildlife department may be questioning your analysis on the John Day
Drawdown study, and is pressing the Corps to pursue further study of
this issue. I do not believe that further study is warranted, nor will
it lead to any additional information that will positively impact. Can
you explain the Corps' position on the John Day drawdown and when we
can expect a final decision?
General Ballard. As you know, the draft John Day report is out for
public and agency review. Our preliminary recommendation is that no
further study is required to allow Congress and the Region to make a
decision regarding drawdown of the John Day reservoir or removal of the
John Day Dam. We will evaluate all comments received during the review
period, due to close on May 1, 2000, including those from the State of
Oregon, before making our final recommendation to Congress.
We fully understand that diverse views regarding further study are
prevalent throughout the region. Let me assure you that the Corps of
Engineers will base its recommendation on the best science available.
We anticipate completion of the Phase I report this summer. Our final
recommendation to Congress will be made in late September of this year.
COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL DEEPENING
Question. As you know, I have strongly supported deepening the
Columbia River navigation channel from 40 to 43 feet. It will enable
the newer generation of cargo ships with their deeper drafts to serve
the Columbia/Snake River system. Sustaining that service will allow
thousands of businesses, farms, and ranches to continue to compete
successfully in the world marketplace.
The Corps of Engineers issued a favorable Chief's Report on the
project in late December, so it is fully authorized. Pre-construction
Engineering and Design and land acquisition are underway and will be
completed during fiscal year 2001. Some environmental features of the
project, which are very important to its success in my part of the
country, will be ready for construction in fiscal year 2000.
Unfortunately, because the Chief's Report was completed so late in
the budget preparation cycle, construction funds for the Columbia River
project could not be included in the President's budget request.
However, if Congress were to appropriate a small amount of construction
funds [$4 million] for fiscal year 2001, would be Corps be capable of
beginning construction of these environmental features during fiscal
year 2001?
General Ballard. Yes, subject to the usual qualifications, the
Corps of Engineers would be capable of initiating part of the
environmental restoration component of the Columbia River Channel
Improvements Project. This capability is dependent, however, upon the
non-Federal sponsor's execution of their plan to acquire the lands
necessary for construction.
Question. In addition, the National Marine Fisheries Service
included a requirement that the Corps and local sponsors secure and
improve 5,000 acres in the estuarian habitat as mitigation for the
deepening project. What steps is the Corps taking to meet this
requirement?
General Ballard. The Biological Opinion for the Columbia River
Channel Deepening project clearly states in the terms and conditions
that the Corps will, ``as part of the Corps' ecosystem restoration
mission and responsibility under separate authority, independent of the
Channel Improvements Project, expedite the attainment of the objectives
of the Lower Columbia River Estuary Program by restoring 1,500 acres of
tidal wetlands by 2005, and 3,000 acres between 2005 and 2010, subject
to Congressional authority and appropriation''. Fiscal year 2002 funds
for a new General Investigation (GI) study would be needed in order to
fulfill this term and condition. This GI study would specifically
address environmental restoration in support of the Lower Columbia
Estuary Program. The restoration of habitat is not considered part of
``mitigation for the deepening project''.
Question. Although some mitigation measures were included in the
Chief's Report, the number of acres involved will not meet the
requirements established by NMFS. In what ways can the Corps use other
authorities to work with the local sponsors to provide the habitat
improvements required by NMFS?
General Ballard. The items included in the Chief's report include
mitigation for impacts due to upland disposal impacts to wildlife. The
items referred to in the Biological Opinion's terms and conditions
relate to restoration actions. This is an important distinction. The
Biological Opinion states that the Corps will, ``as part of the Corps
ecosystem restoration mission and responsibility under separate
authority, independent of the Channel Improvement Project, expedite the
attainment of the objectives of the Lower Columbia River Estuary
Program by restoring 1,500 acres of tidal wetlands by 2005 and 3,000
acres between 2005 and 2010, subject to congressional authority and
appropriation.'' The Corps intends to use a future General
Investigation Study as a vehicle for evaluating and seeking authority
to provide the habitat restoration. We will also use Section 1135,
Project Modifications for Improvements to the Environment and Section
206, Aquatic Restoration, both part of our Continuing Authorities
Program, for habitat restoration.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid
Question. Dr. Westphal, I sense a growing concern in this country
regarding the state of our environmental infrastructure, that is, our
water supply and distribution systems and sewage collection and
treatment systems. We've correctly determined that much more needs to
be done in the future to assure these systems are as modern and
functional as possible, but our traditional process of assigning
responsibility for this work mostly at the local government level, and
our mechanisms for financing needed improvements have been found
wanting. The Federal Government has imposed increasingly strict
requirements on water supplies and discharges, realizing that water
problems affect all of us, not just those within a given local
political jurisdiction where a discharge, for example, might occur.
These new standards are imposing great demands, however, on local
governments. The demands are especially difficult for poor rural
areas--and poor urban areas for that matter. Congress has taken a few
steps in the right direction in recent Water Resources Development Acts
by creating an opportunity for the Corps to bring its expertise to bear
on the problem. I'm particularly interested in one of these provisions
for rural Nevada and Montana contained in Section 595 of WRDA 99, but
there are a host of others as well across the country, indicating to me
that many of my colleagues have similar concerns. Despite your growing
authorities to address these problems, you have not as yet budgeted for
any of them. Why not? Don't you believe these needs are important?
Answer. Answered at hearing P. 36 LINE 22.
Question. Did you recommend to OMB that work under these
authorities be funded?
Dr. Westphal. I recommended to OMB that several environmental
infrastructure projects for which Congress had previously appropriated
funds be included in the President's budget. My recommendation did not
include work authorized by section 595 because I believed that ongoing
activities had a better chance of being budgeted.
Question. General Ballard, does the Corps have the capability and
expertise to address these problems?
General Ballard. Yes, we do.
EVERGLADES RESTORATION
Question. Dr. Westphal, The administration has placed a great deal
on emphasis on restoration of the Florida Everglades. I too am in favor
of this extensive environmental restoration. However, I am concerned
about the cost and the potential impacts to other worthy projects
within the Corps' annual budget. It is important to the Congress that
the Corps' budget balance all of the various water resources needs of
the nation. The extent of the financial commitment for the Everglades
will put a tremendous strain on this balanced approach without
significant increases in the Corps' budget in coming years. Dr.
Westphal, Is the administration making provisions in the outyears to
increase the Corps' budget targets to account for the tremendous
increases necessary to fund the Everglades restoration?
Dr. Westphal. OMB's outyear projections for the Army Corps of
Engineers and other agencies illustrate funding levels that would
maintain roughly a constant level of total spending in real terms. The
outyear levels do not represent a particular level of funding in any
future year. We would expect the next Administration to consider an
appropriate balance of funding for Everglades restoration and other
worthy Corps projects and activities when it establishes budget targets
for the Corps of Engineers.
Question. General Ballard, This tremendous amount of new work in
Florida is likely to strain your staffing resources in the area.
Assuming this work is funded at anticipated levels, how will the Corps
undertake this additional work within current staffing levels?
General Ballard. We believe we should be able to accommodate the
Everglades work within the overall Corps FTE allocation using a
combination of Corps FTE personnel and Architect/Engineering contracts.
SHORE PROTECTION
Question. Dr. Westphal, Shore Protection projects, with very few
exceptions, are conspicuously absent from the President's budget again
this year. Congress, at the urging of the Administration, modified the
cost sharing provisions for shore protection projects in WRDA 99. By
making these changes, we expected some movement within the
Administration to budget for these vital projects. Why has the
Administration refused to budget for these projects despite the
concessions by Congress on cost sharing issues?
Dr. Westphal. The fiscal year 2001 budget includes $55 million for
shore protection projects, a $21 million (62 percent) increase over
funding requested for these projects in the fiscal year 2000 budget.
Although the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 increased the cost
sharing for shore protection, the Administration's policy on shore
protection projects remains unchanged from prior years, because the
revision included by Congress did not go far enough in changing the
cost sharing for periodic nourishment. The Administration proposed
increasing the non-Federal share of periodic nourishment from 35
percent to 65 percent. WRDA 1999 increased the non-Federal cost share
to 50 percent for shore protection projects for which a feasibility
study is completed or for which the project is authorized after 31
December 1999. Thus the non-Federal cost share falls short of the level
the Administration had desired and a great many projects would be
totally exempted from the new cost sharing. I look forward to
continuing to work with congress to reach agreement on this issue in
the next Water Resources Development Act.
Question. Did you advocate to OMB that these projects should be
budgeted?
Dr. Westphal. Yes, I supported funding each of these projects at
the level recommended by our Divisions.
Question. Shoreside communities contribute billions of dollars to
our national economy. These projects provide protection for these
communities as well as providing recreation for the citizens of this
country. Doesn't the Administration feel that jobs and tax dollars
generated in these communities are worth preserving?
Dr. Westphal. Yes, however the Administration also believes that,
in most instances, these communities can use some of the funds they
generate to finance the shore protection they need. It is for this
reason that the Administration is seeking higher cost sharing from the
non-Federal sponsors for shore protection.
REGULATORY PROGRAM
Question. General Ballard, the Corps has recently proposed new
wetland rules. In the past, I have been concerned over the length of
time involved in securing Corps' permits. These new wetland rules will
increase your workload tremendously. A comparison of your proposed
Regulatory Program shows that you received $106 million in fiscal year
1999, $117 million in fiscal year 2000 and are requesting $125 million
in fiscal year 2001. An increase of only $8 million for fiscal year
2001 does not seem adequate for the increase in workload that these new
rules are likely to generate. Is your staff and budget adequate to
respond to all of these new permit requests in a timely manner?
General Ballard. The fiscal year 2001 budget request was not
developed to reflect workload generated by the nationwide permit
changes since the request predates completion of our study of the
nationwide impacts. However, we do anticipate that the fiscal year 2001
funding request increase, if approved, would partially address the
individual permit workload but would not be adequate to maintain our
current performance levels.
CONSTRUCTION BACKLOG
Question. Dr. Westphal, estimates range from $30 to $45 billion in
backlogged water resources needs in this country. An administration
budget of $4 billion is inadequate to fund these great needs. Congress
has generally increased the budget somewhat in order to try to fund
some of these needs, however, the Congress cannot increase the Corps'
budget to the levels needed without some leadership from the
Administration. As the senior Administration advocate for the Corps,
how are you actively seeking to increase the Corps' share of the
Federal dollar?
Dr. Westphal. I have actively worked within the Administration to
educate others on the magnitude of water resources needs and their
importance to the well being of the Nation. As you know there are many
competing interests for the Federal dollar. The Administration's fiscal
year 2001 budget request strongly supports investments in water
resources, including $78 million for 14 new construction starts, $27
million for recreation modernization, and $20 million for the newly
authorized Challenge 21 program. In fact, the Administration's fiscal
year 2001 budget request of $4.064 billion is virtually equivalent to
Congress' fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $4.113 billion. As long as
I am Assistant Secretary, I intend to continue advocating greater
priority for Civil Works funding to better address the Nation's water
resources needs.
HARBOR SERVICES FUND AND FEE
Question. Dr. Westphal, the Committee is aware that the Supreme
Court ruled a portion of the Harbor Maintenance Tax as
unconstitutional. The Administration has proposed a Harbor Services
Fund and Fee as a replacement for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and
Tax. What other options did the Administration consider in lieu of this
fee?
Doctor Westphal. The Administration worked to develop a proposal
that was economically and constitutionally supportable. Chiefly due to
the Supreme Court decision and the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT) concerns of some of our international trading partners, no
other options were determined to be viable. The tax has been challenged
by the European Union in the World Trade Organization as a violation of
GATT. If the European Union ultimately prevails in a case, the tax
would most likely have to be repealed in order to avoid damages. If
Congress does not replace it with another financing mechanism, one that
can withstand constitutional tests, then work programmed for port
improvements and maintenance will have much stiffer competition from
appropriations from other Federal programs and activities. A
constrained budget will not support a program that will bring
navigation improvements on line sooner and, probably, at less cost.
MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
Question. It is the Committee's understanding that there is a large
backlog of critical maintenance at existing Corps projects. Could you
please comment on this backlog, provide examples of the type of
maintenance that is backlogged and the procedures used to prioritize
and budget for this backlog.
General Ballard. The fiscal year 2001 maintenance backlog is around
$451 million, equal to 24 percent of the $1.854 billion budget request
for O&M. It covers all of our O&M business functions as follows:
Navigation--$276 million, Flood Control--81 million, Hydropower--$30
million, Environmental Stewardship--$13 million and Recreation--$50
million. Some specific examples would include: (a) repair spillway gate
in the McNary Lock and Dam in Oregon, (b) dewater and perform major
repairs at Port Allen Lock on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in
Louisiana, (c) repair the South Beach Groin at Ventura Harbor in
California; and (d) repair severe deterioration of existing riprap on
Coyote Dam at Lake Mendicino in California.
Over the last year I have conducted intensive reviews with each
division commander analyzing his O&M program from top to bottom. We
have identified the highest priority maintenance backlog and have
instituted aggressive programming measures to concentrate available
resources on the most critical needs. In fiscal year 1999, the
unexpended carryover was reduced by $110 million with a good portion of
these funds applied toward the backlog. We continue to look for
efficiencies in the O&M program with savings being applied toward
helping to reduce the maintenance backlog to a manageable level.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
ROBERT C. BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, WEST VIRGINIA AND OHIO
Question. Please provide an estimate of the increased capability
and the reduction in navigation delays since operations of the new
locks commenced in January 1993. Please also provide an estimate of the
navigation savings during this same time.
General Griffin. The capacity of the old Gallipolis locks was
estimated to be 63.3 million tons. With the new R.C. Byrd locks, 15-
barge tows typically can be processed in one operation rather than the
two operations necessitated by the smaller Gallipolis locks. Transit
times have been reduced from an average of 16 hours per tow to 1.5
hours per tow. The capacity of the new locks is estimated at 148.5
million tons.
Since the new locks opened in 1993, annual traffic has grown from
45 million tons to 56 million tons in 1999. In the first seven years of
operation, the new locks have realized transportation savings of an
estimated $227 million. The total project cost is $379 million. The
incremental cost (over the without-project condition) is estimated at
$263 million. Cumulative savings to date represent 86 percent of the
incremental cost of the new locks. At present traffic levels, it is
expected that the R.C. Byrd Locks and Dam project will pay for itself
by 2001.
WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM, WEST VIRGINIA
Question. Please provide an estimate of the increased capability
and the reduction in navigation delays since operation of the new lock
commenced in November 1997. Please also provide an estimate of the
navigation savings during this same time.
General Griffin. The capacity of the old Winfield project was
estimated at 24 million tons. With the new lock, typical five barge
tows can be processed on one operation, rather than the five operations
necessitated by the smaller locks. Processing times were reduced from
about 170 minutes per tow to 64 minutes. The capacity of the new lock
is estimated at 69.5 million tons.
Since the new lock opened, transit times through Winfield have been
reduced by approximately 12.5 hours per tow and total lockages have
reduced from over 22,000 to about 3,000. In the two years of operation,
the new lock has realized an estimated $23 million in transportation
savings. The cumulative savings represent 10 percent of the incremental
cost of the new lock. The total cost of the project is estimated at
$227.5 million. This total cost is also the incremental cost because
there was no construction in the ``without project'' condition. The
traffic forecast in the feasibility report tracks very well with actual
traffic at Winfield. At forecast traffic levels, it is expected that
Winfield lock will pay for itself by 2012.
BLUESTONE LAKE (DAM SAFETY ASSURANCE), WEST VIRGINIA
Question. Bluestone is a fifty-year-old dam on the New River just
above Hinton and the confluence of the New and Greenbrier Rivers. The
Huntington Corps of Engineers reports that the dam does not meet
today's safety criteria. In fiscal year 2000, Congress provided
$750,000, which was supplemented by a reprogramming of approximately
$3.9 million, to initiate a new construction start on Phase I work on
the Bluestone Dam Safety Project.
What work will be completed with the fiscal year 2000 funds?
General Griffin. Fiscal year 2000 funds will be used initiate
construction of Phase 1, consisting of the resident engineer's office,
penstocks extension, and mass concrete thrust blocks. Plans and
specifications will be started for the second phase, which consists of
a 13 foot pre-cast concrete wall, State Route 20 gate closure, and
anchors.
Question. What risks are currently posed by the Bluestone Dam to
the communities and businesses, and environments below the dam?
General Griffin. Under current design criteria, the probable
maximum flood is estimated to overtop the existing dam by 13 feet. Dam
failure would cause catastrophic flooding along the Greenbrier, New,
Gauley, Kanawha, and Elk Rivers, including the metropolitan area and
heavily industrialized capital city of Charleston, West Virginia. This
would place more than 115,000 persons at risk, with property damages in
excess of $6.5 billion. However, the probable maximum flood has a small
likelihood of occurring in any given year.
Question. What level of flooding would cause the dam to fail
catastrophically? How likely is it that such a level of flooding might
occur? What is the likelihood that the dam will fail in the next 50
years? In the next 100 years?
General Griffin. The dam would be in danger of failing if pool
levels approaching the top of the existing dam were to occur. This
flood level, known as the 500 year flood event, has a 0.2 percent
chance of occurring in any year, a 10 percent chance of occurring at
least once in the next 50 years, and an 18 percent chance of occurring
at least once in the next 100 years.
Question. Are there additional Corps capabilities for this project
for fiscal year 2001 above those identified in the President's fiscal
year 2001 budget?
General Griffin. Yes, subject to the usual qualification, the Corps
has additional capability of $8.7 million above the President's Budget
request of $6.3 million, for a total of $15 million. The capability-
level funds would be used to complete engineering and design for the
preferred alternative, complete phase 1 construction, and initiate
phase 2 construction. Capability-level funds would advance overall
project completion by one year.
Question. What additional measures can be taken to minimize the
risks to the public and to ensure that this project remains on track
and a high priority?
General Griffin. In order to reduce risk as early as possible in
the project schedule, the project was separated into phases. The first
phase includes modifications to the existing penstocks and construction
of concrete thrust blocks. Construction of these features will improve
stability of the dam and increase the discharge capacity of the dam
during rare flood events.
GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA
Question. The pristine Greenbrier River Basin of West Virginia is
one prone to extensive flooding. The Water Resources Development Act of
1996 authorized the Corps to implement local protection plans to help
mitigate damage from future flooding.
Has the Corps reached an agreement with the City of Marlinton on a
local flood protection plan? Have the details of the plan been worked
out and agreed to among the participants?
General Griffin. The Corps and the City of Marlinton have
identified two plans of protection. Both include a levee down the front
side of Marlinton that borders the Greenbrier River and a secondary
levee along the Riverside area of town. One plan involves the extension
of the levee upstream along Knapps Creek, and the other plan involves
construction of a Knapps Creek diversion channel. The costs of the two
plans currently are being evaluated.
Question. What is the projected non-Federal cost? What is the total
cost?
General Griffin. The total cost of the least-cost plan is estimated
to be not more than about $75 million. The local sponsor would qualify
for a reduction in its cost share to 14 percent, based on ability-to-
pay provisions. Therefore, the non-Federal share of the least-cost plan
would be no more than about $10.5 million. However, if one plan proves
to be more costly and the local sponsor prefers that plan, the local
sponsor also would pay the full incremental costs of that plan.
Question. What activities are currently being conducted on the
Marlinton local protection plan?
General Griffin. The Corps is finalizing design, conducting field
investigations, and evaluating the feasibility of the two alternatives
in the Knapps Creek area.
Question. What capabilities does the Corps anticipate for fiscal
year 2001 for the Marlinton local protection plan?
General Griffin. Subject to the usual qualification, the fiscal
year 2001 capability is $1.0 million. If provided, these funds would be
used to continue detailed design and to complete the detailed project
report and NEPA compliance.
Question. When can construction on the Marlinton project begin?
General Griffin. If funds are provided, construction could begin in
fiscal year 2002 in a limited area.
Question. What is the status of the flood warning system for the
Greenbrier River Basin? What benefits are anticipated or have been
achieved already with its installation?
General Griffin. The flood warning system is complete and
operational. Since installation was completed in Fall 1999, there has
been no basin flooding that has required use of the system. The primary
benefit of the flood warning system is that it provides advanced
notification of impending flooding conditions. This additional warning
time is beneficial to reduce flood damages and save lives.
Question. Have other localities, such as the cities of Ronceverte,
Alderson, Durbin, Cass, Renick, which are authorized for flood damage
reduction plans under the Water Resources Development Act of 1996,
expressed interest in pursuing projects?
General Griffin. At this time, there are no other expressions of
interest to pursue a project.
Question. Is the current authorization of $47 million as modified
by section 360 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, for
federal participation sufficient to complete the Marlinton project,
factoring in inflation and possible future participation from other
localities mentioned above in flood protection projects? What level
would be sufficient?
General Griffin. The current authorization of $47 million is not
sufficient to complete the Marlinton project and initiate work on other
projects. The Federal share of the Marlinton project alone, including
expected price level adjustments for inflation, is estimated to be $65
million. The Federal share of projects for other localities such as
Ronceverte, Alderson, Cass, Durbin, and Renick would not be quantified
until a definitive plan and schedule were established, but the total
for the Greenbrier River Basin is likely to be well over $100 million.
MARMET LOCKS AND DAM, WEST VIRGINIA
Question. Congress provided $11,350,000 last year to advance
engineering, design, and land acquisition for the Marmet Lock
replacement project. The President's budget request is $6,500,000,
which is far less than last year's enacted level and the $9,800,000
requested by the Administration.
Is the Marmet Lock replacement important to maintain and increase
the efficient flow of commerce? How many tons of cargo, and what type
of cargo, were shipped through the locks in 1999? Does the project have
a strong benefit/cost ratio?
General Griffin. The Marmet lock replacement is essential to
maintain and increase the flow of commerce. The locks move millions of
tons of cargo to and from West Virginia. Improvements at Marmet would
reduce the average transit time of 5.5 hours to around 1 hour, a
reduction in lock transit time of 4.5 hours. At current traffic levels,
the new lock would yield 23 thousand hours of reduced trip time for the
4,300 tows that used the project. In 1999, more than 14.7 million tons
of commerce locked through Marmet, including 13.6 million tons of coal,
580 thousand tons of petroleum and chemical products, and 440 thousand
tons of stone. The remaining benefit-to-cost ratio is 4.7 to 1.
Question. The President's budget request for the project is
$6,500,000, which is far less than last year's enacted level of
$11,350,000 and the Administration's fiscal year 2000 request of
$9,800,000. Why has the Administration significantly reduced the fiscal
year 2001 request as compared to fiscal year 2000 request? Does this
project not warrant continued strong support and funding?
General Griffin. The fiscal year 2001 request reflects a
constrained construction program Corps-wide. The President's budget
reflects a reasonable schedule for continuation of real estate and
design activities.
Question. Last year, the Corps estimated that it would need to buy
about 250 properties for this project. How many have been purchased to
date, and how many do you anticipate having purchased by the close of
fiscal year 2000?
General Griffin. To date, 64 properties have been purchased. By the
end of fiscal year 2000, approximately 100 properties will have been
acquired.
Question. When do you anticipate that the land acquisition for the
project will be completed? When do you anticipate that the land
acquisition will be sufficiently far enough along that the Corps can
begin construction?
General Griffin. The President's budget reflects that land
acquisition will be completed by September 2002 and that sufficient
land acquisition and design will be completed by the end of fiscal year
2001 to enable initiation of construction of the lock in fiscal year
2002.
Question. How much money will be needed beyond fiscal year 2001 to
complete the project? What work will remain to be done?
General Griffin. An additional $273 million is required beyond
fiscal year 2001 for continued engineering and design of the lock,
acquisition of the remaining properties, and construction of the lock.
Question. Are there additional Corps capabilities at Marmet for
fiscal year 2001 above those identified in the President's budget?
General Griffin. Subject to the usual qualification, the Corps has
the capability to use an additional $7.1 million, for a total
appropriation of $13.6 million, to advance engineering and design and
land acquisition. Advancement of engineering and design at the
capability level would advance project completion by one year.
Question. I would like to again remind the Corps that many people
are affected by this project--from those whose lives and homes are
being disrupted by the construction, to all of the people and
industries whose livelihoods depend upon the locks, the shipping, and
the products that go through Marmet locks. Therefore, it is imperative
for all of us to move this project forward efficiently so at to avoid
any unnecessary delays.
General Griffin. Yes, sir.
LEVISA AND TUG FORKS OF THE BIG SANDY RIVER AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER,
WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY--WEST VIRGINIA TUG FORK FLOOD
PROTECTION PROJECTS
Question. For fiscal year 2000, Congress provided $4,400,000 to
continue work on flood protection projects in southern West Virginia
along the Tug Fork and its tributaries as part of the multi-state
Section 202 project. While the President's request includes $12,100,000
for Levisa and Tug Fork projects for fiscal year 2001, all of these
funds are slated for other states.
Last year, there were significant delays associated with the Corps
executing Project Cooperative Agreements for the Upper Mingo County
project and the McDowell County project. Have these project agreements
been executed?
General Griffin. Both project agreements have been executed. The
Upper Mingo County Project Cooperation Agreement was amended in June
1999 to include the tributary areas. The McDowell County Project
Cooperation Agreement was executed in September 1999.
Question. What activities will remain to be done beyond fiscal year
2000 in lower Mingo County and what is the cost of the remaining
effort? Does the Corps have capabilities in lower Mingo County in
fiscal year 2001?
General Griffin. The flood proofing or acquisition of structures
would continue beyond fiscal year 2000 if funds were provided. The
remaining cost is $2 million. The capability for fiscal year 2001 is
$1.6 million, subject to the usual qualification.
Question. What activities will remain to be completed beyond fiscal
year 2000 in upper Mingo County along the Tug Fork and its tributaries
and what is the cost of the remaining effort? Does the Corps have
capabilities in upper Mingo County in fiscal year 2001?
General Griffin. Non-structural flood damage reduction measures
would continue beyond fiscal year 2000 if funds were provided. The
remaining cost is $2,818,000. The capability for fiscal year 2001 is
$1,500,000, subject to the usual qualification.
Question. What activities will remain to be completed beyond fiscal
year 2000 in McDowell County and what is the cost of the remaining
effort? Does the Corps have capabilities in McDowell County in fiscal
year 2001?
General Griffin. Remaining activities include acquisition, flood
proofing, and construction of relocated schools, town halls, and fire
stations. The remaining cost is $166,359,000. The capability for fiscal
year 2001 is $600,000, subject to the usual qualification.
Question. What is the approved plan for schools in the McDowell
County Nonstructural Project?
General Griffin. The approved plan consists of the construction of
ringwalls to protect schools in place, or relocation and re-
construction of schools out of the floodplain, whichever is the least
costly, for six schools. The Government also requires the regulation of
each former school site, consistent with the project's flood control
purpose.
Question. What is the locally preferred plan for the McDowell
County project?
General Griffin. The locally preferred plan is to construct two
replacement schools, allowing the consolidation of five county
elementary schools. The Federal participation in funding the school
consolidation would be to contribute an amount equal to the least
costly method of flood protection for each school. The approved plan
and locally preferred plan both include relocation of the high school
out of the floodplain.
Question. What must be done to implement the locally preferred
plans for the McDowell County project?
General Griffin. A report on the locally preferred plan would be
prepared that includes cost comparisons, documentation of NEPA
compliance, and identification of any changes in Federal and non-
Federal responsibilities. The Project Cooperation Agreement would be
amended based on the report. The non-Federal sponsor would agree to
minimize flood risk to the new schools and prevent flood-prone
construction at the former school sites.
Question. What is the schedule for completing the additional design
documents for the McDowell County project?
General Griffin. The report on the locally preferred plan will be
completed in May 2000. The first relocations design document for
consolidation of three elementary schools will be completed in
September 2000. The second relocations design document to consolidate
the other two elementary schools will be completed in March 2001.
Question. What activities will remain to be completed beyond fiscal
year 2000 in Wayne County and what is the cost of the remaining effort?
Does the Corps have capabilities in Wayne County in fiscal year 2001?
General Griffin. The acquisition or flood proofing of structures
would continue beyond fiscal year 2000 if funds were provided. The
remaining cost is $6,244,000. The capability for fiscal year 2001 is
$400,000, subject to the usual qualification.
WHEELING RIVERFRONT, WEST VIRGINIA
Question. Wheeling, West Virginia, is in the midst of major
preservation and rehabilitation project to protect and enhance its
cultural and commercial resources in its central business district. In
fiscal year 2000, Congress provided $100,000 for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to provide assistance and support to the preservation and
revitalization plans associated with the Wheeling National Heritage
Area. These funds were to allow the Corps to objectively analyze the
planned and ongoing design and construction work connected with these
restoration efforts. This is an important project and I believe that
the Corps might have some expertise that would be useful in the effort.
What is the status of this investigation?
General Griffin. In March 2000, Pittsburgh District issued a Notice
to Proceed to its indefinite Delivery Architect/Engineer contractor to
complete a Special Project Report. This report that will evaluate
improvements to the waterfront at the confluence of the Ohio River and
Wheeling Creek within the Wheeling National Heritage Area, Wheeling,
West Virginia. The contractor's report will be submitted in June 2000.
Question. What types of capabilities has the Corps identified to
date?
General Griffin. Corps capabilities that are anticipated to be
applicable to this project are to dredge the lower one mile of Wheeling
Creek for recreational boating and use the dredged material, if clean,
to cap two brownfield sites adjacent to the Wheeling waterfront.
Question. What would be the next step toward further involving the
Corps with the revitalization efforts underway in Wheeling, with each
capability identified?
General Griffin. After the Special Project Report is completed in
June 2000, findings must be coordinated with the Wheeling National
Heritage Corporation and the City of Wheeling to determine local
interest in pursuing the identified initiatives.
Question. What legislation, if any, would be required to authorize
the Corps' participation in each area of assistance identified?
General Griffin. Authorization legislation and funding would be
required.
Question. What would be the cost-share requirement for each of the
capabilities identified?
General Griffin. If the work were authorized, some or all costs
would be assigned to recreation or recreational navigation and would be
cost shared 50 percent Federal and 50 percent non-Federal unless
otherwise specified in law.
LOWER MUD RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA
Question. The Lower Mud River project, authorized by Section 580 of
the 1996 Water Resources Development Act, was originally a Department
of Agriculture project. Its purpose is to mitigate the repeated
flooding events that have caused extensive damage to the City of
Milton, West Virginia.
What is the status of the limited reevaluation report being
conducted by the Corps on the earlier Department of Agriculture study?
General Griffin. The Corps reevaluation report is scheduled for
completion in July 2000. The West Virginia Soil Conservation Agency is
cost sharing this report.
Question. What activities will remain to be completed beyond fiscal
year 2000 for the Lower Mud River project and what is the cost of the
remaining effort? Does the Corps have capabilities for this project in
fiscal year 2001?
General Griffin. The President's fiscal year 2001 budget requested
$650,000 in General Investigations funds to continue preconstruction
engineering and design (PED). Due to acceleration of the work, this
amount is now sufficient to complete PED. Subject to the usual
qualification, the Corps total capability in fiscal year 2001 is
$1,000,000 of Construction, General funds to complete PED, negotiate
and execute a Project Cooperation Agreement, and initiate construction.
Question. When does the Corps anticipate that construction will be
able to commence?
General Griffin. If funded, project construction could begin in the
third quarter, fiscal year 2001.
LONDON LOCKS AND DAM, WEST VIRGINIA
Question. The fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Appropriations Act
included $600,000 to initiate construction of the London Lock and Dam
rehabilitation project. This project will replace the upper guard wall
and extend the lock chamber. The rehabilitation project is needed to
avoid future lockage delays along the Kanawha River at London.
What work will be accomplished with the fiscal year 2000 funds?
General Griffin. Fiscal year 2000 funds will be used to initiate
construction of phase 1, which consists of fabricating the needle dam
beams, needle dam sheet piling, and pre-cast concrete needle sill, and
to continue design for phase 2A, which consists of electrical and
mechanical work not requiring closure of the lock chamber.
Question. What is the total cost of the project?
General Griffin. The total cost of the project is $22.2 million.
Question. Does the Corps have additional capabilities for fiscal
year 2001 that would accelerate the completion of this project if funds
were available?
General Griffin. Yes. Subject to the usual qualification, the
fiscal year 2001 capability is $5 million, $3.2 million more than the
President's Budget Request of $1.8 million. The additional funds would
be used to complete engineering and design and to initiate construction
of phase 2B, which involves closure of the lock chamber.
WEST FORK RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA
Question. For the past two years, I have received communications
from constituents in Harrison County, West Virginia, for a flood
warning system along the West Fork River.
To what extent has the Corps participated in the funding and
installation of such early warning systems at other locations?
General Griffin. In 1998, the Pittsburgh District completed
implementation of a comprehensive flood warning system (FWS) for the
Cheat River Basin in West Virginia, and the Huntington District
completed a similar system for the adjacent Greenbrier River Basin,
also in West Virginia. Both systems involved installing several new
stream gages and connecting the new gages and existing stream and
precipitation gages with flood forecasting software via radio,
telephone, and satellite communications technology. Installation of
these FWS was 100 percent Federally funded in accordance with the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1997. The State of
West Virginia is the project sponsor of both FWS and pays for operation
and maintenance of the new gages. The Pittsburgh District currently is
planning a FWS in the Tygart River Basin, West Virginia, as an element
of the West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control, West Virginia and
Pennsylvania, project, which does not extend to the West Fork Basin.
Question. What role would there be for a flood warning system in
protecting residents along the West Fork River?
General Griffin. A flood warning system would likely provide
several hours of additional warning time to communities and property
owners along low-lying areas adjacent to the West Fork River and
possibly some major tributaries. This would reduce the flood threat to
life and property.
Question. What would be the estimated cost for installation of such
a system? Is there a cost-sharing requirement for this system? General
Griffin. The West Fork Basin is roughly similar in size to the Cheat
and Greenbrier Basins, so $500,000 should be sufficient to plan and
implement a similar comprehensive FWS. There was no cost sharing for
implementing the Cheat and Greenbrier FWS, because of the appropriation
act language. In the absence of such special legislation, the Corps
could plan and implement a FWS under its existing Section 205
Continuing Authorities Program for flood damage reduction, with a 35
percent non-Federal share of $175,000 and a 65 percent Federal share of
$325,000.
Question. How much does it cost to maintain a flood warning system
once it is fully operational and what entity would be responsible for
maintaining it?
General Griffin. The new Cheat flood warning system gages are being
maintained for approximately $6,500 per gage per year. There were seven
new stream gages, so the total annual cost is about $45,000. As the
local sponsor, the State of West Virginia, through its Office of
Emergency Services, pays for maintenance of these new gages. Each
stream or precipitation gage that existed prior to its incorporation
into the new system is still maintained by its owner, which is either
the National Weather Service, the U.S. Geologic Survey, or the Corps of
Engineers.
west virginia statewide flood protection plan, west virginia
Question. Congress provided $400,000 in fiscal year 1998 and
$624,000 in fiscal year 1999 for the Huntington Corps of Engineers, on
a 50/50 cost-share basis with the West Virginia Department of
Agriculture, to conduct a comprehensive study of the chronic flood
problems that devastate West Virginia.
What is the status of the study?
General Griffin. The study was divided into two phases to match the
two-year funding cycle of the sponsor. The Corps has completed twenty
percent of the work tasks in phase I, including updating data on flood
damages and the costs of prospective water resources projects and an
analysis of local government financial capability to cost share those
projects. The phase II agreement was provided to the non-Federal
sponsor for review and execution in September 1999, but has not been
executed by the sponsor at this time.
Question. Is the project behind schedule? By how much? What factors
are contributing to the delay and what is being done to get the project
back on track?
General Griffin. The project is behind schedule. Phase I is behind
by eight months. Completion was scheduled for December 1999. Factors
leading to the delay include late receipt of the sponsor's matching
funds and a delay in establishing the multi-agency task force required
in the study agreement. Phase II has not been initiated and thus far is
behind two months from the initial schedule. The principal cause of
delay of the second phase is difficulties encountered in defining the
sponsor's in-kind contribution. The Corps and the sponsor are working
to establish the task force, define in-kind contributions for phase II,
execute the phase II agreement, and reschedule phase I and II studies
to be concurrent, thus reducing schedule impacts.
Question. What activities will be accomplished in fiscal year 2000?
General Griffin. Following formation of the task force, remaining
phase I study work tasks will be completed. These include flooding
problem identification, plan formulation, and development of a
statewide strategy for flood protection. Once the phase II agreement is
executed, the phase II work tasks could be initiated. Phase II
activities include development of a statewide flood warning system,
training for floodplain managers, development of model watershed plans,
and development of recommendations for flood control programs.
Question. What activities will be accomplished in fiscal year
2001?
General Griffin. The phase II tasks will be completed, and phase I
and II study documentation will be merged into a single decision
document for the state executive and legislative offices.
Question. When will the project be completed and what will the
study provide?
General Griffin. The study is scheduled for completion in July
2001. It will provide a comprehensive strategy for addressing flooding
problems throughout West Virginia, concentrating on unmet flood control
needs, especially in high-priority areas of the state where chronic
flooding occurs. It will provide a statewide flood damage assessment,
identify existing flood control shortfalls, assess existing Federal and
state flood protection programs, formulate flood protection and
floodplain management program improvements, assess non-Federal
financing capability, identify financing needs for investment in flood
protection, develop a long-term investment strategy for the state, and
a provide a detailed report on a statewide flood warning system.
Question. What additional Federal resources are needed for this
project?
General Griffin. No additional Federal funds are required to
complete the study.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
LA FARGE DAM DEAUTHORIZATION
Question. Why was the La Farge Dam/Kickapoo Reserve project not
included in the President's Budget? I had several contacts with the
Corps over the last year, all of which led me to believe that the Corps
was committed to moving forward and towards completion. I was very
surprised to see that no funding was included. We have been funding
this program for three years through Congressional adds. What happened
to this funding in the President's Budget?
Answer. All work except the highway repairs and relocations is
funded, and a decision that will establish the relative priority of the
highway work in the Administration's program is still pending. This
project was considered, along with many other worthy projects nation-
wide, for the budget, but was not selected for inclusion in the
President's Budget. There were two primary factors that eliminated the
La Farge project during the fiscal year 2001 budget prioritization
process. First, the authorized project modifications do not provide Net
Economic Development benefits. Second, under the terms and conditions
prescribed by Section 361 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996, the State of Wisconsin must sign a written agreement to hold the
United States harmless from any damages related to the transfer of
lands and improvements before the Corps of Engineers can proceed with
this project. Currently, the State does not have the legal authority to
furnish the hold harmless provisions as required by law. However, it is
our understanding that legislation to provide such authority recently
passed the State legislature and is awaiting signature by the Governor.
FOX RIVER, WISCONSIN
Question. I have recently been contacted by the State of Wisconsin,
and notified by the Detroit District, that there is a proposal to turn
over the locks on the Fox River to the State of Wisconsin. The State,
with federal help, would then do the necessary repairs to reopen the
locks to traffic and take on the operating costs. The State and the
local community seem eager to take on responsibility for the locks, and
I have a few questions about the potential transfer.
Is there a concrete plan for turning over the locks and for the
State of Wisconsin's management of those locks?
General Griffin. Sir, the Corps has been involved in extensive
negotiations with the State involving the transfer of the navigation
facilities, and we anticipate signing a formal agreement this Spring.
The actual transfer would take place after completion of historical,
cultural, and environmental documentation and the appropriation of
funds for transfer-related payments. The State intends to use Federal
and non-Federal funds to repair and rehabilitate the locks and reopen
them. The exception is the Rapide Croche lock, which has been closed to
prevent invasion of the sea lamprey.
Question. Are you aware of any existing claims to the land by
Native American Tribes?
General Griffin. No claims have been made by any Native American
tribe for any portion of the Fox River navigation system. We are not
aware of any former reservation on project lands or of any reversionary
interest held in project lands by Native American tribes.
Question. Do the locks have adequate invasive species control
measures to protect the wildlife in Lake Winnebago?
General Griffin. Sir, a sea lamprey barrier was installed by the
Corps at the Rapide Croche lock and dam in 1988. As part of this
barrier, the gates to the lock were permanently closed. Any agreement
to transfer the locks would contain a condition that the Rapide Croche
sea lamprey barrier be maintained. The sea lamprey has been the
invasive species of most concern on the system. There are no other
invasive species control measures in place. Transfer would not impact
the status quo. After transfer, the State of Wisconsin could evaluate
and, if necessary, modify its operations to address concerns with
invasive species.
Question. Will an environmental impact statement be necessary
before the locks are reopened?
General Griffin. An Environmental Assessment is being prepared to
address the Federal action, which is solely the transfer of the land
and facilities. Future operation (opening) and maintenance of the locks
would become the responsibility of the State of Wisconsin.
Question. Has the Corps examined whether the plan to reopen the
locks is economically viable from a federal perspective?
General Griffin. Sir, there are benefits to be gained from
reopening the locks; however, not all repair and rehabilitation costs
related to reopening the locks are economically justified. The payment
to be made by the Corps under the agreement would be based on the
avoided cost of placing the locks in a long term inoperable status and
the repair and rehabilitation costs that are economically justified.
Question. I understand that the Corps would seek authorization in
WRDA for a direct appropriation for this project. Has this been done in
other states and would headquarters support a direct appropriation?
General Griffin. The payments under the agreement will be
conditioned upon the Congress appropriating the necessary funds. Should
the agreement be executed, the Corps would be in a position to seek
appropriations for the payments. This would be done through the normal
budget process. The Army does not intend to seek additional
authorization to carry out the transfer and payments.
UPPER MISSISSIPPI AND ILLINOIS NAVIGATION STUDY, ILLINOIS, IOWA,
MINNESOTA, MISSOURI AND WISCONSIN
Question. Reports have indicated that the Corps may have discounted
the role small scale measures could play in ameliorating traffic delays
at the locks on the Mississippi. Corps economists indicated that these
measures, which include mooring cells, traffic scheduling, and industry
self-help could save the taxpayers millions of dollars and eliminate
the need for lock extensions. Have these options been fully considered?
Can you explain why these measures were not accepted, and could you
provide me with the data and analysis used to come to that conclusion?
Answer. These three small-scale measures-mooring cells and buoys,
traffic scheduling, and industry self-help have been fully considered
in the study's plan formulation process. Documentation to date for
small-scale measures is included in three interim study products:
General Assessment of Small-Scale Measures report dated June 1995,
which provides information on the 92 small-scale measures considered in
early brainstorming sessions that screened the measures down to 16;
Detailed Assessment of Small Scale Measures report dated December 1998
which provides more detailed examination and quantification of
performance for these 16 measures; and, Summary of Small-Scale Measures
Screening report dated April 1999, which further screened the measures
down to 5 remaining small-scale measures. The three referenced small-
scale measures are discussed in these three interim study reports.
All three of these measures are present to some degree in the
future river conditions. First, mooring cells and buoys are part of the
alternative plans still under consideration for the with-project
conditions. Mooring facilities provide some project benefits, but alone
they do not considerably reduce future delay projections. Second,
traffic scheduling has been an integral part of our standard operating
procedure and will continue to be into the future in the without-
project condition, based on historic application and our study
assumptions. The traffic scheduling is in the form of an N-up/N-down
policy where the lock operator locks through ``N'' vessels traveling in
one direction prior to locking through ``N'' vessels traveling in the
opposite direction. Other studies have demonstrated that this existing
N-up/N-down scheduling policy captures the majority of scheduling-
related benefits, and the effects of projected traffic growth and
related delay potential would overwhelm the benefits of any other
additive scheduling procedures. Third, industry self-help is the
practice where industry tows assist each other by extracting unpowered
cuts, usually 9-barge configurations, from the lock without the
assistance of lock personnel or equipment. Industry self-help is
currently utilized for approximately one to one-and-a-half percent of
all lockages at the busiest locks on the system. Additional
coordination with the navigation industry, U.S. Maritime
Administration, and U.S. Coast Guard in 1998 indicated that regular use
of industry self-help is not practical due to the variability in
conditions where it can be implemented safely. The general industry
comment was that industry self-help is a stop-gap measure that is used
to minimize the impacts of a breakdown on the system, not a routine,
long-term measure to address increasing system traffic and delay. In
addition to this information, the study team considered site-specific
input from Corps lock personnel; historical lock performance data and
current usage, safety, risk, and liability considerations; and concerns
raised over potential impacts to environmental and social resources
from growing usage. Also, industry self-help with guidewall extensions
was screened out because it is out-performed at a similar cost by
powered kevels with guidewall extensions. Considering the variables
involved, the successful implementation of industry self-help as a
standard operating procedure does not appear to be viable as a long-
term solution. Lock statistics from 1992 to 1998 showed that the
average actual usage of self-help was significantly less than 1.5
percent of total commercial lockages, and that only Locks 24 and 25 had
achieved significant time savings historically. The highest usage noted
during that period was in 1992 at Lock 25 where it was 3.6 percent.
Therefore, the assumptions for the model limited self-help usage to 5
percent, which allows some increase over current usage while remaining
close to observed rates and reasonably considers the above-stated
concerns.
The referenced interim products have been discussed in public
forums. Additionally, copies of the documents discussed have been
provided to the Committee. All aspects of the formulation will be
documented as the study team continues to write the draft Feasibility
Report and Environmental Impact Statement for eventual public release
and review. The plan formulation process is still underway, and no
final study conclusions have been reached. The Feasibility Report and
Environmental Impact Statement will not be final until the issuance of
the Division Commander's Public Notice, at which time the report and
Environmental Impact Statement will be forwarded for Washington-level
processing.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron Dorgan
MAPLE RIVER, NEAR ENDERLIN, NORTH DAKOTA
Question. After years of flooding along the Sheyenne River at West
Fargo, ND, a dry dam was proposed on a tributary stream, the Maple
River, near Enderlin. The Maple empties into the Sheyenne north of West
Fargo and it was suggested that a dam would reduce back up flows in the
Sheyenne. The dam would only hold water during flood emergencies. The
Corps determined that the dam would not meet its cost-benefit ratio so
local interests (Southeast Cass Water Board) decided to build it on its
own. Although I've been told that the Water Board has tried to work
with the Corps to take the necessary steps to construct the dam, action
has been stalled for several years.
I've heard from the water board that the Corps ought to be dealing
with this issue more expeditiously. Can you please give me an update
what the Corps is doing--if anything--to deal with the Maple River Dam
situation?
Dr. Westphal. The Corps is working to conclude its environmental
studies that are required as part of the permitting process for the
project. The permit applicant has chosen the same site that was
considered earlier by the Corps for a flood control dam because it is
the most effective location for such action. The site, however, is rich
in cultural history as indicated by approximately 60 site leads,
archeological sites and Indian village sites dating back hundreds of
years. Because of this, there is considerable interest by
representatives of seven Tribes.
An effort was made to prepare a Programmatic Agreement (PA) setting
forth how resources would be dealt with in the future. Because some of
the Tribes oppose the project, we have been unable to develop a PA that
is satisfactory to all. Therefore, the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) will identify, in detail, the cultural resources known
in the area, their significance, expected effects of the proposed
project and its reasonable alternatives, and possible mitigation for
those effects. Each of the seven interested tribes must be included in
this process, as required by regulations; however, completion of the
process does not rely on their participation.
We expect that the coordination and impact analyses will take a
minimum of 120 days. Subsequent to that, the FEIS will be prepared and
mailed. This should occur no later than August 20, 2000. A Record of
Decision could be completed 30 days later, but due to the intensive
opposition by Tribes, additional resolution processes are expected to
occur with respect to the Section 106 compliance.
WILLISTON, NORTH DAKOTA
Question. The water transmission line that serves the city of
Williston, ND, has been damaged by the construction of the Garrison
Dam. Much like the rising water table that has resulted in the need for
the purchase of flowage easements at the Buford Trenton Irrigation
District, the water transmission line is threatened by rising water
tables. I've been advised that the Corps does not have authority to
replace this line ( despite the federal government's clear
responsibility to mitigate the negative consequences of the dam's
construction.
Can you please clarify if the Corps has the authority to replace
the water transmission line? If the Corps does not have this authority,
please suggest authorizing language that would enable the Corps to move
forward with this construction.
Dr. Westphal. The Corps does not have the authority to replace the
water transmission line. The following proposed authorizing language is
offered for your consideration: The Secretary is directed to use up to
$4,000,000 of the funds appropriated herein to replace or relocate the
municipal water transmission line owned by the City of Williston, North
Dakota, and located adjacent to and running parallel to the levee
protecting the City.
Question. Last fall, my colleagues from North Dakota and I
requested that the Corps reprogram funds into the Section 33 account
for the continuation of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization study
after funding for the cumulative Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
was not included in the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill. Because I think that this is one of our state's
water management priorities, I am once again requesting money for this
project because it is a critical component of the process to develop a
common vision for the river across a variety of North Dakota interests.
Would you agree that this kind of analysis has the potential to
address many technical issues and provide a foundation for future
policy decisions on bank stabilization?
Dr. Westphal. Yes, I do agree. The potential for cumulative impacts
from bank stabilization works along the Missouri River has not been
documented in a comprehensive study. The Section 33 cumulative impacts
study presents an opportunity to answer questions regarding the
presence of bank stabilization structures in the river. A
geomorphologic study is being conducted, as funds become available, to
identify and address technical concerns and issues. The study will
determine the existing physical condition of the river channel, project
future channel conditions and determine the impacts that additional
bank stabilization may have on the alluvial processes and channel
formation. The information will be useful to help guide future
decisions regarding construction under the Section 33 program
authority. It will also be useful as the basis for recommending long-
term strategies for the management and protection of the Missouri
River.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
STATEMENT OF ELUID L. MARTINEZ, COMMISSIONER
ACCOMPANIED BY:
DAVID COTTINGHAM, COUNSELOR TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
WATER AND SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
J. RONALD JOHNSTON, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT
COMPLETION ACT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
OPENING REMARKS
Senator Domenici. We have Commissioner Eluid Martinez with
the Bureau of Reclamation, David Cottingham, Counselor to the
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, Department of the
Interior, and Program Director for the Utah Project Completion
Act Office, J. Ronald Johnston.
Commissioner, we're very pleased to have you and you're
going to lead off. I think it's only fair to say to you right
at the onset, we are very grateful and thankful for the job
that you have done as Commissioner. A lot of new twists and
turns have entered the playing field since you became
Commissioner, and I think you have stepped up to the batter's
box on most of them and have done an excellent job and I thank
you for that. I know in particular in New Mexico on the water-
short Pecos River Basin and the Rio Grande Basin, you've done
an admirable job of trying to help sort out things and get us
through some difficult problems.
If you've been looking at the drought in New Mexico, which
we certainly have, I would like to report to you that about 40
percent of the State got incredible snowfall overnight. I don't
know what that means in terms of the total precipitation, but
whatever we get helps you in your job and helps all of us.
Your testimony will be made part of the record. If you
could proceed to summarize it, we would be most appreciative.
STATEMENT OF ELUID L. MARTINEZ
Commissioner Martinez. Mr. Chairman, I think the reason
it's snowing and raining is probably because we showed up there
last week. At any rate, Mr. Chairman, please allow me to
express my sincere appreciation both to you and Senator Craig
and to members of the committee for the support you've provided
me during my tenure as Commissioner of Reclamation and to
Reclamation in general.
My appearance today in support of Reclamation's budget will
most likely be my last before this subcommittee. My wife is
looking forward to returning to New Mexico at the end of this
Administration. Thank you for the opportunity to serve as
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.
I welcome the opportunity to appear today in support of the
President's fiscal year 2001 budget for the Bureau of
Reclamation, which is a request for $801 million, a $33.1
million increase over fiscal year 2000 appropriations. My
statement has been submitted for the hearing record and with
your permission, I will summarize that testimony.
Mr. Chairman, Reclamation's 2000-2005 Strategic Plan
identifies three mission goals that are linked to Reclamation's
budget and are the essence of what Reclamation is all about.
These goals are to manage, develop and protect water and
related resources to help meet the future needs of current and
future generations; to operate, maintain and rehabilitate our
facilities to provide projected benefits flowing from those
projects; and to ensure organizational effectiveness.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, in keeping with your statement that you would
like to be out of here by 11:30 this morning, my statement has
been submitted for the record and I would be glad to answer any
questions you might have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eluid L. Martinez
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I welcome
the opportunity to appear before you today to support the President's
fiscal year 2001 budget request of $801.0 million in new budget
authority for the Bureau of Reclamation. This includes $741.0 million
for Reclamation's programs and $60.0 million for the California Bay-
Delta Restoration activities.
MISSION
As I am sure you are aware, Reclamation's mission is to manage,
develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally
and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.
The Bureau of Reclamation has been developing and managing water and
related resources in the Western United States since 1902. Reclamation
is today one of the largest suppliers and managers of water in the 17
western states
Its facilities, which include reservoirs with the capacity to store
245 million acre-feet of water, deliver water to one of every five
western farmers to irrigate about 10 million acres of land and to over
31 million people for municipal, rural, and industrial uses.
Reclamation is the second largest producer of hydroelectric power
in the nation. Reclamation produces enough electricity to serve 6
million homes, and generates nearly a billion dollars in annual power
revenues.
The ingenuity and expertise Reclamation used in the 20th Century to
plan and construct dams, reservoirs and other water supply facilities
is currently being used for:
--Managing the dam safety program to minimize risks to the downstream
public, property, and natural resources,
--Facilitating Reclamation's operation and maintenance program to
maximize public benefits at the least cost,
--Developing partnerships with customers, states, and tribes,
--Finding ways to bring competing interests together to address water
needs,
--Transferring title and operation of facilities to local
beneficiaries,
--Establishing results-oriented business practices that will provide
the most effective and efficient service to customers,
partners, and employees,
--Placing greater emphasis on promoting the conservation,
reclamation, and reuse of existing water supplies,
--Protecting and restoring fish and wildlife resources to ensure
future reliability of project water and power benefits.
The fiscal year 2001 President's budget request continues to
demonstrate the Administration's strong commitment to this mission.
Water resource projects developed by Reclamation continue to
contribute to sustained economic growth and an enhanced quality of life
in the Western States. In recent years, Reclamation has primarily moved
from development to management of these important resources. In
cooperation with state, tribal, and local governments, along with other
entities and the public at large, Reclamation develops solutions for
water resource issues--solutions that are consensus-based, cost
effective, and environmentally sound.
Although this infrastructure is sophisticated and has allowed
significant development of urban and agricultural areas, it is subject
to and results in various stresses, such as aging facilities, land use
changes, agricultural commodity prices, changes in domestic and
international economies, instream flow needs for habitat protection,
and water rights settlements.
The future of the West's water supply infrastructure, including
Reclamation project facilities, must focus on maintaining and
optimizing the utility of existing facilities, keeping costs down,
ensuring that public facilities fit more comfortably into the natural
environment, and demonstrating ingenuity in meeting needs in the most
efficient ways possible. While supply-oriented solutions should not be
entirely ruled out, innovative solutions, such as water conservation
and wastewater recycling, must be explored.
One of Reclamation's strategies is to efficiently target its
planning program to search for contemporary solutions deserving of
national, state, and/or local investment. Financial resource
constraints facing the Nation require a commitment to expand the use of
decision support tools, including benefit-cost and risk analyses, and
to choose only the most efficient and cost-effective solutions to the
complex water resource challenges that we face.
I would like to point out that every day we see immediate water
resource needs important to state, local and tribal partners. Many
states are developing State Water Plans, for instance, to address
resource utilization and stewardship against the backdrop of large
population increases and the growing notion of sustainable development.
Reclamation can assist in the systematic evaluations of existing
and potential water use within a river basin or subbasin to determine
how present and future needs can best be met.
WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
The total request for projects and programs related to Water and
Related Resources is $674.2 million. This is partially offset by an
undistributed reduction of $31.1 million in anticipation of delays in
construction schedules and other activities, resulting in a net request
of $643.1 million.
The fiscal year 2001 request provides a total of $288.9 million for
facility operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation. Providing adequate
funding for these activities continues to be one of Reclamation's
highest priorities. Reclamation staff is working closely with water
users and other stakeholders to ensure that available funds are used
effectively.
Facility operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation (OM&R) funds
are used to allow Reclamation to identify, plan, and implement, among
other activities, dam safety corrective actions and site security
improvements. The fiscal year 2001 request includes $77.3 million for
the Dam Safety Program to protect the downstream public by ensuring the
safety and reliability of Reclamation dams.
Reclamation plans to initiate safety of dams modifications at
several facilities in the near future, including Horsetooth Dam,
Colorado; Clear Lake Dam, Oregon; Pineview Dam, Utah; Salmon Lake Dam,
Washington; Wickiup Dam, Oregon; Grassy Lake Dam, Wyoming; Keechelus
Dam, Washington; Deer Creek Dam, Utah; and Warm Springs Dam, Oregon.
The Administration sent legislation (H.R. 3595) to the Congress to
increase by $380 million the authorized cost ceiling for the
Reclamation Safety of Dams Act. Current projections indicate there is
sufficient authority to support the fiscal year 2001 budget request,
but additional authority will be needed in fiscal year 2002 and beyond.
Additionally OM&R funds allow Reclamation to ensure the reliability
and operational readiness of dams, reservoirs, powerplants, and
distribution systems while also helping the timely and effective
delivery of project benefits.
The fiscal year 2001 request also includes a total of $385.3
million for resource management and development activities. The request
for these activities includes funding for projects currently under
construction, including the Central Arizona Project, the Mni Wiconi
Project in South Dakota and the Garrison Diversion Unit in North
Dakota, as well as for the recently enacted Rocky Boy's Indian Water
Rights Settlement in Montana.
Resource management and development activities include funding for
a number of high priority activities that emphasize improved water
management and environmental compliance. In the area of environmental
compliance, funds are requested for endangered species conservation and
recovery efforts in the Columbia /Snake and other river basins, fish
and wildlife and other work on California's Central Valley Project, and
construction of a temperature control device at Glen Canyon Dam. Funds
requested for other projects, such as the Lower Colorado River
Operations Program and the Klamath Project, would meet objectives in
both of these areas.
Funds for the Lower Colorado River Operations Program are used to
implement and accomplish the Secretary of the Interior's ``Water
Master'' function for the lower Colorado River area. This function
includes ongoing negotiation, development, and execution of water
service contracts, determining consumptive use of Colorado River water,
identifying non-contract water users and completing appropriate
environmental and endangered species programs.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND
The fiscal year 2001 Reclamation budget includes a request for
$38.4 million from the Central Valley Project (CVP) Restoration Fund,
which is the estimated level of collections from project beneficiaries.
The fiscal year 2001 request funds a wide variety of activities to
restore fish and wildlife habitat and populations in California's
Central Valley Project, including acquisition of water for anadromous
fish and other environmental purposes, providing long-term water
deliveries to wildlife refuges, implementation of the Anadromous Fish
Restoration Plan, restoration of land to improve wildlife habitat,
conserve water and reduce drainage, and construction of fish screens
and other facilities.
The request is financed by CVP water and power users, including an
estimated $28.2 million in additional mitigation and restoration
charges. The fiscal year 2001 budget contains a proposal that, in
fiscal year 2001 and each year thereafter, the full amount of these
additional charges would be collected, and all revenues deposited in
the CVP Restoration Fund from this and other sources would be directly
available for expenditure.
CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION
The fiscal year 2001 budget includes a request for $60.0 million
for the Bay-Delta Restoration program. While funding is requested in
Reclamation's budget, funds for specific projects or programs will be
transferred to participating Federal agencies based on plans developed
by CALFED. Reclamation manages most of these projects.
Over the past three years, CALFED, a consortium of Federal and
State agencies, has funded all or portions of some 240 ecosystem
restoration projects and programs with monies from the State of
California, the Federal Government and stakeholder funds.
These funds support an ecosystem restoration program of vast
breadth and scope with the ultimate goal of developing a long-term
solution that addresses both environmental and water management
problems associated with the Bay-Delta system.
The fiscal year 2001 request includes $36.0 million to continue
implementation of the ecosystem restoration program initiated in 1998.
Activities funded in this program include improvements in fish screens
and fish passage, restoration of habitat in flood plains and marshes,
and river channel changes. Funding is also requested for improvements
in instream flows, water quality and water temperature, as well as
improvements in fish management and hatchery operations. The program
also funds efforts to control introduced and undesirable species as
well as monitoring, permit coordination and other special support
programs.
The request also includes $24.0 million for a broad variety of
water management activities in accordance with the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program including: water use efficiency, water transfers, integrated
storage investigations and studies for Delta conveyance.
The fiscal year 2001 budget contains a proposal extending the
availability of funding authorized by the California Bay-Delta
Environmental Enhancement Act through 2003. This proposed extension
would support continued Federal participation in the CALFED Bay-Delta
ecosystem restoration activities to meet the commitment of the State/
Federal Cost Share Agreement. There is no increase in the amount of
funds authorized, rather an extension of time in which funds may be
appropriated.
OTHER ACCOUNTS
The request for Policy and Administration (P&A) is $50.2 million.
The purpose of this appropriation is to support management and
administration activities that are not chargeable directly to a
specific project or program. P&A supports all of Reclamation's
centralized management functions, such as overall program and personnel
policy management; budgetary policy formulation and execution;
information resources management; procurement, property and general
services policy; and public affairs activities. Since a significant
portion of the funding for P&A supports salaries and related costs,
this account has been impacted significantly over the past few years,
as the funding level for P&A has remained constant while cost-of-living
increases associated with salaries and benefits have increased at a
rate of 3 to 5 percent per year.
The request for the Loan Program in fiscal year 2001 is $9.4
million, and would continue funding for three loans in California.
Permanent appropriations available in the Colorado River Dam Fund
are estimated to be $66.1 million in fiscal year 2001, and non-Federal
contributions to Reclamation's Trust Funds are estimated to be $4.5
million.
CONCLUSION
This completes my statement. Please allow me to express my sincere
appreciation for the continued support that the Committee has provided
Reclamation. I look forward to working with the Committee to further
our mutual goals of managing, developing, and protecting water and
related resources. I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have at this time.
STATEMENT OF J. RONALD JOHNSTON
Senator Domenici. We won't be out of here on time, but
you're certain that you're comfortable with that?
Commissioner Martinez. Yes, I'm comfortable with that, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Okay, let's proceed now. Do we have some
other witnesses who are going to testify right now? Central
Utah Project, would you like to enter your statement as part of
the record and please comment for us?
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Johnston. Yes, I am pleased to be here today to
represent the President's budget for implementation of the
Central Utah Project. I would appreciate my statement being
entered for the record and I think with that, I'll just answer
any questions that you might have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of J. Ronald Johnston
I am pleased to be here today to present the President's fiscal
year 2001 budget for implementation of the Central Utah Project
Completion Act.
The Central Utah Project Completion Act, Titles II-VI of Public Law
102-575, provides for completion of the Central Utah Project (CUP) by
the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. The Act also authorizes
funding for fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation;
establishes an Account in the U.S. Treasury for the deposit of these
and other funds; establishes the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Commission to coordinate mitigation and conservation
activities; and provides for the Ute Indian Rights Settlement.
The Act provides that the Secretary may not delegate his
responsibilities under the Act to the Bureau of Reclamation. As a
result, the Department has established a program coordination office in
Provo, Utah, that reports to the Assistant Secretary, Water and
Science, and that provides oversight, review, and liaison with the
District, the Commission, and the Ute Indian Tribe, and assists in
administering the responsibilities of the Secretary under the Act.
The fiscal year 2001 request for the Central Utah Project
Completion Account provides $39.9 million for use by the District, the
Commission, and the Department to implement Titles II-IV of the Act, an
increase of $0.7 million over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The
request includes $19.1 million for the District to continue
construction on the remaining segments of the Diamond Fork System; to
implement approved water conservation and water management improvement
projects; and to continue development of planning and NEPA documents on
facilities to deliver water in the Utah Lake drainage basin.
The funds requested for transfer to the Mitigation Commission will
be used in implementing the fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation
and conservation projects authorized in Title III ($12.8 million); and
in completing mitigation measures committed to in pre-1992 Bureau of
Reclamation planning documents ($1.4 million). Title III activities
funded in fiscal year 2001 include the Provo River Restoration Project;
acquisition of habitat, access, and water rights in other key
watersheds; and fish hatchery improvements.
Finally, the request includes funds for the Federal contribution to
the principal of the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation
Account ($5.0 million); for mitigation and conservation projects
outside the State of Utah ($0.4 million); and for program
administration ($1.3 million).
In addition to this request, the Bureau of Indian Affairs' budget
includes $24.9 million for the Ute Indian Rights Settlement; and $5.0
million is included in the Western Area Power Administration budget for
its contribution to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation
Account.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer
any questions you may have at this time.
Senator Domenici. Thank you so much. We will certainly be
interested in the statement. Is that the extent of the
witnesses? You're here in support?
Mr. Cottingham. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. Senator Craig, do you have any questions?
Senator Craig. I do have one question.
Senator Domenici. Could you chair for just a moment and I
will be right back.
IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
Commissioner Martinez, let me also echo the comments of the
chairman and the opportunity we've had to work with you and the
initiatives you've taken, the kind of support you have given us
and, in like turn, we've been able to provide you. It's been a
positive working relationship and we thank you for that.
I have one question in your fiscal year 2001 budget that I
would like to visit with you about and that is a passback from
OMB. I understand that the Pacific Northwest Region's budget
was about $72 million, mostly O&M, and OMB cut that by about
$7.9 million. The Idaho investigation program was cut
approximately in half to about $248,000, while others such as
Oregon investigations took no cuts. The Idaho investigations
were listed as new. I understand these are not new.
Could you explain here for the record what these
investigations are and why Idaho took what I think is a
disproportionate cut?
Commissioner Martinez. Mr. Chairman, if, in fact, Idaho
took a 50 percent cut, that was not the intent and should not
be the intent of the Bureau of Reclamation. I believe that most
of that cut came from a Fort Hall Reservation study. I will
provide you the information for the record. If this program
needs additional resources, I will look to see if some re-
programming capability exists.
[The information follows:]
IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS
Following the lead of Congress in recent years, the OMB
``passback'' on the fiscal year 2001 budget did include a reduction in
new study activities, but the decision on which study activities to cut
was made by Reclamation. As a result of requests from the Department
and from OMB to provide additional data on work being performed under
the statewide investigation programs, Reclamation's Pacific Northwest
Region revised its program narratives for the fiscal year 2001 budget
submission. Activities begun under existing line items in prior years
were separated from those line items and described as their own line
item activity in greater detail. These separated items were then
``deemed'' to be new starts since they had not appeared in any previous
budget submission from the region. As a result, funding for these items
was eventually cut from the fiscal year 2001 request.
FORT HALL INDIAN RESERVATION GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
Senator Craig. Well, let us look at the Fort Hall
situation. I need to know the specifics of that. And I say
that, Commissioner, because we've had a very substantial
underground water contamination problem at Fort Hall and I'm
not sure that you all were involved in that. And if you were,
is that where these resources are now being taken from? So let
us examine that with you. But I see that overall as
disproportionate, and if there is a better explanation that you
can provide us, we'll look for it.
Commissioner Martinez. Senator, I'll provide that for the
record. Based on my understanding the major part of the cut was
for that one program. However, I'll provide you a detailed
response. And if it is something that is needed in Idaho, I
look forward to working with you to make sure we get that done.
Senator Craig. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, that's the only
question I have. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
FORT HALL
Fort Hall is a special study and has not been part of the Idaho
Investigations Program. Although the Fort Hall study was not included
in the President's request for fiscal year 1999, the Senate report
accompanying the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill contained a
directive to use $200,000 of available funds to begin a feasibility
study to address the serious dangers of ground water contamination at
the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in Idaho. The Congress added $250,000
to continue the study into Reclamation's fiscal year 2000 budget. The
Congressional funding came after the Department had reviewed
Reclamation's fiscal year 2001 budget request, so funding was not
requested for the Fort Hall project.
DROUGHT SITUATION IN THE WEST
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Thank you for
attending. I appreciate it very much.
I want to ask a few questions with reference to the drought
and the anticipation of drought damages. Let me start by saying
Congress provided you with $3 million and associated
legislative language for funding provided under drought
emergency assistance program. The law provided primarily for
leasing of water in compliance with State water laws and that
purchase be approved by the State in question.
What is the current situation and evaluation with reference
to droughts in the West and has it changed appreciably over the
last year?
Commissioner Martinez. Mr. Chairman, my information
indicates that currently Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, southern
California and Hawaii are experiencing drought conditions.
There are emergency declarations either in place or expected in
the near future. Many areas of the Southwest are in worse
condition than they were a year ago. With respect to New
Mexico, conditions of anticipated runoff are approximately what
they were last year, which is about 40 to 50 percent of
average.
Last year, luckily it started raining. As you know, it
rained all summer. If we don't have that same scenario, we're
going to have a drastic situation in terms of drought in the
American Southwest.
With respect to Reclamation projects, the storage carryover
in our reservoirs is sufficient to provide water to those
project beneficiaries for the next couple of years. The purpose
of these reservoirs is to provide that carryover capability.
But with respect to the small irrigation ditches and the
acequias in New Mexico, they're going to have some difficult
times this summer.
Of the $3 million that the Congress provided last year for
fiscal year 2000 for the budget, we have $2.3 million which is
still unallocated. But based on the projections, we will
probably not have any carryover money into the next year.
We have identified in our budget this year a request for
$500,000. We honestly believe that the demand might be
somewhere between 2 to 3 million additional dollars. Part of
that is because, as you know, the National Drought Policy
Commission is expected to send its report to Congress this
June. As a result of the activities on the Drought Policy
Commission, many more people will become familiar with our
program and are going to be asking for more additional money.
DROUGHT AUTHORITY LANGUAGE
There is one issue I need to bring to the Committee's
attention. In the past, the Bureau of Reclamation has provided
assistance to States and tribes to help them compile their
drought contingency plans. The Bureau of Reclamation had been
interpreting Public Law 102-250, which is the law that gives us
authority to work on drought issues. Title 2 of that Act allows
the Bureau of Reclamation to assist States and tribes with
resources so they can do their drought contingency plans. The
Bureau of Reclamation had been interpreting that language to
mean that we could provide financial grants to the States and
the tribes, as well as technical assistance.
My attorneys tell me that they interpret the language to
mean that we have no authority to provide money, only technical
assistance. I would like to get the language corrected if the
intent of Congress is to not only provide technical assistance
but also financial grants to States and tribes to help them do
their planning.
A long answer to a short question.
Senator Domenici. Well, I appreciate your frankness. I
can't imagine with what's happening out there that we ought to
take the risk that we have sufficient monies with the money
that hasn't been spent, plus a half a million. I think we
better put a little more in that fund and I appreciate your
suggesting $2 to $3 million. I don't think we'll have any
trouble getting support for that because those of us who come
from arid States know what happens.
People don't understand, if we have a drought, individual
water wells that serve a home in a rural part of the State
might go dry. If that happened as a result of a serious problem
in a city, we would be helping with their water system. If it
went out because of a great flood, we would help pay for the
infrastructure and the like. We have to try to understand what
are the kinds of things that might happen and make sure you
have authority, or somebody does. So I would like to just ask
two or three questions.
DROUGHT EMERGENCY AUTHORITIES
Could you explain what the emergency authorities are and
which are available to the Bureau of Reclamation to mitigate
the impact?
Commissioner Martinez. I would be delighted to provide you
a detailed response for the record, but basically the National
Drought Policy Commission to date has identified the fact that
the authority that Congress has provided the Bureau of
Reclamation under Public Law 102-250 is really the only
authority a Federal agency has been given by Congress to react
to drought situations.
The Act basically provides authority to the Secretary of
Interior to do two things: To assist States and tribes and
governmental entities to do drought contingency plans, and then
to provide financial assistance during droughts so the
Secretary can drill wells, lay temporary pipelines and redirect
water from Bureau of Reclamation projects.
[The information follows:]
DROUGHT EMERGENCY AUTHORITY
Emergency drought assistance is provided through Public Law 102-
250, Title I. This assistance is provided only in those instances where
a Governor of a State or a tribal leader has made a request for
temporary drought assistance and we have determined that such temporary
assistance is merited.
Mitigation is defined in recent drought-related literature as an
essential, proactive element of drought preparedness which can reduce
the overall need for and cost of drought response. In terms of
mitigation efforts, Reclamation has the authority to undertake these
efforts through programs such as water conservation or wastewater
reuse. However, the ability to implement these mitigation efforts
depends upon the criteria for eligibility for those programs as well as
funding provided for those activities.
DROUGHT POLICY COMMISSION REPORT
I need to again state that the National Drought Policy
Commission report, which is anticipated to be transmitted to
Congress in June, will define what the Federal agencies have in
terms of authority and responsibility in these areas.
Senator Domenici. Won't they also recommend what they think
we should have?
Commissioner Martinez. That's the intent. It will have
recommendations regarding congressional actions as well as
administrative actions.
Senator Domenici. Well, I want to say I was privileged to
draft that legislation. I got a lot of support here and then
the House quickly joined and it took the Administration a year
to get that commission going, but I attended the first meeting.
You were there. There certainly is sufficient power by the
people to make a strong recommendation.
You're a member and I assume that so far, knowing the kinds
of problems that you're confronted with in the event of a
drought, do you believe that the recommendations are going to
be sufficiently positive that we might consider them something
we should do?
Commissioner Martinez. Yes, Mr. Chairman. That is part of
the discussions that are taking place amongst the
commissioners. We feel that in order for that report to be
effective, we need to make some concrete recommendations.
Therefore, the report will recommend action that the
Administration can take immediately, and then we'll also make
recommendations regarding what Congress might do in terms of
authorizations and funding for down-the-road type issues.
DESALINIZATION RESEARCH
Senator Domenici. I'm going to come back to the Pecos River
and the Rio Grande in my State, but I would like to talk a
minute about desalinization research. Somehow or another
desalinization has ended up in your packet of areas where you
were expected to do something. How is the desalinization
program within the Bureau in your opinion addressing critical
issues regarding making desalinization competitive?
Commissioner Martinez. Mr. Chairman, if you recall, last
year we had basically the same discussion, and we provided a
rather detailed answer for the record. The Bureau of
Reclamation historically has been involved in the application
of existing technology to try to provide desalinization needs
across the Reclamation States.
We work with the Department of the Army, and we also work
overseas, especially in Saudi Arabia, to help with
desalinization. The state of the art is a question of
economics. My understanding is that over the last 10 years, the
cost of desalinization has gotten down to where it's becoming a
more viable option.
Based on the figures that I have before me, you can now
treat brackish water for about a dollar per thousand gallons
and seawater from about $2 to $5 per thousand gallons, and
that's becoming competitive.
Our budget includes two requests. One is to fund at $1.2
million our continuing efforts to apply the technology that is
flowing from research and $300,000 to do research working with
academia and the private sector. That goes back to the
legislation introduced by Senator Simon, I believe.
We divided the request in our budget into two components.
In the past we had merged them both together, the application
and the research. This year we have $1.2 million for
application and $300,000 for research. I realize that Senator
Reid's concern last year was that we were not putting enough
money into the research component. I understand that. It's just
a question of economics.
I believe our program is effective. We went back and
revisited our program. We work with a committee made up of
folks from the universities and the private sector who review
the research proposals. We have funded a significant number of
proposals, although not as many as we would wish. We hope to
continue to work in the research area as well as the
application area.
Senator Domenici. We understand that overall within the
Federal Government, we're spending about $10 million annually
for desalinization. Your program is about $1.5 million. The
rest is primarily within the Department of Defense. Now, is
there any coordination between what the Defense Department does
with the $8.5 million I assume they have and the Bureau of
Reclamation?
Commissioner Martinez. Yes, it's my understanding, and I
reviewed the response we provided last year for the record,
that there is a committee that is involved with Federal
agencies that coordinates their efforts. I'll provide
additional information for the record.
[The information follows:]
DESALINATION COORDINATION
As stated last year, the Bureau of Reclamation has a unique role
among the Federal agencies in desalination research, development, and
demonstration. Other agencies use and adapt desalination technologies
to meet mission specific needs. Many years ago it was generally
recognized that a potential existed within the Federal Government for
duplication of research efforts. As a result, the Bureau of Reclamation
and the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Research, Development, and
Engineering Center created the Interagency Consortium for Desalination
and Membrane Separation Research in 1992. Since that time, the
Consortium, including other Federal agencies, has met yearly to discuss
individual projects being carried out by the agencies and the future
directions of their programs. The most recent meeting was held March
21--22, 2000.
The Consortium members work together to establish a communications
network that has the following benefits: Prevent Federal duplication of
efforts, Pool limited Federal research funding and other resources to
obtain common goals, Identify future research needs, and Allow for
discussion of new technologies with other experts in the field.
For example, over the past year, the Army has continued to work
with Reclamation and the Navy in its procurement of new desalting
devices. Reclamation, the Army, and the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) have continued to collaborate in membrane fouling
research. The Army and Reclamation continue to develop a new chlorine
resistant membrane with tests at the Yuma Water Quality Improvement
Center (WQIC) in Yuma, Arizona, the Navy's seawater test facility in
California, and Water Factory 21 in Orange County, California. One of
the Defense Advanced Projects Agency's research contractors is using
Reclamation's WQIC for their testing. The Army and Reclamation work
together on the Industrial Advisory Board for the National Science
Foundation's Membranes and Applied Separations Technology Center at the
University of Colorado. Reclamation participated in the most recent
program review of the Office of Naval Research's membrane program.
Reclamation is co-chair with NIST and the University of Colorado for
the North American Membrane Society (NAMS) meeting in May. We will also
be providing a hands-on workshop with membrane test equipment in our
Denver laboratories for the NAMS conference attendees. Reclamation is
coordinating and supporting a consortium of membrane producers and
users in the development of ultrafiltration characterization techniques
by NIST.
DESALINIZATION COSTS
Senator Domenici. I wonder, when you mentioned the costs,
which it's been obvious forever, since I first came to the
Senate, we had a desalinization program going on in Roswell,
New Mexico. You might recall that when you were there. It was
so prohibitive in terms of cost differential that we stopped
it. But I imagine with Israel and others working on it, that we
have done better.
Who would be the science and economic expert that we might
ask regarding your assessment that you gave us here today of
the $2 to $5 cost and the relevance of that in terms of
competitiveness? Do you have an expert?
Commissioner Martinez. Yes, we will provide that
information for the record.
Senator Domenici. Could you have the expert provide us a
narrative of what's going on and what they think the next steps
are in moving in this area?
Commissioner Martinez. We'll do that for the record.
[The information follows:]
DESALINATION EXPERTISE
We have an expert, Kevin Price in our Denver office, and a staff
that supports the desalination program. Competitiveness is determined
through the comparison of actual costs of alternative supplies of water
determined by a specific community and actual desalination costs.
Actual desalination costs are obtained through published information,
which has given the cost at the seawater plants at Tampa Bay at $2.09
per thousand gallons, Trinidad at $3.21 per thousand gallons, and
Larnaca, Cyprus at $3.30 per thousand gallons. We also obtain current
cost data through the communication and coordination with experts
within the desalination industry and through professional organizations
such as the American Desalting Association (ADA). We have jointly
developed, validated, and are selling a cost model with the ADA. This
model was created with the assistance of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology and ADA desalting experts. It currently
focuses on brackish and seawater desalination with membranes; future
work will add electrodialysis. ADA is currently negotiating with the
International Desalination Association for support to include the costs
of thermal desalting technologies.
DESALINATION-NEXT STEPS
The status of desalination today is that there are commercially
available processes, reverse osmosis, nanofiltration, distillation and
electrodialysis, which the potential user of desalination can select
depending on the particular requirements. The Desalting Plant Survey
conducted for the International Desalting Association indicates that
there were approximately 12,000 desalting plants worldwide at the end
of 1997.
Federal funding of desalination research began in 1954 with the
creation of the Office of Saline Water and largely ended when the
Office of Water Research and Technology closed its doors in 1982. Also
in 1982 with the end of Federal funding, a significant patent was
issued for a specific type of very efficient membranes. That patent,
which was ultimately owned by the Department of the Interior, remains
as the basis of today's commercial desalination membrane market.
While significant progress has been made in applying cost-effective
desalination technologies, they remain too expensive an option for the
majority of small communities in the United States. Specifically,
further work is needed to reduce the costs related to the clogging or
fouling of membranes, and work is need to find environmentally friendly
ways of byproduct or concentrate disposal
While the issues of membrane fouling and concentrate disposal have
a high priority, other issues have also been identified by the
Desalination Research and Development Program's constituents. They are:
--development of membranes with increased resistance to chlorine,
--development of techniques to reduce surface fouling,
--development of ion- or component-specific membranes for reverse
osmosis, electrodialysis or other membrane-based processes,
--increased rates of mass transfer at membrane surfaces,
--development of ``leak-proof'' recycling treatment technologies for
potable reuse,
--standardized membrane integrity tests,
--improved predictive measurements for accurate modeling,
--support and development of innovative processes,
--evaluation of economic and environmental benefits of recovering the
byproducts of desalting processes,
--development of more energy efficient systems,
--development of accurate cost models,
--development of non-conventional concentrate disposal methods,
--development of methods to cost effectively recover by-products,
--testing and demonstration to assist in the development of public
health and environmental regulations,
--development of tools and resources for planners and engineers.
As progress continues to be made through the research planned in
the identified areas, the effectiveness and efficiency of desalination
processes are expected to improve. Supporting research funding is
essential to achieve these objectives in order to produce more
affordable desalinated water supplies that can help meet the nation's
current and future potable, industrial, and environmental water supply
needs.
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY
Senator Domenici. I appreciate it. I have questions
regarding the Carlsbad project with reference to fish and
wildlife, but I'll submit it to you for your answers and also
one with reference to the endangered species recovery and
implementation of that program and your efforts to comply with
the so-called biological opinions.
Would you care to just generally comment with reference to
those two--that situation, please?
Commissioner Martinez. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
your assistance over the years on this issue. Generally what
we're doing is working with the State of New Mexico on the Rio
Grande and the Pecos River to look at long-term operations of
the Bureau of Reclamation projects and the Corps of Engineers
projects as appropriate. Both of these are underway. The final
EISs are a few years down the road.
RIO GRANDE INITIATIVE
But we continue to work with the stakeholders, especially
on the Rio Grande. There is a new initiative to put together a
conservation plan agreeable to the State as well as the Corps
of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation and the business
community.
The Bureau has taken the lead working with the agencies and
the State to coordinate this initiative to maximize the
benefits of these projects, at the same time dealing with
endangered species issues.
I hope that by this time next year we will have a plan in
place that will address some of your concerns about bringing
all the parties together and making sure that we don't have
duplicate programs in place.
Senator Domenici. And that the stakeholders are really
talking to each other with reference to having to accommodate
somewhat to differing views. Could I ask you, what is the name
of the entity that you just described so that I am working with
the right one? They were in my office the other day and I
assume that's the group that you're talking about.
Commissioner Martinez. On the Rio Grande?
Senator Domenici. Yes.
Commissioner Martinez. If not, I'll provide it. I'll
provide it for the record.
Senator Domenici. We think it's the ESA work group and
middle Rio Grande restoration initiative.
Commissioner Martinez. That is the group, but the habitat
conservation plan has about six signatories. I'll provide that
information for the record.
[The information follows:]
ESA WORKGROUP
You were correct that the group is called the ESA Working Group.
They formulated the Habitat Conservation Plan with seven signatories,
including the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the New Mexico Interstate Stream
Commission, the Attorney General of New Mexico, the New Mexico
Department of Game and Fish, and the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
District.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ROLE
Senator Domenici. I want to state for the record that with
reference to the Rio Grande and the Pecos, I know a little bit
more about the Rio Grande, having been born and raised right
there. But ultimately, you know, I'm not at all bashful about
thinking that the Federal Government might have to come up with
some money in the end with reference to an appropriate habitat.
The problem is we don't know what to do yet. And I assume when
you speak of maybe next year we'll be ready to have a unified
effort, you would also be addressing what is the Federal
Government's role if we have to provide for the endangered
species, what should the Federal Government be doing. Would
that part of what's being discussed?
Commissioner Martinez. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think the
foundations are what the Federal Government is doing. On the
Rio Grande there was a big debate, as you're aware, as to
whether the Secretary of the Interior was going to release
water from the upstream reservoirs just by his own action. The
position of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Secretary
basically is that we will not be releasing water unilaterally
from reservoirs across the West. We will be trying to work with
Congress or to seek appropriations to acquire water rights
under existing State law to address some of these concerns,
keeping in mind that the different stakeholders also have to
bring something to the table. It's not an entire federally
financed project. But if you look at our budget we have money
for these kinds of acquisitions. We have a budget request on
the Rio Grande and on the Pecos River, and of course, we've
been leasing water on the Columbia/Snake River system to the
extent of 427,000 acre feet since 1996.
That generally is the direction where we're heading. I will
make sure that a report to the Committee on these issues is
provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
ENDANGERED SPECIES/WATER ACQUISITION
Reclamation supports the goals and requirements of the Endangered
Species Act to conserve threatened and endangered species and avoid
actions that might jeopardize the continued existence of these species
or destroy their critical habitat.
In regards to conservation, our policy is to participate in the
development and implementation of recovery plans for listed species
that are affected by Reclamation's projects and actions or where
resources under our control are identified in a recovery plan. We also
undertake conservation actions to avoid future listings of species. In
determining what conservation actions are appropriate for
implementation, we consider such things as: species' needs, impacts and
benefits to species, funding availability and priorities, costs,
authorities, local support, technical feasibility, availability of
agency resources, impacts on Indian Trust Assets and the availability
of cost-sharing partners. We support using a multi-species/ecosystem
approach, where possible, and involving stakeholders from the public
and private sectors in developing and implementing conservation plans.
Some of the conservation programs that we are presently engaged in are:
the Upper Colorado River Recovery Implementation Program, the Platte
River Recovery Implementation Program, the Lower Colorado River Multi-
Species Conservation Program, and the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act implementation. Conservation activities may involve
increasing in-stream flows through changes in dam operations and
acquisition of water through lease or purchase; and acquiring lands for
habitat restoration and protection.
We involve the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine
Fisheries Service early in project planning or in decisions involving
existing operations to determine effects on any threatened or
endangered species. For formal consultations, we work with the Services
in preparing Biological Assessments, Biological Opinions and Reasonable
and Prudent Alternatives that are technically and economically
feasible.
RIO GRANDE RESTORATION
Senator Domenici. I thank you very much for the way you
have attempted to work as an intermediary and to be unbiased
and even-handed and to recognize that the State has a genuine
interest as you have been doing is really gratifying to this
Senator and I commend you for it.
I will begin very shortly furthering my involvement with
ESA Working Group and the Rio Grande Restoration Initiative.
They've been in my office. I've discussed with them; in fact,
we have to all get together and start talking about where we
end up. If you think they are a good, workmanlike group, I
appreciate that sort of advice and I will begin to work more
diligently with them.
Commissioner Martinez. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to
working with you down the road as a fellow New Mexican, and I
am personally interested in these issues. These issues affect
not only the Rio Grande stream system, but they're common to
every stream system across the West. If we don't come to grips
with them, we are going to be in constant litigation and
causing fractionalization among different stakeholders across
the West.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Domenici. Thank you all very much. The questions
will be submitted and whenever you can get them answered, we
would appreciate it.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
DESALINATION
Question. Mr. Commissioner, what is the state of desalination
technology today?
Answer. The status of desalination today is that there are
commercially available processes, such as reverse osmosis,
nanofiltration, distillation and electrodialysis, which the potential
user of desalination can select depending on the particular
requirements. The Desalting Plant Survey conducted for the
International Desalting Association indicates that there were
approximately 12,000 desalting plants worldwide at the end of 1997.
Federal funding of desalination research began in 1954 with the
creation of the Office of Saline Water and decreased substantially when
the Office of Water Research and Technology, or OWRT, closed its doors
in 1982. Also in 1982 as a result of OWRT's work, a significant patent
was issued for a specific type of very efficient membranes. That
patent, which was ultimately owned by the Department of the Interior,
remains as the basis of today's commercial desalination membrane
market.
While significant progress has been made in cost effectively
applying desalination technologies, they remain too expensive an option
for the majority of small communities in the United States.
Specifically, further work is needed in the public or private sector to
reduce the costs related to the clogging or fouling of membranes, and
work is needed to find environmentally friendly ways of byproduct or
concentrate disposal.
Question. What kinds of research must be undertaken in order to
make desalination competitive?
Answer. There are two types of research that could be undertaken:
basic and applied. Basic research tends to be expensive and long-term,
while applied research tends to be incremental, with shorter-term
payoffs. Our current approach in the Bureau of Reclamation's
Desalination Research and Development Program is to use the funding
available primarily to support applied research projects from bench-
scale to pilot-scale to demonstration.
When determining whether or not desalination costs are competitive,
desalination costs must compare favorably with fresh water costs. In
the past, fresh water sources were much less expensive than
desalination. But today, in many cases, there are no good alternatives.
Fresh water sources are in many cases over-allocated. Desalination
could provide an opportunity to increase the total water supply by
purifying impaired waters.
Question. What are the key issues that must be addressed?
Answer. While the issues of membrane fouling and concentrate
disposal have a high priority, other issues have also been identified
by the Desalination Research and Development Program's constituents.
They are:
--development of membranes with increased resistance to chlorine,
--development of ion- or component-specific membranes for reverse
osmosis, electrodialysis or other membrane-based processes,
--increased rates of mass transfer at membrane surfaces,
--development of ``leak-proof'' recycling treatment technologies for
potable reuse,
--standardized membrane integrity tests,
--improved predictive measurements for accurate modeling,
--support and development of innovative processes,
--evaluation of economic and environmental benefits of recovering the
byproducts of desalting processes,
--development of more energy efficient systems,
--development of accurate cost models,
--development of non-conventional concentrate disposal methods,
--development of methods to cost-effectively recover by-products,
--testing and demonstration to assist in the development of public
health and environmental regulations,
--development of tools and resources for planners and engineers.
Question. How is the Desalination Program within the Bureau of
Reclamation addressing the critical issues?
Answer. The critical issues are addressed first through
communication and planning with the potential users of the technology,
e.g. utilities, water management agencies, regulators, equipment
suppliers, associations, engineering firms, nonprofit research
organizations, and the academic community. From the extensive
suggestions of the potential users, research investigations, pilot
plants, and demonstration projects are developed with priorities
matched to a budget. The priority areas are advertised and contracted
through a competitive process to qualified researchers. Upon completion
of the work, it is disseminated through conferences, workshops,
reports, patents, electronic media, and electronic files available from
the Desalination Research and Development Program's website. On a
regular basis, the Desalination Research and Development Program is
reviewed by outside evaluators and the research is reprioritized.
Question. Is there a research ``Road-map'' in place to focus
available funding on the most critical issues?
Answer. The Desalination Research and Development Program's
research road-map is determined through the input of two committees,
the Steering Committee and the Technical Review Committee. Both of
these committees assist in the implementation of the research process.
The Steering Committee is comprised of six non-Reclamation individuals
from various desalination constituencies and is chaired by
Reclamation's Director of Research. It is responsible for assisting in
developing the strategic plan and vision, recognizing unexplored
opportunities and assuring the Desalination Research and Development
Program meets the intent of Congress. The Technical Review Committee is
made up of five highly qualified experts from outside of Reclamation.
They make recommendations concerning the research goals and objectives,
as well as assisting in the development of research priorities, or
road-map. The committees are new for fiscal year 2000. We will have the
first Steering Committee meeting April 10, 2000.
The current road-map concentrates funding into five emphasis areas.
They were established through extensive input from seven workshops with
constituents held between 1989 and 1997. The five emphasis areas are
membranes, especially fouling issues, and increased efficiencies;
concentrate disposal for inland and coastal plants; innovative
concepts, especially reduced costs for small systems; demonstration,
especially for broad regulatory approval and for testing of laboratory/
pilot successes; and technology transfer. Currently, Reclamation is
partnered with the American Water Works Association Research Foundation
(AWWARF) to bring together in July representatives of the membrane
industry, academia, design engineering companies, utilities, and
regulatory agencies in order to develop a detailed, prioritized list of
projects for desalting and water filtration membranes. This list will
guide the Desalination Research and Development Program in desalting
membrane research and guide AWWARF investments in water filtration
membrane research.
Question. Could you give the Committee an idea of the comparative
costs between desalinated water and the next lowest alternative?
Answer. Costs for various alternative water supplies vary widely
site-to-site. This is difficult to provide an across the board
response. The next lowest cost alternative to desalination may be
conservation, reallocation of existing resources, or water reuse. Last
year, San Diego, California, estimated costs for their limited options
to increase water supply as: water transfer costs of $0.84-$1.33 per
1000 gallons, marine transport costs of $1.58 per 1000 gallons,
reclaimed water for industry of $2.22 per 1000 gallons. These options
are all available on a limited scale, whereas some form of desalination
is available on a more widespread basis. A general rule of thumb is
that brackish water desalination costs about $1 per 1000 gallons and
seawater desalination costs between $3 and $4 per 1000 gallons.
Question. Are there any unusual factors in the Tampa, Florida
desalination project that would skew comparisons with that project?
Answer. The Tampa Bay Project will produce water for approximately
$2.08 per thousand gallons. The unusual factor in this project is its
low cost. Factors in the project that affect the water production cost
include sharing infrastructure with the adjacent power plant, a
favorable electric power cost, feed water warmed by a few degrees, and
a feed salinity about 80 percent of that of normal seawater. These
factors would tend to skew comparisons with other facilities.
Question. Under what conditions do you see desalination being
feasible for a rural community or small town in an interior location?
Answer. Desalination is used in a number of small communities in
the interior, like Buckeye, Arizona, and Las Animas, Colorado, which
had no alternative but to desalinate locally available brackish waters.
The primary condition that leads to this is the lack of a good water
supplies nearby. Decreased desalination costs will make good quality
water available for many more such communities.
Question. Why does the budget justification material separate out
the Desalination R&D activities from Advanced Water Treatment
Desalination?
Answer. The two programs were separated because they represent the
needs of two different constituencies. It became apparent during an
external program Peer Review in 1998, that the Desalination Research
and Development Program was national in scope and should not be used
primarily to support research within the agency. The Advanced Water
Treatment Program is comprised of research and technology development
to specifically address Reclamation's water treatment needs such as
rural and Native American water treatment, treatment of irrigation
returns, treatment of impaired waters, salinity control through
treatment, water reuse, and increasing water supplies with treatment
technologies.
Question. How are these two programs different?
Answer. The Desalination Research and Development Program is
authorized by the Desalination Act of 1996 and focuses on water
purification and technology development. The Secretary of the Interior
is designated as the responsible official in this Act, and Reclamation
serves as his steward for implementing this national program. The
Desalination Research and Development Program serves as a catalyst in
accelerating the reduction in cost of desalination technologies through
cost-shared, competitive, cooperative agreements. The Advanced Water
Treatment Program focuses on Reclamation's needs, using Reclamation's
researchers to develop and apply new water treatment technologies that
benefit Reclamation projects. The program may use desalination
technologies created by the Desalination Research and Development
Program. The Advanced Water Treatment Program is carried out under
Reclamation's Science and Technology Program using Reclamation's
general research authority. Water treatment is undergoing a
technological revolution, which is being driven by more stringent
drinking water and environmental regulations and an increased need for
water. Reclamation must meet these regulations and work to develop
additional supplies of water.
Question. Why isn't there a greater non-Federal contribution to
this research effort?
Answer. The Desalination Act of 1996, Public Law 104-298, requires
that the Federal cost share not exceed 50 percent. Further, it provides
that a Federal contribution in excess of 25 percent may not be made
unless the project is determined to not be feasible without such
increased Federal contribution. Up to $1,000,000 in each fiscal year
may be awarded to universities without any cost-sharing requirement. In
our Desalination Research and Development Program, the non-Federal
contribution from non-academic institutions has varied from 50 percent
to 90 percent. While academic institutions are not required to cost
share, their cost share has ranged up to 70 percent.
Currently, the majority of contracts have been with more than 16
universities including New Mexico State University, University of
Nevada, Montana State University, University of Texas at El Paso,
Arizona State University, University of Illinois, and University of
Colorado. The Federal funding helps to motivate the best and brightest
of the faculty and students to chose to study desalination issues. In
the majority of cases, the universities match the Federal funding with
in-kind contributions such as use of specialized equipment, facilities,
and faculty time.
Generally, the private sector does not fully invest in desalination
research because many other areas in their businesses return higher
short-term profits. However, we have found that Federal funds attract
corporate researchers, and help to justify essential desalination
research that may not have an immediate return on their investment.
Question. Would you support increasing the non-Federal cost sharing
in this program?
Answer. Yes, we would support increasing the non-Federal cost
sharing in this program.
DROUGHT
Question. What is the current drought situation in the West?
Answer. Currently Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, southern California,
and Hawaii are experiencing drought conditions, with emergency
declarations in-place or expected in the near future.
Question. Has it changed appreciably over the past year?
Answer. Many areas in the southwest are in much worse condition
than the previous year due to the previous year's drought conditions,
coupled with almost no snowpack or run-off expected in large areas of
the southwest this year.
Question. Has the Bureau of Reclamation encountered any problems in
using the funding provided by the Congress for drought emergency
assistance?
Answer. The Solicitor's Office has informed us that Public Law 102-
250 does not authorize financial assistance to cooperating entities for
development of drought plans.
Question. Can you detail for the Committee how the additional $2.5
million appropriated over the budget request for fiscal year 2000 has
been used to date?
Answer. The table below indicates the use of the funding available
fiscal year 2000.
Carryover..................................................... $100,000
Fiscal year 2000 Appropriation................................ 3,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Beginning Fiscal Year 2000 Allocation................... 3,100,000
Underfinancing................................................ -250,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................ 2,850,000
Program Administration Costs.................................. -100,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................ 2,750,000
National Drought Mitigation Center, Drought Planning Technical
Assistance to the State of Arizona........................ -40,000
Navajo Nation for Drought Plan................................ -75,000
Hualapai Nation for Drought Plan.............................. -50,000
Budgeted for Drought workshop in GP Region.................... -50,000
Technical Assistance to the State of Hawaii for drought
planning.................................................. -75,000
Funding stakeholder education and public outreach efforts
through Western Governor's Association.................... -10,000
Drought Response Fund Study (Public Law 102-250, Section 205). -100,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Unallocated Balance..................................... 2,350,000
Question. Do you expect carryover funds into 2001?
Answer. Requests are expected to exceed available funding,
therefore we anticipate little or no carryover.
While there is currently an unallocated balance, inquiries for
assistance have been received, and we anticipate receipt of formal
requests for both emergency and planning assistance in the very near
future. Requests are currently in the development phase at the area
office level.
Question. Is the $500,000 requested for 2001 plus any expected
carryover sufficient to meet your expected needs for 2001?
Answer. As a result of activities related to the National Drought
Policy Commission, we anticipate that the number of requests for
drought-related assistance could increase due to increased awareness
and conditions that currently exist or are being forecast; therefore,
our fiscal year 2001 request may well not be sufficient to meet all
requests for funding.
Question. Could you explain what emergency authorities are
available to the Bureau of Reclamation to help mitigate the impacts of
drought?
Answer. Emergency drought assistance is provided through Public Law
102-250, Title I.
Question. The committee has had to extend authority under the
Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act on several occasions.
Has the bureau given thought to proposing legislation to give
Reclamation permanent emergency drought authority?
Answer. The National Drought Policy Commission is currently in the
final stages of preparing its report to Congress and to the President.
As part of its analysis and recommendations, the Commission is
considering the need for legislation to support its proposed National
Drought Policy report. We are examining the need for permanent
authorization for the Bureau of Reclamation drought-related efforts
within this context.
CARLSBAD
Question. The budget request includes $2.1 million for Fish and
Wildlife Management and Development activities. Most of the increase
over the last year's request is to obtain additional supplemental
water. Why is this additional water needed?
Answer. Water is needed to offset Pecos River depletions.
Depletions occur when water is bypassed through Sumner Dam to benefit
the threatened Pecos bluntnose shiner. In past years, water would have
been stored at Sumner Dam or released in such a manner as to incur
fewer depletions. However, these operations had negative impacts on the
threatened fish.
Question. How much additional supplemental water do you expect you
will need in fiscal year 2000 to meet the endangered species
requirements?
Answer. The amount of water needed is dependent on the hydrology
and weather conditions. It depends on how much we need to bypass at
Sumner Dam for the shiner and how much of that water needs to be offset
through Reclamation's water acquisition program. We may need as much as
an additional 6,000 acre-feet.
Question. How have you obtained any additional water in fiscal year
2000?
Answer. We have leased 2000 acre-feet for fiscal year 2000 from
Pecos River pumpers who have non-project water rights. These farmers
have agreed to fallow the land. We are continuing our efforts to look
at other options and sources to offset depletions.
Question. Have there been and do you expect any adverse impacts
resulting from this diversion of this water for support of endangered
species?
Answer. The operations in question do not involve diversion of
water for endangered species in the Pecos River. Rather, operations of
Sumner Dam have been changed to either bypass natural inflow to assist
meeting flow recommendations or alter storage release regimes to
minimize impacts to the fish. These operations may increase water
depletions over the more than 150 river miles between Sumner Dam and
the Carlsbad Irrigation District (CID). Reclamation has committed to a
program of water leasing and acquisition that will attempt to offset
those increased depletions to CID. The adverse impacts of not being
able to provide sufficient additional water could include non-
compliance with ESA standards, increased vulnerability to lawsuits for
non-compliance, and payment to the State of New Mexico of $106 for each
acre-foot of depleted water not offset as required. This latter measure
is required by our cooperative agreement with the State of New Mexico
Interstate Stream Commission.
Question. Can you give the Committee some idea of the estimated
total cost and length of time it will take to fulfill the requirements
of the Biological Opinion on the Pecos River?
Answer. The Fish and Wildlife Service requested that target flows
not fall below a certain level. The amount of water needed varies from
year to year with the hydrologic conditions. We will need to supply
supplemental water as long as fish need it. We cannot estimate time or
cost because of dependence on available water. However, Reclamation,
CID, and the State of New Mexico are working jointly to mesh river
operations, Biological Opinion requirements, Pecos River Compact
delivery obligations, New Mexico State Engineer water rights
administration and other pertinent requirements.
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
Question. Mr. Commissioner, can you explain to the Committee your
legal obligations to comply with Biological Opinions issued by the Fish
and Wildlife Service?
Answer. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires each
Federal agency to assure that any action it authorizes, funds, or
carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
listed species. To do so, agencies consult with the Fish and Wildlife
Service or with the Commerce Department's National Marine Fisheries
agency, as appropriate on any action which may affect endangered
species. If the Service determines the action is likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of the species, the Service recommends
reasonable and prudent alternative to the original action. Reclamation
generally works cooperatively with the Services to develop an
acceptable reasonable and prudent alternative and then accepts and
implements each Biological Opinion. The consequence for not accepting
it could be jeopardy to the species and potential litigation.
Question. Does the Bureau of Reclamation ever put forth a
definitive recovery plan with firm costs and schedules for
implementation?
Answer. Technically, the Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible
for development of Recovery Plans for a particular species. The Fish
and Wildlife Service will nominate and approve experts to serve on a
``Recovery Team''. This team may be represented by various private,
state, and Federal agency technical members. The Recovery Team develops
a Recovery Plan for the specific endangered species. In some cases,
portions of a Recovery Plan may be adopted as part of Reasonable and
Prudent Alternatives for various proposed Reclamation actions.
The key issue is that a Recovery Plan is developed by a Recovery
Team established by the Fish and Wildlife Service, not by Reclamation
alone. Reclamation does, on an annual basis, establish funding and
schedule estimates to implement Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives and
in some cases those Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives involve
elements of a ``Recovery Plan''. Eventually such a ``Plan'' will be
accomplished and the species will be recovered. Each Reclamation
project or program with a biological opinion updates the costs
associated with the opinion, at least annually, while preparing the
budget for that project or program.
Question. I understand that legislation has been proposed that
would require non-Federal cost sharing for capital improvements related
to endangered species recovery activities in the Upper Colorado and San
Juan River Basins. What is the Administration's position on this
legislation?
Answer. The Department testified in support of H.R. 2348, the House
version of this legislation last October, with amendments to address
some concerns. The Administration believes the legislation is critical
to the continued recovery of the four species of endangered fish and to
future successful water management for multiple uses.
Question. What are your concerns, if any?
Answer. During its testimony, the Department noted concerns about
two aspects of the bill. The first was that Section 3(e) ``Authority to
Retain Appropriated Funds,'' is not only unnecessary, but may also
unduly restrict Reclamation's ability to manage its program. In
addition, the Administration has policy and PAYGO concerns with
allowing power revenues to be used to both write-off debt to the
Treasury and at the same time be redirected to fund new investments.
The Department would like to work with the Congress to address these
concerns, so that the legislation might be enacted.
Question. Do you support the idea that non-Federal interests should
bear a greater portion of these fish and wildlife costs?
Answer. Reclamation is very supportive of all program participants
providing financial and other support to the program roughly
proportionate to the benefits they receive.
Question. What is the position of the affected States on increased
cost sharing?
Answer. Recognizing the program is best accomplished cooperatively,
the states developed and support the cost share formula proposed in the
legislation.
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE
Question. The budget request for Fish and Wildlife Management and
Development on the Middle Rio Grande Project increases by 56 percent
over fiscal year 2000 request. Mr. Commissioner, the Bureau of
Reclamation continues to spend increasing amounts of money on studies,
coordination, data collection and computer models.
Is there a plan for the recovery of the Rio Grande silvery minnow?
Answer. Yes, the official recovery plan was issued by the Fish and
Wildlife Service in July 1999. Reclamation is an active participant in
recovery efforts, including development of a Habitat Conservation Plan.
Question. When do you expect to finalize a plan, and what do you
expect it to cost?
Answer. The final recovery plan was issued in July 1999. The
estimated cost of the plan is $6,950,000 over a five year period.
Question. How much additional water do you expect will be needed to
support the recovery plan?
Answer. Depending on actual water supply and weather conditions an
additional 50,000 to 100,000 acre-feet of water could be needed each
year.
Question. How much additional water do you expect will be needed in
fiscal year 2000 to support the recovery plan?
Answer. We anticipate that over 50,000 acre-feet will be needed in
fiscal year 2000.
Question. How and from whom will this water be obtained?
Answer. We have obtained 38,000 acre-feet from current contractors
of San-Juan Chama Project water. The remaining water will have to be
found from undefined sources.
Question. Do you have an agreement with the State of New Mexico
regarding the additional water for fiscal year 2000 and any additional
needs for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The Bureau has discussed with the State of New Mexico and
others the additional amount of water that might be required in fiscal
year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 to support the recovery plan, but we do
not have a formal agreement with the State.
RIO GRANDE
Question. I note that funding is being requested to initiate
``clean water activities and silt research'' studies on the Rio Grande
Project. Why is this work required and what is the estimated cost and
schedule for completion for this work?
Answer. Water quality activities including research efforts at
Elephant Butte and Caballo Reservoirs will begin in fiscal year 2001.
The funding requested for fiscal year 2001 for these efforts is
$85,000. The total estimated cost and schedule for the efforts are not
available until current investigations are completed.
Question. What is the current status of the adjudication of water
rights in New Mexico and Texas?
Answer. There are three distinct legal cases involved with Rio
Grande Project water rights. The New Mexico State Court continues its
hydrology committee activities and issuance of the year 2000 hearing
schedule. In the quiet title case the United States District Court on
November 30, 1999, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order staying
mediation and allowing the litigation of this matter to proceed. The
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission continues to be on hold
with its administrative hearings pending outcome of the other two
cases.
Question. Has there been any movement or progress over the past
year?
Answer. Yes, the United States team views the progress made with
the majority of the parties during mediation in the quiet title case as
significant.
Question. Why has the development and use of the Upper Rio Grande
Water Operations model been delayed an additional 2 years?
Answer. With the increasing demand for water among competing uses,
it has become necessary to develop more sophisticated methodologies
related to water accounting. A draft operations model is currently
being used for the Annual Operating Plan and will be tested side by
side with existing accounting methods i.e., manual data input to
spreadsheets, etc. As more is learned about the hydrologic
characteristics of the Rio Grande Basin, the Upper Rio Grande Water
Operations Model, referred to as URGWOM, has continued to evolve to
take full advantage of the additional data. Efforts to incorporate the
emerging legislative constraints into the URGWOM have led to the
development of more sophisticated methodologies which will enable
URGWOM end users to make more informed and better decisions in a more
timely manner.
Question. Is your work funding constrained, and if so, what is your
funding capability for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. We have received adequate funding in the past, but we have
a capability in fiscal year 2001 of an additional $300,000 to
accelerate continuation of collaborative efforts with other agencies
and stakeholders, model refinements as deemed necessary, and continue
work on database development, end user support, model implementation,
testing and calibration, and ongoing data collection efforts for the
URGWOM.
Question. How important is this operational model to the water
quantity and quality studies of the Bureau of Reclamation?
Answer. The URGWOM is becoming increasingly essential to the daily
water operations because of the enlargement of the number of involved
and vested parties, the amount of data, the complexities of the issues,
and the demand for water . The ability to analyze and respond quickly
to competing demands for water requires analysis tools like the URGWOM.
As more data is made available that affects water supply within the
basin, the URGWOM will play an even more important role with its
ability to analyze this data and allow decisions makers to more quickly
assess the impacts of operational decisions and respond accordingly.
TAOS WATER SUPPLY STUDY
Question. What is the current status of the Taos Water Supply
Study?
Answer. Environmental compliance and negotiations among the main
parties on how to spend the money have been completed as well as
putting the cooperative agreements in place. Drilling of one of seven
wells for the city has been completed. Additional work on some of the
non-drilling components of the project, such as water planning,
budgeting and prototype projects, is in progress.
Question. When will this work be completed?
Answer. The additional wells and the non-drilling components should
be completed by the end of this calendar year.
Question. Have there been any delays in the completion schedule
since last year? If so, please explain.
Answer. Upon initial receipt of funds, no firm completion schedule
was established. We had hoped for perhaps a May 2000 completion. The
time needed for environmental compliance and agreement among all
parties delayed the initial contract award. There have been no drilling
delays other than the expected shut down for the winter months. We now
anticipate completion by December 2000.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Domenici. We stand in recess until March 28th when
we will have the DOE testify on defense programs.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., Tuesday, March 21, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Domenici, Gorton, Craig, and Reid.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
National Nuclear Security Administration
STATEMENTS OF:
GEN. THOMAS F. GIOCONDA, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, DEFENSE
PROGRAMS, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR MILITARY
APPLICATIONS
ROSE GOTTEMOELLER, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, ATOMIC ENERGY
DEFENSE AND NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS
ADM. FRANK L. BOWMAN, DIRECTOR, NAVAL NUCLEAR PROPULSION
PROGRAM
GEN. EUGENE E. HABIGER, DIRECTOR, SECURITY AND EMERGENCY
OPERATIONS
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. The hearing will come to order. I
understand everybody is busy, so I guess our goal ought to be
to expedite things this morning.
This is a very, very important set of witnesses, and I have
a few opening remarks. We will then proceed as quickly as we
can and, if any one has any remarks after I am finished we will
hear them.
The subcommittee is going to consider the fiscal year 2001
budget request for the National Nuclear Security Administration
[NNSA] covering defense programs, nonproliferation, and naval
reactor programs this morning. This is the first appearance of
the new NNSA before this committee, and I am very pleased to
have you here. Combined, these programs account for $6.2
billion of the $18.1 billion requested for the Department from
this subcommittee and representing the core of its national
security functions of the Department of Energy. The request
represents an increase of $224 million over comparable levels
last year, a 3.7 percent increase from the current level.
The defense and nonproliferation programs together are the
backbone of our strategic nuclear deterrent, on the one hand
reducing the threat to our Nation posed by other weapons of
mass destruction and, on the other hand, maintaining our
deterrence against the threat that remains.
We are considering the programs together because they are
interrelated. If, for example, in the coming decade we made
rapid progress on the disposition of plutonium and uranium in
Russia and our ability to verify our potential adversary's
stockpile levels, we may be able to reduce our nuclear
stockpile. Conversely, lack of progress in those areas will
prevent us from pursuing stockpile reductions. At least, many
people think that.
STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM--30-DAY REVIEW
I would like to make an additional comment about the
stockpile stewardship program before we proceed. During the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty debate last year there was
testimony from committed and well-respected public servants
that the science-based stockpile stewardship program was
underfunded and under stress. Stress was a word that was used.
Thereafter, Secretary Richardson ordered a comprehensive,
internal 30-day review of stockpile stewardship. Frankly, I did
not think 30 days and a review internally would produce
anything very significant, but that is not for me to say. It
turns out it did produce something rather significant, and
there is no question that the review concluded that the
stockpile stewardship program was on-track, but that,
``additional pressures such as increased security requirements,
newly discovered stockpile issues, and resource limitations
have collectively forced the program overall to be wound too
tight,'' with ``too little program flexibility for
contingencies.'' All of the last words I have cited are in
quotes from that report.
My review of the study leads me to the conclusion that we
are not on schedule, given the current budget to develop the
tools and technologies and stockpile base to refurbish our
weapons and certify their safety and reliability for the
stockpile. Further, a successful stewardship program requires
qualified and motivated nuclear weapons experienced personnel,
a very serious problem, well-noted in the 30-day review, an
indication we had better do something about retaining the
scientist we have and finding new ways to encourage others to
the program.
INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS
Second, modern and well-maintained facilities, the special
experimental and computational facilities needed for
stewardship in the absence of testing and a sound management
structure, each year we continue to lose to retirement our most
experienced designers and most highly skilled technicians, and
we all understand recruiting and retaining the next generation
of nuclear weapons stewards has been made more difficult by
resource constraints, fewer opportunities for exploratory
research, and diminished morale from a perceived lack of
confidence in nuclear weapons scientists. At least some of them
pursue that.
DOE has failed to keep good facilities. This report
suggests that we had better do something about that. The 30-day
review said we have a huge bow wave of deferred improvements.
For example, 70 percent of the facilities at Y-12, 80 percent
of the facilities at the Kansas City plant, 40 percent of the
facilities at Pantex, and 40 percent of Savannah River's
tritium facilities are more than 40 years old.
The Department has experienced tremendous difficulty in
constructing its special experimental computational facilities
within budget and within schedule. The National Ignition
Facility is only the most recent example.
Now, I am delighted that we are going to spend time today
exploring the needs and potential problems and issues facing
the weapon complex. If we need you again we will call on you
informally. We are going to hear from the Department of
Energy's Office of Security and Emergency Operations, the Naval
Nuclear Propulsion Program, and then we are going to go to our
Acting Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation. It is good to have you with us. And finally,
General Habiger of the Department's Office of Security and
Emergency Operations.
I note the presence of our Ranking Member from Nevada,
Senator Reid, and I started a bit late, for which I apologize.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID
Senator Reid. Boy, was I ever glad you were late, though. I
know, Mr. Chairman, you have tremendous responsibilities,
especially this time of year with the Budget Resolution that is
due out any day now, and so I am going to summarize my
statement and ask permission to place some of my questions and
materials in the record.
I have several concerns, most involving defense programs
side of DOE. I had a recent discussion with Secretary
Richardson about most of them, so I will not go into any great
detail at this time. However, as we move forward with program
funding for fiscal year 2001, I hope most of these issues can
be resolved.
NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY
First and foremost, I am concerned about the NIF, the
National Ignition Facility. This program is substantially
behind and well over budget. I understand this subcommittee is
likely to receive a new NIF cost and schedule baseline in the
coming weeks for those of you new to Washington, a new baseline
is code word for hundreds of millions of dollars additional
cost. Needless to say, I am not comforted when I read sentences
like the following in your testimony we have reviewed already:
``The NIF task force believes, however, that with
appropriate corrective actions, a strong management team,
additional funds, and extension of the schedule and recognition
that NIF is at its core a research and development project, the
NIF laser system can be completed.''
NIF has been sold to this subcommittee as the cornerstone
of this Nation's stockpile stewardship program, not as some
long-term lab full employment program. I am pleased that there
has been an offer in some of the testimony to work with
Congress on this issue. Suffice it to say that I am going to
take a great deal of convincing at this stage.
To me, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the
project is beginning to remind me of the Superconducting Super
Collider and, as we all know, that project is dead now. I think
that there is going to have to be some tremendous work done by
a lot of people to keep this program going, because I do not
think it would take a great deal on the Senate floor to kill
this project, and I think--I only speak for myself. I am
terribly disappointed how this subcommittee has been treated. I
think we have been misled.
MEGASTRATEGY FOR DEFENSE PROGRAMS
Second of all, as you are aware, Senator Domenici--and I
put language into last year's energy and water conference
report that more or less codified the so-called megastrategy.
Part of that strategy involved moving the Atlas pulse power
facility from Los Alamos to the Nevada Test Site. This
megastrategy I guess has collapsed, and I am not convinced that
anything has yet filled that void.
I would appreciate a detailed, written response outlining
the direction the new Defense Programs is planning to take.
None of this is to suggest that I have softened in my resolve
to see Atlas moved. Quite the opposite. I thought it was the
right thing to do last summer, and I still feel that way.
[The information follows:]
MEGASTRATEGY
The term ``megastrategy'' or ``integrated strategy'' is an
official, short-hand reference to a suite of long-term actions that
have been under consideration by Defense Programs to achieve more
effective mission and resource integration within the sites and
programs supporting the Stockpile Stewardship Program. A broad outline
of the concept was informally articulated in the summer, 1999. The
strategy looked at several factors including various weapons complex
capabilities, options to rebalance workload, elimination of duplication
between sites, concentration of efforts in centers of excellence, and
increased attention to needed investments in infrastructure in some
areas.
Consistent with direction from the Congress in the fiscal year 2000
legislation withholding authority to fully implement the integrated
strategy, several actions have been undertaken. The transfer of
activities supporting the W80 weapon system from the Los Alamos
National Laboratory (LANL) to the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory is still under discussion both internally and with the
Department of Defense. The consolidation of major hydrotesting
capabilities at LANL is also being considered. A conceptual design for
the Microsystems and Engineering Sciences Applications (MESA) facility
at the Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque is underway, and it
is proposed in the fiscal year 2001 budget as a candidate project for
preliminary design funding. The PEGASUS machine has been transferred
from LANL to the University of Nevada. The Department has conducted
further analysis of the ATLAS facility at LANL, and has concluded that
its construction should be completed and the facility put in cold
standby, pending clarification of its future role in the weapons
research programs. Moving the facility to a location in Nevada is also
under consideration as a potential option. Another aspect of the
integrated strategy sought to focus increased attention on the
infrastructure improvements needed at the production plants. A complex-
wide study of recapitalization needs is now underway to couple it with
the fiscal year 2002 budget formulation and beyond.
UTILIZATION OF THE NEVADA TEST SITE
Senator Reid. My final thoughts today have to do with the
decision-making process, how the decision-making process works
within Defense Programs. It is increasingly difficult for the
weapons labs to get permission to do risky experiments at their
sites due to urban encroachments, public health and safety
risks, threats to the environment. Nevertheless, by all
accounts the labs continue to push for more and more test
facilities of this sort. Ultimately, these will prevent
continued operations at any place other than the Nevada Test
Site.
The test site is a place where these experiments and
activities that cannot take place any place else should be
conducted. That is why it is there. Unless the Nevada Test Site
as utilized is maintained as a healthy and viable part of the
stewardship program, the Federal Government will have to
replicate these experimental facilities at great cost and even
greater difficulty.
This all seems simple enough to me. Do dangerous activities
and experiments in a place where the danger to the public and
environment is lowest and do what you need to do to maintain
that place properly.
My concern is that is not what is happening. DOE is doing
the same things the same way they always do, despite dramatic
changed conditions. So again, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate
a detailed, written discussion of what the Department is doing
to prepare for the day when it becomes impossible to perform
the dangerous activities and experiments at the labs due to the
encroachment that I have talked about.
People raise the health, safety, and other concerns, and I
have a lot of other things to talk about, but I would ask your
permission to insert that in the record.
[The information follows:]
URBAN ENCROACHMENT ON LABORATORIES
All Defense Programs facilities and activities, including those at
the laboratories, can be safely conducted at their current locations
for the foreseeable future. Hazards associated with all our facilities
and activities have been analyzed to assess their potential impact on
the public, workers, and the environment during both routine operations
and in hypothetical accident scenarios. The physical location of
hazards relative to the public is specifically considered in these
analyses. These analyses are reviewed continuously to assure that
changes in work, hazards or safety requirements are addressed. Safety
features including engineered systems, procedures and other controls
are in place to assure compliance with applicable public health and
safety requirements.
In the unlikely event that a safety requirement can not be met,
operations are suspended and a review is conducted immediately to
determine a path forward. Many options exist to restart operations,
including redesigning the work, implementing new controls or moving the
most hazardous portion to a better suited facility or more remote site
such as the Nevada Test Site. The Nevada Test Site is being maintained
not only as part of readiness to resume underground testing, if
necessary, but to support the experimentation programs conducted at the
site, including the subcritical experiments and the hydrotesting at the
Big Explosives Experimental Facility, and work performed at the site
for others such as the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
Senator Domenici. You've got it.
Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, my statement will come in the
form of questions, so why don't we proceed with the testimony.
Senator Domenici. Senator, I want to thank you for your
interest. This is a very important subcommittee, and frequently
nobody is around, and sometimes I need some people around.
There are some tough decisions to be made this year, and so I
need the counsel of Senators like you. I just cannot write this
bill this year alone and in a vacuum. It is very, very
difficult.
Senator Craig. I appreciate you saying that. It is an
important issue for me and for my State and for the Nation.
That is why I am here.
Senator Domenici. We will proceed now with you, General
Gioconda. First of all, let me say you succeed a very
exceptional person who actually is the father of stockpile
stewardship, Vic Reis. I am sorry, in the last few months, that
you and I have not been able to meet as often as I used to meet
with Dr. Reis to talk about what we are doing. But from what I
am hearing, you are working diligently and doing a good job.
You have some prepared remarks. They will be made a part of
the record. You may proceed as you wish in terms of your
testimony, but even without a light up here, let's kind of
shoot for no more than 10 minutes.
General Gioconda. That is where I think I have it, if I do
not linger.
Senator Domenici. All right, proceed.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS F. GIOCONDA
General Gioconda. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of
the subcommittee. I am pleased to report to you today that
stockpile stewardship is working to ensure the continued safety
and reliability of America's nuclear deterrent.
Our nuclear deterrent remains the cornerstone of this
Nation's defense. The highly trained men and women working in
our production plants and weapons laboratories possess the
critical nuclear weapons skills needed to support the
stockpile. Your ongoing support for their stewardship program
is absolutely essential for its continued success. If approved
by Congress, our supplemental will also provide funds needed by
the production sites to cover work load costs and stabilize our
highly skilled workforce.
STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP--30-DAY STUDY
Before I get into the details of the fiscal year 2001
request, I would like to draw your attention to two
developments impacting the stewardship program. First, as you
stated, Mr. Chairman, at the Secretary's direction we undertook
a comprehensive internal review of the Stockpile Stewardship
Program last November. This detailed review was led by Under
Secretary Dr. Moniz.
I will not repeat your summary, Mr. Chairman, but this
review concluded that the program was on track and developing
the science, technology, and production capabilities needed to
support the stockpile. Several of the findings will help us to
shape future decisions that are needed in the program. In this
effort, we must continue to prioritize investment schedules and
resources.
The program faces challenges, and there are 15 specific
actions that emerged from the report's findings. We are
aggressively working these action items to further strengthen
the program. Key among these is the need for the DOE and the
DOD to refine our process for determining the scheduling of
stockpile refurbishments over the next several decades to take
into consideration military, human, and budgetary needs. We are
working with DOD right now to address this issue.
REVISED BUDGET STRUCTURE
Second, we have a new business strategy for the Stockpile
Stewardship Program. We have transitioned from the old paradigm
of design, test and produce to an environment of maintaining
the safety, security, and reliability of our current weapons
with advanced science and manufacturing techniques. We needed a
new business strategy to support our new business approach. We
feel this is a superior approach, as it provides more
visibility into our program and, quite frankly, gives us a
better means to integrate and balance the competing needs of
the program.
The major elements of this new approach are Directed
Stockpile Work [DSW] that encompasses all activities that
directly support the specific weapons in the stockpile, as
directed by the nuclear weapons stockpile plan of the
President. It covers all the activities to support the day-to-
day needs of the stockpile. DSW work occurs across the entire
weapons complex.
Next, we have Campaigns, which are the technically
challenging research and development programs designed to
provide us with the critical science and engineering
capabilities needed for the certification of the nuclear
weapons stockpile over the long term. Campaigns have definitive
milestones, work plans, and specific end dates. There are
currently seven campaigns which are being conducted across the
complex.
Finally, infrastructure, which you mentioned, Mr. Chairman.
Our facilities must be in a safe, secure, and reliable
operating condition to support our work. This category also
includes our new construction work, our transportation system
for moving components and weapons safely and securely through
the complex, and our Federal staffing that provides the
oversight of the program.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET REQUEST
Let me talk a little about the fiscal year 2000
supplemental that is before you. Our supplemental of $55
million is targeted to the Y-12 plant in Tennessee, the Kansas
City plant, and the Pantex plant in Texas. The funding, if
approved, will allow us to meet increased work load
requirements related to weapons refurbishment, upgrade the
enriched uranium infrastructure at Y-12, and avoid lay-offs of
critically skilled personnel at the three locations. These are
unique assets that must be protected. The fiscal year 2001
request is predicated on getting this important supplemental in
fiscal year 2000.
ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY
I have some examples of the fine work done by Sandia
National Labs to show you today. This safety device is a strong
link switch designed by Sandia and manufactured by Kansas City.
It is employed in a number of weapons in today's stockpile, and
is designed to prevent detonation in the highly unlikely event
that a weapon is involved in an accident. Almost 500 pieces
make up this strong link switch.
Sandia is examining advance technology----
Senator Domenici. Would you repeat that one again? I'm very
sorry.
General Gioconda. Sir, this is a strong link switch, and it
is designed by Sandia and is manufactured by Kansas City. It is
employed in many of our weapons today, in today's stockpile,
and it is designed to prevent detonation in the highly unlikely
event that a weapon is involved in an accident, and in this
little box is almost 500 pieces that make up the strong link to
prevent a detonation. Sandia is examining advanced technologies
to reduce the size and number of parts in the strong link.
This smaller prototype will fit into detonators of existing
weapons. Future strong links like this, using microsystem
technology, decreases the size, and would enable our scientists
and tech engineers to place these devices anywhere in the
weapons system, further improving safety of the stockpile. This
is what we are doing today, and this is what we can do in the
future. These examples give you an idea of how the technology
is advancing. This is but one example of the 6,000 parts that
make up a nuclear weapon. These parts must be expertly managed,
studied, and produced.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
Our fiscal year 2001 overall budget request of $4.6 billion
is about 6 percent greater than our fiscal year 2000
appropriation. The major reasons for this increase are a
significant fraction of the Nation's nuclear arsenal, the W-80
and the W-76, are scheduled for refurbishment over the next
decade. Work associated with these two weapons systems will
constitute the majority of directed stockpile work. We must
meet the schedules of these activities, including the
development of scientific capabilities required to certify
those weapons without testing.
We are working with the DOD to identify and assess the
final technical drivers and schedules for weapon component
replacement or certifiable modifications. We are also making
significant security improvements in our transportation system
used to transport components, materials, and actual weapons
within the complex. We are requesting a few new construction
line items in the fiscal year 2001 budget also.
The preliminary project design and engineering pilot
program is a new initiative with about $15 million to fund
preliminary design before setting the hard baseline in asking
for construction approval, similar to what DOD does in design
completion. Several candidate projects are proposed. We believe
this will provide an improvement in our project management
system.
We also have three other new projects, one at Pantex, the
Weapon Evaluation and Testing Laboratory; a new storage
facility for highly enriched uranium at Oak Ridge Y-12; and a
Distributive Information System at Sandia. In total, however,
our construction request is down from 2000.
NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY
While I am on the topic of construction, let me say a word
about the National Ignition Facility [NIF]. As many of you
know, the project has encountered significant technical issues
in assembling and in stalling the laser infrastructure. Let me
emphasize that the problems with NIF are not scientific. A new
baseline will be submitted to Congress by June 1, 2000 as
required. The previous funding plan for NIF has been included
in this budget, which reflects the majority of the decrease in
construction.
I would like to point out one last but important area of
growth. Even though it only represents 1/10th of 1 percent of
my budget, we are developing a plan that will focus on building
and sustaining a talented, diverse workforce of Federal R&D
technical managers, as recommended by the Chiles Commission
plan.
The plan will include innovative recruiting strategies,
retention incentives, and comprehensive training and
development programs of new and current employees. We also have
included resources to reengineer our organization to place
employees closer to where the work is accomplished and
streamline some of our outmoded administrative functions.
STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Our 2001 budget request will allow us to build upon a
significant list of accomplishments that you mentioned, Mr.
Chairman, in the Stockpile Stewardship Program as compiled over
the last several years. Let me just review a few others. First,
and most important, we have completed three annual
certifications and expect a fourth shortly. Secretary Cohen
signed off on the certification letter last Wednesday, and
Secretary Richardson now has the package for his review and
signature and I believe he will complete it by the end of the
week.
Through the continuing success of the Stockpile Stewardship
Program, we have been able to support the Secretary of Energy
in joining with the Secretary of Defense in certifying that the
nuclear weapons stockpile is safe and reliable, and there is no
requirement for underground testing at this time.
ACCELERATED STRATEGIC COMPUTING INITIATIVE
Last month, we announced the first ever three-dimensional
simulation of a nuclear weapon explosion using our ASCI Blue
Pacific computer at Lawrence Livermore National Lab. To get a
sense of the complexity of this calculation, it took our Blue
Pacific machine some 20 days to run the calculation. It would
have taken an average desktop machine over 30 years to do the
same. This is important, because as our weapons get older, the
problems are expected to get harder, and we must have ready
more sophisticated tools, and the people to allow our
assessment of whether our weapons will continue to be safe,
secure, and reliable. Our ASCI program is key to that
requirement.
PIT PRODUCTION
As you may recall, we decided in 1996 to reestablish
limited capability to produce plutonium pits at Los Alamos
National Laboratory, which was necessary with the closure of
Rocky Flats. We have now fabricated four development pits.
While many other scientific and production steps are needed to
verify the quality of the pits produced, this is a very
positive sign. We plan to have a certifiable pit by 2001.
The subcritical experiment program at the Nevada Test Site
continues to provide important data for the stewardship program
and maintain test readiness as directed by the President. Last
week, the Nevada Test Site team successfully executed the
Thoroughbred experiment. Data from this experiment will be used
to compare the plutonium manufacturing process used at Rocky
Flats with those being developed today at Los Alamos to make
sure we are on the right track.
The Department also plans to undertake a preconceptual
study of a pit production facility during fiscal year 2001.
This study will build on earlier work done by DOE. Based on our
ongoing pit aging studies from our campaigns, we believe that
we have at least a 15-year lead time for the construction of a
pit manufacturing facility. Our overall course of action on pit
manufacturing has been reviewed and approved by the Nuclear
Weapons Council and will continue to be, since it's so
essential.
TRITIUM PRODUCTION
Our tritium program is making significant progress. We
signed a 35-year, $1.5 billion agreement with the Tennessee
Valley Authority for the irradiation of tritium iridium
producing burnable, absorber rods. With this in place, we now
have three reactors, Watts Bar and both Sequoyah units
available for tritium production. We expect to break ground at
the Savannah River site this summer for construction of the
Tritium Extraction Facility. This facility will begin to
deliver tritium gas to the stockpile by 2006.
With the success of the commercial light water reactor
program and other competing financial demands on other parts of
Stockpile Stewardship, DOE has been forced to redefine the work
associated with the Accelerator Production Tritium [APT]
program. We will continue limited engineering development and
demonstration activities at Los Alamos National Lab as well as
work with other parts of DOE to develop a joint program for the
many other uses of APT technology.
We are also accomplishing our life extension requirement
for the W87 involving principally Kansas City, Y-12, and
Pantex, and have produced the first neutron generators at
Sandia since the close of the Pinellas plant in the early
nineties.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Mr. Chairman, over the last 5 years the Stockpile
Stewardship program has made significant scientific and
technical advances, strides that many of our critics and even
some of our supporters doubted we could achieve. These
accomplishments increase our confidence that the men and women
of the stewardship team will be able to meet the scientific and
engineering challenges of stewardship in the decades to come.
PREPARED STATEMENT
These challenges include: meeting the requirement for
nuclear deterrence, our primary job; attracting and retaining a
preeminent nuclear team as many people reach retirement age;
certifying replacement pits; producing tritium; and
implementing new security standards. Our ability to meet these
and other challenges is dependant on your continued support and
the support of this committee of our budget for this vital
national security program and our aggressive Federal
management.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEN. THOMAS F. GIOCONDA
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify on the Department of Energy (DOE)
National Nuclear Security Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget
request for Defense Programs' Stockpile Stewardship Program. This
request of $4.594 billion represents a 6.3 percent increase over the
comparable fiscal year 2000 level. Due to mission transfers out of the
weapons activities account, this request is roughly comparable to a
program level of about $4.7 billion, using previous year comparisons. A
detailed summary of the fiscal year 2001 request for Defense Programs
is included near the end of the statement.
As part of the fiscal year 2001 budget process, the Administration
is also requesting supplemental funding for fiscal year 2000 in the
amount of $55 million to address shortfalls in production readiness at
the Kansas City, Pantex, and Y-12 plants. Provision of this
supplemental funding is essential to maintain employment levels and
skills necessary to support important workloads in fiscal year 2000 and
future years and we appreciate this subcommittee's support for our
request.
With your support, the program, to date, has achieved some major
milestones as we move from underground nuclear test-based to science-
based nuclear weapons assessment and certification. Most notably, we
are about to certify, for the fourth consecutive year, that the safety,
security and reliability of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile is
assured without the need for underground nuclear yield testing at this
time. This fourth annual certification of the nuclear weapons stockpile
will be transmitted to the President by the Secretaries of Energy and
Defense shortly. The people, tools, and technologies supported by this
budget make this accomplishment possible.
Our nuclear deterrent remains the foundation for U.S. national
security. We believe that our accomplishments and the new budget and
management structures we have put in place, along with your continued
support, will maintain the success of the Stockpile Stewardship Program
in serving our supreme national interest.
MAJOR CHANGES IN PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING
The men and women of the Stockpile Stewardship Program continue to
meet formidable challenges with ingenuity and innovation both in the
way we do science and manufacturing, and in the way we organize the
work we do. Without the critical work of our ``stockpile stewards'' at
the labs, plants and in the federal structure--no program will succeed.
Our people remain our number one resource that must be carefully
attended now and into the future.
During the past year, for the first time ever in the weapons
program, we have organized our tasks according to a streamlined
business model. Quite simply, in a world where competition for budget
resources is intense, we need to be able to demonstrate clearly that we
are taking every step to operate in a cost effective manner--we must
use metric that both the folks inside and outside of the program can
use to measure our progress.
Our budget request is based on planned performance. It is the
outcome of planning processes that focus our efforts on specific
performance goals and strategies that flow from strategic planning. The
cycle of planning, budgeting, program execution, and evaluation is the
foundation of our program's accomplishments and our initiatives to
improve management and accountability to the public.
The fiscal year 2001 budget reflects a new budget structure, which
is part of the implementation of the National Nuclear Security
Administration. The structure emphasizes the integrated nature of the
Stockpile Stewardship Program, and is built upon three principal
elements: Directed Stockpile Work, Campaigns, and Readiness in
Technical Base and Facilities. Overall, these changes reflect our
vision for the future of the program and the nuclear weapons complex.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request is presented in the proposed
budget and reporting structure. A more technical discussion of all
aspects of the proposed budget structure change is included as an
appendix to the Executive Budget Summary document. We are continuing to
execute the fiscal year 2000 budget in the current ``old'' structure as
it was appropriated; however, we are also collecting data unofficially
in the new structure as a further check on the viability of the
approach.
Directed Stockpile Work encompasses all activities that directly
support specific weapons in the nuclear stockpile as directed by the
Nuclear Weapon Stockpile Plan. These activities include current
maintenance and day-to-day care of the stockpile as well as planned
refurbishments as outlined by the Stockpile Life Extension Program.
Additionally, this category includes: research, development and
certification activities in direct support of each weapon system; and
long-term future-oriented research and development to solve either
current or projected stockpile problems. These activities are conducted
at the national laboratories, the Nevada Test Site (NTS), and
production plants.
Campaigns are focused scientific and technical efforts to develop
and maintain critical capabilities needed to enable continued
certification of the stockpile for the long-term. Campaigns are
technically challenging, multi-function efforts that have definitive
milestones, specific work plans, and specific end dates. The approach
was initiated several years ago in the planning and executing the
stewardship program. There are currently 17 planned campaigns. These
activities are conducted at the laboratories, NTS, production plants,
and other major research facilities such as the OMEGA laser at the
University of Rochester and the NIKE laser at the Naval Research
Laboratory.
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) provides the
physical infrastructure and operational readiness required to conduct
the Directed Stockpile Work and Campaign activities at the national
laboratories, NTS and the plants. This includes ensuring that
facilities are operational, safe, secure, compliant, and that a defined
level of readiness is sustained at DP-funded facilities. For the
production plants, all site overhead is also included in RTBF.
The new structure proposal also includes separate decision units
for Secure Transportation Asset (formerly Transportation Safeguards
Division), Program Direction, and Construction.
Another business practice introduced this year by Defense Programs
was the establishment of a rigorous planning process that clearly lays
out within each business line, firm programmatic milestones to be
achieved within each element of Stockpile Stewardship. The complete
program is now defined by a series of program plans that have a five-
year planning horizon, each with an accompanying annual implementation
plan. Five-year program plans describe the goals and objectives of
program elements, and annual implementation plans provide detailed sets
of milestones that allow for accurate program tracking and improved
oversight.
The rigorous planning that has been done is key to better
management, improved focus and sustaining the laboratories as premier
scientific and engineering institutions, as well as supporting balanced
manufacturing activities necessary to maintain and modernize the
stockpile.
Within this business model structure, we have laid out an improved
plan, weapon by weapon, part by part, that addresses the tasks required
to maintain the stockpile over the next one, five, ten years and
beyond. We have support for our program from the Department of Defense
(DOD), and the Administration has committed to funding it.
In addition, we have established an Office of Project Management
Support to serve as the focal point for all critical construction
decisions and performance reviews. It will conduct project readiness
reviews and provide technical experts to assist line managers in
project planning and execution. It will also serve as a single point of
contact for construction policy and procedures, working with program
offices and field elements to improve and standardize construction
management within Defense Programs.
A key element of the Stockpile Stewardship's continued success is
an effective corporate level strategic planning process. We expect to
transmit the fiscal year 2001 Stockpile Stewardship Plan (SSP), also
called ``The Green Book'' to the Congress shortly. In the development
of the SSP, we rely heavily on the DOD, the National Security Council
staff, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of
Management and Budget, and other senior policy officials in the
``nuclear community'' to help ensure that we continue on the right
track.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
In October 1999, Secretary Richardson ordered a review of the
health and status of the nuclear weapons complex and of the status of
recruitment, retention and training of top scientists and engineers
needed to sustain Stockpile Stewardship. The principal finding of this
internal Department of Energy review, led by Under Secretary Ernest
Moniz, is that Stockpile Stewardship is on track; both in terms of
specific science, surveillance, and production accomplishments and in
terms of developing a program management structure that improves the
certification process.
Several of the findings of this review will help to shape future
decisions in the program. We must continue to prioritize investments,
schedules and resources. There are 15 specific actions that emerged
from the report's findings. Key among them is the need for DOE and DOD
to refine the process for determining the scheduling of stockpile
refurbishments over the next several decades to take into consideration
military, human, and budgetary needs. We are working with DOD to
address this issue right now.
Let me give you just a few examples of how Stockpile Stewardship is
already working today:
--In early February our Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative
announced the successful completion of the first-ever three-
dimensional simulation of a nuclear weapon ``primary''
detonation using the IBM Blue Pacific supercomputer at DOE's
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. On the supercomputer,
this calculation ran for more than 20 days. A desktop computer
would have taken 30 years to accomplish the task. Modern
nuclear weapons consist of two main components: the
``primary,'' or trigger, and the ``secondary'' which produces
most of the energy of a nuclear weapon. The ability to ``see
and understand'' the action of the primary is a critically
important step in simulating the entire weapon detonation in
three dimensions.
--Subcritical experiments are being conducted at the Nevada Test Site
to understand aspects of weapons physics and the aging
properties of plutonium to help: assess the stockpile, qualify
the pit production facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory;
and subsequently, certify our pit manufacturing. The
subcritical experimental program also helps to ensure nuclear
test readiness as directed by the President with the current
underground test moratorium.
Three subcritical experiments were conducted in fiscal year 1999.
We successfully conducted the first fiscal year 2000
subcritical experiment on November 9, 1999. It was one of the
Oboe series of experiments that are conducted in vessels in the
same underground alcove. These experiments are somewhat simpler
than the typical ``full-size'' subcritical experiment. Since
that time, we have conducted two more experiments in the Oboe
series to study technical issues.
We plan to conduct four additional Oboe experiments this fiscal
year, as well as one full-sized subcritical experiment,
Thoroughbred, to measure early time dynamic behavior of special
nuclear material. In fiscal year 2001, we tentatively plan to
conduct one full-size subcritical experiment and several
smaller experiments similar to the Oboe series.
--In November 1999, the first successful hydrodynamic test at the
Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test facility provided a
freeze-frame photo of materials imploding at speeds of more
than 10,000 miles an hour; allowing scientists to study solids
and metals as they flow like liquids, thus, becoming
hydrodynamic when driven by the detonation of high explosives.
--On January 27, 2000, tests that are key to certification of the W76
Acorn gas transfer system were conducted in the Annular Core
Research Reactor at Sandia National Laboratories--five days
ahead of our earliest goal. The reactor and all diagnostics and
data gathering equipment operated as desired. Initial
evaluation of the required data that was obtained from the
tests indicate good results for Acorn certification to the
stockpile.
--On August 12, 1999, the first lot of 24 War Reserve, W76 neutron
generators were placed in inventory by Sandia National
Laboratories (SNL), thus demonstrating the capability lost when
our Pinellas plant was closed in 1994. Neutron generators are
limited life components that help to initiate a fission
reaction. SNL is more than doubling neutron generator
production capacity to reflect a request by the DOD to produce
enough neutron generators to support both the active and
inactive stockpiles. Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative
simulations have enabled the certification of the W76 neutron
generator as the first radiation hardened component certified
without underground testing.
--The Kansas City plant has successfully begun production of tritium
reservoirs and is meeting new production requirements for the
W76, W80 and W88 warheads parts inventories.
--The Y-12 Plant has resumed uranium processing operations in four of
five major mission areas and in portions of the fifth. We are
currently working on plans for the difficult resumption of
enriched uranium recycle and recovery operations.
--We have signed a 35-year, $1.5 billion agreement with the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) for irradiation of tritium producing
burnable absorber rods beginning in the Fall of 2003 at TVA's
Watts Bar and Sequoyah reactors.
A contract for the assembly of the first 6,000 Tritium Producing
Burnable Absorber Rods and follow-up fabrication work is
expected to be awarded in the next few months. Site preparation
and detailed design of a Tritium Extraction Facility are
underway at the Savannah River Site. To date, we have made up
three months of the fiscal year 1999, 12 month congressionally-
mandated moratorium on construction of the facility. The
facility is scheduled to begin delivering tritium gas to the
stockpile in February 2006.
--In fiscal year 1998, Los Alamos National Laboratory fabricated
development pits for the W88, demonstrating a capability that
DOE has not had since the closure of the Rocky Flats Plant in
1989. We expect to produce the first pit qualified for
stockpile use in 2001. By fiscal year 2007, a limited
capability to manufacture replacement pits for the units
destructively evaluated during surveillance activities will be
available.
--DOE has dismantled almost 12,000 weapons since 1990. Disassembly of
the W69 was finished at Pantex in fiscal year 1999. DOE plans
to finish disassembling the current backlog of retired weapons
by the end of fiscal year 2005.
--The Secure Transportation Asset (STA) has met all direct stockpile
maintenance shipment schedules, which currently average 1,000
weapon and 4,000 Limited Life Component shipments per year. A
further demand on STA is the need to ship an annual average of
3,000 containers of fissionable materials from DOE sites
scheduled for closure to other DOE and customer sites for
disposal or remanufacture into fuel elements for nuclear
reactors. Overall, STA has transported sensitive cargo more
than one hundred million miles since 1975 without compromise of
its security or release of radiation.
We have continued upgrades of the STA fleet with new safeguard
transporters, secure communication upgrades, and new tractor
replacements. Additional security enhancements have been
directed in response to security guidance and recent analyses
which will accelerate these upgrades and require more intensive
agent training and recruitment of additional federal agents. We
have included increased funding for this in fiscal year 2001.
The Stockpile Stewardship Program has already been able to solve
some problems that in the past would most likely have required a
nuclear test to resolve. We expect our ability to solve problems
without testing to be greater as new tools and expertise come on-line.
Keep in mind that it has been nearly 11 years since we have
manufactured a new nuclear weapon and over seven years since the last
underground nuclear test, yet our confidence in the safety, security
and reliability of the current stockpile remains strong. Nuclear
deterrence for our nation demands no less!
THE PEOPLE
At the heart of Stockpile Stewardship is the people who make it
work. The Chiles Commission on Maintaining U.S. Nuclear Weapons
Expertise offered 12 specific recommendations for action under four
broad categories: national commitment, program management, personnel
policies, and oversight. A key driver in the time frames within which
we have been planning and executing the program has been the fact that
scientists and engineers with nuclear test experience are nearing
retirement age and will be leaving the program in large numbers over
the next decade. To transfer the knowledge they have to a new
generation is vital so that the role of testing in the process of
maintaining our stockpile is well understood in all its dimensions. To
make that crucial transition properly we must retain experienced test
workers while we recruit and train new workers.
In addition, we are attempting to make that transition in a booming
economy where technical expertise is highly recruited and rewarded by
the private sector. The skill mix at the laboratories will shift away
from nuclear test-based expertise toward a more science-based expertise
for maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile. At the production
plants, there will be more emphasis on computer and network-based
design tools and advanced manufacturing techniques. These changes in
skill mix are major recruiting and retention challenges facing us right
now.
There are fewer opportunities to conduct exploratory research at
the laboratories due to limits on Laboratory Directed Research and
Development (LDRD), which has been a key source of new talent and
training at the laboratories. A pay freeze implemented in the early
1990s has resulted in loss of market position for the salaries of
scientists and engineers, especially in highly competitive areas such
as information science and technology. Increased security requirements
may also affect recruitment and retention. Such factors make it more
difficult to recruit and retain top scientific talent for Stockpile
Stewardship.
Defense Programs is addressing many of these and others issues
through actions to implement the Chiles Commission recommendations.
Among them is the request for supplemental fiscal year 2000 funding to
avoid further layoffs at the plants and to maintain critical skills
which you have favorably considered. The fiscal year 2001 request also
provides stability in plant funding with some flexibility to address
skill mix concerns. For the nuclear weapons labs, the fiscal year 2001
request maintains our commitment to balance the pace and scope of
security requirements implementation with preservation of the research
environment. To that end, a restoration of LDRD funding to six percent
for fiscal year 2001 has been requested. The fiscal year 2001 budget
also provides for stability in employment and increases in support for
the varied work of science-based stewardship at the labs.
HOW STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP WORKS
Let me briefly summarize the Stockpile Stewardship process and the
challenges it now faces before I go into a more detailed discussion of
program elements. Each year, eleven samples of each type of weapon are
returned from the active force and are disassembled, examined, tested,
and analyzed for defects. If defects are found, their effect on
reliability and safety is assessed. Some parts, like neutron generators
and gas reservoirs, require replacement at regular intervals, as
limited life components. Other parts of a nuclear weapon are made from
radioactive materials which decay; and as they decay, both their own
properties and the properties of other materials within the weapon may
change.
Remanufacturing replacement parts for our nuclear weapons sounds
simple enough, but since the time that many of the current weapons in
the stockpile were originally manufactured, some of our production
plants have been closed and manufacturing processes, techniques and
standards have changed. We must adhere to more stringent health and
safety standards, and are more concerned about the proper handling and
storage of nuclear waste materials. Today, replacement parts require
even tighter production controls than the extraordinarily rigid
standards under which the original parts were designed and
manufactured. A nuclear weapon, less than the size of a small desk, has
enough explosive power to completely destroy a modern city, and yet it
must be able to survive extraordinary accidents with less than a one-
in-a-million chance of exploding. Industrial materials advancements and
new manufacturing processes make it difficult, if not impossible, to
get exact replacement parts. Yet, we in the nuclear weapons program,
must produce replacement parts using modern material and processes that
will still maintain the safety and reliability of our weapons while
certifying their safety, security and reliability without underground
nuclear testing.
As our stockpile weapons continue to age, we expect more parts to
require replacement. Because new warheads have not been produced since
1988, we are not replacing old weapons with new ones. In about ten
years, most of our weapons designers with nuclear testing experience
will have retired. This means that when our newest system, the W88,
reaches the end of its original design life in 2014, we may no longer
have anyone with the test-based job experience to help us evaluate
modifications that may be required due to aging at that time.
Successfully dealing with this time factor is critical to the success
of the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
Instead of an underground nuclear test, we can conceptually divide
the explosion sequence into each of its parts, then test and analyze
each of these separately. We plan to put all the data together into a
computer calculation--a simulation--to see if the resulting performance
is within its original specification. Each part of the simulation must
predict the results of each of the separate tests, and where they
exist, the results must be consistent with archived underground nuclear
test data and research. These simulations will be validated with state
of the art experimental tools such as the Dual Axis Radiographic
Hydrodynamic Test facility and the National Ignition Facility. We also
hope these modern codes and experimental tools will serve to attract
and maintain a cadre of outstanding technical staff, the grand
challenge of stockpile stewardship.
STOCKPILE LIFE EXTENSION AND SURVEILLANCE
We are working closely with the DOD to finalize detailed plans to
indefinitely extend the lifetime of each weapon system in the
stockpile. The Stockpile Life Extension Program (SLEP) is DOE's
planning framework for a proactive management of system maintenance
activities. Under SLEP, options are developed to address potential
refurbishment actions. These life extension options address:
``musts''--to correct known problems; ``shoulds'' to prevent
foreseeable problems; and ``coulds'' to improve safety, use control and
other items given the opportunity while working ``musts'' and
``shoulds.'' These life extension options allow the DOE and DOD to
anticipate and plan for future resource requirements such as workforce,
skills mix, equipment, and facilities. These requirements provide the
framework for: our surveillance of the stockpile and stockpile research
and development activities at our laboratories, guiding our production
plants in validation of new materials, and development and
certification of new manufacturing processes. The cycle is continuous
and is closely integrated. Data and information from our surveillance
programs and from the hundreds of experiments and simulations being
performed, help to identify which parts of a weapon are aging
gracefully, and which parts present current and potential future
problems.
Stockpile surveillance has been a major element of the U.S. nuclear
weapons program ever since the first weapons were put into service.
Approximately 1,100 stockpile weapons are thoroughly examined each
year. The results provide data not only for assessing the current
safety and reliability of the stockpile, but also for developing
predictive models and age-focused diagnostics required to anticipate
weapons refurbishment requirements.
The Enhanced Surveillance Program (ESP) is developing the
technologies and methods, as well as a fundamental understanding of
materials properties and weapons science, to significantly improve
detection and predictive capabilities. For example, the ESP identified
an aging mechanism in a stockpile high explosive, ultimately concluding
that the changes actually improved the stability of the explosive. This
assessment is permitting us to reuse the high explosive during the W87
life extension program, thus avoiding significant costs. We have also
embarked on a novel strategy to accelerate the aging process in
plutonium. The capability to predict the lifetime of components made
from plutonium will permit us to more accurately identify when pit
replacements are needed and when the significant facility investments
must be made in order to support pit replacement.
Technical work on the W76/Mk4 Dual Revalidation Project drew to a
close in December 1999. There were significant accomplishments in each
of its major areas of investigation.
System Level Assessment.--The Military Characteristics and
Stockpile to Target Sequence were reviewed and updated and the system
was shown to meet requirements. The system also was assessed against
safety requirements and for abnormal environments and successfully met
them. Results from various tests are being used to validate new
computational models, leading to an improved understanding that will be
used for future assessments, evaluations and other analyses.
Primary Physics Assessments.--Five hydrodynamic tests were
completed, four by Los Alamos National Laboratory and one by Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory. Two of the tests used stockpile-aged
high explosives. A modern one point safety assessment was completed
that reaffirmed the safety margin calculated in previous assessments. A
modern intrinsic radiation analysis was performed. Significant progress
was made in baselining.
Secondary Physics Assessment.--There is an improved understanding
of the secondary. Significant progress was made in baselining and
benchmarking of the secondary.
Physics Package Engineering Assessment.--A test of the ability of
the secondary to withstand the revised long-term shipboard vibration
environment was completed and the results show it meets requirements.
Extensive testing of the high explosive thermal sensitivity, chemical
composition, and density properties was completed. An aged physics
package was disassembled, inspected, and the aged components tested. A
detailed description and catalogue of the function, composition,
requirements, state, and design intent of each component was assembled.
Arming Fuzing and Firing (AF&F) and Weapon Electrical System
Assessment.--Nineteen AF&Fs were disassembled, inspected, and put
through product acceptance testing. An age aware model of the fire set
was completed and electronic sub-component models were developed. Most
AF&F hostile environment testing is complete.
In addition to these specific accomplishments, the Dual
Revalidation Project provided an opportunity to train many people
within the DOE and DOD nuclear weapons communities. Engineers and
scientists responsible for the system have developed in-depth
experience. The project also provided significant contributions to the
W76/Mk4 6.2/6.2A life extension study. The review team reports are
scheduled to be submitted by the end of March 2000.
DOE has redirected the Dual Revalidation effort into baselining and
peer review. The decision was made to baseline all the systems over the
next five years while designers with underground test experience are
still on the payroll. After the systems are baselined, we will assess
any gaps discovered in our knowledge and develop a plan to fill them
in.
MANUFACTURING CAPABILITIES
Manufacturing continues to play a critical role in the Stockpile
Stewardship Program. During fiscal year 1999, almost 1,300 Limited Life
Components (LLCs) were produced. Plans call for the production of over
2,000 LLCs in fiscal year 2000. These product deliveries signal the
successful transfer of production activities from plants which have
been closed. The weapons complex is also performing major refurbishment
actions on several weapon types, including the B61 and the W87.
The W87 is a key component of the U.S. land based ballistic missile
element of the U.S. nuclear deterrent triad. In December 1998, the Y-12
plant at Oak Ridge completed and shipped to Pantex the first
refurbished canned sub-assembly for the life extension program of the
W87 under our Stockpile Life Extension Program. Early in 1999, the
first deliveries of electronic and mechanical parts for the W87 life
extension were shipped to Pantex from the Kansas City plant. The first
W87 life extension unit was delivered to the Air Force in May 1999. The
W87 was the first production unit completed under the life extension
program. This is considered a major milestone in meeting a DOE
commitment made to the Air Force.
ADAPT
The Advanced Manufacturing, Design, and Production Technologies
Campaign (ADAPT) is providing the nuclear weapons complex with advanced
capabilities for: designing, developing, and certifying components and
systems; and for producing, assembling, and delivering weapons
components and products for systems. ADAPT is radically changing how
DOE supports the nuclear weapons stockpile by infusing new product and
process technologies, and by adopting state-of-the-art business and
engineering practices. Our production complex must take advantage of
modern design and manufacturing techniques to keep the complex vitally
strong and capable under modern technology. We have now begun to use a
``paperless'' product realization system to quickly design and evaluate
components prior to their release for production. Once released for
production, the same paperless designs (computer models) are used to
develop and drive manufacturing operations. This approach is already
cutting costs and time while improving our ability to deliver extremely
high quality parts. We have begun to use computer-based multimedia
systems to guide production technicians on the shop floor and we expect
to see quality improvements similar to those now being gained in U.S.
industries using these methods, where manufacturing defects have been
cut 60-90 percent. As an additional example, we are using models of the
various operations in our production complex to identify and alleviate
scheduling and operational bottlenecks. In one instance, we were able
to remove a bottleneck in certain dismantlement operations, allowing us
to cut in half, the time required to complete dismantlement of a
warhead being removed from the stockpile with no compromise in safety
and security.
We remain committed to exploring a robust and world-class
microsystems engineering capability at Sandia National Laboratories.
This effort could allow us to both develop and exploit emerging
technologies that show great promise for miniaturizing weapon
components, improving their reliability; and for maintaining a critical
capability in radiation-hardened electronics needed to address
potential safety, security, and hostile radiation threat environments
of the future.
TRITIUM
Every U.S. nuclear weapon requires tritium to function as designed.
Because tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, decays at a rate of
5.5 percent per year, it must be periodically replenished. DOE has not
produced tritium since 1988 and the current START I inventory will be
sufficient only until about 2005, after which the five year tritium
reserve will be reduced and a new source of tritium will be needed.
In May 1999, the Department issued a Record of Decision that
formalized the Secretary's December 1998 announcement that Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) reactors would be used to produce tritium. That
decision was codified in the National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 2000.
Three TVA reactors Watts Bar and both Sequoyah units will be
available to irradiate DOE designed, commercially manufactured,
tritium-producing rods. DOE plans to start production of tritium in TVA
reactors beginning with the scheduled refueling of the Watts Bar
reactor in October 2003. After irradiation, the rods will be shipped to
the Savannah River Site where a new Tritium Extraction Facility is
under construction. The facility will extract tritium gas from the rods
and send it to the existing Tritium Loading Facility. Extraction
operations are scheduled to begin in February 2006, later than
originally planned because of the congressional restriction against
tritium construction activities in fiscal year 1999. Again, we have
made up three months of this 12 month construction moratorium. The
Tritium Extraction Facility's operating capacity will be such that the
five year reserve will be fully replenished in two to three years.
An interagency agreement between DOE and TVA went into effect on
January 1, 2000. TVA, with DOE assistance, is preparing requests to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to amend the licenses of the TVA
reactors to permit tritium production. TVA plans to submit those
requests at the beginning of calendar year 2001. The NRC review of the
license amendment cannot begin until TVA has submitted its application
for amendment of the operating licenses for Watts Bar and the two
Sequoyah units. TVA will be putting that license amendment package
together during the rest of calendar year 2000, with assistance from
its two fuel vendors (Westinghouse and Framatone) and DOE. TVA
corporate and plant licensing and engineering personnel will also be
performing analyses and preparing significant portions of the license
amendment submission. This work is on schedule.
Also during fiscal year 2000, DOE will award a contract for
commercial fabrication of 6,000 tritium-producing rods. Thirty-two rods
underwent an irradiation demonstration in the Watts Bar reactor over
the course of a full reactor operating cycle that was completed in
March 1999. The rods have been taken to a DOE laboratory and are
currently undergoing a series of examinations. So far, the results of
all examinations have been as expected. Site preparation and detailed
design of the Tritium Extraction Facility are in progress this year. In
fiscal year 2001, we will begin construction of the facility building.
The Record of Decision on tritium production stated that the
Accelerator Production of Tritium (APT) alternative would be developed
as a backup tritium technology by completing engineering development
and preliminary design. With the success of the commercial light water
reactor program and with competing financial demands on other parts of
Stockpile Stewardship, DOE has been forced to redefine the work
associated with the APT, the backup tritium technology. Consequently,
we plan to work with Congress this year to suspend preliminary design
work for an APT plant. However, engineering development and
demonstration activities at LANL will continue to assure that, should
the backup technology be needed, it will be ready. In addition, DOE
will explore the potential for a multi-mission accelerator program that
could include tritium production, isotope production, and waste
transmutation.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMS
It is at the DOE's Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratories and at the Nevada Test Site, that the science
base of the Stockpile Stewardship Program is developed and applied. The
experimental program is how, in the absence of nuclear testing, we
divide the physics of the explosive sequence into each of its parts and
analyze each separately. Information that we have from the production
and surveillance activities described previously, helps us to focus our
experiments. Information from over 1,000 U.S. nuclear tests also tells
us where we need to fill in gaps in our knowledge through experiment
and observation.
Thousands of experiments, large and small, are performed each year
in support of stockpile stewardship. Subcritical experiments help us
fill in gaps in empirical data on the high pressure behavior of
plutonium, realistically bench marking data on the dynamic, non-nuclear
behavior of components in today's stockpile; analyzing the effects of
remanufacturing techniques; understanding the effects of aging
materials; and addressing other technical issues. Information from
these experiments will be key to qualifying the pit production
capability at Los Alamos National Laboratory, as well as certifying the
performance of weapons which will contain the replacement pits. These
experiments also contribute significantly to the maintenance of the
critical infrastructure and qualifications of skilled personnel at the
Nevada Test Site to maintain readiness.
With the right tools, we can do a thorough job of investigating the
first part of the nuclear explosion; that is, the implosion of the
plutonium pit by high explosive, with non-nuclear experiments. We can
measure a number of important features by taking X-ray pictures during
critical parts of the experiment, and we can measure the time evolution
of the implosion with arrays of contact sensors (called pins). We can
then compare these pictures and time histories with calculations and
with previous data from the more than 1,000 underground nuclear tests
and 14,000 surveillance tests. Ultimately, we require better pictures
at multiple times to certify rebuilt pits and 3-D simulations of weapon
performance.
During fiscal year 1999, we conducted some 14 non-nuclear
hydrotests at the Pulsed High Energy Radiographic Machine Emitting X-
rays (PHERMEX) and related facilities at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory; and about 15 tests at the Flash X-Ray (FXR) and B851 Site
300 facilities at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. In
addition, we conduct up to 1000 less complex experiments per year aimed
at preparing for larger tests and subcritical experiments, and for
understanding high-explosives behavior and explosive effects on
materials. In fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, we anticipate
conducting a similar number of experiments with major radiography
shots, primarily at the Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test
(DARHT) Facility.
The DARHT facility at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, a
massive, advanced X-ray facility, will examine an imploding pit model
from two different directions at greatly improved resolution and will
replace PHERMEX as the primary radiography machine at Los Alamos. The
first axis of DARHT is now operational. In addition, under the auspices
of the National Hydro Program, DARHT will perform some of the Livermore
tests formerly done at the FXR machine located at LLNL. The building to
house the second axis of DARHT is complete, and the accelerator is
under construction, due for completion in fiscal year 2002.
The FXR firing site has been shut down since early fiscal year 1999
for construction of the Contained Firing Facility which will be
completed in fiscal year 2001. FXR is currently being used for non-
explosive, beam target development tests in support of the second axis
of DARHT.
Experiments using the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE)
are investigating proton radiography, a new technique in which proton
beams from a linear accelerator are used directly in a novel approach
to hydrodynamics-radiography that, if successful, could provide
required additional information to our radiographic process of
certifying pits. This technique is one of the candidate technologies
being considered to make detailed, three-dimensional ``motion
pictures'' of the implosion process. Smaller-scale dynamic proton
radiography experiments have already been performed at LANSCE to
address important certification issues (e.g., cold high-explosives
performance), paving the way for validation of advanced explosives
simulation models.
In 1998, the Z-pulsed power facility at Sandia achieved record X-
ray energy and temperature levels. In 2001, we plan to conduct about
180 shots in Z in the areas of weapons effects, weapons physics, and
ignition. A major activity at Z during fiscal year 2001 will be the
completion of installation of the beamlet laser from the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory which will be used as a diagnostic on Z.
This diagnostic will enhance investigations in all areas.
The Inertial Confinement Fusion Program, in conjunction with the
other stewardship campaigns, is currently developing detailed
experimental plans to achieve ignition and to address other stewardship
issues during National Ignition Facility (NIF) operations.
Construction is underway for NIF, an essential element in the long-
term success of the Stockpile Stewardship Program. NIF, the world's
largest laser, will enable our scientists to generate conditions of
temperature and pressure approaching those that occur in nuclear
weapons. Demonstrations of how aged or changed materials could behave
under these unique conditions will provide data essential to validate
computer based predictions. Recently, laser glass has been produced
which meets all required technical specifications. This is a major
program accomplishment. All the enabling technologies required for
construction of NIF have been demonstrated with the exception of
coatings that will not incur damage at the laser energy levels required
for ignition later in this decade. The NIF building is about 85 percent
completed. The 10-meter diameter aluminum target chamber is installed
in the building. The Optics Assembly Building to be used for final
precision cleaning of the optical components which will be installed in
the laser's beam path, and the Central Plant and its cooling towers,
have been turned over to the laboratory for operation.
Integration, schedule and cost problems associated with the
construction of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) were identified to
DOE in late August of last year. On September 3, 1999, Secretary of
Energy Richardson announced a series of actions to address these
problems. In response, Defense Programs, DOE's Oakland Operations
Office, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and NIF project
management have been working together to put the project back on track
as directed by Secretary Richardson. The NIF project method of
execution is being changed to address the increased complexity of this
state-of-the-art system, and the cleanliness problems in assembling and
installing the laser and target system infrastructure. As a result,
assembly and installation of the beampath infrastructure system will
now be managed and performed by industrial partners with proven records
of constructing similarly complex facilities.
At the Secretary's direction, an independent task force was formed
by the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) to review options to
complete the project and to recommend the best technical course of
action. The overall conclusion in the interim report to the SEAB
stated, ``The Task Force has not uncovered any technical or managerial
obstacles that would, in principle, prevent the completion of the NIF
laser system. Nevertheless, serious challenges and hurdles remain. The
NIF Task Force believes, however, that with appropriate corrective
actions, a strong management team, additional funds, an extension of
the schedule and recognition that NIF is, at its core, a research and
development project, the NIF laser system can be completed.'' The
project is currently developing a new NIF baseline which will be
certified by the Department and submitted to Congress as required. We
will be working with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
management and internally within Defense Programs to get the project
back on track. Your continued support of the NIF project, as a key
element of the Stockpile Stewardship Program, is essential. The
Secretary has committed to work closely with Congress on this issue.
SIMULATION AND COMPUTATION
Data from U.S. nuclear tests, experiments, surveillance, and
production activities, provide input to the Stockpile Stewardship
Program supercomputers. Sandia, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratories are collaborating on the supercomputing program.
While advanced computing has always been a feature of the nuclear
weapons program, the computing speed, power and level of detail
required to certify existing nuclear weapons without nuclear testing
has required an extraordinary collaborative effort that is breaking
barriers undreamed of only five years ago.
The Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) is developing
the high-performance computational modeling and numerical simulation
capabilities necessary to integrate theory, existing data, and new
experimental data to predict results that can be verified and
validated. The ASCI program, a collaborative effort between the U.S.
government and U.S. industry, is developing the world's fastest, most
powerful computational and advanced simulation and modeling
capabilities. These advanced supercomputers are needed to fully
implement science-based methods and to assess and certify the safety,
security, and reliability of the stockpile without underground nuclear
testing.
Advanced computational capabilities that include application codes,
computing platforms, and various tools and techniques, are being
developed under ASCI and incorporated into ongoing stockpile
computational activities. This technology is being developed at about
twice the rate of commercial computing speed and power advances. ASCI
has been highly successful in meeting its milestones and providing
effective new tools to support Stockpile Stewardship. Information
developed from other elements of the Stockpile Stewardship Program,
such as NIF and our subcritical experiments, will provide the basic
physics models and data for ASCI simulations.
At the end of fiscal year 1998, ASCI unveiled its second generation
of computing systems. Two major systems capable of running in excess of
three trillion operations per second (3 TeraOps) peak speed were
delivered ahead of schedule and within budget. Blue Pacific, developed
by IBM, is located at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
(LLNL), and Blue Mountain, developed by SGI, is located at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). These systems are each 15,000 times
faster and have roughly 80,000 times the memory of the average personal
desktop computer. Under the Blue Pacific program, a world record 1.2
TeraOPS was achieved on a hydrodynamics benchmark while a second
benchmark run set a world record with 70.8 billion zones.
On February 12, 1998, the Department announced the selection of IBM
to partner with ASCI on the Option White 10 TeraOps supercomputer to be
located at LLNL. Building upon the experience and knowledge gained with
the 3 TeraOps Blue Mountain system, LANL is procuring a computational
system that will achieve a peak performance level of 30 TeraOps by mid-
year 2001. And the Department's first generation Option Red Intel
computer system, installed at the Sandia National Laboratories in 1996,
has been upgraded with faster processors and more memory and is now
operating in production mode at a peak speed of more than 3 TeraOps.
The ASCI Defense Applications and Modeling Campaign has recently
completed the first three-dimensional simulation of a nuclear weapon
primary explosion and has compared the results with the data from an
underground test. This calculation, an important first step toward
simulating a complete nuclear weapon, was performed by the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory during December 1999.
Completion of the prototype ASCI burn code required to perform the
above calculation was the first of an ambitious serious of mileposts
required to achieve a high-fidelity simulation of a full nuclear weapon
system by 2004. The code team at LLNL met this very difficult milepost
on schedule and with code capabilities that exceeded the established
programmatic specifications. Future mileposts require a continued
effort to extend this calculation to nuclear weapons secondaries and
later to full weapons systems. At the same time, other mileposts
address the advanced physics and materials models that will be required
to achieve the highly accurate simulations that are needed in the
absence of underground nuclear tests.
Weapons designers are already utilizing these new three-dimensional
codes and the ASCI computer systems to support assessment of the
stockpile. They have run simulations to support the certifications of
the B61 modification and the W76 neutron generator. These simulations
would not have been possible without the capability provided by the
ASCI platforms performing at the TeraOps level. However, three-
dimensional, high-fidelity simulation of a full weapon system and its
performance, as defined by scientists and engineers at DOE national
laboratories, will require a minimum of 100 TeraOps of computing
capability.
The unprecedented computational power of ASCI is also being made
available to selected groups in the university community through the
Academic Strategic Alliances Program. In 1997, the Department awarded
contracts to five major U.S. universities--Stanford University,
California Institute of Technology, the University of Chicago, the
University of Utah, and the University of Illinois. The work of the
university teams is of similar difficulty and complexity to that needed
for Stockpile Stewardship and will provide benchmarks by which we can
assess the accuracy of our own work. These projects are expected to
lead to major advances in computer simulation technologies as well as
to discoveries in basic and applied science, areas important to ASCI,
the broader Stockpile Stewardship Program, and other application areas.
Applications being developed and run by the university teams are
unclassified and deal with significant non-defense scientific
priorities.
TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAMS
The Defense Programs Technology Partnerships Program, which has
been restructured and directly integrated into Stockpile Stewardship
activities, represents an important investment in near-term and future
capabilities. The private sector has technical leadership in many areas
that are critical to the nuclear weapons program. The Technology
Partnership Program sponsored collaborations between the national
laboratories, plants and industry are contributing to all components of
the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Developing these collaborations has
been challenging but there are a number of successes. For example, a
partnership between Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) and General
Electric has improved SNL's capability in the production of neutron
generators, a critical weapons component. Another example is the Los
Alamos National Laboratory collaborations with Dow Chemical and PPG on
predictive modeling of materials aging. The ability to accurately
predict material lifetimes and reliability has paramount consequences
for the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship Program and for major
industrial challenges like aging effects on an array of materials from
car frames and engine parts to medical implants. Measured progress in
these partnerships remains beneficial to Stockpile Stewardship and to
other national concerns.
BUDGET SUMMARY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001--WEAPONS ACTIVITIES ACCOUNT SUMMARY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
---------------------------------------------------------
2000 Comparable
1999 Current 2000 Current Comparable 2001 change--percent
appropriation appropriation appropriation Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations & Maintenance.............. $3,899,601 $3,904,464 $3,798,654 $4,179,827 10.0
Fiscal year 2000 Supplemental......... ............. 55,000 55,000 .......... -100.0
PY Work conducted in fiscal year 1999. 28,558 ............. ............. .......... ...............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, O&M................... 3,928,159 3,959,464 3,853,654 4,179,827 8.5
Construction.......................... 518,984 530,256 530,256 414,173 -21.9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Weapons Activities.... 4,447,143 4,489,720 4,383,910 4,594,000 4.8
Use of PY Balances.................... -50,994 -7,668 -7,668 .......... -100.0
Less Proposed Supplemental............ ............. -55,000 -55,000 .......... -100.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Weapons Activities........ 4,396,149 4,427,052 4,321,242 4,594, 000 6.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fiscal year 2001 Operations and Maintenance (O&M) request
increases 8.5 percent above the comparable fiscal year 2000
appropriated level, including the pending supplemental request. The
supplemental request is a result of recommendations in the 30 Day
Review which highlighted fiscal year 2000 budget pressures caused by
increased security requirements and issues that have emerged since the
fiscal year 2000 Congressional budget was submitted. The $55 million
would provide additional funding to address critical skills retention
and other issues at the Y-12, Kansas City and Pantex plants, and would
continue activities necessary to restart enriched uranium operations at
Y-12.
The construction request is about 22 percent below the fiscal year
2000 request level, reflecting programmed decreases in appropriations
for major projects, including the National Ignition Facility (NIF) and
the Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Testing Facility (DARHT), and
completion of funding for six projects. The request level supports a
continuing program of infrastructure renewal at the laboratories, as
well as the start of construction for three key new experimental and
manufacturing facilities.
DECISION UNIT SUMMARY
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 Comparable
1999 Current 2000 Current Comparable Congressional change--percent
appropriation appropriation appropriation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stockpile Stewardship.............. $2,113.1 $2,200.6 ............. ............. ...............
Stockpile Management............... 2,055.4 \1\ 1,991.8 ............. ............. ...............
PY Work conducted in fiscal year 28.6 ............. ............. ............. ...............
1999..............................
Stockpile Stewardship O&M:
Directed Stockpile Work........ ............. ............. $760.0 $836.6 10.1
Campaigns...................... ............. ............. 928.6 1,049.9 13.1
Readiness in Tech Base............. ............. ............. 1,870.0 1,953.6 4.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................... ............. ............. 3,558.6 3,840.1 7.9
Secure Transportation Asset........ ............. 91.5 91.5 115.7 26.5
Program Direction.................. 250.0 205.8 203.6 224.1 10.1
Construction....................... ............. ............. 530.3 414.2 -21.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................... 4,447.1 4,489.7 4,383.9 4,594.0 4.8
Use of Prior Yr Balances........... -51.0 -7.7 -7.7 ............. -100.0
Less Proposed Supplemental......... ............. -55.0 -55.0 ............. -100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Weapons Activities.... 4,396.1 4,427.0 4,321.2 4,594.0 6.3
============================================================================
Federal Staffing................... 1,777 1,751 1,751 1,787 2.1
DP-Funded M&O \2\.................. 22,739 21,582 22,625 22,570 -0.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $55 million proposed supplemental funding.
\2\ Fiscal year 1999 End of Year; fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 projections are averages for labs and
headcounts for plants.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request supports the transition to
performance-based program management and budgeting for the Stockpile
Stewardship Program. The overall increase in fiscal year 2001 will
cover: inflationary increases; support current infrastructure; and does
not anticipate involuntary layoffs at the laboratories, Nevada Test
Site, or production plants at this time. We have protected our highest
priority work associated with pit aging issues, surety improvements,
and stockpile support activities.
Stewardship O&M provides funding for activities carried out by
integrated contractors encompassing Directed Stockpile Work, Campaigns,
and Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities; principally at the
Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories,
production facilities at Kansas City, Pantex, Savannah River and Y-12,
and the Nevada Test Site. The program activities link directly with
DP's performance goals and objectives in the Strategic Plan. They
provide the technical basis for confidence in the safety, reliability,
and performance of the U.S. weapons stockpile in the absence of
underground nuclear testing. The programs have been balanced to develop
and maintain essential scientific and technical capabilities over the
long-term while meeting near-term workload requirements and schedules,
within a modern integrated complex with unique and interdependent
facilities. On a comparable basis, the fiscal year 2001 request for
Stewardship O&M activities is approximately 7.9 percent above the
fiscal year 2000 request, including the pending fiscal year 2000
supplemental.
Directed Stockpile Workload increases 10.1 percent in fiscal year
2001. Production schedules for gas generators, neutron generators and
tritium reservoirs in the Master Nuclear Schedule, Volume II, are met.
Alteration and modification schedules as specified in the Production
and Planning Directive, principally focused on the W87 Life Extension
Program, schedules are supported. Although we will be working with the
DOD to relax certain outyear schedules, critical near-term stockpile
needs are supported. Limited full scale engineering development
continues in support of the W80 and W76, although we are interested in
exploring less complex, lower cost workload options with the DOD. We
are studying the potential transfer of the work on the W80 from the Los
Alamos National Laboratory to the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory as a longer-term workload leveling measure. Pit
manufacturing and certification efforts for the W88 continue.
The Campaigns increase $121.3 million, or 13.1 percent above the
fiscal year 2000 comparable level of $928.6 million, to support the
development of the tools and scientific capabilities required to
maintain and certify the nuclear stockpile without underground nuclear
testing into the future. The budget request allocates significant
program growth over fiscal year 2000 to the highest priorities:
supporting campaign activities and key milestones in Pit Manufacturing
Readiness (+54 percent growth); Primary Certification (+41 percent
growth); Enhanced Surveillance (+21 percent growth); and ICF and High
Yield (+21 percent growth). Program growth in the 10 to 20 percent
range is allocated in the Secondary Certification, Advanced
Radiography, and Certification in Hostile Environments campaigns.
Pit Manufacturing Readiness, which increases $38.1 million, or 54
percent above the fiscal year 2000 comparable level, will focus on
continuing the manufacture of development pits leading towards the
manufacture of a certifiable W88 pit. Increased funding will support
the hiring of production staffing and the procurement and installation
of reliability equipment. Subsequent to fiscal year 2001, activities
will move from manufacturing development pits to steady state
manufacture of pits for qualification and production pits for placement
into the stockpile.
Primary Certification, which increases $11.9 million, or 41 percent
above the fiscal year 2000 comparable level, performs increasingly
complex integrated hydrodynamic radiography and subcritical experiments
for development of simulation codes and weapon certification.
Enhanced Surveillance, which increases $15.6 million, or 21 percent
above the fiscal year 2000 comparable level, will include a pit study
to determine whether pit lifetimes equal or exceed 60 years (enabling
substantial deferral or downsizing of a potential new pit manufacturing
facility) and the development and implementation of new, non-
destructive examination tools for early detection of potential flaws.
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield, which
increases $21.1 million, or 21 percent above the fiscal year 2000
comparable level, will support the design and development of the NIF
Cryogenic System, the development of the initial set of core target
diagnostics and laser characterization diagnostics for NIF, ignition
target design, development and experiments to verify conditions
necessary for ignition, weapons physics experiments which also support
other Stewardship campaigns.
Secondary Certification and Nuclear Systems Margins, which
increases $8.6 million, or 19 percent above the fiscal year 2000
comparable level, will support design of above ground experiments to
examine HE-induced case dynamics and performance issues required for
code validation and to enhance capabilities in hydrodynamic modeling.
Advanced Radiography, which increases $5.1 million, or 14 percent
above the fiscal year 2000 comparable level, optimizes the first axis
beam on DARHT which became operational in fiscal year 1999. Research
and development will be conducted to begin to define the requirements
for advanced radiography capabilities to support certification of
refurbished and replaced primaries.
Certification in Hostile Environments, which increases $1.6
million, or 12 percent above the fiscal year 2000 comparable level,
will allow us to start the development of System Generated
Electromagnetic Pulse model validation for the ASCI codes to support
the W76 Arming Firing and Fusing (AF&F) certification, to work on 0.5 m
rad/hard (silicon-on-insulator) technologies for the W76 and future
AF&F refurbishments , and to accelerate the calculations of weapons
outputs.
We are maintaining progress on achieving an assured source of
tritium, although we are suspending the efforts on the preliminary
design for the backup Accelerator Production of Tritium plant. We are
developing advanced stewardship tools, particularly simulation and
modeling, the Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test (DARHT)
facility, 3D burn codes, and subcritical experiments. These activities
are essential to maintain confidence in the safety of the stockpile
without underground nuclear testing to assure that the U.S. will
continue to certify the effectiveness of the nuclear weapon stockpile
into the future.
Within the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities decision
unit, the largest category supporting operations of facilities is
essentially flat from the fiscal year 2000 level. There is significant
growth over fiscal year 2000 in other categories such as Containers,
Program Readiness, and Advanced Simulation and Computing.
Advanced Simulation and Computing increase $80 million, about 20
percent, including: $3.9 million to accommodate final development and
delivery of 10 TeraOps system and ongoing operating expenses for the 3
TeraOps (LANL and SNL) systems; $8.7 million for Distance and
Distributed Computing (DisCom \2\) efforts to scale up software
development and network bandwidth substantially in order to enable tri-
lab use of the 10 TeraOps platform under demanding conditions; $45.1
million for Visual Interactive Environment for Weapons Simulation
(VIEWS) for integrating visualization and data management and
developing technologies that contribute to the ``see and understand''
capabilities for 3D simulation codes data with increased levels of
fidelity and for new computing and display equipment and software
development to use scalable parallel technologies and, $13.0 million
for Collaborations with University Partners, Alliances, Institutes and
Fellowships for existing commitments and expansion of the program along
with continued development of partnerships with expertise in academia.
The Department's Secure Transportation Asset is requesting a
funding increase of 26.5 percent over fiscal year 2000 to support its
plan to continue to redress security and other vulnerabilities
identified in recent Departmental evaluations, including the
replacement of safe secure transporters (SST's) with the next
generation SafeGuards transporters, equipment and escort vehicle
upgrades, recruitment of new courier classes, and enhanced inservice
training.
Defense Programs is requesting an increase in Program Direction
funding of $20.5 million, a 10.1 percent percent increase over the
fiscal year 2000 appropriation. The largest portion of this increase,
$11.0 million, is to cover the DP federal staff's salaries and
benefits. This increase covers expected cost of living increases, step
increases, promotions, and full year funding for the 30 new hires to be
brought on-board during fiscal year 2000 at headquarters as part of the
Secretary's Workforce 21 initiative to fill critical mission skill
positions. The request supports the Secretarial Scientific Retention
and Recruiting initiative to enhance scientific and technical talent in
the federal workforce, and provides flexibility to relocate staff and
consolidate functions among headquarters, operations office and area
offices in fiscal year 2001.
Construction includes all DP-funded, line item infrastructure and
programmatic construction projects at the laboratories, Nevada Test
Site, and plants. The construction request is about 22 percent below
the fiscal year 2000 level. This reduction reflects the completion of
appropriations for six projects, and planned decreases for three more,
including the National Ignition Facility (NIF) and DARHT experimental
facilities that are progressing towards completion. Three new starts
are also proposed: the Distributed Information Systems Lab at the
Sandia National Laboratory in California; Highly Enriched Uranium
Storage Facility at Y-12; and Weapon Evaluation Testing Laboratory at
Pantex; and in addition, Defense Programs is piloting the Departmental
initiative to request ``Preliminary Project Design and Engineering''
funding for potential out year new construction starts. This pilot
project is intended to remedy problems in construction projects related
to inadequate scope definition and premature cost estimates.
Construction funds included in the fiscal year 2000 request for NIF do
not reflect forthcoming cost and schedule changes.
CONCLUSION
Stockpile Stewardship is a one-of-a-kind endeavor. It is unique in
that we are responsible for a product that everyone hopes we will never
have to use. It is unique in the same way that the Manhattan Project
and Apollo moon program were: innovative, creative approaches to
something new under the sun with no margin for error. It is unique in
that we are not making any new weapons, but are only maintaining
existing inventory. We must continue both to maintain current models
without total system testing, but also be prepared to return to design,
production and testing if directed to do so by the President. Every
year, our success on the job must be certified to the President. Our
responsibilities and capabilities are often the focus of heated public
debate and occupy a singular position in the formulation of foreign and
defense policy.
On the other hand, Stockpile Stewardship involves many industrial
processes common to private industry. We must be sure that product
replacement parts continue to be available and that new materials and
processes are compatible with maintaining our existing inventory in
perfect working order without underground nuclear testing. To get the
job done right, we rely on advanced scientific expertise, complex
experimental capabilities, historic product data, and highly
sophisticated computer calculations--bottom line--more high tech than
almost any other organization. We have high level security and safety
concerns, transportation needs, environmental responsibilities,
downsizing requirements, workforce and training issues, cost-benefit
trade-offs to consider, and other problems similar to those faced by
private businesses, although in a unique context. And, as is usually
the case in any business or government activity, our people remain the
key to our success now and in the future.
Properly supported and carefully managed, I believe the Stockpile
Stewardship program will continue to maintain, indefinitely, a safe and
reliable stockpile without the need to conduct nuclear testing. I know
of no other national security issue more important for our nation in
this new millennium of great challenges.
ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Now you have
provided examples of the type of improvements needed in the
weapons program. Can I clarify those three items you sent up
here for us to look at?
General Gioconda. The strong link, switches----
Senator Domenici. Yes, now the very heavy one is the
current one?
General Gioconda. Yes. It is the one currently in a lot of
our stockpile, or versions of it.
Senator Domenici. Then the second one is a little machine
inside of that plastic box. Is that little machine going to
take the place of the big one?
General Gioconda. Yes, sir, it can. It also will be closer
to the actual prevention of detonation by moving it closer to
the actual thing you are worried about.
Senator Domenici. Then the third one was another change in
evolution into a little tiny strip that will do the same thing
as the box with 500 pieces?
General Gioconda. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. I note there are some young people in the
audience this morning. You are not from my State, but could you
maybe tell us where you are from? Who is the leader of the
crowd?
Voice. We are from Alabama, Minnesota, South Dakota, and
Nebraska.
Senator Domenici. Well, we welcome you to this hearing. We
are going to pass these three exhibits to you, and you can look
at them.
Without going into too much detail, the heavy one is the
one we are currently using to make sure our nuclear weapons
cannot be armed in the case of accidents or the like. The next
one right behind it is a modern, technologically improved item
that takes the place of that one, and then if you look at the
third one you will see a little tiny strip of tape. It is a
microchip. It takes the place of the other two, and this will
just show you the kind of changes that are occurring in science
and technology.
This committee is going to consider and ultimately pass a
bill that provides for the nuclear weaponry for the United
States, and also for the Energy Department in terms of
nonnuclear energy research and the like. So this is a small but
important Subcommittee on Appropriations, and we welcome you to
our hearing, and we hope you have a great time from the States
you're from, and that you have a safe trip home.
Do any of you young people have a quick question for the
witnesses?
[No response.]
Senator Domenici. Okay. You can be thinking about that and
we will let you ask that later. If you stick around awhile
maybe you can write one up between you.
The next witness today is Ms. Rose Gottemoeller, Acting
Deputy for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. Would you proceed
with no more than 10 minutes?
STATEMENT OF ROSE GOTTEMOELLER
Ms. Gottemoeller. Mr. Chairman, Thank you very much for the
opportunity to appear before this subcommittee. As always, I
welcome the opportunity to tell you and your colleagues about
our program.
As you know, my office has undergone a number of
organizational changes over the course of the last year.
Specifically, in the National Nuclear Security Administration,
my office, the Office of Nonproliferation and National
Security, has been redesignated as the Office of Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation. In addition, the Department's Office
of Fissile Materials Disposition was incorporated into this new
office. Implementation of these new arrangements has gone very
well, and we are now better able to respond to proliferation
challenges, in my view.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
In the office's fiscal year 2001 budget request is $906
million. This figure incorporates both the former Office of
Nonproliferation and National Security, for which we are
requesting $683 million, and on a comparable basis an increase
of $136 million, or 21 percent above the fiscal year 2000
appropriation and the Office of Fissile Material disposition
for which we are requesting $223 million on a comparable basis,
an increase of $22 million, or a 10-percent increase above the
fiscal year 2000 appropriation.
Mr. Chairman, I appear to need my glasses at this age for
numbers. I apologize. In any event, I will proceed.
LONG-TERM RUSSIAN INITIATIVE
A major priority for the Department of Energy in the coming
fiscal year is a proposed $100-million long-term,
nonproliferation program with Russia developed by Secretary
Richardson as a key part of the President's fiscal year 2001
budget request for the expanded threat reduction initiative.
The proposed $100-million initiative should be reviewed in the
context of our broader effort in Russia to end the production
of fissile materials and reduce existing stockpiles, an effort
that includes the plutonium disposition program, the HEU
purchase agreement, and the plutonium production reactor
agreement.
Allow me to give you a few details concerning the new
initiative, which is divided into two parts. The first involves
the nuclear fuel cycle, for which we are requesting $70
million, and the second covers the Russian nuclear
infrastructure, for which we are requesting $30 million.
Let me turn first to our work on the nuclear fuel cycle
under the new initiative. Since 1992, the United States has
invested substantial resources to cooperate with Russia to
secure and eliminate weapons-grade nuclear materials in
Russia's military nuclear program.
We aim to expand these efforts by strengthening the
security and accounting for existing civil plutonium
stockpiles, preventing the further accumulation of separated
plutonium from spent fuel produced by civil nuclear power
reactors, and raising technical barriers to the possible misuse
of civil nuclear technologies to further weapons programs.
MORATORIUM ON SEPARATED CIVIL PLUTONIUM
A key aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle work is a proposed
moratorium on the further accumulation of separated civil
plutonium from spent fuel. Each year, Russia produces
approximately 2 metric tons of separated civil plutonium at its
Mayak reprocessing plant, adding by 2 metric tons per year to
their growing stockpile of more than 30 metric tons of this
material and, sir, I feel it is particularly important, given
our emphasis in our plutonium disposition program on disposing
of approximately 2 metric tons a year, that we do get a handle
on this additional production of 2 metric tons per year.
To support this moratorium, we are proposing to assist
Russia in designing, licensing, and constructing a dry storage
facility for civil reactor spent fuel that would otherwise have
been reprocessed. Our funds will support the development of
technically sound, environmentally safe and secure approaches
to spent fuel packaging and storage.
A second program area involves collaborative research to
enhance the proliferation resistance of nuclear reactors and
fuel cycles. The stages of collaboration include refining
nonproliferation performance metrics, evaluating specific
technologies against these metrics, and ultimately developing
the most promising options that incorporate safety,
environmental, and economic considerations in addition to
nonproliferation. Major research and development investments in
this area are conditioned on Russia fulfilling its commitments
to curtail nuclear cooperation with Iran.
RUSSIAN NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE
Now, let me turn to the second part of the initiative, our
work on the Russian nuclear infrastructure. A requested $30
million is to support new initiatives to address
nonproliferation dangers associated with Russia's nuclear
infrastructure. We will expand efforts to consolidate nuclear
weapons usable material in fewer sites and fewer buildings, and
to improve material protection and control in highly sensitive
Russian Navy nuclear sites.
New funds will also further advance national security goals
by helping to accelerate the closure of nuclear warhead
assembly and disassembly lines at the Avangard and Penza-19
plants in Russia, two out of the four Russian warhead
production plants.
New funds will also support the expansion of our work in
cooperation with the Ministry of Atomic Energy Situation and
Crisis Center to permit networking of Russian nuclear complex
facilities to that center for emergency management and
response.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn briefly to two
other program areas, our material protection control and
accounting program, which is progressing well, and our brain
drain programs. We have improved the security of 450 metric
tons of fissile material at more than 30 sites in Russia under
our material protection control and accounting program.
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE REPORT
A recent GAO report of which you may be aware criticizes
the Department for having completed security upgrades for only
7 percent of the material considered at risk. The GAO's
assertion is not accurate. In fact, we have completed rapid
security upgrades for 450 metric tons of highly enriched
uranium and plutonium, or approximately 70 percent of the
estimated stock of at-risk materials.
These upgrades include quick fixes, such as fortifying
entrance and exit points, placing 1-ton concrete blocks on
material storage areas, or even just bricking up windows to
secure these sites against terrorist and outsider attacks.
The 7-percent figure cited by the GAO refers only to those
sites where we have completed all upgrades.
A key part of our strategy in the coming year is to embark
upon a strategic planning process, which was one recommendation
in the GAO report, with an eye toward increasing efficiencies,
reducing costs, and promoting sustainable operations.
We are completing at the present time a model project
further to consolidate and convert more than 200 kilograms of
highly enriched uranium and plan to convert an additional 600
kilograms of this material. Over the next 2 years, our goal is
to convert 8 to 10 additional metric tons of highly enriched
uranium and that, as I see it, is an important new direction
for the program to consolidate materials and ensure that over
time the number of facilities and buildings we have to address
are actually fewer in number through the consolidation process.
NUCLEAR CITIES INITIATIVE
I would now like to turn very briefly to our flagship brain
drain prevention programs, the Nuclear Cities Initiative [NCI],
for which we are requesting $17.5 million, and the Initiatives
for a Proliferation Prevent [IPP] program, for which we are
requesting $22.5 million.
I would like to make a couple of remarks about the Nuclear
Cities Initiative, which has had considerable successes in the
last couple of weeks. In fact, we have had underway high-level
strategic planning efforts with the Ministry of Atomic Energy
in both Sarov and Snezhinsk. The Sarov strategic plan was
completed last September, and we have among other things
identified the reduction of 6,000 employees at the Institute
for Experimental Physics in Sarov.
In addition, we are accelerating the shut-down of weapons
assembly and disassembly at the Avangard plant, and recently
signed an agreement to produce medical equipment at the
Avangard plant through a German-American medical equipment
company. This particular project was mentioned, you may have
seen, on CNN last Friday night, when we were actually able to
announce that program just last Friday.
Also last week we completed a strategic planning process
for the City of Snezhinsk, and there we will have a second open
computing center as well as a number of major industrial
projects, and so I feel for our two out of three cities we are
proceeding to a closing stage in completing the strategic
planning process, which was an effort that was really
underscored as necessary by our counterparts and colleagues
here on Capitol Hill.
A third team is in Moscow at the present time to move
forward on strategic planning for the City of Zheleznogorsk, so
Mr. Chairman, I will just conclude by underscoring that we have
taken the recommendations of this body to heart and are truly
moving out on trying to define carefully successful projects
under this particular effort.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I would like to submit the rest of my remarks for the
record, if I may, and thank you for your attention.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rose Gottemoeller
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and members of this Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present this statement for
the record on the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2001 budget
request for the Office of the Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, formerly the Office of Nonproliferation and National
Security. I look forward to working with you, Chairman Domenici, and
with the rest of the members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development, as we address some of the many serious challenges facing
our nation today.
It has been more than a decade since the Berlin Wall fell, opening
a new era in history. While the Soviet threat is gone, dangers arising
from the global spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and
missiles for their delivery, remain with us. These dangers are real and
increasingly unpredictable. As President Clinton recently declared, the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction ``continues to pose an
unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign
policy, and economy of the United States.'' As a nation, we may face no
greater challenge than to prevent these weapons from falling into the
hands of those who would use them against us or our allies.
As you know, my Office has undergone a number of organizational
changes over the course of the last year. Specifically, Title 32 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000 calls for the
creation of a new National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). In
the NNSA, my Office, the Office of Nonproliferation and National
Security, has been re-designated as the Office of Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation. In addition, the Department's Office of Fissile
Materials Disposition was incorporated into this new Office.
Implementation of these new arrangements have gone very well. We are
now better able to respond to proliferation challenges. In a separate
reorganization effort, the Office of Security Affairs and the Office of
Emergency Management, formerly in the Office of Nonproliferation and
National Security, were transferred to the new Office of Security and
Emergency Operations led by General Eugene Habiger (USAF Ret.). This
move was part of the Secretary's initiative to centralize the
Department's domestic nuclear security functions. And finally, to
address the management demands and significant budget share of our
Material Protection, Control and Accounting Program (MPC&A), I created
a new division in 1999 and added to it important remaining functions in
international emergency management. The new division is called the
Office of International Materials Protection and Emergency Cooperation.
I am confident that the combined effect of these changes will sharpen
our ability to address the proliferation problem.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
The Office's fiscal year 2001 budget request is $906 million. This
figure incorporates both the former Office of Nonproliferation and
National Security, for which we are requesting $683 million, on a
comparable basis, an increase of $136 million or 21 percent above the
fiscal year 2000 appropriation, and the Office of Fissile Materials
Disposition, for which we are requesting $223 million, on a comparable
basis, an increase of $22 million or a 10 percent increase above the
fiscal year 2000 appropriation. In general terms, this increase
reflects our commitment to meet the ever growing challenges our nation
faces in the international arena, as well as new opportunities to
consolidate and expand our nonproliferation work in cooperation with
Russia.
LONG TERM NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAM WITH RUSSIA
A major priority for the Department of Energy in the coming fiscal
year is a proposed $100 million long term nonproliferation program with
Russia, developed by Secretary Richardson as a key part of the
President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Expanded Threat
Reduction Initiative (ETRI). This new program will improve our ability
to respond to the most serious challenges presented by Russian nuclear
facilities and nuclear weapon-usable materials. Activities included in
this program will supplement existing efforts to reduce proliferation
dangers in the Russian military nuclear complex, while addressing a new
area, that is, separated plutonium produced in Russia's civil nuclear
sector.
The proposed $100 million initiative should be viewed in the
context of our broader effort in Russia to end the production of
fissile materials and reduce existing stockpiles, an effort that
includes the Plutonium Disposition program, the HEU Purchase Agreement,
and the Plutonium Production Reactor Agreement. These activities, in
addition to the hundreds of millions of dollars we are spending to
assist the Russian Government's activities to improve fissile material
security in Russia, reflect our deep concerns over the risks of theft
and diversion of nuclear materials in the unique circumstances of the
post-Cold War environment.
Allow me to provide you with a few details concerning this new
initiative. There are essentially two parts. The first involves the
nuclear fuel cycle, for which we are requesting $70 million; the second
covers the Russian nuclear infrastructure, for which we are requesting
$30 million.
Nonproliferation and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle ($70 million).--Since
1992, the United States has invested substantial resources to cooperate
with Russia to secure and eliminate weapon-grade nuclear materials in
Russia's military nuclear program. We aim to expand these efforts by
strengthening security and accounting for existing civil plutonium
stockpiles, preventing the further accumulation of separated plutonium
from spent fuel produced by civil nuclear power reactors, and raising
technical barriers to the possible misuse of civil nuclear technologies
to further weapons programs.
A key aspect of the nuclear fuel work is a proposed moratorium on
the further accumulation of separated civil plutonium from spent fuel.
Each year, Russia produces approximately two metric tons of separated
civil plutonium at its Mayak reprocessing plant, adding to two metric
tons per year to their growing stockpile of more than 30 metric tons of
this material. To support this moratorium, it will be necessary to
assist Russia in designing, licensing, and constructing a dry storage
facility for civil reactor spent fuel that would otherwise have been
reprocessed. Funds will support the development of technically sound,
environmentally safe, and secure approaches to spent fuel packaging and
storage. Funds will also support accelerated completion of material
control and accounting work on tens of tons of civil plutonium
currently stored at the Mayak site.
A second program area involves collaborative research to enhance
the proliferation resistance of nuclear reactors and fuel cycles. The
stages of collaboration include refining nonproliferation performance
metrics, evaluating specific technologies against those metrics, and
ultimately developing the most promising options that incorporate
safety, environmental and economic considerations, in addition to
nonproliferation. Major research and development investments in this
area are conditioned on Russia fulfilling its commitment to curtail
nuclear cooperation with Iran. Restrictions will also continue on
Russian nuclear entities that engage in nuclear assistance to Iran.
We will also propose research collaboration on long term solutions
to the problem of managing spent fuel and nuclear waste. This will
include further developing the science underlying geologic repositories
and researching environmental, safety and related issues involved in
spent fuel storage.
It bears noting that this bilateral initiative is not intended to
address civil fuel cycle programs outside of Russia. Specifically, the
United States will maintain its commitments regarding the use of
plutonium in civil nuclear programs in Western Europe and Japan.
Russian Nuclear Infrastructure ($30 million).--$30 million is
requested to support new initiatives to address nonproliferation
dangers associated with Russia's nuclear infrastructure. We will expand
efforts to consolidate nuclear weapon-usable materials in fewer sites
and fewer buildings and to improve material protection and control in
highly sensitive Russian Navy nuclear sites. New funds will also
further advance national security goals by helping to accelerate the
closure of the nuclear warhead assembly and disassembly lines at the
Avangard and Penza-19 plants. Our plan includes financing for non-
military projects to support displaced warhead production workers. New
funds will also support the expansion of our work in cooperation with
the Ministry for Atomic Energy's Situation and Crisis Center to permit
the networking of Russian nuclear complex facilities to that Center for
emergency management and response purposes. And finally, funding will
facilitate negotiations on an internationally funded program to
cooperate with Russia on repatriating highly enriched uranium from
Soviet-supplied research reactors in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.
MATERIALS PROTECTION, CONTROL AND ACCOUNTING
The new $100 million Russia initiative builds on existing programs
and successes. Our Materials Protection, Control and Accounting (MPC&A)
program is a good example of this success. Through the MPC&A program,
we have built a legacy of trust, solid working relationships and
cooperation with Russian agencies, institutes and scientists,
facilitating our efforts to improve the security for the nuclear
materials at highest risk throughout the Russian nuclear complex. This
program is an essential bulwark against the nuclear weapons aspirations
of terrorists or countries of proliferation concern.
Our MPC&A efforts are progressing well. We have improved the
security of hundreds of tons of fissile material at more than 30 sites
in Russia. Last October, Secretary Richardson and Russian Minister for
Atomic Energy Adamov signed a government-to-government agreement that
will ensure the job gets done at the remaining sites. We are also
nearing completion of a separate implementing agreement with the
Russian Ministry of Defense that will advance our MPC&A work at a
number of very sensitive Russian Navy sites. I have been very impressed
with the unprecedented degree of cooperation and access shown by the
Russian Navy to Department of Energy employees.
A recent GAO report \1\ criticizes the Department for having
completed security upgrades for only seven percent of the material
considered at risk. The GAO's assertion is not accurate. In fact, we
have completed rapid security upgrades for 450 metric tons of highly
enriched uranium and plutonium, or approximately seventy percent of the
estimated stock of at-risk material. These upgrades include quick
fixes--such as fortifying entrance and exit points, placing one ton
concrete blocks on material storage areas, or even just bricking up
windows--to secure these sites against terrorist or outside attack. The
next level of protection includes material tracking and accounting
systems to protect against insiders siphoning off these fissile
materials. Both layers of protection are needed to secure materials
well into the future. The seven percent figure cited by the GAO refers
only to those sites where we have completed both short and long term
upgrades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Limited Progress in Improving Nuclear Material Security in
Russia and the Newly Independent States,'' GAO/RCED/NSIAD-00-82 (March
2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the emphasis in our first years of operation was on the
``quick fix,'' today we are implementing a strategic plan, with an eye
towards increasing efficiencies, reducing costs, and promoting
sustainable operations. A key part of this strategy is our effort to
consolidate and convert highly enriched uranium into a non-weapons-
usable form. We recently completed a model project to consolidate and
convert more than 200 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, and plan to
convert an additional 600 kilograms of this material. Over the next two
years, our goal is to convert 8-10 additional metric tons of highly
enriched uranium.
``Sustainability'' is another important part of our longer term
efforts. We must ensure that computers for nuclear materials accounting
and control remain operational and that the protective locks we help to
install do not rust and break away. For this task, we will establish
training centers, identify credible Russian suppliers of MPC&A
equipment, and help in the development of regulations and security
force procedures, as well as a central system to track amounts and
locations for all of Russia's nuclear material.
Our strategic plans address two additional issues raised in the GAO
report that I would like to comment on: access to facilities and
taxation by the Russian government. As you might imagine, access is a
sensitive point for Russia since we are working at some of their most
highly secret sites. But we are making progress. Secretary Richardson,
for example, recently established a special task force to help us
better understand Russia's requirements for approving visits by DOE
personnel and to share ideas on ways to better facilitate access. I
should also stress that this is not a complex-wide problem. In fact, I
would argue that we have more access to sites than we have money to
perform upgrades. Moreover, at major defense sites, such as Mayak,
Krasnoyarsk-45, and Sverdlovsk-44, we have gained considerable access
and are moving quickly to upgrade material security. Sites that fail to
grant access do not receive contracts for work.
Russian taxation of our MPC&A cooperation is another area where we
are making good progress. New Russian legislation and implementing
regulations are now on the books which exempt the entire MPC&A program
(and all other DOE cooperative programs with Russia) from direct
Russian taxes. I am pleased to report that the MPC&A program was one of
the first to be registered as tax exempt. This is a very positive step
forward. The GAO report correctly indicates that approximately $1
million in taxes were included in a contract for MPC&A work by a
particular Russian institute. In fact, we have not paid the $1 million
in taxes, and we are working on ways to avoid ever paying. In the
meantime, I have directed the MPC&A program to review all existing
contracts to ensure that DOE takes full advantage of its tax-exempt
status. I have also issued updated guidance to DOE labs on this topic.
For the coming fiscal year, our base request for the MPC&A program
is $149.9 million, or approximately $5 million above the comparable
amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000. This increase reflects the
transfer of international emergency cooperation from the Office of
Security and Emergency Operations to our MPC&A program. In the
international emergency cooperation program, we conduct nuclear threat
assessments; obtain samples of seized nuclear materials for forensic
analysis; and develop training and emergency response plans for foreign
governments and international organizations. In addition, $2 million
from the proposed $100 million Russia nonproliferation initiative will
support the continuation of our work with the Russian Situation and
Crisis Center, which is now linked by a direct televideo line to our
own Emergency Operations Center. We are also requesting an additional
$20 million for MPC&A work under the proposed $100 million Russia
nonproliferation initiative. Together, this would constitute a 15
percent increase over the fiscal year 2000 appropriation. The increase
will allow us, among other things, to improve security at highly
sensitive Russian Navy sites and to continue consolidating and
converting Russia's stocks of weapon-usable nuclear material.
ARMS CONTROL AND NONPROLIFERATION
Our arms control and nonproliferation budget for fiscal year 2001
is $123 million, representing an increase of $6.7 million, or
approximately 5 percent above the comparable funds appropriated in
fiscal year 2000. Activities covered by this budget line include a
number of critical nonproliferation programs in Russia and the Newly
Independent States, but also technical, analytical, and operational
support for the major pillars of the larger nonproliferation regime,
that is, treaties and agreements, export controls, international
nuclear safeguards, and work in regions of proliferation concern. Our
activities in these areas highlight the breadth and depth of the
Department's contribution to U.S. arms control and nonproliferation
priorities.
Knowing your interest in the Russia problem, let me turn to our
flagship ``brain drain'' prevention programs--the Nuclear Cities
Initiative (NCI), for which we are requesting $17.5 million; and the
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) program, for which we
are requesting $22.5 million. This represents a $10 million increase
for these programs together above the fiscal year 2000 appropriation.
The $10 million increase would be applied to NCI, building on the
momentum the program has gathered over the past year.
As you know, Secretary Richardson and Minister Adamov established
the Nuclear Cities Initiative in late 1998 to cooperate with Russian
efforts to create peaceful, commercial jobs for displaced Russian
nuclear weapons scientists and engineers in the ten ``closed'' cities.
Our initial focus has been on three municipalities--that is, Sarov
(Arzamas-16), Snezhinsk (Chelyabinsk-70), and Zheleznogorsk
(Krasnoyarsk-26). NCI is a new type of ``brain drain'' prevention
program in that it is focused on nuclear workers who are slated to
leave the nuclear weapons complex as facilities, and their jobs, are
eliminated.
This program is on track. Since April 1999, when my Office was
first authorized to spend funds, we have commissioned an Open Computing
Center in Sarov, an International Business Development Center in
Zheleznogorsk (with similar centers to open soon in Snezhinsk and
Sarov), and signed an agreement in December 1999 with the European Bank
for Reconstruction and Development to open small business loan centers
in the three cities, providing access to millions of dollars in
potential financing. The first loan was recently approved for a small,
5-person company in Zheleznogorsk.
We have also initiated high-level strategic planning efforts with
the Ministry for Atomic Energy to establish goals, costs, and time-
lines for workforce reduction and facility closures in each of the
three cities. The Sarov strategic plan was completed last September,
identifying, among other things, the reduction of as many as 6,000
employees of the Institute for Experimental Physics, a nuclear weapons
design institute. Through the plan, we have also agreed to the
accelerated shutdown of weapons assembly and disassembly at the
Avangard plant: weapons assembly will halt by the end of 2000; weapons
disassembly will halt by the end of 2004. A commercial agreement for
the production of kidney dialysis equipment was also recently
completed, linking Avangard (home of a Russian nuclear weapons assembly
in Sarov), a German-American medical equipment company, and the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Similar private industry
partnerships are under development in other closed cities.
I am proud to say that NCI is already working to create jobs. The
Open Computing Center will have 100 new contract research employees
this year, with another 500 jobs expected by 2001. A separate center in
Sarov for nonproliferation analysis has opened and will employ 30 or so
workers displaced by down-sizing in the Russian nuclear weapons
complex. The kidney dialysis equipment project at Avangard could create
more than 100 jobs and has the potential to bring major investments
into Sarov. In all, more than 30 civil projects, equating to more than
700 jobs, are either funded or under development across a range of
commercial areas--from laparoscopy in Sarov, to fiber optic production
in Snezhinsk, to canola oil and seed processing in Zheleznogorsk. The
$10 million increase in fiscal year 2001 will allow us to build this
program by creating perhaps as many 1,000 new jobs in the three cities.
Like NCI, the IPP program works to secure weapons of mass
destruction expertise and know-how. Since the program's inception in
1994, more than 6,000 weapons scientists in Russia and the Newly
Independent States have been supported through 400 non-military
projects. The program partners Russian and NIS scientists with
specialists at the Department's national laboratories and concentrates
aggressively on the commercialization of projects that are cost-shared
with U.S. industry. Major corporations--such as United Technologies,
DuPont, and American Home Products--are participating in this program.
To date, U.S. industry has contributed $64 million, eclipsing the $38
million provided by the Department of Energy for cost-shared projects.
Six commercial projects have already been launched, with full
graduation from U.S. government financing, and another thirteen are
poised for full commercialization by the end of 2001.
Improving the commercial thrust of the IPP program is just one of
the recommendations suggested by the GAO in its February 1999 report
(GAO/RCED-99-54, ``Nuclear Nonproliferation: Concerns With DOE's
Efforts to Reduce the Risks Posted by Russia's Unemployed Weapons
Scientists.'') that we have moved to implement quickly. All of our IPP
projects are now reviewed by the U.S. Industry Coalition, helping to
promote those having genuine commercial potential. Other issues raised
by the GAO report have been addressed as well. For example, we now use
the Civilian Research and Development Foundation to avoid the payment
of taxes on IPP projects in Russia; we have the agreement of the
governments of Ukraine and Kazakhstan not to tax IPP payments; we vet
all projects through an interagency screening process to rule out
activities that might further a weapons program; and we cap the amount
of IPP budgeted funds going to DOE's national laboratories at 35
percent.
Our progress to prevent a ``brain drain'' of weapons expertise
complements our related efforts to prevent illicit nuclear trade and
secure nuclear materials outside of Russia. MPC&A is the first line of
defense. Our ``second line of defense'' program is working to help
Russia block unauthorized nuclear trade at nine key border crossing
points and transportation centers. We plan to place radiation detection
equipment at all nine points by the end of this calendar year. These
efforts are above and beyond my Office's responsibility to support
multilateral export control regimes, to administer U.S. controls over
transfers of American nuclear technology to other countries, and to
ensure that DOE-funded activities take place in compliance with U.S.
export control laws and procedures.
We have additional nuclear material security programs focused on
MPC&A improvements in former Soviet states outside of Russia and the
protection of plutonium-bearing spent fuel in two special cases--North
Korea and Kazakhstan. Our ``on the ground'' efforts to can and secure
more than 8,000 spent fuel rods in North Korea is nearing completion,
and we hope to move to the long-term maintenance phase of this project.
We will maintain a presence in the country to preserve equipment,
ensure the continued integrity of the fuel canisters, and address any
International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards issues that might arise.
In Kazakhstan, the news is also good. There, the first phase of
operations to can and secure 3,000 plutonium-bearing spent fuel rods in
the BN-350 reactor at Aktau is nearly complete. The next phase involves
placing the material in long-term storage. Expert discussions on this
issue are progressing well, and we expect to launch a long-term
management program in fiscal year 2001.
Our efforts to control weapons of mass destruction materials and
expertise at their source is a critical part of our nonproliferation
mission. But we must also do more to address the concerns that motivate
states to pursue these weapons. Drawing on the Department's and its
national laboratories' tradition of excellence in arms control and
nonproliferation, my Office supports a number of projects and
institutions that are dedicated to improving dialogue and communication
in regions of tension, including the Middle East, South Asia and
Northeast Asia. Among other activities, we will continue to fund the
Cooperative Monitoring Center (CMC) at close to $5 million in fiscal
year 2001. Located outside the fence of Sandia National Laboratories,
the CMC provides training and education for regional officials and
specialists in the use of unclassified monitoring technologies that can
be applied across a broad range of potential agreements and
arrangements--from demilitarized monitoring to monitoring shared
watersheds. On his visits abroad, Secretary Richardson has made it a
special point of emphasis with India, Israel, Egypt, and others to
encourage their participation in CMC and related arms control and
nonproliferation training activities.
And finally, allow me to say a word about our other efforts to
strengthen bilateral and multilateral arms control and nonproliferation
agreements. We hope to complete a START III Agreement with Russia in
2000. My Office is preparing for that agreement, evaluating the impact
of a warhead dismantlement verification regime on the U.S. weapons
complex and developing, in some cases in cooperation with Russian
scientists, technologies to demonstrate that warheads can be verifiably
dismantled without disclosing sensitive nuclear weapons design
information. We are developing similar ``information barrier''
techniques for other agreements designed to promote transparent and
irreversible reductions of nuclear stockpiles, including the U.S.-
Russia-IAEA Trilateral Initiative, the HEU Purchase Agreement, and
negotiations, led by the Department of Defense, with Russia to
construct a weapons-origin plutonium storage facility at Mayak and an
associated agreement to measure that plutonium before it is converted
in a packaging and processing facility.
FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION
The transfer of the Office of Fissile Materials Disposition to the
new Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is now complete and has
gone extremely well. Laura Holgate, who has served very ably as
Director of that Office, is now Associate Deputy Administrator for
Fissile Materials Disposition and Special Secretarial Negotiator for
Plutonium Disposition. There is a strong synergy between fissile
materials disposition and my Office's broader mission to demilitarize
large stocks of U.S. and Russian fissile materials surplus to national
security requirements.
On the domestic front, the Office of Fissile Materials Disposition
made significant progress this past year. We transferred substantial
quantities of surplus U.S. highly enriched uranium to the U.S.
Enrichment Corporation for down-blending and peaceful use as commercial
fuel. We entered into contracts with the private sector for the design
of two key plutonium disposition facilities--a plutonium pit
disassembly and conversion plant and a mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel
fabrication plant. We continued to demonstrate our capability to
disassemble various types of nuclear weapons pits at the Los Alamos
prototype ``ARIES'' facility. And in January 2000, the Department
issued a Record of Decision, codifying the decision to construct and
operate three new plutonium disposition facilities at the Savannah
River Site in South Carolina. This decision calls for the
immobilization of 17 metric tons of plutonium and the use of up to 33
metric tons of plutonium as mixed oxide fuel for irradiation in
existing U.S. commercial nuclear power reactors.
On the international front, as part of the President's Expanded
Threat Reduction Initiative, we continued our efforts in partnership
with Russia to demonstrate a number of plutonium disposition
technologies, demonstrations that will accelerate Russia's ability to
build the facilities needed to dispose of its own surplus plutonium. We
also continued extensive negotiations with Russia on a bilateral
plutonium disposition agreement. Implementation of such an agreement is
needed to trigger the start of actual disposition in both countries. I
am pleased to report that U.S. and Russian negotiators are now very
close to a final document; both sides are pushing hard to have an
agreement in hand this spring.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request for U.S. and Russian
disposition activities is $223 million, an increase of $22 million over
the comparable amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000. The increase
will enable us to begin Title I design of a facility to immobilize
surplus non-pit plutonium; incorporate aqueous processing in the design
for the MOX fuel fabrication facility; fund MOX lead test assembly
activities; facilitate advanced gas reactor and reactor fuel
qualification work in Russia; and hire additional Federal staff
necessary to oversee these disposition activities.
HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM TRANSPARENCY AND IMPLEMENTATION
In addition to plutonium, our work with Russia to convert surplus
highly enriched uranium from the Russian military stockpile into a non-
weapon-usable form is also progressing well. The 1993 U.S.-Russia HEU
Purchase Agreement remains one of the more impressive nonproliferation
achievements of the last decade. Through the end of calendar year 1999,
more than 80 metric tons of weapons grade uranium--enough for 3,200
weapons--had been removed from the Russian military program under this
Agreement and converted to low enriched uranium for commercial sale.
Already, Russia has received close to $1.5 billion as compensation for
converted HEU. Secretary Richardson and Under Secretary Moniz have been
instrumental in keeping this complex agreement on track.
My Office administers the HEU transparency and implementation
program to monitor the conversion and processing of this material at
Russian facilities subject to the Agreement. Over 70 teams--the
equivalent of nearly 43,000 inspection hours--have visited these
facilities to monitor conversion operations. During the past year, we
installed a Blend Down Monitoring System (BDMS) at one Russian facility
to provide continuous monitoring data in support of our transparency
objectives. For fiscal year 2001, we are requesting $15.2 million to
continue these efforts, principally by upgrading transparency measures
at additional Russian blending facilities and exploring new
opportunities to strengthen this important activity.
INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY AND COOPERATION
Reducing safety risks at the 64 operating Soviet-designed nuclear
power reactors is another priority area for my Office. While our fiscal
year 2000 appropriation was half of the requested amount, we
nevertheless had a successful year, including a vigorous effort to
prepare Russia and Ukraine, the two primary users of Soviet-design
reactors, for Y2K. We provided computer hardware and software,
equipment and technical guidance to these countries, as well as experts
in country for the actual rollover. The best measure of success may
have been that the Y2K rollover came and went without incident. Our
contributions to nuclear safety can be expressed by other metrics--we
installed safety parameter systems at seven nuclear power plants; we
completed six simulators to model normal operating and response
procedures; we provided U.S. training methods for nuclear plant
operators; and we continued to provide in-depth reactor safety
assessments to identify risks and prioritize safety upgrades.
We are encouraged not just by our progress to address nuclear
safety at operating reactors, but by the early closure of older
reactors as well. Ukraine remains on track to shutdown permanently
Chornobyl's Unit 3, the sole operating reactor at the Chornobyl plant,
by the end of this calendar year. Our efforts to support the
construction of a replacement heat plant at Chornobyl for
decontamination and decommissioning purposes are also proceeding well.
In addition, Kazakhstan has shut down the BN-350 reactor and our
attention is now focused on plans for decommissioning and
decontamination of the reactor's sodium coolant. Removal of the coolant
effectively bars the reactor's restart. And in Lithuania, the
government recently called for the closure of Unit 1 at the Ignalina
nuclear power plant in 2005, representing another important nuclear
safety achievement.
Our fiscal year 2001 budget request is $20 million, representing an
increase of $5 million, or 33 percent, above the fiscal year 2000
appropriation. This increase will allow our program to accelerate
efforts to address the most pressing nuclear safety risks associated
with these reactors and to ensure the safe and orderly shutdown of
reactors nearing the end of their service life. In all of these
efforts, we work closely with our colleagues in the U.S. Government,
including the Department of State, the Agency for International
Development, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
I wish to end on what may in some respects be the most pernicious
security threat of the 21st century--the danger that Americans will be
the targets of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons attacks.
Responding to this threat is extremely complex. Not only must we be
ready to mitigate the consequences of an actual attack, but we must
also discriminate between real threats and the hoaxes that occur almost
daily. In 1999, the FBI investigated more than 150 threats involving
anthrax. While none of these threats proved to be real, the disruption,
in terms of confusion and wasted resources, continues to be a source of
concern.
Our research and development efforts are breaking new ground in the
campaign to combat proliferation and protect U.S. security. We do this
by developing and delivering field-tested, state-of-the-art
technologies and systems for proliferation detection to our customers.
We are developing new technologies to counter nuclear smuggling, detect
nuclear materials diversion, and prepare for new arms control
verification challenges in a future START III agreement. We are also
advancing new remote systems to detect the early stages of a
proliferant's nuclear weapons program.
In the area of nuclear test detection, we are developing new space-
based systems to monitor above ground nuclear explosions world-wide and
are delivering a ``knowledge base'' system on regional seismicity to
the U.S. Air Force that will improve our national capability to detect
nuclear explosions at lower yields than could be detected using
traditional, teleseismic systems. We have also delivered a new
generation of detectors to identify radioactive particulates from
atmospheric nuclear explosions. These systems and capabilities are all
needed irrespective of whether a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is in
force.
We have numerous examples of success in other areas. Our solid
state, fiber optic neutron and gamma ray sensor for nuclear materials
detection was transferred to industry and selected by R&D magazine as
one of the 100 most technologically significant products of the year.
For the U.S. Customs Service, we completed upgrades for an advanced
nuclear smuggling detection demonstration unit. Just recently, we
launched the Multispectral Thermal Imager satellite, providing a state-
of-the-art system to help us ``see'' reflected and thermally radiated
electromagnetic waves.
The chemical and biological weapons threat is particularly
worrisome. To meet this threat, the Department of Energy is drawing
upon the diverse and extensive expertise of its national laboratories.
Fortunately, we are making progress. Last year at this time, I reported
that we possessed no simple, portable, and reliable tools for the
detection of biological agents. Now, we are building half a dozen
prototype devices that could soon be available for ``first
responders,'' that is, local police, medical and other community
officials. Our goal is to provide these first responders with advanced
systems that have laboratory sensitivity for use in the field; we
recently developed a battery operated, hand-held gas chromatograph,
sensitive to parts per billion, that gives us that capability. We are
also demonstrating and field-testing integrated chemical and biological
protection systems for high-risk infrastructure and events, whether at
a subway or the Super Bowl, and developing advanced genetic and
computational tools to ``fingerprint'' biological agents, leveraging
DOE's investment in the Human Genome Project.
The Research and Development budget request for fiscal year 2001 is
$233 million, representing an increase of $8 million, or 3 percent,
above the fiscal year 2000 appropriation. This increase will allow us
to continue to improve our abilities to detect and counter weapons of
mass destruction programs. Our research and development programs are
breaking new scientific and technological ground and strengthening our
response to current and projected threats to U.S. national security.
PROGRAM DIRECTION
The success of our programs is a testament to the motivated men and
women we employ to further our critical nonproliferation missions. As
our programs grow, so must our workforce. We also must have a
sufficient number of Federal employees to oversee the many projects and
activities we lead. Our program direction budget request for fiscal
year 2001 is $41.6 million, an increase of $13.5 million, or 48
percent, above our fiscal year 2000 comparable appropriations. This is
a large, but essential jump. We will use this increase to hire 56 new
Federal employees to meet our expanding nonproliferation and national
security mission and to support augmented DOE operations at the U.S.
embassies in Moscow, Russia and Kiev, Ukraine. By ``federalizing'' our
workforce, we can also reduce our reliance on M&O and support service
contractors.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman and members of this Subcommittee, as I am sure you can
agree, the proliferation dangers we face today are clear and present.
We have no room for error. I am confident that the programs we are
advancing today will have dramatic payoffs tomorrow. The budget request
we provide to you today puts us on the road to safety and security and
avoids the path of danger and destruction. It also sends a clear
message to the world community that the United States and Secretary
Richardson will spare no effort to reduce the global danger of the
spread of weapons of mass destruction.
STATEMENT OF ADM. FRANK L. BOWMAN
Senator Domenici. Now, Admiral Bowman, would you like to
talk to us about your program, please, and what you need?
Admiral Bowman. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, distinguished
committee members, I know the next time I testify in the wake
of Tom Gioconda I am going to bring some artifacts with me so
not to be upstaged by all of these trinkets Tom brought.
Senator Craig. A sub will not fit in this room.
NAVAL REACTOR PROGRAMS
Admiral Bowman. Naval Reactors, Mr. Chairman, as you know,
was organized in the late 1940's by Admiral Rickover with the
visionary concept of cradle-to-grave responsibility for all
aspects of maintaining and operating the Navy's nuclear-powered
fleet. It is a centrally managed, single-purpose organization
with clear lines of authority, responsibility, and
accountability for all aspects of its operation. Naval Reactors
has enjoyed the benefit of the full support of Congress over
these years. As a result, the country has benefited.
The program's basic structure, policies, and practices were
preserved in an executive order signed by President Reagan upon
Admiral Rickover's retirement in 1982. The fiscal year 2000
National Defense Authorization Act specified this executive
order as the charter for naval reactors within the new National
Nuclear Security Administration and, similar to the fiscal year
1985 National Defense Authorization Act, mandated that the
provisions of the naval nuclear propulsion executive order
remain in full force until changed by law. Adherence to the
tenets of this executive order have been key to naval reactors'
operational excellence and unsurpassed record of safety.
NAVAL REACTORS OPERATIONS
Specifically, Mr. Chairman, our nuclear Navy has now
steamed safely over 119 million miles in the ocean, equivalent
to nearly 5,000 times around the globe. We are responsible
today for 103 operating nuclear reactors, equal to the number
of commercial reactors in this country. We have accumulated
over these years over twice the operating experience of the
United States' commercial power industry and over half the
operating experience of the entire commercial power industry
worldwide. Our outstanding and fully public environmental
record enables our ships to visit over 150 ports worldwide,
visits that are absolutely critical to our Nation's forward
presence and deterrence strategy and ability to project power.
NAVAL REACTORS ORGANIZATION
Last summer, as the Senate Armed Services Committee was
considering the issue of reorganization of the Department of
Energy, both former Senator Warren Rudman and retired Admiral
Hank Chiles recognized the importance of Naval Reactors'
organizational structure to its success and to national
security in their testimony. Admiral Chiles specifically
testified, ``I want to state emphatically that Naval Reactors,
the DOE arm of the Naval Reactors program, is carrying out its
mission in an exemplary manner. Therefore, I strongly recommend
that you retain Naval Reactors' authorities, responsibilities,
and structure.''
This was, of course, done in the implementation of title 32
of the National Nuclear Security Administration and, Mr.
Chairman, I want to thank you personally, as well as the
committee and your staff, for your continuing efforts in
support of the Naval Reactors program and its basic tenets. The
country and our Nation's security will continue to benefit from
your actions.
If I may quickly recount some facts about the Naval
Reactors' program in our fiscal year 2001 DOE budget request,
today's Navy operates 83 nuclear-powered warships and one
nuclear-powered research submarine and, as I discussed earlier,
we oversee 103 operating reactors. Nine of our 12 country's
aircraft carriers are nuclear-powered, giving us the capability
to sprint where needed and arrive on-station ready for
sustained power projection.
Last year was the first full year of a 15-year DOE
laboratory development effort on the new reactor plant for this
carrier of the 21st Century, called the CVNX.
All 56 of our country's attack submarines are nuclear-
powered. They possess inherent characteristics such as stealth,
endurance, mobility, fire power, multimission capability, which
afford unfettered access to contested battle space 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week, 24/7, as we say today.
Once there, submarines can surveil new or emerging
adversaries undetected and provide timely insight on their
intentions and capabilities to policymakers without risk of
political escalation. This is particularly valuable, since many
of the world's bad actors today understand their own
vulnerability to satellite reconnaissance and often are able to
employ deceptive means to cover it.
Usefulness of these traits has resulted in the near
doubling of the intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance
tasking requirements over the last 10 years for our attack
submarine force. While those same numbers of attack submarines
have decreased by nearly 40 percent. Should tensions escalate,
submarines can also execute Tomahawk strikes from undisclosed
locations without warning, often from inside an adversary's
defensive umbrella.
I predict that in the future we are going to demand more
and more of these first-in, last-out, versatile platforms. It
is worth noting that the Joint Staff, in conjunction with our
unified war-fighting CINC's, recently completed an exhaustive
study of attack submarine missions and force structure. That
study reconfirmed that submarines are far from being cold war
relics.
In fact, I was with Senator Lieberman just yesterday in
Groton, Connecticut, at the unveiling of a centennial stamp
collection in honor of the U.S. Submarine Force. Senator
Lieberman in his remarks called the attack submarine a sunrise
system for this country, certainly not a sunset system. They
provide unprecedented multimission capability, and will
continue to be a significant value as we execute the national
security strategy in the challenging decades ahead.
The design of the reactor plant for today's new attack
submarine, the Virginia class, will be about 93 percent
complete at the end of fiscal year 2001. Today, 90 percent of
the components for that lead ship have been already delivered
to the ship-builder. Overall, ship construction is 25 percent
complete and is on schedule. All 18 of our Ohio-class Trident
ballistic missile submarines are nuclear-powered. They remain
the most survivable leg of the Nation's strategic deterrence
triad.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
Our DOE budget request for fiscal year 2001 is $677.6
million, less than 4 percent of the DOE budget request, and
less than 1 percent of the prospective total defense budget of
the country. I believe our record says this is a pretty good
investment.
Our DOE 2001 budget request is about $11 million less,
about 2 percent less in real dollars than our fiscal year 2000
request. Naval Reactors is a very lean organization. We
continually scrub our operating and infrastructure
requirements. For example, we have downsized our DOE
laboratories, we have shut down six of our eight land-based
research and development prototypes, and we continue to look
for ways to save.
PREPARED STATEMENT
The Office of Naval Reactors within the Department of
Energy transferred into this new NNSA on March 1, 2000. There
have been no interruptions in program operations or support for
the Navy, nor will there be. Naval Reactors' operations in our
DOE budget request are outlined in more detail in my written
statement.
Thank you again for your continuing support.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ADM. FRANK L. BOWMAN
Thank you for inviting me to testify on Naval Reactors' fiscal year
2001 Department of Energy budget request.
Naval Reactors is a centrally managed, single-purpose organization
with clear lines of authority and total responsibility and
accountability for all aspects of Naval Nuclear Propulsion. As the
Director of Naval Reactors, I have direct access to the Secretary of
the Navy and to the Secretary of Energy. Naval Reactors' principal
mission is to provide militarily effective nuclear propulsion plants to
the U.S. Navy and to ensure their safe, reliable, and long-lived
operation.
Under the visionary leadership of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, Naval
Reactors was organized in the late 1940's with the concept of cradle-
to-grave responsibility. Upon Admiral Rickover's retirement in 1982,
President Reagan signed Executive Order 12344 with the express purpose
of ``. . . preserving the basic structure, policies, and practices
developed for this program in the past. . . .'' The fiscal year 2000
National Defense Authorization Act specified the Executive Order as the
charter for Naval Reactors and, similar to the fiscal year 1985
National Defense Authorization Act, mandated that ``. . . the
provisions of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Executive Order remain in
full force and effect until changed by law.'' The charter, as
incorporated within Title XXXII, maintains my responsibility for all
aspects of the Program, including the following:
--Research, development, design, and construction;
--Operation, operator selection and training, maintenance, and
disposal; and
--Administration (e.g., security, nuclear safeguards, transportation,
public information, procurement, and fiscal management).
Operating within the tenets of the Executive Order, the Naval
Reactors Program has a flat organization with clear, simplified lines
of authority and a culture of technical, managerial, and fiscal
excellence. The longevity of its senior managers and staff ensures
continuity of expertise through the extremely long lives of the nuclear
propulsion plants it builds and supports. The Program has compiled an
unparalleled record of success, including the following:
--Nuclear-powered warships have safely steamed over 119 million
miles--equivalent to nearly 5,000 trips around the Earth.
--Naval Reactors is responsible today for 103 operating nuclear
reactors. For perspective, this is equal to the number of
licensed commercial power reactors in the United States. In
addition, over the years, we have accumulated over twice the
operating experience of the U.S. commercial power industry.
Naval reactor plants have accumulated over 5,100 reactor-years
of operation, compared to about 2,400 for the U.S. commercial
industry. In addition, our operating experience is about half
that of the entire commercial power industry worldwide (our
5,100 reactor-years compared to about 9,200 worldwide--
including the United States).
--Naval Reactors' outstanding (and fully public) environmental record
enables our ships to visit over 150 ports around the world--
critical to our Nation's forward-presence strategy and ability
to project power.
Both former Senator Warren Rudman and Admiral Henry G. Chiles
recognized the importance of Naval Reactors' organizational structure
to its success and to national security in testimony before the full
Senate Armed Services Committee last June.
Senator Rudman stated:
We called for the integration of the DOE Office of Naval
Reactors into the new agency for nuclear stewardship. We
recommend this because we believe the ANS [now NNSA] should be
the repository for all defense-related activities at DOE.
However, we believe the Office of Naval Reactors must retain
its current structure and legal authority, under which its
director is a dual-hatted official, both a four-star admiral
and a part of DOE.
Admiral Chiles also advised the Committee:
. . . I want to state emphatically that Naval Reactors, the
DOE arm of the Naval Reactors Program, is carrying out its
mission in an exemplary manner. Therefore, I strongly recommend
you retain Naval Reactors' authorities, responsibilities, and
structure. A most important point is [that it is] crucial to
ensure Naval Reactors remains outside the Department of Defense
so the program can continue to successfully carry out its
regulatory responsibility. I can personally attest, based upon
my long and direct experience, to the success of the Naval
Nuclear Propulsion Program. This program is a model of how a
defense activity should be carried out within the Government.
Today's Navy operates 83 nuclear-powered warships and 1 nuclear-
powered research submarine. Nuclear power enhances a warship's
capability and flexibility to sprint where needed, and arrive ready for
sustained power projection. The Navy has repeatedly employed the unique
capabilities inherent in nuclear propulsion. Sustained high speed
(without dependence on a slow logistics train) enables rapid response
to changing world circumstances, allowing operational commanders to
surge these ships from the U.S. to trouble spots or to shift them from
one crisis area to another. Nuclear propulsion helps the Navy to
stretch available assets to meet today's worldwide commitments.
--Nine of twelve aircraft carriers are nuclear-powered-growing to
eleven of twelve when CVN 76 and CVN 77 enter the Fleet.
Nuclear-powered carriers can transit to a crisis area
unsupported at sustained high speed and arrive fully ready to
launch the awesome firepower of the airwing. Then, they can
sustain that presence and response without immediate
replenishment of combat consumables, and with tactical mobility
and flexibility, free from the need for propulsion fuel
replenishment. The future carrier, CVNX, will continue to
provide these benefits.
--The 56 U.S. nuclear attack submarines possess inherent
characteristics such as stealth, endurance, mobility,
firepower, and multimission flexibility. These characteristics
afford unfettered access to contested battlespace 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week, for as long as required. Once there,
submarines can surveil new or emerging adversaries undetected
and provide timely insight on their intentions and capabilities
to policymakers without risk of political escalation--
particularly valuable because many potential adversaries
understand their vulnerability to satellite reconnaissance, and
often employ deceptive methods to defeat it. The usefulness of
these traits has resulted in the near doubling of Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) tasking requirements
over the last 10 years while submarine force levels have been
reduced by nearly 40 percent. Should tensions escalate,
submarines can also execute Tomahawk strikes from undisclosed
locations without warning, often from inside an adversary's
defensive umbrella.
Additionally, within its Research and Development (R&D)
programs, the Navy is investing the R&D dollars necessary
to equip submarines with new and dominant technologies. The
Navy is developing offboard sensors (such as unmanned
undersea vehicles) to facilitate a clearer picture of the
battlespace, and is leveraging the explosion in information
systems technology to more readily share this insight with
other naval and joint forces in a timely and useful manner.
The Navy is working to increase payload capacity and
enhance multimission flexibility. These technologies will
be integrated into VIRGINIA Class submarines as they are
built, and backfitted into earlier submarines, where
appropriate. The Navy is also pursuing electric drive
technology, which will dramatically improve our acoustic
stealth and provide the power density required for
revolutionary advances in sensors and weapons.
Finally, it is worth noting that the Joint Staff, in
conjunction with our unified warfighting CINC's, recently
completed an exhaustive study of attack submarine missions
and force structure. The study reconfirmed that submarines
are far from being Cold War relics. They provide
unprecedented multimission capability and will continue to
be of significant value as we execute the national security
strategy in the challenging decades of the 21st century.
--The 18 nuclear-powered OHIO Class ballistic missile submarines are
the most survivable and cost-effective leg of the Nation's
strategic deterrence triad. These reliable, stealthy ships also
carry more strategic warheads than the other two legs of the
triad combined. These ships use only 34 percent of our
strategic budget and are manned by less than 1.5 percent of our
naval personnel.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 DOE BUDGET REQUEST
Naval Reactors' principal charge, as well as the bulk of its
resources and work, is to ensure safe and reliable operation of reactor
plants in U.S. Navy nuclear-powered warships, enhance their
performance, and develop improved reactor plants in support of the
Navy's needs.
Sustaining today's 103 operating reactors requires continuous
analysis, testing, and monitoring of plant and core performance.
Nuclear propulsion is a demanding technology--the harsh environment
within a reactor plant subjects equipment and materials to the
deleterious effects of irradiation, corrosion, high temperature, and
pressure over a lifetime measured in decades. In addition, naval
reactor plants must be rugged enough to accommodate ships' pitching and
rolling; have the resilience to respond to rapidly changing demands for
power; be robust enough to withstand the rigors of battle; and be safe
for and easily maintainable by the Sailors who must live next to them.
Development efforts at Naval Reactors' DOE laboratories have led to
significant advancements. Improved components and materials, longer
core lives, and improved predictive capabilities have allowed the Navy
to extend the service life and intervals between major maintenance
periods for nuclear-powered warships. The reduction in ship off-line
time for maintenance effectively increases ship availability and, thus,
the Navy's warfighting capability, while also reducing maintenance
costs. Added ship availability is particularly important in the face of
Fleet downsizing as the operational demands on each remaining ship
increase. In the same vein, development efforts are ensuring that we
can meet the Navy's need for extended warship lifetime.
However, new development and analysis challenges arise as a result
of these advancements. For example, the longer intervals between major
maintenance periods reduce opportunities to examine and/or replace
aging components. Thus, a more extensive analytical and testing effort
is required to verify materials and component performance. Extended
ship lifetime also demands exhaustive testing and performance
enhancements to ensure that component endurance--despite potential
corrosion and mechanical strain--can be assured for significantly
greater than the design life. As data are gathered from deploying ships
with long-lived reactor cores, the emphasis on this area has grown. A
life-of-the-ship core offers extraordinary advantages in terms of ship
availability, cost reduction, and reduction in radiation exposure and
waste generation; however, a life-of-the-ship core eliminates mid-life
opportunities to examine reactor components. Moreover, the adverse
consequences of, and the cost to deal with, a flawed core or component
would be much greater. Testing and verification, therefore, will be
paramount to ensure that naval reactor plants will continue to perform
safely.
New DOE laboratory development work is focused on the next
generation submarine reactor for the Navy's new VIRGINIA Class attack
submarines and on a new reactor plant intended for the Navy's new CVNX
Class aircraft carriers.
The design of the reactor plant for the Navy's VIRGINIA Class
submarine will be about 93 percent complete by the end of fiscal year
2001. Currently, the design of the reactor plant for the VIRGINIA Class
is about 85 percent complete. Today, 90 percent of the components for
the lead ship have been delivered, all on schedule and within budget.
The pre-reactor-fill test program has begun and is on schedule to
support ship delivery. The forward end of the engine room module
(including associated reactor plant systems) has been delivered from
Quonset Point to Electric Boat for final outfitting. Overall, ship
construction is 25 percent complete and is on schedule. The lead
submarine incorporating this plant is expected to go to sea in fiscal
year 2004. The VIRGINIA Class submarines will provide badly needed
capability for the Navy at an affordable price.
In September 1998, the Defense Acquisition Board approved the Navy
recommendation for a new design nuclear propulsion and electric plant
for CVNX Class aircraft carriers and authorized the beginning of
propulsion plant design efforts. CVNX is expected to be authorized in
fiscal year 2006 and to go to sea in fiscal year 2014 to replace USS
ENTERPRISE (CVN 65).
The CVNX reactor plant design will be consistent with the CVNX
Mission Needs Statement approved in March 1996, the approved CVNX
evolutionary strategy, and the CVNX Operational Requirements Document,
which is expected to be approved shortly.
CVNX is the first new carrier designed since the 1960's NIMITZ
Class design. The new design CVNX reactor plant will build on three
generations of nuclear propulsion technology developed for submarines
since NIMITZ to incorporate needed advancements in warfighting
capabilities and to significantly reduce life-cycle costs.
Last year was the first full year of a 15-year DOE laboratory
development effort on the new reactor plant for CVNX. Reactor plant
design work began in earnest to support the long design and
manufacturing lead-times required for reactor plant components and the
CVNX ship construction schedule. Current design efforts include general
arrangement studies, system description development, and component
design, including sizing and system interface evaluations. Naval
Reactors approved the first CVNX system description (steam generating
system) last month. Current design work is focused on supporting
procurement of long lead reactor plant forgings planned for fiscal year
2001 and establishing the necessary system descriptions and general
arrangements required for later design activities.
Naval Reactors also is proceeding with the inactivation of six
shutdown DOE developmental and training prototype reactor plants. The
increased sophistication of computer models and the accumulation of
operational data, along with the decrease in the need for Navy plant
operators, have allowed the shutdown of six of the eight land-based
prototype reactor plants. Since 1993, Naval Reactors has been
inactivating and dismantling the shutdown plants as promptly as funding
and manpower will allow to eliminate surplus facilities, reduce
environmental liabilities, and contribute to positive remediation in
three States.
This inactivation and cleanup work is progressing well. Today, this
effort is over 80 percent complete. The last of the prototype reactor
plants at the Naval Reactors Facility in Idaho was defueled in fiscal
year 1999. By the end of fiscal year 2000, inactivation at the Windsor
site in Connecticut will be complete and regulatory approval for
unrestricted release is expected. Two of four prototype reactors at the
Kesselring site in New York have been inactivated and defueled, and
dismantlement and cleanup are proceeding.
naval reactors department of energy budget detail
Program technical requirements
Naval Reactors' technical budget request is categorized into
``areas of technology'' including Reactor Technology and Analysis;
Materials Development and Verification; Plant Technology; and
Evaluation and Servicing. This approach conveys the integrated and
generic nature of our DOE research and development work. When research,
development, and design work is executed in individual technology
areas, it frequently can be both retrofitted into existing ships and
incorporated into future ships.
--The fiscal year 2001 request of $216.9M for Reactor Technology and
Analysis will ensure continuation of work on the next
generation reactor for the VIRGINIA Class submarine and
development work on the new reactor for CVNX Class aircraft
carriers, as well as ensure the safe and reliable operation of
existing reactors. The reduction in operating plant maintenance
periods places greater emphasis on thermal-hydraulics,
structural mechanics, fluid mechanics, and vibration analysis
work to accurately predict reactor performance and to avoid
problems. The continued push for longer life cores also means
we will continue to operate reactors beyond our operational
experience base for many years to come. Improved analysis tools
and understanding of basic nuclear data will allow us to
predict performance more accurately and safely through a more
than 30-year core life. Other efforts in this area are
dedicated to revising core manufacturing processes to reduce
cost and hazardous waste; perform reactor safety analyses;
accomplish component and system development efforts to support
the Navy's acoustic requirements; and develop improved shield
designs to reduce costs and radiation levels.
--The $118.2M request for Plant Technology will allow Naval Reactors
to develop and analyze those systems that transfer, convert,
control, and measure reactor power to maximize plant
performance. The request reflects the requirement to design and
develop CVNX steam generators--the largest developed to date--
as well as instrumentation and control equipment for the new
carrier reactor plant. Development of technologies in the areas
of chemistry, energy conversion, instrumentation and control,
plant arrangement, and component development will continue to
improve performance and address operational problems. Naval
Reactors is also developing components to address known
limitations or to improve reliability, including a redesigned
main coolant pump for the NIMITZ Class plants and new
instrumentation and power distribution equipment to replace
older, technologically obsolete, and increasingly hard-to-
support equipment.
--The $127.6M request for Materials Development and Verification is
the amount necessary to conduct essential material analysis and
testing as ships are kept in service longer than originally
intended, and materials are called upon to perform safely and
reliably over longer time periods. Effort on the core and core
structural materials includes testing and analysis of fuel,
poison, and cladding materials to verify acceptable
performance, as well as developing improved materials with
enhancements such as reduced susceptibility to corrosion or
swelling. Testing and development of reactor plant materials
also ensures reliable performance and leads to improvements
such as reduced cracking and stress.
--Evaluation and Servicing ($134.0M in fiscal year 2001) decreased
17.2 percent from fiscal year 2000. The decrease is primarily
due to completion of A1W prototype defueling and reduction in
inactivation work at Naval Reactors Facility, Idaho, and at the
S1C prototype in Windsor, Connecticut. Evaluation and Servicing
funds the operation and servicing of land-based test reactor
plants and Naval Reactors' share of the Advanced Test Reactor,
a specialized materials testing facility operated by DOE's
Office of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology. Testing of
materials, components, cores, and systems in these plants
provides important technical data and experience under actual
operating conditions, and allows potential problems to be
identified and addressed before they occur in the Fleet. The
two operating test reactor plants and the Advanced Test
Reactor, with proper maintenance and servicing, will meet
testing needs for some time.
Evaluation and Servicing also funds the inactivation of the six
prototype plants that have been shut down. Fuel has been
removed from all six plants, and extensive dismantlement
and disposal have been accomplished. Cleanup of one site,
the Windsor site in Connecticut, is nearly complete;
regulatory approval for unrestricted release is expected
later this year. The other shutdown prototypes are located
in Idaho and New York on sites that have continued use for
the Program. At these sites, we have defueled the plants
and are conducting plant and site remediation. For those
plants that have progressed to dismantlement, the Program
desires to complete the dismantlement work as promptly as
funding and manpower allow, consistent with published
environmental impact statements for those projects.
Program infrastructure and administrative requirements
The $21.4 million in Program Direction request will cover Naval
Reactors' 201 DOE personnel at headquarters, the Program's field
offices, and the Idaho Operations Office, including salaries, benefits,
travel, and other expenses. This staff maintains oversight of the
Program's extensive day-to-day technical and administrative operations,
while continuing to ensure compliance with growing environmental,
safety, and other regulatory requirements, which--notwithstanding our
excellent record--necessitate substantial effort.
The $42.2 million in Facilities Operations (a 9 percent decrease
compared to fiscal year 2000) will maintain and modernize the Program's
facilities, including the Bettis and Knolls laboratories and the
Expended Core Facility (ECF).
The Construction funding request in the amount of $17.3 million
principally provides for refurbishment and replacement of the Program's
facilities. This includes continuation of West End Modification to the
ECF Dry Cell project to allow transfer of nuclear fuel from the Idaho
Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center to ECF for interim dry
storage, as well as beginning the Major Office Replacement Building
project. Overall, investment in these various projects will extend the
lives and improve the efficiency of the Program's facilities.
NNSA IMPLEMENTATION
The Office of Naval Reactors within the Department of Energy
transferred into the NNSA on 1 March 2000. The efforts expended for
this transition ensured that there have been no interruptions in
Program operations or support for the Navy. Naval Reactors' smooth
transition can be primarily attributed to:
--The hard work of the Congress and their staffs in invoking and
preserving the Naval Reactors' Program charter, Executive Order
12344, in Title XXXII; and
--The unique nature of the Program, which has a single-mission focus
with laboratories and field offices solely dedicated to naval
nuclear propulsion.
Naval Reactors' Executive Order provides the Program with the tools
necessary to ensure the continuation of its historical technical and
managerial excellence. For example, because the Program maintains total
responsibility for administration and because the Director has a
mandated long term (8 years), I can ensure that areas essential to our
Program's success (such as radiological controls, nuclear safety,
environmental safety and health, and security) continue to be
mainstreamed into all aspects of our daily work.
CONCLUSION
The Naval Reactors Program recently moved into its second half
century of successfully supporting the Nation's national security with
safe and effective nuclear propulsion plants for the Navy's most
formidable forward-deployed ships. At no time in the history of our
Program has the value of nuclear propulsion been more clear. As the
Navy diligently works to more efficiently meet increasing worldwide
demands with decreasing assets, naval nuclear propulsion eases the
strain.
Nuclear-powered warships' long lives, ability to surge to meet
emergent requirements, and fast transits allow our Nation to ensure
that American forces are in place when needed. No other nation has this
capability. To a large extent, the credit for this capability belongs
to the wisdom of the Congress, which has consistently supported our
Program, our ideas, and the way we conduct business.
Naval Reactors, working with the Navy and the DOE, is committed to
maintaining this record of excellence and ensuring that our technology
meets the rigorous demands of the 21st century. Your support will
continue to be needed and appreciated.
NAVAL REACTOR OPERATIONAL SAFETY
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Admiral. I remain
totally and absolutely convinced that your activities indicate
a way to have safe, totally safe, nuclear power and secure your
own--in terms of within your organization you have your own
security.
We have not heard of any leaks, or thefts of secrets from
your Department and, frankly, the best reason we can put forth
to the American people with reference to nuclear power and its
future is to cite the record of the U.S. Navy, with 103
reactors that are the same kind of reactors we have got in our
inland cities, but they are afloat in the ocean, or under the
ocean and, if something were to happen there, they are in the
midst of all of the dangers we talk about would be right there
in the water and almost every port in the world accepts you
with your engines on, right?
Admiral Bowman. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. And you know, it is just amazing that the
United States, with all of that going on, and all of that
proof, we are walking around wondering whether we can have
nuclear reactors in the future on the continent of the United
States, and I use you as an example.
WOMEN SERVICE ON SUBMARINES
But now I have a tough question, because one of the
youngsters submitted a question directed at you, Admiral
Bowman, and it says, when will women be able to serve on
submarines?
Admiral Bowman. Well, that is an excellent question and it
has, unfortunately, not a short answer.
As the former Chief of Naval Personnel, having absolutely
nothing to do with reactor technology, I studied this issue
very closely. I was, in fact, in that role as the Chief of
Naval Personnel when the combat exclusion law was passed in
1994, and I worked diligently to include women in as many of
our combatant ships and roles as possible.
There are many good reasons to consider bringing women into
submarines. However, a submarine represents a very major
challenge to our desire to integrate women fully into the Navy.
Frankly put, it is difficult to imagine being able to achieve
the necessary privacy that we would all feel comfortable with
on board this very cramped and equipment-dense platform, so I
will tell you that we are continuing to study it, but we do not
see an immediate break-through in this.
We do have women in the Navy's nuclear power program, Mr.
Chairman. I am happy to report we have 100 women officers on
board our nuclear-powered aircraft carriers today. We have on
the order of 400 enlisted women on our nuclear-powered aircraft
carriers working inside the Naval Reactors program, and they
are moving into all walks of life in that regard.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. That is the best we
are going to do today, okay.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, to see the progress made, all
you need to do is read John McCain's book about his father. Was
it his father, or grandfather?
Admiral Bowman. His father was a submariner.
Senator Reid. Boy, things have changed a great deal, and
they certainly have. I read that myself, Faith of Our Fathers.
UNITED STATES HELPING THE RUSSIANS CONTROL THEIR NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much for your comment,
Senator.
Could I, before these young people leave, and then I will
go right to the General, could I ask you, Dr. Gottemoeller, I
am sitting out there and I am listening to you talk about the
United States spending all of this money in Russia to establish
or to open up some of their nuclear cities, to pay for some of
their scientists, do other things for them. Maybe I would ask
you, are you serious? Why are we helping Russia?
Ms. Gottemoeller. That is a very good question, Mr.
Chairman, but it is in the national security interest of the
United States because, after the Soviet Union broke up in the
early 1990's, we were facing the danger of a chaotic break-up
of the enormous Soviet nuclear arsenal, and that chaotic break-
up could have led to a lot of warheads and nuclear materials
simply walking out of Russia and ending up in the hands of
terrorists or third countries not friendly to the United
States.
Senator Domenici. Including their scientists.
Ms. Gottemoeller. And their scientists as well, because
they were not getting paid much money, and many of them were
poverty-stricken, and they were getting job offers from places
like North Korea and Iran, so it is very important for us to
step up to this challenge as a national security challenge for
the United States. It deals with threats to our national
security.
Senator Domenici. General, it is a pleasure to have you.
STATEMENT OF GEN. EUGENE E. HABIGER
General Habiger. It is my pleasure to be here, Mr.
Chairman. I thank you for the opportunity. I would like today
to run through the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2001
budget request for the Office of Security and Emergency
Operations. Mr Chairman, I would request my written comments be
entered into the record, and I will keep my comments here this
morning very brief.
Senator Domenici. It will be made a part of the record.
General Habiger. Thank you, sir. This past year, the
Department took unprecedented steps to address major internal
security problems and we have made, Mr. Chairman, significant
progress in fixing those problems. The Cox and the Rudman
reports provided a wake-up call that emphasized the urgency for
needed change in the Department's approach to its security
responsibilities.
Our proposed budget response to this wake-up call in our
new security organization, which was not even a figment of
anyone's imagination last year at this time, when the fiscal
year 2000 budget was being briefed to this committee, is also a
result of that wake-up call.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to quickly
introduce the leadership of my security team. Mr. Joe Mahaley.
Mr. Mahaley is back behind me, sir. Mr. Mahaley is in charge of
our safeguards and security program, and his claim to fame, in
addition to doing a superb job since going into that job in
1997, he got his training at the U.S. Naval Academy, so he has
a solid foundation to do this job.
Next is Major General (retired) Boomer McBoom. Boomer is in
charge of emergency operations and emergency response. Boomer
was wing commander of the F-15 outfit that was first into Saudi
Arabia in 1990. He also served for 2 years at National Military
Command Center, so he has got a tremendous background in
emergency operations.
Mr. John Gilligan. I have known John for many years. He was
my source selection authority when I was Commander-in-Chief of
the Strategic Command for my information technology systems. He
came over from the Department of Defense, and is the CIO and
Cyber Security Chief for the Department of Energy.
And finally, but not least, Mr. Chairman, is Ms. Nancy
Holmes. Nancy is in charge of our resource management. She is
the one that has pulled together our budget. She has been
working at the Department of Energy for nearly 40 years, and
she is awesome, sir.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
That is the team, and each of these professionals has been
totally involved with our fiscal year 2001 security request of
$340.4 million that comes before this committee today. This
request represents an increase of 16.5 percent over our fiscal
year 2000 funding level. The majority of this increase funds
additional requirements in cyber security, critical
infrastructure protection, and program direction.
The fiscal year 2000 level of $292.2 million includes an
additional $8 million supplemental request, which is still
working through the system. This additional $8 million is to
provide adequate staffing for the Office of Security and
Emergency Operations, and to support our cyber security
initiatives.
Next, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about
our fiscal year 2001 budget amendment that will be submitted to
Congress in the near future. Strong security is based on a
foundation of clear line management authority, responsibility,
and accountability. To do this, we must address the control and
accountability of security activities within the Department.
Historically, security activities were funded from overhead
accounts at the DOE National Laboratories and other facilities.
There was no single source for reviewing or accounting for the
security budget.
To remedy this, and to strengthen our ability to manage the
responsibility of this office, in August of last year the
Deputy Secretary directed that the DOE fiscal year 2001 budget
request include security as a specifically identified direct-
funded activity within my office. This, Mr. Chairman, is the
first time a unified security budget has been submitted. This
amendment will provide the Department with the funding
authority to help strengthen DOE, provide security, allow
better management of funds, provide visibility to the
Department's commitment to appropriately fund the security
throughout the complex and, finally and most importantly, those
responsible for security in the field will have an advocate.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In closing, Mr. Chairman, we understand our security
challenges, we understand that we must meet those challenges,
and we will, with your support. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gen. Eugene E. Habiger
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today to testify on the
Department of Energy's fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Office
of Security and Emergency Operations (SO).
This past year the Department took unprecedented steps to address
major internal security problems and we have made significant progress
in fixing those problems. Publication of the Cox and Rudman reports
emphasized the urgency for needed change in the way the Department
performed its security responsibilities. As the Rudman report correctly
concluded, security at the Department had suffered from diffused
authority and inattention. The confidence and trust of both the
American people and Congress began to fade when enormous negative media
coverage brought national attention to security-related incidents at
the national laboratories. Combined with DOE's historical track record
of security deficiencies, criticism of the Department as an ineffective
and incorrigible agency incapable of reforming itself prevailed as
public sentiment.
The Secretary directed an abrupt end to this unacceptable situation
and in May 1999 announced his Security Reform Package--the most
sweeping reform of security programs in the Department's history. This
comprehensive plan, which included the creation of the Office of
Security and Emergency Operations, gave DOE the tools and authority
needed to detect security infractions, correct institutional problems
and protect America's nuclear secrets. Of paramount importance, was the
need to change the security culture at DOE and establish a program to
re-energize and restore confidence in the Department's security
program.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET AMENDMENT
Today, I will focus my testimony on the current budget before the
Committee. However, before I do that, I feel the need to say a few
words about an fiscal year 2001 Budget Amendment that will be submitted
to the Congress soon. This amendment will provide the Department, for
the first time, with a unified separate budget for its safeguards and
security program. It will provide the Department with the funding
authority to help strengthen DOE-wide safeguards and security, allow
better management of funds, and provide visibility to the Department's
commitment to appropriately fund safeguards and security throughout the
complex. We believe this action, coupled with the Department's
commitment to change the security culture, refocus its commitment to
security, and the establishment of the Office of Security and Emergency
Operations, will correct institutional problems and ensure that we
protect America's nuclear secrets.
Strong security is based on a foundation of clear line-management
authority, responsibility and accountability. To implement change, one
of the first steps required was to address the control and
accountability, or lack thereof, of security activities within the
Department. Currently, safeguards and security activities are funded
from overhead accounts at the DOE national laboratories and other
facilities. There is no single source for reviewing or accounting for
the security budget. To remedy this and to strengthen my ability to
manage the responsibilities of this office, in August 1999 the Deputy
Secretary directed that the DOE fiscal year 2001 budget request include
Safeguards and Security as a specifically identified, direct-funded
activity within SO, which the pending budget amendment will accomplish.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
Now, let me turn to the fiscal year 2001 budget request of $340.4
million that is before this Committee today. This request represents an
increase of 16.5 percent over our fiscal year 2000 funding level. The
majority of this increase funds additional requirements in Cyber
Security, Critical Infrastructure Protection and Program Direction. The
fiscal year 2000 level of $292.2 million includes an additional $8.0
million supplemental request. This additional $8.0 million identified
in fiscal year 2000 is sought to provide adequate staffing for the new
Office of Security and Emergency Operations and to support cyber-
security improvements.
SECURITY AFFAIRS
The Office of Safeguards and Security (OSS) ensures the protection
of the Department's Special Nuclear Material, classified information,
and facilities against theft, sabotage, espionage and terrorist
activity. As part of the Security Reform, we have developed improved
security policy and provided assistance to sites in implementing these
revised policies. We are modifying current technologies for safeguards
and security application and developing new safeguards and security
technologies based on identified user needs.
For fiscal year 2001, this program's budget request of $60.2
million reflects increases in response to the U.S. policy on
counterterrorism, for the initial implementation of nuclear/chemical/
biological (NBC) programs across the DOE complex, by providing NBC
protection, training and chemical/biological detection equipment. Our
Information Security program has expanded its information assurance
forensics analysis capabilities to support investigations and
prosecutions of unauthorized disclosures of classified information. We
have increased our focus on development of physical security technology
applications to address vulnerabilities at DOE sites, and on the
testing of delay tactics for use around the DOE complex.
Unclassified foreign visits and assignments to Department of Energy
national laboratories are vital to ensure that U.S. scientists remain
knowledgeable of developments throughout the scientific world.
Consequently at the end of last fiscal year, we established a new
Office of Foreign Visits and Assignments. This Office has made
tremendous strides in implementing the appropriate balance between
enabling international scientific exchange while ensuring the
protection of national security interests. A number of changes have
occurred in the way we manage foreign nationals who visit our
facilities. Specific changes include: involving counterintelligence,
nonproliferation, export control and security officials at the national
laboratories in the review process authorizing visits and assignments
from foreign nationals; extending security oversight measures to DOE
headquarters and DOE-sponsored off-site visits and assignments;
granting the Secretary of Energy sole authority to approve visits and
assignments from terrorist-list countries; and removing authority for
facility directors to grant waivers of the DOE security requirements.
Fiscal year 2001 funding will be used to upgrade a centralized tracking
system for all foreign visitors or assignees at DOE facilities. It will
also be used to enhance education and awareness activities at DOE
facilities to ensure that all personnel are fully cognizant of the
responsibilities associated with hosting foreign nationals.
The Security Investigations program is requesting $13.0 million in
fiscal year 2001. The request funds background investigations for DOE-
wide federal employees, headquarters support services, protective force
contractors, and miscellaneous non-federal personnel, who, in the
performance of their official duties, require a security clearance
permitting access to Restricted Data, National Security Information, or
Special Nuclear Material. Offsets of $20.0 million will be provided by
four other program offices (Defense Programs, Environmental Management,
Nuclear Energy, and Science). In fiscal year 2001, the offset program
organizations will be severely impacted due to language contained in
the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000 (S.1059,
Section 3144). Background investigations on individuals who are
employed in certain sensitive positions must now be conducted by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) rather than the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) at a much higher price. There has been no
funding increase to support our field contractor requirements. Without
the necessary funding, the Department may need to submit a notification
letter to Congress regarding a program funding increase for the third
year in a row.
DECLASSIFICATION
Under the authority granted in Public Laws 105-261 and 106-65, the
Office of Nuclear and National Security Information continues its
program to review other-agency documents scheduled for declassification
under Executive Order 12958, to determine if they contain sensitive
nuclear design information, i.e., Restricted Data and Formerly
Restricted Data. The office also continues its effort to declassify the
Department's own archived documents under the President's Executive
Order on classification and declassification. Our responsibility to the
American people under these initiatives is twofold: protecting the
nation's most sensitive nuclear design information from inadvertent
release; and eliminating excessive secrecy through the declassification
of documents not warranting protection.
The declassification budget request for fiscal year 2001 is $4.2
million more than our fiscal year 2000 appropriation, representing a 25
percent increase over the fiscal year 2000 funding level. The majority
of this increase is required to implement Public Law 106-65, section
3149, which supplements Public Law 105-261 and requires the Department
to audit an additional 450 million pages of documents at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA) which have already been
declassified by other agencies and designated for release by NARA. To
date, the Department has audited in excess of 64 million pages of
documents under these two statutes and, in the process, has discovered
erroneously declassified documents containing Restricted Data and
Formerly Restricted Data. To date, the audits have prevented the
inadvertent release of significant amounts of sensitive nuclear weapon
design information.
Also in support of its program under Public Law 105-261 and Public
Law 106-65, the Office of Nuclear and National Security Information
conducts Restricted Data/Formerly Restricted Data training courses for
other-agency declassification reviewers. These courses are designed to
alert other-agency reviewers of the presence of critical nuclear weapon
design information which may be embedded in documents earmarked for
declassification. We have already trained over 1,000 reviewers; during
this fiscal year, over 150 reviewers have attended these training
courses. We project an additional 500 reviewers will attend the courses
through the end of this fiscal year.
As hundreds of millions of pages of data are reviewed for release
throughout government, the Department's program to ensure the
appropriate protection of information so vital to the nation's security
must be maintained.
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
The Department created the Office of Critical Infrastructure
Protection to direct DOE's responsibilities under the national mandates
of Presidential Decision Directive 63 regarding work with industry to
develop and implement a plan to protect against, mitigate, respond to,
and recover from attacks that would significantly disrupt the nation's
energy infrastructure. The fiscal year 2001 request of $13.0 million
supports policy and R&D activities necessary to fulfill these
responsibilities.
An important DOE mandate is to assure reliability and security of
the energy grid. The nation's energy infrastructures (electric power,
oil and gas) are susceptible to threats from natural, accidental, and
intentional sources. The threats are directed at both physical and
cyber assets of the energy sector. Recent trends toward increasing
complexity and interconnectedness of the energy sector serve to
increase the potential for significant disruptions to energy supply, if
an element of the infrastructure is damaged, destroyed, or otherwise
compromised. Because the energy grid is the life blood of our nation's
critical infrastructures, such significant disruptions can have major
impacts on the economy, human health and safety, and national security.
Operating under the guidance of PDD-63, DOE funds activities to address
and remedy the energy sector's vulnerability to the increasing
diversity of threats.
Focused on the thrust areas of Analysis and Risk Management and
Protection and Mitigation Technologies, the critical infrastructure
program will result in real-time control mechanisms, integrated multi-
sensor and warning systems, and risk management and consequence
analysis tools that will help the national energy sector address the
physical and cyber threats to, and vulnerability of, the energy
infrastructure. DOE also will develop infrastructure interdependence
tools to improve the capability to assess the technical, economic and
national security implications of cascading energy infrastructure
disruptions and to improve the reliability and security of the nation's
interdependent energy grid. This program will involve collaboration
between DOE and the major stakeholders, including private sector owners
of energy elements, other federal agencies involved in critical
infrastructure protection, and state and local governments. The
capabilities of the national laboratories, academia, and private
research organizations will be used to develop and implement the
program.
CYBER-SECURITY
When our office was established in July 1999, a single cyber
security organization, under the direction of the Chief Information
Officer, was included to address the pervasive lack of attention to our
cyber security practices in a world of increased computer hacking and
cyber terrorism. The $30.3 million requested for the Cyber Security
Program in fiscal year 2001 is an increase of $17.0 million over the
fiscal year 2000 request. This increase provides policy and planning,
training, technical development, and operations to provide consistent
principles and requirements that line management can implement for the
protection of classified and unclassified information used or stored on
Departmental Information Systems. The policies for the protection of
this information will ensure that classified and unclassified
information is protected consistently across the various elements of
the Department in a cost-effective manner and consistent with the
protection of this information in paper form.
A goal of the program is to implement enterprise-wide training to a
broad audience of individuals responsible for implementing Cyber
Security programs and protection measures. These include, but are not
limited to managers, system administrators, Cyber Security
professionals, and general users. Training will use commercial and
government off-the-shelf materials where available. The fiscal year
2001 request provides for an increase in Computer Incident Response
Capability (CIAC at LLNL) from 15 to 25 contractor staff to provide
cyber security incident response, analysis of cyber intrusions and
attempted intrusions, and warning capability for the Department.
A large portion of the funds will support the Cyber Security Core
Architecture engineering and deployment, which will enable the program
to implement baseline Cyber Security capabilities at 12 sites. The
Public Key infrastructure (PKI) Initiative started in fiscal year 2000
will be enhanced to operate and expand inter-site PKI capability for
the protection of unclassified data in transit, as well as limited
capability for protection of unclassified data in storage. The PKI
Initiative will also provide Departmental infrastructure to support
token or biometric authentication.
The program will also provide for Departmental cyber security tools
and capabilities to support the establishment of a limited testing
capability for commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) cyber security products
prior to being deployed in the Department. There is a continuous need
to evaluate and potentially modify COTS cyber security products: (1) to
ensure that the application of these products does not significantly
interfere with primary organizational or computer missions, and (2) to
identify weaknesses in COTS products that must be mitigated to ensure a
consistent, comprehensive cyber security implementation.
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS
The fiscal year 200l budget request for the Office of Emergency
Operations is $93.6 million. This represents a $5.94 million technical
adjustment over the fiscal year 2000 appropriation. This adjustment
restores much needed funding for the Radiological/Nuclear Accident
Response program.
The Office of Emergency Operations serves as the central
organization within the Department of Energy for all emergency
functions. To carry out this role, the office employs the necessary
command, control and communications capabilities augmented by trained
response personnel to ensure the successful resolution of an emergency
event affecting Departmental operations and activities. In addition,
the office ensures that the Department's seven unique assets (Aerial
Measurement System, Atmospheric Release Advisory Capability, Accident
Response Group, Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center,
Nuclear Emergency Search Team, Radiological Assistance Program and
Radiological Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site) are in place to
provide an appropriate response to any DOE facility or nuclear/
radiological emergencies within the U.S. or abroad. These capabilities
are organized into an integrated set of radiological emergency response
assets which provides overall program management and the organizational
structure during both emergency and non-emergency conditions for the
personnel, equipment, and activities that collectively comprise the
program.
For fiscal year 200l, by prioritizing our program efforts, we will
continue to improve and expand our capabilities to effectively plan for
and respond to an emergency event. For example, we will: increase the
number of Department-wide drills and exercises and evaluate our
readiness to implement the Department's emergency management system;
improve our atmospheric release plume modeling capability; expand the
number of sites and technical features of the Emergency Communications
Network; and increase our training of emergency management personnel at
the Emergency Operations Training Academy.
PROGRAM DIRECTION
The fiscal year 2001 request for Program Direction of $89.4 million
will provide the salaries, benefits, travel, support services, and
related expenses associated with overall management, oversight,
staffing and administrative support necessary to carry out the Security
and Emergency Operations Program. This represents an increase of $7.6
million over the fiscal year 2000 appropriation and requested
supplemental. The requested increase in funds would provide additional
staff and cover their associated costs (including inflation).
CONCLUSION
Today, the Department has raised its level of consciousness
regarding security activities that led to the deterioration of security
awareness and education. We now function in a security environment
decidedly different from the one we faced a decade earlier. We cannot
directly control or alter the threats to the security interests
entrusted to our care. What can be controlled, however, is our ability
to plan, train, and respond should these threats ever materialize. The
changing security environment and other threats over the past decade
have fundamentally altered the Department's security perspective and
posture. This is a significant challenge, but one that the Department
of Energy must be prepared to meet.
The bottom line is clear . . . The Department has made significant
progress over the past year in standing up a new security organization.
We're seeing a change in the culture and an improved level of security
awareness. With the support, cooperation and buy-in of other program
offices across the DOE complex, the initiatives that the Secretary has
put forth are working. Our professionals are committed to serving their
country in an environment that produces the very best science within a
framework of security that is effective, but not unjustifiably
intrusive.
NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, General.
Senator Reid.
Senator Reid. Thank you a lot, Mr. Chairman.
General, one of the questions was answered--I guess when I
say General, I have to identify the General. Like when people
say Senator around here, everybody turns around.
General Gioconda, you answered a question that I had as to
when the new NIF baseline will come up, and you said around
June 1.
General Gioconda. Sir, that is the reporting requirement.
Secretary Richardson has made a commitment, understanding your
accelerated mark up schedule, to provide to you, as early as
possible the NIF options.
In fact, this afternoon I am meeting with the Secretary to
go through the options that have been developed and take him
through several weeks of work outlining what options are
available. They range from zero, no continuation, to all the
way through full funding to get the program back on track.
Senator Reid. General, I hope that you heard not only what
I said, but how I said it. I personally feel we have really
been misled. We were working under very tight budget
constraints and we were promised, and we said, is this going to
work out, and I think we were misled.
They recognized once we started we never stop anything
around here. Well, that is not quite true. We have stopped
things, and when I mentioned the Superconducting Super
Collider, that was a tough thing that we did, but I think NIF,
unless we get that resolved, there is going to be more than
this Senator concerned about it. This is something, I can just
see how this is going to develop on the floor. I hope you got
that message.
General Gioconda. Yes, sir. There are three steps we have
been engaged in with NIF, and when you say you have been
misled, that is quite frankly how the Secretary feels. He made
his speech that it was on-cost, on-schedule, and it was not
communicated to Defense Programs, nor was it, obviously,
communicated to the Secretary. The first thing that the
Secretary had to do, was determine the program, who do you
trust and what is the truth.
Then he had to put together a management team to develop
the options that you can rely on if you were to move forth with
the program, and that is kind of the step we are in now. Many
people have been reassigned, moved out of their jobs, resigned,
and been told, quite frankly, their performance was
unacceptable.
Next, I believe, we have put together, a good management
team. We have put in the hands of the lab what they are world-
class at, which is science, and we have put in the hands of
people who are world-class in integration, which is not the
lab, and that is what got them in trouble. Now what we are
figuring out is the path forward, and that is what we owe you.
Senator Reid. General, I am not saying this because
Secretary Richardson is from New Mexico, or that the chairman
of the subcommittee is from New Mexico. But I really feel,
again speaking only for me, that I have gotten better
information from the two labs in New Mexico on a continual
basis than I have from the outfit in California, and I am going
to take a real close look at programs that emanate from that
facility. I have the distinct impression that they feel they
own this subcommittee, and they should understand, all those
within the sound of my voice, that they do not.
General Gioconda. Sir, what I would like to offer, if I
could at this point in the record, is to give you, when the
Secretary approves, two white papers, one classified and one
unclassified, on NIF, what its requirements are, how it fits
Stockpile Stewardship, and how it relates to the rest of the
program. When that is approved by the Secretary, sir, I would
like to offer that to you, because I think that is important to
what you are saying--how NIF relates to all of Stockpile
Stewardship, and how all of stockpile stewardship relates to
each other.
DEVICE ASSEMBLY FACILITY
Senator Reid. I know the chairman has so many things to do,
but I have another question or two that I would like to ask.
We constructed at the Nevada Test Site, at great expense, a
Device Assembly Facility. We did that because the original
facility was real close to the perimeter. It was reachable, and
this is something we were very proud of. Well, it has not been
used much at all since we spent a large amount of money
building it. It is only 20 to 25 percent, at best, utilized
today.
I would like you to take a look at this facility and have
your people give me a report as to what can be done to more
fully utilize this facility. The Department's combined budget
request for national security for next year is about $7
billion, and it seems that this facility simply isn't being
used at all, so I would like you to get back to me on that.
Senator Domenici. Could it be back to the committee?
Senator Reid. Yes, please. Of course.
General Gioconda. Sir, our Albuquerque Operations Office
and our Nevada Operations Office are doing that right now as
part of our infrastructure plans. So yes sir. We will get it
back to you.
[The information follows:]
DEVICE ASSEMBLY FACILITY
The Device Assembly Facility (DAF) at the Nevada Test Site (NTS)
was designed to assemble test devices for underground nuclear tests.
With the cessation of underground testing, new missions have been
sought for the facility. Currently there are four mission assignments
for the DAF: (1) support to the subcritical experiments; (2) readiness
to resume underground nuclear tests; (3) readiness to receive damaged
U.S. nuclear weapons; and (4) plutonium target assembly for the JASPER
two-stage gas gun. Additional long-term missions for the DAF are being
studied by the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories
in conjunction with the Albuquerque and Nevada Operations Offices.
Activities being looked at are those which would add strength to the
current NTS mission and help build and maintain a cadre of experienced
nuclear explosives technicians and engineers such as stockpile
surveillance activities including advanced aging units, drop testing,
limited dismantlement, shelf life evaluation, and other lab research
and developments. The DAF is also being considered as an alternative
for the relocation of the Los Alamos Critical Experiments Facility now
in Technical Area 18 at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and as a
possible monitored disassembly facility under future arms control
regimes.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I have a series of questions
that I will submit. As you know, I have spoken to you on the
Atlas, the pulse power facility. I have a significant number of
questions on that that I would like you to focus some attention
on. I think that again, for whatever reason, I was told certain
things. We put certain things in our last bill. They just have
been ignored. I would like you to take a look at that.
Senator Domenici. I think that is really important. We went
through a lot of effort last year to work on this, and it looks
like it is not happening. We just have to know all about it. We
would like to know why.
INTEGRATED STRATEGY
General Gioconda. You are talking about the megastrategy or
integrated strategy?
Senator Reid. Yes, with particular emphasis for me on the
Atlas program.
General Habiger, when can we have an exact date for the
security budget, your security budget? When are you going to be
able to do that?
General Habiger. Mr. Chairman, that budget left the
Department of Energy 2 weeks ago. It is now over in the Office
of Management and Budget. We are going over there today to try
to break that loose, and I cannot give you a date, sir.
Sir, I should have had this over here 2 months ago, and I
am very frustrated that it is not here.
Senator Reid. Well, I think we are very fortunate, and I
speak for all four of you here. I mean, I think that if people
knew the quality of folks that we had running this most
important part of our national security, our Government today,
they would be and should be very proud and I think this is a
great collection of minds, with a lot of experience, and I am
very happy to be working with you.
Mr. Chairman, Thank you.
NEED FOR FUNCTIONAL NNSA
Senator Domenici. General Habiger, I am not sure, because
of time, that I will get around to questions. I will probably
submit them to you, but let me suggest that you probably have
done the best job, looking at the past, of trying to
consolidate the office that you have alluded to, the security
office, but I still want to tell you what I believe.
I believe that the office is going to be no better
ultimately than the management scheme for nuclear weaponry
within the Department of Energy. I believe it is subject to so
many cross-currents of regulations, that is, the function that
we would try to isolate and call nuclear weaponry, that it is
almost impossible for anybody to truly have their hands around
security or anything as generic as that, and that is why we--
will ask the Secretary, but that is why we believe it is very
important that the law that we pass be complied with, and that
we begin the structural reform.
You heard the Admiral. Now, they are not comparable
programs, but you heard that everything to do with the naval
reactor program is under one person, one commander, all of it--
security, production, management, the whole scheme, and to a
very real extent we have watched in the past when a problem
comes up in the Department, a new box is created, and I am not
suggesting your box, because you could probably put something
together that would describe it better than the rather profound
word, box, but we watched it, and that is what happens.
A big problem occurs, and a new box is created, but it gets
lost when it comes into contact with the proliferation, the
pieces of the Department that want to get a piece of the action
of what is going on. I want you to know that it is my plain,
simple evaluation that there will be an NNSA in full function
soon and it will be sooner rather than later, because whether
we can make it work with Secretary Richardson, who has a couple
of very big concerns--and it is just a matter of time, but it
is going to be done.
And so I urge that as you put this apparatus together and
suggest a new budgeting approach where you are going to do more
harmonizing, I hope you will look at the statute on NNSA and
make sure that you are not building something that will have
difficulty fitting into that, because I assure you that when
you send it up here we are going to look at it that way, and
this is one Senator--and I think on this score I will be
listened to.
I am not going to address your amended request if I see
this as building a brand-new box that is to be independent and
will not fit into the NNSA that we modeled somewhat after
theirs, but certainly Admiral Chiles and others know that it is
different than yours, so we created what is necessary, it
seems, to try to do a better job for the next decade.
ADEQUACY OF STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
Now, General Gioconda, I have a lot of questions, but what
I am really concerned about is the adequacy of the 2001 budget.
Even though we all sit here and say, isn't it good, it has got
an increase in it, you yourself must be familiar with some
things that are pretty critical that we may not be able to do
under this budget that we ought to be doing. I wonder if you
could tell us a few of those.
General Gioconda. Sir, the one thing, and thank you for the
very kind words about Dr. Reis. As an Italian, he is still my
godfather.
Sir, the three things that have to be the priority in
stockpile stewardship is what I call people, places, and
process. The first is the people. If we do not attack that
issue, to get the next generation trained, make sure the people
believe this is a vital national issue and stay with the
program. This budget, there is not enough to do that, but we
are working on the plans to do that.
The second thing is, places, infrastructure. As you
mentioned, if you look back at the history of Stockpile
Stewardship in the last 5 years, the thing that has caused us
the most problems is start-up of infrastructure. It has not
started up very gracefully.
If you look at the way we designed new infrastructure--we
built a new weapon, then the infrastructure was updated as the
new weapon flowed through the system. Well, since we do not
have that forcing function any more, we have to figure out how
we are going to update the infrastructure. With 50 to 60
percent of the current stockpile coming through the complex for
refurbishment, we need to do that very quickly.
The third part is the process, which drives the other two.
We have to make sure that we have a process that is based on
requirements, requirements that can stand your review, our
review, and go forward on those. I think we now have the
process. Those other two areas, infrastructure and people,
quite frankly, have paid the price any time we've gotten in a
budget crunch.
Senator Domenici. Well, while we look at some very
important issues regarding the maintenance and our ability to
attract the expert personnel we have to look at some very
mundane-type things, because they are very adversely affected
by polygraph, the polygraph positions of the U.S. Government,
and limitations on laboratory research and development and
travel.
I have some very specific questions, but I will submit
them, but essentially I am very hopeful that we are developing
a polygraph sense about the laboratories that is way, way far
from let's have polygraphs for everybody, and that it will not
be that. It will be a program that is directed at polygraphs
being an integrated approach to try and do better surveillance
of the activities of our scientists and those in the labs. You
are developing that.
POLYGRAPH TESTS
General Gioconda. Sir, I consider myself the spokesman for
that in the Department, and just recently we have had several
meetings with the lab directors present. General Habiger has
been there, and we sat down and worked out the details, and so
the implementers understand what they are implementing.
I have taken a polygraph, after 30 years in the Air Force,
to understand what it is all about, and we are going through
that step-by-step. We are not trying to jump ahead. We are
trying to make sure this is all integrated but it is a very
fragile area of trust.
Senator Domenici. I think it is very important that either
you or the lab directors, as soon as practicable, begin to
communicate with the workforce, that in fact this is evolving,
and whatever they have read--and we are not there yet, so they
do not assume they are working just 2 or 3 more years trying to
get the hell out of here, as some would say, because I do not
want it to be part of my Ph.D. career to end up with me having
to take polygraph tests every year, and so I hope we can
communicate that is a very, very big morale problem.
Now, also, regarding travel, we had a series of questions,
but let's just say, you and I and everybody running the
Department knows that people in the laboratory have to travel,
right? It is just part of being a great scientist, a great
engineer, a great manager of programs. They have got to get out
and interact with others. That is part of the academic aspect
of their lives, and they have to travel to foreign countries,
which some people around do not want that to happen, either,
but they have got to.
In fact, any prohibition that they cannot go to Taiwan or
communist China, somebody is going to look at that after a
while and say, now, who is winning and who is losing in this
exchange program, so for the record, you all are concerned
about that, are you not, and you are trying to put something
together that is realistic, yet not as ambitious as they have
had in the past. It was too ambitious and too costly.
General Gioconda. Sir, my comment on travel is, we have
just got to ask the questions that need to be asked before
someone travels. We can't assume the dollars are there. We need
to take the GAO comments and implement a process, and then I
think, sir, that can withstand anyone's scrutiny.
TRITIUM PRODUCTION
Senator Domenici. We had an option called accelerator
production of tritium that was a back-up to using a reactor,
and incidentally I compliment the entire Department on the
success of using the reactor system of the TVA. I never thought
we would clear that program that easily but I assume,
environmentally and otherwise, that people have looked at it
objectively instead of with some of the typical emotionalness,
and we are going to proceed.
General Gioconda. Sir, the only hurdle we have left is the
NRC licensing, and that is the paperwork we are doing this
year.
Senator Domenici. NRC licensing has become a much more
positive and realistic activity in the past 2 or 3 years, and I
take a little credit for that, and I am proud of it, but I
think they are doing pretty well.
We are thinking about a composite that will involve
continuation of accelerator research and include transportation
of waste. We think there is a real chance at this point, when
we are worried about energy and our dependance, that we would
take a real serious look at the science of transportation as
well as alternatives for tritium and other things an
accelerator can do. We are going to try to put a program
together and submit it to you all for your analysis.
General Gioconda. We in Defense Programs support that. I
resisted the temptation to take the money, because I am blessed
with two really good programs that are working very, very well.
No action was taken against the APT program as a bad
program. In fact, it was excellent. It made the choice hard. We
cut the design capability. We put that in the back seat, and we
went on with the engineering because that is important, and we
are trying to link up with other parts of the Department to
have that program continue, and Defense Programs wants to be a
part of that.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS PRODUCTION
Senator Domenici. I think we ought to state here for the
record and in public that, contrary to impressions and
accusations, as the head of stockpile stewardship and your
position in the Department, the United States of America to
your knowledge, and certainly to my knowledge, is not producing
any new nuclear weapon, right? We're not manufacturing any new
weapons?
General Gioconda. Absolutely not, sir.
Senator Domenici. And we are continuing to develop a budget
that is predicated upon that premise that we are not going to
build any.
On the other hand, the Russians, they keep their stockpile
safe, et cetera, by building new nuclear weapons. That sounds
strange to Americans, but they build a completely different
nuclear weapon, and so they rebuild them. Are you satisfied, in
your position, that there is no significant disadvantage to the
United States, in the current posture of them building new ones
to keep theirs solid and solvent, and us doing ours under
stockpile stewardship and replenishment of parts?
General Gioconda. Sir, as long as I carry out the second
part of my mandate, which is to maintain a design capability
and work on that, then I believe that our program, our
scientists, our great minds, and our production people will
stay sharp--then I think we're okay. But if I just do half, and
just fall asleep at the switch, then I will have problems.
But right now, sir, I am confident we are doing the right
thing.
Senator Domenici. General, let me suggest that one thing we
are least capable of doing as a people, probably because of our
governance style, is to maintain an effectiveness that is not
needed. We just have a very difficult time saying, let's keep
the Nevada Test Site ready. I mean, it is hard for us to put
money into that kind of a thing, just like it is to put money
into maintaining great scientists who are not doing the design
and keeping that workforce.
I think it is a very important part of your role, and I
think every chance you get you ought to make sure you analyze
it from the standpoint of us not cutting corners with reference
to the parts of the Department that are attractive to those
people we may need if ever this approach is not working.
LONG-TERM STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP BUDGET
Now, let me talk a minute about the $45 billion framework
that comes forth from your 30-day review. Is it possible to
meet the stockpile work load to develop the technical tools
needed to ensure the reliability of the stockpile and maintain
the readiness of the technical facility base within this $45
billion for the over 10 years? Would you just answer it and
give us a brief explanation if you think it is?
General Gioconda. No, sir. Yes, I will answer it, but no,
sir. I have to watch my answers here.
It is important, I believe, to go through and look at what
it was. The $4.5 billion over 10 years was a good start as far
as what was projected for the program, but a lot of things have
changed in the program. I think it has to be a requirements-
based program, that you base it on requirements and then you
make decisions based on how much and what requirements you want
to have done and what requirements you want to put on hold. Our
new budget structure will allow us to do that in a much more
stringent manner, but I do not think a magic formula at this
point is the right way of doing it.
Senator Domenici. Well, look, I was just going to tick off
some things that have obviously changed dramatically, but I
will just use one. Obviously, the NIF overruns could be very
substantial. In that $45 billion in that period, they could be
$600 to $800 million, and nobody planned for that. That is a
huge amount.
We do not have to have very many of those, and the $45
billion is not available for what you need it for. I believe
your continued work with the Department of Defense to make sure
they are fully supportive of our defense work so that they
treat it like regular defense work when they consider how much
you need--and then we will have to do that up here.
People think the DOE nuclear weapons program is a
stepchild. They fund the Department of Defense appropriation,
but forget this is defense money as well. This is a continuing
problem and is very difficult for us. The Department must push
very hard that these are very important defense issues, and
that is what they are. We do not need them if they are not
defense.
General Gioconda. Sir, that is one of my jobs as a General
Officer assigned to DOE, to open up the communication between
the Departments. What has been very useful is STRATCOM, with
Admiral Mies and General Habiger, opening up the communication
with the Department. A lot of people in the Defense Department
need the same knowledge, and we have to keep that going. I can
say it is on a positive upswing.
Senator Domenici. Well, I think it is a matter of
communications and making sure that the Pentagon knows the
importance of these programs, because they will be just as
impressed as with the importance of whether we build a new
aircraft carrier or not.
General Gioconda. Every one of my assistants meets with a
defense official once a week, picks one and makes sure they
stay in contact, both the Navy and the Air Force, and I do the
same, and that is the way to open it, making sure we keep these
items center stage.
Senator Domenici. I am going to submit questions for your
response. For example, to explain the pit production at Los
Alamos, what it really is intended to be, and where we are
going in terms of our requirements on pits. I guess it is a
fair statement to say as of today Pakistan has more ability to
manufacture pits than the United States of America. Is that
true? Somebody said that to me.
General Gioconda. Sir, I am not conversant on the Pakistan
program. They obviously did one.
Senator Domenici. Well, if they could do one, they are
better than us.
General Gioconda. Sir, for the record, I will take our
stockpile over theirs.
RELATIONSHIP WITH RUSSIA
Senator Domenici. Of course. I am just making a point about
one little piece of it. It is not always appropriate to do
that.
Okay, what I think I am going to do is recess now and
submit questions to all three of you. Let me also suggest that
in Russia, where you spend a lot of time and where I have some
great friends, like Sid Hecker, who spends almost all of his
life trying to figure out how to do better over there, this is
also a time where we have to be careful about what is going on
in Russia.
They have a new president. None of us really know what that
means right now. It does not seem to me like he is going to be
anything like the president that they have had the last 4 or 5
years over there, and our continued assistance in these areas
has to be on the basis that we are getting some real feed-back
from them that is tangible and objective, that they are really
cooperating in an effort to reduce the threats and to eliminate
every opportunity we can for further proliferation.
If that is not happening, that can get turned off awful
fast up here, because we are on a thin, thin reed right now in
terms of support. I continue to support it, even the new
initiative on the cities, the nuclear cities initiative. I have
very serious doubts that you can convert those cities the way
we think, but I think it is worth a small amount of money to
see if we can.
Ms. Gottemoeller. Thank you for your support, Mr. Chairman.
It has been an exciting year, as I mentioned in my testimony,
but I agree with you, we need to keep on top of the situation
and keep in close communication to make sure that we are
getting results from the Russian side.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Domenici. Thank you, we will submit all of the rest
of the questions.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
CONDITION OF THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS STOCKPILE
Question. General Gioconda, is the nuclear weapons stockpile safe,
reliable and secure?
Answer. Yes, the Secretaries of Energy and Defense have recently
certified, for the fourth consecutive year, that the safety, security,
and reliability of the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile is assured
without the need for underground nuclear yield testing at this time.
Question. Do you have confidence that the weapons in the stockpile
can and will perform as designed?
Answer. Yes, the integrity of the existing nuclear weapons
stockpile is assured through the execution of the Stockpile Stewardship
Program which includes routine surveillance, regular replacement of
limited life components such as gas reservoirs and neutron generators,
and the replacement or upgrade of other components and subsystems. Each
year in the surveillance program, eleven weapons of each weapon type
are disassembled and examined. Laboratory and flight tests are also
conducted to simulate expected deployment environments. The data from
these examinations and tests are compiled and carefully analyzed by the
DOE and the national laboratories using extensive computer modeling,
which helps to understand the long-term, time-dependent behavior of
weapons materials and the implications of any observed changes on
weapon life projections.
ADEQUACY OF FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
Question. Are there any critical needs not addressed in the budget
request because of the lack of budgetary resources? If so, please
explain.
Answer. There are no critical needs that are not addressed in the
budget request with the exception of the NIF rebaseline. However, as I
testified to, when we've gotten in a budget crunch, it's our people and
our infrastructure which seem to have paid the mortgage price. This
budget is no different and we know if we don't fix the problems soon
they will be very critical. We must recruit and train the next
generation of scientists and engineers and it must be done while we
still have a cadre of workers whose experience with the stockpile can
be passed on to the next generation. There must be a transition period
with both the experienced workers and the new recruits on board and
that expenditure has been deferred in light of more pressing needs the
past few years. At the same time with no new weapons moving through the
complex to force the issue, our investment in our infrastructure has
not kept pace with future needs. As a large portion of the stockpile
must move through the complex for reburbishments in the coming years
that situation must also be reversed.
However, the investments we are making in developing our scientific
capabilities are mandatory if we are to continue to certify the safety
and reliability of the stockpile without underground testing. That
scientific capability is already paying off and we just certified to
the President for the fourth consecutive year that underground testing
is not necessary at this time. As these scientific capabilities mature
these investments will be reduced. Our work with DOD to identify and
assess the final technical drivers and schedules for weapon component
replacements and our new budget structure will hopefully allow us to
more effectively balance the program.
Question. Will the budget request before the committee allow NNSA
to meet all DOD annual weapons alterations, modifications, and
surveillance schedules? For example, does this budget put us on a
schedule to make all of the safety and security upgrades available when
the weapons go in for refurbishment?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget request assumes enactment of
the supplemental request in fiscal year 2000. If this funding is
provided, we will be able to meet all fiscal year 2001 scheduled
weapons alterations, modifications, and surveillance requirements. The
Department will continue to assess weapon workload priorities to ensure
weapons in the stockpile remain safe and secure.
Question. Does this budget request make the appropriate investments
in future manufacturing facilities, process development, critical
skills so that the NNSA will be able to meet the known future military
requirements as well as the requirements of the Stockpile Life
Extension Program?
Answer. I believe the balance we have reached in the fiscal year
2001 budget request is the best one to fulfill the requirement to
maintain a national deterrent while ensuring a path for the viability
of the weapons production complex to produce components into the
future. One of the avenues we are pursuing is our production readiness
campaigns. In fiscal year 2001, we are proposing in initiate the
Secondary Readiness Campaign, which will begin to address these issues
for secondary production. These efforts are planned to be expanded in
fiscal year 2002 covering two additional production readiness
campaigns, high explosives/assembly and nonnuclear component
manufacturing. To address the critical skills issues, we continue to
fund the Laboratory Directed Research and Development program and have
requested the establishment of an analogous program in the production
plants, Plant-Manager Research, Development and Demonstration (PMRDD),
to attract and retain the best possible people to the laboratories and
production plants.
Question. If the Committee were to provide you additional funds,
what would be your next priorities and at what level of funding?
Answer. I believe we have struck an appropriate balance in the
fiscal year 2001 budget request between Directed Stockpile Work,
Campaigns, and infrastructure. Of course, funding for the NIF
rebaseline was not included in the request, but we will soon transmit a
budget neutral amendment to accommodate the new baseline. As always
there are items which could not be accommodated within the budget
request, or which could benefit from additional funding, but it is our
judgement that these are not critical needs.
ADEQUACY OF 10 YEAR $45 BILLION BUDGET FRAMEWORK
Question. A key outcome of the 30 Day Review was the need for DOE
and DOD to refine the process for determining the scheduling of
stockpile refurbishing requirements considering military, human, and
budgetary needs. What are the critical underlying issues that make this
such an important area of focus? What progress has been made to resolve
these issues?
Answer. There are never enough resources to satisfy all
requirements. Choices must be made. In Defense Programs, the choices
are complicated by the fact that the DOE and DOD have had differing
views on which requirements should take precedence; stockpile work,
scientific and technical tools, security, reliability, or
infrastructure. In the final analysis, all of these requirements and
many others must be balanced and integrated in order to have a viable
and responsible program.
We are working within the program and with the DOD to reach
agreement on a prioritized set of requirements. A group within the DOE,
the Requirements Assessment and Implementation Team, has started work
on a DOE list. In the DOD, the Nuclear Weapons Requirements Working
Group, has embarked on a similar task, and both groups are working
together to establish a common set of prioritized requirements for the
stockpile stewardship program of the future.
Question. In your judgement, is it possible to meet the Direct
Stockpile workload; develop the scientific and technical tools needed
to insure stockpile safety, security, and reliability; and maintain the
Readiness of the technical and facility base within the $45 billion,
10-year budget framework? Please explain.
Answer. The Stockpile Stewardship Program is working, we have been
able to certify to the President for the fourth consecutive year that
underground testing is not necessary, but we've made some difficult
choices as to where limited resources must be spent.
Recognizing the changes that have occurred in the program since its
inception, last Fall the Secretary ordered a review of the health and
status of the nuclear weapons complex, including its physical
infrastructure, and of the status of recruitment, retention, and
training of top scientists and engineers needed to sustain the program.
While the review indicated that Stockpile Stewardship is on track both
in terms of specific science, surveillance, and production
accomplishments and in terms of developing a program management
structure to improve the certification process, it did provide insight
into areas that still need attention.
We are engaged with the DOD in identifying the process for
determining the scheduling of refurbishments to more fully consider
military, workforce, and budgetary needs. At the same time we must
aggressively develop the scientific capabilities required to certify
the stockpile without testing. This is proving to be more expensive
than estimated at the program's inception and is requiring less than
optimum funding for our future infrastructure and for recruiting,
retention and training of our people. The Stockpile Stewardship Program
is a requirements-based program and it is our determination regarding
when those requirement must be meet that drives the budget.
Question. In your view, what is the appropriate annual budget level
needed to meet these requirements? Can you even set a baseline for a
program still in development?
Answer. There is no absolute formula for determining the annual
budget level with the challenge of certifying our stockpile without
underground testing. I do believe that our budget each year should be
requirements based and not measured against an arbitrary standard and
that as we refine and prioritize requirements with the DOD and gain
more experience with our developing scientific capabilities the annual
budget can be refined to the point where a requirements based future
year budget can be confidently forecasted.
NEW BUDGET AND REPORTING STRUCTURE
Question. DOE's fiscal year 2001 budget proposes a significantly
changed budget and reporting structure. The new structure integrates
the activities under the old Stockpile Stewardship and Management
approach into the Stockpile Stewardship Program which consist of 3 main
elements: Directed Stockpile Work, Readiness in Technical Base and
Facilities, and Campaigns which has 17 sub-elements. General Gioconda,
your statement indicates that you are ``collecting data in the new
structure as a further check on the viability of the approach,'' Why is
this approach being put forth if you are unsure of its success?
Answer. We believe this new business line approach better
integrates our program elements, and if approved and implemented, will
provide an improved program framework. Prior to receiving official
approval of the structure change, we are continuing to fine tune with
the Headquarters and Operations Office Chief Financial Officers the
categories underpinning the major new structure elements. We are having
the M&O contractors collect fiscal year 2000 budget execution data
unofficially in the new structure. It allows Headquarters to assure
that the new cost categories provide the intended information; it also
permits the contractors to begin to develop and put into place the
complex cost accounting mapping tools to successfully accomplish the
structure change in order to execute it officially in fiscal year 2001.
Making a major accounting and budgeting change is a formidable
task, and a transition period is not unusual to assess each measure
with the assured confidence that we expect.
Question. The budget justification material for Campaigns provides
a very general description of the goals and end states, and provides
general, non-specific performance measures for each Campaign. How can
the work on critical research and development, and analysis of the
nuclear weapons stockpile be managed in a focused way without specific
milestones and performance measures?
Answer. We are doing the ``focused way'' just as the question
implies. As stated in the budget justification, the Campaigns are
managed by detailed implementation plans that include specific year-by-
year technical milestones and deliverables. The table to which you
refer in the budget contains the highest level information from these
plans--the end state for each campaign, and the highest level
performance measures for the 5 year period. The Detailed Budget
Justification section of the budget cascades to the next lower level of
detail in support of those high level performance measures,
highlighting each Campaign's Major Technical Elements with associated
fiscal year 2001 funding. The specific milestones and performance
measures supporting this lower level are not included in the budget
document. Rather, they are included in the implementation plans, which
we would be happy to make available to the Committees if desired. The
measures in the implementation plans are referenced in the Department's
Work Authorization system when the programs are executed.
Question. How detailed are the annual Implementation Plans? Explain
if, or how personnel performance evaluations are tied to the success of
these annual plans?
Answer. The Implementation Plan for Campaigns are primarily
documentation of the technical goals and detailed milestones and
deliverables for the M&O contractors who execute the Stockpile
Stewardship programs. These plans contain the types of milestones which
could be utilized by M&O contractors in evaluation of their employees,
although the DOE is not directly involved in these efforts. At a higher
level, these plans could be enumerated in the performance measures
associated with the M&O contracts. Federal managers may also choose to
include a reference to a specific Implementation Plan as part of their
personnel performance measurement package. We are looking at the
potential for all of this throughout our federal structure and M&O
contracting.
ABILITY TO MEET MILITARY REQUIREMENTS
Question. The DOD is the military customer for the nuclear
stockpile and partners with the DOE to set requirements for the
stockpile stewardship program. A significant fraction of the weapons in
the stockpile are aging well beyond their design lives. Since we are
not producing new weapons, we must begin rebuilding our existing
weapons by fiscal year 2006. When we begin rebuilding weapons, we want
to be able to make them more safe, reliable, and secure.
The 30-Day Review said ``Failure to develop and mature these
technologies [to make weapons safer, more reliable, and more secure]
during the next 3-5 years could lead to the reuse of 20-30 years old
technology in refurbished weapons.''
General Gioconda, has the Administration requested a budget that
supports the schedule to rebuild weapons and incorporate the latest
technologies to make our weapons safer, more reliable and more secure?
Answer. The Administration has requested a budget that strikes an
appropriate balance between developing new technologies, incorporating
those technologies into the stockpile, and being able to certify that
the stockpile is safe, secure, and reliable without a nuclear test.
More work in the surety options available for each weapon in the
stockpile is being conducted prior to large resource decisions.
CYBER SECURITY
Question. The 30-Day Review identified the special challenge of
balancing the implementation of program requirements and new security
requirements. It noted a recent study that found secure information
environments across the complex were outdated and poorly supported
compared to unclassified systems. The 30-Day Review stated, ``The study
concludes that a robust set of cyber-security related upgrades would
cost approximately $850 million over four years to complete. At
present, funds are not identified to commence the needed upgrades.''
What is the Department's plan to upgrade cyber-security throughout the
weapons complex?
Answer. Defense Programs, in conjunction with the Chief Information
Officer, will convene the Integrated Security Management (ISecM)
leadership team to review, update, and attempt to reduce the projected
costs of the program described in the October 1999 report. The cyber
security standard used for ISecM will be changed from ``preeminent'' to
``national security best practice'' based on lessons learned from the
intelligence community and DOD, with an emphasis on secure computing
operations in the weapons complex. Using the results of this review,
analyses of nuclear weapons information assets, and analysis of data
flows within the nuclear weapons complex, Defense Programs will develop
a revised set of requirements for improved cyber security throughout
the weapons complex. Defense Programs will complete the analyses,
revise the requirements, and develop a program plan (including
anticipated funding requirements) within the next few months.
Question. Why hasn't the Administration requested the $850 million
over four years to implement the proposed cyber security upgrades?
Answer. Funds for the Integrated Security Management (ISecM)
proposal were not included because the proposal was still being
reviewed. The ISecM proposal was based on ``pre-eminent protection
against the insider threat'' which substantially increase the overall
project costs without a corresponding significant increase in
protection. Defense Programs in close coordination with the DOE Chief
Information Officer has initiated an effort to define a program to
improve cyber security in the weapons laboratories using effective, but
less stringent, criteria. A detailed program plan and funding
requirements will be forthcoming through the DOE Chief Information
Officer.
Question. How important is cyber security and what is the
appropriate level of funding to address our cyber security
vulnerabilities over the next five years?
Answer. Protecting nuclear weapon information against an ever-
increasing threat, including increasingly sophisticated insiders is
important. Funding requirements will be defined during the planning and
design phase of the weapons complex enterprise secure network. In
addition to the development and integration costs, the costs of
maintaining the integrated enterprise-wide secure computing
infrastructure will require a substantial ongoing investment to stay
ahead of the evolving threat.
NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY
Question. NIF has been described by the Department as critical for
Stockpile Stewardship. Recently, many reports have surfaced with major
concerns regarding schedule and costs for NIF.
General Gioconda, how important is NIF to the success of the
Stockpile Stewardship program and maintaining the nuclear deterrent?
Will a fully operational NIF be necessary to certify weapons systems in
the future?
Answer. NIF is a unique facility and a key element of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program because it will allow the experimental study of
thermonuclear burn and important regimes of high energy density
science, directly related to the primaries and secondaries of modern
nuclear weapons. Thermonuclear burn is at the very heart of how our
stockpile works. The ability to experimentally study physical
phenomenon under these conditions will lead to greater confidence in
the US stockpile over the long-term. Although NIF ignition experiments
will not test all of the phenomena for the success of nuclear weapons,
they will provide a stringent test of the understanding and integration
of a significant subset of these phenomena in a way that no other
Stockpile Stewardship experiments will be able to do.
NIF supports the SSP in three essential ways: (1) it permits the
study of issues which can affect an aging or refurbished stockpile; (2)
it permits an advancement of the critical elements of the underlying
science of nuclear weapons and thus will play a major role in
validation of the advanced simulation codes under development by the
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) which will form our
basis for certification; and, (3) it will attract and help train the
exceptional scientific and technical talent required to sustain the SSP
over the long term.
Question. The original cost estimate was for $1.1 billion. I keep
hearing rumors that the new cost baseline may increase by $500 to $800
million, and that operational costs associated with NIF may double
original projections. At what point does NIF get simply too expensive?
Must we have NIF at any cost, or is there an alternative path the
Committee should consider?
Answer. NIF is a key element of the Stockpile Stewardship program.
Several options to complete the NIF have been developed and a new cost
and schedule baseline proposal is being prepared. The total additional
funding requirement is dependent on which option the Department
selects. After reviewing the proposed solutions, the Secretary will be
in a position to identify the funding required for the preferred
option. At the current time and with the projected state of technology,
there are no alternatives to NIF that can produce the physical
performance regimes required.
The projected costs to operate NIF have not changed. The one
remaining operational cost uncertainty represents a very small element
of the total operating cost. It is associated with the ability of the
final optics to withstand the high damage levels associated with
operating the laser at the required ultraviolet wavelength for the most
energetic experiments to be conducted on NIF. The issue is one of
economics--how frequently these optics need to be refurbished or
replaced. There is a technology program in place to increase the damage
tolerance of the optics and their coatings. Highly energetic
experiments are not planned until the latter half of this decade and
prior to that time, significant experimental mission needs can be
satisfied with current technology.
Question. General Gioconda, as the Department prepares a new cost
and schedule baseline for NIF, I would also like for you to report to
me on alternatives to NIF (within the next 90 to 120 days).
Answer. My scientific advisors tell me there is no alternative
technology having the maturity of lasers which can address the
requirements of the SSP. Although current results from pulse power
systems based on Z-pinch technology have been impressive, we do not
have the scientific knowledge at this point to scale this technology to
the temperature and pressure regime needed for the stockpile
stewardship mission. The Z-machine will be useful as a complement to
NIF, particularly in enhancing weapon effects testing. It is also able
to perform a subset of the SSP experiments in hydrodynamics and
radiation flow although at conditions further from the nuclear weapons
regimes. Z-pinch technology has great potential and could become the
means for studying high yield weapons physics, but at this point it is
not a credible alternative to NIF.
Question. Would you compare NIF to the similar program in France?
Is their machine similar or different? Do their programmatic
assumptions correlate to ours? Have they encountered similar troubles?
Answer. The elements of the French Laser Megajoule (LMJ) and the
NIF are very similar although the LMJ has 25 percent more beams than
NIF. LMJ was originally scheduled to be completed in 2010 but has been
accelerated to 2008 because of the urgent needs of the French Stockpile
Stewardship Program now that they no longer have a test site. Their
programmatic assumptions are similar, using experiments to train the
next generation of weapons scientists and to test weapons design codes
under conditions of temperature and pressure close to that of a nuclear
weapon. Ignition is a central test of this philosophy for the French.
The French are currently building an eight beam engineering prototype
called the Laser Integration Line (LIL) which will be operational in
2002 and serve as a useful test bed. The French have historically drawn
upon their industrial contractors to develop and build their high power
laser systems. They are continuing this practice for LIL and LMJ. This
is the approach which is now being used for NIF to address the
previously unaccounted for complexity of our state-of-the-art system,
and cleanliness problems in assembling and installing the laser and
target system infrastructure. As a result, assembly and installation of
the NIF beampath infrastructure system will now be managed and
performed by industrial partners with proven records of constructing
similarly complex facilities.
NIF-TECHNOLOGICAL BREAKTHROUGHS STILL NEEDED
Question. Isn't there still significant technological risk
associated with NIF, beyond the problems of getting it built?
Answer. The Conceptual Design Report of May 1993, identified six
major technological breakthroughs required to make NIF a functional
reality meeting all mission performance requirements. During the
intervening years, five of these breakthroughs have been demonstrated.
These include: (1) a high-gain pre-amplifier module which amplifies and
conditions the laser light before it enters the large glass lasers; (2)
a servo-controlled deformable mirror which aligns the laser light to
very exacting tolerances as it transmits the light to the main
amplifiers on multiple passes; (3) a large aperture optical switch
which traps the light inside the main amplifier and enables the multi-
pass operation; (4) the production of laser glass in a continuous
versus batch process thus reducing the cost by a factor of five below
that for NIF's predecessor Nova; and, (5) the development and
production of large frequency conversion crystals which are grown in a
couple months as compared to two years for those used on Nova. The one
remaining challenge is the demonstration of long-life optics that can
withstand the high damage levels associated with operating the laser at
the required ultraviolet wavelength. The issue is one of economics,
namely, how frequently the final optics in the system need to be
refurbished or replaced. With current technology, the optics lifetime
goal can be achieved with as much as 60 percent of the maximum desired
energy. To achieve the full goal, a technology program is in place to
increase the damage tolerance of the optics and coatings needed for the
most energetic experiments to be conducted on NIF, which will not be
conducted until the latter half of this decade.
Question. Isn't it true that in order for NIF to get the laser
energy levels required for ignition, it must have major breakthroughs
in performance?
Answer. No major breakthroughs are required to demonstrate the
energy levels needed for ignition. The objective of the technology
development program described in the previous question is to reduce the
cost of operating NIF at full energy. In addition, there have been
recent advances in target physics and fabrication which while not
completely tested and reviewed, increase the confidence in achieving
ignition with 192 beams.
Question. Isn't it true that there still exist major technological
issues with the Final Optical Assembly design?
Answer. There are no technological issues with the Final Optics
Assembly design. During system engineering evaluation of the design, an
error was uncovered and resulted in the need to redesign the assembly.
This component is not on the project's critical path schedule and there
is time to correct the design prior to release for bid.
NIF--SEAB CONCLUSION
Question. General Gioconda, in your written testimony about NIF,
you refer to the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board's conclusion that,
The Task Force has not uncovered any technical or managerial
obstacles that would, in principle, prevent the completion of
the NIF laser system. Nevertheless, serious challenges and
hurdles remain. The NIF task force believes, however, that with
appropriate corrective actions, a strong management team,
additional funds, an extension of the schedule and recognition
that NIF is, at its core, a research and development project,
the NIF laser system can be completed.
Their conclusion is filled almost completely with disclaimers. It
seems to promise only an open-ended R&D effort with continual cost
overruns, schedule delays and technological hurdles. Do you draw any
encouragement at all from such a statement?
Answer. The SEAB Task Force's Interim Report provided seven
detailed findings and associated recommendations, all of which are now
being acted upon. In one key recommendation, the SEAB urged the NIF
team to clarify the roles and lines of authority of NIF management; to
implement an external project management review process; and, to
strengthen the management team at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory. The NIF Project and Lawrence Laboratory have streamlined
reporting relationships and implemented a reorganization to establish
clear authority and accountability in the project. The NIF Project has
a new Associate Director for NIF Programs, George Miller, who reports
directly to LLNL Director Bruce Tarter. In addition, a new project
manager, Ed Moses has been assigned to the project.
The Project is also using industry to its fullest, contracting to
industry essentially all fabrication, assembly and installation tasks
and maintaining only those tasks that are a unique capability of
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. One of the highest sources of
cost growth for NIF has been the clean assembly of the laser system.
Originally the assembly of the laser system was envisioned to use in-
house labor, but this task has now been identified to be too
complicated and difficult to be managed and executed by Livermore. The
project has worked with industrial experts from fields such as
aerospace and semiconductor plant construction, to develop both a
construction method and a contracting strategy for laser assembly that
is in the process of being executed. This is a significant step on the
path to getting NIF back on track.
In aggregate, the Task Force's report provides a great deal of
confidence that we understand the issues with NIF. We expect to have a
path forward that will ensure the success of the project within the new
cost and schedule baseline currently being developed by the Secretary
of Energy for presentation to Congress by the June 1, 2000 deadline. My
confidence is in the issues identified and solution set promulgated at
this point I will continue to gage the program success with a host of
milestones and will expect the program and project to excel.
TRITIUM--APT FUNDING
Question. When the Secretary selected reactor production of tritium
as the preferred option for maintaining our stockpile, he stated in the
Record of Decision the importance of keeping accelerator-based
production in the APT program as a viable backup.
Furthermore, Sec. 3134 of last year's Defense Authorization Act
required the Department to complete engineering development and
preliminary design of the APT as a back-up source to the reactor.
The President's budget provided only $19 million for APT, rather
than the $84 million that is required to complete the design work on
schedule.
Why has the Department chosen to ignore the clear statutory
requirement to fund APT through design?
Answer. The Department has not chosen to ignore the statutory
requirement to fund the APT through completion of design. In fiscal
year 2000, the APT project has been funded and developmental and
preliminary design work is proceeding. However, the Department made
clear in its budget submission that there is not sufficient funds in
fiscal year 2001 to support both its basic stockpile obligations and
continue as originally planned the backup program for tritium
production. Given the success of the Commercial Light Water Reactor for
the production of tritium to date, the Department has focused available
funding on meeting basic stockpile obligations. The Department will
continue the APT project with available resources in fiscal year 2001
as a back up for tritium production, though it must suspend the design
effort and replan development to reflect funding realities.
The Department is pursuing as an alternative approach a joint
program for Advanced Accelerator Applications to include transmutation
of waste, tritium production, and other efforts. Such a program is
supported by both Defense Programs and the Office of Nuclear Energy. A
DP/NE working group is developing the joint program concept. The
Department remains committed to a back up tritium production program
but must do so within the boundaries of available balanced resources
and good management for the overall Stockpile Stewardship Program.
TRITIUM-STATUS OF REACTOR DECISION
Question. On January 28, the GAO issued their report on
``Challenges Remain for Successful Implementation of DOE's Tritium
Supply Decision.'' The GAO report notes:
``DOE's current approach for developing the accelerator
introduces cost and schedule risks that threaten the
accelerator's availability as a tritium production backup
option as originally intended.''
``This report recommends that the Secretary of Energy
reassess the Department's current approach for the backup
accelerator.''
General Gioconda, please update the Committee on the status of the
commercial light water reactor for the production of tritium?
Answer. The commercial light water reactor (CLWR) project is
working to achieve two major milestones: (1) to begin producing new
tritium in Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) reactors in October 2003,
and (2) to begin extracting the tritium in the new Tritium Extraction
Facility (TEF) being constructed at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in
February 2006. As discussed below, the project is making progress as
planned to meet these milestones.
DOE plans to use TVA's Watts Bar Unit 1, Sequoyah Unit 1, and
Sequoyah Unit 2 reactors for tritium production, with Watts Bar being
the first. To do this, work is being done in three major areas. TVA is
preparing the analyses and reports needed to request the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) to amend the operating licenses of the
three reactors to permit them to irradiate DOE-designed, tritium-
producing rods. TVA is working under the DOE-TVA interagency agreement
that went into effect on January 1, 2000. These license amendment
requests are scheduled to be submitted to the NRC at the end of January
2001. NRC has previously committed to an expeditious review of the
license amendment requests. Since the first insertion of tritium rods
will not occur until the fall of 2003 (they must actually be on site at
Watts Bar in August 2003), the schedule leaves more than adequate time
for the NRC to complete its review and approve the license amendments.
With respect to tritium rod fabrication activities, DOE is in the
process of procuring commercial services for the fabrication of
tritium-producing rod components and for commercial services to
assemble the components into complete rods. The procurement process for
rod components is well underway, and several contracts have already
been signed. With respect to acquiring the services of a fabricator for
production-scale manufacture of the tritium rods, proposals have been
received and are presently being evaluated. The selection of a
commercial fabricator is expected within the next several weeks.
Site preparation for the Tritium Extraction Facility has begun, and
groundbreaking is scheduled for July 2000. Detailed design of the
facility is continuing. Procurement of long-lead major equipment items
is underway.
Question. Do any significant hurdles remain that could prevent the
NNSA from producing tritium on the proposed schedule, such as technical
issues, regulatory approval, etc.?
Answer. There are no significant hurdles that will prevent the NNSA
from producing tritium although there are still a number of actions
that must be completed. Laboratory tests and post-irradiation
examinations continue to confirm that the technology is sound.
The regulatory process is expected to yield reactor license
amendments in advance of when they are needed. Since the first
insertion of tritium rods will not occur until the fall of 2003 (they
must actually be on site at Watts Bar in August 2003), the schedule
leaves more than adequate time for the NRC to complete its review and
approve the license amendments. It is important to emphasize, in this
regard, that the NRC has already conducted three technical reviews of
the technical and safety issues associated with the use of the tritium
rods, and all generic issues associated with their use have been
resolved. The only remaining items are the reactor-specific items that
will be the subject of TVA's license amendment requests next year. In
addition, the NRC has previously committed to the expeditious review of
the amendment requests.
We are on track to construct and start up the Tritium Extraction
Facility by February 2006, but the schedule has very little float in it
because of prior-year constraints. To complete the facility on time,
the Department must continue to carefully manage all aspects of the
project.
Question. Explain DOE's reasoning for terminating design work on
the APT plant. DOE obviously believes that there in very little risk
with the CLWR approach and is, therefore, willing not to comply with
Congressional direction to complete the APT plant design. What is your
response General Gioconda?
Answer. Faced with funding constraints in fiscal year 2001 and
unable to support both our primary stockpile obligations and the backup
tritium production source as planned, Defense Programs prioritized in
favor of meeting basic stockpile needs. The success to date of the CLWR
program was certainly a factor in deciding where scarce funds should be
allocated.
It should be understood, however, that the APT project is fully
funded for fiscal year 2000 and will be continued with available
funding in fiscal year 2001. In addition, the Department is pursuing a
joint program for Advanced Accelerator Applications to include
transmutation of waste, a backup tritium capability, and other
potential efforts as an alternative approach to ensuring a backup
capability for tritium production. We are working with the Office of
Nuclear Energy to define such a program.
The Department remains committed to a backup tritium production
program but must do so within the boundaries of available balanced
resources and good management.
Question. What is the status of the plant design? What is the cost
and schedule to complete the design?
Answer. The APT plant preliminary design is on schedule and on
budget. A recent Independent Cost Estimate was in agreement with the
project estimates, to within 3 percent. By the end of fiscal year 2000,
the preliminary design will be approximately 66 percent complete. The
Baseline Change, approved last June, included $38 million for design in
fiscal year 2001, and $19 million in fiscal year 2002 or a total of $57
million to complete preliminary design and essential elements of final
design by the end of fiscal year 2002.
Question. How long would it take to reassemble the design team once
the design effort is terminated?
Answer. Assuming that the current design team was entirely
terminated, it is estimated that reassembly of the team, including
contracting and staffing up, would take approximately 12-18 months. If
the proposed joint accelerator program were fully funded, it is
anticipated that the APT design team would be retained to complete work
on design and upgrade of the Low Energy Demonstration Accelerator
prototype for that program. If the proposed joint program were
initiated but not fully funded, it is expected that the design contract
would be retained, with some portion of the design team. In that event,
reassembly of the APT design team could be accelerated, requiring only
6-12 months for staffing up.
COMBINING ACCELERATOR PRODUCTION OF TRITIUM (APT) AND ACCELERATOR
TRANSMUTATION OF WASTE (ATW)
Question. I understand that there may be opportunities for
synergies in an advanced accelerator program that would help maintain
APT as a viable backup to reactor-based production of tritium, while at
the same time allow the Department to continue important research into
Accelerator Transmutation of Waste (ATW).
I understand that both APT and ATW use the same accelerator design.
Such an accelerator could also provide the nation's supply of medical
radioisotopes with a small fraction of its total beam.
General Gioconda, you and others have indicated that there are
several options under discussion for an integrated program, probably at
around $70 Million in the first year. This strikes me as a good way to
address two national issues, tritium and nuclear waste. Unfortunately,
the budget zeroed out all funding for the ATW program.
Would a program such as this that integrated several applications
of advanced accelerators be of interest to the NNSA?
Answer. Yes, such a program would be of interest to the NNSA. It
could provide not only a backup capability for tritium production, but
a source for other defense-related isotopes, demonstration of a
potential means for transmutation of defense waste, development of
defense-related technologies, and development of an important nuclear
technology, all of which are important to national security. The
current APT accelerator design can, indeed, be used for such a program.
Defense Programs believes that there is a real opportunity for
synergy in a joint program that could spur development of accelerator
technology, providing a facility capable of demonstrating transmutation
of waste, isotope production, and production of tritium--all of which
are of interest to the NNSA. As stated earlier, we are working with the
Office of Nuclear Energy to define such a program.
INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE LABS AND PLANTS
Question. DOE has failed to keep good modern facilities. In fact,
where the industry and DOD have a historic reinvestment rate of 2-4
percent, DOE has historically reinvested in its facilities at a rate of
0.8 percent.
The 30-Day Report said this has ``resulted in a huge bow wave of
deferred improvements. For example, 70 percent of the facilities at Y-
12, 80 percent of the facilities at the Kansas City Plant, 40 percent
of the facilities at the Pantex Plant, and 40 percent of the facilities
at the Savannah River tritium facilities are more than 40 years old.''
For example, ``before the B-61 and W-76 SLEP refurbishments can be
completed, it may be necessary to reestablish material formulation and
fabrication capabilities for critical weapons components.''
General Gioconda, what is the Department's plan to address the
crumbling infrastructure in the weapons complex?
Answer. Despite our ambitious efforts over the past few years to
simultaneously downsize and modernize the weapons complex
infrastructure, we have fallen behind the pace of degradation of our
facilities. Even aided by additional funding provided by the Congress
for use at the production plants, the infrastructure issues are so
pervasive that one of the recommendations of the recent 30 Day Review
advocated immediate corrective action. Consequently, we are requesting
supplemental funding for infrastructure needs in fiscal year 2000. In
addition, we have recently commissioned comprehensive internal and
independent assessments of our recapitalization needs in response to
the recommendation. When that information is integrated into the
Stockpile Stewardship Program, we will bring it forward to the
Congress.
Question. How much money is needed over how many years?
Answer. I am not in a position to speculate on this until the
comprehensive independent assessment is complete, but any additional
resources applied here will be put to immediate use. It is my hope that
we can present a responsible, achievable, multi-year recapitalization
initiative with the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Question. What is the impact on the weapons refurbishment schedule
if the facilities are not improved and restarted?
Answer. Our present stockpile refurbishment planning requires
former capabilities be reestablished, new capabilities added, and
existing capacities expanded. Without the following investments,
currently planned refurbishments will have to be rethought and
rescheduled. These investments include: A new Highly Enriched Uranium
Materials Facility and a new Special Materials Complex are needed to
support the secondary manufacturing capability at Y-12 Plant. The
production capacity at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, for
neutron generators must be expanded to provide sufficient quantities to
refurbish the stockpile. At the Savannah River Site, the Acorn gas
transfer system production capacity must be expanded to provide other
production lines to support scheduled refurbishments. Also, at Los
Alamos National Laboratory, the detonator facility capacity must be
expanded to support neutron generator production. In all of these
facility efforts we have attempted to strike a balance between
production, maintaining the infrastructure, assuring the availability
of critical skills, and security, while ensuring the safety of our
workers. Each year we must in an integrated, measured way improve our
infrastructure for the long haul.
Question. Has the Department ever considered 3rd party financing
arrangements for infrastructure such as the ones DOD has experimented
with?
Answer. To my knowledge, the Department has not formally considered
3rd party financing arrangements for infrastructure. Although Los
Alamos National Laboratory has an extensive background in 3rd party
financing for major telecommunications and supercomputer acquisitions,
there is no precedent in the Department of Energy complex for 3rd party
financing of construction projects on government owned land.
RECAPITALIZATION OF PRODUCTION PLANTS
Question. The budget request includes about $60 million to continue
the Stockpile Management Restructuring Initiative (SMRI) projects to
resize the production plants consistent with planned workload levels.
Of the $60 million, nearly $24 million is for the Kansas City Plant and
$31 million is for the Savannah River Plant. This leaves only $5
million for the Pantex Plant.
How do you explain this apparent imbalance? What factors, other
than resource constraints, were considered in arriving at this
allocation of funding for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The scope of each of the Stockpile Manufacturing
Restructuring Initiative (SMRI) projects reflects the amount of
infrastructure restructuring that could be done that could provide cost
effective operational efficiencies. Each of the projects underwent
thorough reviews by Defense Programs and by independent external
reviewers. Based on these reviews, we ended up with a fairly wide range
of projects. At one extreme is the Kansas City Plant, where we are
radically reducing our footprint at a total estimated cost of about
$122 million. At the other extreme is the Pantex Plant where the
reviews determined that only about $13 million in reconfiguring was
necessary to support anticipated workloads.
Question. The industry standard for infrastructure replacement is
3-5 percent of the replacement value. What is the replacement value of
each of the production plants and how does your fiscal year 2001 budget
request compare to the 3-5 percent industry standard?
Answer. The replacement values for the Pantex and Kansas City
Plants are $5.1 and $1.2 billion respectively. The replacement values
for the DP owned portions of the Y-12 Plant and Savannah River Site are
$1.7 billion and $713 million respectively. The infrastructure
replacement investment for these plants included in the fiscal year
2001 budget request is about 2 percent of their total replacement
value. I recognize these investments fall short of industry standards
and have recently commissioned a comprehensive assessment of our
recapitalization needs in response to the 30-Day Study recommendation.
Question. Does DOE have a detailed plan for recapitalizing the
production plants and facilities at the national labs?
Answer. In my view we do not yet have enough detail for proper
future planning in an integrated fashion. That is why we are doing the
comprehensive assessment mentioned previously.
Question. What are OMB's 5-year budget projections for each of the
production plants and national labs for infrastructure replacement?
Answer. OMB does not provide specific site by site outyear
projections. The five year funding projection for Weapons Activities
that accompanies the fiscal year 2001 Congressional Budget Request was
provided by OMB and grows from $4.594 billions in fiscal year 2001 to
$4.870 by the end of the five year period.
STRATEGIC ARMS REDUCTION TREATY (START)
Question. The budget request for several years, including fiscal
year 2001, has been based on a ``lead-hedge'' nuclear weapons policy
established by President Clinton in 1995 or 1996. Under that policy,
DOE is required to maintain facilities and capability to support a
stockpile inventory of 6,000 weapons under START II, with the ability
to return to START I levels of around 9,000 weapons.
Could you explain this policy and how requirements, both budgetary
and production support could change under START II or START III?
Answer. The ``lead-hedge'' nuclear weapons policy is designed to
lead the Russians into a START II regime, while at the same time
maintaining our ability to return to START I levels should the
situation warrant. The impact of a possible START III agreement on
budget and production support cannot be determined with any degree of
accuracy at this time. The result would be highly dependent on the
numbers and types of nuclear weapons as well as the agreed upon
schedule for stockpile reductions and transparency measures.
Question. How does maintaining the capability to produce several
thousand weapons above START II or an assumed START III level of 2,500
weapons, aid overall non-proliferation and weapons reduction goals?
Answer. Regardless of the size of our nation's stockpile, to ensure
the safety and reliability of that stockpile requires maintaining a
production capability to replace parts as necessary as the stockpile
ages. It is our safe and reliable stockpile that supports non-
proliferation by providing our allies a nuclear umbrella which reduces
their incentive to develop a nuclear stockpile of their own and that
support reduction goals by allowing us to negotiate from a position of
strength.
Question. How does START III enter into DOE's current strategic
planning? Can we afford to refurbish warheads which would be discarded
in a short period of time if START III is ratified?
Answer. START III is one of the scenarios that DOE considers in its
strategic planning. As START III takes shape, so will our plans. Until
more is known, we will continue our plans to refurbish the directed
stockpile as contained in the President's Nuclear Stockpile Memorandum.
Question. Ms. Gottemoeller, unlike START I and START II, is it
likely that a START III will restrict the size of an inactive warhead
reserve?
Answer. At this point, the United States is involved in discussions
with Russia about the framework for START III and formal negotiations
have not commenced. A final decision has not been made about the
central limits for deployed warheads or the composition of U.S.
strategic forces. As a consequence, it is premature to address the
question of how to treat an inactive warhead reserve.
Question. General Gioconda, how does the annual funding need change
based on a START I, START II or START III assumption? Is there a
significant reduction in funding requirement if planning to meet a
START III stockpile level of 2,000-2,500 weapons?
Answer. Current policy regarding START II requires a hedge to
return to a START I stockpile thus making essentially no difference
between them for DOE resource and management activities. START III
discussions have not matured to a point that enables a detailed
assessment of funding impacts. The impact would depend on the timing,
specific weapons involved, and policies about an inactive reserve.
Question. General Gioconda, how would planning and funding change
under a START III level of 2,500 weapons with an upward hedge of 50
percent?
Answer. The approach to planning for a START III level of 2,500
weapons with an upward hedge of 50 percent would be very similar to the
approach we take now. The biggest difference most likely would be in
the planning associated with a potentially more limited mix of weapon
types in the stockpile. The complex required to support the stockpile
and the associated funding would be dependent on the specific
composition of the active and inactive stockpile and the time required
to reactivate warheads linked to specific weapon systems DOD requests.
The budget request for several years, including fiscal year 2001,
has been based on a ``lead-hedge'' nuclear weapons policy established
by President Clinton in 1995 or 1996. Under that policy, DOE is
required to maintain facilities and capability to support a stockpile
inventory of 6,000 weapons under START II, with the ability to return
to START I levels of around 9,000 weapons.
Question. Ms. Gottemoeller, what is the current status and schedule
for finalizing START III?
Answer. The United States and Russia are currently engaged in
discussions on the provisions that would be appropriate for inclusion
in a START III Treaty and for an Amendment to the ABM Treaty to permit
a U.S. National Missile Defense System. These discussions involve the
explanation and clarification of potential treaty elements, but they do
not involve the negotiation of specific provisions for either START III
or the ABM Treaty. Now that the Russian Duma has ratified the START II
Treaty, the United States and Russia will make a decision on how to
proceed with START III Treaty negotiations. However, a schedule for
finalizing START III and ABM Treaty Amendments has not been developed.
DUAL REVALIDATION OF WEAPONS SYSTEMS
Question. The concept of dual revalidation, that is having a second
independent check by the national weapons design lab that did not
design the particular weapon, has been the guiding concept for the life
extension review program in DOE. The Nuclear Weapons Council approved
this concept in 1996 to insure a critical, impartial assessment of
design and performance issues.
Am I correct that the fiscal year 2001 budget backs away from that
concept? If so, why is this change being made?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget includes funding for the
baselining program. The Nuclear Weapons Council approved dual-
revalidation only for the W76. Baselining efforts will capitalize on
robust experimental, simulation, and production activities as described
in the Department's high level plan: Directed Stockpile Work Program
Plan, Campaign Plans, and Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Plan. Additionally, the baselining efforts will incorporate peer review
to maintain the strictest standards of intellectual oversight. It is
the Department's judgement that a properly executed baselining program
will achieve the initial goals of the dual revalidation program earlier
while capitalizing on existing nuclear weapons complex programs, better
utilizing the limited resources under our stewardship.
The W76 Dual Revalidation effort began in 1996 and was completed in
December 1999 with significant cost in time, money, and scientific
manpower. Although the nuclear weapons complex greatly benefited from
the experience gained in the dual revalidation program, it was
determined that the Department must streamline these efforts to
complete the task of studying the entire nuclear stockpile within an
acceptable period of time. The baselining program will document our
current understanding of engineering models, simulation tools, data,
and other information critical to understand the certification basis
for each warhead along with an analysis of their quality and
sufficiency. This information will form the basis upon which future
weapons research will be focused and will provide tools for future
assessment and certification activities. Additionally, the baselining
program will capture institutional expertise from our ``gray beards''
with underground nuclear test experience before the majority of them
retire over the next five years. The baselining program begins in
fiscal year 2000 with baselining efforts on the W80 warhead and
continues for the next four years, baselining two warheads each year
until complete.
If after baselining all weapons, we find areas to focus dual
revalidation efforts in a focused manner with expected milestones we
will use our baselining result as the starting point of the
revalidation.
Question. How will an impartial, critical peer assessment from the
designing lab be possible?
Answer. Baselining activities are planned to include an integral
peer-review element in each technical area. This peer-review process
has been successfully employed at the respective labs for years and
will continue to be a crucial element of all Department design
laboratory plans.
Question. I understand that the new Campaign concept being proposed
in this budget is what DOE now believes will better identify and
address the life extension issues of the remaining weapons systems in
the stockpile. Yet the Campaign approach appears to address development
of scientific and technical tools and does not focus on critical design
and operational issues. Do you share my concerns?
Answer. I am very confident that our new business model containing
Direct Stockpile Work (DSW), Campaigns, and Readiness in Technical Base
and Facilities (RTBF) is addressing all the areas that you discussed.
Together, these three high-level plans completely address and properly
focus the requirements of the Stockpile Stewardship Plan.
For example, the DSW Program clearly defines the scope and schedule
of planned weapon refurbishment activities. Based upon this
information, the supporting production and engineering campaigns align
their deliverables with the requirements of the DSW plan while RTBF
infrastructure needs are similarly aligned. In parallel with these
efforts, the science campaigns continue to improve their fundamental
science efforts to impact and enable the certification requirements of
these refurbished warheads. Together, this business model maintains
focus on the stockpile while supporting necessary scientific efforts
that provide high confidence in the safety, reliability, and
performance of our nuclear arsenal.
Question. What is the justification for moving away from a
rigorous, in depth peer analysis to an accelerated baseline formulation
proposed in the fiscal year 2001 budget?
Answer. As stated previously, baselining will achieve the initial
goals of the dual revalidation program but is a more streamlined effort
which allow the entire stockpile to be studied in a more acceptable
time frame and with less resources. Peer review will still play an
integral role in the baselining process. Once the stockpile is properly
baselined we can then in focused, accountable fashion call for dual
revalidation efforts in gray or shortfall areas as they emerge in the
baseline analysis.
SAFETY
Question. Recently, a safety engineer from within Defense Programs
wrote a harsh 29 page report called the The Safety Basis Debacle, in
which he alleges safety requirements at Pantex and other sites are
routinely ignored and institutionally discouraged. Among other things,
he wrote:
The pattern of stylized and ineffectual safety analysis, of
accident precursors unheeded, and of management complacency is
strongly reminiscent of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
before the accident at Three-Mile Island or NASA before the
Challenger disaster.
General Gioconda, are you aware of the report and how serious are
the allegations?
Answer. We in Defense Programs take safety very seriously. I, along
with my senior managers, have read the report in detail and have
received extensive briefings by the author. The issues raised in the
report have prompted further review by Defense Programs; the Office of
Environment, Safety, and Health; the Inspector General; and
consultation with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. This
review and analysis, aimed at what actions are necessary responses to
keep Defense Programs safety center-stage, is on-going and will be
forwarded to the Congress once finalized.
Question. How will the NNSA respond to the issues raised in the
report?
Answer. I have asked the writer to provide me with recommendations
to improve the safety requirement processes and to sharpen his focus to
what can be done to address the issues he raises. This would include a
clear process to ensure all safety issues are raised and appropriately
addressed. I have also asked the plants and laboratories, headquarter
elements and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to respond
along the same lines to develop an integrated action plan as necessary.
I will be working with my staff at Headquarters and in the field to
implement recommendations that come out of the reviews.
CRITICAL SKILLS
Question. The Chiles report, the 30-Day Review and other reports
continue to identify critical skills as a major problem for the weapons
complex.
What have you proposed in this budget request to address the
ongoing problem of recruiting and retaining the critical technical and
scientific workforce needed to support and maintain over the long term
a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile in the absence of
underground nuclear testing?
Answer. For the Federal workforce, we have proposed $3.6M for our
Scientific Retention and Recruitment Initiative. This will enable the
recruitment and retention of experienced scientists and related support
staff in areas of emerging importance to the science mission. Funds
will also be used to motivate and retain highly skilled top performing
technical managers.
In regard to the contractor work forces, we have attempted to
stabilize the employment situation in the last few years following a
multi-year period of recurring downsizing and work force restructuring
at most of our sites. Recognizing budget constraints, we have relied on
attrition to create the ``headroom'' necessary in our work forces to
pursue recruitment strategies to replenish existing critical skills and
develop the necessary skill base for new requirements. We have not
proposed any specific additional activities in this budget for the
contractor workforce; however, we have been working with all of our
contractors on their work force plans aimed at ensuring the
availability of required technical and scientific skills through
effective recruitment and retention measures.
Pursuant to section 3163 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for fiscal year 2000, the Department will submit a joint DOE/DOD plan
to Congress addressing various issues related to the Chiles report. The
report will discuss the current situation at each contractor site,
outlines measures necessary to retain required nuclear weapons
expertise, and identifies resource requirements.
PIT PRODUCTION
Question. NNSA continues to work to reestablish plutonium pit
manufacturing at Los Alamos to replace pits destructively tested in the
surveillance program and to replace pits in the future should
surveillance indicate a problem. This capability is central to the
weapons complex of the future. The 30-Day Review identified the
challenge to build new, certifiable weapons primary pits, using new
tools and processes in a new environment, and stated, ``Presently, the
U.S. is the only nuclear power that lacks the ability to manufacture
pits.''
General Gioconda, please update the committee on NNSA's efforts to
reestablish pit production at Los Alamos?
Answer. Since we initiated the reestablishment of pit
manufacturing, we have put in place at Los Alamos several critical
pieces of equipment necessary to manufacture pits, completed the plans
with agreements between designers and manufacturing personnel for
qualifying all the processes necessary to manufacture war reserve W88
pits for the stockpile, and manufactured five development pits in
preparation for the manufacture of pits necessary to qualify the
production processes through physics and engineering testing.
Question. Have you been able to produce a certifiable pit? What
problems or issues remain to be resolved in order to achieve
certification? Will you meet the requirement for W-88 pit production by
the end of fiscal year 2001?
Answer. We have not yet manufactured a certifiable pit, however we
have produced five developmental pits. One of the important elements we
are currently working on and is necessary before a certifiable pit is
manufactured is to have, in place, the quality controls and
manufacturing organization and infrastructure necessary to ensure,
through documentation, data gathering and analysis, and procedural
controls that the design requirements have been met and that there is
consistency in manufacture of the pit. Beyond this, the pits must be
certified through a number of physics and engineering testing. These
tests will provide assurance that the pits manufactured will meet the
environments expected to be encountered in the stockpile and that the
manufacturing differences between LANL and Rocky Flats have not
introduced unacceptable physical behavior, which would affect
performance of the pit. We are currently planning to have manufactured
pits for qualification and complete the physics and engineering testing
sufficient for pits to enter the stockpile by the end of fiscal year
2004.
Question. Does the fiscal year 2001 budget request fully support
the production schedule? If not, please explain.
Answer. We are pursuing options in fiscal year 2000 to provide
additional funding to LANL to reduce the risks in achieving program
objectives in fiscal year 2001. It is important, however, to understand
that the funds requested under pit readiness rely upon a base
capability funded under direct stockpile support and facility
infrastructure. Successful implementation of the Pit Readiness Program
within any 1 year is dependent upon the total funding received by the
laboratories in support of the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
Question. Isn't it true that the budget request does not support a
schedule to achieve annual production capacity of 20 pits by 2007?
Answer. Defense Programs is currently reevaluating the
manufacturing equipment and facility infrastructure upgrades
requirements for reestablishing an interim pit manufacturing capability
of nominally 20 pits per year by 2007. This is being done to assure
near-term requirements to support the stockpile will be met and that
funding for the interim manufacturing capability is appropriate with
any planning for a pit manufacturing facility to support the stockpile
for the long term. The funding requested in the fiscal year 2001 budget
request is in keeping with this objective. Results of this reevaluation
will be incorporated within the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
PIT PRODUCTION NEW DESIGNS OR REMANUFACTURED?
Question. There have been several stories in New Mexico lately
regarding language in DOE Budget documents about manufacture of new
weapon pits at Los Alamos. Several DOE spokesman have since stated that
the budget documents were in error and there is no intent to
manufacture newly-designed pits.
For the record, can you clarify the types of weapon pits that would
be manufactured at Los Alamos in the next few years?
Answer. For the next few years, Los Alamos will be focused solely
on the manufacture of the W88 pit to support the stockpile. There will
be some work on developing manufacture processes for the W87 and B61-7
in order to demonstrate that the technologies to remanufacture the pits
found in the enduring stockpile have been recaptured.
Question. Are they really ``newly-designed weapons'' or ``re-
manufacture of existing designs''?
Answer. The work being accomplished on the manufacture of the W88
and manufacture process development of the W87 and B61-7 is associated
with the remanufacture of existing designs. We have no requirement for
pits in the stockpile other than to replace the one W88 pit we
destructively test each year and for which there is a shortfall of
spares caused by the closure of the Rocky Flats Plant during the
production of W88. We are on a course to do just that.
ACCELERATED STRATEGIC COMPUTING INITIATIVE (ASCI)
Funding of the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative has
ramped up very rapidly. Large new computers are in place at each Lab
now.
I've heard impressive figures for peak computing speeds from these
machines. But I've also heard serious concerns that the labs have not
demonstrated sustained performance at levels more than a few percent of
the peak speeds.
Question. What percent of peak speeds are currently being achieved
in the ASCI program with the existing large machines?
Answer. Percentage of peak processor speed on various ASCI computer
programs currently range from about 3 percent to about 50 percent. This
range is exactly as expected and planned from the beginning of the ASCI
program. The range is a function of the maturity of the computer
programs and the method of solution (algorithm) required by the problem
being solved.
While processor utilization is one useful measure of computer use
efficiency, it does not give the full picture in that some algorithms
require extensive logical and data transfer operations for problem
solution. In those cases, the processor units must wait for data
transfer operations to complete before they can continue processing,
resulting in lower percentage of peak speeds being attained by such
algorithms. Low percentage of peak speed in such cases absolutely does
not imply that the machine is being poorly used. It simply means that
particular algorithm for the problem solution required by the Stockpile
Stewardship program requires the supercomputer level data transfer
capabilities of the ASCI machine in different proportion than other
algorithms used by the ASCI program. As has always been the case with
new supercomputer architectures, the initial efficiencies of our new
parallel applications will improve significantly as the computer
programs are optimized for production.
Question. Is the ASCI program moving too rapidly to acquire new
impressive hardware before waiting for the software programming tools
to develop to enable full utilization of the machines?
Answer. No. It has always been the case in the supercomputing
environment that the hardware exists before and always drives
development of the software. The software will not be developed until
the hardware exists that demands its development. This was true for the
Cray supercomputer delivered in 1976 with virtually no software and
will likely always be true of new supercomputing architectures.
The programming tools needed for full utilization of the hardware
are being made available on a planned timetable that is directly tied
to the application mileposts for ASCI. The delivery of these tools,
with appropriate mileposts, has been planned through the achievement of
initial capability for three-dimensional high-fidelity-physics full
nuclear weapons simulations in 2004. The ASCI Program is on track and
is meeting mileposts required by the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT (LDRD)
Question. LDRD was held to 4 percent in the Conference Report
impacting the current fiscal year. As I've visited at the Laboratories,
I find that this cut in LDRD is having very severe consequences.
LDRD investments have a proven track record of high returns to the
taxpayer. In addition to significant contributions to mission relevant
areas, these funds account for over 30 percent of the new knowledge, as
measured by publications, at a laboratory like Los Alamos. There's no
question that LDRD investments help attract the high-caliber staff
required to meet the challenges of nuclear-weapons science and
engineering.
I appreciate that your budget for fiscal year 2001 restores the
LDRD funding back up to 6 percent.
Do you concur that the weapons programs have benefitted very
significantly through the LDRD program and the funding should be
restored to at least 6 per cent?
Answer. We most definitely concur that the weapons programs have
benefitted significantly from LDRD investments and that LDRD funding
should be restored to at least the 6 percent level. This opinion is
also stated in the President's Budget for fiscal year 2001; the DOE
Stockpile Stewardship Program Review, dated 11/23/99, (also called 30-
Day Study); and the Laboratory Operations Board's recent report (1/00)
on LDRD. The three DOE DP Laboratory Directors and the Secretary of
Energy unanimously support restoration to a six percent LDRD program.
Question. What impact has the 4 percent limitation had on your
ability to meet critical Stockpile Stewardship Program goals? Please be
specific.
Answer. The impact of reducing the allocation from 6 percent to 4
percent has been serious, and this negative impact will continue unless
adequate funding is restored. Reductions in LDRD are resulting in lost
knowledge and capabilities to meet future national defense needs. The
LDRD Program cut caused numerous cancellations of fiscal year 2000
weapons-related research and the scaling back of many other projects,
thus reducing the breadth and depth of fundamental and exploratory
science.
The LDRD fiscal year 2000 funding cut has been creating an
environment of uncertainty about future funding for science that has
negatively affected morale. This uncertainty, coupled with constrained
Program budgets, has had a noticeable impact on the ability of the
national laboratories to attract and retain the needed scientific
talent.
The following is a sample list of specific curtailed or eliminated
projects illustrating the connections to the weapons program:
--Research and Development for Future Proton Applications
--Application of Multi-scale Science to Weapons Issues in Fluids and
Materials
--Next Generation Sophistication in High Energy Density Physics
--Nano-Structure High Explosives Using Sol-Gel Chemistry
--Chemical Reactions at Actinide Surfaces: Implications for Nuclear
Material Aging and Safety
--RadSensor: Optical Dielectric-Modulation Sensing of Ionizing
Radiation
--Atomic Resolution Probes of Strategic Materials
Question. A criticism has been that there is far too much freedom
and flexibility under LDRD which allows the work to get far afield of
stockpile requirements. Do you believe this to be valid? Is it
realistic to confine LDRD to stockpile related work only?
Answer. We do not consider this a valid criticism today. DOE and
the laboratories carefully manage the LDRD program to ensure support of
their mission areas with a particular emphasis on national security.
LDRD proposals undergo rigorous peer reviews to ensure technical
excellence, and formidable management reviews to guarantee strategic
alignment with the long-term goals of DOE and the laboratories.
Additionally, DOE HQ and field offices oversee and concur on all LDRD
projects prior to funding and an annual report on LDRD projects is
provided to Congress.
The national security programs at the laboratories provide about 70
percent of the LDRD funds, yet they receive over 95 percent support
from the LDRD projects. This is due to the synergistic nature of the
R&D pursued under LDRD. Confining LDRD to only stockpile work would
unnecessarily restrict the innovative impact of the program by stifling
the creativity of the scientists and engineers. The multi-disciplinary
nature of the Labs is generally beneficial because various DOE missions
draw on related science and technology. Mission-oriented, LDRD-
supported basic and applied research almost always provides science and
technology to more than one mission. LDRD helps develop and maintain
first-class scientific and engineering capabilities in all laboratory
competencies.
Question. Historically, what portion of LDRD funding has been for
direct stockpile work and how much has gone to other activities that
are not directly related to stockpile needs?
Answer. Consistent with statutory authority and Department policy,
LDRD funds cannot be used to support direct stockpile work. LDRD
supports fundamental R&D efforts that are high-risk. If proved viable,
the results are then incorporated in the stockpile efforts of the
laboratories. All LDRD projects at the national laboratories support
DOE and laboratory missions. The Stockpile Stewardship Program provides
just over 50 percent of the funds to the DP labs and is supported by
more than 60 percent of the LDRD research funding. More than 95 percent
of the LDRD research portfolio has a direct impact on the national
security missions of the DP Laboratories.
Question. How could a similar program at the production plants be
used to address the problems identified by the Chiles Commission in
recruiting and retaining the best engineers and technicians for the
weapons complex of the future?
Answer. Defense Programs is exploring a program in the production
plants that is analogous to the Laboratory Directed Research and
Development (LDRD) program to attract and retain the best possible
people through activities including the development of new production
and design concepts and the establishment of intern and cooperative
student programs.
TRANSPORTATION SAFEGUARDS DIVISION
Question. The 30-Day Review found that ``During the past year, DP's
Transportation Safeguards Division (TSD), which is responsible for
providing safe, secure and cost effective transportation for nuclear
weapons in DOE custody received a `marginal' security rating.''
What is the Department's plan to improve the ``marginal'' safety
rating the Transportation Safeguards Division received?
Answer. The marginal rating was the result of the postulated
security threats growing faster than TSD resources. We have initiated a
five year plan to enhance the resources of TSD that will put us into a
position to satisfactorily respond to the postulated security threat.
These resource enhancements are in both personnel, including enhanced
training and an approximately 40 percent increase in the number of
couriers over the next five years, and in equipment, including the
accelerated replacement of the old-generation Safe Secure Transport
fleet with the new-generation SafeGuards Transporters and the
procurement of additional non-conventional escort vehicles.
Question. Has the Administration requested sufficient funds to
improve TSD security as soon as possible?
Answer. Of the $115 million requested for secure transportation in
fiscal year 2001, approximately $25 million is requested to fully
support the security enhancements to overcome the marginal rating. The
balance of the request, about $90 million, is needed to maintain the
current level of operational availability of secure transportation
assets for Defense Programs, other DOE programs, and the Department of
Defense.
TRAVEL LIMITATIONS AT THE LABS
Question. Last year, a $150 million cap on contractor travel
expenses was imposed in an attempt to require greater efficiency and
economy in lab travel. However, in talking to individuals at the labs,
I am concerned that the travel cap has unfortunately forced cutbacks in
programmatic work , significantly damaged morale of the workforce, and
damaged the labs ability to recruit and retain the best and brightest
scientists.
General Gioconda and Ms. Gottemoeller, do you agree that the travel
cap has had some very negative effects and do you support raising the
travel cap to a reasonable level?
Answer. (General Gioconda) Travel ceilings have resulted in
efficiency and economy through improved business operations, including
prioritization of travel, allocation and tracking of ceilings, and
utilizing best practices in travel management such as following the
Federal Travel Regulations reimbursement schedules. However, travel
ceilings have also decreased the contractors' flexibility to handle
discretionary travel such as training, recruitment and retention, and
decreased their capability to handle new or unexpected requirements for
programmatic travel. Compliance with travel ceilings has caused the
contractors to utilize less than optimum methods of mission performance
in order to keep travel costs down. We are concerned that these work-
arounds and delays could actually increase the overall costs to the
Stockpile Stewardship mission both in the short-term and the long-term.
Answer. (Ms. Gottemoeller) We recognize the concerns that led to
the imposition of travel ceilings on the National Laboratories but, as
a practical matter, they are translating into programmatic reductions
that will delay the work on major Departmental initiatives in Russia,
Ukraine, and other countries in the Former Soviet Union. Proper
implementation and oversight of our work at the sometimes very remote
sites in these countries require judicious travel by contractors as
well as DOE headquarters personnel. These trips are strictly for
project development, management, or audit and examination purposes. The
impact of the cap on these programs, especially the international
materials protection, control and accounting program, will be
particularly devastating since expansion to new sites will require
more, not less, travel for successful implementation.
I agree with General Gioconda regarding disposition of the travel
ceiling. The minimum that should be done in fiscal year 2001 is raise
statutory travel ceiling to a more reasonable level to cover critical
missions. Even better than raising the statutory ceiling would be the
elimination of the ceiling as a legal requirement since the statutory
ceiling is excessively expensive to manage from both the Federal and
the contractor standpoints. Another option, such as the inclusion of a
reasonable travel goal or target for the Department to manage in the
report language only, is also preferable to continuation of the
statutory ceiling.
PRODUCTION READINESS
Question. The 30-Day Review found that ``production readiness,
especially at Y-12, needs more support because many of these facilities
have not been maintained and need to be restored in a timely manner to
meet refurbishment production schedules.''
The 30-Day Review also stated, ``Changes and upgrades to the
manufacturing facilities are needed in order for DOE to meet the
military's near-term and long-term production requirements'' necessary
to meet the stockpile refurbishment mission.''
General Gioconda, what is plan for and cost of this needed support?
Answer. We are addressing these needs in three ways. First, we have
established readiness campaigns to fill gaps in manufacturing processes
and capabilities that are required to support future workload, but are
not available within the complex today. Campaigns for reestablishing
the capability to produce tritium and plutonium pits are ongoing. In
fiscal year 2001, we are proposing to initiate the Secondary Readiness
Campaign to ensure future manufacturing capabilities (equipment,
people, processes) are in place and ready for production of
secondaries. The High Explosives/Assembly and Nonnuclear Readiness
campaigns are scheduled for initiation in fiscal year 2002. The fiscal
year 2001 budget request includes about $200 million to support these
activities.
Second, we have proposed new construction activities at the Y-12
Plant to help address these issues as well. The Highly Enriched Uranium
Materials Facility will support the consolidation of long-term highly
enriched uranium materials and the Special Material Complex, a
candidate under the Defense Program Preliminary Project Design and
Engineering Project, will enhance operational reliability for materials
processes required for future workload. The fiscal year 2001 budget
request includes about $27 million to support these activities.
Finally, we have recently commissioned a comprehensive assessment
of our recapitalization needs in response to the 30-Day Study
recommendation. Despite our recent investments to downsize and
modernize the weapons complex infrastructure, we realize that more
improvements are needed to meet future refurbishment production
schedules.
Question. What is the total cost over how many years?
Answer. We are in the process are finalizing our planning for the
production readiness campaigns and are initiating planning efforts for
the recapitalization needs. I expect that this information will be
fully developed in time for the fiscal year 2002 budget.
Question. Is the appropriate amount in the 2000 and 2001 budgets?
Answer. The Department has submitted a supplemental budget request
for fiscal year 2000 primarily to restart of Enriched Uranium
Operations at the Y-12 Plant. All critical needs for fiscal year 2001
are addressed in the budget request. As always, there are items which
could not be accommodated, or those which could benefit from additional
funding, but it is our judgement that these are not critical needs.
TEST READINESS
Question. The 30-Day Review found, ``more long-range planning is
needed to ensure that the Nevada Test Site will have the infrastructure
and intellectual base to maintain readiness for twenty years or more.
Work is currently underway in the Nuclear Weapons Council to evaluate
options for enhancing test readiness through consideration of specific
testing scenarios.''
What options have the Nuclear Weapons Council identified to address
the long-term infrastructure and intellectual base at the Nevada Test
Site that will allow us to maintain test readiness?
Answer. The Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) chartered the DOD Program
Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) Office together with Defense Programs to
review the adequacy of DOE and Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)
planning and programs to maintain the test readiness posture directed
by the President. Those results were briefed to the NWC on October 14,
1999, at which time the NWC requested DOE and PA&E perform additional
case studies to evaluate specific weapons systems and the possibility
to reduce readiness time to 18 months. Current plans are for the NWC to
be briefed on the results of that analysis on April 19, 2000.
For the past 8 years Defense Programs has committed resources to
archive knowledge, preserve unique equipment and infrastructure, and
maintain access to experienced personnel. It is generally accepted that
over time the ability to access personnel or to operate and maintain
aging equipment will deteriorate to some level if not exercised.
In order to attract and maintain a workforce with skills and
knowledge relevant to test readiness, NTS is actively involved in
supporting the technical campaigns centered at the design laboratories.
Included in these campaigns are subcritical experiments which are
critical to the maintaining test readiness since they exercise most of
the functional area required for an underground nuclear test. The DOE
Nevada Operations Office is also attracting various work-for-others
programs to the NTS. These programs, also help to distribute the costs
for NTS infrastructure across several customers.
Although there are many unique capabilities at the test site that
must be preserved, most of the special technical knowledge and skills
required to prepare a device for testing, field the diagnostics,
perform the test and analyze the results resides at the design
laboratories and production facilities. These are capabilities that
will be maintained though other stockpile stewardship activities.
Consequently there is no line-item in the DOE Defense Program budget
labeled Test Readiness.
Question. What is the cost of these efforts in fiscal year 2001 and
future years?
Answer. Because test readiness is derived primarily from other
Stockpile Stewardship programs, there is no line-item in the DOE
Defense Program budget labeled Test Readiness. However, the Stockpile
Stewardship portion of the DOE/NV budget is generally characterized as
the test readiness budget, and the planned amount identified for fiscal
year 2001 is approximately $188 million. In the outyears, we expect the
cost to be approximately level, assuming that we maintain the current
level of readiness.
Question. Is the budget request adequate to support test readiness?
Answer. The Stockpile Stewardship portion of the NTS budget is
generally characterized as the test readiness budget. As long as the
budget is adequate for maintaining active experiment programs,
particularly subcritical experiment programs which exercise most of the
functional areas required for an underground nuclear test, the
Department will be able to maintain test readiness. The current budget
request will provide adequate funding to meet those needs.
DOE/NIH PARTNERSHIP FOR TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
Question. Report language in the Defense Authorization bill for
this current year established a partnership between DOE and NIH. The
language set aside $6 Million in the DOE Defense Programs budget, to be
paired with comparable funding from the NIH, to set up a pilot program
to jointly explore the potential of DP technologies to impact medical
health. Similar language also appeared on the NIH bills.
The Pilot Program seeks to ensure that technologies developed
within the nuclear weapons program are carefully evaluated for their
impact on the health sciences, with the goal of achieving clinical
applications and improved national health care. To the best of my
knowledge, the DOE has not begun to implement this program.
What is the status of this DOE/NIH Medical Technology Partnership
program?
Answer. We have begun this work with NIH. A number of successful
activities are underway utilizing the imaging capabilities developed
for the DP mission. In one case, the three-dimensional ultrasound
developed for stockpile stewardship is improving resolution as an early
diagnostic for breast cancer. This improved resolution will transfer
directly back to stockpile stewardship benefit. In other cases, the
femtosecond laser, developed as a cutting tool for national security
requirements, is being refined as a tool for neurosurgeons and
knowledge of fluorescing molecules is being redirected to diabetes
therapy and potentially an artificial pancreas.
A preliminary discussion occurred between Secretary Richardson's
staff and NIH Deputy Director Wendy Baldwin. This will be followed by
discussions between Defense Programs staff and NIH personnel to
formalize the program. The Joint Conventional Munitions Memorandum of
Understanding between the Departments of Energy and Defense will serve
as a model for this new partnership.
INDUSTRIAL PARTNERSHIPS
Question. The challenges faced by the weapons laboratories and
plants have dramatically escalated with the cessation of nuclear
testing. Now, more than ever before, they need access to the very best
engineering and scientific talent in our nation.
The labs and plants have great staff, but they don't have a corner
on the nation's expertise. American industry, both large and small
companies, frequently has the cutting edge technology that the complex
needs.
Sometimes we can buy the help we need, but in many cases,
partnerships are the best way to leverage the talents of different
contributors. I'm very concerned that the Department has sent strong
and consistent messages for the last few years that partnerships with
industry are discouraged. I think that's exactly the wrong message to
be sending.
In fiscal year 1996, more than $200 Million was requested for
industrial partnerships. There isn't even a line item for these in
fiscal year 2001. In the current year, $14 Million was identified.
On February 14, I chaired a Hearing of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee in Albuquerque. The Directors of each New Mexico
laboratory expressed strong support for industrial partnerships and
great concern that the funding for them has vanished.
Do you concur with my view that industrial partnerships are a
critical contributor to the ability of the laboratories to deliver on
their missions?
Answer. In fiscal year 2001 there is no longer a specific
Technology Partnership decision unit in the budget, although Defense
Programs will continue to support various technology partnerships
within the Campaigns which they support as a means to reach the goals
and objectives of the Stockpile Stewardship Program. I agree with your
assessment that leveraging partnerships with industry is critical to
the successful achievement of the Department's nuclear weapons mission.
By teaming with the private sector, our laboratory scientists and
engineers have been able to solve technological problems that exist in
the laboratories and industry in a timely, creative, and cost-effective
manner.
I also agree that the message to industry needs to be one of
renewed support and funding stability to encourage development of
productive partnerships both for the benefit of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program and U.S. economic competitiveness. For example,
Sandia National Laboratories is working with the State of New Mexico
Legislature to pass a bill where a portion of the gross receipts tax
paid by Sandia can be used to foster partnerships and small business
technical assistance. However, this is very limited as it represents
only $1.8 million this year, but is indicative of how valuable
partnership activity is to the Department and the Laboratories.
Question. Are you interested in working with me to restore a
significant focus within the Department on these activities?
Answer. Yes. We are establishing a significant focus on industrial
partnerships by further integrating them with our primary mission,
Stockpile Stewardship. The fiscal year 2001 Budget Request for the
Stockpile Stewardship Program includes approximately $14 million for
technology partnership activities, an increase of $1.5 million over
fiscal year 2000 funding and the first increase in this program in
years. Beginning in fiscal year 2001, the Department has proposed a new
budget structure for the integrated Stockpile Stewardship Program.
Within this new budget structure, Technology Partnerships will directly
support the Stockpile Stewardship Program within the Campaigns budget
line. While the details of how this strategy will be executed in the
field have not been finalized, one of our goals is to leverage industry
capabilities in order to meet our program challenges within the fiscal
year 2001 budget. We would like to promote industrial partnerships with
the weapons program, especially those that support Stockpile
Stewardship and I am open to discussing options to accomplish this.
RADIOGRAPHIC DIAGNOSTIC FACILITIES
Question. DOE is currently operating several radiographic
diagnostic experimental facilities. They include PHERMEX and DARHT at
Los Alamos, FXR and the Contained Firing Facility at Lawrence
Livermore, LANSCE at Los Alamos, and the Z-pulsed power facility at
Sandia.
Could you briefly explain the importance of each of these
facilities to the stockpile stewardship program?
Answer. PHERMEX, DARHT, FXR and the Contained Firing Facility are
or will be experimental hydrodynamics facilities. They provide x-ray
images through an imploding nuclear weapons system containing a high-
explosive driven primary but with the special nuclear materials
replaced by surrogates. Absent nuclear testing, these experiments are a
principal means by which the weapons laboratories can observe the
impact on system behavior of changes resulting from aging or design,
material and manufacturing changes during refurbishment. These
experimental facilities are providing higher resolution will be
required to validate predictions of nuclear weapons performance that
will be generated through the new ASCI codes.
The two principal LLNL facilities are FXR and Building 851, located
at site 300, about 15 miles southeast of LLNL. Both are used for
experimental work on primary systems and for reimbursable work for the
Department of Defense. FXR conducts about 10-15 major experiments in
weapon full geometry each year. The Building 851 facility has been used
for ``Manybeam Velocimetry'' experiments. In total about 150-200
smaller tests are conducted each year. Conducting the full complement
of weapon experiments has required the capacity of two facilities.
PHERMEX at LANL provides similar capabilities for LANL experiments that
FXR does at LLNL.
The Contained Firing Facility of CFF, is a facility upgrade to FXR.
It will maintain the same beamline, but will provide for full
containment of the explosion in order to mitigate adverse environmental
effects. Closure of the FXR facility has never been planned., but its
use will be changed as many full system hydrodynamics shots will be
moved to DARHT.
DARHT's second axis, under construction at LANL, will, for the
first time, provide two-axis multi-time radiographs of imploding
primary systems with improved resolution and intensity over current
single axis facilities. This will provide improved ability to infer
cavity shape and criticality of imploding primary systems essential for
both performance and nuclear safety assessments. Once operational, this
will be the mainstay of DP radiographic efforts.
The Z-pulsed power facility at Sandia is principally a high energy
density experimental facility that supports physics relevant to
radiation flow and hydrodynamics of secondaries and also will study
materials properties. To support these experiments Z will use the NIF
beamlet experiment as a radiographic source for experiments relevant to
secondary physics. This will complement the radiographic facilities
above that support primary research.
LANSCE's principle relevance to radiography is to provide the
proton beam that is used in experiments to explore proton radiography
for potential use on a future hydrodynamic test facility. This new
technology shows great promise to image very dense systems with high
resolution. These experiments have also been valuable in measuring
properties of some small scale high-explosive experiments. These LANSCE
experiments are small-scale scientific experiments and do not per se
constitute major hydrodynamics tests of stockpile devices. Such uses
are a small part of the total LANSCE effort which is principally
focused on obtaining materials properties and nuclear data in support
of both Defense Programs and the Office of Science.
Question. What is the schedule for closing some of the older
facilities as the newer more advanced facilities come on line?
Answer. Currently Defense Programs is developing a hydrotest
facility user plan to consolidate operation at FXR/CFF and DARHT with
both labs using each facility, and other facilities to be closed.
PHERMEX is scheduled for shutdown in fiscal year 2001 after
completion of a major special hydrodynamics test. It is intended that
LLNL B851 be closed within about a year of the time CFF is completed in
late fiscal year 2001.
Until recently, both LLNL and LANL operated two accelerators, FXR
and an RF LINAC at LLNL, and PHERMEX and ECTOR at LANL. When the
current hydrotest projects are completed, the LLNL RF LINAC, and LANL
PHERMEX and ECTOR machines will be decommissioned, leaving only DARHT
and CFF to meet the needs of the hydrotest program.
Question. FXR is currently being used to support development work
for DARHT. Why hasn't FXR been closed as planned? When do you expect
the FXR mission will be completed and the facility closed entirely?
Answer. CFF [Contained Firing Facility] is a facility upgrade to
FXR. It will maintain the same beamline, but will provide for full
containment of the explosion in order to mitigate adverse environmental
effects. Closure of the FXR facility has never been planned but its use
will be changed as many full system hydrodynamics shots will be moved
to DARHT.
Question. Does DOE plan to close any of the existing facilities
upon completion of the second axis of DARHT? Please explain.
Answer. PHERMEX, ECTOR, and Building 851 will be closed as
operations are consolidated at DARHT and CFF. This will happen before
DARHT second axis is operational. While these schedules anticipate
DARHT second axis operations they are not contingent upon it.
Question. What will proton radiography being developed at LANSCE
provide that DARHT, Advanced DARHT or other hydrodynamic facilities
cannot?
Answer. Primary weapons designers have believed for years that they
will need a multi-time mutli-axis radiographic capability in order to
provide the resolution necessary to assess the safety and performance
of a primary system to the small margins of uncertainty that will be
required. The goal is to be able to reconstruct a 3-D moving picture of
an imploding primary system. Efforts are ongoing to provide a sound
scientific justification for the requirements for such a facility,
including the number of axes. Most estimates indicate that it would
require 4-12 beam lines.
While multiple x-ray beams of the type used in current facilities
could be one approach, recent improvements suggest that proton
radiography could be an excellent alternative. Proton radiography uses
magnetic lenses to focus high energy photons onto an imaging system
during an imploding weapon experiment. This works very much the way a
camera lens focuses light on film to make a photograph. With x-ray
radiography only a small fraction of the energy makes it through the
target, whereas most high energy protons would make it through a
target, providing much better resolution. Though this application to
radiography is a recent development, it is a mature technology since
the basic capabilities have been employed in proton accelerators for
years. The principal challenge is to tailor an accelerator design and
beam transport system to the requirements for multi-axis radiography in
a way that minimizes costs.
PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION
Ms. Gottemoeller, the Congress provided $200 million in fiscal year
1999 to jump-start negotiations on disposing of surplus weapons
plutonium in Russia. I have repeatedly heard that the existence of this
$200 million, which can be obtained by Russia only after the
disposition work actually starts, has been a tremendous impetus towards
finalizing the disposition protocol.
I'm very concerned that we move as rapidly to start with the
disposition. As you know, this is material for well over 6,000 weapons.
I'm therefore puzzled that the Department chose to identify $49 Million
of that $200 Million to cover prior year balances and very recently has
proposed to defer another $40 Million of this Fund in your fiscal year
2000 supplemental request.
I don't think we are sending an appropriate message to the Russians
about the urgency of disposition of weapons-grade plutonium with these
funding cuts, even if we propose to restore the cuts later.
Question. Ms. Gottemoeller, do you share my view that disposition
of these weapons materials represents one of our most critical national
security challenges before us?
Answer. Yes. The disposition of surplus weapons-usable fissile
materials does represent one of our most critical national security
challenges. These disposition activities, along with other efforts to
dismantle weapons delivery systems, secure nuclear materials, and
prevent the spread of nuclear weapons knowledge, are key parts of the
United States Government's strategy to reduce the global danger from
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Question. Can you assure me that the Department's actions in using
almost one-half of the $200 million for other purposes will not harm
the negotiations?
Answer. The Department's fiscal year 2001 budget requests $49
million to become available in fiscal year 2004, when the funds are
needed for plutonium disposition in Russia. Congressional approval of
the Department's fiscal year 2001 budget request will restore funding
to the $200 million level, which provides the greatest assurance that
this important arms control and nonproliferation initiative with Russia
can be successfully concluded.
Question. What is the status of the negotiations with the Russians?
Answer. Following extensive negotiations with Russia over the past
year on a bilateral plutonium disposition agreement, all of the
outstanding issues, save one, have been resolved. Our aim is to resolve
this issue in a matter of weeks and have an agreement that can be
signed later this Spring.
OVERALL BUDGET--PRIORITIES FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING
Question. If the Committee were to provide you additional funds,
what would be your next priorities and at what level of funding?
Answer. The President's request is an appropriate level for
competing requirements and for meeting critical program objectives. I
can assure you that we will continue to carefully examine our program
and budget priorities through the budget process.
TASK FORCE ON NONPROLIFERATION
Secretary Richardson recently announced the creation of a new task
force, to be led by former Senator Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler. The
Secretary has tasked the group to send him a report by September
outlining ways to improve programs involving materials protection,
economic development and cooperation on R&D between Russian and
American Scientists.
Question. What types of concerns prompted the Secretary's creation
of the panel?
Answer. Secretary Richardson decided to use the established
Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) as the vehicle for this Task
Force on Russia. The objectives of this Task Force are: to provide
recommendations to the Secretary of Energy regarding the policy
priorities established by DOE to pursue cooperative nonproliferation
and nuclear safety programs with Russia and the other countries of the
Newly Independent States (NIS); to identify crucial program areas that
may not have been addressed in the past; and to provide an assessment
of the performance of DOE's programs in achieving national security and
nonproliferation missions. The Task Force's recommendations of new
potential areas of cooperation may be used as a blueprint for future
programs in the next Administration.
Question. Are there areas where the Labs can increase their
collaborations with the Russians on non-proliferation R&D programs?
Answer. Yes, there are at least two such areas. First, as part of
the $100 million Long-term Nonproliferation Initiative, we are hoping
to engage our labs and Russian specialists on the subject of enhancing
the proliferation resistance of reactors and the nuclear fuel cycle.
This, of course, is contingent on Russia complying with the commitments
it has given the United States regarding cooperation with Iran. We are
also proposing research on long-term solutions for spent fuel and
radioactive waste. Secondly, under the Nuclear Cities Initiative, a
number of our laboratories are hoping to contract for services from
Russian counterparts on a range of non-military issues, from the
development of simplified computer codes, to analyses of radionuclide
transport through various geological media.
Question. Do you have a good system for measuring success in the
Russian programs? Should we limit future funding for NCI to
demonstrable conversion from military to civilian activities?
Answer. All of our Russian programs have measures of success;
however, some of them are more easily measured than others. Among those
with straightforward metrics are the MPC&A program, where we measure
the amount of special nuclear material and number of facilities
secured, the Highly Enriched Uranium Purchase program, where we measure
the amount of uranium blended down, and the Plutonium Disposition
program, where we measure the number of kilograms of plutonium that are
to be processed. The programs directed at preventing the migration of
scientists with weapons knowledge to countries and organizations of
concern are more complex to measure. The Initiatives for Proliferation
Prevention Program measures the number of scientists employed, the
number of institutes engaged, financial contributions from industry,
the number of new enterprises created, and similar metrics. The Nuclear
Cities Initiative measures number of workers employed, number of new
jobs created, number of individuals trained, level of private industry
participation, number of facilities converted, and the square footage
of space transferred from weapons to non-weapons work. NCI also
provides for changes in municipal infrastructure to enable
transformation of the nuclear cities from a total weapon-based economy
to a commercial economy in the ten closed cities.
The Nuclear Cities Initiative is making demonstrable progress in
transferring former weapons facilities to non-weapons work. The recent
agreement to dedicate over 500,000 square feet of floor space at the
Avangard nuclear weapons plant at Sarov to commercial work is a notable
example of such progress. Such metrics clearly indicate that the
Nuclear Cities Initiative can achieve important national security goals
for the United States by working with the Russian Federation to
accelerate the downsizing of the Russian nuclear complex.
Question. Can you elaborate on the types of threats the United
States and the world community are facing in Russia?
Answer. The current economic and security situation in Russia poses
strong challenges for U.S. security interests. Within Russia, there
continue to be cases of ``insider thefts'' of sensitive material,
almost certainly a reflection of the prevailing economic conditions in
Russian society. Underpaid security guards and workers at nuclear
facilities, as well as world class scientists with access to sensitive
materials and information, remain a worrying ``insider'' problem. Over
the past several years, Russia also has experienced a sharp rise in
terrorist activity. The Russian military in 1999 reported 560 terrorist
incidents in Russia, including several reported threats against
facilities holding sensitive materials. In addition, Iran and other
nations seeking to develop WMD capabilities also are looking to exploit
Russia's security conditions through aggressive efforts to acquire
fissile material and expertise. The MPC&A program, in cooperation with
the Russian government, has provided upgraded security for nearly 450
metric tons of nuclear material, enough material to build 24,000
nuclear devices. In so doing, the program represents a powerful
countervailing force against those trying to exploit Russia's endemic
security problems.
MATERIALS PROTECTION CONTROL & ACCOUNTING
Securing and disposing of nuclear material in Russia is one of our
most important national security objectives. However, the GAO recently
issued a report that indicated the Department had achieved very limited
progress in improving the security of nuclear materials in Russia. The
report stated that only 7 percent of the 650 metric tons have been
identified as being at risk for theft or diversion, are stored in
buildings with installed security systems.
Question. How would you respond to the GAO Report?
Answer. The GAO only had one recommendation--to develop and
annually update an overall cost estimate and time frame for completing
the MPC&A program. We completely agree with this recommendation and
have already begun developing this estimate. It will be completed in
May.
However, the GAO Report also stated that ``About 50 metric tons, or
about 7 percent of the approximately 650 metric tons of the weapons-
usable nuclear material, are in buildings with installed security
systems.'' Actually, rapid upgrades to approximately 450MT of
additional at-risk nuclear material are either ongoing or have been
completed. The 450MTs that have either been secured or are in the
process of being secured is equivalent to roughly 24,000 nuclear
devices. The 7 percent refers to weapons-usable material that has
received comprehensive security upgrades, meaning all aspects of the
MPC&A installation work is complete. Rapid upgrades are the first steps
DOE takes to immediately improve security and thus reduce the
proliferation threat. Rapid upgrades include, for instance, 1-ton delay
blocks, steel cages, bricked windows, hardened doors and mechanical
locks. Once rapid upgrades are complete, focus is then placed on
completing the required comprehensive security upgrades, which involve
more advanced material control and accounting systems.
Access to sensitive MinAtom facilities was another issue raised by
the GAO, and DOE is addressing this concern in a number of ways.
Secretary Richardson and Minister Adamov established a Task Force to
develop solutions to the problem, and there are ongoing discussions and
negotiations in this forum. DOE has developed additional guidance
regarding access, and this guidance will be used in future MPC&A
upgrade negotiations and contracts. Access needs vary at each site, and
the access guidance provides for access to be negotiated on a site by
site basis as needed.
Question. The GAO report also recommended the Department develop a
cost estimate and schedule for completing the MPC&A program. Is that
possible at this time?
Answer. Yes. DOE has already begun developing this updated MPC&A
Life Cycle Cost and Schedule Estimate. The revised estimate will be
completed by May 2000 and, as the GAO recommended, will be updated
annually in December.
Question. Please update the Committee on recent developments in
your work with the Russian Navy?
Answer. The Department of Energy's (DOE) cooperative relationship
with the Russian Federation Navy (RFN) began in 1996, when the RFN
requested assistance from DOE to secure highly enriched uranium (HEU)
fuel. In 2000, DOE will:
--commission four HEU fuel facilities;
--complete work to secure test reactors belonging to the Russian
Ministry of Defense at a facility in Sergeiev Posad;
--continue work supporting MPC&A upgrades at RFN facilities at
Kurchatov Institute; and
--provide MPC&A training for Russian Navy personnel.
Building on what is now a solid record of accomplishment--reflected
by security upgrades to some 30 Metric Tons of proliferation attractive
material--DOE has also been asked by the Russian Navy to expand this
relationship to include a long term plan for the physical protection of
over 30 Navy strategic and tactical nuclear weapon storage sites. In
2000, DOE will complete initial rapid upgrades at seven sites, complete
comprehensive upgrades at one of these sites and sign contracts for
initial rapid upgrades at least seven additional sites.
DOE will work only at those sites where access can be granted to
ensure that appropriated funds are being spent properly.
NEW INITIATIVE FOR $100 MILLION
Question. Couldn't both requests just as well be included within
the existing MPC&A program and within an expanded Nuclear Cities
Initiative?
Answer. From a budgetary perspective, the requests could just as
well be included within the existing MPC&A program and within an
expanded Nuclear Cities Initiative. However, the Long-Term
Nonproliferation Program for Russia will establish a series of new
efforts to respond to recognized but previously unaddressed threats to
U.S. national security. This expanded component of our nonproliferation
work will supplement on-going Departmental programs and establish new
and accelerated solutions to the most serious dangers presented by the
Russian nuclear weapons complex and civilian nuclear facilities.
This program both builds upon successful on-going projects and
takes advantage of new opportunities presented by the Russians to
dramatically reduce the production of plutonium; enhance the
proliferation-resistance of nuclear fuel cycle technologies; accelerate
the planned downsizing of the Russian nuclear weapons complex through
the closure of facilities and consolidation of nuclear materials into
fewer locations; and expand nuclear material protection activities to
the most sensitive Russian Navy sites. All of these activities reflect
our deep concern over the risks of theft and diversion of nuclear
materials in the unique circumstances of the post-Cold War environment.
Question. Why were they included as new initiatives instead of
suggested as very logical and very positive additions to existing
programs?
Answer. The work in the $100M initiative does not duplicate any
existing MPC&A work and responds to new opportunities. The $20 million
for MPC&A will expand work into the new, unplanned and previously
unfunded areas of Russian Navy cooperation at highly sensitive sites,
and provide similar opportunities for our material consolidation and
conversion and Russian emergency management system work. For example,
the new funding will enable us to convert an additional 1.5 metric tons
of highly enriched uranium--which is attractive to proliferators--to
low enriched uranium.
The $10 million for the Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI) will be
used in a new project to accelerate the closure of the weapons
production capabilities at Sarov (Avangard) and Zarechnyy (Penza-19) to
shift large portions of their work force to work outside of the nuclear
weapons complex, related commercial activities, and provide civilian
employment opportunities for scientists and technicians currently
working in these facilities. We are already achieving success in the
transfer of 500,000 square feet from weapons work to commercial
production at Avangard. We would like to accelerate this process at
Avangard and begin work a similar effort as quickly as possible at
Penza-19.
Question. The budget request includes a new $100 million non-
proliferation initiative. Included within that request would be funding
for increased Materials Protection, Control and Accounting work on
Russian Naval fuels as well as funding for conversion of some of the
Russian weapons facilities.
A portion of the funding presumes an agreement with the Russians
for them to stop the reprocessing of civilian spent fuel and the
production of plutonium. Is there an agreement with the Russians? What
is the status of negotiations?
Answer. Negotiations continue to take place on an intensive basis
with Russian Federation officials to develop a high-level Joint
Statement on a moratorium on further accumulation of separated civil
plutonium resulting from the reprocessing of civil power reactor fuel
in Russia. This effort will complement established U.S. programs to
secure and eliminate plutonium arising from weapons dismantlement. Once
this high-level Joint Statement is signed, which we expect to occur
early this summer, we will proceed immediately to complete the Work
Plan and Implementing Agreement necessary to implement the Initiative.
These documents, which we are already developing with the Russians, are
to be completed by October 1.
NUCLEAR CITIES INITIATIVE
Question. I've spoken out in several statements, most recently at
Princeton University on March 14, with concerns that the credibility of
the current Nuclear Cities program suffers in Congress from a lack of
transparent milestones. I've suggested that the only way to gain
significant funding for the Initiative would be for our support to be
tied to such milestones that lead to downsizing of the entire Russian
nuclear cities complex to levels consistent with their future national
security needs.
Dr. Gottemoeller, you've described progress within the Initiative
along the very lines that I've suggested. I appreciate your progress.
Based upon your understanding of the interests of the Russian MinAtom
leadership, would you anticipate that the Russians would agree to a
firm schedule for downsizing with verifiable milestones, in return for
a significant increase in the Nuclear Cities budgets?
Answer. The Department of Energy fully shares your interest in
securing the rapid downsizing of the Russian nuclear complex to levels
consistent with Russia's national security needs. MinAtom has developed
a plan for significant reduction of their complex, and I believe the
Russians are committed to implementation of the plan. Senior leadership
within MinAtom responded to your remarks at the Princeton Conference by
affirming the Russian Government's strong desire to downsize its
nuclear weapons complex; they also stated that NCI is essential if they
are to implement their conversion plans on an accelerated basis,
consistent with the desires of both Governments. I believe that there
is a widely held view within the Russian leadership that the nuclear
weapons complex is larger than necessary and too costly to sustain. On
March 31, 2000, President Putin, in his first major policy address as
the newly elected President of the Russian Federation, reaffirmed this
position during a speech to nuclear workers in Snezhinsk. With the
Russian acceptance of downsizing, we should indeed be able to provide
concrete and verifiable measures of downsizing of facilities and
transfer of people to the civilian sector. In a significant new
development, we recently signed an agreement with the Avangard weapons
production plant that will move 500,000 square feet of work space from
within the weapons complex to the open part of the city. This
constitutes a real and measurable reduction in the Russian nuclear
complex. Furthermore, strategic plans are under development by U.S.
representatives and Russian scientific and downsizing community
stakeholders within the three closed cities of Sarov, Snezhink, and
Zhleleznogorsk to map out the commitment and the time-line to
accomplish these complex, downsizing efforts. With your support and the
support of the Congress, we can make even greater progress in the
future.
CORE CONVERSION OF RUSSIAN REACTORS
Question. In 1997, Vice President Gore announced a centerpiece of
the Clinton Administration's arms control package. It involved a
commitment from Russia to halt production of weapons-grade plutonium by
the end of this year by converting their production reactors to new
cores that would not continue the plutonium production. The project was
advertised to cost about $80 Million.
The Russians have stated that these reactors produce critically
needed heat for their cities, and can't simply be shut down. Most of
this project is funded through Nunn-Lugar DOD funds, but the safety
evaluations are being done through DOE funds.
Lately, reports are circulating that this program is being called
into serious question by the Russians. For one thing, The Vice
President's plan called for conversion of these reactors to Highly
Enriched Uranium cores--the very material that we're desperately trying
to encourage the Russians to dispose of. It's never been clear to me
why the core conversion was such a great idea if it increase Russian
use and traffic in HEU.
Then there's the issue of safety. These reactors are early versions
of the Chernobyl reactor. These reactors have glaring safety problems,
we've got plenty of evidence of that already. Our and Russian experts
are pointing out that the safety margins are even worse if we convert
these cores to HEU.
The Russian have proposed that this project be canceled and that we
assist them in procurement of gas turbines instead. I understand there
is a cost issue on these gas turbines, with Russian and Administration
cost estimates very different ($230 Million vs $1 Billion).
What's your view of this core conversion program? Should we be
encouraging this use of HEU and perpetuation of Chernobyl-type
reactors, to say nothing of Chernobyl-type reactors with degraded
safety margins?
Isn't it time for the Administration to explore other options?
Answer. Both the United States and Russian governments remain
committed to achieving the objective of the 1997 Plutonium Production
Reactor Agreement (PPRA), i.e., stopping the production of weapons-
grade plutonium from the three remaining Russian plutonium-producing
reactors. Those reactors have not been shut down because, in addition
to producing a combined two metric tons of plutonium a year, they also
supply energy for the surrounding regions. Since receiving initial
funding in fiscal year 1998, a joint effort was undertaken to end
weapons-grade plutonium production through the conversion of the three
operational reactors to a highly enriched uranium fueled core design.
The results of this design effort have raised significant questions in
Russia and the U.S. regarding the benefits versus the risks of this
approach. We are now assessing with Russia whether core conversion,
possibly with a low-enriched uranium fuel, or provision of fossil fuel
energy sources is the most safe, efficient and cost-effective approach.
Our joint goal remains to end the production of weapons-grade plutonium
consistent with the intent of the PPRA.
COMPETING NN R&D CONTRACTS
Question. What is the status of your efforts to comply with this
provision?
Answer. Regarding competing R&D contracts, we are following
Congressional direction, and have initiated the process to start open,
competitive acquisition of 25 percent of our R&D program. While there
are no projects where work is procured through a DOE competitive
process open simultaneously to DOE laboratories, universities, and
private companies, approximately 3 percent of our program funds go
directly to industry and 1 percent to universities. In addition,
approximately 15 percent of R&D funds provided to the laboratories go
to industry, as well as 3 percent to university researchers.
As a start to this process, we are finalizing a draft, joint
solicitation with the Department of Defense for release this summer
that will procure seismic-related research and development for the
ground-based portion of our Nuclear Explosion Monitoring program,
resulting in approximately 4 percent of that part of our fiscal year
2000 program being acquired through open competition. Our progress
toward acquiring more work through open, competitive means has been
slowed by fiscal year 2000 undistributed reductions which eliminated
the source of funds for any new work. The remaining budget is dedicated
to many large, multi-year projects, and we did not believe it prudent
to terminate or adversely impact on-going work that is scheduled to
meet firm delivery dates or is jointly funded with other agencies. We
are currently identifying specific research and development thrusts in
each program area for open competition in fiscal year 2001.
PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH SEPARATE SECURITY BUDGET
Question. General Habiger, you have testified that the Department
will be proposing a unified separate budget for its safeguards and
security program, and that safeguards and security through-out the
weapons complex will be your responsibility. However, Sec. 3212(b)(6)
of the National Nuclear Security Administration Act specifically gives
responsibility for safeguards and security to the Administrator. And
Sec. 3232(c) of the Act provides that there will be a Chief of Defense
Nuclear Security working for the Administration to implement security
policies. Isn't your proposal for a unified Department-wide security
budget inconsistent with the clear Congressional direction of the NNSA
Act?
Answer. No, we believe that it fully supports the intent of the
legislation, i.e, to strengthen safeguards and security throughout DOE,
and the NNSA. This unified budget will provide the NNSA Administrator
and his Chief of Defense Nuclear Security, with a definitive budget
profile that can be used to provide overall better planning and
execution. In the past, the security funding was obtained from overhead
accounts that were subject to nonprogrammatic changes depending on
individual priorities at each facility.
Question. Shouldn't the responsibility for security be integrated
into the line program? Shouldn't we hold the lab director's responsible
for security at their site?
Answer. Responsibility for security at our laboratories remains
unchanged, i.e., the field office managers and contractors will
continue to be the first line of defense to assure appropriate security
at their respective locations, and the LPSO's will continue to be
accountable for integrated security and program implementation. The
unified budget will provide them with a definitive funding profile that
will permit better planning of security implementation.
POLYGRAPHS
Question. What is the current best estimate of the number of
employees subject to polygraphs? If the figure is above 1000, why was
it changed? And will my concerns on the use of polygraphs be part of an
integrated security program.
Answer. In October 1999, Congress passed the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2000. Section 3154 of the NDAA
requires the Secretary of Energy to carry out a counterintelligence
polygraph program for the defense-related activities of the Department.
The counterintelligence polygraph program consists of the
administration of a counterintelligence polygraph examination to
specified persons who have access to high-risk programs.
On December 17, 1999, reflecting the Congressional mandate of
Section 3154, DOE published a final rule for the use of polygraph
examinations for certain DOE and contractor employees, applicants for
employment, and other individuals assigned or detailed to Federal
positions at DOE. (64 FR 70962) The Polygraph Examination Regulation
identifies eight categories of positions which are eligible for
counterintelligence polygraph examinations.
On December 13, 1999, I issued a memorandum for all DOE employees
identifying the specific positions within the eight counterintelligence
categories covered by the Polygraph Examination Regulation that will be
subject to the polygraph testing. I estimated that approximately 800
individuals throughout the DOE complex would undergo
counterintelligence polygraph testing during the implementation of the
counterintelligence polygraph program. I also noted that Section 3154
forbids DOE from providing anyone initial access to a SAP or the PSAP
without first signing a consent agreement and then taking a
counterintelligence polygraph examination. I stated that this statutory
requirement would be implemented in accordance with the terms of the
Polygraph Examination Regulation.
I estimate that between 2600 and 3100 employees currently in one or
more of the eight counterintelligence categories covered by the
Polygraph Examination Regulation will be polygraphed over the next five
years; however, approximately 1350 additional employees will require
initial access to a SAP or the PSAP during Calendar Year 2000, and must
be polygraphed in accordance with Section 3154. I intend to submit to
the Congress legislation that would amend Section 3154 of the NDAA to
provide authority to identify the specific positions within the
Department which should be eligible for a counterintelligence polygraph
examination.
I share your concern on the use of polygraphs as part of an
integrated counterintelligence program. Section 3154(g) of the NDAA
required DOE, in consultation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), to develop procedures for identifying and addressing ``false
positive'' results of polygraph examinations, and to ensure that
adverse actions are not taken against an individual solely by reason of
that individual's physiological reaction to a question in a polygraph
examination. DOE provided a draft of its Polygraph Examination
Regulation to the FBI for its review and comment. The FBI concurred in
the issuance of the Polygraph Examination Regulation and did not
recommend any changes relative to those portions addressing DOE's
procedures for addressing ``false positive'' results and not denying or
revoking an individual's access based solely on the results of a
polygraph examination.
I believe that these procedures as set forth in the final Polygraph
Examination Regulation successfully address your concerns and those
received during the public comment period on the use of polygraph
examinations as part of an integrated counterintelligence program.
CYBER SECURITY
Question. General Habiger, you have requested $30.3 million for
cyber security at the Department. The budget indicates a great majority
of that money will be spent at headquarters for hiring new FTEs, and to
provide policy, planning, training, and technical development. Why did
the Department not request money for actual cyber security upgrades at
the laboratories?
Answer. A majority of the $30.3 million requested is directed
towards improving security Department-wide and is broken out as
follows: $15 million is for hardware and software tools to improve
unclassified system security; $3.35 million is requested for conducting
cyber security training; $12 million will be spent to significantly
increase our cyber security incident response capability ($5M),
implement a Public Key Infrastructure Department-wide ($2M), and
complete additional ongoing cyber security activities.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Larry Craig
LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Question. Last year, Congress eliminated the use of environmental
management funds for the purpose of laboratory directed research and
development--so called ``LDRD'' programs. I do not agree with this
restriction because LDRD contributes to the development of innovative
new technologies. DOE has requested an increase in LDRD for non-
Environmental Management programs from the current 4 percent to 6
percent. Would you comment on the value of LDRD research?
Would you comment on the value of LDRD research?
Answer. (General Gioconda) We believe that LDRD research does
return substantial value to the taxpayer. First and foremost, it plays
a critical role in ensuring the scientific and technical vitality of
the laboratories, which support the current and future needs of the
national security missions. The Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP), in
the absence of nuclear testing, is a major challenge, requiring the
laboratories to remain at the cutting edge in relevant scientific
fields. LDRD has helped the scientific foundation for SSP (e.g.,
massively parallel computing for ASCI, use of lasers for material
processing, high explosives research, and proton radiography) and has
enabled the laboratories to attract the high caliber staff needed to
meet these challenges.
Answer. (Dr. Gottemoeller) Our Nonproliferation and Verification
R&D program conducts applied research, development, testing, and
evaluation of science and technology for strengthening the U.S.
response to national security threats posed by the proliferation of
nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and diversion of special
nuclear material. Through the LDRD process, the laboratories pursue
basic or high risk research that is the wellspring of many of the
concepts that are subsequently supported by our program, but which at
the outset are not mature enough to be funded in a directed research
and engineering program. Limiting LDRD to four percent reduces the pool
from which successful research concepts may arise to feed our future
applied research needs.
Question. Do you feel that LDRD research returns value to the
taxpayer?
Answer. (General Gioconda) LDRD investments at the three DP
laboratories have a proven track record of high returns to the
taxpayer:
--Over 25 percent of new knowledge, as measured by peer-reviewed
publications;
--Over 30 percent of useful new technologies, as measured by patents
granted;
--Over 40 percent of new science and technology workers, as measured
by the participation of students and recent doctoral recipients
on LDRD projects; and
--Over 60 percent of R&D 100 Awards, many in partnership with
industry.
Answer. (Dr. Gottemoeller) I believe the taxpayer gets a very good
return on the LDRD investment. In addition to being the basic research
source of many of our innovative, operationally oriented development
projects, the LDRD program is a magnet for new, young scientists to
pursue innovative concepts that push the boundaries of science and
technology. The six percent level of LDRD support in past years was
believed to be an appropriate balance between the funding for basic
research concepts and our program of directed research on national
security and nonproliferation issues. We believe that six percent
should be reinstated.
BN-350 SHUT-DOWN
Question. I understand that DOE's program to secure the spent fuel
from the BN-350 breeder reactor in Kazakhstan has been successful so
far. Argonne National Laboratory has been assisting in the safe
shutdown of the reactor by transferring experience gained in the
shutdown of the EBR-II reactor in Idaho and in designing a system to
remove radioactive cesium from the reactor coolant. I understand that
Kazakhstan has decided to shut down this reactor permanently.
What is the current U.S. role at the BN-350 with respect to
permanent shutdown of the reactor?
Answer. In April 1999, Kazakhstan announced its intention to
permanently shut down the BN-350 breeder reactor located in Aktau,
Kazakhstan on the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea. Since that time,
the Office of International Nuclear Safety and Cooperation (NN-30) has
been assisting Kazakhstan with immediate safety and decommissioning
issues. In December 1999, Secretary Richardson and the Kazakhstan
Minister of Energy, Industry and Trade signed an Implementing
Arrangement that formalizes the U.S. intent to assist in the
decommissioning of the reactor. This assistance will include joint
development of a shutdown plan that will be peer-reviewed under the
auspices of the IAEA. Upon completion, the plan will be used by
Kazakhstan to solicit technical and financial assistance other nations
and international organizations.
The technical focus of the U.S. assistance will be to ensure that
the shutdown of the reactor is irreversible. This will be accomplished
by decontaminating, draining, and deactivating the reactor's highly
radioactive sodium coolant. These actions will be performed using
technologies and procedures developed by Argonne National Laboratory at
EBR-II.
NUCLEAR SAFETY CENTERS
Question. Argonne West personnel are involved with two joint
centers--the Russian International Nuclear Safety Center and the
Kazakhstan Nuclear Technology Safety Center--that were established with
the goal of enhancing the nuclear safety infrastructure in each
country. The work of the safety centers addresses nuclear safety
through activities such as providing training on the use of nuclear
safety computer codes, developing safety procedures, and transferring
knowledge gained from nuclear operations around the world.
Would you comment on the role the centers have played in enhancing
nuclear safety in these countries?
Answer. The International Nuclear Safety Centers in Russia,
Kazakhstan and the United States have made significant contributions to
nuclear safety. The centers currently carry out collaborative
activities that support plant-specific safety assessment projects and
promote the development of a sustainable nuclear safety infrastructure
in Russia and Kazakhstan.
The Russian International Nuclear Safety Center (RINSC) is
chartered as a separate organization within the Russian Ministry of
Atomic Energy (Minatom). However, essentially all Russian institutes,
such as the Kurchatov Institute, the Russian Academy of Sciences'
Nuclear Safety Center (IBRAE), and GAN technical center, are official
members of the Nuclear Safety Center. Minatom provides RINSC with
supporting funds as well as the office space. An important element in
maintaining the competence of the Russian center is its direct
connection with the corresponding centers abroad, in particular the
Argonne center.
In fiscal year 2000, planned activities at the Center include:
--Safety analysis computer code management and configuration control.
The Russian Federation International Nuclear Safety Center
(RINSC) has been designated as the official repository of U.S.
safety analysis code technology. The U.S. provides computer
codes to RINSC that are used for nuclear safety work concerning
individual nuclear power plants. From RINSC, U.S. safety
analysis codes are distributed, with the appropriate
configuration controls, to Russian users in other institutes
and organizations. The Center maintains and controls the
Russian version of the codes, as well as the manuals on code
use.
--Management of nuclear safety analysis computer code validation.
Russia, with U.S. help, is preparing safety analyses of several
nuclear power plants. The application of U.S. safety analysis
codes to Soviet-designed reactors requires an extensive
validation process, requiring applicable experimental data.
RINSC is managing this project because of its established
relationship with all Russian institutes involved in this
process. Through the technical institutes belonging to RINSC,
it is able to access needed experimental data and establish the
bases for validated codes. Development and maintenance of the
Russian safety analysis data bank. RINSC maintains a nuclear
data base for use in safety analysis. Nuclear power plants and
their supporting organizations need analytical information from
the data bank in order to carry out in-depth safety
assessments. Of particular importance are basic data on
material properties.
--Development of technical basis for accident management. While
design basis safety and risk assessments are plant specific,
the general technical basis for management of severe accidents
is applicable for all reactors of a given type. RINSC, in
coordination with several Russian institutes, is developing
this technical basis for the Russian nuclear power plants.
--Archiving and distribution of safety and risk analysis results. The
quantitative results of the safety assessment projects are
maintained in a database and distributed by RINSC on an as-
needed basis to nuclear power plants. This ensures the widest
possible distribution and application, with the necessary
quality control, of the DOE-supported safety assessments.
The operation of RINSC has been quite successful despite its
limited budget. RINSC was tasked by Minatom to develop the first ever
Russian Nuclear Safety Research Plan. This plan received a favorable
international review by nuclear safety experts under the auspices of
the OECD/Nuclear Energy Agency. RINSC continues to contribute to the
international database on nuclear reactor materials, including some
valuable high-temperature data previously unavailable in the West. Some
of these data (e.g, high temperature properties of Zirconium) have
already found use in improving the accuracy of U.S. severe accident
analysis computer codes.
The Kazakhstan Nuclear Technology Safety Center was created by a
joint U.S.-Kazakhstan agreement, signed by the U.S. Secretary of Energy
and the Kazakhstan Minister of Science in 1997. The purpose of the
Center is to provide expertise and infrastructure for nuclear safety
analysis. The focus of the activity is the BN-350 fast breeder reactor
in Aktau, Kazakhstan. To date, the Center has conducted safety analysis
review (SAR) workshops on spent fuel packaging and failed fuel
packaging. Similar workshops are planned for decommissioning activities
such as: spent fuel transportation, cesium decontamination, sodium
coolant draining and deactivation, and liquid and solid waste
management. The Center also has hosted shutdown planning conferences
that included DOE and NRC personnel as well as Kazaki personnel from
several ministries and from BN-350 plant management. In addition, the
Center's Deputy Director has observed aspects of the EBR-II shutdown
project in Idaho so that these can be applied to the BN-350 project.
The Center also addresses nuclear safety issues for the six nuclear
research reactors and related facilities within Kazakhstan that were
designed and supported previously by institutes located in Russia.
LONG-TERM NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAM FOR RUSSIA
Question. The Administration has proposed a new program on long-
term nonproliferation in the Russian Federation, in exchange for
certain concessions by the Russians related to reprocessing and
assistance to Iran's program.
What is the status of your negotiations with the Russian
Federation, and how confident are you that the desired concessions will
be granted?
Answer. Negotiations are ongoing, and we are making good progress
on developing a Joint Statement outlining the intention of the two
sides to move forward with this program, including a moratorium on
further accumulation of separated civil plutonium resulting from the
reprocessing of civil power reactor fuel in Russia. Regarding Russia's
nuclear cooperation with Iran, we are currently in intense and high-
level discussions with Russia to try to resolve these concerns. The
Russians understand that the implementation of the R&D program within
the new Long-Term Nonproliferation Initiative is conditioned on the
resolution of these issues. In addition, we, and other parts of the
Administration, are having detailed technical discussions with MinAtom
on the implementation of Russian export control laws, with a view
towards improving Russia's compliance with its undertakings regarding
nuclear transfers to Iran.
INTERNATIONAL CENTERS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
Question. DOE signed a bilateral agreement with Russia to
collaborate on environmental clean-up technologies through
establishment of the International Center for Environmental Safety.
This Center has existed on paper for nearly two years, but DOE's
financial support has been only about $500,000 a year.
Is there a chance this Center could get a pledge of increased
financial support from DOE in fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The International Center for Environmental Safety (ICES)
was established jointly, in June 1999, by the Russian Federation
Ministry of Atomic Energy (MinAtom) and DOE. MinAtom funded an office
in Moscow for the Center, hired core personnel, and assigned it the
responsibility of coordinating environmental safety projects at MinAtom
industrial sites. In fiscal year 1999, DOE provided $100,000 to INEEL
to help establish the Center. DOE had planned to provide additional
support in fiscal year 2000, but was unable to do so due to a 50
percent reduction in the International Nuclear Safety Program budget
and restrictive language in the Appropriation Committee Conference
Report.
DOE still believes that, as a coordinating activity, the Center
would improve the efficiency of environmental efforts at MinAtom
industrial sites and that the U.S. could benefit from collaboration on
legacy environmental problems. For example, Russia has conducted
criticality safety benchmark experiment projects that could improve
operational safety with spent nuclear fuels at DOE facilities.
Similarly, Russian experience in modeling the subsurface flow of
contaminants could improve assessment and resolution of problems at DOE
sites. However, unless funds are appropriated and restrictive language
removed, no further funding of ICES is planned.
FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION
Question. The DOE Fissile Materials Disposition program has been
working with Russia to help develop MOX fuel for the BN-600--a breeder
reactor in Russia. At last year's hearing, I raised this issue with
DOE's program director Laura Holgate, and she stated that ``we have an
active R&D program underway in Russia to work on converting the BN-600
reactor to use MOX fuel, and a key element of that will be removing the
breeder blankets that actually create the plutonium, and I am convinced
that there is a cooperative role for Argonne West's experience as we
move forward with the Russians on that project.''
However, since that response, very little progress has been made in
MOX fuel development, and essentially no progress has been made on
converting the BN-600 breeder blanket to a stainless steel reflector.
Also, no progress has been made in identifying a storage location for
the spent fuel and blanket assemblies that would have to be removed
from the reactor during conversion to MOX.
Can you please comment on the status of the R&D program and the
blanket removal?
Answer. A significant volume of work continues with regard to the
development of mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for the BN-600 fast reactor. The
Russian Research Institute of Research Reactors (RIAR) fabricated three
vibro-compacted (VIPAC) powder MOX lead test assemblies for the BN-600
using plutonium metal from Russian weapons components. The experimental
subassemblies will begin to be irradiated in the BN-600 restart
following a May maintenance and refueling shutdown. The Argonne
National Laboratory is participating in meetings to discuss
accelerating the path forward for the VIPAC MOX option. As an
alternative, the U.S. is also studying the possibility of fabricating
BN-600 MOX fuel in pellet form at the Mayak facility.
Work continues with Russia with regard to the removal of the
irradiated breeding blanket in the BN-600 reactor. Russia has completed
the technical designs for a stainless steel reflector subassembly and a
boron shield subassembly--two components required for blanket
replacement. However, proceeding with the blanket replacement will
require Russia to make a decision for the location of a dry storage
facility for both spent MOX fuel and irradiated breeding blanket
subassemblies. Dry spent fuel storage technology used at the
Radioactive Waste Storage Facility at the Argonne-West site is one of
the possible technologies under consideration.
NAVAL REACTORS
Question. Is the President's budget request for Naval Reactors
sufficient to meet the Navy's commitments to the State of Idaho under
the clean-up settlement agreement?
Answer. Yes, the President's budget request for Naval Reactors is
sufficient to meet the Navy's commitments in the 1995 Idaho agreement.
The Navy has met all its commitments under the agreements to date, and
expects to continue to satisfy the terms of the agreement in fiscal
year 2001 and beyond.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Domenici. We stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., Tuesday, March 28, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:15 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Domenici, Gorton, McConnell, Craig, Reid,
Murray, and Dorgan.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Science
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES DECKER, ACTING DIRECTOR
Office of Energy and Renewable Energy
STATEMENT OF DAN REICHER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
STATEMENT OF BILL MAGWOOD, DIRECTOR
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLADE GORTON
Senator Gorton [presiding]. Well, the Chairman is delayed,
and I must preside at another hearing at 9:30. But rather than
keep the witnesses waiting or Senator Dorgan waiting, perhaps
it would be well to start.
The Chairman has a detailed opening statement. He may want
to give it later, but we will place it in the record.
The jurisdictions of the various witnesses are of
considerable interest to me as well, and I suspect to the Vice
President and to Senator Dorgan as well.
Do you have any opening statement that you would like to
make?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN
Senator Dorgan. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Apparently
this is a morning where all committees are holding all of their
subcommittee hearings. And I think I have four that are
starting at either 9:00 or 9:30 today. So we are all under the
same circumstance.
This is an important programmatic area. And in an
interesting way, it is a timely area to be discussing because
of the actions of the OPEC countries and the spike up in gas
prices. When we talk now about renewal energy technologies and
extending America's energy supply through new technologies, I
think it is exactly what we ought to be talking about. I have
had an opportunity to work with Mr. Reicher and others on a
range of issues.
Because you bicycled through North Dakota at one point,
Senator Gorton, you probably know this. But North Dakota is the
Saudi Arabia of wind energy.
Senator Gorton. Fortunately the winds were in the right
direction.
Senator Dorgan. As I understand it, you were biking from
west to east----
Senator Gorton. Yes.
Senator Dorgan [continuing]. Which would be logical if you
wanted a tail wind in our State.
NORTH DAKOTA WIND ENERGY POTENTIAL
But if you look at wind energy potential in our country,
North Dakota really is the Saudi Arabia of wind energy
potential, but it exists in a fair number of areas, including
the State of Washington. Wind energy and biomass and a whole
range of opportunities exist. We have programs and initiatives
in the Federal Government that I think are exciting. And I know
they are niche areas, but I think they are exciting.
And if we make the right investments and take this
opportunity during this period of a discussion about being
captive or dependent on energy supplies from foreign sources,
we can make the right investments and extend our energy
supplies by developing what some people call green power and
others call renewable energy sources. Abundant energy gathered
from self-renewing resources makes a great deal of sense in our
country.
And so I came by today just to say that as we begin looking
at the resources we devote to this, I am especially interested
in wind energy. And I especially want to keep, if we can, the
administration's recommendation on wind energy investment. But
I want to work with other members of the subcommittee,
including the chairman, on a range of these projects.
So thank you very much.
Senator Gorton. Senator Craig? We just got started.
Senator Craig. I am delighted to be here and I will ask
questions of our first panel.
Senator Gorton. Fine.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Senator Gorton. And if the witnesses have a preferred
order--I have Dr. Decker first. If you all wish to change the
order, it is okay with us.
And of course, as always, your formal written statements
will be included in the record of the hall. So we would
appreciate you summarizing.
Dr. Decker. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to----
Senator Gorton. Here is the Chairman. Just getting them
started.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici [presiding]. Hello, everybody. I am very
sorry. I guess everybody knows I am sorry, though.
Good morning. Today the subcommittee is going to continue
its review of the Department of Energy's budget request for
fiscal year 2001 in two separate panels.
The first panel we will hear, Mr. Dan Reicher, Assistant
Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy; Mr. Bill Magwood, Director of the Office of Nuclear
Energy, Science and Technology; followed by Dr. James Decker,
Acting Director of the Office of Science.
In the second panel, we are going to hear from Dr. Carolyn
Huntoon, Assistant Secretary for the Office of Environmental
Management, and Dr. Ivan Itkin, who is the Director for the
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
First of all, I thank you all very much for the flexibility
that you have shown us in accommodating to the committee's
schedule. As many of you know, the subcommittee had to cancel
last week's hearing because the ranking member and I were on
the Senate floor with a budget resolution. And it was
impossible to be both places. I look forward to getting back
into the appropriations matters today.
SOLAR AND RENEWABLE BUDGET REQUEST
The solar and renewable budget request for next year is
$409.5 million, a 32-percent increase over the current year.
Meanwhile, just my own observation, the nuclear energy budget
request for next year is $306 million, an increase of 7.4
percent over the current year.
I remain very concerned about the relative investments the
Department is proposing in these two areas. According to a 1997
study, the U.S. Federal R&D investment per thousand kilowatts
was approximately 5 cents per kilowatt for nuclear and 4,800
per kilowatt for wind, 17,000 per kilowatt for photovoltaic.
Despite the considerable investment this country has made
in non-hydro renewables over the last several decades, the
technology remains rather uncompetitive on the large scale and
today contributes less than one percent of the U.S. electrical
power. I think we have to be realistic.
And while we commend the director, Mr. Reicher, who has
taken over this part of the budget and, I must say comparably
speaking, is running a much, much better department than ever
before, the facts still kind of shine rather brightly on this
issue.
OFFICE OF SCIENCE BUDGET REQUEST
The budget request for the Office of Science for next year
is $3.51 billion, a 12-percent increase. Hopefully we are going
to be able to accommodate that, and maybe a little more, in our
appropriation process.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUDGET REQUEST
The environmental management request is $6.738 billion, a
6.9-percent increase. While this program is producing visible
progress at a number of sites, many challenges remain in
developing clean-up technologies and managing costs for these
clean-ups. Next year is a very critical year for the Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management as it prepares to make
and issue a final AIS and a formal site recommendation to the
Secretary on the Yucca Mountain site.
I ask that you be as brief as you can, but we clearly want
to hear from you. Your prepared remarks will be made part of
the record as if read.
Any Senator have any comments?
Senator Gorton. Well, everyone else has done their opening
statement. I had just recognized Dr. Decker when you came in.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Let us proceed on
that basis.
Dr. Decker.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES DECKER
Dr. Decker. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on
the fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Office of Science.
Before I begin, let me thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee, for the committee's strong support for our
research programs in past years.
The Office of Science supports basic research that
underpins the science, energy, environment and national defense
missions of the department. It is the major supporter of
fundamental research in the physical sciences and plays an
important and unique role in life sciences, environmental
sciences, mathematics, computer sciences and engineering
sciences.
The Office of Science also plays an essential role in the
Nation's scientific infrastructure by constructing and
operating major scientific facilities, such as accelerators,
light sources and neutron sources. Each year these facilities
serve more than 15,000 scientific users from all research
sectors, academia, industry and federal laboratories.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The past year has been a very productive one for the Office
of Science. We have completed a number of new research
facilities and completed upgrades to existing facilities on
time and within budget. It has also been a year of exciting
science. I will mention two examples that illustrate the
scientific breath of our research.
The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Group has found
evidence that the expansion of the universe is speeding up,
suggesting the presence of a new force. In genomic research, we
have completed sequencing the three million base pair of
Deinococcus radiodurans, nicknamed Conan the Bacterium.
Since it can survive 600 times more radiation than the
human being, this should provide insights into mechanisms for
DNA repair and may show us how to engineer Conan into a
workhorse for helping to clean up some of DOE's most difficult
mixed waste problems.
NANOTECHNOLOGY
In the fiscal year 2001 budget request, there are several
areas of exciting and challenging scientific opportunities for
the future that I would like to highlight. First, nanoscale
science, engineering and technology. This area of basic science
will allow for the creation of new materials tailored for
specific uses, one atom at a time. The resulting materials will
have new or greatly improved properties. The impact of Nano
technologies could equal that of the transistor.
ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH
Second, advanced scientific computing research. Every
scientific program supported by the Office of Science is faced
with enormously complex problems. They can only be addressed
through computational models. Such models are already essential
tools for our research, but our current computers are not
powerful enough to address many of our most important problems.
Computers that can are rapidly becoming available. Industry
can now supply super-computers ten times faster than those that
are now available to our civilian scientists. And far more
powerful computers will be available very soon.
But these are very complex machines. Producing the unique
software and mathematical models that will make them useful,
for our scientific programs requires a focused program of
research and development. For a relatively modest investment,
we can begin to provide all of our science programs with a
powerful tool for basic research.
MICROBIAL CELL
Third, understanding the microbial cell. Microbes are
amazing little chemical factories. The revolutionary tools
developed in the life sciences over the last few years, such as
genetic sequencing technologies, give us the opportunity to
determine how they work and to modify them to work for us in
areas such as bioremediation, carbon sequestration and
sustainable energy production.
BIOENGINEERING
Fourth, bioengineering. In bioengineering we will take
advantage of our unique resources to support innovative program
research in nano medicine, bio materials and molecular biology.
In addition to the enhanced activities just noted, the 2001
request will provide for a wide range of important scientific
activities in each of our programs and will support increased
investment and existing user facilities.
SPALLATION NEUTRON SOURCE
In closing, I would note the substantial progress made on
the Spallation Neutron Source. On December 15 we broke ground
and began construction of the project. R&D and design
activities are proceeding on schedule. Last month the Office of
Science conducted its regular semiannual review of the project.
While this review examined all aspects of the project, the
review committee was specifically asked to examine whether the
project's cost and schedule baseline are consistent with the
President's 2001 budget request. The review committee judged
that this Spallation Neutron Source project is making good
progress and that it can be completed on schedule and within
budget.
The budget request for the Office of Science balances
support for our existing programs and facilities and new
investments and tools, such as the Spallation Neutron Source
and advanced computational modeling, and in promising new
areas, such as nano science. It provides a strong basis for
scientific progress and all the disciplines that we support.
And I will be pleased to answer any questions that you may
have.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES DECKER
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to testify on behalf of the Office of Science (SC) of the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The fiscal year 2001 budget request
for the Science appropriation supports: Advanced Scientific Computing
Research, Basic Energy Sciences, Biological and Environmental Research,
Fusion Energy Sciences, High Energy Physics, Nuclear Physics, Energy
Research Analyses, Multiprogram Energy Laboratories-Facilities Support,
and Science Program Direction. The Technical Information Management
program budget request is located within the Energy Supply
appropriation.
The DOE budget for fiscal year 2001 requests $3,151.1 million for
SC programs in the Science Appropriation and $9.3 million for the
Technical Information Program in the Energy Supply Appropriation. The
activities supported by this budget will build on SC's achievements in
the physical and biological sciences, leverage our current investments
for new opportunities, and permit new investments in individual
research projects at our national laboratories and research
universities across the country. The Department's science programs and
infrastructure advance basic research and provide the technical
foundations and resources for DOE's applied missions in national
security, energy, and environment.
This request will enable SC to pursue new and challenging
scientific opportunities in nanoscale science, engineering and
technology to allow for the creation of new materials one atom at a
time; advanced scientific computing research to advance all of our
research programs by taking advantage of the prodigious increases in
computing power that will occur in the next few years; molecular level
understanding of microbes to harness nature's remarkable chemical
factories; and bioengineering to use the science and engineering
capabilities of our programs for new breakthroughs. In addition, the
ongoing programs representing our core competencies will remain strong
and vigorous.
The requested funding will allow Fermilab to initiate Run II of the
Tevatron Collider using the new Main Injector, which will increase its
beam intensity by up to a factor of ten, and the correspondingly
upgraded the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) and the DO detector.
Run I discovered the top quark and Run II will allow a search for the
origin of mass and new symmetries in the fundamental interactions of
matter. Late in fiscal year 2000, a major new nuclear physics facility
at the Brookhaven National Laboratory called the Relativistic Heavy Ion
Collider (RHIC) begins colliding gold nuclei to create a form of matter
that has not existed since the Big Bang and the first results are
expected in fiscal year 2001. Encouraging hints of this ``quark-gluon
plasma'' have recently been detected at CERN. The B Factory at Stanford
Liner Accelerator Center (SLAC), designed to study the subtle matter-
antimatter asymmetry in our matter-dominated world, will have its first
full year of running at full design luminosity. Major new results on
the depleted neutrino signal from the sun will be provided by the
Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) detector, located 2 kilometers
underground in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. The request will also allow
SLAC to begin the final design and prototyping for Gamma Large Area
Space Telescope (GLAST). This exciting new initiative between DOE and
NASA combines the sophisticated experimental techniques of our high
energy physics programs with the expertise of NASA in space to enhance
our ability to solve the mysteries of the universe.
This request will also permit SC to increase funding for its most
heavily used facilities, continue construction of the Spallation
Neutron Source, and continue our participation in the Large Hadron
Collider. The coming year promises to be an exciting and productive one
for the programs that use our major facilities. Our synchrotron
radiation light sources and neutron sources will run at maximum
capacity to serve their large and growing multidisciplinary user
communities; every one of our major high-energy and nuclear physics
facilities has just been upgraded and will be available to serve these
communities; the National Spherical Torus Experiment will be
operational with its neutral beam heating system; and our computing
facility, National Energy Research Scientific Computing (NERSC), will
undergo a major upgrade to enable multi-teraflops operation. The
restructured Fusion Energy Science program will: pursue the physics of
advanced tokamaks; launch a new competition for innovative confinement
concepts; continue our heavy ion beam accelerator research; and enhance
our support for plasma science in such areas as plasma processing and
plasma chemistry.
Continued leadership in science and technology is a cornerstone of
our nation's economic prosperity and growth. Information technology
alone accounts for one third of U.S. economic growth and is creating
jobs that pay almost 80 percent more than the average private-sector
wage. Many of the technologies that are fueling today's economy, such
as the Internet, build upon government investments, such as the SC
ESnet, in the 1960's and 1970's. The Department of Energy, and its
predecessor agencies, have been the proud sponsor of science-driven
growth through the combined efforts of the national laboratories, 70
Nobel Laureates, and thousands of outstanding university and industry
based researchers nationwide. As we begin the new millennium, SC
reaffirms its commitment to these quality investments in scientific
programs and tools to enable tomorrow's advances.
OUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND RECENT SUCCESSES
SC is the nation's major supporter of fundamental research in the
physical sciences. It is also among the nation's largest supporters of
fundamental research in mathematics and computing, engineering, and
environmental sciences. The SC programs fund research at 250 colleges
and universities located in 49 states. The inclusion of research
activities at this large number of academic institutions is a vital
part of the SC programs. These academic scientists and their students
are funded through individual peer-reviewed grants and as members of
peer-reviewed research teams involving investigators from both national
laboratories and universities.
SC also provides the major support for 32 major scientific user
facilities, which together host more than 15,000 users annually from
all research sectors. University-based scientists are among the
principal users of these facilities. New research capabilities came on
line at the Combustion Research Facility, the Continuous Electron Beam
Accelerator Facility (CEBAF) at Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator
Facility (TJNAF), and the B-factory at SLAC during fiscal year 1999 and
fiscal year 2000. Projects and other major facilities completed on time
and within budget include: the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC),
the U.S./Canadian Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) detector, the
National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX), the Fermilab Main Injector,
and the Joint Genome Institute's (JGI) Production Sequencing Facility.
Ground was broken on December 15, 1999, for the Spallation Neutron
Source (SNS), SC's newest construction start.
Each year, hundreds of principal investigators funded by SC win
dozens of major prizes and awards sponsored by the President, the
Department, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering, and major professional scientific societies. The awards
have included: the Nobel Prize for Chemistry and Physics, the National
Medal of Science, Presidential Young Investigator Award, Enrico Fermi
and E.O. Lawrence awards, National Science Foundation Career Award, R&D
100 awards, Discover Magazine Awards, the Federal Laboratory Consortium
Award, the Gordon Bell Prize and the Fernbach Award, IBM's
Supercomputer Award, and many others.
This research portfolio supports the goals of the Department and
the Administration while advancing science and contributing to U.S.
economic growth. Presented below are recent program accomplishments.
The selected program highlights are representative of the broad range
of research supported in SC. These highlights demonstrate the discovery
of new knowledge to challenge our imagination, the rapidity with which
new knowledge often can be incorporated into other scientific
disciplines and into the commercial sector, and the great potential of
new knowledge for future impacts in energy production and use.
Advanced Scientific Computing Research Accomplishments
Today's high performance scientific computations rely on high
performance, efficient libraries of numerical linear algebra software.
These libraries, which are the core of numerical efforts in the
solution of differential and integral equations LINPACK, EISPAC,
LAPACK, SCALAPACK are the direct result of decades of DOE funding of
basic research in this area. These libraries are used by thousands of
researchers worldwide and are a critical part of the world's scientific
computing infrastructure.
The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) part of TCP/IP (Internet
Protocol) is responsible for ensuring that packets of information
traveling over the internet arrive at their destination. In 1987, as
DOE and the other federal agencies were interconnecting their networks
to form the core of the Internet, critical parts of the infrastructure
began to fail. There was concern that this represented a fundamental
flaw in the TCP/IP architecture; however, a researcher at LBNL applied
ideas from fluid flow research to understand the problem and develop a
solution. This new TCP algorithm was incorporated in virtually every
commercial version of Internet software within six months and enabled
the Internet to scale from a small research network to today's
worldwide infrastructure.
To meet the nation's energy needs, the United States oil and gas
industry must continue to advance the technology used to extract oil
and gas from both new and old fields. Computer scientists at Argonne
National Laboratory, in collaboration with petroleum engineers at the
University of Texas at Austin, have recently developed a software
package capable of simulating the flow of oil and gas in reservoirs.
These codes, which are based on software tools designed at Argonne, are
able to run on a variety of computer platforms. The software codes will
enable the oil and gas industry to lower exploration and drilling costs
and enhance the yield of oil from new and old fields alike.
The Advanced Scientific Computing Research program is pioneering
national collaboratories which link researchers at their home
institutions with the instruments at the SC user facilities to change
the way science is being done at these facilities.
The small Laboratory Technology Research subprogram ($15.7 million)
supported research projects that received five R&D 100 Awards in fiscal
year 1999.
Basic Energy Sciences Accomplishments
As part of a nationwide program in high-resolution electron-
microscopy applied to fundamental materials sciences research, a new
imaging technique was developed that achieved the highest resolution
image of a crystal structure ever recorded, resolving adjacent columns
of silicon atoms separated by a scant 0.78 angstroms (3 billionths of
an inch). The precise atomic-scale structure of a material controls the
performance of materials for semiconductor devices, superconductors,
and a host of other applications. Combined with improved electron
imaging optics currently under development, this result promises to
revolutionize the atomic-scale understanding of materials.
As part of its stewardship responsibility for neutron science, the
Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program made substantial investments in
human and facility resources for neutron science. In addition to the
construction of the Spallation Neutron Source, all BES neutron science
facilities are being upgraded and/or provided additional funds to
increase hours of operation to enable a major increase in the national
neutron science effort. Finally, a neutron science summer school is
being supported to give students hands-on experience with the
techniques of neutron scattering.
As part of a major program to theoretically predict and then
synthesize new materials with unusual chemical and physical properties,
a new fullerene species, C36, has been synthesized and
produced in bulk quantities for the first time. Fullerenes or
``buckyballs'' are hollow clusters of carbon atoms. They have been
studied extensively since the Nobel prize-winning discovery of
C60 in 1985 (supported by BES). C36 is the
smallest fullerene discovered to date and is characterized by unusual
and potentially very useful properties. For example, in contrast to
C60 molecules, which interact only very weakly with one
another, C36 molecules stick together--hence the nickname
``stickyballs.''
A powerful new instrument completed at the Combustion Research
Facility promises to provide new information about how molecules
dissociate when given enough internal energy. Understanding such
processes is critically important for combustion, because, at the high
temperatures of combustion, dissociation occurs in a variety of ways
that are difficult to observe, model, and predict. With this new
instrument, measurements are made one molecule at a time, making this a
tool of unrivaled power for the validation of predictive models and
theories of chemical reactions.
It has long been recognized that tools and concepts developed in
the physical sciences can revolutionize the life sciences. One need
only consider the impact of x-ray synchrotron radiation and MAD
(multiple wavelength anomalous diffraction) phasing on macromolecular
crystallography; both were developed within the SC program. In fiscal
year 1999, many of the program highlights illustrate the rapidity with
which advances in the physical sciences are impacting the life
sciences. Two such examples are new techniques of nuclear magnetic
resonance (NMR) that are being used to study the molecular structures
of solid protein deposits implicated in brain diseases such as
Alzheimer's Disease and BSE (Mad Cow Disease), and a nano-laser device
that has been shown to have the potential to quickly identify a cell
population that has begun the rapid protein synthesis and mitosis
characteristic of cancerous cell proliferation.
Biological and Environmental Research Accomplishments
Each year, Science Magazine honors a ``Breakthrough of the Year''
and nine additional major discoveries in fields that span the
scientific disciplines, from the edgy dance of subatomic particles to
the biological wizardry that imprints memories. Genomics was again
included for 1999. Genomics is one of today's most exciting and high
profile fields in biology and DOE supports the full range of genomic
research from microbes to the Human Genome. For example, SC researchers
have completed sequencing the entire 3 million base pair genome of
``Conan the Bacterium''-Deinococcus radiodurans. This DNA sequence
information should provide additional insights into the astonishing
mechanisms for DNA repair in Deinococcus radiodurans in addition to
improving opportunities for engineering Deinococcus radiodurans into a
potential workhorse for helping cleanup some of DOE's most troublesome
waste problems.
Deinococcus radiodurans cannot normally degrade solvents that are
part of the mixed wastes at many DOE sites. A team of SC-funded
scientists at the Uniformed Services University for the Health Sciences
(USUHS) in Bethesda, Maryland has transferred genes that code for
enzymes that degrade toluene and related solvents from Pseudomonas
putida into Deinococcus radiodurans. The new Deinococcus radiodurans
can degrade toluene and toluene-related solvents. The engineered
Deinococcus could also survive levels of toluene and trichloroethylene
that would normally dissolve most other bacteria, suggesting that these
engineered microbes might survive in radioactive and solvent containing
mixed wastes and degrade the solvents.
The DOE Joint Genome Institute's Production Sequencing Facility in
Walnut Creek, California will complete a working draft of human
chromosomes 5, 16, and 19 by March 2000. This is part of SC's
contribution to the international effort to sequence the entire human
genome by 2003. This working draft represents roughly 90 percent of the
entire sequence of these three chromosomes completed to 99 percent
accuracy. This draft sequence, together with drafts produced by other
sequencing centers around the world, will open the floodgates of
biological information to scientists and reduce the time and effort
needed to complete the entire high quality sequence. SC's effort to
complete the finished sequence for chromosomes 5, 16, and 19 is
scheduled for completion by October 2001.
A massively parallel version of the Community Climate Model (CCM3)
was developed by a multi-institutional partnership that includes
several DOE laboratories, the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR), and university research groups. CCM3 runs on a massively
parallel computer and performs coupled climate model simulations.
Highly optimized atmosphere, ocean, and sea ice general circulation
model codes that run effectively on massively-parallel scientific
supercomputers have been completed and tested for use in climate change
studies. The Parallel Climate Model (PCM), which more accurately
represents the physical ocean, sea ice and atmosphere motion, has been
tested on three different parallel supercomputers. This is a
significant step in developing the next generation of climate models.
Brain imaging studies using positron emission tomography (PET) show
that methamphetamine is toxic to the brain and this is associated with
long-term memory loss and motor impairment. Studies are in progress to
determine if recovery occurs on drug withdrawal.
Fusion Energy Sciences Accomplishments
The tearing and reconnection of magnetic field lines is of
fundamental importance in many areas of plasma physics, including
fusion science. Newly developed laboratory experiments at the
California Institute of Technology, Swarthmore, and the Princeton
Plasma Physics Laboratory have led to significant advances in the
understanding of this phenomenon. This is of particular importance in
the eruptions of energetic bursts from the surface of the sun, which,
in turn affect radio and satellite communications.
Considerable progress has been made in areas such as the
macroscopic equilibrium and stability of magnetically confined plasmas,
and turbulence and transport in tokamak plasmas. Software and hardware
have been developed to allow remote collaborations on a wide variety of
fusion experiments in the United States and abroad.
Plasma turbulence increases energy transport and thereby limits
magnetic confinement. There have been recent attempts to compare plasma
transport phenomena with avalanche or ``sand pile'' transport models.
Although plasmas are fluids, Self-Organized Criticality (SOC) models
that are used to simulate a wide variety of natural phenomena such as
earthquakes, avalanches, etc., describe some nonlinear aspects of
plasma turbulence. Tokamak measurements are providing information about
the size and frequency of transport events, thus improving comparisons
with theoretical avalanche models.
High Energy Physics Accomplishments
DOE is entering into an exciting and expanding partnership with
NASA in the area of Particle Astrophysics. Research and development for
the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) and Gamma Large Area Space
Telescope (GLAST) experiments has been underway for some time.
Preliminary consideration is being given to the SuperNova Acceleration
Probe (SNAP) experiment. These experiments, and others that may be
proposed, will provide important new information about cosmic rays and
the rate of expansion of the universe which will in turn lead to a
better understanding of dark matter, dark energy, and the big bang. For
example, the AMS flew in a space shuttle payload bay for 10 days in
June 1998 and gathered about 100 hours of data. The data provide a far
more comprehensive and accurate description of the global distribution
and movement of cosmic rays than available previously. Researchers
analyzing this global data have found intriguing and unexpected
information about cosmic rays and how they interact with the earth's
magnetic field.
Charge-Parity (CP) Violation is one of the central problems of
subatomic-particle physics. It is arguably the only known subatomic
effect for which no clear explanation exists in the Standard Model of
particles and their interactions. CP violation is a manifestation of
subtle difference between the properties of particles and of
antiparticles, it has been postulated (by Russian physicist Andrei
Sakharov) to have been responsible for the development, shortly after
the Big Bang, of the slight excess of matter over antimatter from which
the entire material universe has since evolved. Thirty years of
experimental effort to study CP Violation have succeeded in determining
only two parameters of the theory--parameters that explain no other
known effect. In March 1999, scientists working on Fermilab's KteV
experiment announced evidence that established the existence of direct
CP Violation beyond reasonable doubt. This is a significant advance in
our understanding of this important phenomena. The finding definitively
rules out the existing Superweak Theory as the sole source of CP
Violation and indicates that the phenomena can be accommodated within
the Standard Model.
The observation was made, by the international CDF collaboration
working at Fermilab, of the existence and properties of the B meson
containing a charmed quark. This discovery completes the theoretically
predicted family of B mesons.
Evidence of neutrino mass and quantum mixing was obtained in a
U.S.-Japanese experiment with the Super-Kamiokande experiment in Japan.
Neutrino beam experiments in Japan and at Fermilab are underway to
verify these results.
Nuclear Physics Accomplishments
In fiscal year 1999, observations of two new chemical elements (Z
(number of protons)=116 and Z=118) were reported in measurements
performed at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's 88-Inch
Cyclotron using the Berkeley Gas-filled Spectrometer (BGS). Continued
measurements are planned for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
The Gammasphere, coupled with the Fragment Mass Separator at the
Argonne Tandem-Linac Accelerator System (ATLAS) facility at Argonne
National Laboratory, provided surprising results on the structure of
the Nobelium isotope (254 No) showing that nuclear shell
structures, which are entirely responsible for the stability of nuclei
with charges greater than Z=100, persist up to very high deformation.
Other measurements performed at the ATLAS facility have established
properties of nuclei and reaction processes that allow for more
stringent tests of models for supernova collapses and improved
predictions for chemical element production in stellar burning and
supernovae.
National laboratory theorists have found, quite unexpectedly, that
effects due to special relativity can explain a previously unexplained
symmetry in the low lying states of a large number of atomic nuclei.
In keeping with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA),
the SC fiscal year 2001 budget request includes program specific goals,
strategies, and measures that focus our research activities and ensure
continuity with Departmental plans and national goals. The DOE
Strategic Plan and Science Strategic Plan outline the vision, goals and
strategic objectives that will, through leadership in science and
technology, help the DOE to meet its technology driven missions.
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE--FISCAL YEAR 2001
Last year, in the Science Strategic Plan, SC provided a framework
for addressing its mission through four science goals:
--Exploring Matter and Energy--understanding the building blocks of
matter from subatomic particles to living systems;
--Fueling the Future--supporting fundamental science for affordable
and clean energy;
--Protecting Our Living Planet--supporting fundamental science to
understand and mitigate the impacts of energy production and
use; and
--Extraordinary Tools for Extraordinary Science--providing major
facilities and tools for the nation's researchers in academia,
federal laboratories, and industry.
In fiscal year 2001, new activities that support these goals
include nanoscale science, engineering, and technology; advanced
computational modeling and simulation; understanding the workings of
microbes at the molecular level; applications of science and
engineering expertise to problems in the life sciences; increased
utilization of scientific user facilities; support for the Spallation
Neutron Source and the Large Hadron Collider; and augmentation of the
skills of our technical workforce.
Nanoscale Science Engineering and Technology.--In 1959 Richard
Feynman delivered a now famous lecture, There is Plenty of Room at the
Bottom--An Invitation to Enter a New Field of Physics. He challenged
his audience to envision a time when materials could be manipulated and
controlled on the smallest of scales, when new materials could be
fabricated and devices could be designed atom by atom. ``In the year
2000,'' he said, ``when they look back at this age, they will wonder
why it was not until the year 1960 that anybody began seriously to move
in this direction.''
Unfortunately, it took longer than Feynman predicted to arrive at
the threshold of such complete control of materials. Now, in the year
2000, controlling and manipulating matter at the atomic and molecular
scale--which is the essence of nanoscale science, engineering, and
technology--has finally become feasible. In the 40 years since
Feynman's lecture, instruments have been invented and perfected that
enable visualization and control at the nanoscale. Many of these
instruments and techniques are contained within SC's collection of
scientific user facilities. Theory, modeling, and simulation have also
reached the stage at which it is possible to understand and predict
phenomena at the nanoscale.
The principal DOE missions in science, energy, defense, and
environmental quality will benefit greatly from developments in these
areas. For example, nanoscale synthesis and assembly methods will
result in significant improvements in solar energy conversion; more
energy-efficient lighting; stronger, lighter materials that will
improve efficiency in transportation; greatly improved chemical and
biological sensing; use of low-energy chemical pathways to break down
toxic substances for environmental remediation and restoration; and,
better sensors and controls to increase efficiency in manufacturing.
A key challenge in nanoscience is to understand how deliberate
tailoring of materials on the nanoscale could lead to novel properties
and new functionalities. Examples include: the addition of aluminum
oxide nanoparticles that convert aluminum metal into a material with
wear resistance equal to that of the best bearing steel; and, novel
chemical properties of nanocrystals that show promise as photocatalysts
to speed the breakdown of toxic wastes and meso-porous structures
integrated with micromachined components that are used to produce high-
sensitivity and highly selective chip-based detectors of chemical
warfare agents. These and other nanostructures are already recognized
as likely components of 21st century optical communications, printing,
computing, chemical sensing, and energy conversion technologies.
SC has been a leader in the early development of nanoscale science,
engineering, and technology since the 1980s, supporting research and
sponsoring workshops to help establish the importance of nanostructured
materials. Because of the confluence of advances during the past
decade, SC is well prepared to make major contributions to develop
nanoscale scientific understanding, and ultimately nanotechnologies,
through its research programs and its materials characterization,
synthesis, in-situ diagnostic, and computing capabilities. The DOE and
its national laboratories maintain a large array of major scientific
user facilities that are ideally suited to nanoscience discovery and to
developing a fundamental understanding of nanoscale processes.
New funding in the amount of $36.1 million in fiscal year 2001 is
requested for these activities as part of the proposed multiagency
National Nanotechnology Initiative. This effort has the following broad
goals: (1) attain a fundamental scientific understanding of nanoscale
phenomena, particularly collective phenomena; (2) achieve the ability
to design and synthesize materials at the atomic level to produce
materials with desired properties and functions; (3) attain a
fundamental understanding of the processes by which living organisms
create materials and functional complexes to serve as a guide and a
benchmark by which to measure our progress in synthetic design and
synthesis; and, (4) develop experimental characterization and theory/
modeling/simulation tools necessary to drive the nanoscale revolution.
The synergy of DOE assets, in partnership with universities and
industry, will provide the best opportunity for nanoscience discoveries
to be converted rapidly into technological advances. These will meet a
variety of DOE mission and national needs, while enabling the U.S. to
reap the benefits of an emerging technological revolution.
Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing.--Modeling and
simulation was one of the most significant developments in the practice
of scientific research in the 20th century. It is essential to all of
the Department's missions, including the design of nuclear weapons, the
development of new energy technologies, and--most importantly--the
discovery of new scientific knowledge. Research programs throughout SC
have high priority scientific problems that can only be addressed by
advances in computational modeling and simulation. These problems
include:
--Predicting the effects of aging, cracking, fatigue, and
catastrophic failure in materials; as well as designing new
materials with desired properties and functions, e.g.,
catalysts, alloys, and photovoltaic devices.
--Designing new particle accelerators that provide the beam energy,
intensity, and quality needed to continue our investigations
into the fundamental nature of matter.
--Predicting the interaction of chemical reactivity and fluid
dynamics to understand the mixing of reactants and the removal
of products for applications as diverse as combustion,
atmospheric chemistry, and chemical processing.
--Predicting the fate of contaminants in the subsurface, including
chemical reactions and biological transformations, as well as
fluid flow through porous material.
--Predicting and controlling plasma instabilities that lead to a
critical loss of power density in Tokamaks and other magnetic
fusion devices.
--Predicting the earth's climate at both regional and global scales
from decades to centuries, including quantification of the
uncertainties associated with the predictions.
Theoretical and experimental approaches alone do not provide
sufficient information to understand and predict the behavior of
systems as complex as those listed above. Computational modeling and
simulation, which allows a complete description of the system to be
constructed from basic physical principles and the available
experimental data, is key to solving these problems.
SC has a long history of accomplishment in scientific computing and
has served as the proving ground for new computer technologies-
subjecting these technologies to the demands that only its most
computationally intensive simulations could provide. In 1974, the
Department established the first civilian supercomputer center for a
national scientific community, the National Magnetic Fusion Energy
Computing Center, which became the National Energy Research Scientific
Computing Center (NERSC) and also became a model for centers
established a decade later by NSF and other agencies.
SC's achievements in software for scientific computing are equally
impressive. SC led the transition from the vector supercomputers of the
1970s and 1980s to the massively parallel supercomputers of today,
providing much of the basic software required to use the massively
parallel supercomputers. Many of the scientific simulation software
packages for massively parallel supercomputers were developed by SC, a
fact recognized by periodic awards from the supercomputing community.
To meet the current and future scientific challenges in its
research programs, SC will capitalize on the 1,000-fold increase in
computer capabilities that are predicted to occur in the next five
years. In fiscal year 2001, SC will make a set of coordinated
investments that build on its established strength in computational
modeling and simulation, computer science, applied mathematics, and
high-performance computing as well as in the organization and
management of large scientific projects. The SC-wide effort will
address:
--Scientific Applications Codes including research, development, and
deployment of advanced computational modeling and simulation
codes, new mathematical/computational methods for advanced
computers, and application of the codes and methods to
challenging scientific problems.
--Computing Systems Software including the development and deployment
of systems software and specifically mathematical methods,
algorithms, and libraries that scale to ten thousand or more
processors; software systems to enable the development and use
of scientific applications codes; distributed computing and
collaboration tools to support use of remote computing
resources and enable integration of geographically-dispersed
teams; scientific data management and analysis (visualization)
systems to enable the extraction of knowledge from scientific
simulations; and scalable, open-source operating systems to
provide the basic infrastructure needed to use massively
parallel computer systems.
--Computing Infrastructure includes an upgrade of the National Energy
Research Supercomputing Center from 3\1/2\ to 5 teraflops, an
upgrade to the ESnet to handle the larger datasets required by
our scientific applications, and to investigate alternate
computer architectures to determine those most effective to
address the Department's scientific problems.
The proposed SC investments support the recommendations outlined in
the report by the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee
(PITAC) and take advantage of the capabilities being developed in the
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) in the Office of
Defense Programs for DOE's Stockpile Stewardship Program.
Unraveling the Mysteries of Nature's Chemical Factories--Microbial
Cell.--The fiscal year 2001 request includes funds for a new activity
to understand microbial processes at the molecular level. The
understanding of the biochemical, metabolic, physiological and cellular
processes will permit the generation of solutions for today's and
tomorrow's challenges in energy production and use, environmental
cleanup, carbon sequestration, plant sciences, and industrial
processing. Microbes have dramatic impacts on energy production and
conservation. Adverse effects include the fouling or corrosion of
pipelines and other metal components used in energy production,
significant reductions in the efficiency of heat exchangers, and the
souring of fossil energy reserves. Conversely, microbes play a valuable
role in numerous industrial fermentations and other bioprocesses that
convert complex biomass into potential biofuels and chemical
feedstocks. Harnessing microbes for our own uses is the goal.
This work capitalizes on SC's pioneering and leadership role in
high throughput genomic DNA sequencing as part of the Human Genome
Program; its longstanding support of microbial biochemistry, metabolism
and physiology; its support of national user facilities for determining
protein structures; and, the capabilities of its national laboratories
in computational analysis and instrumentation research. The key
scientific challenges are far greater than simply understanding how
individual genes and proteins work. We need to understand how genes and
proteins are regulated in a coordinated manner and how they are
integrated into a functional, interactive cell.
Bioengineering.--The fiscal year 2001 budget request includes an
increase for a research program in bioengineering, which uses SC's
unique resources and expertise in the biological, physical, chemical
and engineering sciences to develop new research opportunities for
technological advances in biomedical applications. This activity will:
advance fundamental concepts; create knowledge from the molecular to
the organ systems level; and, develop innovative biologics, materials,
processes, implants, devices, and informatics systems. The work will
complement that of other federal programs by supporting early stage
research that is not funded by other federal agencies. This program
will be coordinated with all activities under the auspices of the
Bioengineering Consortium (BECON), which includes SC, the National
Science Foundation (NSF), and all of the individual NIH institutes.
Scientific Facilities Utilization.--Each year, over 15,000
university, industry, and government-sponsored scientists conduct
cutting edge experiments at the particle accelerators, high-flux
neutron sources, synchrotron radiation light sources, and other
specialized facilities operated by SC. The user community continues to
be pleased with the service provided to them by the SC scientific
facilities, as evidenced by their many letters of support, by the
positive results of surveys conducted at the facilities, and by the
investigations of review committees.
In fiscal year 2001, operating budgets are increasing at our user
facilities, such as the synchrotron radiation light sources, the
neutron scattering facilities, and the Environmental Molecular Sciences
Laboratory, to provide increased operating time and support for users
and to fabricate instruments and beamlines to serve the large and
growing user community at these facilities.
Spallation Neutron Source (SNS).--The purpose of the SNS Project is
to provide a next-generation short-pulse spallation neutron source for
neutron scattering. The SNS will be used by researchers from academia,
national labs, and industry for basic and applied research, and for
technology development in the fields of condensed matter physics,
materials sciences, magnetic materials, polymers and complex fluids,
chemistry, biology, and engineering. It is anticipated that SNS will be
used by 1,000-2,000 scientists and engineers annually, and that it will
meet the nation's need for neutron science capabilities well into the
21st century. When completed in 2006, the SNS will be more than ten
times as powerful as the best spallation neutron source now in
existence--ISIS at the Rutherford Laboratory in England.
Neutrons enable scientists studying the physical, chemical, and
biological properties of materials to determine how atoms and molecules
are arranged and how they move. This is the microscopic basis for the
features that make materials of technological significance for many
economically important areas. Major research facilities, such as the SC
synchrotron and neutron sources, are used to understand and
``engineer'' materials at the atomic level so that they have improved
macroscopic properties and perform better in new applications. The SNS
is a next-generation facility for this type of research. Neutron
scattering will play a role in all forms of materials research and
design, including the development of smaller and faster electronic
devices; lightweight alloys, plastics, and polymers for transportation
and other applications; magnetic materials for more efficient motors
and for improved magnetic storage capacity; and, new drugs for medical
care.
The importance of high neutron flux (i.e. high neutron intensity)
cannot be overstated. The relatively low flux of existing neutron
sources and the very small fraction of neutrons that get scattered by
most materials means that most measurements are limited by the source
intensity. However, the pursuit of high-flux neutron sources is more
than just a desire to perform experiments faster, although that, of
course, is an obvious benefit. High flux enables broad classes of
experiments that cannot be done with low-flux sources. For example,
high flux enables studies of small samples, complex molecules and
structures, time-dependent phenomena, and very weak interactions.
The SNS Project is a partnership among five DOE laboratories that
takes advantage of specialized technical capabilities within the
laboratories: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in ion sources, Los
Alamos National Laboratory in linear accelerators, Brookhaven National
Laboratory in proton storage rings, Argonne National Laboratory in
instruments, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory in targets and
moderators.
The Department has met the conditions stipulated in the House
Report (Report 106-253, pages 113-114) accompanying the fiscal year
2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act concerning the
release of construction funds for the SNS project, and has regularly
communicated its progress to Congress. During the past year, the
project has: established a revised project management structure with a
single Executive Director who has been designated as the primary
authority for the project; filled all senior positions with qualified
individuals; established cost and schedule baselines that were
externally reviewed and determined to be the most cost effective way to
complete the project; and, established an inter-Laboratory Memorandum
of Agreement and incorporated it by reference into the laboratory
contracts, thus making it legally binding.
In the President's budget request, the estimated Total Project Cost
(TPC) has increased from $1,360 million to $1,440 million and the
construction schedule has been extended six months to the third quarter
of fiscal year 2006 as a result of project restructuring during fiscal
year 1999. Fiscal year 2001 funding of $281 million is requested for
the SNS Project to conduct detailed design and start fabrication of key
components and systems. Production of several significant equipment
items will continue. Construction will begin on several conventional
facilities in preparation for starting installation of major equipment.
Construction will be completed on roads into the site, site
preparation/grading, waste systems, and retention basins. Project
management and integration activities, which are exceptionally
important during this phase of the project, will also be conducted.
Work will continue on the Safety Assessment Document for all of the
facility except for the target system, for which a Safety Analysis
Report will be prepared.
Since the Tennessee use tax, that applies to all tangible property
either purchased in the state or brought into the state, had applied to
the SNS, $28 million was included in the TPC for this tax liability.
However, in late January 2000 the Tennessee legislature passed
legislation, that was signed by Governor Sundquist, exempting the SNS
from these taxes. The fiscal year 2001 estimate for these taxes was
$2.5 million. This exemption will reduce the TPC to $1,411.7 million
and will reduce the fiscal year 2001 request from $281 million to
$278.5 million a reduction of $2.5 million for the fiscal year 2001 tax
liability exemption.
Large Hadron Collider (LHC).--The foremost high energy physics
research facility of the next decade will be the LHC at CERN, the
European Laboratory for Particle Physics. The primary physics goals of
the LHC will impact our understanding of the origin of mass through
studies of the elusive ``Higgs'' particle, exploration of the structure
and interactions of quarks, and unanticipated phenomena. The High
Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP) strongly endorsed participation
in the LHC to provide U.S. access to the high energy frontier in order
to maintain the U.S. as a world leader in this fundamental area of
science.
DOE and NSF have entered into an agreement with CERN, signed in
1997, arranging for participation in the LHC project (accelerator and
detectors) at CERN that will primarily take the form of the U.S.
accepting responsibility for designing and fabricating particular
subsystems of the accelerator and of the two large detectors. Thus,
much of the funding will go to U.S. laboratories, university groups,
and industry for fabrication of subsystems and components which will
become part of the LHC accelerator or detectors. A portion of the funds
will be used to pay for purchases by CERN of material needed for
construction of the accelerator. As a result of the negotiations, CERN
has agreed to make these purchases from U.S. vendors.
This agreement, provides access for U.S. scientists to the next
decade's premier high energy physics facility. Under the agreement, the
DOE will contribute $450 million ($250 million for the detectors and
$200 million for the accelerator) to the LHC effort over the period
fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2004. The total cost of the LHC is
estimated at about $6,000 million. The U.S. contribution represents
less than ten percent of the total cost of the project. The Office of
Science has conducted a cost and schedule review of the entire LHC
project and similar reviews of the several proposed U.S. funded
components of the LHC. All of these reviews concluded the costs are
properly estimated and that the schedule is feasible.
The LHC collaboration includes a very active interagency
cooperation. A DOE-NSF Joint Oversight Group meets every six months and
a program level working group meets every two weeks. The agreement
negotiated with CERN provides for U.S. involvement in the management of
the project through participation in key management committees such as
the CERN Council, CERN Committee of Council, and the LHC Board. In
addition, both DOE and NSF participate in the Joint Coordinating
Committee established with CERN to oversee the collaboration on an
annual basis. Laboratory and university collaborations have even more
extensive contacts.
Work on the LHC detectors is progressing across the United States.
Brookhaven is the host laboratory for the ATLAS detector, which also
involves Argonne and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories, and 28
university groups. Fermilab is the host laboratory for the Compact Muon
Solenoid (CMS) detector, which also involves Brookhaven and Los Alamos
National Laboratories, and 33 university groups. Cost and schedule
baselines have been reviewed and validated for each U.S. portion of the
project, and management systems are in place to monitor progress
against baselines.
Scientific and Technical Workforce Retention and Recruitment.--
During 1999, DOE conducted a systematic analysis of staffing needs
required for current and projected R&D program missions. As a result,
staffing shortfalls were identified, especially in scientific and
technical disciplines. Alarmingly, one half of the R&D technical
managers are currently eligible to retire. In fiscal year 2001, the
Department will focus on building and sustaining a talented and diverse
workforce of R&D technical managers through innovative recruitment
strategies, retention incentives, comprehensive training and
development programs, and succession planning.
SC, using Program Direction funds, will recruit experienced
scientists and related support staff in areas important to the
Department's science mission. Other key activities to be supported
include motivating and retaining highly skilled, top-performing
technical managers, and the training of new and current scientists.
In addition, SC university research programs and projects at the
national laboratories provide competitive financial support for
undergraduate and graduate students and post-doctoral investigators as
an integral part of the funding for fundamental scientific research in
universities and in the private sector. SC scientific user facilities
provide outstanding hands-on research experience to many young
scientists. Specific fellowship programs are also sponsored by SC to
target emerging areas of need. A total of 6,550 graduate students and
post-doctoral investigators were supported at universities and national
laboratories in fiscal year 1999 and 4,840 made use of the SC
Scientific User Facilities. SC will continue its support for graduate
students and post-doctoral investigators in fiscal year 2001.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
All three of SC's global scientific performance measures were fully
met in fiscal year 1999.
--Construct large-scale facilities so that projects are completed
within 110 percent of cost and schedule baselines. All SC
projects completed in fiscal year 1999 met 100 percent of the
cost and schedule baselines.
--Maintain and operate the scientific user facilities so that the
unscheduled down time on average is less than 10 percent of the
total scheduled operating time. Fiscal year 1999 performance
resulted in an average of less than 9 percent unscheduled
downtime.
--Excellence in basic research: All research projects will continue
to be reviewed by appropriate peers and selected through a
merit-based competitive process. In fiscal year 1999, 91
percent of DOE grants were awarded through a competitive merit-
based process.
In addition, the following performance goals were fully met in
fiscal year 1999:
--Continued collaborative efforts with NASA on space science and
exploration.
--Delivered on the 1999 U.S./DOE commitments to the international LHC
project.
--Completed construction and began commissioning of the Relativistic
Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory on
time and within budget.
--Began Title I design activities, initiated subcontracts and long-
lead procurement and continued R&D work necessary to begin
construction activities of the SNS.
--Completed the National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) at the
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory within scope and budget,
achieving first plasma milestone ahead of schedule.
science programs--advanced scientific computing research
Fiscal Year 2001 Request--$182.0 M
The Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program supports
advanced computing research--applied mathematics, high performance
computing, and networking--and operates supercomputer and associated
facilities that are available to researchers 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year. The combination of support for fundamental research,
computational and networking tools development, and high-performance
computing facilities provides scientists with the capabilities to
analyze, model, simulate, and--most importantly--predict complex
phenomena of importance to SC and DOE.
A new federally-chartered advisory committee has been established
for the ASCR program and has been charged with providing advice on:
promising future directions for advanced scientific computing research;
strategies to couple advanced scientific computing research in other
disciplines; and the relationship of the DOE program to other federal
investments in information technology research. This advisory committee
will play a key role in evaluating future planning efforts for research
and facilities.
Some of the pioneering accomplishments of the ASCR program are:
development of the technologies to enable remote, interactive access to
supercomputers; research and development leading to the High
Performance Parallel Interface (HiPPI) standard; and, research leading
to the development of the slow start algorithm for the Transmission
Control Protocol (TCP), which enabled the Internet to scale to today's
worldwide communications infrastructure. This long history of
accomplishments in the ASCR program continued to be recognized in
fiscal year 1999 including: the Maxwell Prize, the Crystal Award of
Excellence, several awards at Supercomputing 1998 and Supercomputing
1999 including ``Best of Show'' and ``Best Paper'' in 1998, a Genius
Grant from the MacArthur Foundation, the 39th Annual G.H.A. Clowes
Memorial Award, the American Physical Society's James C. McGroody
Prize, the Humboldt Research Award, Presidential Early Career Awards,
and Federal Laboratory Consortium Awards.
During the past quarter century computational simulation has
dramatically advanced our understanding of the fundamental processes of
nature and has been used to gain insights into the behavior of such
complex natural and engineered systems as the earth's climate and
automobile design. The new generation of terascale computing tools, and
the 1,000 times more powerful petascale computing capabilities that are
now on the horizon, will enable scientists to dramatically improve
their understanding of fundamental processes in many areas. In
addition, these new tools will enable scientists to predict the
behavior of many complex natural and engineered systems from a
knowledge of the underlying physical, chemical, and biological
processes involved. This new capability, to predict the behavior of
complex systems based on the properties of their components, will
change the way DOE and other government agencies solve their most
demanding, mission-critical problems. A workshop held at the National
Academy of Sciences in July 1998 identified opportunities for new
scientific discovery through advanced computing in all of the SC
programs.
The ASCR program has worked with the other SC research programs,
other federal agencies, and the broad scientific community to formulate
a vision for advanced scientific computing within SC. This work,
conducted during the past two years, forms the basis for the investment
choices described in the fiscal year 2001 budget; aspects of these
investments have been previously described in this testimony. Success
in the scientific applications of high-performance computing depends on
investments in applied mathematics and computer science to provide the
algorithms, mathematical libraries, and underlying computer science
tools to enable the scientific disciplines to make effective use of
terascale computers.
Despite considerable progress during the past ten years in making
massively parallel computer systems usable for science applications,
much remains to be done. The next generation computer systems to enable
leading-edge applications will have between 5,000 and 10,000 individual
computer processors rather than the 500 to 1,000 processors in today's
typical high performance systems. In addition, the internal structure
of the computers will become more complex as computer designers are
forced to introduce more layers of memory hierarchy to maintain
performance and develop new hardware features to support rapid
communication and synchronization. The end result five years from now
will be hardware systems that, while having their roots in today's
systems, will be substantially different, substantially more complex
and therefore more challenging to exploit for high performance. These
challenges will require substantial improvements in parallel computing
tools, parallel I/O (input/output) systems, data management,
algorithms, and program libraries that must work together as an
integrated software system. In addition to the fundamental research
challenges that are implied by this evolution in computer hardware, DOE
must integrate the output from successful SC research projects into
integrated sets of software tools that scientists in disciplines as
diverse as global climate, materials science, and computational biology
can build on to address scientific challenges.
In fiscal year 2001 the ASCR program will, through enhancements to
the Mathematical, Information, & Computational Sciences (MICS)
subprogram, produce the scientific computing, networking and
collaboration tools that SC researchers require to address the
scientific challenges of the next decade. These enhancements build on
the historic strength of the MICS subprogram in computational science,
computer science, applied mathematics, and high-performance computing.
They also take full advantage of the dramatic increases in computing
capabilities being fostered by the Accelerated Strategic Computing
Initiative (ASCI) in the Office of Defense Programs.
Research programs throughout the Office of Science have high
priority scientific problems that can only be addressed by
computational modeling and simulation. These problems include:
--Predicting the effects of aging, cracking, fatigue, and
catastrophic failure in materials; designing new materials with
desired properties and functions, e.g., catalysts, alloys, and
photovoltaic devices.
--Designing particle accelerators that provide the beam energy,
intensity, and quality needed to continue forefront
investigations into the fundamental nature of matter.
--Predicting the interaction of chemical reactivity and fluid
dynamics to understand the mixing of reactants and the removal
of products for applications as diverse as combustion, chemical
processing, and atmospheric chemistry.
--Predicting the fate of contaminants in the subsurface, including
chemical reactions and biological transformations, as well as
fluid flow through porous material.
--Predicting and controlling plasma instabilities that lead to a
critical loss of power density in tokamaks and other magnetic
fusion devices.
The size and complexity of these problems require the development
of fast and efficient algorithms and software that can take advantage
of the power of today's massively parallel computing platforms.
The MICS subprogram will address these challenges by establishing a
small number of competitively selected partnerships focused on
discovering, developing, and deploying to scientists key enabling
technologies. These partnerships, which will be called enabling
technology centers, must support the full range of activities from
basic research through deployment and training because the commercial
market for software to support terascale scientific computers is too
small to be interesting to commercial software providers. These centers
will build on the successful experience of the program in managing the
DOE2000 initiative, as well as the lessons learned in important
programs supported by DARPA such as Project Athena at MIT, the Berkeley
Unix Project, and the initial development of the Internet software and
the Internet Activities Board (IAB). These enabling technology centers
will have close ties to key scientific applications projects to ensure
their success.
In addition, the MICS subprogram will support increased fundamental
research in networking and collaboration tools, partnerships with key
scientific disciplines, and advanced network testbeds. This is
necessary to support researchers using the major experimental
facilities, computational resources, and data resources supported by
DOE. With leadership from SC, geographically distributed laboratories
or collaboratories have begun to play an important role in the nation's
scientific enterprise. The importance of collaboratories is expected to
increase in the future.
However, significant research questions must be addressed if
collaboratories are to achieve their potential. For example, typical
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) experimental collaborations
involve thousands of scientists and hundreds of institutions spread
around the world who need access to petabytes of data (a billion times
as much data as a large web page). Using the current Internet, it would
take about 2,500 hours to transmit one day's data from RHIC to one
remote site for analysis. Significant research is needed to enable
today's commercial networks to be used for scientific data retrieval
and analysis, to provide remote visualization of terabyte to petabyte
data sets from computational simulation, and to enable remote access to
petabyte/year High Energy and Nuclear Physics facilities such as the
RHIC and to tomorrow's advanced scientific computer.
To realize this scientific opportunity, enhancements to SC's
computing and networking facilities are required. The current computers
at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing (NERSC) Center
provide less than half of the computer resources that were requested
last year. This pressure on the facility will continue to increase in
future years as more applications become ready to move from testing the
software, to using the software to generate new science. In addition,
as the speed of computers increases, the amount of data they produce
also increases. Therefore, focused enhancements to SC's network
infrastructure are required to enable scientists to access and
understand the data generated by their software. These network
enhancements are required to allow researchers to have effective remote
access to the SC experimental facilities.
The MICS subprogram will also increase funding for SC's computing
and networking facilities. The ASCR budget request includes $32.3
million in fiscal year 2001 to support NERSC. This investment will
provide computer time for about 2,000 scientists in universities,
federal agencies, and U.S. companies and will enable NERSC to maintain
its role as the nation's largest, premier unclassified computing
center. Research communities that benefit from NERSC include:
structural biology; superconductor technology; medical research and
technology development; materials, chemical, and plasma sciences; high
energy and nuclear physics; and environmental and atmospheric research.
The research and development activities supported by the ASCR
program are coordinated with other federal efforts through the
Interagency Principals Group, chaired by the President's Science
Advisor, and the Information Technology Working Group (ITWG). The ITWG
represents the evolution of an interagency coordination process that
began under the 1991 High Performance Computing Act as the High
Performance Computing, Communications, and Information Technology
(HPCCIT) Committee. SC has been a key participant in these coordination
bodies from the outset and will continue to coordinate its R&D efforts
closely through this process.
This program will make significant contributions to the nation's
Information Technology Basic Research effort just as previous SC
mission-related research efforts have led to SC's leadership in this
field. In particular, the enhanced MICS subprogram will place emphasis
on software research to improve the performance of high-end computing
as well as research on the human-computer interface and on information
management and analysis techniques. In addition, through NERSC and the
Advanced Computing Research Facilities, the program will provide the
most powerful high-end computers available to the nation's scientific
and engineering communities.
In addition to these computing related activities, ASCR also
manages the Laboratory Technology Research (LTR) program. The mission
of this program is to support high risk, energy related research that
advances science and technology to enable applications that could
significantly impact the nation's energy economy. LTR fosters the
production of research results motivated by a practical energy payoff
through cost-shared collaborations between SC laboratories and
industry. In fiscal year 1999, the LTR subprogram initiated a portfolio
of Rapid Access Projects that address research problems of small
businesses by utilizing the unique facilities of the SC laboratories.
These projects were selected on the basis of scientific, technical and
potential commercial merit, using competitive external peer review. The
LTR subprogram received five R&D-100 Awards in 1999.
The Advanced Energy Projects subprogram under ASCR was terminated
in fiscal year 2000.
BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES
Fiscal Year 2001 Request--$1,015.8 M
The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program is one of the nation's
major sponsors of fundamental research in the broad areas of materials
sciences, chemical sciences, geosciences, plant and microbial sciences,
and engineering sciences. The program encompasses more than 2,400
researchers in nearly 200 institutions and 16 of the nation's
outstanding user facilities. The BES program funds research at 149
colleges and universities located in 48 states. The inclusion of
research activities at this large number of academic institutions is a
vital part of the program. These scientists are funded through
individual peer-reviewed grants and as members of peer-reviewed
research teams involving investigators from both national laboratories
and universities. In addition, university-based scientists are among
the principal users of the BES user facilities. The BES program has
taken a leadership role in defining and addressing the 21st century
challenges facing the natural sciences--from understanding collective
effects in materials to designing new materials atom by atom and,
finally, to developing functional materials. Functional materials are
those with the ability to self assemble, self repair, sense, respond,
and evolve in order to provide functional properties--optical,
mechanical, catalytic, electrical, and tribological. Envisioning and
creating these materials is the coming challenge for the disciplines of
materials sciences, chemistry, physics, and biology. This work during
the past few years has led to the expansion in the base program effort
in nanoscale research.
Within the base research effort in fiscal year 2001, a program in
Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Research will continue
to support work at the frontiers of basic research that hold the
promise of delivering revolutionary breakthroughs. In the fiscal year
2001 request, new funding in the amount $36.1 million is requested for
these activities. Funds are distributed within the Materials Sciences,
Chemical Sciences, and Engineering and Geosciences subprograms. The BES
program has worked with the National Science and Technology Council's
Interagency Working Group on Nanotechnology, the Basic Energy Sciences
Advisory Committee (BESAC), and the broad scientific community from
academia, industry, and the national laboratories to define and
articulate the goals of this research and determine how best to
implement a program.
In the fiscal year 2001 request, funding in the amount of $2.4
million is requested for Microbial Cell research activities within the
Energy Biosciences subprogram. New research activities coordinated with
activities in the Biological and Environmental Research program focus
on a bacterial cell consisting of a minimal set of genes essential for
life. The specific research target will be understanding the
biochemical and physiological functions of this set of genes.
Additional studies will determine the genes and gene functions required
for a particular physiological process.
The fiscal year 2001 budget supports continued activities within
the Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI). In fiscal year 2001,
resources of $19.5 million are being requested in BES, which is the
same amount as the fiscal year 2000 appropriation. These funds will be
used to continue the research projects selected in fiscal year 2000.
All CCTI activities are peer-reviewed fundamental scientific research
that expand upon core research activities.
Also included in the fiscal year 2001 request are funds in BES in
the amount of $47.1 million that potentially impact solar and renewable
energy resource production and use in the categories of biomass, wind
energy, photovoltaics, hydrogen, and other (solar photoconversion).
These funds provide continuing support for multidisciplinary, basic
research in the BES Materials Sciences, Chemical Sciences, and Energy
Biosciences subprograms.
In addition to directly supporting research performers, BES is also
the steward of 16 major national user facilities. Research communities
that have benefited from the BES supported Scientific User Facilities
include materials sciences, chemical sciences, earth and geosciences,
environmental sciences, structural biology, superconductor technology,
medical research, and industrial technology development. Included
within this request to sustain a constant level of effort increase
operations at each of the four BES synchrotron radiation light sources
as well as additional funding to address specific recommendations of
the 1997 BESAC review ``Synchrotron Radiation Sources and Science'' for
each of the light sources.
Also included within this request are funds to address neutron
science following the closure of the High Flux Beam Reactor. Additional
operating funds are provided to permit increased operations at other
neutron sources, and additional capital equipment and accelerator
improvement funds are provided for new instruments and infrastructure
improvements, respectively. These actions are in accord with
recommendations recently provided by BESAC, which was charged with
providing guidance to the BES program for the near-term needs of the
neutron science community, i.e., for the period during which the
Spallation Neutron Source will be under construction. The synchrotron
radiation light sources and the neutron sources serve a wide variety of
research disciplines, and it is important that these facilities be
operated so as to optimize beam availability and reliability to serve
their users. The funds requested will ensure this high level of
operation.
BES scientific user facilities enable researchers to gain the new
knowledge necessary to achieve the Department's missions and, more
broadly, to advance the nation's entire scientific enterprise. The
number of scientists conducting research at the BES user facilities has
grown dramatically in recent years. BES user facilities are open to all
qualified investigators in academia, industry, and government
laboratories on a no-charge basis to all qualified researchers whose
intention is to publish in the open literature. Over 6,000 users were
accommodated at the BES scientific user facilities in fiscal year 1999.
These facilities have an enormous impact on science and technology,
ranging from determinations of the structure of superconductors and
biological molecules to the development of wear-resistant prostheses;
from atomic-scale characterization of environmental samples to
elucidation of geological processes; and from the production of unique
isotopes for cancer therapy to the development of new medical imaging
technologies.
Materials Sciences.--The Materials Sciences subprogram supports
basic research in condensed matter physics, metal and ceramic sciences,
and materials chemistry. This basic research seeks to understand the
atomistic basis of materials' properties and behavior and how to make
materials perform better at acceptable cost through new methods of
synthesis and processing. Basic research is supported in corrosion,
metals, ceramics, alloys, semiconductors, superconductors, polymers,
metallic glasses, ceramic matrix composites, catalytic materials, non-
destructive evaluation, magnetic materials, surface science, neutron
and x-ray scattering, chemical and physical properties, and new
instrumentation. Ultimately the research leads to the development of
materials that improve the efficiency, economy, environmental
acceptability, and safety in energy generation, conversion,
transmission, and use. These material studies affect developments in
numerous areas, such as: the efficiency of electric motors and
generators; solar energy conversion; batteries and fuel cells;
stronger, lighter materials for vehicles; welding and joining of
materials; plastics; and petroleum refining.
Chemical Sciences.--The Chemical Sciences subprogram has two major
components. One major component is comprised of photo- and radiation-
chemistry; chemical physics; and atomic, molecular and optical (AMO)
science. This research provides a foundation for understanding
fundamental interactions of atoms, molecules, and ions with photons and
electrons. This work also underpins our fundamental understanding of
chemical reactivity. This, in turn, enables the production of more
efficient combustion systems with reduced emissions of pollutants. It
also increases knowledge of solar photoconversion processes resulting
in new improved systems and production methods. The other major
component of the research program is comprised of physical chemistry,
inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, analytical chemistry,
separation science, heavy element chemistry, and aspects of chemical
engineering sciences. The research supported provides a better
molecular level understanding of homogeneous and heterogeneous
reactions occurring at surfaces, interfaces, and in bulk media. This
has resulted in improvements to known heterogeneous and homogeneous
catalytic systems, new catalysts for the production of fuels and
chemicals, and better analytical methods in a wide variety of
applications in energy processes. It has also provides new knowledge of
actinide elements and separations important for environmental
remediation and waste management, and better methods for describing
turbulent combustion and predicting thermophysical properties of
multicomponent systems.
Engineering and Geosciences.--The Engineering and Geosciences
subprogram conducts research in both of these disciplinary areas. In
Engineering Research, the goals are to extend the body of knowledge
underlying current engineering practice to create new options for
improving energy efficiency and to broaden the technical and conceptual
knowledge base for solving the engineering problems of energy
technologies. In Geosciences Research, the goal is fundamental
knowledge of the processes that transport, concentrate, emplace, and
modify the energy and mineral resources and the byproducts of energy
production. The research supports existing energy technologies and
strengthens the foundation for the development of future energy
technologies. Ultimately the research impacts control of industrial
processes to improve efficiency and reduce pollution, increase energy
supplies, lower cost, and increase the effectiveness of environmental
remediation of polluted sites.
Energy Biosciences.--The Energy Biosciences subprogram supports
fundamental research related to a molecular level understanding of the
formation, storage, and interconversion of energy by plants and
microorganisms. Plants and microbes serve as renewable resources for
fuel and other fossil resource substitutes, as agents to restore
previously disrupted environmental sites, and as potential components
of industrial processes to produce new products and chemicals in an
environmentally benign manner. The program supports research in a
number of topics related to these areas. These include research in
photosynthesis and bioenergetics; the biosynthesis, structure and
function of plant cell walls (the major component of plant biomass);
the bioproduction and bioconversion of methane; the biodegradation of
lignocellulose; the biosynthesis of starch and lipids (plant energy
storage compounds); plant secondary metabolism; microbial fermentations
; microbial thermophily; and processes that offer unique possibilities
for research at the interface of biology and the physical, earth, and
engineering sciences.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
Fiscal Year 2001 Request--$445.3 M
For over 50 years, the Biological and Environmental Research (BER)
program has been investing to advance environmental and biomedical
knowledge connected to energy. Through its support of peer-reviewed
research at national laboratories, universities, and private
institutions, the program develops the knowledge needed to identify,
understand, anticipate, and mitigate the long-term health and
environmental consequences of energy production, development, and use.
The BER program continues its commitment to and dependence on
research scientists at our nation's universities. University-based
scientists are an integral part of research programs across the entire
range of the BER portfolio and are the principal users of BER
facilities for structural biology--at the Environmental Molecular
Sciences Laboratory, and the Natural and Accelerated Bioremediation
Research (NABIR) Program's Field Research Center. University scientists
also form the core of the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM)
science team that networks with the broader academic community as well
as with scientists at other agencies, such as the NASA and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In addition, university-
based scientists are funded through their response to Requests for
Applications across the entire BER program.
The BER request includes funding for Scientific User Facilities
such as the William R. Wiley Environmental Molecular Sciences
Laboratory which enables research activities that underpin long-term
environmental remediation. This funding will provide for the operation
of the facilities, assuring access for scientists in universities,
federal laboratories, and industry. It will also leverage both
federally and privately sponsored research at these facilities. The
request includes support for infrastructure and development of user
facilities at synchrotrons and neutron sources for the nation's
structural biologists. Support of structural biology user facilities is
coordinated with NIH and NSF. Support is also included for the
operation of the Natural and Accelerated Bioremediation Research
(NABIR) Program's Field Research Center and ARM research sites.
The Human Genome Program continues to be a centerpiece of the BER
research program, both in terms of its contribution to the
international effort to sequence the human genome, and in terms of the
spin-off technologies. Through efforts at the Joint Genome Institute
(JGI) and its Production Sequencing Facility, DOE does its share of
high-throughput human DNA sequencing and develops, validates, and
integrates new DNA sequencing technologies into the production of DNA
sequencing. Fiscal year 2001 is the fourth year of a major five year
scale-up of DNA sequencing capacity to achieve the international goal
of a complete sequence by 2003. The BER request for fiscal year 2001
includes $90.3 million for human genome research. The DOE's share of
the funding for the U.S. Human Genome Program is about 25 percent of
the national effort. University scientists, working with the JGI, play
a key role in completing DOE's share of determining the human DNA
sequence.
The fiscal year 2001 request also includes $9.7 million for the
Microbial Cell project. This project, a joint effort between BER and
Basic Energy Sciences, capitalizes on DOE's pioneering and leadership
role in high throughput genomic DNA sequencing; its longstanding
support of microbial biochemistry, metabolism and physiology; its
support of national user facilities for determining protein structures;
and the capabilities of its national laboratories in computational
analysis and instrumentation research. The goal of the Microbial Cell
project is to develop a comprehensive understanding of the complete
workings of a microbial cell, from the DNA sequence, to the
identification of all the genes, to the production of all the proteins
whose assembly instructions are contained in the genes, to the complex
interaction of the genes and proteins in a cell that give the microbe
its life and its unique characteristics and behaviors.
The fiscal year 2001 request also includes $6.7 million for a
research program in Bioengineering Engineering. The Bioengineering
program will support collaborations between the DOE national
laboratories and leading medical schools and teaching hospitals. These
collaborations will leverage the laboratories' unique resources and
expertise in the biological, physical, chemical, engineering, and
computing sciences to provide innovative solutions to medical
application. The program builds on research in the nuclear medicine
field that SC originated and has supported for over half a century.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request supports a continuation of two
carbon-related programs, each coordinated among several offices and
agencies. The first is the Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI).
CCTI focuses on the underpinning fundamental science that will enable
mitigation of climate change and is supported by both BER and the Basic
Energy Sciences program. The second is the U.S. Global Change Research
Program (US/GCRP). US/GCRP research focuses on developing the
fundamental understanding of the comprehensive climate system and the
global and regional manifestations of climate change. The two programs
complement one another. For example, ``A U.S. Carbon Cycle Science
Plan'' was undertaken by the US/GCRP and the ``Carbon Sequestration
Research and Development Report'' was developed under the auspices of
the CCTI. The BER request includes fiscal year 2001 funding for CCTI of
$16.3 million. Ongoing CCTI research includes two focused efforts in
carbon sequestration in oceans and the earth, and the sequencing of the
DNA of several microbes critical to biological sequestration. Research
projects span a broad array of disciplines, including ecology and
biology.
Life Sciences.--In addition to the Human Genome Program and the
Microbial Cell project, life sciences research is focused on utilizing
unique DOE resources and facilities to develop fundamental biological
information and advanced technologies for understanding and mitigating
the potential health effects of energy development, use, and waste
cleanup. Research is conducted in five areas: structural biology,
cellular biology, molecular biology, human genome, and health effects.
Structural biology research supports national user facilities and
emphasizes the development and use of robust computational processes
and new technologies and methodologies to predict and understand the
three-dimensional structure and dynamic behavior of proteins and
protein complexes involved in the recognition and repair of DNA damage
or the bioremediation of metals and radionuclides.
Molecular biology research emphasizes microbial systems, including
the Microbial Cell project, microbial genomics, and molecular aspects
of the CCTI program. The field of microbial genomics continues to be
one of the most exciting, high profile, and rapidly growing fields in
biology today, expanding from the SC-initiated program to other federal
agencies and private industry. The BER Microbial Genome program has
supported the complete genomic sequencing of 15 of the approximately 50
bacteria whose DNA have been sequenced. The sequencing of more than 40
additional microbes is in progress in the scientific community. The
broad impacts of this research emphasize a central principle of the SC
genome programs--complete genomic sequences yield answers to
fundamental questions in biology. Microbes are being sequenced and
characterized in several parts of the BER program with potential
impacts across several DOE missions including: CCTI, microbes for
cleaning up the environment, alternative fuel sources (methane
production or energy from biomass), and microbes that produce
industrially useful enzymes. As the number of complete and in-progress
microbial genomes grows, the microbial genome program is shifting its
emphasis from a predominant focus on genomic sequencing to a broader
emphasis on the use and discovery of new knowledge from microbes whose
genomic DNA sequences have been determined. In addition to sequencing
the DNA of microbes important to the CCTI, a key component of CCTI
research is to identify and understand genes, proteins, and entire
biochemical pathways or gene regulatory networks that address the fuel
production or carbon sequestration goals of CCTI.
The low dose radiation research program, the central focus of
cellular biology research, provides information that is a key
determinant in decisions made to protect people from adverse health
risks from exposure to radiation. This information will provide a
better scientific basis for remediating contaminated DOE sites and
achieving acceptable levels of human health protection, both for
cleanup workers and the public, in a more cost-effective manner that
could save billions of dollars.
Health Effects conducts research and develops tools needed to speed
understanding of the human genome. If the sequencing of the human
genomic DNA provide the complete parts list for the human genome, this
research contributes to the development of a ``high tech owner's
manual'' that is critical for understanding normal human development
and disease processes.
Environmental Processes.--Research is focused on understanding the
basic chemical, physical, and biological processes of the earth's
atmosphere, land, and oceans and how these processes may be affected by
energy production and use, primarily the emission of carbon dioxide
from fossil fuel combustion. A major part of the research is designed
to provide the data that will enable an objective assessment of the
potential for, and consequences of, global warming. The program is
comprehensive with an emphasis on understanding the radiation balance
from the surface of the earth to the top of the atmosphere (including
the role of clouds) and on enhancing the quantitative models necessary
to predict possible climate change at the global and regional scales.
The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) program produces the
experimental and modeling results necessary to resolve the greatest
uncertainty in climate prediction--the role of clouds and solar
radiation. Climate modeling uses massively parallel supercomputers to
simulate climate change, predict climate, and evaluate model
uncertainties due to changes in atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouses gases on decade to century time scales. The Atmospheric
Science program acquires data to understand the atmospheric processes
that control the transport, transformation, and fate of energy-related
chemicals and particulate matter. Emphasis is placed on processes
relating to new air quality standards for tropospheric ozone and
particulate matter and relationships between air quality and climate
change. Funding is included in Environmental Processes for DOE's
contribution to the US/GCRP that was codified by Congress in the Global
Change Research Act of 1990.
BER supports research, at several levels, to understand and
identify the sources, destinations, and impacts of carbon dioxide in
our global environment. The Carbon Cycle program is designed to study
the natural carbon cycle, including quantifying the role of the
terrestrial biosphere as a sink or source of carbon dioxide. The
program on Ecosystem Research is designed to provide information on the
effects of atmospheric and climate changes on terrestrial organisms and
ecosystems, including the potential direct effects of increasing
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. CCTI research supports two focused
efforts on the sequestration of carbon in terrestrial or ocean systems.
Research includes the identification of biochemical or physical
pathways or processes that could be modified to enhance the net flow of
carbon out of the atmosphere and an assessment of the environmental
implications of long-term carbon sequestration or storage options.
Environmental Remediation.--Research is primarily focused on
gaining a better understanding of the fundamental biological, chemical,
geological, and physical processes that must be marshaled to develop
and advance new, effective, and efficient processes for the remediation
and restoration of the nation's nuclear weapons production sites.
Bioremediation activities are centered in the Natural and Accelerated
Bioremediation Research (NABIR) program, a basic research program
focused on determining the conditions under which bioremediation will
be a reliable, efficient, and cost-effective technique. A key goal is
to define and develop an integrative model to aid collaboration and
direction across research teams within the NABIR program.
The ``Bioremediation and Its Societal Implications and Concerns''
(BASIC) component of NABIR will explore societal issues surrounding
bioremediation research and promote open and two-way communication with
affected stakeholders.
A high priority for this program is the operation of the William R.
Wiley Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL), a national
user facility for basic research that will underpin safe and cost-
effective environmental remediation methods and technologies and other
environmental priorities. Research is also included in support of
pollution prevention, sustainable technology development, and other
fundamental research to address problems of environmental
contamination.
Medical Applications and Measurement Science.--The Medical
Applications subprogram supports research to develop beneficial
applications of nuclear and other energy-related technologies for
medical diagnosis and treatment. The research is directed at
discovering new applications of radiotracer agents for medical research
as well as for clinical diagnosis and therapy. The program seeks
breakthroughs in noninvasive imaging technologies such as positron
emission tomography. A major emphasis is placed on cutting edge
research to image gene expression and to develop new approaches to
pharmaceutical design that will enable the development of technology to
actually see genes in action in cells and organs. This new technology
will strongly impact and have broad utility for scientists in
developmental biology, genomics, and general medical scientists.
Bioengineering is included in the medical applications program. As
previously described, research is directed to fundamental studies in
artificial organs, biological and chemical sensors, imaging, lasers,
informatics, and other areas of technical expertise in the DOE
laboratories.
FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES
Fiscal Year 2001 Request--$247.3 M
The Fusion Energy Sciences program is the nation's primary sponsor
of research in plasma physics and fusion science. The program is a
multi-purpose, scientific research effort, producing valuable
scientific knowledge and technological benefits in the near term and
providing the science base for a fusion energy option in the long term.
The mission of the Fusion Energy Sciences program is to advance plasma
science, fusion science and fusion technology, and thereby establish
the knowledge base for an economically and environmentally attractive
fusion energy source. The program also trains future researchers not
only for fusion research, but also for related areas such as plasma
processing, space plasma physics, plasma electronics, and accelerator/
beam physics. In fiscal year 1999, the program supported 365 graduate
students and post doctoral investigators; 49 of these graduate students
and post doctoral investigators conducted research at the Fusion Energy
Sciences' scientific user facilities.
The Fusion Energy Sciences program is composed of three
subprograms; Science, Facility Operations, and Enabling R&D. The
Science subprogram includes research funds for: general plasma science;
for experiments on the physics of high temperature plasmas in magnetic
fields, in both tokamaks and other configurations; for the physics of
heavy ion beam accelerators; and for theory and modeling of fusion
plasmas. Funds for building, operating, upgrading and decommissioning
of major facilities are in the Facility Operations subprogram. The
Enabling R&D subprogram includes funds for key fusion technology
research and innovations needed to advance fusion science and have thus
enabled many of the advances in fusion science that have occurred
during the past 30 years. All three subprograms contribute to the
knowledge base for an attractive fusion energy source.
Fusion research provides two major benefits--in the near term there
are both advances in plasma science and technology spinoffs and in the
long-term there is the basis for development of a new energy source.
Advances in plasma science have contributed to numerous other areas of
science. In astrophysics, it has allowed an understanding of the
behavior of plasma and magnetic fields in the earth's magnetosphere, in
the sun, other stars, and the galaxies. Plasma physics is integral to
our understanding of magnetic storms, solar flares, shock waves in
space, magnetic fields, black holes, and star formation. In the area of
large-scale scientific computing, fusion research pioneered the use of
supercomputers to solve complex problems. Novel optical and magnetic
diagnostics have been created to provide access to the extreme
temperature, density, and magnetic fields prevalent in fusion
experiments. In addition, fusion and other plasma based research has
provided a stimulus to the development of large superconducting
magnets, development of advanced materials, advancement in pulsed-power
technology, and plasma aided manufacturing processes such as those used
in semiconductor device fabrication.
This is a time of important progress and scientific discovery in
fusion research. By virtue of previous investments in facilities,
sophisticated diagnostics, critical technologies, and modeling
capabilities, the Fusion Energy Sciences program is making great
progress in understanding the fundamental processes involved in
confining fusion fuels, such as the turbulence responsible for loss of
particles and energy across magnetic field lines. In addition, the
program is exploring innovative approaches to fusion energy, including
supporting advances in state-of-the-art enabling technology, in search
of an optimized confinement system that could result in an affordable
development path.
A major review of magnetic and inertial fusion energy options was
carried out by a task force of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board
(SEAB) in response to Congressional requests. The task force report was
issued in August 1999. The report's Executive Summary states that, ``In
the light of the promise of fusion and the risks arising from
increasing worldwide energy demand and from eventually declining fossil
energy supply, it is our view that we should pursue fusion
aggressively.'' The task force also endorsed the revised focus of the
magnetic fusion program to understand the science and technology of
fusion. It also concluded that the inertial fusion energy program
warranted continued exploration and development. The National Academy
of Sciences is reviewing the quality of science in the Fusion Energy
Sciences Program. An interim report was issued in August 1999,
highlighting the contributions of fusion science to other fields of
research. The full study, including strategic recommendations, will be
completed in fiscal year 2000.
At a two-week long workshop in the summer of 1999, 350 fusion
researchers from the United States and about 15 researchers from abroad
discussed virtually all of the key technical issues associated with
fusion science. This workshop provided a very effective forum for
enhanced interaction between magnetic fusion and inertial fusion
approaches, between science and technology issues, and between basic
understanding and energy applications of fusion. The community
reaffirmed that the next frontier in magnetic fusion is the science of
burning plasmas, and that the tokamak is technically ready for a high-
gain burning plasma experiment. The Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory
Committee (FESAC) led a community assessment of the restructured fusion
program and provided a report, with specific recommendations on program
priorities and balance, in September 1999.
Preparation of a strategic plan for Fusion Energy Sciences was
initiated in fiscal year 1999. It will be completed early in 2000
incorporating the results of the SEAB and National Research Council
reviews, the recommendations of the FESAC, and technical understandings
that came from the 1999 Fusion Summer Study.
In pursuit of the mission of the fusion energy sciences program,
the program's objectives are to:
--Understand the science of plasmas, the fourth state of matter.
--Identify & explore innovative and cost-effective development paths
to fusion energy.
--Explore the science and technology of energy producing plasmas, the
next frontier in fusion research, as a partner in an
international effort.
Following restructuring, the Fusion Energy Sciences program is
focused primarily on the first two objectives and the related enabling
technology research. Only a small effort on burning plasma physics and
related fusion technology, e.g. materials science and engineering
research on energy conversion and tritium handling, continues. The
fusion program is exploring a wide range of confinement concepts other
than the tokamak. Three new experiments started operation in fiscal
year 1999-the Sustained Spheromak Physics Experiment (SSPX) at the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the flow stabilized pinch
experiment (ZAP) at the University of Washington, and the Helically
Symmetric Stellarator Experiment (HSX) at the University of Wisconsin.
During fiscal year 2000, the Levitated Dipole Experiment at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology will begin operation. This will
bring the total number of exploratory level alternate magnetic concept
experiments in the United States to 13. This important new investment
in the Fusion Energy Sciences program is expected to pay dividends in
the form of enhanced understanding of the interaction of plasmas with
electric and magnetic fields and lead to significantly better magnetic
confinement concepts over the next decade. In addition, there was
increased effort on exploring the physics of a heavy ion accelerator
for inertial fusion energy.
DOE and NSF issued a joint announcement for new opportunities for
funding in fiscal year 2000 in September 1999 as part of the NSF/DOE
Partnership in Basic Plasma Science and Engineering. In fiscal year
1999, the general plasma science program was extended to include
national laboratories with a solicitation for proposals on applications
of plasma science. All proposals, many of which will have evolved from
Laboratory Directed R&D programs, will be competitively peer reviewed.
As a part of the ongoing restructuring of the program, the major
U.S. experimental facilities--the DIII-D at General Atomics, the
Alcator C-Mod at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the new
National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) at the Princeton Plasma
Physics Laboratory (PPPL)--have been operating as national facilities
with research teams composed of participants from throughout the fusion
science community. Program advisory committees assure scientific
quality and program relevance of the research conducted at each
facility. Also as part of the restructuring of the fusion program, a
Virtual Laboratory for Technology has been established to improve the
governance of the various, diverse enabling R&D elements through
improved advocacy, coordination, and communication.
The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) located at PPPL was closed
down in fiscal year 1997 after 13 years of pioneering experiments
yielding significant scientific results from producing actual fusion
power in a laboratory. Preparations for the decontamination and
decommissioning (D&D) of TFTR were initiated at PPPL in fiscal year
1999. During fiscal year 2000, PPPL will complete removal of all
systems/components to be retained for future use in the program; and
will prepare the remaining systems/components for dismantling, removal,
and shipment offsite. When D&D is completed, the TFTR test cell will be
available for reuse by the Fusion Energy Sciences program.
At the direction of Congress, U.S. participation in ITER was
successfully completed. The U.S. ITER work site in San Diego was closed
and returned to the owner; U.S. secondees to the Joint Central Team
returned; and the U.S. responsibilities in component R&D were
discharged. Of particular note, the Central Solenoid Model Coil, the
largest pulsed superconducting magnet ever built, was completed and
shipped to Japan for testing. The European Union, Japan, and the
Russian Federation are proceeding with a three-year extension of the
ITER program to complete the design of a reduced cost and reduced
objectives facility. They are now considering their preparation for
decisions, within the next three years, whether and where to construct
ITER. We will be involved only on the periphery of the project
consistent with traditional exchange of scientific information. If the
ITER parties decide to construct a burning plasma facility like ITER,
the United States will then consider whether to propose to be involved.
In conclusion, the U.S. Fusion Energy Sciences program has made
excellent scientific progress and has been responsive to the
congressional request to restructure the program. Fusion and plasma
science make a unique contribution to the nation's scientific
infrastructure in the near-term and provide a vital energy option for
the future. Europe and Japan are making large investments in this area.
The challenge to the United States is to continue a strong scientific
base program, including making effective use of existing facilities,
and to sustain meaningful participation in the world program.
HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
Fiscal Year 2001 Request--$714.7 M
High energy physics research seeks to understand the nature of
matter and energy at the most fundamental level, as well as the basic
forces which govern all processes in nature. DOE provides more than 90
percent of the federal support for the nation's high energy physics
(also called elementary particle physics) research program. The balance
is provided by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Our knowledge of
the universe, the fundamental constituents of matter, and the laws of
nature that underlie all physical processes, continues to grow as a
result of this research.
High energy physics research not only helps us learn how the world
works, it also contributes to the nation's economic competitiveness in
the high-technology marketplace. High energy physics research requires
accelerators and detectors utilizing state-of-the-art technologies in
many areas, including fast electronics, particle detectors, high-speed
computing, superconducting magnets, and high power radiofrequency
devices. In these areas, high energy physics research frequently drives
the technology, which not only contributes to other scientific
disciplines, but also has led to many practical applications having
major economic and social impacts. Who could have predicted that
research that went into the building of accelerators and particle
detectors and the subsequent technology would contribute so much to
today's medical imaging capabilities?
The High Energy Physics program also has a history of attracting
and training some of the best and brightest young minds. The training
they receive prepares them for careers not just in high energy physics,
but also in other disciplines as well, including computer sciences,
teaching, and industrial research. It is the unique problem solving
ability, learned from this scientific discipline, that makes them
attractive. More than half of the Ph.D.'s trained for high energy
physics find permanent employment outside the field.
Carrying out high energy physics research effectively depends on
many elements including the availability of forefront experimental
capabilities, effective use of specialized facilities, and the
availability of new and upgraded facilities to take advantage of new
technologies and research opportunities. The Department supports two
major high energy physics accelerator centers--the Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) and the Stanford Linear Accelerator
Center (SLAC). Each of these laboratories provides unique capabilities
and is operated as a national facility available to qualified
experimenters around the nation and abroad on the basis of the
scientific merit of their research proposals. Approximately 2,000 U.S.
scientists and about 500 foreign scientists work at these facilities at
any given time.
Experimental and theoretical researchers from more than 100
universities conduct about 75 percent of HEP research, with the
remainder being done by national laboratory staff. In general, the
laboratories and universities perform different, but complementary,
activities. University scientists provide the primary intellectual base
for the program, performing experimental research at accelerators and
non-accelerator facilities, technology R&D, and theoretical research.
University grantees are selected and retained based on the quality,
appropriateness, and performance of their research activities. All
research proposals received are subjected to a rigorous multi-stage
review.
National laboratories primarily house the major accelerator
facilities at which university scientists perform their research. In
addition, the laboratories provide the related technical and scientific
expertise, as well as day-to-day liaison between university
researchers, laboratory experts, and management. Research requiring the
use of a facility at one of the laboratories is reviewed extensively by
the laboratory and its Program Advisory Committee (PAC), another form
of peer review. The Department carries out its oversight
responsibilities by conducting annual reviews of the laboratories'
scientific programs. In addition, the Department tracks project
progress against budget and schedule milestones using semiannual
project reviews.
Fermilab is home to the world's highest energy superconducting
accelerator, the Tevatron, which provides both fixed target and
colliding beam research programs. The colliding beam research program
has two major detector facilities, the Collider Detector at Fermilab
(CDF) and the D-Zero Detector, which complement each other in their
different technical capabilities. These two collaborations continue to
produce new scientific knowledge. For example, the CDF collaboration at
Fermilab observed the existence and properties of the B meson
containing a charmed quark--completing the theoretically predicted
family of B mesons; and another team observed direct violation of
Charge-Parity (CP) symmetry in the decays of K mesons. Measurements
such as these will improve even more with data from the upcoming run of
the Tevatron with the newly upgraded Main Injector.
Construction of the Fermilab Main Injector project was completed in
fiscal year 1999 on schedule and within budget. The final data
collection with the Fermilab 800 GeV fixed-target program is being
completed in fiscal year 2000. In fiscal year 2001, the prime focus of
the Fermilab program will turn to research using the Tevatron Collider
with the higher luminosity of the new Main Injector. Also at Fermilab,
design of the NuMI (Neutrinos at the Main Injector) project got
underway in fiscal year 1998 and is proceeding. The project will
provide a new neutrino beamline aimed at the Soudan Underground
Laboratory in Soudan, Minnesota where the large MINOS detector will be
installed to search for and study neutrino oscillations.
In addition, Fermilab continues to play an active role in the Large
Hadron Collider (LHC). Fermilab is the host and center of the
U.S.Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) detector effort of university and
laboratory scientists, and host and center of the U.S. LHC accelerator
collaboration, with specialized expertise in the design and fabrication
of superconducting magnets.
At the SLAC, the Stanford Linear Collider (SLC), the world's only
high energy linear collider, continued to achieve record high
luminosities in positron-electron collisions. The B-factory at SLAC was
completed on schedule and within budget in fiscal year 1999. In fiscal
year 2000 the B-factory was brought into full operation. Some 27 DOE-
funded universities participate in large international collaborations
doing experiments at SLAC. The experiments involve the BaBar detector
and other smaller detectors for fixed target experiments. These
experiments are investigating fundamental constituents of matter such
as the b quark. In particular, the BaBar detector is being used to
study the nature of Charge-Parity (CP) Violation in the B meson system.
Researchers from universities and laboratories conducting research at
SLAC are in the process of analyzing the large amounts of data
collected. In fiscal year 2000, work will continue on R&D in support of
a future linear collider. Participation with NASA and university
scientists to fabricate a non-accelerator-based experiment, the Gamma-
ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST), is also planned.
The Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS) at Brookhaven National
Laboratory (BNL) was transferred in fiscal year 1999 to the Nuclear
Physics program to be operated as the injector for RHIC. Operation of
the AGS for the high energy physics program in fiscal year 2001 will be
on an incremental cost basis. Brookhaven is also a key participant in
the LHC project as host and center of the U.S. ATLAS detector
collaboration of university and laboratory scientists, as well as a
participant in the U.S. accelerator collaboration. BNL's Accelerator
Test Facility (ATF), a small, low energy electron linac, has achieved
one of the brightest electron beams in the world. It is used by
universities, national laboratory groups, and industry for testing new
advanced accelerator concepts.
During the past year, progress continued to be made on the
technical components for the LHC and many management details were
refined. Fabrication of LHC subsystems and components by U.S.
participants began in fiscal year 1998. Funding was provided in fiscal
year 1996 ($6,000,000) and fiscal year 1997 ($15 million) for
preliminary R&D, design and engineering work on the subsystems and
components being proposed for inclusion in the agreement with CERN.
This funding was essential in order to provide the cost and technical
bases for the proposed U.S. responsibilities in LHC, and to be ready
for rapid start to satisfy the anticipated timetable for the project.
$70 million was provided in fiscal year 2000, and $70 million will be
provided in fiscal year 2001 to support continuation of these R&D and
design efforts, and the continuation of fabrication of those subsystems
and components specified in the agreements with CERN.
NUCLEAR PHYSICS
Fiscal Year 2001 Request--$369.9 M
The primary goal of nuclear physics research is to understand the
structure and properties of atomic nuclei and the fundamental forces
between the constituents that form the nucleus. Nuclear processes
determine essential physical characteristics of our universe and the
composition of its matter.
The Nuclear Physics program continues to be a vital source of
trained people for fundamental research and for applied technology
areas. The program supports the graduate training of approximately 450
students per year, and typically 100 doctorates in nuclear physics are
awarded each year in DOE-supported nuclear physics programs. A majority
of these highly trained researchers will take positions in high-
technology private industry. In fiscal year 2000, the Nuclear Physics
Program initiated an Outstanding Junior Investigator (OJI) program to
recognize and support young promising scientists pursuing nuclear
physics research.
Many future nuclear physics investigations will study questions
related to the quark presence in composite nuclei. Until recently, the
fundamental understanding of nuclear properties has been based on the
concept of a nucleus composed of protons and neutrons that interact
through weak, strong, and electromagnetic forces. It became clear that
achieving a real knowledge of many nuclear properties depends on
understanding nuclear structure based on quarks, and particles called
gluons that bind the quarks together. Quarks and gluons are the
building blocks of protons and neutrons (nucleons). The Nuclear Physics
program works in close coordination with the Nuclear Physics program at
the NSF and, jointly with NSF, charters the Nuclear Science Advisory
Committee (NSAC) to provide advice on scientific opportunities and
priorities.
Studies of nuclear structure require ultra-high resolution
``microscopes,'' accelerators that produce particle beams of various
energies, depending on the problems to be studied. The cost and
complexity of these machines requires the creation of national
Scientific User Facilities such as the Department has established at
its laboratories.
Research programs at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator
Facility (TJNAF), formerly the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator
Facility (CEBAF), are studying effects due to the presence of quarks in
nucleons in the nucleus. Two principal focuses of these studies are to
continue to develop an understanding of how the ``spin'' of a nucleus
originates in the quarks, and how the size of a quark cluster in a
nucleus affects the strength of the interaction of that cluster with
other nucleons in the nucleus. TJNAF has consistently delivered highly
polarized electron beams for experiments. Precision measurements
performed in fiscal year 1999 with TJNAF's world-class polarized
electron beams provide important new insight into the role of the
strange quark in determining the fundamental properties of the nucleon.
As of fiscal year 2000, twelve experiments will have been completed in
Hall C and ten experiments will have been completed in Hall A at TJNAF.
The complex large-acceptance spectrometer in Hall B is complete and the
research program is well underway. By the end of fiscal year 2001,
three major experiments will have been completed, and partial data will
have been accumulated on many more. TJNAF scientists are also
participating in the assembly of a new detector for the ``GO''
experiment, in cooperation with the National Science Foundation. TJNAF
involves a users group of 1,460 scientists from 80 institutions, in the
U.S. and 36 foreign countries.
In fiscal year 1999, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC)
construction project at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) was
completed on schedule and within budget. RHIC is a unique facility
whose colliding relativistic heavy ion beams will permit exploration of
hot, dense nuclear matter and recreate the transition from quarks to
nucleons, the quark-gluon plasma, that characterized the early
evolution of the universe. Ever since quarks and gluons were
discovered, theorists have looked to the discovery of the quark-gluon
plasma as the crowning triumph of Quantum Chromo-Dynamics. Studies with
colliding heavy ion beams at RHIC will provide researchers with their
first laboratory opportunity to directly explore this new regime of
nuclear matter and nuclear interactions that up to now has only been
studied theoretically. On February 10, 2000, scientists at CERN
announced the accumulation of significant pieces of evidence, though
indirect, for the existence of the quark-gluon plasma. This is very
encouraging news for the research program at RHIC.
Fiscal year 2001 will be a critical year, as all four RHIC
detectors reach their full potential for studies of the expected new
forms of nuclear matter that will be created in the heavy ion
collisions. Detector fabrication, including the additional experimental
equipment recommended by NSAC for purposes of particle detection and
data analysis, will be largely completed by fiscal year 2001, as
scheduled. Four experiments (STAR, PHENIX, BRAHMS and PHOBOS) involving
over 950 researchers and students from 90 institutions and 19 countries
will pursue a vigorous research program at RHIC.
Another new generation facility, the Holifield Radioactive Ion Beam
Facility (HRIBF) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, is now producing
previously unavailable, highly radioactive, short-lived, nuclear beams
to study important stellar processes and nuclear structure at limits of
stability. In fiscal year 1999, HRIBF completed a series of experiments
that provide input to refined astrophysical calculations for the
breakout from the Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen (CNO) cycle responsible for
element production beyond oxygen. An expanded series of measurements
will be carried out in fiscal year 2000-2001 as new beam species are
developed and beam intensities increase. Radioactive ion beams, in
addition to the stable beams normally provided, are also being produced
at the ATLAS accelerator at Argonne National Laboratory and the 88-inch
Cyclotron at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. These laboratories
are pursuing research as well as developing new techniques for the
generation of radioactive beams. The experience gained and ideas
generated at all three laboratories will provide important input to the
design of a proposed new rare isotope facility presently being studied
by the Nuclear Physics program.
In fiscal year 1999, the NSAC Isotope Separation On-Line (ISOL)
Task Force, identified an optimal configuration for a next generation
Rare Isotope Accelerator (RIA). RIA will produce short-lived nuclei
(with lifetimes of greater than a thousandth of a second) in nuclear
reactions using intense beams of stable nuclei; these nuclei will then
be extracted and accelerated in a post-accelerator to be used in
experiments. RIA would provide unique, world-class capabilities for the
low energy, nuclear astrophysics, and nuclear structure communities for
several decades. R&D and preconceptual design activities will continue
in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
In fiscal year 2001, the BLAST detector at the MIT/Bates Linear
Accelerator Center facility will be completed and will initiate
commissioning for a research program in fiscal year 2002-2004 studying
the structure of the nucleon and few-body nuclei. Upon completion of
the BLAST research program in fiscal year 2004, MIT and DOE have agreed
that the Bates facility will begin a two-year phaseout.
The solar neutrino problem remains one of the great challenges in
astrophysics. The predicted rate of neutrino production by the sun is
significantly higher than the observed rate. There are two possible
explanations for the discrepancy. Either our understanding of solar
burning is very wrong, or the neutrino has a small mass, contradicting
the long-held belief that it is massless. The Sudbury Neutrino
Observatory (SNO) was created to study this problem and the processes
that control our sun. This observatory consists of a 40 foot diameter
plastic (acrylic) vessel holding 1,000 tons of heavy water that is the
solar neutrino detector. SNO is located 6,800 feet underground. The
detector water-fill was completed in fiscal year 1999 and data taking
is underway. The SNO detector's first results are expected in fiscal
year 2001.
MULTIPROGRAM ENERGY LABORATORIES-FACILITIES SUPPORT
Fiscal Year 2001 Request--$33.9 M
Fulfillment of the DOE's science and technology goals depends
heavily on the existence and operating efficiency of the five
multiprogram SC laboratories. The five multiprogram energy laboratories
are: Argonne National Laboratory-East, Brookhaven National Laboratory,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. These laboratories are
government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) and have over 1,100
buildings with 14.3 million gross square feet of space with an average
age of 35 years and an estimated replacement value of over $9,000
million. Total operating funding for these laboratories is over $3,000
million a year. The Office of Science manages this program to provide a
comprehensive, prioritized and equitable approach to its stewardship
responsibility for the general purpose support infrastructure of these
laboratories.
Portions of the infrastructure of these laboratories are old,
deteriorating, and, in some cases, obsolete. Improvements are needed to
comply fully with the environment, safety and health requirements in
effect today as well as to meet everyday operational needs.
SC established the Multiprogram Energy Laboratories-Facilities
Support (MEL-FS) program in 1981 to provide a systematic approach to
its stewardship responsibility for the general purpose infrastructure
of these laboratories. The MEL-FS program helps to preserve the
government's investment in infrastructure and to maintain
infrastructure integrity in a reasonable and economic manner at these
laboratories. Beginning in fiscal year 2000, this program includes
funding of Oak Ridge Operations Office Site Landlord activities.
The MEL-FS program supports line item construction projects to
refurbish and replace inadequate general purpose facilities and
infrastructure. Capital investment requirements are identified in
laboratory Institutional Plans that address needs through the year 2004
based on expected programmatic support. The projected needs through the
period total over $450 million. Of this amount, 65 percent is to
rehabilitate or replace buildings; 21 percent is for utility projects;
and 11 percent for ES&H projects. All projects are first ranked using a
prioritization model that takes into account risk, impacts, and mission
need. The projects that have ES&H as the principal driver are further
prioritized using the Risk Prioritization Model from the DOE ES&H and
Infrastructure Management Plan process.
The fiscal year 2001 MEL-FS budget request provides for the
continuation of three on-going projects and five new projects. The
three projects that are ongoing in fiscal year 2001 are: the Fire
Safety Improvements, Phase IV (TEC $8.4 million) at Argonne which will
bring 30 major facilities into compliance with the Life Safety Code and
the National Fire Alarm Code; the Sanitary System Modifications, Phase
III (TEC $6.5 million) at Brookhaven which will replace or rehabilitate
approximately 9,900 feet of existing deteriorated sewer piping, replace
the sewage digester, connect five facilities to the sanitary system,
and make other modifications to reduce discharges to the environment;
and the Electrical Systems Upgrade (TEC $5.9 million) at Oak Ridge
which will include: replacing overhead feeders; installing advanced
protective relaying capabilities at major substations; and replacing
major switchgear and transformers.
Two new starts for fiscal year 2001 are proposed at Brookhaven. The
Groundwater and Surface Water Protection project (TEC $6 million) will
begin to reduce a backlog of ground and surface water protection
projects per commitments to regulators. These include: proper closure
of inactive supply and injection wells; runoff control for the surplus
material storage yard; containment and runoff control for the
radioactive material storage yard; replacement of 12 hydraulic elevator
cylinders; removal of 22 underground fuel oil tanks; replacement of
radioactive waste tanks with secondarily contained tanks. The
Electrical Systems Modifications, II project (TEC $6.7 million) will be
the second phase of the modernization and refurbishment of the
laboratory's deteriorating 50 year-old electrical infrastructure.
Two new starts for fiscal year 2001 are proposed at Oak Ridge. The
Fire Protection System Upgrade project (TEC $5.9 million) will: replace
deteriorated, obsolete systems with more reliable fire alarm and
suppression capabilities; replace the single 16-inch water main in the
east central section of ORNL with a looped system; and extend coverage
of automatic alarm systems and sprinkler systems to areas not
previously served. The Facilities HVAC Upgrade project (TEC $7.1
million) will provide improvements to aging HVAC systems (average age
38 years) located in the thirteen buildings which comprise ORNL's
central research complex and additions and improvements to the chilled
water distribution system.
The Site-wide Water Distribution System Upgrade project (TEC $8.3
million) is a proposed new start for fiscal year 2001 at Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory that will rehabilitate the Lab's High
Pressure Water (HPW) System. This activity will: replace all 1.4 km of
cast iron pipe with ductile iron pipe; install cathodic protection;
replace and enhance pressure reducing stations; add an emergency fire
water tank to serve the East Canyon; and provide new liners and seismic
upgrades for two existing emergency fire water tanks.
Four projects are scheduled for construction completion in fiscal
year 2001: the Central Supply Facility and the Electrical Systems
Upgrade, Phase III at Argonne; the Electrical Systems Modifications--
Phase I at Brookhaven; and the Building 77 Rehabilitation at Berkeley.
The direct funding for the American Museum for Science and Energy
(AMSE) under the Oak Ridge Landlord activities will end in fiscal year
2000. Museum operation is transferred to Oak Ridge National Laboratory
where alternative funding mechanisms are being developed, including
support by private or industrial partners, and possibly, an admission
fee for adults.
ENERGY RESEARCH ANALYSES
Fiscal Year 2001 Request--$1.0 M
The mission of the Energy Research Analyses (ERA) program is to
conduct technical assessments of the Department's civilian research and
development programs and to provide direction to future research and
development activities. ERA also conducts science policy analyses, and
coordinates the development of the Office of Science Strategic Plan and
the DOE Science Portfolio.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request will provide funding for peer
reviews of projects in the Office of Science, Environmental Management,
and Energy Efficiency to continue to improve the quality and relevance
of DOE research and development. Other activities will include
evaluation of critical planning and policy issues of DOE science and
technology using expert groups at the National Academy of Sciences, the
JASON group, etc., as deemed appropriate.
SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION
Fiscal Year 2001 Request--$141.2 M
This program provides the federal staffing and associated funding
required to provide overall direction of activities carried out under
the SC programs cited in this testimony. This funding also provides the
necessary support to the Director of SC to carry out SC's
responsibilities under the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Public Law 95-91) and as mandated by the Secretary. These
responsibilities include: providing advice on the status and priorities
of the Department's overall research and development programs and on
the management of the Department's multipurpose laboratories;
developing research and development plans and strategies; supporting
university and science education; and ensuring the institutional health
and overall site integration at three multi-program field offices. This
program also provides program-specific staffing resources at the
Chicago, Oakland, and Oak Ridge Operations Offices directly involved in
executing SC programs within the field complex. In fiscal year 2001,
there will be continued emphasis on integrated business management
technology initiatives and supporting the ongoing efforts begun in
fiscal year 2000 related to succession planning and increasing
diversity of the workforce. In addition, resources will be devoted to
enhance the Spallation Neutron Source Project Office management
structure; fulfill waste management responsibilities; and build and
sustain a talented technical workforce through the Department's
Scientific and Technical Workforce Retention and Recruitment effort.
The Program Direction subprogram has been divided into four
categories: Salaries and Benefits, Travel, Support Services, and Other
Related Expenses, the latter including the Working Capital Fund.
Support Services refers to support services contracts that provide
necessary support functions to the federal staff, such as technical
support, computer systems development, travel processing, and mailroom
activities. Other Related Expenses refers to other administrative costs
of maintaining federal staff, such as building and facility costs and
utilities in the field, information technology expenses, and training.
The Working Capital Fund includes centrally provided goods and services
at headquarters, such as supplies, rent and utilities.
The Field Operations subprogram funds the core management and
administrative federal staff and is the central funding source for the
infrastructure requirements at three of the Department's multiprogram
operations offices: Chicago, Oakland and Oak Ridge. The staff is
responsible for the full range of administrative functions critical to
the success of all programs executed through these offices, including
fundamental science, energy research, national security, and
environmental management. By fiscal year 2001, the federal workforce
sponsored by this subprogram will be 5.2 percent less than mid fiscal
year 1999; therefore, SC plans to support technology investments and
integrate business management systems aimed at providing coordinated,
efficient and effective services and process improvements.
The Science Education subprogram focuses primarily on undergraduate
research experiences at the national laboratories. Science Education
also supports the Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowships,
the National Science Bowl, and the DOE Institute of Biotechnology,
Environmental Science, and Computing for Community Colleges. The Energy
Research Undergraduate Laboratory Fellowships, formerly known as the
Laboratory Cooperative Program, are designed to provide educational
training and research experiences at DOE laboratories for highly
motivated undergraduate students. These opportunities complement
academic programs and introduce students to the unique intellectual and
physical resources present at the DOE laboratories. Appointments are
available during the spring, summer, and fall terms.
In 1991, as a national initiative, the National Science Bowl was
developed to encourage high school students from across the nation to
excel in math and science and to pursue careers in those fields. It
provides students and their teachers a forum to receive national
recognition for their talent and hard work. DOE is committed to math
and science education to help provide a technically trained and diverse
workforce for the nation. The National Science Bowl is a highly
publicized academic competition among teams of high school students who
answer questions on scientific topics in astronomy, biology, chemistry,
mathematics, physics, earth, computer and general science. Since its
inception, more than 60,000 high school students have participated in
regional tournaments leading up to the national finals.
The Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship Act of 1994
was signed into law in November 1994. The law gives DOE responsibility
for administering the program of distinguished educator fellowships for
elementary and secondary school mathematics and science teachers. This
program supports outstanding teachers of science and mathematics, who
provide insights, extensive knowledge and practical experience to the
Legislative and Executive branches.
The DOE Institute of Biotechnology, Environmental Science, and
Computing for Community Colleges is a collaboration between DOE (and
five of its multiprogram laboratories) and the American Association of
Community Colleges. It is designed to provide educational training and
research experiences at five DOE national laboratories for highly
motivated community college students. Each laboratory will offer a ten-
week summer experience for selected students from a regional consortium
of community colleges partnering with DOE and that laboratory.
There is a national need to maintain worldwide leadership in
science and technology and to stay competitive in critical research
areas such as high energy and nuclear physics, computational science,
and renewable energy technologies. Our outstanding national
laboratories help to drive the progress of science and technology
development in the United States. To replenish our stocks of scientists
and engineers for the next century, we must invest in our nation's
youth to encourage interest in science and scientific careers. A proven
method to achieve this is by introducing students to the excitement of
scientific research through exposure to the national laboratories.
Historically, over two-thirds of undergraduates who have participated
in DOE programs have gone on to graduate school in disciplines directly
related to DOE missions.
The SC staff includes scientific and technical personnel as well as
program support personnel in the areas of budget and finance; general
administration; grants and contracts; information resource management;
infrastructure management; construction management; safeguards and
security; and environment, safety and health.
Through Program Direction, SC Headquarters continues to achieve
technical excellence in its programs despite managing one of the
largest, most diversified and most complex basic research portfolios in
the Federal Government with a relatively small Federal and contractor
support staff.
ENERGY SUPPLY--TECHNICAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
Fiscal Year 2001--$9.3 million
The Technical Information Management (TIM) program provides timely,
accurate technical information to DOE's researchers and the public by
collecting, preserving, and disseminating scientific and technical
information, the principal product resulting from DOE's multi-billion
dollar research and development programs. The TIM program maximizes the
return on DOE's $7 billion annual R&D investment by collecting,
preserving, and disseminating information resulting from these research
programs. This information is recorded in three forms: journals,
technical reports, and pre-prints. The TIM program has produced world-
class web-based systems to provide full-text, electronic access to all
three sources of information. The DOE Information Bridge (www.doe.gov/
bridge) provides access to 70,000 technical reports. The newly launched
PubScience (www.doe.gov/pubsci) provides electronic access to over
1,000 physical science journals--analogous to the capability PubMed
provides in the life sciences. Fiscal year 2001 activities will include
expanded coverage of science journals and a fully operational,
searchable pre-print network. Also, the TIM program will continue its
important role in obtaining foreign research information through two
international information exchanges and, for the first time, will
provide access to this information in electronic full-text. Finally,
the TIM program will continue reengineering systems to provide enhanced
protection and secure electronic access to a 50-year old repository of
classified and sensitive R&D information.
CLOSING
The significant increase in the fiscal year 2001 budget request for
the Office of Science recognizes the critical role that fundamental
knowledge plays in achieving the DOE missions and for the general
advance of the nation's economy and the welfare of its citizens. The SC
request supports thousands of individual research projects at hundreds
of research facilities across the U.S., primarily at our national
laboratories and research universities. In addition, the fiscal year
2001 request will support continuing construction of the Spallation
Neutron Source; increasing investments in nano-scale science to make
significant contributions to the interagency initiative in nano-
technology; implementing advanced computational modeling and simulation
for DOE's broad scientific challenges; investigating the workings of
the microbial cell for DOE applications; improving the utilization of
our major scientific user facilities; and updating the skills of our
technical workforce.
However, it must be noted that the reduction of fiscal year 2000
funds for contractor travel is having a significant impact on our
ability to conduct forefront research in the fundamental sciences.
Travel to meetings is a traditional mechanism by which the results of
research are delivered to, and actively discussed by, the scientific
community. Failure to participate lessens the impact of the basic
research investment in the federal laboratory system. Reductions in
contractor travel have hampered these exchanges and have impacted SC's
ability to recruit young scientists to the national laboratories. In
addition, DOE has been pursuing the construction of major new
scientific user facilities, such as the SNS, as collaborations between
several laboratories. Successful completion of these projects require
large amounts of contractor and DOE travel. Proper oversight of these
activities through major project reviews also requires use of
contractor travel funds, and is negatively impacted by restrictions on
such funds. Finally, our partnership with CERN in construction of the
Large Hadron Collider, combined with the need to send researchers
abroad to participate in experiments at forefront research facilities
in other nations, required a significant level of foreign travel. I
look forward to working with the Congress to address the unique
situation for SC laboratory researchers with regard to travel.
On behalf of the Administration and the Department, I am pleased to
present this budget for the Office of Science and welcome the challenge
to deliver results.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer your
questions.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, FISCAL YEAR 2001 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
REQUEST, OFFICE OF SCIENCE
[Dollars in Millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------------------------
Program 1999 2000
Comparable Comparable 2001
appropriation appropriation Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science....................... $791.7 $779.4 $1,015.8
Basic Energy Sciences..... 425.9 434.1 445.3
Biological and 220.6 247.8 247.3
Environmental Research...
Fusion Energy Sciences.... 153.5 127.9 182.0
Advanced Scientific 682.7 703.8 714.7
Computing Research.......
High Energy Physics....... 338.5 355.8 369.9
Nuclear Physics........... 32.2 33.1 33.9
Multiprogram Energy Labs- 1.0 1.0 1.0
Facilities Support.......
Energy Research Analyses.. 135.0 131.7 141.2
Science Program Direction. 81.5 ............. ..........
-----------------------------------------
SBIR/STTR..................... 2,862.6 2,814.6 3,151.1
Subtotal................ (13.8) ............. ..........
General Reduction for Use of (7.6) ............. ..........
Prior Year Balances..........
-----------------------------------------
Superconducting Super 2,841.2 2,814.6 3,151.1
Collider...............
=========================================
Energy Supply:
Technical Information 8.8 8.6 9.3
Management...............
SBIR/STTR................. 4.9 ............. ..........
General Reduction for Use (0.3) ............. ..........
of Prior Year Balances...
-----------------------------------------
Total................... 13.4 8.6 9.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATEMENT OF DAN W. REICHER
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. We are going to
proceed with each panel and then ask questions.
Mr. Reicher?
Mr. Reicher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Rather than read an
oral statement, if you have this in front of you, I would like
to go through these quickly. I would like to first briefly
address an issue that I think is on everyone's mind today, and
that is the growing gap between oil production and oil
consumption in the United States. And I will just quickly make
the point that programs in our Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy can help in addressing that gap.
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCE FROM OIL
If you would turn to page two. Whether it is replaced oil
from transportation and industry with biofuels and
biochemicals, whether it is replacing oil with natural gas for
both heating and electricity, whether over the long haul
looking to hydrogen as an ultimate energy source, or most
importantly, perhaps, what we are doing in improving the
efficiency of cars and trucks, radically increasing the fuel
efficiency, through the partnership for a new generation of
vehicles, our programs can help.
So I think it is important that we can contribute a lot to
that vexing national problem that Mr. Dorgan referred to in his
opening statement.
PROGRESS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY
Now I would like to review the progress we have made and
the challenging work that remains to be done in some of our
programs. If you turn to page two, some exciting progress has
been made. Wind energy cost 40 cents a kilowatt hour, Mr.
Chairman, in 1979. It is down to 4 to 6 cents a kilowatt hour
in the year 2000. And with continued R&D support, we think we
can get it down by 2003 in the 2\1/2\ to 4\1/2\ cent per
kilowatt hour range.
WIND
From coast to coast and border to border, the United States
is blessed with a phenomenal wind resource. If you turn to page
three, you will see what I mean. This is a ranking of the
States with the best wind resources in the United States.
Interestingly, Mr. Chairman, California, typically thought
of as the wind State, does not even get into the top 15. It is
number 17 on the list. States like North Dakota, Montana, New
Mexico, Idaho, even New York, has a better resource. And North
Dakota alone has 2\1/2\ times the wind resource of Germany,
which now leads the world in wind investment. And wind has
literally become a new cash crop for farmers.
If you turn to the next page, this is a major wind
development in Iowa, over 100 megawatts recently installed. And
on this farm alone that is pictured, the farmers are being paid
between $2,000 and $3,000 per turbine per year for the use of
their land. So that $8,000 to $12,000 payment for just these
four turbines can literally mean the difference between
profitability and losing the family farm for farmers in many
parts of the country.
Secretary Richardson on Friday is going to break ground on
a major new wind development in Upstate New York in dairy
country. We expect to see--we are going to see many, many more
across the Northeast, the Midwest, the Dakotas and west from
there, very interesting opportunities all across the United
States.
And the sale of wind turbines has grown phenomenally
internationally. If you turn to page five, Mr. Chairman, this
is a very interesting comparison. And it tells the following
story: That in 1999, more new megawatts of wind were installed
in the world than new megawatts of nuclear.
Both technologies are critical to our energy mix. The point
is that wind technology now has gotten to a point where we are
installing it in the thousands and thousands of megawatts
worldwide. And we had the best year on record in the United
States last year with about 1,000 megawatts installed.
GEOTHERMAL
Turning to another great power source on page six,
geothermal energy has dropped from 15 to 16 cents per kilowatt
hour in 1985 to 5 to 8 cents today. And with continued R&D
support, we see it going to 4 to 6 cents in 2003. And like
wind, we have a very rich resource in the United States,
particularly in the West. If you would turn to page seven,
please, you will see the top three States, Nevada, California
and Utah. But you will see a variety of other States with major
resources, Idaho, Hawaii, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota,
Texas and Wyoming. And we think that we can dramatically
increase the use of this excellent energy source, both for
electricity and for heat across the western United States.
SOLAR
We have also seen stunning progress with solar, if you
would turn to page eight. Solar electric costs $1 per kilowatt
hour in 1980, $1 per kilowatt hour. It is down to around 20
cents per kilowatt hour today. And with continued R&D support,
we see it going to around 10 cents in 2005. This is a result in
part of the great work done by the national labs, the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Sandia, in particular.
And solar is now in use in all kinds of settings all over
the United States and not just in the sunny parts of the
country. If you turn to page nine, Mr. Chairman, Times Square
in New York, a 50-story office building has recently been
completed. The upper 20 floors of that building are wrapped in
solar panels, replacing the skin of the building. So it is a
partially self-powered building. It is also powered with fuel
cells on the second floor.
To the left of that is my home at 8 Heskus Street, where I
have put solar panels on my roof a year ago. I can proudly
report today, after 1 year of use, that my average electricity
bill is $1 per day for the year, including air conditioning in
my home in the Washington, DC, area.
INTERNATIONAL SOLAR INDUSTRY
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the United States is losing
our lead in the multi-billion dollar solar industry to the
Japanese, if you turn to the next page. Between 1998 and 1999,
the Japanese surpassed us in terms of world market share in
this multi-billion dollar market. Government support there is
about three times what it is in the United States.
BIOMASS
Another renewable with huge opportunities and great
adaptability is, of course, biomass. If you would turn to page
11. Mr. Chairman, we know how to make all sorts of things, and
starting with trees, grasses, crops, residues, animal waste and
municipal solid waste. We have developed through support from
this subcommittee, a number of technological conversion
processes. And as you see on the right, we can make fuels,
electricity, heat and a huge array of chemicals.
Biomass now represents three percent of U.S. primary
energy. It is a great emerging cash crop for farmers, for
ranchers, for foresters. Mr. Lugar pushed successfully through
the Senate in late February, a bill that would stimulate the
growth of this industry in a very, very important way. And the
President has set a goal to triple United States use of
bioenergy by 2010.
Two quick examples. On page 12, in Indiana and in several
other parts of the country, coal fired utilities are now mixing
their goal stream with biomass to make use of a local resource,
to cut pollution, and to extend the life of these coal-based
power plants.
Down in Louisiana, Mr. Chairman, a new plant is under
construction that will make ethanol, 20 million gallons a year,
from waste from the sugar cane industry that that industry is
now paying to get rid of.
I visited New York State yesterday. There they will be
getting under construction with a new ethanol plant that will
make ethanol from municipal solid waste, 10 million gallons a
year.
HYDROELECTRIC
Now, I need to make a very important point, if you would
turn to page 13. And I think this is responsive to your opening
statement. Maturing an energy source requires both time and
money. In the case of hydroelectric, we have been at it since
about 1903 with major investments of about $50 billion in
today's dollars in dams across the United States. In the case
of nuclear, we have been at it for about 50 years with
investments in the $25 billion to $50 billion a year range.
With renewables, Mr. Chairman, we have been at it for 20 to 25
years with less than $13 billion.
We are between 2 and 3 percent of U.S. electricity that
comes from renewables. And we have seen almost a 20-percent
growth in the last year in renewable-generated electricity
versus a 1.3 percent overall electricity growth in the same
year.
Senator Domenici. Twenty percent is of what?
Mr. Reicher. Twenty percent--the actual number is 18
percent of--we saw about 18-percent growth in U.S. electricity
coming from renewables, from 71.5--I can give you the numbers,
but that is the approximate number, 18-percent growth between
1998 and 1999.
[The information follows:]
ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATES OF INDUSTRY RENEWABLE ENERGY ELECTRICITY GENERATION 1997-1999
[Generation in Terawatt Hours, thousands of Gigawatts, billions of Kilowatts]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years
-----------------------------------------------
1999 \1\ 1998 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geothermal...................................................... 13.904 14.726 14.569
Bioenergy....................................................... 62.819 53.012 54.647
Wind............................................................ 4.213 2.988 3.222
Solar \2\....................................................... 1.143 0.856 0.869
-----------------------------------------------
Renewable Subtotal........................................ 82.079 71.582 \3\ 73.307
Total Electricity......................................... 3,662.300 3,617.900 3,494.200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on preliminary EIA 1999 table 60 net generation data, finals may vary slightly.
\2\ Solar 99 estimated based on prior year PV trends.
\3\ Non-hydro renewables.
Note: Notable Changes in electricity generation: Electricity generation grew 1.0 percent in 1999; Renewables
grew from 2 percent of all electricity generation in 1998 to 2.24 percent in 1999; Renewables' generation grew
15 percent in 1999, from 71.6 GW to 82.1 GW.
BUDGET REQUEST
Mr. Reicher. Now, we have submitted a budget request, Mr.
Chairman, that we believe is critical to advancing clean power
technologies in the way we have supported other technologies.
And if you turn to page 14, I will not go through this chart
other than to point out that, whereas we have asked for a 32-
percent increase between 2001 and 2000, we actually saw a
fairly substantial cut between 1999 and 2000. So that increase
relative to 1999 would be about 24 percent.
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES
Now I would like to highlight just one more important
element of our work, and that is on page 15. Mr. Chairman,
increasingly this country is moving to what are called
distributed energy resources, moving the generation source
closer to the end user, closer to industry, closer to
commercial buildings, closer to homes. These include gas-fired
microturbines, reciprocating engines, fuel cells, and include
renewables like photovoltaics and wind.
And in this picture you will see a new fuel cell that
General Electric will start selling in 2001 that will provide
electricity and heat for a home. And we see this as an exciting
new opportunity to generate electricity in this country, also
very useful for ensuring the reliability of our electricity
system. And it has environmental and economic benefits as well.
IMPROVED MANAGEMENT
Finally, I would like to emphasize that underlying all this
work on clean energy is what I believe to be improved
management of our office. And I appreciate your compliments in
your opening statement. If you turn to the final page, we have
increased competition and merit review in our programs between
1996--and you will see this on this chart--from 24 percent to
88 percent.
This is competition for the discretionary financial
assistance. This is something you told us you wanted us to do,
as they did in the House. And I think we have come quite a
distance.
And the National Academy of Public Administration did a
multi-month review of the management of our office. And while,
Mr. Chairman, we did not get an A, they definitely told us we
are moving in the right direction and complimented the reforms
that we have made, and they are many.
NO-YEAR MONEY
That leads me to my final point. And I guess it is in a
sense almost a plea. We think we have improved our management
to the point that the subcommittee should provide us with funds
on a no-year basis instead of the 1-year funds that you moved
us to in fiscal year 1998.
No-year money is a far more flexible way to pursue R&D. The
1-year funding that you gave us beginning in 1998 has severely
restricted our work and made for decision making that I do not
think is in the ultimate interest of the technologies and the
companies and the laboratories that carry out this work. So I
urge you to consider returning us to no-year money.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Reicher.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAN W. REICHER
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have
the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Energy and
Water Development portion of the fiscal year 2001 budget request for
the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE).
As we begin a new decade--and a new millennium--the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's mission of advancing clean
energy technologies, including energy efficiency, renewable energy and
natural gas, will play an increasingly critical role in securing our
energy future, improving our environment and maintaining our economic
growth. EERE leads the nation in the research, development,
demonstration, and deployment of affordable, advanced energy efficiency
and renewable energy technology and practices, and, together with the
Office of Fossil Energy advances natural gas research, development and
demonstration.
Mr. Chairman, in my testimony today, I plan to cover the following
areas. First, I will discuss energy trends that have emerged over the
last decade and that will drive great change into the next. Second, I
will speak about how our EERE programs as relayed in our strategic plan
will help to meet these emerging challenges, and in particular, I will
discuss some recent exciting technology improvements and the
opportunities and challenges still facing us. Finally, I will
specifically highlight the fiscal year 2001 budget request as it
relates to the EERE programs within the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee, primarily renewable energy technologies and advanced
energy production, storage and transmission systems. The rest of the
EERE budget is funded under the Interior and Related Agencies
appropriations account and focuses on energy efficiency in industry,
transportation and buildings.
Mr. Chairman, as I noted, several energy trends have emerged over
the last decade that will drive great change into the next decade. (1)
Economic Competitiveness--the end of the Cold War in the early 1990's
unleashed a global economy that is forecast to consume almost twice as
much electricity in 2020 as it does today, providing new challenges and
opportunities for U.S. energy technology exports and employment. (2)
Climate Change--over the last 10 years, our confidence in the science
of climate change has made greenhouse gas emissions an issue of concern
for policymakers around the world, significantly changing our view of
the role of energy efficiency and clean power in our nation's energy
economy. Energy use as a whole generates most of the greenhouse gas
emissions in the United States. (3) Clean Air--Energy and the
environment are closely linked--the use of energy is the largest source
of pollution in this country. Vehicles and power plants are the largest
contributors to problems like ground-level ozone, acid rain, and
particulates. In the past decade, we have seen increased regulatory
support for urban and rural areas to mitigate their pollution problems
by deploying energy efficiency and clean power technologies. (4)
Electricity Industry Restructuring--The 1990s also saw significant
change in electricity regulatory policies, with wholesale competition
occurring across the country and about half of the states implementing
retail competition, providing significant new market opportunities for
clean energy technologies, as well as new challenges. Last year when I
testified before this Subcommittee, only 14 states had adopted
restructuring policies through legislation or regulation. Today, 24
states have enacted legislation and the other 26 states are debating
the option.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, the most recent and fast-paced area of
change is energy security. In 1999 we saw the price of crude oil rise
from $10 per barrel in January to $26 in December and we saw the
average U.S. gasoline price rise from $0.97 per gallon to $1.29. We saw
home heating oil costs increase by 30 percent, residential natural
gases increase by 19 percent, and residential propane costs increase by
12 percent. And this trend continues in 2000. In January 2000, five
leading U.S. airlines imposed a $20 per flight fuel surcharge on
tickets. In February, oil prices reached $30 per barrel and U. S.
gasoline prices rose to $1.41 per gallon, the highest prices since the
Gulf war. In late February, in response to high fuel prices, hundreds
of truckers came to the Capitol to protest. Mr. Chairman, these impacts
are real and are being felt by most sectors of society. The Energy
Information Administration in its Annual Energy Outlook 2000, projects
that our dependence on foreign oil will increase from 50 percent in
1999 to about 63 percent by 2015.
My point, Mr. Chairman, is that EERE programs can help mitigate
energy price spikes and slow our rising dependence on foreign oil. For
example, through our multi-agency integrated bioenergy initiative, and
our DOE core research and development programs, we are working to bring
down the costs of ethanol as a substitute for conventional
transportation fuels. With sufficient funding, we expect a substantial
market share for cellulosic ethanol--i.e., ethanol produced from a
variety of agricultural and forestry residue and wastes over the next
two decades.
And, Mr. Chairman, our energy security is not just about foreign
oil. Last summer we were involved in a different type of energy
security issue--the reliability of our electricity delivery system. In
the summer of 1999, power outages occurred in New York City, New
Jersey, and in the Southern and Central States. In Chicago, New England
and the Mid-Atlantic region, power delivery disturbances were caused by
high heat and humidity that strained the power distribution system. The
Department of Energy's Power Outage Study Team, established by
Secretary Richardson in August 1999, warned in their interim report
``that while the electricity industry is undergoing fundamental change,
the necessary operating practices, regulatory policies, and
technological tools for dealing with those changes are not yet in place
to assure an acceptable level of reliability. A significant increase in
electricity use, especially during times of peak demand, is stressing
the electric system.''
Mr. Chairman, our programs are working to remedy the situation. One
example is our distributed generation/grid reliability work. As our
electricity industry restructures, we expect that fewer central
generating power stations will be built. As much as 40 percent of new,
smaller-scale generation will be located closer to its point of use and
should encounter fewer siting difficulties. Our work will enhance the
systems operations while maintaining grid reliability to ensure a
constant electricity supply and to get the most optimal energy
generation, delivery and use system obtainable.
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
In March, we released our strategic plan. In the rapidly changing
world I have described, strategic planning is critical to ensure that
EERE's research, development, demonstration and deployment portfolio is
adequately addressing our nation's clean energy needs. In addition to
strengthening EERE's traditional sector work, our strategic planning
activities are leading to increased emphasis on a number of cross-
cutting initiatives that allow us to leverage our resources across
multiple markets. A further discussion of our corporate cross-cutting
initiatives is presented later in my testimony.
Our strategic plan includes three overarching EERE goals which are:
(1) to increase the supply and use of clean energy resources and the
reliability of the energy system; (2) to increase the efficiency of the
energy system; and (3) to continuously demonstrate EERE managerial and
operational excellence.
In particular, we have set three quantitative goals dealing with
renewable energy. They are to:
--Triple the non-hydroelectric renewable energy generating capacity
to 25,000 megawatts of installed capacity by 2010 and maintain
the viability of hydropower as an important energy resource.
--Triple U.S. use of bio-based products and bioenergy by 2010 from
the 1999 level, which would create as much as $20 billion a
year in new income for farmers and rural communities.
--Achieve 20 percent market penetration of distributed energy
resources by 2010 to help optimize electricity generation and
use.
Mr. Chairman, we have the strategies in place to achieve these
goals. Most importantly, our R&D programs will provide the building
blocks for a cleaner, more efficient and diverse energy economy in the
twenty-first century. Decisions made now about energy production and
use commit the nation to an energy path for future decades. To the
extent that economically attractive, clean, and efficient technologies
are chosen, both the economy and the environment benefit. Thus, a
robust energy R&D program--the core of our work--is needed to enable
the country to achieve a healthy and prosperous future.
However, as a complement to strong and focused R&D, we also need to
undertake field verification projects. Many of the technologies that we
develop with our partners are considered ``high risk'' investments.
While progress in the laboratory is critical to the eventual deployment
of advanced clean energy technologies, taking the technologies from the
laboratory to a testing and evaluation setting helps build confidence
in advanced energy technologies and practices. The data collected from
these field verification activities also provide important information
used by scientists and engineers in the R&D activities, which in turn,
brings further advances to the technologies.
Further, Mr. Chairman, one of our key strategies is creating R&D
partnerships among energy companies, energy-intensive industries,
states, local governments, universities, and our national laboratories
to advance the development of new energy technologies and practices.
Such alliances help maximize the efficiency of the technology R&D
process by leveraging public and private R&D resources, and bringing
together interdisciplinary teams of scientists, engineers, and analysts
to deliver technology results acceptable to energy markets. EERE works
with its partners in both the planning and implementation phases of its
R&D programs. In recent years, EERE has been making greater use of
technology ``visions'' and ``roadmaps'' to develop shared goals among
diverse groups within each sector and provide a framework for
cooperative technology development efforts.
I am proud to report, Mr. Chairman, that our strategies are
generating substantial success. For example, EERE-funded researchers
have won 25 R&D 100 awards from 1996 to 1999. The R&D awards are judged
each year by a panel of 75 respected scientists and are given by R&D
Magazine for the most outstanding technology developments with
significant commercial potential. Let me share just one example:
--High Efficiency Photovoltaic (PV) Modules.--This technology
converts sunlight into electricity using copper indium
diselenide based solar cells. Tests have demonstrated
efficiencies of more than 12 percent, by far the highest of any
commercial thin film module. Thin film PV modules have the
potential of greatly reducing the cost of solar electricity and
providing a wide range of new products with mass appeal.
(Siemens Solar Industries and National Renewable Energy
Laboratory).
Mr. Chairman, in addition to our R&D and field verification
strategies, we have other strategies to advance clean energy
technologies and practices. The market of energy users is broad and
diverse, including hundreds of millions of residential, commercial, and
transportation users, hundreds of thousands of industrial users, and
millions of users in the power sector. To enable deployment of advanced
energy technologies and practices, we work with the leadership of high
leverage public and private organizations that can influence energy
decisions. In addition, we work with the banking, insurance, and
bonding industries that determine where and how much capital is
invested in the energy economy to look for opportunities to partner on
initiatives that advance our mutual interests.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, when I testified last year, I informed you
of my efforts to improve the management of my office--the third
overarching goal of our EERE Strategic Plan. I want to report that I
have continued to make management reform a major priority and I believe
that we are achieving significant results. For example, the proportion
of EERE Discretionary Financial Assistance (DFA) funding awarded on a
competitive basis increased from 24 percent of funding in fiscal year
1996 to 88 percent in fiscal year 1999.
EERE Obligations for New Discretionary Financial Assistance Awarded on
Competitive Basis
[In percent]
Fiscal year:
1996.......................................................... 24.4
1997.......................................................... 33.3
1998.......................................................... 56.7
1997.......................................................... 88.2
Source: DOE Office of Procurement Policy and Procurement and Assistance
Data System Percents do not include Congressional earmarks. If
Congressional earmarks are included for fiscal year 1999, competitive
percent increases to 93 percent.
In fiscal year 1999, I also established a Chief Operating Officer
and new EERE Office of Planning, Budget, and Management to oversee all
corporate EERE planning, budget, and management activities. And, Mr.
Chairman, while I am pleased with our results so far, I am committed to
further improvements. Under the leadership of this new office, a key
approach is the creation of a Strategic Management System. Based on the
complexity of our Nation's energy markets, the range of energy
technology options that could be pursued, and the need to invest
federal resources wisely, it is essential that the EERE programs be
carried out with superior corporate management and business acumen. As
you know and can appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the government cycles often
involve the management of up to four budget years at any time. To do
this in the most effective manner, an orderly, systematic approach is
needed to the business of planning, budget formulation, budget
execution and program analysis and evaluation. Mr. Chairman, for these
reasons, I instituted our Strategic Management System.
As I stated in my testimony last year, I welcome external reviews
to assist us in identifying areas for further management improvements.
The National Academy of Public Administration has undertaken one of
these efforts and I expect their report to be released later this
month.
Similarly, the National Academy of Sciences has been reviewing our
renewable R&D portfolio and we are awaiting their draft report late
this month.
While the actions and initiatives that I have described have
resulted in significant management improvements, implementing and
sustaining these improvements are dependent upon staffing levels and
employee competencies. The modest increase that we are requesting in
program direction is focused on the staffing levels and employee
competencies that will support these management improvements.
We acknowledge the EERE management issues raised by this
Subcommittee that led to one-year funding limitations several years
ago. We have diligently worked to address these concerns and to
implement management systems that will prevent their reoccurrence in
the future. It is my belief, Mr. Chairman, that one-year funds have
limited the flexibility of the programs. I would therefore like to work
with you and this Subcommittee on the restoration of no-year funds.
RECENT R&D SUCCESS
In my testimony before this Subcommittee last year, I spoke to you
about the tremendous strides we made in reducing the cost of
electricity from our nation's vast renewable energy resources, which is
down 80 percent since 1980.
Today, I am pleased to announce that since last year we have
achieved further successes that will help increase the supply and use
of clean energy resources and the reliability of the energy system. Let
me take a moment to highlight a few examples of these accomplishments:
--In photovoltaics, research supported by the program has achieved
two world solar cell efficiency records: (1) a 32 percent
efficient gallium arsenide-based concentrator cell was produced
under a project led by the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory; and (2) a Thin Film Partnership project has
produced a 12 percent efficient thin film photovoltaic module,
using copper indium diselenide material, that is now
commercially available.
--Nearly 1000 MW of wind power generation capacity was installed in
the U.S. in just the last 18 months--enough electricity for
about 400,000 U.S. homes--bringing the total installed capacity
in the United States to about 2500 MW. More than 400 MW was
installed in the Upper Midwest alone, including a 107 MW
facility at Lake Benton, MN, which is producing unsubsidized
power at $0.04 per kWh. Additionally, Northern States Power
recently announced that two proposed wind energy facilities are
among six projects--including natural gas-fired generation and
hydropower--that have been selected for contract negotiations
in its competition for 1200 MW of new generation from all
sources. This marks the first time that wind energy has been
able to compete with conventional baseload, cycling and peaking
technologies for new power generation.
--As the world leader in high temperature superconductivity
technology R&D, the U.S. program research focuses on developing
advanced materials and technologies that will significantly
enhance electric grid system reliability, reduce transmission
losses, and substantially increase the efficiency in end-use
applications such as large industrial motors. Recent research
breakthroughs at Oak Ridge National Laboratory set the stage
for the initiation of grid-connected field tests of high
temperature superconductivity technology in Detroit, Michigan,
Chicago, Illinois and Carrollton, Georgia in fiscal year 2001.
Laboratory, industry, and DOE partnerships will continue to
advance the development of thin, lightweight superconducting
``tapes'' that will be able to carry up to 100 times the
capacity as much heavier copper wires--with essentially no
energy losses.
--The Energy Storage program, which is focused on addressing the
growing number of grid reliability and power quality issues
facing the U.S. and is helping to resolve intermittency issues
faced by some renewable technologies, achieved a very notable
success this past year. At S&C Electric--Chicago's largest
manufacturing plant--a truck-sized 2 MW battery was installed
to protect the facility's extrusion machinery which molds high
voltage insulators. Such processes are particularly vulnerable
to short power outages because the entire run must be discarded
and equipment may be severely damaged. This new system ensures
that power will continue to be supplied seamlessly whenever an
outage or voltage sag happens. The system has been estimated to
prevent production losses of approximately $500,000 annually--
representing a one-year payback period. Similar systems can be
developed to help protect other vulnerable industries such as
semiconductor and pharmaceutical plants.
CONTINUING R&D CHALLENGES
While we continue to make tremendous strides in these and other
renewable and power delivery technologies, we still have much work to
do. Competition in the power generation sector has led to significant
decreases in the price of power from new sources of generation. In
particular, natural gas-fired combustion turbine technology, which
produces power at $0.03 per kWh or less, has set a new threshold for
market penetration of new generation technologies in most locations
here in the U.S. Strong efforts in core technology R&D, coupled with
research on integrating renewable and renewable/hybrid systems, will
help accelerate cost reductions and make these systems more attractive
both domestically and overseas. As U.S. technologies continue to pursue
the global market, where the need for energy far outstrips supply and
electricity costs are typically much higher, sales will spur improved
economies of scale in production and help lower costs.
However, both self interest and the great economic potential in
this international energy marketplace has also encouraged other nations
to aggressively pursue their own renewable energy technology research,
development, and deployment programs--oftentimes funded at much higher
levels than our U.S. programs. For example, for several years now we
have cautioned that Japan's very aggressive RD&D program threatened
U.S. technology and sales leadership in the area of photovoltaics,
which the U.S. regained in 1993. While U.S. companies still increased
their overall sales volume in 1999, Japan's four to five-fold higher
funding levels and favorable domestic policies have enabled them to
recapture world sales leadership with 40 percent of the world market
compared to 31 percent for the U.S. (In 1998, the U.S. held a slim
lead--35 percent to 32 percent--over Japan.)
How can we meet these challenges to our technology leadership?
Increased and sustained levels of federal funding is part of the
answer. Fluctuation in funding disrupts research efforts, can result in
losses of key scientists, and delays achievement of goals. Better
coordination among researchers in federal agencies, private sector
organizations, and industry is another part of the answer.
Another is to update and improve key facilities at our national
laboratories--the workhorses of our core R&D. For example, the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is a global leader in renewable
energy research, development, and field validation activities, and is
home to the National Wind Technology Center and the National
Photovoltaic Center. Upgrades in the highly specialized research
instruments and the physical plant are needed annually to avoid
critical failures and maintain world leadership. Unfortunately, NREL
receives the least capital funding of DOE major research and
development laboratories, and capital investment is well below the
research and development industry average. Sustained capital
reinvestment at NREL is essential to maintain American leadership in
renewable energy research and development activities.
An additional way to meet the challenges to U.S. technology
leadership is to reduce institutional, regulatory, and trade barriers
to the sales of our technology overseas. As a successful example, we
have now established performance and reliability standards, and a
globally recognized certification process, so that American-produced
wind energy technologies will be accepted in countries around the
world.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud of our successes and I appreciate your
support and the support of this Subcommittee for our activities.
However, the promise of these programs is enormous and while we have
made great progress, we continue to ask for your support to carry out
our important mission.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
The following tables provide details of our fiscal year 2001 budget
request. The sections following the tables describe ongoing programs
and our fiscal year 2001 budget request in the areas of Solar and
Renewable technologies, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL), the Departmental Energy Management program, and program
direction. Solar and Renewable Resource Technologies (in millions of
dollars)
SOLAR AND RENEWABLE RESOURCE TECHNOLOGIES
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------------
2001 2000-2001
1999 2000 Request Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power Technologies................ 269.1 252.4 330.0 +77.6
Solar Building Technology 3.5 2.0 4.5 +2.5
Research.....................
Photovoltaic Energy Systems... 70.6 65.9 82.0 +16.1
Concentrating Solar Power..... 16.8 15.2 15.0 -0.2
Biomass/Biofuels Energy 30.8 31.8 48.0 +16.2
Systems--Power Systems.......
Wind Energy Systems........... 34.1 32.5 50.5 +18.0
Renewable Energy Production 4.0 1.5 4.0 +2.5
Incentive....................
Solar Program Support \1\..... ....... 4.9 6.5 +1.6
International Renewable Energy 6.3 3.8 11.5 +7.7
Program \1\..................
Geothermal Energy Systems..... 28.2 23.6 27.0 +3.4
Hydrogen Research............. 22.0 24.6 23.0 -1.6
Hydropower Development........ 3.2 4.9 5.0 +0.1
Renewable Indian Energy 4.8 3.9 5.0 +1.1
Resources....................
Electric Energy Systems and 40.8 37.8 48.0 +10.2
Storage......................
Federal Buildings/Remote Power 4.0 ....... ....... .........
Init.........................
=====================================
Transportation Technologies: 41.2 38.9 54.4 +15.5
Biomass/Biofuels Energy Systems--
Transportation...................
=====================================
National Renewable Energy 3.9 1.1 1.9 +0.8
Laboratory.......................
Program Direction................. 18.1 17.7 18.2 +0.5
Departmental Energy Management ....... ....... 5.0 +5.0
Program..........................
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Solar and 332.3 310.1 409.5 +99.4
Renewable Energy...........
=====================================
Use of Prior Year Balances........ 1.0 0.8 ....... -0.8
-------------------------------------
Total, Solar and Renewable 331.3 309.3 409.5 +100.2
Energy.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes funding for international energy efficiency programs under
Energy Conservation.
Our fiscal year 2001 program level for Solar and Renewable Energy
Technologies is $409.5 million--an increase of $99.4 million (or 32
percent) over fiscal year 2000. The bulk of the EERE Energy and Water
Development Appropriation supports the work of the Office of Power
Technologies (OPT) at $334.6 million. OPT works with electric service
providers and related industries to advance clean, competitive and
reliable power technologies. It develops renewable energy technologies
that use solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal and biomass energy
resources and conduct R&D that will enable a hydrogen energy
infrastructure in the future. Our programs also develop advanced
technologies--including high temperature superconducting materials,
real-time power system controls, and energy storage--that will improve
the energy efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the nation's electric
systems. Finally, the office facilitates the export of renewable energy
power generation internationally.
Included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriation is $54.4
million for the Office of Transportation Technologies (OTT) to support
R&D on production of biomass-based transportation fuels. The requested
funds also include: $18.2 million for Program Direction, which provides
the federal staffing resources and associated funding to support the
management and oversight of the Solar and Renewable programs; $1.9
million for the National Energy Renewable Laboratory (NREL); and $5
million for the Department Energy Management Program (DEMP), to manage
both the utility demand and supply functions at DOE sites.
Included in our fiscal year 2001 request are several new and
ongoing initiatives. Let me begin by discussing two initiatives that
involve several EERE programs, the Bioenergy and Bioproducts Initiative
and the International Clean Energy Initiative. I will also briefly
discuss consolidation of our distributed generation activities and,
finally, I will discuss our ongoing programs and the specific budget
requests for those programs.
BIOENERGY AND BIOBASED PRODUCTS INITIATIVE
Recent scientific advances in bioenergy and biobased products have
created enormous potential to: enhance U.S. energy security; help
manage carbon emissions; protect the environment; and develop new
economic opportunities for rural America. This nation has abundant
biomass resources (crops, trees, agricultural wastes). These resources
have the potential to provide substantial amounts of power, fuels,
chemicals and other biobased products. Today they already provide about
3 percent of U.S. energy. This initiative can capitalize on the many
separate but related activities across the government, industry, and
academia by coordinating the planning projects designed to accelerate
the use of bioenergy.
In the past year, industry executives from the pulp and paper,
agricultural commodity, major chemicals, and the fuel ethanol and
biomass power utility industries, met in St. Louis and Washington, DC
to develop a bioenergy vision for the industry and nation. ``The
Bioenergy Vision: Achieving Integrated Development and Use of Our
Nation's Biologically Derived Renewable Resources'' challenges industry
and government alike to develop a sustainable energy future founded on
domestic, renewable biomass. The vision document is currently being
reviewed and will be published soon, but the message is clear, we can
work in partnership towards a common goal with substantial national
benefits.
On August 12, 1999, the President issued an Executive Order on
Biobased Products and Bioenergy that will coordinate federal efforts to
accelerate the development of 21st century biobased industries that use
trees, crops, agricultural, forest, and aquatic resources to make an
array of commercial products including fuels, electricity and
chemicals. The President set a goal of tripling U.S. use of biobased
products and bioenergy by 2010. In the President's remarks at the
Executive Order signing ceremony, he stated that reaching the tripling
goal ``would generate as much as $20 billion a year in new income for
farmers and rural communities, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions
by as much as 100 million tons a year--the equivalent of taking more
than 70 million cars off the road.''
The Executive Order has been complemented by the introduction of
several bills in Congress. Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) introduced the
National Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Act of 1999, which was adopted
by the full Senate on February 29, 2000. This is a research and
development bill designed to overcome technical barriers to low-cost
biomass conversion by encouraging closer coordination and integration
among federal agencies, national labs, universities, private sector
companies, and environmental organizations. Companion biomass bills
were introduced by Representatives Ewing (R-IL) and Udall (D-CO). The
Congressional and White House support demonstrates the growing
importance of investing in the development of biobased products and
bioenergy industries today, which will help the country prosper in this
new century.
Through a newly-formed Interagency Council, the Administration is
currently in the process of surveying all of the programs that have a
direct role in meeting the goals of this initiative. This includes
programs at DOE, USDA, NSF, DOC, and DOI. This survey will lead to the
development of a strategic plan that will help us adjust our portfolio
in coming years to concentrate efforts on the most promising
technologies to realize our goals. At this point, we have already begun
to respond to input and think more wholistically about the
technologies. The fiscal year 2001 request directs new funds toward
priority areas. Of particular importance are R&D activities designed to
advance the development of ``biorefineries''--facilities that can
process biomass into an array of fuels and products much like oil
refineries do today. We are also beginning to focus more on
intermediate chemicals such as sugars that can be used as platform
chemicals, to be used to produce many different end products.
To support the Bioenergy initiative, the Administration proposes an
increase of more than $93 million over the amounts available for fiscal
year 2000, with $49 million of this increase for programs managed by
DOE and $44 million for enhanced efforts at USDA. For fiscal year 2001,
efforts will follow the new strategic plan that will be developed under
the Executive Order and roadmaps identified under the Bioenergy and
Bioproducts Initiative. It is anticipated that new partnerships will
come together for the first time in an integrated fashion, across the
several sectors of the currently fragmented bioenergy and bioproducts
industry, leading to new business opportunities. We are already funding
in fiscal year 2000, per Energy and Water Development direction, new
R&D that cuts across the biopower, biofuels and bioproducts sectors.
New and broader innovative approaches will be encouraged through a
multi-agency, industry peer review project selection process in fiscal
year 2001. Below is a brief description of the two of the four base
programs in EERE that directly or indirectly support the work of the
initiative. The four programs are Biopower Technologies, Biofuels
Technologies, Forestry and Paper Products and Agriculture: the Biopower
and Biofuels programs are funded by this subcommittee; the Forest and
Paper Products and the Agriculture programs are funded in the
appropriation for the Interior and Related Agencies.
Biopower Technologies--The budget request for the Biopower program
within the Office of Power Technologies (OPT) is $48 million in fiscal
year 2001. The mission of Biopower Technology is to integrate
sustainable biomass feedstock production with efficient biomass power
generation systems that can provide substantial energy, economic, and
environmental benefits. Collaborative partnerships between OPT and the
private sector will focus on critical research, development, and cost-
shared technology verification activities. Biopower Technologies will
include a full complement of efficient biomass technologies, size
ranges, and feedstocks (agricultural residues, wood residues, energy
crops, etc.). The program's goal is the establishment of 3,000 MW of
new renewable biomass power generation capacity installed by 2010. The
request includes $5.0 million for thermochemical conversion and $26.4
million for systems development. Also included are $4.0 million for
feedstock development; $1.6 million for the regional biomass energy
program; and $11.0 million in support of integrated projects under this
initiative.
This request will support an expanded research effort that will aid
in defining chemical characteristics of biomass under various forms of
thermochemical conversion (e.g. gasification, combustion, etc.).
Efforts will include laboratory modeling and process simulation which
will reduce technical risks and development costs of biopower
technologies. These efforts should also result in shorter development
time during field validations. The Biopower Technologies will also
examine methods to increase the net energy output of biopower systems
per unit of carbon used through high efficiency power and thermal
recovery. The systems development activity request is $9.4 million for
the co-firing biomass with coal effort, $5.5 million for the small
modular biopower systems, $4.0 million for biomass power for rural
development, $4.0 million for the Vermont gasifier project, $2.0
million for the international clean energy initiative to develop grid-
systems and off-grid/mini-systems with biomass and other renewables,
and $1.5 million is requested for a new agriculture residues to energy
program.
Biofuels Technologies.--Biofuels technologies managed by the Office
of Transportation Technologies (OTT) has a budget request of $54.4
million in fiscal year 2001. This RD&D effort will lead to cost
competitive technologies for the production of renewable transportation
fuels, in collaboration and partnership with industry, other government
organizations, and academic institutions. In support of this mission,
the program pursues the development of low-cost biomass feedstocks and
cost competitive conversion technologies for liquid fuels production
from agricultural residues, forestry wastes, and energy crops. The
development and deployment of biofuels technologies can displace a
substantial amount of imported petroleum while promoting rural economic
development. Since biofuels produce almost no net carbon on a life-
cycle basis, they are a very promising supply side option for reducing
carbon emissions in the transportation sector. The Biofuels
technologies request of $54.4 million includes: $38.4 million for
ethanol production; $1.0 million for renewable diesel fuel
alternatives; $4.5 million for feedstock development; $3.5 million for
the regional biomass energy program; and $7.0 million in support of
integrated activities under the initiative.
INTERNATIONAL CLEAN ENERGY INITIATIVE
While Japan, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and others forge
ahead with international energy technology sales opportunities, the
U.S. is losing its leadership role. U.S. firms are losing a significant
share of the multi-hundred-billion dollar per year global market in
energy supply technologies, most of which is and remains overseas.
About 2-3 billion people lack access to a reliable supply of
electricity. The International Clean Energy Initiative (ICEI)
initiative will strengthen America's capacity for energy technology
innovation and advance clean energy technology applications in large
foreign markets.
Its purpose is to help developing countries and countries with
economies in transition to ``leap frog'' conventional approaches to
energy production and instead make the best use of clean energy
technologies. We will focus on providing technical assistance to
countries and regions to develop their capacity to conduct sector-
specific economic analyses of technologies and policies. ICEI will
provide technical assistance to undertake project assessments, to
identify the unique mix of clean energy technologies (e.g., wind,
hydro, PV, biomass, solar thermal and natural gas) and to develop
strategies that fit the country's climates, resources, and local needs.
It will also provide in-country analysis of models that could be used
to identify cost effective energy efficiency and fuel switching
opportunities. ICEI will also help attract U.S. public and private
financing sources to develop projects as well as create long-term
relationships between U.S. public and private laboratories and
organizations and those in developing and transition countries.
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES (DER)
Mr. Chairman, I also have begun to consolidate all distributed
energy resources activities within the EERE portfolio from three
distinct sectors into one Distributed Energy Resources program. The DER
program will accelerate the development and deployment of cleaner and
more efficient, affordable, and reliable distributed energy resources
which include renewable, natural gas, enabling and power delivery
technologies. We will create a plan for realizing the potentially large
public benefits (e.g., 30-40 percent of new electric generation and use
equating to over $5 trillion in annual sales), both domestically and
internationally.
MILLION SOLAR ROOFS INITIATIVE
In fiscal year 2001, we are requesting $3.0 million (up $1.5
million) to facilitate and expand deployment of solar energy systems
throughout the U.S. through training and outreach programs with state
and local partnerships. The initiative works with partners in the
building industry, local governments, state agencies, the solar
industry, electric service providers, and non-governmental
organizations to remove market barriers and strengthen grassroots
demand for photovoltaic and solar thermal technologies. We work with
nearly 50 State and local partnerships that provide training and
technical assistance to builders, solar equipment installers, utilities
and financial institutions in order to develop the technology and
support infrastructure to create sustainable solar energy markets.
THE FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
Mr. Chairman, at this point, I will discuss our fiscal year 2001
budget request, in the order of the budget submission. The proposed
increase will support research, development and field validation
activities in solar building technologies, photovoltaic energy systems,
concentrating solar power technologies, biopower and biofuels systems,
wind energy systems, international renewable energy, renewable energy
production incentives, solar program support, the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL), geothermal, hydrogen, and hydropower
technologies, renewable Indian energy resources, and electric energy
systems and storage. Additionally, I will address the Departmental
Energy Management Program, and Solar program direction; activities
which cut across several EERE sectors.
SOLAR ENERGY PROGRAMS
Our Solar Energy programs request is $101.5 million. The request
covers solar building technologies, photovoltaics systems and
concentrating solar power technologies. These three items follow and
will be discussed individually in the order that they appear in the
budget.
Solar Building Technologies
Imagine ``zero energy, zero emission'' buildings that not only
economically provide all their own energy, but also provide a
comfortable environment in which to live or work and insure against
power outages. To achieve this new goal, Solar Buildings Technologies
is requesting $4.5 million--an increase of $2.53 million to conduct R&D
to optimally combine solar energy technologies with energy efficient
appliances and advanced construction techniques. Three areas of effort
will be pursued in fiscal year 2001, including: the development of new
polymer (plastic) solar collectors that provide inexpensive energy for
water heating; research on a new technology that collects sunlight and
distributes it into the interior rooms of a building through fiber
optics; and coordination of complementary R&D activities.
OPT requests $2.8 million for solar thermal R&D to develop a new
generation of solar water heaters that is 50 percent less expensive
than today's technology (from $0.08/kWh to $0.04/kWh delivered energy
cost). This advanced lightweight system would replace heavier, more
expensive copper tubing and glass systems and would enable a family to
buy a solar water heater for about $1,000, with energy savings
returning their investment within four years. Cost reduction will be
realized through the development of industry concepts that use
inexpensive polymers, improved manufacturing processes, and innovative
design. Prototype systems will be built and tested during fiscal year
2001.
Solar building technologies will also determine the feasibility of
using solar concentrating technologies (e.g. small scale parabolic
dishes) with large-core optical fibers to bring sunlight into the
interior of buildings. In addition, a proof of concept model will be
built. Activities will be coordinated with DOE's Office of Building
Technology, State and Community Programs (BTS) since this light source
would have to be integrated with a building's conventional lighting
system. This ``hybrid'' system uses the visible portion of the solar
spectrum in its natural form (light) and supplements it with electric
light when necessary. In fiscal year 2001, $0.7 is requested for this
effort.
Technology coordination will assess the optimum mix of solar
technologies to provide all the energy needed by efficient buildings in
representative U.S. climates. This assessment also will be coordinated
with BTS. Two competitive solicitations will be issued to: (1) explore
the potential of integrating solar technology with fossil fuel based
heating systems (e.g. heat pumps and radiant heating); and (2) develop
conceptual designs of zero energy buildings.
Photovoltaic Energy Systems
The strategic goal of Photovoltaic Energy Systems is to make
photovoltaic (PV) technologies a significant part of the U.S. domestic
economy, both as an energy source and a technology export industry. In
order to achieve this goal, Photovoltaic Energy Systems has identified
certain key milestones for each of the PV technologies that address
conversion efficiency, cost, and reliability. For example, the
Photovoltaic Energy System expects to set performance records in all
leading PV technologies (i.e., thin film and crystalline silicon) by
2004 and reduce the direct manufacturing cost of PV modules by 40
percent from the current average cost of $2.50/watt to $1.50/watt
(equivalent to 15 cents/kWh in an installed system). The Photovoltaic
Energy System also intends to ensure that PV modules have a service
lifetime greater than 25 years by improving reliability and reducing
recurring costs.
There are three main elements to the Photovoltaic Energy Systems
mission and the fiscal year 2001 request--Fundamental Research ($20.3
million), Advanced Materials and Devices ($27.0 million), and
Technology Development ($34.7 million). The major fiscal year 2001
program activities that will be carried out in each category are
addressed below.
Fundamental research
Fundamental research involves three component programs: measurement
and characterization; basic research/university programs; and high
performance advanced research for which we are requesting $20.3 million
(up $6.1 million). The first component measures and characterizes PV
cell materials and devices, in part to identify and reduce defects,
using state-of-the-art equipment. Through the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL), Photovoltaic Energy Systems has access to more than
40 techniques to measure electrical and optical properties of PV cells,
as well as their chemistry, structure, and physical nature.
Under the basic research/university programs, the Photovoltaic
Energy System supports research to understand cell structures and
properties of the four primary materials (i.e., amorphous silicon,
cadmium telluride, copper indium diselenide, and thin silicon
materials) used in thin film technologies. This component also looks at
advanced and innovative materials and deposition methodologies, and
works with universities to conduct cutting-edge research and explore
innovative new ideas. In fiscal year 2000, we will issue a new
solicitation for breakthrough, non-conventional PV technologies, such
as liquid cells, polymers, and biochemical processes aimed at dramatic
cost reductions. Continuation of both of these basic research
activities are crucial to the program's efforts to develop the advanced
technologies needed to meet the long-term goal of $0.06/kWhr
electricity.
The third component is high performance advanced research. This
research activity, started in fiscal year 2000, is aimed at
substantially increasing efficiency of two key photovoltaic
technologies: large area, monolithically interconnected thin films; and
(multi-junction III-V-based) concentrator cells. Fundamental
innovations are required to essentially double the conversion
efficiency of thin films from their current 8-10 percent to 15-20
percent, and to increase multi-junction cell efficiency from 30 percent
to 40 percent under 500X concentration. Successful development of a 40
percent efficient, four-junction cell will enable the development of a
33 percent efficient complete PV module. Both the enhanced thin film
and the multi-junction III-V approaches should yield dramatic cost
reductions.
Advanced materials and devices
The advanced materials and devices request of $27.0 million (no
change) will support the specific research areas such as the thin film
partnership and the crystalline silicon/high efficiency devices
programs. The thin film partnership is a government/industry/university
partnership to accelerate development of cost-effective, thin film
technologies using the four primary materials discussed above. Thin
film technologies are considered the best option for meeting the mid-
and long-term cost goals. Some accomplishments of the thin film
partnership are a new world record at NREL for an 18.8 percent
efficient copper indium diselenide (CIS) cell, and a new world record
and prestigious R&D 100 Award by Siemens Solar Industries for the
highest module efficiency (12.1 percent) using CIS technology.
Research on crystalline silicon/high efficiency devices
investigates the role of impurities and defects in crystalline silicon
technologies and seeks to develop new processes and device structures
to increase performance. Core research on high efficiency III-V gallium
arsenide (GaAs) materials and devices for concentrator and flat plate
applications will also be continued in fiscal year 2001.
Technology development
The last major category, technology development, contains research
activities in photovoltaic manufacturing R&D, systems engineering and
reliability, PV building integrated opportunities, and partnerships for
technology introduction, to support our request of $34.7 million (up
$10.0 million from the fiscal year 2000 appropriation).
Photovoltaic manufacturing R&D improves the manufacturing processes
for thin film technologies and assists industry in developing advanced
techniques for manufacturing higher performance and lower cost
commercial products. Work is conducted through the photovoltaic
manufacturing technology (PVMaT) project. PVMaT is designed to help the
U.S. industry improve manufacturing processes, accelerate manufacturing
cost reductions for PV modules, improve commercial product performance,
and lay the groundwork for a substantial scale-up of U.S.-based PV
manufacturing plant capacities. In fiscal year 2001, a new competitive
solicitation will be issued for new in-line process diagnostics and
state-of-the-art measurement and characterization equipment needed for
module scale-up and successful manufacturing. These advanced
manufacturing and processing techniques are key to achieving further
cost reductions.
The systems engineering and reliability research is essential to
achieving the Photovoltaic Energy Systems goal of developing modules
and systems that can last 30 years in the field. Cost competitiveness
for PV generated electricity is directly dependent on payback over the
life of the system under actual operating conditions. The fiscal year
2001 program will continue to collaborate with industry to improve
systems and balance of system reliability to reduce life-cycle cost by
providing technical assistance, field engineering, accelerated
durability testing, and system outdoor testing and evaluation. Specific
to module reliability, this activity works to understand the photo/
thermal/chemical/environmental factors that influence the stability of
encapsulated materials and performance of cells in modules. This
activity also supports development of domestic and international
standards and codes, and procedures for certifying performance of
commercial systems.
The PV building integrated opportunities activity is a highly cost-
shared R&D effort with industry to develop building integrated PV
products. The PV industry's market projections show substantial growth
opportunities in the next five years for building integrated PV
products and systems, and this R&D responds to their need for continued
development. The activities planned in fiscal year 2001 are to continue
conducting R&D on advanced PV building products, concepts, tools, and
modeling procedures in support of industry's development efforts.
Technical and institutional barriers that inhibit market growth for PV
in the buildings sector will also be addressed.
The partnership for technology introduction is a collaboration
between the U.S. utility industry and DOE to increase and accelerate
electric utility use of grid-connected and grid-independent
photovoltaics for the benefit of the utilities and their customers.
This will also be continued in fiscal year 2001. Through the utility
photovoltaic group's (UPVG) TEAM-UP program, a new competitive
Partnership for Technology Introduction solicitation will be issued for
highly leveraged projects emphasizing building integrated applications,
including school buildings.
Concentrating Solar Power Technologies
The Concentrating Solar Power Technologies program works in
collaboration with U.S. industry to develop solar technologies that can
provide clean power, when it is needed, at prices competitive with
current sources of peaking energy supply. With a fiscal year 2001
funding request of $15.0 million, Concentrating Solar Power
Technologies will focus its efforts on two five-year objectives: (1)
developing highly reliable, kilowatt-sized power systems for
distributed and stand-alone applications (including residential use);
and (2) reducing the cost of fully dispatchable systems (from 10-12
cents/kWh to 6-8 cents/kWh) capable of producing power on demand.
Achieving both of these targets will provide both U.S. industry and
U.S. citizens with green energy options that will create a broad range
of jobs domestically, while contributing substantially to the world's
need for cleaner power production alternatives.
Ranging in size from several kilowatts (dish/engine systems) to
multi-megawatt installations (parabolic troughs and power towers),
Concentrating Solar Power Technologies are expected to satisfy
substantial domestic and international energy needs, contributing over
5,000 MW of power by 2010, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Energy from CSP systems is high-value renewable power because energy
storage and hybrid designs allow it to be provided on-demand--even when
the sun is not shining. This dispatchable feature is an added-value for
CSP technologies that greatly enhances their acceptance by users. CSP
Program efforts are in three areas: Distributed Power Systems
Development ($4.3 million); Dispatchable Power System Development ($5.2
million) and Advanced Components and Systems ($5.5 million).
Distributed Power System Development
Distributed Power System Development--$4.3M (down $0.8M from the
fiscal year 2000 appropriation). The CSP Program is currently cost-
sharing the development and testing of two ``larger-scale'' (25kW)
dish/engine designs for grid-connected applications. One industry team
installed their first three units in 1999. These systems are currently
undergoing reliability testing at utility sites in Arizona. A second
industry team, with an alternate design, will operate and test several
first-generation units in California while making component
modifications and installing an advanced system in early 2001. Having
two dish/engine technology teams strengthens the position of U.S.
industry in their efforts to develop commercially viable products.
Within the next three years, 25kW dish/engine systems will be providing
power for an increasingly well defined market.
Dish/engine technology is well suited to serve remote power needs
where grid-connected power is not available. With initial system
checkout completed in 1999 and off-grid capability achieved in 2000,
the Concentrating Solar Power Technologies will complete the field
installation and initiate testing of two second-generation 10kW dish/
engine units on Native American lands in Arizona and New Mexico in
2001. This project will provide Native Americans with access to power
where there is none, and create job opportunities through system
manufacture, installation, operation, and maintenance. In addition,
comprehensive studies have recently shown that residential markets in
the Sunbelt offer opportunities for ``smaller-scale'' (1-5kW) CSP
systems. To initiate R&D in this area, competitive solicitations were
issued in fiscal year 2000 to both universities and private industry to
explore alternative solar dish-based system concepts. Prototype design
efforts will begin in fiscal year 2001.
Dispatchable Power System Development
Dispatchable Power System Development--$5.2M (down $0.8M from the
fiscal year 2000 appropriation). Concentrating Solar Power Technologies
launched the USA Trough Initiative in fiscal year 1999 in order to work
with a resurgent U.S. industry and achieve the first solar electric
power for under 10 cents/kWh. Fiscal year 2001 activities include the
development of innovative trough concepts and R&D on advanced trough
components. CSPT is also working through U.S. industry with the current
manufacturers of trough components to improve the reliability of
receiver tubes and increase the performance of the solar collector.
State-of-the-art components are being tested at California's working
trough plants in fiscal year 2000, with new component designs expected
in fiscal year 2001. Based on their low cost and ease of hybridization
with fossil fuel, solar troughs are currently the leading candidate for
MW-scale solar power projects, both domestically and internationally.
Further, analysis by the World Bank suggests economical storage will
greatly enhance the value of trough technology, especially in markets
where solar-only dispatchable power is required. Accordingly,
Concentrating Solar Power Technologies with U.S. industry to
investigate both near-term and long-term storage options for trough
plants.
Recent events such as the ``royal decree'' in Spain (where the
government is offering up to a 24 cents/kWh incentive for solar-only,
dispatchable power), and the World Bank/Global Environment Facility
approval of $200 million to support the installation of Concentrating
Solar Power Technologies projects in four countries, have stimulated
U.S. industry into forming strategic partnerships to capitalize on
these near-term project opportunities. OPT will provide technical
assistance to U.S. industry in all three technologies (troughs, towers,
and dishes) to ensure the U.S. maintains a leadership role, in the form
of jobs and manufacturing, as trough plants begin to enter world
markets within the next three years.
Advanced Components and Systems
Advanced Components and Systems--$5.5M (up $1.4M from the fiscal
year 2000 appropriated level). Advanced research on high-efficiency
system designs and new component materials will produce the long-term
technical advances required for Concentrating Solar Power Technologies
to successfully compete in large-scale dispatchable and distributed
power markets. Several broad-based competitive solicitations were
issued to both universities and industry in fiscal year 2000 to
diversify and strengthen the research base for the development of CSP
technologies. Advances resulting from this work will enhance the
technical and economic competitiveness of Concentrating Solar Power
Technologies. This advanced research will provide the breakthroughs
needed to achieve the long-term program goal of developing CSP
technology capable of providing electric power in the 4-to-6 cents/kWh
range. Balanced RD&D with laboratories, universities and industry
working together will be employed.
Biopower/Biofuels
We are requesting $48.0 million for Biopower programs in fiscal
year 2001, an increase of $16.2 million. The program supports biomass
energy projects aimed at principal markets of electric power and
transportation. For biofuels transportation programs we are requesting
$54.4 million. This RD&D effort will lead to cost competitive
technologies for the production of renewable transportation fuels, in
collaboration and partnership with industry, other government
organizations, and academic institutions. Biopower and Biofuels are two
of the core programs that participate in the Bioenergy and Biobased
Products Initiative as previously discussed in my testimony.
Wind Energy Systems
The fiscal year 2001 funding request for the Wind Energy Systems
program is $50.5 million, an increase of $18.0 million over the fiscal
year 2000 appropriation. This increase reflects our belief that wind
energy technology offers an important opportunity for America to gain
important and substantial economic, environmental, and energy security
benefits. While wind energy growth has been rapid and consistent on a
worldwide basis during recent years, its growth in the U.S. remains
highly uncertain as electric power markets deregulate and place
increased emphasis on low cost of energy production. The key to
positioning wind as an important clean energy technology for U.S.
industry and competitive power markets, as well as export markets, is
the innovative, world-class research being carried out under the Wind
Energy Systems program. An essential near-term focus of these efforts
are the program's partnerships with industry to develop wind turbines
capable of producing energy as low as 2.5 cents per kWh at sites with
good winds. This will help substantially in leveling the playing field
in competition for new energy supply in the U.S. For wind to realize
its full potential for America, Wind Energy Systems is continuing
emphasis on completing the R&D that will further reduce costs, and
thereby expand the range of wind resources that can be economically
harnessed.
In fiscal year 2001, we will begin implementation of WindPowering
America, an aggressive activity with the goal of installing power
generation facilities that will produce 5 percent of America's
electricity by 2020. Next Generation Turbine research and development
activities will accelerate to help achieve the market-driven 2002 goal
of 2.5 cents per kWh on good sites.
In fiscal year 2001, the Wind Energy Systems program will focus on
applied research ($15.0 million), turbine research ($14.5 million), and
cooperative research and testing ($21.0 million).
Applied Research
Applied Research (up $1.5 million from the fiscal year 2000
appropriation) addresses fundamental engineering and technology issues
with a broad range of applications, and is carried out at the national
laboratories and numerous universities. Advancements to computer aided
models for wind turbine design will be completed using key data
obtained from full-scale turbine wind tunnel testing completed in 2000.
The requested increase will accelerate the wind partnerships for
advanced component technologies (WindPACT) project. The WindPACT
project has identified promising wind turbine component and subsystem
concepts for further development and testing. In 2001, industry
partners will be competitively selected to fabricate and test these
innovative component technologies in close collaboration with
laboratory researchers. After performance and viability are proven
through laboratory and field testing, the program will work with
industry to incorporate WindPACT component technologies into leading-
edge wind turbines for commercial markets.
Turbine Research
Turbine Research (up $2.0 million from the fiscal year 2000
appropriation) is a cost-shared cooperative program with industry and
utilities that supports competitively-selected research, testing, and
field verification needed for advanced technology wind turbines. The
requested increase for turbine research will support continuing
partnerships with five U.S. companies located in California, Oklahoma,
Vermont, and Washington. Two companies are designing turbines under the
next generation turbine project, which is targeted to lead to wind
turbines in operation by 2002 that are capable of achieving a cost of
2\1/2\ cents/kWh at 15 mph wind sites by 2002. In fiscal year 2001,
these companies will be completing fabrication, installation, and
beginning field testing of their engineering and manufacturing
development prototype turbines. Field tests of two prototype turbines
under the small wind turbine project will be completed, and efforts
will begin to obtain field verification experience with the
manufacturers early production units. The program will also carry out
R&D and field verification on the cold weather wind turbine, with
prototypes in operation at the National Wind Technology Center and in
Alaska. The advance turbine concepts project will be launched in fiscal
year 2001, which will allow U.S. industry to explore the feasibility of
moving toward larger scale, multi-megawatt or other advanced turbine
architectures in response to a major trend in the European wind
industry.
Cooperative Research and Testing
Cooperative Research and Testing (up $14.5 million from the fiscal
year 2000 appropriation) focuses on addressing the near-term R&D
priorities of the U.S. wind industry. A key focus of this activity for
2001 will be the Wind Powering America initiative, a commitment
announced by the Secretary of Energy in June 1999 to dramatically
accelerate U.S. wind energy use, with a goal of meeting 5 percent of
the nation's total electricity needs from wind power by 2020. Wind
power now represents a major economic opportunity for the United
States. Substantially increasing the amount of wind generation could
lead to: as much as $60 billion in capital investment in rural America
over 20 years, generating $1.2 billion in new income for American
farmers, Native Americans, and rural landowners; displacing 35 million
tons of atmospheric carbon; and creating 80,000 permanent U.S. jobs in
the wind industry. The initiative is a broad-based, regionally-tailored
program involving close coordination with a multitude of stakeholders
across the country to communicate the opportunity for economic
development from wind technology, provide technical and market support
for pilot projects, and facilitate development and purchase of wind
generated power on federal facilities and Native American lands.
Funding for the initiative will support both regional program
development, as well as targeted projects and activities coordinated at
the national level. EERE's six regional offices will play a key role in
developing and implementing the regional components of the initiative
using funding supplied by the Wind Program.
In fiscal year 2001, support will continue for the world-class
National Wind Technology Center (NWTC) in Colorado, which features a
user facility that allows U.S. industries to expand testing of new wind
energy technologies. A new wind performance monitoring network will be
established to provide verifiable data on long-term performance of
several large new wind projects. This information is needed for
developing strategies to accelerate the use of wind energy under the
new rules of the emerging competitive power markets. NWTC capabilities
for providing accredited certification testing services will be
expanded, and efforts will continue to support Underwriter's
Laboratories (UL) in providing certification services to the wind
industry. New wind turbine field verification projects will be
undertaken to address unique siting, regulatory, technical, and market
issues in key regions for wind power development. Under the
international clean energy initiative, the Wind Energy program will
support analytical efforts to maximize the benefits of grid-connected,
distributed wind power, which is expected to be the prevalent mode for
wind energy use in developing countries. In addition, performance of
advanced wind hybrid power systems will be verified in remote off-grid
and mini-grid applications in developing countries.
Renewable Energy Production Incentive
The request for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) is
$4 million, a $2.5 million increase from fiscal year 2000 funding
levels. Annual appropriations provide financial production incentives
to stimulate the construction and operation of new, qualified renewable
energy facilities owned by state entities, municipal utilities, and
electric cooperatives that produce and sell electricity. We estimate
that fiscal year 2001 payments to qualified Tier I facilities--which
use solar, wind, geothermal or dedicated (closed-loop) biomass
resources--will require approximately $0.3 million to pay for
electricity generated and sold. Remaining funds will be applied to
qualified Tier II facilities, and include non-dedicated (open-loop)
biomass resources and landfill methane projects.
REPI motivates the public power and electric cooperative sector of
the nation's electric industry to make new investments in renewable
energy. These highly leveraged investments in new renewable energy
projects give important economic and environmental benefits to the
local communities served. Moreover, these projects help move near-term
deployment of renewable energy forward in a time of uncertainty due to
electric industry restructuring. Continuing REPI payments is essential
for continued progress in renewable energy deployment.
However, a legitimate concern exists regarding the need to improve
the incentive value of the REPI program. Unlike the certainty of a tax
credit, the uncertainty associated with future REPI payments based on
potentially variable annual appropriations does make it harder for a
qualifying utility to convince financiers to provide long-term
financing. The program will explore whether changes in the authorizing
law would be needed to create a better incentive value, and, likewise
will also use administrative rulemaking procedures should this
mechanism offer effective improvement opportunities.
Solar Program Support
The fiscal year 2001 request for Solar Program Support is $6.5
million (up $1.6 million compared to fiscal year 2000; excludes fiscal
year 2000 funds for distributed power addressed under transmission
reliability), $4 million at this level is for a competitive
solicitation which would encourage innovative applications and field
validation of renewable electric technologies, and $2.5 million is
proposed for electricity restructuring.
The $4 million requested for a competitive solicitation will speed
early deployment of renewable technologies by seeking technology
proposals on the best ways to use renewable technologies, either singly
or in combination with other renewable technologies, or in hybrid
configurations with fuel cells, natural gas or energy storage systems.
The primary objectives of the competitive solicitation program are
to: (1) prove the availability of clean, affordable, and reliable
electric power supply options for the many remote and/or poor regions
of the nation; and (2) obtain essential data on operational
performance, reliability, and benefits of renewable energy and hybrid
renewable energy systems in various geographic locations and climatic
conditions.
The information and experiences gained through this competitive
solicitation will help overcome specific impediments to more widespread
use of renewable electricity technologies. Currently, market
penetration of renewable energy projects are hampered by the
uncertainties of electric utility restructuring, the current low price
and availability of natural gas, and improvements in gas turbine
technology. The increasingly competitive restructured electric
environment also favors technologies with low capital costs over
technologies with higher capital costs, but lower life cycle costs.
Rather than high technical or financial risk, the major hurdle often
facing renewable energy projects is identification of renewable
projects in the new marketplace that would allow acquisition of long-
term power purchase contracts and project financing.
This highly-leveraged activity would designate two targeted areas
for competitive awards, systems benefitting Native Americans and
systems addressing the needs of federal facilities, in addition to
providing for an open solicitation for other applications of these
systems. Remote power needs will continue to be addressed in all
segments of this solicitation. Of the $4.0 million proposed for fiscal
year 2001, up to $2.0 million of the solicitation will be dedicated to
projects benefitting Native Americans. Native American projects will
require a minimum 20 percent cost-sharing, and the open portion of the
solicitation will require at least 75 percent non-DOE funding. For a
number of reasons, there are tremendous synergies between renewable
energy technologies and the energy needs of Native Americans. Renewable
resources such as solar and wind are often abundant on tribal lands. In
addition, Native Americans often have substandard or, in some cases, no
electricity service at all. Renewable energy technologies can often
provide the most cost-effective option for providing electricity on
tribal lands and can also be a source of employment for tribes
installing and operating such systems on-site.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request for electricity restructuring
is $2.5 million, which represents an increase of $1.5 million over
fiscal year 2000 appropriations. The fiscal year 2001 electricity
restructuring activity consists of two parts, the Technical Analysis
and Assistance activity (request of $1 million), and the International
Clean Energy Initiative (request of $1.5 million).
The mission of the technical analyses and assistance activity is to
provide unbiased technical analyses and assistance to Federal, Native
American, and state officials on electricity restructuring issues with
a primary focus on public purpose programs, particularly those relating
to renewable energy and energy efficiency. This work is critical to
renewable and energy efficiency technologies because the emerging
restructured electricity markets and changes in the state laws and
regulatory rules will have a major impact on future technology
deployment.
The transition to competition in electricity markets is challenging
for a number of reasons due to the technical complexity of the
electricity system, the intricate web of federal, state, and local laws
and regulations, and regional differences. As a consequence, policy
makers at all levels of government are requesting analyses and
technical assistance on a portfolio of market and policy mechanisms to
achieve their restructuring goals. Although each state and region face
unique electricity policy challenges, there are many common issues.
Furthermore, many states lack the resources and expertise needed to
address the complexities of electricity restructuring and to keep track
of what other States are doing. Consequently, it is often more cost-
effective and efficient for certain technical assistance and analysis
to be provided at the Federal level rather than duplicated on a state-
by-state basis.
In fiscal year 2001, the OPT proposes to add a component ($1.5M) of
the international clean energy initiative to the electricity
restructuring program. This international clean energy initiative will
allow credible analysis of key utility restructuring concepts in the
United States and their successful transfer to evolving electric
markets in other countries. Technical reports, conferences, training
workshops, and other communication mechanisms will be used to transmit
the information from the analyses to as wide an audience as possible.
Regional networking activities will be developed that include existing
regulatory authorities as well as newly-established regulatory agencies
from Central and Eastern Europe and the Newly Independent States.
Support will be provided for the measurement and analyses of the social
costs of energy production, transportation, and consumption, and for
the social costs of rural electrification programs. The successful
transfer of these key utility restructuring concepts will facilitate
the increased use of U.S. energy technologies in these markets, thereby
increasing the benefits of investments in our energy R&D programs.
International Renewable Energy
The fiscal year 2001 budget request for International Renewable
Energy is $11.5 million, an increase of $7.7 million from $3.8 million
in fiscal year 2000. The mission of this activity is to encourage
acceptance and use of renewable energy technologies by developed and
developing countries in support of U.S. national interests and
policies. With World Bank estimates indicating developing countries
alone will require five million MWs of new electricity capacity over
the next four decades (the world's total installed capacity today is
three million MWs), international markets will provide growing
opportunities for U.S. sales of advanced renewable energy and energy
efficient technologies and domestic job creation. And these same
technologies also hold the greatest potential for reducing emissions
and mitigating global climate change.
International Renewable Energy will expand U.S. renewable energy
and energy efficiency technology exports to help meet the energy needs
of developed and developing countries, reduce the rate of consumption
of finite global resources, and address local and transnational
environmental issues. Refocused in response to Congressional direction,
the International Renewable Energy activity will be restructured into
three broad program areas: emerging global environmental and energy
issues; facilitating market and trade development; and advancing U.S.
energy and environmental security interests.
The emerging global environmental and energy issues will be
implemented specifically through and in conjunction with the U.S.
Initiative on Joint Implementation (USIJI). USIJI is a DOE-co-led
interagency activity that supports the development of flexibility
mechanisms under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) such as Joint Implementation. This element will also focus on
encouraging meaningful participation by developing countries in the
effort to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.
The market and trade development element will accelerate reductions
in U.S. technology production costs and advance clean energy technology
deployment through overseas market expansion. Activities will focus on
stimulating global economic development and regional economic
stability, and accelerating domestic economic growth, market
competitiveness, and employment. This element will be implemented in
key regions through bilateral (e.g., Gore-Mbeki in South Africa) and
multilateral (e.g., Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, Hemispheric
Initiatives and International Energy Agency) technology cooperation
activities and information exchange and dissemination. Private sector
technology development will be encouraged while seeking opportunities
for leveraging U.S. funds and stimulating deployment in strategic and
emerging markets through project-based activities.
The energy and environmental security element is designed to
advance U.S. strategic interests in bilateral and multilateral energy
and environmental security activities and will provide specialized
assistance in the utilization of appropriate technologies. This element
will be implemented in support of existing and emerging bilateral and
multilateral treaties and agreements. This element will also assist DOE
in meeting U.S. obligations and commitments to provide disaster relief
and assistance by facilitating private sector technology development
and deployment in strategic and emerging markets.
International Renewable Energy also includes the International
Clean Energy Initiative (ICEI). This Initiative was discussed
previously in my statement.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory is a world class facility,
but is losing stature because of a slowly degrading physical plant. The
fiscal year 2001 request of $1.9 million for the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL), (a 72.7 percent increase from the fiscal year
2000 appropriation), includes the necessary repairs, maintenance,
upgrades, new construction and facility modifications to protect the
federal government's investment and ensure that NREL remains the
nation's exemplary center for R&D of energy efficiency and renewable
energy technologies. The request will fund: replacement of a Nuclear
Magnetic Resonance Spectrometer which is essential scientific
equipment; information technology equipment upgrades and replacements;
a substantial upgrade of the fire detection and response capabilities
in the Field Test Laboratory Building, NREL's oldest building; and a
substantial addition to the Site Entrance building to house additional
security personnel and equipment.
Geothermal Energy Technologies
The Geothermal Energy technologies request for fiscal year 2001 is
$27 million, an increase of $3.4 million over fiscal year 2000
appropriation levels. Geothermal Energy technologies works in
partnership with U.S. industry to establish geothermal energy as a
sustainable, environmentally sound, and economically competitive
contributor to the U.S. and world energy supply. These joint efforts
sponsor R&D that leads to advanced technologies to improve reliability,
reduce environmental impacts, and lower costs of geothermal energy
systems. Competition is key to the cost-effective management of
geothermal R&D activities. Virtually all participants sponsored or
funded by Geothermal Energy technologies outside the national
laboratories will be chosen through competitive solicitations. The
budget request supports three key goals: (1) reduce the levelized cost
of generating geothermal power to 3-5 cents per kilowatt-hour by 2007;
(2) double the number of states with geothermal power facilities to
eight by 2006; and (3) supply the electrical power or heat energy needs
of 7 million homes and businesses in the United States by 2010. The $27
million request is allocated among: geoscience and supporting
technologies ($11 million); drilling research ($5.5 million); and
energy systems research and testing ($10.5 million).
Based on the excellent potential of geothermal resources in 19
western states, GeoPowering the West will be launched in fiscal year
2001. The goal of this Initiative, providing 10 percent of the
electricity consumed in western states by 2020, could be realized
because it is estimated that about 300 cities and towns in the western
U.S. are adjacent to geothermal deposits. Research and development
activities to improve drilling efficiencies and recycling of waste-
water will be accelerated.
GEOSCIENCE AND SUPPORTING TECHNOLOGIES RESEARCH
Geoscience and supporting technologies research ($11 million) will
continue to improve and expand our knowledge base of how geothermal
systems form and evolve. This knowledge is essential to finding and
using geothermal resources in the most efficient and economic manner.
The enhanced geothermal systems project will verify industry's most
promising conceptual designs in cost-shared field experiments. These
experiments will focus on extending the productivity and lifetime of
geothermal reservoirs through rock fracturing and fluid injection.
Exploration technology will remain a strong focus of the program with
continued collaboration with industry on 3D-seismic techniques to
locate and characterize new geothermal fields. Various geophysical
exploration methods will be integrated to develop smart systems which
will select more reliable targets. Greater effectiveness in locating
geothermal resources will reduce the number of costly, non-productive
wells.
DRILLING RESEARCH
Under drilling research ($5.5 million), Geothermal Energy
technologies will give highest priority to development of the
geothermal advanced drilling system which will give economic access to
the extremely large geothermal resources contained in rocks at great
depth. One element of the Geothermal Advanced Drilling System is a high
speed data link that will transmit a variety of real-time drilling data
to the surface for decision making while drilling. About 50 percent of
the cost of developing the high speed data link will be provided by
major private sector partners.
ENERGY SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND TESTING
Energy systems research and testing ($10.5 M) will see a major
expansion in fiscal year 2001 as Geothermal Energy technologies seeks a
broader, more substantial role for geothermal energy in the nation's
economy. Field verification of small-scale geothermal power plants (<1
MW) will bring about the use of geothermal energy in new locations.
This effort is key to achieving the goal of doubling the number of
states with geothermal power facilities by 2006. Geothermal Energy
technologies will help U.S. industry to bring the benefits of
geothermal energy to developing countries through the international
clean energy initiative. Prefeasibility studies, resource assessments,
technical assistance and outreach to enable countries to make informed
decisions about the use of their resources will be used.
Hydrogen Technologies
The request for Hydrogen Technologies is $23 million, a decrease of
$2.0 million from the fiscal year 2000 appropriation. Industry is
investing substantially in both hydrogen production systems and the
development of the Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cells that
require a hydrogen stream to operate. In a recent announcement, DOE
joined the California Fuel Cell Partnership. This Partnership is
comprised of the State of California (Air Resources Board and Energy
Commission), auto manufacturers (Daimler Chrysler, Ford, Volkswagen,
and Honda), energy providers (ARCO, Texaco, Shell), and a fuel cell
company (Ballard Power Systems). By 2003 the Partnership will test 20
fuel cell-powered buses and 50 fuel cell-powered light duty vehicles in
regular service. These ventures will lead to early commercial
activities for the distributed production, storage and utilization of
hydrogen by 2003.
Hydrogen technologies is authorized by the Hydrogen Future Act of
1996 to fund those projects which are evaluated on a competitive basis.
In fiscal year 2000, the Department funded 94 percent of the projects
in Hydrogen technologies competitively. The fiscal year 2001 request
will support a balanced portfolio to increase market penetration of
renewable/hydrogen energy systems and hydrogen-powered vehicles, and
long-term research and development in the production of hydrogen from
renewable resources through a similar competitive process. The program
focuses on three key activities: core research and development ($13
million), technology validation ($7.5 million), and analysis and
outreach ($2.5 million).
CORE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Core research and development (down $0.4 million from the fiscal
year 2000 appropriation) supports R&D on hydrogen production, storage
and utilization. The funding will support thermal conversion processes
that produce hydrogen from natural gas with a 25 to 35 percent decrease
in the cost of producing hydrogen over conventional processes and long-
term research programs for photobiological and scaled-up
photoelectrochemical processes. These key activities, in conjunction
with the industrial development of the PEM fuel cell, will enhance the
ability of the industry to consider low-cost hydrogen options for the
power, industry and transportation market sectors by 2004.
Hydrogen storage R&D is focused on developing and field validating
hydride and carbonaceous materials for the high density storage of
hydrogen at low temperatures for power and transportation applications.
The funding will support one project to characterize the properties of
compressed hydrogen in a series of environmental tests and compare the
results to other gaseous fuels.
Utilization technology research is focused on developing and
demonstrating end-use power systems that are safe, and have near-zero
or zero emissions with an overall generation efficiency greater than 45
percent. A newly developed solid state hydrogen detector will be
fabricated and integrated with a new, low-cost PEM fuel cell for a
field test.
TECHNOLOGY VALIDATION
Technology validation (down $1.3 million from the fiscal year 2000
appropriation) supports 50/50 cost-shared ventures with industry on
hydrogen vehicle fueling stations, vehicle-mounted hydrogen storage
systems, reversible fuel cells to operate with renewable systems, and
small hydrogen fuel cell systems for remote power applications. The
fiscal year 2001 request supports the operation of a reversible fuel
cell with 60 percent round-trip efficiency; the incorporation of high-
pressure hydrogen storage on vehicles; the completion of a quick-fill
refueling station to service shuttle buses as well as the installation
and testing of a PEM fuel cell system to provide on-site power in Las
Vegas, Nevada; and the design and construction of small-scale fuel
cells for remote applications.
ANALYSIS AND OUTREACH
Analysis and outreach conducts scenario planning, portfolio and
technology analyses to determine what steps are required to transition
to a hydrogen energy economy. Technology analyses will periodically
review specific areas (i.e., photoelectrochemistry, storage, etc.) to
ensure that research is of high quality and of significance to the
overall objectives of the program.
Hydropower Technologies
For fiscal year 2001, the Department is requesting $5.0 million for
Hydropower Technologies, an increase of $0.79 million over fiscal year
2000 funding. With this funding, Hydrogen Technologies will continue
proof-of-concept testing of an innovative, ``fish-friendly'' turbine
design (competitively selected in earlier activities) and continue
experiments to develop biological performance criteria for advanced
turbine design, as well as testing small environmentally-friendly
turbines. OPT will also initiate the competitively selected testing of
large ``fish-friendly'' turbines to determine operational environmental
performance.
Once complete, these new turbines can replace equipment at existing
facilities where fish mortality concerns may cause a reduction in
generation. Hydropower provides approximately 10 percent of the total
U.S. electricity generation today. Diminished power production from
this clean baseload power resource would have serious environmental and
economic impacts on America. This cost-shared program with industry
would maximize power generation from our existing hydropower facilities
and help develop an important export market for U.S. companies.
Renewable Indian Energy Resources
The fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Renewable Indian Energy
Resources program is $5 million, an increase of $1.1 million from
fiscal year 2000. Funding in fiscal year 2000 was earmarked for four
projects in Alaska. America has over 550 tribes and many do not have
access to clean, reliable, efficient sources of electricity. In fiscal
year 2001, funds will be used to initiate the tribal energy program
which will enable Native American Tribal governments, and organizations
to gain expertise in energy planning capabilities, particularly for
remote settings, and in developing both conventional and renewable
energy resources.
This effort reflects DOE's commitment to a government-to-government
relationship as expressed in its American Indian Policy. Inadequate
recognition and insufficient energy services on Native American lands
are well documented even though many reservations have an abundance of
fossil and renewable energy resources. Historically, Tribes have not
had ready access to energy development, energy efficiency, and
renewable energy assistance.
The primary goal of the Tribal energy program will be to provide
tribal governments the same supportive framework that is now in place
for the states as in DOE's state energy program which funds projects
through state energy offices across the country. It will serve as a
focal point for a wide range of activities that promote a cleaner
environment, provide economic development enhancement opportunities,
and efficient use of Tribal energy resources consistent with cultural,
Tribal, and environmental concerns.
Electric Energy Systems and Storage
For Electric Energy Systems and Storage, $48.0 million is requested
in fiscal year 2001, an increase of $10.2 million from fiscal year
2000. This activity is working with partners to develop advanced power
delivery systems that will enable the efficient and reliable delivery
of electric services for consumer use. The effort includes transmission
reliability research ($11.0 million), high temperature
superconductivity ($32.0 million), energy storage systems ($5.0
million), and climate challenge (no funds requested).
Within DOE, the Secretary has established an Energy Grid
Reliability Initiative to address the growing number of electric power
blackouts and brownouts, as well as the quality of electricity that is
delivered. This initiative addresses the critical R&D needs for energy
delivery systems. The electricity component of this initiative consists
of transmission reliability (power system reliability and distributed
power) and energy storage systems. The transition to restructured,
competitive electric markets coupled with growing consumer demand for
electricity and constraints in the nation's transmission and
distribution systems, requires the development of an integrated set of
advanced power delivery system technologies to enable the reliable
delivery of electric services for consumers.
Overcoming regulatory, technical, and institutional barriers to
distributed power will provide more efficient use of the power delivery
system by producing electricity close to its point of use. The
development of lower cost, high performance power electronic
controllers coupled with advanced energy storage systems will provide
improved power quality; provide an ability to fully integrate and
reliably operate the power delivery system with the full spectrum of
central and distributed generation technologies; and enable real-time
systems control of the existing transmission and distribution systems
to result in additional operational capacity, security, and
reliability.
The development of high temperature superconducting equipment will
significantly reduce losses in the generation, delivery, and end-use of
electricity and will relieve power delivery system constraints,
particularly in urban areas, through the deployment and use of very
high capacity transmission and distribution cables in key locations.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request for transmission reliability
research is $11.0 million, an increase of $8.0 million from the fiscal
year 2000 appropriated level. Transmission reliability has two key
activities: power system reliability ($8.0 million), and distributed
power ($3.0 million).
POWER SYSTEM RELIABILITY
Power system reliability (up $5.5 million from the fiscal year 2000
appropriated level) will develop advanced measurement/information
systems and advanced power electronic controls to monitor and control
the power delivery system in real-time, and facilitate the operation of
efficient electric markets. In addition to the program carrying out
activities to determine how new market structures are affecting grid
reliability, it will develop reliability technologies and policy
options to provide incentives for market participants to invest in
adequate power system upgrades and R&D to assure reliable electric
power delivery in the future. Real time control of the power delivery
system will also facilitate the integration of distributed resources
into the system, providing individual customers the opportunity to
supply their own energy, enhance system reliability, and sell energy in
a competitive market.
DISTRIBUTED POWER
Distributed power (down $0.5 million from the total fiscal year
2000 funding when $3.0 million Solar Program Support fiscal year 2000
appropriations for distributed power are included in the calculations)
continues multi-year cooperative efforts with industry initiated under
a competitive solicitation to address barriers to the use of
distributed generation. These efforts focus on the development of
advanced technologies for the interconnection of distributed power
generation systems; modeling; and conducting engineering analyses, case
studies, testing and evaluation to accelerate the development and
validation of a national interconnection standard.
It is anticipated that transmission reliability activities will
last five to ten years in order to ensure that R&D for reliable systems
and competitive markets is maintained until new market and/or
regulatory structures are established and provide the incentives for
the private sector to assume this work. The program will be reassessed
each year to determine the need for federal involvement depending on
the nature and implementation needs of new regulations, and the impact
of market forces
HIGH TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTIVITY
The fiscal year 2001 budget request for high temperature
superconductivity is $32 million, an increase of $0.6 million. Funding
for this program is divided between the superconductivity partnership
initiative ($14.0 million), second generation wire initiative ($8.0
million), and strategic research ($10.0 million). The program is on
track for accomplishing two major technological goals: solving the
difficult problem of manufacturing electrical wires from high-
temperature superconducting materials while, in parallel creating
designs of super-efficient electrical systems. The outcome will be
resistance-free electrical wires able to carry 100 times the current of
conventional alternatives and advanced systems that have only half the
energy losses, are half the size of conventional alternatives of the
same power rating, and cut energy losses in half.
The Superconductivity Partnership Initiative will support seven
major projects to develop first-of-a-kind electrical systems that can
provide quantum improvements to the efficiency and capacity of the
national electrical grid. These include transmission cables,
transformers, large motors, flywheel energy systems, and magnetic
separation systems. The revolutionary equipment emerging from the
program in the 2005--2010 timeframe will play a major role in meeting
the new demands of a competitive electricity industry for increased
capacity and reliability. Superconducting cables will relieve
congestion at critical parts of the grid as well as improve delivery
efficiency. They will also accommodate load growth in urban areas by
repowering existing infrastructure ducts without the need for acquiring
new property. Superconducting transformers will accommodate increased
demand for electricity without the need for construction of new
substations and will protect against accidental fault currents that now
cause serious damage and power outages.
The Second Generation Wire Initiative is crucial to producing
superconducting wire that meets the program's performance goals. Four
industrial consortia will be working with the national laboratories to
scale up recent discoveries that are the basis for this initiative.
Private sector participants leverage program funds with 50 percent
cost-sharing.
STRATEGIC RESEARCH
The strategic research element (up $0.6 million from fiscal year
2000 appropriations) is the incubator for discoveries and innovations
that have characterized this successful program. The activities
supported include in-house national laboratory research and research
carried out collaboratively with private companies under 50 percent
cost-shared agreements. The requested level of funding will adequately
support multi-disciplinary research teams that have made major
breakthroughs in the past, and will also support a number of
cooperative research projects with industry. Important leveraging is
obtained through integrating research funded by the DOE Office of
Science and leveraged research at two NIST (National Institute of
Science and Technology) laboratories where each program dollar is
matched by two NIST dollars. The funding increase will be used to
initiate high priority tasks identified in the cryogenic roadmap.
Efficient and reliable cryogenic systems that also meet performance
needs are needed for all superconducting power applications.
ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS
The $5.0 million request for the energy storage systems program (up
$1.6 million from the fiscal year 2000 appropriation) will fund focused
research on energy storage technologies which will be integrated with
the power electronic control development under power system reliability
to improve power delivery system reliability and operation, improve
power quality, and enhance technology choices in a competitive utility
environment. Program emphasis will be placed on battery systems
integration and on the development and evaluation of advanced storage
technologies. All projects will be carried out in close cooperation
with industry.
No funding is requested for the Climate Challenge program in fiscal
year 2001.
DEPARTMENTAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
In today's environment where the electricity industry is being
restructured, the reliability of the nation's energy supply is
variable, and energy prices are fluctuating, DOE must have new
strategies for improving energy efficiency and managing utility costs.
The Federal Energy Management Program is requesting $5 million in
funding to support a new initiative to manage both the utility demand
and supply functions at DOE sites.
This fiscal year 2001 budget request for a Departmental Energy
Management Program (DEMP) will allow DOE to fund energy and efficiency
projects at 71 DOE sites across the nation, develop model programs for
energy efficiency and utilities management, and expand the use of
energy savings performance contracts. We will evaluate renewable,
natural gas and on-site use of combined heat and power to increase the
reliability of our supply. We will evaluate and retrofit DOE office
buildings to acquire Energy Star labels, actively participate in the
procurement of energy efficient products, demonstrate the use of energy
efficient technologies at DOE sites, and request cost-effective green
power in our competitive electricity procurements.
Our experience to date informs us that smart energy management--
managing both the demand and supply aspects of utilities--is good
business. Our total utility bill in 1985 was $330.7M. In 1998 our total
bill was $257.0M--almost $74 million less. If we had done nothing to
conserve energy and our energy consumption today were the same as 1985,
our utility bill today would be $225M higher. This equates to a 47
percent reduction in utility costs in 1998 dollars.
We have already reduced our federal energy consumption by 36
percent compared to 1985. This budget request will continue our
movement toward reducing our energy use by 40 percent in 2005, while
providing energy and water cost savings for the government and the
taxpayer. Funding for this program will allow DOE to demonstrate strong
leadership in energy management.
PROGRAM DIRECTION
Program Direction provides the federal staffing resources and
associated funding to support the management and oversight of the Solar
and Renewable Energy Programs. This activity includes all funding for
support service contractors, equipment, travel, crosscutting
activities, and Assistant Secretary initiatives. This permits the
continuation of a diverse array of Solar and Renewable projects to be
integrated into a national portfolio of world renowned research.
Program Direction encompasses two principal activities: (1)
headquarters executive and program management; and (2) program
operations at the Golden Field Office and the Idaho Operations Office.
We have requested $18.159 million for this activity.
The fiscal year 2001 request provides for continued implementation
of Workforce 21 increases to off-set the adverse impacts of prior
downsizing. In addition, EERE has adopted smarter, more effective
business and management practices and, as revealed in a workforce
analysis, these efforts have greatly reduced the need for most--but not
all--of the staff lost due to downsizing. EERE's Workforce 21 strategy
is to concentrate the majority of the critical hires to the technical
and professional category, leaving the clerical/administrative, and
manager/supervisor staffing levels virtually the same.
CONCLUSION
Thank you once again, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee
for the opportunity to discuss our fiscal year 2001 budget request. I
hope you agree that the management improvements we have instituted--and
continue to refine--are enhancing the value received by American
citizens for their investment. We can now build on past success while
planning for the future. The promise of clean energy technologies is
clear and an increased commitment by the public and private sectors is
needed to realize the full benefits of our investment. We will redouble
our efforts to move our nation closer toward our goal of Clean Energy
for the 21st Century.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD
Senator Domenici. Mr. Magwood.
Mr. Magwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee.
Senator Domenici. I want to compliment you on your office,
also. Obviously, we do not spend a lot of money there yet, but
I really think your leadership is making a dent of a positive
nature. And I appreciate it very much.
Mr. Magwood. I appreciate those comments, Mr. Chairman. I
am pleased to be here today to talk about our 2001 budget
request. Our written statement has a great deal more
information for the record.
First, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the
subcommittee for the vision that you have shown over the last
couple of years in helping us revitalize the nuclear energy
program. As you know, the nuclear energy program has gone from
being one of the biggest programs in DOE at over half a billion
dollars a year funding in about the early 1980s down to a low
point in 1998 at almost zero. We have recovered significantly
since then and I think we are moving in the right direction.
With your support, the Department has led a resurgence
internationally in the investigation of a wide range of nuclear
technologies, and it has reenergized the research community in
this country. We have seen hundreds of researchers with new,
creative ideas compete for our NERI awards.
We have seen the downward slide in the numbers of nuclear
engineering students halted and a new option for nuclear
education brought to students who never had that opportunity
before. We have seen the international research community race
to collaborate with us to develop Accelerator Transportation of
Waste, and to provide additional funds to companies,
universities and labs, and universities and companies in the
United States who are working on DOE-funded research.
DOE research has been very successful over the decades, Mr.
Chairman. We have invested about $7 billion in the commercial
light water reactor technology over the decades. And as a
result, nuclear energy now provides about 22.8 percent--which
is a high point for nuclear energy--of all the electricity
generated in this country. Most nuclear power plants now
generate electricity at around 1 cent per kilowatt hour, which
is quite an accomplishment.
The private sector has made great strides in reducing their
costs. And a big success was achieved last month with the
renewal of the license for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power
Plant. So we are very optimistic about the future. However, I
think that we still have a lot of issues to deal with.
For nuclear energy to expand in the future, we must deal
with many important issues, such as the cost of constructing
new plants, concerns about proliferation, and the issue of
nuclear waste. All these must be addressed in order for nuclear
energy to expand.
But as you know, the inherent environmental benefits of
nuclear are prompting new discussions across the world about
the future of nuclear energy, as the world focuses on issues
such as clean air, reducing CO2 emissions, reducing
ground-level ozone, and preventing acid rain. Nuclear power
provides a real option to deal with these issues.
NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH INITIATIVE
At the core of our activities, we successfully launched the
Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, or NERI, program. NERI is
an investigator-initiated peer reviewed research program to
advance revolutionary nuclear power technologies. There are
currently approximately 46 research projects under way at 20
universities, 8 research labs and 14 private sector companies
working individually and collaboratively.
This year we received proposals for another 120 projects.
From these we will select the best and most creative 7 or 8
proposed projects. Our fiscal year 2001 budget request would
enable us to increase the number of research activities by more
than 70 by the end of the next fiscal year.
GENERATION IV NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS
A major area of focus for the NERI program this year and a
growing area of interest internationally are the Generation IV
nuclear power systems. Generation IV, which has become the
worldwide lexicon to describe nuclear power systems that will
be competitive with natural gas and other energy options for
the future, use safe proliferation resistant technologies to
provide a greater range of options for nuclear power across the
world.
In January, senior policy representatives from eight
governments came to the United States to discuss the prospects
for Generation IV and consider how we might work together to
achieve its goals. We provided you in the package a joint
statement issued by the representatives of the governments of
Argentina, Brazil, Canada, South Africa, South Korea and the
United Kingdom, as well as the United States, that initiates a
multilateral consideration of this important subject.
Last week international experts from these countries met
again in Washington to discuss the research under way in our
respective countries and how multilateral research on
Generation IV technologies could be conducted. Next month about
100 experts from the United States and these countries will
meet to discuss the criterion attributes of Generation IV
technologies. These activities will result in the preparation
of a Generation IV roadmap which we plan to begin developing
this fall. A proposed international NERI program could be the
center point of this international effort.
MEDICAL IOSOTOPES
Shifting now to another major focus of my office--medical
isotopes. Many people do not know the enduring role the
Department has served in developing, producing and delivering
isotopes for research, medical diagnosis and treatment. Using
our facilities at Los Alamos, Sandia and other sites, we are
the provider of virtually all the important emerging medical
isotopes available to American researchers.
And this chart, which I think you will find particularly
interesting, demonstrates that we have a wide range of emerging
isotopes that are now under examination by researchers across
the country. And it could some day lead to cures of everything
ranging from breast cancer to prostate cancer to colonrectal
cancer and many other maladies.
Medical isotopes are a staple in today's advanced American
medical infrastructure. Use of isotopes will expand
dramatically in the future. A report issued by our advisory
committee, NERAC, projects the demand for medical isotopes will
dramatically increase in this century, growing 8 to 17 percent
each year over the next 20 years. Unfortunately, despite the
fact that the cure for many terminal illnesses, including brain
and prostate cancers, may be laying in wait in our isotope
program, funding for this program has been dropping
dangerously.
In the past, we were able to rely on revenues from the sale
of commercial isotopes. But we are privatizing the commercial
part of our program aggressively, and far less revenue comes in
from researchers we are committed to support.
ADVANCED RADIOISOTOPES POWER SYSTEMS PROGRAM
Even more disturbing trends have been experienced by our
advanced radioisotope power systems program. For almost 40
years the department has provided the power systems needed for
space exploration and important ongoing national security
applications.
The unique characteristics of these systems make them
especially well suited for application where large arrays of
solar cells or batteries are not practical. For example, at
large distances from the sun, where there is little sunlight,
or in harsh environments.
You may have heard of NASA's decision to once again extend
the mission of the Galileo spacecraft. And there are plans to
pair it with the Cassini probe for observations of the planet
Jupiter later this year. You may not have heard that because of
the truly remarkable performance of our power systems, the
Pioneer spacecraft launched in 1972 and now 7 billion miles
away is still sending signals to earth and will soon pass
through the heliosphere, the very outer edge of the solar
system.
Senator Reid. How many miles away?
Mr. Magwood. Seven billion. It is the farthest manmade
object to exist. And we are still in communication with it,
since 1972.
But if we are to continue and expand our success, we must
maintain an adequate infrastructure. While NASA and other users
pay all the costs associated with actually providing these
systems, DOE owns and must maintain the infrastructure to
develop, build and test them.
In recent years, the program has seen its budget drop
dangerously. I would hope that we here today would not want it
said that for the lack of a relatively small annual investment,
we close the doors to space exploration for succeeding
generations.
While our budgets are shrinking, the future is calling for
action. Most of the key missions for U.S. space exploration
over the next 20 years, sustained exploration of Mars, human
missions to the planets, nearly all the activities that capture
the imagination of the American people, will require the use of
space fission power systems. As illustrated by this chart,
which we developed with NASA experts, the long lead time
required for development of these power systems means we must
begin our efforts very soon.
We have proposed beginning with a very small, very modest
interagency assessment of special purpose fission technology to
determine the needs and requirements of these systems. With DOE
leadership, other agencies are expected to participate,
providing funds and personnel to support the effort. User
agencies, such as NASA and DOD, will ultimately pay all the
development costs. But because of the generic nature of these
technologies and the expertise that exists at our laboratories,
the responsibility falls to DOE to take the first critical
step.
In closing, over the last couple of years, we have made
great strides in the nuclear energy program. We are very proud
of how much we have accomplished with limited resources. Our
program is firmly focused on the future, and we look forward to
continuing to work with this subcommittee to bring that future
closer. I look forward to answering your questions.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee: It's my pleasure to
present the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2001 budget request for
the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. We are proposing
a $306 million investment in fiscal year 2001 to conduct vital research
and development; to enhance the Nation's science, technology and
education infrastructure; and to manage NE's Federal nuclear facilities
and materials.
The investments we propose to make in nuclear energy, science and
technology are driven by the recognition that nuclear technology serves
the national interest for reliable, affordable and environmentally
sustainable electricity; for space exploration and expanding our
understanding of the universe; and for advancing isotopes for medical
diagnosis and treatment of devastating illnesses.
These investments are also based on the understanding that in order
to meet the challenges and accelerate innovation in the 21st Century,
we must begin today training and preparing tomorrow's scientists and
engineers and providing focused investments in the science and
technology infrastructure. Finally, these investments are based on the
1997 and June 1999 recommendations of the President's Committee of
Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and DOE's Nuclear Energy
Research Advisory Committee (NERAC).
Mr. Chairman, this budget request builds on the Administration's
and Subcommittee's investments of the last couple of years, with modest
growth in our research initiatives to prepare for scientific innovation
in this century and to continue rebuilding U.S. technology leadership,
which had waned over the last decade. Principally, in fiscal year 2001
we are requesting additional funding for Nuclear Energy Research
Initiative (NERI), to enable support of more of the best ideas coming
out of our universities, laboratories, and industry; and to launch an
International-NERI program to leverage U.S. research activities on
advanced nuclear technologies with new investments made by the research
organizations of other countries. In total, we are proposing $56
million for nuclear energy research activities in fiscal year 2001.
This budget request also provides funding necessary to: begin
design of depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion facilities; to
maintain the Fast Flux Test Facility in a safe standby condition and
begin implementing the Secretary's final decision on its future;
continue implementing the decision made this year on whether to
initiate full-scale treatment of DOE's remaining sodium bonded fuel;
continue the Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative by providing critical
isotopes and financial support for medical research; and maintain the
support, research, and utility infrastructure at the Test Reactor Area
and Argonne National Laboratory-West in Idaho.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your leadership on this
Subcommittee and for the commitment and support of the Subcommittee in
advancing nuclear energy technologies. The last year of the last
century was indeed a banner year for nuclear power. The Nation's
existing nuclear power plants surpassed peak operating performance
records set over the last few years, increasing plant capacity to 85.5
percent. Nuclear plants generation increased to 728 billion kilowatt-
hours, setting an all-time record for their share of electricity
generation--almost 23 percent of total generation. Additionally, the
industry is aggressively and successfully moving forward with plant
relicensing--extending operation of the fleet of existing plants
another twenty years. Last month, with the unanimous vote of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the two Calvert Cliffs reactors in
Maryland became the first in the Nation to have their operating
licenses renewed. All of these significant changes and accomplishments
bode well for continued use of nuclear power in the U.S. Also on the
Federal front, with the Committee's support, we are engaged in many
exciting, promising research projects and strategic planning activities
that will help shape the future of nuclear energy in the United States
and globally.
We are in a time of tremendous opportunity, where the research and
policies we engage in today will define the technologies that are
deployed over the next 20 or more years when demand for energy is
expected to increase substantially. The rate of turnover in energy
supply systems is typically slow--energy technology life-spans are
typically four or more decades; transmission system lifetimes even
longer. For these reasons, we need to focus today on tomorrow's energy
needs.
I'd now like to discuss in more detail, drivers for nuclear energy
research, how we have structured and improved our processes for
conducting research, our major accomplishments, and provide more detail
on the fiscal year 2001 budget request and how this request helps
position the Nation for the next 50 years of innovation.
Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Authority
[In thousands of dollars]
Program Element Request
Nuclear Energy R&D:
Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems....................... 31,200
Test Reactor Area......................................... 9,000
University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support............ 12,000
Nuclear Energy Research Initiative........................ 35,000
Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization......................... 5,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................ 92,200
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Isotope Support............................................... 17,215
Termination Costs............................................. 74,000
Fast Flux Test Facility....................................... 44,010
Uranium Programs.............................................. 53,400
Program Direction............................................. 27,620
Offset from revenue........................................... (2,352)
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total nuclear energy, science and technology request.... 306,093
TRENDS AND CHALLENGES IN NUCLEAR ENERGY SUPPLY
The International Energy Agency projects that world energy
consumption will increase substantially over the next twenty years,
requiring over 3,500 gigawatts of new generating capacity by 2020.
Clearly, the largest growth will take place in the developing
countries--China and India alone will add over 20 gigawatts of
generating capacity by 2020. Today, 434 nuclear plants provide
electricity worldwide--16 percent of electricity supply worldwide.
Although some countries may reduce their market share of nuclear
energy for electricity generation, many countries, especially the
developing countries or those with limited natural resources, are
likely to increase their dependence on nuclear energy. In particular,
the recognized benefits of nuclear energy are prompting new discussions
on the future of nuclear energy as world attention focuses on clean
air, preserving the earth's climate, avoiding ground-level ozone
formation and preventing acid rain.
Nuclear power plants operating in the U.S. today account for over
20 percent of electricity generation and operate on average at less
than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour. Over the last decade the nation's
existing nuclear plants have steadily improved their operating
performance, reaching record operating capacities in 1998 and again in
1999 (79.5 percent in 1998 and 85.5 percent in 1999), thus increasing
their share of electricity generation. Additionally, between 1973 and
1997, nuclear generation avoided the emission of about 82 million tons
of sulfur dioxide and more than 37 million tons of nitrogen oxides.
This is a carbon avoidance of about 1.5 million tons per year per
operating nuclear power plant. Continued operation of these plants is
therefore, very important for meeting not just demand for electricity
but today and tomorrow's environmental needs.
In the decades ahead, the existing U.S. nuclear plants will remain
an essential part of our nation's diverse energy resource portfolio,
fueling our economy with a secure, domestic source of electricity. The
safe, long term operation of the existing nuclear power plants serves
our national interest by providing for energy security and diversity,
and providing for reliable and affordable energy--a fundamental
underpinning of economic prosperity.
In the longer term future, for commercial nuclear power to expand,
obstacles to its continued use must be satisfactorily resolved--issues
such as unattractive economics caused by historically high construction
costs, concerns about the links between nuclear fission systems and
nuclear weapons development, and concerns about generation and disposal
of nuclear waste.
In 1997 and again in June 1999, the President's Committee of
Advisors on Science and Technology affirmed both the important role
that nuclear energy can play in the short and long-term future and
articulated the challenges to nuclear energy, recommending that the
Department initiate specific, focused research to address these
challenges. The nature of our R&D initiatives has been shaped by these
recommendations and by the guidance we have received from the NERAC.
a strategic shift in nuclear energy research and development
Over the past several years, we have reinvented the Federal role in
nuclear energy research and development. Recognizing the realities of
today's fiscally constrained environment, we have reorganized how we
conduct research, how best to accelerate innovation and how to assure
the best return on the investment for the Nation. We have returned to a
more focused Federal role in conducting R&D--that is, investing most of
our research portfolio on long term, higher risk basic research aimed
at reducing or eliminating significant barriers to future use of
nuclear energy. This is research that typically is not within the
shorter-term planning horizon of industry. Our R&D programs are
designed to promote innovation and breakthrough technologies while
limiting both the rate and duration of federal investment--making good
decisions on when to expand research that is promising, when to hand-
off successful projects to the private sector and when to terminate
projects that fall short. As mentioned above, we have also established
an independent advisory board, the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory
Committee (NERAC) to help guide the future direction of our R&D
initiatives, including identifying promising research that warrants
additional investment.
NE's largest research activity, the Nuclear Energy Research
Initiative (NERI), reflects this fundamental shift in the way in which
research is scoped, funded, conducted, and evaluated. Focused on
obstacles to long-term use of nuclear energy, NERI promotes
investigator-initiated, peer reviewed research, enabling us to consider
a broad range of innovative ideas brought forth from industry,
laboratory research organizations and the private sector, that in the
future could lead to more significant stand-alone research initiatives.
As I think most of us would agree, in order for nuclear energy to
expand in the long-term, we must successfully deal with issues such as
plant economics, waste, and proliferation. For example, in the longer
term, by changing the way we manage and design commercial nuclear fuel,
we may be able to quite effectively address proliferation concerns,
making it more difficult to use nuclear power systems to advance
nuclear weapons programs. Technology may be able to reduce or even
eliminate the production of plutonium in spent fuel. This area of
proliferation-resistant fuel cycles and reactors are an area of major
investigation in our NERI program.
In the first year of the NERI program, the Department awarded three
research grants for the development of proliferation resistant reactor
technologies and three others for the development of proliferation
resistant fuel cycle technologies. By exploring these advanced
technologies such as modular reactors with long life cores and thorium-
based fuel cycles, we may find technology-based solutions to one of
nuclear's greatest challenges.
To further advance the research in this area, the NERAC has
chartered a panel to identify, by Summer 2000, the various technical
opportunities for increasing the proliferation resistance of fission
systems and fuel cycles--both near-term opportunities for increasing
proliferation resistance of existing technologies and long-term
opportunities for advanced and future generation commercial nuclear
power systems. In addition, we will be carefully coordinating NERI
research in this area with the Long-Term Proliferation Program for
Russia. Our office would co-manage the NERI proliferation-resistant
technology component of this program with the Office of
Nonproliferation and National Security.
Another major area of focus for the NERI program this year, and an
area of growing interest in the U.S. and with the international
research community, are Generation IV reactor technologies. Generation
IV reactor technologies are next generation advanced technologies that
are economically competitive with combined cycle gas fired systems and
deployed over the next 20 years when demand for electricity increases
significantly worldwide. In January, the Department sponsored a
workshop with representatives of the governments of Argentina, Brazil,
Canada, France, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, and the United
Kingdom to begin discussing the attributes of Generation IV reactor
systems. The workshop included observers from the International Atomic
Energy Agency, the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, the U.S. Department of
State, American Nuclear Society, and DOE's Nuclear Energy Research
Advisory Committee. Following the conclusion of the workshop the
participants issued a joint statement agreeing to pursue Generation IV
nuclear power systems as a potential next generation energy option for
the future.
In April, as a follow-on to the January workshop, another
international meeting with about 50 technical experts will be held in
Washington, DC to develop specific recommendations on the future
direction of multilateral cooperation on Generation IV technology. This
May, we will also sponsor a meeting with established and emerging
experts from U.S. and international universities, industry, and
laboratory research organizations to begin the process of establishing
requirements and attributes for Generation IV reactor systems and
determining how those criteria would be satisfied. The results of this
workshop will become the basis of a technology roadmap for Generation
IV reactor technologies.
In fiscal year (FY) 2000, another major shift in our research
priorities occurred with the initiation of the Nuclear Energy Plant
Optimization (NEPO) program. Recognizing the important role that the
nation's existing nuclear power plants continue to serve over the next
several decades in meeting demand for electricity in an environmentally
sound manner, $5 million was provided in fiscal year 2000 for NEPO
research conducted in cost-shared cooperation with the Electric Power
Research Institute, the research arm of the electric power industry,
for the purpose of improving existing plant operations, safety, and
reliability.
This $5 million represents a federal investment in intermediate
term, higher risk research that is needed to increase the pace of
innovation for developing new technologies for today's nuclear power
plants. While industry's $85 million annual investment is focused on a
short term horizon, funding ``just-in-time'' solutions to problems for
existing plants, our investment serves to leverage federal research
dollars with industry's matching funds in order to expedite and conduct
intermediate term generic research needed by all of the nuclear utility
industry to continue safe, economic, and reliable operation of the
Nation's nuclear plants.
Finally, over the last several years, our isotope program, has
refocused the Federal role in promoting research, production and
distribution of isotopes that benefit medical diagnosis and treatment.
Our focused investments in the isotope program reflects this
philosophy. Today, many of our former commercial isotope production
activities have successfully transitioned to the private sector.
Recognizing the important role that isotopes serve in medicine and
their promise for the future, DOE proposed and Congress funded a new
initiative this year--the Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative--to
apply DOE's unique expertise and capabilities in isotopes to advance
nuclear medicine technology. This program sponsors nuclear medical
science by providing isotopes for research, supporting research, and
funds fellowships, scholarships and internships to advance nuclear
medicine in the U.S.
DOE'S NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Guiding the Future Direction of Nuclear R&D
To help guide this shift in our research and development and shape
the future direction of nuclear energy research and development, in
November 1998, Secretary Richardson established an independent advisory
committee, the NERAC, under the chairmanship of Dr. James Duderstadt,
former president of the University of Michigan. NERAC membership
consists of experts in nuclear power plant operations, research,
nuclear medicine, economics, environmental programs, nuclear physics
and engineering who are from universities, national laboratories, and
the private sector.
Currently, seven NERAC subcommittees are chartered on the following
topics:
--developing a long-range R&D Plan with a 20-year horizon,
--developing a nuclear science and technology infrastructure roadmap,
--providing independent review of operating reactor R&D,
--providing independent review of accelerator transmutation of waste
research,
--recommending future federal investments in isotope research and
production,
--recommending focused research to increase proliferation resistance
of fission systems, and
--recommending the future direction of university nuclear engineering
and research reactors.
Let me point out just a few examples of NERAC's near-term
activities.
Presently, a NERAC chartered subcommittee under the lead of Dr.
John Ahearne, Sigmi Xi, is developing a Long Term Nuclear Energy
Science and Technology Research Plan to guide nuclear energy research
out to the year 2020. Another subcommittee, under the lead of Dr. Dale
Klein, Vice Chancellor, University of Texas, is developing the nuclear
science and technology infrastructure roadmap to evaluate the ability
of our nation's R&D infrastructure to meet current and future R&D
demands.
The R&D Plan will provide a critical input to the infrastructure
roadmap, identifying the direction of nuclear energy research over the
next 20 years. Other inputs come from the Office of Science, the new
National Nuclear Security Administration, the Office of Environmental
Management, Defense Programs and others. The infrastructure roadmap
will identify any gaps in our ability to conduct the research required
to support likely missions in the areas of nuclear energy, medical and
industrial isotopes, NASA-led space exploration, general nuclear
sciences, and defense needs. Both the long range R&D plan and the
infrastructure roadmap are to be submitted to the full NERAC this
spring.
This month, NERAC will sponsor a panel on the Technology
Opportunities for Increasing Proliferation Resistance of Global
Civilian Nuclear Power Systems. This panel, headed by Dr. John Taylor,
Vice President Emeritus from the Electric Power Research Institute,
will help us identify specific focus areas for further research into
proliferation resistant systems and fuel cycles. The work of this panel
will help us provide additional focus to future proliferation resistant
research conducted under NERI and International-NERI.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 PROGRAM FOCUS
Accelerating Technology Innovation
Our research and development initiatives remain the cornerstone of
the Department's nuclear energy, science and technology program. These
initiatives are undertaken on the basis that nuclear science and
technology will continue to provide important technological benefits
and advancements for the Nation in the 21st century.
For over 50 years, the Department and its predecessors have been
involved in development of reactor technologies. This past July, in
recognition of the important role that the Idaho National Engineering
and Environmental Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory have
served in the development of prototype reactor technologies, and on the
occasion of their 50th anniversary, the Office of Nuclear Energy,
Science and Technology designated these laboratories as Lead
Laboratories for nuclear reactor technology. In this capacity, we will
work with these lead laboratories to apply their world-class technical
capabilities to help us maximize the value of the various reactor
research activities conducted by the Department. Also, we expect to
establish additional centers of excellence for various aspects of
nuclear energy research at other laboratories across the complex.
The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI), program supports our
nation's future ability to apply nuclear technology to our energy,
environmental, and economic goals. NERI, started in fiscal year 1999,
funds innovative investigator-initiated, peer reviewed research and
development at universities, national laboratories, and industry to
advance nuclear power technology; thus paving the way for expanded use
of nuclear energy in the future and for rebuilding U.S. leadership in
nuclear technology.
The goals of NERI are to develop revolutionary advanced concepts
and scientific breakthroughs in nuclear fission and reactor technology
to address: scientific and technical barriers to long-term use of
nuclear energy; advance the state of nuclear technology to maintain a
competitive position in overseas and future domestic markets; and
promote and maintain the nuclear science and engineering infrastructure
to meet future technical challenges.
NERI research focuses on proliferation-resistant reactor and fuel
technologies, high performance/efficient reactor technology, advanced
nuclear fuels, new technologies for the minimization and management of
nuclear waste, and fundamental nuclear science. A peer review process
is used to evaluate and select research projects having the highest
scientific and technical merit and relevancy to program objectives. The
program is managed to promote collaboration among U.S. research
institutions and information exchange with international organizations.
Projects are conducted over a maximum of three years subject to annual
appropriations.
In the first year of this program, funded at $19 million, the
Department received over 300 NERI proposals in response to the
solicitation. The proposals were each reviewed by more than 120
independent peer reviewers and in May 1999, the Department awarded
funding to begin 46 research projects. These awards represented
significant U.S. collaboration among universities, research
laboratories and the private sector and significant international
cooperation. By the end of fiscal year 1999, the appropriate contract
mechanisms in place for the lead and collaborating organizations and
this research is well underway today.
This year, with the $3.4 million increase in funding over fiscal
year 1999 levels, we will continue funding the projects started in 1999
and award about seven new research projects. With limited funding for
new projects, we are targeting research on the following areas:
proliferation resistant reactors and fuel cycles, fundamental science,
and Generation IV reactor technologies. Peer review of over 120
proposals submitted this year is now underway and we expect to award
the new projects this spring.
By the end of the next fiscal year, the first three-year phase of
NERI research will be complete. A process will be developed and
implemented to evaluate these projects to identify the research that
presents the most potential for future success and that should be
consider for additional investment. With the $35 million proposed in
fiscal year 2001, we will award about 20 new NERI projects, including
as discussed below, projects conducted in cost-shared cooperation with
international R&D organizations.
In fiscal year 2001, the Department proposes to launch a new
initiative within NERI, the International Nuclear Energy Research
Initiative (I-NERI) with $7 million for bilateral and multilateral
research. This program would focus on advanced technologies for
improving cost, safety, waste management and proliferation resistance
of fission energy systems by leveraging our federal investment with
investments made by the international research community. In addition
to accelerating innovation and leveraging costs, I-NERI would provide
the United States and the Department, a key seat at the table in
international policy discussions on the future direction of nuclear
energy.
I-NERI would allow us to leverage international resources through
specific cost-share arrangements with each participating country,
working with countries such as France, Japan, South Africa, and South
Korea on a wide range of nuclear technology topics. This program, based
on the recommendations of the June 1999 international PCAST report will
feature a competitive, investigator-initiated, peer selection process
directed by the Department with additional independent peer reviews
using international experts from each of the participating countries.
The Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) program started in
fiscal year 2000, to develop key technologies that can help assure the
long term reliability and efficiency of our nation's existing nuclear
power plants. As discussed above, this program recognizes the important
asset that existing nuclear plants are in meeting demand for
electricity during the first half of this century, with low
environmental impacts. The program is conducted in cost-shared
cooperation with the research arm of the electric power industry, the
Electric Power Research Institute and in coordination with the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Department is requesting $5 million
for this program in fiscal year 2001, the same level the Administration
proposed and Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
In fiscal year 2000, we will begin 15 high priority research
projects, based on the critical R&D needs identified in the Joint DOE-
Electric Power Research Institute Strategic R&D Plan to Optimize U.S.
Nuclear Power Plants, and guided by a chartered subcommittee of the
NERAC. This strategic R&D plan includes short term R&D that industry
should be doing on its own and short to medium term R&D in which a
federal investment is leveraged with industry to apply the unique
infrastructure or expertise of DOE or to accelerate solutions of
generic technical issues affecting existing nuclear power plants. These
first 15 projects will address technical issues associated with a range
of topics, including material fatigue, fuel performance, component
inspections, in-service inspections and testing, stress corrosion, and
digital instrumentation and control.
Some of the key projects include development of a technology for
detection and characterization of defects in steam generator tubes, R&D
on the mechanical behavior of irradiated structural steels, and an
assessment of the natural aging effects on components. Although
industry has made great strides, we believe that the NEPO program can
accelerate innovation and provide intermediate-term research. As
example, investigation into technologies for detection and
characterization of defects in steam generators can have a profound
effect on further reducing the potential for steam generator tube leaks
such as recently experienced at the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant
in New York State.
NEPO is jointly managed by DOE and EPRI, with either EPRI or DOE
taking the lead on individual projects and with clear assignment of
management responsibility at the task or subproject level. Each project
consists of a program plan to which universities, laboratories, and the
private sector can use as a basis for submitting proposals for specific
projects/tasks. Research funding will be awarded based on technical and
scientific merit and cost. In fiscal year 2001, we will continue to
address the technology issues as guided by the Joint Strategic R&D Plan
and the NERAC.
In fiscal year 2000, Congress directed the Department to pursue
research and development on an accelerator technology with potential to
significantly reduce the radioactive toxicity and volume of civilian
spent nuclear fuel while potentially producing electricity to help
offset the life cycle costs of the program. Congress provided $9
million to the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, under
Civilian Research and Development to establish the Accelerator
Transmutation of Waste (ATW) program.
The mission of the program is to conduct science-based research to
derive system requirements, compare options, collect physics data, and
address the major technical issues, and analyze programmatic and
institutional issues associated with the deployment of an ATW system.
The program will include leading edge scientific and engineering
research in the areas of materials, high energy physics data, high
powered accelerators, advance reactor coolants, and the unique areas of
coupled subcritical reactors driven by accelerators. These new areas of
nuclear science and engineering can open the door to advances in new
reactor technologies and have the potential to enhance the
proliferation resistance of nuclear power.
In fiscal year 2001, the Department has requested no new funds for
ATW research. While the roadmap prepared in 1999 by DOE provides a good
basis to begin the program planning process, the Department plans to
apply funds provided for fiscal year 2000 to complete critical trade
studies, evaluate experimental data, and complete its detailed program
plan. Once this is done, the program will be equipped to suggest the
next stage of research.
A chartered subcommittee of NERAC, headed by Dr. Burton Richter,
Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physical Science at Stanford
University, has been established to guide the Program Plan and provide
recommendations on the research activities conducted this year and on
future research. Once the plan is complete, it will be submitted to DOE
management, the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Science
and Technology Policy, and interested Congressional committees.
Nuclear Science, Technology and Education Investments for the Future
Government, industry, and academia alike face similar challenges
today as we seek to preserve the aging but highly developed science and
technology infrastructure the United States has developed over the last
fifty years. This infrastructure is vital to delivering current and
future mission critical technologies and products to the nation.
Similarly, preserving the human and research facility infrastructure at
our universities and colleges remains key to preparing tomorrow's
nuclear scientists and engineers, to ensure an adequate knowledge base
to support innovation and technological advancement.
The University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support program carries
out the Department's commitment to maintain U.S. leadership in nuclear
research and education. By supporting the operation and upgrade of
university research reactors, providing fellowships and scholarships to
outstanding students, and providing Nuclear Engineering Education
Research grants, the program helps maintain domestic capabilities to
conduct research, and address pressing environmental challenges. The
program also helps to maintain the critical infrastructure necessary to
attract, educate and train the next generation of scientists and
engineers with expertise in nuclear energy technologies.
Our efforts to attract students to nuclear engineering careers
continue to be a major focus of our program. Our scholarship and
fellowship activity also pairs minority-serving institutions with
nuclear engineering degree granting institutions to increase the number
of minority students entering the field of nuclear engineering while
simultaneously strengthening the infrastructure of nuclear engineering
education. The Department is requesting $12 million for this program in
fiscal year 2001, the same level that Congress appropriated in fiscal
year 2000.
University research reactors in the U.S. form a vital component of
the nuclear science and technology and education infrastructure in this
country. These facilities are an important source of neutrons
supporting research that is critical to national priorities such as
health care, materials science, environmental protection, food
irradiation, and energy technology. Currently, there are 29 operating
research reactors at 27 campuses in 20 states. This year and proposed
in fiscal year 2001, we will continue to supply fresh fuel to and
transport spent fuel from university research reactors; fund reactor
equipment upgrades; and continue the conversion of university reactor
fuel cores from highly-enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium. Also,
under the reactor sharing initiative, this year and proposed in fiscal
year 2001, we will continue to pair 23 institutions with research
reactors to those institutions without research reactors to increase
their opportunities for training, education and research in nuclear
science and technology.
In fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, the Department will
provide 17 or more grants under the Matching Grants initiative to
support education, training and innovative research at participating
universities in 50-50 cost shared participation with industry.
Beginning this year, we are increasing the funding to up to $60,000 to
participating universities. We also expect to award up to 50
scholarships and 24 fellowships this year and next. Along with this, we
have restructured our scholarship and fellowship program to increase
minority student entries into nuclear engineering by linking students
at minority serving institutions to nuclear engineering programs at
universities with nuclear engineering departments. We propose to
continue these efforts in fiscal year 2001.
The fiscal year 2001 request supports the Nuclear Engineering
Education Research (NEER) program to stimulate innovative research at
U.S. universities at a level of $5 million, the same level as
appropriated this year. This investigator-initiated, peer reviewed
research program is vital to attracting and retaining faculty and
students in nuclear engineering programs. This year, with well over 100
proposals received from universities, we will award at least 6 new NEER
grants, increasing the total research projects underway to 45. In
fiscal year 2001, previously awarded R&D will continue and with the
completion of research projects that started in fiscal year 1998, we
expect to award up to 15 new NEER projects.
Finally, this fiscal year a NERAC-chartered Blue Ribbon Panel of
experts from universities, government and laboratories, headed by Dr.
Michael Corradini, Associate Dean of the College of Engineering at the
University of Wisconsin, will evaluate the future of university
research reactors and their relationship to the national laboratories
in conducting nuclear engineering research. The recommendations of the
panel expected this summer as well as other NERAC reviews related to
university programs, will serve as a basis for recommending the future
direction of these facilities, including recommendations for reactor
upgrades.
The Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems program is our nation's
only program for developing and building advanced nuclear power systems
for deep space exploration and national security applications. The
program supports and funds DOE activities related to development,
demonstration, testing, and delivery of power systems to the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and other Federal agencies.
In fiscal year 2001, the Department is requesting $31.2 million for
this program, which is the minimum amount required to sustain the basic
capability.
Critical national security activities and NASA missions to explore
deep space and the surfaces of planets could not occur without these
systems. To date, DOE has provided over 40 radioisotope power systems
for use on a total of 25 spacecraft. Previous NASA missions that have
used DOE-built power systems include: the Apollo lunar scientific
packages, Pioneer, Viking, Voyager, Galileo, Ulysses, Mars Pathfinder,
and Cassini. As we consider the American enterprise in space in the
first decades of this new century, it is clear that DOE's advanced
power technology will be indispensable if we are to continue our
exploration and advance human understanding of the universe. Projected
future missions include the Europa Orbiter, Pluto/Kuiper Express, and
Solar Probe missions planned for launch in fiscal year 2003, 2004, and
2007, respectively.
An expansion to the national security applications is also underway
that will require delivery of several radioisotope power systems over
the next decade. We are currently developing a new, more efficient
thermoelectric generator for these national security applications and
in fiscal year 2001, we will continue testing the thermoelectric
element, proceed with design and initiate fabrication of an engineering
unit of this new thermoelectric generator.
During fiscal year 2001, the emphasis will be on supporting NASA's
Europa Orbiter and Pluto/Kuiper Express missions scheduled for launch
in 2003 and 2004, respectively. The program had been pursuing the
Alkali-Metal Thermal to Electric Conversion (AMTEC) technology for
these missions but recently shifted focus on a Small Radioisotope
Thermoelectric Generator since the AMTEC technology could not be ready
to meet the projected launch dates. Consideration is also being given
to a new, more efficient, Stirling engine conversion technology since
it would require less plutonium-238, the heat producing isotope that is
used for all radioisotope power systems. Technology efforts may
continue on the AMTEC technology for potential future missions but the
major near term focus has shifted to the Small Radioisotope
Thermoelectric Generator and Stirling technologies.
Our efforts will also proceed in support of providing already
fabricated Radioisotope Heater Units for several NASA Mars Surveyor
missions. The first mission is currently targeted for launch in 2001.
This effort includes safety and environmental analysis to support both
NASA's environmental documentation and the Department's preparation of
Safety Analysis Reports required to seek launch approval.
The fiscal year 2001 request also includes funding to complete the
scrap recovery line for plutonium-238 in Building TA-55 at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory and to begin full scale operation of the
process to recover several kilograms of plutonium-238. In addition, the
request maintains the option to establish a domestic supply of the
nonfissile plutonium-238 required to fuel these systems, includes a
small effort on non-mission specific technologies for future
applications, and provides for an assessment of special purpose fission
technology, with particular emphasis on potential use in future space
systems.
This assessment of special purpose fission technology will evaluate
potential future requirements and the types of generic fission
technologies that may be required. The focus of the assessment will be
to establish what efforts should be undertaken and the timing for
initiating these efforts if fission systems are to be ready to support
the potential applications that are currently being considered. The
Department, as the nuclear development agency for the Federal
government, must take the lead in this evaluation; however, it will be
done in cooperation with user agencies, who would have the major
responsibility for funding, if these programs move forward into full
development.
Finally, the advanced radioisotope power system program has been
significantly streamlined over the last several years and we continue
to seek opportunities for further savings. The overall funding of the
program has decreased substantially, from $58.7 million in fiscal year
1995 to the requested level today of $31.2 for fiscal year 2001. These
reductions reflect the several actions taken by the Department,
including a decision to maintain and consolidate the operation of
assembly and testing operations at the Mound Site and assuring that
user agencies fund mission-specific costs. Presently, user agencies
fund mission-specific development and hardware and DOE provides funding
necessary to sustain the critical program and facility infrastructure.
The Isotope Support program exploits the Department's unique
infrastructure that includes research reactors and particle
accelerators to provide a reliable supply of stable and radioactive
isotopes used in medicine, industry, and research. Continuing its
emphasis on isotope-based research, the program continues the Advanced
Nuclear Medicine Initiative, started this year at a level of $2.5
million, to apply the Department's unique expertise to advance the
state of U.S. medical research, diagnosis, and treatment. We believe
that advanced isotope-based therapies may hold the key to creating safe
and efficient treatments for many types of cancer. The isotope program
provides isotopes to researchers across the country and remains
indispensable to conduct of advanced research in the United States
where isotopes are needed. Finally, the Department continues its effort
to exit commercial markets and to encourage new isotope production
ventures by selling or leasing its facilities to the private sector,
where possible. The Department's fiscal year 2001 request is for $17.2
million, reflecting a reduction in funding over last year's
appropriated level of $20.4 and the nearly complete new beam spur at
the Los Alamos Isotope Production Facility at the Los Alamos Neutron
Science Center (LANSCE). The fiscal year 2001 program would also
continue to serve its customers through the production and distribution
of stable and radioactive isotopes necessary for medical, industrial,
and research purposes.
The Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative, launched this year,
sponsors nuclear medicine research for diagnosis and treatment of
serious illnesses and diseases. This program is focused on using the
Department's inventory of alpha particle-emitting isotopes to fight
malignant diseases and to strengthen the nuclear medicine science and
education infrastructure by providing scholarships and fellowships for
nuclear medicine specialists. This summer, DOE will complete the peer
review selection process for the first year of research projects,
awarding grants on the basis of technical merit to individual and
collaborating research organizations. We are very pleased with the
response to this program, with over 40 organizations, representing
private sector, teaching hospitals, universities, and research
laboratories responding to the Department's solicitation for the first
year of funding under this initiative, some of them submitting multiple
proposals. Similar to our other peer reviewed R&D initiatives, ANMI
projects will be awarded for up to three years, subject to annual
appropriations. With the $2.5 million requested in fiscal year 2001, we
propose to continue the research projects and assistance to students
provided this year as well as begin a few more in 2001.
The fiscal year 2001 request includes $0.5 million to complete
construction of a building to house the Los Alamos Isotope Production
Facility. When operational, the new 14.0 million isotope target
irradiation facility will enable year-round production of vital, short-
lived isotopes for medical research.
The request also includes $0.3 million to develop a private
partnership that will replace the aged stable isotope production
facility at Oak Ridge, Tennessee with a new, less costly production
facility. Finally, the request includes $0.9 million to increase the
supply of alpha-emitting isotopes to support the expansion of human
clinical trials that are showing great promise for cancer therapy.
Modification of facilities at Los Alamos and Sandia National
Laboratories for molybdenum-99 production were completed with fiscal
year 1999 appropriations and no funds were requested for the activity
in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001. At this point, production of
molybdenum-99 can be mobilized on an emergency basis if foreign supply
is significantly disrupted, and facilities will be ready for private
sector investment to take the project to routine commercial production.
This year, the Department will continue to pursue privatization of the
production facilities for this vital medical isotope.
Finally, as you know, this program operates under a revolving fund
as established by the fiscal year 1990 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act (Public Law 101-101), maintaining its financial
viability with Congressional appropriations and revenues from the sales
of isotopes and services. The last few years' efforts to privatize
production and distribution of commercially viable isotopes, though
successful, has placed additional pressure on the program's working
capital. Commercial revenues, which contribute to the infrastructure
fixed costs, are no longer available and as a result, we are unable to
invest in maintenance and upgrades needed for our infrastructure--an
infrastructure which is vital to providing isotopes to our research
customers.
Although we have taken steps to address infrastructure and facility
issues to support nuclear medicine research, with the need for isotopes
expected the increase significantly over the next 20 years, perhaps as
much as 14 percent annually, the result is that we are more reliant
today and tomorrow on federal appropriations. As such, we have asked
the NERAC to examine the need for isotopes for medicine and research
and to provide recommendations for the Department's long term research
and production plan and for focused investment in the isotope
production infrastructure. This plan, to be completed this Spring, will
consider creative approaches such as public-private partnerships for
new isotope production facilities to serve the longer term projected
isotope needs.
Managing Federal Nuclear Facilities and Materials
The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology also is
responsible for facilities and materials associated with current and
past missions of the Office. In this capacity, NE serves as landlord at
Argonne National Laboratory-West and the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory's Test Reactor Area (TRA), both of which are
located in Idaho; at two of the gaseous diffusion plant sites, located
in Kentucky and Ohio; and is responsible for the maintenance of the
FFTF in Hanford, Washington in a safe shutdown condition, pending a
decision on its future. As part of our stewardship over these
facilities, we are responsible for the management and disposition,
where appropriate, of nuclear materials. For example, NE is responsible
for the management of depleted uranium hexafluoride inventories stored
at the gaseous diffusion plant sites, including the former K-25 site at
Oak Ridge, Tennessee--the current East Tennessee Technology Park
(ETTP).
The Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF), located at the Hanford Site in
Washington, is a Government-owned, 400 megawatt, sodium-cooled reactor
that operated from 1982 to 1992, providing a materials testing facility
for nuclear fusion and fission programs. It is the largest and most
modern facility of its kind. In April 1992, the FFTF was placed on hot-
standby because the Department anticipated that it had enough nuclear
research reactors in operation or planned to meet its needs. However,
the Department later terminated one new reactor project and shut down
two existing research reactors. As a result, the Department launched a
process to determine whether the Nation requires additional research
reactor capacity and, if so, whether the FFTF should serve a role.
Pending the final decision on its future in fiscal year 2000, the
facility is maintained in hot standby, defueled but with sodium coolant
maintained at 400 degrees Fahrenheit and with continued surveillance
and maintenance to ensure no degradation of key plant systems. The
Department is proposing $44.0 million for FFTF in fiscal year 2001 to
maintain it in a safe, environmentally compliant condition and support
the activities required to restart or permanently shutdown and
deactivate the facility.
The Department is currently preparing the Nuclear Infrastructure
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and other cost and
nonproliferation analyses that will help inform a final decision on the
future of FFTF during fiscal year 2001. The Programmatic EIS is
assessing the impacts of operating FFTF, other DOE facilities or
entirely new facilities. It considers the range of missions for which
steady state neutron facilities are required, e.g., reactor research,
isotope production, plutonium-238 production, and materials research.
The Department is currently proposing to the Congress, a reprogramming
request of $9.0 million to provide the additional funds necessary in
fiscal year 2000 to maintain the facility in compliance with applicable
Federal and State environment, safety and health requirements.
The activities of the Termination Costs program are focused on
Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II) shutdown and deactivation,
treatment and disposition of EBR-II and Fermi reactor sodium coolant,
and treatment of sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel. The program also
supports maintenance of the Argonne National Laboratory-West nuclear
infrastructure, including maintaining a core capability to foster
innovative nuclear reactor research and maintaining the safety,
security, and safeguards infrastructure. We believe that the name of
this program does not reflect the range of missions underway at Argonne
National Laboratory-West. In fiscal year 2001, the Department is
proposing $74.0 million for the Termination Cost program, near the
level appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
The project to demonstrate electrometallurgical technology by
treating 125 EBR-II spent fuel and blanket assemblies was completed in
fiscal year 1999. During fiscal year 2000, the Department is evaluating
the suitability of the electrometallurgical technology for full-scale
treatment of the remaining EBR-II spent fuel assemblies through the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. DOE's decision on
whether to deploy this technology for full-scale treatment of the
remaining fuel will be made this year based on the EIS and the results
from the National Research Council reviews requested by the Department.
No further treatment of spent fuel assemblies will occur until a final
decision is made.
Additionally, by the end of fiscal year 2001, the Department will
complete draining of the EBR-II primary system and process 100 percent
of all EBR-II sodium in compliance with Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory Treatment Plan. The schedule for this project
has slipped by several months as technical difficulties were
encountered with the process. As a result, the Department suspended
operation of the sodium process facility while analyses and reviews
were conducted. Those reviews are complete and we expect sodium
processing operations to resume in May 2000 for process and product
qualification operations. The Department has substantially increased
its oversight of this project by assigning to the project, senior,
highly experienced technical staff with proven experience in managing
complex technical projects and by establishing a new, independent
expert technical and project review organization to make ongoing
recommendations to the Department on ways to assure the success of this
project.
Next fiscal year, we propose to carry out the activities at Argonne
in accordance with the Record of Decision on the treatment of sodium
bonded fuel, complete processing of all stored Fermi and EBR-II sodium
and continue deactivation and closure of EBR-II surplus facilities. We
would also continue research that supports Nuclear Regulatory
Commission approval of disposal of metal and ceramic waste forms from
the demonstration project in a geologic repository, and continue
repackaging and removal activities for spent nuclear fuel that remains
from an earlier fuel burn-up development program now stored by a
commercial entity.
The TRA Landlord program ensures reliable support for TRA
activities such as naval reactor fuel and core component testing at the
Advanced Test Reactor and supporting privatized production of isotopes
for medicine and industry. The program also funds operations,
maintenance and upgrade activities for site common facilities and
utilities and ensures environmental compliance at the Test Reactor
Area, including identification of legacy waste and mitigation in
accordance with State regulations and DOE agreements with the State of
Idaho. The Department is requesting $9.0 million for this program in
fiscal year 2001, at about the same level as was requested and
appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
The fiscal year 2001 request would allow TRA Landlord activities to
continue at the same level the Administration proposed and Congress
appropriated in fiscal year 2000. This fiscal year and next, we propose
to continue with major modifications to the existing fire protection
systems in this area of the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory and to complete Title II design and begin the
construction phase of the TRA Electric Utility Upgrade construction
project.
Uranium Programs support activities related to the Department's
former uranium enrichment program that were not transferred to the
United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC Inc), including management
of the Department's inventory of 700,000 metric tons of depleted
uranium hexafluoride stored in Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. USEC,
privatized in July 1998, operates the Department's gaseous diffusion
plants in Portsmouth, Ohio and Paducah, Kentucky under a lease
arrangement.
At the gaseous diffusion plants, DOE is responsible for the
maintenance of numerous facilities, maintenance of the grounds, clean-
up of PCB spills in leased areas, electricity contracts, legal
expenses, payment of the post-retirement life and medical costs for
retired contractor personnel, and conducting a project to convert the
Department's depleted uranium hexafluoride inventory to a more
chemically stable form. The increase for Uranium Programs in fiscal
year 2001 reflects $12.0 million to be appropriated from the Treasury
Fund holding depleted uranium disposition funds from USEC Inc to
support the depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion project.
As you know, this past August, health and safety concerns were
raised at the Paducah gaseous diffusion plant site. Concerns centered
around the presence of plutonium and other contaminants in recycled
uranium historically processed at Paducah, inadequate progress in
environmental cleanup, and other alleged health and safety problems. In
response, the Department conducted a two-phase investigation to
determine whether environment, safety and health programs put in place
since 1990 provided adequate protection for workers and the public and
to provide for a full investigation of past practices. The reports of
these investigations were issued in October 1999 and February 2000,
respectively.
In particular, the Phase I report identified potential criticality
concerns related to storage of materials and equipment in certain DOE
Material Storage Areas (DMSAs) that are the responsibility of the
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology to resolve. DMSAs are
areas containing spare parts, equipment and other items that were
established during the transition and lease of enrichment facilities to
the USEC, which DOE agreed to manage. DOE's investigation and
subsequent review by the site contractor specifically identified 13
potential higher risk areas of concern requiring near term
characterization and mitigation. Although not anticipated in the fiscal
year 2000 budget appropriation, we are deferring other work to proceed
more quickly with the resolution of the DMSA concerns.
This past year, we created a new office, the Office of Depleted
Uranium Hexafluoride Management and increased program staffing to
provide more focused support and oversight over landlord programs at
the gaseous diffusion plant sites and the depleted uranium hexafluoride
conversion program. The office has implemented a number of reforms that
we believe will improve the effectiveness of our oversight of site
operations, including the designation of staff dedicated to uranium
hexafluoride conversion and conducting program reviews every four
months with Oak Ridge, the site offices, and the Office of
Environmental Management.
In fiscal year 2001, $53.4 million is requested to manage Uranium
Programs activities, of which $29.5 million will be used to manage the
inventory of depleted uranium hexafluoride: $16.6 million for cylinder
storage maintenance; and $0.9 million for conversion development and
$12.0 million for the depleted uranium conversion project.
Consistent with Public Law 105-204, the Department is proceeding
with plans for a project to build and operate conversion facilities to
convert the inventory of depleted uranium hexafluoride to a more stable
form. In fiscal year 2001, the Department is requesting $12.0 million
for the conversion project and later this year, will issue a Request
for Proposals to the private sector to initiate design of conversion
facilities. The Department plans to add an additional $12.0 million to
this amount from funds obtained under Memoranda of Agreement with USEC
Inc to further support this project.
However, because of the possibility that the depleted uranium
hexafluoride inventory could be contaminated with transuranic materials
from the years in which recycled uranium was used as feed stock to the
gaseous diffusion plants, this year we have initiated an assessment of
historical data and a cylinder sampling program to obtain a better
understanding of whether there will be an impact to the design of the
conversion facilities or to worker safety programs at these facilities.
We hope to soon issue a schedule reflecting the change this development
has on the procurement strategy for conversion plants. The Department
remains committed to meeting the deadline established in Public Law
105-204 on constructing conversion facilities.
The remaining $23.9 million requested in fiscal year 2001 will be
used to: support the maintenance of leased and non-leased facilities at
DOE's former gaseous diffusion plant sites, clean up PCB spills in the
leased areas, defend lawsuits, and pay the post-retirement life and
medical costs of retired contractor personnel as well as other pre-
existing liabilities. The Department also remains responsible for
safety documentation and assists the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in
preparing reports for Congress.
PROGRAM DIRECTION
In fiscal year 2001, we are requesting $27.6 million for salaries,
travel, support services and other administrative expenses for 171
headquarters and field personnel providing technical direction to
Nuclear Energy Research and Development, uranium programs, isotope
support, and other nuclear energy programs. A $2.9 million increase
over the fiscal year 2000 appropriation, the fiscal year 2001 request
includes additional funding for five technical positions at the Paducah
and Portsmouth site offices. This increase is important to providing
for adequate oversight over activities at the gaseous diffusion plant
sites, including improved oversight of environment, safety and health
programs at these sites and technical activities associated with
depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion and evaluating transuranics
and recycled uranium. Our Program Direction funding also supports the
many intensive activities of the NERAC.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy
to answer any questions. Over the last couple of years, I believe we
have made great strides in the nuclear energy program. We have launched
three new research initiatives, are proposing more focused
international collaboration and leveraging of the federal investment,
have successfully demonstrated a major technology for treatment of
spent fuel, would continue our enduring role in support of space
exploration, and would continue providing for safe stewardship of our
federal nuclear facilities and materials.
As I said at the beginning of my testimony, we have a historic
window of opportunity today to begin planning the next several decades
of innovation. The decisions we collectively make today can
significantly influence energy supply options and the environmental
outcomes over the next fifty years. I look forward to working with you
and the Subcommittee as we embark on preparing the technologies needed
for this new century.
Senator Domenici. Senator Reid, would you like to either
query or make some observations, whatever you like?
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I will be very, very brief. I
am sorry I am late. I had a meeting at 9 o'clock that I had to
attend.
With gas taxes as high as they are, I think we need to
really take a look at alternate energy. And as we have been
through the last three times we have brought our bill on the
floor, we have had a lot of problems on the floor on that
issue.
I have a letter here signed by approximately 60 Senators
who feel we should provide more money in that program. So that
is something we have to take a close look at. That is the
reason these gentlemen are here, is to give us some expertise
in doing that.
I have a full statement that I would like to make part of
the record. And in that I did not get here on time, I will not
read it, but ask that it be made part of the record.
Senator Domenici. It will be made part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID
Good Morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for scheduling this third--
and, as it turns out, final--oversight hearing as we prepare to begin
writing the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
Representatives of five important DOE programs have joined us this
morning:
--Dan Reicher, the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy
--Bill Magwood, the Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science
and Technology
--Dr. Ivan Itkin, the Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management
--Carolyn Huntoon, the Assistant Secretary of the Environmental
Management; and
--Dr. James Decker, the Acting Director of the Office of Science
I would like to welcome all of you to this morning's hearing. I
have read each of your statements and have a number of questions for
all of you.
However, in the time available this morning, I want to focus my
comments on only one or two of the topics before us, primarily Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
With gas prices approaching $2 per gallon, now is the perfect time
for Congress and the American people to re-engage in a conversation on
the importance of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies
to our nation's future.
At best, Congress has moved in fits and starts over the years in
its support for wind, solar, and geothermal power, biofuels, hydrogen,
and other technologies that will allow us to lessen our ever-increasing
dependence on imported oil.
We need to do a better job.
In recent years, many clean new energy technologies have emerged
that are simply waiting for sufficient market incentives to enable
widespread deployment. What is lacking is a clear, unambiguous stamp of
approval from Congress for a range of policies, mechanisms, and funding
to move forward.
Many of these technologies are tremendously promising. For example,
in the area of solar energy, collector technology has now improved to
the point where we could cover an area the size of the Nevada Test Site
with solar collectors and generate enough power to take care of ALL of
the nation's needs.
In fact, I think that covering the Test Site with solar collectors
is a MUCH better use of this Subcommittee's dollars than some of the
others we have talked about in recent years. The top of Yucca Mountain,
in particular, is an exceptionally sunny spot.
On a more serious note, all of us on this Subcommittee know that
the benefits of a stronger commitment to renewable energy are clear: 1.
Enhanced national security due to reduced dependence on foreign sources
of oil; 2. Enhanced security of energy supply; 3. Revitalized and
stabilized agricultural economy; 4. New manufacturing and service jobs;
increased export markets; 5. Cleaner air and water; and 6. More
sustainable use of productive lands and forests.
However, for a variety of reasons, Congress has never been able to
move forward in anything other than something of an ad hoc fashion. One
of the big disadvantages of such an approach is that it inadvertently
pits the various sectors against one another at a time when they really
need to be rowing in the same direction.
This is no longer a question of wind versus solar or geothermal
versus biomass. All of these technologies potentially have a role in
our nation's future.
It is the role of the government to incubate these programs up to
the point that they become viable and then kick them out of the nest
and let the market dictate the path forward.
Even with relatively small appropriations in recent years, many
renewable technologies have moved forward to the cusp of being
competitive with traditional sources of energy. Wind energy, in
particular, has enjoyed great success putting them on the verge of
being pushed into the market and weaned off of federal funds. Not this
year or next or the one after that, but very soon.
It takes time and money to develop mature energy sources. Our
nation has invested over $50 billion in its pursuit of hydroelectric
power; between $25 and $50 billion in its development of nuclear power.
To date, the U.S. has spent less than $13 billion on ALL forms of
renewables.
We need to do better.
We can do better.
And we are going to do better.
I have with me today a letter I received last week signed by 56 of
our colleagues requesting that we provide full funding--$409 million--
for the renewables program. I think that is a fine starting point.
Senator Domenici, you and I are scheduled to talk about several
Subcommittee matters tomorrow and this will be one of them. You might
want to consider bringing the Subcommittee's wallet with you!
Several other thoughts before I wrap up:
Interrelated thoughts for Assistant Secretary Huntoon and Dr.
Itkin:
I am very concerned with reports of the inadequacy of the Nevada
Test Site ground water monitoring program. It is my understanding that
the peer review of the Frenchman Flat water flow model is being
severely criticized.
I have in the past and will continue to support additional drilling
at the NTS to determine whether contaminated ground water is moving at
the Test Site.
Mr. Magwood, as you know I am interested in a continuation of
funding for the Accelerator Transmutation Waste program. I realize that
you have zeroed this program out in fiscal year 2001, but I hope you
can give me an update on your thoughts in regards to this program.
We have a lot of witnesses today, so I will stop here. Thanks again
to all of you for coming. I look forward to working with all of you as
we put together next year's funding bill. Thank you.
BIOENERGY INITIATIVE
Senator Domenici. Do you have any questions?
Senator Reid. Yes, I do have some questions.
Mr. Reicher, you have requested a significant increase for
programs within your bioenergy initiative. Tell us about that.
And what is the potential for biomass power and biomass ethanol
in the future?
Mr. Reicher. Senator Reid, I think the potential is quite
extraordinary. I think before you came in I said that today we
get 3 percent of U.S. energy, U.S. primary energy, from
biomass. And I think that we have the technologies today and
under development that the goal that we have set to triple that
by 2010 is quite realistic.
We now know how to make a ton of biomass into fuels that
can power vehicles, into electricity, and into chemicals and
precursors to chemicals that increasingly the chemical industry
is interested in using.
So I think the opportunity is very, very large. What comes
with it and what I think is so exciting to so many people on
and off Capitol Hill is that we can do very good things for
farmers and foresters, who obviously find themselves in a very
tough situation right now economically; looking for new uses
for what they grow, and looking for new uses for the wastes and
residues that they leave behind.
So I think with the support that we have gotten in Senator
Lugar's bill that the full Senate adopted at the end of
February, with the President's goal of tripling biomass energy
use, with the technological breakthroughs we have seen, with
the new plants that are under construction, with the interest
ranging from the chemical industry to the power industry to the
ethanol industry, I think the future is very, very bright.
And what we strongly urge you to do is to strongly consider
the funding request we have made so that we can move forward
with this exciting opportunity.
Senator Reid. If your program were not initiated--well,
initiated is not the right word. If your program was not
funded, what happens to this biomass?
Mr. Reicher. Well, I think the big thing that we lose is
the following. Over the last year and a half, we have brought
major companies together from the chemical industry, the power
industry, the fuel industry. They have all agreed that if we
are going to make radical progress in biomass, we have to take
a more integrated approach.
We cannot have one company interested in making a liquid
fuel, another company interested in making electricity, and a
different company interested in making chemicals. This has all
got to be integrated.
So the big thrust of our work and what this extra money
would fund is to spur integrated approaches, so that a ton of
biomass would go into what we are increasingly calling a bio-
refinery, just like an oil refinery. And out of that would come
not only liquid fuels, but electricity, chemicals or chemical
precursors.
And we are moving to a day that we think we can accelerate
with adequate funding where a ton of biomass can be a viable
market competitor to a barrel of imported oil. We are moving
towards that day. And that is a very exciting prospect for the
economy, particularly in rural America.
REDUCING OIL IMPORTS THROUGH INCREASED BIOMASS
Senator Reid. With oil prices in a state of flux, to say
the least, right now, could biomass help alleviate this
situation that we face? We are always talking about reducing
the need for importing oil.
Mr. Reicher. Well, let me say, we are all familiar, of
course, with corn ethanol. And that has been an important
contributor to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. What is
exciting is with these new technologies, we now know how to
make ethanol out of just about every other kind of biomass. For
example, the rest of the corn plant, the cob, the stalk, the
leaves.
I think before you came in I mentioned there are new plants
under way in New York State. They will be making ethanol out of
municipal solid waste in Louisiana, out of waste from the sugar
cane industry; in California out of waste from the rice
industry that they no longer can burn in the fields under air
pollution regulations; in North Carolina from the sweet potato
industry; in the Dakotas apparently from sugar beets.
So what we have is an opportunity, if we can push this
technology forward, to make a lot more ethanol out of both corn
and a variety of other products to displace our dependence on
oil.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY INVESTMENTS
Senator Reid. We always focus on the fact that when the
first energy crisis came in the early seventies, we were
importing 40 to 45 percent of our oil. Now it is up to 55, 56
percent.
But the thing we do not talk about, if we had not developed
ethanol and some other programs that are in use now, it would
be even higher than 55, 56 percent, would it not be?
Mr. Reicher. If we had not developed those alternative
sources and if we had not made the investments that we have
made in energy efficiency, that level of dependence would be
substantially higher. And equally or more important, our
national energy bill would be substantially greater.
We estimate that the investments in efficiency over the
last couple of decades have left our economy on an annual basis
about $200 billion better off than it would have been had we
not seen those energy efficiency improvements and the
development of these clean power sources as well.
Senator Reid. You indicated that just with biomass alone
you could increase the amount of our total energy cost from 3
percent to three times that. So that would be 9 or 10 percent.
Mr. Reicher. Correct.
Senator Reid. I wonder what that would translate into
barrels. You know, we are always talking about importing
barrels of oil. What does that translate to?
Mr. Reicher. Well, we are one-and-a-half billion gallons
today. And we think we could be substantially above that,
several billion gallons a day.
Senator Reid. You indicated three times that, so that would
be----
Mr. Reicher. In the range of--what gets confusing, Senator
Reid, is that we can do a variety of----
Senator Reid. Those notes get confusing.
Mr. Reicher. Yes. These get quite confusing. So I would
throw them away. What gets very confusing is that biomass can
be made into so many things. And tripling it, we might get some
of that tripling by making liquid transportation fuels. We
might get a part of that tripling by mixing it with coal and
making electricity. We might get a part of that tripling by
replacing the oil in the chemical industry, increasing it with
biomass.
So we cannot tell you exactly today where the economy will
take us in that tripling. All we know is that prices of biomass
technologies are coming down. And we think that tripling U.S.
primary energy use from about 3 percent to about 9 percent is
quite realistic. And as I say, both the President's goal and
Senator Lugar's bill provide strong support for moving forward
with that.
GEOTHERMAL ENERGY
Senator Reid. Earlier, within the past few months, I
participated in the announcement of a new initiative by the
Department of Energy called Geopowering the West. This
initiative is to substantially increase the use of geothermal
power in 19 western States. Talk to us a little bit about what
your ideas are with geothermal power.
Mr. Reicher. Senator Reid, geothermal power today is seeing
a very impressive price decline. We have brought the price down
substantially since 1985. And we think through additional R&D
we can bring it down further.
There is a vast geothermal resource in the western States,
a really phenomenal resource, and not only for making
electricity, but for also using it for heat, heat for
buildings, heat for industrial activities. And together, we
think that it is--we could provide 10 percent, our goal is 10
percent, of electricity in the western States from geothermal
by 2020.
Today, California alone gets 6 percent of its electricity
from geothermal. Nevada has an extraordinary resource. Many of
the western States do. And what we want to do is give much
greater familiarity to the 250 to 300 communities across the
West that are located adjacent to a good geothermal resource.
We want to give them much greater experience than they have
to date with this energy source. It is a clean source. It is an
abundant source. And it is one that I think is worth the
investment that we are seeking.
PROGRESS OF SOLAR ENERGY
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, just one other question. Then I
will ask permission to submit my others in writing.
Tell us a little bit about solar energy. Are we making any
progress? I went to the plant a number of years ago down by
Barstow. And that is 200 megawatts, which is the largest in the
world. But their technology is very old. Are we doing any
better than that?
Mr. Reicher. We are doing much better. We have come a long,
long distance. I think in the briefing slides we were at $1 a
kilowatt hour in 1980. Literally the only place we were using
it was in space. And as a result of the work of the labs and
industry, we literally brought this technology down from space.
We are down to 20 cents a kilowatt hour. We think we can get in
the range of 10 cents a kilowatt hour by 2005.
Senator Reid. How does that compare to natural gas, for
example?
Mr. Reicher. Natural gas is substantially cheaper. Combined
cycle natural gas plant is between 2 and 3 cents. But the
interesting thing about solar is, number one, from an export
perspective, there are 2 billion people who are not connected
to an electricity grid in the world, 2 billion. And their solar
can often compete well or can beat almost any other energy
source for bringing electricity to developing countries.
Within our own country, it brings a variety of
environmental benefits. It is highly adaptable. I will just
give you two--this is a roofing shingle. This is what would be
an asphalt shingle. But actually the solar material is built
right into the shingle. And instead of putting an asphalt roof
on, you put this solar roof on. You have to put a roof on your
house anyway. Wire it up, and you are making electricity.
We are now getting to a point--and I think beginning next
year we are going to see this--where glass--and this is
relatively translucent. But literally transparent glass going
into buildings will have a multi-fine layer of the photovoltaic
material laid down on it. And so literally windows in buildings
will be producing electricity. And it is an exploding market
all over the world.
And as I said, I think before you came in, the unfortunate
fact is that we have lost our number one market share to the
Japanese in the last year.
SOLAR ENERGY IN REMOTE LOCATIONS
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I traveled earlier this year to
Nepal, and 84 percent of the people in Nepal have no
electricity. I got a letter yesterday from a Peace Corpsman
there who sent a number of pictures and explained what he was
doing. I asked him to do that.
One of the pictures showed out in this remote part of Nepal
a roof with a solar panel on it. And it is the first
electricity they have ever had. And they are able to, with that
solar panel--and the sun does not shine a lot there. They are
able to have light in their houses, basically what it is for.
And the panel was very small.
Mr. Reicher. Yes. It is a highly adaptable technology. And
as I say, the near term opportunity and the growth has been
some 20 to 25 percent a year for the last many years, the
opportunity is in developing countries. And we have some very
strong U.S. companies that can sell abroad and are making
money.
Senator Reid. Explain to us, Japan has surpassed us in
what?
Mr. Reicher. In world market share, just this past year.
Their government support is about three times what it is in the
United States. And they have, frankly, a stronger domestic
deployment program than we do in the United States, although I
think we are doing a good job. But they have a much stronger
one there.
Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Senator.
Senator, you are next.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Dr.
Decker, Mr. Reicher and Mr. Magwood. Thank you.
Let me make a couple of observations first, because I know
this administration right now is scrambling to try to publicly
display an energy policy that frankly I think has been lacking.
And I have been speaking out about that, as has other Senators.
And I spent years with this type of budgeting that reflects an
anti-nuclear and an anti-fossil fuel bias which has clearly
emerged.
And to spend the last good number of minutes talking about
new emerging technologies, Mr. Reicher, is something that I
will vote for, because I do not believe we ought to demonstrate
narrow bias that shove large portions of our energy base out of
the marketplace. I think we ought to work on a full basket. And
clearly solar, photovoltaic and wind are a part of the total.
WIND ENERGY PRODUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS
But when I look at your map on page three, I see an
emerging problem. I see Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and
New Mexico as major wind-producing States potentially. The
problem with that is that those are all public land States. And
most of those areas that show that excellent opportunity is
public land.
Right now the bias in this country will not allow energy
development on public land, will not allow drilling, will not
allow coal mining. Why would it allow the slopes of the Rocky
Mountains to be covered with windmills?
Mr. Reicher. Senator, that is an excellent question. I do
not know the total details of this, but I can tell you in a
general way that when this ranking was put together, it took a
count of a variety of constraints on land use.
Senator Craig. But I bet it did not take account of
environmental impact statements, the NEPA process and the
public bias that wants to leave those vistas open and
beautiful.
Mr. Reicher. I actually think that it took into account
areas where, for a variety of restrictions placed by Federal,
State and local governments, you could not. But there is a more
important point, Senator. And that is that what we have found
is that these generally go well and are highly accepted in
agricultural areas.
Senator Craig. But those are private lands.
Mr. Reicher. Private lands.
Senator Craig. That is right.
Mr. Reicher. And farmers----
Senator Craig. The areas that you are saying here, most of
these States are 60, 70, 80 percent public lands.
WIND ENERGY ON PRIVATE LAND
Mr. Reicher. I understand that. But we do not need a huge
land area for the kind of development we are talking about. And
what we have found is that farmers, because they can plant
their crops and graze their animals literally up to the base of
these energy technologies and get paid for the use of their
land, they love this technology.
Senator Craig. Well, I do not dispute that. I totally agree
with you. And I think in North Dakota and other places like
that that are more private land, I agree. But what you are
talking about is something that is well known. That is
basically the wind tunnel of the Rocky Mountains that rolls
down out of Canada, that generates that pattern that is
demonstrated on your map. Any of us who understand the
geography of the West understand that.
Those are--that is public land. And I have been around wind
farms. They are big. They are very visible. And they are loud.
They make a whopping sound that I do not think the public out
west is going to like very well when they are out recreating on
these mountain slopes.
Mr. Reicher. If I could----
Senator Craig. Please do.
Mr. Reicher. Actually, the modern turbines, the new
turbines, developed in the last few years are quite quiet. They
are----
Senator Craig. They do not stand up on a large promontory
and have large blades?
Mr. Reicher. Oh, they are large.
Senator Craig. Yes.
Mr. Reicher. They have large blades. They are quite tall.
But they are relatively quiet compared to the old versions that
you might have see in California, for example, where the major
development----
Senator Craig. Well, I only bring that because my guess is
that if you expect that explosion of development other than on
private property, we are going to have to change our attitudes
as a public.
Mr. Reicher. Actually, I do have a note here from someone
with me that the studies did take into account NEPA, public
lands, et cetera, for wind. So we were quite conservative in
the analysis of this.
GEOTHERMAL
Senator Craig. Good. The same is also true of your
geothermal development. I know the Senator from Nevada has just
expressed that. I watched a flurry of geothermal excitement in
the 1970's, after the last energy spike. And they came to my
State of Idaho. They drilled in a variety of places. And the
result was relatively disappointing because of the high
temperatures needed at that time.
Now I know technology is bringing down the overall
temperature requirement some, and that is valuable. Once again,
the problem is that the great geothermal basic of Idaho is tied
to Yellowstone. And there is a tremendous fear that we might
deplete the geothermal energies that are tied to Old Faithful.
If you look at that pocket on your map on page 7 in
northeastern Idaho and into Wyoming, that is the geothermal
basin of Yellowstone Park. I do not think there will be any
drilling there, because it was disallowed at the time with a
great fluffy of concern, and legitimately so. And I did not
criticize it.
I think what I am trying to suggest to you is that the
public in whatever fashion is going to have to accept some
degree of tolerance to allow any kind of energy development,
especially when you target large public land States of the
West. Less true of biomass and all of that. Although on public
lands in the West, collection of biomass, if we are not allowed
to enter those lands and do stewardship programs to reduce the
bio-loading and therefore make that stuff available, which we
are not being allowed to do today, largely because of biased
inter-public lands. Those are all going to be factors.
HYDROPOWER
But certainly on private properties and in the West, those
are going to be extremely valuable. The reason I point those
out, I am going to vote for this budget. But I am going to vote
to put more into nuclear. I am going to vote to put more into
hydro. And the question I would like to ask of you, Mr.
Reicher, the advanced turbine research and development program
requested for fiscal year 2001 is $5 million. The budget
justification for 2001 States that the plan is to complete
laboratory biological studies of the effect of turbulence on
turbine-passed fish.
Now the reason this is important, Mr. Chairman, we are
engaged in a major controversy in the Snake-Columbia River
system that is probably one of the greatest hydro-networks of
the western world. There is a discussion of the removal of four
dams with a generating capacity of 1,000 megawatts, a peaking
capacity of 3,000, a huge abundance. And that is at a time
that, within a year, Bonneville Power is going to be reporting
a deficit of energy supply in the region. And yet this
administration, some in the administration, have been very
active advocates in the removal of those dams.
I, quite the opposite. In fact, one of the areas of
research here is to make the turbines less damaging to fish,
more fish friendly. And that research is applicable all over
the world and most certainly in that area.
FISH FRIENDLY TURBINES
So I guess my question to you is: Could you explain why
there is no funding being requested for the pilot scale proof
of concept testing of the conceptual design to verify
biological criteria and the predicted biological performance
using live fish? That is the next step that we have to get to.
That is, if we do not have an anti-hydro bias, and we want to
improve the fish-friendly character of our hydro systems.
Mr. Reicher. Senator Craig, first of all, it is an
important energy resource. It is an area of R&D that we are
committed to. And I brought an example of what this work
involves, which is literally testing the impacts of various
turbine designs with respect to both the actual mechanical
impacts that a turbine can have on fish and the impacts on the
dissolved oxygen at the base of a turbine.
We literally have what somebody joked as sort of like a
crash dummy fish. These are wired electrically, and we can do
all sorts of important experiments looking at these designs.
So we are very, very supportive of making these dams, these
turbines, as people say, more fish friendly. We do think it is
critical to what I think a number of dams are facing or will
face in terms of relicensing over the next several years.
And so that $5 million is designed to in fact move this
whole opportunity forward to put new turbine designs into
greater use, particularly as dams face relicensing.
Senator Craig. But there is no money requested for the
pilot scale----
Mr. Reicher. I did not understand that question. And I am
told that in fact----
Senator Craig. We could not find it, at least. If it is in
there, could you identify it for us?
Mr. Reicher. Yes. We will identify that. And we will be
quite specific about what that money is for, because I thought
that was what the next step involved.
[The information follows:]
PILOT-SCALE FISH FRIENDLY TURBINE
The Department of Energy is committed to the goal of developing
hydropower technology which will reduce turbine-induced fish mortality
to 2 percent or less. No fiscal year 2001 funding was requested for the
proof-of-concept, pilot-scale, test of the fish-friendly turbine design
developed by the Alden Research Laboratory, since fiscal year 2000
funding was considered sufficient to cover this activity and allow it
to continue through fiscal year 2001. In addition, fiscal year 2001
funding is requested for biological research, including sensor fish
refinement, to gain the necessary understanding of stresses and
behavior of fish in the turbine environment. The DOE program will also
explore other fish-friendly designs by providing funding support for
biological testing of turbines provided by industry.
Senator Craig. It is. We are really going to reach forward
and make--we have already done some retrofitting. I think we
did it at Bonneville in the Lower Columbia, and we are moving
up the system. But what is most important is that we advance
this design so it is applicable, both in large and small scale,
for all of our hydro systems around the country.
Mr. Reicher. Absolutely.
SODIUM BONDED SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL
Senator Craig. Mr. Magwood, would the environmental impact
statement for treatment and management of sodium bonded spent
nuclear fuel scheduled to be completed in December 1999, why
has the final environmental impact statement not be finalized?
And when do you expect the record of decision to be issued?
Mr. Magwood. Yes, that is true, Senator. We have been
delayed in getting that out. There are two primary reasons for
that. I think the most important reason is that we have been
waiting for completion of a study by the National Research
Council on the viability of the electrometallurgical treatment
technology demonstration project and the use of this technology
for treating DOE sodium bonded fuel.
And if you have ever worked with the National Research
Council, they are not always the most time-efficient
organization, but they do come out with good answers. I am
pleased to tell you that I met with them last week and their
final report is now complete. And I have been informed that
they have a very favorable view of the use of
electrometallurgical technology for the use of treatment of our
sodium bonded fuels.
So we are currently completing the environmental impact
statement, and I expect that we will issue the final EIS in the
next 3 or 4 weeks, and 30-days later the Record of Decision. So
I think that in May or so, we will see the Record of Decision.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you. I think that is obviously
necessary and important.
Mr. Chairman, I have other questions. Let me ask just one
last one, and then we will go another round, if you feel it
necessary.
Senator Domenici. Sure.
NUCLEAR REACTOR TECHNOLOGY
Senator Craig. To help maximize the benefit of its nuclear
energy research programs and facilities, DOE has selected
Argonne National Laboratories and the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory to serve as its lead
laboratories for nuclear reactor technology.
The lead laboratory's charter calls for Argonne and the
INEEL to continually evaluate and integrate the results of
research and consider the need for follow-on research
development and demonstration programs, as required to meet the
Department's long-term goals and serve as a technical resource
to provide support for the DOE and decision making or R&D
efforts.
Mr. Magwood, would you please comment on the DOE's nuclear
power programs?
Mr. Magwood. Yes, I would be happy to. We have established
a lead laboratory relationship with Argonne and INEEL in Idaho.
And it has proven to be very, very helpful in dealing with
nuclear reactor technology issues. For example, our efforts to
develop Generation IV nuclear power systems has been
facilitated in large part by the lead laboratories.
The meetings that we have been having with the
international community have been hosted by those laboratories.
The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory in particular has
been instrumental in pulling together a large workshop that we
are holding in May that will include about 100 experts from
across the world to talk about next generation nuclear power
technologies.
They also have been helpful in working with the other
laboratories that have nuclear expertise, integrating an
overall picture on nuclear technology. Obviously, we are to a
certain extent resource constrained, so we have not been able
to push that relationship as far as we would like.
But I am very hopeful that in the future we will be able to
devote more resources to those laboratories to establish the
kind of pool of experts that are constantly available to us to
support future nuclear power needs in the United States.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
come back in the second round. Thank you.
NUCLEAR ENERGY
Senator Domenici. Senator, let me just say I personally am
very proud of the fact that within the Department of Energy
they are doing some nuclear work now. Two years ago, they were
doing none--2 years ago, you would assume that nuclear energy
did not belong in an energy department of the greatest nation
on earth. And we are doing some exciting things, little by
little. And Mr. Magwood has taken a real positive approach with
small amounts of money.
It is quite obvious that we have a long way to go, but we
are catching up very, very fast in terms of these other
countries that have taken our technology and are moving ahead.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has become much more
realistic in terms of the way they are regulating the industry.
It is with great success. But it would appear that it is not
with the idea of making it difficult, making it prolonged
beyond reason.
And I very much appreciate your interest, because, frankly,
the world is going to find a new reactor that is safe, and
there will be no way for anybody to worry about it. And we will
put that in the mix in the United States, also, sometime in the
future, I believe.
Senator Craig. Well, Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate that
you say that. And I must say the leadership for that turnaround
has come largely from this committee and from your effort and
those of us who are involved and interested. Because when I
look at the scheme of things and I look at our desire to have
clean air in this country, and we should----
Senator Domenici. Exactly.
Senator Craig [continuing]. I am not quite sure how we get
there without at least the nuclear component and the hydro
component sustaining a percentage of the share of the total. I
do not think we get there. And yet we are wanting it as a
country, and we deserve it with our capabilities and our
technologies.
So we will push in that area. And if we have to, we will
lead. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. Well, I want to also make an observation,
because I do not have time today. Mr. Reicher, having
complimented you, I continue that compliment in terms of
managing your office. It is very diverse and very difficult.
But I do not have time today to engage in a series of
questions with you whereby we would establish some of the
limitations that are real with reference to solar energy and
the other energies that you have described today.
PROS AND CONS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY
There are others who have looked at it and say yes, it
should be pursued, but we ought to be realistic as to what it
can accomplish. And we also ought to be realistic as to what
pollution it will ultimately cause, if you use conventional
solar apparatus and wind apparatus, and you really think you
are going to add substantially to the national need, that there
will be a huge amount of apparatus left over that assume
gigantic status in terms of ground pollution.
So I am going to try, in which event I will notify you, I
am going to try to bring a witness from that side of the
equation, that would come before the committee and say, you
know, you are not going to touch the dependence on crude oil
very much for the next 15 years, or tell us out of all of these
which one has the best chance of doing something significant.
I do not want anyone to think I am against these
technologies. I cannot find enough money for all the solar
energy requests and the others in the budget, in the
appropriations. We might this year. We will try. But, frankly,
I look at it from the standpoint of our growing dependence on
oil.
And I just do not see in the foreseeable future a very
major reduction in crude oil dependence in the United States. I
see more in conservation probably than any other thing we have
addressed here today. That is real. We could do tremendously
better, if we set about to do it. But I am not sure that the
other technologies that have been spoken about here today are
really going to make a very big dent.
But I need somebody who knows more than I know, knows as
much as you know, but knows it from a different slant. I need
to have them come before the committee and tell us about it.
And like I say, I will be fair. I will prompt you and tell
you that we have that person. And if you want to come up, maybe
you would come up with them. In any event, we are going to hear
from somebody on the other side of this.
Now having said that, let us----
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, just one brief comment.
Senator Domenici. Sure.
Senator Reid. And also, I think in fairness we need
somebody to give us the other side of the nuclear----
Senator Domenici. Sure. Whatever you would like.
Senator Reid. I do not know what that is, but----
Senator Domenici. We are not planning to build a new
nuclear reactor, from what I can see, for a long time. So right
now we are still stuck with what we have.
Senator Reid. I have supported you in your efforts to
develop transmutation and other programs like that. I think it
is important we understand the full program.
Mr. Reicher. And, Mr. Chairman, if I could just for one
second?
Senator Domenici. Sure.
RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES
Mr. Reicher. I also urge you to take a look at what some of
the oil companies themselves, in terms of their own
projections, are considering with respect to the role over time
that various technologies are going to play in our energy mix.
And it is very illuminating.
You will see, for example, a variety of these oil companies
take the opportunities with biomass very seriously, very
seriously, and there are projections of----
Senator Domenici. Right.
Mr. Reicher. And hydrogen in a very fundamental way.
Senator Domenici. Well, I heard that today. And we
certainly are going to be asking questions about that. That is
an exciting thing. If in fact we have it moving in that
direction, we may get more biomass, also, than I have
perceiving looking at what others predict.
You may be more right on biomass. It may very well be a new
combine is taking place in terms of generating the interest.
Mr. Reicher. And with respect to solar, the breakthrough
for the solar electric will be when we succeed, as we are
moving towards actually building it into building materials,
literally the materials that we build our houses and buildings
and making them self-generating. We are moving in that
direction, and it is very exciting to have a technology that
literally will be part and parcel of the structures in our
cities and other areas.
Senator Domenici. Let me ask Senator McConnell, how long
can you stay?
Senator McConnell. Well, I have several things----
Senator Domenici. I am going to have to leave shortly. And
I had a few questions of this panel. Did you have questions of
this panel?
Senator McConnell. Yes, of Mr. Magwood.
Senator Domenici. And then we have another panel of two.
Would any of you be able to stay and call those people?
Senator Craig. I think I can stay for a little while
longer.
NANOTECHNOLOGY
Senator Domenici. All right. I just have a couple of quick
questions. Dr. Decker, first, I understand you really had to go
out of your way personally to be here today. You had something
much more pleasant planned for your life. And you were entitled
to that. And I very much appreciate your coming.
The notion of nano science, which the President is now
bantering around, and so people are beginning to take this
technology and listen to it and look at it, it is obviously
some of the most exciting science work that we have ever seen.
I had occasion to see a little piece of nano science at Sandia
National Laboratories, where they were talking about micro-
engines and the production of little, tiny engines on a chip,
like a computer chip. And they actually ran. Little engines run
and produce power and do things, although mighty small.
As a matter of fact, I was very privileged to have been in
the presence of a young engineer who got the national award for
engineer of the year for being the design engineer of a micro-
engine on a computer chip. And I thought--I never thought
engineers would recognize that that is engineering. I thought
engineering is engineering.
It is not making micro-engines that are as small as a
strand of hair and putting thousands of them on a chip. And
thinking that you might put them in the bloodstream some day
and they will attack what you ask them to attack, perhaps the
stuff that accumulates around the human heart. There are all
kinds of uses.
The President is asking for a lot of nano money spread out
across six different agencies and departments. I would just
like to ask you, could we be confident here that the national
laboratories, who do a lot of work and those that are involved
in nuclear weaponry, need nano science all the time. Theirs is
the business of miniaturization. Will they be part of this
effort, as you see it?
Dr. Decker. Yes, Mr. Chairman, they certainly will. We
have, I think, enormous capabilities within the national
laboratories in the whole area of materials. In fact, the
Department is, I believe, the leading supporter of material
science.
We have a terrific investment in facilities that are going
to be incredibly important in characterizing and understanding
science and technology at this scale. Our synchrotron light
sources, our neutron sources, our electron micro
characterization facilities, all will be incredibly important,
I think, in carrying out this initiative.
SPALLATION NEUTRON SOURCE
Senator Domenici. You have requested $262 million for the
Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge. It had a little bit of
a delay because of an overrun and a little bit of confusion
with reference to management of the project. I assume we are on
all four burners, moving right ahead now. Is everything in
order?
Dr. Decker. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to say that it
is. We just had a very significant review of that project. And
the review team concluded that in fact the project is on--can
be built on cost and schedule. But we did do some significant
restructuring, as you indicated, on the management of that
project over the last year. We have an excellent management
team in place now, and I think they are doing an outstanding
job.
Senator Domenici. Are there any technical, engineering,
management or scientific issues that remain that could impact
on the successful completion of this project?
Dr. Decker. I think any time you build a facility like
this, which is pushing the state-of-the-art, you always have
some unknowns with regard to incorporating technology. But we
believe that the risks, any risks that we have, are quite
manageable. And we are quite comfortable that there will not be
any technical show stoppers at this point.
Senator Domenici. I just got that question on the record,
fellow Senators, because we do not have a great record within
the Department of Energy of building major kind of facilities
and getting them done on time, or even getting them done. That
is not complaining about anyone. It is just a statement of
fact. And this is not one of the giant projects, but it is a
pretty good sized one.
Dr. Decker. It is.
Senator Domenici. And I would very much not like to see
this one go the way a number of them have. So we are going to
follow it very carefully. And when we ask you these questions,
we are very serious about your telling us on the record, so we
do not have something new occur later.
Dr. Decker. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. Thank you for your dedicated effort. You
have put some really good people together.
I yield now to Senator McConnell.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CYLINDER CONVERSION
Mr. Magwood, when I drafted the cylinder conversion bill
which is now Public Law 105-204, it established a time table
that would give the Department more than enough time to
implement this legislation. Unfortunately, my lowest
expectations for the Department have been exceeded.
I am very skeptical that the budget offered by the
Secretary is sufficient to keep this project on track and able
to meet the time table that you have set forth. In fact, it is
my understanding that this budget only provides enough funding
for your office to complete one-third of the total design work
for the facilities.
Based on information from project experts, as well as
information from your office, at least $60 million is needed to
keep the project on track.
Further, I am disappointed the Secretary offered only $12
million of the available $24 million he had committed to
provide last year.
So I have several questions in that regard. Has the
Secretary withdrawn his commitment on this project, Mr.
Magwood?
Mr. Magwood. No, Senator. I have spoken with the Secretary
about this, and he is insisting that we proceed along with this
project as efficiently as we can. I have also worked very
closely with the Deputy Secretary, and he has spent a great
deal of time with me personally discussing this, and how to
keep it on track.
There are obviously significant funding limitations, but I
think that given where we are in the project, the need to do
some sampling of the cylinders--I think you are very familiar
with the issue that we have run into, where we are concerned
about the possibility that there are transuranic materials in
the depleted uranium that could affect the design of the
facilities down the road.
Given where we are, I think the amount of money we have
asked for is just about right.
Senator McConnell. What about the remaining $12 million in
funding that has not been obligated?
Mr. Magwood. Well, let me explain. We expect to issue an
RFP in October. If we keep to that schedule, and I expect that
we will, we will be able to award a contract probably around
this time next year.
Because of the fact that this will only leave a small
amount of time left in the fiscal year to do work, we think
that the $12 million we have asked for in appropriations and
the $12 million we have matched it with--the available USEC
monies--is sufficient to get through the rest of that fiscal
year.
What that means is that the $60 million you spoke of will
probably be needed up in the 2002 budget or the balance will be
needed in the 2002 budget to complete the design work.
So it has not reduced the need. It has simply pushed it off
into the future a bit. But we are still on track. We are
obviously behind schedule because of the transuranic issue, but
I believe we are on track and moving along as best as possible.
SALE OF LOW ENRICHED URANIUM
Senator McConnell. Last year, the Secretary promised to
commit the revenue from the sale of low enriched uranium held
by the Department to fund the conversion of 57,000 cylinders of
depleted uranium stored at Paducah, Portsmouth, and Oak Ridge.
The President's budget assumes that the sale will raise $21
million in fiscal year 2001. Yet, as we have said, only $12
million is budgeted for the conversion program.
How do you explain this? Is this a budget sleight of hand
or what? How would you explain that?
Mr. Magwood. I did not answer the first part of your last
question--or the second part of your last question.
The $12 million that you spoke of, the rest of the $24
million, is still available and can still be devoted to the
project. We still plan to put that in the project in the future
years. So it is not that we have used it elsewhere. We simply
are deferring its use for now.
The money that we expect to collect from the sale of LEU,
my understanding--and I have talked with our CFO about this--is
that we did provide some language to different members to try
to get that into the budget so we could use it for this
project.
And for whatever reason--I am not as familiar with this as
the CFO is--that did not happen. And I do not know what the
plan is to go forward. So, I am not, perhaps, the best person
to address that aspect of it.
But we do expect to apply all of the available USEC funding
to this project. And we have been working very closely with the
staffs of the Kentucky and Ohio delegations as we try to apply
those monies.
TRANSURANIC CONTAMINATION
Senator McConnell. Well, going back to the transuranic
waste that you mentioned, you informed my staff in a meeting
last month that this waste was found in depleted uranium
cylinders generated in 1988 and 1993.
If the Atomic Energy Commission stopped using recycled
uranium during the mid-1970s, how do you explain the fact that
this material is found in these cylinders 10 to 15 years later?
Mr. Magwood. I am not being facetious, but that is a really
good question. We have been trying to figure that out. It is
something that was a surprise to my office.
We suspect that it may have come from the foreign research
reactor field, but we are not really certain of that. It is an
ongoing investigation to try to understand why that is there.
As you indicated, we know that in the late 1950's to 1960's
and late 1960's to early 1970's, the Department recycled
uranium. Why material would show up 15 years later is something
that we are still investigating.
GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANTS WORKER LAYOFFS
Senator McConnell. You are probably aware that USEC is
preparing to lay off 825 workers at the gaseous diffusion
plants. It is my understanding that your office has control
over $10 million in funds that have been obligated to cylinder
maintenance between fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2010. The
level of funding would be more sufficient--this level of
funding would be more than sufficient to provide these basic
benefits.
Is there any reason why this funding cannot be used
immediately to provide a voluntary reduction in force benefits
package? And what about worker health testing or accelerating
cleanup?
Mr. Magwood. I have not heard that idea come up. It is
certainly something that, I am sure, if you would like to make
a recommendation, we would certainly take it back to the
Secretary and discuss it.
It simply has not come up, and I do not know if there is a
technical reason why some of the monies could not be diverted.
Clearly, if we do not spend money on cylinder maintenance, we
do have the risk that some of the cylinders could corrode. We
could have a leak. But as you know, we do not think that that
is the situation now.
There is a possibility that we could take after reductions
and use that money elsewhere. But it is something we would have
to look into very, very thoroughly before doing so. We would
certainly be willing to take that recommendation back if you
want to state that formally.
CYLINDER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Senator McConnell. Yes. Why do you not do that?
I have a budget document that was prepared by your cleanup
contractor that states that at the end of fiscal year 2001, the
cylinder management program will have an uncosted balance of
$9.2 million between Paducah and Portsmouth.
How do you explain this? And why are you requesting such a
massive increase, if the contractor will not be able to spend
this amount of funding?
Mr. Magwood. I do not believe that is correct. From what I
understand, we actually have less money available right now
than we need to complete the work that has been assigned to the
contractors.
So I would have to understand more about where that number
comes from before I can really respond to that.
[The information follows:]
CYLINDER MANAGEMENT
It is my understanding that as part of the budget formulation
process for the uranium programs' fiscal year 2001 budget request,
various funding scenarios were developed for allocation of funding
among Paducah, Portsmouth, and the East Tennessee Technology Park by
the management and integration contractor. Although the Office of
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology is not familiar with the budget
document cited in this question, we are familiar with a scenario that
maximized cylinder maintenance at Paducah and Portsmouth, and resulted
in a somewhat lower uncosted balance. However, neither scenario is
considered credible because of other program mandates that were not
considered in the scenarios. As we proceed through the fiscal year 2001
appropriations process, the Department will continue to analyze options
for allocation of limited funding to meet the numerous priorities of
the program at the three sites. Regardless, we do not envision the
allocation of the funding among the sites to result in a high uncosted
balance in fiscal year 2001.
Senator McConnell. Would it not be better to just go on and
spend the money on cylinder conversion to eliminate the threat,
than to continue to maintain?
Mr. Magwood. My view, Senator, is that you need a balance.
It is going to take us 25 or 30 years to treat all of the
depleted uranium. If we were not to keep a cylinder maintenance
program going over that period of time, we would clearly,
clearly have some environmental problems with some of those
cylinders.
As you know, some of the cylinders date back to the
Manhattan Project, and they require a great deal of care and
feeding, so to speak. We have to paint them; we have to inspect
them. There are still some cylinders that we have not re-racked
in the way that we can inspect them visually. So that work
needs to continue.
And obviously, as time goes on and as we complete the
painting of at least one coat on each of the cylinders, the
tempo of those activities can start to decrease.
Quite frankly, I do not know whether we could spend a great
deal more money than we have identified at this point because
of the sampling issue and because of the fact that it simply
takes time to award a contract like this and to do it right.
So I do not think more money would help at this point.
Senator McConnell. Mr. Chairman, if I could get in one more
question, and then I will submit the balance of them to Mr.
Magwood.
Senator Domenici. Please proceed.
CYLINDER MAINTENANCE
Senator McConnell. In testimony before the Energy Committee
2 weeks ago, you claimed that your office has met the standards
set by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Recommendation 95-1 for depleted uranium cylinder management,
and you are confident that the program has solved the cylinder
storage problems.
If you are in full compliance, how do you justify a 30
percent increase in your budget for the cylinder--cylinder
maintenance program at Paducah?
Mr. Magwood. When I met with the Board, I believe it was in
November, they asked why our funding for the cylinder
maintenance program had decreased, because they knew our
spending profile. And my response to that was that I had
promised them that we would increase funding in the future to
make up for the work that we had not done.
And I believe that their dismissal of the recommendation
was predicated on the program for cylinder maintenance that we
have put in place and on the idea that we would make up for the
work that had not been accomplished. So it is work that still
needs to get done, and the Board recognized that.
Senator McConnell. Well, Mr. Magwood, as I indicated, I
have a number of other questions--which in the interest of
time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit to him and have the
responses in writing at whatever time we----
Senator Domenici. They will be submitted. And would you
answer that as soon as possible?
Mr. Magwood. Absolutely.
Senator McConnell. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. I have a series of questions to be
answered by all three of you, but I am not going to ask them. I
will submit them to you.
Senator Murray?
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, have a
series of technical questions. If I could just submit them, so
that we can move along. I do have some questions for the second
panel. So I would be happy to submit these.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
Senator, do you have any further questions?
EBR-II SODIUM PROCESSING
Senator Craig. I do have just two more. And let me ask one
of Mr. Magwood and one of Mr. Reicher. Mr. Magwood first.
There has been some criticism of delays and technical
problems in processing the sodium coolant at EBR-II at the
INEEL. Will you please describe what steps have been taken to
correct those problems and assure that the sodium will be
treated by March 2002, as the department has committed to do?
Mr. Magwood. Yes, I will be happy to. Just to give a little
bit of background for the Senators who may not be familiar with
this, we have been treating the sodium that has been drained
from the EBR-II reactor system as part of the process of
shutting the reactor down. The first portion of that sodium was
being converted to sodium hydroxide for disposal using a
process that has been established at Argonne National
Laboratory.
We had been on track to treat all this material and treat
it to a dry, cake-like substance that can be disposed of.
Unfortunately, late last year we discovered that the process
was not working as Argonne had anticipated, and that we had
found some liquid in some of the drums, the process material.
We traced the problem down to a faulty textbook that one of the
Argonne scientists used in designing the process. The
temperatures were not at the right level.
We were very concerned about the fact that Argonne failed
to refine this problem before they produced so much material.
So I shut the process down, ordered Argonne's lab director into
Washington to explain how this happened. I was very concerned
about the fact that this went so long without being discovered.
And since that time, I have authorized a recovery path to
begin processing the material again. But at the same time, I
have also instructed Argonne to reorganize, to make the sodium
processing activity report much higher in the Argonne chain of
command.
And I have also established an independent technical expert
that consists largely of the Merrick Corporation to observe
what Argonne's activities are related to sodium processing, and
report directly to my office on Argonne's technical progress.
So we put some things in place that we think will prevent
any further delays in the program. It is something that we are
extraordinarily unhappy about, quite frankly. But Argonne has
been very cooperative in trying to rectify the problem. And I
think we are on track to get this done.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much.
GEOPOWERING THE WEST
Mr. Reicher, one last question of you as it relates to your
2001 budget request for renewable resource technologies. It
proposes $2 million to initiate a new program, and that is
Geopowering the West to take advantage of the abundance of the
geothermal resources that are found in the western States,
including Alaska, Hawaii and my State of Idaho.
The initiative proposes to increase the use of geothermal
for electrical production, in addition to fostering the use of
low temperature sources across the West to supply energy for
residents, commercial establishments, and industrial
applications. Before I ask the question, I think, while I may
have sounded critical a few moments ago, I was attempting to
sound probative, because I do believe that this initiative has
some excellent opportunities.
Literally hundreds of homes in Idaho are heated by
geothermal. The statehouse in Idaho and a large portion of
downtown Boise is heated by geothermal wells that a lot of
people do not know about. It is obviously abundant, and it is
clean. It is limited.
But there is a great deal about the technology we do not
know, and the replenishment of it that is critical, including
injection wells and all of the kinds of things that would be
necessary to return moisture to those levels, if we are going
to attempt a full cycle system and all of those kinds of things
with geothermal.
Obviously, space heat can accept substantially cooler
temperatures compared to electrical generation by turbines or
steam turbines coming off the geothermal heat. So while I am
concerned about it, I am aware of it and spent a great deal of
time watching it, looking at it, studying it, during the decade
of the seventies, after America stood in energy lines and then
became frustrated, as did the department at that time launch
out into these new areas.
Is this an ambitious program? And could you explain
specifically how the $2 million would be used that is in the
budget now?
Mr. Reicher. Senator, I think it is an ambitious program,
but I think it is a realistic one, given how far we have come
with the technology and given the quality of the resource in
the West. You note absolutely correctly that we are looking at
both the electric potential and the heat potential of
geothermal.
And those do differ substantially, and that this is why I
think a subsidiary goal, in fact, of this Geopowering the West
is to heat seven million homes using geothermal energy by 2010.
I noted that the electricity goal is 10 percent of western
electricity by 2020. So those two goals fit together quite
nicely.
In terms of the overall geothermal work, we are in fact
focused on some of the issues that you raise. For example, how
do we replenish the geothermal resource? And there is a variety
of interesting things that we are working on. And I will give
you one very interesting example.
There are geothermal sites now in the West where the
effluent from sewage treatment plants, which is difficult in
some cases to dispose of, is literally injected down into the
geothermal setting to replenish the moisture that you need to
continue to make abundant use of the steam and the heat. So we
are very mindful of that issue.
With respect to the initiative itself, the Geopowering the
West, what we have found with these relatively immature
technologies is that we have to acquaint people with how they
work.
And most fundamentally, that, I think, is what Geopowering
the West is about, to literally go into these hundreds of
communities that have a good geothermal resource in the West
and explore the possibilities of tapping that resource, from a
technical perspective, from a financial perspective, and from
an institutional perspective.
It may well involve in some cases the issue you raised in
terms of the use of public lands, although I am told that we
did look at sensitive lands in our analysis of the western
resource.
So the opportunity is there in sort of a scientific sense,
a technological sense. But what is missing is the kind of
acquaintance that we think we need, community by community,
State by State. And so the third goal of this is in fact to
double the number of States with geothermal facilities to eight
by 2006.
We have found in our wind program that when we actually get
wind turbines into States that have not had them before,
Minnesota, Iowa, Vermont, Wisconsin, Texas, the technology
begins to feed on itself. It begins to grow because people
become comfortable with it. They understand it. And they know
that it works and that it works well. And that is what we need
to do for geothermal.
DOE LABORATORY INVOLVEMENT IN GEOTHERMAL ENERGY RESEARCH
Senator Craig. Would you care to comment on the status of
your search for designating a geothermal laboratory in the
department?
Mr. Reicher. We today have a large number of our labs doing
some geothermal work. And the decision that I made was that we
needed to concentrate that work in a smaller number of labs.
That has in fact been much of the focus in DOE and a whole host
of programs, that we are spread too thin. And we are in the
process, over the course of the next year, to identify both the
lead labs for geothermal and then those that will remain in a
supporting role.
And to be very frank with you, we will make some decisions
that will likely take a couple of labs out of the geothermal
business, at least as funded by my office. I will get you the
details of that, and we will keep you apprised of it as we go
forward.
[The information follows:]
GEOTHERMAL PROGRAM
The process for selecting a lead laboratory and supporting
laboratories for our fiscal year 2001 geothermal program is under
development. The Department expects to announce its decision before the
end of this fiscal year. We will notify the Subcommittee when the
process has been completed.
Senator Craig. I would like to know that. And I might
suggest, just for your own information--and it would be worth
your time or your people's time to observe if they have not--
the State campus in downtown Boise, the Statehouse and many of
its office buildings, are heated by geothermal. There is a
marvelous avenue in Boise called warm springs with beautiful,
old turn-of-the-century homes that have been heated since they
were built by geothermal.
Geothermal is a technology that has been used in Idaho for
about 85 to 90 years and very successfully. But clearly, the
greater efficiencies by technology and the application can come
about, I think, and probably in most areas where the absence
of--and I think maybe that is an ambitious figure to get
electrical generation to where you want it, because we have
studied that rather thoroughly.
And while there is great opportunity for space heat, which
is still as valuable in many instances, the opportunities for
electrical generation, based on at least the exploration of the
seventies and early eighties, would appear to be considerably
more limited.
But I am interested in that. Idaho is interested in that.
We have been at the business for a good long while.
Mr. Reicher. Well, Senator, I both look forward to working
with you on this. And with respect to the electricity goal for
2020, what gave me a degree of confidence about that goal was
the fact that California today gets 6 percent of its
electricity from geothermal.
Senator Craig. Well, those are the fields in northern
California that I have been to and looked at and that
generation--and, of course, we are pretty knowledgeable in
where it is today. The question is, can we create the turbines
that are efficient enough to get more from them? I am not quite
sure we can get more from the resource itself, as much as we
can get more from technological development.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. I have to leave for a budget conference
which starts at 11:00. And I am hoping to be through within a
couple of hours. So we will have the budget finished. Would one
of you be able to proceed with the next two witnesses? I would
appreciate it immensely.
Let me just say, Mr. Reicher, just because I remain silent
while my good friend talked about geothermal energy does not
mean that all of us are abandoning our enthusiasm to the
enthusiasm of his State. There are others of us who have
similar geothermal interests with long-standing R&D efforts.
And to see it rekindled is exciting to me. It sort of dropped
off the wall.
Senator Craig. We think our geothermal is much better than
his.
Senator Domenici. I did not want to say that, because --you
can say it. You are from that side of the aisle.
Senator Craig. I do not come from a gambling State. I just
know mine is better.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Domenici. Thanks to all three of you very, very
much.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Question Submitted to the Department of Energy
Question Submitted by Denator Pete V. Domenici
WVU NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL AND TECHNOLOGY CENTER
Question. In the fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill, I added $3.5 million to be used toward the
construction of the proposed $18 million National Educational and
Technology Center to be located on the campus of West Virginia
University. This proposed facility will provide a centralized national
clearinghouse to maintain a comprehensive holding of regulatory source
information, policy documents, reference material and scientific
literature pertinent to maintaining a Positron Emissions Tomography
facility.
Unfortunately, the distribution of these fiscal year 1999 funds to
West Virginia University was delayed significantly until I was able to
speak personally to Secretary Bill Richardson in December 1999. I am
advised that these fiscal year 1999 funds were finally released to West
Virginia University officials in mid-February of 2000.
In the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations
bill, I secured an additional $1.5 million for this project. I
understand that an application from West Virginia University will be
submitted to the Office of Biological and Environmental Research of the
Department of Energy in the very near future. This project is among my
highest priorities in the Energy and Water Development bill. What
assurances can you provide me that delays similar to last year will not
occur and that the award of the fiscal year 2000 funding along with any
future funding the Congress may provide for this project will be made
in a timely manner?
Answer. There is currently no delay on the release of funding for
fiscal year 2000 Congressional earmarks. The fiscal year 2000 earmarks
are being reviewed by the relevant program offices to ensure the funds
will be appropriately spent and fit within the mission of the
Department of Energy. The review requires cooperation between the
program office and the entity to which the funds are proposed to be
released. A detailed scope of work and process must be developed that
may take several weeks or months. In addition, the Department must make
a determination of competitive or non-competitive financial assistance
that requires review by legal counsel. Once this review process is
completed, each proposal is submitted to the Secretary for final
approval.
______
Questions Submitted to the Office of Energy and Renewable Science
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
FUNDING FOR SOLAR AND RENEWABLES AT THE NEW MEXICO LABS
Question. Mr. Reicher, I am concerned about a disturbing trend in
the requested funding for some of your programs. For example,
department-wide, the solar and renewable request increased 32 percent,
while Sandia's solar and renewable work increased only 12 percent and
LANL received a small 4 percent increase. All other labs doing solar
and renewables work received between 25 percent and 40 percent increase
in funding for fiscal year 2001.
I have heard that funding was reduced for the New Mexico labs
because you perceived a ``lack of support by the New Mexico
delegation.'' Will you commit to me today that funding decisions will
be based on merit rather than on political considerations?
Answer. Solar and Renewable Energy funding is, and will continue to
be, allocated based on the performer's ability to execute the technical
and management tasks required by the programs. Political considerations
do not influence DOE decisions on the distribution of funds, unless a
specific mandate is included in the Energy and Water Appropriation
Bill.
In the case of Sandia National Laboratories, several factors
influenced the apparently modest (12 percent) increase in the funding
request for fiscal year 2001:
--On October 1, 1999, Sandia significantly altered its cost
structure. This resulted is an almost 4-fold increase in
Sandia's overhead charge on subcontracts (from 7 percent to 26
percent).
--Much of the work in EE, and solar and renewable resources
technologies in particular, is applied research that is done in
cooperation with industry, therefore warranting a significant
amount of subcontract work, with private sector partners.
--To get the most for the taxpayer's dollar, prudent program
management required these programs to shift as much of the
subcontracted work as possible to other field offices/labs
(e.g., ALO, GFO, NREL). While the benefits gained from direct
management by Sandia were sufficient at the lower overhead
rates, the four fold increase exceeds any benefits that might
accrue from Sandia managing the subcontracts.
It should also be noted that although this resulted in reduced
subcontracting at Sandia, some of these funds went directly to
subcontracts in New Mexico. These include the City of Albuquerque
Development Services Division (a Million Solar Roofs partner), EG&G,
KPMG, New Mexico State University--Las Cruces, Spectra Research, and
the Laguna Native American tribe. This change will allow more money to
reach our partners than if they had been fully burdened by Sandia's new
overhead rates.
New Mexico laboratories continue to be integral partners in the
development of solar and renewable technologies. Sandia, for example,
is the lead laboratory in the development of solar parabolic troughs
and dishes, and provides essential engineering support to the
development of photovoltaic and solar water heating technologies. The
12 percent increase proposed for Sandia in the fiscal year 2001 DOE
budget request indicates DOE's continuing support for this very
important laboratory.
In the case of Los Alamos National laboratory, funding will be
essentially constant for fiscal year 2001, reflecting the constant
budgets for the Solar and Renewables programs where Los Alamos receives
substantial funding--High Temperature Superconductivity and Hydrogen.
Los Alamos has an important role in the High Temperature
Superconductivity program, having received $6,210K in fiscal year 1999
and $5,700K thus far in fiscal year 2000. Since a substantial amount of
the fiscal year 1999 funding was for new cooperative work with
industry, this year's spending will actually be somewhat higher. In the
future, this cooperative research is expected to be carried out in the
new research park now under construction. This will build on Los
Alamos' success in working with industry to rapidly bring high
temperature superconductivity to commercialization.
The Hydrogen program responsibilities for Los Alamos have increased
with their being selected as Lead Laboratory on all research and
development activities in the area of utilization. This includes all
work on sensors, fuel cells, and other applications. In addition, Los
Alamos is also responsible for managing the technology validation
systems for the production of hydrogen from renewable energy resources.
A budget increase for fiscal year 2001 is anticipated due to these
increased responsibilities.
WIND POWERING AMERICA
Question. Mr. Reicher, the budget request contains $5.0 million to
initiate Wind Powering America--a new national program to accelerate
use of wind power in America. Can you tell the committee how this
program will be executed? How will DOE determine the appropriate use of
the funding requested? What criteria or guidelines will be used to
evaluate competitive requests or proposals?
Answer. Wind Powering America will leverage federal dollars with
states, industry, utilities, and rural communities to undertake
regionally-based activities to identify and facilitate opportunities
for increasing wind power use. DOE Regional Offices, National
Laboratories, and selected stakeholder organizations will evaluate
technical, institutional, and regulatory issues and provide appropriate
assistance to overcome barriers to wind power development. In addition
to in-house funding, specific competitive solicitations will be
developed as required for activities to be carried out through
stakeholder partnerships to achieve the goals of the initiative. These
solicitations and their related evaluation criteria will be tailored to
suit the specific topics for the procurement, and will be developed in
accordance with Federal procurement regulations.
Question. Specifically, how will the $5.0 million be used? Is this
for lobbying, advertising, or just what?
Answer. Funding will support regionally-based analyses and strategy
development (including stakeholder meetings and workshops); technical
support such as feasibility analyses, identification of power
transmission constraints, distributed generation opportunities, and
wind mapping; and outreach activities to involve key potential partners
such as rural electric cooperatives, Federal agencies, and State
regulatory agencies. The DOE Regional Offices will assist the Wind
Program in determining the most effective use of Federal resources to
address the technical and institutional challenges unique to each
region.
Question. What are the expected annual out year funding
requirements?
Answer. The estimated out year funding of $5 million annually for
five years is expected to leverage over $100 million in new investment,
driven by needs expressed by regional stakeholders.
INTERNATIONAL CLEAN ENERGY INITIATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR ENERGY
RESEARCH INITIATIVE
Question. Mr. Magwood and Mr. Reicher, the budget request includes
$6.8 million under Nuclear Energy to initiate the International Clean
Energy Initiative/International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative. I
note that there are several additional new items under Solar and
Renewable Energy programs where the Department is requesting new money
for the International Clean Energy Initiative separately. Explain the
scope of these initiatives and why it is necessary to begin these new
programs in fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The International Clean Energy Initiative (ICEI) and
International Nuclear Energy Initiative (INEI) are important to assure
access to these emerging markets by the U.S. private sector and to
support economic development aspirations of the developing world.
Economic development and quality of life improvements for most of the
world's population will require a major expansion in the provision of
energy services in the decades ahead. Most of the expected growth will
take place outside the United States, especially in developing
countries and countries with economies in transition, and these markets
represent some of the most significant growth opportunities for U.S.
energy firms in the coming decades. The World Bank has estimated that
developing countries alone, over the next four decades, will require
five million megawatts of new electrical generating capacity to meet
anticipated needs (Today's total world installed capacity is about
three million megawatt's). The result of satisfying the needs of the
developing countries will be to double the world's installed capacity
during the next four decades. This translates into investments
approaching $15 to $25 trillion dollars and accounts for more than half
of the projected global investments in energy supply during this
period. Ninety percent of the markets for coal, nuclear, and renewable
energy technologies are expected to be outside the United States.
Improvements in efficiency would require additional investment.
Strategic investments today--by the U.S. government and the private
sector--will assure strong participation in those markets tomorrow.
The private sector plays a major role in energy innovation and
related international cooperation. Private sector investments alone,
however, will not adequately capture the full range of public benefits-
like reduced pollution, increased energy security, long-term technology
innovation, and developmental equity issues. Government activities
focused on filling gaps in private-sector investment can achieve
significant benefits for the United States.
Present government programs cannot meet the challenges of future
global energy growth. In 1997, government expenditures on international
cooperation on energy innovation amounted to about $250 million per
year, but these funds were primarily in nuclear fission and fusion. The
government has few programs to bridge the gap between R&D and
commercial deployment. This gap impedes the commercialization of
innovative energy technologies. Strengthening North-South cooperation
on clean and advanced energy technologies is a promising approach which
would help secure developing country participation in the international
framework for addressing global climate change as requested by the
Senate's 1997 Byrd-Hagel Resolution. Further, the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change--signed by President Bush and
ratified by the U.S. Senate--explicitly calls for such cooperation from
the United States and other Parties. This cooperation would help
provide alliances, information, and foundations needed for developing
countries to take on greenhouse gas emissions-reductions targets and
timetables. Indeed, such cooperation can lead to sustainable
development with the U.S. private sector playing a significant role.
Question. What is the estimated total cost of these programs?
Answer. The initiatives in Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
would be $26 million, in Fossil Energy $13 million, in Nuclear Energy
$7 million for fiscal year 2001, for a total of $46 million, in fiscal
year 2001.
Question. What are the annual out year funding requirements
expected?
Answer. Following the PCAST recommendations, funding levels for the
ICEI would increase for five years. Specifically, PCAST called for a 20
percent increase in investments in international cooperation on energy
innovation each year for five years from an initial program budget in
fiscal year 2001 of $250 million. However, the President requests a
smaller amount in fiscal year 2001--$100M for ICEI in fiscal year 2001,
($46M for DOE)--and no decision has been made on future funding levels.
Question. What commitments does DOE have from other countries to
support these programs?
Answer. These programs promote U.S. technologies. Other countries
have programs promoting their technologies. Because these activities
are proposed new initiatives, no firm commitments have been obtained at
this time. Once funding levels have been provided, strategies for
obtaining optimal cost sharing with the host country will be developed
and implemented.
Question. Provide a chart for the record which shows each country
participating and how much funding each country has committed to
support the programs.
Answer. Cost sharing information is not presently available.
Question. Provide a detailed breakout for the record which shows
the total amount requested for both of these programs and how that is
spread by program throughout DOE.
Answer. The distribution of International Clean Energy Initiative/
International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (ICEI/INERI) is shown
in the following table.
ICEI/INERI BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization Description Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EETotal Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy $26,000,000
Request
BTotal Office of Building Technology, State and 4,500,000
Community Programs
Development of whole building design tools and 3,000,000
building codes and standards, including energy
efficient building equipment and appliance
standards
Development of cost-effective biomass-fuel- 500,000
based stoves
Develop International Energy Star training 1,000,000
program
OTotal Office of Industrial Technology 2,500,000
Establish an industrial best practice program 2,500,000
and assist in the development and
harmonization of standards
OTotal Office of Power Technologies 19,000,000
Develop tools for resource estimation/mapping, 1,500,000
data bases, etc
Develop strategic options for deploying 6,000,000
distributed grid-connected PV, wind, biomass
power/coproducts
Develop strategic options for minigrid/offgrid 6,000,000
applications for PV, wind, bio- mass
Provide analytical support in development of 500,000
country-specific models
Provide technical assistance in developing long 1,000,000
term relationships among U.S. industry, DOE
laboratories, and host country institutions
Provide technical assistance for regulatory 1,500,000
reform, including support for the measurement/
analysis of social/environmental costs
Provide technical assistance in project 2,500,000
assessments and prefeasibility analyses
Total Fossil Energy Request 13,000,000
Develop new and adapt existing analytical tools 4,000,000
to assess potential combined heat & power
(CHP) sites. Collaborate on prefeasibility
assessment of potential sites. Develop
international performance based standards for
CHP
Develop strategic options for addressing 5,000,000
methane leakage reduction
Promote the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation 1,000,000
(APEC) Natural Gas Initiative
Develop strategic options for advanced coal 3,000,000
power and hydrogen production and use
Total Nuclear Energy-Fission Request 7,000,000
Support for the INERI the purpose is to 7,000,000
preserve and enhance the possibility that
nuclear power could play an expanding role in
addressing climate change and other energy-
related challenges in the next century
-----------------
Total 46,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIFE CYCLE EVALUATION OF ENERGY SYSTEMS
Question. Do you concur that a study of the total life cycle costs
and impacts of each energy source needs to be completed?
Answer. The Department explores life-cycle impacts of energy
choices in policy and program deliberations through both exploration of
primary or total energy impacts and estimation of the costs and
benefits of energy investments over the life of the investment. As an
example of how consideration of primary energy flows can benefit energy
analyses, we may look to the renewed interest in combined heat and
power technologies, where the benefits are most clearly seen through a
life-cycle framework that recognizes overall system efficiency.
The Energy Information Administration provides detailed information
on primary energy use that Department analysts and interested
stakeholders can use to explore the environmental or other impacts of
energy policy choices and programs. Programs such as the Federal Energy
Management Program (FEMP) may report primary as well as site energy
consumption in order to provide a fuller picture of energy impacts.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory recently undertook a
series of somewhat more detailed studies on behalf of the Department
utilizing computer models of energy and materials flows (``input-output
models''). DOE also substantially participates in the U.S. Interagency
Working Group on Industrial Ecology, Material and Energy Flows
(chartered by the Council on Environmental Quality) which provides a
useful platform for life-cycle explorations. A recent short report of
this working group may be found at: http://www.oit.doe.gov/mining/
materials.
The consideration of energy cost savings over the life of equipment
investments is utilized extensively by the Department in its
formulation of policies, programs, and rulemakings, with analyses based
as appropriate on OMB cost-benefit analysis guidelines, and guidance
such as 10 CFR 436 on the use of lifecycle cost analysis for energy use
in the buildings sector.
These and similar on-going efforts provide the Department with a
strong basis for exploring the life-cycle implications of energy
policy, program, and investment choices and, as a result, a separate
detailed study does not seem to be necessary at this time.
Question. How would you recommend that this task be accomplished?
Answer. Assessments of life cycle costs and impacts of energy
sources should continue to be reflected in analytic efforts throughout
the Department. Continued focus on enhancing the tools and capabilities
that we utilize in undertaking these assessments can provide the
Department and interested congressional committees with on-going, up-
to-date information about the costs and impacts of energy policy and
program choices.
CARBON COST SAVING INITIATIVE
Question. Mr. Reicher, the budget request includes $1.5 million for
a new Carbon Savings Initiative. What is the objective of this new
program?
Answer. The new initiative we propose seeks to reduce carbon
emissions by increasing the net energy output of biopower systems per
unit of carbon used and couples this feature to a carbon sequestration
process. We envision this initiative being carried out in two steps.
These are: (1) investigating ultra-high efficiency processes that
optimize carbon utilization, such as combined heat and power systems,
with overall objective of reaching 90 percent process efficiency; and
(2) examining novel chemical processes for carbon management.
The first step of this initiative is structured to introduce higher
efficiency electricity generation technologies. By increasing
electricity production capabilities and overall system efficiency, this
maximizes energy production per unit of biomass and optimizes carbon
conversion. For example, the majority of today's coal-based electricity
capacity is only 33-35 percent efficient for electricity and recovers
none of the waste thermal energy. If we can develop small utility scale
systems that have high efficiency for electricity production (greater
than 40 percent), and that also produce usable thermal energy (either
steam or hot water), the net result will be higher overall efficiency.
The European industry has realized this fact, and almost all biomass
power facilities are combined heat and power systems that reach 33
percent electrical efficiency and 85 percent overall efficiency.
The second step is to investigate the potential of mineral-based
carbon sequestration mechanisms that permit carbon capture in a stable
mineral form during the production of electricity. It is well known
that alkaline metals will capture carbon as demonstrated by the
Co2 acceptor process that uses calcium. The initiative is
designed to explore the ability of various minerals to form carbon
containing inorganic compounds during thermochemical processes. These
compounds may have even greater carbon sequestration potential than
calcium.
Question. What do you expect the annual out year funding
requirement to be?
Answer. The initiative will be carried out through multi-phase
competitive solicitation process, starting with feasibility studies,
and proceeding through proof of concept prototypes to field
verification. The effort will require approximately $8 million over a
period of four years.
PHOTOVOLTAIC ENERGY SYSTEMS
Question. Mr. Reicher, the budget request for Thin Film Partnership
Program under Photovoltaic Energy System in previous years indicates
that the funding level of around $19 million was considered appropriate
``based on staff experience and historical precedence in similar
activities.''
Are there any studies or analysis to support a funding request of
$19 million in fiscal year 2001?
Answer. Studies and publications that provide insight into the
potential and critical importance of thin films for low-cost
photovoltaics include:
--``Millennium Special Issue, PV 2000--And Beyond,'' Jan 2000,
Progress in Photovoltaics, V. 8 No. 1, M. Green, E. Lorenzo, H.
N. Post, H. W. Schock, K. Zweibel, P. Lynn (eds), John Wiley,
London, 200 p.
--``Issues in Thin Film PV Manufacturing Cost Reduction,'' K.
Zweibel, 1999, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, V. 59,
p. 1-18.
--``Thin Films: Past, Present, Future,'' K. Zweibel, 1995, Progress
in Photovoltaics, Special Issue on Thin Films, John Wiley,
London (also available as NREL report TP-413-7486), V. 3, 279-
293.
These studies describe the research activities in the Thin Film
Partnership Program and their importance to DOE's mission to develop
photovoltaics as an energy-significant source of electricity. The Thin
Film PV Partnership Program is the central research activity in the
development of a class of advanced PV technologies based on ultra-thin
semiconductor layers. There are four thin film technologies under
development: amorphous silicon, copper indium diselenide, cadmium
telluride, and thin crystalline silicon. To date, each of these
technologies has been brought from a very early, laboratory state to a
successful pilot-scale manufacturing stage. Funding for each technology
is about $4.5 million, which is much less than what was spent on single
crystalline silicon in its similar stage of development.
The PCAST study, Federal Energy Research and Development for the
Challenges of the Twenty-First Century, addressed the need for
photovoltaic R&D. In particular, it recommended that photovoltaic
research be increased to $133 million for fiscal year 2001 (the DOE
request for all photovoltaic research is $66 million in fiscal year
2001). And though the document is silent on the specific funding for
thin film research, this research comprised approximately fifty percent
of the photovoltaic budget at the time of the recommendations. To
extrapolate from the PCAST recommendations would suggest a thin film
budget of $66 million, or over three times the current request of $19
million.
The DOE PV Program has chosen to emphasize thin films because they
are widely seen as having the greatest potential to significantly
reduce PV electricity costs in comparison to existing photovoltaic
options, e.g., crystalline silicon wafer technologies. PV cost is the
greatest barrier to using PV for energy-significant applications such
as rooftops on residences and commercial buildings. Our work in the
Partnership is the critical activity within this commitment to cost
reduction. The Partnership funds research in materials science, process
development, PV cell and modules. Over two-thirds of the funding in the
Partnership is awarded to US universities and businesses on a
competitive basis. The remainder funds the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory's (NREL) internal research in thin films as well as the
Partnership management costs. The NREL in-house researchers are
acknowledged leaders in their fields, holding world records for cell
efficiencies in two of the three leading thin film technologies and
leading the National Research Teams made up of all the participants in
the Partnership's research activities (about 150 PhD scientists
nationwide).
Funding for thin film research within the DOE Program has been
level (at approximately the $15-19M/year) for the last decade. This
lack of enhancement reflects the general static funding of the DOE PV
Program. It does not reflect the needs of thin film semiconductor
research, which are vastly larger than this level. For example, similar
semiconductor research such as the development of flat panel displays
(which also requires the low-cost deposition of thin semiconductors
over large areas) absorbs significantly greater research funding. By
comparison, the Federal resource commitment to thin film PV is small
and generally viewed as sub-critical. We have leveraged our Federal
research resources with those of forward-thinking members of the
private sector to sustain our generally recognized progress in this
field. We have also had the benefit of the DOE's ongoing commitment to
thin films (i.e., allowing funding stability within a constrained
funding environment) as well as the effective organizational leadership
of the Partnership, which has received many national awards. Indeed,
the Partnership has been the co-recipient (with industrial members) of
four prestigious R&D 100 Awards that recognize new PV products based on
these key thin films. Because of the successes of the Thin Film
Partnership, the US leads the world in thin film photovoltaics, a major
achievement of the DOE PV Program.
In general, were funding for this key element of the PV Program to
fall below its already sub-critical level, it would possibly end our
Nation's chances of leading the world in the development of this new
large-scale source of electricity.
Question. Is there a minimum industry (non-Federal) cost share that
is required on all contracts or grants under this fiscal year 2001
solicitation?
Answer. As in the past, businesses are expected to cost-share.
Although the Partnership does not require 50 percent or greater cost
sharing, we often receive it (see next question) because those who
propose higher cost-sharing are more likely to be awarded funds. The
Partnership breaks down contracts with companies into two categories:
Technology Partners and R&D Partners. Technology Partners are companies
with a clear commitment to near-term manufacturing. They are usually
embarking on pilot production of a new thin film technology. R&D
Partners are companies and universities who are developing the
necessary innovations to maintain future progress toward truly low-cost
PV energy production. Their work is further from commercialization, so
they are required to provide a smaller proportion of cost-sharing.
The Partnership also recognizes the much greater burden that cost-
sharing can put on a small business by reducing those requirements as
compared to a large business. The breakdown for the Partnership is as
follows:
[In percent]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology R&D
Corporate Cost-Sharing Required Partner Partner
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Business................................... 40 20
Small Business................................... 20 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHOTOVOLTAIC ENERGY SYSTEMS
Question. Provide for the record a list of contracts or grants for
the past 2 cycles which show the breakout of Federal and non-Federal
costs.
Answer.
Thin Film Partnership 1998-2001 Subcontracts (3 years)
Total: $53,830
DOE Funding: $37,157
Private Cost-Share: $16,673 (31 percent of all subcontracts,
including universities)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
University
Small or [Cost
Organization (state) Large Period Total $K Share]
Business
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Solar (MI).................................... S 5/5/1998-5/5/2001 5,560 [2,780]
SSI (CA)............................................. L 11/24/1998-11/24/2001 5,409 [2,705]
Solarex (VA)......................................... L 5/8/1998-5/8/2001 5,192 [2,792]
EC/U. Delaware (DE).................................. U 10/23/1998-10/23/2001 4,120 [360]
AstroPower (DE)...................................... S 11/24/1997-11/24/2000 3,737 [1,475]
First Solar (OH)..................................... S 5/30/1998-5/31/2001 3,735 [756]
BP Solar (CA)........................................ L 6/30/1998-6/30/2001 3,509 [2,009]
EPV (NJ)............................................. S 6/15/1998-6/15/2001 2,953 [591]
Global Solar Energy (AZ)............................. S 4/4/1998-4/4/2001 2,475 [777]
ISET (CA)............................................ S 6/29/1998-6/29/2001 2,169 [208]
ECD (MI)............................................. S 5/10/1998-5/10/2001 1,888 [943]
U. Toledo (OH)....................................... U 3/3/1998-3/3/2001 1,566 [623]
USF (Tampa, FL)...................................... U 7/25/1998-7/25/2001 1,411 [433]
CSM (CO)............................................. U 7/21/1998-7/21/2001 994 ..........
Penn State (PA)...................................... U 9/16/1998-9/16/2001 825 ..........
UF Gainesville (FL).................................. U 9/7/1998-9/7/2001 810 ..........
ITN (CO)............................................. S 3/25/1998-3/25/2001 796 [63]
Iowa State U. (IA)................................... U 8/30/1998-8/31/2001 702 ..........
MV Systems (CO)...................................... S 12/31/1997-12/31/1999 565 [40]
Harvard (MA)......................................... U 6/14/1998-6/14/2001 540 ..........
CSU (CO)............................................. U 3/19/1998-3/19/2001 461 ..........
UNC (NC)............................................. U 1/27/1998-1/27/2001 430 ..........
Washington State U. (WA)............................. U 2/28/1998-2/28/2001 411 ..........
Oregon (OR).......................................... U 1/15/1998-1/15/2001 410 ..........
Weizmann Institute................................... U 9/26/1998-9/26/2001 405 ..........
Syracuse (NY)........................................ U 5/23/1998-5/23/2001 405 ..........
Daystar (CO)......................................... S 6/26/1998-6/26/2001 399 [80]
MRG (CO)............................................. S 2/9/1998-2/9/2001 378 [38]
U. Utah (UT)......................................... U 1/13/1998-1/13/2001 284 ..........
CSM (CO)............................................. U 7/21/1998-7/21/2001 252 ..........
Penn State (PA)...................................... U 12/14/1998-12/14/2001 156 ..........
UCLA (CA)............................................ U 6/19/1998-6/19/2001 143 ..........
U. Illinois (IL)..................................... U 9/15/1998-9/15/2001 140 ..........
Florida Solar Energy Center (FL)..................... U 1/4/1998-1/4/2001 128 ..........
Purdue (IN).......................................... U 2/6/1999-2/6/2002 127 ..........
NIST (CO)............................................ Lab 6/30/1999-6/30/2001 345 ..........
----------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................................... 53,830 [16,673]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY
Question. Mr. Reicher, funding for the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory increased from $123.3 million in fiscal year 2000 to $169.5
million in fiscal year 2001. What accounts for the large (37.5 percent)
increase?
Answer. The funding increase in fiscal year 2001 at the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is primarily for three programs:
Biopower and Biofuels Energy Systems; Wind Energy Systems; and the
Photovoltaic Energy Systems programs.
The Biopower and Biofuels Energy Systems Program is expanding its
focus to include a full complement of efficient biomass technologies,
size ranges, and feedstocks (agricultural residues, wood residues,
energy crops, etc.) The program is working to balance research and
demonstration efforts to most effectively advance the technology. To
achieve these results, the budget request for Biopower has been
increased for thermochemical conversion research which is performed at
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's Thermal Conversion User
Facility. The increased funding will also support A new initiative to
increase the net energy output of biopower systems per unit of carbon
used.
The Wind Energy Systems Program is seeking increased support in the
area of Cooperative Research and Testing. Cooperative Research and
Testing is comprised of several programs such as: Wind Powering
America, Regional Field Verification, and International Clean Energy
Initiative. The Wind Powering America Program is a new nationally-led
program to accelerate use of wind energy in the United States. This is
a regionally-based program to coordinate and implement tailored
strategies to help each region of the Nation benefit from harnessing
their wind power resources. The Regional Field Verification Program
will issue competitive solicitations in key regions for wind power
development in the United States. These competitive solicitations will
support projects addressing unique siting, regulatory, electric power
system, and market issues in each region. The use of wind power in
central station generation, distributed power, and off-grid or mini-
grid applications will be targeted by this program. The International
Clean Energy Initiative will play a vital role in meeting growing needs
in developing countries for both distributed, grid-connected power, and
remote off-grid and mini-grid power. This program will competitively
award partnerships with industry for analyses of distributed wind power
systems in weak grid applications, and to explore opportunities to
enhance these applications through wind energy forecasting, grid
control, storage options, and/or firming with natural gas or other
generation sources. Competitive solicitations will be awarded for wind
hybrid system verification projects in developing countries where local
utilities or villages currently use stand-alone diesel power systems.
The Photovoltaic Energy Systems Program is requesting increased
funding to support: Fundamental Research in the areas of Measurement
and Characterization, Basic Research/University Programs, and High
Performance Advanced Research; and Technology Development in the areas
of Manufacturing R&D, Systems Engineering & Reliability, PV Building
Integrated R&D, Partnerships for Technology Introduction, Million Solar
Roofs Initiative, and International Clean Energy Initiative.
The funding table below reflects all Solar and Renewable Energy
program funding in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 at NREL.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET REQUEST--NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY
LABORATORY
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
------------------------------------
2000 2001 Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biopower Energy Systems............ $9,621 $14,506 $4,885
Hydrogen Research.................. 4,743 4,437 (306)
Hydropower......................... 152 154 2
Biofuels Energy Systems............ 21,801 30,516 8,715
Geothermal......................... 1,785 2,040 255
Electric Energy Systems and Storage 1,644 3,475 1,831
High Temperature 928 945 17
Superconductivity.............
Energy Storage Systems......... 59 85 26
Transmissions Reliability...... 657 2,445 1,788
NREL Facility Maintenance.......... 1,100 1,900 800
Wind Energy Systems................ 25,172 39,136 13,964
Concentrating Solar Power.......... 6,288 6,218 (70)
Solar Building Technology Research. 1,469 3,359 1,890
Photovoltaic Energy Systems........ 48,318 60,112 11,794
International Renewable Energy 1,226 3,692 2,466
Program...........................
------------------------------------
Total........................ 123,319 169,545 46,226
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE
Question. Mr. Reicher, the President proposes to spend $1.2 Billion
in fiscal year 2001 in the Climate Change Technology Initiative within
the DOE. Of this $1.2 Billion, $5 million is identified for nuclear
energy and $56 million is identified for Fossil Energy.
Most of the funds, about 95 percent of them, are set aside for
Solar and Renewable Energy work and Energy Conservation. Since the
combination of nuclear and fossil fuels account for about 70 percent of
the electrical generation in this country, the trivial role identified
for these sources in the Administration's Climate Change Initiative
seems quite questionable.
Why does the Department focus 95 percent of this Initiative's
resources on energy sources that provide less than 1 per cent of our
electrical energy, and allocate minimal funding for the fossil and
nuclear resources that provide 70 percent of our electricity?
Answer. The Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) is a cross-
cut of Administration programs that are related in some way to climate
change, including direct-combustion (e.g., in buildings and
automobiles) as well as electricity production and use. As such, the
CCTI encompasses only a portion of the Department's budget request.
Because of it's focus on opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, virtually all EERE expenditures are included, while only
those portions of the fossil, nuclear, and basic science budgets that
related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions are included in the CCTI.
In reviewing the CCTI components, it is important to remember that the
EERE components related to the buildings and industry end use sectors
are often related to electricity production in general, and to
utilizing more effectively fossil- and nuclear-produced electricity.
In developing its fiscal year 2001 budget request, the Department
looks carefully at areas of opportunity to meet each of its strategic
goals. The overall budget typically includes many programs that meet
multiple Departmental goals and objectives, and many of the programs
included in the CCTI address additional goals, and may even be included
in other initiatives. Areas of opportunity for specific goals,
objectives, or initiatives may or may not be proportionate to current
energy use patterns. This is especially true for opportunities found in
emerging energy resource areas, such as renewable energy and many
advanced sources of energy conservation, where smaller current market
share is a factor of historical technology development, and not
necessarily indicative of future energy resource uses or opportunities
for meeting environmental and related energy challenges. The
Departmental request for renewable energy resources, both those that
produce electricity and those that can be used in direct heat or other
energy applications, is based on their large potential to help meet
multiple environmental, security, and other national energy goals and
objectives in our evolving energy markets.
FUNDING SHORTFALL
Question. Mr. Reicher, I do not think the Subcommittee will be able
to provide a 32 percent increase in Solar and Renewable Energy
programs. Would you provide the Committee your recommendations of the
allocation of funding at the current level?
Answer. We appreciate the fact that there are budgetary constraints
that may limit Congressional flexibility in meeting all the Solar and
Renewable Energy funding requests made by the Department for fiscal
year 2001. However, the request for these proposed programs was
developed after long deliberation and is considered vital to addressing
the country's need for clean, domestically-produced electric power
generation, transportation fuel, heat energy, and transmission/
distribution/reliability technologies. These proposed programs also
contribute substantially to the energy security, economic and
environmental needs of the country, and are an integral part of the
broader budget package proposed by the Administration for fiscal year
2001. Given the importance of these programs to both the near and
longer term well-being of the Nation, we stand by the programs and
funding levels as requested.
WORKING WITH NNSA LABS
Question. The National Nuclear Security Administration started
operation as a semi-autonomous agency with the Department on March 1.
The NNSA labs of Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore have a long
tradition of supporting a broad range of scientific initiatives beyond
weapons activities. As the NNSA was created, I emphasized the
importance of the NNSA labs continuing their multi-program support of
the Department and other federal agencies.
The enabling legislation, in Section 3264, state that: ``The
Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator, shall establish
procedures to provide for the use . . . of the national security labs
by elements of the DOE not within the Administration . . .''
Despite the legislation, I am concerned that the NNSA labs will not
continue to receive high priority funding from the Department.
Will each of you assure me that you will continue to aggressively
fund projects within the NNSA labs?
Answer. The NNSA laboratories have been important resources for our
renewable energy technologies in the past, and we expect these
laboratories will continue to be valuable to our future research
activities. We expect to continue using the expertise of these labs at
levels consistent with our historical funding positions.
Question. Have discussions been initiated between your Office and
NNSA to define mechanisms to maintain close collaboration, both for
NNSA laboratory support to your Office and for your labs to support
NNSA as required?
Answer. We will continue to maintain strong communications with the
Office of Defense Programs, and we feel we have agreement regarding the
role of NNSA laboratories in our research programs.
Question. Do you foresee any barriers to maintaining close working
relations between your Office and the NNSA?
Answer. No, we do not foresee any barriers to our currently strong
working relationship with NNSA.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Slade Gorton
GEOTHERMAL PROJECTS
Question. In your testimony, you made clear your support for
geothermal energy and new programs to support developing this energy
source. I also support these programs. However, this Administration is
not unified in its support of this industry. There are two geothermal
projects in California--the output of these projects are expected to be
purchased by the Bonneville Power Administration and sold in the
Northwest--that have their respective EIS process completed. They have
been waiting approximately 18 months for the Forest Service just to
make a decision on these projects, and if the decision is not made in
the next few days they could miss another construction season. This
delay is irresponsible and sends all the wrong signals to geothermal
developers. I support these projects, as do many environmental
organizations in the state of Washington. How can this industry expand
when the Administration is not unified in its approach to this energy
source?
Answer. The Department of Energy continues to work closely with
industry to conduct comprehensive research and development to establish
geothermal energy as an economically competitive, environmentally sound
contributor to the U.S. energy supply. We have recently announced three
solicitations seeking industrial partners to identify, develop, and use
geothermal resources. These solicitations offer substantive support to
the Administration's new initiative, GeoPowering the West, which will
bring the benefits of geothermal energy to 19 western states. As is
addressed in the following question, other arms of this Administration
are aware of the Administration's interest in advancing the use of
alternative energy sources. We are confident that actions such as these
will allow the nation to realize its considerable potential for new
geothermal development over the coming decade.
Question. What have you done to urge the Forest Service to make a
decision?
Answer. On March 2, 2000, I sent letters regarding the projects to
high-ranking officials of the Department of Agriculture and the
Department of Interior. I noted that both projects will contribute
significantly to the President's energy and environmental policy goals,
and they represent an economically-sound, productive use of energy
resources on multi-use Federal lands. The letters expressed the wish
that the remaining issues preventing the projects from moving ahead
would be resolved in a timely manner.
Question. What will you commit to do to get the Forest Service to
make a decision before this construction season is lost?
Answer. I stated my support for the projects in my letters of March
2. However, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are solely
responsible for the decision making process with regard to the
projects. Those agencies are well aware of the timing issues, and I
understand that decisions will be forthcoming in the near future.
AGRICULTURE AND CARBON SEQUESTRATION
Question. As you know, the Energy Efficiency Budgets are in a
separate Subcommittee, but I have a question relative to the Renewable
Budgets. What is the overall strategy of the Department relative to
Agriculture and Carbon Sequestration? As you know, there are several
Bills that have been introduced in the Senate dealing with this issue.
Please give me a short description of the Department of Energy's role
in Agriculture relative to Renewable Energy, Bio-energy and Carbon
Sequestration strategies.
Answer. The Department of Energy has a long history of scientific
and technical involvement in agricultural-related issues. In this
fiscal year, the department is spending over $100 million in this area;
most of that is focused on applied research on bio-based products and
bio-energy, or the use of crops, trees and wastes to make
transportation fuels, electricity and chemicals for a whole host of
consumer goods, like plastics, paints and adhesives. A new Department
of Energy report recently concluded that by the year 2010, the
agricultural and forestry industries could help reduce greenhouse gases
by producing and utilizing more of these bio-based products.
The report, ``Emission and Reduction of Greenhouse Gases from
Agriculture and Food Manufacturing'', was the first comprehensive
analysis of U.S. agricultural activities and their impact on greenhouse
gas emissions. The report found that agricultural and forestry
industries currently produce one-tenth of all greenhouse gases emitted
in the U.S. A copy of the report is submitted.
President Clinton's Executive Order 13134 on bio-based products and
bio-energy, issued in August, 1999, was designed to stimulate
development of a new bio-based industry. The President's goal of
tripling U.S. use of bio-based products and bio-energy by the year 2010
could create billions of dollars in new income for farmers and rural
Americans, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by tens of millions
of tons of carbon. The use of advanced agricultural practices--such as
improved forest and animal waste management, cultivation, and
irrigation techniques--can also contribute to this initiative.
Question. What is the role of the National Laboratories and
Universities in the opportunities that exist, if there is an
Agricultural-related initiative in the fiscal year 2001 Budget?
Answer. We consider our National Laboratories and Universities full
partners with the federal government, industry and growers in the
implementation of the President's Bio-based Products and Bio-energy
Initiative. For example, representatives of all of these important
groups have been involved from the very beginning in the development of
a new strategic vision for a bio-based industry, and they will
participate in the drafting of a technology roadmap to guide our
research and development spending. Planning is now underway for a
workshop to discuss and showcase what the nation's state universities
and land-grant colleges can contribute to the growth of this emerging
industry. In addition, competitive solicitations for research and
development proposals related to this area will be open to
participation by both the national laboratories and the academic
community.
MEMORANDUM FOR UNDERSTANDING
Question. As you know, the DOE has signed a memorandum of
understanding with the Association of State Energy Research and
Technology Transfer Institutes ``ASERTTI'', The California Energy
Commission ``CEC'', and the New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority ``NYSERDA'' to work together to leverage state
and federal resources through collaboration of energy R&D planning and
research efforts. The state energy offices are also participating in
these efforts though they do not have a specific MOU in place. This
past budget there was roughly $6m put in place for joint energy R&D
projects through the competitive process to work with state entities.
It is my understanding that DOE received approximately 160 proposals of
which 6 to 8 were from the MOU partners, which means non-MOU partners
are also competing for the funds.
It is important to note that California and New York have millions
of dollars earmarked for energy R&D planning and projects as do other
states in the public benefit charges. It is not unreasonable to expect
the states will have as much money if not more than the federal
government to spend on R&D. It is the goal of the MOUs to work together
in planning and executing R&D to be good stewards of the resources and
provide benefits to the people of the states and country. The basic
premise of collaboration between states and the federal government is
in its infancy and it would be advantageous to find ways to foster its
growth and benefits rather than strangle it with unnecessary
bureaucracy. How is the $6 million state R&D solicitation proceeding?
Answer. In light of our close work with the committee staff, we
have issued a solicitation requesting proposals from state energy
offices and state energy research institutions for cooperative RD&D in
seven technical areas. These areas were identified through a
collaborative effort which began more than a year ago when DOE signed
Memorandums of Understanding with the California Energy Commission
(CEC), the New York State Energy Research and Development Agency
(NYSERDA), and the Association of State Energy Research and Technology
Transfer Institutes (ASERTTI). DOE, led by the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), and working with the Office of
Fossil Energy (FE), Office of Science (OS) and the Energy Information
Administration (EIA), created a Joint Planning and Collaboration
Committee to identify research opportunities for collaboration and to
determine the best ways to do joint budget planning and form
collaborations. Out of these discussions seven research areas of
collaborative focus and collaborative teams resulted: Schools,
Transportation, EIA data, Petroleum Oil Field Operations, Microturbines
and Fuel Cells, and Distributed Generation and Combined Heat and Power.
The solicitation is currently open and does not close until April 27,
2000.
The solicitation is posted at: http://www.eren.doe.gov/golden/
solicitations.html.
Question. How many responses did DOE receive to the solicitation?
Answer. The solicitation for $6 million has drawn over 130 pre-
application proposals. We expect to award projects in one or all of the
technical areas identified by the DOE/State Joint Planning and
Collaboration Committee (i.e. Schools, Transportation, EIA data,
Petroleum Oil Field Operations, Micro-turbines and Fuel Cells, and
Distributed Generation/Combined Heat and Power). We encouraged
proposers to form teams with multiple state partners to improve
selection chances. The goal of the solicitation was to make the $6
million as responsive to multi-state collaboration interests as
possible.
Question. Is the competitive process the appropriate mechanism to
meet the objectives of the MOUs with ASERTTI, CEC, NYSERDA, and NASEO?
Answer. Yes, it is. A competitive process will draw the highest
quality research proposals address multi-state agency needs, and foster
collaborations among states on proposals. We encouraged proposers to
form teams containing multiple state partners to improve their
proposals' selection chances as well as to cooperate among states. The
selection criteria awards additional selection points for having a
multi-state proposal. The cost share requirement of 50 percent will
leverage both DOE and State agency money.
Question. Does DOE have plans to increase the amount of funds to
collaborate with their MOU partners?
Answer. Although the President's budget request did not propose
funding for the State Collaborative Research and Development for fiscal
year 2001, this program is a high priority. In fact, like the Congress,
we believe that this program is a crucial element of our research and
development efforts and should be continued on an annual basis at least
at the same level of funding.
The omission of a funding request for this program in our fiscal
year 2001 budget was due to a timing issue. First, the fiscal year 2000
budget was not enacted and signed by the President until November 18,
1999. Second, the detailed elements of this program were not set forth
in the Conference Report, and it was necessary for our Assistant
Secretary and staff to conduct detailed analytical work and to work
with the Subcommittee staff in reaching agreement on the full scope and
objectives of the program. Such agreement was not reached until late
December 1999, and by that time, our fiscal year 2001 budget already
had been transmitted to and approved by OMB. At that point, EERE was
not able to make funding modifications.
In our discussions with the Subcommittee staff in December 1999, we
discussed the need for multi-year funding to support the type of
projects envisioned under the State Collaborative Research and
Development Program and the fact that it was too late to include
funding under our fiscal year 2001 budget request. The Subcommittee
staff indicated that funding would be considered for fiscal year 2001,
if EERE's progress was good in implementing the initiative in fiscal
year 2000. Based on these discussions, EERE is soliciting projects for
up to three years in its State Collaborative Research and Development
Program solicitation. We believe that continuing on the path described
in the above two approaches will increase the funding for joint
collaborations with our MOU partners.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Larry Craig
HYDROPOWER
Question. The advanced turbine research and development program
request for fiscal year 2001 is $5 million. The budget justification
for fiscal year 2001 states that the plan is to complete laboratory
biological studies of the effects of turbulence on turbine-passed fish.
Could you explain why there is no funding being requested for the
pilot scale proof of concept testing of the conceptual design to verify
biological criteria and predicted biological performance using live
fish?
Answer. DOE is committed to the goal of developing hydropower
technology which will reduce turbine-induced fish mortality to 2
percent or less. No fiscal year 2001 funding was requested for the
proof-of-concept, pilot-scale, test of the fish-friendly turbine design
developed by the Alden Research Laboratory, because fiscal year 2000
funding was considered sufficient to cover this activity and allow it
to continue through fiscal year 2001. Additional funds may be requested
in fiscal year 2002 to complete full-scale testing. In addition, fiscal
year 2001 funding is requested for biological research, including
sensor fish refinement, to gain the necessary understanding of stresses
and behavior of fish in the turbine environment. The DOE program will
also explore other fish-friendly designs by providing funding support
for biological testing of turbines provided by industry.
RENEWABLE ENERGY BENEFITS TO FAMILY FARMERS
Question. Times are particularly tough on the family farm right now
with low commodity prices and a farm safety net that has failed the
agricultural community. Renewable energy sources--like wind energy and
biomass--have potential to help struggling farmers through these
difficult times. Could you paint a picture of how a family farmer might
be able to make a profit by creatively using renewable energy sources?
Answer. Renewable energy sources hold the potential to both reduce
the energy cost of the farmer's operations, and provide new business
opportunities. In the future, a traditional farm could be converted
into a fully integrated system for producing energy, chemicals,
plastics, and other products in addition to food. Some of these
technologies are suitable for small and medium-size farms. To cite a
few examples, the traditional farmhouse and barn could receive power
from a photovoltaic array and advanced wind turbines. Livestock manure
may be used to fuel a biogas plant. Trees genetically created to grow
to maturity in two to three years, and other farm crops, potentially
grown on currently underutilized agricultural land, could be used for
biomass power.
The Department of Energy supports the Clinton administration's
analysis of the Comprehensive Electricity Competition Act that was sent
to Congress last year. The analysis underscores the substantial
economic and environmental benefits since the advent of competition.
The Administration's package is projected to benefit both urban and
rural consumers in all regions of the country primarily due to the
forces of competition being unleashed throughout the industry. However,
several provisions are aimed specifically at rural areas, to ensure
that rural residents garner the full benefits of restructuring. These
include:
--authorizing new grants for remote and rural electric service and
electricity services to Native Americans;
--retaining current arrangements for the provision of federal power
at cost-based rates;
--establishing a Renewable Portfolio Standard that will generate new
economic activity and raise farm income in rural areas as it
promotes important environmental and energy security needs; and
--providing for a rural safety net.
As another renewable, wind power is already helping family farmers
in Iowa and Minnesota. Assume a typical farm of 1000 acres in Iowa.
Using very conservative spacing that does not pack turbines tightly and
accommodates roads and property lines, one might expect about fourteen
750 kW turbines installed. These would produce almost 35 million
kilowatt-hours of electricity per year. Assuming typical royalties of 2
percent of gross revenue and a selling price of 4 cents per kilowatt-
hour, these turbines would provide revenue to the farmer of about 28
thousand dollars per year or two thousand dollars per wind turbine. In
North Dakota, with a better wind resource, revenues would be closer to
40 thousand dollars per year. All of this is accomplished with limited
impact on cultivated lands. Wind developers make as much use as
possible of existing service roads and allow farmers to cultivate right
up to the roads. All in all, no more than 5 percent of cultivated land
is lost due to turbine pads, transformers, distribution lines and
service buildings. Similarly, livestock would be minimally affected.
In addition, Wind Powering America is an initiative announced by
Secretary Bill Richardson last year to increase substantially
deployment of wind energy through a regionally-based effort in which
technical, institutional and environmental barriers to wind energy
development are identified by local groups and resolved with the help
of the Department of Energy, its laboratories, the wind industry and
other stakeholders. The Department has just announced the award of 15
projects, worth $2.7 million, that will support this initiative. In
summary, a small Federal investment is expected to catalyze wind
development in regions where there has been little or none, leading the
way to a goal of 10,000 MW by 2010.
WIND ENERGY
Question. You are requesting $6.7 million for the Next Generation
Turbine Project, an increase of $1.1 million from the fiscal year 2000
Appropriation. What is this increase to be used for and when do you
expect completion of the program?
Answer. The Next Generation Turbine project is aimed at development
of advanced wind turbines capable of generating electricity at a cost
of 2\1/2\ cents per kWh at sites with winds that average 15 mph or
better, which can be found in many areas of the country, particularly
the Great Plains. This is a challenging task and we have two projects
under way. The requested funding, including the increase of $1.1
million, will support design and fabrication of final turbine
prototypes, which is a highly cost-intensive phase of the projects.
Because of the challenging nature of the goal, proof-of-concept
turbines have been fabricated and will be tested in fiscal year 2000 to
verify design concepts at a more modest scale. We plan to complete
testing of final prototypes in fiscal year 2003 and close out the
program by the end of that year.
Question. You are requesting $5.0 million for a new effort called
Regional Field Verification. Would you explain the purpose and outcome
of this large new start?
Answer. Regional Field Verification is intended to introduce
advanced wind turbines into regions of the country having promising
wind resources. Competitively selected wind projects will help the
Department and industry verify performance and refine wind energy
technologies while addressing unique siting, regulatory, and market
issues in each region. The model would follow the Turbine Verification
Program, in which a small amount of Federal funds were leveraged by
utilities and industry to install several projects, varying in size
from a few machines to over 5 megawatts. We expect that a small amount
of highly leveraged funding and technology transfer will greatly expand
understanding of the performance of wind energy in selected regions
permit State regulatory authorities, land owners and investors to make
informed decisions about wind energy technology. We estimate the
Federal funds would be leveraged at least 4 to 1 overall in these
projects.
Question. You are requesting $5 million for the Wind Powering
America initiative. Please explain the composition of this new effort
and what you hope to accomplish through it.
Answer. Wind Powering America is a grass roots effort to accelerate
the use of wind energy throughout the United States. It is a
regionally-based effort in which technical, institutional and
environmental barriers to wind energy development are identified by
local groups and resolved with the help of the Department of Energy,
its laboratories, the wind industry and interested stakeholders.
Initially, we have identified the Upper Midwest for emphasis, but we
are working to establish activities in all regions. We've had a series
of meetings across the country to define the strategy for this
initiative. We are planning extensive involvement of the Department of
Energy Regional Offices in carrying out this strategic plan to most
effectively employ Federal funds in addressing technical and
institutional challenges unique to each region. Through this
decentralized effort we hope to leverage a small Federal investment to
catalyze development in regions where there has been little or no wind
energy market penetration goal is 10,000 MW by 2010.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
AGRICULTURE AND CARBON SEQUESTRATION
Question. As you know, the Energy Efficiency Budgets are in a
separate Subcommittee, but I have a question relative to the Renewable
Budgets. What is the overall strategy of the Department relative to
Agriculture and Carbon Sequestration? As you know, there are several
Bills that have been introduced in the Senate dealing with this issue.
Please give me a short description of the Department of Energy's role
in Agriculture relative to Renewable Energy, Bio-energy and Carbon
Sequestration strategies.
Answer. The Department of Energy has a long history of scientific
and technical involvement in agricultural-related issues. In this
fiscal year, the department is spending over $100 million in this area;
most of that is focused on applied research on bio-based products and
bio-energy, or the use of crops, trees and wastes to make
transportation fuels, electricity and chemicals for a whole host of
consumer goods, like plastics, paints and adhesives. A new Department
of Energy report recently concluded that by the year 2010, the
agricultural and forestry industries could help reduce greenhouse gases
by producing and utilizing more of these bio-based products.
The report, ``Emission and Reduction of Greenhouse Gases from
Agriculture and Food Manufacturing'', was the first comprehensive
analysis of U.S. agricultural activities and their impact on greenhouse
gas emissions. The report found that agricultural and forestry
industries currently produce one-tenth of all greenhouse gases emitted
in the U.S. A copy of the report is submitted.
President Clinton's Executive Order 13134 on bio-based products and
bio-energy, issued in August, 1999, was designed to stimulate
development of a new bio-based industry. The President's goal of
tripling U.S. use of bio-based products and bio-energy by the year 2010
could create billions of dollars in new income for farmers and rural
Americans, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by tens of millions
of tons of carbon. The use of advanced agricultural practices--such as
improved forest and animal waste management, cultivation, and
irrigation techniques--can also contribute to this initiative.
Question. What is the role of the National Laboratories and
Universities in the opportunities that exist, if there is an
Agricultural-related initiative in the fiscal year 2001 Budget?
Answer. We consider our National Laboratories and Universities full
partners with the federal government, industry and growers in the
implementation of the President's Bio-based Products and Bio-energy
Initiative. For example, representatives of all of these important
groups have been involved from the very beginning in the development of
a new strategic vision for a bio-based industry, and they will
participate in the drafting of a technology roadmap to guide our
research and development spending. Planning is now underway for a
workshop to discuss and showcase what the nation's state universities
and land-grant colleges can contribute to the growth of this emerging
industry. In addition, competitive solicitations for research and
development proposals related to this area will be open to
participation by both the national laboratories and the academic
community.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
PHOTOVOLTAICS/SOLAR PROGRAMS
Question. For a number of years the DOE has been putting
significant funding towards various photovoltaics (solar) energy
programs. What have been the gains of this program?
Answer. When the Photovoltaic R&D Program began a number of years
ago there was no industry, no terrestrial products, and no market. The
first solar cells were developed in the 1960s and used to power
satellites. In the late 1970s the U.S. Department of Energy began an
R&D program to develop a clean alternative for use in terrestrial
applications. At that time, the only known way to make a solar cell was
with crystalline silicon, and this was a labor intensive process that
produced six percent efficient cells that cost hundreds of dollars per
Watt. Over the years the Department has built a successful program that
has made dramatic improvements. Scientists in the national
laboratories, industry and universities have steadily improved the
silicon solar cell. As a result, the technology progressed
significantly, with automated manufacturing capabilities, improved
device efficiencies, greater reliability, and longer module lifetimes.
Today, silicon cells and modules are 14 percent efficient and cost
around $4.00 per Watt. More important to the Program, during this time
scientists have discovered new, more innovative ways to make different
kinds of cells that will ultimately cost less to make than the silicon
cell. This new family of cell materials is called thin film
technologies and consists of amorphous silicon, cadmium telluride, and
copper indium diselenide. In the 1970's thin films didn't exist. In the
early 1980's scientists struggled to make six percent efficient devices
in the laboratory. Today we have pilot-plant sized manufacturing lines
producing 11-percent efficient thin film modules for the same cost as
the more mature silicon technology. In summary, in a relatively short
period of time the Department's Photovoltaic R&D Program has created a
photovoltaic industry and a promising, clean alternative energy source
where once there was none. Since 1980, the U.S. PV industry has grown
an average of 20 percent a year and in 1999 manufactured over 60
megaWatts of products.
Question. Do you see value in continuing this type of expenditure
in the area of photovoltaics?
Answer. Yes. The return on investment for photovoltaic R&D is well
worth the cost. In addition to the dramatic improvement in science,
technology and the growth of the industry to date, we, and industry,
believe this is just the beginning. Last June, about 35 representatives
from the U.S. PV industry held an intensive workshop to develop an
industry roadmap. The result of this meeting concluded that a sustained
growth rate of 25 percent is achievable. At such a growth rate,
worldwide shipments would approach 18 billion watts per year by 2020,
representing a direct PV market of about $27 billion and an indirect
market double that. Of this, U.S. PV shipments would reach 7 billion
watts by 2020, with more than 3 billion watts for domestic use. This
means that PV could be supplying about 15 percent of the nation's added
generation capacity. And a large, growing industry bodes well for
American workers. According to some estimates, the PV industry creates
more than 3000 direct and indirect jobs for every $100 million in
direct module sales. As this industry grows toward its potential, it
will generate hundreds of thousands of jobs.
TRIBAL
Question. The DOE currently has a Tribal Energy Program. What
efforts has the DOE taken to work with tribes to develop renewable
systems.
Answer. The Tribal Energy Program is a reconfiguration of the pre-
existing Renewable Indian Energy Resources Program for fiscal year 2001
and represents an evolution in the Department's continuing work with
the Tribes in assisting them to develop their energy resources and in
addressing their energy needs. The Department recently released a
report, ``Energy Consumption and Renewable Energy Development Potential
on Indian Lands'' (March 2000), which discloses that some 14.2 percent
of Native Americans, versus 1.4 percent of the general population, do
not have access to electricity. The Department has been attempting to
rectify that situation, beginning in fiscal year 1994 with our efforts
under Title XXVI of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 whereby 35 Tribes
received competitive awards to construct renewable energy projects on
Tribal lands; continuing in fiscal year 1999, where, through our Remote
Power Program, we competitively awarded $1.9 million to eight Tribes to
construct both grid-connected and off-grid renewable energy projects
which will bring reliable power to Tribal residents; and culminating
this year with $700,000 being made available to Tribal Colleges and
Universities through our Competitive Solicitation Program for
feasibility studies for renewable energy projects that will educate
these future Tribal leaders on the benefits of renewable energy
technologies. For fiscal year 2001, the Tribal Energy Program builds on
these activities to develop expertise among Tribal leaders and
communities on energy system design and implementation and to ensure
that energy planning and installations are technically, economically,
and environmentally sound.
NO YEAR FUNDS
Question. One issue that was addressed at last years appropriation
hearing was the use of ``no year funds'' for Research and Development.
I see that you are requesting language this year that would grant you
``no year funds'' for research and development. What would (sic) the
Administration done to ensure that the administration of these funds is
properly carried out?
Answer. The Administration, through the Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, has instituted numerous management improvements
over the course of the last 18 months. We began by conducting internal
reviews to assess the management problems and identify those actions
that could most improve our performance. This led to the establishment
of a Chief Operating Officer who also serves as the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Planning, Budget and Management (PBM). The Chief
Operating Officer is the single point of focus for all business
management and resource issues. The Chief Operating Officer oversees
all planning, budget formulation, budget execution, program evaluation,
field management, and human resources activities for the entire EERE
enterprise.
We also participated in an external review by the National Academy
of Public Administration (NAPA). Their review identified areas for
improvement and also acknowledged the improvement that has already
occurred. Their report has been published and was the subject of a
hearing before Congressman Regula's House Appropriation Subcommittee on
Interior and Related Agencies, April 4, 2000.
The NAPA report recommended two-year or no-year funding for the
Energy Supply appropriations account. The report discussed the
financial management problems associated with one-year funding and
stated that, ``some unproductive project fiscal and administrative
effort could be avoided'', by funding the account on a multi-year
basis.
The NAPA team also found that the Strategic Management System (SMS)
through the Chief Operating Officer is sufficiently robust to achieve
the level of funds control envisioned by Congress. The SMS is a
systematic process that outlines all proper funds control mechanisms
and ensures that proper checks and reviews occur in time to prevent
problems. The system is over 75 percent implemented, and is on track
for full implementation before fiscal year 2001.
biomass research at the energy and environmental research center (eerc)
Question. Last year, this Subcommittee included report at my
request in the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Development Report.
The language, which was not negated in the conference report, read:
``Within the amount provided for systems development,
$1,000,000 is for the continuation of biomass research at the
Energy and Environmental Research Center on key barrier issue
impeding the technical feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and
environmental acceptability of biomass utilization processes.
The funding is intended to advance the Center's work in
integration of biomass with fossil fuels to increase baseload
renewable electricity generation, development of practical
methods for using biomass in advanced power systems, and
improvement of efficiency and environmental performance in
agricultural processing and forest-based product industries.''
It is my understanding that the EERC has asked you and your staff
to follow up on the implementation of this report language to date,
there has been little action toward this end. Will you please give me
some guidance about how the EERC should proceed?
Answer. It is a primary objective of the Department to issue
competitive solicitations whenever possible to ensure best value. As a
result of discussions in Spring, 1999 between your staff and the
Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE), it became apparent that opportunities exist for the
Department to expand its efforts in co-firing by including
subbituminous and lignite coals, this would provide an opportunity for
EERC's expertise. As a result, a solicitation was issued (Supplemental
Announcement to the Broad Based Solicitation DE-PS36-99GO10383), with
the objective of successfully demonstrating the viability of co-firing
biomass with lignite for power production. Although DOE intended to
make one award of up to $1.0M, no responses were received.
In fiscal year 2000, the Department, requested proposals again
through an open solicitation. This solicitation entitled ``Biomass
Cofiring Opportunities'' (DE-PS26-00FT40775), administered through
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) on behalf of EERE, is
aimed at cost-shared applications for research and development on co-
firing biomass feedstocks with fossil fuels. It also included a
component involving the co-firing of biomass with both lignite and
subbituminous coals. It is our understanding that EERC has responded
with an application. Although the review process has just begun, it is
our intention to inform your office about the outcome as soon as the
selection process has been completed.
______
Questions Submitted to the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and
Technology
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
ACCELERATOR TRANSMUTATION OF WASTE
Question. Mr. Magwood, during the current year, $9 million was
provided for the Accelerator Transmutation of Waste (ATW) program. ATW
offers an exciting new option for dealing with spent nuclear fuel. I
understand the Department recently completed a technology road map
called for an expenditure of $280 Million over six years. This year was
the first step down this road of technology exploration.
Despite this road map and the promise of ATW, the proposed budget
for next year is zero. Please explain why the Department's zeroed the
funding for ATW after your road map effort expressed significant
enthusiasm for if?
Answer. In fiscal year 2000 the ATW program is conducting trade
studies on various technology pathways to identify the specific
directions to conduct experimental research. The Department believes
that a full evaluation of the various research activities needs to be
accomplished and presented to both the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) before we
consider any future integrated ATW research program.
Question. I understand that there may be opportunities in a new
advanced accelerator applications program that would combine the ATW
program with the Accelerator Production of Tritium program (APT).
Has a joint program combining APT and ATW been considered in your
Office and could you comment on the national benefits that might accrue
from such an approach?
Answer. A joint APT/ATW program has been discussed between the
Office of Defense Programs (DP) and the Office of Nuclear Energy,
Science and Technology (NE). If a new program were established, for
example, the investment of over $150 million in the Low Energy
Demonstration Accelerator would be leveraged to provide the foundation
of a test-bed for new frontiers of nuclear science and engineering that
could be used in the ATW program. Of particular interest is the
coupling of an accelerator to sub-critical reactor fuel assemblies, a
new area of science which is not well understood today. This type of
research could lead to new technology such as Generation IV reactors,
advancements in proliferation-resistant reactors and fuel, advanced
materials, and space nuclear power. In addition, an activity of this
nature would help rebuild our critical nuclear infrastructure in terms
of education, expertise and facilities.
NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAM
Question. Mr. Magwood, the budget request includes a new line,
Special Purpose Fission Power Technology, for $2 million.
Why is the work proposed under this request not duplicative of work
performed under Radioisotope Power Systems?
Answer. The funding request for the Special Purpose Fission
Technology effort is included as one of four sub-items under the
funding line Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems in the fiscal year
2001 budget request. The other three sub-items are: Radioisotope Power
Systems, Special Applications, and Pu-238 Acquisition and Processing.
While the other three sub-items are focused only on efforts related to
radioisotope power systems, the Special Purpose Fission Power
Technology effort would focus only on an assessment of fission power
technologies. Therefore, this proposed work does not duplicate work in
the other sub-items.
Question. Explain why the $2 million is needed.
Answer. This funding is needed to support a technology evaluation
effort to examine options and requirements for using small, compact
fission reactor systems capable of meeting higher power requirements
(both thermal and electrical) for emerging future needs. In the near-
term, the effort would be focused on projected space exploration
applications, and would provide for the assessment of performance
attributes and requirements associated with use of these systems for
meeting advanced propulsion and power needs (both for in-space and
planetary surface operations). Due to the long lead time necessary to
develop these systems, it is important that an evaluation effort be
conducted at this point to provide credible information to support
long-term planning. This near-term assessment would be an interagency
effort with NASA funding significant portions of key technology areas.
The DOE funding is critical to serve as the core of a coordinated U.S.
assessment analysis. If the assessment identified a need for a large
R&D effort in the future, most of the funding would be provided by the
user agency.
The requested funding would make possible a coordinated evaluation
effort consisting of nuclear fission reactor system concept definition
and technical evaluation; technology subsystem assessment; and
identification of programmatic requirements associated with system
development including safety, technology advancements, and test
facilities. An interagency assessment report would be developed
providing the results of this evaluation effort and options to support
future mission planning, integration, and decision-making related to
potential development of these systems for meeting future needs.
ADVANCED REACTOR DEVELOPMENT
Question. Mr. Magwood, significant progress has been made in re-
establishing a research base in nuclear engineering in this country.
Despite this progress, I'm concerned that we are not doing enough,
especially since nuclear energy is providing immense environmental
benefits to the nation as it supplies 22 percent of our electricity.
I've heard excitement among some groups about a Generation 4 reactor
that would have lower costs and greater safety than current systems.
Do you agree that the time is right to encourage technical
evaluation of a Generation 4 reactor? Are there technologies in sight
that make it feasible?
Answer. This is absolutely the right time to evaluate Generation IV
nuclear power systems. Both we and the international community
recognize that the economic, reliable, and widespread availability of
electric power is an essential element in all developing countries'
plans to improve the quality of life for their citizens. Worldwide
energy demand is predicted to increase substantially, as much as 65
percent by 2020 (International Energy Agency, 1999). Because of its
attributes, nuclear power will be a key option for many countries, both
industrialized and developing. In order to meet demand and bring
advanced technologies to commercial use over the next 15 to 20 years,
the time is now to begin planning for tomorrow's nuclear energy
systems.
The United States has an indispensable role as a leader in
developing nuclear technologies and has begun to reach out to our
partners overseas to explore the potential for working on these
technologies together. This past January, the Department sponsored a
meeting with government representatives of eight other countries to
begin discussing Generation IV advanced nuclear energy technologies. In
April, a small group of experts from those countries met again to
develop specific recommendations on the future direction of
multilateral cooperation on Generation IV technologies. In early May,
the Department sponsored a three-day workshop with a broader group of
approximately 100 international and U.S. experts from the government
agencies, research organizations, and representatives of the
International Atomic Energy Agency and other multilateral organizations
to begin the process of establishing requirements and attributes of
Generation IV reactor technologies.
The results of these discussions and considerations will help us
initiate a DOE-led Generation IV technology roadmap, which will bring
together the views and requirements of the entire U.S. and
international research community to set a direction for advanced
research to develop next generation nuclear power systems.
From the discussions that we have had with the international and
U.S. research community, it's clear that there are many innovative and
enabling technologies that make Generation IV reactors feasible over
the next fifteen years. The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative research
includes several Generation IV concepts such as secure transportable a
LWR, encapsulated fission heat sources, reactors that directly convert
energy from fission, and new designs that produce hydrogen or methane
for alternative fuel sources. The United States has made a very
promising start. Working with the research community, we hope to apply
what we have learned in creating our Generation IV technology roadmap
to set upon a path that will enhance the long-term prospects for
building advanced nuclear power systems in the twenty-first century.
Question. Would development of a Gen 4 reactor by the United States
help re-establish some degree of international leadership and
rejuvenate interest in the profession?
Answer. The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology's
initiation of its Generation IV activities, combined with other
programs such as our Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, is helping
reassert U.S. technology leadership in the nuclear R&D field. One of
the most satisfying aspects of launching our new programs has been the
eagerness with which the international community has embraced the
return of the U.S. to leadership in the nuclear R&D field.
The countries participating with us in our Generation IV
international activities are as concerned as we about rejuvenating the
nuclear science and technology profession. The primary focus of our
efforts is to attract the best young talent available into the nuclear
technology field. Apart from Generation IV activities, NE is actively
working both domestically and with international partners to make
advanced education in the nuclear science and engineering available and
attractive to talented, ambitious students. It is our hope that these
efforts will yield an increase in the number of students entering
nuclear engineering programs at our universities and rejuvenate
interest in the nuclear profession.
NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANT OPTIMIZATION (NEPO)
Question. What led to cancellation of the original NEPO
solicitation and when will grants be awarded?
Answer. There was no cancellation of the original NEPO
solicitation. The Department signed a Cooperative Agreement with the
Electric Power Research Institute in May 2000 that provides for the
solicitation and award of research contracts for 14 projects to be
initiated this fiscal year. Research awards under NEPO will be made
this summer.
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION LABS
Question. The National Nuclear Security Administration started
operation as a semi-autonomous agency within the Department on March 1.
The NNSA labs of Los Alamos, Sandia and Lawrence Livermore have a long
tradition of supporting a broad range of scientific initiatives beyond
weapons activities. As the NNSA was created, I emphasized the
importance of the NNSA labs continuing their multi-program support of
the Department and other federal agencies.
The enabling legislation, in Section 3264, stated that: ``The
Secretary, in consultation with the Administration, shall establish
procedures to provide for the use . . . of the national security labs
by elements of the DOE not within the Administration . . .''
Despite the legislation, I am concerned that the NNSA labs will not
continue to receive high priority funding from the Department. Will
each of you assure me that you will continue to aggressively fund
projects within the NNSA labs?
Answer. The NNSA Act allows the NNSA laboratories to continue to
perform significant research for all DOE programs, for other federal
agencies and non-federal organizations. It also permits the Department
to continue the important role the NNSA laboratories have as part of
the integrated laboratory system.
The Department recognizes that non-defense research is important to
maintain the vital overall science and technology base and core
competencies of the NNSA laboratories. This point was recently
reinforced by Secretary Richardson in a memorandum to the Heads of
Departmental Elements on May 11, 2000, in which he reinforced the
Department's strong commitment to encouraging and supporting the
diversity of work performed by the Department's national laboratory
complex, including the laboratories that report to the NNSA.
The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE) will
continue work closely with the NNSA laboratories in research and other
programmatic activities of our office. As part of NE's Isotope Program,
Nuclear Energy Research Initiative program, Accelerator Transmutation
of Waste program, and our space power systems program, we are engaged
in a number of important research and other mission-related activities
with the NNSA laboratories, including Sandia National Laboratory,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Los Alamos National
Laboratory. We are committed to continuing to work closely with these
laboratories as we accomplish the mission of NE.
Question. Have discussions been initiated between your Office and
NNSA to define mechanisms to maintain close collaboration, both for
NNSA lab support to your Office and for your labs to support NNSA as
required?
Answer. An Implementation Plan for the NNSA has been prepared and
issued. This implementation plan is structured as the mechanism that
provides maximum flexibility for both NNSA and non-NNSA laboratories,
to continue to perform the type of research that they do best and to
allow the initiating program sufficient control over their research.
The Implementation Plan is structured to ensure continued utilization
of the national laboratory complex by all parties. It allows the NNSA
laboratories to continue to perform significant research for all DOE
programs and to work together with the non-NNSA laboratories
efficiently and effectively to complement each others' expertise in
important scientific collaborations that can benefit all Departmental
programs, including the NNSA.
Question. Do you foresee any barriers to maintaining close working
relations between your Office and the NNSA?
Answer. No. The Implementation Plan for the NNSA adequately
addresses the concerns you raise, and the Department is committed to
maintaining a culture that permits the laboratories to continue this
effective relationship.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Slade Gorton
FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY
Question. Given the imminent approval of the Department's $9
million reprogramming request on FFTF (and again, I very much
appreciate the chairman's support for this reprogramming), what is the
timetable for conducting the NEPA review on future restart or shutdown
options for the FFTF?
Answer. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review
addresses more than actions regarding the Fast Flux Test Facility
(FFTF). As recommended by the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory
Committee and directed by Secretary Richardson, this review will
evaluate through the preparation of a Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) enhancing the Department of Energy's nuclear facility
infrastructure to meet growing civilian research needs over the next 35
years. The alternatives of restarting or deactivating FFTF will be
included in this evaluation. The Programmatic EIS is expected to be
completed by the end of the current calendar year. The final decision
on the future of the FFTF will be made as part of the broader decision
on the nuclear research facility infrastructure. This decision is
expected to be issued in January 2001, following completion of the
Programmatic EIS and other related documents, including studies
analyzing the costs and nonproliferation impacts of proposed actions,
and a long-range nuclear technology research and development plan.
Question. Again assuming the approval of the reprogramming, what
are the Department's plans to maintain FFTF in a safe condition and to
minimize layoffs?
Answer. The funding available under the proposed reprogramming
would be used by the Department to maintain the FFTF in a safe standby
condition in compliance with applicable environmental and safety
regulations, through the end of the fiscal year. Impact to FFTF staff
will be minimized through reassignments, as practicable, to retain
needed expertise and skills-mix.
Question. Please describe the nuclear science and technology
research missions that are suitable for FFTF, including the production
of medical isotopes.
Answer. The FFTF, if restarted, would be a reliable and versatile
source of neutrons, and would provide the largest core volume for
neutron irradiation among the Department's research and test reactors.
Neutron irradiation in the FFTF could support a number of nuclear
science and technology missions, meeting specific civilian nuclear
technology needs in the areas of isotope production, domestic and
international nuclear technology research and development (R&D) and
plutonium-238 production for national needs.
In isotope production, FFTF could provide critically needed medical
isotopes used to diagnose and treat a number of conditions, including
various cancers. Even conservative market surveys project that for many
medical isotopes future demand will exceed supply.
In the area of nuclear technology R&D, FFTF core space could be
used to support research efforts in transmutation of radioactive
wastes, development of proliferation resistant fuels, space power
systems development, and materials development for advanced reactor
applications and fusion research.
FFTF could also support specific needs in plutonium-238 production
for use as a source of heat and electricity in long-range space probes.
Question. Our country's increasing dependence on foreign oil and
the groaning [growing] concerns on global warming underscore the
importance of maintaining nuclear power as an energy option. Yet our
nuclear energy research infrastructure is deteriorating. Please explain
the role the FFTF could play in supporting a robust nuclear energy R&D
program.
Answer. If restarted, the FFTF would operate as one of a suite of
DOE-owned test and research reactors. As a nuclear science and
irradiation user facility it would significantly increase the nation's
available neutron flux capacity for materials and nuclear fuels testing
crucial to nuclear technology R&D efforts. Working in tandem with other
nuclear facilities such as the High Flux Isotope Reactor and the
Advanced Test Reactor, FFTF, if restarted, could help the Department
address growing civilian nuclear technology research needs over the
next 35 years. As such, FFTF could directly support research and
development under the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI); for
example, materials testing to support advanced fuel development.
Materials testing could also provide data to support life extension of
existing reactor plants. FFTF could also be an important tool in
technology development to help reduce nonproliferation concerns and in
expansion of cooperative international nuclear research efforts. A
robust nuclear energy R&D program would include active U.S. involvement
and leadership in international reactor research programs.
Question. FFTF is the nation's most modern nuclear test reactor. If
FFTF were to be decommissioned, what is the next newest research
reactor that the Department would rely on to support the nation's
nuclear R&D missions? How old is that reactor? Can it meet the
Department's needs?
Answer. The Department's nuclear R&D missions needs are met by a
suite of facilities, including two operating research and test
reactors, the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) and the Advanced Test
Reactor (ATR), which provide the currently available core capacity for
neutron irradiation and testing. HFIR and ATR have operated for 33 and
31 years, respectively. The FFTF operated for 10 years before being
placed in standby in 1993.
Since 1993 the DOE Complex has experienced a significant decline in
the total availability of steady-state neutrons for research, testing,
and isotope production, while the Department's nuclear R&D and
production needs are increasing. The Department is evaluating how best
it can meet these projected mission demands. In addition to the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review of the Department's
nuclear research facility infrastructure, including the potential role
of the Fast Flux Test Facility, the independent Nuclear Energy Research
Advisory Committee is preparing a long-term nuclear energy research and
development plan and an infrastructure roadmap. When these evaluations
are complete, the Department will be in a position to make
infrastructure decisions based on well-defined needs and capabilities.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
DEPLETED URANIUM HEXAFLUORIDE
Question. Mr. Magwood, you are probably aware that USEC is
preparing to lay-off 825 workers at the gaseous diffusion plants. It is
my understanding that your office has control over $10 million in funds
that have been obligated to cylinder maintenance between fiscal year
2002-fiscal year 2010. This level of funding would be more than
sufficient to provide these basic benefits.
Is there any reason why this funding can't be used immediately to
provide a voluntary reduction-in-force benefits package? What about
worker health testing or accelerating cleanup?
Answer. The $10 million identified in the question is part of a
balance of $66 million received from the United States Enrichment
Corporation (USEC Inc) under a Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) under which
the Department voluntarily accepted responsibility from USEC for
management and disposition of some 11,000 cylinders of depleted uranium
hexafluoride. This arrangement was a ``work for others'' transition and
the money the Department received from USEC for conducting this
activity was ``miscellaneous revenues'' that are appropriated annually
to the Department, enabling the Department to retain and use those
revenues in the general fund of the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
Thus, we concluded that under current law, the Department must use
those amounts just for the purpose they were received from USEC.
The Department has worked closely and actively with USEC to
formulate programs under which we can mitigate the effects on workers
of anticipated USEC workforce reductions (now estimated by USEC to be
625 positions rather than the earlier estimate of 825 referenced in the
question). Those efforts have included the recent redirection of other
appropriations balances to enhance voluntary separation benefits from
amounts available for worker and community transition accounts.
Question. I have a budget document that was prepared by your
cleanup contractor that states that at the end of fiscal year 2001, the
cylinder management program will have an uncosted balance of $9.2
million between Paducah and Portsmouth.
How do you explain this and why are you requesting such a massive
increase if the contractor won't be able to spend this amount of
funding?
Answer. As part of the budget formulation process for the uranium
programs' fiscal year 2001 budget request, various funding scenarios
were developed for allocation of funding among Paducah, Portsmouth, and
the East Tennessee Technology Park by the management and integration
contractor. Although the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and
Technology is not familiar with the budget document cited in this
question, we are familiar with a scenario that maximized cylinder
maintenance at Paducah and Portsmouth, and resulted in a somewhat lower
uncosted balance. However, neither scenario is considered credible
because of other program mandates that were not considered in the
scenarios. As we proceed through the fiscal year 2001 appropriations
process, the Department will continue to analyze options for allocation
of limited funding to meet the numerous priorities of the program at
the three sites. Regardless, we do not envision the allocation of the
funding among the sites to result in a high uncosted balance in fiscal
year 2001.
Question. Instead of wasting this funding on cylinder maintenance,
where it obviously can't be spent, wouldn't it be better applied to the
cylinder conversion program to eliminate the threat?
Answer. Although the Department is committed to addressing the
final disposition of the depleted uranium hexafluoride
(DUF6) inventory in an expeditious manner and is proceeding
with plans for a project to build and operate conversion facility,
maintenance of the inventory will be required in the interim and
throughout the duration of conversion facility operation. The
significant increase requested in the President's fiscal year 2001
budget will enable us to rectify funding shortfalls in surveillance and
maintenance in prior years.
As you know, for decades as the Department continued its uranium
enrichment program, it filled large steel cylinders with
DUF6. This material, which results from the enrichment of
uranium for commercial nuclear fuel or defense purposes, if properly
maintained, has and can be stored safely for decades without causing a
hazard to workers, the public, or the environment. However, proper
maintenance of the inventory was neglected in prior years, resulting in
cylinders that were stacked in a less than optimal manner and often in
direct contact with the ground.
Over the last seven years, DOE has taken positive steps to address
this situation, putting a comprehensive program in place to maintain
and monitor the inventory pending its disposition. These management
activities are consistent with consent agreements involving the states
and with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB)
recommendations. In fact, last December, the DNFSB notified DOE that
the Board considers the recommendation closed because the Department
had met all of the relevant commitments. In large part, the Board's
conclusions were based on the maintenance and surveillance program put
into place as well as the fiscal year 2001 budget request, which with
about $4 million more than this fiscal year, will rectify prior funding
shortfalls and will enable us to manage the inventory in a manner that
protects workers, the public and the environment.
DOE MATERIAL STORAGE AREAS (DMSAS)
Question. I noticed that budget funding for the management of the
148 DOE material storage areas (DMSA) was reduced by 16 percent, yet
the Phase I Report identified 11 of the 148 sites pose a criticality
threat. How do you justify a budget reduction?
Answer. The funding reduction in fiscal year (FY) 2001 is the
result of accelerating the characterization schedule for the 13
critical DMSAs in fiscal year 2000. The Department reprioritized
activities in fiscal year 2000 to fund the urgent work to address
questions about potential criticality concerns in the 11 DMSAs that
were identified in the Environmental, Safety and Health Phase 1
Investigation Report and another 2 DMSAs subsequently identified by the
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.
Characterization of these DMSAs is proceeding, with completion
expected by July 2000. As such, no increase in funding is required in
fiscal year 2001.
Question. Why aren't these projects being cleaned up?
Answer. While there are 148 DMSAs on the Paducah site, only 13 have
been identified as high priority for near-term action due to a
potential for nuclear criticality concerns. Until recently, the
strategy for management of the DMSAs at the Paducah and Portsmouth
sites had been to take action as needed to maintain the materials in a
safe configuration, pending final shutdown of the gaseous diffusion
plants. This approach was based on the recognition that some of the
material and equipment represented a potential strategic benefit to the
Government or USEC. Further, it was considered more cost-effective to
postpone disposition of the materials in the DMSAs to the time in which
the overall decontamination and decommissioning of the facilities was
performed.
However, we are currently evaluating options for accelerating
characterization of the DMSAs, and where appropriate, for transferring
radioactive, hazardous and other waste identified in the DMSAs to the
Office of Environmental Management for disposition. A characterization
and disposition plan for the DMSAs at Paducah is under development and
expected to be completed in the first quarter of the next fiscal year.
However, that material and equipment that is of potential strategic
benefit to the Government and USEC will continue to be retained in a
safe configuration, pending its final disposition.
DEPLETED URANIUM HEXAFLUORIDE CYLINDER MANAGEMENT
Question. In testimony before the Energy Committee two weeks ago,
you claimed that your office has met the standards set by the Defense
Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNFSB) Recommendation 95-1 for depleted
uranium cylinder management and you are confident that the program has
resolved the cylinder storage problems. If you are in full compliance,
how do you justify a 30 percent increase in your budget for the
cylinder maintenance program at Paducah?
Answer. As the Department produced more and more depleted uranium
hexafluoride over the years, it stacked cylinders in less than an
optimal manner, often storing cylinders too closely together and some
of the cylinders were in direct contact with the ground, resulting in
corrosion. Over the last several years, DOE has taken positive action
to address this situation. We put in place a comprehensive program to
maintain and monitor the inventory pending its disposition. As a part
of our commitment to the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board's
Recommendation 95-1, Improved Safety of Cylinders Containing Depleted
Uranium, we established a cylinder management program that requires
continuous oversight to maintain the integrity of the cylinders through
a systems engineering process. In December 1999, the DNFSB notified DOE
that the Board considers the recommendation closed, because the
Department has met all of the relevant commitments. In particular, the
Board recognized DOE's efforts to develop a workable and justifiable
cylinder management program and our commitment to continuing with
cylinder maintenance as part of the accelerated conversion program.
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request provides $16.6
million to maintain the cylinders, about $4 million more than was
appropriated this year. Because of funding shortfalls in previous
years, this increase is needed to enable us to follow through on
commitments made to the States and DNFSB and is important to the safe
and efficient management of the inventory in a manner that protects
workers, the public and the environment. The increase in funding
reflects our continued efforts to come into full compliance with the
requirements of the plan approved by the DNFSB, particularly in the
areas of cylinder painting and disposal of empty cylinders.
Question. Mr. Magwood--the Programmatic Environmental Impact Study
on the depleted uranium conversion facility specifically stated,
``depleted UF6 produced as a result of uranium recovered
from spent nuclear fuel would not be expected to contain appreciable
amounts of transuranic radionuclides.'' (Page 3-16, April 1999)
Do you stand by this statement?
Answer. Last summer when concerns were raised about the
introduction of recycled uranium feed materials, the possibility that
the DUF6 inventory could be contaminated with transuranic
materials was identified as an issue requiring additional evaluation. A
review of the historical data regarding the inventory, conducted last
year, did not yield sufficient information to enable us to assure that
future workers would be adequately protected. Because of this, we are
proceeding this year with additional sampling of representative
cylinders, dating back to the years in which recycled uranium was
processed. This will enable us to obtain a clear understanding of
whether the contaminants present in the cylinders will impact the
design of conversion facilities or worker safety programs at the
proposed conversion facilities. The sampling will be completed this
year, the results of which will be used to finalize the DUF6
conversion project Request for Proposals (RFP).
Based upon preliminary samples, we believe that whatever the
specific levels of contamination are they will not be appreciable
enough to have a significant impact on the design, construction or
operation of the conversion plants. However, it is important that we
complete our current analysis and sampling so that sufficiently
detailed information can be used in the design of the conversion plants
and provide the confidence we need to allow contractors to bid on a
contract for conversion plants.
Question. Why didn't the Department ever disclose this information
in its Plan for Conversion or the Record of Decision that were
delivered to Capitol Hill prior to the Washington Post story?
Answer. The Final Plan for the Conversion of Depleted Uranium
Hexafluoride was completed in July 1999, and delivered to Congress. The
concerns regarding use of recycled uranium feed were not raised until
last summer, and our analysis of this concern was initiated in August.
The final results of that analysis will not be available until near the
end of this summer. Therefore, no data were available for inclusion in
either the plan or the Record of Decision last year. However, as stated
in the response to the previous question, we do not believe that the
levels or the extent of contamination are significant enough to have
impacted either the Plan or the Record of Decision.
Question. Earlier this year, the U.S. Army completed its analysis
of the depleted uranium armor provided from the Department of Energy's
depleted uranium stockpiles to determine if the transuranic
contamination posed a threat to U.S. soldiers. Thankfully, the Army's
evaluation found that the trace amounts of contaminants were within
acceptable limits.
Are your findings consistent with those of the U.S. Army?
Answer. We will not have the final results of our analysis of
transuranic contaminants until later this year; however, we anticipate
that the level of such contaminants will not pose a health or safety
concern to workers or the public in properly designed conversion
facilities.
Question. I find it astounding that the Army, which only recently
learned about the contamination, has completed its inspection; while
your office has tested only four cylinders despite having full
knowledge of the transuranic contamination. Why is taking so long?
Answer. There are nearly 50,000 cylinders in the Department's
inventory. Determining which of those cylinders should be sampled has
involved an extensive and time-consuming search of sometimes incomplete
records, development of a sampling plan that balances cost against
expected gain, peer review of that sampling plan, and modification of
procedures to permit sampling using USEC leased autoclaves. Finally,
conducting sampling and analyzing the results has also been time-
consuming.
Since December 1999, the Department has sampled six depleted
uranium hexafluoride cylinders all of which were filled after 1989--two
from Paducah, three from Portsmouth, and the ``heels'' from an empty
cylinder at Paducah. Of the six, we are awaiting analysis of results or
confirmation of the analytical results. Additionally, we are in the
process of sampling two uranium hexafluoride ``feed'' cylinders from
Paducah containing recycled uranium generated from processing reactor
return material. The Department plans to empty these ``feed'' cylinders
and sample the ``heels.'' Finally, we are evaluating approaches to
obtaining samples from up to 12 additional depleted uranium
hexafluoride cylinders at Paducah generated during the years in which
recycling occurred. We are progressing with these activities and expect
to have the results later this year, providing us a better
understanding of the contaminants so that the final Request for
Proposals can be issued this October.
Question. DOE issued a Final Plan and a Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement for the depleted uranium conversion facilities at
Paducah and Portsmouth. These documents describe a conversion plan with
an estimated lifespan of nearly 25 years and an estimated cost of $2
billion. The plan envisions converting this material either to uranium
oxide, uranium metal or a combination of both.
What form does the Department prefer this material be converted to
for disposal?
Answer. The Department believes that acceptable disposal paths
exist for any of the product forms identified by the respondents to our
request for expressions of interest. The Source Evaluation Board has
not yet finalized a strategy on whether the Department should specify
the final product form in the Request for Proposals or leave the
product form open to potential bidders.
Question. Your office has proposed beginning construction by 2003
and operations to begin by 2005. What assurances can you give me that
you will meet this schedule?
Answer. The Department remains committed to dealing quickly and
effectively with its depleted uranium hexafluoride inventory and to
meeting the goals, objectives and requirements of Public Law 105-204.
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget requests $12 million for the
depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion project; an amount that we
plan to match with an additional $12 million from funds obtained under
the Memoranda of Agreement with USEC, bringing the total to $24 million
in fiscal year 2001. Another $12 million is reserved for the conversion
project and related activities. This funding will keep the project on
track to issue the final Request for Proposals in October 2000, award a
contract early next year and begin design in fiscal year 2001. Our
budget request for fiscal year 2001 keeps the Department on schedule to
meet the start of construction in 2003 and the start of operations in
2005.
Question. How much material is expected to be converted and what
are the expected uses of this converted material? Where will this
material be stored for the long term?
Answer. There are about 700,000 metric tons of depleted uranium
hexafluoride stored in cylinders at Paducah, Kentucky; Portsmouth,
Ohio; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee, which we plan to convert. The
Department has prepared a roadmap for developing beneficial uses of
depleted uranium products. Other than for the fluorine, no uses have
been identified for the depleted uranium that would be required in the
short-term future. However, we believe that there may be uses for the
material in the longer term future. To more fully explore this option,
the Department is initiating domestic research projects and is
exploring collaborative research opportunities with the international
community to define uses for the depleted uranium product.
Question. The documents state that unused conversion products will
require disposal. What does DOE mean by ``unused conversion products?''
Where will DOE disposal of the unused conversion products? What are
your alternatives?
Answer. If an end use is identified for the conversion product, any
material produced in excess of that need will require disposal.
Although no decision has been made relative to disposal of unused
conversion products, the Nevada Test Site, other DOE sites, and
commercial low level waste disposal sites are among the options that
would be available to the Department.
Question. What are the impacts of the depleted uranium conversion
facilities at Paducah on the sites cleanup schedule? Has the Office of
Nuclear Energy coordinated with the Office of Environmental Management
to address the potential impacts of cleaning the site? If so, what has
been the result of this coordination?
Answer. The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology and
the Office of Environmental Management have established a working
group, with participation by DOE's Offices of Policy, Worker and
Community Transition, and General Counsel, to develop an integrated
plan to guide the completion of all non-United States Enrichment
Corporation (USEC) activities occurring at the gaseous diffusion plants
(GDP) sites.
The integrated plan will be completed this summer, and will serve
as a living document to reflect the Department's plans for addressing
our responsibilities at the GDP sites. The plan will provide cost and
schedule estimates for all of the DOE activities at these sites:
conversion of the inventory of depleted uranium hexafluoride;
management of DOE Material Storage Areas; decontamination and
decommissioning of excess facilities, eventually including those
currently leased to USEC; waste management, remedial actions; and the
final end state for the GDP sites. The plan will also take into account
the impacts and uncertainties associated with GDP transition, funding
levels, labor issues, and regulatory and stakeholder priorities.
Question. Where do you envision locating the two conversion
facilities and what has your office done to prepare the sites?
Answer. Consistent with the Final Plan for Conversion of Depleted
Uranium Hexafluoride issued in July 1999, and subject to the
availability of appropriations, the Department plans on constructing
two conversion facilities, one each located on the Paducah, Kentucky
and Portsmouth, Ohio sites. As part of the acquisition process, in
order to provide information to potential bidders, site
characterization data is being developed for both sites and will be
completed this fiscal year. Additionally, the Department is planning to
request funding for fiscal year 2002 for site-specific preparation
activities.
Question. What are the funding requirements over the projected 25-
year period of operation? What contracting approach do you envision
using to construct and operate these two facilities?
Answer. The total life cycle cost for the depleted uranium
hexafluoride (DUF6) conversion project is under review;
however, the current estimate ranges from $1.731 billion to $4.920
billion, which was reported in the Department's fiscal year 1999
Accountability Report. An independent cost estimate is being prepared
for this project, to be completed this summer.
Further, the Deputy Secretary has established a DUF6
working group of procurement, program, and other experts from within
the Department to develop the Management and Acquisition Strategy Plan
to be utilized to guide the contracting approach for the final request
for proposals.
Question. What are the implications if the Governors of Kentucky,
Ohio and Tennessee decided to regulate the cylinders as waste under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act?
Answer. The Department's position with regard to depleted uranium
hexafluoride is that it is a source material as defined by the Atomic
Energy Act, and not a waste. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) excludes source material, special nuclear material, and by-
product material from regulation under RCRA (40 CFR 261). Depleted
uranium hexafluoride, as a chemical compound of uranium and fluorine,
is a chemical form of uranium, and thus, a source material. Further, as
none of the Department's depleted uranium hexafluoride has been mixed
with other materials that are regulated under RCRA, it is the
Department's position that the material is excluded from RCRA
definitions of solid and hazardous waste. A decision to regulate the
material under RCRA would significantly impact the cost of storing and
managing the material, potentially ranging into the billions of
dollars.
Question. The Decommissioning and Decontamination Fund was created
to fund the removal and cleanup of the nation's three gaseous diffusion
plants in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Paducah, Kentucky, and Piketon, Ohio.
Nuclear utility companies contribute to this fund. The Department of
Energy estimated in 1998, it could cost 10.7 billion to remove and
cleanup the three plants. Is there any prohibition on the use of D&D
funds to deal with the conversion of the depleted uranium cylinders?
Answer. There is no prohibition in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 on
the use of the Uranium decommissioning and decontamination (UE D&D)
fund for the conversion of the depleted uranium cylinders.
Traditionally, the UE D&D fund has been used to support cleanup
activities at the three uranium enrichment facilities, including
environmental restoration, waste management, and decontamination and
decommissioning work, as well as, reimbursements to uranium and thorium
licensees under Title 10.
DEPLETED URANIUM HEXAFLUORIDE
Question. Mr. Magwood, when I drafted Public Law 105-204, I
established a timetable that would give the Department more than enough
time to implement this legislation. Unfortunately, my lowest
expectations for the Department have been exceeded. I am very skeptical
that the budget offered by the Secretary is sufficient to keep this
project on track and able to meet the timetable you have set forth. In
fact, it is my understanding that this budget only provides enough
funding for your office to complete one-third of the total design work
for the facilities. Based on information from project experts, as well
as information from your office, at least $60 million is needed to keep
this project on track. Further, I am disappointed the Secretary offered
only $12 million of the available $24 million that he had committed to
provide last year.
Has the Secretary withdrawn his commitment on this project?
Answer. The Secretary remains committed to meeting the target date
anticipated by Public Law 105-204 to begin construction of the
conversion facilities not later than January 31, 2004. We believe that
the funding requested in the Administration's budget request will allow
us to meet and maintain this schedule.
Question. What will the Department do with the remaining $12
million in funding that hasn't been obligated?
Answer. The Department is proceeding with plans for a project to
design, build and operate conversion facilities at Paducah and
Portsmouth that will convert the inventory of depleted uranium
hexafluoride to a more stable form. As part of the Administration's
budget request, we are proposing to apply $12 million to the depleted
uranium hexafluoride conversion program in fiscal year (FY) 2001.
Further, we plan to use an additional $12 million from funds obtained
under a Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) with the United States Enrichment
Corporation (USEC Inc), bringing the total to $24 million in fiscal
year 2001. This will enable the Department to issue the formal
DUF6 conversion project Request for Proposals to the private
sector by October 2000 and to initiate design activities in fiscal year
2001. We anticipate applying the remaining $12 million of the USEC Inc
MOA funding, along with additional appropriations in fiscal year 2002
and beyond to maintain this schedule.
Question. Mr. Magwood, you informed my staff in a meeting last
month that transuranic waste was found in depleted uranium cylinders
generated in 1988 and 1993. If the Atomic Energy Commission stopped
using recycled uranium during the mid-1970's, how do you explain the
fact that this material was found in those cylinders 10 to 15 years
later?
Answer. The Government ceased processing its recycled uranium in
the mid-1970's. During the fiscal years 1986 through 1989, a small
amount of recycled uranium was received by the Department from the
French Company Comurhex, which was introduced to the diffusion cascades
during that time frame. We suspect the transuranic materials found in
some of the cylinders resulted from the French recycled uranium.
Question. How much funding will this project require annually in
order for the Department to fulfill its legal obligations to have two
conversion plants operational by 2005?
Answer. We will go out with an RFP in October, and once a contract
is awarded, the Department will be in a better position to provide
annual cost estimates. Prior to that time, all cost estimates by any
source, including informal staff estimates, are procurement sensitive.
Any estimate made public at this time could influence the responses
that we hope to get from prospective bidders.
We will provide Congress with the annual costs as soon as numbers
are available for release.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Larry Craig
NUCLEAR ENERGY BUDGET REQUEST
Question. In the budget request, DOE recommended that the name of
the Termination Costs budget line be changed to ``Nuclear Facilities
Management.'' Can you discuss the reasons for this recommendation?
Answer. Three components make up the Termination Costs or ``Nuclear
Facilities Management'' program: infrastructure, facility termination
activities, and technology activities. The infrastructure is required
to satisfy safety, security, and environmental requirements; maintain
facilities in a user-ready status with a capable, knowledgeable well-
trained core staff; and provide support functions for the ongoing
program work. It also includes operation of facilities not related to
facility termination activities such as the storage and protection of
facilities housing special nuclear materials. Facility termination
activities consist of placing the EBR-II in a radiologically and
industrially safe condition and deactivating associated facilities. It
also includes the treatment of sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel that
was used in the reactor, which is performed in the Fuel Conditioning
Facility. Technology activities provide for technical support for
sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel treatment by developing and testing
waste stream treatment process equipment of a scale suitable for
inventory treatment. It also involves conducting long-term tests to
characterize performance of reference waste forms and gain Nuclear
Regulatory Commission approval for placement of metal and ceramic waste
forms in a geologic repository.
The majority of the fiscal year 2001 and future year funds that
will be used in this budget line will involve nuclear infrastructure
and technology activities. Therefore, we believe that a more
representative title for this budget item is ``Nuclear Facilities
Management.''
Question. Can you provide a summary of the Department's objectives
for closing the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II and treating EBR-II
spent fuel?
Answer. EBR-II was a research and test reactor at Argonne National
Laboratory-West used to demonstrate the engineering feasibility of the
sodium-cooled, liquid metal reactor with a steam electric power plant
and integral fuel cycle. It operated from 1964 through 1994 and upon
mission completion in 1994, it was shut down.
EBR-II spent nuclear fuel contains metallic sodium. Metallic sodium
reacts vigorously with water, producing heat, potentially explosive
hydrogen gas, and sodium hydroxide, a corrosive substance. Metallic
sodium is also pyrophoric. The current repository waste acceptance
criteria exclude reactive and potentially explosive materials from
being accepted into a geologic repository unless they exist in only
trace quantities. In order to satisfy the waste acceptance criteria,
the sodium, which is bonded to uranium metal alloy within the fuel
cladding must be further treated in order for it to be removed from the
spent fuel.
UNIVERSITY REACTOR FUEL ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT
Question. DOE has proposed $12 million for the university program
in fiscal year 2001, the same as was appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
This program is essential to ensuring an adequate supply of nuclear-
trained professionals for the nuclear power industry, the national
laboratories, the environmental restoration industry, and a host of
other industries. This program also provides funding to support the
operation of more than two dozen university-based nuclear research
reactors in the U.S. Given the importance of university nuclear
engineering programs and university research reactors to maintaining
the viability of nuclear power in the U.S., do you believe the
requested funding level is adequate?
Answer. The Department has requested $12 million for the University
Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support Program for fiscal year 2001 which
is the same funding level appropriated for fiscal year 2000. At this
funding level, the Department will continue to provide critical
assistance to the Nation's university nuclear engineering programs as
they educate and train the next generation of nuclear engineers and
scientists. University research reactors are a vital component of our
national research and education infrastructure. Many university
research reactors support the development of highly qualified,
technically knowledgeable personnel needed by national laboratories,
private industry, the Federal government, and academia. Through the
Department's Reactor Sharing program, the university research reactors
also serve as centers for education programs offered to other colleges
and universities and high school students and teachers who visit the
reactors for instructional programs and research.
To help ensure the continued success of the university nuclear
engineering programs, the Department provides assistance through
activities such as the DOE/Industry Matching Grants program which
leverages public sector funds with private contributions in a 50/50
cost share arrangement. Fiscal year 2000 marked the first year that
this program's private sector funding exceeded DOE's ability to match
it. The Department also provides academic assistance to outstanding
students through our Scholarships and Fellowships program with a new
dimension in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 that supports
students at minority institutions in achieving a nuclear engineering
degree at a university with a nuclear engineering department. We
continue to receive more applications from outstanding graduate and
undergraduate students than we, typically, can support. However, the
requested level of funding is adequate to maintain our participation at
its current level.
With respect to the future direction of this program, the
Department's Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) has
convened a Blue Ribbon panel, led by Dr. Michael Corradini of the
University of Wisconsin, to consider the best ways of preserving our
irreplaceable university nuclear education infrastructure. This panel
is evaluating the future of university research reactors and their
relationship to the national laboratories in conducting nuclear
engineering research. The recommendations of this panel, expected this
Summer, as well as other NERAC reviews related to university programs
will serve as a basis for recommending the priorities and funding needs
for this program in the future.
REPROGRAMMING
Question. Your office took approximately $1.8 million in fiscal
year 2000 funds from the TRA landlord program in Idaho to help pay for
a $9 million reprogramming for the FFTF at Hanford surveillance and
maintenance. The fiscal year 2001 request for TRA landlord is increased
by only $97,000 compared to the fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $8.9
million. Do you plan to restore to Idaho the remaining amount of the
$1.8 million taken from TRA in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The impact to the TRA Landlord scope of work from the
reprogramming request has been to defer for up to one year, the
Retention Basin System upgrade and the purchase of new portal monitors
for radiation detection and one motorized man lift used to repair
equipment. The Department plans to proceed with this project and the
equipment procurements during the fiscal year 2002 budget cycle.
______
Questions Submitted to the Office of Science
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
SUPERCOMPUTING
Question. Dr. Decker, across the Department, $908 million is
targeted for the Information Technology Initiative. $182 million of
this program resides within the Office of Science in the Advanced
Scientific Computing Research program.
This is in addition to $726 million associated with the National
Nuclear Security Agency's (NNSA's) Advanced Strategic Computing
Initiative. That program has demonstrated significant improvements in
computational power, both in hardware and software.
Are these two major Departmental efforts in high performance
computing benefiting from each other's research and capabilities?
Answer. The total fiscal year 2001 funding requested by the
Department for the Information Technology (IT) research initiative is
$667 million of which $477 million is in NNSA's Advanced Strategic
Computing Initiative (ASCI) and $190 million is in the Office of
Science. Of the proposed investments in the Office of Science, $170
million is in the Mathematical, Information and Computational Sciences
(MICS) subprogram of the Office of Science's Advanced Scientific
Computing Research program, and the remaining $20 million is
distributed across the other programs in the Office of Science ($2
million in Basic Energy Sciences, $8 million in Biological and
Environmental Research, $3 million in Fusion Energy Sciences, and $7
million in High Energy and Nuclear Physics).
Investments in high performance computing research in NNSA and SC
have been and will continue to be managed so that they take maximum
advantage of each other. Basic research in applied mathematics
supported by SC underpins many of the mathematical software libraries
that are critical to NNSA's applications. Many of these same libraries
are used by scientists supported by SC on unclassified computers to
help solve problems in the science of materials, folding of proteins,
plasma turbulence and understanding the fundamental structure of
matter. In addition, for a number of years SC and NNSA have cofunded
activities such as the Advanced Computational Testing and Simulation
(ACTS) Toolkit to pioneer new ways of creating high performance
parallel applications more quickly. We expect both the collaborative
funding on common problems and the two-way exchange of technology and
research to continue in the future.
Question. Please discuss how these two programs within the
Department are coordinated? Are advances in the NNSA being carefully
evaluated in the Office of Science program, and vice versa?
Answer. The two research programs are coordinated through ongoing
direct interactions of the staff at DOE who are charged with managing
these efforts. There are regular and ongoing discussions between the
staff in MICS and the Associate Director for SC's Advanced Scientific
Computing Research program and the staff in NNSA who are responsible
for ASCI. In addition, staffs from both organizations regularly attend
each other's Principal Investigator meetings and planning meetings and
sit on each other's review panels. Finally, SC funds significant basic
information technology research efforts at NNSA laboratories, and
encourages its researchers to collaborate with researchers at NNSA
laboratories on common problems. Yes, advances in both organizations
are carefully evaluated.
Question. What is the five-year plan for the ASCR program?
Answer. On March 24, 2000, the Office of Science delivered to
Congress its five-year plan, Scientific Discovery through Advanced
Computing, which describes the investments across SC including those in
its ASCR program. A copy of the plan is provided for the record.
FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES
Question. The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board report on the
Department's fusion program recommended a funding level of
approximately $300 million for fiscal year 2001. However, the
Department has only requested $247 million.
Why is the Department not supportive of the fusion program funding
level recommended by the Secretary's own advisory board?
Answer. The fusion energy sciences program is a multi-purpose
scientific research effort providing the science base for a fusion
energy option in the long-term and producing valuable scientific
knowledge and technological benefits in the near-term. The Secretary's
Advisory Board's recommended funding level was arrived at without
consideration of other Office of Science or Departmental budget
constraints. Given the program's current mission and its focus on
plasma science and fusion science, the Department feels that the
current funding level is appropriate within the overall Office of
Science budget constraints. However, the Department recognizes and is
most appreciative of the strong support that the advisory committees
and the Congress have provided for the restructured Fusion Energy
Sciences Program, and it will give careful consideration to the
requirements of this program in formulating future budget requests.
SPALLATION NEUTRON SOURCE
Question. Dr. Decker, the funding request for construction of the
Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) for fiscal year 2001 is $281 million.
Explain how the project has been restructured. What were the reasons
for the restructuring?
Answer. In the Spring of 1999, the management of the SNS project
was significantly strengthened by assigning a new leader, Dr. David
Moncton, with recent experience in building a large scientific research
facility (the Advanced Photon Source). As SNS Executive Director, Dr.
Moncton immediately assembled a team of experts who completed a
thorough assessment of the project and developed a plan for its
completion. During the next few months, Dr. Moncton reorganized the SNS
Project Office at Oak Ridge, proceeding to fill all of the project's
senior management positions with experienced personnel, and fully
integrated and optimized the SNS technical design to provide maximum
scientific capability within cost constraints. In addition, a number of
management improvements were implemented that strengthened the
authority of the SNS Executive Director and the central SNS Project
Office over the project's staff at the six partner laboratories.
Business and project management systems were improved to better support
construction activities.
This restructuring resulted from the recommendations of a January
1999 DOE Office of Science review of SNS, and served to meet certain
funding language in the House report accompanying the fiscal year 2000
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
Regarding the $281 million request for the SNS, please note that as
a result of legislation passed by the Tennessee legislature that
excludes the SNS from Tennessee sales and use taxes, the fiscal year
2001 requirement is reduced by $2.5 million to $278.5 million.
Question. What assurances can you give the committee that the
project can now proceed and be completed on schedule and within the
current cost estimate?
Answer. The DOE managers in the Office of Science and at the Oak
Ridge Operations Office who are responsible for the SNS have overseen
the successful construction of several similar projects. Given their
collective experience, I am very confident in their abilities to
deliver the SNS on time and within cost. Please note that it was their
prompt action in early 1999 that brought about the contractor
management changes and project restructuring that have been credited
with putting this project back on track.
Since the beginning of this restructuring period, there have been
two DOE Office of Science reviews (in July 1999 and March 2000), and a
congressionally mandated Independent External Review, performed by
Burns and Roe during the Fall of 1999. All of these reviews by outside
experts have concluded that the SNS can be completed on time and within
budget. In the case of the most recent review (March 2000), the review
committee's report stated: ``Overall, the Committee judged that the SNS
project is making good progress thanks to an extremely competent and
experienced management team . . . Together with their staff, they have
demonstrated clear ownership of all technical, cost, and schedule
aspects of the project. The cost and schedule information presented to
the Committee adequately supports the President's fiscal year 2001
Budget Request, and the Committee expressed confidence that the project
can be successfully completed as planned by June 2006 and within a
Total Project Cost of $1,411.7 million (as spent).''
Question. Are there any technical, engineering, management or
scientific issues that remain that could impact successful completion
of the project?
Answer. Apart from any uncertainties in future annual funding
levels, there are no known issues that are likely to impact the
successful completion of the project. Although the SNS will be the
first spallation source to use a liquid mercury target, this is judged
to be a moderate technical risk which is being addressed by an ongoing
research and development program. Results to date indicate that the SNS
target will be able to meet its designed performance objectives.
NANOSCALE SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
Question. Dr. Decker, I've seen some of the exciting work on
nanotechnology that is ongoing at our national security labs. I
appreciate that nanotechnologies may revolutionize our ability to craft
highly specialized materials with unique properties. I'm pleased to see
the Department undertake this program.
The Administration has requested approximately $84 M, an increase
of $36 M, in the Office of Science to fund the science and technology
of this new field. Government wide, the budget requests $495 M. I
understand the funding is spread over the National Science Foundation,
Defense, Energy, Commerce, NASA and NIH.
Why are so many agencies involved in this research area, and can
the program be effectively managed over 6 independent agencies?
Answer. Many agencies are involved because nanoscale science
affects science and technology broadly. Nanoscale science is important
to the Department of Energy because the Department is the largest
supporter of materials sciences and chemical sciences in the Federal
government. This area is one which the Department helped pioneer
because of its fundamental importance to the physical sciences for
which the Department provides the most support among all of the
agencies. The Department is also interested because with a better
understanding of nanoscale science we can (1) improve catalysts for
energy conversion, (2) improve photocells and photochemical solar
energy conversion, (3) make better, lighter composites, (4) make much
better and more sensitive sensors, and (5) improve the safety and
reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile. NSF is interested in
nanoscale science because of its importance to fundamental science.
NASA is interested in the development of nanotechnologies because it
will significantly reduce the weight of satellites and space vehicles.
DOD is interested in the nanotechnology effect on weapons and
communications system. The DOC is interested in nanoscale science,
through the National Institute of Standards and Technology, because of
the problems that need to be addressed related to measurement
technology and development of standards. NIH has many potential
applications for nanotechnology, including drug delivery, diagnostics,
and protective coatings for prosthetics.
For over a year, the agencies have been working together through
the National Science and Technology Council's Interagency Working Group
on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology. This Working Group has
developed an extensive and comprehensive document detailing the
priority areas for the initiative. Each agency agreed to these
priorities. The priorities are both relevant to the missions of the
agencies and to the national effort that will expedite progress with
the agencies working together rather than separately.
Question. Since the national security labs have considerable
expertise and many applications for miniaturized systems and
technologies, will the national security laboratories be participants
in the Office of Science nanotechnology program?
Answer. From the beginning, the Office of Science's planning for
the nanoscale science, engineering, and technology initiative has
involved the national security laboratories. Researchers from these
laboratories participated in the workshop that developed the Office of
Science's programs and in preparing a report titled ``Nanoscale
Science, Engineering and Technology Research Directions,'' which is
available at http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/NNI.htm. The
Department's Office of Science and the Office of Defense Programs have
signed a memorandum of agreement to form a joint Office of Defense
Programs and Office of Science Nanoscience Network to create
synergistic collaborations among DOE laboratories. A joint Office of
Defense Programs and Office of Science workshop was held on April 27-28
to establish this network. The network will operate very much like the
Office of Science's Center of Excellence for Advanced Synthesis and
Processing, which is run by Sandia National Laboratories, and involves
the Department's laboratories (including the national security
laboratories), industry, and universities. The Nanoscience Network is
being organized now so that it can begin research promptly when the
fiscal year 2001 starts in October should Congress appropriate the
funding requested for the Nanotechnology Initiative.
MICROBIAL CELL PROJECT
Question. Dr. Decker, the budget request includes about $10 million
to start the Microbial Cell Project.
Could you explain the objectives and potential applications of this
effort?
Answer. The Microbial Cell Project is a coordinated research effort
between the Biological and Environmental Research (BER) and Basic
Energy Sciences (BES) programs. The goal of the Microbial Cell Project
is to develop a comprehensive understanding of the complete workings of
a microbial cell, starting from the DNA sequence (the molecular parts
list), to the identification of all the genes, to the production of all
the proteins whose assembly instructions are contained in the genes, to
the complex interaction of the genes and proteins in a cell that gives
the microbe its life and its unique characteristics and behaviors. The
Microbial Cell Project will identify and characterize a minimum set of
genes, proteins, and metabolic capabilities that are both necessary and
sufficient for a microbe to survive in various extreme environments.
Eventually we will understand the detailed workings of individual genes
and proteins, regulatory networks of genes and proteins, and their
integration into whole functional interactive cells. Instead of simply
inserting genes that encode pollutant degrading enzymes into radiation
resistant cells, we may be able to ``tune'' microbes (just as we tune
lasers) to a desired degree of radiation resistance and pollutant
degrading capability so that they are maximally useful for a given
cleanup challenge. Similarly, microbes will be ``tuned'' for the cost
effective production of methane or hydrogen, maximizing fuel production
and minimizing the production of unnecessary wastes, or for the
sequestration of excess atmospheric carbon.
Question. Can you tell the Committee what the total cost of this
effort is expected to be? What are the annual out year costs for the
program?
Answer. Funding for this project is requested as part of the
Biological and Environmental Research (BER) and Basic Energy Sciences
(BES) program budgets. Total funding for this initiative could be in
the range of $325 million over ten years or approximately $35 million
per year after fiscal year 2001. Funding in fiscal year 2001 is
requested at $12.5 million ($10 million for BER and $2.5 million for
BES).
NEW ``MOUSE HOUSE,'' OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE
Question. Dr. Decker, the budget request includes funding for
construction of a new facility to house and protect the genetic mice at
Oak Ridge in Tennessee.
Dr. Decker, can you explain to the committee the nature of this
project including the importance of these mouse populations to
research? What are the overriding programmatic reasons for replacing
the facility?
Answer. The Laboratory for Comparative and Functional Genomics
(LCFG) will provide a modern gene function research facility to support
Department of Energy research programs and provide protection for the
genetic mutant mouse lines created during the past 50 years. The LCFG
will replace the deteriorated mouse-housing facility located at the Y-
12 Weapons Plant on the Oak Ridge Reservation to meet these
programmatic needs. It will accommodate the entire DOE live mutant
mouse colony in Oak Ridge, which will be reduced in size by utilizing
cryogenic preservation technology. The facility will be designed to
permit the establishment of specific pathogen free colonies of mice
making the mouse strains more widely available to the broader
scientific community than has been possible with mice from the current
facility. The principle programmatic reasons for constructing the new
facility are to ensure adequate, cost effective housing for the
national resource embodied in the mutant mouse colony to support the
next phase of the Human Genome Program--the identification of gene
function. It will support an important future direction of mouse and
genomics research, the determination of gene function on a genome-wide
basis. There are a number of complementary strategies being used by
biologists today to understand gene function in the human using the
mouse. These different strategies include the complete ``knockout'' of
a gene's function, the introduction of genes into mice, and the
induction of recessive mutations in large numbers of genes. A major
focus and strength of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory mouse genetics
group is the production of ``recessive'' mutants that cannot be
directly observed without inbreeding for 3 generations. This approach
can only be accomplished efficiently by breeding large colonies of
mice. This important, but labor intensive, genetics strategy is not
possible without high quality facilities like the LCFG. The fiscal year
2001 request for the facility is $2,500,000. The total project cost is
$14,420,000.
Question. What is the condition of the facility where the current
activities are housed? Are there other major drawbacks to current
operations?
Answer. The building currently housing the animals has deteriorated
with age and cannot be maintained cost effectively. An increasing
fraction of the funds provided for research using the mice housed in
this building need to be diverted each year to keep the facility
operational. The building systems need to be upgraded to assure
continued compliance with accreditation standards for animal research
facilities. The facility nearly failed a final American Association for
Laboratory Animal Care inspection several years ago that would have
required either a complete shutdown of the facility or its operation
without accreditation. In addition to being expensive to operate and
maintain, the existing facility is classified as an ``open'' facility.
That means the animals have not been derived from stocks that were free
of specific pathogens. This has had a detrimental impact on the full
utilization of the colony by the broader mouse genetics research
community.
Question. What programmatic benefits will be realized if the
facility is replaced?
Answer. A new mouse facility at Oak Ridge will be of programmatic
value to the future of the DOE and the Nation's human genome programs
because it will maintain, in a single location, valuable mice strains,
expertise in mouse genetics, and technologies needed to conduct high-
throughput mouse biology. The Department's functional genomics research
facility at Oak Ridge includes a mouse colony that consists of
approximately 70,000 live mice representing approximately 400 different
genetic strains. In addition, approximately 375 strains are
cryopreserved. These are currently not the subject of active
investigation, but important for future genomics research. The
cryopreservation will also allow the rederivation of these valuable
mouse strains free of pathogens. The mouse colony is integral to the
important part of the functional genomics research effort that is aimed
at developing new ways to create and to genetically characterize new
mutant strains of mice. These new strains serve both as important
models of human genetic diseases and as tools with which to decode the
functionality of the human genome as human DNA sequence becomes
available. Several of these methodologies developed by Oak Ridge are
also widely in use by research laboratories around the world.
Discoveries resulting from this research program include identification
of genes involved in obesity and cancer, neonatal cleft palate,
oculocutaneous albinism, and neonatal liver failure, polycystic kidney
disease, serotonin metabolism disorders, and epilepsy, to name a few.
In addition, the facility has been a key component of numerous studies
on the effect of dose and dose rate of radiation on risk of genetic
defects being passed on to future generations, including pioneering
studies on individual variation in susceptibility to genetic damage
induced by radiation and potentially toxic chemicals.
Question. Would it be possible to replace or reestablish this
resource if lost or significantly damaged?
Answer. Some components of this resource could be reestablished in
other locations. However, it would be nearly impossible to reconstruct
the mouse genetics capabilities, mouse strains, and high throughput
technologies for biological analysis that currently makes Oak Ridge a
leader in mouse genetics and biology. While there are indeed private
companies that provide mice for experimental purposes, the issue is not
obtaining mice for experimental purposes, but rather a cost-efficient
facility to perform the functional genomics experiments pioneered by
the Department at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). A major focus
of the ORNL mouse genetics group is to produce ``recessive'' mutants
(mutants that cannot be directly observed without inbreeding for 3
generations). This approach can only be accomplished efficiently by
breeding large colonies of mice. There is no private company offering
that capability. While it is a very important approach, it is not a
profitable business model and that is why it is left to government
funded projects such as the one at ORNL. As a result, several companies
have expressed interest and are discussing collaborative research
arrangements with ORNL to benefit from this unique research facility.
Academic researchers, on the other hand, produce ``dominant'' mutants
(mutants where the phenotypic effects can be easily observed in all the
offspring). These dominant mutants can be bred and sold very
economically and easily in private companies. Finally, the mouse colony
is an integral part of the Department's functional genomics research
facility. Private ownership of the research facility would result in
intellectual property situations that impede quick dissemination of
research results and scientific progress. The loss of this resource
would be a major setback for biology and genomics at the DOE and
nationally.
ADVANCED COMPUTING INITIATIVE
Question. Dr. Decker, the fiscal year 2001 budget includes a
significant increase for Advanced Computing under the Office of
Science. Explain why this enhanced scientific computing initiative is
necessary.
Answer. This initiative is needed to enable scientists across all
Office of Science (SC) programs to take full advantage of multi-
teraflop computers as tools for scientific discovery. Within the past
two decades, scientific computing has become a contributor to
essentially all scientific research programs. It is particularly
important to the solution of research problems that are (i) insoluble
by traditional theoretical and experimental approaches, e.g.,
prediction of future climates or the fate of underground contaminants;
(ii) hazardous to study in the laboratory. e.g., characterization of
the chemistry of radionuclides or other toxic chemicals; or (iii) time-
consuming or expensive to solve by traditional means, e.g., development
of new materials, determination of the structure of proteins,
understanding plasma instabilities, or exploring the limitations of the
``Standard Model'' of particle physics. In many cases, theoretical and
experimental approaches do not provide sufficient information to
understand and predict the behavior of the systems being studied.
Computational modeling and simulation, which allows a description of
the system to be constructed from basic theoretical principles and the
available experimental data, are key to solving such problems. The
increase provided for advanced computing under SC will provide
investments to solve problems in core basic science research at DOE,
such as the science of materials, folding of proteins, plasma
turbulence, and the fundamental nature of matter. A more detailed plan
is attached.
Question. How is it different from the Accelerated Strategic
Computing Initiative (ASCI) in the Defense Stockpile Stewardship
program?
Answer. The proposed initiative is different from ASCI because the
applications are different and because the effort in SC supports the
open scientific community. The computational modeling and simulation
efforts in both the National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA), i.e., the
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI), and the Office of
Science (SC) are both focused on large scale scientific and engineering
simulations. In the case of ASCI, the simulations are focused on
complex nuclear weapons systems as a critical component of the
Department's ability to guarantee the safety and reliability of the
nuclear stockpile in the absence of testing. The ASCI program and its
computers are fully dedicated to this mission. The investments in SC,
however, cover a wide range of non-weapons related scientific problems
such as understanding the fundamental properties of magnetic materials;
understanding the chemistry of complex molecules such as hydrocarbon
fuels and nuclear waste products; understanding the physics of plasma
turbulence and its impact on energy transport; and understanding the
fundamental properties of nuclear matter. SC, through its Advanced
Scientific Computing Research program, provides the computing and
communications infrastructure to support these simulation efforts as
well as the advances in the underlying software, computer science and
applied mathematics which are required to enable scientists to make
progress on this class of complex simulation problems.
The computing infrastructures to support NNSA must be separate
because NNSA's investments are fully used in supporting its missions
and because of the special security requirements of NNSA applications
and programs. However, in the areas of software technology, computer
science and applied mathematics many of the technical problems that
arise are common. In this area, the investments in SC continue our long
history of effective collaboration with research supported by ASCI.
Question. What is the total cost of this effort expected to be?
What is the total amount requested in the fiscal year 2001 budget and
how does that compare to the fiscal year 2000 level of funding?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 estimated level of investment in the
Office of Science in the Information Technology Initiative is $190
million of which $170 million is in the Mathematical, Information and
Computational Sciences (MICS) subprogram of the Office of Science's
Advanced Scientific Computing Research program and the remaining $20
million is distributed across the other programs in the Office of
Science ($2 million in Basic Energy Sciences, $8 million in Biological
and Environmental Research, $3 million in Fusion Energy Sciences, and
$7 million in High Energy and Nuclear Physics). In fiscal year 2000 the
comparable budget would be the budget for the MICS subprogram or $120
million. On March 24, 2000 the Office of Science delivered to Congress
its five-year plan, Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing,
that describes in detail the investments across SC including those in
its ASCR program. This plan was delivered to the Congress on March 24,
2000, and a copy is being provided for the record in response to the
Committee's questions.
Question. What are the annual out year funding requirements
expected to be?
Answer. As described in the five-year plan, the proposed plan will
have significant accomplishments if the fiscal year 2001 level is
continued in the outyears without further increases. However, there are
significant opportunities for further benefits if additional funding
were available.
Question. What elements of the ASCI program are transferable to the
Office of Science Advanced Computing Initiative?
Answer. The principal element that is transferable from the ASCI
program to the Office of Science initiative is the understanding that
ASCI develops on how to use multi-teraflop class computers effectively.
This builds on our long history of collaborating with ASCI on basic
research in applied mathematics and computer science problems.
LOW DOSE RADIATION EFFECTS RESEARCH
Question. What is the Department's rationale for funding this
critical program substantially below the Department's own program plan?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 funds requested ($12 million) for this
program are $5.5 million less than the amount appropriated in fiscal
year 2000; however, DOE's fiscal year 2001 request is $2 million
greater than its request in fiscal year 2000. In fiscal year 2000, DOE
requested $10 million and Congress provided $19.5 million ($17.5
million for low dose research and $2 million for neutron dosimetry
associated with the atomic bomb at Hiroshima). The difference between
DOE's request in fiscal year 2001 and its appropriation in fiscal year
2000 reflects overall programmatic priorities in the BER program and
across the entire Office of Science.
SPALLATION NEUTRON SOURCE
Question. Please summarize the current status of the Spallation
Neutron Source.
Answer. Construction funding and associated design and procurement
activities were initiated in fiscal year 1999 and continued in fiscal
year 2000. The formal ``Start of Construction'' decision for the SNS
was approved by the Department in November 1999, a groundbreaking
ceremony was held, site preparation began, and major site excavation
and grading to support civil construction has commenced. Preliminary
design of technical systems and procurement of technical components is
continuing. A new partner, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator
Facility has recently joined the project as a sixth partner lab to
assist with a change in the linear accelerator design to incorporate
superconducting technology. Design and construction management of the
conventional facilities is being handled by a commercial architect
engineer/construction management (AE/CM) team under a task order
contract to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Research and
development to reduce the moderate technical risk associated with the
liquid mercury target is proceeding on schedule using the prototype
facility constructed for this purpose at ORNL. In fiscal year 2001,
design of all buildings will be complete and construction will begin.
Major procurements will then be awarded for accelerator systems
technical components.
Question. Are the five laboratories now working as one team toward
the common goal of finishing the SNS?
Answer. Including the recent addition of the Thomas Jefferson
National Accelerator Facility, the senior managers at all six SNS
partner laboratories are fully committed to ensuring the successful
completion of the project. Their specific responsibilities and
commitments are defined in a revised inter-laboratory Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the SNS Executive Director and the laboratory
directors. This MOA is a key part of the SNS Project Execution Plan,
which has been approved by Secretary Richardson and is incorporated by
reference in the laboratories' management and operating contracts.
WORKING WITH NNSA LABS
Question. The National Nuclear Security Administration started
operation as a semi-autonomous agency within the Department on March 1.
The NNSA labs of Los Alamos, Sandia and Lawrence Livermore have a long
tradition of supporting a broad range of scientific initiatives beyond
weapons activities. As the NNSA was created, I emphasized the
importance of the NNSA labs continuing their multi-program support of
the Department and other federal agencies.
The enabling legislation, in Section 3264, stated that: ``The
Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator, shall establish
procedures to provide for the use . . . of the national security labs
by elements of the DOE not within the Administration . . .''
Despite the legislation, I am concerned that the NNSA labs will not
continue to receive high priority funding from the Department.
Will each of you assure me that you will continue to aggressively
fund projects within the NNSA labs?
Answer. The NNSA Act allows the NNSA laboratories to continue to
perform significant research for all DOE programs, for other federal
agencies and non-federal organizations. It also permits the Department
to continue the important role the NNSA laboratories have as part of
the integrated laboratory system.
The Department recognizes that non-defense research is important to
maintain the vital overall science and technology base and core
competencies of the NNSA laboratories. Science support necessary to
accomplish national projects is an important component of the
interdisciplinary approach of all the laboratories, and it helps
maintain and strengthen the multiprogram nature of the laboratories.
The Office of Science will continue to consider and fund
outstanding research proposals submitted by NNSA laboratories and to
ensure their capabilities are utilized in carrying out important
multilaboratory collaborations.
I hope this adequately addresses the concerns you raise, and
demonstrates that the Department is committed to maintaining a culture
that permits the laboratories to continue this effective relationship.
Question. Have discussions been initiated between your Office and NNSA
to define mechanisms to maintain close collaboration, both for NNSA lab
support to your Office and for your labs to support NNSA as required?
Answer. The Implementation Plan for the NNSA is structured to
permit non-NNSA laboratories to continue to do both national security-
related research and science. It also allows the NNSA laboratories to
continue to perform significant research for all DOE programs. The
laboratories are able to continue to work together efficiently and
effectively to complement each others' expertise in important
scientific collaborations that can benefit all Departmental programs,
including the NNSA. While unexpected barriers may, of course, arise
from time to time, we are in a position to address them and solve them
within the implementation plan.
Question. Do you foresee any barriers to maintaining close working
relations between your Office and the NNSA?
Answer. No. Non-defense research is important to maintain the vital
overall science and technology base and core competencies of the
laboratories. Science support is an important component of the
interdisciplinary approach of the laboratories necessary to accomplish
national projects, and it helps maintain and strengthen the
multiprogram nature of the laboratories. A high level of collaboration
among the laboratories utilizing their respective core competencies,
increases their collective contribution, making the system as a whole
much more valuable than the sum of its parts. The Implementation Plan
for the NNSA adequately addresses the concerns you raise, and the
Department is committed to maintaining a culture that permits the
laboratories to continue this effective relationship
______
Question Submitted by Senator Larry Craig
COMPUTING RESEARCH
Question. What is the status of the Scientific Simulation
Initiative? You may recall that the conference report for fiscal year
2000 urged the Department to submit a comprehensive plan for a non-
defense supercomputing program that would reflect a unique role for DOE
in this multi-agency effort, and a budget plan with spending
requirements over a five year budget cycle.
Answer. The Department of Energy did not propose a Scientific
Simulation Initiative (SSI) in the fiscal year 2001 budget request. As
you may be aware, in the fiscal year 2000 request, the proposed SSI
focused on two major applications, global climate and combustion
systems, and requested funds for a new 5 Teraflop computing facility.
The Advanced Scientific Computing Research request for fiscal year 2001
focuses on a broad spectrum of basic science applications and includes
modest funding investments for upgrades to existing computing
facilities to enable scientists to make progress on scientific
problems.
On March 24, 2000, the Office of Science (SC) submitted to Congress
a comprehensive plan for its supercomputing program, entitled,
``Scientific Discovery Through Advanced Computing.'' This plan provides
a five year vision for scientific computing within the Office of
Science. It outlines a carefully designed strategy for building both
the scientific computing software infrastructure, which is needed to
take full advantage of terascale computers, and the scientific
computing hardware infrastructure, which provides the resources needed
to solve challenging scientific and engineering problems.
The Plan focuses on the scientific issues faced by all of the
programs within the Office of Science--Basic Energy Sciences,
Biological and Environmental Research, Fusion Energy Sciences, and
High-Energy and Nuclear Physics--that can be expected to benefit from
the extraordinary advances being made in computing technology as well
as on the underlying computer science research supported by Advanced
Scientific Computing Research. The funds requested in this Plan are
essential to realizing the specific goals of the Department; however,
the advances made with this funding will have a broad impact across the
nation's scientific and engineering community. Outyear estimates are
not provided in the Plan. However, it should be noted that the request
for each fiscal year will be structured and implemented in such a
fashion that it will deliver significant results with no additional
increases in funding. A copy of the plan is attached.
[Clerk's note: Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computer, by
the Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy, March 24, 2000 can be
found in the Energy and Water Subcommittee files.]
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
CIVILIAN RESEARCH PROGRAMS
Question. There has been a lot of controversy over computational
capabilities for the Department of Energy and its civilian research
programs. Can you give us the philosophy of the Department relative to
computational capabilities for its research programs, both those
sponsored by Defense Programs in the Weapons Laboratories and those
sponsored by Office of Science in the Civilian Laboratories? Also,
would you explain under the auspices of NNSA how the ASCI Program and
the ASCR inter-relate.
Answer. The computational modeling and simulation efforts in both
the National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA), i.e., the Accelerated
Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI), and the Office of Science (SC)
are focused on large scale scientific and engineering simulations. In
the case of ASCI, the simulations are focused on complex nuclear
weapons systems as a critical component of the Department's ability to
guarantee the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile in the
absence of testing. The ASCI program and its computers are fully
dedicated to this mission. The investments in SC cover a wide range of
non-weapons related scientific problems such as understanding the
fundamental properties of magnetic materials; understanding the
chemistry of complex molecules such as hydrocarbon fuels and nuclear
waste products; understanding the physics of plasma turbulence and its
impact on energy transport; and understanding the fundamental
properties of nuclear matter. The Office of Science, through its
Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program, provides the
computing and communications infrastructure to support these modeling
and simulation efforts as well as the advances in the underlying
software, computer science and applied mathematics that are required to
enable scientists to make progress on this class of complex scientific
problems.
The computing infrastructures to support NNSA must be separate
because NNSA's investments are fully used in supporting its missions
and because of the special security requirements of NNSA applications
and programs. However, in the areas of software technology, computer
science and applied mathematics many of the technical problems that
arise in using terascale computing capabilities are generic to
scientific simulation and apply equally to ASCI and SC applications.
Areas of common interest include:
--Scientific data management.
--Analysis and visualization of petabyte data sets.
--Scalable numerical algorithms for some fundamental computational
tasks.
--Computer operating systems.
In these areas the SC Plan has been carefully coordinated with
those of ASCI as well as those of the National Science Foundation.
However, there are needs unique to SC's mission. Examples of such needs
include:
--Efficient access to petabyte data sets from both national
laboratory and university computer and network environments.
DOE operates a number of major scientific facilities for the
nation with significant university use. These include high
energy and nuclear physics experiments such as the Relativistic
Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory,
the BaBar experiment at the Stanford Linear Accelerator, and
experiments at Fermilab and the Thomas Jefferson National
Accelerator Facility. In addition, the Office of Science
operates high luminosity light sources such as the National
Synchrotron Light Source at Brookhaven National Laboratory, the
Advanced Photon Source at Argonne, and the Advanced Light
Source at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Finally, the
Office of Science operates high performance computing
facilities with associated data archival facilities such as the
National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center at
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Many of these facilities
produce tens of thousands to millions of gigabytes (petabytes)
of data annually, which must be made accessible to researchers
at national laboratories and universities. This requirement to
efficiently manage access to petabyte-scale data resources by
thousands of scientists nationwide is significantly different
from the typical requirements faced by NSF. Even in the case of
global climate modeling, where NSF supports a major facility,
NCAR, the large data sets from the worldwide initiative to
systematically compare the results of the different climate
model codes, PCMDI (Program in Climate Model and Data
Intercomparison), were stored at NERSC in its archival storage
systems.
--Collaboration technologies to support the integration of widely
dispersed researchers.
--Mathematical and software libraries and technologies specific to
the scientific mission of the SC, e.g., global climate,
molecular science, plasma physics, elementary particle physics,
and accelerator physics.
--Robust, easy-to-use scientific applications codes for use by the
larger scientific community (``community codes'').
In the areas of Information Technology Research supported by the
Office of Science a significant portion of the effort is invested in
teams which can not only advance the state of the art in basic research
but also integrate the results of that research into software which can
be used by scientists in other disciplines. This requirement for
lifecycle support is critical to enable advanced information
technologies to be adopted and used effectively by scientists. It is
important to note, however, that the effort to integrate the products
of basic research into software objects is itself a significant
research activity and the Office of Science's work in this area, and
especially software component technologies for high performance
computing, has advanced the state of the art in software development
methodologies.
By building on the accomplishments of ASCI and working closely with
ASCI on projects of common interest, SC will be able to focus more of
its effort on the problems in computational science, computer science,
and applied mathematics that are unique to SC's mission and research
environment.
COMPUTATIONAL UPGRADE FOR THE EMSL
Question. As you know, the Environmental Molecular Sciences
Laboratory at PNNL was opened approximately three years ago. At that
time, the Laboratory had one of the most sophisticated and advanced
computational capabilities in the United States. Technology is moving
rapidly, therefore, there is a continuing need for all of DOE's Science
facilities to have access to continuing computational upgrades. What is
the impact of not having continuing computational upgrade capabilities
in the Biology and Environmental Research Program for EMSL or other
facilities in that Program?
Answer. The Biological and Environmental Research (BER) Program has
a need for significant computational resources for modeling, data
analysis, and simulation in structural biology, environmental molecular
sciences, global climate change, and subsurface sciences. BER's current
research needs will require access to approximately 5-8 teraflops of
sustained, high-end computing capability distributed among three
centers that also contain 1-3 Petabyte-scale data archives and Gigabit
per second network access in the very near future. The current \1/4\
teraflop system (the IBM SP) and the associated data storage and
research systems and staff at the EMSL form the basis for one of these
centers. Significant modeling and simulation research involving multi-
disciplinary teams from multiple institutions across the country is
being undertaken on EMSL's IBM SP, including research on biomolecular
interfaces, the quantum chemistry of actinides, and the fate of
contaminants in groundwater, among others. Results from these modeling
and simulation efforts are expected to be quite useful for addressing
DOE's environmental needs. Nevertheless, the BER Program recognizes the
future need for upgrading the IBM SP, as well as its other systems.
Question. Given the technological advances that are taking place in
Biological and Computational Sciences, what are the potential
capabilities that exist within EMSL relative to the Proteome Project,
especially with the unique instrumentation that exists at EMSL?
Answer. Although BER's fiscal year 2001 request is not specifically
focused on a Proteome Project, the BER request does include a
continuation of structural biology and functional genomics research, as
well as the initiation of the microbial cell project. Primary
instrument capabilities within the EMSL that are being applied to
structural biology and functional genomics include the suite of nuclear
magnetic resonance (NMR) spectrometers, and the suite of mass
spectrometers. Current computational capabilities within the EMSL that
are being applied to structural biology studies include the high
performance computer (IBM SP) within the Molecular Sciences Computing
Facility (MSCF). However, most of the large, multi-institutional
projects making use of the IBM SP are currently focused on DOE's
environmental problems in groundwater, the vadose zone, and the
atmosphere.
The BER Program recognizes the need to enhance EMSL capabilities in
structural biology and functional genomics, and as a first step, has
requested an additional $3,000,000 in capital equipment for EMSL in the
fiscal year 2001 President's Request to allow users to undertake
functional genomics and structural biology research. The additional
funding will be used for acquisition of NMR and mass spectrometers,
including a 9.4 Tesla Fourier Transform mass spectrometer specifically
for functional genomics and structural biology research.
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
STATEMENT OF IVAN ITKIN, DIRECTOR
Office of Environmental Management
STATEMENT OF CAROLYN HUNTOON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
Senator McConnell. [presiding]. All right. With that, we
will hear from Ivan Itkin, Director, Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management, and Carolyn Huntoon, Assistant
Secretary, Office of Environmental Management.
If you all would, plan that your opening statements be
about 10 minutes each. And we will put what further
observations you may have in writing in the record. That would
be appreciated.
Dr. Itkin, do you want to--I see you listed first here. So
go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF DR. IVAN ITKIN
Dr. Itkin. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee, I am Ivan Itkin. I am the director of the Office
of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. And I appreciate the
opportunity to present our fiscal year 2001 budget request and
to discuss our scientific and technical activities at the Yucca
Mountain site in Nevada. And with your permission, I will
submit my written statement for the record.
Our budget request of $437.5 million supports our Nation's
policy for the long-term management of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste. We are nearing the completion of
scientific and engineering work that will be the foundation for
a presidential recommendation on whether or not to proceed with
a permanent geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. This
decision should occur in 2001. It must be based on sound
science, and it must include the documentation required by the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
BACKGROUND
Let me restate the importance of geological disposal. It is
the cornerstone of our national policy for radioactive waste
management. A permanent geologic repository will address the
management of commercial spent nuclear fuel, but it is also
essential to achieve our nonproliferation goals, to dispose of
materials from dismantled nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered
naval vessels, and to manage waste from the cleanup of former
weapons production sites.
The Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program has made
significant accomplishments under this Administration. During
the last 5 years, Program scientists and engineers have been
examining Yucca Mountain. We completed a cross-drift tunnel
above and through the rock formation that may house a
repository.
For almost 2 years, scientists and engineers have been
examining that formation. We continue to conduct the world's
largest thermal test of a geologic formation. We believe that
we are close to a decision on whether we can recommend this
site for further development as a repository.
SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
Let me now summarize the program's fiscal year 2001 budget
request.
We plan to devote $358.3 million, over 80 percent of the
fiscal year 2001 budget request, to the Yucca Mountain Project.
These funds will be principally devoted to completing remaining
work. We will also address some work that was deferred because
of past funding shortfalls.
With the full support of the fiscal year 2001 budget, the
Program can proceed to the license application, should the
President and Congress, approve the site.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
By fully funding the fiscal year 2001 budget request,
Congress will enable the program to meet the most critical
performance measure: That is, to begin waste emplacement by
2010. This has been the Department's stated goal since 1989. We
remain on track to meet this goal.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 ACTIVITIES
Now, let me speak briefly on how the program will apply the
funding requested in our fiscal year 2001 request. My written
testimony provides greater details. I would like to point out
some of the highlights.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN
In the 1998 Viability Assessment, the program identified
the progress to date, the remaining work, and the cost for the
remaining work.
In fiscal year 2001, we expect to close out the remaining
uncertainties that the Assessment identified. We will address
aspects of design and engineering work suggested by the Nuclear
Waste Technical Review Board, and build upon the quality
assurance program to meet the expectations of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
A key task we have set for ourselves before a
recommendation is the completion of the Site Recommendation
Consideration Report. This report, with supporting documents,
will be made available to the State of Nevada, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, and stakeholders to elicit their views.
In fiscal year 2001, we will continue to support external
oversight by the State of Nevada by again requesting the
restoration of funding. We will again fund payments-equal-to-
taxes, as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
We will continue to fund a cooperative agreement with the
University and Community College System of Nevada. This
agreement provides an independently derived body of scientific
and engineering data concerning the study of Yucca Mountain.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as I said in my
opening remarks, we have made significant progress. We are on
track to make a decision on site recommendation in 2001 and a
subsequent license application in 2002, with the overall goal
of beginning emplacement by 2010.
When we set out to characterize the Yucca Mountain site
through an ambitious scientific program, we knew that we would
be faced with challenges. I believe that by the end of 2001 we
will have met those challenges. While there will likely be
additional issues that we will have to address if we proceed to
licensing, the Program is well positioned to move forward.
The funding we have requested is needed to enable us to
complete, on schedule, the activities that are necessary for
informed policy decisions. Now, when we are so close, we should
not allow resource considerations to undermine the public
confidence in our decision-making process and delay this
program.
I urge you to consider favorably our appropriation request.
I thank the committee very much for hearing our testimony this
morning. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you
may have. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF IVAN ITKIN
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Ivan Itkin,
Director of the Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management. I appreciate the opportunity to present our fiscal
year (FY) 2001 budget request to you and to discuss our plans for the
scientific and technical activities at the Yucca Mountain site in
Nevada.
Our fiscal year 2001 budget request of $437.5 million is devoted to
advancing our nation's policy for the long-term management of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. This request provides
for the near-term completion of scientific and engineering work that
will be the foundation for a Presidential site recommendation on
whether or not to proceed with a permanent geologic repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada. We are nearing this Presidential decision, which
should occur in fiscal year 2001. A recommendation of such national
importance must be based on sound science. It must not only be
accompanied by the documentation required by law, but must also inform
our policy makers, our oversight agencies, and the public regarding the
scientific basis for the decision.
BACKGROUND
The Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, particularly the
ongoing scientific and technical work at Yucca Mountain, is the
cornerstone of our national policy for the management of nuclear waste.
Permanent geologic disposal not only addresses our management of spent
nuclear fuel from commercial electric power generation, but it is
essential to advancing our non-proliferation goals. A permanent
disposal solution will secure highly enriched spent nuclear fuel from
foreign research reactors. It will also provide for the disposition of
surplus plutonium from dismantled nuclear weapons. In order to continue
the operation of our nuclear-powered naval vessels, a permanent
geologic repository is necessary for the disposition of spent nuclear
fuel from our naval reactor program. Finally, a permanent geologic
repository is vital for cleaning up the legacy of our past nuclear
weapons production at sites throughout the country.
Over the past few years, the Department has made significant
progress toward a recommendation decision on a permanent solution for
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Construction of
the Exploratory Studies Facility has afforded us almost five years of
direct examination of the geology underneath Yucca Mountain. From this
study, our scientists and engineers, including world experts from our
nation's universities and from our national laboratories, have advanced
our understanding of a potential repository system. This understanding
has led us to further focus our investigations, responding in part to
the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and other experts.
This year, we will complete niches and alcoves in the cross-drift
tunnel that will assist us in developing a more complete three-
dimensional model of the geologic formation that might house a
repository. For nearly two years, we have gathered and integrated data
input from the cross-drift tunnel into our performance models to refine
our predictions of repository performance. We continue to conduct the
largest thermal test of a geologic formation in the world. This test,
commonly known as the drift-scale test, assesses how long-term
exposures to heat from waste packages might affect the hydrology and
near-field environment within tunnels that may be constructed within
Yucca Mountain. This work will help determine the effects of heat on
waste package performance and assist in the further refinement of
repository designs that must be accomplished as we move toward
potentially licensing a repository, if the site is recommended for
development.
Since the enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982, our
nation has made a substantial investment in permanent geologic
disposal. Over $4 billion has been committed to the scientific and
technical work at Yucca Mountain. After almost 18 years of cutting-edge
science and engineering, we are very close to making a recommendation
regarding the suitability of this site for further development as a
repository.
SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2001 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST
The fiscal year 2001 budget request is $437.5 million for the
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. This request includes
a funding level of $325.5 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund
appropriation, and $112 million from the Defense Nuclear Waste
appropriation.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request of $437.5 million is devoted
principally to the activities that are most important to support a
determination of whether the Yucca Mountain site is suitable and should
be recommended for further development as a permanent geologic
repository. A Secretarial decision to recommend the site to the
President is expected to occur in fiscal year 2001. As required by
Section 114 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, a recommendation by the
Secretary to the President will be accompanied by documentation that
provides a comprehensive basis for that recommendation.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request is 25 percent greater than our
fiscal year 2000 funding level of $351.2 million. This increase
reflects the program's effort to address the remaining work that is
necessary for a site recommendation. This remaining work was described
in substantial detail in the December 1998 Viability Assessment. The
fiscal year 2001 request is also necessary to achieve to the work
schedule published in the Viability Assessment. Regaining momentum with
the fiscal year 2001 request will enable the program to meet its
obligation to be responsive to emerging scientific issues, such as
those raised during our extensive ongoing interactions with the Nuclear
Waste Technical Review Board and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The
fiscal year 2001 budget request also provides the foundation, again as
described by the Viability Assessment, to begin the activities
necessary to submit a license application in the following fiscal year,
if the President recommends and Congress approves the site for
development as a repository. Our approach to address these issues with
the Board and the Commission as we proceed toward submitting a license
application, is provided in our recently issued and updated Program
Plan (Revision 3).
From the fiscal year 2001 budget request of $437.5 million, we have
proposed allocating $358.3 million, an increase of 27 percent above the
fiscal year 2000 allocation, to the Yucca Mountain Site
Characterization Project. For activities under the purview of the Waste
Acceptance, Storage, and Transportation Project, $3.8 million is
allocated. For essential program management and integration functions,
including those that are required to support a quality assurance
program in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations
and to finalize the Environmental Impact Statement that must accompany
a site recommendation, $75.4 million is allocated. In addition, we plan
to continue our commitment to further streamline overhead functions.
Consistent with the Department's contracting policy regarding
management and operations contracts, and in conformance with direction
provided in the enacted Energy and Water Development Appropriation, in
fiscal year 2001 we are recompeting our management and operations
contract. The program's current management and operations contract was
awarded in 1991 and will expire in February 2001. We expect to award a
follow-on performance-based contract in fiscal year 2001. With full
support of our fiscal year 2001 request, we expect to successfully
recompete and achieve our milestone for the decision on site
recommendation. Within each budget element, we have allocated funds for
contractor transition to ensure continuity of the technical work during
fiscal year 2001.
Also in fiscal year 2001, the Program will work closely with the
Russian Federation to address radioactive waste management strategies.
A new initiative to advance the Department's nonproliferation
objectives with Russia is included in the Departmental budget request
for the National Nuclear Security Administration. The funding requested
for that initiative would be co-managed by the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management and the Office of Non-Proliferation and
National Security. We will address issues related to spent nuclear fuel
storage and disposal through cooperative activities under bilateral
agreements that we are developing with the Russian Federation.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Our request reflects the funding that will be needed to enable us
to meet a most critical performance measure: maintaining the schedule
to begin waste acceptance by 2010. This has been the Department's goal
since 1989. The Department takes seriously its obligation to accept
commercial spent nuclear fuel, as well as the need to provide a
permanent disposal solution for defense spent fuel and other
government-owned high-level radioactive wastes.
Our measures for fiscal year 2001 are: issuing the Final
Environmental Impact Statement with the site recommendation decision in
fiscal year 2001; and continuing to prepare a license application to
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for submission in fiscal year 2002,
contingent on a site recommendation by the President and designation of
the site by Congress.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 ACTIVITIES
I would now like to describe in more detail our fiscal year 2001
objectives and how the funding requested in our budget request will
support our activities. I have, as an attachment to my testimony,
provided a summary of the program's accomplishments in fiscal year 1999
and our ongoing activities this fiscal year.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN
In fiscal year 2001, the funds allocated to the Yucca Mountain Site
Characterization Project will be used to advance the work identified in
the Viability Assessment. This work includes addressing the remaining
uncertainties by studying the presence and movement of water through
the repository block, the effects of water movement on the waste
package, and the effects of heat from the decay of radioactive
materials inside the waste packages on the site's geologic and
hydrologic behavior. In addition, the program is addressing some of the
design and engineering work suggested by the Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board. Through our work activities, we will:
--Complete the necessary scientific and engineering work for the
characterization of the Yucca Mountain site.
--Update the total system performance assessment of Yucca Mountain,
supporting the development of a site recommendation and
integrating process models refined to reflect our current
understanding of the geology, hydrology, and geochemistry
within Yucca Mountain.
--Issue the Site Recommendation Consideration Report to inform all
parties about our evaluation to date.
--Hold public consideration hearings, before the Secretary decides
whether or not to recommend the site to the President.
--Issue the Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic
Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-
Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada.
--Continue and increase our efforts to support the preparation of a
high-quality, complete, and defensible license application to
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission if the President recommends
the site in 2001.
The plan for fiscal year 2001 and beyond reflects the evolution of
the project emphasis from scientific investigations to data synthesis,
model validation, repository and waste package design, safety analysis,
and documentation. The program's near-term priorities upon completion
of site characterization will be to enhance and refine repository
design features and to develop the remaining information required to
continue to a license application if a decision to recommend the site
is made.
Our budget request for Yucca Mountain is allocated under the
following project elements: Core Science, Design and Engineering,
Licensing/Suitability/Performance Assessment, Environmental Review
under the National Environmental Policy Act, Operations/Construction,
External Oversight and Payments-Equal-to-Taxes, and Yucca Mountain
Project Management. The activities planned under each of these
categories are described below.
Core Science:
Core Science includes: collecting site characterization and
performance confirmation data from the surface and subsurface;
performing laboratory tests; monitoring and collecting environmental
data; formulating scientific hypotheses; modeling individual and
combined natural processes; compiling scientific information for
technical data bases; and writing scientific descriptions and analyses
used to document results and findings.
The fiscal year 2001 allocation of $69.4 million to Core Science is
a decrease of two percent ($1.2 million) below the fiscal year 2000
funding level. In fiscal year 2000, we began to concentrate on data
synthesis and documentation, model updating and validation, and
definition of performance confirmation activities, reflecting our plans
to complete site characterization. In fiscal year 2001, we will
complete our effort to acquire and analyze site characterization
information needed to reduce the scientific uncertainties identified in
the Viability Assessment, prior to making a suitability evaluation site
recommendation decision, and if appropriate, submitting a license
application. In the coming years, Core Science activities will focus on
confirmatory testing supporting a license application. Specific
activities will focus on testing in the Exploratory Studies Facility,
including the cross-drift and the drift-scale heater test; confirmatory
field-scale tests; modeling; environmental, safety, and health
compliance; and environmental monitoring and mitigation activities.
Within the Exploratory Studies Facility, we will continue the long-
term drift-scale heater test that began in December 1997. This test
will allow us to determine how the rock and fluids in a repository
system will behave over the long-term in the presence of heat generated
by radioactive decay of the emplaced waste. We will continue testing in
the cross-drift to collect data on hydrologic properties of the
repository horizon. For example, we will study fracture-matrix
interaction and fracture flow properties, particularly of the lower
lithophysal unit where approximately 65 percent of the emplacement
drifts are expected to be located.
We continue to incorporate test results into geologic and
hydrologic process models. These models underlie the total system
performance assessment models that support both the site recommendation
and license application. Confirmatory data collection and long-duration
testing will continue.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request includes $10 million for a
cooperative agreement between the Department and the University and
Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN). The agreement started in
fiscal year 1999 and will continue into fiscal year 2002. The
cooperative agreement provides the public and the Yucca Mountain
Project with an independently derived body of scientific and
engineering data concerning the study of Yucca Mountain. Under this
agreement, UCCSN will perform scientific and engineering research and
will foster collaborative working relationships between government and
academic researchers.
Design and Engineering:
Design and Engineering includes three major areas: waste package
development, repository design, and systems engineering. In turn, waste
package development includes two distinct areas: design of the waste
package, and testing of waste forms and waste package materials.
Repository design also includes two areas: subsurface and surface
facilities. Systems engineering coordinates all aspects of design,
construction, and operations to ensure that designs meet all
requirements and that facilities are fully integrated.
The fiscal year 2001 allocation of $111.2 million to Design and
Engineering is an increase of 68 percent ($44.9 million) above the
fiscal year 2000 funding level. This fiscal year 2001 funding level
will allow the program to resume design work that was deferred due to
budget shortfalls that forced the program to focus efforts on site
characterization. As part of a natural design evolution, we will
continue to refine the repository and waste package design features
beyond the concept that was evaluated in the Viability Assessment. Our
activities in this area will focus on providing the basis for decisions
and advancing the designs consistent with the regulatory requirements
for a license application, if the site is recommended. Program
scientists and engineers will analyze the design features in a total
system performance assessment that incorporates updated data from core
science activities and process models. In part, the increased fiscal
year 2001 allocation addresses requests and recommendations made by the
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission for further design enhancements and details. This work is
necessary to develop a repository and waste package design suitable for
a site recommendation and, further, evolving to a license application
design.
Licensing/Suitability/Performance Assessment:
Activities under Licensing/Suitability/Performance Assessment
encompass compiling the technical documentation that serves as the
basis of a suitability determination and a possible recommendation to
proceed with developing the Yucca Mountain site. If the Yucca Mountain
site is recommended by the President and Congress, for further
development, the program will refine and subsequently document its work
to shift the focus toward addressing the licensing expectations of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Assessing the performance of a
repository system at Yucca Mountain is critical to both a site
recommendation in fiscal year 2001 and any subsequent licensing
activities.
The fiscal year 2001 allocation of $85 million to Licensing/
Suitability/Performance Assessment is an increase of 38 percent ($23.6
million) above the fiscal year 2000 funding level. The culmination of
the program's site characterization efforts is to prepare the
documentation required under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to support a
decision on whether or not to submit a site recommendation to the
President. In support of a recommendation, the program's focus for
early fiscal year 2001 is to complete the Site Recommendation
Consideration Report. This report will present general background
information and descriptions of the site characterization program and
the site. It will also include descriptions of the repository design,
the waste form and waste packages, a discussion of data related to the
safety of the site, and a description of the performance assessment of
the repository.
The Site Recommendation Consideration Report and its supporting
documents will be made available to the State of Nevada, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, and stakeholders in fiscal year 2001. The
program will then focus its efforts on addressing their comments and
views. Public hearings will be held in the area around the Yucca
Mountain site. We also expect to receive comments from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, and views and comments from the Governor and
legislature of Nevada. These comments and our responses will be part of
the basis for a site recommendation presented to the President.
Assessing how a repository system at Yucca Mountain might perform
is critical to a decision regarding whether to recommend the site. The
performance assessment of a repository system at Yucca Mountain will be
refined to incorporate advances in the program's scientific
understanding of the natural systems at Yucca Mountain, and to
integrate refinements in waste package and repository design. Even
after a suitability evaluation and site recommendation decision is
made, performance assessment iterations would continue to address the
licensing expectations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and to
present the program's understanding of how a repository will perform at
limiting human exposure to radionuclide releases.
The license application technical data used for a repository and
waste package design, total system performance assessment, and models
for site processes and conditions, must be traceable and electronically
retrievable in accordance with the Commission's regulation 10 CFR Part
2, Subpart J. We will use the latest available web-based technologies
to ensure that program data and records are easily retrievable and
available to stakeholders.
Environmental Review under the National Environmental Policy Act:
The fiscal year 2001 allocation of $1.6 million to Environmental
Review is an increase of 21 percent ($0.3 million) above the fiscal
year 2000 funding level. During fiscal year 2001, we will complete all
necessary Environmental Review documentation, including the Final
Environmental Impact Statement, which is required by the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act to accompany a site recommendation. The fiscal year 2001
activities include a Departmental and inter-agency review of all
documents in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality
requirements, Environmental Protection Agency rules, and Department of
Energy implementing regulations. The program will also complete the
administrative work necessary to support the Final Environmental Impact
Statement.
Operations/Construction:
The fiscal year 2001 allocation of $33 million to Operations/
Construction is an increase of 10 percent ($3.0 million) above the
fiscal year 2000 funding level. This budget request will support the
completion of construction of the Exploratory Studies Facility.
Following completion, the program's operations activities will
transition to the maintenance of the underground facilities to conduct
confirmatory testing. These activities are in part to verify what we
have learned from our core science work, as well as to verify the
effectiveness of waste package and repository design.
External Oversight and Payments-Equal-to-Taxes (PETT):
The fiscal year 2001 allocation of $21.8 million to External
Oversight and Payments-Equal-to-Taxes is an increase of 33 percent
($5.4 million) above the fiscal year 2000 funding level. In its budget
request, the Administration continues to support the oversight
activities of the State of Nevada as required by the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act. These oversight activities are solely for independent
review of ongoing scientific and technical work. The fiscal year 2001
increase is the result of a newly negotiated payment-equal-to-taxes
agreement with the State of Nevada and the local counties; it restores
funding to the State of Nevada to support oversight activities.
External oversight activities consist of financial and technical
assistance to the State of Nevada and affected units of local
government (i.e., Churchill, Clark, Esmeralda, Eureka, Lander, Lincoln,
Mineral, Nye, and White Pine Counties in Nevada and Inyo County in
California). Payments-equal-to-taxes are made to the State of Nevada
and Nye and Clark Counties.
Yucca Mountain Project Management:
The fiscal year 2001 allocation of $36.3 million to Project
Management is a small increase--3 percent ($1.1 million)--above the
fiscal year 2000 funding level.
Project Management includes conducting public information and
outreach programs to ensure open and informative interactions with the
State of Nevada, units of local government, the public, technical
review organizations, and other program stakeholders. In fiscal year
2001, we expect increased interest due to the impending site
recommendation and environmental review activities. Project Management
will continue in fiscal year 2001 to further enhance project control
activities, including planning, budgeting, and scheduling, in
coordination with Program Management and Integration.
WASTE ACCEPTANCE, STORAGE, AND TRANSPORATION
The primary responsibilities of the Waste Acceptance, Storage, and
Transportation (WAST) Project are to develop a process for the physical
transfer of spent nuclear fuel to the federal government in accordance
with applicable legal requirements. In preparation for such a transfer
when a federal facility becomes available, the small budget request for
this area maintains the core capability to implement a private sector-
based national transportation capability for waste acceptance and
transportation, and to resolve institutional issues with stakeholders
in preparation for the implementation of the transfer.
Transportation
The fiscal year 2001 allocation of $1.75 million to Transportation
represents the resumption of activities to develop a private sector-
based national transportation capability that would be required if a
positive site recommendation is made in fiscal year 2001. The
Department plans to update and solicit comments on a draft request for
proposals for waste acceptance and transportation services after fiscal
year 2001, if the site is recommended by the Secretary and approved by
the President and Congress. After considering comments on the draft
request for proposals, we plan to release the final request for
proposals in fiscal year 2002.
Waste Acceptance
The fiscal year 2001 allocation of $1.5 million for Waste
Acceptance is a 20 percent ($0.25 million) increase from the fiscal
year 2000 funding level. Waste Acceptance activities will focus on
developing modifications to the Standard Disposal Contract to support
the acquisition of waste acceptance and transportation services from
the private sector. Fiscal year 2001 activities include updating the
commercial spent nuclear fuel discharge projections, which are
necessary to determine implementation of the Standard Disposal
Contract.
The fiscal year 2001 allocation will serve to integrate acceptance
criteria and schedules for Department-owned spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste under the auspices of the Office of
Environmental and Waste Management; surplus plutonium and mixed-oxide
fuel under the auspices of the National Nuclear Security
Administration; and spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste from the
naval reactor program.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INTEGRATION
The Program Management and Integration Activity oversees the
integration of Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office and Waste
Acceptance and Transportation Project activities to ensure that they
comply with all external regulatory requirements, Departmental
reporting and accounting systems, and oversight organizations.
The fiscal year 2001 allocation of $75.4 million to Program
Management and Integration is a 10 percent increase ($7.2 million)
above the fiscal year 2000 funding level. The increase reflects the
need to assure that major programmatic decision documents expected in
fiscal year 2001 comply with the statutory requirements of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act, as well as regulatory requirements imposed by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and
other federal oversight groups.
A significant portion of the fiscal year 2001 Program Management
and Integration allocation will go towards continuing to implement a
Nuclear Quality Assurance program that sufficiently addresses the
expectations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Under the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act, as amended, any facility that may be constructed must
be licensed by the Commission, thus necessitating the implementation of
an effective Nuclear Quality Assurance program.
The Program Management and Integration allocation funds a critical
element of the work required to reach the decision on site
recommendation, and that support the completion of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement, which must accompany a site
recommendation. A specialist contractor continues to finalize the
Environmental Impact Statement to develop an independent assessment
that meets the requirements for environmental reviews.
Finally, the fiscal year 2001 allocation will be utilized for
federal salaries and benefits, and mandatory costs to utilize
facilities and infrastructure for the federal staff.
LITIGATION
The Department is in litigation over the delay in meeting our
contractual obligation to accept spent fuel from the nuclear utility
companies by January 31, 1998. The issue of waste acceptance is clearly
one that is high on our agenda and we are actively working with
utilities in an effort to resolve it and the ongoing litigation.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, as I said in my opening
remarks, we have made significant progress. The Department is coming to
the end of a long road. When we set out to characterize the Yucca
Mountain site through an ambitious scientific program, we knew that we
would be faced with challenges. I believe that by the end of fiscal
year 2001, we will have met those challenges. While there will likely
be additional scientific and institutional issues that we will have to
address to support the licensing process if the site is recommended by
the Secretary and the President approves the recommendation, the
program is well positioned to move forward.
The program is nearing a decision in fiscal year 2001 to determine
if we can move ahead with a permanent solution to the management of our
nation's spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The
funding we have requested is needed to enable us to complete, on
schedule, the activities that are necessary for an informed policy
decision. The program has been able to maintain the schedule for major
milestones over the past years despite significant reductions from our
request level, but only by deferring critical work. Now, when we are so
close to significant decision points, we should not delay this program.
I urge you to consider favorably our appropriation request.
Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
FISCAL YEAR 1999-FISCAL YEAR 2000 HIGHLIGHTS
SUMMARY
Fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 funding overview
In fiscal year 1999, OCRWM received an appropriation of $358
million. Of this, $4 million was allocated to evaluate the feasibility
of Accelerator Transmutation of Waste technology, as directed by
Congress. We allocated $282 million (79 percent) to the Yucca Mountain
Site Characterization Project.
In fiscal year 2000, OCRWM received an appropriation of $351.2
million. Of that, we allocated over $281.2 million (80 percent) to the
Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project, the Program's principal
focus.
Focus of activities in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000
The near-term focus of the Program is to complete the work to
support the Secretary's decision on whether or not to recommend the
Yucca Mountain site to the President for further development as a
repository. Since the publication of the Viability Assessment of a
Repository at Yucca Mountain early in fiscal year 1999, the Program has
continued to gain momentum toward this recommendation. The Viability
Assessment has been used as a management tool to focus our site
characterization activities to support this recommendation.
In fiscal year 2000, as a result of a funding level below the
President's budget request, we prioritized our technical
investigations. Our focus in fiscal year 2000 was on the science and
engineering activities that most effectively reduce the level of
uncertainty in analyses of repository performance.
We have continued the transition begun a number of years ago from a
program previously dominated by underground construction activities and
corresponding investigative science to data synthesis, model
development and validation, performance assessment, and engineering
related to repository and waste package designs. The Program also
continues to place emphasis on Nuclear Quality Assurance activities to
ensure that the data and models we utilize will support licensing,
assuming the site is recommended and the President and Congress accept
the site recommendation.
KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Yucca Mountain
The Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office has made
significant progress toward completing the scientific investigations
and engineering studies that are necessary to support a determination
on the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site and a possible site
recommendation. Our work focused on three areas identified in the
Viability Assessment for further study: the presence and movement of
water through the repository block, the effects of water movement on
the waste package, and the effects of heat from the decay of
radioactive materials inside the waste packages on the site's geologic
and hydrologic behavior. Testing activities in all these areas have
yielded important data that enhance our understanding of the natural
characteristics and properties of Yucca Mountain and how a repository
at that site would perform.
In January 2000, we updated the Repository Safety Strategy. This
strategy is the roadmap that lays out our postclosure safety case to
support a site recommendation decision. It identifies the key factors
that affect repository performance and provides the basis for focusing
our remaining site characterization activities. As a result of this
prioritization, we believe that the basic processes that could affect
repository performance are understood, and that the main emphasis for
completing site characterization is to reduce uncertainties and to
validate our models.
Among our scientific and technical accomplishments are:
--Continuation of the drift-scale heater test, which we are
conducting to obtain data on the mechanical, thermohydrologic,
and thermochemical properties of the potential repository host
rock, 1000 feet below the surface of Yucca Mountain. The test
has been in operation since 1997 and will continue for several
more years. We have heated the rock and are maintaining the
drift wall temperature at 392 degrees Fahrenheit for two years,
before beginning a cool-down cycle. We have bored holes into
the drift walls at varying distances from the heater to collect
data and measure the results as the test progresses.
--Testing in the underground facility at Busted Butte near Yucca
Mountain, which provides an analog to the rock that lies below
the potential repository horizon. These tests are important to
understand the potential transport of certain radionuclides
from the repository area, through the unsaturated zone, and
into the water table underlying Yucca Mountain. We have found
that certain minerals, found naturally in the rock, bond with
radionuclides and inhibit their movement.
--Examination of the movement of moisture within the mountain. We
completed the cross drift in the Exploratory Studies Facility
and will complete construction of test alcoves this year. We
have begun a final set of experiments that will introduce water
above the Exploratory Studies Facility and will monitor
humidity and seepage in the Exploratory Studies Facility. We
are analyzing information from tracer injection experiments to
validate our estimates of seepage.
--Measurement of water levels from a series of monitoring stations
located in deep bore holes.
--Monitoring and collecting of information for the environmental
baseline, including wind, air quality, rainfall, surface water
runoff, and flora and fauna.
--Materials testing on the nuclear waste types expected to be
disposed in the repository to determine the effects on the
waste and cladding from heat, moisture, and chemical reactions.
--Continued testing of potential waste package materials to determine
corrosion rates and to identify other potential changes due to
heat, moisture, and chemical reactions.
--Design and trade-off studies to select the repository and waste
package reference design for the site recommendation and the
final environmental impact statement.
We recognize that uncertainty can affect confidence in decisions
related to the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site. In evolving the
repository design concept over the past year, we have sought to select
a design and to specify conditions on its implementation that are
responsive to concerns about demonstrating performance, while at the
same time balancing such significant factors as long-term public
safety, intergenerational equity, worker safety, and cost.
In September 1999, this natural evolution resulted in an enhanced
design that addresses these overarching concerns and responds to
recommendations by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. A key
aspect of the enhanced design is a lower repository temperature,
achieved through a set of thermal management techniques. We have also
emphasized the need for flexibility to ensure that new scientific and
engineering data gathered throughout the site characterization,
construction, and operation and monitoring phases can be accommodated
through reasonable changes in the repository design or operational
concept. Similarly, our emphasis on flexibility allows for changes that
might be driven by evolution in national policy at some future
juncture.
Our efforts to make necessary modifications to the regulatory
framework for evaluating the suitability of the Yucca have progressed.
On November 30, 1999, the Department published a proposed revision to
its repository siting guidelines. The comment period closed on February
28, 2000. The proposed revised guidelines reflect a shift away from a
generic approach, which compared one site to another using individual
technical criteria to a site-specific approach that relies on an
overall, integrated systems evaluation of the expected performance of a
repository at Yucca Mountain. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission took
this same approach in its licensing regulation. These regulations must
be compatible: a site that meets the Department's suitability
guidelines should be one that is likely to satisfy the Commission's
requirements and receive a license.
If the repository is to be licensed, the dose to a member of the
public, as predicted by our total system performance assessment models,
cannot exceed the regulatory standards that are now being finalized. In
fiscal year 1999, we developed the detailed bases of the performance
assessment models that will support this evaluation. These models
integrate data from site investigations and laboratory studies, expert
judgment, and information about engineered barriers. We updated the
performance assessment models to reflect new information from site
investigations and laboratory studies, advances in the modeling of
physical processes at the site, and the enhanced repository design. We
also completed a comprehensive peer review of our total system
performance assessment. This independent evaluation and critique
supports ongoing model refinement, which will be completed in fiscal
year 2000.
The Program's completion of the initial performance confirmation
plan for the repository is a forward-looking accomplishment that
underscores our commitment to ensuring repository performance. This
plan establishes that confirmatory testing will continue as long as
necessary before repository closure to assure the Department and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the repository system will isolate
waste as planned.
In July 1999, we reached a major program milestone by releasing the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the
Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at
Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. The draft environmental impact
statement presents the results of an analysis of potential impacts
associated with constructing, operating and monitoring, and eventually
closing a repository at Yucca Mountain and of transporting waste to
Yucca Mountain from 77 sites across the United States.
We recognize the need for public review of, and input into, this
important document and have accommodated many requests from our
stakeholders. During a 199-day public comment period, we conducted 21
hearings throughout the country to solicit comments on the draft
environmental impact statement. Over 2,600 individuals attended those
hearings and over 700 provided comments; the total number of comments
received at the hearings and in writing exceeded 3,300. The final
environmental impact statement will accompany a decision by the
Secretary on whether or not to recommend the site for development as a
permanent repository.
The U.S. leads the world in the science needed to develop a
geologic repository, and the Program is active in efforts to share
information and foster safe radioactive waste management around the
globe. On October 31-November 3, 1999, the Department sponsored an
international conference on geologic repositories. This conference
highlighted global progress on the management of nuclear materials and
radioactive waste, and provided a forum to discuss ongoing and planned
activities to develop geologic repositories. Both the policy and
technical aspects of geologic disposal were addressed, and conference
participants were invited to tour Yucca Mountain. Conference
participants issued a Joint Declaration reiterating the international
commitment to the safe management of nuclear waste.
As a separate initiative, OCRWM is working with the Russian
Federation in a cooperative program to support our nation's
nonproliferation objectives. We expect to complete a bilateral
agreement with the Russian Federation in fiscal year 2000 that will
foster collaborative repository research and assist the Russian
Federation in developing a path forward for radioactive waste and
surplus fissile materials disposition.
The Program also evaluated the potential application of accelerator
transmutation of waste to civilian spent nuclear fuel. In October 1999,
in response to prior Congressional direction, the Department submitted
to Congress ``A Roadmap for Developing Accelerator Transmutation of
Waste Technology.'' To prepare the report, OCRWM established a steering
group that included representatives from the key National Laboratories
and from the National Academy of Sciences. In addition, an
international expert panel outlined a science-based research program to
address key issues and possible implementation scenarios for
development and deployment of accelerator transmutation of waste
technology. One critical issue is whether the achievable benefits
outweigh the costs. Research by the National Academy of Sciences found
that accelerator transmutation of waste is technically feasible, but
would require billions of dollars and many decades to implement, and
would not eliminate the need for a repository.
WASTE ACCEPTANCE, STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION
During fiscal year 1999 and to date in fiscal year 2000, the Waste
Acceptance, Storage, and Transportation Project focused on planning the
process for accepting spent nuclear fuel from utilities and Department-
owned spent nuclear fuel and high-level wastes from the defense
complex. Our activities included updating inventories of commercial and
Department-owned materials destined for repository disposal, updating
verification plans, and completing prelicensing interactions with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the Phase 1 Centralized Interim
Storage Facility Topical Safety Analysis Report, the Dry-Transfer
System for Spent Nuclear Fuel Topical Safety Analysis Report, and the
Actinide-Only Burn-Up Credit Topical Report. The Department made
progress in developing modifications to the Standard Disposal Contract
to support the processes related to waste acceptance and transportation
services that will be provided by private sector vendors.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INTEGRATION
During fiscal year 1999 and to date in fiscal year 2000, the
Program's management center continued to support the activities of the
two projects--the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project and the
Waste Acceptance, Storage, and Transportation Project.
Quality Assurance is a critical component of our work products to
ensure that they can withstand scrutiny when the Site Recommendation
Consideration Report is released in fiscal year 2001. Through audits,
surveillances, and assessments, our QA personnel continued to work
closely with technical personnel conducting scientific studies, design
work, and performance assessment to identify the activities with
greatest impact on levels of confidence related to evaluations of site
suitability and possible license application. They examined whether
that work was performed under appropriate QA requirements, whether
requirements were fully understood, whether they were properly
implemented, and whether compliance was adequately documented. For
performance assessment, QA reviews focused on model validation,
qualification of existing data, and software control. Deficiencies were
evaluated and, where warranted, root causes were investigated. For each
deficiency, a corrective action plan was implemented.
We provided systems engineering and integration support for site
characterization, waste package design, and repository design
activities and for the waste acceptance and transportation initiatives.
We continued to conduct systems analyses to support selection of design
alternatives for the site recommendation and license application. We
prepared updates of the total system life-cycle cost and the fee
adequacy report. We updated interface control documents and refined the
Program's waste acceptance criteria for non-commercial spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
We coordinated and integrated the Program's activities with other
Departmental elements. With the Office of Environmental Management and
the Office of Fissile Materials Disposition, we continued to develop
and implement an integrated schedule for the Monitored Geologic
Disposal System.
We prepared updates to the OCRWM Program Plan and the Annual Report
to Congress, and supported updates of the Department's Strategic Plan.
In addition, we participated in numerous Nuclear Waste Technical Review
Board and panel meetings and in pre-licensing meetings with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
Our current management and operations contract expires in February
2001. We are currently recompeting this contract to ensure appropriate
support as we plan, integrate and manage a complex program in a Nuclear
Regulatory Commission licensing environment. In January 2000, we issued
a draft request for proposals to announce our intent to recompete this
contract, in accordance with Departmental guidelines and consistent
with Congressional direction.
We continued the development and implementation of a Program-wide
information architecture to provide the foundation for definition,
development, organization, management of, as well as access to, all
Program data, records, and information systems.
We continued to use the Internet to distribute a variety of
information to interested stakeholders. Many of the Program's policy
and technical documents are available to the public through our
electronic databases.
Finally, the Program met all Departmental Y2K milestones. Our
mission-critical systems were subsequently independently verified and
validated, and the transition to 2000 was problem-free.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Dr. Itkin.
Dr. Huntoon.
STATEMENT OF DR. CAROLYN L. HUNTOON
Dr. Huntoon. Senator McConnell, other members of the
committee, it is a pleasure to be here today to appear before
you. I have had the opportunity in the past several months to
visit the sites that I am responsible for, the former nuclear
weapon production sites. We are left with huge volumes of waste
that must be managed and stored.
There is extensive subsurface contamination that must be
remediated and large quantities of nuclear materials left over
from the production of the nuclear weapons--that we must store
and protect to make the public safe, as well as our workers.
We have a tremendous job to do. I have seen most of it
firsthand. In the 10 years since Environmental Management, EM,
was established, the department has made great strides in
addressing these problems. We have characterized a lot of the
waste streams and the subsurface contamination. We understand
better the nature and extent of the waste.
And we also have developed a life cycle analysis that we
continue to refine to improve our baseline cost. And we are
improving our project baselines to reduce costs.
Through contract reform, we are trying to improve our
performance and the accountability of our contractors. We have
accelerated the cleanup at Rocky Flats, and we have shown that
we know how to reduce costs and schedules, to improve project
management, and to incentivize the contractor.
In February, we signed a new performance-based contract for
the closure of Rocky Flats, which----
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, if I could interrupt just
briefly. Senator Daschle has asked me to attend a meeting. I
have a number of questions I would like to submit, and I will
do those with your permission. And they can respond at their
earliest convenience.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Senator Reid. We will be
happy to do that.
Senator Reid. Pardon me for the interruption.
Senator McConnell. Go ahead, Dr. Huntoon.
WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PROJECT
Dr. Huntoon. Each year we are making significant progress
all across the country. Last year we opened the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant, the world's first geological repository for
nuclear waste.
To date, we have made 48 shipments of transuranic waste to
WIPP from Rocky Flats, Los Alamos and Idaho. This includes 3
shipments from Rocky Flats under the new WIPP permit. This year
we expect to begin shipping from Hanford and Savannah River. In
fiscal year 2001, we plan to make about 485 shipments.
We completed our cleanup work at three more sites in fiscal
year 1999. We will complete two more sites this year and three
more in 2001, which will bring a total of 74 sites completed,
nearly two-thirds of our inventory.
In fiscal year 1999, we vitrified 248 canisters of high-
level waste at Savannah River and West Valley. And we expect to
produce 400 more at Savannah River in 2000/2001.
In fiscal year 2001, we are requesting $6.318 billion: $4
billion in the defense and environmental restoration management
appropriation, a little over $1 billion in the defense
facilities closure project appropriation, $286 million in non-
defense environmental management appropriation, and $303
million for the uranium enrichment decontamination and
decommissioning fund. In addition, $515 million is set aside in
the defense privatization appropriation.
Let me offer just a few highlights from our request. At
Richland we are beginning to move corroding spent nuclear fuel
from wet storage in the K Basins near the Columbia River to a
new dry, safe facility away from the river. At Savannah River,
we continue to process spent nuclear and plutonium-bearing
materials in both the F and H Canyons, where these materials
will be converted into safe forms for longer storage.
Our request would significantly increase funds to
accelerate the pace of cleanup at the gaseous diffusion plants
at Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio. At Paducah we will
complete removal of Drum Mountain by the end of the year using
additional funds provided by Congress for fiscal year 2000.
However, to reduce our cost and schedules further, we need
new technologies. Our previous science and technology
investments are beginning to pay off. We now have over 500
deployments of new technologies across the complex. I plan to
continue these necessary investments.
Our laboratory in Idaho plays a critical research role as
the lead laboratory for our EM science and technology programs.
The Idaho site is developing technologies to fulfill our long-
term stewardship responsibility. It also specializes in
subsurface science to enable us to better understand the
movement of the contaminants below the earth's surface.
Also concerning our Idaho site, we submitted a
reprogramming last week for $11.5 million to allow us to
complete the transfer of the Three Mile Island spent nuclear
fuel, from an old storage pond to a new dry storage facility.
Without this reprogramming, we will have to stop work on this
important project in May, putting commitments under the
settlement agreement at risk. We would appreciate your
consideration of this request.
PRIVATIZATION ACTIVITIES
In August of this year, we will determine whether or not to
authorize BNFL to proceed with the construction of a privatized
facility to vitrify high-level waste at Hanford. Currently
there are about 54 million gallons of waste stored in
underground tanks near the Columbia River.
These tanks were designed for temporary, not permanent,
storage. Some of the older tanks have leaked radioactive waste
into the ground water that eventually flows to the river. Our
agreement with the State of Washington requires us to begin
removal and treatment of the waste by 2007.
Under the privatization approach, the department will not
pay the contractor until vitrified waste is produced according
to the terms of the contract. The assumption of financial risk
by other contractors will provide more incentives for
performance than traditional government contracting approaches.
I assure you the department will not authorize construction
of these facilities until we are convinced the contractor's
proposal meets all of our requirements and is in the best
interest of the Federal Government. We will provide a rigorous
review of the contractor's financing mechanisms, technical
approaches, work schedules and cost information.
If BNFL is authorized to proceed, I request a $450 million
in privatization budget authority that will enable the
contractor to begin long lead procurement of items, start
construction, and provide additional design. This will enable
them to have a higher degree of confidence in the design prior
to construction. At lower levels of funding, we would have to
reevaluate the benefits of privatization approach.
Finally, my philosophy has been to do all our work safely.
We will not compromise the safety of our workers or the
environment for a schedule. We have communicated that principle
to all of our contractors. I intend to ensure that all the EM
personnel understand and meet their safety and security
responsibilities.
In conclusion, cleaning up the legacy of environmental
contamination from nuclear weapon production will fulfill a
legal and a moral obligation that we owe to the States and the
communities that helped us both in the Second World War and the
Cold War. This is important work. I am enthusiastic about it
and committed to meeting the challenge.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. CAROLYN L. HUNTOON
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this
opportunity to appear before you to discuss the Department of Energy's
Environmental Management (EM) program and its fiscal year 2001 budget
request.
Our budget request of $6.318 billion for fiscal year 2001 for the
EM program will enable the Department to continue our progress cleaning
up our sites. The request seeks $5.803 billion in traditional budget
authority and $515 million in budget authority to support privatization
projects. This is a total increase of approximately $440 million over
this year's current appropriation.
This level of funding in our request supports critical safety
programs for the protection of workers who carry out cleanup activities
across the DOE complex; accelerates cleanup at key sites; enables the
Department to be substantially in compliance with legal agreements and
requirements; responds to Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
recommendations; addresses significant safety risks; and continues
efforts to develop alternative technologies that can reduce the cost
and schedule of cleanup. The request keeps us on track with meeting
accelerated closure schedules at Rocky Flats in Colorado, and at the
Mound and Fernald sites in Ohio. We will be able to continue progress
at all sites, including treatment and disposal of nuclear waste and
safe management of nuclear materials.
The fiscal year 2001 request for the EM program represents a
significant increase over the fiscal year 2000 appropriation, both in
traditional budget authority and in funding for privatization projects.
We are requesting an additional $113 million in traditional budget
authority and $327 million more for privatization, an eight percent
increase overall. These additional funds will enable the Department to
make more progress in fiscal year 2001--more shipments of transuranic
waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), accelerated cleanup at
the Paducah and Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plants, and the completion
of EM cleanup at Argonne National Laboratory-West in Idaho, Monticello
Remedial Action Project in Utah, and Grand Junction Site in Colorado.
With this request we will also be able to maintain the schedule for the
design, construction, and operation of a privatized vitrification plant
for high-level nuclear waste at the Hanford site in Washington. This
waste is currently in underground storage tanks near the Columbia
River.
INTRODUCTION
Before discussing our fiscal year 2001 budget request, I would like
to provide an overview of our program and describe some of the actions
I have taken since being confirmed as Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management in July 1999, as well as highlight some of our
accomplishments in the past year and our planned achievements for the
current fiscal year.
Meeting the Challenge of the Environmental Legacy
The Environmental Management program is responsible for managing
and cleaning up the environmental legacy of the nation's nuclear
weapons program and government-sponsored nuclear energy research. If
there is one common theme at all of the very diverse facilities across
the country where the EM program is conducting cleanup, it is the
challenge presented by the magnitude and complexity of the task we face
in managing large volumes of nuclear wastes, safeguarding materials
that could be used in nuclear weapons, and remediating extensive
surface and groundwater contamination.
In total, we are responsible for addressing an estimated 1.7
trillion gallons of contaminated groundwater and 40 million cubic
meters of contaminated soil and debris. EM is responsible for safely
storing and guarding more than 18 metric tons of weapons-usable
plutonium, enough for hundreds of nuclear weapons. Our inventory
includes over two thousand tons of intensely radioactive spent nuclear
fuel, some of which is corroding. EM is also responsible for storage,
treatment, and disposal of radioactive and hazardous waste, including
over 340,000 cubic meters of high-level waste stored at the Hanford,
Idaho, New York and Savannah River sites; and for deactivation and
decommissioning of about 4,000 facilities that are no longer needed to
support the Department's mission. In addition, the EM program also has
responsibility for critical nuclear non-proliferation programs to
accept and safely manage spent nuclear fuel from foreign research
reactors that contains weapons-usable highly enriched uranium.
Completing the cleanup of the legacy from nuclear weapons
production will meet our legal and moral obligation to those
communities and states that supported our national defense effort and
helped win both the Second World War and the Cold War. Completing this
cleanup will allow us to turn lands and facilities to other public uses
and allow the Department to focus on its science, security, and energy
missions.
Principles and Priorities for the EM Program
The actual tasks of remediating contamination and storing,
treating, and disposing of wastes are performed exclusively in the
field, at the sites where the contamination and wastes are located. The
role of Headquarters is to provide program guidance and management as
to how this work will be conducted. I have established several
management principles and priorities that will guide the program under
my leadership. They are:
--Safety first;
--Reduce risks;
--Meet our commitments;
--Accelerate site cleanup and project completion; Strengthen project
management;
--Integrate nuclear waste and materials management and operations to
take advantage of site capabilities across the DOE complex;
--Build public confidence and involve stakeholders in our cleanup
decisions and actions;
--Develop an effective long-term stewardship program--at many sites
after cleanup is completed the Department will retain
responsibilities for long-term monitoring and maintenance; and
--Apply the best science and technology to solve technical problems
and reduce costs.
The EM Headquarters office has recently been organized to implement
these principles and better align the EM program with our goals. The
new structure groups management of closure sites together to ensure the
lessons learned about facilitating closure are shared across the
complex. It also establishes specific organizations focused on safety,
project management, and long-term stewardship, as well as science and
technology and cross-complex integration. The re-organization, formally
in place last November, provides stability to an organization that had
seen significant personnel reductions in the past few years and
establishes permanent managers and staff throughout the organization.
We will continue to work towards cleaning up as many of the
remaining contaminated sites as possible by 2006, safely and cost-
effectively. By working toward this goal, we not only reduce the
hazards presently facing our workforce and the public, but also reduce
the long-term financial burden on the taxpayer. For every year that a
site remains open because cleanup has not been completed, we are paying
a ``mortgage'' of overhead costs for activities such as site security,
facility operations, personnel, and safety. Our budget request, and our
organization in Headquarters, is now structured to emphasize site
closure, and site/project completion at our larger sites and our sites
with continuing missions.
Progress and Accomplishments in Cleaning Up and Closing Sites
I am pleased to report that our program has produced substantial
cleanup results at contaminated nuclear facilities around the country.
Our accomplishments reflect the program's continued commitment to
performance-based management, establishing stretch goals and
performance measures that demonstrate our progress in on-the-ground
environmental cleanup and meeting our goals. For example:
--The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) opened and began disposal
operations in March 1999. Since its opening through November
1999, 44 shipments of transuranic waste have been sent to WIPP
for disposal from Los Alamos National Laboratory, Rocky Flats,
and Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
(INEEL). We expect that the Hanford and Savannah River sites
will begin shipping waste to WIPP in fiscal year 2000.
--We continued to successfully operate two high-level waste
vitrification facilities in South Carolina and at West Valley
in New York where last year we produced 248 canisters of
vitrified high-level waste. In fiscal year 2000, we expect to
produce at least 200 more canisters at the Savannah River Site
facility, bringing the total canisters poured at this facility
to more than 900 canisters since the facility began operating
in 1996. We will vitrify five canisters of waste at West
Valley.
--At Rocky Flats, we continued to make great strides towards meeting
our 2006 closure goal, including completing shipments of
plutonium pits to the Pantex Plant in Texas and shipments of
highly enriched uranium to the Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge
Tennessee. In addition, we demolished a plutonium research
facility and made 12 shipments of transuranic waste to WIPP.
--EM completed its cleanup work at three more sites in fiscal year
1999 and will clean up two more sites by the end of fiscal year
2000. This will bring the number of completed sites to 71, with
42 sites remaining.
--At the Hanford Site, we have made significant progress in reducing
the urgent risks associated with the 177 underground high-level
waste tanks at the Hanford site, some of which are known to
have leaked to the surrounding soils threatening groundwater
and the nearby Columbia River. We resolved high priority safety
issues in several tanks, such as the generation of high heat in
one tank and a rise in the surface level in another. We are
also interim stabilizing single-shell tanks, transferring free
liquids in the tanks to more secure double-shelled tanks. We
have begun pumping free liquids from six single-shelled tanks,
meeting all milestones in the Consent Decree with the State of
Washington. Also at Hanford, we continue stabilization
activities to reduce the risks posed by unstable plutonium
materials. In addition, in August 2000 we expect to make a
decision on whether to authorize the construction of the
privatized facility to vitrify the liquid tank waste.
--At Weldon Spring in Missouri, we finished treatment of waste pit
sludge in the Chemical Stabilization and Solidification
Facility in fiscal year 1999, with about 180,000 cubic yards of
treated sludge placed in the disposal facility, and the
treatment facility was decommissioned. We plan to complete
waste placement in the 1.5 million cubic yard capacity disposal
facility in fiscal year 2000, with only the completion of the
facility cover remaining.
--At INEEL, we completed construction of a dry storage facility for
the Three Mile Island spent nuclear fuel and began transfer of
the fuel to the facility. We also made four shipments of
transuranic waste to WIPP, meeting a major milestone in the
settlement agreement with the State of Idaho, signed in October
1995. In addition, we expect to begin construction on the
Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment facility in fiscal year 2000.
--In fiscal year 1999, we disposed of 49,000 cubic meters of low-
level waste, 14,000 cubic meters of mixed low-level waste, and
282 cubic meters of transuranic waste at disposal facilities at
DOE sites and at commercial disposal facilities.
--At the Mound Plant in Miamisburg Ohio, we continue progress toward
the 2004 closure goal. In fiscal year 1999, we completed
shipment of all remaining legacy low-level and mixed low-level
waste from the site. By the end of fiscal year 2000, we expect
to complete the removal of all remaining nuclear materials from
the site and complete decommissioning of three more buildings.
--Also at Mound, we transferred two buildings and 27 acres to the
City of Miamisburg in fiscal year 1999, and we expect to deed
over two more buildings and another 100 acres in fiscal year
2000.
--We awarded the privatization contract for the design, construction,
operation and capping of a waste disposal facility at Oak Ridge
for up to 400,000 cubic meters of contaminated soils and
debris. In addition, we expect to issue a Record of Decision
for the transuranic waste treatment project at Oak Ridge.
--In support of non-proliferation goals, we have now completed a
total of fourteen shipments of spent nuclear fuel from foreign
research reactors in 23 countries including Brazil, South
Korea, and Venezuela.
--On-the-ground use of new innovative technologies continues to
increase. During fiscal year 1999, DOE sites used innovative
technologies 218 times in cleanup activities. For example, the
Segmented Gate System (SGS) was successfully used for projects
at Sandia National Laboratories and Los Alamos. This technology
is a computer-controlled mechanical sorter that separates clean
soil from contaminated waste streams, thereby significantly
reducing the volume of waste to be packaged and disposed of,
and reducing costs by up to 75 percent.
--Also in fiscal year 1999, 40 innovative technologies were made
available for use for the first time. One such technology is
the Multifunction Corrosion Probe now being used in the tanks
at Hanford. This technology helps reduce the volume of tank
waste by allowing workers to directly monitor the rate of tank
corrosion and add only the minimum amount of sodium hydroxide
necessary to inhibit corrosion.
--During fiscal year 2000, the sites expect to deploy new technology
at least 60 times in cleanup activities. For example, the
Lasagna electro-osmosis process will be used to remove
groundwater contaminants at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion
Plant.
THE FISCAL YEAR 2001 REQUEST
The fiscal year 2001 budget request of $5.803 billion in
traditional budget authority and $515 million in budget authority to
support privatization projects will enable EM to continue making
progress across the country. In fiscal year 2001, we will continue to
give priority to high risk problems such as stabilizing and ensuring
the security of plutonium at several sites; stabilizing tanks
containing high-level radioactive waste; and ensuring the safe storage
of spent nuclear fuel, including foreign research reactor fuel in
support of non-proliferation goals. We will continue to move closer to
the goal of completing the cleanup of Rocky Flats, the Mound Site and
Fernald in Ohio, and Weldon Spring in Missouri by 2006. We will
complete the cleanup of three additional DOE sites. We will accelerate
the cleanup of the uranium enrichment plants at Portsmouth, Ohio, and
Paducah, Kentucky, and will significantly increase the number of
shipments to WIPP. We also are requesting funds to begin construction
of the privatized high-level waste vitrification plant at the Hanford
site.
Safety First
The safety of our workers is our highest priority. We will not
compromise the safety of our workers in any of our activities. As our
cleanup accelerates, we must ensure that we have truly implemented and
institutionalized Integrated Safety Management--the systems,
procedures, and behavioral attitudes in place to continually improve
our safety performance. In the recent EM reorganization, I created the
Office of Safety, Health and Security to consolidate EM's resources,
expertise and experience in these areas. A primary objective of this
office is to ensure all EM personnel understand their responsibilities
in the areas of safety and security so that these concepts and
practices are integral to all EM programs and activities. Safety
culture flows from actions by the senior management of an organization.
These actions enforce understanding at every level that constant
attention to safety has incremental beneficial effects, and the absence
of these actions can almost guarantee adverse consequences. We are
improving our safety orientation and performance as we strive to become
a leader in safety throughout the DOE complex, with an approach to and
record in safety that meets or exceeds the best private industrial
firms. Managers at all levels are responsible for monitoring, taking
appropriate actions to ensure that a commitment to safety is engendered
throughout the organization, and participating in feedback systems so
that continual improvements can be realized. We will be successful when
we consider safety in everything we do--whether it is budget
allocation, work formulation and prioritization, or staffing.
Making more Progress in Reducing Risks
Move spent nuclear fuel from K Basins at Hanford.--The fiscal year
2001 request furthers our efforts to protect the Columbia River by
beginning the removal of spent nuclear fuel from K-Basins at the
Hanford Site in Washington. Our request will enable us to meet the
milestone to begin fuel removal in November 2000. This project will
carry out a first-of-a-kind technical solution to move 2,100 metric
tons of corroding spent nuclear fuel from at-risk wet storage
conditions in the K-East and K-West basins adjacent to the Columbia
River into safe, dry storage in a new facility away from the river.
Achieving this milestone will represent a significant
accomplishment for a project that previously suffered from technical
and management problems that delayed schedules and increased costs. We
are now on track with a new baseline established in December 1998 that
provides a realistic means to move this spent fuel to a safer facility
and location.
Move Three Mile Island Spent Nuclear Fuel to Safe Storage.--At
INEEL, we will complete the transfer of Three Mile Island spent nuclear
fuel to dry storage and the transfer of spent nuclear fuel at the Idaho
Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) from aging,
deteriorating underwater storage to safer storage facilities. These
transfers reduce environmental and safety risks and fulfill commitments
in the Idaho Settlement Agreement.
Stabilize Plutonium at Hanford and Savannah River Sites.--We are
reducing risks by stabilizing plutonium-bearing materials at the
Hanford and the Savannah River Sites. At Hanford, we will continue
stabilization of plutonium-bearing materials and oxides at the
Plutonium Finishing Plant. In addition, we will begin operating the
bagless transfer system for packaging plutonium-bearing materials and
complete brushing and repackaging of plutonium metal inventory. These
stabilization activities support our commitment to the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board and are a critical step in the deactivation of
Plutonium Finishing Plant, which will significantly reduce mortgage
costs at Hanford.
The request supports critical work to stabilize plutonium residues
and other plutonium-bearing materials from the Savannah River Site and
other sites across the complex, including plutonium residues and other
plutonium-bearing materials from the Rocky Flats site in Colorado, in
the F-Canyon and H-Canyon at Savannah River. Stabilization of these
``at risk'' materials is critical in resolving health and safety
concerns surrounding these radioactive materials, since they are now in
liquid or unstable forms unsuitable for long-term storage; supporting
closure goals at Rocky Flats; and responding to Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board recommendations.
Stabilize High-Level Waste in Underground Storage Tanks at
Hanford.--In fiscal year 2001, we will continue improving safety of the
high-level waste tanks by resolving high priority safety issues such as
flammable gas generation and continuing interim stabilization work that
involves pumping liquid waste from single-shelled tanks into double-
shelled tanks. The remaining two tanks which are suspected of having
leaked in the past will be pumped during fiscal year 2001.
Receive Foreign Research Reactor Fuel.--The fiscal year 2001
request continues support for the return of spent nuclear fuel
containing uranium originally enriched in the United States from
foreign research reactors around the world. This program reduces the
threat of nuclear proliferation by ensuring enriched uranium will not
be used to make nuclear weapons. It also supports a U.S. nuclear
weapons nonproliferation policy calling for the reduction and eventual
elimination of the use of highly enriched uranium in civil programs
worldwide.
Spent nuclear fuel will be shipped from research reactors in
Argentina, Austria, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Japan to the
United States in fiscal year 2001, and the Department is working with
other interested, eligible foreign research reactors in The
Netherlands, Chile, and Indonesia in an attempt to include additional
countries in the 2001 shipment schedule.
Blend-down of Highly Enriched Uranium at Savannah River.--The
fiscal year 2001 EM request includes $37.9 million to support a
creative approach to convert the Department's store of surplus highly
enriched uranium to low enriched uranium for use as a commercial
reactor fuel, offering a means to eliminate the proliferation risk
posed by this weapons-grade material. The ``Blend-Down'' project,
managed by the Office of Fissile Materials Disposition, is a
collaboration between DOE and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),
which will use the converted fuel in its nuclear power reactors. The
project is highly beneficial to both agencies. First, blending down the
highly enriched uranium to low enriched uranium furthers DOE's non-
proliferation goals. Second, it will reduce DOE's long-term liabilities
and risks associated with storing the material as highly enriched
uranium or converting it to a waste form for disposal. Third,
transferring the low enriched uranium solution to TVA's vendors will
satisfy a DOE commitment to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board. Fourth, TVA will realize significant savings as compared to
buying virgin fuel on the open market. Depending on actual program
costs and uranium market prices, DOE may ultimately receive a share of
the savings.
The request will provide for a loading station at the Savannah
River Site to transfer the uranium solutions from the H-area tanks to
shipping containers and fund other infrastructure requirements for the
project at the site. The project will use existing reprocessing
facilities at the site and, as currently planned, will not extend the
life of Savannah River reprocessing facilities or increase EM
operational funding requirements.
Meeting our Commitments
At the fiscal year 2001 request level of $6.318 billion, EM will be
substantially in compliance with applicable environmental and other
legal requirements. Most of our activities are governed by federal and
state environmental statutes and regulations and enforceable agreements
between the Department and federal and state agencies. We are committed
to complying with these legal requirements and agreements. In addition,
we plan to meet our commitments to the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board. In several cases, we need to work closely with our
regulators and the Board as well as our stakeholders and Tribal
Nations, on the appropriate schedule and milestones for our program. We
will continue to work to reduce costs and accelerate schedules so that
we can meet our compliance requirements in the most practical and cost-
effective manner.
Accelerating Site Cleanup and Project Completion
Complete More Site Cleanups.--In fiscal year 2001, we will continue
to make progress toward the goal of cleaning up as many of the
remaining contaminated sites as possible by 2006, safely and cost-
effectively. At the start of fiscal year 1997, shortly after the EM
program first established this goal, 61 of the 113 sites in the EM
program required active cleanup. We now have completed cleanup at 69
sites, and have 44 sites that still require active cleanup. We plan to
complete cleanup at two additional sites this fiscal year and at three
sites in fiscal year 2001--Argonne National Laboratory-West in Idaho,
Monticello Remedial Action Project in Utah, and Grand Junction Site in
Colorado. In fact, we are accelerating the cleanup at Grand Junction to
2001 from 2002 as initially planned. We plan to reduce the number of
cleanup sites remaining to 39 by the end of fiscal year 2001.
Complete Vitrification of High-Level Waste at West Valley.--At the
West Valley Demonstration Project in New York, we will achieve
significant milestones in carrying out the Department's
responsibilities at this once privately-owned commercial nuclear
processing facility. We will complete high-level waste vitrification
processing, producing the final five canisters, and begin deactivation
of the vitrification facility. At the end of the vitrification
campaign, the Department will have vitrified 600,000 gallons of liquid
high-level waste, reducing risks to the workers and public by
converting the waste into a stable form. We will also complete the
shipment of all spent nuclear fuel to INEEL. Removing the 125 spent
fuel elements from the spent fuel pool at West Valley is a prerequisite
for decontamination and decommissioning of facilities.
Make Progress Toward Closing Rocky Flats by 2006.--The budget
request of $664.7 million supports closure of Rocky Flats by December
15, 2006, the closure date targeted in the new cost-plus-incentive-fee
contract with Kaiser-Hill that took effect February 1, 2000. The Rocky
Flats site is the largest site challenged to accelerate site cleanup
and achieve closure in 2006 and, to date, significant progress has been
made toward making this goal a reality. Despite the many challenges
facing the closure of Rocky Flats, we are confident that the terms and
conditions of the closure contract, including the schedule and
performance incentives, better position us to achieve our goal of
realizing substantial savings and dramatic risk reduction through
accelerated closure. Critical elements in the closure strategy are
stable funding for the life of the project and the ability to move
nuclear materials and radioactive wastes from the site, which requires
that other sites--often DOE sites--are available and prepared to accept
the materials. The coordination of these planned shipping campaigns to
the receiver sites demonstrates the Department-wide commitment to the
goal of achieving accelerated closure of Rocky Flats.
In fiscal year 2000, we began operating under a baseline that
supports closure in 2006, which replaced a baseline for completing
cleanup in 2010, and our activities and schedules for fiscal year 2001
are consistent with this baseline. Under this baseline, by the end of
2001, we will:
--complete 98 percent of plutonium residues packaging for shipment;
--complete the draining of the liquid plutonium from the pipes in
Building 771 and remove the pipes in preparation for
demolishing the building;
--complete 88 percent of plutonium metal and oxides packaging for
shipment;
--complete 80 percent of plutonium metal and oxides off-site
shipments.
The new closure contract, valued at nearly $4.0 billion plus
incentive payments, requires Kaiser-Hill to submit a revised baseline
reflecting the terms and conditions of the contract by the end of June
2000. The specific activities detailed within the fiscal year 2001
request will be adjusted pending review and acceptance of the new
baseline.
Under the new contract, the Department and Kaiser-Hill are better
positioned to safely achieve site closure by 2006. We have clearly come
a long way since the previous contractor estimated a few years ago that
it would take $30 billion and 30 years to complete cleanup at Rocky
Flats.
Increase Shipments to WIPP.--The fiscal year 2001 budget request of
$194.5 million, a $13 million increase over the fiscal year 2000
appropriation, supports more shipments of transuranic waste to WIPP in
New Mexico. The fiscal year 2001 request supports shipments of contact-
handled transuranic waste at a rate of 13 shipments per week by the end
of fiscal year 2001, a significant increase over the end-of-year rate
of two shipments per week in fiscal year 1999, and five shipments per
week in fiscal year 2000. The number of shipments will increase from
about 120 in fiscal year 2000 to about 485 in fiscal year 2001, from
Rocky Flats, Los Alamos, INEEL, Hanford, and the Savannah River Site.
We will also be completing remote-handled transuranic waste equipment
upgrades and regulatory submittals, in preparation for beginning
remote-handled waste shipments in fiscal year 2002.
Begin the Construction Phase of High-level Waste Treatment Facility
at Hanford.--The fiscal year 2001 request provides $450 million in
budget authority to support the privatization project to develop
treatment facilities to vitrify at least 10 percent by volume of the 54
million gallons of high-level waste now stored in underground tanks at
the Hanford Site in Washington, a project managed by DOE's Office of
River Protection. This significant increase over the request of $105.7
million in the fiscal year 2000 appropriation anticipates a decision in
fiscal year 2000 authorizing the contractor, BNFL, Inc., to proceed
with the start of the construction phase for the facilities. The
project is now in a phase in which the contractor will complete 30
percent of the design process, obtain financing, and submit a fixed-
price bid. The Department will evaluate the contractor's proposal, as
well as determine whether all other critical elements, such as the
delivery of the waste to the facility, are in place and ready to
support the project and the schedule. Based on this in-depth
evaluation, the Department will make a decision, expected in August
2000, on whether to proceed. If the Department authorizes construction
to proceed, the amount requested in fiscal year 2001 will allow the
contractor to initiate long-lead procurements and begin construction.
We are requesting less for fiscal year 2001 than previously
indicated because design work has progressed at a slower pace than
originally anticipated. We are confident that we will have sufficient
design completed to make the authorization to proceed decision in
August as scheduled, but we intend to develop a robust and complete
design before beginning construction and long-lead procurement. As a
result, construction and long-lead procurement activities will not be
at the same pace in fiscal year 2001 as indicated previously. This
approach will provide the Department and the Congress with additional
confidence in the project before we move forward.
In addition, we are requesting $382 million in traditional budget
authority for the Office of River Protection, a $44 million increase
from last year. This funding enables the Department to mitigate the
hazards associated with the high-level waste in the tanks and safely
maintain them. It also funds the preparation of the tank farm retrieval
system that will deliver tank waste to the privatized treatment
facility. The schedule for developing the waste delivery system and
preparing waste must be fully integrated with the privatized facility
schedule in order for the treatment to begin on time. We will be
determining the readiness of this waste feed system when making the
decision next August regarding the authorization-to-proceed with a
treatment facility. This part of the project will continue to be funded
through traditional budget authority, as reflected in this year's
request.
Accelerate Cleanup at Portsmouth and Paducah.--Our fiscal year 2001
budget request responds to concerns raised by investigations by DOE's
Office of Environment, Safety and Health (EH) about the pace of
cleanup, and fulfills the Secretary's commitment to seek additional
funds to accelerate cleanup of environmental contamination at the
gaseous diffusion plants at Paducah, Kentucky and Portsmouth, Ohio.
This also meets the recommendations in the Conference Report for the
fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act to
substantially increase funding for cleanup of these two sites. These
plants were used to enrich uranium for defense and energy purposes and
were transferred to the U.S. Enrichment Corporation in 1998.
The Department is requesting $78 million for Paducah in fiscal year
2001, nearly $24 million more than in fiscal year 2000 and almost a
two-fold increase from the appropriation in fiscal year 1999. These
funds will allow us to complete the removal of ``Drum Mountain,'' a
large scrap pile containing thousands of drums, which is a suspected
source of contamination of the Big and Little Bayou Creeks from surface
run-off. We will remove the remaining 51,000 tons of contaminated scrap
metal stored in outside storage areas, allowing characterization of the
ground underneath the piles. The funds will be used to continue
stabilization activities in two shut down buildings. We will also be
able to characterize and dispose of the remaining 9,000 drums of low-
level radioactive waste, some of which are currently stored in
deteriorating drums, and ship 2,000 drums of mixed waste to an off-site
disposal facility. These activities address specific concerns raised by
the EH investigation team.
The request provides $76.2 million for cleanup activities at the
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, about $30 million more than in
fiscal year 2000. This funding will allow the site to complete final
corrective actions for the groundwater plumes on the south side of the
site containing such chemical contaminants as polychlorinated byphenyls
(PCBs), trichloroethylene (TCE), and chromium and begin design and
construction for soil and groundwater contamination on the north side.
We will also dispose of contaminated soil and accelerate
characterization and disposal of mixed hazardous and radioactive waste.
The increased funding will keep us on track with completing
environmental restoration activities by fiscal year 2002 and waste
management activities by fiscal year 2006.
We also have submitted a supplemental request for $16 million in
fiscal year 2000 to accelerate work at the Portsmouth and Paducah
plants. We appreciate this Subcommittee's favorable consideration of
our request.
Make Progress Toward Closure at Ohio Sites.--At the Fernald
Environmental Management Project, we will continue accelerating closure
of this former uranium production facility. We will place a permanent
cap on Cell 1 of the On-site Disposal Facility using an innovative
capping technology. This facility, designed to have seven cells with an
option for an eighth, is enabling us to accelerate disposal of
contaminated soil and debris resulting from cleanup and building
demolition.
At the Mound Plant in Ohio, we will accelerate tritium
decontamination in buildings on the ``critical path'' to closure,
completing decontamination of three of eight acres in the Semi-Works
building, one of three significant contaminated buildings that comprise
the tritium complex. We will also continue demolition of surplus
buildings. Of the 107 buildings to be removed from the site,
approximately 50 percent will be either demolished or auctioned off by
fiscal year 2001.
Begin Work at the Uranium Mill Tailings Site in Moab.--The budget
request also includes a proposal that the Department undertake cleanup
of a uranium mill tailings site in Moab, Utah, formerly owned by the
now-bankrupt Atlas Corporation. The tailings contain low-levels of
radioactivity from uranium, radium and their decay products, as well as
hazardous constituents that present a small but continuing risk for
contamination of the Colorado River. There have been concerns expressed
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as local communities and
downstream states, about the risks posed to the river. Located next to
the river, the site is in a major tourist area because of its proximity
to two National Parks. The Department believes it is important to
preserve these national treasures and restore the environment. Our
experience with cleanup of older uranium mill tailings sites, many of
which were located along streams and rivers, makes the Department well-
suited to this task. We are proposing to work with Congress to develop
legislation that would direct the Department to undertake this $200 to
$300 million cleanup project to relocate and stabilize the Moab
tailings at a secure site, away from the river. We are requesting $10
million in fiscal year 2001 in the non-defense account to initiate
activities at this site.
Strengthening Project Management
Project management principles and practices provide the discipline
for EM to achieve its cleanup goals efficiently. To effectively oversee
and manage our contractor workforce, we must be knowledgeable of and
employ state-of-the-industry project management practices. I have
created an Office of Project Management within EM to set project
management policies and procedures, conduct independent project
reviews, and train our staff in project management practices. This
office is working with organizations such as the Construction Industry
Institute, the Project Management Institute, and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, to bring state-of-the-art project
management tools and training into the EM program to enable us to
better manage our projects.
Many of our sites have improved their project baselines and project
management practices in the last year. The Oak Ridge Operations Office
completed a comprehensive revision of their baselines that provides the
most complete and thorough baselines to date for their sites. The Idaho
Operations Office implemented a process for re-estimating about half of
their baselines, resulting in higher confidence in their estimates. A
new baseline for the project at the Hanford site to move spent nuclear
fuel from the aging K-Basins to safer, dry storage was established in
fiscal year 1999 that provided the first realistic and achievable cost
and schedule to accomplish the transfer of the fuel. The Rocky Flats
site revised its baseline to reflect a 2006 closure rather than the
2010 closure date in last year's baseline. Additional improvements in
baselines are under way this year at Idaho and Rocky Flats with
selected improvements elsewhere.
Over the past year we have developed and implemented a system of
internal controls. We are requiring that all work be organized into
discrete projects and that baselines be documented, and have
established a change-control system. EM has re-instituted a rigorous
``change-control'' and critical decision process with defined
thresholds for approval to enable us to better control our projects.
Finally, I am formalizing quarterly reviews of major systems and other
high visibility projects.
The Department has created the Office of Engineering and
Construction Management within the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer to provide a Department-wide focus on project management
policies, tools, and procedures. EM is working closely with this office
to develop and implement a new DOE Order governing project management.
Included in this Order will be enhanced policies on change control,
critical decision approval by the Deputy Secretary for Major Systems,
quarterly project reviews, and monthly project performance reporting.
Integrating Waste and Materials Management
Sharing information and the unique capabilities for managing and
treating nuclear wastes and materials at many of our sites is critical
to our success. Our integration initiative seeks to consolidate
treatment, storage and disposal facilities and use available capacity
rather than construct new facilities; apply innovative technologies at
multiple sites; and apply lessons learned and site successes complex-
wide.
We have several key initiatives to facilitate site closure by
moving materials to other sites for interim storage, with requested
funds supporting the necessary activities in both the receiving and the
sending sites. The Department has made substantial progress in
consolidating storage of certain special nuclear materials from the
Rocky Flats site in Colorado. In fiscal year 1999, Rocky Flats
completed shipments of plutonium weapons pits to the Pantex Plant in
Texas and highly enriched uranium to the Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge,
Tennessee. Rocky Flats also began shipments of plutonium scrub alloy to
the Savannah River Site in South Carolina in fiscal year 1999; we will
complete these shipments this year. This consolidation of nuclear
materials has supported our 2006 closure goal for Rocky Flats and
reduced the cost of maintaining security for the remaining special
nuclear materials. The Department is also preparing to ship containers
of excess plutonium to the Savannah River Site for storage in modified
K-Reactor Area facilities. These shipments are scheduled to begin in
fiscal year 2000.
The Department has made progress in identifying sites that will
treat and dispose of similar waste generated by sites across the DOE
complex. In December 1999, after extensive technical analyses and
consultation with state representatives and other stakeholders, we
announced our site preferences for disposal of DOE low-level and mixed
low-level waste based on the Waste Management Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement. This allowed us to complete a formal
Record of Decision in February 2000 on low-level and mixed low-level
waste treatment and disposal facilities, after further consultations
with the affected states. The decisions, when implemented, will result
in more efficient waste disposal operations as well as development of
capabilities that do not currently exist. These capabilities are needed
to move waste from storage to disposal and support cleanup and closure
of sites. The Department also has 340,000 cubic meters of high-level
waste at four sites, and is storing spent fuel at a number of sites.
These will be safely stored until a geological repository is available.
The Department is now evaluating the suitability of Yucca Mountain in
Nevada as a repository.
The opening of WIPP in New Mexico for disposal operations in March
1999 provides a good example of the benefits of integration. For
decades a large amount of transuranic waste has been stored at about
two dozen sites across the United States. Beginning disposal operations
at WIPP provides a means for the Department to permanently dispose of
this long-lived radioactive waste while reducing the number of sites
where this waste is stored. WIPP is critical for closing sites like
Rocky Flats; for meeting compliance obligations for more than a dozen
other sites, including the Idaho Settlement Agreement; and for reducing
storage costs and risks to the public. In October 1999, the State of
New Mexico Environment Department issued a final hazardous waste permit
that became effective in November 1999. The permit allows WIPP to
dispose of mixed transuranic waste. The Department is working to
implement the permit while challenging several provisions that we
believe are inappropriate, such as financial assurance requirements and
certain technical requirements. It is critical that these issues are
successfully resolved so that our waste management commitments and
goals for WIPP can be met. From March 26, 1999, when WIPP began
disposal operations until November 1999 when shipments were temporarily
stopped to align the program with requirements in the newly-issued RCRA
permit, WIPP received 44 shipments of non-mixed waste from three
sites--Los Alamos, Rocky Flats, and INEEL.
Finally, the transport of radioactive waste and material between
sites is critical to the success of our integration priorities. Our
transportation program, which successfully moved spent nuclear fuel
containing U.S. enriched uranium from research reactors around the
world to the U.S. for safe storage, is applying its success to other
DOE shipments. EM is working with other DOE program offices and with
the sites to develop a corporate strategy that will enable us to
identify future packaging and transportation needs, to support
aggressive shipping schedules, and to utilize our transportation assets
more efficiently.
Building Public Confidence
We have found that performing good technical work is not enough.
Getting the job done requires cooperation with regulators and others
outside of DOE that have a stake in our actions. By working
cooperatively with regulators, stakeholders, local communities and the
Tribal Nations, we have improved the efficiency of the EM program and
have been able to meet our regulatory commitments in a more efficient
and cost-effective way. Our request continues support for effective
public participation through continued relationships with states, site-
specific and national advisory boards, and Indian tribes potentially
affected by our activities.
Developing Effective Long-Term Stewardship
As the Department completes stabilization, cleanup and disposal of
waste, we must consider the next and final stage in the cleanup
process: meeting our enduring environmental protection obligations
through long-term stewardship. At most sites the Department is
performing cleanup that will make the land available for other uses,
but not necessarily unrestricted use, because of the presence of
residual contaminants or deliberate entombment of waste or facilities.
The Department has been completing cleanup that results in substantial
risk and maintenance cost reductions. Similar to the cleanup of private
sites, cleanup to levels allowing for unrestricted use often cannot be
achieved at DOE sites for economic or technical reasons and has not
been demanded by regulators. The Department has been able to take
advantage of the Superfund administrative reforms developed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow anticipated future land
use to be considered in developing cleanup remedies.
The goal of long-term stewardship is the sustainable protection of
human health and the environment after cleanup, disposal or
stabilization is completed. A robust long-term stewardship program
emphasizes good project management, the value of applying the best
science and technology to manage residual hazards, and increasing
public confidence through effective involvement of state and local
governments, Tribal Nations, and stakeholders in long-term stewardship
decision making. A reliable long-term stewardship program can also
provide confidence to regulators and the public that non-removal
remedies are acceptable because the Department can be trusted to care
for the sites after the waste is contained in place.
Most of the explicit long-term stewardship activities in the field
are conducted by our staff in Grand Junction, Colorado. This office is
responsible for long-term stewardship at approximately 30 sites across
the United States in fiscal year 2000. These sites range from large
uranium mill tailings sites (mostly in Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and New
Mexico), former nuclear weapons productions facilities (e.g., Pinellas,
Florida), and commercial nuclear fuel cycle facilities (e.g., AMAX in
Parkersburg, West Virginia) that did work for the federal government.
During the past year, the Department has taken action to strengthen
its long-term stewardship program. First, we increased the budget for
long-term stewardship to respond to the greater demand resulting from
the completion of more cleanups. Our fiscal year 2001 budget request
for the long-term stewardship program, managed by our Grand Junction
Office, is more than $5 million, an increase of approximately 60
percent over the fiscal year 2000 budget level. The budget largely
reflects the expected transition of new responsibilities to the Grand
Junction Office for long-term stewardship of the Monticello and Weldon
Spring sites when they complete cleanup. This funding will provide
continued cost-effective stewardship of approximately 35 sites in 2001,
which is more than a 50 percent increase since 1999, when Grand
Junction managed 25 sites. This funding will enable us to comply with
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) permit requirements for long-term
surveillance and maintenance for closed uranium mill tailings sites, as
well as for increased responsibilities under Superfund and hazardous
waste laws for protecting human health and the environment at several
additional sites where closure occurred with residual contamination in
place.
Second, we recently established an Office of Long-Term Stewardship
at our Headquarters office. The office is addressing these emerging
challenges with responsibility for field guidance and policy
development, technical analysis, and identification of science and
technology needs. While this may be the first office addressing long-
term stewardship in the federal government, I would suggest to you that
it will not be the last. This is because the issues we are grappling
with are not unique to the Department of Energy. This new office is
located within and funded through our Office of Science and Technology.
This reflects the fact that we intend to continue investing in science
and technology to help ensure that the protections provided by our
remedies can be maintained as cost-effectively as possible for the
necessary duration.
There are a number of activities that this office will complete by
the end of this year that will help establish the basis for a stronger
long-term stewardship program. First, EM is responding to the mandate
in the fiscal year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to
report to Congress by October 1, 2000, on the Department's long-term
stewardship responsibilities. This report will provide the best
available information on the cost, scope, and schedule for long-term
stewardship at sites and portions of sites in sufficient detail to
undertake the necessary stewardship responsibilities.
Third, we are preparing a study on long-term stewardship pursuant
to the lawsuit settlement agreement (Natural Resource Defense Council,
et. al. v. Richardson, et. al., Civ. No. 97-963 (SS) (D.D.C. Dec. 12,
1998)). The study will address national, programmatic, and cross-
cutting issues related to long-term stewardship.
The management system required for performing long-term stewardship
as cost-effectively as possible will likely build on the existing EM
system. However, there may also be an additional need for new
technologies, new contracting mechanisms, and new specialized personnel
to ensure reliable and cost-effective long-term stewardship. This is
what we are now examining as we accelerate our efforts to complete
cleanup and close more sites, which in turn will require more long-term
stewardship.
Solving Problems Through Science and Technology
Our investments in science and technology are providing the
scientific knowledge and new technologies necessary to help us reduce
the cost and time frame of the complex-wide cleanup effort, and enable
us to tackle cleanup problems that had no effective solutions. We are
requesting $196.5 million in fiscal year 2001 for investments in both
basic and applied research. These funds will target our highest
priority needs and will be applied across the spectrum of science and
technology work from basic research through deployment among EM's five
major problem areas: mixed waste, high-level tank waste, subsurface
contamination, deactivation and decommissioning, and nuclear materials.
Our science and technology program has made a significant impact on
how we conduct our cleanup operations. Over 75 percent of the
approximately 250 innovative solutions made available for use over the
past ten years are making real on-the-ground contributions. For
instance:
--Site characterization represents a large portion of the cost for
environmental restoration activities. We now have very
sophisticated, safe methods to identify, characterize, quantify
and monitor contamination.
--New remotely operated machines now exist to perform work in
conditions that are too hazardous for humans, such as inside
radioactive waste tanks.
--Among the new technologies making a difference is a process that
uses a concentrated caustic solution to dissolve and remove
large quantities of unwanted nonradioactive elements in the
sludge, thereby decreasing waste volume (Enhanced Sludge
Washing). This process has been selected as the technology to
be used to pretreat Hanford tank sludges where it is expected
to avoid $4.8 billion in costs compared to other technology
choices.
--An in-ground ``wall'' of iron filings (Permeable Reactive Treatment
Wall) has been installed at the Kansas City Plant and
Monticello Uranium Mill Site to remove contaminants from
groundwater as the water passes through the ``wall.'' This
eliminates the need for a more costly ``pump and treat''
system.
--A third Passive Reactive Barrier is in place in the Solar Ponds at
Rocky Flats to destroy nitrates and remove uranium from
groundwater; compared against a thirty-year pump-and-treat
baseline, this technology will save more than an estimated $20
million. Other reactive barriers deployed at Rocky Flats have
been designed to destroy chlorinated solvents and capture
radionuclides.
--Optimized use of the existing re-injection well network at the
Fernald site in Ohio will enable the site to accelerate
groundwater remediation. It may enable us to complete
groundwater remediation as much as 17 years ahead of schedule,
potentially saving the Department up to $50 million.
EM's science and technology program is also now providing on-the-
ground technical assistance, sending some of our top scientists out of
the laboratory and into the field to help with specific technical
problems. Our first formal technical assistance effort was to identify
solutions for groundwater remediation at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion
Plant in Kentucky. The federally-led team, including four national
laboratories, responded quickly and produced a strong plan for
aggressive remediation of the contaminants in the groundwater and the
soil. It is my intention to continue this approach to ensure our
cleanup efforts are based on technically defensible decisions.
We are also pleased with the progress of our EM Science Program
(EMSP), which is conducted in partnership with DOE's Office of Science.
Since its inception in fiscal year 1996, EMSP has invested over $224
million in support of 274 research projects. Our open, competitive
approach has ensured the highest caliber of research involving 90
universities, 13 national laboratories, and 22 other governmental and
private laboratories. Research is being conducted in 34 states and the
District of Columbia, two Canadian provinces, Australia, Russia, the
United Kingdom, and the Czech Republic. Our efforts are already
providing some encouraging results. For instance, a high-level waste
research project, being led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
focuses on determining the effect of radiation on the stability of
glasses and ceramics at an atomic, microscopic and macroscopic level.
Because these materials are an integral part of the planning for the
final waste forms of a number of DOE waste streams, an understanding of
how radioactive materials influence their long-term stability is
critical in material selection.
The increasing number of deployments of new technologies to solve
real cleanup problems demonstrates that the field is recognizing their
value. Preliminary data, now being verified, indicate that during
fiscal year 1999, DOE sites used innovative technologies 218 times in
cleanup activities, 129 of which were first uses by the site. Of these
deployments, 166 were science and technology-sponsored technologies.
This is a definite and dramatic improvement over previous years. Since
the inception of this program, we have seen nearly 450 deployments at
DOE sites of 194 new technologies that were sponsored by EM's science
and technology program. The accelerated site technology deployment
effort initiated in fiscal year 1998 has contributed to these increased
deployments. A total of 47 projects have been initiated that involve a
total of 92 technologies. From a total life-cycle EM investment of $300
million, we estimate $1.5 billion in life-cycle savings. Selections for
new projects for fiscal year 2000 will be announced in March.
To help ensure that this upward deployment trend continues, the
Department is in the process of evaluating contracts with our site
contractors to provide better incentives for them to use innovative
technologies. We believe contract incentives, coupled with the
integration of our technology developers and users, will ensure that
the innovative technology we are providing is used to accomplish our
cleanup goals cheaper, faster and safely.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Department is making progress in cleaning up the
legacy of contamination left from the nuclear weapons production
process. We are reducing our most serious risks, accelerating and
finishing cleanup at sites across the country, safely storing and
safeguarding weapons-usable nuclear materials, and reducing the long-
term costs of the program. We will continue to improve our project
management, make the most effective use of our unique resources across
the DOE complex, use science and technology to reduce costs and
schedules, and maintain our focus on worker safety. We pledge to
continue to work closely and cooperatively with the Congress to ensure
that this progress continues and that we can meet the challenges ahead
in the most effective way.
APPENDIX A--SUMMARY OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET
The total fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Department of
Energy's Environmental Management Program is $5.8 billion in
traditional budget authority and $515 million of privatization funding.
The fiscal year 2001 appropriation will fund cleanup at sites in 19
states across the Nation. Five sites receive two-thirds of
Environmental Management funding--Savannah River Site in South
Carolina, the Richland Operations Office Hanford Site and Office of
River Protection at the Hanford Site in Washington, Rocky Flats in
Colorado, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in
Idaho, and Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee.
We are requesting $4,551.5 million in Defense Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management (including $420 million for the
Federal contribution to the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund); $1,082.3 million in the Defense Facilities
Closure Projects; and $515 million in Defense Environmental Management
Privatization. This totals $5,633.8 million in traditional budget
authority and $515 million for privatization funding in the Defense
accounts. The current appropriations levels in fiscal year 2000 are
$4,467.3 million in Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management; $1,060.4 million in the Defense Facilities Closure
Projects; and $188.3 million in Defense Environmental Management
Privatization.
Our fiscal year 2001 budget proposal provides details on each
project, including performance measures, which we use to hold managers
accountable, and expect to be held accountable by Congress. We would
like to summarize the budget request and some major activities for
several sites:
1. Savannah River Site, South Carolina
2. Hanford Site, Washington
--Office of River Protection
--Richland Operations Office
3. Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Colorado
4. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho
5. Oak Ridge Reservation, Tennessee
6. Fernald Environmental Management Project, Ohio
7. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, New Mexico
8. West Valley Demonstration Plant, New York
9. Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico
10. Miamisburg Environmental Management Project (Mound), Ohio
11. Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Kentucky
12. Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio
13. Nevada Test Site and Operations Office, Nevada
14. Weldon Spring Remedial Action Project, Missouri
15. Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York
16. California Sites.
Savannah River Site, South Carolina Fiscal Year 2001 Request
(In thousands)
Defense, Site/Project Completion.............................. $452,871
Defense, Post 2006 Completion................................. 814,013
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................1,266,884
Pension Fund Offset........................................... (50,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total...................................................1,216,884
The Savannah River Site continues its work to stabilize legacy
nuclear materials and spent fuel from both the Savannah River Site and
other sites across the complex, including plutonium residues and other
plutonium-bearing materials from the Rocky Flats site in Colorado. This
work is critical to resolve health and safety concerns, since these
radioactive materials are now in liquid or unstable forms unsuitable
for long-term storage, and to support closure goals at Rocky Flats. It
is being carried out in response to Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board recommendations. In July 1997, the Secretary of Energy approved
the operation of both the F-Canyon and H-Canyon for the stabilization
of ``at-risk'' nuclear materials. In fiscal year 1999, these canyons
stabilized plutonium residues and other nuclear materials. Activities
were begun to characterize and repackage the Savannah River Site
plutonium residues for stabilization.
In fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, we will continue to
operate the two canyons as well as FB-Line, 235-F, and HB-Line to
stabilize plutonium-bearing materials and spent nuclear fuel. The
budget request also includes activities associated with future
vitrification of americium/curium solutions and, as discussed
previously, the Highly Enriched Uranium Blend Down Project.
We are not requesting funding for the Actinide Packaging and
Storage Facility in fiscal year 2001. In light of the 1999 decision by
the Department identifying Savannah River Site as the preferred
location for new missions related to excess plutonium disposition, we
have decided to temporarily suspend work on this facility until we can
reevaluate the site's overall requirements and options to ensure, for
example, that any facility developed is properly sized and integrated
with other facilities, given these new missions. We are, however,
continuing modification of facilities in the K-Area and are ready to
receive surplus plutonium-bearing materials from Rocky Flats supporting
the accelerated closure of that site.
Much of the EM work at the Savannah River Site that will be
completed after fiscal year 2006 involves management of approximately
34 million gallons of high-level waste in tanks, including vitrifying
waste for final disposal and removing waste from storage tanks so the
tanks can be closed. In fiscal year 1999, the Savannah River Site
workers closed another storage tank, removing waste and backfilling
with grout, and produced 236 canisters of vitrified waste in the
Defense Waste processing Facility (DWPF), 36 canisters above their
fiscal year 1999 goal. As of February 2000, we had a total of 775
canisters of vitrified waste in storage. The DWPF goal for production
of canisters in fiscal year 2001 is 200.
Due to the long-term nature of this project, we are able to develop
and insert new and innovative technologies in the high level waste
treatment train. We are currently moving forward with technologies that
will make it easier to retrieve waste, to improve the way we
decontaminate our canisters once they are filled, to reduce worker
exposure through use of high efficiency filters that can be regenerated
and reused, and to increase waste loading. These advances will allow
DWPF to operate more efficiently and ensure that our goals for
increasing canister production are realized.
In-Tank Precipitation operations were terminated in January 1998
because we were unable to successfully pre-treat the waste and limit
the levels of benzene generation in the tanks to safe and manageable
levels. Pre-treatment of the waste is necessary to separate the high-
activity and low-activity wastes, in order to minimize the amount of
waste that must be vitrified and disposed in a deep geologic
repository. We undertook a systems engineering analysis, which was
reviewed by a panel of independent experts, to evaluate all possible
alternatives. The Department will continue research and development in
fiscal year 2001 on technology alternatives to support a decision on
which technology to pursue.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request continues support for receipt
and storage at the Savannah River Site of spent nuclear fuel from
domestic and foreign research reactors in support of national and
international non-proliferation goals. In fiscal year 2001, we expect
to receive 49 casks of spent nuclear fuel from foreign and domestic
sources and safely store them at the Savannah River Site's basins. By
the end of fiscal year 2001, we expect to have received almost one-
third of the spent fuel assemblies that we know other countries plan to
return.
We will also continue to treat and reduce our legacy of mixed and
low-level waste at the site through continued operation of the
Consolidated Incinerator Facility (473 cubic meters will be treated in
fiscal year 2001). The first shipment of Savannah River Site
transuranic waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant will occur in
September 2000; four additional shipments are scheduled for fiscal year
2001.
We will also continue to aggressively pursue the use of new
technology to characterize and cleanup contaminated release sites and
ground waste plumes. We are using the Vadose Zone Monitoring System to
determine how fast and in what concentration contaminants are traveling
to the ground water. This approach provides sensitive early warning of
aquifer contamination from the E-Area shallow disposal trenches. In
fiscal year 2000 we will deploy a steam injection system, recently used
at our Portsmouth site, to destroy chlorinated solvents beneath the
321-M Solvent Storage Area. This could replace the technology currently
being used at the site and reduce the time of cleanup by more than 20
years. In fiscal year 2001, we will complete remediation of one release
site and assessments for eight others. We will also operate eight
groundwater remediation systems.
Finally, scientists and engineers at the Savannah River Site have
been collaborating to develop a cost-effective path forward for some of
the spent fuel through research and development of new technologies.
This work is helping to address one of our most daunting problems--how
to manage spent nuclear fuel and other nuclear materials without
chemical separations. Our investment in the Alternative Technology
Program has shown progress. A draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) identifying the ``melt-and-dilute'' process as the preferred
alternative technology to prepare aluminum-based spent nuclear fuel for
geologic disposal was issued in December 1998, and a final EIS is
expected to be issued in March 2000. The fiscal year 2001 budget
contains funds for the construction and startup of the L-Area
Experimental Facility to demonstrate the viability of the melt and
dilute process which will provide a firm basis for the design and
construction of the full-scale facility. As other countries begin to
address similar problems, these new U.S.-developed technologies will be
available to help.
Hanford Site, Washington--Office of River Protection, Fiscal Year 2001
Request
(In thousands)
Defense, Post 2006 Completion................................. $382,139
Defense, Privatization........................................ 450,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 832,139
Richland Operations Office--Fiscal Year 2001 Request
(In thousands)
Defense, Site/Project Completion.............................. $349,467
Defense, Post 2006 Completion................................. 375,313
Non-defense, Site/Project Completion.......................... 1,500
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 726,280
The Hanford Site in Washington remains perhaps our greatest cleanup
challenge. The 560-square mile site was carved out of a broad curve of
the Columbia River during World War II. It is now the nation's largest
former nuclear weapons production site, and the cleanup of the Hanford
Site is the largest, most technically complex, environmental cleanup
project yet undertaken. The site contains large amounts of spent
nuclear fuel, unstable weapons grade plutonium, 177 underground tanks
containing 54 million gallons of high-level radioactive waste tanks,
and more than 100 square miles of contaminated ground water. It is
important not to lose sight of the successes and accomplishments that
have occurred despite the serious remaining challenges. We believe that
our fiscal year 2001 budget request for Hanford addresses the
requirements for continued cleanup progress.
Following Congressional direction in the Strom Thurmond National
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1999, the Department
established the Office of River Protection (ORP) in December 1998. ORP
is responsible for all aspects of the Tank Waste Remediation System--to
store, treat, and immobilize the high-level radioactive Hanford Site
tank waste in a sound, safe, and cost effective manner. Roles,
responsibilities, and authorities for ORP are more fully specified in
the Integrated Management Plan submitted to Congress in January 1999.
The ORP reports directly to the Assistant Secretary for Environmental
Management.
The Richland Operations Office manages all aspects of the Hanford
Site except the Tank Waste Remediation Program.
Office of River Protection
ORP works with the Richland Operations Office to protect the health
and safety of the public, workers, and the environment and to control
hazardous materials to protect the Columbia River. Under the Defense
Environmental Management, Post 2006 Completion account, ORP manages the
Tank Waste Remediation System Project located on the central plateau
(200 Area) of the Hanford Site. Treatment of the tank waste will be
performed in two phases. Phase I will provide treatment for at least 10
percent of the waste by volume and 20 to 25 percent of the
radioactivity in the tanks and is being carried out by a contractor on
a fixed price for services basis (privatization). The storage,
retrieval, and disposition of the waste will be managed by ORP using a
conventional cost reimbursement contract. In August 1998, the
Department of Energy signed a contract with BNFL, Inc. that allowed for
an initial 24-month period to enable the contractor to develop more of
the design for the treatment facility and to obtain financing and
submit a fixed-price bid.
In fiscal year 2000, the Department will decide whether to
authorize BNFL, Inc. to proceed to construction and operation, based on
an evaluation of whether the proposal represents the best value for the
taxpayer. To date, pilot testing has provided strong technical
confirmation of pretreatment and vitrification capabilities. DOE and
BNFL, Inc. have reached preliminary agreement on pricing methodology
and major contractual terms. Financing of the project appears viable
based on in depth discussions with financial institutions. BNFL, Inc.
has mobilized a design and engineering team of over 600 people to
support the privatization effort.
Management of 177 underground high-level waste tanks remains one of
the biggest challenges at the Hanford site. We have made significant
progress in reducing the urgent risks associated with these tanks. The
high heat safety issue was resolved in tank C-106 by diluting the waste
and transferring it to a larger double-shell tank with a higher heat
removal capacity. The surface level rise issue was resolved in tank SY-
101 by dissolving the crust on the surface of the waste through a
series of waste transfers and back dilutions. Elimination of the crust
will reduce the retention of flammable concentrations of gas in SY-101.
We signed a Consent Decree with the State of Washington which
established a schedule for interim stabilization of the single-shell
tanks. To date, we have met all Consent Decree milestones, which
includes initiating pumping of free liquids from six single-shell
tanks. The contract for maintenance and operations of the tank farms,
which will provide waste feed to the privatized treatment facility, has
been placed directly under ORP.
For fiscal year 2001, ORP will continue improving tank safety by
resolving high priority safety issues such as flammable gas generation
and by transferring free liquids from single-shell tanks to double-
shell tanks in accordance with the Consent Decree schedule. The
remaining two tanks which are suspected of having leaked will be pumped
during fiscal year 2001. In addition, design and construction will
continue on tank farm retrieval systems and other infrastructure
improvements necessary to support future waste feed delivery to the
privatized treatment facility. One of these improvements is the use of
a multi-function corrosion probe. This probe reduces the amount of
sodium hydroxide that needs to be added to inhibit corrosion by
allowing site workers to directly monitor the rate of tank corrosion.
The potential savings from the use of this technology is in excess of
$100 million.
The fiscal year 2001 request for $450 million in privatization
funding will be used to maintain momentum on high-level waste treatment
design, initiate actions to proceed with long lead project procurement
and construction, manage the project, and meet contractual commitments
in the unlikely event of a termination of the privatization contract.
It will provide the contractor and the financial community with
assurance that costs incurred to mobilize the team, secure financing,
and demobilize the team in the event of a contract termination will be
fully supported.
Richland Operations Office
The goals for the Hanford Site are the restoration of the Columbia
River corridor (the majority of the Hanford land, including the river
shoreline); transition of Hanford's 200 Area ``central plateau'' to
long-term waste treatment and storage; and utilization of the
government's Hanford assets, including land, cleanup technologies, and
experience for the taxpayers.
The Department is continuing to remediate waste sites and dispose
of the contaminated soil and debris in the Environmental Restoration
Disposal Facility (ERDF). In fiscal year 1999, ERDF received over
320,000 cubic meters of contaminated soil and debris from cleanup sites
along the Columbia River corridor. In fiscal year 2000 ERDF will
receive over 170,000 cubic meters to complete interim closure of Cells
1 and 2, and will complete construction of new cells 3 and 4.
We are also pursuing the use of innovative technology to solve
problems in the subsurface. In 1999, we deployed the In-Situ Redox
Manipulation (ISRM) technology to treat groundwater contaminated with
chromium. ISRM creates a chemically altered treatment zone in the
subsurface to reduce the mobility of chromium. This technology is
expected to save more than $6 million compared to the pump-and-treat
technology that the site had planned to use.
In fiscal year 1999, we restarted stabilization of plutonium oxides
at the Plutonium Finishing Plant. In fiscal year 2000, stabilization
activities will be expanded to begin stabilization of plutonium-bearing
solutions and residues, as well as the continuation of plutonium oxide
stabilization. Stabilization activities will eliminate the risk posed
by the plutonium bearing materials and is a critical step in the
deactivation of Plutonium Finishing Plant, which will significantly
reduce mortgage costs at Hanford.
In addition, we continue to decommission the reactor facilities in
the 100 Area through the Interim Safe Storage Project. In fiscal year
1999, the D and DR reactor stacks were demolished, and F and DR reactor
decommissioning is proceeding ahead of schedule. In fiscal year 2000
and 2001, decommissioning activities will continue at the DR and F
reactors as well as at the 233-S Plutonium Concentration Facility.
The Spent Nuclear Fuel Project will complete fuel retrieval,
drying, transport, and storage system testing in fiscal year 2000.
Additionally, non-mixed transuranic waste has been prepared for
shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, and the shipments will be
initiated in fiscal year 2000.
In addition, our fiscal year 2001 budget request supports a number
of key commitments, including:
--Begin K-West Basin spent fuel removal, drying, and transport to the
Canister Storage Building for dry storage. This effort will
begin to remediate one of the highest risks at the Hanford Site
posed by the fuel stored in the aging K Basins near the
Columbia River.
--Complete 13 waste site remediations in the Hanford 100 and 300
Areas, and send 240,025 cubic meters of contaminated soil and
debris to ERDF.
--Complete 12 shipments of 55 cubic meters of transuranic waste to
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant for disposal.
--Initiate and complete thermal treatment of 717 cubic meters of
mixed low-level waste at a contract facility.
--The Hanford Site Groundwater/Vadose Zone Integration Project will
implement the high-priority Science and Technology activities
identified in fiscal year 2000.
--Complete stabilization of 2,045 liters (cumulative total of 2,316
of 4,300 liters) of plutonium-bearing solutions and 500
containers (cumulative total of 1,050 of 5,845 containers) of
plutonium metals and oxides at the Plutonium Finishing Plant.
--Begin operations of the bagless transfer system for packaging of
plutonium-bearing materials, and complete brushing and
repackaging of plutonium metal inventory at the Plutonium
Finishing Plant.
Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Colorado Fiscal Year 2001
Request
(In thousands)
Defense, Facilities Closure Projects.......................... $664,675
Almost two-thirds (61 percent) of the Defense Closure Account
request supports accelerated cleanup at the Rocky Flats Site, a former
nuclear weapons production facility located 16 miles northwest of
Denver, Colorado. The site was used to shape plutonium and uranium
weapons components and for other defense-related production work. The
cleanup poses significant challenges because of the large amounts of
plutonium and other compounds remaining in tanks and production lines,
the significant volumes of hazardous and radioactive wastes stored
throughout the site, and widespread contamination of soils, sediments,
and groundwater.
The Rocky Flats Site is one of the highlighted projects, and
certainly the largest site, for our goal of accelerating site cleanup
and closure by 2006. There are many challenges facing this project, but
we are confident that by remaining focused on our goal we can produce
substantial savings and provide dramatic risk reduction. We recently
awarded Kaiser-Hill, L.L.C. a closure contract valued at approximately
$4 billion (excluding incentive payments) to complete the closure of
the site. The target closure date is December 15, 2006, although the
contract includes incentives for accelerated completion and reduction
in fee for any delay beyond the targeted end date. This contract became
effective February 1, 2000, and Kaiser-Hill is in the process of
developing a revised 2006 baseline which will reflect the provisions of
the new cost-plus-incentive-fee contract. These provisions include cost
and schedule incentives focused on ensuring the cleanup is conducted
safely in full compliance with all safety, health, environmental, and
safeguard and security requirements. The contract also stipulates an
assumption that level funding at $657 million will be provided through
December 2006. Under the contract terms, Kaiser-Hill is assuming more
financial responsibility than any site management contractor in the
history of DOE. Significant progress has been made over the past year
to transition from the previous 2010 Closure Baseline to 2006 Closure
Project Baseline submitted last May. However, this contract formalizes
the Department's commitment to achieve the closure of Rocky Flats by
the end of 2006, and better positions the Department and Kaiser-Hill to
meet--or even exceed--this. We have clearly come a long way since the
earlier estimates that it would take $30 billion and 30 years to
complete cleanup at Rocky Flats.
The key ingredient for closing Rocky Flats is being able to move
nuclear materials and waste off of the site. Making progress in this
critical area requires not only preparing the materials and waste for
shipment, but also making sure that the receiving sites are ready. We
have made some significant progress, such as exceeding our planned
shipments of low-level and mixed-low level waste for offsite disposal
in fiscal year 1999. Also, we initiated shipments of transuranic waste
to WIPP, disposing of 65 cubic meters in fiscal year 1999, and we are
expecting to receive approval from the New Mexico Environment
Department to resume transuranic waste shipments under the RCRA Part B
Permit very soon. Rocky Flats will be the first site to be certified by
New Mexico as meeting the requirements of the permit. In total, there
are nearly 15,000 cubic meters of transuranic waste and approximately
100,000 kilograms of plutonium residues that need to be packaged and
sent to WIPP. There are also approximately 2,300 containers of nuclear
materials which must be shipped off site by the end of 2002 to allow
for the closure of the Protected Area, a critical step in the 2006
Closure Project Baseline.
The Department has clearly made enormous progress both in reducing
risks at the site, and in greatly improving our management plans for
cleanup and closure. Approximately 35 metric tons of plutonium residues
have been stabilized and/or repackaged to date, and we expect to
stabilize or repackage 41 metric tons in fiscal year 2000. In fiscal
year 1999 we completed the shipments of pits to Pantex and weapons-
grade uranium to Y-12. We also shipped nearly half of the plutonium
scrub alloy to Savannah River Site, and this campaign will soon be
completed. Currently, we are continuing our preparations to initiate
the shipment of plutonium metals and oxides to Savannah River for
storage in the recently opened K-Area.
We are making progress on demolishing buildings at Rocky Flats, not
only reducing risks but also reducing mortgage costs required to
maintain those excess buildings. The demolition of the Building 779
cluster--which once held 133 contaminated glove boxes--was completed in
early January. Our efforts to reduce risks and mortgages includes the
use of innovative technology. For example, we are using new ways to
stabilize and remove contamination using strippable coatings. These
coatings are sprayed onto the surfaces of contaminated walls to reduce
airborne contamination and worker exposure. In some cases airborne
contamination is reduced by a factor of 900. In fiscal year 2000 we are
moving forward with an automated robotic size reduction and packaging
process. This technology which will be deployed in Building 776/777
will improve worker safety and increase efficiency by allowing workers
to remotely dismantle plutonium contaminated glove boxes.
The fiscal year 2000 appropriation and fiscal year 2001 budget
request for Rocky Flats ($664.7 million each year) fund the activities
we have already identified as necessary for accelerated closure. We are
committed to producing the following results:
--Make significant progress in the decontamination and
decommissioning of Building 771 by tapping, draining and
removing remaining liquid process systems and dismantling, size
reducing and packaging glove boxes, tanks and other equipment
for shipment.
--Ship nearly 8,000 cubic meters of radioactive waste offsite for
disposal.
--Process more than 16 metric tons of plutonium residues in
preparation for safe disposition.
--Package 960 containers of plutonium.
--Ship over 1,000 containers of plutonium metals and oxides to the K-
Area at the Savannah River Site.
We are fully committed to maintaining our progress towards the
accelerated cleanup at Rocky Flats, thereby reducing risk and long-term
costs. We also understand the vital role of accelerated site closure to
the community where commercial and residential development along the
Denver-Boulder corridor has reached nearly to the fence line of Rocky
Flats.
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho Fiscal
Year 2001 Request
(In thousands)
Defense, Site/Project Completion.............................. $100,692
Defense, Post 2006 Completion................................. 348,711
Non-defense, Site/Project Completion.......................... 1,856
Defense, Privatization........................................ 90,092
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................ 541,351
Use of Prior Year Balances (Defense).......................... (34,317)
Use of Prior Year Balances (Privatization).................... (25,092)
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 481,942
The fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) supports the receipt
and safe interim storage of spent nuclear fuel, including Naval and
domestic and foreign research fuel; the storage and treatment of high
level waste in 11 underground tanks; the cleanup of six ``release
sites,'' or contaminated areas, and two surplus facilities; and the
management of legacy waste, including transuranic waste to be shipped
to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). Many of the critical
activities at the site are in accordance with the Settlement Agreement
signed with the State of Idaho in 1995.
One of the most complex challenges at INEEL is the remediation of
buried wastes, contaminated release sites, contaminated soils, and
ground water. Progress has been made under the Operable Unit 7-10
Staged Interim Action Project for the cleanup of Pit 9 at the
Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) with the insertion of 20
probes into the pit and the planned sample coring of waste and soils
later this year. A strategic review of the Pit 9/RWMC remediation
effort is currently underway to determine an appropriate path forward.
Progress at Test Area North is being made with the application of
bioremediation to the cleanup of the ground water plume at the
injection well. At the Test Reactor Area, remediation of identified
release sites will be completed in fiscal year 2001, two years ahead of
schedule. This includes four additional release sites added since the
signing of the Record of Decision. At the Idaho Nuclear Technology and
Engineering Center (INTEC), with the signing of the Record of Decision
in fiscal year 1999, we are undertaking the complex process of
remediating soil and ground water release sites while continuing to
operate INTEC for spent fuel storage and waste management missions. In
addition, we have plans to design and build the Idaho CERCLA Disposal
Facility at this site, which will be used for the disposal of
contaminated soils generated in the cleanup of INTEC and other
contaminated sites at the INEEL.
INEEL plays a key role in providing safe storage and management of
spent nuclear fuel in support of the Administration's non-proliferation
goals. INEEL received shipments of foreign research reactor fuel in
fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 and will continue to receive
shipments in fiscal year 2000 and 2001. In addition, INEEL is actively
improving storage conditions at the site, transferring fuel from wet to
dry storage, or from aging facilities to modern, state-of-the-art
facilities. For example, we expect to complete the transfer of all
spent nuclear fuel in wet storage in the CPP-603 South Basin to
improved storage facilities well in advance of the Settlement Agreement
milestone date of December 31, 2000. We will also complete moving Three
Mile Island spent nuclear fuel and core debris from wet storage at Test
Area North to dry storage at INTEC by the June 1, 2001, Idaho
Settlement Agreement milestone date. The Department also plans to award
a privatization contract in fiscal year 2000 for the packaging and safe
interim storage of other spent nuclear fuel at the INEEL. The fiscal
year 2001 budget request includes the use of $25 million in prior year
balances for this project in the privatization account.
A substantial portion of the INEEL budget request supports the
management of high level waste. INEEL has about 1.3 million gallons of
liquid sodium-bearing waste stored in 11 underground tanks, and about
150,000 cubic feet of calcined mixed high level waste in separate
robust temporary storage. Through June 2000, we will calcine a small
percentage of the liquid. Calcined waste is in a more stable (solid
granular) form for storage and is reduced in volume. After June 1,
2000, the calcining facility will be placed in standby mode as required
by the State of Idaho, until an environmentally safe, technically
viable, and economic path forward can be identified for the final
treatment of the calcine and liquid. A draft environmental impact
statement (EIS) for the high-level waste alternatives has been issued,
and a final EIS is planned for the end of fiscal year 2000. An
associated Record of Decision is planned in early fiscal year 2001.
Support activities include sampling and characterizing the liquid tank
contents in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, the sampling and
characterization of air emissions from the calcining facility in fiscal
year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, and submission of the first tank
closure plan to the State in early fiscal year 2001 to permanently
close tanks as they are emptied and removed from service.
In fiscal year 1999, we deployed the Light Duty Utility Arm (LDUA)
in Tank WM-188. The LDUA is the core of a suite of technologies that
can inspect, sample, and retrieve waste remotely through openings in
the tank dome. In this case, we visually inspected the tank interior
and obtained samples of the tank waste. We are moving forward in 2000
to inspect and obtain samples from two additional tanks. This
information is critical to the preparation of the first tank closure
plan due to the State in early fiscal year 2001.
INEEL has approximately 65,000 cubic meters of stored transuranic
waste and mixed low-level waste contaminated with transuranic
radionuclides that must be removed from the State of Idaho under the
terms of the 1995 Settlement Agreement. We continue to make progress in
characterizing and processing the transuranic waste for shipment to the
WIPP for disposal. In fiscal year 1999, the INEEL completed its first
shipment of non-mixed transuranic waste to the WIPP, meeting a
Settlement Agreement milestone, and additional shipments for a total of
26 cubic meters. In fiscal year 2000 and 2001, the amounts of
transuranic waste to be shipped to the WIPP will increase to 96 and
1,160 cubic meters, respectively. Progress also continues on the
Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project, a privatization project that
will greatly increase the INEEL's processing capability for this waste.
The National Environmental Policy Act evaluation for the project was
completed in fiscal year 1999, and all environmental regulatory permits
for the project are expected to be received in fiscal year 2000,
enabling facility construction to begin in fiscal year 2000.
Construction activities are targeted to continue in fiscal year 2001
and fiscal year 2002, and the facility is expected to begin operations
in fiscal year 2003. We are requesting $65 million in privatization
budget authority for this project.
INEEL now operates under the sponsorship of EM, and has been
designated a lead laboratory assisting DOE with its Environmental
Quality mission. The INEEL will continue to perform world-class
scientific research and development, technology demonstration and
deployment, and systems analysis and integration in support of EM
across the DOE complex. A major initiative in subsurface science will
improve the understanding of contaminant transport and fate in the
subsurface environment. This will result in better decision-making and
allow DOE to consider alternatives to baseline plans for cleanup,
resulting in more efficient use of available resources. This initiative
and other related activities will ensure a sound scientific basis for
decision-making and full integration of science and technology into
INEEL and EM operations.
As part of EM's Lead Program Secretarial Office designation with
respect to INEEL, EM assumes the function of landlord. This
responsibility entails all construction, maintenance, and site-wide
management of shared essential systems such as utilities, roads and
infrastructure. This important function enables the safe and efficient
accomplishment of the long-term and varied programs assigned to the
INEEL.
Oak Ridge Reservation, Tennessee Fiscal Year 2001 Request
(In thousands)
Defense, Post 2006 Completion................................. $293,896
UE D&D Fund................................................... 118,838
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 412,734
The Oak Ridge Reservation is comprised of three facilities--the Y-
12 Plant, the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) (formerly the K-25
uranium enrichment facility), and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(ORNL). Funding for environmental management activities at Oak Ridge is
included in the Defense, Post-2006 Completion Account, with funding for
the cleanup of ETTP coming from both this account and the Uranium
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund.
The Department continues its efforts to reindustrialize facilities
in Oak Ridge, particularly at ETTP. The primary goal is to clean up
ETTP as quickly and as safely as possible so that the site can be
reused as an industrial park. As of September 1999, about 850,000
square feet of space has been leased to 30 private companies in a total
of 51 separate leases. In some cases, the Department has conducted
cleanup of the building and, in other cases, the private company is
undertaking the cleanup. Overall, we estimate that this strategy will
save $165 million in life-cycle costs. We are making good progress on
the largest decommissioning project to date at ETTP. Cleanup of K-33,
the first DOE uranium enrichment facility to be decommissioned, is
already 27 percent complete as of February 2000, and most of the
project's infrastructure is in place. The K-33 building is the largest
building the Department has decommissioned to date. We will begin
operations of the supercompactor in October 2000, which will reduce the
volume of waste generated by cleanup of the buildings at ETTP and
thereby reduce disposal costs.
The Department has developed a DOE-wide policy to ensure that the
health and safety of private industry workers at ETTP and other leased
facilities are protected. The Department plans to evaluate the
application of the reindustrialization approach at other sites to
accelerate cleanup, reduce costs, and create private sector jobs.
The fiscal year 2001 request continues support for the
decommissioning of the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment at ORNL. This
experimental nuclear reactor was designed to use a fuel of highly-
reactive uranium-233 blended with a molten salt coolant. After 4\1/2\
years of operation, the reactor was shut down in December 1969. The EM
program has made substantial progress, with input from the National
Academy of Sciences, in stabilizing and deactivating this reactor. For
example, the EM program has installed and continues operation of a
system to remove reactive gases from the reactor tanks and keep the
reactor systems below atmospheric pressure until the fuel salt can be
removed. In fiscal year 2001, we plan to complete the equipment
installation and readiness assessment for fuel salt removal and convert
uranium captured in the sodium fluoride traps to a stable oxide for
storage.
We have completed cleanup of the fourth of eight highly radioactive
waste storage tanks, called the ``Gunite Tanks,'' at ORNL and have
started work on the next tank, expected to be completed six months
ahead of schedule. The tanks were built in 1943 and were used for waste
from chemical separations (reprocessing) operations until the late
1970's. The tanks vary in size, with some having a capacity of 170,000
gallons (approximately the size of a 4-bedroom house). The estimated
cost of the project is now $80 million, less than half the original
estimate of $200 million. A key factor in the accelerated schedule has
been the development of a variety of remote remediation technologies,
such as the ``Houdini'' vehicle and a robotic arm that provide access
to the tank interior, which have allowed work to proceed on two tanks
simultaneously, rather than sequentially as initially planned. The
lessons learned in deploying new technologies in the Gunite tanks are
being shared with the Office of River Protection to accelerate cleanup
of the tanks at Hanford.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) incinerator at Oak Ridge,
permitted by the State to treat mixed radioactive and hazardous wastes
regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and by EPA to
treat PCB-contaminated wastes regulated under TSCA, offers unique
capability within the DOE system. In addition to treating wastes
generated by Oak Ridge facilities, the TSCA incinerator has also been
used to treat wastes from other sites in the DOE complex, providing a
cost-effective and integrated approach to managing these wastes.
However, the Governor of Tennessee rejected the Department's proposed
annual burn plans for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, citing
equity concerns. Responding to these concerns, the Department limited
the use of the incinerator to wastes generated at DOE sites managed by
the Oak Ridge Operations Office. However, the publication of the Record
of Decision for disposal of DOE low-level and mixed low-level waste in
February 2000 based on the Waste Management Programmatic EIS should
address the Governor's concern regarding the availability of disposal
for waste from Oak Ridge.
Construction of the Environmental Management Waste Management
Facility is scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 2001, allowing
operations to begin soon after. This facility has been designed for
disposal of CERCLA wastes generated during the cleanup of the Oak Ridge
Reservation. The facility is the critical component of the Department's
cleanup plan for the Oak Ridge Reservation.
Fernald Environmental Management Project, Ohio Fiscal Year 2001 Request
(In thousands)
Defense, Facilities Closure Projects.......................... $290,793
The cleanup activities at Fernald Environmental Management Project
account for more than $290 million, or 27 percent of the funding in the
Defense Facilities Closure Projects Account. The Fernald site,
encompassing approximately 1,050 acres near Cincinnati, produced
uranium for nuclear weapons from 1951 to the end of Cold War in 1989.
Nearly forty years of uranium production left the Fernald Site with
soil and groundwater contamination, a large backlog of wastes,
including some unstable liquids, as well as stored nuclear materials
such as depleted and enriched uranium. Several years of cleanup
progress have included stabilization of liquid uranium solutions, off-
site shipment of low-level waste, and deactivation, decontamination and
demolition of several large industrial buildings at Fernald. The
current baseline calls for cleanup to be completed by fiscal year 2008,
but the Department is seeking to complete work by fiscal year 2006.
Groundwater remediation and long-term institutional controls will be
necessary after active cleanup is completed.
One approach we are taking to achieve the accelerated closure goal
is the use of new technology. For example, we are saving time and money
by using a suite of technologies that identify, in real time,
radioactive contaminants in the soil. This rapid characterization
reduces the amount of soil we have to excavate and improves worker
productivity. We have already deployed this technology in three
separate areas at Fernald. We estimate these technologies will reduce
remediation cost by over $30 million.
In fiscal year 2000, we will continue to dispose of waste into the
On-site Disposal Facility, including debris from the completion of
decontamination and decommissioning of all nuclear facilities and on-
site contaminated soil. In fiscal year 2001, we will complete the
placement of a permanent cap on Cell 1. The availability of this
facility is enabling us to accelerate disposal of contaminated soil and
debris resulting from cleanup and building demolition at a significant
cost savings.
For the Silos project, in fiscal year 1999 we awarded subcontracts
for Silos 1 and 2, and Silo 3. In fiscal year 2000 we will initiate
pre-operational activities for Silo 3 remediation and in fiscal year
2001 plan to initiate remediation of Silo 3, submit draft Record of
Decision Amendment to the Environmental Protection Agency, and continue
construction of Silos 1 and 2 Accelerated Waste Retrieval.
We will continue to excavate and load Waste Pit material into
railcars and transport these materials by rail for disposal. In fiscal
year 1999, we disposed of 32,241 cubic meters of treated waste and are
planning to treat and dispose of 92,570 cubic meters in fiscal year
2000 and 91,570 cubic meters in fiscal year 2001.
Finally, Fernald personnel have continued the process of razing
deactivated and decontaminated industrial buildings. They completed
demolition of 6 of the 11 major facility complexes (Maintenance
Building/Tank Farm Complex), and plan to complete Plant 5 Complex in
fiscal year 2000, and, in fiscal year 2000, continue decontamination
and decommissioning of Plant 6 Complex, and initiate the East Warehouse
Complex resulting in outyear reductions in mortgage and landlord costs.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, New Mexico Fiscal Year 2001 Request
(In thousands)
Defense, Post 2006 Completion................................. $194,498
Opening and operating WIPP is a key element of the Department's
strategy to provide for the permanent disposal of the Department's
inventory of radioactive transuranic waste. Currently a large amount of
transuranic waste, more than 100,000 cubic meters, is being stored at
more than two dozen sites around the United States. In many cases, this
waste has been stored for decades. By shipping this waste to WIPP for
disposal, the Department will be able to reduce the number of sites
where this type of waste is stored, reducing the costs of storing this
waste and the long-term risks to the public and the environment.
On March 26, 1999, WIPP began operations, receiving its first
shipment of defense-generated, non-mixed, transuranic waste from Los
Alamos National Laboratory. The first shipment from INEEL was made in
April 1999, thereby meeting an important milestone in the Idaho
Settlement Agreement between the Department and the State of Idaho. The
first shipment from the Rocky Flats site to WIPP was made in June 1999
and represented the first step in meeting the Department's commitment
to complete cleanup and site closure by December 2006.
On October 27, 1999, the State of New Mexico issued the final
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit, with an effective
date of November 26, 1999. The permit contains numerous new provisions
which must be incorporated in the generator and storage sites
procedures, and staff must be trained to the new requirements. Quality
assurance audits must be performed by DOE and audit reports must be
submitted to the New Mexico Environment Department for approval before
shipments under the permit can begin. The Department is striving to
meet all permit requirements so that waste shipments can quickly
resume, but has legally challenged certain provisions of the permit,
including the financial assurance and certain technical requirements.
Rocky Flats is the first site scheduled to resume shipments under
the permit. DOE conducted a quality assurance audit at Rocky Flats in
December, and submitted the audit report to New Mexico in late January.
New Mexico approval of the audit report is expected by late February,
and shipments are expected to resume within the next several weeks.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request will allow WIPP to increase the
receipt of contact-handled transuranic waste shipments from about 120
shipments in fiscal year 2000 to about 485 shipments in fiscal year
2001. The five sites scheduled to ship transuranic waste to WIPP in
both fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 are Rocky Flats, INEEL,
Hanford, Los Alamos, and Savannah River Site.
The Carlsbad Area Office and the Office of Science and Technology
have teamed up to develop and introduce technologies that reduce risk,
ensure proper certification of shipments, and increase the movement of
waste from storage to disposal. One of these technologies, HANDS-55, is
a robotic system that handles and segregates waste in 55 gallon drums.
This technology not only improves worker health and safety but will
increase the throughput of waste available for final disposal.
The funding request for fiscal year 2001 includes $20.8 million
that will be paid into a trust fund established by the Department to
meet the financial assurance requirements of the RCRA permit. In
previous years, these funds were used to provide economic assistance to
the State of New Mexico, as required by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act of
1996, but the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for
fiscal year 2000 allowed the Department to use funds otherwise
available to New Mexico for economic assistance to meet financial
assurance requirements.
The WIPP program also funds a variety of institutional programs
that provide for operational oversight and other assistance for
affected governments and stakeholder groups. Funds are included in the
request for cooperative agreements with the Indian Tribes,
Environmental Evaluation Group, Western Governors Association, and
other State regional groups.
The Department is relying on a privatization approach to procure
shipping casks for transuranic waste transportation. This project
received $19,605,000 in budget authority in the Defense Privatization
account in fiscal year 1999 for the purchase of waste shipping
containers to ship remote-handled transuranic waste from the generator
sites to WIPP. The fiscal year 2001 budget request proposes to reduce
this privatization funding to $15,513,000. This contract is expected to
be awarded in June 2000.
We have withdrawn the privatization project for transportation
services for contact-handled transuranic waste and are funding this
work through traditional appropriations. In 1999, Congress approved a
reprogramming that allowed the EM program to acquire 12 contact-handled
transuranic waste shipping containers to meet an urgent need for
additional containers. EM reevaluated the acquisition strategy for the
remaining transportation services and concluded that the project no
longer fit the profile for privatization. The remainder of the capital
equipment will now be funded from within the Post-2006 Account. The $21
million for this privatization project will be used to offset the
request for the Spent nuclear Fuel Dry Storage Project at INEEL.
West Valley Demonstration Plant, New York Fiscal Year 2001 Request
(In thousands)
Non-Defense, Post 2006 Completion............................. $107,353
Cleanup of the West Valley Demonstration Project, located in
upstate New York near Buffalo, is being conducted at the site of the
only commercial nuclear fuel reprocessing facility to operate in the
United States. The private company processed commercial spent nuclear
fuel to extract plutonium and uranium from 1966 to 1972, generating
2,200 cubic meters of liquid high-level waste.
The principal operation at West Valley is the solidification of the
liquid high-level waste into borosilicate glass using a process called
vitrification. The primary vitrification campaign began in June 1996
and was completed ahead of schedule in June 1998. Vitrification of the
high-level waste tank heels is currently underway and will be completed
in fiscal year 2001.
Following the vitrification of the high-level waste, the equipment
and facilities used in carrying out the project will be decontaminated
and decommissioned. The New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority and DOE are working together and with stakeholders to
formulate a preferred alternative for remediation and closure or long-
term management of the site. The estimated completion date for West
Valley may extend to 2015 or beyond, depending on the decisions made
through this process.
Another critical element of the EM program at West Valley is the
safe management of 125 spent nuclear fuel elements stored at the site.
EM will continue surveillance and maintenance of the spent fuel
facility to ensure safe storage until the spent fuel can be shipped to
the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) in
fiscal year 2001.
In fiscal year 2000, the Department will continue vitrification of
the high-level waste tank heels (producing approximately five canisters
of solidified high-level waste) and preparations for shipment of spent
nuclear fuel. We also plan to complete an Environmental Impact
Statement Preferred Alternative for cleanup and management of the site
and to resolve responsibility issues with the State of New York.
In fiscal year 2001, we will complete vitrification activities
(producing approximately five canisters of solidified high-level
waste), complete shipment of the spent nuclear fuel elements to INEEL,
complete the final design for the Remote Handled Waste Facility, and
continue off-site shipments of low-level waste for disposal.
Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico Fiscal Year 2001 Request
(In thousands)
Defense, Post 2006 Completion................................. $92,129
Non-Defense, Post 2006 Completion............................. 3,981
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 96,110
Our goal at Los Alamos National Laboratory is to complete cleanup
work by 2013 and disposition of legacy waste by 2015. Through fiscal
year 1999, the Department completed remediation of 1,401 of 2,000
``release sites,'' or specific areas where releases of contaminants had
occurred, and had decommissioned 41 out of 145 surplus facilities. We
plan to complete cleanup of two release sites and two facilities in
fiscal year 2000 and five release sites and one facility in fiscal year
2001.
A little more than half of the fiscal year 2001 request for Los
Alamos funding is devoted to environmental restoration work, such as
drilling new regional ground water wells to characterize the
hydrogeology. It also includes cleanup work in anticipation of
transferring land to the community. As required by law, DOE has
identified ten parcels totaling about 4000 acres for potential transfer
to the County of Los Alamos and the San Ildefenso Pueblos. We have
published a final Environmental Impact Statement on the land transfers
and a supporting Environmental Restoration Report, and are now
preparing an implementation plan for cleanup of all land parcels that
will be submitted to Congress in spring of 2000. DOE intends to follow
a phased approach in accomplishing the land transfers, starting with
the transfer of the relatively simple, uncontaminated parcels in 2000
and continuing with the transfer of the more complex sites in the later
years. The Department has budgeted approximately $4 million in fiscal
year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 to address cleanup requirements for the
ten parcels under consideration.
The Los Alamos legacy waste project provides for the treatment,
storage, and disposal of all legacy waste that is presently in storage
at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The legacy waste consists of
mixed low-level waste, transuranic waste, and mixed transuranic waste.
The waste was generated at 33 Technical Areas and is treated, stored,
and disposed of in compliance with applicable Federal and State of New
Mexico requirements.
Los Alamos has accelerated the treatment and disposal of legacy
mixed low-level waste and retrieval of legacy transuranic waste (both
transuranic and mixed transuranic) stored on asphalt pads under earthen
cover, and now expects to complete these activities a year earlier than
previously planned. Treatment and disposal of legacy mixed low-level
waste with an identified path for disposal is now planned to be
completed in fiscal year 2003. Retrieval of legacy transuranic and
mixed transuranic waste stored on Asphalt Pads 1 and 4 has been
completed. Retrieval of waste drums on Pad 2 will begin during fiscal
year 2000 with completion now scheduled for fiscal year 2002.
Los Alamos National Laboratory was the first DOE site to receive
authority to certify transuranic waste for shipment to the WIPP and the
first DOE site to ship transuranic waste to the WIPP. We have completed
17 shipments of legacy transuranic waste to the WIPP during fiscal year
1999. Los Alamos plans to make 28 shipments to WIPP in fiscal year
2001, which includes transuranic waste from the EM and Defense
Programs.
The Department designated Los Alamos as the lead laboratory for
research and development efforts to support the Department's nuclear
materials management. In this capacity, Los Alamos provides solutions
to complex-wide technical and operational issues associated with
stabilization and storage of plutonium and other nuclear materials.
Miamisburg Environmental Management Project (Mound) Fiscal Year 2001
Request
(In thousands)
Defense, Facilities Closure Projects.......................... $94,353
The Miamisburg Environmental Management Project, a 306-acre
facility near Dayton, Ohio used for tritium and plutonium operations,
consists of 152 buildings and approximately 230 potentially
contaminated soil areas. We have a goal of completing cleanup of the
site prior to 2006 and we are making good progress. By the end of
fiscal year 2000, nearly one-half of the 107 buildings scheduled for
removal will have been demolished or auctioned off, a quarter of the 42
buildings scheduled to be transferred to the City of Miamisburg will
have been decommissioned and decontaminated, and two-thirds of the
potential soil release sites will have been remediated.
In fiscal year 1999, Mound completed the disposition of its legacy
low-level, mixed low-level and hazardous chemical waste streams. In
fiscal year 2000 the site will complete the disposition of its
remaining legacy nuclear materials, generally sealed sources that were
used to calibrate and test equipment. The site will remove or cleanup
three additional buildings in each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001 and
will remediate six soil areas in fiscal year 2000 and nine more in
fiscal year 2001. More importantly, the site will continue to
accelerate remediation of the tritium operations facilities. This
project comprises three highly contaminated, complex buildings and
constitutes the site's ``critical path'' for cleanup and closure.
We have negotiated an agreement to transfer the ownership of the
site to the City of Miamisburg as remediation of discrete parcels are
completed. In 1999, we transferred two buildings and 27 acres and this
year we expect to deed over two more buildings and another 100 acres.
Currently, 30 private businesses, employing 350 workers, are leasing
facilities at Mound. The Department's Office of Nuclear Energy's
radioisotope heat source program will remain at Mound after the cleanup
and transfer of the rest of the site is concluded. The program will
retain three of the site's current buildings.
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Kentucky Fiscal Year 2001 Request
(In thousands)
UE D&D Fund................................................... $78,000
This uranium enrichment facility occupies a 3,500 acre site in
Paducah--including 750 acres within the fenced security area and 2,000
acres leased to the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife. Initially
constructed to support the Federal government's uranium enrichment
program, the facility now produces enriched uranium for commercial
nuclear reactors under the auspices of the U.S. Enrichment Corporation
(USEC). USEC is responsible for all primary process facilities and
auxiliary facilities associated with the enrichment services and for
waste generated by current operations. The Department has
responsibility for facilities, materials, and equipment not needed by
USEC for their operations. EM is responsible for the cleanup of
existing environmental contamination at the site and management of
legacy waste.
The cleanup problems and contaminants at Paducah include both on-
site and off-site contamination from radioactive and hazardous
materials. The environmental problem receiving our earliest and most
focused attention has been groundwater contamination, primarily
trichloroethylene (TCE) and technetium-99, which has contaminated
private residential wells. Two plumes traveling in a northeasterly and
northwesterly direction extend more than two miles offsite in the
direction of the Ohio River. A third plume, traveling southwest,
extends 1,500 feet outside of the plant boundary. Dense non-aqueous
phase liquids (DNAPLs) have also been found in the vadose zone on-site.
There are also numerous contaminated areas around the site where
chemical and radioactive wastes or trace amounts of plutonium and other
transuranics were disposed or inadvertently spilled or otherwise
released to the environment. We also must safely manage and disposition
about 65,000 tons of scrap metal, and 6,000 cubic meters of low-level
waste in drums, much of which is currently stored outdoors and exposed
to the elements.
The Department continues to pay municipal water bills for residents
whose drinking water wells were affected by the groundwater
contamination, and continues to monitor residential wells. We will
continue to operate ``pump and treat'' systems installed at the
northeast and northwest plumes during the early 1990's; approximately
12,000 pounds of TCE have been extracted from groundwater since these
systems began operation. In fiscal year 2000, an innovative technology,
an in-situ permeable reactive barrier, will be installed in the
Southwest Plume to treat the DNAPLs. In fiscal year 2001, we will issue
a Record of Decision for final remedy for sources contributing to the
northeast and northwest plumes.
The fiscal year 2001 request for $78 million for Paducah cleanup
activities is nearly $24 million more than in fiscal year 2000 and
almost a two-fold increase from the appropriation in fiscal year 1999
that will allow us to accelerate cleanup and respond to concerns raised
by investigations by DOE's Office of Environment, Safety and Health
(EH) about the pace of cleanup. In fiscal year 2000, DOE received an
additional $6 million for Paducah through a budget amendment that has
allowed us to accelerate the removal of ``Drum Mountain,'' a large
scrap pile containing thousands of empty, radioactively-contaminated
drums, which is a suspected source of contamination of the Big and
Little Bayou Creeks from surface run-off. These drums will be removed
in fiscal year 2000, and off-site disposal completed in fiscal year
2001. Disposition of the remaining scrap metal will continue on an
accelerated pace for completion by fiscal year 2003, a critical path
activity to completing the burial grounds investigation and final site
cleanup. We will complete an engineering and cost analysis for removing
the scrap metal in fiscal year 2000 and initiate disposition in fiscal
year 2001.
The request also allows the Department to accelerate
characterization and disposition of thousands of drums of low level
waste which have been stored out of doors for many years and to begin
removing contaminated equipment and materials from two large shut down
facilities. The Department, U.S. EPA and the Commonwealth of Kentucky
have identified these and other activities that could be accelerated to
achieve cleanup completion in 2010 rather than in 2012 as planned under
the current baseline. The Department continues to work with State and
Federal regulators to ensure agreement on site priorities and to
identify opportunities to accelerate cleanup.
The Department has submitted to Congress a supplemental budget
request for fiscal year 2000 funding that would provide an additional
$8 million for cleanup activities at the Paducah site. The funds would
be used to remove concrete rubble piles from the Wildlife Management
Area, one of which was identified as having low levels of radiological
contamination. The funds would also allow us to begin acceleration of
other priority activities, such as stabilization of the shut-down
facilities, in fiscal year 2000.
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio Fiscal Year 2001 Request
(In thousands)
UE D&D Fund................................................... $76,200
Initially constructed to support the Federal government's uranium
enrichment program, the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant now produces
enriched uranium for commercial nuclear reactors under the auspices of
the U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC). EM is responsible for the
cleanup of existing environmental contamination at the site and
management of legacy waste. Primary environmental problems include
contaminated areas around the site where chemical and radioactive
wastes were disposed or inadvertently spilled or otherwise released to
the environment, remediation of several old landfills, disposition of
legacy waste, and remediation and containment of groundwater
contaminated with both radioactive contaminants, specifically uranium
and technetium, and chemical contaminants such as trichloroethylene
(TCE) and heavy metals. There is no off-site contamination, and
groundwater contamination is contained within the shallow aquifer
bedrock at 30 feet below land surface. With the requested increased
funding in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, EM plans to complete
active remediation by fiscal year 2002 and all legacy waste disposition
by fiscal year 2006.
In fiscal year 1999, the Department completed all corrective
actions required for release sites, or areas where releases of
contaminants had occurred, located on the west side of the plant. A
phytoremediation project was completed which involved planting 765
hybrid poplar trees over a small groundwater plume area contaminated
with industrial solvents. Phytoremediation uses the natural growth
process of plants to treat contaminated soils, sediments, and
groundwater. In addition, a 1-year steam stripping pilot study was
completed on the groundwater plume located in the vicinity of retention
ponds for the old chemical cleaning facility (X-701B), which resulted
in the removal of 824 pounds of solvent contaminants.
In fiscal year 2000, the Department will complete current
investigations and interim corrective measures and begin final
corrective actions required by regulatory agreements. We will focus on
closure of the remaining hazardous waste units, containment and
contaminant removal of on-site groundwater plumes, treatment or
disposal of legacy waste, and surveillance and maintenance of shut down
facilities and post-closure sites. We will begin implementing the final
corrective actions for groundwater plumes and burial grounds located in
the southern portion of the site by constructing the final groundwater
treatment systems and initiating the construction of caps on several
landfills.
In fiscal year 2001, we will initiate construction of the final
treatment system for the X-701B groundwater plume and continue removing
contaminated soils from areas associated with this plume and in other
areas. We will also begin construction of the final corrective action
for the groundwater plume located in the vicinity of the main process
buildings, for completion in fiscal year 2002.
The Department has submitted to Congress a supplemental budget
request for fiscal year 2000 funding that would provide an additional
$8 million for cleanup activities at the Portsmouth site. The funds
would be used to accelerate the disposal of hundreds of containers of
cleanup waste generated from earlier removal actions. We would also
accelerate the characterization of thousands of drums of low level
waste, a necessary step before the waste can be disposed. These wastes
have been in storage for many years, and many of the drums are
deteriorating and require constant surveillance. The fiscal year 2001
request would continue acceleration of these activities.
Nevada Test Site and Operations Office, Nevada Fiscal Year 2001 Request
(In thousands)
Defense, Post 2006 Completion................................. $90,212
The Nevada Operations Office manages $90 million for cleanup and
waste management activities at the Nevada Test Site, as well as
remediation of eight other inactive sites contaminated by past DOE
nuclear testing in five states (Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, Nevada,
and New Mexico). The Nevada Test Site (NTS) is located 65 miles North
of Las Vegas and encompasses 1,350 square miles (an area roughly the
size of Rhode Island). In addition to the cleanup of radioactive
contamination resulting from above- and below-ground testing of nuclear
weapons and management of its on-site waste, NTS plays a crucial role
for other DOE sites as one of the major low-level waste disposal
facilities in the DOE complex.
The Department expects to complete restoration of the surface areas
at the inactive test sites other than NTS and to complete shipments of
transuranic waste from NTS to WIPP by fiscal year 2006. The Department
will continue to operate low-level waste disposal facilities at NTS for
the DOE complex. Institutional controls and groundwater monitoring will
be maintained at closed sites for the foreseeable future.
We are making progress in cleaning up contamination at NTS and in
addressing concerns about ground water contamination. We plan to
complete the cleanup of 575, or about 28 percent, of the ``release
sites'' at NTS by 2000. We will continue groundwater characterization
efforts. Based on new scientific findings about transport of plutonium
and other actinides in groundwater, the Department is increasing its
efforts to characterize groundwater at NTS and improve our
understanding of this complex issue. Two additional wells will be
drilled in fiscal year 2001 at the underground test area at Frenchman
Flat, per recommendation of the groundwater peer review group and the
State, to validate ongoing monitoring and modeling of the site.
NTS will continue its important role as a disposal site for low
level radioactive waste from other DOE sites. In fiscal year 2000, the
Department expects to dispose of more than 14,000 cubic meters of low-
level waste, more than half of which is from other DOE sites and plans
to dispose of 11,000 cubic meters of low level radioactive waste at NTS
in fiscal year 2001. In December 1999, the Department announced its
site preferences for disposal of DOE low-level and mixed low-level
waste based on the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement, identifying NTS as one of two disposal sites in the DOE
complex, and on February 25, 2000, we published a formal Record of
Decision.
The fiscal year 2001 request provides for characterization of
transuranic waste drums, in preparation for shipment to begin to the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in fiscal year 2002. We expect to open the
transportation waste corridor from the Nevada Test Site to WIPP in the
end of fiscal year 2001.
Weldon Spring Site Remedial Action Project, Missouri Fiscal Year 2001
Request
(In thousands)
Non-Defense, Site Closure..................................... $53,116
The Weldon Spring Site Remedial Action Project in Missouri includes
a decommissioned uranium processing plant, an abandoned quarry used as
a dump site, as well as numerous vicinity properties that were
contaminated by uranium and thorium processing operations conducted for
nuclear weapons support in the 1950's and 1960's, similar to the
Fernald Site in Ohio.
Cleanup of the Weldon Spring Site is currently planned for 2003.
All contaminated material will be placed in an on-site, above-grade
cell for permanent disposal. Long-term surveillance and monitoring for
the disposal facility will be conducted after project completion, and
the remaining land will be released for unrestricted use.
In fiscal year 1999, we continued waste placement in the 1.5
million cubic yard capacity disposal facility, with about 650,000 cubic
yards of material being placed in the facility in fiscal year 1999, for
a total to date of over 1.3 million cubic yards in just 2 years. We
expect to complete all waste placement in fiscal year 2000, with only
the completion of the facility cover, begun in fiscal year 1999,
remaining. In fiscal year 1999, we finished treatment of waste pit
sludge in the Chemical Stabilization and Solidification Facility, with
about 180,000 cubic yards of treated sludge placed in the disposal
facility, and the treatment facility was decommissioned. We began
remediation of the waste pits in fiscal year 1999 and plan to complete
this work in fiscal year 2000. We began restoration of the quarry area
in fiscal year 1999 and will continue this work in fiscal year 2000,
including the start of operations of the quarry groundwater interceptor
trench. The Record of Decision that will establish the remedy for
groundwater contamination at the site is expected to be finalized in
fiscal year 2000.
In fiscal year 2001, the construction of the disposal facility
cover will be nearly completed. We will complete the treatment of
trichloroethylene contaminants in groundwater. Work will continue on
cleanup of site facilities and the soil borrow area. We will also
continue cleanup of the quarry area, including the groundwater
interceptor trench operation.
Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York Fiscal Year 2001 Request
(In thousands)
Non-Defense, Site/Project Completion.......................... $27,233
At the Brookhaven National Laboratory, we are continuing to treat
contaminated groundwater and, in September 1999, began operation of the
first off-site groundwater treatment system, to complement several
systems already in operation on the Brookhaven site. This off-site
treatment system, installed under EM's Accelerated Site Technology
Deployment program, uses innovative technology (in-well air stripping)
to extract contaminants within the well. We have nearly completed the
stakeholder and regulatory review process to finalize groundwater
remedies, and expect the Record of Decision to be signed this Spring.
Over the remainder of fiscal year 2000 and 2001, we will design and
install additional groundwater treatment systems.
In September 1999, DOE and state and federal regulators finalized
the remedy for contaminated soil, which involves excavation and off-
site disposal. Remedy design is underway, and we will begin soil
excavation later this year. Soil excavation will continue over the next
several years.
The proposed remedy for cleaning up contaminated sediments in the
Peconic River is currently under regulatory and stakeholder review. The
proposed remedy involves excavation of contaminated sediments, with
disposal off-site, and restoration of affected wetlands. We anticipate
finalizing the Record of Decision for this project by the end of fiscal
year 2000, with remedial design activities beginning in fiscal year
2001.
In February 1999, the Office of Environmental Management assumed
responsibility for characterizing, stabilizing, and decommissioning the
Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor. Since that time, we have
undertaken substantial project planning, and field work has already
begun. This project is being executed as a series of removal actions,
allowing an early start to decommissioning. Under current planning, we
will accomplish substantial field work by the end of fiscal year 2001,
including removal of above-ground ductwork and below-ground piping.
In fiscal year 2000, the EM program will continue disposal of
legacy wastes and storage, treatment and disposal of wastes generated
by on-going Brookhaven operations. In fiscal year 2001, management of
newly-generated waste will transfer to the Office of Science. EM will
continue management of legacy waste; we expect to complete legacy waste
disposal in fiscal year 2001.
Sites in the State of California Fiscal Year 2001 Request
(In thousands)
Defense, Post 2006 Completion--Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory................................................ $48,500
Defense, Site/Project Completion--Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory................................................ 2,000
Non-Defense, Post 2006 Completion:
Energy Technology Engineering Center...................... 17,500
General Electric.......................................... 2,000
Oakland Operations Office................................. 10
Non-Defense, Site/Project Completion:
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory..................... 5,000
General Atomics........................................... 100
Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research............. 6,500
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center........................ 1,400
Oakland Operations Office................................. 90
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 83,100
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.--Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory consists of two geographical sites--the Main Site,
an operating weapons research and development laboratory, and Site 300,
located about 15 miles east of the Main Site, which has been used to
test high explosives and other technologies for defense programs. The
EM program is responsible for waste management of both legacy and waste
generated from on-going operations. It also is responsible for
remediation of the site, which includes cleanup of hazardous
contaminant releases to the soil and ground water contamination at the
Main Site, and releases of hazardous and radioactive materials to soil
and ground water from landfills, drum storage areas, and dry wells at
Site 300. Both sites are listed on the Superfund National Priorities
List and have cleanup agreements with U.S. EPA and the State of
California.
At the Main Site, we are making significant progress using pump and
treat technology to capture and contain contaminant groundwater plumes
moving offsite. We are using an aggressive cleanup strategy to contain
and extract groundwater contaminants, which supplements the existing
permanent treatment system network with portable treatment units, and
emphasizes specific source area removal. In fiscal year 1999, we
expanded the permanent groundwater treatment facilities and installed
several portable treatment units to remove contaminants at several
locations. In fiscal year 2000 we are evaluating several advanced
technologies that would enable us to cost-effectively remediate source
areas in fine-grained sediments where contaminants are hard to reach.
In fiscal year 2001, we plan to apply an electro-osmosis technology to
remove groundwater contaminants more effectively and to install
additional extraction wells and portable treatment units. Cleanup of
the Main Site is scheduled to be completed in 2007.
In fiscal year 1999, we began operation of a treatment facility to
treat explosive wastes. In fiscal year 2000, we have completed testing
of the Molten Salt Oxidation unit for treating mixed low-level and
hazardous waste and have awarded a contract to a commercial vendor who
will own and operate the treatment unit to treat waste. In fiscal year
2001 we will complete construction of the Decontamination and Waste
Treatment Facility, a treatment system for mixed low-level waste, and
begin operational testing.
At Site 300, we have focused on removal actions such as capping the
Pit 6 Landfill to control release and getting groundwater treatment
systems in place to contain off-site plume migration, and on
characterizing the contamination at the site. In fiscal year 1999, we
installed a cost-efficient portable groundwater unit to treat
groundwater and control plume migration from the site. In fiscal year
2000, we will issue final plans and schedules for site-wide cleanup of
the site and begin design work in fiscal year 2001. We will also begin
operation of an innovative groundwater treatment system in a canyon in
the southeast part of the site using the Iron Filing/Geosyphon
technology to remediate high concentrations of contaminants in
groundwater. We plan to complete cleanup at Site 300 by 2008.
General Atomics.--General Atomics is a privately-owned and operated
site, located near San Diego. General Atomics has maintained and
operated a Hot Cell Facility for over 30 years to conduct both
government and commercially funded nuclear research and development. EM
responsibilities have been cleanup of the Hot Cell Facility and
surrounding contaminated soils. In fiscal year 1999, we completed the
dismantlement of the Hot Cell Facility and soil remediation activities.
In fiscal year 2000, after an independent verification certification is
conducted, all EM activities at the Hot Cell Facility will be complete
except for surveillance and maintenance of spent nuclear fuel. The
spent nuclear fuel will remain on site until 2005, at which time it
will be shipped to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory for interim storage.
Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research.--The Laboratory for
Energy-Related Health Research is located at the University of
California, Davis. Research at the laboratory originally was directed
toward the health effects from chronic exposure to radionuclides using
animal subjects to simulate radiation effects on humans. The Department
terminated the research program and closed the laboratory in 1988. EM
activities are directed toward cleaning up the DOE areas of
contamination for eventual release back to the University without
radiological restrictions. The site was put on the Superfund National
Priorities List in 1994, and a Federal Facility Agreement was signed in
fiscal year 1999.
We are achieving significant cleanup progress at this site. In
fiscal year 1999 we completed contaminated soil removal from the
southwest trenches and shipping of low-level, legacy biowaste. In
fiscal year 2000, we will complete the closure of the mixed waste
storage facility and remove three dry wells, a distribution box and
piping, and Domestic Tank 2. In addition, several removal actions will
be completed in fiscal year 2001, including the Colbalt-60 source,
Domestic Tanks 3, the radium tank, Imhoff Facility tanks and associated
leachfield. However, due to additional contamination found and volumes
of waste removed during soil excavation of the southwest trenches in
fiscal year 1999 and additional regulatory requirements related to
health and safety, project completion has been extended to fiscal year
2004 from fiscal year 2002.
Energy Technology Engineering Center.--The Energy Technology
Engineering Center is a DOE facility located on 90 acres of land leased
from Boeing North American Corporation in Simi Valley, California. EM
activities at this site involve remediation of contaminated
groundwater; decontamination and decommissioning of the remaining
radiological facilities; deactivation and cleanup of existing sodium
facilities; landlord functions; and characterization and off-site
disposal of waste.
In fiscal year 1999, the Department completed the decontamination
and decommissioning of the Small Component Test Loop and Reactor Test
Facility, with demolition planned for fiscal year 2000. In fiscal year
2000, we will also decontaminate and decommission of the Former Sodium
Disposal Facility, and begin work at the Hazardous Waste Management
Facility. In fiscal year 2001, we will continue decontamination and
decommissioning of the Hazardous Waste Management Facility and complete
below-grade work at the Reactor Test Facility. We will also dispose of
500 cubic meters of low-level waste; and continue landlord activities
associated with deactivation, equipment divestiture and records
retention. We now expect to complete EM's cleanup responsibilities and
return the site to Boeing North American in 2007.
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.--This 426-acre site at Stanford
University is managed for DOE by the University to conduct theoretical
research in high-energy particle physics. Remediation activities at the
site involve the cleanup of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)-
contaminated soil areas and several solvent-contaminated groundwater
and soil areas. Fiscal year 1999 activities involved characterizing the
Lower Salvage Yard and completing restoration of the master substation
area. In fiscal year 2000, contaminated soils in the Research Yard and
the Lower Salvage Yard were excavated, and a remedial investigation of
the IR-6 Drainage Channel was completed. We will complete the
Feasibility Study and pilot testing of the soil vapor extraction system
at the Former Hazardous Waste Storage yard in fiscal year 2001. The
Department expects to complete cleanup at the site in fiscal year 2002.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.--EM responsibilities at
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory include storage, treatment and
off-site disposal of both legacy waste and hazardous and radioactive
waste generated by current operations, and remediation of contaminated
soil and groundwater created from past Departmental operations. In
fiscal year 2001, we will continue to excavate contaminated soils at
on-site locations and operate groundwater treatment systems to contain
off-site plume migration, and will continue off-site disposal of
hazardous and radioactive waste. The Office of Science will assume
responsibility for newly generated waste in fiscal year 2001, but EM
will continue to store, treat, and disposal of legacy waste. We plan to
complete cleanup at the site by 2003.
PADUCAH GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLAN
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Dr. Huntoon. Did I hear you
correctly, that you are going to get Drum Mountain cleaned up
by the end of the year, as you said last October?
Dr. Huntoon. By the end of this year, that is correct.
Senator McConnell. Yes. And you are working apace, are you?
I mean----
Dr. Huntoon. We----
Senator McConnell [continuing]. Progress has been made?
Dr. Huntoon. It is underway. We issued a request for
proposal and have awarded the contract for it, and the work has
begun.
Senator McConnell. So that is a commitment we can count on
being kept?
Dr. Huntoon. Yes, sir.
Senator McConnell. Thank you.
I am sure you have reviewed the draft report by the General
Accounting Office regarding the cleanup plan for the Paducah
plant. GAO concluded that the Department has purposefully
ignored numerous hazardous waste sites known as DOE Material
Storage Areas, DMSAs, that are scattered across the site.
It is my understanding that several of these waste piles
pose a criticality threat. Overall, this material makes up 1
million cubic feet of uncharacterized waste that is not
included in the overall cleanup plan.
GAO contends that as long as this waste remains
uncharacterized, DOE can ignore the material and it will not be
added to the long list of cleanup responsibilities. GAO has
stated that as long as Mr. Magwood's Office of Nuclear Energy
controls this material, it will remain outside of the overall
scope of cleanup.
So I have several questions in that regard. First, why are
not the 148 DMSAs included in the overall site cleanup plan?
Dr. Huntoon. Senator, I believe that the reason that is, is
because these areas are comprised of potentially useful
materials, excess materials if you will, that were brought
there for use by the company doing the work. USEC reviewed it,
and it is my understanding they concluded they did not need the
material, and turned it back over to the Nuclear Energy Office.
I do not know that the materials have been characterized as
waste. I think it is considered excess materials. So it has not
been turned over to Environmental Management to deal with it.
Senator McConnell. Well, the staff tells me it is really
not excess material, that it--that the cylinders really are
part of the DMSAs.
Dr. Huntoon. Okay. I am not aware of that.
Senator McConnell. Okay.
Dr. Huntoon. I thought the DMSAs were materials that were
scavenged from the closure of other facilities and brought
there for use.
Senator McConnell. So the----
Dr. Huntoon. I have not been brought up to speed, on
exactly what is in all of those DMSAs. But that is what I was
led to believe.
Senator McConnell. So the rationale----
Dr. Huntoon [continuing]. That is----
Senator McConnell [continuing]. For giving----
Dr. Huntoon [continuing]. Something we will be looking at.
Senator McConnell. So the rationale for giving Mr.
Magwood's office responsibility for material that, clearly,
should be cleanup in our view, is what again?
Dr. Huntoon. Well, I did not make that decision, Senator,
but let me tell you: I think it is because we are dealing with
the materials that are no longer wanted by anyone, and that
needs to be dealt with.
I believe the DMSAs--and I will have to ask Mr. Magwood,
but I believe the DMSAs were part of excess materials when the
contractor took over the facility in Paducah. They are
materials that need to be dealt with. But they have not been
turned over to the EM program as waste to be dispositioned.
That is probably something that we will have to consider,
and certainly will, when we get the GAO report.
Senator McConnell. But it is hard to imagine a reason why
the 57,000 cylinders of depleted uranium should not be
transferred to your office immediately, is there?
Dr. Huntoon. Well, I guess there is no reason why we should
not consider it.
Senator McConnell. You know, it----
Dr. Huntoon. It is just not our responsibility the way the
Department set it up.
Senator McConnell. I know, but just sort of looking at it
from outside, it is hard to conclude that this is not an
attitude of indifference toward cleanup.
So I would like to get you to commit to fully
characterizing every single DMSA and building at the Paducah
plant and ensure that it is included in the overall cleanup
plan.
I would hope you would provide me and the subcommittee with
an appropriate time--time table and cost estimate for the
cleanup of all of this material. Can you--can you make that
commitment, Dr. Huntoon?
Dr. Huntoon. I will commit to you, Senator, that I will go
back to the Department and work with people to try to find out
how we can best characterize that material and get an overall,
total cleanup picture for Paducah.
I share your frustration with the division of labor, at
many of our sites. And this is a primary example, because
different work is done by different programs within the
Department. That is our current division of labor and it is
awfully hard sometimes to get a total picture of it.
So I will commit to you to go back to the Department and to
work to provide you with a complete picture of the cleanup.
Senator McConnell. And if you think it is hard for you to
figure it out, imagine the frustration of those--of all of the
rest of us.
Dr. Huntoon. Yes, sir.
Senator McConnell. How long do you think it will take you
to pull that together and give me a report on that?
Dr. Huntoon. I do not know. But I will get back to you just
as soon as I can muster a group to look at that.
Senator McConnell. Well, do it as soon as you can.
Dr. Huntoon. I will.
Senator McConnell. I would really appreciate it.
Dr. Huntoon. I will.
ADEQUACY OF THE URANIUM ENRICHMENT D&D FUND
Senator McConnell. The decontamination and decommissioning
fund was created to pay for the removal and cleanup of the
nation's three diffusion plants. Nuclear utility companies
contribute to this fund, which has a balance of $1.6 billion.
Given the level of cleanup required at the three facilities
and increased cost estimates, what is the likelihood that the
fund will be adequate to cover all necessary cleanup
activities?
Dr. Huntoon. Well, Senator, I believe the fund would be
adequate. I am not sure that we have always asked for the full
amount required from the fund, or that our requests for cleanup
in the past have not always been approved.
I think we are getting a better idea of what cleanup is
going to cost at both Paducah and Portsmouth. As to whether
there is enough money there, I cannot exactly say. I know that
our cost for cleaning up those facilities has increased, as we
have gotten better baselines, and particularly considering the
ground water contamination. And we are working to understand
that better.
Taking into account the recent draft GAO report that I saw
this week, they have certainly questioned a lot of the
assumptions that were made in the total cleanup numbers. So I
think we are going to probably have to address those issues
also.
depleted Uranium cylinder conversion
Senator McConnell. Finally, are there any specific
prohibitions on the use of D&D funding for conversion of the
depleted uranium--uranium cylinders that, as you know, have
been rusting away for the past 50 years?
Dr. Huntoon. Not to my knowledge. There may be, but I do
not know of it.
Senator McConnell. Okay.
Senator Murray?
CLEANUP OF THE HIGH-LEVEL WASTE TANKS AT HANFORD
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Huntoon, certainly from my perspective, the
department's most compelling environmental management need is
the clean up of the high-level waste tanks at Hanford. These
tanks are well beyond their expected life time, and many of
them have already leaked. There are plumes of radioactive
contamination that are slowly moving toward the Columbia River.
And this is very disconcerting to those of us who live and work
in the Pacific Northwest.
As you know, the department has to work through a legally
enforceable consent decree that is negotiated with the State of
Washington to adhere to a clearly understood schedule for the
removal of the waste from these tanks and for their
vitrification into a form that is suitable for disposal. But
negotiations to revise the tri-party agreement, as you know,
recently broke down. And regulators with the State and the
regional EPA office recently imposed deadlines to keep DOE on
track for building the vitrification and treatment facilities.
Can you describe for us what the Department's plans are to
resolve the tri-party agreement dispute and to maintain the
schedule for stabilizing and cleaning up the high-level waste
in the Hanford tanks?
Dr. Huntoon. Yes, Senator Murray. As you cited, dealing
with those high-level waste tanks on the banks of the Columbia
River is one of our very highest priorities. And when we talk
about things that we consider are risky to the environment and
people, those tanks certainly stand out in our minds as the
most important.
And that is one of the reasons we undertook this
privatization approach with a contractor to deal with the high-
level tanks. That is now on schedule: we are to get a proposal
from the contractor for that on April 24, I believe. And then
we will spend the next several months, of course, negotiating
with them.
If after working through that it is acceptable, in July, we
owe a report to Congress. And if there are no problems with
that and we get the go-ahead, we will sign the contract in
August. And that is the schedule to begin the work on that
plant.
And I mention that, when you asked what we were doing,
because that is the first step toward dealing with the high-
level waste, to have a contractor in place to build the
vitrification facility. That will--the August date for signing
that contract is critical to meeting the tri-party agreement
milestones.
Another milestone that is very important to us is 2007,
when we are supposed to begin treating waste in that new
facility. That would be correct, according to our contract and
according to the TPA milestones. So we have moved forward to
meet these commitments.
Back to the first part of your question. As you know, we
have worked with the State of Washington for many years through
some rather turbulent times trying to reach agreements and deal
with problems that we have out at Hanford. Most recently, we
have been working with them, I think, for about the past year
and a half to try to resolve some questions that they had about
the Department of Energy's ability to meet some of the
milestones required by the tri-party agreement.
You mentioned that the talks had recently broken down. I
think maybe everyone just got tired, after about a year and a
half of this. The parties have recently talked on the phone,
and we are getting back to it again. Secretary Richardson and
the Deputy Secretary have both engaged in this and plan to meet
with State officials. The Deputy Secretary was due to go out
this week. I understand he has had to delay the trip for
personal reasons, so maybe in the next week or so he will get
out there.
Senator Murray. So talks are going to resume.
Dr. Huntoon. Yes. And we will try to resolve these issues.
Everyone wants the same thing. And it is just a matter of being
able to agree to things that we know just may not be possible
to get the State and the regulators to have enough confidence
in our efforts to meet these milestones.
When you ask about our confidence in doing this, you know,
the first demonstration of our commitment that I point out is
our request for a budget increase this year for this effort. We
are quite serious about it. We have worked very hard this year
with the contractor.
SHIPMENTS OF LOW-LEVEL AND MIXED LOW-LEVEL WASTE TO HANFORD
Senator Murray. Can you tell me more specifically how the
Secretary plans to address the concerns that Governor Gary
Locke and others have in my State, that they should not be
asked to accept shipments of additional DOE low-level and mixed
radioactive waste for disposal at Hanford until we do have an
absolute commitment that the department will maintain the
schedule for cleaning up the high-level waste in the Hanford
tanks?
Dr. Huntoon. Well, as I mentioned, they have asked for a
show of commitment for cleaning up. And I think our schedule
with the contractor to receive a proposal, to deal with the
proposal and to try to sign a contract in August, in addition
to the extra money we have put into the budget, I think,
demonstrates our commitment. I know that the State has asked us
to wait until we have an opportunity to have that in place
before we continue the low-level waste shipments there. That is
part of what we are working out with them now.
Senator Murray. Okay. So that will be part of the
discussions you have this week or next week.
Dr. Huntoon. We are having those discussions whenever we
can.
PRIVATIZATION OF HIGH-LEVEL WASTE TANK WASTE
Senator Murray. All right. You have talked a little bit
about the vitrification plant. Can you tell me, will the use of
a privatization contractor for the Hanford tank waste
vitrification be more cost effective to the taxpayer than the
use of traditional DOE management and operating contractors?
Dr. Huntoon. What we have planned and discussed in the past
and what we are anticipating is a proposal that would be most
beneficial to the taxpayer. The reason I qualify what I am
saying is that there is much to be worked out between now and
next August--we have not seen yet the plan that the contractor
is bringing for the financial part of this program.
As you know, the idea of the privatization is that the
contractor is assuming risk by using their own facilities and
resources and all. And I think that is one of the things that
we are also hoping will help us keep on track with this,
because the contractor does have a lot more at risk than in the
traditional way we usually do projects.
However, depending on the scoring of the money, depending
on the cost to the contractor for financing the project we will
have to assess exactly what is the best deal for the
government. But that is what we are after.
Senator Murray. Well, thank you, Dr. Huntoon. I really
believe the vitrification plan at Hanford is really essential
to meet the government's obligation to clean up this area. This
area gave a lot in the war to win it, and we have an obligation
as a country to clean it up. And we need to move forward on
that. So I look forward to working with you and members of this
committee to move that forward.
Dr. Huntoon. Thank you.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Senator.
Dr. Huntoon, Dr. Itkin, thank you very much for being with
us today. I have several questions I will be asking. But first
of all, Dr. Itkin, thank you for restating the importance of
the deep geological repository development as it relates to the
overall need to handle our high-level waste, our high-level
materials, and to do so in the timely fashion that we are
already well out of step with. But with your energy and
commitment and the dedication that this budget shows to it,
hopefully we will meet those time lines that are really
fundamentally very critical.
I also am going to submit for the record a policy paper
from a group, the National Taxpayers Union. I would have done
this, if I had had the information with me at the time, when
Mr. Reicher was with us, because I think it is important when
we talk about the energy initiatives that are present in this
budget and the wind initiative.
Simple calculations based on these new 750 kilowatt wind
turbines is that to meet the projection that is within the
overall plan of the Department of Energy, these objects are as
tall as the Capitol dome of the United States Capitol. They are
as high as the Statue of Liberty. And it would take about
123,000 of them to meet that 5-percent factor that was talked
about this morning.
So while we are talking these things, we need to make sure
we maintain the perspective as to what we are doing or what we
might be doing and the effects of that, and the public's
acceptance or willingness to accept these kinds of initiatives.
LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FUNDING
Dr. Huntoon, last year--well, last year's Energy and Water
Appropriations bill prohibited the use of environmental
management funds for laboratory-directed research and
development. I did not agree with that action. I took
opposition to that action. I have believed, and I still
strongly believe, that LDRD is critical to the development of
innovative and cost-effective cleanup technologies.
Last month, in testimony before the Senate Energy
Committee, Secretary Richardson pledged to help get this
restriction lifted in fiscal year 2001. Do you support the use
of environmental management funds for LDRD? And do you think
LDRD returns a value to the taxpayer?
Dr. Huntoon. Well, yes, Senator Craig, I do support it. I
know that the LDRD work done in our laboratories for
environmental management has been very valuable in the past.
And I would assume it would be in the future. I know that the
Secretary made this commitment. I know that the language to
have that added back has been approved and sent forward.
So I am, as you are, very hopeful that it will be added
back. We sorely miss the opportunity to use LDRD to solve some
of our problems.
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR TREATING HIGH-LEVEL WASTE
Senator Craig. Well, when we are on the edge of technology
and attempting to develop new technology in these areas that
your area is certainly a part of, to do it in the best and
soundest of ways, that kind of flexibility properly managed is
critical, I think. For 3 consecutive years, beginning in fiscal
1997, the energy and water appropriations conference report has
included language recommending that DOE fund backup technology
for vitrification of DOE's high-level waste.
A recent national academy report, entitled Alternate High-
Level Waste Treatment at the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, states that a technology, which would
produce high-level waste by melting waste, is in the same
cannister it will be disposed in had advantages over the
current continuous melder process now in use.
In the past, DOE funded such a technology, the advanced
vitrification system, but has recently discontinued funding
this promising technology.
My question is: For Idaho's calcined waste, is DOE
exploring alternatives to the type of high-level waste glass
now being produced at Savannah River, alternatives which might
have higher waste loading and more durability?
Dr. Huntoon. Well, I would like to answer you in two ways.
One, the advanced vitrification system that you referred to, we
are going to continue funding that to help resolve some of the
questions that came out of the review. It is an alternative--
and for the very reasons you just stated. It is the only thing
that has come to us recently that showed any promise for
dealing with this issue without vitrification in the more
traditional Savannah River way and would allow it to be done in
the cans, as you mentioned.
The review of it, the technical review, had some real
problems because a lot of the work had not been demonstrated at
a scaled-up test, if you will. Because of our own requirements
for such technology, if we could get it developed, we decided
to fund work that would allow us to answer some of the
questions that came out of the review. So we are going to
continue funding to answer those questions.
One of the reasons we need alternative technologies would
be the calcining work that you mentioned that is going to be
set aside until we have a way to deal with its problems.
ADEQUACY OF FUNDING TO MEET COMPLIANCE AGREEMENTS
Senator Craig. Dr. Huntoon, under current budget
projections for the out years, which are relatively flat at all
DOE sites, is the Department of Energy concerned about its
ability to meet all of its compliance agreements for cleanup
nationwide? That would be one question. And if there is not
going to be enough money, how will DOE then prioritize the
cleanup initiatives?
Dr. Huntoon. Well, Senator, the out years costs continue to
hover around $185 to $200 billion total life cycle costs for
the DOE complex. And we are trying to take care of high risk
problems first and taking care of our compliance agreements,
and doing the legally correct things in the States that we have
our regulators working with us to meet our compliance
agreements.
The total cost is something that is, to me, almost
unbelievable. I believe that the baselines are getting better
for these long-term projects, whose completions are out there
in the future. We have seen that as we get closer to closure on
some of our sites, like Rocky, Fernald, and Mound, our cost
estimates, our baseline costs, are much more accurate because
they are in the immediate time frame, closer to the center of
the radar screen.
The sites that are obviously either not closing or that
have large problems, such as the tanks at Hanford, those costs
are in the out years up to 2070. And those are very hard for us
to predict. But I will tell you that with our compliance
agreements, according to the budget that we have requested now,
we are in substantial compliance across the board.
We have some challenges for the out years. I think some of
those will have to be revisited depending on our various
schedules and these long-term projects. I think about the tank
vitrification we were just talking about at Hanford. We are due
to have 10 percent of that waste, 10 percent, dealt with by
2018. One of our compliance agreements with the State of
Washington wants all of the waste dealt with by 2018.
So we have to go back and revisit these issues with our
regulators. But I believe we have to show our commitment to
them and the path that we are taking forward in order to ask
regulators for some relief on some of these out year compliance
agreements.
PIT 9 AT IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAB
Senator Craig. What is the status of the cleanup effort at
Pit 9 in Idaho?
Dr. Huntoon. Pit 9 is part of a waste area group, WAG 7, as
it is referred to out at INEEL. And that entire waste area
group is about 88 acres, I believe. And Pit 9 was a 1 acre
portion of it. And as you know, it was chosen to demonstrate
whether we could privatize the cleanup of this area.
In the past 2 years after we ceased the contract on Pit 9
because it was not working, we have continued, in our
characterization of Pit 9 and in working the cleanup of the
entire waste area group.
Right now, I am talking with the folks out at Idaho about
the possibility of considering an approach based on the data we
have received from the more exploratory work we have done at
Pit 9. This work puts probes inside the pit, as well as around
the pit, to define the conditions inside the pit, and to take
that information and use it for the entire WAG 7, giving me an
idea of what it would take to deal with that entire 80-some
acres of buried waste.
So we have utilized knowledge we gained from Pit 9. We are
going to continue working with Pit 9. But I want them to
address the entire waste burial ground there.
ADVANCED MIXED WASTE TREATMENT PROJECT
Senator Craig. Okay. My last in the series of questions,
Dr. Huntoon, we have spoken privately about the Secretary's
recent decision to defer the incinerator portion of the
advanced mixed waste treatment facility at Idaho. Are you still
confident, in light of the action, that DOE will meet its
milestone commitments to the State of Idaho?
Dr. Huntoon. Yes, sir, I am. And as we said, when you and I
discussed this earlier, that it was, I think, one of the most
primary, if not the primary reason that the Secretary asked for
us to proceed with requesting a permit, but to set aside the
incinerator in the permit until we could identify another
technology, or make sure there was no other suitable technology
available before we asked the State to permit the incinerator.
By doing that, we were able to make that request, and, I
believe, on Friday afternoon the letter went forward to the
State to ask for the permit to build, from both the contractor,
BNFL, and the Idaho laboratory. It is a dual permit, a dual-
requested permit. When that permit is issued, the contractor
will begin working immediately to build this facility and will
be on schedule then to meet all the agreements that we have for
starting the shipment of waste off of the site, et cetera.
I think the idea, also, that maybe everyone did not fully
understand is that the incinerator portion of the facility
would only deal with about 3 percent of the waste. Therefore,
we can deal with a lot of the waste, get on with it, and meet a
lot of our commitments, and still work on how to best deal with
that remaining 3 percent of the waste. It might be an
incinerator. But it might also be that we can find some
technology, and with additional resources to better define the
problem, and be ready to deal with that portion of the waste
before we need to. So we are on track to meet those agreements.
Senator Craig. Well, to your knowledge now, are you
personally aware of any alternatives to incineration which
currently have the appropriate level of EPA approval?
Dr. Huntoon. No, sir, I am not aware of any. And we asked
the EPA that question. And I received a letter back from the
EPA headquarters office saying there are currently no other
technologies available to treat mixed waste of this sort,
except for incineration, or a thermal-type of treatment.
So that was one reason incineration was in the plan all
along, because we knew that. But we asked again recently, and
there is still nothing else available. We asked if there were
any technologies about to be permitted, or were they studying
some, had they had a request or something. And the answer was
no to that.
The third thing is what the Secretary has established a
blue ribbon committee to look out on the horizon, if you will,
at the next level. Is anyone working on technology that shows a
great deal of promise that DOE could sponsor some increased
activity to have it ready? So we are trying every avenue we can
to avoid building the incinerator. But it might be necessary at
the end.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much, Doctor. That ends
my questioning. I will have some questions that I will submit
to the record and to you, Dr. Itkin, I think there are
important that we have as relates to Yucca Mountain and the
progress that is going on there.
I know the chairman wishes he were here. His absence does
not in any way reflect how he prioritizes this budget and its
importance. We have encouraged the chairman of the budget
committees in the House and the Senate to move very quickly to
get a conference report out and to stay on or ahead of schedule
with the budget process. And that is why he is not here at this
moment.
But I know that others may have questions that they will
submit, as did the chairman. And I have a few. We will submit
those for your response.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
So we thank you very much for your time here this morning.
Your areas of responsibility are critical to our country and,
in some instances, to our States. And we appreciate the
opportunity to work with you on these things.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
WORKING WITH NNSA LABS
Question. For all witnesses: The National Nuclear Security
Administration started operation as a semi-autonomous agency within the
Department on March 1. The NNSA labs of Los Alamos, Sandia and Lawrence
Livermore have a long tradition of supporting a broad range of
scientific initiatives beyond weapons activities. As the NNSA was
created, I emphasized the importance of the NNSA labs continuing their
multi-program support of the Department and other federal agencies.
The enabling legislation, in Section 3264, stated that: ``The
Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator, shall establish
procedures to provide for the use . . . of the national security labs
by elements of the DOE not within the Administration . . .''
Despite the legislation, I am concerned that the NNSA labs will not
continue to receive high priority funding from the Department.
Will each of you assure me that you will continue to aggressively
fund projects within the NNSA labs?
Answer. (Dr. Huntoon) Under the NNSA Implementation Plan, the
Office of Environmental Management (EM) maintains responsibility for
environmental restoration activities throughout the DOE complex
including remediation activities at NNSA facilities. As such, EM will
continue to fund environmental cleanup projects and activities at NNSA
facilities. In addition, EM will continue to fund projects conducted at
NNSA laboratories that support the goals and mission of EM as
appropriate.
Answer. (Dr. Itkin) Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended,
the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management is conducting site
characterization activities at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. As part of the
site characterization, numerous activities such as performance
assessment and modeling, hydrological studies, and waste package
development, are conducted by the three national laboratories through
the Program's Management and Operating (M&O) contractor. The Program
expects to continue funding these activities to support the site
characterization effort and, if the site is found suitable,
confirmatory testing.
Question. Have discussions been initiated between your Office and
NNSA to define mechanisms to maintain close collaboration, both for
NNSA lab support to your Office and for your labs to support NNSA as
required?
Answer. (Dr. Huntoon) Yes, discussions have been initiated between
EM and NNSA on these issues. We will continue to coordinate to ensure
the necessary support for both NNSA and our office.
Answer. (Dr. Itkin) The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management has an ongoing relationship with all three laboratories and
will continue to have the same collaborative relationship in the
future. We are coordinating with NNSA in our effort to develop a
bilateral agreement with the Russian Federation to collaborate on
science related to geologic repositories. We anticipate funding from
the nonproliferation initiatives to support work in this area in 2001,
if approved by the Congress.
Question. Do you foresee any barriers to maintaining close working
relations between your Office and the NNSA?
Answer. (Dr. Huntoon) No, I do not foresee any barriers to
maintaining close working relations between EM and the NNSA.
Answer. (Dr. Itkin) Our current relationship both with the NNSA
laboratories and the NNSA is excellent. In the future, we expect that
the national laboratories will continue to be key participants in our
program if the site is approved.
SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL CLEANUP PROGRAM AT HANFORD
Question. The Spent Nuclear Fuel Program has had problems in the
past. The fiscal year 2001 budget request included $191.3 million to
continue cleanup activities. Costs have grown substantially and
completion schedules have slipped several years since the program
began.
Up date the committee on the current costs and schedules to
complete the removal and storage of the spent nuclear fuel in the K
Basins at Hanford.
Answer. The Project to remove N-Reactor spent nuclear fuel from the
K Basins at Hanford is currently on schedule to begin fuel removal from
the K-West Basin in November 2000, complete fuel removal in fiscal year
2004, and complete deactivation and decommissioning of the K-Basins in
fiscal year 2007 at a total project cost of $1.7 billion. All major
milestones since establishment of the revised baseline in December 1998
have been met, including several interim Tri-Party Agreement
milestones. To ensure that the first fuel removal milestone is met on
time, the project is undertaking a phased startup initiative to test
the various critical components and systems well in advance of November
2000.
This project will move 2,100 metric tons of degrading N-Reactor
spent nuclear fuel from the present deficient wet storage in the K-East
and K-West basins, which are within 1,500 feet of the Columbia River,
into safe, dry, interim storage in the Canister Storage Building in the
Hanford Site 200 Area Central Plateau (which is located about 15 miles
from the Columbia River). The fuel will be stored in the Canister
Storage Building until ultimate disposal in an offsite geologic
repository.
Question. Are there any engineering, technical, or other issues
that would significantly alter the current costs and completion
schedule?
Answer. There are currently no known engineering, technical, or
other issues that would significantly alter the current costs or
completion schedule. The phased startup initiative is now underway to
test the critical components and systems; this initiative will allow
early identification of any problems in fuel removal, stabilization,
and storage. The contractor has just recently proposed, and DOE has
approved, a revised outyear strategy that will accelerate sludge
removal, and more efficiently utilize personnel and budget resources.
This revised strategy is supported by the regulators, and the schedule
is currently being negotiated, since several Tri-Party Agreement
milestones will need to be changed to accommodate this change in
strategy. Essentially, the strategy will level project resources in the
outyears by eliminating the overlap between fuel removal in the two
basins, allow deletion of requirements for additional processing
equipment, and accelerate completion of sludge removal by about 12
months, thereby reducing the largest risks to the environment sooner.
Question. What actions have been taken to comply with the
recommendations of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Recommendation 94-1?
Answer. There are four commitments that apply to the Spent Nuclear
Fuel Project at Hanford from Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board
(DNFSB) Recommendation 94-1, Revision 2: (1) Commence fuel removal from
K-Basins in November 2000; (2) Complete fuel removal from K-Basins in
December 2003; (3) Commence sludge removal from K-Basins in July 2004;
and (4) Complete sludge removal from K-Basins in August 2005.
Actions taken to date to meet these commitments include completing
major construction activities at the Canister Storage Building and the
Cold Vacuum Drying Facility, and completing upgrades to equipment at K-
West Basin in support of commencing fuel movement in November 2000.
Testing of new equipment and facilities and closeout construction
activities have commenced at all three facilities in preparation for
startup in November.
A revised outyear strategy that would accelerate sludge removal was
recently approved by DOE, and is supported by the regulators and the
DNFSB. This revised strategy would more efficiently utilize personnel
and budget resources. The revised schedule for the strategy is
currently being negotiated with the regulators and the DNFSB, since
several Tri-Party Agreement and DNFSB commitments will need to be
changed to accommodate this change in strategy. Essentially, the
strategy will level project resources in the outyears by eliminating
the overlap between fuel removal from the two basins, allow deletion of
requirements for additional processing equipment, and accelerate
completion of sludge removal by about 12 months, thereby reducing the
largest risks to the environment sooner. The result is that commencing
sludge removal is accelerated 18 months to December 2002; completing
sludge removal is accelerated by one year to August 2004; and
completing fuel removal is deferred seven months to July 2004. Overall
completion of the final Spent Nuclear Fuel Project DNFSB commitments,
represented by completion of sludge removal, will occur about one year
earlier under the revised strategy.
Question. What assurances can you give the committee that the
changes to this program will ensure the project proceeds on schedule
and remain within the current cost estimate?
Answer. The project to remove N-reactor spent nuclear fuel from the
K-Basins at Hanford is currently on schedule to begin fuel removal from
the K-West Basin in November 2000, complete fuel removal in fiscal year
2004, and complete deactivation and decommissioning of the K-Basins in
fiscal year 2007 at a total project cost of $1.7 billion. All major
regulatory milestones since establishment of the revised project
baseline in December 1998 have been met. To ensure that the first fuel
removal milestone is met on time, the project is undertaking a phased
startup initiative to test the various critical components and systems
well in advance of November 2000.
Fiscal year 1999 work had excellent cost and schedule performance.
The budget execution resulted in less than 1 percent cost variance, and
all activities were completed on schedule with less than 3 percent
negative schedule variance in fiscal year 1999. The contractor is
working diligently to deliver similar results in fiscal year 2000.
Activities this year include closeout of construction activities and
commencement of testing of systems in K-West Basin, the Canister
Storage Building, and the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility. The Operational
Readiness Reviews, which demonstrate readiness to start removing fuel,
are scheduled for the summer and fall of 2000.
In addition to the above activities, DOE recently approved a
revised outyear strategy, which is supported by the regulators, that
would accelerate sludge removal, and more efficiently utilize personnel
and budget resources. The revised strategy is currently being
negotiated with the regulators, since several Tri-Party Agreement
interim milestones will need to be changed to accommodate this change
in strategy. Essentially the strategy will level project resources in
the outyears by eliminating the overlap between fuel removal from the
two basins, allow deletion of requirements for additional processing
equipment, and accelerate sludge removal by about 18 months, thereby
reducing the largest risks to the environment sooner.
Monthly project reviews are held with the contractor to review
technical, cost, and schedule performance and issues. The Deputy
Secretary reviews the project on a periodic basis and reviews updates
on a monthly basis.
SAVANNAH RIVER SITE (SRS)--NUCLEAR MATERIALS STABILIZATION
Question. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board issued follow
up recommendations in January regarding the stabilization of nuclear
materials around DOE's weapon production complex. The top 4 priority
items dealt with issues at the Savannah River Site.
Are you aware of the Defense Board's Recommendation 2000-1? What is
your response to their recommendations?
Answer. Recommendation 2000-1 cites the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board's (DNFSB) previous Recommendation 94-1 and discusses the
progress made in nuclear material stabilization to date. It further
details the remaining activities which need to be completed to
stabilize and ensure safe storage of those materials. Recommendation
2000-1 specifically criticizes the Department for failing to meet
stabilization schedules due to insufficient funding. The Recommendation
describes the Board's interpretation of their enabling legislation
relative to this circumstance, specifically that the Department must
advise Congress and the President of any shortfall in funding that
impacts Recommendation 94-1 commitments.
The Department sent its response to Recommendation 2000-1 to the
DNFSB on March 13, 2000. In the response, the Department accepted the
technical portions of the recommendation relating to nuclear materials
stabilization. However the Department does not agree that funding is
the primary factor in schedule delays and did not accept the portions
of the recommendations dealing with funding.
The Department is working aggressively to complete resource loaded
baselines to finish the stabilization work begun under Recommendation
94-1. By the end of May, we plan to provide the DNFSB with an
implementation plan for completing the remaining Recommendation 94-1
activities, and satisfying the risk-reduction requirements of
Recommendation 2000-1. It is our intention that this combined plan will
serve as the Department's 2000-1 Implementation Plan, and enable
Recommendation 94-1 to be closed.
Question. Why is it taking so long to resolve these issues at the
SRS?
Answer. While significant progress on nuclear material
stabilization has been made at SRS, factors contributing to slowing
that progress include: suspending construction of a new plutonium
stabilization and storage facility that was planned to be built at SRS,
based on a determination that the Department needed to reevaluate
plutonium storage needs at the site in light of both significant
estimated construction cost increases for the facility and a
Departmental decision to name SRS as the preferred location for a new
plutonium disposition facility; the need to reassess the Americium/
Curium Vitrification Project because development of the vitrification
equipment and process proved to be more formidable than originally
estimated; and the longer-than-anticipated length of time needed to
both finalize an interagency agreement between DOE and the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) for making surplus uranium available to TVA for
use in reactor fuel. DOE is now finalizing a revised implementation
plan for submittal from the Secretary to the Board that reflects a
resource-loaded path forward to complete all Recommendation 94-1
stabilization activities.
Question. What is DOE doing to stabilize the uranium solution in
tanks outside H-Canyon? Specifically, why should this stabilization
work wait on plans to convert the uranium to fuel for TVA and the
Defense Board states?
Answer. DOE is continuing to work with TVA to make this surplus
uranium available for use in reactor fuel. This program will result in
stabilization of the existing uranium solution and solutions to be
produced by dissolving certain SRS spent nuclear fuel that requires
stabilization. The first step in solution stabilization is to blend it
down to a low enrichment level (for this program, about 4.9 percent U-
235). This activity will take place at SRS. The final step in
stabilization, converting the low enriched solution to a solid oxide
form, will take place at a commercial facility under contract to TVA.
This work cannot begin until DOE and TVA finalize an interagency
agreement, which is expected to occur this summer, and the necessary
SRS [and commercial] facilities are constructed, which must be
authorized by Congress. Language authorizing the start of project
design in fiscal year 2000 is contained in an emergency supplemental
appropriations bill. The Department cannot initiate project design
until Congress acts to authorize this project.
SRS does not currently have the capability to convert the low
enriched solution to oxide; however, preliminary design work to develop
this capacity using on-site facilities or via a commercial vendor has
begun. DOE believes it is prudent to pursue this path in parallel with
the efforts to provide the uranium to TVA in the event that the TVA
fuel program is not successful. If this comes to pass, SRS will blend
the uranium solution to an enrichment of less than one percent U-235,
convert it to an oxide either in SRS facilities or at a commercial
vendor, and store the material at SRS pending ultimate disposition.
This form of the material would have no commercial value and would
likely be classified as waste. Even if DOE decided to devote full
resources to this alternative now, it is unlikely that stabilization of
the uranium solution could be accomplished as soon as with the program
to provide the material to TVA.
Question. What are the costs, schedules and major milestones in
dealing with this issue?
Answer. The Department's cost for the design and construction of
the capital project required at SRS to enable transfer of the surplus
uranium to TVA for use as reactor fuel is estimated to be approximately
$100 million during fiscal years 2001-2003. An estimated additional
$200 million in operating costs would be required for activities at SRS
and the Y-12 Plant (Oak Ridge) during fiscal years 2001-2007. These
costs cover not only the 8.7 metric tons (MT) of SRS uranium that is
subject to DNFSB Recommendations 94-1 and 2000-1, but also 24 MT of
other off-specification highly enriched uranium at SRS and the Y-12
Plant. DOE and TVA will share costs, as well as any potential savings
generated by use of the fuel, in accordance with an Interagency
Agreement expected to be finalized this summer. In comparison, the
estimated cost to disposition all of the material as waste is over $900
million.
Schedules and major milestones for this and other SRS nuclear
material stabilization activities will be provided in an updated plan,
expected to be forwarded to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
by the end of May 2000, to address both Board Recommendations 94-1 and
2000-1.
Question. Another high priority problem cited by the Board was
remediation of highly radioactive solutions of Americium and Curium in
F-Canyon at the SRS. Could you explain the issues there, particularly
why DOE plans to defer vitrification of this material?
Answer. The Department intends to continue with its plan to vitrify
the Americium/Curium solution currently stored in the F-Canyon facility
at SRS as expeditiously as possible. The Department has encountered
delays in stabilizing this material because development of the
vitrification equipment and process proved to be more formidable than
originally estimated. As a result, the Americium/Curium Vitrification
Project was reassessed, and a new cost and schedule baseline was
recently approved by DOE. DOE is committing the necessary resources to
complete this stabilization project in accordance with the new
baseline. A revised Implementation Plan, to be submitted to the Board
by the end of May 2000, will reflect that baseline.
Question. How does DOE plan to process this material?
Answer. The Americium/Curium solution will be stabilized by
vitrification, i.e., it will be encapsulated in a glass form. This will
be accomplished by installing and operating new equipment, which is
currently undergoing detail design, in the Multi-Purpose Processing
Facility inside F-Canyon.
ROCKY FLATS
Question. Dr. Huntoon, I am impressed by the work that is being
done to clean-up and close Rocky Flats by 2006. The contractor
continues to make good progress on shipments of material and
decontamination and decommissioning of buildings. The sooner we
complete the project, the more money the department will save on
safeguards, security and other overhead expenses. However, the DOE has
never completed a clean-up of this scale and complexity.
Is the DOE committed to completing the clean-up by December 15 of
2006?
Answer. The Department is fully committed to its target for
achieving closure of Rocky Flats by December 15, 2006. On January 24,
2000, the Department signed a new contract with Kaiser-Hill that
formalizes this commitment.
The new Rocky Flats ``closure'' contract, which became effective
February 1, 2000, includes contractor incentives for closure by 2006,
as well as reductions in fee for schedule slippages. It also includes a
detailed process for the identification and provision of Government-
furnished services and items necessary to support the closure schedule.
These services and items include the identification of receiver sites
for materials and wastes, the certification of shipping containers, the
coordination and resolution of issues, and other support activities.
Kaiser-Hill will submit a revised Rocky Flats 2006 Closure Project
Baseline in June 2000. This baseline will reflect the terms of the
contract including an assumed annual funding level of $657 million.
Question. Are you confident that the regulatory framework
established under the Rocky Flats clean-up agreement will stay in
place, and no new regulatory changes will occur to increase the current
work scope?
Answer. The Department is committed to the framework established by
the Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement (RFCA). The RFCA, which was signed in
1996, is a legally binding agreement between DOE, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), and the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment (CDPHE) to achieve cleanup at the Rocky Flats site. On
December 10, 1999, DOE, EPA and CDPHE jointly issued a memorandum in
which they committed to: expedite the closure of Rocky Flats by 2006;
provide DOE sufficient regulatory flexibility to achieve the 2006
closure goal; set priorities for cleanup work done at the site to
emphasize reductions in risk and ``mortgage'' costs, and continue the
closure process; and continue to ensure public and environmental safety
consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and
other relevant statutes.
The regulatory framework of the RFCA identifies the processes
through which final end-state decisions are made regarding the Rocky
Flats site, and it grants authorization of interim cleanup actions. It
also provides for interim radionuclide soil action levels. The contract
for closure of Rocky Flats signed between DOE and Kaiser-Hill in
January 2000 recognizes the RFCA framework. While the underlying
framework of the RFCA is not expected to change, it is possible that
the interim assumptions and decisions carried out under the 1996
agreement will be revised or finalized through the RFCA amendment
process. If these changes result in increased work scope, a contract
modification will be implemented.
Currently, the Department is in the process of responding to the
recommendation from the independent oversight panel that a revised,
more stringent radionuclide soil action level be formally adopted in
the RFCA. The panel's recommendation is based on an assumed future land
use that would allow greater access than the land use assumed in the
current RFCA. A significant change to the action levels would likely
require additional remediation activities, a possible extension in the
remediation schedule, and a possible increase in total cost of cleanup
for the Rocky Flats site.
Question. What kind of challenges would prevent the DOE from
completing clean-up of Rocky Flats on time?
Answer. There are several basic factors that could prevent the
Department from completing the cleanup of the Rocky Flats site on time.
These include any significant reductions to the planned funding level
of $657 million assumed in the new closure contract; significant
changes to the regulatory assumptions underlying the Department's
current cleanup plans, particularly assumptions about future land use,
which guide the cleanup; inadequate contractor performance; and the
Department's failure to provide the Government-furnished services and
items identified in the contract, including availability of sites to
receive various materials and waste streams from Rocky Flats. The
Department is developing a detailed process for the identification and
provision of Government-furnished services and items. The Department
and Kaiser-Hill are actively working to resolve issues related to
finalizing disposition paths for all material on site and will continue
to work to ensure the primary receiver sites for Rocky Flats waste and
material remain available as currently planned. These primary receiver
sites are the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and the Savannah River site.
ROCKY FLATS CLOSURE
Question. The budget request for fiscal year 2001 includes $664.7
million to continue clean up activities at Rocky Flats. This is the
same as the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
Does the fiscal year 2001 budget request for Rocky Flats maintain
the 2006 clean up schedule? If not, why?
Answer. Yes, the Department's fiscal year 2001 budget request of
$664.7 million for Rocky Flats fully supports the 2006 cleanup
schedule.
Question. Dr. Huntoon, your statement mentions ``challenges''
facing the closure of Rocky flats by 2006. What specifically are these
challenges, and how will they impact DOE's ability to bring about
closure by 2006?
Answer. At Rocky Flats, the scope of work required to close the
site by 2006 is well understood and will be documented in the revised
Rocky Flats 2006 Closure Project Baseline. This new baseline will be
submitted to the Department by Kaiser-Hill in June 2000. While the
schedule is ambitious, the new closure contract is a valuable tool for
incentivizing the resolution of any obstacles impeding site closure.
One of the key challenges that must be met to successfully close the
site is the removal of all special nuclear material from the site in
2002. This requires the identification of firm disposition paths for a
number of nuclear material and waste streams and coordination with and
availability of sites to accept the materials and waste. The Rocky
Flats site also needs to finalize the details of the anticipated end
state through regulatory and public processes. However, the Department
and Kaiser-Hill are actively working to address these challenging
issues, and the Department does not believe they will adversely impact
DOE's plans to close Rocky Flats in 2006.
Dr. Huntoon, your statement cites stable funding and the ability to
move nuclear waste and material from the site as possible obstacles.
Question. What are the critical issues related to movement of
materials that could adversely impact the 2006 completion schedule?
Answer. The critical issue related to the off-site shipment of
material and waste from Rocky Flats is the identification of firm
disposition paths for a number of nuclear material and waste streams.
This includes the identification of DOE sites receiving these materials
and wastes, securing final agreements with these sites, storage
capacity and acceptance criteria at the receiver sites, the requisite
National Environmental Policy Act and regulatory approvals, and the
timely certification and procurement of shipping containers and
transportation services. These issues are being resolved through the
Government-furnished services and items process defined under the new
Rocky Flats closure contract.
Question. What is DOE's strategy for successfully making the
required shipments?
Answer. The Department's strategy for successfully making the
required shipments is embodied within the terms and conditions of the
new Rocky Flats closure contract. The process for the identification
and delivery of Government-furnished services and items (GFS/I)
provides the framework for identifying and resolving issues related to
nuclear materials and waste shipment. The delivery of the GFS/I
requires careful coordination among various Departmental sites and
organizations. The strategy requires continued interaction with the
sites receiving wastes and materials, particularly the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant and the Savannah River Site. The strategy also assumes
continued management attention to resolve National Environmental Policy
Act and other policy issues affecting shipment.
Question. Would providing additional funding in fiscal year 2001
over the budget request significantly affect the 2006 closure schedule?
Answer. The Department's budget request of $664.7 million for Rocky
Flats fully supports the fiscal year 2006 closure schedule.
Question. Are there any on going WIPP related issues that would
impact the 2006 closure schedule?
Answer. The Rocky Flats site has planned an aggressive shipping
campaign for transuranic waste to achieve the 2006 closure schedule.
The site currently expects to dispose of about 15,000 cubic meters of
transuranic waste through 2006. While shipments to the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant (WIPP) continue, some WIPP-related issues could potentially
impact the Rocky Flats shipping campaign. However, these issues are
actively being addressed to avoid any impact to the 2006 closure
schedule.
One potential issue relates to obtaining the remaining approval
needed to ship all forms of transuranic waste. On March 9, 2000, Rocky
Flats received approval from the State of New Mexico to characterize,
certify, and ship debris waste under WIPP's Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) permit. Efforts are underway to obtain a similar
approval for Rocky Flats solid homogeneous waste by the end of calendar
year 2000.
Another issue that could affect Rocky Flats closure relates to an
ongoing judicial challenge to the WIPP RCRA permit by the Southwest
Research and Information Center. The current schedule for shipping
transuranic waste from Rocky Flats assumes that the existing RCRA
permit remains in effect and that shipments are not affected by the
litigation.
HANFORD TANK WASTE REMEDIATION PROJECT (TWRS)
Question. The fiscal year 2001 budget request includes $450 million
to support the TWRS privatization project at Hanford, Washington. This
is a significant increase over the $105 million appropriated in fiscal
year 2000. DOE expects to make a decision in August of this year on
proceeding with the construction phase of the privatization project.
What is the status of the project particularly the scientific,
technical and engineering basis needed to make the project a success?
Answer. Based upon monitoring the technical progress of British
Nuclear Fuels Limited, Inc., (BNFL) during the Part B-1 period and
review of its April 24, 2000, proposal for the Hanford TWRS
privatization project, the Department has concluded that the processes
proposed for treating and immobilizing the tank wastes will meet DOE
requirements. In addition, it appears that the planning, engineering,
and safety basis for the process and facility will provide a successful
remedy for the high-level waste tanks at Hanford. However, the
Department has determined that other aspects of BNFL's April 24, 2000,
proposal, including cost, schedule, management, and business approach,
were unacceptable. Therefore, on May 8, 2000, the Secretary announced
that the privatization contract with BNFL will be terminated. The
Department will compete a non-privatized design and construction
contract with a new contractor being selected by January 15, 2001. This
effort may use the technical and design approaches developed by the
Part B-1 contractors. Plant operating expertise, needed as input to the
design, will be transitioned from BNFL to an existing contractor. The
Department will solicit competitive bids for operation of the facility
at an appropriate future date.
Question. How is it possible to have a credible design, one that
reflects firm work schedules and milestones if these issues are not
thoroughly understood?
Answer. Based on monitoring the technical progress of the BNFL team
during the Part B-1 period and the review of its April 24, 2000,
proposal, no significant technical issues have been identified. The
technical work performed under Part B-1 is credible and may continue to
be the basis for the treatment facility at Hanford under the new non-
privatized contract that will replace the BNFL contract.
Question. Each nuclear waste project is unique, and TWRS is no
exception-it is truly one of a kind. Therefore, what have you learned
from other privatization projects that would be helpful with the TWRS
project at Hanford?
Answer. The Department determined that BNFL's April 24, 2000,
proposal for the Hanford privatization contract was unacceptable in
many areas, including cost, schedule, management, and business
approach. The price of the proposal included high contingency, fees,
and return on investment which essentially shifted the financial risk
from BNFL back to the Federal Government. Thus, a key benefit of
privatization, in this case, was lost. Therefore, on May 8, 2000, the
Secretary announced that the privatization contract with BNFL will be
terminated. The Department will compete a non-privatized design and
construction contract, with a new contractor being selected by January
15, 2001. Plant operating expertise, needed as input to the design,
will be transitioned from BNFL to an existing contractor. The
Department will solicit competitive bids for operation of the facility
at an appropriate future date.
Question. How confident is DOE that this is the best approach and
that all major issues are resolved such that the project may proceed
without significant delays and cost increases attributable to unknown
factors?
Answer. The Department determined that BNFL's April 24, 2000,
proposal for the Hanford privatization contract was unacceptable in
many areas including cost, schedule, management, and business approach.
Therefore, on May 8, 2000, the Secretary announced that the
privatization contract with BNFL will be terminated. The Department
will compete a non-privatized design and construction contract, with a
new contractor being selected by January 15, 2001. Plant operating
expertise, needed as input to the design, will be transitioned from
BNFL to an existing contractor. The Department will solicit competitive
bids for operation of the facility at an appropriate future date. Even
though this change in acquisition approach has been necessary, the
technical concept and the design work accomplished to date provide a
sound approach to treatment of the high-level waste at Hanford.
Question. The GAO has indicated in their report RCED 99-13 that the
BNFL melter technology is unverified for Hanford application. Do you
agree with the GAO assessment? If not, why?
Answer. We do not agree with the GAO assessment. The assessment was
completed at a point in the project in which little specific
vitrification testing had been completed. Since that time, BNFL/GTS
Duratek has used its pilot melter facility with simulated wastes to
demonstrate that the vitrification technology for low activity waste
will produce an acceptable glass product at production rates that meet
or exceed design requirements. Approximately 80 metric tons of glass
have been produced with this melter during Phase I, Part B-1. The team
has also successfully tested its technology for high activity waste
using actual high-level wastes at a bench scale. In addition, a number
of the design concepts (e.g., glass bubblers, pouring system design)
have been verified, and production rates 20-50 percent above design
requirements have been achieved. From this information BNFL/GTS Duratek
has been able to further refine the vitrification technology process
and equipment.
Question. Should the BNFL joule melter be demonstrated with Hanford
high activity wastes (either simulated or actual) with the anticipated
waste loading prior to proceeding with construction or agreeing to a
price for processing vitrified waste?
Answer. Pilot melter testing using simulated high-level waste feed
compositions and laboratory vitrification of actual Hanford tank waste
samples have been completed by BNFL/GTS Duratek. Testing will continue
to further refine glass compositions and process strategies.
Question. Hanford high level wastes are known to vary widely in
chemistry due to on going chemical reactions in the tanks. How does
this variability affect DOE's plans for obtaining a homogenous waste
feed by blending the wastes?
Answer. DOE does not plan on blending tank wastes prior to the year
2018. DOE has had numerous samples of tank waste tested and has found
that the waste feed specifications capture the composition of
approximately 90 percent of all Hanford wastes. These wastes can be
processed in a vitrification facility without blending. The equipment
in the tank farms, planned upgrades, tank space availability, and
operational experience will be sufficient to accomplishing blending
needed for 2018.
Question. What is the government's liability in the event DOE
cannot deliver a homogenous waste feed to BNFL?
Answer. The Department determined that BNFL's April 24, 2000,
proposal for the Hanford privatization contract was unacceptable in
many areas, including cost, schedule, management, and business
approach. Therefore, on May 8, 2000, the Secretary announced that the
privatization contract with BNFL will be terminated. The Department
will compete a non-privatized design and construction contract, with a
new contractor being selected by January 15, 2001. Under either a
privatized or non-privatized contract, the Government would be liable
if the proper feed cannot be delivered. However, in the latter type of
contract, the liability would not include costs specifically associated
with privatization, such as financing and return on investment.
Question. Has blending of nuclear waste on the scale necessary at
Hanford ever been demonstrated or accomplished?
Answer. Planned blending to achieve acceptable feed will not occur
until after the year 2018. Incidental mixing of waste from different
tanks takes place currently in the routine transfers at Hanford. Waste
from one tank is transferred into another after verifying compatibility
of the two wastes. One of the most recent examples occurred in 1998-99
with the transfer of waste from Tank C-106 (about 190,000 gallons) to
Tank AY-102 (about 700,000 gallons). The purpose for the transfer was
to eliminate a safety concern in Tank C-106; however, as part of the
process, wastes from both tanks were successfully combined in a one
million gallon tank.
Question. Is substantial piping required in the blending process
and in delivery of the waste to BNFL for vitrification? Can the piping
become clogged and if so, what steps will be taken to avoid clogging?
Answer. The equipment presently in the tank farms, along with the
planned upgrades to the tank farms, will fully support all future
blending (after 2018) and feed delivery activities. Currently, Hanford
is planning to upgrade existing equipment (pump pits, ventilation,
valves, etc.) and install new pipelines that connect the various tank
farms to each other and to the processing facilities. These are
necessary for general retrieval, not blending, but will also be
utilized for blending activities after 2018. The piping has the
potential to become clogged; however, several preventative measures are
in use and are planned for the future. DOE is performing laboratory
tests on physical properties of the waste in order to determine
dilution and thermodynamic parameters that will prevent formation of
solids in the pipes. Control of these parameters is incorporated in the
current plans for waste feed delivery. DOE plans to dilute the waste
prior to and during transfers. Also, DOE has included redundancy in the
piping plans. DOE will connect four pipelines to the processing
facilities, two primary lines and two back-ups. If a primary line
clogs, DOE will use a back-up line during the period the primary line
is being unclogged. Hanford occasionally experiences pipeline clogs on
some of the tank-to-tank transfers. These are readily unclogged by
injecting hot water flushes into the clogged pipeline.
Question. What is the expected cost to the government for making a
blended, homogenous waste feed?
Answer. The waste that will be delivered to the processing plant
prior to 2018 will not need to be blended or homogeneous. This waste
will conform to waste feed specifications without blending. The
equipment presently in the tank farms and the planned upgrades will be
sufficient to accomplish any blending needed after 2018. Costs to
perform those future blending operations will be comparable to current
costs for routine transfers.
Question. Will it be possible to insert new, more efficient and
less costly waste treatment technologies into the TWRS project at
Hanford? Please explain.
Answer. Based on monitoring of the technical progress of the BNFL
team during the Part B-1 period and review of its April 24, 2000,
proposal, the Department believes the technical approach and design are
sound. The process facilities and equipment concepts for the treatment
facilities are being designed for remote maintenance and replacement.
Using these design concepts, it is possible that newer, more efficient
technologies could be employed in the treatment facilities as they
become cost effective to do so. Examples include higher temperature
melters and the use of different radionuclide separation technologies
(e.g., improved resins and/or inorganic engineered materials). DOE
continues to invest in related science and technology development
through its High-Level Waste Focus Area. The results from this program
are targeted toward eventual applications at TWRS.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Question. The budget request for Science and Technology totals
$196.5 million for fiscal year 2001 compared to $236.7 million for
fiscal year 1999 and $229.4 million for fiscal year 2000.
Are the basic science and technology needs of the program declining
or is there some other reason that accounts for this continued downward
trend in the Science and Technology program?
Answer. The Office of Science and Technology continues to review
technology needs as sites modify their cleanup programs or identify
more aggressive approaches to conducting their work. While intractable
problems still exist, and there is still a definite need for the
further development of new technology, our thrust has turned to
ensuring widespread deployment of innovative technologies to meet
closure site schedules. We are working with our field offices to ensure
that new technologies are applied where they are most needed.
We are now placing added emphasis on the deployment of technologies
that are already developed. During our recent reorganization of the EM
program, we created a Deployment Assistance Team whose mission is to
provide the tools needed to accelerate and increase the deployment of
new technology and the delivery of key products to address the needs of
site closure and project completion activities.
Question. For example, is DOE pursuing any alternatives that could
be used in the event the BNFL vitrification melter process proposed for
the Hanford waste cleanup program fails or does not perform as
expected? Please explain.
Answer. The successful operation of high-level waste (HLW)
vitrification at the West Valley Site and at the Defense Waste
Processing Facility at the Savannah River Site has provided confidence
that vitrification of HLW at Hanford can be equally as successful.
Additionally, BNFL has successfully vitrified simulated Hanford (low
activity) wastes in the Duratek facility in Columbia, Maryland, at
production rates 20-50 percent above design requirements. The
Department continues to seek technical improvements in current
vitrification methods for better cost effectiveness and reliability.
However, the recognized complexity and diversity of HLW at Hanford
and the high total life cycle costs at Hanford have led the Department
to commission a review of alternatives, in order to provide
recommendations by the end of this calendar year on the specific new or
different technologies that should be comprehensively developed as cost
saving alternatives over the next several years. Specific emphasis is
on alternatives to vitrification that could reduce the total life cycle
costs, including final disposal costs.
EM PRIVATIZATION
Question. Dr. Huntoon, as you know, CBO has changed the outlay
scoring for DOE privatizations. As a result, the outlays for the
Hanford tank privatization jump up to 53 percent. There is now no
scoring advantage to the Appropriations Committee for DOE to use
privately financed contracts for these projects because they cost the
Appropriations Committee the same (in the near term) as a standard,
multi-year procurement.
In fact, since the private financing rates are substantially over
government borrowing rates, the total project costs are much higher
under the privatization contracts.
Why should the Congress proceed with a privatization proposal that
will dramatically increase the cost of a project as a result of the
cost of private financing versus the cost of government financing?
Answer. The Department determined that British Nuclear Fuels
Limited, Inc.'s, (BNFL) April 24, 2000, proposal for the Hanford
privatization contract was unacceptable in many areas, including cost,
schedule, management, and business approach. Therefore, on May 8, 2000,
the Secretary announced that the privatization contract with BNFL will
be terminated. The Department will compete a non-privatized design and
construction contract, with a new contractor being selected by January
15, 2001. Plant operating expertise, needed as input to the design,
will be transitioned from BNFL to an existing contractor. The
Department will solicit competitive bids for operation of the facility
at an appropriate future date.
Question. Do you still expect construction to be complete in fiscal
year 2007 at a cost of $5.4 billion for Phase I?
Answer. The Department determined that BNFL's April 24, 2000,
proposal for the Hanford privatization contract was unacceptable.
Therefore, on May 8, 2000, the Secretary announced that the
privatization contract with BNFL will be terminated, and the Department
will compete a non-privatized design and construction contract. The
request for proposals, to be issued in August 2000, will ask for
proposals that would enable the Department to meet the 2007 milestone
under the Tri-Party Agreement. The costs will not be determined until a
new contractor is awarded by January 15, 2001.
NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL
Question. The fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Nuclear Waste
Disposal program at Yucca Mountain totals $470.3 million. This includes
$358.3 million of non-Defense discretionary funding and $112 million
for the Defense portion of the program.
The Department will issue a comprehensive Final Environmental
Impact Statement contemporaneously with the finalization of the Site
Recommendation. A Site Recommendation Consideration Report will be
prepared, and if the site is determined to be suitable and the
Secretary of Energy decides to recommend the site for repository
development, the Site Recommendation Report will be submitted to the
President in fiscal year 2001. If the President and then the Congress,
accept the Site Recommendation, a License Application will be prepared
and submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in fiscal year 2002.
Since the submission of the Viability Assessment in December 1998,
have you found any scientific or technical fault with the Yucca
Mountain site that would suggest that it is not a suitable site for a
permanent geologic repository?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Nuclear Waste
Disposal program at Yucca Mountain totals $437.5 million. This includes
$325.5 million of non-Defense discretionary funding and $112 million
for the Defense portion of the program.
The scientific studies and analyses we have conducted since the
Viability Assessment indicate that Yucca Mountain remains a promising
site for a geologic repository. We are therefore pursuing the work that
will support a Secretarial decision in 2001 on whether to recommend the
site to the President for development as a repository.
Question. There have been ongoing concerns related to the migration
of water at the site. Is this something new, and have you been able to
assess the problem? Do you believe this to be a problem?
Answer. To date, Yucca Mountain remains a promising site for
development as a geologic repository. The movement of water is an
important consideration which is being examined. Our understanding of
how water flows through the saturated and unsaturated zones is
integrated in a total system performance assessment that models and
predicts how a repository may perform within Yucca Mountain. At this
time, given our understanding of how a repository may perform, we do
not anticipate problems with the migration of water at this site.
Question. What is your schedule for major repository milestones?
Have you met last years goals? What, in your judgement are the
impediments to meeting future milestones?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, we met the major milestones for that
year of issuing the Viability Assessment and Draft Environmental Impact
Statement and completing a formal, independent peer review of the total
system performance assessment (TSPA) that supported the Viability
Assessment. The peer review findings and recommendations will be
considered in developing the TSPA to support decisions on site
recommendation. We also completed repository and waste package designs
for use in developing the TSPA and other documentation that will
support decisions on site recommendation. We are now further developing
those designs based on the results of our analyses to reflect
recommendations made by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
Milestones leading to the opening of a permanent repository, and
potential impediments to the schedule, are identified and discussed
below. Because these milestones are on the critical path to the start
of repository operations, a factor that jeopardizes one date may
jeopardize subsequent dates. The greatest impediment to the schedule
would be inadequate funding, and recently, our ambitious schedule has
been made more challenging by a funding shortfall in excess of $100
million during the past three years. Note that the discussion of
milestones below assumes that the Department's work would not be
curtailed or delayed by court orders due to potential lawsuits filed by
parties who oppose implementation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
(NWPA).
--Prepare Site Recommendation Consideration Report, late 2000. OCRWM
will issue a Site Recommendation Consideration Report in late
2000. After that, OCRWM plans to hold public hearings in the
vicinity of Yucca Mountain to inform residents of a possible
site recommendation.
Potential schedule risk: At this time, we identify no major
factors that would jeopardize this date.
--Complete final environmental impact statement (EIS) to support the
Secretary's submittal to the President of a site
recommendation. The NWPA requires that an EIS accompany a
Secretarial site recommendation. The Department issued a draft
EIS for public comment in fiscal year 1999 and comments are now
being reviewed. The final EIS will be completed in fiscal year
2001.
Potential schedule risk: At this time, provided sufficient fiscal
year 2001 funding, we identify no major factors that would
jeopardize completion of the EIS in fiscal year 2001.
--Prepare and submit a site recommendation, fiscal year 2001. After
holding public hearings in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain and
reviewing public comments, OCRWM will advise the Secretary on
site recommendation. If the Secretary decides to submit a site
recommendation to the President, this may trigger a series of
steps defined by the NWPA. At least 30 days prior to that
recommendation, the Secretary must notify the Governor and
legislature of Nevada of his intent to submit the
recommendation. If the President, upon receipt of the
Secretary's recommendation, decides to recommend the site to
Congress, the Governor and legislature of Nevada may submit a
notice of disapproval to Congress. If a notice of disapproval
is submitted, Congress may act in accordance with the timetable
and procedures in the NWPA to approve the Presidential
recommendation. If Congress approves it, the site designation
takes effect.
Potential schedule risk: Insufficient funding could affect this
schedule. In addition, decisions by the Secretary, the
President, or Congress not to recommend or approve the site for
development as a repository will affect the timetables and
procedures to be followed under the NWPA.
--Develop and submit a license application, fiscal year 2002. If the
President and Congress approve development of a repository at
the Yucca Mountain site, the Department will submit a license
application to the NRC.
Potential schedule risk: A license application is a complex
document, the preparation of which requires long lead time.
Because of budget shortfalls over the past few years, OCRWM has
had to defer much of the work on the license application in
order to remain within budget and on schedule for the site
recommendation. The fiscal year 2002 date for submittal of a
license application will be jeopardized if OCRWM receives less
funding than the current funding profiles indicate is required.
--Obtain construction authorization from the NRC, fiscal year 2005.
The NWPA requires the NRC to issue its decision on
authorization of repository construction within three years of
the date that the Department submits a license application.
Potential schedule risk: Our careful planning for many years with
the NRC to prepare for licensing should serve to mitigate any
delays. However, the NWPA allows NRC to extend their review for
an additional 12 months. If this provision is exercised, our
schedule would be impacted. An additional factor that might
impact this schedule is scientific uncertainty.
--Submit license application amendment to receive and possess waste,
fiscal year 2008. The Department will have to update its
license application and submit it to the NRC in order to obtain
authorization to receive and possess waste.
Potential schedule risk: With sufficient funding, we see no
factors that would jeopardize this milestone. An additional
factor that might impact this schedule is scientific
uncertainty.
--Start waste acceptance and emplacement, fiscal year 2010. If
construction begins in 2005 and proceeds as planned, waste
emplacement could begin by 2010.
Potential schedule risk: Inadequate funding would jeopardize this
date. An additional factor that might impact this schedule is
scientific uncertainty.
OUT-YEAR FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
Question. Budget constraints forced Congress to reduce the funding
for the program in fiscal year 2000. What impact has the funding
reduction have on your progress in fiscal year 2000? Would you give the
Committee your views on the out-year funding requirements for the
Radioactive Waste Management Program?
Answer. Over the past three years (FY 1998, fiscal year 1999, and
fiscal year 2000), the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
has received over $100 million less than the Administration's budget
request for the Program. In each of those years, the Program has
adjusted its efforts to focus on those science and engineering
activities most essential to support a decision on site recommendation.
Although we have deferred planned work, the Department is still on
schedule to complete the work necessary for a site recommendation in
2001 and a License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in
2002. The fiscal year 2001 budget request of $437.5 million is
necessary to complete work the Program deferred due to the funding
shortfalls.
Should the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program
receive less than the requested amount in fiscal year 2001, and
depending on the extent of the reduction, the overall quality of the
science and engineering supporting a site recommendation decision could
be jeopardized and potentially delay that decision. In turn, submission
of the license application in 2002 could be substantially delayed.
If the site is recommended by the President and approved by
Congress, the need for adequate funding will become necessary to
maintain schedules for waste emplacement in 2010. The total funding
profiles, including Yucca Mountain, transportation, and program
management, for fiscal year 2001-2010 is as follows:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Fiscal Program
Fiscal year funding year funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001................................ 438 2006 1,397
2002................................ 438 2007 1,341
2003................................ 871 2008 1,220
2004................................ 935 2009 1,210
2005................................ 1,289 2010 950
-----------------------------------
Total......................... 10,089
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What is the annual out-year funding requirements to keep
the program on schedule?
Answer. The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program
will require significant increases in funding if the site is
recommended by the President and the site designation is effective. Our
outyear estimates, that we provided in the recently issued revision to
the Program Plan, range from over $870 million in fiscal year 2003 to
almost $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2005.
The Program funding estimates reflect the Department's best
projections, given the scope of work identified and the planned
schedules. The total funding profiles, including Yucca Mountain,
transportation, and program management, for fiscal year 2001-2010 is as
follows:
Funding Requirements
[In millions of dollars]
Fiscal year Program funding
2001.............................................................. 438
2002.............................................................. 438
2003.............................................................. 871
2004.............................................................. 935
2005.............................................................. 1,289
2006.............................................................. 1,397
2007.............................................................. 1,341
2008.............................................................. 1,220
2009.............................................................. 1,210
2010.............................................................. 950
______
Total.......................................................10,089
DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE APPROPRIATION REQUIREMENTS
Question. What is the status of the Defense Nuclear Waste
appropriation requirements? Is it paid up?
Answer. Through fiscal year 1999, approximately $1.2 billion has
been appropriated from the Defense Nuclear Waste Appropriation. As of
the end of fiscal year 1999, the outstanding defense obligation was
approximately $1.5 billion, which needs to be fully paid up before the
defense waste can be accepted.
DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE FUTURE GROWTH REQUIREMENTS
Question. How must the Defense portion of the program grow in order
to meet your major milestones and completion schedule?
Answer. In the fiscal year 2001 budget request, the Department is
requesting Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal appropriations that are level
with fiscal year 2000. However, this does not reflect the necessary
appropriations to ensure that the defense obligations are fully paid up
prior to the acceptance of defense waste for disposal.
The outstanding defense obligation must be fully paid up prior to
accepting defense waste for disposal. The outstanding balance as of the
end of fiscal year 1999 is approximately $1.5 billion. Various funding
scenarios have been developed that will result in a zero outstanding
defense balance by 2010. The following table depicts three such
scenarios. The first scenario mirrors the fiscal year 2001 budget
request for fiscal year 2002-2005 and then shows the increase that is
required for the fiscal year 2006-2010 outyears to reduce the balance
to zero. Alternative 1 is the profile assumed in the ``Report on
Assessment of Fee Adequacy Based on fiscal year 1999 TSLCC Update,''
prepared by our M&O contractor, which is available on OCRWM's Internet
Home Page. Alternative 2 is a profile that has the advantage of
producing a zero balance while also smoothing out the large increases
that would be required with either the fiscal year 2001 budget request
profile or the profile in the fee adequacy report.
DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL APPROPRIATION
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal
year 2001
Fiscal year budget Alternative Alternative
request 1 2
profile
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002.............................. 112 200 250
2003.............................. 113 200 350
2004.............................. 116 200 450
2005.............................. 122 630 540
2006.............................. 810 630 540
2007.............................. 810 630 540
2008.............................. 810 630 540
2009.............................. 810 630 540
2010.............................. 810 620 535
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR WASTE FUND CURRENT BALANCE AND FUTURE ESTIMATE
Question. What is the current balance in the Nuclear Waste Fund,
and what is the current estimate to construct the waste storage
facility at Yucca Mountain?
Answer. As of February 29, 2000, the current balance in the Nuclear
Waste Fund was $9.0 billion. This balance does not take into account
outstanding one-time fee payments and defense appropriations. The
Program funding estimates reflect the Department's best projections,
given the scope of work identified and the planned schedules. The total
funding profiles, including Yucca Mountain, transportation, and program
management, for fiscal year 2001-2010 is as follows:
Funding Requirements
[In millions of dollars]
Fiscal year Program funding
2001.............................................................. 438
2002.............................................................. 438
2003.............................................................. 871
2004.............................................................. 935
2005.............................................................. 1,289
2006.............................................................. 1,397
2007.............................................................. 1,341
2008.............................................................. 1,220
2009.............................................................. 1,210
2010.............................................................. 950
______
Total.......................................................10,089
NNSA IMPACTS AT SAVANNAH RIVER SITE
Question. Dr. Huntoon, the NNSA legislation placed the tritium
operations at the Savannah River Site under the NNSA, but the overall
Savannah River Site is being managed by Environmental Management..
Are NNSA activities at SRS under the control of NNSA personnel, or
EM personnel?
Answer. Under the NNSA Implementation Plan, the SRS Field Manager
is also serving as the Field Manager for NNSA Operations and in this
capacity is accountable to the NNSA Deputy Administrator for Defense
Programs. Therefore, NNSA activities are under the control and
direction of the NNSA, not EM.
carlsbad issues
Question. When the Request for Proposals for a new contractor to
manage the WIPP site was issued, it dropped requirements for economic
development activities. These activities have been essential in
building a supportive local community and infrastructure around key
department facilities. It has proven its value to Department missions
with the progress at Sandia and Los Alamos.
Why were economic development requirements dropped from the
solicitation for the next WIPP management contractor?
Answer. The current WIPP Request for Proposals (RFP), like other
recent RFPs and contracts issued by DOE, does not require the
contractor to fund economic development. This approach is consistent
with current Departmental policy.
However, it is the policy of DOE to be a constructive partner in
the geographic region in which DOE conducts its business. The basic
elements of this policy include: (1) recognizing the diverse interests
of the region and its stakeholders, (2) engaging regional stakeholders
in issues and concerns of mutual interest, and (3) recognizing that
giving back to the community is a worthwhile business practice. The
current WIPP contract solicitation requires the prospective contractors
to address this policy in their proposals.
Question. Dr. Huntoon, does the Department intend to live up to its
commitment to the Carlsbad region to support missions in the area that
go beyond operation of WIPP? What is it doing to support this
commitment?
Answer. It is DOE's policy to be a constructive partner in the
geographic region in which DOE conducts its business. The basic
elements of this policy include: (1) recognizing the diverse interests
of the region and its stakeholders, (2) engaging regional stakeholders
in issues and concerns of mutual interest, and (3) recognizing that
giving back to the community is a worthwhile business practice. The
current WIPP contract solicitation requires prospective contractors to
consider and address this policy in their proposals.
Question. Does the Department support a leadership role for the
Carlsbad Office, as they have already demonstrated in the application
of technologies to address problems along the border?
Answer. The Department is supporting the President's Southwest
Border Initiative to bring the collective expertise of the Department
and other Federal agencies to bear on issues in the border region.
Additionally, on April 6, Secretary Richardson announced the Southwest
Border Energy & Technology Collaboration Program to partner with
universities in border states to focus on ways to reduce pollution
while introducing new energy-related manufacturing options that will
result in sustainable economic development in the region.
We expect to use the expertise of our national laboratories, field
offices and area offices, including Carlsbad, and Headquarters program
offices in these efforts. However, due to the cross-cutting nature of
the issues and the need to coordinate across the Department and with
other Federal agencies, we plan to retain the leadership role at
Headquarters. Not only will this allow for maximum ability to leverage
the necessary resources, it will allow Carlsbad to maintain its focus
on achieving its critical mission of getting WIPP fully operational so
that we can complete cleanup at our sites.
Question. When the Secretary made his April 6 announcement of a new
technology collaboration in the border region, which sounds very
similar to S.397, he did not mention leadership by the Carlsbad office
as the bill demands. Why not?
Answer. As you know, DOE supports the President's Southwest Border
Initiative by using the resources and expertise of all of the
Department's programs and national laboratories to address border
issues. On April 6 of this year, Secretary Richardson announced the
``Southwest Border Energy & Technology Collaboration Program'' to
partner with universities in border states to focus on ways to reduce
pollution while introducing new energy-related manufacturing options
that will result in sustainable economic development in the region. We
expect to manage this program from Headquarters in order to coordinate
most effectively with other DOE offices and other Federal agencies.
Because of the cross-cutting nature of the initiative and the need to
ensure that Carlsbad stays focused on its critical mission--getting
WIPP fully operational so that we can complete cleanup at our sites--we
prefer to coordinate this program from Headquarters.
WIPP
Question. Dr. Huntoon, why did the Department remove $9.3 Million
from Sandia National Laboratories' WIPP-funding for waste
characterization costs at other sites, when waste characterization
costs are not a part of the WIPP budget? [Such costs have always been
part of individual site budgets.]
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 WIPP budget was realigned in order to
implement the provisions of the WIPP Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) permit, which was issued in October 1999. These funds were
used by the Carlsbad Area Office and the sites to realign their
transuranic waste programs to meet the requirements of the permit,
enabling them to ship to WIPP. By realigning these funds, the
Department was able to pay for the work required under the permit and
more effectively manage the national transuranic program in order to
resume shipments under the RCRA permit.
Question. The funds in question supported key work at Sandia that
is essential for WIPP continued performance, especially for the re-
certification required on five year intervals. Will the Department
restore the $9.3 Million to Sandia in Fiscal year 2001?
Answer. Sandia National Laboratory's efforts on WIPP primarily
support the requirement to recertify the facility to meet EPA standards
on a five-year cycle. The Department believes, now that WIPP is
operational, efficiencies will be realized that eliminate the need to
restore the $9.3 million fiscal year 2000 funding to Sandia National
Laboratory in fiscal year 2001. Proposed fiscal year 2001 funding for
Sandia National Laboratory for the WIPP recertification effort is $19.8
million.
WIPP--WASTE STORAGE TRANSPARENCY TEST BED
Dr. Huntoon, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
2000 stated that ``The committee directs the Department of Energy to
develop a Plan to establish a demonstration and training program using
the WIPP repository system as a test bed facility to develop
transparent monitoring technologies for waste storage and to
demonstrate them to the international community. The Department will
report its plan to the Congress by March 1, 2000.''
This Report is now long overdue.
This use of WIPP could be used to enhance the mission of the
Carlsbad facility to support an area of international importance.
Question. When will the DOE report on the use of WIPP as a test bed
for international transparency of waste storage technologies be
delivered to Congress?
Answer. The Office of Environmental Management and the Office of
Nuclear Non-Proliferation are preparing this report. The report will be
forwarded to the Congress in the near future.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
VITRIFICATION TECHNOLOGY
Question. The DOE Safety Division, the National Academy of Sciences
and the GAO have warned against DOE placing all its reliance on a
single high level nuclear waste vitrification technology. Should DOE
have a backup vendor and an alternate technology under development?
Answer. Given the extensive and successful testing, demonstration,
and independent reviews conducted to date on the vitrification
technologies proposed for treatment of Hanford's tank wastes, DOE has
confirmed, with a high degree of confidence, the technical performance
of the proposed vitrification technologies. The proposed technologies
are mature and robust and are expected to perform as designed and be
capable of processing essentially all of Hanford's tank wastes. The
technologies are in existence and in use around the world, and have
been extensively and successfully tested during the design phases on
Hanford's tank waste. The technologies have been applied on a
production scale basis using validated simulants and on a bench scale
basis using actual high-level wastes. Additional samples have been
tested on a pilot-scale basis using validated simulants; and a pilot-
scale melter, operating successfully in Columbia, Maryland, is
continuing to test the technologies. In addition, similar technologies
are currently being used for high level waste (HLW) vitrification at
the West Valley Demonstration Project in New York and the Defense Waste
Processing Facility at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.
Nevertheless, given the significant life-cycle costs related to HLW
disposition across the EM complex and in response to previous years'
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Conference Report language,
the Department is looking at alternatives to the current pre-treatment
processing and vitrification processes. Fiscal year 2000 activities
include funding for additional bench-scale tests of the Advanced
Vitrification System (AVS), a concept to vitrify high-level waste in
individual canisters. Future development and funding of AVS and other
technologies will be contingent on results showing potential high
payback.
Question. Concerns have been raised that DOE's Waste Acceptance
Product Specifications' focus only on existing technology and a
borosilicate glass vitrified product may serve as a barrier to the
development of better technology for waste vitrification. What is your
response?
Answer. The Department issued the Waste Acceptance Product
Specifications (WAPS) in 1996 and the latest revision (3) in 1999. The
WAPS were coordinated with the Department's Civilian Radioactive Waste
program and cover the requirements that a producer of a high-level
waste (HLW) form must meet. The present HLW glass production at West
Valley and at the Defense Waste Processing Facility at the Savannah
River Site are producing glass that will meet these requirements. The
glass product must be comparable to a ``benchmark'' glass, and any
product that is comparable in characteristics is considered to meet the
requirements.
Development of HLW glasses in the United States and abroad has
focused on borosilicate glass. Thus, the highest degree of confidence
and experience is with borosilicate glass. However, if there were
sufficient incentive and adequate performance, other HLW forms may also
be determined to be acceptable in the future. Such a determination will
require that valid data are available to meet the WAPS, including
leaching data acceptable to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to
allow delisting of components that are regulated as hazardous under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
The Department is reviewing the incentives and performance
requirements for other forms of HLW and the available technologies to
produce other waste forms with lower volumes. The results of this
review will provide a basis for longer term research and development.
Question. Is there any high level waste vitrification technology
(existing or under development) with the potential to accept variable
chemistry waste feeds with minimal or no blending? In answering this
question, please address the Advanced Vitrification System and its
potential use at INEEL.
Answer. Each situation is unique and requires specific
investigations as to the variability of the chemistry that may be
acceptable. In all cases, the product must be evaluated against
predetermined criteria to determine its consistency, homogeneity, and
acceptability as the composition varies. Blending of the initial feed
materials is considered necessary to establish uniformity for quality
control of the solidified product in canisters, because sampling of a
canister filled with glass is not practical.
A number of technologies exist that have the potential to process a
wide variability in feed compositions, with comparable blending, by
achieving higher temperatures, e.g., cold-wall crucible melters under
development in France and Russia, various plasma arc furnaces, and the
Advanced Vitrification System under development by the Radioactive
Isolation Consortium. As concentrations of certain chemicals become
higher, higher melting temperatures are required to produce an
acceptable product. We anticipate that wastes from some of the tanks at
Hanford and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
waste may benefit from vitrification at higher temperatures to assure
an economical low volume of solidified waste.
Question. Is there any high level waste vitrification technology
(existing or under development) with the potential to allow the HLW
feed loading to be above 60 percent, greatly reducing the number of
canisters for disposal?
Answer. The amount of waste oxides that can be included in a waste
form directly affects the melting temperature and the quality of the
final product. At present, we do not have data that show that we can
achieve an acceptable product with waste oxide loadings at 60 percent
or above. A number of technologies exist that have the potential to
process higher waste oxide loading by achieving higher temperatures,
e.g., cold-wall crucible melters under development in France and
Russia, various plasma arc furnaces, and the Advanced Vitrification
System under development by the Radioactive Isolation Consortium.
However, no assurance exists that the products are acceptable according
to the DOE Waste Acceptance Product Specifications.
Question. The DOE standards for vitrified product have been judged
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to be unrelated to the regulatory
standards for disposal in a repository. DOE terms the standards ``Waste
Acceptance Criteria.'' Why is DOE specifying a product to be delivered
when that product has not been approved by the NRC for disposal?
Answer. The DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
(OCRWM) has developed acceptance requirements for commercial spent
nuclear fuel and Government-owned nuclear materials expected to be
disposed of by DOE in a licensed geologic repository. These were
established in an attempt to ensure compliance with applicable statutes
and regulations including Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
requirements contained in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part
60 (10 CFR 60) for the ``Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in
Geologic Repositories.'' The DOE Office of Environmental Management
(EM) developed the ``Waste Acceptance Product Specification'' (WAPS) to
meet specific OCRWM acceptance requirements for high-level waste (HLW),
and support the treatment of HLW in parallel with separate efforts
aimed at determining the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site for a
geologic repository. These criteria will continue to be refined, as
more is understood about long-term disposal, and as regulations are
updated. The NRC is updating 10 CFR 60 to 10 CFR 63, and there are no
expected changes in the proposed waste acceptance criteria concerning
HLW. The NRC will not evaluate the acceptability of HLW products, but
rather will issue a license based on the ability of the repository to
safely contain HLW and spent nuclear fuel from the accessible
environment. DOE plans to submit a license application for a geologic
repository in 2002.
OCRWM works with the NRC, and EM works closely with OCRWM on the
development of the waste acceptance criteria contained in the WAPS. The
WAPS are specified for the vitrified HLW being produced by the Defense
Waste Processing Facility at the Savannah River Site and the West
Valley Demonstration Project. The Department initiated radioactive
operations at these two sites, in order to place the waste in a safer,
more stable vitrified form, recognizing that there was some
programmatic risk in beginning to produce HLW canisters without final
acceptance requirements. However, the risk is minimal because these
vitrified products meet the WAPS waste acceptance criteria, and DOE
believes that they can be safely disposed of in a repository licensed
under NRC repository disposal requirements. For the same reasons, the
WAPS are specified for vitrification of the Hanford HLW.
Question. In 1997, and for two years following, Congress requested
the Department to invest in a promising technology that would vitrify
waste in its final storage container, thereby offering a potential
alternative technology for nonhomogeneous tank wastes at Government
facilities. What is the status of DOE's investigation into this
technology? Does DOE have plans for its further development?
Answer. Through fiscal year 1999, the Department has provided a
total of $3.3 million to support the development of an Advanced
Vitrification System (AVS). Under the terms of the contract with the
AVS developer, Radioactive Isolation Consortium, the Department
conducted a technical and programmatic review in October 1999 to
determine if AVS had met all of the technical criteria required to
proceed to an advanced development phase of the project, which would
have included the construction of a pilot facility. Based on the
research and development conducted by the developer, the review panel
concluded that the AVS did not meet the technical criteria needed to
move to the next phase of development.
However, given the inherent complexities associated with treating
high-level waste and the consequent life cycle cost, the Department is
working expeditiously to consider viable technology options to address
the treatment of high-level waste at Hanford and other sites. In view
of the initial AVS review, which found the process to have merit, the
Department has decided to structure continued work on the AVS
technology in a manner that addresses the identified technical
weaknesses and supports additional bench-scale tests during fiscal year
2000.
Question. Is DOE aware of a recent National Academy of Science
report entitled ``Alternative High-Level Waste Treatment at the Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory'' in which a single
use melter concept is described as having advantages over continuous
single melters? What is DOE's view of the single use melt-in-final-
disposal container development program? Should it be extended to cover
the Idaho (INEEL) high level waste?
Answer. Yes, we are aware of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
report, which covers many of the options for treatment and production
of various waste forms for the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) high-level waste. The single-use
melter concept is one among several alternatives that are candidates.
As the report states, ``the committee concluded that, in short, not
enough information is available to make a sensible choice among
technical alternatives.'' DOE's view is to technically review the many
options available, including the Advanced Vitrification System under
development by the Radioactive Isolation Consortium, on a comparable
basis to determine the course of developments best applicable to future
Hanford applications as well as INEEL. We currently expect to complete
this review by the end of the fiscal year. In addition, the Department
is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the INEEL high-
level waste that evaluates various technologies and programmatic
alternatives; this EIS will lead to a Record of Decision (ROD) late
this calendar year that will document the path forward for high-level
waste disposition at INEEL. The results of this review, the NAS report,
and the final EIS and ROD will provide a basis for future funding and
development of melters and waste forms.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Slade Gorton
HANFORD TANKS
Question. The Department's most compelling environmental need is
the cleanup of the high-level waste tanks at Hanford. These tanks are
well beyond their expected lifetime and many have already leaked.
Plumes of radioactive contamination are slowly moving toward the
Columbia River--the very lifeblood of my region.
The Department is obligated through a legally enforceable consent
decree negotiated with the state of Washington to adhere to a clearly
understood schedule for the removal of the wastes from these tanks and
for their vitrification into a form suitable for ultimate disposal. But
negotiations to revise this Tri-Party Agreement recently broke down and
environmental regulators with the state and regional EPA office
recently imposed deadlines to keep DOE on track for building the
vitrification and treatment facilities.
What are the Department's plans to resolve this Tri-Party Agreement
dispute and to maintain the schedule for stabilizing and cleaning up
the high-level waste in the Hanford tanks?
Answer. On May 10, 2000, following a meeting with Washington
Governor Gary Locke and Attorney General Christine Gregoire, Secretary
Richardson announced new commitments to the State of Washington. They
include amending an existing consent decree to include two new
milestones for selecting a new Hanford high-level waste treatment
design and construction contractor, attempting to negotiate a new
consent decree to establish commitments aligned to the new contract,
committing to no shipments of waste to Hanford from new sources while
the Department works to get the new contract on firm footing,
discussing with the State longer term commitments on shipment of waste
into the State, and engaging the Department, the State and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency in a discussion on realigning Hanford
cleanup commitments to ensure they are achievable and address the most
important problems first.
Question. Specifically, how does the Secretary plan to address the
concerns of Governor Locke and others that my state should not be asked
to accept shipments of additional DOE low-level and mixed radioactive
waste for disposal at Hanford until we have an absolute commitment that
the Department will maintain the schedule for cleaning up the high-
level waste in the Hanford tanks?
Answer. On May 10, 2000, following a meeting with Washington
Governor Gary Locke and Attorney General Christine Gregoire, Secretary
Richardson announced new commitments to the State of Washington. They
include amending an existing consent decree to include two new
milestones for selecting a new Hanford high-level waste treatment
design and construction contractor, attempting to negotiate a new
consent decree to establish commitments aligned to the new contract,
committing to no shipments of waste to Hanford from new sources while
the Department works to get the new contract on firm footing,
discussing with the State longer term commitments on shipment of waste
into the State, and engaging the Department, the State and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency in a discussion on realigning Hanford
cleanup commitments to ensure they are achievable and address the most
important problems first.
Question. Please describe the Department's commitment to proceed
with the privatization project for vitrifying the high-level waste in
the Hanford tanks.
Answer. The Department is strongly committed to treating the wastes
in the tanks at Hanford for subsequent permanent disposal using the
most cost-effective contracting mechanism. The Secretary's May 8
announcement maintains this commitment, but through a different
acquisition strategy.
Question. Will the use of a privatization contractor for the
Hanford tank waste vitrification be more cost-effective to the taxpayer
than use of traditional DOE management and operations contractor?
Answer. The Department determined that British Nuclear Fuels
Limited, Inc.'s (BNFL) April 24, 2000, cost proposal for the Hanford
privatization contract was unacceptable in many areas, including cost,
schedule, management, and business approach. Therefore, on May 8, 2000,
the Secretary announced that the privatization contract with BNFL will
be terminated. The Department will compete a design and construction
contract, with a new contractor being selected by January 15, 2001.
Near-term operating responsibility will be transitioned to an existing
contractor, and later the Department will solicit competitive bids for
operation of the completed facility.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Larry Craig
STATUS OF LITIGATION
Question. What is the status of the utility lawsuits against DOE
for failure to begin removing spent nuclear fuel from reactor sites in
1998?
Answer. Several utilities have sued DOE for breach of contract in
the Court of Federal Claims. However, those cases are stayed pending
resolution of special appeals to the Federal Circuit on the issue of
whether the utilities first must exhaust administrative remedies and
file claims with the Department. DOE believes the proper forum is with
DOE's contracting officer. Oral arguments in the special appeals were
heard on May 3, 2000.
RADIATION PROTECTION STANDARDS
Question. Prior to your confirmation, you and I had a private
discussion about the need for some common sense in setting a radiation
standard for the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. The EPA has
proposed 15 millirem, with 4 millirem allocated for groundwater. The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed 25 millirem as fully
protective of public health and safety. You committed to look into this
matter. What have you concluded regarding the radiation standard?
Answer. The NRC's proposed licensing requirements for Yucca
Mountain differ in two important respects from the standards in EPA's
proposed rule. First, NRC proposes an all-pathways individual dose
limit of 25 mrem per year, consistent with standards applicable to
commercial nuclear facilities, and as opposed to the 15 mrem all-
pathways per year limit proposed by EPA. More importantly, NRC does not
include separate groundwater protection requirements.
EPA's proposed 15 mrem/year all-pathways individual protection
standard is extremely rigorous. The Department believes a 25 mrem/year
all-pathways standard is more reasonable and fully adequate as the
generally applicable standard for all nuclear facilities.
The Department is particularly concerned with the proposed
groundwater standard. While the Department supports the general goal of
protecting individuals from exposures through any potential pathway,
including groundwater, the proposed groundwater standard is redundant
and unnecessary for the protection of public health and safety because
the all-pathways standard adequately protects human health and safety
without the need for another standard.
The Department has provided comments to EPA on the issues discussed
above and urged the adoption of a 25 mrem/year standard, which, if
adopted, would result in a stringent but implementable rule, and would
provide appropriate protection of the public and the environment. If
EPA were to select unrealistic or unnecessarily conservative standards,
the result could be the rejection of an otherwise suitable site, and
the de facto rejection of the geologic disposal option without
commensurate benefit to the protection of public health and safety.
Such rejection would not avoid the consequences of radioactive waste
management, but it would require society to resort to a different and
currently undefined approach.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
DEACTIVATION AND DECOMMISSIONING PROGRAM FUNDING
Question. The National Energy Technology Laboratory located in
Morgantown, West Virginia, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, administers
nearly half of the Department of Energy's Deactivation and
Decommissioning focus area, which seeks to promote the rapid deployment
of better technologies to treat, stabilize, and dispose of nuclear
waste at Department of Energy sites across the nation; reduce risks to
site workers, the public, and the environment; and to provide a
practical approach for testing a technology's capabilities. I
understand that the DOE's deactivation and decommissioning backlog is
currently estimated at $33 billion. I am further advised that one-third
of all technologies deployed by the EM science and technology program
have been in the D&D focus area. Despite successes of the Deactivation
and Decommissioning focus area thus far and its potential to continue
to help address the nation's $33 billion clean-up backlog, the D&D
science and technology funding been cut from $27 million in fiscal year
2000 to $18 million in fiscal year 2001, which constitutes a 33 percent
cut.
Should not the program be increased, rather than reduced, in view
of the savings that even a small increase in efficiency in cleanup
operations could yield? My figures indicate that if the Deactivation
and Decommissioning program could stimulate a mere 3 percent in
efficiency in the $33 billion cleanup effort, the taxpayers could save
nearly a billion dollars. Why is the program being cut instead of
increased?
Answer. In developing its fiscal year 2001 budget request, the
Department had to make a number of tough decisions among the competing
demands for funding. One resulted in a slight reduction ($9.1 million)
in the Science and Technology budget request. Similarly, there are also
competing science and technology needs. Our Science and Technology
investments are planned and managed in conjunction with EM's cleanup
project managers and stakeholders. The allocation of funding among our
Science and Technology activities is done based on needs that have been
identified by cleanup project managers and ranked using a national
multi-attribute prioritization system. This process takes into
consideration major cleanup cost drivers, technology deployment, site
needs, and technical risk.
Based on our total budget request for Science and Technology and
competing priority needs, such as the high-level tank waste and nuclear
material technology areas, we consider $18.4 million an appropriate
level for deactivation and decommissioning activities.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Craig. Thank you very much. And the subcommittee
will stand recessed.
[Whereupon, at 12 noon, Tuesday, April 11, the subcommittee
was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[Clerk's note.--At the direction of the subcommittee
chairman, the following statements received by the subcommittee
are made part of the hearing record on the Fiscal Year 2001
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.]
CALIFORNIA NAVIGATION AND RELATED PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of the Port of Stockton
Mr. Chairman: I am LeRoy F. Hieber, Port Director of the Port of
Stockton in Stockton, California.
The San Francisco Bay to Stockton Ship Channels Project is an
authorized project.
The Port of Stockton is primarily a bulk port that serves industry
and agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley in California, and the bulk
imports and exports of the Western States.
The Port of Stockton recognized as far back as 1952 that deeper
channels would be needed for the movements of bulk cargoes and
requested the Corps of Engineers to deepen the channel in 1952. Coal,
grain, fertilizers and many other bulk materials require deeper
channels to serve the larger bulk carriers.
The Nation needs ports that can handle larger, more economical and
more fuel-efficient vessels close to the production areas, both
agricultural and industrial.
The Port of Stockton is such a port.
The dredging of the Stockton Channel portion of the project to
thirty-five feet was completed in 1987. A copy of the Port of
Stockton's most recent annual report is attached. Cargo volume has
increased since the dredging of the Stockton Channel was completed; and
the project is certainly paying off.
Therefore, we requested the Corps of Engineers for a new navigation
study (reconnaissance study) to deepen the Channel further, to forty
feet or more, if economically feasible. The funding for this study was
appropriated in fiscal year 1998. The reconnaissance study determined
that there is a Federal interest in further deepening the Channel.
For the 2001 fiscal year, we are requesting $300,000 for the
feasibility study. Because this study has to be coordinated for proper
timing with the U.S. Navy's project to deepen the Channels to the
Concord Weapons Station, this study needs to be done now. The
feasibility study is fifty percent cost-shared.
The President's proposed 2001 budget only contains $150,000 for the
feasibility study, but the feasibility study and the eventual
construction, needs to be closely tied to the deepening of the Channel
through San Pablo Bay, and this project needs to be timed appropriately
with that construction. Deferring $150,000 now could cost millions in
extra cost later.
The President's proposed 2001 budget includes $2,028,000 for
maintenance. This is insufficient. Every time insufficient funds are
provided for complete maintenance, and the maintenance dredging,
therefore, cannot be completed at one time, an additional mobilization
and de-mobilization cost of between $500,000 and $1 million is incurred
when it is completed. $3 million is required for an average, complete
maintenance dredging job. Appropriating less than $3 million results in
extra mobilization and de-mobilization cost between $500,000 and $1
million each time each additional maintenance job, which increases the
cost by thirty percent to sixty percent, not counting staff time,
testing cost, permitting cost, et cetera. It could very well double the
actual cost.
We urge you to appropriate $300,000 for the Stockton Deep Water
Channel Feasibility Study. We also strongly urge that $3 million be
appropriated to maintain the Channels so that the present benefits also
may continue to accrue, and to avoid the additional cost incurred when
insufficient funds are provided to complete the required maintenance at
one time.
______
Prepared Statement of the Port of Long Beach
I am E. D. Allen, Chief Harbor Engineer for the Port of Long Beach,
California. The Port of Long Beach is this nation's largest container
port. I have been authorized by the Board of Harbor Commissioners of
the City of Long Beach to represent the Port of Long Beach in regard to
fiscal year 2001 appropriations for the Los Angeles and Long Beach
Harbors Model Study and Wave Data Collection Program; Los Angeles River
maintenance dredging; Feasibility Studies for beach erosion; assessment
study of LA Ocean Disposal Site 3; and Reconnaissance and Feasibility
Studies for Contaminated Sediment Disposal.
My more specific requests follow for listed projects.
Harbors Model Maintenance (Civil Works Budget Category--O&M)
The Water Resources Development Act of 1976, Section 123,
authorized the Chief of Engineers to operate and maintain the Los
Angeles-Long Beach Harbor Hydraulic Model at the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi as
part of the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Model Study. This model
encompasses both port complexes in San Pedro Bay, which, as the third
largest container port complex in the world, are ports of national
strategic and defense significance. The hydraulic model, along with
several numeric models, provide state-of-the-art methodology that can
be used to provide operational improvements to the San Pedro Bay ports
and many other harbor complexes. In addition, the Port, as the local
agency, is assisting in the Corps effort to provide collection of
continuous wave-gauge data by providing necessary support personnel and
equipment for the maintenance of portions of the systems located at the
Port.
In fiscal year 2000, $165,000 was appropriated for maintenance of
the physical model of San Pedro Bay. Recently, the Port used the model
to analyze necessary navigation-related modifications to our upcoming
port expansion and validate numerical model results. This effort is
being funded by the Port and is on-going. It is necessary that the
model remain ready for service such as this. Funding in fiscal year
2001, in the amount of $170,000, would continue annual maintenance on
the model. Additionally, we are requesting $335,000 in continued
funding for the wave gauge (prototype) data acquisition and analysis
program. The wave data gathering program is essential as it provides
real-world information to compare to model performance. The wave data
acquisition program began in 1987 to provide validation of the design
of the 2020 Plan, our Master Plan for port expansion and navigation
improvements. This program has now evolved to construction monitoring
and model verification which needs to continue to confirm expected
levels of impacts of the expansion plans. The shipping industry's
increasingly larger vessel size continues to challenge port engineers.
The need for modeling and wave gauge data acquisition continues to be a
critical tool supporting the ports ability to create facilities
compatible with changing trade conditions and operations. As a local
agency, we are funding a new numerical modeling effort in the amount of
$755,000 and this effort by us requires wave gauge data for
verification. In summary, Congress is respectfully requested to
appropriate $505,000 for fiscal year 2001 to perform this needed model
data acquisition work.
Los Angeles River Maintenance Dredging (Civil Works Budget Category--
O&M)
The Port of Long Beach also concurs with and supports the
recommendation of C-MANC and the City of Long Beach to federal fund
remedial maintenance dredging to remove accumulated flood-deposited
silt in the mouth of the Los Angeles River. During the storms of 1995,
flood-deposited silt closed the mouth of the Los Angeles River to
navigation. This restricted regularly scheduled water route
transportation between the cities of Long Beach and Avalon, creating an
economic emergency. Reacting to this, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
removed 300,000 cubic yards from the channel which allowed for minimal
resumption of navigation.
On a yearly basis substantial quantities of silt accumulate and
remain in the channel. These silt deposits create the likelihood of
future serious restrictions and safety hazards to commercial and
recreational boating activity in, and adjacent to, the Long Beach
Harbor District and the associated businesses in Long Beach. Such
restrictions and hazards have resulted in prior accidents and
litigation against the City and Federal Government.
The Port supports the City in recommending that these silt deposits
be removed on an annual basis as a scheduled work item. In the draft of
``Project Plan for Los Angeles River Estuary Maintenance Dredging, Long
Beach, CA, October 1994'' (Draft Project Plan-1994), the Corps of
Engineers estimated an average annual deposit of silt in the estuary of
485,000 cubic yards. It is imperative for current operations, that a
long range remedy be found for the Los Angeles River mouth, if
navigational utility and effective flood control capability is to be
maintained.
It is estimated by the Corps of Engineers, that maintenance
dredging of the channel to a minimum usable width requires removal of
approximately 185,000 cubic yards at an annual cost of over $2,000,000.
Since work has not been annually done, Congress is therefore
requested, to appropriate $3,800,000 for silt removal. This work is
included in the line item known as Los Angeles Long Beach Harbors in
the Civil Works Budget.
LA-3 Site Designation Study (Civil Works Budget Category--General
Investigation)
The Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
initiated a study in fiscal year 1999 to permanently designate an Ocean
Disposal Site (referred to as LA-3) in the deep waters offshore of
Newport Beach. As the LA-3 study progressed, it was concluded that the
annual capacity of a currently designated Ocean Disposal site referred
to as LA-2 offshore of the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los
Angeles needed to be reassessed for potential expansion. We believe
that the reassessment of LA-2's annual capacity could best be
accomplished by combining this effort into the LA-3 study. LA-2 has
historically played a vital role in the economic expansion of both the
Port's of Long Beach and Los Angeles by providing a receiving site for
material dredged to deepen our navigation channels. Expanding the
capacity of LA-2 would ensure the continuation of our economic
vitality. Therefore, we request the Federal funds in the amount of
$1,000,000 be applied to the LA-3 Ocean Disposal Site Study in fiscal
year 2001 to allow this study to incorporate the LA-2 annual capacity
reassessment work effort and to continue the site designation work
effort for LA-3.
Los Angeles County Regional Dredge Management Plan (Civil Works Budget
Category--General Investigations)
The Contaminated Sediment Task Force, of which the Los Angeles
District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a key member, is
charged with investigating the major issues involved in formulating and
implementing a regional contaminated sediment management strategy
including four major issues:
--Upland Disposal.--Blending of contaminated sediments with clean
sediment to make structural fill as a promising disposal
option. However, there is no quantitative data on proportions,
handling methods, and desired end products that would support
management decisions on disposal/reuse options. There is great
need to undertake a pilot handling project to collect that
information.
--Screening Guidelines.--Quantitative sediment chemistry guidelines
are required to screen sediments for aquatic disposal and
necessitate gathering historical regional data on sediment
chemistry, toxicity, and bio-accumulation to be analyzed for
region-specific relationships between sediment chemistry and
toxicity.
--Watershed Management.--Control of future contamination via land
runoff as a key management issue. Field and modeling study of
sediment and contaminant transport in the Los Angeles region
are required both to build on existing watershed efforts and to
acquire specific data on the movement of contaminants into
harbors.
--Aquatic Disposal.--A regional confined aquatic disposal facility is
a promising management tool which provides a multi-user site
active over a period of many years. The approach requires an
engineering feasibility study of such issues as: quantifying
the containment disposal capability, the interface chemistry
between sediments of multiple users, and determining best
management practices.
The program would be managed by the Los Angeles District and
requires $400,000 in Federal funding; substantial additional funding
would come from State and local sources. Congress is therefore
requested to appropriate $400,000 in fiscal year 2001 to support the
Contaminated Sediment Task Force in their effort to continue
development of a Los Angeles County Regional Dredge Management Plan.
Feasibility Study Beach Erosion (Civil Works Budget Category--General
Investigations)
The Port of Long Beach also supports C-MANC and the City of Long
Beach on their request for federal funding to initiate a Corps of
Engineers feasibility study on beach erosion. This beach erosion
problem is directly related to the focusing affect the federal
breakwater has on our large commercial harbor complex and surrounding
beaches. In southeastern Long Beach, east of the Port's land and
channels, and directly effected by openings in the federal breakwater,
a beach and seawall protects approximately $200,000,000 worth of homes
based on the 1990 U.S. census. We expect the current home value to be
significantly higher. Steady erosion constantly reduces the beach from
an optimum of 175 feet to as little as 50 feet when in late 1994 the
City was forced to rebuild the beach. Winter storms continue to reduce
the beach width.
The City has also experienced erosion in the west beach area.
Although homes are not endangered, public improvements, including
lifeguard stations, public restrooms, a bicycle and pedestrian trail,
and a parking lot, are at risk. The cause of the new problem is
unclear, indicating the need for a thorough study of the beach erosion
problem inside the federal breakwater.
The primary method of protecting the homes has been annual
rebuilding of sand berms during high tides or expected storms. The City
has invested over $5,500,000 in capital improvement projects, annual
beach rebuilding, and storm protection to control the beach erosion
over the past 17 years. Despite this effort, in 1989 and 1993, storm
waves eroded the beach and breached the protective seawall, causing
damage to homes. The City is also defending itself against a lawsuit by
one of the homeowners who is claiming that the City failed to halt
erosion that narrowed the beaches in front of his home to less than the
desired width adopted in the 1980 Local Coastal Plan.
In fiscal year 1997, $252,000 was appropriated to complete the
reconnaissance study of the beach erosion problem within the City of
Long Beach. It is now requested that Congress appropriate $500,000 in
fiscal year 2001 to initiate the follow-up feasibility study.
Attached hereto is a Resolution that was adopted by the Board of
Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long Beach on February 28, 2000,
which contains data relating to the background of the Los Angeles and
Long Beach Harbors Model Study, the Los Angeles River dredging, LA-3
Site Designation Study, the Los Angeles Count Regional Dredge
Management Plan, the beach erosion problem in Long Beach, and other
related navigation and economic matters. The resolution stresses the
need for federal assistance in developing economic, technical and
environmental background information essential to the design and
permitting of Port facilities vital to regional and national interests.
The Port of Long Beach is the largest container port in the United
States and is an integral part of an economic engine bringing $3.7
billion annually in customs receipts into the Federal Treasury and has
generated approximately 500,000 jobs locally, regionally and
nationally. We are truly a port and harbor of national significance.
We kindly ask that Congress continue its support of these projects
in fiscal year 2001 by appropriating the requested funds.
Thank you for permitting me the privilege of this testimony.
RESOLUTION NO. HD-2002
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO
APPROPRIATE FUNDS TO THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN ORDER
TO CONTINUE THE LOS ANGELES AND LONG BEACH HARBORS MODEL STUDY RELATING
TO IMPROVEMENTS IN SAN PEDRO BAY, TO CONDUCT MAINTENANCE DREDGING AT
THE MOUTH OF THE LOS ANGELES RIVER, TO EXPAND THE LA-3 SITE DESIGNATION
STUDY, TO CONDUCT FEASIBILITY STUDIES OF BEACH EROSION, AND TO CONTINUE
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGIONAL DREDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles in San Pedro Bay,
California, are two of a limited number of sites on the West Coast of
the United States which possess the potential for deep water port
facilities as recommended in the West Coast Deep Water Port Facility
Study conducted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers; and
WHEREAS, the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles have a record of
both physical and fiscal growth to the extent that together the two
ports are presently handling over 200 million metric revenue tons
including 8.2 million twenty-foot equivalent units of container cargo
annually (calendar year 1999), and the international cargo handled is
valued at over $160 billion annually (calendar year 1998); and
WHEREAS, the growth and activity of the Ports of Long Beach and Los
Angeles have a significant regional and national economic effect; and
WHEREAS, in 1998 the Los Angeles Customs District remained the
Nation's top entry and exit point for international cargo, valued at
over $181 billion, generating approximately $3.7 billion in Federal
revenues collected as United States Customs duties, approximately 85
percent of which is generated by the Long Beach and Los Angeles Ports;
and
WHEREAS, both Ports are now, and are increasingly becoming, hard-
pressed to provide facilities to meet the needs of the shipping
industry, and to that end are conducting extensive studies, in
conjunction with federal studies, to determine navigational,
transportation, and environmental requirements necessary to provide
economic and adequate surge-free berthing and cargo handling
facilities; and
WHEREAS, all existing land in the Port of Long Beach which can be
developed for shipping operations has been utilized or is in the
process of being developed and, in order to meet the needs of the
following decade, the design, permitting and construction of new lands
must continue; and
WHEREAS, continuation of the studies currently underway by the
United States Army Corps of Engineers, consisting of the Los Angeles
and Long Beach Harbors Model Study, including maintenance and operation
of the San Pedro Bay Hydraulic Model at Vicksburg, Mississippi, as
authorized by Section 123 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1976, is needed for use in the design and permitting processes for
future landfills for port development; and
WHEREAS, the Los Angeles River is the largest of numerous flood-
control channels constructed and maintained jointly by the Los Angeles
County Flood Control District and the United States Army Corps of
Engineers, and silt deposit from storm runoff accumulating in the mouth
of the Los Angeles River in the City of Long Beach constitutes a
restriction and hazard to both commercial and recreational boating; and
WHEREAS, the Southern California region has a significant volume of
contaminated sediments from area runoff and other activities and the
Los Angeles District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a key
member of a Task Force charged with the investigation of major issues
involved in formulating and implementing a Los Angeles County Regional
Dredge Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, at southeastern Long Beach in front of Alamitos Bay a
beach and seawall protects $200 million worth of homes (1990 U.S.
census data). The primary method of protecting the homes has been
annual beach rebuilding and sand berms during storms. Steady erosion
has reduced the beach from optimum width of 175 feet to as little as 50
feet and continues to reduce beach width despite rebuilding efforts in
1994. The City has invested over $5.5 million in capital improvement
projects, annual beach rebuilding, and storm protection to control the
beach erosion over the past 17 years. Despite this effort, in 1989 and
1993, storm waves eroded the beach and breached the protective seawall
causing damage to homes; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long
Beach, as a properly constituted and financially responsible local
agency, by its Resolution No. HD-890, adopted August 3, 1965, expressed
its intent to enter into such agreements as may be reasonably required
to further federal projects for the development and improvement of Long
Beach and Los Angeles Harbors.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of
Long Beach resolves as follows:
Section 1. That the Congress of the United States be, and is
hereby, respectfully requested to appropriate simultaneously the funds
necessary for the Chief of Engineers, United States Army Corps of
Engineers, to maintain the San Pedro Bay Hydraulic Model at the
Waterways Experiment Station at Vicksburg, Mississippi, as part of the
Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Model Study.
Sec. 2. That the Congress of the United States be, and is hereby,
respectfully requested to appropriate simultaneously the funds
necessary for the Chief of Engineers, United States Army Corps of
Engineers, to continue the existing wave gauge (prototype) data
acquisition and analysis program.
Sec. 3. That the Congress of the United States be, and is hereby,
respectfully requested to appropriate simultaneously the funds
necessary for the Chief of Engineers, United States Army Corps of
Engineers, in conjunction with the Los Angeles County Flood Control
District, to engage in the necessary maintenance dredging at the mouth
of the Los Angeles River to remove silt deposits which have accumulated
at that location.
Sec. 4. That the Congress of the United States be, and is hereby,
respectfully requested to support the Chief of Engineers, United States
Army Corps of Engineers, to reassess dredge Ocean Disposal Site LA-2
when conducting LA-3 Site Designation Study.
Sec. 5. That the Congress of the United States be, and is hereby,
respectfully requested to appropriate simultaneously the funds
necessary for the Chief of Engineers, United States Army Corps of
Engineers, to complete feasibility studies to develop and implement a
Los Angeles County Regional Dredge Management Plan for Southern
California.
Sec. 6. That the Congress of the United States be, and is hereby,
respectfully requested to appropriate simultaneously the funds
necessary for the Chief of Engineers, United States Army Corps of
Engineers, to complete feasibility studies to develop protective
measures to prevent beach erosion within the City of Long Beach.
Sec. 7. That the Executive Director of the Long Beach Harbor
Department be, and he is hereby, directed to send copies of this
resolution to the United States Senators and to Members of the House of
Representatives from California, with a letter requesting their
assistance in presenting this resolution before the proper
Congressional committees.
Sec. 8. That the Executive Director of the Long Beach Harbor
Department be, and he is hereby, further directed to send copies of
this resolution to the President of the United States; the Director,
Office of Management and Budget; the Secretary of the Army; the Chief
of Engineers, the Director, Directorate of Civil Works, the Division
Engineer-South Pacific Division and the District Engineer-Los Angeles,
all of the United States Army Corps of Engineers; and to such other
interested persons as he may deem appropriate.
Sec. 9. The Secretary of the Board shall certify to the passage of
this resolution by the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of
Long Beach, shall cause the same to be posted in three (3) conspicuous
places in the City of Long Beach, and shall cause a certified copy of
this resolution to be filed forthwith with the City Clerk of the City
of Long Beach and it shall thereupon take effect.
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the
Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long Beach at its meeting
of February 28, 2000 by the following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners--Calhoun, Hancock, Peres, Kashiwabara, Hearrean
Noes: Commissioners--None
Absent: Commissioners--None
Not Voting: Commissioners--None
Carmen O. Perez,
Secretary.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We appreciate
the opportunity to provide testimony to this Subcommittee, and extend
our sincere appreciation for your past support of this community's
efforts to protect the citizens and properties in the Capital City of
California. In our continuing efforts to protect the Sacramento
Metropolitan Area, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA),
and its member agencies, support the following Federal appropriations
for fiscal year 2001:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2001 FY 2001
Project Admin. SAFCA
Request Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Folsom Modifications: Modifications to Folsom Dam to \1\ 5.0 \1\ 12.
provide greater efficiency in managing flood storage 0
in Folsom Reservoir. NEW START.......................
South Sacramento Streams: Prevention of flooding of \2\ 0.2 \1\ 5.0
portions of Sacramento from the south, where four
creeks convey foothill runoff through urbanized areas
into Beach Lake and the Delta. NEW START.............
American River Common Elements: 24 miles of levee \1\ 10. \1\ 13.
improvements along the American River and 12 miles of 0 0
improvements along the Sacramento River levees, flood
gauges upstream of Folsom Dam, and improvements to
the flood warning system along the lower American
River. Request includes $1.0 million to begin work on
levee parity, authorized in WRDA 1999................
Sacramento River Bank Protection: Will correct harmful \1\ 3.3 \1\ 5.0
erosion along the banks of the American River that
threatens the integrity of the existing levees.......
American River Watershed (Natomas): Reimbursement to ....... \1\ 5.0
SAFCA for the Federal share of the flood control
improvements undertaken by the local project sponsor.
American River Plan: Funds to continue previously \2\ 3.2 \2\ 5.0
authorized planning and design of Sacramento flood 85
protection projects..................................
Lower Strong & Chicken Ranch Sloughs (DO5 Pump \3\ 0.1 \3\ 0.5
Station): a feasibility study to restore 100-year 5
level of flood protection to Chicken Ranch Slough
drainage to the American River. This area has flooded
four times since 1986................................
Magpie Creek: Authorized under the Corps= Section 205 \4\ N/A \1\ 2.5
Program, this project will provide a high degree of \3\ 0.5
flood protection on Magpie Creek. McClellan AFB......
-----------------
Total........................................... 21.935 48.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Construction.
\2\Preconstruction Engineering and Design.
\3\ Surveys.
\4\ The Corps has requested $25.0 million for the Section 205 Program,
which funds these two projects. Individual projects are not itemized
in this request.
Sacramento continues to have the ignoble distinction of being the
urban area with the lowest flood protection in the nation according to
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Addressing this problem is
our region's most critical infrastructure issue as evidenced by the
formation of a joint powers agency, the Sacramento Area Flood Control
Agency (SAFCA) to solve the problem and the millions of dollars spent
over the past ten years on improvements and countless engineering
studies. A major flood on the American River would cause between $7 and
$16 billion in damage and likely result in lives being lost. The
floodplain is home to over 400,000 residents, 150,000 homes, 5,000
businesses, the State Capitol, and 1,300 government facilities.
As part of the 1999 water Resources Development Act (WRDA),
Congress authorized the most significant set of flood control
improvements since Folsom Dam was constructed in 1955. While these
improvements do not meet SAFCA's long term goal of providing 200-year
flood protection, they will raise the minimum level of protection from
about 85-year to 140-year and provide a foundation for additional
improvements that will reach our goal. All interests from engineers to
environmentalists; small businesses to corporations; community
activists to the local homeowner agree Sacramento needs to move forward
with these improvements as rapidly as possible. The five largest floods
on the American River this century have all occurred since 1950. The
last two floods, 1986 and 1997 were the largest ever recorded. When a
new record flood occurs, and there is about 1 chance in 3 it will occur
in the next 30 years, it will likely produce the worst flood disaster
in this nation's history unless these improvements are complete. We
hope you can understand our desire for appropriation levels that will
allow the projects to proceed forward in an aggressive time frame.
Sacramento has not been sitting idly since our near disaster in
1986. Over $90.0 million in local funds have been spent on flood
control improvements, engineering studies, public education and other
activities to further our region's flood control objectives. We have
been a very proactive and innovative community. Accomplishments to date
include strengthening levees along the Sacramento River; raising and
constructing new levees in North Sacramento and Natomas; raising levees
protecting the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant; negotiating an
agreement for more flood space at Folsom; restoring bank erosion sites
along the Lower American River; and development of a flood management
plan including evacuation plans and development guidelines. The flood
control improvements to our system played an important role in avoiding
the devastating flood damages experienced by our neighbors to the north
and south during the past few years. In addition, we have worked
closely and cooperatively with the Corps and the State of California in
systematically re-evaluating the flood control system protecting this
region and identifying the projects necessary to significantly reduce
our chances of a catastrophic flood. That work led to the 1999 WRDA
authorizations and to the specific appropriations request summarized
earlier and described in more detail below.
Folsom Dam Modifications.--Folsom Dam was originally designed in
the 1950s to provide a very high level of flood protection (250 to 300-
year). However, five major floods since the project was completed have
caused the Corps to conclude that the level of flood protection
actually provided is less than 100-year. This is substantially less
than other similarly situated major urban areas around the nation
including St. Louis, Kansas City, Dallas, Omaha, Minneapolis, and
Pittsburgh.
Following unsuccessful efforts to obtain authorization of a new
flood control structure at Auburn in 1992 and 1996, the Corps, the
State and SAFCA have focused their attention on identifying
improvements to Folsom Dam and other existing flood control features
that will cost effectively increase flood protection. As a result of
these efforts, Congress authorized flood control improvements in 1992,
1996 and again in 1999.
The most recent improvements are to the outlet works at Folsom Dam
which represent the most important steps for improving public safety in
Sacramento. We believe the extreme existing risk and the consequences
of a flood clearly justify an aggressive schedule. The Administration
has included a new start and $5.0 million in its proposed budget for
this project. This amount is predicated on a very relaxed schedule that
assumes the Corps will not begin to prepare a Project Cooperative
Agreement (PCA) until they have completed a decision document setting
forth their decision on design details. SAFCA is asking that Congress
direct the Corps to prepare the PCA in the most expeditious manner
possible, and believes that this direction will allow the Corps to
begin construction of this project three months sooner. With the
earlier start of construction, more funds are needed, and SAFCA is
requesting that the appropriation for this project be increased to
$12.0 million.
South Sacramento Streams Group Project.--In 1995, homes in the
South Sacramento area were threatened by rain swollen creeks which
reached to within a foot, and in some areas less, of overtopping the
levees and channels and flooding adjacent residential subdivisions. The
Corps 1998 feasibility study concluded much of the urban area of South
Sacramento has less than 50-year flood protection from these urban
streams. There are over 100,000 people and 41,000 structures in the
floodplain of Morrison, Unionhouse, Florin and Elder Creeks that make
up the South Sacramento Streams Group Project. Congress authorized the
NED plan recommended by the Corps as part of the 1999 WRDA. The
Administration's budget however includes only $0.2 million for
continuing preliminary engineering and design (PED) based on an
erroneous assumption that considerably more preconstruction design work
needs to be done. In fact, we will be ready to begin construction early
in fiscal year 2001 and SAFCA respectfully requests that this project
be designated for a new start, with an initial appropriation of $5.0
million. This will allow the Corps to move to construction of this
project on an optimum schedule, thereby providing the citizens of South
Sacramento with improved flood protection at least a year sooner than
the Administration's proposal.
American River Common Elements Project.--As part of the 1996 WRDA,
Congress authorized flood control features that were common to all the
long-term alternatives being considered for Sacramento. These included
26 miles of levee stabilization along the Lower American River, raising
and strengthening 12 miles of the east levee of the Sacramento River.
As the 1997 floods in Northern California demonstrated, we must
continue to rehabilitate our existing system of levees to insure they
can carry even their intended design flows. The levee modifications
authorized under this project complement work done by the Corps in the
early 1990s and will complete the job of stabilizing the existing
levees protecting this community. The Corps will have three major
contracts underway this year, and plans to add two more in 2001. We are
requesting an appropriation of $13.0 million, the amount necessary to
continue this project and to start on additional improvements added to
this authorization in the 1999 WRDA.
Sacramento Bank Protection Project (American River Levees).--SAFCA,
the State of California and the Corps have found that bank protection
improvements are needed to stop erosion, which threatens urban levees
along the lower American River. Over the last four years SAFCA has led
a collaborative process through which flood control, environmental and
neighborhood interests have reached agreement on how to complete this
work in a manner which protects the sensitive environmental and
aesthetic values of the American River in addition to improving the
reliability of the levee system. As a result, an American River Bank
Protection Construction Program was implemented under the Sacramento
River Bank Protection authorization. The President has included $3.3
million in his budget to fund bank protection projects. SAFCA is
requesting an appropriation of $5.0 million the amount necessary to
complete the small increment of work remaining on the American River
and important projects at other locations in the Central Valley.
American River Watershed (Natomas Features).--In 1992, the
recommended plan for the American River was construction of a flood
detention dam at Auburn and levee improvements around Natomas and lower
Dry and Arcade Creeks. Congress did not include the recommended project
in the 1992 WRDA, but in subsequent legislation did authorize the levee
improvements around the Natomas basin and North Sacramento. The
authorizing legislation included provisions to reimburse the local
agency for the Federal share of constructing levee improvements that
were consistent with the Federal project. With over 75,000 residents at
risk, subject to life threatening flood depths of 20 feet in some
areas, SAFCA decided to initiate construction of the project using
local funds with the potential for future Federal reimbursement. By
borrowing heavily from other sources and debt financing through a
capital assessment district, SAFCA proceeded to rapidly construct a
$60.0 million project that was consistent with the 1992 authorization.
However, the Corps 1992 report described levee improvements that were
consistent with controlling flow in the American River with a dam at
Auburn. SAFCA felt the construction of that project was uncertain and
therefore decided to construct higher levees and make other
improvements than those described in the Corps' report. These
improvements were instrumental in preventing flooding in 1995 and 1997.
However, the borrowing of funds, coupled with additional future flood
control obligations, has severely strained SAFCA's financing
capability. The Corps has agreed to reimburse SAFCA $21.0 million,
their estimate of the costs of building the project described in their
1992 report and Congress has appropriated funds consistent with that
agreement. The Corps has also agreed to consider reimbursement for
higher levees, and SAFCA is preparing the documentation necessary to
support a Corps' review. We are asking for an additional appropriation
of $5.0 million. One million is to finance the Corps' review and
analysis of SAFCA's request, and the remaining $4.0 million would be a
first payment on the second phase of reimbursement.
American River Plan.--As noted above, the modifications to Folsom
Dam provide a significant increment of additional flood protection to
Sacramento, but do not allow us to reach our goal of at least 200-year
flood protection. Congress recognized the need for additional flood
protection in the 1999 WRDA, and directed the Corps to proceed with
additional studies and report back in March 2000. The Corps has done
their best to comply with Congressional direction and has prepared a
report that is moving through headquarters on its way to Congress.
Unfortunately, additional work may be needed to supplement the results
of that study, including further environmental analysis consistent with
the requirements of NEPA and CEQA. The Administration has included an
allocation of $3.385 million to allow the Corps to complete a more
detailed analysis on the matters identified by Congress. SAFCA supports
an increase to $5 million to speed up this important study.
Lower Strong and Chicken Ranch Sloughs.--SAFCA, in cooperation with
Sacramento County, is seeking appropriations of $0.5 million to allow
the Corps to complete it feasibility study for Lower Strong and Chicken
Ranch Sloughs. Floodwaters from these urban streams are collected at
the base of the American River levees and pumped into the river. In
1986 and again twice in 1997, the limited channel and pumping capacity
led to significant flood damages to a number of residential and
commercial structures. Most of the flooding occurs when the American
River is at a high stage due to releases from Folsom Dam. The original
pump station was built by the Corps as part of the American River and
Folsom project in the 1950s, but does not have sufficient capacity to
prevent flooding from today's larger storms. The Corps has completed a
reconnaissance evaluation and concluded that there is a Federal
interest in completing a feasibility study. This appropriation would
allow that study to move forward on an optimal schedule.
Magpie Creek (Section 205 Continuing Authorities Program).--The
Magpie Creek Diversion Project, constructed by the Corps in the 1950s
as an extension of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project, is
inadequate for even the 100-year flood event using new hydrologic data.
The resulting floodplain encompasses residential and commercial
developments downstream and would close Interstate 80, the major east-
west transportation route through Sacramento. The Corps has developed a
Section 205 project for the off-bas portion of Magpie Creek. The
Congress last year also included a separate Section 205 authorization
for the on-base portion under WRDA 99. A Corps study of the off-base
portion indicates these improvements have a benefit to cost ratio of
2.5 to 1 and not only protect existing urban development and are
essential to provide capacity for future improvements on McClellen Air
Force Base to allow for orderly redevelopment activities as part of the
base conversion process. Congress designated funds in last year's
Energy and Water Appropriations bill to initiate work on the off-base
project, but construction has been delayed. SAFCA supports the
Administration's proposed fiscal year 2000 budget for the Section 205
Program and requests the Corps be directed to initiate construction of
the Magpie Creek Diversion Project within these available funds. In
addition, we are seeking funding designation of $500,000 to begin work
on the off-base portion of the project as authorized in WRDA 99.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Phoenix
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the City
Council and the residents of Phoenix, the sixth largest city in the
country, I would like to submit the following testimony for the record.
I am pleased to present this testimony in support of appropriations to
help our city and region continue to foster a partnership with the
Federal Government to achieve our shared objectives. We have been
working with our delegation, this Committee, the Corps of Engineers,
the Bureau of Reclamation, and other federal agencies to promote
environmental restoration and flood control needs in the most effective
and economical way. We sincerely appreciate the past support of this
Committee and trust we will continue our partnership to see several
critical projects through to a successful conclusion.
There are several initiatives under way which this Committee has
supported in the past and are included in the President's Budget.
Continued support is essential to achieve the public benefits for which
the projects are being designed.
RIO SALADO AND RIO SALADO PHASE II
We have been working for nearly six years with the Corps of
Engineers in a cost-shared partnership to study a project to restore
riparian wetlands along the Salt River in downtown Phoenix and Tempe.
The wetlands were lost over many years as a result of diversion of Salt
River flows for irrigation of the surrounding region.
In cooperation, the Corps, the City of Tempe, and we have developed
a cost-effective plan called Rio Salado to restore about seven miles of
the lost riparian wetlands. The plan has been approved by the Secretary
of the Army and the Administration and was authorization in the 1999
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA).
The Rio Salado project is the centerpiece of our efforts to
revitalize the environment and the economy of a part of our city that
has not enjoyed the fruits of progress as have other parts of the city.
The President's fiscal year 2001 Budget included a request for $1.5
million for the Phoenix portion of the project. The Rio Salado project
was one of only two Corps of Engineers environmental restoration
projects to receive New Start Construction funding. While we are
delighted at receiving the new start designation in the budget, we are
seeking a substantially higher level of funding (a total of $20
million) to allow the project to remain on schedule for completion. We
are eager to keep the $81 million dollar Phoenix portion of the Rio
Salado project on its planned course of the three-year construction
period at a 35 percent local, and 65 percent federal cost.
In addition, we are urgently seeking the approval of the Committee
early this calendar year to negotiate an agreement with the Corps to
provide a credit against the local share of project costs for advanced
funding of key features of the project. The Report of the Chief of
Engineers recommending the project authorization envisioned
construction by the City of a low flow channel and development of
plantings needed for the project in advance of Federal funding. Based
on these commitments, the City has worked with Maricopa County to
obtain $11 million in county funding and has also identified an
additional $3 million in city funding to move forward with the City's
commitment to this project. We are ready to proceed to construction and
have begun preliminary work to obtain the needed plants for the
project. However, we do not want to jeopardize our ability to receive
credit for local work done. Mr. Chairman, we respectfully request your
approval of the credit agreement this year and your support for the $20
million in fiscal year 2001 to accelerate the project's schedule and
begin construction.
The Rio Salado Phase II portion (Rio Este and Rio Oeste) of this
environmental restoration project was included in the Corps of
Engineers Reconnaissance Study in 1996. The study led to a feasibility
level report and authorization of the Rio Salado project, consisting of
only a portion of the original reconnaissance level study area. We
would like to move beyond the reconnaissance level for the rest of the
original study area. This would essentially be a continuation of the
Rio Salado project and would connect the project east (Rio Este) toward
the Tempe portion or west (Rio Oeste) toward the Tres Rios project at
our 91st Avenue Treatment Plant. We are seeking $675,000 for the Corps
of Engineers Feasibility Study for Phase II, including the $175,000 in
the President's budget for both the Rio Este and Rio Oeste portions and
a $500,000 increase for Rio Oeste to allow us to accelerate that study.
The Feasibility funding will be matched 50 percent by the local
sponsor. We strongly urge your support for this appropriation.
TRES RIOS
This is a truly unique project the outcome of which holds promise
to benefit the entire nation as well as the Phoenix region in
particular. The Bureau of Reclamation has constructed a demonstration
project which uses wastewater from the regional wastewater treatment
plant to create wetlands near the discharge location. The Bureau's
project is authorized under their general research and demonstration
authorities under their Title XVI Water and Wastewater Reclamation and
Reuse Program. We are seeking the $550,000 included in the Bureau's
budget to continue this research effort to be able to include in the
pilot study measures to control mosquito vectors, an important public
health issue.
In addition, we embarked on a cost-shared feasibility study with
the Corps of Engineers to expand the project to create approximately
800 acres of high quality wetlands along a 7 mile stretch of the Salt
and Gila Rivers. The feasibility study is nearing completion and
Congress provided an initial $50,000 in fiscal year 2000 to initiate
planning, engineering and design. This year's budget requests an
additional $250,000 toward that effort. The City is seeking an increase
of $250,000 to accelerate that effort.
The City is also requesting funding from the Bureau of Reclamation
in the amount of $300,000 to allow the Bureau to begin studies on the
Agua Fria River groundwater recharge project under the authority of
section 1608 of the Bureau's Title XVI Reclamation and Reuse Program.
It is important to have that portion of the study completed in about
the same time frame as the rest of the study and design work to avoid
losing the water coming from the wetlands restoration project.
GILA RIVER, NORTHEAST DRAINAGE AREA.
This is another innovative study designed to anticipate potential
flood control problems from the rapidly expanding development on the
alluvial plains in the Northeast section of the greater Phoenix area.
The results of the study will allow local jurisdictions to plan and
regulate development in a coordinated way throughout the region to
avoid creating flooding problems as has happened in many other rapidly
growing areas in the nation. We believe that spending a little time and
planning effort now will reap large savings in flood control costs and
flood damages in the future. The Corps budget contains $212,000 for
this study which we believe is enough to keep it on schedule.
SUMMARY
All of these projects, the Rio Salado and Phase II of the Rio
Salado project (``Rio Este'' and ``Rio Oeste''), Tres Rios, and the
Gila River, will act in synergy to restore lost environmental quality
and provide for creative management, conservation, and reuse of scarce
water quantities in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. We sincerely
appreciate the opportunity to present this request and thank you very
much for your support in the past. We would be pleased to provide any
additional information you may need.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of San Leandro, California
Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee Members, thank you for this
opportunity to present testimony. I am Shelia Young, Mayor of San
Leandro, California. It is my aim to provide the Subcommittee with a
brief overview of the history and importance of performing maintenance
dredging on the San Leandro Marina Channel, a project that was
unfortunately omitted from the President's fiscal year 2001 budget.
The San Leandro Marina Channel connects deeper waters in the San
Francisco Bay to the San Leandro Marina and the San Leandro Shoreline
Recreation Area. First dredged in 1962, it provides a host of benefits
to the immediate San Leandro community and the entire San Francisco Bay
Area. The Marina and Shoreline Recreation Area includes 455 boat
berths, three restaurants, a small-boat sailing lagoon, two golf
courses, extensive park facilities, the San Leandro Shoreline
Marshlands, a trail system along most of the shoreline and a unique
Dredged Material Management Site, or DMMS. Additionally, in the event
of an aircraft crash at the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport,
the Marina Channel provides water access for boats leaving San Leandro
to provide search and rescue functions.
Simply stated, without regular dredging, the Marina and Shoreline
Recreation Area would be cut off from the rest of San Francisco Bay. To
ensure that the Marina Channel remains open, San Leandro formed a
partnership with the Federal government through the Army Corps of
Engineers to perform dredging activities. Congress first authorized
funds for maintenance dredging in 1971, and the City and the Corps have
worked collaboratively ever since to proactively address dredging
needs. Local and Corps analysis of Channel build-up has led to a
quadrennial dredging cycle. Maintenance funds were included in
President Bush's fiscal year 1993 budget and President Clinton's fiscal
year 1997 budget. It then came as a great surprise that funds were not
included in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget, especially
considering that the Corps has already worked with the City to obtain
permits for fiscal year 2001 dredging.
There have been no significant changes in the rate of Channel
build-up that would necessitate a change in the quadrennial dredging
cycle. Changes in water depth are following the same pattern as those
preceding the 1997 dredging. In fact, the current cycle spaces dredging
activities as far apart as possible. Prior to 1997 dredging,
controlling water depth in the Channel dropped to less than two feet.
As I sit here today, navigation problems are already beginning to occur
as we approach the end of this cycle.
I want to stress San Leandro's commitment to the Marina Channel
through the expenditure of local funds and overall environmental
stewardship, most visibly through the creation and operation of a
Dredged Materials Management Site. As in-bay aquatic disposal of
dredged materials is environmentally undesirable, the Army Corps and
the Environmental Protection Agency are developing a Long Term
Management Strategy (LTMS) for Bay Area dredging and disposal
activities. Recognizing the need to properly dispose of dredged
materials, San Leandro has been a pioneer in developing an alternative
to in-bay disposal. The DMMS not only effectively stores material, it
functions as a shorebird habitat. The City has borne the full financial
responsibility for the operation of the DMMS since its initial use in
1973, and pays the full cost to dispose of dredged materials. Together,
this requires an annual expenditure of over $2 million.
As you can see, the Marina Channel is a vital economic and
environmental link for San Leandro's entire shoreline. Failure to
dredge will lead to immediate negative economic consequences. The San
Leandro Marina, at the heart of our coastal community, will cease to
exist. The millions of dollars the Marina generates for the local
economy will be lost. Public recreation along the shoreline will
diminish, and environmentally sensitive areas of shoreline restoration
will be in jeopardy.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Subcommittee Members, I support and
admire your efforts as you perform the difficult job of meeting
America's energy and water needs. I firmly believe that San Leandro's
request is reasonable and necessary, and I urge the Subcommittee's
approval of $1.5 million for this project. Thank you again for your
time.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Oceanside, California
OCEANSIDE HARBOR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AND OCEANSIDE SHORELINE
PROTECTION STUDY
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony on
behalf of the City of Oceanside, California. The City of Oceanside
respectfully requests your favorable consideration of two Corps of
Engineers projects that are critically important to our community.
First, the City of Oceanside requests an appropriation of
$2,035,000 under Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, for
Oceanside Harbor, California. The majority of the funds requested
($1,535,000) are included in the president's budget submission to pay
for on-going maintenance dredging of Oceanside Harbor. The additional
$500,000 above the budget request is needed for the one-time costs
associated with removing a submerged jetty from the Harbor entrance.
Removal of the jetty will eliminate a significant hazard to
navigation and expand the width of the navigational channel, which was
reduced when the entrance was modified in 1994.
The Corps of Engineers modified the Oceanside Harbor entrance to
reduce storm damage, provide surge protection to the harbor
infrastructure and provide significant reduction of navigational
hazards. Part of the project included a 180-foot stub groin off the
south jetty. This groin protrudes significantly into the previous
channel, reducing the width by approximately 50 percent. It is
currently not possible to realign the channel to widen the entrance to
the Harbor due to the submerged jetty that borders the north side of
the Harbor entrance.
The close proximity to the navigational channel is a hazard to
navigation for vessels that stray from the channel limits. During heavy
surf and storms, the entrance becomes very hazardous and was closed by
the U.S. Coast Guard during the 1998 El Nino events. Breaking waves
have come in as far as the submerged jetty light #5.
The elimination or relocation of the submerged jetty is necessary
to provide for the channel to be returned to its original width. The
submerged jetty is an old structure that was in place prior to the
outer jetty's construction. It may not be necessary to eliminate the
submerged jetty. Relocating the rock material closer into shore would
provide for a restored channel width, while continuing to provide a
marine life habitat.
Second, the City of Oceanside requests an appropriation of $500,000
under Corps of Engineers, General Investigations, to continue a special
study to develop plans to mitigate the impacts of the Camp Pendleton
Harbor on Oceanside's shoreline.
The Committee provided $100,000 in the fiscal year 2000 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations bill to initiate a study to determine
the extent of the erosion impact caused by Camp Pendleton Harbor. That
study is now underway and will provide a summation of all historic and
current documentation of the impacts of the federal construction on the
Oceanside beach.
Oceanside has a 57-year history of beach erosion resulting from the
Camp Pendleton Harbor construction that began in 1942. The Federal
Government acknowledged responsibility for Oceanside's beach erosion in
1953. A later report to the U.S. Navy from the Army Corps of Engineers
noted that the construction of the Camp Pendleton jetties had
compartmentalized the littoral cell and resulted in the loss of 1.5
million cubic yards of sand in Oceanside during 1950-1952. An
additional U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report to Congress in 1956
concluded that the restoration of the protected beach at Oceanside
would protect the upland area and restore and maintain a satisfactory
recreational beach. In 1958, the Navy extended the north jetty to
reduce the entrance channel maintenance problems. This action further
aggravated the erosion of the beaches.
In 1967, Congress authorized a review study of beach erosion at
Oceanside, resulting in the office of the Chief of Engineers confirming
100 percent federal responsibility for shoreline damages. Despite
numerous and significant efforts in placing sand on the beach, periodic
nourishment of sand from maintenance dredging of the harbor and sand
bypassing project, no permanent solution to the massive erosion problem
has been achieved.
Tourism is the San Diego region's second largest industry. The
areas beaches, including Oceanside, represent a key attraction for our
residents and our tourists. The San Diego Convention and Visitors
Bureau notes that the majority of the region's visitor lodgings are
located along the coastline. Total tourism dollars are identified as
$4.7 billion annually. San Diego and Oceanside's beaches are clearly an
economic contributor to the region's economic well-being.
Significant portions of Oceanside's beaches are not able to provide
full recreational and tourism revenue benefits due to the eroded beach
conditions. Furthermore, the beaches are too narrow to provide full and
adequate protection to public infrastructure, commercial facilities and
residential structures. Addressing this problem will significantly
decrease storm damage costs along the City's shoreline.
Mr. Chairman, again, on behalf of the City of Oceanside, I request
the Committee's support for these two critically important projects.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony and for
your consideration of the request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and
Conservation District
Mr.Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, thank you once again
for the opportunity for me, Roy Curless, as President, on behalf of the
Board of Commissioners of the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and
Conservation District in Eureka, California to submit prepared remarks
to you for the record in support of the fiscal year 2001 Energy and
Water regular appropriations measure to fund the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers in the first full year of the new millennium. The Humboldt
Bay Harbor District's Chief Executive Officer David Hull and I will
represent the Commission and District in meetings with subcommittee
staff and agency representatives and respond to any project-related
questions that arise during those meetings and appearances.
Today the citizens of the North Coast region--and the First
Congressional District of California have reason to celebrate. We stand
on the threshold of a new era in navigation safety and future economic
development. Our traditional forest products industry continues to
suffer from a precipitous decline, and our fisheries industry is facing
a potential catastrophe with a moratorium on bottom fishing, and the
listing of several species. However, sometime next month, construction
of the Humboldt Harbor and Bay Navigation Project authorized in the
Water Resources Development of 1996, is expected to be substantially
completed. Given a ten day project delay triggered by a frivolous legal
challenge, and our notorious winter weather conditions, the near
completion of this project represents a magnificent accomplishment by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the private contractors. We
commend them for their efforts.
The commission recognizes and expresses its debt of gratitude to
our congressional delegation, including Chairman Packard and the
members of this subcommittee, our Congressman Mike Thompson, and to
Senators Boxer and Feinstein for their continuing efforts in funding
the Humboldt Harbor and Bay Navigation Project. This project is of
critical importance to the future development of Humboldt Bay and
County, and the entire northcoast region of the State of California.
We are likewise grateful to the subcommittee for including $4.189
million in the operations and maintenance general account for fiscal
year 2000. We support the President's budget request for an additional
$4.710 in the operations and maintenance general account for fiscal
year 2001 and request the subcommittee increase this amount to $6.210
million.
The increased budget request for fiscal year 2001 is necessary to
perform additional work on the channel boundaries at Humboldt Bay's
entrance in the paramount interests of navigation safety and
environmental protection. In addition, expanded survey work to monitor
the new hydrodynamics of the channel after completion of project
construction is essential for safety and future maintenance planning.
Our additional request above the President's budget is based upon a
recent Corps survey south of the navigation channel. Sand accumulation
in this area is impacting the main channel and requires additional
maintenance dredging with the intended result of saving additional
money, lives and the bay environment over the long term.
Completion of the long sought new construction project will make us
more of a year round safe harbor and help U.S. compete to restore our
traditional forest products industry based upon sustainable yields,
while at the same time diversify our maritime economy reeling from
recent closures of our bottom fisheries.
For those unfamiliar with the geography, Humboldt Bay is the only
deep-draft natural harbor strategically situated along five hundred
miles of Pacific coastline between San Francisco and Coos Bay, Oregon.
Prevailing winter wave conditions at the Humboldt Bar and entrance have
posed extreme navigation safety hazards, resulting in loss of life and
significant property damage over the years.
To us, periodic maintenance can be a life and death, as well as
economic, survival matter. We are extremely grateful for the
commendable efforts by the San Francisco District of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to combine maintenance and construction dredging
last year to alleviate severe shoaling conditions at our bar and
entrance which posed additional safety risks of grounding over and
beyond those inherently unsafe seasonal conditions now largely remedied
by the channel improvement project itself.
Project completion will provide unique economic development
opportunities for the North Coast Region. These capitalize upon our
natural resources base enabling us to ship our commodities to world
markets at competitive freight rates, and ship more of our imports and
exports by water rather than transship them long distances by road or
rail to market. At the same time it will permit us to diversify our
economic base by improving our transportation infrastructure and
attracting new industrial activity to an area largely dependent upon
the economic well-being of the Forest Products Industry. We are
currently suffering from closure of major facilities and continuing
uncertainty surrounding the industry's future as a major contributor to
our long term economic base.
With the support of then Congressman Riggs, Congress authorized the
Humboldt Harbor and Bay 38 foot deep draft navigation project in
section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (WRDA 1996)
(Public Law 104-303) at an estimated total construction cost of
$15,178,000 with a required local contribution of $5,180,000, and a
first federal cost of $10,000,000. The project has a 1.9 to 1 favorable
benefit cost ratio. It enjoys the consensus support of federal, state,
regional, and local agencies.
In June 1998, with the support of the California Maritime
Infrastructure Authority in the first of its kind issuance of revenue
bonds to finance a federal navigation project, we were able to raise
$3.9 million matched by an additional $1.0 million in local
redevelopment agency funds from the City of Eureka to meet our required
local contribution to project construction cost.
In order to provide an additional revenue stream from which to
service the debt incurred in meeting its financial obligations, the
district has implemented the first of its kind harbor user fee (harbor
improvement surcharge) under section 208 of WRDA 1986 so that vessels
and cargo benefitting from the navigation improvements will share in
the cost of providing them.
This time last year thanks to an accelerated final review by
Secretary Westphal's staff, we were able to sign our project
cooperation agreement here in Washington paving the way for
advertisement and contract award and now anticipated completion of
construction this year.
On behalf of the members of the commission and district, we
appreciate those prior occasions in which we have had the opportunity
to appear before the subcommittee. We look forward to appearing before
this subcommittee on future occasions to provide updated reports on the
economic benefits and progress we expect will follow the successful
completion of this project. We are prepared to supplement our prepared
remarks for the record in response to any questions that the Chair,
subcommittee members, or staff may wish to have us answer.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. This
concludes my prepared remarks.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Sacramento
On behalf of the City of Sacramento, I would like to thank you for
the opportunity to provide testimony to the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development in support of fiscal year
2001 funding for flood protection projects in Sacramento. First, I
would like to express my appreciation to the Subcommittee for its
efforts in past years to fund flood control measures for the City.
Sacramento, California, continues to face the highest flood risk in the
nation. During the past several years, the Subcommittee has recognized
the dire need for flood protection in and around the Sacramento area
and has provided funds for a variety of previously authorized projects.
In order to continue our efforts, we must once again request your
support for funding vital Sacramento area flood control projects in
fiscal year 2001.
This year, the City of Sacramento is seeking $48.5 million in
federal funding in order to finance both ongoing and newly authorized
projects, which are described in the enclosed chart. These figures
represent the most recent estimates developed by the Sacramento Area
Flood Control Agency and are derived from their discussions with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Most importantly, the City is
seeking funding for two ``new starts'' that were authorized by the
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (WRDA 99): modifications to
Folsom Dam and construction of the South Sacramento Streams Group.
These two projects will form the backbone of a system of improvements
that may someday once and for all remove the threat of catastrophic
flooding from the streets of downtown Sacramento, site of our State
Capitol and home to 400,000 residents. We have worked closely with the
Corps in planning these projects and have determined that they are in
line with the Corps ability to spend for their fiscal year 2001 budget.
Obtaining new start funding for these important projects is a task that
will greatly benefit from your leadership.
The overall Corps of Engineers' budget request for all of
Sacramento's flood control projects is $21.9 million, meaning that
Congress must double the Administration's request in order to meet the
City's flood control needs. The Administration's budget request is
nearly $12 million below its request last year and over $13 million
below the amount Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2000. The City
urgently needs the Subcommittee's leadership and support to obtain our
full funding request in order to move forward with these previously
authorized projects.
The City is pleased that the Administration has proposed ``new
start'' construction funding for modifications to Folsom Dam, which
will enable the dam to release flows from Folsom Lake more quickly in
order to better protect the City from flooding during large storms.
However, the Administration's proposed funding of $5.0 million for the
Folsom modifications project falls far short of the full amount needed
next year. We urge the Subcommittee to support our full request of
$12.0 million to begin this urgently needed construction on Folsom Dam.
Due to the significant flood risk along creeks in the South
Sacramento area, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was authorized in
WRDA 99 to begin construction on the South Sacramento Streams Group,
which would protect areas in south Sacramento from catastrophic
flooding in the four creeks that convey foothill runoff through this
urbanized area. The Administration has requested $200,000 for
preconstruction engineering and design (PED). This amount is far below
our request. We urge the Subcommittee to fund $5.0 million to begin
both PED and construction for this project.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed budget provides $10.0
million for continuation of construction of the Common Elements, which
comprise levee improvements and other measures authorized by WRDA 96.
This level of funding is below the amount necessary to keep the project
moving forward, and we ask that the Subcommittee instead support our
request $13.0 million, which includes $1.0 million to begin work in
levee parity which was authorized in WRDA 99. The Common Elements
Project is a vital first step in our flood control efforts, and full
funding to keep this project on track is essential.
The City of Sacramento has been working in cooperation with the
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) on the construction of
bank protection improvements which are vital to correct harmful erosion
along the banks of the American River which threatens the integrity of
our existing levees. Additional improvements will be needed over the
next several years to prevent erosion at other American River sites.
This work is already authorized under the Sacramento River Bank
Protection Project, which is used to fund erosion control projects
throughout the Sacramento River System. The President's budget proposes
$3.3 million for the Sacramento River Bank Protection Project, which is
below the amount requested. We request that Subcommittee support our
request for $5.0 million.
For the American River Watershed (Natomas) improvements which were
authorized by Congress in 1992, we are seeking continued construction
appropriations in the amount of $5.0 million for reimbursement to SAFCA
for the Federal share of the flood control improvements.
The President's Budget for fiscal year 2001 provides for $3.285
million in PED funds for the American River Watershed plan, which will
continue previously authorized planning and design of Sacramento flood
control projects. We urge the Subcommittee to instead support our
request for $5.0 million in PED funds for the American River Watershed
plan.
This is the second year that the City is seeking funds for the
Lower Strong & Chicken Ranch Sloughs (DO5 Pump Station) project. This
is a feasibility study to restore 100-year level of flood protection to
Chicken Ranch Slough drainage to the American River. The President has
requested $150,000 for this project. We urge the Subcommittee to fund
our full requested amount of $500,000.
Under the Corps' Section 205 program, a feasibility study and
environmental documentation have been completed for a project that
would provide a high degree of flood protection on Magpie Creek. This
year, the President has requested $25.0 million for all Section 205
flood control projects. We urge the Subcommittee to support Section 205
funding in the fiscal year 2001 budget and recommend that the Corps of
Engineers be directed to provide $2.5 million for completion of the
Magpie Creek project and $500,000 for McLellan Air Force Base in its
distribution of Section 205 funds.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement
and for your consideration of the funding that the City of Sacramento
needs to protect its residents. As the Mayor of the most flood prone of
American cities, adequate flood protection is the number-one priority
for my administration. I thank you again for your commitment in
previous years to providing this vital protection and ask for your
renewed support in assuring its continuation.
FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001--SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2001 FY 2001
Project Admin. SAFCA/City
Request Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Folsom Modifications: Modifications to Folsom 5.0 12.0
Dam to provide greater efficiency in managing
flood storage in Folsom Reservoir. NEW START.
South Sacramento Streams: Prevention of 0.2 5.0
flooding of portions of Sacramento from the
south, where four creeks convey foothill
runoff through urbanized areas into Beach
Lake and the Delta. NEW START................
American River Common Elements: 24 miles of 10.0 13.0
levee improvements along the American River
and 12 miles of improvements along the
Sacramento River levees, flood gauges
upstream of Folsom Dam, and improvements to
the flood warning system along the lower
American River. Request includes $1.0 million
to begin work on levee parity, authorized in
WRDA 1999....................................
Sacramento River Bank Protection: Will correct 3.3 5.0
harmful erosion along the banks of the
American River which threatens the integrity
of the existing levees.......................
American River Watershed (Natomas): ........... 5.0
Reimbursement to SAFCA for the Federal share
of the flood control improvements undertaken
by the local project sponsor.................
American River Plan: Funds to continue 3.285 5.0
previously authorized planning and design of
Sacramento flood protection projects.........
Lower Strong & Chicken Ranch Sloughs (DO5 Pump 0.15 0.5
Station): a feasibility study to restore 100-
year level of flood protection to Chicken
Ranch Slough drainage to the American River..
Magpie Creek: Authorized under the Corps' \1\ N/A 2.5
Section 205 program, this project will
provide a high degree of flood protection on
Magpie Creek.................................
McClellan AFB................................. ........... 0.5
-------------------------
Total................................... 21.935 48.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Corps has requested $25.0 million for the Section 205 program,
which funds these two projects. Individual projects are not itemized
in this request.
Prepared Statement of the Colusa Basin Drainage District
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: The Colusa Basin
Drainage District requests the Committee's support for $1 million for
fiscal year 2001, under Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project,
Sacramento River Division, for the Colusa Basin Drainage District
Integrated Resources Management Plan.
The 650,000-acre Colusa Basin Drainage District, located on the
west side of the Sacramento River, serves a watershed exceeding one
million acres. It covers three counties: Glenn, Colusa and northern
Yolo Counties. It is not only a rich agricultural area, but a rich
wildlife area as well, including three national wildlife refuges.
Over the decades, devastating floods have repeatedly struck the
Colusa Basin resulting in costly damage to public and private property,
and loss of life. In 1995, and again in 1998, these three counties
suffered an estimated $100 million in losses and one death due to
floods. In November 1995, a majority of landowners voted to implement
the District's Integrated Management Plan to address flood dangers
while achieving other benefits: increasing groundwater supplies and
surface water storage, and improving environmental and wildlife uses in
the watershed.
Through a stakeholder/local, state and federal agency collaborative
process, four projects have been selected to serve as a demonstration
of the region's integrated resources management. Under the program,
hydraulic studies were completed in 1998, basin-wide programmatic
environmental documentation commenced during 1998 and is scheduled for
completion later this year. Project specific environmental
documentation will commence and be completed during fiscal year 2001.
The Colusa Basin Drainage District, working collaboratively with
the Bureau of Reclamation and a variety of local and agency
stakeholders, has developed an Integrated Resources Management Plan for
water management that addresses flooding and will provide opportunities
for future conjunctive use of water resources to meet the diverse needs
of agricultural, urban and wildlife interests in the Colusa Basin. The
District's Plan consists of three components: structural facilities,
nonstructural flood control measures, and environmental restoration/
enhancement measures, including the restoration and protection of 3,000
acres of wetlands. All new water supply developed as a result of flood
control improvements will be dedicated to the environment.
The Colusa Basin Drainage District appreciates your past support
for our integrated resources management plan for water management that
addresses flooding and provides opportunities for future conjunctive
use of water resources.
Thank you for your continued support.
______
Prepared Statement of the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Bruce
George, and I am the Manager of the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation
District in the eastern San Joaquin Valley of California. Thank you for
the opportunity to present testimony regarding the fiscal year 2001
budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Corps of
Engineers includes $500,000 to continue construction of a project to
increase the water storage capacity of Terminus Dam at Lake Kaweah in
California's San Joaquin Valley. The project would add approximately
43,000 acre-feet of flood control and conservation storage space to
Lake Kaweah by raising the Terminus Dam spillway by 21 feet. The
estimated total first cost of the project is $35 million.
Unfortunately, the level of funding in the President's budget will
not allow the project to proceed on an optimum timetable. As a result,
total costs to the federal government, the State of California and the
local sponsors will be increased.
We respectfully request that the Subcommittee support an
appropriation of $3 million for construction in fiscal year 2001. This
will allow work to go forward at an efficient pace that is within the
Corps' capabilities.
The Corps of Engineers studied and planned this modest project for
more than 10 years. Last year, Congress appropriated $2.5 million to
initiate construction in fiscal year 2000. The State of California is
the lead non-federal sponsor of the project and has appropriated the
necessary funds for construction. In addition to the Kaweah Delta Water
Conservation District, the other local sponsors are the counties of
Kings and Tulare, the City of Visalia and the Tulare Lake Basin Water
Storage District.
The California Water Commission supports a $3 million General
Construction appropriation for the Terminus Project in addition to the
amount requested in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget for
operation and maintenance.
BACKGROUND
The Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District was formed in 1927 to
conserve and protect the surface and groundwater of the Kaweah delta.
The District serves 337,000 acres, which include the cities of Visalia
and Tulare and several other incorporated and unincorporated areas in
Kings and Tulare counties. Those two counties consistently rank among
the most productive agricultural counties in the nation.
Terminus Dam and Lake Kaweah, located on the Kaweah River three and
one-half miles east of the District, was completed in 1962 by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. The purpose of the project is to provide
storage space for flood protection and irrigation on the Kaweah River.
The Conservation District manages the irrigation and flood control
releases for Lake Kaweah, as well as assisting in the conjunctive use
of the surface and groundwater of the Kaweah delta.
Flooding downstream from the dam occurs when flows from individual
creeks blend together and form a sheet flow through urban and
agricultural areas. Included in the flooded areas are the communities
of Visalia, Farmerville, Tulare, Ivanhoe and Goshen. Since construction
of Terminus Dam, 10 damaging floods have occurred, the most recent in
1997 and 1998.
Inadequate flood protection and a long-term groundwater overdraft
in the region have created a need for greater reservoir storage space
for flood control and irrigation storage. With a maximum capacity of
143,000 acre-feet, Lake Kaweah currently provides a less than 50-year
level of flood protection for communities downstream. Raising the
spillway at Terminus Dam (by the installation of fuse gates) would
increase the reservoir storage capacity by 30 percent, thus providing a
much higher level of flood protection for the region.
California's growing population will place ever-increasing demands
on its water supply and flood control infrastructure. Improving
existing facilities such as Terminus Dam is one of the most economical
and environmentally sensitive ways to meet those new demands. It is
important for Congress to encourage such projects.
We are grateful for the Subcommittee's continued support of the
Terminus project.
______
Prepared Statement of the Natomas Mutual Water Company
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: On behalf of the Natomas
Mutual Water Company, I request the Committee's support for an
allocation of $3,000,000 in the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations bill, under Bureau of Reclamation, Central
Valley Project, Miscellaneous Project Programs, Anadromous Fish
Screening Program, for the American Basin Fish Screen and Habitat
Improvement Project. The requested funding will be used to complete the
environmental review, design and engineering phases of the project as
well as initiate construction on a new flat plate screen and diversion
point just north of the City of Sacramento.
Currently, five river diversions from the Sacramento River of
Natomas Mutual Water Company, located within a 20-mile stretch, need
upgrading to prevent capture of endangered species. Individually re-
designing those diversions and installing positive fish barriers on
each would be prohibitively expensive. Two of the diversions take water
from a body of water called the Natomas Cross Canal at the northern-
most point of the service area. That channel receives flows from both
the Sacramento River and the Auburn Ravine foothill runoff. During dry
years, the Canal is artificially filled with water from the Sacramento
River, in order to feed the pumps. Any alternative which could remove
the need for those pumps, especially in dry years, would enhance the
Cross Canal's potential as a special habitat preserve.
The project will provide fish protection to one of the largest
remaining unscreened diversions on the Sacramento River as well as
provide important benefits for fish habitat. In addition, the project
could provide benefits to other regional water users, including the
City of Sacramento, Sacramento County and Placer County Water Agency,
all of which are exploring diversion options on the Sacramento River.
The Natomas Water Company would greatly appreciate the Committee's
support for this project. Thank you again for your attention to this
important project.
______
Prepared Statement of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council
On behalf of the Hoopa Valley Tribe of California, I express our
appreciation for the opportunity to submit testimony regarding the
fiscal year 2001 Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) budget. A summary of our
fiscal year 2001 funding request follows:
--Support Administration's position that existing laws provide
authority to support Trinity River Division fish and wildlife
management and restoration activities. Further, the Hoopa
Valley Tribe supports the Administration's position that
Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) funds are
authorized for expenditure in the Trinity River Basin.
--Request that $11,500,000 be provided for Trinity River fishery
management requirements within the Trinity River Division of
the Central Valley Project for continuing fish and wildlife
management programs of tribal, state, federal and local
entities and continuation of the Comprehensive Co-Management
Agreement between Hoopa Valley Tribe and BOR at a funding level
of $2,500,000.
--Request $150,000 from the General Activities Planning budget for a
feasibility study for upgrading the Lewiston generator, and for
Trinity River green sturgeon and Pacific Lamprey population
studies.
--Support the Native American Affairs proposed budget and request an
increase of $1,000,000 for additional assistance to Indian
tribes.
BACKGROUND
The Trinity River in northern California is the largest tributary
to the Klamath River, the second largest river system in California.
Since time immemorial, the Klamath Basin provided sustenance to Native
Americans of the region. The Klamath River Basin is the aboriginal
territory of Hoopa Valley, Karuk, Klamath, and Yurok Tribes. Moreover,
utilization of fishery resources of the Klamath River has been
fundamental to the economic health of northern California providing
viable recreational and commercial salmon fisheries.
In 1963, BOR completed construction of the Trinity River Division
of the Central Valley Project (CVP). The Trinity River Division
currently provides an estimated fourteen-percent of the total water
yielded by the CVP.
Shortly after completion of the Trinity Dam, and subsequent
diversion of up to 90 percent of the stream flows at the diversion
point (near Lewiston, California) from the Trinity River, the fishery
began to decline. Through the 1980s, corresponding declines of up to 80
percent of the salmon and steelhead populations occurred. In response
to declines in Trinity fish stocks, the Secretary of Interior approved
development of a flow evaluation study in 1981 to determine stream flow
needs for fish restoration. Further, Congress recognized the
seriousness of the problem, and enacted the Trinity River Restoration
Act (Public Law 98-541, 1984) which, with subsequent amendments,
authorized approximately $70,000,000 in an attempt to reverse the
decline of the fishery resources within the Trinity River Basin.
However, the downward trend in Trinity fish populations has continued
as reflected by listing of coho salmon under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) (May 6, 1997). Steelhead were recently declined for listing under
the ESA. Klamath/Trinity Basin chinook stocks were included in a West
Coast review of all chinook stocks. The NMFS concluding that Klamath/
Trinity chinook did not presently warrant listing under ESA.
While much work has been accomplished to date, it is recognized
that continued monitoring and research will be necessary to provide
insight on status of resources, evaluation of restorative measures, and
effective management recommendations for further restoration. Primary
among the scientific achievements to date has been the development of
in-stream flow criteria that quantify the benefits to salmonids of
retained flows in the Trinity Basin. These criteria, developed over the
entire course of the Restoration Program, provide a basis for the
Secretary's flow decision, due in fiscal year 2000. The Secretary's
Trinity River Flow Evaluation Study Report was published in June 1999,
and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is scheduled for
completion by July 2000.
In spite of many years of research into Trinity River ecosystem
processes, considerable uncertainty persists in regard to downstream
impacts of water releases from Lewiston Dam. These uncertainties are to
be addressed via an Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) under the direction
of the Interior Secretary. Long-term monitoring and research are
essential to the AMP: hypotheses underlying the Trinity River Flow
Evaluation Study recommendations will be tested through research; and
monitoring data will be used to measure how well river ecosystem health
objectives are met.
NARRATIVE JUSTIFICATION AND FUNDING REQUESTS
--The Tribe is in agreement with the Administration's legal
conclusions contained in the fiscal year 2001 Budget
Justification and Annual Performance Plan--Trinity River
Division--that existing authorities provide ample justification
for expenditures on fish and wildlife restoration within the
Trinity River. The 1955 Act creating the Trinity River
Division, Trinity River Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act as
amended, and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA)
mandate that the Department of the Interior restore and
maintain fish and wildlife populations with CVP funds.
Furthermore, Congress acknowledged the reserved fishing rights
of the Hoopa Valley Tribe in the CVPIA.
--Funding Request for Fish and Wildlife Management--In August 1999,
agencies responsible for managing the Trinity River fishery
resources determined that $11,500,000 was needed annually to
fund comprehensive management within the Trinity River Basin in
order to restore the fishery resources to pre-dam levels. The
Hoopa Valley Tribe participated in the development of this
management plan. Specifically, the Hoopa Valley Tribe requests
that an additional $5,000,000 in funds be provided for
restoration of Trinity Basin fish and wildlife resources.
Presently, the Administration has proposed a fiscal year 2001
budget of $5,600,000
Therefore, the Tribe requests that the Committee provide
$11,500,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management and Development within the
Trinity River Division budget and that $2,500,000 of this amount be
allocated specifically for the maintenance of the Comprehensive Co-
Management Agreement between the Tribe and BOR. The requested funding
would ensure the Tribe's involvement in water project operations
planning, environmental impact analysis, hatchery investigations,
fisheries management, and would accelerate resource restoration through
unified, inter-governmental management actions. Most of these
activities will be addressed via the Adaptive Environmental Assessment
and Management process (AMP) as described in the Trinity River Flow
Evaluation Final Report.
In its seventh year, the Co-Management Agreement between Hoopa and
BOR has contributed not only to the fulfillment of the Federal trust
responsibilities to Native Americans, but has also served to bring
Federal, State, Tribal and local management agencies together into a
constructive and cooperative forum for managing fishery and water
resources within the Trinity River Basin.
--Request $150,000 from the General Activities Planning budget for a
feasibility study for upgrading the Lewiston Hydro-power
generator, green sturgeon and Pacific Lamprey studies. It is
expected that the Interior Secretary's Trinity River permanent
fishery flow decision will result in reduced diversions of
Trinity River flows into California's Central Valley. While
being greatly beneficial to Trinity River fishery resources and
upholding the federal trust obligations to Indian tribes, the
decision will likely reduce the amount of electricity generated
from diverted flows. To compensate for this situation, the
Tribe requests that $100,000 be provided from Reclamation's
General Activities Planning budget for determining the
feasibility of increasing the capacity of the Lewiston
Powerhouse generators in anticipation of the increased releases
to the Trinity River. An expected benefit of increased
generation of electricity from the Lewiston powerhouse is the
possibility of using its revenues to pay for future fish and
wildlife restoration activities within the Trinity River Basin,
thereby reducing long-term costs to the Federal Government.
In addition, the Tribe requests that $50,000 be provided for
conducting population and fish health studies for Trinity River green
sturgeon and Pacific Lamprey, both of which are important species to
the Klamath and Trinity River Indian tribes and have been negatively
impacted by the construction and management of the Trinity River
Division.
--Support the Native American Affairs proposed budget request and an
increase of $1,000,000 for additional assistance to Indian
tribes. The Reclamation Native American Affairs program has
proven to be very beneficial to both the Federal Government and
Indian tribes while trying to resolve inter-governmental water
and fishery management issues. Without a doubt, the Native
American Affairs Program has been instrumental in reducing the
possibility of costly litigation and disputes between
Reclamation and Indian tribes.
RESULTS ANTICIPATED
Trinity Restoration Program: Effective restoration of fisheries,
critical to the Hoopa Valley and Yurok tribes and the economic
stability of the fishery dependent communities of northern California
and southern Oregon, would be promoted through collective actions of
the Trinity Restoration Program. Identification and implementation of
specific remedies and monitoring of fishery trends are expected results
of Restoration Program.
While many on-the-ground achievements have already been realized,
many critical elements have yet to be completed. Among the expected
outcomes of the Program for 2000 is the completion of the Environmental
Impact Statement to assist the Secretary with implementation of in-
river flows required for full restoration of salmonid populations in
the Trinity River as mandated under Public Law 102-575. The Secretary's
fishery flow allocation decision, originally mandated for fiscal year
1997, was delayed due to incomplete environmental documentation. It is
now anticipated that completed environmental documentation shall be
available to support the Secretary's Decision expected in fiscal year
2000.
Tribal/Reclamation Co-Management Agreements and Native American
Affairs Program.--The Co-Management Agreements will continue to assist
in the coordination of Federal, State, Tribal and local activities
(management and research) impacting salmon fisheries and salmon
habitats of the Klamath and Trinity rivers. Accomplishments under this
agreement in fiscal year 1997 included maintenance of data collection
and analysis programs critical to the integrated management of the
Klamath and Trinity fishery resources. Both Reclamation and the Tribe
agree that a wise investment has been made in developing a
comprehensive foundation for fishery restoration.
This foundation includes on-the-ground restoration work, assembly
of scientific data on fisheries and habitat, and the coordination
across multiple jurisdictions affecting salmon survival. It is now
important to insure that this investment provides the desired results
of a fully restored Trinity River Basin.
The General Activities Planning budget request will assist the
Tribes, agencies and private interests to develop opportunities for
compensating for the loss of electricity caused by increased Trinity
River flows. The Green Sturgeon and Pacific Lamprey population and
survival studies will provide basic information for development of
long-term management programs for these species. While green sturgeon
and Pacific Lamprey are important species to Indian tribes, and their
maintenance is part of the Federal Government's trust obligations, lack
of funding has prevented the development of management programs for
these species.
CONCLUSION
The Hoopa Valley Tribe's relationship with BOR has improved
significantly in recent years; however, it is clear that the fishery
management problems associated with the Central Valley Project and
Klamath Project operations still persist. Resolution of these issues
may only be assured through the continued commitment by the Tribe and
BOR to ongoing co-management of these important resources.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony regarding
BOR's fiscal year 2001 budget. I am available to discuss these matters
with you in more detail at your convenience.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California
Your support and leadership are needed in securing adequate fiscal
year 2001 funding for the Department of the Interior with respect to
the federal/state Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.
Congress has designated the Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation to be the lead agency for salinity control in the Colorado
River Basin. This successful and cost effective program is carried out
pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act and the Clean
Water Act. California's Colorado River water users are presently
suffering economic damages estimated at about $750 million per year due
to the river's salinity. The potential impact of failing to move
forward with the Plan of Implementation for salinity control would be
to permit these damages in the Lower Basin to reach an estimated $1.25
billion annually by the year 2015.
The Colorado River Board of California (Colorado River Board) is
the state agency charged with protecting California's interests and
rights in the water and power resources of the Colorado River System.
In this capacity, California along with the other six Basin States
through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), the
interstate organization responsible for coordinating the Basin States'
salinity control efforts, established numeric criteria, in June 1975,
for salinity concentrations in the River. These criteria were
established to lessen the future damages in the Lower Basin States as
well as assist the United States in delivering water of adequate
quality to Mexico in accordance with Minute 242 of the International
Boundary and Water Commission. The goal of the Colorado River Basin
salinity control program is to offset the effects of water resource
development in the Colorado River Basin after 1972 rather than to
reduce the salinity of the River below levels that were caused by
natural variations in river flows or human activities prior to 1972. To
maintain these levels, the salinity control program must remove
1,480,000 tons of salt loading from the River by 2015. To date, only
721,000 tons of salt load reduction have been achieved. In the Forum's
last report entitled 1999 Review, Water Quality Standards for Salinity,
Colorado River System released in June 1999, the Forum found that
additional salinity control measures were necessary to meet the
implementation plan that had been adopted by the seven Colorado River
Basin States and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. The
Forum identified a ``backlog'' of salinity control measures which
stands at 384,000 tons. This is in addition to future controls designed
to lower the River's salt loading by 372,000 tons by 2015 in order to
meet the established salinity standards. The Forum has presented
testimony to Congress recommending that the salinity control efforts
through Reclamation's Basinwide Salinity Control Program be accelerated
to continue to meet the salinity standards through 2015. It has
developed a plan that recommends the removal of at least 87,000 tons
per year of salt loading through 2005.
The President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2001 contains only
$10,850,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation's Basinwide Salinity Control
Program. The Colorado River Board is pleased with the Administration's
efforts, however, implementation of salinity control measures has
fallen behind the needed pace to prevent salinity concentration levels
from exceeding the numeric criteria adopted by the Forum and approved
by the EPA. The seven Colorado River Basin states, which cost-share
with the Federal Government up to 30 percent of the construction costs
of Reclamation's salinity control measures, have carefully evaluated
the federal funding needs of the program and have concluded that an
adequate budget is needed for the plan of implementation to maintain
the river salinity standards. The Forum, at its meeting in San
Francisco, California, in October 1999, recommended a funding level of
$17,500,000 for Reclamation's Basinwide Program to reduce the
``backlog'' of projects.
In addition, the Colorado River Board recognizes that the Federal
Government has made significant commitments to the Republic of Mexico
and to the seven Colorado River Basin states with regard to the
delivery of quality water to Mexico. In order for those commitments to
be honored, it is essential that in fiscal year 2001 and in future
fiscal years, that Congress provide funds to the Bureau of Reclamation
for the continued operation of completed projects through Operation and
Maintenance funds.
The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
water resource to the 17 million residents of southern California.
Preservation of its quality through an effective salinity control
program will avoid the additional economic damages to users in
California.
The Colorado River Board greatly appreciates your support of the
federal/state Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program and again
asks for your assistance and leadership in securing adequate funding
for this program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control
Agency
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity today to provide this
testimony for inclusion in the hearing record on the fiscal year 2001
Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. But most importantly,
let me express my sincere appreciation for your continued support for
the Small Reclamation Projects Loan Program, and specifically, the
funding for the Salinas Valley Reclamation Project. During the past six
years, this subcommittee provided $8.2 million for our project. I am
pleased to report that the funds appropriated thus far have been well
spent on our project, which began construction in August 1995. The new
facility was dedicated in October 1997 with full operation beginning in
April 1998. In calendar year 1999, the plant produced over 10,000 acre-
feet (AF) of recycled water.
The project will ultimately provide 19,500 acre-feet of recycled
water per year to land south and west of Castroville where abandonment
of wells threatens agricultural production and the loss of a portion of
rural America. It will also reduce discharge of secondary treated
wastewater to the recently created Monterey Bay National Marine
Sanctuary. In addition, the California State Water Resources Control
Board specifically indicated its strong support for the Salinas Valley
Reclamation Project in a prior letter to the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation.
The Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA), a
joint-powers entity formed under the laws of the State of California,
was created in 1971 to implement a plan that called for consolidation
of the Monterey Peninsula and northern Salinas Valley wastewater flows
through a regional treatment plant and an outfall to central Monterey
Bay. The plan also required studies to determine the technical
feasibility of using recycled water for irrigation of fresh vegetable
food crops (artichokes, celery, broccoli, lettuce, and cauliflower) in
the Castroville area. These studies were initiated in 1976 and included
a five-year full-scale demonstration of using recycled wastewater for
food crop irrigation. California and Monterey County health departments
concluded in 1988 that the water was safe for food crops that would be
consumed without cooking. Subsequently, the Salinas Valley Seawater
Intrusion Committee voted to include recycled water in their plan to
slow seawater intrusion in the Castroville area.
In addition, a supplemental water-testing program (October 1997
through March 1998) was initiated to confirm the new plant's removal of
what are termed ``emerging pathogens.'' These organisms, which include
Cryptosporidium, Giardia, Cyclospora, and E. Coli, were not evaluated
in the original five-year field study. The results of the follow-up
testing program again verified that the water is safe for irrigation of
food crops.
As in the past, we have been in close consultation with the Bureau
of Reclamation and the other Small Reclamation Projects Loan Program
participants in an attempt to provide the Committee with a consensus
budget request that has the support of the Administration and the Loan
Program participants. Based on these discussions, the Administration
requested, with our support and endorsement, sufficient funding for the
Salinas Valley Reclamation Project as part of the Bureau of
Reclamation's Public Law 84-984 Small Reclamation Projects Loan Program
for continuation of loan obligations. This appropriation amount, $0.8
million, when combined with other federal funding which is available
from the U.S. Treasury pursuant to the Federal Credit Reform Act of
1990, will yield a total loan amount that we believe will meet the
Federal Government's commitment for fiscal year 2001. The amount
requested, when combined with the additional Treasury portion, is
intended to fulfill the Bureau's eight-year loan commitment for
assistance to construct the project.
As I indicated, the funding request is the result of a lengthy and
complex financial agreement worked out with the other Loan Program
participants and the Bureau. The agreement represents the absolute
minimum annual amount necessary to continue with the project. The
MRWPCA worked under the premise of accommodating the Bureau of
Reclamation's budgetary constraints and is expending considerable local
funds to bridge the Federal Government's budgetary shortfall. Any
additional cuts in federal funding will jeopardize the complex
financing plan for the project.
The MRWPCA has received Federal Grant and Loan Funds in Federal
fiscal year 1995, fiscal year 1996, fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998,
fiscal year 1999, and fiscal year 2000 through February 9, 2000, as
follows:
Federal Appropriations \1\
[In millions of dollars]
SVRP
Received:
1995................................................................
1996.......................................................... 2.0
1997.......................................................... 1.5
1998.......................................................... 1.3
1999.......................................................... 1.7
2000.......................................................... 1.7
Requested 2001.................................................... 0.8
______
Total....................................................... 9.0
\1\ Does not include Treasury portion of $9.155 million for SVRP.
Even though the additional private debt service and bridge
financing will increase the project costs, the critical problem of
seawater intrusion demands that the project be continued. The Bureau of
Reclamation loan is a crucial link in project funding, and it is
imperative that annual appropriations continue, even at the planned
reduced rate over eight years. The federal funds requested under the
Public Law 84-984 program will be repaid by landowners in the Salinas
Valley with assessments that are currently in place. Local funds
totaling $16.3 million have already been spent getting to this point.
Mr. Chairman, we urge you and the members of the subcommittee to
give your continued support to the Small Reclamation Projects Loan
Program, and specifically, funding for the Salinas Valley Reclamation
Project. Your support and continued assistance for this critical
project is greatly appreciated.
______
Prepared Statement of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony
for inclusion in the hearing record of the fiscal year 2001 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations bill. The people of the Salinas Valley
in California's 17th Congressional District appreciate your willingness
to accept our statements in support of the Castroville Seawater
Intrusion Project. I would further like to express our deep
appreciation for this Subcommittee's efforts on past Energy and Water
Development Appropriations bills. I am pleased to report that the
project is complete and operational and provided over 10,000 acre-feet
of recycled water in calendar year 1999.
As with the past six years the Monterey County Water Resources
Agency has worked diligently to present the Subcommittee with an fiscal
year 2001 funding request that is supported by the Administration as
well as all the other Small Reclamation Loan Program participants.
Through close consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation and other
Program participants, we have developed the funding plans that were
included in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget for the Public Law
84-984 Small Reclamation Loan Program. I therefore respectively request
that the Subcommittee provide the full Administration request for the
project of $1.3 million.
This is the seventh year of an eight-year fiscal strategy designed
to meet the requirements of all the projects in the Program while
recognizing the fiscal constraints facing all levels of government.
Originally, the Program was to provide all appropriations ($16,500,000)
over a three-year period. During the past six years this Subcommittee
provided $11.864 million for our project. The current appropriation
amount of $1.3 million, when combined with other federal funding which
is available from the U.S. Treasury in the amount of
approximately$2.275 million pursuant to the Federal Credit Reform Act
of 1990, should yield a total loan amount of $3.575 million for fiscal
year 2001 that will allow the project to proceed on schedule.
The Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) is a local
government entity formed under the Monterey County Water Resources
Agency Act. It is an agency with limited jurisdiction involving matters
related primarily to flood control and water resources conservation,
management, and development. The Salinas Valley is a productive
agricultural area that depends primarily on ground water as a water
supply. The combination of the Valley's rich soils, mild climate, and
high quality ground water makes this Valley unique among California's
most fertile agricultural lands and has earned the Valley the
distinction as the ``Nation's Salad Bowl''. As agricultural activity
and urban development have increased in the past forty years, ground
water levels have dropped allowing seawater to intrude the coastal
ground water aquifers. Seawater intrusion is extensive adjacent to the
coast near the town of Castroville. The Castroville Seawater Intrusion
Project will provide 19,500 acre-feet of recycled water annually for
agricultural irrigation to over 12,000 acres and help solve the
seawater intrusion problem by greatly reducing groundwater pumping in
the project area. The Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project is an
essential component in the MCWRA's plan to deal with basin-wide ground
water overdraft and seawater intrusion.
The amount requested in fiscal year 2001 when combined with the
additional Treasury portion is intended to fulfill the Bureau's seventh
year of an eight-year loan commitment for assistance to construct the
project. As stated above, the funding request that we anticipate is the
result of a lengthy and complex financial agreement worked out with the
other Loan Program participants and the Bureau. The agreement
recognized the tight federal budgetary constraints and represents the
absolute minimal annual amount necessary to proceed with the project.
The MCWRA has been extremely accommodating of the Bureau's budgetary
constraints and has agreed to expend considerable local funds to bridge
the Federal Government's budgetary shortfall. Any additional cuts in
federal funding will jeopardize the complex financing plan for the
project.
In August 1992, the original loan request was submitted to the
Bureau. Subsequent approval was received from the Secretary of the
Interior in May 1994. Through extensive discussion and negotiations
between the MCWRA and the Bureau, a project-financing plan was created.
The Bureau made it quite clear that the original provisions in the loan
application of full disbursement during the three years of construction
could not be met due to federal budget shortfalls. As defined in the
repayment contract, the Bureau will disburse funds to the MCWRA over an
eight-year period. This means that the MCWRA will receive these funds
for five years after the project is operational. The fiscal year 2000
funding provided monies for the third year after completion of the
project. The MCWRA had to acquire ``bridge financing'' to meet the
needs of the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project construction costs.
Even though the additional private debt service has increased the
project costs, the critical problem of seawater intrusion demanded that
the project proceed. The Bureau loan is a crucial link in project
funding, and it is imperative that the annual appropriations, even at
the planned reduced rate over eight years, continue. Federal
appropriations have been received in fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997,
1998, 1999, and 2000 as shown in the table below and must continue in
subsequent years in accordance with the negotiated agreement in order
for the projects to be successful. The federal funds requested under
the Public Law 84-984 program will be repaid by landowners in the
Salinas Valley with assessments that are currently in place. The MCWRA
has spent approximately $36.0 million of its own funds getting to this
point.
Federal Appropriations \1\
[In millions of dollars]
CSIP
Received:
1995.......................................................... 1.064
1996.......................................................... 1.5
1997.......................................................... 2.0
1998.......................................................... 2.1
1999.......................................................... 2.6
2000.......................................................... 2.6
Requested 2001.................................................... 1.3
______
Total.......................................................13.164
\1\ Does not include Treasury portion of $13.642 million for CSIP.
Mr. Chairman, we urge you and the members of the Subcommittee to
give your continued support to the Small Reclamation Program and we
urge the inclusion of funds for the Castroville Seawater Intrusion
Project. Without your continued support, we will not be able to realize
the benefit of the work completed over the past several years and the
Salinas ground water basin will continue to deteriorate, creating a
significant threat to the local and state economies as well as to the
health and welfare of our citizens.
Again, thank you for your support and continued assistance.
______
Prepared Statement of the Moss Landing Harbor District
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity for me, James Stilwell, as general manager of the Moss
Landing Harbor District in California to submit prepared remarks to you
for the record in support of the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water
regular appropriations measure.
With the help of fiscal year 1998 emergency, and fiscal year 1999
regular, appropriations (and assistance from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency) we have just completed the first operations and
maintenance cycle of both the federal channel and non-federal berthing
areas maintained by the district since 1993 despite three intervening
declared natural disasters which left hundreds of thousands of cubic
yards of additional material to be dredged and disposed of.
On the heels of this achievement, we now turn our sights on the
future. No harbor district in the country has had to go though more
hoops to get its harbor dredged to authorized depth. No harbor in the
country should have to go through what we have gone through ever again!
Over the past year under the auspices of the San Francisco district
of the Corps of Engineers, we have convened an ecological risk
assessment working group to develop a consensus decisionmaking approach
to reviewing options for dredged material disposal for the next
scheduled operations and maintenance cycle focusing on the continued
use of the nearshore SF-12 disposal site.
This working group is comprised of every state, federal and local
agency with responsibility for the conduct and statutory oversight of
dredging activities. The site is located within the boundaries of the
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), including the
Sanctuary, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District
(USACESFD), USEPA Region IX, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
California Coastal Commission, California Department of Fish and Game,
the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, along with
representatives of related local agencies, the commercial fishing
industry, public interest groups and marine research community based in
the Harbor District.
The members of this working group unanimously support the request
of the Harbor District for $700,000 in additional appropriations from
the fiscal year 2001 operations and maintenance general account of the
Corps of Engineers to complete a long term dredged material management
plan and ecological risk assessment under both Corps and EPA guidance.
This assessment will identify and establish a management plan for the
disposal of dredged material from both the federal channel and locally
maintained berthing areas for the next twenty years to avoid a repeat
of the nightmare we have experienced since 1993.
Having previously determined the eligibility of using O&M general
account funds for this purpose, a preliminary analysis is already
underway that will establish the scope of work for the dredged material
management plan and the ecological risk assessment. Part of that effort
is putting the economic issue of continued federal interest in
maintaining our federal channel out there for reevaluation. As the
harbor is home to the largest commercial fishing fleet on the central
coast of California and the largest concentration of federal, state and
private marine research and millions of dollars in capital investment
in vessels and facilities on the west coast, I am confident of the
results of that analysis.
Anticipating the committee's fiscal concerns, we have already put
our local money where our mouth is before we would request additional
federal funds for this purpose! As part of voluntary local cost sharing
contribution, the local sponsor has expended over $120,000 to date for
sedimentary transport studies of both mud and sand and associated
contaminants from various sources in the SF 12 area including the
unique Monterey Bay Marine Canyon, $16,000 for the collection of
sediment samples (some of which need critical testing and evaluation
before their expiration), $12,000 for an extensive literature search,
and $25,000 in coordinating with, and sponsoring meetings of the
working group. USEPA Region IX has also contributed financially to this
important endeavor providing funds for the peer review process.
We are concurrently seeking the reprogramming of in excess of
$150,000 in fiscal year 2000 funds from the operations and maintenance
general account of the district and Southern Pacific Division to get
the management plan under way this year. The additional amounts are
requested on a one-time basis to complete the plan this next fiscal
year. Some of the work we expect will be done in house by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers waterway experiment station in Vicksurg,
Mississippi. All of the work will be useful to other cities, states,
and port authorities across the United States as a model for
collaborative effort in dredged material disposal consensus
decisionmaking in unique situations such as ours. If we can resolve the
thorny issues of dredged material disposal in the ecologically unique,
only Submarine CANYON and largest marine sanctuary in the United
States, we can solve these problems anywhere!
This effort is intended to save current and future expenditures by
providing a proven analytical and scientific framework with which to
balance the costs and risks of upland and unconfined aquatic disposal
of dredged material, a problem affecting ports and harbors across the
nation and threatening to have an adverse impact on future Corps
maintenance budgets.
In this regard, the commission recognizes and expresses its
gratitude to our distinguished senator from California, the Honorable
Dianne Feinstein, a member of this committee for her continuing efforts
on behalf of California's ports in the Congress of the United States,
and especially for her efforts in the fiscal year 1998 emergency and
regular 1999 regular appropriations, in funding deferred operations and
maintenance of the Moss Landing Navigation Project of critical economic
importance to the commercial fishing industry, University and Private
Oceanographic Research Fleet, and Monterey County in the central coast
region of the State of California. We are the working port of the
central coast of California!
At this time last year, we were in the throes of a dire emergency.
The last complete maintenance cycle of our authorized fifteen foot
channel was in 1993. Since then three declared natural disasters, the
most recently being the 1998 El Nino event, left hundreds of thousands
of cubic yards of silt material in our channel and berthing areas, in
many instances reducing channel depth to six feet in places, and
threatening navigation closure with untold economic loss to the region.
Today, with the committee's assistance, the Corps of Engineers has
dredged the main channel to authorized depths. Under Corps permit we
have likewise dredged our berth areas. As a result of those
unprecedented three flooding events, as the innocent victim of upstream
runoff of agricultural pesticide laden material, we became a downstream
repository for material that initially failed testing for suitability
for unconfined aquatic disposal at an historic site five hundred yards
offshore. The difference between upland and aquatic disposal is between
less than five dollars per cubic yard and over thirty dollars per cubic
yard for either channel or berth material, prohibitively expensive to a
small harbor district like ourselves.
More recent testing results have borne out that much, if not all,
of our material is indeed safe for aquatic disposal within existing
guidelines. We feel sufficiently certain of this, that we are willing
to contribute our own limited resources to a cooperative effort in the
form of a dredged material management plan. This plan calls for the
Corps of Engineers to marshall the necessary scientific evidence and
documentation to support a first-of-its-kind in the Nation Ecological
Risk Assessment with the participation of the Corps waterway experiment
station and Environmental Protection Agency scientists in this effort.
We hope that the eventual report will help bring about a consensus on
this issue in our local region, and serve as a model for other ports
and harbors across the nation. We fully expect that the expenditure of
funds for this purpose will save countless federal and local sponsor
dollars in navigation and other projects nationwide.
The Corps will lead in this effort with expenditures from their
operations and management, general appropriations account with the
initial planning effort commencing in the current fiscal year. Most of
the necessary scientific field work (sampling, testing, and evaluation)
will occur in fiscal year 2000.
Concurrently, the Ecological Risk Assessment (``ERA'') to be
undertaken will consist of three main phases: (1) problem formulation;
(2) analysis; and (3) risk characterization.
The first phase will consist of a screening ERA to identify those
chemicals, ecological receptors, and exposure pathways requiring
further evaluation in subsequent phases and to identify additional data
needs. This phase will address elements of problem formulation, and
utilizes mostly existing data.
The problem formulation phase includes the following components:
--Data evaluation and chemical of potential concern selection.--An
evaluation of dredged material characteristics to select
chemicals of potential concern for further evaluation;
--Ecosystem characterization.--Identification of the habitats and
aquatic, wildlife, and human receptors of potential concern;
--Conceptual ecological model development.--An evaluation of complete
and potentially complete exposure pathways (disposal
characteristics), selection of indicator species (sensitive
species representative of different levels of the food chain),
and identification of assessment and measurement endpoints; and
--Data gap analysis.--Identification of data needs and studies
required to complete the assessment.
Because of the nature of the Moss Landing dredged material disposal
(hydraulic dredging to a highly dispersive site) and the similarities
of the disposal process to the ongoing sediment deposition to Monterey
Bay from the local watershed, the initial evaluation will focus on
these ongoing processes. The ongoing sediment deposition and its
effects on the Monterey Bay ecosystem can provide a real-time
indication of the stressor-response relationship. Existing data will be
reviewed and additional data collected as deemed necessary in the data
gap analysis described above.
The second phase analysis will include the following elements:
--Watershed characterization.--An evaluation of the sediment and
chemical loading to Monterey Bay from the surrounding watershed
--Hydrodynamic evaluation.--An evaluation of the dispersional/
depositional patterns/zones
--Sediment characterization.--An evaluation of sediment chemical
concentrations in depositional zone(s)
--Biota characterization.--An evaluation of resulting biota
concentrations (benthos and fish); some benthic community
analysis may be conducted as well
--Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE).--An evaluation of toxic
effects and identification of toxicants
--Exposure and effects assessments.--An evaluation of food chain
effects and an evaluation of human health effects
--Risk characterization.--Integration of the above elements to
estimate risks.
--Uncertainty analysis.
The first phase of this evaluation will include a screening level
assessment using conservative assumptions. As necessary, additional
data will be collected to refine these assumptions and provide more
realistic estimates of exposure and effects.
The third phase of risk evaluation will determine if no significant
risks are predicted in the above evaluation. Subsequent phases of the
ERA will estimate the level of additional deposition (i.e., dredged
material disposal) that could occur before resulting in unacceptable
risks. If significant risks are predicted in the ambient level
assessment, the subsequent phases will include predicting the
incremental risk from disposal of dredged material. Project
deliverables will include:
--A work plan, sampling and analysis plan, and quality assurance
program plan;
--Draft, draft final, and final reports; and
--A monitoring plan.
The draft report is anticipated to be released by the end of
Federal fiscal year 2001. The combined field work and phase I
ecological risk assessment is anticipated to cost approximately
$700,000.
In the final analysis we are just a small harbor with a big problem
not of our creation in search of a comprehensive solution. This
subcommittee and committee took first step in funding the long overdue
maintenance of our channel last year. We seem to return the favor by
serving as a working laboratory for all interested parties in the
future of dredging and dredged material disposal. Our location adjacent
to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, and serving as homeport
to a large scientific population lends itself to this effort.
On behalf of the Harbor Commission and the commercial fishing fleet
we serve, we appreciate the silent support we have had in the past
reflected in your insistence in funding the operations and maintenance
budget of the Corps of Engineers at a level adequate to maintain small
ports like ours recognizing our unique contribution to the national
economy. We look forward to appearing before this subcommittee on
future occasions to provide progress reports on our Ecological Risk
Assessment, and efforts to both preserve navigation and improve the
environment in Moss Landing Harbor, California.
Lastly and especially we wish to recognize the efforts of departing
San Francisco District Engineer, Colonel Peter Grass, for his vision,
leadership and commitment, and without whose encouragement and personal
involvement this historic undertaking would never have evolved. We wish
him Godspeed in his next career assignment and we eagerly look forward
to working with his successor to successfully complete this process.
I am prepared to supplement my prepared remarks for the record in
response to any questions that the chair, subcommittee members, or
staff may wish to have me answer.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. This
concludes my prepared remarks.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Morro Bay, California
During World War II the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) designed and
constructed a new harbor entrance at Morro Bay with two rock
breakwaters. Since the initial construction, over 50 years ago, the
Federal government has maintained the harbor entrance, breakwaters and
navigational channels.
In fiscal year 1995 the ACOE completed the Morro Bay Harbor
entrance improvement project to improve safety for commercial fishing
and navigation. The City of Morro Bay was the local sponsor and
contributed over $900,000 in cash and in-kind services. Morro Bay is a
small city of 10,000 with very limited resources but made this project
one of its highest priorities for almost 10 years because of the
regional importance of the harbor. Without continued Federal
maintenance, all of the past local and federal investment will be lost.
Morro Bay Harbor is the only all-weather harbor of refuge between
Santa Barbara and Monterey on the West Coast. Our Harbor directly
supports almost 250 home-ported fishing vessels and marine dependent
businesses. We provide irreplaceable maritime facilities for both
recreational and commercial interests. Businesses that depend on the
harbor generate $53,500,000 annually and employ over 700 people. The
United States Coast Guard (USCG) maintains a 15 person search and
rescue station at Morro Bay Harbor to provide the Coast Guard services
for the entire Central California Coast. Legislation has been
introduced in the California legislature to designate Morro Bay and
several other small ports along the California coast as ``Harbors of
Safe Refuge''. This legislation recognizes the critical role many small
harbors play in affording a safety zone for commercial and recreational
vessels transiting the California coast.
Exposure to the open ocean and strong winter currents carrying
sediment into the harbor create the need for a routine maintenance
schedule to insure that the harbor entrance and federally designated
navigation channels remain safe and navigable. It is imperative that
the federally constructed navigation channels and protective jetties be
maintained to insure safe commerce and navigation on a 300 mile stretch
of the California Coast.
The President recommends $170,000 for dredging project engineering
and design in the fiscal year 2001 budget. For the first time in four
years there are no funds in the fiscal year 2001 budget recommended for
the operation of the ACOE dredge Yaquina. The Yaquina dredging assures
a minimum level of safety depth in the entrance of Morro Bay Harbor and
we respectfully request that your distinguished subcommittee add $1.2
million in dredging funds for Morro Bay Harbor to keep our harbor open
and safe in all conditions.
In addition to being home port to over 250 commercial fishing
vessels, Morro Bay Harbor is part of the federally designated National
Estuary Program. The Morro Bay Estuary was the subject of an ACOE
reconnaissance study (funded by Congress in 1998) of potential projects
to and restore sensitive habitat through improving tidal circulation.
The Bay Foundation, a local non-profit conservation group, has put
together a coalition to act as local sponsor for the Feasibility Phase
of the Ecosystem Rehabilitation Project. We fully support the
President's recommendation for $250,000 to initiate a feasibility study
for this project in fiscal year 2001.
Our thanks again for your actions and continued support. I am
grateful for the opportunity to present these requests to your
subcommittee on behalf of the citizens of the City of Morro Bay.
______
Prepared Statement of the California Industry and Government Central
California Ozone Study Coalition
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
(CCOS) Coalition, we are pleased to submit this statement for the
record in support of our fiscal year 2001 funding request of $1 million
from the Department of Energy (DOE) for CCOS as part of a Federal match
for the $8.6 million already contributed by California State and local
agencies and the private sector.
Ozone and particulate matter standards in most of central
California are frequently exceeded. In 2003, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) will require that California submit SIPs
to for the recently promulgated, national, 8-hour ozone standard. It is
expected that such SIPs will be required for the San Francisco Bay
Area, the Sacramento Valley, the San Joaquin Valley, and the Mountain
Counties Air Basins. Photochemical air quality modeling will be
necessary to prepare SIPs that are acceptable to the U.S. EPA.
Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) is designed to enable central
California to meet Clean Air Act requirements for ozone State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) as well as advance fundamental science for
use nationwide. The CCOS field measurement program will be conducted in
the summer of 2000 in conjunction with the California Regional PM10/
PM2.5 Air Quality Study (CRPAQS), a major study of the origin, nature,
and extent of excessive levels of fine particles in central California.
CCOS includes an ozone field study, a deposition study, data analysis,
modeling performance evaluations, and a retrospective look at previous
SIP modeling. The CCOS study area extends over central and most of
northern California. The goal of the CCOS is to better understand the
nature of the ozone problem across the region, providing a strong
scientific foundation for preparing the next round of State and Federal
attainment plans. The study includes six main components:
--Developing the design of the field study (task already underway)
--Conducting an intensive field monitoring study, scheduled for June
1 to September 30, 2000
--Developing an emission inventory to support modeling
--Developing and evaluating a photochemical model for the region
--Designing and conducting a deposition field study
--Evaluating emission control strategies for the next ozone
attainment plans
CCOS is directed by Policy and Technical Committees consisting of
representatives from Federal, State and local governments, as well as
private industry. These committees, which managed the San Joaquin
Valley Ozone Study and are currently managing the California Regional
Particulate Air Quality Study, are landmark examples of collaborative
environmental management. The proven methods and established teamwork
provide a solid foundation for CCOS. The sponsors of CCOS, representing
state, local government and industry, have contributed approximately
$8.6 million for the field study. In addition, CCOS sponsors will
provide $4 million of in-kind support. The Policy Committee is
continuing to seek additional funding ($9.0 million) for a future
deposition study, data analysis, and modeling. California is an ideal
natural laboratory for studies that address these issues, given the
scale and diversity of the various ground surfaces in the region
(crops, woodlands, forests, urban and suburban areas).
There is a national need to address national data gaps and
California should not bear the entire cost of the addressing these
gaps. National data gaps include issues relating to the integration of
particulate matter and ozone control strategies. The CCOS field study
will take place concurrently with the California Regional Particulate
Matter Study--previously jointly funded through Federal, State, local
and private sector funds. Thus, CCOS is timed to enable leveraging of
the efforts for the particulate matter study. Some equipment and
personnel can serve dual functions so that CCOS is very cost-effective.
From a technical standpoint, carrying out both studies concurrently is
a unique opportunity to address the integration of particulate matter
and ozone control efforts. CCOS will also be cost-effective since it
builds on other successful efforts including the 1990 San Joaquin
Valley Ozone Study. To effectively address these issues requires
federal assistance and CCOS provides a mechanism by which California
pays half the cost of work that the Federal Government should pursue.
For fiscal year 2001, our Coalition is seeking funding of $1
million in fiscal year 2001 from Department of Energy (DOE).--Energy
Commission is a key participant, having contributed $3 million.
Consistent with the recently signed memorandum of understanding between
the California Energy Commission and the DOE, joint participation in
the CCOS will result in: (1) enhanced public interest energy research,
development, and demonstration programs; (2) increased competitiveness
and economic prosperity in the United States; and (3) further
protection of the environment through the efficient production,
distribution and use of energy.
Particularly in light of the latter goal, the oil and agricultural
sectors in California have been working jointly for several years to
identify innovative partnerships and programs that address how changes
in those sectors can cost-effectively reduce particulate matter and
ozone-related emissions. The Department of Energy has also been a
participant in many of those programs. In addition, the oil and
agricultural sectors in California have been aggressively pursuing
demand-side services in order to lower energy consumption, which in
turn further reduces the cost of electricity, typically the most
significant cost associated with production in California. The demand-
side actions will also have the impact of reducing air quality
emissions.
The CCOS program in California has reached a crossroad where the
next level of studies and research will help identify the most cost-
effective means of controlling or reducing emissions. Energy efficiency
options such as improving oil field equipment and water pumping
efficiency, as well as agricultural energy management, can play a major
role in this approach. Not only will these be critical options to
reduce emissions, while producing economic benefits and helping
stabilize local economies, they will also be effective in other parts
of the nation.
By becoming a partner in this program DOE will be furthering its
own goals, as addressed in their ``Initiatives for Energy Security'',
of aiding domestic oil producers to enhance their environmental
compliance while reducing their costs. The program will further DOE's
goals of identifying cost-effective energy efficiency and management
practices. The work in California also can pave the way for furthering
the pilot program of the National Association for State Energy
Officials in addressing oil producer energy efficiency.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California
Chairman Domenici: the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (MWD) is pleased to submit the enclosed testimony for the
record, regarding programs contained in the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation's and the Army Corps of Engineers' Fiscal-Year 2000 budget
for your Subcommittee's hearing record.
MWD strongly recommends your approval of a Reclamation fiscal year
2001 budget that includes funding for San Francisco Bay-Sacramento/San
Joaquin Delta Estuary restoration activities, as requested in the
President's budget. We also recommend your approval of the full budget
request for Corps participation in these Delta restoration activities.
MWD urges your support for additional federal funding for Reclamation's
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. MWD requests that
Congress appropriate $17.5 million, $6.65 million over the President's
budget, for implementation of the basinwide program that will ensure
protection of water quality for this important source of water supply.
MWD also urges your support for Reclamation's Endangered Species
Conservation/Recovery projects that will provide for conservation of
endangered and threatened species and habitat along the lower Colorado
River, and provide mitigation for impacts associated with Reclamation's
projects. MWD requests an additional $1 million for the Lower Colorado
River Ops program. MWD urges your full support for Reclamation programs
that will help stretch existing water resources, such as water
reclamation and groundwater recovery projects for Southern California
agencies. Finally, MWD urges your support of funding necessary to begin
the environmental work required to remove the radioactive tailings in
Moab, Utah. These programs are essential for regional water supply
reliability We look forward to working with you and your Subcommittee.
Please contact Brad Hiltscher, MWD's Legislative Representative in
Washington, D.C. at (202) 296-3551, if we can answer any questions or
provide additional information.
Chairman Domenici and members of the subcommittee: The Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California (MWD) appreciates the opportunity
to submit testimony regarding the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's
(Reclamation) and the Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) fiscal year 2001
budget, for the Hearing on Energy and Water Appropriations. MWD is a
public agency created in 1928 to meet the supplemental water demands of
those people living in what is now portions of a six-county region of
Southern California. Today, the region served by MWD includes 16
million people living on the coastal plain between Ventura and the
international boundary with Mexico. It is an area larger than the State
of Connecticut and, if it were a separate nation, would rank in the top
ten economies of the world. Included in our region are more than 225
cities and unincorporated areas in the counties of Los Angeles, Orange,
San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. We provide more than
half the water consumed in our 5,200-square-mile service area. MWD's
water supplies come from the Colorado River via the district's Colorado
River Aqueduct and from northern California via the State Water
Project's California Aqueduct.
INTRODUCTION
Our testimony focuses on Reclamation's water resources management
and ecosystem restoration programs that are of major importance to MWD
and other Southern California water supply agencies. Specifically, MWD
strongly recommends your approval of a Reclamation fiscal year 2001
budget that includes funding for San Francisco Bay-Sacramento/San
Joaquin Delta Estuary restoration activities. We also recommend your
approval of the full budget request for Corps participation in these
Delta restoration activities. MWD urges your support for adequate
federal funding for Reclamation's Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Program that will ensure protection of water quality for this important
source of water supply. MWD also urges your support for Reclamation's
Endangered Species Recovery Implementation projects that will provide
for conservation of endangered and threatened species and habitat along
the lower Colorado River. MWD also strongly urges your full support for
Reclamation's Lower Colorado River Operations Program that will greatly
advance completion of environmental documentation for several new
initiatives needed by Arizona, California, and Nevada. MWD urges your
full support for Reclamation programs that will help stretch existing
water resources, such as water reclamation and groundwater recovery
projects for Southern California agencies. We urge your support for
funding desalination and water recycling research. Finally, MWD urges
your support of funding necessary to begin the environmental work
required to remove the radioactive tailings in Moab, Utah. These
programs are essential for regional water supply reliability.
U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION BUDGET
California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration and Water Security
The San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary serves as the hub of
California's water system, fueling the State's $750 billion economy,
supplying more than two-thirds of the State's 33 million residents with
a portion of their drinking water and irrigating 45 percent of the
nation's produce. Federal money for the Bay-Delta funds an array of
critical improvements, including habitat restoration, watershed
protection, fishery enhancement, water supply reliability and water
quality improvement. Recognizing the importance of the Bay-Delta to
California's economic and environmental health, the California voters
approved a $1 billion general obligation water bond in November 1996
and a $2 billion bond in March 2000. These bonds contain monies for
ecosystem restoration, watershed protection, water supply and water
quality improvement, flood control, and conservation and recycling.
In 1996, Congress passed the California Bay-Delta Environmental
Enhancement and Water Security Act, which authorized $430 million over
three years for ecosystem restoration and water management improvements
in the Bay-Delta Estuary. Since 1996 Congress has appropriated $220
million, or approximately 50 percent of the original authorization. In
fiscal year 2000, $60 million was appropriated for the Bay-Delta
Estuary ($30 million for ecosystem and $30 million for non-ecosystem
activities). For fiscal year 2001, the Administration requested $60
million ($36 million for ecosystem and $24 million for non-ecosystem
activities). Metropolitan strongly urges you continue the balanced 50/
50 split between ecosystem and non-ecosystem activities and support the
$60 million in total funding requested by the Administration.
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
The Colorado River is a large component of the regional water
supply and its relatively high salinity causes significant economic
impacts on water customers in MWD's service area, as well as throughout
the Lower Colorado River Basin. MWD and the Bureau of Reclamation
completed a Salinity Management Study for Southern California in 1999.
The study concluded that the high salinity from the Colorado River
causes significant impacts to residential, industrial and agricultural
water users. Furthermore, high salinity adversely affects the region's
progressive water recycling programs, and is contributing to an adverse
salt buildup through infiltration into Southern California's
irreplaceable groundwater basins. In 1999, Metropolitan's Board of
Directors authorized implementation of a comprehensive Action Plan to
carry out Metropolitan's policy for management of salinity. The Action
Plan focuses on reducing salinity concentrations in Southern
California's water supplies through collaborative actions with
pertinent agencies, recognizing that an effective solution requires a
regional commitment. Based on a 1988 study, Reclamation estimated that
water users in the Lower Basin were experiencing in excess of $750
million in annual impacts from salinity levels in the river in 1995,
and that impacts would progressively increase with continued
agricultural and urban development upstream of California's points of
diversion. As part of the Salinity Management Study, the economic
impacts have been refined for MWD's service area and have been
submitted to Reclamation for its use in updating its Lower Basin
estimate. Droughts will cause spikes in salinity levels that will be
highly disruptive to Southern California water management and commerce.
The Salinity Control Program has proven to be a very cost-effective
approach to help to mitigate the impacts of higher salinity. Continued
federal funding of the program is essential.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), the
interstate organization responsible for coordinating the Basin states'
salinity control efforts, issued its 1999 Review, Water Quality
Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System (1999 Review) in June
1999. The 1999 Review found that additional salinity control was
necessary beginning in 1994 to meet the numeric criteria in the water
quality standards adopted by the seven Colorado River Basin states and
approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with normal water
supply conditions. For the last five years, federal appropriations for
Reclamation have not equaled the Forum-identified funding need for the
portion of the program the Federal Government has the responsibility to
implement. It is essential that implementation of Reclamation's
basinwide salinity control program be accelerated to permit the numeric
criteria to be met again under average annual long-term water supply
conditions, making up the shortfall. To assist in eliminating the
shortfall, the Forum once again recommends that Reclamation utilize
upfront cost sharing from the Basin states to supplement federal
appropriations. This concept has been embraced by Reclamation and is
reflected in the President's proposed budget.
The President's proposed fiscal year 2001 budget contains funding
of $10.85 million for implementation of the basinwide program. MWD
requests that Congress appropriate $17.5 million for implementation of
the basinwide program. This level of funding is necessary to meet the
salinity control activities schedule in order to maintain the state
adopted and federally approved water quality standards. The Forum
supports this level of funding. MWD as well as the Forum supports the
level of funding proposed by the President for operation and
maintenance of the salinity control units already constructed, and
investigations.
Endangered Species Recovery Implementation and Lower Colorado River
Operations Program
MWD is presently engaged in an innovative partnership with
Reclamation and other Department of the Interior agencies, as well as
other water, power, and wildlife agencies, and Indian Tribes in the
states of Arizona, California, and Nevada, to develop a multi-species
conservation program for the Lower Colorado River. The program will
address the conservation, enhancement, and recovery needs of a broad
suite of more than 70 listed and sensitive species and their associated
aquatic, wetland, and riparian habitats in the three states, while
providing long-term regulatory certainty for all parties. An effort of
this nature can only succeed through the development of innovative
voluntary public-private partnerships.
The President's budget requests $12.179 million for fiscal year
2001 to fund programs under the ``Endangered Species Recovery
Implementation'' activity and $13.729 million to fund programs under
the ``Lower Colorado River Ops Program'' (LCROP) activity. Included in
the former amount are funds to support preservation, conservation, and
recovery of native and endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate
species in the Lower Colorado River region. Included in the latter
amount are funds to implement measures required by the interim
biological opinion on Reclamation's lower Colorado River operations,
and develop the multi-species conservation program. MWD strongly
supports funding at the requested level for both programs, and requests
your support for an additional $1 million under the LCROP (for a total
of $14.72 million) to accelerate the preparation of environmental
documentation for Reclamation/State initiatives of critical importance
to Arizona, California, and Nevada.
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Foundation) facilitates
implementation of fish and wildlife mitigation and enhancement programs
associated with Reclamation's projects through cost-sharing
partnerships with local, state, tribal, and/or nongovernmental
organizations. The Foundation is able to leverage federal dollars on at
least a 1:1 matching basis. The Foundation's support for programs like
the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program is
extremely important to the development of comprehensive solutions to
these complex endangered species issues. An effort of this nature can
only succeed through the development of innovative voluntary public-
private partnerships. The President's budget requests $1.3 million for
fiscal year 2001, which anticipates a two dollar nonfederal match for
each federal dollar. MWD strongly supports the President's requested
level of funding.
Water Recycling, Groundwater Recovery and Water Conservation
Projects funded under Title XVI of the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575) and the
Reclamation Recycling and Water Conservation Act of 1996 (Public Law
104-266) as well as the Bureau's Loan Program will greatly improve
Southern California's water supply reliability and the environment
through effective water recycling and recovery of contaminated
groundwater. MWD expects to contribute about $17.4 million in fiscal
year 2001 to recycled water and groundwater recovery projects in the
region, and the State is assisting with low-interest loans. Funding in
the fiscal year 2001 budget for previously unfunded projects as well as
the continued support for previously-funded projects is a positive step
toward realizing regional water supply reliability. The Bureau of
Reclamation's budget request for research into the technologies and
science of water recycling is another vital step toward making water
reuse a viable alternative for communities faced with limited water
supplies. MWD urges your full support for the $22 million for Title XVI
and $9.4 for the Loan Program in the President's fiscal year 2001
budget, as well as future funding for all Southern California projects
that might move forward under the jointly-funded Southern California
Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study. Finally, MWD supports
the President's request for $3.169 million in funding for the Bureau's
Efficiency Incentives Program. Federal cost sharing and other
assistance for innovative water efficiency improvements by urban and
agricultural water districts is appropriate.
Brackish Water Desalination
Metropolitan requests federal funding for desalination activities
aimed at developing new and innovative technologies. Technologies to be
investigated include innovative pretreatment options such as
nanofiltration, ultra low pressure reverse osmosis membranes and ultra
violet (UV) light technology for disinfection and oxidation. Brackish
water desalination represents a potentially viable alternative water
source to reduce reliance on imported water supplies and minimize the
economic impact associated with high salinity water. Current salinity
removal technologies are energy-intensive and expensive. Treating
Colorado River water to the secondary total dissolved solids (TDS)
standard of 500 milligrams/liter, using conventional membrane
technology, can cost $300 or more per acre-foot. These high costs have
precluded the widespread implementation of brackish water desalination
technologies, especially for large scale applications. Breakthroughs in
desalination technology will offer potential benefits to water
utilities with sources impaired by high salinity levels. It is
estimated that $3 million will be required to continue this research
being sponsored by Metropolitan and its member agencies.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
REMOVAL OF RADIOACTIVE TAILINGS IN MOAB, UTAH
For 28 years the Atlas Corporation processed uranium ore for the
military and other government uses from its privately owned mill in
Moab, Utah. When it closed in 1984, the company left a 10.5 million ton
pile of radioactive tailings which is now 110 feet high and covers 130
acres. It is estimated that the mountain is leaking 28,000 gallons of
radioactive fluid into the Colorado River each day. While not a serious
problem yet, this situation could pose a serious threat to California's
drinking supply as uranium is a proven human carcinogen. The Department
of Energy has requested $10 million for the environmental work
necessary to implement the Memorandum of Understanding between the
Department of Energy, Department of the Interior and the Ute Indian
tribe on remediating the Moab issue. Metropolitan urges Congress to
appropriate such amount as it determines necessary in fiscal year 2001.
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
The Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) comprehensive civil works
program has the capability to contribute to the social, economic, and
environmental well-being of California. MWD is primarily interested in
the Corps' environmental restoration studies and projects that address
the needs of the Bay-Delta Estuary. The President's proposed fiscal
year 2001 budget includes numerous programs in the Corps' South Pacific
Division, which includes California. Several ecosystem restoration
studies and projects specifically address significant habitat issues at
various locations in the Bay-Delta watershed. Corps programs that will
contribute to the long-term Bay-Delta solution include environmental
restoration studies in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River watersheds,
habitat conservation and mitigation elements of flood damage prevention
projects, and ecosystem restoration programs. MWD urges Congress to
fully support these Corps programs as the fiscal year 2001 federal
appropriations process moves forward.
Thank you for your consideration of our testimony. We believe our
comments emphasize the importance of continued funding for Reclamation
and Corps' water resources management and ecosystem restoration
programs that are critical for water supply reliability in Southern
California.
______
Prepared Statement of Contra Costa County, California
SAN FRANCISCO TO STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA SOUTHAMPTON SHOAL CHANNEL
DEEPENING PROJECT
The Southampton Shoal Channel with the San Francisco Bar Channel,
form the entrance into the San Francisco Bay and Delta, providing
foreign and domestic deep draft merchant, military, commercial fishing
and other vessel access to ports within the region. Changing deep draft
vessel operations and design requires deepening the -45 foot
Southampton Shoal channel to -50 feet. Deepening the Southampton Shoal
Channel will provide safer and more efficient navigation of oil tankers
entering the bay by allowing vessels to be loaded more fully, which
will require fewer vessel trips to deliver the same amount of cargo. In
addition, deepening of the Southampton Shoal Channel to -50 feet will
allow heavily laden vessels to proceed directly to off-loading
facilities, rather than lightering (off loading) onto smaller ships at
open water anchorages in south San Francisco Bay.
FUNDING REQUEST
Contra Costa County requests that funding of $100,000 be added to
the Federal fiscal year 1999 budget to allow the Army Corps of
Engineers to revise early work on project studies to reflect changes in
scope and design of the Southampton Project which accommodate recent
changes in operations and other regulatory requirements of industry
located within Contra Costa County, the Project's Local Sponsor.
Therefore the County, as Local Sponsor, is requesting an fiscal year
2001 Budget allocation of $100,000 to complete work prior to entering
the Feasibility phase of the Project.
PURPOSE OF FUNDING
Funding will be utilized to allow revision of project scope and
content, prior to moving ahead into the Feasibility phase of the
project. Significant changes have occurred with industry operating
within the County, in turn affecting ship channel traffic, vessel size,
and scope and content of the Southampton Project. The Southampton
Project will be redesigned to reflect these changes, and a revised
cost/benefit prepared for the project by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Redefining the Project is necessary prior to entering into the
Feasibility Phase, which is expected to occur upon completion of the
above-mentioned revisions to the Project.
______
Prepared Statement of Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Chairman Domenici, Los Angeles County respectfully requests that
the Congress of the United States include funds in the fiscal year 2001
Energy and Water appropriations bill for the following U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers studies and Marina del Rey dredging.
Coast of California Storm and Tidal Wave Study--Los Angeles County
($500,000).
Los Angeles County has over 30 miles of public beaches, serving
over 50 million visitors annually. The 1998 impact of California's
beaches on the national economy has been estimated by San Francisco
State University, at $73 billion. Direct Federal taxes are estimated at
$2.6 billion, with total tax revenues reaching $14 billion.
California's beaches create 883,000 jobs nationwide. Yet, California
receives only $12,000 Federal dollars per mile of coastline, compared
to $800,000 per a mile in New York and New Jersey.
Los Angeles County's beaches contribute a disproportionate share to
the economic benefits described above. Its beaches are not naturally
sandy, however, having 35 million cubic yards of sand placed on them
since the 1930s. The County's beaches provide recreational
opportunities for many more millions than visit our National Parks.
They also provide protection from ocean storms for major highways,
utilities, public improvements and private property.
Los Angeles County formed a multi-agency Beach Replenishment Task
Force in 1998. Its goal is to establish a long-term management plan for
the beaches. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Coast of California
Study is critical to the achievement of this goal, as it is designed to
assess long-term shoreline changes along the Los Angeles County
coastline based on actual field data and predictive numerical models.
It will also provide critical coastal processes information to plan and
design future shore protection and beach nourishment projects.
In response to last year's request from Los Angeles County,
Congress added $100,000 to the fiscal year 2000 budget to fund the
reconnaissance phase of this study. The timing of this study precluded
the Corps from requesting its funding in the President's fiscal year
2001 budget. Therefore, your support for an additional appropriation,
of $500,000, in fiscal year 2001 is requested for continuation of this
very important study.
Marina del Rey and Ballon Creek Feasibility Study ($500,000)
For the past five years Congress has funded the federal share of
this study and the County has provided the required local sponsor's
share. The study was scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 2000. Its
goal was to develop a dredged material management plan for Marina del
Rey's contaminated sediments, as well as a sediment control plan within
the Ballon Creek watershed. To meet the objectives of this study, it is
now necessary to extend the study for two years for development of a
trash and debris management plan.
Trash and debris in Ballona Creek and Marina del Rey have the
potential to impede sediment removal and control; therefore, the
removal and management of trash and debris must be addressed. Without
this study, and its resultant plan, other mitigation measures and
improvements will not be effective. Completion of this study, and
implementation of the plan, will not only facilitate optimum sediment
removal and control, it will also improve water quality in the Santa
Monica Bay. Unfortunately, the scope of work for this study was not
developed in time for its funding to be included in the President's
fiscal year 2001 budget. We, therefore, request your support for the
addition of $500,000 to the fiscal year 2001 budget for this critical
work.
Los Angeles County--Regional Dredged Material Management Plan
($400,000)
It is estimated that approximately 2.5 million cubic yards of
contaminated marine sediments will need to be dredged from the harbor
waters of Los Angeles County over the next five years. Unfortunately,
permanent sites for the disposal of these sediments are not available.
As a result, routine maintenance dredging and port expansion activities
have been critically hampered, impeding both navigational safety and
the livelihood of the area's economy. In addition, the continuous
buildup of contaminated sediments within the Los Angeles Region's
coastal waterways raises concerns with respect to potential impact to
the public health and the health of the marine environment.
A multi-agency task force, funded largely by the State of
California, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and the County of
Los Angeles, was established in 1997 to develop a long-term management
strategy for dredging and disposal of the region's contaminated
sediments. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a critical participant
in this process and this study will enable the task force to achieve
its goal. Without the completion of this study, the region's
contaminated sediment problems will not be solved. Safe navigation in
small craft harbors will be jeopardized by shoaling that cannot be
removed and disposed of safely and economically, and the nation's
largest port complex will not be able to grow to meet increased demand.
Responding to request from Los Angeles County last year, Congress
added $100,000 to the fiscal year 2000 budget for the reconnaissance
phase of this study. While the President's budget for fiscal year 2001
does contain $225,000 for continuation of this study, the
reconnaissance phase has developed an aggressive study plan that will
require $400,000 in Federal funding for fiscal year 2001. Therefore,
your support for an additional $175,000 in fiscal year 2001 is
respectfully requested.
Marina del Rey Dredging ($5,335,000)
With nearly 6,000 slips, Marina del Rey is the largest, man-made
small craft harbor in the nation. The Marina is also the homeport for
the Coast Guard cutter, Point Bridge, and other rescue agencies that
respond to air-sea disasters off of LAX. The safe navigation of the
harbor's entrances is needed to provide for the safety of thousands of
boaters who use the Marina annually and to enable prompt emergency
response to a variety of life-threatening ocean emergencies.
In the last two years, Congress has appropriated a total of $5
million, which has been combined with nearly $4 million in County
funds, to take advantage of an extraordinary opportunity to remove
300,000 cubic meters of contaminated sediment. The contaminated
material has been permanently and safely disposed of in a landfill
project in the Port of Long Beach. In addition, approximately 200,000
cubic meters of clean sand have been taken from the Marina to replenish
a badly eroded, but very heavily used, public beach.
The President's budget for fiscal year 2001 includes $5,335,000 for
dredging in Marina del Rey. The County and Corps are planning on using
these funds to further improve navigational safety, test methods for
remediating contaminated sediment for beneficial reuse, and
constructing measures that will reduce shoaling and future dredging
costs. We, therefore, ask your support of the President's budget
request of $5,335,000 for fiscal year 2001.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' excellent execution of its
Congressionally mandated missions--creating and maintaining safe
navigation channels, flood control, and shoreline protection--make it
an invaluable partner in Los Angeles County. Your continued support of
appropriations for these missions is critical and very much appreciated
by Los Angeles County.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ventura Port District
The Ventura Port District respectfully requests that the Congress:
--Include $2,240,000 in the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Bill as requested by the
Administration for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maintenance
dredging of the Ventura Harbor federal channel and sand traps.
--Add $1,500,000 to the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Bill for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
repair the serious structural damage to the north head of the
Federal Breakwater at Ventura Harbor.
--Include $400,000 in the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Bill as requested by the
Administration to continue a cost shared Feasibility Study to
determine the advisability of modifying the existing Federal
navigation project at Ventura Harbor to include a sand bypass
system.
BACKGROUND
Ventura Harbor, homeport to 1500 vessels, is located along the
Southern California coastline in the City of San Buenaventura,
approximately 60 miles northwest of the City of Los Angeles. The harbor
opened in 1963. Annual dredging of the harbor entrance area is usually
necessary in order to assure a navigationally adequate channel. In
1968, the 90th Congress made the harbor a Federal project and committed
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide for the maintenance of the
entrance structures and the dredging of the entrance channel and sand
traps.
The harbor presently generates more than $40 million in gross
receipts annually. That, of course, translates into thousands of both
direct and indirect jobs. A significant portion of those jobs are
associated with the commercial fishing industry (over 25 million pounds
of fish products were landed in 1999), and with vessels serving the
offshore oil industry. Additionally, the headquarters for the Channel
Islands National Park is located within the harbor, and the commercial
vessels transporting the nearly 100,000 visitors per year to and from
the Park islands offshore, operate out of the harbor. All of the
operations of the harbor, particularly those related to commercial
fishing, the support boats for the oil industry, and the visitor
transport vessels for the Channel Islands National Park are highly
dependent upon a navigationally adequate entrance to the harbor.
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE NEEDS
Dredging
The Corps of Engineers has determined that $2,240,000 will be
required to perform routine maintenance dredging of the harbor's
entrance channel and sand traps during fiscal year 2001. This dredging
work is absolutely essential to the continued operation of the harbor.
Breakwater Repairs
It is estimated that $1,500,000 will be required during fiscal year
2001 for the Corps of Engineers to repair extensive storm damage to the
north head of the Federal Breakwater. This structure is a critical
component of the harbor's entrance system and its repair must be
accomplished expeditiously in order to assure that the integrity of the
balance of the 1800-foot structure is not compromised. Delaying the
necessary repairs will not only rapidly escalate the repair cost for
the breakwater itself but will also result in increased maintenance
dredging costs in subsequent years.
STUDY NEEDS
The Corps of Engineers has determined that $400,000 will be
required during fiscal year 2001 to continue a cost shared Feasibility
Study to determine the advisability of modifying the existing Federal
navigation project at Ventura Harbor to include a sand bypass system.
Given the continuing need for maintenance dredging, it is appropriate
to determine if a sand bypass system or other measures can accomplish
the maintenance of the harbor in a manner that is more efficient and
cost effective than the current contract dredging approach.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
As your distinguished Subcommittee writes the fiscal year 2001
Energy and Water Resources Appropriations bill, I would like to bring a
very important environmental restoration project to your attention.
The Corps of Engineers and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes have
been working on a cost-sharing feasibility study to investigate Federal
improvements to restore pristine environmental areas along the Pacific
coastline since 1995. The Presidents fiscal year 2001 Budget Request
does not contain enough money to perform both pre-construction design
and modeling tasks.
I would like to take this opportunity to request that your
distinguished Subcommittee include $325,000 in the fiscal year 2001
Budget Request for the continuation of the pre-construction engineering
and design. The addition of $125,000 to the proposed budget will allow
the modeling to take place in conjunction with preliminary engineering.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is prepared to commit their portion of
the cost-share to complete the study next year.
The area along the Rancho Palos Verdes coastline that is being
studied has been severely degraded as a result of landslide movement of
material and coastal erosion causing sediment and continuous turbidity
that has buried sensitive habitat. The Study involves investigations to
define landslide and erosion relationships, impacts on the environment
and potential restoration benefits. This project should be considered
as essential mitigation for large local port projects.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Santa Cruz Harbor
Santa Cruz Harbor is an active small craft harbor at the north
section of Monterey Bay, California. It was authorized as a federal
navigation project in 1958, constructed in 1964, and expanded in 1972.
A 1986 joint-venture between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Santa Cruz Port District provided for a permanent sand bypass system to
solve the ocean-driven shoaling problem at its entrance. The Port
District has successfully operated that system for the past fourteen
winters. However, the Port District has been unable to solve the
siltation problem emanating from the three-square mile watershed which
terminates at the north end of Santa Cruz Harbor.
Silt from Arana Gulch fills berths, fairways, and channels in the
harbor, making them hazardous and unusable. At this time, the siltation
is not solvable by the existing sand bypass system. The soil
characteristics of the watershed make beach disposal impractical at
this time. Arana Gulch sediment must either be taken upland or
delivered by barge offshore--both of these disposal options are quite
wasteful. They are also extremely expensive and cost the Port District
hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. Additionally, the 1998 El
Nino storms brought 15,000 cubic yards of material into the north
harbor alone from Arana Gulch. The event was declared a federal
disaster, and FEMA and the State of California are spending in excess
of $500,000 to return the harbor to charted depths.
On June 25, 1998, the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure passed Resolution Docket 2565 authorizing the Secretary
of the Army to review the Arana Gulch watershed siltation problem.
The Port District respectfully requests that $100,000 be
appropriated for the Arana Gulch reconnaissance study for fiscal year
2001.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of San Rafael, CA
Chairman Domenici: Periodic maintenance dredging of San Rafael
Canal is necessary because it is an important and valuable element of
our community's infrastructure.
It serves as a flood control channel for central San Rafael,
draining approximately five square miles where 25,000 residents and
businesses reside.
The San Rafael Canal is important to the boating interests. There
are five yacht harbors that provide berthing for over 750 vessels.
While these facilities are primarily recreational, there are commercial
benefits in the form of sales tax revenue generated from purchases made
in ships' chandleries, vessel repair yards, fueling facilities,
supermarkets and employee compensation.
Over $10 million in revenue is generated by the 25 marine related
commercial interests that rely on the San Rafael Canal for their
livelihood. These commercial enterprises generate fees, sales taxes,
and employment to 65 individuals. These enterprises are divided into
the following categories: yacht harbors (5), vessel inspection,
maintenance and repair (14), storage (3), vessel sales (3), commercial
fishing (4), and commercial freight hauling (1). The continued
viability and operation of these businesses requires that the San
Rafael Canal receive the necessary appropriations to allow the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers to perform the overdue maintenance dredging.
Lastly, the City of San Rafael maintains and operates a fire and
search and rescue vessel in the San Rafael Canal and in the lower
portion of San Pablo Bay. This operation became vital when the Coast
Guard no longer provided these services over 10 years ago. This vessel
is berthed in the Canal and must be able to respond to emergencies
without having to wait for high tide. In the past year, this vessel has
responded to 100 calls for emergency response, has rescued 215 people
who required assistance, and has prevented approximately $6 million in
damage to vessels in need of emergency response.
The San Rafael Canal is much more than a recreational amenity. It
supports a healthy and thriving marine oriented business community. It
supports the employment of individuals and generates revenue to the
City of San Rafael. It provides for public safety on the water.
We understand that the appropriation to fund the maintenance
dredging is not in the President's budget. We understand that the Corps
of Engineers has estimated that it needs $1.8 million to perform the
maintenance dredging. The San Rafael City Council, as well as the
business enterprises who rely on the San Rafael Canal for their
livelihood, urgently request your consideration to appropriate these
funds to the Corps of Engineers to perform the much needed maintenance
dredging of San Rafael Canal.
______
Prepared Statement of the Clark County Regional Flood Control District
Presented herewith is testimony in support of $28,000,000 for the
construction appropriation necessary for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to continue the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes flood control
project and testimony in support of $1,584,000 appropriation to
reimburse the non-federal sponsors, Clark County and the Clark County
Regional Flood Control District, for work performed in advance of the
federal project pursuant to Section 211 of the Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) of 1996. This project is located in the rapidly
growing Las Vegas Valley in Southern Nevada.
The Las Vegas Valley continues to experience unprecedented growth.
This growth has occurred over the past twenty plus years. People have
moved into the area from all parts of the nation to seek employment,
provide necessary services, retire in the Sunbelt, and become part of
this dynamic community. It is estimated that 5,000 people relocate to
the Las Vegas Valley every month of the year. Currently the population
is over 1.3 million. The latest statistics show that more than 30,000
residential units are built annually. Once all of these factors are
combined, the result is that the Las Vegas Valley continues to be one
of the fastest growing areas in the nation.
The Federal project being constructed by the Corps of Engineers
(Corps) is designed to collect flood flows from a 160 square mile
contributing drainage area. The Corps project includes four debris
basins, four detention basins, 28 miles of primary channels, and a
network of lateral collector channels. The debris basins are designed
to collect flood flows from undeveloped areas at the headwaters of the
alluvial fans and trap large bedload debris before it enters the
channels and causes erosion damage. The detention basins will function
to greatly reduce the magnitude of the flood flows so that the flows
can be safely released and conveyed through the developed urbanized
area at non-damaging rates. The outflow from the debris basins and the
reduced flows from the detention basins will be contained in the
primary channel system that will also serve as outfalls for the lateral
collector channels. While this latter element (lateral collector
channels) is considered to be a non-federal element of the entire plan,
it is a necessary element for the plan to function properly and afford
flood protection for the community. Since flood flow over the alluvial
fans, which ring the Las Vegas Valley, is so unpredictable in terms of
the direction it will take during any given flood all of the components
of the Corps' plan are critical.
Torrential rains deluged the Las Vegas Valley the morning of July
8, 1999, causing widespread drainage problems and major damages to
public and private properties. Some of the largest rainfall depths
occurred over the southwest portions of the Las Vegas Valley resulting
in significant flows in the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes. The runoff
that resulted from this intense rainfall caused widespread street
flooding and record high flows in normally dry washes and flood control
facilities. The news media reported two deaths resulting from this
flood event, one of which was a drowning in the Flamingo Wash. Damages
to public property resulting from this storm are estimated at
$20,500,000. President Clinton declared Clark County a federal disaster
area on July 19, 1999, recognizing the severity of damages to public
and private properties. Significant damages could have been avoided if
the Corps' Tropicana and Flamingo Washes Project had been fully
implemented. However, those features of the Corps' project that were
completed worked to mitigate damages. The storm of July 8, 1999,
further reemphasizes the need to expeditiously implement all flood
control projects in the Las Vegas Valley.
The Feasibility Report for this project was completed in October
1991, and Congressional authorization was included in the WRDA of 1992.
The first federal appropriation to initiate construction of the project
became available through the Energy and Water Resources Development
Appropriations Bill signed into law by the President in October 1993.
The Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) was fully executed in February
1995. Federal appropriations to date have totaled $87,700,000, allowing
the project to continue to be implemented. The total cost of the
project is currently estimated at $271,000,000, primarily due to the
delay in anticipated federal appropriations.
The local community has already constructed certain elements of the
Corps' plan. These project elements require modifications in order to
fit into the Corps' plan and fulfill the need for a ``total fan
approach'' to the flooding problems of the Las Vegas Valley. The Red
Rock Detention Basin was constructed by Clark County in 1985 and
modifications by the Corps were completed in December 1996. The flood
flow released from the basin has been reduced, and the basin's capacity
to hold floodwaters was enhanced, thereby increasing the level of
downstream protection provided by this feature. Although the Red Rock
Detention Basin expansion was the first feature completed, the
immediate benefit realized by the community was the removal of
approximately five square miles and 4,754 parcels from the alluvial fan
flood zones.
The non-federal sponsors also constructed the Flamingo Detention
Basin. This facility was completed in February 1992, and is one of the
main components of the Federal project. Under the Corps' plan, the
flood flows released from this feature will be reduced and the storage
capacity increased. The non-federal sponsors have been working with the
development community in order to remove the excess sand and gravel
from the impoundment area of this facility. Our goal is to have local
contractors remove surplus material from the basin for their own use at
no cost to either the federal or local governments, thus providing a
significant cost savings on this project. The work performed by the
non-federal sponsors, construction of Red Rock Detention Basin and
Flamingo Detention Basin, prior to the Project Cooperation Agreement
being executed have been accounted for in Section 104 credits and total
$9,906,000.
As non-federal sponsors for this important flood control project,
both the Clark County Regional Flood Control District and Clark County
are looking forward to the construction start of each feature of this
project and the project's ultimate completion.
Details of the Administration's fiscal year 2001 Civil Works Budget
Request indicate that $20,000,000 is proposed for the continued
construction of this project. The Los Angeles District of the Corps
informs us that their capability for fiscal year 2001 is $28,000,000.
Funding at the Corps' capability level will allow:
Complete construction of the following:
--Lower Red Rock Complex
--Red Rock Channel (Segment 10A)
--Blue Diamond Detention Basin
--Red Rock Outlet and Scour Protection
--R-4 Debris Basin and Channel
Start construction of the following:
--Lower Flamingo Diversion Channel
--F-1 Debris Basin and Channel
--F-2 Debris Basin and Channel
The non-federal sponsors are anxious to see all of the above flood
control facilities constructed. Further delays in funding the project
place portions of the federal project and non-federal projects at risk.
In 1996, the local sponsors were notified that federal funding
would be reduced for the Corps' flood control project in Las Vegas due
to reductions in the Corps' overall federal budget. Our community has
already suffered a five-year delay in project completion due to past
reductions in federal funding. Any further delays in federal funding,
in the fastest growing community in the nation, will mean increased
project costs due to lost opportunities compounded by inflation. It
might also mean further loss of life.
In order to provide the required flood protection in a timely
fashion, the non-federal sponsors are implementing certain features in
advance of the federal government pursuant to Section 211 of WRDA 1996.
An amendment to the PCA was fully executed on December 17, 1999, that
formalizes the provisions of Section 211 of WRDA 1996. Section 211(f)
of WRDA 1996 identifies the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes Project as
one of eight projects in the nation to demonstrate the potential
advantages and effectiveness of non-federal implementation of federal
flood control projects. The work funded by the non-federal sponsors and
completed to date pursuant to Section 211 of WRDA 1996 totals
approximately $2,111,711 and is summarized in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsors
Project Element Nature of Work Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tropicana Detention Basin Outfall-- Design, Construction & $88,298
Russell Road Box Culvert. Construction
Management.
Tropicana Detention Basin Outfall-- Design, Construction & 174,240
Valley View Boulevard Box Culvert. Construction
Management.
Blue Diamond Channel--Las Vegas Design (Project 430,210
Beltway (Segment 7A). element constructed
by Corps).
Blue Diamond Channel--Las Vegas Design (Project 588,355
Beltway (Segment 7B). element being
constructed by
sponsor).
Red Rock Channel--Las Vegas Beltway Design (Project 278,451
(Segment 8). element being
constructed by
sponsor).
Red Rock Channel--Las Vegas Beltway Design (Project 193,000
(Segment 9). element being
constructed by
sponsor).
Red Rock Channel--Las Vegas Beltway Design (Project 359,157
(Segment 10A). element being
constructed by Corps).
------------
Total Sponsors' Costs........ ...................... 2,111,711
============
Estimated Federal Share...... ...................... 1,584,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The non-federal sponsors are asking the committee to appropriate
funding of $1,584,000 to reimburse the non-federal sponsors the federal
proportionate share (75 percent) of the completed work pursuant to
Section 211 of WRDA of 1996 and the PCA amendment. The non-federal
sponsors are continuing to pursue the design and construction of
additional features with the primary purpose of providing flood
protection as quickly as possible. The total cost of all Section 211
work to be performed by the non-federal sponsors is estimated at
$24,604,855.
In summary, the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes project is an
important public safety project designed to provide flood protection
for one of the fastest growing urban areas in the nation. We ask that
the committee provide the Secretary of the Army with $28,000,000, the
Corps of Engineers' capability in fiscal year 2001, in order to
facilitate continued design and construction of additional phases of
this critical flood control project. We are also asking that the
committee provide the Secretary of the Army with $1,584,000 to
reimburse the non-federal sponsors the federal proportionate share of
the work completed by the sponsors in advance of the federal
government.
The committee is aware that flood control measures are a necessary
investment required to prevent loss of life and damages to people's
homes and businesses. Flood control is a wise investment that will pay
for itself by preserving life and property and reducing the probability
of repeatedly asking the federal government for disaster assistance.
Therefore, when balancing the federal budget, a thorough analysis would
prove that there is substantial future federal savings in disaster
assistance that supports sufficient appropriations through the Civil
Works Budget.
______
CALIFORNIA WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of the California Water Commission
The California Water Commission is an official agency of the State
of California. It is composed of nine representative citizens from
throughout the State. The Commission is charged by statute with
representing State of California and local interests before your
Committee. The Commission is coordinating the filing of the statements
of a number of State and local agencies. On behalf of the California
Water Commission, I would like to express our sincere appreciation for
the support this Committee has given California water, fishery and
flood control appropriations over the years. I am privileged to submit
to you the official recommendations of the State of California for
fiscal year 2001 appropriations and request it be included in the
formal hearing record along with the testimonies listed on the attached
Statement List.
The Commission would like you to know that it supports projects as
shown on the attached document entitled, California Water Commission--
Final Recommendations for fiscal year 2001 Federal Appropriations for
California Water, Fishery and Flood Control Projects, March 3, 2000.
That document contains recommendations adopted by the Commission at its
March 3, 2000 meeting in Sacramento, California, where individuals from
throughout the State testified on individual projects.
This year the recommended add-ons to the President's budget for the
Corps of Engineers are not as extreme as in past years. However, the
proposed amounts in some of the large ongoing flood control
construction projects are inadequate to maintain the construction
schedule. Stopping and starting construction projects can significantly
increase the cost, as well as putting the respective project areas in
jeopardy of severe damage from flooding of a partially completed
project. The Commission has supported projects over the years that are
funded under ``Continuing Authorities'', such as Sections 205, 206, 503
and 1135. These projects compete for very limited funds. Last year the
Commission voted to request Congress consider increasing the funding in
these Authorities, so more of the needed projects in these categories
can be funded. The Commission is still supportive of additional funds.
The California Water Commission has long recognized water recycling
as an important element in the management of California's water
resources. It is the Commission's view that water recycling projects
should be supported in concert, within the limitations of available
federal funds, giving due consideration to other potential sources of
funds that could be available to effect their implementation. The
Commission agreed to work with USBR on language which will give the
local sponsor greater assurance of future year support. This will also
encourage sponsors to go ahead with expanded facilities with greater
expectation of out-year funding.
On March 3, 2000 the Commission also supported a similar program
within the Corps of Engineers new authority (WRDA-99, Section 502);
however, they added the condition ``if additional funding can be
secured''.
Special recommendations for funds.--The Commission recommends that
special consideration be given for appropriation of funds for projects
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation as
shown in the following table. The Commission believes that these
projects merit special consideration for the reasons set forth in the
information shown on the tables on the following page.
CWC 90--Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration (CALFED).--The CALFED Bay-
Delta Program is an open collaborative, state-federal-stakeholder
effort seeking to develop a comprehensive long-term plan to restore
ecosystem health and improve water management for beneficial uses of
the Bay-Delta system. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is an official
part of the ongoing effort and needs to be adequately funded to allow
the Corps' experts to officially participate in CALFED activities. A
comprehensive package must:
--Improve and increase aquatic and terrestrial habitats and improve
ecological functions in the Bay-Delta to support sustainable
populations of diverse and valuable plant and animal species.
--Provide good water quality for all beneficial uses.
--Reduce the mismatch between Bay-Delta water supplies and current
and projected beneficial uses dependent on the Bay-Delta
system.
--Reduce the risk to land use and associated economic activities,
water supply infrastructure, and the ecosystem from
catastrophic breaching of Delta levees.
The Corps of Engineers is an official part of the ongoing effort
and needs to be adequately funded to allow the Corps' experts to
officially participate in CALFED activities.
CWC 110--Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Comprehensive Study.--In
January of 1997, the Central Valley of California was confronted with
the largest and most extensive flood disaster in the State's history.
The Sacramento River and its tributaries sustained two major levee
breaks. In the San Joaquin River Basin, extensive damages resulted from
over two dozen levee breaks, sedimentation, and deposition of sand and
silt in the fields where flood water poured through the levee breaks.
As a result, Congress appropriated $3 million in fiscal year 1998 and
$3.5 million in fiscal year 1999 to initiate a comprehensive flood
damage reduction and environmental restoration assessment for the
Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins.
The State of California and the Army Corps of Engineers have
initiated a four year Comprehensive Study. The Comprehensive Study will
build on existing data outlined in investigations such as the
Sacramento River Watershed Management Plan, the State's San Joaquin
River Management Program, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(CVPIA), and integrated with these and other existing programs. The
first phase of the Comprehensive Study was 18 months long. This interim
report was sent to Congress in April of 1999.
Phase II will result in full development and calibration of basin-
wide hydrologic and hydraulic models. Phase II report will include a
programmatic EIS/EIR which describes a broad range of potential flood
damage reduction measures and integrated ecosystem restoration
measures. Some ``early implementation projects'' will be identified,
developed, and to the extent possible recommended for authorization and
implementation. Early implementation projects must (1) address
identifiable flooding problems, (2) be consistent with the strategy,
(3) be singularly effective in achieving program goals, (4) demonstrate
broad acceptability, and (5) be readily able to be implemented.
CWC 162--Lopez Dam.--Lopez Reservoir serves as the primary drinking
water supply for several South San Luis Obispo communities of Arroyo
Grande, Grover Beach, Pismo Beach and Oceano. In addition, the
reservoir attracts recreational users from Central and Southern
California that are critical to the economic viability of the South
County area.
Recent studies have found that the dam could fail during a large
magnitude earthquake on the San Andreas Fault. Because of this
potential failure, the California Division of Safety of Dams has
mandated that the dam be seismically re-mediated to withstand a large
magnitude earthquake, or that the operating level of the dam be reduced
by 80 percent.
The current cost estimate for the re-mediation of the dam is $26
million. Construction is scheduled to begin in the fall of 2000, and is
scheduled to be completed by June 2002.
San Luis Obispo County is seeking a cost sharing partner to help
offset the significant financial impact to the communities effected by
the needed restoration of this structure. The California Water
Commission's Appropriation Committee agreed to do all it could to help
secure federal funds.
CWC 238--Arroyo Pasajero.--The Draft Feasibility Investigation
Report and draft EIS/EIR, which identifies two candidate alternatives
that show a federal interest in a Corps flood control project were
released in March 1999. The two projects, the enlarged Westside
Detention Basin and the Pasajero Gap Detention Dam, are estimated to
cost approximately $238 and $225 million with benefit cost ratios of
roughly 1.7:1 and 1.1:2, respectively. During the public review
process, both candidate alternatives were challenged. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game issued
a joint letter conveying their position that endangered species impacts
of the project could not be mitigated. This position was maintained
during follow-up meetings with staff and management of these agencies.
Consequently, the Gap Dam was dropped as a viable alternative.
Interests east of the Aqueduct challenged the Westside Detention
Basin, as presented in the Report, because an over chute would
discharge flood water across the Aqueduct and on to nearly a hundred
thousand acres of rich farmland in a manner inconsistent with recent
historical flooding patterns that occurred prior to construction of the
Aqueduct. Consequently, the investigation was redirected to eliminate
the over chute and focus on a larger Westside Detention Basin that
stores more flood water. Due to other developments following a review
of the draft, the investigation in being redirected further to include
another alternative that takes a large amount of flood water into the
Aqueduct, conveys it several miles to the south and releases it to
storage on less productive farm land east of the Aqueduct. As a result
of these changes in scope, the Draft Feasibility Investigation Report/
EIS/EIR is expected to be re-released during the summer of 2001 and the
Final Report submitted to the Corps South Pacific Division and
Washington Headquarters Offices in early 2002.
CWC 317--American River Watershed (Folsom Dam Modifications).--
Located at the confluence of two major rivers, a large portion of the
Sacramento area is threatened by flooding from the American River and
the Sacramento River. The area of risk covers over 100,000 acres and
consists of over 160,000 homes and structures, 400,000 residents and
over $37 billion in developed property.
In 1997, the January flood resulted in the largest recorded peak
inflow to Folsom Dam, but because of the re-operation of Folsom
Reservoir (more flood space in the winter), the releases were kept
within the 115,00 cfs safe channel capacity of the lower American River
levee system. In response to the January 1997 floods, the Corps re-
evaluated the rain flood flow versus recurrence frequency for the
American River at the Fair Oaks gage. This new evaluation, which was
verified by the Corps' Hydrologic Engineering Center, indicates that
the Sacramento area has a higher risk of flooding than previously
believed. The evaluation shows that the existing flood control system,
after completion of the Common Features Project, provides the area with
a level of protection equal to about 1 in 90 in any year. Therefore,
over a 30-year period, the risk of a storm that would overwhelm the
existing levee system is about 28 percent.
The Reclamation Board supported a minimum Congressional
Authorization of Folsom Dam modifications as part of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999. This would increase the level of
protection from 1 in 63 to about 1 in 140. Therefore, over a 30-year
period, the risk of a storm that would overwhelm the existing levee
system in about 19 percent. The Folsom modifications are common to all
plans currently under consideration by Congress. The Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 was passed with this element. The eight
existing river outlets in Folsom Dam would be enlarged from 5 feet wide
by 9 feet high to about 9 feet wide by 16 feet high. This would
increase the dam's controlled flood releases capacity from the
reservoir while the water surface is still well below the spillway
crest.
CWC 333--Kaweah River.--Terminus Dam was authorized by the 1944
Flood Control Act and was constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers in 1962. Since construction of Terminus Dam, damaging floods
have occurred in many years. Downstream communities and areas adjacent
to the flood plain are at risk of future flooding.
Initially, various alternatives were evaluated, including
alternative storage sites, detention basins, construction alternatives,
and nonstructural measures. Based on technical, economical, and
environmental criteria, the only feasible alternative is to raise and
widen the spillway at Terminus Dam. The Corps' Authorized Plan includes
raising the elevation of the existing Terminus Dam spillway. Reservoir
storage capacity would be increased by 42,600 acre-feet (about 30
percent). This feature will save an estimated seven million dollars of
the approximate 40 million dollar Project cost.
The State of California sponsor is The Reclamation Board and the
local sponsors of the Project are the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation
District (lead agency), City of Visalia, Tulare Lake Basin Water
Storage District, Tulare County, and Kings County.
CWC 353--Guadalupe River.--The Guadalupe River Flood Protection
Project will provide flood protection to downtown San Jose's high-tech
and commercial industries and established residential neighborhoods,
with potential damages from a 1 percent flood exceeding $526 million
(1993 value) avoiding impacts to the environment, protecting fish and
wildlife, complying with the Endangered Species Act, protecting water
quality, and preserving the beneficial use of water.
The Guadalupe River, which flows through the Silicon Valley, is the
second largest watershed in Santa Clara County, draining 170 square
miles. The project will extend through downtown San Jose from
Interstate 880 to Interstate 280. Flood protection works include
channel widening, bridge replacement, and underground bypass box
culvert, streambed erosion protection features, and terraces. On-site
and off-site environmental mitigation work would enhance steelhead
trout and Chinook salmon runs. This project is an integral component of
San Jose's downtown revitalization efforts.
An appropriation add-on of $10.5 million is requested, in addition
to the $3.5 million included in the fiscal year 2001 for a total of $14
million to fund a bypass box culvert, additional right-of-way
acquisition for the bypass box culvert, and continuance of mitigation
work.
CWC 382--Santa Ana River Mainstem (includes San Timoteo).--The
project is located along a 75-mile reach of the Santa Ana River in
Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties southeast of and
adjacent to metropolitan Los Angeles, California. Construction of this
project will primarily provide protection to lands and improvements
within Orange County downstream of Prado Reservoir. A severe flood
threat exists in this area, which could cause damages in excess of $15
billion and could endanger and disrupt the lives of over three million
people living or working in the floodplain.
The $18 million request includes funds for San Timoteo and Prado
Dam. This feature of the SAR Project is the key link in providing the
level of flood protection envisioned by Congress when it authorized the
SAR Project in 1986.
CWC 400--Flood Control Act of 1948, Section 205, Flood Damage
Prevention.--The California Water Commission's Appropriations Committee
heard testimony on March 3, 2000 requesting support on individual
projects. Each of these projects have merit and are needed to prevent
recurring flood damages in the local areas. The Commission supports
these projects for funding from this Continuing Authority for small
projects.
The Commission has witnessed many successful projects in California
over the years that have been funded from this Authority. However, the
list of project requests are exceeding the funding level. The
Commission voted in March, 1999 to support a request to Congress to
increase the nationwide funding level from the present $26,000,000 to
$50,000,000.
CWC 420--Water Resources Development Act, 1996, Section 206,
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration.--The California Water Commission's
Appropriations Committee heard testimony on March 3, 2000 requesting
support on individual projects. The Commission supports these projects
to improve the quality of the environment. Section 206 directs the
Secretary of the Army to carry out such projects if the Secretary
determines that the project will improve the quality of the environment
and is in the public interest; and is cost-effective. The cost-sharing
provisions state that the nonFederal interests shall provide 35 percent
of the cost of the construction of any project carried out under this
section, including provision of all lands, easements, rights-of-way,
and necessary relocation.
The Commission voted in March of 1999 to support a request to
Congress to increase the nationwide funding level.
CWC 435--Water Resources Development Act, 1999, Section 212, Flood
Mitigation and Riverine Restoration Program (Challenge 21 Program).--
This is a new program that endeavors to fund projects that have joint
flood control/riverine ecosystem restoration goals. The section lists
23 priority areas nationwide. The Coachella Valley, Riverside County,
California project is listed as the No. 2 priority area. This project
will be undertaken at the delta area where the Whitewater River feeds
into the Salton Sea. The area is at risk of flooding but with the
proper project, could develop into a prime riverine habitat. In
addition to improving habitat along the Pacific flyway, it could
utilize wetland plants as a natural nutrient removal system for the
Salton Sea.
CWC 440--Water Resources Development Act, 1999, Section 502,
Environmental Infrastructure (F) Additional Assistance--CWC 441--
Harbor/South Bay Water Recycling.--The Harbor/South Bay Water Recycling
Project will annually develop up to 48,000 acre-feet of recycled water
for municipal, industrial, and environmental purposes in the Los
Angeles area. Customers for the recycled water developed by the project
have already been identified. They include the ARCO, Chevron and Mobil
refineries in Los Angeles County, as well as the Wilmington/Los Angeles
Harbor industrial area, the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and the Los Angeles
International Airport/Westside area. The cities of Gardena, Carson,
Culver City, Torrance and Lomita will also be served by the project.
The House and Senate recently passed the Conference Report to H.R.
1480, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, which includes a
provision authorizing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide
assistance to the West Basin Municipal Water District for the
construction of the Harbor/South Bay Water Recycling Project. The Corps
is authorized to provide up to $15 million for this project. The
legislation limits the federal share to 25 percent of the total cost of
the project. The West Basin District expects to spend more than $60
million on the Harbor/South Bay project through fiscal year 2001.
The California Water Commission's Appropriation Committee reviewed
this project on September 3, 1999 and on March 3, 2000 reviewed a
similar project (San Ramon Valley Recycling Water Project) and had some
reservations concerning splintering of federal funding support for
recycling projects between the activities of the U.S. Corps of
Engineers and recycling projects requesting funding through the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation. On March 3, 2000 the Committee supported funding
of projects under this authority if additional funding can be secured.
CWC 450--Water Resources Development Act, 1996, Section 503,
Watershed Mgt. Restoration & Development.--The California Water
Commission's Appropriations Committee heard testimony on March 3, 2000
requesting support on individual projects. The Commission supports
fiscal year 2001 appropriations for the projects. This provision gives
the Secretary of the Army the authority to have the Corps provide
technical, planning and design assistance to nonFederal interests for
carrying out watershed management, restoration and development projects
at locations listed in Section 503, Water Resources Development Act,
1996. Last March, the Commission supported a request to Congress to
increase the nationwide funding level from the present $15,000,000 to
$30,000,000.
CWC 460--Water Resources Development Act, 1986, Section 1135,
Project Modification for Improvement of the Environment Program.--The
California Water Commission's Appropriations Committee heard testimony
on March 3, 2000 requesting support on individual projects. The
Commission supports fiscal year 2001 appropriations for each of these
projects. Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Section 1135,
directs the Secretary of the Army to review the operation of water
resources projects constructed before the date of the Act to determine
the need for modifications in the structures and operations of such
projects for the purpose of improving the quality of the environment in
the public interest. Last March, the Commission supported a request to
Congress to increase the nationwide funding level from the present
$8,500,000 to $20,000,000. Additional funds are needed as this list of
important projects increases.
CWC 500--Bay-Delta Program Ecosystem Restoration (CALFED).--At the
confluence of California's two largest rivers, the Sacramento and San
Joaquin, the San Francisco Bay and adjoining Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta (Bay-Delta) together form the largest estuary in the western
United States. The Bay-Delta is a haven for plants and wildlife,
supporting over 750 plant and animal species. The Bay-Delta supplies
drinking water for two-thirds of California's citizens and irrigation
water for over 7 million acres of the most highly productive
agricultural land in the world.
The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is an open collaborative, state-
federal-stakeholder effort seeking to develop a comprehensive long-term
plan to restore ecosystem health and improve water management for
beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta system. The Program is fundamentally
different from previous efforts because it seeks to address ecosystem
restoration, water quality, water supply reliability, and levee and
channel integrity as co-equal program purposes.
On December 18, 1998, CALFED released the Revised Phase II Report
which outlined the draft preferred alternative for solving the problems
in the Bay-Delta system. The CALFED Program released a Revised Draft
EIS/EIR on June 25, 1999. This release will be followed by a public
comment period and further refinement of the proposed plan which will
conclude on September 23, 1999. The goal is to have a final EIS/EIR in
April 2000, with implementation to begin in June 2000.
CWC 600--Trinity River Restoration Program.--On June 21, 1999, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced the completion of a 15-year
comprehensive study of the Trinity River in California which recommends
habitat restoration projects and increasing instream fishery flows from
340,000 acre-feet to an average of 595,000 acre-feet to restore salmon
and steelhead runs. Significant declines in salmon and steelhead
populations and associated habitats occurred after the completion of
the Trinity River Diversion (TRD) of the Central Valley Project in
1964. Coho salmon were listed as threatened in 1997 under the
Endangered Species Act.
This restoration requires removal of riparian berms at selected
sites to promote the creation of alternate bar sequences similar to
those which existed prior to the construction of the TRD. The
restoration will be accomplished by mechanical removal of berms at
selected sites. The project also will increase annual instream
allocations above the current 340 TAF allocation, ranging from 369 to
815 TAF, with an average of 595 TAF. A program to balance the coarse
and fine sediment budget of the upper river that has been disrupted by
the construction and operation of the TRD will be conducted. The
project will also establish an Adaptive Management Program.
CWC 612--Coleman National Fish Hatchery.--The Coleman National Fish
Hatchery was built by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) on Battle
Creek in 1942 to mitigate damages to salmon spawning areas in the
Sacramento River system caused by the construction of Shasta and
Keswick Dams. Federal custody and operation were transferred to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1948. Title 34 of Public Law
102-575 (Central Valley Project Improvement Act) specifies that USBR
provide funding for completion of the rehabilitation of the Coleman
National Fish Hatchery: 50 percent will be reimbursable from water and
power users and 50 percent non-reimbursable.
Remaining rehabilitation facilities are additional water treatment
facilities which include one sand filter, an air compressor, and one
ozone contact/stripper capable of treating 15,000 gallons per minute
and installation of various ozone equipment. Also, installation of a
54-inch pipeline from the ozone treatment plant to the large raceways.
The replacement of facilities for administration, the fish health
laboratory and public contact area will be the final items to complete
the modifications at Coleman NFH.
With the new fish restoraton program that is being developed on
Battle Creek, fish will again spawn and rear above Coleman NFH.
Therefore, in the future, water diversions from Battle Creek to the
hatchery will need to be screened. This is estimated to cost about $5.5
million. Discussions are underway to determine the best source of
funding for this part of the project.
CWC 621--Winter-Run Chinook Salmon Captive Broodstock Program.--The
captive broodstock program arose from shared concerns for the fate of
the Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon. Active participants
have included representatives of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Bodega
Marine Laboratory of the University of California, Steinhart Aquarium
of the California Academy of Sciences, California Department of Fish
and Game, California Department of Water Resources, Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Tyee Club and California Water
Commission.
The program has promoted the genetic conservation of winter-run
chinook salmon. Analyses of the effective size of the winter-run stock
showed that a properly managed artificial propagation program to which
the captive broodstock program contributes gametes is not likely to
have a negative effect and may, instead, be helping to maintain or
slightly increase the genetic diversity of the stock.
The captive broodstock program was initiated as a rapid response to
the endangerment of the Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon. To
date, the program has realized many of its objectives. Gametes from
captively reared broodstock have contributed to artificial propagation
of the winter-run population. In each year since its inception, the
program has provided progressively better spawners, gamete quality,
fertilization and production of juvenile fish. The artificial
propagation program now works in concert with BML researchers to
confirm run identification of wild-trapped adult winter and spring run
salmon destined for spawning at the Coleman and Livingston Stone
National Fish hatcheries to avoid hybridization. Since the completion
of the Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery below Shasta Dam, one
year class of winter-run chinook salmon has been reared successfully in
that facility. Rearing at that facility allows the growing fry to
imprint on Sacramento River water thus helping ensure that, when
adults, they return to spawn in their natal stream.
These and other developments will lead to significant changes in
conventional salmon hatchery practices and reduce impacts of hatchery
releases on wild Central Valley chinook salmon. Although much good work
has been completed, some critical questions remain to be answered
through additional research. These questions include: Are progeny from
captive parents as fit as those from wild parents? How do we
synchronize growth and sexual maturation of captive salmon so that both
sexes are ready to spawn at the same time? If we can't achieve
synchrony in sexual maturity, how can the potency of frozen sperm be
increased? Answering these questions can help balance the need and
effectiveness of hatchery supplementation for listed runs while helping
identify management actions to move towards ecosystem based salmon
restoration.
CWC 660--Arroyo Pasajero Studies--CWC 661--Arroyo Pasajero
Implementations--CWC 662--Arroyo Pasajero (Flood Easements).--The Draft
Feasibility Investigation Report and draft EIS/EIR, which identifies
two candidate alternatives that show a federal interest in a Corps
flood control project were released in March 1999. The two projects,
the enlarged Westside Detention Basin and the Pasajero Gap Detention
Dam, are estimated to cost approximately $238 and $225 million with
benefit cost ratios of roughly 1.7:1 and 1.1:2, respectively. During
the public review process, both candidate alternatives were challenged.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of
Fish and Game issued a joint letter conveying their position that
endangered species impacts of the project could not be mitigated. This
position was maintained during follow-up meetings with staff and
management of these agencies. Consequently, the Gap Dam was dropped as
a viable alternative.
Interests east of the Aqueduct challenged the Westside Detention
Basin, as presented in the Report, because an over chute would
discharge flood water across the Aqueduct and on to nearly a hundred
thousand acres of rich farmland in a manner inconsistent with recent
historical flooding patterns that occurred prior to construction of the
Aqueduct. Consequently, the investigation was redirected to eliminate
the over chute and focus on a larger Westside Detention Basin that
stores more flood water. Due to other developments following a review
of the draft, the investigation in being redirected further to include
another alternative that takes a large amount of flood water into the
Aqueduct, conveys it several miles to the south and releases it to
storage on less productive farm land east of the Aqueduct. As a result
of these changes in scope, the Draft Feasibility Investigation Report/
EIS/EIR is expected to be re-released during the summer of 2001 and the
Final Report submitted to the Corps South Pacific Division and
Washington Headquarters Offices in early 2002.
CWC 663--Cantua Creek Strm Group-EIS.--The Cantua Creek Stream
Group consists of seven western San Joaquin Valley ephemeral streams,
as well as several smaller unnamed drainages located west of the San
Luis Canal segment of the California Aqueduct extending between 20 and
50 miles north of the Arroyo Pasajero.
Flood water overtopped the western embankment of the Canal in 1969
and 1995, causing extensive damage to the concrete lining. Since the
1960s, over 40,000 acre-feet of Cantua Creek Stream Group flood water
and an estimated 2.5 million cubic yards of sediment have entered the
Canal from overtopping or through the drain inlets. These streams have
also deposited as much as 2.9 million cubic yards of sediment upslope
of the Canal, eliminating 1,600 acre-feet (about 50 percent) of the
original impounding capacity. The Cantua Creek Stream Group poses a
flood risk with a potential to breach the Canal and disrupt water
service to millions of people in southern California and the southern
San Joaquin Valley. In addition, the cost associated with the
degradation to water quality from uncontrolled flood inflow is a
substantial expense to both the Canal operators and water customers.
The situation is continually worsening as additional sediment is
deposited along the west side of the Aqueduct.
The Department of Water Resources, with cost sharing by USBR, is
completing a reconnaissance study of these drainage and sedimentation
problems and will be performing feasibility level investigations during
fiscal year 2000 to seek solutions. In addition, interim improvements
to restore diminished impounding capacity and improve sediment
decanting capabilities for smaller flood flows will extend into fiscal
year 2000. Under the San Luis Unit Joint-Use Facilities Agreement, USBR
is responsible for 45 percent of the cost of this work.
CWC 900--Public Law 102-575, Title XVI and Amended by Public Law
104-266 (Mid-Pacific Region)--CWC 1000--Public Law 102-575, Title XVI
and Amended by Public Law 104-266 (Lower Colorado Region).--The
California Water Commission has long recognized water recycling as an
important element in the management of California's water resources,
both for cleanup of municipal, industrial and agricultural discharges
and to improve the quantity and quality of water supplies. The
Department of Water Resources' Bulletin 160-98, California Water Plan
Update, January 1998, identifies up to 800,000 acre-feet of total
potential additional water recycling in California by the year 2020.
It is the Commission's view that both water recycling programs and
the other ongoing USBR programs are highly important and that they
should be supported in concert, within the limitations of available
federal funds, giving due consideration to other potential sources of
funds that could be available to effect their implementation. The
Commission agreed to work with USBR on language which will give the
local sponsor greater assurance of future year support. This will also
encourage sponsors to go ahead with expanded facilities with greater
expectation of out-year funding.
CWC 1001--Water Recycling Research and Development Program.--In
July 1999, a partnership of 18 water and wastewater agencies, the State
Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
released a draft regional water recycling plan. This plan would connect
recycling systems in Santa Clara, San Mateo, Alameda, Contra Costa and
San Francisco counties. The regional recycled water system could
generate an additional 125,000 acre-feet a year of recycled water by
2010, and 240,000 acre-feet by 2020, according to the draft plan.
Recognizing the very real need for substantial quantities of
recycled and the reluctance of a few users to accept recycled water
because of cost or water quality considerations, the Commission
encourages the Bureau to ensure that adequate funding will be available
in the near-term to conduct the necessary research and development
studies to support the next generation of water recycling projects. The
proponents of water recycling projects have demonstrated that there is
a present need for further research and development of the capabilities
of emerging treatment technology to improve the cost-effectiveness of
water recycling and address potential threats to public health.
Federal participation in a comprehensive water recycling research
and development program would support the identification of more cost-
effective, feasible water recycling projects and encourage project
implementation at the local level.
CWC 1108--Salton Sea Research Project.--Over the last several
decades there has been concern over the increasing salinity of the
Salton Sea and the impacts it has had on the Sea's ecology. Increasing
salinity and other water quality issues are threatening biological
values and recreational uses of the Sea. An additional concern is the
rising water surface elevation. The raising water surface has flooded
much of the developed area and the shoreline wildlife habitat used by a
number of different bird species. The rising sea also has inundated
much of the Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge at the south end of the
sea. The full impacts of increasing salinity, the decline in other
water quality attributes, and water surface elevation on endangered
species that inhabit the sea are unknown, but studies are presently
ongoing. In order to identify and evaluate possibilities for improving
the condition of the sea, a program of additional planning, research,
and environmental impact analysis are needed.
The objectives of this program are to identify and evaluate
alternatives to: improve water quality conditions; maintain quality
habitat for migratory birds and endangered species; enhance the
fishery; and protect human recreation values in and around the Salton
Sea. Environmental scoping and scientific research of remediation
alternatives currently is underway.
CWC 1304--Colorado River Salinity Control Program-Basinwide.--The
California Water Commission's Appropriation Committee recognizes the
need to support federal funding levels that are required to meet the
numeric criteria and standards that have been established for salinity
on the Colorado River.
The Commission supports fiscal year 2001 appropriations for Title I
of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, which covers delivery
of water to Mexico, pursuant to the 1944 Mexican Water Treaty and
Minute 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission.
CWC 1500 Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration (CALFED).--The CALFED Bay-
Delta Program is an open collaborative, state-federal-stakeholder
effort seeking to develop a comprehensive long-term plan to restore
ecosystem health and improve water management for beneficial uses of
the Bay-Delta system. A comprehensive package must:
--Improve and increase aquatic and terrestrial habitats and improve
ecological functions in the Bay-Delta to support sustainable
populations of diverse and valuable plant and animal species.
--Provide good water quality for all beneficial uses.
--Reduce the mismatch between Bay-Delta water supplies and current
and projected beneficial uses dependent on the Bay-Delta
system.
--Reduce the risk to land use and associated economic activities,
water supply infrastructure, and the ecosystem from
catastrophic breaching of Delta levees.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is an official part of the
ongoing effort and needs to be adequately funded to allow the Service's
experts to officially participate in the CALFED activities.
CWC 1600--Ballast Water Control Programs (Invasive Species).--The
National Invasive Species Act (NISA) of 1996 re-authorized and amended
the Non indigenous Aquatic Nuisance and Prevention and Control Act of
1990. The purpose of the legislation was to provide tools for the
management and control of the spread of aquatic nuisance species, such
as zebra mussels. Ballast water carried by ships is one of the major
factors for the introduction of non indigenous species to North
American waters. NISA re-authorized a mandatory ballast management
program for the Great Lakes, an area already heavily infested with
zebra mussels, and created an enforceable national ballast management
program for all U.S. coastal regions. The U.S. Coast Guard is mandated
under the Act to:
--Develop and issue ballast water guidelines for all vessels entering
U.S. waters.
--Establish reporting and sampling procedures to monitor compliance.
--Develop a mariner education and technical assistance program.
--Conduct ecological and ballast water surveys of the Columbia River
system.
--Report to Congress by 1999 on progress on ballast water programs
and on any intent to make regulations mandatory in any region.
California has established a state policy aimed at preventing the
introduction of aquatic nuisance species and pathogens via ballast
water. In 1998, the Western Governors' Association adopted a resolution
supporting actions to prevent the spread and introduction of
undesirable aquatic and terrestrial species, and in 1999 established a
State work group to collaborate with the Western Regional panel created
by NISA. The California Water Commission supports full funding to
implement the U.S. Coast Guard's ballast water regulations program.
______
Prepared Statement of the California Resources Agency Reclamation Board
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Board
Corps of Engineers' Projects budget recommends
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS--SURVEYS:
Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins $1,500 $3,200
Comprehensive Study.......................
Lower Cache Creek, Yolo/Woodland and 300 500
Vicinity..................................
San Joaquin River Basin:
Corral Hollow Creek...................... 65 140
Frazier Creek............................ 65 140
Poso Creek (Kern).......................... 150 400
PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN:
American River Watershed................... 3,285 3,285
Yuba River................................. 400 500
South Sacramento County Streams............ 200 3,000
San Joaquin River Basin--Tule River........ 400 400
CONSTRUCTION--GENERAL:
Sacramento River Bank Protection........... 3,300 5,000
Mid-Valley Area Levee Reconstruction....... 2,000 2,000
Marysville/Yuba City Levee Reconstruction.. 760 760
West Sacramento Project.................... 1,775 1,775
American River Watershed (Levee 10,000 13,000
Improvements).............................
American River Watershed (Folsom Dam 5,000 12,000
Modifications)............................
Kaweah River (Tulare)...................... 500 3,000
Lower Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction. 1,485 1,485
Upper Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction. 1,665 1,665
Merced County Streams...................... 500 ..........
San Joaquin Basin--Stockton Metropolitan ........... 10,000
(Section 211).............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE RECLAMATION BOARD'S RECOMMENDATIONS
The Reclamation Board, as the state agency which furnishes required
local assurances for a majority of the federal flood control projects
in California's Central Valley, respectfully submits this statement of
support for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood control projects.
The Board in general supports the President's budget for federal
flood control projects in the California Central Valley. The projects
described below are of particular importance to the health, safety, and
well-being of Central Valley residents and are especially important to
the Board that they are started and/or kept on schedule.
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS--SURVEYS
Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study
The study area includes the entire Sacramento River Basin and San
Joaquin River Basin in Northern and Central California, respectively.
Local, state and federal water resources agencies support a coordinated
multiobjective investigation to balance flood damage reduction,
environmental restoration, and other water resources proposed along the
Rivers. The Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreement was executed in February
1998. An interim status report was released in April 1999. The Study is
scheduled to be complete in September 2002. The Board recommends
funding to continue this Study.
Lower Cache Creek, Yolo/Woodland and Vicinity
A feasibility study is evaluating increased levels of flood
protection for the City of Woodland and the town of Yolo. Completion is
scheduled for June 2004. The Board supports funding to continue the
feasibility study.
San Joaquin River Basin
This survey, authorized in 1964, is a study of the San Joaquin
River and its tributaries in regard to flood control measures. The
following are interim study proposals.
Corral Hollow Creek
A reconnaissance study is being conducted to evaluate increased
flood protection for the City of Tracy and major water conveyance and
transportation facilities in San Joaquin County. The Board recommends
funding to initiate the feasibility study.
Frazier Creek
A reconnaissance study has been initiated to evaluate flood control
alternatives for the town of Strathmore in Tulare County. The Board
recommends funding to initiate the feasibility study.
Poso Creek (Kern)
A reconnaissance study was conducted to evaluate increased flood
protection for the town of McFarland in Kern County. A feasibility
study will be initiated in July 2000. The Board recommends funding to
continue the feasibility study.
PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN
American River Watershed
The Sacramento urban area has only a 77-year level of protection
from flooding by the American River. Although incremental actions have
occurred, a long-term plan for high levels of protection must be
developed and implemented. The Board recommends funding to continue
long-term planning.
Yuba River
The Marysville and Yuba City areas have experienced seven major
floods. A feasibility study was completed in April 1998. The Board
recommends funding to continue preconstruction engineering and design.
South Sacramento County Streams
The completed feasibility report recommends levee and channel
improvements to protect the urbanized area of south Sacramento. The
Board recommends funding for continued PED.
San Joaquin River Basin--Tule River
The proposed enlargement of Success Dam on the Tule River will
improve flood protection for the City of Porterville and surrounding
community. The Board recommends funding to continue PED.
CONSTRUCTION--GENERAL
Sacramento River Bank Protection
The project, authorized in 1960, is a long-range federal/state
effort to preserve the existing project levee system along 192 miles of
the Sacramento River. The Sacramento River Bank Protection Project work
consists of providing some form of bank stabilization at those points
which are identified each year as the most critical. The Board
recommends funding to continue construction.
Mid-Valley Area Levee Reconstruction
An evaluation of about 240 miles of the Sacramento River Flood
Control Project levees in the Sacramento Mid-Valley area identified
about 20 miles of levees that are structurally deficient and require
reconstruction. The Board recommends funding to continue construction.
Marysville/Yuba City Levee Reconstruction
This program will reconstruct 44 miles of the 134 miles of
federally authorized levees that protect the Marysville/Yuba City area.
The first of three construction contracts was awarded in July 1995.
Flooding in 1997 demonstrated the need to extend the work sites, modify
the design, and investigate new sites in the project area. The Board
recommends funding to continue construction.
West Sacramento Project
The Board is the nonfederal sponsor for the West Sacramento Flood
Control Project that was authorized for construction by WRDA 1992. The
Board supports funding to complete construction.
American River Watershed (Levee Improvements)
The 5 miles of levee improvements were authorized in WRDA 1996 as
part of the Common Elements Project. This Project consists of levee
raising and strengthening that would be common to any long-term project
selected for the American River. The Board recommends funding to
complete construction.
American River Watershed (Folsom Dam Modifications)
Modifications to the existing outlets of Folsom Dam to provide for
earlier and higher flood releases were authorized in WRDA 1996. The
Board recommends funding to initiate construction.
Kaweah River
This project would provide flood protection to the communities of
Visalia, Farmersville, Tulare, Ivanhoe, and Goshen. The Board
recommends funding to continue construction.
Lower Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction
An evaluation of about 295 miles of the Sacramento River Flood
Control Project levees in the lower Sacramento Valley area identified
about 47 miles of levees that are structurally deficient. The project
includes reconstructing about 2 miles of these levees. The Board
recommends funding to complete construction.
Upper Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction
Federally authorized flood control levees in the upper Sacramento
Area were evaluated and 12 miles were determined to be deficient and
requiring reconstruction. The Board recommends funding to complete
construction.
Merced County Streams
This project provides increased levels of flood protection to the
Cities of Merced and Atwater and associated urban areas. The first
phase of construction has been completed. The Board recommends funding
to complete the General Evaluation Report.
San Joaquin Basin-Stockton Metropolitan (Section 211)
Construction of the flood control project has been completed by the
local sponsors. The Board recommends funding to reimburse the federal
cost-share portion.
______
Prepared Statement of the County of Santa Cruz
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, on behalf of the County
of Santa Cruz, California, we are requesting $1.9 million from your
committee in fiscal year 2001 for the Pajaro River at Watsonville Flood
Control Project to be conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
While the President's budget request does not reflect this funding
level, the Corps San Francisco District has recently indicated, based
on recent changes to project, that $1.9 million for Preliminary
Engineering and Design (PED) is its capability for this project in
fiscal year 2001.
The substantial difference in the Administration budget request of
$600,000 and the present capability of the Corps of $1.9 million is due
in large part to the recent agreement with the Corps to merge the flood
control design measures along the Salsipuedes and Corralitos Creek
tributaries with the Pajaro River mainstem project. This decision,
which both the Corps and project sponsors agree has great merit,
increases the size of the project by providing greater protection to
those in the Pajaro River Basin.
By way of background, areas of Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties
along the Pajaro River have been ravaged by flood events for decades. A
1963 report by the Corps concluded that the Pajaro River levee system
constructed in 1949 was ``inadequate,'' providing only 25-year
protection along the Pajaro River and 7-year protection along two
Pajaro tributaries, the Salsipuedes and Corralitos Creeks, instead of
the 100-year protection that was intended. As a result, the Flood
Control Act of 1966 authorized the Pajaro River Flood Control Project,
as did the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. However, to date,
no work on the project has been conducted pursuant to those
authorizations.
Over the years, the Corps of Engineers, FEMA, and other federal,
state, and local agencies have spent vast sums to provide emergency
assistance, disaster relief, and recovery services to the Santa Cruz
and Monterey County areas in the wake of these damaging floods. The
Corps alone, for example, has spent $18 million on flood response
efforts between 1995 and 1998. Even more recently, storm events of the
past several weeks have also resulted in flooding along the Salsipuedes
and Corralitos. In addition, the numerous lawsuits that are filed in
the wake of these floods--$50 million in the case of a 1995 flood--
threaten to cripple local flood control agencies.
It is for these reasons that we believe that work on the Pajaro
River Flood Control project should begin as soon as possible. Residents
of Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties continue to live in fear that
lives, businesses, and valuable agricultural land will be lost in a
100-year flood from which they were to be protected from over 30 years
ago. In addition to Santa Cruz County, area supporters of this project
include: Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Clara Counties; the cities of
Watsonville, Gilroy, Morgan Hill, and Hollister; and the Santa Cruz
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Santa Clara
Valley Water District, and San Benito Water District.
Both the Corps and project sponsors believe that $1.9 million is
necessary to proceed expeditiously with the project. We thank you for
your consideration of this vital request and urge you and your
colleagues to support the full amount when crafting your fiscal year
2001 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill.
______
Prepared Statement of the Whitewater River Basin
This project is the result of the Whitewater River Basin,
California, Reconnaissance Report (USACE 1992). The project feasibility
study is now being completed and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) has identified an alternative with a high benefit/cost ratio.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the alternative and in
a letter to the Corps, Los Angeles District, indicated ``that the
future with project conditions will likely be better than the future
without project conditions for the biological resources in the area.''
The project will provide flood protection for the majority of the
Thousand Palms unincorporated area in northern Coachella Valley.
Flood protection below the Indio Hills in this alternative consists
of three levees described below:
--Transmission Corridor Levee: This levee would run in an east-
southeasterly direction, starting just south of the mouth of
Westwide Canyon and then following the transmission corridor to
the western Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Preserve
boundary.
--Wind Corridor Levee: This levee would run along the western and
southwestern boundary of the Preserve (on the south side of the
wind corridor).
--Cook Street Levee: This levee would run along the north side of
Interstate 10 and across the southern boundary of the Preserve
(the same as with the other alternatives).
In addition to the right-of-way acreage, this project would require
purchase of an additional 700 acres of floodway. This land (running
along the upslope side of the levees) would be purchased by the Corps
in order to prevent flow along the levees from damaging private
property.
In order to continue this project, we need two congressional
actions this session. First, in the Water Resources Development Act of
2000, language similar to the following needs to be added:
--Whitewater River Basin (Thousand Palms), California
--The project for flood control and incidental endangered species
preservation, Whitewater River Basin (Thousand Palms),
California, is authorized for construction, subject to a Chief
of Engineers Report completed no later than December 31, 2000,
at an estimated Federal cost of $16,900,000 and an estimated
total cost of $26,000,000. The feasibility analysis will
include high priority flood damage reduction and reduced future
flood proofing costs for economic justification.
Secondly, in the Energy and Water Appropriations Act, language
similar to the following needs to be added:
--Whitewater River Basin (Thousand Palms), California
--The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers,
is directed to initiate Preconstruction Engineering and Design
for the Whitewater River Basin (Thousand Palms), California
Project. Funds of $500,000 are provided for this purpose.
This project has full local support and your assistance in getting
the project to the preliminary engineering and design phase is greatly
appreciated.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coachella Valley Water District
The Coachella Valley Water District, located in Riverside County,
California, is the local sponsor of a federal project authorized in the
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 under Section 212, Flood
Mitigation and Riverine Restoration Pilot Program. Section 212 lists
priority projects for the new program and the Coachella Valley,
Riverside County, California Project is shown as Priority No. 2.
The project as proposed would consist of developing a wetlands
habitat area at the delta where the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel
(Whitewater River) feeds into the Salton Sea. It is anticipated that
the project will widen the levees of the stormwater channel allowing a
natural delta area to form. This would allow the hydraulic grade line
to be lowered thereby alleviating sediment deposition in the area. This
would lessen flood risk in the area as well as upstream.
The habitat created by the project would provide a nesting area for
several endangered species of migratory birds. The Salton Sea is a key
stopover on the Pacific Flyway and this project would enhance the
nesting habitat.
Funds to conduct the studies required to implement this project
have not yet been appropriated. The district is requesting that
language be added to the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill of 2000
that will allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to begin work in
October 2000.
Draft language for the bill would be as follows:
--Coachella Valley, Riverside County, California
--The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers,
is directed to complete a reconnaissance study for Flood
Mitigation and Riverine Restoration, Coachella Valley,
Riverside County, California, as authorized in section 212 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. Funds of $100,000
are provided for this purpose.
Thank you in advance for your support on this important project.
______
Prepared Statement of the Santa Clara Valley Water District
CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM
Background.--In an average year, half of Santa Clara County's water
supply is imported from the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta estuary (Bay-Delta) watersheds through three water projects: The
State Water Project, the federal Central Valley Project, and San
Francisco's Hetch Hetchy Project. In conjunction with locally-developed
water, this water supply supports 1.7 million residents in Santa Clara
County and the most important high-tech center in the world. In average
to wet years, there is enough water to meet the county's long-term
needs. In dry years, however, the county could face a water supply
shortage of as much as 100,000 acre-feet per year, or roughly 20
percent of the expected demand. In addition to shortages due to
hydrologic variations, the county's imported supplies have been reduced
due to regulatory restrictions placed on the operation of the state and
federal water projects.
There are also water quality problems associated with using Bay-
Delta water as a drinking water supply. Organic materials and
pollutants discharged into the Delta, together with salt water mixing
in from San Francisco Bay, have the potential to create disinfection-
by-products that are carcinogenic and pose reproductive health
concerns.
Santa Clara County's imported supplies are also vulnerable to
extended outages due to catastrophic failures such as major earthquakes
and flooding. As demonstrated by the 1997 flooding in Central Valley,
the levee systems can fail and the water quality at the water project
intakes in the Delta can be degraded to such an extent that the
projects cannot pump from the Delta.
Project Synopsis.--The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is an
unprecedented, cooperative effort among federal, state, and local
agencies to restore the Bay-Delta. With input from urban, agricultural,
environmental, fishing, and business interests, and the general public,
CALFED is developing a comprehensive, long-term plan to address
ecosystem and water management issues in the Bay-Delta.
Restoring the Bay-Delta ecosystem is important not only because of
its significance as an environmental resource, but also because failing
to do so will stall efforts to improve water supply reliability and
water quality for millions of Californians and the state's $700 billion
economy and job base.
Although the CALFED Bay-Delta Program is a long-range planning
process, ecosystem restoration is an immediate priority because of the
substantial lead time needed to produce ecological benefits. Species in
the Bay-Delta continue to be proposed for listing under the Endangered
Species Act. Recovery efforts cannot begin until adequate funding
becomes available to implement the array of critical ecosystem
restoration and water quality projects.
Fiscal year 2000 Funding.--$60 million was authorized in fiscal
year 2000 for CALFED Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration and non-ecosystem
improvements.
Fiscal year 2001 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
Congressional Committee support the $60 million included in the
Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget to finance Stage 1
implementation, including ecosystem restoration in the Bay-Delta,
critical improvements in water supply and water quality, and levee
stability.
GUADALUPE RIVER PROJECT
Background.--The Guadalupe River is a major waterway flowing
through a highly developed area of San Jose, California. A major flood
would damage homes and businesses in the heart of Silicon Valley.
Historically, the river has flooded downtown San Jose and Alviso
community. According to the 1991 General Design Memorandum, estimated
damages from a 1 percent flood in the urban center of San Jose are over
$526 million. The Guadalupe River overflowed in February 1986, January
1995, and March 1995, damaging homes and businesses in the St. John and
Pleasant Street areas of downtown San Jose. In March 1995, heavy rains
resulted in breakouts along the river that flooded approximately 300
homes and business.
Project Synopsis.--In 1971, the local community requested that the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) reactivate its earlier study.
Since 1972, substantial technical and financial assistance have been
provided by the local community through the Santa Clara Valley Water
District in an effort to accelerate the project's completion. To date,
more than $85.8 million in local funds have been spent on planning,
design, land purchases, and construction in the Corps' project reach.
The Guadalupe River Project received authorization for construction
under the Water Resources Development Act of 1986; the General Design
Memorandum was completed in 1992, the local cooperative agreement was
executed in March 1992, the General Design Memorandum was revised in
1993, construction of the first phase of the project was completed in
August 1994, construction of the second phase was completed in August
1996. Project construction was temporarily halted due to environmental
concerns.
To achieve a successful, long-term resolution to the issues of
flood protection, environmental mitigation, avoidance of environmental
impacts, and project maintenance costs, a multi-agency ``Guadalupe
Flood Control Project Collaborative'' was created in 1997. A key
outcome of the collaborative process was the signing of the Dispute
Resolution Memorandum in 1998, which resolved major mitigation issues
and allowed the project to proceed. Completion of the last phase of
flood protection construction is estimated in 2002 and is dependant on
timely federal funding and continuing successful mitigation issue
resolution.
Fiscal year 2000 Funding.--$5 million was authorized in fiscal year
2000 to continue Guadalupe River Project construction.
Fiscal year 2001 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the need to
continue construction to provide critical flood protection for downtown
San Jose and the community of Alviso, it is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $10.5
million, in addition to the $3.5 million in the Administration's fiscal
year 2001 budget for a total of $14 million to continue the
construction and mitigation work on the Guadalupe River Flood
Protection Project.
UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER PROJECT
Background.--The Guadalupe River is one of two major waterways
flowing through a highly urbanized area of Santa Clara County,
California, the heart of Silicon Valley. Historically, the river has
flooded the central district and southern areas of San Jose. According
to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 1998 feasibility study, severe
flooding in the upper Guadalupe River's densely populated residential
floodplain south of Interstate 280 would result from a 100-year
flooding event and potentially cause $280 million in damages.
The probability of a large flood occurring before implementation of
flood prevention measures is high. The upper Guadalupe River overflowed
in March 1982, January 1983, February 1986, January 1995, March 1995,
and February 1998, causing damage to several residences and businesses
in the Alma Avenue and Willow Street areas. The 1995 floods in January
and March, as well as in February 1998, closed Highway 87 and the
parallel light-rail line, a major commute artery.
Project Synopsis.--In 1971, the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(District) requested the Corps to reactivate its earlier study. From
1971 to 1980, the Corps established the economic feasibility and
federal interest in the Guadalupe River only between Interstate 880 and
Interstate 280. Following the 1982 and 1983 floods, the District
requested that the Corps reopen its study of the upper Guadalupe River
upstream of Interstate 280. The Corps completed a reconnaissance study
in November 1989, which established an economically justifiable
solution for flood protection in this reach. The report recommended
proceeding to the feasibility study phase, which began in 1990. In
January 1997, the Corps determined that the National Economic
Development Plan would be a 2 percent or 50-year level of flood
protection rather than the 1 percent or 100-year level. The District
strongly emphasized overriding the National Economic Development Plan
determination, providing compelling reasons for using the higher 1
percent or 100-year level of protection. In 1998, the Acting Secretary
of the Army did not concur to change the basis of cost sharing from the
National Economic Development Plan 50-year plan to the locally
preferred 100-year plan, resulting in a project that will provide less
flood protection, and therefore, be unable to reduce flood insurance
requirements and reimbursements, as well as eliminate recreational
benefits and increase environmental impacts. Based on Congressional
delegation requests, the Assistant Secretary of the Army has directed
the Corps to revise the Chief's Report to reflect more significant
federal responsibility. The Corps feasibility study determined the cost
of the locally preferred 100-year plan is $153 million and the Corps
National Economic Development Plan 50-year plan is $98 million. The
District has requested that the costs of providing 50-year and 100-year
flood protection be analyzed again during the preconstruction
engineering design phase for the determination of the National Economic
Development Plan. The federal cost share has yet to be determined.
Project cost sharing will be reconsidered for further federal
responsibility in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. The
project was approved for construction by the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (Section 101).
Fiscal year 2000 Funding.--$300,000 was authorized in fiscal year
2000 for the Upper Guadalupe River Project to proceed with
preconstruction engineering and design.
Fiscal year 2001 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the high risk
of flood damage from the upper Guadalupe River and the need to continue
preconstruction engineering and design, it is requested that the
Congressional Committee support the $500,000 in the Administration's
fiscal year 2001 budget for the Upper Guadalupe River Flood Protection
Project.
UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK PROJECT
Background.--The Upper Penitencia Creek Watershed is located in
northeast Santa Clara County, California, near the southern end of the
San Francisco Bay. In the last two decades, the creek has flooded in
1980, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1995, and 1998. The January 1995 flood damaged
a commercial nursery, a condominium complex, and a business park. The
February 1998 flood also damaged many homes, businesses, and surface
streets.
The proposed project on Upper Penitencia Creek, from the Coyote
Creek confluence to Dorel Drive, will protect portions of the cities of
San Jose and Milpitas. The floodplain is completely urbanized;
undeveloped land is limited to a few scattered agricultural parcels and
a corridor along Upper Penitencia Creek. Based on the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers' (Corps) 1995 reconnaissance report, 4,300 buildings in
the cities of San Jose and Milpitas are located in the flood prone
area, 1,900 of which will have water entering the first floor. The
estimated damages from a 1 percent or 100-year flood exceed $121
million.
Study Synopsis.--Under authority of the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act (PL 83-566), the Natural Resources Conservation
Service completed an economic feasibility study (watershed plan) for
constructing flood damage reduction facilities on Upper Penitencia
Creek. Following the 1990 U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Bill, the
Natural Resources Conservation Service watershed plan stalled due to
the very high ratio of potential urban development flood damage
compared to agricultural damage in the project area.
In January 1993 the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District)
requested the Corps proceed with a reconnaissance study in the 1994
fiscal year while the Natural Resources Conservation Service plan was
on hold. Funds were appropriated by Congress for fiscal year 1995 and
the Corps started the reconnaissance study in October 1994. The
reconnaissance report was completed in July 1995, with the
recommendation to proceed with the feasibility study phase. The
feasibility study, initiated in February 1998, is scheduled for
completion in 2002.
Advance Construction.--To accelerate project implementation, the
District is intending to submit a Section 104 application to the Corps
for advance approval to construct a portion of the project. The advance
construction would be for a 2,500 -foot long section of bypass channel
between Coyote Creek and King Road. If approved, the District would
commence construction on this portion of the project in 2001.
Fiscal year 2000 Funding.--$250,000 was authorized in fiscal year
2000 for the Upper Penitencia Creek Flood Protection Project for
project investigation.
Fiscal year 2001 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the high risk
of flood damage from the Upper Penitencia Creek and the need to proceed
with the feasibility study, it is requested that the Congressional
Committee support $300,000 in the Administration's fiscal year 2001
Budget for the Upper Penitencia Creek Flood Protection Project.
LLAGAS CREEK PROJECT
Background.--The Llagas Creek Watershed is located in southern
Santa Clara County, California, serving the communities of Gilroy,
Morgan Hill and San Martin. Historically, Llagas Creek has flooded in
1937, 1955, 1958, 1962, 1963, 1969, 1982, 1986, 1996, 1997, and 1998.
The 1997 and 1998 floods damaged many homes, businesses, and a
recreational vehicle park located in areas of Morgan Hill and San
Martin. These are areas where flood protection is proposed. Overall,
the proposed project will protect the floodplain from a 1 percent flood
affecting more than 1,100 residential buildings, 500 commercial
buildings, and 1,300 acres of agricultural land.
Project Synopsis.--Under authority of the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act (PL-566), the Natural Resources Conservation
Service completed an economic feasibility study in 1982 for
constructing flood damage reduction facilities on Llagas Creek. The
Natural Resources Conservation Service completed construction of the
last segment of the channel for Lower Llagas Creek in 1994, providing
protection to the project area in Gilroy. The Santa Clara Valley Water
District (District) is currently updating the 1982 environmental
assessment work and the engineering design for the project areas in
Morgan Hill and San Martin. The engineering design is being updated to
protect and improve creek water quality and to preserve and enhance the
creek's habitat, fish, and wildlife while satisfying current
environmental and regulatory requirement. Significant issues include
the presence of additional endangered species including the red-legged
frog and steelhead, listing of the area as probable critical habitat
for steelhead, and more extensive riparian habitat than were considered
in 1982.
Until recently, the Llagas Creek Project was funded through the
traditional PL-566 federal project funding agreement with the Natural
Resources Conservation Service paying for channel improvements and the
District paying local costs including utility relocation, bridge
construction, and right of way acquisition. Due to a steady decrease
since 1985 of annual PL-566 appropriations, the Llagas Creek Project
has not received adequate funding from U.S. Department of Agriculture
to complete the PL-566 project. To remedy this situation, the District
worked with congressional representatives to transfer the construction
authority from the Department of Agriculture to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) under the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(Section 501). An initial budget of $250,000 was appropriated for the
Corps planning and design.
Fiscal year 2000 Funding.--An initial $250,000 was appropriated in
fiscal year 2000.
Fiscal year 2001 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the high risk
of flood damage from Llagas Creek, it is requested that the
Congressional Committee support the addition of $760,000 to the
$240,000 included in the Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget, for
a total of $1 million for planning and design for the Llagas Creek
Project.
SANTA CLARA BASIN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE
Background.--The Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative
(Initiative) was spearheaded in 1996 by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for the purpose of
establishing a practical management process to oversee the effort to
balance natural systems with urban development in the Santa Clara
Basin. Recognizing the importance of quality of life and diversity, the
Initiative's goal is to establish an on-going process of managing
activities and natural processes to maximize benefits and minimize
adverse environmental impacts for the benefit of the community as a
whole. The Santa Clara Basin watershed includes areas in northern Santa
Clara County which drain into San Francisco Bay, and portions of
Alameda and San Mateo counties.
The Initiative addresses the integration of activities within the
watershed while focusing on water quality protection. Some of the
specific issues being addressed include land use and development, water
supply, flood management, environmental restoration, and the regulatory
process.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District is one of many stakeholders
who continue to demonstrate commitment to this multi-year effort by
providing funds and actively participating with the Initiative Core and
Working Groups. Providing direction, the Core Group includes
representatives of the business community, local government,
environmental groups, agriculture, resource and regulatory agencies,
and other interested stakeholders.
The 4-year planning phase began in 1998 and will result in the
development of four major reports focused on the effective management
of resources to improve and protect water quality and the aquatic
habitat of the Santa Clara Basin. The first of the four reports will be
the Watershed Characteristics Report which will provide a description
of the physical and political characteristics of the Santa Clara Basin.
This report will be followed by the Watershed Assessment Report, a
preliminary assessment of the watershed's condition based on available
data. The Watershed Characteristics and Assessment Reports, are
scheduled for public review in April and December 2000 respectively,
will provide a basis for the development of the Alternatives Watershed
Management Report which will present alternatives to managing the
watershed. The target date for public review of the Alternatives
Watershed Management Report is in June 2001. The final product of the
planning phase will be a comprehensive Watershed Action Plan,
incorporating stakeholder input and extensive public outreach, intended
to guide watershed activities as the Initiative moves into its
implementation phase.
Section 503 of the 1996 Water Resources Development Act, authorizes
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to provide technical and
planning assistance in the development of a watershed plan for the
Santa Clara Valley. The Initiative has progressed to the point where
the Corps' participation is now necessary for continuing the watershed
assessment and addressing pressing regulatory issues. Due to inadequate
funding of the Section 503 program in recent years, the District has
requested the Corps to be included in the Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration Program.
Fiscal year 2000 Funding.--No federal appropriation was authorized
in fiscal year 2000 for the Initiative.
Fiscal year 2001 Funding Recommendation.--In order to continue the
Initiative's progress to date, it is requested that the Congressional
Committee support $300,000 in funding from the Section 206 Aquatic
Ecosystem Restoration Program to cost-share Initiative work, including
the preparation of the Alternatives Watershed Management Report, the
Watershed Action Plan, and the conduct of stakeholder meetings.
COYOTE/BERRYESSA CREEK PROJECT, BERRYESSA CREEK PROJECT ELEMENT
Background.--The Berryessa Creek Watershed is located in northeast
Santa Clara County, California, near the southern end of the San
Francisco Bay. A major tributary of Coyote Creek, Berryessa Creek
drains a large area in the City of Milpitas and a portion of San Jose.
At 320 square miles, the Coyote Creek Watershed is the largest
watershed in Santa Clara County, encompassing all of Milpitas and
portions of San Jose and Morgan Hill.
On average, Berryessa Creek floods once every four years. The most
recent flood in 1998 resulted in significant damage to homes and
automobiles. The proposed project on Berryessa Creek, from Calaveras
Boulevard to Old Piedmont Road, will protect portions of the Cities of
San Jose and Milpitas. The flood plain is largely urbanized with a mix
of residential and commercial development. Based on the Army Corps of
Engineers 1993 draft General design Memorandum, a 1 percent or 100-year
flood could potentially result in damages of $52 million with depths of
up to three feet.
Study Synopsis.--In January 1981, the Santa Clara Valley Water
District (District) applied for federal assistance for flood protection
projects under Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act. The Water
Resources Development Act of 1990 authorized construction on the
Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project as part of a combined Coyote
Creek /Berryessa Creek Project to protect portions of the Cities of
Milpitas and San Jose.
The Coyote Creek element of the project was completed in 1996. The
Berryessa Creek Project element proposed in the Corps' 1987 feasibility
report consisted primarily of a trapezoidal concrete lining. The Corps
and the District are preparing a General Reevaluation Report which
involves reformulating a project which is more acceptable to the local
community and more environmentally sensitive. Project features will
include setback levees and floodwalls to preserve sensitive areas
(minimizing the use of concrete), revegetation mitigation to protect
the riparian environment, and sediment control structures to limit
turbidity and protect water quality. The project will also accommodate
the City of Milpitas' adopted trail master plan. Estimated total costs
of the General Reevaluation Report work are $3.5 million to be
completed in fiscal year 2002.
Fiscal year 2000 Funding.--No federal appropriation received in
fiscal year 2000.
Fiscal year 2001 Funding Recommendation.--Based on the continuing
threat of significant flood damage from Berryessa Creek and the need to
continue with the General Reevaluation Report, it is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $2.3 million
for the Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project element of the Coyote/
Berryessa Creek Project.
COYOTE CREEK NEAR ROCK SPRINGS PROJECT
Background.--Coyote Creek flows through the cities of Milpitas and
San Jose. The Rock Springs neighborhood is upstream of the recently
completed, federally-supported flood protection works on Coyote Creek.
The neighborhood suffered severe damages to approximately 25 apartment
buildings in January 1997 when Coyote Creek flooded in the vicinity of
the Rock Springs neighborhood. This event was estimated to be a 15-year
event.
Status.--In February 1999, the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(District) initiated discussions with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) for a Section 205 study to reduce flood damage in Rock Springs
neighborhood. A cost-sharing agreement for the Section 205 Small
Projects Program $1.16 million three-year feasibility study was signed
by the Corps and the District on January 4, 2000. Funding is a 50/50
cost share.
Project Timeline
--District requested federal assistance from Corps under Section
205--Feb. 1999
--Feasibility cost sharing agreement signed--Jan. 2000
--Public Workshop--Jun. 2000
--Draft Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)--Mar.
2002
--Final Detailed Project Report/EIS--July 2002
Fiscal year 2000 Funding.--No federal appropriation was requested
in fiscal year 2000.
Fiscal year 2001 Funding Recommendation.--In order to continue the
Coyote Creek near Rock Springs Project Feasibility Study, it is
requested that the Congressional Committee support an earmark of
$200,000 within the Section 205 Small Flood Control Projects Program
for fiscal year 2001. This will provide the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers fiscal year 2001 share of the Feasibility Study costs.
PAJARO RIVER WATERSHED
Background.--Pajaro River flows into the Pacific Ocean at Monterey
Bay, about 75 miles south of San Francisco. The drainage area
encompasses 1,300 square miles in Santa Clara, San Benito, Monterey,
and Santa Cruz counties. Potential flood damage reduction solutions
will require cooperation between four counties and four water/flood
management districts. There is critical habitat for endangered wildlife
and fisheries throughout the basin. Six separate flood events have
occurred on the Pajaro River in the past half century. Severe property
damage in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties resulted from floods in
1995, 1997, and 1998. Recent flood events have resulted in litigation
claims for damages approaching $50 million. $20 Million in U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) flood fight funds have been expended in
recent years.
Status.--Two separate Corps activities are taking place in the
watershed. The first activity is a Corps reconnaissance study
authorized by a House Resolution in May 1996 to address the need for
flood protection and water quality improvements, ecosystem restoration,
and other related issues. The second activity is a General Revaluation
Report initiated in response to claims by Santa Cruz and Monterey
Counties that the 13 mile levee project constructed in 1949 through
agricultural areas and the city of Watsonville is deficient. The
reconnaissance study on the entire watershed has not been initiated due
to priorities at the San Francisco District of the Corps. Watershed
Stakeholders have pledged to work cooperatively to support the Corps'
reconnaissance study, which will provide information to help reach an
understanding and agreement about the background and facts of the
watershed situation. Legislation passed by the State of California
(Assembly Bill 807) titled ``The Pajaro River Watershed Flood
Prevention Authority Act'' mandates that a Joint Powers Authority be
formed by June 30, 2000. The purpose of the Joint Powers Authority is
``to provide the leadership necessary to . . . ensure the human,
economic, and environmental resources of the watershed are preserved,
protected, and enhanced in terms of watershed management and flood
protection. The Joint Powers Authority will consist of representatives
from the Counties of Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz,
Zone 7 Flood Control District, Monterey County Water Resources Agency,
San Benito County Water District, and the Santa Clara Valley Water
District.
Funding Issues.--Although the Corps received fiscal year 2000
federal appropriation of $100,000 for initiation of Reconnaissance
Study, the appropriation was held while Corps staff worked on the
Pajaro River General Revaluation Report.
Fiscal year 2000 Funding.--$100,000 was authorized in fiscal year
2000 for the Pajaro Watershed Reconnaissance Study.
Fiscal year 2001 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
Congressional Committee support the Administration's fiscal year 2001
budget $600,000 for continuation of the General Revaluation Report. It
is also requested that the committee support $50,000 for the
Reconnaissance Study of the Pajaro River Watershed.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT: OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF SAN LUIS UNIT
JOINT USE FACILITIES
Background.--The San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project is
located by the city of Los Banos on the west side of the San Joaquin
Valley. This unit originates from San Luis Reservoir and extends 102
miles south, spanning Fresno, Kings, and Merced counties. The San Luis
Unit is an integral part of the Central Valley Project, delivering
water and power supplies from the American, Shasta and Trinity rivers
to users located in the service area.
Specific facilities of the San Luis Unit are owned, operated, and
maintained jointly with the state of California. These Joint Use
Facilities consist of O'Neill Dam and Forebay, San Luis Dam and
Reservoir, San Luis Pumping-Generating Plant, Dos Amigos Pumping Plant,
Los Banos and Little Panoche reservoirs, and the San Luis Canal. These
facilities are essential to the State Water Project's ability to serve
numerous agricultural, municipal, and industrial water users in the San
Joaquin Valley and Southern California. Funding for the Joint Use
Facilities are divided to 55 percent state and 45 percent federal,
under provisions of Federal-State Contract No. 14-06-200-9755, December
31, 1961.
Within the Central Valley Project, the Joint Use Facilities of the
San Luis Unit are an important link to the San Felipe Division, which
serves as the largest source of water imported into the Santa Clara
Valley Water District (District) and the San Benito County Water
District. All of the Central Valley Project water delivered through the
San Felipe Division must be pumped through O'Neill Dam and Forebay and
San Luis Dam and Reservoir.
Project Synopsis.--Annual invoices from the state of California for
the federal share of operation and maintenance costs average
approximately $10 million. For several years, federal funding was
inadequate to cover the pro-rated federal share of Joint Use Facility
costs. The District intervened by using the contributed Funds Act to
direct a $20 million advance payment of its Central Valley Project
capital costs toward an operations and maintenance payment.
As a contractor of both the Central Valley Project and the State
Water Project, the District hopes to expediently resolve the issue of
unreimbursed operations and maintenance expenses. These expenses are
carried by the state without interest, seriously impairing the cash
flow and financial management of the State Water Project.
In fiscal year 1998, an agreement was reached between the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation and project contractors to provide direct funding
for project conveyance and pumping facilities, reducing annual
appropriations from approximately $10 million to $3.5 million.
Fiscal year 2000 Funding.--$4.525 million was authorized in fiscal
year 2000 for operations and maintenance of the San Luis Joint Use
Facilities.
Fiscal year 2001 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon past
expenditures, it is requested that the Congressional Committee support
$4.551 million in the Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget to
continue operations and maintenance of the San Luis Unit Joint Use
Facilities.
SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM (SOUTH BAY WATER
RECYCLING PROGRAM)
Background.--The San Jose Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Program,
also known as the South Bay Water Recycling Program, will allow the
city of San Jose and its tributary agencies of the San Jose /Santa
Clara Water Pollution Control Plant to protect endangered species
habitat, meet receiving water quality standards, supplement Santa Clara
County water supplies, and comply with a mandate from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the California Water Resources
Control Board to reduce wastewater discharges into San Francisco Bay.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) is participating
with the city of San Jose in the development of the reclamation and
reuse program. Toward this end, the District is assisting the city of
San Jose by providing financial support and technical assistance, and
acting as a liaison for water retailers. The design, construction,
construction administration, and inspection of the program's
transmission pipeline and Milpitas 1A Pipeline was performed by the
District under contract to the city of San Jose.
The city of San Jose is the program sponsor for Phase 1, consisting
of almost 60 miles of transmission and distribution pipelines, pump
stations, and reservoirs. Completed at a cost of $140 million, Phase 1
peak operation occurred in October 1999 with actual deliveries of 10
million gallons per day of recycled, nonpotable water.
Phase 2 planning is now underway. A study, to be completed in 2000
at a cost of approximately $3.5 million, will provide a master plan for
the years 2010 and 2020. Phase 2's near-term objective is to increase
deliveries by the year 2010 to 15,000 acre-feet per year.
In 1992, PL 102-575 authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to work
with the city of San Jose and the District to plan, design, and build
demonstration and permanent facilities for reclaiming and reusing water
in the San Jose metropolitan service area. The city of San Jose reached
an agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation to cover 25 percent of
Phase 1's costs, or approximately $35 million; however, federal
appropriations have not reached the authorized amount. To date, the
program has received $14.6 million of the $35 million authorization.
Fiscal year 2000 Funding.--$3 million was authorized in fiscal year
2000 for project construction.
Fiscal year 2001 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $6.5
million, in addition to the $3.5 million included in the
Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget, for a total of $10 million to
fund the Phase 2 study and continue Phase 1 work.
SAN FRANCISCO AREA WATER RECLAMATION STUDY (BAY AREA REGIONAL WATER
RECYCLING PROGRAM)
Background.--The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) is
participating with 16 Bay Area water and wastewater agencies,
California Department of Water Resources, and U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation to develop master plan for regional water recycling
program. Study identifies regional markets and tools for maximizing Bay
Area water recycling. 125,000 acre-feet per year of potable water
potentially available for other uses by 2010, and 210,000 acre-feet per
year potentially available by 2040.
Regional effort between water and wastewater agencies in five
counties surrounding San Francisco Bay, including the cities of San
Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland.
Status.--Step 1, completed in 1996, studied feasibility of
transferring recycled water from San Francisco Bay Area to three nearby
agricultural regions. Step 2, completed in September 1999, consisted of
a regional water recycling master plan to maximize local recycling
programs with an estimated cost of $3 million to $5 million. Funding
for the master plan is available from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
and local agencies, including in-kind services.
Fiscal year 2000 Funding.--No federal appropriation was authorized
in fiscal year 2000.
Fiscal year 2001 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $1 million
to the Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget to follow up on actions
identified in the master plan, and to begin Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement preparation for Project Set 1 as
identified in the master plan (includes South Bay Water Recycling,
South County Regional Wastewater Authority, and Sunnyvale).
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Oceanside, California
Dear Chairman Domenici and Members of the Subcommittee: the City of
Oceanside respectfully requests an appropriation of $502,325 for the
City's Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Research and
Development Project. We would greatly appreciate your assistance in
funding this important facility.
The existing Mission Basin Groundwater Desalting Facility has been
an unqualified success. Since its completion in 1994, the facility has
produced 2 million gallons per day of superior-quality water from
previously unusable brackish groundwater. This represents seven percent
of the City's daily water supply needs--enough water to serve 4,000
Oceanside households. As our only water source that does not cross
major earthquake fault lines, it is also a critically-needed emergency
water supply.
The Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Research and
Development Project will be of genuine local, regional and state-wide
benefit. It will expand the capacity of the facility to 6.2 million
gallons per day, serving twenty-two percent of Oceanside residents. By
reducing our dependence on imported water from the Colorado River and
the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, Oceanside will be part of the
solution to California's water supply dilemma. Closer to home, the
project will significantly increase the reliability of our water
supply--an essential ingredient in the long-term health of our regional
economy. When the facility expansion becomes a demonstrable success,
the City will explore the use of reclaimed water injected into the
groundwater basin to increase its capacity to 20 million gallons per
day.
The cost of the expansion is estimated at $11,600,000. The
authorization for this project included funding for twenty-five percent
of 3 million gallons per day of the 4.3 million gallons per day
expansion. It is estimated that the 3 million gallons per day expansion
will cost $8.1 million. Oceanside has received $1.5 million to date for
this project and is requesting the residual federal cost share under
the provisions of the authorization. This remaining funding increment
of $502,325 from the Bureau of Reclamation will enable the City to
complete the project while reducing the financial impact on rate
payers, and will advance the City towards our ultimate goal of
producing 20 million gallons per day. The funding will create a ripple
effect in Southern California and beyond by demonstrating the efficient
use of groundwater desalting technology and stimulating other agencies
to develop their own projects. Ultimately, appropriating funds to the
City of Oceanside will provide some much-needed relief to the water
supply crisis affecting the entire Southwestern United States.
Construction is due to begin in mid-2000, and to be complete in 2002.
The City of Oceanside respectfully requests the residual federal
cost share of $502,325 in the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water
Development Appropriation bill for this project. Thank you for your
consideration of this request.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST--2001
The City of Oceanside is requesting an appropriation of $502,325 in
the Fiscal Year 2001 budget for the Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater
Desalting Research and Development Project. This amount is the
remaining funding increment that has already been authorized.
Construction cost estimate is $11,600,000.
Benefits to the City of Oceanside and the Southern California
Region include the following:
--Provides an emergency water supply for the City and the Camp
Pendleton Marine Corps Base.
--Creates a highly reliable water supply, which is critical to the
region's long-term economic health and its ability to attract
and retain businesses.
--Provides benefits to California and the rest of the nation by
reducing the region's demand for imported water from the
Colorado River and the environmentally sensitive Sacramento-San
Joaquin River Delta.
BACKGROUND
The City of Oceanside owns and operates a 2 million-gallon-per-day
facility that recovers and desalts brackish groundwater from the San
Luis Rey Mission Groundwater Basin. Oceanside proposes to expand this
facility to 6.3 million gallons per day.
Water from the Mission Basin was previously considered unusable as
a municipal water source due to its high salinity and mineral content.
The current desalting facility produces 2,200 acre-feet of potable
water annually--enough water to meet the annual needs of 4,000
households.
Oceanside's local water supply development has received support
from many agencies including the State of California, which loaned the
City $5 million to build the initial small-scale demonstration project.
proposed brackish groundwater desalting and development project
The project will increase production capacity of the existing
desalting facility to 6.3 million gallons per day, or 6,400 acre-feet
per year. This new water supply will be sufficient to meet 22 percent
of the City's average annual water supply needs.
The project will benefit Oceanside and the larger San Diego region
by creating a local, highly reliable water supply. Unlike imported
water, this local water supply does not cross major earthquake fault
lines to reach consumers. A reliable water supply is critical to the
region's long-term economic health, and its ability to attract and
retain businesses.
The project will also serve as a model for other groundwater
desalting projects in San Diego County and elsewhere in Southern
California. The proposed expansion involves the use of Energy Saving
Polyamide (ESPA) reverse osmosis membrane elements. The membranes offer
significant savings in both investment and operation expenses that
exceed other membrane elements currently on the market.
The Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Research and
Development Project will use reverse osmosis technology to produce
potable water of higher quality than the City's imported water supply.
The reverse osmosis process involves pumping water at high pressure
through semi-permeable membranes. Membrane pores are large enough to
let water molecules through, but small enough to remove salts, metals,
and other dissolved impurities.
Groundwater pumped from the basin is treated first with chemicals
to optimize membrane operations, then filtered.
The pretreated water then is pumped through the reverse osmosis
membranes to remove all but the smallest molecular compounds. Dissolved
minerals and other impurities removed by the reverse osmosis membranes
are discharged to the City's ocean outfall for disposal.
The water receives additional chemical treatment to meet drinking
water standards before it is added to the City's potable water system.
______
Prepared Statement of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
RESOLUTION NO. F2000-9 SUPPORTING FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FLOOD
CONTROL PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
WHEREAS, the United States House of Representatives Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and the
United States Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development are holding hearings to consider
appropriations for Flood Control and Reclamation Projects for fiscal
year 2001 and have requested written testimony to be submitted to the
committees prior to March 31, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District supports the completion of construction for the project to
reduce flooding and bank destruction along the Santa Ana River at Norco
Bluffs, California; the initiation of design efforts for a flood
control project on Murrieta Creek; the completion of construction
activities on the Gunnerson Pond Environmental Restoration project; the
initiation of a flood control feasibility study for the San Jacinto
River; the continuation of construction activities on the Santa Ana
River Mainstem project; and the continuation of construction activities
at Prado Dam; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District in regular session
assembled on March 7, 2000, that they support appropriations by
Congress for fiscal year 2001 for the following projects:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Santa Ana River at Norco Bluffs/Construction--General... $4,000,000
Murrieta Creek/Preconstruction Engineering & Design..... 1,000,000
Lake Elsinore--Gunnerson Pond/Section 1135 Environmental
Restoration......................................... 1,400,000
San Jacinto River/Feasibility Study-Flood Control....... 225,000
Santa Ana River Mainstem/Construction--General.......... 8,000,000
Prado Dam/Construction--General......................... 10,000,000
San Jacinto & Santa Margarita River Watersheds
(Riverside County) Special Area Management Plan
(SAMP).............................................. 2,000,000
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Manager-Chief Engineer is
directed to distribute certified copies of this resolution to the
Secretary of the Army, Members of the House of Representatives
Committee on Appropriations and Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development, the Senate Committee on Appropriations and Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development, and the District's Congressional
Delegation--Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, Congressmen
Ron Packard and Ken Calvert, and Congresswoman Mary Bono.
MURRIETA CREEK--PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING & DESIGN
Murrieta Creek poses a severe flood threat to the cities of
Murrieta and Temecula. Over $10 million in damages was experienced in
the two cities as a result of Murrieta Creek flooding in 1993. The 1997
Energy and Water Appropriations Act dedicated $100,000 to conducting a
Reconnaissance Study of watershed management in the Santa Margarita
Watershed ``including flood control, environmental restoration,
stormwater retention, water conservation and supply, and related
purposes''. The study effort was initiated in April 1997 and completed
the following December. The Reconnaissance Study identified a Federal
interest in flood control on the Murrieta sub-basin, and recommended
moving forward with a detailed feasibility study for a flood control
project on Murrieta Creek. Efforts on the Feasibility Study began in
April 1998, and are on schedule for completion in August 2000.
The District will be requesting a ``Conditional Authorization'' of
the project through inclusion in the Water Resources Development Act
Bill of 2000 (WRDA 2000). The project's authorization would be
contingent upon the receipt of a favorable Chief's report by December
31, 2000. The District is confident of the Corps completing the
Murrieta Creek Feasibility Study in August 2000 and issuing a favorable
Chief's Report by the end of the calendar year. The Corps will then be
in a position to initiate the detailed engineering design necessary to
develop construction plans and specifications for a Murrieta Creek
Flood Control Project. The District respectfully requests that the
Committee support an fiscal year 2001 appropriation of $1,000,000 for
the Corps to initiate an expedited Preconstruction Engineering and
Design phase for a Murrieta Creek Flood Control Project.
SANTA ANA RIVER AT NORCO BLUFFS
The purpose of this project is to protect a susceptible 65 to 80-
foot high bluff in the City of Norco from further retreat into a
residential neighborhood. Severe bank sloughing results when flood
flows within the Santa Ana River attack the toe of the bluffs. The
floods of January and February 1969 undermined the toe of the bluff,
causing severe bank sloughing. Although 50 to 60 feet of the bluff
retreated to the south, and no improvements were lost, the threat to
improvements from future river actions became apparent. The floods of
1978 and 1980 impinged further, causing another 30 to 40 feet of bluff
retreat, and the loss of one single family residence.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1996, at Section 101b (4),
provided for the authorization of the project based on a Chief's Report
dated December 23, 1996 that recommends the project for construction.
Design of the project was completed by the Corps in early 1999, and the
first of two phases of construction contracts began in May 1999. The
``Phase 1'' contract is scheduled for completion in June 2000. Certain
geotechnical/safety design considerations, coupled with extensive
efforts required to adequately de-water the site for construction of
the toe protection structure have resulted in an increased cost for the
overall project. We, therefore, are now seeking the Committee's
approval of supplemental funding in the amount of $4,000,000 in fiscal
year 2001 for completion of construction of the Santa Ana River at
Norco Bluffs Bank Stabilization Project. The Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District is fully prepared to meet its
cost-sharing obligation on this project.
GUNNERSON POND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROJECT
Gunnerson Pond is a Section 1135 environmental restoration project
that will restore approximately 60 acres of degraded riparian and
woodland area adjacent to the Lake Elsinore Outlet Channel, a Section
205 project in the City of Lake Elsinore, completed in 1994. The
project would enable both floodwater from Lake Elsinore and discharge
from a nearby wastewater treatment plant to flow into Gunnerson Pond,
thereby creating a permanent wetland. Such a wetland would serve to
enhance and develop waterfowl habitat, endangered species habitat,
emergent wetlands vegetation, and riparian vegetation.
The Reconnaissance phase of the project was completed with the
approval, in July of 1996, of the Project Restoration Plan at the
Washington level of the Corps. In fiscal year 1998 the project received
a Federal appropriation in the amount of $2.1 million to fully fund the
Feasibility Study, and to initiate engineering design for the project.
The feasibility phase (Project Modification Report) of the project was
completed in April of 1998. In fiscal year 1999 we sought a $1,500,000
Federal appropriation for Gunnerson Pond from available Section 1135
funds to provide the Federal funding necessary to complete final plans
and specifications, to provide for an early Federal contribution toward
land acquisition, and to partially fund construction. The design of the
project is essentially complete. The Corps anticipates advertising for
construction bids in May 2000, with a construction start in September
2000. The District respectfully requests the Committee's support of an
fiscal year 2001 appropriation of $1,400,000 to fully fund the Federal
share (75 percent) of the overall project.
SAN JACINTO & SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WATERSHEDS SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT
PLAN
The County of Riverside recognizes the interdependence between the
region's future transportation, habitat, open space, and land-use/
housing needs. In 1999, work was initiated on Riverside County's
Integrated Planning program (RCIP) to determine how best to balance
these factors. The plan will create regional conservation and
development plans that protect entire communities of native plants and
animals while streamlining the process for compatible economic
development in other areas. The major elements of the plan include
water resource identification, multi-species planning, land use, and
transportation.
Water resources are the critical element of any regional planning
effort. The County of Riverside has therefore requested that the Corps
initiate work on what are termed Special Area Management Plans (SAMP)
for both the San Jacinto and Santa Margarita watersheds to
qualitatively identify existing and future water resources requirements
in each area. The Corps effort will include facilitating meetings
between all potential watershed partners, and the integration of the
joint study effort with the planning efforts of the balance of the RCIP
project. We, therefore, respectfully request that the Committee support
a combined $2 million appropriation of Federal funding for fiscal year
2001 for the Corps to initiate work on Special Area Management Plans
for the San Jacinto & Santa Margarita River Watersheds.
SAN JACINTO RIVER
The 730 square mile San Jacinto River watershed drains into Lake
Elsinore in Western Riverside County. The San Jacinto River originates
in the San Jacinto Mountains and passes through the cities of San
Jacinto, Perris, Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore. The only major flood
control structures on the river are levees in the city of San Jacinto
built by the Corps of Engineers in the early 1960's. In the 30-mile
reach of the river between Lake Elsinore and the city of San Jacinto,
only minor channelization exists as the river is characterized by
expansive overflow areas including the Mystic Lake area.
Flooding from the river has caused major damage to agricultural
areas and rendered Interstate 215 and several local arterial
transportation routes impassable. The river is, however, an important
resource that provides water supply, wildlife habitat, drainage and
recreation values to the region. The fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water
Appropriations Act dedicated $100,000 to conducting a Reconnaissance
Study of watershed management in the San Jacinto River Watershed
``including flood control, environmental restoration, stormwater
retention, water conservation and supply, and related purposes''. The
study effort will be initiated in March 2000 and completed the
following September. We anticipate that the Reconnaissance Study will
identify a Federal interest in flood control on the San Jacinto River,
and recommend moving forward with a detailed Feasibility Study for a
flood control project. Other studies may also be recommended. The
Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget proposes an appropriation of
$225,000 to move into a Feasibility Study for the San Jacinto River.
The District therefore respectfully requests the Committee's support of
a $225,000 appropriation.
SANTA ANA RIVER--MAINSTEM
The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662)
authorized the Santa Ana River--All River project which includes
improvements and various mitigation features as set forth in the Chief
of Engineers' Report to the Secretary of the Army. The Boards of
Supervisors of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties continue
to support this critical project as stated in past resolutions to
Congress.
The Local Cooperation Agreement (LCA) was signed in December 1989
by the three local sponsors and the Army. The first of five
construction contracts started on the Seven Oaks Dam feature in the
Spring of 1990 and the dam was officially completed on November 15,
1999. A dedication ceremony was held on January 7, 2000. Significant
construction has been completed on the lower Santa Ana River Channel
and on the San Timoteo Creek Channel. Construction activities on Oak
Street Drain and the Mill Creek Levee have been completed.
For fiscal year 2001, an appropriation of $6 million is requested
to complete funding necessary to construct ``Reach 9'' (immediately
downstream of Prado Dam), a section of streambed to receive some
floodwall and slope revetment work to protect existing development
along its southerly bank. The removal of accumulated sediment within an
already completed section of the Santa Ana River Channel near its
outlet to the Pacific Ocean, will necessitate an fiscal year 2001
appropriation of $2 million. This dredging work is necessary prior to
project turnover to the Local Sponsors for operation and maintenance.
The Prado Dam feature of the Santa Ana River Mainstem project
continues to edge closer to a construction start. Engineering design
for the dam embankment and outlet works is on schedule to be completed
in June 2000. Design work is underway on several interior dikes
included in the project.
Additional design contracts are ready to be let for the balance of
engineering work necessary prior to construction. An fiscal year 2001
appropriation of $10 million would allow the Corps to complete all of
its design efforts on the Prado Dam project, and to initiate
construction on Prado Dam's outlet works and embankment. Additionally,
$2 million of these funds would be earmarked for the completion of the
State Highway 71 Dike construction project, which is scheduled to
commence late this fiscal year.
We, therefore, respectfully request that the Committee support an
overall $18 million appropriation of Federal funding for fiscal year
2001 for the Santa Ana River Mainstem project, which is the amount
included in the Administration's budget.
______
Prepared Statement of the County of Tulare
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: the County of Tulare
request your consideration of an appropriation of $250,000 in the
fiscal year 2001 Federal budget for the United States Army Corps of
Engineers for the commencement of a feasibility study for the Frazier &
Strathmore Creeks flood control project.
The Corps of Engineers have started the reconnaissance level study
of Frazier & Strathmore Creeks as your committee provided the funding
therefore in the fiscal year 2000 budget for which we are most
grateful.
Frazier & Strathmore Creeks are uncontrolled streams that continue
to devastate agricultural lands in Tulare County, flood the community
of Strathmore and disrupt commerce on a major highway arterial, State
Route 65.
The Corps of Engineers typically expend $2-million for a
feasibility study and require two years for preparation. Under the 50/
50 cost sharing agreement and the Corps capability in fiscal year 2001,
the Federal government would need to budget $250,000 in fiscal year
2001 with the remainder in fiscal year 2002 for the Frazier &
Strathmore Creeks feasibility study.
The local sponsors urge the subcommittee's appropriation of
$250,000 in fiscal year 2001 for the Frazier & Strathmore Creeks
feasibility study by the Corps.
______
Prepared Statement of the Cawelo Water District
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: the Cawelo Water
District, North Kern Water Storage District and Semitropic Water
Storage District request your consideration of an appropriation of
$500,000 in the fiscal year 2001 Federal budget for the United States
Army Corps of Engineers for the continuation of a feasibility study for
the Poso Creek flood control project.
The Corps of Engineers completed a reconnaissance study of Poso
Creek in fiscal year 1999, and found that there was a Federal interest
in proceeding to a feasibility level study. Local sponsors have been
identified for the 50/50 cost sharing of the feasibility study.
Poso Creek, is an uncontrolled stream that continues to devastate
agricultural lands in Kern County, flood the community of McFarland,
and ravage the Kern National Wildlife Refuge. Major highway arterials,
State Route 99 and SR 43, have been closed due to Poso Creek
floodwaters, resulting in the disruption for several days of commerce
by time delaying detours.
The Corps of Engineers estimate the feasibility study will cost in
excess of $2-million and require two years for preparation. The fiscal
year 2000 federal budget included an appropriation of $250,000 for the
Poso Creek flood control feasibility study. For an orderly continuation
of the flood control investigation $500,000 is needed in fiscal year
2001 with the remainder in fiscal year 2002.
The local sponsors urge the subcommittee's appropriation of
$500,000 in fiscal year 2001 for continuation of the Poso Creek
feasibility study by the Corps.
______
Prepared Statement of the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors
SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM PROJECT
Project Description
The Santa Ana River Mainstem Project includes seven interdependent
features: Mill Creek Levee, Oak Street Drain, San Timoteo Creek, Lower
Santa Ana River, Seven Oaks Dam, Prado Dam and Santiago Creek. Seven
Oaks Dam, Mill Creek Levee, Oak Street Drain, San Timoteo Creek Reaches
1, 2 and 3A and the Lower Santa Ana River Reaches 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
and 10 are complete. Completion of all of the features will provide (a)
the necessary flood protection within Orange, Riverside and San
Bernardino Counties; (b) enhancement and preservation of marshlands and
wetlands for endangered waterfowl, fish and wildlife species; (c)
recreation amenities; and (d) floodplain management of the 30 miles of
Santa Ana River between Seven Oaks Dam and Prado Dam.
San Bernardino County Features Status
Seven Oaks Dam.--The main embankment contract was completed in
November 1999. Some minor modifications are underway and scheduled for
completion in August 2000.
San Timoteo Creek.--Reach 1 construction was completed in September
1996. Construction on Reaches 2 & 3A was completed in June 1998.
Overall, construction is approximately 60 percent complete. A proposed
alternative is currently undergoing NEPA/CEQA review to complete the
remainder of the project.
Funding Required
The required funding amount matches the President's proposed in the
amount of $18,000,000. A total of $10,000,000 is requested for Design
and Construction start for Prado Dam and $8,000,000 is requested to
continue construction of the Mainstem Project on schedule, in fiscal
year 2000/2001. Federal funding in the amount of $18,000,000 would be
as follows:
Lower Santa Ana River:
--Engineering Design, Construction, Landscaping, and Sediment
Removal.--$8,000,000.
Prado Dam:
--Design and Construction start.--$10,000,000.
Project Authorized.--Public Law 94-587, Section 109, Approved
October 22, 1976, Public Law 99-662, Water Resources Development Act of
1986.
Total Project Cost.--$1.4 billion--Includes $473 million local
share.
President's Budget.--$18,000,000.
Requested Action.--Approval of $18,000,000 for Santa Ana River
Mainstem.
SAN TIMOTEO CREEK
Project Description
The San Timoteo Creek is a major tributary to the Santa Ana River
in the east San Bernardino Valley. A large watershed of approximately
126 square miles drains into the Creek which flows through the Cities
of Redlands, Loma Linda and San Bernardino before discharging into the
Santa Ana River. The existing Creek, in all three Cities, was an
earthen bottom and partially improved embankments reinforced with rail
and wire revetments.
Major storm flows along the Creek in 1938, 1961, 1965, 1969 and
1978 caused considerable damage to the Creek itself as well as
overtopping the banks and causing loss of life and severe property
damage.
The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1988
authorized improvement of San Timoteo Creek as part of the Santa Ana
River Mainstem Project. The improvements include the construction of
approximately 5.5 miles of concrete-lined channel from the Santa Ana
River upstream through the Cities of San Bernardino, Loma Linda and
Redlands plus the construction of debris retention facilities at the
upstream end of the project in the form of in-channel sediment storage
basins.
Project Status
Overall project construction is 60 percent complete. An alternative
design has been developed for Reach 3B, the upstream 40 percent of the
project, that will include the construction of approximately 0.2 mile
of improved channel and 18 in-channel sedimentation basins. Plans for
the final phase will be developed during the remaining 1999/2000 fiscal
year with completion of construction anticipated in October 2002.
Completed Phases:
Reach 1..................... 0.7 mile of Channel............. COMPLETED........ September 1996
Waterman Avenue Bridge.......... COMPLETED........ September 1996
Reach 2..................... 1.9 miles of Channel............ COMPLETED........ October 1997
Redlands Boulevard Bridge....... COMPLETED........ March 1998
Reach 3A.................... 0.8 mile of Channel............. COMPLETED........ June 1998
Remaining Construction and
Schedule:
Reach 3B:................... 0.2 mile of channel and 18 ................. .........................
sedimentation basins along 2.2
miles of channel.
Plans and Specifications........ ................. April 1999--July 2000
Right-of-Way Acquisition........ ................. May 2000--August 2000
Construction Start.............. ................. September 2000
Construction Completion......... ................. October 2002
Estimated Project Cost
The total estimated project cost is approximately $67,000,000 with
the federal participating cost at 75 percent or $50,250,000 and the
local participating cost at 25 percent or $16,750,000. The cost of the
remainder of the project is estimated to be $35,000,000, with the
Federal share at $26,250,000 and the local share at $8,750,000.
Requested Action.--Approval of continued funding for the San
Timoteo Creek Project.
upper santa ana river watershed reconnaissance study
The area will focus on the watershed of the Santa Ana River and
tributaries located above Prado Dam, primarily in San Bernardino
County. The study is to describe all watershed characteristics and
uses, to define problem areas under present and future conditions and
assist the County and local interests in developing a long-term master
plan for watershed management in the interest of improving specific
water resource uses including environmental preservation and
restoration, urbanization water supply and conservation and water-
related recreation activities.
The San Bernardino County Flood Control District supports the
reconnaissance study for management of the Upper Santa Ana River
Watershed.
Requested Action.--Approval of $100,000 for Upper Santa Ana River
Watershed.
ORANGE COUNTY, SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN FEASIBILITY STUDY--(CHINO
AGRICULTURE PRESERVE AREA)
The Chino Dairies are located in a 30 square-mile area immediately
north of Prado Dam reservoir, in the unincorporated portion of San
Bernardino County. The study provides information on the following
elements: operations of Chino Dairies, water conservation in Chino
Groundwater Basin, flood control facilities to relieve runoff from
upstream development in the City of Ontario, water quality concerns of
Orange County residents and the regulatory enforcement of the Chino
Dairies. The Chino Dairies provide 25 percent of all the milk consumed
in California and it is a one billion dollar industry.
The San Bernardino County Flood Control District supports the
feasibility study to help with flood control facilities, water
conservation and keep the dairies maintain their viability.
Requested Action.--Approval of $100,000 for Orange County, Santa
Ana River Basin.
MOJAVE RIVER FORKS DAM FEASIBILITY STUDY
The Mojave River flows north out of the San Bernardino Mountains
into the desert communities of Victorville and Barstow. The Mojave
River Forks Dam (Dam) is an ungated facility designed and constructed
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to alleviate flooding. Since that
time, environmental regulations such as the Endangered Species and
Clean Water Acts and the recent water rights adjudication have changed
the river's usage. The study will consider factors such as the current
water rights adjudication while facilitating balance among the River's
competing usage and diverse interest. Alternatives include modification
of the Dam's operation and outlet works, construction of a release
tower and operable gates and construction of one or more off-line
detention basins.
The San Bernardino County Flood Control District supports this
feasibility phase study to evaluate viable water conservation
alternatives while optimizing the balance between environmental, flood
control and water supply needs.
Requested Action.--Approval of $300,000 for Mojave River Forks Dam.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wilson, Potato and Wildwood Creeks originate in the San Bernardino
Mountains and flow in a south and southwesterly direction through the
City of Yucaipa, San Bernardino County. The study would investigate
methods to control erosion and reduce the impacts to the downstream
open space areas, residences and commercial areas within the watershed.
The runoff creates a large volume of debris and sediment within the
City of Yucaipa. Flooding along these Creeks is threatening to damage
residential and commercial development and infrastructure facilities.
The San Bernardino County Flood Control District is requesting this
feasibility study to evaluate the systems and determine appropriate
methods of protection through new facilities and management of the
existing floodplain.
Requested Action.--Approval of $100,000 for San Bernardino County.
MISSION ZANJA CREEK FEASIBILITY STUDY
The area is located in the City of Redlands, San Bernardino County.
The Mission Zanja Creek (Creek) project begins at about 2,000 feet east
of Interstate 10 to the Reservoir Canyon Drain, just west of 8th
Street. Floods of 1965, 1976 and 1980 caused about $4.3 million (1988
price level) in damages. Frequent flooding along the Creek is caused by
inadequate capacity of the existing inlet to the covered channel near
9th Street. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study indicates that
expansion of inlet on the Creek will result in a small increase in the
level of protection, but will increase flooding the areas surrounding
Reservoir Canyon Drain. Even though, this project will cause flooding
at the downstream area, but it will be much smaller.
The San Bernardino County Flood Control District supports the
feasibility study to improve the inlet of Mission Zanja Creek to reduce
flooding area.
Requested Action.--Support of Mission Zanja Creek, fiscal year
2000/2001.
SAN SEVAINE CREEK WATER PROJECT
Project Description
The San Sevaine Creek Water Project includes ten recharge
facilities, two miles of levees; construction of seven miles of
drainage ways to convey runoff to the recharge facilities; six miles of
linear parkways; and the preservation of 137 acres of sensitive
wildlife habitat. This project will provide water conservation and
flood protection to a drainage area of approximately 51 square miles
within the cities of Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario as well as
San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. There will be an average of
approximately 25,000 acre-feet per year of groundwater recharge from
the San Sevaine and Etiwanda Creeks' tributaries in the project area.
Project Status
The Loan Application was signed by the Bureau of Reclamation
Commissioner Eluid Martinez on April 11, 1996, approved by the
Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt on May 9, 1996. As of July 15,
1996, the San Sevaine Creek Water Project completed 60-day
congressional approval process. On December 17, 1996, the project
Repayment Agreement was approved by the Board of Supervisors of San
Bernardino County and approved on January 8, 1997 by Robert Johnson,
Regional Director of the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau has
indicated an eight-year construction schedule with project completion
by the Year 2006. The Bureau is attempting to complete the funding of
this project by the Year 2002.
Although considerable levee, channel and interim basin work has
already been completed at various locations of this major water
project, continued federal assistance from this Small Reclamation
Project Act loan and grant are required to complete the project's
construction. Without these funds it will be decades before local
interests can accrue sufficient funds to construct this vital water
project. To date, the Bureau of Reclamation has provided approximately
$16.1 million towards construction of the project.
The California Water Commission has consistently, since the late
1980s, supported the construction of this project.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 84-984, as
Federal Authority amended in 1956
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Reclamation--Grant Contribution. Approximately $27.4 million.
Bureau of Reclamation--Loan Contribution.. Approximately $19.2 million.
TOTAL B of R--Project--(Not Additive)..... Approximately $52.9 million.
Total Local Contribution.................. Approximately $33.7 million.
1997/1998 fiscal year Federal Budget--(New $1.333 million.
Project Start).
1998/1099 fiscal year Federal Budget...... $1.177 million.
1999/2000 fiscal year Federal Budget-- $10.18 million--($3.94
(Approved). million received to date).
President's Budget fiscal year--2000/2001. $11.21 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District and County have coordinated with the Bureau of
Reclamation and the National Water Resources Agency in a cooperative
effort to obtain the continued funding for this project. The District
and County appreciate the continuing support provided by the Bureau of
Reclamation towards this project.
Requested Action.--Support President's proposed fiscal year 2000/
2001 budget in the amount of $11.21 million.
______
Prepared Statement of the Merced Irrigation District
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Ross Rogers,
General Manager of the Merced Irrigation District. I am respectfully
submitting this statement on behalf of the County of Merced, the City
of Merced, and the Merced Irrigation District, which jointly form an
informal coalition commonly known as the Merced County Streams Group
for the purpose of performing maintenance functions along portions of
the Merced County Streams Project. The County of Merced, together with
the State of California, is the sponsor of the Merced County Streams
Project. The El Nido Irrigation District and the Le Grand Athlone Water
District are also concerned in this matter.
Federal authorization for the project construction was granted as
part of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1985. Authorized
facilities include constructing dry dams on Canal (Castle Dam) and
Black Rascal Creeks (Haystack Mountain Dam), enlargement of the
existing Bear Creek Dam, and modifications of levees and channels along
more than 25 miles of Fahrens, Black Rascal, Cottonwood, and Bear
Creeks. The completed project will provide flood protection worth more
than $10,000,000 per year to 263,000 acres of urban and agricultural
lands. Total project cost is currently estimated to be $133,000,000 of
which $40,000,000 or roughly 31 percent will be paid during
construction by the local beneficiaries.
When completed, more than 240,000 residents occupying 55,000
housing units within the greater metropolitan Merced area will live
with assurance of 125-year flood protection, while the lower rural area
will receive 25-year protection.
The first component of the project, Castle Dam, was completed in
1992. This component was constructed under budget, ahead of schedule,
and without a lost-time accident. Without Castle Dam during the intense
storms of January, February, March 1995, January 1997 and January,
February, March, 1998, the city of Merced would have been partially
inundated.
As a result of a request by the County of Merced, the Corps of
Engineers has reevaluated project components and will extend the
boundaries of the levee and channel portion of the project to better
match growth that has taken place in the city of Merced. This
willingness to remain flexible throughout the lengthy planning and
design process is also a credit to the Corps and its staff.
The Merced County Streams Project is a modification and expansion
of an earlier flood project constructed between 1948 and 1957. It has
undergone considerable review and modification since first authorized
as part of the Flood Control Act of 1970. Approximately $18,500,000 has
been spent to date on the Merced County Streams Project. This has been
matched with local contributions of approximately $3,000,000. As
partners in the construction of this project, the local agency sponsors
have worked closely with the Corps to establish an economic balance
between costs and benefits. As a result of this combined effort,
nonessential project components were first scaled back and eventually
eliminated. This scaling to fit the economic reality resulted in
substantial federal and local savings.
On January 15, February 3 and March 25, 1998, due to El Nino-driven
storms, Bear Creek overtopped its banks in several locations within and
downstream of the city of Merced, flooding 33 homes, county, city and
Merced Irrigation District infrastructure, and thousands of acres of
prime agricultural land, with total damages in the millions of dollars.
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, with input from the National Weather
Service, estimates that the January 15th and March 25th events were
both 1-in-100 year events, unprecedented for the area. The greatest
storm intensity in both storms centered in northeastern Merced County
in and around the watershed of Black Rascal Creek, tributary to Bear
Creek, upstream of the Merced County Streams Project's proposed
Haystack Mountain Dam site. According to Corps of Engineer's rating
tables for the Black Rascal Creek Bypass gaging station, January flows
reached 4,300 cubic feet per second (cfs) in a channel with a rated
maximum capacity of 3,000 cfs, 143 percent of channel capacity. March
flows exceeded 4,700 cfs, or 157 percent of channel capacity. Had the
Merced County Streams Project's Haystack Mountain Dam been in place, no
flooding would have occurred along Bear Creek during the January,
February or March events.
Due primarily to the New Years, 1997 devastating California flood,
the U. S. Congress and the California legislature authorized a four
year study, identified as: ``Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins
Comprehensive Study.'' The study was authorized under the Flood Control
Act of 1962 (Sacramento River) and the 1964 Congressional Resolution
(San Joaquin River). According to a brochure distributed by The
Reclamation Board of the State of California and the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Sacramento District, the study:
``. . . will initially identify problems, opportunities,
planning objectives, constraints, and measures to address
flooding and ecosystem problems in the study area. It will
ultimately develop a strategy for flood damage reduction and
integrated ecosystem restoration along with identification of
projects for early implementation. Solutions will include
consideration of both structural and non-structural measures .
. .''
According to the study timeline, in April, 1999, an interim report
was presented to Congress. In 2001, a Draft Strategy for Flood
Management and Related Environmental Restoration will be completed. By
the Spring of 2002, the final Strategy and EIS/EIR, including an
implementation plan will be completed.
There is great concern on the part of the City of Merced, County of
Merced and the Merced Irrigation District officials that the Merced
County Streams Project will be ``swallowed up'' by the Comprehensive
Study, becoming one of many new flood control projects that have not
yet received Congressional authorization. The Merced County Streams
Project has been authorized by Congress. This important and urgent
Project must not lose its priority for Congressional funding or be
further delayed while the Comprehensive Study is undertaken.
The project has the support of state and local authorities and
funding of the non-federal portion has been addressed.
We request the Committee's support for the inclusion of $500,000 in
the fiscal year 2001 budget, as recommended by the California Water
Commission and the Corps of Engineers, for the orderly progress of the
Merced County Streams Project, which is so vital to the community,
state, and the nation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Tule River Association
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: The Tule River
Association, an association of all the water rights holders at and
below Success Reservoir, request your consideration of an appropriation
of $425,000 in the fiscal year 2001 Federal budget for the United
States Army Corps of Engineers for completion of the preconstruction
engineering and design (PED) for the Tule River Success Reservoir
Enlargement Project. Initial funding for PED was authorized by the
congress in fiscal year 2000.
The Success Reservoir Enlargement Project would increase the
reservoir storage capacity 28,000 a.f. by raising the spillway 10 feet
and by widening the existing spillway 165 feet. The additional flood
control storage space improves the protection for the City of
Porterville and downstream highly developed agricultural lands from a
return period flood event occurring once in 47 years to once in 100
years.
The Success Reservoir Enlargement Project was conditionally
authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The
authorization was subject to the conditions recommended in a favorable
final report by the Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers which occurred
December 23, 1999, copy attached for reference.
The design of the Success Reservoir Enlargement Project will
commence upon the execution of a cost sharing agreement between the U.
S. Army Corps of Engineers, the State of California and the Tule River
Association. Construction of the Success Reservoir Enlargement Project
is scheduled to commence in fiscal year 2002 with completion in fiscal
year 2003 subject to appropriations by the Congress.
The Tule River Association urges the continued support of your
committee with an appropriation of $425,000 in fiscal year 2001 for
completion of PED by the Corps for the Success Reservoir Enlargement
Project.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Butte County, California
NUISANCE FLOODING AT THE 3B'S FLOOD RELIEF STRUCTURE
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has determined the above
referenced nuisance (low flow) flooding problem may qualify for a
Reconnaissance Investigation Report under Section 205. This nuisance
flooding severely impacts agriculture, infrastructure, interstate
commerce and economics within the Butte Basin, consisting of three
Counties in California. The economic and interstate commerce impacts
adversely affect areas throughout the United States.
The primary goal of the project is to provide a permanent overflow
facility that will allow flood flows from the Sacramento River to be
diverted to area where the least amount of damages will occur while
providing protection to those same areas to prevent flows which are
below flood stage from entering the Butte Basin.
At this time we are asking The Honorable Members of the United
States Senate to support Federal Funding for the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers to proceed with a Reconnaissance Investigation for this
critical flood control project in fiscal year 2000/2001.
CHEROKEE CANAL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has completed a Reconnaissance
Investigation for aquatic ecosystem restoration on a flood control
project previously constructed under their direction.
The primary goal of the restoration is to create an aquatic
ecosystem restoration project that can be operated and maintained,
within the existing flood control project, in compliance with all
environmental regulations. Besides aquatic ecosystem restoration,
reduced sediment removal in the existing flood control project may be
associated with the Section 1135 project. Reductions of sediment load
in Cherokee Canal could substantially improve flood control operations
and reduce maintenance costs.
At this time we are asking the Honorable Members of the United
States Senate to support Federal Funding for the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers to proceed with an Ecosystem Restoration Report, under
Section 1135 for this critical project in fiscal year 2000/2001.
ROCK CREEK-KEEFER SLOUGH FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
Butte County in cooperation with the California Reclamation Board
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is currently in the
Feasibility Study Phase of the project review with several important
milestones to occur in the near future. In March the Corps is expected
to provide 5 project construction alternatives for review and
discussion by the Working Group. When the components of the
alternatives have been agreed upon they will be subject to an
Environmental Review through the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes.
In May we expect development of the NED Plan (National Economic
Development Plan) to start. M-CACES (Micro-Computer Aided Cost Estimate
System) of this plan is planned for October with the establishment of
projected project construction cost by November 1, 2000.
Our goal is to have the project properly reviewed, designed and
constructed in the shortest possible time. This does not mean we want
to cut any corners or bend any rules. It means we do not want to miss
any deadlines or waste any time waiting for something to start which
should have already been completed, including project budgeting.
At this time we are asking The Honorable Members of the United
States Senate to support Federal Funding for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to proceed with the Preliminary Engineering Design (PED), in
fiscal year 2000/2001 for construction of this critical Flood Control
Project in their fiscal year 2000 recommended flood control projects.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Stockton
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: The City of Stockton
supports the following Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation
water, flood control and fishery projects:
Water Commission Recommendation
[Fiscal year 2001]
Project Recommendation
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS:
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Comprehensive
Study............................................. $1,500,000
Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Investigation.......... 300,000
San Joaquin River Basin, Corral Hollow Creek........ 65,000
San Joaquin River Basin-Stockton Metropolitan Area
(Section 211)..................................... 180,000
San Joaquin River Basin-Farmington Groundwater
Recharge & Wetland Restoration Project............ 150,000
Port of Stockton and San Joaquin River Channel...... ( \1\ )
San Joaquin River Basin-Consumnes and Mokelumne
Rivers............................................ 150,000
San Joaquin River Basin-Farmington Groundwater
Recharge & Wetland Restoration Project
(preconstruction and engineering studies)......... 1,050,000
Water Resources Dev. Act, 1986, Improvement of
Environment Program, Mormon Channel............... 300,000
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
South Delta Barriers................................ 92,000
Water Acquisition-VAMP.............................. 1,500,000
The following project is recommended with conditional
support:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: Bay-Delta Ecosystem
Restoration (CALFED).............................. 60,000,000
\1\ New Corps project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Sacramento & San Joaquin Rivers Comprehensive Study--$1,500,000
The San Joaquin River Comprehensive Study is an ongoing $26.5
million study of the water resources needs of the San Joaquin and
Sacramento Rivers. Flood control and environmental needs will receive
equal consideration. We expect setback levees and reoperation of
existing reservoirs will receive a careful review in this Study. A
status report to Congress was released this last year, outlining $16 to
$20 million in studies to be performed. The President approved $3.58
million for fiscal year 2000 and $1.5 million for fiscal year 2001. At
this time, the exact allocation between each of the river basins is
unclear, although 50-50 seems likely. The State is the cost-sharing
partner in these studies.
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Investigation--$300,000
This is a special study and a regional planning report which
addresses multiple resource needs, including flood control, recreation,
environmental restoration, navigation, water supply, etc. The
California Department of Water Resources is the cost-sharing partner
with the CALFED process. To date, field tests of levee-strengthening
methods have been pursued and the study provides input to the CALFED
process. The President's budget for this investigation for fiscal year
2001 is $300,000.
San Joaquin River Basin, Corral Hollow Creek--$65,000
This is a new project investigating flood control improvements to
protect adjacent lands in the southern portion of the County and the
nearby Deuel Vocational Institute correctional facility. The
President's budget for this investigation for fiscal year 2001 is
$65,000.
San Joaquin River Basin-Stockton Metropolitan Area, Section 211--
$180,000
Before federal dollars can be appropriated to reimburse the local
agency (up to 75 percent reimbursement), a Section 211 Report must be
completed and approved by the Secretary of the Army. The 211 Report was
completed at the Sacramento office of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) in late 1999 justifying a reimbursement of as much as
$38 million. This same report was forwarded to the Corps' office in
Washington, D.C. for final review and approval. The President's 2001
budget of $180,000 is adequate to compete the required 211 report and
begin the feasibility report addressing rural flood control
Improvements. However, the Corps and the Federal Committee on
Appropriations should allocate $10 million for fiscal year 2001 as a
start for new construction in anticipation that the reimbursement will
be approved during the current fiscal year 2000. The California Water
Commission will be requested to recommend an increase in funding in the
amount of $10 million as a start for new construction.
San Joaquin River Basin-Farmington Groundwater Recharge & Wetland
Restoration Project--$150,000
The study costs for this investigation will determine if a federal
interest may exist for utilizing Farmington Dam for multiple purposes
inclusive of flood control, groundwater recharge, and environmental
enhancement. The President has included $100,000 in his fiscal year
2001 budget for completing this feasibility study; all federal funds
must be matched by local funds. The sponsor for this study is Stockton
East Water District , the City of Stockton and other east side water
purveyors of San Joaquin County. An additional $150,000 has been
budgeted for fiscal year 2001 to start the preconstruction and
engineering work.
San Joaquin Rivers--Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers--$150,000
A reconnaissance study of ecological restoration and non-structural
flood control improvements is being performed on the Mokelumne and
Cosumnes Rivers. The current fiscal year 2000 funding is $50,000, and
the President's fiscal year 2001 budget is $150,000. Separate studies
and reports are continuing for the Cosumnes River (between the Delta
and Michigan Bar) and the Mokelumne River (between the Delta and
Camanche Reservoir). The East Bay Municipal Utility District and
Woodbridge Irrigation District are the local sponsors working with the
United States Army Corps of Engineers on the Mokelumne River
investigations.
Port of Stockton and San Joaquin River Channel--New Corps Project
This is a new feasibility study which is being performed for
dredging and deepening the San Joaquin River channel, through the Delta
to the Port of Stockton, to depths greater than 35 feet. Greater depths
will enhance navigation through the Delta to and from the Port. No
federal budget has been proposed; and as of February 9, 2000, this
project was not included on the California Water Commission's project
listing.
San Joaquin River Basin-Farmington Groundwater Recharge & Wetland
Restoration Project (Preconstruction and Engineering Studies)--
$1,050,000
These are the preconstruction and engineering studies to be
performed during fiscal year 2001. These studies and preliminary plans
for fiscal year 2001 have been budgeted for $150,000. It is anticipated
that additional funds will be needed in future years if a project
proves to be feasible. At this point, it is too early to define a
project or anticipate needed funding.
Water Resources Development Act, 1986, Improvement of Environment
Program, Mormon Channel--$300,000
This is a new project that is being investigated to turn water back
into the lower reaches of Mormon Slough below the Stockton Diverting
Canal. This project was not funded in fiscal year 2000, nor is any
funding allocated for fiscal year 2001. The City of Stockton and the
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency are the local sponsors working
with the United States Army Corps of Engineers in overseeing the
investigation and feasibility study on this project.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
South Delta Barriers--$92,000
The project provides temporary barriers in the south Delta to
improve water quality in the lower San Joaquin River. The fiscal year
2000 budget included funding for $20,000 and the President's fiscal
year 2001 budget includes funding for $92,000.
Water Acquisition-VAMP--$1,500,000
This project provides funds for the purchase of water to meet water
quality and flow goals in the Delta (April-May and October). VAMP flows
could reduce San Joaquin river flows in summer months. In fiscal year
1999, VAMP was funded at $2 million; in fiscal year 2000 it was not
funded, but $1.5 million is recommended for fiscal year 2001.
The City of Stockton conditionally supports the following project:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration--CALFED--$60,000,000
Current fiscal year 2000 funding is for $95 million and the
President's fiscal year 2001 budget has included $60 million. Funds for
this program have been used primarily for acquisition of lands and
development of the habitat and improvements for fishery enhancement or
protection. Although the City of Stockton appreciates CALFED's
assistance with Woodbridge Irrigation District's efforts to enhance the
Mokelumne River and with other potential conjunctive use projects such
as the Farmington Recharge project, the City is concerned that the
overall CALFED program is overlooking the need for surface water and
groundwater supply requirements within the County of San Joaquin and
the relationship these projects bear to Bay-Delta ecosystem
restoration. The CALFED program does not recognize area of origin
protections; and CALFED has not developed water quality improvement
objectives for San Joaquin County water supplies. CALFED has not
provided documentation or explanation of the benefits that will be
derived from the expenditure of funds, particularly to displace
agricultural lands. The City of Stockton cannot be fully supportive of
the CALFED program until these discrepancies are corrected.
STOCKTON CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS, the California Water Commission has developed preliminary
recommendations to Congress for funding of water, flood control, and
fishery projects for fiscal year 2001; and
WHEREAS, the Commission is scheduled to meet in Sacramento on March
3, 2000, to adopt final funding recommendations; and
WHEREAS, each year the Congressional committees consider funding
for flood control and reclamation appropriation; and
WHEREAS, the projects that staff suggest that Council support this
year may affect flood control or represent potential surface water
supplies for the Stockton area, or are projects which affect our
environment; now, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON, AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the City of Stockton supports the recommendations of the
County Board of Supervisors to Congress for federal funding of water,
flood control, and fishery projects for fiscal year 2001.
2. That corresponding statements be forwarded to the City's federal
legislators and to the Congressional Subcommittees on Energy and Water
Development.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED FEB. 29, 2000.
Gary A. Podesto,
Mayor of the City of Stockton.
______
Prepared Statement of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
We strongly support the California Water Commission's
recommendation to the Committee for $9.821 million to fund the
completion of the Los Angeles County Drainage Area (LACDA) project.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: We appreciate your
Committee's continued support of critical flood control and water
conservation projects in Los Angeles County, California.
BACKGROUND
Floods are a part of the history of the Los Angeles area.
Widespread floods have periodically devastated vast areas of the region
and were responsible for taking lives, damaging property and
interrupting commerce and trade.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and County of Los Angeles, acting
on behalf of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, have built
one of the most extensive flood control systems in the world.
Construction of the major elements of the system began in the 1920s and
consisted of 20 major dams, 470 miles of open channels, and many other
appurtenant facilities. Fifteen of these major dams are owned and/or
operated by the County while the remaining five dams (Hansen, Lopez,
Santa Fe, Sepulveda and Whittier-Narrows), are owned and operated by
the Corps. Since the major segments were completed, it is estimated
that the system has prevented $3.6 billion in potential flood damage.
Development which occurred after World War II exceeded the
projections the Corps used in the 1930s and has increased runoff to the
point where, even in a moderate storm, the runoff could exceed the
design capacity of portions of the system. For example, the lower Los
Angeles River in the City of Long Beach came close to overtopping in
1980 from a 25-year flood. A storm of greater magnitude would have a
tremendous impact, both personal and economic, on Los Angeles County,
the nation's second largest metropolitan area.
At the request of the County of Los Angeles, the Corps analyzed the
adequacy of the existing major flood control facilities serving the Los
Angeles basin in the LACDA Review study. In 1990, a project to upsize a
portion of the LACDA system received Congressional approval subject to
a favorable report by the Chief of Engineers (received in 1995), and
signature of the Record of Decision by the Secretary of the Army, which
was obtained in July 1995. The final report by the Corps identified
100-year flood damages totaling $2.25 billion covering an 82-square-
mile area which houses over 500,000 people. These damages would occur
in the heavily-urbanized Los Angeles basin, where adequate protection
from a 100-year flood was previously provided.
The LACDA project is a critical modification to existing
facilities. Obtaining funds to do the modification is critical for two
reasons:
1. The threat of flooding to over one-half million people.
2. The large economic impact FEMA's final Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRMs) have on the overflow area that became effective July 6, 1998.
Until the project is completed, any delay in construction will
cause great financial hardship on thousands of people, who thought the
existing river provided adequate protection and now need to buy flood
insurance (an impact of $33 million annually).
This project, currently estimated to cost approximately $200
million, is scheduled to be completed by December 2001, pending
adequate funding. The following table shows the history of federal
funding for the project:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Expenditure of federal
Federal fiscal year funding funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994-1995........................... 0.5 Initiation of first
construction contract
awarded in September
1995.
1995-1996........................... 11.3 Continuation of first
contract and
initiation of two
contracts awarded in
August and September
of 1996.
1996-1997........................... 14.4 Completion of first
three contracts.
1997-1998........................... 20.7 Initiation of four
contracts awarded in
February, May and
September 1998.
1998-1999........................... 50.0 Completion of contract
awarded in May 1998;
Continuation of
contracts awarded in
February and
September 1998; and
Initiation of three
contracts awarded in
December 1998 and
August 1999.
1999-2000........................... 50.0 Completion of
contracts awarded in
February, September
and December 1998,
and August 1999; and
Continuation of other
contracts awarded in
September 1998 and
August 1999.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final seven construction contracts will be ready for
advertising later this fiscal year allowing the entire project to be
completed by the end of 2001.
In light of the serious flood threat and the devastating financial
impacts of the mandatory flood insurance premiums, it is critical to
maintain the level of construction activity at $9.821 million this
upcoming fiscal year. As a result, we strongly support the California
Water Commission's recommendation for $9.821 million of Federal funds
to complete the LACDA Project.
______
Prepared Statement of the San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: The San Joaquin Area
Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) completed construction of the Stockton
Metropolitan Area, Phase I--Urban Portion of the Flood Protection
Restoration Project (FPRP) in November 1998. The FPRP restored the 100-
year level flood protection the community enjoyed prior to a FEMA
restudy and publication of draft Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). The
draft FIRMs indicated FEMA's intent to remap a vast new floodplain in
both the City of Stockton and adjoining portions of San Joaquin County.
New FIRMs reflecting the new 100-year flood plains after construction
of Phase I--Urban Portion are expected from FEMA this year.
The FPRP was split into two phases. Phase I--Urban Portion was
planned, designed and constructed by SJAFCA. Phase II--Rural Portion
has been preliminarily studied by SJAFCA in 1995 and studied as part of
a Federal Corps of Engineers (COE) Reconnaissance study of the Stockton
Metropolitan Area covering both the Urban and Rural Portions. The COE
Reconnaissance Study was completed in 1997 and found that there was a
Federal interest in both the Urban and Rural Portions. The COE is about
to complete a Section 211 Study of the completed Phase I--Urban Portion
to establish the eligible Federal reimbursement as specified in WRDA
1996, Section 211. The SJAFCA project was one of eight specific
demonstration projects named throughout the nation and will be the
first such project to be completed from the beginning to end by a local
entity. The COE is also currently beginning a Feasibility Study for the
Phase II--Rural Portion of the SJAFCA project. However, there is no
current budget for the Corps of Engineers to begin any Section 211
reimbursements to SJAFCA for the Phase I completed project as specified
in Section 211 of WRDA 1996 and 1999.
SJAFCA has already received a $12,625,000 reimbursement from the
State of California. This represents the estimated State's share of the
local share of a normal Federal project for Phase I--Urban Portion of
the FPRP. We are now requesting that money be added to the Federal
budget in fiscal year 2001 to allow at least the start of the Federal
reimbursement for the customary Federal share of the Phase I--Urban
Portion of the project.
Under the provisions of Section 211 of WRDA 1996 and 1999, SJAFCA
and the COE are finalizing a Section 211 Report, which will document
that the Phase I--Urban Project meets Federal standards and the amount
of the project costs that will be eligible for reimbursement by the
COE. We expect this report to be completed by the Sacramento District
in March 2000 and forwarded to the Secretary of the Army for his
approval. However, the ability to receive any Federal refund requires
an appropriation in the Federal budget.
We are endeavoring to include the necessary funds in the fiscal
year 2001 COE budget in the anticipation of the Secretary of the Army's
approval in early 2000 so we can realize the benefit of Federal
reimbursement as quickly as possible. Accordingly, we understand it is
necessary to obtain a line item for a ``New Project--Construction
Start'' authority in the fiscal year 2001 construction portion of the
budget for the COE. The total reimbursement, which is recommended for
approval is $38 million. However, we understand that the Congress
enacted legislation, which would limit the reimbursement to $10 million
per year for each 211 project in the COE budgeting process. We also
understand that there is an additional constraint to the total
nationwide maximum amount of COE 211 reimbursements. Accordingly, we
now anticipate that we would at best receive $10 million in fiscal year
2001, 02 and 03 and the balance in fiscal year 2004.
At this time, SJAFCA is requesting that funding of $10 million be
provided under the COE Construction General account in the fiscal year
2001 budget for the Stockton Metropolitan Area, Section 211
reimbursement. The importance of obtaining the fiscal year 2001
``construction start'' is crucial to reduce the bond interest charges
that local property owners incur to repay bond debt and interest. The
bond interest is approximately $2.5 million per year and the total debt
repayment amount is about $4 million per year. It should be noted that
Section 211 of WRDA 1996 and 1999 does not allow Federal reimbursement
of interest costs.
SJAFCA has been able to design and construct a $70 million project
in just 3\1/2\ years. SJAFCA also believes those local jurisdictions
that do accomplish local flood control projects which are shown to have
a Federal interest should be rewarded promptly and receive a high
priority in the Federal budgeting process.
______
Prepared Statement of the County of San Joaquin and the San Joaquin
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
San Joaquin County, located in the heart of California's central
valley, has both a vibrant agricultural economic base and a burgeoning
metropolitan growth. Both of these vital elements are vulnerable to the
forces of nature. The 1997 flood inundated thousands of acres and
threatened our major urban areas. The actual economic loss to the
County in 1997 was staggering ($100+ million) and the potential loss
due to flooding construction continues to be enormous. The San Joaquin
Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) has been formed and has constructed
a $70 million flood control project with local funds to restore the
Stockton Metropolitan Area to a 100-year level of flood protection. We
have aggressively moved ahead with this work to protect our people in
anticipation that a credit for our work would be forthcoming against a
Corps developed project. We are anxiously waiting for the Corps to
obtain funds to pay for the federal interest in this project.
At the other extreme of the weather spectrum, San Joaquin is very
vulnerable to drought-induced water shortages. Due to the export of our
water by East Bay Municipal Utility District to the Oakland area and by
the Bureau of Reclamation to the CVP, San Joaquin County is deficient
of an adequate water supply in quantity and quality. Our ground water
levels dramatically drop during a less than average water year. During
these drops, the threat of salt water intrusion in our groundwater
basin from the Delta is a major concern. We need to have the Corps
complete the feasability study of the Farmington Groundwater Recharge
and Wetland Restoration Project in order to increase the yield of the
severely limited Stanislaus River supply, and we need to have Delta
water quality protected by implementation of the United States Corps of
Engineers and the United States Bureau of Reclamation delta projects.
As you can see, we are willing to invest in our future and we will
continue to do so. The timely funding of these important studies is
crucial to the economic well being of San Joaquin County. These
projects represent studies that need to be conducted in order to
resolve problems on flood control, water supply, water quality,
groundwater and the environment in San Joaquin County. We need Federal
help in several of these projects and we request Federal appropriations
during fiscal year 2001 for the following Corps of Engineers and Bureau
of Reclamation projects:
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Comprehensive Study--$1,500,000
Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta Investigations--$300,000
San Joaquin River Basin Corral Hollow Creek--$965,000
San Joaquin River Basin Stockton Metropolitan Area (Section 211)--
$10,180,000
--Reimbursement Study--($180,000)
--First Year of $38 Million Reimbursement--($10,000,000)
San Joaquin River Basin Farmington Groundwater Recharge and Wetland
Restoration Project--$400,000
--Feasibility Study--($100,000)
--Pre-Construction Engineering and Design--($150,000)
--Start of New Construction--Phase 1--($150,000)
San Joaquin River Basin Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers--$150,000
bureau of reclamation
South Delta Barriers--$92,000
Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration--CALFED--$60,000,000
detailed comments
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Comprehensive Study--$1,500,000
The San Joaquin River Comprehensive Study is an ongoing $26.5
million study of the water resources needs of the San Joaquin and
Sacramento Rivers. Flood control and environmental needs will receive
equal consideration. We expect setback levees and reoperation of
existing reservoirs will receive careful review in this Study. The
Phase 1 Comprehensive Study Interim Report to Congress was released
this last spring, outlining $16 to $20 million in studies to be
performed. The interim report developed the formulation of new master
plans for flood control systems which incorporate ecosystem
restoration. The report also provided a complete post flood assessment
for the floods of 1983, 1986, 1995, and 1997. Hydrologic models and
hydraulic UNET models will be developed during the current Phase 2
studies. An EIR /EIS will be published in 2002. The President approved
$3.58 million for fiscal year 2000 and $1.5 million is proposed for
fiscal year 2001. At this time, the exact allocation between each of
the river basins is unclear, although 50-50 seems likely. The State is
the cost-sharing partner in these Studies.
Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta Investigations--$300,000
This is a special study and a regional planning report which
addresses multiple resource needs, including flood control, recreation,
environmental restoration, navigation, water supply, etc. The
California Department of Water Resources is the cost-sharing partner
with the CALFED process. To date, field tests of levee-strengthening
methods have been pursued and the study provides input to the CALFED
process. The President's for this investigation is $300,000
San Joaquin River Basin Corral Hollow Creek--$65,000
This is a new project investigating flood control improvements to
protect adjacent lands in the southern portion of the County and the
nearby Deuel Vocational correctional facility. The President's Budget
for this investigation for fiscal year 2001 is $65,000.
San Joaquin River Basin Stockton Metropolitan Area (Section 211)--
$10,180,000
Before Federal dollars can be appropriated to reimburse the local
agency (up to 75 percent reimbursement), a Section 211 Report must be
completed and approved by the Secretary of the Army. The 211 Report was
completed at the Sacramento office of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) in late 1999 justifying a reimbursement of as much as
$38 million. This same report was forwarded to the Corps' office in
Washington, D.C. for final review and approval. The President's 2001
budget of $180,000 is adequate to complete the required 211 Report and
begin the feasibility report addressing rural flood control
improvements. However, the Corps and the Federal Committee of
Appropriations should allocate $10 million of the $38 million for
fiscal year 2001, as a start of new construction in anticipation that
reimbursement will be approved during fiscal year 2001. Thus, a total
funding of $10,180,000 is requested for fiscal year 2001.
San Joaquin River Basin Farmington Recharge and Wetland Restoration
Project--$400,000
The Study costs for continued investigations will determine if a
Federal interest may exist for utilizing Farmington Dam for multiple
purposes inclusive of flood control, groundwater recharge, and
environmental enhancement. The President has included $100,000 in his
fiscal year 2001 budget for completing this feasibility study. All
Federal funds will be matched by the local sponsor, Stockton East Water
District and other eastside water purveyors of San Joaquin County. Pre-
construction Engineering and Design Plans for fiscal year 2001 have
been budgeted for $150,000. It is anticipated that an additional
$150,000 is also needed above the budgeted amount to continue with the
studies and designs before commencing with an early pilot (Phase 1)
portion of the anticipated project. The total project funds need to
further all three phases of the project during fiscal year 2001 is
$400,000.
San Joaquin River Basin Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers--$150,000
A reconnaissance study of ecological restoration and non-structural
flood control improvements is being performed on the Mokelumne and
Cosumnes Rivers. The current fiscal year 2000 funding is $50,000 and
the President's fiscal year 2001 budget is $150,000. Separate studies
and reports are continuing for the Cosumnes River (between the Delta
and Michigan Bar) and the Mokelumne River (between the Delta and
Camanche Reservoir). The East Bay Municipal Utilities District and
Woodbridge Irrigation District are the local sponsors working with the
United States Corps of Engineers on the Mokelumne River investigations.
The Nature Conservancy is the local sponsoring agency with interests on
the Cosumnes River.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
South Delta Barriers--$92,000
The project provides temporary barriers in the south Delta to
improve water quality. The fiscal year 2000 budget included funding for
$20,000, and the President's fiscal year 2001 Budget includes funding
for $92,000.
The following project is recommended with conditional support:
Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration--CALFED--$60,000,000
Current fiscal year funding is for $95 million and the President's
fiscal year 2001 Budget has included $60 million. Funds for this
program have been used primarily for acquisition of lands, development
of habitat, and fishery enhancement/protection improvements. Although
the County supports CALFED's assistance with Woodbridge Irrigation
District's efforts of enhancing the Mokelumne River and other potential
conjunctive use projects such as the Farmington project, the County is
concerned that the overall CALFED program is overlooking the need for
surface water and groundwater supply requirements within the County of
San Joaquin. The CALFED program does not recognize county area of
origin protections; and there are no water quality improvement
objectives to improve the water quality of San Joaquin County water
supplies. There is no documentation of the benefits that will be
derived from the expenditure of funds, particularly to displace
agricultural lands.
______
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
Prepared Statement of Ohio State University
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee: As Chair of Board on
Agriculture Budget Committee of the National Association of State
Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC), I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss the importance of inter-agency partnerships
research in energy, environmental and natural resource programs.
The Board on Agriculture represents a national network of Land-
Grant University-based nonprofit State Agricultural Experiment Stations
(SAES) and State Cooperative Extension Services (CES). The Land Grant
University system (LGU) and the Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service (CSREES) have had a thriving partnership of many
years, providing the technology which has made American agriculture the
most productive and efficient in the world. Our universities are
committed to advancing scientifically based decision making at the
local level by capitalizing on the Land-Grant University comparative
assets in research, education, and extension. From the Land Grant
University program base, the Fund for Future Agriculture and Food
Systems has bio-based technologies as a key goal. This grant program
provides a mechanism to generate competitively awarded research,
extension and education (technology transfer). However, this is not
enough. Partnerships with the Department of Energy and others need to
be created for bio-energy research to thrive.
President Clinton's recently announced bipartisan bio-energy and
bio-products tax incentives proposal is a crucial step for the
advancement of these technologies. As you know, the President's fiscal
year 2001 budget includes $976 million in tax incentives over 5 years
and $2.1 billion over ten years to accelerate the development and use
of bio-based technologies, which convert crops, trees, and other ``bio-
mass'' into a vast array of fuels and products. These tax credits
support the August 1999 Executive Order 13134 and Memorandum on
Promoting Bio-based Products and Bio-energy, aimed at tripling U.S. use
of bio-based products and bio-energy by 2010. This initiative will
increase the viability of alternative energy sources, help meet
environmental challenges like global warming, support farm incomes, and
diversify and strengthen the rural economy.
I wholeheartedly endorse these targeted tax credits for the
advancement of biomass technology. As important as they are to this
technology's advancement, tax credits alone won't get us there. I
believe technology transfer models like those in place at our Land
Grant Universities are crucial to our ultimate success. Specifically,
university and federal joint venture partnerships could be formed to
integrate intellectual assets and science infrastructures, and then
move-out the products of these joint ventures quickly into practical
applications to be used in the real world.
It is important to note that one of the keys to advancing this
``big'' technology may be found in small-scale capacity. In the area of
small farms, extensive research expertise already exists among the Land
Grant system, especially in our Historically Black Universities and
Colleges (1890 institutions), about how agriculture is practiced on
small-scale farms. I believe small farmers collectively could have a
big contribution to make in the future development of biomass.
As a key anchor in the real world of agriculture, the State
Cooperative Extension Services would be the cornerstone of our proposed
technology transfer and education delivery model to the ultimate end
user--the American Farmer.
SAES and CES's major focus in the energy and related environmental
areas include:
--Bio-mass/bio-fuels energy system technology development;
--Global climate change or carbon sequestration/forming;
--Environmental modeling and forecasting;
--Renewable energy research and production;
--Earth science applications and technologies; and;
--Environmental education and outreach.
Through a variety of means, a partnership between the Department of
Energy and the Land Grant University system as well as NASA, NOAA, NSF
and other agencies would increase:
--The rate of technology transfer and development between the
partners;
--the amount of LGU participation in agency peer review processes;
--the quantity/quality of proposals submitted by the Land-Grant
Universities for government funded competitive grants in
related energy/agricultural areas;
--the exchange of scientists between LGU institutions and the
government for collaborative projects.
For example, the Department of Energy and USDA (through the Land
Grant System) could jointly develop bio-mass technology, which could
lead to increased use of ethanol as an alternative to gasoline. Recent
prospective breakthroughs in genetic engineering and processing are
radically changing the technical possibilities in favor of ethanol as a
viable transportation fuel. New biocatalysts of genetically engineered
yeast and bacteria are making it possible to use virtually any plant or
plant product through cellulosic bio-mass to produce ethanol. This new
technology may decisively reduce cost to the point where petroleum
products would face competition. Genetically engineered micro-organisms
and new processing techniques can similarly make it possible to utilize
most plant matter for fuel.
To expand the explanation provided earlier about this technology's
environmental value, increased use of bio-mass fuels stands out as an
excellent way to introduce an environmentally friendly energy
technology that has a chance of having a decisive impact on the risk of
climate change. Renewable fuels produced from plants are an outstanding
way to substantially reduce greenhouse gases. Although ethanol
consumption as a fuel releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it
is the same carbon dioxide that was fixed by photosynthesis when the
plants were living. Of course, the CO2 released from burning
fossil fuels comes from sources deep underground which would never have
been released unless removed by mankind.
In addition, the issue of global climate provides an excellent
partnering opportunity. By its very nature, it is an extremely complex
issue involving a wide range of disciplines and one which crosses a
considerable number of agencies. It is this type of issue which lends
itself to the establishment of partnerships. The very nature of the
problem is something that the agricultural community has in effect been
attempting to accomplish from the time mankind began to cultivate
crops, i.e., increase the growth of food and fiber, a process that
depends upon the incorporation of CO2. In this regard,
agriculture and the Land Grant University system has spent vast amounts
of research and has a unique structure that could certainly contribute
to a partnership concerned with CO2 mitigation.
Within the last two decades, agriculture has seen a change in
farming known as ``no-till'' farming. It is the practice of returning
organic (carbon containing materials) back to the land. In parts of the
U.S.A. where soil organic matter falls below I percent, the re-
incorporation results in a more productive soil and there is an
effective means of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Thus
there are two winners, the grower who produces more food or fiber on
the land with improved productivity and the environmentalist who
witnesses a lower CO2 level in the atmosphere. Such
situations not only provide a win for each of the participants in the
partnership, but because of a joint success, there is increased support
from the supporters of the research.
DOE and other agencies have existing and new initiatives to address
many of the nation's energy and environmental problems. The Land Grant
University system plans to encourage interagency communication and to
broaden Land-Grant Universities federal participation in USDA at the
local level. A well-planned initiative could unify representatives from
the State Agricultural Experimentation Stations and the State
Cooperative Extension Services, Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS), the Forest Service, and the Agricultural Research Service and
extend this unified expertise to the energy and environmental missions
of DOE. SAES and CES have identified existing resources in agencies for
various programs which are targeted at addressing the scientific
infrastructure between agriculture, the environment and the nation's
need for energy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endorsed programs areas Department/Agency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bio-mass/biofuels energy systems: DOE
Alternative Fuels Development.
Carbon Sequestration.............. DOE/EPA/USDA
Global Climate................ DOE/NOAA
Socio-economic Dimensions............. DOE/NOAA
National Renewable Energy DOE
Laboratory.
Precision Agriculture and Forestry DOE/NASA/OES
Remote Sensing Applications........... DOE/USDA/NASA
Geospatial Extension.................. DOE/NASA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAES and CES would be pleased to provide an expanded ``on-the-
ground'' and ``in-the-field'' role for the LGU System on energy and
environmental issues and research. I hope I have highlighted the
science benefits and value of partnerships between the Land Grant
system and DOE and other agencies to solve some of the nation's
pressing energy and environmental problems. The Land-Grant University
System stands ready to help.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Museum of Natural History
ABOUT THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY
Founded in 1869, the American Museum of Natural History [AMNH] is
one of the nation's preeminent institutions for scientific research and
public education. It is home to one of the world's largest natural
history collections and premier research programs. Throughout its
history, the Museum has pursued its joint missions of science and
education, of examining critical scientific issues and educating the
public about them. It is renowned for its exhibitions and collections,
which serve as a field guide to the entire planet and present a
panorama of the world's cultures. Its explorers and scientists have
pioneered discoveries and offered us new ways of looking at nature and
human civilization. The Museum's power to interpret wide-ranging
scientific discoveries and convey them imaginatively has inspired
generations of visitors to its grand exhibition halls and educated its
three million annual visitors--500,000 of them schoolchildren--about
the natural world and the vitality of human culture.
The American Museum in many ways is similar to a research
university, with its scientific faculty from diverse fields such as
earth and planetary sciences, astrophysics, biology and genomics
science, anthropology, and all branches of zoology. Today more than 200
active Museum scientists with internationally recognized expertise, led
by 47 curators, conduct laboratory and collections-based research
programs as well as field work and training. Scientists in five
divisions (Anthropology; Earth, Planetary, and Space Sciences;
Invertebrate Zoology; Paleontology; and Vertebrate Zoology) are
sequencing DNA and creating new computational tools to retrace the
evolutionary tree, documenting changes in the environment, making new
discoveries in the fossil record, and describing human culture in all
its variety. The Museum also conducts graduate training programs in
conjunction with a host of distinguished universities, supports
doctoral and postdoctoral scientists with highly competitive research
fellowships, and offers talented undergraduates an opportunity to work
with Museum scientists.
The AMNH collections of some 32 million natural specimens and
cultural artifacts are a major scientific resource providing the
foundation for the Museum's interrelated research, education, and
exhibition missions. They often include endangered and extinct species
as well as many of the only known ``type specimens,'' or examples of
species by which all other finds are compared. Within the collections
are many spectacular individual collections, including the world's most
comprehensive collections of dinosaurs; fossil mammals; Northwest Coast
and Siberian cultural artifacts; North American butterflies; spiders;
Australian and Chinese amphibians; reptiles; fishes outside of their
home countries; and one of the most important bird collections.
Collections such as these are historical libraries of expertly
identified examples of species and artifacts, associated with data
about when and where they were collected, providing an irreplaceable
record of life on earth. Such collections provide vital data for Museum
scientists as well as more than 250 national and international visiting
scientists each year.
The Education Department builds on the Museum's unique research,
collections, and exhibition resources to offer rich programming
dedicated to increasing scientific literacy, to encouraging students to
pursue science and museum careers, and to providing a forum for
exploring the world's cultures. Each year hundreds of thousands of
students, teachers, and schools participate in workshops, courses for
college credit, and Museum visits; more than 500,000 students and
teachers visit on school trips, prepared and supported by curriculum
resources and workshops. The Museum is also reaching beyond its walls:
through its National Center for Science Literacy, Education, and
Technology, launched in 1997 in partnership with NASA, it is exploiting
new technologies to bring learning and discovery, materials, and
programs into homes, schools, museums, and community organizations
around the nation.
Exhibitions are among the Museum's most potent educational tools,
translating AMNH scientific knowledge and discovery into three
dimensions. The Museum is proud to continue its tradition of creating
some of the world's greatest scientific exhibitions. In February 2000,
in one of the most exciting chapters in the Museum's long and
distinguished history of advancing science and education, it opened the
spectacular new Rose Center for Earth and Space. The Rose Center
includes a newly rebuilt and updated Hayden Planetarium that allows
visitors to journey among the stars and planets in our own and in other
galaxies; and the Lewis B. and Dorothy Cullman Hall of the Universe,
where interactive technology and participatory displays elucidate
important astronomy and astrophysics principles. The centerpiece of the
Rose Center is an 87-foot-diameter sphere housed in a glass cube. Its
top half contains the planetarium's state-of-the-art Space Theatre; its
bottom half, the Big Bang, a dramatic multimedia recreation of the
first moments of the universe.
Adjoining the Rose Center is the Hall of Planet Earth, which opened
in 1999 and explores the processes that determine how the Earth works--
how it has changed though time; why ocean basins, continents, and
mountains exist; what causes climate change; and why the Earth is
habitable. Its exhibits explore the question of natural resources: what
are they; what resources are necessary to generate energy (oil, coal,
geothermal); where are they located; and how are they formed. The Hall
of Planet Earth in turn leads to the recently opened Hall of
Biodiversity. Together, the new planetarium and halls provide visitors
a seamless educational journey from the universe's beginnings to the
Earth's formation and processes to the extraordinary diversity of life
on our planet.
SUPPORT FOR DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY MISSION AND GOALS
The American Museum shares with DOE fundamental commitments to
cutting-edge research, technology in support science and education, and
science education and literacy. As the nation's third largest
government sponsor of basic research and a major source of support for
laboratory equipment and instrumentation, DOE is one of the world's
preeminent science organizations. Its primary strategic goals also
include promoting science literacy and educating the next generation of
scientists. The Museum seeks a partnership with DOE to leverage our
complementary resources and mutually strengthen our abilities to
advance our shared goals.
Genomics Science
DOE is a leader in genomics research, instrumentation, and advanced
sequencing technologies. The American Museum, in turn, is home to a
preeminent molecular research effort. Indeed, natural history and
genomic science are intricately related. The AMNH molecular systematics
program is at the forefront of the analysis of DNA sequences for
evolutionary research. In its molecular laboratories, now in operation
for nine years, more than 40 researchers in molecular systematics,
conservation genetics, and developmental biology conduct genetic
research on a variety of study organisms.
The Museum is also expanding its collection techniques to include
the preservation of biological tissues and molecular libraries in a
super-cold storage facility for current and future genetic study. This
collection is a unique and valuable resource for worldwide research in
such fields as conservation genetics, systematics, and medicine. Such a
tissue collection will preserve genetic material and gene products from
rare and endangered organisms that may go extinct before science fully
exploits their potential. With nearly 40,000 samples already collected,
it will be the largest super-cold tissue collection in the world and
will increase the possibilities for DNA research exponentially. We also
plan an on-line geographically based collection database to ensure
access to the public as well as to facilitate loans to scientists
outside the Museum.
Parallel Cluster Computing
Parallel computing is an essential enabling technology in
phylogenetic analysis. A new, 256-processor cluster recently
constructed in-house by Museum scientists is the fastest parallel
computing cluster in an evolutionary biology laboratory and one of the
fastest installed in a non-defense environment. It allows Museum
scientists to examine the effectiveness and computational behavior for
large real-world data sets, and will be central to all Museum projects
in evolutionary and genomics research.
INSTITUTE OF COMPARATIVE GENOMICS
The Museum proposes to establish, in partnership with DOE, an
Institute of Comparative Genomics so as to contribute its unique
resources and expertise to the nation's genomic research enterprise. A
full understanding of the impact of the knowledge we have gained from
genomics and molecular biology can come from placing genomic data in a
natural history perspective; comparative work in genomics will enrich
our knowledge not only of biodiversity, but also of humans, medicine,
and life itself.
With the advent of DNA sequencing, museum collections have become
critical baseline resources for the assessment of the genetic diversity
of natural populations, as well as for pursuit of research questions
pertinent to DOE's interests. Genomes, especially those of the simplest
organisms, provide a window into the fundamental mechanics of life. One
of the goals of DOE's Human Genome Project is to learn about the
relevance to humans of nonhuman organisms' DNA sequences. DOE also
supports an area in which the AMNH is expanding its expertise--
microbial genomics, the study of organisms that have survived and
thrived in extreme and inhospitable environments. This research can
yield information that can be applied in solving challenges in health
care, energy sources, and environmental cleanup. The AMNH comparative
genomics program could provide vital tools in these endeavors and
support DOE's biological and environmental research function (the BER
account).
Over the past year the Museum has established its parallel
computing facility, enhanced the molecular labs with state-of-the-art
DNA sequencers, and initiated the super cold storage facility. Thus
initially equipped, the Institute will be one of the world's premier
research facilities for mapping the genome across a comprehensive
spectrum of life forms, drawing on comparative methods and biological
collections.
The Institute will focus on molecular and microbial systematics;
expanding our understanding of the evolution of life on earth through
analysis of the genomes of selected microbes and other non-human
organisms; and constructing large genomic databases for conservation
biology applications. Research programs may include the study of the
utility of genomic information on organismal form and function;
microbial systematics; the construction of large genomic databases for
conservation biology applications; and the use of broad scale
comparative genomic studies to understand the function of important
biomolecules.
The Institute's scope of activities will include: an expansion of
the molecular laboratory program that now trains dozens of graduate
students every year; the utilization of the latest sequencing
technologies; employment of parallel computing applications that allow
scientists to examine the effectiveness and computational behavior of
large real world datasets; and operation of the frozen tissue
collection as a worldwide scientific resource, with at least 500,000
samples accessioned in the first phase alone, an active loan program,
and ready public on-line access.
In addition to research, the Institute for Comparative Genomics
will include education and outreach activities, an international
conference featuring leading scientists and policymakers, and a major
public exhibition on genomics. In conjunction with the exhibition, the
Museum may also publish an electronic bulletin on genomics to be
located in the Hall of Human Biology. The bulletin would be modeled
after the popular Earth, Bio, and AstroBulletins in the newest exhibit
halls that display changing science news, linked to interactive kiosks
and websites.
In establishing the Institute, the Museum plans to expand its
curatorial range in microbial work; add lab space to accommodate
additional curators and students; grow the super-cold tissue
collection; and draw on our exhibition and educational expertise to
offer enhanced public education and outreach.
We seek $10 million to partner with DOE in establishing the
Institute for Comparative Genomics at the Museum.--In partnership, the
Museum and DOE will be positioned to leverage their unparalleled
resources to advance joint genomics research, education, and technology
goals. As well, development of the super-cold tissue collection will
increase exponentially the possibilities for DNA research and provide
an invaluable resource to scientists worldwide. Our planned collection
database available on the Internet will ensure public access to
genomics information, furthering DOE's own goals for fostering public
understanding of human genomics and the fundamental building blocks of
life.
______
Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research
On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR) and the university community involved in weather and climate
research and related education, training and support activities, I
submit this written testimony for the record of the U.S. Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development.
This year UCAR, a university membership consortium composed of 63
North American institutions that grant the Ph.D. in atmospheric,
oceanic, and related sciences, celebrates its fortieth anniversary of
scientific discovery and university partnerships. The UCAR mission is
to support, enhance, and extend the capabilities of the university
community, nationally and internationally; to understand the behavior
of the atmosphere and related systems and the global environment; and
to foster the transfer of knowledge and technology for the betterment
of life on earth.
UCAR is a non-profit, Colorado-based corporation that manages and
operates the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the
UCAR Office of Programs (UOP). It is supported by the National Science
Foundation (NSF) and other federal agencies including the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Energy (DOE), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Defense (DOD),
and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In addition to its
member universities, UCAR has formal relationships with approximately
100 additional undergraduate and graduate schools including several
historically black and minority-serving institutions and 38
international universities and laboratories.
Within the Department of Energy, we would like to comment on the
following programs:
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (BER)
On behalf of this country's atmospheric sciences community, we urge
the Committee to support the fiscal year 2001 request of $445.3 million
for BER. This is a $12.4 million increase over the fiscal year 2000
appropriated amount of $432.9 million. BER programs, particularly those
involving support of peer-reviewed research at universities and
national laboratories, are of great importance to the atmospheric
sciences researchers focussing on climate change and climate change
impacts. BER's Environmental Sciences Division is particularly critical
as its programs improve our understanding of the Earth's radiative
energy balance, improve predictions of climate change induced by
greenhouse gases, quantify sources and sinks of greenhouse gases and
aerosols, and improve our ability to assess the potential consequences
of climate change.
Division programs in which we have much interest include the
following:
Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program
Within the Environmental Processes Area of the BER proposed budget
under Climate and Hydrology, we urge the Committee to support the
fiscal year 2001 request of $14.1 million for ARM Program research.--
This is a 7.6 percent increase over the fiscal year 2000 amount of
$13.1 million. ARM is a key component of DOE's research strategy to
address global climate change and is an important component of the
interagency U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). ARM data are
critical to the improvement of General Circulation Models (GCMs), which
simulate the entire global circulation of the atmosphere, and to our
understanding of climate change responses to increasing greenhouse
gases. Current ARM research foci include the significant role of clouds
in climate, the radiation balance of the atmosphere, and the
interactions of solar and infrared radiation with water vapor and
aerosols. These atmospheric processes are critical to understanding and
predicting changes in global and regional temperature and precipitation
patterns that result from anthropogenic and natural influences.
Approximately 50 principal investigators, most of them from the
university community, will be supported in fiscal year 2001, and
interactions and collaborative work with prominent climate modeling
centers will be enhanced.
ARM also performs a great service to the atmospheric sciences
community by supporting several students involved in the UCAR-managed
program, Significant Opportunities in Atmospheric Research and Science
(SOARS). SOARS is a four-year graduate and undergraduate program for
students pursuing careers in the atmospheric and related sciences. In
its relatively short history, SOARS has already increased the number of
under-represented students in this scientific area by a significant
percentage. ARM is contributing to the SOARS effort to ensure that
tomorrow's scientific workforce reflects the diversity of our citizenry
and provides opportunity to all students.
Climate Modeling
Also within Climate and Hydrology within the Environmental
Processes area of BER, we urge the Committee to support the fiscal year
2001 request of $27.9 million for the Climate Modeling effort.--This is
a 17.2 percent increase over the fiscal year 2000 amount of $23.8
million for this important contribution to the USGCRP and integrates
the BER climate modeling programs, including the successful Computer
Hardware, Advanced Mathematics, and Model Physics (CHAMMP) activity.
This increase will support the development of the next generation
circulation models and smaller scale climate model simulations for
global and regional studies of environmental changes. Technologies and
computational resources will be developed that will help the scientific
research community work efficiently with large datasets of
observational and modeling data. Teams involving national laboratories
and the university community will be assembled to produce and apply the
datasets to the study of both global and regional climate change and
accompanying environmental impacts. This work is of great importance to
our understanding of the manner in which climate change, natural or
otherwise, affects specific areas of the country with ramifications to
local environmental and economic systems.
ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH
We urge the Committee to support the DOE initiative, Advanced
Scientific Computing Research (ASCR), at the proposed fiscal year 2001
level of $182.0 million.--This is a 42.2 percent increase over the
fiscal year 2000 amount of $127.9 million for this important
contribution to computational science. ASCR activities complement the
work of and enable progress in the Climate Modeling initiative
described above. ASCR's continued progress is of particular importance
to atmospheric scientists involved with coupled general circulation
model development, research that takes enormous amounts of computing
power. If the United States is to continue to play a key role in
determining the components that influence climate behavior and further
developing scientific methods to successfully predict climate change,
then the country's scientists must have access to enhanced computer
simulation and modeling technology and software.
Specifically, the fiscal year 2001 ASCR increase will support the
development and deployment of new mathematical models, computational
methods, and scientific codes to take full advantage of the
capabilities of terascale computers to solve critical scientific
problems in the atmospheric and oceanographic sciences. Software will
be developed and deployed to accelerate the development of and protect
long-term investments in scientific codes, to achieve maximum
efficiency on high-end computers, and to enable a broad range of
scientists to use simulation in their research. Research will also
include network technologies and software research to link
geographically separated researchers, to facilitate movement of large
(petabyte) data sets, and to ensure that academic scientists can fully
participate in terascale computing. Proposals from teams involving
national laboratories and the university community will be peer
reviewed and competitively selected to participate in the research.
On behalf of UCAR, I want to thank the Committee for the important
work you do for U.S. scientific research, education, and training. We
appreciate your attention to the recommendations of our community
concerning the fiscal year 2001 budget.
______
Prepared Statement of the University of Rochester
SUMMARY AND REQUESTED ACTION
The inertial confinement fusion (ICF) program is a key element in
the Department of Energy's (DOE) Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP).
It was formally initiated by the fiscal year 1994 Defense Authorization
(Public Law 103-160) to ``establish a stewardship program to ensure the
preservation of the core intellectual and technical competencies of the
United States in nuclear weapons.'' The ICF program provides access to
high-energy-density physics data important in the design and
understanding of nuclear weapons. In fiscal year 2001 the program will
be focused on the use of available facilities. The principal facilities
include the OMEGA laser at the University of Rochester's Laboratory for
Laser Energetics (LLE) and the Z machine at Sandia National
Laboratories (SNL). Smaller facilities--the Nike laser at the Naval
Research Laboratory (NRL) and the Trident laser at the Los Alamos
National Laboratory (LANL)--will also be used. The 1999 decommissioning
of the Nova laser at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
required many experiments conducted by the weapons laboratories to
shift to the OMEGA facility at LLE. ICF experiments support the
demonstration of thermonuclear ignition and gain on the National
Ignition Facility (NIF) under construction at LLNL and provide
important data in support of National SSP activities. Changes in the
NIF schedule and capabilities make SSP much more reliant on existing
facilities, such as OMEGA, located at the University of Rochester.
LLE (since 1970) is the only ICF program that has been jointly
supported by the Federal Government, State government, industry,
utilities, and a university. LLE makes fundamental scientific
contributions to the National program. The Laboratory transfers
technology to the public and private sectors through the training of
graduate students and interactions with industry and other Federal
laboratories. The Laboratory serves as a National Laser Users' Facility
benefiting scientists throughout the country. The OMEGA laser, the
highest-power ultraviolet fusion laser in the world, is the principal
laser facility for SSP activities for DOE in fiscal year 2001 and for
many years to come.
LLE's primary ICF mission is to validate the direct-drive option
for ICF, including ignition and gain on the NIF. DOE proclaimed that
OMEGA is also needed to meet mission-critical requirements for the
indirect-drive ignition plan developed by DOE for the NIF, and to
conduct experiments to support the SSP mission, including some that are
classified, in collaboration with the National laboratories.
OMEGA is the only operating facility that can demonstrate the
scientific potential of direct drive to provide a modest- to high-gain
energy option for the Nation. The Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory
Committee emphasized the priority of cryogenic experiments on OMEGA.\1\
The recent Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) National Ignition
Facility Laser System Task Force Interim Report \2\ noted the
importance of continuing scientific contact with ``. . . the laser-
based research at the University of Rochester.'' Upon completion of the
NIF, OMEGA will continue to be used when full NIF energy or capability
is not required, particularly since the cost per shot on OMEGA is
considerably less than that on the NIF. The repetition rate of OMEGA
(one shot per hour) is also higher than that planned for NIF (several
shots per day).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory Committee Report to
Assistant Secretary Reis (February 21, 1996).
\2\ ``Interim Report of the National Ignition Facility Laser System
Task Force,'' Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, U.S. Department of
Energy, Washington, D.C., January 10, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To provide the support for program deliverables and the operation
of OMEGA (for both ICF experiments and SSP experiments), and to
maintain the training programs at Rochester, a total authorization and
appropriation of $32,200,000 for the University of Rochester for fiscal
year 2001 is required, as contained in the Administration's budget
request for DOE.
BACKGROUND
Thermonuclear fusion is the process by which nuclei of low atomic
weights, such as hydrogen, combine to form higher atomic weight nuclei
such as helium. In this process some of the mass of the original nuclei
is lost and transformed to energy in the form of high-energy particles.
Energy from fusion reactions is the most basic form of energy in the
universe. Our sun and other stars produce energy by thermonuclear
fusion reactions occurring in their interior. Fusion is also the
process that provides the vast destructive power of thermonuclear
weapons.
To initiate fusion reactions, the fuel must be heated to tens of
millions of degrees. In ICF the heating and compression of fusion fuel
occur by the action of intense laser or particle beams. There are two
approaches to ICF, direct and indirect drive. Indirect drive involves
the conversion of beam energy to x-rays to compress a fuel capsule in
an enclosure called a hohlraum. Direct drive involves the direct
irradiation of a spherical fuel capsule by energy from a laser and is
generally more efficient energetically than indirect drive. In either
approach, if very extreme density and temperature conditions are
produced, it is possible to produce many times more energy in these
fusion reactions than the energy provided by the drivers.
INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION PROGRAM FOCUS
As noted in the recent U.S. Department of Energy Stockpile
Stewardship Program 30-day Review,\3\ ``The mission of the National
Inertial Confinement Fusion program is to execute high energy density
physics experiments for the Stockpile Stewardship program, an important
part of which is the demonstration of controlled thermonuclear fusion
in the laboratory. Technical capabilities provided by the ICF program
also contribute to other DOE missions including nuclear weapons effects
testing and the development of inertial fusion power.'' The NIF project
completion date and schedule to achieve its full capabilities have
changed since the project's inception. While NIF is under construction,
OMEGA is the principal ICF facility used for nuclear weapons
stewardship experiments by LLNL, SNL, and LANL, and for direct- and
indirect-drive ICF experiments. Additionally, LLE will conduct
experiments for the SSP in fiscal year 2001 under three categories:
equation of state of D2 and foam materials; properties of
metals within high-pressure shocks; and the development of a testbed
for hydrodynamic instability studies and advanced nonlinear
diagnostics. OMEGA will also be used to support experiments in fiscal
year 2001 that are part of a DOE bilateral agreement with the French
Atomic Energy Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``U.S. Department of Energy 30-Day Review Stockpile Stewardship
Program,'' U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., November 23,
1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LLE is the primary focus in the U.S. for the direct-drive approach
to ICF. Direct drive may ultimately prove to be the best approach to
ICF and provide the most efficient path to a laboratory-scale
thermonuclear capability for both energy research and defense
technology needs. OMEGA is the only facility that can demonstrate the
scientific potential of direct drive to provide modest to high gain on
the NIF. LLE is a major participant in NIF design and construction. At
present, LLE is fabricating the large polarizers and transport mirrors
for the NIF, and LLNL has also recently decided to have LLE coat,
assemble, and test the NIF deformable mirrors. This decision will
result in substantial cost saving on these items for the NIF. LLE is
the lead laboratory working with DOE and the other participants to
formulate the plan for the direct-drive ignition campaign on the NIF.
In collaboration with the other ICF laboratories, LLE is also
developing several advanced diagnostics required for NIF experiments.
An extensive collaborative program between LLNL, LANL, and LLE has
provided data on basic physics, beam smoothing, and unstable
hydrodynamics using available lasers. This collaboration on OMEGA
includes both nuclear weapons physics experiments and ICF experiments.
In fiscal year 2000, we expect 1,300 target shots on the OMEGA laser
system that will be used for LLE's direct-drive program, National
Laboratory ignition physics and stockpile stewardship programs, and the
National Laser Users Facility (NLUF) program. During fiscal year 2001,
the same number of laser shots are expected and funded in the
Administration's request. This year LLE developed advanced diagnostics
including a high-dynamic-range x-ray streak camera with high spatial
resolution, hard x-ray diagnostics, and a neutron imaging system in
collaboration with our colleagues at LANL, LLNL, and the French
Commmissariat a L'Energie Atomique (CEA).
Both LANL and LLNL will continue to use OMEGA for ICF and SSP
experiments for the foreseeable future. Because of the high interest
and utility of the OMEGA facility to the weapons laboratories, DOE's
budget request includes funds for extended operations on OMEGA for SSP
experiments. With its lower per-shot cost compared to the NIF (several
thousand dollars vs. more than $100,000), as well as the higher shot-
repetition rate (one shot per hour vs. several shots per day), OMEGA
will be a very important supporting facility for experiments and
diagnostic development for the NIF after its completion.
THE LLE PROGRAM
The goal of the LLE direct-drive target physics program is to
evaluate the performance of fuel capsules near ignition conditions.
OMEGA is the first facility to attempt the fielding of high-fill-
pressure cryogenic DT capsules, which forms the basis for the capsule
design to be used in the NIF indirect-drive and direct-drive ignition
demonstrations. In addition to providing data for the NIF, OMEGA
experiments are required to validate the direct-drive configuration on
the NIF that could result in two to three times higher fusion gains
(gain > 50) than those available with the baseline (indirect-drive) NIF
design.
An important element of the direct-drive program on OMEGA is to
demonstrate on-target irradiation uniformity of 98 percent to 99
percent. The realization of this goal this year will fulfill one of
LLE's principal objectives for fiscal year 2000: We are implementing
uniformity enhancements on all 60 OMEGA beams, including beam
smoothing, and will achieve an on-target uniformity of greater than 99
percent rms. Planar target imprinting experiments are showing the
expected reductions in the imprint of laser nonuniformities as a result
of beam smoothing and plasma decoupling. Experiments to quantify the
effect of internal target imperfections on target implosion physics
have been completed, and good agreement between simulations and
experiments was obtained. In fiscal year 2000 the improved pulse-
shaping system achieved a contrast ratio of 100:1 with high
reproducibility; this is required for the fiscal year 2001 cryogenic
experiments.
As part of the theoretical and computational effort that is at the
heart of understanding inertial fusion implosions, we have
significantly extended our computational capability in the analysis of
multidimensional effects. Initial three-dimensional simulations of
hydrodynamic instabilities have been carried out and will be extended
in fiscal year 2001. Multidimensional simulations will be conducted to
determine the sensitivity of OMEGA and NIF target designs to
irradiation nonuniformities and surface roughness during the coming
year.
Cryogenic fueling and target experiments are necessary to
demonstrate the success of the direct-drive option on the NIF. The
OMEGA cryogenic system serves as an engineering test-bed to support NIF
cryogenic development. In fiscal year 2000, we will complete the
cryogenic target handling system and perform cryogenic DD implosion
experiments. We have also implemented infrared layering and completed
the first full characterization of a spherical target for target shots.
In fiscal year 2001 we will perform high-density cryogenic implosions
addressing critical issues for ignition experiments. A cryogenic
capability, diagnostics development, and beam smoothing are all
required for the NIF. With respect to beam smoothing, in fiscal year
2001 LLE will complete the conceptual design of the beam-smoothing
system for the NIF. LLE is the principal National facility engaged in
developing these technologies. LLE's design and testing of two-
dimensional beam-smoothing techniques and LLE's fabrication
capabilities for the large polarizers, transport optics, and deformable
mirrors for the NIF are essential to NIF's completion and success.
LLE provides education and training in the field of ICF and related
areas for personnel with expertise in areas of critical National need,
especially high-energy-density physics and laser research and
development. One hundred thirty-three University of Rochester students
have earned Ph.D. degrees in related laser physics programs at LLE
since its founding. Sixty-three graduate students and 20 post-doctoral
positions from other universities have been funded by NLUF grants. A
total of 42 graduate students and 14 faculty members of the University
of Rochester are involved in the unique research environment provided
at LLE and represent many departments within the University. Beyond
this, more than 50 undergraduate students receive research experience
annually at LLE. Additionally, a high-school summer science program
exposes 12 talented students each year to the research environment and
encourages them to consider careers in science and engineering. Many
LLE graduates have made important scientific contributions in National
laboratories, universities, and industrial research centers.
request summary
The Administration (DOE) has requested $32,100,000 for the
University of Rochester for SSP and ICF experiments on the OMEGA laser
for fiscal year 2001. These monies will support operation of the OMEGA
laser for the National laboratories, the LLE program, and continuation
of the education and training programs at the Laboratory for Laser
Energetics.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nuclear Energy Institute
On behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute, I would like to commend
you, Mr. Chairman and the members of this subcommittee for focusing
your attention on the value of nuclear technology-related programs in
the Energy Department and Nuclear Regulatory Commission budget
proposals for fiscal year 2001.
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) coordinates public policy for
the U.S. nuclear industry. We represent 270 members with a broad
spectrum of interests, including every U.S. utility that operates a
nuclear power plant. NEI's membership also includes nuclear fuel cycle
companies, suppliers, engineering and consulting firms, national
research laboratories, manufacturers of radiopharmaceuticals,
universities, labor unions and law firms.
Today, America's 103 nuclear power plants are the safest, most
efficient and most reliable in the world. Nuclear energy is the largest
source of emission-free electricity generation in the United States,
and the industry last year reached unsurpassed levels for outstanding
safety and performance.
Your continued support of nuclear research and development programs
is essential to continue advances in nuclear medicine and other nuclear
technologies beneficial to society, to guard against the impact of
foreign supply disruptions to our energy security and to encourage
growth of America's largest source of emission-free electricity. To
capitalize on the many benefits of nuclear technologies, research and
development of these technologies must be a priority in fiscal year
2001 appropriations legislation.
FEDERAL STORAGE & DISPOSAL OF USED NUCLEAR FUEL
The Federal Government's responsibility for deep geologic disposal
of used nuclear fuel and the byproducts of defense-related activities
are long established U.S. national policy. In 1982, the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act established federal policy for developing such a facility.
In 1987, Congress restricted the repository study to a site at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada. DOE is committed to providing a decision on formal
Yucca Mountain site recommendation to the President in the summer of
2001.
DOE's 1998 viability assessment and 1999 draft environmental impact
statement (EIS) point to Yucca Mountain as a viable site for a
permanent repository. The draft EIS says that the environmental impacts
associated with the repository would be small, certainly less than
keeping fuel at nuclear power plant sites that were not designed for
long-term storage. It also predicts that peak radiation exposures over
10,000 years, due to the repository, would be less than 1 percent of
naturally occurring background radiation at that location, or less
radiation than a transcontinental airplane trip.
DOE failed to meet its contractual and statutory obligations to
accept and remove used nuclear fuel from national laboratories, nuclear
power plants and defense facilities in 152 communities in 41 states
beginning in 1998. This failure is a violation of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982 and also a breach of contracts between the Energy
Department and electric utility companies.
Since 1982, American electricity consumers have committed $16.5
billion to the Nuclear Waste Fund, specifically to finance the central
federal management of used nuclear fuel. Federal taxpayers have paid an
additional $1.2 billion for disposal of waste from defense-related
nuclear programs. The Nuclear Waste Fund has a balance of about $10
billion, which must be available for repository construction and
operation. The director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management said recently that the budget for Yucca Mountain will
increase during the repository construction phase to $1.3 billion in
fiscal year 2005.
The nuclear power industry strongly supports the Department of
Energy's fiscal year 2001 request for $437.5 million for the Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management program, which includes continued
scientific study at Yucca Mountain. Electricity consumers this year
will pay approximately $700 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund. With
full funding from Congress, DOE can be held accountable to forward a
recommendation to the President on whether to proceed with building a
repository at Yucca Mountain in 2001.
Further delay in opening a repository will result in increased
costs to consumers for additional used fuel storage at nuclear power
plants and could threaten our nation's ability to meet clean air goals.
NEI urges this committee to instruct DOE to provide Congress with
detailed five-year projections--with subsequent six-month updates--of
the estimated program costs for construction and operation of the
federal used nuclear fuel program. DOE also should report monthly on
progress toward meeting major repository milestones.
This committee has routinely examined the use of federal grants by
Nevada state universities and counties to provide scientific oversight
of the Yucca Mountain project. The industry supports funds for
legitimate oversight purposes. However, the Nevada Nuclear Waste
Project Office has been found to misspend funds. Until the state takes
steps to reform this misspending, we believe grants should be
restricted to universities and affected counties.
NRC's proposed Yucca Mountain regulations are consistent with sound
science by relying on an all-pathways radiation standard. The
overwhelming majority of scientists and public health experts believe
that this is the appropriate manner to protect the public and the
environment. The NRC should be allowed to regulate Yucca Mountain by
using the most up to date methodologies available. To do otherwise
would cost electric consumers and taxpayers billions of dollars without
any meaningful return on public safety or environmental protection.
Although the repository program is the foundation of our national
policy for used nuclear fuel disposal, the nuclear industry recognizes
there can be value associated with potential future waste management
technologies. Farsighted research and development programs allow our
nation to continue to be the world leader in nuclear technologies.
However, it is important to note those even technologies like
transmutation--the conversion of used nuclear fuel into less toxic
materials--still requires a geologic repository for disposal of the
waste generated from the process.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
The Commission is making progress to remedy the problem of user
fees supporting NRC activities unrelated to licensee activities. The
NRC's budget for fiscal year 2001 proposes that the NRC collect
approximately 98 percent of its budget from user fees levied on
licensees, excluding funding from the federal Nuclear Waste Fund. The
budget further proposes that each fiscal year from 2001 through 2005,
the proportion of the NRC budget derived from user fees will decrease
by two percent each year.
The industry thanks the Committee for its continued oversight of
the NRC and support for the NRC's new oversight process designed to
make regulation of the industry more consistent and efficient. The
recently completed pilot program for reactor regulation, which tested
the new NRC safety-focused and results-oriented oversight process, was
successful. The NRC is now preparing for full implementation this
spring.
The industry also applauds the Committee for its concern that the
NRC's licensing process for extending nuclear power plant operating
licenses be completed on schedule. The NRC has responded to the
Committee's direction. The first two electric utility companies seeking
20-year license extensions for nuclear plants are expecting to complete
the NRC review process within about 24 months, shorter than the
initially expected 36-month period. The industry expects future
relicensing applications to be streamlined as the NRC applies lessons
learned from the initial license renewal applications.
As priorities change, sound public management and budgeting policy
require that the NRC reassess its allocation of resources and make
appropriate budget and staffing changes. In that regard, this Committee
asked for a comprehensive five-year plan as part of the NRC's fiscal
year 2001 budget request. NRC's budget request for fiscal year 2001 was
to outline anticipated agency staff and organizational changes.
Industry urges the Committee to request a detailed explanation of the
NRC's proposed fiscal year 2001 budget in the context of the
comprehensive plan.
NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Chairman, for the United States to remain the world leader in
nuclear safety and technology, it is crucial that industry and
government continue to invest in nuclear technology research and
development.
U.S. electricity demand is expected to increase from 50 percent to
75 percent during the next decade, and we will need to maintain the 30
percent of electricity production from emission-free electricity
sources, such as nuclear energy, solar, hydro and wind power. Of these,
nuclear energy is the only expandable, large-scale electricity source
that protects our air quality and meets the energy demands of a
growing, modern economy.
The expansion of our domestic nuclear power program may ultimately
prove to be one of our most strategic initiatives for mitigating the
effects of air pollution and greenhouse gases. Without nuclear energy,
it would be impossible for the United States to successfully reduce
carbon dioxide and other emissions while expanding our economy. Today,
improved efficiency and production at nuclear power plants is the
single largest carbon reduction technology among industry participants
in DOE's Voluntary Reporting Program. Nuclear energy accounts for
almost half of the total carbon avoidance reported by all American
industries combined.
In comparison to other electricity generating sources, nuclear
energy is unequivocally the most economical federal research and
development investment. In 1997, the Federal Government spent five
cents on nuclear energy R&D for every kilowatt-hour of electricity
generated at nuclear power plants. By comparison, the cost of natural
gas R&D per kilowatt-hour, was 41 cents; for solar photovoltaics,
$17,006; and for wind energy $4,769.
NEI urges the Committee to approve $45 million in fiscal year 2001
for the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI). The NERI program
funds research and development at universities, national laboratories
and industry to advance nuclear power technology, pave the way for the
expanded use of nuclear energy and maintain U.S. leadership in nuclear
plant technology and safety. In fiscal year 1999, NERI's review board
awarded grants to 46 of 308 proposals submitted.
Although DOE requests $28 million for NERI in fiscal year 2001,
mostly to continue ongoing projects, industry requests congressional
approval of $45 million to complete existing projects as well as fund
new projects in this highly promising program.
The nuclear industry strongly supports the new nuclear R&D
initiative recommended by the White House: the Clean Energy Initiative
or the International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI/I). NEI
supports DOE's request for an additional $7 million to launch this
cooperative international R&D program. NERI International will promote
bilateral and multilateral research focused on advanced technologies to
improve safe and efficient nuclear power plant operation and waste
management. This program, funded jointly by all participating nations,
provides the United States an opportunity to further leverage its
nuclear energy R&D dollars.
The nuclear energy industry also encourages the Committee to
authorize $10 million for the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO)
program, which improves efficiency and reliability while maintaining
outstanding safety at U.S. nuclear power plants. This public-private
partnership is helping to facilitate America's economic growth and
prosperity--and improving our nation's air quality
DOE's University Support Program enhances research and educational
programs in nuclear science at colleges and universities. There are a
dwindling number of college programs in nuclear engineering and
science. To maintain our nation's position as the international leader
in the nuclear field, it is vital that this trend be reversed and that
our nation's best and brightest technical minds be attracted to the
nuclear technologies fields. DOE has requested $12 million for this
program, but the industry believes that Congress should allocate $20
million in fiscal year 2001 to fund student recruitment, teaching
facilities, fuel, reactors and other equipment, and instructors to
educate a new generation of American nuclear specialists.
Nuclear Nonproliferation.--The industry strongly supports the
Clinton Administration goal to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons
arsenals around the world. NEI supports the disposal of excess weapons
grade nuclear materials through the use of mixed-oxide fuel in reactors
in the United States and Russia. An ongoing concern of industry is
sufficient funding to ensure successful implementation of the program.
NEI also urges the Committee to instruct DOE to provide Congress with
detailed five-year projections of the expected program costs for
construction and operation of plutonium disposition facilities.
Low-Dose Radiation Research.--The nuclear industry strongly
supports continued funding for the DOE's low-dose radiation research
program. This program will produce an enhanced understanding of low-
dose radiation effects to assure that public and private resources are
applied in a manner that protects public health and safety without
imposing unacceptable risks or unreasonable costs on society.
Nuclear Research Facilities.--The nuclear industry is concerned
with the declining number of nuclear research facilities. We urge the
Committee to request that DOE provide it with a long-term plan for
using existing nuclear research facilities, such as the Fast Flux Test
Facility, as well as for development of new research facilities.
Uranium Facility Decontamination and Decommissioning.--The industry
fully supports cleanup of the gaseous diffusion plants at Paducah, Ky.,
Portsmouth, Ohio; and Oak Ridge, Tenn. Each year, commercial nuclear
power plants contribute more than $150 million to the government-
managed uranium enrichment plant Decontamination and Decommissioning
Fund (D & D Fund). NEI urges the Committee to assure that these monies
are spent on D&D activities at these facilities. Other important
environmental, safety and/or health activities at these facilities
should be paid for out of the general fund. An important factor adding
unnecessary costs to site cleanup is the overlapping and conflicting
authority between EPA and DOE that hinders development of consistent
federal radiation protection standards. We urge the Committee to
support the Energy Department in finalizing its proposed
decommissioning standards, consistent with those of the NRC, for the
agency's sites. This would ensure safe, and timely standards for the
agency's extensive environmental restoration program.
International Nuclear Safety Program & Nuclear Energy Agency.--NEI
supports the funding requested for both DOE and NRC the international
nuclear safety programs of both the DOE and NRC. They are programs
aimed at the safe commercial use of nuclear energy.
Medical Isotopes.--The nuclear industry supports the
Administration's program for the production of medical and research
isotopes. However, NEI is concerned about DOE's dismantling of the
calutrons at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory without first
identifying new cost effective technology to supply the vital stable
isotopes produced at that facility. We support continued funding for
the Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative to fill the gap where other
funding sources, such as the National Institute of Health, have been
either unable or unwilling to provide support for radioisotope
production.
______
Prepared Statement of The Business Council for Sustainable Energy
INTRODUCTION
The Business Council For Sustainable Energy is pleased to offer
testimony to the Energy and Water Subcommittee of the House
Appropriations Committee on the role for Government in promoting energy
research and development, as it relates to renewable energy programs at
the Department of Energy (DOE).
The Council was formed in 1992 and is comprised of businesses and
industry trade associations that share a commitment to realize our
nation's economic, environmental and national security goals through
the rapid deployment of clean and efficient natural gas, energy
efficiency, and renewable energy technologies. Our members range in
size from Fortune 500 enterprises to small entrepreneurial companies,
to national trade associations.
As recent events have brought to us as a nation once again, few
activities have greater impact on our nation's economy, environment,
and security than the production and use of energy. Our economic well-
being depends on energy expenditures, which account for 7 to 8 percent
of the nation's gross domestic product and a similar fraction of U.S.
and world trade. Energy production and use also account for many
environmental problems, such as smog, acid rain and the accumulation of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Our national security is
increasingly linked to energy production and use, given our nation's
increasing dependence on foreign oil sources, including those from the
politically unstable Middle East. Expanded reliance on natural gas,
energy efficiency and renewable energy are the three pillars of a more
secure and sustainable energy strategy that will help strengthen the
U.S. economy and clean up the environment.
FEDERAL PROGRAMS TO PROMOTE RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES
The Council recognizes that suppliers and users of energy--not the
Federal Government--ultimately will decide which energy sources meet
our future needs. However, the Federal Government does play an
important role in helping the private sector share the risk of
investing in deployment of clean technologies that, while at or near
economical viability, face obstacles to their wide market availability.
The Council would like to describe the following programs which can
STRENGTHEN THE NATION'S PORTFOLIO OF ENERGY GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES.
WIND
World markets for utility-scale wind energy are growing at an
unprecedented rate. Global installed generating capacity is estimated
to have increased by more than 25 percent annually since 1990, and at a
rate of 40 percent annually over the last five years. In 1999, more
than 3,600 MW of new wind energy generating capacity were installed
worldwide, bringing total installed capacity to the 13,400 MW range.
This is the largest-ever worldwide single-year addition to wind
generating capacity.
Domestically, from mid-1998 to mid-1999, some 925 megawatts (MW) of
new generating capacity were installed in the U.S.--more than twice the
amount added in 1985, the previous record year. In addition, nearly 200
MW of existing capacity were ``repowered'' with new turbines replacing
older, less efficient ones. These additions bring total U.S. wind
capacity to about 2,500 MW.
More Emphasis Is Needed on Small Wind Turbines: Homes consume more
electricity than either businesses or industry: 35 percent of the 3.2
trillion kWh consumed in 1998. Distributed generation with small
customer-sited power plants has great potential for reducing customer
energy costs, promoting competition in the marketplace, and
strengthening the nation's electrical supply network. Renewable energy
technology for homes and farms include solar photovoltaics,
concentrated solar thermal, and small wind turbines (up to 50 kW). The
Council, therefore, supports the $6 million fiscal year 2001 Small Wind
Turbine Initiative proposed by the American Wind Energy Association,
which would provide more customer choice.
The Small Wind Turbine Initiative (SWTI) will reduce the costs of
small wind systems for homes, farms, and small businesses by promoting
deployment leading to higher production volumes, reducing market
barriers, and improving the technology. SWTI aims to make small wind
turbines cost effective for an estimated 6-10 million potential rural
residential users in the 2010-2030 timeframe. Specific program goals
for 2010 are:
--Energy costs below $0.06/kWh for 5 kW systems and below $0.05/kWh
for 50 kW systems in Class 2 wind regimes
--100,000 systems installed (approx. 1,000 MW)
--At least 200 systems (2 MW) in all fifty states
Specific recommended program elements are as follows:
Partnerships for Technology Introduction (fiscal year 2001 $2
million).--This activity is a follow-on to the successful $1 million
fiscal year 1999 Small Wind Field Verification Program and aims to
engage a wider body of participants including federal agencies.
Advanced Home Turbine (fiscal year 2001 $1.5 million).--This new
activity will initiate the cost-shared industry development of 2-3
advanced 1-8 kW wind turbines suitable for use on residences with as
little as \1/4\ acre of land. These turbines must use space very
efficiently and have extremely low environmental (noise and visual)
impacts.
State and Local Policy Support (fiscal year 2001 $1 million).--This
new activity will provide small wind technical and policy support for
state utility restructuring initiatives and it will create a program to
help address zoning issues.
International Clean Energy Initiative (fiscal year 2001 $1.5
million).--This new activity would try to accelerate the RD&D of small
wind technology to developing countries and increase small wind's
global energy contribution.
Funding for Cooperative Research and Testing will provide support
for industry testing at the National Wind Technology Center (NWTC) in
Rocky Flats, Colorado. This will allow for continued development of a
U.S.-based certification capability for wind energy technologies.
Ultimately, streamlined certification criteria will make it easier for
U.S. businesses to market and sell American-made wind turbine
technologies in international markets.
The main focus of the applied research program is development of
models to better understand aerodynamics (through wind tunnel tests),
fatigue damage prediction and structural reliability capabilities.
Modeling and code design work is underway at both the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (located in Golden, Colorado) and the
Sandia National Laboratory (New Mexico).
The Council supports DOE's total request of $50.5 million for wind
energy research and development in fiscal year 2001 to fund projects in
turbine research ($14.5 million), cooperative research ($21 million)
and applied research ($15 million). This level of funding is
particularly important to continue developing next generation wind
turbine technologies needed to keep the U.S. industry competitive in
restructured domestic markets and in the fast growing, highly
competitive international markets.
SOLAR ENERGY
The United States leads the world in the diverse portfolio of solar
technologies: photovoltaics (PV) for manufacturing; thin films and
energy services; solar thermal power in advanced concentrations (solar
power towers, parabolic troughs, and dish-engines); and solar buildings
in integrated systems and energy services delivery. However, our
international competitors are positioning themselves to take our market
share from vast, multibillion dollar world markets, as a result of
strong support provided by their respective governments--especially in
Japan and Germany--through a variety of aggressive programs.
Maintaining our lead requires determined U.S. Government action, not
only to support international activities but also to secure a position
in growing domestic markets.
Solar technologies available today include PV, solar water and pool
heating, solar process heating, and solar thermal power technologies.
Faster integration of solar energy systems in both supply- and demand-
side applications in our domestic economy, combined with support for
increased exports of U.S. solar technologies, will have the parallel
benefits of creating thousands of new high-technology manufacturing
jobs while improving our environment. The Council supports the trend
toward market-driven, industry cost-shared programs designed to
leverage federal dollars with private-sector participation to enhance
private-sector understanding and use of these technologies.
Improving conversion efficiency of solar panels and reducing
manufacturing costs will play a key role in sustaining U.S. dominance
in the area of PV. The Council supports DOE's photovoltaic system
program. PV programs are among the best leveraged (the PV COMPACT
program leverages $4 and $5 for every federal dollar expended) in DOE.
Our two most formidable competitors, Japan and Germany, outspend DOE's
investment in PV research and development and PV commercialization
programs. While U.S. industry is exporting a significant amount of its
products to these countries, most expect this demand to rapidly
diminish as in-country manufacturing capabilities are increased. As an
example, the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry has
a domestic deployment goal of 400 megawatts of PV in 2000 and its
manufacturers are responding to the challenge.
Japanese manufacturers are expected to expand their annual
production capacity four-fold over the next three years. Not only will
this expansion allow the Japanese industry to meet much of its domestic
demand for PV; it will enable Japan to overtake the U.S. in terms of
global market share. The Council continues to support the
Administration's Million Solar Roofs (MSR) Initiative.
The Council supports DOE cost-shared initiatives in R&D (thin-films
and other advanced materials, manufacturing and other solar initiatives
which address these issues). Equally important is the concept of
building integrated PV programs where manufacturers, systems
integrators and utilities work together to reduce the cost of PV
generated electricity. The Council also supports the Department's PV
COMPACT program. It is a collaborative effort involving more than 80
electric utilities (representing over half the electricity produced in
the U.S.) and other interested organizations to garner the economic,
commercial, and environmental benefits of PV technologies.
PV and other solar technologies offer the U.S. environmentally
benign, cost-effective energy supply options in a variety of market
applications. The Council is highly supportive of PV programs, and
requests $102 million for DOE programs. The market viability of these
technologies is demonstrated in growing private sector interest in
developing new manufacturing facilities related to solar industries. In
the area of PV production alone, the last four years have witnessed six
U.S. companies announce plans to construct new PV plants. This activity
is a unique example of DOE funding encouraging significant private-
sector investment that creates new jobs. The Council strongly urges
Congress to continue supporting public/private partnerships that help
ensure that U.S. companies can compete effectively in rapidly emerging
world renewable energy markets.
The Council also supports PV programs within DOE's Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, specifically DOE's Solar Thermal
Buildings program, a research and development program focusing on
materials and components for solar water and space heating technologies
for building applications. Based at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory and the Florida Solar Energy Center, the program also has a
strong technology standard and certification component. Activities in
fiscal year 2001 should include the completion of collaborative
projects with utilities and builders to assess their impact on
improving solar water heating technology and the completion of a
cooperative research and development agreement with the Salt River
Agricultural Improvement and Power District to develop a solar water
heater that could provide hot water at a cost of 6 to 7 cents per
kilowatt-hour.
The Council supports the Solar Thermal Electric and Process Heat
programs, an R&D program on materials and components with a heavily
cost-shared technology validation component. Over the past six years,
the primary program focus has been in collaboration with industry to
develop advanced solar thermal electric technologies to the point of
commercial readiness.
The Council also supports concentrated solar power, and solar
buildings programs, specifically seeking $20.5 million for federal
concentrated solar power research programs, and $5.5 million for solar
buildings.
DISTRIBUTED POWER
Customers throughout the nation are seeking technologies that are
scaled to a competitive market and that provide the quality and
reliability assurances needed by an economy increasingly influenced by
electronic commerce. Accordingly, power providers are developing state
of the art technologies aimed at providing customers with the cleanest,
most reliable, and cheapest power possible. This market cannot develop
without the accumulation of real-world operating experience, but the
uncertainties of the unfolding marketplace are inhibiting such
deployment. Last year the Congress added funding for a $3 million pilot
effort to demonstrate these technologies, and that program was greatly
oversubscribed by industry. DOE has requested the continuation of this
program, but BCSE strongly supports increasing it to $9 million.
Further research is also needed in order to develop cost-effective
interconnection technologies and standards which would enable smaller
distributed generation products to connect and operate safely with the
electric grid. DOE has requested $250,000, but BCSE strongly feels this
should be increased to $2.5 million.
RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION INCENTIVE
As part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Sec. 1212), Congress
passed the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) to encourage
the development of renewable energy projects in tax-exempt municipal
utilities. This program has been successful in helping municipal
utilities such as the Sacramento Municipal Utility District develops
wind and solar generating facilities. We believe the Administration's
request is insufficient to meet the requirements of this program, and
request the Committee increase to $8 million the funding for the REPI.
GEOTHERMAL ENERGY
The Council supports federal programs directed towards taking
advantage of geothermal resources. U.S. geothermal resources already
displace 22 million tons of CO2 annually. Internationally,
nearly 20,000 megawatts of electrical and thermal energy are recovered,
with the potential to quadruple that harvest over the next 20-30 years.
The Council affirms a budget increase to $27 million in geothermal
funding in fiscal year 2001.
INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Finally, the Council would like to offer its support of federal
programs designed to help open important international markets for
renewable energy technologies. Competition in rapidly growing
developing country markets is intense; U.S. renewables manufacturers
face the dual obstacles of competition from conventional energy sources
and foreign renewables manufacturers buoyed by government assistance.
Our participation in international markets is more critical than
ever. Growth in developing nations will take their energy use levels
above that of the industrialized nations within two decades, and after
their expenditure of $4 to $5 trillion. Traditionally, environmentally
friendly and efficient technologies are not the first choice of
decision-makers in these markets. With encouragement and bureaucratic
streamlining, however, U.S. clean energy exports could double in less
that five years, resulting in up to $5 billion in export revenues and
100,000 new American jobs. Global benefits include reducing greenhouse
gas and sulfur particulate emissions by bypassing reliance on
traditional energy sources, and providing for the energy needs of those
now without electricity.
The Council is extremely supportive of the fiscal year 2001 funding
for international energy programs like the International Clean Energy
Initiative, and urges that funding for this and or similar programs not
come at the expense of existing research, development and deployment
programs. Beyond the benefit to U.S. exports, these technologies can
help ensure international economic and political stability by meeting
the profound infrastructure needs of these countries.
CONCLUSION
Promoting research, development and validation of emerging
renewable energy and distributed power technologies will result in the
near-term creation of thousands of new American jobs, stronger
economies here and abroad, enhanced export opportunities for domestic
manufacturers, and a cleaner environment. DOE's budget request
continues federal emphasis on developing low- and non-polluting energy
technologies and services as a means of achieving these goals. It
utilizes cost-shared collaboratives with industry to leverage limited
federal funds in recognition that cooperation with industry is vital
for addressing market imperfections impeding the widespread use of
renewables.
The Council strongly supports this approach, and urges Congress to
continue its support of federal research, development and validation
programs for renewable and distributed energy technologies and
programs. By adopting a robust budget for development of these
technologies, Congress can demonstrate its genuine commitment to the
U.S. economy's over-reliance on limited energy options.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Chemical Society
The American Chemical Society (ACS) would like to thank Chairman
Pete Domenici and Senator Harry Reid for the opportunity to submit
testimony for the record on the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001.
As you may know, ACS is a non-profit scientific and educational
organization, chartered by Congress, representing 161,000 individual
chemical scientists and engineers. The world's largest scientific
society, ACS advances the chemical enterprise, increases public
understanding of chemistry, and brings its expertise to bear on state
and national matters. ACS firmly believes that no investment the
government makes generates a higher rate of return for the economy than
research and development (R&D). In fact, economic experts maintain that
today's unprecedented economic growth would not have been realized but
for the substantial research investments by the public and private
sectors over the past few decades. Looking ahead, the American Chemical
Society (ACS) is concerned that constant dollar declines in federal
support for basic research over the past decade, particularly in the
physical sciences, have weakened the roots of innovation in all fields
and put future economic growth at risk. In order to sustain our
technological leadership and living standards, increased funding for
basic research should be a top priority for use of the non-Social
Security budget surpluses. As a framework for increases in R&D, ACS
supports doubling federal spending on research within a decade, as well
as balanced funding among different areas of science.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS
ACS strongly supports the 12-percent increase requested for the
Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science (SC). DOE is the
nation's largest supporter of research in the physical sciences and the
largest supporter of major scientific user facilities. Most of this
support is provided through the Office of Science. SC plays a central
federal role in supporting long-term, peer-reviewed basic research
across all scientific disciplines, both in universities and national
laboratories, which strengthens our knowledge base and the training of
the next generation of scientists. The research supported by SC
addresses, on a fundamental scientific level, one of the world's most
pressing problems: how to meet growing demands for energy while
protecting the environment and ensuring economic growth. Whether the
challenge is cleaner and more efficient fossil fuels, advancing energy
efficiency and renewable energy, or cleaner and affordable power, SC
provides the scientific framework necessary for progress on DOE's
energy and environmental objectives.
Nanoscale Science and Engineering.--The Society strongly supports
SC's important role in the interagency nanotechnology initiative. The
Office of Science has been a leader in the development of nanoscience
since the early 1980s. The ability to manipulate and move matter at the
atomic and molecular level and understand and control the building
blocks of all physical things can bring revolutionary improvements in
medicine, electronics, and advanced materials for manufacturing,
defense, and environmental applications. SC's substantial investment in
university-based research and in major scientific user facilities will
play a unique and important role in advancing the chemistry, materials,
biology, and engineering expertise needed to invigorate this cutting-
edge research.
Basic Energy Sciences
Within SC, ACS supports the budget request of $1 billion for the
Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program, which would increase funding by
$236 million in fiscal year 2001. The most diverse research program
within DOE, BES funds an array of long-term basic research that
advances the technology needed to improve energy production and use and
environmental progress. Although much of the requested increase is
slated for the Spallation Neutron Source, increases in core, peer-
reviewed research in chemistry, materials, and other areas are
essential to further departmental missions and maintain progress in the
physical sciences. BES research, for example, has fostered improvements
in battery storage, superconducting materials, and the understanding of
combustion at a fundamental level. Increased investments will also
support much of DOE's role in the nanotechnology initiative and sustain
the operation of many of the nation's most sophisticated research
facilities, which offer researchers world-class capabilities to carry
out complex experiments that could not be done in other laboratories.
Biological and Environmental Research
ACS supports a 7-percent increase for the Biological and
Environmental Research (BER) program in fiscal year 2001. The Society
is concerned that the $445 million request for BER, an increase of less
than 3 percent, is inadequate to meet the critical demands of this
quality program. BER advances fundamental understanding in fields such
as waste processing, bioremediation, and atmospheric chemistry to
better understand potential long-term health and environmental effects
of energy production and use. Progress in these fields is also needed
to develop and advance new, effective, and efficient processes for the
remediation and restoration of weapons production sites. The program
advances understanding of the basic chemical, physical, and biological
processes of the Earth's atmosphere, land, and oceans, and how these
processes may be affected by energy production and use, primarily the
emission of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion. Such research
includes critical efforts to capture, measure, and reduce carbon and
other greenhouse gases and the consequences of global climate change.
ACS also supports a strong role for BER in federal efforts to
understand and address global climate change, including the Climate
Change Technology Initiative and the U.S. Global Change Research
Program.
Strong funding for DOE's Office of Science is a priority for the
Society. Investments in basic research within BES and BER should be
increased in fiscal year 2001 because both programs fund quality, peer-
reviewed research projects that are investments in the true sense of
the word.
ACS also supports DOE's ``Industries of the Future'' program within
the Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT). The program advances
innovative technologies through cooperative R&D with the nation's most
energy-intensive industries, including the chemical industry. OIT works
with these industries to develop both a long-range vision of their
future competitiveness and a technology roadmap to identify the R&D and
other investments needed to achieve that vision.
In the past 7 years, 10 scientists have won Nobel Prizes in
Chemistry or Physics for their SC-supported research. ACS believes that
SC research programs warrant increased investment to ensure they can
continue to support cutting-edge fundamental research across
disciplines, which provides the scientific foundation needed to support
DOE's mission in energy, environment, and national defense.
______
Prepared Statement of the Biomass Energy Research Association
This testimony pertains to the fiscal year 2001 (fiscal year 2001)
appropriation for mission-oriented, biomass research, development, and
deployment (RD&D) supported by DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE). The Biomass Energy Research Association (BERA)
is a non-profit association headquartered in Washington, DC. BERA was
founded in 1982 by researchers and private organizations that are
conducting biofuels research. Our objectives are to promote education
and research on renewable biomass energy and waste-to-energy systems
that can be economically utilized by the public, and to serve as a
source of information on policies and programs. BERA does not accept
federal funding for its efforts.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of BERA's
members for the opportunity to present our position on the federal
funding of mission-oriented biomass RD&D. Continued support is
essential to provide the stimulus to develop environmentally clean,
indigenous energy resources that can displace fossil fuels, stimulate
regional and national economic development and employment, reduce our
dependence on imported oil, improve our energy security, and help to
eliminate adverse climate and environmental changes.
I have examined the details of DOE's request for biomass funding in
fiscal year 2001 for EERE, and would like to offer a few comments about
our Board's concerns before presenting BERA's recommendations. DOE
continues to emphasize scale-up projects, the budgets for which are
large and which adversely impact the research budgets. DOE has
therefore been required to terminate research in several microbial and
thermochemical conversion areas. We feel that a balanced research
program should be sustained and protected, so BERA continues to
recommend both a diversified portfolio of research and an appropriate
amount of funding for scale-up without diminishing either EERE's
research or scale-up programs. Also, DOE's basic research on biomass
energy outside of EERE by the Office of Science ($41.0 million
requested for fiscal year 2001), which supports academic research,
complements EERE's biomass RD&D. Other mission-oriented biomass RD&D
programs are funded through EERE's Office of Industrial Technologies
(OIT) under the Interior and Related Agencies Bill. All of these
projects and programs should be internally coordinated and jointly
managed at DOE Headquarters. BERA's recommendations for OIT's mission-
oriented biomass programs total $43.826 million and are presented in a
separate BERA statement for the Interior and Related Agencies Bill.
DOE's request for EERE's biomass funding under the Energy and Water
Bill includes details that have usually not been presented in the past.
We commend EERE for updating their biomass RD&D plan so that it is now
reasonably clear which projects have been completed, terminated, or are
new starts. Specifically, BERA recommends that $117 million be
appropriated for biomass RD&D under the Energy and Water Bill in fiscal
year 2001.
--A total of $70.5 million for research and $46.5 million for
industry cost-shared scale-up.
--$34 million for research and $22.5 million for industry cost-shared
scale-up projects for Power.
--$30.5 million for research and $24 million for industry cost-shared
scale-up projects for Transportation.
--$6 million for biomass-based hydrogen research.
BERA also strongly recommends that the provisions of both the
Bioenergy Initiative enacted by Congress for fiscal year 2000 and the
Executive Order ``Developing and Promoting Biobased Products and
Bioenergy'' be incorporated into the overall federal biomass research
program. This will enhance the value of the federal expenditures on
biomass RD&D to the country in many ways.
ALLOCATION OF APPROPRIATION RECOMMENDED BY BERA
BERA recommends that the appropriation for fiscal year 2001 be
allocated as shown in the accompanying table. BERA's recommendations
are generally listed in the same order as DOE's request for fiscal year
2001, except we include several research areas that are either new or
that BERA recommends be restored to sustain a balanced program of
research and scale-up. Note that the recommended budget for each scale-
up category does not include industry cost-sharing, which is required
to be a minimum of 50 percent of the total budget.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended budget
Office of Energy Efficiency and -------------------------------
Renewable Energy--program area For research For scale-up
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power Systems:
Thermochemical Conversion:
Cofiring/Ash Deposition......... $3,000,000 ..............
Advanced Combustion............. 4,000,000 ..............
Advanced Gasification........... 2,000,000 ..............
Advanced Pyrolysis.............. 3,000,000 ..............
Advanced Stationary Fuel Cells.. 2,000,000 ..............
Advanced Process Fuels.......... 3,000,000 ..............
Improved Emissions Control...... 4,000,000 ..............
Wastewater Treatment............ 2,000,000 ..............
Hot Gas Clean-Up................ 2,000,000 ..............
Microbial Conversion: Advanced 2,000,000 ..............
Anaerobic Digestion................
Systems Development:
Biomass/Coal Cofiring........... .............. $3,500,000
Integrated Field Scale-Up....... .............. 7,000,000
Vermont Gasifier................ .............. 4,000,000
Small Modular Systems........... 2,500,000 3,000,000
Feedstock Production............ 2,000,000 4,000,000
Regional Biomass Energy Program 2,500,000 1,000,000
\1\............................
-------------------------------
Subtotal...................... 34,000,000 22,500,000
===============================
Transportation:
Fermentation Ethanol:
Advanced Organisms.............. 2,000,000 ..............
Advanced Cellulase.............. 8,500,000 ..............
Advanced Pretreatment........... 2,000,000 ..............
NREL Pretreatment Pilot Reactor. .............. 3,000,000
NREL Fermentation Pilot Plant... .............. 5,000,000
Commercial Ethanol Plants by Company
and Location:
Arkenol, Rio Linda, CA \2\ \3\.. .............. ..............
BCI International, Jennings, LA .............. ..............
\2\ \4\........................
BCI International, Gridley, CA .............. 4,000,000
\5\............................
Masada Resources, Orange County, .............. ..............
NY \2\ \6\.....................
Sealaska Corp., Southeast AK \7\ .............. 2,000,000
Corn Stalk Feedstock \8\........ .............. 5,000,000
1Advanced Mobile Fuel Cells..... 3,000,000 ..............
Renewable Diesel................ 1,000,000 ..............
Feedstock Production............ 2,000,000 4,000,000
Thermochemical Conversion:
Ethanol......................... 3,000,000 ..............
Mixed Alcohols.................. 3,000,000 ..............
Other Oxygenates from Biomass... 3,000,000 ..............
Regional Biomass Energy Program 3,000,000 1,000,000
\1\............................
-------------------------------
Subtotal...................... 30,500,000 24,000,000
===============================
Hydrogen Research: \9\
Thermal Processes (Reforming)....... 3,000,000 ..............
Photolytic Processes (Algae)........ 3,000,000 ..............
-------------------------------
Subtotal...................... 6,000,000 ..............
===============================
Total......................... 70,500,000 46,500,000
===============================
Grand Total....................... 117,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BERA strongly recommends that for future funding requests, the
Regional Biomass Energy Program be treated as a line item.
\2\ DOE contribution to plant costs completed.
\3\ Rice straw, concentrated acid.
\4\ Bagasse, dilute acid.
\5\ Rice straw, dilute acid.
\6\ Refuse-derived fuel, concentrated acid.
\7\ Waste softwoods.
\9\ For plant located in Midwest.
\9\ BERA's recommendations pertain only to the biomass-based portion of
Hydrogen Research.
PROGRAM INTEGRATION, COORDINATION, AND MANAGEMENT
For several years, BERA has urged that all of the biomass-related
research funded by DOE should be internally coordinated and jointly
managed at DOE headquarters. The program managers at DOE Headquarters
should be heavily involved in this activity. Multi-agency agreements to
expand the coordination of biomass energy research programs between two
or more federal agencies do not seem to have been too effective in the
past. Implementation of the Bioenergy Initiative enacted by Congress
for fiscal year 2000 to identify each federal agency that provides
funding related to producing biomass energy, each agency's programs,
and the expenditures by each agency, coupled with President Clinton's
Executive Order 13134 issued on August 12, 1999, ``Developing and
Promoting Biobased Products and Bioenergy,'' should make it possible to
extend the coordination of all of these programs through a National
Coordination Office to all federal agencies involved in biomass energy
development, as proposed in the Executive Order.
BERA strongly recommends that these initiatives be continued and
incorporated into the overall federal biomass RD&D program. In fiscal
year 2001, it is especially important that the biomass research of DOE
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture be closely coordinated. If the
initiatives are fully implemented, the value of the federal
expenditures on biomass research to the country will be enhanced in
many different ways.
BERA RECOMMENDS $70.5 MILLION FOR RESEARCH AND $46.5 MILLION FOR
INDUSTRY COST-SHARED, SCALE-UP PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
BERA's recommendations consist of a balanced program of mission-
oriented RD&D on feedstock production and conversion research and
technology transfer to the private sector. Advanced power generation
technologies, alternative liquid transportation fuels, and innovative
hydrogen-from-biomass processes are emphasized.
In addition, BERA strongly urges that at least 50 percent of the
federal funds for biomass research, excluding the funds for scale-up
projects, are used to sustain a national biomass science and technology
base via subcontractors outside DOE's national laboratories. While it
is desirable for the national laboratories to coordinate this research,
increased support for U.S. scientists and engineers in industry,
academe, and research institutes that are unable to fund biomass
research will encourage commercialization of emerging technologies and
serious consideration of new ideas. It will also help to expand the
professional development and expertise of diverse researchers committed
to the advancement of biomass technologies.
BERA's specific recommendations for research, the industry cost-
shared scale-up projects, and the dollar allocations are listed in the
table (page 2). Additional commentary on each program area is presented
below in the same order as listed in the table.
POWER SYSTEMS
Thermochemical Conversion.--Currently, there is over 8,000 MW of
electric power capacity fueled by biomass in the United States.
Municipal solid wastes, forest and wood processing residues and pulping
liquors are the primary fuels. Continued research to develop advanced
biomass combustion, gasification, and pyrolysis methods could have
environmental and economic benefits that can lead to significant growth
in biomass power generation. Much of this research has been phased out
by DOE. Research (not scale-up) should be initiated or re-stored with
the goal of developing the next generation of thermochemical biomass
conversion processes for power generation. Stationary, integrated
biomass gasifier-fuel cell systems should be developed as potential,
high-efficiency power generation systems. New fuel cells that can
tolerate the sulfur levels found in certain biomass-derived fuel gases
without sacrificing system affordability and the testing of integrated
advanced fuel cell systems should be included in this work. Research is
also recommended to develop advanced processed fuels and systems for
handling these fuels. These fuels are, for example, pelletized wood
wastes and densified solid waste biomass-coal fines that are easily
handled and fed to existing combustion devices. In addition to these
research programs, priority should also be given to the development of
innovative enabling technologies consisting of advanced emission
control systems, improved ash disposal methods and new ash uses, low-
cost, hot gas clean-up methods, and advanced materials that eliminate
corrosion and erosion problems for thermochemical reactors and
turbines. The status of these technologies is far from what is needed,
yet they are essential for practical, low-cost thermochemical
conversion of biomass.
Microbial Conversion.--Microbiological gasification by anaerobic
digestion is unique in that it produces methane directly, the major
component in natural gas, as a primary product from a full range of
virgin and waste biomass feedstocks. However, DOE has terminated most
of the research needed to develop advanced systems that yield low-cost
methane by reducing capital and operating costs. This research can lead
to the alleviation of numerous environmental problems encountered
during waste treatment and disposal, and should be restored.
Systems Development.--The scale-up of biomass gasification for
medium-Btu gas and power in Vermont continued in fiscal year 2000. This
project should be funded in fiscal year 2001 to allow completion of the
gasification test runs and the testing of an advanced turbine system
for the generation of 8-12 MW from wood. The development of hot gas
clean-up technology, which was terminated before completion at another
gasification project site, should be restored. This work should be
continued until the technology is perfected. The integrated biomass
production-power generation projects chosen by DOE for scale-up in New
York (willow-coal cofiring), and Iowa (switchgrass-coal cofiring)
should be continued as well as DOE's initiative to expand biomass-coal
cofiring at additional sites, such as the wood waste-coal project at
NIPSCO. Plans should also be made to fund scale-up of the Whole Tree
Energy system as part of this effort. Research on the development of
advanced biomass-coal cofiring systems and small modular direct biomass
combustion turbines should be sustained to develop advanced designs for
small modular systems, and advanced combined cycle systems that can
supply cogenerated power.
Feedstock Production.--Land-based biomass grown as energy crops can
supply large amounts of fossil fuel substitutes. Considerable progress
has been made on the efficient production of short-rotation woody
crops, and on the growth of herbaceous species. In addition, research
on tissue culture techniques and the application of genetic engineering
methods to low-cost energy crop production have shown promise. This
research should be continued to develop advanced biomass production
methods that can meet the anticipated feedstock demand. BERA also
recommends that industry cost-shared, scale-up projects chosen by DOE
of at least 1,000 acres in size be continued to develop large-scale,
commercial energy plantations in which dedicated energy crops are grown
and harvested for use as biomass resources. These projects should be
strategically located and should utilize the advanced biomass
production methods already developed in the research programs.
Successful completion of this work will help biomass energy attain its
potential by providing the data and information needed to design,
construct, and operate new biomass production systems that can supply
low-cost feedstock for conversion to electric power and transportation
fuels. It is recommended that the appropriation for this activity be
shared between EERE's Power Systems and Transportation Fuels programs.
Regional Biomass Energy Program.--See Transportation.
TRANSPORTATION
Fermentation Ethanol.--Research on the conversion of low-cost
lignocellulosics to fermentation ethanol should be continued. The
targets should include the development of genetically engineered
organisms that can ferment all the C5/C6 sugars
in biomass at the same time, low-cost cellulase production for
simultaneous saccharification-fermentation, and advanced pretreatment
of low-cost biomass feedstocks. This research should focus on the
development of accurate bases from which advanced technologies can be
scaled-up for commercial use with confidence, and on advanced
technologies that significantly reduce processing costs. NREL's
fermentation pilot plant and counter-current pretreatment pilot plant
reactor installed in fiscal year 2000 should be operated on a cost-
shared basis with DOE's industrial partners to support the commercial
ethanol plant program
Commercial Ethanol Plants.--DOE's contributions to the costs of
three fermentation ethanol plants (Rio Linda, CA; Jennings, LA; Orange
County, NY) have been completed, and further contributions to the costs
of two other fermentation ethanol plants (Gridley, CA; Southeast AK)
are planned in fiscal year 2001, as shown in the table on page 2.
Another plant using corn stalk feedstocks is planned for the Midwest in
fiscal year 2001. The processes used are conventional and advanced
technologies. BERA recommends that the existing projects should be
completed, the results analyzed, and the technologies confirmed before
other scale-up projects are started.
Advanced Mobile Fuel Cells.--Research should be initiated to design
and perfect vehicular fuel cell systems equipped with on-board
reforming units for biomass and biomass-based liquids. The goal should
be the production of low-cost fuel gases suitable for direct use as
motor fuels and as fuels for fuel cells.
Renewable Diesel.--This research, formerly called Biodiesel, should
be focused on methods of reducing production costs of renewable diesel
fuels and biomass-based diesel fuel additives. DOE plans to evaluate
waste grease streams as one approach to this objective. BERA recommends
that most of this effort focus on increasing natural triglyceride
yields, which are the main barrier to improved economics for biodiesel,
and to the evaluation of other potential biomass feedstocks such as
tall oils that can be directly transformed into high-quality, renewable
diesel fuels having high cetane numbers by hydroconversion.
Feedstock Production.--See Power Systems.
Thermochemical Conversion.--Almost all of DOE's RD&D on liquid
transportation fuels from biomass emphasizes fermentation ethanol.
Thermochemical conversion research should be started that targets
liquid motor fuel production at costs competitive with those of
gasolines and diesel fuels in the near-to-mid term. Research on the
thermochemical conversion of low-grade biomass for use as motor fuels
shows great promise. Preliminary research on the non-microbial
conversion of synthesis gas illustrates the potential of producing
ethanol, mixed alcohols and oxygenates, ethers, and coproducts at costs
that are less than the corresponding costs of liquids produced by
microbial and fermentation processes. Some analysts project that fuel
ethanol from low-grade biomass by thermochemical processes may be able
to attain production costs in the same range as methanol from natural
gas feedstocks. Each of these areas should be added to DOE's program.
Regional Biomass Energy Program.--The Regional Biomass Energy
Program (RBEP), established by Congress in 1983, is the information and
outreach arm of DOE's biomass energy RD&D programs. The RBEP develops
and disseminates information and provides technical and financial
assistance to biomass energy developers and entrepreneurs. The RBEP
also gathers information in the field to keep DOE informed of current
situations and opportunities. Administratively housed in EERE's Office
of Fuels Development, and partially funded by the EERE's Office of
Biomass Power Systems, the RBEP consists of five regional
administrations to account for the regional variations in biomass
resource capabilities and energy needs. Within the national goals of
DOE and regional constraints, the RBEP develops regional goals and
strategies using stakeholder participants, and conducts cost-shared
activities to develop state bioenergy programs and a strong biomass
energy industry. These activities include assisting with technology
demonstrations in the field, identifying and addressing institutional
barriers, performing resource assessments, and removing or reducing
market barriers. Historically, the RBEP has been effective in
increasing national biomass energy consumption, reducing the country's
dependence on fossil fuels, enhancing the environment, and creating
jobs and other economic development, particularly in rural areas. Over
its 17-year existence, the RBEP has developed working relationships
with virtually all levels of government, academe, and the private
sector. The RBEP's work is conducted in partnerships that provide from
$2 to $4 in cost sharing for every $1 in RBEP funds. In fiscal year
2001, the role of the RBEP will become even more important by providing
information and outreach support to DOE's power, transportation fuels,
and chemicals-from-biomass programs and the initiatives described in
the previous section. BERA recommends that the appropriation for the
RBEP be shared between EERE's Power Systems and Transportation Fuels
programs. For future funding requests, BERA strongly recommends that
the RBEP be treated as a line item.
HYDROGEN RESEARCH
Research on the thermal reforming of biomass in a supercritical
fluid reactor and in an advanced-design plasma reformer, and on water
splitting with algae, which is the equivalent of photolysis, should be
continued. Detailed study of each of these conversion techniques may
lead to practical processes for the low-cost production of hydrogen.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association
The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national
service organization representing the interests of over 2,000 municipal
and other state and locally owned utilities throughout the United
States. Collectively, public power utilities deliver electric energy to
one of every seven U.S. electric consumers (about 45 million people),
serving some of the nation's largest cities. The majority of APPA's
member systems are located in small and medium-sized communities in
every state except Hawaii.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony outlining
our fiscal year 2001 appropriations priorities within your
Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS
APPA believes it is important to continue development and
commercialization of clean, renewable energy resources as we face the
prospect of increased competition in the electricity marketplace. Two
of the most significant barriers to greater renewable energy use are
cost and lack of demonstrated experience. Because of the requirement to
supply electricity to customers on demand, with high reliability at a
reasonable cost, electric utilities often are conservative when
evaluating new technologies. Evolving deregulation, coupled with
unstable fuel prices, now adds a further challenge to greater adoption
of relatively unproved renewable technologies.
We applaud the Administration's emphasis on DOE energy efficiency
and renewable programs and ask that this Subcommittee work to ensure
that renewable energy remains part of the full range of resource
options available to our nation's electric utilities. APPA supports a
minimum of $409 million for Solar and Renewable Resources Technologies
in fiscal year 2001. This funding level will go a long way in
furthering the call for significant expansion of renewable energy R&D
programs in order to meet the energy challenges and opportunities of
the 21st century.
RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM (REPI)
APPA urges this subcommittee's continued support for the Renewable
Energy Production Incentive Program (REPI), the renewable energy
incentive program authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, at a
level sufficient to make full incentive payments to all eligible
facilities. In recognition of budget constraints, however, we support
and urge the Committee to support the Administration request of $4
million for fiscal year 2001.
The REPI program increases in importance as new air quality
regulations are imposed and renewable energy mandates considered.
Public power systems will be at a disadvantage under the currently
structured REPI if renewable portfolio standards are included in
electricity restructuring proposals. Unlike the certainty of the tax
credits and incentives available to private entities, REPI funding is
erratic and insufficient to offset the higher costs of using
alternative energy resources. REPI permits DOE to make direct payments
to publicly owned electric utilities at the rate of up to 1.5 cents/kWh
of electricity generated from solar, wind, certain geothermal and
biomass electric projects. Because projects of this nature often
require a long lead-time for planning and construction, it is
imperative that stable and predictable funding be provided. APPA urges
this subcommittee's support of REPI at $4 million.
STORAGE FOR HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE
We support the Administration's budget request of $437.5 million
for storage of high-level nuclear waster an increase of $85 million
over fiscal year 2000 funding. These funds will enable DOE to continue
preparations to accept spent fuel as well as to continue scientific
studies at Yucca Mountain assessing the viability of the site.
ADVANCED HYDROPOWER TURBINE PROGRAM
The Advanced Hydropower Turbine Program is a joint industry/
government cost-share effort to develop a new, improved hydroelectric
turbine superior in its ability to protect fish and aquatic habitat and
operate efficiently over a wide range of flow levels. We support
funding this program at $5 million in fiscal year 2001
During the next 15 years, 220 hydroelectric projects will seek new
licenses from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Publicly
owned projects constitute 50 percent of the total capacity that will be
up for renewal. Many of these projects were originally licensed over 50
years ago. Newly imposed licensing conditions can cost hydro project
owners 10 to 15 percent of power generation. A new, improved turbine
could help assure any environmental conditions imposed at relicensing
in the form of new conditioning, fish passages or reduced flows are not
accomplished at the expense of energy production. This is particularly
important due to the increasingly competitive electric market in which
utilities operate today. Flow levels will affect the economics of each
of these projects and many will be unable to compete if the current
trend toward flow reductions continues.
FEDERAL POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS (PMAS)
APPA urges the Committee to support funding of $89 million for
purchase power and wheeling (PPW). APPA has consistently supported
increased efficiency in PMA operations. However, Congress must
recognize that federal power sales revenues cover all PMA operating
expenses plus all Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation
operations, maintenance, replacement and rehabilitation expenses for
hydropower and repayment of the federal investment in the construction
of the projects plus interest. Power sales also support many nonpower-
related expenses associated with these projects.
The Administration's budget request includes language that resolves
a needed scoring change on the use of appropriations for purchase power
and wheeling and sends customer payments for PPW services directly to
DOE rather than the Treasury.
However, APPA is concerned that the Administration does not request
adequate funding for fiscal year 2001 for PPW. The Administration
request of $70 million is inadequate to meet PPW services. APPA
believes the Administration's proposal which sunsets appropriations and
puts spending caps on PPW activities of the Western Area Power
Administration, Southwestern Power Administration and Southeastern
Power Administration in the next four years is unnecessary since
customers payments for PPW services match DOE outlays on a dollar for
dollar basis.
APPA urges the Committee to increase PPW funding levels for the
three PMAs to $89 million and strike language that establishes spending
caps and sunsets the use of appropriations after fiscal year 2004.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC)
APPA supports the Administration's budget request of $175 million
in fiscal year 2001 for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC). Adequate funding for the agency is particularly necessary at
this time in order to provide the resources needed to continue
implementation of electric utility industry restructuring and to
address major issues such as development of regional transmission
groups.
The FERC is charged with regulating certain interstate aspects of
the natural gas, oil pipeline, hydropower, and electric industries.
Such regulation includes issuing licenses and certificates for
construction of facilities, approving rates, inspecting dams,
implementing compliance and enforcement activities, and providing other
services to regulated businesses. These businesses will pay fees and
charges sufficient to recover the Government's full cost of operations.
CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAMS
APPA generally supports the fiscal year 2001 Budget Request of $1.1
billion to fund the Climate Change Technology Initiative. The
initiative consists of a package of tax incentives and investments in
research and development to stimulate increased energy efficiency and
to encourage greater use of renewable energy sources. APPA is an
aggressive advocate of federal support for energy research and
development. While these programs do not directly provide benefits or
incentives to public power systems, APPA supports them nevertheless
because they will result in substantial improvements to the
environment.
U.S. DOE programs under the Climate Change Initiative include a mix
of tax credits and federal-spending programs designed to increase
efficiency and greater use of renewable energy resources. Important
elements of the initiative include support for the deployment of clean
technologies for buildings, transportation industry and electricity.
______
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of the Green Brook Flood Control Commission
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Vernon A.
Noble, and I am the Chairman of the Green Brook Flood Control
Commission. I submit this testimony in support of the Raritan River
Basin--Green Brook Sub-Basin project, which we request be budgeted in
fiscal year 2001 for $4,000,000 in Construction General funds.
Extremely heavy rains began on Thursday, September 16, 1999,
extending over the Green Brook Sub Basin of the Raritan River Basin.
These rains were heavily concentrated in the upper part of the Raritan
River Basin.
By night fall on that day, the river systems were greatly swollen,
particularly the Raritan River. The flood levels in the Raritan River
have a direct effect on the Bound Brook Borough and Middlesex Borough
portion of the Green Brook Sub Basin.
Bound Brook has streams on three sides: the Green Brook, which
empties into the Raritan River on the east end of Bound Brook Borough;
the Middle Brook, which borders Bound Brook Borough on the west, and
likewise empties into the Raritan River; and the Raritan River itself,
which forms the southern boundary of the Borough of Bound Brook.
All three of these streams rose to flood levels during Thursday
night, September 16th, and the early hours of Friday, September 17,
1999.
By early morning on Friday, September 17, 1999 water levels around
Bound Brook had reached unprecedented levels.
The water surface elevations around three sides of Bound Brook
Borough slightly exceeded even the calculations made by the Corps of
Engineers in their final General Reevaluation Report of May 1997.
There were tremendous monetary damages, and although the final
figures are not yet known, it now seems clear that the damages exceeded
the figure predicted by the Corps of Engineers for a 150 year flood
($106,500,000) for Bound Brook Borough alone.
Beyond the monetary damages, there was vast human suffering. The
tragic plight of the people of Bound Brook touched the hearts of people
throughout New Jersey, and volunteers and food and clothing and rolled-
up-sleeves volunteers poured into Bound Brook from all over New Jersey.
All of this raises a very fundamental question: If the Green Brook
Flood Control Project, as authorized by Congress, had been completely
constructed, would this tragedy have happened?
That's a question which the Green Brook Flood Control Commission
has intensely examined. We are greatly relieved to report to you that,
although there would have been minor flooding in low spots in Bound
Brook, as there always is in every heavy rain storm, the massive
flooding and tragic aftermath would not have happened.
A thorough study of the water levels throughout the area, done by
the New York District of the Corps of Engineers since the terrible
flood of September 1999, has shown that, although the water reached
record levels, it would have been contained by the extra margin of
safety, the ``free board'', which the Corps of Engineers has
incorporated in the design of this Project.
The flooding of September 1999 is not the first bad flood to have
struck this area. Records show that major floods have occurred here as
far back as 1903.
Disastrous flooding took place in the Green Brook Basin in the late
summer of 1971. That flood caused $304,000,000 in damages (April 1996
price level) and disrupted the lives of thousands of persons.
In the late summer of 1973, another very severe storm struck the
area, and again, thousands of persons were displaced from their homes.
$482,000,000 damage was done (April 1996 price level) and six persons
lost their lives.
The Green Brook Flood Control Commission was established in 1971,
pursuant to an Act of the New Jersey Legislature shortly after the very
bad flood of 1971.
The Green Brook Flood Control Commission is made up of appointed
representatives from Middlesex, Somerset and Union Counties in New
Jersey, and from the 13 municipalities within the Basin. This
represents a combined population of almost one-quarter of a million
(248,084) people.
The Members of the Commission are all volunteers, and for 29 years
have served, without pay, to advance the cause of flood protection for
the Basin. Throughout this time, the Corps of Engineers, New York
District, has kept us informed of the progress of the project, and a
representative from the Corps has been a regular part of our monthly
meetings.
During 1998, the Congress, with the agreement of the President,
provided money to initiate construction of the Project. Final
preparations are now underway, and it is expected that actual
construction will begin in Bound Brook Borough and in western Middlesex
Borough this year.
We believe that it is clearly essential that the Green Brook Flood
Control Project be carried forward, and pursued vigorously to achieve
protection at the earliest possible date. This Project is needed to
prevent loss of life and property, as well as the trauma caused every
time there is a heavy rain.
New Jersey has programmed budget money for it's share of the
Project in 2001.
We urgently request an appropriation for the Project in fiscal year
2001 of $4,000,000 as proposed by the Administration.
The Green Brook Flood Control Commission is dedicated to the
proposition that Bound Brook Borough, and the other municipalities, and
their thousands of residents, who will otherwise suffer in the next
major flood, must be protected. We move forward with renewed
determination to achieve the protection which the people of the flood
area need and deserve.
With your continued support, we are determined to see this Project
through to completion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, for your
vitally important past support for the Green Brook Flood Control
Project; and we thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Newark, New Jersey
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving
me the opportunity to submit testimony about a project under your
jurisdiction which is very important to the people of Newark, New
Jersey and the surrounding region. The Passaic River Streambank
Restoration Project, known as the Joseph G. Minish Passaic River
Waterfront Park and Historic Area, is an important part of the overall
economic, land use and transportation development plan of the City of
Newark.
The Joseph G. Minish Park/Passaic Riverfront Historic Area project
addresses the restoration and rehabilitation of approximately 9,000
linear feet of Passaic River shoreline from Bridge Street to Brill
Street in the City of Newark. The project is divided into three phases.
Phase I consists of bulkhead replacement (Bridge Street to Jackson
Street) and wetlands restoration (Jackson Street to Brill Street).
Phase II consists of the construction of a 40, wide promenade along the
river's edge, on top of the completed bulkhead work. Phase III includes
the construction of parkland on the inland side of the promenade,
between the river and Newark's downtown.
An appropriation of $25 million for the continuation of
construction on the Newark Riverfront Development project is requested,
so that this integral element in Newark's revitalization can move
forward as planned, and can be utilized by the Army Corps of Engineers,
in fiscal year 2001. The fiscal year 2000 appropriation has been used
for the initial section of bulkhead construction, which is now
underway. The fiscal year 2001 allocation will allow continued
construction of the bulkhead down to Penn Station, fund design of the
walkway and park area, and allow walkway construction to begin. This
restoration will allow neighborhood residents direct access to the
riverfront as part of a much-needed recreation complex.
The project was authorized at a level of $75 million in the 1996
Water Resource Development Act, and has been fully planned by the Army
Corps of Engineers. The streambank restoration and bulkhead
replacement, which is the first phase of the overall project, began in
the fall of 1999 utilizing the fiscal year 1999 and 2000
appropriations. Prior appropriated funds have been utilized to fully
design the bulkhead, a segment of naturalized streambank, and a system
of walkways and public open spaces. Adjacent, currently dormant, sites
have become desirable locations for development of commercial
properties, due to the projected walkway, park and open space
facilities. However, the current funding will only take us through the
construction of bulkhead and some of the mud flats restoration, not to
a usable facility.
A supplemental appropriation of $25 million is requested so that
this integral element in Newark's revitalization can move from partial
construction to the beginning of full project build-out. This
investment in Newark's future will help us to improve the economic
status of our nation's third oldest major city. The development of the
riverfront now is a critical element in the overall plan for Newark's
downtown revitalization. This linear park will serve as a visual and
physical linkage among several key and exciting development projects.
It is adjacent to one of the oldest highways in the nation, Route 21,
which is undergoing a multi-million dollar realignment and enhancement.
A light rail system, the Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link, which will connect
Newark's two train stations, and ultimately, Newark International
Airport and the neighboring City of Elizabeth, will provide users with
access to mass transportation. Conversely, the riverfront will become a
destination served by that system, providing an important open space
and waterfront opportunity for residents of one of the most densely
populated cities in the nation.
The environmental benefits of the project include flood control,
riverbank and wetlands restoration, creation of urban green space, and
enhancement of water quality in the Passaic River. These improvements
will allow the Passaic River to be converted from one of the nation's
most troubled waterways to a cultural and recreational asset. Ongoing
and planned greenway projects will provide pedestrian and bicycle
access to the waterfront from Newark's residential neighborhoods as
well as the City's five major institutions of higher learning.
The riverfront development will complement and provide a visual and
physical connection with the new, $170 million New Jersey Performing
Arts Center, which opened in the Fall of 1997 and has been incredibly
successful. Further north along the riverfront, also accessible from
the riverfront walkway when it is fully built, the City of Newark and
Essex County have opened Riverfront Stadium, home to a minor league
baseball team as well as community sporting events such as the Project
Pride Bowl. Also in close pedestrian proximity is the site for the new
Newark Sports and Entertainment Arena, which is expected to bring two
million visitors a year into the area. In addition, NJ Transit is just
completing construction of a new concourse, which is directly adjacent
to the riverfront. Once the park and walkway are completed, rail and
bus passengers will be able to exit the Penn Station north concourse
directly onto the riverfront area. On the eastern portion of Minish
Park, residents of a crowded community, Newark's Ironbound, will have
direct access to the river and its streambank for active and passive
recreation for the first time. The riverfront will be the nexus of
these activities, creating a vibrant downtown center that will provide
economic development opportunities for the citizens of Newark and our
region. Visitors from throughout the nation are expected to come to
visit our revitalized city, and participate in the exciting growth and
development taking place. There is tremendous potential for Newark's
riverfront to mirror the success of other riverfront developments
throughout the country, and Newark stands ready to accept the
challenges such developments present.
The City of Newark has just completed conducting a master plan
study for the entire riverfront area, which will guide us in tying
together these incredibly exciting, and challenging, projects. We have
a once in a lifetime opportunity to coordinate several major
development activities into a virtually seamless development plan. The
appropriation of $25 million which I am requesting will serve to
incorporate the Army Corps of Engineers' construction into our overall
economic development plan to reinvigorate Newark. I urge you to support
this appropriation request.
In closing, I would like to extend my thanks to the entire New
Jersey delegation for its ongoing support, especially to subcommittee
member Rodney Frelinghuysen for his advocacy of this critical project.
The time and attention of this subcommittee are deeply appreciated.
______
Prepared Statement of New York University
On behalf of New York University (NYU), I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss a project of scientific research which we
believe will advance national interests through enhanced understanding
of the human genome, and which is an important priority for NYU.
This project addresses the programmatic interests of the
subcommittee in enlisting fundamental, university-based scientific
research to serve the national welfare. We thank the Subcommittee and
for taking the time to consider and give its support to important basic
research in biomedical genomics, an area in which New York University
is well positioned to make major contributions. We at NYU firmly
believe that in the coming decades, a federal investment in fundamental
scientific research will repay itself many times over.
The genome is the recipe or blueprint for life. During the last
decade, the unraveling of the genetic code has opened up a vast range
of new opportunities for evolutionary and developmental biologists,
neurobiologists and chemists to understand what genes are, what they
do, and how they do it. The field of biomedical genomics is
revolutionizing biology and is dramatically changing the way we
characterize and address biological questions. As a field which
straddles biology, chemistry, and mathematics, genomics is growing
extraordinarily rapidly and transforming these disciplines, as well as
the social and behavioral sciences.
In its first stage, the revolution in genomics was characterized by
a period of intensive development of techniques to analyze DNA, first
in simple models, like yeast, bacteria, the worm, and the fruitfly,
then in the mouse, and now in humans. The structure and function of
genes are quite similar in these models, making comparisons useful. The
second phase was characterized by the use of these tools to address
whatever biological question was most easily approached, given the
state of technique development. It may be described as structural
genomics--which comprises the mapping and sequencing of genomes and is
mainly driven by technology. The scientific community is now poised to
enter the third phase of the genomics revolution, in which
investigators already established in other fields (immunology,
genetics, neurobiology, etc.) pursue investigations that are driven by
hypothesis rather than technique. The third phase is generally termed
functional genomics and uses the map and sequence information already
collected or to be collected to infer the function of genes. Functional
genomics actively integrates basic and clinical science, with the
ultimate goal of exploiting genomics approaches to address the
relationship between the genes identified in model organisms and those
responsible for human disease states.
While many universities are conducting genomics research, New York
University is especially well positioned to make a distinctive
contribution to the field of comparative functional genomics. This
comparative approach looks for the occurrence of the same genes in
different species that share certain structures or functions, and
provides a powerful method for understanding the function of particular
genes. Comparative functional genomics uses two primary modes of
analysis: (1) identifying what has been conserved over long
evolutionary distances, and (2) determining crucial differences that
distinguish two closely related species. This focus has particular
relevance to molecular medicine as it provides the key to understanding
the genetic basis of disease states that are dependent on numerous
genes, and unraveling the complex regulatory networks for crucial
biological functions.
Studies in comparative functional genomics necessarily synergize
medically related research programs, such as those at the NYU School of
Medicine and its affiliated Mount Sinai School of Medicine; with basic
science research programs such as those at NYU's Faculty of Arts and
Science; and with computational investigators, such as those at NYU's
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences who are actively engaged in
bioinformatics research.
In the basic sciences, NYU has substantial strengths in areas
important to genomics, including evolutionary biology, developmental
biology, and neurobiology, and extends this expertise through active
collaboration with premier metropolitan area institutions, including
the New York Botanical Garden and the American Museum of Natural
History. NYU Medical School has outstanding programs in Developmental
Genetics, Molecular Neurobiology, Pathogenesis and Structural Biology.
And Mount Sinai Medical School has an internationally acclaimed program
in Human Genetics and has begun to use genomics approaches to identify
the origins of human genetic disorders.
New York University is thus poised to make a distinctive
contribution to the next phase of genomics research. There are
established frameworks for interdisciplinary and interschool
collaboration, strengths in biological, neurobiological, and
computational sciences, and standing in the international scientific
community. The nation's largest private university, with 13 schools and
over 49,000 students, NYU is a leading center of scholarship, teaching
and research. It is one of 29 private institutions constituting the
distinguished Association of American Universities, and is consistently
among the top U.S. universities in funds received from foundations and
federal sources.
NYU encompasses a pre-eminent faculty and generates substantial
external funding from federal and state agencies as well as the private
sector. These investigations have attracted millions of federal dollars
from the NIH, NSF, ONR, and EPA. In addition, NYU has received major
funding from the most prestigious private foundations supporting the
sciences, including the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the W. M. Keck
Foundation, the Alfred M. Sloan Foundation, and the Beatrice and Samuel
A. Seaver Foundation. Faculty have, as individuals, won prestigious
awards, including HHMI Investigator, NSF Presidential Faculty Fellow,
NIH Merit Awardee, McKnight Foundation Scholar in Neuroscience, and
MacArthur ``Genius'' Fellow.
RESEARCH APPLICATIONS AND NATIONAL BENEFITS
Concentrated studies in comparative functional genomics can be a
major resource for the research and development activities of academic
organizations and commercial firms; can provide a strong framework for
direct and indirect economic development in vital, high-tech
industries; and can offer benefits to our citizens from improved health
care, and technology development.
Economic Development
Commercial applications that strengthen existing industries and
attract new ones.--In a familiar dynamic of university-centered
economic growth, industry draws on the faculty's entrepreneurial
energies, their expertise in training the personnel needed to staff
high-technology firms, and the fundamental scientific research that can
translate into practical applications. High-tech firms spring up near a
research university and, in turn, attract or spin off additional high-
tech firms in the same or related fields. The interaction of scientists
across firms makes the spread of information quicker and the
development of projects more rapid. Initial firms and newer firms share
a growing pool of highly trained personnel. The expansion of the
skilled labor pool makes hiring easier; the existence of the pool
attracts still more firms. Once a core of high-tech industries locates
in an area, venture capitalists identify that area as promising. The
flow of capital--a key ingredient for high-technology growth--
increases. Once the process of agglomeration begins, it can be expected
to grow on itself and become self-reinforcing.
R & D investment in genomics is already energizing bio-technology,
pharmaceutical, biomedicine, agbiotech, computer software, and
engineering enterprises. We expect that as the research base expands,
we will see a generation of new commercializable technologies, some of
which may lead to genome and pharmacological genome companies.
Job growth as a spin-off from research and development funding for
genomics.--Academic R&D, although itself not directed towards specific
commercial application, does provide the focus for attracting industry
and serving as a base for commercial spin-offs, as has been so
successfully demonstrated in the San Francisco Bay and Boston areas. A
conservative approximation that uses state employment multipliers
maintained by the U. S. Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic
Analysis points to immediate employment impacts of academic R&D. The
BEA calculates that each $1 million in R&D grants supports roughly 34.5
full and part time jobs \1\ directly within the university and
indirectly outside the university as the university's expenditures
ripple through the local and state economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The multiplier is for 1995 and is based on 1987 benchmark
input-output accounts for the U.S. economy and 1994 regional data,
adjusted for 1995 inflation. See the latest (March 1997) edition of the
BEA publication Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional
Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II). These multipliers are
frequently used in studies of the economic impacts of individual
universities and colleges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biomedical Applications for National Health Needs
An investment in genomics research will have a heavy payoff in the
nation's well-being--economic and otherwise--by advancing the frontiers
of knowledge, finding new cures and treatments for diseases, and
helping to develop new diagnostic technologies. Clinical applications
hold enormous promise to revolutionize medicine and our understanding
of both normal development and disease. Genomics research may lead to
lifesaving instruments or procedures for diagnosis, prevention, and
cure of diseases and disorders such as diabetes, heart disease, cancer
and infectious disease. In particular, genomics science has the
potential to revolutionize the development of mass screening tests for
genetic disorders, ultimately making it possible to identify the
hereditary contribution to common diseases, predict individual
responses to drug intervention, and design drugs that are customized
for individual use.
Applications for Environment Issues
Improved understanding of the human genome is a basic link in the
chain leading from scientific discovery to a better understanding of
human health to effective regulatory and management actions in the
realm of environmental protection. Research into genetic development
and function can help to explain how environmental factors alter or
influence these processes.
Advances in Biomedical and Other Research Fields
Genomics is a field which is particularly fertile in that the
understanding of the detailed structure of the human genome is central
to a variety of applications: cell biology, embryology, developmental
biology, study of cancers and many other heritable diseases,
immunology, endocrinology, neurology, and population genetics. Further,
genomics techniques can address many research problems that overlap
with computer vision, robotics, and combinatorial problems; genomics
propels cross-disciplinary approaches for merging the biological
sciences with new technologies in informatics. In addition, it is
enabling researchers in developmental biology and molecular genetics to
investigate genetic diversity, evolution, and development. Indeed,
genomics brings together laboratory scientists with formerly unrelated
disciplines, and can stimulate expansion in key directions in
informatics, genetics, physical chemistry, evolutionary studies,
diagnostic tools, and machine vision. Investment in facilities where
computer scientists, physical chemists, and geneticists can readily
interact with each other is essential for the development of this
field.
Investment in genomic science is a strategic and efficient vehicle
for advancing fundamental studies in a wide variety of scientific
fields; facilitating biomedical applications that can greatly enhance
the public welfare; and energizing existing and new industry. The
commitment of this committee to support genomics studies is greatly
appreciated.
______
Prepared Statement of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New
Jersey
The following is the testimony of the University of Medicine and
Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ), the largest public health sciences
university in the nation. Our statewide system is located on five
academic campuses and consists of 3 medical schools and schools of
dentistry, nursing, health related professions, public health and
graduate biomedical sciences. UMDNJ also comprises a University-owned
acute care hospital, three core teaching hospitals, an integrated
behavioral health care delivery system, a statewide system for managed
care and affiliations with more than 200 health care and educational
institutions statewide. No other institution in the nation possesses
the resources which match our scope in higher education, health care
delivery, research and community service initiatives with federal,
state and local entities.
We appreciate the opportunity to bring to your attention our
priority projects that are consistent with the biomedical research
mission of the Department of Energy & Water. These projects are
statewide in scope and include collaborations both within the
University system and with our affiliates. Our research projects also
underscore UMDNJ's commitment to eliminating racial disparities in
health care delivery. New Jersey, with its small geographic size and
its large diverse population, is an idea site in which to conduct
research and develop activities that will address this important issue.
Our first priority is the development of the Child Health Institute
of New Jersey at the UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School (RWJMS)
in New Brunswick. As part of the state's public higher education
system, the medical school's 2500 full-time and volunteer faculty train
about 1,500 students in medicine, public health and graduate programs
and ranks in the top one-third of the country with regard to the
percentage of its students who practice in primary care specialties
after completing their residency training. The medical school ranks in
the top one-third in the nation in terms of grant support per faculty
member. RWJMS is home to The Cancer Institute of New Jersey, the only
NCI-designated clinical cancer center in New Jersey; The Center for
Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine; the Environmental and Occupational
Health Sciences Institute, the largest environmental institute in the
world; and the Child Health Institute.
The mission of the Child Health Institute is to build a
comprehensive biomedical research center that is focused on molecular
genetics and development of children, and to forge scientific and
hospital-based programs into an international academic children's
center that will prevent and treat childhood diseases by delivering new
knowledge through integrated education, research and treatment. The CHI
will partner with academic, biotechnology, pharmaceutical and
informatics industries in New Jersey to further its mission.
The Child Health Institute will enable the medical school to expand
and strengthen basic research efforts with clinical departments at the
Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital and with the new Children's
Hospital in the areas of Obstetrics, Pediatrics, Neurology, Surgery and
Psychiatry The Child Health Institute will fill a critical gap in
services through the recruitment of an intellectual base upon which
molecular programs in child development will build.
At the Child Health Institute, research will serve as the basis for
new treatments, therapies and cures for such devastating and
debilitating childhood syndromes as asthma, autism, cancer, diabetes,
heart and lung defects. One-third of our scientists will focus on human
genome research (birth defects, cystic fibrosis, etc.); one-third will
focus on developmental neuro-biology (autism, attention-deficit
disorders, etc.) and one third will focus on developmental biology
(diabetes, asthma, etc.). Our biomedical researchers will direct their
efforts toward the environmental, genetic and cellular causes of these
diseases in infants and children through basic scientific investigation
in a quest to prevent, treat and cure these diseases.
Normal child development is a water dependent process, reflecting
water quality, quantity and its ``management'' by cells and tissues.
Access to uncontaminated water is at the base of the tree of life.
Pollution of aquatic ecosystems poses a serious threat to the entire
ecosystem and studying how a toxin affects embryonic development is
central to understanding the risks pollutants represent, whether
derived from pesticides, industrial run-off, acid rain or landfills. In
multiple ways, the embryo is a sentinel for environmental toxins.
Research at the Child Health Institute will focus on molecular
mechanisms of early embryonic development, a natural, but vulnerable
water-based environment. Sixty percent of the weight of the average
human is contributed by water. The average 150 lb man contains about 40
to 45 quarts of waters, approximately 6 quarts of which is circulating
in the blood, and 39 quarts are within and between the cells of each
and every organ. The embryo is even more highly hydrated than the
adult. During development the embryo undergoes rapid changes in size
and shape requiring rapid changes in the structures and cells present
in any one tissue. In order to accommodate these rapid and essential
changes, the embryo is rich in molecules which have a very high water
binding capacity. After birth, the water in tissues allows cells to
continue to move about within the embryo with ease and also promote
fluid movement in blood vessels, the gastrointestinal tract and the
airways. For example, cystic fibrosis (CF) is an inherited disorder
which afflicts millions of children world-wide. The genetic defect in
CF has been identified and involves a pump which, in effect, moves salt
and water into and out of cells. Children with CF insufficiently pump
water into the secretions of their pancreas and lungs and the dryness
of these secretions leads to obstruction of those organs and subsequent
infection and/or obstruction.
The CHI will act as a magnet for additional growth in research and
health care program development in New Jersey. The Institute will
encompass 83,000 gross square feet and will house more than 40 research
laboratories and associated support facilities. Fourteen senior faculty
will direct teams of M.D. and Ph.D. researchers, visiting scientists,
postdoctoral fellows, graduate students and technicians for a full
complement of some 130 employees. At maturity, the Institute is
expected to attract $7 to $9 million dollars of new research funding
annually. The Institute's total annual operating budget is projected to
be $10 to $12 million: applying a standard economic multiplier of 5,
the total impact on the New Brunswick area is estimated to be $50 to
$60 million per year. Construction costs for the Institute are
estimated at $27 million, with approximately half of that figure
associated with local employment.
We respectfully seek $5 million from the Department of Energy and
Water to complement $3 million already received in federal
participation to further advance the construction and development of
the Child Health Institute of New Jersey.
Our second priority is the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer
Center, established at the Cancer Institute of New Jersey (CINJ) with
the goal of eradicating prostate cancer and improving the lives of men
at risk for the disease through research, treatment, education and
prevention. GPCC was founded in memory of Rep. Dean Gallo, a New Jersey
Congressman who died of prostate cancer diagnosed at an advanced stage.
The purpose of the GPCC is to establish a multi-disciplinary center to
study all aspects of prostate cancer and its prevention. The Cancer
Institute of New Jersey is a partnership of UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson
Medical School and hospital affiliates.
GPCC unites a team of outstanding researchers and clinicians who
are committed to high quality basic research, translation of innovative
research to the clinic, exceptional patient care, and improving public
education and awareness of prostate cancer. GPCC is a center of
excellence of the Cancer Institute of New Jersey, which is the only
NCI-designated cancer center in the state. GPCC efforts will be focused
in four major areas: (1) Basic, Clinical and Translational Research;
(2) Comprehensive Patient Care; (3) Epidemiology and Cancer Control;
and (4) Education and Outreach.
Basic, Clinical and Translational Research.--GPCC scientists will
investigate the molecular, genetic and environmental factors that are
responsible for prostate cancer initiation and progression. Our
researchers will develop appropriate model systems that will facilitate
the design and implementation of novel strategies for prevention and
treatment. GPCC will foster multi-disciplinary efforts that will lead
to the effective translation of basic research to improved patient care
and novel clinical trials.
Comprehensive Patient Care.--It is the goal of the GPCC to provide
exceptional patient care through a multi-disciplinary patient care team
in the areas of urological oncology, radiation oncology and medical
oncology for each patient during all stages of the disease. The patient
care team will develop novel clinical approaches for treating all
stages of prostate cancer.
Epidemiology and Cancer Control.--Another goal of the GPCC is to
understand the etiology of prostate cancer susceptibility and to find
effective modalities for prevention of prostate cancer.
Education and Outreach.--GPCC will continue its efforts to
education the public throughout the State of New Jersey about the
importance of early detection of prostate cancer, particularly in
underserved communities where there is a population at high risk for
the disease.
The Cancer Institute of New Jersey has received $5 million in
federal funding over the last two years (including $2 million from this
committee) for the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer Center. This
important funding has enabled us to establish a world-class program in
prostate cancer research that includes publications in prestigious
journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine and Genes and
Development. CINJ has used its findings to leverage additional research
dollars for individual investigators from such agencies as CapCure, the
Department of Defense and several private foundations. Top
investigators have been recruited to initiate programs in prostate
cancer research through our education and pilot grant programs. We have
also established education and outreach programs that will enhance the
visibility of our clinical programs, including a partnership with the
100 Black Men organization.
Additional funding is being sought this year to build on our basic
research in prostate cancer and to support the development of
technological approaches including: the use of microarray technology to
survey gene expression patterns in prostate tumors; the use of mouse
models for prostate cancer that can be used to test new methods of
prevention and treatment; and the development of monoclonal antibodies
that may be used for prognosis and diagnosis.
We will also bring basic research directly to the clinic by
fostering interactions among basic and clinical researchers through our
education programs supported by this funding. Additional funding will
allow us to enhance our treatment of patients with prostate cancer
through several new clinical trials for patients at all stages of the
disease. To increase the number of additional clinical trials, we will
utilize funding to develop a support team that will assist our
physicians to design and implement new clinical trials.
We seek $2 million in federal funding to enhance the research,
education and cancer care programs of the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate
Cancer Center at our New Brunswick facility, and to expand these
programs statewide.
We thank this committee for its strong support of biomedical
research and for our programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of New York, Empire State Development
Corporation; State of New Jersey, Department of Transporation; and the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
On behalf of the Port of New York and New Jersey, we wish to thank
you for the support this Subcommittee has shown for navigation programs
in recent years. Only with the support of this Subcommittee and
Congress can the nation's commercial and defense shipping needs be
accommodated through the Army's civil works program. We are especially
appreciative of the funding that projects in our port have received to
enable it to continue to serve our country's economic and international
commerce objectives on the Atlantic.
We offer our comments on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' fiscal
year 2001 budget request. We welcome the Administration's budget
request to continue the construction of the Kill van Kull-Newark Bay
Channels to 45 feet as well as the construction funding for the Arthur
Kill Channel to 41 feet and the Port Jersey Channel to 41 feet. In
order for the benefits of these and other projects to be realized and
to avoid unnecessary project cost increases from project delays, we
respectfully request that the Subcommittee appropriate funds at the
levels outlined below in this statement. These funds will ensure that
essential navigation infrastructure will be in place to accommodate
post-Panamax ships currently deployed in international commerce. That
is especially true of the New York & New Jersey Harbor Navigation
project that represents a significant investment strategy, only a small
portion of which would be in Federal funding, for waterside and
landside improvements that will serve our customers and the national
interest well into this new century. We are especially aware of the
clear trends in steamship design and construction that will result in
an increasing fleet of very large container ships whose efficiencies
will be realized fully once the navigation channels at major U.S.
gateways are of a corresponding depth. The Port of New York and New
Jersey directly serves states of the Northeast and Midwest and with
these improvements can continue to provide greater transportation
efficiencies to those markets.
In general, we support the Administration's budget request for
projects in the Port of New York and New Jersey. Listed below are
select projects, discussed later in this statement, and appropriation
amounts that we seek for fiscal year 2001. Those projects displayed in
bold are our requests beyond the fiscal year 2001 budget levels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Port request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction:
Kill van Kull--Newark Bay Channels, $53,000,000 $53,000,000
NY & NJ............................
NY & NJ Channels: Arthur Kill, NY & 5,000,000 15,000,000
NJ.................................
NY & NJ Channels: Port Jersey, NJ... 5,469,000 15,000,000
Ambrose Shoals...................... .............. 2,200,000
Studies:
NY & NJ Harbor Navigation Study--PED 2,528,000 7,500,000
NY & NJ Estuary Restoration Study... 800,000 5,000,000
NY & NJ Channels: Arthur Kill 347,000 347,000
Channel, NY & NJ...................
Operation and Maintenance............... 28,284,000 28,284,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A brief description of each of these activities follows.
CONSTRUCTION
Kill van Kull--Newark Bay Channels, NY & NJ (Phase II).--The
deepening of the Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay Federal channels to 45
feet was authorized for construction in the fiscal year 1985
Supplemental Appropriations Act. These channels serve Port Newark and
the Elizabeth Port Authority Marine Terminal, the busiest and largest
container facilities on the East Coast. The Port of New York and New
Jersey achieved a major milestone in this project by witnessing the
beginning of the final phase of construction in 1999. Since that time,
the project is fully underway with progress to report and three
contracts awarded, two of them well under project estimates. The Port
Authority of New York & New Jersey as local sponsor for this project
has approved the local share of funding and is committed to completing
construction with the Corps of Engineers by the end of 2004. It is a
goal mandated by the users of the Port who have waited a long time for
the 45-foot depth. We appreciate and support the President's budget of
$53 million.
NY & NJ Channels: Arthur Kill Channel, NY & NJ.--The Arthur Kill
Channel, NY & NJ, Howland Hook Marine Terminal (HHMT) project
authorization can be found in the 1986, 1992, 1996 and 1999 WRDAs. The
project's controlling depth is currently 35 feet. The planned channel
improvements include: (1) deepening the existing 35-foot channel to 41
feet below MLW from its confluence with the Kill van Kull Channel to
the Howland Hook Marine Terminal; (2) deepening to 40 feet below MLW
from the HHMT to the Petroport and Tosco facilities in New Jersey; and
(3) selective widening and realignment of the channel to ensure safe
navigation. The Port Authority has invested $35 million to date to
modernize the HHMT and spent, along with the City of New York,
approximately $18 million for the berth dredging required to return
this terminal into active service. The Port Authority has approved an
amount representing the full local share of the Federal project. The
HHMT currently employs 600 people on peak days and is expected to
increase to a range of 800 to 1000 employees in 2000. These figures, as
compared to our statement of last year, reveal a significant increase
in business at the terminal in the past year, which itself demonstrates
the trade growth demands on the infrastructure on the Arthur Kill. The
City of New York, the State of New Jersey and the Port Authority are
working to improve operational efficiency and reduce truck traffic by
re-establishing rail service to the terminal. It is worth noting that
HHMT is the Defense Department's Northeast Strategic Port of
Embarkation in the event of a national emergency, which gives it a
special role to play in the national defense strategy. In addition to
the benefits that will accrue to the HHMT and the petroleum facilities
along the Arthur Kill, implementation of this deepening project is
vital to the Port's future capacity to grow. We, therefore,
respectfully request that the fiscal year 2001 appropriations include
$15,000,000 to initiate channel improvements in the Arthur Kill Channel
and maximize the work that can be accomplished during the first year of
construction.
New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels: Port Jersey, NJ.--The 1986
WRDA authorized construction of the Port Jersey Channel to 41 feet. The
Port Jersey Channel, located in Bayonne, NJ, presently serves
approximately one-half dozen shipping lines calling at Global Marine
Terminal. In addition, the channel provides access to the Port
Authority Auto Marine Terminal and will serve a portion of the former
Military Ocean Terminal at Bayonne that will be developed into another
deepwater marine terminal facility. As the only privately owned
terminal in the port, Global pays approximately $10,000,000 in Federal,
state, and local taxes annually. More than 300 vessels, carrying
approximately 280,000 twenty-foot equivalent units, call annually upon
the terminal. Well over 600 terminal employees, with an annual payroll
of $25 million, and 3,000 indirect jobs depend on this facility for
their livelihood. Recognizing the demand of ocean carriers and
responding to a critical need to provide deeper water on an emergency
basis, the State of New Jersey in 1997 constructed a 38-foot channel
leading to Global at a cost of $14,000,000. We appreciate the
Administration's request of $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and
respectfully request that the budget for this project be augmented to
$15,000,000 to initiate construction plans and specifications necessary
to improve the Port Jersey Channel.
Ambrose Shoals.--This project is not anticipated in the fiscal year
2001 budget prepared by the Administration but is an important one for
the safe navigation of vessels entering the Port of New York and New
Jersey. The shoal is located in the sea one mile before ships enter the
Ambrose channel, the port's entrance channel. In contrast to the
Ambrose Channel project depth of 45 feet, a recent survey identifies a
current controlling depth of 41 feet. The removal of this hazard to
navigation would entail moving 125,000 cubic yards of dredged material.
This project is contemplated under the New York & New Jersey Harbor
project described in the studies portion of this statement but the New
York and New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots and concerned agencies in the
region request that construction funding be provided in fiscal year
2001 in order to get a start on a removal project before an accident
might occur. We request that $2, 200,000 be appropriated, which is the
current Corps of Engineers' estimated cost of construction.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and maintenance projects are critical to the Port of New
York and New Jersey's operations. If channels are not maintained to the
depth recorded on nautical charts they become inaccurate and increase
the risk of groundings to vessels. We, therefore appreciate the
Administration's request $28.28 million in operation and maintenance
funding and encourage the Subcommittee's consideration of that request.
STUDIES
NY & NJ Harbor Navigation Study.--In the feasibility study,
authorized by the 1996 WRDA, the Corps of Engineers has determined
there is a clear Federal interest in deepening several major NY & NJ
Harbor channels to 50 feet below MLW, or greater. The States of New
York and New Jersey and the Port Authority are the local sponsors of
the study, which is being put in final form now and on the basis of
which we are prepared to ask Congress to enact new project depth
authorizations. The Corps' recommendations, if implemented, would
enable the Port to continue to serve the nation's marine transportation
needs as U.S. international trade doubles in just the next ten years
and quadruples by 2040. The ocean carrier industry has made it clear
that their future container vessels will require navigation channels
dredged to depths that exceed current depths. For these reasons, the
States of New York and New Jersey and the Port Authority are in
agreement that work to deliver the deeper channels should be completed
as soon as possible. We therefore respectfully request that the fiscal
year 2001 budget be augmented to $7.5 million in order to meet
timeframes which local sponsors and the Corps of Engineers will agree
are prudent and possible.
NY & NJ Channels: Arthur Kill Channel, NY & NJ.--As we noted
earlier, the controlling depth for the Arthur Kill is 35 feet. Even as
construction will commence in fiscal year 2001 for the 41-foot project,
the Subcommittee willing, planning for an ultimate depth of 45 feet
should continue. The 1996 WRDA authorized the project depth to as much
as 45 feet. Although new congressional authorization is needed to
increase the Section 902 funding cap, a pre-construction, engineering
and design effort will be needed for construction of the 45-foot
channel. The Corps has estimated the cost of this study to be $2
million, with the local share provided by the State of New Jersey and
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. We support the
Administration's request for $347,000 for Pre-construction Engineering
and Design work in fiscal year 2001.
NY & NJ Estuary Restoration Project.--Proposed New York and New
Jersey harbor improvements are likely to include activities beyond
construction of traditional navigation infrastructure. The
implementation of a restoration and remediation plan for the Hudson-
Raritan Estuary is also a significant part of any future improvement
strategy for the harbor. The Corps of Engineers' feasibility study on
harbor restoration is an important first step to determining potential
Federal and non-Federal projects. The Port Authority supports this
initiative and is willing to be an active participant/sponsor of the
study. To that end, we respectfully request that funds in the amount of
$5,000,000 be appropriated for the Corps of Engineers to conduct the
necessary feasibility study.
CONCLUSION
For the second year the Executive Branch sent Congress a budget
that does a reasonable job of addressing the nation's navigational
channel needs, at least in comparison to the prior year budgets that
woefully underfunded the water resource program. It by no means
addresses all needs, whether on the inland and coastal navigation
system, along the American shores or in the flood plains of the nation.
However, we believe that Congress has made tremendous progress in
highlighting the importance of not neglecting our water-based
infrastructure, notwithstanding criticism being leveled by certain
organizations against Congress and the Army Corps of Engineers. Lastly,
we would urge the Subcommittee to resist placing limitations on funding
advances that might be made by non-Federal agencies in the interest of
speeding project construction and the delivery of important benefits to
the public. Thank you once more for your attention to the needs of our
port and region.
______
NATIONWIDE WATER PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of the Association of State Floodplain Managers,
Inc.
The Association of State Floodplain Managers appreciates the
opportunity to express support for fully funding several programs of
the Army Corps of Engineers which can significantly expand the Corps'
ability to reduce losses due to flooding. We have found that Planning
Assistance to States (Section 22) and Flood Plain Management Services
provide for important elements of effective floodplain management. The
Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard Mitigation Initiative
offers new opportunities for use of non-structural options to achieve
flood loss reduction. The National Shoreline Study requested by
Congress in WRDA 99 has some initial funding proposed in the budget.
These are all elements of the Corps' activities that are especially
helpful to communities and states around the country in reducing flood
losses.
The Association of State Floodplain Managers is an association of
over 3,500 state and local officials and other professionals engaged in
floodplain management, flood hazard mitigation, flood preparedness,
warning and recovery and in working with numerous federal agencies,
including the Corps of Engineers. Our members have expertise in the
fields of engineering, planning, community development, hydrologic
forecasting, emergency response, and water resources.
Three of the programs we are discussing, PAS, FPMS and Ecosystem
restoration & mitigation, are all programs which directly support major
themes the Corps is pursuing to formulate and implement Civil Works
policy. They are based on building strong partnerships with states and
local communities as well as other federal agencies. Additionally, that
Civil Works policy should help economic growth and prosperity by
``combining sound infrastructure management and development with
environmental protection and ecosystem restoration''. We full support
these strategies for the Corps.
Under General Investigations, ``Coordination Studies With Other
Agencies'' includes $6.5 million for Planning Assistance to States in
the budget request for fiscal year 2001, the same as last years
request. The Congress, in fiscal year 1999 provided 1 million over the
budget request, to help reduce the work backlog and meet the growing
need of localities and local and regional governmental entitles for
technical assistance from the Corps. The Senate provided $7.5 million
in recognition of the backlog and $6.3 was agreed to in Conference. The
situation has, of course, been helped by the Congressional effort this
fiscal year, but a significant backlog remains. Further, increasing
federal efforts to encourage cooperation and capability building among
federal agencies and state and local governments have produced more
demand for the Corps' guidance and assistance. We hope that the
Committee will approve funding at least at the budget request and,
hopefully, once again at a measure above the budget request.
Also under General Investigations, Flood Plain Management Services,
$9 million is requested for fiscal year 2001. The funding level for
fiscal year 2000 was $8.5 Million. The Floodplain Management Services
Program funds specific technical assistance requests from states, local
governments and tribes. Generally, these address needs for
identification of flood hazards in communities under growth pressure,
assessing and taking steps to assure the safety of dams and providing
the technical information to identify appropriate flood mitigation
options, floodproofing, flood warning and hurricane evacuation studies.
Without the technical assistance the Corps provides, structures may be
built at risk, exposing citizens and the nation's taxpayers to future
costs. Clearly, projects funded under FPMS work tangibly to reduce
flood losses and costs to the Federal Government and support the
partnership and economic growth/infrastructure management strategies
above.
The Corps is requesting $20 million for its Ecosystem Restoration
and Flood Mitigation initiative. This program would provide the Corps
with a full-range toolbox to help communities and states. It offers
essential flexibility such as the ability to accommodate smaller
projects for communities where a traditional structural project might
not be justified or the ability to mix structural and non-structural
elements to better design an overall project. The continuing
authorities nature of the proposed program is important because
confidence in a sustained federal commitment is important to
communities for development and implementation of these smaller
projects. From our knowledge, hundreds of communities in the nation
have the potential to benefit substantially from this innovative
initiative. We hope that the Committee will provide the nation's
communities with the valuable tools of this program.
Congress Authorized the National Shoreline Study in WRDA 99 in
order to help the nation describe the extent of economic and
environmental effects of erosion and accretion of our shorelines. The
study is also to help identify appropriate benefits and costs to
various levels of federal and non-federal participants in shore
protection projects. We support proceeding with such a study so the
nation will be better prepared to address and manage our shorelines to
benefit everyone. The proposed budget provides $300,000 for starting
this study under ``General Investigations-Studies not under states''.
We urge the Committee to provide at least the budget request. In order
to complete the study in the time Congress requested, funding of $500-
750,000 would be appropriate.
It is a pleasure to share our views on the effectiveness and
usefulness of these programs in the achievement of flood loss
reduction. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony. We are
always ready to respond to your questions. Please contact ASFPM
Executive Director, Larry Larson, at (608) 274-0123 if further
information is needed.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Urban Agriculture Council
Dear Chairman Domenici and Members of the Subcommittee: Mr.
Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Roger Waters, President of
the National Urban Agriculture Council (NUAC). NUAC is a national
nonprofit organization established as a center for the promotion and
implementation of effective water management in the urban landscape.
I would like to offer testimony on six Bureau of Reclamation
programs: Drought Emergency Assistance; Efficiency Incentives, Water
Management and Conservation, Technical Assistance to States, Soil and
Moisture Conservation, and the Title XVI-Water Reclamation and Reuse.
DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE
NUAC has been an active participant in the efforts of the National
Drought Policy Commission's efforts to produce a report on
recommendations for a national drought policy for the country. Part of
the core mission of NUAC is to act as a center for the acceptance,
promotion, and implementation of practical, science-based water
resource management and conservation practices. An important element of
that mission is making sure water users are prepared for the
eventuality of drought. We have been supportive of the efforts of the
Commission to produce such a vision as part of their recommendations in
the final report.
The Bureau of Reclamation requested $500,000 for fiscal year 2001.
NUAC believes and would ask that Congress consider that given the
drought problems in this country, that an additional $3 million be
included in this program for fiscal year 2001. The Bureau of
Reclamation and the Department of Agriculture appear to be the best
agencies suited to working with state and local governments, tribes and
local water users by undertaking activities that can result in down-
the-road savings by the Federal Government not having to provide
emergency bailouts to the degree they would if such preparedness does
not take place.
EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES PROGRAM
NUAC is supportive of this program that provides a partnership
among the Bureau of Reclamation, water users, and states to implement
water use efficiency and conservation solutions that are tailored to
local conditions. The Bureau of Reclamation requested $3,169,000 for
the program for fiscal year 2001. We would like to see the program
increased up to $5,000,000 so a greater amount of work can take place
with water districts for planning assistance and training on the
development of water conservation plans and water efficient landscapes.
The need for this type of training was one of the reasons NUAC was
founded. Water Resource managers and policy makers are increasingly
challenged by management issues. Paramount to making good management
decisions is the availability of sound scientifically information. This
information is an aid in the development of practical and
environmentally sound programs which are both cost effective and
socially responsible.
WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PROGRAM
On the surface this program appear to be a duplication of other
Bureau of Reclamation assistance programs. The Bureau of Reclamation
requested $7.6 million for this program for fiscal year 2001. One of
the questions that has arisen in this program is whether the Bureau of
Reclamation has construction authority for funds provided to districts
under the program. This is an issue we would like the Committee to
clear up so projects could go forward. We believe the funding requested
is adequate, but if construction is going to occur under this program
we would suggest a cap on the size of the project receiving such
funding so it does not become a program for the few and not the many.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE STATES
NUAC is concerned with how this program has been cut by Congress
over the past several years. We believe the data collection and
analyses for management of water and related land resources that occurs
with this funding is important in the absence of this country having a
national water policy. We would ask that the request of $1.8 million
not be cut, and if possible, the funding be increased to $3 million to
help make up the shortfall that has occurred from previous cuts.
SOIL MOISTURE AND CONSERVATION
The modest amount of the Bureau of Reclamation's request of
$263,000 makes this program appear unimportant. NUAC would like to see
this increased by a modest amount to $500,000 but have that increase
tied to assisting in the efforts from the recommendations of the final
National Drought Policy Commission Report. We also believe this program
should be examined to see if it couldn't assist in proper site
management of Federally funded structures that are going to need water
for their urban landscapes.
TITLE XVI--WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE
NUAC is supportive of the funding that has been provided in the
fiscal year 2001 request for the projects that are underway under the
Title XVI program. The $22 million requested is substantially below the
$33 million provided by Congress for fiscal year 2000 and we would
request that you consider increasing the funding up to that level this
year. The $1.4 million provide for research, new starts, and
feasibility studies needs to be examined from the standpoint of how
long it is going to take to fund the existing projects, instead of
looking to increase the number of projects. We believe there is a need
for a serious discussion among water policy leaders on how to fund the
future of this program in a timely manner. With regard to research, we
see this as an area for the private and public sector to move forward
on their own without having Reclamation involved in the agenda. We
believe Reclamation's money would be better spent in getting the
existing projects built.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony for the record
on these programs.
______
MIDWEST U.S. WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago
On behalf of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater
Chicago (District), I want to thank the Subcommittee for this
opportunity to present our priorities for fiscal year 2001 and, at the
same time, express our appreciation for your support of the District's
projects in the years past. The District is the local sponsor for three
Corps of Engineers priority projects of the Chicagoland Underflow Plan:
the O'Hare, McCook and Thornton Reservoirs. We are requesting the
Subcommittee's full support for McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, as the
O'Hare Reservoir has been completed. Specifically, we request the
Subcommittee to include a total of $19,000,000 in construction funding
for the McCook and Thornton Reservoir projects in the bill. The
following text outlines these projects and the need for the requested
funding. Also, attached is a booklet indicating the benefits of the
project, the municipalities in our area which benefit from these
projects, and the need for the requested funding. The booklet reviews
the history of the issues involved, including newspaper articles and
pertinent data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the
Illinois State Water Survey.
the chicagoland underflow plan
The Chicagoland Underflow Plan (CUP) consists of three reservoirs:
the O'Hare, McCook and Thornton Reservoirs. The O'Hare Reservoir
Project was fully authorized for construction in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662) and completed by the Corps
in fiscal year 1999. This reservoir is connected to the existing O'Hare
segment of the District's Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP). Adopted in
1972, TARP was the result of a multi-agency effort, which included
officials of the State of Illinois, County of Cook, City of Chicago,
and the District.
TARP was designed to address the overwhelming water pollution and
flooding problems of the Chicagoland combined sewer areas. These
problems stem from the fact that the capacity of the area's waterways
has been overburdened over the years and has become woefully inadequate
in both hydraulic and assimilative capacities. These waterways are no
longer able to carry away the combined sewer overflow discharges nor
are they able to assimilate the pollution associated with these
discharges. Severe basement flooding and polluted waterways (including
Lake Michigan, which is the source of drinking water for millions of
people) is the inevitable result. We point with pride to the fact that
TARP was found to be the most cost-effective and socially and
environmentally acceptable way for reducing these flooding and water
pollution problems. Experience to date has reinforced such findings
with respect to economics and efficiency.
The TARP plan calls for the construction of the new ``underground
rivers'' beneath the area's waterways. The ``underground rivers'' would
be tunnels up to 35 feet in diameter and 350 feet below the surface. To
provide an outlet for these tunnels, reservoirs will be constructed at
the end of the tunnel system. Approximately 93.4 miles of tunnels have
been constructed or are under construction at a total cost of $2.1
billion and are operational. The tunnels capture the majority of the
pollution load by capturing all of the small storms and the first flush
of the large storms. Another 15.8 miles of tunnels costing $399 million
need to be completed. The tunnels connected to the O'Hare Reservoir now
discharge when they fill up during large rainstorms into the Reservoir
and this system is working well and providing benefits. Thornton and
McCook Reservoirs have not been built yet, so significant areas remain
unprotected. Without these outlets, the local drainage has nowhere to
go when large storms hit the area. Therefore, the combined stormwater
and sewage backs up into over 470,000 homes. This is a reduction from
the 550,000 homes impacted before the tunnels were put on line.
Since its inception, TARP has not only abated flooding and
pollution in the Chicagoland area, but has helped to preserve the
integrity of Lake Michigan. In the years prior to TARP, a major storm
in the area would cause local sewers and interceptors to surcharge
resulting in CSO spills into the Chicagoland waterways. Since these
waterways have a limited capacity, major storms have caused them to
reach dangerously high levels resulting in massive sewer backups into
basements and causing multi-million dollar damage to property. To
relieve the high levels in the waterways during major storms, the gates
at Wilmette, O'Brien, and the Chicago River would be opened and the
CSOs would be allowed to backflow into Lake Michigan. Since the
implementation of TARP, some backflows to Lake Michigan have been
eliminated.
In particular, since implementation of TARP, 358 billion gallons of
CSOs have been captured by TARP, that otherwise would have reached
waterways. After the completion of both phases of TARP, 99 percent of
the CSO pollution will be eliminated. The elimination of CSOs will
result in less water needed for flushing of Chicago's waterway system,
making it available as drinking water to communities in Cook, DuPage,
Lake, and Will counties, which have been on a waiting list.
Specifically, since 1977, these counties received an increase of 162
mgd, partially as a result of the reduction in the District's
discretionary diversion in 1980. Additional allotments of Lake Michigan
water, beyond 1991, will be made to these communities, as more water
becomes available from sources like direct diversion.
With new allocations of lake water, communities that previously did
not get to share lake water are in the process of building, or have
already built, water mains to accommodate their new source of drinking
water. The new source of drinking water will be a substitute for the
poorer quality well water previously used by these communities. Partly
due to TARP, it is estimated by IDOT that between 1981 and 2020, 283
mgd (439 cfs) of Lake Michigan water would be added to domestic
consumption. This translates into approximately 2 million people that
previously did not receive lake water, would be able to enjoy it. This
new source of water supply will not only benefit its immediate
receivers but will also result in an economic stimulus to the entire
Chicagoland area, by providing a reliable source of good quality water
supply.
THE MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS--CHICAGOLAND UNDERFLOW PLAN
The McCook and Thornton Reservoirs of the Chicagoland Underflow
Plan (CUP) were fully authorized for construction in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-676). The CUP, as
previously discussed, is a flood protection plan that is designed to
reduce basement and street flooding due to combined sewer back-ups and
inadequate hydraulic capacity of the urban waterways. These projects
are the second and third components of CUP, they consist of reservoirs
to be constructed in west suburban Chicago and Thornton in south
suburban Chicago.
These reservoirs will provide a storage capacity of 15.3 billion
gallons and will produce annual benefits of $104 million. The total
potential annual benefits of these projects are approximately twice as
much as their total annual cost. The District, as the local sponsor, is
acquiring the land necessary for these projects, and is to meeting its
cost sharing obligations under Public Law 99-662.
These projects are a very sound investment with a high rate of
return. They will enhance the quality of life, safety and the peace of
mind of the residents of this region. The State of Illinois has
endorsed these projects and has urged their implementation. In
professional circles, these projects are hailed for their
farsightedness, innovation, and benefits.
Based on two successive Presidentially-declared flood disasters in
our area in 1986 and again in 1987 and dramatic flooding in the last
several years, we believe the probability of this type of flood
emergency occurring before implementation of the critical flood
prevention measure is quite high. As the public agency for the greater
Chicagoland area responsible for water pollution control, and as the
regional sponsor for flood control, we have an obligation to protect
the health and safety of our citizens. We are asking your support in
helping us achieve this necessary and important goal of construction
completion.
We have been very pleased that over the years the Subcommittee has
seen fit to include critical levels of funds for these important
projects. We were delighted to see the $4,500,000 in construction funds
included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2000. However, it is important that we receive a total of
$19,000,000 in construction funds in fiscal year 2001 to maintain the
commitment and accelerate these projects. This funding is critical to
continue the construction of the McCook Reservoir on schedule, in
particular, to complete construction of the slurry wall and to
accelerate the design of the Thornton Reservoir. The community has
waited long enough for protection and we need these funds now to move
the project in construction. We respectfully request your consideration
of our request.
SUMMARY
Our most significant recent flooding occurred on February 20, 1997,
when almost four inches of rain fell on the greater Chicagoland area.
Due to the frozen ground, almost all of the rainfall entered our
combined sewers, causing sewerage back-ups throughout the area. When
the existing TARP tunnels filled with approximately 1.2 billion gallons
of sewage and runoff, the only remaining outlets for the sewers were
our waterways. Between 9:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m., the Chicago and Calumet
Rivers rose six feet. For the first time since 1981 we had to open the
locks at all three of the waterway control points; these include
Wilmette, downtown Chicago, and Calumet. Approximately 4.2 billion
gallons of combined sewage and stormwater had to be released directly
into Lake Michigan.
Given our large regional jurisdiction and the severity of flooding
in our area, the Corps was compelled to develop a plan that would
complete the uniqueness of TARP and be large enough to accommodate the
area we serve. With a combined sewer area of 375 square miles,
consisting of the city of Chicago and 51 contiguous suburbs, there are
550,000 homes within our jurisdiction, which are subject to flooding at
any time. The annual damages sustained exceed $150 million. If these
projects were in place, these damages could be eliminated. We must
consider the safety and peace of mind of the two million people who are
affected as well as the disaster relief funds that will be saved when
these projects are in place. As the public agency in the greater
Chicagoland area responsible for water pollution control, and as the
regional sponsor for flood control, we have an obligation to protect
the health and safety of our citizens. We are asking your support in
helping us achieve this necessary and important goal. It is absolutely
critical that the Corps' work, which has been proceeding for a number
of years, now proceed on schedule through construction.
Therefore, we urgently request that a total of $19,000,000 in
construction funds be made available in the fiscal year 2001 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act to continue construction of the
McCook and Thornton Reservoir Project.
Again, we thank the Subcommittee for its support of our project
over the years and we thank you in advance for your consideration of
our request this year.
______
Prepared Statement of The Missouri-Arkansas River Basins Association
Following is the list of projects with the money requested for the
2001 budget. They are endorsed by the Board of the Missouri-Arkansas
Association. We ask your serious consideration in budget approval for
the Federal fiscal year 2001.
Requested fiscal year 2001 appropriation
Blue River Channel, Kansas City, Missouri. Continue
Construction Stage 3. Complete Construction by 2003.
This Project affects 10,000 workers in the Blue
River Valley........................................ $20,000,000
Turkey Creek, Kansas City, Kansas and Missouri. Complete
Design for a Construction start in fiscal year 2002.
Project authorized in 1998 WRDA Bill................ 500,000
Missouri River Levee System Restudy seven levees.
Continue feasibility study.......................... 350,000
Dodson Industrial District--Blue River Basin. Need new
construction start authorization in fiscal year
2001. (KC, MO's cost is about $5 Million)........... 150,000
Swope Park Industrial Area, Kansas City, Missouri. Start
PED................................................. 200,000
Unit L-385. Continue Construction. Local sponsor now
acquiring ROW....................................... 5,000,000
Unit L-142:
Complete Design for Left Bank....................... 500,000
Study start for right bank-Wears Creek.............. 100,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 26,800,000
The list has been prepared in order of priority, as supported by
our Board. MO-ARK has a unique history of supporting only cost
beneficial projects. Also, MO-ARK supports flood protection studies now
under way for St. Joseph, MO; Topeka, KS; and the Upper Mississippi
River Flow Frequency Study. We also support the Missouri River Fish and
Wildlife Mitigation Project. Please place this testimony in the formal
hearing record.
______
Prepared Statement of American Rivers
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development, on behalf of more than 450 conservation
and recreation organizations, community groups, religious affiliations,
companies, and other groups across the country, American Rivers would
like to thank you for the opportunity to testify.
We urge you to increase funding for habitat restoration efforts by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, including Columbia River Fish
Mitigation, the Environmental Management Program, the Section 1135 and
Section 206 programs, the Challenge 21 Initiative, and the Missouri
River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Program.
No federal agency possesses as much restoration expertise as the
Army Corps of Engineers. Across the nation, communities are working
with the Corps to restore degraded rivers and streams to provide new
opportunities for recreation and tourism, improve water quality, create
habitat for river wildlife, and improve quality of life. The Corps is
playing the lead role in hundreds of communities, ranging from the
restoration of the Missouri River to the Anacostia River.
In particular, we urge you to support the following programs:
Columbia River Fish Mitigation.--We urge you to appropriate $95
million for the Columbia River Fish Mitigation program and specify that
the money must be used for projects designed to recreate or mimic the
natural river conditions salmon need to survive and leave fish in the
river to benefit from these changes. The program is essential to
restoring runs of Snake River salmon and steelhead. Largely due to
federal dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers, every species of Snake
River salmon and nearly every species of Columbia River salmon are
listed under the Endangered Species Act. Restoring the salmon
populations in the Snake River would be a significant boon to the local
and regional economies. Congress should also eliminate funding for the
Corps' failed collecting and barging activities and deny new Columbia
River Fish Mitigation appropriations for additional screens, barges,
and other related projects.
Section 1135 and Section 206.--We urge you to appropriate $25
million for the Section 1135 Program, which permits the Corps to modify
projects to restore habitat. More than 30 projects have been completed
since the program was authorized in 1986, including the restoration of
wetlands, construction of islands, and reforestation of floodplains. We
also urge you to appropriate $25 million for the Section 206 Program,
which authorizes the Corps to restore degraded habitat regardless of
past activities by the Corps.
Challenge 21 Initiative.--We urge you appropriate $40 million for
the Challenge 21 Initiative, which will permit the Corps to relocate
frequently flooded homes and businesses. Since the Great Flood of 1993,
nearly 20,000 flooded homes and businesses have been relocated from
harm's way. Challenge 21 will permit the Corps to relocate vulnerable
structures before disaster strikes, reducing long-term flood losses.
Upper Mississippi River.--We urge you to appropriate $25 million
for the Environmental Management Program, the primary habitat
restoration program for the Upper Mississippi River. Unless habitat
restoration efforts are accelerated, side channels and sloughs will
continue to fill with sediment faster than they can be replaced,
endangering the health of the nation's most biologically diverse river.
Missouri River.--We urge you to appropriate $15 million for the
Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project, the primary
habitat restoration program for the Lower Missouri River. Restoring a
string of natural places from Sioux City and Saint Louis will aid river
wildlife, attract recreation and tourism, and reduce flood losses.
Thank you for your consideration of our requests. We strongly
believe that these funding levels will be excellent investments in the
long-term health of the rivers, the communities they serve and the
economies they sustain.
______
Prepared Statement of the Integrated Petroleum Environmental Consortium
The Integrated Petroleum Environmental Consortium (IPEC) is an
environmental consortium of The University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
University, The University of Tulsa, and The University of Arkansas at
Fayetteville. Funded as an EPA Research Center, the mission of IPEC is
to increase the competitiveness of the domestic petroleum industry
through a reduction in the cost of compliance with U.S. environmental
regulations. This mission is accomplished through a vigorous research
and technology transfer program.
IPEC is industry driven to ensure that the consortium is meeting
the needs of the industry and fulfilling its mission. IPEC is advised
by an Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) composed of environmental
professionals, state regulators, and independent operators who review
all research proposals for relevancy to IPEC's mission. Representatives
of regulatory bodies include the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the
Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission, the Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology, and the Pawhuska, OK office of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. The independent oil companies
(producers and refiners) are the majority group represented on the IAB.
This Board is dominated by the upstream independent sector of the
industry. The responsibilities of the IAB are two-fold. First, the IAB
advises the IPEC Executive Committee on environmental research needs in
the domestic petroleum industry. Secondly, the IAB reviews research
proposals at a pre-proposal stage for relevancy to the mission of IPEC.
Research proposals must meet this test of relevancy to be considered
further for funding. IPEC is also advised by a Science Advisory
Committee (SAC), composed of leading environmental experts from
academia and government laboratories, that reviews all research
proposals for scientific quality.
IPEC's research program focuses on the development of cost-
effective technologies to address environmental problems having the
greatest economic impact on the domestic industry. Current research
projects include the following: the use of plants to clean contaminated
soils; the natural biodegradation of gasoline by microorganisms in the
absence of oxygen; the beneficial use of petroleum wastes as road
materials; the control of the formation of toxic hydrogen sulfide in
oil wells; the development of simple sampling devices to replace
expensive live organisms to assess toxicity in contaminated soils; the
treatment and disposal of naturally occurring radioactive material
(NORM) in oil production equipment; the remediation of brine-impacted
soils; development of a sound scientific basis for ecological risk
assemement of petroleum production sites; and enhancing the remediation
of oil contaminated soils. These projects were first reviewed and
approved by our IAB as relevant to our mission of increasing the
competitiveness of the domestic petroleum industry and finally reviewed
and approved by our SAC on the basis of scientific quality.
Since September, 1998 IPEC has provided $1,080,264 in funding for
these projects. However, another $977,765 in funding for these projects
has been secured by the investigators as matching funds from industry
and industry organizations such as the Gas Research Institute, the
American Petroleum Institute and the Petroleum Environmental Research
Forum. This is over and above matching funds (over $900,000) provided
by the Oklahoma State Reagents for Higher Education. IPEC is a true
public/private partnership.
IPEC's technology transfer program is directed toward providing
useful tools for environmental compliance and cost reduction to
independent producers. The first year work plan, as developed jointly
by the IPEC IAB and SAC, has two principal objectives. The first
objective is to raise the level of technical training of the field
inspectors of the oil and gas regulatory bodies of Oklahoma and
Arkansas including the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, The Arkansas
Oil and Gas Commission, and the Osage Agency of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs with regard to first response to spills, pollution prevention,
and remediation of oil and brine spills. The second objective of this
program is the development of checklists for independent producers to
assist them in environmental audits (``staying out of trouble
checklists''), remediation of oil and brine spills, and first response
to spills. Oklahoma and Arkansas regulatory field agents will be used
to deliver these tools to the independent producers.
IPEC's technology transfer flagship is the International Petroleum
Environmental Conference. In November, 1999 IPEC held the 6th
International Petroleum Environmental Conference in Houston, TX. There
were over 370 in attendance from all facets of the oil and gas industry
including independent and major producers, service industry
representatives, and state and federal regulators. The program for the
6th conference featured several plenary lectures, over 150 technical
presentations, exhibits, a poster session and a special symposium on
the promise of new technology in the oilfield. Co-sponsors of the
conference included the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, the
Railroad Commission of Texas, the Texas Independent Producers and
Royalty Owners Association, the Gas Research Institute, the Oklahoma
Independent Petroleum Association, the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board,
the EPA Office of Research & Development, and the National Petroleum
Technology Office of the U.S. Dept. of Energy. IPEC sponsors the
participation of ten state regulators from Oklahoma and Arkansas each
year at the conference. The 7th International Petroleum Environmental
Conference will be held November 7-10, 2000, in Albuquerque, NM.
THE CRISIS IN THE DOMESTIC PETROLEUM INDUSTRY
Much attention has been paid recently to the high costs to
consumers of gasoline and home-heating oil. The price of crude oil is
the dominant influence on the costs of all petroleum products and the
cost of crude oil has been increasing for the last 13 months. Energy
experts agree that the price increases currently being experienced were
brought on by short-term shocks that resulted from sudden changes in
supply and demand. On the demand side there has been increasing demand
for petroleum worldwide, especially in the Far East. On the supply
side, OPEC and several non-OPEC countries have removed significant
amounts of crude oil from production. Once again America has been held
hostage to the marketing whims of foreign producers and we are in no
position to respond. Since 1990 there has been a 27 percent decline in
the number of jobs in the U.S. exploring and producing oil and gas. Ten
years ago there were 657 working oil rigs in the U.S., now there are
less than 175. Thirty-six refineries have closed since 1992 and no new
refineries have been built since 1976.
In order to regain energy security the U.S. must have a coherent
domestic energy strategy. Some may be willing to entrust the health of
the U.S. economy to windmills and solar-powered cars, but it will be a
stable and profitable domestic oil and gas industry that is the
nation's best defense against OPEC market manipulations. The current
upswing in crude oil prices may eventually stimulate the industry.
However, the record low prices that preceded the current increases have
left many companies in financial positions that make it impossible to
launch new exploration activities. Additionally, many in the industry
are simply uneasy with the volatility that has come to characterize the
industry. Much of U.S. domestic oil production is carried out by
independent producers who are producing from mature fields left behind
by the majors. Although there is a significant resource base in these
fields, this is the most difficult and the most costly oil to produce.
The independent producer has only one source of revenue--the sale of
oil and gas. There is no vertical depth to his business.
A major factor in the high cost of production in the domestic
petroleum industry is the cost of environmental compliance. IPEC is
working to strengthen the domestic petroleum industry and reduce the
impact of market volatility by providing cost-effective environmental
technologies to solve those problems that are having the greatest
impact on production costs. A strong and stable domestic petroleum
industry is our best hedge against foreign market manipulation.
IPEC'S RESPONSE TO CRITICAL INDUSTRY NEEDS
IPEC is continually probing our Industrial Advisory Board for new
ways to assist the domestic petroleum industry and continually seeking
out cost-effective technical solutions to these problems through an
aggressive proposal solicitation and review process. The IPEC IAB also
advises the Consortium on technology transfer needs in the industry. An
exciting idea that has been put forward by the IPEC IAB is the concept
of the petroleum extension agent (PEA). The current appropriations
request will fund a pilot PEA program in Oklahoma and Arkansas that can
be expanded to include every oil and gas producing state or region.
There are over 3500 independent oil producers in Oklahoma and
Arkansas. Most of these are very small companies, the ``mom and pop''
operations whose business is run from the pickup truck and the kitchen
table. These small producers are especially vulnerable to industry
volatility. The current crises in the domestic petroleum industry
requires a multi-level response with a specific outreach effort to the
smallest of the independents, those without in-house experts, to advise
them on the latest production techniques to minimize costs; how to
prevent spills and the accompanying clean-up costs; and how to comply
with state and federal regulations to avoid fines and costly loss of
production. This type of assistance is not currently provided by the
private sector engineering and service companies because the small
producers cannot afford private sector services of this kind.
IPEC proposes to provide these services to small independent
producers through a system of petroleum extension agents (PEAs). Up to
ten (10) full-time equivalent petroleum professionals will be hired to
call on small independent producers throughout Oklahoma and Arkansas to
provide direct assistance in every aspect of operating a profitable and
environmentally friendly business as an oil producer. These PEAs will
be seasoned veterans of oil and gas production in the state in which
they will operate. PEAs will possess demonstrated technical competence
and have a minimum of 20 years of experience in the industry. PEAs will
operate from the major oil producing areas of the states.
PEA services will be made known to producers through advertisements
and through field agents of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission and the
Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission. PEAs will also seek out and call on
small producers in the same way that county agricultural extension
agents call on small farmers. PEAs will be required to serve at least
24 clients per year, spending an average of two weeks working with each
small producer. This amount of time is needed to earn a producer's
confidence, get to know their business, and demonstrate cost-saving
ideas. In difficult situations PEAs will be able to draw on the
significant resources of the IPEC institutions and the IPEC Industrial
Advisory Board. The IPEC institutions contain many business and
environmental resources, two departments of petroleum engineering, and
many chemical and mechanical engineers engaged in oil and gas research.
The IAB members also represent decades of experience in the oil and gas
industry in Oklahoma and Arkansas. Representatives of the Oklahoma
Corporation Commission and Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission are members
of the IAB; therefore, in cases of conflict between small producers and
one of these regulatory bodies, IPEC can also potentially serve to help
resolve problems.
The results expected from this program are:
--a reduction in the costs of production and increased profitability
among small independent producers,
--lesser numbers of small producers going out of business,
--less abandoned resources,
--greater state tax revenues and
--increased compliance with environmental regulations and greater
protection of natural resources.
It is anticipated that 240 small producers will be directly
assisted in the first year of this program. However, the knowledge
gained by these producers will be passed on to other small producers
and family members by word-of-mouth greatly expanding the reach of this
direct mechanism of technology transfer to the industry.
FUNDING OF THE PETROLEUM EXTENSION AGENT PROGRAM
IPEC is seeking an appropriation of $1.5 million for fiscal year
2001 through the Department of Energy to fund a pilot petroleum
extension agent program in Oklahoma and Arkansas. The Consortium will
be subject to peer review to ensure the effective utilization of public
funds in meeting the stated goals of the PEA program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District
Chairman Domenici and members of the Subcommittee: Over the years,
Garrison Diversion Unit appropriations have been used to provide a
reliable, high quality water supply to rural communities in need
throughout North Dakota and to maintain the 120 miles of canals and
pumping plants already in place.
The Garrison Diversion Project continues to be the backbone of all
water projects in North Dakota. Completing Garrison Diversion will
assure our citizens affordable access to an adequate quantity and
quality water supply for municipal, rural and industrial systems.
Garrison Diversion is the key for future economic development,
recreation, tourism and wildlife enhancement in our state.
The President's budget request includes $21,291,000 for the
Garrison Diversion Unit. An additional $4,200,000 is needed to continue
the important work of the MR&I program and for needed modifications and
repairs to the existing facilities. Additional appropriations will
continue development of rural water supply systems across the state,
providing a dependable water supply to North Dakota residents. This
funding impacts the lives of families and business owners statewide who
are working toward finding solutions to meet their water needs.
Meeting the Indian MR&I needs also concerns North Dakotans. The
four Indian reservations in the state face some of the most severe
water problems in North Dakota. Existing ceilings are exhausted and the
unmet needs on the reservations are growing. Additional appropriations
and an appropriate ceiling increase will allow tribal leaders to
continue working on their most critical water needs. We understand that
at least $3,000,000 in additional funding is desperately needed to
continue this important program. We concur that this need is of the
highest priority.
A greater concern is the overall Bureau of Reclamation budget.
Current trends show this budget number shrinking on an annual basis.
Additional funding and a redirection of the funding allowed for ``water
supply programs'' is definitely needed. Although water conservation,
water reuse and restoring fish and wildlife resources are important,
the Bureau's budget needs to be refocused and increased to place more
emphasis on completing the authorized projects already on the books.
We are hopeful that a mutual agreement concerning the Dakota Water
Resources Act can be reached this year that is beneficial to all areas
of interest. Since the bill reduces the cost of the currently
authorized project, it will actually save the Federal Government money
and, at the same time, meet the highest priority needs of the state.
Mr. Chairman, we fully support and appreciate the committee's
current and past efforts in regard to funding for the Garrison
Diversion Unit. Because water is a valuable resource in North Dakota,
we are committed to finding solutions to our state's water needs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Mni Wiconi Project
FISCAL YEAR 2001 CONSTRUCTION BUDGET REQUEST
The Mni Wiconi Project beneficiaries (as listed below) respectfully
request appropriations for construction in fiscal year 2001 for the
project in the amount of $53,341,000 as follows:
Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System:
Core Facilities (Treatment Plant, Pipelines)........ $23,834,000
Distribution System on Pine Ridge................... 4,820,000
West River/Lyman-Jones Rural Water Systems.............. 9,608,000
Rosebud Sioux Rural Water System........................ 13,182,000
Lower Brule Sioux Rural Water System.................... 1,897,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Mni Wiconi Project.......................... 53,341,000
NEED FOR OSRWSS TO REACH MURDO IN FISCAL YEAR 2001--MAJOR MILESTONE
The Oglala, Lower Brule and Rosebud Sioux Tribes were consulted as
required by the Indian Self-Determination Act (Public Law 93-638, as
amended) when the Administration arrived at its fiscal year 2001
construction budget of $23.57 million for the Mni Wiconi Project. This
budget, however, does not address the needs of the project in fiscal
year 2001, a major target year, nor does it include the $15 million
``Indian initiative'' proposed by the Administration for the fiscal
year 2001 budget but not included in it.
The principle element in the budget for fiscal year 2001 is $11.895
million for the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System (OSRWSS) core.
The OSRWSS core system funds are needed to complete the project to
Murdo by November 2001, where water can be delivered to the largest
areas of demand in the West River/Lyman-Jones service area and all of
the Rosebud service area. By completing the project to Murdo, all of
the interconnection points for the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe will also be
provided. Only the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and parts of West
River/Lyman-Jones will be without points of interconnection to the
OSRWSS core. This landmark in progress on the project in fiscal year
2001 is the most significant event in the project to date. The
requested funding level is needed to achieve the objective.
Important to note is the fact that the intake and treatment plant
on the Missouri River will be fully operational by February 2001 and
will deliver water to Vivian where the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe is
building a core facility that will permit interconnection by West
River/Lyman-Jones.
Completion of the OSRWSS core pipeline system to Murdo is needed to
take greater advantage of the completed intake and treatment plant. The
funding request for fiscal year 2001 will permit us to conclude the
necessary construction to Murdo, thereby providing interconnection to a
population of 26,000, 50 percent of the project population. Absent
sufficient funds in fiscal year 2001, only 8,000 persons will be
provided with interconnection to the OSRWSS core to receive water from
the Missouri River. Emphasis is placed on the importance of serving an
additional 14,000 residents of the project in fiscal year 2001.
All proposed sponsor construction activity will build pipelines
that will provide project water immediately to beneficiaries. In many
cases, construction is ongoing, and fiscal year 2001 funds are required
to complete those projects. In the absence of fiscal year 2001 funds
requested for the distribution systems, it will be necessary to
discontinue some on-going construction contracts and reinitiate them at
a later time. This will raise project costs. It will also lower faith
of contractors in the project, which will affect future bid prices.
Funding for OSRWSS core and distribution facilities are necessary
to bring the benefits of the Empowerment Zone designation to the Pine
Ridge Indian Reservation, one of five rural designations across the
Nation. There is great anticipation on the Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation. The federal projection that as much as $.5 to $1.0 billion
in economic activity can be generated, however, is largely dependent on
the timely completion of a water system, which depends on
appropriations for this project.
Finally, all sponsors underscore the importance of the ``Indian
Initiative'' proposed by the Administration for the fiscal year 2001
budget. The Indian initiative was the product of correspondence by the
Indian sponsors with the Administration requesting an increase in the
level of funding for the Mni Wiconi Project of $25 to $50 million. The
Commissioner of Reclamation responded and proposed a $10 to $15 million
Indian initiative during the fall of last year. The Office of
Management and Budget corresponded on behalf of the President in
November 1999 stating that serious consideration would be given to the
initiative. The Indian sponsors listed a total of $42 million in
projects on the Indian Reservations where planning is well advanced and
the Indian sponsors have the capability to use the additional funds.
The correspondence referenced here and the map showing the locations of
proposed construction activities in the Indian initiative are included
for review by the Subcommittee. The Indian initiative was supported by
the South Dakota delegation and West River/Lyman-Jones but was not
included in the Administration's budget. The initiative is needed by
the Indian sponsors to complete distribution systems that will take
advantage on the progress on the OSRWSS core and secondary core systems
within each of the Indian Reservations.
UNIQUE NEEDS OF THIS PROJECT
Your consideration in this most important project, a project that
brings hope, dignity and a spirit of cooperation between Indian and
non-Indians, will be greatly appreciated. This subcommittee has
provided us with considerable support for which we are grateful. This
year the Administration has provided an inadequate budget. It is
necesssary for the project to petition the subcommittee for the
appropriate level of funding to build the OSRWSS core to Murdo by year
2001, a major accomplishment that will provide interconnections from
the core system to nearly 50 percent of the project population or about
26,000 persons. It is also necessary to fund the Indian initiative.
In June of the past year, President Clinton visited the Pine Ridge
Indian Reservation to underscore the severity of economic conditions
and to promote the Administration's ``New Market Initiative.'' Each
year our testimony addresses the fact that the project beneficiaries,
particularly the three Indian Reservations, have the lowest income
levels in the Nation. The health risks to our people drinking unsafe
water are compounded by reductions in health programs. We respectfully
submit that our project is unique and that no other project in the
Nation has greater human needs. Poverty in our service areas is
consistently deeper than elsewhere in the Nation. Health effects of
water borne diseases are consistently more prevalent than elsewhere in
the Nation, due in part to (1) lack of adequate water in the home and
(2) poor water quality where water is available. Higher incidences of
impetigo, gastroenteritis, shigellosis, scabies and hepatitis-A are
well documented on the Indian reservations of the Mni Wiconi Project
area. At the beginning of the third millennium one cannot find a region
in which social and economic conditions are as deplorable. These
circumstances are summarized in Table 1. Mni Wiconi builds the dignity
of many, not only though improvement of drinking water, but through
employment and increased earnings during planning, construction,
operation and maintenance. We urge the subcommittee to address the
Administration's concepts for creating jobs and improving the quality
of life on the Pine Ridge and other Indian reservations of the project
area.
TABLE 1.--1990 BUREAU OF CENSUS ECONOMIC STATISTICS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per capital families below
-------------------------------------------
Indian reservation/state Poverty
Income level Unemployment
(dollars) (percent) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pine Ridge (Shannon County). $3,029 59.6 32.7
Rosebud (Todd County)....... 4,005 54.4 27.3
Lower Brule (Lyman County).. 4,679 45.0 15.7
State of South Dakota....... 10,661 11.6 4.2
National.................... 14,420 10.0 6.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial support for the Indian membership has already been
subjected to drastic cuts in funding programs through the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and through Welfare Reform. This project, progressing
through the budget fighting efforts at the National level, was a source
of strong hope that would off-set the loss of employment and income in
other programs and provide for a healthier environment. Tribal leaders
anticipate that Welfare Reform legislation and other budget cuts
nation-wide will create a crisis for tribal government when tribal
members move back to the reservations in order to survive. This
movement has already started. Recent Census Bureau data indicate that
the population of Shannon County (Pine Ridge Indian Reservation)
increased over 21 percent between 1990 and 1997. The population of Todd
County (Rosebud Indian Reservation) has increased over 11 percent in
the same time period. Those population increases are greater than
anticipated and will create water needs that will more than utilize the
benefits of the Mni Wiconi Project Act. Public policy has resulted in
accelerated population growth on the reservations. The Act mandates
that:
``. . . the United States has a trust responsibility to
ensure that adequate and safe water supplies are available to
meet the economic, environmental, water supply and public
health needs of the Pine Ridge, Rosebud and Lower Brule Indian
Reservations . . .''
Indian support for this project has not come easily because of the
historical experience of broken commitments to the Indian people by the
Federal Government. The argument was that there is no hope and the
Sioux Tribes would be used to build the non-Indian segments of the
project and the Indian segments would linger to completion. These
arguments have been overcome by better planning, an amended
authorization and hard fought agreements among the parties. The
Subcommittee is respectfully requested to take the steps necessary the
complete the critical elements of the project proposed for fiscal year
2001.
The following sections describe the construction activity in each
of the rural water systems.
OGLALA SIOUX RURAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM--DISTRIBUTION
Pine Ridge and parts of West River will be the last project
sponsors to interconnect with the OSRWSS core to receive Missouri River
water. With projects now designed and proceeding under construction
award there are 932 services and 450 miles of distribution and service
pipelines, down from earlier projections due to the pace of funding. We
continue to extend the start of new projects. No new projects were bid
in 1999, and 2001 funds are necessary to advance construction. The
Manderson Loop has been under construction since fiscal year 1996, and
the fifth of five phases will be scheduled for completion with fiscal
year 2001 funds. The Red Shirt Project in the northwest corner of the
Reservation is underway and is scheduled for completion in fiscal year
2001.
Of particular importance to the Oglala Sioux Tribe is the start of
the main transmission system from the northeast corner of the
Reservation to Kyle in the central part of the Reservation. We had
proposed the ``Indian initiative'' as a means of advancing this project
segment. The transmission line is needed to interconnect the OSRWSS
core system with the distribution system within the Reservation in
order to deliver Missouri River water to the populous portions of the
Reservation. If adequate funds are available, this segment of the
project cannot be initiated in fiscal year 2001. This critical
component of the Oglala system has been deferred for the last three
years due to inadequate funding although the design and easements have
been completed on large portions of the project.
WEST RIVER/LYMAN-JONES RURAL WATER SYSTEM--DISTRIBUTION
Joint Mni Wiconi Sponsor focus on the core delivery systems has
advanced the project to where WR/LJ is now able to provide significant
development of quality water service to it's membership. All of the WR/
LJ distribution system development to date has been dependent on
temporary water supplies to meet critical water needs. Project water
will be available when the intake and water treatment plant are fully
operational in February 2001.
All of the WR/LJ construction activity is focused on construction
of distribution facilities that will be served when the OSRWSS reaches
Murdo in fiscal year 2001. The City of Murdo will no longer be infamous
for it's poor quality water. The requested funding will provide quality
water of all of our membership in Lyman County and the Eastern half of
Jones County. It will provide fulfillment of the dream of founders of
the original ``Lyman-Jones'' system over 35 years ago.
WR/LJ construction in Eastern Mellette County, in conjunction with
RST core pipeline construction to meet the OSRWSS at Murdo, will make
quality water service available to all rural residents, tribal and non-
tribal, of Mellette County. This is another successful demonstration of
the unique working relationship of the Mni Wiconi sponsors.
Delivery of water service in the rural area around Ft. Pierre will
provide long awaited economic stimulus to that segment of the Mni
Wiconi project. Ranch and residential improvements and new construction
have been long delayed due to lack of potable water systems. Those
members living closest to the water source may now realize benefits
from the project.
ROSEBUD RURAL WATER SYSTEM
The Rosebud Sioux Tribe and their non-Indian neighbors in Mellette
County have waited many years for a reliable source of high quality
water. The planned arrival of the OSRWSS Core pipeline at Murdo means
the wait is nearly over. The focus of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe's fiscal
year 2001 work plan is to connect to the OSRWSS and bring Missouri
River water from Murdo to the town of White River. The new work planned
for fiscal year 2001 become the backbone for the Rosebud design
population of 17,000 and will provide water immediately to 300
connections and 1,500 people on the Sicangu Mni Wiconi and 55
additional connections and 150 people served by West River/Lyman Jones.
If it were possible to identify one component of the Sicangu Mni
Wiconi as being the most important, it would be the Murdo to White
River Pipeline. This pipeline will provide close to 3,000 gallons per
minute of high quality water to the Indian and non-Indian people of
Mellette County. In addition to providing high quality water to the
people of eastern and northwestern Mellette County, the construction of
the Murdo to White River Pipeline will also eliminate the need to
supply portions of western Mellette County from the interim groundwater
supplies. The new supply means that the groundwater supplies will be
available to reduce the chronic water shortages experienced in the
Antelope and Mission areas.
In addition to the Murdo to White River Pipeline, other projects
prioritized for construction in fiscal year 2001 include completion of
the St. Francis rural distribution system, and initiation of the Spring
Creek and Black Pipe/Corn Creek Projects. The Spring Creek Project will
provide storage for the community of Spring Creek and distribute water
to nearby rural areas. The Black Pipe/Corn Creek Project will use
project facilities completed in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 to
distribute Missouri River water to the northwestern portion of Mellette
County. This area is one of the driest in the state and where and when
water is available, water quality is so poor it frequently isn't
suitable for human consumption.
If the promise of bringing high quality water to all of Mellette
County can be accomplished in 2001, people's dreams of the past thirty
or more years will become reality. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe hopes
Congress will turn this dream into reality and immeasurably improve the
quality of life for Indians and non-Indians alike.
LOWER BRULE RURAL WATER SYSTEM--DISTRIBUTION
The Lower Brule new microfiltration water treatment plant is now in
operation and water is being delivered to the communities of Lower
Brule and West Brule, some scattered to Reservation housing sites and
some to West River/Lyman-Jones (WR/LJ) system serving the town of
Reliance and rural users in the Reliance area. The treatment plant is
producing and delivering a safe, high quality water with a nominal
capacity of 700 gallons per minute. While the final cost of this
facility approaches $1,800,000 only $250,000 came from Mni Wiconi
program funds. The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe contributed $300,000 in
tribal funds and the balance came from various grant programs.
The West Brule to Reliance core system is complete, including the
Medicine Butte 456,000 gallon ground storage reservoir. The Fort George
Butte--County Road pipeline has been installed and is awaiting testing.
This pipeline will be placed into service as soon as water can be
obtained from the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System (OSRWSS) core
pipeline and will initially serve only West River/Lyman-Jones users
until the on-Reservation distribution system can be constructed. The
Vivian to Presho core line is scheduled for completion in fiscal year
2000 and can begin serving the City of Presho and rural water users of
West River/Lyman-Jones as soon as water is available from the OSRWSS
core pipeline at Vivian.
Lower Brule Rural Water System (LBRWS) has programmed the fiscal
year 2001 funding for completion of the Presho to Kennebec core
pipeline. This would serve the town of Kennebec and West River/Lyman-
Jones area rural users. In the event adequate funds are available in
fiscal year 2001, the core pipeline from Kennebec north to the
Reservation boundary will be constructed. This line will initially
serve only WR/LJ users until funds can be obtained to construct the on-
Reservation distribution system.
In order to accomplish the above stated goals, LBRWS is requesting
$1,846,000 in fiscal year 2001 funds. This amount would provide
adequate funds to construct the Presho to Kennebec and the Kennebec
north core lines. If funds are not adequate for both of these core
lines, the Presho to Kennebec line will take priority, with a required
funding level of $1,235,000.
LBRWS is continuing to commit its available funds to construction
of off-Reservation core pipelines. As noted above, this will allow
service to WR/LJ cities and rural users. LBRWS will use funds made
available in subsequent years to fund construction of its on-
Reservation distribution system to serve our users if its authorized
cost ceiling is raised.
______
Prepared Statement of the Mid-Dakota Rural Water Project
FISCAL YEAR 2001 FUNDING REQUEST
First let me thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify
in support of the fiscal year 2001 appropriations for the Mid-Dakota
Rural Water Project and for the Subcommittee's support. The Mid-Dakota
Project is requesting $24 million in federal appropriations for fiscal
year 2001. As with our past submissions to this subcommittee, Mid-
Dakota's fiscal year 2001 request is based on a detailed analysis of
our ability to proceed with construction during the fiscal year. In all
previous years, Mid-Dakota has fully obligated its appropriated funds,
including federal, state, and local, and could have obligated
significantly more were they available.
This year (fiscal year 2001) the project is seeking additional
funds above the President's budget recommendation in the amount of
$17.96 million ($24.0 million-$6.04 million). Mid-Dakota understands
and appreciates pressures on Congress to pass and maintain a balanced
and seemingly an austere budget and in that respect we understand the
difficulties before congressional appropriators to find additional
funds to supplement the President's budget request. However, we request
and strongly urge Congress to appropriate the full amount of Mid-
Dakota's request.
HISTORY OF PROJECT FUNDING:
The Project was authorized by Congress and signed into law by
President George Bush in October 1992. The federal authorization for
the project totaled $100 million (in 1989 dollars) in a combination of
federal grant and loan funds (grant funds may not exceed 85 percent of
federal contribution). The State authorization was for $8.4 million (in
1989 dollars). The total authorized indexed cost of the project now
stands at approximately $144 million. All federal funding considered,
the Government has provided 53.4 percent of its commitment ($71.4
million of $134 million) to provide construction funding for the
Project. When considering the federal and state combined awards, the
project is approximately 56.3 percent complete, in terms of financial
commitments.
Mid-Dakota wishes to thank this committee for its support over the
past seven years. Within the limited monetary parameters of current
federal awards and funds appropriated by the State of South Dakota, we
have been able to put those scarce resources to good work, making
exceptional progress on project construction, albeit not nearly as fast
as is needed or as we had initially envisioned.
SUMMARIZATION OF FEDERAL FUNDING
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Mid- Pres. Conf. Bureau Additional fed.
Fed. fiscal year Dakota budget House Senate enacted award funds funds
request levels levels provided
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994............................ 7.991 ....... ....... 2.000 2.000 1.500 .......... 1.500
1995............................ 22.367 ....... ....... 8.000 4.000 3.600 .......... 3.600
1996............................ 23.394 2.500 12.500 10.500 11.500 10.902 2.323 13.225
1997............................ 29.686 2.500 11.500 12.500 10.000 9.400 1.500 10.900
1998............................ 29.836 10.000 12.000 13.000 13.000 12.221 1.000 13.221
1999............................ 32.150 10.000 10.000 20.000 15.000 14.100 2.000 16.100
1900............................ 28.800 5.000 15.000 7.000 14.000 12.859 .......... 12.859
2001............................ 28.800 6.040 ....... ........ ........ ........ ..........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals.................... ........ 36.040 61.000 73.000 69.500 64.582 6.823 71.40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the State of South Dakota has contributed $9.67
million in grants to the Mid-Dakota Project, in previous years. The
State of South Dakota completed its initial authorized financial
obligation to the Mid-Dakota Project in the 1998 Legislative Session.
The $14 million funding provided by the Subcommittee in fiscal year
2000 provided Mid-Dakota with the opportunity to achieve very
significant and exciting accomplishments for the fiscal year. These are
later summarized in the section titled ``Construction in Progress.''
Mid-Dakota will continue to deliver quality drinking water to nine
community systems and approximately 800 rural customers (farms and
Ranches). Mid-Dakota estimates that an additional 1,000 rural farm and
ranch accounts along with five more community systems will be receiving
project water at the close of contracts awarded in fiscal year 1999/
2000. The subcommittee's generosity has already had a deep and
favorable effect on over 10,000 South Dakotans.
PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
In February the President's Budget recommendations to Congress were
released. Mid-Dakota Rural Water was included in the proposed budget at
a level of $6.040 million for fiscal year 2001. This represents a 57
percent decrease from what Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
The Mid-Dakota Project will not be able to make any significant
progress in fiscal year 2001 at this level of funding. In fact, it
would not be an overstatement to say that Mid-Dakota may have to
suspend significant construction activities for fiscal year 2001, if
the $6.040 million is not significantly increased.
As in previous years, Mid-Dakota is in ``catch-up'' mode, due to
lower than expected appropriations in prior years. The $24 million
request for fiscal year 2001 will help the project maintain an
acceptable construction schedule. The $6.040 million budget request by
President Clinton would have profound and devastating effects, pushing
the completion of the Project to the year 2013. Under the Clinton
Administration's proposal, thousands of South Dakota citizens will be
forced to wait an estimated 12 years until they can be connected to the
Mid-Dakota Project. The President's budget, if ultimately implemented
will provide an extended delay of Project benefits.
By its actions the Administration raises the potential of
increasing the total cost of the Mid-Dakota Project by approximately $8
million. The Federal Government would not be alone in absorbing
negative impacts of funding shortfalls. In addition to making the Mid-
Dakota Project more expensive to the Federal Government, the resulting
delays would also have a direct and proportional effect on the rate of
debt service to be paid by the Project and ultimately the water users.
The repayment agreement entered into by Mid-Dakota and the Federal
Government (the Bureau of Reclamation acting on the Government's
behalf), demands that Mid-Dakota's ``minimum bill'' increase
proportionally with the indexing applied to the Project. This is done
by establishing the ratio of the federal authorization at the time Mid-
Dakota submitted its Final Engineering Report (FER) in 1994, compared
to the authorized ceiling today with indexing applied. This same ratio
is then applied to Mid-Dakota's ``minimum bill'' as was identified at
the time of execution of the repayment agreement.
By the Bureau of Reclamation's own design, slowing down the
development of the Mid-Dakota Project will ultimately make the Project
more expensive, in terms of; rates paid by water users construction
costs, total debt of the Project and Reclamation's oversight costs.
IMPACTS OF AWARD
The most obvious impact of any significant reduction from Mid-
Dakota's request will be the delay of construction of one or more
Project components. The $24 million dollar request will allow the
Project to proceed with construction of multiple contracts summarized
later in this testimony. An award of less than our request will result
in the deletion or reconfiguration of one or more of these contracts
from the fiscal year 2001 construction schedule. Further, reduced
appropriations have the effect of adding more cost to the amount needed
for completion of the Project.
Mid-Dakota has consistently informed members of Congress and
appropriate federal agencies, about the detrimental effects
insufficient funding has on the Project and ultimately the people who
are to receive the water. In previous years Mid-Dakota and the public,
which we will serve, have been able to make the most of the resources
provided the Project. However, failure to provide full funding has had
profound consequences.
CONSTRUCTION IN PROGRESS
Mid-Dakota began construction in September of 1994, with the
construction of its Water Intake and Pump Station. Since that eventful
day of first construction start, we have bid, awarded, and completed 14
project components and are into construction on six other major Project
components. The following table provides a synopsis of each major
construction contract:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Cont. Cont. Final Over over
Cont. no. Description budget \1\ bid cont. (under) (under)
award price budget budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-1.................................. Oahe Water Intake and 4.662 3.959 3.945 (0.717) (15)
Pump Station.
2-1.................................. Oahe Water Treatment 13.361 9.920 10.278 (3.083) (23)
Plant.
3-1A................................. Raw Water Pipeline..... 1.352 1.738 1.719 0.367 27
3-1B................................. Main Pipeline to Blunt, 7.823 6.916 7.024 (0.799) (10)
SD.
3-1C................................. Main Pipeline to 5.439 4.791 4.798 (0.641) (12)
Highmore, SD.
3-2A................................. Main Pipeline to Ree 3.261 3.155 3.149 (0.112) (3)
Hights, SD.
3-2B................................. Main Pipeline to St. 3.691 3.349 3.352 (0.339) (9)
Lawrence, SD.
4-1A/B (1-5)......................... Rural Service Area 9.345 9.983 10.731 \2\ 1.38 15
Contract. 6
4-1A/B (6)........................... Rural Service Area 8.333 8.329 8.573 \2\ 0.24 3
Contract. 0
5-1.................................. Highmore Water Storage 1.545 1.434 1.433 (0.108) (7)
Tank.
5-1A (1)............................. Onida Water Storage 0.471 0.395 0.400 (0.075) (16)
Tank.
5-1A (2)............................. Okobojo Water Storage 0.381 0.338 0.338 (0.043) (11)
Tank.
5-1A (3)............................. Agar Water Storage Tank 0.422 0.391 0.393 (0.029) (7)
5-1A (4)............................. Gettysburg Water 0.952 0.814 0.815 (0.137) (14)
Storage Tank.
-------------------------------------------------
Totals.................................................. 61.038 55.512 56.948 (4.090) (7)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Contract budget is determined by Mid-Dakota's estimate for the contract at the time of bidding.
\2\ A significant portion of the cost increases are attributable to the placement of additional users as construction proceeds.
As is evident by the foregoing table, Mid-Dakota has been very
successful in containing Project costs. Currently the construction of
major Project components are approximately 7 percent under budget,
providing an estimated saving of over $4 million. The savings are an
example of sound engineering, good management and advantageous bid
lettings. While we can't guarantee future contract bid lettings will
continue to provide the level of savings currently experienced, we do
think it speaks well of the Mid-Dakota Project and how we've managed
Project funding to date.
Mid-Dakota also provided the solution to a number of emergency
situations in the past. The ``rescue'' effort to the City of
Gettysburg, SD provided the town with a dependable, quality water
supply (Mid-Dakota) just as they were about to lose their existing
water intake, due to sluffing of the hillside at that location. The
town of Virgil, SD will have a new distribution system for the town,
replacing the old one that was in disrepair and draining the town
coffers to keep it running and supply drinking water to Virgil
residents. Mid-Dakota has agreed to take-over the operations of the
Southern Spink and Northern Beadle Rural Water System (SSNB). SSNB is a
small community water supply system that lacks the necessary capacity
to properly operate a potable water supply system. Mid-Dakota replaced
approximately eight miles of pipeline along U.S. Highway 212. An
existing water pipeline located in the Highway right-of-way would have
to be relocated increasing the cost of the Highway improvement. Mid-
Dakota instead placed its pipeline (that would have been constructed in
the future) out of the way of the Highway improvement. This lessened
the cost of the Highway project and provided for an uninterrupted
supply of water along the pipeline route.
Additionally, Mid-Dakota is keeping in close contact with the City
of Huron, SD (population 12,400) regarding potentially serious EPA
water quality violations anticipated with the implementation of the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) enhanced surface water rules due in
2003. Engineers who have analyzed the current drinking water source for
Huron (James River) have concluded that the City will not be able to
treat the current James River source without very significant and
costly upgrades to their existing treatment facilities. Further the
engineers have concluded that without these upgrades or switching to a
new source i.e., Mid-Dakota, the City will be out of compliance with
the Disinfection and Disinfection by-products rule D/DBP to be
implemented in 2003. Huron is located at the East end of the Mid-Dakota
Project (Mid-Dakota is being built in a general West to East manner)
and is currently Mid-Dakota's largest contracted user. It is
anticipated that with sufficient funding beginning with fiscal year
2001 and continuing thereon, Mid-Dakota can be in a position to connect
to Huron in time to remedy potential EPA non-compliance faced by Huron.
TENTATIVE FISCAL YEAR 2001 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE \1\
Mid-Dakota has developed an aggressive construction schedule for
fiscal year 2001, with plans to install nearly 900 miles of pipeline to
serve an estimated 3,000 more people than are currently receiving or
scheduled to receive Project drinking water. Our construction schedule
will also provide the necessary main pipeline infrastructure to move
forward with many more rural and community connections in the future.
Federal funding allocated in any given fiscal year is always the
limiting factor that drives Mid-Dakota's construction schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Project features listed in table are subject to rescheduling
based upon funding provided and readiness to proceed and other factors.
Actual construction activities, therefore, may not coincide exactly
with schedule presented here.
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE--FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 percent
Construction 4 percent Construction Total project
estimate Inspection & contract estimate
ROW estimate management
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rezac Lake Service Area......................... $3,033,000 $121,320 $272,970 $3,427,290
Collin's Slough Service Area.................... 2,195,000 87,800 197,550 2,480,350
Ames Service Area............................... 3,515,000 140,600 316,350 3,971,950
Cottonwood Lake Service Area.................... 3,698,000 147,920 332,820 4,178,740
Wessington Springs Service Area................. 2,667,000 106,680 240,030 3,013,710
Redfield Service Area........................... 488,000 19,520 43,920 551,440
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Service Areas.................... 15,596,000 623,840 1,403,640 17,623,480
===============================================================
Ames Water Storage Tank......................... 474,000 18,960 56,880 549,840
Cottonwood Lake Storage Tank.................... 495,000 19,800 59,400 574,200
Wessington Springs Storage Tank................. 499,000 19,960 59,880 78,840
Redfield Storage Tank........................... 187,000 7,480 22,440 216,920
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Storage Tanks.................... 1,655,000 66,200 198,600 1,919,800
===============================================================
Engineering, Design & Consultants............... .............. .............. .............. 1,000,000
Administration & General (Approx 3.5 percent of .............. .............. .............. 675,000
Const.)........................................
Contingencies and Other (Approx. 15 percent of .............. .............. .............. 2,825,000
Const.)........................................
-----------------
Total fiscal year 2001.................... .............. .............. .............. 24,043,280
=================
Total fiscal year 2001 request............ .............. .............. .............. 24,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: 1. Completion of a ``Service Area'' must include the accompanying Water Storage Tank in order to place the
area in service.
2. Construction Projects outlined above are not necessarily in an order of priority.
3. Contingencies include 5 percent (bidding) 5 percent (Change Orders) & 5 percent (Add-on users).
CLOSING
Mid-Dakota is intensely aware of the difficult funding decisions
that face the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee and we do
not envy the difficult job that lies ahead. We strongly urge, the
Subcommittee to look closely at the Mid-Dakota Project and recognize
the dire need that exists. Consider the exceptionally high level of
local and state support. And lastly our readiness, our credibility and
our ability, to proceed.
Again, we thank the Subcommittee for its strong support in the
past.
______
Prepared Statement of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association
The Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association, its members and
its officers thank you for the opportunity to present this statement,
including a budget request, relating to the budget for fiscal year
2001.
This statement relates to the Missouri National Recreational River
project which was authorized by the Congress in 1978 per Section 707 of
Public Law 95-625. The Association's budget request for fiscal year
2001 is $275,000.00, an amount to be used for these purposes.
--The operation, maintenance and repair of structures constructed
prior to 1978 under the authority of Section 32 of the
Streambank Erosion Control and Demonstration Act;
--To provide for the repair or replacement of flood-damaged
facilities which permitted access to the river in the lower
reaches of the project, especially on the South Dakota shore;
--For the acquisition of shoreline easements to protect extant
wildlife habitat and to increase such habitat where it is
lacking;
--To provide streambank protection where needed, as needed, for the
river's ``high banks'', ie., for the meander line's
streambanks.
--For such other needs as may be required to achieve the
Congressional purposes with respect to this project.
This project pertains to the some fifty-eight mile reach of the
Missouri River extending downward from near Yankton, South Dakota,
circa mile 811, to the Ponca, Nebraska, State Park, circa mile 752.
This reach of the Missouri is the only relatively wild portion lying
downstream of the ``main stem'' dams. Here, the Missouri is neither
channelized nor stabilized. While limited and isolated stabilization
structures do exist, for the most part the river retains its natural
characteristics. These characteristics include eroding shorelines,
islands, ephemeral sandbars, trees overhanging the water, frequent
changes in the channel, marked differences in depth, forested bluffs,
caving cornfields and somewhat limited access. Wildlife, too,
characterizes this reach of river. Deer, coyotes, raccoons and beaver
abound, as do a wide variety of birds. Spring and fall see a massive
influx of ducks, geese and many other migratory birds.
The business of the Missouri River is to move the Rocky Mountains
to the Gulf of Mexico. Erosion is a major tool employed by the Missouri
to perform its role as a 2,300 plus mile conveyor belt. Thus, its
shorelines are under endless attack, including even those areas where
some stabilization measures have been undertaken. The erosion problem
was exacerbated by the record high flows in 1997; some of the damage
done then has yet to be repaired. Further aggravating the problem is
the river's increased capacity to carry sediment because the water
released through the Gavins Point Dam is almost sediment free. Thus,
the river can and does cut with a vengeance.
While intensive erosion has long been one of the Missouri's salient
characteristics, the problem here is that the construction of the
``main stem'' dams ended the annual overbank flooding. Such flooding
naturally created new land along the river, balancing the erosion. The
flood plain along the river was so created. Today, no flooding occurs
along this reach of river, and landowners suffer doubly: erosion has
increased because of the increased carrying capacity of the clean water
and such erosion is not offset by floodcreated floodplains. Whereas
riparian landowners once had a ``fifty-fifty'' chance of regaining lost
land, today they have no chance of such restorations. Instead, they
have a one hundred percent chance of losing their land.
Congress authorized $21,000,000.00 for this project. To date only
some $2 million has been spent. A new management plan for this reach of
river was recently approved. The National Park Service and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, aided by a ``citizens advisory group''
developed the new plan. The new plan is more detailed than the
original; it contains an array of proposals designed to increase public
enjoyment of this delightful reach of the ``old'' Missouri. This plan
also seeks to preserve and protect those characteristics which make
this reach of the Missouri worthy of the status the Congress bestowed
upon it.
During the very lengthy process of developing the new plan, it was
time and again noted that bank stabilization was a truly essential
component of the plan and one authorized by the enabling legislation.
Indeed, if there be no stabilization to protect existing (and
endangered) features of the river and its landscape, they will simply
disappear. For example, extant tracts of superb cottonwood forests are
being eroded away as this is written. Such losses are irretrievable.
Disturbingly, the new plan is vague and all but silent as to
stabilization; indeed the press release heralding adoption of the new
plan did not even mention it. At the public meetings held to seek
public input to help develop the new plan, the need for stabilization
was overwhelmingly the principal need articulated.
Underscoring this request for needed funding for this reach of the
``old Missouri'' is the accelerating interest in the nearing
bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. As this reach of the
Missouri is one of but a handful of surviving natural reaches, it is
certain to be among the most attractive to the multitude of people who
will follow the Lewis and Clark Trail. Public access needs to be
improved; more and better signage is imperative; some increase in
overlooks, or other viewing points, is certainly desirable. Such public
access will be of little interest to a visitor unless the islands,
forested shorelines, wildlife habitats and sandbars are preserved and
protected.
The Association is most appreciative of the continued interest and
support the Congress has shown, and extends its thanks accordingly. So,
too, do a host of hunters, environmentalists, fishermen, boatsmen and a
variety of others who support our cause and enjoy the Grand Old Stream
we seek to protect and preserve.
______
Prepared Statement of The Little River Drainage District
My name is Dr. Sam Hunter, DVM of Sikeston, Missouri. I am a
veterinarian, landowner, farmer and resident of Southeast Missouri.
I am the President of the Little River Drainage District, the
largest such entity in the nation. Our District serves as an outlet
drainage and flood control District to parts of seven counties in
Southeast Missouri. We provide flood control protection to a sizable
area of Northeast Arkansas as well. Our District is solely tax
supported by more than 3500 private landowners in Southeast Missouri.
Our District as well as other Drainage and Levee Districts in
Missouri and Arkansas is located within the St. Francis River Basin.
This is a project item of the Mississippi River and Tributaries
Project.
The St. Francis Basin Project was authorized by Congress in 1928
for improvements by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. The initial
authorization was justified by a projected benefit cost ratio of 2.4:
1. Today this ratio is 3.6: 1 and the project is still not completed.
As you can see this has been a wise investment of our federal tax
dollars. Few projects or ventures with funding levels provided by the
Federal Government return more than they cost. This one does and we
need to complete it in a timely fashion.
Local interests have done their part in providing rights of way,
roads, utilities and the like. Our government now needs to fulfill
their part of the project and bring it to completion as quickly as
possible.
The St. Francis Basin project has had a base funding level of
approximately $10,000,000 over the past several years. Our last five
year average has been $9.9 million. That baseline funding level does
not need to be diminished. The President's budget request of $6,775,000
is not acceptable. The amount requested by OMB will not provide
sufficient funding levels for the Corps to maintain what they have
built and/or improved. We hereby respectively request funds for fiscal
year 2001 for this project of $12,775,000. This amount is compatible
with the Corps of Engineers capability.
Since the initiation of the project for improvements we have seen
many positive changes occur such as:
--Many miles of all weather roads have been constructed and are
usable almost daily each year.
--Better flood control and drainage.
--Development of one of the most fertile and diversified valleys in
the world.
--Growth of towns, schools, churches, industry, commerce, and etc.
--Improvement of our environment: malaria, typhoid and other such
diseases are no longer the norm but seldom occur.
--A future for our young people to have a desire to remain in the
area.
--Production of a variety of food and fiber products.
As you can see many changes have occurred and we who live there
welcome them fully. We, local interests, in Southeast Missouri and
Northeast Arkansas want this project brought to completion and
adequately maintained. We have waited over seventy years and we believe
it is now time to complete a wise investment for our nation.
Our request to you today is to approve funding for the St. Francis
Basin at $12,775,000 for fiscal year 2001 and succeeding years to
assure completion of the project and to make certain the completed
project is properly maintained.
Further, we are here as a member of the Mississippi Valley Flood
Control Association, which represents similar interests as our
District, from the Gulf of Mexico upstream to the headwaters of the
Mississippi River.
The MR&T Project has only $309,000,000 in the President's budget.
The Corps of Engineers has the capability of $370,000,000. We ask you
to give consideration to provide funding levels at $370,000,000 for
this project for fiscal year 2001. This will provide some new
construction but it will also provide the necessary maintenance monies
needed each year.
Our great Mississippi River and Tributaries are most valuable
assets to our great nation. The barge industry is the safest, most
efficient and more environmentally acceptable than our other modes of
moving our commodities to be exported. We need to upgrade our
infrastructure now in order to compete with foreign markets. The
$370,000,000 will provide funding for some new construction and
maintenance funds for existing features. We have numerous locks and
dams which need to be improved to accommodate our twenty first century
needs. Some locks and dams are more than fifty years old.
Thank you very much for your kind attention. We would be very
appreciative of anything this Committee can do to help us meet our
needs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee
Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished Committee, my name
is Wallace Gieringer. I am retired as Executive Director of the Pine
Bluff-Jefferson County (Arkansas) Port Authority. It is my honor to
serve as Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee,
members of which are appointed by the governors of the great States of
Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.
As Chairman, I present this summary testimony as a compilation of
the most important projects from each of the member states. Each of the
states unanimously supports these projects without reservation. I
request that the copies of each state's individual statement be made a
part of the record, along with this testimony.
Mr. Chairman, the members of the Interstate Committee continue to
identify as our top priority a project vital to the five-state area and
beyond--the urgently needed Montgomery Point Lock and Dam at the
confluence of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System and
the Mississippi River.
Continuing problems caused by lowering of the Mississippi River
plague McClellan-Kerr entrance channel users. As recently as last month
shippers on the McClellan-Kerr were threatened with the lowest water
levels on the Mississippi River in recorded history.
Construction of Montgomery Point needs to continue as rapidly as
possible before limited dredge disposal areas become inadequate. During
times of low water on the Mississippi River the entrance channel is
drained of navigable water depth. As the Mississippi River bottom
continues to lower, the McClellan-Kerr moves toward total shutdown.
Thus, the entire Arkansas River Navigation System is at risk, and
its long term-viability is threatened without Montgomery Point. Some $5
billion in federal and private investments, thousands of jobs, growing
exports in world trade and future economic development are endangered.
The good news is that you, your associates, the Congress and the
Administration have all recognized the urgency of constructing
Montgomery Point!
The Corps of Engineers awarded a $186 million construction contract
on July 19, 1977. Last year Congress appropriated $45 million to
continue construction of the lock and dam. The cofferdam and diversion
channel have been completed, and work is progressing well.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, continuing Congressional
support is essential at this crucial time in the history of the
project. An appropriation of $45 million for fiscal year 2001 will
insure that Montgomery Point is in operation as soon as possible at the
lowest possible cost.
The Interstate Committee also respectfully recommends the following
as important priorities:
Providing $1.4 million for the Arkansas River Navigation Study, AR
& OK. While navigation is the primary purpose of the McClellan-Kerr
Arkansas River Navigation System, navigation needs and flood control
are closely related. Sustained high flows result in difficult
navigation conditions and continued flooding in the vicinity of Fort
Smith, Arkansas.
As the operation of the flood control features of the Navigation
System in that area are based on the Van Buren, Arkansas gage, the
flooding concerns and navigation problems are interrelated.
Accordingly, this study would address the navigation System Operating
Plan to improve navigation conditions on the river, as well as the
performance of flood control measures, especially in the Fort Smith
reach.
We strongly urge the Committee to provide funding in the amount of
$2.5 million to initiate the installation of tow haulage equipment on
the 3 locks on the Arkansas River portion of the McClellan-Kerr
Arkansas River Navigation System in Oklahoma.
Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Project--this is the continuation
of a Bureau of Reclamation project jointly endorsed by the City of
Wichita, Groundwater Management District No. 2 and the State of Kansas.
This model technology has proven the feasibility of providing needed
environmental protection and recharging a major groundwater aquifer
supplying water to nearly 600,000 irrigation, municipal and industrial
users. Governor Graves supports this much needed project in order to
secure the quality of life and economic future for more than 20 percent
of the state's population.
Demonstration project data confirms earlier engineering models that
the full scale project is feasible and also capable of meeting the
increasing water resource needs of the area to the mid 21st century.
Through the recharge project, a greater reliance on the aquifer is
planned for the future and essential environmental protection
strategies must be implemented.
The full scale design concept calls for a multi-year construction
project. Phase One of the project is estimated to cost $14.6 million
with construction beginning in mid-2001. The total project involving
the capture and recharge of more than 100 million gallons of water per
day is estimated to cost $142 million over 10 years. We are grateful
for your consistent, previous cost share funding support since fiscal
year 1995 as a compliment to funds provided by the City of Wichita. We
request continued cost share funding for Phase One of the full-scale
project in the amount of $5.84 million for fiscal year 2001.
We also request funds for the Bureau of Reclamation in the amount
of $6.861 million for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
and San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Programs.
Mr. Chairman, Members of this Committee, we respectfully request
that you and members of your staff review and respond in a positive way
to the attached individual statements from each of our states which set
forth specific requests pertaining to those states.
We sincerely appreciate your consideration and assistance. Thank
you very much for the foresight, wisdom and resourcefulness you and
your colleagues demonstrate each and every year in providing solutions
to our nation's water resource problems.
SUMMARY STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we are grateful that
you, your associates, the Congress and the Administration have all
recognized the urgency of Constructing Montgomery Point Lock and Dam on
the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. Continuing
Congressional support is essential. We respectfully urge the Congress
to appropriate $45 million for use in fiscal year 2001 to continue
construction and insure that the urgently needed facility is in
operation as soon as possible at the lowest possible cost.
Other projects are also vital to the environment, social and
economic well-being of our region and our nation. We request your
support for the following:
--Provide $1,300,000 for the Arkansas River Navigation Study, AR &
OK. This study would address the Navigation System Operating
Plan to improve navigation conditions during high flows on the
river, as well as the performance of flood control measures,
especially in the Fort Smith reach.
--Support continued funding for the construction, and Operation and
Maintenance of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation
System.
--Continue construction authority for the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas
River Navigation Project until remaining channel stabilization
problems identified by the Little Rock District Corps of
Engineers have been resolved.
--Provide funding and direct the Corps to complete installation of
tow-haulage equipment for all the locks and dams on the
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System.
--Provide funds and direct the Corps of Engineers to begin
construction of the Arkansas River Levees Project as authorized
by Section 110 of the Water Resource Development Act of 1990.
--$1.3 million needs be specifically provided and the Corps directed
to begin rehabilitation construction on the Plum Bayou Levee
(including the Old River and Baucum Levees).
--Funds for repair and rehabilitation of the power units at the
Ozark-Jetta Taylor Lock and Dam Powerhouse which first went
into operation in 1970.
--Provide funding in the amount of $500,000 to continue pre-
construction engineering and design on the North Little Rock,
(Dark Hollow), AR, project.
--Provide funding in the amount of $1,845,000 to complete Fourche
Bayou Basin, Little Rock, AR, project.
Please help prevent a crisis for the Arkansas River Navigation
System and the multi-state region it serves by appropriating $45
million for use in fiscal year 2001 for Montgomery Point Lock and Dam.
We fully endorse the statement presented to you today by the
Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee.
ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to present testimony to this most important committee. I am
retired as Executive Director of the Pine Bluff-Jefferson County Port
Authority and serve as Arkansas Chairman for the Interstate Committee.
Other committee members representing Arkansas, in whose behalf this
statement is made, are Messrs. Wayne Bennett, soybean and rice farmer
from Lonoke; Colonel Charles D. Maynard, U.S. Army, retired, from
Little Rock; Barry McKuin, a Director of the Morrilton Port Authority
at Morrilton; and N. M. ``Buck'' Shell, transportation specialist of
Fort Smith and Van Buren, Arkansas.
1999 was a memorable year in the history of the McClellan-Kerr
Arkansas River Navigation System--and you helped make it so! Last year
Congress continued to recognize the urgent need for Montgomery Point
Lock and Dam by appropriating $45 million. This much needed facility is
under construction near the confluence of the McClellan-Kerr System and
the Mississippi River. To each of you, your staff and the Congress--our
most heartfelt thanks!
The Corps of Engineers awarded a $186 million contract for
construction of the lock and dam proper on July 19, 1997. The cofferdam
and the diversion channel have been completed, and work is progressing
well. When completed, Montgomery Point will protect over $5 billion in
public and private investments, thousands of jobs and world trade
created as a result of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation
System. Without Montgomery Point Lock and Dam the future of our
wonderful navigation system remains threatened. Time is of the essence.
As recently as last month shippers on the McClellan-Kerr were
threatened with the lowest water levels on the Mississippi River in
recorded history. As the Mississippi experiences low water levels, and
its bottom continues to lower, the McClellan-Kerr moves toward total
shutdown. Existing dredge disposal areas are virtually full. Ongoing
dredging and disposal of material can mean environmental damage.
Construction must continue as rapidly as possible if the project is to
be in place before disposal areas become inadequate.
Use of the temporary by-pass channel increases navigation hazards
making it imperative that work on the lock and dam be completed as
quickly and as safely as possible. The absence of Montgomery Point Lock
and Dam continues to deter economic growth along the entire McClellan-
Kerr and the project is certainly time sensitive!
We are very grateful that you, your associates, the Congress, and
the Administration have all recognized the urgency of constructing
Montgomery Point. Appropriations of $138.3 million have been made to
date for engineering, site acquisition and construction for this
project which should be completed in 2003 according to the Corps'
optimum construction schedule.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, continuing Congressional
support is essential at this crucial time in the history of the
project. We respectfully request and urge the Congress to appropriate
$45 million for use in fiscal year 2001 to continue construction.
Adequate funding will insure that the urgently needed facility is in
operation as soon as possible at the lowest possible cost.
We wish to express thanks Mr. Chairman, for the Committee's support
of funding for the Morgan Bendway Environmental Restoration Project.
The State of Arkansas provided one-fourth of the cost for this $3.3
million project which includes a 1000 acre lake and wetland restoration
measures. This project adds to the many widespread public benefits
associated with the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System.
We are also grateful for your support by funding completion of the
repair and rehabilitation of the power units at the Dardanelle Lock and
Dam which first went into operation in 1965. After this work is
completed, power output will be increased by 13 percent and thus
increase income to the Federal Treasury.
Other projects are vital to the environment, social and economic
well-being of our region and our nation. We recognize the importance of
continued construction of needed features to the McClellan-Kerr
Arkansas River Navigation System and strongly recommend that you
favorably consider the following in your deliberations:
--Provide $1,300,000 for the Arkansas River Navigation Study, AR &
OK. While navigation is the primary purpose of the McClellan-
Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, navigation needs and
flood control are closely related. Sustained high flows result
in difficult navigation conditions and continued flooding in
the vicinity of Fort Smith, Arkansas. As the operation of the
flood control features of the Navigation System in that area
are based on the Van Buren, Arkansas gage, the flooding
concerns and navigation problems are interrelated. Accordingly,
this study would address the navigation System Operating Plan
to improve navigation conditions on the river, as well as the
performance of flood control measures, especially in the Fort
Smith reach.
--Support continued funding for the construction, and Operation and
Maintenance of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation
System.
--Continue construction authority for the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas
River Navigation Project until remaining channel stabilization
problems identified by the Little Rock District Corps of
Engineers have been resolved. It is vitally important that the
Corps continue engineering studies to develop a permanent
solution to the threat of cutoffs developing in the lower
reaches of the navigation system; and for the Corps to
construct these measures under the existing construction
authority.
--Provide funding and direct the Corps to complete installation of
tow haulage equipment for all the locks and dams on the
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. This
efficiency feature will reduce lockage time by as much as 50
percent while permitting tonnage to double in each tow with
only a minor increase in operating cost.
--Provide funds and direct the Corps of Engineers to begin
construction of the Arkansas River Levees Project as authorized
by Section 110 of the Water Resource Development Act of 1990.
$400,000 is needed to continue planning, engineering and design
for these levees which have been previously studied in the
cost-shared Arkansas River, Arkansas and Oklahoma Feasibility
Study.
--$1.3 million needs be specifically provided and the Corps directed
to begin rehabilitation construction on the Plum Bayou Levee
(includes the Old River and Baucum Levees).
Funds for repair and rehabilitation of the power units at the
Ozark-Jetta Taylor Lock and Dam Powerhouse which first went into
operation in 1970. This project is vitally needed to correct problems
which have plagued the slant axis turbines since they were first put in
operation and to continue the reliable production of power from this
facility.
--Provide funding in the amount of $500,000 to continue pre-
construction engineering and design on the North LittleRock,
(Dark Hollow), AR Project.
--Provide funding in the amount of $1,845,000 to complete Fourche
Bayou Basin, Little Rock, AR, project. This will allow the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers to cost-share with the City of Little
Rock on purchase of 1,750 acres of bottomland hardwood for
environmental preservation and establishment of nature
appreciation facilities.
We also urge the Congress to continue to encourage the Military
Traffic Management Command to identify opportunities to accelerate use
of the nation's navigable waterways to move military cargoes thereby
helping contain the nation's defense costs.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, please help prevent a crisis for the
Arkansas River Navigation System and the multi-state region it serves
by appropriating $45 million for use in fiscal year 2001 for Montgomery
Point Lock and Dam.
The entire Arkansas River Navigation System is at risk, and its
long-term viability is threatened. The system remains at risk until
Montgomery Point is constructed. Some $5 billion in federal and private
investments and thousands of jobs and growing exports are endangered.
We fully endorse the statement presented to you today by the
Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee. We
appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to your most important
subcommittee and urge you to favorably consider our request for needed
infrastructure investments in the natural and transportation resources
of our nation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy
District
SUMMARY STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development, thank you for the opportunity to present
this summary of the funding requests that are important to the State of
Colorado and the membership of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate
Committee. This committee comes together each year to support the water
resource projects that are important to each of the 5 member states
individually and collectively.
The State of Colorado joins the other members of the Committee in
supporting as the number 1 priority project this year, Montgomery Point
Lock and Dam at Montgomery Point, Arkansas. This vital navigation
project is important to the many customers of Colorado that take
advantage of the low cost water transportation of their goods. We urge
you to fund this project at the requested $45 million. This will allow
the project to remain on its current construction schedule for
completion at the lowest possible cost.
The following requests for funding are in support of projects that
are vital to the State of Colorado and we respectfully urge you fund
them in the requested amounts.
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program:
--Support Fish and Wildlife Service funding for the Recovery
Program--$635,800.
--Support Fish and Wildlife Service funds for operation of the Ouray
National Fish Hatchery--$305,800.
San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program:
--Support Fish and Wildlife Service funding for the Recovery
Program--$126,500.
Bureau of Reclamation funds for the Upper Colorado River Endangered
Fish Recovery and San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation
Programs--$6.861 million.
Mr. Chairman, Members of this Committee, we thank you for your kind
attention in the matters listed here and in the combined testimony's of
the member states of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee. We
certainly look forward to your favorable response to these requests.
STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development, thank you for the opportunity to present
these comments and requests on behalf of Colorado as a participant in
the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee.
First let me voice my support for the Interstate Committee's
priority funding request for the fiscal year 2001 budget cycle. The
Committee has once again identified the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam
project as the number one funding request. Since there are many
identifiable customers of the navigation system located in Colorado, we
urge you to appropriate the requested $45 million to keep this project
on its current construction schedule. This will allow the system to
return to a reliable, year-round transportation system at the lowest
possible cost.
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program/San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program--fiscal year 2001
Requests.--Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, we respectfully
request funding for the following:
Fish and Wildlife Service Budget
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program
--Support Fish and Wildlife Service funding for the Recovery
Program.--$635,800 requested in ``Recovery funds.'' Projects to
be funded are:
Fish and Wildlife Service program management.--Funding to cover
salaries and expenses of Program Director and staff.
Interagency standardized monitoring program.--This activity
supports Service participation in monitoring fish populations
(including stocked fish) and their responses to recovery actions.
Data management.--The Service maintains all fish data collected in
the Recovery Program in computerized form to facilitate analyses. This
includes maintaining the overall database, summarizing data, and
providing an annual listing of all tagged fish.
--Support Fish and Wildlife Service funds for operation of the Ouray
National Fish Hatchery.--$305,800 is requested for ``Fish
Hatchery Operation.''
The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program requests
Congressional support to operate the Service's National Fish Hatchery
in Ouray, Utah. Funding will enable the hatchery to continue to raise
and hold endangered fish for stocking, research, and refugia (adult
fish for spawning and maintaining gene pool.)
San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
--Support Fish and Wildlife Service funding for the Recovery
Program.--$126,500 requested in ``Recovery funds.'' Projects to
be funded are:
Fish and Wildlife Service program management.--Funding supports
partial salary for the coordinator and, funding permitting, dollars for
research and monitoring. Bureau of Reclamation Budget
Support Bureau of Reclamation funds for the Upper Colorado River
Endangered Fish Recovery and San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Programs.
Upper Colorado River and San Juan River Basin Recovery Program
participants request Congressional support for $6.861 million for
fiscal year 2001 in ``Endangered Species Recovery Programs and
Activities for the Upper Colorado Region.'' This amount is included in
the Administration's proposed fiscal year 2001 budget for Reclamation.
It would provide the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program (Recovery Program) with $4.887 million, the San Juan River
Basin Recovery Program with $1.394 million and Activities to Avoid
Jeopardy with $535,000. It also includes a request of $45.000 to fund
research associated with the habitat needs of the Kanab Amber Snail.
The $4.887 million would be used for water acquisition and capital
construction projects including:
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program Activities
Fish passage.--Reclamation funds will be used to construct a fish
ladder on the Colorado River at the Grand Valley Project. This activity
will benefit razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow by giving them
access to more of their historic habitat.
Water acquisition.--Reclamation initiatives include:
Modification and automation of canals to more efficiently operate
irrigation projects near Grand Junction, Colorado, and dedicating the
``saved'' water to endangered fish.
Using water stored in several smaller Reclamation reservoirs to
enhance late-summer flows in the Colorado River.
Coordinating Federal and private reservoir operations in the
Colorado River headwaters to enhance spring peak flows downstream.
Floodplain restoration.--Funding is needed in fiscal year 2001 to
continue land acquisition, levee removal, and other floodplain
restoration activities at high priority sites. Restoring these
floodplains is thought to be especially important for endangered
razorback suckers and will benefit a variety of wetland-dependent
wildlife.
Endangered fish growout ponds.--Existing hatcheries and native fish
production facilities fall short of meeting stocking needs. Funding is
needed in fiscal year 2001 to excavate or locate at least 100 acres of
growout ponds to raise razorback suckers and other endangered fish for
further stocking in the Green, Colorado, and Gunnison Rivers.
Diversion canal screening.--Funding is needed in fiscal year 2001
to construct a screen at the Grand Valley Irrigation Company Diversion
Canal to prevent endangered fish from being drawn out of the river and
into the canals. (The habitat above the diversion is used by adult
endangered fish.) Funding in the amount of $2,110,000 is also needed to
construct a screen at the Tusher Wash Diversion Canal to prevent fish
from being entrained into irrigation canals and the power plant.
San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program Activities
The Biology Committee is developing a long-term capital facilities
plan. The most likely capital expenditures for fiscal year 2001 will be
to provide fish passage at Hogback and Cudei diversion dams in New
Mexico and planning and design of passage structures at other locations
on the San Juan River. Current maintenance of the Hogback Diversion
structure requires extensive annual use of heavy equipment in the
stream channel to rebuild the structure after spring flood events.
Funding will be used to reconstruct a fortified diversion structure
that incorporates a fish passage channel into the design. The Cudei
diversion is a rock and earthen structure that impedes the ability of
fish to move upstream and will be removed and replaced with a siphon
that does not block the stream channel.
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program-Authorizing
Legislation.--The House and Senate will soon deliberate on legislation
that will formalize the ``recovery program'' for the endangered fish in
the upper Colorado River. The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish
Recovery Program (the Program) has been operating for several years
with the support of the State of Colorado and the other Upper Basin
States, as well as water users in these states. The Program is directed
at recovering four native fish species while allowing water development
activities to continue. To date the Program has served as the
reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) for several small water
development projects throughout the Upper Basin States. In December of
1999 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a final Programmatic
Biological Opinion (PBO) that clearly establishes the intent of the
Program to provide the RPA for all existing water projects and a
reasonable measure of future water projects, while affirming commitment
for a set of recovery action items that are intended to recover the
fish.
It is important that the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish
Recovery Program be authorized so that the Program's objectives can be
met. The House of Representatives has introduced H.R. 2348 and the
Senate will soon follow with legislation that will provide
authorization for the Program.
As a Colorado member of the Interstate Committee, I respectfully
request that the individual members on this Subcommittee support the
authorizing legislation for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish
Recovery Program.
Thank you for your consideration of these requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the Kansas Arkansas River Basin Interstate
Committee
SUMMARY STATEMENT
The critical water resource projects in the Kansas portion of the
Arkansas River Basin are summarized below. The projects are safety,
environmental and conservation oriented. In addition, we state our
unanimous support for the fiscal year 2001 request of $45 million for
continued construction of the authorized Montgomery Point Lock and Dam
Project to maintain viable navigation for commerce on the McClellan-
Kerr Navigation System.
We request your continued support for these important Bureau of
Reclamation projects:
--Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Project.--Continuation of a City of
Wichita, Groundwater Management District No. 2 and State of
Kansas project to construct recharge facilities for a major
groundwater resource supplying water to more than 20 percent of
Kansas municipal, industrial and irrigation users. The total
project will capture and recharge in excess of 100 million
gallons per day and will also reduce on-going degradation of
the existing groundwater quality by minimizing migration of
saline water. Continued federal funding is requested in the
amount of $5.84 million for fiscal year 2001.
--Cheney Reservoir.--On the North Fork of the Ninnescah River
providing natural treatment of inflows in the upper reaches of
Cheney Reservoir to control poor water quality due to non-point
source pollution from agricultural runoff. Continued funding in
the amount of $125,000 is requested for fiscal year 2001.
We request your support of these equally important Corps of
Engineers projects:
--Arkansas City, Kansas Flood Protection.--To protect homes and
businesses from catastrophic damages resulting from either
Walnut River or Arkansas River flooding. Previous funding is
appreciated and continued federal funding is requested in the
amount of $5.1 million for fiscal year 2001, the level needed
by the Corps of Engineers.
--John Redmond Reservoir Reallocation Study.--To ascertain the
equitable distribution of sediment storage between conservation
and flood control storage and evaluate the environmental impact
of the reallocation. Funding is requested in the amount of
$345,000.
--Upper Arkansas River Watershed, Kansas, Reconnaissance Study.--
$100,000 study to evaluate high flow carrying capacity, flood
control and ecosystem restoration in western Kansas.
--Grand Lake Feasibility Study.--Corps study completed in September
1998, which evaluated the adequacy of federal flood control
easements around Grand Lake. Feasibility study now requested in
the amount of $3 million.
--Grand (Neosho) Basin Watershed Reconnaissance Study.--To evaluate
non-structural measures to reduce flood damages in southeastern
Kansas and northeastern Oklahoma. Funding request is for
$100,000.
--Continuing Authorities Program.--Several smaller Kansas communities
have previously requested funding from the Small Flood Control
Projects Program and the Emergency Streambank Stabilization
Program. We request funding to be authorized at the full
programmatic limits.
Finally, we are very grateful that both the Corps of Engineers and
Bureau of Reclamation have the expertise needed for the development and
protection of water resources infrastructure. It is essential to have
the integrity and continuity these agencies provide on major public
projects. Your continued support of these vital agencies, including
funding, will be appreciated.
STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Gerald H. Holman,
Senior Vice President of the Wichita Area Chamber of Commerce, Wichita,
Kansas and Chairman of the Kansas Interstate Committee for the Arkansas
Basin Development Association (ABDA). I also serve as Chairman of ABDA.
This statement is submitted on behalf of the entire Kansas Delegation.
We are honored to join with our colleagues from the States of
Oklahoma, Arkansas, Colorado, and Missouri to form the five state
Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee. We are unified as a region
and fully endorse the statement of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate
Committee.
In addition to the important projects listed below, we state our
unanimous support for the continued construction of the authorized
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam Project to maintain viable navigation for
commerce on the McClellan-Kerr Navigation System. This inland waterway
is vital to the economic health of our area. Likewise, your support is
vital to maintain its future viability. Construction is well underway
and continued funding authorization is needed. We state our unanimous
support for the $45 million needed by the Corps of Engineers for fiscal
year 2001 to maintain the most economical and cost efficient
construction schedule.
The critical water resources projects in the Kansas portion of the
Arkansas River Basin have been reviewed by the Kansas delegation. The
projects are safety, environmental and conservation oriented and all
have regional and/or multi-state impact. We are grateful for your past
commitment and respectfully request your continued commitment.
We ask for your continued support for these important Bureau of
Reclamation projects on behalf of the Wichita/South Central Kansas
area:
Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Project.--This is the continuation
of a Bureau of Reclamation project jointly endorsed by the City of
Wichita, Groundwater Management District No. 2 and the State of Kansas.
This model technology has proven the feasibility of recharging a major
groundwater aquifer supplying water to nearly 600,000 irrigation,
municipal and industrial users. The demonstration project remains fully
operational, capturing flood flows from the Little Arkansas River
providing water for use during times of low rainfall or dry conditions
and also reducing on-going degradation of the existing groundwater
quality by minimizing migration of saline water.
Demonstration project data confirms earlier engineering models that
the full scale project is feasible and also capable of meeting the
increasing water resource needs of the area to the mid 21st century.
Presently, the Equus Beds provides approximately half of the Wichita
regional municipal water supply and is vital to the surrounding
agricultural economy. Through the recharge project, a greater reliance
on the aquifer is planned for the future and essential environmental
protection strategies must be implemented.
Governor Graves supports this much needed project in order to
secure the quality of life and economic future for more than 20 percent
of the state's population.
The full scale design concept calls for a multi-year construction
project. Phase One of the project is estimated to cost $14.6 million.
Construction is planned to begin in mid-2001. The total project
involving the capture and recharge of more than 100 million gallons of
water per day is estimated to cost $142 million over 10 years. All
interested parties fully support this project as the needed cornerstone
for the area agricultural economy and for the economy of the Wichita
metropolitan area.
We are grateful for your consistent, previous cost share funding
support since fiscal year 1995 as a compliment to funds provided by the
City of Wichita. We request continued cost share funding for Phase One
of the full-scale project in the amount of $5,840,000 for fiscal year
2001.
Cheney Reservoir.--The reservoir provides approximately 50 percent
of Wichita's regional water supply. Two environmental problems threaten
the water quality and longevity of the reservoir. One is sedimentation
from soil erosion and the other is non-point source pollution,
particularly the amount of phosphates entering the reservoir resulting
in offensive taste and odor problems. A partnership between farmers,
ranchers and the City of Wichita has proven beneficial in implementing
soil conservation practices and to better manage and therefore reduce
and/or eliminate non-point source pollution. To date, over 1,700
environmental projects have been completed within the 543,000 acre
watershed. This partnership must continue indefinitely to protect the
reservoir and the Wichita regional water supply and therefore, on-going
funding will also be necessary. The City of Wichita is providing
funding for this critical, nationally acclaimed model project. We
request continued federal funding in the amount of $125,000 for fiscal
year 2001. As the funding from Section 319 of the Clean Water Act is
phased out, we request another funding source in the amount of $125,000
to continue this vital program.
Many of our agricultural communities have historically experienced
major flood disasters, some of which have resulted in multi-state
hardships involving portions of the State of Oklahoma. The flood of
1998 emphasized again the need to rapidly move needed projects to
completion. Our small communities do not have the necessary funds or
engineering expertise. Federal support is needed. Projects in addition
to local protection are also important. This Committee has given its
previous support to Kansas Corps of Engineers projects. We request your
continued support for the projects listed below:
--Arkansas City, Kansas Flood Protection.--Unfortunately, this
project was not completed prior to the flood of 1998. The flood
demonstrated again the critical need to protect the
environment, homes and businesses from catastrophic damages
from either Walnut River or Arkansas River flooding. When the
project is complete, damage in a multi-county area will be
eliminated and benefits to the State of Oklahoma just a few
miles south will also result. The Secretary of the Army was
authorized to construct the project in fiscal year 1997. We
request your continued federal support in the amount of $5.1
million for fiscal year 2001, the level needed by the Corps of
Engineers.
--John Redmond Reservoir Reallocation Study.--John Redmond Reservoir
remains a primary source of water supply for many small
communities in Kansas. It is suffering loss of capacity ahead
of its design rate because of excessive deposits within the
conservation pool. The flood pool remains above its design
capacity. A study would ascertain the equitable distribution of
sediment storage between conservation and flood control
storages and also evaluate the environmental impact of the
appropriate reallocation. Funding requirements for the Corps of
Engineers study is $345,000. We request your support.
--Upper Arkansas River Watershed, Kansas, Reconnaissance Study--A
reconnaissance study of the water resources problems from the
Colorado-Kansas border to the vicinity of Great Bend, Kansas.
The Federal construction of John Martin Dam, CO, combined with
years of over-pumping of groundwater and over-use of surface
water by agricultural interests in the upper reaches of the
basin have changed the upper Arkansas River Basin flow regime.
The changes resulted in minimal and non-existent flows in the
upper Arkansas River in Kansas, which allowed vegetative and
other encroachments into the river channel to occur largely
unnoticed. Due to an agreement between Kansas and Colorado,
there are now periods of increased flows in the Arkansas River
in Kansas. State of Kansas officials are now concerned that the
Arkansas River channel capacity has been so modified as to
cause flooding in areas which have not previously experienced
flooding problems. The study will evaluate the watershed
changes to determine if flood damage prevention, watershed and
ecosystem restoration or other solutions to water resource
problems in the basin is warranted. We request funding to
initiate reconnaissance studies in the amount of $100,000 for
fiscal year 2001.
--Grand Lake Feasibility Study.A need exists to evaluate water
resource problems in the Grand-Neosho River basin in Kansas and
Oklahoma to evaluate solutions to upstream flooding problems
associated with the adequacy of existing real estate easements
necessary for flood control operations of Grand Lake, Oklahoma.
A study authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 was completed in September of 1998 and determined that if
the project were constructed based on current criteria,
additional easements would be required. A Feasibility study is
necessary to determine the most cost-effective solution to the
real estate inadequacies. Changes in the operations of the
project or other upstream changes could have a significant
impact on flood control, hydropower, and navigation operations
in the Grand (Neosho) River system and on the Arkansas River
basin system, as well. We request funding in the amount of $3
million in fiscal year 2001 to fully fund Feasibility studies
evaluating solutions to upstream flooding associated with
existing easements necessary for flood control operations of
Grand Lake.
Grand (Neosho) Basin Watershed Reconnaissance Study.--A need exists
for a basin-wide water resource planning effort in the Grand-Neosho
River basin, apart from the issues associated with Grand Lake,
Oklahoma. The reconnaissance study would focus on the evaluation of
institutional measures which could assist communities, landowners, and
other interests in southeastern Kansas and northeastern Oklahoma in the
development of non-structural measures to reduce flood damages. We
request funding in the amount of $100,000 in fiscal year 2001 to
conduct the study.
Continuing Authorities Program.--We support funding of needed
programs including the Small Flood Control Projects Program (Section
205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, as amended) as well as the Emergency
Streambank Stabilization Program (Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control
Act, as amended). Smaller communities in Kansas (Iola, Liberal,
Medicine Lodge, Iola, McPherson, Augusta, Parsons, Altoona and
Coffeyville) have previously requested assistance from the Corps of
Engineers under these programs. We urge you to support these programs
to the $40 million programmatic limit for the Small Flood Control
Projects Program and $15 million for the Emergency Streambank
Stabilization Program.
Also, Ecosystem Restoration Programs are relatively new programs
which offer the Corps of Engineers a unique opportunity to work to
restore valuable habitat, wetlands, and other important environmental
features which previously could not be considered. We urge you to
support section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and
Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 at their $25
million programmatic limits.
Likewise, the Challenge 21 Program has the possibility of providing
great assistance to communities which have experienced disastrous flood
events like took place in Kansas with the flood of 1998. The Challenge
21 program will focus on opportunities to move homes and businesses
from harms way through structural and non-structural measures and
through comprehensive watershed planning efforts. We support funding of
this important initiative.
Finally, we are very grateful that both the Corps of Engineers and
Bureau of Reclamation have the expertise needed for the development and
protection of water resources infrastructure. It is essential to have
the integrity and continuity these agencies provide on major public
projects. Your continued support of these vital agencies, including
funding, will be appreciated. Our infrastructure must be maintained and
where needed, enhanced for the future.
Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee, we thank you for the
dedicated manner in which you and your colleagues have dealt with the
Water Resources Programs and for allowing us to present our needs and
funding requests.
Thank you very much.
______
Prepared Statement of the Oklahoma Arkansas River Basin Interstate
Committee
SUMMARY STATEMENT
The water resource needs for the State of Oklahoma have been
carefully reviewed and the following accurately represents the needs of
the citizens of our region.
We continue to hold as our number on priority the continued
construction of Montgomery Point Lock and Dam in Arkansas. The
completion of this project is critical to the continued use of the
navigation system and the continued growth of the entire region. We
request an appropriation of $45 million for fiscal year 2001.
We strongly urge the Committee to provide funding in the amount of
$2.5 million to initiate the installation of tow haulage equipment on
the 3 locks and dams on the Arkansas River portion of the McClellan-
Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System in Oklahoma.
The Arkansas River System Operations Feasibility Study, Arkansas
and Oklahoma. This study would optimize the reservoirs in Oklahoma and
Arkansas that provide flows into the river with a view toward improving
the number of days per year that the navigation system will accommodate
tows. We request funding in the amount of $1.4 million, to continue the
study in fiscal year 2001.
We request the Committee to provide funding for the following
studies:
--Illinois River Watershed Reconnaissance Study, $100,000.
--Grand (Neosho) Basin Reconnaissance Study, $100,000.
--Grand Lake Feasibility Study, $3 million.
--Lake Tenkiller Reallocation Study, $500,000.
--Wister Lake Reallocation Study, $450,000.
--Oologah Lake Water Quality Study, $515,000.
We also urge the Committee to provide adequate funding for the
following Programs:
--Section 205, Small Flood Control Projects Program, $40 million,
program limit.
--Section 14, Emergency Streambank Stabilization Program, $15
million, program limit.
--Sections 1135 and 206, Ecosystem Restoration Programs and Flood
Plain Management Services Program, $25 million each, program
limits.
On a related matter, we have deep concerns about the attempt to re-
authorize the Endangered Species Act without significant beneficial
reforms. We strongly urge you to take a hard look at any bill
concerning this re-authorization and insure that it contains reasonable
and meaningful reforms.
______
STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am James M. Hewgley,
Jr., Oklahoma Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate
Committee, from Tulsa, Oklahoma.
It is my privilege to present this statement on behalf of the
Oklahoma Members of our committee in support of adequate funding for
water resource development projects in our area of the Arkansas River
Basin. Other members of the Committee are: Mr. Ted Coombes, Tulsa; Mr.
Edwin L. Gage, Muskogee; Mr. Terry McDonald, Tulsa; and Mr. Lew
Meibergen, Enid.
Together with representatives of the other Arkansas River Basin
states, we fully endorse the statement presented to you by the Chairman
of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee. We appreciated the
opportunity to present our views of the special needs of our States
concerning several studies and projects.
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam--Montgomery Point Arkansas.--As we
have testified for the past several years, we are once again requesting
adequate appropriations to continue construction of this most important
and much needed project. The shippers and users of the McClellan-Kerr
Arkansas River Navigation System were seriously threatened in February
of this year with the lowest flows in recorded history, at Memphis, on
the Mississippi River. This again demonstrates the absolute need for
completion of this critical project as such an event will drain the
navigation water from the 10 mile White River Entrance Channel to the
McClellan-Kerr System.
We respectfully request the Congress to appropriate $45 million in
the fiscal year 2001 budget cycle to continue construction on the
current project schedule. This will help insure the project is
completed and in operation in a timely manner at the lowest possible
cost.
Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to point out to this distinguished
Committee that this navigation system has brought low cost water
transportation to Oklahoma, Arkansas and the surrounding states. There
has been over $5 billion invested in the construction and development
of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation system by the Federal
Government and the public and private sector, resulting in the creation
of over 50,000 jobs in this partnered project.
Tow Haulage Equipment--Oklahoma.--We also request funding of $2.5
million to initiate the installation of tow haulage equipment on the
locks located along the Arkansas River Portion of the McClellan-Kerr
Arkansas River Navigation System. Total cost for these three locks is
$4.5 million. This project will involve installation of tow haulage
equipment on W.D. Mayo Lock and Dam #14, Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam
#15, and Webbers Falls Lock and Dam #16, on the Oklahoma portion of the
waterway. The tow haulage equipment is needed to make transportation of
barges more efficient and economical by allowing less time for tows to
pass through the various lock and dams.
We are pleased that the President's budget includes funds to
advance work for Flood Control and other water resource needs in
Oklahoma. Of special interest to our committee is funding for the
Skiatook and Tenkiller Ferry Lakes Dam Safety Assurance Projects in
Oklahoma and that construction funding has been provided for those
important projects. We are also pleased that funding is included to
continue reconnaissance studies and initiate feasibility studies in the
North Canadian River Basin for Warr Acres, Oklahoma, for the Cimarron
River basin in Kansas and Oklahoma.
Arkansas River System Operations Feasibility Study, Arkansas and
Oklahoma.--We are especially pleased that the budget includes funds to
continue the Arkansas River Navigation Study, a feasibility study which
is examining opportunities to optimize the Arkansas River system. The
system of multipurpose lakes in Arkansas and Oklahoma on the Arkansas
River and its tributaries supports the McClellan-Kerr Navigation
System, which was opened for navigation to the Port of Catoosa near
Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1970. The navigation system consists of 445 miles
of waterway that winds through the States of Oklahoma and Arkansas.
This study would optimize the reservoirs in Oklahoma and Arkansas that
provide flows into the river with a view toward improving the number of
days per year that the navigation system would accommodate tows. This
study could have significant impact on the economic development
opportunities in the States of Oklahoma, Arkansas, and the surrounding
states. Due to the critical need for this study, however, we request
funding of $1.4 million, which is greater than shown in the budget, to
continue feasibility studies in fiscal year 2001.
Illinois River Watershed Reconnaissance Study.--We request funding
in the amount of $100,000 to conduct a reconnaissance study of the
water resource problems of the Illinois River Basin. The Illinois River
watershed is experiencing continued water resource development needs
and is the focus of ongoing Corps and other agency investigations.
However, additional flows are sought downstream of the Lake Tenkiller
Dam and there are increasing watershed influences upstream of Lake
Tenkiller which impact on the quality of water available for fish and
wildlife, municipal and industrial water supply users, and recreation
users of the Lake Tenkiller and Illinois River waters.
Grand (Neosho) Basin Reconnaissance Study.--We request funding in
the amount of $100,000 to conduct a reconnaissance study of the water
resource problems in the Grand (Neosho) Basin in Oklahoma and Kansas.
There is a need for a basin-wide water resource planning effort in the
Grand-Neosho River basin, apart from the issues associated with Grand
Lake, Oklahoma. The reconnaissance study would focus on the evaluation
of institutional measures which could assist communities, landowners,
and other interests in northeastern Oklahoma and southeastern Kansas in
the development of non-structural measures to reduce flood damages in
the basin.
Grand Lake Feasibility Study.--We also support the effort to
evaluate water resource problems in the Grand-Neosho River basin in
Kansas and Oklahoma and request funding to initiate a comprehensive
Feasibility study to evaluate solutions to upstream flooding problems
associated with the adequacy of existing real estate easements
necessary for flood control operations of Grand Lake, Oklahoma. A
study, authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 was
completed in September of 1998 and determined that if the project were
constructed based on current criteria, additional easements would be
acquired. A Feasibility study is now required to determine the most
cost effective solution to the real estate inadequacies. Changes in the
operations of the project or other upstream changes could have a
significant impact on flood control, hydropower, and navigation
operations in the Grand (Neosho) River system and on the Arkansas River
basin system, as well; we urge you to provide $3 million to fully fund
Feasibility studies for this important project in fiscal year 2001 and
to direct the Corps of Engineers to execute the study at full Federal
expense.
Lake Tenkiller Reallocation Study.--We request funding of $500,000
to conduct a reallocation study of the water storage of Tenkiller Ferry
Lake, Oklahoma. Tenkiller Ferry Lake is located on the Illinois River
approximately 7 miles northeast of Gore, Oklahoma, and 22 miles
southeast of Muskogee, Oklahoma. Construction of the existing project
began in June 1947 and the dam was completed in May 1952. The proposed
study would involve reallocation of the authorized project purposes
among competing users of the project's flood control, hydropower and
water supply resources.
Wister Lake Reallocation Study.--We request funding of $450,000 to
conduct a reallocation study of the water storage of Wister Lake,
Oklahoma. Wister Lake is located on the Poteau River near Wister,
Oklahoma. The lake was completed in 1949 for flood control, water
supply, water conservation and sediment control. Wister Lake is the
primary water resource development project in the Poteau River Basin.
It provides substantial flood control, municipal and industrial water
supply, and recreation benefits for residents of LeFlore County,
Oklahoma, and the southeastern Oklahoma region. Originally constructed
for flood control and water conservation, seasonal pool manipulation
was initiated in 1974 to improve the project's water supply and
recreation resources. The conservation pool level was permanently
raised in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. A reallocation
study, which would include National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
coordination, is required. NEPA and other resource evaluation and
coordination would include the assessment of cultural and fish and
wildlife impacts, potential mitigation measures, and reallocation
studies.
Oologah Lake Water Quality Study.--We request funding of $515,000
for ongoing water quality studies at Oologah Lake and in the upstream
watershed. The lake is an important water supply source for the city of
Tulsa and protection of the lake and maintaining and enhancing the
quality of the water is important for the economic development of the
city. The Corps of Engineers is working closely with the city and with
the Oklahoma Water Resources Board to insure a unified approach to
analysis and preservation of the lake water quality. We request the
study be funded and that the Corps of Engineers be directed to conduct
the studies at full Federal expense. We also support funding for the
Continuing Authorities Program, including the Small Flood Control
Projects Program, (Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, as
amended) and the Emergency Streambank Stabilization Program, (Section
14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as Amended). We want to express our
appreciation for your continued support of those programs.
Section 205.--Although the Small Flood Control Projects Program
addresses flood problems which generally impact smaller communities and
rural areas and would appear to benefit only those communities, the
impact of those projects on economic development crosses county,
regional, and sometimes state boundaries. The communities served by the
program frequently do not have the funds or engineering expertise
necessary to provide adequate flood damage reduction measures for their
citizens. Continued flooding can have a devastating impact on community
development and regional economic stability. The program is extremely
beneficial and has been recognized nation-wide as a vital part of
community development, so much so, in fact, that there is currently a
backlog of requests from communities who have requested assistance
under this program. There is limited funding available for these
projects and we urge this program be fully funded to the programmatic
limit of $40 million.
Section 14.--Likewise, the Emergency Streambank Stabilization
Program provides quick response engineering design and construction to
protect important local utilities, roads, and other public facilities
in smaller urban and rural settings from damage due to streambank
erosion. The protection afforded by this program helps insure that
important roads, bridges, utilities, and other public structures remain
safe and useful. By providing small, affordable, and relatively quickly
constructed projects, these two programs enhance the lives of many by
providing safe and stable living environments. There is also a backlog
of requests under this program. Funding is also limited for these
projects and we urge this program be fully funded to the programmatic
limit of $15 million.
Sections 1135 and 206.--We also request your continued support of
and funding for the Ecosystem Restoration Programs (Section 1135 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and Section 206 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996). The Ecosystem Restoration Programs
are relatively new programs which offer the Corps of Engineers a unique
opportunity to work to restore valuable habitat, wetlands, and other
important environmental features which previously could not be
considered. The Section 1135 Program is already providing significant
benefits to the States of Kansas and Oklahoma. We urge that these
programs be fully funded to the programmatic limit of $25 million each.
We also request your continued support of the Flood Plain
Management Services Program (Section 206 of the 1960 Flood Control Act)
which authorizes the Corps of Engineers to use its technical expertise
to provide guidance in flood plain management matters to all private,
local, state, and Federal entities. The objective of the program is to
support comprehensive flood plain management planning. The program is
one of the most beneficial programs available for reducing flood losses
and provides assistance to officials from cities, counties, states, and
Indian Tribes to ensure that new facilities are not built in areas
prone to floods. Assistance includes flood warning, flood proofing, and
other flood damage reduction measures, and critical flood plain
information is provided on a cost reimbursable basis to home owners,
mortgage companies, Realtors and others for use in flood plain
awareness and flood insurance requirements.
We also request your support of the Planning Assistance to States
Program (Section 22 of the 1974 Water Resources Development Act) which
authorizes the Corps of Engineers to use its technical expertise in
water and related land resource management to help States and Indian
Tribes solve their water resource problems. The program is used by many
states to support their State Water Plans. As natural resources
diminish, the need to manage those resources becomes more urgent. We
urge your continued support of this program as it supports States and
Native American Tribes in developing resource management plans which
will benefit citizens for years to come. The program is very valuable
and effective, matching Federal and non-Federal funds to provide cost
effective engineering expertise and support to assist communities,
states and tribes in the development of plans for the management,
optimization, and preservation of basin, watershed, and ecosystem
resources. The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 increased the
annual program limit from $6 million to $10 million and we urge this
program be fully funded to the programmatic limit of $10 million.
We also request your support and funding for the Challenge 21
Program. The Challenge 21 Program is in support of the Clean Water
Action Plan and would provide opportunity for the Corps of Engineers to
work closely with other Federal, State, and Local land and water
resource agencies to develop comprehensive solutions to reduce flood
damages and improve quality of life. The program would focus on
watershed-based solutions that could also include the restoration of
riparian and wetland ecosystems. Although the construction of dams and
levees has prevented billions of dollars in flood damages, many
communities still experience disastrous flood events. Some of that
flooding can be attributed to over development in and around the flood
plain. The Challenge 21 program will focus on opportunities to move
homes and businesses from harms way through structural and non-
structural measures and through comprehensive watershed planning
efforts. We support funding of this important initiative.
On a related matter, we would share with you our concern that the
Administration has not requested sufficient funds to meet the
increasing infrastructure needs of the inland waterways of our nation.
The Administration's request will not keep projects moving at the
optimum level to complete them on a cost effective basis. Moving the
completion dates out is an unacceptable exercise since 50 percent of
the funds come from the Waterways Trust Fund. This will not only waste
federal funds but, those from the trust fund as well.
We strongly urge the Appropriations Committee to raise the Corps of
Engineers budget to $4.9 billion to help get delayed construction
projects back on schedule and to reduce the deferred maintenance
backlog which is out of control. This will help the Corps of Engineers
meet the obligations of the Federal Government to people of this great
country.
Concerning another related matter, we have deep concerns about the
attempt to re-authorize the Endangered Species Act without significant
beneficial reforms. If a bill is passed through without reforms, it
will be devastating to industry and the country as a whole. We strongly
urge you to take a hard look at any bill concerning this re-
authorization and insure that it contains reasonable and meaningful
reforms.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to present our view on
these subjects.
______
SOUTHWEST U.S. WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
This testimony is in support of funding for the Colorado River
Basin salinity control program. Congress has designated the Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), to be the lead
agency for salinity control in the Colorado River Basin. This role and
the authorized program were refined and confirmed by the Congress when
Public Law 104-20 was enacted. A total of $17,500,000 is requested for
fiscal year 2000 to implement the needed and authorized program.
Failure to appropriate these funds will result in significant economic
damage in the United States and Mexico and threaten compliance with
adopted basin-wide water quality standards in the future. The
President's request of $10.85 million is a reduced funding level and
the Forum feels this level of funding is inadequate. Studies have shown
that implementation of the program has fallen behind the needed pace to
prevent salinity concentrations from exceeding numeric criteria
adopted. These water quality standards for the River Basin must be
honored while the Basin states continue to develop their Compact
apportioned waters of the Colorado River. Concentrations of salts in
the water above the criteria would cause hundreds of millions of
dollars in damage in the United States and result in poorer quality
water being delivered by the United States to Mexico. For every 30 mg/l
increase in salinity concentrations, there is $100 million in
additional damages in the United States. The Forum, therefore, believes
a rate of implementation of the program beyond that requested by the
President is necessary.
The program authorized by the Congress in 1995 has proven to be
very successful and very cost effective. Proposals from the public and
private sector to implement salinity control strategies have far
exceeded the available funding. Hence, Reclamation has a backlog of
proposals and is able to select the best and most cost-effective
proposals. Funds are available for the Colorado River Basin states'
cost sharing for the level of federal funding requested by the Forum.
Water quality improvements accomplished under Title II of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Act also benefit the quality of water
delivered to Mexico. Although the United States has always met the
commitments of the International Boundary & Water Commission's
(Commission) Minute 242 to Mexico with respect to water quality, the
United States Section of the Commission is currently addressing
Mexico's request for better water quality at the Southerly
International Boundary. Consideration of all of this argues for a
higher level of funding than requested by the President.
OVERVIEW
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program was authorized by
Congress in 1974. The Title I portion of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act responded to commitments that the United States
made, through Minute 242, to Mexico concerning the quality of water
being delivered to Mexico below Imperial Dam. Title II of the Act
established a program to respond to salinity control needs of Colorado
River water users in the United States and to comply with the mandates
of the then newly legislated Clean Water Act. Initially, the Secretary
of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation were given the lead
federal role by the Congress. This testimony is in support of adequate
funding for the Title II program.
After a decade of investigative and implementation efforts, the
Basin states concluded that the Salinity Control Act needed to be
amended. Congress revised the Act in 1984. That revision, while keeping
the Secretary of the Interior as lead coordinator for Colorado River
Basin salinity control efforts, also gave new salinity control
responsibilities to the Department of Agriculture, and to a sister
agency of the Bureau of Reclamation--the Bureau of Land Management.
Congress has charged the Administration with implementing the most
cost-effective program practicable (measured in dollars per ton of salt
removed). The Basin states are strongly supportive of that concept as
the Basin states consider cost sharing 30 percent of federal
expenditures up-front for the salinity control program, in addition to
proceeding to implement their own salinity control efforts in the
Colorado River Basin.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is composed
of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,
New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum has become the seven-state
coordinating body for interfacing with federal agencies and Congress to
support the implementation of the program necessary to control the
salinity of the river system. In close cooperation with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and under requirements of the
Clean Water Act, every three years the Forum prepares a formal report
analyzing the salinity of the Colorado River, anticipated future
salinity, and the program necessary to keep the salinities at or below
the levels measured in the river system in 1972.
In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system,
the salinity levels measured at Imperial, and below Parker, and Hoover
Dams in 1972 have been identified as the numeric criteria. The plan
necessary for controlling salinity has been captioned the ``plan of
implementation.'' The 1999 Review of water quality standards includes
an updated plan of implementation. The level of appropriation requested
in this testimony is in keeping with the agreed upon plan. If adequate
funds are not appropriated, state and federal agencies involved are in
agreement that the numeric criteria will be exceeded and damage from
the high salt levels in the water will be widespread in the United
States as well as Mexico and will be very significant.
JUSTIFICATION
The $17,500,000 requested by the Forum on behalf of the seven
Colorado River Basin states is the level of funding necessary to
proceed with Reclamation's portion of the plan of implementation. This
funding level is appropriate if salinity in the Colorado River is to be
controlled so as not to exceed the established numeric criteria and
threaten the associated water quality standards. In July of 1995,
Congress amended the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. The
amended Act gives Reclamation new latitude and flexibility in seeking
the most cost-effective salinity control opportunities, and it provides
for proposals and more involvement from the private as well as the
public sector. Early results are indicating that salt loading is being
prevented at costs often less than half the cost under the previous
program. The Bureau of Reclamation's recent review of the program and
the amendments Congress authorized have made the program more effective
in removing salt from the Colorado River in a most cost-effective
manner.
The Senate this last year passed legislation that gives additional
spending authority to Reclamation for this program. Similar legislation
is being considered by the House. It has received a favorable hearing
with support from the Forum and the Administration, and mark-up and
passage is expected soon.
The Basin states have agreed to cost sharing on an annual basis,
which adds 43 cents for every federal dollar appropriated. The Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Forum, working with EPA, has agreed upon a
plan of implementation for salinity control, and that plan justifies
the level of funding herein supported by the Forum to maintain the
water quality standards for salinity adopted by the Basin states. The
federally chartered Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory
Council, created by the Congress in the Salinity Control Act, has met
and formally supports the requested level of funding. The Basin states
urge the Subcommittee to support the funding as set forth in this
testimony.
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT OF FUNDING
In addition to the dollars identified above for the implementation
of the newly authorized program, the Salinity Control Forum urges the
Congress to appropriate necessary funds, as identified in the
President's budget, to continue to maintain and operate salinity
control facilities as they are completed and placed into long-term
operation. Reclamation has completed the Paradox Valley unit which
involves the collection of brines in the Paradox Valley of Colorado and
the injection of those brines into a deep aquifer through an injection
well. The continued operation of the project and other completed
projects will be funded through Operation and Maintenance funds.
In addition, the Forum supports necessary funding to allow for
continued general investigation of the salinity control program. It is
important that Reclamation have planning staff in place, properly
funded, so that the progress of the program can be analyzed,
coordination between various federal and state agencies can be
accomplished, and future projects and opportunities to control salinity
can be properly planned to maintain the water quality standards for
salinity so that the Basin states can continue to develop the Compact
apportioned waters of the Colorado River.
______
Prepared Statement of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission
SUMMARY
This Statement is submitted in support of appropriations for the
Colorado River Basin salinity control program of the Department of the
Interior's Bureau of Reclamation. Congress designated the Bureau of
Reclamation to be the lead agency for salinity control in the Colorado
River Basin by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974.
The Bureau of Reclamation's role was reconfirmed by Public Law 104-20.
A total of $17.5 million is requested for fiscal year 2001 to implement
the authorized salinity control program of the Bureau of Reclamation.
The President's request of $10.85 million is inadequate to protect
water quality standards for salinity and prevent unnecessary levels of
economic damage from increased salinity levels in water delivered to
the Lower Basin States and Mexico.
STATEMENT
The Water quality standards for salinity of the Colorado River must
be protected while the Basin States continue to develop their compact
apportioned waters of the river. Studies have shown that the
implementation of the salinity control program has fallen below the
threshold necessary to prevent future exceedence of the numeric
criteria of the water quality standards for salinity in the Lower Basin
of the Colorado River. The water quality standards for salinity of the
Colorado River have been adopted by the seven Basin States and approved
by EPA. While currently the standards have not been exceeded, salinity
control projects must be brought on-line in a timely and cost-effective
manner to prevent future effects that would cause the numeric criteria
to be exceeded.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act was authorized by
Congress and signed into law in 1974. The seven Colorado River Basin
States, in response to the Clean Water Act of 1972, had formed the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, a body comprised of
gubernatorial representatives from the seven Basin States. The Forum
was created to provide for interstate cooperation in response to the
Clean Water Act, and to provide the states with information necessary
to comply with Sections 303 (a) and (b) of the Act. The Forum has
become the primary means for the seven Basin States to coordinate with
federal agencies and Congress to support the implementation of the
salinity control program for the Colorado River Basin.
The Bureau of Reclamation is currently completing studies on the
economic impacts of the salinity of the Colorado River in the United
States. Reclamation's study indicates that damages in the United States
may soon be approaching $1 billion per year. It is essential that
appropriations for the funding of the salinity control program be
timely in order to comply with the water quality standards for salinity
to prevent unnecessary economic damages in the United States and Mexico
from waters of the Colorado River. The President's request of $10.85
million for fiscal year 2001 is inadequate to protect the water quality
standards adopted by each of the seven Basin States and approved by
EPA, and threatens the quality of water delivered to Mexico that is
protected under Minute No. 242 of the International Boundary and Water
Commission, United States and Mexico.
Congress amended the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in
July, 1995. The salinity control program authorized by Congress by the
amendment in 1995 has proven to be very cost-effective, and the Basin
States are standing ready with up-front cost sharing. Proposals from
public and private sector entities in response to the Bureau of
Reclamation's advertisement have far exceeded available funding. Basin
States cost-sharing funds are available for the $17.5 million
appropriation request for fiscal year 2001. The Basin States cost-
sharing adds 43 cents for each federal dollar appropriated.
The Senate passed legislation last year which gives the Bureau of
Reclamation additional spending authority for the salinity control
program. Similar legislation is being considered by the House, and has
been given favorable hearing with strong support from the Forum, the
Basin States and the Administration. Mark-up and passage is expected in
the near future. With the additional authority in place and significant
cost sharing by the Basin States, it is essential that the salinity
control program be funded at the level requested by the Forum and Basin
States to protect the water quality of the Colorado River and prevent
unnecessary economic damages from salinity in the United States and
Mexico.
I urge the Congress to appropriate $17.5 million to the Bureau of
Reclamation for the Colorado River Basin salinity control program.
Also, I fully support testimony supplied by the Forum's Executive
Director, Jack Barnett, in request for this appropriation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Western Coaliton of Arid States
Chairman Domenici and members of the subcommittee: The Western
Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS) is pleased to submit comments for
the record, regarding programs contained in the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation's (Reclamation) fiscal year 2001 budget, for the Hearing on
Energy and Water Appropriations. WESTCAS is an organization of cities,
towns, water and wastewater districts and associate agencies from the
States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico,
Oregon, Texas and Utah who are dedicated to environmentally
conscientious planning of water resources and development of water
quality standards for the unique ecosystems of the arid West. Of
particular interest to WESTCAS and its member agencies are the federal
programs that can further our goals through partnerships and
scientifically sound regulation and guidance concerning our most
precious resource--water. WESTCAS would like the Subcommittee to
consider the following funding recommendations.
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM
Since 1974, federal agencies and the seven basin states have been
working together to maintain the Colorado River's salinity levels
within a range which does not limit the economic, recreational, and
environmental uses of the river. The Colorado River is a major source
of water supply for the urban and agricultural regions of Utah, Nevada,
Arizona, and Southern California. It is important that Congress
continue to fund the federal portions of this successful program. With
continued development of water sources in the Upper Colorado Basin and
continued shortfalls in salinity control funding, the salinity levels
will continue to increase in the Lower Colorado River Basin. The
increased salinity in the Lower Colorado River Basin will have a long-
term detrimental financial impact on agricultural and urban activities
in the areas dependent on the Lower Colorado River water.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), the
interstate organization responsible for coordinating the Basin states'
salinity control efforts, issued its 1999 Review, Water Quality
Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System (1999 Review) in June
1999. The 1999 Review found that additional salinity control was
necessary beginning in 1994 to meet the numeric criteria in the water
quality standards adopted by the seven Colorado River Basin states and
approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with normal water
supply conditions. For the last five years, federal appropriations for
Reclamation have not equaled the Forum-identified funding need for the
portion of the program the Federal Government has the responsibility to
implement. It is essential that implementation of Reclamation's
basinwide salinity control program be accelerated to permit the numeric
criteria to be met again under average annual long-term water supply
conditions, making up the shortfall. To assist in eliminating the
shortfall, the Forum once again recommends that Reclamation utilize up
front cost sharing from the Basin states to supplement federal
appropriations. This concept has been embraced by Reclamation and is
reflected in the President's proposed budget.
The President's proposed fiscal year 2001 budget contains funding
of $10.85 million for implementation of the basin-wide program. WESTCAS
requests that Congress appropriate $17.5 million for implementation of
the basin-wide program, an increase of $6.65 million from that proposed
by the President. This level of funding is necessary to meet the
salinity control activities schedule in order to maintain the state
adopted and federally approved water quality standards.
WATER RECYCLING AND GROUNDWATER RECOVERY
Projects funded under Title XVI of the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575) will
greatly improve water supply reliability and the environment. Title XVI
projects authorized by the Reclamation Recycling and Water Conservation
Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-266), but not included in the President's
proposed fiscal year 2001 budget for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
are considered to be equally important. Implementation of such projects
is difficult without combined federal, state and regional assistance.
These authorized projects will greatly improve water supply reliability
and the environment through effective water recycling and recovery of
contaminated groundwater in the arid west. WESTCAS strongly requests
that Congress increase the appropriation level for Reclamation's Title
XVI program from $22 million requested for fiscal year 2001 to $100
million in order to properly fund all of these authorized projects.
SMALL RECLAMATION LOAN PROGRAM
The Small Reclamation Loan Program provides funds for reclamation,
in partnership with local districts to finance projects to conserve
water by upgrading less efficient facilities, improve water quality,
enhance fish and wildlife, and support Indian self-sufficiency through
loans to Native American projects.
DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE
WESTCAS has been actively involved in the National Drought Policy
Commission efforts to recommend a national drought policy for the
country. As part of the larger effort on drought, the Bureau of
Reclamation has in place a Drought Emergency Assistance program. We are
concerned that the Bureau of Reclamation has only requested $500,000
for fiscal year 2001. WESTCAS would like to see the program funded at
the $3 million level that Congress provided in fiscal year 2000
EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES PROGRAM
Reclamation is encouraging innovation in water resources management
to help meet the water conservation objectives of the Reclamation
Reform Act of 1982. The program provides partnership capability for
Reclamation and its customers, in cooperation with States and other
entities, in seeking solutions to water use efficiency and
conservation. The program supports technical assistance to districts in
planning, evaluating, and implementing efficiency measures. Activities
are located within all Federal water projects in the 17 Western States.
WESTCAS supports the $3.1 million request.
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION
Reclamation is designated as a cooperative participant in recovery
measures to minimize the potential effects of Reclamation actions upon
listed or candidate species and reduce the potential for more stringent
requirements being imposed upon Reclamation projects as a result of
formal consultation pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act. Activities are located throughout the region including the
Upper and Lower Colorado River basins. WESTCAS supports the
approximately $15 million provided in the fiscal year 2001 Budget for
work in these two basins.
NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION
This program operates under a delegated grant of authority for fish
and wildlife assistance programs from the Secretary to the Commissioner
of the Bureau of Reclamation. Reclamation's funds are used for fish and
wildlife restoration projects in partnership with local, state, tribal,
and/or non-governmental organizations. Funding for the Foundation, and
the Foundation's support for programs like the Lower Colorado River
Multi-Species Conservation Program, are extremely important to the
development of comprehensive solutions to the complex endangered
species issues. WESTCAS supports the $4.3 million in fiscal year 2001
Budget for the Foundation.
DESALINATION RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
This program addressees problems and technology needs for water
supply augmentation, water quality improvement and protection. Studies
are directed at reducing costs and minimizing environmental impacts
from salt removal, developing commercially attractive technologies,
improving surface and groundwater quality, and facilitating cost-
effective conversion of previously unusable water resources to usable
water supplies. WESTCAS supports the $600,000 in the fiscal year 2001
and would suggest that the Bureau of Reclamation work with
organizations like WESTCAS on the research agenda.
WATER MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION PROGRAM
This program provides for a water quality monitoring program in
cooperation with state and local entities. Funding requests provide for
the coordination of water management and conservation efforts with the
water users and other non-Federal entities. It also provides for water
conservation centers and training, improvements in water measurement
and accounting. We support the $7.6 million request for this program.
WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
The Wetlands Development Program allows for the development of
design criteria, strategies, and implementation of wetland enhancement
projects which provide for water quality, wildlife habitat, and
aesthetic purposes. Projects are located throughout the 17 Western
States and include demonstration projects using reclaimed wastewater
from existing treatment facilities in Arizona and wetlands and wildlife
habitat in Nevada. WESTCAS supports the overall $5 million request for
this program for fiscal year 2001.
Thank you for your consideration of our testimony. We believe our
comments emphasize the importance of continued funding for Reclamation
water resources management and ecosystem restoration programs that are
critical for water supply reliability in the arid West.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of Wyoming
This testimony is submitted in support of a fiscal year 2001
appropriation of $17,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado
River Salinity Control Program. Testimony was recently submitted to
this Subcommittee by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
(Forum), a seven-state organization created by the Governors of the
Colorado River Basin States, by the Forum's Executive Director, Jack
Barnett. The State of Wyoming, a member state of the Forum, concurs in
the Forum's testimony. While the President's recommended budget line-
item for the basin-wide Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program
is $10,850,000, the State of Wyoming and the Forum urge the Congress to
increase the appropriation for this Program to $17,500,000. While we
appreciate the Administration's support of this Program, it is clear
that implementation of the Program has fallen behind the needed pace to
prevent salinity concentration levels from exceeding specified numeric
criteria in the water quality standards for the Colorado River. In
addition to considerations of complying with this basin-wide water
quality standard, the United States has committed to the Republic of
Mexico, pursuant to Minute 242 of the 1944 ``Treaty Between the United
States and Mexico, Relating to Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana River
and of the Rio Grande,'' to managing the salinity concentrations of
water deliveries to Mexico.
The State of Wyoming is one of the seven member states represented
on the Forum and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory
Council (Council). The Council was created by Section 204 of the 1974
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (Public Law 93-320). Like the
Forum, the Council is composed of gubernatorial representatives of the
seven Colorado River Basin states. Both the Council and Forum serve
important liaison roles among the seven states, the Secretaries of the
Interior and Agriculture and the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The Council is directed by statute to advise
these federal officials on the progress of the federal/state cost-
shared, basin-wide salinity control programs, and annually recommends
to the Federal agencies what level of funding it believes is required
to meet the objective of assuring continuing compliance with the basin-
wide water quality standards for salinity concentrations in the
Colorado River.
The Council met in October 1999 and developed funding
recommendations for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 based on the progress
the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the
Bureau of Land Management and the seven states are making in
implementing their programs for managing and reducing the salt loading
into the Colorado River System. The Council's funding recommendations
further heeded analyses made by the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Forum. Each three years the Forum updates the plan of implementation
for maintaining the Colorado River water quality standards for salinity
in accordance with Section 303 of the Clean Water Act. The 1999
triennial review of the standards identified the need for the Bureau of
Reclamation to expend $17,500,000 per year in order to carry out its
portion of the plan of implementation. The plan is devised to assure
that the salinity concentrations of Colorado River water do not exceed
the numeric criteria set forth in the standards. Based on its own
review of the facts, the Council recommended that a minimum of
$17,500,000 needs to be expended by the Bureau of Reclamation during
fiscal year 2000 to accomplish needed salinity control activities.
This funding level is appropriate if the salinity of Colorado River
waters is to be controlled so as not to exceed the numeric salinity
concentration criteria contained within the water quality standards for
the Colorado River. Without the necessary levels of funding, there is
an increased probability that the numeric criteria will be exceeded
resulting in violations of the basin-wide water quality standards.
Further, there is an increased probability that the numeric criteria
will be exceeded resulting in violations of the basin-wide water
quality standards. Failure to maintain the standards' numeric criteria
could result in the imposition of state-line water quality standards
(as opposed to the successful basin-wide approach that has been in
place since 1975) and impair Wyoming's ability to develop our Compact-
apportioned water supplies. Failure to maintain the standards' numeric
criteria could result in the imposition of state-line water quality
standards (as opposed to the successful basin-wide approach that has
been in place since 1975) and impair the Colorado River Basin States'
ability to develop their Compact-apportioned water supplies. Delaying
or deferring adequate funding will create the need for a much more
expensive salinity control effort in the future to assure that the
Colorado River Basin states are able to comply with the water quality
standards. ``Catch-up'' funding in the future will require the
expenditure of greater sums of money, increase the likelihood that the
numeric criteria for Colorado River water quality are exceeded, and
create undue burdens and difficulties for one of the most successful
Federal/State cooperative non-point source pollution control programs
in the United States.
In July, 1995, Congress amended the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Act. The amended Act provided Reclamation with additional
authorities that have improved upon the cost-effectiveness of
Reclamation's salinity control program, in large part because it
provided for proposals and greater involvement from the private sector.
Submitted proposals have far exceeded the available funding, while at
the same time overall progress in accomplishing the rate of salinity
control determined to be needed and as set forth in the Plan of
Implementation continues to fall behind the scheduled rate.
We urge this Subcommittee to increase the funding level for the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program line-item in
Reclamation's budget, beyond the funds requested by the President's
budget, to $17,500,000. In addition to the funding needs identified for
the basin-wide Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, the State
of Wyoming supports the appropriation of Operation and Maintenance
funds for completed Reclamation salinity control projects, including
the Paradox Valley Unit. The State of Wyoming understands that a
portion of the General Investigation Funds included in the President's
budget are intended for salinity control activities. Wyoming supports
the appropriation of funds to accomplish these necessary planning and
investigation activities.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony. I request,
in addition to your consideration of its contents, that you make it a
part of the formal hearing record concerning fiscal year 2001
appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of Arizona
On behalf of the people of Arizona, I would like to thank you for
the opportunity to enter testimony into the record concerning our
support of continued appropriations for the Central Arizona Project
(CAP). I also would like to thank the Committee, the Senate and the
Congress for its continuing support for the CAP, which is an essential
lifeline in the arid Southwest.
As you know, the CAP was authorized by the 90th Congress of the
United States under the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968. The
CAP is a multi-purpose water resource development project consisting of
a series of concrete-lined canals, tunnels, dams and pumping plants
which lift water nearly 3,000 feet over a distance of 336 miles from
Lake Havasu on the Colorado River to the Tucson area.
The project was designed to deliver the remainder of Arizona's
entitlement of Colorado River water into the central and southern
portions of the state for municipal and industrial, agricultural and
Indian uses, where about 80 percent of our state's population resides.
Because of a growing population and some innovative storage and
recharge programs, Arizona is close to taking its full CAP allocation
of 1.5 million acre-feet (maf) of Colorado River water. This year, we
project more than 1.4 maf will be delivered through the CAP.
Repayment of the costs of the CAP to the Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) has been a contentious issue for most of the past decade.
Happily, it appears the CAP governing board, the Central Arizona Water
Conservation District (CAWCD) and Reclamation have reached an agreement
on repayment.
The CAWCD board voted in March to approve the negotiated agreement.
This settlement is vastly preferable to the continuation of litigation
in U.S. District Court. But we must add a note of caution. Conclusion
of the agreement between CAWCD and Reclamation still is contingent upon
a number of events.
Chief among these is agreement on allocation of a large block of
CAP water, a step that requires us to proceed carefully. Also, Arizona
and the Federal Government must reach an understanding that water from
the CAP will forever be available to both parties under prescribed
terms and conditions.
In addition, we need to agree that Arizona will determine how best
to use its CAP water, free from unwarranted oversight from the
Department of Interior. And it is vital that all parties agree that
water from the CAP will remain within the boundaries of the state, to
supply the needs of the people of Arizona.
As Governor of Arizona, I am pleased to be able to support the
Reclamation budget request for fiscal year 2001 of $33,667,000.
INDIAN DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
It is most appropriate that more than $25.8 million is earmarked
for construction of distribution systems on Indian lands. Through the
Arizona Department of Water Resources and the invaluable assistance of
U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-AZ, we are substantially closer to reaching
negotiated settlements on the major Indian water rights claims in
Arizona than we have been at any other time.
Indeed, we anticipate that our message to the Committee next year
will reflect the reality that significant Indian water rights claims
have been settled and that remaining claims will be settled in the near
future. It has been a long and sometimes difficult journey, but we
believe we now can see the end of the road.
We are indeed encouraged that Reclamation saw fit to increase its
budget request for Indian distribution systems by 131 percent over the
fiscal year 2000 request, from $11.1 million to $25.8 million.
FISH & WILDLIFE
In the Reclamation budget request, $1.06 million is targeted to
implement activities in the Gila River Basin and on the Santa Cruz
River stemming from a 1994 opinion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. I add my support to the position of CAWCD, which historically
has objected to Reclamation expenditures on these activities.
Litigation on this issue still is pending, and the sensible course
would be to await its outcome before proceeding in this area.
TUCSON RELIABILITY DIVISION
We are pleased to support continuation of funding for the Tucson
Reliability Division. The Tucson area's CAP picture, clouded in the
past, is much clearer in the wake of an election that ratified the
course of action local leaders are pursuing with regard to Tucson's CAP
allocation. The amount requested, $46,000, will assist in providing the
Tucson area with more stability and certainty about its water supplies.
WEST SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY
As I did last year, I would like to take this opportunity to
advocate an increased level of funding for water planning in the
rapidly growing West Valley portion of the Phoenix metropolitan area.
While Reclamation has requested $200,000, I agree with CAWCD that an
increase in this appropriation to $400,000 is justified.
RIO SALADO
We also support increased appropriations for the Tempe/Phoenix Rio
Salado Environmental Restoration Program from $1.5 million to $20
million. This partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will
restore lost riparian wetlands along the Salt River through the center
of the Phoenix metropolitan area. Rio Salado was authorized for $86
million in WRDA 99. Fiscal year 2001 appropriations of $20 million will
keep the project on schedule for completion in 2003.
I look forward to favorable subcommittee action on the Reclamation
budget request. We would be happy to offer any additional information
that you require.
______
Prepared Statement of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District
Mr. Chairman: The Central Arizona Water Conservation District
(CAWCD) is pleased to offer the following testimony regarding the
fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill.
The Central Arizona Project or ``CAP'' was authorized by the 90th
Congress of the United States under the Colorado River Basin Project
Act of 1968. We thank the Committee for its continuing support of the
CAP. The CAP is a multi-purpose water resource development project
consisting of a series of canals, tunnels, dams, and pumping plants
which lift water nearly 3,000 feet over a distance of 336 miles from
Lake Havasu on the Colorado River to the Tucson area. The project was
designed to deliver the remainder of Arizona's entitlement of Colorado
River water into the central and southern portions of the state for
municipal and industrial, agricultural, and Indian uses. The Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation) initiated project construction in 1973, and
the first water was delivered into the Phoenix metropolitan area in
1985. The CAP delivered about 1.3 million acre-feet of water to project
water users in 1999 and anticipates delivering 1.4 million acre-feet in
2000.
CAWCD was created in 1971 for the specific purpose of contracting
with the United States to repay the reimbursable construction costs of
the CAP that are properly allocable to CAWCD, primarily water supply
and power costs. In 1983, CAWCD was also given authority to operate and
maintain completed project features. Its service area is comprised of
Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties. CAWCD is a tax-levying public
improvement district, a political subdivision, and a municipal
corporation, and represents roughly 80 percent of the water users and
taxpayers of the State of Arizona. CAWCD is governed by a 15 member
Board of Directors elected from the three counties it serves. CAWCD's
Board members are public officers who serve without pay.
Project repayment is provided for through a 1988 Master Repayment
Contract between CAWCD and the United States. Reclamation declared the
CAP water supply system (Stage 1) substantially complete in 1993, and
declared the regulatory storage stage, or Plan 6 (Stage 2), complete in
1996. No other stages are currently under construction. Project
repayment began in 1994 for Stage 1 and in 1997 for Stage 2. To date,
CAWCD has repaid $548 million of CAP construction costs to the United
States.
Recently, CAWCD and Reclamation successfully negotiated a
settlement of the dispute regarding the amount of CAWCD's repayment
obligation for CAP construction costs. This dispute has been the
subject of ongoing litigation in United States District Court in
Arizona since 1995. The CAWCD Board of Directors formally approved a
settlement stipulation on March 2, 2000. Approval by the United States
is currently pending while the settlement stipulation is being reviewed
by several Federal agencies including the Department of the Interior,
Department of Justice, and the Office of Management and Budget.
In its fiscal year 2001 budget request, Reclamation seeks
$33,667,000 for the CAP. Of this amount, $25,829,000 is requested for
the construction of Indian distribution systems. The balance,
$7,838,000, is sought for other CAP activities, most of which would be
at least partially reimbursable. Under the settlement stipulation,
these costs would not affect CAWCD's repayment obligation.
Reclamation's Project Repayment Appendix to the fiscal year 2001
budget justification documents indicates that a ``residual'' amount of
$357,437,702 is currently not covered under the repayment contract as
ruled by the court in Phase One of the CAP repayment litigation and may
not be repaid to the Federal Treasury. It further indicates that the
remaining repayment obligation could be resolved in litigation, through
settlement of the litigation, or through voluntary contract ceiling
negotiation. Historically, CAWCD has challenged the adequacy of
Reclamation's cost allocation procedure from which this residual amount
was derived. CAWCD has also questioned Reclamation's authority to spend
CAP appropriations in the absence of an amendatory contract to cover
repayment of the reimbursable portion. CAWCD's testimony regarding
Reclamation's fiscal year 2001 budget request for CAP assumes that
final approval of the settlement stipulation by the United States is
forthcoming and that the United States District Court approves the
settlement.
Of the total $33,667,000 requested, $1,060,000 is earmarked to fund
activities associated with implementation of a 1994 biological opinion
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) pertaining to delivery of
CAP water to the Gila River Basin, and $580,000 is for native fish
activities on the Santa Cruz River. These funds are requested for
construction of fish barriers ($1,080,000) and payments to FWS for non-
native fish eradication and native fish conservation ($560,000). In
addition, Reclamation is seeking $70,000 to cover its non-contract
costs. Historically, CAWCD has objected to Reclamation's continued
spending in these areas. Both environmentalists and CAWCD have
challenged the 1984 biological opinion in court, and that litigation is
still pending. Although the settlement stipulation addresses many of
CAWCD's financial concerns about the biological opinion, CAWCD still
believes that the FWS opinion is unfounded and improper.
CAWCD continues to support appropriations necessary to ensure
timely completion of all CAP Indian distribution systems. We are
encouraged to note that Reclamation's fiscal year 2001 budget request
of $25,829,000 for CAP Indian distribution systems is $14,676,000
higher than the fiscal year 2000 budget request for this item.
CAWCD also supports the continuation of funding for the Tucson
Reliability Division. The requested $46,000 will allow planning work to
continue and will assist Tucson in developing and implementing a plan
to ensure adequate reliability for its CAP water allocation.
Finally, CAWCD again supports increased funding for Reclamation's
West Salt River Valley Water Management Study. Reclamation's South/
Central Arizona Investigations Program includes a $200,000 line item to
support a continuing planning effort to study the integration and
management of water resources in the West Salt River Valley, including
the use of CAP water. CAWCD supports increasing this line item to
$400,000 for fiscal year 2001.
CAWCD welcomes this opportunity to share its views with the
Committee, and would be pleased to respond to any questions or
observations occasioned by this written testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Port of Houston Authority
On behalf of the Port of Houston Authority (PHA) and the nearly
205,000 Americans whose jobs depend upon activity at the Port of
Houston, we extend gratitude to Chairman Domenici, and members of the
subcommittee for the opportunity to submit testimony in support of
several important navigation projects included in the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Civil Works budget for fiscal year 2001.
For many years, the Port of Houston Authority has provided
testimony to this subcommittee expressing appreciation for providing
the funds necessary for the Houston Ship Channel (HSC) to remain fully
functional by maintaining proper dredge depths and dewatering of dredge
disposal sites. Most important, we are grateful for this subcommittee's
support through the funding request for the required studies prior to
the authorization of the improvement project to deepen and widen the
Houston Ship Channel. We are deeply grateful for this support and are
particularly excited about the partnership of this subcommittee, the
Army Corps of Engineers and the Port Authority in marching forward with
an insightful view of the future of one of our Nation's busiest port in
foreign commerce.
We express full support of the fiscal year 2001 Corps of Engineers'
budget request in the following amounts:
Houston Ship Channel (O&M).............................. $11,066,000
Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels (Construction).... 53,500,000
Each of these funding requests is important to ensure the
continuous flow of commerce through this very busy waterway.
THE PORT OF HOUSTON--ONE OF THE NATION'S BUSIEST PORTS
Port of Houston commerce generates more than $7.7 billion annually
to the Nation's economy. An estimated 75,487 people work in jobs that
directly relate to the Port of Houston activity and another 129,033
jobs are indirectly related to the port's activity. Moreover, the port
generates nearly $482 million in customs receipts and more than $525
million annually in state and local taxes.
It is no exaggeration to say that the Houston Ship Channel is one
of the most important economic lifelines between our Nation and the
world. Houston's favorable geographic location provides easy access to
the entire world business community through key ocean, land, and air
routes. More than 100 shipping lines connect Houston with more than 700
world ports and 200 countries. Three major railroads provide cargo
distribution throughout the United States with the intermodal link of
more than 160 trucking lines. The Port of Houston forms the core of the
Houston international community which includes more than 350 U.S.
companies with global operations and Houston offices for more than 45
of the world's largest non-U.S. companies. In addition, Houston is the
home of one of the largest consular corps in the Nation, with more than
72 foreign governments represented. These factors have made the Port of
Houston a preferred gathering and distribution point for shippers
transporting goods to and from the Midwestern and Western United
States.
THE PORT OF HOUSTON--PROTECTING OUR NATION
During the Desert Shield/Desert Storm operation, the U.S.
Government deployed 106 vessels carrying 458,342 tons of government
cargo and military supplies from Fentress Bracewell Barbours Cut
Terminal at the Port of Houston. In fact, between August of 1990 and
October 1991 the Port of Houston was the second busiest port in the
Nation in support of our troops. We are proud that the strategic
location of the Port of Houston allows us to play such an important
role in the defense of our National and the world.
MODERNIZATION & THE ENVIRONMENT--SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIP
The Houston Ship Channel, which opened in 1914, is believed to be
the result of the first-ever federal/local cost-sharing agreement. At
that time, the channel was 18\1/2\ feet deep. It was subsequently
deepened to its current depth of 40 feet with a width of 400 feet. This
last improvement was completed in 1966. While Houston is one of our
Nation's busiest ports, it is also one of the narrowest deep draft
channels. As you can imagine, ships and shipping patterns have
dramatically changed to meet the demands of world trade over the last
30 years. Yet, this busy waterway has not been widened or deepened to
accommodate these changes. As the local sponsor for the Houston Ship
Channel, the Port Authority began its quest to improve the channel in
1967. For reasons of safety, environment, and economics, the Houston
Ship Channel is long overdue to be improved. The Port of Houston, and
its partner in maintaining this federal waterway--the Corps of
Engineers--are leading the way to a unique approach to addressing the
environmental interests in the improvement of the Houston Ship Channel.
In the late 1980s, the Port Authority and the Corps of Engineers joined
with federal and state agencies to form and Interagency Coordination
Team (ICT) in a cooperative effort to address environmental concerns
with the project--a process advocated by environmental groups and
various resource agencies. The ICT included: the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the U.S.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USNRC), the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Texas General Land Office (GLO), Texas
Parks and Wildlife (TPWD), the Texas Natural Resources Conservation
Committee (TNRCC), the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), the
Galveston Bay National Estuary Program (GBNEP), National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Port of Galveston, and the Port of
Houston Authority. Several committees were established by the ICT. One
of the most important committees established was the Beneficial Uses
Group (BUG). They charged the BUG, chaired by the Port, with developing
a disposal plan to utilize dredged material in an environmentally sound
and economically acceptable manner that also incorporated other public
benefits into its design. Most important was the Port Authority's
committed objective that the final plan would have a net positive
environmental effect over the life of the project.
We are pleased to report that the ICT unanimously approved the
beneficial use plan for disposal of dredged material from the HSC
project as one that will have a net positive environmental effect on
Galveston Bay, while significantly increasing the net economic benefits
to the region and our Nation. Three basic principles guided the BUG in
their efforts: dredged material should be considered a potentially
valuable resource; development of an environmentally acceptable
disposal plan is intrinsic to the approval of the project; and, the
adopted disposal plan must have long term environmental benefits for
the Galveston Bay system. The approach utilized by the BUG for
Galveston Bay made this effort unique and precedent setting. What they
attempted had never been done before. The BUG developed a preferred
disposal plan rather than reviewing a proposal in a regulatory setting.
The BUG also addressed one of the largest navigation projects in recent
years (approximately 62 Million Cubic Yards (MCY) of new work material
and an estimated 200 MCY of maintenance material over the next 50
years. Most important, the BUG actively solicited beneficial use
suggestions from environmental interests and bay user groups whose
collective ideas were given full consideration during the development
of the recommendation plan. In fact, the community identified more
beneficial uses than the material available from the project plus 50
years of maintenance dredging. The result was the identification of
beneficial uses for the material to be dredged from the improvement
project. The final plan includes the creation of 4,250 acres of marsh--
a bird island, boater destination, restorations of two islands lost
over the years due to erosion and subsidence. In addition, an
underwater berm will be constructed to provide storm--surge protection
and habitat.
PORT OF HOUSTON--LOOKING TOWARD THE FUTURE
The voters of Harris County in 1989 committed significant local
funding to support these improvements. By a 2 to 1 vote, citizens
approved a measure that will provide the local funding ($130,000,000)
to deepen the channel to 45 feet and widen it to 530 feet. The Corps of
Engineers and resource agencies involved in the ICT and BUG process
have worked diligently to address all concerns and to develop a truly
unique approach. The Port Authority heartily commends the cooperation
and hard work of the Corps of Engineers and the state and federal
agencies who have participated in the process that has this project
being applauded across maritime and environmental communities. This
project is the first in history to have netted no negative comments,
during the public review phase of the Supplemental Impact Statement
(SEIS).
HOUSTON--GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS (CONSTRUCTION)
From fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 1997, Congress has
appropriated nearly $150,000,000 toward the project to deepen and widen
the Houston Ship Channel. The Port Authority has contributed thus far
over $54,835,776 to support this effort.
The fiscal year 1998 Administration request of $15 million was
compatible with a seven to ten year construction schedule. It did not,
however, accommodate the most economical and realistic schedule. Based
on our cooperative and productive discussions with the Corps of
Engineers, we are convinced that the optimal time line for completing
the navigation portion of this project is four years. A four year
schedule will accelerate the benefits of the project and reduce its
costs. Each year in reduction construction time adds more than $81
million in benefits, reduces escalation costs by $4.562 million and
drives down investment costs by more than $17 million. This
subcommittee agreed that this fiscally sound reasoning was good public
policy and accordingly provided $20 million to begin the construction
on the optimum schedule.
In fiscal year 1999, the Administration slashed the Corps of
Engineer's construction budget from the $1.4 billion level in fiscal
year 1998 to $784 million in fiscal year 1999, representing a $700
million cut. This egregious cut in the funds available to the Corps
resulted in a dramatic reduction in the Corps' original request to OMB
of $60 million for construction in fiscal year 1999 on the Houston Ship
Channel improvement project. The Administration's budget of $5.2
million would have crippled the Corps' ability to maintain the optimal
four-year construction schedule which Congress effectively set in
fiscal year 1998. This subcommittee agreed that the project should be
completed at the optimum schedule and accordingly appropriated the
$49,000,000 the Corps needed to remain on the schedule. In fiscal year
2000, the Administration and this subcommittee were in agreement on the
$60,000,000 request from the Corps and the full $60,000,000 remained in
conference.
This project is critical to the future of our Nation's busiest port
in foreign tonnage. In a recent study conducted by the Texas
Transportation Institute, the Port of Houston was evaluated as a
prototypical next generation megaport. The port identified channel and
berth depths as a major impediment to accommodating ships of the
future. Further, in this era of environmental sensitivity, the Houston
Ship Channel improvement project is a beacon of light. The improvements
to the environment that will be reaped from this project cannot be
ignored. The Port of Houston Authority's Demonstration Marsh, utilizing
dredged material for beneficial uses, has been included in the Audubon
Society's Christmas Bird Count. Over 155 species of birds have been
identified on this marsh built entirely with material dredged from the
Houston Ship Channel.
The Port Authority has a responsibility to the citizens of Harris
County to operate the port in a cost-effective and efficient manner. We
would not be fiscally responsible if we did not strive to realize the
benefits of the project as soon as humanly feasible and at a most-
efficient cost to the partners involved. We urge the members of this
subcommittee to reject the recommended cuts in the Corps of Engineers'
construction budget. In doing so and in reaffirming the subcommittee's
commitment to our Nation's port system, we urge the subcommittee to
include the $53,500,000 necessary to keep the Houston Ship Channel
project on its current optimal, cost-effective schedule. We look
forward to your leadership on this vitally important matter.
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL--OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
The Corps fiscal year 2001 request for operations and maintenance
funding includes $11,066,000 for maintenance dredging of key stretches
of the channel, mosquito spraying and protection of various disposal
areas, and the maintenance of mooring buoys. These include dredging of
the Fentress Bracewell Barbours Cut Container Terminal, the busiest
container terminal in the Gulf; dredging of the entrance channel and
flare of Bayport; dredging of Cedar Bayou; and, dredging of stretches
of the main channel. The Port of Houston Authority, the users, and
Houston Pilots recognize the need for the continued maintenance of the
channel, as a critical safety component.
CONCLUSION
We greatly appreciate your past support and urge you to include the
funds requested to fully support these projects in this busy federal
waterway. These maintenance projects, and particularly the funds
necessary to construct the HSC improvement project at an optimal
schedule are vital, not only to the Port of Houston's continued ability
to move the Nation's commerce in a safe, efficient, and economical
manner, but also, to ensure the competitiveness of the waterway in the
world marketplace--an absolute necessity in this global economy.
______
PACIFIC NORTHWEST WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: My name is Glenn
Vanselow. I am Executive Director of the Pacific Northwest Waterways
Association. We appreciate the opportunity to present our views on
appropriations issues to the Committee. The PNWA membership includes
nearly 120 organizations and individuals in Washington, Oregon and
Idaho. PNWA represents public port authorities on the Pacific Coast,
Puget Sound, and Columbia/Snake River System; public utility districts,
investor-owned utilities, electric cooperatives and direct service
industries; irrigation districts, grain growers and upriver and export
elevator companies; major manufacturers in the Pacific Northwest;
forest products industry manufacturers and shippers; and tug and barge
operators, steamship operators, consulting engineers, and others
involved in economic development throughout the Pacific Northwest.
PNWA has a long history of working with the Committee and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) on projects of regional and national
importance, sharing the challenge to maintain and develop our
transportation infrastructure. Our members wish to thank the Committee
for its support of Pacific Northwest transportation, hydropower and
salmon enhancement programs and projects.
APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST
Fiscal year 2001 Civil Works Budget. The maintenance of channels
and harbors serving all currently authorized Pacific Northwest deep
draft and coastal ports is a top priority for PNWA. We believe that a
level of funding closer to $4.960 billion is needed to maintain the
integrity of the civil works program. We urge Congress to provide
sufficient funding to meet national needs for both operations and
maintenance (O & M) and new construction. The Administration's fiscal
year 2001 budget request for navigation O & M and construction in
Idaho, Oregon and Washington appears to be adequate. However, we
believe that $4 million is needed to begin construction of the Columbia
River Channel Deepening Project. This would fund federal share of (1)
ecosystem restoration at Shillapoo Lake, Washington and elsewhere on
Columbia River, and (2) engineering work during the construction phase.
Regional Navigation Operations and Maintenance.--We would like to
thank the Committee for its previous support of navigation O & M
(operations and maintenance) in the region's shallow, deep draft and
inland navigation system.
Navigation is the least cost, most fuel efficient and least
polluting mode of transportation. Navigation is the critical link that
keeps the Northwest and the nation competitive in domestic and
international trade and supports the commercial and recreational
fishing industry. It provides significant numbers of jobs and other
economic benefits both within the region and nationally. We support
maintaining a strong federal role in planning, construction, operation,
maintenance and funding of navigation on the inland waterways, deep
draft ports and shallow draft ports. We ask the Committee for full
funding for ongoing operations and maintenance (O & M) of the federally
authorized navigation channels in the Columbia/Snake river system, the
Oregon and Washington coastal ports and Puget Sound. Maximizing O & M
is a cost-efficient means of fully utilizing the Federal Government's
investment in channel operations.
Some 20 percent of the employment in the Northwest states is
directly related to international trade. Navigation projects are among
the few federal programs that are analyzed to ensure that economic
benefits exceed the costs. Eliminating these programs would not be
cost-effective.
Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Restoration.--PNWA encourages the
Committee to appropriate $100,000 to beting a study that would focus on
ecosystem restoration opportunities within the Lower Columbia River. A
comprehensive ecosystem restoration study could serve as a catalyst to
bring together and implement current efforts by a number of
governmental and private organizations including the National Estuary
Program, six state agencies from Oregon and Washington, four Federal
agencies, recreation, ports, industry, agriculture, labor and
commercial fishing, environmental interests and citizens.
Minimum Dredge Fleet.--We encourage the Committee to maintain the
currently active hopper dredges operated by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and to reject any additional future set-aside for private
dredges. We oppose placing the Corps hopper dredges in reserve, or
placing artificial limits on the federal hopper dredges by directing
increasing amounts of maintenance dredging to private dredges. Federal
hopper dredge costs are artificially higher than necessary because of
that set aside. We believe that Congress should reduce or eliminate the
set aside to increase the efficiency of the Corps hopper dredges. We
also encourage the Committee to find ways to make the Corps dredges
less expensive to operate by examining recent increases in depreciation
and plant increment payments.
We believe that the presence of the federal dredges keeps bids for
dredging work competitive and lower in cost. We are concerned that the
low number of private industry bids for work in our region could force
dredging costs higher were it not for the availability of the federal
dredges.
Salmon Recovery Decision Authority and Funding.--First, we support
efforts to establish priorities for funding and implementation of fish
and wildlife recovery projects in the Columbia River Basin Fish and
Wildlife Program. Second, we support selected salmon recovery actions
such as improved and enhanced smolt transportation, surface collection
and other smolt by-pass facilities, fish-friendly turbine programs and
habitat restoration and protection. These programs have been
successful. These programs and others are included in the
Administration's budget request for Columbia River Fish Mitigation
which we support. Third, we oppose funding to carry out Phase II of the
John Day drawdown study, and we do not support funding to study
drawdown of McNary. Recently the Corps of Engineers recommended against
continuing to study a drawdow of John Day because of the lack of
benefit to salmon, and the economic cost. We support this decision. We
encourage the Committee to direct funding toward fish recovery programs
for which there is broad regional support.
We support Senator Slade Gorton's 1996 amendment to the Northwest
Power Act, approved during consideration of the fiscal year 1997 Energy
and Water Appropriations bill, which establishes a panel of scientists
to establish priorities for funding and implementation of fish and
wildlife recovery projects in the Columbia River Basin Fish and
Wildlife Program. We hope that this, with the Independent Economic
Analysis Board, will result in programs that will provide maximum
biological benefits to listed salmon stocks and are more cost-
effective.
Regional Governance.--The discussion about regional cooperation in
developing salmon recovery objectives and programs in the Columbia
Basin has been expanded significantly through the establishment of the
Columbia Basin Forum, formerly known as the Three Sovereigns Forum. A
memorandum of agreement establishing this new body was recently signed
by the federal agencies, tribes and states. This process was created
without consulting affected stakeholders, and the participants do not
intend to include stakeholders in the consensus process. PNWA believes
that effective fish and wildlife programs can be implemented without a
new governance body. If a new management structure is necessary for
addressing the Endangered Species Act, the Northwest Power Planning
Council offers an appropriate model. Federal, state and tribal agencies
and regional stakeholders should work cooperatively to develop
solutions that maintain Congressional authority over navigation and the
other authorized purposes of the federal projects and state authority
over water and land use. If PNWA urges the Committee to support
collaboration in the Columbia Basin within the existing authorities of
the federal agencies, states and tribes, and, in the strongest terms
possible, we urge Congress to retain exclusive authority over the
authorized purposes of the federal projects within the Columbia Basin.
Hanford Cleanup.--We ask the Committee to continue to adequately
fund the Department of Energy cleanup of 45 years of accumulated
defense waste currently stored at the Hanford site. We recognize that
defense waste cleanup is a long-term project that will be most cost
effective and most rigorously pursued if Hanford is a viable, operating
site. Therefore, we strongly urge the Committee to support a complete,
ongoing Hanford scientifically and technologically based research and
operations program in order to ensure long-term funding for waste
cleanup. PNWA also supports a complete and ongoing scientifically and
technologically based research and operations program, including the
restart of the Fast Flux Test Facility for the joint missions of
national defense and medical research and isotope production to meet
the demands for more effective cancer treatments.
Conclusion.--On behalf of nearly 120 members from throughout the
Pacific Northwest, we thank the Committee for giving us this
opportunity to review a number of issues important to the environmental
and economic prosperity of our region.
______
Prepared Statement of the Northwest Power Planning Council
The Northwest Power Planning Council appreciates the opportunity to
submit written testimony in support of the Clinton Administration's
fiscal year 2001 budget request for programs under the jurisdiction of
the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee.
The Council was established by Congress in 1980, and created as an
interstate compact by the States of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and
Washington. Its purpose is to develop a 20-year regional electric power
plan to assure for the Pacific Northwest an adequate supply of power at
the lowest possible cost, and to develop a major program to protect and
rebuild fish and wildlife resources harmed by hydroelectric development
in the Columbia River Basin. The Council carries out its
responsibilities under the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning
and Conservation Act of 1980 (Northwest Power Act), Public Law 96-501.
Three federal agencies under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and the
Bonneville Power Administration, administer programs critical to the
Columbia River Basin. The Council works closely with all three agencies
in fulfilling its statutory responsibilities.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program
The Council continues to support the Corps' Columbia River Fish
Mitigation (CRFM) Program. The focus of the program is to reduce
mortality of both juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead during their
migration through the Corps' eight projects and reservoirs on the
mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers. The Corps' fiscal year 2001 budget
proposal for the program is $91 million, and includes funding for
several critical studies and activities that are important to
recovering, rebuilding and maintaining the anadromous fish runs in the
Columbia River Basin. The Council supports the Corps' full $91 million
budget request.
We support the full budget request even without knowing the final
outcome of the Corps' Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration
Feasibility Study, Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact
Statement, and Record of Decision that will be signed later this year.
The Corps' draft feasibility study and EIS, which was released recently
for public comment, examines three possibilities for the lower Snake
River: (1) breaching all four of the Corps' lower Snake River dams, (2)
leaving the dams in place and maximizing opportunities to transport
juvenile salmon and steelhead around the dams, and (3) maintaining
status quo operations at the projects.
Although the Corps' final recommendation is not known at this time,
it is clear that regardless of what decision is made--to breach dams or
not to breach--significant amounts of federal appropriations will be
required to improve fish survival in the lower Snake River. If the
Corps recommends breaching, significant sums will be required for
planning, engineering, design and construction activities, as well as
ongoing fish passage-related activities at the Corps' four dams on the
lower Columbia River. On the other hand, if the Corps recommends not
breaching the dams, efforts to increase juvenile and adult survival
around all of those projects will continue. In either case, the Corps'
program must be maintained at a high level to accomplish the objective
of rebuilding and mitigating for salmon and steelhead runs in the
Columbia and Snake river basins.
Last year the Council, with the assistance of the Independent
Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB), completed its Review of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' Capital Construction Program, which the Energy and
Water Development Subcommittees requested in their fiscal year 1998
Conference Report. The Council's final report addressed several aspects
of the CRFM Program, including surface bypass systems, adult passage
improvements, gas abatement measures, and other issues. In examining
the Corps' initial priorities for the CRFM Program in fiscal year 2001,
it appears that the funding proposals are generally consistent with the
recommendations in the Council's report.
For example, the Corps currently expects to spend approximately $16
million for surface bypass-related work during fiscal year 2001. These
activities would occur at several of the projects including Lower
Granite Dam ($9.5 million), The Dalles Dam ($3.6 million), and
Bonneville Darm ($2.5 million). In last year's report, the Council
emphasized the need to continue efforts to develop effective surface
bypass facilities that achieve the 80-percent fish passage efficiency
standard for all species and stocks. While more than 20 years of work
to improve turbine intake screen technology has not resulted in that
level of efficiency, the Council's review urged that other
technologies, including surface bypass facilities, be pursued
aggressively.
Surface collection and bypass continue to show promise; however,
uncertainties remain regarding the level and changes in survival of
juvenile salmon that can be provided by surface bypass facilities.
Given the uncertainty, all juvenile passage alternatives should be
evaluated against the baseline of spill, since spill more closely
mimics natural processes than any other bypass alternative. Spill
should be considered the alternative when improvements anticipated from
other bypass technologies do not meet passage goals.
Another area emphasized by the Council and the ISAB in last year's
review of the CRFM Program was adult salmon and steelhead passage. The
report concluded that the subject of adult passage at Columbia and
Snake river dams has not been dealt with adequately, that returning
adults to spawning grounds may be more important than juvenile
survival, and that the Corps' planned site-specific measures may be
supportable but probably are not sufficient to ensure that adult
spawning migrations are unimpeded. Accordingly, the Council is pleased
to see that for fiscal year 200 1, the Corps is intending to spend over
$23 million on adult passage improvements, approximately double the
amount being spent currently. These improvements are primarily in the
form of improvements for auxiliary water supply systems, adult ladder
improvements, and adult channel dewatering projects at several
projects, including Lower Monumental Dam ($5 million), Ice Harbor Dam
($4.4 million), The Dalles Dam ($5.5 million), Bonneville Dam ($1
million), and other systemwide improvements ($3 million).
The Council also supports aggressive efforts to reduce dissolved
gas levels in the Columbia and Snake rivers. In last year's report, the
Council recommended that the Corps' program is important for rectifying
supersaturation in the river system, and that it should continue with
high priority. Attainment of the Clean Water Act total dissolved gas
standard of 110 percent throughout the hydropower system will be
difficult under involuntary spill conditions with the majority of dams
in place. Therefore, the Corps' current program of pursuing structural
modifications to nearly all the dams to reduce gas supersaturation
should have benefits to salmon and other components of the ecosystem.
In fiscal year 2001, the Corps proposes to spend nearly $6 million on
gas abatement efforts, about the same as the current year.
Developing fish passage systems is not an exact science, but one
that is continually evolving. As we increase our knowledge of the
behavior patterns of anadromous, fish, and river processes, and improve
our understanding of the need to protect biodiversity, we will develop
more effective fish passage alternatives. These alternatives likely
will be implemented to benefit the range of species and stocks in the
river, and may result in providing multiple passage solutions at
individual projects. They also will reflect that the best passage
solutions are those that take into account and work with the behavior
and ecology of the species using the river system.
The Council realizes that the Columbia River Fish Mitigation
Program has enjoyed significant support from the Subcommittee for
several years. Continuation of the program at its full capability is
necessary to ensure that critical improvements to the system are
implemented, and important studies and tests completed so that fish
survival can improve.
Willamette River Temperature Control, Oregon
The Willamette River Basin is located in northwestern Oregon.
During the last 40 years, 13 Corps of Engineers reservoirs have been
constructed in the basin to control floods, generate electricity and
provide water for navigation, irrigation, improved water quality,
recreation, and fish and wildlife. Studies over the last 16 years have
demonstrated that the temperature at which water is released from these
reservoirs is a key limiting factor for survival of anadromous and
resident fish in the Willamette basin.
Local, state and federal agencies, including the Council, have been
seeking modification of water temperature in the McKenzie River
downstream from Blue River and Cougar reservoirs to achieve more
beneficial temperatures for wild spring chinook salmon, bull trout and
rainbow trout. The Corps' feasibility study for the project was
completed in 1995. An Environmental Impact Statement was completed, and
the Division Commander signed a Finding of No Significant Impact on
April 24, 1996. Over a year ago, Willamette spring chinook and winter
steelhead were listed as threatened by the National Marine Fisheries
Service under the Endangered Species Act; the last significant wild
stock of spring chinook in the Willamette is in the McKenzie River. The
current estimated cost to install multi-level intake towers at the two
projects is more than $70 million.
Due to cost limitations associated with the project's
authorization, the Corps' current focus is on the Cougar Lake reservoir
intake tower, which.has a total estimated cost of more than $50
million. Last year, Congress appropriated the initial funds to begin
construction of the project. In its fiscal year 2001 budget request,
the Corps is seeking $8.2 million to continue construction activities.
The Council supports this project and the requested funding level, and
urges the Subcommittee to include it in its fiscal year 2001 funding
recommendations.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project
The Council supports the Administration's fiscal year 2001 request
of $11.056 million for the Yakima River Basin Enhancement Project. The
funds would be used for water acquisition ($4.3 million),
implementation grants ($4.448 million) and for feasibility studies
relating to grants ($1.0 million).
The Project was authorized by Congress in 1994 and encourages
activities to reduce water diversions by improving conveyance and
distribution systems, and by changing water operations and management
on farm irrigation facilities. Conserved water is used to increase
instream flows and supplement drought-year irrigation needs. In
addition, Yakama Nation water supply facilities will be improved and
tribal economic development, fish and wildlife, and cultural programs
will be enhanced.
Just last month, seven irrigation districts identified water
conservation measures totaling $200 million that could be funded under
the project's authorization. If all the plans were implemented, water
savings could add up to as much as 300,000 acre-feet. As a requirement
of participation, two-thirds of the savings would be left in the river
for fish and wildlife. The remaining one-third could be used for
irrigation purposes, so long as the number of irrigated acres in the
basin is not increased.
Water managers estimate the successful implementation of the
conservation program will reduce out-of-stream diversions by as much as
165,000 acre-feet and increase target flows for instream purposes.
Conservation measures also will improve the reliability of irrigation
water supply, particularly for irrigation districts that receive less
than their full water supply during poor water years.
Columbia-Snake River Salmon Recovery Project
The Administration has requested $4.622 million in fiscal year 2001
for its Columbia-Snake River Salmon Recovery Project. This represents a
reduction of $4.878 million from the current year funding level of $9.5
million. The Council considers the Administration's request to be the
minimum acceptable level for the program, and would support maintaining
the current year's appropriation of $9.5 million. The proposed funds
for fiscal year 2001 will be used for water acquisition ($3 million),
Endangered Species Act compliance ($1.132 million) and fish passage
facilities at the Burbank #2 and #3 pumping plants.
The Council believes the Bureau should have sufficient funds to
implement all measures required under the new Biological Opinion that
the National Marine Fisheries Service will put in place next year. It
is questionable that the requested level of $4.622 million will be
adequate to ensure implementation, especially in the event that
expensive measures, such as water acquisition, are included in the
Biological Opinion. In addition, the requested funding level provides
the Bureau with insufficient flexibility to react quickly to any
unforeseen opportunities that may arise during the course of the year
to purchase or lease water from willing sellers, in accordance with
state water law. Such opportunities, if lost, may not present
themselves again soon.
BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION
The Bonneville Power Administration is the primary implementer of
the Council's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. In the
fall of 1995, the Administration and Congress agreed on a fixed budget
for Bonneville's fish and wildlife recovery efforts in the Columbia
River Basin. Under the terms of that agreement, which was further
defined and formalized in September 1996 in a memorandum of agreement
(MOA) signed by the secretaries of the Army, Interior, Commerce and
Energy, Bonneville will incur costs, on average, of $435 million per
year ($252 million in actual dollar expenditures and $183 million in
lost hydropower revenues and power purchases) for six years for fish
and wildlife activities. These funds fall under a number of categories,
including direct expenditures on fish and wildlife projects, power
purchases, reimbursements of appropriated funds to the Corps of
Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation, capital repayment and foregone
revenues.
For fiscal year 2001, Bonneville estimates its total fish and
wildlife budget will be $421.8 million, with $105 million for its
direct fish and wildlife project expenditures, $49.2 million to
reimburse other federal agencies for appropriated expenses, $102.8
million to repay the Federal Treasury for appropriated capital
investments, and $164.8 million for foregone revenues and power
purchases.
For several reasons, including above-average precipitation and
lower-than expected annual appropriations for the Corps of Engineers'
Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program, Bonneville's annual fish and
wildlife expenditures have averaged less than the originally
anticipated $435 million. As a result of lower Corps appropriations
alone, Bonneville has underspent its capital repayment category by
nearly $200 million. The Council believes that funds not spent during
the MOA period should remain reserved for fish and wildlife purposes in
the next period. The Council intends to work with Bonneville, the
tribes and others in the region to arrive at an acceptable science-
based plan for effectively utilizing these funds.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our views with you. We
sincerely appreciate the thorough consideration that this Subcommittee
has given to the needs of the Pacific Northwest and the Columbia River
Basin over the years.
______
Prepared Statement of the Deschutes Basin Working Group
SUMMARY
The Deschutes Basin Working Group, dba the Deschutes Basin
Resources Conservancy (DRC), is a non-profit, private corporation
established in Oregon in 1996. In September 1996, Congress enacted and
the President signed Public Law 104-208, which included S. 1662, the
Oregon Resources Conservation Act. Section 301(h) (Division B, Title
III) of Public Law 104-208 authorizes $1.0 million per year through
2001. The DRC is limited to spending 5 percent of any appropriation on
administration.
In fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, Congress appropriated
$500,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation to support the DRC. The DRC is
using these funds to implement projects to improve water quality and
quantity in the Deschutes Basin. Water projects are crucial in the
Deschutes Basin where steelhead and bull trout are listed as threatened
and Fall Chinook are proposed for listing under the Federal Endangered
Species Act. We are requesting that $1,000,000 be provided in the
fiscal year 2001 Budget for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue to
carry out our program.
From January 1999 to March 2000 the DRC supported 17 projects in
the Basin that leveraged $843,757 of its funds to complete $3,344,535
in on-the-ground restoration projects. These projects include: piping
irrigation district delivery systems to prevent water losses; securing
instream water rights to restore flows to Squaw Creek; providing
riparian fences to protect riverbanks; working with private timberland
owners to restore riparian and wetland areas; and seeking donated water
rights to enhance instream flows in the Deschutes Basin.
The DRC is governed by a diverse group of directors from private
and public interests from the region. It is a community-based,
cooperative endeavor that believes economic progress and natural
resource conservation need to work together to achieve success.
The DRC seeks voluntary actions based upon contracts and
compensation for property and services. The DRC does not seek, nor is
it authorized, to impose regulatory mandates through legal or political
action.
1999 PROJECTS
No-Till Demonstration Project--$50,000
A small-grain farmer from the Juniper Flats region of Wasco County
has agreed to use his farm as a no-till demonstration site for at least
five years. Initially, the farmer will convert 900 acres of traditional
tillage cropland to no-till methods. Wasco County SWCD proposes to
cost-share with the farmer for three years to help with startup
expenses and risk management. In return, the farmer will allow the SWCD
to conduct educational and outreach activities on his farm. The SWCD
will conduct field days, tours and neighborhood presentations to
increase awareness of no-till methods and share results with other
farmers in the region. During a series of neighborhood meetings,
volunteers will be sought for a watershed council to cover the White
River and Juniper Flat regions. The DRC is also exploring the
opportunities for developing tradable carbon credits from this project.
Tumalo Irrigation District/Bend Feed Canal--$100,000
This project eliminates the existing Flume No. 4 and unlined open
channel section between Pipeline No. 2 and No. 3 of the Bend Feed
Canal, saving an estimated 3 to 4 cfs in water loss. The flume and
channel sections will be replaced with an estimated 78-inch diameter
water tight pipe. The complete 4 year, 13, 750-foot project plan will
save at least 20 cfs. A prorated share of 5 cfs minimum has been agreed
to by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for return to the Tumalo Creek
which currently has no instream water right. The total project will
increase fish habitat, significantly reduce water loss and increase
public safety.
Pringle Falls--$20,000
The project places 225 large trees in the main channel of the
Deschutes River within a 3.3-mile reach below Pringle Falls, improving
fish habitat and decreasing the potential for stream bank erosion.
Traditionally, large woody debris protected the riverbanks from the
swiftly moving water. In its absence, erosion was occurring at an
accelerated rate. The placement of trees and riparian plantings should
improve water quality by reducing sedimentation and turbidity of the
river.
Central Oregon Irrigation District Alfalfa Piping--$58,924
The Alfalfa area of the Central Oregon Irrigation District consists
of large irrigated parcels and transmission losses are high due to pea-
sized gravel beneath the shallow topsoil. This project replaced
approximately 15,860 feet of open ditch with pipe. The project saves
3.09 cubic feet per second or 6.13 acre feet of water per day. The
project has been completed and funds have been allocated.
Annual Water Leasing Program--demonstration only
The DRC is working with water users in targeted areas for water
rights donations or sales to improve instream flows. The program began
November 1998 by meeting with each irrigation district manager to
introduce the leasing program and the process for transfers. In early
1999 water rights holders were contacted requesting the user's water
donation. This program enables water right holders to protect their
water right by leasing and it improves Deschutes flows. About 54 acres
of irrigation water were leased in 1999. The program will continue in
2000.
Camp Polk Meadow--$50,000
The DRC and the Deschutes Basin Land Trust are teaming up to
restore and conserve a rare wetland/wet meadow habitat. Portland
General Electric purchased Camp Polk Meadow and donated it to the land
trust. The property has about 385 acres, roughly 150 are bottom land.
The project contains between 1.25 and 1.5 miles of Squaw Creek, at
least six springs and one natural bog.
Central Oregon Irrigation District F1 Lateral Piping--$30,000
For the most part the irrigation canals in the Upper Deschutes
Basin are unlined and have been dug in porous, volcanic soils, so water
losses through percolation can be quite high over the long distances
that irrigation water must travel from the point of diversion to the
farms. The DRC and Central Oregon Irrigation District propose to
install roughly 3,960 feet of pipe, an inlet structure, an outlet
structure, four clean-outs and four diversion structures. COID figures
to conserve .29 cfs or .57 an ac/ft. Projected over a 180 day period,
this calculates to 102.6 ac/ft water conserved. One half of the
conserved water from this project will be returned to instream flows in
the Deschutes River. This project is an important demonstration of how
water can be conserved to benefit both the irrigation district and its
water users and the Deschutes ecosystem. This project is underway.
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Riparian Fencing--$76,500
The DRC and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian
Reservation of Oregon are partners on a project to protect riparian
areas in the Deschutes Basin's Eagle Creek, Skookum Creek and the
mainstem river. The project constructs fence for livestock exclosures,
places cattle guards at road crossings and installs solar pumps to
provide animals water away from the riverbank. One of the DRC's primary
goals is to improve water quality. Healthy, functioning riparian areas
are critical to improving water quality in the basin. Riparian
vegetation provides fish and aquatic habitat, stream shading to reduce
water temperatures, bank stability and a filter for nutrients and
sediments entering the water. This project is especially important for
the habitat of Bull Trout and steelhead that are listed as threatened
and Fall Chinook that are pending listing under the Federal Endangered
Species Act. This project involves voluntary cooperation by the tribal
grazing group allottees. The Warm Springs Tribes are involved in
various other projects to improve stream conditions both on and off the
reservation. This project is a part of a larger effort to improve flows
and water quality for fish and wildlife. Funds have been allocated and
two of the four sections of fence have been constructed. The remaining
fence will be constructed Spring of 2000. NEPA has been completed and
the DRC is waiting for a monitoring plan.
Swalley Irrigation District Tailend--$10,000
This Swalley Tailend Project links the end of Swalley's lateral
with COID's A-21 lateral of the Pilot Butte Canal. The project will
direct water in excess of the Swalley system's demand to COID's
lateral. The system will be designed to handle an average of 3 cubic
feet per second (cfs) with the ability to accommodate flows up to 6
cfs. This project directly addresses the DRC's goal to improve water
quality and quantity. It will stop potentially polluted, warm water
from directly entering the Deschutes and it will allow this water to be
used by COID, which is credited for this water. NEPA has been completed
and funds will be allocated upon billing.
Thompson Ditch Conservation Project--$50,000
The DRC is working with the Squaw Creek Irrigation District and
landowners to relocate a diversion for permanent increased instream
flow and riparian restoration. The project eliminates the existing
Thompson Ditch. Subsequently returning 1 cfs of 1885 senior water right
and 1 cfs junior 1900 water right to the stretch of Squaw Creek between
SCID's diversion and the proposed diversion point on the Deggendorfer
property. This change will also eliminate water losses in the existing
ditch. The flood irrigation system now in use will be changed to a
sprinkler system. One-half of the conserved water will be permanently
returned to instream flows. Project construction is underway and
scheduled for completion in the Spring of 2000.
Mack's Canyon--$15,460
This project focuses on the entire watershed from ridge top to
ridge top, starting at the top and working down. Several treatment will
be used including; Terraces, Water and Sediment Control, Basins
(WASCOB), Sediment Basins, and Spring Developments. NRCS is completing
NEPA. Initial phases may start this fall while the main portion of the
project will be completed in the Spring.
2000 PROJECT
Summaries 2000 Projects Camp Polk Water Purchase--$50,000
Oregon Water Trust (OWT) and the DRC will acquire .99 cfs of
irrigation rights on Squaw Creek for a permanent transfer to instream
flows. The water rights will complement the earlier purchase of 1.81
cfs of Squaw Creek water in 1998 and 1999. Squaw Creek currently
supports populations of redband trout, bull trout and spawning kokanee
from Lake Billy Chinook. Prior to the construction of the dams, Squaw
Creek was one of the major salmonid producing tributaries in the
Deschutes basin. The various proposed relicensing options for the
Pelton-Round Butte dams in 2001 include provisions for the passage of
anadramous fish, which will reopen Squaw Creek to populations of wild
Chinook and steelhead, making the restoration of stream flows
critically important.
Crooked River National Grasslands Water Quality Project--$20,000
The Grasslands project is aimed at decreasing the turbidity and
sedimentation of lower Squaw Creek. Funded activities include the
hydrological closure of 1.75 miles of the lower end of Forest Service
road 6370, the closure by gating of the upper 2.5 miles of road 6370
and the closure and rehabilitation of five off-road hill climbs in the
vicinity. Other components of the project involve relocating the Alder
Springs Trail Head approximately 0.8 miles north of the intersection of
Forest Service road 6360 and 6370 to the ridge just west of `Three
Pines'. A new trail approximately 0.75 miles long will be constructed
along the rim with views of Squaw Creek and the Cascades. The new trail
segment will join the existing trail above Dry Falls. A new spur trail
approximately 0.25 miles will be constructed from Three Pines to the
Old Bridge site on Squaw Creek. The existing trail in the drainage
bottom will be waterbarred. Each of these applications will help
protect and enhance a sensitive reach of creek that supports numerous
aquatic species including the ESA listed bull trout.
Crooked River Riparian Fencing--$34,100
With funding from the DRC, the Crooked River watershed council's
riparian enhancement project will improve livestock management, protect
riparian and stream channel areas and enhance native vegetation on over
25 miles of stream within the sub-basin. Nine landowners have agreed to
participate in the program, implementing riparian exclosures on 15
miles of stream and conducting plantings in 18 miles of protected
riparian areas. Exclusion of livestock from riparian areas is one of
the most effective and practical means of protecting riparian areas.
The enhancement of riparian vegetation communities in degraded areas
provides a major step towards improving overall riparian and stream
channel function.
Squaw Creek Irrigation District (SCID) Cloverdale Piping Project--
$260,000
The project will replace approximately 15,840' of open ditch with
pipe. The estimated water savings amounts to 4 to 5 cfs or 8 to 10
acre-feet per day. Three cfs or one-half of the conserved water,
whichever is greater, will be transferred back instream after project
completion. This project represents one of several DRC partnerships
aimed at increasing instream flows in Squaw Creek. The DRC and other
local organizations place great importance on Squaw Creek due to its
once abundant steelhead spawning habitat.
Tenmile Riparian Fencing--$7,013
With the help of the DRC and the Trout Creek watershed council, a
private landowner will construct 4.5 miles of riparian fencing around a
high mesa pasture that will exclude livestock from grazing in
approximately 3 miles of Tenmile Creek, 2 miles of Trout Creek, and 3
miles of the Deschutes River. The construction of new riparian fencing
and the elimination of a previously used watering gap complements the
Bureau of Land Management and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's
efforts to manage grazing along Tenmile Creek in a manner that is
conducive to fish and wildlife values. Additionally, the Trout Creek
watershed council will be seeking funds from the Oregon Watershed
Enhancement Board to construct offsite watering for livestock at this
site. This project serves to build understanding and educate the
community by providing a valuable example of environmental protection
of private lands by non-regulatory means.
Mack's Canyon Year II--$15,460
This project focuses on the entire watershed from ridge top to
ridge top, starting at the top and working down. Several treatments
will be used including; terraces, water and sediment control basins
(WASCOB), sediment basins, and spring developments. NRCS is completing
NEPA. Initial phases may start this fall while the main portion of the
project will be completed in the spring.
BACKGROUND
In 1989, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Confederated
Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation began a cooperative project to
reconcile on-reservation ecological and economic conflicts. In late
1992, the Tribes and EDF expanded the scope of the project to include
the entire Deschutes Basin. It was agreed that the initial focus would
be on river flows and water pollution. Flow-deficient stream reaches
and excessive water pollutant loads could only be mitigated by
identifying and reducing existing water diversions and pollution
discharges. At the same time, a high value was placed on being ``good
neighbors'' to other landowners and resources users within the Basin.
Positive incentives for changes in resource uses were emphasized
instead of costly and divisive political and legal conflicts. Solutions
employing economic incentives, such as water rights and pollution
allowance marketing, were introduced and experiences elsewhere in the
West were reviewed.
A key forum for this community dialogue, the ``Ad Hoc Deschutes
Group'', was formed. The 14-member Ad Hoc Group had representatives of
all economic sectors in the Basin. The irrigation community holds the
most water rights and reservoir storage and therefore has the greatest
impact among resource users on the pattern and amount of river flows.
At the same time, water quality degradation stems from a diverse set of
land uses driving non-point water pollution. An important part of the
project was to assure that the federal interests in the Basin were
addressed along with those of the tribes, resource users, and local and
state governments.
The Ad Hoc Group recognized the need for a private organization
with ecosystem-determined goals and methods based on positive
incentives, consensus, and local governance. Since approximately half
of the Basin's land area is managed by federal agencies it was clear
that such a private organization would need the capacity to partner on
projects with the federal agencies to be truly ecosystem and basinwide
in scope. In March, 1996, Senator Hatfield introduced S. 1662
authorizing federal agencies to work with this private organization,
known as the Deschutes Basin Working Group. Title III of the Oregon
Resource Conservation Act of 1996, signed by the President in
September, 1996, authorizes the following:
--Federal agencies to work with the private Deschutes Basin Working
Group, dba Deschutes Basin Resources Conservancy (DRC)
--Secretaries of Interior & Agriculture to appoint DRC board members
for 3 year terms
--Federal participation with DRC in ecological restoration projects
on federal and non-federal land and water with 50-50 cost share
--Five year startup authorization of $1.0 Million a year federal
fund; 50/50 cost share with DRC
--Emphasize voluntary market-based economic incentives
The Deschutes Basin Working Group, later to adopt an operating name
of the Deschutes Basin Resources Conservancy (DRC), has the goal of
implementing on-the-ground projects that enhance the quality of the
region's natural resources and add value to its economy.
Its board consists of nine members from the Basin's private sector;
hydropower, livestock grazing, recreation/tourism, timber, land
development, irrigation (2), environmental (2), and two members from
the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation. In addition to
the private board members there are two board members appointed from
the Departments of Interior and Agriculture, two board members
representing the State of Oregon, and four members representing local
governments within the Deschutes Basin.
The DRC will receive funds through tax-exempt donations from
individuals, businesses, and corporations, including philanthropic
foundations, and from government agencies seeking project development
assistance or collaboration. It will seek to develop income from direct
sources such as fee-for-service.
______
Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress
Dear Chairman Domenici and Members of the Subcommittee: Mr.
Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Jan Lee, executive director
of the Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC). The OWRC represents
irrigation, water control, drainage and water improvement districts,
private ditch and irrigation corporations, cities and counties,
individual farmers and ranchers statewide as well as having
agribusiness associates as members.
I am writing to urge your support for the attached list of projects
in the Bureau of Reclamation's fiscal year 2001 Budget Request. The
funding for these projects represents a valuable commitment to meeting
the needs of our member organizations at a time when many are
confronted with the problem of how to meet water delivery needs for
their district populations while at the same time addressing
environmental and Native American requirements. There are particular
projects like the Deschutes Ecosystem Restoration project and the
Klamath project in Southern Oregon that typify this balance.
I would also like to request that you provide the write-in funding
for the Tumalo Irrigation District, Bend Feed Canal, the two Umatilla
Boundary Change Environmental Assessment projects and the Willow Lake
Natural Treatment system project that appear on our list.
OWRC continues to be concerned about the inadequate funding for the
Oregon Water Management and Technical Assistance program, the
Efficiency Incentives program and the Water Management Conservation
Program. These are valuable programs for water users to address the
combination of water/environmental/Native American/growth related
issues in the State.
OWRC has also been following the work of the National Drought
Policy Commission. OWRC would like the Subcommittee to consider
increasing the funding for the Bureau of Reclamation drought assistance
program up to $5 million so our water users are in the position to
benefit from the recommendations of the Commissions report.
Thank you for considering our requests and we look forward to
favorable action by the Subcommittee.
Projects and Programs in fiscal year 2001 Bureau of
Reclamation Budget that OWRC Supports;
Crooked River Project............................... $691,000
Deschutes Ecosystem Restoraton Project.............. 500,000
Deschutes Project................................... 431,000
Grand Ronde Water Optimization Study................ 50,000
Klamath Project..................................... 11,185,000
Oregon Investigations Program....................... 601,000
Rogue River Basin Project, Talent Division.......... 883,000
Tualatin Project.................................... 320,000
Eastern Oregon Projects............................. 451,000
Tualatin Valley Water Supply Feasibility Study...... 100,000
Umatilla Basin Project (Phase III).................. 100,000
Umatilla Project.................................... 2,294,000
Broader Programs:
Columbia and Snake River Salmon Recovery Project.... 4,622,000
Endangered Species Recovery Implementation.......... 1,354,000
Requests for New Money:
Tumalo Irrigation District, Bend Feed Canal......... 2,000,000
Umatilla Boundary Change Environmental Assessment
(Hermiston)....................................... 100,000
Umatilla Boundary Change Environmental Assessment
(West Extension).................................. 50,000
Willow Lake Natural Treatment System Project........ 1,000,000
______
Prepared Statement of the Hermiston Irrigation District
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Chuck Wilcox,
Manager of the Hermiston Irrigation District, in Hermiston, Oregon. The
District is writing to request that $100,000 be provided on a non-
reimbursable basis in the fiscal year 2001 Budget for the Bureau of
Reclamation so the Hermiston Irrigation District can complete the
Environmental Assessment process for a proposed boundary change as a
part of the Umatilla basin plan
For the past several years, our district, as well as other
irrigation districts in the Umatilla basin have asked the Bureau of
Reclamation to approve new boundaries to include acres that receive
Federal water. The Bureau has consistently failed us in moving forward
towards resolving this need. Completion of this process would solve the
problem of having to use interim water service contracts from the
Bureau of Reclamation and allow farmers in the area to make more timely
and cost effective decisions regarding crop decisions for the planting
and irrigation season.
If language could be included in the report for the Energy and
Water Appropriations bill indicating that within the Water and Related
Resources Program, the Bureau was to provide the $100,000 for this work
on a non-reimbursable basis, the District would be very appreciative.
Thank you for considering our request and we look forward to
favorable action by the Subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Tumalo Irrigation District
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Elmer McDaniels,
Manager of the Tumalo Irrigation District in Bend, Oregon. The Tumalo
Irrigation District was founded in 1914 and currently serves about 28
square miles with 8,100 irrigated acres between Bend and Sisters,
Oregon, on the east slope of the Cascade Mountains.
The District appreciates the $200,000 that was provided for design
work in the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water appropriations bill for
our Bend Feed Canal Project. The total cost of this project is
$4,000,000 with half of the money coming from the District and the
other half from the Bureau of Reclamation. We are ready to move forward
with construction work this year on the project and would like to
request that your subcommittee provide $2,000,000 in the Bureau of
Reclamation's budget for their share of construction funds for fiscal
year 2001.
Completion of this project will bring about an increased system
reliability for the District, a substantial safety increase for the
citizens in the area as a result of our putting an existing open canal
into pipe and an increased water conservation benefit for the
environment in the Deschutes Basin as a result of the piping of the
canal.
Thank you for considering our request and we look forward to
favorable action by the Subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes
FISCAL YEAR 2001 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST
The Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes respectfully request
funds to continue planning and begin construction of the Fort Peck
Reservation RWS, Montana, in the amount of $435,000 as set out below:
Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation Request--Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux
MRI System Dry Prairie RWS
Item Budget
Planning Activities:
Tribal Administration..................................... $115,160
Tribal Technology......................................... 7,100
Dry Prairie Administration................................ 61,020
Environmental Assessment.................................. 136,440
Conceptual Value Engineering/FER.......................... 115,590
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 435,310
The Tribes are appreciative of the work by this Subcommittee on the
project previously. In fiscal year 1993 and fiscal year 1994, $350,000
were appropriated, and in fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 1999,
$810,000 were appropriated for planning purposes.
PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
This project, which includes all of the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation in Montana and the Dry Prairie portion of the project
outside the Reservation (see map), was authorized by the full Senate in
the closing days of the last session. Authorization by the full House
is anticipated in this session.
The budget request provides $435,000 for planning activities. It
provides for continued work to amend and complete the Final Engineering
Report to address both federal and state requirements for the report.
Value engineering will be performed on the Final Engineering Report in
an effort to lower costs of the project without diminishing function.
The budget request provides for completion of the NEPA requirements
through the preparation of an environmental assessment. No significant
environmental impacts are expected, and an environmental impact
statement is not contemplated. This judgment is based upon prior work
with state and federal agencies in advance of the preparation of the
environmental assessment.
STATUS OF PROJECT PLANNING
The work products completed to date by the Bureau of Reclamation
include a Needs Assessment and Feasibility Report within the boundaries
of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. The Fort Peck Tribes are
continuing to work with the Bureau of Reclamation to modify and
complete the Final Engineering Report, incorporating the costs of
facilities to serve both the Reservation and the Dry Prairie Water
System outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. Environmental baseline
investigations have been concluded within the Reservation and the Dry
Prairie areas of the project. The latter investigations are a
foundation for the environmental assessment
The Final Engineering Report shows that construction costs of the
project total $192 million, October 1998. (Previous testimony has
presented $179 million, October 1995, as the project cost, which is
equivalent, after indexing, to the amount given here. The current cost
estimate, however, is based on revisions of costs in fiscal year 1999
and reconfiguration of the system.) Costs on the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation will be $124 million with 100 percent federal cost share.
Construction costs off Reservation in the Dry Prairie area will be $68
million. The federal cost share in the Dry Prairie area will be $51
million (76 percent), the State share will be $8.5 million (12 percent
with an approved mechanism for funding by the Montana legislature) and
the local share will be $8.5 million (12 percent). The total Federal
costs will be $175 million (October 1998), less or comparable to
similar projects in the Northern Great Plains.
LOCAL PROJECT SUPPORT
The State of Montana, by action of its legislature, appropriated
$62,000 in fiscal year 1997 to provide for a Needs Assessment and cost
estimate of facilities outside the Reservation in the Dry Prairie part
of the project. The 1999 Montana Legislature approved an additional
$182,000 in planning funds for use by Dry Prairie in fiscal year 1999
and 2000. The needs and facility costs determined for the Dry Prairie
Water System were incorporated into the Final Engineering Report. In
addition, the 1999 Montana Legislature approved a funding mechanism
from its Treasure State Endowment Program to finance the non-federal
share of project planning and construction. Demonstrating support of
Montana for the project, there were only three votes against the
statutory funding mechanism in both the full House and Senate.
The Fort Peck Tribes have supported the project since 1992 when
they conceived it and sought means of improving the quality of life in
the region. The planning was logical step after successful completion
of an historic water rights compact with the State of Montana. This
compact was the national ``ice breaker'' that increased the level of
confidence by other Tribes in Indian water right settlement
initiatives.
Dry Prairie support is demonstrated by a financial commitment of
all 24 communities within the service area to participate in the
project. Rural support is strong, with about 85 percent of area farms
and ranches intending to participate as evidenced by their intent fees
of $100 per household.
enterprise community designation and need for water quality improvement
The Clinton Administration designated the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation as an Enterprise Community, underscoring the level of
poverty and need for economic development in the region. The success of
the Enterprise Community designation within the Reservation will be
questionable without the availability of safe and adequate municipal,
rural and industrial water supplies that this regional project will
bring to the Reservation. Outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, the
Dry Prairie area has income levels that are higher than within the
Reservation but significantly lower than the State average.
The geologic setting of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the
counties outside the Reservation is comparable to the rest of eastern
Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. With the exception of the
Missouri River, which is a high quality water source, the groundwater
supplies of the region are of poor quality with more than 80 percent of
rural households, that rely on near surface aquifers, exceeding nitrate
contaminant levels for drinking water. Some of the worst water on the
North American Continent lies below the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in
the Madison Formation. This water is not used for human or livestock
consumption. It is a brine several times more concentrated than sea
water. Above this unsuitable aquifer are lesser aquifers that have been
subjected to oil and gas development and have been contaminated, in
part, by those activities.
The Poplar River, which flows through the central portions of the
Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the region is the subject of an
Apportionment Agreement between Canada and the United States. Half of
the water supply is available for Canada as measured at the
International Boundary, and the balance is available for use in the
United States. Depletion of this resource by agricultural and coal-
fired power generation on the Canadian side increases the
concentrations of chemicals and contaminants in the supply for the
United States. The Poplar River and its principle tributaries are
neither dependable supplies of water nor are they of suitable quality
for this project. Thus, the Fort Peck Tribes and Dry Prairie are
seeking a regional water project, comparable to Garrison, WEB, Mni
Wiconi and Mid-Dakota that rely on the high quality waters of the
Mainstem Missouri River.
The feature of this project that makes it more cost effective than
similar projects is its proximity to the Missouri River. The southern
boundary of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation is formed by the Missouri
River for a distance of more than 60 miles. Many of the towns in this
regional project are located two to three miles from the river,
including Nashua, Frazer, Oswego, Wolf Point, Poplar, Brockton,
Culbertson, and Bainville. As shown on the enclosed project map, a
looping transmission system outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation
will deliver water 30 to 40 miles north of the Missouri River.
Therefore, the distances from the Missouri River to all points in the
main transmission system are shorter than in other projects of this
nature in the Northern Great Plains.
For comparison of water quality of this project with other regional
projects, please refer to Tables 1 and 2.
TABLE 1.--COMPARISON OF FORT PECK TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLID LEVELS WITH
COMPARABLE PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Dissolved
Project Community Solids
(mgl)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Peck.......................... Fort Kipp............. 2,730
Lewis and Clark.................... Upper Limit........... 2,600
Mni Wiconi......................... Red Shirt............. 2,332
Mni Wiconi......................... Reliance.............. 2,056
Mni Wiconi......................... Murdo................. 1,761
Mni Wiconi......................... Kennebec.............. 1,740
Mni Wiconi......................... Presho................ 1,398
Fort Peck.......................... Poplar................ 1,380
Fort Peck.......................... Frazer................ 1,180
Lewis and Clark.................... Lower Limit........... 1,179
Mni Wiconi......................... Wakpamni Lake......... 1,125
Mni Wiconi......................... Horse Creek........... 869
Fort Peck.......................... Brockton.............. 748
Mni Wiconi......................... Pine Ridge Village.... 416
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2.--COMPARISON OF FORT PECK SULFATE LEVELS WITH COMPARABLE
PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfate
Project Community (mgl)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis and Clark.................... Upper Limit........... 1,500
Mni Wiconi......................... Reliance.............. 1,139
Fort Peck.......................... Fort Kipp............. 1,120
Mni Wiconi......................... Red Shirt............. 1,080
Mni Wiconi......................... Murdo................. 1,042
Mni Wiconi......................... Kennebec.............. 984
Mni Wiconi......................... Presho................ 644
Lewis and Clark.................... Lower Limit........... 538
Fort Peck.......................... Frazer................ 498
Mni Wiconi......................... Horse Creek........... 410
Mni Wiconi......................... Wakpamni Lake......... 398
Fort Peck.......................... Brockton.............. 212
Fort Peck.......................... Poplar................ 103
Mni Wiconi......................... Pine Ridge Village.... 70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1.--Project Map
FISCAL YEAR APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST
The Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes respectfully request
funds to begin construction of the Fort Peck Reservation RWS, Montana,
in the amount of $3,025,000 as set out below:
Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation Request Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux
MRI System Dry Prairie RWS
Design and Construction Activities: Budget
Intake Design............................................. $232,580
Intake Investigation and Value Engin...................... 42,960
WTP Investigation and Value Engineer...................... 83,820
WTP Design................................................ 1,226,205
Intake Construction (50 percent).......................... 1,440,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 3,025,565
The Tribes are appreciative of the work by this Subcommittee on the
project previously. In fiscal year 1993 and fiscal year 1994, $350,000
were appropriated, and in fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 1999,
$810,000 were appropriated for planning purposes. A request for
planning funds has been made separately for fiscal year 2001.
PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
This project, which includes all of the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation in Montana and the Dry Prairie portion of the project
outside the Reservation (see map), was authorized by the full Senate in
the closing days of the last session. Authorization by the full House
is anticipated in this session. The request for construction funds is
made in contemplation of full authorization of the project in this
session.
The budget request provides for final design of the intake and
treatment plant for this regional drinking water project. Alternative
analyses will be conducted to ensure that the most cost-effective
options are adopted.
The budget request provides for 50 percent of the construction
costs of the intake on the Missouri River which will deliver raw water
to the treatment plant. The budget request is consistent with the
construction schedule furnished last year to the Congressional Budget
Office as part of its investigation of the Senate bill authorizing the
project (S. 624). (See Table 3 for the construction schedule).
The budget includes $272,000 for Reclamation oversight in the
planning, design and construction activities.
STATUS OF PROJECT PLANNING
The work products completed to date by the Bureau of Reclamation
include a Needs Assessment and Feasibility Report within the boundaries
of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. The Fort Peck Tribes are
continuing to work with the Bureau of Reclamation to modify and
complete the Final Engineering Report, incorporating the costs of
facilities to serve both the Reservation and the Dry Prairie Water
System outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. Environmental baseline
investigations have been concluded within the Reservation and the Dry
Prairie areas of the project. The latter investigations are a
foundation for the environmental assessment
The Final Engineering Report shows that construction costs of the
project total $192 million, October 1998. (Previous testimony has
presented $179 million, October 1995, as the project cost, which is
equivalent, after indexing, to the amount given here. The current cost
estimate, however, is based on revisions of costs in fiscal year 1999
and reconfiguration of the system.) Costs on the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation will be $124 million with 100 percent federal cost share.
Construction costs off Reservation in the Dry Prairie area will be $68
million. The federal cost share in the Dry Prairie area will be $51
million (76 percent), the State share will be $8.5 million (12 percent
with an approved mechanism for funding by the Montana legislature) and
the local share will be $8.5 million (12 percent). The total Federal
costs will be $175 million (October 1998), less or comparable to
similar projects in the Northern Great Plains.
LOCAL PROJECT SUPPORT
The State of Montana, by action of its legislature, appropriated
$62,000 in fiscal year 1997 to provide for a Needs Assessment and cost
estimate of facilities outside the Reservation in the Dry Prairie part
of the project. The 1999 Montana Legislature approved an additional
$182,000 in planning funds for use by Dry Prairie in fiscal year 1999
and 2000. The needs and facility costs determined for the Dry Prairie
Water System were incorporated into the Final Engineering Report. In
addition, the 1999 Montana Legislature approved a funding mechanism
from its Treasure State Endowment Program to finance the non-federal
share of project planning and construction. Demonstrating support of
Montana for the project, there were only three votes against the
statutory funding mechanism in both the full House and Senate.
The Fort Peck Tribes have supported the project since 1992 when
they conceived it and sought means of improving the quality of life in
the region. The planning was logical step after successful completion
of an historic water rights compact with the State of Montana. This
compact was the national ``ice breaker'' that increased the level of
confidence by other Tribes in Indian water right settlement
initiatives.
Dry Prairie support is demonstrated by a financial commitment of
all 24 communities within the service area to participate in the
project. Rural support is strong, with about 85 percent of area farms
and ranches intending to participate as evidenced by their intent fees
of $100 per household.
enterprise community designation and need for water quality improvement
The Clinton Administration designated the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation as an Enterprise Community, underscoring the level of
poverty and need for economic development in the region. The success of
the Enterprise Community designation within the Reservation will be
questionable without the availability of safe and adequate municipal,
rural and industrial water supplies that this regional project will
bring to the Reservation. Outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, the
Dry Prairie area has income levels that are higher than within the
Reservation but significantly lower than the State average.
The geologic setting of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the
counties outside the Reservation is comparable to the rest of eastern
Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. With the exception of the
Missouri River, which is a high quality water source, the groundwater
supplies of the region are of poor quality with more than 80 percent of
rural households, that rely on near surface aquifers, exceeding nitrate
contaminant levels for drinking water. Some of the worst water on the
North American Continent lies below the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in
the Madison Formation. This water is not used for human or livestock
consumption. It is a brine several times more concentrated than sea
water. Above this unsuitable aquifer are lesser aquifers that have been
subjected to oil and gas development and have been contaminated, in
part, by those activities.
The Poplar River, which flows through the central portions of the
Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the region is the subject of an
Apportionment Agreement between Canada and the United States. Half of
the water supply is available for Canada as measured at the
International Boundary, and the balance is available for use in the
United States. Depletion of this resource by agricultural and coal-
fired power generation on the Canadian side increases the
concentrations of chemicals and contaminants in the supply for the
United States. The Poplar River and its principle tributaries are
neither dependable supplies of water nor are they of suitable quality
for this project. Thus, the Fort Peck Tribes and Dry Prairie are
seeking a regional water project, comparable to Garrison, WEB, Mni
Wiconi and Mid-Dakota that rely on the high quality waters of the
Mainstem Missouri River.
The feature of this project that makes it more cost effective than
similar projects is its proximity to the Missouri River. The southern
boundary of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation is formed by the Missouri
River for a distance of more than 60 miles. Many of the towns in this
regional project are located two to three miles from the river,
including Nashua, Frazer, Oswego, Wolf Point, Poplar, Brockton,
Culbertson, and Bainville. As shown on the enclosed project map, a
looping transmission system outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation
will deliver water 30 to 40 miles north of the Missouri River.
Therefore, the distances from the Missouri River to all points in the
main transmission system are shorter than in other projects of this
nature in the Northern Great Plains.
For comparison of water quality of this project with other regional
projects, please refer to Tables 1 and 2.
TABLE 1.--COMPARISON OF FORT PECK TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLID LEVELS WITH
COMPARABLE PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Dissolved
Project Community Solids
(mgl)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Peck.......................... Fort Kipp............. 2,730
Lewis and Clark.................... Upper Limit........... 2,600
Mni Wiconi......................... Red Shirt............. 2,332
Mni Wiconi......................... Reliance.............. 2,056
Mni Wiconi......................... Murdo................. 1,761
Mni Wiconi......................... Kennebec.............. 1,740
Mni Wiconi......................... Presho................ 1,398
Fort Peck.......................... Poplar................ 1,380
Fort Peck.......................... Frazer................ 1,180
Lewis and Clark.................... Lower Limit........... 1,179
Mni Wiconi......................... Wakpamni Lake......... 1,125
Mni Wiconi......................... Horse Creek........... 869
Fort Peck.......................... Brockton.............. 748
Mni Wiconi......................... Pine Ridge Village.... 416
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2.--COMPARISON OF FORT PECK SULFATE LEVELS WITH COMPARABLE
PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfate
Project Community (mgl)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis and Clark.................... Upper Limit........... 1,500
Mni Wiconi......................... Reliance.............. 1,139
Fort Peck.......................... Fort Kipp............. 1,120
Mni Wiconi......................... Red Shirt............. 1,080
Mni Wiconi......................... Murdo................. 1,042
Mni Wiconi......................... Kennebec.............. 984
Mni Wiconi......................... Presho................ 644
Lewis and Clark.................... Lower Limit........... 538
Fort Peck.......................... Frazer................ 498
Mni Wiconi......................... Horse Creek........... 410
Mni Wiconi......................... Wakpamni Lake......... 398
Fort Peck.......................... Brockton.............. 212
Fort Peck.......................... Poplar................ 103
Mni Wiconi......................... Pine Ridge Village.... 70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST
The Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes respectfully request
funds to continue planning and begin construction of the Fort Peck
Reservation RWS, Montana, in the amount of $3,461,000 as set out below:
Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation Request Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux
MRI System Dry Prairie RWS
Planning and Design Activities: Budget
Tribal Administration..................................... $115,160
Tribal Technology......................................... 7,100
Dry Prairie Administration................................ 61,020
Environmental Assessment.................................. 136,440
Conceptual Value Engineering/FER.......................... 115,590
Intake Investigation and Value Engin...................... 42,960
WTP Investigation and Value Engineer...................... 83,820
Intake Design............................................. 232,580
WTP Design................................................ 1,226,205
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................ 2,020,875
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Construction Activities: Intake Construction (50 percent)..... 1,440,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 3,460,875
The Tribes are appreciative of the work by this Subcommittee on the
project previously. In fiscal year 1993 and fiscal year 1994, $350,000
were appropriated, and in fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 1999,
$810,000 were appropriated for planning purposes.
PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
This project, which includes all of the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation in Montana and the Dry Prairie portion of the project
outside the Reservation (see map), was authorized by the full Senate in
the closing days of the last session. Authorization by the full House
is anticipated in this session.
Planning and Design Activities--$2,020,875
The budget request provides $562,090 for planning activities. It
provides for continued work to amend and complete the Final Engineering
Report to address both federal and state requirements for the report.
Value engineering will be performed on the Final Engineering Report in
an effort to lower costs of the project without diminishing function.
The budget request provides for completion of the NEPA requirements
through the preparation of an environmental assessment. No significant
environmental impacts are expected, and an environmental impact
statement is not contemplated. This judgment is based upon prior work
with state and federal agencies in advance of the preparation of the
environmental assessment.
The budget request provides $1,458,785 for final design: for final
design of the intake and treatment plant for this regional drinking
water project. Alternative analyses will be conducted to ensure that
the most cost-effective options are adopted.
Construction Activities--$1,440,000
Finally, the budget request provides $1,440,000 for 50 percent of
the construction costs of the intake on the Missouri River which will
deliver raw water to the treatment plant. The budget request is
consistent with the construction schedule furnished last year to the
Congressional Budget Office as part of its investigation of the Senate
bill authorizing the project (S. 624). (See Table 3 for the
construction schedule).
The budget includes $272,000 for Reclamation oversight in the
planning, design and construction activities.
STATUS OF PROJECT PLANNING
The work products completed to date by the Bureau of Reclamation
include a Needs Assessment and Feasibility Report within the boundaries
of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. The Fort Peck Tribes are
continuing to work with the Bureau of Reclamation to modify and
complete the Final Engineering Report, incorporating the costs of
facilities to serve both the Reservation and the Dry Prairie Water
System outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. Environmental baseline
investigations have been concluded within the Reservation and the Dry
Prairie areas of the project. The latter investigations are a
foundation for the environmental assessment
The Final Engineering Report shows that construction costs of the
project total $192 million, October 1998. (Previous testimony has
presented $179 million, October 1995, as the project cost, which is
equivalent, after indexing, to the amount given here. The current cost
estimate, however, is based on revisions of costs in fiscal year 1999
and reconfiguration of the system.) Costs on the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation will be $124 million with 100 percent federal cost share.
Construction costs off Reservation in the Dry Prairie area will be $68
million. The federal cost share in the Dry Prairie area will be $51
million (76 percent), the State share will be $8.5 million (12 percent
with an approved mechanism for funding by the Montana legislature) and
the local share will be $8.5 million (12 percent). The total Federal
costs will be $175 million (October 1998), less or comparable to
similar projects in the Northern Great Plains.
LOCAL PROJECT SUPPORT
The State of Montana, by action of its legislature, appropriated
$62,000 in fiscal year 1997 to provide for a Needs Assessment and cost
estimate of facilities outside the Reservation in the Dry Prairie part
of the project. The 1999 Montana Legislature approved an additional
$182,000 in planning funds for use by Dry Prairie in fiscal year 1999
and 2000. The needs and facility costs determined for the Dry Prairie
Water System were incorporated into the Final Engineering Report. In
addition, the 1999 Montana Legislature approved a funding mechanism
from its Treasure State Endowment Program to finance the non-federal
share of project planning and construction. Demonstrating support of
Montana for the project, there were only three votes against the
statutory funding mechanism in both the full House and Senate.
The Fort Peck Tribes have supported the project since 1992 when
they conceived it and sought means of improving the quality of life in
the region. The planning was logical step after successful completion
of an historic water rights compact with the State of Montana. This
compact was the national ``ice breaker'' that increased the level of
confidence by other Tribes in Indian water right settlement
initiatives.
Dry Prairie support is demonstrated by a financial commitment of
all 24 communities within the service area to participate in the
project. Rural support is strong, with about 85 percent of area farms
and ranches intending to participate as evidenced by their intent fees
of $100 per household.
ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY DESIGNATION AND NEED FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
The Clinton Administration designated the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation as an Enterprise Community, underscoring the level of
poverty and need for economic development in the region. The success of
the Enterprise Community designation within the Reservation will be
questionable without the availability of safe and adequate municipal,
rural and industrial water supplies that this regional project will
bring to the Reservation. Outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, the
Dry Prairie area has income levels that are higher than within the
Reservation but significantly lower than the State average.
The geologic setting of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the
counties outside the Reservation is comparable to the rest of eastern
Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. With the exception of the
Missouri River, which is a high quality water source, the groundwater
supplies of the region are of poor quality with more than 80 percent of
rural households, that rely on near surface aquifers, exceeding nitrate
contaminant levels for drinking water. Some of the worst water on the
North American Continent lies below the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in
the Madison Formation. This water is not used for human or livestock
consumption. It is a brine several times more concentrated than sea
water. Above this unsuitable aquifer are lesser aquifers that have been
subjected to oil and gas development and have been contaminated, in
part, by those activities.
The Poplar River, which flows through the central portions of the
Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the region is the subject of an
Apportionment Agreement between Canada and the United States. Half of
the water supply is available for Canada as measured at the
International Boundary, and the balance is available for use in the
United States. Depletion of this resource by agricultural and coal-
fired power generation on the Canadian side increases the
concentrations of chemicals and contaminants in the supply for the
United States. The Poplar River and its principle tributaries are
neither dependable supplies of water nor are they of suitable quality
for this project. Thus, the Fort Peck Tribes and Dry Prairie are
seeking a regional water project, comparable to Garrison, WEB, Mni
Wiconi and Mid-Dakota that rely on the high quality waters of the
Mainstem Missouri River.
The feature of this project that makes it more cost effective than
similar projects is its proximity to the Missouri River. The southern
boundary of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation is formed by the Missouri
River for a distance of more than 60 miles. Many of the towns in this
regional project are located two to three miles from the river,
including Nashua, Frazer, Oswego, Wolf Point, Poplar, Brockton,
Culbertson, and Bainville. As shown on the enclosed project map, a
looping transmission system outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation
will deliver water 30 to 40 miles north of the Missouri River.
Therefore, the distances from the Missouri River to all points in the
main transmission system are shorter than in other projects of this
nature in the Northern Great Plains.
For comparison of water quality of this project with other regional
projects, please refer to Tables 1 and 2.
TABLE 1.--COMPARISON OF FORT PECK TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLID LEVELS WITH
COMPARABLE PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Dissolved
Project Community Solids
(mgl)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Peck.......................... Fort Kipp............. 2,730
Lewis and Clark.................... Upper Limit........... 2,600
Mni Wiconi......................... Red Shirt............. 2,332
Mni Wiconi......................... Reliance.............. 2,056
Mni Wiconi......................... Murdo................. 1,761
Mni Wiconi......................... Kennebec.............. 1,740
Mni Wiconi......................... Presho................ 1,398
Fort Peck.......................... Poplar................ 1,380
Fort Peck.......................... Frazer................ 1,180
Lewis and Clark.................... Lower Limit........... 1,179
Mni Wiconi......................... Wakpamni Lake......... 1,125
Mni Wiconi......................... Horse Creek........... 869
Fort Peck.......................... Brockton.............. 748
Mni Wiconi......................... Pine Ridge Village.... 416
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2.--COMPARISON OF FORT PECK SULFATE LEVELS WITH COMPARABLE
PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfate
Project Community (mgl)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis and Clark.................... Upper Limit........... 1,500
Mni Wiconi......................... Reliance.............. 1,139
Fort Peck.......................... Fort Kipp............. 1,120
Mni Wiconi......................... Red Shirt............. 1,080
Mni Wiconi......................... Murdo................. 1,042
Mni Wiconi......................... Kennebec.............. 984
Mni Wiconi......................... Presho................ 644
Lewis and Clark.................... Lower Limit........... 538
Fort Peck.......................... Frazer................ 498
Mni Wiconi......................... Horse Creek........... 410
Mni Wiconi......................... Wakpamni Lake......... 398
Fort Peck.......................... Brockton.............. 212
Fort Peck.......................... Poplar................ 103
Mni Wiconi......................... Pine Ridge Village.... 70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST
The Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes respectfully request
funds to begin construction of the Fort Peck Reservation RWS, Montana,
in the amount of $3,025,000 as set out below:
Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation Request Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux
MRI System Dry Prairie RWS
Design and Construction Activities: Budget
Intake Design............................................. 232,580
Intake Investigation and Value Engin...................... 42,960
WTP Investigation and Value Engineer...................... 83,820
WTP Design................................................ 1,226,205
Intake Construction (50 percent).......................... 1,440,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 3,025,565
The Tribes are appreciative of the work by this Subcommittee on the
project previously. In fiscal year 1993 and fiscal year 1994, $350,000
were appropriated, and in fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 1999,
$810,000 were appropriated for planning purposes. A request for
planning funds has been made separately for fiscal year 2001.
PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
This project, which includes all of the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation in Montana and the Dry Prairie portion of the project
outside the Reservation (see map), was authorized by the full Senate in
the closing days of the last session. Authorization by the full House
is anticipated in this session. The request for construction funds is
made in contemplation of full authorization of the project in this
session.
The budget request provides for final design of the intake and
treatment plant for this regional drinking water project. Alternative
analyses will be conducted to ensure that the most cost-effective
options are adopted.
The budget request provides for 50 percent of the construction
costs of the intake on the Missouri River which will deliver raw water
to the treatment plant. The budget request is consistent with the
construction schedule furnished last year to the Congressional Budget
Office as part of its investigation of the Senate bill authorizing the
project (S. 624). (See Table 3 for the construction schedule).
The budget includes $272,000 for Reclamation oversight in the
planning, design and construction activities.
STATUS OF PROJECT PLANNING
The work products completed to date by the Bureau of Reclamation
include a Needs Assessment and Feasibility Report within the boundaries
of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. The Fort Peck Tribes are
continuing to work with the Bureau of Reclamation to modify and
complete the Final Engineering Report, incorporating the costs of
facilities to serve both the Reservation and the Dry Prairie Water
System outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. Environmental baseline
investigations have been concluded within the Reservation and the Dry
Prairie areas of the project. The latter investigations are a
foundation for the environmental assessment
The Final Engineering Report shows that construction costs of the
project total $192 million, October 1998. (Previous testimony has
presented $179 million, October 1995, as the project cost, which is
equivalent, after indexing, to the amount given here. The current cost
estimate, however, is based on revisions of costs in fiscal year 1999
and reconfiguration of the system.) Costs on the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation will be $124 million with 100 percent federal cost share.
Construction costs off Reservation in the Dry Prairie area will be $68
million. The federal cost share in the Dry Prairie area will be $51
million (76 percent), the State share will be $8.5 million (12 percent
with an approved mechanism for funding by the Montana legislature) and
the local share will be $8.5 million (12 percent). The total Federal
costs will be $175 million (October 1998), less or comparable to
similar projects in the Northern Great Plains.
LOCAL PROJECT SUPPORT
The State of Montana, by action of its legislature, appropriated
$62,000 in fiscal year 1997 to provide for a Needs Assessment and cost
estimate of facilities outside the Reservation in the Dry Prairie part
of the project. The 1999 Montana Legislature approved an additional
$182,000 in planning funds for use by Dry Prairie in fiscal year 1999
and 2000. The needs and facility costs determined for the Dry Prairie
Water System were incorporated into the Final Engineering Report. In
addition, the 1999 Montana Legislature approved a funding mechanism
from its Treasure State Endowment Program to finance the non-federal
share of project planning and construction. Demonstrating support of
Montana for the project, there were only three votes against the
statutory funding mechanism in both the full House and Senate.
The Fort Peck Tribes have supported the project since 1992 when
they conceived it and sought means of improving the quality of life in
the region. The planning was logical step after successful completion
of an historic water rights compact with the State of Montana. This
compact was the national ``ice breaker'' that increased the level of
confidence by other Tribes in Indian water right settlement
initiatives.
Dry Prairie support is demonstrated by a financial commitment of
all 24 communities within the service area to participate in the
project. Rural support is strong, with about 85 percent of area farms
and ranches intending to participate as evidenced by their intent fees
of $100 per household.
enterprise community designation and need for water quality improvement
The Clinton Administration designated the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation as an Enterprise Community, underscoring the level of
poverty and need for economic development in the region. The success of
the Enterprise Community designation within the Reservation will be
questionable without the availability of safe and adequate municipal,
rural and industrial water supplies that this regional project will
bring to the Reservation. Outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, the
Dry Prairie area has income levels that are higher than within the
Reservation but significantly lower than the State average.
The geologic setting of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the
counties outside the Reservation is comparable to the rest of eastern
Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. With the exception of the
Missouri River, which is a high quality water source, the groundwater
supplies of the region are of poor quality with more than 80 percent of
rural households, that rely on near surface aquifers, exceeding nitrate
contaminant levels for drinking water. Some of the worst water on the
North American Continent lies below the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in
the Madison Formation. This water is not used for human or livestock
consumption. It is a brine several times more concentrated than sea
water. Above this unsuitable aquifer are lesser aquifers that have been
subjected to oil and gas development and have been contaminated, in
part, by those activities.
The Poplar River, which flows through the central portions of the
Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the region is the subject of an
Apportionment Agreement between Canada and the United States. Half of
the water supply is available for Canada as measured at the
International Boundary, and the balance is available for use in the
United States. Depletion of this resource by agricultural and coal-
fired power generation on the Canadian side increases the
concentrations of chemicals and contaminants in the supply for the
United States. The Poplar River and its principle tributaries are
neither dependable supplies of water nor are they of suitable quality
for this project. Thus, the Fort Peck Tribes and Dry Prairie are
seeking a regional water project, comparable to Garrison, WEB, Mni
Wiconi and Mid-Dakota that rely on the high quality waters of the
Mainstem Missouri River.
The feature of this project that makes it more cost effective than
similar projects is its proximity to the Missouri River. The southern
boundary of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation is formed by the Missouri
River for a distance of more than 60 miles. Many of the towns in this
regional project are located two to three miles from the river,
including Nashua, Frazer, Oswego, Wolf Point, Poplar, Brockton,
Culbertson, and Bainville. As shown on the enclosed project map, a
looping transmission system outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation
will deliver water 30 to 40 miles north of the Missouri River.
Therefore, the distances from the Missouri River to all points in the
main transmission system are shorter than in other projects of this
nature in the Northern Great Plains.
For comparison of water quality of this project with other regional
projects, please refer to Tables 1 and 2.
TABLE 1.--COMPARISON OF FORT PECK TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLID LEVELS WITH
COMPARABLE PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Dissolved
Project Community Solids
(mgl)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Peck.......................... Fort Kipp............. 2,730
Lewis and Clark.................... Upper Limit........... 2,600
Mni Wiconi......................... Red Shirt............. 2,332
Mni Wiconi......................... Reliance.............. 2,056
Mni Wiconi......................... Murdo................. 1,761
Mni Wiconi......................... Kennebec.............. 1,740
Mni Wiconi......................... Presho................ 1,398
Fort Peck.......................... Poplar................ 1,380
Fort Peck.......................... Frazer................ 1,180
Lewis and Clark.................... Lower Limit........... 1,179
Mni Wiconi......................... Wakpamni Lake......... 1,125
Mni Wiconi......................... Horse Creek........... 869
Fort Peck.......................... Brockton.............. 748
Mni Wiconi......................... Pine Ridge Village.... 416
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2.--COMPARISON OF FORT PECK SULFATE LEVELS WITH COMPARABLE
PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfate
Project Community (mgl)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis and Clark.................... Upper Limit........... 1,500
Mni Wiconi......................... Reliance.............. 1,139
Fort Peck.......................... Fort Kipp............. 1,120
Mni Wiconi......................... Red Shirt............. 1,080
Mni Wiconi......................... Murdo................. 1,042
Mni Wiconi......................... Kennebec.............. 984
Mni Wiconi......................... Presho................ 644
Lewis and Clark.................... Lower Limit........... 538
Fort Peck.......................... Frazer................ 498
Mni Wiconi......................... Horse Creek........... 410
Mni Wiconi......................... Wakpamni Lake......... 398
Fort Peck.......................... Brockton.............. 212
Fort Peck.......................... Poplar................ 103
Mni Wiconi......................... Pine Ridge Village.... 70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Marshall, Minnesota
Chairman Domenici and Members of the Appropriations Subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the
City Council and the citizens of Marshall, Minnesota. We are requesting
$1.312 million in Federal funds for the construction of the final Stage
of the flood control project authorized in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986. This is the funding level that the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers has determined is necessary to complete the work on
the Marshall, Minnesota Flood Control Project in fiscal year 2001. The
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) has ask Congress to
provide the $1.312 million for the Marshall project in his Budget
Request for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2001.
The Conference Committee designated $2.275 million for the Marshall
project in the fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Bill. The City of
Marshall has allocated cash funds of $1 million to the project,
financed the dredging and reconstruction work required on the diversion
channel at a cost of $350,000, and purchased property and easements at
a cost of about $1 million. The Minnesota State Legislature has
appropriated funds totaling $1.5 million toward the completion of the
flood control project at Marshall.
This funding enabled 80 percent of the project construction to be
completed. The physical structures are in place, levees have been
constructed, the river bank protection and erosion control work is
done, and the channel work completed. All the necessary property and
easements have been purchased by the City. The diversion channels were
dredged at the City's costs to assure free flowing during overflow
conditions. The diversion channels have been enlarged and the gates
either repaired or replaced. The Ditch 62 project has been completed
which provides for the storm water collection system for about 60
percent of the City. Bids for the remainder of the project have been
advertised and were awarded in April, 1999.
WORK TO BE COMPLETED IN FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND FISCAL YEAR 2001
The remaining work to be completed with fiscal year 2001 funding is
extremely important to the citizens of Marshall and to the agriculture
enterprises in both the Cottonwood and the Redwood River Basin
Watershed Districts. This construction work deals with the structures,
including three large box culverts and a overflow wier, that simulates
the natural current flows over Highway 23 during flood conditions.
The current project is designed to maintain current intra-basin
flood flow conditions to assure that there will be no adverse impacts
downstream in either the Redwood or Cottonwood Basins as a result of
the flood control project. A flow distribution study was conducted in
1987 to analyze the intra-basin flows. This study was followed by UNET
modeling in 1997, which supported the position that there would be no
significant downstream impacts from the flood control project when the
project is completed.
Other work remaining to be completed includes landscaping, some
interior drainage, and multi-use trails and recreational paths along
the diversion channels.
FLOW AGREEMENT SIGNED
A major issue was resolved in the Marshall Flood Control Project
regarding the flow rate of the Redwood River during major flood
conditions. A portion of the Redwood River basin waters are diverted
into the Cottonwood River basin. The project requires that historic
overflows are maintained between the two watershed districts. After
numerous public meetings, a flow distribution agreement was executed on
February 22, 1998, by the City of Marshall, Lyon County, the State of
Minnesota, and the Corps of Engineers.
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The project is located in Lyon County in the Southwest corner of
the State of Minnesota, about 145 miles southwest of St. Paul. It is
near the center of the Redwood River basin. Southwest State University,
the business district, and most of the homes of the nearly 13,000
citizens are located in the floodplain of the Redwood River. Marshall
serves as the county seat of Lyon County, and is the commercial and
agricultural center for the region.
The Redwood River, a tributary of the Mississippi, enters the
southwest corner of the City, winds its way through the City, exiting
at the northeast boundary near the University campus. The Redwood River
basin serves an elongated drainage area of approximately 743 miles.
The river's elevation drops at the significant rate of 19 feet per
mile until it reaches the City. There the river slope flattens out to
an average of about 4 feet per mile. The lack of a confining valley,
and the reduction in grade on the plain, contributes significantly to
overland flooding in the Marshall area. The geological decline in the
elevation in the 50 miles from the watershed area to the City of
Marshall is greater than the Mississippi River elevation decline from
Minneapolis to New Orleans (See Attachment.)
A federally constructed flood control project was completed in
1963. While it is successful in protecting much of the City during
frequent, smaller floods, the upstream and downstream channels were not
effective during major flood events. At those times, the Redwood River
overflows a county highway, bypasses the diversion control structure,
and floods the inter city area.
The project is designed to protect the City of Marshall from major
flood events. Briefly, the authorized plan calls for channel
improvements, drainage facilities, the construction of 4.7 miles of
additional levees, 3.8 miles of bank protection, 0.3 miles of new high-
flow diversion channel, an inter basin overflow structure,
modifications to the existing diversion channel and drop structures,
and limited recreation trails, picnic and rest area facilities.
PROJECT AUTHORITY, FUNDING, AND STATUS
The Marshall Flood Control Project was authorized in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986, and reauthorized in the Water
Resources Act of 1988. Funds were allocated in fiscal year 1984 to
initiate preconstruction engineering and design work. The total project
is estimated to cost $10.9 million of which Federal costs are estimated
to be $8.01 million, and non-Federal costs of $2.89 million.
The non-Federal costs have been provided through the State flood
mitigation grant program, and by bonding by the City of Marshall. The
Design Memorandum and Environmental Assessment were completed and
approved in 1987.
Summarized Federal Financial Data
Estimated Federal Cost........................................$8,010,000
Estimated non-Federal Cost.................................... 2,890,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Project Cost......................................10,900,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Federal Allocations to Date................................... 6,698,000
Balance of Federal funds to Complete Project.................. 1,312,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Benefit-cost Ratio (8 percent)................................ 1.10
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Water and land related problems in the Minnesota River basin were
first investigated by the St. Paul District Engineer in 1934, but his
study did not address the flooding and related problems in Marshall. In
1960, after the severe floods of 1957, improvements were recommended by
the Corps which included the construction of levees and a floodwater
diversion channel.
This flood control project was completed in 1963, by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to, ``provide protection for the people and property
of Marshall from the frequent flood risks.'' The major feature of the
project was a 2.4 mile diversion channel around the west and north
sides of the City, a 1,840 foot levee at the upstream end of the
project, and other features. The channel was designed to handle a 6,500
CFS flow. The overflow, then, would move naturally into the Cottonwood
River Watershed south of Marshall.
In 1969, a flood of 8,090 CFS was experienced in Marshall. The
river channel both upstream and downstream from Marshall was inadequate
to convey the 1963 design flows either to or from the diversion
channel. At flows greater than 3,500 CFS, floodwaters bypass the
diversion channel and flood the inner City of Marshall.
As a result of the failure of the 1963 flood control project to
protect the City, other studies were conducted by a private engineering
firm under the direction of the Corps in 1974. The Corps completed a
flood control report in 1976, and a feasibility study in 1979. This
report was updated by a reevaluation of the problems in 1984. The
current project was then authorized in the 1986 Water Resources
Development Act. It is important to note that the project as
constructed in 1963, has worsened the potential of flooding for the
City. The rate of flow is not adequate to move the flood waters through
the diversion channel, and other problems.
The three ``Holiday Floods of 1993'' (Mother's Day, Father's Day
and Independence Day) occurred at both ends of the diversion channel,
causing hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages to homes,
businesses, and the City's infrastructure. As the water levels remained
at flood stage throughout the summer, it created an atmosphere of fear
and unrest among the citizens of Marshall.
In 1995, the Redwood River was again flowing at capacity, and the
City of Marshall narrowly avoided a disaster worse than the floods of
either 1969 or 1993. From 9 to 15 inches of rain fell near Montevideo,
Minnesota, less than 40 miles from the Redwood Watershed District.
If the storm had moved only a few miles to the southwest, the flood
waters would have engulfed the City at a rate of 8,000 to 12,000 cubic
feet of water per second. This is a much greater water overflow than
that which occurred in the disastrous flooding of 1969, and as much as
three times greater than the 1993 floods.
The District Office of the Corps of Engineers provided estimates
stating that the City would have incurred millions in property damage,
and that flash flooding of this nature could well have resulted in the
loss of lives. Corps officials stated that flash flooding of this
magnitude would have made most emergency measures futile. As a result
of the flat terrain in and around the City, and much of the Marshall
community would have been under water.
CORPS SCHEDULE FOR MARSHALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning Completion
Activity date date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plans & Specs Initiated.......................... 2/28/96 Complete.
Plans and Specs Submitted........................ 2/28/98 Complete.
Plans & Specs Approved........................... 3/31/98 Complete.
Real Estate Acquisition.......................... 12/31/98 Complete.
Certification of Real Estate..................... 1/15/99 Complete.
Construction Contract Advertised................. 2/24/99 Complete.
Construction Contract Awarded.................... 3/24/99 3/24/99.
Construction Contract Completion................. 3/24/99 4/6/99.
Construction Stage 2 Completion.................. 4/25/99 11/30/01.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COUNTY DITCH NO. 62 DRAINAGE SYSTEM
In addition to the Marshall Flood Control Project, the overall
protection of the City required the reconstruction and modification of
the storm sewer drainage system. The examination of the drainage
problems was acknowledged in the General Design Memorandum developed by
the Corps for Marshall, but is not included, nor is it a part of the
funding of this project.
County Ditch No. 62 serves as the storm sewer drainage system for
about 60 percent of the City's corporate limits. The Ditch extends
along the northeast part of the City, in close proximity to the levee
construction required for the Corps flood control project, and feeds
into the Redwood River. With the growth of the community, and the
development of property and the University campus, since the
construction of the Ditch in 1958-1959, the flooding problems in the
City have been exacerbated by the lack of drainage and poor water
movement in a system that is no longer adequate for the community.
Construction was completed in 1998.
The City of Marshall, in cooperation with Lyon County and the State
of Minnesota, a comprehensive storm water system was planned, designed,
and jointly funded by FEMA, the State of Minnesota, Lyon County and the
City governments at a total cost of slightly more than $3 million.
There are elements of the Storm Sewer/Ditch Project that are closely
associated with the Flood Control Project.
FINAL CONSTRUCTION AND FUNDING NEEDS
The Corps of Engineers has awarded a bid for construction work that
includes fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 2000, and fiscal year 2001.
Funds appropriated by this Committee in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal
year 2000, and non-Federal funds have allowed the Corps to move ahead
aggressively with plans to complete the project in December, 2000. An
appropriation of the $1.312 requested by both the Army Corps of
Engineers and City is necessary for this schedule to be maintained.
It has been noted by City officials that as soon as construction
work begins, some citizens are lulled into a sense of false security. A
number of homeowners have called the City asking to drop their costly
flood insurance, assuming their homes are protected by the unfinished
flood control project. Delays in the completion of the project results
in a lack of preparation and a state of readiness by some citizens.
These are the precautions and preparations that have prevented major
disasters during past flood events.
For these reasons, we respectfully request this Subcommittee to
appropriate $1.312 million of Federal funds in the fiscal year 2001
Appropriations Act to complete the work on the Marshall Flood Control
Project. The Committee's favorable response to this request will
prevent any delays affecting the completion of the project, and avoid
any cost overruns over that inevitably occur when construction is
delayed as a project is nearing completion.
Thank you for the opportunity to bring this important matter to
your attention through this statement. I will be delighted to respond
to any questions you may have about the project.
______
SOUTHEASTERN U.S. WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association,
Inc.
Mr. Chairman & distinguished Committee members: This statement
includes the following:
--A plea to recognize and maintain our Nation's inland waterways
system as a vital part of the national transportation
infrastructure;
--A request for support in the following areas:
--O&M funding for federal projects in the Coosa-Alabama Basin and
Mobile Harbor;
--Funding for update of economic benefits for the Coosa River
Navigation Project;
--Funding to rehabilitate Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam on Coosa River;
--Funding to maintain recreational facilities and hydropower
operations at Allatoona Lake;
--Supporting the Alabama Sturgeon Candidate Conservation Agreement
developed by a coalition of government and industry in
Alabama.
EXPANDED STATEMENT
Thank you for the opportunity to present my perspective on several
topics relating to our Nation's waterways system in general, and to the
Coosa-Alabama River Basin in particular. As President of the Coosa-
Alabama River Improvement Association, I speak for a large and diverse
group of private citizens and political and industrial organizations
that sees the continued development of the Coosa-Alabama Waterway as an
opportunity for economic growth in our region as well as the Nation.
Our membership reflects a broad range of callings and professions,
including shippers and tow operators, businessmen, bankers and private
individuals who have a stake in future economic development for their
firms and successors to enjoy. Then there is a larger group of elected
officials and their constituents typical of the twenty-three
municipalities and nineteen counties along the waterway who are members
of this association. Spurred by a desire to promote economic growth
through enhanced waterway transportation, these members work diligently
to develop our waterways into a productive part of the river
infrastructure of the State and Nation.
We are concerned about the deteriorating waterway infrastructure
throughout the nation. Our inland waterways are vital to this Nation's
welfare. America's ports, navigable waterways, flood protection, water
supply, environmental restoration, hydroelectric, and other water
resource programs enhance economic development, national security, and
general well being. These programs serve the national interest in
countless ways, returning far more in public benefits than they cost. A
top-notch navigation system, able to meet the demands of both domestic
and international commerce, is a driving force behind the national
economy, transporting annually almost 15 percent of the nation's
commodities, one out of every eight tons. The waterways are vital to
our export and import capability, linking our producers with consumers
around the world. It is incumbent upon the Federal Government to
maintain and improve this valuable national asset. Therefore, we ask
Congress to appropriate enough funds for required maintenance and
construction to keep the waterways the economic multiplier it is. The
Civil Works budget in fiscal year 2001 must be approximately $5 billion
to maintain the system and allow for modest growth. The Federal
government must commit to improve the waterways infrastructure or risk
serious economic consequences and jeopardizing large public benefits.
Some think tanks advocate turning the Corps of Engineers' Civil
Works Program over to state or private managers. We disagree with that
idea. Having one agency responsible for maintaining water projects on
the Alabama River, for example, provides benefits that can't be
measured in dollars and cents. Security, responsiveness and historical
knowledge are incalculable to users of the river. The Corps' experience
is a public investment. The O&M funding appropriated annually is a
public investment. Slashing that investment does not automatically
translate into private prosperity.
We are concerned that any budget strategy that reduces funding for
the operations and maintenance of inland and intracoastal waterways
will have a detrimental effect on the economic growth and development
of the river system. We cannot allow that to happen. In the Alabama-
Coosa River Basin, we must be able to maintain the existing river
projects and facilities that support the commercial navigation,
hydropower and recreational activities so critical to our region's
economy. The first priority then must be the O&M funding appropriated
to the Corps of Engineers to maintain those projects. Budget requests
for the individual projects follow:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Association's
Project budget budget request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama-Coosa River, AL \1\ (AL River $5,355,000 $5,355,000
incl Claiborne L&D)....................
Miller's Ferry L&D...................... 4,999,000 4,499,000
Robert F. Henry L&D..................... 4,962,000 4,962,000
Lake Allatoona, GA...................... 4,520,000 6,000,000
Carters Lake, GA........................ 7,489,000 7,489,000
Lower Alabama River Study (South of 200,000 200,000
Claiborne) feasibility study...........
Coosa River Navigation Project.......... .............. 150,000
Mayo's Bar.............................. .............. 500,000
-------------------------------
Totals............................ 27,525,000 29,155,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes dredging from the mouth of the Alabama River through
Claiborne L&D to Miller's Ferry. Coosa River not included.
We also support funding O&M for Mobile Harbor at $18,665,000. We
cannot allow Mobile Harbor infrastructure to deteriorate because not
enough funds were appropriated.
To attract new business into the Alabama River Basin, we must
improve the infrastructure of the river itself, specifically the
navigational reliability below Claiborne Dam. Increased reliability is
the only way prospective investors will entertain establishing an
industry that uses river transportation. The Corps of Engineers
currently maintains 65-70 percent reliability through training dikes,
reservoir management, and dredging. Of these measures, dredging is the
most effective, but we can do more.
The most affordable and most environmentally friendly solution to
increasing navigation reliability on the Lower Alabama River is to
improve the training dikes. Mobile District is in the middle of a
feasibility study to determine the interest of the Federal Government
in such a project. Without an improvement in the navigation reliability
on the Lower Alabama River, we cannot hope to attract new river-related
industry into the Basin. We ask Congress to appropriate $200,000, as
requested in the President's Budget, to continue the feasibility study
already underway.
A major objective of our association is to complete a navigable
waterway from Mobile to Rome, Georgia, which reflects our emphasis on
infrastructure investment and the creation of jobs and economic
opportunity throughout our region. The Pre-design Engineering Surveys
of the Coosa River Navigation Project are complete, so one of the most
time-consuming requirements of the project is done. We are well aware
of the restrictive funding for such an undertaking in the current
environment, but ask the Committee to recognize that a Coosa-Alabama
waterway would be one of the largest and most rapid generators of jobs
currently available. We owe it to the people of the Coosa-Alabama River
Basin, the states of Alabama and Georgia, and the entire region to
maintain the vision of completing this waterway, particularly because
of its recreational potential. We need, however, to update some of the
economic database supporting the proposal. We ask that $150,000 be
appropriated to allow the Mobile District of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to update the economic evaluation of the Coosa River
Navigation Project.
Recreation has become a major economic factor on our waterways.
Boating, fishing, swimming, and camping have become an indispensable
economic tool for many of our lake and river communities. Two projects,
one private and one federal, in the Upper Coosa River Basin need
federal funding to enhance the ability of communities in those areas to
take advantage of the recreational benefit: Mayo's Bar near Rome and
Lake Allatoona.
Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam, eight miles downstream of Rome, Georgia,
on the Coosa River, is an old federal project constructed in 1913 as
part of an overall plan to provide navigation from Wetumpka, Alabama,
to Rome. The project was abandoned in 1931. The site of the facility is
currently operated as a recreational facility. The lock, however, is
unusable as no maintenance has been performed on it since the 1930's.
Floyd County, Georgia officials plan to restore and operate the lock to
facilitate recreational boat traffic from Rome to Cedar Bluff and
Centre, Alabama through Lake Weiss, 57 miles downstream. A 1988 study
by the Corps of Engineers found the cost of rehabilitating the lock to
be feasible. Cost of the project today is estimated at $3 million.
Section 528 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 authorized
the Corps of Engineers to ``provide technical assistance (including
planning, engineering, and design assistance)'' for reconstruction of
Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam. Floyd County is prepared to share the costs of
the rehabilitation on a 50/50 basis. Of the $1.5 million estimated
total Federal cost of the project, $500,000 is needed in fiscal year
2001 for engineering and design. We strongly urge the Committee provide
funding to get this valuable economic asset underway to the benefit of
the northwest Georgia and northeast Alabama.
At Lake Allatoona, funding for the Corps of Engineers to maintain
recreational facilities has been cut well below the level needed to
keep the project fully functional. The President's Budget for 2001
proposes $837,000 for Lake Allatoona recreation, a reduction of $2.276
million from the fiscal year 2000 allocation. That money needs to be
reinstated. Otherwise, Mobile District will have to close some camping
facilities, shorten the time other facilities are open by two months,
delay necessary maintenance tasks, and perhaps even reduce payroll,
resulting in an economic loss of over $27 million in 2001. Lake
Allatoona is the second most-visited lake in the United States. We
would be remiss to allow that kind of economic downturn because not
enough money has been appropriated to ensure facilities are maintained.
We ask that Corps funding for Allatoona Lake recreation be increased
from $837,000 in the President's Budget to $2.22 million, resulting in
a total project allocation of $6,000,000.
In addition to helping resolve the funding shortfall for
recreation, reinstating Allatoona funding to its historic levels of $6
million in fiscal year 2001 will enable the Mobile District to begin
the process to replace an outdated, over-30-years old microwave system
at the generating plant. The microwave system allows the Corps to
control the Allatoona plant remotely from Carters Lake. The Corps can
no longer procure spare parts for the system and is operating on a
breakdown maintenance concept only, which means that the only time
maintenance can be performed is when the generator is down. That
translates into higher costs for consumers as Southeastern Power
Administration must then purchase power at a higher cost from other
sources.
The last issue I wish to address is a plea based on our experiences
over the past several years with attempts by the Fish and Wildlife
Service to list the Alabama Sturgeon as endangered under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973. In December of 1994, the Secretary of Interior,
Mr. Bruce Babbitt, decided not to list the Alabama Sturgeon, citing a
lack of scientific evidence that the fish was a separate and distinct
species or even currently existed in the habitat scrutinized. Now, the
Fish and Wildlife Service sees fit to again propose listing the fish,
despite a clear alternative to saving the fish that has been underway
for several years now, an alternative outside the confining
restrictions of the Endangered Species Act.
A coalition of government and industry has developed a Candidate
Conservation Agreement (CCA), a legal agreement allowed under the
Endangered Species Act, that has strong potential to propagate the
Sturgeon population in the Mobile River Basin. The State of Alabama,
charged with the execution of a previously developed voluntary Sturgeon
Conservation Plan, currently has two sturgeons in a hatchery in Marion,
Alabama. Congress has appropriated over one million dollars to this
effort so far. The CCA is the only plan conceived that has even a
remote chance of successfully propagating young sturgeon. Listing the
fish as an endangered species under the ESA means the sturgeon would
have to compete with other listed species for money to complete a
recovery plan, jeopardizing funding already available as well as the
work done on the Conservation Plan to this point. We strongly support
the Candidate Conservation Agreement as an example of the compromise
required in the environment-economic debate. We ask the Congress to
fully fund and support the Candidate Conservation Agreement as the best
way to save sturgeon in the Mobile River Basin.
In summary, we request your support in the following areas:
--Sufficient O&M funding of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil
Works budget to maintain and enhance the U.S. inland waterways
system, including the Coosa-Alabama River Basins and Mobile
Harbor;
--Funding for investigating the feasibility of improving the
reliability of the navigation channel below Claiborne Dam on
the Lower Alabama River;
--Funding an updated economic analysis of the Coosa Navigation
Project;
--Funding federal share for planning and design of the rehabilitating
Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam on the Coosa River near Rome, Georgia;
--Increasing the appropriation to support recreational upkeep and
hydropower maintenance on Lake Allatoona;
--Supporting the Candidate Conservation Agreement for the Alabama
sturgeon as developed through the cooperative efforts of
government and industry in Alabama.
Thank you for allowing us to submit this testimony and for your
strong support of the Nation's waterways.
______
Letter From Phillip A. Sanguineeti
The Anniston Star,
Anniston, AL, March 8, 2000.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
U.S. Senate Washington, D.C.
Dear Pete: I am writing to seek your support of the Coosa-Alabama
River Improvement Association's request for an appropriation from the
State General Fund in fiscal year 2001.
As a member of the Board of Directors for the Association, I
strongly endorse its mission of promoting the development of the Coosa
and Alabama Rivers for the benefit of the state. CARIA is the only
organization in our State that annually works for funding of federal
projects on those rivers.
In the water allocation negotiations between Alabama and Georgia,
CARIA has been the primary advisor to Alabama's negotiators on
navigation issues in the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa basin.
I support the Association's request for $150,000 to continue
authorization for planning, engineering and design for the Coosa River
Navigation Project. I also support the Association's request for an
add-on of $500,000 for Corps of Engineers planning and design at Mayo's
Bar near Rome, Ga.
I also support the efforts of Alabama and Georgia to agree on a
water allocation formula between the two states, but I do not support a
formula that negatively affects the ability of Mobile District Corps of
Engineers to maintain a nine-foot navigation on the Alabama River, or
that seriously impedes the State of Alabama in developing its economic
potential.
Very truly yours,
Phillips A. Sanguineeti,
President.
______
Prepared Statement of the Monroe County Commission
The Monroe County Commission, Monroe County, Alabama, respectfully
request your support of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' fiscal year
2001 budget for funding to operate and maintain Water Projects in the
Alabama-Coosa River Basin. The amount that we are asking you to approve
is $28.175 million, in addition to the President's Budget for fiscal
year 2001 in the amount of $18.665 million for Mobile Bay.
Projects to be funded in this request include the improvement and
extension of the Coosa-Alabama Waterway Systems. Navigational
reliability below the Claiborne Lock & Dam is essential to accommodate
Navigation to Mobile; this entails maintaining, improving and dredging
of the River. Also included in this request is $150,000.00 to continue
authorization for planning, engineering and design for the Coosa-
Alabama Project, so, that eventually, commercial navigation will be
possible from Rome, Georgia to the Port of Mobile. Also included in
this request is $500,000.00 for the Corps of Engineers, planning and
design at Mayo's Bar near Rome, Georgia.
The Monroe County Commission further supports the efforts of the
State of Alabama and Georgia to agree on a water allocation formula
between the two states that will not adversely affect industrial
development along the Coosa-Alabama River Systems in Alabama nor
negatively affect the operations of existing industry, commerce and
development along this River System. We do not support a water
allocation that will negatively affect the ability of Mobile District
Corp of Engineers to maintain a nine foot navigational Channel on the
Alabama River.
Your favorable consideration of the fiscal year 2001 budget request
is essential to the Economic Development of the Southeastern part of
the United States.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Metumpka, AL
We support the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association's
funding request for fiscal year 2001, especially the $150,000 to
continue the authorization for planning, engineering, and design for
the Coosa River Navigation Project (CRNP). An updated analysis can
verify that the advantages established in 1945 remain viable some 55
years later.
Environmental friendly transportation and improved recreational
facilities are important for today's society. The waters of the Coosa
River, which flow through the middle of Wetumpka, provide an asset that
can continue to enhance the entire area.
There are many benefits for the CRNP project. Locks around Bouldin,
Mitchell, Lay, Logan, and Neely Henry dams would provide a major
economic boost for the surrounding territory and southward to Mobile. A
navigable channel from Gadsden to Wetumpka and Montgomery and on to
Mobile would open vast waterway potentials.
We support and endorse all regional efforts to improve and extend
the Coosa-Alabama Waterway and the priorities of the Coosa-Alabama
River Improvement Association.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Rainbow City, AL
I am writing to you as a member of the Board of Directors of Coosa-
Alabama River Improvement Association. I have been active with this
Association for many years and believe it is vital to this area to keep
these projects alive. I am asking for your support on the following
items:
--You support the Association's funding request for fiscal year 2001.
--You support the regional effort to improve and extend the Coosa-
Alabama Waterway.
--Need to improve the navigational reliability below Claiborne Dam
--Need to maintain and improve training works and dredging
--LDevelopment of commercial river transportation between Mobile
and Montgomery depends on these improvements
--You support the Association's request for $150,000 to continue
authorization for planning, engineering, and design for the
Coosa River Navigation Project (see encl)
--You support the Association's request for an add-on of $500,000 for
Corps of Engineers planning and design at Mayo's Bar near Rome
(see encl)
--You support the efforts of Alabama and Georgia to agree on a water
allocation formula between the two states, but could not
support a formula that negatively affects the ability of Mobile
District Corps of Engineers to maintain a nine-foot navigation
channel on the Alabama River or that seriously impedes the
State of Alabama in developing its economic potential.
In addition, we support funding in the President's Budget of
$18,665 million for Mobile Bay.
I strongly urge your consideration in this matter.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Selma, AL
All of the various organizations in Selma and Dallas County
involved in industry seeking, as well as the Mayor, City Council,
County Probate Judge, and the County Commission wish to convey our
support of the Coosa-Alabama River Association's funding request for
fiscal year 2001. Our area is not served by an interstate highway; if
fact we don't even have a four-lane highway to the south. We strongly
recommend the need to improve and extend the Coosa-Alabama Waterway in
order to develop and maintain commercial river transportation between
Mobile and Montgomery.
We must maintain the navigational reliability below the Claiborne
Dam and the dredging and training works are a vital part of this
effort.
We also have discussed and support the request for an add-on of
$500,00 for the planning and design at Mayo's Bar near Rome, GA and
strongly urge the Association's request for $150,000 to continue
authorization for the Coosa River Navigation Project which would link
Montgomery and Gadsden. These additional monies would allow the
planning, design, and engineering only for this project, which, on
completion, would be a great incentive to new industry and help
maintain competitive rates from both rail and truck companies. We must
have federal funding now to maintain the authorization of the project.
With the improvements at the Port of Mobile, water transportation
on this river system to the world wide export markets that have been
and are being developed will have a tremendous affect on freight rates
and eventually inflation.
We need this legislation and funding to help our area survive in
this changing world economy.
Thank you for your help and consideration.
______
Letter From James T. Jordan
J.T. Jordan Cotton, Inc.,
Centre, AL, March 8, 2000.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: This letter is to let you know that I
wholeheartedly support the need to improve the navigational reliability
below Claiborne Dam. I also support the need to maintain and improve
training works and dredging. The development of commercial river
transportation between Mobile and Montgomery depends on these
improvements. I ask that you give serious consideration to putting
funds for this in the fiscal year 2001 budget.
I would also like to see Congress support additional funding for
two river projects in the Alabama-Coosa River Basin. We ask that
congress appropriate $150,000 for continuing the authorization for the
Coosa River Navigation Project. Another request is that an add-on of
$500,000 for the Corps of Engineers planning and design of Mayp-s Bar
near Rome. Mayo's Bar would be a strong tourist attraction to our area
because we can attract many to this area because of the fishing and
boating we have to offer.
One last point is that we need lowered freight rates. This provides
a better export market and would help the trade business tremendously.
Please give serious thought and consideration to funding these
projects.
Sincerely,
James T. Jordan,
Director.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alabama River Pulp Company, Inc.
Alabama River Pulp Company respectfully requests your support of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' fiscal year 2001 budget for funding
to operate and maintain Water Projects in the Alabama-Coosa River
Basin. The amount that we are asking you to approve is $28.175 million,
in addition to the president' Budget for fiscal year 2001 in the amount
of $18.665 million for Mobile Bay.
Projects to be funded in this request include the improvement and
extension of the Coosa-Alabama Waterway Systems. Navigational
reliability below the Claiborne Lock & Dam is essential to accommodate
Navigation to Mobile; this entails maintaining, improving and dredging
of the River. Also included in this request is $150,000.00 to continue
authorization for planning, engineering and design for the Coosa-
Alabama Projects, so, that eventually, commercial navigation will be
possible from Rome, Georgia to the Port of Mobile. Also included in
this request is $500,000.00 for the Corps of Engineers' planning and
design at Mayo's Bar near Rome, Georgia.
Alabama River Pulp Company further supports the efforts of the
State of Alabama and Georgia to agree on a water allocation formula
between the two states that will not adversely affect industrial
development along the Coosa-Alabama River Systems in Alabama nor
negatively affect the operations of existing industry, commerce and
development along this river system. We do not support a water
allocation that will negatively affect the ability of Mobile District
Corp of Engineers to maintain a nine foot navigational Channel on the
Alabama River.
Your favorable consideration of the fiscal year 2001 budget request
is essential to the Economic Development of the Southeastern part of
the United States.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Rome, Georgia
The City of Rome has been a strong supporter of the Coosa-Alabama
River development projects. We strongly support navigational use of the
river basin as well as recreation and environmental purposes.
We strongly support the $500,000 request for the Corps of Engineer
for planning and design at Mayo's Bar near Rome. For many years, we
have worked to reactivate the lock and make the river system in Rome a
part of Lake Weiss for recreational purposes. The historic and
recreational value for this project is very much supported by our
community. Significant local funds are being contributed to this
project and the $500,000 is needed to make the project a reality.
Your attention to the request for our river basin is appreciated.
If we can provide any additional information, please contact us.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Audubon Society
On behalf of the 520 chapters and one million members and
supporters of the National Audubon Society, I would like to take this
opportunity to submit our views on the fiscal year 2001 budget of the
U.S. Corps of Engineers. Our mission to protect birds, other wildlife,
and their habitat, is the focal point of our statement on the Corps'
fiscal year 2001 budget.
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
Thank you for your past support for the restoration of the Florida
Everglades. The Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget request
includes $158 million for its Everglades restoration program. This
request, which is almost $50 million above last year's appropriation,
represents recognition of the needs of previously authorized programs
whose performance assumptions have been included in Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan prepared by the Corps.
In particular, we urge the Subcommittee to fully fund the following
programs:
--Central and Southern Florida Restoration projects--$90 million;
--Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration (WRDA 1996
``critical projects'')--$20.5 million;
--Kissimmee River Restoration--$20 million; and,
--WRDA 1999 pilot projects--$4.5 million.
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (EMP)
The Water Resources Development Act of 1999 increased the
authorization for the EMP to $33 million a year, but fiscal year 2001
budget requested $18 million--the enacted level in fiscal year 2000. We
believe that this request is inadequate and fully support increasing
the EMP's budget. We understand that the Corps presently lacks the
capability to warrant a $33 million appropriation for the EMP; however,
we urge the Subcommittee to increase funding to a level that the Corps
can effectively expend. Therefore, we urge the Subcommittee to provide
$25 million for the EMP so that the Corps and its federal and state
partners can continue to develop needed baseline data and implement
habitat restoration projects to better manage the Upper Mississippi
River.
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REGULATORY BUDGET
While the Administration's request for this year's regulatory
budget calls for an $8 million increase (from $117 million to $125
million), we support a $12 million increase in funding for this
chronically under-funded program area. This increase is necessary in
order for the Corps to cover pay raises and fully implement the
Congressionally-mandated jurisdictional appeals program while at the
same time fulfilling their statutory duties under the Clean Water Act
to protect waters of the United States.
Major advances in the quality of our nation's waters cannot be
achieved without a strong Corps regulatory program. Funding levels over
the past several years have made it increasingly difficult for the
Corps to process applications for dredge and fill activities in a
timely manner, compile data regarding impacts, monitor adherence to
permit conditions, enforce against violators, and ensure adequate
environmental review of permit applications. To this end, Audubon
strongly supports a re-direction of funding for environmentally and
economically unjustified water resource projects to further supplement
the regulatory budget. We also support modifications to the regulatory
permit fee structure that would recapture a larger portion of the costs
of processing permits.
CHALLENGE 21
We support full funding for the ``Challenge 21'' non-structural
floodplain program. The Administration's request for fiscal year 2001
would provide $20 million to initiate this important initiative. We
consider this amount inadequate to meet the demand for this program and
encourage Congress to expand the authorization for this program in the
future.
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM PROJECT, MISSISSIPPI
We strongly support the Administration's request for $10 million
for the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System Project (part of the
Mississippi River and Tributaries budget). Through the Atchafalaya
project, easements and fee title acquisition are being utilized to
protect and restore ecologically valuable land for low-cost natural
floodwater storage. Audubon fully supports this project and would like
to see such floodplain restoration programs used as a model for flood
control projects across the nation. In addition to providing for
floodwater storage, the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System Project will
preserve, in perpetuity, some of the most valuable wetland habitat in
the nation.
WHITE RIVER WATER PROJECTS, ARKANSAS
National Audubon Society strongly supports an appropriation of
$500,000, included in the President's budget, that would allow the Army
Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service to begin a
comprehensive, basin-wide study of the environmental impacts of several
major irrigation and navigation projects planned on the White River. A
proposed $270 million irrigation project would pump water at an
alarming rate. A $186 million lock and dam project would dramatically
alter the water flow in the White River, and a $40 million dredging
project would double the width and depth of the current navigation
channel along a full 150 miles of the river. Clearly, these projects
are major changes that will have a large cumulative effect on the
ecological health of the White River. It is responsible and prudent to
consider these cumulative impacts before proceeding with the projects.
However, it would be neither responsible not prudent to begin
appropriating funds for these massive and potentially destructive
projects before the study of environmental impacts has been completed.
Unfortunately, the President's budget prematurely includes $21.9
million for the massive Grand Prairie Irrigation Project that would
dramatically reduce river flow, lead to major wetland loss, and pollute
the White River National Wildlife Refuge, a Wetland of International
Importance. In a joint study, the National Wildlife Federation and
Taxpayers for Common Sense highlighted the Grand Prairie Project as the
single most environmentally-destructive and fiscally-irresponsible
water project that has been proposed in the country. We strongly
recommend striking the line-item for ``East Arkansas Irrigation'' so
that tax dollars will not be wasted and prudent review of environmental
impacts may be completed.
DE-FUNDING PRIORITIES
We believe some projects recommended for funding in fiscal year
2001 would have harmful and lasting environmental impacts. Audubon
supports de-funding of these environmentally-damaging and economically
unsupportable projects such as the Savannah Harbor Dredging, Sunflower
Dredging/Yazoo Pump, St. Johns/New Madrid Floodway Project, Devils Lake
Outlet, and the White River Navigation and Irrigation project
(mentioned above). Funds for these projects should be re-directed to
environmentally-sound local development projects, environmentally
beneficial floodway projects and the Corps regulatory budget.
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY (NAV STUDY)
The Subcommittee should serious review the allegations recently
made public in an affidavit filed by a whistleblower regarding faulty
economic projections used to justify the expansion of the Upper
Mississippi River Navigation Study. These allegations have severely
undermined the public's confidence that the Corps' can make an honest
set of recommendations on the Upper Mississippi River that benefits all
taxpayers.
Given the numerous investigations presently underway, Congress must
very carefully consider funding for this line item. We recognize the
need to provide some level of funding for the Upper Mississippi River
Navigation Study in order to preserve staffing levels while the
allegations are investigated. However, we strongly oppose funding to
continue work on the specific proposals for 1,200 foot lock and dam
extensions on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River until all
of the independent reviews on such proposals are completed.
SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GEORGIA
Authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, the $230
million harbor expansion project on the Lower Savannah River along the
border between Georgia and South Carolina poses a serious threat to the
ecological health of the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge. Dredging
will destroy many of the freshwater tidal wetlands in the wildlife
refuge to accommodate the Georgia Port Authority's belief that new
shipping business must be brought to Savannah. A preliminary economic
study has shown that the costs of the harbor expansion far outweigh the
potential benefits, even before necessary environmental mitigation
costs are included in the analysis. The Army Corps of Engineers has
failed to conduct studies to address many of the environmental impacts,
while numerous state and federal environmental agencies have stated
repeatedly that the decision to deepen the harbor is premature.
We oppose the $100,000 appropriation included in the President's
budget for the Savannah Harbor Expansion, and urges re-direction of
these funds into further study of the environmental consequences of
this potentially destructive project.
BIG SUNFLOWER DREDGING AND YAZOO PUMP PROJECT, MISSISSIPPI
The Big Sunflower River ``Maintenance'' project and Yazoo Backwater
Pumping Station are part of an environmentally-destructive Corps plan
to re-plumb the Mississippi River Delta through a series of water
diversions and channels. The Big Sunflower project involves dredging of
the entire width of the Mississippi River for 104 miles--to reduce
seasonal flooding by only a few inches. The Yazoo Backwater Pump
Project would create the world's largest pump system to move water from
south Delta wetlands into the Mississippi River, disrupting natural
water cycles in some of the last intact bottomland hardwood forests and
forested wetlands in the Mississippi Delta.
We oppose the Administration's request for $500,000 to fund the
Yazoo pump and $3.9 million for dredging. We support re-directing these
funds to reforestation, as a non-structural alternative to flood
control and other environmentally-sound projects to benefit the area.
While the pump project alone is estimated to cost at least $150 million
to complete, cost estimates performed by EPA for reforestation and
easement purchases would only be around $75 million.
ST. JOHNS/NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MISSOURI
Audubon strongly opposed this economically and environmentally-
indefensible project which would destroy 36,000 acres of wetlands and
75,000 acres of valuable backwater habitat to create new farmland. It
is being advanced despite the fact that the Federal Government is
currently producing large grain surpluses and most farmers are
suffering from the resulting low prices. While being promoted as flood
control, the project would have little effect on flooding of nearby
communities and the farmland itself would be subject to frequent
flooding. Audubon supports redirection of the Administration-requested
$7.8 million to economically-beneficial, yet environmentally sound
development projects in the area.
DEVILS LAKE EMERGENCY OUTLET, NORTH DAKOTA
Audubon supports de-funding of this environmentally-damaging
project to create an outlet from Devils Lake to the Sheyenne River. The
outlet would reduce surface elevations of Devils Lake by only inches,
yet would contribute to increased flooding and reduced water quality
downstream and potentially violate an international treaty with Canada.
None of the Administration-requested $10 million should be appropriated
for this project.
This Subcommittee has done an excellent job of opposing this
project in the past, and we commend you for your valiant efforts. We
urge you to continue your opposition to the project, and we will
continue to support you in your efforts.
Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to testify on the
Corps budget request.
______
Prepared Statement of the University of Miami
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am privileged to
have the opportunity to submit this statement on behalf of Rosenstiel
School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami in
Coral Gables, Florida.
Respectfully, the University, joined by the City of Miami Beach,
Florida seeks your support for the establishment of a demonstration
project in Miami Beach which could arrest the continuing problem of
coastal erosion, particularly in the cities of Miami Beach, Surfside,
and Bal Harbour, Florida. This demonstration project would focus on the
12 miles of sandy beaches between Bakers Haulover Inlet and Government
Cut.
By the mid-seventies, this beach segment had severely eroded,
leaving only a small area of dry beach during low water. To prevent
loss of land and to prevent damage to existing structures from storm
surge, many of the adjacent properties had to be protected by sea walls
and revetments. Because of the lack of sufficient dry beach, tourism
declined, which has adverse effects on the economy of the region.
To remedy some of these problems, in 1975, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE), in partnership with Miami-Dade County, initiated the
Miami-Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Surge Project. At
that time, Miami-Dade County and the ACOE entered into a 50-year
contract for the joint management of Miami-Dade's sandy beaches. During
the period 1979-1982, the ACOE constructed a hurricane dune and
nourished the beaches between Bakers Haulover Inlet and Government Cut.
A total of 60 million cubic yards of sand was placed on the beach
thereby increasing its width to 300 feet. The implementation of the
beach nourishment has had a tremendously positive effect on the economy
of the region.
In judging the performance of the project, it should be realized
that beach nourishment is a repeat process and, based on experience
with other beaches, should be carried on the average of every 5 years.
The Miami Beach Nourishment, has a considerable better track record.
Only after some 15 years were there areas that needed to be
renourished. However at this time, 20 years after the start of the
original nourishment, the beach as a whole has eroded to an extent that
a large scale renourishment seems unavoidable unless a return to the
situation in the mid 1970s is accepted. The major problem is where to
find sand in sufficient quantities to re-supply the beaches, as the
near-shore deposits of sand which have been the source for the
nourishment project have been exhausted.
The erosion along the beaches between Bakers Haulover Inlet and
Government Cut is not uniform. Since the implementation of the
nourishment during the period 1979-1982, the northern two-third has
steadily eroded whereas the southern one-third has accreted.
Furthermore, in the erosional part there are ``hot spots'' where the
erosion is much more severe than in others. The reason for this
situation is not directly obvious and has to do with the local off-
shore bathymetry, wave climate, and sediment characteristics. In
addition, Bakers Haulover Inlet plays an important role in the erosion
along the beaches of Bal Harbor and Surfside. The present shoreline is
irregular in plain view--rather than a smooth curve between the two
inlets--and is characterized by indentations and protrusions.
Although there is some transfer of sand across the inlets, to a
first approximation the area between the two inlets can be considered a
self-contained littoral cell. The seaward boundary of that cell is not
known and the big question is how much sand is lost to the offshore.
The remaining sand is redistributed in the cell by waves. From a recent
study, it is known that sand eroded from the northern two thirds of
beach can be traced to the southern one-third of the beach. Also,
bathymetric surveys show that the beach does not conform to the
straight design slope of 1:40. The actual beach slope is gentler and
the underwater beach shows a bar. This leads to a loss of dry beach.
As suggested earlier, the causes of the irregular appearance of the
shoreline, the presence of erosional ``hot spots'' and the shape of the
beach profile are related to offshore bathymetry, wave climate, and the
characteristics of the beach sand. Therefore, to identify the cause(s)
of erosion, to explain the presence of the erosional ``hot spots'' and
to predict the anticipated beach profile, information is needed on
bathymetry, wave climate, and sediment characteristics.
None of this information is in sufficient detail and will require
measurements, the results of which would be interpreted using computer
models. Deep-water waves will be carried inshore to calculate the wave
characteristics at breaking. From this information, long-shore
currents, sediment transport and changes in bathymetry, including the
position of the shoreline will be calculated. The measurements will
allow construction of an improved sediment budget. For this effort, the
beach would be divided into compartments, both in the long-shore and
cross-shore direction. The principle of conservation of sand would be
applied to each compartment, i.e., the rate of change of the sediment
volume in each compartment would equal the volume of sediment in minus
the volume of sediment leaving the compartment. Comparison with
observed changes in bathymetry, including changes in beach profile,
should identify the causes of erosion and erosional ``hot spots'' as
well as the shape of the beach profile.
The City of Miami Beach remains committed to identifying outside
sources of sand and expediting the evaluation of the environmental,
physical and economic viability of the potential sources, to ensure
that sufficient quantities of beach-quality sand are available to
fulfill future needs. However it is realized that continuing to pump
sand to the beaches without addressing the underlying causes of
erosion, will lead to an endless cycle of needing more, increasingly
expensive sand.
Another possible solution is to transfer sand from the southern
accretional part to the northern erosional part of the beach. Recycling
will reduce the dependence on outside sources of sand.
Although presently beach nourishment is the accepted way to combat
erosion, the lack of sand sources requires us to rethink the process.
It could well be that for Miami Beach a combination of beach
nourishment and hard structures (e.g., off-shore breakwaters) is a more
desirable solution. The hard structures would reduce the sand losses
and more importantly when located properly, would concentrate the sand
that has eroded from the beaches in places where it can be retrieved by
dredges.
The measurements and subsequent analysis referred to in the
previous section should help to optimize the use of outside sand
sources and the recycling technique and provide the necessary knowledge
to properly design combined measures of nourishment and hard
structures.
To arrive at a solution to the erosion problem, the City of Miami
Beach in cooperation with the University of Miami is suggesting a two-
prong approach consisting of the development of a long-term beach
management plan and the implementation of two demonstration projects.
Combating beach erosion takes a regional (the beach area between
the two inlets) rather than a local (``hot spots'') approach. The first
order of business in establishing a beach management plan is to
identify the causes of the beach erosion and to determine whether there
exists an equilibrium shoreline position and equilibrium beach profile.
After that the questions of how, where and when to combat erosion can
be addressed. This includes the question whether hard structures should
be included. An important item in arriving at answers to these
questions is the development of an improved sediment budget. In view of
the necessary field measurements, the development of the beach
management plan is expected to take 5 years.
Mr. Chairman, the University of Miami is pleased to be an active
partner of the City of Miami Beach, Florida in an effort to provide an
efficient, cost-effective remedy for the continuing coastal erosion
problems along the southeast Atlantic Coast. We are convinced that the
results of this proposed demonstration project will make an important
contribution to gaining a permanent solution to the problem.
To accomplish this important program the University of Miami, in
partnership with the City of Miami Beach, seeks $8 million from the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee through the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Your support would be appreciated, Mr.
Chairman. My colleagues and I at the University of Miami thank you for
the opportunity to present these views for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Miami Beach, Florida
The City of Miami Beach appreciates the opportunity to submit for
the record (1) testimony on an innovative new beach erosion control
initiative, and (2) testimony in support of the request by Miami-Dade
County for beach renourishment funds.
INNOVATIVE BEACH EROSION PREVENTION AND SAND RECYCLING SYSTEM
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Dade County, Florida has approximately 15 miles of sandy beaches.
The Miami Beach Segment makes up 10.5 miles or 70 percent of that beach
front area. The Miami Beach Segment is bounded to the north by Baker's
Haulover inlet and to the south by Government Cut Inlet. The
construction of these inlets, just after the turn of the century, left
the Miami Beach Segment isolated between two complete barriers to
along-shore sand migration. As a result, the Miami Beach Segment
continuously loses sand through natural processes but can only regain
sand through artificial means.
In the years that followed the construction of the inlets, the
Miami Beach shoreline steadily receded. By the mid-1970's the shoreline
had receded more than 500 feet and most of the sandy beaches had been
lost. Property owners were forced to build seawalls, bulkheads and
other hardened structures to prevent the coastal infrastructure from
being undercut by the encroaching tides.
In 1975, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), in partnership
with Dade County, initiated the Dade County Beach Erosion Control and
Hurricane Surge Protection Project. At that time, Dade County and the
ACOE entered into a 50 year contract for the joint management of Dade's
sandy beaches. In 1979, the ACOE constructed a flood control dike (sand
dune) and an ``engineered'' beach along the entire length of Miami
Beach. The project added more than 300 feet to the width of the
severely eroded beaches. The new beach was a tremendous success and has
been credited for contributing significantly to the resurgence of our
local economy.
The sand used to nourish the beaches was hydraulically dredged from
deposits of sand about a mile off our coast. More than 16 million cubic
yards of sand were used during the initial beach construction and an
additional 5 million cubic yards have been used in the periodic
renourishment of segments of the project. However, the near shore
deposits of sand which have been the source for the renourishment
projects have been exhausted. There is not enough sand remaining to
meet the immediate needs of the critically eroded shoreline areas nor
are there any strategic reserves to be used in the event that our
shorelines are ravaged by a hurricane or other natural disaster.
Engineers have determined that Miami Beach loses sand to erosion at
an average rate of 250,000 cubic yards per year, with that rate
increasing ten-fold during years of heavy storm activity. Faced with a
continuing need for a quarter million tons of sand per year for the
maintenance of our beaches and an exhausted supply of local sand, the
City of Miami Beach realized that immediate action was needed to avert
a crisis. Our initial reaction was to try to locate alternate sources
of beach-quality sand. The City advertised its interest in locating
sand sources, traveled across Florida & the Caribbean to visit
potential sources, compiled a database of source location & quality
information, and secured an invitation for the Army Corps of Engineers
to conduct testing of several potential sources of high-quality
carbonate sands in the Turks & Caicos Islands.
The City remains committed to identifying alternate sources of sand
and expediting the evaluation of the environmental, physical and
economic viability of the potential sources, to ensure that sufficient
quantities of beach-quality sand are available to fulfill our future
needs. However, we have realized that continuing to pump sand on to our
beaches without addressing the underlying causes of the erosion, will
leave us in an endless cycle of needing more, increasingly expensive
sand.
If the erosion cycle can be successfully slowed, it would reduce
the demand for additional sand and save millions of dollars in
renourishment costs; not to mention the elimination of the
environmental, public and legal challenges to renourishment projects.
To achieve this goal, the City embarked upon a program to develop
innovative technologies which will help prevent beach erosion
processes.
Analysis of our coastal system revealed the presence of several
``hot spot'' areas along our shoreline which accounted for the majority
of the sand losses. Analysis of the data also revealed the presence of
an area of substantial sand accretion (accumulation) in a near shore
area near the southern end of Miami Beach.
The causative factors behind these hot spots have been linked to
changes in the shape (compass orientation) of the coastline and benthic
topographical anomalies in the nearshore area. The worst of these hot
spots exist within two half-mile long areas along our shoreline. These
two hot spots have been shown to be responsible for the loss of almost
200,000 cubic yards of sand each year. The hot spots also accelerate
the erosion of the adjacent beaches for as much as a mile to the north,
as the sand from the adjacent beaches slough down to fill the voids
within the hot spots. With beach renourishment costs of about $14/cubic
yard of sand, these hot spots are responsible for the loss of more than
2.5 million dollars annually.
After detailed examination of the available data and careful
consideration of the possible alternatives, our coastal engineers have
designed a series of detached breakwater structures which will
significantly reduce the rate of erosion within these hot spot areas
and help to stabilize large sections of our beach. The size and
configuration of these structures have been carefully ``tuned'' to the
specific conditions at each of the hot spot areas. Our coastal
engineers estimate that the elimination of each hot spot will widen and
stabilize approximately one mile of beach. It is believed that these
benefits can be gained without significant negative impacts to the down
drift beach areas or offshore reefs. Sea turtle nesting in the area
will also be enhanced by the widening and stabilization of more than
two miles of beach.
The City of Miami Beach and Dade County have jointly initiated an
emergency effort to develop and construct breakwater reef structures in
the location of the two worst hot spots. Preliminary estimates indicate
the breakwater structures will cost approximately $700,000 each. The
required funding for the first of set of these structures has already
been appropriated and construction is scheduled to begin in mid-2000.
The City's master plan is to develop a series of erosion control
breakwaters, positioned in key areas along the shoreline, to widen the
beaches and slow the erosion process. Concurrent with the efforts to
slow the beach erosion process, we plan to initiate a feasibility
study/demonstration project to pursue an innovative and promising
potential solution to our sand shortage problem. Our coastal engineers
have identified the presence of a highly accretional near-shore area at
the southern end of Miami Beach. The area is accreting sand at a rate
of more than 200,000 cubic yards per year. Sand is accreting in the
area because of the navigational Jetty that juts 1500 yards out to sea,
along the north side of the Government Cut Inlet, at the southern tip
of Miami Beach. The jetty structure acts as a barrier, blocking the
natural, southerly migration of the near shore sand lens, which causes
the migrating sand to pile-up on the north side of the structure. As
more and more sand piles-up, the sand lens builds and creeps offshore
toward the end of the jetty. Because the seaward end of the jetty
extends out to the first line of coral reefs which parallel our
shoreline, the jetty and the reef line together form a `trap' which
prevents most of the sand from being able to move further south. This
near-shore sand lens is continuing to build and will eventually ``over-
top'' the reef and smother living corals. If authorized, the City will
seek to have the overfill accumulating at the southern end of the
segment ``back passed'' or pumped back up to the eroded beaches at the
northern end of our beach segment.
The ultimate goal is to utilize the breakwater structures to slow
the erosion process, stabilize the beaches and cut the demand for new
sand. Then, periodically, the excess fill that accumulates will be
recycled back to the beaches at the north end of the system and the
cycle will start over. This Sand Recycling System, if successful, will
allow for the continued, effective maintenance of our beaches, while
offering substantial financial and environmental benefits.
Local government has already made a substantial investment in the
development of this process. If approved, this $2.3 million
appropriation request will allow the City to complete a thorough
engineering analysis of the entire system, obtain the necessary Federal
and State permits, and contract for the renourishment of a mile long
section of beach utilizing back-passed sand. This project will serve as
a demonstration of the effectiveness of the Sand Recycling System and
the importance of regional sediment management.
SUPPORT FOR MIAMI-DADE CONSTRUCTION REQUEST
The City of Miami Beach would first like to thank the members of
the subcommittee for all their efforts in the past to provide support
for the State of Florida's beaches and in particular, those of Miami
Beach.
Beaches are Florida's number one tourist ``attraction.'' Last year,
beach tourism generated more than $16 billion dollars for Florida's
economy and more tourists visited Miami Beach than visited the three
largest national parks combined.
In addition to their vital economic importance, beaches are the
front line defense for multi-billion dollar coastal infrastructure
during hurricanes and storms. When beaches are allowed to erode away,
the likelihood that the Federal government will be stuck with
astronomical storm recovery costs is significantly increased. The Army
Corps of Engineers estimated that more than 70 percent of the damage
caused to upland properties in Panama City Beach by Hurricane Opal
could have been prevented if their pending beach renourishment project
had been completed before the storm.
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection estimates that
at least 276 miles (35 percent) of Florida's 787 miles of sandy beaches
are currently at a critical state of erosion. This includes the entire
six miles of Miami Beach. As a result of the continuing erosion process
and more dramatically, recent intense storms which have caused
tremendous damage to almost all of the dry beach and sand dune
throughout the middle segment of Miami Beach. Two years ago, most of
the Middle Beach dune cross-overs were declared safety hazards and
closed, as the footings of the boardwalk itself were in immediate
jeopardy of being undercut by the encroaching tides. If emergency
measures, costing approximately $400,000 had not been taken by the
City, there would have been considerable risk of coastal flooding west
of the dune line in residential sections of Miami Beach. As you can
see, this example points to the commitment we as a beach community have
to our beaches, but federal assistance remains crucial. While we are
thankful of the substantial commitment made by the subcommittee in the
fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Conference Report, there is still
much work to be done. Our beaches must be maintained not only to ensure
that our residents and coastal properties are afforded the best storm
protection possible, but also to ensure that beach tourism, our number
one industry, is protected and nurtured.
In 1987, the Army Corps of Engineers and Metropolitan Dade County
entered into a fifty year agreement to jointly manage restore and
maintain Dade County's sandy beaches. Since then, Metropolitan Dade
County has been responsible for coordinating and funding the local
share of the cost for the periodic renourishment of our beaches.
In order to ensure that adequate funding will continue to be
available, the City of Miami Beach supports and endorses the
legislative priorities and appropriation requests of Metropolitan Dade
County, as they relate to the restoration and maintenance of Dade
County's sandy beaches. Specifically, the City respectfully adds their
strong support for the efforts of Miami-Dade County and wholeheartedly
supports their fiscal year 2001 request for $8 million in beach
renourishment funds.
Your support would be appreciated, Mr. Chairman. The City of Miami
Beach thanks you for the opportunity to present these views for your
consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the University of Michigan
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has provided support to the DOE
University Research Program in Robotics to pursue long range research
leading to the: ``development and deployment of advanced robotic
systems capable of reducing human exposure to hazardous environments,
and of performing a broad spectrum of tasks more efficiently and
effectively than utilizing humans.''
The DOE University Research Program in Robotics (URPR) has proven
highly effective in technology innovation, education, and DOE mission
support. The URPR incorporates mission-oriented university research
into DOE EM's Office of Science and Technology (OST) and, through close
collaboration with the DOE national laboratories, provides an avenue
for applying innovative solutions to problems of vital importance to
DOE.
The URPR would like to thank the Committee members for their
historically strong support of this highly innovative and successful
program. Although the DOE EM-50 Budget Request for fiscal year 2001
fails to include explicit funding numbers for any university program,
the URPR expects to be funded at $4.0 million from the larger Focus
Area budgets. The URPR is requesting the Committee: (1) explicitly
direct research funding of the URPR, and (2) consider augmenting this
amount to $4.35 million to compensate for DOE's expansion of the
Consortium to include the University of New Mexico.
Request for the Committee
We request the Committee include explicit language directing $4.35
million of EM-50 research funds to the University Research Program in
Robotics (URPR) for development of safer, less expensive, and more
effective robotic technology for environmental restoration and waste
management solutions.
DEVELOPING ADVANCED ROBOTICS FOR DOE AND THE NATION
Develop robotic solutions for work in hazardous environments and
facilitate cleanup operations
The goal of this program is to advance and utilize state-of-the-art
robotic technology in order to remove humans from potentially hazardous
environments and expedite remediation efforts now considered essential.
This is increasingly necessary because human radiation exposure limits
have been further reduced during the last two years. Established by DOE
in fiscal year 1987 to support advanced nuclear reactor concepts, the
project was relocated to EM to support higher priority needs in
environmental restoration. The project has produced an impressive array
of technological innovations which have been incorporated into robotic
solutions being employed across federal and commercial sectors. This
successful program demonstrates efficient technology innovation while
educating tomorrow's technologists, inventing our country's intelligent
machine systems technology of the next century, and meeting today's
technology needs for DOE.
Robotics: A Strategic National Technology
R&D funding is the most effective use of federal funds to promote
the nation's well-being according to a 1997 published poll of respected
academic economists. And, as documented in previous testimonies, key
national studies (by the Council on Competitiveness, DOD, and former
OTA technology assessment reports) consistently list robotics and
advanced manufacturing among the five most vital strategic technologies
for government support. During the past year, reports from NSF, the
OSTP report on critical technologies, and the report from the
President's Advisory Committee on Information Technology suggests that
the areas of greatest concern to the nation are: the economy,
education, health care, and the environment. The URPR is making
technology contributions affecting each of these key areas.
Furthermore, the reports note key technology areas include information
technology and nanotechnology, and key enabling technologies include
manufacturing and materials. The URPR actively participates in
advancing these fields. The national need for an investment in the
development of intelligent machines which can interact with their
environment has been universally recognized for over a decade.
Intelligent Machines: Grand Challenge for the New Millennium
Significant advances in computing power, sensor development and
platform architectures (e.g., unamanned airborne vehicles) have opened
new opportunities in intelligent machine technology. The long-range
implications of intelligent mobile and dextrous machines which can
assist humans to perform daily life tasks are clearly significant and
represent one of technology's Grand Challenges for the new millennium.
We can expect to see intelligent prosthetic devices, smart transport
vehicles, and mobile devices capable of assisting or replacing the
human, not only in potentially hazardous situations, but in daily life.
Just during the past year, small mobile vehicles have become available
to the everyday consumer, including the RoboMow lawn mower, and the
hovering DragonFly--both available for less than $1,000. Furthermore,
the integration of intelligent mobile machines onto or into the human
body is within reach.
URPR: INNOVATION, EDUCATION, AND DOE MISSION SUPPORT
URPR: Refining the Right Paradigm
The URPR instantiates the new paradigm recommended for Federal
investment in national S&T by the National Science Board (3/6/98) that
emphasizes the integration of long-range research and education. The
URPR's strategic mission is to make significant advances in our
nation's intelligent machine and manufacturing technology base while
emphasizing: education, technology innovation through basic R&D, and
DOE mission support. Furthermore, the Consortium of Universities
(Universities of Florida, Michigan, Tennessee, Texas, and New Mexico)
are united as a powerful technology team, governed by a national Board
of Directors, advised by a Technical Advisory Committee, and managed by
a group of DOE and national laboatory officials.
The URPR has demonstrated in earlier years that the advantages of
operating as a consortium are significant. The institutions of the URPR
partitioned technology development into manageable sections which
allowed each to concentrate within their area of expertise (efficiently
maintaining world-class levels of excellence) while relying on their
partners to supply supporting concentrations. With full cooperation of
the host universities, this effort naturally generated the in-depth
human and equipment capital required by the EM community. Practically,
the long-term distributed interaction and planning among these
universities in concert with the DOE labs and associated industry
allows for effective technology development (with software and
equipment compatibility and portability), for a vigorous and full
response to application requirements (component technologies, system
technologies, deployment issues, etc.), and for the supported
application of the technology. Considering the remarkable achievements
of URPR over its history and the enlightened commitment of EM-50 to
this technology development, the URPR is now poised to enhance its
prominent role in education, technology innovation, and DOE mission
support.
Educating the New Millenium's Technologists
The URPR has already educated about 500 advanced degree students in
the critical engineering fields, including many with earned doctoral
degrees. These students have entered the work force, and are leading
the industrial resurgence based on intelligent machines, advanced
manufacturing technology, and high-technology related fields. Graduates
from this project have built successful startup companies and made
industrial technology transfers in computer and robotic technology (MI,
TN, TX) and medical imaging (MI), video databases (CA), and intelligent
manufacturing (MI, FL, TX). We have been unable to meet the strong
demand for graduates educated through this project.
DOE Mission Contribution--Environmental Cleanup
Since its inception, EM has recognized robotics as an essential
technology to accomplish its mission. The motives for undertaking a
comprehensive R&D effort in the application of advanced robotics to EM
tasks in hazardous environments reflect both economic considerations,
efficiency, effectiveness, and health and safety concerns. The RBX is a
national laboratory program which primarily applies commercially
available technology to current problems. In contrast, the URPR
supports needs-driven applied research to develop innovative and
synergistic technologies in support of EM focus areas. A major
accomplishment during fiscal year 2000 was the identification and
establishment of a process by which URPR innovations could be
transferred to field applications. Both the Secretary of Energy's
Robotics and Intelligent Machines (RIM) Initiative and the RBX's fiscal
year 2001 proposals recognize the URPR as providing the core research
effort.
URPR progress is evaluated annually by a thorough review of its
technical accomplishments, and DOE validated technology needs
(generated by the DOE EM Focus Area representatives and Site Technology
Coordination Groups) are used to set the program's directions. The URPR
has consistently received high rankings for providing both outstanding
technical contributions and value. Future success of this program is
expected to continue based upon the Consortium's productive history.
Over the past few years, the URPR projects successfully supported
the following EM projects:
--deployment and testing of SWAMI, an autonomous inspection robot for
Fernald stored waste drums,
--design, construction and demonstration of a robot to precisely map
large DOE facilities, such as K-25 and K-27 in Oak Ridge, in
preparation for decontamination and decommissioning (D&D),
--delivery of a robotic handling system for an automated chemical and
radiological analysis system to Los Alamos,
--remote radiation mapping of the MSRE facility at ORNL during D&D
operations.
--design and implementation of a real-time controller for use at
Hanford in support of the tank waste retrieval project
--design and fabrication of a prototype Soil Sample Preparation
Module in support of the Contaminant Analysis Automation
project at LANL.
Recent URPR technology achievements have included:
--Discover Magazine Award for Technological Innovation: Robotics,
presented by the Secretary of Energy.
--Invention of the room-temperature semiconductor radiation sensor
that holds the world's record for energy resolution.
--Development of a mutisensor visualization platform to aid operators
during D&D operations.
--Development of a system to reduce the time between a site-defined
need and a site-delivered implementation of the robotic and/or
automation hardware using simulation of components.
--Codified algorithms for assembly of standardized modules to produce
the complex manipulators needed for a wide range of hazardous
tasks.
--Development of a system to reduce the time between a site-defined
need and a site-delivered implementation of the robotic and/or
automation hardware using simulation of components.
As shown above, URPR efforts are linked both directly and
indirectly to cleanup operations in the DOE complex. During fiscal year
2001, the URPR plans to continue its focussed efforts on DOE field
cleanup applications, while maintaining our commitment to research and
education.
Innovation--the seed of future technology
The URPR has produced prodigious levels of innovation in research
and development. While recent demonstrations reveal next-generation
technologies, even more advanced capabilities are emerging from the
laboratories. These include new types of locomotion, navigation
techniques, sensing modalities (radiation cameras and flash-fast
imaging devices), environmentally hardened components, and dextrous
open architecture manipulators. These devices will evolve and inspire
the intelligent machines of the future, including smart automobiles,
obstacle avoidance aids for the disabled, and agile manufacturing cells
capable of being rapidly reconfigured.
This level of innovation can also be seen in the following
statistics:
--Approximately 16 patents awarded or pending.
--Over 750 technical papers published in technical journals and
conferences.
--The standard technical books for vision, radiation detection and
imaging, and robotics are authored by researchers working with
this project. Faculty and senior scientists dedicated to this
project are the internationally renowned technologists of their
fields.
--A suite of world-class robots (including CARMEL, winner of the AAAI
Mobile Robot Competition) serve as the research testbeds for
this project.
PROGRAM REQUEST
During fiscal year 2000, the URPR provided vital contributions to
education and research while meeting DOE technology needs. The
motivation for this project remains steadfast--removing humans from
hazardous environments while enhancing safety, reducing costs, and
increasing cleanup task productivity. EM-50 has recognized the URPR's
role and mission and has purportedly included $4 million in the larger
Focus Area requests for the URPR in fiscal year 2001.
request for the committee
We request that the Committee (1) explicitly direct research
funding of the URPR, and (2) consider augmenting this amount from $4
million to $4.35 million to compensate for DOE's expansion of the
Consortium. The following language is suggested for the fiscal year
2001 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill:
Funding of $4.35 million is provided for the University Research
Program in Robotics (URPR) to develop and deploy innovative technology
in support of EM site needs.
______
Prepared Statement of the County of Volusia, Florida
On behalf of our citizens and fishermen, Volusia County, Florida,
is requesting that the Subcommittee appropriate $1,000,000 in fiscal
year 2001 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Construction
account to fund an 1000 foot oceanward extension of the South Jetty of
the Ponce DeLeon Inlet. This funding is essential to protect the Inlet,
along with the existing North Jetty and its landward extension funded
by this committee in fiscal year 1999. In addition, Volusia County
requests that the committee appropriate $100,000 in fiscal year 2001
from the COE's General Investigations account to fund the
reconnaissance study authorized by a resolution adopted by the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on February 16, 2000. A
more detailed case history and description of the situation and
projects follow below.
The Ponce DeLeon Inlet is located on the east coast of Florida,
about 10 miles south of the City of Daytona Beach in Volusia County.
The Inlet is a natural harbor connecting the Atlantic Ocean with the
Halifax River and the Indian River North. The Ponce DeLeon Inlet
provides the sole ocean access to all of Volusia County. Fishing
parties and shrimp and commercial fisherman bound for New Smyrna Beach
or Daytona Beach use the Inlet, as well as others entering for
anchorage. Nearby fisheries enhanced by the County's artificial reef
program attract both commercial and sport fisherman. Head boat
operators also provide trips to view marine life and space shuttle
launches from Cape Canaveral. In addition, there is a U.S. Coast Guard
Lifeboat Station on the east shore of the Indian River less than a mile
south of the Inlet.
Unfortunately, the Inlet is highly unstable and, despite numerous
navigation projects, continues to threaten safe passage for the charter
boat operators and commercial fisherman who rely on the access it
provides for their livelihood. Recreational boaters and Coast Guard
operations are also at risk passing through this unstable inlet. The
shoaling of the channels in the Inlet so restricts dependable
navigation that the Coast Guard no longer marks the north channel in
order to discourage its use. The Coast Guard continues to move the
south and entrance channel markers and provides warnings that local
knowledge and extreme caution must be used in navigating the inlet.
More seriously, the Coast Guard search and rescue data for fiscal years
1981-1995 show that 20 deaths have resulted from vessels capsizing in
the Inlet, the direct result of the Inlet's instability. 147 vessels
capsized and 496 vessels ran aground in the Inlet during the same
period.
The Federal interest in navigation through the Ponce DeLeon Inlet
dates back to 1884 and continues to the present. The existing
navigation project was authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1965. The construction authorized by that Act, including ocean jetties
on the north and south sides of the Inlet, was completed in July 1972.
It became evident soon after completion of the authorized project that
the project did not bring stability to the Inlet. A strong northeaster
in February 1973 created a breach between the western end of the North
Jetty and the sand spit the Jetty was connected to inside the Inlet.
The breach allowed schoaling to occur that was serious enough to close
boat yards and require almost $2 million worth of repairs, including
extending the western end of the North Jetty.
Under the existing maintenance agreement entered into upon
completion of the construction, the COE periodically performs
maintenance on the Inlet. Maintenance projects have included several
dredging efforts, adding stone sections to the south side of the north
jetty, extending the westward end of the North Jetty for the second
time, and closing the North Jetty weir. Prior to the North Jetty
project discussed below, the COE's last maintenance was dredging,
completed on the entrance channel in January 1990.
In fiscal year 1998, the COE received a $3,500,000 appropriation
for emergency maintenance on the North Jetty. Migration of the entrance
channel undermined the North Jetty, seriously threatening its
structural integrity. The fiscal year 1998 funds were used to construct
a granite rock scour apron for the 500 to 600 feet of where the Jetty
is undermined.
In fiscal year 1999, the COE received $4,034,000 from the
Operations and Maintenance account to extend the North Jetty of the
Inlet landward by 800 feet. This maintenance project is underway and
intended to be completed as soon as possible to prevent erosion that
will cause outflanking of the North Jetty. Continued outflanking of the
west end of the North Jetty could create a new inlet for the Halifax
and Indian Rivers resulting in major changes to the Ponce DeLeon Inlet.
The resultant shoaling of both the north and south channels, as well as
changes to the entrance channel, would make passage through the inlet
extremely dangerous and unpredictable.
In the current fiscal year, the COE received $7,696,000 in their
Operations and Maintenance account for use in the Ponce DeLeon Inlet.
These funds will provide the balance of the funding to complete the
North Jetty project, funding for surveys designed to determine the
scope of a new maintenance contract for the Ponce De Leon Inlet, and
funding for a dredging project to address a minor maintenance issue
under the existing maintenance contract.
For the next fiscal year, Volusia County requests that the COE
receive $1 million of the $2.988 million federal share of the
construction funds for the South Jetty oceanward extension. The COE
anticipates that the construction of the jetty extensions will help
stabilize the Inlet and reduce future maintenance costs.
The Ponce DeLeon Inlet presents a serious engineering challenge;
the success of which is measured in terms of human life and vessel
damage. The existing project has failed to stabilize the Inlet.
Extending the North Jetty was the first step toward correcting the
failure and meeting the challenge. Funding the beginning phase of the
1000 foot oceanward extension of the South Jetty in fiscal year 2001 is
the next critical step toward providing safe passage for the commercial
and recreational boaters in Volusia County. In addition, providing
these funds at this time is likely to prevent the need to a much more
substantial maintenance project in the near future.
In addition to the jetty projects to protect the Ponce DeLeon
Inlet, the County also requests funding for the COE to complete in
fiscal year 2001, a reconnaissance study to address the critical
erosion along the County's 49.5 miles of ocean shoreline. In August
1991, the COE completed a favorable reconnaissance report for the shore
protection study authorized by the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee in September 1988. The County declined to act
as the non-federal sponsor for the feasibility study at that time. As a
result of heavy damage to the County's shoreline sustained during the
1999 hurricane season, the County recognizes the critical need to
address the growing impact of the storm-induced erosion. The COE
advises the County that the shore protection reconnaissance study can
be completed in fiscal year 2001 for $100,000.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Seminole Tribe of Florida
The Seminole Tribe of Florida is pleased to submit this statement
regarding the fiscal year 2001 budget for the Army Corps of Engineers
(COE). The Tribe asks that Congress provide $20.525 million in the
COE's construction budget for critical projects in the South Florida
Ecosystem, as authorized in section 208 of the Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) of 1999. On January 7, 2000, the Tribe and the
COE signed a Project Coordination Agreement for the Big Cypress
Reservation's critical project. The Tribe's critical project includes a
complex water conservation plan and a canal that transverses the
Reservation. In signing this Agreement, the Tribe, as the local
sponsor, committed to funding half of the cost of this approximately
$50 million project.
The Tribe's critical project is a part of the Tribe's Everglades
Restoration Initiative, which includes the design and construction of a
comprehensive water conservation system. This project is designed to
improve the water quality and natural hydropatterns in the Big Cypress
Basin. This project will contribute to the overall success of both the
Federal and the state Governments' multi-agency effort to preserve and
restore the delicate ecosystem of the Florida Everglades. In
recognition of this contribution, the Seminole Tribe's Restoration
Initiative has been endorsed by the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
Task Force and has been found to be consistent with the recommendations
of the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida.
THE SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
The Seminole Tribe lives in the Florida Everglades. The Big Cypress
Reservation is located in the western basins, directly north of the Big
Cypress National Preserve. The Everglades provide many Seminole Tribal
members with their livelihood. Our traditional Seminole cultural,
religious, and recreational activities, as well as commercial
endeavors, are dependent on a healthy Everglades ecosystem. In fact,
the Tribe's identity is so closely linked to the land that Tribal
members believe that if the land dies, so will the Tribe.
During the Seminole Wars of the 19th Century, our Tribe found
protection in the hostile Everglades. But for this harsh environment
filled with sawgrass and alligators, the Seminole Tribe of Florida
would not exist today. Once in the Everglades, we learned how to use
the natural system for support without harm to the environment that
sustained us. For example, our native dwelling, the chickee, is made of
cypress logs and palmetto fronds and protects its inhabitants from the
sun and rain, while allowing maximum circulation for cooling. When a
chickee has outlived its useful life, the cypress and palmetto return
to the earth to nourish the soil.
In response to social challenges within the Tribe, we looked to our
Tribal elders for guidance. Our elders taught us to look to the land,
for when the land was ill, the Tribe would soon be ill as well. When we
looked at the land, we saw the Everglades in decline and recognized
that we had to help mitigate the impacts of man on this natural system.
At the same time, we acknowledged that this land must sustain our
people, and thereby our culture. The clear message we heard from our
elders and the land was that we must design a way of life to preserve
the land and the Tribe. Tribal members must be able to work and sustain
themselves. We need to protect the land and the animals, but we must
also protect our Tribal farmers and ranchers.
Recognizing the needs of our land and our people, the Tribe, along
with our consultants, designed a plan to mitigate the harm to the land
and water systems within the Reservation while ensuring a sustainable
future for the Seminole Tribe of Florida. The restoration plan will
allow Tribal members to continue their farming and ranching activities
while improving water quality and restoring natural hydroperiod to
large portions of the native lands on the Reservation and ultimately,
positively effecting the Big Cypress National Preserve and Everglades
National Park.
The Seminole Tribe's project addresses the environmental
degradation wrought by decades of federal flood control construction
and polluted urban and agricultural runoff. The interrupted sheet flow
and hydroperiod have stressed native species and encouraged the spread
of exotic species. Nutrient-laden runoff has supported the rapid spread
of cattails, which choke out the periphyton algae mat and sawgrass
necessary for the success of the wet/dry cycle that supports the
wildlife of the Everglades.
The Seminole Tribe designed an Everglades Restoration project to
allow the Tribe to sustain ourselves while reducing impacts on the
Everglades. The Seminole Tribe is committed to improving the water
quality and flows on the Big Cypress Reservation. We have already
committed significant resources to the design of this project and to
our water quality data collection and monitoring system. We are willing
to continue our efforts and to commit more resources, for our cultural
survival is at stake.
SEMINOLE TRIBE'S BIG CYPRESS CRITICAL PROJECT
The Tribe has developed a conceptual water conservation plan that
will enable us to meet new water quality standards essential to the
cleanup of our part of the Everglades ecosystem and to plan for the
storage and conveyance of our water rights. The Tribe's Everglades
Restoration Initiative is designed to mitigate the degradation the
ecosystem has suffered through decades of flood control projects and
urban and agricultural use and ultimately to restore the nation's
largest wetlands to a healthy state.
The Seminole Tribe's critical project provides for the design and
construction of water control, management, and treatment facilities on
the western half of the Big Cypress reservation. The project elements
include conveyance systems, including major canal bypass structures,
irrigation storage cells, and water resources areas. This project will
enable the Tribe to meet proposed numeric target for low phosphorus
concentrations that is being used for design purposes by state and
federal authorities, as well as to convey and store irrigation water
and improve flood control. It will also provide an important public
benefit: a new system to convey excess water from the western basins to
the Big Cypress National Preserve, where water is vitally needed for
rehydration and restoration of lands within the Preserve.
CONCLUSION
Improving the water quality of the basins feeding into the Big
Cypress National Preserve and the Everglades National Park is vital to
restoring the Everglades for future generations. By granting this
appropriation request, the Federal Government will be taking a
substantive step towards improving the quality of the surface water
that flows over the Big Cypress Reservation and on into the delicate
Everglades ecosystem. Such responsible action with regard to the Big
Cypress Reservation, which is federal land held in trust for the Tribe,
will send a clear message that the Federal Government is committed to
Everglades restoration.
The Seminole Tribe is ready, willing, and able to begin work
immediately. Doing so will require substantial commitments from the
Tribe, including the dedication of over 2,400 acres of land for water
management improvements. However, if the Tribe is to move forward with
its contribution to the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, a
substantially higher level of federal financial assistance will be
needed as well.
The Tribe has demonstrated its economic commitment to the
Everglades Restoration effort; the Tribe is asking the Federal
Government to also participate in that effort. This effort benefits not
just The Seminole Tribe, but all Floridians who depend on a reliable
supply of clean, fresh water flowing out of the Everglades, and all
Americans whose lives are enriched by this unique national treasure.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the request of the
Seminole Tribe of Florida. The Tribe will provide additional
information upon request.
______
OHIO RIVER VALLEY INLAND NAVIGATION PROJECTS
Statement of the National Mining Association
SUMMARY
The National Mining Association (NMA) represents companies whose
products often must depend on the availability of adequate safe, and
efficient inland waterways barge freight services. NMA's member
companies are producers of coal and other metallic and nonmetallic
minerals, manufacturers of mining machinery and equipment, and
providers of mining-related services. With that in mind, NMA urges the
Congress to approve fiscal year 2001 appropriations needed for
justifiable improvements in waterway transportation and for effective
operation and maintenance of the inland waterways system.
Specifically, NMA urges the Congress to fund certain inland
waterways lock and dam construction and rehabilitation at selected lock
and dam (L&D) projects required to assure that the Ohio River System is
capable of continuing its important function as a principal component
of the intermodal rail/barge and truck/barge bulk freight distribution
network in the United States, including the Ohio River main stem and
connecting Monongahela, Kanawha, and Tennessee Rivers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-
construction Construction &
Lock and Dam project recommendation engineering/ rehabilitation
design
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio River Main Stem:
Olmsted L&D-IL&KY................... .............. X
McAlpine L&D-IN&KY.................. .............. X
J.T. Myers L&D-IN&KY................ X ..............
Newburgh L&D-IN&KY.................. X ..............
Cannelton L&D-IN&KY................. X ..............
Greenup L&D-KY&OH................... X ..............
Monongahela River: L&D 2,3,4-PA......... .............. X
Kanawha River:
Marmet L&D-WV....................... .............. X
London L&D-WV....................... .............. X
Tennessee River: Kentucky L&D-KY........ .............. X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the termination of Conrail in mid-1999, the states in the
Ohio River Basin from Pennsylvania to Illinois were left with only two
long-haul railroads, a circumstance that magnifies the need to place a
higher priority on Ohio River lock improvements to enable adequate,
safe, and efficient barge services from Pittsburgh to the confluence of
the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers at Cairo, Illinois. The Ohio River
serves the Nation as a vital transportation asset making possible fuel
efficient, low emission, cost-effective distribution of bulk
commodities, including coal and other products like limestone and
materials used in building construction and public and private
infrastructure projects free of congestion that would be caused
otherwise if those commodities were transported using other surface
transportation modes.
COAL, IN PARTICULAR, IS A PRINCIPAL COMMODITY MOVED BY BARGE
During 1998, the Ohio River was utilized to move 132.7 million tons
of coal, approximately 55 percent of the 241.9 million tons of total
bulk freight commodities carried by barge. The Ohio River System
including the main stem of the Ohio River, the Monongahela River in
Pennsylvania, the Kanawha River in West Virginia, the Big Sandy River
in Kentucky and West Virginia, the Green River in Kentucky, the
Cumberland River in Kentucky, together with its connecting Tennessee
and Mississippi River Systems, represents vast freight transportation
network serving traffic originating both in the Ohio River Basin and in
western states having railroad access to the inland waterways system.
That interconnected waterways system must be considered an integral
component of the Nation's freight transportation network providing wide
opportunities for intermodal rail/barge and truck/barge shipments, with
ton-miles of barge traffic characterized importantly by its fuel-
efficiency, low emissions, and cost-effectiveness in interstate
commerce and in furnishing direct access to the Gulf of Mexico for
coastal movements and international trade. NMA places emphasis on
adequate funding for waterways improvements, especially on the Ohio
River and its Upper Ohio River Basin Tributaries and additional
connecting rivers in light of five principal considerations:
--The Ohio River is the leading waterway for barge coal traffic,
serving distribution of coal produced in Pennsylvania, Ohio,
West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and Tennessee in
eastern and midwestern coal fields, as well as coal produced in
the western states and carried by railroad to the rivers.
--Numerous coal-fueled power plants are located on the Ohio River and
connecting segments of the waterways system.
--With the termination of Conrail, only two railroads remain in the
east for long-haul coal distribution services, CSX
Transportation and Norfolk Southern Corporation, each of whom
have acquired portions of Conrail, a circumstance that
increases the importance of having ready access to barge coal
distribution services.
--The four mega-railroads in the United States today, i.e. CSXT, NS,
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), and Union Pacific (UP),
each have river terminal connections with the inland waterways,
making intermodal rail/barge coal traffic both viable in many
situations and attractive in enabling greater intermodal rail/
barge competition with all-rail coal distribution, a factor in
stimulating higher cost-effectiveness in overall coal
distribution.
--Barge transportation is fuel efficient, a critical factor in regard
to fuel conservation and reduction of emissions. In fact, coal
traffic moved by barge eliminates much of the surface traffic
congestion associated with freight transportation because river
barges flow separated from other surface transport modes. The
non-intrusiveness of barge movements through, and in the
vicinity of, large and small communities located on river banks
not only reduces emissions but also contributes substantially
to reduction of noise associated with surface traffic, adding
to the quality of life enjoyed by the residents while still
having local economies strengthened by sound access to
essential transportation services required for power generation
and the delivery of commodities consumed in construction
activities.
recommended inland waterways projects both continue ongoing
construction and focus on expediting directly related inland waterways
IMPROVEMENTS EMANATING FROM YEARS OF STUDY EFFORTS
NMA urges Congress to approve fiscal year 2001 appropriations
requests presented in the February 2000 Civil Works Budget Request for
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with regard to construction and
rehabilitation ongoing at several locations for which NMA previously
submitted recommendations on appropriations for prior years. This
projects are:
Olmsted L&D on the Ohio River.--New L&D incorporating twin 1,200-
foot by 110-foot lock chambers, replacing L&D 52 and L&D 53.
McAlpine L&D on the Ohio River.--New L&D incorporating a second
1,200-foot by 110-foot lock chamber.
L&D 2,3,4 on the Monongahela River.--Replacement of two obsolete
L&D's and removal of one L&D.
Marmet L&D on the Kanawha River.--New L&D incorporating an 800-foot
by 110-foot lock chamber.
London L&D on the Kanawha River.--Rehabilitation of existing L&D.
Kentucky L&D on the Tennessee River.--Addition of a 1,200-foot by
110-foot lock chamber.
Further, NMA urges the Congress to approve Fiscal year 2001
appropriations requests presented in the Civil Works Budget Request for
pre-construction engineering and design that would add second 1,200-
foot by 110-foot lock chamber at two projects on the Ohio River; and,
in addition, NMA urges the Congress to approve two more pre-
construction engineering and design activities required for adding
second 1,200-foot by 110-foot lock chambers at two other projects on
the Ohio River. The first two projects are presented in the Budget
Request and the second two projects also are recommended by NMA:
J.T. Myers L&D on the Ohio River.--Pre-construction Engineering and
Design.
Greenup L&D on the Ohio River.--same.
Newburgh L&D on the Ohio River.--same.
Cannelton L&D on the Ohio River.--same.
NMA is aware of, and has followed closely, an Ohio River Main Stem
Study performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over many years of
dedicated efforts supported by previous appropriations. The provision
of a second 1,200-foot by 110-foot lock chamber at each of the four
projects NMA recommends is desirable and warranted in order to
accommodate current and projected river traffic adequately, safely, and
efficiently. If built, those projects would complete construction of
second 1,200-foot by 110-foot lock chambers at all L&D projects from
Louisville to the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. That
segment of the Lower Ohio River is at the heart of the interconnected
Ohio/Tennessee/Mississippi Rivers navigation infrastructure offering
interconnected, multi-directional intermodal rail/barge services.
In closing, NMA cites the following statement in the report, An
Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System: A Report To
Congress, September 1999, submitted by the Secretary of Transportation.
NMA participated in the report preparation.
``By 2000, more than 44 percent of the inland waterway locks
and dams will be at least 50 years old. Many are undersized for
modern commercial barge tows, which must then be broken up and
reassembled at each lock. This lengthens travel times, produces
queues at locks--increasing operating costs and decreasing
efficiency--and causes safety and environmental concerns. These
delays will become more severe as system traffic grows and as
aging infrastructure requires increased maintenance and repair
time. In 1998, 36 lock chambers on the system averaged delay
times greater than 1 hour.'' (at page 34)
NMA, in presenting this statement on recommendations for approval
of fiscal year 2001 appropriations for construction and rehabilitation
at selected lock and dam sites, both does so by virtue of a long-
standing awareness of the benefits to the Nation attributable to having
an exceptionally valuable system of commercially navigable inland
waterways, and in recognition of the veracity of the language taken
from the September 1999 report to Congress cited above.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROGRAM
NMA's membership has participated in the Acid Drainage Technology
Initiative (ADTI) since its inception in 1995 with the goal of
developing cost-effective and practical technologies to predict and
remediate acid mine drainage from active and inactive coal and metal
mines. This initiative is not a regulatory or policy development
program. The ADTI is comprised of representatives from the mining
industry, Federal and State agencies, universities and consulting
firms.
In fiscal year 1999, House Report No. 105-581 acknowledged that
acid mine drainage is a serious environmental problem and that the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers possessed the experience and capability to
assist in the ADTI's efforts. Further, the subcommittee directed the
Corps to participate in this initiative with available funds. Since
that time, the Corps' participated in a workshop with members of the
ADTI to exchange information on mining and related environmental issues
and to explore the nature and extent of the Corps' involvement. In
order for the Corps to continue its participation, we respectfully
request that the Corps be provided funds to commit $100-200,000
annually (with other Federal agencies involved, such as OSM, BLM, DOE,
EPA, and USGS) to further the Corps' goals of ecosystem restoration.
______
Prepared Statement of The Association for the Development of Inland
Navigation in America's Ohio Valley
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am Barry Palmer,
Executive Director of DINAMO, The Association for the Development of
Inland Navigation in America's Ohio Valley. DINAMO is a multi-state,
membership based association of business and industry, labor, and state
government leaders from throughout the Ohio Valley, whose singular
purpose is to expedite the modernization of the lock and dam
infrastructure on the Ohio River Navigation System. Largely through the
leadership of this subcommittee and the professional efforts of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, we in the Ohio Valley are beginning to
see the results of 19 years of continuous hard work in improving our
river infrastructure.
Lock and dam modernization at Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam, Grays
Landing Locks and Dam, Point Marion Locks, and Winfield Locks are
largely complete. These projects were authorized for construction in
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. The immediate problems
really are focused on completing in a timely manner lock and dam
modernization projects authorized by the Congress in subsequent water
resources development acts. Substantial problems remain for adequate
funding of improvements at the Olmsted Locks and Dams, Ohio River, IL/
KY; Lower Monongahela River Locks and Dams 2, 3 & 4, PA; McAlpine Locks
and Dam, Ohio River, IN/KY; Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, WV; and for the
Kentucky Locks, Tennessee River, KY. The construction schedules for all
of these projects have been severely constrained, and we are requesting
increased funding for these construction projects at an ``efficient
construction rate.'' Following is a listing of the projects and an
efficient funding level determined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
to advance these projects, in order to complete construction by 2008 or
earlier:
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001:
1. For the Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam modification project,
formerly the Gallipolis Locks and Dam on the Ohio River, OH/WV, about
$2,700,000 for continued construction.
2. For the Winfield Lock Replacement on the Kanawha River, WV,
$300,000 for continued construction of the lock and relocations related
to environmental mitigation.
3. For the Olmsted Locks and Dam, replacing Locks and Dams 52 and
53 on the Lower Ohio River, IL/KY, $72,000,000 for continued
construction of the twin 110, 1,200, locks and design of the
new gated dam.
4. For improvements to Monongahela River Locks and Dams 2,3 & 4,
PA, $75,00,000 for continued construction of Dam 2, for relocations
related to the construction project, and initiation of construction at
Lock 4.
5. For the McAlpine Lock Project on the Ohio River, IN/KY,
$20,000,000 to continue design of the new 110, 1,200, lock
addition and for continued construction of the new 110,
1,200, lock.
6. For the Marmet Lock Replacement on the Kanawha River, WV,
$14,000,000 for real estate acquisition and for continuing Plans and
Specifications on the main construction contracts.
7. For the Kentucky Lock Addition on the Tennessee River, KY,
$40,000,000 to continue design on the new highway and bridge work and
for relocation and construction of the TVA tower.
8. For continuing major rehabilitation of London Locks and Dam,
Kanawha River, $5,000,000.
9. For the Ohio River Mainstem Study, including studies related to
completing an Interim Feasibility Report for Emsworth, Dashields, and
Montgomery Locks and Dams by spring 2002, approximately $10,000,000.
This level of funding is needed to complete the work leading to a
construction authorization document for additional capacity at these
three lock and dam locations in WRDA 2002. See attached ORMSS fact
sheet update 3 March 2000.
10. For Pre-Construction Engineering and Design for the John T.
Myers Locks and Dam, Ohio River, IN/KY, $2,120,000.
11. For Pre-Construction Engineering and Design for the Greenup
Locks and Dam, Ohio River, OH/KY, $$1,300,000.
For the five projects identified in Points 3-7, the fiscal year
2000 Civil Works Budget of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers allocates
only $108,542,000, when the ``efficient'' construction level for fiscal
year 2001 identified by the Corps is $221,000,000. This difference
accounts for an additional $112.458 million of construction spending
that is needed for these five projects in fiscal year 2001. Attached is
a chart outlining fiscal year 1998, fiscal year 1999, and fiscal year
2000 appropriations, fiscal year 2001 budget requests by the
Administration, and fiscal year 2001 efficient funding levels for Ohio
Valley lock and dam modernization projects. The information related to
efficient funding levels was provided to DINAMO by the Commander, Great
Lakes and Ohio River Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Completion dates for the Lower Mon project have already been
delayed 5 years from 2003 to 2008. Failure to win increased funds for
this project in fiscal year 2001 will push the completion schedule
further into the future. For McAlpine Lock the completion date has been
delayed five years from 2002 to 2007. DINAMO has been told that the
McAlpine project could be fully operational in 2005 if an efficient
funding level for this project could be achieved in fiscal year 2001
and then later years. The current completion date for the Marmet Lock
project is 2009, but this project with adequate funding could be
completed two years ahead of current schedule and fully operational in
2006. The Kentucky Lock Addition could be constructed by 2008 with
``efficient,'' or ``optimum'' schedule funding.
These construction projects, in addition to the Olmsted Locks and
Dam, should be completed in a timely and orderly manner. It is
important to note that taxes are being generated by a 20 cents per
gallon diesel fuel tax by towboats operating on America's inland
navigation system. These tax revenues are gathering in the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund, in order to finance 50 percent of the costs of
these project costs. There is about $370 million in the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund. The real challenge is not the private sector
contribution to completing these lock and dam construction projects in
a timely manner, but rather the commitment of the Federal Government to
matching its share.
Delaying the construction of these vitally needed infrastructure
investments is a terribly inefficient practice. Inefficient
construction schedules cost people a lot of money. A recent study by
the Institute for Water Resources concluded that $1.02 billion of
cumulative benefits (transportation savings) for the aforementioned
five lock and dam modernization projects on the Ohio River Navigation
System and the Inner Harbor project in New Orleans harbor on the Lower
Mississippi River have been lost forever. The benefits foregone
represent the cumulative annual loss of transportation cost savings
associated with postponing the completion of these projects from their
``optimum,'' or ``efficient'' schedule. In addition, this study
concludes that $682 million of future benefits that will be foregone
based on fiscal year 1999 schedules could be recovered if funding is
provided to accelerate design and construction activities in accordance
with ``efficient'' schedules.
Expenditures for lock and dam modernization are an investment in
the physical infrastructure of this nation. The Corps of Engineers
construction budget of $1.38 billion for fiscal year 2001 falls
hundreds of millions of dollars less than needed for fiscal year 2001.
Mr. Chairman, we have great confidence in the Corps of Engineers and
urge your support for a funding level more in line with the real water
resources development needs of the nation. For lock and dam
modernization on America's inland navigation system, targeted
construction funding ought to be at a level of about $250-300 million
annually. Last year Congress provided about $4.1 billion for the Corps
of Engineers program and about $160 million for lock and dam
modernization on America's inland navigation system. It is reasonable
that funding for the Corps program should be increased to levels closer
to $4.5 billion and about $250 million for lock and dam modernization
on our nation's river system. With this kind of increased funding, as
amply supported in both the House and Senate appropriations committee
report language in previous years, it is clear that a national lock and
dam modernization program could be sustained at a level commensurate
with the needs for improving the nation's inland navigation system.
We thank you for the opportunity to present this request and our
thoughts on these matters.
______
MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS
Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's UMRBA
request recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction General:
Upper Mississippi River System 18.0 25.0
Environmental Management
Program........................
Major Rehabilitation of Locks 19.22 19.22
and Dams.......................
Operation and Maintenance: O&M of 134.896 151.00
the UMR Navigation System..........
General Investigations:
Upper Mississippi and Illinois 1.2 1.2
Navigation Study...............
Upper Mississippi River System .888 .888
Flow Frequency Study...........
Missouri & Middle Mississippi .500 .500
Rivers Enhancement Project.....
Land Management System (Research .250 2.750
& Development)................. (of 26) (of 26)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
organization created 18 years ago by the Governors of the states of
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to serve as a forum
for coordinating river-related state programs and policies and for
collaborating with federal agencies on regional issues. As such, the
UMRBA works closely with the Corps of Engineers on a variety of
programs for which the Corps has responsibility. Recent disclosures
regarding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' ``Program Growth
Initiative'' and allegations specifically related to the Upper
Mississippi River Navigation study are serious matters. However, these
controversies do not obviate the fundamental need for a wide variety of
on-going Corps programs and projects. Of particular interest to the
basin states are the following:
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The 1999 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) reauthorized the
Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program (EMP),
which was originally authorized in 1986. What was at first a novel
approach to interagency environmental management, has now become a
widely recognized and respected regional program.
The EMP consists of two primary components: the construction of
individual projects to rehabilitate or enhance critical habitat areas
and a long term monitoring program to track the environmental health of
the system. The habitat projects, which vary in size and range in cost
from about $200,000 to over $10 million, employ different types of
techniques, including such measures as island creation, water level
control features, side channel closures or openings, and selective
dredging to remove sediment. The long term monitoring program uses six
field stations throughout the river system that routinely collect
standardized data on water, sediment, fish, and vegetation at over 150
sites.
The 1999 WRDA increased the annual authorized appropriations for
the EMP from $19.455 million to $33.17 million. Despite this clear
indication from Congress and the public that the EMP is an important
program, the President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for the EMP is
only $18 million, well below even the old authorized funding level. It
is very disappointing that the Administration continues to underfund
the EMP. In three of the past four years, Congress has needed to
increase EMP funding above that requested by the Administration. The
states are hopeful that Congress will again affirm its support for this
important program by providing $25 million for the EMP in fiscal year
2001. While $25 million is not the full amount of the increased
authorization, it represents a funding level that (a) the states are
confident the Corps can effectively utilize in fiscal year 2001, (b)
will lay the foundation for a fully funded program in the future, and
(c) demonstrates the on-going federal commitment to balanced management
of this river system as ``a nationally significant ecosystem and a
nationally significant commercial navigation system.'' Funding beyond
the $18 million requested by the Administration is critical:
--A habitat needs assessment (HNA) is currently being developed, as
mandated by the 1999 WRDA. The HNA will help to identify
habitat restoration needs at the pool, reach, and system level.
It is anticipated that these needs will far exceed the EMP
habitat projects currently programmed for construction.
Increased funding in fiscal year 2001 will allow a number of
projects to proceed to construction and, perhaps even more
importantly, initiate planning and design of future projects to
meet the needs identified in the HNA.
--The Long Term Resource Monitoring (LTRM) component of the EMP has
been significantly constrained as a result of funding
shortfalls in the past few years. It is critical that the LTRM
be expanded to monitor components such as mussels, birds, and
forests; to expand spatial coverage beyond the six key pools
that have been the focus in the past; and to identify cause and
effect linkages between physical and ecological processes.
These and other unmet data and analysis needs were the reason
why the EMP monitoring program was reauthorized in 1999. Now,
it is necessary to provide sufficient funding for this
important work to proceed.
MAJOR REHABILITATION OF LOCKS AND DAMS
Given that most of the locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi
River System are over 60 years old, they are in serious need of repair
and rehabilitation. For the past 14 years, the Corps has been
undertaking major rehabilitation of individual facilities throughout
the system in an effort to extend their useful life. This work is
critical to ensuring the system's reliability and safety.
The UMRBA supports the Corps' fiscal year 2001 budget request of
approximately $19.22 million for major rehabilitation work at 4 locks
and dams on the Upper Mississippi River. Half of this amount is to be
provided by the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. The fiscal year 2001 major
rehabilitation funds will support continuing work at Locks and Dams 3,
12, and 24, and initiate rehabilitation of Lock and Dam 11. Work at
these facilities will include lock rehabilitation, auxiliary lock
closure rehabilitation, miter gate installation, electrical and
mechanical rehabilitation, scour protection, rehabilitation of
embankment systems that are subject to overtopping during flood events,
and work on outdraft bendway weirs and wall openings.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) OF THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER
NAVIGATION SYSTEM
The Corps of Engineers is responsible for operating and maintaining
the Upper Mississippi River System for navigation. This includes
channel maintenance dredging, placement and repair of channel training
structures, water level regulation, and the daily operation of 29 locks
and dams on the Mississippi River and 7 locks and dams on the Illinois
River. The fiscal year 2001 budget includes nearly $135 million for O&M
of this river system, including $97.1 million for the Mississippi River
between Minneapolis and the Missouri River, $13.4 million for the
Mississippi River between the Missouri River and Ohio River, and $24.4
million for the Illinois Waterway.
These funds are critical to the Corps' ability to maintain a safe
and reliable commercial navigation system. The efficiency of this
system is vital to the agricultural economy of the five states. In
addition, these funds support a variety of activities that ensure the
navigation system is maintained while protecting and enhancing the
river's environmental values. For example, O&M funds support innovative
environmental engineering techniques in the open river reaches such as
bendway weirs, chevrons, and notched dikes that maintain the navigation
channel in an environmentally sensitive manner. In addition, water
level management options for a number of pools in the impounded portion
of the river are being evaluated under the O&M program. Pool level
management is a promising new approach for enhancing aquatic plant
growth and overwintering conditions for fish without adversely
affecting navigation.
While the funds that the Corps has requested for fiscal year 2001
are expected to be adequate to meet basic O&M requirements, the UMRBA
supports additional funding of $16 million, which could be effectively
utilized in fiscal year 2001 for critical needs such as electrical
repairs, bulkhead repairs, repairs to cracks and spalls on lockwalls,
concrete repairs, repairs to liftgates, revetment and dike repairs, and
replacement of roller gate chains at various lock locations on the
upper river. Additional funds are also needed to support work related
to fish passage at locks.
NAVIGATION STUDY
The UMRBA supports the President's fiscal year 2001 budget request
of $1.2 million for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway
Navigation Study. Recent allegations regarding the study's economic
analysis are indeed serious and need to be addressed. However, the
feasibility study, which was initiated in 1993, is nearing completion
and the funding request for fiscal year 2001 is intended to be used to
complete all aspects of the study. In particular, the draft report and
draft Environmental Impact Statement have yet to be completed and the
public review process, including public meetings, will need to be
conducted. It is essential that the Corps has sufficient funds to
complete these important tasks and produce a sound economic and
environmental assessment of navigation capacity expansion needs.
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM FLOW FREQUENCY STUDY
Flow frequencies for the Upper Mississippi River System badly need
revision. The flood profiles currently in use were developed in 1979 by
an interagency task force and replaced profiles previously adopted in
1966. However, the accuracy of the 1979 profiles has come into question
now that there are over 20 years of new data, including flow records
from several high water events like the Great Flood of 1993.
Flood elevation profiles have a variety of important uses including
flood insurance; floodplain management; and the study, design, and
construction of flood control projects. Thus, the five states of the
Upper Mississippi River Basin have been strong supporters of the Corps'
efforts to reassess the methodology, update the data, and develop more
sophisticated and accurate models.
The UMRBA supports the fiscal year 2001 budget request of $888,000
for the Upper Mississippi River Flow Frequency Study. These funds will
be used to complete the hydraulic model which was begun in fiscal year
2000 and to develop the new flood profiles.
MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MANAGEMENT RIVERS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
Section 514 of the 1999 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
authorized a new Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement
Project to address the unique habitat needs of specific portions of
these two great rivers. The fiscal year 2001 budget request includes
$500,000 to develop the plan that, as described in 1999 WRDA, would
include activities such as modifying channel training structures and
side channels, island creation, creation of riverine habitat, and
biological and physical monitoring. The basin states support this
funding request and further request that the planning phase of the
project be completed at full federal expense given the interstate
character of the plan.
LAND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The Corps of Engineers' Research and Development (R&D) budget for
fiscal year 2001 includes $26 million, $250,000 of which is to be
allocated to development of a Land Management System (LMS)
demonstration project on the Upper Mississippi River System. Past LMS
funding shortfalls have resulted in numerous scheduling set-backs. The
UMRBA supports funding for the LMS project, including an additional
$2.5 million, that could effectively be utilized in fiscal year 2001.
The Waterways Experiment Station (WES) in Vicksburg, Mississippi is
leading the effort, which focuses on three specific locations in the
basin: Peoria Lakes on the Illinois River, the Minnesota River (Redwood
Basin), and Pool 8 on the Mississippi River. Problems such as wetland
loss, poor water quality, and habitat loss are common to all these
locations and are related to sediment transport and deposition.
Evaluation of the ecological consequences of hydrologic and sediment
dynamics at these sites within the Upper Mississippi River System will
enhance LMS applications to other large river systems. This current
research investment should pay long term dividends, allowing the Corps
to design and manage more effective and efficient projects nationwide.
______
Prepared Statement of the St. Francis Levee District Board of Directors
My name is Bill Felty. I live in West Memphis, Arkansas which is
located on the West side of the Mississippi River in the St. Francis
River Basin. I am Chief Engineer of the St. Francis Levee District of
Arkansas. Our District is the local cooperation organization for the
St. Francis Basin Project in Northeast Arkansas.
The St. Francis Basin is comprised of an area of approximately
3,500 square miles in Southeast Missouri and Northeast Arkansas. The
basin extends from the foot of Commerce Hills near Cape Girardeau,
Missouri to the mouth of the St. Francis River seven miles above
Helena, Arkansas a distance of 235 miles. It extends to the West to the
uplands of Bloomfield and Crowley's Ridge, having a maximum width of 45
miles.
The St. Francis Basin Project provides essential flood protection
to over 2,500 square miles in Northeast Arkansas alone. Within the
Arkansas portion of the St. Francis River Basin there is roughly
1,500,000 acres of some of the most fertile farmland in the world. This
land has provided food and fiber for the United States and the World
for well over 200 years. In the past agriculture has been the primary
basis of economy along the Mississippi River. However, resources and
infrastructure have allowed Northeast Arkansas to evolve into a
prosperous commercial and industrial region as well. This growth and
prosperity could not exist without the drainage and flood control
efforts made possible by the appropriations from your committee.
As your Subcommittee reviews the Civil Works Budget for fiscal year
2001 Appropriations for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project,
please consider the significance of this project to the Lower
Mississippi Valley and to the Nation's security, economy, and
infrastructure. The amount of $309,000,000 included in the President's
Budget for the overall Mississippi River and Tributaries Project is
significantly less than the amount needed to keep this project on
schedule. Timely completion of this project is of paramount importance
to the citizens of the Lower Mississippi Valley. As each day passes
with this project incomplete, the Lower Mississippi Valley is at
enormous risk of major flood devastation. Therefore, we support the
amount of $370,000,000 requested by the Mississippi Valley Flood
Control Association for use in the overall Mississippi River and
Tributary Projects. This is the minimum amount that the Executive
Committee of the Association feels is necessary to maintain a
reasonable time line for completion of the overall Mississippi River
and Tributaries Project.
Also, the amounts included in the President's Budget for the St.
Francis Basin Project, construction and maintenance are not sufficient
to fund proposed projects. The declined amounts that have been
appropriated for this project in the past have resulted in a
significant backlog of work within the St. Francis Basin. Therefore,
our District is requesting $3,795,000 for St. Francis Basin Project
construction funds and $12,000,000 for St. Francis Basin Project
maintenance funds. This includes an additional capability of $600,000
for construction funds and an additional capability of $6,000,000 for
maintenance funds. The amounts requested for the St. Francis Basin
Project are a part of the total amount requested for the Mississippi
River and Tributary Appropriations of the Civil Works Budget.
I feel the Subcommittee will give fair consideration to the needs
of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Appropriations. I appreciate
the time given and the work you do to advance the development of the
water resources projects.
______
Prepared Statement of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development
Authority
Dear Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to once again
submit to you for your Committee's consideration our requests for
appropriations for the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway and other waterway
related projects for fiscal year 2001. This is the 40th consecutive
year the Authority has had this opportunity.
We also want to thank you for the leadership and support you have
given to water resources development while serving as Chairman of the
Energy and Water Resources Appropriations Subcommittee.
The Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway continues to have a profound
impact on trade and economic development. Some 9 million tons of
commerce are shipped each year at great savings in costs to shippers
and producers. The waterway's low transportation costs have helped
stimulate nearly $4 billion of new and expanded industrial development.
These private investments have created more than 50,000 new jobs. Its
recreational attractions draw more than 3.5 million visitors each year
that generate about $200 million of additional economic spending
annually.
Tenn-Tom's ability to continue generating such impressive economic
benefits to the nation will depend upon the Federal Government
adequately maintaining the waterway and its facilities. Regrettably,
this has not been the case for the past 4 years and the waterway's
structural integrity has deteriorated because of lack of funds.
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY FUNDING
Current Level.--$21.5 million.
Proposed 2001 Level.--$23.5 million.
Requested 2001 Level.--$25.7 million.
We are very concerned about the growing backlog of needed but
unfunded maintenance and repairs for the waterway. Although the Tenn-
Tom is a relatively new project compared to others, deferred
maintenance has now reached $9 million most all of which have
accumulated since 1997.
While the President's budget includes an increase in funding for
the waterway for the first time in memory, these funds are earmarked
for costs associated with closure of three locks for inspection and
major repairs in 2001. This is the first major closure of the Tenn-Tom
for repairs since the waterway opened some 15 years ago.
We respectfully request the committee approve $25.7 million for O&M
of the Tenn-Tom for next fiscal year. The additional funds of $2.2
million will be used to curtail the deferred maintenance now
accumulating on the waterway. These additional funds are needed as
follows:
--$1 million for additional dredging to ensure authorized channel
depths for commercial traffic.
--$250 thousand for increasing capacity of upland disposal areas for
dredged material.
--$300 thousand for emergency repairs at Whitten Lock.
--$650 thousand to fully fund the needs of the conservation agencies
in Alabama and Mississippi to adequately manage over 135,000
acres of federal lands as part of the Tenn-Tom Wildlife
Mitigation Project. The States assumed the management of these
lands on the assumption that adequate funds would be provided.
This has not been the case.
The availability of these funds will stop the physical
deterioration of the waterway caused by underfunding since 1997 and
allow the project to generate its expected benefits. It would be penny
wise and pound foolish not to do so.
KENTUCKY LOCK
Current Level.--$24.2 million.
Proposed 2001 Level.--$15.0 million.
Recommended 2001 Level.--$40.0 million.
One of the worst bottlenecks on the nation's entire waterway system
is the antiquated and out-moded lock at Kentucky Dam on the Tennessee
River. Congress appropriated funds last year to start construction of a
new 1200-foot lock. The President's recommendations for this project in
2001 are woefully inadequate and, if approved, will delay completion of
the project by at least one year.
If the new lock is not completed by 2008, shippers and the nation
will incur as much as $250 million in losses when the old lock is
closed for a total of 8 months for extensive repairs beginning in 2009.
The request of $40 million is needed to keep construction on its
current schedule of completion by 2008 and preclude these losses.
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK
We support the President's request of $1.9 million to the Corps of
Engineers to continue repairs to this 60 year-old lock. These repairs
will help stem the structural deterioration of this project and permit
the lock to remain in operation until the Congress has the opportunity
to make a decision on its replacement. The study to determine the
economic feasibility of building a new lock at Chickamauga Dam is
expected to be completed in the fall of 2000.
WARRIOR-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY
The Authority supports the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association
and its request for $20.275 million that will adequately fund the
operation and maintenance of this waterway in 2001. The reliability of
the Tenn-Tom as a viable shipping artery is dependent on the
navigability of the connecting Warrior-Tombigbee system, especially its
southern 215-mile reach.
Thank you again for your careful consideration of our request for
the continued funding of these most important projects.
______
Prepared Statement of the Warrior & Gulf Navigation Company
I am J. Craig Stepan, General Manager of Warrior & Gulf Navigation
Company. Our company is an active member of the Warrior-Tombigbee
Waterway Association. I wish to take this opportunity to highlight the
impact that the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway and the Port of Mobile
have on the success and development of our Company and to solicit your
support on behalf of several critical waterway issues.
Warrior & Gulf is a barge line and terminal operator headquartered
in Chickasaw, Alabama, and owns 20 towboats and 240 barges, moving
approximately 8 million tons of bulk materials on the Black Warrior-
Tombigbee River System. This makes WGN the dominant water carrier
operating in the region. Additionally, we own and operate two bulk and
general cargo terminals at Port Birmingham and Mobile, Alabama,
providing storage, transloading and intermodal services for truck, rail
and water transportation. Our total employment is 235 people.
Warrior & Gulf has provided barge transportation on the Black
Warrior-Tombigbee River Systems since 1940 for export and domestic
coal, iron ore, coke, import and export steel products, export and
domestic wood chips, and several other types of bulk commodities. An
efficient and properly maintained waterway system integrated with the
Port of Mobile is vital to Warrior & Gulf and its customers. This
waterway system has made the entire region world competitors through
the reliable, efficient movement of raw materials and finished products
both for domestic and overseas consumption. In order to encourage
continued economic development along this great waterway we must
continue in our efforts to ensure this viable low cost transportation
alternative remains in place. The continued efficiency of this waterway
is extremely critical to the viability of the industries it serves and
helps to develop. This waterway system and harbor hold great
opportunity for developing trade initiatives with Mexico, South America
and the world.
We have worked closely with the Corps of Engineers and
wholeheartedly endorse the President's budget request of $19,204,000 in
O&M funds for the Black Warrior-Tombigbee system for fiscal year 2001
to ensure continued transportation operations. In addition, we support
an add-on request of $1.0 million to fund an engineered solution to the
critical Bankhead Lock lower gate problem.
Lastly, it goes without saying that the maintenance of the Mobile
harbor is vital to our waterway and the entire southern region. We,
therefore, support the appropriation of $21,165,000 to adequately fund
Mobile harbor's O&M needs.
Our company and its employees respectfully request your continued
support of funding for these very important issues concerning the Black
Warrior-Tomibigbee System, the Port of Mobile and those they serve.
______
Letter From Anthony J. Topazi
Southern Company,
Birmingham, AL, March 14, 2000.
Hon. Pete V. Domenci,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: On behalf of Southern Company and it
subsidiaries, Alabama Power Company, Gulf Power Company, and
Mississippi Power Company, I am writing to express our support for the
Warrior-Tombigbee Development Association in their efforts before your
committee. Because of the importance of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway
to local, national, and international trade, the Southern Company joins
with the Warrior-Tombigbee Development Association in an effort to
improve the efficiency and reliability of the Warrior-Tombigbee
Waterway.
Alabama Power Company, Gulf Power Company and Mississippi Power
Company have used the Warrior-Tombigbee and the facilities in the Port
of Mobile to transport coal to their respective electrical generating
plants at Demopolis, Alabama; West Jefferson, Alabama; Mobile, Alabama;
Pensacola, Florida; Sneads, Florida and Biloxi, Mississippi. In 2000,
we project to move over 8.5 million tons, through the use of contracted
barge carriers, by way of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway. The Warrior-
Tombigbee Waterway allows the barges to move up and down the Warrior-
Tombigbee River from in-state and out-of-state coal suppliers to our
generating plants. The significant importance of this capability to our
system is obvious from a transportation flexibility standpoint.
Additionally, the Port of Mobile is the hub of the Central Gulf Coast
and has become a major focus of our coal movement plans. The continued
development of its facilities and support services is critical to the
economy of the tri-state area served by the Southern Company.
Alabama Power Company, Gulf Power Company and Mississippi Power
Company utilize water transportation because of the economic advantage
to two million customers. Any expenditures for maintenance or upgrading
which improve the efficiency and reliability of the waterway will have
a positive impact on our customers. At the same time, higher cost
resulting from inefficiency or the unreliability of the Warrior-
Tombigbee Waterway will have a direct and adverse effect upon our
customers.
Adequate funding of programs required to maintain the efficiency
and reliability of our nation's waterways and associated infrastructure
is critical to its superior economic health and welfare. I strongly
urge and solicit your support.
Sincerely,
Anthony Topazi,
Vice President.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AEC) is a wholesale power
supplier for 21 member-owners located in central and south Alabama and
northwest Florida. The member-owners serve over 330,000 customer-
members. AEC operates the Charles R. Lowman Power Plant, located at
Milepost 89.5 on the Tombigbee River, a coal-fired power plant which
burned 1,512,658 tons of coal in 1999. Also, AEC has a site on the
Black Warrior-Tombigbee River which is a possible location for a future
base-load fossil fired generating plant.
STATEMENT OF INTEREST AND SUPPORT
AEC joins the collective effort to improve the efficiency and
reliability of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway because of the lower fuel
transportation costs which the waterway provides to AEC's Lowman
electric generating plant. The Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway (BWT),
the Tenn-Tom Waterway, and the Port of Mobile are vital to our delivery
of coal economically and efficiently to this plant, which is located on
the Tombigbee River near Jackson, Alabama. During calendar year 1999,
we received 363,199 tons of coal via the BWT which accounts for over 23
percent of total coal received.
Because delivered coal cost is such an important factor in our
ability to maintain competitive rates to our member systems, AEC
supports the Black Warrior-Tombigbee project and level funding for the
Corps of Engineers' fiscal year 2001 budget. In addition, AEC supports
the additional request of $1,000,000 urgently needed for work on the
Bankhead Lock.
In addition to the dependency which AEC has upon the BWT, there are
benefits to our region and our end-consumers as a direct result of a
viable BWT waterway and the Port of Mobile. These systems provide an
invaluable link between our region and the world markets. As such, they
stimulate the region's economy, provide jobs, and help reduce the trade
deficit.
SPECIFIC BENEFITS OF THE WARRIOR-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY AND THE PORT OF
MOBILE TO AEC
The amount of coal moved to AEC's Plant Lowman by barge on the BWT
for the past five years is as follows:
Year Tons
1995.......................................................... 874,044
1996.......................................................... 1,103,919
1997.......................................................... 1,052,575
1998.......................................................... 938,483
1999.......................................................... 363,199
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total..................................................... 4,332,220
The savings in transportation costs represented by the above
tonnage exceeds $25 million compared to AEC's next viable option of
delivery via rail.
AEC plans to continue to move its barge coal via the BWT in 2000
and beyond. AEC has recently entered into a six-year contract for
supply of imported coal into the Port of Mobile. This coal will supply
Lowman Plant with up to 50 percent of its total coal by barge.
STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO APPROPRIATION AMOUNTS
AEC supports the President's request for funding ($19,204,00) for
Operation and Maintenance in the Corps of Engineers' fiscal year 2001
Budget. We view this as a minimum requirement in that this level of O&M
funding is necessary to cover the minimum expected needs within the
Mobile District for fiscal year 2001.
AEC also supports the appropriation of adequate O&M funds of
$21,165,000 for Mobile Harbor.
Lastly, AEC supports an amount of $1,000,000 for engineering and
designs for the lower gates on the Bankhead Lock. The status of this
project has been identified as urgent, and is nearing the emergency
state.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate the opportunity to submit a statement on behalf of
our member owners in central and south Alabama and northwest Florida
pertaining to the benefits of the BWT waterway and the Port of Mobile.
AEC and its member-owners fully support the Corps of Engineers' 2001
budget request for $19.2 million in operations and maintenance funds
for the BWT waterway, as well as $1 million for urgent work on the
Bankhead Lock, and $21.2 million for Mobile Harbor O&M. While we are
well aware of budget constraints, we believe these projects should be
funded at these levels to assure a viable transportation system. With
the money that has already been spent in construction of the BWT
transportation system, proper funding for operations and maintenance
is, in our view, prudent management of what is undoubtedly a national
asset.
______
Prepared Statement of Stevedoring Services of America
Our company, Stevedoring Services of America (SSA), is a 55 year-
old stevedoring and marine terminal operating company that utilizes the
Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway and the Port of Mobile, Alabama, in our
daily operations. We handle approximate annual tonnage, via the
Tombigbee Waterway and Port of Mobile as follows: 1.7 million tons of
forest products, 1.5 million tons of bulk cargo (coal) through Mobile
and 270,000 tons of bulk and breakbulk products through the Port of
Columbus, MS. This business results in direct employment of fifty
people and an additional 300,000 man hours per year for four local
International Longshoremen Association unions generating an annual
total of over $12.5 million in wages and benefits.
SSA supports the President's fiscal year 2001 budget request of
$19,204,000 for the operation and maintenance of the Black Warrior-
Tombigbee Waterway by the Corps of Engineers. We also request you
provide an add-on request for the urgent need of $1,000,000 for
engineering and designs of the lower gates on the Bankhead Lock.
Additionally, maintaining the Mobile Harbor is critical to SSA's
business, and the Alabama State Docks. Therefore, we urge your support
for appropriation of $21,165,000 for maintaining and improving the
Mobile Harbor.
SSA fully supports the collective effort to improve the efficiency
and reliability of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway (BWT). The waterway
is a vital national transportation artery providing access to low cost,
energy efficient, environmentally safe barge transportation. Moreover
it is critical to SSA's business, to maintaining international commerce
at the Port of Mobile and growing our local, state and national
economy. Maintaining and improving the efficiency and reliability of
the waterway is essential to protect and grow SSA's business.
We strongly urge you to support the aforementioned budget request.
The BWT is an important segment of our national transportation
infrastructure. After all, our nation's transportation infrastructure
is what keeps America moving and competitive in the global economy.
We very respectfully appreciate your consideration of this matter.
______
Prepared Statement of the Velasco Drainage District
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: As Chairman of the Board
of Supervisors of the Velasco Drainage District (VDD) in Southern
Brazoria County, Texas, I would like to testify in support of the
fiscal year 2001 budget request the Corps of Engineers (COE), Galveston
District has made for a New Start Reconnaissance Study of the Freeport
Hurricane Levee System. This request was made as subsequent to a
request from VDD for a review of the Freeport Hurricane Levee Project
under Section 216 of the 1970 Flood Control Act.
BACKGROUND
The Brazosport area is protected by a Hurricane Levee System that
protects approximately 236 square miles from hurricane damage of
industrial and residential property and loss of life.
When the COE completed the latest upgrade of the project in mid-
1970's, the VDD assumed the operational and maintenance responsibility
of the System. It includes 53 miles of levees, 66 miles of major
outfall ditches, 13 pump stations with a pumping capacity of 3.4
million gpm, and assets of invested taxpayers funds of approximately
$60 million. The levee system was studied in 1957 and 1966, which
resulted in a major upgrading of the levee system in the early 1970's
including several miles of extension and elevation increases along the
entire levee system.
In 1998, as a part of an internal risk management review, a large
local chemical company commissioned an independent study of the
existing levee system to evaluate the probability and potential
property and business loss of various size hurricanes hitting the Texas
Gulf Coast at or in the near vicinity of Freeport, TX. The study
results indicated that a large Category 3 or Category 4 storm would
likely over top the existing levee system, causing significant flooding
and property damage to both residential and industrial property.
WHAT IS REQUESTED
The people and businesses living within the hurricane protection
levee crucially need to know whether the levee is adequate. Therefore,
VDD urges the committee to include $100,000 for a New Start
Reconnaissance Study as requested by the COE in the fiscal year 2001
appropriations.
WHAT IS AT RISK
Lives.--Close to 50,000 residents rely on the levee to protect
their lives, homes and property.
Property.--In addition, the area inside the levee is heavily
developed, with over $4.8 billion of buildings and other improvements,
according to our tax rolls. This does not include the value of or
operation interruption of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve facility at
Bryan Mound.
Income.--The area within the levee is highly industrialized. If a
storm surge overtopped the levee, the business interruption losses
would be catastrophic, and the effects could be felt nationwide.
Environment.--Still further, the levee protects numerous large
chemical plants. Therefore, an inadequacy of the levee height could
well result in an environmental disaster, in addition to loss of lives,
property and revenues.
WHY A NEW STUDY IS NECESSARY
The existing levee was designed almost a half a century ago, in
1957, and the design has not been reviewed since 1966, roughly 34 years
ago. Obviously, conditions have changed dramatically in that time, as
follows:
--The quantity of lives, chemical plants, and other property
developments now depending on the levee is several orders of
magnitude greater than when the levee was designed in the
1950's.
--Modern computer modeling technology for hurricanes makes the 1957
technology seem primitive. Yet the people, property, and
environment of southern Brazoria County are still depending on
a levee with 1958 knowledge and technology. There now is 40
more years of actual hurricane data compiled that could be used
with vastly improved modeling technology.
--The economic value of existing properties within the levee has also
risen significantly over the decades.
--The damage that a storm surge overtopping the levees might inflict
on the coastal environment has expanded apace with the
profusion of chemical plants within the levee.
--The number of lives and property now at risk justify a greater
public investment than quantities in 1957.
--Development has reduced the floodwater storage (ponding) areas in
this vicinity since the 1957 study.
--The VDD has added significant pumping capacity relative to the
recommended capacity in the 1958 study.
--Subsidence in the coastal plain may well have increased since 1957,
especially considering the increase in groundwater use over the
years as industrial and residential development have
multiplied.
--The Bryan Mound Strategic Oil Storage facility is now protected by
the levee system.
HISTORY OF THE REQUEST
In October 1998, based on the risk analysis study conducted by
local industry and after several meetings and discussions with local
industry, community leaders and the COE, the VDD requested a review of
the Freeport Hurricane Levee Project under Section 216 of the 1970
Flood Control Act
Based on that request the COE began an Initial Appraisal (IA) of
the Freeport Levee project in January 1999. The completed IA assessed
the current conditions of the levee system to determine if there was a
need for further studies. These studies evaluated the need and
justification for additional construction to avoid future hurricane
damages to life and property. The IA indicated that the project might
potentially not function as intended. Therefore, the COE proposed to
initiate a full study and prepared to budget for a New Start
Reconnaissance Study in fiscal year 2001. This would require funding of
$100,000 for the New Start Reconnaissance Study. The COE did submit
their request in their fiscal year 2001 budget submittal. That request
for a New Start has been deleted from the Administration/OMB budget
submitted to Congress on February 7.
The VDD, local industry and community leaders were of the opinion
that the need was more urgent and made an unsuccessful effort to have
the New Start study added as a line item in the COE fiscal year 2000
budget. The VDD has offered to fund the New Start Study; however, there
is no mechanism in place to allow an outside entity to fund a COE New
Start Study. Reprogramming was considered as an alternate to expedite
the study; however, reprogramming is not allowed on a New Start Study.
Due to the potentially large liability of hurricane damage and loss
of life, the VDD urges the committee not allow the small size
($100,000) of the funding request to negatively impact the real need
for the study.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, with a great deal of concern and urgency on the part of
the VDD, local industry and community leaders we ask that the committee
include the funding for the New Start Reconnaissance Study per the
COE's request in their fiscal year 2001 appropriations.
______
Letter From J. Mark Cook
R&W Marine, Inc.,
Paducah, KY, February 24, 2000.
Hon. Ron Packard,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water
Development,
U.S. House of Representative, Washington, DC.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water
Development,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Packard and Senator Domenici: I am writing to
express my support for the continued maintenance and improvement of the
Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway system.
R&W Marine, Inc. is one of the largest tramp towing companies in
the inland river system. This means that R&W Marine, Inc., is engaged
in the business of towing barges for many companies, as it does not own
any barges itself. A significant number of our customers require
service to and from both the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway system
and the Port of Mobile. The tonnages flowing through these waters are
significant to the economies of the states in that region, from the
points of view of both producers and consumers. Barging is a very low
cost method of transportation, responsible for moving more than 15
percent of all of the United States total freight for less than 2
percent of the nation's total transportation costs, which translates
into savings for the consumer, such as lower rates for electricity.
Another important aspect of the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway
system is that it provides the only alternative to the Mississippi
River to move product to the Gulf Coast. This was extremely important
during the drought year of 1988 when the lower portion of the Ohio
River was closed for an extended period and the lower Mississippi River
was severely restricted for approximately five months. The availability
of the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway system allowed us to continue
to serve utility and industrial customers and kept those customers from
having to shut down operations because they could not receive raw
material.
R&W Marine, Inc., fully supports and recommends appropriation of
$21.1 million for Mobile Harbor in fiscal year 2001. In addition, we
support the appropriation of $19.2 million for operation and
maintenance of the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway system for fiscal
year 2001. Finally, we recommend additional funding to permit the Corps
of Engineers to proceed with engineering and design of the lower gates
on Bankhead Lock, which totals $1,000,000. All of these funds are
necessary to assure that the Port of Mobile and the Black Warrior-
Tombigbee Waterway remain important parts of the inland waterways
system. The Port of Mobile is an integral part of the waterway system,
especially as an alternative origin to the Port of New Orleans.
Improvement of the Mobile Harbor will increase utilization of the Black
Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway overall and generate significant additional
monies for the states in this region. We request your support in
reviewing and approving these project-funding limits for fiscal year
2001.
Sincerely,
J. Mark Cook,
President.
______
Letter From Robert L. Doetting,
Red Circle Transport Co.,
Cincinnati, OH, February 24, 2000.
Hon. Ron Packard,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water
Development,
U.S. House of Representative, Washington, DC.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water
Development,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Packard and Senator Domenici: I am writing to
express my support for the continued maintenance and improvement of the
Port of Mobile.
Red Circle Transport Co., is a subsidiary of one of the nation's
largest barge transportation companies and provides service to Puerto
Rico. The Port of Mobile is a port of call for ConAgra, one of Red
Circle's major customers. Products from Mobile are transported to San
Juan, Puerto Rico, enhancing the economic viability of both locations.
In addition, products from Mobile help sustain the viability of Puerto
Rico, an island nation dependent upon cost effective, reliable water
transportation service. Barging is a very low cost method of
transportation, responsible for moving more than 15 percent of all of
the United States total freight for less than 2 percent of the nation's
total transportation costs, which translates into savings for the
consumer, such as lower rates for food products and electricity.
Red Circle Transport Co., fully supports and recommends
appropriation of $21.1 million for Mobile Harbor in fiscal year 2001.
In addition, we support the appropriation of $19.2 million for
operation and maintenance of the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway
system for fiscal year 2001. Finally, we recommend additional funding
to permit the Corps of Engineers to proceed with engineering and design
of the lower gates on Bankhead Lock, which totals $1,000,000. All of
these funds are necessary to assure that the Port of Mobile and the
Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway system remain important parts of the
inland waterways system.
We request your support in reviewing and approving these project-
funding limits for fiscal year 2001. Continued support for improvement
of Mobile Bay and the water systems that support commerce at Mobile
will result in a significant economic benefit to the United States and
the Caribbean Region.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Doetting,
Senior Vice President, Transportation.
______
Letter From Jerry L. Stewart
Southern Company,
Birmingham, AL, February 22, 2000.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Domenici: On behalf of Alabama Power Company, I am
writing to express our support for the Warrior-Tombigbee Development
Association and its president in their efforts before your Committee.
Because of the importance of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway to local,
national and international trade, Alabama Power Company joins with the
Warrior-Tombigbee Development Association in an effort to improve the
efficiency and reliability of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway.
Alabama Power Company has used the Warrior-Tombigbee to transport
coal to its electrical generating plants at Demopolis, Alabama; West
Jefferson, Alabama; and Mobile, Alabama. Also, a barge unloader was
constructed in 1999 at Plant Gorgas located near Parrish. During 2000,
a majority of the coal for Plant Gorgas will be delivered by barge. In
1999, through the use of contracted barge carriers, Alabama Power
Company moved over 5.8 million tons of coal by way of the Warrior-
Tombigbee Waterway. Barge movements to Alabama Power Company plants are
projected to increase to 9.5 million tons in 2000. The Warrior-
Tombigbee Waterway allows the barges to move down the Warrior-Tombigbee
River to Mobile and other destinations. The significant importance of
this capability to our system is obvious from a transportation
flexibility standpoint. Additionally, the Port of Mobile is the hub of
the Central Gulf Coast and the continued development of its facilities
and support services is critical to the economy of the tri-state area
served by the Southern electric system. During 2000, Alabama Power
Company is projected to import over 3.5 million tons through the Port
of Mobile.
Alabama Power Company utilizes water transportation because of the
economic advantage to our 1.3 million customers. Any expenditures for
maintenance or upgrading which improves the efficiency and reliability
of the waterway will have a positive impact on our customers. At the
same time, higher cost resulting from inefficiency or the unreliability
of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway will have a direct and adverse effect
upon our customers.
It is imperative that there be a continuous program for maintenance
and upgrading of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway channels and locks.
Alabama Power Company supports the proposed budget request for $19.2
million in Operations and Maintenance funds for the Black Warrior-
Tombigbee River for the fiscal year 2001. Additionally, we support an
urgent add-on request of $1.0 million for engineering and design of the
lower gates on the Bankhead Lock, as well as the appropriation of funds
for Mobile Harbor in the amount of $21.2 million.
Adequate funding of programs required to maintain the efficiency
and reliability of our nation's waterways is critical to its superior
economic health and welfare. I strongly urge and solicit your support.
Sincerely,
Jerry L. Stewart,
Senior Vice President.
______
Prepared Statement of the Hunt Company
The Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway System and the Port of Mobile are
critical to the operation of our Refinery in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. We
barge over 40 percent of our crude oil and over 25 percent of our
refined products using both the Port of Mobile and the WTWA system. We
use the Port of Mobile as a starting point to pipeline or barge foreign
and domestic crude north at the rate of approximately 12 million
barrels per year.
Hunt Refining Company presently employs over 250 residents of West
Alabama and has been an important participant in the local economy
since 1946. An inability to run our Refinery efficiently and at maximum
capacity will have a long-term impact on employment at Hunt Refining
Company and ultimately, the surrounding counties.
Hunt Refining Company supports the Warrior-Tombigbee project and
joins the collective effort to improve the efficiency and reliability
of the WTWA system. We are currently limited by draft restrictions most
of the year, high river the other part of the year, and to a special
combination of two-barge tows all year. Through improvements, we hope
to save a minimum of $0.15 per barrel additional transportation costs
we incur during periods when the river is above flood stage or at very
low levels. Naturally, the more barrels we are able to haul on each
two-barge tow, the lower our cost per barrel. At the present time we
are limited as to how many barrels we can haul north at one time. Our
concern long term is to have more flexibility as to the types of tows
we can hire and the number of barrels we can load per tow. Increased
navigability of the waterway, increases our transporter choice,
ultimately keeping costs competitive.
Two rivers merge at Demopolis Lock (MM213.4). Our dock at Womack
Hill (MM126.1), which is south of Demopolis Lock and north of
Coffeeville Lock (MM116.6), is inaccessible for numerous days during
high river season. We have the same problem at our dock in Tuscaloosa
(MM337.0) due to the pressure put on the Black Warrior River by
Bankhead Lock (MM365.5) and the backing up of water from Demopolis
Lock.
The Corps of Engineer's Budget request for the BWT Operations and
Maintenance is $19.2 million. We believe the BWT needs at least this
level of funding to cover the expected needs of the system. The Corps
also has two projects identified to improve the efficiency of the
system. These are the engineering and design of modifications to the
Bankhead Lock and replacement of the CSX Railroad Bridge. Both of these
projects would improve the efficiency of the waterway at a cost of $2
million for both. We are asking for your support for a total of $21.2
million for the waterway system.
We further support the funds needed for the Mobile Harbor in the
amount of $21.2 million.
______
Prepared Statement of David Volkert & Associates, Inc.
Volkert & Associates, Inc. (Volkert) is an engineering/
architectural/design firm which employs 500 people and maintains
Alabama offices in Mobile, Birmingham, and Gulf Shores. Volkert
strongly supports funding for the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway and the
Port of Mobile for fiscal year 2001.
We believe the President's budget request of $19,204,000 for
Operations and Maintenance of the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway, as
submitted by the Corps of Engineers, is justified since this amount is
necessary to cover the known and reasonably expected needs for fiscal
year 2001, support the day-to-day O&M program, and continue on-going
channel improvement projects. We also support appropriating $1,000,000
for engineering and designs, etc. of the lower gates on the Bankhead
Lock. We understand this need has reached an emergency status. This
funding is needed to bring the waterway efficiency to the expected
level.
Since the City of Mobile's largest industry is her Port and the
City's present economy and future progress depend upon her Port,
Volkert also supports $21,165,000 for funding of necessary improvements
for the Mobile Harbor. This will insure the Harbor's continued
viability.
Confidence in the Waterway and its efficiency and modernization of
its facilities are important in bringing much needed new industry to
Mobile and to the State of Alabama. Lower operating costs to users of
the Waterway and Port of Mobile are essential in obtaining a reasonable
balance of the international export market allowing the U.S. to
continue to reduce our trade deficit. Increases in shipping and
commerce result in opportunities for many companies, similar to
Volkert, to obtain business and offer meaningful employment to citizens
of the State of Alabama and other parts of the U.S.
Volkert appreciates this opportunity to express our support of
Chairman Charles A. Haun and President Sheldon L. Morgan, of the
Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association, and the testimony to be given
by them before the Appropriations Committee of the Senate and House. We
are proud to join in the collective effort to improve the efficiency
and reliability of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway and the Port of
Mobile.
______
Prepared Statement of Navios Ship Agencies Inc.
We request that you support the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers'
Operations and Maintenance Budget request for the Black Warrior-
Tombigbee Waterway of $19,204,000. We further support an add-on request
for $1,000,000 for engineering and designs of the Bankhead Lock. The
Bankhead Lock is an extremely urgent request and has a potential
critical status. Thus, we request your support on this additional add-
on of $1,000,000. We also support the Mobile Harbor request of
$21,165,000.
Our vessels and our principal's vessels carry 3.8 million tons of
iron ore and 1.9 million tons of furnace coke per year with the
majority bound for industries in the State of Alabama. The Port's
ability to maintain its present draft has enabled us to remain
competitive on the world market. The continued dredging of the Warrior-
Tombigbee allows this cargo to go through the waterway system of the
Tombigbee. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has done an outstanding job
maintaining this system.
A large portion of this cargo is for steel operating in the
Birmingham, Alabama area. These import raw materials enable the steel
mills to supply steel for various supplies to this nation. Some of
these cargo products from the steel mills are re-exported through the
Port of Mobile, which helps to reduce our trade imbalance. The
efficiency and reliability of waterways commerce is essential for us to
provide the raw materials necessary for our principals to meet the
demands of the various markets within the State of Alabama and the
United States.
We have been in operation since 1957 utilizing the Port of Mobile,
the Warrior-Tombigbee and the Black River systems. We realize the
importance of tight budget control, yet the benefits on industry,
commerce and trade, as well as job return, must be recognized.
Therefore, we solicit your support. We join in the collective efforts
of all those affiliated companies who realize the importance of
maintaining this waterway system so that we may continue to bring in
the necessary raw materials for our manufacturing industries within the
State of Alabama. For these reasons, we request you to support the
programs for fiscal year 2001.
______
Prepared Statement of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association
The Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association represents a broad
cross-section of shippers, carriers, and the general business community
in the Warrior-Tombigbee basin in Alabama, and users in nine southern
states. The Association began in 1950 to work with Alabama's
Congressional Delegation and the Army Corps of Engineers to plan for
modernization of the waterway. The Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway now has
modern and standard sized locks throughout its length. These six new
locks replaced the seventeen old, turn-of-the-century locks, and today,
this system represents a most noteworthy example of the positive impact
of the Federal water resource development program. The most persuasive
evidence of the validity of this project and the wisdom of those who
made it possible comes from the record compiled during and following
the investment in its redevelopment. During the economic studies which
justified these investments, it was projected that by 1980, the
Waterway would carry some eight million tons annually, producing a
positive benefit to cost ratio. These levels were reached in 1966 and,
by 1980, twice the projected tonnage was being moved. Traffic has since
reached 25 million tons annually, a level three times that which had
been projected. Clearly this has been a valid investment in
infrastructure.
This Waterway must continue to be efficient and reliable if its
users are to remain competitive in world markets. Shipments of ore,
steel, and related products have increased because of the new and
modern facilities in Birmingham, and a new steel mill at Tuscaloosa and
Mobile.
Coal comes out of Kentucky and Colombia to electric generating
plants on the Warrior-Tombigbee. The Colombian Coal is transhipped at
the Port of Mobile. Also, there are new facilities at the Port of
Mobile, which handle more forest products than the total handled by all
other Gulf Coast ports. The efficiency and reliability of the waterway
are key factors in the development and competitiveness of these
facilities, upon which thousands of jobs depend.
These are some examples of how this waterway is so central to the
economy of this entire region, impacting both domestic and
international markets. You will be receiving letters from our users
further highlighting this importance. These represent a broad cross-
section of the economic heartbeat of an entire region. In these
statements you will find repeated references to the importance of
confidence in the waterway to the willingness of business and industry
to continue to invest in the region. Shippers depend on the reliability
for the movement of their products. There are wide ranges of interests
represented by our Association members: financial institutions; public
utilities; port facilities; coal mining; manufacturers; suppliers;
marine interests; petroleum and chemical processors and general
business.
We support the President's recommendation for O&M funds of
$19,204,000 and ask for add-ons of $1,000,000 for additional capability
be provided for the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway for engineering and
design for new lock gates at Bankhead Lock and Dam. With the
Committees' help, we have been able to complete several deferred
projects following several years of postponements. These projects
address long-standing problems and have required extensive research and
coordination and reflect excellent teamwork by the Corps and the
industry. But for the support of this committee, they would not have
been reality. We wish to emphasize that this level of funding is the
minimum essential level.
Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with you and are extremely
pleased that our own Congressman Callahan is a member of your
Committee. As he knows, industry and the Corps of Engineers in the
Mobile District have developed a true partnership and enjoy the finest
of professional and mutually supportive relationships. From this have
come both short and long range programs which have provided a basis for
orderly progress toward keeping the Waterway efficient and reliable.
The funding requirements to which I have referred stem from work we
need to continue now under these programs. I respectfully repeat that
the performance of this waterway in successfully handling a level of
tonnage some three times the projections made during its design, attest
to foresight of this Committee.
To summarize, the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association request
for Operations & Maintenance funding in fiscal year 2001 for the Black
Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway in the amount of $19,204,000 and $521,000
for General Investigation. This is level funding for the normal O&M
work, and is the minimum to keep navigation capability at a nominal
level. However, additional capability of the Corps is important to the
continuing improvements for safety and efficiency. They include
replacement of gates at Bankhead Lock and Dam totaling $1,000,000 for
engineering and design. Our total request is for a total of $20,725,000
for fiscal year 2001.
summary
The following is a summary of the funding items for the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2001 to meet the needs of the
Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway, and which we ask the Committee to approve:
Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway:
Operations & Maintenance Funds for Corps' Budget
fiscal year 2001 (President's request)............ $19,204,000
Funds for Additional Capability not included in
Corps' O&M Budget Request \1\..................... 1,000,000
For General Investigations (Long Range Study)....... 521,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total funds required.............................. 20,725,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Other needs allied to the Warrior-Tombigbee are:
Mobile Harbor:
Operations & Maintenance Funds, for Corps'
Budget fiscal year 2001 \1\................... 21,165,000
Construction.................................... 499,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total funds required.......................... 21,664,000
\1\ Funds for Additional Capability items are not included in the Corps'
Budget request, so it is not likely that the committee has been informed
of the need of funding for this particular Additional Capability. We are
requesting the additional funds for replacement of gates at Bankhead
Lock (near an emergency status), upland disposal sites recycling (these
substantially reduce annual dredging costs) and rock removal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the Alabama State Docks
Enclosed is a statement of requirements for operation and
maintenance funding for the Mobile Harbor and Ship Channel Federal
Project for fiscal year 2001 in the amount of $21,165,000. In addition,
the Alabama State Docks also supports fully funding the operations and
maintenance budgets designated for the six inland waterways internal to
or transiting the State of Alabama. We respectfully request that these
requirements be made a part of the record of your committee and be
appropriated for funding of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' budget
for fiscal year 2001.
STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS--MOBILE (AL) HARBOR FEDERAL PROJECT
The purpose of this statement is to identify the requirements for
the Port of Mobile (POM) in conjunction with the fiscal year 2001
appropriations for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Civil Works
Budget.
The Alabama State Docks (ASD) is the local cost-sharing partner for
the Mobile Harbor Federal Project. Recent (fiscal year 1998) waterborne
commerce statistical data ranked the POM as the sixteenth largest port
in the United States. Cargo transiting the POM is equally divided
between foreign and domestic. As such the Alabama State Docks (ASD)
supports fully funding the COE Civil Works requirements, not only for
the Mobile Harbor but also for the six waterway systems serving the
State of Alabama and five other States in this region (MS, TN, KY, GA &
FL).
In authorizing the deepening of the Mobile Harbor Federal Project
in 1986, environmental considerations resulted in a substantial
increase in dredging costs. The Mobile District COE and ASD have worked
closely and diligently to identify alternative methods of dredging and
environmentally beneficial methods of disposal with the objective of
reducing the cost of maintaining the project. One technique that has
been successful is to create sumps within the channel, especially in
areas with a history of high shoaling sedimentation rates. Such sumps
allow for consolidation of the sediment, thereby extending the time
between dredging events and (potentially) a reduced cost of removal. A
second approach was to allow the shoaling of the channel toes thereby
reducing the channel width while reducing the volume of material to be
dredged. Thirdly, one-way vessel traffic was implemented to insure safe
operations within the reduced channel width.
During the period of 1996-1998, all of these measures were used to
control the cost of maintaining the Project. Actual maintenance costs
average approximately $20,300,000 per year over this three year period.
Unfortunately, the use of such measures is not without risk. In 1997
and 1998, the mid-Gulf Coast and Mobile Bay were directly impacted by
the effects of hurricanes Danny and Georges. As a result the Corps of
Engineers expended approximately $32,300,000 and nine months of
dredging effort in 1999 to restore the authorized operational
dimensions of the channel.
This experience, and its negative impact upon the POM's operational
capabilities, significantly hampered the region's ability to compete in
the world bulk commodities market in 1999. The Port's vulnerability to
again suffer severe impact is directly proportional to the maintained
channel conditions. Given the Port's most recent five-year history, a
normal scenario would project an annual maintenance cost of
approximately $22,160,000 per year. Fortunately, the Project is
currently in the best shape it has been in the last several years. It
is, therefore, requested that the operation and maintenance budget for
the Mobile Harbor Project for fiscal year 2001 be set at $21,165,000.
We thank you very much for this opportunity to present out
supporting statement.
______
Prepared Statement of the Council of Alabama Waterway Associations
The following is a summary of the funding items for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2001 to meet the needs of the
several projects and which we ask the Committees to approve:
COUNCIL OF ALABAMA WATERWAY ASSOCIATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation President's
-------------------------- budget Our request
Waterway Fiscal year Fiscal year fiscal year for fiscal
1999 2000 2001 year 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association: Coosa- $27,025 $31,756 $27,525 \1\ $29,155
Alabama.................................................
Tennessee River Valley Association: Tennessee-Cumberland 112,519 122,555 84,935 \2\ 121,435
Navigation..............................................
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development Council: 20,200 21,500 23,547 \3\ 25,700
Tennessee-Tombigbee.....................................
Tri-Rivers Waterway Development Association: 5,200 6,500 5,055 \4\ 7,255
Appalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint.......................
Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association: Warrior-Tombigbee 20,000 19,200 19,805 \5\ 20,725
Alabama State Docks Department: Mobile Harbor............ 21,000 19,562 18,665 \6\ 21,665
Tennessee-Tombigbee and Tennessee River Association: 26,000 24,200 15,000 \7\ 40,000
Kentucky Lock (Nashville Dist. COE).....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $5,865,000 for navigation O&M and $1,630,000 add-on for Mayo's Bar, Alltoona Lake and Coosa
navigation project.
\2\ Includes $40,000,000 for KY Lock Construction, $11,400,000 for 202 Program, $1,900,000 Chicamauga lock O&M.
\3\ Includes $1,100,000 add-on for deferred maintenance.
\4\ Includes $2,200,000 add-on for alternative dredging and disposal projects and environmental work.
\5\ Includes $521,000 for General Investigations, $1,000,000 add-on for lock gates at Bankhead L&D.
\6\ Includes $2,500,000 add-on to properly consider historical dredging needs and $499,000 for construction.
\7\ See (2), Tennessee Cumberland request.
Request for Interior Appropriations; $400,000 for USF&WS Sturgeon
Conservation Plan 2-9-2000.
Request for DOT Appropriations to USCG: $1,000,000 for 14 Mile
Bridge, Mobile River.
______
Prepared Statement of the Steamship Association of Louisiana
summary
Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, Louisiana
(Construction General).--We recommended the Corps be funded to full
capability in fiscal year 2001 to perform required work on the
saltwater intrusion mitigation plan and complete design studies for
phase III of the 55-foot channel.
Maintenance dredging of the Mississippi River from Baton Rouge to
the Gulf of Mexico.--We urge approval of the $63,359,000 in the
President's fiscal year 2001 budget under O&M General.
Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet maintenance dredging and bank
stabilization.--In addition to the $11,286,000 in the President's
fiscal year 2001 Budget under O&M General, we urge that the Corps be
funded an increased capability in fiscal year 2001 to maintain this
channel, which includes bank stabilization on both banks and jetty
maintenance.
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock.--Recognizing that only
$14,349,000 is included in the President's fiscal year 2001 Budget for
construction funds, we urge that the Corps be funded to full capability
in fiscal year 2001 to continue lock construction and fully fund the
community impact mitigation plan.
Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.--We urge approval of the
$12,117,000 in the President's fiscal year 2001 Budget under O&M
General.
J. Bennet Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport,
Louisiana.--Recognizing that $18,040,000 is in the President's fiscal
year 2001 Budget for Construction General and $8,907,000 for O&M, we
urge the Corps be funded to full compatibility for fiscal year 2001 to
complete work already underway on this vital project.
The President's proposed Harbor service fee.--As in past years, we
do not support the President's proposed fees to replace the Harbor
Maintenance Tax. The strength of our nation's transportation system is
its foreign and domestic waterborne commerce. It benefits the entire
nation through revenue and jobs it provides the country. Therefore, the
maintenance of our nation's ports should be handled through the general
fund and not by placing another tax on this vital industry.
STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman: I am President of the Steamship Association of
Louisiana (SALA). Our Association represents ship owners, operators,
agents, and stevedores who handle the majority of the approximately
8,000 deep-draft vessels in waterborne commerce that call Louisiana's
deep-water ports each year. SALA is dedicated to the safe, efficient
movement of maritime commerce through the state's deep-water ports. We
endorse the testimony of Mr. Donald T. Bollinger, Chairman of the
Governor's Task Force on Maritime Industry.
Channel stabilization and maintenance dredging in Southwest Pass
(SWP) are critical to keep project draft. Project draft ensures the
Mississippi River's deep-water ports will continue to handle the
country's foreign and domestic waterborne commerce in the most cost-
effective way possible.
For years we have urged this Committee to provide funds to maintain
project draft at SWP. You have responded, and your wisdom has
benefitted the entire American heartland served by the Mississippi
River system. SWP was greatly restricted throughout the 1970s. From
1970 to 1975, the channel was at less than project draft 46 percent of
the time. In 1973 and 1974, the channel was below the 40-foot project
draft 70 percent of the time. During some periods, drafts were limited
to 31 feet. Fortunately, those conditions have not recurred because of
a combination of factors: Your help, and the constant vigilance of the
Pilots, the Corps, and the maritime community. The years 1990 through
1999 show a tremendous improvement in channel stability. We have only
been below project draft 3 percent of the time for vessels under
100,000 deadweight tons and 8 percent of the time for vessels 100,000
deadweight tons or greater. The funding you provided was money well
spent. The repairs to the jetties and dikes and the Corps' ability to
rapidly respond to shoaling have been instrumental in maintaining
project dimensions. However, the lack of available hopper dredges has,
at times, jeopardized the stability of the channel.
The Pilots have taken advantage of tidal flows and other factors to
recommend the maximum draft possible consistent with safe navigation.
This stability represents additional sales and increased
competitiveness for U.S. products on the world market. Industry's
partnership with you has kept Mississippi River ports competitive and
attractive to vessels. Twelve inches to a large vessel with a loading
capacity of 250 tons per inch is an additional 3,000 tons of cargo. As
of this writing, freight rates for grain moving from the Mississippi
River to the Far East are $21.75 per ton. Using this figure, each foot
of draft represents an additional $65,250 in vessel revenue, or
$326,250 for the five additional feet over the old 40-foot project
draft.
The funds we request for maintenance dredging and other works are
essential for the Corps to maintain a reliable channel and respond
rapidly to potential problems. This builds the confidence of the bulk
trade in a reliable Mississippi River draft, which is critically
important. Much of Louisiana's bulk trade is export agricultural
products and coal and imports of petroleum products. These export
commodities are neither captive to Louisiana nor the United States if
they can be shipped from competing countries at a consistently lower
cost.
The deeper the channel, the more important channel stabilization
is. Adequate channel stabilization work minimizes the maintenance cost
of the deeper channel--a cost-effective investment. The faster the
project is stabilized, the faster and greater the benefits of reduced
O&M costs will be realized. Also, we recommend that the Corps conduct
research on prototype dredging techniques.
Funds are also needed for dustpan dredges to work the crossings
above New Orleans. These crossings control the draft to eight of our
ten major grain elevators, plus many mid-stream and other bulk cargo
facilities. This area caters to the bulk trade and must have a stable
channel depth consistent with the depth at SWP. Only two dredges in the
world are available to maintain the deep-draft crossings between New
Orleans and Baton Rouge. There are times when a high river is followed
by a rapid drop in the river's stage. In such cases, the dustpan
dredges may not be available, or both dredges may not be capable of
restoring the 12 crossings within a reasonable time. When this happens,
hopper dredges are used to assist in the work.
For all of the above reasons, we request full funding for the
mitigation features of the O&M General, 45-foot Mississippi River
project.
We also support Phase III of the Mississippi River channel
deepening project and urge that the Corps be funded to proceed with
design studies for the 55-foot channel, Baton Rouge to the Gulf of
Mexico.
The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MR-GO) is also a viable channel
for the State of Louisiana. The funds you provided in past fiscal years
have allowed the Corps to improve the channel considerably. However,
the channel width has remained limited primarily because of erosion.
For safety reasons in this narrow channel, one-way traffic restrictions
apply to vessels with a draft of 30 feet or more, causing delays to the
tightly-scheduled container traffic using the MR-GO. These specialty
vessels serving the Port's facilities are becoming larger. The highest
wages under the International Longshoreman's Association's contract
($24 per straight-time hour) is paid for work at the MR-GO container
facilities. Anything that threatens the MR-GO jeopardizes these high-
paying jobs, which are held mostly by minority workers.
To improve safety on the MR-GO and protect Louisiana's container
trade (and the well-paying, minority employment it produces), we
request that the Corps be funded to an increased capability for the MR-
GO in fiscal year 2001. This will allow annual maintenance dredging,
north and south bank stabilization, and jetty maintenance, which is
essential to provide the stability needed for vessel and port
operations.
With facilities located on both the MR-GO and the Mississippi
River, an adequate route between the two is essential for efficient
transit between these facilities. The shortest route is the inadequate,
antiquated Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock built in the 1920s
with a width of 75 feet and limited depth of 30 feet. Its maximum
capacity has long been exceeded. The average waiting time for passage
through the Lock has increased from 8\1/2\ hours in 1985 to about 12
hours at present; however, we understand that waiting time can be more
than a day in some instances. A much larger ship lock is necessary to
accommodate today's traffic.
The replacement project for the IHNC Lock is important to the ports
on the lower Mississippi River and to the nation's commerce since it is
on the corridor for east/west barge traffic. The President's fiscal
year 2001 budget of $14,349,000 is not sufficient. Without full
funding, the project will be delayed and increase the overall cost of
the project. We urge Congress to provide the Corps' full fiscal year
2001 capability for this important project to insure its completion.
Delays are unthinkable since the new lock is long overdue.
The Port of Lake Charles, Louisiana, is served by the Calcasieu
River, which is often below project depth and width. This is another of
Louisiana's major deep-water ports that benefits the economy of the
state and the nation. According to the Port's figures, the import and
export tonnage at their facilities was 5 million tons in 1999. Also in
1999, there was a total of 1,132 vessels, both deep draft and barges,
that utilized the Port's Facilities. These figures do not take into
account the other private facilities that utilize this valuable
waterway. The public and private facilities along this waterway provide
thousands of jobs for the Lake Charles area. This channel, because of
its project deficiencies, requires one-way traffic for many ships,
causing delays that disrupt cargo operations. This is costly and
inefficient for industry. The Port area's growth and continued success
depends on a reliable and safe channel that should be at full project.
We request funding to the full capability of the Corps to maintain this
channel at its project dimensions.
The J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport,
Louisiana, Project is directly related to our deep-water ports. The
continuation and completion of this work will stimulate the economy all
along the Red River Basin with jobs and additional international trade.
This stimulated trade will service the Port of Shreveport and the ports
on the lower Mississippi River, providing needed growth and benefitting
the States of Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, which are
served through the Shreveport distribution center. Therefore, we
strongly recommend that the Corps be funded to full capability for
fiscal year 2001.
The proposed Harbor Service Fee (HSF) in the President's budget,
which would replace the Harbor Maintenance Tax, is ill-advised. What it
fails to recognize is that there is no equitable way in which the cost
can be spread fairly among the shipping community. Whether the HSF is
to the cargo or to the ship, the fee will change trade patterns and
even jeopardize our trading position in the world market. The proposal
will disrupt jobs and the economies of port areas. It will circumvent
the normal, healthy competition among U.S. ports. Ships carrying low-
valued cargo, primarily bulk cargoes, operate on a very low profit
margin; therefore, cargoes like grain and coal can least afford the
tax. The end result could well be that the U.S. could lose its ability
to compete in the world market for the export of these cargoes. This
impact on bulk trade will be particularly detrimental to Louisiana
because of the high volume of such cargoes that move through our state.
We encourage Congress to fund the maintenance of our nation's ports
through the General Fund. After all, it is the people of our entire
nation who benefit from a strong U.S. position in world trade, not only
the shipping industry. If our nation is to remain competitive in the
world market, we must maintain and improve our waterways and deliver
U.S. goods at the lowest possible price to foreign markets.
Thank you for allowing the Association to submit testimony on the
Corps' funding needs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association
This testimony for the record, March 10, 2000, before House and
Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittees is
submitted by Douglass W. Svendson, Jr., Executive Director of the Gulf
Intracoastal Canal Association. Ours is the oldest of the regional
waterway associations, having been established in Victoria, Texas in
1905. The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway transports 115 million tons of
freight annually, the third highest volume among our inland and coastal
waterways after the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers.
GICA's membership includes both shallow draft and deep draft ports,
port commissions and navigation districts, barge and towing companies,
petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturers, shipyards, marine
fabricators, fuel terminal facilities, and individuals whose businesses
are waterway related and dependent. We have 180 members in the five
States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida served by
the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. In addition, the GIWW is the link that
binds the North-South rivers to the Intracoastal canal, the coastal
ports, and ultimately the heartland of America. The Mississippi River
intersects the GIWW at New Orleans, one of our busiest ports, and the
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway intersects the GIWW at Mobile.
the overall civil works budget of $4.064 billion for fiscal year 2001
While this civil works budget request for fiscal year 2001 is
larger than those submitted by the Administration in recent previous
years, it causes our membership concern about adequacy of specific
levels allocated to construction, operations and maintenance, and flood
control. The reason for our concern is the large amount in the 2001
budget proposed to be appropriated for port construction and
maintenance ($950 million) and the size of the environmental portion of
the proposed 2001 budget (22 percent of overall Corps request and
slightly over $895 million). O and M and flood control remain about the
same level in comparison to appropriated amounts for fiscal year 2000,
but construction funding for 2001 is less than the 2000 figure.
THE PORT FEE AND HARBOR SERVICES FUND
The combination user fee and Harbor Services Trust Fund for port
maintenance proposed by the administration in its budget raises several
very serious issues for waterborne transportation, our domestic
economy, and international trade.
Whatever the constitutional infirmities of the previous harbor
maintenance tax, it was spread over a large base of commerce. This fact
alone helped mitigate a potentially harsh economic impact which might
otherwise have been injurious to many of our ports, our trade, and our
economic jobs base.
The proposed fee will be based on volume or tonnage, not value.
Those most injured will be our ports that ship large volumes of
commodities. This negative impact will ultimately fall on farmers, mine
operators, chemical and petroleum sectors, and all commodities
producers. Farmers and other producers have historically benefited
economically by retaining more of the ultimate sales price in their own
pockets, as a result of water transportation efficiencies.
A user fee, as proposed, is much more likely, we believe, to be
port and/or vessel specific, thus location dependent, and harm many but
the very largest ports. Even large ports stand to lose as a result of
the fees that could be levied on many bulk commodities which are
routinely traded on world markets. For commodities, successful trades
often are determined by pennies per unit of measure, or less. Margins
are exceedingly thin and relatively large fees will easily disrupt
normal buyer-seller patterns. Our commodities producers such as coal,
chemicals, and agricultural products stand to lose sales and market
share.
A related problem involves the nature of our ports in the overall
economy. Ports generate jobs themselves and also provide the impetus
for related industries to establish themselves adjacent or nearby.
Benefits of port spending are therefore quite broad in terms of
regional and national economies. Port related growth is not
characterized by only a few, specific identifiable beneficiaries we
usually associate with the obligation to pay user fees. Port
beneficiaries, including jobs creation and revenue enhancement, are the
thousands of citizens in the affected locale or region. The numbers
involved are broad and diverse--just such a class of people we usually
call the general population. General revenues are employed to fund
programs for this large a segment of the population
Thus, the national benefits and economic significance associated
with the sum total of port activities places these entities in a
category which is easily able to justify the use of general revenues in
support of broad, general economic benefits. Our association recommends
that the Congress look seriously at funding port activities from
general revenues, as was done prior to WRDA 1986.
SPECIFIC BUDGET REQUESTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
The Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association supports the
Administration's budget request of $53.5 million for deepening and
widening the Houston--Galveston Ship Channel. This project has enormous
favorable economic implications for the regional and national economy.
It also offers an opportunity to increase deep draft/shallow draft
navigation safety.
Approximately 100,000 barge tows and 20,000 ships transit the
Houston Ship Channel each year. In response to the last major barge and
ship collision causing a serious oil spill in 1992, the Houston
Galveston Area Navigation Safety Committee (HOGANSAC) began studying
how to prevent ship/barge collisions on the Channel. With the work of a
broad coalition of deep and shallow draft mariners, shippers, the
Houston Pilots, environmental groups, the Corps and the Coast Guard, a
solution was developed. The plan was to move the beacons to a straight
line 500 feet either side of the centerline of the channel between
Bolivar and Morgans Point and dredge the area between the beacons and
the deep draft channel to a depth of 12 feet to allow barge tows to
operate outside the deep draft channel.
We also support funding for the GIWW Section 216 Studies in the
President's budget, identified as RCP, Review of Completed Projects.
They are Brazos River to Port O'Connor, Texas, High Island to Brazos
River, Texas, and Port O'Connor to Corpus Christi, Texas. Within the
Brazos River to Port O'Connor study, we support the PED request of
$100,000 referred to as GIWW Matagorda Bay, Texas. In particular, we
strongly encourage funding for the re-route of the GIWW through
Matagorda Bay as well as funding for the Colorado and Brazos River lock
and floodgate studies, in excess of levels contained in the President's
budget.
Our association also endorses the President's budget request of
$6.1 million for construction of the channel to Victoria, Texas. We
urge the committee to provide funds for completion as soon as possible,
consistent with the Corps' full capability.
We support surveys funding in the President's budget for Calcasieu
Lock, Louisiana ($399,000) and Intracoastal Waterway Locks Study,
Louisiana ($686,000).
We support funding for the replacement of the Inner Harbor
Navigation Canal Lock to the extent of the Corps' full capability. We
encourage the committee to make certain this project is expedited,
rather than stretched out. The Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock is
now in construction and has a solid favorable benefit to cost ratio.
While some political environmental organizations would like to put the
IHNC lock replacement project in the same controversial category in
which several Upper Mississippi and Illinois lock replacement projects
now find themselves, this is a stretch of monumental proportions. The
economic justification for the IHNC has not been questioned, either by
honest, objective efforts, or otherwise, in the same way the recent
Upper Mississippi Study has.
The Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association also supports the
operations and maintenance funding request for Tri Rivers Waterway
Development Association. We support sound economic development efforts
to improve the ACF waterway as a vital link for southeast Alabama,
southwest Georgia, and northwest Florida to export goods to other
national and international markets via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
We support inland waterway navigation as an environmentally sound
and cost effective transportation mode in the Gulf South region,
helping to reduce freight rates and promoting trade and development.
GICA supports additional funding for section 423 of WRDA 1999. This
section directs the Secretary of the Army to do a study of GIWW bank
erosion in the State of Louisiana and thereafter to cost share with the
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources bank stabilization work. The
study was not funded in the President's Year 2001 budget, but is vital
as a necessary component of the state and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
ongoing effort to deal effectively with land loss in coastal areas and
old river deltas of South Louisiana.
In addition, we support the President's budget request for
Pascagoula, Mississippi harbor project ($6,663,000) and Mobile, Alabama
harbor project ($499,000).
Because of the high visibility of the recent Washington Post and
political environmental organizations' charges against the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, it is important to share with this committee our
general views on this subject.
Neither our association nor I personally have been involved in the
Upper Mississippi Study. However I, as well as GICA, work with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers on studies and navigation, flood control, and
environmental projects in the Gulf South Region, which includes the New
Orleans District and the Mississippi Valley Division. In addition, I
have worked with Corps personnel from Headquarters, and from Division
and District offices for many years on issues involving standards for
evaluating navigation, flood control, and environmental projects. Never
in my years of experience have I observed any actions even closely
resembling those charged by the Post and its political environmental
organization allies.
I would like to point out to the Committee that the standards for
measuring and evaluating criteria applicable to Corps' projects of all
kinds are not without some controversy on a case by case basis.
Economics, including formulas and models developed by those who pursue
this field, is usually characterized by subjective judgments. When and
under what circumstances shippers decide to alter freight patterns from
one mode to another is not usually announced in advance. Estimates of
relevant factors in models, devised to predict future economic
behavior, can be as subjective as objective.
As these allegations are reviewed I believe it is important to keep
in mind that project economic justification as it relates to
environmental impacts and consequences, is not always reducible to
clean ``yes'' and ``no'' answers.
This concludes our prepared testimony. We appreciate the
opportunity to provide this statement for the record.
______
Prepared Statement of the Louisiana Governor's Task Force on Maritime
Industry
Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, LA.
(construction General).--Recommend the Corps be funded to full
capability in fiscal year 2001 to perform required work on the
saltwater intrusion mitigation plan and complete design studies for
potential phase III 55-foot channel.
Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf, maintenance dredging.--
Recommend approval of President's fiscal year 2001 Budget of
$63,359,000 under O&M General.
Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MR-GO), LA., maintenance dredging.--
President's fiscal year 2001 Budget is $11,286,000 under O&M General.
Recommend that Corps be funded increased capability for bank
stabilization.
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock, LA..--President's fiscal
year 2001 Budget includes $14,349,000 in construction funds for the IH-
NC New Ship Lock. Recommend that Corps be funded to full capability to
continue lock construction and fully fund the community impact
mitigation plan.
Mississippi River Outlets at Venice, LA.--Recommend approval of
President's fiscal year 2001 Budget is $2,773,000 under O&M General.
Intracoastal Waterway Locks, LA.--Recommend approval of the
President's fiscal year 2001 budget of $686,000 to complete the
feasibility study and to develop plans for replacement of Bayou Sorrel
Lock on the Gulf Intracoastal Water Way (GIWW), Morgan City-to-Port
Allen alternate route.
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, LA. and TX.--President's fiscal year
2001 Budget is $19,478,000 under O&M General. Recommend that Corps be
funded increased capability to construct a set of two miter gates for
Leland Bowman Lock and 20 additional mooring buoys at various locations
along the GIWW.
Calcasieu Lock, LA.--Recommend approval of President's fiscal year
2001 budget of $339,000 in GI funds to continue the feasibility phase
of the study to replace Calcasieu Lock on the GIWW.
Calcasieu River and Pass, LA.--Recommend approval of the
President's fiscal year 2001 Budget of $12,117,000 under O&M General to
continue dredging and operation and maintenance of the Saltwater
Barrier.
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport,
LA.--President's fiscal year 2001 is $18,040,000 in Construction
General and $8,907,000 for Operations and Maintenance. Recommend that
Corps be funded to full capability to complete work already underway.
As Chairman of the Louisiana Governor's Task Force on Maritime
Industry, I hereby submit testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development on behalf of the ports on the lower
Mississippi River, the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway and the Calcasieu
River waterway and the maritime interests related thereto of the State
of Louisiana relative to Congressional appropriations for fiscal year
2001.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports that in 1998 a total of
418.1 million tons of foreign and domestic waterborne commerce moved
through the consolidated deepwater ports of Louisiana situated on the
lower Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and the Gulf of Mexico.
Deepening of this 232-mile stretch of the River to 45 feet has been a
major factor in tonnage growth at these ports. Due in large part to the
efforts of Congress and the New Orleans District of the Corps,
Louisiana's ports and the domestic markets they serve can compete more
productively and effectively in the global marketplace. Ninety-one
percent of America's foreign merchandise trade by volume (two-thirds by
value) moves in ships, and 20.3 percent of the nation's foreign
waterborne commerce passes through Louisiana's ports. Given the role
foreign trade plays in sustaining our nation's growth, maintaining the
levels of productivity and competitiveness of Louisiana's ports is
essential to our economic well-being.
In terms of transportation services and global access, Louisiana
ports enjoy a distinct competitive advantage. Hundreds of barge lines
accommodate America's waterborne commerce on the lower Mississippi
River. The high level of barge traffic on the river is indicated by the
passage of more than 229,000 barges through the Port of New Orleans
annually. In 1998, 2,536 ocean-going vessels operated by more than 80
steamship lines serving U.S. trade with more than 150 countries called
at the Port of New Orleans. The Port's trading partners include: Asia
(33.7 percent); Latin America (32.1 percent); Europe (25 percent);
Africa (7.6 percent) and North America (1.5 percent). During the same
year, more than 6,377 vessels called at Louisiana's lower Mississippi
River deepwater ports.
The foreign markets of Louisiana's lower Mississippi River ports
are worldwide; however, their primary domestic market is mid-America.
This heartland region currently produces 60 percent of the nation's
agricultural products, one half of all of its manufactured goods and 90
percent of its machinery and transportation equipment.
The considerable transportation assets of Louisiana's lower
Mississippi River ports enable mid-America's farms and industries to
play a vital role in the international commerce of this nation. In
1998, the region's ports and port facilities handled 216 million tons
of foreign waterborne commerce. Valued at $34.4 billion, this cargo
accounted for 17.7 percent of the nation's international waterborne
trade and 24.4 percent of all U.S. exports. Bulk cargo, primarily
consisting of tremendous grain and animal feed exports and petroleum
imports, made up approximately 89 percent of this volume. Forty-five
million tons of grain from 17 states, representing 54.75 percent of all
U.S. grain exports, accessed the world market via the 10 grain
elevators and midstream transfer capabilities on the lower Mississippi
River. This same port complex received 79.4 million short tons of
petroleum and petroleum products, 14.6 percent of U.S. waterborne
imports of petroleum products.
In 1998, public and private facilities located within the
jurisdiction of the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans,
the fourth largest port in the United States, handled a total of 88.8
million tons of international and domestic cargo worth. International
general cargo totaled 14.1 million tons. Although statistically dwarfed
by bulk cargo volumes, the movement of general cargo is of special
significance to the local economy because it produces greater benefits.
On a per ton basis, general cargo generates spending within the
community more than three times higher than bulk cargo. Major general
cargo commodities handled at the Port include: iron and steel products;
coffee; forest products; copper; aluminum products; and natural rubber.
Fostering the continued growth of lower Mississippi River ports is
necessary to maintain the competitiveness of our nation's exports in
the global marketplace and, consequently, the health of the nation's
economy. Assuring deep water access to ports has been a priority of our
trading partners around the world. Moreover, an evolving maritime
industry seeking greater economies of scale continues to support
construction of larger vessels with increased draft requirements.
Because it facilitated the provision of deepwater port access, passage
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, played a most
significant role in assuring the competitiveness of ports on the lower
Mississippi river and throughout the U.S.
By December, 1994, the Corps completed dredging of the 45-foot
channel from the Gulf of Mexico to Baton Rouge, LA (Mile 233 AHP).
Unfortunately, mitigation features associated with the first phase of
the channel deepening project in the vicinity of Southwest Pass of the
river, accomplished in 1988, have yet to be completed. We urge the
inclusion of additional funding above the President's budget in fiscal
year 2001 to complete an ongoing contract for improvements to the Belle
Chasse water treatment plant. This will complete the approximate $15
million in payments to the State of Louisiana for construction of a
pipeline and pumping stations to deliver potable fresh water to
communities affected by saltwater intrusion. We further urge that the
Corps be provided funding to proceed with design studies for Phase III
which will allow deepening of the river to the 55-foot authorized
depth.
Along with the Port of New Orleans, the Port of South Louisiana,
the nation's largest port with 196.6 million tons of foreign and
domestic cargo in 1998, and the Port of Baton Rouge, the nation's sixth
largest port with 66.8 million tons of foreign and domestic cargo in
1998, and other lower Mississippi River ports are dependent upon timely
and adequate dredging of Southwest Pass to provide deep draft access to
the Gulf of Mexico. Based on past experience--spring thaws bringing
higher river stages and higher siltation rates--we strongly urge full
funding of the President's fiscal year 2001 Budget amount of
$63,359,000 under O&M General for maintenance of the 45-foot project
channel. Funding includes monies for both dredging and repairs to
foreshore dikes; lateral dikes; and jetties. Revetment construction has
reduced the number and size of deep draft anchorages. To mitigate this
loss, we recommend that the Corps be authorized under the O&M General
appropriation to construct new anchorages and maintain new and existing
anchorages to accommodate increased ship traffic.
Maintenance of adequate depths and channel widths in the
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Channel (MRGO) is also of great concern.
This channel provides deep draft access to the Port of New Orleans'
principal container terminals and generates an annual economic impact
of nearly $800 million. In 1998, 455 general cargo vessels calling on
the MRGO Tidewater facilities accounted for 22.4 percent of the general
cargo tonnage handled over public facilities at the Port of New Orleans
and 80.21 percent of Louisiana's containerized cargo.
Because of the MRGO's demonstrated vulnerability to coastal storm
activity, annual channel maintenance dredging and bank stabilization
are essential to assure unimpeded vessel operations. In 1998, heavy
shoaling related to Hurricane Georges resulted in the imposition of a
draft restriction from the project depth of 36 feet to 25 feet. The
President's fiscal year 2001 Budget amount is $11,286,000 under O&M
General. We, however, strongly recommend that the Corps be funded
increased capability for bank stabilization projects.
The Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock is a critical link in
the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), and provides a connection
between the Port of New Orleans' Mississippi River and IHNC terminals.
In 1998, the Corps approved a plan for replacement of this obsolete
facility. The Corps estimates that the lock replacement project will
have a cost-benefit ratio of 1.7 to one and will provide $110 million
annually in transportation cost savings. In addition to minimizing
adverse impacts to adjacent neighborhoods, the project includes a $33
million Community Impact Mitigation Program. The President's fiscal
year 2001 Budget of $14,239,000 for the IHNC New Ship Lock will pay for
continued engineering and design work, construction, and partial
funding of the mitigation program. Therefore, funding the Corps to full
capability to continue lock construction and fully implement the
mitigation program is recommended.
Operation and maintenance of the Mississippi River Outlets at
Venice, La. are essential to providing safe offshore support access to
energy-related industries. In 1998, these channels accommodated cargo
movements exceeding 3.4 million tons. In addition to routine traffic,
Baptiste Collette Bayou is used by shallow draft vessels as an
alternate route between the MRGO, GIWW and the Mississippi River. The
President's fiscal year 2001 Budget amount is $2,773,000 under O&M
General.
More than 78.6 million tons of cargo transverse the GIWW in the New
Orleans District annually. The President's fiscal year 2001 Budget for
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Louisiana and Texas is $19,478,000 under
O&M General. We recommend that the Corps be funded increased O&M
capability to construct a set of two miter gates for Leland Bowman lock
and 20 additional mooring buoys at various locations along the GIWW.
To assure the efficient flow of commerce on the GIWW, approval is
urged for the President's fiscal year 2001 budget of $686,000 in GI
funds to complete the feasibility study and to develop plans for
replacement of the Bayou Sorrel Lock, Morgan City-to-Port Allen
alternate route. We further recommend approval of the President's
budget fiscal year 2001 of $339,000 in GI funds to continue the
feasibility phase of the study to replace Calcasieu Lock on the GIWW.
The Port of Lake Charles, Louisiana, is served by the Calcasieu
River, which often does not meet project depth and width requirements.
This Port is one of Louisiana's major deep-water ports, benefitting the
economy of the state and the nation. In 1998, the Port handled 34.3
million tons of import cargo and 15.8 million tons of export cargo. The
Port and private facilities along this waterway provide thousands of
jobs for the Lake Charles area. In 1997, 1,037 ships and 7,219 barges
used the Calcasieu River waterway. The Port area's growth and continued
success depends on the provision of a reliable and safe channel at full
project dimensions. We recommend approval of the President's fiscal
year 2001 budget of $12,117,000 under O&M General to continue dredging
and operation of the saltwater barrier.
One additional project warrants consideration. The J. Bennett
Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, La. Project
provides 236 miles of navigation improvements, 225 miles of channel
stabilization works and various recreational facilities. Project
completion will stimulate economic growth along the Red River Basin and
increase cargo flows through the deep draft ports on the lower
Mississippi River. The President's fiscal year 2001 Budget includes
$18,040,000 in Construction General and $48,907,000 for Operations and
Maintenance. We recommend that the Corps be funded to full capability
for this project to complete work already underway.
The need and impetus to reduce the Federal budget is certainly
acknowledged; however, reduced funding on any of the above projects
will result in decreased maintenance levels which will escalate
deterioration and, ultimately, prevent them from functioning at their
full authorized purpose. Reduction in the serviceability of these
projects will cause severe economic impacts not only to this region,
but to the nation as a whole that will far outweigh savings from
reduced maintenance expenditures. Therefore, we reiterate our strong
recommendation that the above projects be funded to their full
capability.
Supporting statements from Mr. J. Ron Brinson, President and CEO of
the Port of New Orleans; Mr. Gary P. LaGrange, Executive Director of
the Port of South Louisiana, Mr. Roger Richard, Executive Director of
the Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission, Mr. Glenwood Wiseman,
Executive Director of the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District,
Mr. Benny Rousselle, President of Plaquemines Parish, Mr. Channing
Hayden, President of the Steamship Association of Louisiana; Capt. John
Levine, President of the Associated Branch Pilots and Capt. Mark
Delesdernier, President of the Crescent River Port Pilots Association
are attached. Please make these statements along with my statement part
of the record. Supplemental graphics relating to my statement have been
furnished separately for staff background use. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment to the subcommittee on these vital projects.
[Clerk's note: The referenced material above can be found in the
Energy and Water Development Subcommittee's files for an extended
time.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Red River Valley Association
INTRODUCTION
The Red River Valley Association is a voluntary group of citizens
bonded together to advance the economic development and future well-
being of the citizens of the four state Red River Basin area in
Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas.
For the past 75 years, the Association has done notable work in the
support and advancement of programs to develop the land and water
resources of the Valley to the beneficial use of all the people. To
this end, the Red River Valley Association offers its full support and
assistance to the various Port Authorities, Chambers of Commerce,
Economic Development Districts and other local governmental entities in
developing the area along the Red River.
The Resolutions contained herein were adopted by the Association
during its 75th Annual Meeting in Bossier City, Louisiana on February
24, 2000, and represent the combined concerns of the citizens of the
Red River Basin area as they pertain to the goals of the Association,
specifically:
--Economic and Community Development
--Environmental Restoration
--Flood Control
--Bank Stabilization
--A Clean Water Supply for Residential, Commercial, Industrial and
Agriculture Uses.
--Hydroelectric Power Generation
--Recreation
--Navigation
The Red River Valley Association is aware of the constraints on the
federal budget, and has kept those restraints in mind as these
Resolutions were adopted. Therefore, and because of the far-reaching
regional and national benefits addressed by the various projects
covered in the Resolutions, we urge the members of Congress to review
the materials contained herein and give serious consideration to
funding the projects at the levels requested.
STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Wayne Dowd,
Arkansas State Senator, and I am pleased to represent the Red River
Valley Association as its President. Our organization was founded in
1925 with the express purpose of uniting the Citizens of Arkansas,
Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas to develop the land and water resources
of the Red River Basin.
We appreciate the President's fiscal year 2001 Civil Works budget
submission of approximately $4.1 billion from his fiscal year 2000
submission of $3.9 billion; however, it does not come close to the real
needs of our nation. $5 billion is a realistic funding level to meet
the requirements for continuing programs. The traditional programs,
inland waterways and flood protection remain at the low, unacceptable
level as in past years. These traditional civil work projects are the
backbone to our nation's infrastructure for waterways, flood control
and water supply. We remind you that these projects are a true `jobs
program' in that 100 percent of the construction is contracted to the
private sector as is much of the architect and engineer work. Not only
do these funds provide jobs, but provide economic development
opportunities for our communities to grow and prosper.
The civil works program is a catalyst that is responsible for the
great economy we now experience. It would be irresponsible to allow our
nations infrastructure to deteriorate, or worse, stop its growth in a
time when America must be the leader in the world market. Our inland
waterways is the key to our dominance in world trade. This is a pivotal
budget year where critical decisions must be made which will determine
our future economic strength.
In recent months there has been negative publicity, generated by
the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), toward Red River projects and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Civil Works programs, as a whole. The
economic information and analysis made by the EDF is simply unfounded.
The accusations are not correct and in fact the Red River Navigation
project has been a success economically and environmentally. A group of
organizations, to include the RRVA, will be presenting a `white paper'
to demonstrate the true benefits associated with the Red River
Waterway. This document will be presented to the subcommittee members
once it is completed.
I would now like to comment on our specific requests for the future
economic well-being of the citizens residing in the four state Red
River Basin area.
Navigation.--The J. Bennett Johnston Waterway is living up to the
expectations of the benefits projected. The tonnage moved in 1998 was
3.7 million tons with the projected tonnage, to justify the project, at
3.6 million tons. Estimates for 1999 are close to 4.0 million tons. We
are extremely proud of our public ports, municipalities and state
agencies who have created this success. New facilities opened in 1999
included a fertilizer terminal at the Port of Shreveport-Bossier and
stone distribution at the Port of Natchitoches. Liquid petroleum
shipments increased in 1999 as did commercial stone operations.
Currently under construction, at the public ports , are a wood chip
barge loading system, liquid petroleum tank farm, and general cargo
warehouse facility. You are reminded that the Waterway is not complete,
ten percent remains, $200 million. We appreciate the President's budget
level of $18 million; however, we respectfully request the expressed
Corps capability of $23 million. In order to keep the waterway safe and
reliable we must continue at a funding level higher than the
President's Budget. The RRVA formed a Navigation Committee for
industry, the Corps and Coast Guard to partner in making our Waterway a
success. This effort has reaped many benefits. We can not sacrifice
what has been accomplished by inadequate funding levels.
In fiscal year 2000 you reprogrammed funds to initiate the
feasibility study to extend navigation from Shreveport-Bossier City,
Louisiana into the State of Arkansas. It is imperative that you
continue funding this important study and support the $200,000 included
in the President's Budget. Many areas continue to suffer major
unemployment, and the navigation project, although not the total
solution, will help revitalize the economy in this region. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service `Planning Aid Report' indicated minimal
impact and most probably an enhancement to environmental value. Last
summer colonies of least terns (an endangered species) were found on
stabilized sandbars in the Waterway in Louisiana as well as an increase
in numbers and species of migratory birds due to the newly formed
pools. This will be a multipurpose project addressing navigation,
hydropower, bank stabilization and environmental restoration. I want to
stress that the local sponsor, the Arkansas Red River Commission, has
available their 50 percent cost share for the complete feasibility
study. Few local sponsors have `funds in the bank' and are also willing
to fund additional studies to insure a complete and accurate analysis
is made.
Bank Stabilization.--One of the most important continuing programs
on the Red River is bank stabilization in Arkansas and North Louisiana.
We must stop the loss of valuable farmland that erodes down river and
interferes with the navigation channel. In addition to the loss of
farmland is the threat to public utilities such as roads, electric
power lines and bridges; as well as increased dredging cost in the
navigable waterway. These revetment projects are compatible with
subsequent navigation and we urge that they be continued in those
locations designated by the Corps of Engineers to be the areas of the
worst erosion. We appreciated Congressional funding in fiscal year 2000
and request you again fund this project at a level of $10 million.
It is essential to protect the banks from caving and erosion along
the Red River below Denison Dam, Texas to Index, Arkansas along the
Texas/Oklahoma border. The Federal Government constantly encourages its
farmers to protect their lands against all forms of erosion, so it only
makes sense to be consistent. An authorized project exists; `Red River
Waterway, Index, AR to Denison Dam, TX, Bank Stabilization', so the
issue lies with the benefit/cost ratio. We believe that the authorized,
on going `Sediment Transport Study' will identify benefits due to
reduced dredging cost in the navigable Waterway in Louisiana.
There is a new technique for bank stabilization which could be
tested as a demonstration project under this authorization. This new
technique, underwater bendway weirs, has proven to be less expensive
than conventional methods and more efficient in controlling the energy
of the river as well as providing environmental benefits. Over 1,000
acres of prime farmland in Oklahoma and Texas is lost each year to
river erosion and we must investigate all avenues to correct this
problem. You funded the initiation of this project in fiscal year 1999
and we request you continue that initiative, in this appropriation, at
a level of $5.5 million, the expressed Corps capability.
Flood Control.--You will recall that in 1990 major areas of
northeast Texas, Southwest Arkansas and the entire length of the Red
River in Louisiana were ravaged by the worst flooding to hit the region
since 1945 and 1957. More than 700,000 acres were flooded with total
damages estimated at $20.4 million. However, it could have been much
worse. The Corps of Engineers estimates that without the flood control
measure authorized by Congress over the past several decades an
additional 1.3 million acres would have been flooded with an estimated
$330 million in additional flood damage to agriculture and urban
developments.
We continue to consider flood control a major objective and request
you continue funding the levee rehabilitation projects ongoing in
Arkansas and Texas. Four of eleven items have been completed on levees
rehabilitated to meet federal standards. $4 million will construct two
more items; completing Miller County, AR and starting levees in
Lafayette County, AR.
In addition, Bowie County levee, in Texas, is crucial to the
integrity of the Arkansas levee system. Should the Bowie levee fail
flood waters will inundate behind the just competed Miller County
levees in Arkansas. It is important to have this project funded at
$900,000, for the `locally preferred' option, according to cost sharing
under the Flood Control Act of 1946, not withstanding economic
justification.
The levees in Louisiana have been incorporated in the Federal
system; however, do not meet current construction standards due to
their age. These levees do not have a gravel surface, on top,
threatening their integrity during times of flooding. It is essential
for personnel to traverse the levees during a flood to inspect them for
problem areas. Without the gravel surface the vehicles used cause
rutting and themselves can create conditions for the levees to fail.
Gravel surfaces will insure inspection personnel can check the levees
during the saturated conditions of a flood. We propose a three phase,
three year project to correct this Valley wide problem in Louisiana.
The first year requires a funding level of $2,654,000 with the whole
project costing $8,361,000.
Clean Water.--Nearly 3,500 tons of natural salts, primarily sodium
chloride, enter the upper reaches of the Red River each day, rendering
downstream waters unusable for most purposes. The Truscott Brine Lake
project, which is located on the South Fork of the Wichita River in
King and Knox Counties, Texas became operational in 1987. An
independent panel of experts found that the project not only continues
to perform beyond design expectations in providing cleaner water, but
has an exceptionally favorable cost benefit ratio. $16 million dollars
was appropriated in fiscal year 1995, by the Administration, to
accelerate engineering design, real estate acquisition and initiate
construction of the Crowell Brine Dam, Area VII and Area IX. Due to a
conflict over environmental issues, raised by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, completion of the SFEIS was delayed pending further
study to determine the extent of possible impacts to fish and wildlife,
their habitats and biological communities along the Red River and Lake
Texoma. In an effort to resolve these issues and insure that no harmful
impact to the environment or ecosystems would result, a comprehensive
environmental and ecological monitoring program was implemented. It
evaluates the actual impacts of reducing chloride concentrations within
the Red River watershed. This base line data is crucial to
understanding the ecosystem of the Red River basin west of Lake Texoma
and funding for this must continue.
Dr. Westphal, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), in
October 1998 agreed to support a re-evaluation of the Wichita River
Basin portion of the project. Completion of this tributary will reclaim
Lake Kemp as a usable water source for the region. As was done in
fiscal year 2000 we support the reprogramming of $1,351,000 to continue
this important project. The drought experienced in the Red River
Valley, these past two years, has highlighted the critical need for
this usable water source.
Operation & Maintenance.--We appreciate the support of your
subcommittee to support navigation to Shreveport/Bossier City which is
now providing an increase to our industrial base, creating jobs and
providing economic growth. We request that O&M funding levels remain at
the expressed Corps capability to maintain a safe, reliable and
efficient transportation system. As experienced two years age failure
to maintain a revetment for $500,000, when the problem was first
identified, resulted in a catastrophic failure of the revetment and
adjacent levee. This led to an emergency repair of $5 million which
could have been prevented. The President's budget level of $8.9 million
does not address the backlog of maintenance at the five lock and dams
or deteriorating dikes and revetments. The Corps capability of
$15,237,000 million is required to maintain a safe waterway.
Full O&M funding levels is not only important for the Waterway
project but for all our Corps projects and flood control lakes.
We are sincerely grateful to you for the past support you have
given our various projects. We hope that we can count on you again to
fund our needs and complete the projects started that will help us
diversify our economy and create the jobs so badly needed by our
citizens. We have included a summary of our requests for easy
reference.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony and project
details of the Red River Valley Association on behalf of the
industries, organizations and citizens we represent throughout the four
state Red River Valley region. We believe that any federal monies spent
on civil work projects are truly investments in our future and will
return several times the original investment in benefits that will
accrue back to the Federal Government.
I am always available to provide you and your staff additional
information or clarification on any issue presented.
GRANT DISCLOSURE
The Red River Valley Association has not received any federal
grant, subgrant or contract during the current fiscal year or either of
the two previous fiscal years.
SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2001 REQUESTS
Note.--Projects are NOT in any order of priority.
Studies
Red River Navigation, SW Arkansas.--This is a feasibility study
initiated on March 24, 1999 to investigate the potential to extend
navigation from Shreveport/Bossier, LA to Index, AR. To date $1,783,000
has been ``reprogrammed'' for this study from another Red River study.
The President's budget included $200,000 for fiscal year 2001. An
additional $417,000 is required to complete the study in fiscal year
2002. The study is cost shared 50 percent with the Arkansas Red River
Commission, the local sponsor.
President's Budget--$200,000
Total Request--$200,000
Millwood Lake, Grassy Lake, AR (Section 1135).--An environmental
restoration project to 15,000 acres of wetlands located downstream from
Millwood Dam. The Dam interrupted the flow and this project would be a
water delivery system to include restoring flow to a 400 acre pristine
wetland area. It is private land; however, there is a national interest
for migratory birds. A potential sponsor is the Arkansas Soil & Water
Conservation Commission.
Total Request--$300,000
Southwest Arkansas Study.--Conduct a reconnaissance report in the
four county area of the Red River/Little River basins. Included would
be the four Corps lakes; DeQueen, Dierks, Gillham and Millwood. The
watershed study would evaluate; flooding, irrigation, fish and wildlife
habitat, water quality, recreation and water releases for navigation.
The State of Arkansas has expressed an interest in cost sharing
feasibility study.
Total Request--$300,000
Bois d'Arc Creek, Bonham, TX.--This is a reconnaissance study to
address the flooding on 16,100 acres on the lower two-thirds of the
basin. The towns of Whitewright and Bonham are within the basin. A dam
was determined feasible in the 1960's; however, there was no local
sponsor. Currently there are local sponsors interested in this project.
President's Budget--$200,000
Total request--$300,000
Southeast Oklahoma Water Resource Study.--Conduct a reconnaissance
study to evaluate the water resources in the study area. The study area
includes the Kiamichi River basin and other tributaries of the Red
River. A comprehensive plan will be developed to determine how best to
conserve and utilize this water.
President's Budget--$200,000
Total Request--$200,000
Big Cypress Valley Watershed (Section 1135).--The main focus of
this study is within the City of Jefferson, Texas. Informal
coordination with Jefferson has showed their continued support and
intent to participate. Their total share is estimated to be $601,600
with annual O&M costs of approximately $21,000.
Total Request--$100,000
CONSTRUCTION
Red River Waterway Project
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway.--Ten projects have been awarded in
fiscal year 2000 and need to be completed as well as the initiation of
six new projects. Upon implementation of the Project Cooperation
Agreement funds will be used for recreation features, as well as
continued efforts with mitigation.
President's Budget--$18,040,000
Construction Adds--$5,000,000
Total Request--$23,040,000
Index, AR to Denison Dam, TX; Bendway Weir Demo Project.--This
stretch of Red River experiences tremendous bank caving. A
demonstration project using this bendway weir technique is needed to
determine if this method will work in the Red River. The U.S. Highway
271 bridge was selected due to the threat to this infrastructure and
accessibility for evaluation. The project will include bendways 6 miles
upstream and 5.5 miles downstream of the bridge. There are
environmental enhancement potential with this project.
Total Request--$5,500,000
Red River Basin Chloride Control Project.--A reevaluation for the
Wichita River Basin features has been ongoing using reprogrammed funds.
The office of the ASA(CW) has approved this and is expected to
reprogram funds in fiscal year 2001. In addition to the reevaluation
and NEPA process, environmental monitoring activities will continue.
Total Reprogram Request--$1,351,000
Red River Below Denison Dam Levees & Bank Stabilization
Levee Rehabilitation, AR.--Funds are required to complete
construction of Levee Item #5 initiated in fiscal year 2000; initiate
construction of the next Levee Item and initiate design for the follow
on Levee Item. Design and initiate construction of Dillard Revetment
downstream extension. An Incorporation Report must be accomplished for
Twelve Mile Bayou Levee, Caddo Parish, LA as directed by WRDA 99.
Total Request--$4,000,000
Bowie County Levee, TX.--The local sponsor wants the `locally
preferred option' authorized for construction.
Total Request--$900,000
Upgrade Levees, LA.--Approximately 220 miles of levees do not have
gravel surfaces on top of the levee as is the present standard. These
levees are in the federal system and must be upgraded. This surface is
required for safe inspections of the levees during flood fights and to
maintain the integrity of the levee. The total project can be completed
in three phases over three years.
Total Request--$2,654,000
Red River Emergency Bank Protection
Arkansas.--Funds are required to complete construction of Hunter's
Island Revetment initiated in fiscal year 2000; award contracts for
Pleasant Valley and Dickson Revetments; complete the design for Bois
D'Arc and initiate design for the next priority item.
Total Request--$10,000,000
Louisiana.--A sediment transport study, Phase II will determine if
sediments being transported downstream, into the navigation channel,
are increasing the dredging costs. Phase I determined that 1.6 million
tons of sand sediment enter the navigation pools each year. Phase II
will examine total sediments. There are enough funds on hand to
complete this study.
Total Request--$0
Aloha-Rigolette Flood Control, LA.--The local sponsor is expected
to contribute more funds than originally anticipated due to the
performance and termination of the original contractor. These
additional overruns were through no fault of the local sponsor, Town of
Colfax, and they can not bear the burden of the additional cost. In
addition to federal funding language is required to relieve the Town of
Colfax from this extra cost.
Total Request--$286,000
Little River County (Ogden Levee), AR.--A Reconnaissance report in
1991 determined that flood control levees were justified along Little
River. The project sponsor, Arkansas Water Conservation Commission
requested that the project proceed directly to PED, without a cost
shared feasibility study. We request language and funding to accomplish
this.
Total Request--$300,000
McKinney Bayou.--The Reconnaissance Report showed a favorable
project to clear and reshape this drainage canal. Presently, the local
sponsor is unable to cost share continuation of this project.
Total Request $0
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
Red River Waterway.--The President's budget is sufficient to only
operate and perform preventive maintenance items. There are major,
unfunded backlog maintenance items that must be done. These items
include inspection and certification of lock & dam stoplogs, repairs to
tainter gate diagonal bracing and revetment repairs.
President's Budget--$8,907,000
Revetment Repair--$2,500,000
Backlog Maintenance--$3,830,000
Total Request--$15,237,000
We support that O&M at projects be funded at the full Corps
capability.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES (MR&T)
Lower Red River, South Bank Levees, LA.--The Bayou Rapides Flood
Control Structure is located in Alexandria, LA and serves to contain
flows and reduce interior flooding from high stages of the red River.
Without this structure the Federally authorized project could not
function properly. We support this MR&T funded project.
President's Budget--$5,739,000
Total Request--$8,239,000.
______
Prepared Statement of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development
The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Office
of Public Works and Intermodal Transportation, is the agency designated
to represent the State of Louisiana in the planning and orderly
development of its water resources. This statement is presented on
behalf of the State of Louisiana and contains recommendations for
fiscal year 2001 appropriations for work in Louisiana under the
Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.
Louisiana contains the terminus of the Mississippi River, which has
the third largest drainage basin in the world, exceeded only by the
watersheds of the Amazon and Congo Rivers. The Mississippi River drains
41 percent, or 1\1/4\ million square miles, of the contiguous United
States and parts of two Canadian provinces. All of the runoff from
major river basins, such as the Missouri and Upper Mississippi, the
Ohio including the Tennessee and others, and the Arkansas and White,
flow into the Lower Mississippi, which empties into the Gulf of Mexico
through Louisiana.
The jurisdiction of levee boards in Louisiana includes one-third of
the State's total area. However, the importance of this one-third of
the State can be seen by the fact that it contains nearly 75 percent of
the State's population and about 90 percent of the State's disposable
personal income. Traditionally, the levee district areas are water rich
and have fallen heir to industrial development that ranks high in the
nation. It has been estimated that about 60 percent of the State's
agricultural products come from levee district areas. So you can see
why Louisiana and its twenty levee districts are so interested in
seeing the completion of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.
In making the following recommendations regarding construction,
studies, and some selected operation and maintenance items, the State
of Louisiana would hope that Congress and the Administration will honor
their prior commitments to infrastructure development and fund our
requests.
The following Louisiana projects are only those for which we are
requesting an increase to the President's budget. For those Louisiana
projects not listed we agree with the President's budget. See the
attached ``Summary of Recommended Appropriations'' for a complete
listing.
Operation and Maintenance
Request
Atchafalaya Basin....................................... $13,582,000
Old River Request....................................... 11,320,000
Lower Red River, South Bank Levees (Bayou Rapides
Drainage Structure and Pumping Plant)............... 8,239,000
Mississippi River Levees (total MR&T)................... 10,000,000
Channel Improvement (total MR&T)........................ 60,000,000
The operation and maintenance of completed works are essential to
achieving the full benefits of the projects. In times of budget
constraints it is essential that operation and maintenance not be
delayed which would hamper the effectiveness of the projects and cause
more expensive maintenance at a later date.
The Bayou Rapides Drainage Structure and Pumping Plant Project,
located in Alexandria, Louisiana, is authorized under the Lower Red
River, South Bank Levees of the Mississippi River and Tributaries
Project. The replacement of an existing pumping plant is needed to
contain flows and reduce interior flooding from high stages of the Red
River. Additional funds of $2.5 million are needed to continue
construction.
All the above listed projects have reached a point where delayed
maintenance is now essential and we urge you to fund these projects in
the amounts requested.
Mississippi River Levees (total MR&T)--Request: $50,000,000
The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project above Louisiana is
about 90 percent complete, but to a much lesser extent in Louisiana.
Because of the improvements upstream, increased flows are a major
problem in Louisiana where the project is lagging behind the
construction in the upper valley. Of the total request for levee
construction, $20,072,000 is needed for Louisiana projects. This
includes an additional $4,200,000 for the Vicksburg District where
there is a deficiency of 4 to 7 feet on mainline Mississippi River
levees in the Fifth Louisiana Levee District. It is also requested that
Federal funds be provided to purchase rights-of-way for this critical
work as the Levee District is in an economically depressed area and
does not have a tax base capable of producing the funds necessary for
both maintenance and rights-of-way purchase.
Channel Improvement (total MR&T)--Request: $45,000,000
Channel improvement and bank stabilization provide protection to
the levees and the development behind them, as well as, preventing
unsatisfactory alignment where the river's bank is unstable. The
additional funds we are requesting will provide for the dredging and
revetment work necessary to accommodate increased flows caused by
upstream improvements.
Tensas Basin, Red River Backwater Area (Sicily Island Area Levee
Project)--Request: $8,533,000
The budgeted funds for fiscal year 2001 are to be used to continue
construction of levee Items 1C and 1D. An additional $6,203,000 is
requested to complete Item 1C and 1D, advance the award of Billys and
Falcon Bayou and acquisition of lands.
Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico--Request: $5,000,000
Funds are requested to advance preconstruction engineering and
design and start construction. This study is scheduled for completion
and is expected to be authorized in the next Water Resources
Development Act.
Local Contributions for Flood Control Improvements
Historically, Louisiana has always done its part in cooperation
with the Federal agencies concerned with flood control. The Louisiana
State Board of Engineers, the forerunner of the Department of
Transportation and Development, Office of Public Works and Intermodal
Transportation, was created in 1879, the same year as the Mississippi
River Commission, to coordinate the planning and construction of the
required flood control facilities to protect the State. Since that
time, local expenditures for flood control have exceeded $730,000,000.
This amount adjusted to 1979 dollars represents expenditures in excess
of $5.3 billion. Nearly one-half of the potential flooded area of the
Lower Mississippi River Valley lies in Louisiana. Local expenditures
for flood control have increased with the growth of the valley. This
record not only meets, but exceeds any National Water Policy local
participation requirement ever put into practice.
CONCLUSION
The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project has been underway
since 1928 and isn't scheduled for completion until the year 2031--a
date that continually keeps moving further into the future. We
understand the need for budget constraints, but the President's budget
request of $309,000,000 for the total MR&T Project is not adequate. We
endorse the recommendation of the Mississippi Valley Flood Control
Association in their request for a minimum of $370,000,000 MR&T budget
for funding to the full capability of the Corps throughout the whole
valley.
The State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and
Development, Office of Public Works and Intermodal Transportation, in
particular, wishes to commend the Appropriations Subcommittees on
Energy and Water Development, and express our appreciation for the
foresight and understanding exhibited for water resources projects
which are vital to the national interest. We solicit your further
consideration of the recommendations presented herein.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 STATE OF LOUISIANA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lousiiana
Louisiana projects Budget request request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation and Maintenance:
Mississippi River Levees (total $6,160,000 $10,000,000
MR&T)..............................
Atchafalaya Basin................... 9,482,000 13,582,000
Channel Improvement (total MR&T).... 58,954,000 60,000,000
Old River Control Structure......... 4,720,000 11,320,000
Bonnet Carre Spillway............... 1,340,000 1,340,000
Lower Red River, SBL--Bayou Rapides 5,739,000 8,239,000
Drainage Structure & Pumping Plant.
Tensas Basin:
Boeuf & Tensas Rivers........... 2,384,000 2,384,000
Red River Backwater Area........ 3,048,000 3,048,000
Atchafalaya Basin, Floodway System, 1,499,000 1,499,000
LA.................................
Baton Rouge Harbor--Devil Swamp, LA. 210,000 210,000
Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries...... 56,000 56,000
Mississippi Delta Region, 916,000 916,000
Caernarvon, LA.....................
Construction:
Mississippi River Levees (total 40,621,000 50,000,000
MR&T)..............................
Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee.. 5,500,000 5,500,000
Atchafalaya Basin................... 26,000,000 26,000,000
Channel Improvements (total MR&T)... 35,690,000 45,000,000
Tensas Basin, Red River Backwater 2,330,000 8,533,000
Area...............................
Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico...... .............. 1,000,000
Atchafalaya Basin, Floodway System.. 10,000,000 10,000,000
Mississippi Delta Region, Davis Pond 5,000,000 5,000,000
Mississippi & Louisiana Estuarine 100,000 100,000
Area (Bonnet Carre)................
Preconstruction Engineering & Design: 2,000,000 4,000,000
Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico \1\.....
General Investigations:
Donaldsonville to the Gulf of Mexico 1,100,000 1,100,000
Alexandria to the Gulf of Mexico.... 750,000 750,000
Spring Bayou........................ 100,000 100,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Need WRDA authorization.
Note.--The projects listed above are only those in Louisiana (except
where noted) and directly affect the State. We realize that there are
other projects in the Valley. We endorse the recommendations of the
Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association.
______
Prepared Statement of the Caddo/Bossier Port Commission
On behalf of the citizens of Northwest Louisiana, the Caddo-Bossier
Parishes Port Commission strongly urges the Congress of the United
States to allocate in fiscal year 2001 the necessary monies to ensure
safe and reliable Red River navigation.
The water resources needs of this nation must be met in order to
assure our commerce, international trade and national defense needs are
not shortchanged. Our water highways, including the Red River, are
national assets. Their ports' activities link every community in our
nation to the world. The Port of Shreveport-Bossier, owned and operated
by the Caddo-Bossier Port Commission, is part of this waterways
network, linking the Ark-La-Tex with the vast midcontinent and coastal
and Great Lakes ports.
The Port of Shreveport-Bossier, which lies at the head of Red River
navigation, is one of the newest ports in this network, having been in
regular operation now only three years. We are proud of its evolution,
the impact it is having on the communities it serves and the speed with
which the Commission's goals of providing water transportation and
economic development are progressing. For example, each year there has
been an increase in tonnage over port docks. This spring the One
Millionth Ton of Cargo milestone will be reached, a timetable far ahead
of many very successful inland ports. And just as importantly, the port
is prompting jobs and dollar investment. Oakley Louisiana began
operation at the Port in April, 1999 and Omni Specialty Packaging and
Omni Terminal Systems will begin operation this spring. These companies
joined Red River Terminals, Shreveport Fabricators, Arch Chemicals and
U.S. Liquids at the 2,000 acre Port complex.
Contrary to recent national publicity sparked by a particular
political agenda, the facts speak for themselves--the Port of
Shreveport-Bossier is a success. Federal investment in civil works
programs for the Red River must be adequate to ensure an efficient
transportation system, thereby assuring local citizens and private
business that their investments in the Port are not only worthwhile
today but will be a sound and ongoing investment in the future economic
growth of the Ark-La-Tex.
______
Prepared Statement of the Red River Waterway Commission
On behalf of the citizens of the Red River Waterway District of
Louisiana, the Red River Waterway Commission urges the Congress of the
United States to allocate the funds necessary for fiscal year 2001 for
Red River Waterway Project. Adequate funding will allow continued
construction progress toward actual project completion, stimulate
continued growth in tonnage movement, encourage the continuation of
private and public development as well as facilitate total reliability
in project function for industrial and recreational development. While
this project is still in its infancy stage, the infrastructure
investment has been justified by commercial and recreational
development along the Red River and intermodal transportation cost
savings because of water induced rates resulting from the project.
Tonnage volumes continue to steadily increase and cargo
classifications diversify providing numerous business opportunities for
this region. Further development will continue to take place with the
knowledge that users can rely on an efficient, functional and user
friendly river system.
Construction on Red River is over 90 percent complete, however, it
is vitally important that we understand the importance of steady
progress toward project completion with full knowledge of the financial
constraints this country, the President and the Congress are wrestling
with during the budget process.
AREAS OF NEED FOR THE RED RIVER WATERWAY PROJECT
Navigation Structures (Revetments and Dikes).--The completion of
these structures is necessary to maintain the channel alignment so as
to provide reliable navigation to the commercial users. In addition,
the structures help insure that barges can be loaded to the maximum
depths allowable for profitable operation and continued industrial
growth.
Recreation Development.--Design and Construction in Pools 3, 4 and
5 should begin immediately. Important projects such as Shreveport
Riverfront, Teague Parkway Trails, Colfax and Hampton Lake establish an
excellent recreation foundation.
Operations & Maintenance Program.--Channel Maintenance (Dredging)
is critical to the viability of the waterway system. The Corps of
Engineers needs sufficient resources to adequately maintain the
navigation channel to provide dependable and reliable depths so that
barges moving on the system can be loaded to the maximum nine foot
draft. Maintenance of existing navigation structures at strategic
locations is vital for continued development. The backlog of
maintenance items at the lock & dam structures could be devastating to
the nation's investment in the navigation system.
Construction/Maintenance Program.--The Corps of Engineers needs
resources available to react quickly to landowner bank caving
complaints that are a result of the project and are fully justified.
Aids to Navigation.--As commercial use continues to increase, the
Coast Guard presence and resources must reflect a similar growth to
adequately maintain the buoy system on the Red River and stimulate
confidence in the river system.
Mitigation and Bendway Dredging.--Continue with land acquisition
and developmental cost analysis associated with the mitigation portion
of the project to enhance the bottomland hardwood acreage within the
Red River Valley area of Louisiana. Continue the bendway dredging
operations to maintain the backwater connection to the channel of Red
River for ingress and egress of nutrient rich river water and numerous
species of freshwater fish.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc., prepared statement........... 640
Alabama River Pulp Company, Inc., prepared statement............. 616
Alabama State Docks, prepared statement.......................... 649
American Chemical Society, prepared statement.................... 521
American Museum of Natural History, prepared statement........... 507
American Public Power Association, prepared statement............ 527
American Rivers, prepared statement.............................. 545
Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, prepared statement.... 560
Association for the Development of Inland Navigation in America's
Ohio Valley, prepared statement................................ 633
Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc., prepared
statement...................................................... 540
Ballard, Lt. General Joe N., Chief of Engineers, Corps of
Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army, Department of
Defense--Civil................................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Recognition of............................................... 2
Statement of................................................. 11
Biomass Energy Research Association, prepared statement.......... 522
Bowman, Adm. Frank L., Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion
Program, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department
of Energy...................................................... 95
Prepared statement........................................... 133
Statement of................................................. 131
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana:
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Statement.................................................... 24
Business Council for Sustainable Energy, prepared statement...... 517
Butte County, California, prepared statement..................... 497
Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia, questions
submitted by..................................................62, 397
Caddo/Bossier Port Commission, prepared statement................ 666
California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
Coalition, prepared statement.................................. 427
California Resources Agency Reclamation Board, prepared statement 475
California Water Commission, prepared statement.................. 439
Caver, Thomas F., Jr., Chief, Programs Management Division,
Directorate of Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil,
Department of the Army, Department of Defense--Civil........... 1
Cawelo Water District, prepared statement........................ 491
Central Arizona Water Conservation District, prepared statement.. 580
City of Marshall, Minnesota, prepared statement.................. 607
City of Metumpka, AL, prepared statement......................... 614
City of Miami Beach, Florida, prepared statement................. 621
City of Morro Bay, California, prepared statement................ 426
City of Newark, New Jersey, prepared statement................... 531
City of Oceanside, California, prepared statements.............410, 486
City of Phoenix, prepared statement.............................. 408
City of Rainbow City, AL, prepared statement..................... 615
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, prepared statement...... 435
City of Rome, Georgia, prepared statement........................ 616
City of Sacramento, prepared statement........................... 413
City of San Leandro, California, prepared statement.............. 409
City of San Rafael, CA, prepared statement....................... 436
City of Selma, AL, prepared statement............................ 615
City of Stockton, prepared statement............................. 498
Clark County Regional Flood Control District, prepared statement. 437
Coachella Valley Water District, prepared statement.............. 478
Cochran, Hon. Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, questions
submitted by..................................................56, 393
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, prepared statement.. 573
Colorado River Board of California, prepared statement........... 420
Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement............... 415
Contra Costa County, California, prepared statement.............. 432
Cook, J. Mark, letter from....................................... 644
Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association, Inc., prepared
statement...................................................... 610
Cottingham, David, Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for Water
and Science, Department of the Interior........................ 73
Council of Alabama Waterway Associations, prepared statement..... 650
County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors, prepared statement 492
County of San Joaquin and the San Joaquin County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District, prepared statement............ 502
County of Santa Cruz, prepared statement......................... 477
County of Tulare, prepared statement............................. 491
County of Volusia, Florida, prepared statement................... 627
Craig, Hon. Larry, U.S. Senator from Idaho, ques182, 296, 311, 320, 397
David Volkert & Associates, Inc., prepared statement............. 647
Decker, Dr. James, Acting Director, Office of Science, Department
of Energy...................................................... 187
Prepared statement........................................... 192
Statement of................................................. 190
Deschutes Basin Working Group, prepared statement................ 590
Doetting, Robert L., letter from................................. 645
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico:
Opening statements........................................... 1, 95
Questions submitted by.........43, 87, 154, 283, 284, 301, 312, 378
Statement of................................................. 189
Dorgan, Hon. Byron, U.S. Senator from North Dakota:
Questions submitted by......................................71, 299
Statement of................................................. 187
Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, prepared statement....... 595
Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, prepared statement...... 549
Gioconda, Gen. Thomas F., Acting Deputy Administrator, Defense
Programs, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Military
Applications, National Nuclear Security Administration,
Department of Energy........................................... 95
Prepared statement........................................... 105
Statement of................................................. 100
Gorton, Hon. Slade, U.S. Senator from Washington:
Questions submitted by............................56, 293, 304, 396
Statement of................................................. 187
Gottemoeller, Rose, Acting Deputy Administrator, Atomic Energy
Defense and Nonproliferation Programs, National Nuclear
Security Administration, Department of Energy.................. 95
Prepared statement........................................... 123
Statement of................................................. 120
Green Brook Flood Control Commission, prepared statement......... 529
Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association, prepared statement.......... 653
Habiger, Gen. Eugene E., Director, Security and Emergency
Operations, National Nuclear Security Administration,
Department of Energy........................................... 95
Prepared statement........................................... 141
Statement of................................................. 140
Hermiston Irrigation District, prepared statement................ 595
Hoopa Valley Tribal Council, prepared statement.................. 417
Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District,
prepared statement............................................. 411
Hunt Company, prepared statement................................. 646
Huntoon, Carolyn, Assistant Secretary, Office of Environmental
Management, Department of Energy............................... 323
Prepared statement........................................... 338
Statement of................................................. 335
Integrated Petroleum Environmental Consortium, prepared statement 546
Itkin, Ivan, Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management, Department of Energy............................... 323
Prepared statement........................................... 325
Statement of................................................. 323
Johnston, J. Ronald, Program Director, Central Utah Project
Completion Act Office, Department of the Interior.............. 73
Prepared statement........................................... 77
Statement of................................................. 77
Jordan, James T., letter from.................................... 616
Kansas Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, prepared
statement...................................................... 566
Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, prepared statement..... 416
Kohl, Hon. Herb, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, questions submitted
by............................................................. 69
Little River Drainage District, prepared statement............... 559
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, prepared statement...... 433
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, prepared statement 500
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, prepared
statement...................................................... 664
Louisiana Governor's Task Force on Maritime Industry, prepared
statement...................................................... 655
Magwood, Bill, Director, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and
Technology, Department of Energy............................... 187
Prepared statement........................................... 249
Statement of................................................. 246
Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior..................................... 73
Prepared statement........................................... 74
McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, questions
submitted by................................................... 305
Merced Irrigation District, prepared statement................... 495
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, prepared
statement...................................................... 429
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago,
prepared statement............................................. 542
Mid-Dakota Rural Water Project, prepared statement............... 553
Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association, prepared statement 557
Missouri-Arkansas River Basins Association, prepared statement... 545
Mni Wiconi Project, prepared statement........................... 549
Monroe County Commission, prepared statement..................... 614
Monterey County Water Resources Agency, prepared statement....... 422
Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, prepared
statement...................................................... 421
Moss Landing Harbor District, prepared statement................. 424
Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington, questions
submitted by.................................................298, 320
National Audubon Society, prepared statement..................... 617
National Mining Association, prepared statement.................. 630
National Urban Agriculture Council, prepared statement........... 541
Natomas Mutual Water Company, prepared statement................. 416
Navios Ship Agencies Inc., prepared statement.................... 647
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, prepared statement...... 575
New York University, prepared statement.......................... 532
Northwest Power Planning Council, prepared statement............. 587
Nuclear Energy Institute, prepared statement..................... 514
Ohio State University, prepared statement........................ 505
Oklahoma Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, prepared
statement...................................................... 569
Oregon Water Resources Congress, prepared statement.............. 594
Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, prepared statement...... 585
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, prepared statement.... 537
Port of Houston Authority, prepared statement.................... 582
Port of Long Beach, prepared statement........................... 400
Port of Stockton, prepared statement............................. 399
Red River Valley Association, prepared statement................. 658
Red River Waterway Commission, prepared statement................ 667
Reicher, Dan, Assistant Secretary of Energy, office of Energy and
Renewable Energy, Department of Energy......................... 187
Prepared statement........................................... 224
Statement of................................................. 220
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada:
Questions submitted by....................................... 59
Prepared statement........................................... 261
Statement of................................................. 97
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
prepared statement............................................. 488
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, prepared statement......... 404
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency, prepared statement........ 501
Santa Clara Valley Water District, prepared statement............ 479
Santa Cruz Harbor, prepared statement............................ 436
Seminole Tribe of Florida, prepared statement.................... 628
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, prepared
statement...................................................... 563
St. Francis Levee District Board of Directors, prepared statement 637
State of Arizona, prepared statement............................. 579
State of New Jersey, Department of Transporation, prepared
statement...................................................... 537
State of New York, Empire State Development Corporation, prepared
statement...................................................... 537
State of Wyoming, prepared statement............................. 578
Steamship Association of Louisiana, prepared statement........... 650
Stevedoring Services of America, prepared statement.............. 642
Stewart, Jerry L., letter from................................... 645
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development Authority, prepared
state-
ment........................................................... 638
Topazi, Anthony J., letter from.................................. 640
Tule River Association, prepared statement....................... 496
Tumalo Irrigation District, prepared statement................... 595
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, prepared
statement...................................................... 509
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, prepared
statement...................................................... 535
University of Miami, prepared statement.......................... 619
University of Michigan, prepared statement....................... 624
University of Rochester, prepared statement...................... 511
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement.... 634
Van Winkle, General Hans A., Deputy Commanding General for Civil
Works Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 1
Velasco Drainage District, prepared statement.................... 642
Ventura Port District, prepared statement........................ 435
Warrior & Gulf Navigation Company, prepared statement............ 639
Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association, prepared statement....... 648
Western Coaliton of Arid States, prepared statement.............. 576
Westphal, Dr. Joseph, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works), Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Statement of................................................. 3
Whitewater River Basin, prepared statement....................... 478
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias irrigation system....................................... 54
Additional committee questions................................... 43
Administrative appeals process................................... 51
Alamogordo flood control system.................................. 55
Alaska National Defense System missile sites..................... 34
Army civil works new initiatives................................. 6
Backlog, construction and maintenance............................ 36
Bluestone Lake (dam safety assurance), West Virginia............. 62
Capability disclosure statement.................................. 32
Caspian Terns.................................................... 57
Challenge 21 initiative.......................................... 5
Civil program mission, current................................... 18
Civil Works Program:
Fiscal year 2001............................................. 6
Summary of budget............................................ 16
Columbia River navigation channel deepening..................32, 33, 58
Columbia/Snake River preferred alternative....................... 30
Comprehensive river basin studies................................ 52
Construction backlog............................................. 61
Corps:
Civil works program, ``growing'' the......................... 45
Historic role in service to the Nation....................... 17
Maintenance backlog, reducing................................ 16
Media coverage of the........................................ 2, 12
Review....................................................... 40
Study process, integrity of.................................. 44
Corps of Engineers Finance Center................................ 56
Credits and reimbursements....................................... 47
Devils Lake, North Dakota........................................ 28
Direct program................................................... 16
Disaster response assistance..................................... 22
Ecosystem restoration and flood hazard mitigation program........ 49
Engineering capability, maintaining.............................. 2
Environmental management......................................... 21
Espanola Valley, Rio Grande and tributaries study................ 54
Everglades restoration........................................... 60
Fallon, Nevada................................................... 38
Fiscal year 2001:
Budget....................................................... 24
Priorities............................................... 38
Continuing program, highlights of the........................ 7
Flood protection................................................. 20
Formerly utilized sites remedial action program (FUSRAP)......... 50
Fox River, Wisconsin............................................. 69
Funding priorities and schedule.................................. 49
Greenbrier River basin, West Virginia............................ 63
Harbor services:
Fund and fee................................................. 61
Fund proposal................................................ 7
Infrastructure renovation........................................ 22
John Day:
Drawdown study............................................... 58
Lock and dam................................................. 31
La Farge Dam deauthorization..................................... 69
Las Cruces....................................................... 55
Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland
River, West Virginia, Virginia and Kentucky--West Virginia Tug
Fork flood protection projects................................. 65
London locks and dam, West Virginia.............................. 67
Lower Mud River, West Virginia................................... 66
Maintenance backlog.............................................. 4, 61
Maple River, near Enderlin, North Dakota......................... 71
Marmet locks and dam, West Virginia.............................. 64
Nation's water and land resource needs, meeting the.............. 12
National trends.................................................. 18
Navigation....................................................... 20
New investment program........................................... 7
Ocean climate changes & EIS...................................... 58
Paducah gaseous diffusion plant.................................. 26
Picatinny arsenal heavy metal cleanups........................... 41
Preferred alternative, timeframe for............................. 56
Program overview................................................. 43
Project delays................................................... 43
Proposed work, examples of....................................... 48
Recreation modernization funding profile......................... 49
Recreation modernization program................................. 48
Red River Valley, Grand Forks, North Dakota...................... 28
Regulatory program............................................... 61
Studies...................................................... 51
Reimbursed program............................................... 16
Remedial action program, formerly utilized sites................. 42
Rio Grande floodway, San Acacia to Bosque del Apache unit........ 55
Rio Grande River Basin:
Comprehensive Study.......................................... 53
Study........................................................ 41
Robert C. Byrd locks and dam, West Virginia and Ohio............. 62
Rural Nevada water supply infrastructure......................... 36
Salmon through dams, delayed mortality of........................ 57
Shore protection................................................. 60
Snake River predicted chinook runs vs. Columbia River............ 57
Snake/Columbia corridor.......................................... 30
Standards, rigid regulatory...................................... 38
U.S. Army cold regions research and engineering laboratories..... 35
Upper Mississippi and Illinois navigation study, Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri and Wisconsin.............................. 70
Upper Mississippi River Navigation Study.........................13, 46
Upper Snake River dams, comparison to............................ 57
Watershed studies................................................ 4
West Fork River, West Virginia................................... 67
West Virginia statewide flood protection plan, West Virginia..... 68
Wetland proposals................................................ 37
Wheeling riverfront, West Virginia............................... 66
Williston, North Dakota.......................................... 71
Winfield locks and dam, West Virginia............................ 62
Wrongdoing, allegations for...................................... 15
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
National Nuclear Security Administration
Accelerated strategic computing initiative (ASCI)..............103, 168
Accelerator Production of Tritium (APT) and Accelerator
Transmutation of Waste (ATW), combining........................ 162
Accomplishments.................................................. 106
ADAPT............................................................ 111
Advanced manufacturing technology..............................101, 119
Arms control and nonproliferation................................ 126
BN-350 shut-down................................................. 182
Budget structure, revised........................................ 101
Critical infrastructure protection............................... 144
Critical skills.................................................. 167
Cyber security............................................144, 157, 182
Declassification................................................. 143
Defense programs, megastrategy for............................... 98
Device assembly facility......................................... 147
DOE/NIH partnership for technology development................... 173
Emergency operations............................................. 145
Experimental programs............................................ 112
Fiscal year 2000 supplemental budget request..................... 101
Fiscal year 2001 budget:
Amendment.................................................... 142
Request................................102, 120, 123, 133, 141, 142
Adequacy of.............................................. 154
Fiscal year 2001 DOE budget request.............................. 135
Fissile materials disposition..................................128, 185
General Accounting Office report................................. 122
Industrial partnerships.......................................... 173
Infrastructure at the labs and plants............................ 163
Infrastructure requirements...................................... 96
Integrated strategy.............................................. 148
International Centers for Environmental Safety................... 184
Laboratory directed research and development (LDRD)............169, 182
Labs, travel limitations at the.................................. 170
Manufacturing capabilities....................................... 110
Materials protection control and accounting...................(125, 177
Megastrategy..................................................... 98
Military requirements, ability to meet........................... 157
National Ignition Facility............................97, 102, 146, 158
Naval reactor:
Operational safety........................................... 138
Programs..................................................... 131
Naval reactors................................................... 185
Department of Energy budget detail........................... 136
Operations................................................... 131
Organization................................................. 132
Nevada test site, utilization of the............................. 98
New budget and reporting structure............................... 156
New initiative for $100 million.................................. 178
NIF-technological breakthroughs still needed..................... 159
NIF--SEAB conclusion............................................. 159
NN R&D contracts, competing...................................... 180
NNSA
Implementation............................................... 138
Need for functional.......................................... 148
Nonproliferation
Program for Russia, long-term................................ 184
Task force on................................................ 176
Nuclear:
Cities initiative..........................................122, 179
Safety and cooperation, international........................ 129
Safety centers............................................... 183
Weapons production........................................... 151
Nuclear weapons:
Stockpile, condition of the.................................. 154
United States helping the Russians control their............. 139
Overall budget--priorities for additional funding................ 176
People........................................................... 108
Pit production.................................................103, 167
New designs or remanufactured................................ 168
Plutonium disposition............................................ 175
Polygraph tests.................................................. 150
Polygraphs....................................................... 181
Production plants, recapitalization of........................... 163
Production readiness............................................. 171
Program direction..............................................130, 145
Program planning and budgeting, major changes in................. 105
Radiographic diagnostic facilities............................... 174
Research and development......................................... 130
Russia, long term nonproliferation program with.................. 124
Russia, relationship with........................................ 153
Russian:
Initiative, long-term........................................ 120
Nuclear infrastructure....................................... 121
Reactors, core conversion of................................. 179
Safety........................................................... 166
Security affairs................................................. 142
Separate security budget, proposal to establish.................. 180
Separated civil plutonium, moratorium on......................... 121
Simulation and computation....................................... 114
Stockpile:
Life extension and surveillance.............................. 109
Stewardship:
Accomplishments.......................................... 103
Budget, long-term........................................ 152
Program, adequacy of..................................... 149
Program--30-day review................................... 96
30-day study............................................. 100
Works, how............................................... 109
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).......................... 164
Technology partnerships programs................................. 115
10 year $45 billion budget framework, adequacy of................ 155
Test readiness................................................... 172
Transportation safeguards division............................... 170
Tritium.......................................................... 111
APT funding.................................................. 160
Status of reactor decision................................... 161
Tritium production.............................................104, 151
Uranium transparency and implementation, highly enriched......... 129
Urban encroachment on laboratories............................... 99
Weapons systems, dual revalidation of............................ 165
Women service on submarines...................................... 139
WVU national educational and technology center................... 283
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
Carlsbad issues.................................................. 392
Deactivation and Decommissioning Program funding................. 397
Defense nuclear waste:
Appropriation requirements................................... 390
Future growth requirements................................... 390
EM privatization................................................. 387
Fiscal year 1999-fiscal year 2000 highlights..................... 331
Fiscal year 2001:
Activities.................................................324, 327
Appropriations request, summary of........................... 326
Budget request, summary of................................... 324
Hanford tank waste remediation project (TWRS).................... 384
Hanford tanks.................................................... 396
Litigation....................................................... 331
Status of.................................................... 397
NNSA:
Impacts at Savannah River site............................... 391
Labs, working with........................................... 378
Nuclear waste:
Disposal..................................................... 387
Fund current balance and future estimate..................... 391
Out-year funding requirements.................................... 389
Performance measures...........................................324, 327
Program management and integration.............................330, 334
Radiation protection standards................................... 397
Rocky Flats...................................................... 382
Closure...................................................... 383
Savannah River Site (SRS)--Nuclear Materials Stabilization....... 380
Science and technology........................................... 386
Spent Nuclear Fuel Cleanup Program at Hanford.................... 379
Vitrification technology......................................... 393
Waste acceptance, storage, and transporation...................330, 334
WIPP............................................................. 392
Waste storage transparency test bed.......................... 393
Yucca mountain.................................................324, 327
Office of Energy and Renewable Energy
Agriculture and carbon sequestration...........................294, 298
Alternative energy source from oil............................... 220
Bioenergy:
And biobased products initiative............................. 230
Initiative................................................... 263
Biomass.......................................................... 222
Budget request................................................... 223
Solar and renewable.......................................... 189
Carbon cost saving initiative.................................... 288
Climate change technology initiative............................. 292
Departmental Energy Management Program........................... 245
Distributed energy resources (DER).............................223, 232
Energy and Environmental Research Center (EERC), biomass research
at the......................................................... 300
Energy efficiency investments.................................... 264
Energy systems, life cycle evaluation of......................... 287
Fiscal year 2001 budget request................................229, 233
Fish friendly turbines........................................... 269
Funding shortfall................................................ 293
Geopowering the west............................................. 280
Geothermal.....................................................221, 268
Energy....................................................... 265
Research, DOE laboratory involvement in.................. 282
Program...................................................... 282
Projects..................................................... 293
Hydroelectric.................................................... 222
Hydropower.....................................................269, 296
Improved management.............................................. 224
International clean energy initiative............................ 232
And international nuclear energy research initiative......... 285
International solar industry..................................... 222
Memorandum for Understanding..................................... 295
Million solar roofs initiative................................... 232
National renewable energy laboratory............................. 291
NNSA labs, working with.......................................... 293
No year funds.................................................... 300
No-year money.................................................... 224
Oil imports through increased biomass, reducing.................. 264
Photovoltaic energy systems....................................288, 290
Photovoltaics/Solar Programs..................................... 299
Pilot-scale fish friendly turbine................................ 270
Program direction................................................ 245
R&D:
Challenges, continuing....................................... 228
Success, recent.............................................. 227
Renewable energy:
Benefits to family farmers................................... 296
Progress in.................................................. 220
Pros and cons of............................................. 272
Sources...................................................... 273
Solar............................................................ 221
Solar and renewables at the New Mexico labs, funding for......... 284
Solar energy:
In remote locations.......................................... 266
Programs..................................................... 233
Progress of.................................................. 266
Strategic management............................................. 226
Tribal........................................................... 299
Wind............................................................. 220
Wind energy...................................................... 297
On private land.............................................. 268
Production on public lands................................... 267
Wind powering America............................................ 285
Office of Environmental Management
Compliance agreements, adequacy of funding to meet............... 375
Fiscal year 2001 request......................................... 341
Paducah gaseous diffusion plan................................... 369
Pit 9 at Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Lab........ 376
Privatization activities......................................... 337
Research and development funding, laboratory directed............ 374
Uranium:
Cylinder conversion, depleted................................ 371
Enrichment D&D fund, adequacy of the......................... 371
Waste:
Alternative technologies for treating high-level............. 375
Isolation pilot project...................................... 336
Tank waste, privatization of high-level...................... 373
Tanks at Hanford, cleanup of the high-level.................. 371
To Hanford, shipments of low-level and mixed low-level....... 373
Treatment project, advanced mixed............................ 377
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
Accelerator transmutation of waste............................... 301
Advanced computing initiative.................................... 317
Advanced reactor development..................................... 302
Budget request:
Environmental management..................................... 190
Nuclear energy............................................... 311
Civilian research programs....................................... 320
Computing research............................................... 320
Cylinder conversion.............................................. 275
Cylinder maintenance...........................................278, 279
Program...................................................... 278
DOE material storage areas (DMSAs)............................... 306
Doe's Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee................. 252
EBR-II sodium processing......................................... 280
EMSL, computational upgrade for the.............................. 322
Fast Flux Test Facility.......................................... 304
Fiscal year 2001 program focus................................... 253
Fusion energy sciences........................................... 313
Gaseous diffusion plants worker layoffs.......................... 277
Generation IV nuclear power systems.............................. 247
Low dose radiation effects research.............................. 318
Medical iosotopes................................................ 247
Microbial cell project........................................... 315
Nanoscale science, engineering and technology.................... 314
National Nuclear Security Administration Labs.................... 303
Working with................................................. 319
Nuclear energy................................................... 272
Research and development, a strategic shift in............... 251
Research initiative.......................................... 247
Supply, trends and challenges in............................. 250
Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO)......................... 303
Nuclear Energy Program........................................... 301
Nuclear reactor technology....................................... 271
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, new ``Mouse House''........................ 316
Program direction................................................ 261
Radioisotopes Power Systems Program, advanced.................... 248
Reprogramming.................................................... 312
Sodium bonded spent nuclear fuel................................. 270
Spallation neutron source......................................313, 318
Supercomputing................................................... 312
Transuranic contamination........................................ 277
University reactor fuel assistance and support................... 311
Uranium hexafluoride cylinder management, depleted............... 307
Uranium hexafluoride, depleted.................................305, 310
Uranium, sale of low enriched.................................... 276
Office of Science
Accomplishments.................................................. 190
And recent successes, our.................................... 193
Basic energy sciences............................................ 205
Bioengineering................................................... 191
Biological and environmental research............................ 207
Energy research analyses......................................... 217
Energy supply--technical information management.................. 218
Fusion energy sciences........................................... 210
High energy physics.............................................. 212
Looking to the future--fiscal year 2001.......................... 197
Microbial cell................................................... 191
Multiprogram energy laboratories--facilities support............. 215
Nanotechnology.................................................191, 274
North Dakota wind energy potential............................... 188
Nuclear physics.................................................. 214
Office of Science budget request................................. 189
Performance measures............................................. 202
Science program direction........................................ 217
Science programs--advanced scientific computing research......... 202
Scientific computing research, advanced.......................... 191
Spallation neutron source......................................191, 275
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Accounts, other.................................................. 77
Additional committee questions................................... 87
California Bay-Delta restoration................................. 76
Carlsbad......................................................... 91
Central Valley Project restoration fund.......................... 76
Desalination..................................................... 87
Coordination................................................. 83
Costs........................................................ 83
Expertise.................................................... 84
Next steps................................................... 84
Research..................................................... 82
Drought.......................................................... 90
Authority language........................................... 80
Emergency authorities........................................ 81
Policy commission report..................................... 81
Situation in the west........................................ 79
Endangered species recovery...................................... 85
Implementation program....................................... 92
Endangered species/water acquisition............................. 86
ESA workgroup.................................................... 85
Federal Government's role........................................ 86
Fort Hall........................................................ 79
Fort Hall Indian Reservation groundwater contamination........... 79
Idaho investigations.............................................78, 79
Middle Rio Grande................................................ 92
Mission.......................................................... 74
Rio grande....................................................... 93
Initiative................................................... 85
Restoration.................................................. 87
Taos water supply study.......................................... 94
Water and related resources...................................... 75