[Senate Hearing 107-683]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-683
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 2311/S. 1171
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2002, 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
70-753 WASHINGTON : 2002
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
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
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
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
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
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana PATTY MURRAY, Washington
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
TED STEVENS, Alaska (ex officio) DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
Professional Staff
Clay Sell
Tammy Perrin
Drew Willison (Minority)
Administrative Support
LaShawnda Smith
Nancy Olkewicz (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, February 27, 2001
Page
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of
Engineers--Civil............................................... 1
Tuesday, March 13, 2001
Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration... 23
Nondepartmental witness.......................................... 53
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation................ 81
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of
Engineers--Civil............................................... 99
Thursday, April 26, 2001
Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration... 141
Tuesday, May 1, 2001
Department of Energy:
Office of Power Technologies, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy..................................................... 219
Office of Science............................................ 219
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology............. 219
Tuesday, May 15, 2001
Department of Energy:
Office of Environmental Management........................... 299
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.............. 351
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
Energy programs.................................................. 377
Water programs................................................... 446
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, at 11 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Domenici, Hollings, and Reid.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
STATEMENT OF LT. GENERAL ROBERT B. FLOWERS, COMMANDER
AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
opening statement of senator pete v. domenici
Senator Domenici. The subcommittee will come to order. This
is the first hearing this year of the Energy and Water
Subcommittee. I would like to take a minute to welcome Senator
Feinstein to our subcommittee, even though she is not here. She
has changed subcommittees and will be a member of this
subcommittee, and I look forward to working with the Senator
from California. Senator Reid, we do a lot of things for the
State of California, even without Senator Feinstein present,
but just think what it probably will be now that she will be
there advocating for that little State of California.
Senator Reid. Dread the thought.
Senator Domenici. Dread the thought. Second, I am very
pleased to welcome Lt. General Robert B. Flowers, Chief of
Engineers and the Chief of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
This is your first appearance before this subcommittee. It is
nice to have you here today, and I hope that we gain a lot of
information so we can move ahead forthrightly with the Corps'
businesses. Today's hearing is to provide the Corps with an
opportunity to share with the committee its response to the
Army Inspector General's investigation which concluded in
November. I am also hopeful that this hearing will provide us
with an opportunity to examine the controversy surrounding the
specific allegations regarding the Upper Mississippi River
study which had made a rather significant amount of news.
Eight years ago Congress appropriated, that's 8 years ago,
appropriated $50 million for a navigation feasibility study of
the Upper Mississippi and Illinois River to examine
improvements that might be needed to quicken navigation and
relieve congestion, which apparently was rather rampant on the
waterways.
This was the largest study, I understand, that the Corps
had ever undertaken. For those of you who may not know, a
project from development to completion can take from 15 to 20
years, a rather lengthy process, to say the least. A year ago
the office of special counsel began investigating a whistle-
blower case which alleged that the Upper Mississippi
Feasibility Study was weighted toward the construction and that
the--toward construction and that the study was manipulated to
achieve a construction recommendation. As a result of this
case, the Army Inspector General was directed by the office of
special counsel to initiate a formal investigation into the
claims of the whistleblower.
The IG issued its findings on November 13, 2000. The Corps
was to officially respond on February 6, 2001. In the findings
the Army IG concluded that there was improper command direction
of the study, that preferential treatment was given to the
barge industry, a major stakeholder in this process, and that
the Corps had an institutional bias toward construction over
other potential alternatives. I believe the IG raises serious
questions regarding how the Corps carries out its mission and
its responsibilities as well as the integrity of the overall
process which clearly must be of the highest integrity.
I have the utmost respect for you, General, and the Corps
of Engineers, and believe that those who work for the Corps
carry out their jobs in an overwhelming majority of the cases
in a very professional manner. In fact, they are mostly true
professionals. I must say that the IG conclusions raise some
questions. In fact, they may be better put as serious
questions, with regard to how the Corps runs as an
organization.
As a result of the whistle-blower suit the IG investigation
and the news articles during the past year, I felt we needed to
have the Corps here today to respond to these allegations.
Let's hope you can respond in a manner that will move us
forward. I yield to my Ranking Member, Senator Reid.
statement of senator harry reid
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with
you this Congress, as we have the past several congresses on
this subcommittee. I believe it's one of the most important
subcommittees that we have. I feel so strongly about that that
I didn't move to another subcommittee this year. I feel this
subcommittee is important to the country and certainly to the
State of Nevada.
I think that this is a perfect time to hear Lt. General
Flowers this morning. I think this is--I have a long list of
questions, and I'll submit these for the record and would hope,
General, that you would answer these as quickly as you can. I'm
also the chairman of the Environment and Public Works
Committee, and we have Governor Whitman testifying there as we
speak, so I have other things to do. That does not take away
from the fact that I fully understand the importance of this
meeting. I'm a supporter of the Corps of Engineers, understand
its long record of accomplishment for our country, so there is
no question about where I stand on the Corps of Engineers. Most
members of this subcommittee have heard me describe at great
length the importance of infrastructure to our Nation's economy
and our future. We have a tremendous backlog of infrastructure
needs that the Corps is the best poised to meet. For over 200
years this Corps has done outstanding work for our Nation and
continues to do so today.
I recognize, as Senator Domenici has indicated, that the
Corps is not infallible. I am concerned when allegations of
misconduct have arisen concerning the Upper Mississippi River
team. The Corps has always, in my opinion, prided itself on
first rate analytical work, and to read accounts of how your
employees might have, in effect, cooked the books to move a
multibillion dollar project forward has been disturbing to me.
These allegations which could be described by some as fraud and
misconduct resulted in a very critical report by the Inspector
General last year. Couple all this with the remarkably negative
series of stories in the Post, Washington Post, so I think
there is every reason for us to conduct this hearing and
probably some more.
I have an open mind about this I find it hard to believe
that an organization which has done such good, credible work
for such a long time has become the evil empire that we have
been reading about. I have a unique position, as I have already
indicated. I'm both ranking member of this subcommittee and the
ranking Democrat on the full Environment and Public Works
Committee. This is the first in a series of oversight hearings
on the Upper Mississippi and Corps issues to be held by this
subcommittee and the Environment and Public Works Committee.
I understand the National Academy of Sciences will be
releasing a report this week that may shed some light on all of
this. We're going to get started today with both the
information and the witnesses we have. Today, however, is as
close as you are going to come to getting your thoughts in the
record. I think it is proper for the subcommittee to proceed in
this manner. The chairman and I both heard about the Corps from
a lot of people last year, one group that was almost strangely
silent was the Corps itself. I think it is now time for that
silence to evaporate.
My staff has told me that stakeholders will be invited to
other oversight hearings upstairs on the fourth floor where we
conduct our meetings. I look forward to my staff reporting to
me on this hearing, and I apologize, General Flowers, for not
being able to spend more time here.
First, we have read about these reports. Second, there have
been allegations that the Corps allowed certain stakeholder
groups to have inappropriate influence, and so as I said, I
hope that you will cover in your testimony, perhaps in your
opening statement, that you will describe the Corps' public
involvement process for studies such as the Upper Mississippi.
For example, where members of the public are included in this
Upper Mississippi study.
I also want to hear from you your perspective for these
individuals as these three Corps officers have been cited for
inappropriate action, I would like to know what your office has
done about this and what your opinion is about this.
Finally, General Flowers, during my service on this panel,
I have heard a great deal of testimony about the water
resources needs of this country, requirements to improve our
ports, waterways, provide protection from damaging floods and
coastal storms, concern for degrading environments, providing
for the water supply and water quality in rural America.
I want you today to cover in your oral testimony or in
writing what the role of the Army is in addressing these water
resource needs, does it make sense for the Army to be involved
in civil work activities, does the Corps prepare to respond to
water source requirements.
So these are difficult questions, and I would hope that you
would take whatever time is necessary today or in writing to
answer these questions. Thank you, Senator Domenici, for
allowing me this inordinate amount of time to have an opening
statement.
[The information follows:]
Corps Officers Involved in the Upper Mississippi and Illinois
Navigation Study
These three officers were doing their duty. They were attempting to
bring to conclusion a most complex and difficult study. While, in
hindsight, some of the actions that they took were misinterpreted by
Corps team members, they were striving to complete the mission as they
had throughout their careers.
federal role in addressing the nation's water resources needs
The development of water resources to serve the needs of the Nation
do not follow state boundaries, and throughout our history interstate
disputes have arisen over water. The Federal role is then quite clearly
to provide the comprehensive planning and leadership to provide for the
most efficient, effective and environmentally aware development and
conservation.
The Army Corps of Engineers was assigned the mission of providing
for the nation's water resources development early in the 19th century,
initially providing for interstate navigation and later in the early
20th century in the prevention of flood damages. Throughout the century
hydropower, water supply, recreation, shore protection, and
environmental protection and restoration. As society's needs and values
have changed, the Civil Works program has reflected changing national
priorities for good water management.
Responsibilities for the development, management, and protection of
the Nation's water resources, coupled with the reimbursable support
that the Corps provides to other federal agencies, nonfederal
governmental entities and foreign governments, constitute the current
Army civil works mission. One of the great strengths of the Corps is
the force multiplier effect between civil and military missions. For
example, in addition to the direct contributions that the civil works
missions make to our economic and environmental security and
prosperity, the Corps also applies its civil works assets to support
the Army in times of national need to enhance national security and to
promote democracy abroad. The Civil Works Program also derives greater
capability and effectiveness by being an integral part of the larger
Army and Defense team.
The Corps of Engineers is prepared to respond to water resource
requirements.
Senator Domenici. Senator, I am glad you stayed on the
subcommittee. I think it is an exciting subcommittee. The fact
that we are having the first hearings on this would indicate
that there is a genuine concern, since we have to appropriate
the money, and we have been trying very diligently, both of us,
to get the water projects in the country up to the right level
of funding, and we have worked very hard at that over the last
3 years, and so we want to make sure we're doing right as we
raise the amount of--continue to raise the amount of money
that's given to the Corps for major projects, major and minor
projects across this land. Whenever you are ready to leave, I
understand the situation.
Senator Reid. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. General, would you please proceed. We've
got your written statement, but I do think it very important
that you make your case. So if you want to use the full
statement, you use it. If you think you can do a good job in
abbreviating in making the case that you want to make----
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT B. FLOWERS
General Flowers. Sir, I will abbreviate, and I will do my
best to answer the Senator's questions in my statement.
First, sir, it is great to be able to be here and to tell a
story on behalf of the Corps, its soldiers and its civilians.
We've been working for the Nation for 225 years now, and I
think we have become indispensable to the country and to its
future. We've been involved in water resources planning for a
very long time, and we are very proud of our discipline,
planning process, our professionals who execute that process,
and as you are aware, sir, we face significant challenges as we
execute those responsibilities. But I believe we have served
the public well through controversy and intense scrutiny,
difficulties of our process are I'm sure known to you, sir.
Two years ago in 1999 we had the National Academy of
Sciences review our study process. They found it to be sound,
and we have been working at improving the process continuously
since we have been executing it.
I would like to talk about the Upper Miss Navigation Study
if I could.
Senator Domenici. What part of the National Academy of
Sciences did the review?
General Flowers. Sir, it was the NRC, the National Research
Council. It is an arm of the National Academy of Sciences.
Senator Domenici. Okay. Proceed on the Upper Mississippi.
General Flowers. Sir, the Upper Miss, as you've described,
is the largest study that the Corps had undertaken. A regional
study. Our expertise in doing studies was gleaned from doing a
number of project studies using our process. In the economic
arena, we had developed an expertise in microeconomics so that
enabled us to do very good, I think, economic analyses of our
projects.
On the Upper Miss Navigation Study, we worked into an area
that I will describe as macroeconomics. For the very first time
what we came into contact with dealing with national and
international issues, such as worldwide markets for grain,
agricultural policy, transportation policy, and I think in an
attempt to deal in that arena, the officers who were conducting
this study who were responsible for bringing this study in on
time and on budget pressed to have just exactly that done.
While we were working in an arena that was asking us to
predict 50 to 100 years in advance what would occur, the tenor
of their communication, I think, to our teams that were
studying it drove them--drove the people on the teams to
believe that they were being forced to a certain decision.
I know all three officers who were cited in the IG study
personally. Major General Russ Fuhrman, a Vietnam veteran,
almost 34 years of service to his country, helped save part of
Chicago when there was a flood there in the early 1990s, led
the team that restored Florida after the hurricane that
devastated Miami and the area around it.
Major General Phil Anderson, 31 years of service, led all
the soldiers, the engineer soldiers for the Army in Somalia in
the early stages in helping to conduct Operation Restore Hope,
was the deputy commander who left on 1-day notice to go to
Haiti and served there as we did our best to make things right
in Haiti.
And Colonel Jim Mudd, the district engineer from Rock
Island District, 26 years of service to his country, gulf war
vet.
Sir, it is not in the character of those officers to do
anything for personal gain, and I think in partial answer to
one of Senator Reid's questions, you know, why the Army, I
think it is because of the Army Corps values that are imbued in
soldiers and that I think transfer to our civilian employees.
Loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, integrity and
personal courage are things that we embrace and we try to live
every day, and I think those officers did as well.
I accept the IG report. I look at it as something that we
have to accept, learn lessons from, and go on, and we are going
to do that. I owe the Secretary of the Army a response, a 60-
day response that was due in February, sir, we have deferred
until there is a Secretary of the Army and a new Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. I think that is the
right thing to do. And we will be prepared as that new team
comes on board to work with them in implementing whatever
changes are necessary to restore faith and to combat the
perception that the Corps is not doing something right.
I believe, and I would just remind everyone on the Upper
Miss Navigation Study, that no draft report had been issued,
and so trying to derive a conclusion that the Corps was going
in--driving toward one conclusion is a bit premature, since we
had not even issued a draft report, but I do accept the
criticism of the IG report and will be working to improve the
process.
The--I have been working very hard to reestablish
relation--reestablishing good relations with the administration
and with the Congress. We have been evaluating our feasibility
study process. I have cooperated with the National Academy of
Sciences in their study, we are working now, sir, to
restructure the management process of the Upper Miss and
Illinois Navigation Study.
As I mentioned, some of the things that we ran into I think
will require us to make use of the expertise of other Federal
agencies, and so we are going to pause the Upper Miss study. We
will take the months of March, April, and May to work with the
Federal agencies in taking a look at the study and
incorporating the results of the National Academy of Sciences.
We will restart the study in June and work toward concluding
the study in July 2002.
Senator Reid asked another question, I think, about why the
Army and why is the Army involved in Civil Works. I talked
about our values, and I think the country being comfortable
with officers and what they stand for, but from a national
security standpoint the roads that were built in the various
theaters in World War II, the massive construction efforts that
went on to support our Armed Forces, contingency operations in
Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and other places are enabled because
we have officers who have gained experience in working large
civil works projects and in their planning and execution, and I
think that gives us an edge that no other country has, and
whatever the Nation has needed, we've been there for--the space
program, the harbors on both coasts, the inland waterway
system, flood control.
When given a mission, sir, we've gotten it done. Our books
have balanced and our structures have stood. So you are looking
at an organization that I think is absolutely indispensable to
our country, its Army, and our future.
Sir, I'm prepared to answer any questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Robert B. Flowers
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I am Lieutenant General Robert B. Flowers,
Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Chief of Engineers. I
am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the service of the
Army Corps of Engineers to this Nation.
introduction
The state of the Army Corps of Engineers is sound. We are prepared
for the challenge of public service. Since 1775 the Army Corps of
Engineers has honorably served the Army and the Nation. During the 20th
Century the Army Corps of Engineers experienced both resounding success
and dramatic controversy. Today, at the dawn of the 21st Century, we
are called to respond to the scrutiny of the public we serve. I welcome
this challenge.
the civil works program
The Army Corps of Engineers traces its origins to the construction
of fortifications at Bunker Hill in 1775. For more than 225 years, the
Corps has responded to the needs of the Army and the Nation.
Throughout this period, the mission of the Corps has evolved from
``Builder'' to encompass ``Developer/Manager'' and ``Protector'' of
water resources. What began as a military engineering mission for
nation building in the 18th century expanded into a major peacetime
mission in the 19th century. The Corps helped a young nation map the
frontier and expand westward by surveying roads and canals. The Corps
promoted economic development through a vast water resources
infrastructure, initiated development of the first national parks, and
tied an inland navigation system together to move commerce across
states and keep ports and harbors open, a role critical for national
defense. In the 20th century, Congress provided the Corps with
additional water resources development and management authorities,
including flood control, hydropower, water supply, and recreation. More
recently shore protection, disaster relief, and environmental
protection and restoration authorities were added. As society's needs
and values have changed, the Civil Works program has reflected changing
national priorities for good water management. The Corps abilities to
facilitate, advise, develop, operate, manage, and evaluate on a broad
range of water resource issues furnish a robust capability set for the
Nation's benefit.
Mr. Chairman, within your oversight, the Corps Civil Works Program
is primarily responsible for the development, management, protection,
restoration and enhancement of our nation's water and related land
resources for commercial navigation, flood damage reduction, and the
environment. The program provides stewardship of America's water
resources infrastructure and associated natural resources, and also
provides emergency services for disaster relief. It is my job, in
concert with the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), to
provide advice to the Executive Branch and Congress on these matters.
The goal of our study process is to produce the best economic and
scientific analysis available.
water resources planning and the national interest
We are proud of our disciplined water resources planning and our
planning professionals who face the daunting challenges of solving real
problems, balancing competing interests and forging consensus around
solutions. They serve the public well and very often in the midst of
controversy and intense scrutiny. Their difficulties make the
discipline of the process of paramount importance. Today, we continue
to apply the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for
Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies supplemented by
Corps guidance that strives for inclusion of all interests in the
management and investment in our water resources. When applied
diligently, the Principles and Guidelines force all--the Corps and its
stakeholders--to recognize the tradeoffs and balance competing
interests.
Our vision of planning is to meet national needs within the
framework of current law and policy. Our planners have operated
responsibly over the last two decades as priorities and concerns have
shifted. The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 emphasized the
National expectation that project partners be more involved in the
formulation and financing of solutions to water resources problems.
Nearly everyone believed that we could develop better projects more
efficiently and effectively by recognizing that projects must both meet
national needs and work viably at the local level. We responded with
vigor and enthusiasm. The attached map illustrates where cost shared
feasibility studies have been conducted with non-Federal partners since
1986.
Four years ago, the Army commissioned a National Academy of
Sciences study to determine whether Corps planning should be further
streamlined. That study concluded that the process was about right in
terms of length and resources. During the last decade, interagency
policy discussions increasingly have emphasized broader scale studies
of entire watersheds with interagency collaboration and comprehensive,
systemic solutions. An unintended effect of cost sharing has been the
narrowing of focus of studies, as cost sharing partners are reluctant
to finance studies that are broader than their immediate concern. As a
result, our planners are often caught between the forces seeking
comprehensive planning at one end of the spectrum and those who voice
concerns for addressing needs on an expedited basis and early screening
of alternatives that have little chance of being implemented. We are
pledged to this service.
upper mississippi and illinois navigation study
Turning now to the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Navigation Study.
This is a feasibility study of lock capacity and reliability. The study
area extends from St. Louis to Minneapolis-St. Paul on the Mississippi
River and from the mouth to Chicago on the Illinois River, a total of
1202 river miles encompassing 37 existing locks and dams. This reach,
10 percent of the inland waterway system, provides the origin or
destination of 48 percent of the ton-miles of the total system. This
study was started in fiscal year 1993 to address limited lock capacity
and reliability. Limited lock capacity leads to commercial tow delays,
while reduced reliability of aging locks contributes to outages and
higher maintenance costs. Both delays and outages can add millions of
dollars to the costs of transporting grain and other commodities
carried on the system. These costs in turn reduce the real incomes of
farmers, other producers and consumers. While the Upper Mississippi
River system is a vital transportation corridor it is also a nationally
significant environmental resource. It contains a system of Federal and
state wildlife refuges and parks that provide habitat for migrating
waterfowl and support fish and wildlife resources. Navigation
development has had an adverse impact on these resources which must be
carefully addressed and balanced in any study of improvements. This is
a truly comprehensive study of an entire navigation system. The
estimated study cost is currently approximately $60 million. Our
current schedule provides for release of a draft report for public
review in September of this year. In July 2002, I expect to make my
final report to the Secretary of the Army.
The Upper Mississippi and Illinois Study is very complex, involving
engineering, economic and environmental analyses of impacts and
consequences of a wide variety of possible future conditions on these
rivers. A sound investment plan for the navigation system must be based
on reasonable projections of future volumes, types and destinations of
commodities that will move on the waterway. Therefore, a key component
of the study is a 50-year forecast of demand for water borne
transportation on the Mississippi and Illinois system including the
response of barge operators and shippers to congestion. The commodity
movements on this system are largely agricultural. Volumes and
destinations of these products are driven by world market conditions
and therefore, fluctuate with world economic conditions. Another key
component is forecasting the schedules for major rehabilitation
activities. In view of these facts, projections are subject to
significant uncertainty.
As part of the Study a group of Corps team members made economic
projections and built an economic model to provide a basis for study
conclusions. This proved to be a very difficult task. As you might
expect, there were disagreements between the many stakeholders, as well
as team members, over the model and its projections.
what we are doing
First and foremost I take the issues surrounding the Army Corps of
Engineers and the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Study seriously. I
must ensure the integrity of the Corps of Engineers and its study
process. In this regard there are several actions underway:
--While the National Academy of Sciences has completed a general
review of the Corps studies process and found it to be a sound
process, I am evaluating our review process for feasibility
studies to determine whether improvements, including
independent review, are needed.
--I have fully cooperated with the National Academy of Sciences on
its specific review of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois
Navigation Study. I am also fully supporting the National
Academy of Science study directed by the Congress in the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 of the practicality and
efficiency of independent peer review of feasibility studies
and methods for project analysis.
--I am restructuring the management of the Upper Mississippi and
Illinois Navigation Study.
--I am placing renewed emphasis on my Environmental Advisory Board to
insure that I receive independent environmental advice.
--The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and I, on
November 28, 2000, submitted a joint memorandum to the
Secretary of the Army on Civil Works Management and
Communication Clarifications. In this memorandum, Dr. Westphal
and I agreed upon the responsibilities of both parties and
committed to sharing information, communicating effectively,
and cooperating fully on all Civil Works matters. The Secretary
of the Army provided copies of this memorandum to the Chairman
and Ranking Member of this Committee in his final update
regarding enhancement of the management procedures of the Civil
Works program.
--I am rewriting the vision statement of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to focus on service to the Army and the Nation.
--I have conducted extensive outreach sessions with a broad variety
of interests, including meeting with a substantial number of
Members of the House and Senate.
other observations
There are many interested parties and many points of view in the
Upper Mississippi and Illinois study area. The Corps team members have
worked diligently to give all an equal opportunity to be heard.
At any one time we have many feasibility studies underway. The
attached map illustrates where cost shared feasibility studies have
been or are being conducted with non-Federal partners since 1986. In
any study, our challenge is to balance competing values and interests,
develop alternative solutions that solve recognized problems and
establish a broad consensus for the best solution. I'm proud of our
record on the many studies depicted on this map. We are especially
proud that many of these studies are resulting in projects that go
beyond simply avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts and make
positive contributions to restoring the Nation's environmental
resources. We strongly believe our leadership, engineering and water
resources skills and disciplined planning are central to solving real
problems and serving the American people. We've served the Nation well
and will continue to do so.
conclusion
Throughout my career I have been privileged to work with the
outstanding men and women who make up the Army Corps of Engineers. They
fostered in me a desire to be a consensus builder, someone who does not
necessarily compromise but who seeks alternatives which uniquely
combine individuals' input into a solution which is genuinely better
than the sum of the parts. I view our current situation as an
opportunity. This is an opportunity for us to see ourselves anew and
rededicate ourselves to our principles.
I take the issues surrounding the Army Corps of Engineers
seriously, and I am making the changes necessary to insure the
continued integrity of the Civil Works planning process, so that the
Corps of Engineers can continue to fulfill its role in addressing the
many water resource needs of this great country. Mr. Chairman, this
completes my statement. I am prepared to answer your questions as well
as those of other members of the Committee.
Senator Domenici. Well, General, I'm impressed with the
statements by you as to the background of the three officers,
and that is--the record needs to have that on it. But I am kind
of amazed that you're not really telling us anything about what
you're going to do. You accept the report. That is a fairly
good starting point. Could I just ask you some questions? It
seems to me that you are waiting for another day to tell us
what you are going to do and how those reports will affect and
improve what you are doing.
So it is evident with the IG investigation, General, that
some outsiders do not believe the Corps study process is open
enough. The Corps, as a result of the investigation, asked the
National Academy of Sciences to review the project development
process. The process itself has evolved over the last 65 years,
and I understand that, with many laws and many regulations,
some say refining it, may be what you will find when you get
around to changing things that maybe you need to refine it in
some other directions. But how many opportunities are
stakeholders and communities guaranteed input under the current
practices of the Corps, and do you think you are going to
change those rules to any significant degree?
General Flowers. Sir, our study process incorporates the
public's and stakeholders' views at several points in the study
process. On the Upper Miss study alone, there were 34 public
meetings held, 2,400 people attended those public meetings. We
received 2,500 comments from the public.
The governors' liaison council, made up of the Governors
whose States touch the Upper Mississippi sent newsletters
periodically out to individuals, and 9,200 individuals,
agencies, and interest groups received that. We prided
ourselves on incorporating stakeholders into our process. The
barge industry, for example, on the Upper Miss, was one of
those stakeholders. Should any construction be done as a result
of the study, the barge industry would cost share about 50
percent in the construction of anything that is done, and so I
think anyone, for example, who has to help pay for something
probably wants to be involved in the process as it goes
forward.
And I would characterize our process as a very open one.
It's like working in a fish bowl in that as we proceed through
the study process, at points we invite local governments, State
governments, other agencies, the public and stakeholders to
participate, to grade our paper, to give us comments as we
proceed through the study process.
Senator Domenici. General, is not the contention, one of
the contentions that certain stakeholders were not included
sufficiently and others were included more so than they
required and had more of an influence than they should have?
General Flowers. Sir, I think the----
Senator Domenici. Was not that one of the things that was
reported?
General Flowers. One of the things that was reported was
the fact that the barge industry seemed to have more of a say
as a stakeholder than they should have, and I would kind of
view that as a judgment call.
The barge industry, as I said, would be a cost share
partner in anything that gets constructed in the future, and so
they had, definitely had an interest in what was happening. But
I do not believe that we have done anything to in any way
prejudice an outcome just to make sure that we give the
opportunity for everyone to have more of a say. That is why we
are pausing the study as it is right now. We're going to work
with the other Federal agencies to make use of their expertise
as we proceed with the study, and we're taking into account the
results of the National Academy of Sciences report which we
will receive tomorrow.
Sir, my intent on any other reforms is to wait until I have
an opportunity to submit my 60-day report, my 180-day report to
the Secretary of the Army, and I intend to do that just as soon
as we have a new Secretary of the Army and an Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, but just to give you an
indication of some of the things we are looking at, we are
looking at a form of peer review for the Corps study process,
and I must caveat this by saying everything that what we are
looking at is designed to not add any more time or expense to
the study, so that is a difficult challenge, but we are looking
at that.
I am reenergizing the Environmental Advisory Board for the
Chief of Engineers to get more environmental input, and we will
incorporate the results of the National Academy of Sciences
report as we look to the future, but, sir, my response to the
Army will be sent as soon as we have a new Secretary of the
Army and assistant Secretary of the Army for civil works.
Senator Domenici. So when did you decide that this delay
would occur until the new secretary had arrived? When was that
decision made?
General Flowers. Sir, we have been taking a look at the
Upper Miss Navigation study since receiving the results of the
IG report in November, and we made a tentative decision to
suspend the Upper Miss nav study and invite the involvement of
the other Federal agencies in December. Since then we have been
doing some coordination, looking at it, and really waiting
until we had a better feel for what the National Academy of
Sciences report was going to tell us before any announcements
were made. But this is as good a time as any.
Senator Domenici. In your prepared remarks you said you're
restructuring the management of the Upper Mississippi and
Illinois navigation study. What does that mean?
General Flowers. Sir, what we intend to do is to bring the
study up under the direct cognizance of the division engineer
and manage it more centrally so there would be a regional team
from the Federal agencies working the issues as well as an
involvement from the Federal agencies here in Washington and
the Washington principals group.
Senator Domenici. The IG's findings concluded that the
Corps is naturally weighted toward construction as a study
recommendation, given the fact that the majority of the Corps
personnel and the costs are expected directly by construction
efforts. It would therefore appear to an outsider that it is
the best interests of the Corps to recommend construction.
How do you address the issue of institution bias toward
construction and can you explain how the Corps is not dependent
on a study recommending construction when the majority of its
personnel costs are funded through an ongoing construction
award?
General Flowers. Sir, I would stand on our record. We have
a very rigorous study process that has to be accomplished
before any recommendations are made. Of every 100
reconnaissance studies that are begun, 16 or less actually
result in any construction.
What that means is five out of six studies that are
accomplished do not result or have not resulted in
construction. The process is a tough one to get through. It has
a lot of public involvement and stakeholder involvement, as you
proceed through the process. It has been determined to be sound
by the National Academy of Sciences when they did their last
review in 1999. Can it be improved? Yes, sir, I am sure it can
be, and we will work to do that.
Senator Domenici. So are you saying that you could lay
before the committee a number of projects that went through the
process and were deemed not or recommended not, to not go, no
construction, do not proceed?
General Flowers. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. Why do you not do that for the record and
give us some list or some ratio or something that would give us
evidence that that is actually--that that has happened.
General Flowers. Sir, we will do that for the record.
[The information follows:]
Senator Domenici. You indicated in your testimony that your
restructuring--excuse me, that you are placing renewed emphasis
on the Environmental Advisory Board with reference to
independent environmental advice. Tell me--tell the Senate a
little bit about that. What does that mean? Are you
acknowledging that perhaps you did not have sufficient input
from that group? Or how does this fit into the scheme of
things?
General Flowers. Sir, the Environmental Advisory Board was
begun in 1970 by the Chief of Engineers after the enactment of
NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. What the
board is made up of is up to 10 recognized environmental
specialists from either academia, State agencies, and they
would typically sit down about twice a year with the Chief of
Engineers and be briefed on things that the Corps had going and
provide some input, some perspective to the Chief of Engineers
because we recognize--I think that we wanted to listen and get
that perspective.
I think in the last couple of years it's fallen into some
disuse, and my intent is to reenergize that, sir, to take
advantage of that input.
Senator Domenici. General, we have put your statement in
the record, and you have testified orally, and Senator Reid has
indicated he has a number of specific questions. We would like
you to answer them. I have about five or six more, but I guess
what I am going to ask you has to do with your position here
today, so we will have it right. Actually you are not prepared
to tell this subcommittee how you are going to actually change
things to comply with the IG's findings that you have said you
accept. Now, when you said you accept them, I assume you mean
that you are going to have to do something different so that
you have a response to those contentions which you have now
accepted.
When will all of that be completed? When will you be able
to come before this subcommittee and say here is what we're
going to do?
General Flowers. Sir, the 180-day response to the Secretary
of the Army is due at the end of June. I would hope that we
have, well before then, a new Secretary of the Army and an
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, and I really
owe it to them an opportunity to sit down and go over this with
them before I bring those recommendations to you, sir.
We are prepared to do that, and I will do it just as soon
as those positions are filled.
Senator Domenici. Well, General, it seems to me that we
called a meeting to hear what you're going to do, and you're
telling us that you can't do anything because you have to work
with the Secretary who is not yet there, and maybe a while
longer before he gets there and has his deputy in charge of
this kind of activity.
What do we do in the meantime? What do we do with reference
to the budget that's submitted? We say there's no changes?
Everything's going to continue? What do we do about the
Mississippi?
General Flowers. Sir, I think we are going to proceed with
the restructuring of the Upper Miss Navigation study. That
decision has been made, and we are moving on that.
Senator Domenici. Well, you have told us in your written
remarks how that is going to happen. Would you tell us now
orally, how is that remodeling of that structure changing it?
How is that going to occur?
General Flowers. Sir, we will have a pause in the study, we
will take the next 2\1/2\ months roughly working with the other
agencies and incorporating the results of the National Academy
of Sciences report. We will rescope the study and the intent is
to restart the study, making--taking advantage of what we have
already done, so we have not lost anything there, with an eye
toward completing the study process in July 2002 so that--and
why July 2002? I think if it can be done, it should be done by
then so that if there is anything to be incorporated in WRDA
2002, it should be done, but I did not want to give you the
impression, sir, that we are not doing anything until I an able
to work any changes to the process. We are working changes to
the process as we speak, but in terms of suggesting peer
review, et cetera, I prefer to wait until I have had the
opportunity to talk that over with my civilian leadership.
Senator Domenici. Well, how do we make dollar decisions in
the meantime?
General Flowers. Sir, I think you can trust the results of
the studies that we have completed. We will stand on all of
them. Again, on the Upper Miss, there was no draft report even
issued, but we do stand on the reports that we have issued, and
if it has the Chief of Engineers' signature on it, sir, the
integrity of this organization stands behind it.
Senator Domenici. Have you been asked to go through the
process of recommending to OMB what you need for this year or
how is that part of the last 6 weeks been handled?
General Flowers. Yes, sir, we have. We submitted through
the Secretary to the Office of Management and Budget
Senator Domenici. And you have told them what you need in
the same way you have been telling us heretofore?
General Flowers. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. I don't want to ask you if you know the
results.
General Flowers. Sir, I think my Commander-in-Chief will be
making some announcements tonight.
Senator Domenici. Well, I am not sure what he will have to
say about the Corps, but we will see. Commanders-in-Chief
sometimes have to be talked to. Maybe not by generals, but----
General Flowers. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. My last observation is intended for the
record and intended for you as head of the Corps of Engineers.
I would ask the question Harry Reid, Senator Reid asked
differently, and I already think I know what the Corps of--why
the Corps of Engineers is involved in these projects, but I
think what is happening is it is incumbent upon those who lead
it not to let it, that is the Corps, get tarnished such that
projects do not have the kind of credibility that we need to
get support and to get them funded, and I think it is incumbent
upon you and the new Secretary to quickly dispose of the
serious contentions that were found in these studies of bias,
of not understanding certain things or appearing to favor
certain stakeholders because that could permeate everything.
That would not just be the Upper Mississippi, if those kind
of shortcomings exist, they could permeate many projects, so I
for one look forward to your getting us the detailed report on
what you are going to do soon. In fact, as soon as we have a
Secretary, we will confer with that Secretary and tell him
what--how important it is that we get these things answered
quickly, if we have got a big budget, a lot of projects to
proceed with. With that, I will submit about 10 questions for
the record, and Senator Reid's questions are submitted. I note
Senator Hollings is coming. Senator, did you have any
questions? We were close to finishing.
Senator Hollings. No, you go right ahead. I just wanted to
meet the General.
Senator Domenici. General, why do you not step up and meet
the Senator. I have already met him.
Senator Hollings. We have got a lot of things down in South
Carolina I want to look at.
General Flowers. Hello, sir, it is my honor. Good to see
you.
Senator Hollings. Good to see you, too.
Senator Domenici. With that Senator Hollings, we had
completed our questions and submitted some. Senator Reid had
done likewise, and we were about to recess. You would note that
the General has not been able to bring us the in-detail ways
that he is going to reform the system to take care of the
contentions that have been lodged by the Inspector General.
Senator Hollings. Right.
Senator Domenici. He does not have that ready today except
as to the Upper Mississippi, he is telling us he is changing
that process substantially to eliminate some of our concerns.
That is about where we are. When will you have further details
that you submit to us?
General Flowers. Sir, I would say not later than June, but
just as soon as we have a new sitting Secretary of the Army and
a new Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, my intent is to
carry this forward with them, sir.
Senator Domenici. Senator Hollings, did you have anything?
Senator Hollings. Yes. General, on the proposed new port
facility down at the mouth of the Savannah River, is the Corps
of Engineers taking a position on that?
General Flowers. Sir, I will have to take that question for
the record, if I might.
Senator Hollings. Yes, all right. That is the kind of
question to ask, see? I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, thank you
a lot.
[The information follows:]
Proposed South Carolina Port on Savannah River
Jasper County, South Carolina, has initiated condemnation
proceedings to acquire land owned by Georgia and used by the Corps. in
connection with Savannah Harbor's dredging needs. However, the
condemnation action specifically states that the interests sought to be
acquired by Jasper County are subject to the United States' outstanding
dredged material disposal easements.
The Corps has received no specific proposals, plans, or permit
applications concerning this project from either Jasper County, South
Carolina, or South Atlantic International Terminal LLC, the proposed
developer of the terminal. Until additional information pertaining to
the port facility is, furnished and evaluated, the Corps is unable to
state whether or not the proposed project would be economically and
environmentally supportable.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, General.
General Flowers. Thank you, sir.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. There will be some
additional questions which will be submitted for your response
in the record.
[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
Question. How many opportunities are stakeholders and communities
guaranteed input under the current practices by the Corps, and do you
anticipate any changes in these rules?
Answer. It is part of the Corps of Engineers process to involve all
stakeholders and the General public early and often. Public involvement
is a central element in our study process. The public involvement on
the Upper Mississippi Study commenced during the earlier study stage.
Over the course of the study, until it was suspended earlier this year,
there were 34 public meetings, with over 2,400 attendees and 2,500
comments. The Governor's Leadership Commission, and coordinating
committees held over 70 forums, all opened to the public, with multiple
interest participation. Public presentations were attended by citizens,
and environmental, waterborne commerce, agricultural government/agency,
business and industry, and recreation interests. Nineteen issues of a
newsletter on the study were sent to more than 9,000 individuals,
businesses, interest groups, and agencies. It is incumbent on us to
provide stakeholders and communities access to the study and to use
their comments, as well as the comments we receive from other interest
groups and individuals in developing the analysis and subsequent
alternatives. Changes in these rules would only take place where they
are deemed necessary.
Question. Were certain stakeholders given more access and/or were
included in the process more than others.
Answer. No, they were not. The Corps study process involves all
stakeholders as well as the General public early in the study phase of
a project. We conduct our process in a ``fish bowl'' environment, in
other words, in view to everyone.
Question. How do you address the Inspector General's findings of an
institutional bias toward construction?
Answer. The findings by the Inspector General of an institutional
bias toward construction are unfounded. The Corps' planning process
results in the culling out of many studies and projects. Approximately
84 of 100 studies, or 5 out of 6, do not result in constructed
projects. The Corps is experiencing a construction backlog, $40
billion, at the current rate of appropriations. While this may seem
vast, it is important to point out the benefits of a constructed Corps
project, to date, outweigh the cost over 8 to 1.
Question. Can you explain how the Corps is not dependent on a study
recommending construction when the majority of its personnel costs are
funded through on-going construction work?
Answer. Nearly all of the Corps's construction work is contracted
out. Less than one in six of our Civil Works employees are paid out of
Construction, General funds. They are paid from General Investigation
and Operation and Maintenance, General funds.
Question. Please tell us about the Corps' accuracy rate in
forecasting usage rates or how the economic modeling of past projects
stood the test of time?
Answer. A study on the Corps' forecasting was recently completed by
our Institute for Water Resources (IWR). They examined 15 sets of
projections for the inland waterway system. The report found in 11
cases, the actual traffic for those waterways was close to, or
exceeded, the projections. Only in four cases was traffic significantly
below projections. Given the myriad of factors that can affect economic
forecasts, 11 of 15 is a significant success rate.
Question. How does the Corps ensure sufficient oversight and review
by qualified individuals when it determines how to employ economic
methods for a specific project?
Answer. The Corps hires well-qualified professional economists, and
invests in furthering to develop their expertise. We utilize these
experts under the supervision of senior, supervisory economists. Where
we lack the appropriate in-house economic expertise, we secure it from
well-qualified professional consultants. The economic analyses, whether
produced in-house or by contractors, is subjected to an independent
technical review by professional economists.
Question. Does the Corps essentially follow the same procedure for
all forecasts, and is this step in the process regulated in any
fashion?
Answer. Forecasting procedures vary with each study depending on
the missions, scope, availability of data, and the sensitivity of the
results to the forecasts. We suggest generally accepted procedures to
our field offices for some missions such as inland navigation, but we
do not dictate applications. Deviations from the suggested procedures
must be approved at our headquarters. We require our analysts to fully
support the methods they use, including full descriptions of the
methods, tools, assumptions and sources.
Question. How does the Corps ensure that it keeps up to date with
the current economic forecasting methods?
Answer. The Institute of Water Resources, a field operating
activity, keeps abreast of state-of-the-art procedures for forecasting,
and thus maintains all statistical data on Corps maintained waterways.
We provide training to our staff, to keep them informed and learned of
new technologies. This helps us to maintain centers of expertise for
many applications, such as hydropower, which demands forecasting in its
development and maintenance.
Question. What efforts are you undertaking within the Corps to
ensure that feasibility studies are more reliable and are not unduly
influenced toward an intended outcome?
Answer. Our studies are conducted in full open view; and is a very
rigorous procedure. Our study process is routed in the Planning and
Guidelines, a thoroughly vetted process to be used by all Federal water
resources agencies. We rely on several steps in our processes to insure
the integrity of our studies:
--Independent technical review
--Headquarters policy compliance review
--Public and agency review of the draft report
--State and agency review of the final report All of these steps are
taken before I issue my project recommendation.
Question. How do you address the issue that the Corps was providing
an unfair access to the barge industry?
Answer. Contrary to this allegation, the barge industry, and other
navigation groups, had complained to the Corps about a lack of access.
Our study process incorporated numerous stakeholders, to include the
barge industry, which in the case of the Upper Mississippi Feasibility
was our biggest stakeholder. We take into consideration all the
comments of all the stakeholders, and take their comments seriously.
Question. Was the involvement of the barge industry consistent with
Corps practices?
Answer. Yes, the involvement of the barge industry was consistent
with Corps practices. Our study process incorporated stakeholder
involvement, including the barge industry, throughout the study phase.
Question. Does the Corps have any regulations or guidelines for the
involvement of stakeholders in the study phase?
Answer. Our study process requires the involvement of the numerous
stakeholders. The National Academy of Science, who conducted a study on
our process, found it to be sound. Proof of significant stakeholders,
individuals, agencies and interest groups involvement can be found in
the study process of the Upper Mississippi River Navigation Study.
Question. What resource is available to these groups, should they
feel left out of the process or if they believe that one group is
provided an unfair advantage?
Answer. Our study process is lengthy, and there are many occasions,
throughout this process, where stakeholder involvement is incorporated
in the study phase. We do our best to ensure access to our study
process to all interested parties, and we expect people to notify us if
they do not believe they are being listened to, and reply to concerns
in a timely fashion, when they do.
Question. Can you tell us what changes you plan to make in the
Upper Mississippi Feasibility Study as a result of the Inspector
General's investigation and the National Academy of Sciences work? Will
this include any management changes?
Answer. I have paused the Upper Mississippi Feasibility Study for
now until we can make a detailed assessment of the findings in the
Inspector Generals and the National Academy of Sciences reports, and
can refocus our study team. When the study is resumed, it will be with
considerable oversight and due caring. I will put into place three
management measures to assure myself, the Congress, the Administration,
and the American people this study will be conducted with the utmost
diligence and attention to detail. There will be a Washington Level
principals group, composed of senior people from other federal
agencies, such as EPA, Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and
Transportation. They will provide national level balance and guidance
in scoping the study on important economic and environmental issues.
They will insure our process continues to be methodical, well thought
out, and unbiased. The Corps will continue to lead the study, but I
feel we will benefit greatly from the additional input from the other
Federal agencies this new structure will allow us to gather.
Question. Would these changes be specifically limited to the Upper
Mississippi Feasibility Study, or instituted Corps-wide?
Answer. These changes will be consistent with agency policy for all
Corps studies. I feel the Washington level involvement is more
appropriate for similar large, complex studies.
Question. Are there any additional authorities you would need from
Congress to make these changes?
Answer. Not at this time.
Question. How would any of the changes you are considering have led
to a different outcome on the Upper Mississippi Feasibility Study?
Answer. Had other Federal agencies: Environmental Protection
Agency, Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and Transportation, been
involved in the oversight of the study, I believe they would have
provided guidance on the proper scope of the study, revealed important
issues, and addressed major concerns, early in the study process. They
would have also assisted us with the larger issues of national economic
policy.
Question. There has been much publicity that portrays the Corps as
a rogue agency, which is not responsive to or ignores the guidance of
civilian leadership. Can you address this issue and explain how the
organization, under your leadership, carries out its mission?
Answer. As Chief of Engineers, I follow both a military and
civilian chain of command in making decisions for the Corps. In the
military chain of command, I respond to the Army Chief of Staff. In the
civilian chain of command, I respond to the Secretary of the Army,
through the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works). There are
many checks and balances to ensure proper civilian control. An example
of this is the memorandum I signed with the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works), November 28th, 2000 describing my responsibilities
to the military and civilian leadership.
Question. Can you explain how others could see the Corps as a rogue
agency?
Answer. The leadership role in Water Resources Development has
traditionally been a very controversial subject, because there are many
competing interests. These competing interests do not necessarily agree
with the recommendations the Corps makes in Water Resources
Development, and thus we are looked upon as being a rogue agency. We
develop recommendations based on sound engineering and science, and a
sound process. That is, process drives outcomes, and the outcomes often
do not fit the preconceived outcomes of some groups.
Question. Can you describe how the Environmental Advisory Board
will improve the project process?
Answer. The Environmental Advisory Board will provide me with sound
insights on environmental issues related to our studies and projects,
as well as recommendations on how to effectively balance economic
development and environmental quality. It will also provide a voice for
the environmental community to the Corps.
Question. What will the Environmental Advisory Board provide you
that you do not already have?
Answer. We have substantial environmental expertise in the Corps of
Engineers. However, the Board will provide an external source of
prominent environmental experts with diverse views and backgrounds. The
Board will provide us with a fresh perspective.
Question. Will the Environmental Advisory Board be responsible for
rendering environmental opinions only, or will the Board also be
responsible for involvement in all of the Corps' projects from
beginning to end?
Answer. The Environmental Advisory Board will provide broad
environmental advice, but will not typically be involved directly in
projects or project review. However, I have considered establishing an
independent project review board for this purpose.
Question. Does the Corps conduct an independent peer review
process?
Answer. Currently, the Corps reviews all projects for compliance
with the Principles and Guidelines and Corps planning and policy
regulations. Although this is not an external ``independent'' review,
it results in a very accurate and objective analysis of project
feasibility.
In some cases, large studies have independent expert panels that
provide peer review of study products. The Upper Miss study had several
such expert review panels. I am also considering an independent peer
review process. In addition, the Corps is currently working with the
National Research Council in support of Section 226 of WRDA 2000. This
will lead to a review by NRC of independent review of Corps projects.
Question. You stated in your testimony on February 27th that the
National Academy of Sciences is examining your study process. What do
you hope to learn from their analysis.
Answer. The National Academy of Sciences report, which found the
Corps study process to be sound, will be of great value to us as we
move forward on the large, complex Upper Mississippi River Feasibility
Study. It recognized the technical complexities and uncertainties of
projecting future grain exports and predicting the response of river
transportation to additional traffic and congestion. It will assist us
in evaluating our independent peer review.
Question. What role is the National Research Council providing to
the Corps?
Answer. We are currently negotiating with the National Research
Council to look specifically at independent peer review as called for
in the WRDA 2000. Specifically, we'll ask them to look at the
efficiency and practicability of independent review and, if
appropriate, how such a review procedure should be structured.
Question. How does the work the National Research Council is doing
for you relate to the work being done by the National Academy of
Sciences?
Answer. The National Research Council was organized by the National
Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science
and technology with the NAS's broader purposes. The NRC is, in essence,
the working arm of the National Academy of Sciences. It performs
similar work.
Question. Can you please tell the Committee where the Upper
Mississippi Feasibility Study stands and how long of a delay do you now
expect as a result of the Corps review.
Answer. I have paused the study to set up the national and regional
oversight groups, and to restructure the study team. Resumption of the
study should take place in June of this year, and be completed in July
of 2002. I will have a better idea of the overall impact on the study
schedule once the oversight group sets the direction for the
continuation of the study.
Question. Does the Corps plan to make any significant changes to
the Upper Mississippi Feasibility Study as it currently stands, or does
the Corps plan to make any changes and implement them from this point
forward?
Answer. During the next four months, we will convene a Washington-
level principals group and a regional agency group that will continue
through the remainder of the study. That Washington-level group will
review the study scope, as a basis for determining how to continue
through the remainder of the study. Therefore, we would make changes to
the study and implement them from this point forward.
Question. How did you determine that there was a need for the Corps
to re-write its vision statement?
Answer. Some perceived misinterpretations of LTG Ballard's vision
statement with regard to new mission and program growth. Due to this
misunderstanding, the Corps' senior leadership and I determined need to
re-write, and clearly state, the vision statement. Internal and
external stakeholders felt there was a need for re-work of the vision
as well. We will re-focus the statements on ``program growth'' to serve
the Army and the nation.
Question. What kind of vetting process is the Corps going to
undertake to ensure a thorough review?
Answer. I have pulled together a comprehensive transition team of
Corps stakeholders, from outside the Corps, to assist the senior
leadership and me in developing a thorough review. My senior leadership
is vetting it with their contacts and counterparts in other agencies
and with stakeholder organizations such as groups representing
industry. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works) is vetting it with the Army Secretariat.
Question. Once the Corps revises its vision statement, how do you
expect to educate the internal and external stakeholders?
Answer. When the vision statement is revised, we will publish a new
vision statement for distribution and discussion with both internal and
external stakeholders. We will also post the statement on the Corps web
site, making it available to everyone.
Question. What do you mean specifically when you state that you
``accept the Inspector General's report'' as you testified on February
27th?
Answer. The Inspector General has made his report and it has been
accepted by the Secretary of Defense. I accept the findings and the
criticisms contained therein. I will take the necessary steps to
rectify the things the Inspector General found wrong and we will move
forward.
Question. If you cannot report any specific details of your
response to the Inspector General's report until June, how does the
Congress make budget decisions in the meantime?
Answer. The President will transmit his detailed budget
recommendations to the Congress on April 3rd. I do not anticipate that
he will be requesting any funds that are specifically related to the
Inspector General's findings. As I stated in my testimony we are
pausing on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Navigation Study in order
to produce the right recommendations. The process changes that I am
considering implementing do not have immediate budgetary implications.
Question. You have stated that you are currently ``pausing'' the
efforts of the Upper Mississippi Feasibility Study; will you continue
to expend any project funds during this time?
Answer. During the pause in the study, feasibility study funds are
being used to review and analyze the National Research Council's
report, to complete initial coordination with the Federal Senior
Principals Task Force and Regional Groups and to revise the project
study plan. No Preconstruction Engineering and Design funds are being
used for this or any other efforts associated with the Upper
Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Navigation Study.
Question. Why is Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED)
funding being obligated when the feasibility report findings are
subject to re-evaluation with an overall ``pause'' in the study
efforts?
Answer. Sir, no new obligations are being made and no work efforts
are currently underway regarding PED efforts for which Congress
appropriated funds in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
Approximately $6,400 in expenditures occurred early in fiscal year 2001
associated with contract closeout and orderly conclusion of PED
activities initiated in fiscal year 2000. These expenditures were
against funds provided in fiscal year 2000. The funds appropriated by
Congress in fiscal year 2001 for PED efforts have been made available
for reprogramming from the Navigation Study to other Corps of Engineers
efforts.
In fiscal year 2000, Congress appropriated an additional $6,300,000
($5,418,000 after Savings & Slippage) for preliminary engineering and
design associated with 1,200-foot lock chambers. In March 2000, the
Mississippi Valley Division instructed Rock Island and St. Louis
Districts to delay the award of any new private sector contracts for
PED work on the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System
Navigation study pending the outcome of the ongoing HQUSACE policy
review. MG Anderson, then Commander of the Mississippi Valley Division,
notified HQUSACE on 2 June 2000 that he was bringing ongoing PED
activities to an orderly and cost-effective conclusion. The Districts
concluded ongoing PED activities in accordance with the plan approved
by MG Anderson on 26 June 2000.
Question. Please provide the Committee a listing of all the current
(PED) funded work and the amount being spent on each piece of work
related to the Upper Mississippi Feasibility Study.
Answer. Sir, currently, there are no ongoing PED activities
associated with the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway (UMR-IWW)
System Navigation Study.
Question. Does the Corps anticipate continuing to obligate
additional funds for Preconstruction Engineering & Design (PED)? If so,
please provide, for the record, a listing of all PED planned activities
and the justification of why these activities are necessary to proceed.
Answer. No, sir. No additional funds will be obligated for PED
until the Feasibility Study is complete and a recommendation has been
forwarded to HQUSACE for Washington-level processing.
Question. How long do you anticipate it will take for you to
officially respond to the Inspector General's report now that the new
Assistant Secretary of the Army has assumed official duties?
Answer. Once a new Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil works
is confirmed, I would expect that the Inspector general's report would
be a very early matter for his/her attention.
Question. When did you ask for and receive a 180-day extension
beyond Feb 6th to respond to the Inspector General's report?
Answer. I did not request an extension. However, I was informed by
the Acting Secretary of the Army that since a new team was not yet on
board, I should not submit my report. I am still obligated to make a
final report after 180 days.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Domenici. We will stand in recess until Tuesday,
March 13, when we will hear from General John Gordon,
Administrator, National Nuclear Safety Administration.
[Whereupon, at 10:47 a.m., Tuesday, February 27, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday,
March 13.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:34 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senator Domenici.
Also present. Senator Thompson.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
National Nuclear Security Administration
STATEMENT OF GENERAL JOHN GORDON, ADMINISTRATOR
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. The committee will please come to order.
This morning, the subcommittee will take testimony regarding
the physical condition of facilities and infrastructure at our
Nation's weapons complex.
We have two very distinguished witnesses today. We will
first hear from General John Gordon, the Administrator of the
National Nuclear Security Administration, and the individual
who has taken on the task of addressing the infrastructure
problem, along with other problems within the nuclear
department of the United States at the Department of Energy.
Thereafter, we will hear from Jim Schlesinger. Dr.
Schlesinger needs no introduction. He has had a very
distinguished career, including appointments as Secretary of
Defense and of Energy. He also serves on the independent panel
to assess the reliability, the safety, and security of the U.S.
nuclear stockpile which just released an annual report on
February 1 of this year, and we are holding this hearing in
advance of the traditional budget hearings that we are going to
conduct later in the year.
The purpose of today's hearing is not to review the
administration's budget, since it is not before us in its
totality. Today, we intend to focus on the magnitude of the
infrastructure problem within the weapons complex, and assess
what will be required over the next several years to rebuild a
nuclear weapons complex appropriate to the future, and
appropriate to what goes on in the complex.
After the end of the cold war, and the last underground
nuclear test in September of 1992, the United States began a
significant new program to ensure the safety and reliability of
our nuclear weapons without the benefit of new designs or
nuclear testing. This formidable challenge is the purpose of
the program called science-based stockpile stewardship. The
success of this program is essential to maintain confidence in
the safety and reliability of our stockpile future, regardless
of whether we return to testing in the future, or remain as we
are.
Over the last few years, I have become more and more
concerned about the general deterioration of the nuclear
weapons complex. As is the practice in this town, when a
concern is raised or a problem identified, a parade of internal
studies, blue ribbon commissions, and congressionally mandated
reviews are generated and, too often, little else is done.
Each study over the last few years has drawn similar and
striking conclusions on the need to refurbish the complex. In
1998, defense programs conducted an internal review. In 1999,
the DOE's 30-day review identified the problem. In April of
2000, the Office of the Secretary of Defense conducted another
review and made similar conclusions. The General Accounting
Office and the DOE Inspector General have also studied the
issue. Most recently, the NNSA administered a more detailed
assessment, the so-called Scott program, Scott report, and the
blue ribbon Foster panel made similar conclusions just last
month.
The consensus of all these reports is as follows. The DOE
has allowed its nuclear weapons facilities to degrade in recent
years, and it will take billions of dollars to fix the problem
and modernize the future. The reports identify the following
specific conclusions.
First, the nuclear weapons complex has not been well-
maintained over the last 8 years and conditions are now rapidly
declining. Maintenance funding has been well below industry
standards. An immediate maintenance backlog of approximately
$800 million exists today. The average age of facilities where
we do nuclear weapons work is over 30 years. We need to spend
an additional $300 to $500 million a year over currently
planned levels for the next 17 years, according to the best
analysis, to refurbish the weapons complex to perform just its
basic mission.
These expenditures will be required even if the nuclear
stockpile is, over time, made smaller. If we do not take action
on these infrastructure problems immediately, we will not be
able to meet the Department of Defense schedules for
refurbishing three weapons systems representing over 50 percent
of the stockpile. We will not have sufficient facilities
required to certify weapons, and our technicians and scientists
will continue to work in unsafe facilities, increasing health
risks, and a number of safety-related shutdowns.
The crisis is too great to put off, and I am going to do
everything I can first to get other Senators to join in this
cause, and then ultimately to attempt to start down the path
that will remedy it.
We do not need any more studies. I believe we need a--there
should be a call to action. The NNSA, under the leadership of
General Gordon, is now developing the information and systems
necessary to start addressing the years of neglect, and we must
take the opportunity, with your leadership, to finally act,
General.
Now I am pleased to have present the Senator from
Tennessee, and I want to just share with the public right off
what a staunch supporter you have been of DOE's work in your
State, and I want to particularly call to everyone's attention
that there is a major facility in the State of Tennessee that
is part of the defense part of this budget, and that building,
there is nothing going on in the building, Dr. Schlesinger,
that would require hard hats, but people wear them because the
roof falls in from time to time, pieces of it, and it creates a
little bit of a hazard. Well, that is part of our nuclear
weapons infrastructure, and Senator, I yield to you, and thank
you again for coming.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRED THOMPSON
Senator Thompson. Well, thank you for inviting me to come,
and thank you for what you are doing in this area.
This is one of the areas that have two distinguishing
features about it. One, nobody pays much attention to it, and
the other is, it is one of the things we do around here that is
very important, and that is a tough combination, and my concern
hopefully goes beyond the parochial, although we are concerned
about the Wyatt well plan, but this shows us that we have got
to do something and spend some money.
The most conservative of us have to acknowledge that we
have got to spend some money in the discretionary account.
Spending is not spending is not spending. Some spending is
better than others, and some is worse than others, and we have
got to figure in to what we are doing here some things that are
vital to our national security. To me, we cannot keep letting
our entitlement programs continue on their same glide path
while squeezing the discretionary side more and more and more,
and spending our time fighting and fussing over dwindling
discretionary budget, while we refuse to reform the entitlement
programs, and we cannot save enough or put enough aside, or put
enough in a lock box that we have all got keys to,
incidentally, to save social security and medicare, and we have
got to reform all that, so this really highlights a much
broader concern.
But Senator Domenici, your leadership in dealing with the
future viability of our nuclear weapons complex I want to
commend, and you know, you're right, Y-12, many of the
buildings there are over 50 years old, and this is one of the
core functions of our Federal Government. I am very concerned
about it.
I was looking at the latest report, the so-called Hart-
Rudman report, the U.S. Commission on National Security of the
21st Century. I just noticed that one of the things that they
highlighted here is that the U.S. National Laboratory System is
badly in need of redefinition and new investment, and the
national laboratories, vestiges of the cold war, remain a
national R&D treasure. Unfortunately, they are a treasure in
danger of being squandered.
So you are absolutely right, we do not need new assessments
and new reports. We can get the same thing over and over and
over again, just like we did before the recent troubles. We had
security problems with the national labs, and then eventually
we decided that all these reports we get, there is something to
them, we ought to do something. Well, hopefully we will not
have to wait so long that our national security is endangered
because of it.
Thank you very much.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Senator. General Gordon, we
welcome you. It is good to have you here.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL JOHN GORDON
General Gordon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator
Thompson, thank you.
Senator Domenici, let me really just start by thanking you
again for your leadership, for establishing NNSA, and for the
direct support for NNSA, and for the direct support that you
give to the men and women who work so hard in all facilities to
support the national security of this country, be they in
Tennessee, or California, or New Mexico. There are a lot of
people out there doing a lot of work, and we very much
appreciate the direct support that you give them.
We are working hard within NNSA to meet the expectations
for this new organization. Progress has been slow, admittedly,
but it has been steady, and I am hopeful that the new
administration will quickly nominate the new Assistant
Administrator so that we can again accelerate our work.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be
here today to discuss one of the greatest problems faced by
NNSA, and one that, if not solved fairly quickly, will affect
our ability to perform our mission in the short term and
literally destroy the long-term viability of the nuclear
weapons complex.
I am a little bit worried about how to proceed here,
because you have kind of given my testimony, and I want to
endorse everything you say in that area. We are in lock step on
that point, but we are, of course speaking about this complex,
and I have prepared a rather lengthy formal statement which I
offer for the record.
Senator Domenici. It will be made a part of the record.
General Gordon. It gives considerable detail about the
state of our complex, the numbers of studies over the last
several years that you have catalogued, and the problems,
recommendations upon recommendations, to begin to invest in our
facilities, and my main message is the same as yours, Mr.
Chairman, it is time to get on with the work. We do not need
any more studies. We know what to do, and we are ready to go.
Mr. Chairman, if I might also offer for the record
statements by each of our plant managers, and each of our
laboratory directors, who make very similar points. The
statements are all pointed, and all of it is sobering. We
submit those for the record.
INFRASTRUCTURE SIZE/COMPOSITION
Senator Domenici. Those will be made part of the record.
General Gordon. Mr. Chairman, this committee is well aware
of the size of the complex. Others may not be, but just a few
figures to start. We operate about 1,800 square miles of land,
6,350 buildings, 34 million square feet in those buildings,
2,500 miles of roads, 1,650 miles of utility distribution line,
and the replacement value is something like $20 billion.
As large as these numbers are, I know the committee knows
that this is not your Cold War enterprise. Personnel numbers
have been drastically reduced over the years. For example,
Kansas City runs at half the size it used to run during the
peak, and we have closed entire facilities in the post Cold War
environment, at least as far as nuclear weapons are concerned,
at Hanford and Mound and Pinellas, in Rocky Flats, and much of
Savannah River.
I offer this only to make the point that we are not
operating Cold War facilities or a Cold War complex, and we are
not trying to maintain a Cold War footprint or Cold War
capacity. Far from it. We have a complex of a size that is just
barely large enough to support the stockpile we envisage, and
almost all duplication is already out of the system. We rely on
a system where there is little more to harvest in cost savings,
although there are a number of buildings in the individual
facilities that need to go away, and we operate a complex that
cannot become appreciably smaller, even if we were to decide to
significantly downsize our deployed nuclear arsenals.
STATUS OF COMPLEX
Mr. Chairman, my account to the committee is first-hand. I
have traveled widely throughout the complex, and have seen most
of the problems first-hand. The structures, many of them are 50
years old, and when a key structure exceeds 50 years old, it is
really old in almost every term, certainly in the terms of
safety and security, reliability, mission-effectiveness.
These facilities often do not meet modern health,
environmental, or energy efficiency standards. They are costly
to maintain, difficult to keep in regulatory compliance, and
yet they are where we ask some of the most brilliant scientific
and technical minds in this country to work on an enterprise
that underpins our national security.
During my visits I was struck by what appeared on the
surface, a reasonably well-functioning set of operations
performed by highly skilled men and women of NNSA. However, one
quickly notices that something is not right and that both the
scientific and engineering and production operations, one
frequently finds that the work, that should be very closely
connected in time and space, is dispersed, and operating all
around the facility in different buildings.
At Y-12 I think sometimes material moves 6 or 7 miles
within that facility, yet the engineers and the scientists,
when you talk to them about it, are actually very proud of what
they are able to accomplish in that environment, because they
are able to work their work-arounds, and they take great pride,
both the Federal employees and the contractors, in being able
to make it work. The ingenuity employed by these people has
overcome the burdens of the facilities that we have given to
them to work in. It is time to act to reduce these impediments.
How did we get here? A very fair question. For too long,
the facilities, the infrastructure, their maintenance and
recapitalization have been underfunded and, in the recent past,
the priority has been given to the science side of the
Stockpile Stewardship program, and attention to infrastructure
was, and I would suggest rightly, put on hold while the
Science-based stewardship program was formulated, funded,
implemented, and now is beginning to work.
I would offer, Mr. Chairman, a few examples, and we passed
out some charts, and the first one just simply talks about the
age of the facilities. I hope we have these in front of you.
Senator Domenici. We do.
General Gordon. Good--about the age of the facilities, and
the main point is that the age of the facility, the condition
of the facilities is rapidly accelerating. In 1995, roughly 55,
56 percent of the complex was in good or excellent condition. 5
years later, an assessment by many of the same people found the
facility conditions in the excellent-good range were down to
only 25 percent.
LANL INFRASTRUCTURE
What does the complex look like? You alluded to that, Mr.
Chairman. The next chart, next photograph shows the Chemical
and Metallurgical Research Facility at Los Alamos. Here, the
activities where we do actinide physics, actinide chemistry, on
almost all the weapons in the stockpile by the very brightest.
I would tell you that when I go and visit that facility, it
looks to me like an old, outdated Russian laboratory, cinder
block walls inside, cubby holes, and when we bring in new
potential employees to look at it, they will comment that they
have seen better facilities in their laboratories in their
universities.
The system is inadequate. Inside, pipes that carry
radioactive waste leak and, as we show here, are literally
bagged to prevent spills and contamination.
The next photograph shows, also in Los Alamos, a photo of
the folks at X Division in the laboratory. These are some of
the typical offices in which we ask really the core of our
nuclear design individuals to work. These are our designers,
the people who come to us and are trained for many, many years,
and this is the environment in which we ask them to work.
SANDIA INFRASTRUCTURE
At Sandia, a building that is only 15 years old, but it
desperately needs structural repairs. The roof-to-wall
connections are cracked, needing significant repair. The
original crane and support structure needs to be replaced, even
though it was operating at the structural limit.
NEVADA TEST SITE INFRASTRUCTURE
The Nevada Test Site, the next chart we show what we call
the air building at the underground test facility, which was
originally designed as a temporary structure to support the
Ledoux test in 1990. We have been operating in this temporary
facility since 1990, and at this location the workers there
literally go off and patch this inflated building, with this
kind of a material, on a regular basis to try to keep it
running.
This, Mr. Chairman, is the key support facility for the
underground subcritical test program there, and it really
underpins our nuclear test readiness program. Everyone who
works underground for us works in and out of this facility.
Y-12 INFRASTRUCTURE
I tend to say that the poster child of bad facilities is
the Y-12 plant, and again, this is the facility that you are
talking about, Mr. Chairman, where we literally ask people who
work on lithium hydride to wear hard hats when they go into
work to protect themselves from the concrete that is falling
off the ceiling of this mid-forties building.
Now, again, we run a very aggressive program at NNSA called
integrated safeguards, or integrated safety management, where
we hold the contractor strictly accountable for the safety of
how they operate their facilities. So what I do is tell the
contractor that you basically make sure that guy wears his hard
hat, or I am going to fine you, and by the way, do really
quality work while you are in there, because this is about
nuclear weapons.
PANTEX INFRASTRUCTURE
The situation at Pantex in Amarillo has its own story. It
is the only site in the complex where we actually assemble and
disassemble nuclear weapons. This is the roof of the assembly
buildings. We call them Gravel Gerties. They leak. The grass
grows up in the areas. They have been in operation since about
1953.
KANSAS CITY PLANT INFRASTRUCTURE
The next chart tells you not only the infrastructure in
poor repair, but some of the tools that we use are in the same
condition. At Kansas City Plant, this lathe is about 20 years
old, or a little older, and it was designed to operate machine
parts down to 1,000th of a inch. We are barely able to maintain
5,000th of an inch now, yet it is the key to support classified
products on the W-87 life extension program. There are four
other machines like this at Kansas City.
NEVADA OPERATIONS FACILITY
Now, I painted a fairly dark picture, a bleak picture. I
want to tell you this obviously because of the support of this
committee and others the whole complex is not in that exact
standpoint, and I will just show you a photo of the operations
office in Nevada, a facility that I would suggest meets the
kinds of standards we would like for the rest of the complex to
work on.
LIVERMORE LAB BUILDING 132
It is not gold-plated, but it is open, it is airy, it is
professional. No one will not take a job there because of the
facility, and I do not say that they will come there to work
for you, but no one would say, I cannot work in that facility.
It is a quality place, and the next one shows a building that
has been built at Livermore, the same kind of a concept, and
this is again where many of the people, in contrast to the X
Division people at Los Alamos, do their design work.
These are buildings that the people, I think, should be
proud to work in, and it is a kind of a model that we would
suggest for the future.
TRITIUM EXTRACTION FACILITY
The last one that I would show you is a building that is
under construction, and it is the tritium extraction facility
at Savannah River, and it again will be of a quality that we
expect to be able to offer to our workers, and our goal is to
make much of the facilities look like these last three
photographs that I have shown you.
RECAPITALIZATION INITIATIVE
To start this, we have begun, and we have crafted a
recapitalization initiative to allow NSA to rapidly respond to
any budgetary support that may develop in the future. Sustained
incremental and preventive and other maintenance and
infrastructure investments above the current base are needed to
extend lifetimes to reduce the risk of the systems and risks of
failures, increase the operational efficiency and
effectiveness, and allow for capitalization of these aging
facilities.
The recapitalization will fund an integrated, prioritized
list of maintenance and infrastructure activities that will
significantly increase operational effectiveness and efficiency
at all our sites. Mr. Chairman, we have today, ready to go, an
integrated complex-wide priority list on how to proceed down
this road. We are ready to start that right now. The work has
been done. We know where we are going to spend the first
dollar. We know where we are going to spend the last dollar. We
know how to manage it for the next 5 or so years as we run
through that.
What we need, and what we have created, is a long-term plan
to allow us to create a weapons complex that is properly sized,
using modern technologies to protect the safety of our workers
in a national environment.
Senator Domenici. How much could we spend under your plan
next year?
RECAPITALIZATION FUNDING
General Gordon. I think in the next year we could spend
about $300 million. Mr. Chairman, the majority of that in the
first year would go towards deferred maintenance, of which
there is something, as you mentioned earlier, something on the
order of $800 million deferred maintenance, and then begin to
lay out, in concert with the defense reviews, the specific
major construction programs that would follow.
Y-12 PLANT
Senator Domenici. What about Y-12, in fixing that?
General Gordon. I would be putting the first effort in
there would be to really attack the deferred maintenance in
that area.
Just to give you another story, Senator Thompson one I
think you would particularly appreciate. We bought a sheet
metal machine that the committee helped pay for a couple of
years ago. The machine cost several million dollars and its to
operate in a nuclear weapons area. It is under tarps, and the
workers go by it every day and see this very efficient piece of
new equipment sitting there. They have not had the money to
install it because they have not got a clean facility to
install it in yet.
We have sort of put it there in front of people, so that
they know that we have not come up with the extra money to put
it in a facility to operate. We just kind of got out of cycle.
MANAGEMENT
So what we really need to do, Mr. Chairman, is get into the
facility management in a better way than we have done. We are
not only asking for money, what I am trying to tell you is that
we know how to run this program, we know how to manage this
program. I do not think that is necessarily so deep in our
history.
We are moving towards an organizational change that will
allow me to focus on the facilities and on the facility
management programs, and to focus on the long-term planning and
establishment of processes that will do that.
You mentioned the Scott report, and what I would offer to
any members that really want to get into the next level of
detail is, Captain Scott come up and discuss the next level of
detail and the management systems that we are putting in place
to manage this program effectively. He has done an outstanding
job to build up his assessment for the next several years, and
he has captured the very nature and extent of the problems, and
the price that will allow us to manage it in the future.
WEAPONS COMPLEX
Mr. Chairman, I will be direct and blunt. The facilities
that underpin the American nuclear deterrent require immediate
attention in the order of $800 million in deferred maintenance.
For years, we have been using up our facilities as if they were
consumable resource, not replacing outmoded buildings, not
maintaining our facilities, instead spending our limited
resources on missions.
Every report, every study defines a program that can
readily spend something approaching $500 million a year for at
least the next 10 years. The deterioration is inefficient, it
is wasteful of taxpayers' dollars, it is an extremely difficult
environment in which to operate, it sends exactly the wrong
signal to the professionals who want to recruit for our future.
Why would they come to work in this laboratory at Los
Alamos with 1950's equipment, and I ask rhetorically, Mr.
Chairman, what do the state of our facilities tell our current
employees about how we value them and how we see the future of
the mission that we ask them to continue to commit to?
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, we want our weapons to be safe, we want our
weapons to be reliable and secure. I believe we want the same
of our facilities, that they are safe, they are secure, they
are reliable, and mission confident. There is no quick fix. It
will take a minimum of 10 years to get this back in shape. We
are ready to start. We know how to do it, and we appreciate
your support and the time to allow me to come up here and chat
with you, sir.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John A. Gordon
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to come before you to discuss the condition of the
facilities and infrastructure of our vital nuclear weapons complex.
introduction
During my confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services
Committee last May, I posed the question, ``Are we under invested in
facilities?''--to which I replied, ``I am rather certain of that
answer, by the way.'' Mr. Chairman, today I am positive of the answer:
we are under invested, and by a lot.
In July 2000, I had the opportunity to testify at the Hearing of
the Special Oversight Panel on Department of Energy Reorganization,
House Armed Services Committee. I made several points then which I
would like to reiterate today. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee,
I am the full-time advocate for the mission of the NNSA. As such, I
understand that my responsibility is to be balanced and report the
condition of my organization to the Congress. I appreciate that I have
this opportunity today to provide you with my understanding of the
conditions of the nuclear weapons complex.
This is not a new story, nor is it a new issue. Brigadier General
Gioconda has testified before this committee last year regarding our
deteriorating facilities and infrastructure. As I will present in this
testimony, the complex has been studied extensively, both inside the
Department of Energy as well as outside. All have reached similar
findings and the case is clear: the physical complex requires attention
and we must act soon, because it is unprofessional, it's inefficient,
it's wasteful of resources, it's potentially dangerous, and it sends
exactly the wrong message to the professionals we want to attract and
keep in this endeavor.
Mr. Chairman, since assuming the challenging responsibilities as
Administrator of the NNSA, I have traveled throughout the complex. My
purpose was to reacquaint myself with the places where I had served
earlier in my career, and, more importantly, to visit the entire
complex--to learn first hand of the missions now executed by our
intelligent, thoughtful and dedicated workforce.
What I found, I must confess, was remarkable. Almost half of our
structures are over 50 years old. Now, when I crossed the 50-year
barrier, I knew that I was mature, but not old. But our 50-year-old
structures are old--old in the sense of safety, security, reliability,
and mission effectiveness. Many facilities do not meet modern health,
environmental, or energy conservation standards. They are costly to
maintain, and difficult to keep in regulatory compliance. It is in such
facilities we ask some of the most brilliant scientific and technical
minds and some of the most productive people in the country to work. I
brought along some pictures to share with you which I believe
graphically portray these issues. During my visits I was struck by what
appeared on the surface to be a reasonably well functioning set of
operations performed by the women and men of the Department of Energy's
NNSA. However, it takes little to soon notice that something is amiss.
In both scientific and production operations, one frequently finds
activities that should be closely connected by time and space, but are
separated by space and, in some cases, buildings. When questioned, the
answers begin to describe ``work-arounds.'' There is great pride among
the teams of Federal and contract workforce that execute the national
security missions assigned. The ingenuity employed by these people to
overcome antiquated facilities astounds. But frankly, we must help
reduce these impediments. At some point, a failure directly
attributable to the condition and age of these facilities will result
in a costly, embarrassing, and possibly fatal incident that will harm
our national security. While I cannot predict exactly when--it will
almost certainly be sooner rather than later.
I have documented age. Let me now discuss the condition of our
facilities and infrastructure. It should be unremarkable that if one
combines the lack of attention with the considerable age of the
complex, the result is a deteriorating physical infrastructure. Studies
show that the rate of deterioration of our nuclear weapons complex is
accelerating. Recently, Defense Programs conducted an assessment of the
condition of the complex. During the time period centered about 1995,
roughly 56 percent of the complex was found to be in an either
excellent or good condition. Five years later, a comparable assessment
was conducted by many of the same people who had performed the first
one. Their finding: facility conditions in the excellent to good range
had declined to 26 percent, while those in the adequate to fail
categories had soared to over 70 percent. Here then is another
benchmark that describes the nuclear weapons complex, acceleration is
added to the calculus of the deteriorating nuclear weapons complex.
A fair question at this point is ``How did we get this way?'' The
question is correct, simple, and beguiling. The answer, however, is
complex. For too long a time, as a result of other priorities, we have
underinvested in our facilities, infrastructure, and their maintenance
and recapitalization. In the recent past, the priority has been
properly given to ensuring the success of the Stockpile Stewardship
Program. Attention to the infrastructure was put on hold while the
science based stewardship program was formulated, funded, took hold,
and is now working. It is now time to refocus on the physical complex
which houses the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
Our facilities require attention. Others have found, as we have,
concerns regarding the condition of the complex. I will share some of
these observations and also provide greater depth from our own study.
Today, improving the facilities and infrastructure of the NNSA is a
high priority, but we need your help. The Secretary and I are prepared
to work with you to this end. On my end, I have a detailed plan of how
to proceed, which unfolds throughout this testimony. Dollars alone,
while vital, are only one part of the solution. As significant,
possibly more, is my plan to bring focus, process, rigor and
accountability to our work of recovering our facilities and
infrastructure. Facility management is a standard business practice of
most major organizations. It is being reengineered within the NNSA. We
are establishing an office to manage the facilities and infrastructure
of the nuclear weapons complex. We are refocusing on long term
planning, establishing the processes--absent too long--that will
institutionalize the procedures, standards and expectations for the
complex.
Mr. Chairman, I have included an appendix to this portion of my
testimony. I ask that you carefully read through it. I believe that the
information provided in the appendix is important because I make the
case concerning the condition of our facilities and infrastructure. As
you know, the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons complex has been
analyzed and studied by a number of qualified, interested, and
independent forums. I have summarized the key studies for you. As you
will see, the terms may be somewhat different, but the conclusions they
draw about the condition of our facilities and infrastructure are
strikingly similar.
I start by introducing two seminal studies from the recent past:
our Defense Programs Facilities and Maintenance Study, Phases I & II,
of May 1998, and the externally conducted Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD), Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) Review of April
2000. I then cover in some detail our own internal analysis, the
Defense Programs Facilities and Infrastructure Assessment 2000--Phase
I. I continue with an explanation of how we are building process--
facility management--as Phase II of this Assessment 2000. In addition,
I present evidence of the continuing interest in the status of the
complex by some very impressive outside entities. Once you have gone
through the appendix, I believe that you will have a comprehensive
picture of the status of the nuclear weapons complex as seen by the
NNSA and the interested stakeholders outside the NNSA. One thing is
clear to me based on my understanding of the evidence at hand--the
facilities and infrastructure need attention now. I believe that this
committee can help. I have crafted a Recapitalization Initiative that
begins the turnaround. And finally, I submit my conclusion.
facilities and infrastructure recapitalization initiative
In the aforementioned appendix, I have discussed the condition and
resource needs of the nuclear weapons complex in some detail. To start
the financial recovery, NNSA has crafted a Recapitalization Initiative.
This will allow the NNSA to be able to rapidly respond to any budgetary
support which may develop in the future. As you know, the base
maintenance and infrastructure efforts at our sites are primarily
funded within the budget for Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
and through site overhead allocations. These efforts focus on ensuring
that facilities necessary for immediate programmatic workload
activities are maintained sufficiently to support that workload.
Sustained, incremental preventive and other maintenance, and
infrastructure investments above this base are needed to extend
facility lifetimes, reduce the risk of unplanned system and equipment
failures, increase operational efficiency and effectiveness, and allow
for recapitalization of aging facility systems. The Recapitalization
Initiative will address such issues. The initiative as proposed will
address an integrated, prioritized list of maintenance and
infrastructure activities that will significantly increase the
operational efficiency and effectiveness of our sites. This complex-
wide integrated priority list of over target requirements, the
Prioritized Project Listing, is a first ever for the NNSA and Defense
Programs. It will ensure accountable execution of near term
improvements across the complex, based on overall mission requirements.
The Recapitalization Initiative projects are updated semi-annually. All
sites generate a prioritized listing of Recapitalization projects as
part of their Ten-Year Comprehensive Site Plans. NNSA evaluates
descriptions of scope, justification, and estimated costs for proposed
recapitalization projects, and integrates them into a single
prioritized list that becomes the basis for program planning, budget
requests and program execution. Once funding is appropriated, the
priority list will again be checked to assure that no higher or more
urgent priorities have surfaced. During budget execution, funded
Recapitalization projects will be authorized, managed and tracked
through the work authorization process. The visibility afforded by this
dynamic process will provide responsible budget estimates, assure that
the most urgent Recapitalization needs are met in each year, and focus
accountability for each project undertaken.
The current plan for this initiative continues through a five year
period, and is a modular approach. Specifically, whatever the funding
level, the most urgent non-line item projects are worked off the
Prioritized Project List. The program is designed to stabilize the
infrastructure, and then shift the facilities and infrastructure
funding and business practices back to the base programs at the end of
the Recapitalization Initiative.
The goals of the Recapitalization Initiative are:
--To increase the operational readiness of facilities;
--Reduce non-productive facility downtime and high costs associated
with unplanned and/or corrective maintenance;
--To arrest the continuing deterioration of facilities by reducing
maintenance backlogs;
--To extend the useful life of current facilities,
--To reduce the excess facility and structure inventory by removal of
non-radioactively contaminated structures.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I believe that this is a
fair statement of where we are today. In my view, I am building the
correct organization within the Department of Energy's NNSA to grapple
with these tough problems. To underscore my testimony, I have brought
along copies of our study and of the pictures mentioned herein. In sum,
we have a complex that is old and that is deteriorating as we speak.
The condition of the complex is known to many of you, discovered on
your frequent trips to the sites. I believe that we are forging, for
the first time, a facility management process that will husband
economically the resources entrusted to us by the Congress. At the same
time business as usual will eventually threaten this vital national
defense program.
Thank you for the opportunity to tell you our facilities and
infrastructure story. I will now take any questions you may have.
appendix
The following contains information derived from previous studies,
which have looked into the condition of the state of the facilities and
infrastructure of the National Nuclear Security Agency's nuclear
weapons complex. Recently, Defense Programs concluded their seminal
baseline assessment and it is also included here. This study is the
basis for the current actions within NNSA that are dedicated, for the
first time, to creating a facilities management process designed to
efficiently manage the resources entrusted to the NNSA for improving
the condition of the complex. Finally, two studies that were underway
at the same time by outside panels are provided. This demonstrates that
the concern for the nuclear weapons complex continues to exist within
influential segments of the national security community.
dp facilities and maintenance study phases i & ii, may 1998 executive
summary
Ninety seven percent of the facility area needed to support the
assigned mission is being maintained in the full-up Operational
category. The remaining three percent of the facilities are in the
Operational Standby, Reserve, and New Construction categories. This
full-up readiness does not appear to be consistent with the current
capacity requirements reported in the mission assignment studies and
reflects a lack of DOE guidance to use a graded degree of operational
readiness.
The 1997 reported maintenance costs for the laboratories and the
production sites total $267.5 M. The overall ratio of maintenance
funding to Replacement Plant Value (RPV) averages 1.5 percent which is
lower than the 2-4 percent range recommended in the commercial sector,
the General Accounting Office (GAO), and the Building Research Board of
the National Research Council. Programmatic equipment maintenance is,
for the most part, not addressed.
Maintenance budgets have declined 25 percent over the past four
years. This combined with the increase in square footage from new
construction and the lack of guidance to move facilities into a lesser
degree of readiness category is severely affecting the abilities of the
respective site maintenance organizations to provide an effective
maintenance program.
Facilities have been declared excess to the DP assigned mission
with dates starting in 1997 and continuing for the next ten years.
While excess dates have been reported and some tentative disposition
dates advanced, the costs associated with the disposition actions are
largely unknown. The whole issue of disposal dates and costs will
remain open until guidance is provided for disposal, establishment of
disposition dates and disposition end states, timing and availability
of funding.
Sixty-five percent of the excess facilities are currently in use.
The date a facility has been declared excess and the date disposition
actions are initiated is not necessarily the same and in fact may be
separated by several years or even decades. There appears to be no
relief in reduction of maintenance costs from the excess facility arena
as the maintenance of excess space currently in use will continue for
the foreseeable future.
The total backlog costs reported are $725 M.
The consensus of the M&Os operating the sites is that the RPV
provided in the Facilities Information Management System (FIMS)
database does not reflect a true replacement cost and only addresses
facilities. The accuracy of the RPV should be of reasonably good
quality if it is intended to be used as a measurement tool for
replacement cost estimates.
The facility management program is not coordinated at the
Headquarters level nor at the field office level to provide a
consolidated and integrated approach of the facilities issues with line
management. There are isolated pockets of information for the various
functional areas but no coordinated effort.
The current condition assessment of the facilities in the
operational footprint shows that 72 percent of the facilities range
between excellent and adequate with the majority of the assets in the
good category. The condition assessment of the infrastructure shows
that the majority of the assets are in the adequate to fair category
with a few exceptions in the good category. This difference in
condition reflects a lack of priority in maintenance of the
infrastructure supporting mission operations.
The average age of the facilities at the laboratories and
production sites determined from construction history is: 1940s--25
percent, 1950s--17 percent, 1960s--24 percent, 1970s--9 percent,
1980s--13 percent, 1990s--12 percent. At least 66 percent of the
facilities are 25 years or older. The design life for most government
facilities is 25 years. The effect of the aging and deterioration of
these facilities is reflected in the $725 M backlog of maintenance and
repair.
Some ``plus-up'' funding has been provided but it has not provided
a significant impact on the reduction of the backlog. The lack of
funding for reduction of backlog was a primary concern expressed at all
of the sites. The deferral of corrective maintenance and a lack of
similar funding in the 1970s led to a $2.2 B facilities and equipment
restoration program in the early 1980s.
osd program analysis and evaluation review, april 2000
A summary of observations on DP's manufacturing infrastructure
indicate that:
--Anticipated workload will require an expansion of current capacity;
--Regardless of workload, indefinite maintenance of the nuclear
stockpile will require an investment in the DP manufacturing
infrastructure of some $7B over 18 years;
--If DP stays within a $4.5B annual budget, the above investment
would require a reduction in the science budget;
--Tradeoff analyses between DP's science program and its
manufacturing infrastructure, or within each of the two, are
complicated by the lack of a DP multi-year plan.
defense programs facilities and infrastructure assessment report 2000
summarized
At the direction of the Secretary of Energy in October 1999, the
Department concluded a 30-day review of the Stockpile Stewardship
Program in November 1999. The Department developed a 15 point action
plan as a result of the findings. One of the key points, ``The
Department will develop a plan for long-term recapitalization of the
facilities in the nuclear weapons complex'' prompted BG Thomas
Gioconda, then acting Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs, to
satisfy this requirement by directing that an assessment be conducted
of the Defense Programs facilities and infrastructure. I am providing,
in some depth, the findings of this study because it establishes the
condition of the complex, determines the cost of DP's facilities and
infrastructure business and speaks to the cost of recapitalization for
the complex. What follows, I believe, is impressive.
overview
The nuclear weapons complex, except for the newest experimental
facilities, consists of production, testing, and laboratory facilities,
which are very old and in need of intensive and ever escalating
maintenance. During the previous 7 years, the DOE devoted the bulk of a
flat budget to establishing the scientific backbone for the Stockpile
Stewardship Program. The concentration of funding primarily on the
science aspects of the Program has contributed to the neglect of aging
facilities and infrastructure, the acceleration of their decline, and
has resulted in an enormous maintenance backlog legacy.
A 1999 review of the Stockpile Stewardship Program, mandated by the
Under Secretary of Energy, recommended that the DOE develop a plan for
long-term recapitalization of the facilities in the nuclear weapons
complex. As a first step in the planning process, Brigadier General
Thomas Gioconda, Acting Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs,
National Nuclear Security Administration, directed that a detailed
Assessment be conducted of the facilities and infrastructure (F&I)
supporting Defense Programs nuclear weapons complex. To fulfill the
Deputy Administrator's direction, a team comprised of Defense Programs
(DP) F&I subject matter experts, located at headquarters and at field
sites, was assembled.
The approach adopted by the team was to divide this important
effort into two phases. The objective of Phase I was to obtain an
accurate snapshot of the current state of the complex infrastructure
and the cost of doing business. This was accomplished by issuing a data
call to the eight DP Sites: Kansas City Plant, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National
Laboratory, the Nevada Test Site, Oak Ridge/Y-12, Pantex, and the
Savannah River Site. The objective of Phase II, currently underway, is
to develop a common approach to facility and infrastructure management,
as well as, develop a Facilities Management Process Plan that
integrates F&I requirements, management expectations, Headquarters and
Field functions, and will provide safe, secure, reliable, and
sustainable facilities.
Phase I of the Assessment provided several important results: an
integrated baseline of the condition of the entire complex
infrastructure; a clear picture of the cost of maintaining the F&I
constellation; and a prioritized maintenance and modernization list,
integrated across the complex, of the most pressing infrastructure
needs.
phase i
The Phase I data call was developed to help determine the full cost
of DP's F&I business. It was designed to accomplish two things: portray
an integrated timeline of ongoing, planned, and required construction,
modernization, and major maintenance projects; and profile current F&I
funding requirements across the Complex. The funding requirements were
to be reported as: actual expenditures for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal
year 1999, funded and unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2000
through fiscal year 2002, and the expected requirements for fiscal year
2003 through fiscal year 2008. The framework for this data was the
Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP). Crucial to this effort was the
requirement that the data tendered come from existing, accountable
sources (e.g., DP 10-Year Site Plans, etc.). The information from Phase
I provides a focused input to the fiscal year 2002 budget process when
sizing the recapitalization of DP facilities and infrastructure. Since
the methods of accounting differ between the laboratory and production
programs, comparing the two is difficult. The production programs use
direct funding methods, while the laboratory programs account for
funding with both direct and indirect methods. (Direct funding is
funding that is appropriated by Congress to conduct specific work.
Indirect funding is funding that is derived by a tax or charge on
direct funds and is normally allocated across multiple users.)
The data call's guidance utilized standardized definitions from
existing DOE directives to help the respondents properly categorize
their figures while accounting for both direct and indirect costs. This
information and the architecture of the data call have a linkage to the
budget and to the Stockpile Stewardship Program. The call requested
facts about each of the site's facilities and infrastructure needs
separated into categories for Maintenance, Capital Equipment, Line
Items, General Plant Projects, Disposition of Excess Real Property, and
Expense Funded Projects. Funding information from fiscal year 1998
through fiscal year 2008 was also requested for each included project.
results of phase i
Overall, the studies determined that the deteriorating condition of
the Complex is not a new problem. It has been recognized, studied, and
documented many times over the last decade. The facilities in the
production complex are old and are deteriorating, largely due to
historical under-investment in recapitalization and maintenance.
Although maintenance funds are in short supply, DP is maintaining
more production space than it requires and a large inventory of
facilities that are no longer needed by the Stockpile Stewardship
Program. Disposing of these excess facilities has proven to be
problematic. Facility disposition includes the dismantlement and
removal of deactivated facilities and infrastructure that are not
radiologically contaminated and are excess to current and future
mission requirements. These actions are taken at the end of the life of
a facility to retire it from service, with adequate regard for the
health and safety of workers and the public protection of the
environment. These actions will improve our ability to manage the
facilities portfolio and reduce long-term costs.
Numerous studies, reviews, and Site plans for the past 9 years have
pointed out the problem of the deteriorating complex. Many reasons why
the DOE did not act on the findings and recommendations are extant.
Prime among them was the scarcity of F&I funds due to higher priority
programmatic objectives (science over bricks and mortar). The costs of
constructing and operating new science-oriented facilities compete for
the funding available for deferred maintenance in the rest of the
complex. The figure representing the cost of reducing the deferred
maintenance backlog coupled with the substantial costs of
decontamination and disposal grew to such an imposing number that it
was easier to defer than to take action. Funds slated for attacking the
maintenance problem were often redirected to respond to more urgent
unfunded mandates (security, safety, environment, etc.).
age
The majority of the facilities reported in the Complex are 40 years
and older. These facilities do not meet modern standards, especially in
the area of energy conservation. The overall efficiency of the
facilities is low because the facility was not originally designed for
the mission/use currently being executed. In a number of instances
where upgrades have been made to accommodate new or modified missions
the function is consolidated in a portion of the facility and sits in
the midst of surrounding empty and unused space.
condition of the complex
A DP study, focused on the time period centered about 1995,
reported that the complex was reasonably healthy. At that time, the
Sites reported that 56 percent of the Complex was in either
``excellent'' or ``good'' condition. The 2000 F&I data call portrays
significant deterioration in the Complex. These data now capture a
Complex that is only 26 percent ``excellent'' to ``good'' with over 70
percent in an ``adequate'' to ``fail'' condition. The current
Assessment indicates that the declining condition of the Complex is
growing worse. Funding has not been sufficient to solve the backlog
problem and stem the steady decline. A stagnant budget (in the past and
anticipated for the future), a focus on science at the expense of
infrastructure, an increasingly more stringent regulatory climate (with
many unfunded mandates), and inflation have all contributed to a
dramatic downturn in the condition of the Complex.
facility and infrastructure costs
During the period fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2002 the
average annual funded level of spending on F&I will be $1.3 billion.
However, requirements will average approximately $2.1 billion per year
for the time period fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2008. To
compound the problem, unfunded (priority) requirements are increasing
at a rate of about $200 million per year.
excess facilities
A drain on F&I resources exists in the excess facilities category.
These are facilities that are no longer in use because of mission
change or reduction in the size of the Complex and are generally in
poor condition. These facts describe the situation:
--A sizeable number of facilities are waiting to be disposed of.
--Most are in poor condition.
--The expense to maintain them in a holding pattern is relatively
small but growing.
--The costs for large-scale facility disposal will be great, but are
currently not estimated.
--Should a catastrophic environmental, safety, or health event occur,
recovery will be expensive and the potential for unfavorable
press will be unavoidable.
--Responsibility for disposing of these facilities resides with
Environmental Management.
--Defense Program's current strategy of maintaining excess facilities
with minimal maintenance and surveillance, at low cost, has run
its course.
summary and conclusions of phase i
This initial assessment is indisputable--the nuclear weapons
complex is old, the infrastructure, a necessary part of the complex,
has been neglected, and its maintenance is not funded adequately. In
addition, facilities management is fragmented, is without uniform
standards, and in difficult times has served as the bill payer for
higher priority science and production programs across functional
areas. For example:
--Over half the facilities entered the inventory prior to 1960.
--Fiscal year 2003--fiscal year 2008 requirements total $2.1 billion/
year--under funded by some $800 million annually.
--Unfunded priority requirements are increasing by about $200
million/year; and over $500 million of urgently needed, yet
unfunded, F&I projects are extant.
--F&I conditions continue to deteriorate--CY 1995, 57 percent of
facilities were in either excellent or good condition, while in
CY 2000, the same facilities fell to 27 percent in these
condition categories.
--Annual maintenance is under funded--Comparable industrial facility
managers fund from 2 percent to 4 percent, and in some cases 8
percent of replacement plant value (RPV) to maintain
facilities. Defense Programs averaged below 1.5 percent RPV for
over the past decade to maintain the complex.
--Preventive maintenance and recapitalization required to maintain
DP's investment and support program requirements are
significantly under funded.
The DP Phase I Facilities and Infrastructure Assessment indicated
that the declining condition of the Complex is growing worse. Funding
has not been sufficient to solve the backlog problem and stem the
steady decline. A stagnant budget (in the past and anticipated for the
future), a focus on science at the expense of infrastructure, and
increasingly more restrictive regulatory climate (often with unfunded
mandates), and inflation have all contributed to a dramatic downturn in
the condition of the Complex.
phase ii
Phase II of the Facilities and Infrastructure Assessment commenced
August 2000, and set out to ``develop a plan for long-term
recapitalization for the facilities in the nuclear weapons complex.''
Using the database developed in Phase I, the approach for Phase II is
to build on existing processes while identifying the central issues to
be resolved, and develop appropriate metrics by which to measure
progress.
To date, a dozen major tasks have been identified for action by
using Six Sigma methods of analyses. These tasks include establishing
and validating policy; developing consistent planning processes--both
tactical and strategic; reengineering facility stewardship;
implementing procedural improvements; and developing budget guidance
that highlights F&I concerns and establishes accountability. I have
here a briefing of our Facilities and Infrastructure Assessment which
explains in more detail these tasks which bring focus, process, rigor
and accountability to our work of recovering our facilities and
infrastructure. I would request that one of my senior staff members
brief you or your staffs at your convenience to provide a more
comprehensive explanation of our efforts than I have time to do now.
recent reviews summarized
While Defense Programs was aggressively coming to grips with the
actions necessary to improve the condition of the complex, others were
independently studying the complex and not too surprisingly drawing
similar conclusions. Dr. John S. Foster chaired a ``Panel to Assess the
Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear
Stockpile''. The findings of this panel echo those put forth by Defense
Programs. In addition, General John M. Shalikashvili, serving in his
role of Special Advisor to the Secretary of State, issued findings and
recommendations related to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. His
pointed recommendations also warn of the impact of existing conditions
at the manufacturing plants and the consequences should nothing be
done. Key findings of both panels are provided below.
the foster panel
The 1999 Strom Thurmond Defense Authorization Act created the Panel
to review and assess (1) the annual process for certifying stockpile
reliability and safety, (2) the long-term adequacy of that process, and
(3) the adequacy of criteria to be provided by the Department of Energy
for evaluating its science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program.
Recommendations:
Production complex
Restore missing production capabilities and refurbish the
production complex. The decline of the nuclear weapons production
complex must be reversed with a 10-year program to eliminate critical
maintenance backlogs and gaps in stockpile repair and replacement
capabilities, requiring investment on the scale of $300 to $500 million
per year. In addition, ongoing work on small-scale pit production
capabilities and the certification of newly manufactured pits must be
pursued with urgency. Work also must begin on the conceptual design of
adequate nuclear facilities for the long-term support of the stockpile.
Plans, programs, and budgets
Implement a realistic plan, schedule, and multi-year budget for the
Stockpile Stewardship Program, agreed to by the Nuclear Weapons
Council. The new NNSA Future Years Plan (FYP) should provide, with the
Defense Department's agreement, a realistic multi-year program to
sustain confidence. Congress should support realistic budgets and
provide NNSA flexibility to manage to this program. The Defense and
Energy Departments should partner in a revised Nuclear Posture Review
addressing the makeup of the future nuclear stockpile, and assessing
DOD's requirements on NNSA to support that stockpile, including
infrastructure and hedge strategies.
The Panel also visited some of the forty- and fifty-year old
production facilities at the Pantex, Oak Ridge Y-12, and Kansas City
plants where weapons work is being done with aged equipment, employing
health and safety practices that have been grafted onto the work flows
of these outmoded facilities. Only a very small amount of design and
production work is actually being performed. For at least a decade,
these facilities have been permitted to spend only the minimal amounts
needed to sustain operations for the tasks at hand. Consequently,
independent DOE and DOD studies that find the production complex is
incapable of meeting future stockpile requirements. In the coming
decade, some $3 to $5 billion will be needed to remedy this situation.
The DOE reports a maintenance backlog of $700 to $800 million.
Additionally, there is a need for $300 to $500 million per year for up
to ten years for recapitalization to restore the capability to meet
workloads.
In summary, production managers across the complex describe their
situation as an impending disaster. They warn that the current approach
is pushing their facilities toward failure, and that the current
program does not enable them to hire and train a new generation of
workers. They hold the following:
Restore the capability to support needed weapons work
Managers within the complex are concerned that the deterioration of
the physical facilities is accelerating. For some of these deteriorated
40 to 50 year-old facilities it may be more cost-effective to build
replacement capabilities. Yet, there is no agreed upon plan or program
in place for addressing the complex-wide backlog of critical
maintenance requirements. The NNSA must take the lead in defining a
long-term program for reversing these trends. NNSA must:
--Plan and execute a ten-year program to restore needed production
capabilities. The DOE reports a maintenance backlog of some
$700-$800M. Additionally, there is a need for $300-$500M/yr for
some ten years for recapitalization to ensure that the
production complex will be able to meet both current and future
workloads.
Restore nuclear facilities adequate to long-term needs
The nation must be prepared to address problems that may arise in
the nuclear components of stockpiled weapons. NNSA should begin a time-
phased program to design and build the critical nuclear facilities
needed to have a complete capability to produce and refurbish nuclear
components. These include facilities for pit production, secondary
production, and some upgrades at the nuclear laboratories.
the shalikashvili report--2001
Recommendations:
Working with the Department of Defense, other Executive Branch
agencies, and the Congress, the Administrator of the NNSA should
complete as soon as possible his comprehensive review of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program. The review will clarify objectives and
requirements, set priorities, assess progress, identify needs, and
develop an overarching program plan with broad-based support.
A dedicated infrastructure revitalization fund should be
established after the NNSA has completed a revitalization plan for its
production facilities and laboratories.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, General.
Senator Thompson, if you would like to proceed. You are
doing us a favor by coming here, and I appreciate it.
MORALE ISSUES
Senator Thompson. Not at all. You are doing the whole
Nation a favor by highlighting these problems. You just touched
on something in the end there that I have wondered about, and
that is the growing concern over our personnel, our stewards of
the stewardship program and what is happening to that. We are
not testing. We are having to become more and more dependent on
other things, and it probably makes our personnel even more
important. We are losing personnel, and what is your overall
assessment of that, and to what extent do these working
conditions impact on that problem?
General Gordon. It is hard to get a metric on that,
Senator, but it is very clear that the new employees that come
around and look at this facility have to wonder why they would
want to come work in this environment.
We have done a lot in the last 6 or so months to change the
tone within the facilities, both the plants and the
laboratories. I use the rather graphic analogy that when I took
over the NNSA, the morale issues, were kind of a sucking chest
wound. It may not be quite that bad now. We have held out some
promise. We have held out some hope for the folks that are
there.
The young folks that I meet with at the laboratories and
other places seem to actually be really charged up about what
they are doing. They are doing great science. They see some
future for themselves. Older folks really worry and wonder
about what they are doing, and I have got to tell you that the
new folks coming in just have to look around and say, the
commitment is not there to this mission, the commitment is not
there to me, why should I come to this organization.
I cannot put numbers on it, but Sandia, for example, they
would tell you that the number of people that accept their
first offer is declining significantly.
Senator Thompson We deal a lot in the Governmental Affairs
Committee with the GAL high risk list, and they recently stated
in their report, the GAL high risk report stated, quote, human
capital issues may be the single largest problem challenging
the nuclear weapons program. The experienced designers and
engineers who built the weapons and the stockpile and
understand how they work are reaching or past retirement age.
DOE is also faced with shortages of technicians skilled in
the techniques associated with weapons production, and it kind
of reminds me of what a lot of knowledgeable people say about
our military, and our losses there. It is not just about pay,
it is how you live your life every day, and what your
surroundings are like, and what kind of commitment you feel
that your Nation is making to what you are doing, so it is
important in that respect, too.
I noticed in Mr. Mitchell's testimony, as far as Y-12 was
concerned, he had the maintenance backlog $10 million first
year, $5 million next 5 years, $1 to $2 million thereafter,
excess unused buildings, $25-$30 million a year, technology and
security improvements, $100 million a year, new construction
$300 million. Does that comport with your own----
Y-12 PLANT INFRASTRUCTURE
General Gordon. As I suggested Senator, Y-12 is really the
poster child for this effort. It has been neglected longer than
anything else. It is where the most horror stories are. If we
were to get the $300 million or so that we suggested this year,
we have estimated $40 million of that would go to Y-12 as the
up-front to start.
You have been there, Senator. The last time I walked
through there there was an old portal that I used 20 years ago
when I visited the place, a security entrance way, and it is
wooden, and it has grown up with weeds, and there are weeds
coming up through the windows.
I said, why don't we tear it down? They said, well, we
cannot, because all the power comes in through that facility,
and communications comes in through that facility, and they
need to maintain it. It is not as simple as even taking old
buildings down. We cannot just go bulldoze the things. There
are other requirements that lead into those.
RECRUITMENT
But you are spot on in the importance of bringing new
people in, giving them a quality life, as we would think about
in the military, at least a quality in their work environment
that lets them feel proud about what they are doing. It lets us
send a signal to them that, this is a real mission that is
going to be around for a while, and we are not doing that yet.
I would propose that Y-12 again is the worst of the particular
facilities, although every one of the places has individual
facilities that needs significant work.
Senator Thompson. Of course, every weapon in our current
stockpile includes components manufactured at Y-12.
General Gordon. Every weapon goes through there in both
directions, coming into the stockpile, coming out of the
stockpile, and refurbishing the stockpile and, as the chairman
mentioned in his opening statement, we now are in the position
ready to begin the refurbishment of some 60 percent of the
Nation's stockpile we are going to be running through the kinds
of facilities that we are talking about today.
Y-12 PLANT CHAIN OF COMMAND
Senator Thompson. By the way, some are concerned that the
NNSA reorganization plan will result in Y-12 not reporting
directly to NNSA headquarters, and report elsewhere, and add
another layer of bureaucracy. Can you tell me if that is in the
works?
General Gordon. That is a rumor without merit.
Senator Thompson. I am glad to hear that.
HEADQUARTERS REORGANIZATION
General Gordon. The work that we are doing now on
suggesting a reorganization is limited to headquarters
planning. We are under obligation, and will submit a report on
field operations in the future, we will address that at the
time, but that is not an active consideration on my book.
Senator Thompson. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE
Senator Domenici. Senator and fellow chairman, I want to
just suggest that I am going to do everything I can to get a
program started and I will need your help. Obviously for a few
years a substantial portion of money has got to go to Y-12,
because obviously we just let it absolutely deteriorate right
around us, but I can tell you at other laboratories there is a
desperate need for new facilities that fit scientists, and
scientific work of our day. We have got scientists at the other
major laboratories that are working related to our nuclear
weapons, but it is science--you know, it is nanoscience. It is
microengines.
You have got to have facilities for those people. I mean,
these are the cutting edge people of the whole country in terms
of the next technology of significance, and frankly, we could
have put--the General could have put in this packet of
pictures, he could have put the Sandia National Laboratory
facility in which the whole nanoscience engineers and experts
are working.
They are in the process of developing the world's leading
center on microengines, engines that are so tiny that they are
microscopic, and essentially they are energized much in the
same way that you put things on a microchip for computers, and
then they buzz around doing their own thing, these little tiny
engines, and pretty soon we are going to tack them all together
and do something with them.
There is one thought that they might be good for a heart
condition somewhere, that you might literally put these little
micro machines that function at such a weak level it does not
hurt anything, put them in your system, and if you can direct
them, they may be the way to fix various accumulations around
the heart without having to do what we are doing today.
Now, that may never happen, but that is pretty exciting,
and all the other things that might happen. These scientists
cannot be living in a barrack room that was put up there on a
temporary basis that had doors on it like you are going to go
into an old warehouse. You know, I used to work in a store when
I was a little guy. Those are the same kind of doors we had
back 50 years ago, so they are all over the place. Los Alamos,
built up there, is a city on its own. It has its share of them,
and so does Livermore.
So we are going to have to work together up here, but I do
think you have the most valid claim on the first money in. We
have to look at the President's budget in terms of where he
would distribute the money, and I think in this regard we are
going to have to push them very hard, because this is military
expenditures. This is DOD expenditures, and we need to make
sure that more resources are put in, not less.
This is not a place to save money over the next 4 years of
this President's--I mean, actually, if he tries, it will be
harmful in the end, because what we are going to get is a very
inferior condition to what we have today.
Senator Thompson. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I appreciate
first of all everything you have said, but going back here to
this distinguished group of people who formed a commission,
National Security for the 21st Century, just right along the
lines of what you said, they recommend, of course, that we
double the U.S. Government's investment in science and
technology research and development by 2010, but they have a
very interesting paragraph here that I think kind of summarizes
it.
It says, if the United States does not invest significantly
in more public research and development, it will be eclipsed by
others. Recent failures in this regard may return to haunt us.
The decision not to invest in the large nuclear accelerator,
the superconducting supercollider, already means that most
significant breakthroughs in theoretical physics, at least,
over the next decade, will occur in Europe and not the United
States.
The reduction of the U.S. research and development in basic
electronics engineering has ensured that the next generation of
chip processors and manufacturing technology will come from an
international consortium, rather than the United States alone.
So we cannot say we are not being warned.
Senator Domenici. Well, General, I have a number of
questions. I am going to submit most of them. You will have, by
the time you are finished here this morning, will have put in
the record how the 10-year plan would be--how we would spend
the money more or less, and where will it go in a 10-year plan.
That is part of what you have told us in your testimony, is it
not?
General Gordon. We will do that and we can expand that for
the record.
COSTS OF INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR
Senator Domenici. I think that is pretty important, but
could you give us the general numbers, the total extent that
you are recommending expenditures in this area over the next 10
years? How much is that, an average of $500 million a year?
General Gordon. To me, we can readily, safely, and within
our ability to manage it and oversee it, and stand up proud
about the need and requirements, about $500 million a year for
at least 10 years.
Senator Domenici. Okay. Thank you very much.
TA-55 AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LAB
General Gordon. Mr. Chairman, could I just give you one
more example? I mean, I know we have talked about examples here
with you and Senator Thompson, but one of the ones that is
really vexing to me is what we call TA, or Tech Area 55 at Los
Alamos, the nuclear, the plutonium facility. For folks that
have not visited there, that is probably the most modern
plutonium facility in the world. We have done no work on it in
22 years.
At Los Alamos we have scattered throughout the landscape
there a number of individual facilities that work on nuclear
materials of one form or another. The so-called CMR building
that we began with, an area down in a canyon called TA-18,
where we do some special work, and there are several others.
The point is not to just fix old stuff. There are some
really sensible things that need to be done to pull these
operations together. I need to pull together in one location,
for example, at Los Alamos, the nuclear operations, so that we
can do the safety and the protection of those facilities in one
place.
Instead of having guards and guns at five or six or seven
different locations at Los Alamos, and then moving material
back and forth between these buildings, the plan will be to
encompass it into a single nuclear campus. That will save us
significant funds on the security, adds greatly to safety, and
to the ease of operation, and consolidate those operations in
one place.
Senator Domenici. Well, I am going to change the subject a
little bit just for a minute. The military has certain
requirements they make of DOE's nuclear capacity, that
semiautonomous agency now that you run. In some respects,
aren't the commitments that have been made in the area of the
B-61, the W-76, aren't some of those commitments dependent upon
whether we get some improved facilities to be able to live up
to our military commitments?
STOCKPILE REQUIREMENTS
General Gordon. Yes, Mr. Chairman. What we have done over
the last several months, and spearheaded in our organization by
Brigadier General Tom Gioconda, is revitalized the relationship
with the Department of Defense, the military, and the Nuclear
Weapons Council. We have agreed with them on a specific
proposal and a specific plan to put nominally 60 percent of the
weapons through a refurbishment program.
We have agreed on what needs to be done, how it needs to be
done, and I say that we cannot fully support that schedule and
plan with the existing infrastructure.
Senator Domenici. Well, I am pleased that you mentioned
General Gioconda. I have found that prior to your coming into
this leadership post he had done an excellent job working with
the military, and I am going to end up this part, and then we
will go to Dr. Schlesinger.
First, I want to thank you again, General, for what you are
trying to do. I understand it is a most difficult task to pull
another organization together, as you have been asked. It is
very hard to get personnel cleared, so you still do not have
those people under you that you want to do very important work,
because they are being cleared by the administration.
Even some of those you need desperately that are not going
to come through the Senate, it is difficult to get them cleared
on time, and I understand the administration's log jam and
difficulties, but we will be doing whatever you ask in order to
be helpful to you with reference to your efforts, and I urge
that the relationship with the Defense Department in terms of
your problems that you need to solve to be able to be their
good supplier, that they be open, and that they be put right on
the table, and that the Defense Department clearly understand
the situation we have got.
I hope in your statement about the liaison that General
Gioconda is doing, it fits that statement. Is that where we
are?
General Gordon. It is actually even better than that, sir.
I think that at the end of the previous administration, after
many years, we were able to put things back on a keel and
really go forward and look at the very specifics of what needs
to be done on specific weapons, and on what schedules.
My impression over the last month or so in the dealings
with the new Department of Defense, the new leadership over
there, is they are extremely open to the kinds of discussion we
are having, that the individuals, the advisors, the new
Secretary can give this speech about as well as I can, sir.
Senator Domenici. Now all we have got to do is make sure
they put their budget where their discussion has ended, right?
General Gordon. Thank you, sir.
Senator Domenici. I know you would not say that, but my
friends from Tennessee would support that, and we will work on
that.
Thank you, and good luck in your work.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
General Gordon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator
Thompson, thank you.
[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
backlog of maintenance
Question. What do you estimate to be the maintenance backlog today
in the nuclear weapons complex? Isn't the maintenance backlog
approaching $800 million today?
Answer. The Defense Programs Facilities and Infrastructure
Assessment Phase I, Report 2000, identified more than $500 million of
facilities and infrastructure backlog projects.
overall cost to rebuild the infrastructure of the complex
Question. A number of studies have assessed and catalogued the
problems of the nuclear weapons complex. I mentioned many of them in my
opening remarks.
Do you agree that the overall cost of rebuilding the infrastructure
for the nuclear weapons complex is in the ballpark of $5-$10 billion
over 10 years?
Answer. I believe that at least $500 million per year for ten years
will be required to recapitalize the infrastructure if the current
assumptions for the weapons program remain valid. For too long our
facilities and infrastructure have been put on hold while the science
based stewardship program was put into place. That program is now
working and it is time to focus on the physical complex which houses
the program. We have established an office to manage our facilities and
infrastructure and we are establishing processes to institutionalize
procedures, standards and expectations for the facilities and
infrastructure of our complex. In the past we have been unable to
accurately track infrastructure funding year to year. To correct that
deficiency I intend to put into place a management system which
monitors the condition of NNSA's infrastructure and evaluates the
progress of the infrastructure investments.
Question. Could it be higher?
Answer. Yes, the costs to recapitalize the complex could be
greater, if assumptions about stockpile size change, or an accident or
incident attributable to the deteriorating state of the complex occurs.
Question. How confident are you in the cost?
Answer. I am reasonably confident in the facility and
infrastructure costs required to meet current mission needs. As you
know, the Administration is conducting a thorough analysis of the
national military strategy. The outcome of this analysis may have an
impact on the mission of the nuclear weapons complex. The NNSA will
review all costs associated with mission execution if there is an
impact on our mission.
recapitalization initiative
Question. General Gordon, in your testimony you state that NNSA has
crafted a Recapitalization Initiative containing a prioritized list of
maintenance and infrastructure requirements across the nuclear weapons
complex.
What is the total estimated cost for proposed recapitalization
projects in the plan?
Answer. Our review indicates that we need an additional $500-$600
million annually to meet the requirements of our facilities and
infrastructure. This tracks closely with recent outside reviews (e.g.
the Office of the Secretary of Defense Program Analysis and Evaluation
Review April 2000, the DOE Inspector General report, the Foster Panel
2000 Report, and the Shalikashvili Report 2001). The Recapitalization
Initiative which NNSA has prepared would fund up to $300 million
initially, building to $500 million for several years, potentially ten
years. Our Prioritized Project List, which is now in its second
revision, contains 228 urgent near term projects without funding
support. These projects represent unfunded requirements spread across
the entire complex and currently total an estimated $562 million.
Question. Is it your recommendation that this account be set up as
a dedicated budget category in order to ensure the necessary
reinvestment occurs?
Answer. I am open to any workable approach to funding and
accountability. Whatever method is employed, assuming adequate funding,
I am accountable for the recapitalization of the complex and therefore
will ensure that the reinvestment will occur, regardless of the method
chosen. For too long our facilities and infrastructure have been put on
hold while the science based stewardship program was put into place.
That program is now working and it is time to focus on the physical
complex which houses the program. We have established an office to
manage our facilities and infrastructure and we are establishing
processes to institutionalize procedures, standards and expectations
for the facilities and infrastructure of our complex. In the past we
have been unable to accurately track infrastructure funding year to
year. To correct that deficiency I intend to put into place a
management system which monitors the condition of NNSA's infrastructure
and evaluates the progress of the infrastructure investments.
Question. What is the maximum amount of work that could be done
efficiently in the next year from a dollars standpoint?
Answer. To begin the long needed recapitalization program for the
complex, $300 million can be executed efficiently to start our efforts
in the first year.
foster panel recommendations
The Foster Panel has suggested a number of additional activities as
a part of the stockpile stewardship program. Such as:
--exercising end-to-end design, production and certification
capabilities not currently being used
--dual revalidation of all weapons designs
--developing new designs of robust, alternative warheads
--increasing enhanced surveillance
--possibly reducing the nuclear test readiness response time to less
than one year
Question. What is your response and what would these items add to
the Stockpile Stewardship Program baseline?
Answer. DOE and the NNSA have been supportive of the Foster Panel
since its inception and there is agreement on many of the issues
identified in the report. In some instances, however, the Foster Panel
and NNSA have different views on the solutions to best address the
issues and the trade-offs between cost, scope, schedule, and risk. The
Foster Panel recommendations all act to reduce risk, but some do so at
a significant cost or represent a significant change to current
national policy. We are continuing to study the recommendations.
There is currently no military requirement to produce new weapons,
and we have not received such a request from the DOD. We believe the
life extension programs authorized by the Nuclear Weapons Council for
the B61, W80, and W76 will sufficiently exercise the design, production
and certification capabilities of the weapons complex. Successful
completion of these programs represents a workload and workscope
unmatched in the weapons complex in more than ten years. Success will
tell us much about our own long-dormant abilities.
NNSA has developed an alternative approach to Dual Revalidation
which achieves the same high-priority objectives, but takes less time
and is less costly. Baselining, a first necessary step of any Dual
Revalidation effort, will be applied to all of the warhead types during
the next five years, while some designers that originally worked on the
system are still available. The first Dual Revalidation on the W76
Trident was valuable, but was much more expensive than estimated, and
took much longer than originally anticipated--five years instead of
three. If we choose to perform Dual Revalidation studies in the future,
their focus and scope can be based on the key points brought out by
completed baselining studies.
Enhanced surveillance is systematically fielding diagnostic tools
and conducting studies of components and materials in the stockpile to
identify impacts from aging before there is impact to the stockpile. We
agree that additional resources in this area could expand or accelerate
capabilities to detect and respond to aging issues.
We reported in the Nuclear Test Readiness Posture Report to
Congress, dated February 2001, that for anything other than an
extremely simple demonstration of capability, a six-month nuclear test
response time was not technically feasible, especially considering the
safety, environmental, and the Threshold Test Ban Treaty reporting
requirements associated with a nuclear test resumption. In addition, it
is estimated that maintaining a six-month posture would cost and
additional $65M/yr, precluding investment in other more urgent areas of
stockpile stewardship.
five year budgeting plan
Question. Are there other programs critical to a successful
stockpile stewardship program, that are not included in the current
baseline?
Answer. The preliminary fiscal year 2002 five-year budget plan
recently submitted to the Office of Management and Budget supports all
programs critical to the success of the Stockpile Stewardship Program
to support current policy and DOD requirements. The results of the
Administration's ongoing review of national security strategy will
provide additional guidance on the future scope and direction of the
NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program.
Question. Are you aware that some credible experts that have looked
at the Stockpile Stewardship Plan have suggested a fully funded program
could grow from $6 billion to $7.5 billion a year over the next five
years? How would you respond?
Answer. I am aware of those estimates. The dollar figures in the
preliminary five-year budget plan, which support current policy and DOD
requirements, are essentially consistent with them. The NNSA will amend
the fiscal year 2002 future-years budget plan to reflect guidance
derived from Administration's ongoing review of national security
strategy. We support the President's stated belief that the Nation's
defense strategy should drive decisions on defense resources, not the
other way around.
defense pa&e review of april 2000
Question. The Office of the Secretary of Defense conducted a
program analysis and evaluation review in April of last year. The
review concluded that indefinite maintenance of the nuclear stockpile
will require an investment in the Defense Programs manufacturing
infrastructure of $7 billion over the next 18 years.
Do you agree with the conclusion of the Defense review?
Answer. I believe that the Defense review's estimated investment
figures are on the correct order of magnitude. As I have testified,
both the plants and the laboratories require attention immediately. If
we don't arrest the deterioration soon, the cost to recapitalize will
only increase.
Question. How much of the $7 billion in infrastructure investments
are included in the NNSA's Recapitalization Initiative?
Answer. As the Office of the Secretary of Defense did not publish
the details of its review, we cannot make this determination.
acceleration of decline in facilities
Question. In your testimony you indicate that the deterioration of
the physical infrastructure of the weapons complex is accelerating.
When will new facilities be required, and when should we begin a
major rebuilding effort?
Answer. In order to arrest the deterioration of the physical
infrastructure of the nuclear weapons complex, it is important that
rebuilding begin as soon as possible. New facilities are coming on line
as detailed in annual budget documents submitted to the Congress. The
Recapitalization Initiative, which will plan for new facilities as well
as the modernization of existing facilities, is a three phased
approach. First, a prioritized list of non-line item maintenance and
infrastructure projects has been developed and will be updated semi-
annually. Whatever the funding level, the most urgent projects on this
list will be worked off first. Next, the revised ten-year comprehensive
site plans will be used to develop restoration plans for each site,
prioritize efforts, and plan conceptual design activities for future
line item construction projects. Last, the initiative will support a
facility disposition effort. This includes the dismantlement and
removal of deactivated facilities and infrastructure that are not
radiologically contaminated and are excess to current and future
mission requirements.
ability to meet military requirements
Question. The 30-Day Review said ``Failure to develop and mature
these technologies [to make weapons safe, more reliable, and more
secure] during the next 3-5 years could lead to the reuse of 20 to 30
year old technology in refurbished weapons.''
Address the seriousness of this problem and describe what
facilities are specifically needed to avoid the reuse of 20-30 year old
technology in refurbished weapons.
Answer. The quote from the 30-Day Review refers specifically to the
surety features in our stockpile weapons. However, in general, the
technology used in designing, producing, and certifying the weapons in
our current stockpile is several decades old. DOE and DOD have reached
agreement on the refurbishment of the B61 and the first production unit
is scheduled for fiscal year 2004. The Nuclear Weapons Council has
recommended first production units for a refurbished W80 and W76 in
fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2008 respectively.
Aware that we would need to extend the life of or refurbish weapons
now in our stockpile, DOE has under development several facilities
incorporating state-of-the art technologies for developing and
producing advanced replacement components. These include MESA, the
Microelectronics Development Laboratory, and the LIGA Technology
Facility at the Sandia National laboratories and the LIGA Assembly and
Polysilicon Packaging Facilities at Kansas City Plant. [LIGA is a
German acronym for a process that uses x-ray lithographic techniques to
fabricate miniature parts.]
We also have under development a number of other facilities to
enhance our capabilities to certify refurbished weapons. Without
underground nuclear tests, significantly different approaches to
certification are required. Computational facilities must be available
to simulate weapon performance with full-fidelity physics in three
dimensions. This includes our Accelerated Strategic Computer Initiative
systems and associated facilities such as the Terascale Simulation
Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Strategic
Computing Complex at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and, at the
Sandia National Laboratories, the Joint Computational Engineering
Laboratory, the Model Validation & Systems Certification Test Center,
and the Distributed Information Systems Laboratory.
Facilities are also required to conduct subcritical experiments to
verify dynamic properties of nuclear weapons materials and to
radiograph (x-ray and proton) assemblies. While some of these
facilities exist today, such as the subcritical test facilities and
JASPER at Nevada, others are still under construction, such as the
Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrotest Facility (DARHT) and the National
Ignition Facility (NIF) and some are only in a planning stage such as
an Advanced Hydrotest Facility. It is absolutely essential to continue
the development and construction of these facilities.
reinvestment rates compared to industry and department of defense
Question. Do you agree that DOE has consistently underfunded
reinvestment?
Answer. Maintenance and recapitalization of the infrastructure has
been underfunded to meet current mission requirements. For the period
fiscal year 2002-fiscal year 2008, facilities and infrastructure
requirements, excluding line items, appear fairly stable at $1.3
billion/year, whereas annual funding has recently been only $700
million--a significant under funding as our study of the issue points
out.
Question. Based on the numerous reviews that have been conducted,
what do you recommend is an appropriate reinvestment rate for the
nuclear weapons complex?
Answer. As discussed during my testimony, the NNSA requirement for
recapitalizing the nuclear weapons complex is about $500 million/year
for at least a decade. The figure is arrived at by projecting current
mission needs, recognizing that the aging complex is in need of
immediate attention, and integrating the management standards and
practices successfully employed by state-of-the-art facility managers
in other Federal agencies, academic institutions, and private industry.
ability to meet military requirements
Question. If we do not begin a substantial recapitalization
initiative this year, will we still be able to meet the targets
established by the Nuclear Weapons Council for refurbishment of the W76
and B61?
Answer. It would be prudent to immediately begin a recapitalization
initiative in order to complete the refurbishments as recommended by
DOD. However, I cannot say that such an initiative must be undertaken
this year in order to meet the targets established by the Nuclear
Weapons Council for refurbishment of the W76, B61, or the W80 warheads;
but it must begin soon in order to provide confidence that the required
end state and level of readiness can be achieved to support our
important deterrent weapons.
infrastructure as a morale and recruitment issue
Question. Morale throughout the weapons complex has become a very
serious issue over the last few years. Much of the problems relate to
security issues. But I believe the deteriorating facilities our workers
are in, contribute to low morale. The Chiles Commission identified the
need to ``eliminate problems of maintenance of equipment and
facilities, and modernization of equipment'' in the context of
enhancing recruitment and retention of a quality workforce. The U.S.
Commission on National Security wrote in January 2001 that ``the
physical circumstances in which lab professional work have also
deteriorated in many instances, to unacceptable levels.''
Do you agree with these statements?
Answer. I agree fully with the statements of those Commissions. We
engaged in a very active dialogue with them during their deliberations.
The weapons complex is old, and in many cases utilizes obsolete
technology. As the complex ages, maintenance and operating costs
continue to rise. In addition, the complex has deferred maintenance,
construction, and technology improvements in order to meet mission
requirements. The NNSA is now faced with the realities of old and
marginally maintained facilities, some of which are at unacceptable
levels. This was confirmed by the Chiles Commission, the 30-Day Review
of the Stockpile Stewardship Program and the U.S. Commission on
National Security.
On May 12, 2000, a detailed assessment of the existing nuclear
weapons complex's Facilities and Infrastructure (F&I) was initiated.
The goals of the assessment are to develop an integrated plan to
improve the condition of the complex, to analyze our organizational F&I
management structure, and to propose changes to existing F&I management
policy. The Department intends to recapitalize the facilities and
infrastructure of the nuclear weapons complex and institutionalize
facility management processes to ensure their continued availability,
condition, operational worth, and attractiveness to our workforce and
potential recruits. The detailed assessment indicated that an
additional $500-$600 million per year for many years is necessary to
address issues that are not addressed within current base efforts.
Question. How significant is the condition of the facilities to the
ability to recruit and retain the best and brightest?
Answer. Very significant. There is no question that work
environment contributes to worker morale and the ability to recruit and
retain a quality workforce. In a highly competitive market for
technical talent, we are competing with the private sector for the best
and brightest from our colleges and universities. While we believe the
Stockpile Stewardship Program offers prospective recruits unique career
opportunities, the work environment could very well be the deciding
factor in their decision-making. We are very aware of this and believe
that our Recapitalization Initiative is the correct path forward.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
butler-cutler report
Question. On January 18th, 2001, a bipartisan task force selected
by the Department of Energy released a report evaluating
nonproliferation programs between the United States and Russia. Lloyd
Cutler and Howard Baker chaired the group, and I have included an
excerpt of their conclusions for the record:
``The most urgent unmet national security threat to the United
States today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons-
usable material in Russia could be stolen and sold to terrorist or
hostile Nation States and used against American troops abroad or
citizens at home.''
Do you agree with their findings?
Answer. Overall, I agree that the threat of loose nukes and
weapons-useable material represents a threat to U.S. national security.
I believe that these cooperative nonproliferation programs with Russia
will require greater funding, but I cannot say at this point the exact
funding level that should be spent over the next 8-10 years. I support
the Bush Administration's current effort to develop a government-wide
strategy on how to address this crucial issue that threatens the
American people. Today, in order to clarify what our goals and
milestones are. I look forward to working with my counterparts at the
Departments of Defense and State, as well as the National Security
Council and Congress, to help develop such a strategy.
Question. The Committee's second major conclusion was that
nonproliferation programs at the Department of Energy and the
Department of Defense, while successful, are underfunded and have a
limited mandate. Do you agree with this assessment?
Answer. The NNSA's nonproliferation mission is extremely important.
Currently, these and other U.S. nonproliferation programs are being
reviewed by this Administration to determine their future scope,
direction, and funding. Additionally, the NNSA is taking the lead for
the programs in which we have the resident expertise, and we are
supporting other agencies with our technical work as appropriate.
Question. Which specific nonproliferation programs at DOE are in
need of additional resources or an expanded mandate?
Answer. The Administration is presently conducting a review of
Russian programs which will determine the future scope, direction, and
funding of these activities to meet urgent national security
challenges. Once this review is complete, I will be in a better
position to describe to you the specific nonproliferation programs at
the NNSA that are in need of additional resources or an expanded
mandate.
environmental management funding
Question. As part of the Bush budget blueprint it was stated that
overall DOE spending would be reduced 3.5 percent from the fiscal year
2001 level. When the President's new spending initiatives are taken
into consideration, the reduction in funding for the remaining programs
is more 5.5 percent or 6.0 percent. As you stated in your written
testimony, infrastructure in the DOE laboratory complex is currently
inadequate.
Do you believe that reductions in the Operations and Maintenance
accounts are wise given the grave environmental challenges we face at
many of the formerly-used nuclear weapons sites?
Answer. Protecting the health and safety of the workers and the
public is the Department's highest priority. We will ensure that our
facilities and sites are operated and maintained in a safe manner that
protects human health and the environment and in compliance with
environmental laws. We recognize the Department now faces significant
environmental cleanup challenges throughout the nuclear weapons complex
resulting from past practices. We will place a top priority on managing
our facilities safely to ensure we do not create environmental problems
for the future.
Question. Do you believe that reduced funding in environmental
management accounts represent a national security risk?
Answer. Protecting the health and welfare of our workers and the
public will continue to be our highest priority. Within the
Environmental Management program, we will continue to work to mitigate
high risks at our sites. This includes maintaining the safety and
security of nuclear materials and spent nuclear fuel at our sites that
present potential national security risks and supporting critical non-
proliferation efforts.
tritium modernization and consolidation
Question. How is that project working and is the facility meeting
its expected goals?
Answer. The Tritium Modernization and Consolidation Project is
currently on schedule to be complete and fully operational by September
2004. Project design is 100 percent complete, procurement is 85 percent
complete, and construction is 37 percent complete as of 3/15/01. Fixed-
price construction contracts for the building to support material
testing (234-7H) will be awarded this year. This project is meeting
expected goals and will, when complete, meet projected program needs.
modern pit production facility
Question. Does the NNSA believe that there is a need for a higher
capacity pit-production facility?
Answer. The need and timing for a new pit production facility is
predicated on completing several important studies. First, the
Administration is conducting a thorough analysis of nuclear weapons and
their role in national security. NNSA is conducting pit aging campaign
studies which should be completed prior to a decision about a new pit
production facility. This approach is supported by the Nuclear Weapons
Council. In the event that a new facility is needed, NNSA is addressing
pre-conceptual design issues required for a critical decision that will
enable the start of a conceptual design for a Modern Pit Facility
(MPF). This MPF would have sufficient pit manufacturing capacity to
meet the needs of the Department of Defense. A prudent risk management
strategy to address the need and timing for a MPF will be established
after the numbers and types of warheads for the future nuclear
stockpile and pit lifetimes are determined.
Question. Will SRS be chosen for this facility if there is a need
for it?
Answer. Site selection for a MPF will proceed consistent with the
normal acquisition process. Site selection would be expected to occur
some three years after approval of conceptual design initiation, and
following an environmental assessment of various site alternatives
conducted under the National Environmental Policy Act.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESS
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES SCHLESINGER, ON BEHALF OF THE
PANEL TO ASSESS THE RELIABILITY, SAFETY,
AND SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR
STOCKPILE
ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID GRAHAM, ON BEHALF OF THE INSTITUTE FOR
DEFENSE ANALYSIS
Senator Domenici. Dr. Schlesinger, we would like to hear
from you, if you are ready.
Dr. Schlesinger. Mr. Chairman, could I have you invite
David Graham to come up?
Senator Domenici. David Graham, you are invited to join,
please.
Dr. Schlesinger. He is the fount of wisdom.
Senator Domenici. He is welcome.
Dr. Schlesinger. I trust that members of the committee will
call upon him whenever they have some erudite question that
they themselves are unable to answer.
Senator Domenici. Well, we might start right off and ask
you if you would testify and start off, then we will let Dr.
Schlesinger do the balance--not at all.
I wanted to say, Dr. Schlesinger, before you arrived as
part of the preliminaries, we did announce that you would be
the second witness, and the crowd has not changed much, and I
told them of all of your greatness, so I am not going to repeat
it again. Is that all right with you?
Dr. Schlesinger. That is fine, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Having said that, we are going to ask you
to start.
This is a very serious subject, and I know there is no one
around that is more concerned about it, and that spends more
time at it, and I mean the general subject of nuclear weapons
and the complexes, the Department of Energy's failures in the
past. I am sure you are aware of our efforts to try to make
that better in terms of the management. It is a very
dysfunctional agency, because it is put together from so many
sources, and all those sources brought their rules with them,
and the rules and regulations do not run perpendicular in DOE,
they run parallel, and so everybody gets spattered with the
dysfunctional nature, but by pulling out the nuclear weapons in
a semi-autonomous shield, we hope to do better. We hope that
General Gordon will be the catalyst for that.
But now we are focusing today in advance of appropriation
dollars, and we are talking about the infrastructure, and we
know you would like to share your wisdom with us, so now it is
your opportunity to do that.
Dr. Schlesinger. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I say
about the DOE that we cannot blame the dysfunctional aspects of
it on the predecessor agencies, that there is a lot of self-
inflicted damage over the years, in which the accountability
has been removed from various bodies and spread out in such a
way that nobody is accountable. Some of those things were
touched upon by the Rudman report of about a year ago.
Mr. Chairman, I am here to represent the views of the
panel, assess the reliability and safety and security of the
United States nuclear weapons stockpile. This panel was
established by the Congress in 1999, the authorization act, and
it is to assess the reliability, safety, and security. Last
year we presented a report. Our second report has been sent to
the Congress this year.
Senator Domenici. Dr. Schlesinger and Senator, would you
mind, I have something urgent out there, can I just take a 4-
minute leave? Would you rather proceed?
Senator Thompson. Let's recess for just a little bit.
Senator Domenici. The committee will proceed.
Dr. Schlesinger.
Dr. Schlesinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last year, as I
say, we produced our first report. This is our second report.
We have concentrated on infrastructure this year because of the
various reasons that have been mentioned before. Over the years
the priority has been to preserve the strength of the
laboratories, and in that period, as the budgets were squeezed,
infrastructure has been neglected.
Let me start by just making a few observations. The first
observation is, repeatedly, the leaders of the executive branch
and the Congress have stated that the preservation of our
nuclear deterrent is critical to our national security. The
problem is that those statements tend to be rhetoric, and have
not been balanced by what we see in terms of the actual support
for the program and for the weaponry.
Second, we talk about the infrastructure here. We are not
in a position to make any recommendations with regard to the
size of the nuclear weapons stockpile, but that is to a
substantial degree independent of such judgments, because we do
not know the breadth of any future program, and therefore we
must be prepared with an infrastructure that is capable of
producing a number of nuclear weapons should some of those in
our present stockpile fail.
Third, even if nuclear weapons were continuing to be
tested, we would have many of these problems, simply because of
the aging of the infrastructure. It is not a question of the
absence of nuclear testing. These facilities are old. They
needed to be maintained better in the past, and they need to be
replaced over time.
Mr. Chairman, there is no need for me to go over the report
itself. It is available to all the Members of Congress. We make
some recommendations after we have looked over this problem.
First, we repeat--we repeat our recommendation of last year
that we get to work on establishing a facility to produce
primaries.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have a small facility that
was supposed to be operational at Los Alamos. It is slipping.
It has slipped, just as other elements of this program have
slipped. The absence of the capability to produce primaries for
nuclear weapons is perhaps the most dramatic lack in our
present nuclear program.
We mentioned this last year. We reiterate it this year.
Little has been done in the intervening period. It is now 12
years since the last primary was produced. Rocky Flats has been
shut down.
Second, we have serious problems at Y-12. Some of them have
been already touched on by General Gordon. At Y-12, we continue
to be able to produce secondaries for our nuclear weapons, but
the production capability there is fragile, and we believe that
it might be upgraded. You mentioned, Mr. Chairman, something
that is in our report, that members have to go in with hard
hats because of the crumbling of the ceilings.
We continue to operate these facilities, but these are
under most unfavorable conditions, so the restoration of the
production complex, and you have gone over some of those
numbers. There is about $800 million estimated by the DOE
itself in backlog on maintenance, and we probably need to spend
$300 to $500 million on recapitalization of the facilities,
additional beyond what we have been budgeting in the past.
We need to define and execute the work needed to restore
and exercise integrated design, fabricate and certification
capabilities. These are areas that we have talked about in a
general way, but we have not defined them as yet. Certification
is something that was declared by President Clinton in 1995,
but that needs to be strengthened. Right now, it is a process
that is on auto pilot to some extent.
Third, we recommend that we must ensure the continued
vitality of the competition of ideas within the system of
national laboratories. We believe that there should be dual
validation by the two weapons laboratories of the existing
stockpile weapons.
In the past, the tendency has been for each laboratory to
say, this was my development, my weapon, stay out of it, to the
other design laboratories. In view of the fact that we are now
in a position that the weapons in the stockpile will be there
year after year, decade after decade, we need to get critical
commentaries as we go through the certification processes, the
life extension processes, and the qualification of components.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Let me conclude. This panel is troubled to report that
portions of the weapons complex infrastructure are defective,
and that the production capabilities are fragile. There is an
increasingly urgent need for a coherent vision, comprehensive
plan, and programmatic commitment to reverse these adverse
trends. General Gordon has started down that road. He needs
support.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will leave my statement for the
record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James R. Schlesinger
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. In 1999, Congress
established the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security
of the United States Nuclear Stockpile, chaired by Dr. John Foster. In
my testimony today, I will summarize the analysis and recommendations
provided in the Panel's second annual report to Congress.
To provide context for my statement, I shall begin with three
observations:
First, the benchmark this Panel uses in assessing the weapons
program is the national deterrence strategy. The nation's leaders--be
they civilians in the executive branch or the Congress, or be they in
the military--have stated repeatedly that sustaining a safe and
reliable stockpile in support of deterrence is a supreme national
interest. It is the Panel's view that programs for sustaining the
stockpile should be managed accordingly.
Secondly, although the Panel was not tasked to develop
recommendations on a desirable size for the stockpile, we would counsel
that the debate on this topic must accurately incorporate the
implications for the weapons complex. Cutting the stockpile will not
save much on the size and cost of the weapons complex. So long as we
keep more than a handful of weapons, there are threshold levels of
capabilities in the plants and laboratories that will be needed to
maintain the stockpile, regardless of its size.
Thirdly, the problems I shall be discussing today would exist even
if nuclear testing had continued. Our aging stockpile will need to be
assessed and maintained--and new tools and methods will be needed--
regardless of whether we test. Thus, our principal recommendations are
not altered by future decisions concerning continuation or termination
of the current unilateral moratorium on underground nuclear testing.
findings
The Panel focused over the last year on the national capability to
perform the high-priority, day-to-day work of stockpile stewardship--
surveillance, assessments, refurbishments, annual certification, and
production. Our review included visits to the major production
facilities and the national labs, plus presentations from all of the
DOE, plant, and laboratory organizations that play a significant role
in stockpile stewardship.
We found the same major issues as have been reported by other
reviewers, including DOD, the GAO, and DOE itself. In recent years, the
weapons complex has been unable to complete even a very modest workload
on schedule. In large part, this has been due to a lack of investment
needed to prevent deterioration of the production facilities, some of
which are forty-to-fifty years old.
Some specific examples illustrate our concerns:
--Almost a decade after the shutdown of the Rocky Flats plant, we
still have no capability to fabricate the qualified plutonium
pits needed in our nuclear weapon primaries.
--Some critical production facilities for weapons secondaries at the
Oak Ridge Y-12 plant have not been brought back on line since
they were shut down in 1994 for health and safety reasons. DOE
has stored accumulated wastes since that time.
--We have a personnel situation in the nuclear weapon design
laboratories that is quite alarming. Our technical staffs are
frustrated as they see the milestones for stockpile stewardship
continue to slip. Recent security incidents have had a major
negative impact. The rate of departure is up significantly at
all three laboratories this year; acceptance of job offers is
down; and for the first time the labs are losing some of their
most dedicated mid-career staff.
--Finally, to underscore the significance of these problems, we find
that the time of need for these weapon complex capabilities is
upon us. There is already evidence of worrisome deterioration
in nuclear components.
recommendations
Congress took an important step last year by increasing weapon
program funding and establishing the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA). Our report recommends actions that NNSA, the
Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and the Congress
should take to build on these initial steps. In my remarks today, I
will concentrate on the three recommendations that most directly
address problems in the weapons complex.
The first recommendation is to restore the production complex. A
long-term program is needed to redress critical maintenance backlogs in
weapons facilities. We have recommended a ten-year program. DOE
estimates this backlog to be $700-$800 million. Additionally, DOE
estimates indicate an further $300-$500 million per year will be needed
over the next ten years to redress shortfalls in production
capabilities, particularly at Oak Ridge.
Moreover, to meet long-term needs for nuclear components, the Panel
has emphasized the need to begin the conceptual design of facilities
needed for pit production, secondary production, and development work
at the nuclear laboratories.
Secondly, the Panel finds it essential to define, fund, and execute
the work needed to restore and exercise integrated design, fabricate,
and certification capabilities. Maintaining a complete end-to-end
capability is essential for sustaining confidence in the stockpile, and
it is a national priority established in the first Nuclear Posture
Review. The first step is to commit to and fund the weapons work that
we know will be needed over the coming decade. This includes life
extension work on the W76 Trident warhead, the W80 cruise missile
warhead, and the B61 bomb.
Another essential step is to initiate programs for the design of
robust, alternative warheads. These would provide training for new
generations of stockpile stewards, and provide a hedge. Ten or twenty
years from now, our confidence in robust designs based on previously
tested weapons might exceed that in modified versions of today's
weapons, which have been so highly optimized for weight, yield, and
material usage that they have very thin performance margins.
Our third recommendation: Ensure the continued vitality of the
competition of ideas within the system of National Laboratories.
Continued confidence in the stockpile requires continued confidence in
its stewards. We must sustain a strong system of laboratories and
effective processes for engaging their talents in a constructive
competition of ideas on stockpile matters. Each of the nuclear
laboratories should provide a comprehensive review and assessment of
each weapon type, irrespective of its laboratory origin. Rigorous
inter-laboratory review must be employed for major design and
certification issues. Inter-laboratory reviews also must be employed in
preserving data bases and adapting them to new computer codes (through
``dual revalidation''); we do not support DOE's current proposal to
give each lab exclusive rights to individually baseline the data for
the weapons on which it takes lead responsibility.
The labs' working environments also must be conducive to retaining
world-class talent. We support the recommendations of Senator Baker and
Representative Hamilton, which are intended to provide world-class
security while minimizing unnecessary burdens. Some technical staffs
are spending 30 percent of their time on administrative tasks--these
burdens must be better managed by the NNSA.
While I have limited my remarks to our specific findings and
recommendations in these three areas, the Panel has identified a number
of steps NNSA needs to take to improve its management processes,
especially in the area of planning, programming, and budgeting. As
noted in our report, we believe Congress has a vital role to play this
year in ensuring that the vision, programs, and budget for the weapons
program are adequate to sustain deterrence capabilities.
concluding remarks
This Panel is troubled to report that portions of the weapons
complex infrastructure are defective and that the production
capabilities that remain are fragile. There is an increasingly urgent
need for a coherent vision, comprehensive plan, and programmatic
commitment to reverse these adverse trends.
We strongly support the efforts of this Committee to identify and
implement the actions needed to restore the weapons complex to the
condition necessary to sustain a safe and reliable weapons stockpile.
Our national declaratory policy is that the nuclear stockpile is a
supreme national interest in support of nuclear deterrence strategy. If
we are committed to this policy, then priority action is needed to
reverse these adverse trends.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Your statement will
be made a part of the record. Mr. Cummings, you were the staff
editor?
Dr. Schlesinger. This is Mr. Graham.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Graham.
Mr. Graham. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Senator Domenici. How did you come upon such a job? Do you
do this all the time here, different reports?
Mr. Graham. I have been working on nuclear weapons
management complex issues for about the last 5 years. I work in
an organization called the Institute for Defense Analysis. Our
president, General Leary Welsh, has had a lifetime interest in
nuclear matters, and so he has drawn some of the staff into
these issues.
Senator Domenici. Well, I just wanted to compliment you. I
notice every time we let the issues of significance boil up in
the Department of Energy, that underneath them, causing the pot
to boil, are reports, and I have come to the conclusion that
for some reason we have to have too many very good reports
before we do anything up here.
What we did about the Department of Energy, trying to
create some management in the future by creating the
semiautonomous agency that General Gordon produces, that was
preceded by at least five reports that said nuclear weaponry
within the Department of Energy cannot work right because of
the nature of the Department of Energy.
Until we had a big security risk, plus a group following it
that was chaired by former Senator Rudman, which is a powerful
group under statute law of the Nation, they then reported
that--I did not invent the word that it was dysfunctional. They
invented the word within that report, but that was the fourth
report, and we finally did one thing, and it is in the
germinating stage. The General cannot put that together in 4 or
5 months under the rules we have got.
You think we act as if this is a serious problem. He has
got rules that some of the personnel issues will take 6 months
to resolve, but we have to get on with it.
Now, in this regard, I have a question of both of you. With
reference to starting a major maintenance and rebuilding plan,
being brutally frank, the Department of Energy does not have
success rate at building major projects. As they are indicated
from the beginning, and as the specs are drawn and the
commitments made, I do not think they really have a very good
record of getting the job done that way. Overruns are rampant.
We even had to stop some projects because we cannot get them
done.
Should we make some changes of some type in how these
projects are going to be managed, as we put in a revolving fund
of $500 to $800 million, and have projects ongoing? The
General, clearly, if he can do it in NNSA, that is wonderful,
but what about the ability to do projects right?
Dr. Schlesinger. Well, I think that the record is much
worse than is indicated in the Rudman report, Mr. Chairman.
Years ago, back in the Reagan administration, the Department of
Energy was cited in a report for being the model for the U.S
Government, and reviews have gone up and down.
Much of the problem, of course, over the years has been due
to the fact that they are start and stop. Look at the problems
that we have had with regard to the production of nuclear fuel.
We started a program of centrifuge at Portsmouth, back in the
1970's. We have a facility built there.
In the early eighties it was decided by the administration
to abandon that and to move off to California to support laser
isotope separation, so that that money was clearly wasted at
that time, but that was not the problem of the Department of
Energy, and similarly, the decision with regard to the
supercollider I think reflects, what shall I say, political
controversy more than the Department's managerial ability.
In any event, you have established, the Congress has
established a mechanism to handle this. It has put it in the
NNSA under General Gordon. We say in our report that there are
a strong, substantial challenges to the NNSA, but there are
opportunities as well, and since the Congress has established
this semiautonomous body, I think that it is appropriate to let
it run for a while and see how well it does.
Let me say that in 1985, during the Reagan administration,
when we delivered the blue ribbon task force which I was vice
chairman of, we recommended the establishment of an autonomous
body within the Department of Energy to handle nuclear weapons
problems, so it takes a while, but we get there.
Senator Domenici. Did you want to comment?
Mr. Graham. Well, I would add two points, I think. One is,
you had commented earlier on the organizational problems of DOE
as a whole. One of the reasons for that is that when new
problems arise, there has been a tendency to create new
stovepipe organizations to address those problems. That
happened with the environmental safety and health back in the
late eighties, early nineties. To some degree, it happened
again with the security problems in recent years.
I think one principle that should be followed in this area
for that reason is that the responsibility for managing these
new programs I think ought to be within the line of
responsibility of the NNSA, so I would not necessarily
recommend creating some new activity to focus on these
infrastructure problems.
I think secondly, as compared with the Department of
Defense, the Department of Energy historically has not really
focused on program management, but now there are a number of
people in this organization, General Gordon, General Giaconda,
on down, who have that background and bring that background to
management of these programs.
Senator Domenici. Well, I think you have said it better
than I, and to the extent that I correct my previous statement
I will say I think program management is what I should have
been saying instead of project by project, but program
management is not one of the fortes of the Department of
Energy.
In fact, I think it is quite fair to say that they do it
very poorly, but I do think, in conferring with General Gordon,
that they clearly intend, within their jurisdiction and their
autonomous jurisdiction, they intend to be program managers,
and to be much more skilled and dedicated to it, and I commend
them for it, because it has not been easy, when you get big
projects, to find out that they end up being on board in terms
of the early estimates, how long it will take to construct
them, are there any real problems that were discovered while
you are building it.
Those are happening too much now, and you know, if we are
going to do a major building program, they are all very precise
buildings, and they are hard to get done, and they require a
great deal of effort on clearing the environment, clearing the
communities and all, so I know they will be tough, but they
have got to do it.
I do not think we want to change that. It is just that I
think somebody has to program capacity to manage a $500 million
a year ongoing program, which we may end up with six, eight
facilities being constructed.
Mr. Graham. Sir, another thing that will be really helpful
for this is the new focus on developing future year budgets and
programs. You know, having in the past operated on a year-to-
year budget basis, that might have underplayed the emphasis on
some of the long-term problems.
Dr. Schlesinger. Well, it is part of the problem of the
DOE-DOD relationship. The DOD has a future years fiscal program
that goes over the next 6 years. The DOE has 1 year at a time,
and these two programs are supposed to be aligned when there is
no future years programs. It is one of the recommendations that
the panel has made, that we move in that direction.
Senator Domenici. I have one last question, Dr.
Schlesinger. You have been in a position where you had to
experience the relationship of nuclear weaponry, which is not
in the Department of Defense, and the Defense Department and
how they treat and relate to the nuclear weaponry activity
generally, all of those things that General Gordon has.
Is the apparatus, and is it currently effective? That is,
an apparatus that makes sure that the Department of Energy,
Defense knows the needs of the Department of Energy and
supports their needs? Does that exist? Is there a way?
I sometimes wonder, as I work this appropriation bill,
where every year I almost have to go ask for additional money,
because nobody put it in the budget, and it does not seem like
we have got the chairman of the Chief of Staff even
knowledgeable about this problem, or at least not commenting--
excuse me. Would you give me your thoughts on that?
Dr. Schlesinger. Well, that is a complicated matter, Mr.
Chairman. As you know, all of this comes out of the 050
account, which is generally--for the Department of Defense the
largest non-DOD element is the DOE defense program. That
includes, incidentally, the cleanup operations of the
Department of Energy.
That budget goes to the Office of Management and Budget for
approval. It is separate from the DOD, and I think that it is
no secret, and it has been the case this year that the OMB, in
attempting to increase overall DOD expenditures, has been hard
on certain other agencies, including the DOE, so that the
program that had been put forward by the Clinton administration
was cut back by the OMB.
Now, there is nothing that the Department of Defense itself
can do about it. What we see is something that is out of
alignment, and I think that it is the responsibility of the OMB
to see that those are in alignment.
Senator Domenici. Dr. Schlesinger, I see it exactly the
same way, and I see the very large growth now and in the future
of the environmental cleanup account, which comes out of the
Department of Energy's budget, big Department of Energy, and it
goes over to the 150, the DOE function. I see that as something
the Defense Department might very well be concerned about. They
do not govern it, they do not guide it, they are not managing
it, and yet whatever it is comes out of their budget, and it is
a very big amount, and you have alluded to it as growing and
growing.
In any event, I think we have to find some way to get OMB,
the Defense Department, more in line with the problems we are
talking about that are going to beset this program, and are
now, and this year's budget does it again, and pretty tough,
from what I have seen. We cannot stay at that level. We have to
do something about it.
Dr. Schlesinger. Well, that is up to the administration and
the Congress, but I repeat what I said at the outset. Every
time we make a public statement we say that the preservation of
the nuclear deterrent is fundamental to the national military
posture and to the national interest, and those statements tend
to hang out there. When there is a reduced threat, as there is
today, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, we do not seem to
see the same energy put into the preservation of that
capability.
On that question of the cleanup, we discuss in here the
problems at Y-12 in particular, and what has happened is that
certain facilities were shut down at Y-12 in 1994. The result
is that Y-12 has not been able to handle the nuclear byproducts
of its production process, and they are just accumulating at Y-
12.
That is the way you run into trouble. That is why we have
problems at Hanford. That is why you have problems at Savannah
River. If you just accumulate waste, that will have to be dealt
with at some future date, and it adds immensely to the long-
term cost of the program, because you need to have security
officials there to handle the byproducts of the production
process.
Senator Domenici. I will yield now to Senator Thompson. Do
you have any questions?
Senator Thompson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I
appreciate what Dr. Schlesinger just said, and I note that
General Gordon in his statement talk about the panel visiting
Pantex, Oak Ridge, Y-12, Kansas City, and concluded that only a
very small amount of design and production work is actually
being performed, and Dr. Schlesinger's statement says there is
evidence of worrisome deterioration and nuclear components. The
cleanup problem all of its own, and a big one.
But what about elaborating a bit on what you describe as
the fragile nature of the secondary situation down there, the
actual work you are doing. I mean, you made a very convincing
case, I think everyone has, that physical plant, what is going
on there impacts the work that we are supposed to be doing. You
described it as fragile. Could you elaborate on that a bit
more?
Dr. Schlesinger. Well, in a way this is reiteration of what
previously was said, Senator. We send people in hard hats into
facilities in which the roof is crumbling. They are managing to
do their tasks, but under arduous conditions. We have shut
down, for safety and health reasons, some of the facilities at
Y-12. As a result, they have not been able to handle the
byproducts of the process, and they are just accumulating out
there. I would regard that as fragile.
It is not as bad, of course, as the situation with regard
to primaries, in which the United States, probably alone
amongst nuclear powers, is unable to produce a nuclear weapon
today. We have not been able to produce primaries for more than
a decade, and of course the United States has taken on major
international responsibilities, whether it wanted to or had
them thrust upon it, for being the sheriff of the world, and so
we must be certain that our nuclear weapons work, and we are
not investing sufficiently to be able to maintain the stockpile
over the course of the decades ahead.
Senator Thompson. When we read the New York Times, where
the Russians are apparently testing now, in ways that are
giving off nuclear yields, arguably in violation of the
principles of the test ban treaty, although the Russians would
say not, but clearly they are doing something along those
lines, I mean, what does that--to the average person, how
should that impact their thinking in terms of what we are
talking about here today?
Dr. Schlesinger. The first point to be made is that the
decision to go to zero yield was a unilateral decision by the
United States. It is not in the treaty. Nothing in the treaty
defines what a nuclear explosion is, and so we decided that we
would not have any kind of nuclear yield, no matter how small.
Our British and French allies during the negotiations kind
of gulped at that, but they did not protest. The Russians and
the Chinese, other nuclear powers, clearly are not prepared to
accept a definition in which there is no zero nuclear yield,
and if the Russians are experimenting, they may be operating
within the gray area of the treaty.
This was one of the issues, of course, as you well recall,
Senator, with regard to the Senate's vote on the comprehensive
test ban treaty, whether or not we go to zero yield. In 1993,
1994, and 1995, the Department of Defense and the laboratories
recommended that we continue to have low yield experimentations
to see to it that nuclear initiation could take place.
President Clinton decided otherwise, and so the U.S. position
was different, but we are not bound by the treaty. At the
moment, we are bound by the presidential statement.
Senator Thompson. So it seems that our ability to maintain
our stockpile, any assurance is being compromised, because of
all these things we are talking about, at the same time others
are going on and moving at least into those gray areas. I mean,
the world is not standing still because we have decided to
neglect our stockpile responsibilities.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
Senator Reid, we welcome you. You had business, and had to
be a bit late, but it is very good of you to come to the
hearing this morning.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I ask
unanimous consent that my opening statement be made part of the
record as if read.
Senator Domenici. It will be.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Harry Reid
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Gordon, it is always good to see you. Thank you for taking
time out of your busy schedule to join us here today.
Mr. Schlesinger, I would also like to welcome you this morning. I
have read the Foster Report and believe you and the other members or
the panel did a fine job in assessing and compiling the infrastructure
problems in the nuclear weapons complex. We sent you off to look at
these issues for the better part of a year and I think you have
assembled a fair and balanced report. I am grateful for it.
We have, for too long, allowed the physical infrastructure that
supports our nuclear weapons stockpile to deteriorate. The end of the
Cold War has allowed our nation to turn its attention to other areas
and to address other needs. However, the maintenance of our nuclear
stockpile in the absence of testing, must remain an important priority
for our country.
We now live in an age of science-based stockpile stewardship. The
weapon's complex will rely on computers and lasers and subcritical
experiments as well as a pit production process that will eventually
(we hope) deliver a certifiable nuclear pit.
None of this is easy and all of it will cost money. We did not stop
underground nuclear testing in this country because it was cheaper to
do so. We did it because it was the right thing to do.
For stockpile stewardship to work, we need to make sure that our
nuclear workers have the tools, equipment, buildings, and other
resources that will allow them to succeed.
As all of you know, I have been a steady critic of cost-overruns in
the weapons complex.
I was highly critical of the National Ignition Facility last year.
This year that project seems to have righted itself, so I will instead
focus my attention on the even more severe cost-overruns that are now
plaguing the pit production process.
However, those are criticisms of management, not the workers. I
strongly believe that the thousands of employees that make up our
nuclear workforce need to have the proper tools to do their jobs right.
Mr. Chairman, if you will indulge me for one moment, I would like
to share an example of the sort of infrastructure shortcomings that I
think we are both concerned about. It is a shining example of not
giving our employees the proper tools, nor keeping them safe or even
comfortable in their workplaces.
I would like to draw your attention to the photos I have provided.
These are from the Nevada Test Site and they are of the surface support
facilities at the U1a Sub-Critical experimental complex.
Mr. Chairman, this Committee has provided nearly half a BILLION
dollars for subcritical nuclear tests in support of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program.
This photo shows a building called the ``Air Building'' a
``temporary'' support structure that has been in service for nearly 15
years. Close up photos would reveal it's fabric skin to be patched like
an old innertube.
In the distance you can see the ``trailer camp'' of diagnostic and
measurement equipment. Millions of dollars worth of equipment that
measure the instantaneous data bursts from a subcritical experiment.
Mr. Chairman, the vital information we obtain, to say nothing about
the tens of millions of dollars of investment we make in a single
subcritical experiment are dependent on these ``temporary'' flimsy
structures that have outlived their planned usefulness. Diagnostic
Cables and energized electrical lines are laid across the ground to
support these facilities.
The sanitation facility that is adjacent to the Air Building is
also temporary but is just a few years from being placed on the
National Register of Historic Places. These kind of sanitation
facilities are the only type available within miles of this complex.
Mr. Chairman, though this may seem humorous, this whole issue is
deadly serious.
I must tell you that in mid-October of last year; because of the
shorting-out of an aged ``temporary'' buried power cable, over a dozen
miners, engineers and technicians were stranded for a number of hours
underground at this complex with only battery lighting, no fresh air
circulation and no power to the mine head elevator.
There was no back-up power, no generator back-up and only after
hours of being stranded underground the miners were able to leave
through emergency egress.
Though locally this emergency was handled expertly, and all in-
place procedures worked as planned, an Agency that expends billions of
dollars on physics machines in support of science and does not provide
the operational funds to ensure the safety of underground miners is
mismanaging its infrastructure priorities.
The opposite problem exists at the Device Assembly Facility, also
located at the Nevada Test Site. It is quite possibly one of the nicest
buildings in the entire complex, yet it stands virtually unused despite
its $100 million price tag.
Given this strange situation, I think both of you can understand
why I am going to emphasize the need for reams and reams of long-term
planning throughout my remarks today.
Our infrastructure is in bad shape. All of us can agree on that. I
have heard too many stories about leaking roofs, laboratories with no
air conditioning, and offices with no heat, to stand idly by any
longer.
It is time to find the resources and the will to upgrade our
nuclear weapons complex.
There is no short-term fix available, so we are going to have to
plan for a multi-year effort.
More importantly, we need to ensure that we do this the right way.
It is too easy to throw a lot of money at a problem of this magnitude
and come away with little of value. To be successful we must plan.
I have no interest in re-building the weapons infrastructure of the
past. I am only willing to invest in the complex of the future.
Allow me to suggest a principle or two that I believe should govern
our discussions of how to move forward:
As we are developing our infrastructure improvement plans, we need
to constantly ask ourselves what the weapons complex is going to look
like ten or more years from now and what our operating principles are
going to be.
Just as important is how we maintain those critical parts of the
complex that are needed today and tomorrow, as well as ten or more
years from now.
During a period of more than 50 years, we built and operated our
national weapons laboratories as essential elements of our national
nuclear security.
These laboratories represent scientific and technological
capabilities that are unmatched anywhere else in the world and their
objective advice to the Federal Government has been a highly valued
planning asset.
Their objectivity, however, is threatened by their fierce
competition with each other.
These institutions are supposed to be on the same team, working to
the same goals, with their differences reflecting alternative paths to
the same goal.
Their competition used to be in the realm of ideas and concepts.
They provided reality checks for one another, and they provided a
necessary level of technical peer review of one another's ideas and
approaches.
I think the laboratories are still providing technical peer review
of project level activities, but I also think that the reality checks
of the past have withered.
Their competition has left the realm of ideas and concepts and has
moved into the world of dollars and cents.
It appears that if one lab must have something to do its job, the
other labs must achieve equity through some other provision.
I say this because we have all heard the stories that the labs get
together and decide what the spending priorities should be. We have all
heard that an Advanced Hydrodynamics Facility should go to Los Alamos
because the National Ignition Facility went to Lawrence Livermore. And,
for these reasons, the X1 pulsed power facility should be funded for
Sandia.
Instead of competing for the best idea, or for the next stockpile
weapon assignment, as was the practice during the Cold War, the labs
are competing for major construction line items in the budget; and the
competition is much like ``one for you, one for me.''
It seems to be much less driven by what might be the best idea, or
what might be the best way to proceed.
For example, because of noise pollution and contamination of the
ground water with explosive residues at Lawrence Livermore's Site 300
high explosives test facility, a $100 million contained firing facility
was built, even though this facility will never be permitted to test
plutonium targets, one of the most important ingredients of the systems
the facility was developed to test.
The contained firing facility was built to respond to civilian
encroachment around an inherently hazardous activity, but the proximity
of civilian activities, and the very nature of the site, would never
permit the most important activities associated with the purpose of the
facility.
Very similar arguments can be posed for the DAHRT hydrodynamics
test facility at Los Alamos, thought by many to be the precursor to a
necessary Advanced Hydrodynamics Facility.
DAHRT is beset with environmental concerns that will, sooner or
later, prohibit plutonium experiments.
Plutonium experiments are critical to stockpile management, and it
is quite likely that these sophisticated facilities, acquired through
great effort and with great cost, will have to be duplicated at the
Nevada Test Site, where plutonium experiments are permitted.
In another speculative example, if the National Ignition Facility
should succeed beyond our expectations, the experiments that could be
performed will be denied because the Livermore site is not permitted to
conduct experiments that generate such high neutron yields.
I only point this out because the ignorance that causes many to
question the potential success of the National Ignition Facility can
cut both ways. NIF might work far better than we think, and then much
of the investment will have to be duplicated elsewhere to take
advantage of that success.
If X1 is ever built, I think it will be built at the Nevada Test
Site, and I commend Sandia Lab for its foresight in this regard.
We want our national labs to compete, but we want the competition
to be in the arena of ideas and concepts.
To allow the competition to continue along the dollars and cents
path is to encourage the labs to continue their foray into the world of
advertising and marketing.
The current path discourages objectivity by these most capable
institutions, and loss of objectivity is only a short step away from
complete loss of credibility.
The Federal Government must reassert its role as referee of this
competition by removing the financial incentive for major facility
development that today is driving the labs, to their own detriment.
It is time for the Federal Government to assure that these major
investments are designed and sited to assure minimum cost, maximum
effectiveness, and assured utility for their primary purpose.
For example, what health and safety principles are going to govern
where activities are located geographically? As you know, many of the
facilities in the complex were originally sited in remote areas for
safety reasons.
A lot of these places are not so remote any more.
How likely is it that we are still going to be experimenting with
uranium, plutonium, tritium, or other unsafe or hazardous materials in
close proximity to human populations ten or twenty years from now.
I think we all know that the answer is ``Not very likely.''
If these activities will have to be moved to more remote areas,
then we should plan for that now rather than having to build facilities
twice.
We have a very real opportunity right now to build the nuclear
weapon's stockpile infrastructure of the future, but I am not willing
to write the first check if I cannot be convinced that the
infrastructure plan is tightly wrapped to the long-term overall needs
and requirements of the complex.
General Gordon, I have tremendous respect for you and I do not envy
you the job we have asked you to undertake here. If you can show me
that your infrastructure needs are directly related to your future
missions, then I will do everything I can to help you.
Senator Reid. I came here late, knowing I would be late,
knowing we have a vote at 11:00, mainly to indicate how
important I feel this hearing is, and to indicate to anyone
within the sound of my voice the confidence I have in General
Gordon. I think that he, since taking this job, has kept you
and I abreast of what is going on. I have been totally
impressed with his administrative skills, and I have no doubt
that we as a country are better today as a result of his
stewardship.
Of course, I am sorry I missed the Secretary's testimony. I
always look forward to hearing and learning from you the great
wisdom that you have about our Government.
Other than that, I will talk to my staffers. I look forward
to our continued cooperation.
Dr. Schlesinger. May I comment in response to that?
Senator Domenici. Sure.
Dr. Schlesinger. Senator, as you know, this is the second
of the three reports that we are assigned. Next year, we are
going to turn to the question of the readiness of the nuclear
test site which lies in your State to go to testing, and there
are issues that must be decided by the policymakers of the
Government. We probably could get off a test in a year's time,
but it would be a very simple test, and the Congress and the
administration working together will have to decide what degree
of readiness they will want.
We will make a report on the conditions for the renewal of
nuclear testing, but the issue of how ready we must be is
something that must be decided at the policy level.
Senator Domenici. If there is nothing further, I want to
also thank you again for appearing, and for what you did in
preparing the report. Thank you, Dr. Schlesinger.
Dr. Schlesinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENTS
[Clerk's Note.--The subcommittee received several
statements which we will include in the record at this point.]
Prepared Statement of C. Paul Robinson, Director, Sandia National
Laboratories
introduction
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, thank you
for the opportunity to submit this written statement for the record of
the hearing held today. I am Paul Robinson, director of Sandia National
Laboratories. Sandia is managed and operated for the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) by Sandia Corporation, a subsidiary of the Lockheed Martin
Corporation.
Sandia National Laboratories is a multiprogram laboratory of DOE
and is one of the three National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
laboratories with research and development responsibility for nuclear
weapons. Sandia's job is the design, development, and certification of
nearly all of the non-nuclear subsystems of nuclear weapons. Our
responsibilities include arming, fuzing, and firing systems; safety,
security, and use-control systems; engineering support for production
and dismantlement of nuclear weapons; and surveillance and support of
weapons in stockpile. We perform substantial work in programs closely
related to nuclear weapons, such as nuclear intelligence,
nonproliferation, and treaty verification technologies. As a
multiprogram national laboratory, Sandia also performs research and
development for DOE's energy offices, as well as work for other
national security agencies when our unique capabilities can make
significant contributions.
I am pleased to comment on infrastructure management and planning
at Sandia National Laboratories and the nuclear weapons complex as a
whole. The infrastructure requirements for NNSA facilities are an
important issue that must be properly managed for the benefit of all
the vital elements of the NNSA complex. The infrastructure investment
decisions we make today will determine whether the laboratories and
plants can continue to conduct their stockpile stewardship
responsibilities effectively in the years ahead.
infrastructure planning
Sandia National Laboratories actively manages its infrastructure
planning through a formal process that coordinates infrastructure
initiatives to support mission requirements. Sandia's Corporate Sites
Planning Process forms the basis for the actions proposed for a ten-
year planning period. The key objective of the process is to integrate
mission requirements with physical infrastructure capabilities in order
to develop plans for our sites that are aligned with future mission
requirements. This planning process is managed by an Infrastructure
Council of senior executives through its subcommittee, the Corporate
Sites Planning Council.
Annually, the Corporate Sites Planning Council solicits
requirements for mission and support activities, integrates those
requirements with existing physical infrastructure capabilities and
capacities, and proposes a list of specific prioritized actions and
construction projects, including associated funding strategies, to the
Infrastructure Council for approval. The Infrastructure Council
approves requested construction projects and associated funding
strategies based on a ten-year strategic vision. Sandia's funding
sponsors provide final funding approval. The approved list becomes the
Investment Funding Profile, which is an essential part of Sandia's
Sites Comprehensive Plan.
Overall infrastructure investment levels at Sandia have averaged
$88 million annually. This investment includes maintenance, line-item
and general plant projects, expense funded projects, seismic upgrades,
demolition and decontamination of substandard facilities, major
renovations, and restorations. Over the last five-year period, we
invested an average of $10.5 million annually in infrastructure support
systems (utilities, communications, roads, etc.). We pursue a goal of
keeping our utility systems at 90 percent ``good'' condition and 100
percent of required capacity. Current and planned efforts will help us
achieve those goals for most systems within our ten-year planning
period, provided that the required funding is made available.
Sandia's Sites Comprehensive Plan represents our extensive yearly
effort to develop and update both strategic and tactical plans for
development and redevelopment of the physical infrastructure. Sandia's
goal is to develop a five- to ten-year vision for infrastructure as a
means of ensuring that the physical assets are adequate and responsive
to Sandia's evolving mission requirements. Sandia's vision for the
physical infrastructure system sets a common direction for which
detailed tactical action plans and project activities are developed in
line with near-term budget realities. Our Sites Comprehensive Planning
Process helps ensure that the most critical elements of the plan, and
ultimately the corporate vision for the physical infrastructure, remain
intact within a constrained budget environment. The plan shows Sandia's
progress toward the planning targets and the positive trend in moving
toward established, long-term goals.
Sandia has enhanced and expanded its physical infrastructure
program and master planning activities in recent years. Sandia
currently produces program plans supporting integration of line-item,
general plant project, decontamination and demolition, major
renovation, and restoration activities. This ``city planning''
perspective deconflicts the process of locating major facilities and
enables optimization of all our limited resources--land, time, and
funding. The integrated program plans also utilize information gained
from master plans such as our recently completed Telecommunications
Infrastructure Master Plan and our Physical Security Infrastructure
Master Plan, currently in development.
These master plans will be updated periodically and new ones
identified as needs arise. Sandia's continuing efforts to expand and
integrate program and master planning activities support the overall
goal of developing and maintaining an agile, flexible, and responsive
physical infrastructure system in support of mission needs.
major infrastructure initiatives
Sandia continues to plan for and invest in its infrastructure to
meet the evolving mission requirements of DOE/NNSA. Several key line-
item initiatives supporting the programmatic needs of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program are at the forefront of our infrastructure planning
and execution.
Microsystems and Engineering Sciences Application (MESA) Complex
The Microsystems and Engineering Sciences Application (MESA)
complex is the cornerstone of Sandia's initiative to address the need
for microelectronic and integrated microsystems to support a
certifiable stockpile for the future. MESA will provide essential
facilities and equipment to enable teams of weapon system designers and
microsystems specialists to design, integrate, and qualify components
and subsystems for nuclear weapon system assemblies.
Microelectronic components have long been critical to almost every
DOE Defense Programs mission, initiative, and program. Such components
have largely determined the reliability of weapon systems, the
precision of weapon delivery to the target, and the operability of
weapons in the severe environments encountered during delivery.
Satellites that monitor compliance with international arms control
agreements also require the special durability offered by the
radiation-hardened microelectronics for which Sandia has
responsibility.
Components in deployed nuclear weapons are aging, and we will need
to begin replacing some key components within the decade. In many
cases, components cannot be replaced with replicas of the original
designs because they are technologically obsolete and the supplier
base, materials, and design tools to support them no longer exist.
Sandia has no choice but to meet component replacement needs using new
microsystem technology. In addition, Sandia must preserve critical
capabilities in radiation-hardened microelectronics for defense and
space hardware. In 1998 Congress authorized the National Defense
Electronics Partnership which mandates that Sandia retain the
institutional memory for radiation-hardening technology and sustain the
supporting infrastructure for developing radiation-hardened
microelectronics. MESA will provide the required infrastructure to meet
this mandate for future decades.
Facilities Supporting DOE's Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative
Sandia plays a major role in DOE's Accelerated Strategic Computing
Initiative (ASCI), which is the enabling technology supporting NNSA
Defense Programs' Defense Applications and Modeling campaign. ASCI is
developing the advances in computational science and technology that
will enable the shift from test-based methods to computational methods
for stockpile certification.
Sandia will support ASCI with construction of two key facilities at
its major laboratory sites: The Distributed Information Systems
Laboratory (DISL) at Sandia's site in California will develop a
distributed information systems infrastructure required for NNSA
Defense Programs' Virtual Enterprise for Stockpile Stewardship and
Stockpile Management. The Joint Computational Engineering Laboratory
(JCEL) at Sandia's site in New Mexico will be a state-of-the-art
facility for research, development, and application of high-performance
computational and communications technologies.
Test Capabilities Revitalization
This construction line item will modernize Sandia's environmental
testing and experimental infrastructure and associated diagnostic
capabilities to perform tasks for weapons qualification, development,
investigation, surveillance, and model validation. The project will
renovate existing facilities or provide new facilities, subject to
cost-benefit studies. It will provide NNSA with the experimental and
test capabilities required to yield confidence in Accelerated Strategic
Computing Initiative codes and maintain the enduring stockpile as part
of the Stockpile Life Extension Program.
Weapons Evaluation Testing Laboratory
The Weapons Evaluation Testing Laboratory will replace a forty-
year-old facility at NNSA's Pantex Plant. This new construction will
provide a state-of-the-art facility for testing weapon component
devices and implementing advanced diagnostic techniques developed by
the enhanced surveillance campaign. This project is important for
maintaining confidence in the safety, reliability, and performance of
the stockpile without nuclear testing.
Other Infrastructure Line Items
In addition to these major programmatic initiatives, there are two
other line-item projects that are necessary for Sandia's institutional
infrastructure. The first is the Storm Drain, Sanitary Sewer, and
Domestic Water System Modernization, which is intended to rebuild or
revitalize elements of the fundamental infrastructure at the
laboratory. This project is half complete, but funding was withheld in
fiscal year 2001 and allocated to other initiatives. The other project
is the Exterior Communication Infrastructure Modernization (ECIM),
which will replace communication systems in the oldest part of the
laboratory to support modern computing and communications requirements.
Z Accelerator Refurbishment
DOE's Z Accelerator at Sandia National Laboratories provides
critical experimental data to the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Z
produces over fifty times the x-ray energy and a factor of five more x-
ray power than any existing, non-explosively driven, laboratory
facility. It is a major resource for ensuring the safety, security, and
reliability of the nation's stockpile. Sandia has an unfunded need to
refurbish Z to extend its lifetime and improve its performance,
reliability, and shot rate. Planned as a refurbishment rather than a
new construction line item, the project will replace and upgrade
fifteen-year-old hardware and will be accomplished within the existing
Z building and facilities.
In May 2000 an independent review committee chaired by Dr. Richard
Garwin (Fellow Emeritus of IBM's Thomas J. Watson Research Center and a
recipient of DOE's Fermi Award) and composed of experts from the
nuclear weapons laboratories, Department of Defense (DOD), academia,
and industry overwhelmingly endorsed both the programs and the
refurbishment of Z: ``The Committee was unanimous in its belief that an
incremental, cost-effective upgrade of Z . . . is worth pursuing.''
The hardware outside the center module of the accelerator is a
remnant of an older machine and is not sufficiently robust or optimized
electrically for today's configuration. The demand for experimental
time on Z greatly exceeds what we can provide. When the refurbishment
is completed, Z will support significantly more experiments per year.
The refurbishment will also yield higher quality experimental data from
increased precision and reproducibility at even higher energies than
the world-record levels that have already been attained by Z alone.
With full support beginning in fiscal year 2002, refurbishment of
this national asset can be completed by fiscal year 2005 at the
comparatively modest cost of $60 million for design, procurement, and
fabrication of hardware and equipment. DOE, DOD, Sandia's partners at
Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos, and scientists elsewhere will
benefit from this investment. In particular, the refurbished Z will
provide the following benefits to the Stockpile Stewardship Program:
--Accurate material property data at higher pressures for weapon-
relevant materials for four of the Stockpile Stewardship
Program campaigns: Dynamic Materials Properties, Advanced
Simulation and Computing, Secondary Certification, and Inertial
Confinement Fusion;
--An enhanced environment to evaluate radiation flow for the
Secondary Certification Campaign;
--More energetic radiation sources to test non-nuclear components for
the Nuclear Survivability Campaign;
--Insight and confidence in scaling parameters to a next-generation
facility for the Inertial Confinement Fusion Campaign.
Sandia National Laboratories will shortly submit a request to NNSA
to commence the Z refurbishment project in fiscal year 2002.
facilities and infrastructure revitalization initiative
Like other sites across the NNSA complex, Sandia suffers from the
effects of aging infrastructures in need of refurbishment, repair, or
replacement that fall below the level of line-item construction and are
insufficiently supported by general plant projects (GPP) or other
infrastructure funding programs. Infrastructure problems at this level
are chronically understated and deferred, and they accumulate with the
passage of years. Ultimately, this can lead to capability limitations
that can affect the mission.
NNSA recognized that this problem area must be addressed, rather
than be allowed to worsen. NNSA's Facilities and Infrastructure
Revitalization Initiative is an effort to inventory and prioritize
unaddressed infrastructure repair and improvement projects across the
complex. The initiative was intended to support an appropriation
request of $300 million in fiscal year 2002 to help bridge the gap for
essential infrastructure repairs that are unfunded. The multi-year
effort would require a continuous infusion of funds on the order of
$400-$600 million annually for the following five years.
We identified approximately $300 million in items at Sandia
National Laboratories that can benefit from Facilities and
Infrastructure Revitalization Initiative funding during the course of
the next few years. We submitted a list of thirty candidate projects
for a recent inventory conducted by NNSA that can be effectively
addressed in fiscal year 2002. The aggregate estimated cost of those
items is $114 million. These projects would normally be funded through
standard infrastructure programs such as GPP, maintenance, capital
equipment, decontamination and demolition, and infrastructure planning,
but they are perennially deferred for lack of sufficient funding. Some
of these items were aggregated with line-item projects, but
construction line items are subject to long lead times and are often
delayed.
Top priority items on our inventory for NNSA's Facilities and
Infrastructure Revitalization Initiative are sufficiently urgent that
failure to fund them soon will impact weapon program deliverables. For
example, we have an urgent need to refurbish Building 983 which houses
Sandia's Z Accelerator. The building's air handling system must be
upgraded to provide control of airborne debris and consistent
temperature control to maintain acceptable test conditions. Energy
dissipation from accelerator shots has resulted in long-term structural
damage that jeopardizes the operation of an overhead crane. The
building's communications infrastructure and uninterrupted power supply
system, as well as other building systems, must also be replaced.
Certification of weapon component programs for the W76, B61, and W88
could be affected by failure to address the Building 983 issues in a
timely manner.
Another priority item for the Facilities and Infrastructure
Revitalization Initiative is Sandia's Electromagnetic Test Facility.
The existing facility is deteriorating; its twenty-year-old diagnostic
equipment has limited or no capability to support data acquisition for
the development and validation of simulation codes. This modernization
project will improve our capability to perform electromagnetic tests to
qualify the W76, W78, and W80 in accordance with the Stockpile Life
Extension Program (SLEP).
NNSA's Facilities and Infrastructure Revitalization Initiative will
perform a very important service to the Defense Programs mission if it
succeeds in restoring the appropriate balance in funding for
infrastructure improvements that are critical to sustaining mission
capabilities. A carefully constructed Facilities and Infrastructure
Initiative will help Sandia, and the rest of the Defense Programs
complex, deal with longstanding infrastructure challenges. We must have
a more viable Decontamination and Demolition Program to dispose of
obsolete facilities; we must make a stronger commitment to major
renovations and deferred maintenance; we must actively use General
Plant Projects to maintain and revitalize our sites; and development
planning must be enhanced and improved. Typically, a great deal of this
kind of work is deferred to the out-years, although there is no
guarantee that adequate funding will be available then. It is essential
that additional infrastructure revitalization funding be made available
if we are to maintain the laboratories at the level of capability
necessary to support the Stockpile Stewardship Program and attract top
technical staff.
infrastructure challenges and issues
Sandia faces several challenges and issues related to
infrastructure and infrastructure investment planning: lack of
continuity in investment planning at the Defense Programs level;
limited flexibility in investment funding strategies (including funding
sources, amounts, allocations, and scheduling; aging facilities and
site infrastructure; shortage of space both in quantity and type; and
external events that affect infrastructure. The following paragraphs
will give some perspective into each of these challenges.
Lack of Continuity in Investment Planning at the Defense Programs Level
In fiscal year 1999, DOE Defense Programs, its three laboratories,
and the Nevada Test Site negotiated a phased investment plan for line-
item construction projects. This ``Tri-Lab Agreement'' was intended to
permit a logical implementation of the laboratories' projects over
several years to the overall benefit of the program. (Major systems
with total estimated cost exceeding $100 million were not covered by
the agreement). Unfortunately, the Tri-Lab Agreement has not resulted
in a predictable and consistent implementation of line-item
investments.
In the initial agreement, allocations for Sandia's Joint
Computational Engineering Laboratory (JCEL) in New Mexico and
Distributed Information Systems Laboratory (DISL) in California were
deferred for a year to enable Los Alamos National Laboratory to move
forward with its Strategic Computing Center. Those deferrals created
challenges in the execution of Sandia's projects, requiring significant
shuffling of planned scope, sub-optimum contracting arrangements,
increased costs, and undesirable delays. Then, in the planning cycle of
the following year, DOE again deferred the construction starts for JCEL
and DISL.
We have a concern that the next budget may contain insufficient
funds to permit new construction starts in fiscal year 2002. If that
happens, Sandia's JCEL and DISL projects will be deferred yet again to
subsequent years. Insufficient funding would also jeopardize the
construction start for Sandia's major system project, the Microsystems
and Engineering Sciences Application (MESA) complex, which is the
cornerstone of our initiative to address the need for microelectronic
and integrated microsystems to support a certifiable stockpile for the
future. The Weapons Evaluation Testing Lab modernization at NNSA's
Pantex Plant, which is of great importance to Defense Programs'
Enhanced Surveillance Campaign, could also be affected, as well as
NNSA's Facilities and Infrastructure Revitalization Initiative. If
construction starts are not adequately funded in fiscal year 2002, the
magnitude of the line-item funding delays affecting Sandia would be
such that we would lose another year in the construction schedule,
incur unplanned costs to hold projects in idle status, and suffer
reduced purchasing power due to cost escalation.
Experience demonstrates that if fiscal year 2002 is underfunded,
there would be no assurance that adequate funds would be supplied in
fiscal year 2003 to permit deferred construction projects to start.
When this uncertainty is considered in conjunction with needs of other
projects, such as the funding requirements of large systems like the
National Ignition Facility, a loss of funding for construction starts
in fiscal year 2002 would very likely cause project delays well beyond
one year.
Sandia National Laboratories, having previously agreed to postpone
line-item funding with the. expectation of a return to a normal
allocation in fiscal year 2002, may again be in a position of deferring
its construction program for the benefit of other major facility
projects. The result is not only the delay of start-ups for needed
mission capabilities at Sandia, but also a net reduction of NNSA's
capital investment purchasing power attributable to the delays,
ultimately resulting in reductions of scope for crucial investments in
the stockpile management and production sectors of the complex.
As I have indicated previously in other forums, I am not sure
whether the problem is too little budget or too much program. I am
concerned that the allocations within the Defense Programs
infrastructure budget may not be balanced with respect to urgent needs
in stockpile design, management, and production. The investment program
for line-item construction must be prudently managed to provide for the
needs of all sectors of the NNSA Defense Programs complex. We must find
a way to fund our strategic infrastructure investments at a pace that
will bring them into useful service without impacting our ability to
perform needed stockpile work, such as weapons engineering, stockpile
surveillance and support, maintenance, dismantlement, production
support, and especially stockpile life extension programs.
Limited and Inflexible Funding Strategies
Limited investment funding strategies constrain our ability to meet
our infrastructure challenges. The three nuclear weapon laboratories
are about fifty years old, and there is not enough funding to meet all
their infrastructure needs at once. Thoughtful planning will be
necessary to revitalize the current infrastructure while maintaining
capability.
Limited flexibility in funding causes delays in revitalization and
other unintended consequences, such as spending money on a renovation
that would be better spent on building a new facility. We have been
hampered by the lack of flexibility in the use of indirect funding for
capital improvements. We have also been discouraged by the lack of
funding and flexibility in maintaining a decontamination and demolition
program robust enough to keep up with required demolition of obsolete
facilities.
As a multiprogram laboratory, Sandia has many investment issues
looming on the horizon, and as we become a more programmatically
diversified lab, we will need to explore how new sponsors can assume
some ownership for investments required to support emerging programs.
Initiatives to increase flexibility for financing investments with
multiple funding sources and types of funding would help us more
quickly address the infrastructure issue.
Due to the volatility in construction budget planning, major
infrastructure investments are not always made in the most cost-
effective manner. Often, work must be sequenced inefficiently to
conform to inflexible funding profiles. Funding for escalation is not
generally provided when projects are delayed from a contracted baseline
or when additional requirements are mandated as a result of independent
reviews, security directives, and so forth. These factors reduce the
buying power of funds, thereby exacerbating the problem of limited
funding for infrastructure.
Aging Facilities
Like other sites across the nuclear weapons complex, Sandia suffers
from the effects of aging infrastructure. This affects Sandia's ability
to attract and retain personnel, increases operating costs, impacts our
ability to meet security and ES&H requirements, and results in a lack
of agility and flexibility to meet evolving mission needs.
Approximately 45 percent of all our buildings are at least thirty years
old, and many of the utilities serving them are beyond their useful
life.
Many of these buildings and systems carry legacies that today's
environmental, safety, and health regulations do not permit in new
facilities. Fire protection systems and water lines are deteriorating,
with potential risks for health, safety, and asset protection. Out-of-
date communications systems in older buildings are costly to operate
and cannot satisfy the capacity demands of the modern workplace.
Operations and maintenance costs are increasing for outdated energy,
building, and security system repairs because parts are often no longer
available. Much new program equipment requires cleaner, better
temperature-controlled, more modern environments that are not possible
in older facilities.
Space Management Issues
Space at Sandia is currently a scarce commodity. In addition to
growth in programs, some of our space challenges are the result of
changes over the last decade in how people work. Technological advances
in computing and simulation have moved much of the work out of
laboratories into offices. Consequently, offices require more space per
person to accommodate computers, printers, and other devices. New
concepts in work environments such as informal hallway meeting areas,
teleconferencing and multi-purpose conferencing centers, and open areas
for working with industry and universities are becoming more important
to the productivity and success of programs. Increased security
requirements have also challenged our ability to provide appropriate
work space.
Sandia is desperate for new space: 96 percent of our available work
space is occupied (industry guidelines recommend a 92 percent occupancy
rate to allow for needed flexibility). The vacant office space that is
available for use is just 9,500 square feet scattered throughout the
laboratory in 53 different temporary buildings. Some buildings are over
100 percent occupied, meaning that more employees are housed in the
building than was intended by the design. There is not enough space
outside our secure technical areas to house newly hired employees
awaiting clearances. Turnaround space to support our renovation program
is also insufficient.
Sandia's space dilemma makes it difficult to attract and retain
personnel and to quickly respond to new or changing mission directions.
Effects of External Events
Many factors outside Sandia's control affect the cost and operation
of infrastructure. Sandia's utility planning has been complicated by a
number of events, including divestiture and privatization of portions
of Kirtland Air Force Base and other local development issues. We share
the capacity of a central steam plant with Kirtland at our New Mexico
site, but the Air Force has indicated that it plans to construct a new
heating system for its own use. When that occurs, Sandia will bear the
total cost of the antiquated, fifty-year-old steam plant, which is
inefficient and expensive to operate. A complete system replacement
will be needed at some point in the next few years to replace the steam
plant with a new heating system and replace deteriorated steam lines.
Commercial and residential developments adjacent to the California
and New Mexico sites are jeopardizing buffer zones and impinging on the
possible uses of DOE land for programs. We may be forced to relocate or
limit some of our activities depending on their proximity to
residential areas. Deregulation of electric utilities has already
affected energy costs and availability at the California site and may
become an issue in the future at the New Mexico site.
summary and conclusion
Sandia National Laboratories actively manages its infrastructure
planning through a formal process that coordinates infrastructure
initiatives to support mission requirements. We plan our requirements
to meet the strategic mission needs of the National Nuclear Security
Administration. Sandia's leading strategic mission requirement for the
stockpile stewardship program is the Micro-systems and Engineering
Sciences Application (MESA) complex, which will provide essential
facilities and equipment to support the design, integration, and
qualification of components and subsystems for nuclear weapon system
assemblies.
The infrastructure requirements for NNSA facilities must be
properly managed for the benefit of all the vital elements of the NNSA
complex. In this regard, NNSA's Facilities and Infrastructure
Revitalization Initiative can perform a very important service to the
Defense Programs mission if it succeeds in restoring balance in
addressing infrastructure needs across the complex. We face several
challenges and issues related to infrastructure and infrastructure
investment planning, but chief among them is the lack of continuity and
predictability in investment planning at the line-item level. NNSA's
infrastructure investments must be prudently managed to provide a
balanced program supporting the needs of all the sectors of the Defense
Programs complex.
______
Prepared Statement of C. Bruce Tarter, Director, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, University of California
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide a statement on this very important issue. I am
C. Bruce Tarter, Director of the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, one of the three National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) national laboratories. We carry out an integral part of the
Stockpile Stewardship Program to maintain the safety and reliability of
the U.S. nuclear stockpile in the absence of nuclear testing.
Stockpile stewardship is a very demanding program to meet a vital
national interest. It is requiring major investments in new facilities
and capabilities that make it possible for scientists and engineers to
much more thoroughly understand the performance of nuclear weapons. At
Livermore, these investments have led to delivery of Accelerated
Strategic Computing Initiative supercomputers (Blue Pacific and ASCI
White, as well as plans for a third-generation machine), upgrade of our
hydrodynamic test facility to become the Contained Firing Facility, and
construction of the National Ignition Facility, which is under way. The
Stockpile Stewardship Program will not succeed without the new-facility
investments that are being made at the NNSA laboratories. Scheduled
programmatic work at the laboratories and the plants has also placed an
exceedingly high demands on provided funding. The cumulative effect of
necessary continuing attention to the highest and most immediate
priorities over the course of the Stockpile Stewardship Program has
been shortage of funds to recapitalize NNSA's underlying
infrastructure.
A major increase in investments is needed to deal with aging NNSA
facilities throughout the nuclear weapons complex--affecting workplace
quality and, in cases, severely limiting productivity. Over the years,
the Laboratory has depended on our having special facilities and
equipment in an accommodating work environment to attract and retain an
exceptional staff. Sustaining the quality of our workforce is a
particularly challenging task in view of the high demand in the private
sector for skilled people. The task is made more difficult by the
continued aging of our facilities without major reinvestment. The
situation at our Laboratory and other NNSA sites cannot be rectified
without substantial new funding to revitalize the NNSA nuclear weapons
complex--the laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, and the production
sites. My testimony focuses on three major points about
recapitalization of the NNSA weapons complex:
--Investments are needed complex wide.--NNSA has assessed that
funding requirements for facilities are about $1.3 billion per
year, while the current funding averages about $650 million per
year--a significant shortfall that is a consequence of the many
competing high-priority demands on the Stockpile Stewardship
Program. The necessary repair or replacement of antiquated NNSA
facilities will require a sustained program of new investments.
--Livermore is prepared to wisely and efficiently implement
additional investments in its infrastructure.--To effectively
manage the Laboratory's aging infrastructure, we have in place
a well-tested methodology for prioritizing recapitalization
investments, and we have demonstrated cost-effective approaches
for dealing with aging facilities. To make significant headway
on reducing a backlog of deficiencies, we need more funding.
--Complex-wide investment planning will be challenging.--We are
providing input and support to NNSA's Facilities and
Infrastructure Recapitalization Plan. The planning efforts must
balance priorities and take into account the long-term facility
needs of all sites--a major challenge in view of dynamic future
requirements for refurbishment and production.
the need for nnsa infrastructure recapitalization
The NNSA Weapon Complex's Aging Infrastructure.--To meet the
demanding goals of the Stockpile Stewardship Program, the NNSA
laboratories must thoroughly understand the physics and engineering
performance of weapons based on non-nuclear experimentation and
computer simulation. That, in turn, requires leading-edge research and
development facilities at the laboratories and the Nevada Test Site. In
parallel, NNSA's production facilities must support requirements to
extend the lifetime of weapons currently in the stockpile and to meet
any future needs for production of new weapons. Refurbishment and
production activities need to be conducted safely, efficiently, and in
an environmentally responsible manner.
Many mission-supporting facilities at the laboratories' sites are
nearly fifty years old or older. Some need replacement immediately. The
others are particularly demanding for maintenance to keep them
adequate, and over time, all need rehabilitation or replacement. At
Livermore, only 60 percent of our employees currently reside in
permanent space, and 70 percent of the temporary office space (trailers
and other temporary structures) is nearing or beyond end of service
life. Such working conditions are not conducive to retaining and
attracting the exceptional workforce that we need to accomplish our
mission.
The situation is dire at the production sites. Many production
facilities are outmoded with antiquated equipment. Activities have
ceased in some areas because of safety and health concerns, and in
other areas, such as the manufacture of weapon pits, there are no
existing production-scale capabilities. The pace of work on the W87
Life Extension Program is being limited by conditions in the plants.
The challenge will be even greater with the planned growth over the
next decade in the amount of life-extension work.
Recognition of the Problem.--NNSA and Defense Programs within NNSA
(NNSA/DP) clearly recognize the problem, and they are working to
improve management of the NNSA infrastructure. A particularly
noteworthy step was taken in 1999 with the development of a new
management strategy that features ``Readiness in Technical Base and
Facilities'' as one of the three major integrating elements in the
Stockpile Stewardship Program (``Directed Stockpile Work'' and
``Campaigns'' are the other two). The revised program strategy,
implemented in response to evolving demands, recasts the Stockpile
Stewardship Program into a set of activities that more clearly
establish program goals and budget priorities and helps to identify
program risks if there are budget shortfalls. Readiness in Technical
Base and Facilities requires investments to be made in people, special
facilities, and supporting infrastructure to conduct the program today
and to have in place the needed capabilities as more challenging issues
arise in the future.
In December 1999, ``The 30-Day Review'' of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program, conducted for the Secretary of Energy, stated in
its findings that ``DP faces significant challenges in the next decade
with regard to the facilities and infrastructure needed to preserve the
U.S. nuclear deterrent.'' In particular, the study cited findings by
the Department of Defense (DOD) Comptroller's Office of Program
Analysis and Evaluation that DOE's rate of reinvestment in facilities
(0.8 percent of replacement value) is less than the norm of industry
and the DOD (2 to 4 percent of replacement value). The 30-Day Review
also reported that 70 percent of the facilities at Y-12, 80 percent of
the facilities at the Kansas City Plant, 50 percent of the facilities
at Los Alamos National Laboratory, 40 percent of the facilities at
Pantex, and 40 percent of the Savannah River tritium facilities are
more than 40 years old. At Livermore, about 30 percent of our space is
more than 40 years old.
The aging of the NNSA weapons complex was also a focus of concern
in the Foster Panel report of February 1, 2001 (Fiscal Year 2000 Report
to Congress of the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and
Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile). One of the panel's
major recommendations is to ``restore missing production capabilities
and refurbish the production complex.'' The report states that ``NNSA
must plan and execute a ten-year program to restore needed production
capabilities'' and cites a DOE estimate that the maintenance backlog is
$700-$800 million. A recent General Accounting Office report (Nuclear
Weapons: Improved Management Needed to Implement Stockpile Stewardship
Program Effectively, December 2000) also provides many examples of
antiquated facilities within the weapons complex.
The NNSA/DP Infrastructure Recapitalization Initiative.--Motivated
by the findings of The 30-Day Review, NNSA/DP launched a concerted
effort to improve facilities and infrastructure management by
instituting better processes for strategic planning, budgeting, and
execution. The goal was to develop an NNSA/DP Facilities and
Infrastructure Management Plan through a corporate approach to the
problem and to institutionalize the processes that were implemented. We
are fully supportive of the effort, and our Laboratory and other sites
in the complex are contributing to it.
During the first phase of the effort, planning activities focused
on reviewing assessments of the condition of the complex and
establishing an integrated baseline of costs for facilities and
infrastructure upgrades. In short, NNSA/DP assessed that funding
requirements are about $1.3 billion per year, while the current funding
averages about $650 million per year--a significant shortfall. The
shortfall means that current funding for the Stockpile Stewardship
Program is not sufficient to restore the health of the weapons complex.
New monies are needed to prevent further deterioration of the complex
and over time, restoring it to better health. The NNSA/DP
Infrastructure Recapitalization Initiative is intended to provide much
needed funds for facility maintenance and restoration, general plant
projects, capital equipment, and decontamination and demolition of
legacy facilities.
the situation at lawrence livermore national laboratory
The Needs for Recapitalization at Livermore.--We strive for a work
environment at Livermore that attracts top-notch employees, enhances
workforce productivity, and helps ensure programmatic success. This
requires modern facilities at the Laboratory, designed and sized for
current and future operations and well maintained at competitive costs.
A core strength of Livermore is its unique, state-of-the-art research
facilities, but we also have many aging facilities. A poignant example
is provided by the delivery of Accelerated Strategic Computing
Initiative (ASCI) Blue Pacific, at the time the world's most powerful
supercomputer. We had to repair the leaky roof of the building in which
the machine was to be housed.
Overall, 14 percent of Livermore's office and laboratory space is
in need of major rehabilitation and nearly 30 percent of the space is
in need of minor rehabilitation. Older facilities typically are more
expensive to maintain and usually have higher costs associated with
safe and healthy operations. Our overall maintenance backlog is about
$330 million if funded with programmatic dollars. In addition, our
requirements for space are changing. Livermore's mission increasingly
demands greater computational capabilities and high-technology office
buildings rather than experimental laboratory space. Other than funding
for line-item construction of major new facilities, since the mid-1990s
our infrastructure reinvestments have been in the range of $25 to 50
million per year in programmatic dollars for a site with a plant
replacement value of $3.1 billion. We need additional funding to reduce
the backlog and/or construct replacement facilities.
Reduction of the maintenance backlog is not the only issue we face.
Obsolescent equipment needs to be replaced. For example, the Laboratory
struggles to keep pace with rapid advances in telecommunications
capabilities, which are critically needed to efficiently and securely
use our supercomputers and to upgrade our business operations. In
addition, the Laboratory has legacy facilities from long-discontinued
programs as well as outdated and unusable or unsafe laboratory space
that must be decommissioned, decontaminated (where necessary), and
demolished. Livermore's legacy facilities and other excess marginal
space require considerable up-front investments to rectify. Finally, we
also have to invest so that buildings at Livermore meet present-day
codes and the latest, more demanding seismic safety criteria. Executive
Order 12941 required a reassessment of Laboratory facilities. We found
that 83 buildings (not exempt from the order) may be deficient with
respect to the seismic safety evaluation criteria and require more
detailed study. We have completed detailed evaluations of six (of eight
identified) high-priority buildings, complete with conceptual design of
upgrades and cost estimates to mitigate deficiencies.
Effective Processes for Prioritizing Investments and Managing Aging
Facilities.--One of the findings of The 30-Day Review is that the
Stockpile Stewardship Program is under considerable stress, and one of
the consequences has been lower-than-historic levels of funding for
infrastructure line items and general plant projects, particularly
since the mid-1990s. The Laboratory has had to attend to our
infrastructure needs through internal investments. We have pursued a
strategy that balances maintenance of mission-critical aging
facilities, rehabilitation of older facilities, consolidation of
activities as mission priorities change, and efficient management of
legacy facilities.
In the same time period, Livermore launched a Cost Cutting
Initiative to lower indirect costs through identification and pursuit
of opportunities to re-engineer many operations functions. Success in
that initiative lowered our overhead and support expenses from about 33
percent of operating costs in fiscal year 1995 to less than 25 percent
in fiscal year 1999. We have reinvested some of the cost savings in the
Laboratory's infrastructure. To ensure effective investment of limited
funds, I appointed an Institutional Facility Manager (IFM) in 1997. The
IFM serves as the focal point for developing and implementing a long-
term strategy for managing facility and infrastructure investments at
Livermore.
The Laboratory has since become more effective in aligning
infrastructure investments to mission priorities and in meeting
essential institutional demands. In fact, a recent General Accounting
Office study of facilities management in the Department of Defense
(Military Infrastructure: Real Property Management Needs Improvement,
September 1999) cited the approach used at Livermore for property
management as a set of practices that should be used much more widely.
Because of this external recognition, the Laboratory has hosted visits
from several military organizations to assist their efforts in finding
ways to improve their maintenance management. More recently, we have
entered into a dialogue with Los Alamos to share mutually beneficial
processes.
To better manage the maintenance backlog, we developed and continue
to refine a planning process for work prioritization based on two
important criteria. One, the importance of the backlog item to
accomplishment of the programmatic mission is determined by
programmatic input, while the second criteria, probability of failure
of the backlog item is assessed by Laboratory maintenance personnel.
Projects that rank highest in both criteria are ``A list'' items that
require immediate attention. The top three categories, which comprise
all items that should be addressed within three years, constitute the
Laboratory's Essential Backlog, representing approximately 20 percent
of the total backlog. The process assures that the most essential items
are addressed with planned expenditures of Laboratory Facility Charges,
which are levied on building ``owners'' to support maintenance costs.
We use our Facility Assessment and Ranking System (FAaRS) to select
facility candidates for rehabilitation or removal. To meet the
Laboratory's office space needs, we are rehabilitating older facilities
identified through FAaRS as being fundamentally sound and possible to
return to ``good'' condition cost effectively. In this connection, we
are pursuing innovative methods for renovation. For example, a recent
pilot project brought one of our World War II-era building complexes
with over 100 offices up to good condition (an additional 15 years of
life) at a very affordable cost.
Similarly, we completed in fiscal year 1999 a pilot project
demonstrating a new approach for safe and cost-effective demolition of
contaminated (chemistry) facilities. There were no incidents, injuries,
or lost/restricted workdays in this project, which included a thorough
implementation of Integrated Safety Management as part of the work
plan. Through the use of state-of-the-art sampling, near-real-time
chemical and radiological analysis, and highly precise removal of
contaminants, we were able to minimize radioactive and conventional
hazardous wastes and significantly reduce the cost of this
decontamination and demolition (D&D) project.
Additional Funding Needed.--Through the use of the prioritization
methods and innovative rehabilitation and D&D processes we have
piloted, the Laboratory has in place effective means for managing its
infrastructure--but we do not have enough funding to make headway at
reducing accumulated problems. Accordingly, our input into NNSA/DP's
Infrastructure Recapitalization Initiative totals $65.8 million for
fiscal year 2002, with $38.2 million for high priority items. Some of
the 12 high-priority maintenance, general plant projects, capital
equipment items include replacement of electrical power systems in
aging facilities, a number of building renovation projects, and
investments in High-Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters to more
effectively ensure that our high environmental standards continue to be
met. Two other high priority projects include a D&D project and a
scoping and design study for rehabilitation of a major building complex
at our site.
meeting the long-term needs of the weapons complex
The NNSA weapons complex will not be able to make headway on its
deficiencies in facilities and infrastructure without adequate multi-
year funding for the Infrastructure Recapitalization Initiative. An
infusion of new dollars is vitally important, and processes have been
developed at our Laboratory--and complex-wide through NNSA/DP's
Infrastructure and Facilities Management Plan--to ensure that the funds
are applied to meet the highest priority, integrated needs of NNSA. The
immediate needs of each of the sites have been identified in the
integrated plans for fiscal year 2002, and problems will only grow if
funding is not forthcoming.
In developing the overall Infrastructure and Facilities Plan and
the new initiative, NNSA/DP has accomplished three particularly
important objectives. First, the effort substantiated assessments of
the condition of the weapons complex and estimates of the size of the
shortfall in funding for facilities and infrastructure. That work
provides the basis for the proposed funding for the Infrastructure
Recapitalization Initiative. Second, the plan provides a complex-wide
integrated list of priority work that needs to begin immediately,
together with projected costs. Finally, an effective planning process
was developed and implemented that can be used and continually improved
upon in future years. That is important because understanding the
detailed needs for the production facilities and laboratories is a
dynamic process.
The development of detailed plans on how to modernize facilities to
most effectively support the research and production needs of the
Stockpile Stewardship Program is a challenge. Plans for the
laboratories and the Nevada Test Site are closely linked to the
program's campaign strategy and are fairly well mapped out. The
situation is far more dynamic for the production facilities, where
requirements depend on the size of the stockpile, estimates of when
weapon components have to be refurbished or replaced, and details about
life-extension programs that have to be worked with the DOD. Hence, it
is important that the laboratories be fully engaged in the planning
process--contributing to the establishment of requirements, development
of feasible work schedules, and consideration of new production
processes. We are also contributing to the planning methodology by
offering the lessons learned from our experiences.
summary remarks
Stockpile stewardship is a very demanding program to meet a vital
national interest. It is requiring major investments in new facilities
and capabilities that make it possible for experts to much more
thoroughly understand the performance of nuclear weapons. Scheduled
programmatic work has also placed an exceedingly high demands on
provided funding. The cumulative effect has been shortage of funds to
recapitalize NNSA's underlying infrastructure. Substantial new
investments are needed to upgrade facilities and infrastructure
throughout the NNSA nuclear weapons complex. The new funding for a
multi-year Infrastructure Recapitalization Initiative will enable NNSA
to deal with a significant shortfall of monies so that antiquated
existing facilities can be repaired or replaced. At Livermore, we have
pressing needs for recapitalization of facilities through investments,
which are prioritized by a well-tested methodology. In addition, we
have demonstrated cost-effective methods for dealing with aging
facilities--whether appropriate action be rehabilitation or
decontamination and demolition. We need these improvements to aid in
attracting and retaining exceptional staff.
Through the development of a Facility and Infrastructure Management
Plan, NNSA/DP has put into place a planning process to integrate and
prioritize complex-wide needs. We support that planning process, and
the Laboratory will help NNSA/DP to continually improve the process and
to better understand the long-term needs of the complex, which will
evolve as we better understand the needs of the stockpile.
______
Prepared Statement of John C. Browne, Director, Los Alamos National
Laboratory
laboratory mission
Thank you for this opportunity to provide a statement on the
infrastructure needs at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Laboratory
is one of three multi-program scientific institutions supported by the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) in the Department of
Energy. We are managed by the University of California and our mission
is to
--Ensure the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons
stockpile
--Reduce threats to U.S. security with a focus on weapons of mass
destruction
--Provide technical solutions to national security problems in
energy, environment, infrastructure, and health.
statement of the problem
The entire nuclear weapons complex managed by the DOE/NNSA--the
production plants and laboratories--is faced with serious aging
problems that threaten our ability to carry out the stockpile
stewardship mission. To continue to work effectively on these DOE/NNSA
missions, our Laboratory needs outstanding scientists and engineers
working in state-of-the art facilities. Unfortunately, our facilities
have deteriorated badly. Buildings, roads, sewer systems, electrical
power grid and other critical infrastructure are approaching fifty
years old and are crumbling at an alarming rate. The ability to conduct
our programmatic mission is clearly at stake. A dedicated
revitalization effort is crucial for the long-term viability of this
Laboratory.
background
Major segments of the Laboratory, and indeed the entire NNSA
weapons complex, were constructed for Cold War missions in the 1950's
and 1960's. Over half of Los Alamos National Laboratory's 2000-plus
structures are greater than 40 years old and require significantly
increased levels of funding for sustainability, including safety,
maintenance and energy use. Many of the older facilities were built
prior to the adoption of modern design and energy consumption codes and
standards. Many of these aging facilities are becoming ineffective in
serving ongoing mission needs. Approximately 40 percent of all
Laboratory funding supports facilities, infrastructure, or
construction. While the Laboratory is committed to safe and secure
operation of all facilities, these costs are becoming disproportionate
relative to program funding. These facilities have served the
Laboratory well but now need significant rehabilitation or replacement
to reverse this trend. The figure below shows a building condition
analysis.
The result of not addressing these aging and failing facilities
will be decreased reliability and effectiveness, undesirable conditions
for staff recruiting and retention, increased maintenance and utility
costs, and ultimately failure of the facilities and failure or delay to
execute our assigned tasks. While the Laboratory will continue to
operate facilities only if they are safe and secure, we are running
many facilities to failure. At the present state of affairs, we cannot
assure sustainability of our facilities to fulfill our mission.
statement of solutions
We believe that there are three distinct areas that must be
addressed in order to ensure infrastructure sustainability to meet our
mission. Those three areas include:
--1. Implementing formal facilities consolidation efforts and cost
reduction initiatives to reduce facility footprints, which in
turn reduces operating costs and improves safety, security, and
scientific interactions;
--2. Addressing unfunded high-priority facility maintenance backlogs
before these backlogs become expensive emergency repairs; and
--3. Investing in new construction projects, where appropriate and
economically feasible, to ensure that the Laboratory can meet
programmatic mission needs over the next twenty to forty years.
Each of the areas identified above requires commitments to achieve
positive results. The return on investment can be realized through
reduced operating costs (maintenance and energy) and increased
technical productivity to achieve mission requirements. In addition,
each area addresses safety and security needs and allows Laboratory
facilities to be sustainable over the next 20 to 40 years. Our planning
efforts in these three areas are in different phases of development.
Some projects have validated costs while other projects are in
conceptual development; their costs will be validated using the
established NNSA procedures.
1. Formal Facilities Consolidation and Cost Reduction Initiatives
Our Cold War era facilities, while robust for the times, no longer
effectively address today's mission. Present facilities are larger than
now required, inefficient to operate, and in need of significant--often
urgent--maintenance and repair. The best solution is a set of new
facilities with a smaller footprint, and the rehabilitation and
modernization of existing facilities where feasible, with attention to
more energy efficient design and better operability for mission
requirements. Consolidation plans at Los Alamos include:
--A $60M investment to consolidate our weapons engineering division,
yielding a reduction of 30 percent space or 300,000 sq. ft.
within its organization. Implementation of the plan would
result in facility operations savings of $12M/year, in addition
to improved safety, security, and scientific interactions.
Other technical divisions at Los Alamos are completing similar
plans, with comparable investments and savings.
--Weapons supporting science activities consolidation. This project
purpose is to consolidate the majority of scientists and
capabilities working on supporting research, in areas such as
materials, computations, chemistry, and physics, into modern
laboratory and high-tech office facilities. More efficient
designs, smaller footprints, and consolidation of programmatic
needs will result in better operability for mission
requirements, decreased maintenance requirements, and improved
space utilization, productivity, and energy-efficiency.
2. Addressing Unfunded High-Priority Facility Maintenance Backlogs
The current overall state of Los Alamos facilities is well below
acceptable national standards. Close to half of current Los Alamos
space is rated in the ``poor'' or ``fail'' condition. The costs
associated with maintaining aging facilities is growing at a faster
rate than budgets. A backlog of unfunded, urgent corrective maintenance
continues to grow at Los Alamos. Maintenance efforts will be focused
only on those facilities that will continue to operate after the
consolidation is complete. However, even with the implementation of
serious consolidation efforts identified above, the backlog of unfunded
maintenance must be addressed. Within our existing budget guidance, we
are not able to address this expanding list of unfunded maintenance on
aging facilities. We have been able to complete only the most urgent
and most serious emergency repairs. There are many top-priority
maintenance projects that need to be completed, but we have not been
successful in obtaining funding to address all of these needs.
A formal identification, planning, and prioritization effort has
been implemented at LANL to identify the most urgent needs. While many
of these identified concerns await funding, they become more costly as
vulnerable situations turn into emergency conditions. Los Alamos has
identified needs of $100M annually of urgent maintenance funding that
must be addressed over a 5-6 year period to address the bow-wave of
backlog concerns. These requests have been included within the NNSA/DP
Facilities and Infrastructure (F&I) Initiative. The nation needs to
address critical F&I needs in the entire Nuclear Weapons Complex with a
new, dedicated, multi-year, complex-wide revitalization program.
3. Investing in New Construction Projects
Over the past several years, Los Alamos has developed a long-range
site plan to address many of the problems we face. We continue to
update these efforts annually as facility condition assessments are
reviewed, and as infrastructure needs are identified, addressed, or
completed. Where appropriate and economically feasible, to ensure that
LANL can meet programmatic mission needs over the next twenty to forty
years, the NNSA should invest in new construction. Even with
consolidation efforts and maintenance backlog work-off, it is clear
that it is not economically feasible to extend the life of all
facilities. Those facilities should be replaced that are becoming
ineffective in serving ongoing missions, or no longer meet current
standards for operations, safety, and/or security.
A formal, risk-based prioritization method developed by Los Alamos
planners is used to determine the ranking of proposed projects. This
prioritization looks at programmatic requirements, safety requirements,
security requirements, overall institutional need, and links to
existing plans, capabilities, and requirements within the DOE complex.
This prioritization method was used to develop the scope of the
rehabilitation effort needed in response to the Cerro Grande Fire in
May 2000.
New construction projects would be managed utilizing formal project
management tools such as baselining and change control. Our recent
positive experience with new construction at LANL has established
working relationships with industry that would be followed in any
future projects. The new construction projects required to meet the
stockpile stewardship mission at LANL are:
--Central Laboratory Site Revitalization--Total $138M (validated).--
Our planning effort identified two new construction projects
that address existing life safety issues, high operations
costs, high maintenance costs, and security concerns at the
most populated site at Los Alamos. The existing facilities that
house nuclear weapon designers, supporting scientists,
laboratory administration, environmental health and safety
personnel, and the Laboratory health clinic are 50 years old
and in poor condition. Due to the age of the facility
infrastructure, there are electrical system risks, mechanical
system failure, high energy costs, high maintenance costs, and
limited system reliability. The estimate includes the
construction of new facilities, in addition to the
decommissioning and demolishing of vulnerable facilities within
this core technical area at Los Alamos.
--Integrated Nuclear Materials Complex--Total $550M (still in
conceptual phase, cost not validated).--This plan consolidates
LANL nuclear materials facilities to meet existing mission
requirements within a single security boundary at Technical
Area 55 (Plutonium Facility) at Los Alamos. Two projects have
been proposed to replace 50+ year old aging nuclear facilities,
including the Chemistry and Metallurgical Research (CMR)
Facility Replacement and the relocation of TA-18, which is the
Los Alamos Criticality Experiments Facility. In addition to the
two new construction projects, funding is required to address
facility life-extension of the now 20-year old plutonium
facility being utilized in plutonium pit production.
Infrastructure upgrades would be completed over the next 8 to
10 years and extend the useful life of TA-55 through 2030.
--Utilities Infrastructure Upgrades--Total $100M (cost reflects
highest priority items).--A series of five utility projects are
needed to address the aging electrical infrastructure at Los
Alamos. Examples of projects include a new high-voltage
powerline into the Laboratory site to provide reliability
improvements for the Laboratory power grid, and a new gas
turbine generator to provide risk reduction of brownouts during
peak electrical power demands and local power generation
against power grid outages that put Lab facilities at risk.
--Security and Safeguards Infrastructure Projects--Total $250M
(validated).--This set of projects for physical security
upgrades to Los Alamos facilities includes security fences,
perimeter access control, interior alarms, and control systems
required to meet new DOE security standards.
concluding remarks
Ten or more years ago, the long-term outlook for the nuclear
weapons complex and budget was uncertain, but the requirement to ensure
the safety and reliability of the nation's nuclear deterrent remained.
During this period, Los Alamos and much of the rest of the nuclear
weapons complex sacrificed continual reinvestment for the future in
favor of short-term operational needs. After formulation of the
Stockpile Stewardship Program, some new facility construction did
occur. These items, such as the Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic
Testing facility and the Strategic Computing Complex at Los Alamos, are
dedicated to new capabilities and provide for refurbishment of some
existing facilities and infrastructure. These projects have also
enabled the Laboratory to strengthen our construction management
organization.
With existing operating funds, we have been able to complete some
urgent maintenance at our aging facilities, but this only scratches the
surface. Only the utmost top-priority issues are addressed, while the
backlog of unfunded maintenance continues to grow as facilities age.
The demands placed on the safety and security infrastructure from
increased regulation and oversight has also stressed our resources. We
are still running many buildings to failure.
The general run-down condition of facilities in the nuclear weapons
complex has been noted recently in several reviews chartered by
Congress and the Administration. For example, the Chiles Commission
identified the need to ``eliminate problems of maintenance of equipment
and facilities, and modernization of equipment,'' in the context of
enhancing recruitment and retention of a quality workforce. The U.S.
Commission on National Security wrote in January 2001 that ``the
physical circumstances in which lab professionals work have also
deteriorated, in many instances, to unacceptable levels.''
Congress created the NNSA to deal with many of these problems, and
now we must put in place the measures for success. One of these
measures is a viable nuclear weapons complex for the future. The best
way to ensure that the necessary reinvestment occurs in the facilities,
infrastructure, and construction base is to provide the resources
through a dedicated budget initiative. We strongly endorse the NNSA/DP
Facilities and Infrastructure funding initiative. We believe the top
priority construction projects must be completed in the next 10-15
years to ensure that the nuclear weapons complex has a safe, secure and
reliable infrastructure to ensure that programmatic missions can be
accomplished.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Domenici. General Gordon, as you know, we all look
forward to great accomplishments in your new Department, and
thank you so much. We will be working with you. We will try to
do a little better job of getting you some resources than is
currently planned and what we think the budget is. We will work
hard at that with you. Thank you so much.
We are recessed.
[Whereupon, at 10:53 a.m., Tuesday, March 13, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:50 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senator Domenici.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
STATEMENTS OF:
J. WILLIAM McDONALD, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PACIFIC NORTHWEST
REGION
RONALD JOHNSTON, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, CUP COMPLETION ACT OFFICE
ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT WOLF, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM BUDGET AND LIAISON
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. The hearing will please come to order. I
apologize for being late and in advance I apologize for having
to leave early, but somehow or another we'll get today's
hearings in on both the Bureau of Reclamation and Corps of
Engineers.
Today we are going to begin the Energy and Water
Subcommittee's 2002 budget hearings with the Bureau of
Reclamation. I hope that the Bureau of Reclamation people would
come on up and take their seats. There will be two panels, and
as a subcommittee tradition dictates, this year we will begin
with Bureau of Reclamation in the first panel, and the second
one would be the Corps of Engineers. As we have told you
already, the Corps will be this afternoon at 3 o'clock in a
different hearing room than this.
The subcommittee that meets here today has jurisdiction
over water resources as they pertain to the Federal
Government's commitments and/or obligations. That is the Bureau
of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers, essentially. Both
agencies are responsible for managing the natural resources in
a cost effective manner while balancing the needs of diverse
users. I believe that the mission of these two agencies will
only become more increased over time and the Bureau of
Reclamation will have bigger and tougher missions.
That being said, I am concerned about the Administration's
2002 request. I think the Bureau has been underfunded, and the
Corps of Engineers, and both of them to such an extent that we
will have to determine if those numbers are to hold up, whether
the two agencies can effectively carry out their mandated
missions for this coming year.
Even though budgets are tight, I am concerned that no one
is working to address the longer term problems, that the aging
infrastructure is one of the problems that we all can put some
time into, and over the long run, these may be very serious
problems.
The country has an aging water resource infrastructure.
Approximately 50 percent of the Bureau of Reclamation's dams
were built in 1900 and 150 before the current state of the art
construction techniques were around.
So I want to move on, talk about the impact of the 2002
budget request on both the agencies. First, I would like to
begin with the Bureau. The Bureau is responsible for 348
reservoirs, 58 hydroelectric power plants and more than 300
recreation sites.
The Bureau's request totals $783.5 million for 2002, which
is a $13.3 million decrease from last year's enacted level. The
Administration is proposing the appropriation of about $648
million for 2002, which is a $31 million cut from this year.
This type of program, the types of program that falls under
this account include construction, dam safety, site security,
and I think we know the rest of them.
The bulk of the work that the Bureau does falls under this
account, which is effectively, as I indicated here, being
reduced by $31 million. Most items in the budget are getting a
4 percent increase, with certain priority items getting more
than that. The question is whether this is the time to be
reducing these two accounts, and we are going to now have Bill
McDonald, the acting Commissioner of the Bureau. Glad to have
you here, Mr. McDonald, and hopefully you will be able to go
into some detail on these budgets for 2002 and to the extent
that Mr. Johnston or--would you state your name?
Mr. Wolf. Bob Wolf.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF J. WILLIAM MC DONALD
Mr. McDonald. I very much appreciate the opportunity to
appear before the committee. My name is Bill McDonald. I am the
acting Commissioner of Reclamation, and I am the regional
director of the Pacific Northwest Region. Good to see you
again.
Ron Johnston is representing the Central Utah Project
Completion Act appropriation request, Office of Assistant
Secretary for Water and Science. He has his own statement, and
will speak for himself. Bob Wolf is Reclamation's Director of
Program, Budget and Liaison and will assist me. We certainly
appreciate the opportunity to present the President's budget
request to you, Mr. Chairman. We have a written statement for
the record, and I will ask that that be submitted for the
record, and I will simply summarize.
We certainly thank the committee for your continuing
support for the Reclamation program. In a drought like this, we
are reminded of the importance of the West's water
infrastructure. Snow packs are generally only running 45 to 85
percent of average as of the April 1 snow course measurements,
and forecasts across the West are ranging only around 30 to 70
percent of average. The shortage of water supplies would be far
worse without the benefit of Reclamation projects, and stream
flows would be substantially less in a year like this without
releases from reservoirs.
CALIFORNIA POWER
The power problems being confronted in California remind us
that Reclamation contributes nearly 15,000 megawatts of
installed capacity from our hydropower system to the West's
energy system. In California alone, the Central Valley Project
accounts for a little less than 5 percent of the capacity in
California. The Lower Colorado dams, Hoover, Parker and Davis,
contribute a substantial additional amount of electricity to
customers in California and indeed throughout the West.
TOTAL BUDGET REQUEST
Reclamation's hydropower system is critical to system
reliability and a variety of other ancillary services and
spinning reserves. The total President's request for fiscal
year 2002 is $783.5 million in current authority, which is an
increase of $6.7 million relative to fiscal year 2001. That
consists, however, of two major components. $763.5 million is
for Reclamation programs, if you will, and that is a decrease
of $13.3 million from the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. And
then secondly, there is in the President's budget a request of
$20 million for the California Bay-Delta Restoration account
for which there was no appropriation in fiscal year 2001.
Within the $763.5 million requested for Reclamation
programs proper, there is $648 million in the Water and Related
Resources account, which is a decrease, as you noted, of about
$31 million from fiscal year 2001 levels.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND
Second, $55 million is requested for the Central Valley
Project Restoration Fund, which equals our request for the full
authorized amount of projected revenues to the fund; and that
is a $16.7 million increase over fiscal year 2001. That
request, however, is offset by discretionary receipts to the
fund of $45 million, so that only $10 million scores against
the subcommittee's allocation, and that is comparable to fiscal
year 2001.
POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION AND LOAN PROGRAM
Third, our request for Policy and Administration is $53
million, and finally, the Loan Program request is $7.5 million,
which would complete three loan projects in California in the
next fiscal year.
WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
The $31 million decrease in the Water and Related Resources
account, I would like to speak to that briefly. That is
relative to an enacted level in fiscal year 2001 of $679
million and reflects the net effect of the following overall
changes compared to fiscal year 2001.
First, our resources management and development programs
and activities decreased by $62 million from $439.1 million to
$377.1 million. On the other hand, facilities operation,
maintenance and rehabilitation increased by a little better
than $17 million, from $287.6 million to $304.7 million.
Included in that is the Dam Safety Program at $74.6 million,
and it continues to reflect Reclamation's priority in
maintaining our infrastructure and being able to operate our
projects to deliver their intended benefits.
Finally, there is the $13.9 million decrease in
undistributed underfinancing, which is something we would hope
the Committee would be able to adhere to as you move forward
with the budget.
RECLAMATION'S COMMITMENT
In summary, Mr. Chairman, as Reclamation approaches very
proudly its 100th anniversary, we believe that our fiscal year
2002 budget request demonstrates our continuing commitment to
meet the West's needs for water and power in a fiscally
responsible manner. In cooperation with our contractors, with
State, tribal and local governments, other stakeholders, and
the public at large, Reclamation offers, we believe, workable
solutions to water and power issues that are consistent with
the ever-growing demands for power and water and with the need
to pursue cost-effective environmentally sound approaches to
meeting those demands.
Needless to say, Reclamation and the Reclamation program
face many challenging opportunities. First, an aging
infrastructure, as you noted, requires that we focus on the
need for dam safety, facilities improvements, technological
upgrades and preventive maintenance to ensure the reliability
and improved safety of operation of our projects.
Second, meeting environmental requirements so that we
continue to develop projects and supplies is a complex
challenge. Third, innovative approaches to water conservation,
power conservation, and programs for wastewater reuse and
recycling are being explored by us, but within the budget
limitations that we face.
And finally, our participation, ever expanding at the
request of Congress, in Indian water rights settlements and the
growth of rural water projects to serve Indian reservations and
others, particularly where Congress has directed Reclamation to
bear all or a portion of the operation and maintenance of those
completed projects, is putting substantial pressure on our
overall budget.
PREPARED STATEMENT
The projects and programs highlighted on page 4 and 5 of my
written statement are illustrative of the challenges we face
and with that, I invite the committee's attention to that as
examples. Thank you for the continuing support of our program,
Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of J. William McDonald
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 2002 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation, which
totals $783.5 million in current authority. The request includes $20.0
million in new funds for the California Bay-Delta Restoration account,
and $763.5 million for Reclamation's traditional programs, a decrease
of $13.3 million from the fiscal year 2001 enacted level of $776.8
million.
mission
As it approaches its 100th anniversary, the Bureau of Reclamation
delivers 10 trillion gallons of water to over 31 million people in the
17 western states for municipal, rural, and industrial uses.
Reclamation facilities store over 245 million acre-feet of water,
servicing one of every five western farmers to irrigate about 10
million acres of land. These irrigated lands produce 60 percent of the
nation's vegetables and 25 percent of its fruit and nuts. As the
largest water resources management agency in the West, Reclamation
administers or operates 348 reservoirs, 58 hydroelectric powerplants
with an installed capacity of 14,744 megawatts. Reclamation manages
approximately 8.6 million acres of Federal land, plus another 600,000
acres of land under easements. In addition, our facilities provide
substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits.
The economic viability, and in some cases the very survivability,
of the citizens, ranchers, and farmers in the 17 western states depends
on the effectiveness of Reclamation's stewardship of these valuable
public resources. The Bureau of Reclamation, and its employees, take
this responsibility and the mission of managing, developing and
protecting water and related resources in an environmentally and
economically sound manner in the interest of the American public very
seriously.
The impact of Reclamation on the lives and livelihoods of our
western citizens is highlighted by the following facts: Reclamation has
emerged as the second largest producer of hydroelectric power and the
11th largest power producer in the United States with an average
generation of more than 42 billion kilowatt hours of energy each year.
Reclamation produces enough electricity to serve 14 million people,
generating nearly a billion dollars in annual power revenues. In
California, Reclamation's Central Valley Project generated more than
6.1 billion kilowatt hours of energy in 2000, enough power to serve
approximately 1.9 million Californians.
fiscal year 2002 budget request
The fiscal year 2002 budget request demonstrates Reclamation's
commitment to meeting the West's needs for water and power in a
fiscally responsible manner. This budget continues the Bureau's shift
in emphasis from the construction of large water projects and toward
the management of these valuable public resources. In cooperation with
state, tribal, and local governments, along with other stakeholders and
the public at large, Reclamation offers workable solutions regarding
water and power resource issues that are consistent with the ever
growing demands for power and water, and with the need to pursue cost
effective, environmentally sound approaches to meeting those demands.
Nevertheless, the transition from a facilities builder to a water
and power service management agency has resulted in a new set of
challenges for Reclamation. Growing demands from an aging
infrastructure have compounded the need for technological upgrades, new
science and technologies, and preventative maintenance to ensure
reliability, increase output, and improve safety of operation. The
growth of rural water projects serving Indian reservations where
Reclamation funds operation and maintenance has put substantial
pressure on our overall budget. The demand for skills in such areas as
negotiating agreements with Tribal Governments, negotiating title
transfer agreements, mediating disputes among stakeholders, and
renewing existing contracts represent a formidable challenge in the
human resource arena. Balancing the demand for service delivery with
environmental concerns is an equal challenge. Complementing supply-
oriented solutions with innovative approaches to power and water
conservation and programs for wastewater recycling are being explored.
Finally, as Reclamation attempts to keep pace with the technological
revolution, our dependence on sophisticated computer systems presents
new challenges in the areas of information system development,
maintenance, and security. All of the above challenges place additional
pressure on Reclamation's financial and human resources.
One of Reclamation's strategies for meeting these new challenges is
to target its planning program and science and technology program to
search for contemporary solutions. Financial resource constraints
facing the Nation require a commitment to the use of decision support
tools, including risk analyses, to develop only the most efficient and
cost-effective solutions to the complex challenges that we face.
Every day we see immediate water resource needs important to our
state, local and tribal partners. Many states are developing state-wide
water plans or drought contingency plans, for instance, to address
resource utilization and stewardship against the backdrop of large
population increases and the growing notion of sustainable development.
Reclamation, in partnership with other federal, state, local, tribal,
and private entities, has consistently proven its ability to help
assess the potential for optimum water use within a river basin or sub-
basin. This technical capability is one of our most valuable resources.
Some of Reclamation's budget priorities as we continue into the new
millennium are:
--ensure the safety and reliability of Reclamation dams;
--fund projects currently under construction;
--ensure environmental compliance;
--develop partnerships with customers, states and tribes;
--continue investments in science and technology to meet the growing
water-related resources challenges facing the west in a more
efficient and cost-effective manner; and
--optimize results-oriented business practices to provide the most
effective and efficient service to customers, partners and
employees.
water and related resources
The fiscal year 2002 request for the Water and Related Resources
account is $648.0 million, a decrease of $31 million from the fiscal
year 2001 enacted level. The request provides funding for five major
program activities--Water and Energy Management and Development ($257.7
million), Land Management and Development ($33.9 million), Fish and
Wildlife Management and Development ($85.5 million), Facility
Operations ($158.1 million), and Facility Maintenance and
Rehabilitation ($146.6 million). The request is partially offset by an
undistributed reduction of $33.8 million, in anticipation of delays in
construction schedules and other planned activities.
The request continues to emphasize the operation and maintenance of
Reclamation facilities in a safe, efficient, economic, and reliable
manner; sustaining the health and integrity of ecosystems while
addressing the water needs of a growing population; and assisting
states, tribes, and local entities in solving contemporary water
resources issues.
Highlights of the fiscal year 2002 request include:
Safety of Dams ($74.6 million).--The safety and reliability of
Reclamation dams is one of the Bureau's highest priorities. Dam safety
corrective actions and site security improvements are among the
activities funded by facility operation, maintenance, and
rehabilitation. The fiscal year 2002 request of $74.6 million for the
Safety of Dams Evaluation and Modification Program, including
Horsetooth Dam in Colorado and Wickiup Dam in Oregon, provides for risk
management activities throughout Reclamation's inventory of 358 dams
and dikes, plus preconstruction and construction activities for up to
17 dams identified for funding through the Safety of Dams Program.
Approximately 50 percent of Reclamation's dams were built between
1900 and 1950, and 90 percent of the dams were built before current
state-of-the-art foundation treatment and filter techniques were
incorporated in embankment dams to control seepage. Continued safe
performance becomes a greater concern with aging dams and requires a
greater emphasis on the risk management activities provided by the
program.
Animas-La Plata in Colorado and New Mexico ($12.0 million).--In
December 2000, legislation was enacted to resolve the Colorado Ute
Tribes' water rights claims and allow construction of a smaller Animas-
La Plata Project to proceed. The reformulated Project limits depletions
to an average of 57,100 acre-feet per year and provides only municipal
and industrial water for the Tribes and local non-Indian entities. Work
planned for 2002 includes design of project facilities, gas pipeline
relocation, and related mitigation and cultural resources activities.
Central Arizona Project ($31.5 million).--The request continues
construction of the Gila River Indian Community Distribution System and
other Indian distribution systems; work on recreation development; and
fulfillment of endangered species mitigation commitments for Roosevelt
Dam and for the CAP Aqueduct on the Gila, Santa Cruz, and San Pedro
River. Funding is also requested to continue working with Tucson area
municipal entities on CAP reliability features.
Central Valley Project (CVP), which includes 15 projects, protects
the Central Valley from water shortages and floods and provides water
and power to match the continued growth in the State of California. Two
of the components of this project include:
--CVP, Replacements, Additions, and Extraordinary Maintenance Program
($11.0 million).--This provides funding for work on 34
replacement, addition, and extraordinary maintenance (RAX)
items including refurbishing and painting of transformers at
the Shasta Powerplant, renovation of the drum gates on Shasta
Dam, and rehabilitation of cranes at the Nimbus Powerplant and
Folsom Dam. Items scheduled to begin include rewind of
generating units 1 and 2 and station service units at the
Shasta Powerplant, replacing the turbine runners at the New
Melones Powerplant, and rehabilitation of motor rotors at the
Tracy Pumping Plant.
--Trinity River Division of the Central Valley Project in California
($13.1 million).--The Trinity River Division provides delivery
of project water and power and for operation of the Trinity
Fish Hatchery. Funds will also be used to continue to implement
the December 2000 Record of Decision, which includes
development and implementation of a comprehensive monitoring
and adaptive management program for fishery restoration.
Columbia-Snake River Salmon Recovery in Idaho, Oregon, Montana,
Washington and Wyoming ($11.0 million).--This program addresses
Reclamation's legal requirements contained in the biological opinions
issued in December 2000 by the National Marine Fisheries Service and
the Fish and Wildlife Service. These requirements include actions to
modify the daily, weekly, and seasonal operation of Reclamation dams;
acquisition of water for flow augmentation; off-site mitigation of
hydro system impacts in selected subbasins; significantly increased
research, monitoring, and evaluation as well as significantly increased
regional coordination efforts. These actions are intended to protect
and aid in recovery of 12 species of anadromous fish.
Garrison Diversion Unit in North Dakota ($25.2 million).--Funds are
requested for grants to the State of North Dakota for municipal, rural,
and industrial water projects, for development of Indian irrigation
facilities, for work at several wildlife refuges, and for operation and
maintenance of completed project facilities.
Klamath Project in California and Oregon ($12.7 million).--The
request continues funding for studies and initiatives related to
improving water supply and quality to meet agriculture, tribal,
wildlife refuge, and environmental needs in the Klamath River Basin;
and for improvements in fish passage and habitat.
Lower Colorado River Operations Program in California, Arizona and
Nevada ($13.1 million).--This program funds work necessary to carry out
the Secretary's responsibilities as water master of the lower Colorado
River. It also funds measures required by the interim biological
opinion on Reclamation's lower Colorado River operations, and
development of a multi-species conservation program to provide a basis
for Endangered Species Act compliance on the lower Colorado River over
the long term.
Mid-Dakota Project in South Dakota ($10.0 million).--This program
provides for assistance for construction of water supply transmission
lines and storage reservoirs.
Mni Wiconi Project in South Dakota ($28.0 million).--Funds are
requested for design and construction activities on the Oglala Sioux,
Rosebud Sioux, Lower Brule Sioux, and West River/Lyman-Jones Rural
Water Systems; and for operation and maintenance of new and existing
facilities on the three Indian reservations.
Water Reclamation and Reuse Projects Title XVI ($19.5 million).--
This request continues funding for nine studies and projects to recycle
and reuse water in the arid west. These projects over time will provide
over 500,000 acre-feet of water annually to help the western states
cope with drought and to meet the water needs of their rapidly growing
population.
Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project ($10.6 million).--This
request continues the implementation of water conservation, fish and
wildlife improvements, and other measures authorized by the Yakima
River Basin Water Enhancement Act.
central valley project restoration fund
The fiscal year 2002 Reclamation budget includes a request for
$55.0 million for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund
established by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992. The
proposal is expected to be offset by discretionary receipts totaling
$44.9 million, which is the amount that can be collected from project
beneficiaries under Sec. 3407(d) of the Act. These funds will be used
for habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition, and other fish
and wildlife restoration activities in the Central Valley Project area
of California.
california bay-delta restoration
Consistent with the commitment to find long-term solutions to
improving water quality, habitat and ecological functions, and water
supply reliability, while reducing the risk of catastrophic breaching
of Delta levees, the fiscal year 2002 budget contains funds for Bay-
Delta activities that can be undertaken within existing statutory
authorities. The $20.0 million requested in this account will be used
for the Federal share of the Environmental Water Account and for costs
associated with administrative support of the CALFED Program, which
includes planning and management activities provided by Reclamation and
through CALFED Program staff. In addition, the fiscal year 2002 budget
includes $64.7 million in other BOR accounts for authorized activities
that support Bay-Delta Program objectives and priorities.
other accounts
The request for Policy and Administration is $53.0 million, which
will be used to develop and implement Reclamation-wide policy, rules,
and regulations, including actions under the Government Performance and
Results Act, and to perform functions which cannot be charged to
specific project or program activities covered by separate funding
authority. These funds support general administrative and management
functions throughout the 17 western states in Reclamation's service
area and in its Washington office.
The fiscal year 2002 request for the Loan Program is $7.5 million
to complete work on three small loan projects--Castroville Irrigation
Water Supply, Salinas Valley Water Reclamation, and San Sevaine Creek
located in California.
fiscal year 2000 accomplishments highlights
While we have set our priorities for the future, we are very proud
of the part Reclamation has played in the past, and I would like to
mention some recent accomplishments.
Safety of Dams.--In fiscal year 2000, Reclamation completed Safety
of Dams modifications at Bradbury (California), Pueblo (Colorado), and
Willow Creek (Montana) Dams to address identified risks. Studies were
completed on Safety of Dam improvements to Horsetooth Dam in Colorado,
which provides municipal and industrial water to some of the fastest
growing communities in the West.
Power.--Reclamation met 100 percent of its project power
commitments in fiscal year 2000. Reclamation is among the lowest cost
providers in the hydropower industry. The dependability and service
reliability of California's power system experienced significant stress
beginning in the summer of 2000. Scheduled and emergency operations of
Reclamation hydroelectric facilities in the West assisted in
alleviating some threats of brownouts and rotating outages throughout
California. As a partner with Western Area Power Administration and
Bonneville Power Administration in the operation of the Federal
hydroelectric generation and power transmission systems, the
coordination and scheduling of outages is becoming increasingly more
important. Reclamation developed processes to ensure that coordination
between agencies is more formal while retaining the flexibility to
respond to changing conditions that may impact outage schedules.
Drought.--Reclamation's Drought Emergency Assistance Program
assists States and local entities throughout the West in coping with
emergency water shortages. The Bureau provided emergency assistance
through the acquisition of water to mitigate impacts to fish and
wildlife resulting from prolonged drought conditions in New Mexico on
the Rio Grande and to Bowdoin and Benton Lakes National Wildlife
Refuges in Montana. Reclamation provided emergency assistance to the
Hopi Tribe by procuring portable pumps and generators to pump water
from existing wells when the water table dropped due to drought and
provided emergency drought assistance to several tribes within New
Mexico through actions such as well repair and drilling.
Water Conservation and Recycling.--Reclamation's Water Conservation
Field Services Program has provided assistance to hundreds of local
water districts in four key areas: planning, education, demonstration,
and implementation. In specific instances, Reclamation assisted 209
water districts with water conservation planning. Reclamation formed a
cooperative cost-sharing partnership with 11 southern California water
and wastewater agencies under the Southern California Water Recycling
Projects Initiative.
Endangered Species.--Reclamation worked to improve habitat and
flows for endangered fish at its facilities throughout the West. In
California Reclamation installed a temperature control device on Folsom
Dam to help conserve cold water and lessen the impact to threatened
salmon in the American River. Reclamation helped re-establish up to 42
miles of prime salmon and steelhead habitat on the mainstream Battle
Creek and an additional 6 miles of its tributaries in California. We
completed modifications of an automated fish-handling device at the
Marble Bluff Dam in Nevada to enhance recovery of the endangered cui-ui
fish species.
We developed flow recommendations for the Green, Gunnison, and
Colorado Rivers to help recover a variety of endangered fish in the
Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins. Reclamation also began work
on fish ladders and fish screens to be installed on all major diversion
dams/canals on the Colorado, Gunnison, Green, and San Juan Rivers.
Reclamation collaborated with Federal, State, and local stakeholders in
New Mexico to sustain instream flows for the endangered Rio Grande
silvery minnow when severe drought conditions threatened the minnow,
and helped provide stream flows for the endangered Pecos bluntnose
shiner into the Pecos River, New Mexico.
Under the Columbia and Snake River Salmon Recovery Project
Reclamation has continued to acquire water to increase streamflows in
the lower Snake and Columbia Rivers to benefit salmon and steelhead
migration.
Water Quality.--Reclamation has invested over $48 million since
1995 to control the salinity of the Colorado River. The total
Reclamation program, including those projects constructed before 1995,
is estimated to prevent about 550,000 tons of salt per year from
entering the Colorado River. Reclamation also worked cooperatively with
the Interagency Ecological Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Estuary in California, which identifies, and helps to avoid, impacts
caused by State and Federal water diversion operations in the estuary.
Native Americans.--Reclamation helped the Navajo Department of
Water Resources develop and complete a resource management plan
addressing the Navajo Nation's projected water requirements and water
resource infrastructure deficiencies. It provided 13 Native American
Pueblos with technical or financial water management-related assistance
through various programs including water needs assessments, new pumps
and other infrastructure, water measurement structures, and automation
of flow structures. Other Indian Rural Water projects, including Mni
Wiconi in South Dakota, Rocky Boys in Montana, and Animas-La Plata in
Colorado, will help meet the water needs of hundreds of thousands of
Native Americans.
Recreation.--Reclamation joined with seven other Federal agencies
to form the Federal Lakes Recreation Leadership Council co-chaired by
Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers to develop procedures to enhance
public recreation at Federal lakes. Reclamation formed a Recreation
Policy Advisory Team and established a Bureauwide concessions and
recreation management policy. Under the authority of the Reclamation
Recreation Management Act, Reclamation cost shared with non-Federal
partners the development, rehabilitation, and expansion of recreation
and fish and wildlife areas and facilities on Reclamation projects in
12 states.
conclusion
This completes my statement. Please allow me to express my sincere
appreciation for the continued support that this Committee has provided
Reclamation. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have at
this time.
Senator Domenici. I am not sure with the shortage of time
that I am going to be able to ask you questions, but if I
can't, I will submit them and if you would answer them, please.
Mr. McDonald. We would be pleased to.
Senator Domenici. Why don't you not elaborate on it and
just give it.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Johnston. As you are aware, I serve as the program
director for implementation of the Central Utah Project
Completion Act, and I would simply like to submit our statement
for the record, and I'll conclude with that.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ronald Johnston
My name is Ronald Johnston. I serve as the Program Director for
implementation of the Central Utah Project Completion Act under the
direction of the Assistant Secretary--Water and Science in the
Department of the Interior. I am pleased to provide the following
information about the President's fiscal year 2002 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 Treasury for deposit of these funds and
other contributions; establishes the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Commission to coordinate mitigation and conservation
activities; and provides for the Ute Indian Water 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 an office in Provo, Utah, with a
Program Director to provide oversight, review, and liaison with the
District, the Commission, and the Ute Indian Tribe, and to assist in
administering the responsibilities of the Secretary under the Act.
The fiscal year 2002 request for the Central Utah Project
Completion Account provides $36.2 million for use by the District, the
Commission, and the Department to implement Titles II-IV of the Act, a
decrease of $3.6 million from the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. The
request includes $23.8 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
($10.7 million) will be used in implementing the fish, wildlife, and
recreation mitigation and conservation projects authorized in Title III
($9.6 million); and in completing mitigation measures committed to in
pre-1992 Bureau of Reclamation planning documents ($1.1 million). Title
III activities funded in fiscal year 2002 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 mitigation and conservation
projects outside the State of Utah ($0.3 million); participation in the
operating and maintaining new and improved hatchery facilities ($0.1
million); and for program administration ($1.3 million).
In addition to the request described above, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs' budget includes $24.7 million for the Ute Indian Rights
Settlement.
Senator Domenici. All right. Fine. Appreciate it. I have
seen the statement. Let me recognize Mike Gabaldon in the front
row. Thank you so much for what you have been doing. I
understand that you moved to Deputy Director of Operations.
NEW MEXICO PROBLEMS
And let me just say on the Bureau of Reclamation, it is
most interesting that depending upon where you are, what state,
what river, which basin, the Bureau of Reclamation is
intimately involved, or in some places not involved at all, but
I want to say for the record that New Mexico is one of those
states that by a rare combination of history and other things,
you are heavily involved in the Rio Grande River in terms of
the continuing problem of how do we handle the endangered
species. And I want to thank the Bureau, I am not sure where we
go from here, but for the past actions that they took on behalf
of trying to solve that problem at least on an interim basis.
And we will be trying to put together an extended package of
involvement by you all to see if we can't resolve it further.
ZERO GROWTH BUDGET
Let me ask just two or three questions and then we will
close the meeting. Mr. McDonald, your 2002 request appears on
the surface to be receiving an increase of $7 million, as you
indicated, which with an appropriation of $784 million, even
with that, that is not keeping pace with inflation. That is not
the 4 percent increase that is being suggested as being the
cornerstone of the President's budget. Can you tell the
committee, Mr. McDonald, what this essentially zero growth
budget means for the Bureau?
DAM SAFETY AND FACILITIES OPERATION
Mr. McDonald. As I think I indicated in my introductory
remarks, Senator, we gave priority in the context of the
President's budget to dam safety and facilities operation,
maintenance and rehabilitation. Those for a number of years
have been our central priorities. They continue to be so. As
you can see, resource management and development within the
Water and Related Resources account was cut by nearly $62
million. That is where the trade-off comes, and this reflects
itself in the Title 16 program, reductions in rural water
supply and similar kinds of activities and constraints on what
we desire to do relative to moving forward with Indian water
rights efforts.
RURAL WATER PROGRAMS
Senator Domenici. Let's just move to the rural water
resources for a moment. I was going to move to it separately,
but actually you raised it. Actually, that is a small account,
but there aren't any programs of any significance for potable
water for rural areas and domestic or otherwise, and this small
amount of money, $33 million I think is what you used last
year, is one source that is trying to solve that problem. Is
that correct?
Mr. McDonald. Yes.
Senator Domenici. Why it would be reduced as much as it has
been would probably be an indication that this Administration
doesn't place a high priority on this activity. That is the
only way I can read it. What do you read into a one-third
reduction in that program?
Mr. McDonald. I don't know that I read anything into it,
other than to balance the priority within the budget available
to us. We focused very much on the maintenance of the existing
infrastructure, continuing construction on existing projects,
and not initiating new activities that would have major out-
year impacts.
BUDGET PROCESS
Senator Domenici. You continue to use the word we. What
does that mean? Is there a chain of command on this, that they
gave you a number and you all on the Bureau of Reclamation went
and fit the budget to the numbers? Did OMB's people do that? I
don't really understand.
Mr. McDonald. Well, in the typical process, of course, we
made an initial proposal, then the Office of Management and
Budget provided guidance to all agencies as to the overall
budget within which we needed to operate.
Senator Domenici. That is what you meant by the ``we'',
that process you just described?
Mr. McDonald. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. I have about five more questions, and I
am going to submit the ones on dam safety, which is important.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
We ought to get your answers on the record. I do
appreciate----
Mr. McDonald. Be pleased to.
[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
safety of dams evaluation and modification program
Question. The Bureau's fiscal year 2002 budget request includes
$72.9 million for the Safety of Dams Evaluation and Modification
Program. Can you tell this committee what the $72.9 million will be
used for?
Answer. The requested funding is for continuing dam safety risk
management and risk reduction activities throughout Reclamation's
inventory of dams. It provides for ongoing safety of dams modification
activities at Clear Lake Dam, California; Wickiup Dam, Oregon; and
Horsetooth Dam, Colorado. Of the $72.9 million fiscal year 2002 request
for the Safety of Dams Evaluation and Modification Program, $33,500,000
is for contractor payments to the three ongoing modification
activities, another $5,000,000 is needed for related contract
supervision and administration, $10,500,000 is needed for modification
work scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2002 at Keechelus Dam,
Washington, and $4,000,000 is needed for Pineview Dam, Utah. That
leaves about $2,000,000 for preconstruction activities associated with
12 other dams listed in the fiscal year 2002 Budget Justifications as
potentially needing risk reduction actions. Another $17,900,000 is for
Safety Evaluation of Existing Dams activities on Reclamation's entire
inventory of 358 dams and dikes which could result in loss of life if
they were to fail.
Question. Is there a prioritized list that the Bureau is
systematically taking care of the worst dams so they can be moved off
this critical list, and what progress have you made to date on reducing
this list?
Answer. Reclamation has a variety of management tools which it
utilizes to set ongoing priorities as new information is developed
through the dam safety program. Reclamation has an ongoing program of
monitoring, inspection, and evaluation of issues which become
identified during day-to-day operational activities. On an ongoing
basis, the issues are prioritized and scheduled for further action
based upon a risk analysis. If this risk analysis results in a finding
of additional public risk, then Reclamation evaluates and implements
interim actions while working toward actions to reduce the long-term
risk. The fiscal year 2002 Budget Justifications narrative lists 12
dams where Reclamation may be pursuing risk reduction action. To date
under the Safety of Dams program, Reclamation has completed
modifications to 55 dams to reduce public risk.
Question. Is the $72.9 million (fiscal year 2002) budget sufficient
to address the most critical needs in fiscal year 2002. And if not,
what is a sufficient amount to address these needs?
Answer. The $72.9 million budget request is sufficient to meet all
critical needs. The proposed budget allows for initiation of
construction on all projects where the necessary preconstruction
activities have been completed. Major construction contracts will be
initiated on Wickiup Dam in June 2001 and on Horsetooth Dam in August
2001. These contracts will establish potential contractor earnings
rates in fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003. Additional capability
at Horsetooth Dam has been made available by the anticipated receipt of
funding from the power customers in fiscal year 2002. With the $72.9
budget request, there is no delay in the initiation of any safety of
dams modifications due to funding limitations.
Question. What would this level of funding enable the Bureau to do,
that under your current request you could not?
Answer. An additional $16.5 million for fiscal year 2002 could be
effectively utilized. Of that amount, $13.5 million could be spent on
construction contracts for corrective actions at a rate associated with
the construction contractor's capability. At this time, we anticipate
that contractors will have the capability at Wickiup and Horsetooth
Dams to accelerate construction if additional federal appropriations
were available. The additional funding would also reduce the overall
cost of the project by allowing project benefits to be recovered sooner
and it would reduce the costs associated with construction management.
The additional $3 million could be effectively spent on preconstruction
activities for a number of dams that are in various stages of
developing modification reports.
title xvi program
Question. The Bureau's budget request for Title XVI projects, which
is the water reclamation and reuse account, is for $19.5 million, down
from last year's enacted level of over $33 million, or about a one-
third cut.
Please tell this Committee why this program, which in many
instances is providing the only potable water to homes, is being cut.
Answer. The Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program helps
local water agencies plan for and construct water recycling projects
that are designed to provide non-potable water to be used for such
purposes as landscape and agricultural irrigation, industrial
processes, environmental restoration, power generation, recreation, and
groundwater recharge, among others. In no instance is the reclaimed
water from a Title XVI project being used as a source of potable water
for use in homes. The value in the recycling program is that it
provides a locally controlled and reliable source of water for use in
lieu of potable water, thereby stretching the existing potable supplies
and reducing the need to develop traditional alternative water supply
projects.
The enacted level of funding for fiscal year 2001 is approximately
$30.6 million. However, after accounting for the rescission and
underfinancing, $28.2 million was available for Title XVI activities.
The President's fiscal year 2001 request was just under $21.2 million.
The $19.5 million requested by the President for fiscal year 2002 is
$1.7 million less than the request for fiscal year 2001. The fiscal
year 2002 request has been reduced principally to reflect Reclamation's
completion of funding participation in the Los Angeles Area Water
Reclamation and Reuse Project, which received more than $69 million in
Federal assistance. For the remaining seven project funding requests,
two have been reduced slightly, one has remained the same, and four
have actually increased over fiscal year 2001 requested levels.
Question. What is a more sufficient funding level for this account?
Answer. Based on currently available data, more than $80 million
would be required in fiscal year 2002 to keep pace with the non-Federal
projects sponsors' construction schedule. This represents more than 12
percent of Reclamation's entire budget for Water and Related Resources.
However, the Department does not support the addition of funds for any
project which would result in the reduction of funding for other
projects included in the budget.
Question. Please provide for the record a list of projects which
the Bureau considered but were not funded in the President's request?
Answer. All projects considered by Reclamation for funding in
fiscal year 2002 were included in the President's budget request.
water and related resources--new fte
Question. The budget request for the Water and Related Resources
account is down $31 million from last year's level. Yet, the Bureau is
requesting 13 additional Full Time Equivalents, or FTE. Please tell the
committee why the Bureau is requesting the 13 additional FTE, when
there is a budget reduction?
Answer. While FTE for Water and Related Resources reflects an
increase, the total FTE level requested remains at 5,634 for both
fiscal years 2001 and 2002. The level requested for Water and Related
Resources FTE is based on projected workload. While dollars impact the
amounts available on a project basis, the workload involved in each
project can differ (i.e, some are more labor intensive than others).
The additional FTE in the Water and Related Resources reflects a shift
of FTE from the Trust Fund account.
budget impacts
Question. The fiscal year 2002 request for the Bureau appears on
the surface to be receiving an increase of only $7 million, which with
an appropriation of $784 million, does not even keep pace with
inflation.
Please describe for the committee what this zero growth budget
means for the Bureau.
Answer. Although the fiscal year 2002 budget is not a significant
increase over fiscal year 2001, it is a significant increase over
fiscal year 2000. This is consistent with the Administration's stated
goal of moderate growth while halting the trend of unconstrained
spending at an unsustainable rate. The budget also provides for an
increase of $17.1 million for facility operation, maintenance, and
rehabilitation to pay for costs of new facilities and to more
adequately deal with the Bureau of Reclamation's aging infrastructure.
The budget also provides an increase of $10 million to begin
construction of the Animas-La Plata project to address Native American
water rights issues.
Question. Please provide the committee with a list of the most
critical items which were not included within your fiscal year 2002
budget?
Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation's fiscal year 2002 funds the most
critical items to maintain and operate our facilities, address
environmental and fish and wildlife impacts, complete ongoing projects,
address safety of dams deficiencies, and provide water as part of
Indian Water Rights settlements. There are no critical items that are
not being funded.
Question. Can you explain the rationale behind why the Water and
Related Resources account took a $30 million reduction, when the
majority of the Bureau's work is done through this account?
Answer. It should be noted that the budget request submitted by
Reclamation for Water and Related Resources for fiscal year 2002
actually is $4.9 million higher than the budget request submitted for
fiscal year 2001. The fiscal year 2002 request funds Reclamation's
highest priorities, and is consistent with the Administration's goal of
halting the recent trend of spending growing at an unsustainable rate.
animas-la plata
Question. In last year's omnibus appropriation, authorization was
included which reflected the cooperative agreement brokered by all the
interested parties regarding the Animas-La Plata Project. The Bureau's
budget contains $12 million for this project. What progress on the
project will be made this year with the funding requested?
Answer. The $12 million budget request will allow significant
progress on the following critical elements of the project: Gas
pipeline relocations; investigations, design, land acquisition, and
contract award; Ridges Basin Dam design; cultural resources recovery
contract award; fish and wildlife mitigation; wetland contract award;
and Durango Pumping Plant design.
Question. Does the Bureau have all intentions of moving forward on
this project, given this new agreement?
Answer. Reclamation is committed and supportive of completing the
Animas-La Plata Project and fulfilling its obligations under the
Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement.
Question. Will the $12 million be actually utilized toward the
project's construction, or will any of the funds be used to purchase
water as part of the required cash payment?
Answer. The $12 million will all be used toward the project's
construction. Funding for the Tribal Resource Fund is being sought
through the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Question. The Bureau's budget includes $1.6 million for land
management and cultural resources activities as it relates to the
Animas-La Plata project. Please provide the committee a definition of
what ``cultural resources activities'' are being funded this year.
Answer. A significant number of cultural resource sites are known
to exist in the Ridges Basin area, and more specifically, in areas that
will be disturbed by construction of the dam. Fiscal year 2002 cultural
resource activities will concentrate on awarding a contract and
initiating data recovery and mitigation on those sites that are in the
vicinity of the dam foundation.
Question. Are there funds requested for ``Tribal Development'', and
if so, can you tell the committee how much is being requested by the
Bureau and for what purpose?
Answer. Reclamation is not seeking funding for the Tribal
Development Funds. Such funds are being sought through the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. We understand that the Bureau of Indian Affairs'
request is $8 million for fiscal year 2002.
Question. Several New Mexico newspapers have published stories
about the Animas-La Plata project. Several of them have indicated that
non-Indian Colorado water users want to lease project water from the
Ute tribes. What does the Bureau of Reclamation know about this and how
does it view such a proposal?
Answer. The Colorado Indian Rights Settlement Act Amendments of
2000 provide an allocation of the project water storage to two Colorado
non-Indian entities. No negotiations have begun with either entity
regarding entering into an agreement with the United States to pay the
reimbursable project costs allocated to the respective entity's water
storage. These negotiations could begin in early summer. If agreements
cannot be reached with the Colorado entities, the Amendments provide
that those water storage allocations shall be reallocated equally to
the Colorado Ute Tribes.
Question. Would this proposal effect the overall project and other
water users, such as those in New Mexico?
Answer. The Amendments provide that project construction costs
allocated to the water storage provided to the Colorado Ute Tribes is
nonreimbursable to the United States. This includes any project costs
allocated to water storage that is reallocated to the Tribes. The
reallocation of project water storage to the Tribes will not affect the
other water users.
middle rio grande project endangered species
Question. The Bureau's budget request includes $11.7 million for
the Middle Rio Grande project. Within the projects tasks for the
upcoming fiscal year, there is included a mention of the purchase of
non-Federal water for Endangered Species Act compliance as it relates
to the silvery minnow. Can you update us on the silvery minnow?
Answer. The Rio Grande silvery minnow was formerly one of the most
widespread and abundant species in the Rio Grande basin of New Mexico,
Texas, and Mexico. The silvery minnow is currently found only in the
Rio Grande in central New Mexico between Cochiti Dam and the headwaters
of Elephant Butte Reservoir (less than 10 percent of its historic
range). Recent monitoring shows the majority of silvery minnow are
concentrated below San Acacia Diversion Dam and populations in the
Albuquerque and Isleta reaches are extremely reduced.
Supplemental water operations during drought conditions in 2000
were successful in providing water to the silvery minnow by exchange
with natural flows, especially those fish below San Acacia Diversion
Dam. The primary goal of these operations was to prevent the loss of
the species in the wild during extremely dry conditions. This goal was
achieved and population monitoring in early 2001 shows that silvery
minnow still occur below San Acacia in reaches that would have
substantially dried in 2000 without supplemental water management.
Question. How much does the Bureau plan on spending this year to
purchase this additional water?
Answer. Reclamation committed this year to repay the Middle Rio
Grande Conservancy District for 20,900 acre-feet of water that was used
in 2000 for river management under the Agreed Order in Minnow v.
McDonald. The cost of 20,900 acre-feet of water at up to $45 per acre-
foot is approximately $940,500. In addition, to date, Reclamation has
leased about 13,700 acre-feet for this year's use, at a cost of about
$616,500.
Settlement negotiations with the State of New Mexico and other
parties to the Minnow v. McDonald lawsuit, have suggested that the use
of up to an additional 30,000 acre-feet of water in 2001 may be
possible, although the cost has not yet been determined. Similar needs
for water could also be required for 2002 and 2003 as a result of
successful settlement negotiations.
Question. How much water does the Bureau anticipate purchasing in
fiscal year 2002, and will that be enough to be in compliance with the
Endangered Species Act?
Answer. It is anticipated that the Bureau would have available for
lease a similar volume of water through the Bureau's supplemental water
program in 2002, which was about 13,700 acre-feet.
The additional water, which might be provided in a settlement
agreement in Minnow v. McDonald would be enough to fulfill compliance
with the Endangered Species Act if the Fish and Wildlife Service issued
a biological opinion to the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers approving or allowing the actions of those agencies
and of non-federal parties covered in the consultation.
Question. Does the Bureau have increased water costs should there
be a drought year, and in that case, can the Bureau actually find
enough water to purchase?
Answer. The Bureau's 2001 and 2002 budgets do not include acquiring
additional water that could be required in the case of a drought. The
availability of leased water through the Bureau's supplemental water
program is limited. However, additional water could be made available
by the State of New Mexico through upstream storage water if settlement
negotiations are successful. This is the only potentially identified
source of additional water.
Question. Some of the non-Federal participants in this effort
believe an additional $10 million for Endangered Species Act compliance
is needed. Can you tell me what the Bureau's capability is related to
this additional $10 million?
Answer. An additional $10 million for Endangered Species Act
compliance is identified and described in the draft Middle Rio Grande
Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program document. On January 3,
2000, Reclamation signed an MOU with other federal and non-federal
partners to develop a Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act
Collaborative Program which details short and long range planning in
support of recovery of the silvery minnow and willow flycatcher while
protecting existing and future water uses and ensuring compliance with
all applicable laws. The program includes activities addressing fish
passage and river reconnectivity, non-native species management,
habitat restoration, population management, water management, including
leasing of water for endangered species purposes, and research and
monitoring.
Additional capability does exist to utilize this funding for
activities described in the July 1999 Rio Grande Silvery Minnow
Recovery Plan and the Collaborative Program's draft Plan for fiscal
year 2002, addressing the needs of both the silvery minnow and willow
flycatcher. The additional capability shown was not included in the
President's budget. The Department does not support the addition of
funds for any project which would result in the reduction of funding
for other projects included in the budget.
Question. Is the Bureau aware of this request, either formally or
informally?
Answer. Yes, the Bureau is informally aware of this request from
the non-federal participants of the Middle Rio Grande Collaborative
Program. We provided technical input to the activities considered in
the request through our involvement in the Collaborative Program ESA
Work Group.
The State of New Mexico has recently proposed a three-year interim
agreement in the Minnow v. McDonald lawsuit, which could potentially
result in a settlement or lawsuit. Generally, the settlement proposal
would allow water up to 100,000 acre feet to be stored in upstream
reservoirs rather than in Elephant Butte and then released in an amount
not to exceed 30,000 acre feet for the Rio Grande silvery minnow. The
original $10 million did not include funding for this potential
settlement.
Question. The New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission has recently
proposed a three year settlement to the Minnow v. Martinez lawsuit.
Generally, the settlement proposal would allow credit water to be
stored in upstream reservoirs and then released each year to keep the
river wet for the survival of the Rio Grande silvery Minnow. Is this
possibility progressing, now that Texas and the Rio Grande Compact
Commission have signed off on the credit water portion?
Answer. Yes, while court-ordered mediation has officially ended,
negotiations remain active between the State of New Mexico and the
federal agencies in the lawsuit, i.e., Reclamation, Corps of Engineers,
and the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Corps of Engineers began to
store water in its upstream reservoirs, Abiquiu and Jemez Canyon, soon
after the Rio Grande Compact Commission approved the action, and the
parties are working on other aspects of the agreement, including
changes to the Biological Assessment and the permits requested by New
Mexico.
Question. Does the Bureau think this idea may serve as a viable
short term solution?
Answer. Yes, the Bureau does believe the use of this additional
upstream storage to enhance river flows during critical dry periods is
an important component of a short-term solution concerning Rio Grande
silvery minnow endangered species issues. Other components of a short-
term solution that may be required to meet the needs of the silvery
minnow are discussed in the draft Collaborative Program document and
include reconnecting the river or providing fish passage at San Acacia
Diversion Dam, pumping supplemental water from the Bureau's Low Flow
Conveyance Channel, and support of Fish and Wildlife Service's and
State of New Mexico's silvery minnow propagation and relocation
efforts. Ultimately, however, Reclamation will defer to the Service's
Biological Opinion regarding the need of the species.
Question. How does this three-year plan tie into the Middle Rio
Grande ESA WorkGroup draft ten-year program plan, and the funding
requested in fiscal year 2002?
Answer. The Middle Rio Grande ESA Collaborative Program/ESA Work
Group draft ten-year program plan currently focuses on long-term
actions to meet the needs of the endangered species. The ESA Work Group
has had difficulty working through the often contentious issues
involved with short-term solutions, especially as litigation, and
associated mediation and settlement in theMinnow v. McDonald lawsuit
progressed. Thus, the ESA Work Group generally left the short-term
solution to the endangered species issues on the Middle Rio Grande to
be resolved through the mediation and settlement processes. Actions
taken under the three-year agreement could result in a settlement of
the litigation and could become the initial component of the
Collaborative Program and allow the development, design and
construction of the long-term components of the Program.
The goals of both the short-term agreement (3 years) and permanent
(Collaborative Program) focus on ensuring that existing and future
water uses in the Middle Rio Grande Valley are in compliance with the
ESA.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Domenici. I appreciate that you are giving a high
priority to that, even in a budget that is very tight. We stand
recessed until 3 o'clock in which meeting room? 138 Dirksen.
Thank you all.
Mr. McDonald. Thank you, Senator.
[Whereupon, at 10:05 a.m., Tuesday, April 24, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 3:15 p.m., the same
day.]
(Afternoon Session, 3:15 p.m., Tuesday, April 24, 2001)
The subcommittee reconvened at 3:15 p.m., in room SD-138,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici
(chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Domenici, Cochran, Reid, Byrd, Murray,
and Dorgan.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
STATEMENTS OF:
CLAUDIA L. TORNBLOM, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
(MANAGEMENT ON BUDGET)
LT. GEN. ROBERT S. FLOWERS, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
ACCOMPANIED BY:
MAJOR GEN. HANS A. VAN WINKLE, DEPUTY COMMANDING GENERAL (CIVIL
WORKS)
ROBERT VINING, CHIEF, PROGRAM MANAGEMENT DIVISION
MAJ. GEN. PHILLIP R. ANDERSON, DIVISION ENGINEER, SOUTH
ATLANTIC DIVISION
BRIG. GEN. ROBERT H. GRIFFIN, DIVISION ENGINEER, GREAT LAKES
AND OHIO RIVER DIVISION
BRIG. GEN. EDWIN J. ARNOLD, JR., DIVISION ENGINEER, MISSISSIPPI
VALLEY DIVISION
BRIG. GEN. CAROL A. STROCK, DIVISION ENGINEER, NORTHWESTERN
DIVISION
BRIG. GEN. M. STEPHEN RHOADES, DIVISION ENGINEER, NORTH
ATLANTIC DIVISION
BRIG. GEN. RANDAL R. CASTRO, DIVISION ENGINEER, PACIFIC OCEAN
DIVISION
BRIG. GEN. PETER T. MADSEN, DIVISION ENGINEER, SOUTH PACIFIC
DIVISION
BRIG. GEN. DAVID F. MELCHER, DIVISION ENGINEER, SOUTHWESTERN
DIVISION
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. The committee will come to order. I am
going to--since I am a little late, I am going to put my
statement in the record and yield to your side.
Senator Reid. Me, too.
Senator Domenici. You want to put yours in?
Senator Reid. Yes.
Senator Domenici. Great. And I understand you include in
yours some comments about this morning's portion, the Bureau of
Reclamation part, in your statement.
Senator Reid. Since I have not read my statement yet----
Senator Domenici. You did. You did. Your staff told me so.
And I understand you have a very early departure time.
Would you like to do something now? I will yield to you.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, let me just make a brief
comment.
Senator Domenici. Sure.
Senator Dorgan. And then I am going to depart and then come
back.
Senator Domenici. All right.
Senator Dorgan. As you know, all of us have so many
committee hearings this week.
Senator Domenici. Too much, yes.
Senator Dorgan. I think mine are at 16 on this calendar
this week alone.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN
Senator Dorgan. I want to just say a word about the Corps,
especially, and indicate, as all of you know, my state has
probably had more challenges that has required action by the
Corps of Engineers than almost any state in the country. Devils
Lake, an abiding flood that came and stayed, requires an
enormous amount of attention. The Red River Valley flooding in
Wahpeton and Breckenridge, Fargo, Moorhead, Grand Forks and
East Grand Forks has required a substantial amount of
attention.
And I think the Corps has done an extraordinary job. And I
am not adverse to being critical of the Corps when criticism is
warranted. But I must say that our citizens are full of deep
gratitude for what the Corps has done.
We have a lot of challenges in this appropriations cycle.
We have the permanent flood control project in Grand Forks. We
need to adequately fund that. You know, we have this challenge
of the outlet at Devils Lake and a series of other issues.
I did want to say that I am very concerned that the Corps
of Engineers needs to be adequately funded, if we are going to
make these investments. I fear that in this area the
recommendations of budget cuts are not appropriate. We are
going to have to find ways to provide adequate funding for the
Corps.
General Flowers is here and General Van Winkle. Both of you
know well what I speak of in North Dakota, because both of you
have been there. And again, I just wanted to say at the start
of the hearing how much we have appreciated that. I have, in
the past, been critical of the Corps from time to time. But in
recent years I have nothing but praise for the men and women
that work in the Corps of Engineers and do the field work and
are there every day and have done a terrific job for the
citizens of North Dakota.
I do hope, as we put together the resources in this
committee, that we will be able to fund the needs that we have
in a whole range of areas, not just North Dakota. When we do
what we need to do for North Dakota, it means I have an
obligation to say, when others are hurting and need help, I
want to extend my hand to them and say let us help there, as
well.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to say those
words. I admire the work the Corps has done and am glad to be
here today.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, if I could just say one word,
based on what Senator Dorgan said. Senator Daschle has
scheduled a 4 o'clock meeting. He asked me to attend, so I will
have to be there by then. But I did want to say, elaborate on
what Senator Dorgan has said.
The Corps of Engineers has received a lot of negative
publicity, and I think much of it is unwarranted. And I know
that there will be a few who disagree with me. But I can speak
about Nevada, rural Nevada and urban Nevada. One of the ways we
have been able to continue to grow the way we have in Las
Vegas, is that we have been able to stop these devastating
floods that have taken place.
It does not rain very often in Las Vegas. But when it
rains, it is what we refer to as a cloudburst and creates very
fast running water that is dangerous to life and limb. And we
have spent a lot of money making that area safe.
In the late sixties we had a flood that washed away cars
and peoples' lives were lost. In the approximately 30 years
since then, we have been able to do a remarkable job, under the
direction of the Corps, in taking care of those flood control
projects. This area is the fastest growing place in the United
States, we continually have need for additional flood control
projects.
The same, Mr. Chairman, is true in rural Nevada. We have
done some good jobs. Now I have been just as critical as
anybody about the Corps. I get upset at them, because, you
know, it takes too long to get something going. But overall, it
does good work for our country. And I know that you and I have
worked hard over these years. We have labored together on this
committee, and we will do what we can this year to make sure
that the funding is adequate for these very important projects.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
Senator Cochran, would you like----
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would be happy
to follow your example and put my statement in the record. I
know we are a little late getting started today, and there are
other competing activities around the Hill. Thank you very much
for convening this hearing at this stage in our legislative
year. I look forward to working with you and our witnesses to
identify the projects that we need to support. Thank you very
much.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
I have another conflict at 4:00. So I want to proceed to
the witnesses. It would be unfair, however, if we did not
spread on the record a vote of thanks and congratulations to
the Corps for the great work that they did at Los Alamos when
we had the big fire, which caused, Senator Reid, a number of
real public works fiascos, where culverts had to be replaced or
the mud was going to be sliding down the mountains, which were
now treeless, and would have accumulated on city streets and in
subdivisions. And the Corps came along and put in some very
tough emergency measures that took care of the problem. And I
know that many of your people were there, and I want to thank
you.
With that, let us proceed with the witnesses. Ms. Claudia
Tornblom, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Army, will go
first; Lieutenant General Flowers, Commander and Chief of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and then Major Hans A. Van
Winkle, Deputy Commanding General for Civil Works. And then if
we have time, we will have Robert Vining, Chief, Program
Management Division, testify.
Let us go in that order. And if you would please submit
written statements and make your own remarks with reference to
them, so we will get finished in time to have some questions.
Senator Reid. I will submit my questions in writing and
they may provide their responses to the committee?
Senator Domenici. We will do that.
Senator Reid. Over what period of time?
Senator Domenici. Maybe ten days. Is that satisfactory for
the answers? Okay.
Let us proceed.
STATEMENT OF CLAUDIA L. TORNBLOM
Ms. Tornblom. Mr. Chairman, Senators, it is a pleasure to
be here today, and thank you for your kind words about the Army
Corps of Engineers, in particular its Civil Works Program.
Thank you, also, for the opportunity to testify today on the
President's budget for the Civil Works Program for fiscal year
2002.
The 2002 budget reflects the President's overall goals to
slow the growth of Federal spending, provide for a tax cut, and
reduce the national debt, while still providing greater
emphasis on education and protecting Social Security. Within
those overall goals, the President's budget provides $3.9
billion appropriations for the Civil Works Program. Of that
amount, about $765 million would be derived from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and
other sources besides general revenues.
In addition to the $3.9 billion in appropriations, about
$514 million will be contributed by Bonneville Power
Administration, non-Federal cost sharing sponsors, and
additional sources. In combination, these resources will
support a total Civil Works Program in 2002 of $4.4 billion.
The budget emphasizes the principal Civil Works missions of
commercial navigation, flood damage reduction, and
environmental restoration.
The program currently has an active construction backlog of
about $40 billion, which includes $26 billion to complete
ongoing regular construction projects, $6 billion to complete
ongoing Mississippi River and Tributaries projects, and $8
billion for projects currently in Preconstruction Engineering
and Design. In order to address this backlog, available funding
in 2002 is directed toward construction of continuing projects.
As a result, no project construction or study new starts are
budgeted.
The budget proposes two new national studies, however, that
will provide information needed by the Army and the Chief of
Engineers to assess potential changes in Civil Works policies
and procedures. The first of these two studies was authorized
by Section 223 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
The budget includes $100,000 to initiate a 12-year project
monitoring program to monitor the economic and environmental
results of up to five projects constructed by the Corps.
Second, the budget includes $300,000 to initiate a National
Shoreline Study, which was authorized by Section 215 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1999. This study will assess
the extent, causes and impacts of shoreline erosion on the
coastal shores of the United States.
The 2002 budget presents new administration policy toward
shore protection projects that involve placing sand on beaches
and then restoring those beaches periodically, as natural
coastal processes and storms erode the sand. For the initial
sand placement of these projects, the Administration proposes
no change in the current cost sharing, 65 percent Federal, 35
percent non-Federal. However, for the subsequent periodic
renourishment of such projects, the Administration will seek a
65 percent non-Federal share, reducing the Federal share to 35
percent. This policy will apply to all renourishment work
funded in 2002 and beyond.
Until this budget, beach nourishment projects started since
1995 have not received budgetary support. Now, due to this
policy change, funding for projects with 2002 requirements is
included in the budget regardless of when the projects were
started. Altogether the budget includes $82 million for beach
nourishment projects.
For the Mississippi River and Tributaries project, the
budget targets funds to high-priority flood damage reduction
projects, which are on the main stem of the Mississippi River
and in the Atchafalaya River Basin of Louisiana.
In the Operation and Maintenance Program, the budget gives
priority among port and harbor and inland waterway activities
to those that support higher commercial navigation use. Funds
for O&M of shallow draft harbors are limited to $47 million.
Among shallow draft harbors, subsistence harbors for isolated
communities and harbors that involve relatively greater use for
commercial cargo are given higher priority, while the harbors
that are essentially recreational in nature are de-emphasized.
Senator Domenici. I wonder if you could just quickly
summarize?
Ms. Tornblom. Yes.
Senator Domenici. I would appreciate it. We would
appreciate it.
Ms. Tornblom. Working closely with the Chief of Engineers
to identify opportunities to strengthen the Civil Works
planning process, we have already agreed to restore the past
practice of concurrent vertical involvement of all
organizations, including the Office of the Assistant Secretary,
at critical steps in the formulation of civil works projects.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, the Corps of Engineers places great emphasis
on technical and analytical approaches to its projects. The
Civil Works Program is a wise investment in the Nation's
future.
Thank you.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Claudia L. Tornblom
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee: Thank
you for the opportunity to testify before this 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
2002.
Accompanying me this morning are Lieutenant General Robert B.
Flowers, Chief of Engineers; Major General Hans A. Van Winkle, Director
of Civil Works; and Mr. Robert F. Vining, Chief of the Programs
Management Division, Directorate of Civil Works.
My statement provides an overview of the fiscal year 2002 Army
Civil Works program and discusses highlights of the program.
fiscal year 2002 army civil works program
The Army Corps of Engineers is the premier Federal agency for
managing water resources project planning, construction, and operation;
protecting the Nation's waters and wetlands; and responding to
emergencies. As a decentralized, watershed-based organization with
strong engineering, environmental, and research capabilities, the Corps
is very well positioned to continue developing integrated solutions to
complex, modern water resources problems. To carry out the Civil Works
program, the Corps works in partnerships with other Federal agencies,
states, and local communities, including the non-Federal cost-sharing
sponsors for studies and projects.
The President's fiscal year 2002 budget for the Army Civil Works
program includes $3.9 billion in appropriations. Of the $3.9 billion,
about $765 million will be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund, the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and other sources offsetting
general revenues. In addition to the $3.9 billion, about $514 million
will be contributed by the Bonneville Power Administration, non-Federal
cost sharing partners, and other sources supplementing appropriated
funds. Details are presented in Table A.
The budget reflects the President's overall goals to slow the
growth of Federal spending, provide for a tax cut, and reduce the
national debt, while providing greater emphasis on education and
protecting social security. The President is committed to a collegial,
bipartisan approach to working with Congress. We look forward to
working with you throughout your deliberations on the President's
fiscal year 2002 budget for the Army Civil Works program.
highlights of the fiscal year 2002 army civil works program
The fiscal year 2002 Army Civil Works program includes a number of
proposals and initiatives, such as targeting funds on continuing work
with high priority outputs, increasing user fees for recreation
services, and modifying the cost sharing for periodic renourishment at
shore protection projects.
The budget emphasizes the principal Civil Works missions of
commercial navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental
restoration. The budget also provides funds for storm damage reduction
studies and projects and for multiple purpose studies and projects that
include other outputs such as hydroelectric power, water supply, and
recreation. No funds are provided to continue additional missions that,
in the view of the Administration, should remain the responsibility of
non-Federal interests. In addition, the budget does not fund individual
studies and projects that are inconsistent with established policies
governing the applicable missions.
Construction Backlog
There is a construction backlog of about $40 billion, including
about $26 billion to complete ongoing regular construction projects,
about $6 billion to complete ongoing Mississippi River and Tributaries
construction projects, and about $8 billion for projects in
Preconstruction Engineering and Design. Available funding is directed
toward construction of the continuing projects, and no new project
construction starts or project-specific study starts are budgeted.
Shore Protection Policy
The fiscal year 2002 budget presents a new Administration policy
toward shore protection projects that involve periodic sand
renourishment. Until now, beach nourishment projects started since
fiscal year 1995 have not received budgetary support. However, ongoing
shore protection projects that involve periodic renourishment and that
are otherwise consistent with established policies are supported in the
fiscal year 2002 budget, no matter when these projects were started,
provided that non-Federal interests agree to pay 65 percent of the
costs of renourishment work funded in fiscal year 2002 or thereafter.
This increased non-Federal cost share reflects the substantial economic
benefits that these projects provide to state and local economies and
ensures that the Federal Government's long-term nourishment obligations
do not crowd out other important funding needs. The existing cost
sharing for initial sand nourishment, which is 65 percent Federal and
35 percent non-Federal in most cases, is not affected by the new
policy.
The new 65 percent non-Federal cost share would apply to all
periodic renourishment costs for which the Federal share is financed
with funds allocated to the project after fiscal year 2001. The Army
Corps of Engineers will develop amendments to the project cooperation
agreements to establish the new 65 percent non-Federal cost share for
periodic renourishment.
In addition, beach nourishment study phases started since fiscal
year 1995 have not received budgetary support until now. With the
policy change, this restriction has been lifted. Project reports will
recommend the same new cost sharing formula for the resulting projects.
Altogether, the budget provides $82 million for beach nourishment
projects.
Recreation User Fees
Recreation user fees will be increased by $10 million, to an
estimated $44 million per year. This is the first step of a four-year
effort to increase recreation user fee receipts by a total of $25
million per year. All of the increase in fees will be made available to
the Corps of Engineers, without further appropriation, for operation,
maintenance, and improvement of Corps recreation facilities. A portion
of these increases will be accomplished by increasing day use fees,
camping fees, annual pass fees, and special use permit fees under
existing authority. For the other portion of the increases, we plan to
transmit proposed legislation to Congress to authorize certain changes
in current fee collection authorities.
General Investigations
The budget for the Civil Works study program is $130 million. This
funding level is intended to slow the growth of the ongoing
construction backlog and avoid unrealistic funding expectations among
non-Federal project sponsors. Cost-sharing sponsors, who are being
asked to invest in these studies, expect timely construction, once
studies and design are completed and the projects are authorized.
No project-specific new study starts are included in the budget.
However, policy-consistent studies that are under way will continue to
move seamlessly from the reconnaissance phase to the feasibility phase
and from the feasibility phase to preconstruction engineering and
design, as they receive the necessary levels of review and approval
within the Corps and the Army.
The budget proposes two new national studies that will provide
information needed by the Army and the Chief of Engineers to assess
potential changes in Civil Works policies and procedures. The first of
these new studies was authorized in Section 223 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 and involves a Project Monitoring Program to
monitor the economic and environmental results of up to 5 projects
constructed by the Corps. The budget includes $100,000 to initiate the
monitoring program.
The second new national study, a National Shoreline Study, was
authorized by Section 215 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 and will assess the extent, causes, and impacts of shoreline
erosion on the coastal shores of the United States. The budget includes
$300,000 to initiate this study.
A number of continuing studies focus on basin-wide solutions to
interrelated water resources problems, where the Corps of Engineers can
be especially effective as an integrator of multi-agency efforts. These
studies include the comprehensive studies initiated in fiscal year 2001
for the Rio Grande River Basin, the White River Basin, and the
Yellowstone River Basin.
Coordination, technical assistance, and research activities also
will be continued. Ongoing coordination of Federal estuary management
activities will include funds to enable Army participation in the
National Estuaries Council.
Construction, General
The fiscal year 2002 budget for the Civil Works Construction,
General program is $1.324 billion. Of the total, $61 million would be
derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and $9 million would be
derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Funds are included for continuing projects that are consistent with
established policies, including Congressional adds that have completed
Administration review and are policy consistent. No funds are included
to initiate construction of new specifically authorized and funded
projects, new projects funded in the Dredged Material Disposal Facility
Program, or new projects under the Continuing Authorities Program.
A number of projects added to the construction program in fiscal
year 2001 have not completed Administration review and, thus, are not
known to be policy-consistent. Where a project report is being prepared
during fiscal year 2001 and additional funds are needed in fiscal year
2002 to complete the project report, the fiscal year 2002 budget
includes the needed funds.
The budget emphasizes the continuing, multi-agency efforts to
restore the South Florida and Everglades ecosystem and to mitigate the
impacts of projects on the Columbia and Snake Rivers on threatened and
endangered salmon species.
$139 million is budgeted for the South Florida and Everglades
program, including $28 million for the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration program authorized in Title VI of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000, $65 million for other elements of the Central
and South Florida project, $26 million for the Kissimmee River
restoration, and $20 million for critical restoration projects.
$81 million is budgeted for the salmon impact mitigation program.
These funds are needed to comply with Biological Opinions issued by the
National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service under the Endangered Species Act, while continuing to operate
the projects for authorized flood control, navigation, and
hydroelectric power purposes. Potentially conflicting requirements of
the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act also must be
reconciled.
The budget provides $88 million for planning, design, and
construction of projects under the Continuing Authorities Program.
These are small projects for flood damage reduction, navigation, beach
erosion control, shore and streambank protection, navigation project
impact mitigation, clearing and snagging, aquatic ecosystem
restoration, beneficial uses of dredged material, and project
modifications for improvement of the environment.
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries
The budget includes $280 million for the Mississippi River and
Tributaries program. The budget targets funds to high priority flood
damage reduction projects, which are on the mainstem of the Mississippi
River and in the Atchafalaya River Basin, Louisiana.
Operation and Maintenance, General
The overall budget for the Operation and Maintenance, General,
account is $1.745 billion. Of this amount, $666 million would be
derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and $29 million would be
derived from Special Recreation User Fees.
In addition to these funds, operation and maintenance of hydropower
facilities in the Pacific Northwest will be directly financed by a
transfer of approximately $114 million from Bonneville Power
Administration revenues, pursuant to an agreement signed four years
ago.
Among port and harbor and inland waterway projects, recreational
shallow-draft harbors and low commercial-use inland waterway segments
are de-emphasized so that scarce resources can be available for
navigation facilities with higher commercial use, as well as for other
project purposes.
Operation and maintenance funds for shallow draft harbors are
limited to $47 million. These are harbors that have authorized depths
of 14 feet or less. Among shallow draft harbors, the subsistence
harbors for isolated communities and the harbors that involve higher
use for commercial cargo and commercial fishing are emphasized, while
the harbors that are essentially recreational in nature are de-
emphasized.
The budget includes $42 million for operation of low commercial-use
inland waterways, that is, inland waterways with less than 1 billion
ton-miles of traffic per year. Funds for maintenance of low commercial-
use inland waterways are limited to $25 million for maintenance
dredging, and the dredging funds are targeted at the waterway segments
with relatively higher commercial use. No funds are requested for
structural maintenance on the low-commercial use inland waterways.
As always, funds will be reprogrammed as necessary for emergencies,
such as to protect human health and safety, to perform emergency
repairs, or to perform emergency dredging of shoaled-in waterways.
Regulatory Program
The budget for the Regulatory Program is $128 million, an increase
of $3 million over the fiscal year 2001 amount for labor cost
increases. These funds are needed to help maintain program performance,
protect important aquatic resources, and support partnerships with
states and local communities through watershed planning efforts. These
funds will be used for permit evaluation, enforcement, administrative
appeals, and studies and environmental impact statements, in order to
provide effective regulation of the Nation's waters and wetlands.
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 to implement needed clean-up at contaminated sites.
This year's budget includes $140 million in new appropriations for this
program.
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
Funding that remains available from prior year appropriations is
sufficient to fund normal program activities during 2002. In order to
finance responses to emergencies that may arise during the year, the
Administration is proposing a government-wide emergency reserve fund.
Civil Works is one of the programs that will be able to tap this
proposed nation-wide emergency reserve fund, in the event that response
costs for qualifying emergencies exceed available funds.
General Expenses
Funds budgeted for the General Expenses program are $153 million.
These funds will be used for executive management and direction
activities of the Corps of Engineers headquarters, the Corps Division
headquarters, and related support organizations.
Among these funds, $1.8 million will be used to continue the
management study authorized by section 216 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000. This study, which is being initiated in fiscal
year 2001, is examining Corps of Engineers planning and review
procedures.
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
The President's fiscal year 2002 budget proposes that $675 million
be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, including $666
million in the Operation and Maintenance, General program for harbor
maintenance, and $9 million in the Construction, General program for
the addition of dredged material disposal facilities at existing
projects.
government performance and results act
A performance plan is in preparation for the Army Civil Works
program, based on the fiscal year 2002 budget. After completion of
Administration review, the plan will be submitted to the Congress, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.
In fiscal year 2002, we plan to maintain high use commercial
navigation facilities in a fully operational state at least 90 percent
of the time, maintain flood damage reduction facilities in a fully
operational state at least 95 percent of the time, and achieve ``no net
loss'' of wetlands by creating, enhancing, and restoring wetlands
functions and values that are comparable to those lost.
project planning and review
The Army is working closely with the Chief of Engineers and others
to identify opportunities to strengthen the Civil Works planning
process. In addition, as indicated in the President's Budget Blueprint,
the Army is considering options for strengthening the ability of the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works to ensure policy
oversight of project planning. Already, General Flowers and I have
restored the past practice of concurrent, vertical involvement at all
organizational levels--including the Office of the Assistant
Secretary--at critical steps in the formulation of studies.
conclusion
In summary, the President's fiscal year 2002 budget for the Army
Civil Works program is a solid one. It continues support to ongoing
work, emphasizes primary missions and applies resources to areas likely
to have the greatest national economic benefit. The Army Civil Works
program is a wise investment in the Nation's future.
Thank you.
Senator Domenici. General, would you proceed? We want to
thank you for your testimony earlier in the year, when you
appeared before the Environment and Public Works Committee. We
know what went on there, and we thank you for your statement.
And would you proceed to summarize yours for today, please? We
will make yours a part of the record, as if you read it.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT B. FLOWERS
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thanks for
inviting me back to testify. I have a prepared statement, and I
have furnished that and ask that it be made a part of the
record.
Senator Domenici. Yes, sir.
Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, as I speak, our Nation is
witnessing yet another flood fight in the upper Midwest.
Farmers, homeowners, small business owners, members of the
National Guard, and others are filling sandbags, building and
reinforcing levees, and taking other actions to protect life
and property.
You have seen the state and local officials, if you have
watched TV, who are responsible for public safety, as they
direct those efforts to protect homes and livelihoods. What you
have not seen so much of is another group of men and women who
are supporting these citizens and their local leaders. They
tend to wear red emergency operations jackets of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. And they have been working behind the
scenes----
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask a question?
Senator Domenici. Sure.
Senator Reid. I heard on the news today--I was very
impressed with the fact that President Bush had sent somebody
along the Mississippi, rather than with a bundle of money,
saying, ``Why do you let this happen all the time? This is the
third flood. Should we not be doing something about that?''
What is your reaction to that?
Are you familiar with that, Senator Domenici?
Senator Domenici. No, I am not.
Senator Reid. I heard that on the radio this morning, that
he sent his director of Federal Emergency Management Agency,
where they have had--I think this is the fourth flood in the
last 15 years. And he is saying, ``Why have you not done
something about this?''
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir. The----
Senator Reid. He is in Iowa. Are you familiar with it?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, it was in Davenport, Iowa.
I was there on----
Senator Reid. That is right.
Lieutenant General Flowers. I was there on Sunday. It is
always a local decision as to whether or not to cost share and
to build flood control. And there was a conscious decision made
on the part of the city fathers, because of the nature of their
waterfront, to not construct flood control protection for their
city.
Senator Reid. But do you not think the President may have
had a good idea?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, I think--again, it is a
very tough decision to make. When you decide not to have flood
control, you end up in a flood fight the way the citizens there
have. And it has been pretty courageous, where they have had to
build temporary levees, working around the clock. And in fact,
when I was there on Sunday, they lost their baseball stadium.
Senator Reid. But my question is--and I am sorry to do
this, Senator Domenici----
Senator Domenici. That is fine.
Senator Reid. But should the people of Nevada, the
taxpayers in Nevada, be paying for this because the people in
Iowa decided not to build a----
Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, that is pretty much a
policy call. But you are right.
Senator Domenici. Oh, good.
Lieutenant General Flowers. Asking people to maybe pay for
the same piece of property that has been flooded time and time
again is not a wise use of the tax dollars.
Senator Domenici. Well, let me comment. You see, the
Administration comes up here, and, you know, I am very
supportive of the President. But I like, when I feel like it,
to say what I think. Now here you have a community that
probably thought the 65-35 was a little bit too expensive for
them. Whether they are right or wrong, I do not know. It would
seem like a good case has been made that you ought not suffer
through it three times. You ought to vote for some money and
eliminate the flood hazard.
But the Administration comes up here with these kinds of
situations all over America, and they want to change the ratio
and turn it around to 35-65. I just want to say that is a neat
proposal. I am not sure how many times we have seen it here,
but I look over and I see Senator Byrd, and I think this will
be my third time in his presence where I have said that is not
going to happen; why do you keep sending it up?
But I say that now, and I say it in all deference and with
goodwill. But, you know, you are not going to get that change.
And if anybody in the Administration would have been looking,
you would find that those who do OMB's work here send this up
all the time, Senator Cochran. And it never happens. So I do
not know why they would have expected that we would do it.
And I want to comment on one other further item. The amount
of money cut out of the Corps is $600 million. Now I have been
looking from the previous year. I look at how did budgets come
about in the past. And it is interesting. My mind locks in on a
number.
On average, every President for the last eight or nine
years has reduced the Corps of Engineers $700 million. And on
average, before we are finished, we put all the $700 million
back and perhaps $50 million or $60 million more.
Now I think it is good that you send up here and tell us
how to save all this money. But I think when they ask me at the
White House why is the budget unrealistic at four-percent
growth, which I just went through, well, here is one I cite.
What do you send us up, this $600 million decrease, and suggest
that we are going to live with four-percent growth, which
includes this decrease? And, you know, it is kind of
unrealistic, also, to expect it.
So if I feel from time to time that we need to be more
realistic, my friends up here will appreciate that I have been
through it so many times. I do not know when we will stop
getting it sent up here only to see us say, you know, it does
not make too much sense.
So I am sorry. That is my principal comment on your
testimony.
And, General, we interrupted you. Would you try to finish
your statement? And I understand the two other gentlemen do not
have statements. So we will get through and have question time.
Go ahead, General.
I did not mean to make it so brief that there is no
statement at all.
Senator Reid. General, that is the best statement I have
heard all day.
Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, the only thing I would
like to say to summarize the statement is that the Nation's
infrastructure--is the Army Corps of Engineers has produced a
26 percent annual rate of return and has put $30 billion in tax
revenues and savings into the Treasury. And I think that
confirms my belief that the American people have invested
wisely in our Nation's investment in water resources
infrastructure.
We are working hard to respond to the call. Our population
has increased. Our infrastructure is aged. Our investment in
water resources has decreased. Today we have a $40 billion
backlog of authorized but unfunded new capital investment that,
when implemented, will provide benefits to the American people.
Our critical maintenance backlog amounts to over $800
million. And as this infrastructure ages, costs go up. The
story continues to worsen with future projections. In a report
card recently released by the American Society of Civil
Engineers, the Nation's navigable waterway infrastructure
received a D+.
Have we paid enough attention to the future? Our answer
would be no. We have also heard that same answer from people
across the country, concerned stakeholders from all walks of
life that we went out and listened to and captured their
concerns last year.
Finally, seeing our men and women in action on Sunday on
the Upper Miss, I am more firmly convinced than ever that your
Army Corps of Engineers has a critical contribution to make in
solving our country's problems today and in the future. Ours is
an organization that has built flexibility into structure to
meet the changing demands of changing times and requirements.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We strive to bring synergy between development and the
environment and seek out the best economic, environmental and
social solutions. We will tackle the tough jobs. I am proud
that our Nation looks to us when it needs the best.
And, sir, that concludes my statement.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Robert B. Flowers
introduction
I am honored to be testifying to your subcommittee today, along
with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Management and
Budget), Ms. Claudia L. Tornblom, on the President's fiscal year 2002
Budget for the United States Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Works
Program.
I am proud of my association with this program, first as a field
engineer and research project manager for the Portland District, then
as commander of the Mississippi River Valley Division, and, since
October, as Chief of Engineers. I am especially honored to have the
opportunity to lead the Corps through its current challenges to serve
this great nation in meeting its many water and related land resources
management needs.
Thanks to this subcommittee's support, the Civil Works Program
remains strong, balanced, responsive, and highly productive. I look
forward to working with you in furtherance of our partnership in
prosecuting this fine program, so broadly beneficial to our nation.
In this statement, I will focus on significant challenges for the
nation in water and related land resources management. I will say just
a few words about the budget, 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 two
topics:
--Summary of the Civil Works Program Budget, and
--Assessing the Nation's Needs for Water and Related Land Resources
Management.
summary of civil works program budget
introduction
This is a good budget. New funding for the Civil Works Program,
including the Direct and Reimbursed programs, is expected to approach
$5.11 billion.
As shown in Table 1, Direct Program funding, including
discretionary and mandatory amounts appropriated directly to the Corps,
totals $4.41 billion. Discretionary amounts total $3.90 billion;
additional amounts total $514 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 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 2001. It also
provides for funding of two new starts under the General Investigations
(GI) program.
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 2002 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.
assessing the nation's needs for water and related land resources
management
introduction
Water and related land resources play major roles in how Americans
live and work. There are many competing and conflicting demands on use
of these limited resources. When, where, how, to what extent, by whom,
and by what means should the demands be addressed? Over the years, the
Corps has employed various means to gather information for use in
defining and understanding national water and related land resource
management issues. Recently, it has employed ``Listening Sessions'' to
improve the accuracy, currency, and relevancy of its information.
initial assessment of circumstances
Last year, through assessment of trends and results of research,
literature searches, and consultations with selected water and related
land resource management experts, we concluded that the nation is
facing important water and related land resources management challenges
with serious implications. We made the following observations and
interpretations:
--As the world's climate changes, changing hydrology and water
distribution and, in turn, environmental and socioeconomic
conditions, we must anticipate need for changes in and
additions to the nation's water and related land resources
management facilities, systems, and practices, and effect such
changes 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 will be
compromised, and 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 in 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 for ecosystem restoration, wetlands management,
and nonstructural floodplain management.
--As the nation's water and related land management infrastructure
ages, it must be rehabilitated, modified, replaced, or removed.
--As the nation's population grows, there will be growing conflicts
among multiple interests within watersheds wanting to use
available water and related lands for diverse needs.
--The American public has a strong and growing interest in downsizing
the Federal Government and, in turn, its workforce. In light of
this, ongoing outsourcing and privatizing for accomplishment of
government work, including engineering, will increase. An
implication of this is that the nonfederal sector, comprising
States and private interests will have to share greater
responsibility in water and related land resources management.
challenges based on listening sessions
In light of these observations, particularly, the last one, the
Corps invited Americans to ``Join the Dialogue'' about management of
the nation's water and related land resources.
The purpose of the dialogue was twofold, specifically, to provide
opportunities for citizens to:
--identify and discuss water and related land resources management
needs, opportunities, and problems impacting their lives and
future sustainability of their communities and environments;
and,
--express what they believe the federal role should be in addressing
these issues.
This dialogue was carried on from June through November 2000 in 16
listening sessions--14 regional and two national--at locations across
the country. A cross-section of stakeholders, totaling nearly 1,300,
participated in the sessions. This included representatives from
federal, State, and local agencies, tribes, environmental
organizations, port authorities, private companies, legal
professionals, farmers, navigators, journalists, and homeowners. The
sessions were open to the public and comprised a combination of small
group and plenary sessions. Corps participation generally was limited
to note taking. Consensus on water resources issues was not sought.
Detailed reports on each session are available at the web site of
our Institute for Water Resources. We invite you to read them,
particularly our summary report: America's Water Resource Challenges
for the 21st Century: Summary Report on Identified Water Resource
Challenges and Water Challenge Areas. Views expressed in this document,
although not reflecting official policies or positions of the Corps,
nevertheless, and importantly, accurately reflect views of the
participants. This information will be used in dialogue on water and
related land resources challenges in the future. Significantly, we have
already used it in developing goals and strategies for our Civil Works
Program Strategic Plan.
Participants in the listening sessions identified more than 3,400
water and related land resources management issues and grouped them
into sets of challenges, forming 30 to 50 sets at each regional
session, and 542 sets all told. We then distilled these sets into 18
for the above-cited report, and, ultimately, into 10.
Solutions to these challenge sets are complex and will require the
concerted effort of many government organizations, at all levels,
working for the collective good of the nation. Moreover, optimal
solutions will require involvement and participation of all Americans.
The more, the better.
conclusion
The President's Budget for the Corps of Engineers is a good one. 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.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. This concludes
my statement.
Senator Domenici. We will now start the questioning.
Senator, we will go to your side first. And then we will go
to you, Senator, on our side, and back to Senator Byrd.
Senator Reid. We are, General Flowers, familiar with power
shortages being experienced in the country, particularly in the
West. Are there investments we could be making in the Corps'
projects that could contribute to solving the Nation's growing
energy crisis?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, yes, sir. We have
locations around the country where additional units could be
put into powerhouses that are already constructed.
Senator Reid. Could you give us some examples?
[The information follows:]
We have conducted previous assessments that indicated a total
potential increase in generating capacity of approximately 3,000 MW
exists. This could be achieved through a combination of improvements to
existing equipment and installation of power generating units at
facilities that currently do not include hydropower. On our dams, some
of our dams in the Columbia River system, we have consciously left bays
empty that could contain turbines. Examples include the Dworshak
Project in Idaho, the Libby Project in Montana, the John Day project in
Oregon, and other projects located throughout the country such as Fort
Gibson in Oklahoma. The assessments referred to above were completed in
the 1980's and are in need of updating to reflect new environmental
considerations work that is already underway or completed.
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir. On our dams, some of
our dams in the Columbia River system, we have consciously left
bays empty that could contain turbines. We also have some
hydroelectric projects that are part of that critical
maintenance backlog that I spoke of earlier, where hydro-power
is not operating at its peak efficiency. And if those were
fixed, we would be able to do that.
The name of the project that comes to mind, I believe, is
the Clayton project--Carter. Sorry.
Senator Reid. It started with a C.
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. Well, if you would like to have somebody
answer with other examples, we do not hold you to this.
Senator Reid. Yes.
Senator Domenici. And would it be all right, Senator, if
they submit additional examples?
Senator Reid. Yes. I would appreciate, General, if you
would, in your 10 days that Senator Domenici has indicated,
respond to these questions. Give us an indication of the places
you could upgrade and approximately how much it would cost.
Because we are really looking for new ways to produce
electricity. And hydroelectric, as we all know, is really non-
polluting. So we would appreciate you doing that.
[The information follows:]
The project referred to above is the Carters project in Georgia.
This project has experienced major equipment failures that are in the
process of being repaired using O&M funds. Repair of these units is a
very high priority within the region.
The Corps also has a very effective major rehabilitation program
for it's hydropower facilities. This program is a direct result of
studies done by the Corps in the late 1980's in recognition of our
aging infrastructure and growing backlog of maintenance. Two projects,
Hartwell in Georgia and South Carolina, and Dardannelle in Arkansas
have already been rehabilitated under this program.
Eight other projects, Bonneville and The Dalles in Oregon and
Washington, J. Strom Thurmond in Georgia and South Carolina, Jim
Woodruff in Florida, Walter F. George in Alabama and Georgia, Buford in
Georgia, Garrison in North Dakota, and John H. Kerr in Virginia are in
various stages of rehabilitation construction.
Two more projects, Allatoona in Georgia and Ozark in Arkansas have
been technically approved for rehabilitation and are awaiting new start
funding. The cost of these projects are completely reimbursed by the
rate payer through the various power marketing administrations.
Major Rehabilitation reports on three hydropower projects, Webbers
Falls in Oklahoma, Center Hill in Tennessee, and Whitney in Texas are
currently being reviewed by our headquarters. Three additional projects
are currently being evaluated for major rehabilitation. These projects
are Wolf Creek in Tennessee, Fort Randall in South Dakota and Barkley
in Kentucky.
Within the last year, the Corps' Southwestern Division formed a
Process Action Team to look at rehabilitation of all of the Corps
hydropower plants that are marketed by the Southwestern Power
Administration. This team has made recommendations for prioritizing the
work and streamlining the rehabilitation reporting, approval and
funding process.
Finally, in the Pacific Northwest, all of the capital improvements
are funded directly by the Bonneville Power Administration. BPA and the
Corps have a joint operating committee that have prioritized these
improvements over the next ten year period.
In summary, the Corps has been aggressively working for over a
decade at improving the reliability of these aging hydropower
facilities, taking advantage of opportunities to improve efficiency and
output and reduce operating and maintenance costs.
Senator Reid. General, I know that the Corps is currently
responding to the flooding situation in the Midwest, as you
have indicated already. Without a supplemental appropriation,
how will your emergency response actions be impacted?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, we had enough money in the
account at the beginning of the year to, we thought, last us
through the year. We have spent about $6 million, I believe,
out of the FCCE account so far on the flooding in the upper
Midwest. And I think we still have enough left in the account,
if we have another event someplace in the country. But more
than that, we will need to come back with a request for
additional funds.
Senator Reid. And you do not know the end of the present
emergency, is that right?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Unfortunately not, sir, no.
Senator Reid. Now, General, the Corps held listening
sessions throughout the country last year in order to determine
the views of the public on a number of issues that this
committee is concerned about. What were the results of these
listening sessions? And how would you incorporate these views
into your policies and procedures?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, we heard a great deal from
the listening sessions that we held around the country. They
have been summarized in a document that is on our website. We
have also provided a summary sheet, summary pamphlet, of the
comments that we have received. And we did our best to
incorporate everything we heard in a strategic plan that was
developed by our civil works director, which is now being
staffed through the department and to OMB.
Senator Reid. Can you provide the committee with copies of
the strategic plan?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, we will work to do that.
Senator Reid. It is completed.
Ms. Tornblom. No, Senator, it is not completed. We are in
discussions with the Office of Management and Budget at this
time. And just a few days ago----
Senator Reid. It is completed. They just have not given you
permission to release it, is that right?
Ms. Tornblom. It is a draft, sir. And I believe the new
Army leadership, the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary for
Civil Works, would want the opportunity to review it and make
sure they are comfortable with it before it is publicly
released.
Senator Reid. One last question, Chairman Domenici.
What would be the impact to the cost and schedule of
ongoing projects if the President's budget were enacted as
proposed? It is over $600 million lower than what we have
required. For these projects budgeted in the President's
proposal, are they funded to the optimal level to begin with?
Do you understand the question?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
Senator Reid. And I guess I would partially answer it
myself. It is obvious if you do not fund them at present
levels, the cost goes up in the out years. Is that true?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, what happens, what we have
estimated, based on the 2002 budget, is that we will have about
$5.8 billion in benefits that are foregone and about another
$0.5 billion in additional costs, mostly interest. And the
average delay on a project would be about 10 months.
What you end up doing with ongoing work is funding at about
57 percent. That is across the board. Some are higher, some are
lower. But a conscious decision was made to continue the work
that is already ongoing. It is funded at about 57 percent. So
yes, sir, it does stretch it out. The average delay is about 10
months, and it is a little over $600 million in cost.
Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement and some
questions I am going to submit for the record.
I do have one question I want to ask you, though. Is the
Mississippi River and Tributaries project still one of the
largest projects that you have in terms of dollar cost
requirements each year in your budget?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
Senator Cochran. In that connection, I have not looked at
the details of the budget submission, but I assume that there
are cuts in that program, as well as some of the others that
you have submitted in your budget. Is that right?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
Senator Cochran. Does this heighten the level of potential
damage to people who live and work along the Mississippi River
and the homes and the farms that lie along the river?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, in the current budget,
priority was placed on projects along the main stem of the
Mississippi River. So there is probably some increased risk to
those who are on the tributaries.
Senator Cochran. And is it not also a fact that the levee
system on the main stem of the Mississippi River is subject to
erosion, deterioration, and aging that heightens the risk of
loss of life and property in case of flooding like you are
having on the Upper Mississippi right now?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
Senator Cochran. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Byrd?
Senator Byrd, I am going to go back and take a picture with
some constituents, but I will return before you are finished.
Senator Byrd. Very well. Thank you.
General Flowers, I believe our last discussion was about
Hannibal. And he said, ``If there isn't a way across the Alps,
I'll make one. I'll make one.''
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. He must have been the original army engineer,
would you not say?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, I would say so.
Senator Byrd. In short, I want to convey my strong
disappointment in the Administration's disproportionate and
severe proposed budget cuts to the Corps.
The water infrastructure investments and navigation and
flood control by the Army Corps of Engineers produced an annual
rate of return, as you have just pointed out, of approximately
26 percent. And yet, the Administration has decided to cut the
Corps from between 15, 16 percent from last year's level.
The Administration has proposed a budget that is woefully
inadequate to continue the progress made in fiscal year 2001.
Projects important to the Congress were omitted from this
budget proposal. And the projects that the Administration chose
to fund are funded at much less than optimal levels. The
Administration's budget proposal will cause serious increases
to both the schedule and the cost of thousands of urgently
needed projects due to inadequate funding.
The fact that no new studies or projects are proposed is
incredibly short-sighted. In a time of budget surpluses, if we
cannot afford to invest in our water resources, when can we
ever afford to do it? The Nation has tremendous water resource
needs. And this budget is a far cry from meeting those needs.
In West Virginia, there are numerous navigation and flood
control needs. I want to ask you, General Flowers, about two in
particular, the Marmet Locks Expansion project and the London
Locks Rehabilitation project. And I have a series of questions
that I will submit for the record.
But I will begin with this. With respect to the Marmet
Locks and Dam located on the Kanawha River, ten miles upstream
from Charleston, the project entails constructing a new lock
chamber landward of the existing locks, which are too small to
handle the increased traffic, part of which is attributed to
the Clean Air Act amendments and the increased demand for low
sulphur coal and an increase in barge size.
Which lock in the United States, General Flowers, is the
most heavily used lock?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, I would guess the Marmet
Lock.
I know it to be the Marmet Lock, sir.
Senator Byrd. You guess that? Alexander, upon his return
from India, was urged by the Chaldeans to delay his entrance
into Babylon. And Alexander, in light of all the prophesies and
the predictions that were being made, said, ``The best prophet
is he who can guess right.''
You guessed right.
Lieutenant General Flowers. I am sure he was an engineer,
yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. Does the Marmet Lock replacement have a
strong benefit cost ratio?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir, it does.
Senator Byrd. What is it?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Four to one, sir.
Senator Byrd. 4.1 to 1, right? The Marmet Locks and Dam are
67 years old. What impact does this have on transportation and
the safety of those working at the locks in the barge industry
and on area residents?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, the impact by not
replacing a structure that has outlived its life can be very
severe. It is pretty tough to quantify. I would tell you that
some tough calls have to be made when you are doing the
budgeting process. And we are working hard to try and make the
best possible use we can of the dollars that are available. Had
we the dollars, we would have put more into the Marmet Lock.
The amount that is being applied will stretch out the
construction times.
Senator Byrd. When locks are deteriorating, and I assume
they are at Marmet, could this result in a variety of
disasters?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir, there is that
potential.
Senator Byrd. When are the lock chambers projected to meet
maximum capacity?
Lieutenant General Flowers. I believe that year is 2005,
sir.
Senator Byrd. Is there potential for the same type of
delays which average 32 hours per transit and a number of
accidents prevalent at the former Gallipolis Locks and Dam on
the Ohio River prior to the replacement of the locks and the
rehabilitation of the dam? Is there a potential for the same
kinds of delays?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir, there is.
Senator Byrd. What improvements will be realized with the
completed new lock at Marmet?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Well, you will have improved
public safety, greater potential for throughput through the
lock and dam. I think those are probably the two major
benefits. And time savings, no delays.
Senator Byrd. What would you estimate that the improvements
at Marmet would bring about with respect to the average transit
time of 4.7 hours to .8 hours?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. Would you?
Lieutenant General Flowers. .8 hours.
Senator Byrd. From 4.7 to .8 hours. That would be the
average transit time. And at current traffic levels, what does
this mean in terms of hours of trip time savings?
Lieutenant General Flowers. 10.5 thousand hours I am told,
sir. That is a significant amount--16.5 thousand, sir.
Senator Byrd. 16.5 thousand hours of trip time savings. And
for more than 4,000 tows that use the project, is that correct?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. Does the Corps have a capability to proceed
with construction in fiscal year 2002?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir, we do.
Senator Byrd. Then how could the Administration be so
short-sighted as to not include construction funds in the
budget, given all that has just been reported on the need to
expand this critical navigation project? What level of funding
would be needed to proceed with the construction?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, the decision on the amount
in the budget, I understand, was based, is based, on us trying
to keep all the projects that are currently under construction
going. Currently budgeted for $6.2 million is fiscal year 2002
for Marmet Lock, and we have a capability of $28.1 million.
[The information follows:]
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 2002 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.''
Senator Byrd. Will the under-funding of the project cause
an increase in the project cost to complete? And if so, by how
much?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir, it will. $260 million
to $313 million.
Senator Byrd. Now what do you mean when you say that?
Lieutenant General Flowers. That will be the total amount
of dollars that will have to be spent to complete the project
with this current delay.
Senator Byrd. Are you saying that each year of under-
funding creates an increase in the project cost by the delays
in the construction schedule?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. And since the project was authorized in the
1996 WRDA, the fully funded cost of the project has increased
from $260 million to the present estimate of $313 million? Is
that what you are saying?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. Does the budget provide sufficient funds to
finish the real estate acquisition process?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir. I am told--it does
not. It does, but at a slower pace. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. It does, but at a slower pace.
Lieutenant General Flowers. Right.
Senator Byrd. Well, what would be the new time frame, then,
for completing real estate acquisition?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, March 2003 now.
Senator Byrd. That would be the new time frame, March 2003.
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. Instead of?
Lieutenant General Flowers. The original schedule was to be
completed in fiscal year 2002.
Senator Byrd. The owners of the 250 homes and businesses in
Bell that will be acquired for the lock expansion project have
had their social and economic lives severely impacted by the
impending government acquisition of their property. Although
the Corps has acquired about 150 of 250 properties needed for
the project, the remaining residents will continue to feel the
adverse effects of the project until completion of their
acquisition.
So this means that decisions on schools for the children,
repairs, maintenance on their homes and businesses, medical
services and other livelihood issues will continue to be
extremely difficult until the acquisition program is completed.
If the Corps' full capability of $28.1 million is secured,
would the Corps be able to complete real estate acquisition and
begin construction of the new lock then?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes sir.
Senator Byrd. Now if I may turn briefly to the London Locks
Rehabilitation, Mr. Chairman, this will complete my questions.
What is the benefit cost ratio of the London Locks
Rehabilitation project?
Lieutenant General Flowers. It is about 25.5 to 1, sir.
Senator Byrd. And coal is the primary commodity transiting
the London Locks, I believe.
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. Are there additional Corps capabilities for
this project for fiscal year 2002 above those identified in the
President's budget?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir. The budget
recommended $4.3 million, and we have a capability of $8.7
million on that project.
Senator Byrd. What is the urgency in the Corps' receiving
full capability funding in fiscal year 2002, especially with
respect to the lock closure and the condition of the lock wall?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Our greatest concern is with
the lock wall failure there at London Lock and Dam. That is
probably the biggest risk we face, if we extend the project.
Senator Byrd. There could be an unforeseen accident, would
you say?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. The longer the construction is delayed, would
you say that the more severe the temporary lock closure will be
to the shipment of commerce?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. Once the lock is closed, it is essential that
adequate funding be available, both in fiscal year 2002 and
fiscal year 2003 to allow for the most efficient construction
sequence to be undertaken. How long will the river lock chamber
that is to be rehabilitated be closed?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Two hundred six days, sir.
Senator Byrd. What impact will that lower capacity have on
river traffic?
Lieutenant General Flowers. It will significantly decrease
the amount of traffic that can transit the rivers.
Senator Byrd. How would you say, percentage-wise, that that
would effectively cut on the lockage capacity at London while
leaving only the land chamber open?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, we believe that will be
about 21 percent.
Senator Byrd. Twenty-one percent.
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. I thought it would be about half.
Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, you are right. It is about
42 percent.
Senator Byrd. About 42 percent. Do not make that mistake
often.
Lieutenant General Flowers. No, sir.
Senator Byrd. That means I have to do my homework better.
Lieutenant General Flowers. Got it, sir.
Senator Byrd. By what percentage will lock capacity
increase once the rehabilitation is completed?
Lieutenant General Flowers. Twenty-one percent, sir.
Senator Byrd. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
General, very much for your testimony.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Senator Byrd.
Senator Murray, do you have a few moments that I might make
a couple remarks and then let you close the meeting?
Senator Murray. That will be fine.
Senator Domenici. Is that all right with you, Senator?
Senator Murray. Absolutely.
Senator Byrd. Oh, absolutely, yes. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
First I want to put in the record, just for explanation
purposes, the Wall Street Journal, Thursday, March 1 article
called Distributing the Pain and the Gain. And what it shows is
how all the departments have fared. And I must submit that I
really did not think that the water projects of the country
should get the most pain of all. But they get a 13.3 percent;
that is, the Corps, which is the largest percent decrease of
any agency or department of government.
And I know this is a public document, but I would just like
to put that in the hearing record at this point.
[The information follows:]
Senator Domenici. And I wanted to make sure, with Senator
Byrd talking about authorized projects that are not being
funded, that we make sure the record reflects, not in his case
with reference to his two locks, but we have hundreds and
hundreds of authorized projects that we have never paid for
and, I must say publicly, that we never intend to.
In fact, we tried to clean that up once. I do not remember
what my position around here was, but, Senator, I remember we
found kind of a place where we said, well, now is about the
time to start taking some projects out, because we found one
old one that made Dallas a seaport. And we found, working with
Senator Bentsen, that even he thought that was modern day
rather preposterous. But we gave him two or three years to see
if they could get it to be a seaport, and then we started some
process of weeding out. And I do not know how many we took out.
But I think it is important that we know we are not doing
justice by all this when we just continue to authorize with no
idea when we are going to be paying for whatever it is we tell
the public in our press releases that we are going to do.
And, General, I wanted to ask one last question. You know,
years ago when I was a brand new senator, we did not have the
luxury of passing a lot of legislation. Back 26 and 25 years
ago, we sat around for the first term and maybe did a couple
things. But I happened to be the lucky fellow that introduced
and passed the Inland Waterway User Fees. You all recall that.
Some of you were old enough. That was a real struggle, because
the old guys out there who were working in those barges, they
came to meetings and just challenged me, why do I not go out
and do their job for a while.
And, of course, some of them wondered what a senator from
New Mexico would be doing interfering with their locks. But it
turned out that eventually they found out that I was a ranking
member on a subcommittee, and it was my job. And believe it or
not, we passed by an overwhelming margin one afternoon about
4:00 o'clock the ten cent diesel fuel. Everybody said it was
too much, and it would pay for everything.
It turns out--I was just scanning here the sources of
funding for the harbors for all of the Corps, inland, special--
what is this whole category, this category 3.9? The sources of
appropriation, General Fund, Harbor Maintenance Fund. The
Inland Waterway Fund is just $61 million out of $3.9 billion.
So it is doing a little bit.
Let me close by saying to the acting civilian chief, I
certainly hope I have just been frank today and have not in any
way offended you.
Ms. Tornblom. Not at all, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. I do worry that we consistently get these
low requests, and then we have to find the money for them. And
it makes it difficult for all of us. So I am sure the same
thing is going to happen more or less this year. I do not want
to get your hopes up too much, but I think eventually we will
try to square this one away a little bit between the budget
process and the appropriations.
With that, we have about ten questions. We will submit them
to you. And I want to just close by asking you, Ms. Tornblom,
none of these cuts were predicated upon an argument at any
level that the Corps was not doing a good job, based upon last
year's media exposure?
Ms. Tornblom. Mr. Chairman, no, they were not. I got a very
clear response to that when I inquired with the Office of
Management and Budget. This was totally a dollar-driven
decision and, in part, reflected the fact that the new
Administration did not feel comfortable going forward with an
alternative harbor maintenance fee proposal, which made the
bottom line more difficult for them. This was totally a dollar-
driven decision.
Senator Domenici. Right.
Senator Murray, would you--I yield to you. And would you do
your questioning and then feel comfortable closing the meeting?
Senator Murray. Absolutely.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Corps people.
Senator Murray [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. And I am sorry I was not able to make this morning's
portion of the hearing on the Bureau of Reclamation's budget,
because my question really involves both agencies.
General, as you know, the Pacific Northwest is under the
Endangered Species Act obligation to recover several endangered
species of salmon, trout, and sturgeon. In December of 2000,
the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife
Service issued biological opinions on the Columbia Snake River
hydro-power operations. These biological opinions spell out the
steps that we have to take to recover native fish populations.
If these reasonable and prudent alternative actions are not
taken, there is going to be further debate on the removal of
the Lower Snake River dams. With the energy crisis and the
drought that is now impacting Washington State, this is a very
tough time for agriculture and for fish recovery.
President Bush has voiced his support for fish recovery
without removing the Snake River dams, and I appreciate that
position. But his budget does not reflect a real commitment to
recovering these native populations. Regional, Federal agencies
and everyone involved with the biological opinions agree that
it will take a spending increase to meet these actions.
Estimates are between $50 million and $500 million. In fact,
$50 million is the bare minimum, and that would require even
larger increases in fiscal year 2003.
But between the $50 million and $500 million needed,
President Bush has come far short. Unfortunately, the Interior
budget, as well, appears to only offer an $8 million increase
in funding for 2002 to implement the biological opinions. The
budgets for the Corps of Engineers and the National Marine
Fisheries Service do not reflect a significant investment in
these biological opinions.
The main provision in the Corps budget for fish recovery is
the Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program. The Corps' budget
reflects $81 million for the program. That is the same amount
that we appropriated last year. And so it does not reflect any
of the needed increase.
It is my understanding that the Corps could use up to $116
million in 2002 for implementation of the biological opinions.
And many believe it could be even higher. Unless President Bush
improves his fish recovery budget, or unless Congress improves
it for him, the issue is going to end up in the courts sooner,
rather than later. And I fear that we will fail to recover
native species vital to the economy and the culture of the
Pacific Northwest. We have got to do better, if we are going to
recover these fish populations.
But, General, I would like to know how the Corps plans to
meet biological opinion obligations with this budget without
putting off increased funding to fiscal year 2003.
Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, ma'am. I was able to visit
the Northwest last week and visit several of the projects that
are involved in recovering and will be vital as we work the
implementation plan for the Bi Ops. And you are absolutely
right. It is a very, very tough proposition that we are working
there in the Northwest.
The $81 million reflected in the budget is short of our
capability. Our capability is about $110 million in fiscal year
2002. And what it does is it puts some risk in our ability to
implement the Bi Ops.
Senator Murray. Well, I appreciate that honest answer. And
I am very worried this is going to put us into court, if we do
not meet this biological opinion. Has the Federal caucus, the
working group of all Federal agencies that are involved in the
biological opinion, have they developed a coordinated budget
for implementation of this Bi Op?
Lieutenant General Flowers. I met with the Federal caucus
last week. And they have put together a coordinated budget,
yes, ma'am.
Senator Murray. When will we see that?
Lieutenant General Flowers. I will check with the caucus
and make sure that it is made available. As far as I know, it
is available now.
[The information follows:]
The Federal agencies at the Washington level are, collectively,
trying to tie that budget together. When it is available, it should be
provided by the Office of Management and Budget.
Senator Murray. Okay. We need to get it very soon, because
we cannot wait any longer to implement ground recovery
projects. The Tribes, agriculture, irrigation,
environmentalist, transportation industry have all really
voiced support for this biological opinion, as you know,
General. And I think it is critical that we move forward on
implementing this Bi-Op.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
And I will work with the Corps, the Administration, here in
Congress and the State and Tribes and everyone to make sure
that we do everything we can to implement this biological
opinion in fiscal year 2002.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
[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
beach re-nourishment policy change
Included in this budget, is a proposal to change the cost-sharing
percentages on the Corps' beach re-nourishment program. What the
Administration is proposing is an increase of the non-Federal cost
requirements from 35 percent to 65 percent.
Question. Ms. Tornblom, can you provide the Committee the
background on how the Administration arrived at this policy change?
Ms. Tornblom. The fiscal year 2002 budget presents a new
Administration policy toward projects that involve periodic beach re-
nourishment. Until now, beach nourishment projects started since fiscal
year 1995 have not received budgetary support. However, ongoing shore
protection projects that involve periodic re-nourishment and that are
otherwise consistent with established policies are supported in the
fiscal year 2002 budget no matter when these projects were started,
provided that non-Federal sponsors agree to pay 65 percent of the costs
of re-nourishment work funded in fiscal year 2002 or thereafter. This
increased non-Federal cost share reflects the substantial economic
benefits that these projects provide to state and local economies and
ensures that the Federal Government's long-term re-nourishment
obligations do not crowd out other important funding needs. The
existing cost sharing for initial sand nourishment, which is 65 percent
Federal and 35 percent non-Federal in most cases, is not affected by
the new policy.
Question. What kind of hearings or consultations did the
Administration do with the affected parties or Congress regarding this
change?
Ms. Tornblom. I am not aware whether the Administration might have
had any hearings or consultations with affected parties or Congress the
Administration might have had prior to announcing the change in cost
sharing for periodic nourishment of shore protection projects. On April
9, 2001, the day the budget was made public, I sent letters to each of
the affected non-Federal sponsors, informing them of the new cost
sharing policy and explaining the rationale for the change.
Question. This change has been proposed as ``voluntary'' and if
non-Federal sponsors of a project chose to change their cost-sharing
they would likely be required to renegotiate their existing contract.
Please provide the committee an estimate of the additional costs which
will be incurred by the non-Federal parties?
Ms. Tornblom. The difference in the non-Federal cost share
attributable to the change in cost sharing to periodic nourishment
projects of funding included in the budget is about $21 million in
fiscal year 2002.
Question. Are there any savings from this policy change assumed in
your fiscal year 2002 budget? If so, how much and what is the
Administration going to do to cover any shortfall created by this,
should non-Federal sponsors choose not to increase their contribution?
Ms. Tornblom. Yes, there are savings to the Federal Government
attributable to the change in cost sharing for periodic nourishment.
The savings amount is about $21 million in fiscal year 2002, the same
amount as the increased non-Federal share. No shortfall is expected
because the budget is constructed on the basis that the Corps would
only proceed with re-nourishment work financed with fiscal year 2002
funds after the non-Federal sponsor had voluntarily agreed to pay the
additional share for the cost of such work.
upper mississippi and illinois navigation study, illinois, iowa,
minnesota, missouri and wisconsin
Question. General Flowers, can you please update this Committee on
the status of the Upper Mississippi River Study?
General Flowers. The Corps and the Principals Group--which consists
of Washington-level executives from Federal agencies with a vested
interest in the study are reviewing the National Research Council's
report on the subject study. The Corps will consider the Principals
Group's input as we revise the Project Study Plan that will set the
course to complete this complex system feasibility study. This revised
Project Study Plan is scheduled for completion in July 2001. The
Project Study Plan will establish a revised study schedule and cost
estimate, which are not available at this time.
Question. What progress has the Corps made with regard to any
outstanding issues or action items needed by the Corps with regard to
recommendations for change?
General Flowers. I have taken several courses of action specific to
the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers Navigation Study. In regards
to the management of the Navigation Study, the study team has been
placed under the direct supervision of BG Edwin Arnold, Commanding
General of the Mississippi Valley Division. This action places the
Navigation Study's Project Manager under the specific direction of BG
Arnold, in light of the regional and controversial nature of the study.
Secondly, we established a Principals Group consisting of Washington-
level executives from Federal agencies with a vested interest in the
study. Membership includes Department of Agriculture; Department of
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; Department of Transportation,
Maritime Administration; Environmental Protection Agency; and Corps of
Engineers. A regional group has also been convened from staff of these
agencies to provide multi-agency oversight and guidance to the study
and provide input to the Principals Group process. The Corps and
Principals Group are reviewing the National Research Council's report
on the subject study.
Question. General, you testified recently that, by July 2002, you
expected to send Congress a report on the Upper Mississippi navigation
needs. Can you tell us if the Corps is still on schedule to release the
report?
General Flowers. My goal is to provide a report to Congress by July
2002. However, the ongoing rescoping effort and revision of the Project
Study Plan will define the actions that will be needed to produce a
decision document and the time required to deliver a report to
Congress. If it proves inadvisable to produce a comprehensive report in
July 2002, I will consider submitting a report that addresses measures
that could be implemented in the interim.
corps backlog
Question. The Corps budget justification alludes to the fact that
the reason there are no new starts requested in fiscal year 2002 is
that the Corps wants to focus on its backlog.
Ms. Tornblom, I would like to know, how you expect the Corps to
address its backlog, which some estimate it at $50 billion, in an
effective manner with a 14 percent cut in its budget?
Ms. Tornblom. Funds are included in the fiscal year 2002 budget to
achieve meaningful progress on continuing projects that are consistent
with established policies. No funds are included for new construction
starts since that would further slow the completion on ongoing work.
The balance to complete budgeted construction projects is a large part
of the construction backlog, so the budget focuses on completing these
ongoing projects rather than starting new projects.
Question. Does the Corps backlog increase in any manner with this
level of funding?
Ms. Tornblom. Assuming that fiscal year 2001 funds were
appropriated and that no additional funds were available to continue
design and construction, we projected when the President's fiscal year
2001 budget was presented to Congress that the design and construction
backlog would be approximately $45.7 billion at the end of fiscal year
2001. Using the same assumptions, we now project that by the end of
fiscal year 2002 the backlog will be $48.0 billion. This growth in the
backlog is attributable to additional projects being authorized in the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 or completing the feasibility
phase of planning, changes in estimates, and selected price level
adjustments. The President's fiscal year 2002 budget proposes a total
of approximately $1.5 billion for design and construction in three
appropriation accounts. This is the appropriate funding level in light
of alternative uses of Federal funds. Under the President's fiscal year
2002 budget, the backlog projected for the end of fiscal year 2002 will
be reduced to approximately $46.5 billion.
Question. Ms. Tornblom, How will the Corps handle within this
budget those projects which were authorized under WRDA 2000, which are
ready to move forward? Aren't you effectively ignoring the backlog?
Ms. Tornblom. We are moving forward on PED on many of these
projects. We believe that the best way to address the backlog under a
constrained budget is to complete projects that have started
construction before taking on additional projects that will force all
construction to proceed more slowly. There are no new construction
starts proposed in the fiscal year 2002 budget, whether authorized in
the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 or earlier authorizing
legislation. Both the unstarted projects and the balance to complete
ongoing projects are part of the construction backlog. Available
funding is directed toward construction of continuing projects that are
consistent with established policies.
Question. General, how will the construction backlog be impacted by
the fiscal year 2002 budget request?
General Flowers. Sir, as I indicated previously, the President's
budget will reduce the backlog at the end of fiscal year 2002. Because
funds are limited, the budget focuses on completing ongoing
construction projects.
impact of the president's budget request
Question. The fiscal year 2002 request by the Administration for
the Corps is 14 percent less than last year, or down $600 million. Most
Federal agencies are being held at a 4 percent growth rate, which is
clearly not the case here. Ms. Tornblom, can you tell me what the
rationale was behind this budget for the Corps?
Ms. Tornblom. This budget reflects the Administration's priorities.
Funds for the Civil Works program are applied primarily to the Corps'
principal mission areas of commercial navigation, flood damage
reduction, and environmental restoration.
Question. Ms. Tornblom, given the recent controversies surrounding
the Corps, do you believe the Corps was unfairly targeted for a budget
reduction?
Ms. Tornblom. No, Sir, I do not. The budget decisions were
unrelated to those matters.
Question. Can you please explain the 14 percent cut?
Ms. Tornblom. The President's budget for fiscal year 2002
approximates the appropriated amounts for the last few years, other
than fiscal year 2001. The overall budget amount is in accordance with
the President's government-wide budget priorities. Within the overall
amount, emphasis is placed on the primary Civil Works missions of
commercial navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental
restoration and on the completion of ongoing work rather than
initiation of new work.
Question. Do you believe the Corps' budget was used as a means to
yield savings within the Administration's overall budget because they
felt certain Congress would add the necessary funds back for a more
reasonable budget?
Ms. Tornblom. No, sir. The budget reflects the President's views of
the amounts that should be allocated to discretionary spending in
general and to the Army Civil Works program in particular.
Question. Did anyone within the Army's hierarchy fight on behalf of
the Corps during the budget deliberations and passback?
Ms. Tornblom. Sir, once the Department of the Army received its
initial allocation decision, or passback, for the Army Civil Works
program, the Acting Secretary of the Army submitted a strong appeal to
the passback.
Question. Please provide the committee the outcome of these
deliberations and the specifics of additional funding which was
provided as a result of the passback.
Ms. Tornblom. The advice and counsel leading up to the
recommendations which form the basis of the President's Budget are part
of the internal deliberative process. Similar to the pre-markup
activities of any Congressional committee, the initial views and
positions within the Executive Branch vary widely relative to the final
outcome in the President's Budget. In order to assure the President the
full benefit of advice from the agencies and departments, the
Administration treats this as pre-decisional, internal information.
Question. General Flowers, can you tell the committee the impact
this budget has on the Corps?
General Flowers. The emphasis that the budget places on ongoing
construction activities and on our priority mission areas would have a
positive impact on the Corps. On the other hand, to the extent that the
budget provides less funding for justified projects than the maximum
that the Corps would be able to spend efficiently, economic and
environmental outputs would be deferred.
Question. General, please quantify for the committee the benefits
foregone as a result of this budget.
General Flowers. Compared with project schedules that could be
achieved with an unconstrained budget for the Army Civil Works program
in the budget year, funding at the level in the President's budget
would result in delayed schedules, and thus, delayed project benefits.
Compared to benefits realized with unconstrained funding in the budget
year, benefits totaling approximately $3.3 billion will be delayed
under the President's budget. However, any delay in the benefits of
Corps projects that results from funding constraints should be
considered in the context of the benefits the Nation derives from
alternative uses of these funds.
Question. What additional unanticipated costs would the Corps incur
with this level of funding, which are not currently planned in the
budget?
General Flowers. The inefficiencies associated with extended
construction schedules, as compared with our schedules developed under
the assumption of an unconstrained budget, are likely to result in some
cost increases, although we have not quantified these costs.
Question. General, can you tell the Committee how this level of
funding impacts the long-term projects?
General Flowers. The fiscal year 2002 budget funds ongoing projects
at about 57 percent of their capability amounts, which are the amounts
that would provide for completing projects on the most efficient
construction schedules assuming an unconstrained budget for Corps
construction projects. The constrained fiscal year 2002 budget level
together with similar funding levels in future years would stretch out
project completion dates. However, we are trying to manage our workload
within tight budget constraints in order to maintain reasonable
progress on all of our projects.
[``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 2002
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.'']
Question. It is clear that the funds budgeted to address the
growing water resources needs of this country falls way short of the
known critical needs, what would you offer as suggestions of actions
that can be taken in the future to close this gap?
Ms. Tornblom. At the Federal level, the relative priority of each
water resources mission, program, and project should continue to be
discussed in order to help focus available funds on the most critical
and best justified needs, while reducing expenditures that are not as
well justified or are more appropriately handled at the state, local,
or private level. To the extent that additional funds are available at
the Federal, state, and local levels, allocating those funds to high
priority water resources needs also would help.
infrastructure
Question. This country has an aging water resources infrastructure.
I do not believe that this budget request takes this into account,
since the Operations and Maintenance account has a $153 million
reduction. In addition, there are no new starts recommended in this
budget. General Flowers, I understand you have spent some time
traveling across the country holding listening sessions, is this
approach to the budget consistent with what you're hearing in the
field?
General Flowers. The budget is consistent with the President's
overall investment priorities. In addition, the budget reflects
reliance on local and state government and private sector initiatives
in providing certain water resources services, while employing Civil
Works leadership in providing other priority, authorized water
resources services. In contrast, our regional and national listening
sessions received a view from the American citizens about water
resources infrastructure that did not take into account the current
constrained Federal budget, or the mission of the Corps versus those of
other Federal or non-Federal entities. The American citizens attending
our listening sessions expressed concern about aging water resources
infrastructure, growing backlogs in the maintenance requirements of
that infrastructure, growing congestion and delays in our marine
transportation system, declines in the capability of the existing
infrastructure to meet future needs, and construction schedule delays
resulting from funding constraints.
The budget request for fiscal year 2002 will not answer many of the
investment and funding concerns raised in those listening sessions. We
will not be able in fiscal year 2002 to reduce our critical maintenance
backlog on existing water resource projects maintained by the Corps of
Engineers. The budget request does not provide for any new construction
starts. Moreover, the proposed funding is 57 percent of the amount
needed for efficient construction of projects which are under
construction as compared to construction under an unconstrained Corps
budget. We will need to stretch out construction schedules compared to
the optimum schedules.
Question. Do you believe that this budget's approach is reasonable,
given our aging infrastructure?
General Flowers. I support the President's budget request. Although
funds are constrained, they are targeted at investments that yield a
high return to the Nation. We are doing the best we can with the
resources available.
Question. Are there any emerging trends in terms of national water
issues?
General Flowers. We found some emerging trends and a myriad of
concerns over the future of water resources development during our
regional and national listening sessions. Some of the salient trends
are as follows. Foreign trade now accounts for 29 percent of Gross
Domestic Product. Ninety nine percent of U.S. overseas commerce by
volume moves through Federally maintained waterways. The total volume
of domestic and international marine trade is expected to double by
2020 to more than 4 billion tons of cargo per year. Tonnage that moves
on our inland navigation system is projected to grow by as much as 37
percent. That commerce is moving through an infrastructure largely
built in the 1930's. Equally troubling trends are evident in our
Nation's flood plains and coastal areas. Urban development in flood
plains continues to increase by 1.5 to 2.5 percent annually. The
Federal Emergency Management Agency estimates that 94 million acres of
the United States lies within the 100 year flood plain. Since 1980, the
population migrating to the coast has outpaced the total United States
population growth by 15 percent, growing to over 41 million. Along the
East and Gulf coasts, about $3 trillion in infrastructure is in hazard-
prone coastal areas. During this century, 23 hurricanes have caused
damages in excess of $1 billion each when damage values are adjusted
for inflation. The sessions also included discussion of trends in water
resources in areas outside of the Corps of Engineers missions such as
aging water supply and wastewater infrastructure.
Participants in the listening sessions expressed the need to
approach water resource infrastructure problems and development on an
integrated and holistic basis. Solutions must not come at the expense
of the environment, but should be developed with ecosystem restoration
and environmental sustainability as requirements in the complete
solution. There was wide ranging recognition and advocacy for restoring
degraded water resources, ecosystems and watersheds on an integrated
basis. In fact, one of the ten challenges that clearly emerged was
``Managing Watersheds Holistically.''
I have only begun to touch on some of the notable trends and
concerns. We will furnish the Committee with brochures that highlight
the trends and concerns identified as part of listening sessions. The
brochures are entitled ``A National Dialogue About America's Water
Resource Challenges For the 21st Century.'' We will also furnish the
Subcommittee with copies of our national report on the findings of the
14 regional and 2 national listening sessions once it is published in
May.
Question. What do you believe would be the necessary level of
funding needed to begin to effectively deal with the infrastructure
problem?
General Flowers. I can most accurately speak for the national water
resource mission needs for which we have authority. The budget provides
substantial resources for priority activities, although less than the
optimum amount. Subject to the usual qualifications, I believe we have
additional capability, assuming an unconstrained budget, capability to
work on our critical maintenance backlog, which will grow to $835
million by the end of fiscal year 2002. This action would improve the
efficiency, reliability, and levels of service of our existing projects
while reducing the costs associated with deferral of maintenance and
repairs. Furthermore, subject to the usual qualification, and assuming
an unconstrained budget, we have a capability of $2.9 billion in fiscal
year 2002 to complete authorized projects on efficient schedules. This
capability breaks down into $2.7 billion for our Construction General
account and $226 million for our Mississippi River and Tributaries
account. These efficient and unconstrained budget schedules would not
only realize construction efficiencies but also realize increased net
economic benefits from the acceleration of project completions.
infrastructure
Question. General Flowers, your predecessor and Dr. Westphal
reported to this Committee that efforts were underway to streamline the
Project Cooperation Agreement process, leading ultimately to the
delegation of signing authority of a number of agreements to the
District Commander. Could you please update this Committee on progress
to date and future actions you are planning to take to streamline
project implementation.
General Flowers. Since that time the Assistant Secretary has
delegated the execution of PCA's for the Sec 313, 531, and 552 programs
when following the approved PCA models established for these programs.
In addition, we have developed draft PCA models for design,
construction, and design/construction (use only 1 model for a project
instead of traditional method of using 2) for the Section 569, 571,
593, 594, 595 programs of WRDA 99, and the Section 219 program of WRDA
92. Later this fiscal year we will be forwarding these PCA models for
approval to the Assistant Secretary and requesting delegation of
approval and signature authority similar to that for the 313 program.
We also have plans this calendar year to complete revisions to our
navigation PCA models (for specifically authorized and Continuing
Authority projects) and to submit them for approval and delegation of
signature authority. In order to streamline the PCA development
process, we are incorporating optional language to try to accommodate
as many variations as possible within each PCA model. We are also
looking ahead to updating the flood control PCA models, including
additional options and project purposes addressed in each, and
developing a Continuing Authority Section 103 PCA model for approval
and delegation to expedite this program, as well.
redirecting congressional priorities
Question. Contained in the budget preface for the Corps, Ms.
Tornblom, there is a statement by you that, ``The budget also redirects
funds from projects added by Congress in fiscal year 2001 that are not
consistent with established policies.'' It is up to Congress to
determine what the mission of the Corps is, and if Congress decides to
make a change to that mission, it has the prerogative to do so.
Ms. Tornblom, were all the projects added by the Congress and
funded in the fiscal year 2001 appropriation authorized in recent WRDA
legislation which was signed by the President?
Ms. Tornblom. All except one of the projects added by Congress in
fiscal year 2001 have been authorized in law. Most were authorized in a
Water Resources Development Act or in a comparable Rivers and Harbors
Act or Flood Control Act, but a few were authorized in some other law.
The exception is the Hillsboro Inlet project, which is not authorized.
Question. As such, these projects clearly fall within the mission
of the Corps, as is defined by Congress. Therefore, how can the Corps
state that these projects are not consistent with established policies?
Ms. Tornblom. For clarity, the statement should have been that
these projects are inconsistent with Administration policies. Such
projects may not have standard cost sharing, may lack economic
justification, or may primarily address missions other than the
principal missions of commercial navigation, flood damage reduction,
and environmental restoration. By not budgeting for these projects, the
Administration is asking Congress to reconsider its priorities.
Question. Can you share with the Committee how you determined which
Congressional priorities were to be ``redirected?''
Ms. Tornblom. Those projects that are not consistent with the
Administration's policies or do not provide significant national
benefits in the Corps' principal mission areas were targeted for
redirection.
Question. Was there any thought given as to the need of these
projects?
Ms. Tornblom. Yes, this information was considered during the
formulation of the President's budget.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
flood control, mississippi river and tributaries construction--yazoo
basin, mississippi
Question. Mr. Secretary, does the fiscal year 2002 budget request
for the Yazoo Basin projects provide the Corps of Engineers with the
funding needed to complete construction as rapidly as possible?
Ms. Tornblom. No sir, the optimum fiscal year 2002 funding needed
to meet current schedules and complete construction of the Yazoo Basin
projects as rapidly as possible is $44,225,000 or $35,675,000 above the
budget request.
project cost increases
Question. It is my understanding that a project's total cost
increases, rather than decreases, if the annual budget requests are
less than the Corps' maximum capability. Are my assumptions correct?
Ms. Tornblom. Yes sir, you are correct. Capability estimates are
the optimum funding amount needed to meet schedules. When the optimum
funding level on a project is not received, the construction period
must be extended which, in turn, increases the interest during
construction. Additionally, the project's total cost is further
increased due to the effect of inflation on the extended construction
period. These factors can ultimately increase the total project cost
significantly.
yazoo basin, backwater pump, mississippi
Question. Will you please update the Subcommittee on the current
status of the Yazoo Backwater project?
Ms. Tornblom. Sir, the final Project Report and Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for the Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, Yazoo
Backwater Project are scheduled for completion in early fiscal year
2002. Design of the project, including the pumping plant and other
project features, will continue in fiscal year 2002. Completion of
planning, engineering and design is scheduled for September 2004, with
initiation of construction scheduled in fiscal year 2005.
Question. Is the funding level in fiscal year 2002 budget request
sufficient to complete planning and design work for the Yazoo Backwater
project?
Ms. Tornblom. No sir, the optimum fiscal year 2002 funding required
to maintain a September fiscal year 2004 completion schedule for
planning and design work for the Yazoo Backwater Pump is $6,000,000.
Question. If so, will the initial construction funding for the
project commence in fiscal year 2003?
Ms. Tornblom. No sir, based on current schedules and assuming
adequate funding, completion of planning, engineering and design is
scheduled for September 2004 with construction of the project scheduled
for initiation in fiscal year 2005.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
impacts to operations and maintenance budget cuts
Question. What are the impacts of the fiscal year 2002 O&M budget
reductions on the Huntington, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore Corps
Districts?
General Flowers. The Huntington District's backlog at the beginning
of fiscal year 2002 is projected to be $111 million. Historical data
indicates that new maintenance and repair needs are an estimated $15
million per year. The fiscal year 2002 O&M budget request of $57.4
million allows the district to apply $12.9 million towards the
maintenance backlog, and results in a net increase in backlogged
maintenance of approximately $2 million by the end of fiscal year 2002.
In the Pittsburgh District, The President's Budget will allow for
continued operation of Locks and Dams 2 thru 9 on the Allegheny River
at traditional levels. Some normal, daily routine maintenance,
scheduled repair party maintenance, and prospective contract
maintenance on the Allegheny River will not be performed. Emergency and
unanticipated structural repairs will be accomplished, if needed,
through reprogramming funds from other projects.
In the Baltimore District, the work packages that are highest
ranked but for which funds are not available in the budget are mostly
for maintenance of navigation projects, including a number of shallow
draft harbors.
robert c. byrd locks and dam, wv & ohio
Question. Please provide an estimate of the increased capability
and the reduction in navigation delays since operation of the new locks
commenced in January 1993. Please also include an estimate of the
navigation savings during this same time.
General Flowers. The capacity of the old Gallipolis locks was
estimated to be 63.3 million tons. With the new 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 58 million tons in 2000. In the first eight years of
operation, the new locks have realized transportation savings of an
estimated $261 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 99 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 the end of this year.
winfield locks and dam, wv
Question. Please provide an estimate of the increased capability
and the reduction in navigation delays since operation of the new
additional lock commenced in November 1997. Please also include an
estimate of the navigation savings during this same time.
General Flowers. The capacity of the old Winfield project was
estimated at 24 million tons. With the new lock, average tow size has
increased from 5 to 9 barges per tow, and the entire tow locks through
in one lockage, whereas before the 5-barge tows had to be processed
into 5 lockages. Processing times were reduced from about 170 minutes
per tow to 62 minutes. The capacity of the new lock is estimated at
69.5 million tons.
Since the new lock opened, transit time (processing time plus delay
time) through Winfield has been reduced by approximately 8.6 hours per
tow (from 10.11 hours in 1990-1997 to 1.51 hours in 1998-2000) and the
total commercial lockages have reduced from over 22,000 to about 3,000.
In the three years of operation, the new lock has realized an estimated
$27 million in transportation savings. The cumulative savings represent
12 percent of the incremental cost of the new lock. The total cost of
the project is estimated at $235.5 million. This total cost is also the
incremental cost because there was no construction in the without
project condition. At current traffic levels, it is expected that
Winfield lock will pay for itself by 2015.
bluestone dam safety project
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.
What risks are currently posed by the Bluestone Dam to the
communities and businesses, and environments below the dam?
General Flowers. Under current design criteria, the probable
maximum flood is estimated to overtop the existing dam. Dam failure,
while very unlikely, 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 potential property damages in excess of $6.5 billion.
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?
General Flowers. 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 change 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. What is the current status of work completed on the dam
safety project with available funds? What work will be completed with
the fiscal year 2001 funds?
General Flowers. The first phase of construction is underway. In
fiscal year 2001, this consists of a temporary bridge across the
stilling basin, penstocks extension, and mass concrete thrust blocks.
Plans and specifications will be started for the second phase, which
consists of an 8-foot pre-cast concrete wall, State Route 20 gate
closure, and anchors.
Question. Are there additional Corps capabilities for this project
for fiscal year 2002 above those identified in the President's fiscal
year 2002 budget?
General Flowers. Subject to the usual qualifications regarding
capabilities, the Corps has an additional capability of $4 million
above the President's Budget of $8 million, for a total of $12 million.
The capability-level funds would be used to advance completion of phase
1 construction, and continue design for the selected plan.
Question. Contingent on adequate funding being provided, this
project is not scheduled for completion until September 2008. In the
meantime, 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 Flowers. There are no temporary structural measures, such
as sandbagging the top of the dam, that could be implemented to
minimize the risk to the public. Similarly, there are minimal, if any,
temporary operational changes that could be implemented to minimize
risk. For example, temporarily eliminating the permanent pool by
draining the lake would not provide any noticeable effects, because the
volume of inflow for the probable maximum flood is so much greater than
the volume of the permanent pool. Until the project is completed, the
Huntington District's Water Control Section will maintain a close vigil
on any significant storm event in the region that could potentially
move into or through the Bluestone Lake drainage basin, and will
provide forecasts as early as possible in order to determine if and
when a hazardous pool level could occur. In the event that such a pool
level might occur, emergency management organizations and law
enforcement agencies in the affected area downstream of the dam will be
notified of that potential. If the hazard appears to be more imminent,
evacuation of those downstream areas will be implemented in order to
minimize the risk to the public.
greenbrier basin flood control project
Question. The 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 local sponsor, 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 Flowers. The Town of Marlinton was recently presented with
information on both structural and nonstructural alternatives,
including costs, environmental concerns, and operation and maintenance
requirements. Based on this information, the Town of Marlinton agrees
with the least costly plan, which includes the construction of over
16,000 feet of levee/floodwall to be built on both sides of the
Greenbrier River, protecting both downtown Marlinton and the Riverside
areas.
Question. What is the projected federal and non-federal cost,
factoring in ability-to-pay?
General Flowers. The total project cost is estimated to be $70
million fully funded, or $63 million at October 2000 price levels. The
local sponsor would qualify for a reduction in its cost share, based on
ability-to-pay provisions. The non-Federal share would be approximately
$8.4 million; the Federal share would be $61.6 million. The final cost
will be contained in the Detailed Project Report, scheduled for
completion in September 2001.
Question. What activities are currently being conducted on the
Marlinton local protection plan?
General Flowers. The Corps is finalizing the Detailed Project
Report and accompanying volumes, including the Environmental Impact
Statement, the Real Estate Plan, Engineering Technical Appendix, and
the Baseline Cost Estimate that will serve as the decision document.
The draft report will be completed in July 2001, the final report in
September 2001. Design of the first construction element is also
underway.
Question. What capabilities do the Corps anticipate for fiscal year
2002 for the Marlinton local protection plan?
General Flowers. Subject to the usual qualifications concerning
capabilities, the fiscal year 2002 capability is $1.2 million. These
funds would be used to continue detailed design, including plans and
specifications for the first construction phase of the project, and to
execute a Project Cooperation Agreement.
Question. When can construction on the Marlinton project begin?
General Flowers. Construction in a limited area could be initiated
late in calendar year 2002, provided fiscal year 2002 capability funds
of $1.2 million were provided and the Project Cooperation Agreement was
executed.
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 Flowers. Citizens in the lower portion of the basin, as
well as a member of the state legislature, have indicated interest in
getting discussions moving relating to flood protection for the lower
basin, including Ronceverte and Alderson.
Question. Is the current authorization sufficient to allow any of
the above-mentioned local entities to initiate a flood control project?
General Flowers. The amount authorized to be appropriated, as
amended in Sec 360 of WRDA 99, is $47 million and is not sufficient to
complete all of the potential projects. The Federal share of the
Marlinton project alone, including expected price level adjustments for
inflation, is estimated to be $61.6 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 Federal share for the
Greenbrier River Basin is likely to be well over $100 million.
west virginia tug fork flood protection projects
Question. For fiscal year 2001, Congress provided $4.1 million 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.
The President's request includes $16,738,000 for Levisa and Tug
Fork projects for fiscal year 2002, however, none of these funds are
slated for projects in West Virginia. Why are no monies budgeted for
the West Virginia projects in lower Mingo, Upper Mingo, Wayne County,
and McDowell County?
General Flowers. These projects were not budgeted because they are
not economically justified.
Question. What activities will remain to be completed beyond fiscal
year 2001 in McDowell County and what is the cost of the remaining
effort? Does the Corps have capabilities in McDowell County in fiscal
year 2002?
General Flowers. Remaining activities include acquisition,
floodproofing, and construction of relocated schools, town halls, and
fire stations. The remaining cost is $168 million. The capability for
fiscal year 2002 is $3.2 million.
Question. What is the present approved plan for the McDowell County
schools?
General Flowers. The approved plan consists of construction of
ringwalls to protect three elementary schools, Panther, Iaeger, and
Berwind, and relocation out of the floodplain with reconstruction
elsewhere for two elementary schools, Bartley and War, and Iaeger High
School.
Question. How was the determination made for how each school was to
be protected?
General Flowers. Site reconnaissance was performed at each school.
It was determined that three schools, Berwind, Iaeger, and Panther
Elementary, have sufficient surrounding land on school board property
that they could be protected in place by a ringwall. Even though a
ringwall would be several feet high and hundreds of feet long with
multiple gates, ringwall construction proved to be less costly than
building replacement schools elsewhere. The other three schools, Iaeger
High School, and Bartley and War Elementary Schools, are either in the
floodway or are too close to the floodway and riverbank to build a
ringwall, so the only flood protection option is to acquire those
schools and build replacement schools.
Question. What is the locally preferred plan for the McDowell
County schools?
General Flowers. The locally preferred plan is to consolidate the
Berwind, Bartley, and War elementary schools, and Iaeger and Panther
elementary schools, into two new schools. Both the approved and locally
preferred plans call for construction of a new Iaeger High School out
of the floodplain.
Question. How can my constituents' preferred plan be implemented
instead of the present approved plan?
General Flowers. The district prepared a letter report which
outlines the locally preferred plan and the extent of Federal
participation, which is limited to the Federal share of the least cost
plan. Once the report is approved, the Project Cooperation Agreement
would be amended to reflect that type of flood protection remedy for
the schools. After amendment of the agreement, relocations contracts
will be negotiated with the McDowell County Board of Education, and
design will be initiated for the two new consolidated elementary
schools.
Question. In fiscal year 1999, I added funds to allow the Corps to
initiate the McDowell County project, including the schools. Two years
have elapsed, yet no progress appears to be achieved for the schools.
It is my understanding that a letter report outlining my constituents'
preferred plan has been pending at headquarters level since December
2000--over 4 months. A decision is way over due. When can I expect this
letter report to be approved and the implementation of this long over
due project to begin?
General Flowers. The letter report has been reviewed by HQUSACE and
was forwarded for approval to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works on April 23, 2001. Implementation will begin once the
letter report is approved and the PCA amended.
Work is underway for the relocation of Iaeger High School. The
preferred site identified by the McDowell County Board of Education
contained contaminants, and the district is presently looking at other
sites for construction.
Question. What activities will remain to be completed beyond fiscal
year 2001 in Wayne County and what is the cost of the remaining effort?
Does the Corps have capabilities in Wayne County in fiscal year 2002?
General Flowers. The acquisition or floodproofing of structures
would continue beyond fiscal year 2001 if funds were provided. The
remaining cost is $5.4 million. Subject to the usual qualifications
concerning capabilities, the capability for fiscal year 2002 is
$600,000.
Question. What activities will remain to be done beyond fiscal year
2001 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 2002?
General Flowers. The floodproofing or acquisition of structures
would continue beyond fiscal year 2001 if funds were provided. The
remaining cost is $2.5 million. Subject to the usual qualifications
concerning capabilities, the capability for fiscal year 2002 is $1.5
million.
Question. What activities will remain to be completed beyond fiscal
year 2001 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 2002?
General Flowers. The floodproofing or acquisition of structures
would continue beyond fiscal year 2001 if funds were provided. The
remaining cost is $1.8 million. Subject to the usual qualifications
concerning capabilities, the capability for fiscal year 2002 is
$600,000.
wheeling creek channelization project
Question. What work will be accomplished with the $500,000
appropriated for this project in fiscal year 2001?
General Flowers. The Pittsburgh District is completing surveying,
mapping, sediment sampling, and real estate rights-of-way in
preparation of development of plans and specifications to begin the
dredging work. It is anticipated that the dredging contract will be
awarded either 4th quarter fiscal year 2001 or 1st quarter fiscal year
2002.
Question. What is the Corps' capability for this project in fiscal
year 2002?
General Flowers. Federal participation is limited to the $500,000
appropriated in law. However, if additional authorization or direction
in law were provided, up to an additional $2,000,000 could be used,
subject to the usual qualifications concerning capabilities. This
amount would be used for the dredging contract and contract
administration.
Question. Does the channelization project fit into the goals of the
Wheeling National Heritage Area?
General Flowers. Wheeling city officials, working with the Wheeling
National Heritage Area Corporation, are currently redeveloping a
portion of the city around the Ohio River Waterfront and Wheeling
Creek. This area is known as the Wheeling Heritage Port. This dredging
project was conceptualized in the Wheeling Waterfront Development
Special Project Report, completed by the Pittsburgh District in August
2000. The dredging work involves extending the navigable channel on the
Ohio River upstream along Wheeling Creek 1.48 miles to provide boat
access to Tunnel Green Park. Both the Wheeling National Heritage Area
Corporation and the City of Wheeling support the dredging work as
consistent with their plans for the Wheeling Heritage Port.
lower mud river
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 re-evaluation report being conducted by
the Corps and the options that are being examined.
General Flowers. The report was scheduled for completion in July
2000. Preliminary engineering data warranted the re-formulation of
flood control alternatives for this project, resulting in an extension
of report completion to May 2002.
Two alternatives are being examined. One is the channel alternative
proposed by the NRCS, which consists of 2.5 miles of channel
modifications along the Mud River, providing an average flood reduction
of 2-4 feet. The other is a levee alternative, consisting of 6,000 feet
of levee at an average height of 14.5 feet, 730 feet of I-wall, and 1-2
pump stations.
Question. What are the construction costs associated with each
option and the anticipated maintenance costs that will be the
responsibility of the local sponsor?
General Flowers. The channel alternative is estimated to cost $35
million, with a $385,000 annual O&M cost. The levee alternative is
estimated to cost $27 million, with an $80,000 annual O&M cost.
Question. Has the local sponsor indicated an ability to cover the
maintenance costs of the options being considered?
General Flowers. The City of Milton has indicated that the channel
O&M costs are not affordable and that the levee O&M costs would be
affordable.
Question. What activities will remain to be completed beyond fiscal
year 2001 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 2002?
General Flowers. Remaining efforts include completion of the re-
evaluation report, completion of plans and specifications, execution of
the construction Project Cooperation Agreement, and construction of the
project. The Federal cost of the remaining effort, assuming the levee
is the selected plan, would be $18.8 million. Subject to the usual
qualifications concerning capabilities, the fiscal year 2002 capability
is $750,000 to continue PED activities, including completion of the re-
evaluation report and initiation of plans and specifications.
feasibility and reconnaissance studies
Question. Does the Corps have capabilities with respect to
potential flood control projects in Cabin Creek, Fourpole Creek, and
Mercer County, West Virginia, and port development at Longacre Point
and in Wood County? Why does the budget not include funding for any of
these initiatives? Is it not shortsighted to preclude any future
projects from having the opportunity to develop?
General Flowers. Subject to the usual qualifications concerning
capabilities, fiscal year 2002 capabilities are as follows: $100,000
for Cabin Creek, West Virginia to initiate a feasibility study;
$100,000 for Fourpole Creek, West Virginia to initiate a reconnaissance
study; $100,000 for Mercer County, West Virginia to initiate
preconstruction engineering and design for the Brush Creek Basin area;
$200,000 for Longacre Port, West Virginia to initiate a feasibility
study; and $800,000 for Wood County (Erickson/Wood County Port), West
Virginia to continue preconstruction engineering and design.
The President's Budget for fiscal year 2002 includes funding of
$100,000 to initiate PED for the Mercer County Brush Creek Basin. The
budget does not include funding for Cabin Creek or Fourpole Creek
because of a general reduction is study funding. Given the large
backlog of ongoing projects and other construction and preconstruction
engineering and design work (about $40 billion), the pace of new
studies needs to slow to a level that reflects what we can afford to
move through construction. The budget does not include funding for
Longacre Port and Wood County Port because the development of land-side
terminal facilities is considered a local responsibility.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
devils lake, north dakota
Question. I want to briefly update you on the Devils Lake emergency
flooding situation that exists in Northeast North Dakota. As you are
aware, Devils Lake is one of only two closed basin lakes in the
country. Devils Lake also is unique in that it continues to rise--month
after month, and year after year. On the contrary, other lakes that
experience flooding or rising levels do so for only a short time, then
the water levels recede. In the case of Devils Lake, the water level
has risen about 25 feet in 7 years. In the past 60 years, it has risen
nearly 50 feet. And, the situation is getting worse. As of yesterday,
the reported elevation for the Lake is 1446.92 feet. In early March,
the Lake elevation was 1446.14 feet, and as of April 19 (last
Thursday), the Lake was at 1446.75 feet. So, the Lake has risen nearly
0.8 feet in the last month, and almost \1/4\ of a foot in less than one
week.
The rising and expanding Lake threatens to cut off one region of
our state from emergency services and the normal commerce of daily
life. It inundates roads, railways and utilities. The Corps has
implemented normal flood protection, mitigation, and remediation
measures, such as building levees. However, more must be done. This is
an emergency situation, because it threatens peoples' homes, businesses
and commerce in North Dakota. An outlet must be built to begin to help
address this grave situation. A typical Army Corps analysis may not
suffice to justify construction of an outlet. Thus, such an analysis
must be crafted so that it factors in the unique characteristics of the
Lake, and the unique situation that the Devils Lake region and its
residents are facing, as a result. Please let me know what the Army
Corps plans to do to address this critical situation and ensure that
the relevant and analyses, and construction of the outlet, proceed as
quickly as possible.
General Flowers. Recognizing the critical situation at Devils Lake,
the Corps is working toward completion of the Environmental Impact
Statement and the preconstruction engineering and design of a
recommended plan by the fall of 2002. To accomplish this, the design of
a preliminary plan will proceed concurrently with preparation of the
Environmental Impact Statement. For selection of the plan that will be
advanced into the design phase, we will evaluate the cost effectiveness
of alternatives and their economic justification under a range of
scenarios for future lake stages. Much of this evaluation will be based
on already available data and modeling. The design phase is scheduled
to begin in August 2001. Efforts are under way to complete an updated
evaluation of alternatives, collect essential seasonal data for
evaluation of project impacts, and appropriately coordinate the
Environmental Impact Statement.
grand forks, north dakota-east grand forks, minnesota
Question. I see that the Grand Forks permanent dike construction
for the City of Grand Forks, ND is proposed to be funded at $24.954
million for fiscal year 2002. It is my understanding that an additional
$10 million beyond the President's budget request is needed for the
next fiscal year to ensure completion of this project in four years.
This will save money from increases in inflation, as well as from
alleviating the need for annual emergency measures--both in terms of
construction and removal of temporary levees. Further, I understand
that FEMA is in the process of rewriting the flood maps in the Grand
Forks area. Unless the dike is completed in a timely way, these maps
will not reflect the protection of this dike and homeowners will
unnecessarily pay flood insurance.
Is the Army Corps of Engineers aware of this situation with FEMA
and does it agree that it makes sense for the federal government to
keep the project on an aggressive schedule?
General Flowers. We understand that the Federal Emergency
Management Agency is developing flood plain maps to reflect current
conditions because the existing floodplain maps do not accurately
reflect the flooding risk to which the citizens, businesses and
infrastructure in the Grand Forks/East Grand Forks area are exposed. We
provide current schedules for completion of the flood damage reduction
project to FEMA so that FEMA may make reasonable decisions on
scheduling its remapping efforts for the area. Subject to the usual
qualifications concerning capabilities, the fiscal year 2002 capability
for the project is $35 million.
wahpeton, north dakota and breckenridge, minnesota
Question. Along these lines, the Corps also has Function 205, or
continuing authority, funding to proceed with levee construction in
Wahpeton, N.D. However, the Corps has informed me that construction
cannot proceed without Breckenridge, MN constructing a flood reduction
project, that would include a parallel dike, or levee, on the other
side of the Missouri River. The cost for the Breckenridge project is
$21 million. Simultaneous construction on both sides of the River is
essential to preventing damage to Breckenridge, as well as other
surrounding areas. These areas could experience severe erosion and/or
flooding, due to an imbalance in pressure on the River, if a levee were
to be erected on one side of the River, but not the other. However,
funding for the Breckenridge construction is considered a ``new start''
project. There is insufficient funding in the President's budget
request for a ``new start'' in Breckenridge. I have a letter from the
Breckenridge Mayor echoing the need for this project.
Given the need for Breckenridge to construct a levee in order for
Wahpeton's construction to proceed, and the fact that Wahpeton already
has continuing authority for this critical project to protect the City,
wouldn't you agree that it is essential to fund the Breckenridge
construction project?
General Flowers. The floods of 1997 and, more recently, 2001 have
demonstrated the importance of providing permanent flood protection for
both Wahpeton and Breckenridge. The two projects are interdependent
because there would be project-induced flooding if either were
implemented without the other. In addition, the 125-year level of
permanent flood protection that would be provided by the Wahpeton levee
project depends on concurrent construction of a diversion channel
feature that is part of the Breckenridge project. For these reasons, we
propose that the two projects be constructed in tandem. The
Breckenridge project was specifically authorized by Section 320 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000, and preconstruction
engineering and design for both projects will be completed by the end
of fiscal year 2001.
Question. Ms. Tornblom, last year, the President proposed a
Recreation Modernization Program to meet some of the needs of Corps
recreation areas. This program seemed to make a lot of sense, given
that the Corps has 4,340 recreation sites associated with 463 Corps
projects. Ten percent of the American population visits these sites for
a total of 376 million visits every year. According to Corps data, $15
billion is spent at these sites by visitors to these sites. Seems to me
like recreation is a big business. In fact, I have asked the General
Accounting Office to conduct a formal cost-benefit analysis, but my
understanding is that the recreational interests yield approximately
$80 million annually, while the downstream navigational interests yield
approximately $7 million.
In this light, I think a Recreation Modernization program for the
Corps would make some sense. It is my understanding that this proposal
would upgrade recreation facilities throughout the COE inventory from
the 1950-1960s standards to current standards and codes. This makes
sense because there are so many needs in the Corps' limited O&M budget,
that recreation often gets overlooked. Could you please inform us why
funding for the Corps' Recreation Modernization program was not
included in the fiscal year 2002 budget request?
Ms. Tornblom. The Recreation Modernization Program, which was
proposed in fiscal year 2001 but did not receive appropriations, would
have been classified as a new construction start in the fiscal year
2002 budget. However, no funds are included in the budget to initiate
new construction starts. Rather, funds are included in the fiscal year
2002 budget to achieve meaningful progress on continuing projects that
are consistent with established policies.
operation and maintenance
Question. You may already be aware that Lake Sakakawea is predicted
to have exceptionally low water levels in the coming season. Depending
on how the Corps proceeds with its operating plan for the Master
Manual, their actions could actually exacerbate this problem. With this
information in mind, it seems difficult to understand how the Corps
could not give greater consideration to these recreational interests.
Given the fact that the Corps' actions are already difficult situation
even more difficult, will the Corps commit to providing these limited
funds to mitigate the problem?
General Flowers. The current operation of the Missouri River Main
Stem Reservoir System conforms to the Guidelines set out in the
existing Missouri River Master Manual. Under the current manual,
storage levels trigger release from the reservoirs to serve the
multiple purposes for which Congress established the reservoir system.
Those purposes include flood control, irrigation, hydropower,
navigation, recreation, municipal and industrial water supply and water
quality. The Corps is currently in the process of revising the manual.
The many alternatives under consideration include conservation
measures, which would keep lake levels slightly higher during drought
periods such as the 1980's. Our intent is to complete and implement the
revised manual in March of 2003. While the Corps entered the year
without funds designated to assist recreation interests with problems
resulting from low lake levels, we are now making funds available
through reprogramming actions to repair boat ramps constructed by the
Corps and to address the noxious weed problem.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
american river watershed (common features), california
Question. $13 million is included in the Budget for the American
River Project. This project was authorized in WRDA 1996 and modified in
WRDA 1999. It includes slurry walls to strengthen the Lower American
River Levees, raising portions of the American River Levees, levee and
berm raising along the Sacramento River and levee raising along the
Natomas Cross Canal. What is your capability for the project in fiscal
year 2002 and how would any additional funds be used?
Answer. Subject to the usual qualifications, our capability for
fiscal year 2002 is $17 million. With the additional funds we could
advance completion of the Lower American River slurry wall
construction, authorized in WRDA 1996, by 3 months.
american river watershed, (folsom dam modifications), california
Question. The Folsom Dam Modification project was included as a new
construction start in the fiscal year 2001 Appropriation Act. When do
you expect actual construction to begin on this project that is
critical to improving the level of flood protection for the Sacramento
Area?
Answer. We are scheduled to initiate construction for the emergency
generator in January 2002, and enlargement of the outlets will begin in
August 2002.
Question. Only $4,500,000 was included in the fiscal year 2002
Budget for the project. What is your full capability for fiscal year
2002?
Answer. Subject to the usual qualifications, our full capability
for fiscal year 2002 is $8,000,000.
Question. Assuming sufficient funding in fiscal year 2002 and
beyond, what is the project's scheduled completion date?
Answer. Our optimal schedule reflects project completion in
September 2006.
south sacramento county streams, california
Question. We understand that a Section 215 project has been
proposed for a segment of the South Sacramento Streams Project. Would
you describe that work and the urgency of moving ahead with it at this
time?
Answer. The proposed Section 215 work involves the non-Federal
sponsor reconstructing approximately 3 miles of existing levee and
constructing 0.5 miles of new levee at the downstream end of the
project. The project would remedy the problem of sand lens underlining
and increase the level of flood protection. The Section 215 work is an
integral part of that effort.
Question. Do you have a capability to initiate construction of the
project in the fiscal year 2002 and if so, how much is your capability?
Answer. Subject to the usual qualifications, our capability is
$10,000,000, which would enable us to initiate Federal construction in
the spring of 2002.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Byrd. I believe the chairman said you should close
it.
Senator Murray. Okay. In that case, I will. This meeting is
recessed. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., Tuesday, April 24, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:09 p.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Domenici, Cochran, Reid, and Hollings.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
National Nuclear Security Administration
STATEMENTS OF:
GENERAL JOHN GORDON, UNDER SECRETARY OF ENERGY FOR NUCLEAR
SECURITY AND ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION
ADMIRAL FRANK L. BOWMAN, DIRECTOR, NAVAL NUCLEAR PROPULSION
PROGRAM
GENERAL THOMAS F. GIOCONDA, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR
DEFENSE PROGRAMS
KENNETH E. BAKER, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE
NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. The hearing will come to order. Thanks to
Senator Hollings for coming, and I imagine Senator Reid's going
to be here before we finish.
This afternoon the subcommittee will consider the fiscal
year 2002 budget request for National Nuclear Security
Administration, having nuclear weapons, non-proliferation, and
reactor programs.
Combining these programs accounts for about $6.8 billion of
the $18 billion requested from this subcommittee for the
Department of Energy. For nuclear weapons Stockpile
Stewardship, the new administration has proposed $5.3 billion
for fiscal year 2002, an increase of $295 million over current
year. However, even with this increase the request in my
opinion--and we hope to establish here today is inadequate. I
will state a few of those reasons and we'll try to go through
them as we take the testimony.
We know from this committee's hearings on infrastructure
earlier this year that our nuclear weapons facilities have
degraded to the point that it will take--over a number of
years--billions of dollars to modernize for the future.
Although the work must begin immediately, the budget request
includes no funds to begin such an initiative.
In case anybody doubts that we need to start on this
infrastructure and building program, I think the evidence that
we have with reference to a facility needed in Tennessee where
the roof is kind of falling down and the workers are having to
wear hard hats in a building that doesn't have anything to do
with wearing hard hats because the ceiling's falling in on them
it's time to get that one going because we need it for a lot of
new activities.
Under the budget we've got, the NNSA will not be able to
meet the Nuclear Weapons Council refurbishment schedule for
three major nuclear weapons systems representing about half of
the stockpile, and we must soon have the capability to produce
plutonium pits for weapons. We've been putting that date off
annually into the future.
I think we've arrived at a schedule which everyone says we
ought to do, and we ought to be able to, and I believe that the
capability which was lost when Rocky Flats was closed--many
think it's high time we get on with that. My analysis at least
is there's not enough money in this budget to do that.
As a result, I believe the budget we received is about $800
million short in what we should have to do the job of Stockpile
Stewardship in the year 2002 correctly and adequately, and for
the Defense Nuclear Non-proliferation program the new
administration has proposed $773 million for 2002, a decrease
of $100 million, or 12 percent over current year.
Now, maybe the new administration thinks there are ways to
do this non-proliferation differently and better. We certainly
are anxiously awaiting what that is, but in the meantime we
would note, at least for the subcommittee's purposes, that
Senator Baker and Senator Cutler--excuse me--Attorney Cutler
put together a very detailed report on this issue and they
concluded that the most urgent unmet national security threat
to our country is the danger that weapons of mass destruction
or weapons usable material in Russia could be stolen and sold
to terrorists or hostile nation states could use them against
the United States after having acquired them either militarily
or through civilian action.
And the report concluded current non-proliferation programs
of the Department of Energy have achieved results which are
impressive as far as they have gone, but their limited mandate
and funding fall far short of what is required to adequately
address this threat.
However, despite our knowledge of the threat and the
success of the programs, the 12 percent reduction stands in the
budget as it currently is before us. It puts at risk the
Russian-U.S. Plutonium Disposition Agreement and forces some
very major cuts in other areas, including the well regarded
program that's named the MPC&A program. That's the one where we
help the Russians with photography equipment and other kinds of
things to maintain the nuclear--maintain their plutonium and
other things in a safe manner where they can't be easily taken
and transferred around without records.
The threats are too great in this non-proliferation area
to--for us to say we can get by with the cuts. I don't believe
we can.
And my last comment has to do with the Naval Reactor
Program. The administration proposes $688 million, the same
amount provided in current fiscal year. This program and the
men and women who run it have enjoyed nearly 50 years of
unparalleled success in providing safe and reliable nuclear
propulsion plants for military use.
I look forward to hearing today your comments on the budget
request. We're going to begin, after Senators have commented,
with you, General Gordon, and your testimony, then you, General
Gioconda, whom I understand you're still acting and you're
going to be leaving us pretty soon. I wish you could stay
around longer. You're doing a great job.
And we have the Acting Deputy Administrator for Programs,
Ken Baker. Thank you for all your work. And then we will have
the Acting Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Non-
proliferation, and we will proceed now asking first Senator
Hollings if he has any opening remarks.
Senator Hollings. I'm very interested in waste disposal,
but I'll wait until I can ask my questions.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Hollings. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I'll wait until we hear from
the witnesses. I have a few questions.
Senator Domenici. I appreciate that.
General Gordon, welcome, not only here but to your new job.
We know it's difficult. We created your position and that which
is under you by a brand new statute last year after much debate
and discussion, and we look forward, as that statute indicates,
to a better managed part of the department as it pertains to
nuclear weapons activities and non-proliferation, and we thank
you for the time you're devoting to that end.
Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL JOHN GORDON
General Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
the opportunity to come up and discuss the budget request for
this year. As you've already noted, I'm joined by Admiral
Bowman, General Gioconda, and Ken Baker. They'll also have
statements to make and they can answer the hard questions I
think as we get into this.
But, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a special point of
thanking the members of the committee and yourself for the
continuing support of NNSA, its mission, and for the people who
make it all happen, both in Washington and in the field, the
Federal employees, the contractors. There's some 37,000 people
who depend on what we do here today, and they need your
support.
I have submitted a rather long formal statement and I offer
that for the record, sir, and I'll be a little briefer as we go
through this.
STATUS OF NNSA
I would like to speak for a few minutes about NNSA itself,
and I would report to you, Mr. Chairman, that we're making
steady but somewhat slow progress on the goals we share of an
efficient and effective organization to lead and manage the
portion of the nuclear security enterprise that's been
entrusted to us, and I'm not particularly satisfied with where
we have been able to establish NNSA as an all up organization
with its unique identity and clear lines of authority, but we
are moving forward and actually I think have made remarkable
progress when measured against some of the barriers and the
bureaucracy that we've faced.
And even though it's been difficult to move dramatically on
organizational issues we've gotten beyond such issues as dual
hatting. We've begun to set up a new framework for the
organization itself. We've brought on board critical staff for
vital issues such as counterintelligence and security and
contracting. We've made real progress in each of those areas.
We have two senior advisors who work for me, one in policy,
one in science of immense capacity, a director of congressional
affairs with a proven track record, an ES&H advisor with
tremendous professional experience who's joined us from Naval
Reactors, a senior military assistant, a strong chief of staff
who knows where the system is and where it's been in great
detail, and I'm particularly excited--and you and I have spoken
about this, Mr. Chairman--about the establishment of policy
planning staff so we can be much more active in the debates
that occur within the administration itself.
Now, I did elect, Mr. Chairman, to spend a large portion of
my time in the early months of my administration on the very
critical mission-related problems that were squarely on my desk
when we took over and a little bit less on the organization
itself, and from my perspective there's been real progress to
report on NNSA, and I'd like to just touch on that for a moment
with you and the other members.
NNSA ACCOMPLISHMENTS
First, the morale at the labs and production facilities
really has now turned around. I don't want to say it's fixed. I
won't tell you that it's not fragile, but every place you go in
the structure now you can find at least a difference and a
positive sign on what's happening on morale, in part because
we've been able to put to them real work and real energy on
real projects.
We've made some marked improvements on security, which, if
nothing else, you notice we're off the front pages. We have
John Hamre running an important committee for us, looking at
the balance between security and science and making sure we
don't have to trade one off for the other; that we can in fact
do both.
We've established a moratorium on new policies until we can
make sure the ones we've got are the right ones and that we're
implementing them right, and we've begun work on integrated
safeguards and security management, a way to really bring
security down to the individual people who are trying to do the
work.
In counterintelligence we have a better balance on how we
handle foreign visitors. We have a major polygraph study going
on with the National Academy of Sciences, and I hope to be able
to propose to Congress some perfecting language to the
polygraph program itself while maintaining the very highest
standards of security.
We substantially changed our relationship with the
Department of Defense and the military. The Nuclear Weapons
Council is up and running and making decisions. We are working
carefully together on requirements and we've agreed as you
mentioned on a specific stockpile life extension program where
we know what needs to be done. We've reached agreement with the
Nuclear Weapons Council and developed a schedule for this
program.
I have developed a 5-year budget. It's an important
management tool. It's not perfect by any means, but it's a good
first start, and we're going to continue that every year as we
move ahead. We rebaselined the National Ignition Facility,
which is a clear way ahead, and when one goes out and visits it
now you no longer hear just about the science, or isn't this
going to be wonderful when it gets done, but it's really being
run on a project basis. Here's what we did last week. Here's
what I'm going to do next week. Here's the budget. Here's the
earned value. Here are the problems. They're really dealing
with it in a management way that's very different.
We've begun to put new--renewed energy in our operations in
Nevada with an aggressive subcritical program. It gives much
needed unique information to our work for SSP as a whole with
specific work on plutonium.
We've had the first couple of shots now from a very
important test facility known as Jasper, or gas gun. It's going
to also contribute to our knowledge of plutonium at a much
cheaper way than the subcrits, and we're well on our way toward
understanding how we will move the ATLAS system there and get
it up and running, dependent upon the outcomes of the strategic
reviews and the allocation of funds.
We've put into place new contracts at most of our
facilities: at Los Alamos and Livermore Labs, under the
University of California, a new contractor at Y-12 in
Tennessee, a new contractor at Pantex, a new contract at Kansas
City, and DOE has extended the contract at Savannah River. And
I can report that in every one of those locations there are
positive changes that are coming about, either new contracts or
through the new contractor aggressively attacking the problems
we have.
With non-proliferation, Mr. Chairman, we've been equally
successful in Detection R&D with the MTI satellite--from the
MTI satellite to the smallest of hand held detectors being made
available to first responders in nuclear, chemical, and
biological.
MPC&A is having success strengthening the security of
several thousand Russian naval warheads and 220 metric tons of
uranium and plutonium, and the Second Line of Defense in Russia
where we've been helping deploy detectors at sensitive Russian
border crossings, and the Nuclear Cities Initiative and the
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention providing
opportunities for Russian nuclear scientists to turn to
commercial activities and to reduce the footprint of the
Russian nuclear complex.
In the HEU purchase, the highly enriched uranium purchase,
we've now monitored the conversion of 110 metric tons of
Russian highly enriched uranium into a lower grade reactor
fuel. We strengthened the safety of Russian-designed reactors.
We're trying to convert unneeded material here and in Russia,
and we've completed the canning and safeguarding of some 8,000
plutonium bearing fuel rods from Yongbyong in North Korea.
NAVAL REACTOR'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Mr. Chairman, I won't say a lot about naval reactors today
other than to report that my friend Admiral Skip Bowman is
actually doing a superb job by every measure. His organization
operates 102 naval reactor plants, one less than the total
number of commercial reactors operating in the United States
today. Naval Reactors provide safe, efficient, effective
propulsion to 40 percent of the naval combatants.
They're developing the next generation reactor for the
Virginia Class submarines and the reactor for the Navy's new
class of aircraft carriers CVNX. These are included in the
requested budget. But importantly, Naval Reactors continues to
make real progress in improving its business practices and
operating at the highest environmental standards. Mr. Chairman,
what I do, what I ask my staff to do is go to school on them,
because they're showing us how to do a lot of this.
ONGOING REVIEWS AND THEIR EFFECT ON THE BUDGET REQUEST
Mr. Chairman, you've mentioned the budget, $6.8 billion
total, $5.3 billion for defense programs, $774 million for
Defense Nuclear Non-proliferation, $688 million for Naval
Reactors.
Mr. Chairman, it's very likely that numbers for the Defense
Nuclear Non-proliferation and Defense Programs are not final.
President Bush has asked the Secretary of Defense, in
conjunction with the Secretary of Energy, to conduct several
reviews to create a new vision for the role of the Nation's
military in this century. One of those reviews will examine the
role of nuclear deterrence in the post-cold war national
security environment, including determinations of the size and
the structure of the weapons stockpile and the possibility of
substantially different requirements.
NNSA is an active participant in that review and its
outcome will have a major impact on the work load of the
national security laboratories and the plants for many years to
come.
Another review is examining the U.S. non-proliferation
programs with Russia. At the end of this review I hope we'll
have a new strategy for threat reduction activities, and the
NNSA is also a major participant in those reviews. The
administration will finalize its out-year funding request for
defense and national security-related activities when these
reviews are complete.
Following these reviews, we will work with you and the
staff to provide timely information on the results and any
changes to the budget request for 2002 and the out years, and
knowing that our schedules and your schedules for this budget
are already quite compressed, I wish I could give you a firm
schedule on this, but at this time it would really only be
speculation on my part.
But notwithstanding some uncertainty about the details of
the reviews, I'd like to look ahead, Mr. Chairman, to the
challenges and the opportunities that really are in front of us
and the steps we need to take to effectively accomplish and
focus our programs.
BUDGET PRIORITIES
My formal submission defines the details. I'd like to speak
pretty broadly about where this goes, particularly in the light
of the possibility of some changes in the numbers.
The requested budget for defense program goes a long way
towards stockpile stewardship and includes, as you mentioned,
an increase of about 4.6 percent this year. Now, $5.3 billion
is a significant amount of money and, as I understand it, the
only real increase in the DOE budget, and it will support most
of our major campaigns, the technology building blocks for the
future. Two national assets--the secure transportation asset
and nuclear incident response--will remain a high priority, and
weapons safeguards and security, a separate budget category,
will meet all known requirements.
At the requested level it will support the ongoing
refurbishments of the W87 warhead and begin the work on the
B61, which is much needed. It will not, under current
allocations, support plans for the W76 or for the W80, although
we should be able to begin some engineering development work.
We will proceed with our pit manufacturing plan and
schedule, but we will not be able to give a date certain for
the certification of a W88 pit, at least without significantly
unbalancing the program as a whole. And, at the requested
level, we would not be able to aggressively attack the
infrastructure problem issue, which we discussed at the last--
at my last appearance before the subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, the underlying approach to our budget was to
keep all our campaigns in balance while focusing on three
areas: correcting some of the major problems of the past such
as the NIF, pit manufacturing and pit certification; beginning
to fund the needed refurbishment programs for the stockpile
which were not included in the original design of Stockpile
Stewardship because we didn't know what work was going to need
to be done; and to begin to correct this crisis we have in our
facilities. So we await the outcome of the reviews to finalize
our numbers.
NUCLEAR TEST READINESS AND LONG-TERM PIT PRODUCTION
As a bit of an aside, Mr. Chairman, there are two topics I
want to focus on more this year, that at least in the first
year won't have major budgetary impacts, but I think it is now
time for us to get on a different step on nuclear test
readiness and on long-term pit production as well. I plan to
conduct a review very closely tied with the administration's
defense reviews on whether and how we should improve our
readiness to conduct a nuclear test, should it ever be
conducted with the possibility of moving those time lines up.
And I also believe we've now made enough progress in the
pit manufacturing program at Los Alamos to begin seriously
looking at what it would take to construct a new and larger pit
production facility such as the Foster Panel and others
recommended. We need to get up on that work.
STATUS OF DEFENSE NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION PROGRAM
Mr. Chairman, the administration request for Defense
Nuclear Non-proliferation programs is $101 million less than
last year's appropriation. At that level it should be obvious
that we will have to curtail efforts in several areas and lose
momentum in others. Again, however, the administration is
conducting a review of each of those programs and we await the
conclusion of those reviews.
From my perspective we manage a series of programs, and
I've already highlighted most of them, that taken together
contribute measurably to the vital goal of reducing the threat
of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. NNSA has had
some real success in this area because we've been able to
integrate the technology, the research, and the expertise of
the NNSA laboratories with that of the other laboratories of
DOE and other U.S. Government agencies.
We quite literally provide the technical base for much of
what the government does in proliferation detection and the
expertise base to work effectively in Russia and elsewhere to
secure materials and weapons, support international agreements,
and reduce the threat we face.
And, Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate that the
administration review our programs and come to its own
conclusions about their merits. For me, I would hope that the
real result of these reviews would lead to a more comprehensive
approach, a more integrated approach to non-proliferation and
threat reduction so the individual programs can be seen and
measured in light of an overall approach and clear goals and
the individual programs can be judged and work synergistically.
NNSA is responsible for a large range of national security
programs, programs that seek to deter and prevent and detect
worldwide proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the
materials that produce them. The three-fold threat of unsecured
materials, available technology, underemployed expertise argues
for a strong, effective program.
Even so, we're mindful of how difficult it is to operate in
this environment and the ongoing reviews and policy development
activities that specifically deal with issues of Russian
attitudes, the relationship with proliferants, issues of
access, issues of sustainability.
Mr. Chairman, some days I think I have the best job in
American public service. Some days I'm not quite so convinced.
But we are making progress on our mission and on the
organization itself, and with the strong demonstrated support
already by Secretary Abraham, I expect that progress to
continue.
I remain excited about the mission and its great
importance. We can't be daunted by the magnitude of the
problems we face. We need to attack them every day with energy
and with commitment. We need to correct the shortfalls of the
past but we've got to really look to the future, and this in
turn requires that we attract and retain the very best people,
give them clear leadership, an important mission, adequate
resources to do their jobs, and a safe, efficient work
environment.
I remain so impressed by the folks that I deal with every
day in NNSA. They're committed, they work hard, often in very
difficult conditions, and I gain a lot of energy from those who
do the mission every day. You can and you should be proud of
them, as I am.
Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the support of this
subcommittee for NNSA. The 37,000 people of NNSA need your
support. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John A. Gordon
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the Department of Energy (DOE) National
Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) fiscal year 2002 budget
request. The overall request--including Defense Programs, Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Administrator's
Office--totals $6.8 billion.
The Defense Programs (DP) fiscal year 2002 budget request is $5.3
billion, an increase of 4.6 percent over the comparable appropriated
fiscal year 2001 level. This budget will support (1) all scheduled
maintenance, evaluation, and certification activities for the current
stockpile, while deferring some decisions on future refurbishment
workload; (2) manufacture of a certifiable W88 with a newly
manufactured pit in fiscal year 2003, with no commitment to a
certification schedule or to production quantities; (3) maintenance of
all current facilities and sites at approximately the current level of
funding; (4) maintenance of current management and operating (M&O)
contractor employment levels for ongoing programs; (5) maintenance of
secure transportation and nuclear weapon incident response assets at
approximately their current levels; (6) current requirements for
weapons safeguards and security, while undertaking a limited cyber
security initiative; and (7) maintenance of federal staffing levels at
the current, on-board level, including re-consolidation of NNSA federal
landlord, safeguards, and security staffs. Specific line items include
Directed Stockpile Work ($1,043,791,000), Campaigns ($1,996,413,000),
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities ($1,446,988,000), Secure
Transportation Asset ($121,800,000), Safeguards and Security
($448,881,000), and Program Direction ($271,137,000).
The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (NN) fiscal year 2002 request
is $773.7 million. This is a decrease from the 2001 budget, but this
does not represent a lessening of our commitment to meeting the ever-
growing challenges faced in the international nonproliferation or
threat reduction arena. The request does cover the funding needed to
support a broad range of nonproliferation goals. These include: (1)
international nuclear safety, (2) detecting the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, (3) preventing the spread of nuclear
materials, technology, and expertise, and (4) eliminating inventories
of surplus fissile material usable for nuclear weapons. Specific line
items include Nonproliferation and Verification Research and
Development ($206,102,000), International Nuclear Safety ($13,800,000),
Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Transparency Implementation
($13,950,000), Arms Control and Nonproliferation ($101,500,000),
International Materials Protection, Control and Accounting
($138,800,000), Fissile Materials Disposition ($248,089,000), and
Program Direction ($51,459,000).
The Naval Reactors (NR) fiscal year 2002 budget request is
$688,045,000, virtually unchanged from the fiscal year 2001
appropriated amount. This budget will support planned activities for
Naval Reactors Development, including Plant Technology, Reactor
Technology and Analysis, Materials Development and Verification,
Evaluation and Servicing, Facility Operation, and Construction. In real
terms, the NR budget is decreasing about $18,000,000 due to inflation.
This decrease reflects progress toward completing major inactivation
work on the S3G and D1G prototype reactor plants at the Kesselring
site, along with the final phase of the Windsor site inactivation and
cleanup work. Specific line items include Naval Reactors Development
($665,445,000) and Program Direction ($22,600,000).
The fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Office of the
Administrator of the NNSA is $15 million. The Department of Energy is
required by various laws to enhance U.S. national security through the
military application of nuclear technology, and to reduce global danger
from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The NNSA, a
semi-autonomous Administration within the Department, carries out these
responsibilities. Established in March 2000, pursuant to Title 32 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law
106-65), the NNSA is structured to provide clear and direct lines of
accountability and responsibility for the management and operation of
the nation's nuclear weapons, naval reactors, and nuclear
nonproliferation activities.
In January 2001, President Bush asked the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of Energy, to conduct a Strategic
Defense Review to create a new vision for the role of the nation's
military in the 21st century. Completion of this review will certainly
impact the fiscal year 2002 and out-year budgets for defense and
national-security-related activities. The Administration plans to
determine the final fiscal year 2002 and out-year funding requests when
the Strategic Defense Review is complete. As Secretary Abraham
indicated in his statement on April 9, 2001, concerning the DOE fiscal
year 2002 Budget Request to Congress, ``While awaiting the policy
shaped by the Strategic Defense Review, we will refocus funding to meet
vital national security needs, including investments to maintain our
nuclear weapons arsenal, shore up an aging weapons infrastructure, and
improve safeguards and security at all DOE facilities.'' I am here
today to describe those efforts and the progress we have made since the
NNSA was created.
Standing up the NNSA
As you know, the NNSA has formed for just over one year. As the
NNSA Administrator, this is my first opportunity to appear before the
Subcommittee to discuss the NNSA budget request. Before providing a
detailed presentation of our budget, based on our key goals and
strategies for attaining those goals, let me share with you my
observations about the nation's nuclear security enterprise and some of
the accomplishments the NNSA has achieved during its short existence.
I begin by emphasizing that our focus is on our mission, as
Congress defined it in the NNSA enabling legislation--Title 32 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Title 32
contains six mission objectives:
--To enhance United States national security through the military
applications of nuclear energy.
--To maintain and enhance the safety, reliability, and performance of
the United States nuclear weapons stockpile, including the
ability to design, produce, and test, in order to meet national
security requirements.
--To provide the United States Navy with safe, militarily effective
nuclear propulsion plants and to ensure the safe and reliable
operations of those plants.
--To promote international nuclear safety and non-proliferation.
--To reduce the nuclear danger from weapons of mass destruction.
--To support United States leadership in science and technology.
The NNSA's mission is to strengthen national security and reduce
the global threat from weapons of mass destruction, through the
application of science and technology. While standing up the NNSA has
proceeded more slowly than I would have liked, we are fulfilling our
mission every day in our laboratories, production facilities, test
site, and, yes, even in remote parts of the world, where we pursue our
nonproliferation goals. And, my friend Admiral Bowman oversees 102
naval nuclear reactors, helping underwrite American military presence
and deterrence around the globe.
observations
Over the six months, I have traveled to all of the national defense
laboratories, the production plants, and the federal field offices. I
have met many of the men and women who make up the NNSA. Based on my
observations and interactions, I am very impressed with the dedication
our team brings to their work and our mission; the intelligence and
creativity they apply to the highly complex scientific and engineering
problems that confront them; and the technical skills they use to
maintain the safety, security and reliability of this nation's aging
nuclear weapons stockpile, while addressing the risks of proliferation
and use of weapons of mass destruction, and developing the most
efficient, safest nuclear reactors ever conceived.
As long as nuclear deterrence remains the cornerstone of our
national security strategy and we continue to face the risk of weapons
of mass destruction, we must ask nothing less than the continued
excellence these people have delivered for more than fifty years. In
fact, we must continue to demand more--more security, improved health
and safety of our workers, more environmentally benign processes, and
higher efficiency. They, in turn, deserve our support and our advocacy.
As we discuss budgets, programs, and projects, it is imperative
that we not lose sight of the fact that the success of the NNSA depends
on these talented and patriotic Americans--the technicians,
administrative staff, scientists, guards, engineers, maintenance crews,
managers, and all the others--who contribute to the nation's nuclear
defense. One of my jobs is to make certain that none of us lose sight
of this simple fact--we must not jeopardize the success of these
programs by making decisions that unnecessarily hinder our people from
performing their best work or stifle their creativity or limit their
initiative.
I assumed this job at a moment in which the enterprise, as a whole,
was struggling with security concerns and questions about its future,
and the morale of our people was at an all-time low. While hard to
quantify, I sense, and I believe my colleagues and the leadership at
the laboratories and production plants would agree, that morale has
begun to improve. People are starting to feel better about themselves,
their work, their institutions, and the direction in which they see the
NNSA moving, especially at the laboratories.
mission accomplishments
Last year, our overall budget saw its first real growth in many
years, and, for that, I thank the Congress. This tangible commitment to
our mission by Congress has sent a strong signal that the mission is
important and enduring, and has allowed all of us in the enterprise to
begin to really look to the future. With these additional funds, we
have begun to make marginal improvements. These additional funds will
make it easier to attract and retain the next generation of scientists
and engineers, to continue to build the needed experimental and
computational facilities, and to begin to correct for our aging
infrastructure at the production sites and laboratories. Congress
authorized an increase in Laboratory Directed Research and Development
(LDRD). In fiscal year 2001, we have established a new research and
development program, dedicated to improving the efficiency and
effectiveness of our production plants.
That said, the NNSA enterprise is still very fragile, and there is
much more to do. We are making aggressive, pro-active management
decisions to improve our stewardship of the resources provided by the
Congress.
The NNSA completed the fifth annual certification of the nuclear
weapons stockpile, with the Secretaries of Defense and Energy signed
their certification letter on January 11, 2001, for transmission to the
President.
Activities are on track to restore the capability of producing
tritium, which is required for proper operation of all nuclear-weapon
types in the stockpile. On January 1, 2000, a thirty-year interagency
agreement with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), making three of
its reactors available to begin irradiation of tritium production
absorber rods, as early as October 2003. On July 27, 2000, ground was
broken for the Tritium Extraction Facility at the Savannah River Site.
Delivery of new tritium gas is expected to commence in February 2006.
In concert with the Department of Defense, and through the Nuclear
Weapons Council, we now have an agreed upon program to refurbish the
B61 bomb and the W76 and W80 warheads, which constitute a significant
portion of the stockpile. This work, in addition to the ongoing
refurbishment of the W87 intercontinental ballistic missile warhead, is
a clear demonstration that stockpile stewardship is working, and a
clear measure of a renewed, much improved relationship with the
Department of Defense. At the same time, this planned workload demands
resources that are not included in the original Stockpile Stewardship
Program and demand long-delayed improvements in plant infrastructure,
as well.
There are new contracts in place that give NNSA better oversight at
our plants and laboratories at Y-12, Pantex, Kansas City, and Los
Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories.
The approach to solving infrastructure issues is also moving in the
right direction. We have begun a Recapitalization Initiative to develop
an integrated, prioritized list of maintenance and infrastructure
activities that, when completed, will significantly increase the
operational efficiency and effectiveness at all of our sites. It is a
long-term plan that will allow us to create a weapons complex that is
properly sized, using modern technologies to protect the health and
safety of our workers and communities, without creating a legacy of
hazardous waste and distrust that we do not want, nor can we afford.
This plan will increase the operational readiness of facilities, reduce
non-productive facility downtime and high costs associated with
unplanned corrective maintenance, arrest the continuing deterioration
of facilities, extend the useful lifetimes of current facilities.
NNSA has rebaselined the work at the National Ignition Facility.
There has been a major turnaround in the management of this once-
troubled program, and I have recently certified to Congress that the
program is on schedule and within budget. We are making progress in
plutonium pit manufacturing and certification, although there are
serious issues ahead of us. Directed Stockpile Work has made enormous
leaps, and is providing the thousands of parts needed to keep the
nuclear stockpile safe, secure, and reliable. The Advanced Simulation
and Computing program (formerly the Accelerated Strategic Computing
Iniative [ASCI]) is continuing, on track, to provide the world-class
computing and simulation tools required to maintain the stockpile, now
and into the future. The Nevada Test Site continues to conduct
experiments, subcritical and others, that are providing valuable data
on the health of the nuclear weapons stockpile, and are exercising
skills necessary to maintain test readiness.
We have begun implementing ``Integrated Safeguards and Security
Management'' in the NNSA. ISSM, as it is known, will build safeguards
and security considerations into management and work practices, at all
levels, so missions are accomplished securely. It is designed to
involve the individuals performing work in the process of establishing
appropriate safeguards and security practices. Subject matter experts
are available to provide guidance and information, but we must place
the responsibility for working securely squarely on the shoulders of
every individual in our complex--the scientists, technicians,
production workers, and professionals performing and managing our
missions.
NNSA has been hard at work to secure and dispose of nuclear warhead
materials, at home and abroad. We are establishing methods to help
prevent the unthinkable from happening--the use of weapons of mass
destruction in an attack on this country or our citizens. NNSA's world-
class expertise at its national laboratories is vital to the success of
this effort.
Since 1993, the Materials Protection, Control and Accounting
(MPC&A) program has formed a first line of defense by working with
Russia to improve the security of weapons-usable material at ninety-
five sites. By the end of the current fiscal year, the program will
have completed rapid security upgrades for nearly 4,000 Russian Navy
nuclear warheads and an additional 220 metric tons of HEU and plutonium
located in Russia and the Newly Independent States--enough material to
make roughly 20,000 nuclear devices. In addition, our Second Line of
Defense (SLD) Program is improving Russia's ability to detect and
interdict nuclear smuggling, by installing radiation detection
equipment at key Russian border crossings, including three seaports and
two airports.
NNSA is helping to prevent the proliferation of weapons-usable
material, while significantly reducing long-term storage costs for
these materials in the United States Under the materials disposition
program, the United States and Russia are implementing an agreement,
signed in September 2000, to permanently dispose of sixty-eight metric
tons of weapons-grade plutonium--thirty-four metric tons on each side.
We continue to transfer quantities of surplus U.S. highly enriched
uranium--more than thirty-four metric tons to date--to the U.S.
Enrichment Corporation, for downblending to low-enriched uranium
nuclear-reactor fuel. We recently signed an agreement with the TVA to
dispose of another thirty-three metric tons of highly enriched uranium.
This agreement with the TVA will save U.S. taxpayers nearly $600
million over the cost of disposing of it as waste.
Under the HEU Purchase Agreement with Russia, we have overseen the
conversion of 110 metric tons of Russian weapons-grade HEU to low
enriched uranium, for commercial sale to the U.S. for our nuclear power
plants. This amount is equivalent to roughly 4,400 nuclear weapons.
NNSA employees are also training civilian nuclear reactor workers
in Russia and the Newly Independent States to increase safety standards
and prevent another accident, such as the one that occurred at
Chornobyl. On December 15, 2000, the government of Ukraine permanently
shut-down the last remaining operational reactor at the Chornobyl
Nuclear Power Plant, on schedule. NNSA experts were instrumental in
making certain this historic achievement was possible.
The Multi-spectral Thermal Imager satellite was launched on March
12th, 2000. This small research satellite was designed and built by a
team of NNSA laboratories and industry partners, to develop and test
remote sensing concepts that will add to our country's ability to
monitor nuclear proliferation. Additionally, this unique satellite is
being used by a wide number of civil, environmental, and defense
scientists to conduct a broad array of government research.
The Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI) aims to prevent and reverse the
threat of proliferation of nuclear weapons expertise, by redirecting
weapons scientists in Russia's nuclear cities to sustainable, non-
weapons activities. The NCI also enhances U.S. national security by
assisting Russia in reducing the overall size of its nuclear weapons
production complex. Last year, this program achieved an historic
accomplishment when the Russians moved a concrete fence at the Avangard
weapons facility, creating an open ``Technopark'' for commercial
businesses. This is the first time that a Russian weapons facility has
reduced its footprint, as part of the nuclear weapons complex
downsizing they have committed to undertake.
All of this said, we face a period of uncertainty in our
cooperative programs with Russia to reduce the threats of weapons of
mass destruction. Recently, Russian President Putin dismissed the head
of the Ministry of Atomic Energy, Minister Adamov, and replaced him
with Alexandr Rumyantsev, from the Kurchatov Institute. We are
uncertain what this change will mean for our programs. We remain
concerned about access required to ensure that our cooperative threat
reduction programs are implemented properly and that our financial
contributions are well spent. We are also mindful of Russia's
cooperation with Iran.
Naval Reactors has compiled an unparalleled record of success,
including
--Nuclear-powered warships have safely steamed more than 122 million
miles, equivalent to nearly 5,000 trips around the Earth.
--Naval reactor plants have accumulated 5,200 reactor-years of
operation, compared to approximately 2,540 for the U.S.
commercial industry. In addition, our operating experience is
approximately half that of the entire commercial power
industry, worldwide (our 5,200 reactor-years, compared to
approximately 9,660 worldwide, including the United States).
--Naval Reactors' outstanding, and fully public, environmental record
enables our ships to visit more than 150 ports around the
world, which is critical to our nation's forward-presence
strategy and ability to project power.
Policy Reviews
As mentioned above, the new Administration has chartered several
reviews to create a new vision for the role of the nation's military in
the 21st century. These reviews will examine the appropriate national
security strategy for this country. One of the reviews will encompass
the role of nuclear deterrence and a position on the size of the future
nuclear stockpile. A second review will evaluate all U.S.
nonproliferation programs with Russia. At the end of this review, we
may have a new strategy for our threat reduction activities with
Russia. The Department and the NNSA are active participants in these
reviews. The Administration will finalize fiscal year 2002 and out-year
funding requests for defense when these reviews are complete.
improvements are still needed
No matter the outcome of these strategic reviews, we recognize the
need for change in the business practices of the Nation's nuclear
security enterprise.
While we are making steady progress, the NNSA still has work to do
to get security right. Our people must see that there is value added in
new or additional security requirements. We want to make sure that what
we do actually improves security, and that security measures do not
unnecessarily impede accomplishing our mission. We have stressed the
concept of science AND security, rather than science OR security. We
must make sure that the scientific culture and the security culture
mesh. Our scientists must understand the need for classification and
security, as they advance science. Similarly, our security officers
must be sensitive to the environment in which we operate, and help
further our mission. Our scientists, engineers, technicians, and our
security and counterintelligence personnel must see themselves on the
same team.
We must focus on revitalizing our infrastructure, which has long
been neglected. This is key for the organization to improve morale,
increase recruitment, and retain people. No one wants to work in a
facility where weeds grow through the cracks in the buildings, or where
you have to wear a hard hat, not for normal safety requirements, but
because the concrete in the roof may fall down at any time.
Revitalizing our infrastructure will take additional funding, but it
will be incumbent upon us to set priorities so this job is done in the
most cost-effective way, in future years.
NNSA, as an organization, must continue to sharpen its project
management skills. Just two weeks ago I was at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory's National Ignition Facility. The people there are
making great strides in focusing on the project, completing
conventional-facility construction, and maintaining a schedule that
will see this project to fruition.
At Los Alamos National Laboratory, Defense Programs must ensure
that the capability to manufacture plutonium pits is reestablished, and
we must come to grips with the long-term requirements for pit
manufacture. We have recently established a full-time office in DP that
focuses solely on pit production and certification. This pit project
office sets schedules and milestones to ensure that we can produce
pits, and that they can be certified by the laboratory for use in the
stockpile.
A key to many of the management challenges facing the NNSA is
implementing a planning, programming, budgeting, and evaluation
process. This new management system will (1) improve discipline in
program and project management, (2) ensure that each program and
project receives appropriate consideration, as tradeoffs are made in
establishing the integrated budget, and (3) create meaningful
performance measurement and feedback systems. We will measure the value
of this system through improvement in our mission performance.
As a first step in the implementation of this process, we have
begun a strategic planning process to identify key goals of the NNSA,
strategies for attaining those goals, and measures for tracking
progress on our goals. In addition to ensuring that NNSA is in
compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), this
effort has helped foster a recognition of the benefits of managing
nuclear security programs on an enterprise-wide basis. We have
organized our budget testimony this year to track the key goals and
strategies identified by our senior managers. Our six primary goals
are:
--Maintain and enhance the safety, security, and reliability of the
Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, meeting military
requirements designed to counter threats of the 21st Century.
--Assure the safe and secure management of nuclear facilities,
materials, and expertise worldwide.
--Detect, deter, and impede the proliferation and the use of weapons
of mass destruction.
--Provide the Navy with safe, militarily effective nuclear propulsion
plants, and ensure their continued safe and reliable operation.
--Ensure the vitality and readiness of the NNSA's scientific and
technical enterprise, for the next decade and beyond.
--Create a well-managed, responsive and accountable organization by
employing effective business practices.
goal 1: stockpile stewardship
We turn first to a discussion of the stockpile stewardship program
that is designed to maintain and enhance the safety, security, and
reliability of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, meeting military
requirements designed to counter threats of the 21st Century. To ensure
that the U.S. stockpile of nuclear weapons remains safe, secure, and
reliable, the NNSA will continue to advance the Stockpile Stewardship
Program. This program was established by the fiscal year 1994 National
Defense Authorization Act, which directed the Secretary of Energy ``to
establish a stewardship program to ensure the preservation of the core
intellectual and technical competencies of the United States in nuclear
weapons.'' The Stockpile Stewardship Program must: (1) predict, detect,
and evaluate potential problems, due to the aging of the stockpile, (2)
refurbish and re-manufacture warheads and components, as required, (3)
support focused, multi-faceted efforts to increase the understanding of
the stockpile, and (4) maintain the science and engineering
institutions needed to support the nations's nuclear deterrent, now and
in the future.
Surveillance and assessment activities, including many aboveground
experiments, the manufacture of limited-life components and replacement
parts, the reestablishment of a capability to fabricate plutonium pits,
weapon refurbishments to extend the lifetimes of weapons in our aging
stockpile, securing a source of tritium, and providing secure
transportation of nuclear materials are all necessary, whether we're
conducting nuclear tests, or not. In addition, we must maintain our
nuclear weapons complex, which has been downsized significantly during
the last decade and is in dire need of repair; ensure that we have a
workforce with the necessary skills; and see to the safety and security
of both our facilities and workforce, the communities in which we work,
and the environment in which we live.
We are annually conducting hundreds of experiments at our national
laboratories and the Nevada Test Site to increase our understanding of
what happens when a nuclear weapon detonates. The software being
validated by these experiments is already making significant
contributions to the maintenance of the nuclear stockpile. Early
versions of the three-dimensional weapon performance codes are
resolving previously unexplained phenomena from past underground test
data and are contributing to the resolution of issues that have been
raised by our surveillance program. Simulations have also enabled us to
qualify, for the first time without nuclear tests, a radiation-hardened
component and a replacement neutron generator for the W76.
Experiments in facilities now under development, such as the
National Ignition Facility (NIF), and those that are on-line, such as
the Z accelerator and the Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test
Facility (DARHT), will greatly expand our knowledge of what happens in
a nuclear detonation. The closer our scientists and engineers get to
duplicating in the laboratory the phenomena that occur in nuclear
detonation, the greater our chances are of being able to continue to
certify that our stockpile is safe, secure, and reliable, without the
need to return to nuclear testing. But, even if there were no
moratorium on nuclear testing, most activities encompassed by the
Stockpile Stewardship Program would still be necessary to assess,
certify, and maintain the safety, security, and reliability of the
stockpile.
Stockpile Certification
A cornerstone of the Stockpile Stewardship Program is the
certification to the President, by the Secretaries of Defense and
Energy, whether any safety or reliability concerns exist that would
require a return to nuclear testing. At his confirmation hearing,
Secretary Abraham stated that, in his judgment, ``one of the most
sobering and important responsibilities vested in the Secretary of
Energy is the duty to certify to the President each year that the U.S.
nuclear stockpile is safe, secure, and reliable . . ..'' In a like
manner, I believe my most important responsibility, as the
Administrator of the NNSA, is to facilitate that process.
Certification is based on a yearly, rigorous technical review of
the condition of the stockpile by the Directors of the three nuclear
weapons laboratories, the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Strategic
Command, and the Nuclear Weapons Council. The most recent assessment
concludes that the stockpile is safe and reliable, and that no nuclear
testing is needed at this time.
This certification is made possible by activities within the
Stockpile Stewardship Program, through an extensive set of activities
and tests assessing and qualifying the myriad of components and
subsystems of each of our weapon system types. Data and test results
must be analyzed, assessed, and evaluated before conclusions can be
drawn regarding the safety and reliability of stockpiled warheads. A
significant imperative of assessment and certification is to develop
the necessary tools to accurately baseline warheads in the existing
stockpile, while designers with nuclear-test and warhead-design
experience remain to mentor the next generation of stockpile stewards.
The key to accurate assessments is the expert judgment of our
weapons scientists and engineers. Confidence in the accuracy of their
judgment and confidence in the safety, security, and reliability of the
warheads in our stockpile are more closely linked than ever before. In
the past, a weapon steward's judgment was developed and validated
through new warhead design and nuclear testing. Today, our Stockpile
Stewardship Program is honing and demonstrating expert judgment of the
next generation of stockpile stewards through integrated use of
surveillance, computational simulations, applied scientific
experimentation, material and aging studies, and nonnuclear
experiments.
In the absence of nuclear testing, a variety of experiments and
tools provide data relevant to nuclear warhead performance. Some of the
older tools, designed to complement nuclear testing, are not, in and of
themselves, sufficient to provide the needed information. A suite of
enhanced capabilities and facilities, to fill in the knowledge gaps and
provide enhanced data relevant to various stockpile concerns, has been
identified and is being developed through our Campaigns, described
later in my testimony.
We are implementing stockpile stewardship through two strategies: a
program of Directed Stockpile Work, and development of a suite of
science, engineering, and readiness Campaigns.
Directed Stockpile Work
The first strategy for maintaining the safety, security, and
reliability of the Nation's nuclear stockpile is our program of
Directed Stockpile Work, developed in concert with the DOD. This
program applies the improved tools and technologies developed by all
elements of the Stockpile Stewardship Program, and consists of three
important elements: maintenance and evaluation, refurbishments, and
dismantlements.
Stockpile Maintenance and Evaluation
The budget submission for fiscal year 2002 will support all
scheduled maintenance and evaluation activities for the current
stockpile. Each year, eleven weapons of each type in the stockpile are
returned from the active force and are disassembled, examined, tested,
and analyzed for defects. One is destructively tested. If defects are
found, their effect on reliability and safety is assessed. We conduct
flight and laboratory tests on systems and components, including the
destructive testing of pits. In fiscal year 2002, we expect to conduct
thirty flight tests, seventy-two laboratory tests, thousands of
component tests, and we will destructively analyze nine pits. The
current budget request will allow us to continue to reduce the backlog
of laboratory tests resulting from other priorities during past years.
The additional $23 million over our request in fiscal year 2001 that
Congress provided for reducing the testing backlog was instrumental in
reducing the backlog this year. The additional $17 million that
Congress provided for the Enhanced Surveillance Campaign in fiscal year
2001 enabled us to initiate and accelerate the deployment of advanced
diagnostic tools, for early identification of warhead aging problems
that otherwise may not be detectable until too late.
Scheduled maintenance also includes the replacement of limited-life
components, such as neutron generators and tritium reservoirs. In
fiscal year 2002, we expect to produce and fill 1,695 tritium
reservoirs, produce 1,445 new tritium reservoirs, re-certify 854
neutron generators, and produce 296 new neutron generators. In fiscal
year 2001, the complex accomplished the exchange of nearly 4,500
limited-life components. We also expect to achieve first production of
replacement tritium reservoirs for the W62 and W87, and continue
production of the replacement neutron generator for the W76.
As our nuclear weapons continue to age, we expect more parts to
require replacement. Manufacturing replacement parts sounds
straightforward, but in the time that has elapsed since the current
weapons in the stockpile were originally manufactured, some of our
production plants have closed, manufacturing processes, techniques, and
standards have changed, and there are more stringent health, safety,
and environmental standards. Under these conditions, manufacturing
exact replacement parts is difficult, if not impossible and, because
nuclear testing can no longer be used to qualify the replacements,
extensive testing and analyses must be conducted to ensure that the
replicated components are acceptable.
At present, we have nine weapons alterations underway to meet
higher safety standards or to replace faulty components in various
systems. We are currently on schedule with all nine alterations, and
the fiscal year 2002 budget supports those schedules. In addition, we
have reached agreement, with the Department of Defense, on a
comprehensive plan for refurbishing the nuclear stockpile over the
coming decade. Implementation of that plan awaits the decisions from
the Strategic Defense Review, and the current fiscal year 2002 budget
submission supports only limited execution of that plan.
Refurbishments
Following cessation of production at the Rocky Flats Plant in 1989,
the United States has not produced a new nuclear warhead since 1991,
nor have we had any requirement to build a new warhead. Prior to 1991,
major refurbishment of a warhead to extend its life was not an issue,
because new weapon types were continually being introduced into the
stockpile. Currently, the average age of warheads in the stockpile is
eighteen years, and signs of aging have been identified through
stockpile evaluation and enhanced surveillance. As the stockpile ages,
we are working closely with the DOD to finalize detailed plans to
extend the lifetime of each warhead type. These life extensions, or
refurbishments, include the detection and correction of problems, and
provide and maintain safety improvements and use control.
The budget submission continues the major refurbishment of the W87
warhead, deployed on land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles.
This is the first major retrofit of any warhead in nearly a decade.
Delivery of the first production unit to the Air Force, in May 1999, as
scheduled, six years after conception of the project, was a major
success. The safety concerns and production-line problems that occurred
at our Pantex Plant are lessons learned that will be applied in future
refurbishments.
Last year, the Nuclear Weapons Council reached final agreement on
the technical scope of the refurbishments needed for the B61 bomb and
for the W76 and W80 warheads. Together, these systems comprise a
substantial portion of the current U.S. stockpile, and the additional
funding received for research and development in fiscal year 2001 was
used for W76 refurbishment design and W88 dynamic experimentation. The
fiscal year 2002 request will support laboratory activities to complete
the ongoing studies to refurbish the B61 (some components of which are
more than thirty years old), to initiate development engineering to
support a first production unit in fiscal year 2004, and to begin the
development of a plan for certification of the B61, with a refurbished
canned subassembly. We plan to work with the Department of Defense to
determine a schedule and, possibly, revised scopes for the W76 and W80
refurbishments, pending completion of the Strategic Defense Review. The
current budget request does not support the original schedule eveloped
with DOD.
Warhead Dismantlement
Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has reduced its
nuclear weapons inventory by approximately sixty percent. NNSA is
currently disassembling two types of warheads, and is committed to the
safe disassembly of any warheads retired, as a result of the ongoing
national security strategy review or future decisions. Disassembly of
the W79 Artillery-Fired Atomic Projectile will be complete in fiscal
year 2003, and disassembly of the W56 Minuteman II intercontinental
ballistic missile warhead will be complete in fiscal year 2005.
Campaigns
The second stockpile stewardship strategy is to maintain and
develop the scientific, engineering, and manufacturing capabilities
needed for the continued certification of the stockpile, including the
ability to design new weapons and conduct underground nuclear tests.
This strategy is being implemented through a series of Campaigns, which
are focused, scientific and technical efforts to develop and maintain
critical capabilities needed to enable continued certification of the
stockpile for the long-term. They are technically challenging,
multifunctional in nature, and have definitive milestones, specific
work plans, and specific deliverables. The Campaign approach was
initiated in fiscal year 2001 as part of a new program planning and
budgeting framework, to facilitate integration within the Stockpile
Stewardship Program. There are currently seventeen campaigns:
--Primary Certification,
--Dynamic Materials Properties,
--Advanced Radiography,
--Secondary Certification and Nuclear Systems Margins,
--Enhanced Surety,
--Weapons System Engineering Certification,
--Nuclear Survivability (formerly Hostile Environments
Certification),
--Enhanced Surveillance, Advanced Design and Production Technologies,
--Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield (includes NIF),
--Advanced Simulation and Computing (formerly the Accelerated
Strategic Computing Initiative),
--Pit Manufacturing and Certification (formerly Pit Manufacturing
Readiness),
--Secondary Readiness,
--High Explosives Manufacturing and Weapons Assembly/Disassembly,
Nonnuclear Readiness,
--Materials Readiness, and Tritium Readiness.
Today, I would like to discuss, in detail, a few of these
Campaigns.
Pit Manufacturing and Certification
We have not manufactured plutonium pits for use in the stockpile
since 1989, when the Rocky Flats Plant stopped production of W88 pits,
due to facility safety and environmental concerns. As a result, there
are not enough W88 pits to meet future surveillance destructive-testing
requirements. The budget request for fiscal year 2002 continues to
reestablish a capability to fabricate a limited number of plutonium
pits at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The plan is to complete the
fabrication of a certifiable W88 pit in fiscal year 2003, within this
budget request, with no commitment to a certification schedule or to
production quantities. As we proceed, we will continue to work closely
with the Navy to ensure that military needs for the W88 are met.
The additional $25 million, provided by Congress in fiscal year
2001, was instrumental in developing momentum in pit manufacturing. The
NNSA completed a report for Congress earlier this month, as requested
by the conference report accompanying the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001. The recently submitted report
contains project schedules and cost estimates for production and
certification of W88 pits.
The magnitude of the challenge to reestablish a pit production
capability at Los Alamos National Laboratory can, perhaps, best be
illustrated by the fact that approximately 18,000 activities and 350
individual work packages have been identified, to complete production
and certification of the W88 with a newly manufactured pit. To date, we
have produced eight W88 development pits, and are on schedule to
reestablish the technology and manufacture a certifiable W88 pit in
fiscal year 2003. A detailed and rigorous set of engineering and
physics certification tests has been defined, to achieve certification
without nuclear testing.
A pit project office was established this past year within Defense
Programs, to provide oversight of all pit production and certification
related activities. In addition to near-term activities, such as the
W88, this new office is responsible for long-term pit production
readiness planning. For future readiness, we are using the $2 million
provided by Congress this fiscal year to conduct pre-conceptual design
studies, sufficient to enable a decision for conceptual design planning
of a modern pit facility in fiscal year 2002. In fiscal year 2004, new
information from pit-aging studies is expected to provide further
insight into pit lifetimes. This information, coupled with the
requirements for the numbers and types of weapons in the stockpile
resulting from the President's Strategic Defense Review, will drive
sizing decisions for a modern pit facility. The Nuclear Weapons Council
will continue to monitor our work in this area.
Tritium Readiness
Every U.S. nuclear warhead requires tritium to function as
designed. Because tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, decays at
the rate of 5.5 percent per year, it must be periodically replenished
within each nuclear warhead. We have not produced tritium since 1988,
and our inventory, depending on the results of the Strategic Defense
Review, is sufficient only until approximately 2005, after which time
the five-year tritium reserve we maintain may begin to be drawn down.
In May 1999, the Department announced that TVA commercial light water
reactors would be used to produce tritium, and that accelerator
production of tritium (APT) technology would be developed as backup, by
completing preliminary design and engineering development and
demonstration activities.
A 30-year interagency agreement with TVA went into effect on
January 1, 2000, making three of its reactors, Watts Bar and Sequoyah 1
and 2, available to begin irradiation of tritium production absorber
rods, as early as October 2003. This month, TVA submitted a request to
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to amend its operating license
for the Watts Bar and Sequoyah reactors, to permit irradiation of
tritium producing absorber rods. The NRC committed to expediting the
approval of these requests.
On July 27, 2000, ground was broken for the new Tritium Extraction
Facility (TEF) at the Savannah River Site and, during fiscal year 2001,
site preparation and detailed design for the facility is expected to be
completed. Originally, construction of TEF was to have begun in early
fiscal year 1999, but language in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1999 prohibited any tritium construction activities
during fiscal year 1999. Because of this delay in schedule, we project
that the TEF will not begin delivering tritium gas from irradiated
absorber rods until February 2006. Depending on the results of the
Strategic Defense Review, about one year of the five-year tritium
reserve may be consumed. The capacity of TEF to extract tritium from
the absorber rods will be sufficient to restore the reserve, within two
to three years.
Congress appropriated additional funding for APT in fiscal year
2001, and the preliminary design of APT is expected to be completed
this year. However, the current fiscal year 2002 budget request does
not include sufficient resources to complete the engineering
development and demonstration activities in fiscal year 2002, as
previously planned. In addition, an Advanced Accelerator Applications
Program that is being planned by Defense Programs and the Office of
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, may be put on hold. This multi-
mission accelerator program is to include waste transmutation, isotope
production, and tritium production. An Accelerator Demonstration Test
Facility is being planned that would have the capability to be upgraded
to produce tritium, if required.
Advanced Simulation and Computing
Senator Bingaman indicated, in the preface to a question following
Secretary Abraham's confirmation hearing, that he was disturbed that,
following the hearing held last Fall on the Stockpile Stewardship
Program, as part of the hearings on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,
many of his ``colleagues seemed to get the impression . . . that the
Stockpile Stewardship Program is a sort of computer simulation exercise
. . . '' I want to dispel that impression.
Computer modeling and simulation are important elements of the
Stockpile Stewardship Program, but the ultimate goal of our Advanced
Simulation and Computing Campaign (ASC), formerly referred to as the
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI), is to have the
ability to perform three-dimensional, high-fidelity simulations of the
performance of all aspects of the operation of a nuclear warhead. By
integrating the findings of our experimental and engineering R&D
programs, as well as data from past nuclear tests, such simulations are
providing our scientists with sufficient confidence to make it
unnecessary to use underground nuclear testing at this time.
To fully achieve our goal, it is estimated that we must have a
computer system operating at a minimum of 100 trillion operations per
second (teraOPS), and computer software, validated by experimental data
that provides a much greater understanding of the physics of nuclear
explosions than we possess today. We are making remarkable progress
toward achieving our goals in this area.
In December 1999, a three-dimensional simulation of the primary
explosion of a nuclear warhead was successfully completed, for the
first time, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. This proof-of-
principle simulation was performed on an ASC Campaign system operating
at 3.89 teraOPS and took twenty days. On a Cray-class supercomputer, if
sufficient memory were available, this simulation would have taken
eighty years.
Soon thereafter, Sandia successfully completed the first-ever,
three-dimensional computer simulations of a weapon warhead exposed to
hostile radiation and blast environments. As part of this milestone,
Sandia also completed a series of three-dimensional simulations of the
performance of a neutron generator in a radiation field. These weapon
simulations collectively required about 500,000 megabytes of memory and
used 2,000 computing processors for 45 days.
In April 2000, eight months ahead of schedule, a proof-of-
principle, three-dimensional simulation of the secondary explosion of a
nuclear warhead was completed at Los Alamos National Laboratory. This
simulation was performed on two ASC Campaign systems, operating at
approximately 3 teraOPS each, at Los Alamos and Sandia, and took 42
days. None of these simulations were possible, prior to the development
of ASCI-scale computational platforms and software. We expect to meet
the next milepost, a proof-of-principle three-dimensional simulation of
a full weapon, including both primary and secondary operation, by the
December 2001 scheduled date.
The ASC Campaign contributes to all elements of the nuclear weapons
life cycle. It is providing the tools that are needed by weapons
designers to maintain a nuclear weapon design capability. ASC Campaign
computers are being used to help address issues associated with the
manufacture of replacement parts for nuclear warheads, transportation
and storage of weapons and components, certification of weapons,
dismantlements, and the safety of weapons in various accident
scenarios. The ASC Campaign is an integral and vital element of the
Stockpile Stewardship Program. It provides the integrating simulation
and modeling capabilities and technologies needed to combine new and
old experimental data, past nuclear test data, and past design and
engineering experience into a powerful tool for future design,
assessment and certification of nuclear weapons and their components.
The success of the computer modeling and simulation program has
been, in no small measure, due to the budgetary support it has
received, since its inception. The computing speed, power, and level of
physics detail existing today was simply undreamed of a few years ago.
The current budget request, however, will slow the scheduled progress
of the Campaign, and delay our previously announced commitment to reach
a computing capability of 100 teraOPS from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal
year 2005. This will delay, by at least a year, our major deliverable
to Directed Stockpile Work--the ability to perform a high-fidelity
simulation, in three-dimensions, of the performance of a full nuclear
warhead.
Completion of three ASC Campaign construction projects will also be
delayed for at least one year with this budget. These projects are the
Distributed Information Systems Laboratory at Sandia National
Laboratories in Livermore, the Joint Computational Engineering
Laboratory at Sandia in Albuquerque, and the Terascale Simulation
Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Two other ASC
Campaign program elements will also be scaled back in fiscal year 2002.
These are the Path Forward program, which funds computer hardware and
software companies to develop products needed to meet the aggressive
ASC Campaign schedule, and the DisCom2 program, which provides remote
access to the large computing platforms, enabling sharing of these
resources among our production plants and laboratories.
These deferrals in meeting ASC Campaign milestones are consistent
with the possible refurbishment schedules that achievable with the
fiscal year 2002 Budget request.
Our commitments to selected groups in the university community
through our Academic Strategic Alliances Program will not be affected,
nor will the operation of the 12-teraOPS machine at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, which was recently made available for software
development and warhead simulations. It is already fully utilized.
Inertial Confinement Fusion and the National Ignition Facility
The National Ignition Facility, under construction at the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, is a vital element of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program. It will allow us to study issues that affect aging
and refurbishment of the stockpile, validate advanced simulation
software being developed by the ASC Campaign, and help in attracting
and retaining the exceptional scientific and engineering talent needed
by the Stockpile Stewardship Program, over the long term.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
required the submission of a revised project baseline for NIF, in
response to substantial cost increases and schedule slippage, caused by
problems in assembling and installing the laser and target system
infrastructure. The revised baseline, submitted in final form to
Congress last September, retains the full NIF design capability of 192
beams, with completion of the project scheduled in fiscal year 2008,
and experiments with the first eight laser beams beginning in fiscal
year 2004. It is important to understand that we will be conducting
many experiments at NIF, well before all 192 beams are available in
fiscal year 2008. Between fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2008,
approximately 1,500 experiments will be conducted at NIF. The project
goals are to achieve early light in 2003, with four laser beams, and to
meet our ``First Light'' milestone, with eight laser beams, in 2004.
I believe the progress at NIF reflects several management decisions
that have been made during the past year and half. These include (1)
the hiring of an industrial contractor with a proven record of
constructing similarly complex facilities, to manage and install the
laser and target system, (2) the creation of a NIF Project Office that
reports directly to the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, (3)
the appointment by the laboratory director of an associate director
with line responsibility for the NIF Project, and (4) the selection of
a new project manager, with extensive project management experience, to
oversee daily NIF Project activities.
As required by the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, I recently certified to Congress that the NIF
Project milestones, for the revised schedule, are being met within the
revised budget. The project is making significant progress. We expect
to complete construction of conventional facilities this fiscal year.
Laser bays are now under clean room protocols, and installation of
laser systems has begun. Our glass manufacturers have delivered more
than 1,700 of the required 3,500 laser glass slabs that meet our
specifications.
The Conference Report accompanying the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 also directed the NNSA to
assess the role of NIF, to consider the requirement for the full 192-
beam configuration, and determine if alternatives to the full NIF could
meet the safety and reliability needs of the nuclear weapon stockpile.
To meet this requirement, the NNSA initiated a broader study to examine
its entire High-Energy-Density Physics Program. NNSA brought together
laboratory leadership and technical staff, DP management, and a number
of nuclear-weapon-knowledgeable advisors from a variety of federal
organizations. Alternatives that were considered included pauses in NIF
construction at 48, 96, and 120 beams, a refurbishment of the Z
accelerator at Sandia, and the addition of an engineering demonstration
milestone to the NIF Project at first light. The principal
recommendation of this study, which was submitted to Congress on April
6, was that the NNSA should continue with the current High-Energy-
Density Physics Program, including Omega, the Z accelerator, and the
192-beam NIF, with the goal of achieving ignition.
Experiments on the Atlas pulsed-power machine at Los Alamos
National Laboratory will begin later this year and will continue in
fiscal year 2002. Relocation of the facility to the Nevada Test Site
will be deferred, due to higher priorities of the stockpile and
limitations imposed by the current fiscal year 2002 budget. In fiscal
year 2001, we also expect the completion of the Z-backlighter project
at Sandia, in which the Beamlet, a technology demonstration for NIF, is
being adapted as a diagnostic tool for use on the Z accelerator. A
variety of experiments with this technology, planned to begin in fiscal
year 2002 to study hydrodynamics, materials properties, and inertial
confinement physics, may also be deferred.
Other Campaign-Specific Experimental Activities
Other experimental activities are underway, across the complex, in
support of the nation's nuclear deterrent. At Los Alamos National
Laboratory, physics experiments using the first-axis of the Dual Axis
Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility (DARHT) have been conducted,
providing valuable weapons data. DARHT provides us the capability to
take freeze-frame photos of materials imploding at speeds greater than
10,000 miles an hour, allowing scientists to study solids and metals as
they flow like liquids, when driven by the detonation of high
explosives. We expect the second arm of DARHT to be completed in fiscal
year 2002, allowing simultaneous views from two directions, as well as
several separate views over the time of the implosion.
Subcritical experiments at the Nevada Test Site continue to be
successful. To date, thirteen have been conducted. These experiments
are helping us to assess the stockpile by providing understanding of
aspects of weapons physics and the aging properties of plutonium. They
also help us to certify pits manufactured at Los Alamos National
Laboratory, for use in the nuclear weapons stockpile. In addition,
subcritical activities are a major contributor to underground nuclear
test readiness at the Nevada Test Site. To support related materials
research, we have also begun acceptance tests on the JASPER (Joint
Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research) gas gun at the Nevada
Test Site. We expect to begin obtaining data on plutonium late this
year.
During this next year, we will look hard again at improving test
readiness, and will review whether an apporpriate level of resources is
being applied to this vital element of stockpile stewardship.
goal 2: securing nuclear facilities, materials, information, and
expertise worldwide
Our second goal is to ensure the safe and secure management of
nuclear facilities, materials, and expertise, worldwide. While
maintaining and enhancing the safety, security, and reliability of the
Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, the NNSA has a custodial
responsibility to ensure that all U.S. nuclear-deterrent assets--
information, facilities, and people-are safeguarded and secured to
prohibit unwanted damage or unauthorized release of these key U.S.
national security assets. The NNSA also works in parallel to address
international threats to U.S. national security interests from the
potential proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These new
international threats derive largely from the Soviet Union's production
of enormous quantities of nuclear materials and weapons, and from
potential actions by rogue nations or terrorist organizations with
interests contrary to those of our nation. The NNSA is pursuing a
balanced and comprehensive approach to nonproliferation that seeks to
reduce or eliminate these threats to U.S. national security interests,
particularly threats in Russia and countries of the former Soviet
Union.
Integrated Security Action Plan
A key strategy for preventing proliferation is effectively managing
and protecting the NNSA nuclear weapons, materials, and information.
The NNSA is pursuing an Integrated Security Action Plan to protect U.S.
nuclear assets. While we are making steady progress, NNSA still has
work to do to get security right. We have commissioned a group of
eminent Americans, known as the Hamre Commission, to review the entire
issue of science and security to help us make sure we get the right
picture and perspective. I have warned them to be careful with their
recommendations, because many of them are likely to be implemented.
I have called for a six-month moratorium on implementing any new
safeguards and security policies. We are using this time to review past
policies, identify policy improvements, and determine how policy can
most effectively be implemented within NNSA. We are emphasizing the
importance of personal commitment and individual responsibility in the
protection of our nation's vital assets, and we are seeking to involve
employees at all levels of our enterprise in improving safeguards and
security.
The NNSA is ensuring that people working on our nuclear deterrent
are aware and accountable for their national security responsibilities.
In that regard, on March 26, 2001, I announced plans for implementing
``Integrated Safeguards and Security Management'' in the NNSA. ISSM, as
it is known, will build safeguards and security considerations into
management and work practices, at all levels, so that missions are
accomplished securely. Individuals performing the work will be involved
in the process of establishing appropriate safeguards and security
practices. Subject matter experts are available to provide guidance and
information, but we must place the responsibility for working securely
squarely on the shoulders of every individual in our complex--the
scientists, technicians, production workers, and professionals
performing and managing our missions.
As you know, the counterintelligence polygraph program has raised
concerns among scientists and others within the NNSA community. We are
sponsoring a scientific study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
on the validity and reliability of polygraphy. The NAS study will
include what is known about the effects of medications, sleep
deprivation, and illness on the physiological responses measured
through polygraph examinations. The fifteen-month study began on
January 1, 2001. The study's final report is to be released next year
and should help us improve upon the Department of Energy's polygraph
program.
Safeguards and Security
The NNSA is protecting U.S. nuclear facilities. The NNSA conducts a
rigorous Safeguards and Security program to protect the physical assets
of the NNSA enterprise. These efforts are an integral part of the
Administration's mission of being a responsible steward of the nation's
nuclear weapons. In fiscal year 2001, safeguards and security
activities were appropriated as direct costs, rather than as allocated
costs within indirect and overhead funding, as in the past. We are
managing the safeguards and security as a line responsibility in the
NNSA. My Chief of Defense Nuclear Security is responsible for
establishing safeguards and security policy throughout the NNSA. We
will administer the weapons safeguards and security budget for
facilities where NNSA is the landlord, through our new Facilities and
Operations organization, which I will discuss later in this testimony.
In 1999, a multitude of corrective actions and enhancements to
upgrade the safeguards and security posture at all Defense Programs
sites resulted from a program named ``Safeguards and Security Goal
Posts.'' By the beginning of fiscal year 2001, all final corrective
actions and enhancements resulting from this program had been completed
for all sites, except the Y-12 Plant, which was the only site not rated
``satisfactory.'' The ability of the Y-12 Plant to attain an overall
satisfactory rating hinges on the availability of funds to correct
deficiencies in material control and accountability for the highly
enriched uranium operations. The fiscal year 2002 Budget request will
maintain physical security functions at our production plants, the
Nevada Test Site, and the national security laboratories, at their
current security ratings.
The NNSA is protecting vital nuclear deterrent information. The
Integrated Safeguards and Security Management program is designed to
systematically integrate safeguards and security into management and
work practices, at all levels, so that missions are accomplished
securely. Implementation of the ``Higher Fences'' initiative, to
enhance protection of certain restricted weapons data within DOE and
DOD, by establishing an additional sigma category, requires few
resources and is moving forward.
The nuclear weapons complex has always used secure computing
systems and networks. However, the need for significant improvement in
the protection of nuclear weapon data across the entire complex has
been well documented in the past two years. An increased number of
countries and organizations are attempting to obtain nuclear weapon
data and are using ever increasing sophisticated techniques.
In response, Congress provided supplemental funding in fiscal year
2000, to begin developing the Integrated Cyber Security Initiative
(ICSI) Plan. Implementing this plan will sustain the operations and
maintenance of cyber security activities throughout the complex,
providing solutions for the most critical vulnerabilities revealed
through risk assessments of the current network. Also, as called for in
the ICSI plan, we will implement and demonstrate a testing network for
evaluating and testing products and proposed solutions, complete the
design of a new complex-wide network, and identify and catalog all
electronic information that is exchanged in the complex.
The fiscal year 2002 Budget request will move us forward on the
Integrated Safeguards and Security Management program and the ``Higher
Fences'' initiative, and will allow us to sustain the maintenance and
operation of cyber security activities across the complex, and to
provide upgrades where the highest vulnerabilities are assessed, but
will not allow us to address the long-term solutions set forth in the
Integrated Cyber Security Initiative (ICSI) Plan that was submitted to
Congress in March of this year.
Transportation Safeguards System
The NNSA is protecting the U.S. movement of nuclear materials,
components and nuclear weapons. The NNSA operates a Transportation
Safeguards System to move nuclear weapons, components, and special
nuclear materials, throughout the country, in a safe and secure manner,
precluding theft or diversion. This unique transportation system has
operated with an impeccable record of safety and security for more than
twenty-five years. Although its primary mission has been in support of
the nuclear weapons program, the system provides transportation
services for all DOE programs that require nuclear materials to be
protected while in transit. This summer, the Office of Environmental
Management will begin to remove nuclear materials from Rocky Flats.
Other programs have also projected increases in their requirements for
secure shipment of nuclear materials. The Transportation Safeguards
System resources will have to be increased during the next five years
to meet the projected demand for secure shipment of nuclear materials.
Headquarters and the Albuquerque Operations Office, in collaboration
with other program offices, have initiated a coordinated planning and
scheduling process to improve the optimum usage of our assets, to
establish NNSA authority to certify Type B shipping packages, and to
expand our capabilities by hiring and training special federal agents
and enlarging the fleet of trailers, tractors, and escort vehicles.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Activities
With respect to NNSA's international nuclear security
responsibilities, the NNSA develops and implements critical U.S.
nonproliferation programs. Its role is due, in large measure, to the
unique expertise in nuclear weapons and nuclear material handling that
it draws from the national laboratories. The NNSA's goal is to ensure
the close integration of technical talent and policy expertise with the
efforts of other U.S. agencies working in the nonproliferation arena.
Our goal is to address this complex, multifaceted issue in a
comprehensive way, with specific, realistic goals for each part of the
program. The Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation's programs
address different types of problems, and they are designed to do
different things, while working to achieve the overall goal of reducing
the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. All of
these programs, together, offer a synergy of effect that is greater
than the sum of the parts.
The NNSA is pursuing strategies to protect or eliminate vulnerable
weapons-usable nuclear material or infrastructure, and redirect excess
weapons expertise to civilian enterprises in Russia and other nations
that possess vulnerable materials. The Office of Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation is responsible for these nuclear security programs,
along with other programs that seek to prevent, detect, and deter
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the materials needed
to produce them. Key programs within NN that deal with vulnerable
weapons materials and the nuclear complex infrastructure in Russia
include (1) Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting; (2) Fissile
Materials Disposition; (3) HEU Transparency Implementation; (4) the
Nuclear Cities Initiative; and (5) Initiatives for Proliferation
Prevention. NN's other nonproliferation and arms control programs will
be discussed in the next section. The three-fold threat of unsecured
materials, widely available technology, and underemployed expertise
following the breakup of the Soviet Union makes these issues of
paramount importance and urgency.
Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting
The NNSA conducts effective programs in Russia to protect
vulnerable weapons and weapons-usable nuclear materials. The NNSA's
Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting program (MPC&A) is
working rapidly to complete its mission, and estimates in its Strategic
Plan that comprehensive security upgrades will be complete at all of
the warhead storage locations that the Russian Navy has requested, as
early as 2007, and for 603 metric tons of weapons-usable nuclear
material by 2011. Since 1993, the program has completed rapid upgrades
for nearly 4,000 warheads and 220 metric tons of fissile material. The
unprecedented degree of cooperation and access shown by the Russian
Navy to NNSA employees has facilitated the advancement of our work at a
number of very sensitive Russian sites, allowing us to focus our
personnel and funds on promptly securing the items in Russia that are
most attractive to diversion. One programmatic goal for fiscal year
2002 is to complete security upgrades at thirteen nuclear sites,
bringing the total number of completed sites to fifty.
Another goal is to promote sustainable security improvements.
``Sustainability'' is critical to the long-term mission of the program,
because we must ensure that installed MPC&A systems are maintained and
operated over the long term. Sustainability also entails fostering the
ability of our Russian counterparts to operate and maintain the MPC&A
systems unilaterally. To ensure sustainability, we are establishing
training centers, identifying credible Russian suppliers of MPC&A
equipment, helping draft national regulations and security force
procedures, and establishing a federal information accounting system to
track amounts and locations for all of Russia's nuclear material.
Specifically, in fiscal year 2002, we will conduct fifty training
courses in MPC&A design, operation, and maintenance for more than 2,400
students, bringing the total number of Russian personnel trained in
MPC&A concepts to greater than 6,000. Furthermore, we have developed
and implemented a program to consolidate material into fewer buildings
and fewer sites, and to convert excess highly attractive material to a
form that is less attractive to potential proliferant nations. In
fiscal year 2002, this program will convert an additional 1.8 metric
tons of highly enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium (LEU), raising
the total converted to four metric tons. This program reduces costs to
the U.S. by limiting the number of buildings requiring security
upgrades. It also reduces the Russia-borne costs of maintaining
installed security upgrades once NNSA's funds are no longer provided.
The NNSA conducts two separate, yet complementary, programs to
eliminate vulnerable weapons and weapons-usable nuclear materials in
Russia, so that it will never again be used for weapons purposes. We
estimate that there are roughly 150 metric tons of plutonium and more
than 1,000 metric tons of highly enriched uranium in Russia. These
programs are the first step in what is sure to be a lengthy process.
Fissile Materials Disposition
The Fissile Materials Disposition program is responsible for
disposing of inventories of surplus U.S. weapon-grade plutonium and
highly enriched uranium, for reducing the significant costs associated
with long-term storage of these materials in the United States, as well
as for providing the technical support for, and ultimate implementation
of, efforts to obtain reciprocal disposition of surplus Russian weapon-
grade plutonium. This disposition program is among the nonproliferation
programs that is currently undergoing a National Security Council
review of U.S. Government nonproliferation assistance programs to
Russia.
The fiscal year 2002 Budget request will fund the completion of the
mixed oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility design and proceed with
related MOX fuel qualification activities. We will continue the design
of the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility at a reduced rate, and
we will suspend the design of the Plutonium Immobilization Plant. These
changes are necessary, to reduce the anticipated future-year peak
funding requirements associated with plans for simultaneously building
three plutonium disposition facilities at the Savannah River Site.
Despite these schedule changes, the NNSA continues to pursue the
irradiation of MOX fuel in existing reactors and immobilization for the
disposition of surplus U.S. weapon-grade plutonium. This will enable us
to meet the commitments called for in the recently signed U.S.-Russia
Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement and to support the
continued consolidation, cleanup, and shut down of DOE sites where
surplus plutonium is stored.
Other activities planned for fiscal year 2002 involve providing
limited support for the development of facilities in Russia for
disposition of surplus plutonium, and continuing surplus U.S. HEU
disposition, including capital improvements at the Savannah River Site
to support the off-specification blend-down project with the TVA. This
project will eliminate tons of surplus weapons material, by converting
it to reactor fuel for use in TVA's reactors, which provide electric
power throughout the Southeast. Equally important, this work will also
save the taxpayers $600 million by avoiding the cost to dispose of this
surplus material as waste.
HEU Transparency Implementation
The NNSA is working to convert Russian surplus HEU from the Russian
military stockpile into a non-weapon-usable form. The 1993 U.S.-Russia
HEU Purchase Agreement remains one of the more impressive
nonproliferation achievements of the last decade. The NNSA's HEU
Transparency Implementation program is designed to provide assurance
that surplus HEU, from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons, is
downblended in Russia to LEU and fabricated into fuel for sale and use
in U.S. commercial power reactors.
The program monitors the conversion and processing of this material
at Russian facilities, subject to the terms of the Agreement. Over the
course of the program thus far, seventy-three teams--the equivalent of
more than 4,000 monitoring hours--have visited these facilities to
monitor conversion operations. During the past year, the NNSA installed
a Blend-Down Monitoring System (BDMS) at one Russian facility, to
provide continuous monitoring data in support of our transparency
objectives. The fiscal year 2002 Budget request will allow the NNSA to
continue its blend-down monitoring activities, but at a slightly
reduced level. Through the end of 2000, more than 111 metric tons of
weapons grade uranium--enough for roughly 4,400 weapons--had been
removed from the Russian military program, under this Agreement, and
converted to LEU for commercial sale. Our goal for 2001 is to convert
another thirty metric tons. This program is a major source of income
for the Russian government. Approximately $2.2 billion has been paid to
the Russian Federation under this Agreement, and some of this money is
to be used for the conversion of defense enterprises and for enhancing
the safety of Russian nuclear facilities.
Redirecting Excess Weapons Expertise and Eliminating Weapons
Infrastructure
The NNSA conducts two programs focused on redirecting excess
weapons expertise in Russia to civilian enterprises and eliminating
their weapons infrastructure. The Nuclear Cities Initiative and the
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention Program are programs that work
together with the International Science and Technology Centers and the
Civilian Research and Development Foundation to address all aspects of
this issue.
Nuclear Cities Initiative
NNSA's unique ``brain drain'' program, the Nuclear Cities
Initiative (NCI), was created in 1998, to assist the Russian Federation
in (1) diversification of the economy within the closed nuclear cities
to attract commercial investors, (2) enhancement of U.S. national
security by assisting Russia in reducing the overall size of its
nuclear weapons production complex, and (3) prevention and reversal of
the threat of proliferation of nuclear weapons expertise, by
redirecting weapons scientists in Russia's nuclear cities to
sustainable non-weapons activities. We are striving to accomplish this
task, working closely with the Russians, to (1) facilitate transition
from weapons research to civilian business and commercial projects, (2)
develop joint plans for accelerated downsizing of the Russian nuclear
complex, (3) develop local infrastructure to support economic
diversification and job creation, (4) conduct targeted training and
other activities to improve marketing and management capabilities, and
(5) leverage funding and encourage non-U.S. Government investment.
The fiscal year 2002 Budget request will allow the NNSA to focus
its commitments in only Sarov, Russia. In an effort to make the closed
nuclear cities in Russia more amenable to international businesses, the
NNSA has facilitated the creation of two International Business
Development Centers, two Open Computing Centers, and two
Nonproliferation Centers for research and training new nonproliferation
experts. Additionally, we have expanded and upgraded telecommunications
capabilities, to enable remote work to be done from those
geographically isolated cities. Thus far, with a limited budget, NNSA
has facilitated initiation of more than twenty-five commercial and
infrastructure projects in the cities, with more than $8 million spent
in Russia. With our help, loan officers of the European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development loan officers are now established in
each city, making more than $1 million in small-business loans to local
non-weapons businesses in the closed cities. We are pleased that there
are now twenty-four business training courses in those three cities,
with hundreds of participants. Looking to the future, we are hopeful
that negotiations involving more than ten potential commercial
investors will soon bear fruit.
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention
The Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) program was
established in 1993, to prevent the proliferation of weapons
technologies and expertise, by engaging former Soviet weapon scientists
in cooperative research projects with DOE national laboratories and
U.S. industry partners, especially in areas that have a strong
potential for non-military commercialization. This program enhances
U.S. national security by engaging former Soviet weapons scientists in
civilian work, to prevent the spread of technologies related to weapons
of mass destruction and also to increase access to, and transparency
at, former Soviet weapons facilities. We have developed a rigorous
process of screening all projects for potential dual-use activities or
efforts, relying on other parts of the U.S. Government to bring their
expertise to bear on this issue. At the same time, NNSA's activities in
this arena also provide U.S. industry with technology and research
talent from the former Soviet military establishment. Since its
inception, the IPP program has engaged more than 8,000 scientists,
engineers, and technicians in the Newly Independent States, and is
supporting sixty-four cooperative research projects at sixty-five
institutes. These efforts realized seven commercial projects and
generated $9.4 million of commercialized products.
International Nuclear Safety and Cooperation
Another strategy for enhancing nuclear security is to improve
operational safety and safety systems at nuclear facilities of concern.
The NNSA is working to reduce safety risks at the sixty-six operating,
Soviet-designed nuclear-power reactors in nine countries, through the
International Nuclear Safety and Cooperation program. We plan to
complete safety upgrades for these reactors by 2006. There are three
reactors in Russia that are to be shut down, as part of DOD's program
to eliminate the production of weapons-grade plutonium. These three
high-risk reactors, at secured sites, are the oldest operating reactors
in Russia, and have not received any safety upgrades under foreign
cooperation. Safety upgrades at these production reactors, prior to
their planned shutdown in 2006, are among our highest priorities.
However, the scope of activities for improved safe operation will be
limited.
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. The Ukrainian government shutdown Chornobyl's sole
operational reactor--Unit 3--in December 2000, as planned. Our efforts
to support the construction of a replacement heat plant at Chornobyl,
for decontamination and decommissioning purposes, are also proceeding
well. We were pleased when Kazakhstan also made the tough decision to
shut down its BN-350 reactor. Our attention is now focused on plans for
decommissioning and decontaminating the reactor's sodium coolant, which
will ensure that this reactor can never be restarted. The fiscal year
2002 Budget request will allow us to complete one full-scope, nuclear
plant training simulator, each, in Russia, Ukraine, and Slovakia. We
will also strive for the completion of operational safety improvements
at all plants in Russia and Ukraine. Safety procedure and reactor in-
depth safety assessments will proceed, albeit at a delayed pace.
goal 3: detecting, deterring, and impeding proliferation
Our third goal is to detect, deter, and impede proliferation and
the use of weapons of mass destruction. As mentioned in the previous
section dealing with nuclear material security, the NNSA develops and
implements critical U.S. nonproliferation programs. In addition to the
programs already described, NN has extensive efforts in research and
development (R&D) and arms control arenas. Our active role in the U.S.
nonproliferation interagency community derives, in large measure, from
the nuclear expertise found in the national laboratories. NN supports
U.S. national, bilateral, and multilateral efforts to reduce the threat
posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Research and Development Programs
A key nonproliferation strategy is to enhance the capability to
detect weapons of mass destruction. The NNSA goal of integrating
technical talent and policy expertise is evident in the
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D Program, which enhances U.S.
national security through needs-driven R&D, with an emphasis on
developing technologies to detect nuclear, chemical, and biological
proliferation, and to monitor nuclear explosions.
The following accomplishment is just one indication of the type of
activities NNSA is involved with in the R&D area. NNSA was proud that,
last year, we achieved a significant milestone in one of our R&D
programs: The Multispectral Thermal Imager satellite was launched in
March 2000. This small research satellite, designed and built by a team
of NNSA laboratories and industry partners, will develop and test
remote-sensing concepts that will add to our country's ability to
monitor nuclear proliferation. Originally designed for a 14-month
research mission (with an expectation of three years of useful
operation), the satellite has already achieved most of its design
objectives. The MTI program has developed the sensor technology and
data processing methodology to make extremely precise multispectral
remote sensing measurements from space, and to use these measurements
to extract important proliferation monitoring information about
observed sites. The engineering required to achieve these precise
measurements and complex algorithms, to extract the useful information,
is being validated through experiments with the satellite.
Additionally, the satellite has been used to support numerous civil,
environmental, defense, and space science researchers throughout the
government. The satellite has collected more than a thousand images and
approximately one third of these were at the request of non-DOE
experimenters.
The Proliferation Detection program will develop the requisite
technologies to detect nuclear proliferation. Our unchallenged lead
responsibility for nuclear nonproliferation technology derives from the
expertise and knowledge base resident in our nuclear weapons complex,
and it provides a technology template for the detection of activities
related to all weapons of mass destruction. The objectives of the
detection program are
--to produce technologies that lead to prototype demonstrations and
resultant remote proliferation detection systems,
--to strengthen our detection capabilities to respond to current and
projected threats to national security and world peace posed by
the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons,
--and to develop technologies that are subsequently made available to
a wide range of government users, including DOD and the
intelligence community.
The separate, yet closely related, Proliferation Deterrence program
seeks to develop technical options to prevent and deter proliferation
of nuclear weapon technology and fissile materials. Research is focused
on developing integrated sensor systems that will improve the accuracy
and timeliness of information. Our NNSA experts are working hard to
build robust technical deterrence capabilities that include the
development of unattended and handheld technologies designed to shape
U.S. diplomatic efforts that rely upon verification or confidence
building measures, in addition to the development of technical means to
defend the homeland against lost or stolen, foreign weapons or fissile
materials. We are also improving our forensic capability to identify
the origin of fissile material that might be associated with a nuclear
threat.
With the fiscal year 2002 Budget, we will continue to develop and
demonstrate innovative remote sensing, sampling, and analysis
technologies needed to improve early detection of a proliferant
nation's nuclear weapons program or non-compliance with international
treaties and agreements, as well as tracking foreign special nuclear
materials.
The Nuclear Explosion Monitoring Program is designed to provide the
United States with the technical capability to detect nuclear
explosions. Specifically, NNSA technical experts are working to develop
and deploy sensors and algorithms that enable the United States. to
meet its national requirements for detecting, locating, identifying,
and characterizing nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, in space,
underground, or underwater. Additionally, we are transitioning
technologies to, and providing operational support for, U.S. national
nuclear explosion monitoring agencies, including the Air Force
Technical Applications Center, in partnership with other Air Force
elements, the United States Geological Survey, and other government
agencies. The program seeks to enable detection of very low-yield
events, especially those that might arise from proliferant nation
efforts, deliver ground-based systems comprising state-of-the-art
hardware and software products for seismic, hydro-acoustic, infrasound,
and radionuclide technologies, and develop, engineer, and deliver
satellite-based systems to the Air Force. During the next five years,
we will develop, demonstrate, and begin deliveries of a new generation
of optical, electromagnetic pulse, and direct-radiation sensors for
Global Positioning System Block II-F satellites.
In fiscal year 2002, the Nuclear Explosion Monitoring program will
continue to develop enabling technology, operational hardware and
software, and expertise to detect, locate, identify, characterize, and
attribute nuclear detonations through both ground-based and satellite-
based systems.
To meet threats posed by chemical and biological agents, the NNSA
draws upon the diverse and extensive expertise of its national
laboratories. The goal of the Chemical and Biological National Security
Program is to develop, demonstrate, and deliver technologies and
systems that will lead to major improvements in U.S. capability to
prepare for, and respond to, chemical or biological attacks against
civilian populations. This program will continue to focus emerging
science and technology on the threat of chemical and biological attack
against U.S. civilian populations. The NNSA is the primary agency
developing non-medical technical solutions for this challenge. Our
experts are involved in a broad interagency program to develop sensors
that could detect the terrorist use of a biological agent at a large
outdoor event, such as the Super Bowl or the Olympics. While we do not
have the lead on this activity, NNSA brings to the table superb
technical experience in this field. The NNSA is providing the
underpinning biological information necessary for biological detection
that would support analyses for attribution and event reconstruction
purposes, and would aid other agencies in the development of medical
and public health countermeasures. The goals of this program are to
develop and demonstrate
--chemical and biological detection, identification, and warning
systems for domestic, high-risk areas or conditions,
--hand-portable chemical and biological detectors, to provide real-
time detection to increase situational awareness during crises,
and
--modeling and simulation capabilities, to enable accurate prediction
of the effects from chemical and biological attacks in urban
areas, to guide preparation and response efforts, chemical and
biological decontamination, and restoration techniques for use
in civilian settings.
The construction of the Nonproliferation and International Security
Center at Los Alamos will continue with funding of $36 million in
fiscal year 2002, allowing for its completion in this same fiscal year.
Arms Control and Nonproliferation
Another key strategy is promoting arms control and nonproliferation
treaties, promoting agreements, and regimes, and developing the
associated technologies to support them. The mission of the Office of
Arms Control and Nonproliferation is to detect, prevent, and reverse
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) materials,
technology, and expertise. It is the focal point within the NNSA for
activities that support the President's nonproliferation and
international security policies, goals, and objectives, as well as
those activities mandated by statute. The program provides policy and
technical expertise and leadership for NNSA and the Department in
interagency, bilateral, and multilateral fora involved in
nonproliferation and international security matters. Several projects
that had been initiated last year are not proceeding currently. The
NNSA will not be proceeding with the Separated Civil Plutonium
activities, due to Russian nuclear cooperation with Iran. Funding for
Spent Fuel Storage and Geological Repository in Russia are on hold, to
allow time for the new Administration's interagency policy review. At
the current budget level for fiscal year 2002, further assistance to
Kazakhstan, in implementing the secure long-term storage of the BN-350
plutonium-rich fuel, will be curtailed.
Russia-Focused Programs
The Second Line of Defense program was created in 1998. It is
designed to help the Russians detect and prevent nuclear proliferation
or terrorism through the installation of radiation detection equipment
at strategic transit and border sites in Russia. It also helps to
strengthen Russia's ability to detect and deter illegal nuclear
transfers, thus adhering to its international nonproliferation
commitments. In fiscal year 2002, this program will be expanded
slightly, to increase our cooperation with the Russian Customs
Committee. This program's objectives include
--equipping vulnerable border and transit sites with radiation
detection equipment,
--utilizing a ``systems'' approach to equipment installation,
including rigorous vulnerability assessments, site survey, and
design of candidate sites, and acceptance testing and data
evaluation of installed equipment, and
--ensuring sustainability through training for equipment use and
procedures for response, using Russian-manufactured and U.S.-
tested detection equipment, and providing mobile training
stations for use in remote regions.
To date, this program has been quite successful on a limited budget
of several million dollars per year. Equipment has been installed at
the airports in Moscow and St. Petersburg, and at a port on the Caspian
Sea. Eight sites are fully equipped and installation at three
additional sites is underway. This relatively young program already has
reached significant achievements, including ninety customs officers
trained, training manuals distributed to 30,000 front-line officers,
passive searches of roughly 120,000 vehicles, 11,000 railroad cars, and
greater than 750,000 pedestrians, using radiation detectors installed
under our joint program.
Policy and Analysis
The Policy and Analysis office provides analytical support and
technical expertise for arms control and nonproliferation treaty, and
for agreement policy formulation, negotiation, and implementation at
DOE and NNSA facilities and for regional security initiatives. In the
next fiscal year, the NNSA will continue to promote arms control and
nonproliferation activities, both under formal treaty-related
mechanisms and under less formal mechanisms, including the Warhead
Safety and Security Exchange (WSSX) Agreement, negotiations on Russian
plutonium oxide measurements, under the Plutonium Production Reactor
Agreement, and testing, evaluating, and demonstrating technologies, in
accordance with the Joint DOE-DOD Integrated Technology Plan. These
technologies would support transparency negotiations for several
initiatives, including the monitoring regime, to be implemented at the
Fissile Material Storage Facility being built by the DOD at the Mayak
Production Association in Ozersk, Russia, the 1996 Plutonium Production
Reactor Agreement implementation, and U.S.-Russian Federation-IAEA
(International Atomic Energy Agency) Trilateral Initiative
negotiations.
The U.S. and Russian Federation have declared their commitment to
pursuing transparent and irreversible reductions in nuclear arms. The
mission of the NNSA Warhead and Fissile Material Transparency Program
is twofold. First, we are comprehensively evaluating the impact of a
warhead monitoring regime on the NNSA nuclear weapons complex, to
ensure that there is no adverse impact on the U.S. requirement to
maintain a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, and to
ensure that no classified information is revealed. Second, NNSA experts
are developing and implementing technical measures that can be applied
at Russian nuclear weapons facilities, to provide confidence that
Russian nuclear weapons are being dismantled, and that excess fissile
materials removed from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons cannot be
used again for weapons purposes. This program reduces the potential for
theft and diversion of Russian warheads and fissile material, by
increasing the safety and security of Russian warheads. It also obtains
access to Russian scientific and technical information, and gains
access and provides transparency in the Russian nuclear weapons
complex.
The Warhead Safety and Security Agreement/Laboratory-to-Laboratory
Transparency Program is intended to provide a greater understanding of
the Russian nuclear warhead dismantlement process, while encouraging
advocates for transparency in Russia. The Laboratory-to-Laboratory
program is implemented through contracts signed between U.S. and
Russian national laboratories. Upon receipt of deliverables from
Russian institutes, U.S. laboratories provide funds to Russian
scientists, who worked on the deliverables. This program is conducted
under the auspices of the extended Nuclear Warhead Safety and Security
Agreement. Strict guidelines and oversight are used by the U.S. and
Russian Federation to ensure that only unclassified information is
exchanged. Areas of work include radiation measurement technology, tags
and seals, remote monitoring, and other topics related to nuclear
weapons transparency.
The ``Agreement between the United States of America and the
Government of the Russian Federation, on the Exchange of Technical
Information in the Field of Nuclear Warhead Safety and Security,'' more
commonly referred to as the Warhead Safety and Security Exchange
Agreement (WSSX), was signed on December 16, 1994, entered into force
in June 1995, and was extended for an additional five-year term last
year. Participants in the Agreement are DOE and DOD for the U.S. and
MinAtom and the Ministry of Defense for Russia. The June 2000 extension
incorporated any ongoing or future DOE/MinAtom Laboratory-to-Laboratory
activities concerning the transparency associated with dismantlement of
nuclear weapons under the WSSX Agreement. As established under the
original WSSX Agreement, a Joint Steering Committee and Joint
Coordinating Group approve new Laboratory-to-Laboratory topics/projects
for program technical exchange consideration and provide oversight to
Agreement implementation.
The Monitoring Warhead Inventories and Dismantlement Program
focuses on identifying technical measures and technologies to monitor
warhead inventories and dismantlement under future monitoring regimes.
Future initiatives involving the monitoring of nuclear warheads,
nuclear warhead dismantlement, or fissile material, resulting from
dismantled nuclear warheads, will have a significant impact on the NNSA
nuclear weapons complex. The NNSA Warhead and Fissile Material
Transparency Program comprehensively evaluates the issues associated
with potential monitoring regimes, to ensure that there is no adverse
impact on the U.S. requirement to maintain a safe, secure, and reliable
nuclear weapons stockpile, and that no classified information is
revealed. In fiscal year 1999, DOE and DOD agreed to combine resources
in support of a joint DOE-DOD Integrated Technology Plan to
comprehensively develop, test, and ``red-team'' technologies that could
be used to support Mayak transparency, the U.S.-Russia-IAEA Trilateral
Initiative, Plutonium Production Reactor Agreement, and potential
future initiatives.
The Plutonium Production Reactor Agreement (PPRA), signed in 1996,
commits the Russian government to cease production of weapon-grade
plutonium at three reactors that also provide heat and electricity to
two cities and their surrounding regions in Siberia. As part of the
PPRA, both sides agreed to allow teams from the other side to monitor
the shut-down reactors, as well as the plutonium storage facilities.
NNSA and Russian technical experts are developing jointly technologies
and mechanisms that will enable our monitors to perform their
transparency activities, without revealing any sensitive information.
The Trilateral Initiative began in 1996. Its goal is to provide
international confidence that excess United States and Russian weapons
plutonium is not returned to weapon use. Technical experts from Russia,
the United States, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
have been working diligently during the past four years to devise
technologies and methods to allow IAEA verification of the material,
without revealing sensitive information. IAEA inspections at the Mayak
Fissile Material Storage Facility will verify that Russian excess
plutonium remains removed from weapons programs. The U.S. will place
its excess plutonium under IAEA verification at the K-Area Material
Storage Facility at the Savannah River Site.
Non-Russia-Focused Programs
While the bulk of our nonproliferation activities take place in
Russia, the NNSA is also involved in nonproliferation and arms-control-
regime projects in many other parts of the world. For instance, since
1995, the United States and Kazakhstan have been working to reduce
proliferation risks associated with three tons of weapons-grade
plutonium. This material, which is located at the BN-350 fast-breeder
reactor in Aktau, Kazakhstan, contains enough plutonium to manufacture
hundreds of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, unlike most spent fuel, the
majority the BN-350 spent fuel material poses no significant radiation
hazard to a would-be thief. The project has
--reduced the threat to United States national security posed by the
vulnerability of the weapons-grade material,
-- significantly enhanced physical protection and material control
measures at the plant,
--utilized a former weapons-related complex in Kazakhstan, which was
converted to peaceful uses under the Cooperative Threat
Reduction program, to manufacture most of the storage
canisters,
--instilled a safety and security culture, by conducting all U.S.-
sponsored activities in a cost effective manner, consistent
with international safeguards, security, and safety standards,
and
--packaged the nearly 3,000 fuel assemblies in welded and evacuated
1\1/2\-ton steel canisters in such a way that ``hot''
assemblies are combined with ``cool'' assemblies, to provide a
radiation barrier to theft, while also stabilizing the spent
fuel for long-term storage. This phase will be complete this
summer, securing three metric tons of very high-grade
plutonium.
The Aktau project will, as funding allows, continue to support the
IAEA in the implementation of internationally accepted safeguards
measures over the material, continue to provide non-weapons-related
employment for nuclear scientists in Kazakhstan, and provide security
and international safeguards measures for the transportation and long-
term dry storage facility for the BN-350 material.
NNSA experts are also actively working in North Korea to reverse
and prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons, by securing approximately
thirty kilograms of weapon-grade plutonium contained in Nyongbyon 5
megawatt reactor spent fuel. Similar to the objectives of the Aktau
project, NNSA technicians have
--packaged the 8,000 assemblies in canisters and placed those
canisters under IAEA monitoring, and
--performed field operations to maintain packaged spent fuel in a
safe condition, appropriate for future shipment.
We are also supporting the IAEA in the implementation of
verification and international safeguards of the material, while
helping to prepare plans to support future shipment and disposition of
spent fuel.
In an effort to impede the use of weapons of mass destruction, the
NNSA supports several projects targeted at reducing the amount of
fissile material that could be available to potential proliferators to
fashion into a nuclear device. In the Reduced Enrichment for Research
and Test Reactors (RERTR) Program, NNSA continues to work to reduce
international commerce in civil HEU, by developing technologies to
convert foreign and domestic research and test reactors from HEU to
LEU. To accomplish this, the program continues to
--develop denser LEU fuels that can be used to convert most, if not
all, research reactors to LEU fuel,
--develop LEU targets and chemical processing methods that can be
used for production of medical radioisotopes,
-- perform design and safety analyses, and transfer technology to
assist conversion of research reactors to use of to LEU fuel
and targets; and
--provide support to the Russian RERTR program, to develop high-
density fuels and to complete the design and safety analyses
needed for LEU conversion of Russian-designed research
reactors.
Along those same lines, and based on its own experience with the
RERTR program, NNSA experts have begun cooperation with Russia to
establish a Research Reactor Fuel Take-Back Program, to prevent
proliferation of nuclear weapons, by repatriating to Russia civil HEU
fuel, from Soviet/Russian-supplied research reactors in sixteen
countries, many of which are located in regions of proliferation
concern. This program is in its early stages, and is working closely
with the IAEA.
NNSA is also active in strengthening regional security and
nonproliferation, not only on the Korean peninsula, but also throughout
East Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East. We are doing this by
participating in U.S. policymaking, promoting regional security
dialogues, and sharing with key states in these regions the expertise
of the national laboratories on technical measures to implement
nonproliferation agreements. Under a program to strengthen the
Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) regime, NNSA supports the
United State in its efforts to negotiate a legally binding protocol to
the 1972 BWC. This protocol is part of a larger effort to deter
noncompliance with the BWC and to reinforce the global norm against the
proliferation of biological weapons. Our technical experts facilitate
U.S. commerce through implementation of bilateral peaceful nuclear
cooperation agreements with our nuclear trading partners.
goal 4: providing naval nuclear reactors
Our fourth goal is to provide the Navy with safe, militarily
effective nuclear propulsion plants, and ensure their continued safe
and reliable operation.
Naval Reactors is a highly successful semi-autonomous organization
inside of the NNSA. Admiral Bowman, the Program's director, is
responsible for providing the U.S. Navy with safe, militarily effective
nuclear propulsion plants, and ensuring their continued safe and
reliable operation.
The responsibilities and authority of the Director of this unique
dual agency organization were set forth in Executive Order and in
Public Laws. This cradle-to-grave responsibility begins with technology
development and continues through reactor operation and, ultimately,
reactor plant disposal.
With 102 operating Naval reactor plants in warships comprising
forty percent of the Navy's major combatants, primary emphasis and most
effort is placed on ensuring the safety and reliability of these
plants. Naval Reactors is developing the next-generation reactor for
the Navy's new VIRGINIA-class attack submarines and a reactor for the
Navy's new CVNX class of aircraft carriers.
I will continue to support and promote this unique Program that
produces the ``culture of excellence'' that NR is known for.
goal 5: vitality and readiness of the nnsa enterprise
Our fifth goal is to ensure the vitality and readiness of the
NNSA's scientific and technical enterprise, for the next decade and
beyond. We are particularly concerned about attracting and retaining a
preeminent workforce and revitalizing our aging infrastructure.
Nuclear Expertise
A key strategy for ensuring the readiness of the enterprise is to
attract and retain the best workforce possible, in today's highly
competitive market for technical talent, by providing a challenging and
rewarding work environment. Within a decade, most of our weapons
designers with nuclear testing experience will be eligible for
retirement and may have left our workforce. This means that when our
newest system, the W88, reaches the end of its original, expected
design life in 2014, we may no longer have anyone with test-based job
experience to help evaluate modifications that may be required, due to
aging. As part of the Stockpile Stewardship Program, we are using the
remaining critical staff to train and mentor the next generation of
stockpile stewards, who will use the new stockpile stewardship tools,
along with existing nuclear test data and the weaponization database.
As I indicated in the beginning of this testimony, our people are
our most important asset. But our experienced cadre of scientists,
engineers, and manufacturing personnel is dwindling, as workers retire.
Attracting and retaining the critically skilled people we need is one
of the major problems faced by the nuclear weapons complex today.
We provided a report to Congress last year, in response to section
3163 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000,
that describes the situation at each of our contractor sites, with
regard to their current and projected critical skills status and their
plans for maintaining essential nuclear weapons expertise. At present,
we believe the situation is manageable, but we will carefully monitor
the implementation of each site plan. We are also currently reviewing
our policy with our management and operating contractors to ensure that
it promotes effective recruitment and retention. The three new
contracts with our production plants, awarded in fiscal year 2000,
contain a new clause that states it is our policy not to inhibit
recruitment and retention. The new contracts with the University of
California for the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratories include maintenance of critical skills as one of the key
improvement areas that will receive focused evaluation by the NNSA.
One might think that recruiting and retaining the critically
skilled people we need could be solved by simply paying higher
salaries. Certainly that is true in some instances, but not all. One of
the problems in cyber security is that once we have trained individuals
in the latest techniques, we often lose them to private industries that
are paying higher salaries. Of course, a number of the critically
skilled people that are needed in the complex have less direct
application in private industry, for example, plutonium metallurgists.
This raises the problem of encouraging individuals to enter these
fields in the first place, and it is here that our new experimental
facilities and capabilities come into play.
A significant element in attracting and retaining personnel at the
national defense laboratories has always been the Laboratory-Directed
Research and Development (LDRD) Program. I would like to thank Congress
for removing the restrictions against allowing our contractors to set
aside up to six percent of their weapons activities appropriations for
Laboratory-Directed Research and Development. The central objective of
the LDRD program is to enhance the scientific and technical
capabilities of the national laboratories, by investing in fundamental
science and technology to meet long-term national needs. Sustained
support for this program is essential, as it impacts recruitment.
Overall, the personnel pool is still low which reflects the time it
takes to recruit individuals. A similar program, authorized by Congress
for the production plants, began in fiscal year 2001.
Although Laboratory and Plant Manager Directed Research and
Development Programs are essential elements in attracting people to the
nuclear weapons program, the enduring attraction and retention of these
people is fundamentally related to three issues: national importance of
the mission, technical challenge of the program and advanced
experimental, computational, and manufacturing capabilities.
Maintenance of the Complex
Another key strategy for assuring the vitality of our enterprise is
to provide state-of-the-art scientific and technical tools and
facilities, in a safe and secure environment. The current budget
request for fiscal year 2002 will provide approximately the same level
of funding available to our facilities and sites, as it has during the
past several years. As I indicated in my testimony before the Senate
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee on March 13th,
that level of funding has focused maintenance activities each year on
those facilities necessary to carry out the immediate workload. We have
not been able to make a significant investment for sustained,
preventive maintenance or investments to reduce the risk of equipment
failures, to increase operational efficiency and effectiveness, or to
extend facility lifetimes. As a result, our aging nuclear weapons
complex--more than half of our structures are greater than fifty years
old--is deteriorating at an accelerating rate. The assessment Defense
Programs conducted last year indicated that, in just the last five
years, the percent of the complex found to be in either excellent or
good condition had fallen from roughly 56 percent to only 26 percent.
The condition of our facilities and infrastructure is certainly not
a new story, having been documented in a number of studies over the
past decade, and addressed by various construction-oriented
initiatives, including Utilities and Equipment Restoration, the
Facilities Capability Assurance Program, R&D Revitalization, Non-
Nuclear Reconfiguration, and the Stockpile Management Restructuring
Initiative, during the past three decades. The condition of our
facilities and infrastructure has also been recognized by Congress,
which, since fiscal year 1998, has earmarked $86 million above
requested levels, specifically for infrastructure improvements at Y-12,
Pantex, Kansas City, and Savannah River. Certainly, increased funding
is vital, but it is only one part of the solution. Excellent facility
management is a standard business practice of most major organizations
and I have already taken steps to establish an office within NNSA to
manage the facilities and infrastructure of the nuclear weapons
complex. This office will focus on long-term planning, establishing the
processes--absent too long--that will institutionalize the procedures,
standards, and expectations for the complex.
A Recapitalization Initiative has been developed to redress
infrastructure problems throughout the complex in response to a recent
comprehensive study of facilities and infrastructure. This multi-year
initiative to correct maintenance deficiencies, with the goals of
stabilizing the infrastructure, increasing availability of our current
facilities, and extending their useful lives will be reviewed as part
of the strategic review of national security programs.
goal 6: creating a well-managed organization
Our sixth goal is to create a well-managed, responsive and
accountable organization, by employing effective business practices. On
March 14, 2001, I announced my plans for realigning the NNSA's
organizational structure to improve performance of our core mission of
strengthening national security and reducing the global threat from
weapons of mass destruction, through applications of science and
technology.
This past January, after listening to the findings of my two
organizational options teams, I concluded that NNSA should be realigned
into ``product'' and ``support'' divisions, as is the practice in many
major private sector enterprises.
Our ``product'' divisions, Defense Programs and Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, will focus on defining and advocating for the most
effective means of accomplishing our mission. On the other hand, key
support functions have received less-than- adequate attention in the
past. Security and safety management, infrastructure and project
management, the personnel system, and the planning and budgeting
process all need focus and dedicated management attention. In creating
two new Associate Administrators, one focused on facilities and
operations and the other on management and administration, we will
establish the advocates for many of the functions that the Congress
recognized as needing attention in the crafting of Title 32. By taking
these functions off the plates of my Deputy Administrators, I am
freeing these managers to focus more intensively on program concerns
and mission accomplishment.
We have no intention of realigning Naval Reactors within this
reorganization--they will remain separately managed as specified in
Title 32. We have made use of this program's record of success and
their many lessons-learned in the shaping of the NNSA.
The two new Associate Administrators will support the mission
organizations. The Associate Administrator for Management and
Administration will be tasked to ensure efficient management of budget,
finance, procurement, information, and people, to make them serve the
needs of the product divisions. The Associate Administrator for
Facilities and Operations will ensure responsible stewardship of our
facilities and will be successful only if these facilities are
available to the program organizations for performing our missions.
These changes are designed to consolidate responsibility for security,
safety, and environmental issues at NNSA sites; to establish clear and
direct lines of communication for laboratory directors and plant
managers; establish greater personal accountability; and to improve
productivity and morale.
The Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs will focus on
maintaining the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear
stockpile. Significant strides have been made in that area with the
Department of Defense, in that we are implementing plans for detailed,
requirements-driven stockpile life extension and refurbishment. Defense
Programs will direct planning and set goals for production at the
plants and for the science-based stockpile stewardship activities at
the national laboratories. Defense Programs will retain responsibility
for major program-oriented construction and facility initiatives.
The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation organization will continue to
reduce the threats posed by weapons of mass destruction, strengthen
nonproliferation institutions and norms, develop technologies to
prevent nuclear smuggling, detect proliferation, respond to possible
chemical or biological weapons use, and reduce the danger posed by
unsafe operation of Soviet designed reactors worldwide.
I recognize that establishing these ``product'' and ``support''
divisions creates a degree of tension within the organization, but I
expect that this tension will evolve into cooperation and support as
each element begins to work with the others to accomplish our mission.
This organizational structure works, if we are able to adopt a
corporate approach to accomplishing the mission. Each Deputy and
Associate Administrator must recognize that their personal and
organizational success is tied to the success of the overall
organization. We are creating a Management Council consisting of the
Deputies and Associates that will be tasked with resolving cross-
cutting issues and disputes. These issues will be referred to the
Administrator, only if the Council cannot resolve them. Also, I will
seek establishment of a Principal Deputy Administrator to help me
resolve operational issues among NNSA elements and to assist in the
day-to-day management of the enterprise. In sum, we are trying to
develop a corporate approach to decision making.
Mindful of the legislative mandate to provide the Armed Service
Committees with a plan by May 1, 2001, ``for assigning roles and
responsibilities to and among the headquarters and field organizational
units of the NNSA,'' we divided the effort into two phases. The first
phase addressed headquarters elements. In January, we assembled ten
teams to tackle these issues for the headquarters elements. The reports
of these teams formed the basis for the recently-announced
reorganization. The May 1, 2001 interim plan is the first step in a
multiphased effort, and will include mission and function statements
for each major element of our realigned headquarters organization; it
will describe relationships between each NNSA element; and it will
discuss relationships between NNSA elements and those organizations
external to the NNSA. The report will also contain an implementation
plan for making this organizational transition by October 1, 2001,
describing anticipated changes to organizational units and presenting a
strategy for making the staffing transition. A final report will be
transmitted to Congress in October. I have made a commitment that, in
this initial reorganization phase, everyone currently employed will
either be retained in a job similar to their current position or be
placed in a new job within NNSA. We need to retain our federal talent
for this to be a success!
Realigning the field structure is the second phase of our efforts
to establish an effective and efficient NNSA enterprise. Our May 1st
plan will include a design outline for allocating roles and
responsibilities between headquarters and the field. As the next step,
I intend to charter a neutral group of experts to advise me on options
for addressing key structural issues uncovered in by previous studies
of this issue. This group will be asked to gather information and
develop options over the next six months, with a view to resolving
field-structure issues by the end of the year.
My focus in these organizational adjustments is on making measured,
thoughtful changes that improve NNSA's effectiveness in accomplishing
our mission and then seeking to improve our efficiency through a
structured process that does not disrupt current mission performance.
Detailed Budget Proposals and Multi-Year Plans
One of the key strategies for creating a well-managed organization
is to adopt an integrated business management system that links
strategic planning, programming, budgeting, execution, and evaluation.
On the budgeting front, the good news is that NNSA submitted a Future-
Years Nuclear Security Budget to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) on March 2, 2001. OMB intends to carefully evaluate our future-
year budget, over the next few months, in conjunction with the
Administration's strategic review.
Internally, our focus within NNSA is on improving our planning,
programming, budgeting, and execution (PPBE) process. Our first future-
year budget request was constructed while we began to implement a
systematic process for connecting and integrating our plans, programs,
funding requests, and performance evaluation processes. At the moment,
these processes are not as well synchronized as we want. We expect that
the fiscal year 2003 budget process will be a transition year in our
implementation of a PPBE system. The system should be fully implemented
during the fiscal year 2004 process. The graphic attached to my
testimony presents a picture of how we expect the process to operate
when the system is fully implemented.
The NNSA PPBE system will (1) establish standardized business
management processes where feasible and will provide flexibility for
programs as appropriate; (2) improve discipline in program and project
management; (3) assure that each program and project receives
appropriate consideration as tradeoffs are made in establishing the
integrated budget; and (4) create meaningful performance measurement
and feedback systems. We hope to demonstrate the value of this system
through measurable improvement in our mission performance.
The system is divided into four phases:
--Long-Range Planning--for the fiscal year 2004 cycle, this will be
performed between June and October of fiscal year 2001.
--Programming--guidance for fiscal year 2004 will be issued early in
2002, and program decisions will be reached by June 2002.
--Budgeting--NNSA senior managers will review the budget in June or
July of 2002 and will then participate in the Department's
process, tied to the preparation of the President's budget,
which is released in January or February of 2003.
--Execution and Evaluation--execution year funding will cascade down
through program and implementation plans. Program managers will
perform periodic reviews and report the results to appropriate
officials.
With the help of the Institute for Defense Analysis, NNSA has
developed a detailed plan for implementing this system. NNSA's near-
term priorities include:
--communicating our plans throughout our enterprise,
--establishing and implementing an Integrated Priority List and
resource prioritization process,
--improving the quality, timeliness, and integration of future-year
program and implementation plans,
-- establishing and implementing a formal change control process,
--conducting periodic, formal evaluations, and
--reviewing and establishing NNSA information technology requirements
for the process.
Development of a future-years defense budget process that brings us
more in line with the needs of our missions, plants, and national
laboratories is an important step. We have established momentum toward
reaching that goal and we are making slow but steady progress. Your
continued support for our efforts will be needed to reach this
objective.
Improving Personnel Management
Another key strategy for improving business processes is to stress
accountability at all levels of the organization. We must hold managers
and contractors accountable for program and service results, hold
individuals accountable for meeting performance goals, and reward
individuals, units, and contractors accordingly. Finally, we must
foster an orientation toward self-development.
Title 32 contains limited, but important authority for the NNSA
Administrator to begin revitalizing the Federal staffing of our
nation's nuclear security enterprise. Review of our interim policy for
implementing excepted service appointments and compensation authority
for no more than 300 scientific, engineering, and technical positions
within the NNSA is nearly completed. We expect to begin exercising this
authority by the beginning of July 2001.
The policy was developed by NNSA staff, in consultation with other
agencies, that use similar authorities. Indeed, our team leader was the
architect and implementer of the excepted service authority granted to
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board by Congress. His expert
advice was invaluable in establishing this interim policy.
Our interim policy is designed to provide NNSA managers with
sufficient flexibility to attract and retain key personnel needed to
meet our demanding mission, while ensuring that NNSA uses this special
authority with due regard for the Merit Systems principles of federal
personnel management. An integral element of the policy is the Pay-For-
Performance feature, allowing for performance increases and performance
bonus pools. Implementation of this Pay-For-Performance feature will be
deferred until a uniform performance appraisal system can be
established for our excepted service employees, and until our managers
can be trained to develop fair and accurate measures of staff
performance.
We see this interim policy as just the first step in revitalizing
our federal staffing process. We urgently need to begin hiring staff at
entry and mid-career tiers to avoid future gaps in staffing and
leadership. As you may be aware, almost fifty percent of our staff is
within a decade of retirement. We intend to outline a more complete
plan for improving personnel management and continuity in the May 1st
Report to the Armed Services Committees.
conclusion
I believe that NNSA is on the right course. The NNSA enjoys the
support and endorsement of Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham. It is
the right idea to bring together the national security missions of DOE,
and to focus our work with clear goals and plans, clean lines of
authority, and a strong view to the future. We are on a good path to
improve on our management and performance, to manage our programs
efficiently and effectively, and to plan our future.
The culmination of all the stockpile stewardship activity--of all
our surveillance, maintenance, refurbishment, research and development,
and construction--is annual certification of the stockpile. The
Stockpile Stewardship Program has, for the past five years, given the
Secretaries of Energy and Defense the necessary confidence to inform
the President that a return to nuclear testing is not required to
maintain the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons
stockpile. With appropriate resources, we will be able to continue to
provide that confidence for the foreseeable future, maintaining a
credible nuclear deterrent for as long as we should need it.
This confidence--and I cannot emphasize this enough--is largely the
product of expert judgment, the expert judgment of some of America's
best and brightest men and women, in both federal service and
throughout the nation in our laboratories and plants. Their judgment is
only meaningful because of their experience in pursuing the highest
standards of excellence in science, engineering, manufacturing, and
management. If we offer these people anything less--if we continue
asking some to work in substandard facilities with aging equipment, if
we burden them with unnecessary bureaucratic requirements and politics,
if we fail to give them challenging work--then they will go elsewhere,
our confidence in our weapons will suffer, and, under such
circumstances, our nuclear deterrence will fail.
The scientists and engineers that are stewards of our nuclear
arsenal have also been making important technical contributions to
controlling, detecting, and deterring the use of weapons of mass
destruction. NNSA's unique contribution is evident in the caliber of
personnel working on these complex, interrelated threat reduction
programs. Their expertise resident in our national laboratories has
been honed by years of working in support of the U.S. nuclear complex.
Our technical experts are ready and willing to share their
nonproliferation and counterproliferation experience with their
counterparts in Russia. Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee, I
think we can all agree that as a nation, we may face no greater
challenge than preventing weapons or weapons usable materials from
falling into the hands of those who would use them against the United
States or our allies. It has been more than a decade since the Berlin
Wall fell, opening a new era in history. In many ways, we live in a
more dangerous world now, since the demise of the Soviet Union. The
threat to our safety and international security is more diffuse, which
makes it harder to defend against. Rather than one monolithic threat,
we must be prepared against rogue nations or terrorist organizations
with interests inimical to ours. I am very proud of the
nonproliferation programs that are rightfully part of the defense
nuclear security enterprise. The review being conducted at the present
time by the White House is timely and I am confident it will reveal
that the NNSA's programs are making solid contributions to the national
security of the United States.
Again, I thank the members of this Panel for their commitment and
support of our mission, and for your support of the people of NNSA who
actually do the work and accomplish the mission: scientists, engineers,
technicians, policy planners, administrators--at headquarters, in the
field, at our laboratories, plants and the test site.
Simply stated, NNSA has great people and a great mission. Thank you
again for the opportunity to appear here today.
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FISCAL YEAR 2002 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET REQUEST
[Dollars in Millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2000 2001 Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal
Comparable Comparable 2002 Request 2002 vs. Year 2001
Approp. Approp. to Congress (Percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weapons Activities................... $4,563,505 $5,069,289 $5,30O,025 $+230,736 $+4.6
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation..... 712,672 873,884 773,700 -100,184 -11.5
Naval Reactors....................... 669,637 687,560 688,045 +485 +0.1
Office of the Administrator.......... 350 9,978 15,000 +5,022 +50.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, NNSA.................... 5,946 164 6,640,711 6,776,770 +136,3059 +2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
General, might I just quickly say we thought the nuclear
weapons and non-proliferation activities within the Department
of Energy needed to be somewhat carved out with a National
Nuclear Security Administration, becoming a semi-autonomous
management scheme for them. From this Senator's standpoint we
worked very hard on that.
I remain thoroughly convinced that was the very best way to
go, and I think you understand that role and have explained it
very well. I would say we're not close to where we ought to be;
we've just taken the first--maybe the first snap from center
and the quarterback's back ready to do something. We look
forward to being of help wherever we can as you begin to put
this total organization together so that much of the difficulty
in managing within a department as dysfunctional as DOE, almost
dysfunctional by mandate, how we put it together.
We look forward to helping you wherever we can make that a
much more straightforward management of some very serious,
dangerous, and yet important activities.
General Gordon. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Domenici. Our next witness will be Admiral Bowman--
--
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Yes, please.
Senator Reid. If I could just say one brief thing?
Senator Domenici. Absolutely.
Senator Reid. When the idea of you and Senator Kyl and
others to develop this entity that now General Gordon runs I
was very dubious. I didn't stand in the way but I wasn't on the
side cheering you on, and I in hindsight recognize that I was
probably wrong.
But it appears to me that the DOE is functioning better in
this regard than it ever has. A lot of it has to do with the
leadership of General Gordon, but it's also the entity that was
set up. So I want to tell you that I'm not sure I found
religion but maybe so.
General Gordon. Could I react to that, Mr. Chairman?
Senator Domenici. Yes. Briefly, General.
General Gordon. I appreciate that very much, Senator Reid,
but I also just want to say that one of the things that's
helped turn the morale around and the energy around within the
complex in the field itself has been the clear signal from the
Congress that there's a mission, there's a long-term mission
that people care and appreciate and they're willing to put some
resources behind it.
Senator Domenici. Thank you. Admiral, we're fortunate to
have you back, and I want to say to you in the event you have
never heard me make reference to your great successes, whenever
this Senator speaks of nuclear power, is it safe and can we do
it right, and should it be something we seriously consider
during these energy-short times, I most of the time give as an
example that there's over a hundred boats, American Navy boats
of various sizes and shapes that are on all the oceans and seas
of the world and that in those boats are one or two nuclear
power plants that are generating the same kind of waste that we
are so worried about here at home and yet they're carrying them
around in their boat bottoms, so all the sea ports of the world
except perhaps in Australia--all the others let you go into
them, let you dock, you have right on them a nuclear power
plant, and I think that's a great testimony to their safety.
And that's from its origins, but that's from its
continuation, which is what you brought forward after a great
Admiral started this and made sure of its safety, and I
compliment you, and we'll listen to your testimony now.
Senator Reid. I think that's an answer to our nuclear waste
problems. Just put them on the boats.
Senator Domenici. All right, Admiral.
ADMIRAL BOWMAN'S OPENING STATEMENT
Admiral Bowman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members
of the committee. I thank you for the opportunity to testify
and thank you very much for those very kind words.
As you know, Admiral Hyman Rickover organized this Naval
Reactors program back in the late 1940s. His visionary concept
then was cradle to grave responsibility for all aspects of
maintaining and operating the Navy's nuclear powered warships,
managed centrally by a single purpose organization with clear
lines of authority, responsibility, and accountability.
Naval Reactors basic structure, policies, and practices
were preserved in an executive order signed by President Reagan
on the day Admiral Rickover retired in 1982. The key to Naval
Reactors operational excellence over these years and its
unsurpassed record has been adherence to the tenets of that
executive order.
Congress has fully supported this concept by writing that
executive order into law twice in two defense authorization
acts. As a result I would say the country has benefitted. In so
doing Congress placed great faith in this program and has duly
protected the core values that have been the hallmark of our
success for more than 50 years and the enabler of even more to
come. I appreciate that faith very deeply.
The core values of Naval Reactors must be preserved. I'm
committed to operational excellence and an unsurpassable record
of innovation and safety. We must continue to design and
deliver the world's finest warships for our Navy and our
country.
I don't take lightly my responsibility to continually
revalidate the faith that you have placed in us.
We all recognize that the threats that the country faces
today aren't the ones that we faced yesterday. How to protect
our Nation's interests, what forces are needed for our defense,
and how we will respond to those threats are among the most
pressing and important issues faced by the leaders of this
country.
Just as the Nation's defense environment and requirements
have evolved, Naval Reactors has also evolved to deliver what
is demanded of it. Let me very quickly run through some facts
about our fiscal year 2002 DOE budget request and this Naval
Reactors program.
NAVAL REACTOR BUDGET REQUEST SUMMARY
My DOE budget request remains flat as General Gordon said,
at $688 million from this year's fiscal year 2001 numbers to
fiscal year 2002. In real dollars therefore it is actually
decreasing by about $18 million due to inflation.
To put my budget in perspective, it's less than 4 percent
of the DOE budget and less than 1 percent of the country's
defense budget. I think the returns say that it's a good solid
investment.
Today the Naval Reactors program supports 102 reactors, as
General Gordon said earlier, and 55 attack submarines, 18
ballistic missile submarines, 9 nuclear powered aircraft
carriers, and 4 training and prototype platforms along with the
deep diving NR1 deep submergence vehicle. We have one fewer
attack submarine this year than when I testified last year, and
that force number could drop even lower if we don't watch
what's going on and if action isn't taken soon.
Our number one priority at Naval Reactors is supporting the
nuclear powered fleet and ensuring their safe and effective
operation. The average age of these ships today is about 16
years old. The average age will be over 22 years by the end of
this decade. As the ships age they place a greater demand on
the Naval Reactors DOE budgets.
The nuclear Navy is being employed at an unparalleled and
unrelenting pace today. For example, the national level
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions
requirements for our attack submarines has nearly doubled over
the last decade while the number of those attack submarines has
nearly been cut in half.
Our carriers are also stretched to their limits, attempting
to meet all the power projections and forward presence
requirements placed on them. Every one of our last 11 carrier
battle groups to deploy actually engaged in combat. To meet
just the top priority requirements being placed on the
submarine fleet we simply must refuel the five remaining Los
Angeles class submarines scheduled for early inactivation, and
I think we should also seriously consider converting Trident
submarines coming out of the strategic inventory to Tomahawk-
shooting SSGNs.
Those ships can carry by design as many Tomahawk missiles
as an entire battle group does today.
We must also increase the build rate of the new Virginia
Class submarine, but even doing all of this will leave us short
of attack submarines, as judget by the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs' requirements. Fortunately, our technological
superiority is allowing us to stretch the assets we have to
fill some of that gap.
For example, we've extended the life of selected submarines
and have also begun now looking to further extend that
lifetime. However, pushing the life of these submarines comes
at a cost. Life extension exacerbates the aging fleet problem,
and as the fleet ages, it takes more resources to support.
We are also forward basing three submarines in Guam to get
them closer to their operational areas, eliminating the long
transit from the west coast to the Pacific Rim and greatly
increasing the mission days on station available from these
three ships. We're designing better, more cost effective ships
for the future.
When the Navy's new Virginia Class attack submarine is
delivered it will provide needed capability for the 21st
century at an affordable price. The reactor plant design, which
will be about 96 percent complete by the end of this fiscal
year--I'm sorry--by the end of fiscal year 2002 will use
advance component and systems technology, including a life of
the ship core, which will make future refuelings unnecessary.
The nuclear propulsion plant design of the new carrier, the
new CVNX aircraft carrier is well underway. The CVNX reactor
plant will provide 25 percent more energy than the Nimitz Class
ships and will have more than triple the electric power
available to the skipper on demand.
We are designing and developing CVNX--the carrier of the
future--nuclear propulsion plant without an increase in the DOE
budget. We're focused on designing and delivering warships to
the fleet that are more capable, more adaptable to technology
insertion, and more enduring. To do so, my program will
continue to require highly skilled and qualified professionals.
To that end, Mr. Chairman, in particular I was pleased to
see and read of your proposed legislation supporting nuclear
programs in our Nation's universities. Our laboratories and
vendor base draw to some extent upon the shrinking pool of
uniquely skilled individuals, and I'm very grateful for your
support.
I would note that I sit on two of the visiting committees
of these nuclear engineering departments at two of our
universities in this country, and I am seeing exactly what your
legislation is addressing, and I certainly appreciate your
initiative.
Where science leaves off we are employing smart business
strategies to get more out of every dollar. Multi-year
contracts, block buys, advance appropriations, shipyard teaming
are just a few of the examples of what we're studying. I
strongly advocate these types of initiatives because they do
use the taxpayers' dollars more efficiently.
prepared statement
The nuclear Navy is a true crown jewel in our Nation's
defense arsenal. No other nation has anywhere close to this
level of capability. That's due in very large part to the
wisdom of Congress and your support. You have consistently
supported this program in its endeavors. Naval Reactor's record
is strong and the work is important and the funding need is
modest. I offer you my thanks and gratitude.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission I have a longer written
statement for the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Admiral Frank L. Bowman
Thank you for inviting me to testify on Naval Reactors' fiscal year
2002 Department of Energy budget request.
Naval Reactors is a semi-autonomous, 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 specific
responsibilities within the Department of the Navy and the Department
of Energy, and as necessary, direct access to the Secretary of the Navy
and to the Secretary of Energy to fulfill these duties. 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.
Admiral Hyman Rickover organized Naval Reactors in the late 1940's.
His visionary concept was cradle-to-grave responsibility for all
aspects of maintaining and operating the Navy's nuclear-powered fleet.
The Program's basic structure, policies, and practices were preserved
in Executive Order 12344 signed by President Reagan upon Admiral
Rickover's retirement in 1982.
The key to Naval Reactors' operational excellence and unsurpassed
record has been strict adherence to the tenets of this Executive Order.
Congress has fully supported this concept by writing the Executive
Order into law in two Defense Authorization Acts. This charter,
incorporated into the National Nuclear Security Administration Act,
maintains my responsibility for all aspects of the Naval Reactors
Program, including:
--Research, development, design, test, and construction;
--Operation, operator selection and training, maintenance, and
disposal; and
--Administration (e.g., security, nuclear safeguards, transportation,
public information, procurement, and fiscal management).
Congress has placed faith in this Program and protected the core
values which have been the hallmark of the Program's success for the
past 50 years and which are the enabler for continued success into the
future.
I do not take lightly my responsibility to continually revalidate
the faith you place in Naval Reactors. Our core values must be
preserved; Naval Reactors is committed to operational excellence and an
unsurpassable record of innovation and safety. We must continue to
design and deliver the world's finest warships for our Navy and our
country. In this regard, Naval Reactors has compiled an unparalleled
record of success:
--Nuclear-powered warships have safely steamed over 122 million
miles-equivalent to nearly 5,000 trips around the Earth.
--Naval reactor plants have accumulated over 5,200 reactor-years of
operation, compared to about 2,540 for the U.S. commercial
industry. In addition, our operating experience is about half
that of the entire commercial power industry worldwide (our
5,200 reactor-years compared to about 9,660 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.
We all recognize that the threats the United States faces today are
not the ones we faced yesterday. How to protect our Nation's interests,
what forces are needed for our defense, and how we respond to these
threats are among the most pressing issues faced by the leaders of the
country. Just as the Nation's defense environment and requirements have
evolved, the Naval Reactors Program has evolved to deliver what is
demanded of it.
Let me quickly recount some facts about the Naval Reactors Program:
--Today, the Naval Reactors Program supports 102 reactors in 55
attack submarines, 18 ballistic missile submarines, 9 nuclear-
powered aircraft carriers, 4 training and prototype platforms,
and a deep submergence vehicle. We have one less attack
submarine than we did just a year ago, and submarine force
level could drop even lower if our country fails to act soon.
--The Program's number-one priority is supporting the nuclear-powered
fleet and ensuring its safe and effective operation. The
average age of these ships today is about 16 years. This
average age will be over 22 years by the end of the decade
because so few new ships are being added. As these ships age,
they place a greater and greater demand on Naval Reactors' DOE
budgets.
--The nuclear Navy is being employed at an unparalleled and
unrelenting pace. For example, the national level Intelligence/
Surveillance/Reconnaissance (ISR) mission requirements for our
attack submarines have nearly doubled over the last decade, yet
the force has been cut nearly in half. Our carriers are
stretched to their limits, attempting to meet all of the power
projection and forward-presence requirements placed on them.
Every one of our last 11 carrier battle groups to deploy has
engaged in actual combat.
--To meet just the highest priority requirements being placed on the
submarine fleet, we simply must refuel the five remaining LOS
ANGELES-class submarines scheduled for early inactivation and
seriously consider converting Trident ballistic missile
submarines coming out of the strategic inventory to SSGNs.
These ships can carry as many Tomahawk missiles as an entire
battle group does today. We must also increase the build rate
of the VIRGINIA-class submarines. But even doing all this will
leave us short of attack submarines.
--Fortunately, our technological superiority is allowing us to
stretch the assets we have to fill some of the gap. For
example, we have extended the life of selected submarines, and
we are looking to extend some further still. However, pushing
the limits comes at a cost. Life extension exacerbates the
``aging fleet'' problem; and as the Fleet ages, it takes more
resources to support.
--We are forward-basing three submarines in Guam to get them closer
to their operational areas-eliminating the long transit from
the West Coast to the Pacific rim and significantly increasing
the mission days on station available from these three ships.
--We are designing better, more cost-effective ships for the future.
When the Navy's new VIRGINIA-class attack submarine is
delivered, it will provide needed capability for the 21st
century at an affordable price. The reactor plant design, which
will be about 96 percent complete by the end of fiscal year
2002, will use advanced component and systems technology-
including a life-of-the-ship core, which will make future
refuelings unnecessary.
--The nuclear propulsion plant design of the new CVNX class aircraft
carrier is well underway. The CVNX reactor plant will provide
25 percent more energy than the NIMITZ-class ships and will
have more than triple the electric power available to the
skipper, on demand. We are designing and developing the CVNX
nuclear propulsion plant without an increase in our DOE budget.
value of nuclear power
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 United States to trouble spots or to shift them from one
crisis area to another. Nuclear propulsion helps the Navy stretch
available assets to meet today's worldwide commitments.
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 55 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. Should tensions escalate, submarines
can also execute Tomahawk strikes from undisclosed locations without
warning, often from inside an adversary's defensive umbrella.
highly technical and specialized employees
We are focused on getting more out of existing ships and designing
and delivering new warships to the Fleet that are more capable, more
adaptable to technology innovation, and more enduring. Doing so
requires highly qualified and skilled professionals.
Naval Reactors' highly technical work requires rigorous technical
discipline and attention to detail. We have extremely talented
engineering staffs, both in Government service and at our prime
contractors, including many young people who have been out of college
less than 5 years. The importance of the work to our country is a key
factor for keeping the talented people we need. However, retaining
these people is a challenge given a decade of economic expansion and
the resulting opportunities in the private sector. Unfortunately, today
government service has difficulty keeping pace due in large measure to
antiquated hiring practices and noncompetitive compensation programs.
Today, the top three levels of government Senior Executive Service
civilians are pay-capped at the same dollar value. Attention should be
given this situation.
Naval Reactors touches a highly technical and specialized vendor
base, therefore I am acutely aware of the shortages of engineering
graduates, especially in the nuclear field. Declining enrollments in
nuclear engineering departments at schools across the United States and
a declining number of universities offering degrees in nuclear
engineering have limited the employment candidate pool of nuclear
engineering graduates. To that end, I was particularly pleased to read
of proposed legislation supporting nuclear programs in our Nations'
universities. Our laboratories and vendor base draw to some extent upon
this shrinking pool of uniquely skilled individuals and I am grateful
for your support.
fiscal year 2002 department of energy budget request
Naval Reactors' fiscal year 2002 DOE budget request is $688M, about
the same amount as appropriated for fiscal year 2001. With inflation,
this means the Naval Reactors fiscal year 2002 budget request is $18M
less in real terms than the fiscal year 2001 budget. To put my budget
request in perspective, it is less than 4 percent of the DOE budget.
Since the beginning of the 1990's, Naval Reactors' budget has declined
30 percent in real terms.
Naval Reactors' number-one priority is to support the 82 nuclear-
powered warships that make up over 40 percent of the Navy's major
combatants. This responsibility includes ensuring safe and reliable
operation of reactor plants in these ships, enhancing the reactor
plants' performance, and developing improved reactor plants to support
the Navy's needs for the future.
Sustaining today's 102 operating reactors requires continual
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
and easily maintainable by the Sailors who must live next to them.
Naval Reactors' DOE laboratories have made significant advancements
in components, materials, core lives, and predictive capabilities.
These advancements allowed the Navy to extend the service life and
intervals between major maintenance periods for nuclear-powered
warships and reduce ship off-line time for maintenance. Increasing ship
availability also increases the Navy's warfighting capability, while
simultaneously reducing maintenance costs. Added ship availability is
particularly important in the face of Fleet downsizing, as the
operational demands on each remaining ship continue to increase. In the
same vein, some development effort is devoted to ensuring that we can
meet the Navy's need to extend warship lifetime.
New development and analysis challenges continually arise as a
result of Program 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 that materials and components are
performing properly. Extended ship lifetime also demands exhaustive
testing and performance enhancements to ensure that component
endurance--despite potential corrosion and mechanical strain--can be
ensured for significantly longer than the original design life. As data
are gathered from deploying ships with long-lived reactor cores, the
emphasis on evaluating material performance 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. Testing and verification,
therefore, become even more important to ensure that naval reactor
plants will continue to perform safely.
New plant development work at the Program's DOE laboratories is
focused on completing the design of the next-generation submarine
reactor for the Navy's new VIRGINIA-class attack submarines and on
continuing the design for a new reactor plant for the Navy's new CVNX-
class aircraft carriers.
The design of the reactor plant for the VIRGINIA-class submarine
will be about 96 percent complete by the end of fiscal year 2002.
Currently, the design of the reactor plant for the VIRGINIA-class is
over 90 percent complete. Today, 99 percent of reactor plant components
have been delivered-all on schedule to support ship construction, and
within budget. The lead-ship pre-reactor-fill testing and initial
reactor fill have been completed. Significantly, the initial reactor
fill was completed within 3 months of the schedule established 6 years
ago. Reactor plant construction is 89 percent complete, and overall
lead ship construction is 45 percent complete and is on schedule.
VIRGINIA is expected to go to sea in fiscal year 2004 and will provide
needed capability for the Navy at an affordable price.
CVNX is the first new carrier designed since the 1960's NIMITZ
Class. The 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 lifecycle costs.
Reactor plant design work is well underway to support the long
design and manufacturing lead-times of reactor plant components needed
for the CVNX ship construction schedule. Current design efforts include
general arrangement design, system description and diagram development,
and component design, such as final sizing and system interface
evaluations. Long lead reactor plant forging contracts were placed this
fiscal year and necessary system descriptions and general arrangements
required for later design activities have been established. By the end
of this year, over 70 percent of reactor plant system descriptions will
be approved. The first contract for major reactor plant components will
be placed in fiscal year 2002.
Naval Reactors also is continuing inactivation of six 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 our eight land-based prototype
reactor plants. Since 1993, Naval Reactors has been inactivating and
dismantling the shutdown plants in three States as promptly as funding
and manpower have allowed.
Major inactivation work is nearly finished. The last of the
prototype reactor plants at the Naval Reactors Facility in Idaho was
defueled in fiscal year 1999. Inactivation and cleanup work at the
Windsor site in Connecticut is complete, and regulatory approval for
unrestricted release has been requested. The two shutdown prototype
reactors at the Kesselring site in New York have been inactivated and
defueled, and major dismantlement work will be completed in fiscal year
2002.
naval reactors department of energy budget detail
program technical requirements
Naval Reactors' technical budget request is categorized into four
areas of technology: Reactor Technology and Analysis; Plant Technology;
Materials Development and Verification; and Evaluation and Servicing.
This approach supports the integrated and generic nature of our DOE
research and development work. The results of Naval Reactors DOE funded
research, development, and design work in the following technology
areas are not only incorporated into future ships, but also retrofitted
into existing ships.
--The $226.0M requested for Reactor Technology and Analysis will
continue work on the next generation reactor for the VIRGINIA
Class submarine, development work on the new reactor for CVNX
Class aircraft carriers, and ensure the safe and reliable
operation of existing reactors. The reduction in operating
plant maintenance periods places greater requirements on
thermal-hydraulics, structural mechanics, fluid mechanics, and
vibration analysis work to accurately predict reactor
performance and to identify and 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 throughout extended core life. Other
efforts in this area include revising core manufacturing
processes to reduce cost and hazardous waste, performing
reactor safety analyses, developing components and systems to
support the Navy's acoustic requirements, and developing
improved shield designs to reduce costs and radiation levels.
--The $116.0M requested 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 develop
improved steam generator performance, which will benefit CVNX
steam generators-the largest components developed to date.
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 requirements. 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 harder-to-support equipment.
--The $130.9M requested for Materials Development and Verification
will fund essential material analysis and testing as ships are
kept in service longer than originally intended, and materials
are, therefore, called upon to perform safely and reliably for
a longer time. Work 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 materials with such enhancements 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.
--The $132.3M request for Evaluation and Servicing is needed to fund
the operation and servicing of land-based test reactor plants
and part of Naval Reactors' share of the Advanced Test Reactor,
a specialized materials testing facility operated by the DOE
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology. Materials,
components, cores, and systems in these plants provide
important technical data and experience under actual operating
conditions, thus allowing potential problems to be identified
and addressed before they occur in the Fleet. With proper
maintenance, upgrades and servicing, the two operating test
reactor plants and the Advanced Test Reactor will meet testing
needs for some time.
The accumulation of operational data from the prototype and fleet
operating plants, expended core examinations, and advances in computer
modeling developed by Naval Reactors have enabled the Program to shut
down six of the Program's eight land-based prototype plants, resulting
in significant cost savings. For most of the last decade, Evaluation
and Servicing funds have been focused on inactivating and laying up or
dismantling the shutdown plants to place them in an environmentally
benign state.
As inactivation work on the six shutdown prototypes comes to
completion, resources in this area decrease to a base level to continue
ongoing cleanup of facilities at all Naval Reactors sites, to reduce
hazards to personnel, and to reduce potential liabilities due to aging
facilities, or changing conditions.
program infrastructure and administrative requirements
In addition to the budget request for the important technical work
discussed above, infrastructure and administrative funding is also
required for continued operation of the Program. Specifically, the
fiscal year 2002 budget request includes:
--$22.6M in Program Direction funding to cover Naval Reactors' 191
DOE personnel at Headquarters and the Program's field offices,
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-necessitates substantial effort.
--$47.0M in Facility Operations funding to maintain and modernize the
Program's facilities, including the Bettis and Knolls
laboratories and the Expended Core Facility (ECF).
--$13.2M in Construction funding to refurbish and expand Program
facilities. This includes the continuation of the ECF Dry Cell
project in Idaho, which will significantly improve Naval
Reactor's ability to process naval spent fuel for dry storage.
(As identified and agreed to in a Settlement Agreement signed
by the Department of Energy, the Navy, and the State of Idaho,
Naval Reactors fuel must be among the early shipments of spent
fuel to the first permanent repository or interim storage
facility.) The requested funding also enables the continuation
of the Major Office Replacement Building project.
conclusion
The ongoing support of the Senate Appropriation Committee,
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development is one of the single most
important factors in our success story. The Subcommittee has recognized
the requirements and demands the Program confronts daily: a growing
need for power projection and forward presence far from home, which
strains our dwindling number of nuclear ships; an aging nuclear fleet;
the competitive climate in which we recruit and develop our people; and
the funding required to meet these commitments today and into the
future.
For the post-Cold War period, many have urged the armed forces to
transform into expeditionary units capable of rapid deployment and
sustained presence where regional unrest requires it. The nuclear Navy
is just such a force-and it is available today.
The nuclear Navy is a true crown jewel in our country's defense
arsenal. No other nation has our level of capability. That is due in
large part to the wisdom of Congress. You have consistently supported
this Program in its endeavors. I offer you my thanks and gratitude.
STATUS OF THE STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
Senator Domenici. It will be made a part of the record.
Thank you.
General Gioconda, do you have a statement?
General Gioconda. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. Do you have a written one?
General Gioconda. No, sir. I don't.
Senator Domenici. Okay. Thank you. Would you proceed?
STATEMENT OF GENERAL THOMAS F. GIOCONDA
General Gioconda. Yes, sir.
Good afternoon to the members of the subcommittee. I'd just
like to make a few important points about the Stockpile
Stewardship Program and amplify some of the things that General
Gordon has said.
Senator Domenici. Please.
General Gioconda. First, I'm pleased to report that the
Stockpile Stewardship Program is delivering to the American
people a safe and secure and reliable stockpile, and that's
important, being the money that we have spent up to date. The
program is working because of the continued dedication and
patriotism of thousands of men and women, both Federal and
contractor across the country, who make up the nuclear weapons
complex, and it's important that we recognize their
contribution of 50 years.
We have completed the fifth annual certification of the
stockpile as safe and secure and reliable with no need to
return to underground nuclear testing at this time. The annual
certification process is very important in that it places every
part of the complex on alert to be that every year, and it's
important to recognize that certification assessment goes on
every year and now for the fifth time is very successful.
Mr. Chairman, it's important to understand that the
investments made by this committee for the new science hardware
developed over the last 5 years is already making remarkable
contributions to sustaining the Nation's nuclear deterrent. For
example, the DARHT facility at Los Alamos is providing data on
primary implosions needed specifically for the W88 and W76
assessment.
The Jasper facility in Nevada will begin shots this fall,
which will provide critical data on the unique material
properties of plutonium. We'll also begin experimental
activities in ATLAS later this year.
The program is also delivering for the stockpile--we have
responded to the needs of the Department of Defense. We feel
that the 61-11s replace the B53. We met the W87 initial
operating capability and are continuing with that work load
through fiscal year 2002. We are very proud of the Pantex team
for meeting this important milestone for the Air Force.
We're about to begin refurbishment of the B61. We're
producing W76 neutron generators and Acorn Tritium reservoirs.
We're doing preliminary development in engineering work to get
ready for the future refurbishments of the W76 and the W80.
Refurbishment of all these weapon systems would represent a
significant portion of the active stockpile on alert today.
The pace and scope of these refurbishments are part of the
ongoing strategic defense review called by the President. We
have met important milestones in reconfiguring the complex for
the future. Sandia has made its first new neutron generator,
the first since the closure of the Pinellas plant in 1994.
We are making development pits at Los Alamos, recovering
from the capability loss of the shutdown of Rocky Flats in
1989. The Tritium program is on track to deliver new gas to the
stockpile by 2006, all very important parts of the nuclear
weapons complex.
Next week we begin to pour concrete for the Tritium
Extraction Facility at Savannah River. This TEF will extract
tritium gas from burnable, absorber rods irradiated by the TVA.
These are important achievements that have required a
tremendous effort over the past several years, and I want to
make note of those.
INFRASTRUCTURE STATUS
Our success in the stewardship program rests in part on the
facilities where we work. We've completed a comprehensive study
of the weapons complex facilities and infrastructure that you
mentioned in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman. We're taking
the first steps to systematically maintain and manage the
infrastructure and to arrest the serious rate of deterioration.
As General Gordon has testified, we have a multiyear
initiative to restore operational efficiency, reduce facility
down time, and ultimately move us to the right facility
configuration for the future. We must not ask our work force to
perform their important national security mission in antiquated
facilities.
CHALLENGES AND ADVANCES OF THE STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
But there are also other challenges before us. The NIF
project is back on track and it must stay on track. We continue
to watch this program very closely. We have established a
headquarters office for NIF that reports directly to me. We
plan to do our first stockpile experiments in NIF as early as
fiscal year 2004, and to have completed some 1,500 experiments
by fiscal year 2008, when it will be completely done.
The NIF is vital for the long-term success of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program, especially in its crucial contribution to
high-energy density physics needed for the health of the
stockpile. We have a vibrant and successful program of
subcriticals going on at the Nevada Test Site that must be
sustained, above-ground experimental capabilities such as
radiography which must be further developed for the future
health of an aging stockpile.
The advanced 3D simulations of models being developed by
the ASCI program are already providing benefits to the
stockpile. We're using archive test data and new above-ground
data to validate the codes that our designers so rightly need.
But with all the competing requirements for dollars in the
program today, we're slowing the computer procurement schedules
by about 1 year to keep the balance right in all aspects of the
Stockpile Stewardship Program.
As mentioned earlier, we have met the W87 deliveries needed
for the Air Force, but schedules are tight and the complex as a
whole was stretched to make this milestone due to age and
dormant infrastructure. We have an agreement with the Nuclear
Weapons Council on the future life extensions for the B61, 76,
and the W80. Only the B61 is fully supported by fiscal year
2002 budget requests pending completion of the strategic
defense review.
Again, I must state as I said last year before you, I don't
believe we can get there without significant investments in the
infrastructure. We are getting on top of managing our pit
program by our new campaign, which includes both manufacturing
and certification, and while we're on schedule for
manufacturing a certifiable pit by 2003 our resource and
commitment to final certification of a pit without nuclear
testing must await the strategic defense review.
On the management front we have put in place three
performance based contracts at Pantex, Kansas City, and Y-12.
These new contracts are already providing benefits to us. At
Pantex BWXT Technologies has implemented several process
improvements that have increased the rate of pit repackaging
and reduced radiation exposure to our technicians. Pantex has--
--
Senator Domenici. General, could you summarize, please?
General Gioconda. Yes, sir.
The other part I was talking about is the--also the
renegotiated contracts with the University of California, and I
recently co-chaired the first quarterly review of that contract
to let you know that the performance programs milestones are in
place and on track in that regard.
Also, regarding the budget, I think we've said enough
there, but the current budget request is a current services
approach for the work on the B61 and improvements in security,
but all have to await the strategic review outcome.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Yes, Senator Reid.
Senator Reid. Since I'm the junior member of this group I
can see my questions will be coming. I'm not going to be able
to be here so I would ask your permission to be able to submit
the questions in writing. Perhaps General Gordon could--most of
them are directed towards him. If he could get them back to me
in a couple of weeks?
Senator Domenici. Certainly.
General Gordon. Of course, sir.
Senator Domenici. Any questions will be answered within 2
weeks.
Senator Reid. Thank you very much.
Senator Domenici. All of yours and any others.
Senator Hollings, you were here first and besides, it's
your turn. Would you permit me one observation then I'll yield
to you for whatever you'd like?
Senator Hollings. Yes.
Senator Domenici. Let me say to both of you, General
Gordon, and you, Brigadier General Gioconda, you know I'm
reading in your statements this notion that some of these very,
very important issues are subject to strategic review--defense
strategic review. I want you to really know what I think that
means.
I don't think that means that. I think it means nobody
wanted to put in the money this year.
In any event, we anxiously await the strategic review. We
hope it really addresses these issues and we hope it's done
pretty quickly, because some of us have been looking at three
or four of the issues you just recited reference the
certification of the pits and others, and some that you have
recited, and they were all ready to go, and they should have
been funded this year.
And I guess that I will accept temporarily the excuse that
somebody is reviewing them in some kind of overall strategic
look, but I'm not sure of that. I think we'd better keep our
eyes open, and I guarantee you as chairman of this committee I
will. If we don't have something in the next couple of months
my propensity is not going to be to wait around for it but
rather to pay for it.
Senator Hollings.
Senator Hollings. The administration wants to make room for
some other programs or cuts or even tax cuts, and he told poor
General Gordon, he said: Now, General, you find the money and
you cut $156 million of the environmental management one, and
specifically that's why I had to come with respect to this MOX
facility down there at Savannah River.
Now, let me first thank, because as chairman of the Budget
Committee you've got a hard charger but you're very generous to
me as the chairman of the Energy Committee, and I appreciate it
very much.
Admiral Bowman, I'm glad to see you again. He has a nuclear
power school down there at the Navy Yard in Charleston, South
Carolina, and being one of Hyman Rickover's boys, you've got to
be the best.
General Gordon, I commend you for your enthusiasm. It's
hard to find a general enthused in this town.
STATUS OF MOX FACILITY PROGRAM
So, let's get right to the point. Three years ago we had a
competition. Senator Gramm down there with Pantex in Texas, me
at SRS, others and so forth about this disposing of surplus
plutonium in the MOX facility and of course the pit disassembly
to feed into it, and commitments were made specifically that we
were going to ramp those things over the years. Certainly it
is--you had to have the pit disassembly before you could get
the MOX. Otherwise you couldn't key it into the MOX facility.
And you look at this budget and find out that not only is
the pit disassembly cut back but they even eliminated the
immobilization program there.
I'm ending up with what I said 3 years ago when I said,
wait a minute. I'm going to end up with all the storage. Now,
that's not just an individual environmental view of mine. It's
the Nation's view in the sense that we've got the Tuscaloosa
Aquifer that comes right through the Savannah River.
And I was chairman of the Regional Advisory Nuclear Energy
Commission they had back in 1955, 45 years ago, and we looked
at a desert island out in the Pacific for disposal. We looked
at the chalk caves in Kansas. We looked into the deep ocean and
we finally got into Senator Reid's back yard at Yucca, and I
hope we can move forward there, but, I can't stand all this
storage here that's coming in. That's not only standard, it's
very dangerous.
Don't you think so? What's the score here? I seems that
you're trying to comply with OMB and not with nuclear policy is
what bothers me.
General Gordon. Senator, the request as we've noted that
came out was $100 million less than last year, and that has--at
that funding level we are compelled to either reduce or do
something about it.
What we tried to do was to keep the focus on the MOX
program for the very reasons that you just said, so that there
would be a way out for the material once it got there. And with
the amount of money that was potentially available or at least
within the request was to try to keep focus on the MOX so we
could keep that moving, and one of the things we did to try to
balance out the funding was to then to significantly defer the
immobilization so that the----
Senator Hollings. But can it get to MOX with it not going
through the pit disassembly? I know--they talked about the
canyons about back 3 or 4 years ago and they said it was
untried and not necessarily secure, and maybe they want to try
that or at least rhetorically say that's what they're going to
do.
Senator Domenici. Let me ask Mr. Baker to try to jump in on
that.
Mr. Siskin. Senator.
Senator Domenici. Ed Siskin.
MOX PROGRAM STATUS
Mr. Siskin. Using the facilities at Los Alamos National Lab
and potentially using canyon facilities at Savannah River we
can get enough oxide to operate the MOX facility for about 3
years, so by delaying the pit disassembly and conversion
facility, basically what we'll do is we use existing oxide
supplies--and oxide supplies that we will get in the next 5
years--to operate that facility until we can bring the pit
disassembly and coversion facility on line.
With respect to the immobilization facility our intent is
this. The facility has the capability to handle about 3.5 tons
a year. The amount of material we have to process through the
immobilization facility is 8.4 tons, so the schedule was
originally calling for that facility to be available in 2010 to
be completed by 2022. Obviously we have a little bit of
flexibility in the schedule before we have to start building
and operating that facility and still meet all of our
commitments.
We still remain committed to meeting our commitments to
South Carolina and everything that goes into South Carolina
will come out.
Senator Hollings. Will come out?
Mr. Siskin. Yes, sir.
Senator Hollings. You've tried this in the canyons already
you say?
Mr. Siskin. We have not tried it in the canyons. We have
tried it in areas at TA-55 at Los Alamos National Lab, and by
using certain surplus pits that have an awful lot of plutonium
in them it will be possible to provide a continual amount--a
significant amount of plutonium oxide to support the MOX
facility.
So by doing this we do several things: we support the
President's budget, although it's very, very tight. I have to
admit that I certainly wouldn't object to some additional
funding in that regard. But we also meet our commitments to
Russia and we also meet our commitments to South Carolina
within the confines of the bilateral agreement.
Senator Hollings. Well, I thank you very much, and you, Mr.
Chairman, and the committee. I'll have some other questions but
we've got to sort of work this out. And I know these gentlemen
are working in good faith and they're expert on it, and I want
to make sure we just don't end up with what exactly I had a
grave misgiving about some 3 years ago when we had this
commitment that we just end up with a bunch of storage there,
which has been going on now since we started in the early
1950s, almost 50 years, and we've got to get it out of there
some way or somehow.
General Gordon. Senator, we understand that commitment.
We're trying to work a very tight budget issue, and Mr. Siskin
has outlined to the best way we can figure out to look ahead to
meet those commitments that have been made in an extremely
tight budget environment.
Senator Hollings. Thank you very much, General.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Gordon. Thank you, sir.
Senator Domenici. Senator Hollings, I might say that to be
honest with you I was quite surprised when the proposal was put
forth that we would go with MOX as we are now, at least as we
contemplated. As you know, the United States had kind of
abandoned that approach for quite some time. The new plan
seemed very feasible and with all the work that was done in
your State by your State and your experts in your State we came
up with a reasonable plan.
That isn't to say that the building and operational
functioning of a MOX plant is an easy proposition. You and I
both understand it is for some people something we should never
do. For others it's an absolute necessity. In any event, I'm
going to try very hard as you get the final allocations from
Senator Stevens to get a little more defense money in this than
the administration put in, and one of the reasons is because of
our commitments.
And I just stated them in a very general sense, but the MOX
commitment is included in it.
Senator Hollings. You've been outstanding, Senator, and I
appreciate it very much, and I appreciate the witnesses too.
Thank you.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
General Gordon. Thank you.
Admiral Bowman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Domenici. The senator from Mississippi, Senator
Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY STATUS
General Gordon, last year you wrote a letter to the
chairman, Senator Domenici, and you said without the National
Ignition Facility the ability of the weapons laboratories to
continue to certify the safety, security, and reliability of
the nuclear weapons stockpile into the future without
underground testing is doubtful. That's a quote from your
letter.
My question is: Is the budget that's submitted sufficient
to construct the National Ignition Facility on the schedule
that you have so that we can avoid underground testing?
General Gordon. Senator, I contend--I continue to believe
that the NIF is a very critical facility. It contributes
significantly to the ability to certify significantly the
program and significantly to being able to attract the people
we need. At the requested budget it will be extremely tight to
be able to do that, even in this stretch out that we've done
over the last year until we do this program. It will be very,
very difficult.
Senator Cochran. What does that mean in terms of our
perception as having a reliable deterrent? Is that called into
question as well?
General Gordon. It doesn't call it into question in the
near term, Senator, but in the long-term deterrence is going to
be seen in both the stockpile, the qualities we have, the
confidence we have in the overall stockpile, and what we are
seen to be able to do and to continue to do into the future
with an aggressive program.
So it's an important program to me. We need to continue to
figure out how to fund it and keep it on track. It is a program
that has been put about to its limits on ability to stretch it
out. We're already spending more money on a yearly basis than
we ought to. As a project it ought to be a little bit shorter.
It would be a lot more efficient to build it in that way.
Senator Cochran. We learned at an earlier hearing that one
of the capabilities of the NIF was to examine the part of the
weapon known as the primary, and in previous testimony we
learned also that the primary, if it fails, would render the
weapon of limited or no value. If we've learned that probably
our adversaries know that too.
Does that create a problem for us in terms of the
perception of our deterrent capability?
General Gordon. The primary is key. There is no weapon
without a primary. That's your point. And the NIF program and
the full range actually of the Stockpile Stewardship Program
contributes to the certainty that the primary will work. It's
an important element of what we're trying to do. Yes, sir.
CERTIFIABLE PITS SCHEDULE
Senator Cochran. When you talked about this certification
and the certifiable pits, we understand the schedule has
changed on that now, and my question is when do you expect at
this point to produce the first certifiable plutonium pits?
General Gordon. Sir, we've produced about--we're pretty
happy with the manufacturing process that's going on in Los
Alamos. We really made some turn arounds in there. We've
produced seven or eight development pits at this time, and we
expect to produce what we will call a certifiable pit in 2003.
That means it meets all the standards, been through all the
processes.
What that pit will not have done though is been certified
because we have not done all the science behind it to assure
that these new processes are identical to that which was made
years ago in Rocky Flats. We'll stay on project with this
budget--this budget request for the production and for the
certifiable pits. I cannot say at this budget level when I can
get the science done to certify it.
Senator Cochran. Do you think we should be considering
restarting pit production somewhere in the production complex?
General Gordon. As I alluded in my statement, Senator, what
I--it is now time in my opinion to get very serious about
suggestions and recommendations that have been made by the
Foster Panel and others that we look to structures that would
give us capability and capacity beyond that which could be
reasonably expected to be produced in a laboratory environment,
and I'm putting that up on one of our priorities this year to
take the work, the understanding that we've learned from the
Los Alamos work and from moving the pit manufacturing into the
modern processes that must come today.
We now know enough how to start seriously designing a long-
term, more capable facility.
Yes, sir?
CERTIFICATION OF STOCKPILE
Senator Cochran. Have you discovered anything in the work
that you've done that if we were in a testing mode that would
lead you to conclude that we should conduct a test?
General Gordon. We haven't seen anything--just the
opposite. We continue to certify the stockpile. It does not
need to be tested at this date. The existing stockpile does not
need to be tested at this date. Stockpile Stewardship is
working from that regard.
We are finding numerous aging related problems, and thus we
propose to put with agreement with the Nuclear Weapons Council
in the military to put some 60 percent of the stockpile through
refurbishment over the next 10-plus years. We know what needs
to be fixed. What we know about doesn't need testing. We need
to fix stuff that's aged out.
If we were in a test environment there would be certain
things we're doing--would do, but there is no requirement for
safety, reliability of the existing stockpile to test now or in
the immediate future.
INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING
Senator Cochran. Senator Domenici asked you about the
infrastructure and talked about the hard hats and gear people
are having to wear just to protect themselves from things
falling from the ceiling. Is there sufficient funding in this
budget request to do something about that and to put the
infrastructure into a modern and safe mode?
General Gordon. Senator, at this budget request we will do
very little to change the infrastructure situation we have and
will not be able to complete the infrastructure changes
required to accommodate the stockpile life extension programs
for the entire stockpile that we've agreed to do for the
military.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. I would say, Senator Cochran, even though
the idea is to start on a 10-year plan for infrastructure
building, we already know what the first one would be, and then
you've just reiterated it. There's two facilities combined in
Tennessee that have to be replaced in order to be functional
both for some of the things that are needed and also just to
have something that we're not embarrassed about putting our
workers in a service kind of facility wearing hard hats because
of a roof--those would be the first ones, and then the
inventory's ongoing as to real old facilities that are part of
the nuclear complex for years.
And they do--they are beginning with a 10-year plan. We
don't have the startup money for it in this budget.
General Gordon. Mr. Chairman, the plants really are the
worst situations that we have out there, and we put people in
very, very difficult situations and make them do their work in
tough ways, and we ask the--we tell the plant manager that his
profit, his fee is dependent upon the safety of the workers, so
make sure you wear your hard hats when you go into that
dangerous facility. That's not right.
But the point I was going to make is it's now reached the
point where it's getting beyond the factories, beyond the
plants, and in some focus groups in Los Alamos the last couple
of months sitting down with the younger scientists, they're
starting to complain about their work environment, their
facility as well. It's going to start affecting recruiting and
retention as well.
Senator Domenici. Well, I think Senator Cochran will
support me wholeheartedly. It's a question of where do we find
the money?
Thank you, and I'm going to ask a few questions and then
let Mr. Baker conclude the testimony today.
5-YEAR PLAN FOR NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY
General Gordon, in the language that permitted you to
proceed with NIF if you saw it as being necessary, that is to
proceed with the remainder of the funding for this year, there
was a requirement imposed by Congress that you submit to the
Congress a 5-year plan and budget projections with reference to
the future nuclear security needs. I understand we did not get
that, yet you released the money. I'm not blaming you. It seems
like the administration said you didn't have to submit the plan
even though the language is pretty clear that you could go
ahead and release the money.
Is the plan ready and just something that the
administration wasn't ready to give us? Is that what I can
conclude?
General Gordon. Mr. Chairman, as I said in my statement, we
wrote what is to me a very competent, if not perfect yet, 5-
year plan. We worked very hard at it. We developed it so it
would have a budget to fit a strategy. We've actually started
with the strategy first rather than the budget. We tried to
figure out how to balance in these programs that we're talking
about and lay that out for a period of time and so we could do
sort of a logical planning, a logical management if you want.
And as part of our submission in the normal administrative
budget process that was submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget.
Senator Domenici. Right. The Stockpile Stewardship budget
request of $5.3 billion is 6 percent above current levels. Is
that correct?
General Gordon. I think $4.6 billion, but yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. Okay. Within that request for actual work
on nuclear weapons called directed stockpile work there's an
increase of 13 percent. However, even with these increases the
NNSA work will--you will not be able to perform all the
required weapons work.
So isn't it true that if you look through and say what do
you actually need so that you can accomplish the purposes that
you set out to do in 2002 is about $6.1 billion or thereabouts?
General Gordon. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. We'll submit a written question for you
to tell us what the $5.3 billion will do and what's left out in
terms of the $6.1 billion needed. You can do that later though
if you have that. I think you do.
PIT PRODUCTION
The pit production--I have a series of questions on it, but
I think I understand it. What we're really saying is we know
how to do it but part of doing it is to certify that it indeed
is a replacement part in all respects, and that part,
certifiability, is not completed yet. Is that correct?
General Gordon. There's good news and there's bad news.
Senator Domenici. Okay.
General Gordon. The good news is the manufacturing is
working. It was a hard way to go. The folks up at Los Alamos
turned to it, produced it. It looks good. It really, really
does.
We had the Secretary out there the other day. We actually
had him holding one. It looks good.
The certification of that is a difficult, complex process.
It's taking longer than one. It's more expensive than one, and
I don't quite have the funds to be able to proceed at the pace
we should.
Senator Domenici. I think what I'm going to do is submit
the rest of the questions to you and General Gioconda and let
Mr. Baker wrap up our hearing. I have a 3:30 meeting to see if
we can complete the total budget in terms of the dollars, and I
don't want to let the people that I'm negotiating with sit up
too long and wait.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH E. BAKER
Mr. Baker. Mr. Chairman, I will--if I can I'd like to
submit this for the record. I'll just read some of the
highlights that I think----
Senator Domenici. Great. It will be made part of the
record.
NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION AREA STATUS
Mr. Baker. First of all, I want to thank you for your
support, this committee's support over the years for threat
reduction, and once again, I ask for your help in making this
world a safer place.
As you know, the nuclear non-proliferation area is where we
do our non-proliferation work. The national non-proliferation
efforts to reduce the threat posed by weapons of mass
destruction come in three areas. First we detect the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We prevent the
spread of weapons of mass destruction, technology and
expertise, and we then of course we reverse the proliferation
of nuclear weapons capabilities.
As you stated, sir, the Baker-Cutter report concluded that
U.S. non-proliferation work within Russia represents some of
the most crucial dollars spent to protect the U.S. national
security. The possibility that weapons of mass destruction or
the material to create them could fall into the hands of
terrorists or nations of concern poses the greatest unmet
threat to America's citizens abroad and at home.
It is more effective to try to control and secure these
materials than it is to try to locate them some place in the
Russian territories. It's like trying to find a needle in a
haystack.
The fiscal year 2002 budget request of $773.7 million--this
is a decrease, sir, of $101 million as compared to the 2001
budget, but this does not represent a lessening of NNSA's
proliferation team's commitment to the challenges we face with
international non-proliferation. We remain focused on our
mission which is essential for the security of this Nation, but
the pace and scope of our efforts will have to be reduced
because of funding levels.
MPC&A PROGRAM STATUS
I want to take a few minutes to run through our main
programs with you. The MPC&A program--it secures nuclear
material at its source. It consolidates material into fewer
buildings, and now we're working to sustain the security
improvements for years to come.
By the end of the decade we estimate that the security
upgrades will be completed on all the warhead storage locations
for which the Russian Navy has requested--and this is a
classified number, but it's a very high number of warheads,
sir--as well as 603 metric tons of weapons useable materials
located outside of weapons sites and at 53 other sensitive
sites. This is enough material to build approximately 41,000
bombs.
In fiscal year 2002 we hope to take advantage of our recent
agreement on access and expand our activities, which combined
have more than 300 metric tons of weapons useable material.
Additionally, we plan to increase our highly successful
cooperation with the Russian Navy as well as innovative
material consolidation and conversion program.
IPP PROGRAM STATUS
I would like to turn now to the IPP program third. Thanks
to you and many others, the Initiatives for Proliferation
Prevention is a major success story with immediate non-
proliferation impact. IPP commercialization has taken off.
Eight IPP projects are now commercially successful, providing
300 long-term private sector jobs in Russia and more than $17
million in annual sales revenues.
There are another 20 IPP projects that are posed for
commercialization this year. IPP projects are successful due to
the U.S. private sector involvement from the start of the
requirement for business to match NNSA funding. On average the
U.S. industry contributes $3 for each $2 that the U.S. taxpayer
puts in.
This year we have started to see infusions of substantial
venture capital. Two U.S. member companies have attracted over
$40 million worth of private sector investment as a result of
technologies developed through IPP. We know the long-term
solution of the proliferation problem of unemployed Soviet
weapons scientists lies in the private sector and commercial
self sustainability and is a basis for our exit strategy in
IPP.
NUCLEAR CITIES INITIATIVE STATUS
We have generated substantial momentum in the U.S. industry
community with roughly $30 million private sector in new IPP
projects ready for implementation. The Nuclear Cities
initiative is not as successful.
Mr. Chairman, we have been criticized for lack of fast work
in this area. However, it is important to recall that the
program is still young and requires the initial period to lay
the foundation for programs, as was the case for the IPP
program.
SECOND LINE OF DEFENSE PROGRAM STATUS
The Second Line of Defense Program is with the Russian
Customs Service. This program helps detect--prevent nuclear
proliferation and terrorism through the installation of
radiation detection equipment in strategic transit and border
sites in Russia; thus far a small amount of money.
This program has been quite successful. Equipment has been
installed at the international airports at Moscow and St.
Petersburg, and on the Port of the Caspian Sea. Ninety custom
officers have been trained and training manuals have been
distributed to 30,000 front-line officers. These radiation
detection monitoring systems have roughly checked 120,000
vehicles, 11,000 railroad cars, and 750,000 pedestrians.
Building on these successes we plan to expand this into six
other locations this year.
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS STATUS
The Office of Defense Nuclear Non-proliferation is involved
in important non-proliferation projects outside the country.
For example, we have achieved major successes and three tons of
weapons grade plutonium, enough to manufacture hundreds of
nuclear weapons, and we've done other things, sir, that I will
submit for the record in non-proliferation. I would like to get
to fissile materials.
The fissile materials program is responsible for disposing
of inventories of surplus U.S. weapons-usable plutonium and
highly enriched uranium in order to reduce the potential theft
or diversion of these materials, especially in Russia, as well
as to reduce the significant cost associated with long-term
storage of these materials in the United States. We are
leveraging our domestic program to obtain reciprocal
disposition agreements with the Russian plutonium program.
MOX FACILITY STATUS
In fiscal year 2002 funding will be used to complete the
MOX fuel fabrication facility. We will continue to design the
pit disassembly conversion facility at a reduced rate. Due to
budgetary constraints, we will suspend a design of the
plutonium immobilization facility. These changes are to reduce
the anticipated future year peak funding requirements that
would have been associated with previous plans while
simultaneously building three facilities in Savannah River.
I would like to submit the R&D program for the record. We
do need more money. We have cut programs in the R&D, programs,
sir, that are big in proliferation detection that helps not
only DOE but also this country.
But I would like to close and say, Mr. Chairman, I'll tell
you without a doubt even with this budget the people of NN and
the national labs are unsung heroes. They have spent days,
weeks, and months in places where accommodations were worse
than I have ever seen, with no hot water, windows that wouldn't
close in the winter time. However, they continue to work.
Why? It's because they know the opportunity to make
American citizens safer will not last forever. The window is
still open. The time is now to work harder. The Russian
federation is undoing a time of change. Presently we are
hopeful that this will provide new and improved opportunities
for us. The fruit of our work will be experienced for our
generation and generations to come.
I think you will agree that this Nation has faced no
greater challenge than preventing weapons and weapons useable
material from falling into hands of those who might use them
against us and our allies. We live in a more dangerous world
now than we did during the cold war. The threat to our safety
and our international security is more diffuse, which makes it
harder to defend against.
I think the review being conducted now in the White House
is a useful and timely exercise, but I am confident that the
review will show that NN's programs that you have helped so
much will make a solid contribution to national security and
the United States of America.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
I want to thank all of you and tell you how I feel about us
having such a short period of time. It's obviously not enough
for this subject, but somehow or another we have more to do
around here than we can get done. I'm very pleased that we get
to work together on an ongoing basis on most of these issues
and we'll continue to do that.
General Gordon, good luck in filling the rest of your high
positions, and hopefully by the end of this fiscal year you
will have many more of the functions right under you being
accomplished directly through the organization that you had.
To the rest of you, thank you very much. I tend to think
that the whole area of nuclear activity somehow or another as
we go through both an energy crisis and a pollution problem--
that is air pollution problem of high, high importance if not
here and in the world that somehow or another nuclear is going
to come back and people are going to take a look at it. I'm
reading that the Cheney task force is doing that.
The reason, Admiral, that I frequently use the story about
your boats at sea is because--not because they're at sea, but
rather they're in ports. They're not at sea forever. They stop
places, and those places mean that in seaports of the world we
have two nuclear--or one nuclear reactor right there in the
water in the hull of an American boat with all the nuclear
power plant on it and the waste--the highly enriched waste that
comes out of there and the rods. they're on board.
And somehow or another with the medium being water, which
is miscible and can--seems like you could gender up all kinds
of fears about what would happen. It would seem like the world
understands there is no risk.
Admiral Bowman. Yes, sir. We are welcome in over 150 ports
around the world today.
Senator Domenici. Yes. And I want to close by saying before
the year's out I want to pull out on one of your nuclear
submarines. Okay?
Admiral Bowman. Terrific.
Senator Domenici. We'll do that.
Admiral Bowman. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. I'll call you and we'll go together.
Admiral Bowman. Great.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Specter. Thank you very much. There will be some
additional questions which will be submitted for your response
in the record.
[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 Gordon, is the nuclear weapon stockpile safe,
reliable and secure?
Answer. Yes. On January 11, 2001, the Secretaries of Energy and
Defense certified to the President that the stockpile remains safe,
reliable and secure--the 5th annual certification without the need for
underground nuclear testing.
Question. Do you have confidence that the weapons in the stockpile
can and will perform as designed?
Answer. Yes, I do. This confidence is based on the fact that the
weapon systems in our current stockpile were thoroughly tested and
documented prior to the cessation of underground nuclear testing in
1992. Since that time, DOE has conducted extensive surveillance,
analysis, simulations and tests through the science-based Stockpile
Stewardship Program to detect and anticipate problems that could
degrade the performance of the stockpile.
how to use additional resources
Question. General Gordon, in my opening statement, I identified
several critical areas as being underfunded in the request. Please
respond for the record how you would use an additional $800 million
within the stockpile stewardship program in fiscal year 2002.
Answer. You suggested that the fiscal year 2002 budget request is
underfunded in the areas of weapon refurbishments, pit work, and
infrastructure. Let me discuss each of these in turn.
The fiscal year 2002 budget request includes a 14 percent increase
over fiscal year 2001 associated with refurbishment work. We will
continue with the W87, and we are about to begin the refurbishment
planning for the B61. We have agreement with the Nuclear Weapons
Council on future life extensions for the W76, and W80. The budget
supports limited engineering development work for these two systems.
However, the pace and scope for these refurbishments are part of the
ongoing strategic defense review called for by the President, and final
determinations on resource requirements for these two systems will be
made in light of the conclusions from the strategic review.
Regarding pits, the fiscal year 2002 budget request includes $128
million for the Pit Manufacturing and Certification campaign, and
another $90 million spread throughout the programs for facilities and
supporting research. We are on schedule for manufacturing a certifiable
pit in fiscal year 2003. We have identified the series of experiments
necessary to certify a pit and we have completed a detailed resources
based manufacturing and certification plan to certify a pit by 2009.
You are concerned that a lack of resources has caused a slip in this
schedule, but in fact, the schedule has been quite fluid due to
technical issues. Whether we go forward with this plan must await the
results of the Administration's Strategic Review.
Finally, you suggest that infrastructure is underfunded in the
request. We have developed a multi-year infrastructure initiative to
systematically address high priority maintenance backlog items, and put
in place proactive management of the infrastructure to arrest the rate
of deterioration and improve the operation and availability of our
facilities. Since the initiative is designed to address problems, it
would require resources in addition to the base maintenance funding
request.
The base maintenance funding included in the fiscal year 2002
request, estimated at between $300-$350 million, will be managed under
this new approach. The fiscal year 2002 request does not now include
funding for the new initiative because the infrastructure issue is
expected to be addressed by the strategic defense review.
The $800 million above the budget request that you suggest
corresponds roughly to the increment to fund the Defense Programs
requirements estimate included for fiscal year 2002 in the Future Years
Budget Plan currently pending before the Office of Management and
Budget. About 60 percent of this increment would be associated with the
three items discussed above. Another 20 percent would be used to
accelerate the pace of cyber security improvements, and computing
activities and their associated facilities. The remaining 20 percent is
associated with rebalancing campaign activities with the directed
stockpile workload, readiness in technical base and facilities, and
program direction to lower the program risks in these key areas.
adequacy of the fiscal year 2002 budget request
Question. Are there any critical needs not addressed in the budget
because of lack of budgetary resources?
Answer. No. The Administration has stated that final resource
decisions for the fiscal year 2002 budget will be made following
completion of the strategic defense reviews. The fiscal year 2002
request provides a 4.6 percent increase that maintains ongoing
programs, sites, and M&O employment levels at roughly the fiscal year
2001 level and all critical needs are met within this level.
Question. Will the budget request before the committee allow NNSA
to meet all DOE annual weapons alterations, modifications and
surveillance schedules?
Answer. Yes. Funding for these activities is included in Directed
Stockpile Work, Stockpile Maintenance and Stockpile Evaluation, and it
will support the workload requirements in the current Production and
Planning Directive, and will reduce the backlog in evaluation testing
as recommended in the 150 Day Study.
Question. Will the budget request before the committee allow the
NNSA to meet life extension program production milestones for the B61,
W76, and W80?
Answer. The budget request fully funds life extension and
refurbishment activities in fiscal year 2002 for the W87 and B61, and
supports limited engineering development for the W76 and W80. Although
we have agreement with the Nuclear Weapons Council on the schedules for
the W76 and W80, these may be revisited following the Administration's
strategic review. We anticipate further guidance on pace and scope for
these systems, and budget adjustments will be made as necessary.
Question. Does this budget make the appropriate investments in
future manufacturing facilities, process development, critical skills
so that NNSA will be able to meet the known future military
requirements as well as the stockpile life extension program?
Answer. This budget request begins to make many investments in
future manufacturing facilities, including continuing nine major
construction projects with an estimated cost of over $770 million at
the production plants, and production-related construction at the
laboratories. Process development is funded through the ADAPT campaign,
at essentially the fiscal year 2001 level. With the impetus of the
Chiles Commission recommendations, and the promise of future workload,
the production plants continue to make progress in addressing critical
skills and transforming their workforce for the future. The budget
request will support fiscal year 2001 contractor employment levels for
ongoing programs, and we anticipate no involuntary layoffs for defense
programs.
We have pointed out that infrastructure investments are needed,
beyond what is in the current budget request, to arrest the
deterioration of our facilities due to insufficient maintenance
expenditures in the past. In addition, depending on the schedule for
weapon life extensions recommended by the strategic reviews, there may
be additional investments required.
Question. If the Committee were to provide you additional funds,
what would be your next priorities and at what level of funding?
Answer. I will be in a position to respond to this question after
completion of the strategic reviews. The President stated his views
about strategic vision driving resources and budget priorities, and I
expect that the Administration will follow through on its commitment to
finalize fiscal year 2002 and outyear funding requests to meet
validated requirements for defense-related programs at the conclusion
of the reviews. My priorities will always be centered on the people,
directed stockpile work, our science technology base, and our critical
infrastructure.
size of the future nuclear weapon stockpile
Question. If it turns out that the defense policy reviews
ultimately recommend a smaller nuclear stockpile, how will that affect
your five-year budget plan?
Answer. We believe that the on-going defense reviews may result in
potentially significant upward pressure on our current five-year budget
plan. While there may be some modest reduction in direct weapon system
funding needs, the emerging concerns to: reestablish a near-term pit
manufacturing capability; rebuild a rapidly aging human and capital
infrastructure; provide an assured resource of tritium; and establish
and maintain the tools and capabilities necessary to continue to
certify the reliability, safety, and security of the enduring stockpile
without underground testing ultimately will affect the size of our
five-year budget plan. We also would expect to increase our need for
dismantlement of weapons if the stockpile is reduced.
It is also worth noting that those weapons most likely to be
retained have already been planned for refurbishment. Regardless of the
ultimate decisions on the stockpile, our refurbishment requirements are
well defined for at least the next five years which in turn drives
scientific, facility, and budgetary needs.
Question. Will you still need to rebuild the complex
infrastructure?
Answer. Absolutely. Should we move to a smaller stockpile it would
place a greater premium on the reliability, safety, and security of the
remaining weapons. It would require the complex to be able to
remanufacture components on a very timely basis if problems were
discovered, or to respond quickly to new threats.
Question. Will you still need the full suite of science-based
diagnostic and test facilities?
Answer. Yes. The suite of capabilities planned for the Stockpile
Stewardship Program was developed by considering the technical
requirements for maintaining a safe, secure and reliable stockpile over
the long term. The scientific and engineering issues that will arise in
maintaining the stockpile are independent of the size of the stockpile
and the capability and tools required for assessing the safety and
performance of weapons do not change with the number of weapons. The
NNSA considers that a full suite of diagnostic and test facilities will
be required even in the event of any arms reductions.
microsystems and engineering sciences applications (mesa) complex
Question. When additional resources are provided for the NNSA,
would you agree that MESA construction funding should be significantly
increased?
Answer. MESA is one of a number of activities that we have slowed
pending the outcome of the Administration's strategic review. Depending
on recommendations from that review concerning the future of the W76,
we will need to revisit the MESA schedule. MESA is needed to produce a
new arming, firing, and fuzing component that is currently planned as
part of the eventual W76 refurbishment.
cyber security
Question. Last year, Congress provided a supplement of $20 million
for NNSA to make some immediate improvements in cyber security and to
develop a cost-effective plan for the longer term. The resulting
program for the Integrated Cyber Security Initiative has been received.
The schedules shows 15 major milestones for this fiscal year and 26
more by the end of 2005.
How much funding is requested for this initiative
Answer. There is $30 million specifically identified in the
President's budget request to fund the Integrated Cyber Security
Initiative. At the current funding level the DOE will provide cyber
security in fiscal year 2002 comparable to that provided in the fiscal
year 2001.
Question. Is the plan on tract to meet its milestones in fiscal
year 2001?
Answer. The current efforts will support development of a cost-
effective implementation plan for the long term and have provided some
immediate improvements in cyber security at select sites.
Question. How much will the necessary activities cost and how will
they be funded?
Answer. The exact cost of the program will be developed along with
the development of a detailed implementation plan. The actual cost will
depend on which options are selected by the Department. That selection
will take place as the plan is finalized. Funding will be requested
based on identified need.
Question. What is the Department's plan to upgrade cyber-security
throughout the weapons complex?
Answer. The overall plan was presented in a report provided to
Congress on the Integrated Cyber Security Initiative. Effort is
underway to develop additional implementation details of this plan.
Question. How important is cyber security and what is the
appropriate level of funding to address our cyber security
vulnerabilities over the next 5 years.
Answer. As the United States becomes more reliant on electronic
means to store, move and access its critical information, it further
the concern over the vulnerability of that information. The amount of
protection must be based on a prudent determination of the value of the
information and the processes that are supported. From a DOE
perspective, the funding will be requested to maintain protection of
the valuable DOE information and processes.
national ignition facility
Question. Should not funding for NIF only be provided after we have
ensured adequate resources are available for the near-term weapons
refurbishment mission?
Answer. If NNSA requirements remain the same after the
Administration's strategic review, maintenance of the safety and
reliability of the stockpile clearly requires increased expenditures
for infrastructure, stockpile life extension programs, and development
of a pit production capability. At the same time, the Stockpile
Stewardship Program (SSP) must develop and deploy new scientific tools
like NIF that are the only known means of assuring that we properly
understand stockpile aging and the actions that we plan to undertake to
sustain the deterrent. As we reaffirmed in the recent high-energy-
density-physics (HEDP) study, a vital HEDP Program is an essential
component of SSP, and that with the full 192-beam NIF, the program
meets its requirements. No alternative to the NIF was found that meets
the program needs.
We are working hard to balance the SSP, while meeting near term
commitments and investing in critical capabilities required to provide
for the longer term health of the stockpile. To fit within the
available resources, many elements of the SSP including the NIF have
been deferred and stretched out to the maximum extent possible over
several years. Further stretch-out of NIF funding could damage the SSP
immediately, as well as in the longer term. Without the NIF, in my
opinion, the SSP could be unable to perform its long-range mission of
maintaining the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons
stockpile.
The timing of NIF's availability is an important issue for the SSP.
In the next ten years, we will embark on major weapon refurbishment
programs while at the same time the majority of the remaining
experienced weapons experts will be retiring. It is vital that NIF and
other new SSP tools be brought on board during this time. As NIF begins
to come on-line during the latter half of this decade, it will provide
unique experimental capability in the high-energy-density regime to
investigate stockpile issues. It is estimated that approximately 1,500
experiments will be conducted at NIF between fiscal year 2004 when
eight laser beams will be on line and fiscal year 2008 when all 192
beams are expected on line. NIF will also provide both basic physics
data, and model validation needed to support computer simulation and
thus the health of the Nation's stockpile.
foster panel recommendations
Question. The Foster Panel has suggested a number of additional
activities as a part of the stockpile stewardship program. Such as:
--exercising end-to-end design, production and certification
capabilities not currently being used
--dual revalidation of all weapons designs
--developing new designs of robust, alternative warheads
--increasing enhanced surveillance
--possibly reducing the nuclear test readiness response time to less
than one year
What is your response and what would these items add to the SSP
baseline?
Answer. DOE and the NNSA have been supportive of the Foster Panel
since its inception and there is agreement on many of the issues
identified in the report. However, the Foster Panel and NNSA have
different views on the integrated solutions to best address the issues
and the trade-offs between cost, scope, schedule, and risk. The Foster
Panel recommendations all act to reduce risk, but some may do so at a
significant cost or represent a significant change to current national
policy. We are continuing to study the recommendations and potential
implementation of solution sets.
There is currently no military requirement to produce new weapons,
and we have not received such a request. The life extension programs
authorized by the Nuclear Weapons Council for the B61, W80, and W76
will sufficiently exercise the design, production and certification
capabilities of the weapons complex. Successful completion of these
programs represents a workload and workscope unmatched in the weapons
complex in more than ten years.
NNSA has developed an alternative approach to Dual Revalidation
which achieves the same high-priority objectives, but takes less time
and is less costly. Baselining, a first necessary step of any Dual
Revalidation effort, will be applied to all of the warhead types during
the next five years, while some designers that originally worked on the
system are still available. The first Dual Revalidation on the W76
Trident was valuable, but was much more expensive than estimated, and
took much longer than originally anticipated--five years instead of
three. If we choose to perform Dual Revalidation studies in the future,
their focus and scope can be based on the key points brought out by
completed baselining studies.
Enhanced surveillance is systematically fielding diagnostic tools
and conducting studies of components and materials in the stockpile to
identify impacts from aging before there is impact to the stockpile. We
agree that additional resources in this area could expand or accelerate
capabilities to detect and respond to aging issues.
We reported in the ``Nuclear Test Readiness Posture Report to
Congress'', dated February 2001, that for anything other than an
extremely simple demonstration of capability, a six-month nuclear test
response time was not technically feasible, especially considering the
safety, environmental, and the Threshold Test Ban Treaty reporting
requirements associated with a nuclear test resumption. In addition, it
is estimated that maintaining a six-month posture would cost and
additional $75 million per year, precluding investment in other more
urgent areas of stockpile stewardship. Other options are being
investigated.
critical skills
Question. The Chiles Report in 1999, and many others since then,
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. The Laboratory Critical Skills Development Program under
the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities element of our budget is
a direct funded initiative at $5.4M, aimed at identifying and
developing critical scientific, engineering and technical skills at the
three laboratories. The Laboratory Directed Research and Development
programs which are targeted at 6 percent of our laboratories' budgets,
and the Plant Directed Research and Development programs which are
targeted at 2 percent of the budgets of the weapons plants, contribute
to the recruitment, development and retention of needed critical
skills. In addition to these initiatives which have a clear connection
to critical skills, most of the key technology initiatives in the
Stockpile Stewardship Program such as NIF, ASCI, Advanced Design and
Production Technologies, etc. are intended to meet programmatic
objectives while also promoting contractor efforts to recruit, develop
and retain the right critically skilled workforce. A large share of the
initiatives that directly impact on recruitment and retention such as
pay levels, benefit programs and working conditions are within our
contractors' discretion or covered by contractor overhead programs. We
review proposed changes to these programs and have encouraged our
contractors to propose pay and benefit changes that promote recruitment
and retention of critical skills. We also use the contractor evaluation
process in our performance-based management contracts to encourage and
incentivize effective critical skills programs. One of Defense Programs
key performance targets in both the fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year
2002 budgets is ``Maintenance of critical skills to meet long term
requirements.'' The restructured contracts with the University of
California for Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories
include a special management initiative on critical skills which will
ensure senior University and laboratory management focus on the issues.
pit production and certification
Question. NNSA continues to work to reestablish plutonium pit
production and certification 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 original deadline for delivering a pit to the military was
1998, it then slipped to 2001, then 2003, then 2006. As of your interim
report last Fall, the date was 2007.
Please update the committee on NNSA's efforts to reestablish pit
production at Los Alamos?
Answer. The pit manufacturing effort is fully funded in fiscal year
2001 and fiscal year 2002 and is on track to fabricate a certifiable
W88 pit in fiscal year 2003. The manufacture of a certifiable W88 pit
is the first major milestone required to establish that W88 replacement
pits manufactured at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) are
qualified for use in the nuclear stockpile; the later milestone is
certification that the pit will meet required functions. Manufacturing
and process specifications required to build W88 pits have been
established and LANL has fabricated eight W88 development pits. NNSA,
with LANL, has developed a certification plan for non-nuclear testing
required to confirm equivalent performance of LANL pits with Rocky
Flats pits. Risk mitigation actions to avoid single test failures
continue to be assessed and project management systems to measure
``earned value'' will be in place for fiscal year 2002.
Question. Is it true, that under the Administration's budget
request, delivery of a certified pit is put off indefinitely?
Answer. With the current fiscal year 2002 funding for the pit
manufacturing and certification project, NNSA will fabricate a
certifiable pit in fiscal year 2003. However, the current fiscal year
2002 request will not enable the laboratory to conduct all
certification activities required to place a newly fabricated
replacement W88 pit in the nuclear weapons stockpile in fiscal year
2009. However, we expect to review the pit manufacturing and
certification request following completion of the Administration's
strategic review.
Question. Is it true that $148 million must be added to the request
for fiscal year 2002 in order to get back on a schedule that would
allow delivery of a pit no later than 2009?
Answer. A laboratory assessment of the March W88 Pit Manufacturing
and Certification Integrated Project Plan and associated support for
facilities at LANL estimated an additional $148 million in fiscal year
2002 would enable the delivery of a W88 pit to the Department of
Defense in 2009. We still need further NNSA peer review and independent
assessments to validate the entire resource allocation need.
laboratory directed research & development
Question. 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. Do you concur that the weapons programs have
benefitted very significantly through the LDRD program and the funding
should be maintained at 6 per cent?
Answer. Definitely yes. Our weapons programs and the laboratories
as national research institutions have benefitted significantly from
the LDRD program. Many of the most innovative technical discoveries
applied to the weapons programs originated in LDRD projects. Further,
the NNSA concurs with the Laboratory Directors' previous testimony that
the weapons program, and national defense in general, have been more
than repaid for the cost of the LDRD program. We believe funding should
be maintained at 6 percent. Our experience during fiscal year 2000,
when the funding was reduced to 4 percent, was that the program
suffered in several different ways, the impact of which will be
experienced over several years.
industrial partnerships
Question. Congress has frequently noted that carefully structured
partnerships with United States industry can enable the labs to
accomplish their missions more effectively, at the same time that they
assist industry with new products and processes that boost our domestic
competitiveness. The previous Administration reduced their support for
such partnerships, which Congress reversed for the current fiscal year.
In your view, are partnerships being used effectively by the
laboratories?
Answer. Yes, we believe that partnerships (collaborative
activities) are currently being used effectively. One effective
mechanism is the Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA)
which was established as a contractual mechanism to encourage and
simplify collaboration with the private sector. In fiscal year 2000,
the NNSA complex initiated over 50 new CRADAs bringing to almost 350
the number of active CRADAs. In fiscal year 2001, the Department
initiated a new budget structure for the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
Technology partnerships are not directly supported as a separate
program by Stockpile Stewardship within this new budget structure. At
this point in fiscal year 2001 there have been four newly executed
CRADAs, 137 continuing CRADAs for a total of 141 active CRADAs all of
which directly support the NNSA national security mission. Since the
funding mechanism for CRADAs transitioned this fiscal year, we are
carefully monitoring the effects of that change. We anticipate that
there will be a reduction in those CRADA activities where there are
only `spinoff' benefits to industry. We hope that the program-sponsored
partnerships and funds-in CRADAs will more than make up for the spinoff
partnership reductions.
Question. Is Congressional guidance to increase partnerships being
followed?
Specifically, Congress recommended at least $30 million be invested
in industrial partnerships in the current year, plus set aside $3
million for assistance with small business technology-based companies
near the weapon labs and identified $6 million for a program, to be
matched with $6 million from NIH, to evaluate and develop NNSA
technologies for medical needs.
Answer. NNSA fully supports the development and execution of
technology partnerships that support the NNSA missions and has directed
that program officials consider funding partnerships as part of the
planned execution of their programs when it is appropriate and
advantageous. The accounting system does not provide information on
partnerships, however , a staff estimate indicates that approximately
$17.6 million has been invested in industrial partnerships. We
anticipate that this number will increase as time goes on. Although the
set aside for assistance to small business technology-based companies
near the weapon labs was not appropriated, we recognize that support
for small business in the vicinity of the laboratories and facilities
not only contributes to technological advances in the private sector
and maintenance of the procurement base, but also promotes local good
will and acceptance of the continuing operation of the laboratories and
facilities. The NNSA laboratories and facilities have been encouraged
to participate in these small business programs.
With respect to working with NIH to explore joint opportunities for
the development of medical devices, our involvement with NIH has
resulted only in encouragement to continue to respond to NIH
solicitations. Although we have not yet been successful in the
development of a joint NNSA/NIH medical devices program, the NNSA
laboratories continue to use their unique skills in support of national
security for the development of medical devices.
administration support for nonproliferation programs
Question. Why does the Administration propose such deep cuts in the
nonproliferation programs in Russia?
Answer. Although the fiscal year 2002 request is $100.2 million
(11.5 percent) below the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level, it
represents a $52.2 million (7.3 percent) increase over the fiscal year
2000 level. The fiscal year 2002 request normalizes growth over two
years at just under 4 percent per year. A review is underway to examine
the nonproliferation programs with Russia. At the end of this review, I
expect to have a clear understanding of the Administration's policy
requirements for our threat reduction activities. The National Nuclear
Security Administration's final Future-Years Nuclear Security Program
for fiscal year 2002 through 2007 will be submitted after completion of
the strategic review of national security-related activities.
safety and security record
Question. Admiral Bowman, Naval Reactors has long enjoyed an
outstanding record on safety and security. Would you elaborate on your
Program's success in these areas and describe how your management
systems support safety and security?
Answer. Naval Reactors is a semi-autonomous, centrally managed,
single-purpose organization with clear lines of authority and total
responsibility and accountability for all aspects of naval nuclear
propulsion. The precepts of this organization, developed under the
leadership of Hyman G. Rickover were preserved upon his retirement in
1982 by Executive Order 12344 issued by President Ronald Reagan
(attached). This executive order was subsequently set forth in two
Defense Authorization acts. The clear focus of the organization's
mission, combined with a management philosophy which clearly assigns
responsibility and authority, has resulted in an organizational culture
that intertwines the need for safety, environmental stewardship and
security with everyone's daily efforts.
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program technology is among the most
sensitive and valuable military technologies currently in use in the
United States. Nuclear powered vessels comprise about 40 percent of the
U.S. Navy's combatant fleet, including the entire sea-based nuclear
deterrent. All submarines and over half of the Navy's aircraft carriers
are nuclear powered. This nuclear technology measurably contributes to
the United States ability to defend its interests worldwide. The
proliferation of this technology and the resultant development of
nuclear powered submarines and surface combatants in other countries
could result in destabilizing geopolitical conditions, to the detriment
of world stability and U.S. interests.
For that reason, information that permits nuclear propulsion to be
applied to warships must be protected. This information is identified
as naval nuclear propulsion information and concerns the design,
arrangement, development, manufacture, testing, operation,
administration, training, maintenance and repair of the propulsion
plants of Naval nuclear-powered warships and prototypes including the
associated shipboard and shore-based nuclear support facilities.
Program personnel are trained from their first days to develop a
knowledge of the details to ensure they can identify and correct
problems, or resolve issues while they remain small. They understand
the vital role of security in meeting the mission of the Navy.
Security is ``mainstreamed'' in the Program. Shortly after entering
the Program, all personnel are indoctrinated in the requirements and
the importance of safeguarding naval nuclear propulsion technology.
Then, protection of this technology is factored into the daily Program
routine and reinforced periodically. Consequently, security is not an
afterthought requiring retrofit into Program operations at a later
date. Some of the principles employed to protect classified information
are used to protect Program sensitive unclassified information. For
example, foreign nationals are not permitted access to classified or
unclassified Naval Nuclear Propulsion information except through
approved government-to-government agreements, and assignment of foreign
nationals at Program laboratories and other facilities is not
permitted.
The U.S. Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program is centrally controlled
by a highly experienced but lean integrated organization of Department
of the Navy and Department of Energy personnel. This organization is
responsible for all aspects of the Program, including research, design,
development, testing, operation, and personnel. In addition, peer
review of reactor safety aspects of design, crew training, and
operating procedures is provided by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
U.S. nuclear-powered warships and their reactors have been designed
to the most exacting and rigorous standards. They are designed to
survive wartime attack, and include redundant systems and means of
auxiliary propulsion, and are operated by highly trained crews using
rigorously applied procedures. All of these features enhance reactor
safety just as they contribute to the ability of the ship to survive
attack in time of war.
Over 100,000 officers and enlisted technicians have been trained in
the Program. The officer selection process accepts for interview by the
Director only applicants who have high standing at colleges and
universities. All personnel receive over a year of training in
theoretical knowledge and practical experience on operating reactors
that are like the reactors used on ships. Even after completing this
training, before manning a key watch station, the personnel must
specifically qualify on the ship to which they are assigned. Despite
the extensive training and qualification program, multiple layers of
supervision and inspection are employed to ensure a high state of
readiness and compliance with safety standards.
All U.S. nuclear-powered warships use pressurized water reactors.
The radioactive fission products are contained within high-integrity
fuel modules that can withstand battle shock. The fuel is fabricated
such that U.S. Naval reactors do not operate with fission products
released to the primary coolant. The reactor compartment forms a
container and shields the crew from radiation. This compartment
contains no loose radioactivity in accessible areas and can be entered
without any protective clothing within minutes of shutting down the
reactor.
The U.S. Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program has historically
incorporated major efforts to minimize radiation exposure. No civilian
or military personnel in the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program has ever
exceeded the Federal accumulated limit, which until 1994 allowed 5 rem
of exposure for each year of age beyond age eighteen. Since 1967, no
person has exceeded the Federal quarterly limit, which allows up to 3
rem per quarter year. Since 1968, no person has exceeded the Navy's
self-imposed limit of 5 rem per year for radiation associated with
naval nuclear propulsion plants. The Federal limit was changed in 1994
to adopt the 5 rem per year limit already in use by the Navy in lieu of
the accumulated exposure limit. The average exposure to nuclear-powered
ship operators for the last 10 years is less than 0.04 rem, compared to
0.30 rem per year from background radiation for the general public.
This occupational exposure record is indicative of the conservative
design employed in U.S. naval application. With regard to liquid
discharges of radioactivity, design and operating practices strictly
enforce a policy of minimum discharge to the environment. Within twelve
miles of land, where no intentional discharge is allowed, the total
gamma radioactivity discharged by all U.S. ships and facilities during
any single year is less than 0.002 curie. That amount is 100 times less
than the radioactivity discharged by a single typical U.S. commercial
nuclear power station in a year, which is itself within permissible
limits.
While the strict procedures followed to control release of
radioactivity preclude the need for environmental monitoring, the U.S.
Navy does conduct environmental monitoring in locations where U.S.
nuclear-powered ships are home ported or serviced, such as bases and
shipyards, so there will be independent evidence to confirm the absence
of any environmental effect. This monitoring consists of analyzing
harbor water, sediment, and marine life samples for radioactivity
associated with naval nuclear propulsion plants; radiation monitoring
around the perimeter of support facilities; and effluent monitoring.
Environmental samples from each of these harbors are also checked at
least annually by a U.S. Department of Energy laboratory to ensure
analytical procedures are correct and standardized. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has conducted independent surveys in
U.S. harbors and results have been consistent with Navy results. These
surveys have confirmed that U.S. naval nuclear-powered ships and
support facilities have no significant effect on the radioactivity of
the environment.
In addition to the many safety considerations referred to above,
there are several other factors that enhance naval reactor safety.
Naval reactors are smaller and lower in power rating than typical
commercial plants. They also operate at lower power levels,
particularly when in port or in restricted waters. Thus, the amount of
radioactivity potentially available for release is less than one one-
hundredth of that for a typical commercial reactor. Naval reactors have
ready access to an unlimited source of seawater that can be used for
emergency cooling and shielding, and are mobile. In the event of a
problem, the ship can be moved, which, of course, is not the case for a
fixed, land-based reactor.
On the whole, the Program's success in safety and security is due
in large part to its clear lines of authority and total responsibility
and accountability for all aspects of naval nuclear propulsion. The
success of this organization and its personnel is unsurpassed. The
safety record of United States nuclear-powered warships is outstanding.
In the history of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, there has never
been a nuclear reactor accident, nor has there been a release of
radioactivity having a significant effect on the environment or the
public. The Program currently is responsible for 82 operating nuclear-
powered warships and 102 operating reactors. Since 1955, U.S. Navy
nuclear-powered ships have steamed over 122 million miles and amassed
over 5200 reactor-years of operating experience. These ships have
visited more than 150 ports in over 50 foreign countries and
dependencies.
nuclear cities initiative
Question. What progress has been made recently in downsizing of the
complex and conversion of weapons manufacturing plants to alternative
missions?
Answer. Significant progress has been made at the Avangard
Electromechanical Plant, a nuclear weapons facility in Sarov where a
non-weapons related Technopark is being created. The strategy for
closure at Avangard is the following: as a significant new project is
developed, a suitably-sized facility is identified for installation of
production and assembly lines for the project; then additional real
estate is carved out of the active area, thus enlarging the Technopark
and reducing the footprint available for weapons work. The effect is to
reduce the size of the plant piece-by-piece and to contribute to the
irreversibility of downsizing by bringing in commercial enterprises.
Through the impetus of the Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI), about
10 percent of the Avangard site--including 10 acres, 6 major buildings
and over 500,000 square feet of available floorspace--has already been
moved out of the weapons area and is available for commercial non-
weapons activities. Four significant commercialization projects and
three infrastructure projects are underway at Avangard. The projects
include contributions from the Ministry of Atomic Energy (MinAtom) and
other Russian sources, and agreement has been reached between MinAtom
and the Department on levels of fiscal year 2001 funding from the NCI
program. The projects will become fully operational in 2-4 years. At
full production and employment these four commercialization projects
will provide jobs for about half of the 3,600 Avangard employees and
well over 1,000 jobs for VNIIEF employees.
Question. How much funding could be intelligently used within that
program to generate significant progress--but always conditioned on
meeting transparent milestones?
Answer. Progress is viewed differently by our two nations, and the
differences must be recognized if we are to be successful in developing
transparent milestones. To reduce costs, Russia wants to downsize its
nuclear weapons complex, but it will not abandon the people to
unemployment. Hence, the MinAtom objective is to create civilian jobs
through sustainable commercial activities and the metric is the number
of jobs created. The Russian approach is step-by-step; success with
Avangard at Sarov will allow us access to other closed nuclear cities.
In addition, strong and stable funding of the program will engender
Russian confidence in the U.S. commitment to the program, further
accelerating progress.
The U.S. objective for NCI is to obtain irreversible reduction of
the Russian nuclear complex. The metric at this time for the United
States is, therefore, the square feet of facilities (buildings) and
acreage of space converted to civilian commercial activities. As a
detailed integrating strategy develops for our Russian programs, the
metric will naturally evolve toward specific facilities that represent
a high priority for the United States.
To this end, we believe that now is the appropriate time to move
aggressively toward the rapid and irreversible closure of the Avangard
nuclear weapons facility. Given the infrastructure, which has already
been developed and the significant number of companies expressing
interest in moving into the Technopark, NCI could advance the closure
of Avangard over the next two years and be in a strong position to move
into another city.
A secondary benefit associated with this strategy is the avoidance
of cost for Material Protection, Control and Accounting Program
upgrades at these two sites.
laboratory directed research and development
Question. Did the return to the historic level for LDRD help with
morale?
Answer. Yes. The return to the 6 percent funding for LDRD did
improve morale. One of the aspects most significantly affected by the
reduction was the ability of the Laboratories to recruit new Post
Doctoral Candidates. The LDRD program supports, on the average, about
half of the funding for Post Docs across the three NNSA Laboratories. A
6 percent funding level helps provide these scientists and engineers
motivation to bring good ideas forward, both to advance the missions of
the laboratories and their own careers.
Question. I've heard a suggestion that some small amount of LDRD,
probably in addition to the 6 percent, be set aside specifically for
helping new staff members gear up for major contributions in key
programs. That strikes me as an excellent suggestion.
Do you concur that such funds would provide important new ways of
hiring new staff and helping them gain the specialized knowledge they
need for programmatic contributions?
Answer. Yes. Such funds would help in enabling the labs to improve
their efforts to recruit and retain new scientists and engineers.
Integrating new technical staff into the system of research at our labs
is vital to our retention efforts. Innovative, high-risk ideas explored
through the LDRD Program lead to research activities that team senior
technical staff with relatively new staff members. This collaboration
is beneficial for the training of new technical staff, retention of
existing staff, the development of new ideas and helping new staff
integrate into the mission of the nuclear weapons laboratories.
polygraphs
Question. Do you agree that Congress moved too fast to impose too
many requirements for polygraphs, before we have information from the
National Academy?
Answer. First, I must say that the DOE Office of
Counterintelligence has worked hard to design a professional and
effective Polygraph Program in compliance with the federal rule and the
legislation mandating its existence. Thus far, DOE has tested more than
2,000 contractors and employees and 99 percent of those tested have
stated they felt the examination was fair and did not constitute an
unwarranted invasion of privacy. Also, none of those selected to take
the test has refused to do so. I'm very happy with those results.
However, there obviously remain concerns about the test, and I want to
be responsive to those. I view the Congressionally mandated DOE
polygraph program and the National Academies' study as necessarily
moving in parallel. I do not think the program implementation should
necessarily have been delayed to await the results of the study, though
the study may provide information useful to program improvement. In
hindsight, we have concerns that the groupings of personnel required by
the legislation may not have been the most effective approach to
identifying those personnel who should be subject to a polygraph.
Within groups there are positions that vary in degree of sensitivity,
and we are studying assessment methodologies to be able to identify
those ``high-risk'' positions that we feel are most appropriate for
polygraph. This is an ongoing study whose results may suggest a change
to the legislative requirements may be appropriate. We are also very
interested in the National Academies' study of polygraph. The NAS study
will include what is known about the effect of medications, sleep
deprivation, and illnesses on the physiological responses measured
through polygraph exams. The 15-month study began on January 1, 2001,
and the final report is to be released next year. I view this study as
a potential means through which DOE may further improve on its
successful Polygraph Program.
polygraphs and employee morale
Question. Do you agree that polygraphs are negatively impacting
morale and potentially doing far more harm than any good?
Answer. I know that personnel from Sandia, Los Alamos and Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratories have discussed their concerns with the
Office of Counterintelligence, and I am aware that they are engaged in
an ongoing dialogue on the topic. We are doing all that we can to
address employee concerns with respect to the polygraph program, and
seek to minimize any negative impact it may have on recruitment and
retention. Unlike the National Security Agency and the Central
Intelligence Agency, where polygraph has long been used as a condition
of employment and is seen by employees as something of a ``rite of
passage'', our scientists in many instances are just now being
confronted with this prospect, after many years of loyal service. We
must deal with this cultural shift in a straightforward manner;
addressing their concerns while protecting our most sensitive equities
and complying with the legislation mandating polygraph.
While polygraph may now be a factor, the issues of recruitment and
retention are complex and pre-date DOE's proposed use of
counterintelligence-scope polygraph examinations. This is well
documented in the March 1999 Report of the Commission on Maintaining
United States Nuclear Weapons Expertise (Chiles Report). The Chiles
Report characterized DOE as being in a war for talent with the private
sector. The scientific and technical talent that DOE must attract and
retain has many options in today's competitive technology marketplace.
The Department is committed to achieving the goal of having both
good science and good security, and will continue to work hard to
address employee concerns that impact on that goal.
apt and aaa
Question. In the current year, Accelerator Production of Tritium
(APT) is funded within Defense Programs and Advanced Accelerator
Applications (AAA) is funded within the Nuclear Energy Office. The
Department has recently issued a report, requested by Congress, from
the Office of Nuclear Energy which was coordinated with the NNSA. That
report outlines a comprehensive program for a future AAA program that
incoroporates APT, and includes partnering with Defense Programs.
Do you concur with plans to incorporate APT into a broad AAA
program?
Answer. Yes. The nation has invested more than $600 million in
accelerator technology under the APT project. That investment can
better be realized under the AAA Program than through closure of the
project and archiving of data. The AAA Program's proposed new test
facility could provide data valuable to civilian science as well as
national security programs. In addition, the new facility, if built,
could retain the capability to be upgraded to produce tritium, if that
is ever required.
Question. And, do you agree that it is in the national interest to
advance APT technologies to the point where they could be readily
scaled up to meet stockpile needs for tritium if any issues develop
with the reactor-based program for tritium production?
Answer. I believe it is in the national interest to capitalize on
the investment of more than $600 million in accelerator technology
represented by the APT by transitioning the technology development to
the AAA program. Our primary tritium program, which will use TVA
reactors to produce tritium, is going extremely well, and we,
therefore, believe that the need for a `readily scaled up' backup is
not a wise use of taxpayer resources. Nonetheless, I agree that it
would be prudent, to include in any new facility at least the
capability to be upgraded for tritium production.
retirement systems
Question. Retirement systems are one of the most important benefits
that staff must evaluate in selecting places of employment. There are
currently vast differences among retirement benefits at the different
weapons laboratories. Furthermore, the private sector has a far wider
range of benefit options, such as stock options, that can be used to
encourage people to accept employment.
I hear from many constituents that retirement systems, most notably
at Sandia, are seriously lagging other laboratories. Sandia has
conducted their own analysis of this situation and confirmed this
discrepancy. The employees are particularly concerned because the
Sandia retirement system is extremely well funded and probably could
support much higher benefits.
In my view, the Department should be encouraging its contractors to
maximize their retirement benefits since this can have a significant
impact on their ability to hire and retain highly qualified staff.
Do you concur with this view?
Answer. Retirement systems are indeed an important consideration
when applicants and employees compare employment offers. The Department
has found that the weapons laboratories provide retirement benefits
that are equal to or above what is offered by comparable employers with
government contracts and in the private sector. Among NNSA sites (LANL,
LLNL, Sandia, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Kansas City
Plant, Bechtel Nevada, and Bechtel Bettis) the Sandia salaried Pension
Plan is second only to those at the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratories which are covered by the University of California
Retirement Plan. The Department's contractors have almost every benefit
option available to offer employees, including, in the Sandia case, the
ability to offer stock options although they have chosen not to do so.
The Department supports and encourages contractors to develop
attractive, contemporary, and competitive benefits packages.
The Department is very concerned about public and media statements
that claim that Sandia benefits are below standard. Based on our
review, the Sandia analysis entitled ``Current Pension Plan Review
March 26-29, 2001 by Joan Woodard and Ralph Bonner,'' supports the
Department's analysis and findings that Sandia's pension plan for
salaried employees and the 401(k) defined contribution plan provide a
retirement benefit equal to or greater than most comparable employers.
According to the two studies referenced in the Sandia analysis, the
2001 Hewitt Associates survey for salaried employees and the 2000
Towers Perrin High Technology BENVAL survey, Sandia's retirement
benefits rank at or near the top in a list of comparable employers.
Only when compared to the University of California Retirement Plan
(UCRP) for older employees is the Sandia defined benefit plan lower.
However, in the case of employees leaving employment before age 55,
Sandia's benefits actually exceed the UCRP in some cases. Moreover,
when the employer portion of the Sandia 401(K) defined contribution
plan is factored in for salaried employees they compare even more
favorably with the UCRP which does not include a 401(K).
With regard to the use of excess assets in the pension plan to fund
benefit increases, the Department does not view the existence of excess
assets as justification for benefit increases. To do so would
effectively penalize both the contractor and the Department for advance
funding and good asset management. Moreover, the Department's Inspector
General has previously warned the Department to not allow unwarranted
benefit increases which would be funded by the available excess funds
from the pension plans. The overfunding of a pension plan is no more
compelling a reason for increasing benefits than an underfunded plan is
for decreasing benefits, particularly in light of the fact that they
are subject to significant market fluctuations.
Finally, the Department evaluates the compensation and benefit
packages provided by its contractors from the prospective of Total
Compensation. To separate individual elements of compensation and
benefits for comparison without consideration of the Total Compensation
can be misleading and result in unnecessary cost escalation.
advanced hydrotest facility at lanl
Question. An advanced hydrotest facility has long been planned for
the stockpile stewardship program. In fiscal year 2001, $15 million was
appropriated for R&D and pre-conceptual designs for a facility using
protons. As you know Los Alamos has had some substantial developments
in this area.
What are the plans for continued development of this facility in
fiscal year 2002?
Answer. The continuing program of proton radiography experiments at
Los Alamos and Brookhaven have been successful and show that this new
technology is a promising and viable option for application to meet the
radiographic requirements for primary certification. NNSA's plans and
path forward for Advanced Radiography are contained in the Hydrotest
and Radiography Requirements--Interim Report provided to this committee
in response to HR 106-116. The AHF pre-conceptual design activities led
by Los Alamos continue to meet the milestones laid out in this report.
Principal milestones for NNSA are to complete pre-conceptual design
review activities in fiscal year 2001 and then to review our
understanding of the requirements for an advanced radiography facility
and the status of current technologies in order to support a mission
need determination in early fiscal year 2002.
We have commissioned a JASON review of primary certification
requirements and the role of an AHF in meeting those requirements. This
study will be performed this summer and will give us a preliminary look
at the issues that we will review further before making a mission need
determination.
If a mission need decision is made (Critical Decision-0), then we
would continue to support Conceptual Design activities in fiscal year
2002 with Operation and Maintenance funding in the advanced radiography
campaign. The effort that can be applied to conceptual design and
engineering development and demonstration activities in the fiscal year
2002 budget submission have been balanced against other requirements,
including advanced radiography campaign efforts to optimize DARHT I,
support the commissioning of DARHT II, and certification activities.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Larry E. Craig
upgrades to the advanced test reactor
Question. Upgrades to the Advanced Test Reactor. The Naval Reactors
Program is the primary programmatic ``customer'' at the Advanced Test
Reactor at the INEEL. There have been proposals to invest in some
facility upgrades at the Advanced Test Reactor to construct a dedicated
experiment assembly area and to upgrade experiment handling equipment.
These upgrades would attract additional users to the Advanced Test
Reactor, and would therefore reduce the overhead costs charged to Naval
Reactors. Would you be supportive of these facility upgrades, if
funding could be found within DOE's budget?
Answer. Yes, NR supports the proposed upgrades. Seven years ago NR
vacated test space in the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) to provide access
for other customers to reduce NR costs. Since that time, NR has
actively supported efforts by DOE and the operating contractor to bring
in new customers to use this space. Two years ago, DOE's branch of
Nuclear Energy (NE) funded the installation of a new experiment
facility, the Irradiation Test Vehicle (ITV) to support additional
testing. The ITV enhanced ATR capabilities by allowing for the testing
of multiple capsules with independent temperature control. Currently
the ITV is not being used, and only a small number of other capsule
experiments are being run in ATR. Enhancing the ability to assemble
capsules and handle tests will increase the likelihood for other
customers to use the ATR, reducing the costs paid by NR through the
DOE. NR supports these upgrades that will have minimal effect on NR
testing, while enhancing the utilization of the ATR. NR supports
continued effort by NE to make upgrades that will improve ATR testing
and data gathering capabilities and bring in other customers.
bn-350 reactor
Question. Given the strategic importance of Kazakhstan from both an
energy and a geopolitical perspective, could you describe the
Department's plan for fulfilling the commitments that the U.S. has made
to assist Kazakhstan?''
Answer. The project at the BN-350 breeder reactor in Aktau has
indeed been a major nonproliferation success. By June, NNSA will have
completed the packaging of the plutonium-rich BN-350 spent fuel. The
theft vulnerability of the material is now orders of magnitude less
than it was in 1995 when the Department first visited Aktau. The
Department has spent $15 million on material protection, control, and
accounting measures at the reactor facility. In June, we will complete
the packaging of nearly 3000 assemblies containing about three tons of
weapons-grade plutonium. The packaged material is now in the BN-350
pool and is as secure from theft as it will ever be. By July, NNSA will
have spent $43 million on the spent fuel disposition aspects of this
project.
The 1997 agreement provided a ``provisional'' approach to the long-
term storage at the Baikal site on the opposite side of Kazakhstan from
the BN-350. The agreement committed the Department to support that
approach unless logistical, technical, or costs issues made that
approach infeasible. Last September, a joint U.S./Kazakhstan study
concluded that there are significant advantages to storing the material
at Aktau both technically and financially. For unclear reasons, the
Government of Kazakhstan decided to ship the material to Baikal. The
Department does not have the funds to support that decision and is
concerned that this approach was not supported by the joint U.S./
Kazakhstani study.
In January, Kazakhstani officials announced that they had developed
a plan that would allow them to transport and store the material at
Baikal on their own. They asked for U.S. help in the area of security
and for the design and construction of the storage site, as well as any
other aspect of the project. The Department's priorities remain focused
on the proliferation risks of the material. Therefore, we intend to
address the physical protection requirements of transporting and
storing the material, as the Kazakhstanis requested. We also intend to
continue supporting the IAEA in a comprehensive program of safeguards
against a successful diversion of the material's plutonium. These two
efforts will require most of the project's budget.
In February 1999, Kazakhstan requested NNSA assistance in upgrading
the safety of the reactor following a critical review of the plant by
an IAEA team. Subsequently, Kazakhstan announced that the reactor would
be shutdown permanently. The plan is to place the reactor in a
radiologically and industrially safe condition over the next 7 years
and to maintain it for up to 50 years before it is dismantled.
Kazakhstan has requested United States and international technical and
financial assistance for the shutdown project.
In December 1999, the Secretary of Energy and Minister Shkolnik
signed a joint Implementing Arrangement for decommissioning the BN-350.
The Arrangement states that the United States and Kazakhstan will
cooperate in the shutdown project. Specifically, DOE will support
decontaminating, draining and deactivating the sodium coolant; and
development of a decommissioning plan that will be reviewed under the
auspices of the IAEA. The Implementing Arrangement also states that DOE
will assist Kazakhstan to find additional international partners for
the decommissioning project.
Decommissioning the BN-350 will permanently eliminate a source of
weapons-grade material production. It also will eliminate a nuclear
safety concern on the shores of the Caspian Sea in a strategically
vulnerable region that is about 150 miles south of the Kashagan oil
field. The project has the additional objectives of sustaining a
nuclear infrastructure within Kazakhstan to support the remaining four
research reactors and fostering Kazakhstan independence.
Decontaminating, draining and deactivating the coolant, as well as the
immediate safety upgrades, will cost about $29 million over five to
seven years. Because of the nonproliferation nature of the project,
NNSA has been able to obtain commitments from State's NDF, ISTC and AID
programs for most of these funds. NNSA is also working to form a
collaborative project with Japan.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid
administration strategic review
Question. I've heard that the budget we just received up here may
be changed as a result of the recommendations in the forthcoming
strategic review of the DOD programs. Is this true?
Answer. Yes. The results and recommendations of the strategic
reviews will set the Administration's budgetary priorities for defense
and national security-related activities. The President believes that
the Nation's defense strategy must drive decisions on defense
resources--not the other way around. Accordingly, the Administration
plans to determine final fiscal year 2002 and outyear funding requests
once the Strategic Defense Review is complete. That means that there is
a possibility that a budget amendment will be forthcoming.
Question. Can you give me an idea about when this will come up to
us?
Answer. I must defer to the White House on when the reviews will be
finalized. We will work with you and your staffs to assure that we
provide all of the information you need to evaluate our requirements
for fiscal year 2002 and the outyears.
infrastructure
Question. Several weeks ago, you testified to this committee about
infrastructure problems across the weapons complex. For the members who
couldn't make that hearing, can you briefly tell this committee why
this occurred?
Answer. The current condition of the nuclear weapons complex is
attributable to several factors, among which are the age of the
complex, facility & infrastructure underfunding, and the increasing
demands placed on facility management by current environmental, safety
and health laws and regulations. The majority of the facilities are 40
years or older. The design lives of many of these facilities have been
exceeded, using any reasonable standard. Facility and infrastructure
requirements have been underfunded for a long time. This chronic
underfunding has taken a significant and measurable toll on our
facilities. Finally, the costs directly attributable to compliance with
today's health, safety, and environmental requirements continues to
grow.
Question. What will it cost Congress to make repairs after this
long period of neglect?
Answer. I believe that I am prepared to efficiently execute between
$200-$300 million to start our recapitalization of the complex in the
first year. Following thereafter, I believe that $500 million will be
required annually for the next ten years to restore and recapitalize
the complex. No funds were included in the current fiscal year 2002
request pending completion of the strategic review.
Question. DOE has a very bad record of construction management. If
the Congress were to provide that much money, how can we be assured
that the problems will get fixed?
Answer. As stated in the Defense Programs ``Annual Report to
Congress on Construction Project Accomplishments'' dated January 17,
2001, Defense Programs has committed to a multi-year project management
improvement campaign that is targeted at eliminating root cause project
management problems through a fundamental change in culture and
process. The PM Improvement Campaign encompasses the recommendations of
numerous external review groups and the results of extensive bench
marking of best practices being employed by both public and private
industry. The Campaign is subdivided into eight individual goals
designed to significantly improve project planning, decision making,
lessons learned, career development for project managers, and complex
wide procedures. Definitive results will not occur over night, studies
by OMB have shown that at least three years is required to turn a
culture around.
Defense Programs/NNSA is committed to maintaining the momentum of
implementing change through such techniques as new start Independent
Project Reviews (IPRs) of line item new starts to ensure program
requirements are clearly defined, a competent integrated project team
is in place to address stakeholder issues, and sound planning baselines
have been established for execution of the work.
Question. Why not wait on the infrastructure initiative until after
the Administration completes its strategic review?
Answer. I remain close to the analysis being conducted by the
Department of Defense regarding our military needs, particularly those
dealing with the strategic nuclear posture of our forces. We are
committed to retention of a weapons production capability, even if we
reduce the number of weapons on hand. There is not a strong direct
correlation between weapons reduction and facility requirements. One
element of a credible deterrent is to have a production complex that
can meet existing requirements and respond to emerging threats in a
timely manner. As you also know, I am committed to reducing the
footprint of our current sites and facilities. In this case, we are
looking for additional resources to eliminate unused facilities that
have no part in our recapitalization plan.
administration strategic review
Question. Last year's authorization act strongly reinforced the
requirement for a Five Year Budget Plan for NNSA. Is it included with
the fiscal year 2002 budget?
Answer. The National Nuclear Security Administration's final Future
Years Nuclear Security Program for fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year
2007 is currently undergoing review and will be submitted to Congress
after completion of the President's strategic review of national
security-related activities.
Question. How much money is allocated to the weapons laboratories
in the fiscal year 2002 request?
Answer. The fiscal year 2002 budget request allocates $2.901
billion to the three national security laboratories. This comprises 55
percent of the request. It is important to remember that this is a
preliminary allocation based on the Congressional request, and it will
likely be updated with the completion of the strategic review.
nevada test site
The NNSA, in order to meet its legal obligations under the Federal
Facility Agreement with the State of Nevada in regards to the Nevada
Test Site is required to provide for the protection of underground
water resources that may be threatened by the underground nuclear
testing program.
The plugging and abandonment of underground nuclear test boreholes
will prevent the transmigration of radiological contaminant between
groundwater layers and potentially prevent the contamination of
drinking water supplies. I am particularly pleased that your budget
request provides a significant increase in funding (from $800,000 to $4
million in fiscal year 2002) over past years, but I am interested in
your long term commitment to this project. I have heard that this
project could ultimately cost over $150 million and take over five
years to accomplish.
Question. Will the NNSA support this long term effort or should
this subcommittee explore placing this project with the Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management Program?
Answer. The NNSA agrees that protection of ground water in and
surrounding the Nevada Test Site is very important. Total Project Cost
estimate to accomplish the project in 6 years is in the $144 million
range. To that end, we have set aside approximately $4.6 M in fiscal
year 2002 to support work to prevent potential contamination from
expended nuclear test holes and plan to continue this work at a funding
level of $5 M in fiscal year 2003. We are projecting that increased
work, funded at a level of approximately $10 M, will be appropriate in
fiscal year 2004. In fiscal year 2005, the program effort will be
evaluated to determine what future work and funding levels will be
optimum. Outyear funding is contingent on the conclusion of
Administration's review of our 5-year budget.
The NNSA works closely and cooperatively with the Department of
Energy Environmental Management staff on this effort. However, the
areas of the Nevada Test Site in which these expended nuclear test
holes are located, are integral to the NNSA mission and correcting
these effects remains our responsibility.
Question. Are you going to move the Atlas facility from LANL to the
Nevada Test Site since additional funds were provided last year?
Answer. We have utilized the funds provided last year to fully plan
the move but we have not provided funds in the fiscal year 2002 budget
request to move the facility. An ATLAS project team has been formed, an
environmental assessment has been performed, and design of a new
building to house the machine at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) is
underway. Plans are also being formulated to dismantle, move,
reassemble, and recommission the ATLAS machine to prepare for full
scale operation at the NTS.
It is expected that ATLAS will operate on an interim basis at Los
Alamos for the entire year of fiscal year 2002 to conduct experiments
for the Dynamic Materials Properties Campaign in support of the
Stockpile Stewardship Program. It is expected that the actual
disassembly, move, and reassembly of the machine will be started in
fiscal year 2003 and be completed in early fiscal year 2004, assuming
adequate budget support.
Question. Is the sub-critical program on track?
Answer. Yes. The subcritical experiment program is active,
providing important information for stockpile stewardship and helping
to maintain nuclear test readiness. In fiscal year 2001, we are
planning to complete three experiments and eight are planned for fiscal
year 2002. Subcriticals are providing valuable data on the behavior of
plutonium which is crucial to an enhanced understanding of nuclear
weapons. The conduct of these experiments exercise many of the skills
that would be needed if it were necessary to resume underground
testing.
plutonium pits
Question. At a previous hearing regarding the status and challenges
that face the NNSA you mentioned the problem of Pit Certification. You
indicated in that testimony that we could expect pit certification to
be the same kind of story as NIF.
``Underfunded, under-costed, under-scheduled, and under-planned''
were your words. Your fiscal year 2002 request calls for over $128
million for what is termed ``Pit Manufacturing and Certification.'' In
addition you have requested almost $83 million for the CMR and TA-55
facilities at Los Alamos where a majority of that Pit work will be
done. I went through the financial schedule for this CMR facility that
the Department provided to this Subcommittee in last year's budget
request and the total appropriation provided for this facility from
fiscal year 1992 to fiscal year 2001 was over $106 million.
Appropriations for Pit Manufacturing and certification in fiscal year
200 and fiscal year 2001 totaled over $250 million.
I'm sure that if we go back to the early 90's and check, we will
find close to a billion dollars total for this mission whose completion
is still not within sight, and which, by your own acknowledgement, is
badly broken.
Question. General Gordon, can you outline for me, either now or in
writing, the precise steps you are planning to take to restore this
program's credibility?
Answer. This program has been assigned the highest priority by the
NNSA and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), and both are committed
to its success. LANL has appointed experienced project managers for
both the pit manufacturing and pit certification projects and has given
them the necessary fiscal and programmatic responsibility. Similarly,
the NNSA has established a Pit Project Office at DOE Headquarters
headed by an experienced project manager. This Office will ensure that
the pit project meets programmatic objectives. The pit manufacturing
and certification effort is being projectized for fiscal year 2002
based on a W88 Pit Manufacturing and Certification Integrated Project
Plan. The W88 pit manufacturing and certification effort has been
reviewed both technically and programmatically by DOE and external
reviewers. Additional reviews will be conducted to assess programmatic
risks and to ensure the program is on track. The W88 pit manufacturing
and certification project is essential to demonstrate that the nuclear
stockpile can be maintained without nuclear testing and will continue
to receive the highest level of attention.
Question. Why is Los Alamos producing plutonium pits if the United
States isn't manufacturing new nuclear weapons?
Answer. The Los Alamos National Laboratory is working to produce
replacement pits for the W88 warhead because production of W88 pits was
abruptly stopped at the Rocky Flats Plant (RFP) in 1989 before enough
pits were produced to meet required destructive pit assessments during
the projected 20-year design life of the W88 warhead. In addition, the
manufacture and certification of a W88 pit without nuclear testing is a
principal challenge of the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Absent the
manufacture of new nuclear weapons, newly manufactured pits still must
be produced to replace those pits that are destructively assessed in
the surveillance process during the design life of the nuclear warhead.
national ignition facility
Question. You recently submitted to the Congress the NIF
certification package. I will let Chairman Domenici's thoughts on the
completeness of that certification stand as my view. Setting those
concerns aside for the moment, I want to hear from you, clearly and
concisely, both that you must have the full 198 Beam NIF and an
explanation of why NIF is so important to the Stockpile Stewardship
Program. You have been the Administrator for long enough now to form
your own view.
Is this something you have to have to fulfill your mission?
Answer. Yes, the NNSA must have the full 192-beam NIF in order to
meet the needs of the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) and fulfill
the NNSA mission to maintain the safety, security and reliability, of
the US nuclear weapons, both now and in the future.
NIF is important to the SSP for three reasons. One, it will provide
unique experimental weapon physics capability, for the study of issues
which can affect an aging or refurbished stockpile. Two, it will
advance critical elements of the underlying science of nuclear weapons
that will play a major role in validation of the advanced simulation
codes. Three, it helps to attract and train the exceptional scientific
and technical talent required to sustain the SSP over the long term.
NIF is an essential facility of the high-energy-density physics
(HEDP) program within the SSP. As you know from my NIF certification
package, NNSA's Office of Defense Programs recently reviewed the HEDP
program, with a particular focus on the NIF, and whether there are
alternatives to the full 192-beam NIF. The baseline HEDP program,
including the full 192-beam NIF, meets the requirements, and is the
appropriate path forward.
If we do not have the NIF to further our knowledge and capabilities
in the area of high-energy-density physics (HEDP), as it relates to the
current nuclear weapons stockpile, the deterrent, will be at risk.
Without the full tool set identified for SSP, we will not be able to
adequately assess the types of issues that are sure to arise.
We must provide our future stewards the ability to quantitatively
determine the validity of their models when applied to situations not
explicitly covered by the existing set of test results. NIF is the only
HEDP facility currently in the Defense Program's baseline or being
discussed that provides the experimental capabilities needed to
approach this task.
Question. What is included in the fiscal year 2002 budget for the
National Ignition Facility and is it consistent with recently approved
baseline for the project?
Answer. Senator, I included the approved NIF Funding Profile
through fiscal year 2008 in the referenced certification. In addition,
I submitted a follow-up, clarifying letter on April 13, 2001 wherein I
stated that under the current fiscal year 2002 budget profile, the
National Nuclear Security Administration would be required to
restructure the NIF and other elements of the Stockpile Stewardship
Program if the requirements remain the same. However, the Nuclear
Security Program for fiscal year 2002 through 2007 is currently under
consideration as part of the President's comprehensive strategic review
of national security-related activities. Any changes resulting from the
conclusion of the review will be transmitted to Congress as part of the
final plan.
Within the requirements budget, the NIF construction project
requires at total of $246 million construction funding with an
additional $72 million operating and maintenance funding for a total of
$318 million in fiscal year 2002. This is consistent with the approved
baseline.
hazardous activities
Question. During our subcommittee hearing last year I expressed
some concern about the planning process that is employed by NNSA in
selecting technologies and ultimate location for high hazard high risk
work. I have an overriding concern that large investments in hazardous
new facilities are being made with consideration for the premature
obsolescence of these facilities brought about by public encroachment.
The fiscal year 2001 Appropriation made available $15 mission to
support research, development and conceptual design for an advanced
hydrodynamic test facility for advanced radiography. Your fiscal year
2002 budget request indicates that Defense Programs may initiate a
conceptual design for an AHF or advanced hydro facility which will cost
in excess of $3 billion.
General, I am very concerned that this subcommittee and the
Congress are blindly agreeing to a major system acquisition without the
appropriate reviews and validations of technologies. Additionally, the
informed decision making required to determine the right location
should be completed before another billion dollar stockpile stewardship
physics machine is agreed to for your agency.
Are you willing to provide me with a report describing the process
that you intend to use to make the requisite recommendation to this
subcommittee and the Congress prior to the Administration making any
further expenditure of resources?
Answer. We reported our planning and review process for an advanced
radiography facility in an interim report on Advanced Radiography and
Hydrotest Requirements submitted to Congress this past February. As
indicated in the report, we expect to complete trade studies and
requirements studies for a proton radiography based facility by the end
of fiscal year 2001 so that we can make a mission need determination
(CD-0) during the first quarter of fiscal year 2002. A complete set of
independent reviews will be part of our process for making any
determination about mission need.
I have committed to submitting a final report to the Congress upon
completion of these reviews, which I expect to occur in early fiscal
year 2002. We have commissioned the JASONs to undertake a review of
primary certification requirements, the role and conduct of
hydrotesting, and the status of development of advanced radiography
technologies and capabilities.
NNSA shares your concerns about the impact of encroachment on the
long term viability of facilities and this is a significant factor in
any site selection determination. The potential siting of an advanced
hydrodynamic facility (AHF) was described in the Stockpile Stewardship
and Management Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
(September 1996) and remains unchanged. Due to the nature of dynamic
experiments and hydrodynamic testing to be conducted in the facility,
AHF would probably be considered for location at the Nevada Test Site
and Los Alamos only. Appropriate National Environmental Protection Act
studies and completion of the conceptual design report are among the
requirements to be completed prior to site selection.
tritium
Question. What is the status of the tritium program?
Answer. The tritium program is on schedule to meet current
requirements and remains within its baseline budget. DOE and TVA
continue to implement the Interagency Agreement that went into effect
in January 2000 for the irradiation of tritium-producing rods in TVA's
Watts Bar and Sequoyah reactors. Regulatory review by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission of TVA's license amendment requests associated
with the use of the DOE tritium rods are expected to be completed well
in advance of the fall of 2003, when the initial irradiation of the
rods would take place given current requirements.
Construction of the structural portions of the new tritium
extraction facility at the Savannah River Site is underway, and
detailed design of the balance of the facility will be completed as
scheduled.
A contract has been signed with WesDyne, a subsidiary of
Westinghouse, for fabrication of the tritium rods, and contracts with
vendors for all components have either been signed or are in final
negotiation. Finally, a Request for Proposals has been prepared, issued
for comment by potential bidders, and will soon be issued in final form
to acquire transportation services to take the rods from the TVA
reactors to the tritium extraction facility.
Question. What about the APT program?
Answer. The APT program is proceeding with engineering development
and demonstration and preliminary design activities planned for fiscal
year 2001. This year, the program will document the status of
preliminary design work on the APT plant. The program will also
complete radio-frequency quadrupole beam halo experiments using the APT
Low Energy Demonstration Accelerator. Consistent with Congressional
legislation and funding for fiscal year 2001, the APT program is
supporting the Department's efforts to establish a program for Advanced
Accelerator Applications. If fully implemented, this program would
conduct research and develop technologies for transmutation of spent
nuclear fuel. If implemented, the AAA program would include the design
and construction of an Accelerator Driven Test Facility that could be
upgraded to produce tritium for the stockpile, if that is ever needed.
Due to funding constraints and priorities for the Stockpile
Stewardship program, $1 million was requested for the APT program in
fiscal year 2002. This funding level will not support continuation of
APT project work beyond fiscal year 2001.
Question. I thought the license amendments were to be submitted to
the NRC in March. Is there a technical issue that could delay
irradiation in TVA's reactors?
Answer. We are on track to produce tritium by early 2006 and I do
not believe there is any problem, technical or administrative, that
will delay the irradiation of the tritium rods in the TVA reactors. The
Watts Bar and Sequoyah license amendment packages have been completed,
and with the exception a number of calculations that are being
independently checked, the great majority of the analyses for Watts Bar
was submitted to the NRC on May 1, to be followed in the next few weeks
with a similar Sequoyah submittal. The NRC has committed to expedite
the review of these license amendment requests.
We have awarded a contract for the production of the tritium rods
and in July 2000, ground was broken for the new Tritium Extraction
Facility (TEF) at the Savannah River Site. Construction of the facility
is underway.
Question. When will the license amendments be submitted to the NRC
now? Any impact on supplying tritium for the stockpile?
Answer. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has now received the
great majority of the license amendment submittal for Watts Bar, and
will receive a similar package for Sequoyah within the next several
weeks. The remaining calculations that are now being independently
reviewed for both plants will be submitted when the reviews are
completed and any necessary modifications made. The timing of these
submittals will have no impact on our ability to supply tritium to the
stockpile when required, and the NRC has committed to an expeditious
review of the amendment applications.
progress on the accelerated strategic computing initiative
Question. Describe the progress on the Accelerated Strategic
Computing Initiative, and what is included in the fiscal year 2002
budget.
Answer. ASCI has, in fewer than five years, produced results that
make it the most successful high-performance computing program in U.S.
history. The world's four fastest computers are ASCI systems. These
systems coupled with other ASCI accomplishments is such areas as
scalable algorithms, programming techniques, and visualization
capabilities have enabled unprecedented modeling and simulation
achievements. In December 1999, the first-ever, three dimensional
simulation of a nuclear weapon primary explosion was successfully
completed and in April 2000 the first-ever three dimensional simulation
of a nuclear weapon secondary explosion was successfully completed. At
about the same time we completed the first-ever , three-dimensional
computer simulations of a weapon system exposed to hostile radiation
and blast environments. These simulations included the performance of
the neutron generator in a radiation field. Only a few years ago, it
would not have been possible to run these calculations. These
accomplishments give us high confidence that all computational program
goals and objectives can be achieved.
The requested 2002 budget continues the ASCI program at a slightly
reduced pace. It provides for continued procurement of the 30 teraOPS
machine for the Los Alamos National Laboratory and for the initiation
of procurement activities for a 20 teraOPS machine for the Sandia
National Laboratories and a 60 teraOPS machine for Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory. Final delivery of the 30T machine is scheduled for
April 2002. The 20T and 60T machines are planned for delivery in fiscal
years 2003 and 2004, respectively. No commitment can be made for the
delivery date of the 100 teraOps machine pending completion of the
strategic review. Development of the weapons performance and
engineering codes will continue at the planned pace. Major deliverables
from the code projects are the prototype three-dimensional full-system
burn code due December 2001 and the completion of a three-dimensional
safety simulation of a complex explosion-initiated scenario due in the
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2002. The ASCI University Alliance
program will be supported in fiscal year 2002 at the same level as in
fiscal year 2001.
Question. Why do you need all those large and expensive machines
since I understand that the laboratories aren't fully utilizing what
they have?
Answer. ASCI computers currently at each of the weapons
laboratories are being fully utilized. At present, about 50 percent of
the time is devoted to directed stockpile work, about 25 percent is
utilized for the ASCI milepost calculations, and the remainder supports
code development and validation activities. We receive and monitor
monthly machine usage reports from the labs, and we poll the tri-lab
resource allocation committee frequently. These reports indicate that
not only are the machines fully utilized, they are oversubscribed as
measured by the number of jobs waiting in queues in order to gain
access to the machines. Some jobs wait many days to access these
limited resources.
The supercomputers currently at the laboratories are helping us to
meet the present needs of the stockpile stewardship program but larger
systems are required, our scientists and engineers say in the 100
teraOps range, to fully simulate a nuclear detonation.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Domenici. Okay. Thank you all. We stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:19 p.m., Thursday, April 26, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:06 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert F. Bennett presiding.
Present: Senators Bennett, Craig, Reid, and Dorgan.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Power Technologies, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT DIXON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY
Office of Science
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES DECKER, ACTING DIRECTOR
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD, IV, DIRECTOR
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID
Senator Reid [presiding]. The subcommittee is called to
order.
Senator Domenici is one of the busiest people around here
and, as you know, Senator Domenici has the responsibilities to
lead this subcommittee. And in addition to that, he has other
responsibilities as one of the senior members around here. He
is not here now, and he asked me to start this hearing.
I am not nearly as busy as Senator Domenici, but I also
have other things to do. And as a result of that, this hearing
will probably be a little bifurcated, to say the least.
Senator Domenici has also, I understand, been called to a
meeting with the leader, Senator Lott, at 10:30. So be patient.
This could take a little while today, according to what Senator
Domenici wants. But he did give me permission to start this
hearing, to get my statement out of the way.
Let me say that I have a complete statement. I would ask
you gentlemen--we will submit a copy of it to you, each of you,
and I would ask you to read it.
I simply want to say that we welcome you here this morning.
We have looked at your statements.
The concern that I have--and Senator Domenici can speak for
himself, but I think he may have some problems also, I think we
have some real problems with these numbers here.
I am very, very concerned that we have these drastic cuts
in programs that I think are so, so important.
And we are here today talking about the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of Science, the
Office of Nuclear Energy. Every one of these is so important to
the future of this country and to the future of the world, and
to have these severe cuts is really unbelievable.
We know we need to have new clean energy technologies. They
are emerging every day. We have to be involved in those. It
simply will not happen unless there is a clear, unambiguous
stamp of approval from Congress and the White House for a range
of policies, mechanisms and funding to move forward.
We know the benefits of stronger commitments to renewable
energy, to enhance national security due to reduced dependence
on foreign sources of oil, enhance security of energy supply,
revitalize and stabilize agricultural economy, new
manufacturing and service jobs, increased export markets,
cleaner air and water, and more sustainable use of productive
lands and forests.
So I can certainly make my case by numbers. There is really
no reason to do that. It is in my statement.
But we know that on average we throw away about two-thirds
of the energy we use to generate electricity in the United
States. The amount of heat energy that is sent up to cooling
towers down rivers and otherwise wasted is equivalent to
Japan's total annual energy use.
Modern combined heat and power plants can more than double
the efficiency of electricity generation of fossil fuels, but
without Federal R&D dollars, deployments of these types of
technologies will be delayed, delayed, and delayed. We have to
be involved.
We have heard many times that our nation, which has just 5
percent of the world's population, produces more than 25
percent of the CO2 emissions. So no matter where one
stands on climate changes, this is a percentage that should
concern everyone, and renewable technologies to help us to
drive this percentage down.
We have done so much better in the ability to produce
electricity by wind. And it is a result of the research that
has been done, stimulated by the federal Government. Prices
have dropped 90 percent since 1980 to produce electricity by
wind, 90 percent. As a result, electricity can now be generated
more cheaply from wind than natural gas in the United States.
So I met with some power folks yesterday from Nevada and
they were very enthused about what Bonneville is attempting to
do; that is to solicit 1,000 megawatts of wind power for the
energy-challenged Northeast. And this is a lot of electricity,
hundreds of thousands of homes.
North Dakota and Texas, we are told, have enough wind there
to supply most of the nation's power, just those two States, if
they had adequate transmission capabilities, properly placed
R&D investments.
Around the Nevada test site, we are told that there is
enough sun there to generate enough solar electricity to take
care of the whole United States.
Now, I know that covering this area of Nevada with solar
panels is probably not very practical, but it shows what can be
done. And right now in most of that area, there is nothing.
That is where we have set off bombs.
But none of this is going to happen unless we do some
research and development to continue that. I know that the Vice
President, the Secretary of Energy, and the rest of the members
of the present energy task force are some place, and they are
trying to solve all these energy problems. And I think it is
important that they are doing that.
But one of the places we have to start is right here with
this subcommittee. And I think that you should all take the
message back to the Administration that these cuts simply will
not happen.
So each of you should go back to your offices and tell the
Office of Management and Budget that you are going to get more
money. And if they need to prove how you are going to spend it,
that is fine. But you are going to have more money.
We are not going to stand by at a time when we are talking
about blackouts, global warming and all the other things, to
cut back on something this important.
Is Senator Domenici on his way, do you think?
Staff. I believe he is on his way.
Senator Reid. Senator Domenici is on his way, and you would
be surprised what I have also. I have a Travel and Tourism
matter at 10:15. I have got the Interior Committee, where we
are going to hear from the head of the Forest Service at 10
o'clock. And then Senator Daschle has called me to a meeting in
his office at 10:30. So I am sorry that we have all that.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT DIXON
I would like Dr. Robert Dixon, Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Office of Power Technologies, to proceed with your statement.
Dr. Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are submitting
written testimony for the record. I would also like to offer an
oral statement this morning. And we have made copies of the
statement available for Members----
Senator Reid. That will be made part of the record.
FISCAL YEAR 2002 RENEWABLE ENERGY BUDGET REQUEST
Dr. Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, good morning and thank you for the
opportunity to present our fiscal year 2002 budget request for
the energy and water development programs in Renewable Energy
Resources.
I am Dr. Robert K. Dixon, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
the Office of Power Technologies. I'm here today on behalf of
our Acting Director, Dr. Abraham Haspel, who was called away,
due to some serious health problems.
The energy investments proposed in our 2002 budget request
address today's energy problems and provide the technology base
for the next generation of energy needs. These investments can
help reduce our dependence on imported energy sources, address
the critical need for expanded energy supply and upgrade the
energy infrastructure in the electric power sector.
The 2002 budget request totals almost $277 million. This
figure includes an amendment to our original budget request for
a little more than $39 million. The Administration expects to
submit this amendment in the next few days.
In an effort to control spending, it's always necessary to
identify priorities and focus on the most critical activities.
Because of their strategic importance, the Secretary has
identified five programs to be funded at or near fiscal year
2001 levels.
These programs include bioenergy, hydrogen, hydropower,
electric energy systems and the Renewable Energy Production
Incentive program.
While we have adjusted the request for our other programs,
the requested funding levels still maintain core competencies
and allow a continued progress towards our national technology
goals.
Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you that solar, wind and
geothermal programs remain a vital part of our portfolio and
are essential to implementing a balanced and robust national
energy policy.
Next graphic, please.
[Presentation of a slide.]
NATIONAL ENERGY PROBLEM
Dr. Dixon. Mr. Chairman, clearly we are facing severe
national energy problems. The President of the United States
recently called the electricity crunch a national crisis.
If the worst-case electricity shortage scenarios occur, up
to two-thirds of the 125 million American electricity users
could be affected. We have developed an alternative energy R&D
portfolio that is responsive to these national needs.
Next graphic, please.
[Presentation of a slide.]
Dr. Dixon. Mr. Chairman, we are working together. We have a
window of opportunity to address national energy problems. The
new national energy plan, which is being developed under the
leadership of Vice President Cheney is expected to be released
in the next several weeks and will contain important guidance
for the future directions and priorities of our programs.
The Hydrogen Reauthorization Bill is before Congress. It
lays the foundation for revitalization of the nation's energy
infrastructure, a critically important undertaking in solving
America's energy crisis.
Hydroelectricity, a vital resource today, could be
significantly less important in the future if we do not
streamline our re-licensing processes.
Creation of new rules of the game for utility markets and
regulation is proving to be an extraordinarily complex
undertaking. We can do better.
Our power generation, transmission and distribution
infrastructure needs to be modernized. We need new power
supplies and an up-to-date infrastructure to keep the lights on
and the Internet humming.
The electricity intensity of the newly emerging E-commerce
sector is placing great demands on our power system, and is
spurring the transition from the analog to the digital age for
power.
Mr. Chairman, this is truly a decade of decision for
alternative energy R&D investments.
Next graphic, please.
[Presentation of a slide.]
RENEWABLE ENERGY R&D
Dr. Dixon. Mr. Chairman, this is our portfolio of
technologies and programs. We invest in three areas: Renewable
energy, distributed energy resources, and electricity system
reliability and power quality.
I will highlight two of the Secretary's fiscal year 2002
R&D priorities, bioenergy and distributed energy resources,
before I close my remarks.
Mr. Chairman, our proposed bioenergy activities focus on
three elements: Biomass for electric power production, biomass
for transportation fuels, and biomass for industrial feed
stocks and products.
We are requesting almost $82 million for collaborative
research and we are working hard to align our program to help
carry out the Biomass R&D Act of 2000.
We are working very closely with our industrial and
academic partners and with other Federal agencies, especially
the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Next graphic, please.
[Presentation of a slide.]
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES
Dr. Dixon. Mr. Chairman, our activities in distributed
energy resources are an example of our 2002 budget directions
and priorities.
Distributed energy is an important concept in a
restructured utility market that focuses on energy technologies
that can be installed on site, provide clean, affordable,
reliable energy supplies directly to the consumers. Natural gas
is an important fuel for the distributed energy systems of
today and for tomorrow.
The nation needs a distributed energy system that can
operate efficiently and safely in concert with the traditional
power system. It needs to be integrated, optimized, seamless
and able to incorporate emerging technologies.
For example, hydrogen energy is plentiful and clean and is
compatible with existing distributed energy devices, such as
fuel cells, engines and combustion turbines. Distributed energy
resources provide new supplies and address the nation's aging
transmission and distribution infrastructure.
Approximately 70 percent of the transmission lines,
transformer banks, circuit breakers in the United States are
over 25 years old. And we greatly need to work together to
improve or upgrade or replace this equipment.
The proposed program, Electric Energy Systems, includes
funding for high-temperature superconductivity, R&D for cables,
motors, and transformers that have near-zero line losses.
Mr. Chairman, our distributed energy resources portfolio is
responsive to our nation's near and long-term energy needs.
I would like to close my remarks by highlighting a few key
points. The 2002 budget request provides for a robust portfolio
of research and development programs in renewable and energy
efficiency resources.
These Federal investments are critical to address America's
energy needs, both today and in the future. Again our request
is almost $277 million, this figure--and it includes an
amendment for a little over $39 million, which will be
submitted by the Administration in the near future.
The Secretary has identified five programs to be funded at
or near the 2001 levels. These include bioenergy, hydrogen,
hydropower, electric energy systems and the renewable energy
production incentive activity.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to offer this
presentation today. I stand ready to respond to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Robert K. Dixon
Chairman Domenici, Senator Reid and members of the Subcommittee, it
is a pleasure to be here today to discuss the Administration's fiscal
year 2002 budget request for the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy. Fiscal year 2002 is a transition year for our
programs. Our budget supports the Administration's commitment to
moderate discretionary spending while meeting critical national needs
in energy security and environmental quality. Furthermore, our budget
adjusts program requests to refine the Department's missions, and to
allow the implementation of management strategies that will meet future
challenges.
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's budget also
reflects two Administration themes: first, enhancing energy security--
decreasing U.S. reliance on oil imports by increasing technology
efficiencies and by increasing domestic renewable energy supplies; and
second, enhancing electricity reliability--ensuring grid reliability
and advancing small-scale, on-site power generation. While we have
adjusted the requests for some of our programs, we are still presenting
a strong portfolio of R&D activities in fiscal year 2002. Many of our
programs such as Distributed Energy Resources, bioenergy, hydrogen,
hydropower, electric energy systems, the Renewable Energy Production
Incentive are held at or near fiscal year 2001 levels.
The beginning of this decade has already borne witness to the
impending energy problems that face our nation and this planet. The
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's mission of advancing
clean energy technologies, including energy efficiency and renewable
energy, 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 and demonstration of
affordable, advanced energy efficiency and renewable energy technology
and practices.
The Administration plans to send an fiscal year 2002 budget
amendment to the Congress that reduces funding of $39.176M from the
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program (within the
Interior and Related Agencies account) and increases several renewable
activities. More detailed information is included in the following
budget table.
Recently, the electricity situation in California and other western
states have highlighted the effects of low capacity margins for
electricity generation. Additionally, the National Electricity
Reliability Council predicts that over 35 states will be operating with
capacity margins under 10 percent by the year 2009. Another data point
in the emerging energy crisis comes from the petroleum product price
spikes in the Midwest and northeast last summer. I would offer that the
results of our program like: superconducting wires, distributed power
generation, and biofuels for cars and trucks, represent government
programs that might make a difference. The Federal Government remains
committed to helping develop renewable energy technologies to help
relieve these problems.
Our Office of Power Technologies is leading research efforts to
significantly improve energy reliability and power quality through the
use of on-site distributed energy resources that reduce energy losses
and increase stability of the national grid. Moving energy supplies
closer to the point of end-use provides advantages in: load management,
power quality, high efficiency and reliability.
fiscal year 2002 budget request
The following table provides details of our fiscal year 2002 budget
request. The sections following the table describe ongoing programs and
our fiscal year 2002 budget request for renewable energy resources and
program direction.
OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY--FISCAL YEAR 2002 REQUEST
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal Request
Program year 2001 year 2002 Amendment \1\ with
comparable request amendment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Energy Resources..................................... 373,179 237,477 39,176 276,653
Biomass/biofuels Energy Systems................................ 86,268 80,500 1,455 81,955
Geothermal Technology Develop.................................. 26,911 13,900 ............. 13,900
Hydrogen Research.............................................. 26,881 13,900 12,981 26,881
Hydropower..................................................... 4,989 2,500 2,489 4,989
Solar Energy:
Concentrating Solar Power.................................. 13,710 1,932 ............. 1,932
Photovoltaic Energy........................................ 75,060 39,000 ............. 39,000
Solar Buildings............................................ 3,911 2,000 ............. 2,000
Wind Energy.................................................... 39,553 20,500 ............. 20,500
Electric Energy Systems & Storage.............................. 51,746 33,927 17,819 51,746
Renewable Support & Implementation:
Departmental Energy Mgmt................................... 1,984 1,000 ............. 1,000
International Renewable Energy............................. 4,949 ......... 2,500 2,500
Renewable Energy Production Incentive...................... 3,991 2,059 1,932 3,991
Renewable Indian Energy Resources.......................... 6,585 ......... ............. .........
Renewable Program Support.................................. 3,991 2,059 ............. 2,059
National Renewable Energy Laboratory........................... 3,991 5,000 ............. 5,000
Program Direction.............................................. 18,659 19,200 ............. 19,200
------------------------------------------------
Total, Renewable Energy Resources........................ 373,179 237,477 39,176 276,653
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The amendment is expected to be submitted by the Administration in the next several weeks.
renewable energy resources
Biomass/Biofuels and the Bioenergy Research and Development Initiative
($81.9M)
The Bioenergy Initiative provides an integrated framework for
collaborative research and development to improve our Nation's ability
to not only convert biomass into electric power, heat, and clean liquid
transportation fuels, but also extract high-value biobased industrial
materials such as chemicals, plastics, and building materials.
Developing this ``home-grown'' resource with multiple applications
can provide significant near term benefits to many sectors of our
economy, contributing to a healthier, more robust rural economy;
improved environmental quality; and reduced oil imports. Our biomass
activities in the Energy and Water Development account focus on two
distinct elements: Biopower, which co-fires biomass with coal or
gasifies biomass material that is combusted to generate power; and
Biofuels, which converts agricultural products to ethanol. Combined,
these core activities provide the underpinnings of our national effort
to more effectively utilize a vast domestic resource. With the strong
support from industry, government, academia, and the national
laboratories, we believe that biomass holds great promise to help meet
our future energy needs.
Biopower Systems ($37.8M)
The Biomass Power Systems Program works towards making biopower
systems a significant contributor to the U.S. energy market by 2010,
through collaboration with the private-sector and other Federal
agencies, and by providing power in a variety of settings, including
utility and distributed applications. Biomass systems promise to help
meet our national energy needs, while simultaneously strengthening
conventional energy security, protecting our environment, and improving
our rural economy. To meet these objectives, biopower R&D involves a
combination of
near-, mid-, and long-term activities. Biopower activities fall within
five categories: Thermochemical Conversion ($4.0M); Systems Development
($26.6M); Feedstock Production ($3.5M); Regional Energy Biomass program
($1.2M); and Bioenergy ($2.5M).
Thermochemical Conversion.--This effort conducts basic and applied
research, testing, and feasibility studies in the areas of biomass
combustion and biomass gasification to provide the foundation for
advanced and improved technology. Experimental research is conducted in
the areas of biomass combustion and cofiring as well as on the coupling
of biomass conversion devices to power generation equipment, including
engines, gas turbines and fuel cells. Analytical studies are also
conducted on the cost, performance, economic potential, and life-cycle
emissions of existing, novel, and competing power generation
technologies. In fiscal year 2002, the program will add research
efforts that support systems integrated research and modeling efforts
of gasification, including gas cleanup and conditioning.
Systems Development.--Within Systems Development the programs
focuses on Cofiring with Coal, Biomass Power for Rural development,
Small Modular Biopower and Gasification R&D. Our cofiring activities
will continue developing co-firing coal and biomass by exploring
advanced technologies that enhance system reliability, performance, and
efficiencies including work with municipalities and rural electric
cooperatives. Performance is monitored and verified by analyzing
initial cofiring and feedstock production trials and establishing
operation and maintenance protocols.
Biomass Power for Rural Development activities include the New York
Salix Willow project that will produce 30-40 MW of generating capacity
through cofired applications, and the Iowa Chariton Valley Switchgrass
project that will utilize up to 50,000 acres of switchgrass dedicated
to co-firing operations. Performance will be measured by completing two
Biomass Power for Rural Development projects with more than 50 MW of
new biomass power generating capacity.
The Small Modular biopower program continues its efforts to
research and develop systems that integrate small scale gasifiers with
advanced power generating components such as internal combustion (IC)
engines, microturbines and fuel cells. Performance will be measured
through field verification R&D of systems that are being developed
under current contracts. This effort will be expanded to include other
feedstocks, to increase the flexibility, applicability and reliability
of these systems.
The Vermont Gasifier R&D project has been completed and the
technology is being commercialized by the contractor (FERCO). Efforts
will now focus R&D on technologies that produce product gas from a
broad range of biomass feedstocks. These efforts will focus on gas
production, hot gas cleanup, gas preparation, and innovative and
productive uses of gasifier waste streams. This R&D will form the basis
for future bio-refinery development.
Feedstock Production.--This program focuses on research to improve
yields and reduce handling costs of herbaceous and woody crops produced
on farms. We will continue efforts to create tools for evaluating
viability of multiple bioenergy technologies, with an emphasis on
Biopower, and their impact on feedstock demand. Performance will be
measured by developing 3 high-yield willow clones which increase yields
by at least 20 percent. A slight increase in fiscal year 2002 will be
used to fund an assessment of the effects of variability in soil type
and climate on feedstock characteristics relevant to combustion and
gasification systems and on soil carbon sequestration processes, as
well as yield variability.
Regional Energy Biomass Program.--The activity sponsors grants to
State Energy Offices that enable technology transfer and industry
support of activities to expand the near-term use of biomass conversion
technologies and provide reliable information to potential biomass
users. This funding continuation will sponsor grants to State Energy
Offices and local industries for biomass power projects as well as to
complete the integration of biomass resource assessments.
Biofuels ($44.8M)
The Ethanol Program funds research, development, and demonstration
of technology to enable and support the expansion of an indigenous,
integrated biomass-based industry that will reduce reliance on imported
fuels; promote rural economic development; and provide for productive
utilization of agricultural residues and municipal solid wastes.
Ethanol activities are divided into five activities: Ethanol Production
($34.6M); Renewable Diesel Alternatives ($750,000); Feedstock
Production ($3.5M); Regional Biomass Energy Program ($2.0M) and
Integrated Bioenergy Research ($2.5M).
Ethanol Production.--The Ethanol Program has identified ethanol as
the most promising near-term/mid-term liquid transportation fuels
option. In the next several years, we expect industry to deploy ethanol
by using underutilized agricultural components (e.g., corn fiber and
stover), because they are readily available as low-cost feedstock
materials. Energy crops are being developed for the long-term, as
demand increases and as scientific and engineering advances make the
growing, collection, and conversion of these feedstocks more
affordable. We believe that many of the advances in reducing ethanol
production costs depend on the development of cost-effective enzyme
technology to break down cellulose to simple sugars. These sugars can
be converted to ethanol and/or to other chemicals (lactic acid and
levulinic acid, among others), which can be used in an integrated
biorefinery of the future. Ethanol production activities are divided
into Advanced Fermentation; Advanced Cellulase R&D; Pretreatment R&D;
and Cellulose to Ethanol production facilities.
Our Advanced Fermentation activities collaborate with industry and
academia to develop organism platforms with increased stability,
robustness, and ability to ferment mixed sugars from cellulosic wastes,
agricultural residues, and energy crops such as switchgrass, and to
lower the cost of ethanol production from biomass. Increased funding of
$2,000,000 will initiate yeast platform work by developing advanced
genetic engineering tools and begin nine genetic manipulation of
promising yeast strains. Performance will be measured by developing a
yeast that can ferment the biomass-derived sugars, glucose, arabinose
and xylose to meet cost goals for ethanol low blend markets. This yeast
can also be the basis for the production of other high-value chemicals.
Our Cellulose to Ethanol production facilities effort will continue
to support partnerships to demonstrate cost-effective conversion of
corn stalks to ethanol. The use of corn fiber for ethanol production
offers an opportunity for integrating cellulosic ethanol into existing
commercial corn-derived facilities. Competitive solicitations will be
conducted to support the integration of cellulosic conversion processes
with existing commercial facilities. Performance will be measured by
demonstrating feasibility of commercially producing ethanol and co-
products from corn fiber stream, in partnership with a major ethanol
producer. Decreased funding will reduce the number and require higher
cost share by industry partners, in order to focus on core R&D
(Advanced Organism R&D, Advanced Cellulase R&D, Pretreatment R&D) and
integrated process testing.
Pretreatment R&D.--Increased funding of $2,400,000 in fiscal year
2002 will focus on developing and understanding fundamental principles
of biomass depolymerizations, in collaboration with academia and
industry, to aid in developing novel pretreatment systems to improve
process efficiency and reduce costs.
The Feedstock Development Centers program conducts research and
development of model energy crops and residues at integrated biomass
feedstock development centers in the Southeast and Midwest/Plains
States. Projects include residue management, breeding, physiology,
advanced biotechnology, carbon sequestration and storage. The funding
decrease eliminates research and development of model tree crops such
as hybrid poplar and willow at the integrated biomass feedstock
development centers, consistent with analyses indicating that
agricultural residues and perennial grasses have better potential as
feedstocks for ethanol and biobased chemicals production in the near
and mid-term.
Geothermal Energy Technology Development ($13.9M)
The Geothermal Technology Development Program works in partnership
with U.S. industry to establish geothermal energy as an economically
competitive contributor to the U.S. energy supply. The Program sponsors
research and development that will help the United States realize
substantial economic, environmental, and energy security benefits.
Technology improvements will reduce the levelized cost of generating
geothermal power to 3 to 5 cents/kWh by 2010, as compared to 5 to 8
cents/kWh in 2000.
In helping to meet the priority needs of industry, the Program will
focus primarily on exploration and drilling research. Better
understanding of geothermal processes and improved analytical methods
of exploration will enable industry to locate and characterize new
geothermal fields. Advanced technology for drilling wells will provide
access to deeper resources while lowering costs, thereby expanding the
economic resource base. Program goals will be achieved with a balanced
strategy of technology improvements in partnership with industry on
cost-shared, competitively-selected projects.
The Geothermal program is divided into three activities: Geoscience
and Supporting Technologies ($3.5M), Exploration and Drilling Research
($6.9M), and Energy Systems Research and Testing ($3.5M).
Geoscience and Supporting Research.--Two activities are funded
within this category: Core Research and University Research. Within the
Core Research program, the Department will continue to investigate
complex natural geothermal processes and develop technology to
facilitate producing geothermal resources in an economical manner.
Research activities include improving reservoir models, studying
fracture dynamics, developing tracers, and conducting geochemical
research. The funding provides for a continuation of projects in
reservoir management that promise to give industry reliable tools for
reservoir analysis and production. Our University Research efforts will
focus on earth science at studies universities to expand the geothermal
knowledge base. Knowledge gained from this work will result in new and
improved technology that will help meet cost goals. The decrease in
funding reflects the completion, or termination, of multi-year grant
awards and a realignment of project activities to complement core
research. No funding is requested in fiscal year 2002 for Enhanced
Geothermal Systems.
Exploration and Drilling Research.--We will continue cost-shared
exploration projects initiated with industry in fiscal year 2000 to
find and confirm new geothermal resources within the United States. We
will also continue to conduct geophysical, geological, and geochemical
exploration research. Work will continue on developing new drilling
components, such as the Diagnostics-While-Drilling subsystem, for
integration into an Advanced Drilling System that will reduce the cost
of drilling geothermal wells by up to 50 percent, from $300 per foot in
2000 to $150 per foot by 2008.
Energy Systems Research and Testing.--Advanced heat and power
systems activities seek to improve technology in heat conversion and
power systems for application to a broad range of geothermal resources
and environmental conditions. The subactivity involves laboratory
research on innovative systems, including heat exchangers, air-cooled
condensers, and other components, for both low and high temperature
applications. The reduction in funding stems from the completion of
work on advanced heat cycles and some condenser studies. Finally, no
funding has been requested for the Geopowering the West initiative.
Fiscal year 2001 efforts will be completed and information accumulated
will be shared with the public.
Hydrogen Research ($26.9M)
The Hydrogen Program includes research and validation projects for
the development of safe, cost-effective hydrogen energy technologies
that support and foster hydrogen energy as an integral part of the
energy economy. To enable a future that includes hydrogen energy, four
strategies are pursued that will provide benefits in efficiency,
environment and economy. (1) Expand the use of hydrogen by working with
industry, including hydrogen producers, to improve efficiency, lower
emissions, and lower the cost of technologies that produce hydrogen
from natural gas. (2) Work with fuel cell manufacturers to develop
hydrogen-based electricity storage and generation systems that will
enhance the introduction and penetration of distributed, renewables-
based utility systems. (3) Continue to coordinate with the Department
of Transportation and EERE's Office of Transportation Technologies to
demonstrate safe and cost-effective fueling systems for hydrogen
vehicles in urban non-attainment areas and to provide on-board hydrogen
storage systems. (4) Work with the National Laboratories to lower the
cost of technologies that produce hydrogen directly from sunlight and
water. The Hydrogen program is divided into three activities: Core
Research and Development ($14.8M); Technology Validation ($9.0M); and
Analysis and Outreach ($3.1M).
In fiscal year 2002 our emphasis in the Core Research and
Development Program will be on thermal processes that improve the
efficiency and lower the cost of fossil-based and biomass-based
hydrogen production processes to achieve $12-$15 per million Btu for
(5000 psi) pressurized hydrogen when reformers are mass produced; on
photolytic processes that support research into biological systems and
advanced semi-conductors which will directly split water to hydrogen
and oxygen; on storage activities to develop and demonstrate safe and
cost-effective storage systems for use in stationary distributed
electricity generation and for stationary and vehicle applications in
urban non-attainment areas; and utilization which is developing a
technology blue print for new building codes and equipment standards
for hydrogen technologies. By 2005, we expect to meet key milestones
for engineering validation of several reversible fuel cell systems.
We will perform Technology Validation activities that include
installing and operating a biomass to hydrogen conversion system as
well as installing and testing an integrated wind/reversible hydrogen
fuel cell system incorporating hydrogen storage. An important outcome
of these activities is to confirm their economic viability in remote
and distributed applications. In order to understand the requirements
and operation, by 2010, we expect to validate distributed hydrogen
refueling systems for hydrogen electric vehicles in collaboration with
state and local governments. The fueling system will show the use of
high pressure storage systems. We will also explore hydrogen use in
distributed energy systems.
Hydropower ($5.0M)
Working with industry and other Federal agencies, the Hydropower
Program's R&D activities support the development of a new generation of
more environmentally-friendly hydropower turbines. Current hydropower
technology, while essentially emission-free, can have undesirable
environmental effects, such as fish injury and mortality from passage
through turbines, as well as detrimental changes in the quality of
dissolved gases in downstream water. Advanced hydropower turbine
technology could minimize these adverse effects and help preserve the
Nation's ability to generate electricity from an important renewable
resource. Fiscal year 2002 activities will focus on Biologically-Based
Criteria Development, Advanced Turbine Pilot-Scale Testing, Low-Head/
Low Power Testing and Mini-Hydro Research and Development.
Solar Energy Programs ($42.9M)
The fiscal year 2002 funding request for the Solar Energy Programs
(Concentrating Solar Power, Photovoltaics, and Solar Buildings) is
$42.9M. The program supports R&D that improves the performance and
reliability while reducing the cost of solar technologies that can
harness the sun's energy. With their inherent flexibility and
scalability, the solar programs support a tremendous range of
applications including large-scale power production, on-site
electricity generation, and thermal energy for space heating and hot
water.
Concentrating Solar Power--$1.9M.--This funding request provides
for program close-out costs. After the installation and checkout of the
25 kW dish system at the University of Nevada has been completed, all
program activities will be terminated.
Photovoltaics--$39.0M.--The Photovoltaics program is divided into
three activities: Fundamental Research ($9.4M); Advanced Materials
($20.1M); and Technology Development ($9.5M).
Fundamental Research.--Within this account we will continue
research to identify efficiency-limiting defects and advance the
fundamental understanding of both PV materials and devices using state-
of-the-art characterization techniques. We will continue university and
industrial research in response to competitive solicitation issued in
fiscal year 2000 for basic R&D on breakthrough, non-conventional PV
technologies (Beyond the Horizon) and conduct research and analysis
that improves the understanding of fundamental properties and
performance of crystalline silicon, thin film materials and novel
materials and cell devices. We will reduce High Performance Initiative
to focus only on contracts that can lead to higher efficiency thin film
technologies and will postpone contracts and research on 33 percent
concentrator systems.
Advanced Materials.--We will re-compete the Thin Film Partnership
Program in fiscal year 2002 and fund industry cost shared contracts
that address near term advancements. Support will continue on high
efficiency devices and silicon crystal growth methods but with a
reduced emphasis. We will fully fund the 3-year cost shared contracts
for a new competitive solicitation to develop in-situ process
diagnostics and intelligent processing needed for integrated module
manufacturing scale-up. All contracts will have 50 percent cost
sharing. The Advanced Manufacturing R&D activity will focus on high
throughput large area thin films and next generation high efficiency
thin wafer silicon technologies.
Technology Development.--All manufacturing R&D and PVMaT activities
under Technology Development will be completed in fiscal year 2001.
These cost-shared contracts achieved manufacturing cost reductions of
50 percent from 1996 levels. More advanced R&D activities are being
funded in Advanced Materials and Devices. The systems and reliability
activity will refocus its efforts on the critical need to improve
reliability of the entire PV system, including balance-of-system
components such as inverters. This effort also supports development of
standards and codes, and procedures for certifying performance of
commercial systems. No funding is requested for the Million Solar Roofs
program in fiscal year 2002. Commitments for installation of nearly a
million ``roofs'' have already been received. This activity will be
privatized in fiscal year 2002.
Solar Building Technology Research--$2.0M. In our Space
Conditioning and Water Heating activity, we will build and field test
prototypes of a low-cost solar water heater, utilizing newly-developed
polymers, in collaboration with industrial partners.
Wind Energy Systems ($20.5M)
The fiscal year 2002 funding request for the Wind Energy Systems
Program is $20.5M. The program helps the United States attain the
substantial economic, environmental, and energy security benefits of
expanding the domestic and worldwide use of wind energy, and of
fostering a world-class, domestic wind energy industry. The Program
focuses on completing the research, testing, and field verification
needed by U.S. industry to fully develop advanced wind energy
technologies, and on coordinating with partners and stakeholders to
overcome barriers to wind energy use. Over the last decade, wind has
shown high promise for becoming a major supply of low cost, clean
energy in the United States. However, wind is still contributing only a
small fraction of its potential and faces many challenges to becoming a
substantial contributor to U.S. energy supply, particularly in dynamic
restructured markets for electric power. As a result of increased U.S.
wind energy development, industry, states, and stakeholder partners are
becoming more active in supporting activities to facilitate further
introduction of wind energy. The Wind Energy program has three
components: Applied Research ($8.4M); Turbine Research ($7.5M) and
Cooperative Research and Testing ($4.6M).
Applied Research.--Continue research efforts in wind turbine
aerodynamics, structures, materials, advanced components, and wind
characteristics to support development of new or improved tools for
advanced wind energy system design and applications, with a focus on
enabling low wind speed turbine technology. Performance measures in
fiscal year 2002 will include completion of one year of data collection
under the Long-Term Inflow and Structures Test and completion of design
code validation using wind tunnel test data obtained in fiscal year
2000. Reduced funding for fiscal year 2002 follows from completion of
advanced control systems field testing and several activities for
refinement and validation of design codes in fiscal year 2001.
Wind Partnerships for Advanced Component Technologies (WindPACT).--
Conclude wind turbine system scaling analyses and prepare final
reports. As a result of expanded industry interest and research
capabilities, transition advanced drive train and rotor blade projects
to industry partners. Prototype testing for a sub-scale advanced drive
train system and proof of concept blade fabrication processes will
commence at the end of fiscal year 2002
Turbine Research.--Our activities in the Next Generation Turbine
research will focus on completing design and begin fabrication of final
prototype turbines. Funding is decreased as industry partners begin
assuming higher share of project costs. The Low Wind Speed Turbine
activity is the follow on from the fiscal year 2001 Advanced Turbine
Concepts activity. In coordination with the outcome of the WindPACT
project, we will complete Advanced Turbine Concepts studies initiated
in fiscal year 2001 to identify promising technology path(s) leading to
cost-effective wind turbines for sites with annual average wind speeds
of 13 miles per hour. Two industry partners will be competitively
selected to continue WindPACT component technology research efforts and
to commence a multi-year effort to develop cost-effective low wind
speed turbines.
Cooperative Research and Testing.--Fiscal year 2002 funding will
support laboratory testing and design review services in support of the
U.S. wind turbine certification agent. We will continue to operate the
National Wind Technology Center facilities at the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, and provide testing support to industry. In our
Regional Field Verification activities we will complete development
activities and commence field operation of projects selected in fiscal
year 2001, and provide technical, data collection, analysis, and
reporting support to cost-sharing project hosts. Project development
reports will be completed by the end of fiscal year 2002.
Electric Energy Systems and Storage ($51.7M)
The request is $51.7M, level with fiscal year 2001 appropriations.
The program is divided into three activities: High Temperature
Superconducting R&D ($36.8M); Energy Storage Systems ($6.0M); and
Transmission Reliability ($8.9M). The Electric Energy Systems and
Storage programs conduct research and development of advanced
technologies to enhance the reliability of electric power transmission
and distribution and to significantly improve efficiency, reliability,
capacity, and power quality of electric generation, delivery, and end-
use in the United States. Energy Storage and Transmission Reliability
program goals are to develop energy storage facilities with an energy
density greater than 5kWh per square foot at a cost below $700/kWh; and
improving the reliability of electric power generation and distribution
system through the integration and interconnection of distributed
energy resources (at least 20 percent of new installed capacity by
2012) and integrating real time measurement and control networks
throughout the grid. The fiscal year 2002 request is $51.7M, level with
fiscal year 2001 appropriations.
The successful, industry-led, Superconductivity Partnership
Initiative supports aggressive projects to design advanced electrical
applications such as generators, transformers, motors, transmission
cables, current controllers, flywheel energy systems, and magnetic
separation systems. The industry-led Second Generation Wire Development
exploits breakthroughs at national laboratories that promise
unprecedented current-carrying capacity in high-temperature
superconducting wires. Several industry teams are now working with the
national laboratories to scale-up the new discoveries. The strategic
research component, led by the national laboratories, provides the
underlying knowledge base needed for the success of these
superconductivity projects. The goal of high-temperature
superconductivity is to reduce energy losses by half and provide
equipment half the size of current systems by 2010 through the use of
high temperature superconducting wires to create super efficient
generators, transformers, and transmission cables.
DOE's Energy Storage and Transmission Reliability are part of a
portfolio of Distributed Energy Resources activities that work together
to implement DER technology deployment strategies that address
standards making, infrastructure, energy delivery, technical,
institutional, and regulatory needs. Transmission Reliability research
develops real-time measurement and control networks, and electric
system models and tools. This research ensures reliable and efficient
grid operations and markets while integrating distributed energy in the
competitive marketplace. It also removes technical, regulatory and
institutional barriers and develops interconnection standards for
deployment of DER near the potential users. Energy Storage Systems
funds the design of integrated systems, research on advanced storage
components, and development of economic and performance models. The
Department partners with EPRI, the National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association (NRECA), the American Public Power Association (APPA), the
electricity industry, National Laboratories and universities to
implement research and development activities.
High Temperature Superconducting R&D.--The High Temperature
Superconductivity (HTS) R&D program investigates the properties of
crystalline materials that become free of electrical resistance at the
temperature of liquid nitrogen. The lack of electrical resistance makes
possible electrical power systems, super-efficient generators,
transformers, and transmission cables, that reduce energy losses by
half and allow equipment to be half the size of present electrical
systems. Electrical wires from high temperature superconductivity
ceramic materials will carry 100 times the amount of electricity
compared to the same diameter conventional copper wires. Three
activities comprise the High Temperature Superconducting R&D program:
Superconductivity Partnership Initiative; the Second Generation Wire
Initiative; and Strategic Research.
The Superconductivity Partnership Initiative funding provides for
field testing and evaluation of cost-shared, competitively selected,
major projects with industry to develop electrical systems
demonstrating advances in efficiency and reliability from use of the
latest high temperature superconducting wire.
Energy Storage, together with other distributed energy resources,
provides the high nines of reliability required by the digital economy,
telecommunication, and high tech manufacturing. While today's grid can
at best give 3 nines of reliability, energy storage provides seamless
power during micro outages, voltage sags, and frequency disturbances.
Such disturbances are estimated to cost U.S. industry up to $150
billion per year. Energy storage systems, backed up by distributed
generation, are the cost effective way to provide required reliability
for the consumer. Fiscal year 2002 funding of $5.9M is at last year's
levels.
Transmission Reliability.--Transmission Reliability will be
implemented through National laboratory/electricity industry/university
partnerships to conduct research on the reliability of the Nation's
electricity infrastructure. Power System Reliability will develop
advanced transmission technologies that promote competitive markets,
ensure system reliability, increase network capacity for large scale,
long distance power transfers, and promote the large scale integration
of distributed energy resources into power system operations and
competitive electricity markets. Fiscal year 2002 funding of $8.9M is
at last year's levels.
Renewable Support and Implementation ($9.5M)
The Renewable Support and Implementation line item is comprised of
several programs submitted in prior year budgets as separate line
items: Departmental Energy Management; International Renewable Energy
Program; Renewable Energy Production Incentive Program; Renewable
Indian Energy Resources; and Renewable Program Support. These programs
collectively encourage the use of renewable energy technologies by
state and local governmental entities, internationally in developing
countries worldwide, non-profit electric cooperatives, residents in
remote areas of the U.S. not served or under-served by the electric
grid, and Native Americans both on Tribal lands and at Tribal colleges
and universities. Renewable Support also includes activities which
promote the use of renewable technologies, improved energy efficiency
measures, and better management of utility costs at Department of
Energy facilities throughout the country.
Departmental Energy Management Program (DEMP).--The fiscal year
2002 request is $1.0M. The Departmental Energy Management Program is
administered by the Federal Energy Management Program's (FEMP)
Departmental Utility and Energy Team (DUET). DUET targets FEMP services
at DOE facilities to improve energy and water efficiency, promote
renewable energy use, and manage utility costs in DOE's facilities and
operations.
International Renewable Energy Program. Our fiscal year 2002
request for the International Renewable Energy Program (IREP) is $2.5M.
The program supports diplomatic and technical assistance efforts to
encourage the use of renewable energy technologies in economies in
transition and developing countries worldwide.
Renewable Energy Production Incentive. Our fiscal year 2002 request
for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive is $4.0M, equal to
current levels. This program encourages state and local governmental
entities (usually public power electric utilities) and non-profit
electric cooperatives to acquire renewable energy generation resources
by providing financial incentives comparable to production tax
incentives or investment tax credits that are available to private
sector power generators.
Renewable Indian Energy Resources.--No funding is being requested
for the Indian Renewable Energy Resources Program.
Renewable Program Support.--The fiscal year 2002 request is $2.0M.
The Competitive Solicitation Program obtains, analyzes, and
disseminates essential cost and operational information needed to
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of renewable energy projects,
as well as to remove the perceptions of risk in selecting renewable
energy and hybrid renewable energy generation systems for use in the
competitive power market. The Electricity Restructuring activity
provides Federal and State officials unbiased technical assessments of
utility restructuring issues relating to energy efficiency and
renewable energy. As the only national effort, the mission of the
restructuring program is to work with states and the electric power
industry to either maintain or expand energy efficiency and renewable
energy, whether in states that have chosen to restructure their
electric markets, or those that have not.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) ($5.0M)
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) leads the nation
toward a sustainable energy future by developing renewable energy
technologies, improving energy efficiency, advancing related science,
and engineering, and facilitating technology commercialization. NREL's
research efforts cover nearly 50 areas of scientific investigation
including photovoltaics, wind energy, biomass-derived fuels and
chemicals, energy-efficient buildings, advanced vehicles, solar
manufacturing, industrial processes, solar thermal systems, hydrogen
fuel cells, superconductivity, geothermal, and waste-to-energy
technologies. Many of NREL's research achievements have been ranked
among the Nation's most significant technical innovations by R&D
Magazine, Discover, and Popular Science.
The funds requested support NREL's infrastructure needs including
necessary repairs, maintenance, calibration, equipment replacement, new
construction, and facility modifications. These expenditures protect
the Federal Government's investment and support of the domestic
renewable energy industry. In addition, the fiscal year 2002 budget
request includes for the first time, facility project engineering
design (PED) funding as directed in the fiscal year 2001 Energy and
Water Development conference report. The envisioned Science and
Technology Facility in Golden, CO is intended to relieve overcrowding
at NREL's current Solar Energy Research Facility (SERF). That structure
was designed for 160 persons, but now is accommodating over 200
researchers A lack of space is limiting participation by visiting
professionals, industrial partners, and students at SERF. This
overcrowding is also damaging worker productivity and discouraging the
retention of high quality staff.
Program Direction ($19.2M)
Program Direction provides the Federal staffing resources and
associated funding to support the management and oversight of the
Renewable Energy Resources Programs. This activity includes all funding
for support service contractors, equipment, travel, crosscutting
activities, and Assistant Secretary initiatives. Program Direction
encompasses two principal activities: (1) Headquarters executive and
program management; and (2) program operations at the Golden Field
Office.
Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to respond to any questions you may
have.
Senator Reid. To all the panel members, we have some
questions. I will submit mine in writing and would ask that you
get them back to the subcommittee within 2 weeks, so we can
prepare for the markup of this important legislation.
I apologize, but this committee will stand in recess
pending the call of the Chair.
Senator Bennett [presiding]. The committee will come to
order.
I understand prior to Senator Domenici's being called away,
Dr. Dixon, you had finished your testimony or you were in the
midst of it?
Dr. Dixon. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I completed my testimony.
Thank you.
Senator Bennett. Okay. So we are with Dr. Decker.
All right. Let us move from right to left, as they say, Dr.
Decker, we appreciate it and we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES DECKER
Dr. Decker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate having
the opportunity to testify before you today on the fiscal year
2002 budget request for the Office of Science.
Before I begin, I would like to thank this Subcommittee for
the strong support that it has shown for our research programs
in past years.
I have submitted written testimony describing our $3.16
billion request, supporting the basic research that underpins
the science, energy, environment and national security missions
of the Department of Energy.
The Office of Science is a primary source of Federal
support for fundamental research and physical sciences, which
includes physics, chemistry and material sciences. In addition,
my office plays a key role in the life sciences, environmental
research, advanced computation and mathematics.
This important research is conducted by scientists at the
DOE National Laboratories and at more than 250 universities
located in virtually every State.
In funding this research, we develop the new scientific
knowledge that helps support both the DOE missions and the
nation's economy in the future, as well as helping to train the
next generation of researchers.
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,
synchrotron light sources and neutron sources.
This year, these facilities will serve more than 16,000
researchers from academia, industry and Federal laboratories.
These facilities are essential to progress in virtually every
scientific discipline.
The past year has been a very productive one for the Office
of Science. A working draft of the human genome was completed,
a major milestone in the human genome project, which the Office
of Science initiated in 1986.
We developed many of the underlying technologies used by
all of the institutions involved in the sequencing process as
well as sequencing of three of the human chromosomes.
HIGH ENERGY AND NUCLEAR PHYSICS
In high energy and nuclear physics, experiments have both
supported and challenged established theory.
Fermilab observed the Tau neutrino, the last of the leptons
predicted by the Standard Model, while the so-called G minus 2
experiment at Brookhaven generated a new challenge to the
Standard Model, as did strong evidence for neutrinos having
mass.
At the same time the B Factory at the Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center has been gathering evidence of so-called
charged parity violation with implications for understanding
why matter dominated over anti-matter in the universe.
And early results from the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider
at Brookhaven indicate the presence of a predicted state of
matter--the quark-gluon plasma that existed shortly after the
Big Bang.
Construction of the Spallation Neutron Source at the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory is approximately 20 percent complete
and projected to remain within budget and on schedule for
completion in 2006.
The Spallation Neutron Source will be the world's most
powerful pulsed neutron source producing six to ten times
greater neutron flux than any existing source. It will provide
a critical research capability in a wide range of areas
including materials research, structural biology and
development of drug design.
Our researchers have also made substantial progress in many
other areas, such as understanding and controlling energy
losses from magnetically confined plasmas due to turbulence,
developing techniques for bonding wear-resistant ceramic
surfaces to metals, a technique with great promise for improved
artificial knees and hips, as well as energy technology
applications requiring high levels of heat resistance and also
investigating the effects of Ritalin on the brain through
positron emission--positron emission tomography studies.
SPALLATION NEUTRON SOURCE
The President's budget request for fiscal year 2002 will
fully fund the Spallation Neutron Source construction, continue
operations of our existing scientific user facilities, support
development of the next generation of high-performance
computing and communications tools for science, continue
research in support of DOE missions, and support our
stewardship for those areas of science of which we are the
predominant supporter, such as high energy and nuclear physics,
nuclear medicine, catalysis and heavy element chemistry.
In my remaining time, I would like to briefly focus on
three of the important areas in our budget request: Genomes to
Life, Physics of the Standard Model and Beyond, and
Nanoscience.
In each area, we are building knowledge and capabilities
that have been created through sustained investments in the
Office of Science programs.
GENOMES TO LIFE PROGRAM
The proposed Genomes to Life program is aimed at
determining how the single cell and consortia of cells
function. A single cell is an amazing, complex chemical
factory. With our ability to sequence the genome of any living
thing, today we can determine the instruction set for making
the parts of the cell. However, we do not know what the parts
are and how they function together.
We also do not have an understanding of how a consortia of
cells, such as complexes of different microbes, work together.
Eventually, we want to understand the behavior of more complex
cellular organizations, including people.
We do know that these systems are so complex that the only
way that we will be able to obtain a predictive capability is
through computational modeling. So to successfully tackle this
problem, interdisciplinary teams will have to be formed, and we
will need many of the tools that we have developed over the
years, including our Terra scale computers, our synchrotron
light sources, our neutron sources, and our DNA sequencing
capabilities.
Our initial focus is on microbes relevant to Department of
Energy missions needs, including energy production, carbon
sequestration, and environmental cleanup.
We also anticipate this effort will contribute to a better
understanding of the health effects of various environmental
toxins and will allow us to better understand the impacts of
low doses of radiation.
HIGH ENERGY AND NUCLEAR PHYSICS
In high energy and nuclear physics, the Department of
Energy laboratories are now the site of the most advanced
experimental facilities in the world. The 2002 budget proposes
a program to allow the Tevatron at Fermilab to explore the
energy range where physicists now expect to observe the Higgs
boson, believed to be the source of mass for the fundamental
constituents of matter.
This proposed budget will also allow the B Factory to
dramatically speed up its program of research into the
asymmetry that led to the dominance of matter over anti-matter.
At Brookhaven the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider will
examine the qualities of a man-made quark-gluon plasma,
addressing the question of why quarks are so strongly confined
inside protons and neutrons, and shedding light on the
evolution of the early universe.
The G minus 2 and neutrino experimental programs will
continue to see if they have, indeed, found signs of new
physics beyond our present understanding.
We are also exploring another scientific frontier, science
at the nanoscale, where the physics of materials is governed by
the interactions of individual atoms and molecules and is
qualitatively different than at larger scales.
The promise for the future is immense. We are now entering
a stage of research where structures can be designed atom by
atom so that the desired characteristics and chemical activity
can be controlled.
In the future, we should be able to design and synthesize
new alloys, ceramics, chemical catalysts, and other materials,
tailored for specific tasks, leading to significant
improvements in solar energy conversion, more energy efficient
lighting, and stronger, lighter materials to improve efficiency
in transportation.
The budget request of the Office of Science balances
support for our existing programs, the facilities, with new
investments such as Genomes to Life, and new tools such as the
Spallation Neutron Source.
This provides a strong basis for scientific progress and
all other disciplines that we support, while capitalizing on
exciting new opportunities and new areas of research.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my oral remarks. And I will be
pleased to answer any questions that the subcommittee may have.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. James F. Decker
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 2002 budget request for the
Office of Science (SC). This budget request, part of the Science
appropriation, supports: Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR),
Basic Energy Sciences (BES), Biological and Environmental Research
(BER), Fusion Energy Sciences (FES), High Energy Physics (HEP), Nuclear
Physics (NP), Energy Research Analyses, Multiprogram Energy
Laboratories-Facilities Support, Safeguards and Security, and Science
Program Direction. The Technical Information Management budget request
is located within the Energy Supply appropriation.
The Department of Energy (DOE) budget for fiscal year 2002 requests
$3,159,890,000 in the Science Appropriation. This budget will support
SC's unique scientific user facilities and continue our remarkable
scientific achievements in the physical and life sciences, mathematics,
computation, and environmental research. It will also permit continued
investments in thousands of individual research projects at our
national laboratories and at research universities across the Nation.
SC's diverse basic research portfolio, with its emphasis on
sustained investments in knowledge creation that results in scientific
discoveries that enable tomorrow's technologies, is a cornerstone of
our Nation's efforts to maintain lasting economic prosperity. In a
recent major economic address, the President emphasized the need for
long-term planning when he said: ``. . . lasting prosperity requires
long-term thinking.''
Our fiscal year 2002 basic research portfolio supports the
President's goal of strengthening the U.S. scientific enterprise to
ensure continued international leadership in scientific and
technological innovation, and will advance the DOE missions in energy,
environment, and national security.
In fiscal year 2002, SC will pursue new and challenging scientific
opportunities in a wide range of areas of great importance to our
Nation's future. It will:
--Continue operations and some enhanced capabilities for the large
scientific user facilities that SC operates on behalf of the
Nation's scientific and industrial research community, serving
over 16,000 researchers annually.
--Support the ``Genomes to Life'' program, the next step in our
Nation's effort to build on the extraordinary success of the
Human Genome Project, begun by SC in 1986. ``Genomes to Life''
will combine biological research and the development of
computational tools for a greater understanding of complex
biological systems with promise of innovative solutions to some
of the many complex challenges inherent in DOE's missions for
energy, environment and science.
--Exploit a window of opportunity during which the U.S. will be the
undisputed research center of the world's high energy physics
community to continue the search for the elusive Higgs boson
(believed key to understanding the origin of mass) and exploit
the improved capabilities of the Stanford Linear Accelerator
Center (SLAC) B Factory to determine the nature of the
asymmetry between matter and anti-matter.
--Continue research programs in nanoscience to explore the potential
for the development of nanoscale technologies that will
revolutionize many areas of industry and medicine.
--Open enormous research opportunities in neutron sciences through
construction of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) for basic
research, applied research and technology development in the
fields of condensed matter physics, materials sciences,
magnetic materials, polymers and complex fluids, chemistry, and
biology. SNS is on time and on budget.
--Continue development of the scientific understanding necessary to
effectively harness fusion energy as an environmentally benign,
economically viable, and abundant energy source for future
generations.
--Revolutionize the way science is conducted by building on dramatic
advances in supercomputing power to develop large-scale
scientific simulation as a tool for the solution of complex
scientific problems of vital importance to DOE's missions and
the Nation's scientific community.
our accomplishments and recent successes
As the Nation's primary supporter of fundamental research in the
physical sciences (materials research, chemical sciences, physics,
etc.), and one of the largest supporters of basic research in
mathematics, computing and environmental sciences, SC is uniquely
poised to make important contributions to our general scientific
knowledge and to the U.S. industrial base. SC programs fund researchers
at more than 250 colleges and universities located in 48 states, as
well as thousands of world-class researchers at DOE's national
laboratories.
SC provides the largest share of Federal support for major
scientific user facilities, which together host more than 16,000 users
annually from all research sectors. University-based scientists are
among the principal users of these facilities, which provide powerful
probes of matter at a range of scales from viral proteins to sub-atomic
quarks--realms inaccessible by any other means.
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 the major professional scientific societies. Recent
awards have included: the 1999 Nobel Prize for Physics, shared by SC
researcher Martinus Veltman, for theoretical work that helped establish
the Standard Model; Supercomputing (SC 2000) Awards for High-Bandwidth
Applications and Infrastructure advances supported by SC; one of top 10
``Algorithms of the Century'' announced by Computing in Science and
Engineering magazine was developed by SC research; three of the 2000
``R&D 100 Awards'' and two of the 2000 Discover magazine awards went to
SC researchers in the national laboratories.
The following selected program highlights are illustrative of the
broad range of research activities supported by SC. These highlights
testify to the depth, diversity and importance of the research
portfolio managed by SC, and the great impact that scientific
discoveries can have on energy production and use, environmental
sciences, the life sciences, and national defense, as well as the
general creation of new knowledge that helps sustain other scientific
disciplines.
Solving optimization problems easily and inexpensively.--
Optimization applications range from designing circuits, to estimating
the value of risk in environmental cleanup, to determining routing
patterns on the Internet, to finding energy functions for molecular
structures. Researchers at Argonne National Laboratory and Northwestern
University completed a project to attack such problems successfully.
The project involves development of a novel environment, called the
Network-Enabled Optimization System (NEOS). NEOS allows users to solve
optimization problems over the Internet with state-of-the-art software.
The NEOS project recently gained considerable visibility with the
release of a new portable version that can be run on various computers,
Web servers, and email servers. Over the past year, the number of users
has risen to an average of 2,600 problem submissions per month. NEOS is
now used as an educational tool at universities worldwide.
Ion-implantation for strong metal-ceramic bonds.--Ceramics are hard
and corrosion resistant, but fracture easily. Metals resist fracture,
but are not as wear or corrosion resistant as ceramics. Coating a metal
with a ceramic is a way to improve both. However, current coating
technologies can degrade the performance of metals. A new approach has
been successfully developed that employs ion-beam intermixing of the
coating with the metal from collision cascades, which are microscopic
(nanometer-sized) ``hot-zones'' formed along the ion track. Since the
heating in collision cascades is very short and localized, macroscopic
heating of the metal does not occur. A patent has been filed using this
new approach to improve hip, knee, and dental prosthetic devices. This
approach of bonding of ceramics to metals also has applications for
energy technology metal surfaces that require resistance to high
temperature, corrosive, and erosive environments
Genome sequencing named scientific advance of 2000.--In December
2000, Science magazine named genome sequencing, enabled by seminal SC
contributions, as the top scientific advance of 2000. In addition to
its contributions to current sequencing technology, SC supports a wide
variety of sequencing projects including its ongoing sequencing of the
mouse and puffer fish (also acknowledged by Science magazine) to help
understand human gene function, microbial genomes (more than 50 to
date) and, previously, the fruit fly. SC also contributed to the
sequencing of the human genome, fully sequencing 3 human chromosomes,
which culminated in the publication of the draft human DNA sequence in
Nature on February 15, 2001. The three human chromosomes sequenced by
SC contain genes that contribute to a number of human diseases
including, leukemia, colon, breast and prostate cancer, as well as
kidney disease, Crohn's disease (an inflammatory bowel disease),
asthma, deafness, diabetes, obesity, atherosclerosis (disease of the
arteries in which fatty material is deposited in the vessel wall
constricting blood flow), attention deficit disorder, schizophrenia,
and mental retardation.
Making drugs safe for children and treating obesity.--Positron
Emission Tomography (PET)/radiotracer studies sponsored by BER have
demonstrated that Ritalin, a drug commonly used in the treatment of
attention deficit disorder, when given orally will effectively block
the dopamine transmitter system without putting the child at risk or
causing a ``high'' as observed with addictive drugs. In addition, BNL
scientists have used PET and specific radiotracers to demonstrate that
the brain dopaminergic pathways are poorly developed in obese
individuals. These data may enable alternative methods for treatment of
obesity.
Tools created for controlling plasma turbulence.--The performance
of tokamaks and other magnetic confinement systems are limited by
turbulence. Researchers at MIT have discovered that radio waves are a
powerful tool for creating and manipulating desired ``internal
transport barriers,'' which prevent unwanted turbulent heat leakage
from magnetically confined fusion plasmas and dramatically increased
plasma density. Scientists have discovered that, depending on the
location of the resonant radio wave heating, the overall rotation of
the plasma can be significantly slowed, or even reversed.
Simultaneously with this change, a clear internal transport barrier
developed, resulting in an extraordinary peaking of the plasma density,
one that was at least two times greater than before. Similarly,
experiments in Germany and at General Atomics in the United States have
shown that fusion energy content and other properties in magnetically
confined plasmas can be significantly improved by a relatively small
amount of even higher frequency microwave power applied at precisely
the right location, in the plasma.
Extraordinary tools for extraordinary physics.--This has been a
period of great excitement in the Office of Science High Energy and
Nuclear Physics program. Completion of the Relativistic Heavy Ion
Collider (RHIC) and the upgrade of the Tevatron at Fermilab have made
the U.S. the world leader in experimental facilities for high energy
and nuclear physics. At the same time, while some experimental results
have confirmed the predictions of the Standard Model, others have
suggested new physics beyond the Standard Model. First measurements
from RHIC indicate that its energy density--a measure of the energy
deposited in the collision region by the colliding nuclei--is the
highest ever achieved in a laboratory and is sufficient to create the
long sought quark-gluon plasma, believed to be the state of matter of
the universe shortly after the ``Big Bang.'' Fermilab produced the
elusive Tau neutrino (the last of the leptons predicted by the Standard
Model) and capped a major American achievement: the discovery of all
but one of the quarks and leptons in the Standard Model of elementary
particles. (The first of the 12, the electron, had been discovered in
England in 1897.) Another Fermilab team observed a B meson containing a
charmed quark and measured its properties, completing the observations
of the predicted family of B mesons, required by the Standard Model.
Also at Fermilab, a team of university and laboratory scientists
working on the KTeV experiment found the first convincing observation
of direct Charge-Parity (CP) violation (manifestation of a subtle lack
of perfect symmetry between particles and antiparticles believed
responsible for the domination of matter over anti-matter in the modern
universe). Physicists using HEP's new BaBar detector at SLAC's B
Factory announced their first measurement of CP violation in the B-
meson system in fiscal year 2000 and work is continuing to resolve the
question of whether CP violation can be fit within the Standard Model.
The g-2 experiment at Brookhaven National Laboratory, designed to study
magnetic properties of the muon, has obtained the most precise
measurement of the muon anomalous magnetic moment that does not appear
to agree with the Standard Model, suggesting the possibility of new
physics beyond the Standard Model.
looking to the future--fiscal year 2002
The Office of Science's fiscal year 2002 budget request provides
sustained support to U.S. university and national laboratory
researchers working on enormously complex scientific problems that will
help to ensure our economic prosperity by advancing the mission of the
DOE. The diversity of SC's basic research portfolio, combined with our
traditional strengths in the operation of national scientific user
facilities and support for multidisciplinary research, will prove vital
to our national pursuit of the scientific challenges of fiscal year
2002.
``Genomes to Life'' has the goal of using SC's 15-year investment
in research on human and microbial genomes, it's expertise in
computational modeling of complex systems, and it's unique suite of
scientific facilities, to address DOE missions through a deeper
understanding of the structure and function of microbes and microbial
communities, and of the impact environmental toxins and radiation on
human beings. The Genomes to Life program builds on the Microbial Cell
Project, expanding it to (1) include characterization of life's
multiprotein molecular machines and the genes' regulatory networks and
processes that control those molecular machines; and (2) to include
characterization of the overall functional capabilities of microbial
communities--groupings of microbes that can work together to perform
DOE missions--by understanding the ``community genome'' and how it
influences performance.
Microbes have evolved for 3.8 billion years and have colonized
almost every environment on Earth. In the process, they have developed
an astonishingly diverse collection of capabilities that will help DOE
meet its challenges in toxic waste cleanup, energy production, global
climate change, and biotechnology. To use these capabilities to address
our missions, however, will require the development of new
technologies, analytical tools, and modeling capabilities. It will
require the talents of academic, nonprofit, and industrial partners, as
well as the scientific capabilities of our national laboratories. These
capabilities include high-throughput genomic DNA sequencing, microbial
biochemistry and physiology, imaging, and structural biology. National
user facilities such as synchrotrons will play important roles, as will
capabilities in high-performance computing. Interdisciplinary
collaborations among biologists, chemists, physicists, engineers, and
computer experts will also be critical to this effort.
The ``Genomes to Life'' program has four goals leading to its final
objective:
--Identifying life's molecular machines, the multiprotein complexes
that carry out the functions of living systems;
--Characterizing the genes' regulatory networks and processes that
control life's molecular machines;
--Characterizing the functional repertoire of complex microbial
communities in their natural environments; and
--Developing computers and other computational capabilities needed to
model the complexity of biological systems.
This program has great promise, but faces great challenges.
Biological systems, through evolution, have achieved levels of
intricacy and subtlety that dwarf the complexity of the 20th Century's
most sophisticated engineering feats. The eventual objective of the
Genomes to Life program is to use the greatly increased computational
capabilities of modern supercomputers to model and understand many of
these systems. This promises solutions to many as yet intractable
problems in DOE mission areas. For example, M. jannaschii's ability to
produce methane may have implications for new fuel generation
strategies. Deinococcus radiodurans has potential for cleanup of toxic
mixed-waste sites containing radioactive waste, in addition to heavy
metals and organic solvents, because it can survive extremely high
levels of radiation and repair its own radiation-damaged DNA.
In addition, DOE has a need to protect its workers and the public
from the health effects of energy production and use and from the low
levels of radiation generated by weapon-related materials at DOE waste
sites and those still in use at its laboratories. Because of their
genetic makeup, some individuals may have a much greater health risk
from exposures to these materials. A detailed understanding of how
basic metabolic and regulatory pathways in microbial cells respond to
environmental changes may offer insights into similar pathways in human
cells. This knowledge can be used to help clarify the biological
mechanisms responsible for adverse human responses and to develop the
tools needed to identify individuals at greatest risk, information that
is a key component of the Low Dose Radiation Research Program.
The search for the Higgs boson and the possibility of physics
beyond the Standard Model presents an extraordinary opportunity for the
U.S. high energy physics community, which receives 90 percent of its
Federal support from the Office of Science, to demonstrate its
continuing leadership in international physics research.
An excellent opportunity exists for U.S. researchers to identify
the Higgs boson and measure its properties, which are believed key to
understanding the source of mass for quarks and leptons, the
fundamental constituents of matter. The Large Electron-Positron
Collider (LEP) experimental program at CERN (located in Switzerland)
was terminated in November 2000, leaving behind a tantalizing hint of a
Higgs boson with a mass of about 115 GeV, within reach of Fermilab's
Tevatron accelerator, recently upgraded with the new Main Injector.
With protons and antiprotons colliding head-on at an energy of
nearly one trillion electron volts (1 TeV), the Tevatron will be at the
world's energy frontier for particle physics during the next five
years. In order to find the Higgs, the Tevatron will need to run
extensively and to increase its luminosity (and thus its data
collection rate) as much as possible. Doing this will require
progressive fine-tuning of collider operations and further equipment
upgrades to increase luminosity by a factor of ten to be carried out
from 2002 to 2004, interwoven with intensive data runs. The data taken
in 2005-2007 should then be enough to find the Higgs if its mass is
less than 165 GeV. Tevatron data will also give more information about
the surprisingly heavy (170 times the mass of the proton) top quark
discovered at Fermilab in 1995, and could reveal other important new
particles that have been predicted by current theories (for example,
supersymmetric particles).
Why is the universe made of matter instead of a balance of matter
and antimatter or nothing at all? This question is being addressed
intensively at the new B Factory facility at the Stanford Linear
Accelerator Laboratory, which is now operating above its design
luminosity (or collision rate). The study of CP violation at the B
Factory during the next few years will shed light on the mysterious
preponderance of matter over antimatter in the universe. However, the B
Factory will need a progressive series of small upgrades in order to
maximize its productivity.
Discovery and characterization of the quark-gluon plasma is about
to be undertaken as the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) begins
its first run at full energy and approaches its design luminosity (or
collision rate). Over 1,000 scientists, of which about one-half are
from 18 foreign countries, participate in research with four detectors
at RHIC, a $616.5 million facility (completed within budget and on
schedule) located at Brookhaven National Laboratory. They are searching
for a new state of nuclear matter, deconfined quarks and gluons,
thought to have existed for a few microseconds after the ``Big Bang.''
Discovery of the quark-gluon plasma is eagerly awaited by the physics
community, in the hope that it will provide insights into the origin of
confinement-why free quarks cannot be observed. The properties of this
new state of matter will have far-reaching implications for
cosmological theories of the expansion of the early universe.
The collider and detectors were commissioned last year. The
subsequent brief run at a reduced energy from its design energy yielded
tantalizing results of possible plasma formation, and several papers
have already been published reporting on these early results. The
discovery and characterization of the quark-gluon plasma is a key
element in our understanding of the origin of the universe; a campaign
to understand the detailed properties of the plasma is expected to take
at least five years. We look forward to the upcoming run this year that
will give us the first detailed information in this exciting quest.
Science at the nanoscale, creating materials and machines one atom
at a time, is today's frontier in materials and the life sciences. The
triumphs of science in the 20th Century, which benefit all Americans,
included the discovery and characterization of the atomic building
blocks of matter, of the elementary excitations in materials, and of
the fundamentals of chemical reactivity.
We use this knowledge to design, synthesize, and characterize
simple molecules and to combine them in a variety of ways to make
alloys, ceramics, catalysts and other materials. We are now entering a
more complex stage of research where structures can be designed atom-
by-atom so that the desired characteristics and chemical reactivity can
be predicted and controlled.
The Office of Science is forging a path into the world that Richard
Feynman described in his now-famous 1959 lecture, ``There is Plenty of
Room at the Bottom--An Invitation to Enter a New Field of Physics.'' In
it, 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.'' In fiscal year 2001, SC began
seriously to move in this direction. In fiscal year 2002, SC will
continue to forge ahead--supporting innovative research and the design
of centers for nanoscale science.
DOE's missions in science, energy, defense, and environment will
benefit greatly from nanoscale research. Nanoscale synthesis and
assembly methods, for example, are expected to 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.
But before we can reach the stage where nanoscale science begins
producing these kinds of products, the basic researchers supported by
the Office of Science must address some of the most formidable
scientific questions of our age:
--Can we design materials having predictable and, yet, often unusual
properties? This will require ``bottoms-up'' atomic and
molecular design, the use of nanostructured materials having
special properties, novel routes for materials synthesis and
processing, and parallel fabrication approaches.
--Can we design and construct multicomponent molecular devices and
machines having desired properties--optical, mechanical,
catalytic, electrical, tribological? We have begun to use
molecular building blocks to create self-organized structures.
These might form the basis of systems such as nanometer-scale
chemical factories, molecular pumps, sensors, and self-
assembling electronic/photonic devices.
--Can we harness, control, or mimic the exquisite complexity of
natural processes? Living organisms represent the most
sophisticated use of the chemical processing of basic elements
to create materials and functional complexes. Nature's
achievements allow us to set goals for the development of
materials and systems with incredibly enhanced properties,
including the ability to self-assemble, self-repair, sense,
respond, and evolve.
--Can we develop the tools to visualize and predict phenomena
spanning the length scales and time scales of natural
phenomena? Spatial scaling involves lengths ranging from that
of the atom, to thousands of atoms (molecules), to the bulk
phase (organisms) and, finally, to the macroscale (ecosystems).
Temporal scaling involves times ranging from those of chemical
reactions (femtoseconds) to geologic times (millennia).
Opening a new frontier in neutron science will be made possible by
the commissioning of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (ORNL), now scheduled for completion in 2006. When
completed, SNS will be the world's most powerful accelerator-based,
pulsed neutron source, producing 6-10 times more neutrons than any
other such source. SNS will be used annually by 1,000-2,000 researchers
from academia, national laboratories, and industry.
DOE and its predecessor agencies have been the major supporters of
neutron science in the United States since the late 1940s. DOE has
served as the prime steward of this field throughout the entire course
of its development--from the earliest work of Clifford Shull and E. O.
Wollan at ORNL's Graphite Reactor in the 1940s to the Nobel Prize in
physics shared by Clifford Shull and Bertram Brockhouse in 1994 for
their work on neutron scattering.
The importance of neutron science for fundamental discoveries and
strategic research is universally acknowledged, and led France,
Germany, Great Britain, Japan and other countries to aggressively
pursue neutron science. By the early 1970s, new and upgraded European
neutron machines were beginning to appear. This trend continued through
the 1980s and 1990s without construction of U.S. counterparts--thus
shifting the focus of neutron research away from the U.S.. The SNS will
reverse this trend and will open new opportunities and capabilities for
neutron research to U.S. researchers.
The information that neutrons provide about the hundreds of
materials that we use every day has wide ranging impacts on our
everyday lives. For example, neutrons can ``see'' light atoms, which
are far more difficult or impossible to see with x-ray or electron
probes. As a result, chemical companies use neutrons to make better
fibers, plastics, and catalysts, and drug companies use neutrons to
design drugs with higher potency and fewer side effects.
Neutrons also possess a tiny magnetic moment, making them one of
the best probes for the study of magnetism. Research on magnetism using
neutrons has led to higher strength magnets for more efficient electric
generators and motors, and to better magnetic materials for magnetic
recording tapes and computer hard drives.
Fusion energy research in the United States is managed by SC's
Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (FES), which funds virtually all basic
research conducted by U.S. scientists in the area of high energy
density plasma physics. In addition, FES, in partnership with DOE's
Scientific Stockpile Stewardship Program and the National Science
Foundation, plays a role in all aspects of basic research in fusion and
plasma science.
The major challenge today is to make fusion energy practical by
further advancing our scientific understanding of high-temperature
plasmas. The current U.S. fusion research effort integrates core
capabilities in the national laboratories, universities, and industry
and has been restructured to focus on science objectives. A 1999 review
by the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board concluded that the fusion
challenge will be solved, and they endorsed the restructured fusion
energy sciences program.
This science-based approach focuses on achieving a predictive
capability based on detailed experimental campaigns, sophisticated
modeling, and terascale computing. Dramatic advances in the scientific
understanding of fusion plasmas led the National Research Council in
2000 to conclude: ``. . . the quality of the science funded by the U.S.
fusion research program in pursuit of a practical power source (the
fusion energy goal) is easily on a par with other areas of contemporary
physical science.''
There are two distinct approaches to producing fusion energy:
magnetic fusion energy (MFE) and inertial fusion energy (IFE). In MFE,
plasma is confined by a magnetic field and held at the needed density
and temperature. The fusion energy produced in a single magnetic
confinement fusion experiment has risen by a factor of more than one
trillion during the time period when computer speed has risen by a
factor of one-hundred thousand. Along with this progress in fusion
energy has come a much deeper understanding of the underlying plasma
science.
To date, MFE has been the primary subject of research worldwide for
fusion energy applications. Consequently, the U.S. program is highly
leveraged against the more than $1 billion in magnetic fusion research
performed by other nations. MFE research is an international effort in
which experimental results are openly shared and in which collaboration
on experiments is extensive.
With IFE, powerful lasers of particle beams are focused on a small
pellet of fuel for a few billionths of a second. IFE research has been
pursued primarily as a key component of the DOE's Scientific Stockpile
Stewardship Program. Leveraging off of this large investment is an
excellent opportunity for FES because IFE may also present a promising
path to practical fusion power.
The science-based approach to fusion offers the U.S. an affordable
path to practical fusion energy and is advancing our knowledge of
plasma physics and associated technologies, yielding near-term benefits
in a broad range of disciplines. Examples include plasma processing of
semiconductor chips for computers and other electronic devices,
advanced video displays and innovative materials coatings.
Scientific discovery through advanced computing brings together the
Office of Science's 50-year investment in mathematics, computation,
software development and multidisciplinary research in the quest to
develop new tools that can be used by the U.S. research community to
solve some of the most complex scientific questions of the 21st
Century.
Scientific computing programs and facilities are already essential
to progress in many areas of research critical to the nation. Major
scientific challenges exist in all SC research programs that only can
be addressed through advances in scientific supercomputing--designing
materials atom-by-atom, revealing the functions of proteins,
understanding and controlling plasma turbulence, designing new particle
accelerators, and modeling global climate change, to name just a few.
Extraordinary advances in computing technology in the past decade
have set the stage for major advances in scientific computing. Within
the next five to ten years, computers 1,000 times faster than today's
computers will become available. These advances herald a new era in
scientific computing. Using such computers, it will be possible to
dramatically extend our exploration of the fundamental processes of
nature as well as advance our ability to predict the behavior of a
broad range of complex natural and engineered systems.
To exploit this opportunity, these computing advances must be
translated into corresponding increases in the performance of the
scientific codes used to model physical, chemical, and biological
systems. This is a daunting problem. Current advances in computing
technology are being driven by market forces in the commercial sector,
not by scientific computing. Harnessing commercial computing technology
for scientific research poses problems never before encountered in
supercomputing, in magnitude as well as in kind. This problem will only
be solved by increasing investments in computer software--in research
and development on scientific modeling codes, as well as on the
mathematical and computing systems software that underlie these codes.
During fiscal year 2002, SC will continue a set of coordinated
investments that focused on creating a Scientific Computing Software
Infrastructure that bridges the gap between advanced computing
technologies and its scientific research programs. The SC effort will:
--Create the Mathematical and Computing Systems Software to enable
the Scientific Challenge Codes to take full advantage of the
extraordinary capabilities of terascale computers.
--Create the Collaboratory Software Infrastructure to enable
geographically-separated scientists to effectively work
together as a team, as well as provide electronic access to
both facilities and data.
--Create a new generation of Scientific Challenge Codes for terascale
computers that can address the most critical scientific
problems in SC's research programs
The Scientific Computing Software Infrastructure, along with the
upgrades to the hardware infrastructure, will enable laboratory and
university researchers supported by the Office of Science to solve the
most challenging scientific problems at a level of accuracy and detail
never before achieved. These developments will have significant benefit
to all of the government agencies that rely on high-performance
scientific computing to achieve their mission goals, as well as to the
U.S. high-performance computing industry.
Creating the 21st century scientific and engineering workforce
requires educational and training activities that are designed to
ensure an adequate supply of talented American scientific, engineering
and technical personnel. The Office of Science is uniquely positioned
to assist in the creation of this workforce through the offering of
research training opportunities at our scientific user facilities and
world class national laboratories. During the past five decades, SC and
its predecessor organizations have helped train tens of thousands of
the best and brightest young students our Nation has produced.
An expanded effort in fiscal year 2002 will carry on that legacy of
achievement. SC will support undergraduate research internships for
undergraduate students from four-year institutions, community college
students and pre-service teachers preparing to teach math, science or
technology at the K-12 level. In addition, SC will support the work of
thousands of graduate students and post-docs who are working side-by-
side with DOE researchers on key research projects.
To attract a wider cross section of students, the Department of
Energy has entered into a collaboration with the National Science
Foundation (NSF). Students participating in NSF undergraduate programs
will be encouraged to apply for SC undergraduate research internship
opportunities. The partnership with NSF will be expanded in fiscal year
2002.
performance measures
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requires
accountability from all Federal programs. SC has always relied upon
external peer review, independent construction management review, and
regular program reviews to ensure the excellence and relevance of our
research portfolio. These effective evaluation tools will continue.
In addition, SC has embraced the recommendations of the National
Academy's Committee on Science and Engineering in Public Policy
(COSEPUP) report ``Science, Technology and the Federal Government:
National Goals for a New Era,'' which calls for the U.S. to maintain a
leadership position in key areas of science and to be ``among the world
leaders'' in all areas of research. This enables the U.S. to quickly
capitalize on breakthroughs in science worldwide. Therefore, the SC
will evaluate its programs for scientific excellence, relevance to DOE
mission areas, scientific leadership and management excellence. This
will be accomplished through a variety of mechanisms, that may include:
external review by peers, review of prizes and awards to SC's
researchers, citation analysis, and a characterization of the
significance and impact of the research as recognized at international
conferences and Advisory Committee evaluations.
SC is widely recognized for its world-class research and for the
construction and operation of major scientific facilities. Demand for
these facilities has steadily increased and calls for new or improved
facilities greatly exceed budgetary resources. To ensure that the
proper balance is maintained between laboratory research and facility
operations, and between new and existing facilities, SC relies upon the
advice of external Advisory Committees, feedback from facility User
Groups, and the results of the merit review process.
Critical to ensuring the excellence, relevance and leadership of
SC's research is the human and physical infrastructure that enables
world class science. SC will continue to evaluate the health and
utility of its laboratory infrastructure through on-site institutional
reviews, program reviews, and through merit evaluation. A continuing
supply of talented researchers in critical subfields will be ensured
through fellowships, support of graduate students within research
grants, and through student use of research facilities.
All four of SC's global scientific performance measures were fully
met in fiscal year 2000.
--At least 80 percent of all new research projects supported by SC
will be peer reviewed and competitively selected, and will
undergo regular peer review merit evaluation. In fiscal year
2000, 96 percent of new research projects supported by SC were
peer reviewed and competitively selected.
--Upgrades and construction of scientific user facilities will stay
within 10 percent, on average, of cost and schedule milestones.
In fiscal year 2000, all scientific user facility construction
projects were within 10 percent of baselines. As an average,
weighted by total project cost, SC scientific user facility
construction projects varied from cost and schedule baselines
by about 3 percent.
--The SC scientific user facilities will be operated and maintained
so that unscheduled operational downtime will be kept to less
than 10 percent, on average, of total scheduled operating time.
In fiscal year 2000, SC scientific user facilities operated, on
average, 96 percent of the scheduled time.
--The Office of Science will ensure the safety and health of the
workforce and members of the public and the protection of the
environment in all SC program activities.
science programs--advanced scientific computing research
Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation--$165.7M; Fiscal Year 2002 Request--
$165.7M \1\
The Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program's
mission, which is primarily carried out by the Mathematical,
Information, and Computational Sciences (MICS) subprogram, is to
discover, develop, and deploy the computational and networking tools
that enable scientific researchers to analyze, model, simulate, and
predict complex physical, chemical, and biological phenomena important
to the Department of Energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A Pending Budget Amendment to transfer $10M to Fusion Energy
Sciences from Advanced Scientific Computing Research ($2.7M), High
Energy Physics ($5.0M), Energy Research Analyses ($0.3M), and Science
Program Direction ($2.0M) will be submitted shortly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fiscal year 2002, ASCR will continue to invest in research that
advances the next generation of high performance computing and
communications tools that are critical to the Department's scientific
missions.
The MICS subprogram will support research in applied mathematics,
computer science, electronic collaboratory tools and network research.
Competitively selected partnerships will continue to work toward
discovering, developing, and deploying key enabling technologies for
scientific research. These partnerships, called Integrated Software
Infrastructure Centers, play a critical role in providing the software
infrastructure that will be used by the Scientific Discovery through
Advanced Computing (SciDAC) applications teams. Other MICS investments
include fundamental research in networking and collaboratory tools,
partnerships with key scientific disciplines, and advanced network
testbeds for electronic collaboration tools.
In fiscal year 2002 the Laboratory Technology Research subprogram
will continue to support basic research at SC labs that will advance
innovative energy applications.
In fiscal year 2000, a Federally-chartered advisory committee was
established for the ASCR program that is charged with providing advice
on: promising future directions for advanced scientific computing
research; strategies to couple advanced scientific computing research
to 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.
basic energy sciences
Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation--$991.7M; Fiscal Year 2002 Request--
$1,004.7M
The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program is a principal sponsor of
fundamental research for the Nation in the areas of materials sciences
and engineering, chemistry, geosciences, and bioscience as it relates
to energy. This research underpins the DOE missions in energy,
environment, and national security; advances energy related basic
science on a broad front; and provides unique user facilities for the
scientific community.
For fiscal year 2002, a very high priority is the continuation of
construction of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) to provide the
next-generation, short-pulse spallation neutron source for neutron
scattering. The project, which is to be completed in June 2006, is on
schedule and within budget.
Enhancing U.S. research in neutron science, in preparation for the
commissioning of the SNS, is also a program priority. A common finding
among BES Advisory Committee studies has been the importance of
establishing a large and well-trained user community by the time the
SNS is fully operational in the 2008-2010 timeframe. To this end,
funding will be provided for teams of scientists to participate in the
development of neutron scattering instruments and for support for the
neutron science/scattering programs at the host institutions of the BES
facilities. Additional operations funds will be provided to High Flux
Isotope Reactor (HFIR) and the Intense Pulsed Neutron Source (IPNS) to
ensure that these facilities are available to the scientific community.
In the areas of nanoscale science, engineering, and technology
(NSET) research, BES will continue the new research directions
initiated in fiscal year 2001 and will explore concepts and designs for
Nanoscale Science Research Centers (NSRCs). NSRCs will be user
facilities similar in concept to the existing BES major scientific user
facilities and collaborative research centers. They will provide
unique, state-of-the-art nanofabrication and characterization tools to
the scientific community. NSRCs will enable research programs of a
scope, complexity, and disciplinary breadth not possible through the
support of individual investigators or small groups. Significant
partnerships with regional academic institutions and with state
governments are anticipated.
The response of the scientific community to the fiscal year 2001
NSET initiative has been strong. University researchers submitted 745
pre-applications, 313 of which received encouragement letters from BES
inviting the submission of full proposals. The DOE labs were restricted
to four field work proposals per laboratory and 46 proposals were
received. Proposals were also received for pre-conceptual design of
NSRCs from ANL, BNL, LBNL, ORNL, and Sandia/LANL. All proposals will
undergo peer review to determine which will be funded in fiscal year
2001.
biological and environmental research
Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation--$482.5M; Fiscal Year 2002 Request--
$443.0M
The Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program develops
the knowledge needed to identify, understand, anticipate, and mitigate
the long-term health and environmental consequences of energy
production, development, and use.
As the founder of the Human Genome Project, BER will maintain a
critical role in the International Human Genome Consortium that
includes the National Institutes of Health.
A redirected effort entitled, ``Genomes to Life,'' will support
research and computational tools that will lead to an understanding of
complex biological systems. It will incorporate research to develop a
comprehensive understanding of the Microbial Cell that will be used to
engineer microbes for DOE mission applications such as environmental
cleanup. Understanding how complex biological systems respond to their
environments also promises the ability to accurately predict the impact
of low doses of radiation and environmental toxins on living organisms,
including people. In fiscal year 2002, BER microbial research will
provide DNA sequences for four additional microbes important in
bioremediation, clean energy, global carbon cycling, and human health/
low dose radiation research.
The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) program will improve
the models that track the radiation balance through the atmosphere,
including cloud and water vapor effects, to reduce uncertainty in
predicting the effect of greenhouse gases on future climates. Carbon
cycle and sequestration research will help to assess current carbon
sinks and to develop methods of enhancing natural processes for
terrestrial and ocean sequestration of carbon. Ecological research will
provide data to develop and test robust models to predict the effects
of changes in climate and atmospheric composition on important
ecological systems and resources.
BER will continue research in environmental bioremediation focusing
on research at the Field Research Center in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The
Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL), a national
scientific user facility provides analytical and experimental
capabilities to address the complex scientific barriers to restoring
our environment. The EMSL computational facility will upgrade its
computing capability by leasing a high performance computer in fiscal
year 2002. This will enable the simulation of key environmental and
molecular processes.
Medical sciences research will develop advanced technology and
instrumentation to image single molecules, genes, cells, organs, and
whole organisms in real time with a high degree of precision. These
achievements will have a broad impact on biomedicine, in particular the
fields of cell and developmental biology and on more accurate medical
diagnoses and effective treatments.
The resources of the DOE national labs enable rapid advances in our
programs in biophotonics (harnessing light and other forms of radiant
energy for new biomedical research tools such as noninvasive diagnostic
tools for the early detection of breast cancer), lasers in medicine,
biological and chemical sensors, and advanced imaging instrumentation.
BER and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have developed a
partnership in which the advanced technologies, instrumentation, and
computational modeling capabilities developed in the DOE national labs
will be applied to specific biomedical problems of high importance in
the NIH intramural program. This partnership will benefit both agencies
since complex biosensors capable of detecting and discriminating among
large classes of biomolecules could be important not only to biology
and medicine but also to environmental sensing. Cooperation will
facilitate rapid application of advances in the biophysical sciences to
solve clinical problems of national importance.
fusion energy sciences
Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation--$248.5M; Fiscal Year 2002 Request--
$238.5M \1\
The Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program's mission is to advance
plasma science, fusion science and technology. The program emphasizes
the underlying basic research in plasma and fusion sciences, with the
long-term goal of harnessing fusion as a viable energy source. The
program centers on the following goals: understanding the physics of
plasmas; identification and exploration of innovative and cost
effective development paths to fusion energy; and exploration of the
science and technology of energy producing plasmas, as a partner in
international efforts.
In fiscal year 2002, the program will incorporate the
recommendations of reports by the National Research Council, the
Secretary of Energy Advisory Board and recommendations of the Fusion
Energy Science Advisory Committee.
The fiscal year 2002 FES program includes basic research in plasma
science in partnership with NSF, plasma containment research, and
investigation of tokamak alternatives along with continued operation of
DIII-D, Alcator C-Mod, and the National Spherical Torus Experiment.
Research on alternate concepts is pursued to develop a fuller
understanding of the physics of magnetically confined plasma and to
identify approaches that may improve the economical and environmental
attractiveness of fusion.
The inertial fusion energy activity will continue exploring an
alternative path for fusion energy that would capitalize on the major
R&D effort in inertial confinement fusion that is carried out by NNSA
for stockpile stewardship purposes. Ongoing theory and modeling
efforts, aimed at developing a predictive capability for the operation
of fusion experiments, will continue as will enabling technology
development.
high energy physics
Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation--$712.0M; Fiscal Year 2002 Request--
$721.1M \1\
The High Energy Physics (HEP) program's mission is to understand
energy and matter at a fundamental level by investigating the
elementary particles and forces between them. Until the Large Hadron
Collider (LHC) at CERN is completed in 2006, the U.S. will be the
primary center of activity for experimental research in the field of
high energy physics. There is the potential for exciting new
discoveries, and the program needs to position itself to take advantage
of these opportunities.
The HEP program will concentrate on utilizing and upgrading its
facilities, including direct support for research scientists. In fiscal
year 2002, Fermilab will begin a five-year campaign to discover the
Higgs particle (believed key to understanding mass) and other new
particles predicted by current theories. The B Factory at SLAC will
begin a three-year campaign to make important contributions toward
understanding the preponderance of matter over antimatter in the
universe.
A small HEP program continues at the Alternating Gradient
Synchrotron (AGS). The muon g-2 experiment recently announced results
that showed a higher magnetic strength for the muon than that predicted
by the Standard Model. If confirmed, these findings could lead science
into exciting new territory beyond the Standard Model.
Appropriately focused support for university and laboratory based
physics theory and experimental research will be emphasized in fiscal
year 2002. The experimental programs are performed by university
(primarily) and laboratory based scientists. These scientists
construct, operate, and maintain the detectors and analyze the
resulting data as well as train the next generations of scientists.
An important element of the program is successful completion of
construction and major capital equipment projects. Continued
participation in the LHC is a high priority as is construction of the
Neutrinos at the Main Injector (NuMI) project at Fermilab and its
detector, MINOS. When NuMI/MINOS is completed in fiscal year 2003, it
will provide a world-class facility to study neutrino properties and
make definitive measurements of masses.
In partnership with NASA, the HEP program will continue two
particle astrophysics projects--the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS)
and the Gamma-Ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST). The experiments
are expected to lead to a better understanding of dark matter, high
energy gamma ray sources, and the origin of the universe.
Accelerator R&D is essential to the development of the next
generation facility as well as to the future of the HEP program.
Research continues on accelerator-related technologies aimed at
reducing costs and improving performance.
nuclear physics
Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation--$360.5M; Fiscal Year 2002 Request--
$360.5M
The mission of the Nuclear Physics (NP) program is to advance our
knowledge of the properties and interactions of atomic nuclei and
nuclear matter in terms of the fundamental forces and particles of
nature.
The NP program is the major sponsor of nuclear physics research in
the U.S., providing about 85 percent of Federal support. The program
educates and enlarges the Nation's pool of technically trained workers
and facilitates the transfer of knowledge and technology.
With the new Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven
National Laboratory researchers have a unique opportunity to create and
characterize the quark-gluon plasma, a phase of matter thought to have
existed in the very early stage of the universe. Initial data from
gold-gold collisions have yielded results that show aspects of possible
plasma formation; the fiscal year 2001-fiscal year 2002 run will
provide the first opportunity to explore this exciting new physics in
depth.
New knowledge and insights on how quarks and gluons bind together
to make protons and neutrons are being gained using high intensity
electron beams from the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility
(CEBAF) at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. In
fiscal year 2002, the G0 Detector, a joint DOE-NSF project, will be
completed and will provide an opportunity to map quark contributions to
the structure of the nucleon.
Measurements of the solar neutrino flux by the Sudbury Neutrino
Observatory (SNO), constructed by a collaboration of Canadian, British
and U.S. supported scientists in a deep underground nickel mine in
Ontario, Canada, will provide first results shortly on the
``appearance'' of oscillations of electron neutrinos into other
neutrino flavors. Such evidence would confirm indications that
neutrinos have mass, an observation that would force a re-evaluation of
the existing Standard Model of particle physics.
The search for new super-heavy elements will continue in fiscal
year 2002, focusing on the techniques developed in the recent discovery
of elements 116 and 118 at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Future studies will focus on the search for neighboring elements and
will work to understand the surprising observation of enhanced
stability for these very heavy elements.
In fiscal year 2002, R&D activities will be supported for a
proposed Rare Isotope Accelerator (RIA) facility. This facility would
produce beams of highly unstable nuclei that can explore the limits of
nuclear existence and measure reaction rates. These data are critical
to computer modeling of the dynamics of supernovae explosions and other
aspects of stellar evolution and to understanding the origins of
elements.
multiprogram energy laboratories--facilities support
Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriations--$30.2M; Fiscal Year 2002 Request--
$30.2M
The Multiprogram Energy Laboratories--Facilities Support (MEL-FS)
program's mission is to support the general purpose infrastructure of
the five Office of Science multiprogram national laboratories by
funding line item construction to rehabilitate, renovate and replace
laboratory and office buildings, utility systems, and other structures.
This support helps enable high technology scientific research that is
conducted in a reliable, cost effective, and safe manner. Together,
these laboratories have over 1,600 buildings (including 500 trailers)
with 15.5 million gross square feet of space and an estimated
replacement value of over $10 billion. The total DOE and non-DOE
research program funding for these laboratories is over $3 billion a
year.
In fiscal year 2002, MEL-FS will support Project Engineering and
Design funding for the initiation of three new line item construction
projects and construction funding for six ongoing line item
construction projects.
The request also supports SC's landlord responsibility at the Oak
Ridge Reservation and DOE facilities in the town of Oak Ridge,
including Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) at this and two other sites.
energy research analyses
Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation--$1.0M; Fiscal Year 2002 Request--$1.3M
\1\
The mission of the Energy Research Analyses (ERA) program is to
evaluate the excellence, relevance and international leadership of DOE
research programs and projects. Fiscal year 2002 funding will support
the development of performance measurement and evaluation tools that
are utilized by SC programs and meet the requirements of the Government
Performance and Results Act.
In addition, the overall value of SC's research efforts will be
communicated to the public and other stakeholders, and original
research will be conducted into the best management practices of
publicly funded science organizations. This research will result in the
identification of best practices in the management of science
organizations that could be adopted by SC to improve overall management
efforts.
safeguards and security program support
Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriations--$36.4M; Fiscal Year 2002 Request--
$50.5M
The Safeguards and Security (S&S) program mission is to provide an
appropriate level of protection of personnel, property, information,
and nuclear materials in a technically sound and cost-effective manner.
This program ensures that essential S&S services are provided at all SC
facilities through a tailored approach according to risk.
The S&S program is concentrating on countering the vulnerabilities
of the 21st Century. These vulnerabilities have been identified through
program reviews as well as Inspector General (IG) and General
Accounting Office (GAO) audits. In fiscal year 2002, S&S funding
includes countermeasures for the ever increasing advances in and
reliance on computer technologies. This request also supports the
upgrading of aging physical security systems. Where applicable, these
systems further advance our control of our small but vital national
security interests.
The S&S program must maintain a sustained vigilance so that science
and technology operations are not adversely effected. The benefits of
an effective S&S program include: providing the public with confidence
that the taxpayer assets are appropriately protected; a safe work place
for employees; adequate protection of user facilities, operations and
scientific research data; and an attractive security climate supportive
of international collaborations and leading edge scientific projects.
The protection of these research programs and projects helps maintain
science's critical contribution to American competitiveness and lasting
prosperity around the world.
science program direction
Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation--$126.9M; Fiscal Year 2002 Request--
$144.4M \1\
The Science Program Direction (SCPD) budget supports three
subprograms: Program Direction, Field Operations, and Science
Education. Program Direction is the funding source for SC's Federal
staff responsible for managing and supporting the scientific
disciplines. Field Operations provides funding for the daily operations
and administrative functions performed at the Chicago and Oak Ridge
Operations Offices that support the departmental programs, projects,
laboratories, facilities, and grants under their purview. Science
Education sponsors programs designed to promote interest in science,
math, engineering and technology fields for college and university
students and faculty.
In fiscal year 2002, SC will continue to focus on strategic human
capital management and planning with the goal of building and
sustaining a talented and diverse workforce. SC needs to attract,
recruit and retain highly skilled employees to offset the existing and
projected shortfall in the scientific and technical workforce, and to
continue to manage its programs in a safe, efficient, and effective
manner.
SC will also support the DOE Corporate R&D Portfolio Management
Environment (PME) project, which will modernize and streamline the
Department's R&D management processes. Process improvements and
automation will enable electronic ``cradle-to-grave'' tracking of
research projects that are critical to DOE corporate sharing and
reporting of energy-related research across programs. In addition, SC
will continue to standardize, integrate, and invest in information
technology that will improve management processes and promote efficient
use of resources among SC Headquarters and Field counterparts, e.g.,
increase remote accessibility to corporate systems, and enhance cyber
security.
Beginning in fiscal year 2002, funding for safeguards and security
functions at the Oak Ridge Operations Office is included in SCPD as
part of congressional direction to align such functions with line
management.
In fiscal year 2002, the Science Education subprogram will support
research experiences at our national labs for a diverse group of
competitively selected undergraduate students. In collaboration with
the National Science Foundation, an effort is underway to attract a
wider cross section of students to this program and a system is being
created to document student career paths. In fiscal year 2002, this
partnership will be expanded.
The Office of Science also manages and supports the National
Science Bowl for high school students from across the
country and provides the students and teachers a forum to receive
national recognition for their talent and hard work. In fiscal year
2000, Saturday seminars on scientific topics were added to the National
Science Bowl weekend. In fiscal year 2002, students
participating in the National Science Bowl will be tracked
to document the long-term impact on their academic and career choices.
energy supply r&d programs--technical information management
Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation--$8.7M; Fiscal Year 2002 Request--$9.0M
The Technical Information Management (TIM) program leads DOE's e-
government initiatives for disseminating information resulting from the
Department's R&D programs. The Office of Scientific and Technical
Information (OSTI) manages the TIM program, providing electronic access
to worldwide energy science and technical information to DOE
researchers, industry, academia, and the public. The TIM program also
coordinates technical information-related activities at sites
throughout the DOE complex, which includes developing and implementing
information exchange policies and standards; managing a 50-year archive
of 1.1 million unclassified and 100,000 classified documents;
maintaining a classified information program that collects, preserves
and exchanges, in a secure environment, classified, sensitive and
limited circulation documents; and serves as DOE's leader in the
international exchange of scientific and technical information.
In fiscal year 2002, the TIM program will make DOE's scientific and
technical journal citations, technical reports, and preprints
searchable and retrievable through e-government systems.
closing
The fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Office of Science
illustrates how long-term research is vitally connected to our Nation's
lasting prosperity. Advances in life science, materials science,
computation, fusion research, and other scientific disciplines
supported by SC have made significant contributions to our economy and
our national standard of living during the past 50 years. Future
investments in SC-sponsored research at our Nation's universities and
national laboratories will provide similar returns during the coming
decades.
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.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD
Senator Bennett. Mr. Magwood.
Mr. Magwood. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Senator Craig, I am
Bill Magwood. I am Director of the DOE's Office of Nuclear
Energy, Science and Technology. I am pleased to appear before
you today to discuss our fiscal 2002 budget request. I will
submit a written statement for the record.
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
When we met at this time last year, I told you that we were
seeing the early signs of a turnaround in prospects for nuclear
energy in the United States. At that time, U.S. nuclear power
plants were setting new records in producing inexpensive and
reliable electric power. The utility industry was moving
forward with the relicensing of its nuclear power plants, and
utilities were beginning to talk about the possibility of
building new nuclear power plants in the United States.
This year, evidence of this turnaround is even greater.
Nuclear power set even higher generation records last year.
Nearly all U.S. nuclear power plants are now expected to
receive NRC license renewals. Utilities are now actively
engaged in developing the business cases for specific nuclear
power plant projects in this country. We expect that next year
we will be able to report even greater progress.
It is difficult to measure the degree to which the
government encouragement and support fosters this renewed
interest. Clearly, industry makes its decision based on the
economics and business factors, but you cannot underestimate
the impact of having the Vice President of the United States,
as he did yesterday, articulate the clear national interest in
building new nuclear power plants in the United States.
You also cannot underestimate the impact of renewed Federal
funding for nuclear research and development. Since our R&D
budget hit essentially zero in fiscal year 1998, the Department
has received slightly more resources each succeeding year. We
have set these resources to support both near-term National
needs for increased power production and long-term strategic
interests in advanced nuclear technology for the future.
NUCLEAR ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
I would first like to thank the Subcommittee for its
leadership and vision in providing funds for the Nuclear Energy
Technologies Program. While very small in comparison to many of
the DOE programs, its impact has already been huge.
GENERATION IV
At its core is the Generation IV Technology Roadmap. This
roadmap has become a large international project, involving
nearly 150 experts from 10 countries.
We have established a new international collective known as
the Generation IV International Forum, or GIF, through which
the United States and other nuclear experienced nations will be
able to work together, to set the goals, establish the programs
and collaborate in the research that will lead to the next
generation of nuclear energy systems.
I am pleased to report that since last year, the Department
has--with very limited funding and staff--reasserted a U.S.
leadership position that many thought was long dead.
Generation IV Technology goals have been drafted by a
Subcommittee of the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee
(NERAC) with input from U.S. industry, laboratories,
universities.
These goals, now essentially complete, have been accepted
by the international community through the GIF and through the
International Atomic Energy Agency and are at this very moment
being presented to the full NERAC for final review.
The GEN IV goals set very aggressive targets for future
technologies, such as eliminating the need for offsite
emergency planning, and ensuring the economy of proliferation
resistance of future nuclear systems.
Now, international teams based mostly in the United States,
but a few also overseas, all under the guidance of the NERAC,
will evaluate a large number of concepts against the Generation
IV goals and agree on a small set of technology concepts,
around which the international R&D community will rally.
The roadmap should be complete by the end of next year and
we have requested $4.5 million in fiscal year 2002 to complete
this historic work.
Other portions of this program have enabled us to work with
the NRC and industry to address the technical and regulatory
issues that could slow the deployment of advanced light water
reactors and gas-cooled reactors in the United States.
Our work in these areas has been important and has
encouraged the industry to move forward with their planning for
new nuclear power plants.
ADVANCED ACCELERATOR APPLICATIONS PROGRAM
We have also made significant progress in the Advanced
Accelerator Applications program. When we last discussed this
program, the Department has made tremendous progress in
defining the parameters for a potential project to build the
necessary facilities and establish the research to explore the
transformation of nuclear waste into less toxic and in smaller
quantity forms than untreated spent fuel.
We have worked very closely with the NERAC Subcommittee on
Advanced Nuclear Transformation Technology chaired by Professor
Burt Richter, former Director of SLAC, to define the technical
issues and set appropriate paths forward.
Yesterday, Professor Richter reported to the NERAC that we
were on the right track, and that the prospect for
international collaboration toward building a major facility in
the United States is very real, if the United States makes a
clear commitment to the project.
I can validate this prediction. Soon, we will sign an
agreement with the French CEA to share costs in performing a
series of experiments over the next few years. The French are
very interested in joining an activity in the United States to
build an accelerator driven test facility in this country.
Should such a project proceed, the support of the CEA, the
Swiss Paul Scherrer Institute and other organizations, would be
absolutely essential, as the United States is a relative
newcomer to this area of study, and other countries have made
important progress in many relevant areas.
For this initiative, as well as most other aspects of our
R&D portfolio, the fiscal year 2002 budget request reflects a
need to pause and reflect on the direction of our research.
With the entry of President Bush's Administration, it is
appropriate to assess the energy needs of our Nation and
consider the DOE's activities in that light.
As you know, the Vice President is leading a task force to
review these issues. Once these priorities are clearly
identified, the Department will be in a better position to
recommend future directions for research and development and to
request appropriate funding for the new initiatives.
UNIVERSITY RESEARCH REACTORS
Finally, I would like to inform you of an urgent matter
discussed at the NERAC meeting yesterday. NERAC is very
concerned about the potential closure of essential university
research reactors in the United States and a continued decline
in university nuclear engineering programs.
Faced with the likely closure of important facilities at
Cornell, MIT, and the University of Michigan, NERAC formed a
task force, chaired by Bob Long, former Senior Vice President
of GPU Nuclear and a former professor at the University of New
Mexico.
This task force has recommended that the Department provide
a near-term influx of funds to keep these three facilities in
operation and set up a longer term structure to assure the
continued operation of a limited number of nationally
significant university research reactors. The Department will
soon announce specific actions we plan to take in response to
the NERAC recommendations.
With that, I will end my oral remarks and would be pleased
to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William D. Magwood
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
present the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2002 budget request for
the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE). We are
proposing a $223 million investment during fiscal year 2002 to conduct
vital nuclear research and development programs; to enhance the
Nation's science, technology and education infrastructure; and to
manage NE's Federal nuclear facilities and materials. We believe that,
by supporting nuclear energy technology, the U.S. can achieve a
balanced and sustainable energy supply, reestablish its international
leadership in nuclear technology development, promote national
security, and attain environmental goals.
The Administration is currently developing a new national energy
strategy. Secretary of Energy Abraham, speaking in March to a National
Energy Summit, stated the essence of the new review:
``Our national energy policy will stress the need to diversify
America's energy supply. It will be founded on the understanding that
diversity of supply means security of supply . . . and that a broad mix
of supply options--from coal to windmills, nuclear to natural gas--will
help protect consumers against price spikes and supply disruptions.''
The review will provide the guidelines of a new, comprehensive
strategy to deal with our Nation's near-term energy challenges and put
the technical ingenuity of our universities, laboratories, and industry
to work to assure that we have long-term sources of energy to power the
United States in the longer-term future.
the revitalization of the nuclear power option
The last few years have truly been an exceptional period for
nuclear power in the United States. With demand for electricity at
record highs, the Nation's nuclear power plants have been producing a
record amount of power--up 3.7 percent to 755 billion kilowatt-hours
last year. The nuclear share of electricity generation in 2000 (almost
23 percent of the total) also set a record. U.S. nuclear power plants
exceeded peak operating performance records set over the last few
years, increasing plant capacity to nearly 90 percent. Meanwhile, the
costs of producing electricity from nuclear power hit a record low in
2000, leading nuclear power plants to surpass coal-fired plants--for
the first time in more than a decade--as the leader in low-cost
electricity production.
In addition, the industry is aggressively and successfully moving
forward with plant relicensing to extend operation of the existing
fleet of plants for another twenty years. Last spring, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved license extensions authorizing
five nuclear units at two nuclear sites (Calvert Cliffs in Maryland and
Oconee in South Carolina) to operate another 20 years. NRC is presently
reviewing five other applications at three nuclear sites and the
applications for thirty other units are pending. Today, industry and
government alike expect that nearly all of the 103 U.S. nuclear plants
will extend their licenses another 20 years.
Furthermore, the consolidation that has been taking place in the
utility industry over the last several years has created a cadre of
utilities with the experience and resources to operate nuclear units
efficiently and effectively, and the ability of undertaking
construction of new baseload electrical capacity in time to meet
national needs.
After decades without any orders for new nuclear power plants in
the United States, U.S. utilities are demonstrating a renewed interest
in this technology. The factors that came together in the 1970's to
make nuclear power less attractive than other energy sources, such as
an over-supply of electricity and high interest rates, are no longer
applicable. Today, we are facing rapidly rising natural gas prices,
increasing reliance on imported oil supplies, and growing concerns
about air pollution.
As a result of this changing environment, in March, nuclear
industry representatives indicated that one or more U.S. utilities were
on the verge of filing applications for approval of sites for potential
construction of nuclear power plants. Following NRC approval of these
applications, the utilities could return to the NRC at a later date to
ask for a combined construction and operating license (COL) for a pre-
approved nuclear power plant design. We are pleased with these recent
developments since the Department has worked long and hard as a partner
with the industry to achieve these milestones and is continuing to
support demonstration of the NRC early site permit and COL processes.
In addition, utilities are beginning to look at new nuclear power plant
designs that may be attractive in the current market. For example,
Exelon Corporation has invested in the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor
(PBMR) project currently under development in South Africa with the
goal of exploring its feasibility for the U.S. market. The DOE Nuclear
Energy office is leading discussions with the NRC on requirements for
gas-cooled reactors such as the PBMR and the Gas Turbine Modular Helium
Reactor (GT-MHR). Further, interest in advanced light water reactor
technologies such as the AP-600/1000 and Advanced Boiling Water Reactor
remains high among U.S. utility decision-makers.
With interest in building new nuclear power plants higher today
than at any point in three decades, the Department is focusing its
efforts to assure that Government is an appropriate partner to industry
and not an obstacle. We are focusing on removing unnecessary barriers
and leading the development of new technologies. In this way, the
Department can best support the national need for clean and economic
supplies of electric power for the near and long term.
The Office of Nuclear Energy is also pursuing advances in nuclear
medical technologies through our Medical Isotope Program. This program
promotes vital U.S. research into the use of isotopes to treat and
diagnose cancer and other illnesses. Radioisotope therapy has the
potential to become standard medical treatment for a number of cancers
that are major causes of death in the United States, including breast,
prostate, and bone cancer. Our budget request for the Medical Isotope
Program will support advanced research and assure that reliable
supplies of these life-saving therapeutic and diagnostic isotopes will
be available. Human trials of new isotope-based treatments often
require the administration of multiple doses of radioisotopes over a
period of time, and disruptions in supply may spell the difference
between life and death for critically ill patients.
Many of the most important radioisotopes have short half lives and
cannot be stockpiled against vagaries in facility operation. The
importance of a reliable supply of radioisotopes was driven home for us
last summer when the Cerro Grande fire temporarily shut down operations
at Los Alamos and threatened the security of our facilities there. The
need for reliability of supply requires that we maintain, and upgrade
as necessary, the facilities at which radioisotopes are produced, and
our efforts this year include upgrading a facility to help ensure that
availability.
The Department also has an essential role in enabling the United
States to explore space. Our Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems
program provides critical support to our nation's efforts to better
understand the universe in which we live. NASA's space exploration
program requires reliable, long-term supplies of electricity and heat
to power spacecraft and to maintain a suitable environment for people
and equipment. For some missions, particularly long-term, deep space
missions, radioisotope power systems are the only possible sources of
power. Conventional sources of energy would require too much fuel, and
solar power simply will not work for missions that extend to the outer
portions of the solar system and beyond. The same types of systems that
support space exploration are also used for national security missions
of the Department of Defense (DOD). Our role, for both NASA and DOD, is
to provide the radioisotope power systems that meet their mission
needs. This requires that we maintain a sufficient supply of plutonium-
238 to meet the schedules and energy demands of upcoming missions of
both agencies, as well as the infrastructure to build and deliver the
needed systems on time. We also support research and development on
advanced systems to assure that we can meet future needs, which may
call for longer operating times and higher powers. Our research is also
driven by the current limitations in the supply of plutonium-238; we
are simultaneously working on options for additional supplies. NASA and
DOD provide funding for mission-related activities, while DOE is
charged with maintaining the infrastructure to meet the NASA and DOD
needs.
Finally, I want to bring to your attention another important
function of the Office of Nuclear Energy: the support of the
infrastructure that makes all these efforts--development of new
reactors to meet future energy needs, production of life-saving
isotopes, and support of space exploration--possible. By
infrastructure, I mean not only the hardware, but also the people, and
not only the government facilities, but also the other facilities that
support critical training needs. To these ends, the Office of Nuclear
Energy both supports operations at the remaining reactors and related
facilities at our national laboratories and provides a variety of types
of support to the academic infrastructure that supports the training of
future scientists and engineers. Regarding the national laboratory
facilities, one problem we are facing is that we are operating an aging
infrastructure, and continued operation of these important facilities
requires not only the normal operating expenses, but also significant
expenditures to maintain aging structures and to bring facilities into
compliance with modern standards of electrical and fire safety. The
university reactor infrastructure, which is used for DOE and NRC
sponsored research, is also at risk. With tightening university
operating budgets, some universities are very near to shutting down
some of the most important university reactor facilities. This will
impact ongoing DOE and NRC research. We are working with the
universities to identify ways to prevent such shutdowns, and have
chartered a special subcommittee of our advisory committee, the Nuclear
Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) that will be presenting its
recommendations at the end of April.
In the meantime, we are trying to assure that the funding we
provide for reactor upgrades and other reactor support is as effective
as possible in meeting critical, near-term needs. We are also
continuing to support students and faculty at the universities to the
extent possible through scholarships, fellowships and research funding,
and have been heartened this year to note an apparent reversal of the
previous declining trend in enrollments in nuclear engineering
departments. We believe this to be a result of both our sustained,
though modest, support for the academic community, and of the new level
of excitement about a future for nuclear power.
In accomplishing its program mission, the Office of Nuclear Energy,
Science and Technology will engage research institutions in industry,
U.S. universities, national laboratories, international organizations,
and other countries in cooperative and collaborative efforts. The major
program elements that contribute to the mission are: Advanced
Radioisotope Power Systems, Medical Isotope Program, University Reactor
Fuel Assistance and Support, Research and Development (includes Nuclear
Energy Plant Optimization, Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, Nuclear
Energy Technologies), Infrastructure (includes Test Reactor Area
Landlord, Fast Flux Test Facility, and Argonne National Laboratory-
West), Nuclear Facilities Management, and Program Direction.
The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2002 request for
Nuclear Energy programs:
Nuclear Energy Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Request
[In thousands of dollars]
Energy Supply:m Element Request
Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems....................... 29,094
Medical Isotope Program................................... 18,177
University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support............ 11,974
Research & Development.................................... 27,079
Infrastructure............................................ 81,279
Nuclear Facilities Management............................. 30,457
Program Direction......................................... 25,062
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total, Energy Supply.................................... 223,122
research and development
Accelerating Technology Innovation
I would now like to discuss in more detail the drivers for nuclear
energy research, how we have structured and improved our processes for
conducting research, our major accomplishments, and how our fiscal year
2002 budget request helps position the Nation to take full advantage of
exciting new developments in nuclear technology.
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 to focus on accelerating innovation and assuring 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.
The Department obtains advice on the direction of its nuclear
energy R&D activities from the NERAC. NERAC, a formal Federal advisory
committee, provides expert advice on long-range plans, priorities and
strategies for the nuclear technology R&D and research infrastructure
activities of our office. NERAC has several active subcommittees
examining various aspects of nuclear technology R&D. Reports issued by
these subcommittees that address the future of nuclear energy include
the Long-Term Nuclear Technology Research and Development Plan, to
guide nuclear energy research out to the year 2020, and the Nuclear
Science and Technology Infrastructure Roadmap. NERAC is also providing
expert advice to help guide development of the Generation IV Technology
Roadmap. In addition, NERAC provides recommendations regarding
government-industry cooperative research in support of the Nation's 103
operating nuclear power plants.
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 design and manage commercial nuclear fuel,
we may be able to 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. By exploring such advanced
technologies as modular reactors with long-life cores and thorium-based
fuel cycles, we may find technology-based solutions to one of nuclear
power's most significant long-term challenges.
The Long-Term R&D Plan, developed by NERAC with significant input
from the wider research community, recommends that R&D budget levels be
increased in order to enable the Nation to realize further value from
our currently operating nuclear plants; provide for economic
technologies and approaches to build improved advanced reactors in the
United States; complete a design for a Generation IV nuclear energy
system; and support a range of enduring missions within the Department.
NERAC has established a goal of conducting $240 million in nuclear
energy research by 2005.
The Department initiated the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems
Project in January 2000 by convening a meeting of senior policy
officials from interested countries. Representatives of nine countries
participated in this initial discussion and considered the long-term
interest of the countries in the application of nuclear energy, the
international interest in advanced nuclear technologies, the barriers
that might prevent the future expansion of nuclear energy, and the
interest of the representatives in exploring potential multilateral
research projects to explore and develop new technologies. These
representatives agreed to a Joint Statement regarding the importance of
the nuclear energy option to the future and informally committed to a
process to explore further cooperative activities.
As a result of this meeting, and subsequent meetings, the nine
nations that first came together in January 2000 are planning the
formal creation of a Generation IV International Forum (GIF) to pursue
multilateral coordination and cooperation with the goal of identifying
and developing Generation IV technologies that could address the
factors impacting the expansion of nuclear energy internationally:
economic competitiveness of building and operating nuclear energy
systems; remaining concerns regarding nuclear safety and proliferation;
and the challenge of minimizing and dealing successfully with nuclear
wastes.
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.
The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI), a competitive, peer-
reviewed research and development selection process to fund researcher-
initiated R&D proposals from universities, national laboratories, and
industry, has reinvigorated the Nation's nuclear energy R&D
organizations. Focused on research to address the potential long-term
barriers to expanded use of nuclear power--economics, safety,
proliferation resistance, and waste minimization--the NERI program is
yielding innovative scientific and engineering R&D in nuclear fission
and reactor technology. Initiated in fiscal year 1999, this program
signaled the return of the United States to nuclear R&D, but a return
that reflected important lessons learned and a new appreciation for
harnessing outside expertise to focus the research. NERI has, despite
its limited funding, gone a long way to reinvigorate nuclear R&D in
this country.
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 the 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. The program is managed to promote
collaboration between U.S. research institutions and information
exchange with international organizations.
In fiscal year 2001, the Department launched an international
version of NERI, the International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative
(I-NERI), to sponsor innovative scientific and engineering research and
development conducted by joint teams of U.S. and foreign researchers.
Established as a cost-shared R&D program, the program objectives of the
I-NERI program are to: promote bilateral and multilateral collaboration
with international agencies and research organizations to improve the
development of nuclear energy; and promote and maintain the U.S.
nuclear science and engineering infrastructure to meet future technical
challenges.
We are in the final stages of signing I-NERI agreements with France
and South Korea. We are negotiating agreements with Japan and South
Africa, which we hope to conclude this year. We also expect to conclude
I-NERI agreements with the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development and with Euratom. When
implemented, these agreements will magnify modest U.S. investments in
R&D with great benefit to both the United States and our research
partners. In addition to accelerating innovation and leveraging costs,
I-NERI provides to the United States and the Department a key seat at
the table in international policy discussions on the future direction
of nuclear energy.
Our request of $18.1 million for NERI in fiscal year 2002 will
allow continuation of the NERI and I-NERI research projects currently
underway. The fiscal year 2002 request, however, reflects the
Department's decision not to initiate new energy research activities
until the Vice President's Task Force issues its national energy policy
recommendations; therefore, no funding is being sought in fiscal year
2002 budget request for new research projects. During fiscal year 2002,
the Department will complete 43 NERI research projects awarded in
fiscal year 1999, and continue the 10 NERI research projects awarded in
fiscal year 2000 and the 15 NERI projects expected to be awarded in
fiscal year 2001. In fiscal year 2002, the Department will continue the
bilateral international projects initiated in fiscal year 2001.
The Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) program plays a vital
role in ensuring that current nuclear plants can continue to deliver
reliable and economic energy supplies up to and beyond their initial
40-year license period by resolving open issues related to plant aging,
and by applying new technologies to improve plant economics,
reliability, and availability. The NEPO program is cost-shared with
industry through the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and is
conducted in close cooperation with the NRC. The research conducted
under the NEPO program is identified, prioritized, and selected with
broad input from utilities, national laboratories, NERAC, and other
stakeholders. With about a dozen projects underway, this program
demonstrates the Department's ability to lead without massive funding:
about 60 percent of NEPO funding is provided by industry and the suite
of projects focuses on areas that industry would not have pursued on
its own-projects that look at the long-term and focus on the need for a
stable, reliable, non-polluting electricity source for the United
States. We are requesting $4.5 million in fiscal year 2002 for NEPO
research to improve existing plant operations, safety and reliability.
In fiscal year 2002, our NEPO program will sponsor several 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. This comprehensive strategic R&D
plan, developed jointly by the Department, industry, and a subcommittee
of NERAC, includes near-term R&D that industry is doing on its own;
long-term R&D in which the Federal investment is leveraged with
industry to apply the unique infrastructure or expertise of DOE; and
R&D that is needed to accelerate solutions to generic technical
problems affecting existing nuclear power plants. The research projects
conducted in the NEPO program address technical issues associated with
a range of topics, including materials fatigue, fuel performance,
component inspections, in-service inspections and testing, stress
corrosion, and digital instrumentation and control.
New in fiscal year 2001, the Nuclear Energy Technologies (NET)
program is enabling the Department to begin to work on the development
of the next generation of advanced reactor technologies. We are
currently developing a Generation IV Technology Roadmap to evaluate a
variety of advanced nuclear energy system concepts using rigorous
technology goals developed by NERAC and the international community and
to define the needed research activities for the most promising
concepts. The Generation IV goals include the ability of the designs to
successfully compete in all markets with the most cost-efficient
electricity production technologies available while further enhancing
nuclear safety, minimizing the nuclear waste burden, and further
reducing risk of proliferation.
The Generation IV Technology Roadmap project is drawing on a wide
array of researchers, designers, and operators from industry, academia,
the national laboratories, and the international community. Together,
approximately 150 senior, experienced engineers and scientists from at
least 10 countries will work together to create the Generation IV
Technology Roadmap. We have found that U.S. leadership has been
essential to this process and that without the Department's initiative,
this type of effort would not have been possible. Moreover, our
leadership in this area has proven to be a very important element in
achieving our overall foreign policy and national security objectives.
The Generation IV Technology Roadmap will also provide additional
detail and focus to the Department's long-term R&D plan for nuclear
technology. The fiscal year 2002 budget request of $4.5 million
includes funding to complete the roadmap, which will be submitted to
Congress by fall 2002.
Finally, in fiscal year 2001, the Department initiated the Advanced
Accelerator Applications (AAA) program to pursue research and
development on an accelerator technology with the potential to
significantly reduce the radioactive toxicity and volume of civilian
spent nuclear fuel, as well as to produce electricity to help offset
the life cycle costs of the program. As part of this effort, the
Department established a new ``AAA University Fellowship'' program and
plans to award ten fellowships to support Masters Degree studies in
areas related to the AAA program. Awards are planned to be given out
within the next 60 days. As required by the fiscal year 2001 Energy and
Water Appropriations legislation, the Department has prepared a ten-
year program plan for management and execution of the AAA program,
exploring the potential of this new type of research facility to meet
U.S. needs in the 21st Century. However, for fiscal year 2002, the
Department has requested no new funds for the AAA program. The
Administration is reviewing U.S. energy policy and related research
priorities. Until these priorities are clearly identified, the
Department will not request funding for major new energy initiatives.
university reactor fuel assistance and support
Investments in Education
Government, industry, and academia face similar challenges today as
we seek to preserve the aging but highly developed science and
technology infrastructure that the United States has developed over the
last 50 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. More trained personnel will be
required 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. For fiscal year 2002, we are requesting $12
million in total for this program, an amount equivalent to previous
years. 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.
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 education support programs. NE's
Nuclear Engineering Fellowship and Scholarship Program provides
fellowships and scholarships to students enrolled in nuclear science
and engineering programs at U.S. universities. This activity also pairs
minority-serving institutions with nuclear engineering degree-granting
institutions with the aim of increasing the number of minority students
entering the field of nuclear engineering, while simultaneously
strengthening the infrastructure of nuclear engineering education. In
fiscal year 2001, we expect to fund three minority/majority
partnerships, and plan to increase the number to six partnerships in
fiscal year 2002.
In fiscal year 2001, and proposed in fiscal year 2002, the
Department will provide 18 or more grants under the DOE-Utility
Matching Grants Program to support education, training and innovative
research at participating universities, in 50-50 cost-shared
partnership with industry. We provide grants of up to $60,000 to each
participating university. We also expect to award up to 50 scholarships
and 24 fellowships this year and next. The fiscal year 2002 request
also supports the Nuclear Engineering Education Research (NEER) program
to stimulate innovative research at U.S. universities, at a level of
$5.0 million. 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 19 NEER grants and, with
continuation of existing grants, increase the total number of research
projects underway to 50.
In fiscal year 2002, Nuclear Energy will continue a program to
support nuclear engineering education by teaming with a professional
society with expertise in nuclear science and technology to provide
information to high school teachers and students. This program will
help ensure a highly informed group of students are available to enter
university nuclear engineering programs and related scientific courses
of study. We also will make new radiochemistry awards for the first
time since fiscal year 1999. The three-year awards provide faculty
support and student fellowships to help educate a new generation of
radiochemists to address the technical challenges associated with
radioactive wastes and contaminated sites.
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. However, many U.S.
universities are currently considering the future of their reactors and
some are contemplating the closure of their research reactor
facilities. The Department is concerned about these developments, as is
the NRC.
In response to this situation, the Department has asked NERAC to
establish a special task force to recommend the most appropriate action
for assuring that university-based facilities vital to our national
infrastructure remain in operation. The task force has been conducting
an intensive review and will report its findings and recommendations
later this month.
This year, and proposed in fiscal year 2002, we will continue to
supply fresh fuel to and transport spent fuel from university research
reactors and to fund reactor equipment upgrades. Also, under the
reactor sharing initiative, this year, and proposed in fiscal year
2002, 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.
advanced radioisotope power systems
Enabling Space Exploration and Discovery
When the astronauts first walked on the moon over 30 years ago,
they placed radioisotope power systems on the surface to power through
the long lunar night the experiment packages they left on the surface.
The images of the outer planets Neptune and Jupiter that have thrilled
the general public were made possible by the radioisotope power systems
that powered these scientific spacecraft. Future exploration of the
outer planets and their moons will continue to require nuclear power
systems as scientists search to find answers on the origins of our
solar system and even of how life began. Long time robotic exploration
of Mars to pursue the potential of finding water or past life forms and
eventual human exploration will also be made possible by radioisotope
power systems and eventually by space reactors.
The Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems program is our Nation's
only program for providing the capability to develop and build advanced
nuclear power systems for deep space exploration and national security
applications. The program supports and funds DOE activities related to
sustaining the unique infrastructure that allows the Department to
develop, demonstrate, test, and deliver power systems to the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and other Federal agencies.
In fiscal year 2002, the Department is requesting $29.1 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
and heater units for use on a total of 26 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 continue to be indispensable if we are
to continue our exploration and advance human understanding of the
universe. Clearly, there will be future missions and there will be a
need for these systems.
In supporting these missions, consideration is being given during
fiscal year 2002 to both a Small Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator
and a new, more efficient, Stirling engine conversion technology. The
Stirling technology would require a lesser amount of plutonium-238, the
heat-producing isotope that is used for all radioisotope power systems.
Efforts will also proceed in support of providing Radioisotope Heater
Units for two Mars Lander missions in 2003. This effort includes safety
and environmental analyses to support both NASA's environmental
documentation and the Department's preparation of Safety Analysis
Reports, which are required to seek launch approval.
The expanding needs of our Nation's national security missions 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. In
fiscal year 2002, we will continue testing the thermoelectric element,
proceed with design, and initiate fabrication of an engineering unit of
this new generator.
For the Department to be able to continue to support these
important uses of radioisotope power systems, there must be an adequate
supply of the radioisotope plutonium-238 that is the heat producing
isotope upon which these systems are based. There is a finite U.S.
supply of this isotope and the existing U.S. capability to produce the
isotope is being shut down. Because of the projected long term need for
this isotope to support future space missions, the Department evaluated
the option of reestablishing a domestic production capability as part
of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) on the
Department's nuclear Infrastructure. The Record of Decision on this
PEIS included a decision by former Secretary Richardson to reestablish
this domestic capability. Funding for the initial planning for this
capability is included in the fiscal year 2002 request.
The Department is also trying to position itself so that it can
support future space exploration that will require higher power levels
than can realistically be provided by radioisotope power systems--this
requirement leads to the need for some type of space fission reactor. A
space-based reactor will have to meet stringent requirements for
reliability, size and weight. Therefore an assessment of potential
space fission reactor technologies and concepts that could meet such
requirements is a necessary first step in a space reactor program. Such
an effort was begun in fiscal year 2001 will continue in fiscal year
2002 at a modest level. The assessment will focus on refining selected
concepts and on evaluating programmatic factors such as cost, safety
and schedule that would be associated with their potential development
and delivery. NASA is an integral partner in this assessment and has
provided the preliminary requirements upon which the assessments are
based.
medical isotope program
Harnessing Nuclear Technology to Save Lives
Medical isotopes save lives and reduce health care costs.
Furthermore, accurate nuclear medicine diagnoses can enable physicians
and patients to precisely target therapies, thus, in many cases,
avoiding surgery or other debilitating treatments. The vast majority of
these procedures use technetium-99m, an isotope first developed for
medical applications in the 1960s at the Department's Brookhaven
National Laboratory. Today, ground-breaking human clinical trials at
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center are demonstrating that alpha-
particle-emitting isotopes being produced at the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory may be extremely effective in treating Acute Myelogenous
Leukemia. Alpha-emitting isotopes work well when targeted to cancers
because they provide high-intensity radiation over an extremely short
distance. Thus, the cancer cells are destroyed with very little damage
to surrounding tissues.
The Medical Isotope Program takes advantage of the Department's
unique infrastructure, including DOE's research reactors and particle
accelerators, to provide a reliable supply of stable and radioactive
isotopes used in medicine, industry and research. Support of research
applications that use isotopes is the Medical Isotope Program's primary
focus. The program achieves this by providing peer-reviewed grants for
medical research and education through the Advanced Nuclear Medicine
Initiative (ANMI), by producing the low-volume, high-cost ``boutique''
isotopes that are needed for research, and by maintaining the unique
Department of Energy infrastructure that is needed to produce isotopes.
The Department's fiscal year 2002 request for the Medical Isotope
Program is $18.2 million. In fiscal year 2002, the Department will
continue its emphasis on isotope-based research by applying $2.5
million to the Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative, a program that
applies the Department's unique expertise to advance the state of U.S.
medical research, diagnosis and treatment. We believe that, as in the
example of alpha isotopes, 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 the conduct of advanced research
in the United States where isotopes are needed. In addition, the ANMI
supports the development of science and technology programs at U.S.
universities and colleges to address the critical need to train experts
in fields relevant to nuclear medicine such as radiochemistry and
radiopharmaceuticals.
The ANMI uses a peer-review process in which members of the NERAC
and other prominent experts judge the scientific merits of projects
proposed by universities, hospitals, and the national laboratories for
funding. I am pleased with the results to date. In September, 2000,
nine research grants were made. Recipients of these grants include the
Garden State Cancer Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Regents of
the University of Michigan, University of Chicago, University of
California Davis, University of Washington, Westinghouse Electric
Company LLC, and two awards to the Curators of the University of
Missouri. Five educational grants to support nuclear medicine
disciplines at universities and colleges were made in March 2001 to
Washington University, Purdue University, University of New Mexico
Health Sciences, Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, and
Washington State University. With the $2.5 million requested in fiscal
year 2002, we propose to continue the research projects and assistance
to students provided this year.
A total of $11.0 million will go toward maintaining core personnel
and operating capabilities at the four Isotope Production and
Distribution sites, and $250,000 toward improving the quality of
isotope products and production processes. The fiscal year 2002 program
will continue to serve its customers through the production and
distribution of stable and radioactive isotopes necessary for medical,
industrial, and research purposes. The Department is continuing 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.
However, we must reinvest in the production of isotopes to support
the Nation's researchers. One of our most important projects in this
area is the construction of an Isotope Production Facility (IPF) at Los
Alamos National Laboratory which will maintain the Government's ability
to produce short-lived isotopes required for some of the most important
medical research underway in the United States.
During the past year, we became aware of some issues arising in the
project to construct the IPF. Changes in the operating schedule of the
LANSCE accelerator at the laboratory, increased costs for design and
construction, and other issues were uncovered during reviews last year.
We convened a special expert review to assess the situation and make
recommendations about the continuation of the program. The primary
charge to the review committee was to evaluate the IPF project team's
revised cost and schedule estimate for completeness and credibility by
analyzing the following: technical progress relative to the scientific
requirements for the instrument; completeness of the scope; proposed
budget, cost and schedule profile, including the commitment of funds
and personnel and its adequacy to complete the project on schedule and
within budget; proposed budget, cost and schedule profile for the
instrumentation and controls on the new accelerator beam line and
target handling system; whether the contingency is adequate for the
project at this stage of its development; adequacy of management
structures, including the relationships to the LANSCE mission
organization, to deliver the IPF within specifications and budget and
on time; and proposed budget, cost and schedule profile for the
development, review and approval of the safety basis documentation and
performance of the required readiness review.
With the help of this review, we have established a new, high-
confidence bottom-up cost estimate of the remaining work. Our request
of $2.494 million for the IPF in fiscal year 2002 is being submitted to
enable the project to be completed in September 2003.
The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology is
disappointed that these problems have occurred. In response to the
problems that have developed in this project, oversight of the project
will be strengthened by establishing an expert project review
capability at the site which will report directly to the Office of
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. We also plan to issue a
competitive procurement for a separate subcontract to complete portions
of the work on the IPF instrumentation and control system, an area
where the current contractor's initial estimate proved to be extremely
problematic. The current project request incorporates corrections to
reflect actual costs and revised estimates deemed necessary to complete
the project successfully.
Another key initiative of the Medical Isotope Program is the
processing and extraction of alpha-emitting isotopes from residual
uranium materials stored at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Researchers throughout the United States are assessing alpha-emitting
radioisotopes that can destroy cancer cells and reduce tumors. Alpha-
emitters such as Bismuth-213 have been demonstrated to be successful
for cancer therapy. In an effort to meet increased demand to support
human clinical trials, the Department is expanding its processing to
achieve a 30 percent increase in supply over the next year. For the
long term, the Department plans to double the supply of Bismuth-213 by
2002. However, this will require installation of a new processing line
at ORNL. As additional supply is made available, researchers will
increase human clinical trials and develop treatments for other serious
cancers including cancer of the pancreas, kidneys and other organs.
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, have 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. To that end, the Department will have to make capital
investments in new, replaced, or enhanced processing equipment and
infrastructure to improve production and processing of isotopes to meet
current and anticipated future increases in demand.
infrastructure/nuclear facilities management
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
in Idaho. Nuclear Energy is also responsible for the safe shutdown of
the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) in Hanford, Washington. As part of
our stewardship over these facilities, we are responsible for the
management and disposition, where appropriate, of nuclear materials.
The fiscal year 2002 budget request for Nuclear Facilities
Management--$30.5 million--supports Experimental Breeder Reactor-II
shutdown activities; the disposition of spent fuel and legacy
materials; and research on, and development of, various waste
disposition technologies. The activities of the Infrastructure program
are focused on maintenance of the Argonne National Laboratory-West
nuclear infrastructure, the TRA Landlord program, and the Fast Flux
Test Facility (FFTF) shutdown and deactivation. A funding level of
$81.3 million is proposed for this program in fiscal year 2002.
Under the Nuclear Facilities Management program, in March 2001, the
Department completed the processing of the EBR-II secondary and primary
sodium and the Fermi reactor sodium, in compliance with the Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Treatment Plan, two
months ahead of schedule. In fiscal year 2002, we will complete the
engineering and technical efforts supporting the deactivation of the
EBR-II and directly related facilities. The deactivation of EBR-II is
currently on schedule to be completed by March 2002. We are requesting
$4.2 million to complete EBR-II deactivation.
We will continue to carry out the disposition of spent fuel at ANL-
West in accordance with the Record of Decision on the treatment and
management of stored sodium-bonded fuel. Also, we intend to continue
research that supports NRC approval of the 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 and is now stored by a commercial entity at ANL-West. These
activities account for $16.3 million of the fiscal year 2002 request.
Finally, we are requesting $10.0 million for waste disposition
technology activities, including R&D of process refinements to ensure
proper treatment of EBR-II fuel rods; a development and test effort on
waste stream treatment process equipment of a scale suitable for
inventory treatment; long-term waste characterization tests;
improvements to existing process equipment; and development of zeolite
columns and other equipment refinements to reduce waste volume and
improve process efficiency.
Within the Infrastructure program, 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 privatization
of production of isotopes for medicine and industry. The program also
funds operations, maintenance and upgrade activities for common site
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. In fiscal year 2002, we are requesting $8.7 million
for these TRA-related activities.
The permanent deactivation of the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF)
was directed in a Record of Decision (ROD) issued by the Department in
January 2001. The fiscal year 2002 NE budget request reflects the
investment required to continue FFTF deactivation, and to reach
milestones crucial to an expeditious completion of deactivation
activities in subsequent fiscal years. Experience gained from the
deactivation of the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II) is being
applied to the deactivation planning and execution for the FFTF. In
fiscal year 2002, Argonne National Laboratory engineers will continue
to work closely with deactivation staff at FFTF to ensure that lessons
learned are imparted to the extent practicable. This engineering and
analytical support is anticipated to result in efficiencies, and, in
some cases, such as sodium processing, direct application of state-of-
the-art technology developed specifically for deactivation purposes.
The remainder of the Infrastructure budget request is for Argonne
National Laboratory-West Operations, for which we are requesting $34.1
million in fiscal year 2002. This funding will provide the engineering,
technical, operator and technician support for maintaining the nuclear
facilities at ANL-W in compliance with DOE Rules and Orders,
environmental and industrial safety requirements, and good management
practice. It will also support conceptual design activities for the
Remote Treatment Facility project, which is needed for disposal of
mixed transuranic waste stored at ANL-W. Construction on this facility
is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2005, with operations commencing
in fiscal year 2009.
program direction/organizational issues
Continuing to Refocus the U.S. Nuclear R&D Program
NE represents the Federal Government's core expertise and
capability in a wide range of civilian nuclear technologies. NE is one
of the most diverse organizations in the Department. It is a research
and development program that crosses many fields of application, all
unified by its expertise and experience in the application of nuclear
science and technology. The previous sections illustrate the breadth of
our efforts.
During the past year, two nuclear-related activities were moved to
other offices. The fiscal year 2001 appropriation language transferred
Uranium Programs and related personnel funding from NE to the Office of
Environmental Management (EM) in recognition of the fact that the bulk
of activities in Uranium Programs fell closely under the areas of
expertise and effort covered by EM. This change will assure that NE
activities are strongly focused on research and development. Therefore,
the fiscal year 2002 budget request for NE does not seek funding for
any Uranium Program activities or personnel expenses. In addition, the
Department decided in fiscal year 2001 that safeguards and security
activities within the DOE complex are so important that they should be
direct-funded programs rather than be funded as an indirect cost of
doing business. Therefore, all of the funding included in the fiscal
year 2002 NE budget request for safeguards and security activities
reflects the transfer of funds to other program offices for carrying
out these activities.
In the Program Direction category for fiscal year 2002, NE is
requesting $25.1 million for salaries, travel, support services and
other administrative expenses for headquarters and field personnel
providing technical direction to NE programs. Our Program Direction
funding also supports the many intensive activities of the NERAC.
As part of the Department's objective to maintain a highly skilled
workforce, NE must hire additional staff to replenish critical
technical expertise such as that required to assure the safe operation
of the Department's various reactor facilities and to carry out new
responsibilities such as the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI)
and the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) programs. In addition,
NE is faced with another issue concerning the aging workforce. The
average age of NE employees is 49, and there are many employees who
will soon be eligible to retire (25 percent by December 31, 2001). Over
50 percent of the current organization could turn over within just a
few years. Staffing levels have reached the point where some
augmentation is necessary to be able to maintain a core staff of
knowledgeable, competent, and experienced scientists and engineers to
meet the growing responsibilities now being placed on the Office. NE is
currently recruiting several entry-level engineering and scientific
positions to replace senior, experienced technical staff expected to
retire in the near future.
conclusion
Over the last three years, the Nuclear Energy program has made
great strides. We have launched three new research initiatives, and
have successfully demonstrated a major technology for treatment of
spent fuel. The budget we are proposing for fiscal year 2002 would
provide for more focused international collaboration and leveraging of
the Federal investment in nuclear energy R&D, and would sustain our
enduring role in support of space exploration, would ensure the
continuing supply of medical and research radioisotopes, and would
provide for ongoing 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 50 years. I look forward to working with you and
the Subcommittee as we embark on preparing the technologies needed for
this new century.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would like to
thank you and the Subcommittee members for your continuing support of
the Nuclear Energy program. I will be happy to answer any questions.
Senator Bennett. Senator Craig, do you have some questions
or comment?
Senator Craig. I do.
Senator Bennett. You are recognized.
Senator Craig. And if you have to go----
Senator Bennett. No. You go ahead, and then we--we both
have to go at 11:00.
Senator Craig. Oh, okay.
Senator Bennett. We--we have--yes.
Senator Craig. All right. Well, then I will--then we will
move right along.
Senator Bennett. Yes, we have a vote.
GENERATION IV TECHNOLOGIES
Senator Craig. Gentlemen, thank you all for your testimony.
I am pleased to hear your discussion about what is moving
forward with nuclear energy and the concern, because I agree
with you, Mr. Magwood, that where we are and where we need to
be is--is very critical.
The Department of Energy has named the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory and Argonne National
Laboratory-West as lead laboratories for advanced nuclear
reactor development. The budget request, as you mentioned,
includes $4 million for Generation IV advanced nuclear
activities. What would DOE do--or what do you plan to do with
that level of funding?
Mr. Magwood. With that level of funding, we will be able to
complete the Generation IV Technology roadmap. That roadmap is
being administered and run largely by Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory. And
they have been coordinating with the entire international
research community to perform this effort.
Without them, quite frankly, it would not be possible to do
this, so much of those resources are being used by Argonne and
Idaho to pursue the technology roadmap, and we should complete
it on schedule by the end of next year.
NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH INITIATIVE
Senator Craig. Of course we understand that the budget
request was cut by--well, there was an $18 million initiative
there, the National Research--the National Energy Research
Initiative, and that was cut down.
What are the implications of this reduction--reduced
funding level for ongoing multi-year proposals, and will the
program be able to fund any new research proposals?
Mr. Magwood. The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI)
is down from last year, down to about an $18 million request
for fiscal year 2002.
We will not be able to support new proposals for 2002 with
that funding level. This is somewhat of a concern to the
research community obviously because we have been building some
momentum with that program.
However, I think it is appropriate that we not make
commitments for new programs unless we are certain that NERI
will continue. Until the Department sets its priorities based
on the Vice President's analysis, we would not want to make any
promises we could not keep.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Senator Craig. Okay. I am concerned that funding requested
for Argonne West in nuclear facilities management and--and
infrastructure accounts is insufficient to meet the EBR2 spent
fuel treatment deadlines and adequately maintain Argonne West's
facilities as agreed to by DOE.
At the requested funding level, will DOE be able to meet
the fuel treatment deadlines and also maintain Argonne West
facilities?
Mr. Magwood. For fiscal year 2002, the answer to that is
yes. We are able to meet our commitments. It is clear, however,
that in the future we will require more funding to meet all the
commitments, particularly for treating spent nuclear fuel, but
for 2002, we would have sufficient funds to continue to work
where necessary.
UNIVERSITY NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING PROGRAM
Senator Craig. Okay. You mentioned the need to keep
university reactors up and the emergency situation there. I
recently co-sponsored a bill with the Chairman of this
subcommittee, Senator Domenici, and others, to provide other
$30 million for support to university nuclear science and
engineering programs to address the critical need to educate
the next generation of nuclear experts.
The budget request is only $12 million for these programs.
Do you feel the level of funding will adequately address the
university needs, and does that fit into this emergency
situation you are speaking to?
Mr. Magwood. Clearly, the budget was structured long before
we had clear recommendations from NERAC as to what actions the
Department should take.
We have now received those recommendations from NERAC, just
yesterday. And while NERAC has not provided us with a specific
target, it is clear that the current funding levels would not
be adequate to respond to the need that NERAC has foreseen.
We clearly have to look closely at the NERAC's
recommendations. They recommended we hold a workshop among the
university community this summer. And after that, we would be
in a position to better estimate what the need would be. But it
would be more than the current $12 million budget.
ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING LEGISLATION
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Mr. Decker, I just happened to have come from the Commerce
Committee where I testified on climate change. And a week ago,
I was sitting with Dr. Charles Canal, who is the head of the
National Research Council arm of the National Science--National
Science Foundation as it relates to this overall study.
We were talking about the need of coordinating Federal
resources to get to the business of building a major computer
model for us to determine our future and our policy as it
relates to climate change.
I think a lot of us forget that the Department of Energy is
really a premiere science agency in many respects. And, of
course, you have mentioned the human genome and the advanced
computing applications worked on by DOE scientists. It is that
computer capability that we need.
We do not need to go out and acquire new super computers.
We simply need to be able to work, to schedule accordingly--and
that may well be an approach that comes from this
Administration and others. We are all counciling together now
to see where we can get as it relates to bringing our science
and our scientists together.
There is lots of good science out there. The question is
the application, how it is analyzed, how it is peer-reviewed,
and how it is applied. And it--probably from a regional and
global standpoint, it is going to take a modeling that we are
satisfied with compared to what we have been using.
Are you aware of Senate Bill 193, and are you supportive of
it?
Dr. Decker. No, sir, I am not aware of that bill.
Senator Craig. This would deal with--this is legislation
related to advanced scientific computing programs within the
DOE, within the Office of Science. I was just curious whether
you were sensitive to that.
Dr. Decker. I remember that there was some work being done
on drafting a bill, but I do not think I have seen a recent
version.
Senator Craig. Well, my guess is we are going to be working
even more closely. I do not know how much all of this will come
together, but it is very possible that in the near future a
great new project for the supercomputers will be working to
help shape a model.
Do I have time for one more question, or do you have some?
Senator Bennett. Go ahead. Surely. Go ahead.
Senator Craig. Okay.
And this is for you, Mr. Dixon. Within the Office of Energy
Efficiency, there is a program called Industries of the Future,
which funds energy efficiency research and development divided
by industry sector.
One of the industry sectors involved in the program is the
mining industry. This program funds projects related to
advanced mining equipment and technologies aimed at improving
the safety and the productivity of mining and processing
operations.
A total of only about $9 million has been spent on this
program from fiscal year 1999 to 2001. Although the budget
request for this program is only about $2 million in fiscal
year 2002, this program is strongly supported by the National
Mining Association and by mining programs at colleges around
the country, such as the University of Idaho.
Do you feel the amount requested in the budget for the
mining industry program is adequate? Is $2 million sufficient
to continue funding an ongoing multi-year--or the ongoing
multi-year proposal?
Dr. Dixon. Senator Craig, thank you for that question. The
Industries of the Future's program is outside my specific
jurisdiction, but I would be happy to take your question back
to the Department and provide you an answer for the record.
Senator Craig. If you would do that and we will help direct
it, we appreciate that. Thank you very much.
Dr. Dixon. Thank you, sir.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
[The information follows:]
Mining Industry of the Future Program
The fiscal year 2002 congressional budget request of $2.11 million
for the Mining Industry of The Future (IOF) program is an appropriate
level. It will be used to maintain the funding of existing cost shared
research programs targeted to increase cross cutting technologies in
the coal and hard rock mining industries. It will also fund start up,
costs shared, projects for mining industry wide processing research.
These projects are aimed at energy savings while developing new,
innovative, technologies that produce higher quality products at lower
costs and protecting human health and the environment.
Mining Industry of The Future research and development projects,
supported by the Department of Energy laboratories, are displaying
improved energy conservation, while improving industry visions of
advanced technologies that produce higher quality products and enhance
the United States mining industry as the world leader in mining and
mineral processing. The processing roadmap projects that are initiated
will develop new outreaching technologies that will continue to advance
the mining industry.
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Mr. Magwood, long before I came to the Senate, as a private
citizen, I supported an increased use of nuclear power in the
United States. It simply made sense to me. Now, as a Senator,
the more I get into it, the more sense it makes to me,
particularly in view of the California situation and the
difficulties that we are facing with respect to power. So your
comments are very welcome and very optimistic.
My question is an unfair question, but we ask unfair
questions all the time, and are asked unfair questions by the
press all the time. How realistic is it?
Do you really sense that the political atmosphere is such
in this country now that we can, in fact, build a new nuclear
plant; or do you think that the appeals, the protests, the
pickets, the rest of the folklore that has been built up around
nuclear power will still be so strong that, in fact, we cannot
build a new nuclear plant regardless of what the science says?
Mr. Magwood. I think it is very realistic and I will give
you the best reason why. When you talk to people across the
country, there are obviously a variety of views about nuclear
power: however, the people who are generally most familiar with
nuclear power and the most accepting of nuclear power are these
who live in communities around existing nuclear power plants.
They are very well informed due to the kinds of
communications that take place with the utility. They reflect
very high numbers in the polls when asked, ``Would you like to
see more nuclear power plants built in the United States?''
These communities would accept and have accepted the
relicensing of existing nuclear power plants at existing sites.
We believe that most utilities that are thinking about new
nuclear power plants would build these new plants at existing
sites.
So instead of breaking ground at a greenfield site, they
would add to the nuclear power plants at a site that is already
in operation. I think that the public around those plants are
finding that very acceptable. And utilities are having those
conversations and are thinking about that very carefully right
now.
Senator Bennett. Well, I hope you are right. I am afraid
that the protestors very often do not live anywhere near the
site that they are protesting.
I have had that experience in my own State. The Southern
Utah Wilderness Alliance is made up of people who do not live
in Southern Utah and, indeed most of them have never set foot
in the State of Utah, but they are--I will not go down that
road anymore. I am sorry.
RECYCLING SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL
Let us talk about recycling spent fuel in less toxic ways.
You mentioned that in your opening statement. Bring me up to
date on where the science is and how--how close we are to--to
getting nuclear waste to a much more benign state.
I know you cannot ever reduce it completely to common dirt,
but you can at least lower it from what it used to be. And just
kind of go there for a little--for a little while with me.
Mr. Magwood. Sure. It is an interesting subject, obviously
over the last several years, it has been very difficult to have
much of a conversation in the country about it. There was not
really a political environment to have a discussion about the
possibility of recycling spent nuclear fuel.
Currently there is policy on the books that would prohibit
the recycling of spent nuclear fuel. I think this is something
that needs to be evaluated.
Senator Bennett. Is that a Congressional mandate, or is an
executive----
Mr. Magwood. There is an executive order.
Senator Bennett. Executive order, okay.
Mr. Magwood. Rather Presidential decision directive, number
13, I believe.
We have had significant conversations with other countries,
particularly the Japanese and the French, about advanced
recycling technologies and also the use of high energy
accelerators to transmute nuclear waste into less toxic forms.
I was talking to Burt Richter, the chairman of our NERAC
Subcommittee, about this just yesterday. He told me that his
calculation is that compared to spent nuclear fuel, which has a
life of about 300,000 years, he believes that after going
through recycling and transmutation, the resulting waste would
last only about 3,000 years.
He also said that is just about the lifetime of the
pyramids, so obviously we can deal with that. That was his
quick analysis.
PUREX REPROCESSING TECHNOLOGY
There are clearly a lot of technical issues that remain. We
would not want to see a vast expansion of the Purex
reprocessing technology, which is practiced in Europe.
It creates a significant amount of separated plutonium. It
also creates large amounts of high-level waste that would need
to be dealt with. But there are prospects for more advanced
technologies, such as accelerator transmutation to address
these situations.
While I think we are not there yet, I certainly think that
over probably about a 10-year period we could find technologies
that would enable us to deal with nuclear waste. As you know
the Department recently submitted a 10-year plan to Congress on
the potential of using accelerators to transmute nuclear waste.
Senator Bennett. That is encouraging, because aside from
the waste issue--and I do not mean to minimize the waste
issue--nuclear power is the cleanest and safest--I guess with
the exception of hydroelectric.
But there is great opposition also to the building of dams.
Indeed, there are those who say we must take down the dams that
we currently have.
But nuclear power has the best safety record of any power
plant that we operate. Is that not true or--is that hyperbole
that I have heard that needs to be corrected?
Mr. Magwood. Well, I have never heard of anyone killed by a
solar cell. But I think that it is clearly true that----
Senator Bennett. I do not know, sun cancer.
NUCLEAR SAFETY
Mr. Magwood. I think it is clearly true that when you look
at the fuel cycle of any source of electricity, be it coal, or
natural gas, that there have been, injuries and deaths
associated with these industries.
However, in the United States, I do not think that anyone
has ever been killed from the use of nuclear power. But there
is a little hyperbole there, because there is, of course, with
nuclear power the need to carefully manage the materials, to
make sure the spent fuel is dealt with appropriately.
Senator Bennett. Yes.
Mr. Magwood To make sure that the plants are operated
safely. As long as these things are done, nuclear power is very
safe, and in this country it has an excellent record that we
are very proud of. So I would conclude that nuclear power is
very safe.
Senator Bennett. Yes. I am glad to have you add that
caveat, because we need to, ``in this country.''
Obviously, the specter of Chernobyl is there for the
problems of nuclear in places where they do not do the kinds of
things that you have described and that your office is involved
in.
Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I regret
I had two other hearings and another meeting this morning, so I
missed the----
FISCAL YEAR 2002 BUDGET REQUEST FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY
Senator Bennett. We understand, because we have all been
cycling through here.
Senator Dorgan. I missed the testimony, but I have reviewed
it. And I would like to ask a couple of questions, especially
about renewable energy, if I might.
The renewable energy budget request for solar, wind,
biomass, hydrogen, geothermal, hydropower, and so on, research
and development is $237.4 million or a cut of 36 percent. I am
very disappointed by that.
Obviously, we are facing very serious energy issues that we
have to deal with. We are talking about increased production
needs, increased conservation needs and so on. In my judgment,
part of the solution is to continue to work to make renewable
commercial and acceptable and to have it contribute to our
energy supply.
Now, Dr. Dixon, you indicated there would be a budget
amendment, and that is helpful, but it will still leave us far
short of what we had last year and where we ought to be, in my
judgment.
Let me just run through a couple of numbers. A $135 million
cut, or a 36-percent cut from last year in renewables. The wind
energy program is $20.5 million. Last year, the budget request
was $50.5 million. That is a dramatic cut in support from the
Administration.
Last year it was a substantial increase. This year, it is a
dramatic request for a cut. Last year, we appropriated $39.5
million for wind. This year, you are asking for a cut nearly in
half for wind energy. It seems to me like you are moving in
exactly the opposite direction in this budget.
Can you tell me what the basis would be for taking the
renewable section and gutting it?
Dr. Dixon. Thank you, Senate Dorgan. I believe your summary
of the--the historical budget information is correct.
Just for the record, our 2002 budget request will total
almost $277 million with a $39 million amendment, which is
finding its way up to Capitol Hill.
I would like to refer you to the Secretary of Energy's
statement when the President's budget was announced about 3
weeks ago. The Secretary of Energy specifically identified the
hydrogen, high-temperature superconductivity, geothermal, and
wind energy research programs, that they were maintained at
levels that provide a launching point for new initiatives
following the release of the Vice President's energy
development task force report.
Senator Dorgan. What does that mean?
ENERGY POLICY REPORT
Dr. Dixon. The report will contain a number of chapters
which address a variety of energy sources including renewable
energy, and we have all been working together on the report.
And we understand that our input is being considered and that
there will be recommendations with regard to all energy sources
in the future, development of those energy sources, including
renewable energy.
So the wind energy program would be well positioned to be
launched, pending the recommendations of that report.
Senator Dorgan. Do you know something? I do not have any
idea what you just said, Dr. Dixon. I admire your public
service but I just do not understand. You dig a hole and then
talk about positioning for a launch.
Wind energy, which in my judgment has significant promise
for this country. Let me just deal with wind for a moment. The
efficiencies of the new wind turbines are very substantially
improved. The capabilities for wind energy to be commercial and
provide substantial opportunities for this country are
enormous, and it looks to me like the proposal, even with the
add-back is to cut wind energy by 50 percent. That does not
make any sense to me.
I think you are saying, ``Well, maybe, when the Vice
President comes out with his program, we are going to launch
something new,'' but, you know, you do not launch from a hole.
And you are digging a hole here.
I do not mean to diminish what you just said. I just do not
understand it. Any way to be more clear?
Dr. Dixon. Well, I think we need to wait for the
recommendations of the Vice President's task force----
Senator Dorgan. Do you think that that is----
Dr. Dixon [continuing]. And hopefully that will provide
some clarity with regard to the future priorities and
directions of these programs.
Senator Dorgan. Is there some hope among this panel that
the Vice President's task force will recommend at least
equivalent funding, if not increased funding from last year
with respect to wind energy, solar, biomass, hydrogen,
geothermal, et cetera?
Dr. Dixon. Well, again, I would refer you to the
Secretary's statement in which he specifically identified the
wind energy program as being well positioned to be launched
based upon the recommendations of the report.
Senator Dorgan. But that, of course, is at odds with the
budget recommendation. So let me try again.
Are you saying that there is some possibility that when the
Vice President announces his program that we may actually see
wind energy funded at least at last year's level and perhaps an
increase? Does that possibility exist in your judgment?
Dr. Dixon. That possibility exists.
Senater Dorgan. Can I call you?
Dr. Dixon. Yes.
Senator Dorgan. Let me just say that I think this is an
awful time to be cutting these areas. I guess when you do your
add-back here in 2 weeks, you are going to submit a budget
amendment. And that amendment excludes, as I understand it,
wind energy. The budget amendment is going to add to some
renewables. But it will still come up far short.
You are saying in addition to this adding back, which
represents a judgment that we are short, the Vice President
will probably add back even further in some areas. Why would
the 2-week add-back not include the Vice President's
recommendations?
Dr. Dixon. Well, of course, the report is still a work in
progress. And the amendment that is finding its way up here
would address those priorities of the Secretary of Energy.
And we are hopeful that, in fact, the recommendations
provide a clear list of priorities, and investments would be
aligned with those priorities.
WIND ENERGY
Senator Dorgan. Last year, 54 Senators joined me in sending
a letter to the Chairman and the Ranking Member supporting the
renewables program. These 54 members of the U.S. Senate signed
up to say, ``Yes, we think this is really important.'' It is
much more important this year, given what we see with respect
to our energy problem.
We have to do a lot of everything. We have to find more,
produce more. We have to conserve more. We have to do a lot of
everything.
In my judgment, because I am a big fan of these areas, we
especially have to find ways to bring renewable technologies
into the commercial sector through research and development.
We are making great progress in doing that. Again, I have
spent some time on the issue of wind energy myself and I am
mightily impressed by the new technology in wind turbines.
The last thing we ought to do is slip and slide back on
this issue. And that is what the budget does.
The add-back excludes wind; would you agree with that?
Dr. Dixon. Yes.
Senator Dorgan. Okay. So we have about a 50-percent cut in
wind energy and you are going to have an add-back that excludes
wind and I am to leave here hoping that we have dug a hole we
are going to launch from when the Vice President offers his
advice on renewables.
Well, I have got your phone number, Mr. Dixon, and you and
I will chat again. I did want to at least come here and say
that I think this energy issue we have is an abiding issue. It
is a very difficult issue.
Some say, ``We will drill in ANWR, and that is the
solution.'' Some others say, ``Renewables,'' but we are not
going to get our way out of this very quickly. And we have not
had a decent energy policy under any administration, Republican
or Democrat.
We are trying to find our way to do a lot of things, some
of them very difficult. I am not a big fan of nuclear energy, I
might say.
But, you know, I understand all the discussion about all
these things, because this country is in a bind on energy. And
we need to do a lot of things and do them right.
And included in that, at least from my little perspective
here, is renewables. And I am terribly disappointed in the
budget and very much hope that there would be good news coming
from the Vice President's recommendations. But I must tell you
that in the discussions that I have been privy to, I have heard
talk about things other than renewable in a substantial way.
Mr. Chairman, we have a vote.
Senator Bennett. Yes.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you for indulging me, even though I
was late.
Senator Bennett. No, no, not at all.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Bennett. Senator Domenici's opening statement will
be included in the record, and his questions will be submitted
in the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to the Office of Power Technologies, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid
wind
Question. The fiscal year 2001 Wind Energy Systems appropriation
directed $100,000 to be provided to the Turtle Mountain Community
College in North Dakota for a wind turbine for educational purposes.
What is the status of this activity?
Answer. The Department's Wind Energy Systems Program has authorized
this funding to the Golden Field Office, and negotiations are currently
underway for the award of a grant to the College. We look forward to
helping Turtle Mountain Community College make this project a
successful experience for educating themselves and their community on
the many benefits of wind energy.
geothermal
Question. Why has the Department chosen to close out all Geothermal
systems field verification projects?
Answer. Funding has already been provided under the existing field
verification contracts for completion of preliminary engineering
designs. The documentation of those designs will provide a useful basis
for decisions regarding future power plant developments and may be
sufficient to attract the private sector investment needed to complete
the current projects.
Question. What is the status of the $2,000,000 Congressional
earmark for the Lake County Basin 2000 Geothermal Project in
California?
Answer. The Department's Idaho Operations Office has established a
grant for the Lake County Sanitation District as a result of the
$2,000,000 Congressional earmark. The funds will be used to complete
the second phase of a pipeline project to transport treated wastewater
to The Geysers geothermal steam field for power generation activities.
The Department is pleased the project will provide benefits to Lake
County residents and help maintain stable power production.
hydrogen
Question. How much funding are you prepared to provide to the
Nevada Test Site to develop the fuel cell locomotive and front-end
loader?
Answer. In fiscal year 2001 Congress appropriated $2 million for
the development of a PEM fuel cell powered front-end loader for
underground mining applications. This vehicle is intended to be
refueled and tested in an underground mine in Nevada.
The goal of this fuel cell project is to develop and validate an
articulated front-end loader capable of operating in deep mines without
any of the emissions normally produced from diesel engines. This
project will demonstrate the ability of the fuel cell to provide the
power density necessary for a single shift operation, and interface
dynamically with the rest of the mining equipment with the advantages
of a longer-term storage system than a battery system. This technology
offers application opportunities for both U.S. and Canadian mines. The
Canadian government is also providing cost share funding.
A solicitation was issued for the design, development and
manufacture of a locomotive and front-end loader for Nevada mines, and
responses were received on March 1, 2001. The proposals are in the
process of being evaluated. Provided there is a favorable review by the
merit review committee and the proposal meets programmatic factors for
a technology validation project, there should be a procurement decision
shortly.
The Department expects to expend the entire two million dollars
that has been allocated for this project in fiscal year 2001.
superconductivity
Question. There was an increase in the fiscal year 2001
appropriation to accelerate development on the ``second generation'' of
HTS (high temperature superconductivity) wires. What has resulted?
Answer. The funding increase was used to accelerate cost-shared
research with several private sector companies and to better equip Los
Alamos and Oak Ridge national laboratories to effectively work with
U.S. industry to develop the ``second generation'' of HTS wires.
The funding has been used at Los Alamos to hire three new staff
members and to purchase state of the art research equipment for a new
10,000 square foot laboratory in the Industrial Research Park now under
construction at the LANL site. The research park will host joint
laboratory/industry research for accelerated HTS wire development.
Dedication of the new laboratory will take place this summer.
The funding has also been used at Oak Ridge to equip a renovated
2,300 square feet laboratory space where research previously conducted
in several separate laboratories has been consolidated. The new
laboratory was dedicated on April 19, 2001 in a ceremony attended by
House Science Committee staff. A new permanent Oak Ridge staff member
and two post-doctoral research fellows have been hired to staff the
laboratory.
biomass
Question. What is the status of the Iowa switchgrass project and
are you requesting funds for the continuation of this project?
Answer. The Iowa Chariton Valley switchgrass project was awarded on
a Rural Development competitive solicitation to demonstrate closed loop
biomass co-firing with coal. This project has great potential to
successfully verify the co-firing of switchgrass with coal and the
potential for establishing a new alternative energy crop that can
provide financial benefits to the farm economy. The cooperative
agreement is a three-phased arrangement. Phase 1 is defined as:
Integrated system development, engineering, and environmental
permitting and licensing; Phase 2 as a demonstration phase is comprised
of the establishment of the biomass crop, facility construction, and
testing of both the supply system and the conversion facility; and
Phase 3 as a commercial operation phase in which the integrated biomass
production and conversion facility will be functioning in a commercial
operations mode without Federal funds.
We are currently negotiating the advancement of the project from
Phase 1 to Phase 2 which will use fiscal year 2001 appropriations and
the work will be completed as part of each Phase. The program has
planned for up to $3 million of the fiscal year 2002 requested budget
to be directed toward this project, however, this is dependent upon the
results of the aforementioned ongoing negotiations.
solar
Question. For the last several years, your office has been
extolling the virtues of PV--now you are reducing the PV budget by
about 50 percent. What changed your mind about the benefits of PV?
Answer. We have not changed our mind. We will continue core
research and development in photovoltaics. The reduction in funding
reflects the early achievement of agreements to meet the goals of the
Million Solar Roofs program. In addition, the Administration will be
examining other options for expanding the use of solar power.
Question. Do you still believe in the technology?
Answer. Yes, but the Nation needs a balance of clean and reliable
near-term and long-term energy options; if our new National Energy
Policy is to succeed, we will need to make adjustments in funding for
programs based on overall National priorities.
Question. How will reduced funding impact our U.S. industry?
Answer. The photovoltaic industry in the United States is growing
rapidly. For example, U.S. photovoltaic manufacturing has increased by
about 20 percent per year for a decade. The Administration will
continue to examine other avenues besides R&D funding to ensure that
this industry will continue to grow.
million solar roofs
Question. You have not requested funding for the Million Solar
Roofs Initiative. What happened to these activities?
Answer. The Million Solar Roofs Initiative (MSRI) served as an
organizing impetus for more than 50 state and local community solar
partnerships, which include people and groups with a broad range of
interests and expertise in solar. These partners have already committed
to seeing that more that one million solar energy systems are installed
on homes and buildings across the nation in these communities by 2010.
We regard the mission of this program successfully completed.
Question. What was accomplished with these funds?
Answer. The Million Solar Roofs Initiative (MSRI) provides direct
technical and information service to the more than 50 state and local
community solar partnerships which volunteered to promote the use of
solar technologies in their communities. No funding was used for
subsidizing or purchasing equipment. The bulk of the 6.8 million
dollars in funding from fiscal year 1999-2001 was distributed as small
grants to community partnerships to be used for planning and
implementing community based activities meant to encourage solar energy
deployment. The partnerships benefit from the information outreach and
barrier reduction tools (such as training programs, web based
information, informational brochures) that were developed under the
program. All program milestones were met ahead of schedule.
reliability
Question. What is Reliability?
Answer. The long-held definition of electric reliability is that
the power system is able to provide a secure and adequate amount of
electric power to meet customer demand. ``Secure'' means that reserve
system capacity is maintained to meet unexpected contingencies like a
sudden loss of a large generator or transmission line, and ``adequate''
means that sufficient generation and transmission capacity is available
to supply the projected load. Normally, system operators maintain
reserve capacity for a contingency that is equivalent to the loss of
the largest generator or transmission line in the system. Adequate
power is the amount needed to serve the peak load for the coming year,
usually caused by air conditioning load during extended periods of
extreme heat, plus reserves for contingencies. If these conditions are
not met, system operators are likely to institute voltage reductions
and rolling blackouts rather than risk damage to equipment or system
voltage collapse that could result in extended wide spread outages.
Reliability can be compromised by either inadequate generation or
transmission.
A variation of reliability is the high power quality required in
today's digital economy. Highly sensitive digital equipment used in
process controls, internet routers, and e-commerce requires an
extremely stable and continuous voltage and power supply. This power
quality is being supplied today by combinations of multiple utility
feeds to these customers as well as distributed generation and energy
storage incorporating high speed power electronic switching sited near
the sensitive load.
Question. What is this program doing to support the Western
Situation?
Answer. The Transmission Reliability (TR) program is engaged in
research and development activities to address both the generation and
transmission problems on the Western electric power system.
The Transmission Reliability program is supporting installation of
a voltage monitoring system that includes enhanced visualization to
allow California's transmission operators to view the health of the
system in real time and take pro-active steps to avert emergency
situations. Other prototype reliability tools capable of tracking
generator outputs and power flows throughout the Western system will be
available this year. The TR program is also working with California
regulators and system operators to adapt existing interruptible load
programs to allow loads to respond to system emergencies and high
prices. The Program is also supporting the development of advanced
composite conductors that can be used to replace existing conductors to
carry two to three times the power, and relieve transmission
bottlenecks.
On the generation side, strategically located distributed
generation can also relieve transmission bottlenecks, provide capacity,
and enhance power quality to sensitive customer loads. While economic
incentives for conventional generation are provided through competitive
markets, TR program support is being directed to help clear the
regulatory, technical, and institutional barriers to the deployment of
significant numbers of small distributed generation and storage
technologies sited near the customer load. The Program is supporting
the accelerated development of standards to interconnect distributed
generation, along with energy storage, into the system and developing
models to optimize their penetration into the distribution system to
provide highly reliable energy and power quality services into
competitive markets. Planning is underway for distributed generation
test beds at various locations, including the Nevada Test Site, to
evaluate and certify these interconnection standards and system models.
renewables
Question. We need to increase energy supply and reduce demand. How
does cutting the renewables program help the nation increase its supply
of energy, a supply that doesn't pollute the air and water?
Answer. Renewable energy resources provide a comparatively small,
but still important, percentage of energy in the United States today.
Depending upon water availability for hydroelectric production,
renewables provide between nine and twelve percent of our Nation's
electric power. Two to three percent of this electricity comes from
non-hydro and non-wood renewable resources today. Since the U.S. demand
for energy continues to climb, the Department believes the most
responsible course of action is to focus its energy production R&D
dollars on those technologies with the greatest potential for providing
affordable electricity, heat, and liquid fuels for the American public.
Research in renewables is only part of the solution to the energy
supply program. We will also strive to ensure that these technologies
do not compromise our shared goals for a clean environment.
Question. The OPT strategic plan calls for a tripling of U.S.
capacity of non-hydroelectric renewables by 2010. That's a change from
3.5 percent today to about 10-11 percent in 2010. How will that be
accomplished with the reductions in funding for renewable R&D? Is all
the technology in place to triple the renewable supply? By the way, EIA
predicts U.S. renewable capacity will remain essentially flat through
2010.
Answer. First to clarify, the OPT strategic plan referred to the
tripling of non-hydroelectric, non-biomass ``new'' renewable
electricity generation. It excluded from the 1997 baseline traditional
biomass electricity generation such as the pulp & paper industry's use
of wood waste to generate electricity with a relatively low efficiency
boiler/steam turbine configuration. Thus, the baseline in 1997 was
8,300 MW (according to EIA's Annual Energy Outlook). A tripling of this
would be 25,000 MW, which our Fiscal Year 2001 Government Performance
and Results Act (GPRA) metrics indicated we could reach by 2010,
assuming flat fiscal year 2001 funding into the future and no policy
change. We used this analysis last spring to support the goal stated in
the strategic plan. In contrast, 10-11 percent of EIA's projected 2010
capacity would be 93,000-103,000 MW, which is larger than this 25,000
MW goal.
Our preliminary GPRA estimate for the requested fiscal year 2002
budget is that the tripling of non-hydroelectric ``new'' renewables
would now be achieved by about 2015. (See p. 266 of the budget request)
However, our estimate does not take into account the effect of the
removal or reduction of non-funding barriers like siting and
permitting, or the addition of financial incentives.
To date, we have only one detailed technology analysis--for the
Wind Program--of the impact of the fiscal year 2002 amended request,
assuming flat fiscal year 2002 funding into the future and no policy
change. This analysis indicates that we do have the technology ``in
place'' for wind's contribution to tripling the renewable supply by the
delayed goal year of 2015--mainly by exploiting class 6+ (high average
wind speed >15 mph) winds. Longer term goals to tap more abundant class
4 winds (moderate average wind speed of 13 mph) will be pursued on a
slower track, because the funding changes could affect the advances in
applied R&D and slow market penetration. Increased market incentives
would help class 6 wind technology enter the market more quickly, but
would have less impact on class 4 wind technology which requires more
R&D. We are working on detailed estimates for all OPT technologies with
major changes in funding levels in fiscal year 2002 relative to fiscal
year 2001.
Question. It's nice to see funding for the ``hydrogen'' program
held constant, but it should increase. To prevent pollution, hydrogen
must come from splitting water (i.e., electrolysis) using a renewable
or clean energy source--and not from cooking a hydrocarbon source. So,
why are we cutting renewables that should be the primary source to
generate hydrogen.
Answer. The Department strongly supports the Hydrogen R&D program
and has structured a balanced approach for pursuing the development of
hydrogen production, storage, infrastructure, and utilization
technologies. Substantial progress toward achieving the much-discussed
``hydrogen economy'' may be possible within the next twenty to forty
years. In the near term, our approach is to cost-effectively produce
hydrogen from existing resources as cleanly as possible, with longer
term goals of cost-competitively producing hydrogen from renewables or
other clean sources. With regards to the former, within the DOE
Hydrogen program itself today, we are studying innovative methods for
extracting hydrogen from readily available fossil fuels and
sequestering the carbon so that it does not enter the atmosphere. We
are also funding research on photobiological methods for producing
hydrogen, using specialized bacteria as the hydrogen production source.
Finally, cost-effective hydrogen may also someday be produced by using
excess electric production from renewable energy technologies to split
water into hydrogen and oxygen during non-peak times. This opportunity
may well help enable certain renewable energy technologies achieve
better cost profiles and enter the marketplace faster due to their
expanded product capabilities. However, it is important that these
renewable energy technologies also attain significant marketplace value
in their own right. The Department continues to fund renewable energy
research and development at adequate levels.
Question. It sounds fantastic, but a 100 mile by 100 mile
photovoltaic array placed in Nevada today could actually meet the
entire country's energy needs. Why, then, are we cutting solar
renewables by more than 50 percent ?
Answer. The Department's current Solar Energy Technologies program
focuses on three principal areas: Concentrating Solar Power,
Photovoltaics, and Solar Buildings technologies. Research on
Concentrating Solar Power has pursued three types of applications--
power towers, solar troughs, and dish/engine systems. DOE's power tower
R&D and analysis was completed in fiscal year 2000. Commercial power
tower systems are currently being developed in Spain, with Morocco and
Egypt also actively considering use of these systems. While this
generation of technology is not generally considered cost-competitive
for use in the U.S. at the present time, one could reasonably expect
that industry will continue to make incremental technology and
operating and maintenance improvements that may one day allow their
introduction into the U.S. market in appropriate locations. Solar
troughs have been operating in the U.S. Southwest for a number of
years. Substantial federal funding leading to big improvements in
operating and maintenance cost reductions and the potential for new
thermal storage techniques to increase energy efficiencies suggest that
it is time for Federal R&D on this application to end. Finally, DOE
research has led to the development of several sizes of solar dish/
engine systems that can provide onsite, village, or even utility scale
electric power. While these dish/engine systems require a modest amount
of additional R&D, we believe that the private sector partners can be
encouraged to carry out any further efforts.
In Solar Buildings, research and testing on new polymers for key
components of an advanced solar hot water (SHW) system that cuts costs
in half and weighs 50 percent less is entering the final phases of R&D.
Thus the portion of the request pertaining to SHW development is less
than in prior years. Additionally, the funding in this area maintains
the core of other solar buildings research.
Finally, the reduction in funding requested for photovoltaics
reflects the early achievement of agreements to meet the goals of the
Million Solar Roofs program and refocusing of the rest of the program
on essential R&D.
Question. Nevada is the Saudi Arabia of geothermal and can develop
2500-3700 MW by 2010, meeting a significant fraction of the State's
energy needs. Why are we cutting geothermal renewables in half,
especially since these resources are in the West?
Answer. The budget will maintain an adequate level for the
Geothermal Program. The Program will focus at exploration and resource
characterization and plans on providing technical support to better
define the resource potential. We agree that Nevada possesses
substantial geothermal resources. But a sizeable fraction of those
resources has not been well defined or characterized to allow
development. To the extent possible, the Program will work with
industry to develop and provide the tools and information needed by
Nevada and other states to explore and characterize the potential of
their geothermal resources. In addition, the Administration will look
for ways to reduce regulatory and siting barriers to increased
geothermal use--key priorities of the industry.
Question. If we added $135 million to the EE/RE budget, where would
you put it?
Answer. Based on recommendations in the National Energy Policy, the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has been asked to
begin a strategic review of its programs' current funding and historic
performance. The National Energy Policy also calls for such a review of
the Renewable Energy program. Based on this review, we will propose
appropriate funding of those research and development programs that are
found to be performance-based and are modeled as public-private
partnerships. We will be able to make more specific recommendations as
our program reviews progress.
Question. What would the impact be on the solar, geothermal and
wind industries and their potential to supply additional clean power in
the near future if this budget request goes through?
Answer. The benefits to our Nation's energy portfolio from these
domestic energy technologies will be impacted but in varying degrees as
each has a different time frame for R&D needs.
The main constraint impacting the near-term supply of photovoltaic
(solar electric) energy systems is limited manufacturing capacity.
Reduced Federal spending on photovoltaic R&D may potentially affect
progress in expanding manufacturing capacity; the private sector will
have to increase its investment in R&D to address this problem.
Reductions in longer term research will not impact the near term
potential for photovoltaics to supply electricity, but will result in
slower progress toward the next generation of photovoltaics and
manufacturing technology.
In the geothermal industry, the slower pace of research and
development to decrease costs will extend the time-frame for potential
new geothermal facilities to be installed. Geothermal technology goals
leading to commercialization of the next generation systems will be
extended.
Technologies presently under development by the DOE wind energy
program, in conjunction with the U.S. wind industry, can enable a
twenty-fold or more expansion of usable wind resources and make wind
energy economically viable without the need for Federal incentives.
DOE wind and geothermal programs will turn over to industry the
efforts to characterize resources and identify technical and market
barriers to supply.
Question. What is the Department's goal for renewable energy's
share of electricity generation.
Answer. The official DOE renewable energy goal as published in the
April 2001 DOE Performance plan states: ``The Department's research,
development and deployment efforts (past as well as current) will help
contribute to \1\ nearly 25,000 megawatts of non-hydroelectric
renewable \2\ generating capacity by 2015.'' The Energy Information
Administration estimates that total U.S. electricity generation
capacity in 2015 will be 994,400 MW. Thus, DOE's tripling goal for non-
hydro, non-wood renewables would translate into an estimated 2.5
percent of total electric generation capacity by 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Other factors other than the OPT program such as production tax
credits for renewables, state renewable portfolio standards,
international (especially European) programs also contribute to this
goal.
\2\ This also excludes electricity generated with pulp & paper
industry by-products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Why is the Indian renewable resources program zeroed out?
Answer. All projects presently being undertaken by this program are
scheduled to either be completed or are assumed to be continued by
private sector partners. No further funding is being requested in
fiscal year 2002 in order to support higher priorities within Renewable
Energy Resources programs.
Question. What portion of the EE/RE budget, if any, is intended to
help satisfy our commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Answer. None of the EE/RE budget is undertaken specifically and
solely to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, the EE/RE programs
address a wide variety of public interests-including reducing energy
costs for consumers, reducing local, regional, and global environmental
burdens and impacts, reducing oil consumption, and maintaining U.S.
leadership in energy science and technology. At the same time,
virtually all of the EERE programs support RD&D on or the deployment of
technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, either through
reducing the use of fossil fuels or by substituting renewable energy
for fossil fuels--and most renewable energy produces no or very small
amounts of net greenhouse gas emissions. EERE programs have particular
value because they provide these multiple benefits simultaneously.
Question. What impacts will these proposed cuts have on achieving
the petroleum displacement and renewable energy production (and
consumption by Federal facilities--FEMP) goals in the Energy Policy Act
of 1992?
Answer. The reduction in the 2002 budget of the Federal Energy
Management Program will not have a direct impact on the Federal energy
reduction goal in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The EPACT goal called
for a 20 percent reduction in Federal building energy by 2000 compared
to 1985 when measured on a Btu-per-square-foot basis. This goal was
achieved in fiscal year 1999 with a reduction of 20.7 percent and
preliminary data for fiscal year 2000 indicates a reduction of greater
than 21 percent.
Question. What is the current electricity bill for Federal
facilities? How much of the that could be met using renewables? What's
the average price per kilowatt hour paid in DOE regions?
Answer. During fiscal year 1999 (the latest year for which
finalized data is available), the Federal Government spent $3.033
billion for 54,057.3 gigawatt-hours of electricity. This translates
into a national average price per kilowatt hour of $0.056. Average
prices by DOE region of Federal Government purchased electricity is
unavailable because Federal agencies do not report energy consumption
and cost data on a state by state basis.
Using national generation data from the Energy Information
Administration, we estimate that approximately 10 percent of
electricity consumed by the Federal Government is already generated
from renewable sources as part of the conventional electrical
distribution system (i.e., including large-scale hydropower).
Excluding electricity from hydropower, the Government is working
toward a goal of using the equivalent of 2.5 percent of facilities'
electricity consumption from new renewable energy sources by 2005.
Using 1999 Federal energy consumption data as the basis for
calculations, the 2005 goal translates to 1,351 gigawatt-hours of
electricity annually that will come from new renewable sources. A
preliminary analysis conducted last year found that 173 GWh (0.3
percent of total consumption) of new renewable energy was either
already in use or available under contract in the Federal sector. In
addition to purchasing renewable electricity, agencies are pursuing
renewable energy in the form of solar thermal applications and
distributed energy resources that use photovoltaics, wind power, and
biomass, among other renewables. We believe these activities will
result in meeting that goal. The Department will continue to monitor
and report progress by Federal Government agencies in meeting the
Executive Order 13123 goals which implicitly includes the renewable
goal.
Question. If Federal facilities were required to purchase at least
7 percent of their electricity from generators using renewable energy
sources, what would the avoided pollution benefits be? What is the
current percentage?
Answer. Using national average generation mix and carbon
coefficients from the Energy Information Administration, a renewable
electricity purchase of 7 percent of the Federal facility total would
represent emissions of approximately 600,000 metric tons of carbon
equivalent annually.
Using national generation data from the Energy Information
Administration, we estimate that approximately 10 percent of
electricity consumed by the Federal Government is already generated
from renewable sources as part of the conventional electrical
distribution system (i.e., including large-scale hydropower).
energy efficiency
Question. How much money has industry saved as a result of energy
efficiency programs? Isn't there a huge return on investment?
Answer. As a result of DOE research and development partnerships
with industry, over 140 technologies have successfully reached the
marketplace since 1980. The documented cumulative energy savings of
these technologies and other Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT)
programs was approximately 1.6 quads through 1999. Using an industrial
energy price of $6.3 billion per quad (source: Energy Information
Agency), the cumulative energy cost savings to industry to date is over
$10 billion; in 1999 the savings in that year alone was $1.2 billion.
It is difficult to accurately calculate the return on investment,
since the technologies developed are usually the result of multi-year
research and program efforts with substantial contributions from
industry. The cumulative savings of $10 billion from these technologies
and programs was achieved with the cumulative fiscal OIT budgets over
that time of less than $2 billion. However, this comparison includes
neither the private sector cost share nor the investment that is
required to commercialize and deploy these technologies, and where
technology was replaced, no allowance was made for competing technology
efficiency. On the other hand, the comparison does not include the
significantly larger cost savings over the expected future life of the
technology nor from the productivity, environmental, and safety
benefits of these technologies. It also does not include the indirect
cost benefits from OIT programs, such as knowledge transferred through
workshops, case studies, grants, information clearinghouses, decision
tools, and cooperative programs with state and local agencies. These
integrated efforts facilitate the adoption of best energy practices in
industrial facilities and accelerate the development of other advanced
technologies.
Question. Doesn't it make better sense to promote energy
efficiency? Isn't it cheaper to save fuel than to buy fuel.
Answer. We cannot simply conserve our way out of our current energy
needs. Consumers can invest in more energy efficient appliances and
equipment when it makes economic sense for them to do so, and energy
efficiency is certainly a vital component of the recommendations made
by Vice President Cheney's National Energy Policy report. But while
energy efficiency will continue to improve, our growing population and
economy, plus new energy uses, will add to our overall energy needs. A
healthy economy requires that we have sufficient, affordable, and
reliable domestic energy resources to meet those energy needs.
Question. Now that the Administration has chosen to relax the
energy efficiency standard for central air conditioners--a matter of
great concern to Nevadans--how are we going to make up for all that
lost energy?
Answer. By 2030, the standards (13 SEER) for residential central
air conditioners and heat pumps that was issued in January 2001 are
projected to save 4.2 quads. The proposed 12/12 SEER standard for
residential central air conditioners and heat pumps is projected to
save 3 quads by 2030. The proposed standard of a 13 SEER is the subject
of a legal challenge, which questions the validity of that rule due to
a potential detrimental impact on consumers. The new energy policy
under development will address additional opportunities to save energy.
Question. How much of your budget will be devoted to updating
existing appliance efficiency standards? Are any major rules for new
standards expected this fiscal year? Or are there any more relaxations/
rollback/revisions coming up? How many standards?
Answer. In fiscal year 2002 approximately $5.1 M will be devoted to
updating existing appliance efficiency standards. There are no major
rules expected in fiscal year 2002. Having completed 5 final rules in
fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, we are just initiating three
standard rulemakings. Because it takes approximately three years to
complete a rule, we anticipate some final rules in fiscal year 2003. We
do not anticipate any more relaxations/rollback/revisions. We will be
reopening the rule on residential central air conditioners and heat
pumps and expect that the rule will be finalized some time this year.
Question. Does the Administration intend to maintain the Executive
Orders on bioenergy and energy efficiency? If so, how does this budget
request comport with the requirements of those Orders?
Answer. Public Law 106-224, Title III--Biomass Research and
Development Act of 2000 established the Biomass Research and
Development Initiative. The Initiative is to stimulate collaboration in
all aspects of biomass processing, strengthen the intellectual
resources of the United States in the field of biomass processing, and
promote integrated research partnerships among colleges, universities,
national laboratories, Federal and State research agencies, and the
private sector. The Act superceded the Executive Order in the
establishment of the Interagency Council and the Advisory Committee and
created the Biomass Research and Development Board and the Biomass
Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee. Both the
Executive Order and the Act specify broad cooperation and coordination
in biomass research and development to leverage the Federal investment,
specify research and development to allow biomass to provide national
benefit for sustainable resource supply, the reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions, healthier rural economies, improved strategic security
and trade balances, and continue to support the Federal investment in
research that will support the biobased industry. The Biomass Research
and Development Act of 2000 provides the launching point for continued
investment, coordination, and leveraging of efforts across the Federal
structure, and significant benefit to the Nation from biobased products
and bioenergy. The fiscal year 2002 budget request provides near-level
funding for biobased products and bioenergy including $5 million new
integrated research and development projects, and will allow these
important activities to go forward strongly.
The Administration intends to maintain Executive Order 13123,
Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy Management. The Energy
Policy Act of 1992 required that Federal buildings reduce their energy
consumption by 20 percent from 1985 levels by 2000. Executive Order
13123 builds on these goals by requiring Federal agencies to reduce
energy use in Federal buildings by 35 percent from 1985 levels by 2010.
As the President indicated with the new directive on Federal energy
conservation, this Administration is committed to smart energy
management in our Federal facilities. We are working not only to reduce
energy use in general, but also to reduce peak demand in key areas and
thereby help prevent power outages. FEMP plays an important role in
providing technical assistance and information to agencies on how to
best implement energy conservation projects. FEMP also helps agencies
access private sector financing to undertake many of these projects. We
encourage Federal agencies to use energy savings performance contracts
and utility contracts to help save energy and money.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
Question. Mr Dixon, the President's budget has significant cuts in
Renewable Energy Budgets--roughly 30-35 percent. Can you provide a
rationale as to how these cuts can be defended at a time when we have a
significant energy supply shortage in the west, including the Pacific
Northwest.
Answer. Given both the many public and programmatic
responsibilities of the Department--as well as our obligation as
stewards of taxpayer resources--DOE's fiscal year 2002 budget request
outlines a new approach to meeting our Nation's most near-term energy
needs and lays a foundation for meeting longer term priorities. For
example, significant funding is requested for electric energy systems
R&D that is critical to meeting our Nation's growing need for highly
reliable and responsive power delivery systems. Our inability to
deliver power from points where supply is ample to regions experiencing
a shortage is severely hampered by our aging and constrained current
system. We have also requested nearly level funding for Biomass
research and development to provide new sources of electric power,
liquid fuels, and high-value products. If one considers that nearly 20
percent of last year's appropriations for Biomass R&D were earmarked,
the request for this line item as it stands would actually increase
funds available for key biomass research as requested by the
Department. Additionally, several programs are either at a point in
their development where industry should begin to take on funding
responsibilities and the Federal role should be phased out.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
working with nnsa labs
Question. The National Nuclear Security Administration started
operation as a semi-autonomous agency with the Department last year.
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, states 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 Office of Science funds over $150,000,000 in research
at the three National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) national
laboratories at Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia. The Office of
Science programs use both prospective and retrospective merit or peer
review in evaluating proposals for new science and in managing on-going
research programs at all of the Department's laboratories, including
the NNSA laboratories. The programs take into consideration the results
of these reviews in making decisions on what future research to fund
and which ongoing meritorious projects to continue within available
research budgets.
A recent review by the Office of Science of the research activities
at the NNSA laboratories concluded that the current process is working
well and that no new barriers have arisen to our ensuring effective
management of the Office of Science research programs at the NNSA
laboratories. Therefore SC expects that with outstanding merit and peer
reviews, and adequate research funds from the congress, to be able to
continue to support excellent research at the NNSA labs.
Question. Have discussions been initiated between your Office and
NNSA to define mechanisms to maintain close collaborations, both for
NNSA lab support to your Office and for your labs to support NNSA as
required?
Answer. As you know, many of the NNSA laboratories work in
partnerships with the Office of Science laboratories to achieve the
most outstanding and cost effective results for SC and DOE research
projects ranging from the construction of the Spallation Neutron
Source, to operation of the Human Genome Center; and even participating
in NNSA partnerships with the private sector, like the recent Extreme
Ultraviolet Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA).
Using the existing outstanding core competencies of all of the
laboratories in the Department's system, we are able to avoid
duplicating outstanding capabilities that already exist.
The Department, including NNSA and the Office of Science, is
committed to ensuring that this cost effective laboratory complex
approach will continue to thrive within the new organizational
framework and ensure the most effective use of all of the DOE
laboratories. SC and NNSA have discussed our commitment to this
approach at the Quarterly Laboratory Directors Meetings with all of the
major laboratories, and there is broad support for its continuation.
General Gordon held a series of Science Day celebrations at the
three NNSA laboratories, in partnership with the Office of Science,
where both discussed their commitment to close collaboration and
support for each others needs, as required.
The Office of Science uses the annual Institutional Planning
process to review regularly on-going work and new initiatives of all of
the programs at its laboratories in the context of a five year plan and
a 15-year projection of each laboratory's overall vision. These plans
are reviewed by all of the program users of the laboratory and the
plans and initiatives are discussed at an on-site meeting at the
laboratory with participation by representatives from the DOE programs
supporting research there. This process is one way to ensure that the
close collaboration with NNSA continues and that any problems that
arise are addressed on a regular basis and resolved.
Question. Do you foresee any barriers to maintaining close working
relations between your Office and the NNSA?
Answer. No. In fact, our relations are closer than they were before
the creation of the NNSA.
working with nnsa labs
Question. The National Nuclear Security Administration started
operation as a semi-autonomous agency within the Department last year.
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. Work with the NNSA will continue as appropriate to
expertise and available funding. Several of these labs have critical
expertise to our programs and should continue to provide support as
defined by the overall goals of the programs they support.
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. We have not begun any new discussions with NNSA. We
continue to honor our ongoing collaborations. The goal has been to
utilize the best expertise available and this goal will continue to be
the basis for ongoing or new work with these labs.
Question. Do you foresee any barriers to maintaining close working
relations between your Office and NNSA?
Answer. No, we do not anticipate any barriers.
biomass v. solar
Question. Dr. Dixon, the Renewables budget was cut substantially in
the request. However, I note that biomass programs were largely funded
at last year's level, while solar programs are almost cut in half.
How do you account for the great disparity in the treatment between
solar and biomass?
Answer. Both these programs are important. Biomass power has great
potential to impact near term emissions from existing coal plants when
it is co-fired with coal. As our country will continue to rely heavily
on coal power for electricity generation, making that process as clean
as possible is a critical national need. DOE's integrated biomass R&D
efforts also address the need for clean domestic liquid transportation
fuels and high-value chemical feedstocks and other products that are
often derived from imported oil.
Solar's greatest potential is longer term. As a small but rapidly
growing technology, it holds great promise for very large future public
benefits. We are attempting to support both these technologies. We have
attempted to place priority on the projects in both these programs that
have the clearest, near term benefits to the public in return for their
financial support.
The Solar R&D funding request maintains an adequate level of
effort. Additionally, the Administration recently sent a budget
amendment to the Congress that reduced funding for the Partnership for
a New Generation of Vehicles by $39.1M and allocated the funds to
selected renewable energy technologies.
Question. What is the reason behind your decision to close-out the
Concentrating Solar Power research effort?
Answer. While some research remains to be done on this technology,
we are re-prioritizing our Federal energy research efforts as described
above.
reliability
Question. In Senate report language for the current year, the
Department was urged to begin a research program to develop solutions
for grid reliability issues through the use of advanced computer
simulations capabilities available within the national laboratories.
What has the Department done in this area?
Answer. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) is leading
a project to use real time data to validate existing models in the
Western electric power system, and establish specifications and
standards for data sharing and communications for real time control
systems. PNNL and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory are investigating
the integration of on-line and off-line security analysis software
tools to manage security assessment and congestion management in a grid
that is becoming increasingly complex. The Department also supported
discussions with Los Alamos National Laboratory concerning their
capabilities in computer simulation and power system analysis for
possible participation in the program.
Question. Does DOE have any plans to increase its leadership in the
area of understanding policies and issues related to power grid
reliability?
Answer. The Department recognizes that reliable power system
operation depends on the availability of sufficient reliability related
(or ancillary) services to the system operator. Under electricity
restructuring, electric energy and ancillary services will be acquired
through market-based approaches. Therefore, in collaboration with
electricity industry stakeholders, the Department's Transmission
Reliability program defined and initiated a reliability and markets
activity that takes a science-based approach to the analysis of
evolving market structures and institutions to assess the market's
efficacy in maintaining reliability. Projects in the reliability and
markets activity include: load as a reliability resource; experimental
market simulations to assess market participant behavior under
alternative market structures; tools to reveal in advance how system
constraints affect markets; and the evaluation of emerging markets on
reliability. Proposed market structures were subjected to the
experimental market simulation, and the results communicated to a Blue
Ribbon panel examining market issues in that State. The Department is
also increasing its emphasis on the evaluation of issues surrounding
transmission system congestion relief.
high temperature superconductivity center
This year the committee added more money to accelerate the
development, commercialization, and application of high temperature
superconductor technologies through joint efforts of Oak Ridge and Los
Alamos National Labs.
Question. Please provide an update of this effort and describe the
types of commercial possibilities that exist?
Answer. DOE funding specified for the Accelerated Coated Conductor
Initiative (ACCI) has been used to increase cost-shared research at
several private companies. It has also enabled the acquisition of
additional capital equipment and technical staff at both Los Alamos and
Oak Ridge national laboratories that will greatly accelerate
development of the next generation of superconducting wire. The effort
has already accomplished a great deal. A January 2001 two-day workshop
with over 100 industry, government and academic experts produced an R&D
roadmap for research activities and respective government/industry
roles that will guide activities over the period through 2010. Los
Alamos will use their additional equipment and staff in a 10,000 square
foot laboratory being constructed for joint laboratory/industry
projects in the new Industrial Research Park on the LANL site.
Dedication will take place this summer. Oak Ridge has purchased
equipment and added staff for a 2,300 square foot refurbished
laboratory space for joint research with private companies that allows
consolidation of activities previously spread throughout the
laboratory.
Question. In order to achieve commercial success, what level of
investment should be made in R & D over what period of time?
Answer. Commercial possibilities include cost-effective, high
performance power cables, transformers, motors, generators, and other
equipment that will strengthen the US electric power system.
At fiscal year 2002 funding levels, we believe we can produce and
field a precommercial High Temperature Superconductor power transformer
by 2005 and produce a 100 meter second generation cable capable of
carrying 2,000 amps by 2006.
______
Questions Submitted to the Office of Science
Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid
fusion energy sciences
Question. If Japan and Europe proceed with the next phase of
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), is there any
problem if the US is just a bystander and does not contribute to this
effort?
Answer. If Japan and Europe, and Russia proceed with the next phase
of ITER, which would be construction, and the U.S. is a bystander, the
U.S. would miss an excellent opportunity to be involved in a meaningful
way in highly relevant fusion research. The science and technology to
be gained from a burning plasma fusion facility like ITER are important
to the scientific understanding of the fusion process as well as to the
future development of fusion energy. The Secretary of Energy Advisory
Board, the National Research Council, and the Fusion Energy Sciences
Advisory Committee have all recently emphasized that study of burning
plasmas is an essential next step in understanding the science of the
fusion process, and the U.S. scientific community would be eager to
participate in the research experiments to be conducted in such a
facility.
Early involvement in the construction phase of this project would
allow the Department and U.S. industry to benefit from the technology
development inherent in construction of a state of the art scientific
facility. There are also specific subsystems, such as the diagnostic
instruments that measure and record the phenomena occurring in the
plasma during experimental runs, in which the U.S. has world class
design capabilities and could contribute significantly to the eventual
success of the project. Finally, early involvement would place the U.S.
program in a better position to influence details of the design, to
ensure that the scientific needs of our program are met.
Question. We keep hearing we are entering another ``energy crisis''
and we have been hearing about fusion for many years. Should we still
be funding Fusion research?
Answer. Fusion remains an important element in the Nation's long-
term energy supply portfolio. The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board,
in the report of its 1999 review of the fusion program, stated `` . . .
in light of fusion's potential 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 energy
aggressively.''
There has been great progress in fusion energy development in the
past decade. It is now the consensus of the fusion community in the
United States, in Japan, and in Europe, that we can now design and
build a large fusion device capable of producing a large net power
output for brief periods. The challenge today is to more fully develop
our scientific understanding of the behavior of high temperature
plasmas, as well as needed fusion materials and technologies, to allow
us to design and build fusion devices that can meet the utility
industry's need for economically viable power plants.
The results of fusion research also continue to contribute to our
economy in other ways. The fusion program has been the driving force
behind the development of plasma science, which is key to such
innovative technologies as plasma processing of semiconductor chips,
new forms of lighting, state-of-the-art video display screens, fiber
optic communications systems, and pollution control devices.
genomes to life
Question. This ``Genomes to Life'' program looks interesting. Why
isn't this a National Institutes of Health (NIH) program? How does DOE
funding of Genomes to Life help DOE's mission?
Answer. Genomes to Life is about the future of biology now that the
potential for and value of doing genome-scale science has been so
clearly demonstrated by the ongoing success of the Human Genome
Project. Genomes to Life has its origins in the wealth of recently
acquired DNA sequence information from a growing number of organisms
(from humans to microbes). The Human Genome Project is about decoding
the basic set of instructions, the DNA sequence, for human life.
Genomes to Life is about developing the next level of technologies and
knowledge needed to understand how that basic instruction set is
converted into living organisms--whether a human or a microbe. While
there are clearly differences between humans and microbes, many of the
fundamental ``rules of life'' for the conversion of DNA sequence
information into life will be common among all forms of life.
DOE is a logical agency to initiate this research program for two
reasons. First, DOE has unique multi-disciplinary resources and
capabilities in high throughput biology and in the mathematical,
computational, engineering and physical sciences all of which will be
needed to systematically tackle questions about critical life
processes. Second, DOE facilities and research supported at its
national laboratories and in premier academic institutions that played
key enabling and scientific roles in the genomics revolution will also
be needed for Genomes to Life. From the initiation of the Human Genome
Project and the Microbial Genome Program to the development of key
enabling technologies and resources, DOE already has a strong record of
``kick-starting'' various aspects of the biotechnology revolution. DOE
is again poised to make important contributions to this next revolution
in biology.
Other agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH),
will play central roles in using and expanding the technologies and
information generated in Genomes to Life. NIH has an interest in
pathogenic microbes which are not a focus of this program while DOE's
focus, and the focus of Genomes to Life, is on microbes that can be
used to address DOE needs. In addition, there are subtle differences in
the strategies used to fund research at these different agencies,
including DOE. These differences make the funding of new, high risk,
technologically intensive research more likely at DOE than at NIH, an
observation repeatedly made by many NIH-funded scientists and both
current and former members of NIH advisory committees. A strength of
the U.S. research enterprise is its diversity of funding sources,
organizational strategies, and management styles. The initiation of
this new initiative, Genomes to Life, by DOE is an excellent example of
the value of this diversity.
The fundamental knowledge acquired in Genomes to Life about the
multiprotein molecular ``machines'' that make living things come alive,
about the on/off switches and rheostats that control these machines,
and about the functional capabilities of complex microbial communities
will address DOE mission needs. Having this information will enable
scientists to develop new biologically based strategies for energy
production, mitigating the long-term impacts of climate changes,
cleaning up the environment, and reducing the threat of biological
terrorism. This understanding of complex biological systems will also
help protect people from adverse effects of exposure to environmental
toxins and radiation by leading to an increased understanding of
genetic factors that determine individual susceptibility to these
agents.
attracting scientists
Question. Are you having problems attracting scientists to your
labs given that some of them are 50 years old and in deteriorating
condition?
Answer. We have anecdotal comments from Lawrence Berkeley,
Brookhaven and Oak Ridge National Laboratories that scientists are, in
fact, declining job offers based on the quality of working space. Their
concerns range from quality of facilities and equipment and appearance
to location and amenities. At the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, they
are having difficulty recruiting, even in the very ``hot'' field of
genomics, due to the current state of the existing labs.
Recruitment of new staff is particularly critical at this time as
the generation that helped build the labs retires and the labs compete
in the job market to replace them. While it is always difficult in hot
new areas like genomics and nanoscience, decaying facilities and sites,
lack of adequate housing for post-doc and graduate students, and salary
gaps are making recruitment even more difficult. I should add that
retaining the current staff is not easy either.
project management environment
Question. What is this new Project Management Environment (PME)
system? Is this another DOE computer system? How will PME improve
things at DOE?
Answer. The Corporate R&D Portfolio Management Environment is the
technology infrastructure, information integration methodologies, and
process enhancements that will enable cradle-to-grave tracking of
research projects, information sharing across programs, and
``corporate'' snapshots of the Department's R&D.
It is a corporate, distributed information management system that
enables the electronic assembly of R&D project management data from
existing heterogeneous systems from across the DOE complex and where
needed, provides the information management modules that enable
electronic capture of critical data elements necessary to have a
complete e-government solution to track research projects from the
point of proposal submission to the Department, through reviews, funds
distribution, tracking and reporting back to the Department (e.g.,
progress, highlights, publications, funds expended) to completion.
Fully implemented the environment will: (1) streamline the proposal
submission significantly reducing the burden (by eliminating the need
to submit proposals in multiple formats for different program offices)
on the researchers; (2) streamline the funds instructions and
distribution process to enable an earlier start on projects (in some
cases, 30-60 days) after completion of the review process; (3) reduce
reconciliation, copying, and redundant data entry costs across the
complex; (4) enable the Department to track and report, on a routine
basis, on R&D efforts using a consistent approach for a ``corporate''
perspective; (5) enable program managers to work together to make
strategic R&D investments; (6) reduce the burden on the program
managers, and hence the field, for ad hoc queries and data collection
efforts; (7) enable the Department to better report to Congress, OMB,
and OSTP in a consistent manner not previously possible; (8) change the
culture to make R&D tracking and reporting an integrated, team effort
across the Department with standards and methodologies to help guide
the development of future systems across the DOE complex; and (9) move
the Department toward R&D project management best practices and better
alignment with applicable laws.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
environmental molecular sciences laboratory
Question. Mr. Decker, the Science budget contains all of the
funding for Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's Environmental
Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL), as well as a variety of research
programs. Will the funds in the Administration's budget accomplish the
goal of a $10 million equipment upgrade for EMSL?
Answer. In fiscal year 2001, the William R. Wiley Environmental
Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL) received capital equipment funds
of $4,450,000 to ``. . . expand the user capabilities of EMSL to
include high-throughput functional genomics and structural biology.''
The fiscal year 2002 President's Request includes $5,461,000 to ``. . .
lease and operate a 2 to 3 teraflop high performance computer for the
EMSL to replace its current \1/4\ teraflop computer . . .'' The fiscal
year 2001 capital equipment funds are expected to increase the number
of EMSL users conducting structural biology research by 10 percent over
the fiscal year 2000 level of 590. The fiscal year 2002 funding for the
high performance computer will allow EMSL to increase the number of
users conducting ``grand challenge'' computational projects by 10
percent over the fiscal year 2001 level of 750.
genomes to life
Question. Mr. Decker, the Science budget also includes the funding
for the initiative called ``Genomes to Life'' (GTL). This is the new
program that seeks to build upon the information from the human genome
to understand proteins and how they work in organisms. What are the
long term plans for the Department's Genomes to Life initiative?
Answer. Whereas the Human Genome Project has focused on DNA,
Genomes to Life will focus on proteins, the action molecules of living
systems. Proteins are the motors, pumps, chemical catalysts, detectors,
signals and signalers, structural units, gatekeepers, dismantlers,
assemblers, and garbage handlers of living systems. Proteins rarely
work alone. They assemble into larger multi-protein complexes often
referred to as molecular machines. Understanding the nature and
regulation of these molecular machines is a major goal of Genomes to
Life. Similarly, microbes of potential importance for DOE's energy and
cleanup missions rarely work alone in nature and are often found as
part of complex, and poorly understood consortia of many different
types of microbes. Understanding these consortia is another major goal
of Genomes to Life.
The scientific plan of Genomes to Life is to identify life's
molecular machines, the multiprotein complexes that carry out the
functions of living systems; characterize the gene regulatory networks
and processes that control these multiprotein molecular machines;
characterize the functional repertoire of complex microbial communities
in their natural environments; and develop computers and other
computational capabilities needed to model the complexity of biological
systems.
These scientific goals, and the broader context for Genomes to
Life, are described in detail in the recently completed Genomes to Life
``roadmap.'' This document is available in hard copy and at http://
www.doegenomestolife.org/. The Genomes to Life roadmap describes a very
broad outline for 10 years of research to address the fundamental
scientific goals outlined above. It includes estimates of time for
broad program goals. The Genomes to Life roadmap was prepared in
response to a report of the Biological and Environmental Research
Advisory Committee (BERAC).
Although the use of the new resources and technologies developed in
Genomes to Life by scientists in the public and private sector will
eventually involve funding that dwarfs investments in Genomes to Life,
the Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee (BERAC)
recommended sustained funding of $200,000,000 per year for Genomes to
Life for 10 years.
Question Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
budget for science
Question. What is your view of the impact of a relatively flat
Science budget and what is your view of the imbalance of investment
between the life sciences and the physical sciences?
Answer. Over the past decade, the Office of Science has been faced
with relatively flat budgets. This has resulted in below optimum
utilization of some large scientific facilities, and prioritization of
our research to focus funding on areas with the greatest promise. In
this environment, we have continued to make significant contributions
to both the DOE mission and to the advance of science more broadly. We
have also made our unique suite of state-of-the-art large scientific
user facilities available to a user community that has grown
significantly, even if the operation of some facilities was not funded
at desired levels. Nevertheless, we have not been able to take full
advantage of many research opportunities.
The substantial increases in funding for life sciences during this
same period have been justified by the scientific advances in this
area, and their potential contributions to both the health of our
citizens and the growth of the economy. I believe that the physical
sciences are now faced with equivalent opportunities in many areas. For
example, nanoscience promises a revolutionary impact on our lives
comparable to that following the development of semiconductors, and has
profound implications for the future of medicine and the life sciences
generally.
facility operations
Question. With the increased number of new facilities and an
increasing proportion of the Science budget going to facilities support
at the expense of the R&D budget, what are the impacts of this trend
and what dangers are lurking if it is not corrected?
Answer. The Office of Science is the world's premier organization
for the planning, construction, and operation of major scientific user
facilities for physics, high performance computing, materials sciences
and related disciplines, and environmental sciences. More than 16,000
users perform experiments at these facilities each year, producing
seminal results in all fields. This collection of facilities is a
remarkable success story, and it is the envy of the world.
Yet, at the same time, funding for research in the physical
sciences--and in particular for the Office of Science--has not kept
pace with scientific inflation for more than a decade. The survey done
last summer on staffing levels throughout the SC laboratory system
showed that, during the past decade, research staffing levels had
declined by 15 percent or more at most of the laboratories in virtually
all SC program areas. The situation in the university community is
similar--fewer principal investigators and students are supported. The
situation is further exacerbated because several of the laboratories
are now in the process of redressing past salary imbalances with
respect to local and national competition.
This flat funding for the physical sciences will continue to erode
staffing levels at the DOE laboratories and in the universities. Within
a decade, these losses will likely impact U.S. industrial
competitiveness, since virtually all of this Nation's advances in
communications, information technology, and other high tech industries
and products had their origins in the physical sciences.
genomes to life
Question. The Office of Science really provided enormous positive
press for the DOE with its outstanding contribution to the completion
of the human DNA sequence. The follow-on program designed to understand
how genes function is called ``Bringing the Genome to Life.'' This
program is very important now that we have the genetic blue-print in
hand.
How do you see this new program working within the national
laboratories?
Answer. Genomes to Life will fund research at national
laboratories, universities, and research institutions and in
partnership with the private sector. Within the national laboratories,
DOE has unique multi-disciplinary resources and capabilities in high
throughput biology and in the mathematical, computational, imaging,
engineering, and physical sciences all of which will be needed to
systematically tackle questions about critical life processes. DOE
facilities and research supported at its national laboratories and in
premier academic institutions that played key enabling and scientific
roles in the genomics revolution will also be needed for Genomes to
Life. While research funded as part of Genomes to Life will only be
funded following our normal process of rigorous peer review, we
anticipate that the success of this new program will depend on all of
these various national laboratory capabilities.
Question. What role will the NNSA laboratories have in this
program?
Answer. The role of the NNSA laboratories will be the same as that
of the other DOE laboratories. The NNSA laboratories provide some of
the key capabilities that serve as the foundation for Genomes to Life
such as unique multi-disciplinary resources and capabilities in high
throughput biology and in the mathematical, computational, imaging,
engineering, and physical sciences all of which will be needed to
systematically tackle questions about critical life processes. For
example, Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories are
key members of DOE's Joint Genome Institute that will certainly play an
important role in the DNA sequencing components of Genomes to Life. The
recently signed CRADA between Sandia National Laboratory and Celera
Genomics is an example of the kind of computational investments that
will be needed for Genomes to Life to which NNSA laboratories will make
key contributions.
infrastructure at the science labs
Question. The infrastructure problems in the defense nuclear
weapons complex have received a lot of attention lately. But the
infrastructure problems at the DOE are not exclusive to the weapons
complex. DOE has failed to properly invest in its facilities
throughout.
Dr. Decker, how serious is the infrastructure problem in the
Science Labs?
Answer. The Science infrastructure problem is very serious. Nearly
41 percent of the SC laboratories space was built in the 40's and 50's
and another 27 percent was built in the 60's. Together, this is a
whopping 68 percent that is 30 years or older. And, over the last ten
years as the full effects of aging were hitting our facilities and the
need to repair and replace facilities became more urgent, our
infrastructure budget has remained level as the overall Science budget
has remained level. The infrastructure funds that we have received have
been directed primarily toward environmental, safety and health needs
and utility systems because they have a higher, immediate priority
compared to most building renovations. At our current budget levels, we
cannot provide the significant funds needed to address the projected
modernization needs of our Office of Science laboratories without
significantly reducing our scientific research activities.
We have determined in our recent planning efforts that the
shortfall of unfunded backlog of capital investment needs to modernize
the Science laboratories is $1.3 billion. Capital investment needs
include general purpose facility line item construction, general plant
projects and general purpose equipment. New scientific research
facilities such as accelerators or user facilities are not included.
This figure is based on a total ``projected'' modernization cost of $2
billion over the next 10 years less the current projected funding level
of $730 million for the same period. It is our strong view that a
modern, effective and efficient physical infrastructure is of critical
importance to maintaining the capability of the Science laboratories to
continue America's world-class scientific research into the twenty
first century.
Question. How are the infrastructure problems affecting your
mission?
Answer. Mission activities are affected in many ways. We have many
outdated facilities that are not fully utilized because of design and
layout issues. Facilities are unable to support next-generation
equipment. Ventilation systems and environmental controls are
inadequate for modern sensitive equipment. Utility systems are
noncompliant with current regulations and approaching end of service
life. The removal of excess facilities is proceeding very slowly due to
funding and priority issues in DOE's cleanup program. Deferral of
excess facilities removal requires continuing expenditures for
surveillance and maintenance along with associated liabilities of these
facilities. High operating, maintenance, and utility costs for older
facilities (both active and excess ones) are driving up the overall
cost of R&D. Decaying facilities also make recruiting and retaining
scientific staff much more difficult.
Question. Have you completed a comprehensive assessment of the
infrastructure problems and how do we fix the problem?
Answer. Yes, we have completed a survey of the projected
modernization needs as mentioned and briefly described above. The
Strategic Facilities Plans that the laboratories submitted and our
summary survey report are available on our web site: ``http://
www.sc.doe.gov/production/er-80/er-82/labs21/index.htm''.
Our strategy for fixing the problem includes: increasing our
capital investment rate to a level more consistent with the size, age
and condition of our facilities; pursuing third party financing (such
as we are doing at Oak Ridge National Laboratory); increasing the use
of Energy Savings Performance Contracts and Utilities Incentive
Programs to address energy efficiency issues; increasing laboratory
maintenance and facilities retirement funding; and, addressing the
clean-up and removal of excess facilities. Additionally, we plan a much
stronger focus on facilities management throughout the Science complex
and a better understanding of the true cost of doing the Science
research business.
spallation neutron source
Question. The Department has requested $276 million in construction
funding for the Spallation Neutron Source in Tennessee. There has
recently been a change in the leadership of that project.
Is that project on cost and on budget?
Answer. Yes, the SNS project is on cost and on schedule.
Question. Was anything lost in the transition from the project team
led by David Moncton to the project team now led by Thomas Mason?
Answer. The leadership transition from Dr. David Moncton to Dr.
Thomas Mason was smooth. There was no loss in project momentum, largely
because Dr. Mason had been associated with the SNS project in a senior
leadership position for several years.
Question. Are there any technical, engineering, management or
scientific issues that remain that could impact on the successful
completion of this project?
Answer. At present there are no high-risk technical, engineering,
management, or scientific issues. Monthly earned value reporting by the
project and semi-annual reviews of cost, schedule, technical scope, and
management by the Office of Science ensure that future issues that may
arise will be addressed quickly.
research on brain imaging
Question. The National Foundation for Functional Brain Imaging has
been operating in New Mexico, Massachusetts, and Minnesota for three
years. It has compiled a superb record of research on the integration
of magneto-encephalography or MEG and functional MRI into systems
enabling dramatically new vistas into brain function.
Please explain the rationale for zeroing funding for this
Foundation after the first three years of its planned five year funding
cycle?
Answer. The National Foundation for Functional Brain Imaging is not
an Administration initiative. It was established by Congressional
Direction in fiscal year 1999. The National Foundation for Functional
Brain Imaging received $9,617,000 in fiscal year 1999, $9,660,000 in
fiscal year 2001, and $10,544,000 in fiscal year 2001 by Congressional
mandate. Given other priorities in the Biological and Environmental
Research (BER) program with large potential impacts on human health,
energy production, and environmental cleanup, no funding was requested
in fiscal year 2002.
Question. Do you concur that this Foundation has begun to make
significant contributions to improved understanding of brain function
and that integration of different modalities of imaging can provide
important new insights?
Answer. The clinical programs in functional brain imaging supported
by the Foundation have made a significant contribution. Funding has
been used to develop an infrastructure for the Foundation, develop
computational capabilities, purchase imaging equipment, and initiate
scientific and clinical programs. In general, the clinical applications
go beyond the programmatic goals of the BER program. BER imaging
technology programs conduct basic biological and physical sciences
research to develop instrumentation and computational tools used in
medical imaging. We do not fund clinical studies on the medical
applications of these technologies.
nanotechnology research
Question. I've been briefed on the promise of nanotechnology to
address a wide range of new projects. It seems to have immense and most
exciting potential.
I understand that the Department is developing plans to create
several new centers focused on nanotechnology research. I know a
consortium involving the University of New Mexico, and the two New
Mexico national labs is preparing a proposal for such a center.
Please describe your plans to create nanotechnology centers?
Answer. Nanoscale Science Research Centers (NSRCs) will provide
facilities for advanced synthesis, processing, and fabrication at the
nanoscale in the same location as the existing Basic Energy Sciences
(BES) user facilities and will make this combination widely available
to the scientific community in the same way as are the BES user
facilities. NSRCs will involve conventional construction of a simple
laboratory building or equivalent, usually sited adjacent to or
appended to an existing user facility. Contained within NSRCs will be
clean rooms; chemistry, physics, and biology laboratories for
nanofabrication; one-of-a-kind signature instruments and other
instruments e.g., nanowriters and various probe microscopies; and
beamlines at the host synchrotron light source or neutron scattering
facility.
NSRCs have been proposed by Argonne National Laboratory, Brookhaven
National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, and Sandia/Los Alamos National Laboratory/
University of New Mexico. Selection of NSRCs will be based on peer
review of the proposed centers. Fiscal year 2002 budget authority is
requested for Project Engineering Design (PED) to provide Title I and
Title II design-only funding for Nanoscale Science Research Centers
(NSRCs) to assure project feasibility, define the scope, and provide
estimates of construction costs and schedules.
Question. Please outline some of the ways in which nanotechnology
may impact future products and processes?
Answer. Nanotechnology is the creation and utilization of
materials, devices, and systems through the control of matter on the
nanometer-length scale, that is, at the level of atoms, molecules, and
supramolecular structures. The essence of nanotechnology is the ability
to work at these levels to generate larger structures with
fundamentally new molecular organization.
The DOE is currently making a broad range of contributions in these
areas. For example, the enhanced properties of nanocrystals for novel
catalysts, tailored light emission and propagation, nanocomposites and
supercapacitors are all being explored. Nanocrystals and layered
structures offer unique opportunities for tailoring the optical,
magnetic, electronic, mechanical and chemical properties of materials,
and DOE researchers have synthesized layered structures for
electronics, novel magnets, and surfaces with tailored hardness.
The principal missions of DOE in science, energy, defense, and
environment 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.
underground science at the waste isolation pilot project
Question. Is the Office of Science prepared to encourage
development of scientific experiments utilizing the underground
environment of WIPP?
Answer. The DOE Office of Science (SC) has been made aware by the
scientific community of the unique underground characteristics of WIPP
and its potential for accommodating various experiments for particle
and nuclear physics. The possible science looks very interesting and SC
would certainly like to seriously explore the possibility of implement
these experiments. The priority of these experiments will depend upon
the priority that the science of these experiments is given in the long
range planning exercises in which both the High Energy and Nuclear
Physics communities are presently engaged, the merit and feasibility of
the specific proposed experiment and, of course, the availability of
resources to pursue these new initiatives.
Question. It is my understanding that the Environmental Management
programs of the Department are fully cooperating with the Office of
Science to make the WIPP facilities available. Is my understanding
correct or is additional cooperation required from the EM Office?
Answer. The DOE Office of Environmental Management (EM) has fully
cooperated with the Office of Science in assessing the conditions under
which scientific research could be performed in the WIPP facility.
Certainly, a strong incentive for researchers is that WIPP
infrastructure, when not needed to support the EM mission, could be
available to support the scientific research teams. EM has proceeded on
your request for an evaluation of the impact and costs on repository
performance of creating a lower horizon for experiments with a draft
report, to be shared with the Environmental Protection Agency,
scheduled to be completed July 2001.
low dose radiation effects program
Question. Three years ago, Congress created a program, anticipated
to require ten years to provide a better scientific basis for the
radiation standards used for low doses of radiation. Last year, the GAO
completed a study that noted that the scientific basis for such
standards is woefully inadequate. When DOE started the program, a
program plan was carefully developed by the Department, which calls for
about $25 million in fiscal year 2002.
The Department requested only $12,700,000 for fiscal year 2002.
That same GAO report noted that hundreds of billions of dollars in
costs, much of it focused on cleanup of DOE facilities, are directly
driven by these radiation standards. The cost of the research, which
may provide better standards, is trivial compared to these
expenditures.
Why is the Department not following its own program plan for this
critical research program?
Answer. The fiscal year 2002 President's request for the Low Dose
Radiation Research Program does represent an increase of $1,000,000
relative to the fiscal year 2001 request but is substantially below the
$25,000,000 recommended by the Biological and Environmental Research
Advisory Committee (BERAC) program plan and below the fiscal year 2001
appropriation that included $8,453,000 of Congressionally added funds.
The amount requested was balanced relative to the other priorities in
the BER program with equally large potential impacts on energy
production, environmental cleanup and even to radiation standards
through new understanding of genetic factors that affect susceptibility
to low dose of radiation. Scientists may also apply to BER's Genomes to
Life or Instrumentation programs for Low Dose-relevant research funds.
pubscience
Question. What is the Agency's justification for creating
PubSCIENCE and using taxpayer dollars to support a project which
duplicates products already available within the private sector?
Answer. PubSCIENCE is a modernization of the journal coverage that
DOE and predecessor agencies have been providing since 1948. Such
coverage has been continuous throughout this 53-year period, and
information products have descended in a direct line to PubSCIENCE. All
these dissemination products have been developed by the same
organization operating out of the same dedicated building since 1948.
Prior to 1974, DOE's predecessor agency was the Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC), which focused on nuclear technology, rather than
fossil energy, renewable energy, or other energy sources. Nuclear
Science Abstracts (NSA) began in 1948. The cataloging mission, of which
PubSCIENCE is the most recent manifestation, began with NSA. Throughout
its history, DOE and predecessor agencies used the technology of the
day to deliver citation information and, as appropriate, the
corresponding full text.
From the 1970s until the present time, DOE's bibliographic needs
were addressed by the Energy Database (EDB). The EDB was designed to
meet DOE's bibliographic needs, both journal literature and gray
literature. PubSCIENCE is designed to meet these same bibliographic
needs for journal literature. In conjunction with the DOE Information
Bridge for gray literature, PubSCIENCE is in essence a web version of
EDB.
As the scope of DOE's bibliographic needs has changed little over
the last few years, there is little difference between the scope
addressed by EDB with its old technology and the scope addressed by
PubSCIENCE with its new technology. Both products cover all forms of
energy and related disciplines.
Legislation makes it clear that government has an affirmative
responsibility for promoting energy science and technology through the
free exchange of ideas. PubSCIENCE addresses this need while supporting
commercial entities through the agreements DOE has with 45 publishers
of research articles.
DOE has the statutory mandate to disseminate scientific and
technical information to encourage scientific and industrial
developments related to energy sources and technologies. DOE also has
mandates to provide information to the public on various energy
resources ``through use of mass communication'' (Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5813 (7)) and to assist in education
and training activities in institutions of higher education.
Additionally, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires all agencies
to ``provide information resources management, increased program
efficiency and effectiveness and improve integrity, quality and utility
of information to all users within and outside the agency, including
capabilities for ensuring dissemination of public information (Title 44
U.S.C. Sec. 3506(b)(1)(B)(C).
Question. What steps did DOE take prior to the development of
PubSCIENCE to comply with existing laws governing agency
responsibilities to provide notice to the public before initiating new
information services?
Answer. PubSCIENCE is the application of Web technology to an
information dissemination function that has been in operation for over
50 years. PubSCIENCE represents not a new role but a more cost-
effective way of doing business. PubSCIENCE retains the same purpose
and scope of predecessor products and reflects modifications only in
the delivery technology. PubSCIENCE was introduced in October 1999
following on the Web model established by the National Institutes of
Health (NIH) with PubMed.
Through web technology, PubSCIENCE offers a number of advantages
over EDB (the pre-Web predecessor product), not least of which are
advantages that are functional in nature, rather than in scope.
PubSCIENCE's functional benefits over EDB include: more convenient
access, ease of use, desktop access, and increased timeliness to
information. Such advantages are driving all agencies toward electronic
government, with strong encouragement from the Office of Management and
Budget.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 as amended, 44 U.S.C.3501-3520,
requires agencies to provide adequate notice--when initiating--
significant information dissemination products. Id. 3506(d)(3). This
requirement is echoed in OMB Cir. A-130 at para 8.a.6.j. In its
analysis of these provisions, OMB explains that agencies are
responsible for having ``an active knowledge of, and regular
consultation with, the users of their information dissemination
products . . . [and that] Consultation with users might include
participation at conferences and workshops, careful attention to
correspondence and telephone communications . . . or formalized user
surveys.'' Consistent with guidance from OMB Circular A-130, public
forum presentations, discussions, and publicly available articles about
the development of PubSCIENCE began one year before the product was
introduced. Throughout fiscal year 1999, more than 7 speeches, 3
published articles, 2 demonstrations and beta tests, and Congressional
Testimony by Dr. Martha Krebs, then Director, Office of Science, before
the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Committee on Science,
U.S. House of Representatives, announced the initiative to develop
PubSCIENCE. These were the more formal communications, and do not
include informal working discussions held in various forums with
potential users. In addition to these communications, telephone
interviews about this product to discuss opportunities for partnership
were held with approximately 90 representatives from the primary,
secondary, society, and university publishing communities. Other
federal agencies with scientific and technical information management
missions were also notified of the development of PubSCIENCE through
periodic meetings and communications. Special communication efforts
with GPO resulted in their partnership with the Department to provide
public access to PubSCIENCE through the GPO Access system. OMB Circular
A-130 guidance also says that ``In all cases . . . determination of
what is a significant information dissemination product and what
constitutes adequate notice are matters of agency judgment.'' We
believe that the Department took appropriate steps to make the user and
publishing communities aware of this information resource.
Question. What is the Agency's justification for creating
PubSCIENCE and using taxpayer dollars to support a project which
duplicates products already available within the private sector?
Answer. PubSCIENCE is a modernization of the journal coverage that
DOE and predecessor agencies have been providing since 1948. Such
coverage has been continuous throughout this 53-year period, and
information products have descended in a direct line to PubSCIENCE. All
these dissemination products have been developed by the same
organization operating out of the same dedicated building since 1948.
Question. In general, what is the Department's policy regarding
creation of services that represent direct competition with the private
sector?
Answer. The Department's policy is to not create new services
outside the scope of its mission and not supported by legislation.
Those are not the conditions relative to PubSCIENCE. Journal titles
included in PubSCIENCE are selected due to their relevance to DOE's R&D
mission. The Department's enabling legislation and a number of other
laws require that DOE make energy science and technology information
accessible to the public. PubSCIENCE promotes energy science and
technology through the free exchange of ideas both within the DOE
scientific community and the public at large. PubSCIENCE is not a new
service but a modernization of a longstanding service to fulfill this
requirement. Rather than a competition with the private sector, it
represents a strong partnership with over 40 commercial publishers in
the private sector.
PubSCIENCE does not duplicate any single commercial system. In
fact, PubSCIENCE is designed to mimic the Department's R&D portfolio.
Systems that present bibliographic information have a broad range of
characteristics. Most commercial systems are typically geared to
institutional subscribers, rather than the individual researcher or
science-attentive citizen. Some systems are free to the user, while
others require that each institution pay start up fees of hundreds of
thousands of dollars, an amount comparable to the entire annual
operating costs of PubSCIENCE; some are narrow in the scope of
disciplines covered, while others are broad in scope; some are
comprehensive within their disciplines, while others are less so; some
offer any of a wide variety of value-added features, e.g., citation
counting, targeted to specific user communities; some host abstracts,
while others focus on authors and titles; some re-host primary
publishers--full-text, while others link to publishers--servers and are
thus especially compatible with electronic subscriptions or site
licenses for full text. Internet technology is causing systems to
evolve extremely rapidly so that generalizations applicable today may
become outdated soon.
Many other federal R&D agencies also capture and make available
citations to journal articles on the Internet at no charge. The
National Institutes of Health's PubMED is one such example; PubSCIENCE
was modeled after PubMed. Through PubSCIENCE, researchers and the
public are able to identify articles of concern to them, which then
leads to commercial transactions with publishers to obtain the full-
text information. Thus, PubSCIENCE fulfills its legally-mandated
mission to advance energy science and technology through the free
exchange of ideas, while facilitating private sector commercial
transactions.
______
Questions Submitted to the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and
Technology
Question Submitted by Senator Harry Reid
generation iv nuclear energy systems initiative
Question. Please give an update on the Generation IV international
forum and how it relates to the Generation IV technology roadmap.
Answer. The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) is currently
comprised of nine countries: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan,
the Republic of Korea, the Republic of South Africa, the United
Kingdom, and the United States. The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are permanent observers.
Additional countries, such as Switzerland, and organizations such as
the European Commission are interested in becoming members. We expect
that the nine countries participating in this activity will sign a
charter formally constituting the GIF during May or June 2001.
The participating countries have demonstrated serious intent to
pursue collaborative research and development (R&D) to develop one or
more advanced reactor designs that could be deployed commercially by
2030. The GIF provides them a forum and clearing house to organize R&D
collaborations with similarly interested nuclear research institutions
in other countries. We expect these collaborations to result in
innovative approaches and to permit the leveraging of scarce R&D
dollars.
The GIF is participating in the development of the Generation IV
Technology Roadmap--a comprehensive R&D plan for advanced reactor
development. It is our belief that, in the current world energy
environment, reactors developed for deployment in the United States
will also have to be attractive to purchasers elsewhere in the world if
they are to be economically successful. Consequently, the Office of
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology has invited GIF member
participation in development of the roadmap.
GIF members will participate in each of the Generation IV
Technology Working Groups (TWG), i.e., light water, liquid metal, gas
cooled, and non-classical design TWGs. They will also participate on a
working group that will examine fuel cycle issues and on another cross-
cutting working group that will develop and compare methods for
evaluating one technology against another. Together, over 100 U.S. and
foreign scientists are supporting this DOE-led activity.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
generation iv nuclear energy systems initiative
Question. Last year, this Subcommittee led the way in creating a
new R&D program in Nuclear Energy Technologies. Among other things, the
DOE was directed to use the funding to develop a road map for the
commercial deployment of a next generation power reactor that would
have superior economics, no possibility of a core melt-down,
substantially reduced production of high level waste, proliferation
resistant fuel and waste, and much greater efficiencies. Please update
the Committee on the status of the Generation IV activities. Please
give an update on the Generation IV international forum and how it
relates to the Gen IV technology roadmap.
Answer. The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology is
leading an international effort to establish a comprehensive research
and development program for the next generation of innovative nuclear
energy systems. The Generation IV Technology Roadmap will evaluate
nuclear energy concepts, select the most promising concepts for further
development, and define the research and development (R&D) needed to
bring these concepts to maturity for potential commercialization. The
Roadmap, which is being developed over a period of approximately two
years by U.S. and international experts from industry, national
laboratories, and academia, will identify those technologies that will
successfully address the factors impacting the expansion of nuclear
energy: economic competitiveness of building and operating nuclear
energy systems; remaining concerns regarding nuclear safety and
proliferation; and the challenge of minimizing and dealing successfully
with nuclear wastes.
A plan for developing the roadmap, including management, staffing,
and schedule for completion, has been established. In addition, we have
established Technical Working Groups (TWG) to collect information on
and evaluate four broad classes of nuclear energy system concepts:
water cooled reactors, gas cooled reactors, liquid metal cooled
reactors, and non-classical reactor systems. Additional crosscutting
groups will be established as necessary to conduct comparative
assessments of specific technology areas.
We have also recently completed the process of defining technology
goals that capture sustainability, safety and reliability, and economic
goals for energy production for Generation IV technologies. The
technology goals for Generation IV nuclear energy systems were
developed by a subcommittee of the Department's independent Nuclear
Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) in close cooperation with
the U.S. and international nuclear energy research community. After
multiple reviews by U.S. and international experts, the goals are now
widely endorsed as an appropriate basis for development of advanced
nuclear energy technologies.
The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) is a consortium of a
small number of countries with an active interest in working together
to plan and conduct research and development on innovative, next
generation nuclear energy system designs. The GIF is currently
comprised of nine countries: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan,
the Republic of Korea, the Republic of South Africa, the United Kingdom
and the United States. The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are permanent observers.
Additional countries, such as Switzerland, and organizations such as
the European Commission are interested in becoming members. We expect
that the nine countries participating in this activity will sign a
charter formally establishing the GIF during May or June 2001.
The GIF member countries have demonstrated serious intent to pursue
collaborative research and development (R&D) to develop one or more
advanced reactor designs that could be deployed commercially by 2030.
The GIF provides a forum and clearing house to organize R&D
collaborations with similarly-interested nuclear research institutions
in other countries. We expect these collaborations to result in
innovative approaches and to permit the leveraging of scarce R&D
dollars.
At the invitation of the U.S., the GIF is participating in the
development of the Generation IV Technology Roadmap--a comprehensive
R&D plan for advanced reactor development. It is our belief that, in
the current world energy environment, reactors developed for deployment
in the United States will also have to be attractive to purchasers
elsewhere in the world if they are to be successful. Consequently, the
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology invited GIF member
participation in the development of the Roadmap.
GIF members will participate in each of the Generation IV
Technology Working Groups (TWGs). They will also participate on a
working group that will examine fuel cycle issues and on another cross-
cutting working group that will develop and compare methods for
evaluating one technology against another. Together, over 100 U.S. and
foreign scientists are supporting this DOE-led activity.
Concurrent with the long-term-focused Roadmap effort, a near-term
review of the regulatory, technical, and institutional issues that need
to be addressed to support the deployment of new reactors in the U.S.
within the next ten years is well underway. This review will be
incorporated into the roadmap to give it both near- and long-term
vision.
advanced accelerator applications program
Question. The Department just delivered to Congress the required
report on future plans for AAA program. That report painted a picture
of major contributions from AAA, with study of improved nuclear waste
strategies, demonstration of tritium production, and support for the
nation's nuclear engineering research. Yet the Department zeroed the
program. Do you share the enthusiasm which I have for this program?
What funding level would be required in fiscal year 2002 to continue
the AAA program?
Answer. The Department is very interested in this technology and
its potential for reducing the toxicity of high level waste and thus,
significantly reducing the quantity of this waste that must be disposed
of in a geologic repository. As you know, at the Congress's request,
the Department has been exploring this technology over the last year
with the assistance of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the
Argonne National Laboratory. In March 2001, the Office of Nuclear
Energy, Science and Technology provided a Ten Year Plan to Congress
that provides more detail on mission need, objectives, research and
development needed for proof of performance, and with preliminary cost
estimates for the initiative. As contemplated in this report, year two
of the AAA program would cost about $120 million.
The Administration's fiscal year 2002 request does not include
funds for this initiative. As you know, under the Vice President's
leadership, the Administration is conducting a comprehensive evaluation
of energy policy and related research priorities. Until these
priorities are clearly identified, the Department will not request
funding for major new energy initiatives. However, with its completion,
I look forward to working with you and other Members of Congress on the
research priorities and the funding requirements to support the
Administration's priorities.
status of nuclear engineering programs
Question. Specialists in Nuclear Engineering and related
disciplines are essential for our nuclear energy programs, as well as
cleanup of the DOE complex and the nation's national security programs
involving nuclear technologies.
Enrollment in these programs is at very low levels. Some schools
are considering dropping their programs and closing research reactors.
What is your assessment of this critical part of the infrastructure?
What would be your recommendations, both in the short and long terms to
address the problem? Should the Government consider directly supporting
university research reactors? What would it cost to cover the
operations of all 29 university research reactors?
Answer. The Department believes the U.S. nuclear engineering
university programs are vital to the Nation's current and future energy
security, environmental stewardship, and national security programs. As
such, we have been very concerned about the U.S. nuclear engineering
education infrastructure for the past several years. We have instituted
a variety of programs to assist the university community in attracting
students, improving the facilities--particularly the university
research reactors, providing research funding, and attracting and
supporting new faculty. To date, we have made some progress in
increasing the number of students, especially at the undergraduate
level, but university research reactors continue to be in need of more
upgrading than current funds allow and many are laboring under a
financial strain as universities try to support emerging fields of
study. Several studies initiated and/or supported by DOE recently have
made recommendations to the Department on how best to address the
issues confronting nuclear engineering education.
The two most recent studies; the Blue Ribbon Panel on the Future of
University Nuclear Engineering Programs and University Research and
Training Reactors headed by Dr. Michael Corradini of the University of
Wisconsin and the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC)
University Reactor Panel chaired by Robert Long, formerly of GPU and
the University of New Mexico, provided recommendations in the
University Reactor Task Force Report on how to address both the short
and long term issues confronting nuclear engineering education. The
Blue Ribbon Panel recommends large increases in the amount of support
we provide for fellowships and scholarships, faculty support
(especially junior faculty), nuclear research through the existing
Nuclear Engineering Education Research program, research reactor
upgrades, increased exchanges between universities and national
laboratories, a national outreach and communication programs with local
communities. We agree that all of these would be beneficial to nuclear
engineering education in the U.S.
The University Reactor Panel reported its findings on April 30,
2001. Its primary area of interest was the university research
reactors, especially the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
University of Michigan, and Cornell University reactors which are
facing an uncertain future due to funding shortfalls for operations and
other problems such as shortage of staff. The two-tier (short and long
term) approach recommended by this Panel would provide near term
operating support for the three reactors to assist them over the next
year or so. In the longer term, support would be made available to
university research reactors based on a peer review of proposals
submitted by each institution and centers of excellence would be
established at those reactors that are most suitable for research and
training. This increased funding, over and above a base level that
every reactor would receive, would permit the upgrading of these
facilities to make them more useful to the research community and
better able to sustain themselves financially. These recommendations
were endorsed by the full NERAC committee on April 30, 2001.
The exact cost to cover the operating expenses of all 29 U.S.
university research reactors is very difficult to determine given the
various accounting systems at each university, but we are aware of
estimates ranging from $5 million to $10 million.
report to congress on thorium fueled reactor assemblies
Question. The Energy and Water Appropriations Bill for the current
year required a report from the Department by March 1, 2001, on
approaches for disposition of weapons-grade plutonium in thorium-based
fuel assemblies in light water reactors. The request noted that work
funded under the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention Program,
accomplished jointly with the Kurchatov Institute in Russia, showed
extremely promising disposition rates for this approach, with
potentially important benefits for non-proliferation. I understand that
the Nuclear Energy Office was tasked to prepare this report. The report
is now over two months late. When will it arrive? The Report was
completed by the Nuclear Energy Office, but the Non-Proliferation
Office has held up its release. Staff understands that the NN office
feels the report is too critical of its current MOX program. Congress
should be provided with the opportunity to review the report it
requested and draw its own conclusions.
Answer. The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology is
working closely with the Office of Defense Nuclear Non-Proliferation
(NN) on the Report to Congress titled, ``Alternative for the
Disposition of Surplus Weapons Plutonium in Existing Light Water
Reactors.'' We believe that most of the concerns raised by NN have been
resolved and that the report is nearly ready for final approval within
the Department. We hope to transmit this report to Congress by the end
of May 2001.
budget development
Question. Mr. Magwood, in reviewing the budget request for nuclear
energy R&D, it appears you have at best requested money to continue
existing research projects, but have requested virtually nothing to
begin new research projects. Why such a substantial cut, given the
incredible long-term importance nuclear energy may play in our future
energy strategy?
Answer. The investments that the Department proposes to make in
nuclear energy are driven by the recognition of the important role that
nuclear energy serves in providing reliable, affordable and
environmentally sustainable electricity. These investments are based on
the recognition that nuclear energy is and will remain an important
component of the Nation's energy mix today and in the future. The
Department's proposed fiscal year 2002 budget request of $223.1 million
is focused on enabling us to meet our most critical needs--for
research, for training and educating of the next generation of
engineers and scientists and for maintaining the Nation's nuclear
science and technology infrastructure. Our future investments in energy
and energy technologies will be informed by the Vice President's
National Energy Policy Development Group's review of energy policy,
currently underway. The Department will assess its long-term research
and development portfolio once the review is issued.
national nuclear security administration labs
Question. The National Nuclear Security Administration started
operation as a semi-autonomous agency within the Department last year.
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 National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Act
allows the NNSA laboratories to continue to perform significant
research for all Department of Energy 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. The
Department remains committed 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) continues
to 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, Advanced Accelerator
Applications 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 was issued last year.
This implementation plan 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. For example, NE
and NNSA are finalizing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the
joint management of the Advanced Accelerator Applications Program. The
MOU combines the Accelerator Production of Tritium Program with the
Accelerator Transmutation of Waste Program, integrating the two
programs and enabling the use of the Low Energy Demonstration
Accelerator at Los Alamos as well as assuring a tritium backup
capability if needed to meet national security requirements. The MOU
should be finalized by the end of May 2001.
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.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Bennett. And we thank you all for coming. The
subcommittee is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., Tuesday, May 1, the subcommittee
was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:36 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Domenici, Bennett, Craig, Reid, and
Murray.
Also present: Senator Crapo.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Environmental Management
STATEMENT OF CAROLYN L. HUNTOON, PH.D., ACTING
ASSISTANT SECRETARY
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. Senator Reid has indicated we should
proceed. He will get along here shortly, he said. So let us get
started. I have a brief opening statement, after which I will
yield to you, Senator Craig, and then we will ask you, Senator
Crapo, for your comments. You are welcome to either join us
here or there, whichever you prefer.
Senator Crapo. This will be fine.
Senator Domenici. Today we meet to review the Department of
Energy's 2002 budget request for environmental management
programs and the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management, otherwise known as Yucca Mountain. We will hear
today from Dr. Carolyn Huntoon, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management, and Mr. Lake Barrett, Acting Director
of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
Today's hearing will complete our series of hearings to
specifically review the 2002 budget requests for programs
within this subcommittee's jurisdiction. We will continue to
have oversight hearings as appropriate during the remainder of
the year.
For environmental management programs at the Department of
Energy, the administration has requested $5.914 billion for
next year, $348 million less than the current year
appropriation. That is a 6 percent reduction in just that
account. The environmental management programs are the largest
part of the DOE's budget outside of the NNSA, representing
about one-third of the total DOE budget.
The program's mission is primarily focused on cleanup of
sites involved some way in the production of nuclear weapons.
These programs are very important to the country and are of the
utmost importance to those Senators who have major sites within
their State.
The administration has proposed drastic cuts in the
environmental management. One example from my own State is the
budget for waste isolation pilot plant. That is the only United
States effort to take care of transuranic, low level
transuranic wastes, on a permanent basis. That complex that
handles the shipments will be reduced by 13 percent. This cut
should not stand and we should restore money clearly for this
purpose.
In your written statement, Dr. Huntoon, that you submitted
to us you state that Secretary Abraham has directed a top to
bottom management review of the EM program with the goal of
identifying efficiencies and speeding up cleanup efforts. I
commend you in this endeavor, but I must raise a few concerns.
For example, the management review is supposed to identify
steps to strengthen project management. That is, identify steps
to strengthen project management. That is in parentheses. But
the budget request actually increases the time line for current
projects, which ultimately leads to increased costs and greater
project uncertainty. At least that is how we see it.
The management review is supposed to implement better
contracting strategies, but the budget request does not
adequately fund the new performance-based contracts that you
have negotiated, that we have negotiated in the past few years.
The management review is supposed to lead to greater use of
technologies to reduce cleanup costs, but the budget request
proposes a 27 percent cut to EM science and technology
department.
There may be answers to all of these. From what I can tell,
they are not very good answers. While I remain optimistic that
the management review will identify areas for improvement,
clearly we have been trying to do that for quite some time. You
may have better good fortune at it than we have had in the past
in determining new ways to solve these very long and costly
cleanup operations.
For the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management,
the administration has requested $445 million for next year, an
increase of $45 million or 10 percent over current year level.
This budget should allow the Department to transition towards
the potential licensing of Yucca Mountain once the Department
makes an onsite recommendation to the President the end of this
year.
A 10 percent increase in the Yucca Mountain budget is quite
remarkable, given that the administration proposed deep cuts in
almost every other account of the Department of Energy for
fiscal year 2002. Mr. Barrett, you probably deserve both
condemnation and warning. We will do what we can the support
the President's request and I look forward to working with the
new administration on spent fuel management issues.
Today we are going to proceed, as I indicated before, by
yielding first to Senator Craig and to Senator Crapo. Then, Dr.
Huntoon, you will follow. Senator Craig.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY E. CRAIG
Senator Craig. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all thank you
for your leadership in this area and the work you have done.
What I think the record has to show today is the importance
to me and to my colleague Senator Crapo of the commitment that
DOE has made to the people of Idaho regarding the cleanup of
nuclear contamination and waste at the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. This is an issue that
we have discussed with the Secretary of Energy, Secretary
Abraham, on numerous occasions, both prior to and since his
confirmation. It is an issue that I have raised with the
nominees for the key Department posts at Energy as they have
appeared before us.
The reason why this issue is so important is that States
such as Idaho which have hosted the DOE sites for decades need
to have confidence in the ability of DOE to keep its promises.
It will not sit by while communities such as those in
southeastern Idaho are penalized, if you will, for their
patriotism and their role in winning the Cold War by being
told, do not worry, DOE will get around to you some day, maybe
next year, maybe decades from now, and maybe never; and if we
decide that we do not need to clean up your site or we are
finding it more challenging than we thought or more expensive,
we are just going to tell you that we cannot do it, it is your
problem.
Now, Ms. Huntoon, you know that we have a good program
going. There are substantial milestones that have been made. To
stop now or to substantially cut back now does not make any
sense. To analyze what we are doing and to examine it in light
of the efficiencies that the chairman spoke of that may be
there, that is good business. But the kind of cuts that we are
talking about in my opinion is very bad business. A budget that
cannot address DOE's cleanup commitments is the same as saying
to Idaho Falls in Idaho and Pocatello in Idaho: Maybe some day
we will finally get around to you and address the waste and
potential environmental contamination problems that were
created in your State, but right now it just is not a priority.
Well, Mr. Chairman, these are the sentiments that I have
heard expressed in my State, and I am sure that my colleague
Senator Crapo has heard them, too. These concerns are the
reasons why I visited with you earlier. We talked about these
needs. You have worked very closely with us to see where we can
resolve this and find the additional funding for DOE's
environmental management program. I want to acknowledge this
publicly now, that you have worked very hard with us.
In the 4 years that I have served on this subcommittee, we
have consistently kept on line these programs and we will work
to continue that consistency.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for that tremendous support.
Now then, we need an additional billion dollars. In a
trillion dollar budget, that sounds like a manageable task, or
a trillion plus. But what I am talking about is a system-wide
commitment that deals with Idaho and deals with Hanford and
deals with Paducah and all of those areas that have been well
understood and well designated to have problems, environmental
problems.
While I am working with the chairman here, we are working
with the chairman of the full committee, Senator Stevens, and
yesterday he clearly gave his commitment to working to resolve
these kind of things. Additionally, I must acknowledge the hard
work, obviously, of the witnesses before. I have recognized
you, Dr. Huntoon. Tomorrow another committee on which I serve,
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, will hold
confirmation hearings for the person that President Bush has
nominated to fill your shoes, Jessie Robertson, and we have
already had that discussion. I have met with her and we have
discussed the issue, and I know that you are working to prepare
her for the responsibilities that she is going to be facing.
This may be my best chance to speak to you and I sincerely
want to acknowledge the hard work and the dedication of service
that you have provided to the Department and to our lab in
Idaho and the work that you have undertaken and in many ways
accomplished.
Finally, I have mentioned him, but let me recognize my
colleague Mike Crapo. We have worked together to fight for this
issue and for the additional funding necessary for years. Those
of us in the Senate who represented the States with DOE sites
have been somewhat loosely joined at times in alliances to
support environmental cleanup. Now we have a formalized
alliance, if you will, of the Nuclear Waste Cleanup Caucus. I
thank both Doc Hastings in the House and Senator Crapo here for
their leadership in organizing that and working with us to make
sure that this happens, and it must happen, Mr. Chairman.
We have a responsibility and a commitment to the States
involved and to the citizens involved and to our country that
when we initiate these programs we work to complete them in the
end. 50 years of defense activity can oftentimes not be walked
away from lightly. Again, I will work to find the efficiencies
necessary, but with your commitment, Mr. Chairman and others,
we will also work to fund the programs across the country. You
cited one in your State that is critical to my State, the WIPP
facility where our transuranic waste is now moving to.
Cutbacks and slowdowns are certainly not a solution to a
problem at a time when you and I are both wanting to see
nuclear in a commercial sense lead and also deal with that
particular waste problem that is generated for the sake of
energy for this country.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your support
in this effort. I think collectively we will get there.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Crapo, would you like to make a statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE CRAPO
Senator Crapo. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
Senator Craig, and members of the subcommittee, I would like to
thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak briefly to
you on the need to provide adequate funding for the Department
of Energy's environmental management program.
As Senator Craig has said so well, he and I have been
working aggressively for the last few years to make certain
that adequate funding is available to make clear that the
Department of Energy will meet its commitments, not only in
Idaho, but throughout the Nation and the DOE complex.
I come before the subcommittee as the co-chairman of the
Senate Nuclear Waste Cleanup Caucus and as a Senator with a
major DOE lab and a cleanup facility near my home town, Idaho
Falls. On March 8 Senator Craig and Senator Murray and I asked
interested colleagues to join our informal caucus to raise
awareness of the challenges facing the DOE complex as it tries
to clean up the wastes left over from nuclear weapons
production and nuclear reactor development.
At present, 14 Senators have joined the caucus, including
four members of this subcommittee, Senators Murray, Craig,
McConnell, and Hollings. Today at DOE facilities across the
country in States such as Ohio, Washington, Tennessee, South
Carolina, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and New York,
the DOE is working to safely store, treat, and process large
volumes of high-level liquid wastes, mixed wastes, trans-uranic
waste, low-level waste, spent nuclear fuel, and contaminated
soils and water.
All of this waste, which is the result of important
national missions, requires careful handling to protect public
health and the environment. Much of the work and progress being
made cleaning up waste at DOE sites is driven by commitments
made by the Federal Government under the Federal Facilities
Compliance Act. Under this law, enacted in 1992, the Federal
Government waived its right of sovereign immunity and entered
into legally binding agreements to bring Federal facilities
into compliance with existing environmental laws.
This process lifted the veil of secrecy that surrounded
many DOE sites and it gave communities and States a promise
that cleanup commitments would be kept. Mr. Chairman, as
members of this subcommittee know better than others, the DOE
cleanup program is a very complicated, long-term, and a costly
endeavor. In the not too distant past, this program has
suffered from poor management, poor contracting, and poor
performance. But in recent years the program has turned the
corner and real progress is now being made on the ground.
Indeed, the progress can be seen most clearly in the
opening of the WIPP facility and the safe shipment of waste to
this permanent disposal facility.
Unfortunately, the DOE cleanup budget proposed by the
administration will change that picture and slow or halt some
of the critical progress being made in cleaning up waste across
the DOE complex. On the surface, the proposed fiscal year 2002
budget appears to reduce DOE EM accounts by about $350 million.
But on closer scrutiny, the major cleanup accounts--defense
closure projects, defense environmental restoration and waste
management, and non-defense environmental restoration and waste
management--are reduced by over $450 million from the fiscal
year 2001 appropriated level.
When the proposed cuts in the cleanup budget are matched
against legally binding compliance agreements and requirements,
the shortfall approaches $1 billion. The reductions proposed
for the fiscal year 2002 DOE cleanup budget will increase risks
to the environment and increase the long-term cost to complete
the EM program. In addition, the proposed budget cuts will
result in contracts being cancelled, enforceable milestones
being missed, and thousands of workers being laid off.
The proposed budget cuts are much deeper than they appear
because as projects are stopped, milestones missed, and workers
laid off, the States will impose fines and penalties,
contractors and subcontractors will be paid termination costs,
and displaced workers will receive severance packages and
worker transition assistance.
Congress needs to keep the commitments made to communities
across the country to clean up DOE facilities and bring them
into compliance with current environmental laws. In order to
meet these commitments, additional funding is needed. That is
why Senator Craig and Senator Murray and I authored the
successful amendment to the budget resolution adding $1 billion
to the DOE cleanup program. Mr. Chairman, in your capacity as
chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I appreciated your
support for this same amendment and I look forward to working
with you to identify opportunities during consideration of the
supplemental appropriations bill or during the 2002
appropriations process to provide these additional funds to the
EM program.
If the Federal Government breaks its word and reneges on
its commitment to clean up existing DOE facilities in a timely
manner, how will we ever be able to convince State governments,
regulators, and stakeholders, and the public that the U.S.
government will responsibly handle waste generated from today's
national defense and energy programs? Who will believe today's
promises if the Federal Government breaks promises made just a
few years ago regarding the cleanup of nuclear waste?
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for giving me a few
minutes to urge members of this committee to do everything they
can to support adequate funding for the DOE cleanup program. I
know the members of the Senate Nuclear Waste Cleanup Caucus
stand ready to work with you on this effort. The members of the
Senate Nuclear Waste Cleanup Caucus also stand ready to assist
Secretary Abraham in his review of the DOE cleanup program, but
we do not support making cuts in the budget before efficiencies
are identified.
Mr. Chairman, speaking of caucuses, I want to thank you for
your leadership in creating the Senate Nuclear Caucus, which
seeks to promote a balanced evaluation of the contribution of
nuclear energy, that it can make to our national energy
strategy. In that regard, I am pleased to be an original co-
sponsor of S. 472, which will ensure that nuclear energy
remains a viable component of our national energy strategy.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you to
increase the role of clean and reliable nuclear energy in our
national energy strategy, and I thank you and Senator Craig for
your strong and consistent work in this area.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Senator Crapo.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Chairman, I might also ask to be
released. I have got to preside on the floor in about 5
minutes.
Senator Domenici. You are. If you are finished with your
statement, you are released, because that is all we want to
hear from you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
Senator Domenici. Now we are going to proceed to you,
doctor. I can recall when you took this job we talked a long
time and on at least two occasions as to the nature of it and
why in the world you would want it. You said you wanted the job
very badly and that you would work very hard to make some real
progress.
I want to just open by saying there are a couple things
about this account that make it very difficult. The first is
that it is defense money. Money for this program comes
predominantly from the Department of Defense. Now, that is a
commitment. That is the way we have been appropriating it. That
is the way they are supposed to be budgeting it. So it is not
really the Department of Energy's money. It is the Department
of Energy manages the money given to them by the Department of
Defense to do this work.
I think, Senator Craig, you and I have discussed on a
number of occasions that makes it pretty difficult, because it
is a very big ticket item each year, and when it comes out of
the defense budget if they feel they have got a tight budget,
it is pretty hard for them to figure out why they should give
so much to this activity if they think some of their
requirements of the military are being shortchanged.
But the message is coming across this year loud and clear
that if these programs have to be redone, if they have to be
improved, reformed, changed, better management, you cannot do
it by shortchanging them this year in the manner suggested in
the President's budget. You need to have time to do that and
you have to have time to sit down and work on these problems.
Some of the projects are too expensive and have lasted too
long. I do not think I put your project, Senator Craig, in that
category.
In any event, we would like to hear from you now and we
have a few questions. This is our last chance to say thank you.
You took a hard, hard job when you decided to do this in
compliment you and thank you for your effort.
Now, your statement will be made a part of the record. If
you would please summarize it, we would be glad to hear from
you.
STATEMENT OF CAROLYN L. HUNTOON
Dr. Huntoon. Thank you, Senator Domenici and Senator Craig.
It is a pleasure to be here today to talk about the budget. I
am here to ask you to support our environmental management
budget for fiscal year 2002. As you mentioned, the 50-year
legacy that we are trying to clean up left profound
environmental contamination. I am talking about the trillions
of gallons of contaminated ground water, millions of cubic
meters of contaminated soil, millions of gallons of highly
radioactive liquid waste, and thousands of contaminated
buildings across our country.
CLEAN UP PROGRESS
Although progress in addressing these problems was
initially slow, I believe we have turned a corner and we are
making real tangible progress. For example, we have cleaned up
71 of the 113 sites, or 66 percent, and 3 more will be done by
the end of this year. We have completed cleanup at over 4,900
of the nearly 10,000 release sites. We have stabilized 57
percent of our nuclear material residues and 12 percent of the
plutonium metals and oxides.
At the Hanford site in Washington State, we are moving
spent nuclear fuel from the K basins to a safe dry storage. At
Oak Ridge in Tennessee, we completed the cleanup of gunnite
tanks 10 years ahead of schedule by using innovative
technologies. At Paducah in Kentucky, we completed the removal
of the infamous Drug Mountain ahead of schedule. At the
Savannah River site in South Carolina, we have produced over
1200 canisters of vitrified high-level waste and we have
disposed of over 1500 cubic meters of transuranic waste at
WIPP.
We are doing so well at Rocky Flats now that 2006 is moving
from being a vision to being a realistic goal. In short, we
have accomplished a lot, but we still have a lot to do. We have
been doing it safely.
BUDGET PRIORITIES
For fiscal year 2002 we are requesting, as you mentioned,
$5.91 billion for this program. This may not be as much as we
would like, but $5.91 billion is still a lot of money and I
believe we can make progress. The budget continues to place the
highest priorities on protecting the health and safety of our
workers, the public at all the DOE sites, and continuing to
work to mitigate our highest risks. We will ensure nuclear
materials are properly managed and safeguarded and we will
maintain compliance as the priority, but, given the demands of
this budget, it will be a challenge at many of our sites.
We have given priority to several key projects that will
reduce high risk, provide significant reduction, or are key to
completing activities at other sites. These projects include
keeping Rocky Flats and Fernault in Ohio on track to meet their
accelerated closure schedules, continuing progress to design
and construct a vitrification plant to immobilize high-risk
highly radioactive waste at Hanford, vitrifying the highly
radioactive waste at Savannah River and selecting a technology
to pretreat a portion of that waste, we almost double the
shipments of transuranic waste to WIPP, to support closure or
compliance requirements at other sites, including Idaho, Rocky
Flats, Savannah River, and Argonne Laboratory East in Chicago.
We are going to be stabilizing spent nuclear fuel or moving
it from wet storage into dry safe storage at a number of our
sites. We are going to continue progress on disposing of waste
and cleaning up sites. We are completing active cleanup at
Weldon Springs in Missouri and we are developing a long-term
stewardship program to monitor and maintain remedies across the
complex after cleanup is done.
The budget continues to fund development and deployment of
new technologies that can help reduce cleanup costs and
schedules.
The fiscal year 2002 request also funds high priority new
responsibilities that EM has been given: turnover of the
uranium enrichment plant at Portsmouth, Ohio, and activities
required to keep it safe and operable; design and construction
of the depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion plants at
Portsmouth and Paducah; and acceptance of some excess
facilities from the National Nuclear Security Administration
and the Office of Science for decontamination and
decommissioning.
EFFICIENCY GOALS
The Secretary has challenged every program in the
Department to become 5 to 10 percent more efficient. In
addition, he challenged us to reduce the schedules and cost of
completing cleanup. The EM budget reflects this challenge. The
Secretary has asked me to initiate a top to bottom assessment
of the program that will be completed by my successor. The
goals here are to strengthen our project management, reduce
contractor overhead, employ effective contracting strategies,
ensure that we are performing work as efficiently as possible
and in the proper sequence, and ensure that our decisions are
based on sound science.
In implementing this approach, EM will continue an open
dialogue with the Federal and State regulators. The Secretary
has invited the governors of the States that host our sites and
EPA Administrator Whitman to work with him to find more
efficient ways to do business and improve our compliance
framework.
PREPARED STATEMENT
By working together with our Federal partners and our
contractors and with your support of this budget, we can
develop solutions to achieve our shared environmental goals.
Thank you for your continued support of this program. I
will be happy to answer any questions.
[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 2002 budget
request.
The Department of Energy's fiscal year 2002 request of $19.2
billion fulfills President Bush's commitment to responsible
discretionary spending while meeting critical requirements and
priorities in the national security, energy, science and environmental
quality programs the Department administers. We faced some tough
choices for all of the Department's programs, but the end result is a
balance among the critical national priorities in the programs
administered by DOE.
The Environmental Management program constitutes nearly a third of
the Department's budget, second only to our national security
activities, illustrating the scope and complexity, as well as the
challenge, of the cleanup we face. Our budget request of $5.913 billion
for fiscal year 2002 for the EM program will enable DOE to continue the
cleanup of the contamination and wastes that resulted primarily from
nuclear weapons research and production over the past 50 years. The
request seeks $5.771 billion in traditional budget authority and $142
million in budget authority to support privatization projects. Detailed
information on site activities covered under this account are attached
to this testimony.
The level of funding in our request reflects the Department's
priorities for the EM program. These priorities are, first and
foremost, to ensure the safety of the workers and the public at all our
sites. The request supports critical safety programs for the protection
of workers who carry out cleanup activities across the DOE complex. Our
request supports activities needed to address high risk wastes and
nuclear materials to ensure they are safe and secure and that progress
continues to reduce risks. It keeps us on track to meet accelerated
closure schedules at Rocky Flats in Colorado and the Fernald site in
Ohio. It supports many key projects, including the development of a
waste treatment plant at Hanford to immobilize high-level waste,
increased waste shipments to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, and
stabilization of spent nuclear fuel and plutonium materials at the
Savannah River Site in South Carolina. It supports the completion of
cleanup at the Weldon Spring Site in fiscal year 2002. Our budget
request continues efforts to develop and deploy innovative technologies
that can reduce the cost and schedule of cleanup. While the budget
addresses the major cleanup problems covered by compliance agreements
and other essential requirements across the complex, Energy Secretary
Abraham also has directed a top-to-bottom management review of the EM
program with the goal of identifying efficiencies and speeding up our
cleanup efforts.
The Secretary has challenged every program in the Department to
become five to ten percent more efficient and the EM review will focus
on meeting this challenge. Under this management review, the program
will work to identify steps to strengthen project management, implement
contracting strategies that help reduce costs and schedules, make
greater use of new technologies, and sequence work more effectively. We
must be sure that we are spending our cleanup dollars on the right
problems and that we are addressing cleanup problems as effectively as
possible.
Critical to the success of these efforts is the involvement and
support of our state and federal partners. The Department is firmly
committed to conducting the cleanup safely and in compliance with
applicable laws and regulations. It is critical, however, that we are
conducting the cleanup in the best and most practical way possible.
Accordingly, the Secretary has invited the governors of the States that
host our sites and EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman to work
with us to improve the compliance framework that governs much of the
cleanup work at our sites. We need to review our cleanup work to ensure
it promotes on-the-ground results, makes use of technologies that are
efficient, and reflects the lessons and technical understanding
developed over the past decade. I am confident that, working
cooperatively, we can find ways to achieve our shared environmental
goals more efficiently.
introduction
Before discussing the specifics of our fiscal year 2002 budget
request, I would like to provide an overview of our program, 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. A
common theme among the very diverse facilities across the country where
the EM program is conducting cleanup 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 will no longer be needed
to support the Department's mission. The EM program also is responsible
for critical nuclear non-proliferation programs to accept and safely
manage spent nuclear fuel from foreign research reactors that contain
weapons-usable highly enriched uranium.
Completing the cleanup of the legacy from nuclear weapons
production will meet our obligations 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.
accomplishments and progress in fiscal year 2001
I am pleased to report that EM is making significant progress
around the country. Our accomplishments reflect the program's continued
commitment to performance-based management, establishing goals and
performance measures that demonstrate our progress in on-the-ground
environmental cleanup and meeting our goals. For example:
1. In fiscal year 2000, EM completed its cleanup work at two more
sites--the Battelle Columbus-King Avenue site in Ohio and the
Monticello site in Utah. We plan to complete cleanup of the Grand
Junction site in Colorado, General Atomics in California, and Argonne-
West in Idaho by the end of fiscal year 2001. This will bring the
number of completed sites to 74, with 40 sites (including the Moab site
in Utah) remaining that require active cleanup.
2. The rate of shipments of transuranic waste for disposal at the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), the world's first deep geologic
waste repository, continues to increase. WIPP received 58 shipments in
fiscal year 2000 and plans to receive an additional 381 shipments by
the end of fiscal year 2001, which will bring the total number of
shipments to 471 containing over 3,000 cubic meters of waste since WIPP
began operations in March 1999. We are receiving waste from Rocky
Flats, Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, Hanford, and the
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), and
made the first shipment from the Savannah River Site last week.
3. We continue progress toward the ambitious goal of closing Rocky
Flats by 2006. In February 2000, we put in place a new ``closure''
contract that provides incentives to the contractor to meet the
December 2006 target date for site closure. We completed the demolition
of Building 779 in January 2000, eight months ahead of schedule. This
is the first plutonium facility of its size and complexity in the
nation to be decommissioned and demolished. Shipments of waste
continue, including 249 cubic meters of transuranic waste to WIPP in
fiscal year 2000 with another 1,000 cubic meters scheduled for fiscal
year 2001. And we are removing nuclear materials from the site--we
completed shipments of plutonium scrub alloy to the Savannah River Site
in fiscal year 2000 and will complete shipments of classified metals to
Los Alamos and the Savannah River Site in fiscal year 2001.
4. In December 2000, we awarded a ``closure'' contract for the
Fernald site in Ohio, which includes incentives to the contractor to
accelerate closure ahead of the 2010 closure date in the site's current
baseline. We continue to stay on track for closure by deactivating and
decommissioning facilities, disposing of contaminated soils and waste,
and shipping nuclear materials off-site.
5. We produced a total of 241 canisters of vitrified high-level
waste in fiscal year 2000 at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina
and at West Valley in New York. In fiscal year 2001, we expect to
produce 220 more canisters at the Savannah River Site facility and to
complete five or more canisters at West Valley.
6. At INEEL, we recently finished moving Three Mile Island spent
nuclear fuel debris to a newly constructed dry storage facility, almost
two months ahead of the milestone in the Idaho Settlement Agreement.
Construction of the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project started in
fiscal year 2000 under a privatization contract. This facility will
treat up to 65,000 cubic meters of stored waste. Transuranic waste
shipments to WIPP continue in support of the Settlement Agreement with
the State.
7. At the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee, we completed the
cleanup of all eight ``Gunite'' tanks containing highly radioactive
sludge in fiscal year 2000, eight months ahead of schedule and ten
years ahead of the original baseline. We began shipments of low-level
waste to the Nevada Test Site for disposal, which allowed the
resumption of off-site shipments of waste to the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) Incinerator under an agreement with the State. In
fiscal year 2001, we will begin construction of a new on-site disposal
facility for remediation wastes, as well as the construction of a
transuranic/alpha waste treatment facility which will prepare Oak Ridge
waste for shipment to WIPP.
8. At the Hanford site in Washington State, we continue to make
significant progress in reducing the urgent risks associated with the
177 underground high-level waste tanks, some of which have leaked to
the surrounding soils threatening groundwater and the nearby Columbia
River. We are successfully resolving tank safety issues--in fiscal year
2001 we will resolve an issue related to flammable gas safety, the last
of high priority safety issues, and remove all remaining tanks from the
``Watch List.'' We continue interim stabilization of single-shell
tanks, transferring free liquids in the tanks to more secure double-
shelled tanks. We began pumping free liquids from four single-shelled
tanks in fiscal year 2000 and will begin pumping another six tanks in
fiscal year 2001, meeting all milestones in the Consent Decree with the
State of Washington. In December 2000, a new performance-based contract
was awarded ahead of schedule for construction of the treatment
facility that will immobilize a significant portion of the high-level
tank waste.
9. Also at Hanford, in December 2000, we began moving spent nuclear
fuel from the K-West basins to safer, dry storage away from the
Columbia River. We plan to remove, dry, and transport 116 metric tons
heavy metal of spent nuclear fuel in fiscal year 2001. We are also
continuing the stabilization of plutonium-bearing liquids and materials
in the Plutonium Finishing Plant, completing about 50 percent of
solutions and nine percent of the containers by the end of fiscal year
2001. In fiscal year 2001, we will dispose of more than 490,000 tons of
contaminated soil and debris in the on-site disposal facility.
10. In December 2000, we completed the removal and packaging of
``Drum Mountain,'' a pile of thousands of crushed contaminated drums,
at the Paducah site in Kentucky.
11. In fiscal year 2001, we will complete construction of the
Decontamination Waste Treatment Facility at the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory in California. This facility will provide new,
state-of-the-art technology for treatment of Livermore waste.
12. At the Los Alamos National Laboratory, we began full operation
of our sealed source program in fiscal year 2001 to recover radioactive
sources that exceed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's upper
limit for commercial disposal and therefore currently have no approved
disposal pathway. This program removes unwanted radioactive sources
from the private and public sector and places them in safe storage at
Los Alamos. We have brought 1100 private sector sealed sources to Los
Alamos for storage and expect to recover over 2000 sources by the end
of fiscal year 2001.
In support of non-proliferation goals, we have completed a total of
19 shipments to date of spent nuclear fuel from foreign research
reactors in 25 countries since the start of the acceptance program,
including three shipments in fiscal year 2001 from Argentina, Chile,
Germany, Italy and Japan. All told, these 19 shipments effectively
removed from commerce an amount of uranium equivalent to over 20 crude
nuclear weapons. This program is crucial in supporting U.S. policy to
reduce and eventually eliminate the use of highly enriched (nuclear
weapons-capable) uranium in civil commerce world-wide.
All EM sites achieved full implementation of Integrated Safety
Management (ISM) by the end of fiscal year 2000. ISM is a ``common
sense'' approach to safety management that defines the necessary safety
structure for any work activity that could affect the safety of the
public, the workers, or the environment.
Our on-the-ground use of new innovative technologies continues to
increase, many of which contributed to or resulted in the
accomplishments described above. During fiscal year 2000, DOE sites
used EM-sponsored innovative technologies 210 times in cleanup
activities. For example, a breakthrough technology
(LASAGNATM) that uses buried electrodes to produce a flow of
groundwater and dissolved contaminants toward ``in situ'' treatment
zones was deployed at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant to treat
trichloroethylene and technetium contamination in the ground. During
the next two years, this technology is expected to reduce the level of
contamination in the soil to a level that presents no threat to
groundwater.
Also in fiscal year 2000, 30 innovative technologies were made
available for use for the first time. One such technology is the Vadose
Zone Characterization System which measures contaminants that have
leaked from high-level waste tanks into the groundwater. We also
initiated 37 full-scale demonstrations of innovative technologies,
including the Fiber Optic Tritium Detector and Quantifier, which
enables tritium measurements to be made safer, faster (real time),
better and cheaper than traditional liquid scintillation-based
techniques.
During fiscal year 2001, the sites expect to deploy new technology
at least 60 times in cleanup activities. For example, we plan to deploy
a new technology recommended by the fiscal year 2001 ``blue ribbon
panel'' on alternatives to incineration at Hanford to treat organic
hazardous and radioactive mixed waste.
the fiscal year 2002 request
The fiscal year 2002 budget request of $5.913 billion will enable
EM to continue making progress in cleaning up its sites. The request
supports the Department's key priorities needed to meet the
environmental management mission. Our request:
--protects the health and safety of the workers and the public at all
our sites as our first priority;
--ensures the safety and security of high risk wastes and nuclear
materials and continues the progress in addressing our high-
risk cleanup problems and addresses critical needs across the
DOE complex;
--keeps the major sites on track for meeting accelerated closure
goals;
--continues investments in science and technology to find safer, less
expensive and more efficient solutions for cleanup problems;
--provides for long-term stewardship responsibilities after cleanup
is done.
In addition, the budget request for fiscal year 2002 reflects an
increased scope of responsibility from previous requests, including:
Turnover of the Portsmouth Plant.--In June 2000, the U.S.
Enrichment Corporation (USEC) announced its intention to cease uranium
enrichment operations at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in
Ohio. The Department must take steps to keep the facilities in a safe
and operable standby condition to ensure, if necessary, that U.S.
energy security and nuclear fuel commitments can be met; mitigate the
impact of the cessation of enrichment activities on workers; and
transition the facility from USEC operation to DOE stewardship.
Uranium Programs.--The Energy and Water Development Appropriation
for Fiscal Year 2001 consolidated funding for Uranium Programs and
cleanup activities and authorized the transfer of federal personnel
from the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology to EM to
carry out the associated responsibilities. With this transfer, EM is
now the landlord at the gaseous diffusion plant sites, responsible for
the management and disposition of 680,000 metric tons of depleted
uranium hexafluoride, among other activities associated with the
gaseous diffusion plants now leased to USEC.
Remediation of the Moab Site.--The National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2001 directed the Department to undertake the
remediation of the uranium mill tailings site in Moab, Utah, a site
previously owned and operated by a now-bankrupt private company.
Transfer of Excess Facilities.--Beginning in fiscal year 2002, EM
will resume for the first time since 1996 accepting excess contaminated
facilities, on a limited basis, from other DOE program offices for
eventual deactivation and decommissioning.
I would like to highlight some of the critical activities supported
in the fiscal year 2002 request and our plans for the Environmental
Management program.
safety first
The safety of our workers is paramount in all we do. We expect
outstanding safety performance as a matter of course, demand this from
ourselves and our contractors, and accept nothing less. Full and
continued implementation of Integrated Safety Management is our way of
achieving and sustaining a safe and healthful cleanup. The fundamental
principle of Integrated Safety Management is that all accidents are
preventable and that safety requirements must be consistent and defined
at all steps of planning and conducting work. We recognize that safety
culture flows down from actions by the senior management of an
organization. These actions enforce the belief at every level that
constant attention to safety has an incremental beneficial effect. The
Office of Safety, Health and Security was created to track safety and
to assist our managers, programs and sites in meeting their safety
responsibilities.
We influence workers' approach to doing a job by instilling a
safety culture; ensuring that workers have the proper knowledge,
qualifications, training and equipment; identifying areas for
improvement and verifying that safety deficiencies are corrected, and
measuring progress and disseminating lessons learned.
We also have a new initiative to more formally assure that new
technologies are developed with the safety of the worker using them as
a primary consideration. New technologies, however cost effective, will
not be developed and deployed unless they can be used safely. Our goal
is develop technologies that are safer to use, and make cleanup safer.
Our enhanced focus on safety has begun to pay off. Currently, the
total recordable case rate (a measure of occupational injuries and
illnesses, more serious than those requiring first aid) for EM
contractors and federal employees was 1.7 compared to the overall DOE
rate of 2.0 and the private industry average of 6.7, despite the fact
that the construction type work employed in EM activities is considered
to be among the most hazardous. We have, in fact, reduced the EM total
recordable case rate by 25 percent since 1999. There has also been
considerable progress in closing out corrective actions in response to
independently-observed safety deficiencies. There is every indication
that workers are committed to the principles of Integrated Safety
Management and are taking an active role in making it a part of
workplace culture. We are driving safety performance to new levels of
excellence, and are developing new ways to safely manage the risks
associated with cleanup. Our fiscal year 2002 request fully funds the
safety systems and processes that ensure our workers are protected.
giving priority to the highest risk materials and wastes
Moving spent nuclear fuel to safe storage at Hanford.--In December
2000, we began removing spent nuclear fuel from K-West Basins at the
Hanford Site in Washington as part of our ongoing effort to protect the
Columbia River. This project is 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 into safe, dry
storage in a new facility away from the river. Our fiscal year 2002
request of $163 million for the Spent Nuclear Fuel Project at Hanford
allows this critical project to continue on schedule, supporting the
transport of 662 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from K-West Basin
and the completion of modifications to K-East Basins.
Stabilize Plutonium at Hanford and the Savannah River Site.--We are
reducing risks by stabilizing plutonium-bearing materials at Hanford
and the Savannah River Site, consistent with our commitments to the
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. At Hanford, our request
provides $73.8 million to continue stabilization activities at the
Plutonium Finishing Plant, where we will complete stabilization of the
remaining 4,300 liters of plutonium-bearing solutions and polycubes and
continue stabilization and packaging of plutonium oxides and residues.
These stabilization activities are a critical step in the deactivation
of Plutonium Finishing Plant, which will significantly reduce
``mortgage'' costs at Hanford.
At the Savannah River Site, our request of $357.6 million will
continue operations in the two chemical processing canyons to stabilize
nuclear materials, including plutonium residues and plutonium metals
and oxides, as well as plutonium alloys from Rocky Flats. Stabilization
of these ``at risk'' materials is critical in resolving health and
safety concerns surrounding these liquid or unstable radioactive
materials; in supporting closure goals at Rocky Flats; and in
responding to Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board recommendations.
By the end of fiscal year 2002, with stabilization of sand, slag and
crucible plutonium residues, we will complete processing of all nuclear
materials currently planned to be stabilized using the PUREX process in
F-Canyon.
Safely Manage and Treat High-Level Waste in Underground Storage
Tanks at Hanford.--The River Protection Project at Hanford includes the
safe storage, retrieval, and treatment of 53 million gallons of high-
level waste now stored in 177 underground tanks near the Columbia
River. In fiscal year 2002, we will continue interim stabilization of
the tanks, i.e., pumping liquid waste from single-shelled tanks, which
are at or beyond their design life or do not conform to current design
codes, into more reliable double-shelled tanks. We will initiate
pumping of four additional single shell tanks, staying on track to meet
our commitment to complete interim stabilization of all single-shell
tanks in 2004.
Fiscal year 2002 is a critical year in developing the facility to
vitrify the high-level tank waste, one of the most critical, complex
and costly projects in the DOE complex. The fiscal year 2002 request
provides $500 million to develop treatment facilities to vitrify at
least 10 percent by volume and 25 percent of the radioactivity of the
53 million gallons of high-level tank waste. Initially being developed
under a privatization approach, the privatized contract was terminated
in May 2000 because of price and management concerns, and a new
contract using a cost-reimbursement approach was awarded in December
2000. The new contract contains incentives tied to performance,
encouraging the contractor to meet or exceed cost and schedule goals.
The request provides funds to initiate construction of high-level waste
pre-treatment and low-activity vitrification facilities and continues
the design and installation of waste retrieval systems that will
provide waste feed to the treatment facilities.
Treat High-Level Waste and Begin Construction of Salt Processing
Pilot Plant at Savannah River Site.--The fiscal year 2002 request
includes $110.6 million to support continued vitrification of high-
level waste at the Defense Waste Processing Facility that has produced
more than 1,080 canisters of vitrified waste. By the end of fiscal year
2002, we will complete about 22 percent of the expected lifetime total
of 6,025 canisters. The request also supports development of a
technology to separate the high-activity and low-activity fractions of
the salt waste, in order to minimize the amount of waste that must be
vitrified and disposed of in a deep geologic repository. The Department
is scheduled to identify a preferred alternative technology or
technologies in June 2001 to replace the In-Tank Precipitation
technology, which was terminated in 1998 because of excessive benzene
generation. Two of three technology options currently being considered
are a result of the EM science program--without this work, Savannah
River Site would have had to begin development of new alternatives,
creating a further delay of at least six years. In fiscal year 2002, we
will begin construction of a pilot plant that will provide design and
operational information for a full-scale salt processing plant.
Complete Construction of the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project
at INEEL.--The request includes $40 million in budget authority for the
Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project (AMWTP) at INEEL, a
privatization project that will greatly increase the INEEL's capability
to prepare 65,000 cubic meters of waste for disposal at WIPP. In fiscal
year 2002, we will complete construction of the facility, and we will
be on track to begin operations in 2003 in accordance with the
agreement with the State.
In response to a lawsuit and community concerns, the Department put
the incineration component of the AMWTP on hold pending an expert
review of alternative technologies to incineration that can meet legal
standards. The ``blue ribbon panel'' of experts, in a December 2000
report, identified several promising technologies. The request provides
$5 million to explore several of these technologies, which may
eliminate the need for the incinerator that had been planned for AMWTP.
Increase Shipments to WIPP.--The request of $164.6 million plus
$2.6 million for safeguards and security for the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant will allow us to increase shipments of contact-handled
transuranic waste to WIPP in fiscal year 2002. We will continue
critical shipments from Rocky Flats to support the closure schedule and
from INEEL to meet its agreement with the State, as well as limited
shipments from other sites. The WIPP facility remains critical to
meeting our closure and completion goals at other sites.
Begin Construction of a Pilot for ``Melt and Dilute'' Technology.--
The Savannah River Site has been developing a cost-effective path
forward for spent nuclear fuel that does not require stabilization for
health and safety reasons. This research and development effort is
helping us identify technologies to manage spent nuclear fuel and other
nuclear materials without chemical separation. Our efforts to develop
the ``melt-and-dilute'' process have been so successful that we
selected it as the preferred technology to prepare aluminum-based spent
nuclear fuel for geologic disposal. Construction of a pilot plant that
will test real spent fuel to demonstrate the viability of the melt and
dilute process will be completed this fiscal year, and the $4 million
requested in fiscal year 2002 will support operations of the pilot
plant. This will provide a firm basis for the design and construction
of the full-scale facility to prepare and store this spent nuclear fuel
prior to final disposition in a geologic repository.
supporting the closure of major sites
Staying On Track to Close Rocky Flats.--The fiscal year 2002 budget
request of $628.6 million plus $35.4 for safeguards and security, or a
total of $664 million, supports the closure of Rocky Flats by December
15, 2006, the closure date targeted in the contract. The Rocky Flats
site is the largest site challenged to accelerate site cleanup and
achieve closure in 2006. To date, significant progress has been made
toward making this goal a reality. A key ingredient for closing Rocky
Flats is being able to ship nuclear materials and waste off-site, which
requires that other sites--often DOE sites--are available and prepared
to accept the materials. Our request also provides the necessary funds
to other sites, such as Savannah River Site, Oak Ridge, Nevada Test
Site, and WIPP, to support their part of the Rocky Flats closure
effort. The coordination and support of these planned shipping
campaigns to the receiver sites demonstrates the Department-wide
commitment to the goal of achieving accelerated closure of Rocky Flats.
Accelerating the Closure of the Fernald Site.--Our request of
$285.3 plus $4.7 million for safeguards and security also funds efforts
to complete cleanup and close the Fernald site in Ohio. The site is
currently scheduled to close in 2010, but the new closure contract for
Fernald awarded last November includes incentives to the contractor to
accelerate the completion date to 2006. Fiscal year 2002 efforts build
on past years' cleanup progress, including stabilization of liquid
uranium solutions, off-site shipment of low level radioactive wastes,
disposition of excess nuclear materials, and decontamination and
demolition of several large industrial buildings at Fernald. We will
continue these activities in fiscal year 2002, including completing
shipments of uranium materials to the Portsmouth site in Ohio for
disposition, and beginning the full-scale remediation project for Silos
1 and 2 that contain radium-bearing residues generated from the
processing of high-grade uranium ore.
meeting new responsibilities
The budget request for fiscal year 2002 reflects an increased scope
of responsibilities assigned to EM as a consequence of Congressional
action in last year's legislation or internal initiatives. We have
incorporated these new requirements into our request and prioritized
the necessary activities in consideration of existing requirements of
the Environmental Management program.
Turnover of the Portsmouth Plant.--In June 2000, the United States
Enrichment Corporation (USEC) announced its intention to cease uranium
enrichment operations at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Ohio
and to return the plant to DOE. The EM program is responsible for
placing and maintaining the plant in cold standby condition and for
other critical transition-related activities, as well as eventual
decontamination and decommissioning of the plant.
A total of $125 million requested in fiscal year 2002 supports
activities to winterize the facilities, place the facilities in cold
standby, and mitigate the impacts on the workforce. Some of these funds
will be used to replace some of the funding sources for an fiscal year
2001 reprogramming for transition activities now pending before
Congress. In fiscal year 2002, this will allow us to complete the
winterization of the plant, an activity we must begin this year. It
will fund actions needed to place those portions of the plant needed
for production of enriched uranium in a condition that would allow for
restart of the operations within 18 to 24 months, should that become
necessary in the future. And it allows us to selectively begin
deactivating other parts of the plant and structures at the site that
are no longer needed in order to reduce the surveillance and
maintenance costs.
Uranium Programs.--The Energy and Water Development Appropriation
for fiscal year 2001 consolidated funding for Uranium Programs and
cleanup activities, and authorized the transfer of federal personnel
from the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE) to the
Environmental Management program. With this transfer, EM became
responsible for a number of additional activities, including safely
managing 680,000 metric tons of depleted uranium hexafloride
(DUF6) now stored at three gaseous diffusion plant sites and
the design, construction and operation of DUF6 conversion
facilities at Portsmouth and Paducah. We also are responsible for
maintenance and cleanup of facilities not leased to USEC, management of
DOE Material Storage Areas in and around USEC buildings, and for pre-
existing liabilities arising from law or agreement after the transfer
of the uranium enrichment operations to USEC.
The fiscal year 2002 request places priority on actions needed to
ensure safety, including maintenance of the DUF6 cylinders.
We also will continue to work with the Commonwealth of Kentucky
regulators to undertake actions needed to resolve the notice of
violation issued by Kentucky concerning hazardous waste identified in
the DOE Material Storage Areas at Paducah. The request also keeps the
development of the DUF6 conversion facilities on track to
begin construction in January 2004, consistent with the schedule
provided in Public Law 105-204.
Transfer of Excess Facilities.--The Department has a number of
aging facilities that are no longer needed to support mission work. The
costs to maintain these facilities so that they do not become a safety
or contamination hazard can be significant, costs which can increase as
facilities degrade over time. EM currently manages the majority of the
Department's excess contaminated facilities. Since 1996, due to
concerns about funding and increasing the scope of EM responsibilities,
facilities that became excess to the needs of other programs have been
managed by those programs. However, consistent with a new DOE order,
beginning in fiscal year 2002, EM will, on a limited basis, begin
accepting excess contaminated facilities from other DOE program offices
for eventual deactivation and decommissioning.
In fiscal year 2002, ten facilities or facility complexes, located
at Brookhaven, Oak Ridge, Pantex Plant in Texas, and the Savannah River
Site, will transfer to EM from the National Nuclear Security
Administration, the Office of Science, and the Office of Nuclear
Energy. We are requesting funds for surveillance and maintenance to
enable EM to manage these newly transferred facilities safely, based on
a budget transfer from the DOE program that currently ``owns'' the
facility. Since these excess facilities constitute new work scope for
the EM program, we are requesting the funding in a separate program
account to enable DOE and the Congress to track the cost and progress
associated with the excess facilities transferring in fiscal year 2002.
We also plan to include facility transfers in future years in this
account.
continuing the investment in science and technology
Developing and using more effective technologies in our cleanup
continues to be a critical element of our strategy to reduce the cost
and the pace of cleanup. Since its inception, EM's Science and
Technology program has made approximately 280 innovative technologies
available for use. Yet we have seen an increase in the needs for
technological solutions reported by the sites. This is due to a large
degree to better problem definition and a better understanding of
project requirements, uncertainties, and costs. More than two-thirds of
the EM life-cycle cost estimate occur after 2006, so the need for
Science and Technology investments continues.
The fiscal year 2002 request of $196 million for the Science and
Technology program activities will support the Department's near-term
needs for technical solutions while allowing us to work toward
solutions for the more intractable environmental problems.
Over the past several years, Environmental Management's Science and
Technology program has concentrated not only on technical achievements,
but also on ensuring its activities are directly linked to solving
specific problems identified by project managers in the field and
enhancing the program's management practices. I am pleased to report
today that both technical advances and management processes for the
Science and Technology program are solidly on track:
On-the-ground Successes.--In fiscal year 2000 alone, there were
more than 200 innovative technologies used for the first-time in a
project or site across the complex, demonstrating that EM's Science and
technology program is successfully meeting real cleanup needs. For
example, an innovative phytoremediation process was activated at the
Mixed Waste Management Facility at the Savannah River Site. Tritium-
contaminated water is pumped above ground and sprayed onto the roots of
selected trees where it is evapo-transpired into the atmosphere at safe
concentrations. This process, which is already making improvements in
downstream water quality, will prevent contaminants from flowing into
Fourmile Creek and the Savannah River Site.
At Hanford, the In Situ Redox Manipulation process, a 1998 R&D
Magazine R&D 100 Award recipient, is being used on the highest-
concentrated portion of a chromium VI groundwater plume. This process
replaces expensive pump-and-treat with a permeable treatment zone that
immobilizes chromium traveling through it.
And over 30 technologies were used as an integrated system to
remediate the Oak Ridge Gunite and Associated Tanks, some of DOE's
oldest tanks. Retrieval operations were completed in fiscal year 2000,
ten years ahead of schedule and at a savings of $350 million.
Technical and Deployment Assistance.--While furnishing innovative
technologies is the cornerstone of our activities, the program also
provides scientific and technical support to EM cleanup decisionmaking.
In response to public concern about incinerator emissions, last year a
Secretarial ``blue ribbon panel'' studied emerging alternatives to
incineration, which resulted in recommendations on emerging
technologies that hold greatest promise for further development. EM's
Science and Technology program led the effort to provide technical data
for this effort.
The Science and Technology program is also supporting the
development of an alternative technology to in-tank processing for
cesium removal from high level waste. The Tanks Focus Area, one of five
teams that address DOE's major environmental problem areas, is
performing much of the testing and will continue to work with the site
to develop and pilot the selected technology. It will also continue
development of an alternative until the primary technology has
successfully completed pilot-scale tests on actual waste.
Deployment assistance teams were sent to the Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion Plant and the Pantex Plant last year to perform technical
reviews of their groundwater, soils and surface water contamination.
Based on the teams' recommendations, innovative technologies are being
deployed at both sites.
Also, a first-ever textbook of reference material related to
contamination of the vadose zone, a major problem for DOE sites, was
compiled and published. This is an exhaustive compendium of information
from multiple agencies and the private sector.
Basic Research.--Research sponsored by the Environmental Management
Science Program (EMSP) is yielding beneficial results. To date, this
work has been documented in 576 publications and has resulted in 28
patent disclosures and applications. Promising EMSP work is using
tobacco and rice plants by a University of Georgia team to detoxify
ionic mercury. This method could be applicable to mercury-contaminated
soils at shallow depths, such as at Oak Ridge. Also a new technology
being pursued at Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico acts as a
molecular ``sponge'' by capturing and storing radioactive strontium
from liquid hazardous waste. Heat turns the sponge into a stable
material that shows promise of being suitable for disposal.
With the requested $32 million, EMSP will complete research begun
in fiscal year 1999 on scientific problems associated with the vadose
zone, subsurface contamination, and groundwater issues to support
initiatives at sites such as Hanford. Also, the first full year of
research will be completed on projects awarded in fiscal year 2001 to
improve the effectiveness of tank cleanup and decontamination and
decommissioning processes.
meeting long-term stewardship responsibilities
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 sites that are unable to be cleaned up
sufficiently to allow for unrestricted use. DOE's cleanup efforts have
resulted in substantial risk and maintenance cost reductions across the
complex. However, at most sites, cleanup will make the land available
for other industrial uses, but not necessarily unrestricted use. Like
private sites or other federal facilities, cleanup to levels allowing
for unrestricted use often cannot be achieved for economic or technical
reasons, including the presence of residual contaminants or deliberate
entombment of waste or facilities.
The Department has a legal and moral responsibility to ensure the
protection of human health and the environment after cleanup is
complete. The goal of long-term stewardship is the sustainable
protection of human health and the environment after cleanup, disposal
or stabilization is complete. The long-term stewardship program allows
the Department to provide safe and effective long-term stewardship
while optimizing future land and resource use. Good project management,
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 is essential to
a successful long-term stewardship program. 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. These needs are not unique to the Department of Energy--while
EM's Office of Long-term Stewardship may be the first office addressing
these issues in the federal government, I would suggest to you that it
will not be the last.
In January 2001, DOE reported to Congress on the Department's long-
term stewardship responsibilities, in response to the fiscal year 2000
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The report provides the best
available information on the cost, scope, and schedule of DOE's current
and future long-term stewardship. It concludes that DOE currently
carries out such activities at about 30 sites and may eventually be
responsible for stewardship at 129 sites.
Recently, we designated the Idaho Operations Office as the lead
field office for our long-term stewardship program. The Grand Junction
Office, which is currently conducting stewardship at sites that have
completed cleanup, has been transferred from the Albuquerque Operations
Office to the Idaho Operations Office to provide for continuity of
critical operations and to coordinate policy and guidance development.
The fiscal year 2002 request maintains funding for long-term
stewardship activities at $8 million. In addition, $5.4 million in
funding for Grand Junction also supports its stewardship activities.
The number of sites moving from active cleanup to stewardship is
expected to grow from 30 sites in fiscal year 2001 to 35 sites in
fiscal year 2002, with an additional 33 sites transitioning into long-
term stewardship in the next five years.
The request also supports INEEL and Headquarters activities to
address complex-wide long-term stewardship challenges. Our emphasis in
fiscal year 2002 will be on resolving issues that interfere with, or
potentially delay, the transition of sites through closure and into
long-term stewardship. We also continue investments 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.
ensuring we use resources effectively
The cleanup facing DOE is perhaps the most complex and challenging
environmental challenge in the world. And it is one of the most costly,
currently estimated to cost about $200 billion to complete. It is
critical that we manage the program well and employ strategies that
will help us continue progress and meet our commitments more
efficiently and at a lower cost. The comprehensive, top-to-bottom
assessment of the Environmental Management mission that the Secretary
has directed be conducted will help identify opportunities to optimize
the use of cleanup funds. Strategies to achieve this include:
--implementing sound project management practices;
--achieving efficiencies through innovative performance-based
contracting approaches that provide financial incentives for
performance;
--working closely with state and federal regulators, tribal nations,
and other stakeholders at our sites; and
--linking sites through integration.
improving project management
Sound project management is fundamental to cost effective and
timely completion of EM's massive clean-up effort. EM has accomplished
significant improvements in the past several years in planning and
execution of project baselines, but certainly more work remains. In
particular, we need to improve our up-front planning and our project
risk management practices. The latter is particularly important given
the high degree of uncertainty associated with many of our first-of-a-
kind projects.
EM's Office of Project Management, created in August 1999, is
charged with bringing state-of-the-art project management tools and
training into the EM program to enable us to better manage our
projects. We work closely with the Office of Engineering and
Construction Management (OECM) in the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, the unifying organization for project management for DOE. We
learn from and compare our performance with the standards and practices
of external organizations such as the Construction Industry Institute,
the Project Management Institute, and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
Over the past year, EM has significantly improved project
management practices by taking an aggressive approach to implementing
the new DOE project management order, Program and Project Management
for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, which mandates that industry
standard processes and reporting be incorporated into DOE project
management. We have recently identified over 70 discrete, well-defined
projects (referred to as Capital Asset Projects) that will be subject
to the comprehensive project management requirements laid out in the
new DOE order.
A sample of the other changes made to promote better project
planning and reduce overall program costs include:
1. We are increasingly using a comprehensive project planning tool
similar to that used by the Construction Industry Institute across the
complex. We expect its use to result in near term project cost and
schedule improvements.
2. We have instituted quarterly performance reviews for key
projects and formalized a ``critical decision'' approval process using
the expertise of DOE's Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board
(ESAAB). These internal and external independent project reviews are
the independent ``eyes and ears'' assist us in making sound decisions.
3. We have begun to make use of ``state-of-the-art'' cost
estimating models for environmental remediation and decontamination and
decommissioning projects. We plan to extend these models to all types
of EM projects.
4. We are putting together Integrated Project Teams to provide more
effective intra-site communication. These teams are charged with
expanding technology transfer and reducing project risk associated with
cross site waste transfers.
5. We are developing the project management career ladder to ensure
that future project managers have the right training and experience to
mange the large complex environmental management projects to come.
EM is taking project management ``off the drawing board'' and
putting it into practice. Both headquarters and field offices are
making changes needed to promote effective project management. While we
will certainly face challenges ahead, we also anticipate substantial
project management improvement, and more success stories in the coming
years.
improving contract management
The EM program accomplishes its work largely through facility
management contracts that provide for management and operations at each
site. EM site managers have oversight responsibility for eleven
facility management contracts. Managing performance under these
contracts is key to successfully carrying out the EM mission and to
reducing costs.
To ensure we get what we pay for and that we get what we need, we
have moved away from traditional cost-plus-award-fee contracts and are
applying performance-based contracting and management principles to all
our facility management contracts, as well as to our support service
contracts. This contracting approach uses objective performance metrics
to define and measure contract performance, tying the contractor's fee
to achievement of these specific performance measures. Innovative
performance metrics developed and used by EM sites include multi-year
performance incentives, ``gateway'' provisions requiring the contractor
to complete previous performance requirements before earning fee in a
performance area, and ``stretch'' and ``super-stretch'' goals in which
the contractor uses cost savings to fund unfunded work.
In the past few years, we awarded new cost-plus-incentive-fee
``closure'' contracts for the Rocky Flats and Fernald sites tied to
completing the closure of the site. The contracts identify a target
closure and include incentives for accelerated completions and
reductions in fee for any delay beyond this targeted date. The
contracts also include cost and schedule incentives focused on ensuring
the cleanup is conducted safely and compliantly. We also negotiated new
or extended contracts for operation of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant,
the Richland Operations Office and the Office of River Protection at
Hanford, and the Savannah River Site that tie fees to performance.
To further enhance contract reform objectives, EM is taking an
increasingly active role in defining performance expectations, ensuring
that these expectations are consistent with the Department's strategic
plan, reviewing results, and holding both site managers and contractors
accountable for producing results. In fact, site managers now have very
specific elements in their annual performance plans concerning contract
management.
working with our regulators and other stakeholders
We have found that performing good technical work is not enough.
Getting the job done requires coordination 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 made progress in meeting our regulatory commitments in a more
efficient and cost-effective way.
Critical to the success of our efforts to improve the efficiency of
this program and the cleanup results is the involvement and support of
our state and federal partners. We believe this is an opportune time to
examine the compliance framework that guides cleanup at all our major
sites to ensure it reflects the experience gained over the past decade
when many agreements were put in place. Accordingly, the Secretary has
invited the governors of the States that host our sites and EPA
Administrator Christine Todd Whitman to work with us to review our
cleanup work to make sure it promotes on-the-ground results, and
reflects the lessons and technical understanding that have developed. I
am confident that, working cooperatively, we can find ways to achieve
our shared environmental goals more efficiently.
Our request supports public participation through continued
relationships with states, site-specific and national advisory boards,
and Indian tribes potentially affected by our activities. We will
encourage an open and frank dialogue with our regulators to ensure that
we are pursuing the most efficient and most cost effective solutions to
cleanup and compliance needs, as well as the most appropriate
sequencing of work.
linking sites through integration
While each DOE site has its own objectives and milestones for
cleanup and closure, no site can complete its mission without help from
other parts of the EM program. Making use of the unique capabilities
for managing and treating nuclear wastes and materials at our sites and
sharing information and expertise is critical to our success. Through
integration, we seek to use available capacity rather than construct
new facilities; apply innovative technologies at multiple sites; and
apply lessons learned and site successes complex-wide. We work to
address common problems and challenges across the DOE complex through a
corporate approach.
The contribution of other sites to the closure of Rocky Flats
continues to illustrate the importance of integration. Our ability to
close Rocky Flats depends on the acceptance of waste and materials by
other DOE sites, including the Savannah River Site, Los Alamos, Pantex
Plant, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the Nevada Test
Site. Rocky Flats is in the process of formulating an Integrated
Closure Project Baseline that integrates the Department's contractual
commitments to provide items and services with activities to be carried
out by the site contractor. The Integrated Closure Project Baseline
highlights that the closure of Rocky Flats is truly a complex-wide
project, requiring the support and careful coordination of a number of
Departmental sites and programs. It has improved our ability to
integrate complex-wide activities, schedules and resources.
We are working to develop disposition pathways for surplus nuclear
materials throughout the DOE complex, including orphan materials (i.e.,
those with unclear programmatic ownership), and wastes that cannot be
disposed of in their current forms. This requires that the Department
has a full understanding of the surplus materials inventories and
corresponding disposition plans prior to termination of facility
capabilities. For example, EM recently completed the ``Savannah River
Site Canyons Nuclear Material Identification Study'' (February 2001) to
determine which materials would potentially require the use of the
Savannah River canyons. Such disposition studies often identify the
need to transfer materials and wastes between DOE sites in preparation
for ultimate disposition. To support one particular transfer, EM
recently revised DOE's 3013 Storage Standard for surplus plutonium,
accelerating Rocky Flats closure by allowing metals and oxides stored
there to be packaged for shipment off-site. We are also working to
develop a cost-effective disposal approach for the classified waste
currently stored at Rocky Flats.
Finally, the transport of radioactive waste and material between
sites is critical to the success of our integration priorities. Our
national transportation program, which has 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. For example, EM is working with other DOE
program offices and with the sites to develop a national packaging
strategy that will improve the availability of certified casks for
unique types of DOE shipments, is working with NNSA to ensure the
availability of Transportation Safeguards System for shipping special
nuclear materials from Rocky Flats, and is developing the option of
shipping waste to WIPP via rail. Our efforts will enable us to identify
future packaging and transportation needs, to support aggressive
shipping schedules, and to utilize our transportation assets more
efficiently.
providing effective federal oversight
Critical to successfully managing the cleanup program and to
identifying and implementing more efficient ways of doing business is
having the Federal workforce in place to provide effective oversight of
the contractors that compete for and carry out the actual cleanup work.
Federal employees establish the program and project goals; they provide
the direction to the contractors; and they monitor contractor
performance to ensure we are getting the results we need, at the
quality and cost promised, and that work is done in a safe and
compliant manner. Our initiatives to reduce the costs and schedules of
the cleanup depends on having an effective Federal workforce to keep
the pressure on the contractor to find more innovative and efficient
ways of doing business.
The Federal workforce performs essential tasks that it would be
inappropriate to have contractors perform. These include formulating
the annual budget and outyear projections; managing contractors,
including contract negotiations, oversight, and accountability;
representing the Department in its dealing with regulators; analyzing
and formulating program policy and planning; and integrating activities
and information across sites.
Our request for Program Direction, which funds Federal salaries as
well as travel and administrative and technical support services, is
$355 million. However, our request reduces support services and travel
funds by almost half, while essentially maintaining the funds for
Federal salaries. The request supports 2,708 Full-time Equivalents
(FTEs)--about 84 percent of which are in the twelve DOE field and
operations offices--and includes increases in the Carlsbad Field Office
and the Office of River Protection to reflect increased requirements.
Overall, the Program Direction account has been significantly reduced
from earlier years. The number of Headquarters FTEs, for example, is 45
percent less than when at its highest point in 1995. The request for
Program Direction in fiscal year 2002 is about 15 percent less than in
fiscal year 1997, the year these activities were consolidated into a
single account.
The Department continues to place a high priority on workforce
management to provide a stable workforce with the right skill mix and
technical capabilities to accomplish our mission, now and into the
future.
conclusion
In conclusion, the Department is making progress in cleaning up the
legacy of contamination left from the nuclear weapons production
process. We are giving priority to reducing our most serious risks,
accelerating cleanup at our major 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 use science and
technology to reduce costs and schedules, improve our project
management, make the most effective use of our unique resources across
the DOE complex, 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.
summary of the fiscal year 2002 budget
The total fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Department of
Energy's Environmental Management Program is $5.913 billion, including
$142 million of privatization funding. The fiscal year 2002
appropriation will fund cleanup at sites across the Nation. Five sites
receive almost three-fourths of Environmental Management funding--the
Hanford site in Washington (including Richland Operations Office and
Office of River Protection), the Savannah River Site in South Carolina,
the Rocky Flats site in Colorado, the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory in Idaho, and the Oak Ridge Reservation in
Tennessee.
Our fiscal year 2002 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. Summaries
of budget accounts and the fiscal year 2002 request by State and
Operations Office are attached. In addition, information on each of
following sites can be found immediately after the budget summaries.
1. Hanford Site, Washington--Office of River Protection--Richland
Operations Office
2. Savannah River Site, South Carolina
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. Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio
8. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, New Mexico
9. West Valley Demonstration Plant, New York
10. Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Kentucky
11. Nevada Test Site and Operations Office, Nevada
12. Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico
13. Miamisburg Environmental Management Project (Mound), Ohio
14. Weldon Spring Remedial Action Project, Missouri
15. Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York
16. Sites in the State of California
Hanford Site, Washington--Fiscal Year 2002 Request
[In thousands of dollars]
Office of River Protection:
Defense ER&WM, Post 2006-ORP........................ 812,468
Defense ER&WM, Site/Project Completion.............. 2,000
Defense ER&WM, Program Direction.................... 23,386
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 837,854
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Richland Operations Office:
Defense ER&WM, Site/Project Completion.............. 419,586
Defense ER&WM, Post 2006 Completion................. 164,642
Defense ER&WM, Program Direction.................... 53,342
Non-defense EM, Site/Project Completion............. 1,485
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 639,055
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Defense ER&WM, Science & Technology..................... 36,844
Defense ER&WM, Safeguards & Security.................... 51,544
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total (Hanford Site).............................. 1,565,297
NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
funding.
The Hanford Site in Washington State remains the Department's
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 53 million gallons of high-level
radioactive waste, and more than 100 square miles of contaminated
ground water. The Hanford Site remediation activities are regulated by
the Tri-Party Agreement which was signed by the U.S. Department of
Energy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Washington
State Department of Ecology. In addition to cleanup of the site, the EM
program provides critical infrastructure activities and service at the
site, referred to as ``landlord'' activities.
The Hanford site mission is carried out by two independent
organizations, the Richland Operations Office and the Office of River
Protection (ORP). ORP was established in December 1998 following
Congressional direction in the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 and is responsible for all
aspects of the River Protection Project (formerly the Tank Waste
Remediation System), which includes safe storage, retrieval, treatment
and disposal of the high-level radioactive tank waste. Richland
Operations Office responsibilities include all aspects of treatment,
storage and disposal of legacy radioactive and hazardous wastes; safe
and secure storage of nuclear materials and spent nuclear fuel; and the
decontamination and decommissioning of facilities associated with the
production of nuclear materials during the Cold War. The Richland and
ORP managers report directly to the Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management, and their budgets (with the exception of
integrated safeguards and securities and science and technology
budgets) are separate. The ORP Manager has been delegated authority for
contracting; financial management; safety; and general program
management equivalent to other DOE Operations Offices.
Office of River Protection
ORP works closely 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. ORP
manages the River Protection Project located on the central plateau
(200 Area) of the Hanford Site. The River Protection Project uses two
major contracts for the storage, retrieval, treatment and disposal of
the high-level tank waste. A 10-year contract to design, construct and
commission a new Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) was
awarded to Bechtel National, Inc. on December 11, 2000. The goal is to
treat and immobilize approximately 10 percent of the waste by mass and
25 percent by radioactivity by 2018. The award of this contract follows
a privatization effort to design, build, and operate a WTP that
resulted in an unacceptable proposal submitted by the privatization
contractor and termination of the privatization contract. However, as a
result of the privatization effort, DOE acquired a robust technical
design for the WTP that has been independently verified. In addition,
the contract for maintenance and operations of the tank farms, which
will provide waste feed to the WTP, is with CH2M Hill and was recently
extended through 2006.
Management of the underground high-level waste tanks remains one of
the biggest challenges at Hanford. In fiscal year 2001, we made
significant progress in reducing the urgent risks associated with these
tanks. The issue of the rising level of tank SY-101 was resolved by
dissolving the crust on the surface of the waste through a series of
waste transfers and back dilutions. Elimination of the crust reduced
the retention of flammable concentrations of gas in SY-101 and
permitted us to resolve the flammable gas safety issue for this tank
and to remove the tank from the ``Watch List'' established by the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991. During fiscal
year 2001, we expect to resolve the flammable gas safety issue for the
remaining 24 tanks that are affected and to remove those from the Watch
List. Once this action is complete, there will be no tanks remaining on
the Watch List. The Department signed a Consent Decree with the State
of Washington that established a schedule for interim stabilization of
the single-shell tanks. To date, we have met all Consent Decree
milestones, which includes declaring seven of 29 single shell tanks to
be interim stable. The two unstabilized single shell tanks that are
suspected of having leaked in the past will be pumped during fiscal
year 2001.
For fiscal year 2002, we will continue improving tank safety by
transferring free liquids from single shell tanks to double shell tanks
in accordance with the Consent Decree schedule. 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 treatment facility and eventual removal of all waste
from the single shell tanks. Several of these upgrades are adapted from
technologies developed under the EM Science and Technology Program. For
example, we have procured a variant of the Houdini robotic platform for
confined slucing of sludge waste and are planning to test an adaption
of the fluidic sampler technology in solid waste retrieval.
In fiscal year 2001, we will continue termination activities
associated with the privatization contractor, including purchase of the
pilot-scale melter, and acquisition of the appropriate intellectual
property rights associated with the pilot-scale melter and with the WTP
design completed under privatization. In addition, we will continue the
design and engineering of the WTP, and begin site preparation
activities to support WTP construction, including site clearing and
grading, installation of site utilities, and construction of equipment
laydown areas. In fiscal year 2002, the requested $500 million in
funding will be used to maintain momentum on WTP design, proceed with
long lead project procurement, begin facility construction, and manage
the project.
Richland Operations Office
Over the past year, Richland has formulated an outcome-oriented
version of the Hanford Site's future that embraces priorities of
regulators, stakeholders, and area Tribal Nations, while recognizing
the absolute need to make visible progress in the near-term. The three
elements of that vision are: (1) to restore the Columbia River
corridor; (2) complete the transition of the Central Plateau to long-
term waste management; and (3) prepare the remainder of the site to
contribute to the future welfare and well-being of its neighboring
communities. This focus on outcomes has resulted in a new contract
strategy and a revised project baseline. In December 2000, DOE
negotiated an extension to the current site operations contract through
2006 for transitional work in the Central Plateau and the Spent Nuclear
Fuel Project. We are currently exploring awarding a closure-type
contract for the River Corridor.
In December 2000, we began moving spent nuclear fuel from K Basins,
which are leak-prone underground wet storage pools located 400 yards
from the Columbia River that hold roughly 2,100 metric tons of fuel,
some of which is corroding. This first-of-a-kind, technically complex
project entails loading the fuel elements while still underwater into a
multi-canister overpack using robotic arms, drying it in the nearby
Cold Vacuum Drying Facility, and transporting the fuel for dry storage
to the newly-built Canister Storage Building, 12 miles from the river.
Moving the fuel to safer storage safeguards the health of workers and
the surrounding communities, and reduces the risks to the health and
vitality of the Columbia River. By the end of fiscal year 2001, we will
remove 116 metric tons of spent fuel from the K-West Basin. We will
also begin design work for the K-Basin sludge and debris removal system
and the sludge pre-treatment system. Our fiscal year 2002 request
supports continued transport of spent nuclear in K-West Basin to dry
storage.
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 2000, ERDF received
approximately 639,000 tons of contaminated soil and debris from cleanup
sites along the Columbia River Corridor, and completed construction of
cells 3 and 4. In fiscal year 2001 ERDF will receive over 490,000 tons
of contaminated soil and debris. We plan to complete remediation of
nine waste sites in the Hanford 100 and 300 Areas, and send up to
461,000 tons of contaminated soil and debris to ERDF in fiscal year
2002.
In fiscal year 2000, we began operating three additional furnaces
at the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) for thermally stabilizing
plutonium-bearing materials. We completed stabilization of 574
containers of plutonium metals and oxides, and began stabilizing
plutonium solutions via magnesium hydroxide precipitation. We also
began packaging stabilized plutonium materials using the Bagless
Transfer System and the Pipe-n-Go system for packaging residues. In
fiscal year 2001, we will stabilize 2,190 liters of plutonium bearing
solutions and 527 containers of plutonium metals and oxides at the PFP.
We will also complete brushing and packaging of plutonium metals and
initiate startup of the outer container packaging system at PFP.
Stabilization activities will eliminate the risk posed by the
plutonium-bearing materials and is a critical step in the deactivation
of PFP, which will significantly reduce mortgage costs at Hanford. In
addition, we will continue stabilization of plutonium oxides and
residues, and complete stabilization of plutonium-bearing solutions and
polycubes at PFP in fiscal year 2002.
We continue to decommission the reactor facilities in the 100 Area
through the Interim Safe Storage Project. In fiscal year 2000 and 2001,
decommissioning activities continue at the DR and F reactors as well as
at the 233-S Plutonium Concentration Facility.
In fiscal year 2000, we made our first shipment of Hanford
transuranic waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) for final
disposal, completing three shipments totaling 18 cubic meters, and we
plan to complete at least five shipments of 42 cubic meters of
transuranic waste to WIPP in fiscal year 2001. In fiscal year 2002, we
will treat more than 500 cubic meters of mixed low-level waste in
accordance with Tri-Party Agreement milestones, dispose of more than
6,700 cubic meters of low-level waste, process over 200 million gallons
of radioactive and hazardous effluents, and complete treatment of 265
cubic meters of mixed low-level waste at a contract facility.
In fiscal year 2002, the Hanford Site Groundwater/Vadose Zone
Integration Project will implement the highest priority science and
technology activities identified in fiscal year 2000.
Savannah River Site, South Carolina--Fiscal Year 2002 Request
[In thousands of dollars]
Defense ER&WM, Site/Project Completion.................. 391,401
Defense ER&WM, Post 2006 Completion..................... 585,989
Defense ER&WM, Science & Technology..................... 17,526
Defense ER&WM, Excess Facilities........................ 700
Defense ER&WM, Safeguards and Security.................. 94,225
Defense ER&WM, Program Direction........................ 52,731
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 1,142,572
NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
funding.
The Savannah River Site is a 310 square mile site near Aiken, South
Carolina with an on-going defense mission. In addition to cleanup of
the site, the EM program provides critical infrastructure activities
and services at the site, referred to as ``landlord'' activities.
One of the critical EM responsibilities at the site is the
stabilization of nuclear materials resulting from its mission to
produce strategic isotopes for national security purposes during the
Cold War. In fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002, we will continue to
operate the two canyons as well as FB-Line, and HB-Line, to stabilize
``at risk'' plutonium-bearing materials and spent nuclear fuel covered
by Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendations 94-1 and
2000-1. The Savannah River Site also continues it critical role in
supporting the accelerated closure of Rocky Flats, receiving and
stabilizing surplus plutonium-bearing materials from Rocky Flats. By
the end of fiscal year 2002, more than 25 percent of plutonium residues
at Savannah River will have been stabilized. In addition, surplus
plutonium metal and oxides from Rocky Flats packaged in DOE-STD-3013
containers will be received and stored in the K-Area Material Storage
area until they can be permanently dispositioned. The fiscal year 2002
budget request also supports continued construction of a process to
vitrify americium/curium solutions, which have very intense radiation
fields and require heavy shielding to protect workers and the public.
The fiscal year 2002 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 2002, we expect
to receive 22 casks of spent nuclear fuel from foreign sources and
another 31 casks from domestic sources which will be safely stored 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.
The Savannah River Site has been developing a cost-effective
technology for preparing spent nuclear fuel that does not require
stabilization for health and safety reasons for disposal. This work is
helping us identify an approach to stabilize spent nuclear fuel and
other nuclear materials without chemical separations. Last August, we
selected the ``melt-and-dilute'' process as the preferred technology to
prepare aluminum-based spent nuclear fuel for geologic disposal. The
fiscal year 2002 budget provides $4 million for operation of the L-Area
Experimental Facility to demonstrate the viability of the melt-and-
dilute process. This will provide a firm basis for the design and
construction of the full-scale facility to prepare and store this spent
nuclear fuel prior to final disposition in a geologic repository.
Much of the EM work at the Savannah River Site that will be
completed after fiscal year 2006 involves management of approximately
38 million gallons of high-level waste in 49 tanks, including
vitrifying waste for final disposal and removing waste from storage
tanks so the tanks can be closed. Two tanks have already been closed
and, in fiscal year 2000, we produced 231 canisters of vitrified waste
in the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF). As of the end of April
2001, we had vitrified a total of 1,096 canisters of high level waste.
We expect the DWPF to produce at least 150 canisters in fiscal year
2002, which will bring the total DWPF canister production level to
about 22 percent of its expected lifetime total of 6,025 canisters.
Due to the long-term nature of this project, there are significant
potential payoffs if we are able to develop and apply innovative
technologies. 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 the amount of waste in each canister. These
advances will allow DWPF to operate more efficiently and ensure that
our goals for increasing canister production and reducing life cycle
costs 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 while maintaining production levels for DWPF. 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 and have narrowed them
down to three. We will select a preferred technology for treatment of
the salt component of the high level waste this June, and the fiscal
year 2002 budget request supports continued construction of a pilot
plant for that technology. The design and operational data gathered
from this pilot project will support the design and engineering of the
full scale Salt Processing Project facility by providing a research and
development test bed.
The first shipment of Savannah River Site transuranic waste to the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant occurred in May 2001, followed by three
more shipments in fiscal year 2001, with shipping rates increasing to
about one a month during fiscal year 2002. Storage, treatment and
disposal operations of low-level, mixed low-level, and hazardous wastes
will continue, including on- and off-site recycling activities.
We will also continue to aggressively pursue the use of new
technologies to characterize and clean up contaminated release sites
and groundwater plumes. We are using the Vadose Zone Monitoring System
to determine how fast and in what concentration contaminants are
traveling to the groundwater. This approach provides sensitive early
warning of aquifer contamination from the E-Area shallow disposal
trenches. At the mixed waste management facility, we have begun using a
phyto-remediation system to remove tritium from groundwater by the
process of ``evapo-transpiration'' using trees and other indigenous
vegetation. In fiscal year 2002, we expect to complete key closures at
the K-Area Burning Rubble Pits and in the L and P Area Bingham Pump
Outage Pits. We will complete remediation of five release sites,
bringing the total count of sites remediated to 300, nearly 60 percent
of the 515 release sites needing remediation. We will also operate
eight groundwater treatment systems in six of eleven groundwater plumes
at the site to remove and control contamination.
Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Colorado--Fiscal Year 2002
Request
[In thousands of dollars]
Defense Closure, Site Closure........................... 628,577
Defense Closure, Safeguards & Security.................. 35,423
Defense ER&WM, Science & Technology..................... 3,000
Defense ER&WM, Program Direction........................ 23,199
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 690,199
NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
funding.
The accelerated closure of the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology
Site is one of the Department's key initiatives. As the first major
weapons-related facility to be cleaned up and closed, this project will
offer a wealth of lessons-learned that will be applied to other sites
in the complex. Similarly, the closure of Rocky Flats requires the
implementation of innovative approaches and resolution new project and
policy issues.
One of the innovative approaches we have applied is the use of a
cost-plus-incentive-fee closure contract. In January 2000 we awarded
Kaiser-Hill, L.L.C. a closure contract valued at approximately $4
billion (excluding incentive fee payments) to complete the closure of
the site. The contract identifies a target closure date of December 15,
2006, and includes incentives for accelerated completions and
reductions in fee for any delay beyond this targeted date. In addition,
the contract includes cost and schedule incentives focused on ensuring
the cleanup is conducted safely and compliantly.
We are continuously working to ensure that safety is not
compromised in our efforts to complete the cleanup scope as quickly and
cost effectively as possible. The Department's Integrated Safety
Management System (ISMS), an integral part of the closure contract, was
implemented at Rocky Flats in January 2000. Since January 2001, both
the Rocky Flats Field Office and Kaiser-Hill have been working to
strengthen the site's safety posture. The site manager requested
assistance reviews by the Office of Environment, Safety and Health,
which were recently completed. The contractor has also recently
completed a site-wide, ISMS-based safety improvement plan.
The contract also formalized DOE's commitment to site closure in
that it identified specific activities contractually required by the
Department to support closure. These activities are referred to as
government-furnished services and items and largely include activities
necessary to ship special nuclear materials and wastes off-site. For
this reason, we are approaching the execution and management of this
contract as a complex-wide project, and this has required us to develop
some new management tools. During this first year of the contract
execution, we have been working to ``projectize'' the activities
required by the Department through the formulation of the Integrated
Closure Project Baseline. This integrated baseline will provide the
formality and structure necessary to ensure the Department meets its
contractual commitments, as well as improve our means of managing the
contract. The Integrated Closure Project Baseline highlights that the
closure of Rocky Flats is truly a complex-wide project, requiring the
support and coordination of a number of Departmental sites and
programs. The effort has been fully supported by the contractor and the
other programs and sites, and has received significant attention from
external stakeholders, including the General Accounting Office (GAO).
In February 2001, GAO published their follow-on report assessing
DOE's ability to complete the closure of Rocky Flats in 2006. Overall,
the report provides a thorough assessment of the challenges facing us,
and also demonstrates the progress we have made towards closure.
Whereas the initial assessment indicated a one percent chance of
achieving site closure in 2010 (1999 report), this follow-on report
concluded there is a 15 percent chance of reaching site closure in 2006
and a 98 percent chance of closure in 2008. As such, the GAO assessment
is a powerful validation of the progress realized to date. The report
also recognizes the value of the Integrated Closure Project Baseline,
and provides useful recommendations for formalizing the
responsibilities and authorities necessary to resolve any inter-
organizational resource issues.
A key ingredient for closing Rocky Flats is being able to ship
nuclear materials and waste off-site. This requires not only the
preparation of the materials and waste for shipment, but ensuring the
receiver sites and the necessary transportation services are available.
We have made some very significant progress to date. We recently
completed the shipment of classified plutonium metals to the Savannah
River Site and Los Alamos National Laboratory. We also began operation
of the Plutonium Stabilization and Packaging System, which packages
plutonium metals and oxides into approximately 2,000 containers. These
containers will be shipped to the Savannah River Site for storage
beginning in June 2001. The disposition paths for the remaining nuclear
material streams are being finalized through the integrated baseline
development. We plan to ship certain weapons components to the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory and, pending necessary NEPA review,
highly enriched uranium either contaminated or associated with
plutonium to the Savannah River Site. With the proper coordination of
receiver site preparation and transportation services (provided by
Defense Programs), we hope to complete all nuclear material shipments
by the end of calendar year 2002.
We have also made significant progress in the disposition of waste.
In March 2001, we made our 100th transuranic waste shipment to WIPP.
Rocky Flats to date has disposed of over 650 cubic meters of
transuranic waste, more than any other site in the DOE complex.
Currently, the site is completing an average of four shipments per
week, and by year end will be nearing an average of nine shipments per
week. In total, nearly 15,000 cubic meters of transuranic waste and
about 100,000 kilograms of plutonium residues will be packaged and sent
to WIPP. In fiscal year 2000, we also nearly doubled our planned
shipments of low-level waste for disposal.
The recent reconfiguration of the site's Protected Area is another
significant accomplishment because it provides considerable
productivity improvements. All special nuclear material on-site has
been consolidated within Building 371, enabling us to close material
access areas in the other major plutonium facilities. This has reduced
the security requirements in those facilities, improving access for the
workers performing the decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) in
those buildings. This reduces safeguards and security requirements,
increasing the total funding available to support actual cleanup
activities.
DOE has also clearly made enormous progress in reducing risks at
the site. About 80 metric tons of plutonium residues have been
stabilized and/or repackaged to date. This represents 79 percent of the
total. We have also completed the draining of 32 and removal of 30
liquid piping systems.
We continue to make progress in deactivating and decommissioning
buildings. Early in fiscal year 2000 we completed the demolition of
Building 779, one of the five major plutonium facilities. Given that
this facility once contained 133 contaminated gloveboxes, this
achievement marked a significant milestone for the complex. We continue
to apply the lessons learned from that demolition to the ongoing
activities in the four remaining plutonium facilities. We have deployed
an innovative technology called plasma-arc cutting for glovebox size
reduction. This technology provides a significant reduction in worker
risk and improved efficiency.
In the area of environmental remediation, we are using another
innovative technology, a horizontal drilling technology, to
characterize the contamination located under the buildings. This
characterization information helps us coordinate remediation plans with
the facility cleanup schedules to support the 2006 closure date. We
continue to work closely with the regulators and stakeholders to refine
the details of site cleanup. We expect the regulators will reach a
decision on the final soil action levels late this calendar year.
Through our integrated stakeholder focus group, we are working to
address all the cleanup issues in an integrated fashion to ensure the
aggregate impact to the project schedule and costs is considered.
The fiscal year 2002 budget request supports the closure contract
and the closure activities we have identified as necessary for
accelerated closure, including many of the complex-wide activities
required to provide the government-furnished services and items. It is
important to note that activities included in other sites' and
programs' budgets are also needed to support Rocky Flats closure--
including the nuclear materials transportation services provided by
Defense Programs, the storage operations at the Savannah River Site,
waste treatment operations at the incinerator at Oak Ridge, waste
disposal operations at the Nevada Test Site, and the availability of
transuranic waste containers and trailers from WIPP.
Our fiscal year 2002 request for Rocky Flats enables us to:
1. Complete the stabilization and packaging of the plutonium
residues;
2. Continue the packaging and shipment of plutonium metals and
oxides to Savannah River Site (620 containers);
3. Ship over 25,000 cubic meters of radioactive waste for off-site
disposal; and
4. Complete the decontamination and decommissioning of 18 work
sets.
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho--Fiscal
Year 2002 Request
[In thousands of dollars]
Defense ER&WM, Site/Project Completion.................. 52,105
Defense ER&WM, Post 2006 Completion..................... 276,551
Defense ER&WM, Science & Technology..................... 18,407
Defense ER&WM, Safeguards & Security.................... 34,346
Non-Defense EM, Site/Project Completion................. 5,080
Defense, Privatization.................................. 89,332
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal.......................................... 475,821
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Use of Prior Year Balances (Defense).................... (36,770)
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 439,051
NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
funding.
The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
(INEEL), a multi-program national laboratory with a significant cleanup
mission, occupies 890 square miles of the eastern Snake River Plain in
southeastern Idaho. INEEL combines a significant environmental and
nuclear operations component with basic and applied research and
development supporting the Department's four mission areas:
Environmental Management, Energy Resources, National Security, and
Science. INEEL operates under the sponsorship of EM, and has been
designated a lead laboratory as well as a lead field site on long-term
stewardship. The EM program provides critical infrastructure efforts at
the site, referred to as ``landlord'' activities. In addition, the
INEEL continues to serve important national security functions by
receiving spent nuclear fuel from the Navy, and spent fuel from foreign
research reactors that may contain weapons grade nuclear materials.
In total, most EM activities at the INEEL are regulated by
enforceable agreements like the Idaho Settlement Agreement, the Federal
Facility Agreement and Consent Order, the Site Treatment Plan and a
1999 Voluntary Consent Order. The Idaho Settlement Agreement guaranteed
the government access to the INEEL for national security missions such
as spent nuclear fuel examination and storage, in return for meeting
specific waste treatment and disposal milestones. To date, the INEEL
has met every milestone in the Idaho Settlement Agreement.
INEEL has approximately 65,000 cubic meters of waste contaminated
with transuranic radionuclides that must be removed from the State of
Idaho under the terms of the 1995 Settlement Agreement. This waste
originated from weapons production at the former Rocky Flats Plant in
Colorado. We continue to make progress in characterizing, certifying,
and shipping the transuranic waste to the WIPP for disposal. A
significant effort is underway to meet the Settlement Agreement
milestone to ship the initial 3,100 cubic meters of transuranic waste
out of the State of Idaho by the end of 2002. In fiscal year 2000, we
shipped 103 cubic meters of transuranic waste to the WIPP, exceeding
our goal, and plan to ship 1,160 cubic meters in fiscal year 2001 and
1,483 cubic meters in fiscal year 2002. 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.
Construction began in fiscal year 2000 and will continue in fiscal year
2001 and fiscal year 2002. The facility is expected to begin operations
in fiscal year 2003. We are requesting $40 million in the fiscal year
2002 privatization budget for this project.
INEEL plays a key role in meeting non-proliferation goals by
providing safe storage and management of spent nuclear fuel from
foreign research reactor and domestic sources, and currently manages
more than 50 percent by volume of the spent nuclear fuel in the entire
DOE complex, constituting about 250 specific fuel types. We are
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 have transferred all spent nuclear
fuel in wet storage in the CPP-603 South Basin to improved storage
facilities well in advance of the Idaho Settlement Agreement milestone
date of December 31, 2000. We completed movement of Three Mile Island
spent nuclear fuel and core debris from wet storage at Test Area North
to dry storage at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center
(INTEC) six weeks ahead of the June 1, 2001, Settlement Agreement
milestone. DOE also awarded a privatization contract last year for the
design, licensing, construction, and operation of a facility for the
packaging and safe dry storage of other spent nuclear fuel at the
INEEL. The contractor is now proceeding with the facility design and is
scheduled to submit its license application to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission in fiscal year 2002.
The fiscal year 2002 budget request supports the management of
high-level waste at INEEL including about 1.2 million gallons of liquid
sodium-bearing waste stored in 11 underground tanks, and about 4,300
cubic meters of calcined mixed high-level waste in separate robust
temporary storage bin sets. As of June 2001, the volume of liquid
sodium-bearing waste will be reduced by 250,000 gallons through
evaporation and consolidation of tank contents. A draft environmental
impact statement (EIS) for high-level waste treatment alternatives has
been issued, and a final EIS and Record of Decision are planned for the
end of 2001. We have deployed the Light Duty Utility Arm in two high-
level waste tanks, one of a suite of innovative 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 fiscal
year 2002 to inspect and obtain samples from two additional tanks. In
addition, we continue to treat and dispose of low level and mixed low
level wastes in compliance with regulatory commitments with the State
of Idaho.
One of the most complex challenges at INEEL is the remediation of
buried wastes, contaminated release sites, contaminated soils, and
ground water, which is governed by the Federal Facilities Agreement/
Consent Order. A key goal is to eliminate the threat these contaminants
pose to the Snake River Plain Aquifer, a sole-source aquifer underlying
the site that provides drinking water to a quarter of a million people
and serves as a critical source of irrigation water for Idaho's
agricultural industry. Our environmental restoration program continues
to make progress in assessing and remediating these areas of
contamination. The INEEL made progress on the Pit 9 buried waste
project, with the insertion of 43 probes into the pit. These and other
probes will provide data for the comprehensive study that will support
selection of a final cleanup remedy for all the buried waste in the
Subsurface Disposal Area.
We are applying bioremediation techniques at Test Area North to
clean up the ground water plume at the injection well and continuing
pump-and-treat operations for the extended plume. At the Test Reactor
Area, we will complete remediation of all identified release sites in
fiscal year 2001, two years ahead of schedule. At INTEC, with the
signing of the Record of Decision in fiscal year 1999, we are
undertaking the complex process of remediating soil and groundwater
release sites while continuing to operate INTEC for spent fuel storage
and waste management missions. In addition, we will continue design and
construction of the Idaho CERCLA Disposal Facilities for the storage/
treatment and disposal of contaminated soils generated in the cleanup
of INTEC and other contaminated sites at the INEEL.
The INEEL will continue to perform world-class scientific research
and development, technology demonstration and deployment, and systems
analysis and integration in fiscal year 2002. The goal of this effort
is to ensure a sound scientific basis for decision-making and full
integration of science and technology into INEEL and EM operations. To
date, INEEL has deployed nearly 100 technologies in its cleanup
operations, leading to reduced cost, improved worker safety, schedule
acceleration, and lower risks. In fiscal year 2002, deployments are
planned to support each major cleanup program at INEEL.
Oak Ridge Reservation, Tennessee--Fiscal Year 2002 Request
[In thousands of dollars]
Defense EM, Privatization............................... 36,876
Defense ER&WM, Post 2006 Completion..................... 244,102
Defense ER&WM, Science & Technology..................... 10,695
Defense ER&WM, Safeguards & Security.................... 11,476
Defense ER&WM, Excess Facilities........................ 500
Defense ER&WM, Program Direction........................ 18,740
Non-Defense EM, Excess Facilities....................... 141
Uranium Facil Main & Rem, Other Uranium Activ........... 12,809
Uranium Facil Maint & Rem, UE D&D Fund.................. 65,538
Uranium Facil Maint & Rem, UE D&D-DUF6....... 10,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 410,877
NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
funding.
The Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) is comprised of three facilities--
the Y-12 Plant, the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) (formerly the
Oak Ridge K-25 uranium enrichment facility), and the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL). Funding for EM activities at Y-12 and ORNL is
primarily funded in Defense accounts, funding for the cleanup of ETTP
comes from both the Defense and the Uranium Facilities Maintenance and
Remediation accounts.
At ORNL, we continue the decommissioning of the Molten Salt Reactor
Experiment, an experimental nuclear reactor designed to use a fuel of
highly-reactive uranium-233 blended with a molten salt coolant. After
four and a half years of operation, the reactor was shut down in
December 1969. We have made substantial progress, with input from the
National Academy of Sciences, in stabilizing and deactivating this
reactor. For example, we have installed and continue to operate 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 completed fabrication and testing of
uranium conversion equipment, and completed the planning, major
equipment design and documentation for fuel salt removal. In fiscal
year 2002, we will continue conversion of uranium captured in the
sodium fluoride traps to a stable oxide for repackaging and storage,
and will begin flushing and fuel salt removal.
In fiscal year 2001, we completed transferring waste from eight
highly radioactive waste storage tanks, called the ``Gunite Tanks,'' at
ORNL. The tanks were built in 1943 and were used for waste from
chemical separations operations until the late 1970's. The tanks vary
in size, with most 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 provides access to the tank interior.
This remotely operated equipment eliminated the need for workers to be
placed at risk while performing cleanup, while allowing the work to
proceed more efficiently. The robotic equipment will be reused to
enhance the cleanup of similar tanks at other sites. In fiscal year
2002, we plan to continue stabilization of the Gunite tank shells.
The request supports continued operation of the incinerator at Oak
Ridge, which is permitted by the State to treat mixed radioactive and
hazardous wastes regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act and by the EPA to treat PCB-contaminated wastes regulated under
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This facility offers unique
existing treatment capability for the DOE complex and is a vital DOE
treatment asset. In addition to treating wastes generated by Oak Ridge
facilities, it has also been used to treat wastes from other DOE sites.
It provides a cost-effective and integrated approach to reducing the
risk and managing these wastes.
The fiscal year 2002 request supports two privatization projects at
Oak Ridge. Construction of facilities to prepare transuranic waste to
prepare waste for disposal at WIPP and for low-level waste at the
Nevada Test Site began in fiscal year 2001 and is scheduled to be
completed in November 2002, allowing operations to begin in fiscal year
2003 will be the first year of operation of the facility. The
Environmental Management Waste Management Facility is an on-site
disposal facility with a capacity up to 2 million cubic yards of
contaminated soils and debris resulting from cleanup and D&D actions at
the site. Construction is currently scheduled to be completed late in
fiscal year 2001.
In fiscal year 2002, the Department will continue its effort to
reindustrialize facilities in Oak Ridge, particularly at ETTP. The 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 December 2000, about
6,300,000 square feet of space have been leased to 35 private companies
in a total of 71 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 $182 million in life-cycle costs.
We are making good progress on the Department's largest ever
decommissioning project at ETTP. Cleanup of K-33, the first DOE uranium
enrichment facility to be decommissioned, is already 60 percent
complete as of March 2001. This first building will be finished in
fiscal year 2002 and will then be readied for private sector reuse. The
K-33 building and two other buildings are being decommissioned under a
fixed price contract with BNFL, Inc. The project has turned the corner,
and is currently making up for previous schedule delays. The largest
supercompactor in the United States is now operating and is helping to
minimize waste disposal volumes.
The Department's moratorium on releasing into commerce recycled
metals from radiological areas remains in effect, continuing to impact
the BNFL project cost. These restrictions are expected to remain
pending decisions made after completion of an Environmental Impact
Statement. DOE has minimized impacts by purchasing metals destined for
recycling and storing them for possible future release.
Our fiscal year 2002 request for Uranium Programs at ETTP supports
surveillance and maintenance of the inventory of 4,700 cylinders of
depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) and 2,500 other surplus
uranium cylinders at ETTP. We are managing the cylinders at ETTP and
the other gaseous diffusion plants in Ohio and Tennessee consistent
with the consent agreements with the affected states and with Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's Recommendation 95-1, which was closed
in December 1999 when the Board determined the Department had met all
of the relevant commitments.
The fiscal year 2002 request includes $10 million in the Oak Ridge
Account to proceed with the project to chemically convert the
Department's inventory of DUF6 into a more stable form that
would make it acceptable for reuse, if applications for the material
are found, or for disposal. Early in fiscal year 2001, the Department
issued the final Request for Proposals to design, construct and, for
the first five years, operate conversion facilities at Paducah and
Portsmouth. Initially scheduled to be awarded at the end of fiscal year
2001, we now expect to award the contract early in fiscal year 2002 due
to the number of proposals received and the complexity of the technical
and business evaluations. In fiscal year 2002, DOE is requesting $10
million for the conversion project and plans to allocate an additional
$12 million to this amount from funds obtained under Memoranda of
Agreement (MOA) with USEC. The Department is committed to keeping this
project on track to begin construction by January 2004, consistent with
the schedule provided in Public Law 105-204.
Fernald Environmental Management Project, Ohio--Fiscal Year 2002 Request
[In thousands of dollars]
Defense Closure, Site Closure........................... 285,299
Defense Closure, Safeguards & Security.................. 4,701
Defense ER&WM, Science & Technology..................... 255
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 290,255
NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
funding.
The Fernald site, encompassing approximately 1,050 acres near
Cincinnati, produced uranium for nuclear weapons from 1951 to the end
of the Cold War in 1989. Nearly 40 years of uranium production at
Fernald resulted in 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 radioactive wastes, on-site
disposal of contaminated soils and debris, and deactivation,
decontamination and demolition of several large industrial buildings at
Fernald.
Achieving the closure of its two major sites, the Fernald and Rocky
Flats sites, is a high priority for the Department. At Fernald, the
Department entered into a closure contract with Fluor Fernald on
November 20, 2000, whereby the contractor is given incentives to
complete site cleanup before the current completion date in the
baseline of December 31, 2010. The contractor can earn incentive fees
by achieving closure by December 2006. Long-term stewardship, including
continued groundwater remediation and long-term institutional controls,
will be necessary after active cleanup is completed.
Our record at Fernald demonstrates that we will not compromise
safety in our efforts to complete the cleanup quickly and cost
effectively. In January 2001, DOE's Office of Environment, Safety and
Health awarded the Fernald Environmental Management Project STAR
recognition status in the Voluntary Protection Program. This DOE
program promotes safety and health excellence through cooperative
efforts among labor, management, and government at DOE sites.
Contractors that meet the requirements for outstanding performance
receive STAR recognition. STAR status is the highest safety performance
and program honor that can be achieved.
New technology deployments at Fernald are resulting in significant
project cost and schedule savings. For example, a variety of
technologies are being used to provide real-time identification of
radioactive contaminants in the soil. This rapid characterization
reduces the amount of soil excavated and improves worker productivity.
These technologies are estimated to reduce remediation costs by over
$30 million. And a groundwater re-injection demonstration project has
accelerated cleanup of the Great Miami Aquifer. Current analysis
indicates that the re-injection technology will reduce treatment time
from 27 to 10 years, resulting in a cost savings of an estimated $14
million.
The On-site Disposal Facility allows for accelerated disposal of
contaminated soil and debris resulting from cleanup and building
demolition at a significant cost savings. In fiscal year 2000, we
disposed of more than 255,000 cubic meters waste, contaminated soil,
and debris in the facility, including the completion of waste placement
in Cell 1 and start of waste placement in Cell 3. In fiscal year 2001,
the placement of a permanent cap on Cell 1 will be completed, and
approximately 45,000 cubic meters will be placed in Cells 2 and 3. In
fiscal year 2002, the disposal facility will continue to be monitored
and maintained.
The Silo 3 pre-operations/treatment activities continued in fiscal
year 2000, and the design and initial construction of the Tank Transfer
Area/Waste Retrieval System, and Radon Control Systems was completed.
In fiscal year 2001, pre-operational activities for Silo 3 remediation
will continue, operations of the Radon Control System will begin, and
the Silo 4 mock-up testing of the Waste Retrieval System will be
conducted. In fiscal year 2002, Silo 3 operations will begin,
construction of the Silos 1 and 2 Tank Transfer Area/Waste Retrieval
System and Radon Control System will be completed, and the Silos 1 and
2 full-scale remediation project is expected to begin.
Removal of wastes and materials from the site is critical to
closure. We are shipping uranium to the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion
Plant in Ohio, with 62 shipments containing about 83 metric tons of
uranium transferred to date. We are currently on schedule to complete
the disposition of all nuclear product material by June 2002. We are
also shipping waste off-site for disposal. As of January 2001, thirty-
two unit trains of rail cars loaded with treated waste have left the
Fernald site for disposition at a permitted commercial disposal
facility.
We continue to make great progress in the demolition of deactivated
and decontaminated industrial buildings. Approximately 90 of the over
250 structures that require decontamination and demolition have been
completed. We will complete cleanup of the Plant 6 Complex in fiscal
year 2002, and begin work on the Multi-complex and Lab/Pilot Plant
Complex. In addition, the facility shutdown of the non-nuclear
facilities onsite will continue in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year
2002. Facility shutdown includes disconnecting utilities on process
equipment and structures; and removing and dispositioning of residues,
process material, and equipment as required.
As remediation proceeds at Fernald, we are carrying out natural
resource restoration projects and demonstrations using plantings
similar to what historically and naturally occurs in the area, and
incorporating a diverse variety of vegetation to promote wildlife
colonization. Through fiscal year 2000, 31 acres were restored, and an
additional 40 acres are planned for fiscal year 2001. In fiscal year
2002, the Area 1 Phase III Northern Woodlot/Wetland Mitigation project
will be completed, restoring 103 acres, the largest land restoration
project to be completed to date.
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio--Fiscal Year 2002 Request
[In thousands of dollars]
Defense, Privatization.................................. 2,000
Uranium Facil Maint & Rem/UE D&D Fund................... 113,905
Uranium Facil Maint & Rem/Other Uranium Activ........... 87,191
Defense ER&WM, Safeguards & Security.................... 7,449
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 210,545
NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
funding.
Initially constructed to support the Federal government's uranium
enrichment program for defense purposes, the Portsmouth Gaseous
Diffusion Plant has been leased to the U.S. Enrichment Corporation
(USEC), a private corporation, to provide uranium enrichment services
to commercial nuclear power plants.
In June 2000, USEC announced that it would cease operations of the
Portsmouth enrichment facilities. We are working toward a smooth
transition from USEC operations to DOE stewardship. The Department
intends to place the facilities in a safe and operable condition, or
``cold standby'' status, in the event of a significant disruption of
the supply of enriched uranium that threatens the ability of the U.S.
producer to meet its contractual commitments to utilities in both the
U.S. and U.S. strategic allies. An immediate need is ``winterization''
of the facilities, which requires development of a new source of heat
for the facilities, currently heated as a byproduct of the enrichment
process operations. A total of $125 million requested in fiscal year
2002 supports activities in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002 to
winterize the facilities, place the facilities in cold standby, and
mitigate the impacts on the workforce. Some of these funds will be used
to replace funding for some of the sources for a fiscal year 2001
reprogramming for transition activities now pending before Congress.
EM has historically been responsible for the cleanup of existing
environmental contamination at the site and management of legacy waste.
Primary environmental problems include cleanup of contaminated areas
around the site, remediation of several old landfills, disposition of
legacy waste, and containment and remediation of groundwater
contaminated with both radioactive and chemical contaminants. There is
no off-site contamination, and ground-water contamination is contained
within the shallow aquifer bedrock. With the requested funding in
fiscal year 2002, EM plans to complete active remediation by fiscal
year 2003 and all legacy waste disposition by fiscal year 2006.
In addition, the Energy and Water Development Appropriation for
fiscal year 2001 consolidated funding for Uranium Programs and cleanup
activities and authorized the transfer of federal personnel from DOE's
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology to the Office of
Environmental Management to carry out the associated responsibilities.
With this transfer, EM gained additional responsibilities, addressed in
the fiscal year 2002 request, including management and disposition of
the depleted uranium hexafloride (DUF6) inventory.
In fiscal year 2000, we completed the capping of the last former
landfill and transitioned from investigation and interim actions to
implementing groundwater contamination technologies. During fiscal year
2001, we are focusing on closure of the remaining hazardous waste
units; containment and contaminant removal of on-site groundwater
plumes; and disposal of legacy waste. We are also evaluating several
alternatives for remediation of both soil and groundwater
contamination, which include the use of innovative technologies such as
oxidant injection and vacuum enhanced recovery with phytoremediation,
steam stripping, oxidant recirculation, and groundwater extraction and
bioremediation. The Record of Decision (ROD) will be issued in the Fall
of 2001. We will initiate construction of the final remediation
technology for groundwater plumes and construct caps on several
landfills located in the southern portion of the site. We will initiate
final remedial action for the X-701B groundwater plume and continue
removing contaminated soils from areas associated with this plume. We
will also initiate final remedial action for the groundwater plume
located in the vicinity of the main process buildings for completion in
fiscal year 2002. We will characterize approximately 12,500 containers
of low-level waste, mixed hazardous and low-level waste, and PCB-
containing low-level waste for disposal.
In fiscal year 2002, off-site disposal of low-level and mixed low-
level wastes will continue. We will operate the ongoing ground-water
treatment facility and conduct long-term surveillance and maintenance
of remedial action units and decontamination and decommissioning
facilities. We will complete disposal of the remaining 2,600 tons of
scrap metal on the X-747 scrap metal project, continue final
remediation of ground-water plumes in Quadrant I, and initiate the
final remedial action in Quadrant II for the X-701B soil and ground
water.
Our fiscal year 2002 request also supports maintenance of
facilities and surplus uranium, and surveillance and maintenance of the
inventory of approximately 16,000 DUF6 cylinders and 2,000
cylinders containing other surplus uranium at Portsmouth. We are
managing the cylinders at Portsmouth and the other gaseous diffusion
plants in Kentucky and Tennessee consistent with the consent agreements
with the affected states and with Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board's Recommendation 95-1, which was closed in December 1999 when the
Board determined the Department had met all of the relevant
commitments.
The fiscal year 2002 request includes $10 million in the Oak Ridge
Reservation account to proceed with the project to chemically convert
the Department's inventory of DUF6 at Portsmouth and
elsewhere into a more stable form that would make it acceptable for
reuse if applications for the material are found, or for disposal.
Early in fiscal year 2001, the Department issued the final Request for
Proposals to design, construct and, for the first five years, operate
conversion facilities at Paducah and Portsmouth. The Department is
committed to keeping this project on track to begin construction in
January 2004, consistent with the schedule provided in Public Law 105-
204.
The President's fiscal year 2002 budget request also includes $7.2
million for pre-existing liabilities at the Portsmouth Plant, which are
those liabilities that by law or agreement the Department retained
after the transfer of the uranium enrichment activities to USEC. Pre-
existing liabilities consist of post-retirement life and medical
benefits for retirees and employees that existed prior to the time of
transfer to the USEC (for that portion attributed to service prior to
privatization for these retirees).
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, New Mexico--Fiscal Year 2002 Request
[In thousands of dollars]
Defense ER&WM, Post 2006 Completion..................... 164,570
Defense ER&WM, Safeguards & Security.................... 2,550
Defense ER&WM, Program Direction........................ 8,510
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 175,630
NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
funding.
Operating WIPP is a key element of the Department's strategy to
provide for the permanent disposal of the Department's inventory of
radioactive waste. WIPP is critical to achieving site closure at the
Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site by December 2006 and to the
closure or cleanup of 26 other sites in the DOE complex that store or
generate transuranic waste. The total volume of transuranic waste
currently managed by DOE (stored and projected) is estimated to be
171,439 cubic meters, of which 167,412 cubic meters is contact-handled
(CH-TRU) transuranic waste and 4,027 cubic meters is remote-handled
(RH-TRU) transuranic waste. 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, reduce the management costs of this
waste, and reduce the long-term risks to the public and the
environment.
On March 26, 1999, WIPP began operations, receiving its first
shipment of transuranic waste from Los Alamos National Laboratory,
subsequently followed by shipments from the Idaho National Engineering
and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) and Rocky Flats. The State of New
Mexico issued the final Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, with an
effective date of November 26, 1999, enabling WIPP to receive mixed
hazardous and transuranic waste, and all five of the major shipping
sites (Rocky Flats, INEEL, Hanford, Savannah River Sites, and Los
Alamos) are certified under the permit to ship transuranic waste to
WIPP. The Hanford Site began shipments in fiscal year 2000, and began
shipments from the Savannah River Site in fiscal year 2001. As of the
end of April 2001, there have been 214 shipments to WIPP totaling about
1,500 cubic meters of waste.
The Department currently transports CH-TRU waste in Nuclear
Regulatory Commission certified packages called TRUPACT-II's. To
support increased shipping requirements, DOE is procuring additional
TRUPACT-II's. The Department is also pursuing the development of a new
container called the HalfPACT to transport heavier-than-average drums
of CH-TRU waste under the current TRUPACT-II fabrication contracts. RH-
TRU waste requires a shielded cask for safe transportation. The
Department will transport the RH-TRU waste in a certified cask called
the RH-72B. Contracts were awarded in August 2000 to two vendors to
fabricate a total of 12 casks. The Department will use fiscal year 1999
privatization funds to procure the casks. The fiscal year 2002 budget
request includes no funds for this project.
In fiscal year 2001, the Department awarded a new performance-based
Site Management and Operating Contract for WIPP. The Carlsbad Field
Office's management and operating contractor assists the Department in
managing the activities of the WIPP facility and the National
Transuranic Waste Management Program; therefore, the selection of a
qualified management and operating contractor for WIPP is not only
crucial to WIPP but also to DOE's mission and goals.
In fiscal year 2001, DOE revised the Record of Decision on
treatment and storage of transuranic waste. The Department has decided
to establish a centralized characterization capability at WIPP to
prepare CH-TRU waste for disposal (up to 1,250 of the 7,000 cubic
meters planned to be received for disposal annually). The New Mexico
Environment Department must approve a modification of WIPP's Hazardous
Waste Facility Permit before the Department could perform disposal
characterization at WIPP. By conducting centralized characterization
the Department will avoid the necessity of constructing
characterization facilities at the small quantity sites.
During fiscal year 2002, WIPP expects to receive CH-TRU waste
shipments from Rocky Flats, INEEL, the Los Alamos National Laboratory,
the Savannah River Site, Argonne National Laboratory-East, and limited
shipments from other sites. We plan to increase shipments from the
Savannah River Site to WIPP by using mobile facilities to prepare the
waste for shipment. This will allow receipt of Mound transuranic waste
at the Savannah River Site, as agreed with the State of South Carolina,
to support early closure of the Mound Site.
WIPP will continue activities in fiscal year 2002 to support the
first receipt of RH-TRU waste. The Department must receive New Mexico
Environment Department and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
approvals before RH-TRU waste can be disposed of.
The funding request for fiscal year 2002 includes $21.5 million to
provide economic assistance to the State of New Mexico, as authorized
by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act. The WIPP program also funds a variety
of institutional programs that provide for operational oversight and
other assistance for affected governments and stakeholder groups.
The Carlsbad Field Office, working with the Office of Science and
Technology, will continue to apply innovative science and technology
solutions that facilitate receipt of transuranic waste and promote cost
savings in the National Transuranic Waste Management Program.
West Valley Demonstration Project, New York--Fiscal Year 2002 Request
[In thousands of dollars]
Non-Defense EM, Post 2006 Completion.................... 95,115
Defense ER&WM, Science & Technology..................... 1,810
Defense ER&WM, Safeguards & Security.................... 1,395
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 98,320
NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
funding.
The West Valley Demonstration Project, located in western New York,
is being conducted at the site of the only commercial nuclear fuel
reprocessing facility to operate in the United States. Pursuant to an
agreement with the State of New York, a private company processed spent
nuclear fuel to extract plutonium and uranium from 1966 to 1972,
generating 2,200 cubic meters of liquid high-level radioactive waste.
New York alone became responsible for the site after operations ceased,
and the 1980 West Valley Demonstration Project Act directed the
Secretary of Energy to carry out a high-level radioactive waste
demonstration project to assist the State with cleanup of the site. The
site will be returned to the State after DOE completes its
responsibilities under the Act.
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. Ten canisters of
solidified high-level waste were produced in fiscal year 2000,
exceeding the goal of five canisters, and five to eight canisters of
solidified high-level waste will be produced in fiscal year 2001. Due
to recent characterization data which indicates that the high level
waste tanks contain higher than expected levels of radionuclides,
vitrification operations will continue into fiscal year 2002 to support
additional tank cleaning efforts, to be then followed by systematic
shutdown of the melter and other vitrification processing systems.
The EM program is also responsible for the safe management of 125
spent nuclear fuel elements stored at the site. The spent fuel is
scheduled to be shipped to the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory in the summer of 2001.
The West Valley site exemplifies the Department's continued
commitment to the safety of its workers. In fiscal year 2000, the West
Valley site received the Department's top safety and health award,
referred to as ``Voluntary Protection Program Star Status.''
Now that vitrification of the high-level waste is nearly complete,
our focus shifts to waste management and decontamination of project
equipment and facilities. Off-site shipments of low-level waste for
disposal are underway and will continue. We are developing the Remote
Handled Waste Facility to prepare high activity waste for off-site
shipment for disposal; we completed final design and started
construction in fiscal year 2001, and construction will continue in
fiscal year 2002. Deactivation and decontamination activities on
project facilities will be carried out, such as clean-out of waste from
the head-end cells and deactivation of the spent fuel storage pool.
In addition, work is progressing toward development of a Waste
Management and Decontamination Environmental Impact Statement Record of
Decision (EIS ROD) scheduled for fiscal year 2002, to be followed in
several years by a Decommissioning or Long-Term Stewardship EIS ROD,
which will determine final closure of the site. New York State and DOE
have been working together and with stakeholders to formulate a
preferred alternative for the Decommissioning or Long-Term Stewardship
EIS. Although negotiations between New York and DOE concluded in
January 2001 without an agreement, we continue to work successfully
with the State on day-to-day activities at the site. Should DOE and the
State ultimately be unable to reach consensus on a preferred
alternative, DOE will proceed with the Decommissioning EIS on its own.
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Kentucky--Fiscal Year 2002 Request
In thousands of dollars]
Defense, Privatization.................................. 13,329
Uranium Facil Main & Rem/UE D&D Fund.................... 62,198
Uranium Facil Main & Rem/Other Uran Activ............... 10,784
Defense ER&WM, Safeguards & Security.................... 2,408
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 88,719
NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
funding.
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 for defense purposes, U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC) now
operates the facility to produce enriched uranium for commercial
nuclear reactors. 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 leased
by USEC.
The Environmental Management program has historically been
responsible for remediation of contaminated soils and groundwater, and
management of legacy wastes and materials at Paducah generated before
the plant was leased to USEC. The cleanup problems and contaminants
include both on-site and off-site contamination from radioactive and
hazardous materials, including off-site groundwater contamination which
has contaminated private residential wells. There are also numerous
contaminated areas around the site requiring cleanup, about 55,000 tons
of scrap metal that must be dispositioned; 6,000 cubic meters of low-
level waste in drums; and several radioactively-contaminated surplus
facilities that must be decontaminated.
In addition, the Energy and Water Development Appropriation for
fiscal year 2001 consolidated funding for Uranium Programs and cleanup
activities and authorized the transfer of federal personnel from the
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology to the Office of
Environmental Management to carry out the associated responsibilities.
With this transfer, EM gained additional responsibilities, addressed in
the fiscal year 2002 request, including management and disposition of
the depleted uranium hexafloride (DUF6) inventory and the
cleanup of 160 DOE Material Storage Areas (DMSAs) containing more than
800,000 cubic feet of materials and equipment.
The Department continues to monitor residential wells and to pay
municipal water bills for residents whose drinking-water wells were
affected by the ground-water contamination. 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
contaminants have been extracted from ground water since these systems
began operation.
In December 2000, we completed the disposition of 6,250 tons of
radioactively-contaminated drums removed from ``Drum Mountain,'' a
suspected source of contamination of the Big and Little Bayou Creeks.
Current plans for fiscal year 2001 call for beginning the removal of
the remaining scrap yards, which is critical to access and characterize
the underlying burial grounds, for completion at the end of 2003;
beginning construction in fiscal year 2001 to remediate the North-South
Diversion Ditch; issuing a Record of Decision for final remedy for
groundwater sources contributing to the northeast and northwest plumes;
and continuing decontamination of the shutdown radioactively
contaminated buildings, completing the removal of stored equipment and
materials and accessible loose contamination from the C-410 Feed Plant
facility. In fiscal year 2002, our plans include completing remediation
of the North-South Diversion Ditch; continuing removal of the remaining
scrap metal piles; and removing the building infrastructure of the C-
410 Feed Plant.
However, it will be necessary to re-prioritize cleanup activities
in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002 in order to resolve a Notice
of Violation (NOV) issued by the Commonwealth of Kentucky in September
2000. The NOV concerned the possible presence of hazardous waste and
other regulated substances in the 160 DOE Material Storage Areas
(DMSAs), which EM became responsible for with the transfer of Uranium
Programs in fiscal year 2001. Some planned cleanup activities may need
to be deferred to accelerate characterization and disposition of
materials and equipment in the DMSAs in response to the NOV.
Discussions with State and EPA regulators are underway.
The Department is currently evaluating alternatives for disposal of
waste generated by site-wide remediation activities at Paducah. One
alternative being considered is the construction and operation of an
on-site disposal facility, a cost-effective approach to dispose of
remediation waste. Environmental planning activities currently in
progress, such as siting, seismic, and feasibility studies, will lead
to a Record of Decision early in 2003. (Initially scheduled for fiscal
year 2002, additional field studies requested by the regulators have
delayed the schedule for issuing the ROD by several months.) If on-site
disposal is selected, we would develop the 600,000 cubic yard facility
through a privatization approach, in which the Department would
purchase waste disposal services from the private vendor for low-level,
hazardous, Toxic Substances Control Act defined, and mixed wastes
generated at Paducah. Our request for $13.3 million in the
privatization account supports this project and would allow us to carry
out the procurement planning activities needed to award a contract soon
after the Record of Decision is issued.
Our fiscal year 2002 request for Uranium Programs at Paducah
supports the maintenance of facilities not leased to USEC and of
surplus uranium inventories. It also supports surveillance and
maintenance of the inventory of approximately 40,200 mainly
DUF6 cylinders at Paducah. We are managing the cylinders at
Paducah and the other gaseous diffusion plants in Ohio and Tennessee
consistent with the consent agreements with the affected states and
with Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's Recommendation 95-1,
which was closed in December 1999 when the Board determined the
Department had met all of the relevant commitments.
The fiscal year 2002 request includes $10 million in the Oak Ridge
Reservation account to proceed with the project to chemically convert
the Department's inventory of DUF6 at Paducah and elsewhere
into a more stable form that would make it acceptable for reuse if
applications for the material are found, or for disposal. Early in
fiscal year 2001, the Department issued the final Request for Proposals
to design, construct and, for the first five years, operate conversion
facilities at Paducah and Portsmouth. The Department is committed to
keeping this project on track to begin construction in January 2004,
consistent with the schedule provided in Public Law 105-204.
The President's fiscal year 2002 budget request also includes $3.8
million for pre-existing liabilities at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion
Plant, which are those liabilities that by law or agreement the
Department retained after the transfer of the uranium enrichment
activities to USEC. Pre-existing liabilities consist of post-retirement
life and medical benefits for retirees and employees that existed prior
to the time of transfer to the USEC (for that portion attributed to
service prior to privatization for these future retirees).
Nevada Test Site, Nevada--Fiscal Year 2002 Request
[In thousands of dollars]
Defense ER&WM, Post 2006 Completion..................... 74,843
Defense ER&WM, Science & Technology..................... 2,429
Defense ER&WM, Program Direction........................ 5,656
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 82,928
NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
funding.
The Nevada Test Site (NTS) is located 65 miles North of Las Vegas
and encompasses 1,375 square miles (an area roughly the size of Rhode
Island). The EM program undertakes waste management activities and
environmental restoration actions resulting from past DOE nuclear
testing activities at NTS.
NTS plays a crucial role for other DOE sites as one of the major
low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities in the DOE complex. In
fiscal year 2000, the NTS disposed of 18,267 cubic meters of low-level
waste and 29 cubic meters of mixed low-level waste. This year's
projections are 28,500 cubic meters of low-level waste. NTS disposal
operations are critical to closing other DOE sites. For example, Rocky
Flats and Fernald will dispose of more than 38,000 cubic meters of low-
level waste at NTS to support their closure.
We are working with the State of Nevada to acquire the required
permits and to increase capacity for mixed low-level waste disposal at
NTS as a result of the February 2000 Record of Decision designating NTS
as a regional disposal facility for DOE low-level and mixed wastes.
Work is also proceeding on the characterization of transuranic waste
drums, in preparation for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant,
to begin in fiscal year 2002.
Progress continues in the Underground Test Area to address
groundwater contamination through installation of groundwater wells,
monitoring activities, and modeling efforts. We installed and sampled
three deep wells in fiscal year 2000. The corrective action strategy
for NTS groundwater contamination was also renegotiated in fiscal year
2000 with the State of Nevada, and have implemented actions to address
regulator and stakeholder concerns.
The cleanup of NTS Industrial Sites area that supported the
historic nuclear testing continues on schedule. To date, corrective
actions have been completed at over half of the 1,068 release sites.
Negotiations are continuing with the State of Nevada on corrective
action levels for cleanup of soils, which were contaminated primarily
by above-ground testing. The start of corrective actions for soils
cleanup has been deferred, pending negotiations.
Project baselines have been reviewed with the regulators and
stakeholders and fully identify the planned implementation of
corrective measures for the various Nevada projects. These baselines
include long-term stewardship obligations and emphasize the use of
innovative technologies, such as the deployment of laser cutting for
oversized TRU boxes, and an alternative arid landfill cover and
monitoring system.
Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico--Fiscal Year 2002 Request
[In thousands of dollars]
Defense ER&WM, Post 2006 Completion..................... 73,182
Defense ER&WM, Science & Technology..................... 2,538
Non-Defense EM, Post 2006 Completion.................... 2,500
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 78,220
NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
funding.
The Los Alamos National laboratory is a 43 square mile research and
development site located 60 miles northeast of Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Through fiscal year 2001, the Department expects to complete
remediation of 1,302 of 1,942 ``release sites,'' or specific areas
where releases of contaminants had occurred, and decommission 36 out of
101 surplus facilities. We plan to complete cleanup of one additional
release site in fiscal year 2002.
Approximately half of the fiscal year 2002 funding request for Los
Alamos is devoted to environmental restoration work, such as drilling
new regional ground water wells to characterize the hydrogeology and
cleanup work in multiple watersheds. Although no EM funds in fiscal
year 2002 directly support the project to transfer land to the
community, a joint project with the Office of Defense Programs, other
Los Alamos cleanup work, such as the source removal actions at high
risk sites at the TA-21 parcel and some of the characterization work in
the canyons, will support the transfer of parcels in future years. At
this point, cleanup work has been completed at four of the 10 parcels
proposed to be transferred.
The EM program provides for the treatment, storage, and disposal of
all legacy waste that is presently stored at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory. The legacy waste consists of mixed low-level waste,
transuranic waste, and mixed transuranic waste generated at 33
Technical Areas and is treated, stored. 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
began in fiscal year 2000 with completion scheduled for fiscal year
2002.
In March 1999, Los Alamos National Laboratory became the first DOE
site to ship transuranic waste to WIPP. Los Alamos plans to make 19
shipments to WIPP in fiscal year 2001, bringing the total number of
shipments or quantities of waste shipped to 41 which includes
transuranic waste from the Office of Environmental Management and DOE's
Office of Defense Programs.
The Department designated Los Alamos as the lead laboratory for
research and development efforts to support DOE'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. LANL also manages the
Off-Site Source Recovery Program for the recovery and storage of more
than 5,500 commercial sealed radioactive sources, as well as Department
of Defense sources and radioisotopoic thermoelectric generators. The
program began full operations in fiscal year 2001 and to date has
recovered more than 1,100 private sector sealed sources and brought
them to LANL for storage. We expect to recover over 2,000 sources by
the end of fiscal year 2001, and an additional 1,000 sources in fiscal
year 2002.
Miamisburg Environmental Management Project (Mound)--Fiscal Year 2002
Request
[In thousands of dollars]
Defense Closure, Site Closure........................... 70,939
Defense Closure, Safeguards & Security.................. 5,778
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 76,717
NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
funding.
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. By the end of fiscal year 2001, over one-half
of the 107 buildings scheduled for removal will have been demolished or
auctioned for off-site use, a quarter of the 42 buildings scheduled to
be transferred to the Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement
Corporation will have been decommissioned and decontaminated, and two-
thirds of the soil release sites will have been remediated. We still
have a goal of completing cleanup of the site by 2006; however,
changing conditions and increased scope are making a closure date of
several years later more likely. Expanded project scope, especially in
the excavation of greater quantities of contaminated soils, has
significantly impacted cost and schedule. Worker health and safety
issues at various times have seriously curtailed work in the ``critical
path'' areas while additional personal radiation protection equipment
to address these concerns has contributed to increased project cost.
We continue to make progress towards closure. In fiscal year 2000,
Mound completed the disposition of its excess nuclear materials, most
of which were sealed sources used to calibrate and test equipment. The
site also completed the decontamination or demolition of four buildings
and the remediation of five contaminated soil areas in fiscal year
2000, and will complete three buildings and the assessments of six
contaminated soil areas in fiscal year 2001. We are shipping low-level
radioactive waste off-site for disposal, approximately 18,000 and
13,000 cubic meters in fiscal year 2000 and 2001 respectively. And in
fiscal year 2001, Mound will begin off-site disposition of its
transuranic waste to the Savannah River Site for interim storage and
eventual repackaging and shipment to WIPP.
In fiscal year 2002, Mound will complete shipments of its
transuranic waste as well as disposition of all remediation-generated
waste. Groundwater remediation will continue, and up to nine
contaminated soil areas will be assessed for remedial action. In
addition, cleanup will continue on the site's most contaminated
buildings, including the tritium operations facilities that comprises
three highly contaminated, complex buildings on the site's ``critical
path'' for cleanup and closure.
In 1998, the Department signed an agreement to transfer ownership
of the site to the Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement Corporation
as remediation of discrete parcels are completed. To date, the
Department has transferred two buildings and 122 acres, and another
five acres and two buildings will be deeded over in the next few
months, bringing the total acreage transferred to 40 percent of the
site. Currently, 31 private businesses employing 342 workers are co-
located at Mound in leased or transferred property. The Department's
radioisotope heat source program, managed by the Office of Nuclear
Energy, Science and Technology, will remain at Mound after the rest of
the site is transferred. The program will retain use of three of the
site's buildings.
Weldon Spring Site Remedial Action Project, Missouri--Fiscal Year 2002
Request
[In thousands of dollars]
Non-Defense EM, Site Closure............................ 43,000
NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
funding.
The Weldon Spring Site Remedial Action Project in Missouri covers
the cleanup of an abandoned 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. It consists of two separate facilities, the Weldon Spring
Quarry and the Chemical Plant Site, which includes the raffinate
disposal areas.
Our request supports completion of the cleanup of surface
contamination at the Weldon Spring Site and permanent disposal of all
contaminated material in an on-site, above-grade cell by the end of
fiscal year 2002. Groundwater activities, as well as long-term
surveillance and monitoring for the disposal facility will be conducted
after surface cleanup is complete. Much of the remaining land is
planned to be released for unrestricted use.
In fiscal year 2000, we completed placement of 1.5 million cubic
yard of waste in the on-site disposal facility, with only minimal
miscellaneous waste expected to be placed to achieve site closure. The
last of the legacy plant buildings was demolished, and cleanup of the
vicinity properties was completed. We also completed the remediation of
the waste pits and began restoration of the site.
In fiscal year 2001, most of the disposal facility cover will be in
place, and we will complete the backfill of the Quarry and the
demolition of the Quarry water treatment plant. Work on the Quarry
groundwater interceptor trench operation will continue. Efforts will
continue on the study of the site groundwater, which will evaluate
whether a pump-and-treat remediation operation will be needed and will
support the Record of Decision on site groundwater.
Fiscal year 2002 will be a transition year for the project as it
moves from active remediation and restoration to preparation for long-
term stewardship. In fiscal year 2002, we will complete the
construction of the disposal facility cover, cap and the restoration of
the Quarry, soil borrow area, and main site. The Quarry ground-water
interceptor trench operations and the treatment of trichloroethylene
contaminants in the site ground water will also be completed. The
groundwater Record of Decision that will establish whether groundwater
remediation is required will also be completed in fiscal year 2002.
Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York--Fiscal Year 2002 Request
[In thousands of dollars]
Defense ER&WM, Science & Technology..................... 770
Non-Defense EM, Site/Project Completion................. 25,658
Non-Defense EM, Excess Facilities....................... 1,240
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 27,668
NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
funding.
The Brookhaven National Laboratory is a Department of Energy
research and development facility on Long Island, New York, which is
managed by the Office of Science. The site is located at the headwaters
of the Peconic River, a New York State-designated Wild and Scenic River
and included in the federal Estuary Program. The Laboratory has
extensive groundwater and soil contamination, and overlies a shallow
sole-source aquifer. EM is responsible for cleanup of on-site
radionuclide and chemical contamination of groundwater and soils, heavy
metal contamination in river sediments, and tritium and volatile
organic compound contamination of off-site groundwater. EM is also
carrying out the deactivation and decommissioning of two shut-down
research reactors and for management of legacy waste. Listed on
Superfund's National Priorities List, the cleanup is being conducted
under an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and New York State.
We are continuing to treat contaminated groundwater with the
operation of five on-site and one off-site groundwater treatment
systems. This off-site treatment system, installed under EM's
Accelerated Site Technology Deployment program in 1999, uses innovative
technology (in-well air stripping) to extract contaminants within the
well. The Record of Decision to finalize groundwater remedies was
signed in June 2000. Over the remainder of fiscal year 2001 and in
2002, we will design and install additional groundwater treatment
systems. The cleanup of the Ethylene Dibromide Plume is scheduled to
begin in fiscal year 2002. The cleanup remedy will involve installation
of a groundwater treatment unit as called for in a March 2001 Record of
Decision.
In September 1999, DOE and State and Federal regulators finalized
the remedy for contaminated soil, which involves excavation and off-
site disposal. Remedy design was finalized, and soil excavation began
in fiscal year 2000. Soil excavation will continue over the next
several years.
The proposed remedy for cleaning up contaminated sediments in the
Peconic River is currently being finalized. We anticipate finalizing
the Record of Decision for this project in fiscal year 2001, with
remedial design activities beginning in fiscal year 2002. A draft
Record of Decision for the Sewage Treatment Plant was submitted to the
regulators in fiscal year 2001.
In February 1999, EM assumed responsibility for characterizing,
stabilizing, and decommissioning the Brookhaven Graphite Research
Reactor. This project is being executed as a series of removal actions,
allowing an early start to decommissioning. We plan to accomplish
substantial field work by the end of fiscal year 2001, including
removal of above-ground ductwork and below-ground piping. In addition,
EM assumed responsibility for deactivation and decommissioning of the
High Flux Beam Reactor at Brookhaven in April 2000. Stabilization
activities funded by the Office of Science and managed by EM were
performed in fiscal year 2000 and are continuing in fiscal year 2001,
which will reduce the cost of safely maintaining the facility. We will
carry out surveillance and maintenance activities for the Brookhaven
Graphite Research and High Flux Beam reactors in fiscal year 2002.
The EM program continued to dispose of legacy wastes and to store,
treat and dispose of wastes generated by on-going Brookhaven operations
in fiscal year 2000. In fiscal year 2001, management of newly-generated
waste was transferred to the Office of Science. EM will continue
management of legacy waste; we expect to complete most legacy waste
disposal in fiscal year 2001.
Sites in the State of California--Fiscal Year 2002 Request
[In thousands of dollars]
Defense ER&WM, Post 2006 Completion:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.............. 32,317
Oakland Operations Office........................... 1,219
Defense ER&WM, Site/Project Completion: Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory....................... 762
Non-Defense EM, Post 2006 Completion:
Energy Technology Engineering Center................ 13,305
General Electric.................................... 100
Oakland Operations Office........................... 74
Non-Defense EM, Site/Project Completion:
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory............... 4,950
General Atomics..................................... 300
Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research....... 5,893
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.................. 2,617
Oakland Operations Office........................... 90
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 61,627
NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
funding.
The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory consists of the
Livermore Main Site, an operating weapons research and development
laboratory; and Site 300, located about 15 miles east of the Livermore
Main Site, which has been used to test high explosives and other
technologies for defense programs. The EM program is responsible for
management of both legacy waste and waste generated from on-going
operations. It also is responsible for site remediation, which includes
cleanup of hazardous contaminant releases to the soil and ground water
contamination at the Livermore 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. Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California.
At the Livermore Main Site, we have used an aggressive cleanup
strategy to contain and extract groundwater contaminants that used
enhancements to pump-and-treat technology, supplements the existing
permanent treatment system network with portable treatment units, and
emphasizes specific source area removal. In fiscal year 2000 we
continued to install portable treatment units to treat specific areas
of the site. In fiscal year 2001, we applied an electro-osmosis
technology to our treatment system strategy to attempt to remove
groundwater contaminants from fine grained sediments more effectively.
In fiscal year 2002, groundwater treatment systems will continue to
operate to maintain control of off-site migration of the Western
boundary plume.
In fiscal year 2000, we 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. In fiscal year 2002, we will continue to operate
waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities and prepare
documentation for closure of old waste storage facilities.
At Site 300, the Department has 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 2000, we
finalized plans and schedules for site-wide cleanup of the site and
will 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. In fiscal year 2002, we will continue operation and
maintenance of existing treatment facilities and soil vapor extraction
units and will complete remedial design for several of the operable
units.
The General Atomics facility is a privately-owned and operated
site, located near San Diego. General Atomics maintained and operated a
Hot Cell Facility for years to conduct both government and commercially
funded nuclear research and development. EM is responsible for the
cleanup of the Hot Cell Facility and surrounding contaminated soils. In
fiscal year 2000, after an independent verification certification was
conducted, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and State of California
amended their respective licenses to release the Hot Cell Facility and
associated yard for unrestricted use. However, soil from the Hot Cell
yard, thought to be clean, was found to have particle contamination. In
fiscal year 2001 we are disposing of that soil at the Nevada Test Site.
Once the soil is dispositioned, all 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 2003, at
which time it will be shipped to the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory for interim storage.
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 animals 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
between DOE, EPA and the State was signed in fiscal year 1999.
We have made significant cleanup progress at this site. In fiscal
year 2000, we completed the closure of the mixed waste storage
facility; and removed three dry wells, a distribution box and piping,
and Domestic Tank 2. In fiscal year 2001, we will complete removal of
the Colbalt-60 source, Domestic Tank 3, the radium tank, Imhoff
Facility tanks and associated leachfield, and begin removal of the
Western Dog Pen and additional Domestic Tanks. In fiscal year 2002, we
will complete removal of the domestic tanks, continue work on the
Western Dog Pens, perform assessments on remaining domestic septic
tanks, and perform offsite disposal of low-level wastes. However, due
to additional contamination found and an increased volume of waste
removed during soil excavation of the southwest trenches, the
completion of cleanup at the site will extend beyond the original
projected completion date of fiscal year 2002.
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 2000, we began the development of an Environmental
Assessment to evaluate the impacts of the remaining cleanup work at the
site, completed cleanup of three facilities, and shipped mixed low-
level and low-level waste offsite for disposal. We began assessment for
deactivation and decommissioning of the Radioactive Materials Handling
Facility.
We also completed the excavation of soil contaminated with
hazardous constituents from the Former Sodium Disposal Facility (FSDF)
in fiscal year 2000. However, in response to stakeholder concerns
raised about the disposal of this material at a hazardous waste
facility, the soil was temporarily stored onsite pending a re-
evaluation by the State as to whether the soil could appropriately be
disposed at a permitted hazardous waste disposal facility as planned,
or whether it should instead be disposed of at a radioactive disposal
site. The State has completed its evaluation and approved disposal of
the soil at the hazardous waste disposal facility. In fiscal year 2001,
we will dispose of the excavated soil as approved by the State.
Also in fiscal year 2001, we will complete below-grade work at the
Reactor Test Facility, continue offsite shipments of mixed low-level
and low-level waste, complete backfill operations at the FSDF,
dismantle the Hockey Stick Steam Generator at the Sodium Component Test
Installation, continue the assessment of the Radioactive Materials
Handling Facility, and complete the site-wide Environmental Assessment.
Dismantlement of the Sodium Component Test Installation and
deactivation of Building 4059 will continue in fiscal year 2002, as
will the development of plans for D&D of the Radioactive Materials
Handling Facility and offsite disposal of mixed low-level and low-level
waste.
The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center is a 426-acre site at
Stanford University, which conducts theoretical research in high-energy
particle physics for DOE. Remediation activities at the site involve
the cleanup of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)-contaminated soil areas
and several solvent-contaminated groundwater and soil areas. In fiscal
year 2000, we excavated contaminated soils in the Research and the
Lower Salvage Yards, and completed the characterization the IR-6
Drainage Channel. We will complete the pilot testing of the soil vapor
extraction system at the Former Hazardous Waste Storage yard in fiscal
year 2001 and begin remediation of soils at the Research Yard. In
fiscal year 2002, final assessment reports for the Former Hazardous
Waste Storage Area and plating shop will be submitted to the
regulators. In addition, soil remediation will continue at several
locations, the IR-6 Drainage Channel, and a power supply station.
The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is a site leased by DOE
at the University of California-Berkeley. EM responsibilities at the
site 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. The Office of Science
assumed responsibility for newly generated waste in fiscal year 2001,
but EM continues to manage legacy waste. In addition, the RCRA Facility
Investigation Report was submitted to the regulatory agencies in fiscal
year 2001. In fiscal year 2002, we will continue to excavate
contaminated soils at on-site locations, operate groundwater treatment
systems to contain off-site plume migration, and continue off-site
disposal of hazardous and radioactive waste.
Senator Domenici. Senator Craig, whatever your commitments
are, I would offer this to you. If you would like to inquire of
Dr. Huntoon now, and you may proceed to do what you would like
for the rest of the day and I will finish the hearing.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
that courtesy.
COMPLIANCE AGREEMENTS
Dr. Huntoon, you testified before the House Energy and
Water Appropriations Subcommittee and some of your statements
were reported in the media. Specifically, it was reported that
under the funding level in the budget request that you are here
testifying on today, you said that DOE sites may fall out of
compliance with their cleanup agreements, but that DOE is not
sure at which specific sites this will occur.
I have been doing all that I can, as I mentioned earlier,
in working with the chairman to avoid this concern from
happening. Did you testify that some sites might fall out of
compliance and would you like to comment and-or to clarify that
statement?
Dr. Huntoon. Well, thank you for this opportunity. I
believe what I said--and of course, under the press of the
moment I may have misspoken. I believe what I meant to say, if
I did not say it or was quoted incorrectly, was that it is
going to be a challenge at some of our sites. Because our site
managers and our program managers here in Washington are still
working together to see exactly what this 2002 budget would
look like at some of our sites, we are not certain about
exactly how many challenges we have in the compliance area.
We are committed, DOE is committed, Environmental
Management is committed, to meet our compliance agreements. But
as you well know, they are very complex in some States, and we
have to sit down and talk with our regulators--both EPA and
State regulators.
To clarify this one step further, those kinds of talks go
on continually at all of our sites. I know that almost on a
weekly basis we are discussing milestones and challenges to
milestones and the ability to clean up. We--just to put things
in context, Senator--oversee 77 compliance agreements at 25
sites. We have 1,100 enforceable milestones through the year
2070 and 187 of those occur in the year 2002 alone.
So out of this, we are going to have some challenges. But
we intend to sit with our regulators and discuss with them and
try to come to some agreement about the ones where we have
challenges.
Senator Craig. It also appears that funding for State
oversight programs, such as the one that we have at the Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality, have been substantially
reduced. This is of concern to me and to environmental
officials who work for the State of Idaho. Would you pledge to
take another look at that funding level for us?
Dr. Huntoon. Yes.
Senator Craig. Obviously, that not only is an important
balance to have, but it assures the credibility of the total
program when you have more than one set of eyes looking at it,
if you will, I think a reasonable and appropriate analysis.
INEL BURIED WASTE--IDAHO
Dr. Huntoon, you and I have visited previously on the issue
of buried waste at the INEL. In what is known as the subsurface
disposal area, we have about 88 acres of pits and trenches, one
of which is, of course, the very infamous Pit 9, buried low-
level and transuranic waste. Right now DOE and the State of
Idaho and the Environmental Protection Agency are involved in a
dispute resolution process over how to proceed regarding
cleanup of the buried waste. The State would like to see DOE
demonstrate the retrieval of some of the hotter, more
radioactive waste. It is my understanding that DOE is refusing
to talk about any alternatives for buried waste that would
exceed the DOE's fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Since doing any cleanup of buried waste is essentially
underfunded in the budget request, this does not give the State
much to work with. My question: Would you agree with me that
when you are in a dispute resolution process it is good to at
least get all of the options on the table? Is DOE willing to
engage in a good faith process of negotiating with the State
about buried waste?
Dr. Huntoon. Certainly, Senator Craig. I think the ongoing
discussions--in fact, I thought there was going to be a meeting
this week. I guess it has been postponed until next week. But
all the options do need to be out on the table. We have
discussed the very laborious process of trying to completely
dig up this waste area. But demonstrating that it can be done
at some level, I think is appropriate. And I believe that that
is what they are working toward.
One of the issues, of course, is not only funding, but is
the time that it takes. I have asked the people from the DOE
Idaho office to work with the State on a schedule that would
pull that into a more realistic time frame. I believe
stretching it out over a decade is just too long.
Senator Craig. Well, the last question, I am going to,I
think, rely on the chairman to ask it because it is in his home
State. He has mentioned it in his opening comments, and that
is, of course, the adequate funding of the WIPP facility,
because from Idaho to New Mexico flows a tremendous amount of
transuranic waste. Both you and the person that is going to
proceed you were talking about the succeeded, as it is
appropriate to talk about. I think it is important for our
public to know that there are some very real successes out
there now.
But one of the successes we like to talk about is Rocky
Flats. The rest of the story is that that waste, some of that
waste, a substantial part of the waste at Rocky Flats, is now
in Idaho. So we clean up one site to store it at another site.
My suggestion is that in the total text of the story that
is not a completed process. Yes, it looks good in Colorado, but
now Idaho has a growing concern that it becomes the recipient
of cleanups and that we are not facilitating the kind of
movement out of Idaho that we should, especially in the
transuranic area. I think we are going to be okay. We were
concerned, Mr. Chairman, about the number of casks available to
facilitate the timely movement, and with the 13 percent cutback
the ability of the facility itself at Carlsbad to be able to
receive on a timely basis that which not only Idaho, but other
sites, are shipping, too.
So I will stop there, but let me suggest that when one
paints a picture of success I always like the turn the canvas
over, and in turning the Rocky Flats canvas over and other
sites around the country, some of the other DOE sites become
the recipient sites. I would suggest to you that that is not a
complete picture.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. We will ask about the $26 million cut in
WIPP in due course. If we do not, we will submit it to you so
you can answer it.
Let me follow up here now and see, Senator, if we could
proceed with Senator Bennett, who arrived.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID
Senator Reid. If I could just ask, courtesy of the Senator
from Utah, just to take the rest of the minute.
Senator Bennett. Of course.
Senator Reid. I had to arrange a pair on the last vote and
it took me a while to get here, and then my staff gave me the
wrong room to come to, 128. So I wandered around the halls for
a while.
Senator Bennett. He was really scheduled to arrive here
sooner than I was and we passed in the hall.
Senator Reid. I just had the wrong place. So I would ask
unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that I be allowed to submit my
statement in the record and also some questions that I have. My
full committee of which I am the ranking member is meeting
upstairs, and so I apologize. I have to be there.
Senator Domenici. Sure, we will make your statement and the
questions part of the record. What do you think we should have?
2 weeks.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Harry Reid
Good Afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for scheduling this final
budget oversight hearing as we prepare to begin writing the fiscal year
2002 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill.
Representatives of two DOE programs have joined us today:
--Mr. Lake Barrett, the Acting Director of the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management
--Carolyn Huntoon, the Assistant Secretary of the Environmental
Management Program
I would like to welcome both of you to today's hearing. I have read
each of your statements and have a number of questions for all of you.
Unfortunately, most of these questions must be for the record.
As you know, I am the Ranking Member of the Full Committee on
Environment and Public Works and I am expected upstairs for a hearing.
However, I hope you will not take my absence as a sign of a lack of
interest on my part in what is going on in each of your programs.
Quite the contrary. Ms. Huntoon, I am very concerned that the
President's budget has not given you nearly enough money to perform the
enormous amounts of work we have entrusted to you.
Mr. Barrett, I worry that perhaps we are giving you too much.
At a time when program after program at DOE has been slashed or, at
best, held at last year's level (despite having been given far more to
do), I am not sure what to think when the budget for the Office of
Civilian Radioactive Nuclear Waste is given a double digit percentage
increase.
Is it because your program is running ahead of schedule or even on-
time?
NO. Completion of the characterization report has been repeatedly
delayed and all of the other milestones have also slipped. The current
external rumor is that the report will be completed in December,
although there certainly are signs that it will be later than that.
Is it because your program has achieved significant cost
efficiencies and you are being rewarded for such good stewardship?
NO. If the Department succeeds in foisting this program off on the
citizens of Nevada, it will do so at about double the originally-
anticipated cost. The $30 billion estimate of the early 1990's has
become the $58 billion estimate of 2001. This includes a $12 billion
increase in just the last three years.
I needn't remind anyone in this room that we are a LONG ways away
(both in terms of time and policy) from actually moving any nuclear
waste in this country ANYWHERE. What are the chances that these costs
will continue to spiral out-of control?
Pretty good chance.
So, I ask my rhetorical question again? What makes this program
different?
It costs twice as much as DOE thought. Sounds like a typical big
DOE project to me.
It rarely, if ever, meets its critical path milestones. Sounds like
a typical big DOE project to me.
The answer is there is really nothing different about the Yucca
Mountain Project. It is plagued by the same management and budget
problems that torment every major program at the Department. It is no
different from the National Ignition Facility or the pit production
process, or even some of the clean-up efforts.
There is nothing going on in this program that is so special that
it needs or deserves such a large increase when so many other worthy
activities are being left on the floor at OMB.
The only difference seems to be on this side of the table.
There is no shortage of outrage from Members (including me) when
projects like NIF or Pit Production spiral out of control. ``Kill
NIF!'' we cry. ``Send pit production back to the drawing board until
they get it right!'' we shout. The yelling and screaming and hand-
wringing is a sight to behold.
$30 BILLION over budget at Yucca Mountain? The Silence is
Deafening.
I am the first to admit that I am opposed to Yucca Mountain. Always
have been. Always will be.
However, I would like to think that any casual observer would be
concerned about what is going on here.
If the work of the desperately under-funded Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board and some university scientists that we have thrown pocket
change to over the years has been enough to get the Department to re-
think some of their fundamentals at Yucca Mountain, just think what
some adequately funded external oversight might un-earth.
But, then again, the DOE did just release a giant 1,000 page
science and engineering report on Yucca Mountain. Unfortunately,
nowhere--in any of those 1,000 pages--did they find a response to the
issues the Technical Review Board asked the DOE to address. With all
the money DOE seems to have for Yucca Mountain, you would think they
would have the courtesy--let alone the responsibility--to address those
issues with the full science and engineering report.
On the off-chance that no one else is as upset about this as I am
at the moment, I will simply have to bear the bad news to you myself,
Mr. Barrett: there will be no huge increase for the Yucca Mountain
Program this year given the current funding profile.
You and your staff may not agree, but I feel that I have been more
than fair to your program over the years, all things considered.
However, I am not going to sit idly by while your program absorbs one
of the only substantial increases in the DOE budget.
Even you would have to agree, Mr. Barrett, that it is as least as
important, for example, for the United States to meet its legal and
moral commitment to major clean-up activities throughout the Nation's
cold war weapons complex, as it is to make a little progress in your
area.
Which brings me to you, Ms. Huntoon.
I won't beat around the bush.
There is no way that the amount of funding the Administration has
provided for clean-ups, particularly at Washington, South Carolina, and
Idaho, will fulfill the legal and/or Departmental promises to those
three States (and probably several others, including Nevada). I think
you and I both know that your budget is shy hundreds of millions of
dollars.
While I appreciate the enormity of the task and the scarcity of
dollars in this year's budget, the program you have outlined represents
backsliding. Worse, I think, if enacted, it will subject the Department
to legal jeopardy. Other States may need to line up behind Washington
and Idaho at the courthouse door, but line-up they will.
Congress is going to need to find additional resources to keep that
from happening.
That said, my other concern is this: The Department needs to get
some of these sites closed.
When Congress created a closure account a number of years ago, it
was done to give a certain number of sites priority and additional
resources to get the clean-up done prior to 2006. My staff informs me
that a fair number of these sites now have closure dates after 2006.
Obviously, this is not what we had in mind.
If a site is really a post-2006 site, Congress may need to consider
treating it as such.
Hopefully, some more realistic resources will get these sites back
on track.
Again, thank you to both of our witnesses for appearing today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reid. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Senator Reid.
Senator Reid. Thank you, Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. Senator Bennett, I have not inquired
because I wanted to proceed, but I would like to do the same. I
will stay on and you go ahead and ask your questions.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
that.
Dr. Huntoon, we are going to talk about Moab. Are you
familiar with Moab?
Dr. Huntoon. Yes, sir.
Senator Bennett. The tailings problem there.
Dr. Huntoon. Yes, sir.
Senator Bennett. Well, I will not go through the history of
it, then, except to enter into the record the fact that
Congress in the last session passed legislation that directs
the Secretary of Energy to prepare and complete a plan for
remediation of the Moab site by October 30 of 2001, with the
National Academy of Sciences directed to provide DOE with
technical advice, assistance, and recommendations concerning
that plan, and also for the record PriceWaterhouseCoopers is
the trustee that controls the site after Atlas Corporation
filed for bankruptcy and the asset was handed over to a
trustee.
Now, with that very, very brief background and
understanding that you know far more about it than that, let me
ask when DOE plans to take title to the site?
MOAB MILL TAILINGS SITE
Dr. Huntoon. I believe the ownership will become effective
by October the 30 of this year, DOE will assume ownership.
Senator Bennett. PriceWaterhouseCoopers has indicated that
it will resign and return management responsibility for the
site to DOE on September 1. I do not quite understand what that
is. Would that be a problem? Would you be prepared to take
responsibility on September 1, as opposed to October 30?
Dr. Huntoon. I am sure that is what needs to be done. We
are planning to take ownership of the site as soon as they
finish or resign their current management responsibility. The
schedule may have changed a little, but that is the plan, the
current plan.
Senator Bennett. What is the status of the remediation
plan?
MOAB MILL TAILINGS SITE REMEDIATION PLAN
Dr. Huntoon. What we asked for was a reprogramming that was
submitted by the last administration to get funds, because we
did not have funds to deal with Moab. The programming is still
pending. The current administration has resubmitted the request
and it is with OMB right now, I understand, before coming to
Congress for funds, we will have to complete the plan.
Senator Bennett. So the fact that there is no money in the
budget indicates that you think the money is available through
reprogramming and that is why it is not necessary to put a new
item in the budget?
Dr. Huntoon. The reprogramming funds are necessary to
create the plan, so we will know how much to ask for, over what
period of time. That is the work that has not been done.
Senator Bennett. Do you have any idea when the remediation
efforts might begin?
Dr. Huntoon. I think creating the plan, meeting the current
schedule we are on--and of course, the reprogramming money,
getting it now will certainly help, but I think the idea of
having 6 months to a year to not only do the planning but the
permitting and all to do the necessary remediation work, will
enable us to have time to ask next year for the money in 2003
that would be required for the actual work there at Moab.
Senator Bennett. So you think the work would begin in
fiscal 2003?
Dr. Huntoon. That would be the current plan.
Senator Bennett. Do you have any plans for the site in
fiscal 2002 other than the study?
SURVEILLANCE AT THE MOAB MILL TAILINGS SITE
Dr. Huntoon. Well, the office at Grand Junction that is
currently now overseeing it will continue in their surveillance
of the site to make sure that the status remains the same of
the facility there. They have enough money in their budget to
continue the surveillance of the site.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. This will be useful
information. As you may know, there have been a number of
newspaper articles that raised the flag of great panic and
suggested that because there was no money in the budget DOE was
in danger of poisoning the water for 25 million people
downstream. I take it from what you are saying that it is your
scientific opinion that there is no health risk in the present
circumstance, even though the long-term solution to move the
tailings is the right solution.
FUNDING FOR THE MOAB MILL TAILINGS SITE
Dr. Huntoon. That is correct, Senator. The idea that we had
not measured any substance from the mill tailings site
downstream makes us think that that is true, and we are
watching that now. The responsibility to clean it up has
certainly been given to the Department of Energy. We did not
ask, as you said, for the money because we did not have a plan
and, we did not know what to ask for. We will have that worked
out and we will come in with a plan and ask for permission to
proceed with that.
But it is the intent to clean up the place.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
courtesy.
Senator Domenici. You are welcome.
Senator Murray, we have proceeded without taking the second
witness because I knew the two Senators that had arrived on our
side of the aisle wanted to inquire with reference to the waste
management part of this budget.
Mr. Barrett, is it all right if we proceed to complete and
then we will take you last?
Mr. Barrett. As you wish, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. That may very well mean that I am the
only person here.
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, is Dr. Huntoon going to stay,
because I am going to have some questions for her if that is
the case.
Senator Domenici. She is. She is. In fact, she has
testified and two Senators have inquired of her very briefly.
If you would like to inquire now of her, I would let you do
that, and then I will save mine until afterwards. Go ahead,
Senator.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. You are welcome.
Senator Murray. I will do so as briefly as I can. I really
appreciate your holding this hearing.
Dr. Huntoon, I particularly wanted to thank you for all
your efforts over the past several years and your willingness
to stay on until the administration has a new Assistant
Secretary in place. I would be remiss if I did not thank you,
Mr. Chairman, as well for your support for nuclear waste
cleanup in my State and across the country. It is not an easy
challenge. It is one that is pretty easy to ignore. We cannot
ignore it, and you have been there, and I just want to publicly
thank you.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
Senator Murray. Dr. Huntoon, significant progress on
cleanup has been made at Hanford in the last couple of years
and we are now moving spent nuclear fuel out of the K basins
and the environmental restoration work along the river has
moved along very well. I want to thank you for your efforts on
that, and the support of Keith Klein and Harry Boston and all
of the folks at Hanford have really done a good job.
I know you are not responsible for this budget, but I just
have to raise some very serious concerns and questions I have
about the funding that is proposed in the budget for DOE
Richland and the Office of River Protection. I really fear that
this budget threatens the progress that has been made at
Hanford and fails to meet the legal obligations of the triparty
agreement and it fails to meet our moral obligations to protect
the health and welfare of citizens and the environment in the
Pacific Northwest.
I am especially troubled by the proposed cuts in the waste
treatment plan which is going to vitrify the high-level
radioactive waste that is currently stored at our old and
decaying tanks at Hanford. DOE officials have acknowledged that
the new contract that was negotiated for this project was based
on an fiscal year 2002 budget of $690 million, but the request
that we have is only for $500 million.
Now, I am told that with a $500 million level for 2002 the
funding for this project would need to be spiked all the way up
to $880 million in 2003. Would it not make more sense to
levelize the funding for this project at $690 million, as it
was first proposed and actually written into the contract,
instead of counting on a funding spike next year? And would not
a measured level of funding base be more consistent with the
objectives of your top to bottom review of the cleanup program
and use of commercial type contracts to make it more efficient?
I would love to hear your response.
OFFICE OF RIVER PROTECTION FUNDING
Dr. Huntoon. Thank you, Senator Murray. I think
acknowledging the work that has been done out at Hanford is
certainly appropriate. I know that we have two good managers
out there and with their help with the stakeholders and
regulators we have been able to move forward in a lot of areas
at Hanford.
I think the danger in meeting the commitments that we have
is real. I mentioned a little bit earlier in response to a
question that we do have challenges in several States to meet
all of our commitments. But we are going to work with the
regulators and the State and EPA to try to do that.
Senator Murray, I know you know this, but just to put it in
context, in 1989 when we signed the triparty agreement with
EPA, the State of Washington, and DOE, we signed up for 161
milestones in 1989. In the year 2001 we have completed 900
milestones, 700 enforceable and 200 targets. What that is
saying is that this is an ongoing process. It is an iterative
process.
We are working, as you know, almost on a daily basis with
the regulators to meet milestones, to adjust the way we are
approaching them, to try to keep our agreements we have made,
but understanding this is a dynamic process.
I know you know this, but there are 30 regulators that DOE
pays for that work for the State of Washington that live on the
site at Hanford. I do not mean live there literally, but work
there. They are there all the time. So our relationship with
our regulators I believe is good. There is some tension there.
I think that tension is probably healthy. But it is an ongoing,
iterative, very long-range process.
We have milestones in the State of Washington to reach out
through the year 2070, and I think that tells you the level at
which this TPA has gone to to make sure that we do things in a
regulated fashion that the State and EPA agree with.
To answer your question about the funding, I think that
with the money that we requested for the tanks at Hanford we
can get started on the job.
Senator Murray. $500 million.
Dr. Huntoon. The $500 million.
POSSIBLE RENEGOTIATION OF BECHTEL WASHINGTON CONTRACT
Senator Murray. Well, I just have to say, Dr. Huntoon, I am
really concerned that the $500 million is going to trigger a
renegotiation of the Bechtel Washington contract, which is
based on a $690 million allocation for 2002. That is an
incentive-based contract that could result in this facility
being built for a lower target price than was first expected. I
am very concerned that if we do not have the $690 million that
that contract will be renegotiated, and I do not think any one
of us think that it is going to be renegotiated for a lower
price.
So does not that funding level put us in jeopardy of having
to pay more in the long run?
Dr. Huntoon. The funding level does give us the potential
to have to renegotiate. We have not heard that from the
contractor yet officially.
Senator Murray. I would assume that renegotiation would not
mean to a lower contract price.
Dr. Huntoon. Most often it does not. But the issue is again
the $500 million can keep us on track to do the 2007 start of
operations, which is what the contractor agreed to. The funding
profile would be different, as you mentioned, and it would call
for quite a bit more funding in 2003 than we had previously
thought when we negotiated the contract.
Senator Murray. So if the $500 million comes in this year,
we are going to have to spike it up to $800 million?
Dr. Huntoon. That is correct, according to the current
profile we would have to do that.
Senator Murray. If we do not do that, that contract could
be renegotiated, and my sense is that we will have a legal
challenge as well on the triparty agreement.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think we have got some very serious
issues that we need to look at. I have several other questions
that I will submit for the record that I would like responses
back on. But I want to work with you, because this is a very,
very serious issue for my State and I am concerned about the
funding levels in this budget.
Senator Domenici. Senator, if you will submit your
questions they will be answered within 2 weeks, as the other
questions.
We will proceed now. I was going to ask you, Dr. Huntoon, a
series of questions, but I think what I will do is let Mr.
Barrett testify. Do you mind waiting just another 15 or 20
minutes? That is all it will be.
Dr. Huntoon. I do not mind at all. I am here.
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
STATEMENT OF LAKE H. BARRETT, ACTING DIRECTOR
Senator Domenici. Mr. Barrett, would you proceed. Your
testimony will be made a part of the record. Would you
summarize it as best you can.
Mr. Barrett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Murray. I am pleased with this opportunity to present our
fiscal year 2002 budget request. Our budget request advances
our Nation's policy for the management of spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste. The request presumes that the
Department will make an informed science-based decision to
recommend the Yucca Mountain site for further development later
this year. If a decision is made, under the process outlined by
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act we will proceed into the next
phase of site development.
Our budget request begins the transition from the
predominantly investigative science of the site
characterization phase to the engineering and design phase to
prepare a license application for submittal to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
Management of nuclear materials in a repository is
important in supporting the continued operations of our
Nation's commercial nuclear power plants, which provide 20
percent of our Nation's electricity. It is also essential for
our national defense and international nonproliferation
objectives.
PREPARATIONS FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN REPOSITORY
After nearly 20 years of cutting-edge science to determine
whether a geologic repository can perform safely, we are close
to making a decision on whether or not to proceed with
developing the Yucca Mountain site.
The fiscal year 2002 request is $444.9 million, a modest
increase over fiscal year 2001. In the next fiscal year, most
of our resources will be applied toward preparing a complete
license application for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
However, science will not end there should a decision be
reached to proceed with applying for a license to build a
repository. Our program will continue to strengthen the
underlying scientific basis for any further potential
decisions.
We have allocated $355 million, about 80 percent of our
request, to conduct activities at Yucca Mountain. For example,
the core science funding will increase by 15 percent to a
request level of $76 million. These activities support our
ability to model individual and combined natural processes
necessary in assessing how a repository might perform many
thousands of years into the future.
Design and engineering funding will increase 41 percent, to
$104 million. This substantial increase in these activities,
which were deferred due to past year budget cuts, is necessary
to resume, and in some cases accelerate, engineering and design
work to develop a complete license application. For instance,
we will integrate new design concepts for accepting and
handling all the different types of spent fuel and high-level
waste that we might receive.
We are also evaluating how a flexible repository system can
integrate new spent fuel management technologies and new
operating concepts as they may become available in the future.
A flexible repository is an important part of any future
advanced nuclear energy technology scenario.
The operations and construction funding request is $35
million, and in part, will be used to build additional thermal
test alcoves and niches to gather performance confirmation data
in the repository block. The remainder will go to maintaining
the surface and subsurface infrastructure which supports the
core science activities.
If the Yucca Mountain site is recommended and approved for
further development, a transportation infrastructure must be
available to move spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste
in sufficient quantities to meet our obligations. We have
requested $5.9 million to begin the long-lead time logistical
and planning activities in this area.
CHALLENGES TO THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE
As I have noted in my written statement, some of the
opportunities and challenges facing us are quite significant.
If the Yucca Mountain site is ultimately recommended for
further development, then future program costs could far exceed
past appropriations. Our administration's budget request
recognizes these future funding challenges by affirming support
for efforts to use the nuclear utilities' budgetary receipts
for their intended purposes.
The program is looking at engineering, construction, and
operational strategies for managing potential annual cost
increases. These strategies seek to distribute annual costs
over the next 10 years by using modular repository construction
and operational approaches. The program also intends to submit
its report on alternative means for financing and managing a
Federal repository to the Congress this June, as requested in
last year's energy and water development conference report.
However, the report identified several statements that the
Inspector General concluded ``could be viewed as suggesting a
premature conclusion regarding the suitability of Yucca
Mountain.'' After the Inspector General's finding, both
Secretary Abraham and I communicated our firm belief to all the
program's Federal, laboratory, and contractor employees that
our work must be performed in a manner that reflects the
integrity and objectivity necessary for conducting world class
science. We will continue to operate this program in an open
and transparent manner worthy of public confidence and trust.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In conclusion, I believe we have made considerable
progress, despite enormous challenges. Our budget request
supports the next step in the process, which is development of
a license application for submittal in 2003. I urge you to
consider favorably our appropriation request. I would be
pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lake H. Barrett
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Lake H. Barrett,
Acting Director of the Department of Energy's Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management. I appreciate the opportunity to present
our fiscal year 2002 budget request to you and discuss our plans for
scientific and technical activities at the Yucca Mountain site in
Nevada.
Our fiscal year 2002 budget request of $444.9 million is devoted to
advancing our Nation's policy for the long-term management of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Based on the presumption
that a potential decision to recommend the site for further development
could be made, fiscal year 2002 would begin the transition from
investigative science under the site characterization phase to
engineering and design for the pre-licensing phase. Work during the
fiscal year would focus mainly on preparing a license application for
submittal to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The license application
would contain surface and subsurface designs, including descriptions of
operational parameters to meet the Commission's stringent technical
licensing and Nuclear Quality Assurance requirements. During the
transition, we would begin implementing performance confirmation work
to verify and strengthen the scientific and technical basis for a
potential repository. Also in fiscal year 2002, we would begin the work
necessary to develop the national infrastructure necessary to move
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from their present
locations.
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
wastes. Permanent geologic disposal is essential for managing spent
nuclear fuel from commercial electric power generation and nuclear
waste from defense activities.
Commercial nuclear power plants that currently generate 20 percent
of our nation's electricity will require permanent disposal of their
spent nuclear fuel in a geologic repository. Past weapons production
and research activities have accumulated over 2,500 metric tons of
spent nuclear fuel. Thousands of high-level radioactive waste canisters
will have been processed at Hanford and Savannah River. Our Navy's
nuclear powered ships will have generated approximately 65 metric tons
of spent nuclear fuel by 2035. From dismantling surplus weapons, our
nation has amassed approximately 50 metric tons of weapons-usable
plutonium. The nation will require disposition of these materials in a
geologic repository to maintain our energy options, support cleanup of
our weapons sites, continue operations of our nuclear powered ships,
and advance our international non-proliferation goals to isolate
weapons material in a repository.
Since the enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982, our
nation has made a substantial investment in permanent geologic
disposal. Almost $4 billion has been committed to the scientific and
technical work for a geologic repository. After nearly twenty years of
cutting-edge science, our policymakers are very close to making a
science-based decision on whether to proceed with further development
of the Yucca Mountain site. Should the site be approved, we will
continue with the step-wise process, outlined in the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act, to develop a repository.
summary of fiscal year 2002 appropriation request
The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management fiscal year
2002 budget request of $444.9 million is an increase of $44.6 million
above fiscal year 2001 funding. This increase not only reflects our
goal to reverse the over $140 million in funding shortfalls incurred
over the past four years, but also renews the Administration's
commitment to address the waste management issue responsibly.
Our resources will be reallocated and applied towards accelerating
our efforts--i.e., regaining some lost schedule--to submit a license
application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2003. The
Commission will consider information in the license application in its
determination of how a repository at Yucca Mountain would protect human
health and safety and the environment, based on the regulatory
framework provided by the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Commission.
Yucca Mountain.--Of the $444.9 million request, $355.4 million,
eighty percent, is targeted for activities at Yucca Mountain. Of these
funds, more than sixty-five percent are devoted directly towards
regaining momentum for license application activities, with particular
emphasis on resuming and accelerating surface and subsurface Design and
Engineering. To support a potential license application, Suitability,
Licensing, and Performance Assessment activities will focus on
resolving key technical issues identified by the Commission, and
conducting and refining performance assessments of the surface and
subsurface design features and operational modes, based on input from
Core Science activities.
Core Science activities will continue to strengthen the underlying
scientific and technical basis, which will be used to make an informed
decision on whether to recommend Yucca Mountain for further
development, and to verify and provide scientific data for licensing.
These scientific activities will focus on understanding more fully how
lower-temperature subsurface operational modes may reduce uncertainties
in analyzing long-term repository performance. We also will seek to
strengthen our performance analysis through our performance
confirmation activities, which will provide independent lines of
evidence for our analysis and performance models.
Waste Acceptance and Transportation.--In fiscal year 2002, the
Program is requesting $5.9 million to fund activities that will support
the transfer of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste from its
current owners to a federal facility and to begin revitalizing
transportation logistical and institutional planning activities. Due to
budgetary shortfalls during the past four years, these activities,
especially transportation planning, were deferred while we focused our
resources on investigative science for a possible decision on whether
to recommend Yucca Mountain for development as a repository.
performance measures
The fiscal year 2002 request is the start of funding levels that we
need to meet our most critical performance measure--maintaining the
schedule to begin waste acceptance at a geologic repository by 2010. If
there is a decision to proceed, the Program could then move forward
with the process embodied in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended,
by submitting a license application in 2003; obtaining Commission
authorization--as early as thirty-six months after submittal; and
building the infrastructure to begin waste acceptance in 2010.
fiscal year 2002 activities
I would now like to describe in more detail our fiscal year 2002
objectives and how this budget request will support our activities.
Yucca Mountain
Fiscal year 2002 delineates a shift in focus to engineering and
design activities necessary for a possible license application in 2003.
The Program, under direction from language accompanying the 1997 Energy
and Water Development appropriations, presented our plans, schedule,
and estimated costs to license a repository in the 1998 Viability
Assessment. If a decision is made to recommend the site, the Program
will proceed to implement the general framework presented in the 1998
plan, supplemented by our greater understanding of how a potential
repository within Yucca Mountain might perform.
Our budget request for Yucca Mountain is allocated under the
following project elements: Core Science, Design and Engineering,
Suitability, Licensing, and Performance Assessment, National
Environmental Policy Act, Operations and Construction, and External
Oversight and Payments-Equal-to-Taxes. The activities planned under
each of these categories are described as follows.
Core Science.--This year's budget request of $75.6 million
represents a fifteen percent increase. Core Science activities include
collecting 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. These efforts will proceed as a part of our
performance confirmation program to strengthen the underlying
scientific basis for a potential decision and provide multiple lines of
evidence supporting the assumptions used in our engineering designs and
performance assessments.
Design and Engineering.--The fiscal year 2002 request for Design
and Engineering is $104.4 million, an increase of 41 percent over last
year. This substantial increase will allow us to resume engineering and
design work to support a possible license application. This is work
that we deferred while the Program focused on scientific and technical
activities required for any possible decision on whether to proceed
with repository development. The Program will vigorously continue
repository surface design efforts to integrate new design concepts for
accepting and handling defense high-level waste and spent fuel, and
commercial spent fuel. The Program will analyze a modular surface and
subsurface design and construction concept to evaluate how a step-wise,
flexible repository system can integrate new technologies and new
operational concepts as they become available.
The Program will refine the repository subsurface design and
operating modes, including further analyzing the potential advantages
of cooler repository operating temperatures and what effect they might
have on reducing uncertainties associated with long-term performance.
Engineering and design work will analyze fuel blending models that
could enhance subsurface thermal management. We also will seek a
greater understanding of long-term performance of waste package
materials to strengthen our understanding of corrosion properties and
the effects of manufacturing on waste package integrity.
Suitability, Licensing, and Performance Assessment
The fiscal year 2002 request for Suitability, Licensing, and
Performance Assessment is $84.9 million, a slight decrease of 1.2
percent. Although our request is lower in this area than fiscal year
2001, we have reallocated funds to specific activities supporting a
possible license application. The bulk of our resources will be applied
towards developing the preclosure safety analysis. This work was
deferred while our investigative science focused on the post-closure
long-term repository performance assessment required for a possible
site recommendation decision. The results from this preclosure safety
engineering analysis and the long-term post-closure performance
assessments will provide the Commission in a licensing proceeding with
a basis to determine whether a repository at Yucca Mountain can
reasonably assure that public health and safety, and the environment
would be protected during repository operations, and post-closure.
In parallel, we will further refine our repository total system
performance assessments with information from continuing Core Science
and Engineering and Design work to strengthen our understanding of
long-term performance at cooler subsurface operating modes. Finally,
significant resources will be applied to documenting license
application reports and underlying data into electronic media and web-
based technologies for a license support network. We deferred these
activities while we awaited a possible decision on whether to proceed
with Yucca Mountain, but must address them to meet the Commission's
requirements under 10 CFR Part 2, if the site is recommended and
approved.
Operations and Construction.--The fiscal year 2002 request for
Operations and Construction is $35 million, a 10.7 percent increase.
This modest increase is to build additional thermal test alcoves and
niches in the potential repository block to gather performance
confirmation data verifying drift scale thermal test results. The bulk
of these funds would be used primarily to maintain the surface and
subsurface infrastructure that supports Core Science.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).--In fiscal year 2002,
$1.6 million, a 27 percent reduction, is requested for NEPA activities
if the site is recommended. A final environmental impact statement will
be completed and will accompany the documents supporting the
comprehensive basis for a potential site recommendation. Afterwards,
the administrative record compiled during preparation of the final
environmental impact statement would be finalized, if the site is
recommended.
External Oversight and Payments-Equal-to-Taxes (PETT).--The fiscal
year 2002 budget requests $19.7 million for External Oversight and
Payments-Equal-to-Taxes. The Administration supports the State of
Nevada and affected units of local government oversight activities--
solely for independent review of ongoing scientific and technical
work--as authorized by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
Our budget request also includes $10 million to continue our
cooperative agreement with the University and Community College System
of Nevada. This agreement, initiated in fiscal year 1999, provides the
public and the Yucca Mountain project with an independently derived
body of scientific data, and fosters collaborative working
relationships between government and academic researchers.
waste acceptance, storage, and transportation
The primary responsibility of the Waste Acceptance, Storage, and
Transportation Project is to develop processes for the physical
transfer of spent nuclear fuel to the Federal Government. Because we
were awaiting a decision on whether to proceed with the Yucca Mountain
site, we deferred transportation logistical and institutional planning
activities. However, if the site is recommended and approved, we must
resume the preparations necessary to implement a transportation
infrastructure to support the movement of spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste in 2010. For fiscal year 2002, we request $5.9
million to begin long lead-time logistical and planning activities.
Transportation.--For fiscal year 2002, we request $3.1 million to
begin and ramp-up activities that would develop the private sector-
based national transportation capability necessary to move spent
nuclear fuel and high-level waste beginning in 2010. This requires
restarting the solicitation process for a draft request for proposals
for waste acceptance and transportation services, with the goal of
releasing a final request for proposals in late fiscal year 2002. Other
planning activities will consider transportation institutional issues
within the State of Nevada, as the potential host state for a geologic
repository, and will focus on resuming development of policies and
procedures for the training of public safety officials as specified
under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Section 180(c).
Waste Acceptance.--For fiscal year 2002, $2.3 million is requested
to support modifying the Standard Disposal Contract to integrate
private sector-based transportation services requirements. A
significant part of our request will be applied to integrating waste
acceptance criteria and schedules for the wide variety of fuel types
from defense spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste owned by the
Office of Environmental Management, Office of Fissile Materials
Disposition, and Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program.
program management and integration
For fiscal year 2002, we request $83.6 million for Program
Management and Integration activities, a 10 percent increase above
fiscal year 2001. The Program Management and Integration element
oversees coordination between the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization
Project and Waste Acceptance, Storage, and Transportation Project. The
primary function is to ensure compliance with the statutory
requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and regulatory
requirements imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the
Environmental Protection Agency, other Federal oversight groups, and
Departmental reporting and accounting systems. Particular emphasis will
be placed on ensuring that the Program meets Nuclear Regulatory
Commission Nuclear Quality Assurance requirements as we accelerate our
efforts to submit a possible license application in 2003.
Future Funding Challenges
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I began my testimony by
stating that our fiscal year 2002 request is based on the presumption
that a potential decision to recommend the site for development could
be made. If the Yucca Mountain Site is recommended and approved, the
costs to license, build, and operate a waste management system will
exceed past appropriations levels. Our Administration's budget request
recognizes these future-funding challenges. The Administration in its
budget states ``support for efforts to use the nuclear utilities'
budgetary receipts for [their] intended purposes.''
The Program is looking at engineering, construction, and
operational strategies for managing these potential annual costs that
could occur after the 2002 timeframe. These strategies seek to
distribute costs to level-out annual costs over the next ten years,
using modular repository construction and operational approaches. In
addition, the Program intends to submit a report on alternative means
of financing and managing a federal repository to Congress in June
2001, as requested in the 2001 Energy and Water Development Conference
Report.
litigation
The Department is in litigation over the delay in meeting our
contractual obligation to nuclear utility companies to begin accepting
their spent fuel by January 31, 1998. The issue of waste acceptance is
among our highest priorities. The Courts already determined that the
federal government is liable to compensate utilities for additional
costs they may have incurred due to the delay. We are now litigating
what the source of funding should be and how much these costs will be.
Inspector General Inquiry
Last December, Secretary Richardson decided not to issue the Site
Recommendation Consideration Report until the Inspector General
investigated whether bias may have compromised the integrity of our
work. The Inspector General performed a comprehensive and thorough
evaluation of this issue and released his report on April 23. I was
gratified that the Inspector General concluded there was no evidence to
``substantiate the concern that bias compromised the integrity of the
site evaluation process.'' I have told my staff that we must do even
better. The report also identified several statements that the
Inspector General concluded, ``could be viewed as suggesting a
premature conclusion regarding the suitability of Yucca Mountain.'' We
are well aware that we must perform our work without even the
perception of possible bias.
Secretary Abraham, and I firmly believe and have communicated to
all our employees, that it is Departmental policy, that all Federal,
laboratory, and contractor employees must perform their work in a
manner that reflects the integrity and objective approach necessary to
conduct world-class science. We have reaffirmed our commitment to a
site suitability evaluation process that is objective, unbiased, and
based on sound science. We will continue to operate this Program in an
open and transparent manner, worthy of public confidence and trust.
concluding remarks
The Department has made considerable progress and, despite enormous
challenges, maintained the essential momentum to implement our Nation's
policy for the management of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste. We have conducted a world class investigative
science program to determine whether the Yucca Mountain site is
suitable for further development. We have developed repository designs
and operational concepts that would enable future generations to make
decisions about a repository, providing them the flexibility to choose
closure, indefinite monitoring, or retrieval of emplaced materials.
I believe that we are in a position to achieve important national
and global decisions later this year. I urge you to consider favorably
our appropriation request. Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE TIME TABLE
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Let me just ask you
three or four questions on Yucca Mountain if I might.
First of all, the Inspector General has issued a report.
That caused some delay. Now, that report is considered to be a
favorable report as I understand it. Is that a correct
characterization of it?
Mr. Barrett. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. How soon will the Department be ready to
proceed with their recommendations to the President?
Mr. Barrett. We are proceeding ahead in doing the
scientific work necessary to support any future decisions. Just
last week we released a suite of documents which include the
Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report, which is the
bulk of the science that would support any future decision, and
we are proceeding ahead under the processes in the law this
year.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN RADIATION STANDARDS
Senator Domenici. Recently--well, I will give you the date.
March the 30 of this year, I wrote to EPA Administrator
Christine Whitman noting that the scientific credibility of the
draft EPA regulations for Yucca Mountain were severely
criticized by the National Academy of Science. No such
criticism was leveled by the Academy against the proposed NRC
standards. I suggested in my letter that the EPA and the NRC
should be working to harmonize their difference in approach to
the standards.
Many have suggested that the scientifically flawed EPA
standards, if implemented, would preclude waste storage in
Yucca Mountain while offering no benefit of public safety. On
April the 26, Administrator Whitman responded that the EPA and
the NRC are working through an inter-agency process to
determine ``the most appropriate public health standards for
Yucca Mountain.'' The latter part of that statement is in
quotes.
What is the status of discussions among EPA, NRC, and DOE
to identify scientifically credible radiation standards for
Yucca Mountain?
Mr. Barrett. The Office of Management and Budget is in the
process, through the inter-agency approach, of reviewing that.
The Environmental Protection Agency is actively involved in
creating the standard. They requested scientific input from us.
We have provided that, and that process is continuing under the
OMB inter-agency review process. So it is very active and Ms.
Whitman is involved and will, we hope be reaching some
decisions soon.
Senator Domenici. A technical question. The Nuclear Waste
technology Review board, they have expressed some concern
within the last year over certain aspects of the Department's
plans for Yucca Mountain. Among those concerns were the
reliance by the Department on high temperatures in the
repository to reduce moisture and thereby enhance the life of
the waste casks. These high temperature storage configurations,
created by reducing spacing among casks, was criticized in part
because lower temperature options which would minimize chemical
reaction rates that could degrade the casks had not been
reviewed with sufficient care, they said.
What is the current status of the Department's response to
the concerns by the NWTRB, the Nuclear Waste Technology Review
Board?
Mr. Barrett. The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
pointed out opportunities to strengthen the technical basis for
any future decisions on Yucca Mountain. We have been working
very hard over the last 6 months in doing the studies in
exactly those areas. I just had a meeting last week, where we
presented the results of many of those studies. We are in the
process of preparing those documents to strengthen the
technical bases and address the issues of operational low
temperature designs and improvements.
Senator Domenici. This could go to both of you. The
Washington group--that is a business group. I should say
Washington Group International--announced that it had reached
an agreement in principle with the bank group, the steering
committee for the plan of reorganization in bankruptcy. The
plan did not include Westinghouse government services companies
which operate a number of DOE M&O contracts. What is the effect
of this announcement at existing sites where Westinghouse has
contracts? Do you know?
CONTRACTOR FINANCIAL ISSUES
Dr. Huntoon. Senator, after they I guess made their
business decisions we did communicate with the Westinghouse----
Senator Domenici. Would you pull that up a little closer,
please.
Dr. Huntoon. I am sorry.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
Dr. Huntoon. We did communicate with the Westinghouse
company about our sites and the work they are doing for us, as
you know, at Savannah River, in New York, and at WIPP. We were
told that it will have no effect, it will be transparent, our
operations will continue. So we are not expecting anything to
happen to our work based on the Washington Group's financial
issues right now.
Mr. Barrett. We do not expect any in ours at all.
Senator Domenici. It will not affect yours.
Have you received sufficient information at this point to
conclude yourself that that statement is true?
Dr. Huntoon. Our procurement people have, our legal people
have. I have not gotten back input from all my sites. I have
talked to Savannah River and they have no issues. I will be
talking to the others today.
Senator Domenici. All right. In any event, are you telling
this subcommittee that you believe in that regard things are
all right?
Dr. Huntoon. Yes.
WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT FUNDING
Senator Domenici. Let me now ask you a few more questions.
Let me talk about WIPP just for a minute. There is a lot of
reductions in this budget that struck me as being kind of
interesting and in some ways counterproductive. But the one
that gives me a real strange feeling is, how can you expect
WIPP to do more and yet reduce the funding by $26 million? They
are supposed to do more of everything. They are supposed to do
more on-site characterization. They are supposed to move more
transuranic wastes there. Their budget is $26 million less than
last year.
Dr. Huntoon. Yes, sir. As you know, we had challenges
across the complex with the budget to get to our budget
numbers. WIPP was certainly one of them. WIPP has done an
outstanding job in meeting their commitments in the past and
coming up on the curve to getting the shipments in. We are past
20 now in the shipments to WIPP.
This budget that we turned in, Senator, is focused on
activities that are essential to the disposal operations
specifically. We want to maintain the priorities on Rocky
Flats, Idaho, and Savannah River because that is going to
support closure at Mound. We talked about limiting the
shipments from other places until we had the funds to do it. We
will scale back advisory groups and State organization support
where we have to.
We were going to begin the work on the remote handled
waste. That is an essential aspect, but hopefully working with
the State and NRC to make some necessary changes to some of the
permits to decrease the cost and increase the efficiency.
Senator Domenici. Well, let me just assure you that there
is no more support from any community on anything of national
interest that involves nuclear activity than this community of
Carlsbad and Eddy County and that part of New Mexico. Frankly,
when they read things like this they wonder over the years why
they have been so supportive. I can assure you that there are
all kinds of reasons to say we should cut this or that as it
pertains to the Department of Energy, but the OMB missed the
boat on this one. I do not expect you to say that about it--as
they did on a number of others of these.
COMPLIANCE AGREEMENTS
Let me talk about the compliance agreements, Dr. Huntoon,
for just a minute. Do you believe that this budget keeps the
DOE in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and
existing programs? How much more money would be required to do
that if the budget does not?
Dr. Huntoon. This budget, Senator, gives us some challenges
in several years to meet compliance. We have sat down with our
regulators yet to discuss if we can adjust milestones or
procedures to stay in compliance, but it will be a challenge in
several areas.
Senator Domenici. I take it that means you are not sure you
can live within it. Is that a fair statement of what
``challenging'' means?
Dr. Huntoon. It will be very difficult to do it in a lot of
areas. I am not prepared to say we will not be compliant, but
there are going to have to be negotiations.
Senator Domenici. Well, let me suggest I have been at this
long enough--I shared with you early on when you took this
appointment that I sure hope there were some ways we could find
to be more efficient at all the sites, that we seemed in many
cases to be walking in place, where we stayed in one place for
so long, with so much money spent, that I had begun to wonder
whether some of these activities were employment opportunities
or cleanup sites.
So I expect that we can do better. But I want to suggest to
the Department of Energy, it is not very easy to do it in the
way you are recommending. It seems to me you have a
responsibility, the Department, whoever represents the
Executive Branch, to sit down with those who are cleaning these
sites up, with the States that they are in, with the
communities that they have agreements with, and try to work out
something new and different that is more efficient, and if they
are unsuccessful to bring that to Congress and say, we have to
have your help.
I do not think the way to do it is to dramatically reduce
the funding and let each one of these communities wonder how
many hundreds will be laid off while we are looking for a new
policy. I think that is kind of a reverse approach. It may be
that there were some in the OMB that concluded that is the only
way to get change. Well, it might be. You are not going to get
that change this year, however, that way, if there is any way
to avoid it. We are going to put the money in and ask that you
all start a new process of determining how we might improve the
efficiency of these various sites.
The top the bottom review that the Secretary is talking
about, I just want to talk about one aspect of it. Every
portion of the DOE from what I understand is supposed to become
5 to 10 percent more efficient in the future and immediately
cut the budget about 6 percent. That is my own interpretation
of where we are.
Now, the management review is supposed to identify steps to
strengthen project management, but in some respects it
stretches out projects and increases the cost. Now, this
management review is supposed to implement better contracting
strategies, but fails to fund such performance-based contracts
that you have negotiated in the very past few years. That does
not seem to me to be very consistent.
This review is supposed to make greater use of
technologies, as I understand it, but the cuts in environmental
science and technology are about 27 percent. Now, I would
conclude that either those are inconsistent or one would
conclude that the research being done in the EM R&D effort is
not very good or something you do not think is very good.
Which is it, or is it neither of them?
FUNDING FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Dr. Huntoon. I think our science and technology program I
think has been excellent. The money invested has already helped
us through in the last few years. We have reaped benefits from
money that has been invested over the last 10 years in R&D. So
you would never get me to say that it is not a good program,
that it is not worth the money.
In fact, I believe, as you and I have discussed in the
past, the one way we are going to decrease the amount of time
that it is going to take to clean up this complex is by
applying good science and technology to the problem. So I think
we are going to be doing that.
We are, with the money that we do have available in science
and tech this year, planning plan to our highest priority
issues and trying to get more work out into the complex from
the R&D community. We will be not doing as much basic research
as we would like or university work as we would like.
Senator Domenici. Well, let me tell you, I would not be
surprised to hear the Department of Energy say that an awful
lot of the EM research, that is research within the
laboratories and not on contract, which has been looking for
better ways to handle our responsibility with reference to
cleanup, I would not be surprised if somebody said they have
been very redundant, some of them have been absolutely
inapplicable, it just did not fit, some of them were done with
such scientific esoteric ideas that they are not applicable
anywhere. I have found that over the years to be the case.
But I also find that there is nobody what seems to be able
to do that much better than they do. If you could refine them
down and make sure they are all focused, they are a pretty good
source of information on how to handle this. Is that latter a
fair assessment, they are pretty good at it?
Dr. Huntoon. Yes, sir, it absolutely is. I will give you
one example. We have a very tough problem with the salt issue
down at Savannah River. We are looking at three technologies
right now and we are going through an assessment to choose the
one that we will do a pilot on later this year. Two of those
most promising technologies, have come from our R&D program
that we funded earlier, that would not have been ready for us
to apply had we not put money into it.
Other people do not have the kinds of problems that we have
in dealing with this nuclear waste.
Senator Domenici. I am going to submit a question to you
with reference to performance-based contracts and then close my
questioning of you by talking about a project and program
called Waste Management Education Research Consortium. Its
acronym is WERC. I am not sure you would be aware of that.
WASTE MANAGEMENT EDUCATION AND RESEARCH CONSORTIUM
Dr. Huntoon. No.
Senator Domenici. There exists a program whereby three
universities in the State of New Mexico, led by one of its
technology universities, engages in a curriculum to produce
civil engineers who are environmentally oriented, and at the
same time they conduct national competitions among college
students to prepare actual plans for environmental cleanup. It
attracts attention from all the universities of America and the
winners have gone on to be great scientists in cleanup. That is
a $2.5 million a year program and it is supposed to be extended
for 5 years pursuant to the last appropriation bill.
There has not been any extension done on that. I wonder if
you would look at that for us and report back through the
committee with a response as to when that is going to be
funded.
Dr. Huntoon. Yes, sir, I will.
[The information follows:]
Waste-Management Education and Research Consortium (WERC)
The Department has developed a new 5-year cooperative agreement
with WERC (which is now referred to as A Consortium for Education and
Technology Development). The agreement became effective on July 1,
2001. Funding for this agreement is included in the DOE Fiscal Year
2002 Congressional Budget Request. Future funding will be subject to
the availability of funds and overall DOE funding priorities.
WASTE MANAGEMENT EDUCATION AND RESEARCH CONSORTIUM (WERC)
Senator Domenici. I appreciate that.
Mr. Barrett, did you have anything further you would like
to comment on?
Mr. Barrett. No, sir.
Senator Domenici. Dr. Huntoon, did you want the comment?
This is your last appropriation hearing. We said that. Thank
you so much for all you have done.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Dr. Huntoon. Well, I would just like to thank you for your
support of this program. I appreciate it.
Senator Domenici. You are welcome.
[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
waste isolation pilot plant
Question. Many elements of the Departments' budget submission are
puzzling to me, but perhaps none as confusing as the dramatic cut in
the budget recommended for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
It seems to me that the Department should be encouraging dramatic
increase in the material shipment rates to WIPP. Furthermore, one of
the best ways of increasing those shipment rates would be to improve
the overall management of the National TRU-Waste progam, which I think
requires that WIPP and the Carlsbad Office of the Department play a
larger role in specifying shipments from each site.
WIPP has also made excellent proposals to assume responsibility for
characterizing waste from the many Small Quantity Sites around the
complex. Such centralized characterization can lead to greater
efficiencies, more rapid shipment of wastes from these sites, and
greater assurances to the people of New Mexico that the
characterization is done to State-mandated requirements.
In light of these issues, can you explain how WIPP is going to
increase its shipments rates, assume additional waste characterization
responsibilities, and play a larger role in the National TRU Waste
program with a funding cut of $26 million?
Answer. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plan (WIPP) budget request is
focused on activities that are essential to disposal operations and the
National Transuranic Waste Program. It also assumes that a combination
of efficiencies being pursued with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, the New Mexico Environment Department, and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission will reduce transuranic waste characterization
and shipping costs.
The Department will give priority to shipments from the Rocky Flats
Environmental Technology Site to support closure, and from the Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory to support the Idaho
Settlement Agreement requirements, as well as shipments from the
Savannah River Site which is assisting in the closure of the Mound Site
by storing some of Mound's waste. WIPP will also accept limited
shipments from other sites, such as Argonne National Laboratory-East,
Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Nevada Test Site.
To support the President's fiscal year 2002 budget priorities, the
Department will need to scale back support to advisory groups and State
organizations where possible. In addition, the Department has
eliminated funding for other initiatives that are not core functions of
WIPP's mission to dispose of transuranic waste at WIPP.
The Department is also looking at resources needed for the
increases in waste shipments in fiscal year 2002 from Rocky Flats and
Idaho. Since the President's fiscal year 2002 budget was submitted to
Congress, Rocky Flats has identified plans to ship more waste to WIPP
than was assumed at the time the budget was formulated. Options will be
reviewed for shifting EM funds to meet these needs and ensure we have
sufficient shipping containers and adequate carrier services. The
Administration's recently submitted supplemental budget request for
fiscal year 2001 includes funds that could be applied to this increased
workload for WIPP.
compliance agreements
Question. Does this budget keep the DOE in compliance with all
applicable laws, regulations and existing agreements?
Answer. We are taking several steps to identify and evaluate new
ways of doing business to reduce costs and shorten schedules. Recently,
the Secretary directed the start of an assessment of the Environmental
Management program to find ways to achieve cleanup goals more cost
effectively and efficiently. In addition, Secretary Abraham has invited
the Governors of states that host major DOE sites and the EPA
Administrator to work with us on this assessment. Working with our
state and EPA partners, we believe we can find ways to improve the
program's efficiency and progress.
Maintaining compliance is a priority for the Department. However,
until these initiatives and the Congressional appropriations process
are completed, it is premature to say what our specific compliance
challenges may be in fiscal year 2002. We will follow applicable
procedures if any modification to existing requirements is needed.
Question. How much more money would be required to do so? If you
wish, you may submit that answer for the record.
Answer. Until these initiatives and the Congressional
appropriations process are completed, it is premature to say whether
additional money will be required to meet our compliance requirements
in fiscal year 2002. We believe, however, that by working with our
state and EPA partners, we can find ways to improve the compliance
framework and our programmatic efficiency, and continue to make
progress toward Environmental Management cleanup goals.
performance-based contracts
Question. The DOE Inspector General has recently criticized the
Department for undermining its own performance-based contracts by
paying incentive fees even though the work did not meet the specific
requirement DOE established in its contract. This has been a recurring
problem for the DOE. The Department has placed a lot of hope on the
success of such contracts for increasing performance and cutting costs.
Does the DOE have the mechanism in place to completely enforce such
contracts?
Answer. Yes. The subject of performance-based contracting has
received the highest level of management attention within the
Department. In turn, this top-level emphasis directly resulted in DOE's
recent implementation of a contract management initiative which
requires greater responsibility and accountability from both the
Department's senior managers and its contractors.
Some of the major provisions of this May 2000 initiative include:
(1) ensuring that performance fees will be paid in full when earned or
withheld when performance objectives are not met; (2) ensuring that
performance bonuses paid by contractors to their key managers are
dependent on the achievement of established contract performance
objectives; (3) expanding the Chief Operating Officer's ``watch list''
to include marginal or poor-performing projects, so that a project
which is placed on the COO's watch list is subject to more frequent
reporting and closer scrutiny until its performance improves; (4)
requiring that contract performance objectives be formally linked to
the Department's strategic plan; (5) holding Federal senior executives
accountable for effective contractor management through their own
performance plans; and (6) conducting briefings to high-level DOE
management officials of contractor performance assessments and proposed
performance awards prior to their award.
Furthermore, the Department's major program offices have
established policies and procedures to ensure: early identification of
program expectations to be communicated to Field offices; close
coordination between Headquarters and Field offices in developing such
plans; and the approval of these plans, as well as any performance
awards as a result of the evaluation of the contractor's performance,
by the responsible program assistant secretary. DOE's Procurement
Executive has also been reviewing and approving major site and facility
management contract performance plans since 1998.
In addition, with the publication of the Department's revised fee
policy for management and operating contractors in March 1999, DOE's
Office of Procurement and Assistance Management established an
iterative program to work with selected Headquarters and Field offices
to upgrade the effectiveness of the incentives being established for
the achievement of critical performance. Moreover, the Office issued in
1998 a ``Performance-Based Contracting Guide'' which provide guidance
on linking performance incentives to desired results and strategic
goals. Associated workshops have focused on sharing lessons-learned
within the Department.
Performance-based contracting--characterized by results-oriented
statements of work, strict performance criteria and measures to assess
the quality of work accomplishment, and incentive-fee arrangements to
motivate enhanced performance--is now the standard for the Department
of Energy. All of DOE's major site and facility management contracts
awarded during and after fiscal year 1999 are performance-based
management contracts. Despite the identification of occasional
deficiencies, the Department believes that the appropriate mechanisms
are available to adequately enforce the provisions of performance-based
contracts. In turn, with an emphasis on sustained improvements in the
administration of these contracts, the use of performance-based
contracts should lead to even more cost-effective performance on the
part of the Department's contractors and a greater return for the U.S.
taxpayer.
waste-management education and research consortium
Question. The contract for the Waste-management Education and
Research Consortium (WERC) was specified in the current Appropriations
Report language to be extended for a 5-year period at a level of $2.5
million. To date, that contract extension has not been done.
WERC has compiled an excellent record in their support of
environmental education and technology development. Over its history,
now spanning more than 10 years, WERC graduates have filled many
positions of importance to the nation. Some graduates are now directly
contributing to cleanup of the Department's environmental legacy
problems.
When will the congressional guidance be followed and their contract
extended?
Answer. The Department has developed a new 5-year cooperative
agreement with WERC (which is now referred to as A Consortium for
Education and Technology Development). The agreement became effective
on July 1, 2001. Funding for this agreement is included in the DOE
fiscal year 2002 Congressional Budget Request. Future funding will be
subject to the availability of funds and overall DOE funding
priorities.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
moab mill tailings site
Question. What is the status of the remediation plan?
Answer. The Federal staff at the Grand Junction Office is preparing
an initial draft remediation plan that will identify remediation
alternatives and summarize the state of knowledge regarding the Moab
site. This will be completed by October 30, 2001. The initial draft
plan will not, however, be sufficiently developed to allow for
selection of a remediation option. Selection of a remedial action will
require an in-depth analysis and the legally-required involvement by
the National Academy of Sciences, for which funding was included in the
Administration's recent supplemental budget request for fiscal year
2001.
Question. Has the DOE made any arrangements with the National
Academy of Sciences to provide technical advice, assistance, or
recommendations on the remediation plan?
Answer. On February 16, 2001, the Office of Environmental
Management sent a letter to the National Academy of Sciences requesting
them to perform the analysis required by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. The Administration recently
submitted a supplemental budget request for fiscal year 2001 that
includes funding for the Moab project. If this funding becomes
available, DOE will request the Academy to commence the analysis as
part of an ongoing long-term institutional management study and provide
DOE with advice and recommendations in a separate report.
Question. When is it estimated that the DOE will begin remediation
efforts?
Answer. The start of remediation is dependent on the successful
completion of all preparatory activities, such as National Academy of
Sciences review, any required environmental review, remedy selection
and design, and contractor procurements. Appropriate remediation is
expected to start in fiscal year 2005, subject to the availability of
funding.
Question. What actions will the DOE need to take before remediation
work could begin?
Answer. DOE will have to complete the National Academy of Sciences
review, prepare any required environmental review, obtain a Biological
Opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding endangered
species near the site, receive Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval
of the remedial action plan, complete design for the selected remedial
alternative, and procure a remediation contractor.
Question. What are your plans for the site in fiscal year 2002?
Answer. DOE will complete the title transfer of the mill site,
finalize the remediation plan, and perform surveillance of the tailings
pile. Initiation of the National Academy of Sciences review is
dependent upon Congressional approval of the Administration's recent
supplemental budget request that included funding for developing the
Moab remediation plan.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid
transportation of waste
Question. One of the major issues with the proposed Yucca Mountain
site is transporting the waste from the 103 reactor sites through more
than 40 states to Nevada. Why has so little effort been placed on
defining the transportation modes and routes? How can we be studying a
central disposal site if we do not know if the spent fuel can be safely
moved?
Answer. The transportation of spent nuclear fuel has been conducted
safely for decades. The U.S. Department of Transportation and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission have developed regulations that control
virtually every aspect of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste transportation. The safety record for spent fuel shipments in the
United States and in other industrialized nations is excellent. Of
these thousands of shipments completed over the last 30 years, none has
resulted in an identifiable injury through release of radioactive
material.
Because of funding constraints, the Department, in setting
priorities, applied its available funds to Yucca Mountain scientific
and engineering activities to determine if this site is scientifically
suitable for further development as a geologic repository. We have
deferred activities related to transportation planning until a site is
designated. If the site is designated, the Department plans to acquire
a transportation infrastructure by 2010. While we await a decision on
whether to proceed, identifying transportation routes that could be
used in 2010 is premature. It is more appropriate to select routes
taking into account the highway, rail route, and shipping vendor
considerations that would exist at the time that shipments may occur.
benefits of cooperation with foreign waste management programs
Question. Why does the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management feel that it must send senior level managers to foreign
countries? What is the purpose of the trips? How do these trips benefit
the U.S. waste disposal program?
Answer. The general international consensus and the cornerstone of
the United States waste management strategy is disposal of radioactive
waste in geologic repositories. All nations with nuclear power programs
will need to safely dispose of their radioactive waste regardless of
their nuclear fuel cycle approach. Furthermore, nuclear issues
transcend national boundaries, and therefore, the global nuclear
community has a shared interest in protecting human health and safety
and the environment.
Developing geologic repositories for high-level radioactive waste
is a first of a kind endeavor. The U.S. continues to play a leading
role in developing scientific and engineering knowledge for geologic
repositories. Foreign countries have technical and institutional
information that is beneficial to the current U.S. effort. In this
regard, the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management has
bilateral agreements with six nations and is working to extend that
collaboration with other countries. The Office also has formal
arrangements with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the
International Association for Environmentally Safe Disposal of
Radioactive Materials, and the Nuclear Energy Agency of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The purpose of
these agreements is to share and exchange scientific, technical, and
other relevant information on radioactive waste management. Senior
management in the United States and abroad have recognized the value
and benefits of sharing experiences and information through
participation in meetings, conferences, and visits to nuclear
facilities.
total systems life cycle costs
Question. There has been an $11 billion increase to the total cost
estimates for the proposed repository, bringing the total to $58
billion. Please explain to me what has driven this large increase in
total repository costs.
Answer. Increases in costs are due to design enhancements that
could improve long-term repository performance, if they are all
implemented. For example, most of the increases are due to inclusion of
titanium drip shields. These drip shields would be placed over the
waste packages within the emplacement drifts just before repository
closure. However, the decision to include drip shields would be made at
the time of repository closure, after performance confirmation and
monitoring. Because the possible use of drip shields is far in the
future, we believe that monies from the Nuclear Waste Fund will be
available to pay for them.
local oversight funding
Questions What is the justification for reducing the budget request
for local government oversight at a time when DOE is asking for an
increase in its Yucca Mountain budget for fiscal year 2002? Is there no
longer a relationship between the amount of work to be carried out at
the site and the amount of work required of local governments to
monitor, review and comment on those site activities?
Answer. The Administration fully supports the State of Nevada and
affected units of local government in their scientific oversight roles
pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The Department's fiscal year
2002 budget request of $445 million is a modest increase over the
fiscal year 2001 budget request of $437.5 million. Our fiscal year 2002
budget request for affected units of local government oversight funding
of $5.8 million is the same as the fiscal year 2001 request. The fiscal
year 2002 request for State of Nevada oversight funding is also at the
same level as fiscal year 2001 appropriations at $2.5 million. We hope
that fiscal year 2002 appropriations will support continuing oversight
activities.
disposal of waste at the nevada test site
Question. Data presented by the Department last month at my local
Community Advisory Board concluded that disposal of low-level
radioactive soils shipped from the DOE site at Fernald, Ohio to the
Nevada Test Site is two-and-half times more expensive than disposal at
a commercial disposal site in Utah, a site I'm advised that has the
support of its congressional delegation and stakeholders. How can the
Department justify trucking increasing amounts of low-level waste from
sites around the DOE complex to NTS when you can use an existing
contract to ship the same waste directly via rail to the Utah site at a
much lower cost?
Answer. The cost of shipping waste from the Fernald site in Ohio to
the Nevada Test Site (NTS) or to a commercial facility, and the cost of
disposal at NTS or a commercial facility, is dependent on the type of
waste requiring disposal. Wastes vary in density, type of
containerization, level of radioactivity, and heterogeneity (e.g., soil
or debris). Another key factor in these decisions is the waste
acceptance criteria at each of the disposal sites. For example, the
commercial facility in Utah cannot accept radioactive wastes that
exceed Class A limitations. Prior to selecting a disposal option for
each waste stream, the Department compares costs for transportation to
and disposal at DOE and commercial disposal sites. Normally, commercial
disposal is selected when it is the most cost effective option.
The data on disposal options presented to the NTS Community
Advisory Board focused on two examples of low-level waste streams from
Fernald, to illustrate how waste density, containerization,
radioactivity level, and heterogeneity influence costs and decisions.
The wastes chosen for these examples both met the Envirocare waste
acceptance criteria. However, for one predominantly soil low-level
waste stream, as you have noted, commercial disposal was the more cost
effective disposition and was used for that waste stream. In fact,
Fernald sends the majority of its soil to the commercial facility. The
second example stream, consisting of contaminated debris, was more cost
effectively transported to and disposed of at the NTS.
Other DOE low-level waste, with radioactivity levels that exceed
the Envirocare license, cannot be disposed of at Envirocare. For these
wastes, technical criteria, not transportation and disposal costs, are
the deciding factors in choosing a disposal facility.
nuclear power plants
Question. The industry has recently seen expensive purchases for
nuclear power plants. In almost no case, has this price been close to
the actual cost of constructing and operating these plants. In fact,
Paul Joskow an MIT economist recently said referring to the price per
unit capacity, ``None of these deals even comes close to covering the
book costs. You couldn't justify paying $2,000 or $3,000 per kilowatt
for those plants.'' He added that investors would have to expect a huge
competitive benefit from nuclear plants to risk putting money in a new
one ``because of the significant possibility of coming up with a dry
hole.'' Do you agree with this assessment?
Answer. Today, purchasing a nuclear plant from another utility has
become a very cost-effective approach to acquiring additional
electricity capacity for a given utility. As there are plants that have
been in operation for, in general, a decade or more, it should not be
surprising that the cost of purchasing an existing plant is less than
the cost of building a new nuclear plant. That said, the price paid for
existing plants is not dramatically lower than what a modern nuclear
power plant would cost to build.
With the advances made by the nuclear industry over the last
decade, the deployment of advanced light water reactors overseas,
improvements in construction techniques (e.g., modular construction),
operating efficiencies, and with greater regulatory certainty, we
believe that a more realistic cost of new nuclear capacity is in the
range of $1,000 to $1,500 per kilowatt. When coupled with the
increasing cost of natural gas (due primarily to delivery constraints)
and the economical track record of current nuclear plants, nuclear
power presents an attractive option for investors.
Over the past decade, the nuclear industry has succeeded in
lowering average production costs (fuel, operations and maintenance) to
below two cents per kilowatt-hour. Last year, nuclear energy was the
lowest cost electricity source in the country--attributed to a decade-
long increase in unit capacity factors following economizing steps
taken to resolve regulatory issues, reduce refueling outage durations,
and extend operating cycles. Aside from economics, nuclear power has
benefits that are not measured in dollars and cents. Nuclear-generated
power provides electricity that is free of greenhouse gas emissions and
other pollutants released by the combustion other energy fuels coal,
petroleum, and natural gas. As a result of its performance and its
benefits, the value of nuclear power plants has increased, as indicated
by their more expensive, recent purchase prices. As a result, we expect
to see new nuclear construction in the United States during this
decade.
vitrification technology
Question. In last year's Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, Congress directed the Department to re-test the
Advanced Vitrification System. What is the status of that review? Are
you willing to commit to providing a complete assessment to Congress in
a timely fashion to allow Members to make an informed decision about
the future of this technology?
Answer. The additional tests of the Advanced Vitrification System
(AVS), a process under development by the Radioactive Isolation
Consortium (RIC) designed for vitrification of high-level waste in a
canister, were performed using surrogate waste provided by the
Department of Energy. These additional tests were completed by June 1,
2001, and a project review was initiated on June 12, 2001.
Yes, we will provide RIC and Congress the results once we have
completed this review. We anticipate the results will be available by
July 30, 2001.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
waivers for disposition of scrap metals from radiological areas
Question. How do you intend to insure that this waiver is not used
to circumvent the current suspension on release of metal from
radioactive areas? Will decisions to use the waiver be reviewed by
appropriate persons in the Secretary's office to make sure that the
suspension is not circumvented?
Answer. The suspension on unrestricted release of scrap metals from
DOE radiological areas was initiated in July 2000 as part of a process
in which DOE proposed establishing a new standard that would preclude
the unrestricted release of such metals if surveys demonstrated that
the metals had contamination at levels above background levels as a
result of DOE operations at the site. DOE prepared proposed related
changes to its procedures and issued them for public comment last fall.
As a result of public comments on these proposed changes, DOE decided
to retain the suspension and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) to address this topic. A Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS was
published in the Federal Register on July 12, 2001.
While the EIS is being prepared, DOE will continue the July 2000
suspension on recycling of scrap metal from radiological areas into
commerce unless DOE makes a specific determination that the metal could
not have been radioactively contaminated by DOE activities or
operations. In making a determination, the Department will impose a
rigorous set of protocols that must be followed to demonstrate and
document process knowledge about the use and location of the metals and
the necessary confirmatory surveys that must be performed to validate
this determination. Field offices would be responsible for implementing
these protocols, and oversight would be provided by Headquarters
program offices.
excess facilities
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 the Department of Energy sties across the nation, reduce risks
to site workers, the public and the environment; and provide a
practical approach for testing a technology's capability.
How many contaminated buildings are there to deactivate at the DOE
complex?
How many buildings are there to be decommissioned at the DOE
complex?
How many years will it take to clean up these sites and facilities,
and at what cost?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) does not have precise,
complex-wide data on all facilities that are or may be determined in
the future to be excess to DOE mission requirements and require
deactivation, decontamination and/or decommissioning (D&D). However,
there are two sources of information that can provide rough estimates
of the total scope of facilities that may need to be deactivated and/or
decommissioned in the future and give an indication of the life-cycle
cost of carrying out this work. One source contains information on
facilities that are the responsibility of the Department's
Environmental Management (EM) program, and the other source addresses
those that are the responsibility of other DOE programs.
For EM facilities, EM's corporate information system, the
Integrated Planning, Accountability and Budgeting System (IPABS), which
supports budget formulation and execution, life-cycle planning, and
performance measurement, provides a good indication of the total
facilities' workscope currently within the EM program. IPABS lists
4,222 facilities managed by EM that require D&D over the life of the EM
program. IPABS further indicates that deactivation has already been
completed on another 411 of these facilities, and decommissioning on
639 facilities. The lifecycle cost associated with D&D of all EM-
managed facilities, including those that are currently operational, as
reported in IPABS is $10.6 billion from fiscal year 2002 through 2052.
IPABS does not include data on which of these facilities are currently
excess, or the level of cleanup that may be required.
EM is seeking additional, facility-level information to better
characterize the universe of facilities in the next update of its
planning estimates, which is expected to be available at the end of the
summer. However, we will continue after that time to develop methods to
collect more complete and consistent information that minimizes
differences in how different field offices manage, maintain, and
interpret facility data.
The ``Department of Energy Performance and Accountability Report
for Fiscal Year 2000'' (DOE/CR-0071) estimates a $26 billion potential
liability associated with Departmental facilities (both active and
surplus) other than those in the EM program. This includes about $19
billion (based on use of a cost-estimating model) to stabilize,
deactivate and/or decommission about 3,000 contaminated facilities. The
specific number of facilities associated with the remaining costs in
the liability estimate (e.g., for decommissioning of Naval Reactor and
Strategic Petroleum Reserve program facilities), is not identified.
national energy technology laboratory
Question. Is advanced technology needed to clean up the remaining
DOE facilities?
Answer. While technologies generally exist to clean up contaminated
facilities, innovative deactivation and decommissioning technology is
needed to enhance worker safety, minimize cleanup schedules, and reduce
costs. For instance, more than 900 plutonium-contaminated gloveboxes
must be removed, cut up, and disposed of to meet the accelerated Rocky
Flats closure goal of fiscal year 2006. The baseline method--workers in
cumbersome protective gear using hand tools--could not have met this
schedule or budget requirements. In the last three years, several
innovative technologies that revolutionize this process have emerged as
a result of the Deactivation and Decommissioning Focus Area. Through
these technologies, worker exposure is eliminated or dramatically
reduced, often enabling cleanup that was impossible otherwise.
Question. Is the Deactivation and Decommissioning focus area
helping to address the nation's cleanup backlog?
Answer. The Deactivation and Decommissioning (D&D) Focus Area
provides support for the demonstration and deployment of improved D&D
technologies and methods, and through technical assistance to DOE sites
for the planning and execution of D&D tasks. Through these new D&D
technologies, worker exposure is eliminated or dramatically reduced,
often enabling cleanup that was impossible otherwise.
For instance, the D&D Focus Area is furnishing improved
technologies to ensure closure milestones can be met at the Rocky Flats
Environmental Technology Site. The primary focus of these efforts is
the disposition of over 900 plutonium-contaminated gloveboxes and other
contaminated equipment, such as process piping, tanks, and vessels.
Disposition of this equipment is a formidable task that, unless
improved technologies are implemented, would place workers in extremely
dangerous and high-radiation environments. Deployment of remotely
operated robotic systems for size reduction, decontamination, and waste
handling and packaging in some cases are enabling cleanup that could
not have been accomplished previously.
The D&D Focus Area has demonstrated 121 new and innovative
technologies. And 91 different D&D-sponsored technologies have been
deployed a total of 336 times, all of which performed cleanup cheaper,
faster or safer than conventional technologies or enabled cleanup that
was previously impossible.
Question. Does the program save taxpayers money? How?
Answer. The Deactivation and Decommissioning Focus Area is
achieving direct cost savings through the deployment of more productive
and cost-effective methods and technologies, as well as cost avoidance
through accelerated cleanup schedules thereby reducing long-term
facility surveillance and maintenance requirements. As important as
saving taxpayers' money, technologies from this program also minimize
worker safety and health risks
Question. The fiscal year 2001 enacted level of funding for D&D
Focus Area was $27.1 million. The President's fiscal year 2002 budget
request slashing the budget for this activity to $17.6 million a 35
percent cut. What impact will this have?
Answer. At the requested level, there is sufficient funding to
continue core activities, including some deployment projects, at a
reduced level.
Question. How will jobs at National Energy Technology Laboratory be
impacted as a result of the 35 percent cut in the program?
Answer. We do not expect any National Energy Technology Laboratory
employees' jobs will be affected as a result of the request for the
Deactivation and Decommissioning Focus Area.
Question. Please provide me a chart, listing of the number of D&D
Focus Area projects that have been funded in each state, along with
their total value, and the number of employees that the projects
support.
Answer. The requested information follows:
DEACTIVATION & DECOMMISSIONING FOCUS AREA (1991-2001)
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates
State Projects Total funding FTE's \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California......................... 7 $3,640 12
Colorado........................... 8 16,206 57
Florida............................ 3 535 3
Idaho.............................. 12 10,650 21
Illinois........................... 10 7,662 23
Iowa............................... 1 830 1
Montana............................ 1 660 4
Nevada............................. 7 8,615 20
New Mexico......................... 5 11,772 37
New York........................... 6 6,153 18
Ohio............................... 10 11,157 32
Pennsylvania....................... 1 1,000 6
South Carolina..................... 9 8,559 22
Tennessee.......................... 21 14,177 49
Washington......................... 16 24,114 46
West Virginia...................... 7 12,240 24
------------------------------------
Total........................ 124 137,970 375
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Full-time equivalents.
Question. Please also provide me with a listing of the West
Virginia projects that are funded under this program.
Answer. The National Energy Technology Laboratory administers all
the Deactivation and Decommissioning projects for the Environmental
Management program. See attached chart of activities within West
Virginia.
FISCAL YEAR 1991-2001 WEST VIRGINIA DEACTIVATION AND DECOMMISSIONING
(D&D) FUNDING
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year funding
Project -----------------------
1991-2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transition of Basic Science for D&D............. 0 1,151
Characterization Exploratory & Advanced 0 175
Development....................................
Cost Benefit Analysis/Stakeholder Involvement/ 1,867 2,637
Public Participation...........................
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers..................... 5,000 0
Phoenix: A Decision Support Tool for D&D 800 0
Activities.....................................
Technology and Program Support to CMST-CP....... 104 0
Cost Savings Analysis/Technology Summaries...... 206 300
-----------------------
Total..................................... 7,977 4,263
------------------------------------------------------------------------
industry and university program
Question. The National Energy Technology Laboratory also
administers 100 percent of the Industry and University Program, which
is the Office of Environmental Management's main mechanism for private
industry and higher education to provide new technical solutions to the
DOE cleanup problems.
How many research and development (R&D) contracts with private-
sector organizations have resulted from this program?
Answer. This program has resulted in 123 research and development
contracts with private sector companies and universities, nearly all of
which have been managed by the National Energy Technology Laboratory
(NETL). There have also been 11 cooperative agreements and grants with
universities and nonprofit organizations that conduct applied research
and development in support of the Environmental Management mission
under this program, also managed by NETL.
The Industry and University Program also includes the University
Robotics Program administered by the Albuquerque Operations Office,
which consists of a consortium of five universities and has resulted in
five grants.
Question. How many technology demonstration and technology
deployments has the program yielded?
Answer. Research and development within this program has resulted
in 87 technology demonstrations and 78 deployments. For instance, a
robotic vehicle sponsored by this program (Houdini) was instrumental in
closing the Gunite and Associated Tanks at Oak Ridge ten years ahead of
the project's initial schedule.
Question. What is the projected cost savings that can be realized
with successful technologies?
Answer. New and innovative technologies can result in significant
life-cycle savings or cost avoidance for the EM program compared to the
``baseline'' technologies that were otherwise planned to be used.
However, it is difficult to provide reliable and consistent
estimates of cost savings associated with new technologies across the
program. Not only have the baselines for many of these first-of-a-kind,
technically complex projects evolved, but EM has used several methods
in the past to estimate cost savings/avoidance related to the
introduction of new technologies. Consequently, these estimates are not
consistent or comparable.
To improve the consistency of estimates, EM has adopted a Return-
on-Investment methodology for estimating and documenting the cost
savings or cost avoidance resulting from the use of new or improved
technologies. We have recently issued guidance requiring use of this
methodology across the program and will begin applying it to
technologies deployed in fiscal year 2001.
Question. What will be the primary impacts of these cuts? Will
there be any new program starts next fiscal year because of the cuts?
Answer. The requested level provides sufficient funding to support
core activities at a reduced level and a limited number of new starts.
It also provides equitable funding for work at universities such as
Florida International University, Florida State University, the
Diagnostic and Instrumentation Analysis Laboratory at Mississippi State
University, and the university consortium conducting work in robotics.
Question. How many jobs will be eliminated at the National Energy
Technology Laboratory as a result of the 28 percent cut in the program?
Answer. We do not expect any jobs at the National Energy Technology
Laboratory will be eliminated as a result of the fiscal year 2002
budget request for this program.
Question. Could a reduction in the number of projects to be funded
have an eventual impact on the jobs at the Lab since the workload would
be lessened?
Answer. We do not anticipate any eventual impact on the National
Energy Technology Laboratory employees' job as a result of the fiscal
year 2002 budget request for this program.
Question. Please provide me a chart, listing the number of Industry
and University Program projects that have been funded in each state,
along with their total value, and the number of employees that the
projects support.
Answer. The requested information follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number
State of Total EM-50 Estimated
projects funding FTE's \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INDUSTRY PROGRAMS (1992-2001)
Arizona............................ 1 $681,636 1
California......................... 14 14,024,444 34
Colorado........................... 5 5,664,169 14
Connecticut........................ 1 224,947 1
District of Columbia............... 1 1,301,425 4
Florida............................ 5 3,888,978 12
Georgia............................ 2 1,148,484 10
Idaho.............................. 1 362,446 2
Illinois........................... 5 9,709,871 18
Kentucky........................... 1 267,827 1
Louisiana.......................... 1 1,513,959 3
Maine.............................. 1 2,849,768 4
Maryland........................... 8 25,073,805 46
Massachusetts...................... 12 42,477,632 57
Michigan........................... 2 748,793 4
Minnesota.......................... 2 3,429,910 5
Mississippi........................ 1 562,000 6
Missouri........................... 2 912,329 4
Nevada............................. 1 111,316 1
New Jersey......................... 1 526,193 1
New Mexico......................... 11 20,647,888 28
New York........................... 5 6,340,768 14
North Carolina..................... 1 950,519 2
North Dakota....................... 1 11,786,381 20
Ohio............................... 2 1,910,340 3
Pennsylvania....................... 11 43,241,154 59
South Carolina..................... 9 7,000,362 18
Tennessee.......................... 3 4,795,275 7
Texas.............................. 6 9,248,036 16
Vermont............................ 2 821,089 2
Virginia........................... 13 13,648,441 23
Washington......................... 2 2,828,050 9
West Virginia...................... 4 21,338,593 69
------------------------------------
Total........................ 137 260,093,828 498
====================================
UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS (1997-2001)
Florida............................ 3 39,891,248 133
Louisiana.......................... 2 8,770,118 37
Michigan........................... 1 2,600,000 7
Mississippi........................ 1 21,182,000 60
New Jersey......................... 1 500,000 6
New Mexico......................... 1 2,600,000 7
Tennessee.......................... 1 2,600,000 7
Texas.............................. 1 2,600,000 7
West Virginia...................... 1 4,000,000 17
------------------------------------
Total........................ 12 84,743,316 281
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Full time Equivalents.
Question. Please also provide me with a listing of the West
Virginia projects that are funded under this program.
Answer. The National Energy Technology Laboratory administers most
of the industry and university projects for the Environmental
Management program. The list of projects within West Virginia follows,
including the International Union of Operating Engineers where human
factors assessment and protocol development are conducted to enhance
the desirable human values, including improved safety, reduced fatigue
and stress, and increased comfort.
WEST VIRGINIA PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Project -------------------------------
1992-2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Programs:
Miscellaneous Technical Support $6,619,732 $1,400,000
Contracts..........................
Remote Mining for In-Situ Waste 316,146 ..............
Containment........................
West Virginia University............ 12,092,365 ..............
International Union of Operating 910,350 ..............
Engineers \1\..........................
-------------------------------
Total............................. 19,938,593 1,400,000
===============================
University Programs: Development of a 2,000,000 2,000,000
National Electronics Recycling Center..
===============================
Other Funding Managed at NETL: 11,552,828 2,946,000
International Union of Operating
Engineers \1\..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Originally this activity was funded and managed by Industry
Programs. Funding and management was subsequently moved to the
Technology Acceptance budget, but the project is still administered by
the National Environmental Technology Laboratory.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
savannah river ecology laboratory
Question. Could you please explain your plans for funding the SREL
for fiscal year 2002 and the future. Can you please assure the
Subcommittee that you will find the necessary funds in the EM-50
account to fully realize the plans set forth in the new five-year
cooperative agreement the SREL is now discussing with the SRS managers.
Answer. The Secretary has challenged every program in the
Department to become more efficient, and the Environmental Management
budget request reflects this challenge. The Department has also
initiated a management assessment to evaluate our current clean-up
strategies and to identify ways to become more efficient.
The Department's highest priorities for the Environmental
Management program are ensuring safety, addressing high risk waste and
materials, and supporting the closure of major sites. Accordingly, in
developing our request for fiscal year 2002, we have placed priority on
a number of key, high-risk projects at the Savannah River Site and have
had to balance the needs of other activities funded by the EM program
in light of these priorities.
The Department values the independent environmental research
provided by the University of Georgia. Our request continues support
for the basic research programs at the Savannah River Ecology
Laboratory, but the education and public outreach programs may need to
be cut back, depending on the outcome of the management assessment and
the response of the Savannah River Site to the Secretary's management
challenge.
Question. As the mission of the SRS site grows, what increased
activities for the SREL does the Department contemplate to help ensure
that the SRS will continue to have an independent, scientifically
credible environmental research and assessment capability at the SRS?
Answer. The Savannah River Ecology Laboratory currently conducts
ecological research and site-wide monitoring activities at the Savannah
River Site covering a number of elements and isotopes including
plutonium. Therefore, we do not anticipate that the expanded plutonium
disposition mission at the Savannah River Site will require any change
in the scope of the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory side-wide
activities.
environmental management program
Question. Secretary Abraham testified to the House Appropriations
on Energy and Water that the Department of Energy Budget for 2002 was
sufficient. Is this accurate? How can such a representation be made
when the President's fiscal year 2002 budget will not result in
compliance with RCRA and CERCLA requirements at SRS?
Answer. Maintaining compliance at the Savannah River Site is a
priority. However, we face significant challenges in meeting lower-risk
environmental restoration commitments in fiscal year 2002.
Concerned about the cost and schedule estimates for completing the
cleanup, Secretary Abraham has directed a top-to-bottom assessment to
focus on ways to more efficiently and cost effectively complete
cleanup. The Secretary has also asked the Governor in each state in
which a major DOE site is located to work with us in this assessment.
Our goal is for the cleanup program to proceed as fast as possible with
the minimum necessary commitment of federal resources. Given the
pressing needs of the nation in many other areas that affect citizens'
well being, health, and safety, it is DOE's responsibility to ensure
that funds are spent wisely and results are maximized. Until this
assessment is complete, it is unknown whether any work will need to be
deferred.
meeting commitments
Question. With the proposed fiscal year 2002 budget reductions at
SRS, will the DOE be able to meet the following commitments?
Perform all obligations required by the Federal Facilities
Compliance Agreement?
Maintain High Level Waste Vitrification operations and investments
needed for continuity of operations to meet the SRS Site Treatment
Plan?
Shipments of Transuranic Waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant?
Stabilization of nuclear materials commitments to the Defense
Nuclear Facility Safety Board?
Answer. The Environmental Management budget continues to place the
highest priority on protecting the health and safety of workers and the
public at all DOE sites, and on mitigating high risks. We will ensure
that nuclear materials are properly managed and safeguarded. Our budget
places priority on a number of key projects that reduce higher
potential risks, provide significant mortgage reduction, or are key to
completing activities at other sites. For the Savannah River Site,
these projects include producing at least 150 canisters of vitrified
high level waste, shipping up to 600 cubic meters of transuranic waste
to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, completing construction of the melt
and dilute technology demonstration facility, beginning construction of
the Salt Processing pilot plant and initiating conceptual design of the
full scale plant, and completing all currently planned F-Canyon
dissolution campaigns.
Maintaining compliance with the Federal Facilities Agreement at the
Savannah River Site is a priority. However, we face significant
challenges in meeting some of our lower-risk environmental restoration
compliance commitments in fiscal year 2002. The Secretary has directed
a top-to-bottom reassessment of the Environmental Management program to
examine opportunities for program efficiencies and to review existing
cleanup strategies. Until this review is completed, it is unknown
whether any work will need to be deferred.
environmental management program
Question. If Congress restores funding to the DOE EM budget for
fiscal year 2002, will you, in turn, restore nearly $160 million to the
SRS EM budget to assure regulatory compliance?
Answer. Maintaining compliance is a priority for the Environmental
Management Program. However, until Congress passes a final
appropriations bill and the Department has had an opportunity to
evaluate the direction provided by Congress and to consider all program
priorities, it would be premature to say how much funding would be
provided to any individual site.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
office of river protection funding
Question. I am deeply troubled by proposed cuts in the Waste
Treatment Plant, which will vitrify the high-level radioactive waste
currently stored at old and decaying tanks at Hanford. DOE officials
have acknowledged that the new contract negotiated for this project was
based on a fiscal year 2002 budget of $690 million, but the request is
only for $500 million. I'm advised that with a $500 million level for
fiscal year 2002, the funding for this project would need to spike up
to $800 million in fiscal year 2003.
Wouldn't it make more sense to levelize the funding for this
project at $690 million, as first proposed and actually written into
the contract, instead of counting on a funding spike next year?
Wouldn't a measured, level funding base be more consistent with the
objectives of your ``top-to-bottom'' review of the cleanup program and
use of commercial type contracts to make it more efficient?
Answer. The fiscal year 2002 budget proposes $500 million for the
Waste Treatment Plant, an increase of $12.4 million above the fiscal
year 2001 enacted level. We believe the fiscal year 2002 budget request
will allow the performance of the fiscal year 2002 scope of work agreed
to by the Department and Bechtel Washington, the contractor. We
recognize that increased funding may be needed in subsequent years. We
are working with Bechtel to satisfy the priorities within the terms and
conditions of the contract in order to meet the goal of beginning
radioactive waste treatment by fiscal year 2007.
office of river protection--renegotiation of bechtel contract
Question. I am concerned that the lower funding level of $500
million will trigger a renegotiation of the Bechtel-Washington contract
which is based on the $690 million amount. This is an incentive-based
contract that should result in this facility being built for a lower
target price than was first expected. Doesn't the Administration run
the risk that renegotiating this contract will result in a higher cost
to the taxpayer?
Answer. The Department of Energy is currently working to meet the
commitment of processing wastes through the treatment plant by fiscal
year 2007. The Bechtel Washington contract was developed to help us
achieve these milestones and to get the best value for the government.
The Department of Energy has requested budget authority to cover all
the work that we expect Bechtel will accomplish through fiscal year
2002. Bechtel is working with DOE to establish a baseline of work that
will fit within the limits of the contract and satisfy Departmental
priorities. Renegotiation of the Bechtel contract is not likely to be
necessary.
office of river protection--future funding for the wtp
Question. As you know, my state has negotiated a legally-binding
agreement with the Department to get the Hanford tank waste cleaned up.
Yet, the funding cut for the Waste Treatment Plant raises real concerns
with my state regulators as to whether you can meet the milestones
established in this Tri-Party Agreement. For example, what assurances
can you give me that the facility can commence hot start-up in 2007 as
required by this agreement?
Answer. DOE is committed to moving ahead with the design and
construction of the Hanford vitrification plant and beginning
radioactive waste treatment by fiscal year 2007. At the requested
funding level of $500 million in fiscal year 2002 and with adequate
funding in fiscal year 2003 and beyond, meeting the 2007 milestone for
beginning hot-waste processing is expected to be achievable.
hanford tri-party agreement renegotiations
Question. My state has been very patient with the Department on
Tri-Party Agreement compliance issues. We have re-negotiated this
agreement several times, pushing back deadlines to accommodate DOE's
slips in the schedule with the promise that additional delays will not
happen and yet here we are again with a likely delay because of
inadequate funding. Given the Department's disappointing record in
complying with the Tri-Party Agreement, why shouldn't my state take
legal action?
Answer. The State and the Department have worked together to
resolve issues that arise under the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA).
Additionally, we believe that the Department's performance under the
TPA has been good over the years and we expect to continue that
performance, even with the challenges we face at Hanford and elsewhere
in the DOE complex. The Tri-Party Agreement contains 1,261 milestones,
of which 924 are enforceable. To date, approximately 970 milestones,
including slightly more than 700 enforceable ones, have come due. All
but eight of the enforceable milestones have been met. We have
successfully started shipping transuranic wastes from the Hanford Site
to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, we are making
improved progress in removing spent nuclear fuel out of the aging K-
Basins and transporting it away from the Columbia River, and we are
stabilizing and repackaging plutonium residues at the Plutonium
Finishing Plant and moving it to compliant storage. Soil cleanup along
the river shore has moved forward at a steady and safe rate, and we
have successfully removed most high-level waste tanks from Congress'
``watch list.'' We have successfully removed the liquid waste from 128
of 149 single-shell tanks, including 65 of 67 suspected leaking tanks.
The future success of the Tri-Party Agreement will depend on the
ability of all parties to work collectively to resolve issues. We
expect to continue to work together to evaluate all aspects of the
fiscal year 2002 budget, including identifying ways to improve
efficiency and streamline processes. We expect the Department's ``top-
to-bottom'' review of its Environmental Management program to assist us
in more effectively meeting our cleanup obligations.
office of river protection--building new double-shell tanks
Question. Given the budget cuts and the uncertainty on the schedule
for the Waste Treatment Plant, it appears under the terms of the Tri-
Party Agreement that DOE must build new double-shell tanks for the
storage of Hanford high-level waste. Do you agree that building still
more tanks is very wasteful when the real solution to vitrify the waste
only needs to be funded adequately?
Answer. The Department currently is not considering building new
double-shell tanks to replace the single-shell tanks. The Department
agrees that vitrifying waste is the best solution to the Hanford waste
problem and is proceeding with that approach as a budget priority. The
State of Washington, in its regulatory role, continues to require the
Department to study the possible installation of additional double-
shell tanks as a contingency against future single-shell tank failures
and/or to permit the movement of waste out of the single-shell tanks
prior to the processing of these wastes in the vitrification plant.
hanford river corridor cleanup project
Question. Cleanup of the corridor along the Columbia River is
another important priority for Hanford. This remediation effort is
proceeding extremely well. Please explain the Administration's plans to
keep the momentum going on the Hanford river corridor cleanup project--
especially when the program has not been funded at levels supported by
the local site manager and necessary to meet milestones?
Answer. The fiscal year 2002 Presidential budget request places
high priority on funding high-level waste and high-risk nuclear
material activities. It defers some lower-risk environmental
restoration activities, including remediation work along the Columbia
River. Other remediation work along the Columbia River will continue,
including completing nine release site remediations and decommissioning
one facility, as well as disposing of up to 215,000 cubic meters of
contaminated soil and debris at the on-site Environmental Restoration
Disposal Facility. The River Corridor 2012 plan was envisioned to
combine all work done along the Columbia River (principally in the 100-
and 300-areas) under one contract and achieve River Corridor cleanup
and closure of most of the area by 2012. The Department is currently
working on developing a contract strategy for achieving cleanup of the
River Corridor, taking into account input from stakeholders and
potential bidders, the fiscal year 2002 funding levels, and the top-to-
bottom review of the Environmental Management Program. This review will
focus on efficiencies and cleanup strategies that will allow us to
accomplish additional cleanup work at the site and proceed on the most
expeditious schedule possible.
hanford worker layoffs
Question. It is my understanding that Richland and Office of River
Protection may need to begin laying-off workers in mid summer if there
is no indication funding levels will be increased over the
Administration's budget. How can the Department meet legal milestones
if the site has to lay-off over a thousand workers?
Answer. It is our intent that more work will get done per dollar
spent than in the past as a result of the Secretary's ``top-to-bottom''
review to improve the efficiency and productivity of the Department's
Environmental Management program. The Secretary has also pledged to
work with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the States to
find ways to improve cleanup progress and improve the compliance
framework at DOE sites. Until these initiatives are complete, it is
premature to say whether any workforce reductions will be required, or
what our compliance challenges might be.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Domenici. We stand recessed at the call of the
Chair.
[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., Tuesday, May 15, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
----------
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 2002
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.]
ENERGY PROGRAMS
Prepared Statement of the Geothermal Resources Council
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Ted Clutter.
I am Executive Director of the Geothermal Resources Council (GRC), a
non-profit professional education association located in Davis,
California. I am here before you, today, to request $34 million for the
Geothermal R&D Program of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for
fiscal year 2002.
Geothermal energy is heat derived from the natural geologic forces
of the Earth. It is of utmost importance to both the environmental
health of the nation and our energy security, providing highly
reliable, domestically produced electricity and geothermal heat to
homes, communities and industry across the American West. Though
geothermal energy has been used to varying small degrees in the United
States for centuries, industrial development of this unique, indigenous
energy resource began only 40 years ago. During that time--and with DOE
assistance--the U.S. geothermal industry has installed power plants in
California, Nevada, Utah and Hawaii that now produce approximately
2,800 megawatts of clean electricity--or enough power to serve 2.8
million homes.
Geothermal energy is our most valuable renewable energy option.
Electricity generated from all non-hydro renewal energy sources
accounts for approximately 0.8 percent of total U.S. energy needs, with
geothermal contributing over half (60 percent) of that figure. Not only
is geothermal the largest contributor of renewable electricity in the
nation, it is not subject to skyrocketing fuel costs or the whims of
wind and sunlight. These attributes are especially important today,
with our continuing concern for the environment, a tripling of natural
gas prices during the past year, and a crisis of power supply centered
in California reaching out its tentacles to engulf the entire West.
Geothermal energy development is part of the answer to solving
these problems for the future as well. According to a 1999 joint study
by DOE and the Geothermal Energy Association, U.S. geothermal power
generation capacity could be realistically quadrupled to 10,000
megawatts with enhanced technologies. Development of geothermal
resources for conversion to electricity or useful heat, however,
requires costly and risky exploration of potential geothermal areas,
costly drilling of wells, and development of power plants or direct-use
facilities.
Because of these high up-front costs and risks, continuing well-
funded assistance by DOE in partnership with the U.S. geothermal
industry--through cost-shared initiatives and development of new
technologies--is of paramount importance to future, economical
installation of geothermal energy facilities in the West.
doe geothermal r&d program
DOE has promoted geothermal energy development through its R&D
Program since the early days of the OPEC oil crisis of the 1970s. With
that assistance, the U.S. geothermal industry developed a sixfold
increase in clean power online, and roughly a threefold increase in
direct-use facilities. Another key factor in fostering this development
was favorable energy markets and legislation that rewarded geothermal
power developers with firm long-term power sales contracts. But all
that changed in the 1990s when utility deregulation and low natural gas
prices effectively killed those incentives. The result? Without assured
contracts available to help geothermal energy investors face
exploration, drilling and development risk, no new geothermal resources
have come online in the past decade.
At the same time, DOE's financial resources for its Geothermal R&D
Program have dwindled to less than $30 million annually. And even that
marginal amount is now threatened with proposed cuts to DOE's entire
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program. During this time of
change and economic uncertainty, the GRC understands the need for
fiscal restraint, but also believes that geothermal energy's potential
contributions to our environment and national energy security far
outweigh our request of $34 million for DOE's Geothermal R&D Program in
fiscal year 2002.
If DOE is to meet the goals of its Geothermal Strategic Plan to
provide geothermal electricity and heat to over 10 million homes in the
coming decade, a number of regulatory, legislative and technological
barriers to development must be overcome. DOE's role is vital in
assisting the industry in its efforts to solve technological problems
and spur geothermal energy production to new highs for the benefit of
the nation. The following highlights important areas of R&D that the
GRC believes DOE must pursue through industry partnerships to enhance
geothermal development in the United States:
DOE Geothermal Focus on the West
To meet the present energy crisis in the western states--and
recognizing our continuing need for environmental improvement--we must
quickly and significantly increase electricity capacity from all forms
of renewable energy, especially geothermal. In the past year, the DOE
Office of Wind and Geothermal Technologies has provided new and dynamic
leadership for its Geothermal R&D Program, instituting an initiative
with the assistance of its National Laboratories that has served as an
effective catalyst for geothermal development in the western United
States.
The program, though marginally funded, has succeeded in drawing 21
industry R&D proposals intended by DOE to put geothermal ``projects on
the ground'' as rapidly as possible, and to increase the number of
states with geothermal electric and heat production from 4 to 8.
Projects initiated by this program have already fostered a successful
exploratory drilling effort in Nevada that will likely result in
construction of a 30-megawatt power plant. We recommend that this
initiative be further funded to continue the momentum already achieved
for geothermal development in the West.
Geothermal Resource Exploration
To help accomplish DOE goals for geothermal development, a campaign
of exploration must begin at once across the West. Many obvious
geothermal areas--hot springs, fumaroles and other surface
manifestations--have already been explored, and where environmentally
appropriate, many have been developed for their energy potential.
However, physical and geologic characteristics of many unexploited
areas in the western United States strongly suggest that many more
geothermal systems exist where no signs of them are found on the
surface--and no exploration has been undertaken or completed.
A critical key to success is DOE incentives to encourage
exploration for new geothermal resources throughout the West. This
effort should include development of new geothermal exploration
technologies, DOE contingent grants and loans to help offset high risk
of initial geothermal exploration costs, and additional funding for
federal and state land agencies to provide geologic databases that will
effectively assist an industry revival of geothermal exploration
activity.
With needed improvements in federal agency land-use policies and
renewed emphasis on geothermal exploration backed by a solid, well-
financed Geothermal R&D Program at DOE, the U.S. geothermal industry
can develop needed increases in geothermal power generation at existing
sites--and begin to tap the West's vast potential for new geothermal
sources of clean, renewable and reliable energy supplies.
Geothermal Drilling
The cost of drilling geothermal steam wells presents the largest
risk to potential power plant developers. A geothermal well costs
between $200 and $300 per foot--40 percent more than drilling an off or
gas well. That makes the cost of a typical 8,000-foot deep geothermal
well from $1.6 million to $2.4 million! Success rates for geothermal
exploration wells are only 20 percent in newly explored, untested areas
(and rising to only 80 percent for wells in proven geothermal fields).
Given these figures, it's easy to see the up-front risk involved in
geothermal development--long before power production can begin.
Reasons for the high cost of geothermal well completions are many.
First, high temperatures demand the use of costly unconventional
drilling tools. Second, the hard and abrasive geologic environment
typical of geothermal formations significantly slow drill penetration
rates. Third, low reservoir pressures create ``loss circulation'' zones
that drain away expensive drilling muds and pose costly problems in
cementing of well casings. And finally, steam from certain reservoirs
contains minerals that cause corrosion and scale deposition inside well
casings that are expensive to deal with.
Sandia National Laboratories is DOE's lead organization in the
development of much needed geothermal drilling equipment, materials and
technologies. With its industry partners, Sandia is developing high-
temperature instrumentation for use in geothermal wells, and high-
temperature logging tools for geothermal reservoir monitoring and
evaluation. Bit design is an ongoing area of research, with development
and testing that has resulted in a marked increase in both bit life and
penetration rates. Loss circulation control has been addressed with
development of new cements, cement placement tools and equipment,
fracture plugging agents, and lightweight drilling and cement
additives.
To reach its targeted goal of reducing geothermal drilling costs by
50 percent, Sandia periodically surveys the geothermal industry for
needed areas of research, and works through a Request for Proposal
process to bring these products and technologies to the industry. This
ongoing effort by Sandia, DOE and its private-sector partners offers
unparalleled value in reducing the cost of drilling for geothermal
steam resources for producing electricity.
A number of projects in this arena are ongoing--to lose these
partnerships and this momentum at a critical time for western energy
supply would deal a terrible blow to U.S. geothermal development. To
successfully proceed in development of geothermal resources in the
West, this vital research to lower drilling cost by DOE must continue.
An increase in DOE's Geothermal R&D Program budget will augment this
valuable potential contribution to our national energy security.
Enhanced Geothermal Systems
Currently, all commercial power production of geothermal energy in
the United States is derived from relatively shallow (less than 2 miles
deep) hydrothermal zones. Water flows freely through highly fractured
rock in these geothermal reservoirs, heated by magmatic intrusions
lying far below. In many cases however, a high degree of geothermal
development potential lies just beneath these free-flowing reservoirs
in geologic formations with fewer fractures (low permeability) and
limited fluid flows.
Only about 20 percent of total heat is contained in the relatively
shallow, commercially available hydrothermal zones of currently
developed geothermal resources, while the remainder (80 percent)
resides in underlying, low-permeability zones that have yet remained
untapped for their energy potential. Currently, our ability to produce
energy from these resources is limited, dictated by available
technology and cost.
In concert with other geothermal development promotion initiatives,
DOE's Office of Wind and Geothermal Technologies has undertaken a major
program to develop technologies for the creation and development of
``Enhanced Geothermal Systems,'' or EGS. Assistance by DOE in
development of such technologies is critical if the U.S. geothermal
industry is to successfully engineer commercially viable power
production from deep heat reservoirs that offer only limited
permeability and/or fluid content.
Cost-effective EGS technologies to ``mine'' heat from beneath areas
of hydrothermal circulation will have a profound impact on the
geothermal industry. The life of currently commercial geothermal
systems will be greatly expanded, making better use of existing power
plants. And new EGS technologies will also be applicable to other
potential geothermal resource production areas, including those
previously considered as candidates for Hot Dry Rock (HDR) development.
Development of EGS technology is critical to the long-term
viability of the U.S. geothermal industry after all of our high-grade
hydrothermal resources have been developed. With assistance by DOE's
current and future EGS technology program, the geothermal industry can
continue its contribution of environmentally benign electricity to the
U.S. power generation mix well into the future.
Geothermal Co-Production
Recent developments with the assistance of DOE incentive funding
have resulted in construction of the world's first geothermal minerals
recovery facility, using spent geothermal fluids from power plants on
the shore of southern California's Salton Sea. Potential exists for
commercial recovery of manganese at the Salton Sea, and high-grade
silica and other minerals at other geothermal developments in the West.
A DOE investment in further development of these ``co-production''
technologies holds the promise to add another revenue stream to certain
geothermal operations, making them more competitive with fossil-fuel
power generation while reducing treatment and disposal costs.
Geothermal Direct Use
Direct-use employs low- to intermediate-temperature geothermal
resources (100 deg. to 3000 deg. F) in systems for industrial
processes, space heating, and agricultural production (greenhouses and
aquaculture). Currently, there are over 1,000 geothermal direct-use
projects in 26 states, and geothermal central heating projects in 18
communities. Recent surveys have shown that this is only a fraction of
direct-use potential in the United States, which DOE estimates could
potentially serve as many as 7 million households by the year 2010.
Unfortunately, interest in and development of direct-uses of
geothermal energy is limited, largely because of reliable information
and financial assistance to ``jump-start'' projects is lacking. This is
especially true in rural areas where the necessary technical
infrastructure is not available.
The DOE Geothermal R&D Program can play a vital role in promoting
and assisting the development of direct-use projects across the West.
It is already doing so by providing information and technical
assistance, but can do more with increased funding to assist in the
critical areas of direct-use resource identification and drilling
confirmation. Funding to provide this information and expanded
technical assistance can do much to help develop this extensive
geothermal energy resource.
DOE funding is also needed to develop improvements in direct-use
equipment, reduce the cost of project capital, and lower project
operations and maintenance costs. The DOE budget should also provide
funds for promotion of economic and efficient cascaded use of
geothermal fluids from power production to direct-use developers. In
addition, direct-use geothermal funding can help foster public-private
partnerships to help ``buy down'' the up-front risk and financial
burdens that often discourage potential geothermal direct-use
developers during the initial drilling and resource confirmation stages
of potential projects. Once these concerns are satisfied, direct-use
geothermal resource development can more easily occur with private
project financing, while accruing additional benefits of economic
development and employment in rural areas of the West.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the Geothermal Resources
Council urges your attention to these facts, and hopes you will agree
that given current need, the modest $34 million in funding that we
request for the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal R&D Program in
fiscal year 2002 is money well invested in our environment and our
national energy security. Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the International Association of Fire
Fighters
Dear Chairman Domenici: On behalf of the 240,000 professional fire
fighters and emergency medical personnel who are members of the
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), I write to
communicate our strong disagreement with the proposal to decimate the
Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program line item of the Department of
Energy's budget.
For the past two years, the Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program
has been funded at $8.5 million. However, in DOE's fiscal year 2002
request, the funding for this vital program has been slashed to $1
million. If this devastating budget cut remains unchanged, the result
will be the termination of the training program that protects fire
fighters and those communities that they serve.
The Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program funds training for fire
fighters on or near DOE nuclear facilities and contract employees
working at these facilities. The International Association of Fire
Fighters (IAFF) utilizes the grant from DOE's training program to teach
fire fighters how to safely and effectively respond to emergencies,
whether accidental or intentional, at these facilities.
Since 1994, an average of 2,200 responders have been injured at
hazardous materials incidents annually. Emergency personnel responding
to incidents related to DOE complexes face health and safety challenges
that potentially involve radioactive and other hazardous materials. The
IAFF provides a flexible training program that emphasizes occupational
safety and health which is designed to meet these unique challenges.
For these reasons, the IAFF urges the Subcommittee to appropriate
$8.5 million, instead of the $1 million DOE has requested, for the
Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program.
Please direct all your questions or comments to Barry Kasinitz,
IAFF Governmental Affairs Director, at 202-824-1581.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
______
Prepared Statement of the Geothermal Energy Association
The Geothermal Energy Association is a trade association composed
of 84 U.S. companies and organizations that support the expanded use of
geothermal energy and are developing geothermal resources worldwide for
electrical power generation and direct-heat uses. Our members have
offices or operations in virtually every state, though most of the
energy production from geothermal resources is located in the Western
half of the country.
The Department of Energy's geothermal research program has been
seriously under funded. For over a decade, we have witnessed the near
abandonment of this program by the political hierarchy of the
Department of Energy. Budgets have collapsed from a high of over $100
million to requests for under $30 million in recent years.
A recent independent review by the National Research Council,
Renewable Power Pathways, generally agrees with this conclusion. The
NRC panel states:
``In light of the significant advantages of geothermal energy as a
resources for power generation, it may be undervalued in DOE's
renewable energy portfolio. Significant amounts of high-grade resources
are available, and geothermal power technologies can operate in a
variety of duty cycles (from base load to peak load conditions) . . .
In addition, the United States has taken the lead in successful
commercial demonstrations of geothermal energy for generating
electricity and heat at several sites and is the current technology
leader in the world among very active competitors in Europe and
Japan.'' (Renewable Power Pathways, page 53.)
The DOE geothermal energy program was separate from the renewable
energy programs for many years. Ever since the program was incorporated
into DOE's renewable energy efforts, it has lost out in the internal
competition for budget priority. (Perhaps as one senior official of the
previous Administration stated, drilling holes and building power
plants was just viewed as ``PC.'') As a result, the U.S. Department of
Energy's efforts to advance the technology to tap the enormous
geothermal resources base have waned, and as a result we are slowing
the development of new resources in the U.S. and losing our lead in
foreign markets. This has serious consequences for our Nation's energy
supply, and the U.S. geothermal industry's competitiveness in one of
the world's fastest growing power markets.
fiscal year 2002 recommendation
The Geothermal Energy Association recommends an appropriation for
the DOE research program of at least $60 million in fiscal year 2002.
This would provide the funds needed to support the institutional
capabilities of the program, which involves core competencies at
Sandia, INEEL, NREL, and other research institutions; and provide funds
to undertake programmatic research efforts in a few significant areas.
We estimate the base institutional capabilities of the program to
require annual funding of roughly $20 million. The additional funds
should be used in prioritized efforts consistent with the programs
Strategic Plan, as updated on a regular basis.
Given the expense involved in many geothermal operations, $60
million for program efforts is not an extraordinary sum. Much of the
risk and uncertainty in geothermal development involves finding,
defining and accessing the subsurface resource. Developing new
technology to improve our ability to identify the resource without
drilling will be risky and expensive, and corresponding research to
reducing drilling costs can involve substantial effort. Today, drilling
one geothermal well can involve several million dollars, and an
advanced drilling program would likely involve sustained effort at
several sites over several years costing tens of millions of dollars.
the doe geothermal program's strategic plan
In June of 1998, the Department of Energy released a new Strategic
Plan For Geothermal Energy Research and Development. This document was
the product of a multi-year collaborative effort between DOE, national
laboratories, university researchers, and the geothermal industry.
Through a series of new initiatives, implementing the Strategic Plan
would develop the technology to engineer enhanced production from
geothermal systems. The technology developed would be applicable to
hundreds of sites in the Western States, as well as to geothermal
development around the world.
According to the Strategic Plan, this advanced research initiative
can develop the technology to ``greatly accelerate development and use
of the [geothermal resource], providing a reliable alternative energy
capable of supplying a significant fraction of the world's energy
needs.''
Enhanced geothermal systems technology research would have numerous
benefits. For example, if funded, by 2010 this effort is expected to
result in:
--tripling domestic geothermal electricity production, supplying the
needs of 18 million people in the U.S.,
--continued expansion of geothermal technology exports, the leading
US renewable energy export today, by installing at least 10,000
MW in developing countries.
A recent study prepared by the Geothermal Energy Association in
conjunction with DOE and the University of Utah indicates that research
into enhanced geothermal systems technology, as proposed in the new DOE
Strategic Plan, could lead to the development of an additional 12,000
MW of geothermal power in the Western U.S., and open new export
opportunities for an additional 65,000 MW of power. Both of these
figures represent developments beyond what would otherwise occur in a
favorable market place.
budget background
The geothermal energy budget has received low priority at the
Department of Energy while the program has been reassessing its long-
term direction. In recent years, the program has been funded at about
one-half of what internal multi-year plans indicate should be its base
funding level.
The DOE budget has included very limited funds to begin
implementing the Department's new Strategic Plan For Geothermal Energy
Research And Development. These funds would have supported cost-shared,
collaborative research by the Department of Energy, national
laboratories, university researchers, and the geothermal industry.
The geothermal energy Strategic Plan calls for a near-term annual
budget level of $50-$60 million. This budget level would be consistent
with recommendations made by the President's Committee of Advisors on
Science and Technology (PCAST) in its 1997 report. Critical technical
needs include the development of advanced drilling, exploration and
reservoir sensing, energy conversion and metals recovery, and enhanced
reclaimed water injection. (By comparison, Japan is spending $150
million on geothermal energy research and development)
status of geothermal energy
Geothermal energy supplies about 6 percent of the electricity in
California, 10 percent of the power in Northern Nevada, about 25
percent of the electricity for the Island of Hawaii (the Big Island),
and significant power in Utah. These states together with Arizona,
Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington could produce nearly
20,000 megawatts with enhanced technology. With advanced technology,
Potential electric power resources could possible be identified and
developed in nearly every state West of the Mississippi.
Direct uses of geothermal heat provide energy for businesses
schools and homes in over twenty-six States. States with potential for
expanding their direct use of geothermal heat include: Alabama,
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia,
Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico,
New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.
Exports of U.S. geothermal technology involve businesses throughout
the country. Currently, the U.S. geothermal industry enjoys a lead in
the international market with its chief competition from Italy, Japan
and New Zealand. At stake is 80,000 MW of potential new power
development contracts in developing countries alone, a market that
could exceed $25 billion over the next ten to fifteen years.
near term potential
Geothermal energy has significant potential to contribute to
alleviating the energy supply crisis in the West, and the Department of
Energy's programs could assist with realizing this potential. With
proper support, hundreds of Megawatts of geothermal electricity could
be brought on line fairly quickly, and thousands of megawatts could be
added in a matter of a few years.
We estimate that electricity production from many existing power
plants could be improved through better technology and operational
changes. Existing plants could provide perhaps 20-30 percent more
power--adding 500-600 MW--if there was a significant short-term
investment in these improvements. Also, efforts to supply treated
wastewater to The Geysers need to be continued on a priority basis to
achieve projected increases in generating capacity.
In fairly short order, new geothermal capacity could be on-line in
the West. A thousand megawatts or more of additional capacity lies in
or immediately near existing facilities. Because there is some
knowledge of the subsurface resource, and some infrastructure already
in-place, these sites could be developed as fast as markets and
permitting allow.
Further we estimate that between 5,000 and 20,000 of additional
electric power resources are developable in the West using technology
that we anticipate would be available if a continued research and
development effort it supported. Based upon our review of experts in
the field, this level of power development may be possible over the
next decade with appropriate federal and state support.
Of course, this is only electric power resource development. Today,
there is also a significant direct use industry throughout the West
that uses geothermal heat in schools, homes, farms, and industrial
processes. Dr. John Lund of the Oregon Institute of Technology has
estimated than an equal amount of energy could be harnessed through
direct use applications in buildings, commercial operations and
industrial processes. Of course, Dr. Lund also assumes that both
federal and state governments continue to support expanded use of
geothermal resources.
Combined, geothermal power and direct-use energy has enormous
potential for the Western United States. Together, these estimates
represent energy equivalent to roughly 20 percent of total current U.S.
energy needs. And, with continued advances in technology, the ultimate
potential for geothermal energy will continue to expand far beyond this
range.
conclusion
The U.S. geothermal industry strongly supports the research and
technology development programs in geothermal energy at the Department
of Energy. Our industry's growth is not limited by geothermal resource
availability. Rather it is limited by inadequate technology. Despite is
significant contribution in some states, geothermal technology is not
mature, but is still in early stages of development. Only the very
highest-grade geothermal resources can be economically used today, and
then only at significant risk and cost to a developer. Research is
urgently needed to expand the range of the resource that can be
utilized, and to lower both the cost and risk of using geothermal
energy to produce power and direct-use energy.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statements of Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc.
geothrmal r&d programs
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Bob
Lawrence, and I am President of Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc., a
consulting firm headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia. I am here before
you, today, to request that the Geothermal R&D Program at the
Department of Energy be funded at a level of $37 Million for fiscal
year 2002, since this is the level that will allow ongoing programs to
continue at their planned rate. My firm has been involved with
Geothermal technology since 1990, working with both the private sector
and national laboratories, and we are very impressed with both the
progress and potential of this technology.
This Subcommittee, in particular, deserves a great deal of credit
for your support of the Geothermal Program over the past 25 years. It
has been a great investment of taxpayer dollars. Cost-shared Department
of Energy investments in geothermal energy R&D, starting in the 1970s,
have made possible the establishment of a geothermal industry in the
United States. In 1975, that industry did not exist. Today, the
geothermal industry generates over 16 Billion kilowatt-hours per year
in the U.S., alone, with a value over $1 Billion in annual revenues.
The industry, today:
--returns over $41 million annually to the Treasury in royalty and
production payments for geothermal development on Federal
lands, an amount significantly exceeding our funding request.
This amount is in addition to the amount of taxes paid to
Federal, State, and Local governments.
--supplies the total electric-power needs of about four million
people in the U.S., including over 7 percent of the electricity
in California, about 10 percent of the power in Northern
Nevada, and about 25 percent of the electricity for the Island
of Hawaii (the Big Island). Significant power is also provided
to Southwestern Utah.
--employs some 30,000 U.S. workers;
--displaces the emissions of 16 million tons of carbon dioxide, 20
thousand tons of sulfur dioxide, 41 thousand tons of nitrogen
oxides, and 1300 tons of particulate matter every year,
compared with production of the same amount of electricity from
a State-of-the-Art coal-fired plant;
--has installed geothermal projects worth $3.0 billion overseas,
mostly in the Philippines and Indonesia;
It is very important to note that none of this would have been
possible without the dedicated and tenacious efforts of the Department
of Energy's Geothermal R&D programs and the patient and continuing
support of this Subcommittee. Geothermal developers are, almost
entirely, financial people with little, internal, technology
capability. The industry depends upon the wealth of geothermal
technology and knowledge that has been developed at the national
laboratories and at university institutes. Cost shared, government-
industry programs provide the necessary technical know-how to address
each new geothermal challenge, and we do this better than teams in any
other country.
The American geothermal industry is centered in the Western States,
right in the region which is most threatened by an electric generation
and transmission shortfall. The industry, working with government
technologists, has a great deal of near term generation potential. The
geothermal industry, with appropriate government R&D support, can
provide an additional 600 Megawatts of power in about 18 months. This
power will come from:
--Use of tertiary treated wastewater injection: 200 MW: Pioneering
efforts being accomplished in Lake County and with the city of
Santa Rosa, California, are taking thoroughly treated
wastewater and are injecting this water about 1000 meters down
into the earth. This depth is well below the water table, but
in the regions where very hot formations of volcanic rock occur
and water is lacking. The wastewater turns to steam and makes
its way back to the geothermal wells which are used for power
generation. An additional 200MW, using this technique, could be
obtained over the next 18 months to two years.
--Implementation of new technologies into old plants, well field
upgrades, and turbine replacements: 400 MW: Many of the
geothermal generation units presently operating were put into
place in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Available
technology, today, can upgrade the efficiency and capacity of
these units so that, over the next 18 months to two years, an
additional 400MW of capacity could be obtained.
In addition, direct use increases, through the GeoPowering the West
initiative, can provide an additional 100MW of use for heating,
cooling, industrial drying, agricultural applications, and recreational
purposes in the near term.
This is an additional 700MW of clean, renewable, geothermal energy
available within two years with appropriate government funding and
support, right in the heart of the western states that presently have
the most critical power problems.
Longer term potential.--The long term potential of Geothermal
energy in the United States is estimated to be 25,000 MW of electrical
generation and an additional 25,000 MW of direct use. To date, the
geothermal industry has made use of only the highest grade geothermal
resources in the U.S. The key to realizing the enormous potential of
geothermal energy is improved technology to tap resources that can not,
at present, be economically developed. Substantial investments in R&D
by the geothermal industry, acting alone, are unlikely because the
developers are uniformly financial entities, with small engineering
components, which rely on the technology centered at national
laboratories and university institutes for project development and
engineering. The government investment is essential, with a history of
providing an outstanding return to the taxpayer.
Technology Needs.--Applied R&D is essential to reduce the technical
and financial risks of new technology to a level that is acceptable to
the private sector and its financial backers. The U.S. geothermal
industry has conducted a series of workshops to determine the
industry's needs for new technology and has recommended cost-shared R&D
programs to DOE based on the highest-priority needs.
The Geothermal Industry supports the Strategic Plan of the DOE
Office of Geothermal Technology. The plan calls for increased spending,
quickly reaching $50--$60 million per year, a geothermal budget level
consistent with that recommended by the President's Committee of
Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) in their 1997 report.
Technical needs include:
--Drilling.--Geothermal drilling differs dramatically from oil and
gas drilling since the necessary production holes are three
times as wide as oil and gas and they must be drilled through
hard, volcanic rock rather than sedimentary soils. Also,
because of the high temperatures and corrosive nature of
geothermal fluids, geothermal drilling is much more difficult
and expensive than conventional oil and gas drilling. Each well
costs $1 million to $3 million, and an average geothermal field
consists of 10 to 100 or more wells. The drilling technology
program continues to show cost-saving advancements.
--Exploration and Reservoir Technology.--The major challenge facing
the industry in exploration and development of geothermal
resources is how to remotely detect producing zones deep in the
subsurface so that drill holes can be sited and steered to
intersect them. No two geothermal reservoirs are alike. Present
exploration techniques are not specific enough, and result in
too many dry wells, driving up development costs. The industry
needs better geological, geochemical, and geophysical
techniques, as well as improved computer methods for modeling
heat-extraction strategies from geothermal reservoirs.
--Energy Conversion.--The efficiency in converting geothermal steam
into electricity in the power plant directly affects the cost
of power generation. During the past decade, the efficiency of
dry- and flash-steam geothermal power plants was improved by 25
percent. It is believed that geothermal power-plant efficiency
can be improved by an additional 10-20 percent over the next
decade with a modest investment in R&D.
--Reclaimed Water Use for Geothermal Enhancement.--Many potential
geothermal resources are not utilized due to insufficient water
in the hot zones. Reclaimed water, which is an expensive
problem for many communities, could be used productively, in
many cases, to enhance the geothermal resources, making them
more economically viable for local use. In the US, 271 western
communities have a potentially useable geothermal resource
within 5 miles. The technology which will evolve from this
effort could be broadly applicable to these communities and
their combined energy and wastewater problems.
GeoPowering the West.--This initiative, now in its second year,
seeks to develop and implement those technologies needed to utilize
geothermal resources in the 271 presently identified ``co-located''
communities in 17 Western States. These 17 Western States are exactly
the area presently threatened by electric generation and transmission
shortfalls. Studies now underway may increase the number of communities
to over 350. The program is creating partnerships with the subject
communities to utilize hot geothermal waters for direct use
applications such as space conditioning, industrial drying,
agricultural applications, and recreational purposes. Additionally, the
program will provide technology needed to explore these resources for
generation potential. First contracts, being issued under a competitive
solicitation, are studying the feasibility of increased use of a number
of these sites. Follow-on funding, for cost-shared development of these
sites, is planned and requires the level of funding requested in this
testimony, or $37 Million for fiscal year 2002.
Mr. Chairman, the Geothermal program continues to be a uniquely
successful effort integrating the traditionally, high-technology roles
of national laboratories and university institutes with the financing
and development capabilities of American industry. This program has
worked the way it should and remains an investment of which the
American people can be proud. It is reasonable, proper, and rewarding
to fully fund this effort.
Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter.
______
superconductivity program
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Bob
Lawrence, and I am President of Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc., a
consulting firm headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia. Among other
assignments, our firm carries out market studies addressing
superconductivity technology and potential products for both the
private sector and the US Government. Our recent report entitled:
``High Temperature Superconductivity: The Products and Their
Benefits,'' is based on 54 references and a wide ranging set of utility
surveys. It is a heavily referenced document on the subject of
Superconductivity. To summarize this 60 page document, it is indicated
that Superconductivity technology has the potential to produce accrued
public benefits of $1.086 Billion by 2010, $11.8 Billion by 2015, and
$61.2 Billion by 2020 (page 40). In addition, the potential of this
technology to reduce atmospheric pollution reaches annual savings of
41.96 million metric tons of carbon equivalent, 0.487 million short
tons of sulfur oxides, and 0.241 million short tons of nitrogen oxides
by 2020. This program is a classic example of the kind of long term,
high risk, high payoff technology that the government traditionally
funds.
I am here before you, today, to request that the Superconductivity
program be funded, for fiscal year 2002 at $44M, a modest increase over
the fiscal year 2001 amount and an amount well justified by the
progress and promise of this program.
background
Superconductivity is the property of a material to conduct
unusually large quantities of electrical current with virtually no
resistance. Since the middle of the century, researchers have known
that certain ceramic materials show superconductive properties when
they approach a temperature near absolute zero. Practical applications
of these materials are difficult, however, since they are
characteristically very costly to make, very brittle in nature, and
prohibitively expensive to cool to the required temperature of liquid
hydrogen or liquid helium.
In 1986, a new class of ceramic materials was discovered which
showed superconductive properties at temperatures up to 34K. Since that
time, improvements have produced superconducting materials at the
temperature of liquid nitrogen, or 72K. These ``high temperature''
superconductive materials have generated great excitement since the
projected costs of applications have dropped by orders of magnitude,
and first viable products appear to be within reach.
the program
Today, a number of HTS-based pieces of electrical equipment are at
the prototype stage with capable manufacturing entities intimately
involved. Early candidates for commercial products include
Transformers, Electric Motors, Generators, Fault Current Limiters, and
underground Power Cables. Later in the commercialization process,
replacements for overhead transmission lines are also foreseen;
however, this will not be an early application. To enhance and
accelerate the prospects for early commercialization of HTS products,
the Department of Energy has developed a vertically integrated program
in which product oriented teams are focused on the development and
implementation of HTS equipment. Under the title of the
Superconductivity Partnership Initiative (SPI), these vertically
integrated teams typically each consist of an electric utility, a
system manufacturer, an HTS wire supplier, and one or more national
laboratories. Supporting these vertical teams is a Second Generation
Wire Initiative, in which development teams are exploiting research
breakthroughs at Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National labs that promise
unprecedented current-carrying capabilities in high-temperature
superconducting wires. Since superconducting wire is the main component
of all superconducting cables, products and systems, the price drop
projected by the Second Generation technology is highly significant and
important to successful commercialization.
Transformer development is being carried out by the team of
Waukesha Electric Systems, Intermagnetics General Corporation,
Rochester Gas and Electric, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This team has conducted a series of
reference designs concentrating mostly on a 30-MVA, 138-kV/13.8kV
transformer which is representative of a class expected to capture
about half of all U.S. power transformer sales in the next two decades.
According to Mehta et al, Japan and Europe are somewhat ahead of the
United States in transformer development.
The United States HTS electric motor team is headed by Reliance
Electric with American Superconductor Corp as the HTS coil supplier and
manufacturer. Also on this team are Centerior Energy (a utility
company) and Sandia National Laboratory. ``In February 1996, Reliance
Electric successfully tested a four-pole, 1800 rpm synchronous motor
using HTS windings operating at 27 deg.K at a continuous 150kW output.
The coils . . . achieved currents of 100A. . . , 25 percent over the
initial goal of 80 A.'' This program has now been extended to ``develop
a pre-commercial prototype of a 3.7MW HTS motor''. The demonstration of
this motor will be an important milestone in the commercialization
process, since it will provide a measure of efficiency, reliability,
and projected costs and benefits.
Generator efforts in the United States, again, appear to be behind
those in Japan. In Japan, funds expended on HTS design, development,
and demonstration were $75M covering 1995 and 1996. This heavily funded
effort involves 16 member organizations with representation from the
electric utilities, manufacturers of electric power equipment, research
organizations, manufacturers of HTS wire and tape, refrigeration and
cryogenic suppliers, and independent research institutes.
Fault Current Limiters represent a new class of electric utility
equipment with many attractive properties. This type of equipment may,
in fact, be a market leader, since its properties appear to provide
substantial potential cost savings to electric utilities as well as
containing power outages.
Exciting developments have taken place in the field of underground
HTS cables for transmission and distribution. In the United States, two
teams are pursuing two different technical concepts, but each team is
led by a powerhouse electrical cable manufacturer; Pirelli North
America, and Southwire Co.
the benefits
Dramatic cost and energy savings are projected when the candidate
systems and products from superconducting technology are fully
implemented, with incremental benefits accruing from the time of
technology readiness and commercial introduction to the time of full
market penetration. Generally speaking, one-half the present losses in
electric generation, transmission, distribution, transforming, and
using equipment can be saved by the implementation of superconducting
technology. Since, in round numbers, 10 percent of the electricity
generated today is lost between generation and use, and another 2
percent is lost in use, Superconductivity has the potential of saving
in excess of 6 percent of the total amount of electricity generated.
Today, that would equate to approximately 225 billion kilowatt hours
valued at $13.5 Billion. This would be a dramatic savings to Americans,
especially compared to the small DOE program investment I am
requesting.
Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter.
______
Prepared Statement of the Steamship Association of Louisiana
Mr. Chairman: I am President of the Steamship Association of
Louisiana (SALA). Our Association represents ship owners, operators,
and agents 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
2000 show a tremendous improvement in channel stability. 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 $22.65 per ton. Using this figure, each foot
of draft represents an additional $67,950 in vessel revenue, or
$339,750 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
becomes. 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 the Ports of
South Louisiana and Baton Rouge, which are home 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 dustpan
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 Longshoremen's Association's contract
($25 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 2002. 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.
The Corps is currently conducting a study that will determine the
feasability of maintaining the MR-GO at a depth of 36 feet. This study
has been requested due to the increase in costs of maintaining the
channel and growing environmental concerns. While we urge that the
Corps be funded in fiscal year 2002 to complete this study, this
important and viable channel must not be closed to deep-draft traffic
until construction of the new deep draft IHNC lock is complete. A deep-
draft lock should accommodate the needs of all business, except the
Port's container facilities, that require deep-water access. In
addition to the lock, 100 percent of the container traffic currently
being handled by the Port of New Orleans must be re-located to the
Mississippi River. Container vessels are extremely price and time
conscious and will not utilize a lock. If the channel is closed prior
to the container traffic being moved, the port will lose traffic that
will be nearly impossible to recover.
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. 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 2002 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 Port handled
34.3 million tons of import cargo and 15.8 million tons of export
cargo. Also in 1999, a total of 1,056 deep-draft vessels and 7,305
barges utilized the Calcasieu River. 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 2002.
Thank you for allowing the Association to submit testimony on the
Corps' funding needs.
______
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 40 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 2002 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
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.
APPA believes that investing in energy efficiency and renewable
programs is critical and urge this Subcommittee to support adequate
funding 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 2002. 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 support of the Renewable Energy
Production Incentive Program (REPI) at $25 million in fiscal year 2002.
At this level of funding, 62 projects would be funded providing 685
million kWh of electricity from renewable energy resources.
Established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Section 1212 was
intended to provide some level of benefit with EPAct programs for tax
paying entities (sections 1914 & 1916, providing production and
incentive tax credits for renewable energy projects). The law directed
the Department of Energy to create a program providing one and half
cents per kWh of electricity produced 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.
As the only significant incentive available to locally owned, not-
for-profit electric utilities to make new investments in renewable
energy projects, REPI represents public power's only opportunity to
produce environmentally-friendly electricity to meet the nation's
environmental and energy goals.
A fully funded and reformed REPI program will help public power
improve it's contribution to important renewable energy supply goals.
Under a fully funded REPI program, 55.8 million metric tons of carbon
equivalent (mmtce) could be reduced by developing existing landfills
into gas-to-energy projects. A fully funded REPI would provide the
needed incentive to spur development of other renewable energy
projects.
Even more critical, given today's situation, the nation faces an
unprecedented energy shortage, requiring the need to bring additional
sources of energy capacity online. Rising prices in gas and other fuels
have resulted in higher consumer power rates and power shortages. The
time is ripe to accelerate the development and use of sustainable
energy resources which currently represent 2 percent of the nation's
energy generation (2.8 percent of capacity).
This subcommittee's support of full funding for REPI at $25 million
will go a long way in fueling future renewable investments.
storage for high-level nuclear waste
The Federal government's responsibility for deep geologic disposal
of used nuclear fuel and the byproducts of defense-related activities
is long established U.S. national policy. In 1982, the Nuclear Waster
Policy Act established Federal policy for developing a repository for
long-term stewardship of used nuclear fuel. In 1987, after
environmental assessments were conducted of five sites, Congress
focused the repository study on a single site at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada. DOE is committed to providing a decision on a formal Yucca
Mountain site recommendation to the president in 2001. Page 3 of 5 APPA
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
programs. The Nuclear Waste Fund has a balance of about $10 billion,
all of which must be made available for repository construction and
operation.
APPA strongly supports the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2002
funding request for the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management program.
At this critical juncture, an increase in DOE's fiscal year 2001
appropriation of $409 million is warranted to continue scientific study
at Yucca Mountain. Electricity consumers this year will pay more than
$700 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund.
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 2002
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 adequate funding 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.
federal energy regulatory commission (ferc)
APPA urges support of at least $175 million in fiscal year 2002 for
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Adequate funding for
the agency is particularly necessary at this time in Page 4 of 5 APPA
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 advocates continued support for and funding of the Climate
Change Technology Initiative in fiscal year 2002. 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.
navajo electrification demonstration program
APPA calls on this Subcommittee to support full funding for the
Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program at its $15 million
authorized funding level for fiscal year 2002 and for each succeeding
year.
The Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program is a new program
authorized in Public Law 106-511, Section 602. The purpose of the
program is to provide electric power to the estimated 18,000 occupied
structures on the Navajo Nation that lack electric power. The goal of
the program is to ensure that every household on the Navajo Nation that
requests electric power has access to a reliable and affordable source
of electricity by the year 2006. Appropriations for the program are
authorized at $15 million over each of the next five years beginning in
fiscal year 2002, October 1, 2001.
The Navajo Nation is served by the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority
(NTUA), an APPA member. NTUA provides electric, natural gas, water,
wastewater treatment, and photovoltaic services throughout the Navajo
Indian Reservations in the states of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah at
the Four Corners.
APPA believes the Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program will
go a long way to improve the quality of life for the Navajo Nation.
national energy reliability initiative
The nation's economic future is inextricably linked to the
information revolution. Computer dependent and data-intensive end-users
such as the Internet, telecommunications, and financial services
industries, and modernized manufacturers require uninterruptible power
supplies and high levels of power quality. It is estimated that power
interruptions cost this nation's economy approximately $50 billion
annually. The existing power infrastructure is challenged to provide
the quality of power and high reliability that the information-based
economy requires. APPA's membership believes that the Federal
government has an important role to play in addressing these issues.
APPA believes the time has come for a National Energy Reliability
Initiative to be established. The solution requires the immediate
implementation of a joint public/private research, development and
deployment portfolio in technologies for fuel-diverse distributed
energy resources, electricity transmission and distribution, end-use
equipment improvements, natural gas infrastructure, advanced power
controls and sensors, and energy storage. Advances in these areas will
help information-based industries for the next few years, while
providing the technology framework that will enable truly effective and
efficient competitive energy markets.
APPA, along with stakeholders in the high tech industry, seek the
creation of a specific fiscal year 2002 line-item in the fiscal year
2002 budget focused on the energy reliability needs of the high tech
industry and urge this Subcommittee to support the program and provide
adequate funding to assist in achieving its goals.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the largest single
life science organization in the world, with more than 42,000 members,
appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony on the fiscal
year 2002 budget for the Department of Energy (DOE).
The ASM represents scientists working in academic, medical,
governmental and industrial institutions worldwide. Microbiological
research is focused on human health and the environment and is directly
related to DOE programs involving microbial genomics, climate change,
bioremediation and basic biological processes important to energy
sciences.
The ASM strongly supports the basic science programs of the DOE,
which fund important fundamental discoveries that lead to developments
in alternative fuels, improvements in the refinement process of fossil
fuels, environmental remediation and reduction of wastes and pollution.
These programs are critical for the United States to develop the
science to respond to the challenges of global warming and to solve the
nation's growing demand for reliable and environmentally safe energy.
The DOE Office of Science (SC) provides the primary source of
support for the physical sciences and is an essential partner in areas
of biological and environmental science research as well as in
mathematics, computing and engineering. The SC complements the
scientific programs of the National Institutes of Health and the
National Science Foundation and supports peer reviewed, basic research
in DOE-relevant areas of science in universities and colleges across
the United States, contributing enormously to the knowledge base and
training of the next generation of scientists.
ASM comments focus on research supported by the Biological and
Environmental Research (BER) and Basic Energy Sciences (BES) programs
and make recommendations on several programs that include microbiology
research.
microbial genomics
DOE is the lead agency supporting the genomic sequencing of non-
pathogenic microbes. Since these bacteria and fungi make up the vast
majority of microbes on earth and power the planet's carbon and
nitrogen cycles, clean up our wastes, make important transformations of
energy, live in extreme conditions and are an important source of
biotechnology products, the genome sequences of these microbes are
extremely valuable for advancing our knowledge of the non-medical
microbial world. ASM applauds DOE's leadership in recognizing this
important need in science and endorses expansion of its microbial
genome sequencing efforts, particularly in using DNA sequencing to
learn more about the functions and roles of the 99 percent of the
microbial world that cannot yet be grown in culture. DOE's role in this
science frontier needs to be expanded.
microbial cell project
During the last decade, scientists have determined the sequence of
millions of DNA base pairs from the genomes, containing the complete
genetic instructions, for a rapidly growing number of important
microbes. As the number of sequenced microbes increases, and sequencing
costs continue to decrease, scientists are faced with the important
task of deciphering how the information in the DNA sequence determines
cell function, in short, how a cell assembles functional pathways and
systems from those genome-determined parts. Since microbial cells are
the simplest cells, The Microbial Cell Project (MCP) represents a
logical start to understand the meaning of genome sequences in a
comprehensive and functional manner. MCP builds upon previous research
sponsored by the DOE Office of Science, e.g. the Microbial Genome
Program, itself a spin-off of the DOE Human Genome Program. The ASM
applauds the bold vision of DOE in starting the MCP and notes that this
represents the kind of interdisciplinary science that DOE has done
successfully in the past, making use of advanced technologies,
specialized facilities, teams of scientists, and computational power.
The ASM also sees this program as the basis for an expanded effort to
understand more broadly how genomic information can be used to
understand life at the cellular level and urges Congress to fully
support this exciting program.
basic energy science
This program includes initiatives in both microbiological and plant
sciences focused on harvesting and converting energy from sunlight into
energy feedstocks such as cellulose and other products of
photosynthesis, as well as how those chemicals may be further converted
into energy rich molecules such as methane, hydrogen and ethanol.
Alternative and renewable energy sources will remain of strategic
importance in the nation's energy portfolio, and DOE is well positioned
to advance basic research in this area. The advances in genomic
technologies have given this research area a tremendous new resource
for advancing the Agency's bioenergy goals.
bioremediation
DOE's bioremediation research is largely supported through the
Natural and Accelerated Bioremediation Program (NABIR). This is a well
coordinated, comprehensive basic research program comprised of seven
interrelated research elements. The quality of the research has been
outstanding and is probably the best example of basic research advances
on this challenging topic area supported by the Federal government.
Many of the nation's pollution problems cannot be solved by simple,
existing technologies, which is particularly true of DOE's metal and
radionuclide contaminated sites. Hence, the basic research effort
supported by NABIR is particularly appropriate for DOE. ASM notes that
the funding of NABIR was reduced by 20 percent last year. ASM endorses
the NABIR program and recommends that the funding be restored to the
fiscal year 2000 level of $25 million.
new technologies and unique facilities
New technologies and advanced instrumentation derived from DOE's
expertise in the physical sciences and engineering have become
increasingly valuable to biologists. The beam lines and other advanced
technologies for determining molecular structures of cell components
are at the heart of current advances to understand cell function and
have practical applications for new drug design. DOE advances in high
throughput, low cost DNA sequencing; protein mass spectrometry; cell
imaging and computational analyses of biological molecules and
processes are other unique contributions of DOE to the nation's
biological research enterprise. Furthermore, DOE has unique field
research facilities for environmental research important to
understanding biogeochemical cycles, global change and cost-effective
environmental restoration. In short, DOE's ability to conduct large-
scale science projects and draw on its unique capabilities in physics,
computation and engineering is critical for future biological research.
DOE's research programs play a major role in keeping the United
States at the forefront of scientific discovery and competitive in the
world marketplace. The ASM encourages Congress to maintain its
commitment to the Department of Energy research programs to maintain
the United States' leadership in science and technology.
______
Prepared Statement of DOE University Research Program in Robotics
(URPR)
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 developing creative solutions to problems of vital importance to
DOE.
The URPR would like to thank the Committee members for their
historically strong support of this successful program and is pleased
that the URPR is reportedly embedded in the broad DOE EM-50 Budget
Request for fiscal year. To ensure the continuation of this support, we
respectfully request the Committee explicitly include language
endorsing the DOE request.
Request for the Committee
We request the Committee include language augmenting DOE's request
of EM-50 research funds from $4M to $4.35M to support the University
Research Program in Robotics (URPR) program in developing safer, less
expensive, and more efficient robotic technology for environmental
restoration and waste management.
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.
Competitively established by DOE in fiscal yearsupport advanced nuclear
reactor concepts, the project was moved to EM to support the 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
21st century, and meeting today's applied research needs for DOE.
robotics: a strategic national technology
According to economists, R&D funding is the most effective use of
Federal funds to promote the nation's well-being. Indeed, technological
innovation has been responsible for more than half of the GDP growth
since WW II. 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
Federal support. The national need for an investment in the development
of intelligent machines which can interact with their environment has
now been universally recognized and accepted.
Intelligent Machines: Grand Challenge for the New Millennium
Significant advances in computing power, sensor development and
platform architectures (e.g., unmanned airborne vehicles) have opened
new opportunities in intelligent machine technology. The long-range
implications of intelligent mobile machines which can assist humans to
perform 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. Much as the
computer has revolutioned life in the 20th century, intelligent mobile
machines will revolutionize life in the 21st century and beyond.
urpr: innovation, education, and doe mission support
The URPR Paradigm The National Science Board (NSB) policy paper
``The Federal Role in Science and Engineering Graduate and Postdoctoral
Education'' reaffirmed the basic principle of a government-university
partnership in graduate and postdoctoral education, but warned that the
government ``tends to emphasize short-term research ``products'' and to
de-emphasize benefits to graduate education.'' The ensuing
recommendations in that paper argue for better integration of research
and education, validating the paradigm of the URPR for providing DOE
mission support.
URPR: Refining the Right Paradigm in 1902
The URPR's strategic mission is to make significant advances in our
nation's robotic and manufacturing technology base while emphasizing:
education, technology innovation through basic R&D, and DOE mission
support. Accomplishments in each of these areas for DOE are detailed
below. Uniquely organized, the Consortium of Universities (Universities
of Florida, Michigan, Tennessee, Texas, and New Mexico) are united as a
powerful technology team advised by a Technical Advisory Committee of
site users and directed by DOE field managers.
The URPR has demonstrated the advantages of operating as a
consortium are significant. The institutions of the URPR partitioned
the technical development into manageable sections which allowed each
university 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, the URPR is in an ideal position to continue
to execute its role in education, technology innovation, and DOE
mission support.
Educating 21st Century Technologists
The URPR has already educated approximately 500 advanced-degree
students in the critical engineering fields, including many with earned
doctoral degrees. These students have entered the work force, and are
powering today's innovation economy, employing intelligent machines,
advanced manufacturing technology, and related fields. Graduates from
this project have built successful startup companies and made
industrial technology transfers in computer vision and robotic
technology (MI, TN) and medical imaging (MI), video databases (CA), and
intelligent manufacturing (MI, FL, TX). We have seen an overwhelming
demand for graduates educated through this project to fill the serious
skills shortage in our country.
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, and health and safety concerns. In particular, DOE/EM-0362
``Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure'' is the high-level plan to
clean up and close down many facilities by year 2006 and has objectives
that are being addressed by the URPR. While the national laboratory-
based robotics program primarily applies existing technology to current
problems, the URPR is the only needs-driven research program to provide
new remote systems technologies to support the EM thrust areas.
Over the past few years, the URPR projects successfully supported DOE
EM operations:
--deployment and testing of SWAMI, an autonomous inspection robot for
Fernald stored waste drums,
--design, construction and testing 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 imaging of the MSRE facility at ORNL prior to D&D.
--design and implementation of a real-time controller for use at
Hanford in support of the tank waste retrieval project
During Fiscal Year 2001, the URPR projects have included:
--a system to reduce the time between a site-defined need and a site-
delivered implementation of the robotic hardware using
simulation followed by direct conversion to actual controllers
(UNM), demonstrated using the coordinated control of dual robot
arms in a workcell,
--a portable radiation imager with high efficiency and wide energy
range for EM cleanup applications (UMI), demonstrated in both
low and high radiation environments,
--sensors and navigation algorithms invented, built, and delivered
for D&D robots to permit semi-autonomous operation (UTN, UMI),
including the integration of a three-dimensional laser range
scanner capable of mapping large facilities,
--a program for design, fabrication, and testing of intelligent
actuators for environmental robot systems (UTX). These
actuators are as central to robots as computer chips are to
computers.
--a vision system to inspect and sort randomly placed objects for the
Mixed Waste Operations Focus Area for robotic singulation tasks
(UTN).
As shown above, these efforts are directly linked to cleanup
operations in the DOE complex. During fiscal year 2002, the URPR plans
to continue its focussed efforts on DOE field cleanup technology needs,
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 laser imaging
devices), environmentally hardened components, and dextrous dual-arm
manipulators. These new machines will have an unparalleled man-machine
interface and inherent intelligence, with the capability of being able
to integrate many diverse sensors simultaneously. These devices will
evolve and inspire the intelligent machines of the future, including
smart automobiles, obstacle avoidance aids for the disabled, and
advanced manufacturing cells assembled on demand.
This level of innovation can also be seen in the following statistics:
--Approximately 20 patents awarded or pending.
--Over 700 technical papers published in technical journals and
conferences.
--The standard technical books for vision, radiation detection and
imaging, and mobile robots are authored by researchers
associated with this project. Faculty and senior scientists who
have contributed 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; OmniPede, OmniMate, MOVERS, and ARM
modular manipulators) serve as the research testbeds for this
project.
program request
During fiscal year 2001, 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 reportedly embedded $4M
for the URPR for fiscal year 2002 in its broad request for focus area
support. However, Committeee language is needed to explicitly identify
this funding for the URPR and to augment this level to the fiscal year
2001 level of $4.35M.
Request for the Committee
To continue this vital program, we request that the Committee
include the following language into the fiscal year 2002 Energy and
Water Appropriations Bill:
The Committee supports the DOE EM-50 request to continue the
University Research Program in Robotics (URPR), at the fiscal year 2001
level of $4.35M in fiscal year 2002.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition
Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, the
Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition (NWSC) appreciates this opportunity to
present written testimony in support of the Department of Energy's
(DOE) fiscal year 2002 budget request of $445 million for the civilian
nuclear waste disposal program. While the NWSC supports increasing the
DOE's budget, the NWSC strongly OPPOSES the DOE's budget request of
$900 thousand or any appropriations in its budget that supports the
1998 Department of Justice (DOJ) litigation efforts involving the
civilian radioactive waste management system. However, the NWSC
RECOMMENDS the allocated amount be used for transportation related
systems and infrastructure activity.
about the nwsc
The NWSC is an ad hoc group of state utility regulators, state
attorneys general, electric utilities and associate members
representing 43 member organizations in 25 states. The NWSC was formed
in 1993 out of frustration at the lack of progress by the DOE's Office
of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) to develop a permanent
repository for high-level radioactive waste. The mission and purpose of
the NWSC is to seek on behalf of the ratepayers of the United States:
--The removal of commercial spent nuclear fuel from 72 temporary
storage sites located in 33 states.
--The authorization of a temporary, centralized commercial spent
nuclear fuel storage facility.
--The allocation of appropriate funds from the Nuclear Waste Fund
(NWF) by the U.S. Congress to the DOE so that it will fulfill
its statutory and contractual obligations.
--The capping of the NWF payments at the present one-tenth of a cent
per kilowatt-hour by the U.S. Congress.
--The approval of the Yucca Mountain Geologic Repository by the
President of the United States and the U.S. Congress with the
requirement that the repository will be operational by 2010.
--The augmentation of existing Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)
hazardous and nuclear materials transportation planning and
regulations to facilitate transportation systems.
budget request
The DOE requests $445 million in its fiscal year 2002 budget for
the civilian nuclear waste disposal program. The $445 million requested
by the DOE is the minimum required and is barely adequate to keep its
nuclear waste disposal program on track. The NWSC strongly urges
members of Congress to appropriate the total funds collected into the
Nuclear Waste Fund, and that the DOE be funded so that it stays on
track with the permanent repository and transportation infrastructure
to remove spent nuclear fuel from plant sites.
The DOE cites in its budget request that the requested $445 million
is essential to complete the scientific and technical reports obligated
of the Secretary to determine the suitability of Yucca Mountain,
present the site recommendation to the President in 2002 and complete
the licensing application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by
2003. The budget further highlights transportation activities for the
removal of waste from plant sites to include the development of legal
and physical processes and management and integration systems that
support program functions. The NWSC is concerned that the ratepayers
who have contributed multiple billions of dollars into the NWF are
seeing none of these funds directed to build the transportation-related
systems and infrastructure necessary to ultimately remove the spent
fuel from commercial reactor sites. The DOE's schedule not to begin the
fabrication and deployment of transportation casks and waste acceptance
capabilities until the end of the decade, as documented in the DOE's
January 2001 response to the House Committee on Appropriations request,
is unacceptable--these programs need to begin now. If Congress
continues to reduce essential funds to complete this program, as it has
done in the past, there will be further delays and excuses by the DOE
not to fulfill its statutory and contractual obligations. Every delay
increases the amount and cost of spent nuclear fuel stored at the plant
sites.
progress of the civilian disposal program
The NWSC is encouraged by the timeline proposed in the DOE's fiscal
year 2002 budget to maintain progress towards the civilian disposal
program. It is indeed heartening news that the DOE will soon release
the Science and Engineering Report requested by the Nuclear Waste
Technical Review Board and a Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation
Report with hearings to be held in Nevada sometime this summer.
On the other hand, the DOE and OCRWM have been evaluating
alternatives to the design of the permanent repository and packaging
for the removal of high-level nuclear waste from plant sites for
eighteen years. Since 1983, the DOE and OCRWM have released several
scientific and environmental studies on the progress at Yucca Mountain
and yet, in 2001, we are still waiting to see actual progress. Progress
reports are not what Americans have paid for. We have paid to have
high-level radioactive waste removed from power plants beginning by
January 31, 1998. We want sound science that evaluates the viability
and suitability of Yucca Mountain. We also want the DOE to produce high
quality work with a comprehensive framework that accommodates safety
and bolsters confidence in the performance of Yucca Mountain as the
permanent repository site. Hopefully, we will see actual performance in
2001 towards the development of a permanent repository and not just
progress reports.
nuclear waste fund
The NWF collects annually more than $680 million from the nation's
ratepayers. Americans have already paid more than $17 billion,
including interest, to the NWF for nuclear waste disposal services we
are not receiving. We continue to pay at the rate of $80,000 every hour
of every day. Meanwhile, tons of high-level radioactive waste continues
to accumulate at 73 sites in 33 states because of the DOE's failure to
fulfill its statutory and contractual obligations with the nation's
ratepayers to move this waste to a permanent repository. Because of
continued missed deadlines by the DOE, an additional $40 billion to $80
billion in costs could occur, paid from the Department of Treasury
Judgment Fund and NOT from the Nuclear Waste Fund as the DOE has
claimed. Clearly, it is time for Congress to hold the DOE accountable
for its expenditures, especially its contract obligations, by expressly
linking the $445 million requested by the DOE in its fiscal year 2002
budget to an action plan that includes (1) a settlement with contract
litigants and (2) until there is a permanent repository in the U.S.,
initiate immediately a pilot program to transport byproducts from
plants threatened with shutdown or are already shutdown. It is time for
Congress to appropriate, at a minimum, the $445 million requested by
the DOE in its fiscal year 2002 budget so that the Department stays on
track with the nuclear waste disposal program.
lawsuits and funds for the department of justice
The DOE has requested $900 thousand from the NWF to defend itself
against 1998 lawsuits brought by various utilities seeking performance
under the contract with the DOE. The NWSC vigorously OPPOSES any
appropriations to the DOE in support of the 1998 Department of Justice
litigation involving civilian radioactive waste management system. The
NWSC RECOMMENDS that this $900 thousand be allocated instead to
transportation related systems and infrastructure necessary to remove
spent nuclear fuel from plant sites.
It is almost 3 years since the DOE defaulted on its obligations, as
stated in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, to remove spent nuclear
fuel from the nation's nuclear power plants. In its 1996 Indiana--
Michigan decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed that the DOE was
obligated to start moving waste on January 31, 1998, ``without
qualifications or condition.'' The DOE ignored the Court, prompting 46
state agencies and 36 utilities to again seek relief from the Court.
The DOE has meanwhile ignored repeated Court orders to begin moving
waste from commercial nuclear plant sites on the grounds that it has
yet to build a permanent repository and has no authority to provide an
interim storage and transport high-level nuclear waste from plant
sites.
rigorous safety standards
The DOE has proven that it can safely transport spent nuclear fuel
and high-level nuclear waste from plant sites across the nation. More
than 3,000 shipments of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants,
government research facilities, universities and industrial facilities
have crossed the United States, ``without a single death or injury due
to the radioactive nature of the cargo.'' \1\ Shipments include 719
containers from the Naval Nuclear Propulsion program between 1957 and
1999, and 2,426 highway shipments and 301 railway shipments from the
U.S. nuclear industry from 1964 to 1997. In addition, since 1996,
shipments of spent nuclear fuel have been safely transported to the
United States from 41 countries to the DOE facilities; \2\ again,
without a single death or injury. Furthermore, the DOE has safely and
successfully made more than 100 shipments to the WIPP in New Mexico
since 1999.\3\ The Western Governors' Association (WGA) signed an
agreement with the DOE in April 1996 that affirmed regional planning
processes for safe transportation of radioactive waste. All regional
high-level radioactive waste transportation committees also endorsed
the WGA approach. The WIPP transportation planning system is setting
the standard for safety and proving to be a critical step toward
solving the nations spent nuclear waste disposal program. To ensure
safety at on-site spent fuel storage facilities and during
transportation, the material is stored in containers that meet the
NRC's rigorous engineering and safety standards testing. To satisfy the
NRC's rigorous standards for subsequent transportation approval, these
containers have been dropped 30-feet onto an unyielding surface,
dropped 40 inches onto a 6-inch vertical steel rod, exposed for 30
minutes to a 1,475 deg.F fire, submerged under 3 feet of water for
eight hours, immersed in 50 feet of water for at least eight hours
(performed in a separate cask), and immersed in 656 feet of water for
at least one hour.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Conference of State Legislatures' Report, January
2000.
\2\ U.S. Department of Energy Report to the Committees on
Appropriations, January 2001.
\3\ U.S. Department of Energy Report to the Committees on
Appropriations, January 2001.
\4\ Nuclear Regulatory Commission Testing Requirements, 10 CFR
Sections, 71.61, 71.71, and 71.73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
protect nation's environment and energy
Nuclear power comprises 20 percent of our nation's base-load
electric generating capacity and is consistently emission-free when
properly monitored. According to the International Atomic Energy
Agency, U.S. commercial nuclear power plants prevent the emission of
147 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and 2.5 million tons of
nitrogen oxide into our nation's atmosphere per year; and by doing so,
significantly reduces the global greenhouse effect and improves the air
quality of this country. Nevada is unfortunately among the states that
rely primarily on coal fuel for energy. These states struggle for
solutions to the downwind effects of that energy's byproducts.
Regardless of the merits of nuclear energy, nuclear byproduct
management advocated by the NWSC is policy-neutral. That is, access to
Federal storage and disposal facilities is required immediately whether
nuclear power plants are closed, re-licensed or licensed in a Neo-
Nuclear Age.
conclusion
The NWSC is an environmentally minded ad hoc group concerned about
the nation's civilian nuclear waste disposal program. For the last 18
years, those who want to derail commercial nuclear power in this
country have used this program as a political tool. In fact, the
Federal government's failure to deliver extends back several decades.
The U.S. Congress and the Federal government need to immediately
address the growing problem of high-level nuclear waste that now
exists. We can no longer pretend that stranded waste at plant sites
does not exist and is without economic consequence to the nation. We
can no longer pretend that the problem is going away. The NWSC strongly
urges the U.S. Congress to release, as a minimum, the $445 million
requested by the DOE to bring the nuclear waste disposal program to
fruition as promised and mandated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982. The NWSC also urges Congress to deny the DOE's request for any
funds from the NWF requested in support for the 1998 Department of
Justice litigation involving civilian waste management system. The DOJ
expenses incurred in the DOE's breach of contract with the utilities
should be paid by the nation's taxpayers and not by the nation's
electric ratepayers who are already paying for the disposal of high-
level radioactive waste.
______
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 2002.
As you may know, ACS is a non-profit scientific and educational
organization, chartered by Congress, representing more than 163,000
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.
We firmly believe that advances in science and engineering have
produced more than half of our nation's economic growth in the last 50
years. They remain the most important factor in the productivity
increases responsible for our growing economy and rising standard of
living, economists agree. Each field of science contributes to our
diversity of strengths and capabilities and has given us the
flexibility to explore new fields and apply science in unexpected ways.
Over the last 25 years, funding for biomedical research has increased
while Federal support for most other disciplines has remained flat or
declined. Congress took an important step in the right direction last
year when it increased funding for scientific research for fiscal year
2001. To nourish the roots of innovation in all fields and help ensure
the success of growing investments in biomedicine, balance must be
restored to the nation's R&D portfolio while supporting overall growth
in the nation's science and technology budget. This should be a top
priority for Congress and the administration as fiscal year 2002
appropriations are considered.
doe budget recommendations
The Department of Energy's Office of Science is the nation's
largest supporter of research in the physical sciences and is
responsible for managing major scientific facilities. To meet the
challenges of the nation's 21st century energy needs, ACS strongly
supports funding the Office of Science in fiscal year 2002 at $3.62
billion, a 15 percent increase.
The Office of Science's fiscal year 2001 budget was a step toward
reversing ten years of declining funding (in constant dollars) that
eroded research capabilities and adversely impacted DOE-managed
facilities used by the scientific community. A strong fiscal year 2002
budget will enable the Office of Science to support additional peer-
reviewed research, better maintain and operate scientific facilities,
and participate more fully in cutting-edge multi-disciplinary research
such as nanotechnology and advanced scientific computing.
To ensure value for research dollars and excellence in performance,
the Office of Science depends on rigorous peer reviews and on
scientific advisory committees. These committees regularly provide
recommendations on program content, scientific quality, future
directions, research priorities, and proposed scientific user
facilities. This overall approach is recognized by many in the
scientific community to be among the best and most thorough processes
in the field of public research.
Currently, DOE must decline many highly rated grant proposals.
These are lost opportunities for significant discoveries. Increases in
core, peer-reviewed research are essential to provide clean and
affordable power, advance energy efficiency and renewable energy, and
improve energy production. Within the Office of Science, ACS is
particularly supportive of the Basic Energy Sciences (BES) and
Biological and Environmental Research (BER) programs.
The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program funds an array of long-term
basic research to improve energy production and use and environmental
progress. BES research, for example, has fostered improvements in
battery storage, superconducting materials, and the understanding of
combustion at a fundamental level.
The Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program 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 and identify opportunities to prevent pollution.
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 energy production and use may
affect these processes. Such research includes critical efforts to
capture, measure, and reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases
and the consequences of global climate change. ACS supports a strong
role for BER in Federal efforts to understand and address global
climate change.
Each year, over 15,000 scientists and students from academia,
industry and government--many funded by agencies other than DOE--
conduct cutting-edge experiments at the national laboratories and user
facilities DOE manages. These experiments are vital to advances in
nearly every scientific discipline. With demand for these world-class
facilities intensifying, additional funding would allow more operating
time, upgrades, instrumentation, and technical support. More complete
utilization of DOE's facilities would increase the return on investment
made in their construction and maximize their scientific contributions
and educational value. Additional funding for DOE user facilities
should not come at the expense of individual investigator grants.
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.
______
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 40 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 2002 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
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.
APPA believes that investing in energy efficiency and renewable
programs is critical and urge this Subcommittee to support adequate
funding 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 2002. 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 support of the Renewable Energy
Production Incentive Program (REPI) at $25 million in fiscal year 2002.
At this level of funding, 62 projects would be funded providing 685
million kWh of electricity from renewable energy resources.
Established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Section 1212 was
intended to provide some level of benefit with EPAct programs for tax
paying entities (sections 1914 & 1916, providing production and
incentive tax credits for renewable energy projects). The law directed
the Department of Energy to create a program providing one and half
cents per kWh of electricity produced 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.
As the only significant incentive available to locally owned, not-
for-profit electric utilities to make new investments in renewable
energy projects, REPI represents public power's only opportunity to
produce environmentally-friendly electricity to meet the nation's
environmental and energy goals.
A fully funded and reformed REPI program will help public power
improve it's contribution to important renewable energy supply goals.
Under a fully funded REPI program, 55.8 million metric tons of carbon
equivalent (mmtce) could be reduced by developing existing landfills
into gas-to-energy projects. A fully funded REPI would provide the
needed incentive to spur development of other renewable energy
projects.
Even more critical, given today's situation, the nation faces an
unprecedented energy shortage, requiring the need to bring additional
sources of energy capacity online. Rising prices in gas and other fuels
have resulted in higher consumer power rates and power shortages. The
time is ripe to accelerate the development and use of sustainable
energy resources which currently represent 2 percent of the nation's
energy generation (2.8 percent of capacity).
This subcommittee's support of full funding for REPI at $25 million
will go a long way in fueling future renewable investments.
storage for high-level nuclear waste
The Federal government's responsibility for deep geologic disposal
of used nuclear fuel and the byproducts of defense-related activities
is long established U.S. national policy. In 1982, the Nuclear Waster
Policy Act established Federal policy for developing a repository for
long-term stewardship of used nuclear fuel. In 1987, after
environmental assessments were conducted of five sites, Congress
focused the repository study on a single site at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada. DOE is committed to providing a decision on a formal Yucca
Mountain site recommendation to the president in 2001.
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
programs. The Nuclear Waste Fund has a balance of about $10 billion,
all of which must be made available for repository construction and
operation.
APPA strongly supports the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2002
funding request for the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management program.
At this critical juncture, an increase in DOE's fiscal year 2001
appropriation of $409 million is warranted to continue scientific study
at Yucca Mountain. Electricity consumers this year will pay more than
$700 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund.
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 2002
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 adequate funding 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.
federal energy regulatory commission (ferc)
APPA urges support of at least $175 million in fiscal year 2002 for
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Adequate funding for
the agency is particularly necessary at this time in Page 4 of 5 APPA
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 advocates continued support for and funding of the Climate
Change Technology Initiative in fiscal year 2002. 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.
navajo electrification demonstration program
APPA calls on this Subcommittee to support full funding for the
Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program at its $15 million
authorized funding level for fiscal year 2002 and for each succeeding
year.
The Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program is a new program
authorized in Public Law 106-511, Section 602. The purpose of the
program is to provide electric power to the estimated 18,000 occupied
structures on the Navajo Nation that lack electric power. The goal of
the program is to ensure that every household on the Navajo Nation that
requests electric power has access to a reliable and affordable source
of electricity by the year 2006. Appropriations for the program are
authorized at $15 million over each of the next five years beginning in
fiscal year 2002, October 1, 2001.
The Navajo Nation is served by the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority
(NTUA), an APPA member. NTUA provides electric, natural gas, water,
wastewater treatment, and photovoltaic services throughout the Navajo
Indian Reservations in the states of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah at
the Four Corners.
APPA believes the Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program will
go a long way to improve the quality of life for the Navajo Nation.
national energy reliability initiative
The nation's economic future is inextricably linked to the
information revolution. Computer dependent and data-intensive end-users
such as the Internet, telecommunications, and financial services
industries, and modernized manufacturers require uninterruptible power
supplies and high levels of power quality. It is estimated that power
interruptions cost this nation's economy approximately $50 billion
annually. The existing power infrastructure is challenged to provide
the quality of power and high reliability that the information-based
economy requires. APPA's membership believes that the Federal
government has an important role to play in addressing these issues.
APPA believes the time has come for a National Energy Reliability
Initiative to be established. The solution requires the immediate
implementation of a joint public/private research, development and
deployment portfolio in technologies for fuel-diverse distributed
energy resources, electricity transmission and distribution, end-use
equipment improvements, natural gas infrastructure, advanced power
controls and sensors, and energy storage. Advances in these areas will
help information-based industries for the next few years, while
providing the technology framework that will enable truly effective and
efficient competitive energy markets.
APPA, along with stakeholders in the high tech industry, seek the
creation of a specific fiscal year 2002 line-item in the fiscal year
2002 budget focused on the energy reliability needs of the high tech
industry and urge this Subcommittee to support the program and provide
adequate funding to assist in achieving its goals.
Clean Coal Power Initiative.--APPA strongly urges the Subcommittee
to support the Administration's request of $150 million in fiscal year
2002 to fund joint government/industry-funded research, development and
demonstration of new technologies to enhance the reliability and
environmental performance of coal-fired power generators. The CCPI will
also develop the technological foundation for the next generation of
even cleaner, more efficient technologies for both new power plants and
for modernizing older ones.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors
The Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) is pleased to
provide testimony for the record to the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development as it considers fiscal
year 2002 funding for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Adequate funding
for EERE is a vital component in the nation's ability to secure a
diverse, balanced and reliable energy portfolio. Within this
appropriation, the CONEG Governors specifically support an increase in
funding for the Regional Biomass Energy Program (RBEP)--an important
partner in DOE's multi-faceted initiatives to encourage a diverse
energy resource mix and energy efficiency across the nation.
Congressional support for an fiscal year 2002 funding level of $5.5
million for the RBEP within the EERE biomass program budget will allow
this Federal-state-private sector initiative to continue the pioneering
regional projects and informational and technical assistance networks
which help bring bioenergy into regional energy markets across the
nation.
Recent increases in the price of energy have placed a new emphasis
on the need for alternative and domestic energy production. Bioenergy,
which is both renewable and sustainable, includes forestry and
agricultural crops and residues; wood and food processing wastes; and
municipal solid waste. Today, ethanol and electricity generation from
biomass feedstocks contribute three percent of the nation's energy
consumption. Biomass resources and technology offer additional
potential as the nation seeks to secure additional domestic energy
production from diverse energy resources.
Biomass is particularly important to the Northeastern United
States--a region heavily dependent on imported energy. Today, bioenergy
produced from the region's forest and agricultural resources
contributes approximately five percent of the region's energy
consumption. Increased use of these indigenous energy resources for
electricity production and fuels offers the potential to diversify the
region's energy resource mix, generate jobs, and achieve important
environmental objectives.
The RBEP, a U.S. DOE supported program which encompasses all 50
states in five regional programs, is an important tool in the nation's
effort to realize the opportunities which bioenergy offers for energy
production, economic development and sound environmental management.
The regional programs are unique in tailoring their services to the
specific biomass resources and unique energy market opportunities of
each region. These services include regional projects and information
and technical assistance networks which help identify opportunities for
bioenergy resources and technology, and mitigate institutional and
market barriers to the development and deployment of bioenergy
technologies. To accomplish these goals, the RBEP and its state
partners have established partnerships with industry, fostered intra-
state coordination, and established a reputation for providing
objective and reliable information to Federal and state officials and
the public sector.
From Maine to Maryland, the Northeast Regional Biomass Program
(NRBP) makes possible state working groups which promote state policies
supportive of bioenergy. It provides critical informational networks
which share policy, technical and market information about bioenergy
among the states and with the energy industry and the Federal
government; and encourages public and private sector cooperation in
undertaking demonstrations of bioenergy technologies. The NRBP
activities encompass a wide range of biomass resources and
technologies--from promoting experimental trials of energy crops such
as willow and switch grass; demonstrating leading edge technologies
such as fuel cells powered by biomass fuels; regional analysis of
residues and wastes suitable for energy production; and facilitating
the understanding of the role of bioenergy production in rural
economies.
Recent RBEP funding has fallen to just over $2 million. This
decrease has resulted in a significant reduction in funding to states
and the elimination of regional projects. By restoring funding to $5.5
million, regional studies that support state and national activities
can continue; and states can continue to support critical public-
private sector bioenergy networks which transfer information and
coordinate activities within a state, throughout the region and
throughout the nation.
We thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to share the views
of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors, and we stand ready to
provide you with any additional information on the importance of the
Regional Biomass Energy Program and the Northeast Regional Biomass
Program to the Northeast and the rest of the nation.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Gridley
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Thomas
Sanford, Energy Commissioner of the City of Gridley. I appreciate the
opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the City and rice
growers in Northern California who provide 20 percent of the nation's
total rice production. We submit the following testimony in support of
our request that an additional $5,000,000 (above the President's
request) be earmarked in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations bill, under the Department of Energy, Solar
and Renewable Energy, Biomass/Biofuels, for the Gridley Rice Straw
Project. These federal funds will be used to complete feasibility,
permitting and environmental assessment efforts, and initiate
construction of facilities to implement technologies and processes for
cost-effective rice straw removal and utilization in the production of
ethanol, silica and electric power.
background
The City of Gridley has spearheaded development of technologies and
processes for cost-effective rice straw removal and utilization in the
production of ethanol. Gridley is in the heart of Sacramento Valley
rice growing region in Northern California. Thousands of jobs and more
than $500 million of the Sacramento Valley's economy are directly
dependent on the rice industry. Clean air mandates have required
exploration of alternative methods of clearing and disposing rice
straw. Without alternatives to open field burning, rice acreage would
likely diminish, with adverse economic consequences. This key component
of the Gridley Rice Straw Project, rice straw disposal, will assist the
State of California in meeting air quality objectives, help maintain
cost-effective operations in the rice industry, and create hundreds of
direct and indirect jobs in Northern California communities. This is
particularly important to communities facing double-digit unemployment
and significant seasonal reductions in agriculture-related jobs.
rice straw conversion to ethanol and electric power
The Gridley Rice Straw Project (Project) has made great strides
towards an efficient process of gathering, processing and converting
rice straw into ethanol. The present design capacity of the Project
will be a minimum of 365,000 bone dry tons (BDT) of rice straw
annually--approximately 40 percent of the reasonably available
feedstock in the Sacramento Valley. The present Project design is
expandable, and could handle up to 700,000 BDT of rice straw.
Application of new technology for economical separation of silica and
favorable transportation costs are key factors in increasing the
Project's consumption of rice straw and overall efficiency. Production
of up to 43,000 BDT of marketable silica will add significantly to the
project's overall output/revenue generation.
In addition to producing 15.5-26 million gallons of ethanol
annually, the Project can convert rice straw to lignin, a high energy
content boiler fuel. The project's net electric generation capacity is
currently estimated to be 11-20 megawatts, depending on the project's
configuration.
The processes and technology at the foundation of the Gridley Rice
Straw Project can also utilize other renewable biomass feedstocks for
the production of ethanol; including the byproducts of corn harvest,
and even municipal greenways (grass clippings).
project timing, cost and prior federal appropriations
Environmental assessment and permitting work is expected to be
completed in 2001, with construction scheduled for 2002. The Project
will be operational in 2003, at a total capital cost of $80-$104
million, depending on the final plant configuration. Between fiscal
year 1995 and fiscal year 2000, the Project has received $12.15 million
in federal support under the Department of Energy, Solar and Renewable
Energy, Biomass/Biofuels.
conclusion
This project to collect, transport and process rice straw,
eliminate open-field burning, and implement new technologies for
ethanol, silica and electric energy production represents the best
efforts of local communities working with state and federal agencies to
implement state-of-the-art biomass to biofuel conversion and
electricity production. Once established, this technology can be
utilized in other California communities, and across the country--
providing cost efficient renewable energy.
We strongly urge and respectfully request your support for
$5,000,000 in addition to the President's budget request for the
Gridley Rice Straw Project, to implement technologies and processes for
cost-effective rice straw removal and utilization in the production of
ethanol, silica and electric power.
______
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 Senate Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
UCAR is a 66 university membership consortium that manages and
operates the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and
additional programs that support and extend the country's scientific
research and education capabilities. 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. 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. UCAR is supported by the National Science Foundation
(NSF) and other federal agencies including the Department of Energy
(DOE).
The President's Blueprint budget stated that ``DOE intends to
achieve significant savings in 2002 from restructuring and reevaluating
the performance of major projects . . . including . . . science
projects . . .'', and the detailed DOE proposed budget includes only a
0.1 percent increase for the Office of Science. While constructive
assessment of continuing programs is desirable, I urge the Committee to
examine carefully any ``significant savings'' coming from DOE's science
programs to ensure that programs contributing to the nation's
scientific and technological preeminence and world economic leadership
are not compromised.
I would like to comment on the following programs within the DOE
Office of Science that are of particular importance to the work of the
atmospheric sciences community:
biological and environmental research (ber)
The environmental component of BER is of great importance to the
welfare of the country since 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. BER programs, particularly
those involving support of peer-reviewed research at universities and
national laboratories, are critical to the work of researchers
focussing on climate change and climate change impacts, and represent
an important part of DOE's contribution to the multi-agency U.S. Global
Change Research Program. These include the following:
Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program
ARM is a key component of DOE's research strategy to address global
climate change. 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.
The work of many university principal investigators is supported
through ARM as are interactions and collaborative work with prominent
climate modeling centers. The proposed fiscal year 2002 funding for ARM
is $13.4 million for research, only a $362,000 increase; and $27.3
million, or flat funding, for ARM infrastructure. I urge the Committee
to allocate increases to cover at least a 4 percent cost of inflation
for BER's Atmospheric Radiation Measurement program research and
infrastructure accounts, or $13.65 million and $29.3 million,
respectively.
Climate Modeling
DOE is working with agencies such as NSF, NASA and NOAA to improve
the state of climate modeling. Positioned within Climate and Hydrology
in BER, the Climate Modeling effort is an important component of the
USGCRP and integrates the BER climate modeling programs, including the
successful Computer Hardware, Advanced Mathematics, and Model Physics
(CHAMMP) activity. This initiative supports the development of the next
generation circulation models and smaller scale climate model
simulations for global and regional studies of environmental changes.
Teams involving national laboratories and the university community
produce and apply observational and modeling data to study 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. The proposed funding of $27.1 million for Climate Modeling in
fiscal year 2002 is only very slightly higher than that of fiscal year
2001 and is insufficient to cover inflation, much less make the kinds
of scientific progress that it possible. I urge the Committee to
appropriate an amount of at least $29.0 million (approximately a 4
percent increase) for Climate Modeling within BER.
Atmospheric Chemistry and Carbon Cycle
Contributing critical work to the USGCRP, DOE's Atmospheric
Chemistry and Carbon Cycle programs support research at university,
DOE, and non-DOE laboratories across the country to provide information
on the atmospheric environment that is critical for long-range energy
planning. The DOE-supported carbon cycle research explores movement of
carbon on a global scale and is key to understanding the sources and
sinks of carbon both in terrestrial and ocean systems. The agencies of
DOE, NOAA, NSF, and EPA have a coordinated strategy to work toward
completing our knowledge of the carbon cycle. One of the especially
important aspects of the DOE carbon cycle program is its support of
long-term measurement sites and data holdings that are used by climate
change researchers around the world. Proposed overall funding for this
critical work is decreased from the fiscal year 2001 amount by
$735,000. I urge the Committee to appropriate for Atmospheric Chemistry
and Carbon Cycle (within BER) an fiscal year 2002 amount of $37.0
million, a 4 percent increase over fiscal year 2001 to account for
inflation.
Within Atmospheric Chemistry and Carbon Cycle, the Atmospheric
Science programs acquire critical data to advance our understanding of
the transport and fate of energy-related chemicals and particulate
matter in the atmosphere as well as the important roles of aerosols in
weather and climate. Proposed funding for this work is flat for fiscal
year 2002. I urge the Committee to specify for DOE's Atmospheric
Science programs (within BER) an fiscal year 2002 amount $13.1 million,
a 4 percent increase over fiscal year 2001.
advanced scientific computing research (ascr)
DOE's ASCR complements the work of and enables 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. By their very nature, problems
dealing with the interaction of the earth's systems and global climate
change, cannot be solved by traditional approaches. 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.
The ASCR section of the proposed fiscal year 2002 budget states
that, ``High performance computing is rapidly increasing its importance
as a science tool.'' A completely flat budget of $165.4 million is then
recommended. If I am reading the budget correctly, that flat request
will be reduced soon by $2.7 million to increase the Fusion Energy
Science Program. While I understand the immediate need for enhanced
energy science, I disagree strongly with handicapping one critical
scientific program to boost another, particularly at a time when we
enjoy a national surplus in large part because of scientific and
technological advances. I urge the Committee to examine carefully the
importance of Advanced Scientific Computing Research in the context of
the world's computing capabilities and the country's needs and
appropriate, at the very least, an increase of 4 percent to cover
inflation, for a funding level of $172.4 million.
global change education program
DOE's Global Change Education program (within Human Interactions in
the budget) performs a great service for the atmospheric sciences
community by joining with the NSF and other agencies to support
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. I would like the Committee to be aware that the Global
Change Research Program 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.
On behalf of UCAR, I want to thank the Committee for the important
work you do for U.S. scientific research. We appreciate your attention
to the recommendations of our community concerning the fiscal year 2002
budget of the Department of Energy.
______
Prepared Statement of New York University
On behalf of New York University, I appreciate the opportunity to
submit testimony in support of public investment in basic research and,
in particular, to salute the Department of Energy (DOE) whose funding
of fundamental research is so important to the health and well being of
our nation.
The DOE's support of university-based research is essential to our
national ability to prepare for the scientific and technological
challenges that we will face in the 21st century. The Department of
Energy supports biological and environmental research, nanoscale
science, physical, life, as well as computational, and social sciences.
The DOE's funding is critical both for its direct support of research,
training, and education, as well as its indirect impact in enabling
extramural (university-based) researchers to attract additional funding
for research and science infrastructure from other federal agencies,
private foundations, and industry. In that regard, I urge Congress to
support increased funding for the Department of Energy for fiscal year
2002.
At the Washington Square Campus of New York University, DOE funding
has supported leading-edge research across a range of areas. In
environmental science, DOE supported our efforts to test climate models
against what is known about paleoclimates. In quantum physics, DOE is
aiding the theoretical understanding and experimental pursuit of quark-
gluon plasma. In the broadening field of genomics, DOE has funded work
in everything from optically mapping the genome to studying chemical
and energy-related mutation to isolating the genes that regulate plant
growth. I would like to underscore genomics, as it is an important
priority for DOE and an area in which NYU intends to make major
contributions.
advances in genomics
The genome is the recipe or blueprint for life. During the last
decade--and particularly during the last two years--the unraveling of
the genetic code has opened up a vast range of new opportunities for
evolutionary and developmental biologists, chemists, and information
scientists to understand what genes are, what they do, and how they do
it. Genomics is revolutionizing biology and is dramatically changing
the way we characterize and address biological questions. As a field
that straddles biology, chemistry, computer science, and mathematics,
genomics is growing at an extraordinary pace and is 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 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
bring perspectives from other fields, like immunology, genetics, and
neurobiology to pursue investigations that are driven by hypothesis
rather than technique. This third phase is generally termed functional
genomics and uses the map and sequence information already collected to
infer the function of genes.
At New York University, we think the key issues facing genomics
today are how to translate the enormous quantities of gene sequence
data into knowledge of gene function. The answers lie, we believe, in
comparative functional genomics, an approach that 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 periods, and (2) determining
crucial differences that distinguish two closely related species. This
focus can provide the key to unraveling the complex regulatory networks
for crucial biological functions.
Studies in comparative functional genomics are necessarily
multidisciplinary. Comparative functional genomics synergizes basic
science research programs such as those at NYU's Faculty of Arts and
Science, with computational science, specifically bioinformatics, at
its Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences. Further, the scope of
the enterprise is such to encourage collaboration not only within but
also between research institutions. As an example, the concentration
within NYU of strengths in evolutionary biology, neurobiology,
developmental genetics, human genetics, applied mathematics research,
imaging and computation is further extended through the University's
research collaborations and affiliation agreements with major
metropolitan area institutions. Productive affiliations that were
recently articulated in response to New York State's major new
initiative to develop the State's science and technology resources link
NYU with The New York Botanical Garden and the American Museum of
Natural History which house the world's largest collections of well-
characterized specimens from the animal and plant kingdoms
respectively, and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, one of the world's
centers for molecular biology and genomics research.
New York University and other major research institutions are
poised to make important contributions to the next phase of genomics
research. DOE funding is critical to maintain and strengthen the
vibrancy of university-based science research.
research applications and national benefits
Research in genomics can offer benefits to our citizens in a wide
range of domains from new energy sources to crops that resist disease,
insects and drought to better industrial processes to identification
(or exoneration) of crime suspects. Genomics can be a major resource
for directly energizing a range of commercial enterprises, and can
provide a strong framework for economic development in vital, high-tech
industries.
Advances in Biological, Computational, and other Research Fields.--
The understanding of the human genome has very broad applications to
cell biology, embryology, developmental biology, and population
genetics. Genomics connects and illuminates science in all these
fields. Further, functional genomics research has created a need for
information processing structures that efficiently compare and analyze
patterns in enormous data sets and allow ready representation and
interpretation of their common elements and differences. As an example,
computer scientists at NYU are working closely with molecular
geneticists and business entrepreneurs to develop a library of genomics
software tools. Some of these tools are already being considered by
medical researchers for use in diagnosing tumors, which have a genetic
structure different from healthy tissue.
Applications for Environmental Issues.--Genomics offers important
new approaches to addressing environmental problems and conservation.
As an example, knowing the genetic sequence of plants may allow us to
identify clusters of genes and their function (to produce a flower from
a shoot) and manipulate them (to cut flowering time); enhance seed
viability without affecting the quality of a fruit; and increase the
nutritional value of grains. As we continue to sequence new plants and
isolate more genetic clusters, we can expect to discover how to develop
crops that have increased resistance to temperature extremes and
disease, and that can also grow in less hospitable soils. As we learn
more about how genes are switched on and off by environmental factors,
we may be able to predict how a crop will function in a particular
climate before attempting to cultivate it. These discoveries and others
can revolutionize agriculture within a decade.
Commercial Applications.--Fundamental studies in genomics are
producing new data about the function of genes that will have
widespread commercial applications for the development of novel human
and veterinary therapeutics and diagnostics; ``customized'' patient
care; the development of crops with improved growth capabilities or
improved resistance to herbicides; and so on, in a list that can impact
virtually every aspect of our health and well being.
Economic Development.--R&D investment in genomics is energizing
biotechnology, pharmaceutical, biomedicine, agbiotech, computer
software, and engineering enterprises, as genomics research begins to
spawn a new generation of commercializable technologies, and new
bioinformatics and software companies and genomics platform companies
(that generate specific genomic data for product development).
More generally, investment in research can foster vital university-
centered concentrations of industrial activity: In a now familiar
dynamic, 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 and attracts still more firms.
And, once a core of high-tech industries locates in an area, venture
capitalists identify the area as ``promising'' and the flow of
capital--a key ingredient for high-technology growth--increases.
In a related economic spiral, R&D funding spurs job growth across a
range of economic sectors. 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: The
BEA calculates that each $1 million in R&D grants supports roughly 34.5
full and part time jobs directly within the university and indirectly
outside the university as the university's expenditures ripple through
the local and state economy.
Biomedical Applications for National Health Needs.--An investment
in genomics research will help us to understand complex, multi-gene
diseases such as cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer's; distinguish
different forms of a disease, permitting precisely targeted treatment;
and understand why drugs work and how to design better ones. Genomics
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.
In summary, investment in genomic science is a strategic and
efficient vehicle for advancing fundamental studies in a wide variety
of scientific fields, facilitating applications that can greatly
enhance the public welfare, and energizing existing and new industries.
Increasing the investment in state-of-the-art equipment and in research
that enables geneticists, computer scientists and physical chemists to
readily interact with each other is essential for the development of
this important area. We firmly believe that a federal investment in
these and other biomedical research fields repays itself many times
over.
The commitment of this committee to support the Department of
Energy and its capacity to support the study of genomics is greatly
appreciated. And, in general we urge Congress to continue its
commitment to increase the funding of the basic sciences.
______
Prepared Statement of the Integrated Petroleum Environmental Consortium
It is proposed that the U.S. Department of Energy support a pilot
technology transfer program in Oklahoma and Arkansas called the
Petroleum Extension Agent Program through the Integrated Petroleum
Environmental Consortium (IPEC). Federal support of $1.5 million is
specifically requested as part of the fiscal year 2002 appropriation
for the Department of Energy or other source the Subcommittee may
determine to be appropriate
the integrated petroleum environmental consortium (ipec)
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.
Since September 1998 IPEC has funded 18 research projects that
promise to help ease the regulatory burden on the domestic petroleum
industry. These funded projects include: 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 assessment of petroleum production sites;
improving the economics of well plugging; improving the efficiency of
oil-water separation; and enhancing the remediation of oil contaminated
soils. These projects were first reviewed and approved by our
Industrial Advisory Board (dominated by independent producers) as
relevant to our mission of increasing the competitiveness of the
domestic petroleum industry and finally reviewed and approved by our
Science Advisory Committee (SAC) on the basis of scientific quality.
The EPA has endorsed each member of the IPEC SAC.
IPEC has provided $1,612,071 in funding for these projects.
However, another $1,432,226 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 provided by the Oklahoma State
Reagents for Higher Education ($750,000). IPEC has pledged to Congress
to work for a 1:1 match of federal dollars. As you can see IPEC is
living up to that promise! 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 objective of this program 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 are being used to deliver these tools to the
independent producers.
IPEC's technology transfer flagship is the International Petroleum
Environmental Conference. In November, 2000 IPEC held the 7th
International Petroleum Environmental Conference in Albuquerque, NM.
There were 345 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
7th conference featured several plenary lectures, over 135 technical
presentations, exhibits, a poster session and a special symposium on
characterization and remediation of the subsurface. 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 fifteen state regulators from Oklahoma and Arkansas
each year at the conference. The 8th International Petroleum
Environmental Conference will be held November 5-9, 2001, in Houston,
TX.
the continuing crisis in the domestic petroleum industry
Much attention has been paid recently to the high costs to
consumers of gasoline and natural gas. 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 and the number
of working drilling rigs has seriously declined. Thirty-six refineries
have closed since 1992 and no new refineries have been built since
1976. Most energy analysts agree that we need to ``drill our way out''
of the current high prices and shortages; however, the industry's
infrastructure (in terms of equipment and trained personnel) cannot
support the amount of drilling activity current prices would otherwise
encourage.
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. These efforts are especially needed now as
we develop new sources of natural gas such as coal-bed methane. This
new source of natural gas is desperately needed to meet our nation's
energy demand but coal-bed methane presents some unique environmental
problems which must be addressed in a cost-effective manner. 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 3,500 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 in 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
2002 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 American Museum of Natural History
about the american museum of natural history
The American Museum of Natural History [AMNH] is one of the
nation's preeminent institutions for scientific research and public
education. Since its founding in 1869, the Museum has pursued its
mission to ``discover, interpret, and disseminate--through scientific
research and education--knowledge about human cultures, the natural
world, and the universe.'' It is renowned for its exhibitions and
collections of more than 32 million specimens and cultural artifacts.
With nearly five million annual visitors--approximately half of them
children--its audience is one of the largest, fastest growing, and most
diverse of any museum in the country. Museum scientists conduct
groundbreaking research in fields ranging from all branches of zoology,
comparative genomics, and informatics to earth, space, and
environmental sciences and biodiversity conservation. Their work forms
the basis for all the Museum's activities that seek to explain complex
issues and help people to understand the events and processes that
created and continue to shape the Earth, life and civilization on this
planet, and the universe beyond.
Today more than 200 Museum scientists with internationally
recognized expertise, led by 47 curators, conduct laboratory and
collections-based research programs as well as fieldwork 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, and one of the
world's most important bird collections. Collections such as these are
historical libraries of expertly identified and documented examples of
species and artifacts, providing an irreplaceable record of life on
earth. They provide vital data for Museum scientists as well for more
than 250 national and international visiting scientists each year.
In the exhibition halls AMNH scientific knowledge and discovery are
translated into three dimensions. One of the most exciting chapters in
the Museum's history culminated just over one year ago with the opening
of the Rose Center for Earth and Space in February 2000. Greeted with
critical and popular acclaim and record-setting attendance surpassing
all projections, the Rose Center includes a rebuilt Hayden Planetarium,
Hall of the Universe, and Hall of Planet Earth. In Planet Earth,
exhibits explore the processes that determine how the Earth works and
questions about natural resources. It leads to the Hall of
Biodiversity, which opened in 1998 and reveals the variety of Earth's
living things and expands the Museum's efforts to alert the public to
the critical role biodiversity plays in sustaining life as we know it.
Together, the new planetarium and halls provide visitors with a
seamless educational journey from the universe's beginnings to the
formation and processes of Earth to the extraordinary diversity of life
on our planet.
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 come on school visits, 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.
support for department of energy mission and goals
The American Museum shares DOE's 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 in concert 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, advanced sequencing
technologies, and instrumentation. With the historic completion of the
first draft of the human genome, its work on the frontier of genome
science continues, including research in energy-related biology,
comparative genomics, and organisms' responses to biological and
environmental cues. The American Museum, in turn, is home to a
preeminent molecular research effort and is deeply engaged in genome
research closely tied to DOE's mission areas and research priorities.
Indeed, natural history and genomic science are intricately related.
The AMNH molecular systematics program is at the forefront of
comparative genomics and the analysis of DNA sequences for evolutionary
research. In its molecular laboratories, in operation now for ten
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 an invaluable resource for worldwide research in fields
including genetics, comparative genomics, and medicine. Such a tissue
collection will preserve genetic material and gene products from rare
and endangered organisms that may become extinct before science fully
exploits their potential. With nearly 40,000 samples already collected,
it will be the largest super-cold tissue collection of its kind and
will increase the possibilities for DNA research exponentially. We also
plan an online collection database to ensure public access as well as
to facilitate loans to scientists worldwide.
Cluster Computing
Parallel computing is an essential enabling technology for
phylogenetic (evolutionary) analysis and intensive, efficient sampling
of a wide array of study organisms. A 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 concert with the scientific
goals and efforts of 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. The Museum intends to
establish the Institute with funds from federal as well as nonfederal
sources.
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 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 critical challenges in
medicine and health care, energy resources, 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).
The Museum has already established its parallel computing facility,
enhanced the molecular labs with state-of-the-art DNA sequencers, and
built 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.
Working cooperatively with New York's outstanding biomedical
research and educational institutions, 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, 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 data sets; 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 Museum has already launched an
ambitious agenda of genomics-related exhibition, conference, and public
education programming, including the landmark exhibition, ``The Genomic
Revolution,'' which opens in May 2001. The exhibition, the most
comprehensive ever presented on genomics, will examine the revolution
taking place in molecular biology and its impact on modern science and
technology, natural history, biodiversity, and our everyday lives. In
conjunction with the exhibition, the Museum may also display a video
bulletin on genomics 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 and link to
computer kiosks and websites.
In fall 2000 the Museum hosted ``Sequencing the Human Genome: New
Frontiers in Science and Technology,'' an international conference
featuring leading scientists and policymakers. Spring conferences will
include: ``Conservation Genetics in the Age of Genomics,'' co-sponsored
by AMNH's Center for Biodiversity and Conservation and the Wildlife
Conservation Society; and ``New Directions in Cluster Computing,''
which will explore how parallel computing can make sense of the huge
complex data sets that genomic science and other fields generate. In
September, the Museum will convene ``Assembling the Tree of Life:
Science, Relevance, and Challenges.''
In establishing the Institute, the Museum plans to expand its
curatorial range in microbial work; grow the super-cold tissue
collection; and draw on our exhibition and educational expertise to
offer enhanced public education and outreach. Plans also entail
expanding and renovating lab space and facilities to accommodate
additional curators and students.
We seek $5-$10 million to establish the Institute for Comparative
Genomics at the Museum. Together, 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 enormously the possibilities
for DNA research and provide an invaluable international scientific
resource. Our online collection database 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 Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
(LRRI)
It is proposed that the Department of Energy through its
constituent agencies support the renovation of the LRRI clinical
facilities and purchase of necessary equipment to support LRRI's
ability to maintain its high research and clinical standards, and to
better provide appropriate patient data security.
LRRI has committed to a building campaign using $10M in private
funds to improve its laboratory facilities and equipment. LRRI's
clinical study facility is in need of renovation to better accommodate
the thousands of outpatients recruited for these studies and to better
maintain security of their patient information. LRRI requests $2M to
help renovate this facility.
LRRI has a long and distinguished history of providing critical and
superior research to DOE. Through a long standing cooperative
agreement, LRRI managed and operated the DOE Inhalation and Toxicology
Research Institute (ITRI) for many years. With the encouragement and
support of DOE, LRRI went through a five-year transition to privatize
the use of the ITRI facility. LRRI continues and it is anticipated,
will do so into the future, provide research services to DOE through a
new Cooperative Agreement, which is pending final execution. As part of
its services to DOE, LRRI will continue to use its clinical trial's
facility in furtherance of scope of services defined in that agreement.
Project Impact:
LRRI, as a private non-profit research institute, places top
priority on its ability to translate its basic science findings from
animal models, into protocols designed to evaluate new approaches for
treating respiratory disease. These protocols lead to new innovative
techniques and approaches to health care.
LRRI conducts clinical studies requiring the recruitment of
thousands of patients that provide the basis for making the link
between genetic and cellular defects and clinical disease presentation
and demographic characteristics. Currently, LRRI is conducting
population-based genetic studies in:
--Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD),
--Early detectors for lung cancer,
--Pulmonary fibrosis, and
--Mechanisms of asthma and other lung diseases in Hispanic and Native
American children.
Two events have greatly enhanced the ability to better understand
the mechanisms of human disease in communities. One is the dramatic
advance in molecular and cellular biology over the last 10 years,
especially in human genetics. The other is the ability to collect and
process data using advance computer systems and statistical techniques.
This process called ``molecular epidemiology'' makes the link between
genetic and cellular defects and clinical disease. LRRI has formed
collaborations with national and local a private health providers to
collect and manage patient data to carry out their ``molecular
epidemiological'' studies. These partners include, the:
--Lovelace Health Systems (LHS),
--Albuquerque Veterans Administration Medical Center (VA),
--University of New Mexico School of Medicine (UNM), and the
--University of Miami School of Medicine (UMSM).
Given the nature of the clinical studies performed, LRRI's facility
requires security mechanisms well beyond those of ordinary medical
clinics. As one can well imagine, this facility is the repository of
very sensitive personal data, including that linked to an individual's
DNA. To carry out this responsibility for privacy and confidentiality,
there is a need to renovate the facilities and equipment necessary to
be physically and electronically impenetrable to all but those who have
specific and authorized access.
The existing 8,000 sq. ft. facility was constructed in the 1950's
and requires renovation and upgrades to provide a suitable, efficient,
functional and secure facility. The proposed project would require
reconfigured space, upgrades to meet current fire and safety codes, new
interior finishes, new plumbing, upgraded electrical and a new heating,
ventilation and air conditioning system.
The current clinical trial's facility is occupied in part by other
LRRI functions. Some of these functions will need to be relocated to
provide the required additional space for the clinical studies.
Unfinished space is being made available in the new research facility
included as part of the $10M LRRI campaign. The proposed project will
include the completion of 8,000 square feet of the unfinished space for
this purpose.
Accordingly, to meet this responsibility and to improve LRRI's
ability to conduct its clinical studies, we respectfully request $2M.
The responsible Federal agency is the Department of Energy--Biological
and Research Account.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners,
Alachua County, Florida
Mr. Chairman: Thank you for allowing the Alachua County Board of
County Commissioners to submit this written testimony before your
Subcommittee concerning the County's Energy Conservation Prototype for
the New Alachua County Criminal Courthouse. This innovative and state
of the art project is described below in detail.
energy conservation prototype for the new alachua county criminal
courthouse ($3.0 million in funding requested)
In order to be a model for energy and resource conservation, the
new Alachua County Criminal Courthouse has been designed in accordance
with the highest national standards (LEED Certification Program) for
energy conservation. Federal funding is being sought in order to
augment the building's present energy saving measures with four
additional items: potable water reduction, alternative energy source,
reduction of heat loads, and higher performance systems for the
building's heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system.
Together, these systems will effectively reduce energy consumption, as
well as the future operating costs of the new Courthouse.
The following narrative outlines in detail the energy saving
measures that are presently being incorporated into the design of the
new Courthouse. For ease of review, they are broken down into the five
major categories of the LEED Certification Program.
Site Considerations
--Erosion will be controlled to reduce any negative impact on water
and air quality.
--The site will increase the density and urbanity of downtown
Gainesville.
--The site is adjacent to and provides good access for mass transit.
--On site parking requirements have been reduced to their minimum,
and parking preference will be provided for car pooling.
--Site construction impact has been limited to an area of four blocks
to minimize disturbance.
--Fifty percent of the open areas will be planted with native
vegetation.
--Existing storm water runoff patterns will be undisturbed, and on
site water treatment will be provided.
--Parking areas will be provided with landscaping to reduce heat
islands.
--Screening measures will be used to ensure that direct lighting beam
emissions do not fall outside of the property line.
Water Conservation and Efficiency
--Landscape material will be selected from native plant materials
that require minimal watering.
--Waste water needs have been minimized by reducing the user
requirements for showers to a minimum of two for the building's
staff.
--All of the plumbing fixtures specified utilize 30 percent less
water than the industry standard.
Energy Conservation and Atmospheric Efficiency
The building is being designed so that it is 30 percent more efficient
in energy use than the industry requirements (ASHRE 90.1).
--The mechanical and fire protection systems will contain no HCFC, or
ozone damaging liquids.
--An extensive commissioning routine will be utilized to insure that
the building systems are constructed as designed, and operated
in the most efficient manner.
Material Conservation and Resource Efficiency
--Program areas to facilitate the recycling of materials will be
provided in the building.
--Whenever possible, existing site materials will be recycled into
the new construction. Examples include asphalt pavement and
crushed concrete to be used for base material.
--Fifty percent of all materials that will be specified are to be
manufactured within a 500-mile radius of the site.
--All wood products utilized in the project will be acquired from
companies providing responsible forest management, and from
rapidly renewable sources.
Indoor Environmental Quality
--The heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system in the
facility will be monitored and operated through a carbon
dioxide monitoring system.
--Fresh air effectiveness will be equal, or greater to 0.9 as
determined by ASHRAE 129-97.
--A construction indoor air quality management plan will be
implemented, and monitored.
--All materials specified will have low, or no emission of VOCs.
--The HVAC system in the facility will be monitored and operated
through a relative humidity monitoring system, and will comply
will ASHRAE standards for thermal comfort.
--Natural day lighting will be provided to all spaces regularly
occupied, when not in conflict with confidentiality and
security measures.
As previously noted, the items described above constitute those
design measures and mechanical systems that are presently being planned
for the new Courthouse. However, the County is requesting a total of
$3.0 million to augment these systems with four additional energy
saving items. These items, with their estimated costs, are describe
below.
Potable Water Reduction (Estimated Cost: $570,000)
In order to reduce potable water consumption, the County is
investigating the use of a centralized vacuum toilet system that will
reduce the water consumption for every single flush from 1.6 gallons to
0.5 gallons. This system utilizes a centralized vacuum extractor to
help move the solids through the piping network. This allows water to
used only to clean bowl, and to work as a lubricant to facilitate
movement.
Alternative Energy Source (Estimated Cost: $900,000)
The use of a fuel cell power plant is being analyzed in order to
help reduce the building's dependence on traditional electric systems.
Specifically, fuel cells are designed to produce electrical power from
natural gas fuel (through an electro-chemical process) and recoverable
heat. The fuel cell system being studied for the new Courthouse would
be utilized for both a portion of the building's normal energy needs,
and the emergency power needs of the facility. With the approval of the
appropriate agencies for the storage of some natural gas on site, the
dependence upon a traditional diesel-powered generator can be avoided
for this facility.
Reduction of Heat Loads (Estimated Cost: $1,000,000)
The single largest contributor of heat in this facility will be the
building's direct exposure to the sun. In order to minimize the heat-
gain of the building, and thus reduce the energy demand to cool the
building and its users, the design team has developed an alternative
exterior shading device in the form of horizontal fins. This system
will shade all of the glazing, and the exterior of the building. By
acting as a parasol shade, all of the building's glazing will be
protected at the peek exposure time. The state of the art shading
coefficient for 1.0 inches of insulated glass without a mirror finish
is in the range of 0.24 to 0.28. The goal of the shading system for
this building is to bring that shading coefficient of the glass to near
zero.
Higher Performance Systems for the Heating, Ventilation, and Air
Conditioning (HVAC) System (Estimated Cost: $530,000)
The County's efforts in the design of the building's HVAC system
concern the utilization of the most energy efficient equipment and
technology available on the market. As part of those efforts, the
following systems are being analyzed for the final implementation of
this design. These systems include:
--High efficiency condensing natural gas boilers that provide hot
water to all air handling units, and VAV box heating coils.
Consequently, the boilers shall be the direct vent type with
PVC combustion air ducts and stainless steel exhaust flues out
of the roof of the mechanical room. This would include two
boilers rated two million BTU each. Finally, the hot water
pumping system will be a primary/secondary pumping system with
variable frequency drives on secondary pumps.
--Air handling equipment that would be designed as follows: double-
wall construction with two inch insulation, IAQ-type sloped
drain pans, 30 percent pre-filters, and 90 percent to 95
percent cartridge filters. In order to provide optimal energy
efficiency, the air-handling units that are variable volume
shall be controlled via variable frequency drives. This system
also greatly increases the latent cooling ability of the system
at part-load conditions, preventing humidity buildup in the
summer months. Each air-handling unit shall have a humidity
sensor to monitor and modify control sequences if necessary to
maintain proper humidity levels. All motors shall be high-
efficiency. The coils within the system will all operate using
two-way control valves to provide the most efficient use of
chilled and hot water. Cooling coil temperature differential
shall be selected to minimize energy use.
--A ventilation system for the building that would be provided in
accordance with the amounts prescribed in ASHRAE 62-1989.
Specifically, carbon dioxide sensors will monitor the carbon
dioxide level in the building's habitable spaces, and utilize
this information to control the amount of outside air being
supplied to the building's system. This will reduce energy
consumption by reducing the amount of outside air that needs to
be cooled and dehumidified.
concluding comments for written testimony
In conclusion, Alachua County proposes an energy conservation
prototype for the new Alachua County Criminal Courthouse. In addition
to serving as a centerpiece of downtown redevelopment, the Courthouse
will also serve as a model project for the conservation of energy and
natural resources in public buildings. To demonstrate the County's
commitment to this project, numerous energy and resource conservation
measures have already been planned for the building.
Therefore, the federal funding requested in this initiative will
allow other conservation measures to be included in the building's
design, making it a remarkable state and national example of energy
conservation and environmental protection. For these reasons, we hope
that the Subcommittee will find this project worthy of your support.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New
Jersey
UMDNJ is one of the of the largest public health sciences
universities in the country. In its 30-year history, the university has
become a statewide system with 8 schools on 5 academic campuses. UMDNJ
has developed a network of core and affiliated teaching hospitals as
well as academic partners that provide health care and higher education
to citizens throughout the state.
The university's president and board of trustees developed a
strategic plan to place UMDNJ in the top tier of academic health
centers in the nation. Foremost in that plan is the development of
centers of excellence such as the Cancer Institute of New Jersey and
the Child Health Institute of New Jersey.
The Cancer Institute is New Jersey's only NCI-designated cancer
center. CINJ was established in 1990 with a capital grant from the
federal government and other grant support. Over the past decade, CINJ
has developed a provider network that includes 20 hospital partners
across the state to provide seamless access to the exceptional cancer
programs at CINJ. Over the past 3 years, the Gallo Prostate Cancer
Center achieved $9 million in federal funding to enhance prostate
cancer education and treatment programs throughout New Jersey. Because
African-American males are 2.5 times more likely to develop prostate
cancer than white males, we are especially pleased of our partnership
with the 100 black men organization through which we offer prostate
cancer screenings in minority communities. To date, this initiative has
provided screenings for prostate cancer to more than 1,500 men in three
counties. Our goal is to extend that service to every county in New
Jersey.
CINJ also works with the Chandler Health Center, a federally
qualified community health center operated by the UMDNJ-Robert Wood
Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, NJ. The center provides early
detection programs and examinations to medically indigent adults and
children. CINJ also provides outreach to make the benefits of clinical
trials more widely available to minorities.
CINJ currently occupies a 76,000 square foot research and treatment
facility, but demand has outpaced its capacity. The facility was
designed to accommodate 16,000 patient visits, but last year there were
more than 37,000 patient visits. These visits continue to increase at
an annual rate of 10 percent. We anticipate between 50,000-60,000
patient visits at CINJ by 2003. UMDNJ has approved the construction of
a new addition to the CINJ facility in New Brunswick and has
commitments of $16,000 toward the construction cost of $30 million. The
new facility will take about two years to build and will create
numerous construction-related jobs in the area. When completed, the
facility will accommodate nearly 200 additional employees (faculty,
support staff, nurses, clinical researchers, etc.) and will be the new
home of the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer Center. We are seeking
$10 million in federal funding toward construction of the new CINJ
addition.
Our second priority is the Child Health Institute, a comprehensive
research institute dedicated to the prevention, treatment and potential
cures of childhood diseases, disabilities and disorders. The strong
support of parents and families of affected children has produced
important collaborations for the institute. Advocacy groups know the
value of research as a tool toward treatment and cures. An example is
autism. The Child Health Institute is home to the governor's council on
autism, which distributes $1.5 million in grants from the state to
provide education and treatment services to autistic children and their
families.
The Child Health Institute will act as a magnet for additional
growth in research and healthcare in New Jersey. The Institute will
encompass 100,000 square feet to house more than 40 research
laboratories and associated support facilities. When completed, there
will a full complement of 130 employees at the CHI.
The Child Health Institute is estimated to cost about $40 million.
To date, CHI has achieved close to $5 million in federal funding and
$30 million from private, individual, foundation and other government
sources. We are seeking $5 million to complete the federal government's
commitment to the development of the Child Health Institute.
The ability of urban based academic health centers such as UMDNJ
and Robert Wood Johnson Medical School to conduct research that will
translate to better health care must be supported through a partnership
of federal, state and private resources. We thank this committee for
supporting the critical needs of research and economic development
throughout the nation and for your past support of our programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy
introduction
The Business Council For Sustainable Energy is pleased to offer
testimony on the role for government in promoting energy research,
development and deployment, specifically the renewable energy programs
at the Department of Energy (DOE).
The Council was formed in 1992 by businesses and industry trade
associations sharing 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.
a federal energy commitment is critical
The recent election focused on the energy crisis like none other we
have faced in recent memory. We continue to experience spiraling prices
and supply interruptions in California for electricity and we may see
problems spread to other regions this summer. The environmental
challenges of energy supply and use abound, and even energy's national
security implications are coming to the forefront. All of these
challenges will persist for years and will only be resolved by the
concerted efforts of industry, government and the public.
Regarding the Federal role in energy supply and use, we eagerly
await implementation of the Administration's demonstrated commitment to
fixing the problems, and a commitment by Congress to ensure that there
is a diverse, environmentally and economically sound menu of energy
options available to the market.
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 will
meet our needs. In fact, in the deregulated California wholesale
electricity market, many renewable energy projects are the margin in
keeping the lights on, and their contribution to grid reliability will
be realized many more times in more areas of the nation as summer
approaches.
The ability of these technologies to fulfill this role is due in
large part to a sustained commitment by industry and the Federal
government to research and development. In addition, the private sector
has and continues to be important in helping share the risk of
investing in deployment of clean technologies that, while at or near
economical viability, face obstacles to their wide market availability.
With the energy needs of the nation having never been more acute,
the need for a continued Federal commitment is likewise critical. We
believe it vital that the following programs receive the full support
of the Congress in order to lead the nation through the challenges we
face and will continue to face in the foreseeable future.
wind
Markets for utility-scale wind energy continue to accelerate their
growth rate. Over the past year in the U.S. alone, nine separate
hundred-plus megawatt projects were announced, including in Nevada,
California and along the Washington-Oregon border, which will aid the
heavily stressed West coast grid, three projects in Texas, and smaller
projects in Pennsylvania, upstate New York, Kansas, Wyoming and
elsewhere. Collectively, they represent the output of several
traditional central station power plants yet have a minimal impact upon
the environment.
In addition to increasing their contribution to national
electricity needs, wind facilities are some of the most rapidly sited
and constructed energy providers. Major wind facilities can move from
proposal to being on line in a fraction of the time of traditional
power plants. In short, they are making a difference now.
Wind energy technology as it stands today is capable of providing
electricity at cost-competitive rates in only 5 percent of potential
wind sites in the U.S. Further refinement from continued research and
development can make wind a viable energy resource in more and more
regions, over a wider range of wind conditions and make more
significant contributions to our national electricity needs. To do so,
Federal support is critical.
Small wind turbines are also on the rise. Companies like Bergey
Windpower, a Council member and manufacturer of small wind systems
serving the distributed generation market for rural homes and
facilities, are working overtime to satisfy orders from electricity-
starved regions. These distributed generation systems have great
potential to reduce energy costs, promote competition and strengthen
the electrical grid.
DOE has significant programs for many technologies but not for
small wind. A Small Wind Turbine Initiative (SWTI) would reduce the
costs of small wind systems for homes, farms, and small businesses by
promoting deployment that would lead to higher production volumes,
reducing market barriers and improving the technology. SWTI aims to
make small wind turbines cost-effective for an estimated 6 million to
10 million potential rural residential users, opening a potential
market of up to 60,000 MW that could make small wind a major
contributor to our domestic energy supply.
solar energy
Solar energy continues to provide an increasing amount of energy
for the world. The concentrated solar power, photovoltaics and solar
buildings programs at the Department have played and will continue to
play an important role in the deployment of these technologies.
Concentrated Solar Power
This technology can provide both heat and power for baseload energy
demand. Three primary technologies are emerging today: solar troughs;
solar-driven dish/engines; and concentrators. Storage technologies and
hybrid designs provide for energy production even when the sun is not
shining. Together these technologies are expected to contribute over
5,000 megawatts of electricity worldwide by 2010.
The Council supports funding for a combination of activities
related to concentrated solar power (CSP). This includes research and
technical assistance directed by industry but administered through the
national laboratories and universities, cost-shared funding provided
directly to U.S. industry for applied research, development and
deployment and the establishment of the CSP Southwest Border
Initiative, which would provide a blend of CSP technologies to help
provide badly needed power to this region (Arizona, Nevada, California,
and New Mexico). Together we request funding for concentrated solar
power activities at a level of $25 million.
Photovoltaics
This technology utilizes silicon to convert sunlight directly into
electricity. Research has already succeeded in cutting the cost of
producing electricity in this manner in half between 1995 and 2000. The
industry has grown three-fold in less than a decade. On the horizon
over the next five years is the potential to halve cost again, making
photovoltaic-produced electricity competitive with all other
distributed electricity generation options in the U.S.
U.S. preeminence in this field can only be maintained with a
committed Federal effort. New materials development, integrating
photovoltaic systems with structural building materials, increasing
manufacturing efficiencies and technology validation partnerships that
increase confidence in the technology are all efforts requiring Federal
assistance. Funding at a level of $100 million in fiscal year 2002
would build upon past achievements and increase market penetration of
this environmentally benign technology.
Solar Buildings
Continued technological developments and a Federal commitment in
this arena have seen solar thermal water heating and other technologies
penetrating the building market. This program has successfully
established performance and certification criteria that can predict the
performance of solar water heating systems and improve efficiencies at
lower costs. Today, large-scale homebuilders are actively integrating a
variety of solar, energy efficiency and other renewable energy
technologies into their designs and marketing them to consumers.
The Council supports $12 million in funding for this program to
develop integrated technology packages that can deliver competitive
energy in today's market. Its blending of technologies including energy
efficiency, other renewable and natural gas technologies creates
solutions that provide reliable, low cost and environmentally sound
energy options to consumers.
The Zero Energy Building Initiative
The Council supports the creation of this initiative. The
combination of solar technologies with energy-efficient construction
techniques and highly efficient appliances can result in a new
generation of cost-effective buildings that have zero net annual need
for off-site energy while generating zero air pollution emissions.
geothermal energy
The Council supports Federal programs directed towards taking
advantage of geothermal resources. California today receives six
percent of its electricity from geothermal resources and the western
U.S. could realize nearly 20,000 megawatts of electrical and thermal
energy using enhanced geothermal technology. That would represent a
tripling of today's output, and would satisfy the needs of 18 million
residents. The Council requests an increase to $60 million in
geothermal funding in fiscal year 2002.
residential renewable energy grant program
Senator Murkowski has proposed this program to offset a portion of
the cost of renewable energy systems that include solar, photovoltaic,
wind, biomass, waste, hydroelectric or geothermal energy resources. We
support the full authorization level of $30 million for fiscal year
2002.
distributed power
Reliable power generated on-site has received much attention since
rolling blackouts struck California. Whether the energy is produced by
microturbines, reciprocating engines, fuel cells or other gas-fueled
systems, or by renewable energy technologies, challenges to widespread
deployment remain. In some instances it is the lack of real-world
operating experience due to the newness of some technologies; in other
cases it may be problems associated with hooking up to the grid due to
the lack of interconnect standards or emissions issues associated with
siting new generating capacity. In all of these cases and despite
demands of the marketplace, the Federal role remains strong.
We view the new National Energy Reliability Initiative as a serious
effort to address many outstanding distributed power and reliability
issues. Its integrated examination of the challenges, backed by
meaningful resources, has the potential to make substantial inroads
toward deploying distributed energy resources. To meet these needs, the
Council requests appropriations in the amount of $30 million for the
initiative and $9 million for traditional distributed energy resources
programs.
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 develop
wind and solar generating facilities. We very much support this program
and request the Committee provide $25 million in funding for the REPI.
international activities
Finally, the Council would like to offer its support for 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 often 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, with an
anticipated expenditure of $4 trillion to $5 trillion. Traditionally,
most ``new'' 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 easily double in less then 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, and providing for the energy needs of some of the 2 billion
people in the world now without electricity.
The Council is extremely supportive of the fiscal year 2002 funding
for international energy programs and urges that funding 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
A wide range of energy options is needed to create energy security
and ensure our economic and environmental integrity. With a full slate
of choices, choices in part aided by research and development supported
by the Department of Energy, the marketplace will have options to
select those most appropriate solutions to meet specific needs. These
are options that are already having an impact in many states and
countries.
In the near-term, these technologies provide the shortest lead-time
to getting new generation capacity on the grid. Simultaneously, they
provide American jobs, stronger economies here and abroad, enhanced
export opportunities for domestic manufacturers and a cleaner
environment. Continuing Federal emphasis on developing low- and non-
polluting energy technologies and services will help achieve these
goals. Utilizing 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 urges the Congress to continue its support of
Federal research, development and validation programs for renewable and
distributed energy technologies. By adopting a robust budget, Congress
can demonstrate its genuine commitment to the U.S. economy throughout
this time of critical energy constraint.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Hydrogen Association
Dear Chairman Domenici: The National Hydrogen Association (NHA) was
formed by a group of ten industry, university/research, and small
business members in February 1989. The National Hydrogen Association
now has over 70 members, including automobile companies, energy
providers, fuel cell developers, gas producers, chemical companies and
others. The NHA provides a national focal point for hydrogen interest
and information transfer.
With active participation from three major energy companies (BP,
Shell Hydrogen, and Texaco Energy Systems), as well as three major
hydrogen suppliers (Air Products and Chemicals, BOC Gases, and
Praxair), the NHA is better positioned than ever to achieve the goal of
industry and government to implement a hydrogen energy infrastructure.
The Department of Energy must be ready to support this effort with
improved technology and safe infrastructure while removing the barriers
to commercialization.
The mission of the National Hydrogen Association is to foster the
development of hydrogen technologies and their utilization in energy
applications. I am writing to underscore the NHA's support for
increased funding of the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2002
Hydrogen Research Program. The Hydrogen Future Act of 1996, authored by
Congressman Robert Walker while he was Chairman of the Science
Committee, authorized $40 million for the Hydrogen Research Program for
fiscal year 2001. This act expires this year, and reauthorization
efforts are underway. The current proposed DOE budget for hydrogen
falls short of the targets in the draft bill and in fact falls short of
the authorized amount for fiscal year 2001 of $40 million. The NHA
encourages you to fund the fiscal year 2002 DOE Hydrogen Program at the
$40 million level that was authorized, but not appropriated for fiscal
year 2001.
The development of programs that create jobs, and enhance the
economy while not polluting our environment should be a priority and
should be funded at the level that Congress has authorized. The
introduction of hydrogen as a clean energy carrier will have wide
ramifications. Hydrogen and the associated technologies will provide us
with a degree of energy independence that we have not experienced in
the world market for oil, and will unleash this nation's ability to
influence world markets through U.S. production of clean energy
technologies.
A $40 million appropriation for such an important program is
modest, especially when compared to the funds being spent by domestic
and foreign businesses and foreign governments. We should not be left
at the starting gate when it comes to the opening of New World markets.
Full funding of the Hydrogen Research Program is a cost-effective
investment in America's future.
Hydrogen was rated highly by the Department of Energy in a study
conducted by Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) on carbon
displacement, a key indicator in their budget allocation in response to
the Administration's climate change initiative. Auto companies and
energy companies have publicly stated that if certain technical issues
with hydrogen were solved, they would not be looking at other alternate
fuels. Why has DOE reduced the budget for the Department's core
competency in hydrogen when the need for clean, sustainable energy has
significantly increased?
The administration's budget recommends only $13.9 million for
hydrogen research and development. A supplemental budget may be in the
works. At $13.9 million, many activities critical to assure a safe
hydrogen infrastructure will not be funded. These include ceramic
membrane technology efforts cost-shared with industry; the development
of codes and standards for hydrogen energy systems, including
transportation and stationary power systems; critical outreach with
regulatory bodies and others who want to work with the hydrogen
community to assure public safety; outreach to the public on the proper
use and benefits of these new technologies; niche market demonstrations
including fuel cell mining vehicle demonstration projects, hydrogen
refueling stations, hydrogen storage technologies using new materials;
and others. Even at $27 million, demonstrations of stationary fuel
cells and vehicles at Federal facilities, efforts to meet cost targets
for hydrogen production by reformation of natural gas, and other
activities described in Title II of the Hydrogen Future Act will not be
fully funded.
Hydrogen technologies have made significant progress both
technically and economically due to the benefit of a focused
government-industry program at the U.S. Department of Energy. The
Hydrogen Program allows for a single focal point for hydrogen energy
system information and activities. This core competency is supported by
industry and avoids redundancy and duplication of effort, while
enabling hydrogen to have a visible activity. This activity is
monitored with support from the Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel,
mandated by Congress, and tracked through an effective peer review
process annually. This type of accountability has allowed the Hydrogen
Program to make significant progress with limited budgets.
Given that demonstrations will be taking place over the next three
years in California and other states, timing for the development of
hydrogen storage and refueling systems is now. The DOE Hydrogen
Program, in which the National Hydrogen Association and many of our
members participate, has been called upon by industry to address these
issues and is responding to industry's requests. The NHA has been
working closely with the DOE Hydrogen Program to ensure that industry
has the tools it needs to commercialize the technologies developed
through our national laboratories and cooperative research efforts. I
believe it is unwise for the hydrogen program to suffer a funding
reduction and turn these activities over to other DOE areas, since this
diffuses the hydrogen effort and would lead to independent or poorly
coordinated hydrogen projects.
Hydrogen has enjoyed support on Capitol Hill and from industry by
providing a balanced program focused on proving key technological
concepts, which industry may then use to make products, based on their
own market analyses. The NHA encourages you to fund the Hydrogen
Program at its fiscal year 2001 authorized level of $40 million in
fiscal year 2002. Thank you for your past leadership in this energy
area. I look forward to working with you to increase the fiscal year
2002 appropriation for the DOE Hydrogen Program.
______
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 2002.
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) coordinates public policy for
the U.S. nuclear industry. NEI represents 270 members with a broad
spectrum of interests, including every U.S. electric company 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 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 record levels for efficiency and
electricity production.
The industry thanks Senator Pete Domenici for his leadership in
supporting the major U.S. source of emission-free electricity. The
nuclear energy legislation introduced by Senator Domenici in March
provides concrete steps to set our nation on a sound energy course for
decades to come, including an appropriate robust role for nuclear
energy in our nation's electricity portfolio.
federal 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
is long established U.S. national policy. In 1982, the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act codified Federal policy for developing a repository for
long-term stewardship of used nuclear fuel. In 1987, after
environmental assessments were conducted at five sites, Congress
focused the repository study on Yucca Mountain, Nev. DOE is committed
to forward a formal decision on the site suitability of Yucca Mountain
to the president this year.
DOE's 1998 viability assessment, 1999 draft environmental impact
statement (EIS) and additional scientific evaluations support
preliminary findings that the proposed repository at the remote, desert
ridge at Yucca Mountain can protect public health and safety far into
the future. DOE's science consistently predicts that peak radiation
releases 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 received by traveling on a transcontinental
airplane flight.
DOE must start meeting its contractual and statutory obligations to
begin removing used nuclear fuel from nuclear power plant sites,
national laboratories and defense facilities in approximately 150
communities in 40 states. The industry thanks the committee for its
commitment to rectify DOE's 1998 default on this obligation by
sufficiently funding the repository program. We urge the committee to
continue to hold DOE accountable for making a decision on a formal
Yucca Mountain site recommendation to the president by the end of this
year.
Since 1983, American electricity consumers have committed $16.8
billion to the Nuclear Waste Fund, specifically to finance the Federal
management of used nuclear fuel. Federal taxpayers have paid an
additional $1.4 billion for disposal of waste from defense-related
nuclear programs. The Nuclear Waste Fund has a balance of $10.1
billion, which must be made available for repository construction and
operation.
The nuclear energy industry strongly supports the Department of
Energy's fiscal year 2002 funding request of $445 million for the
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management program. At this critical
juncture, an increase in DOE's appropriation is warranted to continue
the scientific study of Yucca Mountain. Electricity consumers this year
will pay more than $700 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund.
Although the repository program is the foundation of our national
policy for managing used nuclear fuel, the nuclear industry also
recognizes the value in researching future used fuel management
technologies. Farsighted research and development programs allow our
nation to remain the world leader in nuclear technologies. However, it
is important to note that even technologies like transmutation--the
conversion of used nuclear fuel into less toxic materials--require a
repository for disposal of the radioactive byproducts generated from
the process.
nuclear energy research & development
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 grew by 2.3 percent a year on average
during the 1990s, and by 2.6 percent in 2000. Even if electricity
demand grows by a modest 1.8 percent annually over the next two
decades, the nation will need nearly 400,000 megawatts of new electric
generating capacity, including replacement of retired capacity,
according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. This capacity
is the equivalent of building about 40 new mid-size (500-megawatt)
power plants--20,000 megawatts--every year for the next 20 years.
The industry is disappointed that DOE has requested less funding
for its fiscal year 2002 nuclear energy research and development
programs than last year, and urges the committee to approve $433
million in fiscal year 2002 for DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, Science
and Technology--twice the current budget.
This funding level is consistent with recommendations in
legislation recently introduced authorizing increases in nuclear energy
R&D programs. Funding increases also have been suggested in recent
years by the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST), the Secretary of Energy's Nuclear Energy Research
Advisory Committee and DOE's Near-Term Deployment Group.
The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI)--which seeks to
expand America's nuclear energy program in the 21st century--fills a
vital need identified in a 1997 PCAST report. PCAST recommended an R&D
program to address potential barriers to nuclear energy's long-term use
and to maintain America's nuclear science and technology leadership.
PCAST also recommended another R&D initiative--the Nuclear Energy Plant
Optimization (NEPO) program--to generate more low-cost energy from
America's nuclear power plants.
A blue ribbon panel of seven experts appointed by the Nuclear
Energy Research Advisory Committee has offered recommendations on how
DOE can support university nuclear engineering programs, help to
maintain university research and training reactors and promote
collaboration between universities and DOE laboratories. DOE's Near-
Term Deployment Group is developing recommendations on agency actions
needed in fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 to facilitate the NRC
review of early site permit applications for new nuclear power plants.
Also, authorizing legislation introduced this year in the U.S.
Senate and House of Representatives would expand funding in these areas
as well as provide incentives to increase electricity generation at
nuclear power plants.
The nuclear energy industry urges the committee to approve $60
million in fiscal year 2002 for the NERI program, which is paving the
way for the expanded use of nuclear energy and maintaining U.S.
leadership in nuclear plant technology and safety. In fiscal year 2001,
NERI received $22.5 million--less than one-half of the $50 million
annual appropriation recommended by PCAST in its 1997 report. Beginning
in fiscal year 2002, PCAST recommended NERI funding be increased to
$100 million a year. Although current funding has been sufficient to
continue projects initiated in previous fiscal years, it leaves little
funding for new R&D projects.
The nuclear energy industry also encourages the committee to
allocate $15 million for the 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. NEPO received $5 million in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal
year 2001--half the annual funding recommended by PCAST.
DOE has launched a project to prepare a technology roadmap for
developing and deploying ``next generation'' nuclear plants, called
Generation IV. As a part of this effort, DOE is preparing a report on
near-term deployment activities needed to have new nuclear plants in
operation by 2010 or sooner, while longer term technologies are being
developed.
DOE is coordinating with NEI's Executive Task Force on New Nuclear
Plants. In the interim, DOE is preparing recommendations on activities
requiring immediate attention and is expected to released them in the
near future. To support completion of the DOE technology roadmapping
effort and to begin implementing these near-term recommendations, NEI
urges the committee to approve $42 million in fiscal year 2002 for the
Nuclear Energy Technology Development program.
The industry also requests $34.2 million for DOE's University
Support Program, which enhances vital research and educational programs
in nuclear science at the nation's colleges and universities. The
number of college programs in nuclear engineering and science is
dwindling. To maintain our nation's position as the international
leader in nuclear technology, it is vital that this trend be reversed
and that our nation's best and brightest technical minds be attracted
to the nuclear technologies. We urge Congress to adequately fund
student recruitment, teaching facilities, fuel and other reactor
equipment, and instructors to educate a new generation of American
nuclear specialists.
Finally, the industry supports the new initiatives included in
authorization legislation introduced this year. One such initiative is
the Production Incentive Programs, which the industry believes should
be funded at $15 million.
nuclear regulatory commission
The industry commends Congress for important changes to the nuclear
industry user fee assessments supporting NRC activities that are
unrelated to industry activities. That legislation requires that the
proportion of the NRC's budget derived from user fees be decreased by 2
percent each year through 2005. In that year, licensees will support 90
percent of the NRC's budget, but not activities that are not directly
related to regulating the industry.
As industry and national energy supply priorities change, sound
public management and budgeting principles dictate 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. Last year, the NRC issued a strategic plan for fiscal
years 2000-2005. In addition, the agency submitted a fiscal year 2001-
2005 resource information document in response to requests from
Congress.
The industry urges the NRC to review its budget in the context of
those documents and the changing needs of the agency. In particular,
the agency should carefully review its organizational structure and
employment levels. The NRC, in its resource information document, has
acknowledged that additional organizational changes may be desirable.
Although the NRC has reduced its staffing levels during the 1990s, its
projections reveal that it may begin increasing those levels over the
next few years. The industry believes there are a number of
opportunities for reallocating resources that should be explored before
additional resources are authorized. These include: reevaluating NRC's
regional structure in light of the results of the reactor oversight
process; eliminating research efforts of questionable value, such as
human performance and organizational effectiveness; limiting the role
of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety (ACRS) to technical
matters; and streamlining the differing professional opinion process to
minimize its impact on issue resolution and management time.
The NRC will be facing several issues in the near future that will
challenge its management flexibility. The possibility of early site
permitting and new reactor licensing, for example, will raise issues
that have not been considered by the NRC for many years. It may not be
possible to simply reassign current staff due to the levels of
specialized expertise that may be required. The industry urges the
committee to request a detailed explanation of how the NRC's proposed
budget will address this important issue as well as the impact that
license renewal may have on this and future NRC budgets and resource
allocation.
The industry thanks the committee for its continued oversight of
the NRC and support for the agency's new reactor oversight process,
which is designed to make regulation of the industry more focused on
areas significant to safety. The industry and other stakeholders are
working with the NRC to incorporate lessons learned during initial
implementation of the process in 2000 and to enhance the efficacy of
the oversight process.
The industry believes that the majority of U.S. nuclear power
reactors will be relicensed for an additional 20 years. The first two
electric companies seeking 20-year license extensions for a total of
five reactors received regulatory approval within 24 months. The
industry expects future license renewal applications to be streamlined
as the NRC applies lessons learned from the initial applications. The
committee's continued oversight of license renewal is greatly
appreciated.
Other programs supported by the industry include:
Nuclear Nonproliferation: The industry supports the disposal of
excess weapons grade nuclear materials through the use of mixed-oxide
fuel in reactors in the United States and Russia.
Low-Dose Radiation Research: The industry strongly supports
continued funding for the DOE's low-dose radiation research program.
This program will produce a better understanding of low-dose radiation
effects to ensure 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 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 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. NEI urges the committee to ensure that these monies are spent on
decontamination and decommissioning activities at these facilities.
Other important environmental, safety and/or health activities at these
facilities should be paid for out of the general fund.
International Nuclear Safety Program & Nuclear Energy Agency: NEI
supports the funding requested for 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. We support continued funding for the Advanced Nuclear
Medicine Initiative to fill the gap where other funding sources, such
as the National Institutes of Health, have been either unable or
unwilling to provide support for radioisotope production.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Plant Physiologists, the
National Corn Growers Association and the American Phytopathological
Society
summary paragraph
The Department of Energy, Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences,
Energy Biosciences program is a highly competitive research program
that supports leading basic research on plants and microbes. Plant
genomics and recombinant DNA technology (biotechnology) offer
revolutionary new tools to plant scientists to engineer plants that
will address the nation's energy needs. Basic plant research is leading
to plants that will produce valuable chemicals that will replace
petroleum-derived industrial products. These home-grown energy crops
will provide benefits to the U.S. economy, farmers, the chemical
industry, consumers and environment. Environmental benefits will also
result from research on engineered plants that remove heavy metal
contaminants from the soil and water. Scientists supported by the
Energy Biosciences program have gained prominence in the national and
international science communities. As just one of these examples,
Energy Biosciences-sponsored research on capture of energy from
photosynthesis by Professor Paul Boyer led to the award of the 1997
Nobel Prize in Chemistry (biochemistry) for Dr. Boyer. The Energy
Biosciences program is an example of the optimum way basic science can
be used to solve some of our country's most challenging energy and
environmental problems.
Mr. Chairman, the American Society of Plant Physiologists (ASPP),
representing 6,000 plant scientists, the National Corn Growers
Association (NCGA), representing more than 30,000 members, and the
American Phytopathological Society (APS), representing 5,000 plant
pathologists, appreciate having this opportunity to submit comments on
opportunities offered by energy-related plant research sponsored by the
Department of Energy. The DOE Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences,
Energy Biosciences program funds basic research in the plant sciences
and non-medical microbiology in several important areas.
The Energy Biosciences program supports basic research that makes
use of the sun's energy and atmospheric carbon dioxide to produce in
plants renewable sources of energy including fuels and industrial
products. Promising research on plants in the area of phytoremediation
sponsored by the Energy Biosciences program is leading to enhanced
plants that can be used to clean heavy metal contaminants from soil and
water.
Until the latter part of the 19th Century, people throughout the
world were dependent upon plants and other contemporaneous biological
sources for the production of organic materials. Plants and animals
provided the only sources of fibers, coatings, lubricants, solvents,
dyes, waxes, fillers, insulation, fragrances detergents, sizing,
leather, wood, paper, rubber and many other types of materials.
Dr. Chris Somerville, whose research has been supported by the
Energy Biosciences program, and Dario Bonetta, provided in the January
2001 issue of the peer-reviewed science journal Plant Physiology a
historical background and projected future advances in energy-related
plant research. These scientists identified a number of opportunities
offered by advances in plant genomics and modern transformation
technologies such as biotechnology that will lead to development of
novel plant products to replace petroleum-derived chemicals. Research
in this area has been identified by Plant Physiology as one of the
greatest advances in plant science of the past 25 years. The DOE Energy
Biosciences program is the key source of support for this basic energy
research. This statement includes in part some of the findings of
Somerville and Bonetta endorsed by the ASPP and the APS.
As recently as 1930, 30 percent of industrial organic chemicals
were derived from plants. The discovery of extensive petroleum reserves
and advances in chemistry and petroleum engineering resulted in a major
shift to reliance on fossil sources of organic feedstocks such as
petroleum. These developments also led to the development of petroleum-
based materials, such as inexpensive plastics, with properties that
could not be duplicated by abundantly available natural materials.
However, many important materials are still derived from plants and
animals including wood, cork, paper, leather, cotton, ramie, hemp,
flax, sisal, wool and silk. Rubber from natural latex is still the only
material that can be used to produce tires that will reliably withstand
the forces associated with airplane landings. Linseed oil is still used
to make paint. Clearly, for many applications, biological sources can
still be used to produce materials on the scale necessary to meet the
needs of the U.S. and other populous industrialized nations.
Research leading to home-grown genetically engineered plants that
produce commercially valuable chemicals offers many benefits for the
U.S., which is now greatly dependent upon imported petroleum for these
products. Enhanced energy crops would help diversify crop production in
the U.S. by producing high-value chemicals and other technical
materials that are currently produced from declining petroleum or coal
feedstocks. In addition, it is possible to envision the production in
plants of novel biologically inspired materials with properties not
easily simulated through chemical synthesis. These enhanced crops could
create potentially large new markets for excess production of American
agriculture. Plants engineered to be chemical feedstocks would also
address the long-term goal of developing more sustainable and
environmentally benign methods of meeting national needs for chemicals
and other materials. This includes the use of the most environmentally
benign methods for protecting these enhanced crops against their pests
and diseases. Like any other efficient use of crops for the benefit of
society, the crops must be healthy.
Two major factors suggest that the trend toward use of petroleum-
derived products over plant-based products can be reversed. First, the
costs of agricultural plant products have declined steadily over the
past 75 years, while oil prices have generally increased. Second, we
now have the ability through genomics and genetic engineering to tap
into the vast chemical diversity produced biologically. Within the
plant kingdom alone, over 50,000 different organic chemical structures
are produced biologically. The microbial world provides many additional
opportunities. A practical example of the possibilities offered was
demonstrated by the use of a bacterial gene to modify a plant to
produce a biodegradable plastic at levels up to 14 percent of the dry
weight of the plant's leaves. Basic research leading to this example
was made possible by the DOE Energy Biosciences program. Plant-produced
products can also provide the chemical industry with much greater
diversity than available from the comparatively limited structures
found in crude oil.
Examples of transgenic plant oils in commercial production include
high-lauric acid canola, which can be used in a variety of applications
including specialty foods and soap and detergent manufacture. A
transgenic soybean variety has very low saturated fatty acids and more
nutritional unsaturated fatty acids. Such oils are both healthier for
human consumption and are extremely stable making them useful as
biodegradable lubricants.
The lab of Michigan State University Professor John Ohlrogge, who
has been supported by the DOE Energy Biosciences program, is now
working to develop plants which will provide the feedstocks for new
types of polyurethane, nylon with stronger and more flexible fibers,
and biodegradable lubricants. These are not niche markets. The U.S. now
produces nylon, polyurethane and other plastics to supply multi-
billion-dollar markets. Genetically modified crop plant production of
nylon alone could create over $2 billion in new income for American
farmers. American farmers will benefit from these enhanced plants
because they will have new markets for their products. The American
chemical industry will benefit because it will have new structures on
which to build improved plastics and other products. American consumers
will benefit because more of the nation's products will be based on
renewable and biodegradable resources that do not contribute to
landfill overflow or higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. The
nation would also become less dependent on foreign oil for production
of these products.
The Energy Biosciences program is an example of the optimum way
basic science can be used to solve some of our country's most
challenging energy and environmental problems. We appreciate the strong
support of the Committee for the Energy Biosciences program in past
years. ASPP, NCGA and APS respectively urge the Committee to increase
support for Energy Biosciences and the Office of Science by 15 percent
in fiscal year 2002 to help the nation more effectively meet its
enormous energy needs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I appreciate this
opportunity to submit testimony on solar energy programs sponsored by
the Federal government. Solar energy will play an important role in the
years ahead not just in promoting America's energy independence, but
also in cleaning up our environment, and in expanding a domestic high-
tech industry and the precision manufacturing jobs that come with it.
At the outset, let me express our profound disappointment with the
Administration's budget request for solar programs. It is apparently
the Administration's judgment that bipartisan majorities in Congress
last year wasted an enormous amount of taxpayer money with your fiscal
year 2001 appropriations for solar research and development. The facts,
however, reflect that the Federal government's investments in solar
programs over the last two decades have lead to steady improvements in
efficiency of solar products and in steadily declining costs to produce
solar energy.
As you well know, Administrations sometimes under-request funds for
programs when they know Congress will correct the deficiencies. Perhaps
this is the case here. In any event, it makes your work this year more
important than ever. We request that Congress appropriate for these
programs in fiscal year 2002 amounts that will enable solar energy to
contribute not just to expanding our energy supply, but also to help
clean our air, as solar energy creates no emissions.
Our budget recommendations are consistent with an important
amendment, sponsored by Senator Harry Reid, which was adopted as part
of the Senate Budget Resolution. The amendment increased by $450
million our nation's commitment to renewable energy R&D programs for
fiscal year 2002.
The United States has invested millions of dollars in solar RD&D,
which is a tiny amount compared to its investment in conventional
energy technologies. While SEIA recommends the following minimum
investments in Federal solar energy RD&D, we are also equally
recommending that existing programs in other agencies be co-invested in
the development and demonstration (deployment) part of the RD&D budget.
In fact, the priority for these investments this year and beyond should
now be focused on the second ``D,'' which we call ``deployment.''
The funding levels for solar RD&D programs through the Department
of Energy for fiscal year 2002 should be:
[In millions of dollars]
Concentrating solar power......................................... 25
Photovoltaics..................................................... 100
Solar buildings................................................... 12
SEIA believes that one-quarter of these budgets ($35 million)
should be reserved for basic research directed by industry but
administered through the national laboratories and universities. SEIA
believes that one-third of these funds ($45 million) should be cost-
shared with US industry directly from DOE for applied RD&D (i.e.,
manufacturing initiatives, partnerships, etc.). SEIA urges that the
remaining funds ($58 million) be competitively awarded to the U.S.
solar industry through the states by leveraging with other Federal and
state programs, aggregating nearly $200 million per year for actual
deployment and system validation demonstration programs.
There are three other valuable programs that merit the Committee's
attention. SEIA urges your support for the Concentrating Solar Power
(CSP) Southwest Border Initiative, which would utilize a blend of CSP
technologies to help provide badly-needed power to the states of
California, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico, while also improving these
technologies for deployment elsewhere in the nation. The Zero Energy
Building (ZEB) Initiative would combine solar technologies with energy-
efficient construction techniques and highly efficient appliances to
develop the next generation of buildings that will have zero net annual
need for off-site energy while generating zero emissions. This multi-
disciplinary program deserves your support. Finally, SEIA urges the
Committee to support and fund fully Senator Frank Murkowski's
innovative Residential Renewable Energy Grant Program, which would
offset a portion of the cost of renewable energy systems.
SEIA further recommends that other Federal agency, and other DOE,
programs direct a certain portion of their funds for deployment and
technology validation, as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Department of Defense............................................. 20
Defense Advanced Research Program (DARPA)..................... 10
FEMP Procurement.............................................. 10
Department of Energy.............................................. 26
Combined Heat & Power......................................... 10
Distributed Power............................................. 2
Hydrogen...................................................... 3
Industries of the Future...................................... 10
Storage....................................................... 1
Environmental Protection Agency................................... 10
Energy Star................................................... 5
Office of Research and Development (ORD)...................... 5
Housing and Urban Development..................................... 4
Office of Energy.............................................. 2
Partnership of Advanced Technology in Housing................. 2
National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST)............... 10
SEIA also recognizes that several hundred million dollars are
available through the State Trust Funds established by some states that
have deregulated their electric utilities. The basis of SEIA's
recommendations is to leverage the Department of Energy and other
Federal agency funds and co-invest with these state-based funds. SEIA
also suggests that states and local governments with other resources
should be sought out to co-invest as well, so that a strong geographic
dispersion of solar energy technologies and applications can occur.
The US solar industry believes that increased market penetration
tied to relevant applied research and technology validation is the most
effective path to exponentially increase the use of solar technologies
in realistic market-driven uses. Solar technology today can provide
real solutions to real problems such as power reliability, energy rate
fluctuations, fossil fuel shortages, pollution and noise, as well as
high-technology economic development.
Particularly in this time of rolling blackouts in California, and
the potential for these disruptions to expand across the country in the
summer months ahead, the added capacity that solar represents could
make the difference for critical needs of businesses, governments and
homes. As we seek to expand our nation's energy mix and capacity, the
Department of Energy's solar energy RD&D efforts should continue their
important work.
The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) is the national
industry organization of the photovoltaics and solar thermal
manufacturers, component suppliers, distributors and installers. We
have been active in guiding and promoting solar energy through the U.S.
Department of Energy (and its predecessors) over the last 26 years. We
would be happy to provide you with further information, and answer any
questions you may have.
We look forward to working with you in the months and years ahead,
as solar energy helps more and more families and businesses meet their
energy needs in a clean and reliable way. Thank you very much for your
consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Biomass Energy Research Association (BERA)
This testimony pertains to the fiscal year 2002 (fiscal year 2002)
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 biomass research. Our objectives are to promote education
and research on the production of energy and fuels from virgin and
waste biomass that can be economically utilized by the public, and to
serve as a source of information on biomass RD&D policies and programs.
BERA does not solicit or accept federal funding for its efforts.
On behalf of BERA's members, I would like to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for the opportunity to present our Board's position on the
funding of mission-oriented biomass RD&D. On this occasion, I would
like to focus on the high-priority projects and programs that we
strongly urge be continued or started.
One of the primary goals of the Bioenergy/Bioproducts Initiative,
which was created as a result of ``The Biomass Research and Development
Act of 2000,'' and Executive Order 13134, ``Developing and Promoting
Biobased Products and Bioenergy,'' is to triple U.S. usage of bioenergy
and biobased products by 2010. Congress provided funding for the
Initiative in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001. A strategic plan
has been developed to attain the Initiative's goal by the multi-agency
Biomass Research and Development Board (BRDB) co-chaired by the
Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Agriculture. Achievement of
this goal is sorely needed because of what has happened to U.S. crude
oil, natural gas, and electricity markets, our continually increasing
dependence on imported oil, and environmental issues. It is time to
determine whether practical biomass systems can be developed that are
capable of displacing much larger amounts of fossil fuels. The amount
displaced in 1999 was 1.65 million barrels of oil equivalent per day
(3.49 quad per year). The BRDB will address this question, and help to
coordinate the many different biomass RD&D projects in progress in the
different agencies to ensure that each is necessary and on course.
Estimation of the potential contribution to the program goal of each
technology that is funded is essential to optimize the project mix. New
projects should not be started until this is done. The BRDB has
projected that achievement of the targeted goal requires RD&D funding
to be increased by $500 million to $1 billion per year of public-sector
investment. It is clear that a significant increase in RD&D
appropriations is necessary to implement this program.
The Regional Biomass Energy Program (RBEP) authorized in 1983 by
Congress covers the entire country and is nationally known for its
information and outreach programs. It has a successful track record in
partnership with almost all states, and has brought many local
government and business communities together to plan the development of
practical biomass energy and fuel systems using indigenous resources in
the respective state areas. We urge that the RBEP be continued because
it promotes and helps facilitate commercialization of biomass through
its established networks with the states and the private sector, and
can make major contributions to the goal of tripling biomass
consumption.
In its core RD&D, DOE has been required to terminate research in
several microbial and thermochemical conversion areas because of the
cost of scale-up programs. BERA believes that a balanced program should
be sustained and protected, so we continue 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. DOE's basic research on biomass energy outside of EERE by the
Office of Science, 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 are presented in a separate BERA statement for the Interior
and Related Agencies Bill.
Specifically, BERA recommends that $127 million be appropriated for
biomass RD&D under the Energy and Water Bill in fiscal year 2002 as
follows:
--$30 million to continue the Bioenergy/Bioproducts Initiative and
$7.5 million to continue the RBEP, equally divided between
Power Systems and Transportation.
--$27 million for research and $15 million for industry cost-shared
scale-up projects for the core programs of Power Systems.
--$29.5 million for research and $12 million for industry cost-shared
scale-up projects for the core programs of Transportation.
--$6 million for biomass-based hydrogen research.
program integration, coordination, and management
For several years, BERA has urged that all 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.
BERA strongly recommends that the Bioenergy/Bioproducts Initiative
be continued and incorporated into the overall federal biomass RD&D
program. The USDA has a long history of developing advanced biomass
production technologies, which are essential to meet the objective of
tripling biomass energy consumption by 2010. It is especially important
that the biomass research of DOE and USDA be closely coordinated so
that each agency is fully aware and apprised of the research that the
other is conducting.
Implementation of the Initiative should include identification of
each federal agency that provides funding related to biomass energy
development, each agency's programs, and the expenditures by each
agency. This will enable the coordination of all federally funded
biomass energy programs through the National Bioenergy and Bioproducts
Board. This will also avoid duplication of efforts, unnecessary
expenditures, and continuation of projects that have been completed or
that are not focused on the program goal, and instead will facilitate
new starts that target the program goal. If the Initiative is fully
implemented, the value of the federal expenditures on biomass research
to the country will be enhanced in many different ways.
bera recommends $94.5 million for research and $32.5 million for
industry cost-shared, scale-up projects for fiscal year 2002
BERA's recommendations consist of a balanced program of mission-
oriented RD&D on feedstock production, conversion research, and
technology transfer to the private sector. Advanced feedstock
production methods, conversion processes, and power generation
technologies; alternative liquid transportation fuels; and hydrogen-
from-biomass processes are emphasized.
BERA strongly recommends that at least 50 percent of the federal
funds appropriated for biomass research, excluding the funds for scale-
up projects, are used to sustain a national biomass science and
technology base via sub-contracts for industry and universities. 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 researchers
committed to the advancement of biomass technologies.
BERA's specific dollar allocations are listed in the accompanying
table. Additional commentary on each program area is presented in the
same order as listed in the table.
Allocation of Appropriations Recommended by BERA
BERA recommends that the appropriations for fiscal year 2002 be
allocated as shown in the accompanying table. BERA's recommendations
are generally listed in the same order as DOE's request for funding,
except we have included 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. Note also that the
funding recommended for the Bioenergy/Bioproduct Initiative is shown in
the research category. It is expected that DOE will allocate a large
portion of these funds to scale-up projects after evaluating the
projected contribution of each technology to the goal of the
Initiative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 $0
Advanced Combustion........ 2,000,000 0
Advanced Gasification...... 2,000,000 0
Advanced Pyrolysis......... 3,000,000 0
Advanced Stationary Fuel 2,000,000 0
Cells.....................
Advanced Process Fuels..... 3,000,000 0
Improved Emissions Control. 3,000,000 0
Wastewater Treatment....... 2,000,000 0
Hot Gas Clean-Up........... 2,000,000 0
Microbial Conversion:
Advanced Anaerobic 1,000,000 0
Digestion.................
Systems Development:
Biomass/Coal Cofiring...... 0 2,000,000
Integrated Field Scale-Up.. 0 4,000,000
Vermont Gasifier........... 0 4,000,000
Small Modular Systems...... 2,000,000 2,000,000
Feedstock Production....... 2,000,000 3,000,000
Regional Biomass Energy 1,000,000 2,750,000
Program \2\...............
----------------------------------------
Core Programs, Subtotal.. 28,000,000 17,750,000
Bioenergy/Bioproducts 15,000,000 0
Initiative................
----------------------------------------
Subtotal................. 43,000,000 17,750,000
========================================
Transportation
Fermentation Ethanol:
Advanced Organisms......... 2,000,000 0
Advanced Cellulase......... 9,000,000 0
Advanced Pretreatment...... 3,000,000 0
NREL Pretreatment Pilot 0 1,000,000
Reactor...................
NREL Fermentation Pilot 0 3,000,000
Plant.....................
Commercial Ethanol Plants by
Company and Location:
Arkenol, Rio Linda, CA 3,4. 0 0
BCI International, 0 0
Jennings, LA 3,5..........
BCI International, Gridley, 0 1,000,000
Ca \6\....................
Masada Resources, Orange 0 0
County, NY 3,7............
Sealaska Corp., Southeast 0 1,000,000
AK \8\....................
Corn Stalk Feedstock \9\... 0 3,000,000
Advanced Mobile Fuel Cells. 3,000,000 0
Renewable Diesel........... 1,000,000 0
Feedstock Production....... 2,000,000 3,000,000
Thermochemical Oxygenates:
Ethanol.................... 3,500,000 0
Mixed Alcohols............. 3,000,000 0
Other Oxygenates from 3,000,000 0
Biomass...................
Regional Biomass Energy 1,000,000 2,750,000
Program \2\...............
----------------------------------------
Core Programs, Subtotal.. 30,500,000 14,750,000
Bioenergy/Bioproducts 15,000,000 0
Initiative................
----------------------------------------
Subtotal................. 45,500,000 14,750,000
Hydrogen Research \1\
Thermal Processes (Reforming).. 3,000,000 0
Photolytic Processes 3,000,000 0
(Algae)...................
Subtotal................. 6,000,000 0
----------------------------------------
Total.................... 94,500,000 32,500,000
========================================
Grand Total.............. 127,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BERA's recommendations pertain only to the biomass-based portion of
Hydrogen Research;
\2\ BERA strongly recommends that for future funding requests, the
Regional Biomass Energy Program be treated as a line item;
\3\ DOE contribution to plant costs completed;
\4\ Rice straw, concentrated acid;
\5\ Bagasse, dilute acid;
\6\ Rice straw, dilute acid;
\7\ Refuse-derived fuel, concentrated acid;
\8\ Waste softwoods;
\9\ For plant located in Midwest.
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 them. Examples are pelletized
wood wastes and densified solid waste biomass-coal fines that are
easily handled and fed to existing combustion devices. In addition to
this research, 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. Gasification by anaerobic digestion is unique
in that it produces methane directly, the major component in natural
gas, from a full range of virgin and waste biomass. DOE has terminated
most of the microbiological 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 was successfully continued in
fiscal year 2001. This project should be funded in fiscal year 2002 to
test an advanced turbine system for the generation of 8-12 MW from
wood, and to enable modification of the facility by converting it to a
multi-purpose development site for biomass gasification and related
technologies. The facility will then provide benefits to a broad range
of researchers. The development of hot gas clean-up technology, which
was terminated before completion at another gasification 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 for cogeneration.
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.--The Regional Biomass Energy
Program (RBEP) established by Congress is the information and outreach
arm of DOE's biomass energy RD&D program. Within the national goals of
DOE and regional constraints, the RBEP develops regional goals and
strategies with stakeholder participants, and then conducts activities
to create awareness and a positive image of biobased resources,
technologies, and applications; develops and provides information and
technical assistance; develops educational materials and conducts
training programs; and assists in the planning of the infrastucture and
facilities needed to produce, store, transport, and distribute biomass
energy and fuels. The RBEP also identifies barriers to the development
and deployment of energy crops and facilitates the development of state
programs to promote biomass energy and fuel production and consumption.
Thus, the RBEP develops and disseminates information and provides
technical and financial assistance to biomass project developers and
entrepreneurs. The RBEP also gathers information in the field to keep
DOE informed of current situations and opportunities. There is no other
DOE program that is assigned the information transfer roll, nor that
has the capability, level of experience, local-level presence, or
widespread networks of the RBEP. During its history, the RBEP has
established working relationships with virtually all stake holder
groups in every state. These linkages, which take considerable time to
develop, provide efficiency through expertise and resource-sharing
arrangements, including sharing of project costs. Historically, RBEP
activities have been conducted with partners providing $2-$4 of non-
federal funds for each federal dollar. 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.
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 produce cellulase to breakdown cellulosics to sugars
and ferment all the C5/C6 sugars in biomass at the same time, and low-
cost cellulase production for simultaneous saccharification-
fermentation of cellulosics. 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 that was 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 the
fermentation ethanol plants have either been completed or are winding
down as shown in the table on page 3. Another plant using corn stalk
feedstocks is planned for the Midwest. 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
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 or fuels for on-board 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. BERA recommends that
most of this effort focus on increasing natural triglyceride yields,
which are the main barrier to improved biodiesel economics, and to the
evaluation of other potential biomass feedstocks such as tall oils that
can be directly transformed into high-quality diesel fuels having high
cetane numbers.
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 estimates indicate that the
production costs of thermochemical fuel ethanol from waste biomass are
in the same range as the cost of gasolines. Each of these areas should
be added to DOE's program.
Regional Biomass Energy Program.--See Power Systems.
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 Geothermal Resources Council
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Ted Clutter.
I am Executive Director of the Geothermal Resources Council (GRC), a
non-profit professional education association located in Davis,
California. I am here before you, today, to request $34 million for the
Geothermal R&D Program of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for
fiscal year 2002.
Geothermal energy is heat derived from the natural geologic forces
of the Earth. It is of utmost importance to both the environmental
health of the nation and our energy security, providing highly
reliable, domestically produced electricity and geothermal heat to
homes, communities and industry across the American West. Though
geothermal energy has been used to varying small degrees in the United
States for centuries, industrial development of this unique, indigenous
energy resource began only 40 years ago. During that time--and with DOE
assistance--the U.S. geothermal industry has installed power plants in
California, Nevada, Utah and Hawaii that now produce approximately
2,800 megawatts of clean electricity--or enough power to serve 2.8
million homes.
Geothermal energy is our most valuable renewable energy option.
Electricity generated from all non-hydro renewal energy sources
accounts for approximately 0.8 percent of total U.S. energy needs, with
geothermal contributing over half (60 percent) of that figure. Not only
is geothermal the largest contributor of renewable electricity in the
nation, it is not subject to skyrocketing fuel costs or the whims of
wind and sunlight. These attributes are especially important today,
with our continuing concern for the environment, a tripling of natural
gas prices during the past year, and a crisis of power supply centered
in California reaching out its tentacles to engulf the entire West.
Geothermal energy development is part of the answer to solving
these problems for the future as well. According to a 1999 joint study
by DOE and the Geothermal Energy Association, U.S. geothermal power
generation capacity could be realistically quadrupled to 10,000
megawatts with enhanced technologies. Development of geothermal
resources for conversion to electricity or useful heat, however,
requires costly and risky exploration of potential geothermal areas,
costly drilling of wells, and development of power plants or direct-use
facilities.
Because of these high up-front costs and risks, continuing well-
funded assistance by DOE in partnership with the U.S. geothermal
industry--through cost-shared initiatives and development of new
technologies--is of paramount importance to future, economical
installation of geothermal energy facilities in the West.
doe geothermal r&d program
DOE has promoted geothermal energy development through its R&D
Program since the early days of the OPEC oil crisis of the 1970s. With
that assistance, the U.S. geothermal industry developed a sixfold
increase in clean power online, and roughly a threefold increase in
direct-use facilities. Another key factor in fostering this development
was favorable energy markets and legislation that rewarded geothermal
power developers with firm long-term power sales contracts. But all
that changed in the 1990s when utility deregulation and low natural gas
prices effectively killed those incentives. The result? Without assured
contracts available to help geothermal energy investors face
exploration, drilling and development risk, no new geothermal resources
have come online in the past decade.
At the same time, DOE's financial resources for its Geothermal R&D
Program have dwindled to less than $30 million annually. And even that
marginal amount is now threatened with proposed cuts to DOE's entire
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program. During this time of
change and economic uncertainty, the GRC understands the need for
fiscal restraint, but also believes that geothermal energy's potential
contributions to our environment and national energy security far
outweigh our request of $34 million for DOE's Geothermal R&D Program in
fiscal year 2002.
If DOE is to meet the goals of its Geothermal Strategic Plan to
provide geothermal electricity and heat to over 10 million homes in the
coming decade, a number of regulatory, legislative and technological
barriers to development must be overcome. DOE's role is vital in
assisting the industry in its efforts to solve technological problems
and spur geothermal energy production to new highs for the benefit of
the nation. The following highlights important areas of R&D that the
GRC believes DOE must pursue through industry partnerships to enhance
geothermal development in the United States:
doe geothermal focus on the west
To meet the present energy crisis in the western states--and
recognizing our continuing need for environmental improvement--we must
quickly and significantly increase electricity capacity from all forms
of renewable energy, especially geothermal. In the past year, the DOE
Office of Wind and Geothermal Technologies has provided new and dynamic
leadership for its Geothermal R&D Program, instituting an initiative
with the assistance of its National Laboratories that has served as an
effective catalyst for geothermal development in the western United
States.
The program, though marginally funded, has succeeded in drawing 21
industry R&D proposals intended by DOE to put geothermal ``projects on
the ground'' as rapidly as possible, and to increase the number of
states with geothermal electric and heat production from 4 to 8.
Projects initiated by this program have already fostered a successful
exploratory drilling effort in Nevada that will likely result in
construction of a 30-megawatt power plant. We recommend that this
initiative be further funded to continue the momentum already achieved
for geothermal development in the West.
geothermal resource exploration
To help accomplish DOE goals for geothermal development, a campaign
of exploration must begin at once across the West. Many obvious
geothermal areas--hot springs, fumaroles and other surface
manifestations--have already been explored, and where environmentally
appropriate, many have been developed for their energy potential.
However, physical and geologic characteristics of many unexploited
areas in the western United States strongly suggest that many more
geothermal systems exist where no signs of them are found on the
surface--and no exploration has been undertaken or completed.
A critical key to success is DOE incentives to encourage
exploration for new geothermal resources throughout the West. This
effort should include development of new geothermal exploration
technologies, DOE contingent grants and loans to help offset high risk
of initial geothermal exploration costs, and additional funding for
federal and state land agencies to provide geologic databases that will
effectively assist an industry revival of geothermal exploration
activity.
With needed improvements in federal agency land-use policies and
renewed emphasis on geothermal exploration backed by a solid, well-
financed Geothermal R&D Program at DOE, the U.S. geothermal industry
can develop needed increases in geothermal power generation at existing
sites--and begin to tap the West's vast potential for new geothermal
sources of clean, renewable and reliable energy supplies. Geothermal
Drilling
The cost of drilling geothermal steam wells presents the largest
risk to potential power plant developers. A geothermal well costs
between $200 and $300 per foot-40 percent more than drilling an oil or
gas well. That makes the cost of a typical 8,000-foot deep geothermal
well from $1.6 million to $2.4 million! Success rates for geothermal
exploration wells are only 20 percent in newly explored, untested areas
(and rising to only 80 percent for wells in proven geothermal fields).
Given these figures, it's easy to see the up-front risk involved in
geothermal development--long before power production can begin.
Reasons for the high cost of geothermal well completions are many.
First, high temperatures demand the use of costly unconventional
drilling tools. Second, the hard and abrasive geologic environment
typical of geothermal formations significantly slow drill penetration
rates. Third, low reservoir pressures create ``loss circulation'' zones
that drain away expensive drilling muds and pose costly problems in
cementing of well casings. And finally, steam from certain reservoirs
contains minerals that cause corrosion and scale deposition inside well
casings that are expensive to deal with.
Sandia National Laboratories is DOE's lead organization in the
development of much needed geothermal drilling equipment, materials and
technologies. With its industry partners, Sandia is developing high-
temperature instrumentation for use in geothermal wells, and high-
temperature logging tools for geothermal reservoir monitoring and
evaluation. Bit design is an ongoing area of research, with development
and testing that has resulted in a marked increase in both bit life and
penetration rates. Loss circulation control has been addressed with
development of new cements, cement placement tools and equipment,
fracture plugging agents, and lightweight drilling and cement
additives.
To reach its targeted goal of reducing geothermal drilling costs by
50 percent, Sandia periodically surveys the geothermal industry for
needed areas of research, and works through a Request for Proposal
process to bring these products and technologies to the industry. This
ongoing effort by Sandia, DOE and its private-sector partners offers
unparalleled value in reducing the cost of drilling for geothermal
steam resources for producing electricity.
A number of projects in this arena are ongoing--to lose these
partnerships and this momentum at a critical time for western energy
supply would deal a terrible blow to U.S. geothermal development To
successfully proceed in development of geothermal resources in the
West, this vital research to lower drilling cost by DOE must continue.
An increase in DOE's Geothermal R&D Program budget will augment this
valuable potential contribution to our national energy security.
enhanced geothermal systems
Currently, all commercial power production of geothermal energy in
the United States is derived from relatively shallow (less than 2 miles
deep) hydrothermal zones. Water flows freely through highly fractured
rock in these geothermal reservoirs, heated by magmatic intrusions
lying far below. In many cases however, a high degree of geothermal
development potential lies just beneath these free-flowing reservoirs
in geologic formations with fewer fractures (low permeability) and
limited fluid flows.
Only about 20 percent of total heat is contained in the relatively
shallow, commercially available hydrothermal zones of currently
developed geothermal resources, while the remainder (80 percent)
resides in underlying, low-permeability zones that have yet remained
untapped for their energy potential. Currently, our ability to produce
energy from these resources is limited, dictated by available
technology and cost.
In concert with other geothermal development promotion initiatives,
DOE's Office of Wind and Geothermal Technologies has undertaken a major
program to develop technologies for the creation and development of
``Enhanced Geothermal Systems,'' or EGS. Assistance by DOE in
development of such technologies is critical if the U.S. geothermal
industry is to successfully engineer commercially viable power
production from deep heat reservoirs that offer only limited
permeability and/or fluid content.
Cost-effective EGS technologies to ``mine'' heat from beneath areas
of hydrothermal circulation will have a profound impact on the
geothermal industry. The life of currently commercial geothermal
systems will be greatly expanded, making better use of existing power
plants. And new EGS technologies will also applicable to other
potential geothermal resource production areas, including those
previously considered as candidates for Hot Dry Rock (HDR) development.
Development of EGS technology is critical to the long-term
viability of the U.S. geothermal industry after all of our high-grade
hydrothermal resources have been developed. With assistance by DOE's
current and future EGS technology program, the geothermal industry can
continue its contribution of environmentally benign electricity to the
U.S. power generation mix well into the future.
geothermal co-production
Recent developments with the assistance of DOE incentive funding
have resulted in construction of the world's first geothermal minerals
recovery facility, using spent geothermal fluids from power plants on
the shore of southern California's Salton Sea. Potential exists for
commercial recovery of manganese at the Salton Sea, and high-grade
silica and other minerals at other geothermal developments in the West.
A DOE investment in further development of these ``co-production''
technologies holds the promise to add another revenue stream to certain
geothermal operations, making them more competitive with fossil-fuel
power generation while reducing treatment and disposal costs.
geothermal direct use
Direct-use employs low-to intermediate-temperature geothermal
resources (100 deg. to 300 deg. F) in systems for industrial processes,
space heating, and agricultural production (greenhouses and
aquaculture). Currently, there are over 1,000 geothermal direct-use
projects in 26 states, and geothermal central heating projects in 18
communities. Recent surveys have shown that this is only a fraction of
direct-use potential in the United States, which DOE estimates could
potentially serve as many as 7 million households by the year 2010.
Unfortunately, interest in and development of direct-uses of
geothermal energy is limited, largely because of reliable information
and financial assistance to ``jump-start'' projects is lacking. This is
especially true in rural areas where the necessary technical
infrastructure is not available.
The DOE Geothermal R&D Program can play a vital role in promoting
and assisting the development of direct-use projects across the West.
It is already doing so by providing information and technical
assistance, but can do more with increased funding to assist in the
critical areas of direct-use resource identification and drilling
confirmation. Funding to provide this information and expanded
technical assistance can do much to help develop this extensive
geothermal energy resource.
DOE funding is also needed to develop improvements in direct-use
equipment, reduce the cost of project capital, and lower project
operations and maintenance costs. The DOE budget should also provide
funds for promotion of economic and efficient cascaded use of
geothermal fluids from power production to direct-use developers. In
addition, direct-use geothermal funding can help foster public-private
partnerships to help ``buy down'' the up-front risk and financial
burdens that often discourage potential geothermal direct-use
developers during the initial drilling and resource confirmation stages
of potential projects. Once these concerns are satisfied, direct-use
geothermal resource development can more easily occur with private
project financing, while accruing additional benefits of economic
development and employment in rural areas of the West.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the Geothermal Resources
Council urges your attention to these facts, and hopes you will agree
that given current need, the modest $34 million in funding that we
request for the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal R&D Program in
fiscal year 2002 is money well invested in our environment and our
national energy security. Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Low Impact Hydropower Institute
introduction
With energy issues at the forefront of public concern, the Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee has the challenge of
providing support for domestic energy supplies that are sustainable,
environmentally sound, and low cost. In aid of those goals, we urge you
to provide $100,000 to the Department of Energy to fund the Low Impact
Hydropower Certification Program, administered by the Low Impact
Hydropower Institute. This voluntary program certifies hydropower
facilities with low environmental impacts based on eight objective
criteria. With the program, hydropower dam owners generating low impact
power (from any size facility) can gain market rewards, and consumers
gain a credible standard to evaluate hydropower. Funding from the
Department of Energy will help build on the program's early success,
and help the Institute explore expansion of the certification program
to address ``incremental'' hydro, and other emerging efforts to develop
hydropower capacity at existing dams.
why certify low impact hydropower?
Hydroelectric generation presents a dilemma for sustainable energy
strategies in this country. On the one hand, hydropower can provide
nearly emission-free, sustainable energy generation, with large
available capacity (80 percent of the nation's renewable energy), and
ancillary services for supporting system reliability. Hydropower dams
can also provide additional public benefits, such as flood control and
recreation opportunities.
On the other hand, hydropower dam construction and operations have
been devastating to the nation's freshwater ecosystems, and the fish
and wildlife dependent on them. Hydropower dams degrade water quality,
block fish passage, disrupt river cycles and key water habitats, and
inundate hundreds of thousands of acres of irreplaceable riverine
habitats. If a dam is well sited and well operated, these environmental
impacts can be reduced (though not eliminated). Consumers need a
credible means to determine which hydropower facilities are well sited
and well operated, such that the benefits of the hydropower generation
are attained, while minimizing the environmental impacts.
Unfortunately, generation capacity is the most commonly used
criterion for identifying environmentally preferable hydropower (if one
is used at all). A typical standard is 30 megawatts (MW) of generation
capacity. Under a ``small hydro'' standard, if the hydropower facility
generates less than the identified amount of power, it is deemed
environmentally preferable. But the size of a facility's generation
capacity reveals nothing about its particular site-specific
environmental impacts. Under a size criterion, a small dam can be
operated in a way that is harmful to the environment and still be
labeled environmentally preferable, and a large dam can undergo major
changes to reduce the environmental impacts of its operation, and still
not be considered environmentally acceptable.
In addition, a small hydro criterion automatically certifies the
majority of hydropower dams in the country, but eliminates from
consideration the majority of the country's hydropower capacity. Of the
over 2,000 hydropower dams in the U.S. owned by entities other than the
federal government, approximately 89 percent of the dams are ``small''
(less than 30 megawatts capacity), but together they provide only 8
percent of the hydropower capacity. The remaining 11 percent of the
dams produce 92 percent of the hydropower capacity. Thus, under the
small hydro approach, we are classifying as environmentally preferable
a large number of dams but not a large amount of power, and we are
granting that preferred status without any examination of the
particular impacts of those dams.
The Low Impact Hydropower Certification Program resolves these
problems by providing an impact-based, site-specific evaluation of
hydropower facilities of any size. The program provides a voluntary
certification that evaluates existing hydropower dams in the United
States against objective environmental criteria in eight key areas--
river flows, water quality, fish passage and protection, watershed
protection, threatened and endangered species protection, cultural
resources, recreation use and access, and whether the facility has been
recommended for removal. Interested dam owners apply for certification,
and facilities that meet the environmental criteria are certified as
``Low Impact.'' The dam owner can then market this Low Impact
hydropower to consumers, or to third party power marketers who bundle
``green'' power products.
a brief history of the low impact hydropower certification program
The Low Impact Hydropower Certification Program grew out of efforts
initiated in 1998 by the river conservation organization American
Rivers, and the ``clean'' power marketer Green Mountain Energy, to
identify environmentally preferable hydropower for the emerging
``green'' power markets nationwide. With the help of an Implementation
Task Force comprised of representatives from environmental
organizations, the hydropower industry, power marketers, government,
and other interested parties, the certification program was refined
over many months.
In order to ensure the independence of the program, the Institute
was established in 1999 as a non-profit public benefit corporation,
governed by a fourteen-member Governing Board comprised primarily of
representatives from environmental organizations interested in low
impact hydropower. In addition, two advisory panels, a Hydropower
Industry Advisory Panel, and a Renewables Advisory Panel, participate
in Board discussions and provide advice and recommendations. A list of
Governing Board and Advisory Panel members is available on our website
at www.lowimpacthydro.org. The Institute finalized the certification
criteria, and began accepting applications for certification in 2000.
accomplishments so far
Although only in its infancy, and despite the uncertainties in
energy markets, the certification program is already producing results.
The Institute certified its first facility in March, and a second
certification decision is expected shortly. The first certified
facility, the Stagecoach Dam and Reservoir, located on the Yampa River
in Colorado, is owned and operated by the Upper Yampa Water Conservancy
District. The second facility under consideration is the Island Park
Hydroelectric Project, owned by the Fall River Rural Electric
Cooperative, which utilizes water from the Island Park Dam and
Reservoir, owned by the United States and operated by the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation, on the Henry's Fork of the Snake River, in Idaho.
Several other applications are expected in the coming months. All
applications received are posted to the Institute's web site for public
review and comment, and all certification decisions are posted as well.
Certification decisions are subject to appeal from any commenters in
order to ensure a fair and transparent process.
Since Low Impact certification applies to the individual hydropower
facility, the Institute does not certify power products. However, other
``green'' power certifiers have already selected LIHI certification for
the hydropower components of their programs, demonstrating its
credibility and value. For example, the Green-E Renewable Electricity
certification program has adopted LIHI certification for the hydropower
components of its program (effective in California in 2001, and
elsewhere in 2002)(see www.resource-solutions.org). The Power
Scorecard, a rating program for all types of generation, gives LIHI-
certified hydropower facilities its highest environmental rating in the
hydropower sector (see www.powerscorecard.org). Renew 2000, a ``green''
power certification program in the Pacific Northwest allows only LIHI-
certified hydropower for the hydropower component of its program (see
www.cleanenergyguide.com.) The Salmon Friendly Power program, a
``green'' pricing program developed by For the Sake of the Salmon and
Portland General Electric in Oregon uses LIHI-certified power as the
only hydropower qualified for its program (see www.4sos.org, click on
Salmon Friendly Power).
goals and funding needs
The Institute has multiple goals for the program for fiscal year
2002, including recruitment of additional applications, expanding
interest in the program and ``green'' markets generally, helping to
develop the market for Low Impact hydropower, and improving and
expanding the certification program itself. In terms of expanding the
program, the Governing Board is currently evaluating how to best
address ``incremental'' hydro and other incentives emerging for
expansion of hydropower generation at existing dams.
The program is currently funded through grants from charitable
foundations, supplemented by application fees. However, foundations are
not expected to maintain their grants indefinitely, and though the
application fees help to offset processing expenses (including the
hiring of independent technical consultants to verify applications),
any application fee received in excess of expenses is reimbursed to the
applicant. As a result, funding from the Department of Energy is
critically important in ensuring the Institute can maintain a quality
program.
conclusion
The Institute's Low Impact Hydropower Certification Program, if
properly funded, will
--promote sustainable, domestic energy supplies
--help maximize the benefits of hydropower generation while
minimizing its environmental impacts
--expand consumer energy options
--support market rewards and incentives for hydropower dam owners
interested in producing low impact power
We urge you to demonstrate your commitment to these important goals
by providing $100,000 to the Department of Energy to fund the
certification program.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Wind Energy Association
a strong commitment to r&d necessary to capture wind energy's full
potential
Utility-scale wind energy capacity in the U.S. expected to nearly
double by mid-2002
Public Demand for Small Wind systems used to power homes, farms and
small businesses on the rise
Proposed Administration budget would severely hamper technological
advances made through DOE-industry partnerships
The crisis in California has put energy issues back on the radar
screen. The upcoming summer could bring the problems in California to
other parts of the country, particularly the Northeast and Midwest.
With energy prices expected to remain high, particularly natural gas,
the importance of investing in domestic, stable-cost, clean energy
resources is vital for the nation's energy security.
Wind energy is positioned to be an important part of the solution.
In California and other western states, wind energy potential is there
to meet the electricity needs. Moreover, wind can help protect against
volatile electricity rates. The costs of a wind plant are primarily
upfront capital costs, thus the price for electricity is stable over
the life of the plant because the fuel, the wind, is free.
Moreover, wind projects can be built quickly, often within six
months, not including wind resource assessment and permitting. As we
speak, there are new wind energy projects expected to go on line by the
end of the year in the west and southwest that will eventually provide
electricity for 750,000 people. By comparison, most new fossil-fueled
facilities can take up to three years to come online.
Continued investment in domestic energy alternatives like wind
power will allow the industry to keep driving down costs and by
improving the efficiency of new wind turbines. Wind energy holds the
greatest potential of all non-hydro renewables to contribute to our
energy needs over the next decade.
Investing in domestic, inexhaustible renewable energy technologies
strengthens our national security, spurs new high-tech jobs, and helps
protect the environment. There are no downsides to investing in wind
and other renewables.
However, the Administration has proposed cutting the wind energy
budget by approximately 48 percent in fiscal year 2002. This makes no
sense. With the current energy crisis and a call for an increase in
energy supply, cutting R&D funding for clean, domestic alternatives is
not part of a sound energy strategy. The American Wind Energy
Association \1\ (AWEA) appreciates this opportunity to provide
testimony for the record on the Department of Energy's Fiscal 2002 wind
energy program budget before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development. AWEA's testimony addresses the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The American Wind Energy Association, or AWEA, was formed in
1974. The organization represents virtually every facet of the wind
industry, including turbine and component manufacturers, project
develops, utilities, academicians, and interested individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Request for DOE's Wind Energy Program: $55 million
AWEA requests a funding level of $55 million for the wind energy
program to continue DOE's support of wind energy development at the
national, state, and local levels. Working in conjunction with the U.S.
wind industry, power producers, suppliers, industrial consumers and
residential users, DOE provides important technical support, guidance,
information, and limited, cost-shared funding for efforts to explore
and develop wind energy resources.
Utility-Scale Wind Development: $45 million
There is a continued and necessary need for increased
appropriations for cost-shared DOE/industry R&D partnerships. The
program is aimed at further driving down the cost of wind power to a
level fully competitive with fossil fuel technologies. Additional
support is necessary for developing wind turbines capable of operating
in areas with lower wind speeds. This would expand wind development
potential by 20 times as well as allow the placement of turbines closer
to existing transmission lines. In addition to lowering the cost of
wind power, R&D support is necessary for enhanced wind site forecasting
and power systems integration.
Small Wind Systems: $10 million
A significant boost of DOE's small wind turbine program (machines
rated at 75 kilowatts or below) will help achieve greater cost
reductions and to increase the availability of this energy option for
homes, schools, and businesses.
Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI): $8 million
This program provides financial incentives to municipal utilities
to encourage use of renewables. In addition, AWEA suggests that
Congress work with the Department of Energy (DOE) to develop long-range
alternatives to unpredictable annual funding for REPI.
utility-scale wind development: $55 million
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 (442 MW) in the U.S.
market. 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, or
enough power to serve about 600,000 average U.S. households or 1.5
million people.
By mid-2002, installed wind energy capacity in the U.S. is expected
to nearly double, to upward of 5,000 MW. The states of Texas,
Minnesota, Oregon, Wyoming and Iowa account for most of the new wind
energy development. Texas in particular is expected to account for a
large portion of new development over the next five years due to state
incentives.
In addition, a number of new, large wind developments have been
announced. In Nevada, a 260 MW project is underway at the Nuclear
Weapons Test Site. In Washington, the ``Stateline'' project is being
developed on the Oregon-Washington border. When completed, the 300 MW
wind farm will be the largest wind in the world. In February, the
Bonneville Power Administration announced it's intention to purchase
1,000 MW of wind energy and has signed up as one of the purchasers of
power from the Stateline project. All of these developments will help
alleviate stress on the western power grid, stabilize energy prices and
offset pollution associated with conventional power sources.
The impressive growth of the wind industry exhibits a significant
change from the three year period (1995-1997) when U.S. markets for
wind energy had slowed to only 41 MW installed in 1995, 10 MW installed
in 1996, and 11 MW of new capacity installed in 1997. This surge in
U.S. utility-scale wind energy capacity is due to two main factors:
Cost-shared DOE/industry R&D partnerships which have helped reduce
the cost of wind energy by more than 80 percent since the early 1980's.
Today's wind energy costs are 4-6 cents per kilowatt-hour for the
largest projects at the best wind sites (based on wind speed and size
of project).
Extension of the wind energy Production Tax Credit (PTC), which
provides a 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour credit of electricity produced
(the credit is currently 1.7 cents adjusted for inflation). A 2 percent
2-year extension was approved with bipartisan support at the end of
1999, but will expire on December 31, 2001. Legislation to extend the
credit for five years has been introduced in both the House (H.R. 876)
and Senate (S. 530) by members of the Ways & Means and Finance
Committees respectively.
On the international front, wind power is the fastest growing
energy source in the world with global installed generating capacity
estimated to have increased by nearly 30 percent annually since 1996.
Current installed capacity worldwide is over 17,000 megawatts, or as
much energy as 5 million California households use.
small wind systems (75 kw and below): $10 million
More Emphasis 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 75 kW).
DOE has significant programs for technology development and
deployment of solar technologies, but not for small wind systems.
However, small wind systems arguably have the greatest market potential
in the next several decades. Small wind systems are currently much less
expensive than solar technologies. For example, a home system sized to
provide $150 month worth of electricity would cost $32,000 with a small
wind turbine and $80,000 with a photovoltaic solar system. We believe
that small wind technology has the potential to cut its costs in half
within ten years.
With the exception of California, low electricity prices and the
high up-front costs of small wind systems make it very difficult for
this technology to gain wide acceptance in the domestic market. This
would change if DOE were given the resources to work with America's
small wind manufacturers to achieve cost reductions similar to those
already achieved by the large, utility-scale wind industry. In the
special case of California, small wind turbine manufacturers are
experiencing a surge in sales, which demonstrates that the public
really wants cost-effective small wind turbines. Inquiries from around
the country have ballooned due to the run up in natural gas and propane
costs this winter.
AWEA appreciates that in the fiscal year 2001 Energy & Water
Development Conference Report, small wind systems received a $5 million
earmark. Doubling that total to $10 million for the program in fiscal
year 2002 will continue to ensure that small wind systems receive
adequate attention at DOE. We are pleased that the US-DOE Wind Program
has taken last year's Congressional direction to heart and that they
are working very cooperatively with our small turbine industry.
A Small Wind Turbine Initiative (SWTI) would 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 over the next twenty years. This potential market, up
to 60,000 MW, could be a major contributor to our nation's domestic
energy supply.
renewable energy production incentive (repi): $8 million
Year-to-year uncertainty regarding funding levels for the Renewable
Energy Production Incentive (REPI) plays havoc with the long-term
planning needs of running a municipally owned utility. Due to
insufficient funds for the program, full payments for eligible projects
have not been made for a number of years. For this reason, AWEA
suggests the Congress work with the Department of Energy (DOE) to
develop long-range alternatives to annual funding of this program. The
REPI program, authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, encourages
municipally owned utilities to invest in renewable energy technologies
including wind energy systems. REPI permits DOE to make direct payments
to publicly and cooperatively owned utilities for electricity generated
from wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass projects.
conclusion
Continued investments in wind energy R&D are delivering value for
taxpayers by developing another domestic energy source that strengthens
our national security, spurs new high-tech jobs, and helps protect the
environment.
Now is not the time to abandon the important advancements that have
been made through DOE-industry partnerships. With the California energy
crisis threatening to spread across the rest of the country, wind,
along with other renewable energy technologies, must continue to play
an important role in our nation's energy strategy.
By the same token, utility-scale wind energy--which is right now
becoming costcompetitive with other sources of electricity--and small
wind energy systems are equally deserving of continued R&D. Just as
coal and nuclear energy R&D does not stand still, neither does wind
energy R&D.
AWEA appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony to the
Subcommittee. We would be pleased to answer any questions that may
arise. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southeastern Universities Research
Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: My name is Jerry
Draayer and I am President of the Southeastern Universities Research
Association (SURA). SURA, a consortium of 53 research universities in
the South, manages the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
(Jefferson Lab) in Newport News, Virginia. Jefferson Lab, as the
Committee knows, is home to the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator
Facility (CEBAF), a new $600 million nuclear physics research facility
funded by the U.S. Department of Energy.
Mr. Chairman, our purpose in providing the Subcommittee with
testimony is three fold. First, we want to thank you and the
Subcommittee members for your support of the Science programs funded by
the Department of Energy, including Nuclear Physics and to urge your
continued support. We are convinced that generous Federal support for
basic research is an important investment leading to continued economic
growth, employment and prosperity. Secondly, we urge the Subcommittee
to favorably consider increasing the fiscal year 2002 funding level for
the DOE's Office of Science to $3.68 billion, a fifteen percent
increase over last year's funding. Finally, within the Office of
Science, we request that the Nuclear Physics budget be increased to
$425 million (15 percent above fiscal year 2001) to better address the
backlog of important scientific opportunities that exist in this field.
This level of funding would provide support for increased scientific
output of Jefferson Lab, and will help build the intellectual
infrastructure in our research universities to prepare for and mount
experiments.
An expanded Office of Science budget will allow for more complete
utilization of these world-class facilities, thus returning more on the
investments made for their construction and maximizing their scientific
contributions and their tremendous educational value.
contributions of doe-supported science to the nation
Mr. Chairman, we would like to thank the Subcommittee for the
increased level of funding provided in fiscal year 2001 for the DOE's
Science programs. For fiscal year 2001, the Congress provided $3.16
billion for the Office of Science, representing a growth of 12.9
percent over fiscal year 2000. The National Academy of Sciences has
noted that much of the U.S. economic growth, quality of life, and
security derive from the nation's investment and leadership in science
and technology. Therefore, as these investments are the underpinning of
our nation's economic growth, we wish to thank the Subcommittee for its
leadership in providing increased funding for DOE's science programs.
A commitment to basic research investments has been recognized on
both sides of the aisle. Yet despite this broad agreement, from 1987 to
1995 the federal investment in basic research shrank by 2.6 percent a
year and as a fraction of gross domestic product, the federal
investment in research and development is about half of what it was 30
years ago. In the field of nuclear physics, investments in forefront
facilities have made the United States a world leader. Over the last
several decades the nation's leadership has been threatened as the
funding levels provided have resulted in significantly reduced
purchasing power for the field.
As the driver of our Nation's economic success is scientific
innovation, we are concerned that the Administration has proposed for
fiscal year 2002 to cut the three primary sources of ideas and
personnel in the high-tech economy:
--The National Science Foundation is cut by 2.6 percent;
--NASA is cut by 3.6 percent; and
--The Department of Energy is cut by an alarming 7.1 percent.
It is our hope that the Congress will reverse these reductions and
continue its strong support for basic science.
Mr. Chairman, the return on investment includes continued economic
prosperity, national security, and an improved quality of life. DOE's
Office of Science is the primary supporter of science and research in
the physical sciences. It is also active across many scientific
disciplines, including Basic Energy Sciences, Biological and
Environmental Sciences, Nuclear and High Energy Physics, and Fusion
Energy Science. And, it has stayed on the cutting edge by introducing
new initiatives like the human genome, nanoscience and technology, and
advanced scientific computing research. As a consequence, DOE is
responsible for a significant portion of federal R&D funding to
scientists and students at our colleges and universities.
Mr. Chairman, thanks to the leadership of this Subcommittee, the
nation has made a significant investment in the Office of Science
programs and the national user facilities, which provide a unique
large-scale scientific effort across several scientific disciplines. As
the Subcommittee begins its decision making process on the allocation
of fiscal year 2002 resources, it is our hope that the members of the
Subcommittee would choose to continue to reverse the downward trend in
our nation's investment in the physical sciences. Specifically, an
increase in funding for Nuclear Physics in fiscal year 2002 will allow
us to reverse these trends in our subfield and to help maintain our
world leadership position in the physical sciences.
the thomas jefferson national accelerator facility (jefferson lab)
Jefferson Lab, completed in 1994, offers research capabilities and
opportunities for the scientific community that are unique in the
world. Research at Jefferson Lab is intended to help answer fundamental
questions about the structure of matter. Generally, nuclear physics
helps answer questions about how matter is formed, how it is held
together, and how its constituents parts interact with one another. The
Jefferson Lab was built to increase our understanding of a very
specific piece of the overall puzzle, to learn more about quarks, the
sub-atomic particles that make up each proton and neutron. The major
scientific tool at the Jefferson Lab is its accelerator facility which
emits a billion times each second a million electrons into a human-
hair-width continuous electron beam that is accelerated to almost the
speed of light. The experiments at the Jefferson Lab record and analyze
the results of the collision of this continuous electron beam with the
nucleus of an atom, probing the protons and neutrons of the nucleus to
learn about its constituent parts, the quarks and gluons.
The Federal investment in the Jefferson Lab has already resulted in
important spin off developments in the fields of medicine, industry and
national defense. For example, the Jefferson Lab is pioneering the
development of a Free Electron Laser (FEL) facility that is made
possible by the Lab's expertise in superconducting radio frequency
(SRF) technology. There is significant interest in the Defense
community for application of the FEL technology and by industry for use
of the FEL technology for materials processing. Additionally, the
technology and expertise at the Jefferson Lab has resulted in the
development of a new non-invasive medical imaging technology to help in
the early detection of breast cancer.
upgrade of the jefferson lab accelerator
The Jefferson Lab has made remarkable progress in understanding the
behavior of strongly interacting matter during the almost two decades
that have passed since the parameters of the Continuous Electron Beam
Facility (CEBAF) at the Lab was defined. These advances have revealed
important new experimental questions best addressed by upgrading CEBAF
to a higher energy.
When CEBAF was first created, the capabilities of the technology
behind the machine and the energies necessary to answer the fundamental
questions were not fully understood. Fortunately, however, the design
of the CEBAF accelerator and the unique capabilities afforded by the
advances in superconducting radio frequency (SRF) technology allow a
straightforward upgrade from the original 4-GeV design energy to a 12-
GeV design that is necessary to expand our reach within our current
program and address new and compelling physics questions. The energy
upgrade is facilitated because of favorable technical developments and
the foresight in the original facility design which make it feasible to
triple CEBAF's beam energy from the initial design value in a very
cost-effective manner. The upgrade can be realized for about 15 percent
of the cost of the initial facility, enabling CEBAF's world-wide user
community to greatly expand its research horizons and maintain our
international leadership in this critical field in the physical
sciences.
Mr. Chairman, the Jefferson Lab seeks $3 million of fiscal year
2002 funding to begin preliminary design work for the 12-GeV energy
upgrade to put the lab on the path to begin construction in 2004.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion we would urge the Subcommittee to
favorably consider increasing the fiscal year 2002 DOE Office of
Science budget to $3.68 billion, a fifteen percent increase over last
year's funding. This is the same amount that has been recommended by
the Energy Sciences Coalition. Furthermore, within the Office of
Science, we request that the Nuclear Physics budget be increased to
$425 million, 15 percent above fiscal year 2001. This will allow the
nation to take advantage of important scientific opportunities that
exist in this field and reap the benefits of our nation's investments
in these facilities.
Within the $425 million recommended for Nuclear Physics, we would
anticipate and request an allocation of $91.43 million for the
Jefferson Lab. At this level of funding, the Lab could deliver the most
science that the facility capabilities allow. It would permit the Lab
to substantially eliminate the six-year backlog of approved and highly
meritorious projects. It would permit the hiring of key critical and
scientific and technical staff. And it would allow the lab to begin to
plan for the energy upgrade. All of these are needed to remain at the
forefront of core competencies benefiting the lab complex and the
nation.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony for
your consideration.
______
WATER PROGRAMS
Prepared Statement of the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology
Thank you for agreeing to consider this request for funding of the
Acid Drainage Technology Initiative (ADTI) through the Federal multi-
agency mechanism. The Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is being
requested to provide annual funding of up to $200K, to match the
standard set by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM). OSM funding is
going primarily to the Coal Mining Sector of ADTI and a predictable
base of funding is also needed for the Metal Mining Sector activities,
in order to identify the best science for controlling acid and metal
drainage from metal mines and related materials.
The ADTI is a nationwide technology development program with a
guiding principle of building a consensus among Federal and State
regulatory agencies, universities and consulting firms to predict and
find remedies for acid drainage from active and inactive metal and coal
mines. It is not a regulatory or policy development program. The Acid
Drainage Technology Initiative Metal Mining Sector (ADTI-MMS) is an
organization of volunteers committed to the development of the best
science and technology-based solutions to mine water quality issues at
metal mines. The Review Committee is responsible for developing and
implementing the consensus review process for documents, editorial
services, international networking and membership coordination. The
consensus review process is developed by this Committee is available on
the world wide web at: http://www.bucknam.com/chb/
consensu.txt and several draft documents are also being reviewed on the
ADTI-MMS web site at: http://www.mackqy.unr.edu/adti.
As you may be aware, it has been estimated that correcting the mine
drainage and abandoned mined land problems will cost up to $70 billion.
As this figure suggests, it will be necessary to lead off on this
effort with an adequate foundation of current technology-based
solutions. The ADTI-MMS organization is in the process of preparing and
maintaining handbooks to provide that foundation and is prepared to
launch the necessary research programs to develop the best science and
technologies.
ADTI-MMS is backed through participation from members of numerous
mining companies, environmental consulting firms, Federal and State
research, land management and regulatory agencies, academic researchers
committed to the ADTI mission, and the Western Governors Association.
The Western University Consortium, consisting of University of Nevada--
Reno, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, University of
Idaho, University of Utah and University of Alaska, Fairbanks and other
members of the ADTI-MMS University Network (Colorado School of Mines,
Montana Tech at the University of Montana, South Dakota School of Mines
and Technology, University of Colorado, Berkeley, Northern Arizona
University, Montana State University-Bozeman, and the University of New
Mexico) provide part of our research foundation under direction of the
Mining Life Cycle Center at the University of Nevada, Reno. In
addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Restoration of Abandoned
Mined Sites (RAMS) program and the headquarter-based Research Programs
are actively pursuing research coupled with on ground cleanups.
Coordination with sister organizations in other countries, including
Mine Environment Neutral Drainage (MEND)--Canada, Mitigation of
Environmental Impact From Mining Waste (MiMi)--Sweden, (other),
signifies our position in the international realm.
The ADTI-MMS Review Committee needs funding for technical-
professional review and illustrations for ADTI-MMS Workbooks on
prediction, sampling and monitoring, modeling, mitigation and pit
lakes. We feel that minimal funding (10 percent of ADTI-MMS
annual budget) can provide needed training documentation for what
proves to be an expensive multi-decade effort.
The National Mining Association (NMA), the Interstate Mining
Compact Commission (IMCC) and several Federal agencies [OSM, BLM,
Department of Energy (DOE), and Geological Survey (USGS)] have actively
participated in the Acid Drainage Technology Initiative (ADTI) since
1995. This collaborative effort receives funding and other support from
industry and several Federal agencies for specific projects. For
example, the OSM has provided the ADTI $200,000 for the last three
fiscal years which has been a consistent source of funding for
activities related to acid mine drainage from coal mining and has been
instrumental in accomplishing the ADTI's short-term goals. In addition,
the EPA has provided $10,000 for travel and administration, and is
currently providing funding for prediction workbook preparation. If
each of the Federal agencies, OSM, Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), DOE, Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), BLM, USGS, and other
agencies as appropriate [i.e. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), National
Park Service (NPS) and Forest Service (USFS)], were provided funds to
commit $200,000 toward ADTI, more than $1 million would be available to
support the work of this vital initiative.
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 several workshops 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 to participate along with the Corps, we respectfully request
that the USACE be provided funds to commit $200,000 annually (with
other Federal agencies involved, such as OSM, EPA, DOE, BLM, USGS,
USBR, NPS and USFS) to further the Corp's goals of ecosystem
restoration.
Thank you for your time and interest in this vital area. Your
continued funding of this Committee's activities will significantly
improve our ability to develop the best science for addressing drainage
issues with an organized and predictable schedule.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fifth Louisiana Levee District
The possibility exists that within weeks the people of Louisiana
will have the unfortunate opportunity to see the integrity of the
Mainline Mississippi River Levee System tested beyond its capabilities.
Melting snow will begin to merge with excessive rainfall in the upper
tributaries feeding into the Mississippi, and combined with recent
heavy rains within the lower reaches of the River, we may be witnesses
to the inevitable. ``Project flood,'' that once-in-a-hundred-years
flood that is imminent.
If not this year, then maybe next year. But eventually, it will
happen. Funding for adequate flood control in the Mississippi Valley
now will be minimum compared to the potential that exists if flood
control projects are not completed as currently planned.
The Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association has requested a
total appropriation of $395,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 for Mississippi
River and Tributaries (MR&T), to be divided among the seven states
covered by the Project.
To guarantee that the Vicksburg District, Corp of Engineers is able
to maintain the level of progress needed to ensure that MR&T
construction schedules are met, it is imperative that the $51,968,000
requested in the Budget and allocated for construction of Mississippi
River Levees within the Division, be funded.
Funding provided in recent years has allowed the U.S. Army, Corp of
Engineers to proceed with construction of Levee enlargement projects on
the West Bank of the River, starting at the Louisiana-Arkansas State
line and extending southward. It is essential that this section of
Levee continue to be raised to prevent overtopping of the Levee in
areas deficient in height.
The Mississippi River Levee System in Louisiana and Mississippi
must be brought to heights and capabilities equal to that of the levees
stretching northward; otherwise, upper reaches of the Mississippi River
Levee System will become a funnel, protecting states to the north while
directing destruction southward. Increased funding for MR&T levee
improvement projects in Louisiana and Mississippi is the only means to
eliminate this possibility.
______
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 (7) 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 3,500 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 for maintenance.
Our last 5 year average has been $9.9 million. That baseline funding
level does not need to be diminished. We hereby respectively request
funds for fiscal year 2001 for this project of not less than
$17,200,000 for maintenance and $5,500,000 for construction. 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: (1) Many miles of all weather
roads have been constructed and are usable almost daily each year. (2)
Improved flood control and drainage. (3) Development of one of the most
fertile and diversified valleys in the world. (4) Growth of towns,
schools, churches, industry, commerce, and etc. (5) Improvement of our
environment: malaria, typhoid and other such diseases are no longer the
norm but seldom occur. (6) A future for our young people to have a
desire to remain in the area. (7) 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 70 years and we believe it
is now time to complete a wise investment for our nation.
Our requests to you today is to approve funding for the St. Francis
Basin Project of $5,500,000. for construction for the fiscal year 2002
and with funding of not less than $17,120,000 to preform the required
and needed annual maintenance of items within that project which have
been completed and which are the responsibility of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers.
The Corps of Engineers has the capability of more than $395,000,000
for fiscal year 2002. We ask you to give consideration to provide
funding levels at $395,000,000 for this project for fiscal year 2002.
This will provide some new construction but it will also provide the
necessary maintenance monies needed each year.
Our great Mississippi River and the other navigable tributaries are
valuable assets to our great nation. As far back as 1845 we find
records indicating our forefathers and leaders of this nation
recognized the Mississippi River as a national problem, a national
asset, and a problem local interests could not and should not be
responsible for controlling, namely, flood control and navigation. The
river has always been a viable asset to our nation and important to the
development of our towns along its banks such as New Orleans,
Louisiana, Memphis, Tennessee, St. Louis, Missouri, and of course many
others along it and its tributaries.
We have locks and dams which are more than 50 years old. They need
to be improved and enlarged to meet the needs for our navigation
interest to perform in the 21st century. Our competing nations are
modernizing and building navigation systems in order to compete with
our export of commodities and we need to at least keep pace. We must
upgrade our waterways infrastructure in order to compete with the
foreign markets and we must improve our aging waterway facilities. No
successful private industry does not improve and modernize its internal
and external features in order to keep pace with the competition and to
meet current demands. Our nation needs to do the same.
It has been proven over and over our waterway transportation system
is the safest, the most environmentally acceptable, and the most fuel
efficient in moving commodities and materials throughout our nation. It
would be totally unacceptable and very unwise to diminish that mode of
moving products throughout our nation and expect them to be moved
either by rail or by highways. Our highway systems already are in dire
need of repair and to add additional demands on them would be extremely
costly, very unsafe, and would expend much more fuel which we currently
do not have but must import. Hopefully, common sense will prevail and
Congress will make the choice to invest into one of the greatest assets
we have in our nation. The many locks and dams on our rivers are
needed. They were designed to accommodate traffic 50 years ago and it
is now time to upgrade, enlarge, and construct them to accommodate the
industry as we have it today. We have done the same thing with our
vehicler traffic on our roads by upgrading, enlarging, and constructing
to meet the modern day demands. It is now time and past time to do the
same for our water industry. Former President Eisenhower saw an
increase in our car and truck traffic on the horizon and thus we
implemented an extensive interstate system. Let's do something in a
similar way on our rivers.
We have only a few oil producing fields, therefore, we must look
for as many means as possible to conserve our fuel. Utilizing and
increasing our waterway transportation industry is one way to do that.
We need an energy plan and we encourage Congress to incorporate
increased use of water to move products throughout our nation as one
way to conserve fuel. Every little bit will help when our oil resources
are so small domestically.
In the past few months there has been much unfair criticism of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for their study procedures and related
work. This organization should have their hands held up high and not
with accusing fingers pointed toward them. No other organization, to my
knowledge, must stand before Congress each year and justify by a
favorable cost/benefit ratio of why they need the funding to do the
work Congress has authorized them to do. The Mississippi and
Tributaries Project currently returns back to the Federal Treasury more
than $25 dollars for each dollar spent. In any society and to any
investor that is a good return on your investment.
The Corps of Engineers does not do anything beyond what Congress
has authorized them to do. They can and they will improve our great
nation if Congress will only let them and if those groups who oppose
them are not given the never ending ability to interfere. Those groups
and individuals who oppose the Corps seem to only have to point a
finger and we see an investigation occur. They should be required to
provide scientific facts and supporting evidence not ``innuendos'',
``perhaps'', ``maybes'', and ``could have'' type charges before any
consideration is given to their allegations. Simply to delay a project
or to cast doubt in the citizens eyes through their good use of our
news media means they have been successful. Local interests and those
who benefit from the Corps projects are fully aware of the results of
their tactics. We are sure Congress in their wisdom will do the same.
Your assistance in this matter is extremely important. Congressman
Barry from Arkansas understands the problem, perhaps, many more of the
other 434 will be likewise enlightened.
Recently we have learned six members of Congress have attempted to
create a Corp reform caucus whereby the Corps of Engineers projects
would be placed under another additional financial and scientific
review board. This is absurd and is nothing more than another effort of
those who oppose the Corps of Engineers and the work they do to stop
any work under the guidelines the Corps of Engineers must operate. It
is our hope none of you participate in such a caucus and the efforts
being pushed by those who desire same will come to naught.
I wish to thank you very much for your time and kind attention and
for taking the time to review the above discourse. We would be very
appreciative of anything this committee can do to help us improve our
environment, improve our livelihood, and improve the area in which we
live and work which ultimately is good for America. We are also very
appreciative of all this Committee has done for us in the past. We
trust you will hear our pleas and act accordingly.
______
Prepared Statement of the Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County,
California
a turning basin at avon, california
Request
Contra Costa County requests a $2 million add to the Construction
General (CG-continuing construction) Federal Fiscal Year 2002 Civil
Works Budget to complete a General Reevaluation Report (GRR) and
construct a Turning Basin to -35 feet MLLW at Avon, California.
Background
The Avon Turning Basin will provide necessary modification to the
Suisun Bay Channel, increasing the distance between vessels traveling
within the channel, and those berthed at terminals in the vicinity.
Second, a Turning Basin will be constructed to allow oil tankers to
turn vessels within (regularly surveyed and expanded) navigational
boundaries, with a uniform depth of -35 feet of water (rather than
attempting to turn in shallower areas). Finally, the Turning Basin will
provide an emergency anchorage for vessels traveling westward when the
railroad bridge (adjacent to HWY 680 between Martinez and Benicia)
fails to open.
The recent grounding of the oil tanker CHESAPEAKE TRADER during
turning operations in the Suisun Bay Channel has brought attention to
and created some urgency for construction of a turning basin at -35
feet MLLW. The potential for an oil spill during a grounding event is
significant. The Bar Pilot in question was cited (and suspended in
part) for having the vessel outside channel boundaries, creating a
liability issue for the Pilots as well. The Bar Pilots have no choice
but to turn large vessels outside the narrow (linear) channel. This
project is supported by the Bar Pilots, the U.S. Coast Guard,
industries using the channels, the Port of Stockton, and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
Avon, California is located at the mouth of the Sacramento San
Joaquin Delta, as it flows into San Francisco Bay. The Bar Pilots and
local industry have approached the County, concerned that a turning
basin was no longer being considered at Avon, Suisun Bay Channel, as
part of the JF Baldwin deepening project. Funding was successfully
obtained in fiscal year 2001, allowing the Corps to begin reevaluation
of the Turning Basin to -35 feet, the existing channel depth. The
fiscal year 2002 appropriation would enable the Reevaluation Report to
be completed, and construction to occur as part of the San Francisco to
Stockton (J.F. Baldwin), authorized project.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southeastern Federal Power Customers, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
Southeastern Federal Power Customers' (``SeFPC'') Operation and
Maintenance Committee, I am pleased to provide testimony in support of
the Administration's fiscal year 2002 (``fiscal year 2002'') budget
request for the Army Corps of Engineers' (``Corps'') South Atlantic
Division (``SAD'') and the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division
(``LRD'').
The SeFPC has enjoyed a long and successful relationship with the
Corps' SAD and LRD offices that has greatly benefited the approximately
5.8 million customers that are SeFPC members. As the Subcommittee is
aware, the Corps is responsible for operating and maintaining federal
hydropower generating facilities. The Southeastern Power Administration
(``SEPA'') then markets the energy and capacity that is generated from
the federal projects in the Southeast. The SeFPC represents some 238
rural cooperatives and municipally owned electric systems in the states
of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Kentucky, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Florida, Virginia, West Virginia, and Illinois, which
purchase power from SEPA. In some cases, SEPA supplies as much as 25
percent of the power and 10 percent of the energy needs of SeFPC
customers. The SeFPC therefore greatly relies on the power generated at
Corps' projects in the SAD and LRD.
It is important to note that the relationship of the Corps, SEPA,
and the SeFPC, forged pursuant to the Federal Power Marketing Program,
is separate and distinct from other Corps' activities. The Federal
Power Marketing Program is designed to pay for itself--consumers are
responsible for repaying the federal taxpayer investment in the Corps'
multi-purpose hydroelectric facilities. In the rates charged by SEPA to
preference customers, a portion of each rate is devoted to future
operation and maintenance (``O&M'') and renewals and replacement
(``R&R'') activities at these facilities. In turn, these revenues are
deposited in the Treasury and used to reimburse Congressionally
appropriated funds for O&M and R&R expenses at the Corps' hydropower
facilities. Funds collected from consumers may also be used for the
joint costs of dam activities such as recreation, navigation and flood
control.
The SeFPC is dedicated to providing reliable and economic power for
its consumers. We therefore are concerned that the President has
proposed a 14 percent reduction in the Corps' overall O&M account for
the upcoming fiscal year. With these reductions in funding, the Corps
will not be able to undertake the O&M and R&R work necessary to ensure
the long-term reliability of the Southeastern federal hydropower
facilities.
We are particularly concerned about the effects of the proposed
budget cuts on ongoing O&M work on hydropower infrastructure within the
SEPA system of projects. The proposed reductions will impede the Corps'
work in the following SEPA projects:
--the $1 million purchase of SF6 Switchyard breakers for the Hartwell
hydropower project.
--$750,000 for head cover repairs of Unit 1 at the Carters hydropower
project.
--$1.3 million for the excitation replacement of Unit 1 at the
Carters project.
--$1.5 million for purchase and installation of SF6 switchyard
breakers at the Carters project.
We also are concerned about the President has proposed no new
starts for fiscal year 2002 from the Corps' General Construction
account. If enacted, the prohibition on new starts would delay the
badly needed rehabilitation of the Allatoona hydropower project.
When a generating unit becomes inoperable, SEPA may be forced to
purchase expensive replacement power. If this occurs frequently, SEPA
must then recover these costs through future rate increases. Such a
result is inappropriate because preference customers already have
contributed to the Corps' O&M and R&R expenses, thus effectively
double-charging the customers and their consumers. In fact, revenue
from the rates paid by the preference customers has enabled SEPA to
repay, on schedule, the original investment incurred to construct these
projects. However, when generating units deteriorate, the operation and
maintenance expenses greatly increase. The failure to provide adequate
resources for maintenance and rehabilitations impairs the preference
customers' ability to repay the federal investment and everyone loses.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Rivers
American Rivers is joined by over 500 local, regional and national
conservation organizations \1\ from all 50 states in calling for $25
million in funding for the Upper Mississippi River Environmental
Management Program in fiscal year 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These groups have endorsed ``The River Budget 2002'', a report
of national funding priorities for local river conservation. A list of
groups endorsing the River Budget can be viewed at
www.americanrivers.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Environmental Management Program (EMP) is the primary habitat
restoration and long term resource monitoring program on the Upper
Mississippi, and is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in
cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey and the five Upper
Mississippi River Basin states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa,
and Missouri.
overview of the environmental management program
Dams and levees that support navigation and flood control have
robbed the Mississippi River of its ability to create and sustain
habitat for waterfowl and wildlife. Side channels and backwaters fill
in with silt and sediment and are no longer replaced during floods.
Instead, they are replaced by state and federal programs.
More than half the river's backwaters and side channels will be
lost by the year 2035, likely leading to a catastrophic collapse of the
nation's most productive and diverse inland fishery. Loss of river
habitat also threatens a $1.2 billion river-recreation industry, which
supports 18,000 jobs. As the Corps recently concluded, the Upper
Mississippi River is in a ``recognized state of decline.'' Corps
scientists predict that the river will experience a shift to less
desirable fish species, poorer water quality, and fewer areas that are
able to support migratory waterfowl unless restoration efforts are
improved and accelerated.
One of the most successful and promising federal efforts to reverse
the degradation of the Mississippi River is the Environmental
Management Program (EMP). The primary habitat restoration and
monitoring program on the Upper Mississippi River, EMP has restored or
created 28,000 acres of habitat to date. When the projects currently
under construction are completed, it will have protected more than
96,000 acres of habitat.
Habitat restoration projects constructed by the Corps with funding
from the EMP include backwater dredging, water level management, island
restoration, shoreline stabilization, and side channel improvements.
These activities allow the Corps and its project partners (e.g., U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and/or basin states) to restore habitat
degraded by management of the river system for navigation and flood
control benefits by restoring natural river processes. Managing water
levels to more closely mimic natural high and low water periods in the
hydrologic cycle provides key ecological triggers for the growth of
marsh plants, which in turn support fish and wildlife populations
popular with hunters and anglers. Backwater dredging opens areas of
aquatic habitat previously unavailable to aquatic organisms due to
excessive sedimentation. In all, these restoration activities are a
critical factor in improving the ecological health of the Upper
Mississippi River.
Long term resource monitoring provides river managers with
critical, systemic scientific analyses of the river ecosystem, which
identifies key threats to river health and helps guide management
decisions to protect and restore this national resource. These
monitoring efforts provide critical information needed to maintain the
Upper Mississippi River as a sustainable large river ecosystem
supporting multiple uses, including recreation, navigation and
commercial fishing.
the value of the upper mississippi river
Few rivers have had as great an impact on the nation as the
Mississippi River.
Generations of explorers, engineers, Native Americans, fur traders,
steamboat pilots, writers, painters and musicians have contributed to
its legend. The river is a life sustaining force whose presence has
contributed to a rich fabric of social, economic, cultural and natural
resources.
As the river courses through the nation's heartland, the
Mississippi winds through hundreds of communities and thousands of
years of human history. Millions make their homes along the river's
shores, and millions more use the waterway every year for recreation,
to move goods, supply water, and generate power. From the moment it
trickles out of Minnesota's Lake Itasca, the Mississippi River shapes
the lives of the communities along its banks. The river that inspired
Mark Twain continues to inspire millions of people today.
People of virtually every ethnic and racial background have claimed
homes along the river, and the river's many different names--the Father
of Waters, Big Muddy, Old Devil River--underscore the diversity of the
people who have lived along its shores. The Mississippi is a confluence
of literally hundreds of different cultures.
More than 400 different species of wildlife call the river home as
well--one of the world's most diverse ecological systems--including the
nation's most ancient lineage of fish and 40 percent of North America's
migratory waterfowl. The river's floodplain includes dense forests of
maples, cottonwoods, and willows, which support bald eagles, herons,
egrets, and double-crested cormorants, rare orchids and many other
species.
The heritage resources of the river valley include traces of North
America's earliest inhabitants. The river's banks are dotted with
remnants of the past, ranging from 10,000 year-old Native American
effigy mounds to the remains of Zebulon Pike's expedition to the paddle
wheelers that inspired Mark Twain. Attractions like Mark Twain's
birthplace in Hannibal, Missouri, historic steamboats and bridges, and
river museums link visitors to the river's past.
The river's natural resources, scenic beauty, and heritage are
powerful economic engines. Recreation on and along the Upper
Mississippi River attracts 12 million annual visitors--four times more
than Yellowstone National Park--who spend $1.2 billion annually,
supporting more than 18,000 recreation-related jobs. Commercial
fishermen continue to harvest carp, buffalo, catfish and freshwater
drum, supporting hundreds of jobs and preserving an important link to
the river's past. Tourism in counties along the entire Mississippi
generates more than $15 billion in annual economic benefits.
Unfortunately, these important economic resources are threatened by
land use practices which contribute too much sediment and nutrients,
the loss of floodplain forests and wetlands, the loss of side channels
and sloughs, outdated methods of channel maintenance, and introduced
species like the zebra mussel. Sadly, that ``artery of a continent'' is
becoming clogged with excess sediment and nutrients while critical
habitat continues to degrade under a system highly managed to support
economic benefits. Scientists tell us that these threats may have
serious consequences if left unattended.
threats to the upper mississippi river basin
The Mississippi was once characterized by ``dynamic equilibrium''--
sediment and silt may have filled a side channel, but a new side
channel was created by the erosive power of flood waters; particular
islands and sandbars may have washed away, but new ones were built
elsewhere by the river. The overall mosaic of floodplain forest and
wetlands, side channels and sloughs, islands and sandbars stayed more
or less the same. Periods of both high and low flow were critically
important--during floods, powerful currents would build new habitat and
fish could migrate onto the river's floodplain to spawn; during periods
of low flow, exposed sediments would consolidate and river water would
become clearer, aiding the production of marsh plants, a major food
source for fish and waterfowl.
Today, the dams that make the river reliably navigable and the
levees that temporarily protect floodplain farms have reduced the
frequency, extent and magnitude of high flows, robbing the river of the
ability to build new side channels and islands, replenish forests and
marshes--to sustain itself. Because dams and channel training
structures have confined the river's erosive power to a central
channel, side channels, which fill with silt and sediment, are no
longer replaced during floods. Current land use practices accelerate
the loss of side channels by increasing the rate at which sediment is
washed off the land into feeder streams. The river's bottom is becoming
increasingly uniform, replacing the variety of water depths that
contribute to the Mississippi's remarkable diversity of aquatic
species. The absence of low flows has sharply reduced the amount and
diversity of marsh plants, and elevated water tables have undermined
the health of the river's floodplain forest. Marsh plant seeds, buried
under layers of accumulating sediment, lay dormant.
the environmental management program: one solution to restore the
mississippi
the value of the Environmental Management Program to the ecological
health of the Upper Mississippi River cannot be understated. Continued
increases in funding for this important restoration program will
translate into more effective restoration projects. With sound science
and effective use of restoration funding, the degraded Upper
Mississippi has some hope of turning around, and becoming the
outstanding, world-class natural resource it once was. Without
increased funding, the Upper Mississippi River is at risk of continued
declining ecological health, putting at risk the $1.2 billion in
recreation-based economy in the basin, 18,000 or more recreation-based
jobs, 400 different species of fish and wildlife, and a natural
resource beyond compare.
We strongly urge you to appropriate $25 million to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' Upper Mississippi River System Environmental
Management Program.
______
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 key programs
of the Army Corps of Engineers. These programs can significantly expand
the Corps' ability to assist communities in the nation reduce losses
due to flooding. We have found that the Flood Plain Management Services
(FPMS) and Planning Assistance to States (Section 22) programs provide
for important elements of effective floodplain management. The Riverine
Flood Hazard Mitigation and Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, and
Section 1135 and 206 programs offer 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 4,000 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 fully support
these strategies for the Corps.
Under General Investigations, Flood Plain Management Services, $8.2
million is requested for fiscal year 2002. The funding level for fiscal
year 2001 was that $8.2 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. There is a growing need to increase the funds in this critical
program to help reduce flood losses in the nation, which we hope the
Congress mill consider for fiscal year 2002.
The General Investigations, ``Coordination Studies With Other
Agencies'' budget includes $6.5 million for Planning Assistance to
States in the budget request for fiscal year 2002, the same as last
year's funding. The growing need of localities and local and regional
governmental entitles for technical assistance from the Corps has been
helped by the Congressional effort. 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.
The Riverine Flood Mitigation and Ecosystem Restoration program was
authorized by Congress last year. 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 and are eager to cost share in this effort. We hope that the
Committee will provide the nation's communities with the valuable tools
of this program.
Two other important programs need full funding--namely the Section
1135 and 206 programs. Both programs are helping communities restore
much of the habitat lost when Corps projects were constructed. Both
programs are authorized for $25 Million.
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.
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony. Please contact
ASFPM Executive Director, Larry Larson, at (608) 274-0123 if further
information is needed.
______
Prepared Statement of Butte County, CA
rock creek-keefer slough flood control project, section 205
Butte County in cooperation with the California Reclamation Board
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is currently completing the
Feasibility Study Phase of the project review with several important
milestones to occur in the near future. The Working Group has
established two project construction alternatives. 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 October we expect development of the PED Phase (Project
Engineering and Design) to start. The NED Plan (National Economic
Development Plan is slated to be completed near that date. This will be
a General Inquiry Project.
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 of $2,100,000, for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, to proceed with the PED, in fiscal year 2002,
for construction of this critical Flood Control Project in their fiscal
year 2003 recommended flood control projects.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact:
Stuart Edell, P.E., at Butte County Public Works, 7 County Center
Drive, Oroville, CA 95965-3397, Telephone (530) 538-7266, FAX (530)
538-7683, Email [email protected]
______
Prepared Statement of the Southern Nevada Water Authority
introduction
It has long been said that the Colorado River is the lifeblood of
the West. Today, the Colorado River supplies vital water and power
resources for more than 20 million people in Arizona, California and
Nevada.
Concerns have been raised about the reliability of these water and
power resources following the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1994
designation of critical habitat for four endangered fish species in the
Colorado River Basin.
In response, representatives of the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Arizona, California, and Nevada, Native American tribes,
along with various stakeholders and water and power agencies along the
lower Colorado, have formed a regional partnership, which is developing
a first-of-its-kind multi-species conservation program aimed at
protecting sensitive, threatened and endangered species of fish,
wildlife and their habitat.
The partnership formed a 35-member steering committee, which has
been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an Ecosystem
Conservation and Recovery Implementation Team (ECRIT) under the federal
Endangered Species Act. The steering committee has retained the
services of professional facilitator and technical consultant teams to
help develop a plan for the conservation program. The conservation plan
is scheduled for completion in Fall 2002.
program description
The multi-species conservation program will work toward the
recovery of listed species through habitat restoration and species
conservation, and reduce the likelihood of additional species listings
under the federal and California Endangered Species Act.
The MSCP planning area includes the historic floodplain of the
lower Colorado River and reservoir full-pool elevations from Lake Mead
to the Southerly International Boundary with Mexico. MSCP habitat
restoration and preservation activities are intended to address the
following habitat types: aquatic, wetland/marsh, riparian and upland
desert fringe. It is the intent of the MSCP to re-vegetate native
cottonwood-willow and mesquite trees in the floodplain, and remove the
non-native salt cedar, or tamarisk, that has become established.
The MSCP will be implemented over a 50-year period. The long-term
program is also intended to accommodate current water diversions and
power production and optimize opportunities for future water and power
development. This comprehensive program will provide long-term
environmental compliance for participating federal agencies, pursuant
to Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act, and non-federal
agencies under Section 10. California Agencies will also pursue
programs and actions to achieve compliance with California
Environmental Quality and Endangered Species Acts.
Over the past four years, interim conservation measures (ICMs) have
been developed and implemented to address the immediate critical needs
for certain endangered species. ICMs benefiting the endangered
razorback sucker, bonytail, and southwestern willow flycatcher were
initiated.
program development cost
Current, program development costs are projected at about $6.7
million over five years for planning needs and implementation of ICMs.
A federal/non-federal cost-sharing agreement is in place for
development of the program and implementation of interim conservation
measures. The federal and non-federal participants shared program
development costs on a ``50/50'' basis. Among the non-federal
participants, the shares were distributed as follows: 50 percent of the
non-federal share was borne by California, 30 percent by Arizona, and
the remaining 20 percent by the State of Nevada.
program implementation
The MSCP will be implemented over the fifty-year period beginning
in late-2002. However, MSCP proponents are desirous of implementing a
series of ``pilot projects'' in order to begin evaluating potential
habitat restoration and species conservation technologies within the
planning area. Additionally, the pilot projects would be supplemented
with species and habitat monitoring and research programs, providing
the basis for a comprehensive adaptive management approach.
colorado river indian tribes pilot project proposal
The Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT) have played an active role
in the restoration of critical habitats for the past eight years. Since
1993, the tribe has restored, preserved and protected over 2,000 acres
of riparian, wetland, and aquatic resources on the Lower Colorado
River. In particular, the Ahakhav Tribal Preserve project has served as
a model for riparian habitat restoration in the southwestern United
States for Native American Tribes, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and various other public and private
agencies. More importantly, it serves as a model for the Lower Colorado
River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP).
Located just south and west of Parker, Arizona, in La Paz County,
the Ahakhav and Deertail Backwater Restoration Pilot Project is located
on the Colorado River on the Colorado River Indian Reservation. The
Ahakhav and Deertail Restoration Pilot Project provides numerous
opportunities for MSCP covered species conservation and native habitat
restoration. Many of the nearly 100 species proposed for coverage, or
receiving benefits from MSCP conservation, occur on lands within the
pilot project area. Anticipated actions for this pilot project include
enhancement of riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitats and continued
collaboration with ongoing Native American, federal, and state
environmental planning efforts, specifically the MSCP.
pilot project area description
The Ahakhav and Deertail backwaters extend from Rivermile (RM) 169
to 174 on the Colorado River. This restoration pilot project plans to
restore native riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitats modified through
development of the Colorado River water and hydroelectric power
resources over the past century. This proposed pilot project would
restore over 1,000 acres of native riparian habitat, 200 acres of open
water, 250 acres of wetland/marsh complex, and 200 acres of fallowed
agricultural land. Over 300 species of birds, 32 species of mammals, 19
fish species, 20 species of reptiles, and 9 amphibian species utilize
the sites. In addition, 29 threatened or endangered species are
expected to benefit from the proposed pilot project, including the
endangered southwestern willow flycatcher, Yuma clapper rail, and
razorback sucker.
pilot project actions
In keeping with the overarching intent of the MSCP, habitat
restoration at these sites is the primary component of the project.
This MSCP pilot project seeks to restore wildlife habitat and some
measure of pre-development hydraulic conditions in this area. This will
be accomplished through re-excavation and re-connection of historic
channel features, installation of water control structures, conversion
of agricultural land and riparian re-vegetation activities. The
following is a list of pilot project goals and objectives:
--Excavate historic channel features to improve water quality and
flow in existing wetlands;
--Convert fallowed agricultural lands into cottonwood-willow forests;
--Re-vegetate stands of native cottonwood, willow, and mesquite trees
in areas where exotic plant species have invaded;
--Implement pre- and post-restoration monitoring to measure success
and aid in the development of future maintenance and
restoration activity recommendations; and
--Provide environmental and cultural education and low-impact
recreational opportunities for surrounding communities.
pilot project funding
It is proposed that the CRIT Ahakhav and Deertail Restoration Pilot
Project of $2.5 million be funded through the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, Lower Colorado River Operations
(LCROP) budget line item.
______
Prepared Statement of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency
(MCWRA)
castroville seawater intrusion project
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony
for inclusion in the hearing record of the fiscal year 2002 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 our behalf 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 2000.
As in the past seven years, the Monterey County Water Resources
Agency has worked diligently to present the Subcommittee with an fiscal
year 2002 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 (Bureau) and
other Program participants, we have developed the funding plans that we
hope will be included in the President's fiscal year 2002 budget for
the Public Law 84-984 Small Reclamation Loan Program. I therefore
respectively request that the Subcommittee provide the full request for
the project of $1.12 million.
This is the eighth 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 seven years this Subcommittee
provided $13.164 million for our project. The current appropriation
amount of $1.12 million, when combined with other federal funding which
is available from the U.S. Treasury in the amount of approximately
$2.174 million pursuant to the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990,
should yield a total loan amount of $3.294 million for fiscal year 2002
allowing 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 its 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 2002 when combined with the
additional Treasury portion is intended to fulfill the Bureau's eighth
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 minimum 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 2001
funding provided monies for the fourth 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, 2000, and 2001 as shown in the table below and must
continue for the last year 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received 1995-2000 Requested 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requested
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSIP......................................................... 1.064 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.6 2.6 1.3 1.12 14.284
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include Treasury portion of $15.992 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.
______
small reclamation projects loan program
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity today to provide this
testimony for inclusion in the hearing record on the fiscal year 2002
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
seven years, this subcommittee provided $9.0 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 2000, the plant produced
about 10,000 acre-feet (AF) of recycled water.
As in the past, we have been in close consultation with the Bureau
of Reclamation (Bureau) 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, we are
hopeful that the Administration will request, with our support and
endorsement, $0.557 million 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, 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
2002. 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.
The project will ultimately provide 19,500 AF 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 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, fiscal year 2000, and fiscal year 2001 through
February 12, 2001, as follows:
FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS \1\
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received 1995-2001
------------------------------------------------------------- Requested Total
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVRP............................................................. ..... 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.7 0.8 0.557 9.557
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include Treasury portion of $10.375 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 $14.4 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 of this critical project
is greatly appreciated.
______
Prepared Statement of the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Inc.
On behalf of the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System (LCRWS), 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 2002 funding. First, I would like to thank you
for all your efforts on behalf of the Lewis and Clark Rural Water
System (LCRWS) last year. Without your steadfast and diligent support,
our hopes of providing safe, reliable drinking water to our communities
would be impossible.
Our need for the project is even greater today than when we
embarked on our effort almost a decade ago. The shallow wells, aquifers
prone to contamination, demands of compliance with new federal drinking
water standards, and increasing population growth and economic
expansion are stressing our existing systems beyond their capacity. The
promise of a pure, dependable, Missouri River drinking water system for
the nearly 200,000 residents in 22 communities in rural Iowa,
Minnesota, and South Dakota can only be realized with your continued
support and efforts. In order to meet the fundamental need for clean
dependable water in this area, we must once again request your support
for funding this vital project in fiscal year 2002.
background
The LCRWS is a bipartisan effort supported by all members of its
Congressional delegation including Senators Grassley (R-IA), Daschle
(D-SD), Wellstone (D-MN), Johnson (D-SD), Harkin (D-IA) and Dayton (D-
MN), and Congressmen Kennedy (R-MN), Latham (R-IA), and Thune (R-SD).
Additionally, in recent remarks in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, President
Bush expressed his support for LCRWS.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``A priority is to work with states on important development
projects. And Lewis and Clark rural Water Project is a project that
will be in my budget, and something that we can work together on.''
President George W. Bush, Remarks in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, March
9, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Senate unanimously passed S. 244, authorizing LCRWS on November
19, 1999. Companion legislation, H.R. 297, passed the House by an
overwhelming majority of 400-13 on May 23, 2000. The Lewis and Clark
Rural Water System Act of 1999 was signed into law (Public Law 106-246)
by President Clinton on July 13, 2000, as a part of the fiscal year
2001 Military Construction Appropriations bills, where $600,000 was
appropriated for this project. Further, funds totaling $1 million have
been appropriated through the fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD/Energy and Water
Appropriations bill (H.R. 4635).
fiscal year 2002 funding request
The LCRWS is requesting further funding for this project, through
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau), in the amount of $2 million
for fiscal year 2002. These funds will be used for final design
engineering, environmental compliance, acquisition of easements and
property, and associated legal and professional costs. Specific tasks
to be accomplished with these funds include acquiring property for well
sites, a water treatment plant, and for the raw water pipeline route;
completing the Final Engineering Report that will include a Water
Conservation Program; completing the Environmental Assessment report;
completing final design and initiating construction of at least one
radial collector well; initiating final design of the water treatment
plant; and initiating final design of the raw water pipeline.
project description
Water from an aquifer adjacent to the Missouri River near
Vermillion, SD, will be treated in a water treatment facility and
delivered to the project's membership through a regional distribution
system. Each member utility will take water from the LCRWS at a point
of connection and deliver it to the end user through their distribution
system. Some members will receive all of their drinking water from
LCRWS. Others will blend project water with their existing resources.
Physical Attributes of the Project.--Nearly 412 miles of pipe will
be needed to distribute treated drinking water to the project's
membership. The largest pipe is expected to be 54 inches in diameter,
with the smallest being 6 inches in diameter. One centralized treatment
plant will be constructed. The LCRWS will build at least five
reservoirs to assist in meeting storage needs. About one day's worth of
storage will be included in the reservoirs and in the distribution
system. A state of the art communication system will be utilized to
allow plant operators to monitor and control the operation of the
entire system from one location. A radial well system will be
constructed to collect water for treatment and distribution. A series
of four to six wells will be needed to give enough capacity for the
system.
As dictated by Public Law 106-246, the Bureau will be the federal
oversight agency during project construction. A cooperative agreement
between the Bureau and the LCRWS is currently being negotiated. Once an
agreement is signed, the appropriated funds can be transferred to the
project to assist with the pre-construction activities. All project
activities are carried out in consultation with the Bureau.
project activities
Summary of Current Activities.--The following summary of project
activities over the past few months demonstrates the project's progress
to date in developing the final engineering and environmental
documentation. The listing includes both planning and engineering
activities, consultations, and data gathering efforts associated with
the preparation of documents necessary for compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
1. Requests for additional capacity from LCRWS have come from
existing members and potential new users along the proposed pipeline
route. Costs associated with increasing system capacity to meet these
requests will be accomplished through means other than the federal
authorization for the project. These new requests would require an
additional 11 million gallons per day of treated water. This is a
fifty-percent increase in project capacity from the original project
design.
Authorized System Costs, Year 1993...................... $272,800,000
Indexed System Costs, Year 2000......................... 343,831,200
2. To ensure compliance with NEPA, the following tasks have been
initiated:
--preparation of detailed route maps showing a 2 mile wide corridor
for the pipeline routes and project features;
--initial consultation meetings with State Historic Preservation
Offices in Iowa, South Dakota, and Minnesota;
--initial consultation meetings with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
South Dakota Game Fish and Parks, Iowa Department of Natural
Resources, and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources;
--consultation and coordination meetings between the project team
members and the project management team from the Bureau; and
--class I file search of archaeological records for pipeline routes
in Iowa, Minnesota, and South Dakota.
3. Hydro-geological studies to identify prospective sites for
radial collector wells have begun. A preliminary report identifying
recommended locations for exploratory drilling and production pump
testing has been prepared. Project representatives have met with
affected property owners who have given permission for site access for
investigations. A categorical exclusion for the exploratory drilling
has been approved and this drilling is scheduled to begin in early
April.
April 2002 is the target date for submittal of the final
engineering report including a business plan, environmental assessment,
and water conservation program. The documents will be submitted to the
Bureau and the United States Congress marking the beginning of the
mandated 90-day review period.
Public Scoping.--Public meetings will be held throughout the
project area to invite public comment on the project planning process.
These meetings will be held in early May 2001. Notifications and a
project scope statement will be distributed in late April 2001. These
meetings will be prime opportunities to better inform the public about
the LCRWS and its plans for the future. The Bureau will also be working
with tribal organizations throughout the area to gain their input into
this process.
project financing
The projected total cost for the LCRWS project is $272.8 million,
in 1993 dollars. A combination of local, state, and federal funding is
being used for this project. Each of the three member states has
already passed legislation authorizing the state governments to fund 10
percent of the project. Project members will fund an additional 10
percent of the project. The federal government will fund the remaining
80 percent except in Sioux Falls, where the federal cost-share is 50
percent. In addition, Sioux Falls will contribute significantly to the
O&M costs of the project, lowering those costs for other project
members.
Throughout the past decade, as the LCRWS completed its Preliminary
Engineering Report and Environmental Assessment Report, the three
states and project members have contributed to financing the project.
For every state dollar that has been contributed, the local members
have matched those state funds dollar for dollar. To date, over $2
million in state and local funds have been contributed to project
activities related to development, administration, public education,
and federal authorization.
______
Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
On behalf of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD), 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 2002 funding. We respectfully request your
continued support of fiscal year 2002 funding for MSD projects to
minimize the impact combined sewer overflows have on the Mississippi
River in the heartland of our country. Authorization for such work, to
be performed by the U.S. Army Corps' of Engineers, was contained in the
Water Resources Development Act of 1999.
In fiscal year 2001, $3 million was appropriated to start a
combined sewer project in an area of south St. Louis City. Additional
funding for fiscal year 2002 totaling $5 million is being requested to
continue the work on that project, known as Grand & Bates, and for two
additional combined sewer projects, Mill Creek Sewer and Southern
Arsenal Relief Sewer, in the city of St. Louis. This work has as its
goal to reduce floatable materials that collect in combined sewers, and
which unless removed, may be discharged into the Mississippi River
during storm events. Such materials can be unsightly in the water, may
jeopardize water supplies and pose a risk to the aquatic life thriving
in the river.
Depending upon weather conditions, the combined sewers serving the
city of St. Louis may discharge untreated flows of sewage and
stormwater runoff an average of 100 times per year. The cost to totally
separate the sewers is too high, estimated at $6 billion, thus we are
proposing other methods to reduce the impact these structures have upon
the Mississippi River.
Grand & Bates.--MSD is proposing to continue the work on the Grand
& Bates project where separation of a small portion of the combined
sewer is being recommended and a sewer is being built in a tunnel 100
feet below the surface. The separation will reduce the likelihood of
flooding in this neighborhood and, because the drainage is being
removed from the combined sewers, will improve the discharges into the
Mississippi River.
Mill Creek Sewer, Vandeventer to Grand Avenues.--This sewer is a
15-foot by 18-foot combined sewer system running through the north
central portion of the city of St. Louis. Most of the sewer is carved
in stone and is nearly 100 years old. The improvements proposed will
help stabilize the sewer, thus, reducing the threat of failure and
debris being carried downstream into the Mississippi River. Failure on
a system this large can threaten public safety.
Southern Arsenal Relief Sewer, Phase II.--This combined sewer
system serves a southern portion of St. Louis City. It is an 8.5-foot
by 8.5-foot carved in rock sewer. Numerous voids have been detected
along this sewer causing concern for its structural stability.
Due to the size of this system and the fact that it discharges into
the Mississippi River, there are concerns about failure of the system,
leading to more debris being carried into the river. The voids around
the sewer could lead directly into the river, thus increasing the
potential for pollution. A public safety concern exists due to the
potential condition of this system.
The Mississippi River is the backbone of our country. Its
environmental integrity is critical now and in the future. We request
that the Subcommittee give strong consideration to appropriating $5
million for these projects.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California
Your support and leadership are needed in securing adequate fiscal
year 2002 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 in the hundreds of million of dollars per
year due to the river's salinity.
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. 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 in which it has stated that the rate of
implementation of the program beyond that requested by the past
President is necessary.
In 2000, Congress reviewed the salinity control program as
authorized in 1995. Following hearings, and with the Administration's
support, the Congress passed legislation that increased the ceiling
authorization for this program by $100 million. Reclamation is now
prepared to receive proposals to move the program ahead and the seven
Basin States have funds available to cost-share up-front. The seven
Basin States have agreed to cost sharing up-front on an annual basis,
which adds 43 cents for every federal dollar appropriated.
The President's request for funding the Bureau of Reclamation's
Basinwide Salinity Control Program in fiscal year 2002 is unknown at
this time. Based upon past appropriations, 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
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 Henderson, Nevada, in October 2000, recommended a
funding level of $17,500,000 for Reclamation's Basinwide Program to
continue implementation of needed projects and begin 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 2002 and in future
fiscal years, that Congress provide funds to the Bureau of Reclamation
for the continued operation of completed projects.
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 Statements of the County of Tulare, California
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: The County of Tulare,
California requests your consideration of an appropriation of $400,000
in the fiscal year 2002 Federal budget for the United States Army Corps
of Engineers for continuation of the feasibility study for the White
River flood control investigation.
White River is an uncontrolled stream that continues to devastate
agricultural lands in Tulare County, flood the community of Earlimart
and disrupt commerce on a major California highway arterial, State
Route 99.
The Corps of Engineers completed a reconnaissance level study for
White River in fiscal year 2000 and determined that there is a Federal
interest in proceeding with a 50/50 Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement
(FCSA). The FCSA and Project Study Plan (PSP) as prepared by the Corps
are under review and negotiation with the non-federal sponsors.
The Federal fiscal year 2001 budget included $150,000 for the
Corps' General Investigation of White River, California.
The local non-federal sponsors urge the subcommittee's
appropriation of $400,000 in fiscal year 2002 for the Corps of
Engineers continuation of the White River flood control feasibility
study.
______
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: The County of Tulare,
California requests your consideration of an appropriation of $400,000
in the fiscal year 2002 Federal budget for the United States Army Corps
of Engineers for a feasibility study for the Frazier & Strathmore
Creeks flood control project.
The Corps of Engineers has completed a reconnaissance level study
of Frazier & Strathmore Creeks and determined that there is a Federal
interest in proceeding with a feasibility study. The 50/50 Feasibility
Cost Sharing Agreement is under negotiation between the Corps, the
State Department of Water Resources and the local non-federal sponsors.
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 estimate the feasibility study will require
three years for preparation with a total cost of $2.4 million. Under
the 50/50 cost sharing requirement the fiscal year 2002 appropriation
bill for the Corps of Engineers general investigation needs $400,000
for the first year of the feasibility study.
The local non-federal sponsors urge the subcommittee's
appropriation of $400,000 in fiscal year 2002 for the Frazier &
Strathmore Creeks feasibility study by the Corps.
______
Prepared Statement of the Poso Creek Improvement Joint Powers Agreement
Agencies
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: The Poso Creek Joint
Powers Agreement (JPA) Agencies composed of the Cawelo Water District,
North Kern Water Storage District and Semitropic Water Storage District
in Kern County, California request your consideration of an
appropriation of $250,000 in the fiscal year 2002 Federal budget for
the United States Army Corps of Engineers for the continuation of the
feasibility study for the Poso Creek flood control project, a four year
study.
An Agreement Between the Department of the Army and the Poso Creek
Improvement Joint Powers Agreement agencies for the Poso Creek Basin
Investigation was entered into 25 October 2000. The local non-federal
sponsors for the 50/50 cost sharing of the feasibility study with the
Corps include the State Department of Water Resources, the County of
Kern, the Kern County Water Agency, the Cawelo Water District, the
North Kern Water Storage District and the Semitropic Water Storage
District.
Poso Creek, is an uncontrolled stream that continues to devastate
agricultural lands in Kern County, floods the community of McFarland,
and ravages 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 Poso Creek feasibility study, a 4-year study, has been
estimated by the Corps of Engineers to cost $2.8 million. The
feasibility study has been separated into a Phase 1 and a Phase 2
program, with Phase 1 covering a determination of the feasibility of a
flood control and water conservation dam and reservoir on Poso Creek
above State Highway 65. Fiscal year 2002 will be the second (2nd) year
of the feasibility study and will complete Phase 1 of the study.
The local non-federal sponsors urge the subcommittee's
appropriation of $250,000 in the fiscal year 2002 budget for the
orderly continuation of the Poso Creek feasibility study by the Corps.
______
Prepared Statement of the Tule River Improvement Joint Powers Agreement
Agencies
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: The Tule River
Improvement Joint Powers Agreement Agencies, comprised of the City of
Porterville, the Tulare County Flood Control District, the Deer Creek
and Tule River Authority, the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District
and the County of Kings all located in Tulare and Kings Counties,
California, request your consideration of an appropriation of $725,000
in the fiscal year 2002 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.
In addition the Corps and the non-federal sponsors have agreed to
proceed with construction of Public Health and Safety components of the
project in the recreational areas of Success Reservoir during fiscal
year 2002 and $400,000 of Federal funds are needed for cost sharing
such construction costs.
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 Tule River, California, Success Reservoir Enlargement Project
(SREP) was authorized for construction by Section 101(b)(4) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (WRDA 1999), Public Law 106-53
subject to completion of a favorable report of the Chief of Engineers
which occurred 23 December 1999.
The Corps of Engineers has commenced design of the SREP, conducted
a Value Engineering Conference, and currently, in addition to
determining the most economical design for raising the spillway, are
preparing construction plans and specifications for public health and
safety components of the enlargement project.
The Tule River interests greatly appreciate your continued support
for the SREP and request that the Senate Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development include in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation bill
for the Corps of Engineers for the SREP $725,000 for PED and $400,000
for construction of Public Health and Safety components of the project.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Sacramento
Gentlemen: 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 2002 funding for flood protection projects in
Sacramento. I respectfully request that this letter be included in the
formal hearing record. First, I would like 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. Flood control is City's number one
Federal priority. In order to meet the fundamental need for flood
protection in Sacramento, we must once again request your support for
funding these vital flood control projects in fiscal year 2002.
This year, the City of Sacramento is seeking $51.4 million in
Federal funding to finance both ongoing and newly authorized projects.
This figure represents the most recent estimate developed by the
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) and is derived from their
discussions with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A chart summarizing
the projects and funding levels is enclosed.
Most importantly, the City is seeking $10.0 million for a ``new
start'' for the South Sacramento Streams Group Project and significant
increases in construction funding for Folsom Dam modifications and
continuing work on the American River Common Elements projects. These
projects, authorized in WRDA 1996 and 1999, will form the backbone of a
system of improvements that may someday remove the threat of
catastrophic flooding from the streets of downtown Sacramento. The
South Sacramento Streams Group Project is ready for construction and
when completed will prevent flooding of portions of Sacramento from the
south, where four creeks convey foothill runoff through urbanized areas
into Beach Lake and the Delta.
The Folsom dam modifications project received $4.0 million in
construction funds in fiscal year 2001. In fiscal year 2002, $12.0
million will be necessary to keep this crucial project moving forward.
When completed, the modifications to Folsom Dam will provide greater
efficiency in managing flood storage in Folsom Reservoir and will
greatly enhance Sacramento's flood control options.
The American River Common Elements include 24 miles of levee
improvements along the American River and 12 miles of improvements
along the Sacramento River levees, flood gauges upstream of Folsom Dam,
improvements to the flood warning system along the lower American
River, and work on American River levee parity authorized in WRDA 1999.
This work is well underway and we are seeking $17 million in fiscal
year 2002. These projects represent the last line of defense against
flooding in Sacramento and must be completed with all due haste.
The City of Sacramento has been working in cooperation with the
SAFCA on the construction of bank protection improvements which are
essential to correct harmful erosion threatening the integrity of our
existing levees along the banks of the American River. 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. We request that the Subcommittee support our
request for $3.0 million for this vital project.
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.
In fiscal year 2001, $3.285 million was provided in PED funds for
the American River Watershed plan, which continued previously
authorized planning and design of Sacramento flood control projects.
For fiscal year 2002, we are requesting your support to secure $1.0
million in PED funds to aid the completion of this necessary project.
Under the Corps' Section 205 Program, we are seeking $3.2 million
in fiscal year 2002 for both the off-base and on-base portions of the
Magpie Creek project. This project will provide a high degree of flood
protection on Magpie Creek and provide for a feasibility study to
evaluate alternatives for providing improved flood protection on
McClellan Air Force Base in connection with the reuse of that base.
Again, the City of Sacramento greatly appreciates the essential
leadership role you have played in obtaining funding for these
important flood control projects in previous years and asks for your
continued support for funding this year.
The safety of the citizens of Sacramento and the well being of the
regional and state economy are dependent on adequate Federal funding
for our flood control projects. We stand ready to assist you in
whatever way we possibly can. Please contact me if I can provide you
with any further information.
______
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 2002 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 $32,000,000 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.
the chicagoland underflow plan
The Chicagoland Underflow Plan (CUP) consists of three reservoirs:
the O'Hare, McCook and Thornton Reservoirs. These reservoirs are a part
of the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP). 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 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 (CSO) 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'' are
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 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. Of
this 8.1 miles of tunnel are currently under construction and 7.7 miles
are in design, with construction scheduled to begin in 2001.
The completed O'Hare Reservoir provides 343 million gallons of
storage. This Reservoir has a service area of 13.7 miles and provides
flood relief to 21,000 homes in Arlington Heights, Des Plaines and
Mount Prospect. 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.
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 and during major
storms into Lake Michigan, the source of drinking water for the region.
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.
Since implementation of TARP, 621 billion gallons of CSOs have been
captured by TARP, that otherwise would have reached waterways. Area
waterways are once again abundant with many species of aquatic life and
the riverfront has been reclaimed as a natural resource for recreation
and development. Closure of Lake Michigan beaches due to pollution has
become a rarity. After the completion of both phases of TARP, 99
percent of the CSO pollution will be eliminated. The elimination of
CSOs will reduce the quantity of discretionary dilution water needed to
keep the area waterways fresh. This water can be used instead for
increasing the drinking water allocation for communities in Cook, Lake,
Will and DuPage counties that are now on a waiting list to receive such
water. Specifically, since 1977, these counties received an additional
162 million gallons of Lake Michigan water per day, partially as a
result of the reduction in the District's discretionary diversion since
1980. Additional allotments of Lake Michigan water will be made to
these communities as more water becomes available from reduced
discretionary diversion.
With new allocations of lake water, more than 20 communities that
previously did not get 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 million gallons per day of Lake Michigan water would be added to
domestic consumption. This translates into approximately 2 million
additional people that would be able to enjoy Lake Michigan water. 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 mc cook and thornton reservoirs
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). These CUP
reservoirs, as previously discussed, are a part of TARP, a flood
protection plan that is designed to reduce basement flooding due to
combined sewer back-ups and inadequate hydraulic capacity of the urban
waterways.
These reservoirs will provide a storage capacity of 15 billion
gallons and will provide 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,
has acquired the land necessary for these projects, and is 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 our
past sponsorship for flood control projects, 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 $7,800,000 in construction funds
included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2001. However, it is important that we receive a total of
$32,000,000 in construction funds in fiscal year 2002 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 pumping
facilities 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. Delaying this project results
in lost benefits and additional inflation costs of $120 million per
year. This is unacceptable. 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 sewage 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 TARP,
including the CUP Reservoirs 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 $32,000,000 in
construction funds be made available in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act to continue construction of the
McCook and Thornton Reservoir Projects.
Again, we thank the Subcommittee for its support of this important
project over the years and we thank you in advance for your
consideration of our request this year.
______
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 2002 for $10,000,000 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. These damages even 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 have 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 damages was done (April 1996 price level) and six persons
lost their lives.
As you no doubt know, actual construction of the Project began in
late 2000. This first construction involves the replacement of an old
bridge over the Green Brook which connects East Main Street in the
Borough of Bound Brook, Somerset County, New Jersey, with Lincoln
Boulevard in the Borough of Middlesex, in Middlesex County, New Jersey.
The protective levee along the bank of the Green Brook will be
substantially higher than the old bridge, and the new higher bridge is
necessary so as to pass over the levee.
While this new bridge is being built, the Corps of Engineers
expects to solicit bids for the second construction contract, known as
Segment T. The final plans and specifications for this second segment
are essentially complete, and the necessary permits are expected to be
received very shortly.
With the continued support of the Congress, this second Segment of
the Project will be under construction as the first segment (the new
and higher bridge), approaches completion.
Final plans and specifications for the balance of the work to
protect the Borough of Bound Brook are in progress. It is the
Commission's hope that protection for all of the Borough of Bound Brook
will proceed seamlessly during the next several years.
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 about one-quarter of a million
people.
The Members of the Commission are all volunteers, and for 30 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.
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 its share of the Project
in 2002.
We urgently request an appropriation for the Project in fiscal year
2002 of $10,000,000.
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 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 $19,397,000 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 one-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 inclusion of funds in the
fiscal year 2002 budget 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 Louisiana Governor's Task Force on Maritime
Industry
Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, LA.--Recommend
the Corps be funded $1,221,000 (Construction General) 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 funding of $55,831,000 (O&M General).
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO), LA., Maintenance Dredging.--
Recommend that Corps be funded $13,111,000 (O&M, General).
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock, LA.--Funding
requirements include $25,000,000 (Construction General) to continue
construction and mitigation for the IHNC New Lock. Recommend that Corps
be funded to continue lock construction and mitigation.
Mississippi River Outlets at Venice, LA.--Recommend funding of
$2,943,000 (O&M General).
Intracoastal Waterway Locks, LA.--Recommend funding of $500,000
(general Investigations) to continue the development of 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.--Recommend funding of
$18,195,000 (O&M General). Recommend that Corps be funded increased
capability to construct a spare set of miter gates for Leland Bowman
Lock and 20 additional mooring buoys at various locations along the
GIWW.
Calcasieu Lock, LA.--Recommend funding of $900,000 (General
Investigations) funds to continue the feasibility phase of the study to
replace Calcasieu Lock on the GIWW.
Calcasieu River and Pass, LA.--Recommend funding of $12,773,000
(O&M General) to continue dredging and operation and maintenance of the
Saltwater Barrier.
MRGO Reevaluation Study, LA.--fiscal year 2002 funding requirement
is $500,000 (Construction General). Funds are needed to complete a
study to determine the advisability of maintaining the 36ft. depth of
the MRGO. Recommend that the Corps be funded to complete this study.
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport,
LA.--Fiscal year 2002 funding requirement is $20,000,000 (Construction
General) and $9,462,000 (O&M General). Recommend that the Corps be
funded to complete work already underway.
As Chairman of the Louisiana Governors 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
2002.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports that in 1999 a total of
427.9 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 Americas foreign merchandise trade by volume (two-thirds by
value) moves in ships, and 21 percent of the nation's foreign
waterborne commerce passes through Louisianas 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 Americas 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 1999, 2,345 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: Latin
America (33.5 percent); Asia (33.1 percent); Europe (23.5 percent);
Africa (9.3 percent) and North America (1.1 percent). During the same
year, more than 6,148 vessels called at Louisianas 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-Americas farms and industries to
play a vital role in the international commerce of this nation. In
1999, the regions ports and port facilities handled 229.5 million tons
of foreign waterborne commerce. Valued at $35.1 billion, this cargo
accounted for 18.4 percent of the nation's international waterborne
trade and 27 percent of all U.S. exports. Bulk cargo, primarily
consisting of tremendous grain and animal feed exports and petroleum
imports, made up 82 percent of this volume. Approximately 53.3 million
tons of grain from 17 states, representing 55.3 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 87.3 million short tons of petroleum and
petroleum products, 15.5 percent of U.S. waterborne imports of
petroleum products.
In 1999, 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 87.5
million tons of international and domestic cargo. International general
cargo totaled 11.2 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).
Mitigation features associated with the first phase of the channel
deepening project in the vicinity of Southwest Pass of the river,
accomplished in 1988, are nearing completion. We urge the continued
funding for this work in fiscal year 2002 to complete construction of
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 214.2 million tons of foreign and
domestic cargo in 1999, and the Port of Baton Rouge, the nation's
seventh largest port with 63.7 million tons of foreign and domestic
cargo in 1999, 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 funding in the amount of $55,831,000 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 1999, 480 general cargo vessels calling on
the MRGO Tidewater facilities accounted for 33 percent of the general
cargo tonnage handled over public facilities at the Port of New Orleans
and 80.8 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
amount needed in fiscal year 2002 is $13,111,000 under O&M General. We,
however, strongly recommend that the Corps be funded increased
capability for bank stabilization projects.
We recognize the need for the Corps to evaluate the feasibility of
continuing the maintenance of a deep draft channel in the MRGO because
of increased maintenance costs and environmental impacts. Any thoughts
of not maintaining a deep draft channel in the MRGO must be preceded
with the completion of another deep draft access (IHNC Lock) to the
many businesses serviced by the MRGO, even though the Port of New
Orleans is planning to relocate the container terminals to the
Mississippi River. We recommend funding to the Corps' full capability
to complete this study.
The Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock is a critical link in
the U.S. Inland Waterway System as well as 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 2.2 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 $35 million Community
Impact Mitigation Program. The fiscal year 2002 funding requirement of
$25,000,000 for the IHNC New Lock for continued engineering and design
work, construction, and partial funding of the mitigation program.
Therefore, funding the Corps 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 1999, these channels accommodated cargo
movements exceeding 2.8 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
amount needed is $2,943,000 under O&M General.
More than 75.9 million tons of cargo transverse the GIWW in the New
Orleans District annually. The amount needed for fiscal year 2002 for
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Louisiana and Texas is $18,195,000 under
O&M General. We recommend that the Corps be funded increased O&M
capability to construct a spare set of 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 $500,000 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 $900,000
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 1999, 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 1999, 1,056 ships and 7,305 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 for fiscal year 2002 of
$12,773,000 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. Fiscal year 2002 requirements include $20,000,000 in
Construction General and $9,462,000 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. Joseph Accardo, Jr., Executive Director of
the Port of South Louisiana; Mr. Roger Richard, Executive Director of
the Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission; Mr. Terry T. Jordan, Executive
Director of the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District; Mr. Channing
Hayden, President of the Steamship Association of Louisiana; 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.
______
Letter From Joseph Accardo, Jr.
Port of South Louisiana,
LaPlace, Louisiana, April 4, 2001.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: The Port of South Louisiana very much
appreciates being given the opportunity to submit this statement and
supportive material to signify its endorsement of the statement of Mr.
Donald T. Bollinger, Chairman of the Louisiana Governor's Task Force on
Maritime Industry.
The Port of South Louisiana is comprised of nearly 54 miles of
Mississippi River north of New Orleans and south of Baton Rouge, with
more than fifty private and public docks and wharves. The Port of South
Louisiana is the largest tonnage port in the United States and third
largest in the world, handling more than 245 million short tons of
cargo during 1999. Of this total tonnage, more than 123 million tons
are shipped in international trade by deep water vessel and 12-2
million tons are shipped in domestic trade by vessels and barges. Each
year more than 100,000 barges transport cargo at the Port of South
Louisiana and more than 4,000 ships call at the public and private
wharves of our Port.
A recent study by Dr. Tim Ryan of the University of New Orleans
indicates that nearly 20 per cent of the domestic gross product of the
State of Louisiana is dependent upon the maritime industry and one of
twelve jobs is created from the economic activity of the maritime
industry. Attached you will find statistics which have been developed
from the records of the Port of South Louisiana.
The Port of South Louisiana strongly urges the Congress to fund all
of the following projects.
1. Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, LA
(Construction General)
2. Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf, Maintenance Dredging
and GI Funds For Navigation Study
3. Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MR-GO), LA, Maintenence Dredging
4. Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock, LA 5. Mississippi
River Outlets at Venice, LA
6. Intracoastal Waterway Locks, LA
7. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, LA and TX
8. Calcasieu Lock, LA
9. Calcasieu River & Pass, LA
10. Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MR-GO) Reevaluation Study, LA
11. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport
The Port of South Louisiana strongly believes that the finding and
completion of the above maritime projects will enhance the ability of
the ports in the region to be competitive in the global economy and
will enhance the ability of domestic industry and agriculture to
compete in the export of its products.
If we can provide any further information, please feel free to call
upon me.
Your truly,
Joseph Accardo, Jr.
Executive Director/CEO.
______
Letter From Roger P. Richard
Port of Greater Baton Rouge,
Port Allen, Louisiana, April 5, 2001.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Energy & Water Development Subcommittee, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: Maintaining open navigable channels for the
Mississippi River and its tributaries is vital to the nation's commerce
and national interest. Therefore, the Port of Greater Baton Rouge
respectfully requests that your committee give favorable consideration
to the following projects:
Mississippi River Ship Channel--Gulf to Baton Rouge, Louisiana
(Construction General).--We support full funding of $719,000 in fiscal
year 2001 to the U.S. Corps of Engineers General Construction Budget.
This will allow for the completion of the saltwater intrusion
mitigation plan and the Phase III design studies for the fifty-five
foot channel. Both projects are important to the future success of the
Port of Greater Baton Rouge.
Mississippi River--Baton Rouge to the Gulf--Maintenance Dredging.--
We support maximum funding for maintenance dredging for the Mississippi
River and recommend approval of the President's fiscal year 2001 Budget
of $63,359,000.
Mississippi River--Gulf Outlet (MR-GO), LA., Maintenance.--We
support the President's fiscal year 2001 Budget of $11,286,000 under O
& M General to include increase funding to the U.S. Corps budget to
increase capability for bank stabilization.
Intracoastal Waterway Locks, LA.--Recommend approval of the
President's fiscal year 2001 budget of $686,000 in GI Funds to complete
the feasibility study and develop plans for replacement of Bayou Sorrel
Lock on the Gulf Intracoastal Water Way (GIWW), Morgan City to Port
Allen alternate route.
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. We support full
funding to the U.S. Corps budget to complete work already underway.
As stated in previous correspondence, these projects are vital not
only to the Port of Greater Baton Rouge but also to the entire nation.
The great Mississippi River is the premier national waterway, providing
accessibility to and from foreign countries for the transportation of
goods and services used by countless numbers of U.S. companies and
individual citizens. The channel must be properly designed and
maintained for the benefit of all ports and commerce.
We also earnestly request your support for funding of the other
projects included in April 5, 2001 testimony prepared and submitted by
Mr. Donald T. Bollinger. A summary of Mr. Bollinger's statement is
attached. Our waterway infrastructure must be properly maintained if we
are to increase trade and have the confidence of our trading partners
around the world. Your cooperation and support of these important
projects for the Mississippi River are greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Roger, P. Richard,
Executive Director & CEO.
______
Letter From Terry T. Jordan
Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal District,
Lake Charles, Louisiana, April 6, 2001.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Energy & Water Development Subcommittee, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: The Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal
District respectfully requests favorable consideration from you and
your committee for the following projects:
Calcasieu Lock, LA.--Recommend approval of President's Fiscal Year
2001 budget of $900,000 (GeneralInvestigations) funds to continue the
feasibility phase of the study to replace Calcasieu Lock on the G1WW.
Calcasieu River and Pass, LA.--Recommend approval of the Terminal
Presidents fiscal year 2001 Budget of $12,773,000 (O&M General) to
continue dredging and operation and maintenance District of the
Saltwater Barrier.
This project is vital not only to the Port of Lake Charles, but to
many parts of the nation. The Calcasieu River provides a route for oil
and gas to enter the country's 11th largest port and ultimately be
distributed to the Midwest and Northeast areas. The Port also provides
a route for exports such as bagged grains, wood and paper products, dry
bulk materials and other commodities, which originate from as far as
the Pacific Northwest.
The District also requests support for funding of the other
projects included in the testimony of Mr. Donald Bollinger. These
projects are extremely important to Louisiana ports as well as the
nation.
Yours very truly,
Terry T. Jordan.
______
Letter From Michael R. Lorino, Jr.
Associated Branch Pilots,
Metairie, Louisiana, April 5, 2001.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Energy & Water Development Subcommittee, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Mr. Chairman: The Associated Branch Pilots is an Association of
Pilots that have been guiding oceangoing vessels into the entrances of
the Mississippi River system for over 125 years. We are called Bar
Pilots because we guide the ships past the constantly shifting and
shoaling sand bars in the area.
Southwest Pass of the Mississippi River is the main entrance for
deep draft oceangoing vessels entering the Lower Mississippi River
System. It is the shallowest stretch of the Lower Mississippi River
System and the area that requires the greatest effort by the Corps of
Engineers to maintain project depth.
In 2000, the Associated Branch Pilots made 11,987 transits on
oceangoing vessels through Southwest Pass. Of these ships, 3,290 were
of 50,000 dead weight tons or greater and 648 had a draft in excess of
40 feet.
This number of heavily laden vessels calling on the Lower
Mississippi River System is a result of having a channel with a depth
of 45 feet.
This first phase has proven to be extremely well designed and well
maintained by the fact that the maximum draft recommended by my
Association for vessels using Southwest Pass has been 45 feet or
greater, except for periods of extremely high water that caused
shoaling that overwhelmed the dredging efforts. This is in stark
contrast to the late 1970's and early 80's when we often had to
recommend drafts less than the project depth due to shoaling.
To the world shipping community, this means that calling at ports
on the Mississippi River system will be more profitable because larger
ships can enter and carry greater amounts of cargo.
This is beneficial to the entire United States because it makes the
large quantities of petroleum, agricultural, and manufactured products
shipped from the Mississippi Valley more desirable due to increased
profitability.
I would also like to comment briefly on the East-West navigation
channels near Venice, Louisiana. Tiger Pass and Baptiste Collette
provide a shorter, more direct route to Breton Sound and the Gulf of
Mexico for offshore supply boats and small tugs and barges. These
channels not only represent a savings in time and money for these
vessels, but reduce the traffic in the main shipping channel, the
Mississippi River and its passes, which is one of the most congested
waterways in the country.
The dredging and maintaining of South Pass would contribute to the
safety of the overall waterway.
The Associated Branch Pilots also pilot vessels in the Mississippi
River Gulf Outlet, a man-made tidewater channel 75 miles long,
stretching from the Gulf of Mexico to an intersection of the
Intercoastal Waterway in New Orleans.
This channel leads to the Main Container Terminals for the Port of
New Orleans, the Roll On, Roll Off Terminal, the Port of New Orleans
Bulk Handling Plant, and additional General Cargo Docks. For the Port
of New Orleans to remain competitive in the ever growing container
trade, the continued maintenance of this channel is crucial. In 2000,
497 ships called on the port using the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.
Much is being said pro and con concerning the Mississippi River
Gulf Outlet. There is, admittedly, an erosion problem in the
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, but any curtailment of shipping traffic
in the channel without regard to the long term effect upon the Port of
New Orleans would be disastrous. I strongly support approval of funding
for both the maintenance dredging/jetty repair project and the erosion/
rip rap study for the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.
Funding of the Corps of Engineers' projects in the Lower
Mississippi River System has proven to be money well spent. It has
increased exports and imports that have benefited the entire United
States. I urge your support of the funding requested to enable the
Corps to continue to maintain and improve the most efficient and
productive waterway system in the country.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Lorino, Jr.,
President.
______
Letter From Captain Mark Delesdernier, Jr.
Crescent River Port Pilots' Association,
Belle Chasse, Louisiana, April 6, 2001.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Mr. Chairman: I have served as President of the largest pilot
association in the United States for the past nineteen (19) years. The
Crescent River Port Pilots furnish pilots for ships destined to the
Port of Baton Rouge, Port of South Louisiana, Port of New Orleans, Port
of St. Bernard, and the Port of Plaquemines.
The Crescent River Port Pilots have piloted and shifted over
sixteen thousand one hundred and eighty two (16,182) ships during 2000.
We pilot deep draft vessels on more than one hundred (100) miles on the
lower Mississippi River and thirty-five (35) miles on the Mississippi
River Gulf Outlet.
The lower end of our route on the Mississippi River has a shoaling
problem starting with the high water season each year. The shoaling
requires daily attention by the United States Army Corps of Engineers
to maintain project depth.
Heavy-laden vessel calls on the lower Mississippi River system as a
direct result of the completion by the Corps of Engineers of the
deepening of the channel from forty (40) feet to forty-five (45) feet.
For several years now, we have had extraordinary success in keeping
the river dredges to project depth. This success is a direct result of
an experienced and vigilant Corps of Engineers that, through
experience, is able to timely bid in dredges to avoid extra dredging
cost by waiting too long to start maintenance dredging.
Channel stability sends a positive message to the world's shipping
community that schedule cargo for deep draft vessels months in advance
is reliable. This makes the port call on the Mississippi River very
profitable since the ships can lift greater tonnage.
Keeping project depth is beneficial to twenty-seven (27) states
that are directly tied to the Mississippi River Port Complex.
Additionally, I would like to commend on the east and west
navigation channels near Venice, Louisiana. Baptiste Collette and Tiger
Pass provide a shorter and more direct route to Breton Sound and West
Delta in the Gulf of Mexico for oil field support vessels.
The Crescent River Port Pilots also pilot ships in the Mississippi
River Gulf Outlet. A man-made channel approximately 75 miles long
starting in Breton Sound in the Gulf of Mexico and ending in New
Orleans where it intersects with the Intercoastal Waterway.
The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet feeds the main container
terminals in the Port of New Orleans. Additional docks, such as Bulk
Terminal and general cargo facilities depend on this channel, which
handled approximately 980 ship calls last year.
The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet has been a controversial channel
since its inception, but being an integral part of the Port of New
Orleans, it would be a disaster if it is not kept at project width and
depth. The Crescent River Pilots strongly support approval of funding
for both the maintenance dredging, and jetty repair projects.
Funding of the United States Army Corps of Engineers projects in
the lower Mississippi River system which includes the Mississippi River
Gulf Outlet, Tiger Pass, Baptiste Collette, and Southwest Pass has
proven to be money well spent.
I urge your support of the funding requested to allow the Corps of
Engineers to continue to maintain and improve the most productive
waterway system in the world.
Mr. Chairman, thanks for allowing me the opportunity to submit my
comments to your subcommittee.
Sincerely,
Captain Mark Delesdernier, Jr.,
President.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association,
Inc.
summary
Mr. Chairman & distinguished Committee members: This statement
includes the following:
(A) A plea to recognize and maintain our Nation's inland waterways
system as a vital part of the national transportation infrastructure;
(B) A request for support in the following areas:
--Sufficient funding to maintain and improve our nation's inland
waterway system;
--O&M funding for federal projects in the Coosa-Alabama Basin and
Mobile Harbor;
--Funding to complete a study to improve the navigation channel on
the Alabama River
--Funding to remove major obstacles to efficient operation of the
Millers Ferry power generation plant
--Funding to commence construction of Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam on the
Coosa River;
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 association is concerned about the deteriorating waterway
infrastructure throughout the nation. The waterways are vital to our
export and import capability, linking our producers with consumers
around the world. Barges annually transport 15 percent of the nation's
commodities, one out of every eight tons. 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. To maintain the inland waterways facilities
and to accommodate vitally needed growth will require approximately $6
billion. The Federal government must commit to improve the waterways
infrastructure or risk serious economic consequences and jeopardizing
large public benefits.
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 are especially concerned about the President's
direction to direct funding away from those waterways suffering
temporary downturns in barge transportation. 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 must be the O&M funding
appropriated to the Corps of Engineers to maintain those projects.
Since, as of the submission of this statement, the President's Budget
Proposal for fiscal year 2002 has not been made available, we request
the following projects be funded on a level at least equal to that of
fiscal year 2001, with exceptions as indicated:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Association's
Fiscal year fiscal year
Project 2001 2002 budget
appropriation 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 6,999,000
Robert F. Henry L&D..................... 4,962,000 4,962,000
Lake Allatoona, GA...................... 6,000,000 6,000,000
Carters Lake, GA........................ 7,489,000 7,489,000
Lower Alabama River Study (South of 150,000 250,000
Claiborne) feasibility study...........
Mayo's Bar.............................. .............. 1,500,000
-------------------------------
Totals.............................. 27,525,000 32,555,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 $20,500,000. We
cannot allow Mobile Harbor infrastructure to deteriorate because not
enough funds are appropriated.
The Corps of Engineers has not dredged the Alabama River since
1999. During the drought months last year, water depths below Claiborne
were less than six feet, not enough to sustain barge traffic. That
traffic, however, was severely curtailed in 1999 when Kimberly-Clark
Corporation ceased its logging operation on the Alabama. In effect, the
Corps reprogrammed fiscal year 2000 O&M funds from maintenance of the
Alabama River navigation channel to the Port of Pascagoula, Mississippi
because of low commercial usage. From all indications, that money will
be reprogrammed again this year. We must, however, maintain the
navigation channel to preserve the channel's potential of attracting
new business into the Alabama River Basin. We request Congress to
appropriate funding for the Alabama-Coosa, Miller's Ferry, and Robert
F. Henry projects at least equal to that appropriated in fiscal year
2001.
In addition, we ask that $2 million be appropriated to the Miller's
Ferry project to purchase a capability to remove river debris that
clogs the inlet structure of the power generating plant at the dam.
Debris causes the generating plant to lose its efficiency, which in
turn drives up the cost of producing electricity. These costs are, of
course, passed on to the purchasers of the electricity. An additional
benefit is that the debris removing system would obviate the need, thus
the manpower and time, to physically remove the debris.
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
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 $250,000 to
complete the feasibility study already underway.
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. One of the
projects in the Upper Coosa River Basin needs federal funding to assist
in greatly enhancing recreational opportunities in the northwest
Georgia and northeast Alabama.
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. We request Congress authorize the
Corps of Engineers to assist Floyd County in the construction phase of
the lock and in the modification of the dam to accommodate planned
water levels. Construction costs for modifying both the lock and the
dam is $3 million. We request Congress appropriate the federal share of
$1.5 million in fiscal year 2002 to allow the Mobile District to assist
Floyd County in the construction of the Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam. We
strongly urge the Committee provide funding to benefit northwest
Georgia and northeast Alabama.
In summary, we request your support in the following areas:
--Sufficient O&M funding of the US Army Corps of Engineers Civil
Works budget to maintain and enhance the US inland waterways
system, including the Coosa-Alabama River Basins and Mobile
Harbor;
--Funding to purchase a system to remove debris from the intake of
the power generating plant at Millers Ferry Dam on the Alabama
River;
--Funding for completing the feasibility study of improving the
reliability of the navigation channel below Claiborne Dam on
the Lower Alabama River;
--Funding federal share for the construction phase of rehabilitating
Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam on the Coosa River near Rome, Georgia.
Thank you for allowing us to submit this testimony and for your
strong support of the Nation's waterways.
______
Letter From Clyde Chambliss
Autauga County Commission,
Prattville, Alabama, April 9, 2001.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for the Energy and Water
Development, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: The Autauga County Commission would like to
take this opportunity to ask for your help in funding requests for
Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association for fiscal year 2002.
We are particularly interested in the operations and maintenance
funding that keeps the navigation channel open. We feel that top
priority should be given in order to attract new river-using industry
into the Alabama River Basin. Improvements needed to enhance industry
interest into the river basin include extending the Coosa-Alabama
Waterway and improving navigational reliability below Claiborne Dam by
maintaining and improving training works and dredging. Commercial river
transportation development between Mobile and Montgomery is dependent
on these improvements. Funding of $2.0 million in fiscal year 2002 and
$1.0 million in fiscal year 2003 is needed to install a system to
remove debris at the intake gates of Miller's Ferry hydropower
generation plant near Camden, Alabama.
We also support efforts to reach an agreement on a water allocation
formula between Alabama and Georgia, but cannot support an agreement
that could negatively affect the ability of Mobile District Corps of
Engineers to maintain a nine-foot navigation channel on the Alabama
River or that seriously hinders the economic development of the State
of Alabama and Northwest Georgia.
It is our hope that you will consider the importance of maintaining
the Alabama River projects arid provide the funding needed.
Sincerely,
Clyde Chambliss, Jr.,
Chairman.
______
Letter From Phillip A. Sanguinetti
The Anniston Star,
Anniston, Alabama, March 26, 2001.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for the Energy and Water
Development, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Sen. Domenici: 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 2002.
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 $300,000 to improve the
training works below Claiborne Dam.
In addition, these are other points to consider: (a.) The state
should maintain and improve the training works and dredging so the
commercial river transportation between Mobile and Montgomery may
continue. (b.) The state should continue efforts to agree on a water
allocation formula between the states of Alabama and Georgia, but not a
formula that negatively affects the ability of the Mobile District
Corps of Engineers to maintain a ninefoot navigation channel on the
Alabama River or impedes Alabama's developing of economic potential.
Increased fees and taxes prohibit the development of the waterway.
Lowering the freight rates provide a better opportunity to help the
trade business.
Thank you for considering these suggestions.
Very truly yours,
Phillip A. Sanguinetti,
President.
______
Letter From Phil Powell
City of Centre,
Centre, Alabama, April 9, 2001.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for the Energy and Water
Development, U.S. Senate, Washington DC.
Dear Senator Doemenici: As Mayor of the City of Centre I am writing
to express my support for the funding request by the Coosa-Alabama
River Improvement Association, Inc. As you are aware this Association
is very active in promoting the use of the Alabama River Basin as a
functional navigational waterway for the benefit of the entire State of
Alabama. As the Association submits its funding request for fiscal year
2002 please keep in mind the importance of keeping the navigational
channels open and in operation. Without funds for operations and
maintenance of the channel it would be impossible to keep it in
operation and functional.
The channel is essential on our efforts to attract new river-using
industry and to expend those already in place. Without funds to keep
the channel open and accessible for navigation the economies of all
communities along the channel will be adversely affected. As you are
aware, millions of dollars have been. spent in recent years toward
making the Alabama River Basin a functional waterway for barge traffic:
Failure to maintain such a facility will be harmful to all concerned.
As Mayor I certainly support the regional efforts to improve and
expand the channel. Top priority must be given to the operational and
maintenance funding that keeps the channel open. This is the only way
new river using industry can be attracted to the Basin area. I also
support the regional effort in the following areas:
--To improve and extend the Coos-Alabama Waterway. It is imperative
that we improve the navigational reliability below Claiborne
Dam.
--To maintain and improve training works and dredging
--The development of commercial river transportation between--Mobile
and Montgomery.
It is vital that all affected cities support the Association's
request for funding--to install a system to remove debris from in front
of the intake gates at Miller's Ferry hydropower generation plant near
Camden, Alabama. The funding needed is $2.0 million in fiscal year 2002
and $1.0 million in fiscal year 2003.
Finally, I applaud the efforts of Alabama and Georgia to agree on a
water allocation formula between the two states, but I cannot support
an agreement that would negatively affect the ability of the Mobile
District Corp of Engineers to maintain a nine-foot navigational channel
on the Alabama River or that seriously impedes the economic development
of the State of Alabama and Northwest Georgia. I do however support the
efforts of Floyd County and the City of Rome, Georgia to modernize and
make operational Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam to allow recreational boat
traffic between Rome and Weiss Lake, Alabama.
On behalf of the entire community of Centre I encourage you to
consider these matters carefully as each one, directly or indirectly,
affects the economic viability of all cities and towns affected by the
waterways.
I appreciate your concern and know you will support the Improvement
Association in their efforts to improve our states waterways.
Sincerely,
Phil Powell,
Mayor.
______
Letter From Anne H. Farish
City of Monroeville,
Monroeville, Alabama, March 22, 2001.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: It has come to my attention that the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water will be considering
budget requests for operations and maintenance funding for the Alabama
River projects. I understand that this funding is at risk due to the
continuing low level of tonnage on the navigation channel. I cannot
stress the importance of maintaining the navigation channel in the
Alabama River to attracting new industry and maintaining our current
industries.
I support the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association's funding
request for fiscal year 2002. Top priority must be the operations and
maintenance funding that keeps the navigation channel open. I support
the regional effort to improve and extend the Coosa-Alabama Waterway.
Funding is needed to improve the navigational reliability below the
Claiborne Dam and to maintain and improve training works and dredging
in order to develop commercial river transportation between Mobile and
Montgomery.
I support the efforts of Alabama and Georgia to agree on a water
allocation formula between the two states, but could not support an
agreement 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 economic development of the State
of Alabama and Northwest Georgia.
Thank you for supporting this request.
Sincerely,
Anne H. Farish,
Mayor.
______
Letter From Jim Byard, Jr.
City of Prattville,
Pratville, Alabama, April 4, 2001.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: I am a member of the Board of Directors for
the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association, Inc. These are some
priority items for your consideration:
--I support the Association's funding request for fiscal year 2002.
Top priority must be the operations and maintenance funding
that keeps the navigation channel open. We must maintain the
channel in order to attract new river-using industry into the
Alabama River Basin.
--I support the regional effort to improve and extend the Coosa-
Alabama Waterway, including
--Need to improve the navigational reliability below Claiborne Dam.
--Need to maintain and improve training works and dredging.
Development of commercial river transportation between
Mobile and Montgomery depends on these improvements.
--I support the Association's request for funding to install a system
to remove debris from in front of the gates at the Millers
Ferry hydropower generation plant near Camden, Alabama. The
funding needed is $2.0 million in fiscal year 2002 and $1.0
million in fiscal year 2003.
--I support the efforts of Alabama and Georgia to agree on a water
allocation formula between the two states, but could not
support an agreement 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 economic development of the State of Alabama and
Northwest Georgia.
--I support the efforts of Floyd County and the City of Rome,
Georgia, to modernize and make operational Mayo's Bar Lock and
Dam to allow recreational boat traffic between Rome and Weiss
Lake, Alabama.
Your support of CARIA's request for funding will be greatly
appreciated.
Sincerely,
Jim Byard, Jr.,
Mayor.
______
Letter From Sue L. Glidewell
City of Rainbow City,
Rainbow City, Alabama, March 19, 2001.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: As you know, I am a member of the Board of
Directors of Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association, Inc. I am
listing below some priority items for your consideration:
(1) You support the Association's funding request for fiscal year
2002. Top priority must be the operations and maintenance funding that
keeps the navigation channel open. We must maintain the channel in
order to attract new river-using industry into the Alabama River Basin.
(2) 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.
Development of commercial river transportation between Mobile
and Montgomery depends on these improvements.
--You support the Association's request for funding to install a
system to remove debris from in front of the gates at the
Miller's Ferry hydropower generation plant near Camden,
Alabama. The funding needed is $2.0 million in fiscal year 2002
and $1.0 million in fiscal year 2003.
(3) You support the efforts of Alabama and Georgia to agree on a
water allocation formula between the two states, but could not support
an agreement 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 economic development of the
State of Alabama and Northwest Georgia.
(4) You support the efforts of Floyd County and the City of Rome,
Georgia to modernize and make operational Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam to
allow recreational boat traffic between Rome and Weiss Lake, Alabama.
Your support concerning this will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Sue L. Glidewell,
Mayor.
______
Letter From James T. Jordan
J.T. Jordan Cotton, Inc.
Centre, Alabama, April 9, 2001.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
U.S. Senate Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: This letter is to let you know that I
support the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association's funding
request for fiscal year 2002. I think the top priority must be the
operations and maintenance funding that keeps the navigation channel
open. We need to maintain the channel in order to attract new river-
using industry into the Alabama River Basin. I also support the
regional effort to improve and extend the Coosa-Alabama Waterway.
Some other points that are crucial are: we need to improve the
navigational reliability below Claiborne Dam; to maintain and improve
training works and dredging; development of commercial river
transportation between Mobile and Montgomery which depends on these
improvements; support of the Association's request for funding to
install to remove debris from in front of the intake gates at the
Miller's Ferry hydropower generation plant near Camden, Alabama.
We also need to support the efforts of Floyd County and the City of
Rome, Georgia to modernize and make operational Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam
to allow recreational boat traffic between Rome and Weiss Lake,
Alabama.
We appreciate what you can do and are doing to help us in these
endeavors.
Sincerely,
James T. Jordan,
President.
______
Letter From Sandy Smith
Monroeville Area Chamber of Commerce,
Monroeville, Alabama, March 28, 2001.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Senate Subcomittee on Appropriations for Energy & Water Development,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: On behalf of the Monroeville Area Chamber of
Commerce, I am writing in support of the Coosa-Alabama River
Improvement Association's funding request for fiscal year 2002. The
waterway is a major transportation artery for an economically depressed
area. We must maintain a nine-foot navigation channel on the Alabama
River to attract new, river utilizing, additional industry to this part
of Alabama. We support the regional effort to improve and extend the
Coosa-Alabama waterway, and the need to improve the navigational
reliability below Claiborne Dam.
We also support the Association's request for funding to install a
system to remove debris from in front of the intake gates at the
Miller's Ferry hydropower generation plant near Camden, Alabama. The
funding needed is $2.0 million in fiscal year 2002 and $1.0 million in
fiscal year 2003.
In addition, we support the efforts of Alabama and Georgia to agree
on a water allocation formula between the two states, but cannot
support an agreement that negatively impacts the ability of Mobile
District Corps of Engineers to maintain a nine-foot navigation channel
on the Alabama River, or that seriously impedes the economic
development efforts of the State of Alabama and Northwest Georgia.
Please support our request for funding to improve and maintain our
waterways, vital to our continued economic development.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandy Smith,
Executive Director.
______
Letter From Otha Lee Biggs
Monroe County Commission,
Monroeville, Alabama, March 29, 2001.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy & Water Development,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: The Monroe County Commission supports the
Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association's funding request for
fiscal year 2002. The Coosa-Alabama waterway system is a major
transportation artery for an economically depressed area. In order for
this region to receive maximum economical benefits, a nine-foot
navigation channel on the Alabama River is needed to attract new
industries and to accommodate existing industries. We support the
efforts to improve and extend the Alabama waterway to Rome Georgia and
the need to improve the navigational reliability below the Claiborne
Lock and Dam to Mobile.
We also support the Association's request for funding of $2.0
million for fiscal year 2002 and $1.0 million for fiscal year 2003 to
install a system to remove debris in front of the intake gates at the
Miller's Ferry hydropower generation plant in Camden, Alabama.
The Monroe County Commission supports the efforts of Alabama and
Georgia to agree on a water allocation formula between the two states;
however, we cannot support an agreement that negatively impacts the
ability of the Mobile District Corps of' Engineers to maintain a nine-
foot navigational channel on the Alabama River, or that seriously
impedes the economic development efforts of the State of Alabama and
Northwest Georgia along the Coosa-Alabama River systems.
We respectfully request your support of the fiscal year 2002 Budget
as submitted by the US Corps of Engineers for this most important
waterway system.
Respectfully submitted,
Otha Lee Biggs,
President of Monroe County Commission and Judge of Probate.
______
Letter From Lynn A. Gowan
Montgomery County Commission,
Montgomery, Alabama, April 9, 2001.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: The Montgomery County Commission has a vital
interest in the development of the Coosa-Alabama River project which
was originally authorized by Congress in 1945. The benefits which
accrue to the citizens of this region, and to the nation, fully justify
the operation of this economical waterway.
Previously, industry users of this river basin have seen the river
as undependable and needing more internal dock facilities before they
would consider barge transportation. The value of cargo is important,
but much emphasis must be placed on increasing tonnage by attracting
new river-using industries into the Alabama River Basin. Therefore, the
top priority must be the operations and maintenance funding that keeps
the navigation channel dredged and the locks operational.
Also, improvements are needed to enhance the navigational
reliability below Claiborne Dam and improve training works and
dredging. Assurance is needed that there will be sufficient releases of
water from upstream reservoirs.
The Mobile District is in its second year of a three-year
feasibility study and the District cities need a positive benefit-cost
ratio. This could be achieved through a $300,000 Federal Budget in
fiscal year 2002.
Adequate funding is necessary to ensure that progress is made for
further development of the River project and to properly operate and
maintain the existing portion. We fully support the testimony provided
by the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association and urge your
favorable consideration of the recommended appropriations for fiscal
year 2002.
Sincerely,
Lynn Gowan,
Acting Chairman.
______
Letter From Richard T. Dozier
Montgomery Marina,
Montgomery, Alabama, April 9, 2001.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: A great event took place here in Central
Alabama in 1972 when the Coosa-Alabama River Navigation System came on-
stream.
We, as a region, have failed to pursue commercial users for the
system with the vigor required. While there have been some low-water
problems, I believe that a bigger user demand would have helped correct
those physical problems.
As your committee meets this month, we are in the process of a
region-wide assessment of what the system offers this large inland
area. A joint 5-county, long-term development study is underway and
will assess new facilities and programs to attract users for the system
and improve the interface with both rail and truck terminals.
Continuing maintenance and operations funding is critically
important to maintain the readiness of this valuable system.
In the meantime, the recreational and residential use of the system
has had great growth and created jobs and rising tax base values that
have been very beneficial to this river basin region. These activities
will only increase in the future. The reliability of the channel is a
key ingredient in our planning.
Sincerely,
Richard T. Dozier,
President, Montgomery Marina, Inc.
______
Letter From Joseph F. Mathis
Prattville Area Chamber of Commerce,
Prattville, Alabama, April 9, 2001.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
U.S. Senate Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: I am writing to request your support for the
Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Associations funding request for fiscal
year 2002. Priority must be given to keeping the navigational channel
open and the operational maintenance budget in tact.
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 River system for the benefit of the State of Alabama. The
Association is the only organization that annually works for the
funding of the federally funded projects on these rivers.
Major points to consider: maintain and improve the dredging of the
channel for commercial traffic between Mobile and Montgomery; continue
efforts to agree on a water allocation formula between Alabama and
Georgia but not at the expense of negatively impeding the navigation of
the rivers; additional funds for the removal of debris for the intakes
at Millers Ferry hydropower plant.
Navigational Rivers are a key to the future Economic Development of
the State of Alabama. Your support of this request will greatly benefit
our state.
Sincerely,
Joseph F. Mathis,
Executive Director.
______
Letter From Stanley D. Batemon
St. Clair County Commission,
Ashville, Alabama, April 9, 2001.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
U.S. Senate Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: This is to acknowledge support of continued funding
for the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association, Inc. and their
efforts to maintain the navigation channel in order to attract new
river-using industry into the Alabama River basin.
Your support of their efforts will be greatly appreciated.
Yours truly,
Stanley D. Batemon,
Chairman.
______
Letter From Jamie D. Wallace
Selma and Dallas County Chamber of Commerce,
Selma, Alabama, March 19, 2001.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
U.S. Senate Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: Deep in Alabama there runs a river system
that has the potential to be an economic catalyst for one of the
poorest regions in the U.S., that is the Coosa-Alabama River System.
Here in our area of Selma and Dallas County our concern is with the
Historic Alabama River. Our unemployment currently fluctuates between
9-12 percent. We leave no four-lane connector roads on which to ferry
our products to market and we are deeply concerned about a river system
that will not be able to carry barge traffic unless the integrity of a
channel can be maintained. Currently funding is not adequate to do so.
As a strong supporter of the Coosa-Alabama System for many years,
the 148 year old Selma-Dallas County Chamber of Commerce encourages you
and your committee to take a close look at the points being raised that
are necessary to keep this river open for traffic. Currently tonnage is
down, but in the South we say its like ``which came first the chicken
or the egg.'' Without an adequate channel it is no reliable vehicle to
transport goods.
Thank you very much for your consideration and support.
Sincerely,
Jamie D. Wallace,
President.
______
Letter From J. Craig Stepan
Warrior & Gulf Navigation Company,
Chickasaw, Alabama, April 9, 2001.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
U.S. Senate Washington DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: I am J. Craig Stepan, General Manager of
Warrior & Gulf Navigation Company. Our company is an active member of
the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association. I wish to take this
opportunity to solicit your support on behalf of the Association and
the river system and enterprises it serves.
Primarily, please support the Coosa-Alabama Association's funding
request for fiscal year 2002. This funding is imperative to protect the
Alabama River as a safe and efficient transportation waterway. Further,
your additional support of a regional initiative to improve the
waterway below Claiborne Dam and install a debris removal system at
Miller's Ferry generating plant near Camden will also be appreciated.
As you know, the states of Georgia and Alabama are working on a
plan to equitably allocate the water resources common to the two
states. It is important that this project move ahead without
compromising the nine foot navigation channel on the Alabama River.
Your efforts to secure that protection and to help Floyd County and the
City of Rome, Georgia successfully modernize Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam
would be appreciated.
Our company and its 200+ employees respectfully request your
support for these important projects, and we pledge our best efforts to
provide reliable cost efficient transportation services to the Alabama
business community.
Very truly yours,
J. Craig Stepan,
General Manager.
______
Letter From William M. Fricks
Rome City Commission,
Rome, Georgia, April 9, 2001.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
U.S. Senate Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: As a member of the Coosa Alabama River
Improvement Association, I am requesting that you please support the
following:
--The Coosa/Alabama River Improvement Association's funding request
for fiscal year 2002.
--The regional's effort to improve and extend the Coosa-Alabama
waterway.
--Improvements of the navigational reliability below Claiborne Dam.
--Maintain and improve training works and dredging. Development of
commercial river transportation between Mobile and Montgomery
depends on these improvements.
--Floyd County and the City of Rome Georgia's effort to modernize and
make operational Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam to allow recreational
boat traffic between Rome and Weiss Lake in Alabama.
--The efforts of Alabama and Georgia to agree on a water allocation
formula between the two states, but not a formula that
negatively affects the ability of the 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.
You are aware, I am sure, that increased fees and taxes stifle
waterway commercial development. Lowered freight rates provide a better
export market, thus helping the trade business. Waterways provide
efficient transportation that tends to lower inflation.
Thank you very much for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
William M. Fricks,
Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement of the Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation
District
On behalf of the Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation district
and the users of the Cedar Bayou Channel, Texas, we extend gratitude to
Chairman Domenici, and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity
to submit testimony in support of the improvement project for the Cedar
Bayou Channel, Texas.
We express full support of the inclusion in the fiscal year 2002
budget for:
Pre-Construction Engineering and Design (O&M) For Cedar Bayou,
Texas $750,000
history and background
The River and Harbor Act of 1890 originally authorized navigation
improvements to Cedar Bayou. The project was reauthorized in 1930 to
provide a 10 feet deep and 100 feet wide channel from the Houston Ship
Channel to a point on Cedar Bayou 11 miles above the mouth of the
bayou. In 1931, a portion of the channel was constructed from the
Houston Ship Channel to a point about 0.8 miles above the mouth of
Cedar Bayou, approximately 3.5 miles in length. A study of the project
in 1971 determined that an extension of the channel to project Mile 3
would have a favorable benefit to cost ratio. This portion of the
channel was realigned from Mile 0.1 to Mile 0.8 and extended from mile
0.8 to Mile 3 in 1975. In October 1985, the portion of the original
navigation project from project Mile 3 to 11 was deauthorized due to
the lack of a local sponsor. In 1989, the Corps of Engineers, Galveston
District completed a Reconnaissance Report dated June 1989, which
recommended a 12 feet by 125 feet channel from the Houston Ship Channel
Mile 3 to Cedar Bayou Mile 11 at the State Highway 146 Bridge. The
Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation District was created by the
Texas Legislature in 1997 as an entity to improve the navigability of
Cedar Bayou. The district was created to accomplish the purpose of
Section 59, Article 2 XVI, of the Texas Constitution and has all the
rights, powers, privileges and authority applicable to Districts
created under Chapters 60, 62, and 63 of the Water Code--Public Entity.
The Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation District then became the
local sponsor for the Cedar Bayou Channel.
project description and reauthorization
Cedar Bayou is a small coastal stream, which originates in Liberty
County, Texas, and meanders through the urban area near the eastern
portion of the City of Baytown, Texas, before entering Galveston Bay.
The bayou forms the boundary between Harris County on the west and
Chambers County on the east. The project was authorized in Section 349
of the Water Resources Development Act 2000, which authorized a
navigation improvement of 12 feet deep by 125 feet wide from mile 2.5
to mile 11 on Cedar Bayou.
justification and industry support
First and foremost, the channel must be improved for safety. The
channel is the home to a busy barge industry. The most cost-efficient
and safe method of conveyance is barge transportation. Water
transportation offers considerable cost savings compared to other
freight modes (rail is nearly twice as costly and truck nearly four
times higher). In addition, the movement of cargo by barge is
environmentally friendly. Barges have enormous carrying capacity while
consuming less energy, due to the fact that a large number of barges
can move together in a single tow, controlled by only one power unit.
The result takes a significant number of trucks off of Texas highways.
The reduction of air emissions by the movement of cargo on barges is a
significant factor as communities struggle with compliance with the
Clean Air Act.
Several navigation-dependent industries and commercial enterprises
have been established along the commercially navigable portions of
Cedar Bayou. Several industries have docks on at the mile markers that
would be affected by this much-needed improvement. These industries
include: Reliant Energy, Bayer Corporation, Koppel Steel, CEMEX, US
Filter Recovery Services and Dorsett Brothers Concrete, to name a few.
project costs and benefits
The Corps of Engineers has indicated a benefit to cost ratio of the
project of 2.8 to 1. The estimated total cost of the project is $16.8 M
with a Federal share estimated at $11.9 M and the non-Federal sponsor
share of approximately $4.9 M. Total annual benefits are estimated to
be $4.8 M, with a net benefit of $3 M. This project is environmentally
sound and economically justified. We would appreciate the
subcommittee's support of the required $750,000 appropriation to
complete the plans and specifications of the project so that it can
move forward at an optimum construction schedule. The users of the
channel deserve to have the benefits of a safer, most cost-effective
Federal waterway.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Phoenix
Dear 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 have been 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 salao phase ii
We have been working for nearly seven years with the Corps of
Engineers in a cost-shared partnership to study a project to improve
the water carrying capacity of the river and restore riparian habitat
along the Salt River in downtown Phoenix and Tempe. The habitat was
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 improve the low flow
channel, restore about seven miles of the lost riparian wetlands and
provide incidental recreational benefits. 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). Last year, the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees approved a credit agreement
between the city and Corps, allowing us to proceed using local funding
in anticipation of Federal funding. Later in the year, the Congress
approved ``new start'' construction funding for the project as part of
the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill.
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.
While we were delighted at receiving a $2 million new start designation
in fiscal year 2001, for fiscal year 2002 we are seeking a
substantially higher level of funding (a total of $30 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.
The Rio Salado Phase II portion (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 Rio Oeste portion
of the project. Rio Oeste would essentially be a continuation of the
Rio Salado project and would connect the project west to our 91st
Avenue Treatment Plant at the Tres Rios project (discussed below. We
are seeking $600,000 for the Corps of Engineers Feasibility Study for
Phase II (Rio Oeste). The Feasibility funding will be matched 50
percent by the local sponsor. We strongly urge your support for this
appropriation.
tres rios
Ten years ago, the City of Phoenix and its partners undertook an
effort to restore the natural environment of the area encompassing the
Salt, Gila, and Agua Fria rivers now known as Tres Rios. The purpose of
the project is to restore lost sonoran habitat in the arid southwest
and to provide important flood protection and modest recreation
opportunities for the community in an attempt to bring about economic
revitalization to the area.
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 that 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 $500,000 in the Bureau's budget to
continue the Tres Rios research and demonstration project.
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 City and the Corps have worked with both the
neighboring Gila River Indian River Community and the Holly Acres
neighborhood throughout the planning process. The feasibility study is
nearing completion and Congress provided an initial $50,000 in fiscal
year 2000 and $500,000 in fiscal year 2001 to initiate planning,
engineering and design. The City is asking for the continued support of
Congress and the Administration in funding this valuable project in the
fiscal year 2002 Corps budget at $2.5 million for preliminary
engineering and design.
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.
This is an important element of the wastewater management strategy. It
would reuse the water from the Tres Rios Project for groundwater
recharge. 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.
summary
All of these projects, the Rio Salado and Phase II of the Rio
Salado project (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 Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Indian Reservation, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Confederated Tribes' request for appropriations in the fiscal year 2002
budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Confederated Tribes of
the Umatilla Indian Reservation (Confederated Tribes) respectfully
request an appropriation of $1.2 million for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) for a crucial stream restoration project in the Walla
Walla River Basin in Oregon and Washington.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, has been
authorized under the Water Resources Development Act to conduct a
Feasibility Study to restore instream flows to the Walla Walla River in
Oregon and Washington. The Walla Walla River Basin is within the
homeland of the Umatilla Tribes. Mill Creek, located in the basin, is
where the Tribes' Treaty of 1855 was signed, which ceded to the United
States 6.4 million acres of the Tribes' lands, but also reserved, among
others, the Tribes' right to fish at all usual and accustomed areas.
Historically, the Walla Walla River supported significant runs of
spring chinook salmon and summer steelhead, as well as runs of fall
chinook, chum and coho salmon. Those runs have been seriously impacted
by dewatering of the mainstem Walla Walla River between June through
October. The Tribes and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
annually conduct a fish salvage operation just below the Nursery Bridge
Dam in Milton-Freewater, Oregon, relocating stranded fish to other
parts of the river system. Both Middle Columbia River summer steelhead
and Columbia River Basin bull trout are listed species under the
Endangered Species Act. As such, the Tribes consider the restoration of
instrearn flows and the fisheries in the Walla Walla Basin a high
priority.
The Tribes have chosen to co-sponsor the Walla Walla Basin Project
with the Corps. Together, we are in the process of finalizing the
Project Study Plan, which will be used to direct the scope of the
Feasibility Study. Both the Corps and the Tribes believe that the
Feasibility Study is the first step in assuring a long-term solution to
providing permanent instream flows that will benefit treaty resources
and Indian and non-Indian fisheries, while enhancing flows for fish
species protected under the Endangered Species Act and maintaining
existing agricultural water uses.
The Corps and the Tribes have targeted the end of May 2001 for
signing the Project Management Plan and the end of June 2001 for
signing the Feasibility Study Cost Agreement. As such, work on the
Feasibility Study is expected to begin July 1, 2001, using existing
fiscal year 2001 Corps Funds.
In order to ensure the work on the Feasibility Study continues past
October 2001, the Corps must have an appropriation for fiscal year
2002. The Feasibility Study is expected to take 18-24 months to
complete. However, without funding in fiscal year 2002, the work on the
Feasibility Study would be unnecessarily delayed at least a year.
The study will provide a complete analysis that evaluates the
feasibility of comprehensive restoration of instream flows, key
riparian habitat, addresses fish passage, and restoration of habitat
for spring chinook, steelhead, bull trout and pacific lamprey in the
Basin, while maintaining agricultural productivity in the Basin
The Corps is authorized to conduct the Feasibility Study under the
following project authorization: Reconnaissance Report for the Walla
Walla River Watershed (1997) under General Investigation authorized in
Senate Committee on Public Works July 27, 1962 (Columbia River and
Tributaries).
Currently, there are four alternatives being considered for study.
The Corps will be writing an Environmental Impact Statement, under the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and as
such, these alternatives may be modified or dismissed, and other
alternatives added through the EIS process. The four alternatives for
restoring instream flow, currently under consideration, are (1)
Irrigation Ditch Efficiency, (2) Water Storage; (3) Water Exchange, and
(4) Conservation through purchase of Water Rights
Other actions, such as habitat enhancement and fish passage will be
considered as part of the overall proposal.
The Confederated Tribes will model its fisheries restoration off
the successful Umatilla River Basin Project, which restored instream
flows for the lifecycle of fish and agricultural needs. During 2000,
Indian and non-Indian people shared in return runs of about 5,000
reintroduced chinook salmon in the Umatilla River.
Since the early 1990's, the Confederated Tribes began working to
restore the Walla Walla River. To date, the Confederated Tribes have
implemented approximately $10 million worth of restoration projects in
the Walla Walla River Basin. The Walla Walla Basin Feasibility Study
will provide feasibility analysis and planning necessary to restore
essential instream flows for salmon, summer steelhead, bull trout and
pacific lamprey to the Walla Walla River.
The instream flow project would complement the millions of dollars
worth of Confederated Tribes' sponsored habitat restoration, fish
passage improvements, fish production and monitoring and evaluation
projects in the Basin. The projects have been implemented in
cooperation with Bonneville Power Administration, Oregon and Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Walla Walla and Columbia County, Walla
Walla Irrigation District, Walla Walla Watershed Council, and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
Many benefits will be accrued by completing the Feasibility Study
within 18 months. For agricultural interests, this means a long-term
solution to relieve the impacts of agricultural water diversion that
presently de-water the Walla Walla River and compete with ESA listed
fish instream flow needs. The Study is the next step in a Corps project
designed to provide a stable water source that restores instream flows
for fish and agricultural needs in the Basin. Consistent funding for
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct the study will ensure that
the project goes forward and these benefits are realized in a timely
manner.
Currently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) contends that
water diversion by local irrigation districts de-water the Walla Walla
River, causing take of ESA-protected bull trout. These irrigation
districts are: Gardena Farms Irrigation District #13 of Touchet,
Washington; Walla Walla Irrigation District of Milton-Freewater,
Oregon;, and the Hudson Bay District Improvement Company, also of
Milton-Freewater, Oregon.
In June 2000, the Districts and the FWS reached a one year
settlement agreement to forgo instituting formal civil ESA penalty
proceedings against the Districts in exchange for interim District
measures that include development of a long term basin wide
conservation plan. The National Marine Fisheries Service plans similar
enforcement for take of ESA-protected steelhead in the Walla Walla
River.
Choosing to step up to the plate rather than wait for an
enforcement action, the Districts chose to commit to improving
conditions for the endangered fish. For the year 2000, the settlement
agreement included District commitments to monitoring flows, leaving
enough water in the River for proper operation of the fish ladders,
assisting the Confederated Tribes and Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife salvage fish stranded due to irrigation diversions, and other
measures beneficial to ESA listed fish. Pursuant to agreement
requirements, the Districts cooperated with the implementation of the
2000 and 2001 Confederated Tribes' Annual Operations Plan (AOP) that
coordinates fisheries restoration projects for each year in the Walla
Walla Basin. The settlement conditions are based on District
commitments to cooperatively work with other entities in the Walla
Walla Basin toward an instream flow conservation plan that protects
bull trout, steelhead, and other species dependent on instream flows.
After the 1997 Reconnaissance Report, the Corps set aside
approximately $250,000-$275,000 to complete the Feasibility Study. They
carried over that funding each year until a non-Federal sponsor was
found. The Confederated Tribes and Corps began to negotiate the Project
Management Plan in late 1999. At that time, the Corps estimated non-
Federal 50 percent cost share to be around $600,000 (with up to half of
the non-Federal share, $300,000 required as cash, to the Corps). Since
that time the Corps have diverted the set aside funding to other
projects.
In 2000, the Water Resources Development Act was amended to allow
non-Federal partners to contribute all of their cost share requirements
as in-kind services towards the Feasibility Study. As of March 20,
2001, negotiations on the scope and budget have led to a desire to
maintain a total project cost of approximately $4.4 million. Both the
Confederated Tribes and the Corps would be responsible for
approximately $2.2 million. The Confederated Tribes will contribute
it's cost share entirely with in-kind services.
The restoration of instream flows to the Walla Walla River benefits
all the people of this Basin across Northeast Oregon and Southeast
Washington. As a community, we see that restoration of instream flows
to the Walla Walla River is good for us now, good for our children, and
good for the region.
The Confederated Tribes and the Walla Walla Basin community have
worked together on many projects both in planning and implementation.
The Confederated Tribes actively coordinates and works with many
resource managers to implement a cohesive watershed restoration of the
Basin, including, the Walla Walla Watershed Council, the WRIA 32, Walla
Walla 2514 Watershed Planning Unit, the Northwest Power Planning
Council, Umatilla and Walla Walla Conservation Districts, Hudson Bay
Irrigation District, Gardena Farms Irrigation District #13, Walla Walla
Irrigation District, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Water Resources,
Washington Department of Ecology, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
We view the success of the Confederated Tribes' Umatilla Basin
Project (http://umatilla.nsn.us/basin.html) as a demonstration that
there can be a win-win partnership for restoring instream flow for fish
and agriculture.
In anticipation of the benefits that the Confederated Tribes
instream flow restoration project could bring to the Walla Walla Basin,
``Senator Gordon Smith urged local farmers to work together with the
CTUIR [Confederated Tribes] to find solutions on water issues.'' (East
Oregonian, March 12, 2000). The Districts and the Confederated Tribes
are demonstrating a commitment to work together to achieve long-term
solutions for community needs in the Walla Walla Basin. We urge the
U.S. Congress to support these solutions and continue to make the Walla
Walla River Basin Restoration Project a priority project for the Basin.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, without the requested appropriation, the
Walla Walla Basin Feasibility Study will most likely be delayed at
least until fiscal year 2003. The Subcommittee's assistance will
prevent delay of long-term solutions for restoring instream flows to
the Walla Walla River while protecting endangered fish, restoring
salmon, improving water quality and protecting vital agricultural
economies. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
______
Prepared Statement of the Santa Clara Valley Water District
guadalupe river project
summary
This statement urges the Committee's support for an Administration
budget request of $4 million and an appropriation add-on of $8 million,
for a total of $12 million to continue construction of the final phase
of the Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project.
Background.--The Guadalupe River is a major waterway flowing
through a highly developed area of San Jose, in Santa Clara County,
California. A major flood would damage homes and businesses in the
heart of Silicon Valley. Historically, the river has flooded downtown
San Jose and the community of Alviso. According to the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) 2000 Final General Reevaluation & Environmental
Report for Proposed Project Modifications, estimated damages from a 1
percent flood in the urban center of San Jose are over $575 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
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 dependent on
timely Federal funding and continuing successful mitigation issue
resolution.
Fiscal Year 2001 Funding.--$7 million was authorized in fiscal year
2001 to continue Guadalupe River Project construction.
Fiscal Year 2002 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 $8 million,
in addition to the $4 million in the Administration's fiscal year 2002
budget, for a total of $12 million to continue construction of the
final phase of the Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project.
upper penitencia creek project
summary
This statement urges the Committee's support for an Administration
budget request of $300,000 and an appropriation add-on of $240,000, for
a total of $540,000 to continue with the feasibility study for the
Upper Penitencia Creek Flood Protection 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 (Public Law 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 2003.
Advance Construction.--To accelerate project implementation, the
District submitted a Section 104 application to the Corps for advance
approval to construct a portion of the project. Approval of the Section
104 application was awarded in December 2000. The advance construction
is for a 2,500 foot long section of bypass channel between Coyote Creek
and King Road. The District plans to begin construction on this portion
of the project in 2002.
Fiscal Year 2001 Funding.--$300,000 was authorized in fiscal year
2001 for the Upper Penitencia Creek Flood Protection Project for
project investigation.
Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the high risk
of flood damage from Upper Penitencia Creek and the need to proceed
with the feasibility study, it is requested that the Congressional
Committee support an appropriation add-on of $240,000, in addition to
the $300,000 in the Administration's fiscal year 2002 budget, for a
total of $540,000 for the Upper Penitencia Creek Flood Protection
Project.
llagas creek project
summary
This statement urges the Committee's support for an Administration
budget request of $250,000 and an appropriation add-on of $750,000, for
a total of $1 million for planning and environmental updates for the
Llagas Creek Flood Protection 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 (Public Law 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 U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) 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 1996, the Llagas Creek Project was funded through the
traditional Public Law 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 the steady
decrease in annual appropriations for the Public Law 566 construction
program since 1990, the Llagas Creek Project has not received adequate
funding from U.S. Department of Agriculture to complete the Public Law
566 project. To remedy this situation, the District worked with
congressional representatives to transfer the construction authority
from the Department of Agriculture to the Corps under the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (Section 501). An initial budget of
$235,000 was appropriated and another $215,000 was reprogrammed for the
Corps' planning and design.
Fiscal Year 2001 Funding.--$700,000 was authorized in fiscal year
2001 for the Llagas Creek Flood Protection Project for planning and
design.
Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the high risk
of flood damage from Llagas Creek, it is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $750,000, in
addition to the $250,000 in the Administration's fiscal year 2002
budget, for a total of $1 million for planning and environmental
updates for the Llagas Creek Project.
coyote/berryessa creek project berryessa creek project element
summary
This statement urges the Committee's support for an Administration
budget request of $600,000 and an appropriation add-on of $400,000, for
a total of $1 million to continue with the General Reevaluation Report
for the Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project element of the Coyote/
Berryessa Creek Project.
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.
The Berryessa Watershed is 22 square miles.
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 U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) 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), appropriate aquatic and riparian
habitat restoration and fish passage, 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 $3.6 million to
be completed in 2003.
Fiscal Year 2001 Funding.--$1 million was authorized in fiscal year
2001 for the Coyote/Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project to
continue the General Reevaluation Report and environmental documents
update.
Fiscal Year 2002 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 $400,000, in
addition to the $600,000 in the Administration's fiscal year 2002
budget, for a total of $1 million for the Berryessa Creek Flood
Protection Project element of the Coyote/Berryessa Creek Project.
coyote creek at rock springs project
summary
This statement urges the Committee to support an earmark of
$113,000 within the Section 205 Small Flood Protection Projects Program
to continue the Coyote Creek at Rock Springs Feasibility Study.
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. The neighborhood was almost flooded again in February 1998, when
Coyote Creek in the vicinity of the neighborhood was within a foot of
overtopping its banks.
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. Preliminary alternatives consist of a levee or floodwall.
Project Timeline
--District requested Federal assistance from Corps under Section
205--Feb 1999
--Feasibility cost sharing agreement signed--Jan 2000
--Public Workshop--Feb 2000
--Draft Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)--Nov
2001
--Final Detailed Project Report/EIS--Mar 2002
Fiscal Year 2001 Funding.--$203,000 was earmarked in the fiscal
year 2001 Section 205 appropriation.
Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the need to
continue the feasibility study to provide critical flood protection for
the Rock Springs Neighborhood, it is requested that the Congressional
Committee support an earmark of $113,000 within the Section 205 Small
Flood Protection Projects Program.
san francisquito creek watershed project
summary
This statement urges the Committee's support for an appropriation
add-on of $100,000 to conduct a Reconnaissance Study of the San
Francisquito Creek Watershed.
Background.--San Francisquito Creek forms the boundary between
Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, California and separates the cities
of Palo Alto from East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. San Francisquito Creek
is one of the last continuous riparian corridors on the San Francisco
Peninsula and home to one of the last remaining viable steelhead trout
runs. The creek flows through five cities and two counties, from
Searsville Lake above Stanford University to the San Francisco Bay near
Palo Alto Airport. It is a highly valued resource by these communities.
Area between El Camino Real and the bay is subject to flooding during a
1 percent flood and has a flooding frequency of approximately once in
15 years. Over $155 million in damages could occur in Santa Clara and
San Mateo counties from a 1 percent flood, affecting 4,850 home and
businesses, according to the 1998 Reconnaissance Investigation Report
done by San Francisquito Creek Coordinated Resource Management and
Planning Organization, a local stakeholder group.
Flooding History.--Overflowed seven times since 1910 with record
flooding in February 1998. Flooded significant areas of Palo Alto in
December 1955, inundating about 1,200 acres of commercial and
residential property and about 70 acres of agricultural land. April
1958 storms caused a levee failure downstream of Highway 101, flooding
Palo Alto Airport, the city landfill, and the golf course up to four
feet deep. Overflowed in 1982 near Alpine Road, at University Avenue,
and downstream of Highway 101, causing extensive damage to private and
public property. Overflowed at numerous locations on February 3, 1998,
causing severe, record consequences with more than $28 million in
damages, based on a March 1999 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
Survey Report. More than 1,100 homes were flooded in Palo Alto, 500
people were evacuated in East Palo Alto, and the major commute and
transportation artery, Highway 101, was closed.
Status.--Active citizenry anxious to avoid a repeat of February
1998 flood. Since 1955, numerous floodplain management studies have
been commissioned by the Corps, the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(District), Stanford University, and the San Mateo County Flood Control
District. Grassroots, consensus-based Coordinated Resource Management
and Planning Organization has productively united local and state
agencies with citizens, flood victims, developers, and environmental
activists. The cities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, San
Mateo County and the District have established a Joint Powers Authority
to coordinate creek maintenance issues, to develop a solution to
flooding and to address other creek-related issues. The Joint Powers
Authority Board has initiated Congressional involvement to authorize a
Corps reconnaissance study. Should Federal interest be demonstrated by
the reconnaissance study, the next step would be a cost-shared
feasibility study. The feasibility study would require six to seven
years work and cost $5-6 million. Study elements will include an
investigation to define flooding, erosion and other stream needs within
the project area; an analysis of alternative solutions; a public
participation program followed by preparation of an Engineer's Report;
and an Environmental Impact Report. Flood protection alternatives for
the San Francisquito Creek project might include raising the levees
downstream of Highway 101, storage of flows upstream, channel
diversions such as detention basins or auxiliary channels, or instream
improvements that increase the capacity of the channel through the
urban area. The feasibility study would also include a ``no project''
alternative. The riparian habitat and urban setting offer unique
opportunities for a multiobjective project which could enhance habitat,
improve water quality, and provide for recreational use.
Fiscal Year 2001 Funding.--No Federal funding was requested in
fiscal year 2001.
Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $100,000 to
conduct a Reconnaissance Study of the San Francisquito Creek Watershed.
pajaro river watershed study
summary
This statement urges the Committee's support for an Administration
budget request of $50,000 for the Pajaro River Watershed Study. It is
also urged that the Committee support an Administration budget request
of $750,000 to continue the General Reevaluation Report of the
completed U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pajaro River Project in the City
of Watsonville.
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 been initiated by the
San Francisco District of the Corps and will be complete in May 2001.
Watershed Stakeholders are working 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.
Local Flood Prevention Authority.--Legislation passed by the State
of California (Assembly Bill 807) in 1999 titled ``The Pajaro River
Watershed Flood Prevention Authority Act'' mandated that a Flood
Prevention Authority be formed by June 30, 2000. The purpose of the
Flood Prevention 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 Flood Prevention Authority was
formed in July 2000 and consists 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. At
this time, the Flood Prevention Authority is in the initial stages of
formulation. The Flood Prevention Authority would be the logical local
sponsor should the Corps reconnaissance study result in a
recommendation for a cost-shared feasibility study.
Fiscal Year 2001 Funding.--$50,000 was authorized in fiscal year
2001 for the Pajaro Watershed Reconnaissance Study. In addition, $1.2
million was authorized for continuation of the General Revaluation
Report.
Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
Congressional Committee support the Administration's fiscal year 2002
budget of $50,000 for the Pajaro River Watershed Study. It is also
requested that the committee support $750,000 for continuation of the
General Revaluation Report.
coyote creek watershed study
summary
This statement urges the Committee's support for an appropriation
add-on of $100,000 to initiate a Reconnaissance Study of the Coyote
Creek Watershed.
Background.--Coyote Creek drains Santa Clara County's largest
watershed, an area of more than 320 square miles encompassing most of
the eastern foothills, the City of Milpitas, and portions of the Cities
of San Jose and Morgan Hill. It flows northward from Anderson Reservoir
through more than 40 miles of rural and heavily urbanized areas and
empties into south San Francisco Bay.
Prior to construction of Coyote and Anderson Reservoirs, flooding
occurred in 1903, 1906, 1909, 1911, 1917, 1922, 1923, 1926, 1927, 1930
and 1931. Since 1950, the operation of the reservoirs has reduced the
magnitude of flooding, although flooding is still a threat and did
cause damages in 1982, 1983, 1986, 1995, and 1997. Significant areas of
older homes in downtown San Jose and some major transportation
corridors remain susceptible to extensive flooding. The Federally
supported lower Coyote Creek Project (San Francisco Bay to Montague
Expressway) which was completed in 1996 did protect homes and
businesses from storms which generated of record runoff in the northern
parts of San Jose and Milpitas.
The proposed Reconnaissance Study would evaluate the reaches
upstream of the completed Federal flood protection works on lower
Coyote Creek.
Objective of Study.--The objectives of the Reconnaissance Study are
to investigate flood damages within the Coyote Creek Watershed; to
identify potential alternatives for alleviating those damages which
also minimize impacts on fishery and wildlife resources, provide
opportunities for ecosystem restoration, provide for recreational
opportunities; and to determine whether there is a Federal interest to
proceed into the Feasibility Study Phase.
Study Authorization.--The existing study authority is the 1941
Guadalupe River and Adjacent Streams authorization. This authorization
is limited in scope to flood protection issues only. Congressional
representatives are currently pursuing an updated study resolution to
authorize a multipurpose study of the watershed.
Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $100,000 to
initiate a multipurpose Reconnaissance Study within the Coyote Creek
Watershed.
santa clara basin watershed management initiative
summary
This statement urges the Committee to support an earmark of
$240,000 within the Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Program
to cost-share Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative work.
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 (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 multi-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 was the
Watershed Characteristics Report, which provided 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 Report was completed in April 2000.
The Watershed Assessment Report is scheduled to be completed in
December 2001. In the mean time, several important technical memos were
generated through the stakeholder work process, which allowed the
Initiative to move forward with the planning and development of the
Watershed Action Plan, which is scheduled to be completed in December
2002. The Watershed Action Plan is the final product of this consensus-
based stakeholder process. This will be a comprehensive plan,
incorporating stakeholder input and extensive public outreach, and is
intended to guide watershed activities as the Initiative moves into its
implementation phase.
Section 503(d)(9) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996,
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 requested the Corps to be included in the Section 206 Aquatic
Ecosystem Restoration Program in fiscal year 2001 and received an
appropriation.
Fiscal Year 2001 Funding.--$100,000 was authorized in fiscal year
2001 to initiate an ecosystem restoration report to address aquatic
restoration including control of non-native weeds in the Santa Clara
Basin.
Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Recommendation.--In order to continue the
Initiative's progress to date, it is requested that the Congressional
Committee support an earmark of $240,000 in the Section 206 Aquatic
Ecosystem Restoration Program to cost-share Initiative work and the
development and implementation of the Watershed Action Plan.
san francisco bay shoreline project (silicon valley tidal flooding
protection)
summary
This statement urges the Committee's support for an appropriation
add-on of $100,000 to conduct a Reconnaissance Investigation to
reassess the Federal interest in the protection of the San Francisco
Bay Shoreline due to a change in circumstances that may affect the
Federal interest.
Background.--After much effort from local agencies and legislators,
Congress authorized a tidal flooding study for the Silicon Valley Tidal
Flooding Project in its passage of Public Law 94-587, the Water
Resources Development Act of 1976. The Santa Clara Valley Water
District is one of the project sponsors.
Santa Clara County was originally included in the first phase of
the study, which proposed that facilities in Santa Clara County protect
portions of the cities of Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, and San Jose. In 1990,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) concluded that the potential
incidence of levee failure in the project area was low and suspended
the project until adequate economic benefits can be proven under
Federal criteria. However, the Santa Clara Valley Water District is
concerned that the continued maintenance of historical non-Federal
levees may not be able to continue at the same level due to restricted
funding and regulatory issues. Additionally, the potential of tidal
flooding in Santa Clara County has been aggravated by a significant
land subsidence of as much as 6 feet near Alviso. And when high tides
coincide with wind generated waves, levee overtopping occurs.
Project Synopsis.--In 1984, the Corps' study identified $15 million
to $20 million needed in flood control construction in three areas:
Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, and Alviso. The Corps determined the most likely
mode of tidal flooding was overtopping, not erosion or levee failure.
The Corps attributed significantly fewer potential benefits in making
levee improvements because existing non-Federal and non-engineered
levees have historically withstood overtopping without stability or
erosion failures. The Santa Clara Valley Water District's belief is
that the low incidence of levee failure is due to luck and diligent
private and public maintenance programs--programs that may not continue
under the present regulatory environment and restricted funding. The
trend toward tougher regulatory controls restricts levee maintenance,
potentially making it economically unfeasible to continue historic
levels of maintenance activities. In addition, the potential sale of
over 13,000 acres of shoreline salt producing ponds may result in a
change in maintenance practices. Lower maintenance levels will leave
these levees and surrounding communities vulnerable to significant
damages.
The project was temporarily suspended by the Corps until evidence
of adequate economic benefits under Federal criteria is provided. Corps
staff in Washington D.C. have attempted unsuccessfully to resolve the
differences in their standards for freeboard and stability of levees
with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Similar levee failures
and floods in California's Central Valley in the winter of 1997
heightened concern regarding the integrity and protection provided by
Bay Area levees. Agreeing with the increased concern, the Corps
recognized the potential Federal interest and requested reconnaissance
funding to reopen the study in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999.
No funds were included in the final congressional authorization.
Fiscal Year 2001 Funding.--No Federal appropriation was authorized
in fiscal year 2001 for the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Project.
Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Request.--It is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $100,000 for
the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study to conduct a Reconnaissance
Investigation.
calfed bay-delta program
summary
This statement urges the Committee's support for an Administration
budget request of $20 million and an appropriation add-on of $40
million, for a total of $60 million for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
It also urges the Committee's support for the CALFED authorization
legislation now being developed in Congress to implement the CALFED
program and to resolve California's water supply problems.
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.
The June 2000 Framework for Action and the August 2000 Record of
Decision/Certification contain a balanced package of actions to restore
ecosystem health, improve water supply reliability and water quality.
It is critical that Federal funding be provided to implement these
actions in the coming years.
Fiscal Year 2001 Funding.--No funding was authorized for CALFED
Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration and non-ecosystem improvements in the
final fiscal year 2001 appropriations legislation.
Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
Committee support an appropriation add-on of $40 million, in addition
to the $20 million included in the Administration's fiscal year 2002
Budget, for a total of $60 million for the CALFED Program. It is also
requested that the Committee support the CALFED authorization
legislation now being developed in Congress to implement the CALFED
program and to resolve California's water supply problems.
central valley project: operations and maintenance of san luis unit
joint use facilities
summary
This statement urges the Committee's support for an Administration
budget request of $5.5 million to continue operations and maintenance
of the 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 2001 Funding.--$4.551 million was authorized in fiscal
year 2001 for operations and maintenance of the San Luis Joint Use
Facilities.
Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
Congressional Committee support the $5.5 million in the
Administration's fiscal year 2002 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)
summary
This statement urges the Committee's support for an Administration
budget request of $2.5 million and an appropriation add-on of $7.5
million, for a total of $10 million to fund the program's phase 2 study
and work.
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) collaborated with
the City of San Jose to build the first phase of the recycled water
system by providing financial support and technical assistance, as well
as coordination with local water retailers. The design, construction,
construction administration, and inspection of the program's
transmission pipeline and Milpitas IA Pipeline was performed by the
District under contract to the City of San Jose.
Status.--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 began partial operation in October 1997. Peak
operation occurred in August 2000 with actual deliveries of 10 million
gallons per day of recycled water. The system now serves over 300
customers and delivers over 6,000 acre-feet of recycled water per year.
Phase 2 planning is now underway. A study, to be completed in 2001
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.
Funding.--In 1992, Public Law 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 $19 million of the $35 million
authorization.
Fiscal Year 2001 Funding.--$3.5 million was authorized in fiscal
year 2001 for project construction.
Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $7.5
million, in addition to the $2.5 million in the Administration's fiscal
year 2002 budget, for a total of $10 million to fund the Phase 2 study
and work.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of Illinois
The State of Illinois supports the following projects in the
Administration's fiscal year 2002 budget proposal:
SURVEYS:
Alexander and Pulaski Counties............................ $130,000
Des Plaines River (Phase II).............................. 400,000
Illinois River Ecosystem Restoration...................... 825,000
Kankakee River............................................ 177,000
Peoria Riverfront Development............................. 311,000
Rock River................................................ 300,000
Upper Mississippi & Illinois Navigation Study............. 3,724,000
Upper Mississippi System Flow Frequency Study............. 1,200,000
PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING & DESIGN:
Peoria Riverfront Development............................. 415,000
St. Louis Harbor.......................................... 284,000
Waukegan Harbor........................................... 160,000
Wood River Levee.......................................... 341,000
CONSTRUCTION:
Chain of Rocks Canal...................................... 3,617,000
Chicago Shoreline.........................................24,000,000
East St. Louis Rehabilitation............................. 1,000,000
Loves Park................................................ 1,600,000
McCook & Thornton Reservoirs..............................10,000,000
Melvin Price Lock & Dam................................... 500,000
Mississippi River Major Rehab:
Lock & Dam 12......................................... 4,906,000
Lock & Dam 24......................................... 8,038,000
Olmsted Lock & Dam........................................34,000,000
Upper Mississippi River EMP...............................21,000,000
operation and maintenance
Illinois supports the Corps' budget for continued satisfactory
maintenance and operation of navigation, flood control and multipurpose
projects, as well as adequate manpower for public service activities
related to the water resources in and bordering the state. Although,
the administration's budget request contains nearly $120 million for
operation and maintenance for the Corps Districts in Illinois, the
Districts anticipate a flat level of funding over the next five years.
With inflation, their operations and maintenance activities will be
reduced by 15 percent or more. There are concerns that significant cuts
to operations and maintenance can severely impact the Corps' future
viability and commitment to maintain the inland waterway system, water
supply and recreational reservoirs, and to perform harbor maintenance.
As an example, there is a need for an additional $4.0 million to
satisfy dredging needs and the backlog of maintenance for the Illinois
River Waterway. Backlog of maintenance items for the Mississippi River
in Rock Island and St. Louis Corps Districts is an additional $17.0
million.
additional funding priorities
The State of Illinois recommends that additional funding be
provided for the following projects in the fiscal year 2002 Corps of
Engineers' budget:
Illinois River Basin Restoration
Section 519 of Water Resources Development Act of 2000 authorized
the Illinois River Basin Restoration Program, known as Illinois River
2020, to address the serious threats to the Illinois River and its 55
county watershed. Authorized funding for this program totals $100
million. It is a voluntary, incentive-based public-private partnership
that utilizes existing Federal programs to restore and preserve the
Illinois River and its tributaries. Currently, no funding is included
in the fiscal year 2002 budget for this program. To initiate the
program in fiscal year 2002, Illinois requests $21,250,000 in the Corps
of Engineers' budget as the first part of a 3-year appropriation
totaling $100 million.
Chicagoland Underflow Plan
McCook and Thornton Reservoirs--The 1988 Water Resources
Development Act authorized the construction of McCook and Thornton
reservoirs as components of the Chicagoland Underflow Plan for flood
control. The completion of these projects, with their related
improvements to water quality, will have a significant impact on
reducing the amount of Lake Michigan diversion water required for
dilution purposes. The reduction in dilution water will improve
Illinois' ability to meet the limits of Lake Michigan diversions and
provide for future water supply needs. While $10.0 million is in this
year's budget request, we are requesting an additional $22 million in
the fiscal year 2002 budget to continue this work at its optimum level
of funding.
The Chicago River Lock Rehabilitation
The Chicago River Lock Rehabilitation is an important project for
the State of Illinois. It will reduce leakage of Lake Michigan water
into the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and thus will reduce Illinois'
Lake Michigan diversion. Reducing leakage at the Chicago River Lock is
specifically mentioned in the list of activities in the 1996 Memorandum
of Understanding that Illinois, the other Great Lakes states and the
U.S. Department of Justice signed to resolve the dispute over Illinois'
alleged over diversion of Lake Michigan water. As part of the move to
lakefront diversion accounting, improved control of Lake Michigan water
used at the Chicago River Lock is essential. This project is also
needed to ensure the safe operation of the lock itself. This lock is
the second busiest lock in the country, and while almost all of the
traffic is recreational, its value and importance to Chicago and the
state is enormous. Currently, no funding is included in the fiscal year
2002 budget for this purpose. To initiate the rehabilitation of the
lock in fiscal year 2002, Illinois requests $4.0 million, which would
primarily be used to fund the fabrication of two new gates for the west
end of the lock.
Chicago Shoreline
Currently, the fiscal year 2002 budget contains $24 million for
this project. There is a need for an additional $2,000,000 of
construction general funds to allow the Corps to advance this crucial
erosion control project into Lake Michigan Shoreline Reach 5.
Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier
Section 1202 of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996
authorized the Corps to study, design and construct a barrier in the
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent the exchange of nuisance
species between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi/Illinois River
systems. The Corps is authorized to expend up to $750,000/year to
conduct the study. The fiscal year 2001 appropriation of $400,000
provided construction general funds to advance and complete the
construction of the project. For fiscal year 2002, Illinois requests
that $150,000 be appropriated for monitoring the Invasive Species
Barrier. Currently, no funding is included in the fiscal year 2002
budget for this purpose.
Des Plaines River--Phase One
Section 101(b-10) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
authorized Phase I of the Upper Des Plaines River Flood Control Project
at a total cost of $49 million for the implementation of the six
recommended projects. The Federal share is approximately $31.8 million
(65 percent) and the estimated non-Federal cost is $17.1 million. The
fiscal year 2001 appropriation bill provided $400,000 to start
preconstruction engineering and design for Phase I of the project.
Illinois requests $4.4 million for a Phase I construction start in
fiscal year 2002. Currently, the fiscal year 2002 budget contains no
funding for this purpose.
Des Plaines River Feasibility Study--Phase Two
Inasmuch as Phase I of the Upper Des Plaines River Flood Control
Project will only reduce flood damages by approximately 25 percent, an
expansion of the Phase I Upper Des Plaines River study was authorized
in Section 419 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The
projected $18,000,000 average annual damages, which will remain in the
tributary floodplains of the Des Plaines River after the completion of
Phase I project construction, is the basis for the expanded study of
Phase II. State funds have already been appropriated for cost sharing
in the Phase II study effort. Federal funding is needed to continue
cost sharing (50/50) with non-Federal entities in studying additional
alternatives to reduce expected damages from future floods. The Federal
fiscal year 2001 appropriation bill provided $750,000 to start the
Phase II study effort. Currently, the fiscal year 2002 budget contains
$400,000 to continue the Phase II study effort. Illinois requests an
additional $450,000 of general investigation funds for the continuation
of Phase II of the Upper Des Plaines River feasibility study.
Chain of Rocks Canal Levee
The levee lying along the east bank of the Chain of Rocks Canal has
documented design deficiencies, which must be corrected in order to
adequately protect the thousands of residents living behind it.
Currently, the fiscal year 2002 budget includes $3,617,000 for this
purpose. We are requesting additional funding of $500,000 of
construction general funds to advance the construction of the remedial
work.
Carlyle Lake Conveyance Analysis
The State of Illinois is concerned about the surface drainage flow
levels, channel depths, sedimentation trends and their effects on the
Kaskaskia River from Vandalia, Illinois to Carlyle Lake and the
surrounding vicinity. Therefore, for fiscal year 2002, we are
requesting that $475,000 be provided in the Corps of Engineers general
investigation funding to initiate the conveyance analyses. Currently,
the fiscal year 2002 budget contains no funding for this purpose.
East ST. Louis & Vicinity (Ecosystem Restoration & Flood Damage
Protection)
In fiscal year 2001, the Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District,
will complete a re-evaluation study of the project for flood protection
at East St. Louis and Vicinity, Illinois (East Side Levee and Sanitary
District), authorized by Section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 27
October 1965 (Public Law 89-298) The project is focusing on the
continued problem of flooding within the American Bottoms area. The
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 modified Section 204 of the
Flood Control Act of 1965, to make ecosystem restoration a project
purpose. Accordingly, ecosystem restoration will be included with the
flood control project. Illinois requests an appropriation of $700,000
for the Corps of Engineers to initiate the Pre-Engineering and Design
of the East St. Louis and Vicinity Project. Currently, the fiscal year
2002 budget contains no funding for this purpose.
Melvin Price Lock and Dam
Illinois also urges that the Corps support the continuation of the
recreational features of the Melvin Price Lock and Dam with an
additional $600,000 appropriation in fiscal year 2002. The additional
funding is needed to initiate the contract award for the recreational
facilities and to continue with the visitor center exhibits. Currently,
the fiscal year 2002 budget contains only $500,000 for this purpose.
Sections 204, 206, & 1135 Enhancement Projects
Section 204 and 1135 programs offer a wide range of opportunities
to address fish and wildlife habitat needs which exist due to past
Corps projects and ongoing ecosystem and dredging activities. The
Section 206 program provides a proactive tool for Federal participation
in aquatic ecosystem restoration initiatives where the need for the
aquatic restoration activity does not have to directly relate to a
prior Corps sponsored project. The State of Illinois strongly urges
full funding of these continuing authorities.
Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management Plan
Section 509 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 re-
authorized the Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management
Program (EMP) in response to the need for restoring habitat and
improving the scientific understanding of the river system. While $21.0
million is in this year's budget request, we believe this program
should be pursued at the re-authorized level of $33.17 million as
described in Section 509 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999.
Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers Levees and Streambanks Protection
Study
Section 458 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
authorized the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers levees and
streambanks protection study in response to erosion damages to levees
and other flood control structures on these rivers. We request $250,000
for the initiation of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers levees
and streambanks protection study in fiscal year 2002. The funding will
expedite impact studies of navigation traffic on deterioration of the
levees and other flood control structures. Currently, the fiscal year
2002 budget contains no funding for this purpose.
Illinois River Dredged Disposal Sites
Section 102 (g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
directed the Secretary to acquire dredged material disposal areas for
the inland navigation project on the Illinois River, at a total Federal
cost not to exceed $7,000,000. For fiscal year 2002, we request
$1,100,000 of construction general funds to continue acquisition and/or
construction of these sites.
Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan
Section 459 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
authorized the Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan for the Corps
to develop a three-year study to address water resource and related
land resource problems and opportunities in the Upper Mississippi and
Illinois River Basins. We request $2,000,000 for the initiation of the
Upper Mississippi Comprehensive Plan. Currently, the fiscal year 2002
budget contains no funding for this purpose.
East Cape Girardeau & Clear Creek Drainage & Levee District
The Flood Control Act of June 1936 authorized the raising and
enlargement of 10.9 miles of levee, construction of gravity drains,
closure structures, and seepage control measures in the East Cape
Girardeau and Clear Creek Drainage & Levee District. The project was
completed except for seepage control measures. Recently, the Clear
Creek Drainage and Levee District along with the Preston and Miller
Pond Drainage and Levee Districts have requested the St. Louis District
Corps to reevaluate the modifications for the interior flooding problem
and recommend rehabilitation for the deteriorating hardware of the
existing levee. A House Resolution that was adopted in May of 1997 is
the authorization vehicle for the Office of the Chief of Engineers to
restart the project. However, funds have to be made available for the
Corps to initiate the process. Illinois requests an appropriation of
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to restart the East Cape Girardeau
and Clear Creek Flood Control Project. Currently, the fiscal year 2002
budget contains no funding for this purpose.
______
Prepared Statement of the California Reclamation Board
The Reclamation Board is the State agency that furnishes required
nonfederal assurances for a majority of the Federal flood control
projects in California's Central Valley. The Reclamation Board has been
cooperating with the US Army Corps of Engineers in providing flood
damage reduction projects since 1917.
The Reclamation Board in general supports the President's fiscal
year 2002 budget for the Corps of Engineers for their flood control
activities in the Central Valley. The Board recommends modification to
the Corps budget as shown below:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board
Estimated Actual cost Allocation for President's recommends
project costs thru 9/30/00 fiscal year budget fiscal fiscal year
2001 year 2002 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration (CALFED-- Corps...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. $1,350,000
Staffing and Regulatory).
GENERAL INVESTIGATION--SURVEYS
Lower Sacramento River Riparian Corps...................... $1,970,000 $842,000 $180,000 $100,000 $200,000
Revegetation (Solano, Yolo).
NonFed..................... 1,350,000
----------------
Total...................... 3,320,000
================
Dry Creek (Middletown)..................... Corps...................... 400,000 122,000 25,000 150,000 253,000
NonFed..................... 300,000
----------------
Total...................... 700,000
================
Middle Creek............................... Corps...................... 1,971,000 904,000 381,500 0 350,000
NonFed..................... 1,285,500
----------------
Total...................... 3,256,500
================
San Joaquin River Basin Corral Hollow Creek Corps...................... 1,100,000 63,000 49,000 0 140,000
NonFed..................... 1,000,000
----------------
Total...................... 2,100,000
================
San Joaquin River Basin Tuolumne River and Corps...................... 1,600,000 100,000 25,000 200,000 250,000
Tributaries.
NonFed..................... 1,500,000
----------------
Total...................... 3,100,000
================
San Joaquin River Basin West Stanislaus Corps...................... 847,000 480,000 207,000 160,000 250,000
County.
NonFed..................... 750,000
----------------
Total...................... 1,597,000
================
San Joaquin River Basin, Frazier Creek..... Corps...................... 1,600,000 50,000 50,000 25,000 100,000
NonFed..................... 1,500,000
----------------
Total...................... 3,100,000
================
PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN
San Joaquin River Basin Stockton Corps...................... 700,000 0 0 100,000 130,000
Metropolitan Area.
NonFed..................... 233,000
----------------
Total...................... 933,000
================
Stockton Metropolitan Area (Farmington Dam) Corps...................... 750,000 0 0 200,000 300,000
NonFed..................... 250,000
----------------
Total...................... 1,000,000
================
San Joaquin River Basin West Stanislaus Corps...................... 750,000 0 0 0 50,000
County.
NonFed..................... 250,000
----------------
Total...................... 1,000,000
Middle Creek............................... Corps...................... 750,000 0 0 300,000 400,000
NonFed..................... 250,000
----------------
Total...................... 1,000,000
================
American River Watershed................... Corps...................... 28,600,000 19,186,000 2,464,000 2,000,000 3,000,000
NonFed..................... 0
----------------
Total...................... 28,600,000
================
Strong & Chicken Ranch Sloughs (Sacramento) Corps...................... 250,000 0 0 0 125,000
NonFed..................... 750,000
----------------
Total...................... 1,000,000
================
CONSTRUCTION--GENERAL
Sacramento River Bank Protection........... Corps...................... 179,900,000 110,411,000 4,200,000 2,326,000 5,000,000
NonFed..................... 69,500,000
----------------
Total...................... 249,400,000
================
American River Watershed (Levee Corps...................... 87,000,000 27,888,000 10,400,000 13,000,000 15,000,000
Improvements on American and Sacramento
Rivers).
NonFed..................... 28,600,000
----------------
Total...................... 115,600,000
================
American River Watershed (Natomas) Corps...................... 26,089,000 16,860,000 0 0 5,000,000
(Reimbursement).
NonFed..................... 12,591,000
----------------
Total...................... 38,680,000
================
American River Watershed (Folsom Dam Corps...................... 97,500,000 2,400,000 3,360,000 4,500,000 8,000,000
Modifications).
NonFed..................... 52,500,000
----------------
Total...................... 150,000,000
================
South Sacramento County Streams (New Corps...................... 41,200,000 0 0 0 10,000,000
Construction Start).
NonFed..................... 24,300,000
----------------
Total...................... 65,500,000
================
San Joaquin River Basin--Stockton Corps...................... 35,700,000 0 3,360,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Metropolitan Area (Section 211
Reimbursement).
NonFed..................... 12,000,000
----------------
Total...................... 47,700,000
================
Kaweah River (Tulare)...................... Corps...................... 23,500,000 4,146,000 2,520,000 3,000,000 9,000,000
NonFed..................... 16,986,000
----------------
Total...................... 40,486,000
================
CONTINUING AUTHORITY PROGRAMS
Flood Control Act of 1948, Section 205, ........................... .............. .............. .............. 30,000,000 50,000,000
Flood Damage Prevention.
Water Resources Dev. Act, 1996, Section ........................... .............. .............. .............. 15,000,000 ( \1\ )
206, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration.
Program Water Resources Dev. Act, 1986, ........................... .............. .............. .............. 21,000,000 50,000,000
Section 1135, Project Modification for
Improvement of the Environment Program..
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Inspection of Completed Works Chico Landing ........................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 100,000
to Red Bluff.
NEW PROJECTS
Hamilton City Levee Modification and ........................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 300,000
Ecosystem Restoration (Comprehensive
Study) (PED).
West Bear Creek Floodplain Storage Project ........................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 300,000
(Comprehensive Study) (PED).
San Joaquin River South Delta Flood ........................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 400,000
Conveyance Improvement and Habitat
Restoration Program (Comprehensive Study)
(FEAS).
Yolo Bypass Flood Conveyance and Habitat ........................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 500,000
Restoration Program (Comprehensive Study)
(FEAS).
San Joaquin River Public Lands Floodplain ........................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 300,000
Storage and Ecosystem Restoration
(Comprehensive Study) (FEAS).
Upper San Joaquin River Flood Conveyance ........................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 300,000
Improvement and Habitat Restoration
Program Comprehensive Study) (FEAS).
Woodson Bridge Ecosystem Restoration ........................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 2,000,000
(Comprehensive Study Section 1135).
Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Materials ........................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 3,900,000
Project (Section 204).
Delta Levee Rehabilitation and Ecosystem ........................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 4,875,000
Restoration Project (Section 1135).
Pacific Flyway Center--Yolo Bypass (Section ........................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 180,000
1135).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Support Program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the
members of this Commission regarding the fiscal year 2002 budget of the
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Bureau of Reclamation. For the
Columbia River Fish Mitigation Project (CRFMP), a series of separate
construction activities at the Federal Columbia River Power System
(FCRPS), the tribes recommend a funding level of $91 million for fiscal
year 2002. In addition to CRFMP funding, $1.2 million should be
provided so that the Corps can continue the Walla Walla River
Feasibility Study, in Washington and Oregon. You should examine the
relationship between the capital construction budget and the Corps'
operations and maintenance budget. Shortfalls in the operations and
maintenance budget are jeopardizing the ability to maintain dam fish
passage facilities. The Corps should have the flexibility to transfer,
with regional approval, capital construction funds to the O & M
category. Further, the capital construction budget should be modified
to include all Corps dams on the Columbia and Snake River that impact
anadromous fish passage. Currently the budget is limited to run-of-
river dams. We also ask that you give the Corps' sufficient
authorization to undertake necessary construction and/or reconstruction
of salmon production facilities, such as the Mitchell Act facilities,
in the Columbia River basin so as to ensure in-place/in-kind mitigation
for salmon losses caused by the hydroelectric power system. The Corps
should be prohibited from using limited capital construction funds,
sorely needed for dam passage improvements, for estuary research.
Instead, under WRDA, provide the Lower Columbia River Estuary Program
and the Tillamook Estuary Program with $7,377,405 for the coming fiscal
year for estuary programs. Finally, the Corps should undertake a
system-wide review of Columbia Basin flood control as required under
the Biological Opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The Bureau of Reclamation should be provided with $5 million to
undertake a fast-track feasibility study and to initiate construction
of fish passage facilities during reconstruction of the irrigation dam
on Keecheelus Reservoir in the Yakima River basin in Washington. In
addition, provide sufficient funding to the Bureau of Reclamation to
undertake work to provide fish passage at Wallowa Lake Dam, as well as
fish production facilities to mitigate for the loss of past natural
production caused by the construction of the dam.
Mission Statement.--The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
(CRITFC) was formed by resolution of the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm
Springs and Yakama Tribes for the purpose of coordinating fishery
management policy and providing technical expertise essential for the
protection of the tribes' treaty-protected fish resources. The CRITFC's
primary mission is to provide coordination and technical assistance to
the member tribes to ensure that outstanding treaty fishing rights
issues are resolved in a way that guarantees the continuation and
restoration of our tribal fisheries into perpetuity. The tribes' Wy-
Kan-Ish-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit (Spirit of the Salmon), is a framework plan for
Columbia Basin salmon restoration that documents threats to fisheries,
identifies hypotheses based upon adaptive management principles for
addressing these threats, and provides specific recommendations and
practices that must be adopted by natural resource managers to meet
their treaty obligations and restore the resource. The tribes' plan
calls for significantly increasing the survival of salmon during their
juvenile and adult migrations through the FCRPS.
Walla Walla River Feasibility Study, in Washington and Oregon.--The
tribes believe that $1.2 million should be provided so that the Corps
of Engineers can continue the Walla Walla River Feasibility Study, in
Washington and Oregon. The Corps is authorized under the Water
Resources Development Act to conduct a Feasibility Study to restore
instream flows to the Walla Walla River. The Walla Walla River
supported significant runs of spring chinook salmon and summer
steelhead, as well as runs of fall chinook, chum and coho salmon.
Dewatering of the mainstem Walla Walla River between June and October
has seriously impacted those runs. Both Middle Columbia River summer
steelhead and Columbia River Basin bull trout are listed species under
the Endangered Species Act. The tribes consider restoration of instream
flows and the fisheries in the Walla Walla Basin a high priority. The
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation co-sponsor the
Walla Walla Basin Project with the Corps. The Feasibility Study is the
first step in assuring permanent instream flows that will benefit
Indian and non-Indian fisheries, while enhancing flows for fish species
protected under the Endangered Species Act and maintaining existing
agricultural water uses.
Keecheelus Reservoir in the Yakima River basin.--Provide the Bureau
of Reclamation with $5 million to undertake a fast-track feasibility
study and to initiate construction of fish passage facilities during
reconstruction of the irrigation dam on Keecheelus Reservoir in the
Yakima River basin in Washington. The irrigation dam was constructed
early in the last century without fish passage facilities. The
structure, now of extremely limited usefulness for irrigation in its
current state, must be rebuilt for safety reasons; the structure should
be upgraded at the same time to provide passage for juvenile and adult
salmon, as well as for bull trout. The area above the dam would provide
habitat for stocks of steelhead, sockeye, spring Chinook and bull
trout.
Wallowa Lake Dam fish passage and mitigation.--Sufficient funding
should also be provided to the Bureau of Reclamation to undertake work
to provide fish passage at Wallowa Lake Dam, as well as fish production
facilities to mitigate for the loss of past natural production caused
by the construction of the dam. The Nez Perce Tribe can provide
additional information on this project to the Committee.
Lower Columbia River Estuary Program and the Tillamook Estuary
Program.--The Water Resources Development Act of 2000 authorized
$30,000,000 for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to implement the Lower
Columbia River Estuary Program and the Tillamook Estuary Program. The
Commission now supports a request for $7,377,405 for 2002
appropriations. This funding is critical to achieving the habitat
restoration goals of the two programs. In addition, the Commission
supports Senate Bill 835, which last year provided for re-authorization
of the National Estuary Program.
Corps' CRFM Project Proposal Undermines Long Term Goals and
Objectives.--The Corps' proposed fiscal year 2002 capital construction
budget prioritizes projects on a path that runs counter to undertaking
critical projects that are necessary to meet recovery goals and
performance standards. The fiscal year 2002 Corps' capital construction
budget should ascribe to the following tribal priorities:
--Meet juvenile passage performance standards of 80 percent fish
passage efficiency and 95 percent survival per project by 2001
and to reduce adult salmon delays and interdam mortality by 50
percent by 2001.
--Meet adult passage; spill efficiency and meeting dissolved gas and
temperature water quality standards. The Corps fails to
allocate adequate funds to these critical mainstem passage
measures. We ask that the Congress direct the Corps to conform
to these standards.
Capital Construction Priorities.--For the CRFMP, the tribes
prioritize spending for fiscal year 2002 as follows: $24 million for
surface flow bypass measures at Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day, and
Lower Granite Dams; $34.4 million on necessary adult passage measures
(including temperature control and high head passage); $15.7 million
for stilling basins and spillway deflectors as dissolved gas abatement
measures; and, $16.9 million for optimization of turbine efficiencies,
juvenile and adult passage monitoring, Dworshak Dam structural changes
to promote temperature control, water quality and spill efficiency
monitoring. These actions are geared towards meeting the tribal
objectives of achieving 80 percent juvenile fish passage efficiency, 95
percent juvenile survival per project, and a 50 percent reduction in
adult mortality by 2001. These actions represent major steps in
bringing the FCRPS into compliance with Clean Water Act standards for
temperature and dissolved gas.
Specific Project Concerns with the Corps' Fiscal Year 2002 Capital
Construction Budget.--Two major areas in that budget are representative
of seriously misplaced capital construction priorities:
--$44.2 million for fish guidance projects, including Bonneville
Powerhouse 1 Juvenile Bypass Outfall ($36 million), Bonneville
Screen Bypass Modifications ($4.8), and John Day Screen
Modifications ($3.4). These projects represent 38.1 percent of
the Corps' proposed budget for fiscal year 2002. These systems
rely on mechanically guiding fish away from turbines and
dewatering the remaining flow so that the juvenile salmon can
be transported by pipe systems as long as 2 miles to deposit
the juvenile in areas deemed safe from predation. Recent
studies indicate smolt-to-adult returns are much greater for
juveniles that pass the dams via spill instead of via turbines
and screen bypass systems.
--$10.3 million for non-supported studies. Several studies proposed
by the Corps do not have the support of the regional salmon
managers. These studies include work in the estuary and on
delayed mortality of fish held in saltwater tanks at Bonneville
dam. Other studies include mortality of fish passing through
turbines. Much of this work is long term and has questionable
methods that will not address key questions the region has
agreed require additional study. These studies will not aid the
regional managers in making informed decisions.
In addition, the Corps' proposed budget has not been expanded to
include other important projects that can have a positive impact on
salmon recovery. High head dam passage studies can be used to access
previously blocked habitat for salmon. There are no projects to
investigate and construct modifications to hydropower projects that
would allow them to operate in a manner that can aid in temperature
controls, such as deep-water selective withdrawals, nor are there
projects on long-term gas abatement solutions that would allow
hydropower projects to better meet the Clean Water Act and improve
downstream passage for juveniles.
Operational and Maintenance (O&M) Budget Issues.--Currently the
Corp of Engineers allocates approximately $22.5 million for maintenance
of its projects in the Columbia Basin. This allocation does not provide
the funding necessary to maintain many of the key components of these
projects. For example, at Dworshak Dam cool water releases are altered
to insure they do not affect the downstream hatchery. Minor
modifications, at a cost of approximately $1.5 million, would allow the
region to use these cool water releases from Dworshak Dam in the most
efficient manner. Erosion in the Lower Monumental Dam spillway and in
the stilling basin is severe enough to impact the spill program called
for in the Biological Opinion. However, there are no funds in the O & M
budget to make the necessary repairs that would eliminate this problem.
The Corps could reallocate funds from the capital construction budget
to address such critical maintenance issues, based upon the consensus
of the regional fish managers. The Corps requires your direction to
make this effective use of available funding possible.
In conclusion, the tribes are advising a course of action and a
level of funding for salmon recovery projects designed to allow salmon
to migrate in rivers in the most natural way possible within the
current hydropower system configuration. This philosophy moves away
from the current dependence on mechanical bypass systems and manual
transportation of salmon. The tribes' approach promotes a more a
normative approach to salmon management and helps to achieve a ``spread
the risk'' policy in order to minimize the negative impacts for salmon
migrants. Please contact us if you have any questions; we can provide
additional information at your request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Seminole Tribe of Florida
The Seminole Tribe of Florida is pleased to submit this statement
regarding the fiscal year 2002 budget for the Army Corps of Engineers
(COE). The Tribe asks that Congress provide $20 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
$44 million project. Design and planning efforts continue, and the
first phase of construction is expected to commence this summer.
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.
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, a part of the water
conservation plan, 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. Congress has
acknowledged this need through the passage of the last three Water
Resource Development Acts. This Committee has consistently shown its
support through appropriating requested amounts over the last three
fiscal years. By continuing to grant this appropriation request for
critical project funding, the Federal government will take another
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 and the Tribe's stewardship of its land.
Completion of the critical project requires a substantial
commitment from the Tribe, including the dedication of over 2,400 acres
of land for water management improvements and meeting a 50/50 cost
share. This summer, the Tribe will initiate the first phase of
construction with the main conveyance canal. As the Tribe moves forward
with its contribution to the restoration of the South Florida
ecosystem, increasing 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.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coachella Valley Water District
whitewater river basin thousand palms flood control
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with the Coachella Valley Water
District as the local sponsor, has completed the feasibility study for
the Whitewater River Basin flood control project. This project received
a favorable Chief of Engineers Report from Lieutenant General Robert B.
Flowers and it was fully authorized in the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000.
Project Description
The preferred alternative for a flood protection project in the
community of Thousand Palms consists of four levees and the purchase of
a 700-acre floodway. The levees total just less than eight miles in
length and range in height from 7 to 18 feet. The first three levees
collect runoff and sediment flowing from the Little San Bernardino
Mountains and the Indio Hills, and they outlet the flow onto the 700-
acre floodway. The sediment in the floodway is then available for
windblown transport onto the adjacent Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed
Lizard Preserve. This preservation of the sand transport system is
necessary for the long-term viability of the sand dunes ecosystem of
the fringe-toed lizard, a Federally endangered species. A fourth levee
also conveys flow along the southern boundary of the preserve to
existing flood control structures downstream of the project. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that it supports this preferred
alternative. The proposed project would protect 2800 acres of land from
flooding. This accounts for the majority of the existing development in
the area. The benefit/cost ratio is over 1.3 with a total cost of
$28,900,000. The estimated Federal share is 65 percent of the total
cost or $18,800,000. The estimated non-Federal share is 35 percent of
the total cost or $10,100,000.
Funding Requirements
In the Energy and Water Development Act of 2000, $500,000 was
budgeted for Project Engineering and Design (PED). The estimated cost
of the PED phase is $2 million. Twenty-five percent or $500,000 is
local share. Thus an addition $1 million needs to be appropriated for
the PED phase of this project in the Energy and Water Development Act
of 2001. In addition the Federal share of $18.8 million needs to be
appropriated in future versions of the Energy and Water Development
Act.
______
Prepared Statement of the County of Sonoma, California
Bodega Bay, located in Sonoma County, California, has been dredged
by the Army Corps of Engineers since the mid-1940's. The Federal
channel has been dredged on an average of every 11 years by the Corps.
See Figure 1--Location map of Bodega Bay.
Historically, Bodega Bay has been the home of a commercial fishing
fleet. Salmon, herring, dungeness crab and rock cod are among the
species of seafood that are caught in the waters outside of the Bay. In
the 1980s, millions of pounds of salmon were caught by a commercial
fishing fleet of over 600 vessels berthed at Bodega Bay. Today, even
with the commercial fishing limitations that have reduced the number of
active commercial fishing vessels in the Bay, the Bay remains popular
for commercial and recreational fishing. Bodega Bay is home to a U.S.
Coast Guard installation, and serves as a Harbor of Refuge for vessels
traveling along the California Coast.
Without periodic dredging, Bodega Bay cannot continue as a viable
fishing and recreation harbor. The shoaling rate at Bodega Bay is
estimated at 10,000 cubic yards per year. The Corps is responsible for
financing the dredging of the Federal channel in Bodega Bay, while
Sonoma County has historically had the responsibility to provide a site
for the dredged material. The existing dredge materials site at Bodega
Bay does not have the capacity to allow the Army Corps of Engineers to
conduct its scheduled dredging of the Federal channel in 2002. See
Figure 2--location of Federal Channel and Dredge Material site.
appropriation requested
--Total of $3.7 million in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
Operation and Maintenance Budget, fiscal year 2002. It is
important that this funding be specifically designated for use
at Bodega Bay to complete dredging in 2002.
--$1.8 Million for preparation of the Bodega Bay dredge materials
site through implementation of the Corps' Dredge Material
Management Plan (DMMP).
--$1.9 million for dredging the Federal channel.
Sonoma County needs congressional funding for the implementation of
the DMMP, estimated at $1.8 million, to prepare the existing dredge
material site. Without this funding, dredging the Federal channel will
not be possible. A delay of the Federally scheduled dredging cycle into
future years may jeopardize the entire project given the current trend
to cut funding for civil works projects at the Federal level. Smaller
ports are particularly under attack. The risk to the entire project
will increase if the project is deferred beyond 2002.
purpose
The existing Dredge Materials Site (located at County's Bird Walk
Coastal Access) is at approximately 70 percent capacity (remaining
capacity is 58,500 cubic yards). Therefore, the appropriation will be
used to remove 73,300 cubic yards of material from the existing dredge
material site before the next maintenance dredging of the Federal
channel by the Army Corps of Engineers can begin, which is scheduled
for 2002.
The most cost-effective site to place the excavated dredge
materials is a proposed community park for Bodega Bay approximately 2
miles away. (See Figure 1) This beneficial use of clean fill material
would be used to provide play fields, picnic sites, and children's play
area for the community.
During the 1991 Federal Bodega Bay Dredging program, dredging of
the County marine facilities, and private marinas and wharfs were
allowed to piggyback on the Federal program. Each entity was
responsible for their incremental dredging costs. We anticipate that
most of the agencies will, once again, want to be included in the
Federal dredging program. See Figure 2 for location of County, Private
Marinas, and Wharfs.
army corps of engineers--san francisco district
The Corps is responsible for dredging the Bodega Bay Federal
channel approximately every 11 years. Sonoma County Regional Parks
Department has shared information regarding history and concerns about
the proposed 2002 dredging for Bodega Bay, including: dredge site
preparation, excavation and moving material to the proposed community
park site, anticipated costs, environmental concerns, and economic
impacts.
The County and Corps have continued to work together on a Dredge
Materials Management Plan (DMMP), which could expand the Corps' project
scope at Bodega Bay. The San Francisco Corps Office has been supportive
in including our request for financial support for Bodega Bay dredging
and for the dredge site preparation in legislation.
environmental issues
This project does not include any controversial environmental
issues.
Studies
All environmental issues relating to the preparation of the dredge
material site, moving dredge material to the proposed community park
site and dredging of the Bay will be completed by either the Corps, as
part of the DMMP, or the County prior to the maintenance dredging of
the Bay. The major studies, in addition to the DMMP studies include:
--Hydrographic Analysis and Refinement--allows for accurate
measurement of dredge volumes needs.
--Eel Grass Identification--This species needs to be plotted and
assessed to predict and avoid serious impact due to the
dredging of the channel and marinas.
--Other Endangered Species--Several native plants, animals, and other
organisms are native to Doran Marsh and its environs. Project
impacts will need to be assessed.
local effort
Private wharfs, marinas and U.S. Coast Guard will be encouraged to
participate with the County to include their dredging needs in the 2002
program. If Congress funds this project in its entirety, the County has
enough funding set aside to meet the local match requirements of the
DMMP (80 percent Federal/20 percent local).
conclusions
Without financial assistance, the Bodega Bay dredging project on
line for 2002 will have to be delayed. Any delays places the dredging
of Bodega Bay at risk as Federal public works budgets continue to be
cut.
Any delay in dredging the Federal Channel will impact the ability
to safely navigate within the Bay and will pose a serious health and
safety hazard. Some larger vessels are already running aground in the
harbor.
Any delay in dredging the Federal Channel could impede its ability
to service commercial and sport fishing and its availability as a
Harbor of Refuge. Lastly, a delay would cause a significant economic
impact on the region.
______
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 US
Army Corps of Engineers, we in the Ohio Valley are beginning to see the
results of 20 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 Lock, 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 US Army Corps of Engineers to
advance these projects, in order to complete construction by 2008 or
earlier:
recommendations for fiscal year 2002
1. For the Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam modification project,
formerly the Gallipolis Locks and Dam on the Ohio River, OH/WV, about
$4,000,000 to complete rehabilitation of the dam.
2. For the Winfield Lock Replacement on the Kanawha River, WV,
$3,000,000 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, $75,000,000 for continued
construction of the approach lock walls related to the twin
1101,200 locks and design and initial construction activities
for the new gated dam.
4. For improvements to Monongahela River Locks and Dams 2, 3 & 4,
PA, $75,00,000 to complete construction of the Braddock Dam, for
relocations related to the construction project, and continued design
of Lock 4.
5. For the McAlpine Lock Project on the Ohio River, IN/KY,
$25,000,000 to complete construction of the cofferdam related to the
new 110 feet 1,200 feet lock addition.
6. For the Marmet Lock Replacement on the Kanawha River, WV,
$30,000,000 for real estate acquisition and for initial systems for
mitigation of the construction project.
7. For the Kentucky Lock Addition on the Tennessee River, KY,
$55,000,000 to continue construction of the new highway and bridge work
and to begin construction of the upstream cofferdam.
8. For continuing major rehabilitation of London Locks and Dam,
Kanawha River, $8,000,000.
9. For the Ohio River Mainstem Study, including studies related to
completing Interim Feasibility Reports for Newburgh, Cannelton, and
Meldahl, and for Emsworth, Dashields, and Montgomery Locks and Dams,
approximately $30,000,000 to be expended over the next five years. This
level of funding is needed to complete the work leading to construction
authorization documents for additional capacity at these six lock and
dam locations.
10. For Pre-Construction Engineering and Design for the John T.
Myers Locks and Dam, Ohio River, IN/KY, $3,500,000-$4,000,000. A new
construction start for this project will be required soon, since this
project was authorized for construction in the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000.
11. For Pre-Construction Engineering and Design for the Greenup
Locks and Dam, Ohio River, OH/KY, $3,500,000-$4,000,000. A new
construction start for this project will be required soon, since this
project was authorized for construction in the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000.
For these lock and dam modernization projects the President has not
released specific allocations for the fiscal year 2002 Civil Works
Budget of the US Army Corps of Engineers. It is expected that these
allocations will be woefully inadequate. The ``efficient'' construction
level for fiscal year 2002 and for each and every year into the future
has been discussed with Corps officials over a number of years, and
DINAMO is confident that the projected funding levels identified above
represent the amount of money the Corps can efficiently use.
Additionally experience has shown that the Corps could execute
completion of these projects by 2008 if adequate funding were provided,
i.e. efficient funding levels.
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 $400 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.
The construction schedules for Ohio River Navigation System
projects have slipped from one to six years, depending on the project.
Delaying the construction of these vitally needed infrastructure
investments is a terribly inefficient practice. Inefficient
construction schedules cost people a lot of money. A March 2000 study
by the Institute for Water Resources concluded that $1.34 billion of
cumulative benefits (transportation savings) for Olmsted, Lower
Monongahela River 2, 3 & 4, McAlpine, Marmet, and Kentucky lock and dam
modernization projects, in addition to the London Lock rehabilitation,
all on the Ohio River Navigation 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 $534 million of future benefits are at risk but
will be foregone (based on fiscal year 2001 schedules) if funding is
not 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 President's $3.9
billion Corps of Engineers Civil Works Budget for fiscal year 2002 will
fall at least $1 billion short of what will be needed to meet the
nation's water resources needs. 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
$300 million annually. Last year Congress provided about $4.54 billion
for the Corps of Engineers program and more than $200 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 $5 billion and about $350 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.
______
Prepared Statements of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development
mississippi river and tributaries project
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 its twenty levee boards. It
contains recommendations for fiscal year 2002 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 many 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 hopes that Congress and the Administration will honor
their prior commitments to infrastructure development and fund our
requests.
Since the timing of this meeting is before a detailed budget has
been released, the figures presented herein are only approximate and
will be revised when more information becomes available. The following
projects are of particular concern to us. See the attached ``Summary of
Recommended Appropriations'' for a complete listing of projects in
Louisiana.
Operation and Maintenance
Request: Full Capability.
Atchafalaya Basin; Old River Lower Red River, South Bank Levees,
(Bayou Rapides Drainage Structure and Pumping Plant); Mississippi River
Levees (total MR&T); Channel Improvement (total MR&T).
The operation and maintenance of completed works are essential to
achieving the full benefits of projects. In times of budget constraints
it is essential that operation and maintenance of projects continue as
scheduled in order to maintain their effectiveness, otherwise more
expensive maintenance and rehabilitation would be required at a later
date.
The above listed projects have reached a point where delayed
maintenance is now essential and we urge you to fund these projects to
the full capability of the Corps.
Mississippi River Levees (total MR&T)
Request: Full Capability.
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, most is needed for Louisiana projects. In the Vicksburg
District 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: Full Capability.
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 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
Request: Full Capability.
(Sicily Island Area Levee Project).
The construction of this project must not be delayed by budget
constraints.
Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico
Request: Full Capability.
Funds are requested for preconstruction engineering and design.
This hurricane protection project is vital for coastal Louisiana and
should be constructed as soon as possible.
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
Board of State 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 present day dollars represents expenditures in
excess of $5.5 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 past budget
requests for the total MR&T Project have not been adequate. We endorse
the recommendation of the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association
in their request for $395 million for the MR&T project 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 2002--STATE OF LOUISIANA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Louisiana
Louisiana projects schedule request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation and Maintenance
Mississippi River Levees (total MR&T)... $8,500,000 Full
Capability
Atchafalaya Basin....................... 10,400,000 Full
Capability
Channel Improvement (total MR&T)........ 43,000,000 Full
Capability
Old River Control Structure............. 6,100,000 Full
Capability
Bonnet Carre Spillway................... 1,900,000 Full
Capability
Lower Red River, SBL--Bayou Rapides 6,000,000 Full
Drainage Structure & Pumping Plant..... Capability
Tensas Basin:...........................
Boeuf & Tensas Rivers............... 2,600,000 Full
Capability
Red River Backwater Area............ 3,500,000 Full
Capability
Atchafalaya Basin, Floodway System, LA.. 2,100,000 Full
Capability
Baton Rouge Harbor--Devil Swamp, LA..... 200,000 Full
Capability
Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries.......... 100,000 Full
Capability
Mississippi Delta Region, Caernarvon, LA 916,000 Full
Capability
Inspection of Completed Works (MR&T).... 1,500,000 Full
Capability
Mapping (MR&T).......................... 1,100,000 Full
Capability
Dredging (MR&T)......................... 18,000,000 Full
Capability
Construction
Mississippi River Levees (total MR&T)... 54,000,000 Full
Capability
Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee...... 3,000,000 Full
Capability
Atchafalaya Basin....................... 30,000,000 Full
Capability
Channel Improvements (total MR&T)....... 48,000,000 Full
Capability
Tensas Basin, Red River Backwater Area.. 3,882,000 Full
Capability
Atchafalaya Basin, Floodway System...... 10,000,000 Full
Capability
Mississippi Delta Region, Davis Pond.... 4,600,000 Full
Capability
Mississippi & Louisiana Estuarine Area 100,000 Full
(Bonnet Carre)......................... Capability
Preconstruction Engineering & Design
Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico.......... 6,500,000 Full
Capability
General Investigations
Donaldsonville to the Gulf of Mexico.... 1,000,000 Full
Capability
Alexandria to the Gulf of Mexico........ 700,000 Full
Capability
Spring Bayou............................ 500,000 Full
Capability
West Baton Rouge Parish, LA (recon)..... 350,000 Full
Capability
Collection & Study of Basic Data (MR&T). 600,000 Full
Capability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
food control, navigation, hurricane protection and water resources
projects in louisiana
The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Office
of Public Works and Intermodal Transportation, is the agency designated
to represent the State of Louisiana for the coordinated planning and
development of water resources, including flood control, navigation,
drainage, water conservation and irrigation projects; therefore, this
statement is presented on behalf of the State of Louisiana and its
twenty levee boards. We are pleased to present the recommendations for
fiscal year 2002 appropriations for Louisiana projects. The projects
listed herein are in addition to those covered in the statement by the
Office of Public Works and Intermodal Transportation for the
Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.
Louisiana contains the terminus of the Mississippi River, which has
the third largest drainage basin in the world. The Mississippi drains
41 percent, or 1 1/4 million square miles, of the contiguous United
States and parts of two Canadian provinces. In addition to the
Mississippi River system, Louisiana contends with other interstate
waters--the Sabine River, the Red River, the Ouachita River, the Amite
River, and the Pearl River. All of these river systems converge toward
Louisiana, passing on to the Gulf of Mexico, draining a figure
approaching 50 percent of these contiguous 48 states.
Louisiana also plays a strategic part in providing the country with
access to world markets through an inland navigation system.
Approximately 75 percent of all soybeans, animal feed, and corn grown
in the U.S. are shipped through Louisiana. And almost 50 percent of all
rice and cereals. Louisiana has the highest waterborne traffic by
state. The river flood control systems work in conjunction with the
hurricane and coastal protection systems to form a total integrated
protection system to protect us from floods of all types. This
integrated system protects the inland navigation system. It also
protects the petrochemical industry in Louisiana which has the second
largest refining capacity in the country producing approximately 15
billion gallons of gasoline at 19 refineries. Louisiana ranks second in
produced natural gas and third for oil production. The pipeline system
which supplies much of the country with natural gas and petroleum
originates in Louisiana. The petrochemical and oil and gas industries
depend almost totally on Federally constructed levee systems to protect
them from floods and hurricanes, and depend on the Federally maintained
navigation system for transportation. This infrastructure development
which benefits the entire country has contributed to the destruction of
our marshes and wetlands which still produce a commercial fish and
shellfish harvest worth more than $600 million and 40 percent of the
Nation's wild fur and hides harvest worth more than $15 million. This
wealth of natural resources cannot survive and propagate for the
economic benefit of our State and Nation without onshore facilities
that require protection from major storms and hurricanes. It would be a
national loss if these facilities and infrastructures were not
protected. But Louisiana alone cannot support the infrastructure on
which the country depends. All these facilities in Louisiana that
support and contribute to the economic well-being of the country are
protected by flood control measures; flood control measures that the
Federal Government has appropriately committed itself to provide.
In making the following recommendations regarding construction,
studies, and 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. We
feel that water resources projects are probably the most worthwhile and
cost-effective projects in the Federal budget, having to meet stringent
economic justification criteria not required of other programs. We ask
that this be taken into consideration in the final decision to
appropriate the available funds.
Since the timing of this meeting is before a detailed budget has
been released, the figures presented herein are only approximate and
will be revised when more information becomes available. The following
projects are of particular concern to us. See the attached ``Summary of
Recommended Appropriations'' for a complete listing of projects in
Louisiana.
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock
Request: Full Capability.
The Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) lock has long been
considered dimensionally obsolete and is a key to the viability of the
Port of New Orleans, the nation's 4th largest.
West Bank Vicinity of New Orleans, LA
Request: Full Capability.
We urge Congress to provide for an accelerated construction
schedule for this project to provide hurricane protection to the
metropolitan area of New Orleans.
Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control
Request: Full Capability.
We urge that the approved five-year construction schedule be
maintained by authorizing funds to the full capability of the Corps.
Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, Hurricane Protection
Request: Full Capability.
Funding to the full capability of the Corps will allow for the
completion of existing construction contracts and to continue with
other required work.
Mississippi River Ship Channel, Baton Rouge to Gulf
Request: Full Capability.
The funds will be used to complete existing construction contracts
for saltwater intrusion mitigation to the water supply of Plaquemines
Parish.
New Orleans to Venice
Request: Full Capability.
This is a hurricane protection project for Plaquemines Parish. The
funds requested are needed to continue construction of this important
hurricane protection project.
Larose to Golden Meadow
Request: Full Capability.
This is a hurricane protection project which will protect the
developed areas along Bayou Lafourche. Funds are needed to complete
this project.
Ouachita River Levees
Request: Full Capability.
The Ouachita River Levees are deficient and need to be brought up
to Federal standards. We request that specific language be added to the
appropriations bill to direct the Secretary of the Army to accomplish
this task.
J. Bennett Johnston (Red River) Waterway
Request: Full Capability.
Remaining work consists of additional channel training works,
purchase of mitigation lands and construction of recreation features.
We urge the approval of funds for fiscal year 2002 based on the
previously approved schedule.
Grand Isle and Vicinity
Request: Full Capability.
Funds are requested to address WRDA 99 language to determine any
environmental benefits to the mainland coast.
East Baton Rouge Parish, LA
Request: Full Capability.
We are requesting new start language and language to rectify an
oversight in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, authorizing
this project to be constructed at the 75/25 cost share in effect at the
time of study completion.
Lake Pontchartrain Westshore
Request: Full Capability.
Funds would be used to advance construction. Authorization is
expected in the next WRDA.
MR-GO Reevaluation Study
Request: Full Capability.
The Environmental Protection Agency, at the request of local
officials, has formed a task force to re-examine the navigation project
based on the amount of economic benefits and the safety issues of
possible storm damage.
Orleans Parish, LA
Request: Full Capability.
This project is in addition to the Southeast Urban Flood Control
projects already under construction in Orleans Parish. The funds
requested would be used to advance preconstruction engineering and
design.
Jefferson Parish, LA
Request: Full Capability.
This project is in addition to the Southeast Urban Flood Control
projects already under construction in Jefferson Parish. The funds
requested would be used to advance preconstruction engineering and
design.
Calcasieu Lock, LA
Request: Full Capability.
The Calcasieu Lock is becoming congested due to an increase in
traffic. The funds will be used to advance the feasibility study.
ST. Bernard Parish, Urban Flood Control
Request: Full Capability.
Flood control improvements are needed to reduce the repetitive
damages to residential development, which is consistent with
Administration policy. The funds will be used to advance the
feasibility study.
Calcasieu River Basin, LA
Request: Full Capability.
This study will address the feasibility of measures to reduce
flooding and restore fish and wildlife habitat in the study area. The
funds will advance the feasibility study.
Ascension Parish Flood Control Study
Request: Full Capability.
The Ascension Parish Flood Control Study was recommended in the
Amite River and Tributaries Reconnaissance Report. The parish has
decided to proceed to the feasibility phase and funds are required in
fiscal year 2002 to start the study.
New Study Requests
Request: Full Capability.
Several new study requests will address a comprehensive look at the
hurricane protection system, urban flood control, ecosystem restoration
and beneficial use of dredged material. See attached Summary Sheet for
individual projects.
Continuing Authorities Projects
We urge you to discontinue the practice of earmarking funds and to
raise the program limits for Section 205 projects to $60 million.
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act
The passage of the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and
Restoration Act has been a positive force for Louisiana. We support the
continued funding for this program.
Baton Rouge Infrastructure
Request: $10,000,000.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1999 authorized $10,000,000
for water resources related infrastructure for the parishes of East
Baton Rouge, Ascension and Livingston. This request is for the
appropriation these funds.
Red River Basin Chloride Control Project
Request: Full Capability.
The construction of the Red River Chloride Control Project will
enhance further economic development in the Red River Valley and make
the Navigation Project prove even more economically beneficial than
previously anticipated.
Operation and Maintenance
Request: Full Capability.
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. We urge you to continue funding O&M to the
Corps' full capability.
conclusion
We wish to express our thanks to the Appropriations Subcommittees
on Energy and Water Development of the House and Senate for allowing us
to present this brief on the needs of Louisiana. Without reservation,
practically every single project in Louisiana which has been made
possible through actions of these committees has shown a return in
benefits many times in excess of that contemplated by the authorizing
legislation. The projects which you fund affect the economy of not only
Louisiana, but the nation as a whole. The State of Louisiana
appreciates the accomplishments of the past and solicits your
consideration of the appropriations requested for fiscal year 2002.
FLOOD CONTROL, NAVIGATION, HURRICANE PROTECTION AND WATER RESOURCES
PROJECTS IN LOUISIANA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Louisiana
Louisiana projects schedule request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction:
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock.. $15,000,000 Full
Capability
West Bank Vicinity of New Orleans, 31,000,000 Full
LA................................. Capability
Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood 100,000,000 Full
Control............................ Capability
Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, 19,700,000 Full
Hurricane Prot..................... Capability
Mississippi River Ship Channel, LA.. 1,200,000 Full
Capability
New Orleans to Venice, Hurricane 2,000,000 Full
Protection......................... Capability
Larose to Golden Meadow, Hurricane 4,700,000 Full
Protection......................... Capability
Ouachita River Levees............... 5,300,000 Full
Capability
J. Bennet Johnston (Red River) 28,000,000 Full
Waterway, LA....................... Capability
Grand Isle and Vicinity............. 200,000 Full
Capability
Comite River Diversion.............. 15,400,000 Full
Capability
MR-GO Reevaluation Study............ 1,080,000 Full
Capability
Baton Rouge Infrastructure.......... 0 10,000,000
Red River Chloride Control.......... 0 Full
Capability
Preconstruction Engineering and Design:
Lafayette Parish, LA................ 500,000 Full
Capability
Orleans Parish, LA.................. 300,000 Full
Capability
Jefferson Parish, LA................ 500,000 Full
Capability
West Shore, Lake Pontchartrain, LA.. 300,000 Full
Capability
East Baton Rouge Parish, LA \1\..... 1,000,000 Full
Capability
Authorized Studies:
Intracoastal Waterway Locks (Bayou 500,000 Full
Sorrel), LA........................ Capability
Calcasieu Lock...................... 900,000 Full
Capability
Louisiana Coastal Area-Ecosystem 1,750,000 Full
RestorationFeasibility Study (COAST Capability
2050)..............................
St. Bernard Parish, Urban Flood 600,000 Full
Control............................ Capability
Calcasieu River Basin, LA........... 500,000 Full
Capability
Ascension Parish, LA (Amite River & 425,000 Full
Tribs)............................. Capability
Amite River Ecosystem Restoration... 600,000 Full
Capability
Atchafalaya, Chene, Boeuf and Black. 300,000 Full
Capability
Hurricane Protection Improvements... 500,000 Full
Capability
St. Charles Parish, Urban Flood 400,000 Full
Control............................ Capability
Plaquemines Parish, Urban Flood 450,000 Full
Control............................ Capability
New Study Requests:
Louisiana Coastwide Dredging........ 0 100,000
Lake Pontchartrain Basin 0 500,000
Comprehensive Study................
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Bank 0 100,000
Stabilization......................
Southern LA Floodproofing Evacuation 0 100,000
Routes.............................
Acadiana Navigation Channel, LA..... 0 100,000
Operation and Maintenance \2\........... .............. \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ New start language is needed to initiate construction in fiscal year
2002.
\2\ Full Capability of Corps.
______
Prepared Statement of the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am James E. Wanamaker,
Chief Engineer for the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners,
Greenville, Mississippi, and I have the privilege of presenting this
statement on behalf of this Board and the citizens of the Levee
District. The Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners is comprised of
7 elected commissioners representing the counties of Bolivar,
Issaquena, Sharkey, Washington, and parts of Humphreys and Warren
counties in the Lower Yazoo Basin in Mississippi. The Board of
Mississippi Levee Commissioners is charged with the responsibility of
providing protection to the Mississippi Delta from flooding of the
Mississippi River and maintaining major drainage outlets for removing
the flood waters from the area. These responsibilities are carried out
by providing the local sponsor requirements for the Congressionally
authorized projects in the levee district.
The funding of the flood control projects also provide assistance
to the overall economics of the Mississippi Delta through the
employment of individuals by contractors completing these necessary
projects. The region encompassed by the Mississippi River & Tributaries
Project is included in the recently authorized Delta Regional
Authority. The employment of the local work force and purchases from
local vendors by the contractors on these projects provides income to
the most impoverished counties included in the Delta Regional
Authority.
The foresight used by the Congress in their authorization of the
many features of the Mississippi River & Tributaries Projects is
exemplary. This project has proven to be one of the most cost effective
projects ever undertaken by the United States. The Board remains aware
that budget constraints, along with the again extremely low
administration budget, is making it very difficult to fund projects at
levels deemed necessary to maintain timely construction to provide the
much needed flood protection to the Mississippi Delta. Without the
Congressional adds to the budget over the last several years,
construction would be lagging far behind throughout the entire Lower
Mississippi Valley. The Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association
will be submitting a general statement to support an appropriation of
$395 million for fiscal year 2002 for surveys, advanced engineering,
construction, and the operation and maintenance of the Mississippi
River & Tributaries Project. We must always remember that the Lower
Mississippi River receives flood waters from 41 percent of the
Continental United States.
The Mainline Mississippi River Levee throughout the Valley is the
backbone for providing flood protection to the Delta areas. Following
the 1973 flood, it was determined that 69.1 miles of Mainline
Mississippi River Levees in Mississippi were deficient in grade and
section. The Corps of Engineers currently has 18 miles of our levee
under construction. The administration budget for Mississippi River
Levees of $42.1 million will not allow any new construction starts on
this vital project. We are asking that the Congress appropriate $54.1
million for construction of Mainline Mississippi River Levees to allow
construction to proceed in an orderly manner. Until such time all of
our levees are completed to grade and section, the Mississippi Delta
will remain exposed to severe flooding from the Project Design Flood on
the Mississippi River. It is estimated that the State of Mississippi
alone would suffer damage in excess of $1.8 billion with over 20,000
homes flooded, displacing more than 56,000 people by an overtopping of
the levee system in Mississippi.
As the Vicksburg District Corps of Engineers proceeded with the
development of a draft report for the remaining features of the Yazoo
Backwater Project, the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners
initiated a consensus process involving State and Federal resource
agencies and major private environmental groups. After the initial
meeting the National Wildlife Federation, the Mississippi Wildlife
Federation, the Audubon Society, the Gulf Restoration Network, and the
Sierra Club elected to withdraw from this consensus building process.
The only private environmental group to remain in the process was Ducks
Unlimited. The consensus process involved over 50 hours of meetings of
these agencies, organizations, and local citizens over an 18 month
period. We remain very disappointed in the attitude taken by the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service and Environmental Protection Agency during this
process. These agencies did not participate as resource agencies as
anticipated, but as advocates of their own plan for the area. The
consensus process resulted in a modification of alternatives being
considered by the Corps of Engineers for this project. At this time,
the Vicksburg District has completed the draft report which includes a
recommended plan that is supported officially by the Board of
Mississippi Levee Commissioners, County Boards of Supervisors of
Issaquena, Sharkey, Washington, Warren, Humphreys, and Yazoo. The Board
of Mississippi Levee Commissioners and the Corps of Engineers have each
hosted public meetings in the project area and found the vast majority
of individuals living in the project area support the recommended plan.
This support is given by these local individuals living in the project
area even though water levels will be 7 feet deeper with the
recommended plan than the 1982 plan before the pumps are operated, and
62,500 acres of developed land will be taken out of production and
reforested as part of this project. We are currently requesting an
appropriation of $6 million for this project, which will allow the
Vicksburg District to initiate the design of this project, initiate
real estate activities and right-of-way acquisition for this project.
As with all infrastructure, the need for maintenance is required to
keep the projects functioning as designed. The Big Sunflower River
Maintenance Project is a case where the local sponsors have provided
the necessary minor maintenance for over 50 years. It has been
identified that major maintenance is required to restore the capacity
of this project to move flood waters through the Mississippi Delta. We
are requesting an appropriation of $6.4 million to allow work to
continue on this project. Construction on Item 3 has been completed and
right-of-way for Item 2 is being acquired. This appropriation will
allow the work on Item 2 to continue and to purchase rights-of-way for
future items.
Work on the Upper Yazoo Project is continuing with the completion
of Items 4-A and 4-B bringing protection in the Delta to the City of
Greenwood. We are requesting an appropriation of $15 million for the
Upper Yazoo Project which will allow contracts to be awarded on Items
5-A, 5-B, and Item 7 structures. It is imperative that work on this
project be continued to provide an adequate outlet for the flood
control reservoirs that hold back flood waters from the Mississippi
Delta. Without an adequate outlet for these reservoirs, stages inside
the reservoirs will continue to rise threatening an overtopping of the
emergency spillway, whereby, we lose all control of flood waters in the
basin.
Maintenance of our Mainline Mississippi River Levee System
continues as a major feature carried out by the basins' Levee Boards.
The Flood Control Act of 1928 clearly delineates Federal and local
responsibilities in the maintenance activities required for this
project. We are requesting $9.5 million for the maintenance of
Mississippi River Levees to allow the Corps of Engineers to carry out
the Federal responsibilities for major maintenance along the Mainline
Mississippi River Levee System.
As we pointed out earlier, all projects need to be maintained to
keep them functioning as designed. Work on our 4 flood control
reservoirs are no exception to this need. We are asking for an
appropriation for maintenance of Arkabutla Lake of $11.5 million; Enid
Lake $7.5 million; Grenada Lake $7.8 million; and Sardis Lake of $18
million. The increased funds requested for this project will be
utilized to complete the bank protection along these dams, repair water
wells, treatment storage facilities and other maintenance needs. We are
also requesting an appropriation of $1.2 million for the tributaries
features of the Yazoo Basin which will allow for continued bank
stabilization and shore line protection work.
In closing, I must take a minute to reflect on the criticism being
focused on the Corps of Engineers' study process utilized in reviewing
projects. I must point out that the focus of the criticism primarily on
the Upper Mississippi Navigation Study relies on activities taking
place prior to the publication of a draft report. No one knows what
that draft report would have contained had the process been allowed to
continue. Even after a draft report is published, the current process
allows thorough review of the report and the recommended plan by
government agencies, private organizations and individuals throughout
the project area and the Nation. All of the comments received by the
Corps through that draft report must be addressed prior to a final
report being made before construction of any project proceeds. Far more
studies performed by the Corps of Engineers throughout the Nation fall
by the wayside than results in actual construction taking place. We
feel that the current process provides a thorough review and an
adequate opportunity for proponents and opponents to review and express
their thoughts.
We are grateful to the Committee for providing us the opportunity
each year to present our requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the St. Francis Levee District of Arkansas
My name is Jake Rice, III and my home is in Marion, Arkansas,
located on the West side of the Mississippi River in the St. Francis
River Basin. I am the Chief Engineer of the St. Francis Levee District
of Arkansas. Our District is the local cooperation organization for the
Mississippi River and Tributaries Project and the St. Francis Basin
Project in Northeast Arkansas. Our District is responsible for the
operation and maintenance of 160 miles of Mississippi River Levee and
75 miles of St. Francis River Tributary Levee in Northeast Arkansas.
The St. Francis Basin is comprised of an area of approximately
7,550 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 is bordered on the east
by the Mississippi River and on the West by the uplands of Bloomfield
and Crowley's Ridge, having a maximum width of 53 miles.
The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project and the St. Francis
Basin Project provide critical flood protection to over 2,500 square
miles in Northeast Arkansas alone. This basin's flood control system is
the very lifeblood of our existence. Our resources and infrastructure
are allowing the St. Francis Basin and the Lower Mississippi Valley to
develop into a major commercial and industrial area for this great
nation. The basin is quickly becoming a major steel and energy
production area. The agriculture industry in Northeast Arkansas and the
Lower Mississippi Valley continues to play an integral role in
providing affordable food and clothing for this nation. This has all
been made possible because Congress has long recognized that flood
control in the Lower Mississippi Valley is a matter of national
interest and has authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
implement a flood control system in the Lower Mississippi Valley that
is the envy of the civilized world. With the support of Congress over
the years, we have continued to develop our flood control system in the
Lower Mississippi Valley through the Mississippi River and Tributaries
Project and for that we are extremely grateful.
Although, at the current level of project completion, there are
areas in the Lower Mississippi Valley that are subject to major
flooding on the Mississippi River. The level of funding that has been
included in the President's Budget for the overall Mississippi River
and Tributaries Project is not sufficient to adequately fund and
maintain this project. This level of funding will require the citizens
of the Lower Mississippi Valley to live needlessly in the threat of
major flood devastation for the next 30 years. Timely completion of
this project is of paramount importance to the citizens of the Lower
Mississippi Valley.
Therefore, we support the amount of $395,000,000 requested by the
Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association for use in the overall
Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. 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 that have
been included in the President's Budget for the St. Francis Basin
Project; construction, operation and maintenance have not been
sufficient to fund critical projects. These declined amounts have
resulted in a significant backlog of work within the St. Francis Basin.
Therefore, our District is requesting $4,502,000 for St. Francis Basin
Project construction funds and $6,978,000 for St. Francis Basin
operation and maintenance funds. The amounts requested for the St.
Francis Basin Project are a part of the total amounts requested for the
Mississippi River and Tributary Appropriations of the Civil Works
Budget.
As your subcommittee reviews the Civil Works Budget of fiscal year
2002 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. As always, I feel the Subcommittee will give due regard
to the needs of the Lower Mississippi River Valley as it considers
appropriations for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. I
would like to sincerely thank the Subcommittee for its' past and
continued support of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.
Also, I would like to express our continued support for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and the fine water resource projects that they
perform. However, we find the Corps under constant attack from a
variety of organizations and special interest groups. A few members of
Congress are even proposing to reform the Corps. In our opinion,
leadership at the Corps is of the highest level of professional
integrity, and the processes in place result in projects that are
essential to the well being of this great nation. I can think of no
other agency that provides such a vital service to the citizens of this
country. The Corps of Engineers is the worlds' premiere engineering and
construction agency. They have the expertise and technical ability to
perform any task or solve any problem that this nation could possibly
face. We depend on their services daily. I would like to respectfully
request that you and your Subcommittee help us defend the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers from these unjustified attacks and accusations and
to promote them as the fine agency that they are and have been for the
past 225 years.
______
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.
First, we wish to 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.
Your efforts are especially important today due to our nations
growing dependence on others for energy and the need to protect and
improve our environment. Greater use and development of one of our
nation's treasures--our navigable inland waterways--will help remedy
these problems. At the same time, these fuel-efficient and cost-
effective waterways keep us competitive in international markets.
As Chairman of the Interstate Committee, 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 Interstate Committee continues to identify
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam as our top priority. This urgently needed
project at the confluence of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River
Navigation System and the Mississippi River is vital to the five-state
area and beyond. 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.
Continuing problems caused by the lowering of the Mississippi River
continue to plague McClellan-Kerr entrance channel users. 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.
Use of the temporary by-pass channel increases navigation hazards
and existing dredge disposal areas are virtually full. Ongoing dredging
and disposal of material can mean environmental damage. Construction
needs to continue as rapidly as possible before limited dredge disposal
areas become inadequate.
The good news is that you, your associates and the Congress have
all recognized the importance of constructing Montgomery Point!
The Corps of Engineers awarded a $186 million construction contract
on July 19, 1997. Last year Congress appropriated $40 million to
continue construction of the lock and dam. Work is progressing well and
the project is 50 percent complete.
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:
$2,000,000 is needed to continue the most important Arkansas River
Navigation Study, AR & OK. In addition to your past support, WRDA 2000
directed the Corps to ``expedite completion of the Arkansas River
Navigation Study, including the feasibility of increasing the
authorized channel depth from 9 feet to 12 feet.''
Approximately 95 percent of the lower Arkansas already enjoys a 12-
foot or greater channel depth. A 12-foot channel can mean one-third or
more cargo in each barge with resultant energy savings, reduction in
greenhouse gases and other environmental advantages. Lock chambers on
the McClellan-Kerr were built to accommodate a 12-foot channel.
While navigation is the primary purpose of the McClellan-Kerr,
navigation needs and flood control are closely related. Chronic high
flows and channel restrictions result in decreased navigation traffic,
as well as continued flooding in the vicinity of Fort Smith, Arkansas,
and reduced recreational use.
This study addresses the navigation System Operating Plan and
navigable depths to improve navigation conditions on the river, as well
as the performance of flood control measures and the impacts of high/
low flows on environmental quality and recreation uses.
The Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee urges the Committee
to fund the Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration program to the
programmatic limit of $25 million, so that funds will be available to
match the committed $2 million from the State of Colorado's Great
Outdoors Colorado Trust Board. The Colorado funds are contingent upon
receiving the Federal funds. These funds are for the Arkansas River
Fisheries Restoration Project.
Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Project--Wichita, Kansas.
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. Almost one billion
gallons of water have already been recharged. 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 $6,840,000 for fiscal year 2002.
Again this year we 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.
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.
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 2002 to continue
construction and insure that this urgently needed lock and dam is in
operation as soon as possible at the lowest possible cost.
We also urge you to provide $2,000,000 for the most important
Arkansas River Navigation Study, AR & OK. This study addresses the
Navigation System Operating Plan to improve navigation conditions
during high flows on the river, as well as the performance of flood
control measures, and the feasibility of increasing the authorized
channel depth from 9 feet to 12 feet.
Other projects are also vital to the environment, social and
economic well-being of our region and the nation. We request your
support and urge you to favorably consider the following:
--Support continued funding for the construction, and Operation and
Maintenance of the McClellan-Kerr including an additional
$800,000 to complete bank stabilization work on the right bank
to stabilize the navigation channel in the vicinity of the
Little Rock Port.
--Continue construction authority for the McClellan-Kerr. It is
vitally important that the Corps develop a permanent solution
to the threat of cutoffs developing in the lower reaches of the
system and 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.
--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).
--Provide $7 million to initiate 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 $1,175,000 to complete 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 2002 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 2002
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 of Morrilton, President of the Conway County
Economic Development Corporation; and N. M. ``Buck'' Shell,
transportation specialist of Fort Smith and Van Buren, Arkansas.
2000 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 $40 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 placement of
concrete 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.
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam is a time sensitive project as
economic growth along the entire McClellan-Kerr River is being deterred
awaiting completion! As the Mississippi River 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.
We are very grateful that you, your associates, the Congress, and
the Administration have all recognized the urgency of constructing
Montgomery Point. Appropriations of $156.2 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 2002 to continue construction.
Adequate funding will insure that the urgently needed facility is in
operation as soon as possible at the lowest possible cost. (This
amount, and other dollar amounts requested herein, were obtained from
the Corps in response to our questions about what could be efficiently
expended for each project if directed to do so and funded by the
Congress.)
On another crucial matter, $2,000,000 is needed for the most
important Arkansas River Navigation Study, AR & OK. We want to
especially express thanks Mr. Chairman for the Committee's past
support. In addition to your action, taking into account the need to
realize the total economic potential of the McClellan-Kerr System, WRDA
2000 directed the Corps to ``expedite completion of the Arkansas River
Navigation Study, including the feasibility of increasing the
authorized channel depth from 9 feet to 12 feet.''
Approximately 95 percent of the lower Arkansas already enjoys a 12-
foot or greater channel depth. A 12-foot channel can mean one-third or
more cargo in each barge with resultant energy savings, reduction in
greenhouse gases and other environmental advantages. Lock chambers on
the McClellan-Kerr were built to accommodate a 12-foot channel.
While navigation is the primary purpose of the McClellan-Kerr
System, navigation needs and flood control are closely related. Chronic
high-water flows and channel restrictions result in decreased
navigation traffic, as well as continued flooding in the vicinity of
Fort Smith, Arkansas, and reduced recreational use.
This study addresses the navigation System Operating Plan and
navigable depths to improve navigation conditions on the river as well
as the performance of flood control measures and the impacts of high/
low flows on environmental quality and recreation uses.
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:
--Support continued funding for the construction, and Operation and
Maintenance of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation
System including an additional $800,000 to complete bank
stabilization work on the right bank to stabilize the
navigation channel in the vicinity of the Little Rock Port.
--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 in fiscal year 2002 to continue 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).
--Provide $7 million to initiate 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.
Having reliable power production facilities is vital to the
economic well being of this region of the country.
--Provide funding in the amount of $1,175,000 to complete 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. 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 2002 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, 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 Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee
(Colorado)
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we greatly appreciate
the opportunity to present testimony before this committee. My name is
Steve Arveschoug. I am General Manager of the Southeastern Colorado
Water Conservancy District and serve as Colorado Chairman for the
Interstate Committee.
The City of Pueblo and 21 other project partners request that
funding be committed in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water
Appropriations Bill for the Arkansas River Fisheries Restoration
Project. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are completing the final
stages of the Ecological Restoration Report and Environmental Analysis
for the project and have scheduled the plans and specification for
construction to be completed between August 2001 and January 2002. The
City of Pueblo has secured a funding commitment of $2 million from the
State of Colorado is Great Outdoors Colorado Board that is contingent
upon the Federal government committing Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration funds to complete design and start construction in fiscal
year 2002.
Congress annually appropriates funds within the Energy and Water
Appropriations Bill for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers general
construction projects that includes funding for Section 206 Aquatic
Ecosystem Restoration projects. The commitment of project funds within
this appropriations bill is needed to have the Great Outdoors Colorado
Trust Board enter into a contract with the City of Pueblo to commit
their funds to the project.
The City Council and the project partners thank you for your
previous support for this project and request your continued support of
legislation to provide funding in fiscal year 2002. This request is the
top priority of the Pueblo City Council in the upcoming Federal budget.
The City Council requests the following wording be included in the
Energy and Water Appropriations Bill or other Appropriations Bills that
would commit funding in fiscal year 2002 for the Arkansas River
Fisheries Restoration Project:
The Committee approves the expenditure of up to $1.75 million in
fiscal year 2002 on the Arkansas River Corridor Legacy Project from the
Section 206 provision of this bill. The Committee is particularly
cognizant of the State of Colorado is designation of funds to comply
with non-Federal cost-sharing requirements of Section 206, and the
State's need for a Federal commitment to the project, which is
currently ranked as a priority for the Corps.
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 Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee
(Kansas)
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 2002 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. Almost one
billion gallons of water have already been recharged. 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 $6,840,000 for fiscal year 2002.
--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 2002.
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 million for fiscal year 2002, the level needed by
the Corps of Engineers.
--Walnut River Basin, Kansas.--Feasibility study is needed to fully
understand and recommended ecosystem restoration strategies to
protect and extend the useful life of public water supply.
Funding is requested in the minimum amount of $200,000.
--Grand Lake Feasibility Study.--Follow-on flood control study to
determine the most cost-effective solution to real estate
inadequacies of Federal flood control easements around Grand
Lake. Funding request in the amount of $1.7 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, including the metropolitan area of Wichita, 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.
--National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP).--Funding at the
level needed by the USGS for a vital national baseline network
of stream gages needed to meet national interests.
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 join with our colleagues from the states of Oklahoma, Arkansas
and Colorado to form the multi-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, continued
construction to completion of the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam Project
is essential 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 2002 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 has
successfully recharged almost one billion gallons of water from the
Little Arkansas River. The recharge project is also helping to protect
the aquifer from on-going degradation caused by the migration of saline
water.
The demonstration project has confirmed earlier engineering models
that the full scale aquifer storage and recovery 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.
The project is also an essential environmental protection strategy,
which 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 for the aquifer storage and recovery
project calls for a multi-year construction program. Phase One is
estimated to cost $17.1 million. Construction is planned to begin in
early 2002. The total project involving the capture and recharge of
more than 100 million gallons of water per day is estimated to cost
$110 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. The aquifer storage
and recovery project is a vital component of Wichita's comprehensive
and integrated water supply strategy estimated to cost $350 million at
completion.
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 aquifer storage and recovery project in the amount of
$6,840,000 for fiscal year 2002.
heney 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. Lansat 7 imaging and
digital elevation modeling have been employed to identify high priority
areas. To date, over 1,900 environmental projects have been completed
within the 543,000-acre watershed. This partnership must continue
indefinitely to protect the reservoir and to extend the life of the
Wichita regional water supply. The City of Wichita is providing funding
for this critical, nationally acclaimed model nonpoint source pollution
project. We request continued Federal funding in the amount of $125,000
for fiscal year 2002. With funding from Section 319 of the Clean Water
Act being phased out, we request another funding source 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. Major losses also took place in the Wichita
metropolitan area. 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
million for fiscal year 2002, 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 due to excessive deposits within the
conservation pool. The flood pool remains above its design
capacity. Funding provided in fiscal year 2001 should be
sufficient for the Corps of Engineers to complete a study which
will ascertain the equitable distribution of sediment storage
between conservation and flood control storages and also
evaluate the environmental impact of the appropriate
reallocation. No additional funding is requested in fiscal year
2002. However, funding may be requested in fiscal year 2003.
--Walnut River Basin, Kansas.--The concern for the protection and
restoration of wetland and riparian areas has increased in
response to greater public understanding of ecological and
economic value. Riparian corridor and wetland preservation and
protection practices are increasingly more important as
corrective measures for nonpoint source pollution thereby
extending the useful life of public water supply lakes in the
basin. An initial Corps reconnaissance report has been
certified yet a feasibility study is needed to fully understand
and recommend solutions to ecosystem restoration. Funding is
requested in the minimum amount of $200,000 for fiscal year
2002.
--Grand Lake Feasibility Study.--A need exists to complete evaluation
of 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. We request funding in the amount of $1.7 million
in fiscal year 2002.
--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 needed to improve the
quality of the aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the basin and
to assist communities, landowners, and other interests in
southeastern Kansas and northeastern Oklahoma in the
development of non-structural measures to reduce flood damages.
The study could also address the land losses due to streambank
erosion which the basin experiences on an annual basis and
which contributes to the degradation of the habitat in the
basin. We request funding in the amount of $100,000 in fiscal
year 2002 to conduct the study.
--Continuing Authorities Programs.--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 (Pittsburgh, McPherson and Medicine Lodge) have
previously requested assistance from the Corps of Engineers
under these programs. Section 205 Feasibility studies are
underway to address flooding problems in Wichita, Augusta and
Coffeyville. We urge you to support these programs to the $50
million programmatic limit for the Small Flood Control Projects
Program and $15 million for the Emergency Streambank
Stabilization Program.
The Planning Assistance to States Program under section 22 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1974, as amended, provides Federal
funding to assist the states in water resource planning. The state of
Kansas is grateful for previous funding under this program which has
assisted small Kansas communities in cost sharing needed resource
planning as called for and approved in the Kansas State Water Plan. We
request continued funding of this program at the level which will allow
the state of Kansas to receive the $500,000 limit.
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. Preliminary
Restoration Plan studies are underway at Newton, Garden City and Neosho
County. 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.
--National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP).--For more than 100
years, the USGS has operated a multipurpose streamgaging
network supported primarily by other Federal, State and Local
agencies. Streamflow data from those stations is used for
planning and decisions related to agriculture, industry, urban
water supplies, riverine and riparian habitat, navigation and
flood hazard verification. The loss of about 22 percent of the
streamgaging stations since 1971 has resulted in a commensurate
loss in valuable streamflow information. In 1998, the USGS
completed a study on the ability of the streamgaging network to
meet Federal needs. A NSIP program was recommended to produce
information for multiple current and future uses. We recommend
funding the NSIP program to cover the entire cost of a baseline
network of stream gages needed to meet national interests in
order to ensure the long-term stability of this vital network.
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 Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee
(Oklahoma)
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. WRDA 2000 also directs the Corps of Engineers to expedite the
study including the feasibility of increasing the authorized channel
depth from 9' to 12'. We request funding in the amount of $2 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, $1.7 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, $50 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 appreciate 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 have been seriously impacted by
droughts in the past, and last 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 2002 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
have 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 hopeful 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, and for the
Cimarron River Basin in Kansas and Oklahoma.
Arkansas River System Operations Feasibility Study, Arkansas and
Oklahoma.--We are requesting funds to continue the Arkansas River
Navigation Study, a feasibility study which is examining opportunities
to optimize the Arkansas River system. We want to express our
appreciation for the Committee's past support for this important study.
In addition to your action, taking into account the need to realize the
total economic potential of the McClellan-Kerr System, WRDA 2000
directed the Corps of Engineers to ``expedite completion of the
Arkansas River Navigation Study, including the feasibility of
increasing the authorized channel depth from 9 feet to 12 feet.''
Lock chambers on the McClellan-Kerr were built to accommodate a 12
foot channel. Approximately 95 percent of the lower Arkansas already
enjoys a 12 foot or greater channel depth. A 12 foot channel can mean
one-third or more cargo in each barge with resultant energy savings,
reduction in greenhouse gases and other environmental advantages.
While navigation is the primary purpose of the McClellan-Kerr
System, navigation needs and flood control are closely related. Chronic
high-water flows and channel restrictions result in decreased
navigation traffic, as well as continued flooding in the vicinity of
Fort Smith, Arkansas, and reduced recreational use.
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 wind through the states of Oklahoma and
Arkansas. This study would optimize the operation of 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 navigation.
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 $2 million, which is the amount the Corps can
efficiently spend in fiscal year 2002 should the Congress approve and
appropriate the funds.
Illinois River Watershed Reconnaissance Study.--The Tulsa District
has the capability to utilize $100,000 to conduct a reconnaissance
study of the water resource problems of the Illinois River Basin in
fiscal year 2002. 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 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. We are requesting funding in the
amount of $100,000 for this study.
Grand (Neosho) Basin Reconnaissance Study.--The Tulsa District has
the capability to utilize $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 to improve the quality of the
aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the basin and to assist communities,
landowners, and other interests in southeastern Kansas and northeastern
Oklahoma and in the development of structural and non-structural
measures to reduce flood damages. The study could also address the land
losses due to streambank erosion which the basin experiences on an
annual basis and which contributes to the degradation of the habitat in
the basin. We therefore request funding in the amount of $100,000 in
fiscal year 2002 to conduct the study.
Grand Lake Feasibility Study.--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. The Tulsa
District has capability to utilize and this committee strongly urges
the Congress to appropriate $1.7 million for this study in fiscal year
2002.
Lake Tenkiller Reallocation Study.--The Tulsa District can execute
this study in fiscal year 2002 if funding in the amount of $500,000 is
appropriated 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.--Tulsa District can utilize
$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
therefore urge this Committee to provide funding in the amount of
$515,000 to move this study forward.
Continuing Authorities Program.--We also 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, McPherson, 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 $50 million
programmatic limit for the Small Flood Control Projects Program and $15
million for the Emergency Streambank Stabilization Program.
Ecosystem Restoration Programs.--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 the $25 million programmatic limits.
Challenge 21 Program.--The Challenge 21 Program has the possibility
of providing great assistance to communities which have experienced
disastrous flood events like those that took place in Kansas with the
flood of 1998. The Challenge 21 Program will focus on opportunities to
move homes and businesses from harm's way through structural and non-
structural measures and through comprehensive watershed planning
efforts. We support funding of this important initiative.
Planning Assistance to States.--We also support the full funding of
the Planning Assistance to States (PAS) Program to the full
programmatic amount of $10 million. The PAS program (Section 22 of the
1974 Water Resources Development Act) 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.
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 that there be no new starts undertaken so
funds will be available to complete projects already underway, may only
delay those much needed projects until there are serious safety
concerns or, worse yet, complete failure of some existing
infrastructure. While this strategy may look good on paper, it may
actually cause more expense in the long run if/when there is a major
failure of significant infrastructure. We encourage the Congress to
appropriate sufficient construction funds to spend down the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund. We further urge the Congress to continue to fund
construction and major rehabilitation at a level to keep the fund spent
down in the future. We would respectfully remind the Congress that cost
sharing was your idea and as the industry has stepped up to meet that
challenge the Congress seems to be backing away from it's
responsibility of matching much needed funds. Moving the completion
dates out is an unacceptable exercise since 50 percent of the funds
comes 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' appropriation to $5 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.
As an example of deferred maintenance in the Tulsa District we
offer the following for your consideration. The 10 most critical,
deferred items in the district are: Waurika Project Office, replace
inflatable fabric dam (chloride control project) $340,000; Robert S.
Kerr Project Office (navigation), repair downstream weir and tainter
gate, Lock and Dam 14, $290,000; Canton Project Office, repair tainter
gates, replace chains w/cables and seals, $3,540,000; Texoma Project
Office, replace service gate roller chains, $540,000; Fall River
Project Office, repair stilling basin, $355.000; Fall River Project
Office, repair Elk City stilling basin, $200,000; Eufaula Project
Office, rehabilitate area office roof, heating, ventilation and air
conditioning, and electric, $415,000; Fall River Project Office, repair
sluice gates and liners, $320,000; Fall River Project Office, repair
sluice gates and liners, $305,000; Fort Gibson Project Office, repair
roller chains emergency closure gate,$200,000. This brings the total
just for these 10 most needed, deferred projects to $6,505,000.
An example of the 10 most critical deferred projects on the
McClellan-Kerr Navigation System in Oklahoma are (all are Robert S.
Kerr Project Office): the second item above, which is number 2 in the
District; repair tainter gates at Chouteau Lock & Dam (number 11 in the
District), $685,000; streambank stabilization at Marine Terminal and
downstream dike repair (number 29 in the District), $470,000; construct
navigation signs (number 30 in the District), $685.000; retrofit ss
switchgear with solid state trip units (number 33 in the District),
$100,000; refurbish governors (number 35 in the District), $800,000;
replace acb's with vacuum units, (number 59 in the District), $475.000;
replace bridge bearing pad Lock and Dam 17 (number 64 in the District),
$270,000; repair support cells, Lock 15 us/rw (number 71 in the
District), $415,000; miscellaneous repairs to miter gates Lock & Dam 15
(number 75 in the District), $200,000. This brings the total for the 10
most critical navigation maintenance projects to $4,390,000.
Within the Tulsa District there are a total of 331 deferred
maintenance projects, for a total deferred cost of $114,191,000. We
would respectfully remind this Committee that this is only one district
of the Corps of Engineers. The total deferred operation and maintenance
for the Corps of Engineers is $450,000,000. This is a ``scrubbed list''
that contains only the most critical deferred projects. Delayed
preventive maintenance is risky business at best. One failure of a
major structure could have catastrophic consequences in loss of
services, infrastructure and possibly life.
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. This Interstate Committee would recommend that funding be
withheld for this program until reforms are enacted and the bill
reauthorized.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to present our view on
these subjects.
______
Prepared Statement of the Board of Levee Commissioners for the Yazoo
Mississippi Delta
This statement, made today on behalf of the citizens represented by
the Yazoo Mississippi Delta Levee Board, is not only in support of the
funding request contained herein, but also for the general funding
testimony for fiscal year 2002 as submitted by the Mississippi Valley
Flood Control Association. The Association is requesting funding in the
amount of $395 million for the Mississippi River and Tributaries
Project (MR&T), a figure based on the Association's professional
assessment of the capabilities of the Corps of Engineers, Mississippi
Valley Division.
In the aftermath of the devastating 1927 Mississippi River Flood,
the Flood Control Act of 1928 established a national priority on the
development of a comprehensive flood control plan to reduce the
likelihood of such a devastating event happening again in the lower
Mississippi valley. As we look back today, some 73 years later, that
plan, the MR&T, has returned $23 in benefits for each dollar expended
and represents a true American public works success story.
Unfortunately, a substantial amount of uncompleted work on the
project remains, necessarily exposing many areas to the risks of flood.
Consequently, the YMD Levee Board urges Congress to provide funding at
a level which will allow the MR&T to continue at a pace commensurate
with the national priority to protect people and property from the
ravages of flooding. To avoid potentially hazardous work stoppages and
delays in award of needed new projects; we again must depend upon the
men and women of Congress to add the necessary funding to the
Administration's budget, which will allow the Corps of Engineers to
proceed with their work, at full capacity.
What follows is a brief overview of the projects within our
district with merit special mention:
mississippi river levees and channels maintenance
Within our Levee District, the U.S. Army Memphis Engineer District
is continuing its studies and design efforts to address the problems of
significant under-seepage and bolls which occur during high river
stages at the Hillhouse area in Coahoma County, Miss. We urgently hope
that a solution for this potentially levee threatening situation can be
devised in the months ahead.
upper yazoo projects (uyp)
This plan, originally released in 1936, includes a system of flood
control reservoirs that would discharge into a system of channels and
levees, which could safely convey headwater from the hills to the Miss.
River. While considerable construction progress has been made on the
UYP, the YMD Levee Board is requesting assistance from Congress to
secure supplemental funding for fiscal year 2002 so that ongoing
construction and contract awards can proceed beyond the city of
Greenwood.
yazoo headwater flood control reservoirs
Four major flood control reservoirs exist in Mississippi to control
the release of headwater into the Yazoo River system--Arkabutla,
Sardis, Enid and Grenada reservoirs. These have prevented significant
flood damages by allowing drainage from the hills to be released into
the Delta at the proper rate. The proper maintenance and operation of
these reservoirs is critical to all persons residing downstream and
hence, the YMD Levee Board is requesting funding which will allow the
Corps to make necessary operational repairs and improvements.
sunflower river channel maintenance project
The Sunflower River System, the primary drainage outlet for 10
counties, is subject to the same siltation factors as all Delta
streams, and has been determined by the Corps to have a 40 percent
reduced flow capacity. Following the completion of studies, the first
item of work on the project has been completed and right-of-way
acquisition is being completed for the disposal sites on the second
item of work. Additional funding is critically needed for the second
construction contract and additional right-of-way acquisition below the
Holly Bluff area and we join our sister Mississippi Levee Board in
urging Congress to provide these badly needed additional funds.
demonstration erosion control project (dec)
While these measures to control erosion and sedimentation in
streams are primarily located outside our district, we support the
continued funding of the DEC due to the substantial amounts of the
sediments controlled by these projects would eventually end up within
the Coldwater-Tallahatchie-Yazoo River System. Such sedimentation would
necessarily result in significant additional maintenance on the system
to prevent loss of system capacity.
yazoo tributaries study
The last phase of the MR&T project in the Yazoo Basin, this study
will identify work necessary for proper drainage and flood control on
the major tributaries in the Yazoo River System. We urge adequate
funding for the timely completion of this study so that construction
improvements might begin as the UYP progresses upstream.
yazoo backwater
The Yazoo Backwater Project, under the jurisdiction of the
Mississippi Levee Board, is designed to reduce the effects of backwater
flooding incidents in the South Delta and is very important to the
people of that region. Consequently, we support the position of our
sister Levee Board in requesting additional funding so that this
project might proceed in a timely manner.
______
Prepared Statement of the Los Osos Community Services District
Honorable Subcommittee Members: The Los Osos Community Services
District (LOCSD) respectfully submits this testimony in support of
Representative Lois Capps' Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
request to appropriate $7.8 million in Federal fiscal year 01-02 to pay
for design of the Los Osos Wastewater Project, Los Osos, California.
WRDA Design funding for the Los Osos Wastewater Project was authorized
in Section 219(a)27 of HR4577 of 2000.
The Los Osos Community Services District serves a population of
14,600 people within a 3,500-acre territory adjacent to the Morro Bay
National Estuary in San Luis Obispo County. The regulatory agency
responsible for protecting ground water quality for Los Osos, the
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), has
determined that discharge from private septic systems is the principle
source of nitrate contamination of the shallow portion of the Los Osos
Groundwater Basin. The RWQCB has issued twenty four separate Cease and
Desist Orders and a Time Schedule Order requiring LOCSD to replace the
septic systems in a 2,500 acre ``Zone of Prohibition'' with a community
sewer. The RWQCB has also ordered a moratorium on new construction and
intensification of existing uses within the Zone of Prohibition.
In addition to the outstanding RWQCB orders, The Morro Bay National
Estuary Program (MBNEP) has determined that construction of a Los Osos
Community Sewer is a high priority for protecting the Morro Bay
National Estuary. In EPA's approved plan for protecting Morro Bay,
``Turning the Tide for Morro Bay'', the MBNEP states that, ``Another
important source of nutrients to Morro Bay is generated from leaking
and failing septic tanks in Los Osos. The Community of Los Osos/Baywood
Park, with a population of 14,600, is located directly on the edge of
Morro Bay and is still served by onsite septic systems. It is possible
that some of the degraded groundwater is entering the bay--A wastewater
system needs to be developed, funds need to be obtained, incentives
need to be developed, and education activities need to be undertaken to
resolve this long term problem.''
The Health Officer for the County of San Luis Obispo has issued
health warnings regarding the high level of bacteria and pathogens in
surface water. According to Dr. Richard Lichtenfels of County Health,
``the Department agrees that the standing pools do represent a health
threat. Until a public sewer and comprehensive surface water drainage
system is built, this office will continue to monitor the standing
pools and appraise the community of the potential for disease
transmission.''
Finally, nitrate contamination of the shallow groundwater basin
from septic discharge has forced the three Los Osos water purveyors to
abandon production from the unconfined layer and to substitute
groundwater from the lower confined aquifer. As a result the community
has started to experience salt-water intrusion in portions of the deep
groundwater layer.
To address these problems, LOCSD has selected a community
wastewater system that the RWQCB has described as viable and
technically sound. Following is a summary of the collection, treatment,
and disposal components of the proposed system:
Collection System.--A gravity collection system would be designed
to transport raw wastewater from approximately 4750 sites to the
treatment facility in 204,000 linear feet of PVC pipe with ten lift
stations in low spots around the perimeter of the collected area.
Treatment Facility.--A treatment facility at the TriW site would be
designed to produce tertiary treated wastewater with a quality suitable
for public contact (Ca. Health Code Title 22) using the extended
aeration process followed by filtration and ultra violet light
disinfection. Since the proposed site is downtown, the proposed
treatment facility would be covered and odor-scrubbed to avoid use
conflicts. As a side benefit, the surface of the covered portion of the
facility would be used for an off-leash dog park, sports fields and
trails.
Disposal System.--The disposal system would be designed to recharge
the groundwater basin with the low nitrate level tertiary treated
wastewater using subsurface leachfields in areas with adequate
separation to groundwater on both sides of the Los Osos fault trace.
This disposed tertiary water is recharged into the groundwater table so
that the District can harvest additional well water down gradient to
augment the community's sustainable water supply.
LOCSD has performed the environmental review required by the State
of California and has certified a Final Environmental Impact Report on
this proposed project. In the environmental review process, LOCSD has
coordinated with both the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USF&WS) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
LOCSD has submitted formal consultation requests with USF&WS and USEPA
for mitigation of Rare and Endangered Species Habitat Mitigation and
for preparation of a watershed wide all species Habitat Conservation
Plan. LOCSD expects the USF&WS to issue a positive biological opinion
on LOCSD's proposed project this fall.
LOCSD has also prepared a preliminary design engineering report to
evaluate alternative solutions and to provide cost estimates for the
proposed solution. LOCSD adopted the Los Osos Wastewater Facilities
Project Report on March 15, 2001. The Project Report estimates that the
proposed project will cost $84.6 Million for the project described
above including all design, construction, land acquisition and habitat
mitigation. Without grant funding, the proposed project would cost the
average single family property owner approximately $107 per month
including approximately $80 per month in debt service charges and $27
per month in operating user fees. This monthly cost is over five times
the cost paid by the average wastewater customer in California
according to the State Water Resources Control Board.
According to the 1990 U.S. Census, over a third of Los Osos
residents are classified as low to very low income. LOCSD is concerned
that construction of the project without significant grant funding
would displace these residents and dramatically change the social
fabric of our community. If Federal funding is available to pay for 75
percent of the project capital cost ($64,000,000), the average monthly
cost per residence drops from $107 per month to approximately $45 per
month per residence. Although the $45 per month is still twice the
average cost paid by residences in other parts of California, it would
likely displace fewer residents and cause less hardship.
LOCSD believes that its proposed project warrants Federal
participation because it addresses a Federal problem in regards to
preservation of the Morro Bay National Estuary. As documented earlier,
the EPA approved recovery plan for Morro Bay identifies LOCSD's project
as a ``priority action'' for preserving the National Estuary. In
addition, the District believes that this project should be viewed as a
Federal demonstration project for how other communities can address
water supply concerns at the same time they respond to Federal water
quality mandates and how communities can locate a treatment facility in
a downtown area by taking advantage of innovative technology such as
odor-scrubbing. Additionally, the downtown location results in energy
savings as compared to pumping the raw waste to and from a site at the
perimeter of town.
LOCSD respectfully requests that the Subcommittee approve the
funding request submitted by Representative Lois Capps for this
project.
______
Prepared Statement of the Santa Cruz Port District
For Corps of Engineers Reconnaissance study of the Arana Gulch
Watershed which adversely affects the Navigation of Santa Cruz
Harbor--$100,000
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 fifteen
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
Niho 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
2002.
For Corps of Engineers Reconnaissance study of memorandum of agreement
on Dredging between Santa Cruz Port District and Corps of
Engineers as authorized by 1998 Water Resources Development
Act, Section 526--$100,000
In 1986, the United States Congress and the Santa Cruz Port
District signed a Memorandum of Agreement (joint-venture L.C.A.) on the
acquisition of a sand bypass system for Santa Cruz Small Craft Harbor.
This $2.7 million agreement, authorized under WRDA 1984, provided that,
once in place, the system would be operated and maintained by the Port
District.
The bypass project has been extraordinarily successful. The harbor,
once the scene of long closures and countless accidents because of
shoals and breaking surf, is now 100 percent open to navigation all
year round. The federal government no longer has to appropriate yearly
O&M funds as it did from 1964 to 1986. The savings over the past ten
years is estimated at $9+ million. The savings over the life of the
project (2014) is estimated to be well in excess of $28 million in 1986
dollars.
The Port District is quite satisfied with the operational project
and will carry out its responsibilities through 2014. However, an
inequity exists in the original cost-share formula, which the Port
District asked Congress to redress. Congress responded by including
Section 526 in the Water Resources Development Act of 1998:
``SECTION 526. SANTA CRUZ HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary may--
(1) modify the cooperative agreement with the Santa Cruz
Port District, California, to reflect unanticipated additional
dredging effort, and
(2) extend the agreement for 10 years.''
The San Francisco District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
advised that in order to study the equities the 1986 Memorandum of
Agreement. A reconnaissance study should be performed.
Accordingly, the Port District requests a $100,000 appropriation
for such study.
The benefit to the federal government in this redress of past
inequities is that the Port District is willing to extend the
successful joint-venture from its current termination date of 2014, to
2024.
______
Prepared Statement of the NAPA County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
background
The Napa River is the main waterway into which all tributaries on
the Napa Valley flow. The river reaches its highest flow and the main
point of concentration of storm water in the heart of the downtown city
of Napa. The original town of Napa was established at the head of the
navigable Napa River channel in 1848 as its only port for
transportation and commerce until the railroad extended from Benicia to
Napa in 1902.
The project is located in the city and county of Napa, California.
The population in the city of Napa, approximately, 67,000 in 1994, is
expected to exceed 77,000 this year. Excluding public facilities, the
present value of damageable property within the project flood plain is
well over $500 million. The Napa River Basin, comprising 426 square
miles, ranging from tidal marshes to mountainous terrain, is subject to
severe winter storms and frequent flooding. In the lower reaches of the
river, flood conditions are aggravated by high tides and local runoff.
Floods in the Napa area have occurred in 1955, 1958, 1963, 1965, 1986
(flood of record), 1995, and 1997. In 1998, the river rose just above
flood stage on three occasions, but subsided before major property
damage occurred.
Over the years, the community has expressed a strong desire for
increased flood management. Since 1962, twenty-seven major floods have
struck the Valley region, exacting a heavy toll in loss of life and
property. The flood on 1986, for example, killed three people and
caused more than $100 million in damage. The town of Napa is
particularly vulnerable to floods: during a typical 100-year flood,
more than 325,000 gallons of water flow through the downtown river area
per second, with the potential of inundating 2 million square feet of
businesses and offices and nearly 3,000 homes.
Flood damage in downtown Napa has recurred in January 1993, January
and March 1995, January 1997, and February 1998, resulting in disaster
declarations and Damage Survey Reports filed with FEMA, reaffirming the
urgent need to implement the cost-effective project. In March 1995 and
January of 1997, additional flood disasters occurred.
Damages throughout Napa County totaled about $85 million from the
January and March 1995 floods. The floods resulted in 27 businesses and
843 residences damaged countrywide. Almost all of the damages from the
1986, 1995, and 1997 floods were within the project area.
Locally developed flood measures currently in place provide minimal
protection and include levees, floodwalls, pump stations, upstream
reservoirs, restrictive flood plain management ordinances, and
designated flood evacuation zones. Vast areas of flood plain are
restricted to agricultural and open space uses, precluding development
that would be damaged by flooding. These local measures still leave
most of the city of Napa vulnerable to frequent damaging floods.
Congress has authorized a flood control project since 1944, but due to
expense, lack of public consensus on the design and concern about
environment impacts, a project had never been realized. The most recent
Corps of Engineers project plan consisted of a deepening and
channelization project. In mid-1995, Federal and state resource
agencies reviewed the plan and gave notice to the Corps that this plan
had significant regulatory hurdles to face.
approved plan--project overview
In an effort to identify a meaningful and successful plan, a new
approach emerged that looked at flood control from a broader, more
comprehensive perspective. Citizens for Napa River Flood Management was
formed, bringing together a diverse group of local engineers,
architects, aquatic ecologists, business and agricultural leasers,
environmentalists, government officials, homeowners and renters and
numerous community organizations.
Through a series of public meetings and intensive debate over every
aspect of Napa's flooding problems, the Citizens for Napa River Flood
Management crafted a flood management plan offering a range of benefits
for the entire Napa region. The Corps of Engineers served as a partner
and a resource for the group, helping to evaluate their approach to
flood management. The final plan produced by the Citizens for Napa
River Flood Management was successfully evaluated through the research,
experience and state-of-the-art simulation tools developed by the Corps
and numerous international experts in the field of hydrology and other
related disciplines. The success of this collaboration serves as a
model for the nation.
Acknowledging the river's natural state, the project utilizes a set
of living river strategies that minimize the disruption and alteration
of the river habitat, and maximizes the opportunities for environmental
restoration and enhancement throughout the watershed. This strategy
replaces the former project and now entails flood plain acquisition and
restoration of a geomorphically stable river channel, replacement of
bridges and environmentally sensitive stream bank treatment in the
urban reaches of the city of Napa.
The Corps has developed the revised plan, which provides 100-year
protection, with the assistance of the community and its consultants
into the Supplemental General Design Memorandum (SGDM) and its
accompanying draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report (SEIS/EIR). These reports were released for public comment in
December of 1997 and underwent final review by Corps Headquarters.
Construction of the project began last summer. The coalition plan now
memorialized in the Corps final documents includes the following
engineered components: lowering of old dikes, marsh plain and flood
plain terraces, oxbow dry bypass, Napa Creek flood plain terrace,
upstream and downstream dry culverts along Napa Creek, new dikes,
levees and flood walls, bank stabilization, pump stations and detention
facilities, and bridge replacements. The benefits of the plan include
reducing or elimination of loss of life, property damage, cleanup
costs, community disruption due to unemployment and lost business
revenue, and the need for flood insurance. The plan will protect access
to businesses, public services, and create opportunities for recreation
and downtown development, boosting year-round tourism. In fact, the
project has created an economic renaissance in Napa with new
investment, schools and housing coming into a livable community on a
living river. As a key feature, the plan will improve water quality,
create urban wetlands and enhance wildlife habitats.
The plan will protect over 7,000 people and over 3,000 residential/
commercial units from the 100-year flood event on the Napa River and
its main tributary, the Napa Creek, and the project has a positive
benefit-to-cost ratio under the Corps calculation. One billion in
damages will be saved over the useful life of the project. The Napa
County Flood Control District is meeting its local cost-sharing
responsibilities for the project. A countywide sales tax, along with a
number of other funding options, was approved three years ago by a two-
thirds majority of the county's voters for the local share. Napa is
California's highest repetitive loss community. This plan is
demonstrative of the disaster resistant community initiative, as well,
as the sustainable development initiatives of FEMA and EPA.
project synopsis
Fiscal year 2001 Funding.--The 2001 appropriations bill included
$4,000,000 to continue construction of the project. These funds were
utilized to create 450 acres of marsh and flood plain terraces in the
most southern reach of the project.
Necessary fiscal year 2002 Funding.--Funding for the Napa River
Project during 2002 in the amount of $12,000,000 is needed to continue
construction of the project. The funding is sought for demolition of
buildings and fixtures on 24 parcels that have been acquired by the
non-Federal sponsor, relocation of the Napa Valley Wine Train rail line
for an approximate 3 mile distance, as well as relocation of the
attenuate buildings serving this public utility, construction of marsh
and flood plain terraces for an approximate 3 mile distance. Included
in this amount is the reimbursement to the non-Federal sponsor for
expenditures in excess of 45 percent of the total project costs to
date. By the end of June, 2001 the non-Federal sponsor will have
expended $42,000,000.00.
napa valley watershed management
background
Napa Valley watershed faces many challenges and stresses to its
environmental health and flood management abilities. From a healthy
river point of view, the Napa River has been on a recovery path since
its low point in the 1960's, when the last of the native salmon were
taken from the system by severe water pollution and habitat
destruction. Steelhead trout have survived as a remnant population of
two hundred that is presently in need of higher quality and more
extensive spawning areas for recovery to a significant population.
Beginning populations of fall run Chinook salmon have taken up
residence in the watershed in those few areas available for spawning.
While the chemical and wastewater pollution of earlier years has been
effectively dealt with, excess sediment is still a critical stress on
the salmon population, as it is to the spawning and rearing areas of
the river in the estuarine zone upstream of San Pablo Bay, populated by
delta smelt, splittail, green sturgeon and striped bass.
The U.S. EPA and Region II Water Quality Control Board have
prioritized the River as an impaired water body because of the sediment
production. The excess sediment generated in the watershed suffocates
spawning areas, reduces the stream's flood-carrying ability, fills deep
pools, increases turbidity in the stream and estuary, carries with it
nutrients that bring significant algae blooms during the summer and
fall, and changes the morphological balance of the streams and river
toward more unstable conditions.
Over time, both private and public diversions and levees have been
constructed in a chaotic way. The accumulated encroachment has
constrained the river and its riparian corridor to approximately one
third of its optimum morphological width for much of its length. The
Napa Valley has also been extensively drained in the last century,
eliminating nearly all of the sloughs and extensive wetlands that once
covered the valley floor. Combined with increasing agricultural and
urban development, the narrowed channel and loss of wetlands has
greatly changed the river and its major tributaries, limiting its flood
management capabilities. The river now regularly scours extensively on
both bed and banks generating large amounts of sediment that settle in
the lower river and estuary, only to be stirred and moved by the tides
during the dry season. Loss of tidal wetlands in the lower river due to
70 years of dike construction has resulted in a much smaller area to
disperse sediment, exacerbating losses in all types of riverine and
estuarine-related complex habitats in the system.
In an effort to address these conditions and to develop local tools
for improving natural resource management, the Corps and the Napa
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is currently
developing a Napa Valley Watershed Management Plan (WMP) which would
identify problems and opportunities for implementing environmentally
and economically beneficial restoration in the Napa Valley watershed
providing ecosystem benefits, such as flood reduction, erosion control,
sedimentation management, and pollution abatement. The plan, which is
the feasibility study the District is requesting funds for, would
include the identification, review, refinement, and prioritization of
restoration and flood protection opportunities with an emphasis on
restoration of the watershed's ecosystem (e.g.: important plant
communities, healthy fish and wildlife populations, rare and endangered
habitats and species and wildlife and riparian habitats). The
development of the plan would be an iterative process, providing
technical planning, and design assistance to local entities to foster
restoration of watershed ecosystem.
The purpose would be to complete the WMP by providing technical,
planning, and design assistance to the non-Federal interests for
carrying out watershed management, restoration and development on the
Napa River and its tributaries from Soscol Ridge, located approximately
5 miles south of the city of Napa, to Mt. St. Helena, the northern most
reach of the Napa River watershed, California. The watershed plan would
look at the upper Napa Valley watershed including Napa, Yountville, St.
Helena, Calistoga, and the unincorporated areas of Napa County north of
Soscol Ridge. A management program incorporating flood protection and
environmental restoration would be developed as a result of the
watershed plan.
To address the above mentioned and other local, regional, and
national watershed concerns, the Napa County Board of Supervisors
appointed a Napa County Watershed Task Force (WTF) to identify
community based and supported solutions. The WTF submitted their
recommendation for further action to the Napa County Board of
Supervisors. Preliminary watershed analysis is being completed with an
understanding that additional scientific and technical decisions and
solutions would be incorporated into the Napa Valley watershed plan.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District (Corps)
and the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
(NCFCD) developed the Napa Valley Watershed Project Management Plan
with input from the Napa County Planning Department (NCPD), Napa County
Up-Valley Cities, Napa County Watershed Task Force (WTF), Napa County
Resource Conservation District (RCD), Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB), the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI), and other
regional and local stakeholders. Coordination of a local and regional
restoration programs would be critical in the planning process to
provide a watershed management plan that identifies the best management
practices for the watershed and supports potential spin off projects to
be implemented independently of the WMP. The regional monitoring and
assessment strategy being developed by regional interests would be a
component in the development of the feasibility report. The monitoring
and assessment strategy incorporates different indicators,
classifications, and potential pilot projects to provide benchmarks for
future restoration activities.
In an effort to identify problems and opportunities for
implementing beneficial restoration in the Napa Valley Watershed, the
Napa County Flood Control District is seeking that the Napa Valley
Watershed Management Study be continued by the Corps of Engineers. The
authority for this study is the Northern California Streams Study
Authority stemming from the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962, Public Law
87-874. Specifically, the Napa County Flood Control District is working
closely with the Corps in the feasibility report in examining the
watershed management needs, including flood control, environmental
restoration, erosion control, storm water retention, storm water runoff
management, water conservation and supply, wetlands restoration,
sediment management and pollution abatement in the Napa Valley,
including the communities of Napa, Yountville, St. Helena, Calistoga
and the incorporated areas of Napa County.
project synopsis
Fiscal year 2001 Budget Funding.--The fiscal year 2001
appropriations bill included $50,000 to continue the Napa Valley
Watershed Management Study.
Necessary fiscal year 2002 Funding.--Funding for the Napa Valley
Watershed Management Study during fiscal year 2002 in the amount of
$600,000 is needed to have the Corps of Engineers continue the
feasibility study to examine watershed management needs.
milliken-sarco-tulocay creeks groundwater basin study
background
The groundwater basin underlying the unincorporated area east of
the City of Napa is in overdraft. This area is referred to as the
Milliken-Sarco-Tulocay groundwater basin, or MST. The Board of
Supervisors enacted a Groundwater Conservation Ordinance in an effort
to limit all new and permitted users in the MST area to a very
restrictive amount of groundwater until such time as a recharge project
can be implemented to reverse the declining water table. The Napa
County Flood Control District also took action by contracting with the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) to perform an update to their
1977 study of the MST groundwater basin. This study will determine the
extent of the problem, the recharge characteristics, the inter-basin
communication capabilities, the solutions that are likely to succeed
and the groundwater budget for the area. The three year USGS study has
been underway for a year and early results confirm that the groundwater
basin is in decline and is in need of serious recharge efforts.
There is a sense of urgency in establishing a recharge program to
address this decline in water inventory available to the residents and
businesses within the basin. A number of potential solutions have been
identified and must be further assessed to ascertain their viability in
solving the groundwater problems existent in the basin.
Possible solutions include the following:
--Recharge enhancement at the infiltration galleries: The 1977 USGS
study revealed that 95 percent of the recharge of the
groundwater basin occurred at 23 isolated locations along the
creeks and tributaries, generally where the arable soils meet
the foothills. Enhancing recharge in these areas may have a
dramatic impact on the overall water balance equation for the
basin. The USGS work will give a general analysis of this
possible solution, but a reconnaissance level evaluation must
be done to evaluate cost effectiveness.
--Importing recycled water: Recycled water will soon be available at
the south end of this basin. Great opportunities exist for
recycled water usage within the south and middle sections of
the basin, especially at an existing golf course located in the
middle section. Benefit would be gained by substituting
recycled water for pumped groundwater, thereby leaving
groundwater for others in the area. Substituted water could be
used by this golf course and nearby agriculture.
--Importing surplus groundwater from another basin: A unique
opportunity exists to import surplus groundwater from a
construction project into the north basin. The project at hand
is a depressed underpass, that gets into the local groundwater
table (not the MST basin), results in year round pumping, and
creates a year round surplus that would be available for
substitution for groundwater within the MST basin (which is
located about 3 miles east of the project site.) The most
likely user is a golf course located in the north basin.
--Other possible solutions include: Construction of very small local
reservoirs to enhance recharge; Construction of small
reservoirs to provide water for agriculture; and, Importing
treated water, which, in addition to political problems, would
involve finding other imported water to make the treating and
delivering agency whole.
Additionally, there are likely many more possibilities, all of
which need to be identified, developed, and evaluated. All of these
possibilities need to be studied at the reconnaissance level to
determine their feasibility.
At the heart of this reconnaissance level evaluation must be the
environmental analysis. As an example, the property owners constructing
reservoirs have impacted the ecology of the area, which results in
lessening the sustaining flows to the Napa River. Another example is
the continuous decline in the groundwater table, which results not only
in the one time expenditure of effort, materials and energy to drill
deeper wells, but more tragically, in the ongoing expenditure of energy
associated with pumping from deeper depths.
Following directly on the environmental benefits within the
groundwater basin itself are the other benefits flowing from bringing
the basin into balance. USGS staff believes that the basin, if in
balance and in its naturally recovered condition, will actually return
to its original state of flowing to the Napa River. This would provide
tremendous benefit, not only to Milliken, Sarco, and Tulocay Creeks, in
the local setting, but also to the Napa River, both by stream flow and
by underground flow. Additional water into the Napa River system during
protracted portions of the year would greatly restore and enhance the
local watershed ecosystem.
Action is needed. The sooner steps are taken to identify and
address the problem, the smaller the cost of implementing solution
measures.
Request
In an effort to identify problems and opportunities for
implementing solutions in the MST groundwater basin, Napa County Flood
Control District is seeking to have the Corps initiate a reconnaissance
study to evaluate all prospective water sources that could alleviate
the widespread water quantity problems and identify and implement
engineering measures to restore ecological recovery of the MST
groundwater basin and associated groundwater infiltration and recharge
in the Napa River watershed. Such measures could include conjunctive
use; recharge enhancement and importing recycled and potable water.
Necessary fiscal year 2002 Funding.--Funding for the Napa
Groundwater Recharge Study during fiscal year 2002 in the amount of
$100,000 is needed to have the Corps initiate the reconnaissance study
to examine groundwater needs in the basin.
______
Prepared Statement of the Clark County Regional Flood Control District
Presented herewith is testimony in support of $20,000,000 for the
construction appropriation necessary for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to continue the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes flood control
project. Also, testimony in support of $5,000,000 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 20 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
exceeds 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 a non-Federal element of the entire plan, it is
being funded locally because 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. The President 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 $121,645,000,
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 shown on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood
Insurance Rate Maps.
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.
The non-Federal sponsors request $20,000,000 for the continued
construction of this project. Funding at this level will allow the
Corps of Engineers to:
Complete construction of the following:
--Lower Flamingo Diversion Channel
--R-4 Debris Basin and Channel
--Red Rock Outlet and Scour Protection
Start construction of the following:
--Upper Flamingo Diversion Channel
--F-1 Debris Basin and Channel
--F-2 Debris Basin and Channel
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 $24,604,855 and includes features that were designed by
the non-Federal sponsors and constructed by either the Federal
government or the non-Federal sponsors. These features are 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 & Red Rock Channels-- Design, Construction 23,552,950
Las Vegas Beltway (Segment 7B, 8 & Construction
& 9). Management.
Red Rock Channel--Las Vegas Design (Project 359,157
Beltway (Segment 10A). element constructed
by Corps).
Total Sponsors' Costs....... .................... 24,604,855
Estimated Federal Share..... .................... 18,453,641
Fiscal year 2001 .................... 1,600,000
Appropriations.
Remaining Federal Share..... .................... 16,853,641
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The non-federal sponsors are grateful for the $1,600,000 in the
fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill. For
fiscal year 2002, we are asking the committee to appropriate funding of
$5,000,000 of the remaining $16,853,641 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.
This amount is requested in light of the language in contained in the
fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Development Bill, Senate Report 106-
58, which states in part, ``The Committee expects--every effort to even
out reimbursement payments to lessen future budgetary impacts.'' The
non-federal sponsors contributions to the project are for the primary
purpose of providing flood protection as quickly as possible.
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 $20,000,000, in
fiscal year 2002, 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 $5,000,000 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.
______
Prepared Statement of San Bernardino County Administrative Office
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,
8 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.--Construction completed.
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. CEQA was
approved on December 19, 2000 and NEPA is scheduled for approval in
March 2001.
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
Requested Action.--Support of the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project.
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 2000/2001 fiscal
year with completion of construction anticipated in May 2003.
Completed Reaches
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 (Phase 1):
--900 feet of channel.
--Plans and Specifications--December 2000--February 2001
--Construction Start--April 2001
--Construction Completion--December 2001
Reach 3B (Phase 2):
--0.2 mile of channel and 18 sedimentation basins along 2.2 miles of
channel.
--Right-of-Way Acquisition--December 2000--July 2001
--Plans and Specifications--January 2001--July 2001
--Construction Start--September 2001
--Construction Completion--May 2003
Estimated Project Cost
The total estimated project cost is approximately $71,000,000 with
the Federal participating cost at 75 percent or $53,250,000 and the
local participating cost at 25 percent or $17,750,000. The cost of the
remainder of the project (Reach 3B) is estimated to be $41,000,000,
with the Federal share at $30,750,000 and the local share at
$10,250,000.
Requested Action.--Approval of continued funding for the San
Timoteo Creek Project.
san sevaine creek water project
Project Description
The San Sevaine Creek Water Project will provide environmental
enhancements, water conservation and flood control facilities in the
western portion of the San Bernardino Valley. A 137-acre area is being
set aside to protect a sensitive plant community, wetlands and wildlife
enhancement. In addition, several water conservation basins will
percolate an estimated 25,000 acre-feet of storm water runoff per year
into the Chino Groundwater Basin benefiting agricultural, municipal and
industrial water users in the Valley. The increased water conservation
will occur as the result of an additional 5,400 acre-feet of water
storage which will reduce the need to purchase imported water.
Project Status
The loan application was signed by the Bureau of Reclamation on
April 11, 1996 and approved by the Secretary of Interior on May 9,
1996, starting the 60-day congressional approval process. As of July
25, 1996 the San Sevaine project completed the 60-day calendar for
review by congress as required under the Small Reclamation Loan Act. On
December 17, 1996, the project Repayment Agreement was approved by the
Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino and approved on
January 8, 1997, by the Bureau of Reclamation. Initial Federal funding
began in the 1997/1998 fiscal year and has continued on until the
present fiscal year. The Bureau is attempting to complete the funding
of this project by year 2002.
Although considerable levee, channel and interim basin work has
already been completed at various locations on this major water
project, continued Federal assistance in the form of a Small Project
Loan is urgently needed to allow for the construction of major
improvements that will provide a fully integrated and functional
project. Without these funds, it will be decades before local interests
can accrue sufficient funds to construct this vital project.
The California Water Commission has consistently since the late
1980's supported the construction of this project.
Federal Authority.--Public Law 84-984, as amended 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.--$33.7 million
1997/98 fiscal year Federal budget.--$1.333 million (received
$10.525 million)
1998/99 fiscal year Federal budget.--$1.177 million (received
$1.637 million)
1999/00 fiscal year Federal budget.--$10.18 million ($3.94 million
received to date, another $4.5 million has been requested)
2000/2001 fiscal year President's Budget.--$11.21 million
(approved)
2001/2002 fiscal year Proposed.--$11.223 million
The District and County have coordinated with the Bureau of
Reclamation and the National Water Resources Agency (NWRA) 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 for this project.
Requested Action.--Support proposed fiscal year 2001/2002 budget in
the amount of $11.223 million.
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 $250,000 for Mojave River Forks Dam
Study.
san bernardino county feasibility study
Wilson Creek originates in the San Bernardino Mountains and flows
in a 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 this Creek is threatening to damage residential
and commercial development and infrastructure facilities.
The San Bernardino County Flood Control District supports this
feasibility study to evaluate the system and determine appropriate
methods of protection through new facilities and management of the
existing floodplain.
Requested Action.--Approval of $500,000 for San Bernardino County
Study.
upper santa ana river watershed feasibility 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 this
feasibility study. Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority is the local
sponsor of the study.
Requested Action.--Support of Upper Santa Ana River Watershed
Study.
______
Prepared Statement of American Rivers
American Rivers and more than 530 local, regional, and national
conservation and community groups \1\ from throughout the country urge
you to appropriate full funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
Challenge 21, Section 1135, and Section 206 programs in fiscal year
2002. Specifically, we urge you to appropriate $30 million for the
Challenge 21 program, $25 million for the Section 1135 program, and $25
million for the Section 206 program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Each of these organizations has signed on to the River Budget:
National Priorities for Local River Conservation in fiscal year 2002.
The River Budget is a consensus report that summarizes where the people
who work to save the nation's rivers believe we can make the best
investments of tax dollars to benefit our communities, wildlife, and
water quality. A complete list of these organizations is included at
the end of this testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although many Army Corps projects have produced benefits, including
flood protection and cost-effective transportation, Army Corps projects
also have altered natural hydrologic regimes, disturbed riverine
ecosystems, destroyed wetlands, and encouraged development in high
hazard floodplains. These activities have had a severe and adverse
consequence on the nation's environmental and economic health.
The loss of important riverine, wetland, and floodplain habitat as
a result of Army Corps projects and other activities, have harmed
wildlife, water quality, and recreational opportunities. Army Corps
projects and project operations are among the leading reasons North
America's freshwater species are disappearing as quickly as tropical
rainforest species and five times faster than land-based species. As
importantly, by reducing the natural flood attenuation capacity of the
nation's rivers and wetlands these losses also have severely aggravated
flooding and flood damages.
During the past 25 years, the Federal government has spent more
than $140 billion for traditional flood control works and flood damage
recovery. Despite these expenditures, however, billions of public and
private dollars are spent each year on costly repairs and
reconstruction of floodplain property and associated infrastructure
damaged by floods. Average annual flood losses continue to rise and now
exceed $4 billion. Nearly 10 million homes are located in flood prone
areas, placing $390 billion in property at risk.
The Challenge 21, Section 1135, and Section 206 programs are
designed to help restore our nation's damaged rivers and floodplains,
and to implement environmentally and fiscally sound flood control
projects. These programs have proven successful and popular.
Appropriations must be increased to meet the high demand for these
initiatives.
The Challenge 21 Program.--(Or the Flood Mitigation and Riverine
Restoration Program, Sec 212 WRDA 1999): Increasingly, flooded
communities are implementing non-structural solutions to reduce
flooding. These solutions include moving frequently flooded homes and
business out of the floodplain, and working to return the floodplains
of rivers and creeks to a condition where they can naturally moderate
floods. In addition to reducing flood losses, non-structural projects
help meet many other goals of riverside communities, including
improving water quality, increasing opportunities for recreation, and
improving and restoring wildlife habitat. Unfortunately, however, most
Federal spending does little to support non-structural solutions to
flood damage reduction.
Challenge 21, a non-structural flood damage reduction program
authorized in 1999, is explicitly designed to help support such
community-driven efforts. Challenge 21 allows the Army Corps to
relocate vulnerable homes and businesses in smaller communities,
restore floodplain wetlands, increase opportunities for riverside
recreation, and improve quality of life in riverside communities.
Challenge 21 also authorizes the Army Corps to work with other Federal
agencies to more efficiently and effectively help local governments
both reduce flood damages and conserve, restore, and manage riverine
and floodplain resources. Individual Challenge 21 projects cannot
exceed $25 million, and local communities must provide 35 percent of
the cost.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1999 requires the Army Corps
to study appropriate locations for Challenge 21 projects in 23 separate
locations. Five additional Challenge 21 projects were authorized in the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
Challenge 21 currently is authorized for only five years. In April
2003, the Army Corps must report to Congress the results of an
independent review to evaluate the efficacy of the program in achieving
the dual goals of flood hazard mitigation and riverine restoration, and
make recommendations concerning continuation of the Challenge 21
program. But before the Army Corps can make a meaningful assessment, it
must have the funding to implement the program.
Unfortunately, though $20 million was authorized to be appropriated
for fiscal year 2001, the program has received no funding. Failure to
appropriate adequate funds to implement the environmentally
appropriate, common sense, and community supported flood control
projects authorized by this program will doom both specific projects,
and the entire program to failure. This is a failure that our nation
can ill afford.
The Section 1135 And 206 Programs.--The Section 1135 Program
(Project Modification for Improvement of the Environment), allows the
Army Corps to modify the structures and operations of existing Army
Corps projects to improve the quality of the environment where those
projects have contributed to the degradation of the environment. The
program also authorizes the restoration of areas harmed by Army Corps
projects. Non-Federal interests must provide 35 percent of the cost,
and modifications may not interfere with a project's original purpose.
The environmental impacts of existing Army Corps projects, many
constructed before Federal laws requiring mitigation, are enormous. The
impacts to the Everglades are perhaps the most highly publicized
example. However, many other Army Corps projects also have caused
significant environmental harm. For example, the Army Corps' operation
and maintenance of the navigation channel in the Missouri River has
caused the loss of more than 90 percent of the river's critical side
channels, sandbars and wetlands, and is jeopardizing the continued
existence of three Federally listed endangered species. The Army Corps'
operations and maintenance of the navigation channel in the Upper
Mississippi and Illinois Rivers has contributed to the severe
degradation of those rivers, and is jeopardizing the continued
existence of two Federally listed endangered species. The Army Corps'
operation and maintenance of the navigation channel in the Apalachicola
River in Florida has resulted in the smothering of over one-quarter of
the Apalachicola River's banks with spoil dredged from the River. The
Army Corps' construction and maintenance of the Mississippi River Gulf
Outlet in Louisiana has caused the destruction of thousands of acres of
valuable Louisiana marsh, and those losses continue at an alarming
rate.
Despite the significant adverse impacts of Army Corps projects
throughout the nation, the Section 1135 program has never been fully
funded. As a consequence, even though this program has been authorized
since 1986, only 45 Section 1135 projects had been completed or were
under construction as of 1999. It is clear that the interest in this
program is far more intense than these project numbers indicate. In
fiscal year 2001, 355 Section 1135 projects had to compete for funding
totaling only $21 million.
The Section 206 Program (Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration), allows the
Army Corps to undertake small-scale projects to restore the aquatic
environment, regardless of the existence or impact of Army Corps'
projects in the area. Projects carried out under this program must
improve the quality of the environment, be in the public interest, and
be cost-effective. Individual projects under this program may not
exceed $5 million, and non-Federal interests must provide 35 percent of
the cost.
The Army Corps reports that between 1996 (when Section 206 was
enacted into law) and 1999, six projects had reached the planning and/
or design phase under this program. The interest in this program far
exceeds the level of funds being appropriated, however, and many
communities are unable to participate in this program due to inadequate
funding. In fiscal year 2001, 185 projects under the Section 206
program had to compete for funding totaling only $19 million.
Many communities are working with Army Corps districts to restore
lost wetlands, side channels, and other riverine habitat. Many of these
restoration projects are designed to offset the habitat losses and
other environmental impacts of Army Corps levee, dam, and dredging
projects that were constructed before Federal laws required mitigation.
Unfortunately, however, far more community-driven projects are being
rejected due to inadequate funding. Without adequate funding,
increasing numbers of critical projects will either be rejected
outright or will languish for years before being completed. Both the
Section 1135 and 206 programs should be fully funded so that
communities can work with the Army Corps to reverse damage done, and to
ameliorate the environmental and economic impacts caused by altering
our nation's rivers, floodplains, and wetlands.
Again, we strongly urge you to appropriate full funding for the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Challenge 21, Section 206, and Section
1135 programs in fiscal year 2002.
______
Prepared Statement of the Water Replenishment District of Southern
California
introduction
Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, the Water Replenishment
District of Southern California respectfully submits the following
testimony requesting federal assistance for the Alamitos Barrier
Recycled Water Project.
district background
The Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD),
governed by an elected five member Board of Directors, was formed in
1959 to manage the Central and West Coast Groundwater Basins located in
southern Los Angeles County. The District's service area encompasses
420 square miles with nearly 4 million people in 43 cities. WRD's
primary objectives are to replenish the groundwater basin, halt
seawater intrusion and ensure quality groundwater for area residents.
Groundwater is an important source of water in southern Los Angeles
County, comprising approximately 40 percent of total water needs in our
District and in some of our cities, 100 percent. Groundwater reserves
also provide an emergency supply of water if imported supplies are lost
during earthquakes, drought or other natural disasters. It is essential
that this valuable resource be protected.
replenishing groundwater basins with imported and recycled water
The WRD now purchases approximately 75,000 acre-feet annually of
imported water from the Colorado River and Northern California to
artificially replenish the groundwater basins. Replenishment from
percolation of storm water simply is not enough. The District also
purchases about 60,000 acre feet per year of recycled water to
replenish the groundwater basins.
As a result of years of overpurnping prior to the formation of the
District, seawater was drawn into the basins, contaminating and forcing
the shutdown of numerous wells. Wells were constructed along the coast
to halt the intrusion of seawater, which also replenished the basin.
Approximately 30,000 acre-feet per year of the District's expensive
imported water purchases are used for injection into these wells.
Southern California's gradual loss of entitlements to both Colorado
River and Northern California water and its drought history has
convinced us that a more reliable supply of water for these seawater
barrier wells must be developed to protect our critical groundwater
resource.
The District's goal is to minimize the use of imported water and
replace whenever possible with recycled water and local storm water
runoff. The District has an aggressive program to increase the use of
recycled water and storm water.
alamitos barrier recycled water project
Working together with the Orange County Water District and the City
of Long Beach, the District is proceeding with plans to build a 3000
acre-feet per year reclamation plant to replace, initially, 50 percent
of the imported water now being injected into the Alamitos Seawater
Barrier, one of three widespread barrier systems for which the District
provides water. The second stage will expand the treatment plant to
provide 100 percent (6000 to 8000 acre-feet per year) substitution of
imported water. Orange County Water District is involved because this
particular barrier system extends into Orange County. The City of Long
Beach has title to the recycled water that is to be fed to the new
plant. The proposed plant is consistent with the Metropolitan Water
District's Integrated Resources Plan, which anticipates 800,000 acre-
feet per year of additional water reclamation by the year 2020.
Construction of the first phase to deliver 3000 acre-feet per year
is in progress and is scheduled for completion June 2002. The second
phase bringing the project up to at least 6000 acre-feet would commence
in the future upon approval by regulatory authorities.
Feedwater for the project will be recycled water that would
otherwise be discharged into the San Gabriel River. Advanced treatment
equipment, including microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and ultra violet
light will be put in 2 place to purify the water and meet the stringent
requirements of the State Department of Health Services and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Amortizing the construction cost, adding operation and maintenance
costs and backing out anticipated reimbursements from the Metropolitan
Water District's Local Resources Program, the cost of water produced
from the plant will initially be about $600 per acre-foot, which is
more that the current cost for imported water, although well within the
range of costs typically experienced.
We, therefore, are requesting federal funds to ease the burden on
our local ratepayers. The California Water Commission has recommended
this project for your consideration during your funding deliberations.
The total cost of the project is estimated at $16 million with the
federal portion totaling $4 million. $3.4 million has already been
appropriated for Long Beach area projects, of which $1.7 million has
been allocated to this project. We currently are seeking a total of
$2.3 million for fiscal year 2002 for this protect. To date, we have
been reimbursed $0.9 million.
Federal assistance with this project will enhance project economics
and ensure the viability of our precious groundwater basins into the
next century. We appreciate your consideration in the appropriation
process.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of South Carolina
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee; on behalf
of the citizens of the Palmetto State, thank you for this opportunity
to submit for the record comments regarding the fiscal year 2002 Water
and Energy Appropriations Bill.
I can not emphasize too strongly the social and economic benefits
of the capital investments of the federal government in a wide variety
of projects throughout South Carolina. Whether making our ports more
accessible for global trade or enhancing the interior waterways and
beaches of South Carolina, your interest and commitment to my state has
had a long lasting and positive impact. It is my hope that proven
cooperation and collaboration between state and federal agencies
regarding ongoing and future projects will continue to enhance the
quality of life for all South Carolinians. Thank you for your
committee's interest and investments in the Palmetto State.
My comments reflect input from my staff and also from principal
state agencies that work most closely with the USACE Charleston and
Savannah District Offices. These agencies include the State Ports
Authority, the S. C. Department of Natural Resources, the S. C.
Department of Health and Environmental Control, S. C. Energy Office and
the S. C. Department of Commerce. Attached to my testimony, as
``Supporting Documents'' are all letters received from state agency
directors as well as individual descriptions of the on-going and
planned, USACE projects throughout South Carolina. All of the projects
listed and described in the ``Supporting Documents'' are critical for
South Carolina. All of the projects recommended for full financing in
the President's budget have my full support. I also request, however,
that your committee finance as many additional projects not recommended
in the President's budget as possible. My comments below are not
intended to emphasize one project more than another but to highlight
comments made by state agency directors regarding the importance of
several of these projects to the state. Please review the letters from
S. C. agency directors for their input on projects of importance to
them.
South Carolina has made great strides in expanding economic
opportunities for its citizens both in terms of expansion of the
capital base and creation of jobs. We are, however, a small state and
our relative prosperity is reliant to a significant degree upon
financing such as that available through your Appropriations Committee.
I want to emphasize to you and your colleagues the importance I place
on the value of the partnership between the state and federal
governments in making life more fulfilling for all of my fellow
citizens.
Again, thank you for this opportunity for input into the
challenging decision making process you face in apportioning limited
funds among many needs across the United Stated. I do want to re-
emphasize that all of the projects listed in the ``Supporting
Documents'' are of importance to South Carolina.
general investigations
A total of $1.185 million is needed for fiscal year 2002 to keep
the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Feasibility Analysis proceeding in a
phased approach. This study will investigate existing and future
commercial shallow draft navigation needs and will review ways to
improve safety and navigation efficiency and reduce operations and
maintenance costs. Additional financing of $530,000 is needed for this
critical analysis. I request that your committee add this amount so the
study can proceed.
The Port of Charleston is rapidly expanding and continues to
fulfill its role as a major port for the eastern United States. The S.
C. Ports Authority is believes that to keep the port fully competitive
in global movement of goods it may be necessary to deepen the ship
channel more than its current 45 feet. The Authority requests $100,000
for the Charleston Harbor (Deepening Analysis) to be undertaken. I
concur that it is necessary before any further investment is made to
deepen the channel and enlarge the Wando River Turning Basin.
In the Upstate of South Carolina, the Reconnaissance Study for the
Reedy River for aquatic ecosystem restoration, flood damage reduction,
and streambank restoration needs pursuing. The S. C. Department of
Natural Resources has conducted a watershed management report and all
information generated by that effort can be used in the production of
this report necessary for the environmental rebuilding of this
watercourse. $100,000 is needed for this general investigation.
construction
The President's recommended full financing of the Charleston Harbor
(Deepening & Widening) at a level of $6,365,000 is truly welcome so
that this national asset can continue to function competitively for
world markets. Continuing capital allocation for this project has
sizable benefits not only for South Carolina but also for the nation.
Construction of the Lake Marion Regional Water Project is vital for
the economic rebirth of one of the poorest areas of the state. Most
Corps of Engineer's financing is directed toward the coastal counties
of South Carolina. However, there are needs of an economic and
infrastructure nature inland. This project conforms to economic
development planning by two councils of government within the state.
Moreover, it will also rely on surface water and not ground water
sources. This project should be financed at the full level of $11.648
million.
The J. Strom Thurmond Dam & Lake Construction shows potential for
increased efficiency and a reduction in operation and maintenance
costs. The President has recommended $6.5 million in his budget but a
further $3.0 million is needed to complete the generator rewind of
units 3 and 4. Moreover, the project will increase dissolved oxygen in
tail water and improve water quality in the Savannah River downstream
to Augusta, Georgia and beyond. The need for heightened hydroelectric
output at this station as well as the project at the Hartwell Dam and
Lake are critical in this time of high electricity demand. The required
$3.0 million should be added to this project.
operation & maintenance (o&m)
The Operations and Maintenance Program as it relates to Harbor
Maintenance at Charleston, Georgetown, and Port Royal is critical for
the continued full functioning of these facilities. A further $2.26
million is needed for dredging of the Lower Winyah Bay and continued
effort toward a dredged materials management plan is needed at
Georgetown. At Port Royal a further $2.21 million is required for
dredging of the entrance channel. These additional funds are necessary
for optimal operations of the important S. C. ports.
Dredging of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from Charleston to
Port Royal, Dike Maintenance, and Bank Stabilization will require a
further $2.823 million for this important project to be completed.
Funding in the President's budget is for only partial completion of
identified work elements. This project should be fully funded for the
AIWW to operate at peak design capacity.
Operation and Maintenance of Facilities at Dams along the Savannah
River North of Augusta, Georgia. At the Hartwell Dam and Lake, an
additional $5.3 million is needed to repair the powerhouse and
switchyard equipment. At the Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, a further
$215,000 is needed to install waterview performance monitoring. At the
J. Strom Thurmond Dam and Lake a further $2.182 million is needed for
additional maintenance of recreation areas and to replace asbestos
cable trays in the powerhouse. Full federal financing relating to all
three facilities would ensure their continuing vital participation in
the economic life of the two affected states, guarantee that water
quality is at highest levels, and offer improved recreational
opportunities for the citizens of S. C. and Georgia.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, we in South Carolina are mindful of the
impact that the economic downturn is having on the ability of the
federal government to continue sizable budget surpluses. Moreover, we
are aware that resources are not unlimited and priorities must be
established. However, South Carolina contributes uniquely to the
national welfare. Healthy military installations, coastal geography,
interstate trade routes and key ports are all contributors to a growing
economy and individual prosperity within South Carolina and the
Southeast. However, not all areas share equally and that is why
projects like the Lake Marion Water Distribution Project are so
critical. In order to keep South Carolina moving forward, I beseech you
to look favorably on projects relating to my state and to our sister
state of Georgia. We have made giant strides forward in South Carolina
in part because of your investment of federal dollars in a wide variety
of projects. I look forward to continuing cooperation with you and your
committee.
Please let me know if you need further information and, again,
thank you for this opportunity to give input into your decision making
process.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Los Angeles Board of Harbor
Commissioners
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are John
Wentworth, President of the City of Los Angeles Board of Harbor
Commissioners, and Larry A. Keller, Executive Director of the Port of
Los Angeles. Together, we oversee the activities of the Port of Los
Angeles, the largest container seaport in the United States. Our
testimony speaks in support of continuing the Federal role in carrying
out the major navigation improvements underway at the Port which
underpin our country's decisive role in global trade.
We thank this Subcommittee for its unwavering support of the Pier
400 Deep-Draft Navigation and Landfill Project completed last April
ahead of schedule and under budget. The Maersk Sealand shipping
company, now the world's largest shipping line, has entered a long-term
lease agreement with the Port for a state-of-the-art container terminal
on Pier 400 scheduled to open for business in 2002. Last year, you
helped us begin the Preconstruction Engineering Design stage of the
Main Channel Deepening Project, the second phase of the navigation
improvements under the 2020 Infrastructure Development Plan at the Port
of Los Angeles.
Today, we present testimony evidencing the need for Federal funding
that will help start the Main Channel Deepening Project in 2002. While
President Bush's fiscal year 2002 Budget Blueprint discourages
Congressional funding of new construction starts and ordinary operation
and maintenance projects, it does give priority to projects that,
``provide significant national benefits in the Corps' principle mission
areas--commercial navigation . . .'' and ``gives priority to funding
port and harbor . . . activities that support significant commercial
navigation.'' \1\ By all objective standards, the Main Channel
Deepening Project squarely meets the President's tests as do the Port's
operation and maintenance projects that support our commercial
navigation initiatives. Therefore, we respectfully ask the Subcommittee
to fund our appropriations requests fully.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A Blueprint for New Beginnings: A Responsible Budget for
America's Priorities'', Chapter 30, ``Corps of Engineers'', Page 147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the importance of the 2020 infrastructure development plan to the
united states economy
In the early 1980s, the San Pedro Bay ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach, and the Army Corps of Engineers, acknowledged that both ports
would experience a dramatic increase in Pacific Rim and Latin American
trade volumes over the next several decades. The forecast has proved
true, far exceeding our expectations! Consequently, infrastructure
development at the Port of Los Angeles is now more critical than ever,
with more than 31.5 percent of U.S. containerized trade entering the
United States through the San Pedro Bay port complex. Pacific Rim and
Mexican trade with the United States are at an all-time high. These
increased trade volumes have solidified the Port of Los Angeles as a
pivotal player in the global trading network.
With a more robust Asian economy, we can best describe the
potential for increased two-way trade with just the Pacific Rim as
colossal. To illustrate, in the last year, nine start-up shipping lines
have entered the trans-Pacific trading network and are calling at the
San Pedro Bay ports. Seven of these shipping lines call at the Port of
Los Angeles. In 2000 alone, the Port and its customers recorded an
unprecedented 27 percent increase in containerized cargo from the
Pacific Rim valued at more than $235 billion. These goods went on to
stores and manufacturing plants across the United States supporting
jobs and local economies.
In 2000, China accounted for 55 percent of the overall Pacific Rim
trade with the United States and is the primary importer of American
goods. Changes in China's trade policies and investment practices make
it a favorable market for American businesses and would boost the
continued buoyance of the United States economy and the strong
purchasing power of American consumers seeking competitively priced
retail merchandise. If the Bush Administration is successful in
reaching trade agreements with China, Singapore and Latin America,
trade volumes through the Port of Los Angeles will increase even more
dramatically. We have forecast 2001 as the year of continued burgeoning
trade opportunities with Latin America. Trade between Mexico and
Southern California, for instance, has increased 152 percent since
1994. These increases in 2000 resulted in the Port handling 4.9 million
containers contributing to the industry's recognition of our facility
as the busiest container port in the United States.
In the late 1970s, the Port of Los Angeles quite accurately
forecast the current surge in the international trade needs of the
Southern California region, and the Nation. In the early 1980s, the
Port entered a long-term cooperative planning effort with the Corps,
known as the 2020 Infrastructure Development Plan. The 2020 Plan
acknowledges the phenomenal growth of trade through the Port of Los
Angeles and the San Pedro Bay ports as a whole. It is a blueprint for
the Port's infrastructure development and its adaptation to changes in
maritime technology and to the projected growth in trade volumes well
into this century. The Main Channel Deepening Project marks the second
phase of the 2020 Plan begun with the Pier 400 Deep-Draft Navigation
and Landfill Project. The Port of Los Angeles is aggressively moving
forward with the 2020 Plan to meet its infrastructure needs in the face
of these extraordinary prospects in global trade.
The Main Channel Deepening Project began in February 1999 when the
Port and the Los Angeles District Corps executed a Memorandum of
Agreement that would expedite the preliminary study phase required to
engage the Corps in a Federal navigation project. Under the authority
provided by Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986,
Public Law 99-662, the Port undertook the Feasibility Study in
cooperation with the Corps. In anticipation of a favorable Chief of
Engineer's Report, Congress authorized the Main Channel Deepening
Project in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, and on December
29, 2000, the Feasibility Study was approved enabling the Port to
proceed with the Main Channel Project.
main channel deepening project
The Port of Los Angeles requests that your Subcommittee include the
final appropriation of the Federal share of $2,650,000 for the
Preconstruction Engineering Design (PED) phase of the project to deepen
the Main Channel and also earmark $5,000,000 to begin the two-year
channel dredging phase immediately following completion of the PED in
August 2002. The total cost for the Main Channel Project is
approximately $153,000,000. The Corps estimates the Federal share at
approximately $42,000,000, and a local share of about $11,000,000,000.
Deepening the Main Channel in calendar year 2002 is critically
important. The Main Channel's current depth of -45 feet Mean Lower Low
Water (MLLW) is inadequate to accommodate the new state-of-the-art
container vessels designed to hold more than 6,000 TEU's. These ships
draft as much as -48 feet in depth. The recent Chief of Engineers
Report concurred with the Feasibility Study recommending that the Corps
dredge the Main Channel to at least -53 feet, including a modest
allowance for varied tidal conditions and under-keel clearance. The
project also includes dredging approximately 6.6 million cubic yards of
sediment from the Turning Basin, the West and East Basins, and the East
Basin Channel. Presently, five of the major container shipping lines
calling at the San Pedro Bay have vessels that draft -46 feet fully
loaded. Yet to call at the Port, these vessels must come in partially
loaded to navigate the main harbor channel safely. While unavoidable,
this makes for an inefficient shipping system.
One of the Port's clients, the China Shipping Company, recently
ordered six 9,000 TEU container ships and its partner, CMA-CGM
(Compagnie Maritime d'Affretement-Compagnie Generale Maritime)--also
known as ``The French Line''--ordered three 6,600 TEU container ships,
all of which draft at -48 feet. They will call exclusively at the Port
of Los Angeles from the Pacific Rim beginning in 2004. Without this
construction, the Port would be unable to service its clients'
infrastructure needs and provide a state-of-the-art functional gateway
for imports consumer goods and manufacturing parts into the American
stream of commerce. Simply, Mr. Chairman, there are no other ports on
the west coast of the United States with the current infrastructure
capacity to serve these container ships or absorb the volume of
container throughputs even now. These state-of-the-art container ships
represent the new competitive requirements for international shipping
efficiencies in this century. Consequently, it is imperative that
Congress appropriate the requested funding that will enable the Main
Channel construction to begin in August 2002 with completion scheduled
for early 2004, in time to receive these deeper draft container
vessels.
ongoing maintenance of the los angeles harbor and breakwater
For the Army Corps of Engineers Operation and Maintenance Program,
the Port of Los Angeles seeks $5,700,000 to continue the hydrographic
surveys, and the ongoing maintenance dredging of the Federal channels
and turning basins, and to continue engineering studies and
rehabilitation of the Federal breakwater at the Los Angeles Harbor. The
efficient operation of the completed Pier 400 Project relies on the
ongoing maintenance of the existing Federal navigation channels and the
hydrographic surveys.
continued funding of the los angeles harbor models
Furthermore, the Port of Los Angeles also requests a total
appropriation of $3,165,000 for the San Pedro Bay Models at the Corps
of Engineers' Waterways Experiment Station (WES) at Vicksburg,
Mississippi. This funding is critical for the Corps' maintenance of the
Los Angeles Harbor Model studies and the Wave Gauge Program. Our
request includes $165,000 for the maintenance of the physical model of
the San Pedro Bay to maintain operational readiness for the continued
study of navigation improvements at the Port, and $3,000,000 to upgrade
the wave gauges, wave generators, and computer systems that are now
outdated. We expect this rehabilitation program to take five years to
complete at a cost of $11,000,000.
The information derived from these tools is critical to the
validation of the numerical and physical models used for the design of
ongoing projects under the Port's 2020 Plan. For example, during the
state-of-the-art design of the Pier 400 Project, the scientists and
engineers at WES, the Port of Los Angeles and the Corps' Los Angeles
District used eight separate, but related models, to site the land
reclamation element of the project and its effect on tidal resonance.
As a result, maintenance of the hydraulic and physical models at WES,
and their prototype data acquisition facilities, continue to be an
essential resource for the Corps' Los Angeles District and for the Port
of Los Angeles.
the economic impact of the 2020 infrastructure development plan
Cargo throughput for the San Pedro Bay, and the Port of Los Angeles
in particular, has a tremendous impact on the United State's economy;
this fact cannot be over emphasized. The ability of the Port to meet
the continued demand of this phenomenal growth in global trade is
dependent upon the construction of sufficiently deep water channels
that will accommodate the largest state-of-the-art deep-draft cargo
container vessels that are already in service. These new vessels
provide greater efficiencies in cargo transportation, thereby offering
American consumers lower prices on imported goods and more competitive
exports from the United States to foreign markets. However, for
American seaports to keep up, they must, without delay, make the
necessary infrastructure improvements that will enable them to
participate in the new global trading arena.
The Main Channel Deepening Project--as part of the overall 2020
Plan--is clearly a commercial navigation project of national
significance, from which the United States derives great economic
benefit. The by-product of this project is the creation and sustaining
of more than one million permanent well-paying jobs; more than $1
billion in wages and salaries; and, sales and income tax revenues,
including increased U.S. Customs Service revenues going to the Federal
treasury. The return on the Federal investment is real and
quantifiable, and we expect it to surpass the cost-benefit ratio as
determined by the Corps of Engineers' project Feasibility Study many
times over. The Federal investment in the Main Channel Deepening
Project will ensure that the Nation's largest container port, the Port
of Los Angeles, remains at the forefront of the new global trade
network well into the 21st century.
in summary
Mr. Chairman, the Port of Los Angeles respectfully urges your
Subcommittee to include the following earmarks from the fiscal year
2002 budget, the following funds to support the Corps of Engineers'
projects on behalf of the Port of Los Angeles:
--$2,650,000 to fund the final Preconstruction Engineering Design
phase of the Main Channel Deepening Project;
--$5,000,000 to begin construction of the Main Channel Deepening
Project;
--$5,700,000 for maintenance dredging and rehabilitation of the
Federal breakwater;
--$3,165,000 for ongoing maintenance of the Los Angeles Harbor Model
and Wave Gauge Programs at WES;
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to submit this
testimony in support of continued Congressional support of the Main
Channel Deepening Project and other important Federal navigation
projects at the Port of Los Angeles. The Port has long valued your
Subcommittee's support for and understanding of the importance of the
port industry to the economic vitality of the United States, and, in
particular, the role of the Port of Los Angeles in contributing to this
country's economic vigor.
port of los angeles--los angeles harbor department
operations and maintenance fiscal year 2002 appropriations
Critical to the efficient operation of the Port of Los Angeles'
navigation system are the required ongoing maintenance of existing
federal navigation channels and breakwaters. Essential to such
maintenance are the hydraulic and physical models of the San Pedro Bay,
used by the Corps of Engineers at their Waterways Experiment Station
(WES) at Vicksburg, Mississippi, to study oceanic conditions. These are
essential resources for the Port and the Corps.
Ongoing Maintenance of Federal Channels.--$5,700,000 is needed in
fiscal year 2002 to continue hydrographic surveys; ongoing maintenance
dredging of the Federal channels and turning basins; and, ongoing
engineering studies for rehabilitation of the Federal breakwater. This
work is essential to protect the Los Angeles Harbor complex from damage
by deep ocean waves and to provide an optimal wave climate for safe and
efficient terminal operations.
San Pedro Bay Models.--A total of $3,165,000 is needed in fiscal
year 2002 to modify and maintain the San Pedro Bay Models at WES:
--$165,000 for the maintenance of the physical model to maintain
operational readiness for the continued study of navigation
improvements at the Port;
--$3,000,000 to begin a model enhancement program that would provide
state-of-the-art wave generators, wave gauges, and computer
systems to replace the current outdated and aged systems; the
development of state-of-the-art numerical models for the
analysis of tidal currents, and the development of prototype
measurement instruments to calibrate the upgraded models. This
program is expected to take five years to complete at a cost.
of $11,000,000.
port of los angeles channel deepening project
The Port of Los Angeles and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
acknowledged, more than fifteen years ago, that a dramatic increase in
Pacific Rim trade volumes would occur over the next several decades. As
such, the Port and the Corps started a long-range infrastructure
development plan that would enable the Port to meet the forecast
demands of increased trade and provide its customers with first-rate
facilities and services. The forecast has proved true, and
infrastructure development is critical. Pacific Rim trade with the
United States is at an all-time high, and the Pacific Rim is the
primary importer of American goods. In addition, trade between Mexico
and Southern California's five-county area has increased 152 percent in
the past seven years. As a result, the Port handled 4.9 million
containers in 2000--a 27 percent increase over 1999--making it the
busiest container port in the United States. This burgeoning trade has
resulted in the manufacture of larger state-of-the-art container ships
that draft as much as -48 feet. Consequently, the Port must deepen its
federal channels from their present depth of -45 feet to -53 Mean Lower
Low Water (MLLW) to accommodate the industry's shift to the larger
container vessels. In addition to greater navigability, deepening the
Main Channel would improve navigation safety and shipping efficiencies
and provide a ready resource of dredged material to create new land for
future terminal development. Furthermore, the economic benefits include
nearly 1,300 Port-related jobs locally, during the two years of
construction, along with increased U.S. Customs Service collections and
other federal tax revenues.
Congress authorized the Main Channel Deepening Project in Section
1010(b)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000. The
Port and Corps have estimated the total project cost at $153,000,000,
of which the federal share is $42,000,000 and the local share is
$111,000,000.
Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED).--$2,650,000 is needed
in fiscal year 2002 to continue the PED phase and to complete the
construction plans and project specifications.
New Construction Start.--$5,000,000 is needed to start construction
in calendar year 2002. With an estimated one-year PED phase, project
plans and specifications will be completed in April 2002. Assuming a
three-month bid solicitation period, the Port expects construction to
begin in August 2002.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Norwalk
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony on
behalf of the City of Norwalk, California. The City of Norwalk
respectfully requests your favorable consideration of two U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers projects that are critically important to our
community.
First, the City of Norwalk, CA requests $450,000 from the Army
Corps of Engineers' Small Flood Control Account (Sec. 205) for the
preparation of a comprehensive Drainage System Master Plan and citywide
Urban Runoff Plan.
The City of Norwalk lies on the coastal plain tributary to the San
Gabriel River System. The City manages in collaboration with the Los
Angeles County Flood Control District several miles of storm drain
system elements. There exists a need to prepare a Drainage System
Master Plan to identity system deficiencies in both the City and County
facilities serving the City. Also of concern are recent regulatory
requirements from EPA and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality
Control Board in relation to non-point source control of contaminated
urban runoff emanating from City streets and discharging into local
river systems through the city and county storm drain systems.
Preparation of a citywide Urban Runoff Plan is proposed to address that
issue.
This project includes the following program elements that address
both the drainage master planning and urban runoff issues:
--Drainage System Master Plan.--This program would provide for the
preparation of a comprehensive drainage system master plan for
the City. It would cover both City and County controlled system
and would identify updated hydrology and determine hydraulic
deficiencies, which may exist in this sub-regional system,
which is tributary to the San Gabriel River.
--Urban Runoff Plan.--This work effort would provide for the
development of a citywide Urban Runoff Plan to assure
compliance with all federal EPA regulations--National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL), as well as State Water Quality Control Board
regulations. Specific programs aimed at identifying potential
non-point source locations for floatable and dissolved
pollutants on the city's street system and entering its storm
drain system would be identified. This Water quality management
plan would identify potential Best Management Practices and
would assess programmatic cost estimates for their development
and implementation over the programs planning horizon.
The identification of projects and a program for improved flood
control facilities will diminish the likelihood of flooding, thereby,
increasing public safety and health for the City's constituents and
reducing the risk of property loss and expenditure of future local,
regional, state and federal funds for post disaster mitigation.
Development of an Urban Runoff Plan will help to assure the city's
public health and the development and implementation of programs to
eliminate contaminated urban runoff from reaching regional flood
control and river systems, which eventually drain into the Pacific
Ocean.
Second, the City of Norwalk requests $300,000 from the Army Corps
of Engineers' General Investigations (GI) Account for technical
assistance in planning and design for water infrastructure projects in
the City. The City was authorized for environmental infrastructure
planning and design assistance in the Water Resources Development Act
of 2000.
The City's water facilities need to be upgraded to provide a safe
and more reliable water supply, particularly in the event of an
emergency such as a major earthquake. The increased system reliability
will also significantly increase the City's fire fighting capabilities,
thus greatly enhancing water quality, public health and safety.
The projects for which funding for technical assistance is
requested are outlined below.
--Fire Hydrant Upgrading.--This project would provide for technical
assistance to prepare a design for the upgrading of undersized
fire hydrants and devices throughout the City. A Water System
Seismic Reliability Study prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers identified severe system deficiencies in this area
and recommended upgrading and replacement of these hydrant
assemblies.
--Citywide Groundwater Study.--This element of the request would
provide for technical assistance to conduct a citywide
Groundwater Quality Study. This study would inventory and
assess the threat from groundwater contamination from a variety
of potential sources within the community. Assuring water
quality for its primary water supply source is a key element in
the city's water system infrastructure reliability program. A
comprehensive inventory and determination of potential threats
to the water supply from underground contaminants will be
conducted and a mitigation plan encompassing local, regional,
state and federal resources prepared.
--Central Norwalk Transmission Main.--This request is for technical
assistance to provide for the design of a water supply
transmission main as identified in the City's Water System
Seismic Reliability Study prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. This pipeline will interconnect two separate city
water systems and provide an opportunity for an upgraded
interconnection with an adjacent water purveyor to provide
additional system backup in the event of a major earthquake.
Mr. Chairman, again, on behalf of the City of Norwalk, I request
the Committee's support for these critically important projects.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Inglewood, California
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony on
behalf of the City of Inglewood, California. The City of Inglewood
respectfully requests your favorable consideration of an environmental
infrastructure project that is critically important to our community.
The City of Inglewood, CA requests $750,000 from the Army Corps of
Engineers' General Investigations (GI) Account for studies, plans,
specifications and estimates for the design and construction of
transmission pipelines. The City was authorized for environmental
infrastructure planning and design assistance in the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000.
The City has approximately 16 miles (83,200 liner feet) of
transmission pipeline ranging in diameter from 18 inches to 36 inches.
These pipes vary in age from 30 to 50 years old. Due to the age, soil
conditions and pipe materials, a majority of the pipes are susceptible
to rupture. Therefore, it is highly recommended to replace a majority
of these pipes to insure continued water supply to the residence of
Inglewood.
The City of Inglewood's Capital Improvement Plan for 1999-2002
outlines the City's need to enhance the City's water, sewer and storm
drainage infrastructure. The Plan includes numerous projects to affect
a better overall quality of life and an improved state-of-readiness in
the event of natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes).
The projects include improvements of the water, sewer, and storm
drain systems, street construction, traffic modification to improve
traffic flow and reduce traffic accidents, redevelopment projects, and
park facilities programs. Many of these projects are necessary to
enhance public safety and provide the citizenry with much needed
additional sources of water, particularly in time of emergency events.
The City will upgrade its infrastructure through the use of City
generated revenue, and state and federal assistance where possible.
Mr. Chairman, again, on behalf of the City of Inglewood, I request
the Committee's support for this critically important project.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Huntington Beach
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony on
behalf of the City of Huntington Beach, California. The City of
Huntington Beach respectfully requests your favorable consideration of
four U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects that are critically
important to our community.
First, the City of Huntington Beach requests $1.75 million from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' General Investigations Account for
technical assistance to provide plans, specifications and estimates for
the design of the Coastal Bluff Erosion project. The City received
$211,000 in the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Appropriations bill
for the Reconnaissance Level study for the project.
The coastal bluff, which is adjacent to Pacific Cast Highway (SR1)
above several thousand feet of the City's beach, has eroded over time.
The cause is drainage from inland sources and wave and wind action on
the beach emanating from the Pacific Ocean. This erosion has become a
serious safety concern. The erosion has affected existing bike,
pedestrian coastline trails and park facilities located on the bluff
and could eventually threaten Pacific Coast Highway, which runs
parallel to the bluff.
The proposed solution entails stabilization of the bluff,
mitigating sources of erosion and reconstruction of public facilities,
including lighting, fencing, and trails. These improvements would also
be constructed to provide access in compliance with current Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Stabilization of the bluff
and reconstruction of park facilities on the bluff top would mitigate
an unsafe condition and provide greater public access to the beach.
The coastal beach bike and pedestrian trail, park facilities and
access roads are key elements adding to the economic viability of the
beach as a tourist attraction. If the bluff area is left in its present
condition, access to and enjoyment of the beach in that area will be
limited. This limitation places serious constraints on the beach
facilities as an economic resource to the City, region and State. The
Bluff Top Park and the adjacent bike trails are regional coastal
facilities used by over 750,000 visitors per year.
Second, the City of Huntington Beach requests $1 million from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Small Flood Control Account (Sec. 205)
for the replacement of deficient facilities and equipment in drainage
pump stations and new pumping units in existing empty pump bays
throughout the City.
Huntington Beach is a ninety-year-old coastal community. Some
portions of the City are actually below sea level. Because of this fact
many residents depend upon County and City storm drain channels and
pump stations to keep storm water moving off their streets during heavy
rainfall. In recent years several areas within the City have
experienced flooding on public and private property to differing
levels. Several of the City's pump stations are at the end of their
statistical design life. Mechanical equipment including pumps and
motors are in need of replacement. Additionally they are undersized
given the level of development both within Huntington Beach and in
upstream communities, which drain into the City. In order to alleviate
the problem, the City needs to replace, upgrade or augment the flood
control pump stations.
Replacement and repair of the City's flood control facilities will
reduce the risk of damage to both public and private property.
Additionally this program will assist the City in helping to remove
areas from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood plain
designations.
This flood control project does have regional impacts and goals.
Huntington Beach is situated at a major outfall for the Santa Ana River
and its tributaries. This means that runoff from upstream cities ends
up in our flood control facilities. A residual impact from this run-off
has been that it brings with it non-point source pollution from other
areas outside the City. In recent years, the City has conducted studies
of its storm drain pumping system comprised of several large capacity
facilities. Construction of recommended improvements to these
facilities could alleviate potential flooding affecting upstream
tributary areas, some of which are outside the City.
It is anticipated that at least $6 million (Current $) in
additional funding including federal and local dollars will be needed
in future appropriations to complete this program. Two of the City's
Pump Stations have recently been improved utilizing FEMA Hazard
Mitigation grants.
Third, the City of Huntington Beach requests $1 million from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' General Investigations Account for
technical assistance to provide for studies, plans, specifications and
estimates for the design and construction of sewer and drainage
projects. The City received an authorization for planning and design
assistance under the Environmental Infrastructure Program in the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000.
During the past several years the City has experienced increasing
problems with the integrity of its sewer and drainage system
infrastructure. Surface and ocean water quality is directly affected by
the physical integrity of the respective systems. Studies conducted
through the Corps of Engineers Seismic Reliability Program completed in
1999 identified several key projects to rehabilitate and/or replace
physical facilities including storm drain pump stations, sewer lift
stations and pipelines. The need exists for funding for the planning,
design and construction of various sewer and drainage systems
improvements to provide off stream surface water diversion or treatment
and the avoidance of sewage spills of exfiltration from pipelines.
Environmental infrastructure improvements are needed to insure that
surface and ocean water quality standards are met through the control
of storm water flooding and runoff contamination, and sewer system
integrity through facility rehabilitation and main relining projects.
Failure to stem sewage spills, exfiltration, flooding and runoff
contamination not only represents a significant public health and
safety issue for the community, but would also have significant adverse
economic impact on the City, Region and State. Huntington Beach has
over eight miles of City and State beaches within its boundaries. Each
year Huntington Beach attracts approximately 9,000,000 State, National
and International visitors. Tourism is a major industry in Orange
County and the State of California. Visitors to the City rely upon
clean, safe beaches. This represents an economic resource not only to
Huntington Beach but to the State and Nation as well.
Finally, the City of Huntington Beach requests $650,000 from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Aquatic Restoration Program (Sec. 206)
for technical assistance for the City's Aquatic Restoration Program.
During the past several years, the City has experienced increasing
problems with urban runoff emanating both within the City and from
upstream of the City through both local and County operated flood
control facilities. Surface and ocean water quality are directly
affected by inorganic and organic and floatable contaminants, which
discharge to the Pacific Ocean from these facilities. A site adjacent
to the City flood control channel would be an ideal location for
creation of an artificial maintainable vegetative filter area project
for the combined benefit of watershed cleanup and aquatic restoration.
In 1999 City beaches were closed or posted with warnings of
bacterial contamination in the surf zone. Extensive investigations
indicated that the potential source of the contamination might be urban
runoff. Such runoff originates from numerous unknown sources and
travels through the regional flood control systems. A short-term
strategy for alleviating this problem has been the utilization of City
storm water pumping stations to divert runoff to the sewer system for
treatment prior to discharging to the ocean. Failure to stem urban
runoff contamination not only represents a significant public health
and safety issue for the community, but would also have significant
adverse economic impact on the City, Region and State.
Mr. Chairman, again, on behalf of the City of Huntington Beach, I
request the Committee's support for these four critically important
projects.
______
Prepared Statement of the Port of Garibaldi
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: My name is Don Bacon.
I am Port Manager of the Port of Garibaldi, Oregon, located on
Tillamook Bay on the Oregon Coast. We appreciate the opportunity to
present our views on appropriations issues to the Committee.
appropriations request
The Port of Garibaldi requests a $550,000 appropriation for
operations and maintenance (O & M) of Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon.
The funding will allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps)
Portland District to prepare a Major Maintenance Report ($300,000) and
Plans and Specifications ($250,000) for the Tillamook Bay North and
South Jetties. I also recommend that the Committee include legislative
language directing the Corps to prepare and complete the Major
Maintenance Report and Plans and Specifications in fiscal year 2002,
given the threats to navigation, public safety and public property
should the jetty system fail. Earlier this month the Port and Tillamook
County declared an emergency because of the development of sinkholes in
the North Jetty.
report on the tillamook bay jetty system
In December 2000, The Board of Commissioners of the Port of
Garibaldi and Tillamook County prepared a report on the Tillamook Bay
jetty system and bar to inform legislators and other concerned parties
of the need to restore the jetties and their bar to safe, acceptable
engineering standards. Excerpts of that report are included below. We
will provide the committee with a copy of the full report.
There are three major issues currently associated with the
deterioration of the system.
(1) There is a clearly documented increasing hazard to navigation
from erosion around the ocean ends of both jetties and resultant damage
to the bar which is causing an escalating loss of life in boating
accidents every year.
(2) There is a potentially significant loss of land mass containing
recreational facilities and permanent structures in one area where the
north jetty has already breached near its root.
(3) There is data currently being collected (but incomplete at this
time) which suggests a possible relationship between the deteriorated
condition of the jetties and bar and the degree of flooding in some
land areas surrounding Tillamook Bay.
The report contains a history of construction and repair of the
jetties by the Corps, an overview of construction and repair results, a
summary of an independent engineering report solicited by the Port and
the Corps' own evaluations of the jetties' present condition, reasons
for restoration of the jetties and bar, and the Commissioners'
endorsement of repair of the jetty system and bar as both an urgent
public safety measure and possible contribution to mitigation of
flooding in the estuary. It also includes a letter from U.S. Coast
Guard Station Tillamook Bay which explains several problems with the
jetty system, and their support for restoration and repair of the
system.
background
Since settlement in the 1800s, Tillamook County's primary
industries have been dairy, water and timber oriented. Tillamook Bay
and the five rivers which feed it have historically furnished an
abundance of shellfish, salmon and other species of fresh-water and
ocean food fish. Over the past century the area has become renowned as
one of the West's premier sport fishing locations.
Tillamook County's economy has always depended on prime conditions
in Tillamook Bay, its estuary and watershed for cultivation and use of
these natural resources. However, human activities including forestry,
agriculture and urban development have adversely impacted the entire
Bay area by increasing erosion rates and landslide potential in the
forest slopes and significantly reducing wetland and riparian habitat.
All five rivers entering Tillamook Bay now exceed temperature and/or
bacteria standards established by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality. The installation of a north jetty on Tillamook
Bay begun in 1912 caused increased erosion of the Bay's westerly land
border, Bayocean Spit, on the ocean side. The Spit breached in 1950.
This allowed the Bay to fill with ocean sands on its southern and
western perimeters and caused a major reduction in shellfish habitat,
sport-fishing area, and an increase in the cross-section of the bar. A
south jetty begun in 1969 helped stabilize the Spit and created the
navigation channel presently in use.
Increasingly poor water quality in the Bay's feeder rivers and a
substantial loss of marine life over the past twenty-five years enabled
Tillamook Bay to become part of the National Estuary Program in 1992.
The Project's scope of study included the estuary and watershed. One of
the stated goals in the Project's final Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan is ``the reduction of magnitude, frequency and impact
of flood events.'' This goal was found to be consistent with the scope
of study of the Corps' Feasibility Study for Water Resources in
Tillamook County now being conducted, and was incorporated into this
new project.
Previous Corps' evaluations of jetty systems clearly state the
adverse effects of jetty deterioration and infilling of channels and
bars on tidal prism (the rate at which water flows into and out of the
Bay) and indicate that they may influence flooding in a bay's estuary.
During the past thirty-six months measurements have been taken of
differential water levels in Tillamook Bay and its estuary and speeds
of tidal flows during normal and high water events. This data suggests
an increase in the cross-section of the Tillamook Bay bar and some
channel infilling which may be affecting esturine flooding. These
measurements are of stated interest to the Corps. The Port of
Garibaldi, many Tillamook County businesses which have been victims of
flooding, and some governmental agencies concerned with various aspects
of the flooding issue are supporting continuing gathering of these
measurements of water levels and tidal flow speeds.
While the conditions of jetties and their resultant bars invariably
and continually affect the bay on which they are constructed, their
basic function is the creation of a safe channel between ocean and
harbor for the transit of maritime traffic. As originally designed and
constructed, the Tillamook Bay jetties accomplished this. Due to their
present state of deterioration, that initial effectiveness has been
substantially reduced.
results in brief
Tillamook County has suffered a series of devastating floods since
the winter of 1996. The storms caused by El Nino/La Nina events have
increased the rate of deterioration of Tillamook Bay's jetties and bar.
Their present condition is raising increasing navigational safety
issues. The north jetty is now breached in an especially sensitive
location near its root where the wall protects inhabited land, and the
eroded area is increasing in size. A significant quantity of water
flowing through this area would result in loss of the existing land
mass adjacent to it and the structures on it. A second area of
deterioration on the north jetty at the beach line is threatening to
breach. But in either location, an infill of the channel with sands
would reduce the navigability of the channel, further slow the rate of
tidal flow and impact the cross-section of the bar. An even greater
degree of danger to boaters than that which presently exists would
surely be created.
The Bayocean Spit breach in 1950 buried one-third the Bay's
shellfish habitat under ocean sands and did extensive damage to
esturine lands. The lost shellfish habitat has never been recovered.
The direction of tidal flow in the Bay is such that a breach in the
north jetty would cause additional buildup of ocean sands to the inside
edge of the Spit. This infill would eventually deposit toward the south
end of the Bay and demolish even more shellfish habitat and sport
fishing area, adversely impacting Tillamook County's already reduced
economy. The harbor area would certainly suffer some degree of damage,
resulting in increased commercial hardship.
But the most serious impact of jetty and bar deterioration has been
on navigational safety. The United States Coast Guard Tillamook Bay
Station has publicly commented on the transit danger to sport,
commercial and their own vessels due to erosion effects which now
constitute a maritime hazard. Many local sport and most commercial
fishermen have abandoned Garibaldi as a permanent berth and sought
harbor facilities where channel navigation is easier and transit of the
bar less treacherous. The Coast Guard has formally requested that the
Corps ``restore the north and south jetties to their original
dimensions, and remove materials from the original construction that
may now pose a maritime hazard.''
principal findings
Since the last repair to the south jetty, approximately 302 feet
have been lost to erosion, 215 feet of that amount since 1998. The
north jetty was designed and authorized by the USACOE to be 5,700 feet
in length. As of December, 2000, approximately 275 feet of the ocean
end of the north jetty is eroded and remains below mean lower low water
level--submerged, in other words. In 1990 the USACOE capped the head of
the north jetty from its above-water point going landward for a
distance of 161 feet in an unsuccessful attempt at erosion control. The
north jetty remains at least 300 feet short of its engineering-approved
and authorized length.
Because of the increased magnitude of storms since 1996, both
jetties have suffered far more damage than that normally expected to
occur to such structures. Erosion and displacement of large support
stones at the ocean ends of both jetties is particularly severe, and
the submerged ends of both structures are being pushed southward. These
two areas, adjacent to popular sport fishing locations, are now
identified by the Coast Guard as extremely dangerous locations. Water
swirls around the displaced boulders causing eddies sometimes strong
enough to suck small boats into them. Even in calm, flat seas, water
breaks over these boulders into waves powerful enough to throw smaller
vessels onto the jetties. (This was the case on September 22, 2000,
when a sport fishing boat inadvertently drifted inside the 200 foot
exclusion zone and was dashed onto the end of the south jetty. Two
people were killed and a third injured, this incident being the most
recent loss of life this year in the accident record of the Tillamook
Bay jetties and bar.)
Conclusion. On behalf of the Port of Garibaldi and Tillamook
County, I thank the Committee for giving me this opportunity to provide
testimony on the Tillamook Bay Jetty System.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Santa Barbara, California
operations and maintenance dredging
As your distinguished Subcommittee writes the fiscal year 2002
Energy and Water Resources Appropriations Bill, I would like to bring a
very important Corps of Engineers project to your attention.
About 400,000 cubic yards of sand piles up every winter at Santa
Barbara Harbor, and in years of severe storms, the accumulated sand can
close the channel bringing local fishing and other businesses in the
Harbor to a standstill.
There is an important Federal interest in maintaining dredging at
the Harbor. It provides slips and moorings for over 1,150 commercial,
emergency and recreational boats. It is also an important part of Coast
Guard operations on California's central coast.
The President's fiscal year 2002 Budget Request includes $2,020,000
for operations and maintenance dredging for Santa Barbara Harbor. I
respectfully request that the U.S. Senate, through your Subcommittee,
maintain that level of funding included in the President's Budget
Request.
new construction project--dredge acquisition
The President's fiscal year 2002 Budget recommendation also
includes project funding for a potential new construction project in
Santa Barbara. The City of Santa Barbara and the Corps of Engineers
have pursued a proposal to design and construct a dredge for annual
operation and maintenance dredging of our harbor.
Federal funding for this project has been previously appropriated.
However, the City of Santa Barbara at this time is unable to contribute
the required 20 percent local sponsor funding. The City remains
interested to the dredge acquisition project and together with the U.S.
Corps of Engineers requests an additional $100,000 in order to prepare
the necessary plans and specifications for the project.
The President's fiscal year 2002 Budget Request includes $100,000
for the dredge acquisition project for the Santa Barbara Harbor. I
respectfully request that the U.S. Senate, through your Subcommittee,
maintain that level of funding included in the President's Budget
Request.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Newark, New Jersey
Chairman Domenici and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
giving me the opportunity to submit testimony about two projects under
your jurisdiction which are 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. And the implementation of our proposal for a Regional
Hydroelectric Power Generation demonstration project will help the City
of Newark to become more energy efficient and self-reliant, through the
generation of power at an existing water treatment facility.
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. This encompasses the eastern boundary of
Newark's Central Business District, as well as the edge of the City's
densely populated Ironbound neighborhood.
The project is divided into three phases. Phase I consists of 6,000
feet of bulkhead replacement (Bridge Street to Jackson Street) and
3,200 feet of wetlands restoration (Jackson Street to Brill Street).
The second of three sections of this phase will begin construction
within the next few months, and the objective is to conclude this phase
as soon as possible. The Army Corps of Engineers will expend the $15
million which is still available to apply toward Phase I elements. The
State of New Jersey has been the primary cost-sharing sponsor of Phase
I, with significant City investment and support. Some additional
funding will be needed for Phase I, according to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers February 28, 2001 project fact sheet, and City Engineering
professionals are coordinating with the Corps to complete all elements
of the bulkheading and its integration with significant Combined Sewer
Overflow facilities and related Phase I costs.
Phases II and III consist of the construction of a 40 foot-wide
promenade along the river's edge, on top of the completed bulkhead
work, and includes the construction of parkland on the inland side of
the promenade, between the river and Newark's downtown. This
restoration will provide a new focal point for downtown development
activities, reconnect Newark to its riverfront and maritime history,
and allow neighborhood residents direct access to the riverfront as
part of a much-needed recreation complex.
An appropriation of $15 million for the continuation of
construction on the Newark Riverfront 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 2002. It will enable the City, State and Corps to complete all
critical Phase I elements, and to proceed with a Phase II City/Corps
cooperative program agreement on the next set of essential Phase II and
Phase III elements. This will include the walkway/greenway component
above and behind the bulkheading, and the critical connective
infrastructure that will be needed to insure access and maximum
effectiveness and utilization of this project for the community and key
stakeholders and project partners.
This 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. The fiscal year 2000 appropriation has been used for
the initial section of bulkhead construction, which is now complete.
The fiscal year 2001 allocation allowed for continued construction of
the bulkhead down to Penn Station, funded design of the walkway and
park area, and could allow walkway construction to begin. 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 $15 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 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 are coordinating
redevelopment plans with private developers, public agencies, and non-
profit partners. We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to coordinate
several major development activities into a virtually seamless
development plan. The appropriation of $15 million which Newark
requests 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, and help us
to continue Newark's revitalization.
The second project presented for your consideration concerns the
generation of power through the City of Newark's own water system.
Although not yet faced with the severe challenges faced in other parts
of the country, Newark is seeking to proactively address the need for
alternative energy sources. The City of Newark is also confronted with
a series of challenges to its water and power supply resources.
Accordingly, the City is seeking to develop the ability for the
generation of hydroelectric power through the addition of in-line
turbines at existing water transmission facilities. Newark has an
extensive water collection and treatment system, spread over a large
area in northern New Jersey. It feeds approximately 100 MGD to the City
and it's out of town customers. The City maintains and operates five
storage reservoirs, nine dams, six outlet structures and 64 square
miles of woodland. It operates 80 miles of transmission aqueducts,
structures, right-of-way and pump stations, interconnected with other
major water purveyors. Distribution reservoirs are operated, along with
their inlet and outlet gates, a rechlorination plant, and a water
testing laboratory. Newark's extensive local water system includes 500
miles of distribution mains and pipelines, 5,000 hydrants, and 10,000
control valves. Although viewed primarily as a water supply system, the
potential for power generation is present, and the time is right to
begin its utilization.
The City's Pequannock Water Treatment facilities and aqueduct
downstream of the Charlotteburg Dam and Reservoir present a unique
opportunity to recover energy that is currently dissipated in the
diversion of water through various dam gatehouse and intake structures,
pipeline, and downstream screen chambers. Further, the potential
hydroelectric power and energy represented in the conveyance could,
most of the time, offset the existing power and energy requirements of
the water treatment facilities themselves, including the loads present
at dams and treatment facilities.
With this potential in mind, the City performed an evaluation of
the power production and energy generation potential of its system. An
extensive technical study of the power generation potential of Newark's
entire collection, treatment and transmission facilities has been
prepared, showing the possibilities of surplus energy generation, and
is available for review. It explores the potential generation and
disposition of power from several of Newark's operations. As a pilot
project, the least complex element of the system can stand alone, and
is submitted and described herein.
This project proposes to construct a Water Turbine Hydroelectric
Facility at the City's Cedar Grove balancing reservoir. Utilizing the
existing infrastructure, this proposed facility would take advantage of
the hydrostatic head on the transmission aqueduct between the West
Milford Treatment plant (elev. 700 feet) and the Cedar Grove Reservoir
(elev. 380 feet). The proposed site lies alongside a power company
easement, which would make connection to the grid quite simple. The
fairly static flow provided by the interceptor makes this a logical
location for a turbine regulator set up. This method of energy recovery
would be the least invasive as it could be implemented without
significant disruption of our present system. It represents the clean
and renewable production and use of energy ``on-site'', which is
currently wasted. The project may also alleviate the relatively
frequent interruptions and curtailments of power delivery that are
currently experienced at the Pequannock Water Treatment facilities.
This proposed facility would be capable of offsetting the City's
electrical operating expenses in additional to the needs of its Water &
Sewer Utility, and could potentially offset the cost to construct
concrete storage tanks at the Cedar Grove site in order to meet Federal
compliance for the elimination of open potable drinking water
reservoirs. It provides Newark with a unique energy recovery and use
opportunity.
An appropriation of a total of $12 million is sought, with $2
million for planning and design, and $10 million for construction of
the project. It is anticipated that the energy generated through the
facility would offset this initial investment within the current
decade. Your support for innovative hydroelectric energy generation
will enable the City of Newark to impact on its own environmental and
economic concerns.
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 Newark's critical
projects. The time and attention of this subcommittee are deeply
appreciated.
______
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-2001.
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 $2,300,000 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 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. Three 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 2001 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 2002 request for 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 Association of State Dam Safety Officials, Inc.
Chairman Domenici and Members of the Subcommittee: The Association
of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO) is pleased to offer this
testimony on the President's proposed budget for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) for fiscal Year 2002.
The Association of State Dam Safety Officials is a national
organization of more than 2,000 state, federal and local dam safety
officials and private sector individuals dedicated to improving dam
safety through research, education and communications. Our goal is to
save lives, prevent damage to property and maintain the benefits of
dams by preventing dam failures. Several devastating dam failures
occurring in the 1970s focused attention on the potential catastrophic
results of dam failures. These dramatic failures demonstrate that dams
should always be properly constructed, operated and maintained to
continue to provide important benefits and prevent failures.
united states army corps of engineers (usace)
National Dam Safety Program Act
The National Dam Safety Program Act, enacted as part of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996, is set to expire in fiscal year
2002. The reauthorization of the Act will be a priority for ASDSO in
the 107th Congress.
Total authorized program funds for fiscal year 2002 are $6.4
million, including $4 million for grants to participating states, $1
million for research, $500,000 for the dam inventory, $500,000 for
training, and $400,000 for additional Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) staff. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has only a small
part of this important program--the National Inventory of Dams. ASDSO
supports funding for all National Dam Safety Program Act activities at
the authorized levels for fiscal year 2002.
The current National Inventory of Dams (NID) is the result of an
evolutionary process. The USACE continues to work closely with ASDSO,
FEMA, and other state and federal agencies to update and publish the
NID. The success of the NID maintenance and publication program can be
attributed to the cooperative participation of the 50 states and Puerto
Rico (as facilitated by ASDSO), and 17 federal agencies, who provide
information on approximately 77,000 dams currently in the NID.
The Interagency Committee on Dam Safety (ICODS) created a
subcommittee to advise the USACE on the update of the NID. The NID
Subcommittee provides guidance and recommendations concerning the data
elements, format, and publication media for the NID. Its membership
consists of representatives of non-federal and federal agencies who
participate in the NID.
A web-enabled version of the 1998-1999 NID update was posted to the
Internet in January 1999. Updated data received by USACE is posted
quarterly to the on-line database.
The USACE and ASDSO are continuously improving the process of
inventory data collection and transmission by the states and federal
agencies to take advantage of current PC computers, software and the
Internet. Software tools have been recently developed to improve the
process of managing, inputting, and transmitting NID data. User
training for the states and federal agencies on these software tools is
starting in March 2001.
This modest, yet vital, funding through the USACE will enable the
states to continue to update the inventory providing valuable
information to dam safety officials, city, county and state officials,
and many others who are affected by dams and the watersheds they
create.
Additionally, funding of $7 million was authorized in the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA), Public Law 106-541, Section
524, to allow for an inventory of dams constructed in Minnesota using
funds from the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and the Civilian
Conservation Corps (CCC). While ASDSO supports the overall intent of
this language, we have serious concerns that the geographic limitation
to Minnesota will leave out a significant number of WPA and CCC dams.
ASDSO has identified more than 1,800 dams in 14 states that had
been constructed with WPA and CCC funds. Of these, only 450 were in
Minnesota. The requirement in WRDA 2000 to limit the entire $7 million
inventory fund to Minnesota will result in unequal treatment for these
states.
Additionally, it has been noted that there are 2,100 unsafe dams in
the United States, which have deficiencies that leave them highly
susceptible to failure. Previous funding of this program has given the
USACE, through state dam safety officials, the ability to maintain the
inventory of dams, and determine which are unsafe.
An alarming number of dams across the country are showing signs of
age and lack proper maintenance. Downstream development is increasing,
which exacerbates the problem. Most older dams were built without
adequate spillways to release water in heavy rains, which causes water
to run over the top. Inadequate spillway capacities are the most common
deficiency and a major cause of dam failures. Dam safety officials
estimate that thousands of dams are at risk of failing or are disasters
waiting to happen. One-fourth of all U.S. dams are more than 50 years
old, and by the year 2020, that figure is expected to increase to 85
percent. ASDSO estimates that it would cost $2 billion over the next
five years to begin to rehabilitate all the documented unsafe dams in
the United States.
ASDSO respectfully requests that the national dam inventory be
fully funded at the authorized amount of $500,000 in fiscal year 2002.
Additionally, ASDSO requests that the Minnesota Dam Safety provision of
Public Law 106-541, Section 524 be fully funded at $7 million, and that
the use of the funds be allowed to encompass all dams constructed under
the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps
regardless of their location in the United States.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Chairman Domenici and Members of the Subcommittee: The American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is pleased to offer this testimony on
the President's proposed budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) for fiscal Year 2002.
ASCE was founded in 1852 and is the country's oldest national civil
engineering organization. It represents more than 125,000 civil
engineers in private practice, government, industry and academia who
are dedicated to the advancement of the science and profession of civil
engineering. ASCE is a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational and
professional society.
united states army corps of engineers (usace)
National Dam Safety Program Act
The National Dam Safety Program Act, enacted as part of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996, is set to expire in fiscal year
2002. The reauthorization of the Act will be a priority for ASCE in the
107th Congress.
Total authorized program funds for fiscal year 2002 are $6.4
million, including $4 million for grants to participating states, $1
million for research, $500,000 for the dam inventory, $500,000 for
training, and $400,000 for additional Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) staff. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has only a small
part of this important program--the National Inventory of Dams. ASCE
supports funding for all National Dam Safety Program Act activities at
the authorized levels for fiscal year 2002.
The current National Inventory of Dams (NID) is the result of an
evolutionary process. The USACE continues to work closely with the
Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO), the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and other state and federal
agencies to update and publish the NID. The success of the NID
maintenance and publication program can be attributed to the
cooperative participation of the 50 states and Puerto Rico (as
facilitated by ASDSO), and 17 federal agencies, who provide information
on approximately 77,000 dams currently in the NID.
The Interagency Committee on Dam Safety (ICODS) created a
subcommittee to advise the USACE on the update of the NID. The NID
Subcommittee provides guidance and recommendations concerning the data
elements, format, and publication media for the NID. Its membership
consists of representatives of non-federal and federal agencies who
participate in the NID.
A web-enabled version of the 1998-1999 NID update was posted to the
Internet in January 1999. Updated data received by USACE is posted
quarterly to the on-line database.
The USACE and ASDSO are continuously improving the process of
inventory data collection and transmission by the states and federal
agencies to take advantage of current PC computers, software and the
Internet. Software tools have been recently developed to improve the
process of managing, inputting, and transmitting NID data. User
training for the states and federal agencies on these software tools is
starting in March 2001.
This modest, yet vital, funding through the USACE will enable the
states to continue to update the inventory providing valuable
information to dam safety officials, city, county and state officials,
and many others who are affected by dams and the watersheds they
create.
Additionally, funding of $7 million was authorized in the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA), Public Law 106-541, Section
524, to allow for an inventory of dams constructed in Minnesota using
funds from the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and the Civilian
Conservation Corps (CCC). While ASCE supports the overall intent of
this language, we have serious concerns that the geographic limitation
to Minnesota will leave out a significant number of WPA and CCC dams.
ASDSO has identified more than 1,800 dams in 14 states that had
been constructed with WPA and CCC funds. Of these, only 450 were in
Minnesota. The requirement in WRDA 2000 to limit the entire $7 million
inventory fund to Minnesota will result in unequal treatment for these
states.
In the recently released ASCE 2001 Report Card for America's
Infrastructure Dams received a grade of D. Additionally, it has been
noted that there are 2,100 unsafe dams in the United States, which have
deficiencies that leave them highly susceptible to failure. Previous
funding of this program has given the USACE, through state dam safety
officials, the ability to maintain the inventory of dams, and determine
which are unsafe.
An alarming number of dams across the country are showing signs of
age and lack proper maintenance. Downstream development is increasing,
which exacerbates the problem. Most older dams were built without
adequate spillways to release water in heavy rains, which causes water
to run over the top. Inadequate spillway capacities are the most common
deficiency and a major cause of dam failures. Dam safety officials
estimate that thousands of dams are at risk of failing or are disasters
waiting to happen. One-fourth of all U.S. dams are more than 50 years
old, and by the year 2020, that figure is expected to increase to 85
percent. ASCE estimates that it would cost $2 billion over the next
five years to begin to rehabilitate all the documented unsafe dams in
the United States.
ASCE respectfully requests that the national dam inventory be fully
funded at the authorized amount of $500,000 in fiscal year 2002.
Additionally, ASCE requests that the Minnesota Dam Safety provision of
Public Law 106-541, Section 524 be fully funded at $7 million, and that
the use of the funds be allowed to encompass all dams constructed under
the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps
regardless of their location in the United States.
Navigable Waterways
This navigable waterway system has improved our quality of life and
has provided a foundation for the economic growth and development of
the United States. Our flood control works, water transportation
systems, and multi-purpose projects all contribute to our national
prosperity. The benefits are realized as flood damages prevented,
reduced transportation costs, and increased trade.
Unfortunately, in recent years, national investment in water
resources projects has not kept pace with our level of economic and
social expansion. Over the last 30 years the U.S. population has
increased more than 40 percent while the GDP has grown from $2.5 to
$7.5 trillion. Meanwhile, capital investment in public water resources
infrastructure decreased by 70 percent. For example in the 1970s, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works construction appropriations
were in the $4 billion range. However, in the 1990s the funding dropped
to an average of $1.6 billion a year. The combination of a decline in
investment coupled, with an expanding population and economy, has
created an ``investment gap.''
The ASCE 2001 Report Card for America's Infrastructure gave
navigable waterways, which includes ports, harbor, inland waterways,
and flood damage reduction infrastructure, grade of D+.
Currently the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports a backlog of
over 500 active projects, with a Federal cost to complete these
projects of about $38 billion. At the current levels of funding it
would take 25 years to complete the active projects in the backlog
without making allowances for considering additional project
authorizations.
More than 44 percent of lock chambers are over 50 years of age.
Many locks are undersized for modern commercial barge movements. Many
deep-draft channels are undersized for the wider and deeper mega-
container ships that are becoming standard for international cargo
movements. There is currently a backlog of $9 billion of needed
waterway improvements. In addition, a maintenance backlog of $238
million will be experienced in fiscal year 2001, resulting in further
unrepaired wear and tear on lock chambers and channels.
Nationwide, queuing delays at locks total some 550,000 hours
annually, representing an estimated $385 million in increased operating
costs borne by shippers, carriers, and, ultimately, consumers.
Construction of new locks with additional capacity and major
rehabilitation of older locks is essential to maintain the efficiency
of the system.
According to the American Association of Port Authorities, more
than 90 percent of the nation's top 50 ports in foreign waterborne
commerce require regular maintenance dredging. These ports move
approximately 93 percent of all U.S. waterborne commerce each year. If
these ports are not dredged many port facilities and navigation
channels will be non-navigable in less than a year.
According to a U.S. Department of Transportation report on
intermodal freight connectors, connectors to ports, as opposed to other
freight terminals, received the smallest level of funding and were
found to be in the worst condition, having twice the percentage of
mileage with pavement deficiencies when compared to non-interstate
National Highway System routes.
Serious problems are likely if current levels of investment
continue. Demands on the waterway system are expected to double by
2020, while the current system can barely accommodate current traffic
levels. In the short term, service will be sustained; however, the
aging infrastructure and deferred maintenance created by insufficient
investment levels will result in degraded system performance, safety
concerns, increased delays, higher transportation costs for goods and
services, and negative impacts on GDP and employment.
ASCE respectfully requests that the Operation and Maintenance,
General, and Construction General be fully funded at the requested
amounts of $1.745 billion, and $1.324 billion respectively in fiscal
year 2002.
Flood Damage Reduction Infrastructure
The nation's flood control infrastructure consists of more than 400
major Federal dams and reservoirs, 8,500 miles of levees and dikes, and
hundreds of smaller local flood protection projects. Since 1950, this
infrastructure has prevented nearly $500 billion in riverine and
coastal flood damage, returning nearly $6 in flood protection for every
$1 invested, and preventing, on average, $22 billion in flood damages
annually.
The existing stock of Federal infrastructure is generally well-
maintained; however, unfunded, critical maintenance amounted to $82
million in fiscal year 2001. In addition, over $15 billion of flood
damage reduction infrastructure is awaiting construction, but has been
postponed because of insufficient funding. This represents investments
for needed major rehabilitations to existing projects, as well as new
projects to service current needs.
The significant portion of the 100,000-panel flood map inventory
maintained by FEMA is outdated and may not accurately reflect flood
prone conditions in the country. This is especially true in areas of
rapid population growth where the flood plain can change with
alterations to the original landscape resulting from new development.
On average, $5 billion in flood damages occur each year, and the new
construction of homes and infrastructure in the floodplains continues
to increase.
The need exists for continued investment in flood prevention,
including both structural and nonstructural approaches. It should be
noted that flood control structures once designed to protect
agricultural land now must also protect homes and industrial
structures. Additionally, there is an urgent need to update flood
hazard boundary maps and to identify flood hazards in unmapped areas.
Urban development in flood prone areas continues to increase by 1.5
percent-2.5 percent per year. In addition, at-risk coastal areas are
growing much more rapidly than other locations. In contrast to the
increasing development in flood prone areas, investments in Flood
Damage Reduction infrastructure have decreased by almost 70 percent in
real terms over the past three decades. The combination of these two
trends makes it likely that residual flood damages could increase
substantially in the years ahead. For example, in the Highland Lakes
area of central Texas, the number of structures located in the
floodplain has increased over 180 percent during the last 10 years.
Over $18 million in federal and local funding is estimated to be needed
to provide engineering and mapping to accurately identify flood prone
areas in this basin alone.
ASCE respectfully requests that the Operation and Maintenance,
General, and Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries be fully
funded at the requested amounts of $1.745 billion, and $280 million
respectively in fiscal year 2002.
______
Prepared Statement of Louis J. Hector, Vice President, Transportation
and Infrastructure, State of New York, Empire State Development
Corporation; Richard Gimello, Executive Director, New Jersey Maritime
Resources, State of New Jersey, Department of Transportation; Richard
M. Larrabee, Director, Port Commerce Department, The Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate the
opportunity to share with you our collective request for navigation
channel funding.
The flow of international and domestic commerce through the bistate
gateway has increased dramatically in recent years, evidence of a
thriving international trade environment and the importance of Federal
and non-Federal investments in water and landside facilities. Without
adequate channels and intermodal connectors linking the terminals to
the highways and rail lines, the nation's business cannot be
accomplished in an efficient way. We see our role--the role of the
governmental agencies charged with responsibility for the port--as
helping make commerce work for our country through the infrastructure.
background
To demonstrate why Federal funds for navigation projects in our
region are monies well spent, we quickly recite some statistics from
the year 2000. Last year $82 billion in cargo flowed through our marine
terminals, an increase of 13-percent increase over 1999. For the first
time, total container volumes surpassed the 3 million TEU (20-foot
equivalent units) mark in 2000, a 7-percent increase over 1999. Loaded
TEUs were 2,246,194 in 2000, a 10.8-percent increase. For the first
time in 20 years, ship calls topped the 5,000 mark with 5,124
commercial vessels, representing a 7.3-percent increase. Overall vessel
traffic in the port has increased more than 12 percent since 1991.
Total cargo volumes (bulk and general cargo combined) grew by 9.7
percent in 2000.
While the Port of New York and New Jersey serves a huge local
market it is also the major gateway to the United States. The port
handles 11 percent of all oceanborne general cargo imported into the
nation. It also serves a significant market in the Midwestern United
States. In fact, 40 percent of the Midwest bound cargo that flows
through North Atlantic ports comes through the Port of New York and New
Jersey. As you might imagine, and as our senators know very well, the
working port serves not only the national interest but also our bistate
region where the Port supports more than 166,000 jobs and contributes
$21 billion to the regional economy.
We are grateful for the funding that this Subcommittee has provided
to projects in our port. In addition to the required non-Federal match
there also will be significant, related investments in a wide range of
port-related infrastructure. The public and private investments are in
response to market demands. Those demands clearly indicate that
commerce will flow strongly through our port at rates that will test
the capacity of our infrastructure in the channels, at the terminals
and on access facilities even as construction is underway. Our
conservative analysis of a few years ago projected annual growth at 4
percent and a doubling of cargo in our region by the end of the decade.
However, as you can see in the 2000 statistics, real growth actually
has exceeded that pace. Given the above, we think that funding the
projects at our recommended levels is well justified and consistent
with the best interests of this country as it works to meet the demands
of world commerce. The navigation channels that are under construction,
or soon will be, serve the major terminal areas of the Port. The
improvement work by the Corps of Engineers will ensure that essential
navigation infrastructure will be in place to accommodate post-Panamax
ships currently deployed in international commerce.
Mr. Chairman, the Federal government and we, your partners, should
undertake major capital projects in timeframes that provide project
benefits when they are needed and not long after they are required.
That is why we are investing $4 billion over the next several years on
an ambitious construction schedule to increase the capacity and
efficiency of the land and water infrastructure that is required to
serve the nation's business.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, alone, is committing
$1.8 billion in port redevelopment projects over the next five years
while some of our private partners have committed spending over $500
million in marine terminal investments. As we already noted, trade
volumes have skyrocketed, placing ``future'' demands on the port
facilities today and portending even more to come. Steamships, planned
and under construction, are only getting larger, promising greater
volumes of cargo on each call and requiring deeper channels to allow
the vessels safe and efficient operation. And with greater efficiency
in all aspects of our transportation system, the nation benefits by
becoming more competitive. In fact the Army Corps of Engineers
estimates that the nation will enjoy $270 million in annual
transportation cost savings due to larger vessels calling on the Port
of New York and New Jersey.
Discussed below are select projects and appropriation amounts that
we seek for fiscal year 2002. Please know that these are in addition to
other, continuing projects, currently under study or requiring
maintenance that are in the Corps of Engineers budget.
discussion
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 would serve Port Newark and the Elizabeth Port Authority
Marine Terminal, the busiest and largest container facilities on the
East Coast, as well as terminals on the Arthur Kill. 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, on schedule and under
budget. Of nine planned construction contracts, one is complete and two
are nearing completion. A fourth contract was awarded in March and bids
were received for a fifth contract. In April, bids for a sixth contract
will be received. 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 seek $44 million, the
amount budgeted by the President, to keep the project on track.
NY & NJ Channels: Arthur Kill Channel, NY & NJ
The Arthur Kill Channel, NY & NJ, Howland Hook Marine Terminal
(HHMT) project authorization was initiated in 1986 and most recently
revised in the 1999 WRDA. 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 and (2)
deepening to 40 feet below MLW from the HHMT to the Petroport and Tosco
facilities in New Jersey. The Army Corps estimates that the project
will result in an annual public benefit of $70 million The Port
Authority has already invested nearly $52 million in 2000 including the
purchase of land to expand the terminal at HHMT. Another $475 million
has been committed in the Port Authority's five-year capital plan to
further expand capacity and improve the productivity of the terminal.
The Port Authority Board of Commissioners has approved an amount
representing the full local share and we are eager to get the project
underway. The HHMT currently serves 18 shipping lines and employs 800
people--an increase of 200 over 1999--on peak days and is expected to
increase to a range of 1000 to 1200 employees in 2001. Howland Hook is
the fastest growing marine terminal in the harbor, handling
approximately 20 percent of the Port of New York and New Jersey's
cargo. In the last year alone, the terminal's volumes grew an amazing
72 percent. Lastly, we note 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. Yet vessels serving national security interests will
not be able to fully load at the terminal until the project is
completed.
The Port of New York and New Jersey is the number one refined
petroleum port in the nation and ranks with the Port of Houston, Texas,
in terms of total volume. Many of the petroleum facilities are located
along the Arthur Kill, including the Tosco Bayway Refinery. Deepening
the Arthur Kill to the Tosco Refinery will reduce the need to lighter
the large tankers at the anchorages in New York Harbor. If lightering
were no longer necessary, the potential for an environmental accident
as a result of the double handling of this sensitive cargo would be
eliminated. Last year, the President's budget request included this
project for the start of construction and Congress approved $4 million.
The President's budget requests $15 million. We are aware of
recommendations that include as much $50 million for the Arthur Kill
project. We would welcome funding at a level as high as that. However,
we also understand that the capability of the Corps of Engineers in
fiscal year 2002 is approximately $20 million. We respectfully request
that the Subcommittee provide at least that amount in order to keep
pressure on the Corps of Engineers to complete this important project
on an expedited basis.
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 would serve a new terminal that is
contemplated for a portion of the former Military Ocean Terminal at
Bayonne. As the only privately owned container terminal in the port,
Global pays approximately $12,000,000 in Federal, state, and local
taxes annually. More than 300 vessels, carrying more than 325,000
twenty-foot equivalent units, call annually at the terminal. Well over
600 terminal employees, with an annual payroll of $28 million, and
3,000 indirect jobs depend on this facility for their livelihood. In
addition, Global Terminal has recently invested over $50 million in new
container cranes and other handling equipment. They also plan to invest
another $40 to $50 million in facility improvements to efficiently
handle the growth of cargo projected for this area of the Port.
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 anticipate that the project will be done over
two years and that with an appropriation $22 million for fiscal year
2002, the amount requested in the President's budget, we will be able
to make the level of progress needed at that location and ensure the
timely initiation of the second of the two planned contracts.
New York & New Jersey Harbor Project
Congress last year authorized the New York & New Jersey Harbor
navigation project that builds on the improvement projects described
earlier in this statement. This is a comprehensive deepening of the
entrance channels (to 53 feet) and those serving the major terminal
areas of the bistate port (to 50 feet). This harbor-wide project will
take the Port's navigation infrastructure into the 21st century. It
will ensure that the United States will have world class channel
dimensions at its principal Atlantic gateway to meet the demands of
international shipping. The Corps of Engineers has made good progress
in the project thus far. The Port Authority and New York District
Engineer signed the PED agreement at the end of 2000. This pre-
construction and engineering design phase is expected to last 2 to 3
years. The Port Authority is currently investigating ways to shorten
construction schedules to bring 50' channels to the Port meet the
demands of our customers sooner. Therefore we request that the
Subcommittee support the continued engineering and design work on the
project with an appropriation of $8 million, which is greater than the
budgeted figure.
NY & NJ Estuary Restoration Project
The implementation of a restoration and remediation plan for the
Hudson-Raritan Estuary is a significant part of any future improvement
strategy for the harbor. The Corps of Engineers' feasibility study on
harbor restoration is an important step in determining potential
Federal and non-Federal projects to improve the quality of the natural
resource. To that end, we respectfully request that funds in the amount
of $3 million be appropriated for the second year of this valuable
effort.
Ambrose Shoal
Last year, the conferees of the Energy & Water Development bill for
fiscal year 2001 directed the Corps of Engineers to remove dangerous,
high elevation areas near the entrance to the Ambrose Channel. It was
an urgent matter, prompted by incidents that were evidence that what
markings are in place at that location are insufficient to protect
vessels from the hazard. Thanks to you, and prompt work by the Corps of
Engineers, it appears that the work will be completed in the current
fiscal year.
Section 102 Restrictions
The conferees last year again adopted a limitation on Corps of
Engineers agreements entailing credits and reimbursements for advances
by non-Federal sponsors. Such a provision effectively preempts
initiative on the part of non-Federal sponsors to bring about a
completed project at a lower cost. We strongly urge the Subcommittee
not to renew that restriction or to at least provide the Secretary with
some flexibility in that regard. As partners with Congress and the
Corps of Engineers in pursuit of beneficial projects, we think that if
a project can be expedited through the advancement of funds, it is in
the long term interest of all parties, most especially the public.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, the Port of New York and New Jersey directly serves a
substantial portion of the United States, reaching into the Midwest and
beyond. As the evolution of the shipping industry has continued the
port sector has witnessed the shift to a smaller number of major
intermodal gateways that require the deeper channels. We have seen that
shift occurring in our region. Major steamship lines that are adding
large ships to their fleets have committed to new and expanded
facilities in our harbor. We are responding by making investments in
channels, berths, terminal infrastructure and rail and road
improvements. We are also implementing a new rail and barge feeder
service program to speed containerized cargo to their destinations with
less impact on the environmental and greater efficiency. This program
will entail even greater expenditures by the public and private sectors
at the state and local level. The Federal role in meeting the
requirements of world commerce is even more crucial because the
navigation channels are the essential first step.
Thank you for this opportunity to advise you on the Corps of
Engineers projects of concern to our States and region.
______
Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's UMRBA
request recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction General:
Upper Miss. River System 21.000 33.170
Environmental Mgt. Program...
Major Rehabilitation of Locks 13.744 16.954
and Dams.....................
Operation and Maintenance: O&M of 138.216 177.216
the UMR Navigation System........
General Investigations:
Upper Mississippi and Illinois 3.724 \1\
Waterway Navigation Study....
Upper Mississippi River System 1.200 1.200
Flow Frequency Study.........
Upper Mississippi River 0.000 2.000
Comprehensive Plan...........
Upper MS & IL Rivers Levees & 0.000 .250
Streambank Prot. Study.......
Research & Development........ 24.000 29.000
Stream Gaging (U.S. Geological .700 .700
Survey)......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Sums as necessary.
Introduction
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
organization created in 1981 by the Governors 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 concerns about the Corps' planning
process, proposals for management reform, and controversies surrounding
the Upper Mississippi River Navigation study are serious matters.
However, these issues do not obviate the fundamental need for a wide
variety of on-going Corps water resource 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 river system. The habitat projects, which vary in size and range in
cost from about $500,000 to $14 million, employ different 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 supports six field
stations throughout the river system that routinely collect
standardized data on water quality, sediment, fish, invertebrates, and
vegetation at over 150 sites. In addition, scientists conduct applied
research, assessing habitat conditions and historic landscape changes,
and use modeling and statistical analysis to help characterize and
understand ecological processes.
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 2002 budget request for the EMP is
only $21 million, well below the authorized funding level. In four of
the past five years, Congress has chosen 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 the full authorized amount of $33.17 million for the EMP in
fiscal year 2002.
The fiscal year 2002 budgeted amount of $21 million will be used to
initiate construction on 8 habitat projects, continue construction of 3
projects, and complete construction of 2 projects. The design of 3
projects will be completed, while design work continues on 5 others. In
addition, approximately $6.3 million will be used to support the on-
going long-term resource monitoring, research, and analysis. Funding
will be used to support the work of the state field stations and
continue analyzing the data collected at those stations to guide
habitat restoration efforts.
If an additional $12.17 million is provided in fiscal year 2002,
significant additional habitat restoration work can proceed, including
completion of design work on 2 projects, initiation of construction of
2 projects, and advancing construction of 7 projects. In addition,
critical bathymetric surveys can be completed. Bathymetry, which is the
topography of the river bottom, is used to predict habitat impacts from
flood events, define essential habitats for large river species, and
identify opportunities for habitat restoration. In addition, enhanced
funding would insure that land cover/land use data coverage for the
entire river system could be rapidly completed. Such information is
needed for a wide variety of management activities, including best
management practices to address nutrient loss and impacts.
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 15 years, the Corps has been
undertaking major rehabilitation of individual facilities throughout
the navigation 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 2002 budget request of
$13.744 million for major rehabilitation work at three locks and dams
on the Upper Mississippi River. Half of this amount is to be provided
by the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Funding for Lock and Dam 12 ($4.906
million) and Lock and Dam 24 ($8.038 million) will support continuing
work, including rehabilitation of lock machinery and concrete
resurfacing. Funding to address the Lock and Dam 3 outdraft problem
($800,000) will support continuing work on the reevaluation report and
draft Environmental Impact Statement. The funds that the Corps has
requested are expected to be sufficient to accomplish the work
scheduled at these three sites. However, an additional $3.21 million
could be used to initiate major rehabilitation work at Lock and Dam 11
as well.
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 2002 budget includes approximately $138 million
for O&M of this river system, including $101.657 million for the
Mississippi River between Minneapolis and the Missouri River, $13.068
million for the Mississippi River between the Missouri River and Ohio
River, and $23.491 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 region. 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 2002
are expected to be adequate to meet basic O&M requirements, the UMRBA
supports additional funding of $39 million, which could be effectively
utilized in fiscal year 2002 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 dams.
Navigation Study
The Corps is currently reviewing the findings and recommendations
of the March 2001 report of the National Research Council (NRC) to
determine what changes need to be made to the Upper Mississippi--
Illinois Waterway System Navigation feasibility study. In particular,
the NRC panel that reviewed the study found problems with the Corps'
economic model, its assumptions, and input data. Due to these problems,
the panel recommended that the Corps' forecasts of barge traffic and
waterway congestion not be used. They also recommended that the Corps
obtain more data and more fully explore inexpensive nonstructural
alternatives. In addition, the NRC recommended a more comprehensive
assessment of environmental impacts and better integration of the
results of the environmental studies in the decision process.
In response to these findings the Corps is revising its Project
Study Plan (PSP), which is expected to be done by June 2001. In
addition, a National Federal Senior Principals Task Force and a
Regional Interagency Work Group have recently been formed to provide
guidance on the economic and environmental issues and assist in
bringing this study to completion. The UMRBA supports the fiscal year
2002 funding necessary to modify the study as needed so that it can be
brought to a timely conclusion with credible analysis upon which to
base future investment decisions.
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
2002 budget request of $1.2 million for the Upper Mississippi River
Flow Frequency Study. These funds will be used to develop the new flood
profiles and complete risk and uncertainty and sensitivity analyses.
Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan
Section 459 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
authorized the Corps to develop what is termed an ``Upper Mississippi
River Comprehensive Plan.'' The primary focus of the plan is systemic
flood damage reduction. The current devastating floods on the Upper
Mississippi River once again demonstrate the need to take a
comprehensive look at flood control and floodplain management needs on
the upper river. The UMRBA supports funding of $2 million in fiscal
year 2002 to initiate coordination with other Federal and state
agencies to appropriately scope the study and identify data and
information needs, including how the plan will build upon the results
of the Flow Frequency Study.
Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers Levees and Streambank Protection
Study
Section 458 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
authorized the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers levees and
streambanks protection study in response to erosion damages to levees
and other flood control structures on these rivers. The UMRBA supports
funding of $250,000 to initiate this study in fiscal year 2002.
Research and Development
The $24 million requested in the President's budget for Research
and Development does not include funding for a proposed System-Wide
Modeling Assessment & Restoration Technologies' (SMART) program. The
SMART program would provide significant new tools needed to address
environmental restoration at watershed and basin scales. Hydrologic,
hydrodynamic, and sediment transport models would be linked with
biological models and socio-economic modules to provide an integrated
technology for evaluating improvements in land and water management at
the basin scale. It is proposed that this work focus initially on the
Upper Mississippi River Basin. SMART would improve prediction
capabilities regarding sediment and nutrient transport under different
conditions of land use. This foundational research could then be
applied to the sediment and nutrient modeling authorized for the Upper
Mississippi River Basin under Section 403 of WRDA 2000.
The estimated five-year cost of the SMART program is $25 million,
with $5 million requested in fiscal year 2002. The UMRBA supports
funding for the SMART program as the research investment required prior
to implementation of the Section 403 study.
Stream Gaging
The Corps of Engineers in cooperation with the USGS operates
approximately 150 stream gages in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. In
fiscal year 2001, the estimated Corps share of the cost of these gages
is $1.1 million. Most stream gages are funded as part of the cost of
the project to which they are related. However, there are a number of
gages that are not associated with a particular project. Thus, UMRBA
supports the $700,000 requested in the General Investigations to
support the Corps' share of non-project USGS stream gages, many of
which are located in the five states of the Upper Mississippi River
Basin.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
The Energy Committee of the Council on Engineering (COE), American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME International) is pleased to
provide testimony on the President's fiscal year 2002 budget request
for the Department of Energy (DOE). Our testimony is directed to the
Administration's proposed budget for the Department of Energy's R&D
programs in the areas of nuclear energy research, renewable energy
research, and basic energy sciences.
introduction to the coe energy committee of asme
The 125,000-member ASME International is a worldwide society
dedicated to the advancement of the art and science of Mechanical
Engineering. We focus our efforts on technical, education, and research
in Mechanical Engineering and conduct one of the world's largest
technical publishing operations. The COE Energy Committee consists
primarily of members representing eight technical divisions and three
ASME Boards (approximately 40,000 members) that address energy
technologies, resources, and utilization.
background
This past year has been a pivotal one for energy supply and
utilization in the United States. The first results of restructuring of
the electric power industry in California manifested themselves
dramatically, with spiking electrical power prices, rolling blackouts,
and bankruptcy filings by major utilities. The California experience
has caused many states that had been contemplating restructuring to
delay their plans pending resolution of the situation. Nationwide, we
have experienced some of the highest gasoline prices in a decade with
predictions that prices could exceed $3/gallon in some parts of the
country this summer. Some have referred to our situation as an emerging
``energy crisis,'' while we recognize that these events are symptoms of
the fact that we have no consistent, well-integrated national energy
policy to carry us into the 21st Century.
The COE Energy Committee fully supports the Administration's
actions to establish a National Energy Strategy to meet our current and
future energy needs. We firmly believe that success in implementing a
National Energy Strategy will, in part, depend on developing new and
continuing current Federal energy R&D programs, while motivating
industrial and consumer adoption of current state-of-the-art energy
technologies. Energy R&D funding levels are at all time lows at a time
when energy issues are on the front pages of American life. This trend
must be reversed to stoke the (emission-free) fires of America's
innovative spirit.
The current situation is placing higher demands on the performance
of our energy systems and, in some cases, is pushing the limits of
scientific understanding and technology. As mechanical engineers, we
feel strongly that investments in scientific research and technology
development are essential to enable our country to meet its near- and
long-term energy needs in an environmentally appropriate manner. Fossil
fuels, which presently are the predominant energy source worldwide,
will remain the primary fuel for years to come. In the United States,
coal currently produces more than half our electrical power and,
because its supply is plentiful, will be the fuel of choice for this
purpose in the future. In the long term, we need to establish a
diversity of energy resources to meet our energy needs that include
expanding our nuclear, hydropower, solar, and other renewable energy
resources. It is crucial, as we expand and diversify our energy
resources, that we also use them wisely and effectively, setting
standards for utilization and improving conservation and efficiency. In
our view, one example of an ineffective use of an energy resource is
the proliferation of gas-turbine power plants that use natural gas as a
fuel when natural gas has more value as a chemical feedstock and home-
heating fuel.
Even with increased energy shortages, the U. S. public continues to
demonstrate concern for the preservation of the environment and for
continued improvement of air and water quality. The ability to meet our
future energy needs in a manner consistent with our environmental well
being requires that we continue into the 21st Century the innovation
and entrepreneurial development in that made us the world leader in
technology in the 20th Century. To do this, we need strong leadership
from the Federal government to develop a national energy policy that:
--ensures a diversity of U. S. energy sources and a transmission and
distribution infrastructure to enable adequate future supplies
and competition in the market place;
--utilizes energy resources in those applications where they are
unique, efficient, and provide the most value;
--balances supply-side (resource availability and distribution) and
demand-side (conservation, utilization, and efficiency)
considerations; and
--maintains consideration for the environmental impacts of energy-
related decisions.
The COE Energy Committee strongly supports increased funding for
energy research and development that is directed at increasing energy
conservation, developing advanced forms of energy and improving
utilization of our resources.
Our testimony is based on an analysis of the Administration's
proposed budget for fiscal year 2002 for the Department of Energy's R&D
programs in nuclear energy research, renewable energy research, and
basic energy sciences. While the administration clearly recognizes the
importance of developing a national energy policy as indicated by the
appointment of the Vice President to lead its development, our analysis
shows a reduction of funding in the three topic areas of nearly $140
million dollars over fiscal year 2001 levels. These reductions are
proposed at a time when we should be expanding, not reducing, R&D, and
they critically threaten very important energy R&D programs.
office of nuclear energy
The U.S. pioneered the safe utilization of atomic energy for
commercial power production and today 23 percent of the U. S.
electrical energy is supplied by nuclear power. Technology developed in
the U.S. is now employed worldwide for nuclear power generation. For
over two decades, no new nuclear power plants have been approved for
construction in the U.S. while abroad many countries are taking
advantage of this clean, safe, and relatively inexpensive power source.
The U.S. has the opportunity to renew its option on the effective use
of nuclear power, which many believe will be a vital part of a future
where carbon emissions may be severely curtailed. However, this will
not be possible without a significant, sustained, national investment,
coupled with the re-licensing of existing U.S. nuclear plants.
To meet the challenges associated with ensuring a continued supply
of nuclear power in our country, we have identified the following
research needs and policy priorities: completion of the high-level
waste repository and demonstration of long-term technologies for
monitoring and managing repository safety; R&D to improve on-site and
off-site interim storage; and incentives for students to enter careers
for nuclear design, construction, and operation.
Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO)
The COE Energy Committee strongly supports the NEPO to address
extending the life and improving the efficiency of conventional nuclear
power plants. The NEPO program marks the beginning of efforts to enable
maximum use of our existing nuclear generation capacity. Major advances
in science and technology offer the potential to substantially increase
the productive life of nuclear plants with improved safety and economic
performance. Given the current industry trend toward nuclear plant life
extension and the potential benefits offered by the NEPO program, the
COE Energy Committee encourages the Subcommittee to increase the amount
requested by the administration to $10 million, with appropriate and
justified increases in future years.
Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI)
The COE Energy Committee continues to support the NERI efforts to
develop fundamental technologies for future nuclear power. Increased
understanding of nuclear power technology, advances in materials
science, and improvements in many related sciences and technology offer
the potential to reduce plant construction and operation costs and
waste management requirements, and improve plant operability,
reliability, life span, and safety. A substantial fraction of this
initiative will go toward nurturing university research and education
in nuclear science and engineering, through direct funding and
reinforcing linkages between the nuclear technical community in
industry and our national laboratories. It will help ensure the
availability of an improved nuclear power option for the future and
increase the dwindling base of nuclear professionals. This will benefit
the U.S. by enhancing power production in this country and enabling
U.S. industry to compete effectively in the global energy markets. We
recommend funding NERI at least equal to last year's level of $35
million, with serious consideration given to steadily increasing
funding to the level of $100 million recommended by the 1997 report by
the Presidents Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).
Nuclear Engineering Technologies
The Energy Committee supports the development of next-generation
nuclear technologies for advanced light water reactors and robust,
modular designs. We believe that it is critical to identify and develop
modular reactor designs with high utilization, lower toxicity, and less
proliferation potential for process heat, desalination, and hydrogen
production. We also support the development of designs for advanced
gas-cooled plant designs. The Committee supports increasing funding for
Nuclear Technologies to $12 million.
Other Nuclear Programs
The COE Energy Committee supports continued investment in the
University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support (URFAS). It is
reasonable to believe that increased investment in NERI and NEPO will
require greater utilization of our university reactors; therefore, the
COE Energy Committee recommends an increase to $15 million for fiscal
year 2002.
renewable energy resources
The COE Energy Committee supports increasing the proposed budget
for solar and renewable energy development as an investment in
diversity of our energy future. Various studies by the National Science
Foundation and others have shown that it takes from 20 to 25 years from
the time of inception for a new technology to start to penetrate
commercial markets. Some solar and renewable energy resources, e.g.,
wind, hydropower, geothermal, and some biomass technologies, are
nearing the completion of this development cycle. Other renewable
technologies (photovoltaics, concentrating solar, and hydrogen) are at
the mid-point of the cycle and are, realistically, years from reaching
technological maturity. Because some technologies are more developed
now does not necessarily mean that they are either the ``best'' or the
``only'' technologies that will be needed in the future. It is clear
there will not likely be one winner, but rather a suite of technologies
that will be deployed to meet the broad range of needs within the U.S.
and for export. Now is the time to explore and expand all of our
options to the fullest extent practicable as we prepare to meet power
generation needs of the 21st Century.
Hydrogen Research
The COE Energy Committee supports increased funding for Hydrogen
research to $30 million to accelerate the development of reformer
technology, membranes, and high-density storage for application to fuel
cells.
Hydro Power
THE COE Energy Committee supports increasing funding for hydropower
to the fiscal year 2001 level of $5 million for continuing development
of advanced turbines and for studies to evaluate re-powering of
existing hydroelectric dams, which will increase efficiency and
capacity and mitigate environmental impacts.
Solar Energy
The COE Energy Committee supports increases in funding for solar
energy research by $60 million to support systems integration for
photovoltaic (increase to $80.1 million) and concentrating solar power
(CSP) systems (increase to $18.7 million), and for the solar buildings
program to bring it back to the $3.9 million dollar level of fiscal
year 2001. The Committee believes that the proposed close out of the
CSP Program on the grounds that solar trough technology is commercial,
is ill conceived and does not take into consideration the additional
development needs of power tower and dish/engine systems.
Renewable Support and Implementation
The COE Energy Committee strongly favors increased funding for
renewable energy support and implementation programs by $21.5 million
as a continuation of support for the coordination of Federal, Native
American, and state energy programs and to encourage and enhance the
application of renewable energy projects.
other programs
The COE Energy Committee supports the proposed funding for Biomass
Power/Biofuels at $80.5 million with primary focuses on alternative
fuels development and power production. We also recommend: increasing
the geothermal budget to $27 million to support cross-cutting drilling
research; increasing the wind energy budget to $45 million in support
of advance light weight turbine designs and active controls; and an
increase in energy storage and distributed energy systems to $60
million for cross-cutting systems and storage development.
The COE Energy Committee supports enhancing the formation of
coalitions among industry, universities, and the national laboratories
to fully explore research and development potential of solar/renewable
energy resources. We believe that it is government's role to perform
the basic, fundamental R&D and that, once the concepts have been fully
developed, it is industry's responsibility to penetrate the global
marketplace. The development of competitive renewable options provides
insurance for U. S. energy security and environmental impacts on our
energy future. They will enable the U.S. to achieve a more sustainable
energy economy.
basic energy sciences
The COE Energy Committee recognizes the importance of fundamental
scientific research for the long-term well being of the nation and we
support the proposed, nearly level funding for Office of Science
Programs. We cannot help but be concerned about reductions in funding
for biological research and we recommend a modest increase in the
advanced scientific computing initiatives to $170 million. We also want
to support the increases in funding for Basic Energy Sciences and high
energy physics, and level funding for fusion research and nuclear
physics.
The COE Energy Committee joins our President and Vice President in
facing the challenges of ensuring that energy resources are available
to meet the needs of all our citizens; and assuring that adequate
supplies of energy for the safety and security of our families, our
communities, and our Nation. We believe that dependable, affordable,
and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy is
critical for the future of the United States.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony regarding the
renewable, nuclear, and science budgets proposed for the Department of
Energy. ASME's COE Energy Committee will be pleased to respond to
requests for additional information or perspectives on other aspects of
our nation's energy programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County,
California
lower walnut creek channel project
request
Contra Costa County requests a $250,000 add-on of Construction
General (CG) Funding to the Federal Fiscal Year 2002 Budget to allow
the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to prepare a General Reevaluation
Report (GRR) to evaluate new alternatives allowing flood control
improvements and environmental restoration of this major tributary.
Army Corps of Engineers review of pertinent information and preparation
of additional studies are necessary in order to recommend appropriate
action and funding requirements to provide critical drainage
improvements and habitat restoration in the Lower Walnut Creek Channel.
background
The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District (District) has been unable to operate and maintain portions of
the Walnut Creek Channel in a traditional manner due to new listings of
endangered species and regulatory agency policies. As a result the
channel has silted in over the last several years reducing its flood
protection capacity. The importance of this project has resulted in
broad-based support from many agencies and organizations throughout a
large portion of this major metropolitan area. Through work with our
Contra Costa Watershed Forum and establishing broad based support, the
District is proposing new alternatives that will move the channel
levees back to establish a floodplain and additional habitat. This
project will also evaluate feasibility to build step pools for fish to
migrate past a concrete drop structure. The project will enhance the
flood control aspects of the channel, develop trails for access by the
public and provide restoration and re-vegetation of portions of Lower
Walnut Creek Channel. The Army Corps of Engineers needs a budget
allocation in the Federal fiscal year 2002 Budget to enable them to
evaluate potential changes to the functioning characteristics of Lower
Walnut Creek Channel, to allow all parties to move ahead with this
project.
______
Letter From Robert Doyle
East Bay Regional Park District,
Oakland, California, March 15, 2001.
Congressman George Miller,
7th Congressional District, 1333 Willow Pass Road, Suite 203, Concord,
CA 94520.
Dear Congressman Miller: On behalf of the East Bay Regional Park
District, I am writing to express our support of the Contra Costa
County Flood Control District's efforts to obtain Federal funding for
environmental restoration and flood control efforts on the lower Walnut
Creek Channel. We understand the County is requesting $250,000 in
fiscal year 2002 Federal Civil Works funding as a congressional add-on
for a General Reevaluation Study by the Army Corps of Engineers. This
Study would update existing studies and include new information and
technology, and to complete environmental review as well as engineering
and design for the project.
Restoration efforts and flood control improvements on the Walnut
Creek Channel will incorporate the Iron Horse Regional Trail's Walnut
Creek Channel extension which will link Martinez and Concord and
continue southward on existing trail which runs through the communities
of Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, Alamo, Danville, San Ramon, and most
recently Dublin. The trail links parks, schools, employment centers,
residential areas, and three BART Stations along its 23 miles of
length. Development of the trail in conjunction with a future flood
control project will provide opportunities for the public to view
restoration and flood control improvements, creating a unique
interpretive opportunity of this important watershed.
We look forward to working cooperatively with the local
organizations and agencies identified as a part of this project.
Sincerely,
Robert Doyle,
Assist General Manager, Land Division.
______
Letter From Laura M. Hoffmeister
City of Concord,
Concord, California, March 16, 2001
Honorable Ellen Tauscher,
Congresswoman, 10th District, 1801 North California Boulevard, Suite
103, Walnut Creek, CA 94595.
Dear Congresswoman Tauscher: We are writing to express our support
of the Contra Costa County Flood Control District's efforts to obtain
Federal funding for environmental restoration and flood control efforts
on the lower Walnut Creek Channel. We understand the County is
requesting $250,000 in fiscal year 2002 Federal Civil Works funding as
a congressional add for a General Re-evaluation Study by the Army Corps
of Engineers. This Reevaluation Study would update existing studies and
include new information and technology, and to complete environmental
review as well as engineering and design for the project.
We feel that restoration of the Walnut Creek Channel is vitally
important to our community because restoration of the creek takes many
forms; we have an opportunity now to improve our creek for flood
control purposes while adding a vital component which hasn't been
addressed as part of flood control efforts in the past ecosystem
restoration. We will now be able to significantly improve riparian
habitat along the creek for the number of Endangered Species which
inhabit it, and improve a very decimated yet persistent fishery
component. In addition, creek improvements will include vital regional
trail linkages, significantly enhancing recreational opportunities.
We are working with a large contingent of agencies and
organizations which are all quite excited to be part of this project.
We feel very fortunate to have been part of an effort in the past few
years whereby flood control and ecosystem improvements are being
implemented hand-in-hand. We stand ready to improve the quality of life
for human as well as a great number of other species; all we need is
funding to enable planning work to proceed on this very important
project. Thanks for your attention and support of our request. If you
have questions about this project, please do not hesitate to contact
either Kevin Emigh at (925) 313-2233 or Mitch Avalon (925) 313-2203 at
the County Floor Control District.
Sincerely,
Laura M. Hoffmeister,
Mayor, City of Concord.
______
Letter From Kathy Hicks
City of Walnut Creek,
Walnut Creek, California, March 16, 2001.
Ellen Tauscher,
1239 Longworth House Office Bldg, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher: I would first like to thank you
for your help on the City's South Broadway Grate Repair project with
the Corps. It appears construction on that project will be completed
before this summer. We now need your help on another issue.
I am are writing to express our support of Contra Costa County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) and the City
of Walnut Creek's efforts to obtain funding for environmental
restoration, flood control, and recreational improvements on Grayson
and Murderer's Creeks. We understand that the District is requesting
$200,000 in fiscal year 2002 Federal Civil Works funding as a
congressional add-on for a reconnaissance and study of the two creeks.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has published preliminary
maps showing approximately 1,800 homes and many businesses to be within
the 100-year flood plain. The District and City believe that the
construction of a multi-use basin along Grayson Creek can be utilized
to protect lives (human and wildlife) and property by temporarily
storing rainwater during severe storm events. The basin and drainage
improvements would be constructed to allow the normal flow of water
through the creeks. In addition to the construction of the basin, clean
water, fish and wildlife, riparian, recreational, and educational
enhancements would be incorporated into the project.
We are one of the many Citizens, business, environmental, wildlife
and recreational groups participating in the development of this vital
project. Thank you for your support to acquire a Federal contribution
for this endeavor. If you have questions regarding this project, please
call Mitch Avalon, County Flood Control District at (925) 313-2203 or
Tim Tucker, City of Walnut Creek at (925) 943-5841.
Sincerely,
Kathy Hicks,
Mayor.
______
murderer's creek and grayson creek project (cities of pleasant hill and
walnut creek)
request
Contra Costa County requests a $100,000 add-on from General
Investigation (GI) Funding for a Reconnaissance Study and a $100,000
add-on from General Investigation (GI) Funding for a Feasibility Study,
to the Federal fiscal year 2002 Budget, for the Murderer's/Grayson
Creek Project. This would allow the Army Corps of Engineers to review
pertinent information and to do additional studies as necessary in
order to recommend appropriate action and funding requirements to
(potentially) conduct future drainage improvements in the Murderer's
and Grayson Creek watershed.
background
This last summer, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
released preliminary updated floodplain maps for areas throughout
Contra Costa County. There are significant changes to the flood zones
in the City of Pleasant Hill with approximately 1800 properties added
to the 100-year floodplain. The flood zone changes are in the
Murderer's Creek and Grayson Creek areas of Pleasant Hill. Both of
these creeks are in the larger Walnut Creek drainage basin.
The City of Pleasant Hill has made it a priority to address this
drainage issue and requested assistance from the Flood Control District
on their behalf. The Flood Control District has asked the Army Corps of
Engineers to update the last report they prepared for this watershed.
Because this issue has arisen late in the Federal budgeting process, a
request for funding to be added to the Federal fiscal year 2002 Budget
is necessary. The Army Corps of Engineers needs a budget allocation to
enable them to update the 1992 Feasibility Report for Grayson Creek and
Murderers Creek (within the Walnut Creek Basin), in the Federal fiscal
year 2002 Budget.
______
Letter From Robert B. Berggren
Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park District,
Pleasant Hill California, March 13, 2001.
Dear Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher: The Pleasant Hill Recreation &
Park District is in support of the Contra Costa County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District with the City of Pleasant Hill's
efforts to obtain funding for a flood control basin. It is our
understanding that the Water Conservation District is requesting
$200,000 in the fiscal year 2002 Federal Civil Works funding.
The Recreation & Park District is in agreement with the Water
Conservation District and City, that the construction of a mufti-use
basin along Grayson Creek can be utilized to protect lives (human and
wildlife) and property by temporarily storing rain water during severe
storm events. The Recreation & Park District is, of course, very much
interested in the construction of the basin for not only clean water,
fish and wildlife, but also recreational enhancements that can be
incorporated into this project.
Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park District and other groups that are
sponsored by the District, include the Soccer Association and the
Baseball Association, support the development of this vital project.
Thank you for your support to acquire a Federal contribution for this
endeavor. We are hoping that this project will take place so we can
have the much-needed soccer and baseball fields for the youth of this
community.
Sincerely,
Robert B. Berggren,
General Manager.
______
Letter From David Smith
Pleasant Hill Baseball Association,
Pleasant Hill, California, March 14, 2001,
Dear Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher: I am writing to express my
support of Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District (District) and the City of Pleasant Hill's efforts to obtain
funding for environmental restoration, flood control, and recreational
improvements on Grayson and Murderer's Creeks. I understand that the
District is requesting $200,000 in fiscal year 2002 Federal Civil Works
funding as a congressional add-on for a reconnaissance and study of the
two creeks.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has published preliminary
maps showing approximately 1,800 homes and many businesses to be within
the 100 year flood plain. The District and City believe that the
construction of multi-use basin along Grason Creek can be utilized to
protect lives (human and wildlife) and property by temporarily storing
rain water during severe storm events. The basin and drainage
improvements would be constructed to allow the normal flow of water
through the creeks. As a child in the early 1960's I had to be picked
up in a boat from my home on Elinora Drive, many homes were damaged in
this event, so I have seen first hand the damage and trauma such a
flood can cause. In additional to construction of the basin, clean
water, fish and wildlife, riparian, recreational, and, educational
enhancements would be incorporated into the project.
I represent Pleasant Hill Baseball Association--just one of the
many business, environmental, wildlife, and citizens groups
participating in the development of this vital project.
Pleasant Hill Baseball Association has nearly 1,500 children
participating in its youth sports program. We need fields for this
program, as does the Soccer Association, Football and various other
groups dedicated to providing sports to the youth of the community.
Studies show children who enjoy participation in organized sports lore
much more likely to become productive citizens and much less likely to
run afoul of the law.
Thank you for your support to acquire a Federal contribution for
this endeavor. If you have questions regarding this project, please
call Mitch Avalon, County Flood Control District at (925) 313-2203 or
Leary Wong, City of Pleasant Hill at (925) 671-5264.
Sincerely,
David Smith,
President, Pleasant Hill Baseball Association.
______
Letter From Paul Fernbach
Pleasant Hill-Martinez Soccer Association,
Pleasant Hill, California.
Dear Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher: We are writing to express our
support of Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District (District) and the City of Pleasant Hill's efforts to obtain
funding for environmental restoration, flood control, and recreational
improvements on Grayson and Murderer's Creeks. We understand that the
District is requesting $200,000 in fiscal year 2002 Federal Civil Works
funding as a congressional add-on for a reconnaissance and study of the
two creeks.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has published preliminary
maps showing approximately 1,800 homes and many businesses to be within
the 100 year flood plain. The District and City believe that the
construction of a multi-use basin along Grayson Creek can be utilized
to protect lives (human and wildlife) and property by temporarily
storing rain water during severe storm events. The basin and drainage
improvements would be constructed to allow the normal flow of water
through the creeks. In addition to the construction of the basin, clean
water, fish and wildlife, riparian, recreational, and educational
enhancements would be incorporated into the project.
We are one of the many citizen, business, environmental, wildlife
and recreational groups participating in the development of this vital
project. Thank you for your support to acquire a Federal contribution
for this endeavor. If you have questions regarding this project, please
call Mitch Avalon, County Flood Control District at (925) 313-2203 or
Leary Wong, City of Pleasant Hill at (925) 671-5264.
Sincerely,
Paul Fernbach,
Regional Commissioner Pleasant Hill--Martinez Soccer Association.
______
san pablo and wildcat creek phase ii project (city of san pablo)
request
Contra Costa County requests a $100,000 add-on of Construction
General (CG) funding to the Federal fiscal year 2002 Budget to allow
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to prepare a General Reevaluation
Report (GRR) of the 1985 Feasibility Report for the San Pablo and
Wildcat Creek, Phase II Project. This would allow the Army Corps of
Engineers to review pertinent information and to do additional studies
as necessary to recommend appropriate action and funding requirements
to (potentially) construct future drainage improvements in the San
Pablo and Wildcat Creek watersheds. ALTERNATIVELY, add legislative
language to extend the existing authorization for five years, which
would postpone the pending deauthorization of the project. This would
allow the City of San Pablo and the Flood Control District to work with
the Army Corps of Engineers and request funding through the normal
budget process.
background
In the early 1980's flood protection improvements were constructed
to San Pablo and Wildcat Creeks from San Pablo Bay to the San Pablo
City limits. This was Phase I of a two-phase project. The second phase
would extend through the City of San Pablo. Last year, the Army Corps
of Engineers informed the Flood Control District that the Phase II
project would be de-authorized on April 16, 2002 unless some action was
taken.
In September, the City of San Pablo contacted the Flood Control
District regarding the proposed de-authorization of the Wildcat and San
Pablo Creeks Phase II Project. The City confirmed its interest in
keeping the project active and asked for assistance in proceeding to
the next step with the Army Corps of Engineers. The City would like the
Corps to reevaluate the original design to provide a more environmental
solution.
FEMA is also updating the floodplain maps in the City of San Pablo
and the City may potentially have 1,500-1,800 properties placed in the
100-year floodplain. A budget allocation for the Federal fiscal year
2002 Budget would allow the Army Corps of Engineers to reevaluate Phase
II of the original plan.
______
Letter From Ronald L. Kiedrowski
City of San Pablo,
San Pablo, California, March 15, 2001.
Mr. Mitch Avalon,
Deputy Director, Public Works Department, 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez,
CA 94553.
Dear Mr. Avalon: We are writing to express our support of Contra
Costa County's efforts to obtain funding for environmental restoration,
flood control and recreation efforts on our creeks. Historically, work
on creeks within Contra Costa County was limited to flood control
protection and vegetation was removed to maximize flows, particularly
in flood-prone areas. As a result, many of our creeks are largely
devoid of riparian vegetation which is critical to a number of
endangered and other species which inhabit these areas. Today,
additional flood control work must be done, allowing the opportunity
for ecosystem restoration and recreational opportunities to go forward
hand-in-hand with flood control planning efforts. We need your help to
fund our creek restoration efforts.
Restoration of the Walnut Creek Channel, and the other creeks in
our vicinity is vitally important to our community, because restoration
takes many forms. We will now be able to significantly improve riparian
habitat along creeks and improve a very decimated yet persistent
fishery, in addition to the flood control component. In addition, creek
improvements will include vital regional trail linkages, significantly
enhancing recreational opportunities for the immediate area as well as
the larger, region.
We are working with a large and very broad-based contingent of
agencies and organizations within our community which are all quite
excited to be part of this significant effort. Because of recent
changes in how flood control work is contemplated, a more collaborative
effort to improve creeks is now possible. We stand ready to improve the
quality of life for all; funding to enable planning work to proceed is
critical. Thanks for your attention and support of our request.
Sincerely,
Ronald L. Kiedrowski,
Interim City Manager.
______
Letter From Ronald L. Kiedrowski
City of San Pablo,
San Pablo, California, March 15, 2001.
Michael J. Walsh,
Colonel Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, 1325 ``j'', Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-2922.
Dear Col. Walsh: The City of San Pablo requests that the Wildcat/
San Pablo Creeks project be reauthorized, and that an add-on to the
fiscal year 2002 budget be sought for the project. Reach 1 of the
project has been completed just downstream of our City. Reach 2, which
traverses the City of San Pablo, has not yet been done and it is this
reach that we request be studied. The City of San Pablo experiences a
significant amount of flooding during heavy rain events, and the
impacts to our residents are great. Furthermore, the recent proposed
revision by FEMA to the Flood Insurance Rate Map puts approximately
1,500 properties in the 100 year flood zone. The requirement to carry
flood insurance will be a heavy burden on our primarily low-income
community.
Thank you for your consideration. Please contact our Public Works
Division Manager, Ms. Adele Ho, at 510-215-3068, if you have any
questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Ronald L. Kiedrowski,
Interim City Manager.
______
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 2002
budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The District respectfully requests that the Subcommittee support an
appropriation of $9 million 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.
The Corps of Engineers studied and planned this modest project for
more than 10 years. Last year, Congress appropriated $3 million to
continue construction in fiscal year 2001. 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.
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. The bulk of the
construction work on the project is scheduled for fiscal year 2002.
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 City of Roseville, California
Mr. Chairman and members of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for this
opportunity to testify before you. My name is Claudia Gamar and I am
the mayor of the City of Roseville, California. On behalf of the
citizens of Roseville, I request your support for one of the City's
highest priorities for the fiscal year 2002.
The City of Roseville requests your support of a $200,000 earmark
for the reconnaissance and feasibility studies associated with the WRDA
1999 water conservation program targeted for Placer County, El Dorado
County, and the service area of the San Juan Water District.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1999 authorized $25 million
for regional water conservation and recycling projects within Placer
County, El Dorado County, and the service area of the San Juan Water
District. During the drafting of WRDA 99, specific agencies and cities
within those areas identified potential water conservation and
recycling projects. Roseville specifically identified a portion of its
conservation plan--meter retrofits--as a prime candidate for Federal
assistance.
Meter retrofits provide mitigation for water supply impacts above
Folsom Dam resulting from flood control operations on the American
River. In addition, several of the agencies and cities participated in
the Water Forum, a regional effort to manage water supplies and provide
a safe and reliable water supply while preserving the fishery,
wildlife, and recreational values of the Lower American River. The
agencies and cities agreed to additional water conservation measures as
part of the Water Forum effort.
Before the $25 million authorized under WRDA 99 can be
appropriated, the Army Corps of Engineers must complete a
reconnaissance study and a feasibility study. The City requests that
Congress direct the Corps of Engineers to conduct a reconnaissance
study addressing the water conservation and recycling projects
referenced above.
Key elements of the study would include: (1) identification of the
problems the water conservation and recycling projects would address;
(2) formulation, to a conceptual level, of specific projects; (3)
definition of the Federal interest in implementation of those projects;
and (4) identification of local support for implementation of those
projects.
The City also requests that Congress direct the Corps of Engineers
to complete both the reconnaissance and feasibility studies in fiscal
year 2002.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before this
committee.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Folsom, California
Mr. Chairman and members of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for this
opportunity to testify before the committee. My name is Steve Miklos
and I am the mayor of the City of Folsom, California. On behalf of the
citizens of Folsom, I request your support of one of the City's highest
priorities for the fiscal year 2002.
The City of Folsom requests your support of a $3.5 million under
the Bureau of Reclamation Water & Related Resources Account for
engineering, construction and inspection to upgrade and replace the
remaining portion of the Natoma Pipeline System.
The Natoma Pipeline System is owned and operated by the Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR) and is the single water supply source for the
rapidly growing City of Folsom, California. The Natoma Pipeline System
begins at the Folsom Dam/Reservoir and delivers raw water to the City's
water treatment facility.
The pipeline appeared to be in poor condition, and inspections
confirmed the aging system suffered from weak pipe joints and walls,
increasing the probability of a pipe failure. Given the critical nature
of this facility, the City decided to pursue replacement of the
pipeline using City funds. Because of the significant cost of the
project, the City found it necessary to fund the project in two phases.
The first phase has been completed and the second phase is expected to
be completed by June 2001.
Recognizing the need to partner with USBR, Folsom undertook
engineering, construction and inspection for the entire project at a
cost of $8.6 million. The cost was an unplanned expenditure by the City
and has significantly reduced funds available for other needed water
system improvements. Therefore, $3.5 million in Federal funding is
requested as a reimbursement to the City.
The City has requested funding for this project in the past two
Federal funding cycles.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before this
committee.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Salem, Oregon
Mr. Chairman and members of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for this
opportunity to testify before the committee. My name is Mike Swaim and
I am the mayor of the City of Salem, Oregon. On behalf of the citizens
of Salem, I request your support of one of the City's highest
priorities for the fiscal year 2002.
The City of Salem, Oregon requests a $300,000 earmark in the fiscal
year 2002 Energy & Water Appropriations bill (Corps of Engineers
General Investigations Account) for the Salem Area Willamette River
Study.
The City of Salem requests Federal assistance in studying the
Willamette River. Specifically, the project would cover the reach of
the Willamette River extending through Marion and Polk counties. The
study would focus on the following points: the river's potential to
migrate and interact with the floodplain; water quality; stream flow;
and salmon presence and use.
The study would focus on current issues including maintenance and
construction of revetments, Willamette River Greenway development, as
well as water quality and flow impacts from urban tributary streams,
direct discharges, and water withdrawals. The study would facilitate
the City's planning and projects which are now subject to compliance
with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In addition to the City of
Salem, Marion and Polk Counties and the city of Keizer would
significantly benefit from this study.
While the Willamette River has been studied on several occasions
over the last decade, those studies reviewed the entire river system
and do not provide the detail needed for local, and in some cases
regional, management decisions.
The City expects both the Corps of Engineers and the U.S.
Geological Survey to coordinate in this effort. The City is willing to
undertake cost sharing on the project.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before this
committee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coalition of EPSCoR States
Mr. Chairman: I am Jane Nichols, Chancellor of the University and
Community College System of Nevada. I submit this statement on behalf
of the nineteen states, plus the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, that are
currently eligible to participate in the Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR).
The Coalition of EPSCoR States supports the Energy Department's
budget request for EPSCoR, but we respectfully urge the Subcommittee to
consider appropriating $12,000,000 for this effective and productive
program. This represents an increase of $4,315,000 over the
Department's request of $7,685,000 for EPSCoR in the Basic Energy
Sciences budget.
The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)
is a research and development (R&D) program originally established by
the National Science Foundation. Through a merit review process, EPSCoR
is improving our Nation's science and technology capability by funding
research activities by talented professionals at universities and non-
profit organizations in states that historically have received little
Federal R&D funding. EPSCoR is a partnership between the Federal
government and the EPSCoR states and their universities. It helps
improve research capabilities and quality in order for the states to
compete more effectively for non-EPSCoR research funds. EPSCoR is a
catalyst for change and is widely viewed as a model of Federal-state
cooperation.
In 1992, Congress authorized the Energy Department to conduct an
EPSCoR Program in Section 2203 of the Energy Policy Act (Public Law
102-486). The Department designed its EPSCoR program based upon the
National Science Foundation's model developed with the overriding
purpose of enhancing the capabilities of the eligible states to conduct
nationally competitive energy-related research and to develop science
and engineering manpower to meet current and future needs in energy-
related areas.
Nevada ranked 40th in the U.S. in overall R&D performance in NSF's
most recent accounting. Our goal, as is the goal of every EPSCoR state,
is to graduate from the EPSCoR classification. We are making great
strides in this endeavor and are actively pursuing national and world-
class research competitiveness through investments in research and
infrastructure. Currently, Nevada has a world class research facility
in its Free Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) site, an EPSCoR-funded, long-term
ecological research experiment on the Nevada Test Site. This is a
direct result of the first DOE EPSCoR work.
An example of the State's investment includes the State funded
Applied Research Initiative that will provide 1:1 matching with
industry to develop a new technology or to enhance an existing
technology. This program has proven to be very successful during the
last three years. UCCSN has established research relationships with
more than 60 industrial partners. The hallmark of these partnerships is
collaborative research between the industrial partner, faculty and
students directed toward the development of new products and processes.
Dr. Ken Hunter, former Research Vice President at the University of
Nevada, Reno, has reported that state-matching funds of $1.35 million
leveraged more than $4.8 million in industrial R&D support to UCCSN
during the past three years. This would not be possible if the
University System had not placed a value on applied research,
encouraging its faculty and students to engage in this research
activity.
In a broader context, the DOE EPSCoR program is a major element of
the State of Nevada's overall EPSCoR effort. The NSF EPSCoR grants
directly complemented the first DOE EPSCoR award, by expanding research
activities significantly beyond what could be accomplished by a single
award, and expanding the pool of K-16 and graduate students to form
even more viable Science, Math, and Engineering talent sources for the
future. The number of participants in these EPSCoR programs, as well as
in the Cooperative Agreements between DOE-NV and University and
Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) comprised of the University
of Nevada, Reno (UNR), the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and
the Desert Research Institute (DRI) provide a framework and synergism
for additional collaborative and interdisciplinary undertakings. For
example, Nevada researchers received approximately $2 million in 1998
through the highly competitive NSF/DOE/USDA/NASA/NOAA Terrestrial
Ecology and Global Change (TECO) program, the major U.S. grant program
for research in global change biology. These researchers also received
over $2 million in funding from the DOE Terrestrial Carbon Processes
Program.
Nevada, under the auspices of the Lieutenant Governor, is in the
process of updating and evaluating the statewide goals and objectives
for high technology in the state. A State Technology Plan for Nevada
was prepared by the Technology Partnership Practice of the Battelle
Memorial Institute in late 2000, and builds on the State becoming more
active and adept in commercializing technology, fostering spin-offs,
and functioning as an innovation center for Federal technology transfer
and commercialization. The Rand Corporation is also working with the
UCCSN to redesign the higher education system of Nevada.
The Nevada DOE EPSCoR Program was established in 1994. It is one of
the thirteen states awarded grants following a merit-based competition.
Other states that have had or currently have Department of Energy
EPSCoR awards are Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana,
Nebraska, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Vermont, West Virginia
and Wyoming. Each state matches its grant with state, university or
other non-Federal funds. A crucial aspect of these grants is their
focus on multi-disciplinary R&D teams targeting selected topics of
importance to institutions and the state rather than a focus on single-
topic or single-investigator R&D.
The funding for the Nevada DOE EPSCoR Program during fiscal year
2001 is $600,000 of which the DOE share is $300,000. The remainder is
from the State of Nevada.
The goals of the Nevada DOE EPSCoR Program are to:
--Achieve human resources critical mass via research team-building
within UCCSN,
--Develop research collaborations between UCCSN researchers and DOE
National Laboratories, DOE Nevada Operations Office, and other
DOE facilities,
--Develop research collaborations with industry that result in new
technologies and processes,
--Increase the number of faculty, postdoctoral, and graduate-level
students involved in energy-related research in Nevada, through
both direct and indirect support from this grant, and
--Increase the Science, Math, and Engineering undergraduate
enrollment of under-represented minorities, women and disabled
students.
Nevada DOE EPSCoR supports the attainment of these goals through a
statewide research and infrastructure-building program. The research
focuses on advanced, high quality, multi-pulsed, X-ray radiographic
diagnostics which are needed to study the dynamic properties of matter
and energy close to those that occur in the detonation of nuclear
weapons. Future pulse power and laser power facilities will simulate
these conditions in a laboratory setting.
These are the types of activities the Coalition believes the DOE
should help to further strengthen and expand. This is why we believe
additional funds should be made available for fiscal 2002. Increased
funding would enable the DOE to expand the number of states
participating in implementation grants during the next fiscal year.
Given the success of the EPSCoR programs in Nevada, it is not
surprising that we are enthusiastic about the future of the DOE EPSCoR
program. It is Nevada's experience that EPSCoR funding yields a return
far greater than the original investment. It stimulates collaboration,
strategic thinking and broad-based planning.
On behalf of the Coalition of EPSCoR States, I urge this
Subcommittee to continue to support the DOE EPSCoR program. Recognizing
the very tight fiscal constraints this Subcommittee faces, we request
that the Subcommittee provide $12,000,000 to the Energy Department for
its EPSCoR program in fiscal year 2002 as part of the Basic Energy
Sciences budget. The Coalition recommends that $8,000,000 of this
amount should be used to support meritorious research implementation
awards. The remaining $4,000,000 should be used to support laboratory
partnership grants.
The Energy Department's Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research is a wise and timely investment of scarce public
resources. It will continue to help build the scientific and
engineering research infrastructure necessary for the future of
eligible states and the Nation.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota
Chairman Domenici and Members of the Energy and Water Development
Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony
requesting the $3.3 million needed to complete Stage 3 of the
Stillwater, Minnesota flood control project. As this testimony is being
prepared, the City is once again in the midst, of yet another flood
event this year. The St. Croix River has crested at 692.3 feet, only
1.8 feet less than the record flood of 1965 (See attachment.)
The St. Croix River is now above flood stage, and the water
continues to rise. The levee wall system is under water, as is the
Northern extension of the levee system. The river is not expected to
crest until late next week. On Tuesday, April 3, 2001, the City Council
approved an initial expenditure of $300,000 to begin the construction
of dikes and other flood measures. As the Spring rains continue,
another $300,000 will be necessary to extend, reinforce, increase the
height of the dikes. It has required more than 30,000 tons of fill
protect the City and its' residents. The emergency dikes are
constructed precisely in the location where the Stage 3 flood wall is
planned for construction.
It is the third stage of the project that provides the protection
for the community from flood events. The first two stages were
essential to halt the erosion that had destroyed a third of the old
levee system. Stage 3 is designed to provide up to 100-year flood
protection.
the impact of lock and dam #3 on floods stillwater
The Lock and Dam #3 was constructed in 1937-38 on the Mississippi
River at Red Wing, Minnesota. The Lock and Dam construction raised the
level of the St. Croix at Stillwater by 8 to 10 feet. It has made the
City of Stillwater vulnerable during periods of high water and flooding
of the St. Croix since that time. Records prove that the lock and dam
construction, raising the water levels of both the Mississippi and the
St. Croix River, has markedly increased the incidence of flooding at
Stillwater. The culpability of the Corps is clearly evident.
The Mississippi and the St. Croix Rivers merge about 14 miles South
of Stillwater. When constructing the Lock and Dam at Red Wing in 1938,
the Federal officials recognized that detaining the flow of the
Mississippi would back up the water in the St. Croix at Stillwater. A
1,000 foot levee wall system was constructed at Stillwater by the WPA
under the supervision of the Corps to protect the fragile waterfront.
From 1850 to 1938, the 88 years prior to the construction of Lock
and Dam #3, only four floods were reported by historians. None were the
result of Spring snow melts. The 1852 flood was the result of a
cloudburst, the destruction of a dam built on McKusick Lake above the
City, and was not the result of the flooding of the St. Croix River.
The floods of June 14, 1885, and May 9, 1894, as well as the 1852
flood, were all the result of cloudbursts in or above Stillwater. These
floods resulted in both loss of life and significant property losses in
the City.
Since the completion of the Lock and Dam 60 years ago, the St.
Croix has flooded on 17 occasions, and only four times in the 90 years
preceding the construction of the Lock and Dam. Four floods were
recorded in the 1940's, immediately after the completion of the lock
and dam at Red Wing. The 1952, 1965, and 1969 floods were record-
breaking floods, the result of a heavy snow fall, and early Spring
rainfall, coupled with warm weather.
Record flooding was avoided in 1997, by the early planning of City
officials, the construction of a huge emergency levee requiring
thousands of truck loads of clay and sand, the work of hundreds of
volunteers, and luck in the avoidance of a severe rainstorm in or
around the flood event.
The planning and preparation of City officials, and adequate lead
time have allowed the construction of levees high enough to avoid
massive flooding in the historic section of the City during most of the
floods, and to prevent further loss of life. However, a 4-5 inch
rainfall during high water levels would be devastating to the City.
Such rainfalls are not infrequent in the St. Croix Valley, and can not
be anticipated.
A wet Fall that saturates the soil, heavy snows during the Winter,
extended warm spells in the Spring, coupled with persistent Spring
rains, and cloudbursts as experienced in the past, will all come
together in the same year at some point in time, and the City's
emergency responses to flood control will not be sufficient to cope
with the flood waters.
History bears out the City's contention that the raising of the
river levels by ten feet in 1938, when Lock and Dam #3 was constructed,
greatly increases the flooding potential faced by the City during the
past 60 years. On this basis alone, the Federal Government must share
in the responsibility for providing a remedy. The construction of the
Stage 3 flood wall at Stillwater will provide this safety.
environment threatened during flood events
The St. Croix River was designated as one of the first Wild and
Scenic Rivers by Congress and is protected under both Federal and State
laws, as well as by local ordinances. The St. Croix River is carefully
monitored by the Federal government, an Interstate Commission, and the
DNR's by both the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota.
The concern to the thousands of Minnesota and Wisconsin citizens
who use the river each week is the trunk sanitary sewer line and
pumping stations for the City of Stillwater. The sewer line runs
adjacent to the riverfront and is frequently under water during major
flood events. More than 2 million gallons of raw sewage is handled
daily by the sewer line and pumping stations that follow the
riverfront. Engineers have advised the City that extended flooding of
the flood plain could result in the rupturing of the trunk line or the
surcharging of the pumping stations.
Either of these event would result in the direct flow of raw sewage
into the St. Croix River. It would be impossible to repair the system
during the high water of a flood event. During the 1997 floods, one
pumping station and a portion of the trunk sewer line remained under
water for 95 days, and required careful monitoring by the City workers.
The protection of the river is not only the dominant theme of the
State and Federal governments, but also by the counties and
municipalities that line the riverbanks of the St. Croix. However, the
greatest protectors of the river are the citizens themselves who take
advantage of the crystal blue waters of the St. Croix for fishing,
boating,swimming, and other recreational and scenic purposes.
The topography of the City of Stillwater requires the location of
the trunk sanitary sewer line and pumping stations at the base of the
City's hub, adjacent to the riverfront. The City is built on two hills
that slope toward the river, abruptly interrupted by sandstone bluffs
extending 50-75 feet high above the river level. The sanitary sewer
system serving the 16,000 Stillwater residents flows into the trunk
sewer line that runs parallel to the riverfront. It can not be moved.
The 2 million gallons of raw sewage handled by the system each day, is
gathered in the trunk sewer line and pumped Southward to the water
treatment plant. (2)
According to engineering studies, the trunk line and the pumping
stations are both susceptible to rupture or surcharging during periods
of flooding. Little could be done to stop the flow of raw sewage into
the St. Croix until the water receded. During recent floods, it is not
unusual for high water levels to persist for as much as 2-4 months.
Such an event could release 120 million gallons of raw sewage into one
of America's most pristine rivers over that period of time. If for no
other reason than the protection of the river, the City believes the
Stage 3 flood wall must be constructed with no delay.
stillwater levee and flood control project progress and description
The project is divided into three stages. Stage 1 included the
repair and reconstruction of the existing retaining wall which extends
1,000 feet from Nelson Street on the South to the gazebo on the North
end of the levee wall system. Stage 2 consists of the extension of the
levee wall about 900 feet from the gazebo North around Mulberry Point.
The completion of Stage 2 was delayed by floods of 1997, costing
the City and the Federal government nearly a half million dollars.
After the waters subsided, it was discovered that the soil beneath the
planned levee extension was very unstable, requiring a revision of
plans, and the addition of another stage in the construction process.
The flood waters of the St. Croix River that arrived in April, did
not recede until August of 1997. The construction area remained under
water preventing construction work to proceed as scheduled. Lowell
Park, which extends the full length of the levee wall system, several
structures, and the emergency roadway which is used to provide
emergency medical assistance for those using the recreational St. Croix
River, and as a water source for local fire departments, were all
either under water or inaccessible.
Phase I, the repair and reconstruction of the original levee wall,
was completed in the Summer of 1998. Work on Stage 1 was completed in
late Summer of 1997, and additional soil borings were taken for Stage
2. The soil was found to be very unstable, and unable to support the
levee system designed for Stage 2 of the project. The construction of
Stage 2 required remedial action, and was been designated as Stage 2S.
A contract was awarded for Phase 2S in November, 1998, and was
completed in 1999. Phase 2 was begun in the late Fall of 1999, and the
major construction work was completed at the end of the year 2000. Only
some landscaping, and finishing work on the levee wall system remains
to be done. The Design Memorandum schedule calls for the construction
of Stage 3 in fiscal year 2002.
Stage 3 expands the flood protection system by constructing a 3
foot flood wall, and driving sheet piling below the surface to reduce
seepage and to provide a base for the wall. The flood wall will be
constructed about 125 feet inland from the riverbank. Stages 1 and 2
were critical to the protection of the fragile waterfront, and also, to
prevent minor flooding on the North end of the riverfront.
Stage 3 provides the flood protection for the City. The rising
elevation of the terrain, the flood wall, and minimal emergency
measures are designed to provide the City with up to 100 year flood
protection.
The Mayor, City Council Members, and Engineering staff all
understand that Stage 3 of the flood control project is essential for
the protection of life and property of the citizens, that the Stage 3
flood wall is a critical phase of the project, and that the project
must be completed at the earliest possible date. The Corps acknowledged
the necessity for all three stages of the project when the Design
Memorandum included plans for all three stages.
This fact is born out by the support of the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, the Governor of Minnesota, and the State
Legislature. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources made funds
available based on this premise. The State has appropriated half of the
Non-Federal matching funds needed to complete Stage 3 of the project,
as well as for Stages 1 and 2. The City has provided the remainder of
the required matching funds, consequently, only the Federal share is
missing from the partnership.
stillwater--a national historic site
There are 66 historic sites in the City of Stillwater that are
listed on the National Register of the U.S. Department of Interior, and
many other historic structures as well. Many of these sites are located
in the flood plain of the St. Croix River. Designated the ``Birthplace
of Minnesota,'' the City of Stillwater was founded in 1843.
When Wisconsin became a state in 1848, a portion of land West of
the St. Croix and Mississippi Rivers, including much of what is now the
Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, was excluded. The prominent
citizens of the excluded area convened in Stillwater on August 26,
1848, passed a resolution to be presented to Congress asking that a
``new territory be formed,'' and that the territory be named
``Minnesota.'' Henry Sibley carried the petition to Washington, D.C.,
and in March, 1849, Minnesota Territory was established. Stillwater
then became the only city in the nation to become the county seat of
two different territories, St. Croix County in Wisconsin, and
Washington County, Minnesota. The Stillwater Convention firmly
established Stillwater as the ``Birthplace of Minnesota.''
Stillwater grew and prospered as the Lumber Capitol of the Midwest.
Billions of feet of timber was cut, and floated down the St. Croix to
the nine sawmills that were located on the riverbank of the St. Croix
at Stillwater between 1848 and 1914. More logs were carried through the
boom site North of Stillwater than any other place in the United
States. Three billion feet of lumber was produced by the nine lumber
mills in the 1880's alone. All nine lumber mills were located on the
riverfront The lumber from the Stillwater mills were the primary source
of wood-constructed buildings throughout the Midwest.
Much of the lumber was carried down the St. Croix to the
Mississippi River, and on to St. Louis, the ``jumping off'' point for
the Westward movement. Sawdust and wood debris from these mills helped
created the fragile riverbank that the levee wall system protects
today. Later in the 19th Century, five railroads carried lumber from
Stillwater Westward to Nebraska, North and South Dakota, and points
West, as the Nation expanded beyond the Mississippi River into the
plains states. Many of the Midwest's oldest buildings still carry the
mark of the Stillwater mills.
As a result of Stillwater's place in the history of the Midwest,
the lumber industry, the unique homes built by Minnesota's first
millionaires, and the birthplace of both Minnesota Territory and the
State of Minnesota, sixty-six sites are included on the National
Register of Historic Places. All of the downtown area, which is located
in the 100-year flood plain, is included in this recognition.
The Stillwater area is not only of historical importance to The
cliffs that rise from the floodplain to shelter Battle Hollow is the
location of the last major Native American battle between the Sioux and
the Ojibwa Indians. It took place on July 4, 1839. The Sioux warriors
ambushed the Ojibwa killing 20 of the Ojibwa, and wounding 30 others in
retaliation for an incident that occurred several days in the lake area
which is now Minneapolis.
The site is revered by the Ojibwa, many of whom remain in Minnesota
and Wisconsin. The Minnesota Historical Society has honored the
importance site with historic markers, and the location is a popular
site of tourists.
legislative history and background
The Stillwater Flood Control and Retaining Wall project first was
authorized in section 363 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
of 1992. An allocation of $2.4 million was made in the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act of 1994.
The Committee Report described the project in three parts,--to
repair, extend, and expand the levee wall system on the St. Croix River
at Stillwater, Minnesota.
--``To repair'' (Stage 1) the original existing levee wall system
constructed in 1936.
--``To extend'' (Stage 2) the original wall by approximately 900 feet
to prevent the annual flooding that occurs at that location,
and
--``To expand'' (Stage 3) the system by constructing the flood wall
about 125 feet inland from the levee wall system to protect the
downtown and residential section in the flood plain.
In 1995, the Design Memorandum confirmed the cost estimate for the
project was much too low, and the project was reauthorized for $11.6
million by Congress in the 1996 WRDA legislation.
Since the reauthorization of the project five years ago, and the
completion of the feasibility study, both Stage 1 and 2 have
essentially been completed. Only Stage 3 will provide the City with the
flood protection that is critically needed. The reconstruction of the
existing levee wall system, the extension of the levee wall, and the
construction of the flood wall are all critical to the safety of the
citizens, the protection of property, and the preservation of historic
sites that contributed to the growth and expansion of the Midwest in
the last half of the 19th Century.
summary
--The Mayor and Council for the City of Stillwater, Washington County
Officials, the Governor and Minnesota State Legislature, and
bipartisan support of Minnesota Representatives and Senators in
Congress, all recognize the significant importance of
completing this project by constructing the Stage 3 flood wall
on the St. Croix River at Stillwater. They are committed to the
completion of the Flood Wall Project at Stillwater. It is
critical to the protection of property, the preservation of our
history, the respect of historic Indian sites, and the safety
of our citizens and their homes and business.
We respectfully urge the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee
for Appropriations to allocate $3.3 million needed to construct the
Stage 3 flood wall in the fiscal year 2002 Appropriations Bill. If you
have questions or would like additional information regarding this
project, please call on us.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Crookston, 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 Crookston, Minnesota. We are
requesting $5.31 million in Federal funds for the construction of Stage
2 of the flood control project authorized in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999. This is the funding level that the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers has determined is necessary to complete the work on
Stage 2 of the Crookston Flood Control Project. As a result of the
history of flooding experienced by the citizens of Crookston, and the
continuing threat of flood events we face, we are confident the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works will ask Congress to
provide the $5.31 million needed for the Crookston project in his
Budget Request for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year
2002.
First, we would like to thank you and the Members of this Committee
for the $1 million appropriation awarded for the Crookston Flood
Control Project in the fiscal year 2001 Appropriation Conference
Report. These funds have made it possible to begin the construction
phase of Stage 1 of the project. These funds, and an additional
$200,000 allocated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, will be
expended by the end of fiscal year 2001. Plans and specifications for
Stage 2 are now underway and they will be completed by the Fall of
2001. Bids for construction of Stage 2 are scheduled to be advertised
in January or February, 2002. This will allow construction to begin
immediately after the Winter thaw in the Spring of next year.
The City of Crookston is located in the Red River Valley of Western
Minnesota, in Polk County, 25 miles East of Grand Forks, North Dakota.
The Red Lake River winds its way through the City from its source at
the Upper and Lower Red Lakes, and flows into the Red River at Grand
Forks. The population of the City has remained constant over the past
decade at about 8,200 citizens.
The community was settled in 1872, when the first railroad route
was announced crossing the Red Lake River where Crookston now stands,
and later, extending to Canada. The economy of Crookston is based
primarily on agriculture. It is the home of the University of Minnesota
Crookston, a technology oriented school with a full academic program
enrolling approximately 2,500 students.
flooding events and their causes
Floods occurring over the past forty years have created significant
damage to homes and businesses, and have resulted in the loss of lives
as well. They include the flood events of 1965, 1966, 1967, 1969, 1978,
1979,1996, and 1997. Floods have been documented at Crookston as early
as 1887. The 1950 flood, though not the maximum flood of record,
created the most damage to the City and resulted in the deaths of two
citizens from the community.
Between 1950 and 1965, clay levees were constructed through local
efforts in an attempt to ameliorate the damages from the flooding of
the Red Lake River. The floods of 1965, however, demonstrated these
efforts were not adequate to hold back the torrents of water during
significant flood events. While certain areas of the City received some
flood protection, severe damages occurred in the South Main Street
area. This section of the City has since been totally cleared.
The 1969 flood established new high water marks, and again, it was
necessary to carry out extreme emergency measures. These efforts were
successful in protecting the community from severe damages. Recognizing
the need for more protection, another locally financed project was
initiated, extending, enlarging, and raising the height of the levee
wall system.
The flood of 1997, was the ``grandaddy'' of all floods. It
established the highest water mark in recorded history when the Red
Lake River crested at 28. 6 feet above flood stage, the equivalent of a
three story building. It is described as a 500-year flood event.
Only the careful planning and preparation by City officials in
cooperation with the Corps of Engineers, the State of Minnesota, FEMA,
the National Guard, and many private citizens, were damages reduced,
and fortunately, no lives were lost. Prior to the crest of the flood,
the City of Crookston completed the work of adding two feet of clay and
sandbags to the entire levee system throughout the town. The Corps of
Engineers constructed clay dikes as a second line of defense,
sacrificing a few homes for the good of many others. As a precautionary
measure, 400 residents evacuated from their homes during the height of
the flood.
These efforts spared Crookston from the devastation experienced by
neighboring towns, allowing the City to provide for 8,000 persons
evacuated from their homes in nearby communities, But this disaster and
the potential devastation that such floods can bring, emphasized the
critical importance of replacing the temporary earthen and clay dikes
with a well-planned, permanent flood control system.
There are several causative factors that have created flood
conditions for the Red River Valley and the City of Crookston. The Red
River of the North did not carve out the valley, it merely meanders
back and forth through the lowest parts of the floor of the ancient
Glacial Lake Agassiz.
With no definitive flood plain to channel flood torrents, the slow-
moving flood waters quickly overrun the shallow river banks and spread
out over the flat floor of the former glacial lake bed. The small
river's gradient is on \1/2\ foot per mile, as opposed to areas in
Southwestern Minnesota where in one instance, the gradient establishes
a 19 foot drop in one mile. Both extremes have created problems.
The Red Lake River flows into Crookston from the Northeast, winds
it way through the City, and flows out of the City, turning in a
Northwesterly direction toward its confluence with the Red River at
Grand Forks, North Dakota. The merged rivers then flow due North into
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. As the snow melts in the Southern portion
of the valley, ice often remains in the channel to the North. Ice and
other debris flowing North pile up against the river ice creating ice
dams. These barriers back up the water and increase the flood crest
upstream.
The extremely level terrain also creates a phenomenon during the
Spring thaw which is called ''overland flooding.'' As the snow melts,
the huge volume of water can overwhelm the network of shallow ditches
and creeks. Unable to enter the choked stream channels, the water
travels overland until it meets small terrain barriers such as railroad
beds and road grades, creating huge bodies of water.
In addition to the topography of the area, a combination of factors
such as agricultural drainage, the loss of wetlands, the Federal
governments work in the Red River Basin, and the construction of the
county ditch systems, all these factors have contributed to the
vulnerability of the area.
City officials and the Corps of Engineers are evaluating the
potential for flooding even this year, While the weather is permitting
a more gradual snow melt with less water content, a substantial
rainfall of several inches on the soil that is already saturated from
the snow melt can greatly increase the predicted flood levels.
project description and status
A Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the Corps of Engineers
and the City was signed on October 19, 1992, and a feasibility study
and environmental assessment was completed in 1997. Both partners
shared costs equally in the $1.2 million study. The Red Lake Watershed
District and the State of Minnesota provided part of the non-Federal
funding required, and both join the City with their strong support.
The Feasibility Report by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
recommended that a local flood control project be constructed
consisting of two down-stream cut off channels and levees built to the
100-year level of protection for Thorndale, Woods, and the downtown/
Riverside neighborhoods. While the two down-stream cut channels are
planned to reduce the flooding somewhat for the entire City, and the
levees protect the fore mentioned neighborhoods, other areas of the
City remain at risk. The Corps of Engineers has completed a Section 22
study of the City in which further recommendations will be made.
The National Economic Development (NED) optimization analysis
indicated that the 100-year and the 50-year levels of protection would
have the approximately the same net benefits. The policy is that if two
alternatives have the same benefits the lower cost plan is accepted.
The District, after consultation, requested a waiver to recommend the
100-year protection. Their rationale included the high potential for
property damages, the increased risk of loss of life, and the benefits
of providing a consistent level of protection throughout the City.
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) H. Martin Lancaster approved the
waiver on January 15, 1997
--1992--Feasibility Cost Share Agreement signed.
--1997--Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment completed.
--1997--National Economic Development optimizational analysis waived
to provide the entire project with 100-year flood protection.
--1998--Preconstruction engineering and design efforts begun.
--1999--Project authorized for construction in the Water Resource
Development Act of 1999.
--2000--Plans, specifications, and design work for Stage 1 completed.
--2000--Congress appropriates $1 million for Stage 1 construction.
--2000--Plans and Specifications for Stage 2 commenced.
--2001--Corps of Engineers total cost estimates for the project to be
$10.8 million
--2001--City requests $5.31 million from Congress for the
construction of Stage 2 of the Crookston Flood Control Project.
fiscal data
The recommended plan has a fully funded baseline cost estimate of
$9.5 million and a benefit to cost ratio of 1.6. The total cost of the
project, as projected by the Army Corps of Engineers, is $10.8 million.
The increase is due to newly refined design requirements.
The following ``Cost-Sharing Schedule'' was information developed
by the Corps of Engineers, and was made available to us on January 30,
2001. Our request for $5.31 million for Stage 2 of the project is based
on this information. Nearly all of Stage 2 expenditures will occur in
2002 and 2003. The schedule provided by the Corps is as follows:
CROOKSTON, MINNESOTA FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT--COST-SHARING SCHEDULE
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total Total
Fiscal year project LEERDs Non-fed Fed Percent fed non-fed
costs ped const. costs costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 and Prior................................... $1,168 $0 $298 $870 $29.7 $870 $298
2001............................................. 2,490 1,650 0 840 0.0 840 1,650
2002............................................. 4,086 1,000 0 3,086 32.4 2,760 1,326
2003............................................. 2,814 125 0 2,689 34.8 2,339 475
2004............................................. 242 0 0 242 3.1 211 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total Costs................................ 10,800 2,775 298 7,727 100 7,020 3,780
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor 35 percent Share = $3,780
LERRDs = $2,775
Cash Requirement = $1,005
Five Percent Cash = $540
non-federal contributions to the project
The citizens of Crookston have demonstrated their commitment to the
project each year since 1997. Every year for since 1997, they have
voted to assess themselves a flood control project fee, over and above
their property taxes. This action by the community has resulted in
raising about $1.4 million up to the present time. One third of these
local funds were used to meet part of the 50 percent match for the $1.2
million feasibility study, and and the remainder will be used as a part
of the non-Federal match for the construction Stages of the flood
control project.
The State of Minnesota has also made a significant contribution to
the project. They have appropriated $3.3 million for the dual purpose
of providing funds to match the Federal contribution, and to buy out
homes that have been lost in the construction of the flood control
measures. Nineteen families were required to lose their homes to the
project, including one farm. The State funds were used both for the
purchase of the homesteads, and the relocation of the affected
families.
For these reasons, we respectfully request this Subcommittee to
appropriate $5.31 million of Federal funds in the fiscal year 2002
Appropriations Act to complete the Stage 2 work on the Crookston Flood
Control Project. The Committee's favorable response to this request
will prevent any delays affecting the completion of the project, and
avoid cost overruns that inevitably occur when construction is delayed.
In closing, I would like to say there is nothing more important to
me as Mayor, and to each Member of the Crookston City Council, than the
safety of our citizens, and the protection of their homes and property.
We can not give them this assurance until we have completed this flood
control project.
May I also say that our association with the St. Paul District of
the Army Corps of Engineers throughout this process has been
outstanding. They are an extraordinary organization, working on the
scene during flood conditions, and assisting us as we attempt to
resolve this problem that threatens our citizens. We could not ask for
a better partner in this project.
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.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Mining Association
summary request for approval of fiscal year 2002 appropriations
National Mining Association (NMA) membership includes companies
engaged in producing coal, metallic ores, and nonmetallic minerals, and
in manufacturing mining machinery and equipment. Mine commodities
frequently are distributed as bulk freight transported on inland
waterways, Great Lakes, and coastal shipping lanes, and often require
the use of harbors and shipping channels at shallow draft inland ports
and deep draft Great Lakes and coastal ports. Deep draft ports also are
involved in shipping mining machinery and equipment produced in the
United States for export in world trade. NMA firmly supports
appropriations needed to keep the U.S. marine transportation system
safe, efficient, secure, and competitive through timely operation and
maintenance activities and investments in marine infrastructure
improvements justified to meet current and projected demand for marine
transportation services. The table below presents a summary of NMA's
request for approval of fiscal year 2002 appropriations for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works) in that regard.
appropriations request
Operations and Maintenance
Full funding of fiscal year 2002 operation and maintenance
requirements for the inland and intracoastal waterways system, the
Great Lakes, and coastal marine transportation including dredging of
harbors and shipping channels, operation and maintenance of lockage and
other navigation controls, and maintenance of dams, levees, revetments,
mooring cells, and navigation aids within the total marine
transportation system.
Construction and Rehabilitation
Fiscal year 2002 appropriations for annualized costs of planning,
engineering, design, construction and rehabilitation projects at
selected locations on the inland and intracoastal waterways system
identified below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Purpose
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio River:
Olmsted L&D........................... Construction--New Location
McAlpine L&D.......................... Engineering & Design
J.T. Myers L&D........................ Engineering & Design
Greenup L&D........................... Engineering & Design
Newburgh L&D.......................... Feasibility Study
Cannelton L&D......................... Feasibility Study
Mainstem Study........................ Systems Analysis/Improvement
Plan
Monongahela River:
Lock & Dam 2.......................... Construction--Replacement
Lock & Dam 3.......................... Removal--Coordinate with L&D
2 & 4
Lock & Dam 4.......................... Construction--Replacement
Kanawha River:
Marmet L&D............................ Construction--Replacement
London L&D............................ Major Rehabilitation
Tennessee River: Kentucky L&D............. Construction--Add New
Chamber
------------------------------------------------------------------------
inland waterways appropriations request--project cost estimates
Guided by NMA's review of reports to the Inland Waterways Users
Board by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works) and the Users
Board's 14th Annual Report to the Secretary of the Army and the United
States Congress, August 2000, NMA's project cost estimates for our
fiscal year 2002 appropriations request are presented below.
[Millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Project Description 2002
appropriations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio River:
Olmsted L&D................... New twin 1,200 72
110 lock
chambers and dam
replacing L&D 52 &
53
McAlpine L&D.................. Replace L&D and add 20
a second 1,200
110 lock
chamber
J.T. Myers L&D................ Add a second 1,200 3
110 lock
chamber.
Greenup L&D................... (same).............. 3
Newburgh L&D.................. (same).............. 3
Cannelton L&D................. (same).............. 3
Mainstem Study................ Systems analysis of 2
needs on Ohio River
Mainstem.
Monongahela River:
Lock and Dams 2, 3, 4......... Replace L&Ds 2 and 75
4, and remove L&D 3
in concert with the
dam replacements
Kanawha River:
Marmet L&D.................... Replace L&D and add 14
a new 800
110 lock chamber
London L&D.................... Major rehabilitation 5
of L&D.
Tennessee River: Kentucky L&D..... Add new 1,200 110 40
lock chamber.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ohio river basin provides strategic routes for coal to fuel electricity
generation
Data provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Waterborne
Commerce of the United States, Calendar Year 1999 underscore the
importance of the marine transportation system in distribution of U.S.
coal. In 1999, 219 million tons of coal were transported on the
waterways in domestic commerce and 58.5 million tons were exported to
other countries. Included in the domestic coal shipments were 166.8
million tons carried on inland and intracoastal waterways and 20.5
million tons on the Great Lakes, with the remainder moved in coastwise
and intraport shipments. The Ohio River System was dominant in regard
to coal shipments, carrying 150.8 million tons of coal in 1999,
illustrating its key role in waterways coal distribution.
Since passage of the pivotal Water Resources Development Act of
1986, which established the inland waterways user cost sharing now in
effect for construction and rehabilitation at lock and dam projects,
the mining industry regularly has supported adequate funding of
waterways operation and maintenance requirements and selected
improvements needed to replace and upgrade obsolete lock and dam
structures justified because of deterioration and lack of sufficient
lockage capacity to accommodate barge traffic. Coal traffic on the Ohio
River between its confluence with the Mississippi River at Cairo,
Illinois and its headwaters at Pittsburgh, linking with movements on
rivers connecting with the Ohio River, e.g. the Monongahela, Kanawha,
and Tennessee Rivers, is heavy, especially in regard to shipments to
coal-fueled power plants located on, or in the vicinity of, the Ohio
River and connecting rivers in the Ohio River Basin.
Several lock and dam projects in the Ohio River Basin have been
improved, enhancing safety and reducing barge congestion where lock
chambers were added and/or undersized chambers were replaced. The
process of conducting planning and feasibility studies for individual
lock and dam projects, followed by preconstruction engineering and
design, and several years for construction of improvements is both
lengthy and costly. Costs, of course, grow markedly when the timetable
from project inception to completion of construction is stretched out
resulting in inefficiencies and losses due to inflationary trends.
However, today two reasons stand out in support of moving forward
expeditiously with construction and rehabilitation appropriations for
selected lock and dam projects, in particular on the Lower and Middle
Ohio River, the connecting Tennessee River, and the Upper Ohio River
Basin Tributaries, the Kanawha and Monongahela Rivers. These are:
--The demand for electricity is increasing rapidly, placing even
higher emphasis on the capability of coal-fueled power plants
in the Ohio River Basin for generating electricity from
locations served by barges on the Ohio, Monongahela, Kanawha,
and Tennessee Rivers, and other Ohio River tributaries.
--Planning and feasibility studies and engineering and design of
construction and rehabilitation for several key lock and dam
projects on the Ohio, Kanawha, and Tennessee Rivers are
underway, in addition to construction in progress or completed
earlier at other lock and dam projects on the Ohio,
Monongahela, and Kanawha Rivers.
Reports by the Edison Electric Institute show that electricity
demand over 52 weeks through February 17, 2001, has increased 4.5
percent. The trend is continuing as shown by a 3.6 percent increase in
domestic electricity output on a year-to-date basis ending March 19,
2001, ahead of a comparable period last year, looking at the EEI data.
Coal is the fuel of choice for generating more than 50 percent of the
electricity consumed in the U.S.; and according to the Energy
Information Administration, coal consumption in the United States is
forecast to grow from 1.045 billion tons in 1999 to 1.297 billion tons
in 2020, an increase of more than 24 percent in consumption forecasted
in 2020 versus the 1999 level. Those factors, i.e., growth in electric
output and expected increases in coal consumption to fuel electricity
generation, joined with effective access to power plants for coal
traffic furnished by the rivers located in the Ohio River Basin,
provide extraordinary impetus on granting priority for fiscal year 2002
appropriations needed for lock and dam projects in the Basin.
the ohio river system can serve eastern and western coal shipments
Because the Ohio River System is located east of the Mississippi
River, some may mistakenly consider that it is used only to ship coal
produced in the Appalachian Region of the East or in the Midwest. While
the System readily accommodates coal produced in Northeast, Northwest,
and Central Appalachia by virtue of their proximity to the Ohio River
and its tributaries, the Ohio River Mainstem also carries coal produced
in the West and carried by coal trains to transfer and storage
terminals located on the Lower Ohio River and on the Mississippi River
above the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers.
In fact, each of the four principal coal-carrying railroads has
access to barge connections on the Ohio River System, CSXT and NS in
the East and BNSF and UP in the west. Another railroad, CN-IC, which
accommodates midwest mine-originated coal and additional coal that it
terminates after connections with other railroads, also has access to
river terminals. Coal shippers often can be well served by intermodal
rail/barge movements for three reasons:
--Rail coal is moved in trains carrying 10 thousand to 15 thousand
tons per train. Modern barge tows operating on the Ohio River
carry up to 25 thousand tons per single tow. A high degree of
automation is used for high speed loading and unloading at
rail/barge coal terminals, with an advantage of either storing,
or directly transferring, coal while in transit. The large
capacities of each mode and the high efficiencies of the
terminals offer economies of scale for intermodal rail/barge
shipments.
--Intermodal rail/barge coal routes for particular shipments may
provide an alternate way to move coal thereby giving stimuli to
carriers for raising the quality of service.
--Similarly, while differing from (2) above in regard to connectivity
of trains with barge tows, the availability of safe, efficient,
and competitive barge transportation in some locations may make
intermodal truck/barge movements possible, again providing
stimuli for raising the quality of service.
To the extent that ton-miles of coal transportation is obtained
using barge tows, a spillover benefit can be attributed to the fact
that barge tows operate separated from other surface traffic, thereby
reducing traffic congestion in built-up areas, a matter of some
importance to populous locations in the Ohio River Basin.
Environmental Restoration Program
NMA has participated in the Acid Drainage Technology Initiative
(ADTI) with government agencies and academic institutions 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. 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. The subcommittee directed
the Corps to participate in this initiative with available funds and,
since that time the Corps has participated in workshops with members of
the ADTI to exchange information on mining and related environmental
issues. In order for the Corps to continue its participation, we
request that the Corps be provided funds to commit $200,000 annually
with other Federal agencies involved, such as OSM, BLM, DOE, EPA, and
USGS) to further the Corps' goals of ecosystem restoration. NMA also
urges continued support of the Corps' Abandoned and Inactive Noncoal
Mine Restoration program as authorized by section 560 of Public Law
106-53. We recommend the Corps be provided an additional $1,000,000 to
conduct research necessary to support the restoration program.
______
Prepared Statement of American Rivers
missouri river fish and wildlife mitigation project; us army corps of
engineers
American Rivers is joined by seventeen conservation groups from the
Missouri River basin in calling for $12 million in fiscal year 2002
funding for the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project.
[American Fisheries Society--Kansas Chapter; American Fisheries
Society--Missouri Chapter; American Fisheries Society--Nebraska
Chapter; Audubon Iowa Audubon Missouri; Audubon Society of Omaha;
Burroughs Audubon Society (MO); Jayhawk Audubon Society (KS); Kansas
Wildlife Federation; Sierra Club--Iowa Chapter; Sierra Club--Kansas
Chapter; Sierra Club--Nebraska Chapter; Sierra Club--Northwest Iowa
Group; Sierra Club--Osage Group (MO); Sierra Club--Thomas Hart Benton
Group (MO); Wachiska Audubon Society (NE); Wolf River Environmental
Society (KS)]
The Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project is the
primary habitat restoration program for the lower Missouri River
between Sioux City, Iowa and St. Louis. It was established by Congress
in 1986 to help reverse the long-term decline of the Missouri's fish
and wildlife habitat due to the Federally sponsored channelization and
stabilization projects of the Pick-Sloan era. Congress approved $12
million in fiscal year 2001 for the project, the highest appropriation
yet received. It is imperative that at least this level of funding be
maintained.
The Missouri River remains a nationally significant resource,
attracting tens of millions of visitors annually and supporting over
150 species of fish and wildlife. However, severe loss of habitat such
as side channels, wetlands, and sandbars threaten the river's long-term
health. As the nation prepares to celebrate the 200th anniversary of
Lewis and Clark's Voyage of Discovery, we have an once-in-a-lifetime
opportunity to restore the Missouri River and revitalize riverside
communities.
Today, nearly 200 years after their journey, Lewis and Clark would
hardly recognize the Missouri River. However, while we cannot restore
the river they knew, we can repair much of it. If we begin now, we can
restore critical habitat, supporting river wildlife, boosting
recreation, and improving quality of life in riverside communities in
the lower Missouri River basin states of Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and
Missouri.
Channelization and stabilization dramatically altered the lower
Missouri River, eliminating natural features that once supported one of
the world's most diverse fisheries. Engineering reduced the Missouri's
average width below Sioux City by two-thirds and shortened it by 127
miles, replacing its braided channels with a shorter, ``stabilized''
barge canal. Nearly all of the Missouri's islands, sandbars, and side
channels are gone.
With nurseries for fish and wildlife destroyed, one-fifth of the
species native to the Missouri is now on Federal and state watch lists.
Many species have fallen to less than ten percent of their historic
population levels.
Supporting the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project
will help reverse the decline of river wildlife by restoring historic
chutes, side channels, wetlands, backwaters, and other habitat fish and
wildlife need to feed, conserve energy, and reproduce. For example, the
restoration of Hamburg Bend, a side channel near Nebraska City,
Nebraska, now provides temporary refuge from the river's swift currents
for species like the channel catfish.
While restored habitat areas are important for the Missouri's fish
and wildlife, they are also important for people. Waterfowl hunting,
fishing, birdwatching, and other recreational opportunities at Hamburg
Bend augment the economy of neighboring communities like Nebraska City.
In each case, improved recreation and tourism opportunities at restored
habitat sites translate into real dollars for Missouri River
communities, as recreation and tourism-dependent businesses support
visitors to these areas.
By supporting the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation
Project, Congress can also help us properly commemorate the upcoming
bicentennial of Lewis and Clark's Voyage of Discovery. With your help,
we can restore a string of natural places along the Missouri--places
that Lewis and Clark might recognize and that attract recreation and
tourism, support river wildlife, and improve the quality of life in
riverside communities.
Millions of people already visit the Missouri River each year to go
sightseeing, hunting, fishing, boating, and camping--often in areas
closely resembling the Missouri chronicled by Lewis and Clark--annually
pumping more than $90 million into riverside communities. Through the
mitigation project, these recreation dollars will increase and we will
be able to more fully enjoy the Lewis and Clark bicentennial
commemoration.
We urge you to bolster critically important efforts to reverse the
decline of the nation's longest river by supporting an appropriation of
$12 million for the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project
in fiscal year 2002.
lower columbia river and tillamook bay ecosystem restoration, oregon
and washington; us army corps of engineers
American Rivers and more than 530 local, regional, and national
conservation and community groups \1\ from throughout the country urge
you to appropriate full funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
Lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay Ecosystem Restoration program in
the Water Resources Development Act 2000 (WRDA) in fiscal year 2002.
Specifically, we urge you to appropriate the full $30 million for the
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Each of these organizations has signed on to the River Budget:
National Priorities for Local River Conservation in fiscal year 2002.
The River Budget is a consensus report that summarizes where the people
who work to save the nation's rivers believe we can make the best
investments of tax dollars to benefit our communities, wildlife, and
water quality. A complete list of these organizations is included at
the end of this testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal estuaries in the Pacific Northwest play a vital role in
supporting healthy stocks of wild salmon, steelhead and other species
improving the quality of life of countless communities. The Lower
Columbia River estuary and Oregon's Tillamook Bay are of particular
importance to the region, benefiting people and wildlife in a myriad of
ways. They provide critical habitat, offer abundant recreational
opportunities, and improve water quality by filtering out toxic
contaminants, sediments and other pollutants.
The Columbia and Tillamook estuaries are of great importance to the
region and the nation, offering critical habitat to endangered salmon
and steelhead and more than 200,000 wintering waterfowl and shorebirds.
But they also face significant threats. Since 1850, the two estuaries
have lost more than 70 percent of their historical wetland and riparian
habitat, primarily because of construction of agricultural levees and
floodplain development. The Columbia River and its estuary have also
been damaged by channelization and dredging for navigation.
In addition, the health of these estuaries has been severely
compromised over the past half century by conversion of river habitat,
dams, mining, and logging, which have transformed the ecology and
economy of the region. The huge price paid by the river's ecosystems is
illustrated most clearly by severe declines in native salmon species.
Wild fish have been reduced the only one percent of their pre-
development abundance, and 12 salmon and steelhead species in the
Columbia River Basin are listed under the Endangered Species Act.
The Federal Caucus' Biological Opinion on the Reinitiation of
Consultation on Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System
issued December 21, 2000 specifically calls for the Corps to initiate
the restoration called for in Section 536 of WRDA 2000. Action 160 in
the biological opinion calls for the Corps ``to develop and implement
an estuary restoration program with a goal of protecting and enhancing
10,000 acres of tidal wetlands and other key habitats over 10 years,
beginning in 2001, to rebuild productivity for listed populations in
the lower 46 river miles of the Columbia River.'' \2\ Appropriations
dedicated to implementing Section 536 of WRDA 2000 would help fulfill
the Federal government's commitment to the restoration and protection
of the estuary referred to in this biological opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region. Biological
Opinion, Reinitiation of Consultation on Operation of the Federal
Columbia River Power System, Including the Juvenile Fish Transportation
Program, and 19 Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the Columbia Basin.
Federal Caucus, Issued: December 21, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay Ecosystem Restoration
program, run by the Army Corps of Engineers, cuts across political
boundaries and is supported by a diverse group of stakeholders
including labor, environmental and citizen groups, as well as Federal,
state, municipal and tribal governments. These stakeholders are
dedicated to enhancing the fish and wildlife habitat in these
estuaries. This program offers a cooperative solution to managing
natural resources that will benefit all of the salmonids in the
Columbia River system. Adequately funded, the program will restore more
than 16,000 acres of critical fish and wildlife habitat, augment
existing monitoring efforts, and help citizens protect and manage
resources.
Again, we strongly urge you to appropriate full funding of $30
million for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to implement Section 536
of the Water Resources Development Act 2000, the Lower Columbia River
and Tillamook Bay Ecosystem Restoration.
atchafalaya basin floodway system; us army corps of engineers
American Rivers, Sierra Club Delta Chapter, EarthJustice Legal
Defense Fund, and Louisiana Audubon Council urges that the real estate
acquisition component of the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System project
be fully funded at $5 million, and that such funds be earmarked.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a central role to play in the
protection of the Atchafalaya Basin. The Corps' Atchafalaya Basin
Floodway System project was authorized by the Supplemental
Appropriations Act of 1985, Public Law 99-88. The Water Resources
Development Act of 1986, Public Law 99-662, reauthorized the project.
Funding for acquisition of the real estate features of the project was
made available by the Energy and Water Resources Development
Appropriations Act of 1988, Public Law 100-202.
A key feature of this Corps project is real estate acquisitions
(fee lands from willing sellers and environmental protection easements)
to preserve the natural environment of the Atchafalaya Basin and allow
public access to the Basin. Although at the Corps' earlier pace, it was
estimated that the planned acquisitions would not be completed until
the year 2017, during the past few years, the Corps has been making a
concerted effort to honor its commitment to acquire the real estate
interests in the Atchafalaya Basin. At the current pace, the Corps has
indicated that it can complete the real estate acquisitions by 2004.
A steady flow of adequate funding is necessary to keep these real
estate acquisitions on track. When part of the real estate work
necessary for the Basin acquisitions is done but the funds to complete
the process are not made available, some of the initial work (such as
appraisals and timber cruises) must be repeated--resulting not only in
a significant waste of staff time and taxpayer dollars, but also
leaving the Basin at risk for environmental degradation even longer.
It is important to provide sufficient, ongoing funding for the real
estate acquisitions. Approximately $5 million will be needed for the
real estate acquisitions portion of the Atchafalaya Basin project in
the 2002 budget. We urge that the real estate acquisition component of
the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System project be fully funded, and that
such funds be earmarked.
low impact hydropower certification; department of energy
American Rivers urge the subcommittee to provide the Department of
Energy with $100,000 to fund the Low Impact Hydropower Certification
program to help promote environmentally sound, sustainable domestic
energy supplies.
American Rivers supports the work of the Low Impact Hydropower
Institute, which manages a voluntary certification program for
identifying those hydropower facilities that have low environmental
impacts relative to other hydropower facilities. The Low Impact
Hydropower Certification Program evaluates hydropower dams based on
objective environmental criteria addressing key resources. If a
facility is certified, the hydropower dam owner can sell the power into
the ``green'' energy markets; this in turn, will create market
incentives for other dam owners to follow suit. The program provides an
important, market-based tool for addressing the environmental impacts
of hydropower, while providing a boost to renewables and ``green''
energy markets, expanding consumer options, and supporting economic
incentives for hydropower generators to produce low impact power.
We urge the subcommittee to provide the Department of Energy with
$100,000 to fund the Low Impact Hydropower Certification program to
help promote environmentally sound, sustainable domestic energy
supplies.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Charles H. Bucknam
Thank you for agreeing to consider this request for funding of the
Acid Drainage Technology Initiative (ADTI) through the Federal multi-
agency mechanism. The Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is being
requested to provide annual funding of up to $200K, to match the
standard set by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM). OSM funding is
going primarily to the Coal Mining Sector of ADTI and a predictable
base of funding is also needed for the Metal Mining Sector activities,
in order to identify the best science for controlling acid and metal
drainage from metal mines and related materials.
The ADTI is a nationwide technology development program with a
guiding principle of building a consensus among Federal and State
regulatory agencies, universities and consulting firms to predict and
find remedies for acid drainage from active and inactive metal and coal
mines. It is not a regulatory or policy development program. The Acid
Drainage Technology Initiative Metal Mining Sector (ADTI-MMS) is an
organization of volunteers committed to the development of the best
science and technology-based solutions to mine water quality issues at
metal mines. The Review Committee is responsible for developing and
implementing the consensus review process for documents, editorial
services, international networking and membership coordination. The
consensus review process is developed by this Committee is available on
the world wide web at: http://www.bucknam.com/rchb/consensu.txt and
several draft documents are also being reviewed on the ADTI-MMS web
site at: http://www.mackay.unr.edu/adti.
As you may be aware, it has been estimated that correcting the mine
drainage and abandoned mined land problems will cost up to $70 billion.
As this figure suggests, it will be necessary to lead off on this
effort with an adequate foundation of current technology-based
solutions. The ADTI-MMS organization is in the process of preparing and
maintaining handbooks to provide that foundation and is prepared to
launch the necessary research programs to develop the best science and
technologies.
ADTI-MMS is backed through participation from members of numerous
mining companies, environmental consulting firms, Federal and state
research, land management and regulatory agencies, academic researchers
committed to the ADTI mission, and the Western Governors Association.
The Western University Consortium, consisting of University of Nevada--
Reno, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, University of
Idaho, University of Utah and University of Alaska, Fairbanks and other
members of the ADTI-MMS University Network (Colorado School of Mines,
Montana Tech at the University of Montana, South Dakota School of Mines
and Technology, University of Colorado, Berkeley, Northern Arizona
University, Montana State University-Bozeman, and the University of New
Mexico) provide part of our research foundation under direction of the
Mining Life Cycle Center at the University of Nevada, Reno. In
addition, the US Army Corps of Engineers Restoration of Abandoned Mined
Sites (RAMS) program and the headquarter-based Research Programs are
actively pursuing research coupled with on ground cleanups.
Coordination with sister organizations in other countries, including
Mine Environment Neutral Drainage (MEND)-Canada, Mitigation of
Environmental Impact From Mining Waste (MiMi)-Sweden, (other),
signifies our position in the international realm.
The ADTI-MMS Review Committee needs funding for technical-
professional review and illustrations for ADTI-MMS Workbooks on
prediction, sampling and monitoring, modeling, mitigation and pit
lakes. We feel that minimal funding (10 percent of ADTI-MMS annual
budget) can provide needed training documentation for what proves to be
an expensive multi-decade effort.
The National Mining Association (NMA), the Interstate Mining
Compact Commission (IMCC) and several Federal agencies [OSM, BLM,
Department of Energy (DOE), and Geological Survey (USGS)] have actively
participated in the Acid Drainage Technology Initiative (ADTI) since
1995. This collaborative effort receives funding and other support from
industry and several Federal agencies for specific projects. For
example, the OSM has provided the ADTI $200,000 for the last three
fiscal years which has been a consistent source of funding for
activities related to acid mine drainage from coal mining and has been
instrumental in accomplishing the ADTI's short-term goals. In addition,
the EPA has provided $10,000 for travel and administration, and is
currently providing funding for prediction workbook preparation. If
each of the Federal agencies, OSM, Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), DOE, Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), BLM, USGS, and other
agencies as appropriate [i.e. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), National
Park Service (NPS) and Forest Service (USFS)], were provided funds to
commit $200,000 toward ADTI, more than $1 million would be available to
support the work of this vital initiative.
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 several workshops 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 to participate effectively, we respectfully request that the
USACE be provided funds to commit $200,000 annually (with other Federal
agencies involved, such as OSM, EPA, DOE, BLM, USGS, USBR, NPS and
USFS) to further the Corp's goals of ecosystem restoration.
Thank you for your time and interest in this vital area. Your
continued funding of this Committee's activities will significantly
improve our ability to develop the best science for addressing drainage
issues with an organized and predictable schedule.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado School of Mines
Thank you for agreeing to consider this request for funding of the
Acid Drainage Technology Initiative (ADTI) through the Federal multi-
agency mechanism. The Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is being
requested to provide annual funding of up to $200K, to match the
standard set by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM). OSM funding is
going primarily to the Coal Mining Sector of ADTI and a predictable
base of funding is also needed for the Metal Mining Sector activities,
in order to identify the best science for controlling acid and metal
drainage from metal mines and related materials.
The ADTI is a nationwide technology development program with a
guiding principle of building a consensus among Federal and State
regulatory agencies, universities and consulting firms to predict and
find remedies for acid drainage from active and inactive metal and coal
mines. It is not a regulatory or policy development program. The Acid
Drainage Technology Initiative Metal Mining Sector (ADTI-MMS) is an
organization of volunteers committed to the development of the best
science and technology-based solutions to mine water quality issues at
metal mines. The Review Committee is responsible for developing and
implementing the consensus review process for documents, editorial
services, international networking and membership coordination. The
consensus review process is developed by this Committee is available on
the world wide web at: http://www.bucknam.com/rchb/consensu.txt and
several draft documents are also being reviewed on the ADTI-MMS web
site at: http://www.mackay.unr.edu/adti.
As you may be aware, it has been estimated that correcting the mine
drainage and abandoned mined land problems will cost up to $70 billion.
As this figure suggests, it will be necessary to lead off on this
effort with an adequate foundation of current technology-based
solutions. The ADTI-MMS organization is in the process of preparing and
maintaining handbooks to provide that foundation and is prepared to
launch the necessary research programs to develop the best science and
technologies.
ADTI-MMS is backed through participation from members of numerous
mining companies, environmental consulting firms, Federal and state
research, land management and regulatory agencies, academic researchers
committed to the ADTI mission, and the Western Governors Association.
The Western University Consortium, consisting of University of Nevada--
Reno, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, University of
Idaho, University of Utah and University of Alaska, Fairbanks and other
members of the ADTI-MMS University Network (Colorado School of Mines,
Montana Tech at the University of Montana, South Dakota School of Mines
and Technology, University of Colorado, Berkeley, Northern Arizona
University, Montana State University-Bozeman, and the University of New
Mexico) provide part of our research foundation under direction of the
Mining Life Cycle Center at the University of Nevada, Reno. In
addition, the US Army Corps of Engineers Restoration of Abandoned Mined
Sites (RAMS) program and the headquarter-based Research Programs are
actively pursuing research coupled with on ground cleanups.
Coordination with sister organizations in other countries, including
Mine Environment Neutral Drainage (MEND)-Canada, Mitigation of
Environmental Impact From Mining Waste (MiMi)-Sweden, (other),
signifies our position in the international realm.
The ADTI-MS Review Committee needs funding for technical-
professional review and illustrations for ADTI-MMS Workbooks on
prediction, sampling and monitoring, modeling, mitigation and pit
lakes. We feel that minimal funding (10 percent of ADTI-MMS annual
budget) can provide needed training documentation for what proves to be
an expensive multi-decade effort.
The National Mining Association (NMA), the Interstate Mining
Compact Commission (IMCC) and several Federal agencies [OSM, BLM,
Department of Energy (DOE), and Geological Survey (USGS)] have actively
participated in the Acid Drainage Technology Initiative (ADTI) since
1995. This collaborative effort receives funding and other support from
industry and several Federal agencies for specific projects. For
example, the OSM has provided the ADTI $200,000 for the last three
fiscal years which has been a consistent source of funding for
activities related to acid mine drainage from coal mining and has been
instrumental in accomplishing the ADTI's short-term goals. In addition,
the EPA has provided $10,000 for travel and administration, and is
currently providing funding for prediction workbook preparation. If
each of the Federal agencies, OSM, Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), DOE, Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), BLM, USGS, and other
agencies as appropriate [i.e. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), National
Park Service (NPS) and Forest Service (USFS)], were provided funds to
commit $200,000 toward ADTI, more than $1 million would be available to
support the work of this vital initiative.
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 several workshops 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 to participate along with the Corps, we respectfully request
that the USACE be provided funds to commit $200,000 annually (with
other Federal agencies involved, such as OSM, EPA, DOE, BLM, USGS, BOR,
NPS and USFS) to further the Corp's goals of ecosystem restoration.
Thank you for your time and interest in this vital area. Your
continued funding of this Committee's activities will significantly
improve our ability to develop the best science for addressing drainage
issues with an organized and predictable schedule.
______
Prepared Statement of the West Tennessee Tributaries Association
My name is M.V. Williams and my home is in Friendship, Tennessee
between the Middle and South Forks of the Forked Deer River. I am the
President of the West Tennessee Tributaries Association. It is also my
pleasure to serve as Chairman of the Executive Committee of the
Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association with headquarters in
Memphis, Tennessee. This statement on behalf of the Association
presents their views on fiscal year 2002 Budget for the Mississippi
River and Tributaries Project.
To better inform the Sub-committee, I will briefly discuss the
Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association which is an Agency
composed almost entirely of public bodies having local responsibility
for flood control, drainage, bank stabilization and navigation
improvements in parts of Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi,
Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri and Louisiana. Our members are public
officials who for the most part are elected by the people. The
Association represents practically all of the levee and drainage
districts, municipalities, port and harbor commissions and other state
agencies in the Mississippi Valley, extending from Burlington, Iowa to
the Gulf of Mexico. These organizations and agencies are political
subdivisions of the various states in which they are organized and
function. We provide an agency through which the people of the
Mississippi Valley may speak and act jointly on all flood control,
navigation, bank stabilization and major drainage problems. We have
appeared before the Sub-Committee and served the people in the
Mississippi Valley for well over sixty years.
Our Association is comprised of a very large group of individuals
who are businessmen, property owners, conservationists, farmers,
attorneys, doctors, wildlife enthusiasts, engineers, accountants,
environmentalists, civil servants and elected officials from all
political parties.
The value of flood control and economic reality of the need for
navigation is well known by the Congress. Therefore I shall not go into
details but for the sake of confirming what is already known. Let me
tell you that for every Federal dollar invested in the Mississippi
River and Tributaries Project twenty-four dollars have been returned in
damages prevented. In addition river navigation has produced annual
benefits of almost nine hundred million dollars. What a wonderful
investment of taxpayer's dollars.
Today we find ourself again faced with an inadequate budget from
the Executive Department but fortunately for us and the other citizens
of this great Nation, the Congress in its wisdom has always recognized
the value of such an investment and has consequently, with only rare
exceptions, appropriated more dollars for the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Project that has been requested by the Executive Department
We hope this happens again this year.
We also find the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under fire from
within the Executive Branch, some members of Congress and of course the
so-called environmentalists. This is the same Corps of Engineers that
has in peace time for over 225 years built the infrastructure that is
the envy of the rest of the civilized world and that has also defended
our Nation in times of conflict, from the war for independence to the
Gulf War, from Bunker Hill to Baghdad.
The Corps has faced similar allegations in the past but this time
government agencies such as the Council on Environmental Quality, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
others are attempting to change the Nation's public policy relating to
water resources development and management from one of economic
development balanced with environmental mitigation and restoration to
one focused principally on environmental restoration.
Even though the vast majority of the water resources infrastructure
has passed its design age and badly needs to be replaced, these
government agencies have, with help from others, made things so
difficult and expensive that it becomes very arduous to find the
economic justification for replacing the vitally needed structures. The
Budget for fiscal year 2002 does not come close to meeting the needs
for the maintenance of the work in place, work that was put in place by
the direction of Congress which also decreed that the work was to be
maintained by the Corps of Engineers.
This statement is in support of the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Appropriations and our request is being made only after
careful and thoughtful considerations of the barest amount necessary to
prevent the cancellation of on going contracts and to do the minimum
amount of required maintenance work. The Mississippi River and
Tributaries Project is unique in the fact that the appropriations
allocated are used not only for construction but also for maintenance
and not only for flood control but also for navigation and includes all
environmental considerations including mitigation and restoration as
well as irrigation and water supply.
It is our conviction that to meet the barest minimums as outlined
above, the appropriations for the Mississippi River and Tributaries
Project for fiscal year 2002 must be $395,000,000. In order to merely
preserve the integrity of our flood control and navigation systems that
represents a large investment of National assets and to preserve and
enhance the natural environment of the Mississippi River Valley and to
continue the authorized work that is under way, the appropriation
request is justified and should be considered as a wise investment in
the future well-being of this great Nation.
With the help of the Congress over the years, we have made progress
in the Mississippi River Valley and for that we are extremely grateful
but there is much to be done before the job is completed and the people
in the valley may live without fear and the entire Nation may reap the
benefits of what has been done.
We have attached a sheet to this statement that reflects the
Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association's request for
appropriations for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project for
fiscal year 2002.
Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association,Fiscal Year 2002 Civil
Works Requested Budget, Mississippi River and Tributaries Appropriations
Project and State Requested Budget
Surveys, Continuation of Planning and Engineering &
Advance Engineering & Design:
Memphis Metro Area, TN & MS......................... $535,000
Memphis Harbor, TN.................................. 700,000
Wolf River, Memphis, TN............................. 205,000
Bayou Meto Basin, AR................................ 2,500,000
Southeast Arkansas.................................. 1,452,000
Boydsville, AR...................................... 100,000
Olive Branch, MS.................................... 500,000
Coldwater Basin Below Arkabutla Lake, MS............ 350,000
Alexandria, LA to the Gulf of Mexico................ 700,000
Morganza, LA to the Gulf of Mexico.................. 6,500,000
Donaldsonville, LA To Gulf of Mexico................ 1,000,000
Spring Bayou, LA.................................... 500,000
Collection & Study of Basic Data.................... 615,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal--Surveys, Continuation of Planning &
Engineering
..................................................
& Advance Engineering & Design.................. 15,657,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Construction:
St. John's Bayou-New Madrid Floodway, MO............ 8,000,000
Eight Mile Creek, AR................................ 915,000
Helena & Vicinity, AR............................... 1,675,000
Grand Prairie Region, AR............................ 35,414,000
West Tennessee Tributaries, TN...................... 100,000
Nonconnah Creek, TN................................. 1,500,000
Reelfoot Lake, TN................................... 2,620,000
St. Francis Basin, MO & AR.......................... 4,502,000
Yazoo Basin, MS..................................... 33,287,000
Atchafalaya Basin, LA............................... 30,000,000
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System................... 7,858,000
MS Delta Region, LA................................. 4,600,000
MS & LA Estaurine, Area, MS & LA.................... 100,000
Louisiana State, Penitentiary, LA................... 3,022,000
Tensas Basin, Red River Backwater, LA............... 1,112,000
Channel Improvements, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS & LA... 40,100,000
Mississippi River Levees, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS &
LA................................................ 51,968,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal--Construction............................ 226,773,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Subtotal--Maintenance............................. 152,570,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Total--Mississippi River & Tributaries............ 395,000,000
______
Prepared Statements of the Pontchartrain Levee District
lake pontchartrain and vicinity hurricane protection, louisiana; st.
charles and west shore--lake pontchartrain, st. john the baptist
SUMMARY FISCAL YEAR 2002 RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Budget Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Charles Parish Hurricane $3,000,000 $5,400,000
Protection....................
West Shore, St. John the \1\ 142,000,000 ..............
Baptist Parish Hurricane
Protection....................
Lake Pontchartrain & Vicinity 19,700,000 22,100,000
Hurricane Protection..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Estimated cost.
project overview
Around Lake Pontchartrain, in the vicinity of New Orleans, there
are several project segments under this major title. All segments are
nearing completion except St. Charles Parish Hurricane Protection and
West Shore, St. John the Baptist Parish Hurricane Protection. Both
projects are located totally in the Pontchartrain Levee District (PLD)
and the PLD is serving as local sponsor for both.
The importance and critical necessity for these two parts of the
overall project is defined by the fact the shoreline of Lake
Pontchartrain is actually a part of and continuation of the Gulf of
Mexico shoreline. Sound frightening? Think of the communities, people,
businesses and improvements remaining unprotected. That expresses the
urgent, indispensable need for protection from hurricane induced and
other high tides. Both of these items--St. Charles Parish and West
Shore--protect major designated evacuation routes for the New Orleans
Metropolitan area (I-10 & US 190). The problem here is that as soon as
the hurricane tide has hit New Orleans it has also attacked all the
shoreline around Lake Pontchartrain. It's a package deal.
The St. Charles Parish Project has 10 miles of levee, 5 major
floodgate structures and a construction cost of $100 million. If
Congress provides maximum funding capability for 2002 and 2003, then
the first lift levee and structures can be completed in 1\1/2\ years
from now. A closed system in time for most of the 2003 hurricane
season! Very exciting! A time to rejoice! Let's do it!
The West Shore Project includes 18 miles of levee and 3 pumping
stations. The estimated construction cost is in the vicinity of $142
million, as determined by the Feasibility Study now complete, and is
just before submitting to higher authority from the New Orleans
District, Corps of Engineers. No construction is scheduled for fiscal
year 2002, but will have a broad start in 2003. Let's get ready to fund
this project to the hilt. We must remember that portions of Interstates
55 and 10 have already been flooded by hurricanes and shut down. And it
will repeat without protection.
The total appropriation required for all parts of Lake
Pontchartrain & Vicinity Hurricane Protection is $19,700,000, with a
budget inclusion of only $10,000,000. That part in St. Charles Parish
must receive $5,400,000 in 2002 and only $3,000,000 has been requested
by the Corps of Engineers.
We believe the West Shore item does not require funding in 2002,
but the funding must being in fiscal year 2003.
comments
The Pontchartrain Levee District has full realization of the
necessity of keeping these Subcommittees advised of current and future
needs for Federal monetary support on vital items of the MR&T Flood
Control Project. Beginning in 1995 the Subcommittees refused to give
audience to our pleadings. This year no oral testimony will be heard.
Again, this is a great travesty of justice. Such actions seriously
erode the partnership that has been built between Congress, the Corps
of Engineers and local sponsors.
We trust that this pattern will revert back to the practice of
hearing our delegation. Six representatives from the Pontchartrain
Levee District are present today desiring to present views to the
Subcommittees--they are:
Commissioners: Joseph Gautreau, President, Herbert T. Thurber, Vice
President, Jesse J. Bartley, LeVerne Brown, Steven Wilson.
Staff: Mike Babin, Program Administrator.
conclusion
The Board of Commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee District,
compliments the Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development for its
keen understanding of real needs for the MR&T Flood Control Project
along with Hurricane Protection and efficient, alert actions taken to
appropriate funds for the many complex requirements. We endorse
recommendations presented by the Association of Levee Boards of
Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development, Mississippi
Valley Flood Control Association and Red River Valley Association.
mississippi river and tributaries flood control project
SUMMARY FISCAL YEAR 2002 RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Budget Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi River & Tributaries Flood $370,000,000 $460,000,000
Control Project........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pontchartrain Levee District (PLD) includes the east bank main
line levee extending from Baton Rouge to Kenner, a length of 115 miles.
Various segments of this levee require enlargement and construction of
riverside slope pavement. One such item is currently under construction
from Carville to Marchand. Additional funds are needed over the
budgeted amount to allow substantial progress. In the northeast part of
Louisiana the levee is several feet below grade where if overtopped
will flood about one-third of the state. Very severe and critical
conditions! It is recommended that a minimum of $51,067,000 be
appropriated for Mississippi River Levees, where the budget contains
only $40,621,000.
The second item of indispensable importance to PLD and the State of
Louisiana is Channel Improvements. Main line levees must be protected
from caving banks throughout this lower river reach where extremely
narrow battures are the last line of defense against levee crevasses
and failures. If caving banks are not controlled the only answer is
``setback''. Simply stated there is no room remaining for levee
setbacks in the Pontchartrain Levee District. Revetment construction
must be annually funded to prevent levee failures, land losses and
relocations. This item also benefits the 55-foot depth navigation
channel. The Pontchartrain Levee District recommends at least
$47,900,000 be appropriated for fiscal year 2002. Budget amount is
$40,100,000.
comments
The Pontchartrain Levee District has full realization of the
necessity of keeping these Subcommittees advised of current and future
needs for Federaly monetary support on vital items of the MR&T Flood
Control Project. Beginning in 1995 the Subcommittees refused to give
audience to the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association. This year
no oral testimony will be heard. Again, this is a great travesty of
justice. Such actions seriously erode the partnership that has been
built between Congress, the Corps of Engineers and local sponsors.
We trust that this pattern will revert back to the sixty-three year
practice of hearing our delegation. Six representatives from the
Pontchartrain Levee District are present today desiring to present
views to the Subcommittees--they are:
Commissioners: Joseph Gautreau, President, Herbert T. Thurber, Vice
President, Jesse J. Bartley, LeVerne Brown, Steven Wilson.
Staff: Mike Babin, Program Administrator.
conclusion
The Board of Commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee District,
compliments the Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development for its
keen understanding of real needs for the MR&T Flood Control Project
along with Hurricane Protection and efficient, alert actions taken to
appropriate funds for the many complex requirements. We endorse
recommendations presented by the Association of Levee Boards of
Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development, Mississippi
Valley Flood Control Association and Red River Valley Association.
______
Prepared Statement of the Moss Landing Harbor District
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
chairman and members of the Board of Harbor Commissioners, 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 2002 energy and
water regular appropriations measure.
The commission recognizes and expresses its gratitude to our senior
Senator, the Honorable Dianne Feinstein, a valued member of the
Appropriations Committee for her continued assistance and support on
our behalf.
The commission also expresses its sincere gratitude to our other
distinguished Senator from the State of California, the Honorable
Barbara Boxer, for her continued assistance and support on our behalf.
We express our profound appreciation to the subcommittee and full
committee for its inclusion of $700,000 in operations and maintenance
funds in the fiscal year 2001 budget for the conduct of a first ever
dredged material management plan for the harbor district in order to
plan for orderly maintenance dredging of the Federal channel and local
berths over the next twenty or more years.
The coming year marks the first time in a decade that we have
returned to a normal three year maintenance cycle of the Federal
channel and we support inclusion of $2.0 million in fiscal year 2002
budget for that purpose. Additionally, up to $500,000 may be required
to complete the dredged material management plan that was funded for
fiscal year 2001. The total request is therefore for $2.5 million in
appropriations from the operations and maintenance general account.
As part of that effort we have cooperatively undertaken a ground
breaking ecological risk assessment under Corps of Engineers and EPA
guidance including representatives of the Federal, State and local
agencies with an interest in dredging activities. We hope this effort
will:
--Produce both a useful and practical multidisciplinary decision
document for those agencies exercising regulatory or oversight
jurisdiction over dredging; and
--Serve as a model for collaborative efforts in dredged material
disposal consensus decision making in unique situations such as
for other corps districts and local sponsors seeking to balance
required maintenance dredging to support navigation with the
corresponding need to protect environmentally sensitive areas,
in this instance the unique Monterey Submarine Canyon located
at the heart of the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary.
We plan to document this process and our experience for
incorporation in corps planning guidance for national use and
congressional oversight as a valuable tool for environmental regulatory
process streamlining.
The working group in support of this effort is comprised of every
State, Federal and local agency with responsibility for the conduct and
statutory oversight of dredging activities at the site 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 the marine research community
based in the harbor district.
For those of you who are more familiar with the world renowned
Monterey peninsula and bay and our acclaimed aquarium, our 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. Without ongoing maintenance
dredging both nationally significant research and commercial fishing
activities would be threatened.
As part of voluntary local cost sharing contribution to our dredged
material management plan, as the local sponsor we have 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, over $16,000 for the
collection of sediment samples (some of which need critical testing and
evaluation before their expiration), over $12,000 for an extensive
literature search, and over $25,000 in coordinating with, and
sponsoring meetings of, the working group. USEPA Region IX has also
contributed financially to this important endeavor by providing funds
for the peer review process.
The Ecological Risk Assessment (``ERA'') underway consists of three
main phases: (1) problem formulation; (2) analysis; and (3) risk
characterization.
The first phase consists 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 includes 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 during Federal
fiscal year 2002.
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.
As part of the effort we are compelled to benchmark suitable upland
disposal sites for both ecological risk assessment and maintenance
dredging purposes. We are bounded by the Elkhorn Slough National
Estuarine Sanctuary and the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary, severely
limiting available disposal options. The harbor district lies within
the watershed of two rivers draining some of the richest agricultural
land in the nation but which also serves as the upstream source of
agricultural pesticides posing a permanent dilemma as to alternative
disposal options. Compounding this is the high cost of acquisition of
available upland disposal sites, approximately $35 million for the one
remaining suitable long term disposal site.
This brings us to our long term need for a fundamental change in
Federal law that brings modern navigation project planning and cost-
sharing in line with current practice that has evolved since the
enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended.
Under current law the definition of the general navigation features of
the project includes inter alia the actual project dredging cost and
any improvements to locally provided disposal sites for construction
purposes. For maintenance purposes the cost of maintaining a dredged
disposal site is apportioned between the Federal government and the
local sponsor if the site is used for the deposit of both project and
berth material. Oftentimes the local sponsor outlay for a suitable
disposal site may represent the single biggest cost element for an
overall navigation project. This is particularly onerous in the case of
a small or medium size port.
A private sector sponsor may develop a single or usually multi-user
disposal site and charge both the government and the local sponsor for
its use over time. In practice, environmental permit delays have all
but consigned this option to the rare instance. Legislative relief in
the next water resources bill is long overdue.
We bring these matters to your attention early in the 107th
Congress so that they may be considered in the public debate over
future water resources policy and fiscal planning, just as we plan to
share our experience in dredged material management planning to the
same end.
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 Ventura Port District
The Ventura Port District respectfully requests that the Congress:
Include $3,000,000 in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Bill for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
maintenance dredging of the Ventura Harbor Federal channel and sand
traps.
Include $1,500,000 to the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Bill for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
repair the serious structural damage to the south Beach Groin at
Ventura Harbor.
Include $400,000 in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Bill 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
Maintenance Dredging
It is estimated that $3,000,000 will be required to perform routine
maintenance dredging of the harbor's entrance channel and sand traps
during fiscal year 2002. 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
2002 for the Corps of Engineers to repair extensive storm damage to the
South Beach Groin. 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 structure is not compromised. Delaying the necessary repairs will
not only rapidly escalate the repair cost for the groin itself but will
also result in increased maintenance dredging costs in subsequent
years.
study needs
It is estimated that $400,000 will be required during fiscal year
2002 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 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, Municipalities and other local
governmental entities in developing the area along the Red River.
The Resolutions contained herein were adopted by the Association
during its 76th Annual Meeting in Bossier City, Louisiana on February
22, 2001, 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.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Wayne Dowd, and
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.
Even though the details of the President's budget have not been
published we know that the fiscal year 2002 Civil Works program is to
be 14 percent less than what Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2001.
This does not come close to the real needs of our nation. Six billion
dollars is a more realistic funding level to meet the requirements for
continuing the existing needs of the civil works programs. The
traditional programs, inland waterways and flood protection remain at
the low, unacceptable level as in past years. These projects are the
backbone to our nation's infrastructure for waterways, flood control
and water supply. We remind you that civil works 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 are the key to our dominance of world trade. This is a
pivotal budget year where critical decisions must be made which will
determine our future economic strength.
The integrity of the Corps of Engineers and their study process has
been questioned over this past year. We do not agree with the
accusations made and our experience has always been one of the highest
integrity, in Corps personnel and their processes. There appears to be
a campaign against the Corps of Engineers in which the media is only
relaying one side of the issue. There is no doubt that upon completion
of the on going investigations the Corps will be fully vindicated.
The Corps of Engineers has served our nation for over 225 years and
has been instrumental in developing the infrastructure that makes us
the economic power we are in the world today. In 1996 our ports
generated over $146 billion in federal taxes, Corps flood control
projects have prevented damages of $21 billion annually and Corps
projects and lakes provide more recreation opportunities for Americans,
in visitor days, than the National Park Service. We do not support
radical reform to the Corps process or additional independent review of
Corps projects.
It is difficult to understand why the environmental extremists are
so strong in their objection to the inland waterways. The facts are
that one barge, 1,500 tons of commodities, is equivalent to 15 jumbo
rail hoppers or 58 tractor-trailer trucks. According to EPA, towboats
emit 35 to 60 percent fewer pollutants than locomotives or trucks. So
why would anyone want to take cargo off our waterways and increase
highway congestion and air pollution? We do not believe opponents to
civil work programs have the scientific justification to back their
claims.
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 region.
Navigation.--The J. Bennett Johnston Waterway is living up to the
expectations of the benefits projected. The tonnage moved in 1999 was
3.6 million tons with the projected tonnage, to justify the project, at
3.7 million tons. We are extremely proud of our public ports,
municipalities and state agencies that have created this success. New
opportunities were announced in 2000 including a ConAgra facility at
the Natchitoches Parish Port. Liquid petroleum shipments increased in
2000 as did commercial stone operations. You are reminded that the
Waterway is not complete, nine percent remains, $180 million. We
appreciate the Congress's appropriation level in fiscal year 2001;
however, in order to keep the Waterway safe and reliable we must
continue at a funding level closer to $25 million. 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 each year.
The feasibility study to extend navigation from Shreveport-Bossier
City, Louisiana into the State of Arkansas is on going. It is
imperative that you continue funding this important study and
appropriate the $797,000 required for fiscal year 2002. This region of
SW Arkansas and NE Texas continues to suffer major unemployment, and
the navigation project, although not the total solution, will help
revitalize the economy. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ``Planning
Aid Report'' indicated minimal impact and most probably an enhancement
to environmental value.
This will be a multipurpose project addressing navigation,
hydropower, bank stabilization and environmental restoration. As we
experience serious shortages of electric power in parts of our nation
this project will offer the potential for hydropower generation at each
of the proposed lock and dams. This is the most efficient, safest and
environmental friendly source of power generation.
I want to stress that the local the sponsor, the Arkansas Red River
Commission, has available their 50 percent cost share to complete this
feasibility study. Few local sponsors have `funds in the bank' and are
also willing to conduct additional studies to insure a complete and
accurate analysis is made. Additionally, the interest rate currently
being used in the study analysis is 6\3/8\ percent, higher than the
current prime rate and significantly higher than the rate used for the
Louisiana waterway, 3\1/4\ percent. We believe the extension of
navigation into Arkansas should be analyzed at the same rate as used in
Louisiana and request language in the Appropriations bill to direct
this change.
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
the 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 bank stabilization 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 2001 and request you fund this project at a level of $10
million.
It is essential to protect the banks from caving and erosion along
the Red River from 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. We ask that you support a Reconnaissance
Study to investigate the restoration of wetlands, bottomland hardwoods
and riparian habitat. Various types of bank stabilization would be
incorporated to protect these environmental zones and corridors.
There is a new technique for bank stabilization which should be
tested as a demonstration project, under the existing authority `Red
River Waterway'. 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.
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 levee sections have been completed
and brought to federal standards. Appropriations of $4.5 million will
construct two more levee sections; 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 continue funding this project
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 into 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
problems. 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 $2,200,000 with the total
project costing $6,433,000.
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. In fiscal year 1995
$16 million dollars was appropriated 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.
The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), in October 1998
agreed to support a re-evaluation of the Wichita River Basin tributary
of the project. Completion of this project will reclaim Lake Kemp as a
usable water source for the City of Wichita Falls and the region. We
request appropriations of $2,100,000 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, to include irrigation in Arkansas and Louisiana.
Operation & Maintenance.--We appreciate the support of your
subcommittee to support navigation to Shreveport/Bossier City which is
now providing a catalyst 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 three years ago 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. In order to operate and maintain the
existing infrastructure $14,750,000 is required just to address the
most critical backlog maintenance concerns.
Full O&M funding levels are not only important for our Waterway
project but for all our Corps projects and flood control lakes. The
backlog of critical maintenance only becomes worse and more expensive
with time. We urge you to appropriate funding to address this serious
issue at the expressed full Corps capability. Presently there is a $400
million backlog of critical maintenance at Corps projects throughout
the nation.
The Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) has never been fully
funded to its authorized amount. This has been an outstanding program
providing small, cost shared projects within our communities. We
believe this program should be funded at its full authorized amount.
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, municipalities 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.
iii. grant disclosure
The Red River Valley Association has not received any federal
grant, sub grant or contract during the current fiscal year or either
of the two previous fiscal years.
summary of fiscal year 2002 requests
NOTE.--Projects are NOT in any order of priority.
I. 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 $1,932,000
has been `reprogrammed' for this study from another Red River study. An
additional $1,023,000 is required to complete the study by fiscal year
2003. The study is cost shared 50 percent with the Arkansas Red River
Commission, the local sponsor, who has their share on hand.
Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$797,000
Red River Waterway, Index Arkansas to Denison Dam, TX.--Investigate
the restoration of natural resources, such as wetlands, bottomland
hardwoods and riparian habitat along approximately 245 river miles.
Various types of bank stabilization would be considered to protect
environmental zones and corridors.
Total fiscal year 2002 Request $100,000
Washita River Basin, OK.--Under Public Law 534 NRCS constructed
approximately 1,100 small Flood control structures in the Washita River
basin above Lake Texoma. These structures have significantly reduced
the sediment flow into Lake Texoma; however, they are reaching their 50
year life expectancy. This study will assist NRCS in determing how to
extend the life of the structures which have had a great positive
impact to the water quality, flood storage capacity and ecosystem of
Lake Texoma.
Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$100,000
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 the
feasibility study.
Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$100,000
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.
In fiscal year 2001 $200,000 was received to initiate this study. The
total study cost will be $1,100,000.
Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$200,000
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. In fiscal year 2001 $525,000 was
received for this study.
Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$200,000
construction
Red River Waterway Project
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway.--Eight projects will be awarded in
fiscal year 2001 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.
Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$28,770,000
Index, AR to Denison Dam, TX; Bendway Weir Demo Project.--This
stretch of the 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 is great
environmental enhancement potential with this project.
Total fiscal year 2002 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 supported this and reprogrammed funds in
fiscal year 2001. In addition to the reevaluation and NEPA process,
environmental monitoring activities will continue.
Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$2,100,000
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 fiscal year 2002 Request--$4,500,000
Bowie County Levee, TX.--The local sponsor wants the `locally
preferred option' authorized for construction. In fiscal year 2001
$900,000 was appropriated to initiate this project. The local sponsor
is willing to execute a PCA and initiate real estate activities in
fiscal year 2002.
Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$100,000
Upgrade Levees, LA.--Approximately 220 miles of levees in Louisiana
do not have gravel surfaces on top of the levee, so do not meet federal
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 fiscal year 2002 Request--$2,200,000
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 Bois D'Arc
Revetments and complete the design for Dickson Revetment.
Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$10,000,000
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 Soil and Water Conservation
Commission requests that the project proceed directly to PED, without a
cost shared feasibility study. We request language and funding to
accomplish this.
Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$200,000
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 due to the
extremely high cost of mitigation.
Total fiscal year 2002 Request--0
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. In fiscal year 2001 $120,000 was appropriated to
initiate this project.
Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$110,000
Millwood Lake, Grassy Lake, AR (Section 1135).--An environmental
restoration project of 15,000 acres of wetlands located downstream from
Millwood Dam. The Dam interrupted the flow to these wetlands 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 fiscal year 2002 Request--$300,000
East/West Burns Run Public Use Area, Park Modernization, Lake
Texoma, OK.--Modernization of these facilities will bring them up to
standards to serve the volume of users experienced each year. The Lake
Texoma region economy depends mostly on recreation. This facility will
ensure continued success, but also increase the economic potential for
the area.
Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$4,600,000
iii. operation & maintenance
Red River Waterway.--The President's budget is usually only
sufficient to operate and perform preventive maintenance. There are
major, unfunded backlog maintenance items that must be done. These
items include inspection and certification of lock & dam stop logs,
repairs to tainter gate diagonal bracing and revetment repairs.
Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$14,750,000
Lake Texoma (Denison Dam), TX and OK Reallocation Study and NEPA
Documentation.--The severe drought experienced these past 2 years has
increased the need for additional water supply. Public Law 99-662,
Section 838, granted authority to reallocate up to an additional
300,000 acre feet of hydropower storage to water supply, 150,000 acre-
feet for Texas and 150,000 acre feet for Oklahoma. This reallocation is
needed and we request the impact study be funded. The total study cost
is $750,000.
Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$750,000
We support that O&M at all projects be funded at the full Corps
capability
______
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 2002 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 has begun with important developments such as the Shreveport
Riverview project, Teague Parkway Trails in Bossier City, Colfax
Recreation Area and Natchitoches Recreation Area establishing an
excellent recreation foundation with more projects in the preliminary
design stages.
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.
Prepared Statement of the Caddo/Bossier Port Commission
On behalf of the citizens of Northwest Louisiana, the Caddo-Bossier
Parishes Port Commission respectfully urges the Congress of the United
States to allocate in the fiscal year 2002 Budget the necessary funding
to keep America's water resources infrastructure functioning as a major
contributor to the nation's wealth and prosperity, including monies to
ensure safe and reliable Red River navigation.
Unfortunately, the proposed budget decreases funding for the Corps
of Engineers' civil works program some 14 percent, a cutback more
severe than for any other Federal agency. Compounded by the fact that
the Corps of Engineers' budget over the last five years has not even
kept pace with inflation, the nation's water resource needs are being
postponed. Projects will cost more, realization of project benefits
will be delayed, for a final result of costing the nation hundreds of
million of dollars.
Our commerce, international trade, environmental and national
defense needs must not be shortchanged. Our water highways 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 Parishes Port Commission, as part of this waterways
network links the Ark-La-Tex by way of the Red River with the vast
midcontinent and coastal and Great Lakes ports.
The Port of Shreveport-Bossier is one of the newest ports in this
network, having been in regular operation only since 1997. 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. Last spring,
in only three years, the One Millionth Ton of Cargo milestone was
achieved, a timetable far ahead of many acknowledged successful inland
ports. And just as importantly, the Port is prompting jobs and dollar
investment. Omni Specialty Packaging and Omni Terminal Systems, the
Port's newest tenants, began operation in 2000 and by year's end
exceeded employment and production projections. These companies joined
Oakley Louisiana, Red River Terminals, Arch Chemicals and U.S. Liquids
at the 2,000 acre Port complex.
Adequate Federal investment in civil works programs is crucial to
America's economic and environmental well being. Such investment for
the Red River must 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 Port of San Diego
The following testimony is provided by the San Diego Unified Port
District, which represents the California cities of Chula Vista,
Coronado, Imperial Beach, National City and San Diego, to obtain
support from the Senate Energy and Water Development Subcommittee to
include $4,000,000 of funds under Section 107 of the 1960 River and
Harbor Act, as amended (continuing authority program) to complete plans
and specifications and to construct the deepening project for San Diego
Harbor.
The Port District has previously entered into a 50/50 Cost Sharing
Agreement with the Corps for a Feasibility Study to deepen San Diego
Harbor and is willing and able to enter into a similar Cost Sharing
Agreement for completion of plans and specifications and construction
of the project.
The San Diego Unified Port District operates and maintains two
marine terminals and engages in other maritime related business and
economic activities. These economic activities result in regionally
significant fiscal impacts including: economic output, high value
employment and associated payroll taxes, and federal revenue in the
form of income taxes, as well as various duties and trust fund
contributions.
An independent economic and fiscal impact study of the Port of San
Diego was conducted in 1999 by SourcePoint. The study revealed the
following regional economic impacts:
Maritime Commerce Regional Economic Impacts
1998 Impact
Employment:
Direct Jobs \1\..................................... 917
Total Jobs.......................................... 1,818
Employee Payroll:
Direct Payroll...................................... $28,955,000
Total Payroll....................................... 53,016,000
Output (Business Sales):
Direct Output....................................... 102,659,000
Total Output........................................ 182,019,000
\1\ Includes 471 maritime jobs on the tidelands and 446
construction related jobs.
Source: SourcePoint, using IMPLAN, an input-output model for the
San Diego region.
A timely and unique opportunity has presented itself to the Port
District. The U.S. Navy has completed a major channel deepening project
to accommodate its nuclear aircraft carriers. The Navy's dredging
project deepens the existing channel to about -50 feet, all the way
from the ocean to the carrier turning basin, approximately seven miles.
It is only an additional two miles to the Port District's 10th Avenue
Marine Terminal. The Port District perceives this as a ``partnering''
opportunity between the Navy, Corps of Engineers, Port District and
private sector interests to lower maritime shipping costs at the Port
of San Diego.
The Port District is committed to working with the Corps of
Engineers and the maritime industry to maintain and enhance our ability
to contribute to the region's economic stability by providing the
physical infrastructure needed to provide competitively priced maritime
shipping opportunities. To that end, the Port District has commenced
several strategic initiatives, including:
--$16,000,000 to repair berths at the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal
(completed in 1997)
--$30,000,000 landside and railroad improvements at the National City
Marine Terminal, in partnership with the BNSF Railroad
(completed in 1997)
--$27,000,000 to extend and expand the wharf at the National City
Marine Terminal (preliminary design completed in 1998), and
--the commitment to cost share with the Corps of Engineers the cost
of deepening the federal navigation channel to the 10th Avenue
and National City Marine Terminals.
The draft Feasibility Study, currently under review by the Corps of
Engineers and Port District, indicates a positive federal interest in
the deepening of San Diego Harbor. The Port is uniquely positioned to
competitively serve new and existing maritime shipping needs between
the Pacific Rim and the southwestern United States. However, the
current channel depth prevents full realization of federal and regional
benefits.
In conclusion, the San Diego Unified Port District requests your
support to include $4,000,000 in the Corps of Engineers continuing
authority programs for the deepening of San Diego Harbor. The Port
District and its maritime partners have made, and will continue to
make, significant financial investments in the landside infrastructure.
We request only that the Corps of Engineers be provided the financial
resources to modify the federal navigation channel so that potential
shipping cost reductions can be realized. With seven miles of the
federal channel already deepened by the Navy, it only makes economic
sense to extend the deepening to the marine terminal so that
nonmilitary benefits can also be realized.
______
Prepared Statement of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association
The Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association and its members
thank you for the opportunity to present this statement, including a
budget request, relative to the budget for fiscal year 2002.
This statement concerns and is focused on the Missouri National
Recreational River project which received Congressional authorization
in 1978 per Section 707 of Public Law 95-625. The Association's budget
request for fiscal year 2002 is $325,000.00, an amount to be used for
these purposes:
--The operation, maintenance and repair of streambank protection
structures constructed prior to 1978 under the authority of
Section 32 of the Streambank Erosion Control and Demonstration
Act;
--Repair or replace structures which fell victim to the record flows
(about double normal) of 1997;
--Improve user access to the river in the lower reaches of the
project, particularly on the South Dakota side of the river;
--The acquisition from landowners of shore line easements to protect
existing (but disappearing) wildlife habitat and to increase or
restore such habitat in areas where it has disappeared or needs
augmentation;
--Providing streambank protection, where needed, as needed, for the
river's ``high banks'', i.e. at the meander line;
--For the acquisition or protection of the river's scenic attributes
as envisioned by this legislation;
--Such other needs as may be required to achieve the congressional
purposes relative to this reach of the Missouri.
This project pertains to the some fifty-nine mile reach of the
Missouri River extending downward from near the Gavins Point Dam, circa
River Mile 811, near Yankton, South Dakota, to the Ponca State Park,
circa River Mile 752, near Ponca, Nebraska. This reach of the Missouri
is the only relatively natural reach of the river lying downstream of
the ``main stem'' dams. Channelization was never extended upstream of
Ponca. While some limited, isolated bank protection structures do exist
along this reach, the river for the most part retains its natural
characteristics. These include caving banks, shifting sandbars, some
islands, a profusion of snags, frequent shifting of the channel, sudden
changes in depth, timbered bluffs and limited access. Wildlife found
here includes beavers, raccoons, coyotes, muskrats, deer and mink. A
profusion of birds is found here; spring and fall bring a spectacular
array of ducks, geese and other migratory birds. As we have noted
before, the business of the Missouri River is to move the Rocky
Mountains to the Gulf of Mexico. Erosion is a major tool the river
employs in this process. Consequently, its shorelines are under
endless, relentless assault. The mostly sandy soils which characterizes
its bank in this reach are easily eroded, and erode they do.
Intensive and extensive erosion, of course, has always been one of
the Missouri's defining characteristics; it is a natural process.
Unfortunately, this natural process has been significantly altered by
the construction of the river's ``main stem'' dams. The principal
purpose of these dams was flood-control. In this reach that aim has
been achieved; the natural flooding, often over-the-banks flooding, has
been eliminated. Termination of such flooding, however, has also
terminated the natural process of land restoration. Thus, erosion
continues but no longer is it offset by accretion. Exacerbating this
problem is the fact that erosion has actually been increased because
the now relatively clear water discharged through the dams has a
greater sediment-carrying capacity. Thus, the river has an even more
rapacious appetite for its shorelines. Where once riparian landowners
had a fifty-fifty chance of regaining land lost to the river, they,
instead, now have a one hundred percent chance of losing it. Protection
from such losses is needed now.
Congress authorized some $21,000,000.00 for this project; about
$2,000,000.00 has been spent. The recently adopted management plan
contains a variety of proposals aimed at facilitating public enjoyment
of this treasured reach of the Missouri. Central among these proposals
is preservation and protection of those attributes of this reach which
prompted congressional designation as a recreational river. Indeed, the
enabling legislation specifically provides for streambank protection.
It is an inalterable fact that without such protection many of the very
features of this river, which Congress sought to protect, will simply
disappear. For example, the erosion of the timbered shoreline, circa
River Mile 777.8R, is proceeding unchecked. Magnificent old cottonwoods
litter the river there, and their denuded skeletons scattered
downstream are grim evidence of the river's voracious appetite.
Irreparable damage has occurred. . . and continues to occur. The
current management plan is ominously vague with respect to protecting
the core of characteristics the plan ostensibly was designed to
protect.
A further assault on the aim of this project and the riparian
landowners is the proposal by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
change drastically the flow regimen currently in effect. The proposed
``spring flood'' will inevitably further exacerbate the erosion
problem. Indeed, the Fish and Wildlife proposal is intended to increase
erosion! Those responsible for this ludicrous proposal exhibit not the
least concern for those to be affected by their proposal. In short,
that proposal is clearly an intentional destruction of property . . . a
crime in both South Dakota and Nebraska.
As the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition nears, public
interest in the expedition continues to build. The reach of river we
are here concerned with is already attracting considerable attention by
a variety of Lewis and Clark fans and others interested in, or curious
about the expedition. To accommodate those interested, public access
should be increased, signage added, and some additional viewing sites
(``overlooks'') provided. Obviously, such measures will be of little
value unless the ``wild Missouri'' the visitors seek, is preserved and
protected.
The Congress from the start has favored this project. The
Association surely appreciates that interest and support, and we thank
the Congress for such. Likewise, appreciative are the hunters,
fishermen, boatsmen, and a wide range of others who love this remnant
of the ``wild Missouri'' of old.
______
Prepared Statement of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
Project Request
Murrieta Creek Flood Control Project/Preconstruction
Engineering & Design................................ $1,000,000
Murrieta Creek Flood Control Project/Construction
General............................................. 1,500,000
Lake Elsinore-Gunnerson Pond/Section 1135, Environmental
Restoration......................................... 1,745,000
San Jacinto River/Feasibility Study--Flood Control...... 300,000
Santa Ana River--Mainstem/Construction General.......... 40,000,000
Prado Dam/Construction General.......................... 16,000,000
San Jacinto & Santa Margarita River Watersheds Special
Area Management Plan (SAMP)/General Investigations.. 2,000,000
murrieta creek channel flood control project
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 were
completed in September 2000. The Feasibility Study Report recommends
the implementation of Alternative 6, the Locally Preferred Plan (LPP)
for flood control, environmental restoration, and recreation. The LPP
is endorsed by the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta, and by the
community as a whole.
H.R. 5483, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 2000 includes
specific language authorizing the Corps to construct ``the locally
preferred plan for flood control, environmental restoration and
recreation described as Alternative 6, based on the Murrieta Creek
Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement dated September
2000.'' The project is now set to move into the design phase.
After finalizing the necessary cost sharing agreement in February
2001, the Corps is now initiating the detailed engineering design
necessary to develop construction plans and specifications for a
Murrieta Creek Flood Control Project utilizing a fiscal year 2001
appropriation of $750,000. The District, therefore, respectfully
requests that the Committee support a fiscal year 2002 appropriation of
$1,000,000 so that the Corps may continue with the Preconstruction
Engineering and Design phase for the Murrieta Creek Flood Control
Project.
The Murrieta Creek Flood Control Project was authorized by Congress
on October 27, 2000. Current schedules show the detailed engineering
design phase of the project being completed in 18-24 months. The Corps
anticipates that in fiscal year 2002, a significant portion of its
design effort will be completed for the downstream reach of the project
through Old Town Temecula, and that an element or feature of the
project will be ready for construction. The District, therefore,
respectfully requests the Committee's support of a $1,500,000
appropriation in fiscal year 2002 so that the Corps may pursue
construction start for the much awaited Murrieta Creek Flood Control,
Environmental Restoration, and Recreation 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 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 the District sought a Federal appropriation
for Gunnerson Pond from available Section 1135 funds to provide the
funding necessary to complete final plans and specifications and to
partially fund construction. In fiscal year 2001 the project received a
Federal appropriation for $1,400,000, the balance estimated to fully
fund the construction of the project. The Corps completed its design in
June, advertised for construction bids in August, awarded a contract
for construction in September, and initiated construction in October of
2000. The Corps anticipates that construction of Gunnerson Pond, the
Corps Los Angeles District's first Section 1135 project, will be
completed in April 2001.
The Gunnerson Pond project encountered higher than anticipated real
estate and utility relocation costs, as well as costs resulting from
project modifications made to accommodate various resource agencies.
These cost increases drove the Corps share of the overall cost of the
project up to the Section 1135 Program ``cap'' of $5 million. The
District, therefore, respectfully requests the Committee's support of a
fiscal year 2002 appropriation of $1,745,000 in order to fully fund the
Federal government's share ($5 million) of the overall project.
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 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
recreational 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 was initiated in March 2000 and completed
in September. The Expedited Reconnaissance Study 905(b) Report
identified a Federal interest in flood control on the San Jacinto
River, and has tentatively recommended moving forward with a detailed
Feasibility Study for a flood control project, but with some concern
about the economic justification for the project.
The Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget included an
appropriation of $225,000 to move into a Feasibility Study for a flood
control project along the San Jacinto River. The District respectfully
requests the Committee's support of a $300,000 appropriation in fiscal
year 2002 so that the Corps may continue its work effort on the San
Jacinto River Feasibility Study.
santa ana river--mainstem
The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662)
authorized the Santa Ana River-All River project that 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 three local sponsors and the Corps signed the Local Cooperation
Agreement (LCA) in December 1989. 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 2002, an appropriation of $10 million is necessary
to complete all engineering design and to construct several features
within ``Reach 9'' of the Santa Ana River immediately downstream of
Prado Dam. This section of streambed would receive localized levee and
slope revetment treatment to protect existing development along its
southerly bank. The landscaping of Reaches 4 and 8 of the Santa Ana
River Channel would require an $8 million appropriation. 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
a fiscal year 2002 appropriation of $5 million. This dredging work is
necessary before project turnover to the Local Sponsors for operation
and maintenance. Phase 3 of San Timoteo Creek Channel, a Mainstem
feature located within San Bernardino County, would see its final
engineering effort, as well as a construction start with an additional
$17 million appropriation.
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 complete. Design contracts
are underway for the balance of engineering work necessary before
construction. A fiscal year 2002 appropriation of $16 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. We, therefore, respectfully request that the Committee
support an overall $56 million appropriation of Federal funding for
fiscal year 2002 for the Santa Ana River Mainstem project including
Prado Dam.
san jacinto & santa margarita river watersheds special area management
plans
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. The $500,000 Federal appropriation received for fiscal year
2001 allowed the Corps to initiate work on this three year, $6.5
million project. We, therefore, respectfully request that the Committee
support a combined $2,000,000 appropriation of Federal funding for
fiscal year 2002 for the Corps to continue the work on the Special Area
Management Plans for the San Jacinto and Santa Margarita River
Watersheds.
______
Prepared Statement of the Eastern Municipal Water District
The Eastern Municipal Water District respectfully requests your
support for inclusion of $5 million in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and
Water Appropriations bill for the District's ``Water Supply
Desalination Infrastructure South Perris Project'' as well as for
inclusion in the same bill, $1 million for the District's ``Regional
Water Related Infrastructure Project''.
The South Perris project was authorized for design and construction
as part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Water Resources management
Act projects, that were included in H.R. 4577, Section 108, Subsection
(d), item number 52 for the amount of $25,000,000. The Regional Water
Related Infrastructure project was authorized for preliminary
engineering, feasibility studies and environmental documentation as
part of H.R. 4577, Section 108, Subsection (a), item number 24.
These two projects are important components to the overall plan of
the District to address increasing needs as a result of concerns over
the future availability of imported water supplies from Northern
California and the Colorado River. I have attached fact sheets and maps
for each of these projects.
In addition, we would strongly request that you support efforts to
increase the overall budget of the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau's
Budget has been cut 36 percent from fiscal year 1991 to fiscal year
2000. This is the primary Federal agency that we have relied upon in
the past for funding our infrastructure needs and would like to use to
fund future authorizations. We know the Bureau of Reclamation has a $5
billion backlog of work. That work, as well as any new authorizations
in this congress will not be addressed in a timely manner if the Bureau
continues to be cut and underfunded. We support the western water
industry's campaign to increase the Bureau's Water and Related
Resources Budget over a five year period from its present $648 million
to $1 billion.
On behalf of the Board of Directors of Eastern Municipal Water
District and the General Manager, I want to thank you for your
consideration of our request for assistance.
water resources development act project
Name of Project
``Regional Water Related Infrastructure Project,'' Eastern
Municipal Water District, Perris California
Authorization
HR 4577, Section 108, Subsection (a), Item no. 24--Eastern
Municipal Water District, California
Location, Description, and Representation
This project is located in Riverside County, California, north of
the San Diego County line, east of the City of Riverside and west of
the San Jacinto Mountains. The project will consist of preliminary
engineering investigations, design, and environmental documentation for
over 30 miles of nonreclaimable waste pipelines, and pumping plants
required to manage high salinity wastes and brines resulting from
industrial processes and water supply desalination. Representation for
the State of California includes: CA-43--Rep. Ken Calvert (R); CA-44-
Rep. Mary Bono (R); CA-48 Rep. Darrell Isa (R); and Senators Dianne
Feinstein (D); Barbara Boxer (D).
Project Purpose
In response to increasing concerns over the future availability of
imported water supplies from Northern California and the Colorado
River, the Eastern Municipal Water District is aggressively
implementing programs to recycle treated wastewater and desalinate
local brackish groundwater supplies. These programs will require major
investment in the pipelines and pump stations that will be necessary to
manage the high-salinity wastes and brines resulting in desalination
and industrial processes. The availability of non-reclaimable waste
disposal facilities (brine lines) will ensure the quality of future
recycled water supplies, advance the District's desalination program,
and increase the District's ability to manage salinity in local
groundwater basins. Additionally, these facilities will allow the
communities served by the District to compete for industrial
development which previously could not be accommodated because of the
lack of cost-effective options for the disposal of high-salinity
wastes.
This project will reduce the District's demand on imported water,
directly supporting the goals of the CalFed program while providing
direct economic benefits to the communities served by the District.
``Regional Water Related Infrastructure Project,'' Eastern
Municipal Water District, Perris California
Total project cost............................................$5,000,000
Federal share............................................. 4,000,000
Local share............................................... 1,000,000
Fiscal year 2002: Request................................. 1,000,000
Name of Project
``Water Supply Desallnation Infrastructure South Perris Project,''
Eastern Municipal Water District, Penis, California
Authorization
HR 4577, Section 108, Subsection (d), Item no. 52--South Penis,
California
Location, Description, and Representation
This project is located in Riverside County, California, north of
the San Diego County line, east of the City of Riverside and west of
the San Jacinto Mountains. The project will design and construct a
reverse osmosis desalination plant, wells, pipelines and brine
management pipelines required for the phased implementation of the
Perris Basins Desalination Program, providing a reliable potable water
supply and preserving existing groundwater resources. Representation
for the State of California includes: CA-43--Rep. Ken Calvert (R); CA-
44-Rep. Mary Bono (R); CA-48--Rep. Darrell Isa (R); and Senators Dianne
Feinstein (D); Barbara Boxer (D).
Project Purpose
Substantial portions of the Eastern Municipal Water District
overlie groundwater basins (Penis Basins) where the salt content (TDS)
of the groundwater is over 1,500 mg/L, making the water unusable for
potable or agricultural uses. In these areas, groundwater levels are
rising and saline water is spreading into adjacent high-quality basins,
resulting in the loss of local water supplies.
Over the last 7 years, the District has extensively studied local
groundwater conditions and developed a conceptual desalination plan for
the Penis basins. The first phase of this plan, construction of the
Menifee Desalter, is currently underway. The District plan calls for
the phased construction of 2 additional desalters plus associated
extraction wells, feedwater pipelines and brine lines. When completed,
the Perris Basin Desalination program will produce over 12,000 AF/YR of
potable water from an otherwise unusable resource. Strategically
located wells will pump salty groundwater to the desalter thereby
controlling water levels and preventing the degradation of neighboring
basins. The resulting brine waste will be disposed through a regional
non-reclaimable waste disposal system (brine line network).
Additionally, the desalter will provide the District with the ability
to provide regulatory salinity offsets which will be required to
maximize the use of recycled water within our service area.
``Water Supply Desalination Infrastructure South Perris Project,''
Eastern Municipal Water District, Penis, California
Total Estimate Project Cost............................. $46,250,000
Federal share....................................... 25,000,000
Local share......................................... 21,250,000
Fiscal year 2002: Request........................... 5,000,000
perris south desalination program
background
Brackish groundwater (TDS 1,000--3,000 mg/L) levels are rising in
the Perris South and Menifee subbasins--Cause: changed land uses and
decreased agricultural pumping.
Brackish groundwater is flowing into the Lakeview subbasin (TDS 500
mg/L) threatening agricultural and municipal supplies--Cause: over-
pumping in Lakeview and rising groundwater in Perris South.
Southern California agencies are being asked to develop local
supplies as a means of decreasing demand on the Sacramento Bay Delta.
EMWD extensive water recycling program requires long-term salinity
management and control of salt discharged to sanitary sewers (no
industrial wastewater).
the program
The Perris South Desalination Program will consist of the phased
construction of 3 desalters (4,000 AF production each) and the wells
and pipelines required for feedwater and brine management.
--Menifee.--Currently under construction, the Menifee desalter and
non-reclaimable waste pipeline provide the core facilities
required for future expansion of the program.
--Perris South Desalter--Phase I.--Provides an additional 4,000 AF/YR
of product and will extend core brine management facilities
towards Moreno Valley.
--Perris South Desalter Phase II.--Will construct the final desalter
and well fields.
--Moreno Valley and Temecula Valley Brine Lines.--Will extend the
core brine management facilities providing a network of brine
lines allowing for full management of industrial and other non-
reclaimable waste.
benefits
Provides 12,000 AF/YR of local water supply reducing demands on the
Bay-Delta (CaIFed goal).
Preserves the agricultural and municipal water of the Lakeview
subbasin by controlling rising groundwater and reversing the hydraulic
gradient into Lakeview.
Protects the District's water recycling program from the impacts of
high salinity wastes.
Improves the ability of local communities to compete for high tech
industries by providing cost-effective disposal of non-reclaimable
waste.
Creates a salinity offset which will allow recycled water to be
used in subbasins where regulatory objectives limit water recycling.
______
Prepared Statement of the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies
u.s. army corps of engineers
The fiscal year 2002 budget proposal for Civil Works Appropriations
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is $3.9 billion. In addition the
program will include $315 million in non-federal contributions and
trust fund receipts. The budget proposal reflects continued commitment
to proper management of our natural resources, through dedication of
$988 million to environmental programs (a $93 million increase over
fiscal year 2001). The environmental portion of the Corps budget
represents approximately 25 percent of the overall request. The
Association applauds the fact that many of our recommendations from
previous fiscal years have been maintained by the Corps in their
succeeding year's budget request.
A total of $479 million has been established to fund ongoing
environmental restoration programs including Sections 204, 206, and
1135 of Water Resources Development Acts. We urge the Corps to continue
to take steps to expedite the approval process for those projects in
order to rapidly realize benefits. The Association encourages the Corps
to expedite design and grant administration associated with Section
1135 projects. The 1135 projects provide an excellent opportunity to
bring the Corps and State fish and wildlife agencies together on
environmental projects but the current administrative burden may limit
state participation.
The Association encourages the Corps to cooperate, coordinate, and
develop civil works and restoration activities with State fish and
wildlife agencies. The State fish and wildlife agencies are generally
aware of where Corps projects could most effectively enhance the status
of fish and wildlife resources through improvements to habitat. We are
pleased there continues to be funding which will result in development
of partnerships to restore riverine ecosystems that address flood
prevention through nonstructural alternatives.
Our Association particularly appreciates the leadership of Congress
in providing funding for mitigation projects. We are especially pleased
that the Corps is requesting, and the Association supports,
continuation of funding for the Columbia River Fish Mitigation in
Washington. The Association also strongly encourages Congress to
appropriate necessary funding within the Corps budget to facilitate the
mitigation feature of the West Tennessee Tributaries Project, which is
needed to satisfy legal constraints to enable initiation of river
restoration work within this significant watershed.
We recommend that the Congress explore the need for generic
legislative direction to the Corps to ensure that the older projects
include the authority for mitigation and enhancement of fish, wildlife,
water quality, and sustained minimum flow and if legislation is
necessary, to act on that need. Further, the Association recommends
that mitigation funding for ongoing projects be listed as a separate
line item within the Civil Works Appropriations. Also, the Association
suggests that the Corps continue to look at actually transferring some
project mitigation lands to the State fish and wildlife agencies. The
Corps is currently in the process of transferring mitigation lands
associated with the Richard B. Russell Project to the State of South
Carolina, along with a trust account to manage these lands. The
Association encourages Congress to support the transfer of mitigation
lands to those States interested in receiving title to such lands.
The Association is also generally supportive of the funding
requested for some of the large river restoration projects. The
Association supports the fiscal year 2002 request of $26 million for
restoration of meanders and wildlife habitat on the Kissimmee River and
continued funding of $139 million to restore water flows through the
Everglades and other areas in Florida. It is in the best interest of
the country to restore the habitat and hydrologic components of these
rivers that have been significantly altered under previous Corps
projects.
With regard to the Corps' regulatory authority under the Clean
Water Act of 1972, we strongly support the request of $128 million for
conducting a streamlined program to process, review, issue permits and
provide an appeals procedure for the permitting of activities in waters
of the United States. Furthermore, the Association believes a strong
partnership program with State agencies affords the best opportunity
for balanced conservation of aquatic resources.
The Association recommends that the Corps continue to initiate
applicable restoration, mitigation and conservation projects in
partnership with State fish and wildlife agencies. For example, we
request the Corps continue to participate with State agencies and non-
Federal interests in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan
through wetlands conservation and wetlands identification.
The Association is excited by the potential for significant
environmental accomplishments in restoration, conservation, and
sustainable management of water, fish, and wildlife resources. The
Association is especially pleased with Federal plans to partner with
local, State and Tribal agencies and with the watershed management
emphasis. The States are interested in forging a true partnership
through sharing ideas, plans, design, implementation structure and
enforcement in establishing a unified, cooperative approach to
improving water quality.
______
Prepared Statement of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
As you deliberate on the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water
Appropriations Act, it is respectfully requested that you support four
studies that are not only important to Los Angeles County, but the
nation as a whole. Two of these studies, both related to shoreline
protection and coastline management, received no funding in the
President's recommended budget. The two studies related to dredging
were significantly underfunded by the President.
Following is a brief discussion of each of these studies:
Coast of California Storm and Tidal Wave Study--Los Angeles County
Shoreline Protection Studies In Progress--$500,000
Los Angeles County is host to over 50 million visitors annually at
the 30 miles of public beaches that we own or manage. These beaches are
not only among the nation's top recreational attractions; they generate
jobs, income and revenue to all levels of government. The beaches are
also an important element of the infrastructure, as they protect major
highways, utilities, public facilities, businesses and homes from ocean
storms.
What is not well known is that these beaches are not all naturally
sandy. Over 35 million cubic yards of sand have been placed on them
since the 1930's, and they require ongoing maintenance. In 1998, Los
Angeles formed a multi-agency Beach Replenishment Task Force. One of
its goals is to develop a long-term management plan for the beaches.
The Corps' Coast of California Study is critical to the achievement of
this goal. The study will gather data and employ numeric models to
assess long-term shoreline changes and coastal processes, which are
needed to plan and design future shore protection and beach
replenishment projects.
Congress added $500,000 to the fiscal year 2001 budget for the
first year of this study. The President did not continue funding
projects that were added by Congress in fiscal year 2001. The County is
obtaining a $500,000 grant from the State of California to help fund
the local share of this study. It is, therefore, very important that
your Subcommittee support an appropriation of $500,000 to continue this
study.
California Coastal Master Plan Regional Coastal Watersheds Management
Plans--$1,000,000
California's coast is an invaluable resource. It produces millions
of jobs and billions of dollars in revenue to the Federal Government.
Yet, California ranked eighth out of eleven states receiving Federal
appropriations for shoreline protection between 1995 and 1999.
California received just $10 million, while New York got $111 million,
New Jersey got $104 million, Florida got $90 million, and Illinois got
$30 million. By comparison, California received $12,000 per mile of
coastline against $800,000 per mile for New York and New Jersey.
Protecting California's coastal resources, including ancient
redwoods, flourishing and protected species, and very popular public
beaches, can best be accomplished through informed decisions and
planning. The Corps' proposed Coastal Master Plan will provide the
technical, environmental, regulatory, economic, legal, and policy data
needed to maintain and enhance the health of California's coastline.
The Master Plan has the support of other coastal counties, as well
as the State agencies responsible for coastal resources. It will make
it possible to develop policies and to execute management sub-plans
that will ensure the future vitality of California's beaches,
shoreline, and coastal watersheds.
There was no funding included in the President's recommended budget
for this study. Therefore, your support for an appropriation of $1
million to initiate this critical work is respectfully requested.
Marina del Rey and Ballona Creek Feasibility Study Navigation Studies
in Progress--$400,000
This study was authorized by Congress to develop a dredged material
management plan (DMMP) for contaminated sediments in Marina del Rey,
and a sediment control plan for the Ballona Creek watershed. The DMMP
has been incorporated into the development of a regional plan.
Completion of the watershed portion requires an extension of the study
to develop a trash and debris management plan (TDMP). Trash and debris
from Ballona Creek create many environmental and economic problems in
Marina del Rey and along the nearby beaches.
Resolving the Marina's dredging problem depends on completion of
this study. Without its completion, and the resultant TDMP, other
mitigation measures and improvements will be ineffective.
Implementation of plans resulting from the study will improve water
quality in the Santa Monica Bay, boating safety in Marina del Rey, and
the public's enjoyment of nearby beaches.
This study has been fully funded for several years, including the
County's cost share. A total of $400,000 in Federal funding is needed
in fiscal year 2002. The President's budget only includes $169,000 for
this study, leaving a need for $231,000 in additional funding. It is,
therefore, respectfully requested that you support an increase in
appropriation, to $400,000, for this study.
Los Angeles County--Regional Dredged Material Management Plan
Navigation Studies in Progress--$350,000
Ensuring navigational safety in the Los Angeles region, as well as
providing for much needed port expansion, depends on the ability to
dredge and dispose of some contaminated sediments. Approved disposal
sites are not available or economically feasible. The accumulation of
contaminated sediments has raised concerns about their impact on the
environment and human health.
A multi-agency task force was formed in 1997 to develop a long-term
management strategy for the dredging and disposal of contaminated
sediments. The work of the task force has been funded by the California
Coastal Commission, the State Regional Water Quality Control board, the
County of Los Angeles, and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The
Corps' development of a regional dredged material management plan is
critical to achievement of the task force's goals.
Without completion of this plan, the region's contaminated sediment
problem will be increasingly difficult and costly to solve. Safe
navigation will be jeopardized and our nation's largest, most
productive port complex will not be able to meet the ever-expanding
demand.
Congress appropriated $100,000 in fiscal year 2000, and $225,000 in
fiscal year 2001 for this study. The President has included $200,000 in
the recommended budget for fiscal year 2002, resulting in a need to add
$150,000. Your support of a total appropriation of $350,000 is
respectfully requested.
With your Subcommittee's leadership and support, the Corps has
performed its Congressionally mandated missions for Los Angeles County
in an excellent manner. We appreciate your continued support of the
Corps and its important mission.
Thank you for your consideration of these requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Audubon Society
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the one million members and supporters
of Audubon, thank you for the opportunity to submit our views on the
fiscal year 2002 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 2000 budget.
everglades restoration
Thank you for your past support of the restoration of America's
Everglades. The Everglades ecosystem, from the Mississippi River Valley
in the north through Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades, Florida Bay, the
Keys, and the coral reefs to the south, is a unique and world-renowned
eco-region. Because of its unique biological wealth and beauty, the
17,000 square mile area of Everglades National Park has been declared a
World Heritage Site, UNESCO Biosphere Reserve and Ramsar Wetland. The
Everglades, America's premiere wetland, is also one of the nation's
most endangered ecosystems.
The Everglades has been abused for more than 100 years. Its
restoration is the most ambitious environmental challenge our nation
has ever undertaken. The outcome is uncertain. What happens depends on
how much Americans recognize the need to balance the use and
conservation of natural resources. If our effort is successful,
restoration of the South Florida/Everglades ecosystem will serve as the
hemispheric model for sustainability.
Congress approved, and the State of Florida supports, the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) as a framework for
changes to the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project, which along
with Modified Water Deliveries and the C-111 project, are needed to
restore, preserve, and protect the South Florida ecosystem, while
providing for other water-related needs of the region.
We urge the Subcommittee to consider the following points:
--Everglades restoration is a long-term commitment, and it must be
completed in its entirety. Each component depends on others
therefore, all of the ``building blocks'' must be in place for
the restoration to succeed.
--The budget must continue adequate funding for previously authorized
programs whose performance assumptions have been included in
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), including
Kissimmee River Restoration and Critical Projects.
--The budget must adequately fund CERP implementation at a level
consistent with the implementation schedule as reflected in the
plan.
--We are concerned that CERP Pilot Projects will not be implemented
in the most expeditious manner, if funding is not provided in
fiscal year 2002 ($8 million). Additionally, the regional
aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) study must be completed
expeditiously, ahead of or concurrently with the ASR Pilot
Projects.
--With the passage of the Restoring the Everglades, an American
Legacy Act last year, Congress began a long-term commitment
(more than 20 years) to Everglades restoration. To be
successful, Everglades restoration must remain a national
priority.
upper mississippi river environmental management program (emp)
Cover 400 bald eagles and nearly 30,000 wild tundra swan use the
Upper Mississippi River. We urge you to include $33.17 million in the
President's fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Upper Mississippi
River System Environmental Management Program (EMP) found in the Army
Corps of Engineers' Construction General Budget. The Environmental
Management Program is a cooperative and cost shared effort. Those
participating include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the states of
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.
The mission of the EMP is to ``ensure the coordinated development
and enhancement of the Upper Mississippi River System.'' The efforts of
the EMP contribute to the management of navigation and flood control.
The EMP enhances and rehabilitates riverine wetland areas up and down
the river stimulating transportation uses, attracting visitors, adding
recreational opportunities, and bolstering local economies. The EMP
helps preserve this natural treasure by managing river navigation and
flood control, and promoting recreation on the river. It helps folks
enjoy the river now while ensuring its preservation for future
generations.
the challenge 21 program (or the flood mitigation and riverine
restoration program, sec 212 wrda 1999)
Mr. Chairman, the need for the Challenge 21 program is demonstrated
by the fact that today, many communities along the Mississippi River
are experiencing severe flooding along with economic and environmental
damage. The Challenge 21 program would greatly reduce the devastating
effects of the flooding that these communities are facing. Indeed, this
flooding is precisely the type of situation that Challenge 21 programs
are intended to mitigate.
Increasingly, flooded communities are implementing non-structural
solutions to reduce flooding. These solutions include moving frequently
flooded homes and business out of the floodplain, and working to return
the floodplains of rivers and creeks to a condition where they can
naturally moderate floods. In addition to reducing flood losses, non-
structural projects help meet many other goals of riverside
communities, including improving water quality, increasing
opportunities for recreation, and improving and restoring wildlife
habitat. Unfortunately, most federal spending does little to support
non-structural solutions to flood damage reduction.
Challenge 21, a non-structural flood damage reduction program
authorized in 1999, is explicitly designed to help support such
community-driven and environmentally beneficial efforts. Challenge 21
allows the Army Corps to relocate vulnerable homes and businesses in
smaller communities away from floodplains, restore floodplain wetlands,
increase opportunities for riverside recreation, and improve quality of
life in riverside communities. Challenge 21 also authorizes the Army
Corps to work with other Federal agencies to more efficiently and
effectively help local governments both reduce flood damages and
conserve, restore, and manage riverine and floodplain resources.
Individual Challenge 21 projects cannot exceed $25 million, and local
communities must provide 35 percent of the cost.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1999 requires the Army Corps
to study appropriate locations for Challenge 21 projects in 23 separate
locations. Five additional Challenge 21 projects were authorized in the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000. Challenge 21 currently is
authorized for only five years. In April 2003, the Army Corps must
report to Congress the results of an independent review to evaluate the
efficacy of the program in achieving the dual goals of flood hazard
mitigation and riverine restoration, and make recommendations
concerning continuation of the Challenge 21 program. But before the
Army Corps can make a meaningful assessment, it must have the funding
to implement the program.
Unfortunately, though $20 million is authorized for fiscal year
2001, the program has received no funding. Consequently, none of the
innovative and effective non-structural flood control projects that
could have been implemented under Challenge 21 and might have benefited
residents in Mississippi River communities during this year's flooding
are in place. Residents of these communities and other flood-prone
communities throughout the country deserve to see Challenge 21 fully
funded and implemented.
Failure to appropriate adequate funds to implement the
environmentally appropriate, common sense, and community supported
flood control projects authorized by this program will doom both
specific projects and the entire program to failure. This deserving
program should be fully funded so it can achieve both flood hazard
mitigation and restoration of this nation's great rivers.
the section 1135 and 206 programs
The Section 1135 Program (Project Modification for Improvement of
the Environment) allows the Army Corps to modify the structures and
operations of existing Army Corps projects to improve the quality of
the environment where those projects have contributed to the
degradation of the environment. The program also authorizes the
restoration of areas harmed by Army Corps projects. Non-federal
interests must provide 35 percent of the cost, and modifications may
not interfere with a project's original purpose.
The environmental damage caused by existing Army Corps projects,
many constructed before federal laws requiring mitigation, are
enormous. These projects have caused devastating environmental harm to
the Everglades, and severely degrade such rivers as the Missouri, Upper
Mississippi, Illinois, and Apalachicola Rivers. The harm includes the
loss of rivers' critical side channels, sandbars and wetlands, and
jeopardizes the continued existence of federally listed endangered
species.
Despite the significant adverse impacts of Army Corps projects
throughout the nation, the Section 1135 program has never been fully
funded. As a consequence, even though this program has been authorized
since 1986, only 45 Section 1135 projects had been completed or were
under construction as of 1999. It is clear that the interest in this
program is far more intense than these project numbers indicate. In
fiscal year 2001, 355 Section 1135 projects had to compete for funding
totaling only $21 million.
The Section 206 Program (Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration), allows the
Army Corps to undertake small-scale projects to restore the aquatic
environment, regardless of the existence or impact of Army Corps'
projects in the area. Projects carried out under this program must
improve the quality of the environment, be in the public interest, and
be cost-effective. Individual projects under this program may not
exceed $5 million, and non-federal interests must provide 35 percent of
the cost.
The Army Corps reports that between 1996 (when Section 206 was
enacted into law) and 1999, six projects had reached the planning and/
or design phase under this program. The interest in this program far
exceeds the level of funds being appropriated, however, and many
communities are unable to participate in this program due to inadequate
funding. In fiscal year 2001, 185 projects under the Section 206
program had to compete for funding totaling only $19 million.
Many communities are working with Army Corps districts to restore
lost wetlands, side channels, and other riparian habitat. Many of these
restoration projects are designed to offset the habitat losses and
other environmental impacts of Army Corps levee, dam, and dredging
projects that were constructed before federal laws required mitigation.
Unfortunately, far more community-driven projects are being rejected
due to inadequate funding. Both the Section 1135 and 206 programs
should be fully funded so that communities can work with the Army Corps
to reverse damage done, and to ameliorate the environmental and
economic impacts caused by altering our nation's rivers, floodplains,
and wetlands.
We strongly urge you to appropriate full funding for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' Challenge 21, Section 206, and Section 1135
programs in fiscal year 2002.
lower columbia river and tillamook bay ecosystem restoration program
The Columbia and Tillamook estuaries are of great importance to the
region and the nation, offering critical habitat to endangered salmon
and steelhead and more than 200,000 wintering waterfowl and shorebirds.
But they also face significant threats. Since 1850, the two estuaries
have lost more than 70 percent of their historical wetland and riparian
habitat, primarily because of construction of agricultural levees and
floodplain development. The Columbia River and its estuary have also
been damaged by channelization and dredging for navigation.
In addition, the health of these estuaries has been severely
compromised over the past half century by conversion of river habitat,
dams, mining, and logging, which have transformed the ecology and
economy of the region. The huge price paid by the river's ecosystems is
illustrated most clearly by severe declines in native salmon species.
Wild fish have been reduced to only one percent of their pre-
development abundance, and 12 salmon and steelhead species in the
Columbia River Basin are listed under the Endangered Species Act.
The Lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay Ecosystem Restoration
program, run by the Army Corps of Engineers, is supported by a diverse
group of stakeholders including labor, environmental and citizen
groups, as well as federal, state, municipal and tribal governments.
These stakeholders are dedicated to enhancing the fish and wildlife
habitat in these estuaries. This program offers a cooperative solution
to managing natural resources that will benefit all of the salmonids in
the Columbia River system. Adequately funded, the program will restore
more than 16,000 acres of critical fish and wildlife habitat, augment
existing monitoring efforts, and help citizens protect and manage
resources.
Again, we strongly urge you to appropriate full funding of $30
million for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to implement Section 536
of the Water Resources Development Act 2000, the Lower Columbia River
and Tillamook Bay Ecosystem Restoration.
missouri river restoration
The Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project is the
primary habitat restoration program for the lower Missouri River
between Sioux City, Iowa and St. Louis. Congress established it in 1986
to help reverse the long-term decline of the Missouri's fish and
wildlife habitat due to the federally sponsored channelization and
stabilization projects of the Pick-Sloan era. Congress approved $12
million in fiscal year 2001 for the project, the highest appropriation
yet received. It is imperative that at least this level of funding be
maintained.
The Missouri River remains a nationally significant resource,
attracting tens of millions of visitors annually and supporting over
150 species of fish and wildlife. However, severe loss of habitat such
as side channels, wetlands, and sandbars threaten the river's long-term
health. As the nation prepares to celebrate the 200th anniversary of
Lewis and Clark's Voyage of Discovery, we have a once-in-a-lifetime
opportunity to restore the Missouri River and revitalize riverside
communities.
Supporting the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project
will help reverse the decline of river wildlife by restoring historic
chutes, side channels, wetlands, backwaters, and other habitat fish and
wildlife need to feed, conserve energy, and reproduce.
While restored habitat areas are important for the Missouri's fish
and wildlife, they are also important for people. Waterfowl hunting,
fishing, birdwatching, and other recreational translate into real
dollars for Missouri River communities, as recreation and tourism-
dependent businesses support visitors to these areas.
By supporting the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation
Project, Congress can also help us properly commemorate the upcoming
bicentennial of Lewis and Clark's Voyage of Discovery. With your help,
we can restore a string of natural places along the Missouri--places
that Lewis and Clark might recognize and that attract recreation and
tourism, support river wildlife, and improve the quality of life in
riverside communities.
We urge you to bolster critically important efforts to reverse the
decline of the nation's longest river by supporting an appropriation of
at least $12 million for the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife
Mitigation Project in fiscal year 2002.
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 $400,000 appropriation included in the President's
budget for the Savannah Harbor Expansion, and urge 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 $1 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.
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 $1.7 million should be
appropriated for this project.
This Subcommittee has done an excellent job of opposing this
project in the past, and we commend your 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 Alabama State Docks
alabama inland waterways
Each year, with the annual appropriations cycle of the U.S.
Congress for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) budget for Civil
Works, the partnership between the Federal Government and the State of
Alabama is revalidated. This partnership is critical to the Port of
Mobile and the Alabama inland waterway systems that service the four
state area of Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Georgia. Without the
partnership our communities would be at a distinct disadvantage in
their ability to compete at the regional, national and international
level.
The Port of Mobile, for which the Alabama State Port Authority
(ASPA) serves as the local cost sharing partner, was ranked 12th
nationwide in 1999 for total cargo tonnage. This tonnage generally is
split equally between domestic and foreign cargoes. The high level of
domestic waterborne traffic transiting the Port of Mobile is
attributable to the Port's multimodal hub status. Not only are we
serviced by two Interstate Highways (I-10 & I-65) and four Class I
Railroads (CNIC, CSX, BNSF & NS), but the State is also blessed with a
system of six navigatable inland waterways.
The Alabama-Coosa, Appalachicola-Chatahochee-Flint, Black Warrior-
Tombigbee, Gulf Intercoastal Waterway, Tennessee and the Tennessee-
Tombigbee form a network crisscrossing the heart of the South.
Additionally, in the event of any navigational construction in the
Lower Mississippi River, this system provides the only access for
waterborne commerce on the Ohio, Illinois, Upper Mississippi and
Missouri River Systems to deep water ports and international commerce.
Just as with any other mode of transportation, maintenance of these
systems is essential not only to their day-to-day operations, but also
to the perception of their reliability. If they are not consistently
maintained we achieve a self fulfilling prophecy that produces a
spiraling downturn of cargo and could ultimately lead to their closure.
At a time when the highways and railroads of the region are becoming
ever more congested with freight traffic, this is not the time to
further constrain the safest, most economical and least environmentally
damaging mode of domestic transportation in the U.S.
I therefore strongly request that these systems be provided with a
level of funding for fiscal year 2002 at least equal to that
appropriated for fiscal year 2001.
port of mobile
The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 authorized the
deepening of the main channel serving the Port of Mobile to 55 feet by
550 feet. Actual construction however was limited (45 feet by 400 feet)
as a result of limited local cost sharing capability. The initial
construction work was completed in 1990.
Operations and maintenance cost, of the Mobile Harbor federal
project in 1991 were approximately twenty-two million dollars
($22,000,000). Over the subsequent ten (10) years these maintenance
costs have averaged approximately the same amount. It is the desire of
the Port of Mobile to obtain twenty-two million, eight hundred thousand
dollars ($22,800,000) for Operations and Maintenance funding for fiscal
year 2002. Assuming that no catastrophic event impacts the Mobile Bay
this should be sufficient to not only maintain the main channel, but
also other channels which have not received maintenance over the last
ten plus (10+) years (i.e., Arlington and Chickasaw). Additionally,
significant growth in the Port of Mobile since the deepening has
established a need to continue to lengthen the 45' channel as
authorized. We therefore request two million, three hundred thousand
dollars ($2,300,000) in Construction General funds. Our total request
is twenty-five million, one hundred thousand dollars ($25,100,000).
The Port of Mobile is the terminus of approximately fifteen hundred
miles of inland waterway systems serving the State of Alabama. As such,
the Port of Mobile supports testimony of the waterway systems serving
the Port and requests steady state funding for them.
______
Prepared Statement of the Gulf Intracostal Canal Association
Operation and Maintenance.--$80,319
Key projects here are the dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway at
strategic locations ($15.5 million), Houston Ship Channel ($12.2
million), and Sabine Neches Waterway ($14.2 million).
new orleans district (including mississippi river and tributaries)
General Investigations.--$18,172
Critical projects are the Calcasieu Lock Replacement and Bayou
Sorrel Lock (total $1.4 million). Both of these structures represent
traffic bottlenecks on the GIWW main stem. Also critical is the
Morganza to the Gulf Study ($6.5 million).
Construction General.--$266,680
The single most important project here is the Inner Harbor
Navigation Canal Lock ($30 million). This is a most critical project in
terms of safety and efficiency of the entire Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
traffic flow. It must continue on schedule. The present structure was
completed in 1921, and it represents the most critical bottleneck on
the waterway.
Operation and Maintenance.--$169,150
Critical to the continuing efficiency of the waterway is $18.7
million for dredging and lock maintenance. A key initiative in
maintaining all the waterway's efficiencies is reduction of downtime
for maintenance. The building of spare lock gates prior to major lock
maintenance has proven to be a major factor in reducing job duration
and resulting delays. This process is proving very attractive in saving
overall project costs as well. An additional $2.0 million is needed for
spare gates at Old River Lock in anticipation of its major overhaul.
mobile district
Operations and Maintenance
We support the Corps efforts to install mooring buoys in Mobile Bay
to provide Safe Haven for tows waiting weather ($375,000). The securing
of additional dredge material disposal sites is critical to the long
term future of the Intracoastal Waterway, and GICA strongly supports
funding for these items.
This testimony, April 16, 2001, is submitted by Raymond Butler,
Executive Director of the Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association, for the
official record before the House and Senate Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Subcommittees. The Gulf Intracoastal Canal
Association (GICA) is the oldest of the regional waterway associations,
having been established in Victoria, Texas in 1905. The Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway transports 110 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 port
authorities, 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. Our system of Inland Waterways Barge Transportation
provides this country with the safest, most environmentally friendly
and fuel-efficient means of surface transportation. The values and
efficiencies provided by barge transportation accrue to our country in
almost every area of commerce. We should begin to view our waterways as
the solution to many of our country's transportation related problems.
specific budget requests for fiscal year 2002
galveston district
The Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association (GICA) supports the
approval of the following amounts for the Galveston District:
General Investigations.--$4,555,000
Included here are the Brazos River to Port O'Connor ($974
thousand), High Island to Brazos River ($535 thousand), and Port
O'Connor to Corpus Christi 216 Studies ($1 million). The Matagorda Bay
Alternate Route ($910 thousand), which has the potential to reduce
existing maintenance costs significantly and improve transit safety, is
included. The Sabine-Neches Waterway Widening and Deepening Project
($1.1 million) is of major concern for barge/ship transit safety.
Construction General.--$54,165,000
It is most critical that these projects continue uninterrupted. The
Houston Ship Channel Widening and Deepening is now well into completion
stages and is most critical to barge/ship transit safety. Total fiscal
year 2002 needs for this project are $46.8 million. The completion of
the channel to Victoria ($6.6 million) and the mouth of the Colorado
River ($1.8 million) are two additional projects that must continue to
avoid additional costs and improve waterway efficiency.
other areas
The GICA 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 finding the ACF system at
levels equal to last year's budget of $5.1 million.
In other areas, the GICA strongly supports repeal of the 4.3 cent
per gallon Deficit Reduction Tax placed on fuel. This tax has now
outlived its original purpose and is contributing to the General Fund,
which is well in excess of the needs it supplies.
The Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association respectfully enters these
comments for the record. We appreciate the privilege of providing such
critical input.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency
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 2002:
SACRAMENTO'S 2002 FLOOD CONTROL FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed SAFCA
Project Budget Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Sacramento Streams: Prevention of flooding of ........ \1\ 10.
portions of Sacramento from the south, where four 0
creeks convey foothill runoff through urbanized
areas into Beach Lake and the Delta. NEW START......
Folsom Modifications: Modifications to Folsom Dam to ........ \1\ 12.
provide greater efficiency in managing flood storage 0
in Folsom Reservoir.................................
American River Common Elements: 24 miles of levee ........ \1\ 17.
improvements along the American River and 12 miles 0
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 $5.0 million
to begin work on levee parity, authorized in WRDA
1999................................................
Sacramento River Bank Protection: Will correct ........ \1\ 3.0
harmful erosion along the banks of the American
River that threatens the integrity of the existing
levees..............................................
Magpie Creek: Authorized under the Corps' Section 205 ........ \1\ 3.0
program, this project will provide a high degree of
flood protection on Magpie Creek....................
American River Plan: Funds to continue previously ........ \2\ 1.0
authorized planning and design of Sacramento flood
protection projects.................................
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.............................................
Lower Strong & Chicken Ranch Sloughs (D05 Pump ........ \3\ 0.2
Station): a feasibility study to restore 100-year
level of flood protection to Chicken Ranch Slough
drainage to the American River. This area has
flooded four times since 1986.......................
Magpie Creek on McClellan AFB: A feasibility study to ........ \1\ 0.2
evaluate alternatives for providing improved flood
protection on McClellan Air Force Base in connection
with the reuse of that base.........................
------------------
Total I........................................ ........ 51.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Construction.
\2\ Preconstruction Engineering and Design.
\3\ General Investigation.
According to the Corps of Engineers, Sacramento has the highest
risk of flooding of any major urban area in the country. Located at the
confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers, the Sacramento
floodplain is home to over 400,000 residents, 150,000 homes, 5,000
businesses, the State Capitol, and 1,300 government facilities.
Additionally, there are 200,000 jobs in the floodplain, as Sacramento
is a regional employment hub for it neighbors in Placer, El Dorado, and
Yolo counties. The Corps of Engineers estimates a major flood on the
American River would cause between $7 and $16 billion in damage and
likely result in lives being lost. Improved flood protection is our
region's most critical infrastructure need.
The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency is a joint powers agency
formed in 1989 to provide the local response to the 1986 flood. Since
its formation, SAFCA has raised over $140 million in local funds that
have been expended on planning and construction of flood control
facilities and on public education. Over the same period, approximately
$130 million in State and Federal funds have been appropriated for the
same purpose.
As part of the 1999 Water Resources Development Act, Congress
authorized the most significant set of flood control improvements since
Folsom Dam was constructed in 1955. These improvements will raise the
minimum level of protection from about 85-year to 140-year and provide
a foundation for additional improvements to achieve the federal, state
and local goal of at least 200-year flood protection. Additionally,
because these projects will improve the ability of federal dam
operators to control American River flows, they also benefit
Sacramento's downstream neighbors in Yolo County. Property owners,
flood control engineers, businesses and environmentalists all agree
Sacramento needs to move forward with these improvements as rapidly as
possible. Last year, the projects were authorized and funded by the
State and, by an 82 percent margin, Sacramento property owners voted to
tax themselves to provide the local share. These actions clearly
demonstrate the strong state and local support for these projects. We
hope you can understand our desire for appropriation levels that will
allow these and other projects to proceed forward on an optimum
schedule.
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. However, a misunderstanding resulted in Congress only
appropriating funds to advance preliminary engineering and design in
2002. This project is ready to start construction, and we are
requesting a new start and a $10 million appropriation. Additionally,
we are asking the committee to approve a 215 crediting agreement so
that we can use the non-federal funds to initiate construction this
summer.
folsom dam modifications
When Folsom Dam, the only flood control structure along the
American River was completed in 1955, Sacramento was thought to have a
very high level of flood protection (500-year or greater) consistent
with other urban areas in the nation. However, five recent large storms
have demonstrated that the American River can produce far larger floods
than anticipated at the time Folsom was designed. The Corps has
concluded that Folsom can control only about an 85-year storm. This is
far less protection than the project was authorized to provide and
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 dam on the American River in 1992 and 1996, the Corps,
the State and SAFCA shifted their focus to identifying improvements to
Folsom Dam that will cost effectively increase flood protection. As a
result of these efforts, Congress authorized improvements to the outlet
works at Folsom dam in the 1999 WRDA, and approved a new start in 2001.
This single project, the centerpiece of the Federal program in
Sacramento, nearly doubles the level of flood protection for 150,000
homes and 5,000 businesses in Sacramento and improves the level of
protection for downstream communities in Yolo County. The project risks
are extreme, the benefits of the project are significant, and an
aggressive schedule is clearly justified. We are therefore requesting
an appropriation of $12 million so that construction on this important
project can continue.
american river common elements project
In 1996, Congress did not approve a comprehensive flood control
project for Sacramento, but did authorize levee-strengthening projects
that were common to all the long-term alternative plans. 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,
and an early warning system to protect recreational visitors along the
American River. The purpose of these projects is to prevent the types
of levee failures and resultant flooding that occurred in the Central
Valley in 1986 and 1997. An appropriation of $17 million is requested
so that the work authorized on American River Levees in 1996 and 1999
can be completed.
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 that otherwise
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. An
appropriation of $3 million is needed to complete projects already
started.
magpie creek (section 205 continuing authorities program)
The Magpie Creek Diversion Project, constructed by the Corps in
1955 as an element of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project, is
inadequate for even the 100-year flood event using the most up-to-date
hydrologic data. The resulting floodplain encompasses downstream
residential and commercial structures and would close Interstate 80,
the major east-west transportation route through Sacramento. The Corps
has completed a favorable report recommending the initiation of a
Section 205 small flood control project in the area adjacent to the
McClellan Air Force Base. In addition, Congress specifically directed a
separate Section 205 study pursuant to Section 104 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 for the on-base portion of Magpie
Creek. The off-base improvements have a benefit to cost ratio of 2.5 to
1. Both portions protect existing urban development and are essential
to provide capacity for future improvements on McClellan Air Force Base
to allow for orderly conversion of this closed base to a Sacramento
employment center. Congress earmarked funds in last year's Energy and
Water Appropriations bill to initiate work on the off-base portion of
the project, but construction has been delayed. SAFCA seeks a $3.0
million earmark as part of the proposed fiscal year 2002 budget for the
Section 205 Program and requests the Corps be directed to initiate
construction of the Magpie Creek Diversion Project with those funds.
SAFCA also requests Congress direct the Corps to move forward with an
investigation of alternatives for controlling flooding on base.
american river plan
An appropriation of $1 million is needed so that the Corps can
complete its evaluation of alternative projects for providing a minimum
of 200-year flood protection for Sacramento. This evaluation, ordered
by Congress in 1999, is focused on three measures. The first includes
modifying levees so more water can safely be conveyed through
Sacramento in a flood. The second option is enlarging Folsom Dam so
that more water can be effectively stored during a flood, and the third
incorporates improvement in long range weather forecasting into flood
control operations. Combinations of these measures are also being
evaluated, and the full feasibility study will be presented to Congress
in 2002.
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 along lower Dry and Arcade Creeks. Congress did not
authorize the recommended project in the 1992 WRDA, but in subsequent
legislation that year Congress did authorize the levee improvements
around the Natomas basin and North Sacramento. The authorizing
legislation included provisions to reimburse the local agency for
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 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 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
Corp has agreed to reimburse SAFCA $21 million, their estimate of the
costs of building levees to the heights described in their 1992 report
and Congress has appropriated funds consistent with that agreement. The
Corp has also agreed to consider reimbursement for higher levees, and
SAFCA and the Corps are jointly working on an agreement for additional
reimbursement. In anticipation of a formal agreement on this matter, we
are requesting an appropriation of $5 million.
lower strong and chicken ranch sloughs
SAFCA, in cooperation with Sacramento County, is seeking
appropriations of $0.2 million to allow the Corp to complete it
feasibility study for Lower Strong and Chicken Ranch Sloughs.
Floodwaters from these urban streams are collected and pumped into the
American 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 1950's 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.
______
Prepared Statement of Charles H. Bucknam
Dear Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development: Thank you for
agreeing to consider this request for funding of the Acid Drainage
Technology Initiative (ADTI) through the federal multi-agency
mechanism. The Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) is being requested to
provide annual funding of up to $200K, to match the standard set by the
Office of Surface Mining (OSM). OSM funding is going primarily to the
Coal Mining Sector of ADTI and a predictable base of funding is also
needed for the Metal Mining Sector activities, in order to identify the
best science for controlling acid and metal drainage from metal mines
and related materials.
The Prediction Committee of the Acid Drainage Technology Initiative
Metal Mining Sector (ADTI-MMS) has identified several needs to improve
the scientific and technical foundation necessary for accurate
prediction of mine waste drainage quality. More accurate prediction of
mine waste drainage quality will lead to the management of mine wastes
in a manner that will avoid adverse impacts to natural waters. ADTI-MMS
Prediction Committee activities will benefit multiple federal agencies.
Broad based funding from participating federal agencies (to augment the
voluntary contributions from states, federal agencies, industry,
universities and consulting companies), will greatly accelerate
progress of the ADTI-MMS Prediction Committee.
Federal and state land-managing agencies, as well as mining
companies, are continually challenged with making environmentally-sound
decisions on how to best manage millions of tons of mine waste from
abandoned, existing, and future metal-mining activities without
adversely impacting water quality. Mine-waste management decisions are
largely based on the predicted quality of drainage from mine wastes.
Several predictive tests to help forecast minewaste drainage quality
are available to industry and reviewing agencies, yet no consensus
exists regarding how well these tests predict future drainage quality
in the field. What is critically needed is a systematic, unbiased,
scientific assessment of the available tests, an organized compilation
of existing predictive data to evaluate the accuracy of tests,
modification of existing or development of new tests, and evaluation
and development of mine waste dissolution models. These aspects are
essential for making scientifically based decisions on mine waste
management.
The ADTI-MMS consists of volunteer representatives from government,
academia, and the private sector who are involved in the
environmentally sound management of metal-mine wastes. This group is
focused on cost effective, environmentally sound methods and
technologies to manage mine wastes and related metallurgical materials
for abandoned, active and future mining and associated operations. The
objective of the ADTI-MMS is to identify, evaluate, develop,
disseminate information regarding, and promote understanding of these
methods and technologies.
The Prediction Committee is one of five technical committees formed
by the ADTI-MMS. The focus of the Prediction Committee is prediction of
drainage quality from mining wastes (i.e. tailings, waste rock) and
related metallurgical materials (e.g. stockpiles). Based on the
predicted drainage quality from a mine waste, appropriate mine waste
management plans can be developed to avoid adverse impacts to natural
waters. In order to improve the scientific and technical foundation
necessary for accurate prediction of mine waste drainage quality, the
ADTI-MMS Prediction Committee identified the following needs.
--Survey, analyze and compile information from literature and active
research regarding scientific and technical foundations and
methods for mine waste drainage quality prediction.
--Develop standard methods for prediction of drainage quality from
mine wastes and associated metallurgical materials.
--Develop reference standards for quality assurance of predictive
test results.
--Generate empirical data on the long-term dissolution behavior of
mine wastes by conducting field and laboratory tests on
individual mine waste rock types.
--Conduct literature surveys and develop data bases for field
validation of prediction methods.
--Conduct regional workshops with government, industry and academia
to arrive at consensus on scientific and technical foundations
and methods for predicting drainage quality.
--Disseminate the latest information on the best science for mine
waste drainage quality prediction to those involved and
interested in the sound prediction of drainage quality.
The ADTI-MMS Prediction Committee has made progress in these areas
through voluntary efforts and limited funding from the Office of
Surface Mining and Environmental Protection Agency. Furthermore, we are
committed to continue this work. With broader based funding from
participating federal agencies to augment these contributions, we can
address these needs more effectively and in a much shorter time frame.
Thank you for your time and interest in this vital area. Your continued
funding of this Committee's activities will significantly improve our
ability to develop the best science for addressing drainage issues with
an organized and predictable schedule.
______
Prepared Statement of Rebecca A. Miller
Thank you for agreeing to consider this request for funding of the
Acid Drainage Technology Initiative (ADTI) through the federal multi-
agency mechanism. The Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) is being
requested to provide annual funding of up to $200K, to match the
standard set by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM). OSM funding is
going primarily to the Coal Mining Sector of ADTI and a predictable
base of funding is also needed for the Metal Mining Sector activities,
in order to identify the best science for controlling acid and metal
drainage from metal mines and related materials.
The Prediction Committee of the Acid Drainage Technology Initiative
Metal Mining Sector (ADTI-MMS) has identified several needs to improve
the scientific and technical foundation necessary for accurate
prediction of mine waste drainage quality. More accurate prediction of
mine waste drainage quality will lead to the management of mine wastes
in a manner that will avoid adverse impacts to natural waters. ADTI-MMS
Prediction Committee activities will benefit multiple federal agencies.
Broad based funding from participating federal agencies (to augment the
voluntary contributions from states, federal agencies, industry,
universities and consulting companies), will greatly accelerate
progress of the ADTI-MMS Prediction Committee.
Federal and state land-managing agencies, as well as mining
companies, are continually challenged with making environmentally-sound
decisions on how to best manage millions of tons of mine waste from
abandoned, existing, and future metal-mining activities without
adversely impacting water quality. Mine-waste management decisions are
largely based on the predicted quality of drainage from mine wastes.
Several predictive tests to help forecast minewaste drainage quality
are available to industry and reviewing agencies, yet no consensus
exists regarding how well these tests predict future drainage quality
in the field. What is critically needed is a systematic, unbiased,
scientific assessment of the available tests, an organized compilation
of existing predictive data to evaluate the accuracy of tests,
modification of existing or development of new tests, and evaluation
and development of mine waste dissolution models. These aspects are
essential for making scientifically based decisions on mine waste
management.
The ADTI-MMS consists of volunteer representatives from government,
academia, and the private sector who are involved in the
environmentally sound management of metal-mine wastes. This group is
focused on cost effective, environmentally sound methods and
technologies to manage mine wastes and related metallurgical materials
for abandoned, active and future mining and associated operations. The
objective of the ADTI-MMS is to identify, evaluate, develop,
disseminate information regarding, and promote understanding of these
methods and technologies.
The Prediction Committee is one of five technical committees formed
by the ADTI-MMS. The focus of the Prediction Committee is prediction of
drainage quality from mining wastes (i.e. tailings, waste rock) and
related metallurgical materials (e.g. stockpiles). Based on the
predicted drainage quality from a mine waste, appropriate mine waste
management plans can be developed to avoid adverse impacts to natural
waters. In order to improve the scientific and technical foundation
necessary for accurate prediction of mine waste drainage quality, the
ADTI-MMS Prediction Committee identified the following needs.
--Survey, analyze and compile information from literature and active
research regarding scientific and technical foundations and
methods for mine waste drainage quality prediction.
--Develop standard methods for prediction of drainage quality from
mine wastes and associated metallurgical materials.
--Develop reference standards for quality assurance of predictive
test results.
--Generate empirical data on the long-term dissolution behavior of
mine wastes by conducting field and laboratory tests on
individual mine waste rock types.
--Conduct literature surveys and develop data bases for field
validation of prediction methods.
--Conduct regional workshops with government, industry and academia
to arrive at consensus on scientific and technical foundations
and methods for predicting drainage quality.
--Disseminate the latest information on the best science for mine
waste drainage quality prediction to those involved and
interested in the sound prediction of drainage quality.
The ADTI-MMS Prediction Committee has made progress in these areas
through voluntary efforts and limited funding from the Office of
Surface Mining and Environmental Protection Agency. Furthermore, we are
committed to continue this work. With broader based funding from
participating federal agencies to augment these contributions, we can
address these needs more effectively and in a much shorter time frame.
Thank you for your time and interest in this vital area. Your
continued funding of this Committee's activities will significantly
improve our ability to develop the best science for addressing drainage
issues with an organized and predictable schedule.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coachella Valley Water District; Imperial
Irrigation District; Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California; and San Diego County Water Authority
fiscal year 2002 funding request for habitat and enhancement and
improved water management
It is requested that $2 million be provided in the Bureau of
Reclamation fiscal year 2002 budget for Salton Sea area habitat
enhancement, budget line item--Salton Sea Project. It is also requested
that $2.8 million be provided in the Bureau of Reclamation fiscal year
2002 budget for water management reservoirs near the All-American
Canal, budget line item--Colorado River Front Work and Levee System.
This funding is needed to ensure the success and timely implementation
of California's Colorado River Water Use Plan to bring California
within its 4.4 million acre-feet per year normal apportionment of
Colorado River water. In recent years, California has taken up to 5.2
million acre-feet per year, relying on surplus and unused
apportionments of other states that will not be available in the
future.
California's Colorado River Water Use Plan is a major undertaking
by the State and its agencies that will enable California to reduce its
reliance on Colorado River water by up to 800,000 acre-feet per year.
Key components of California's Colorado River Water Use Plan include
core voluntary cooperative water conservation/transfers from
agricultural use to urban use which are needed for California to meet
its water needs and maintain its urban and agricultural economies. At
the same time, we must conserve and enhance critical wildlife habitats
that could be affected by water conservation programs.
California and its Colorado River water users will be making
expenditures in the billions of dollars to implement California's
Colorado River Water Use Plan. This funding request deals with federal
aspects and responsibilities that are critical to the success of the
Plan.
The habitat enhancement measures in and around the Salton Sea and
its national wildlife refuge are necessary to gain the environmental
permits and approvals associated with implementing a key component of
California's Colorado River Water Use Plan, cooperative water
conservation/transfers of over 500,000 acre-feet of water per year from
agriculture use to urban use. These actions are intended to conserve
and enhance habitat that could be affected by agricultural water use
efficiency improvements needed to provide water to meet urban water
needs in southern California. The funds would be used to create lower
salinity habitat in the Salton Sea deltas and surrounding areas,
provide for wetland/upland restoration and conservation, and enhance
piscivorous bird habitat.
The water management reservoirs would improve Colorado River and
supply management, water conservation, and energy generation; help
facilitate water storage and conjunctive use programs; provide water
for environmental purposes; and provide for cooperative improved water
supply management opportunities with Mexico. Much of the identified
benefits relate to federal responsibilities for Colorado River
management and water deliveries.
Successful implementation of California's Colorado River Water Use
Plan is vital to the economy and water supply reliability of the State
of California, and is critical to the Colorado River interests of the
other Colorado River Basin states and Mexico. We respectively request
that these items and funding levels be part of the Bureau of
Reclamation's fiscal year 2002 budget.
______
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 2002 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. For the first time, CAP delivered its normal year entitlement of
1.5 million acre-feet in 2000, allowing Arizona to utilize its full
Colorado River apportionment of 2.8 million acre-feet.
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 2 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. In 2000, 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 on 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, and the stipulation was
subsequently approved by the United States District Court on May 9,
2000. The settlement stipulation provides a three-year timeframe in
which to complete several other activities that are necessary for the
settlement to become final.
In its fiscal year 2002 budget request, Reclamation seeks
$31,442,000 for the CAP. Of this amount, $24,420,000 is requested for
the construction of Indian distribution systems. The balance,
$7,022,000, is sought for other CAP activities, most of which would be
at least partially reimbursable by CAWCD. Under the settlement
stipulation, these costs would not affect CAWCD's repayment obligation.
Of the total $31,442,000 requested, $1,418,000 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 for native fish activities on the
Santa Cruz River.
For the Gila River Basin, these funds are requested for payments to
FWS for non-native fish eradication activities and native fish
conservation ($500,000), and for the Santa Cruz River Basin, funds are
requested for the construction of fish barriers ($708,000) and non-
native fish eradication activities ($60,000). In addition, Reclamation
is seeking $148,000 to cover its non-contract costs. Historically,
CAWCD has objected to Reclamation's continued spending in these areas.
Both environmentalists and CAWCD challenged the 1994 biological opinion
in court. However, given its settlement with the United States over CAP
costs, CAWCD supports Reclamation's budget request to allow it to
complete Endangered Species Act compliance for CAP deliveries in the
Gila River basin.
CAWCD continues to support appropriations necessary to ensure
timely completion of all CAP Indian distribution systems. We note that
Reclamation's fiscal year 2002 budget request of $24,420,000 for CAP
Indian distribution systems is $1,409,000 less than the fiscal year
2001 budget request for this item. CAWCD supports full funding for this
program.
CAWCD also supports the continuation of funding for the Tucson
Reliability Division. The requested $375,000 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.
In its fiscal year 2002 budget request, Reclamation also seeks
$13,103,00 for its Lower Colorado River Operations Program. This
program is necessary for Reclamation to continue its activities as the
``water master'' on the lower Colorado River. In addition, this program
provides Reclamation's share of funding to complete the lower Colorado
River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP). Of the $13,103,000,
$2,808,000 is requested for administration of the Colorado River,
$2,695,000 is for water contract administration and decree accounting,
and $7,600,000 is for fish and wildlife management and development. The
fish and wildlife management and development program includes funding
for the MSCP ($3,129,000) endangered species protection ($1,364,000)
riparian and native fish habitat and ecological restoration
($2,907,000), and program administration ($200,000).
CAWCD supports Reclamation's budget request for the Lower Colorado
River Operations Program. The increased funding level is necessary to
support the MSCP effort as well as environmental measures necessary to
fully implement the interim surplus criteria for the lower Colorado
River. These are both critical programs upon which lower Colorado River
water and power users depend. CAWCE also supports increasing
Reclamation's funding by $12,500,000 in 2002 to support MSCP pilot
projects. The $12,500,000 includes $7,000,000 for the acquisition of
private properties along the lower Virgin River through the Land and
Water Conservation Fund. $2,500,000 for the Colorado River Indian
Tribes Ahakhav and Deertail Backwater Restoration Project proposal to
restore approximately 1,500 acres of native aquatic, wetland, and
riparian habitat, and $3,000,000 to support habitat conservation
planning and data acquisition by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on
behalf of the MSCP.
The MSCP is a cost-shared program among federal and non-federal
interests to develop a long-term plan to conserve endangered species
and their habitat along the lower Colorado River from Lake Mead to
Mexico. CAWCD is one of the cost-sharing partners. Development of this
program will conserve hundreds of threatened and endangered species
and, at the same time, allow current water and power operation to
continue. The MSCP pilot projects are essential to begin the process of
protecting and conserving species and habitat on the lower Colorado
River. The interim surplus criteria allow the Secretary of the Interior
to declare limited Colorado River surpluses for the next 15 years to
assist California in gradually reducing its use of Colorado River to
its annual apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet.
Finally, in its fiscal year 2002 budget request, Reclamation seeks
$685,000 for the South/Central Arizona Investigations Program. This
program includes funding for the Central Arizona Salinity
Investigations ($300,000), Southern Arizona Regional Water Management
Study ($150,000), Verde River Basin Water Management Plan ($35,000),
West Salt River Valley Water Management Study ($50,000), and the Upper
Gila Watershed Restoration Program ($150,000). CAWCD again supports
funding for Reclamation's investigations in south/central Arizona. The
West Salt River Valley Water Management Study, in particular, will
study the integration and management of water resources in the West
Salt River Valley, including the use of CAP water. CAWCID supports
continued funding for this effort. In addition, the Southern Arizona
Regional Water Management Study will continue work with Pima County
water providers to develop a plan for integrating CAP water,
groundwater, and reclaimed effluent. CAWCD supports funding for this
effort as well.
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 Mid-Dakota Rural System, Inc.
fiscal year 2002 funding request
First let me thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify
in support of fiscal year 2002 appropriations for the Mid-Dakota Rural
Water Project and for the Subcommittee's support both past and present.
The Mid-Dakota Project is requesting $30.684 million in Federal
appropriations for fiscal year 2002. As with our past submissions to
this Subcommittee, Mid-Dakota's fiscal year 2002 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.
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 provide sufficient funds to fully fund our 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 H.W. Bush in October 1992. The Federal authorization
for the project totaled $100 million (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
(1989 dollars.) The total authorized indexed cost of the project now
stands at approximately $144 million (fiscal year 2001). All Federal
funding considered, the Government has provided 61 percent of its
commitment ($81.8 million of $134 million) to provide construction
funding for the Project. When considering the Federal and state
combined awards, the project is approximately 63 percent complete, in
terms of financial commitments.
Mid-Dakota wishes to thank this committee for its support over the
past eight 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conf. Bureau Total fed.
Fed. fiscal year Mid-Dakota Pres. House Senate enacted award Additional funds
Request budget levels levels funds provided
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994............................................ 7.991 0 0 2.000 2.000 1.500 0 1.500
1995............................................ 22.367 0 0 8.000 4.000 3.600 0 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
2000............................................ 28.800 5.000 15.000 7.000 14.000 12.859 1.000 13.859
2001............................................ 24.000 6.040 11.040 6.040 10.040 9.398 0 9.398
2002............................................ 30.684 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals...................................... ........... 36.040 72.040 79.040 79.540 73.980 7.823 81.803
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 $10.04 million funding provided by the Subcommittee in fiscal
year 2001 provided Mid-Dakota with the opportunity to achieve
significant 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 14 community
systems and approximately 1,800 rural customers (farms and ranches).
Mid-Dakota estimates that an additional 300 rural farm and ranch
accounts along with two more community systems will be receiving
project water at the close of contracts awarded in fiscal year 2000/
2001. The generosity of the Subcommittee has already had a deep and
favorable effect on the lives of over 12,000 South Dakotans.
impacts of previous awards
As is evident by the previous table (``Summarization of Federal
funding'') Mid-Dakota has typically received less than one-half of its
funding requests as an enacted appropriation. As disturbing as the
funding short-falls are, even more disturbing is the fact that the
Federal government is not alone in absorbing negative impacts of
insufficient funding. In addition to making the Mid-Dakota Project more
expensive to the Federal government, the resulting delays also have had
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 Federal Government's (through the Bureau of Reclamation) 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 Bureau
of Reclamation's oversight costs.
impacts of fiscal year 2002 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 $30.684 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 2002 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 have 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 by the Project. However, failure to provide full funding has
had profound consequences.
construction in progress
Mid-Dakota began construction in September 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 17
project components and are constructing on seven other major Project
components. The following table provides a synopsis of each major
construction contract:
SUMMARIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent over
Cont. No. Description Cont. Cont. bid Final cont. Over (under) (under)
budget \1\ award price budget budget
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-1 Oahe Water Intake and Pump Station 4.662 3.959 3.945 (0.717) (15)
2-1 Oahe Water Treatment Plant 13.361 9.920 10.278 (3.083) (23)
3-1A Raw Water Pipeline 1.352 1.738 1.719 0.367 27
3-1B Main Pipeline--Blunt 7.823 6.916 7.024 (0.799) (10)
3-1C Main Pipeline--Highmore 5.439 4.791 4.798 (0.641) (12)
3-2A Main Pipeline--Ree Hights 3.261 3.155 3.149 (0.112) (3)
3-2B Main Pipeline--St. Lawrence, SD 3.691 3.349 3.352 (0.339) (9)
4-1A/B (1-5) Distribution System--West 9.345 9.983 10.731 \2\ 1.386 15
4-1A/B (6) Distribution System--North West 8.333 8.329 9.028 \2\ 0.695 8
4-2 (1) Distribution System--Central 4.727 4.717 4.700 (0.027) (.5)
4-2 (2) Distribution System--South Central 2.763 2.835 3.000 \2\ 0.237 9
4-2 (4-5) Distribution System--Central 5.753 4.952 In Prog. n/a n/a
4-2A (4) Distribution System--Central 1.042 .991 In Prog. n/a n/a
5-1 Water Storage Tank--Highmore 1.545 1.434 1.433 (0.108) (7)
5-1A (1) Water Storage Tank--Onida 0.471 0.395 0.400 (0.075) (16)
5-1A (2) Water Storage Tank--Okobojo 0.381 0.338 0.333 (0.048) (13)
5-1A (3) Water Storage Tank--Agar 0.422 0.391 0.385 (0.037) (9)
5-1A (4) Water Storage Tank--Gettysburg 0.952 0.814 0.808 (0.144) (15)
5-2 (1) Water Storage Tank--Mac's Corner .460 .573 .561 0.101 22
5-2 (2) Water Storage Tank--Rezac Lake .438 .493 In Prog. n/a n/a
5-2 (3) Water Storage Tank--Collin's Slough .254 .393 In Prog. n/a n/a
5-2A (1) Water Storage Tank--Ames \3\ .300 .378 In Prog. n/a n/a
5-2A (2) Water Storage Tank--Cottonwood Lake \3\ .800 .696 In Prog. n/a n/a
5-2A (3) Water Storage Tank--Wessington Springs \3\ .515 .491 In Prog. n/a n/a
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals 78.090 72.031 65.644 (3.344) (5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Contract budget is determined by Mid-Dakota's estimate for the contract at the time of bidding.
\2\ A significant portion of cost increases are attributable to the placement of additional users as construction proceeds.
\3\ Contract bid and awarded in fiscal year 2001, only site and concrete work given authorization to proceed.
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 5 percent under budget,
providing an estimated saving of over $3.3 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.
response to related crisis situations
Mid-Dakota also provided the solution to a number of crisis
situations in the past. The following are some of the most notable
examples:
--Mid-Dakota was the catalyst of the ``rescue'' effort in the City of
Gettysburg, SD, to provide 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.
--Mid-Dakota constructed an advanced project feature in Virgil, South
Dakota. The town of Virgil, SD now has a new distribution
system, 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). The 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 to people along the pipeline route.
--Mid-Dakota recently (January 2001) took over operational
responsibility for the water system in the City of St.
Lawrence, South Dakota. The community (pop. <300) was having
trouble maintaining a qualified operator to maintain their
systems as is mandated by EPA. An Administrative agreement
between Mid-Dakota and the City provided a viable solution to
their dilemma.
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
2002 and continuing thereon, Mid-Dakota can be in a position to connect
to Huron in time to remedy the potential EPA non-compliance issue faced
by Huron.
tentative fiscal year 2002 construction schedule
Mid-Dakota \3\ has developed an aggressive construction schedule
for fiscal year 2002, with plans to install nearly 700 miles of rural
pipeline and 45 miles of main transmission pipeline. The proposed
construction would provide service to an estimated 17,000 more people
than are currently receiving or scheduled to receive Project drinking
water (estimate includes the City of Huron, SD). 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Project features listed in table are subject to rescheduling
based upon funding provided, readiness to proceed, and other factors.
Actual construction activities, therefore, may not coincide exactly
with schedule presented here.
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2002
[Schedule is based upon Mid-Dakota's ``Capability Statement'' provided to the Bureau of Reclamation in January
2001]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Cost of
PROJECT FEATURE \1\ Construction construction construction Total feature
estimates phase services phase services cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main Pipeline--Wolsey........................... $5,777,000 5.5 $317,735 $6,094,735
Main Pipeline--Huron............................ 4,959,000 5.5 272,745 5,231,745
Distribution System--Ames \2\................... 3,100,613 12.5 387,577 3,488,190
Distribution System--Cottonwood Lake \2\........ 4,801,077 12.5 600,135 5,401,212
Distribution System--Wessington Springs \2\..... 2,824,714 12.5 353,089 3,177,803
Storage Tank--Ames.............................. $225,000 14.0 31,500 256,500
Storage Tank--Cottonwood Lake................... 675,000 14.0 94,500 769,500
Storage Tank--Wessington Springs................ 425,000 14.0 59,500 484,500
Storage Tank--Redfield.......................... 300,000 14.0 42,000 342,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Construction..................... 23,087,404 9.4 2,158,781 25,246,185
===============================================================
Contingencies \3\............................... ( \4\ ) 10.0 .............. 2,308,740
Engineering, Design and Consultants............. .............. .............. .............. 975,000
Administration and General...................... ( \4\ ) 2.0 .............. 461,748
Bureau of Reclamation Oversight................. ( \4\ ) 3.0 .............. 692,622
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total RWS fiscal year 2002................ .............. .............. .............. 29,684,295
===============================================================
Wetland Component............................... .............. .............. .............. 1,000,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Fiscal Year 2002 Request............ .............. .............. .............. 30,684,295
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Construction of Features not listed in any order of priority.
\2\ Completion of a ``Distribution System'' must include the accompanying Water Storage Tank in order to be
hydraulically operable.
\3\ Contingencies include 5 percent (bidding) and 5 percent (Change Order).
\4\ Percent of construction.
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, both past
and present.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and
Dry Prairie Rural Water
fiscal year 2002 budget request
The Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and Dry Prairie Rural
Water respectfully request fiscal year 2002 appropriations for the
Bureau of Reclamation from your subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development. Funds will be used to construct critical elements of the
Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System, Montana, (Public Law 106-382,
October 27, 2000). The amount requested is $7,553,000 as set out below:
Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Request
Non-Contract Construction Activities: Budget
Tribal Administration/Easements........................... $115,160
Dry Prairie Administration................................ 61,020
Intake Design/Oversight and Inspection.................... 712,800
WTP Design/Oversight...................................... 1,811,285
Dane Valley Design/Oversight.............................. 174,732
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................ 2,874,997
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Design and Construction Activities
Intake Construction (100 percent)......................... 2,880,000
WTP Construction (<5 percent)............................. 813,272
Dane Valley Contruction................................... 984,408
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................ 4,677,681
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 7,552,678
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 Public Law 106-
382, October 27, 2000. The budget request provides for final design of
the intake and treatment plant for this regional drinking water
project. Most important, the budget request provides for 100 percent of
the construction costs of the intake on the Missouri River and 15
percent of the construction costs of the treatment plant. A minor
project would be undertaken in the Dry Prairie area to bring existing
water supplies to Dane Valley residents and mitigate costs of hauling
water so prevalent there. All other construction will be of common
facilities on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. The budget request is
consistent with (but slightly lower than) the construction schedule in
the Final Engineering Report. (See Table 3 for the construction
schedule).
status of project planning
The Final Engineering Report, incorporating the costs of facilities
to serve both the Reservation and the Dry Prairie Rural Water System
outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation is scheduled for completion in
June 2001. The draft FER was submitted for review by Reclamation on
January 5, 2001. The FER includes a water conservation plan. Bureau of
Reclamation concluded a value engineering session on the project on
March 2, 2001.
The Final Engineering Report shows that construction costs of the
project total $192 million, October 1998$. 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 Western United States.
Environmental baseline investigations have been concluded within
the Reservation and the Dry Prairie areas of the project. The latter
investigations are currently being incorporated into an environmental
assessment to be completed in draft form by June 30, 2001, and in final
form by September 30, 2001.
By September 30, 2001, the project will have completed the FER,
water conservation plan and NEPA compliance thereby fulfilling all
statutory pre-requisites for start of construction in fiscal year 2002.
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 a 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. The Tribes did not seek financial compensation for the
settlement of their water rights but contemplated water development for
meaningful projects as now authorized.
Dry Prairie support is demonstrated by a financial commitment of
all 14 communities within the service area to participate in the
project. Rural support is strong, with about 70 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 Fort Peck Indian Reservation is designated 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 enhanced with 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 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. More than 80 percent of
rural households draw water from near-surface aquifers with nitrates
exceeding primary contaminant levels for drinking water pursuant to
regulations implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act. 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 have
successfully planned a regional water project, comparable to Garrison,
WEB, Mni Wiconi and Mid-Dakota that relies 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
Project Community Dissolved
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Community Sulfate (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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 3.--CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FORT PECK ASSININBOINE SIOUX MRI SYSTEM/DRY PRAIRIE RWS
[Amounts in dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Peck/
Segment Total cost Dry prair 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intake........................ 2,880,000 Fort Peck... .......... 2,880,000 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 2,880,000
Treatment Plant............... 16,734,000 Fort Peck... .......... 814,000 11,161,000 4,759,000 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 16,734,000
Poplar to Big Muddy........... 22,681,000 Fort Peck... .......... .......... .......... 4,515,000 6,894,000 10,310,000 962,000 .......... .......... .......... 22,681,000
Big Muddy to Plentywood....... 19,433,000 Dry Prair... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 4,023,000 6,104,000 9,306,000 .......... 19,433,000
Highway 13 to FP Boundary..... 9,247,000 Fort Peck... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 4,024,000 5,223,000 .......... .......... 9,247,000
FP Boundary to Scobey......... 4,025,000 Dry Prair... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 860,000 3,165,000 4,025,000
Scobey to Plentywood.......... 9,838,000 Dry Prair... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 9,838,000 9,838,000
Scobey to Opheim.............. 7,945,000 Dry Prair... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 7,945,000 7,945,000
Poplar to Wolf Point.......... 14,889,000 Fort Peck... .......... .......... .......... 4,515,000 6,895,000 3,479,000 .......... .......... .......... .......... 14,889,000
Wolf Point to Porcupine Ck.... 25,301,000 Fort Peck... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 4,024,000 6,103,000 15,174,000 0 25,301,000
Porcupine Creek to Glasgow.... 3,874,000 Dry Prair... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 3,874,000 3,874,000
Glasgow to Opheim............. 3,506,000 Dry Prair... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 3,506,000 3,506,000
FP OM Buildings............... 1,000,000 Fort Peck... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,000,000
DP OM Buildings............... 500,000 Dry Prair... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 500,000
FP Electrical, Meters, 4,164,000 Fort Peck... .......... .......... .......... 595,000 595,000 595,000 595,000 595,000 595,000 594,000 4,164,000
Easements.
DP Electrical, Meters, 3,521,000 Dry Prair... .......... .......... .......... 503,000 503,000 503,000 503,000 503,000 503,000 503,000 3,521,000
Easements.
Planning, Design, Admin:
Fort Peck................. 27,397,000 Fort Peck... 3,143,000 1,044,000 3,156,000 4,067,000 4,067,000 4,067,000 2,786,000 2,394,000 2,434,000 239,000 27,397,000
Dry Prairie............... 14,626,000 Dry Prair... 50,000 51,000 50,000 202,000 202,000 202,000 1,864,000 2,648,000 4,276,000 5,081,000 14,626,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 191,561,000 ............ 3,193,000 4,789,000 14,367,000 19,156,000 19,156,000 19,156,000 19,156,000 23,945,000 33,523,000 35,120,000 191,561,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared Statement of the National Urban Agriculture Council
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.
I would like to request that the Subcommittee support efforts to
increase the overall budget of the Bureau of Reclamation. As a result
of a report by NUAC, ``Withering in the Desert: The Need to increase
the Bureau of Reclamation's Budget'' we know the Bureau's budget was
reduced by 36 percent from fiscal year 1991 through fiscal year 2000.
We are quite concerned about that trend given the fact that many
communities in the West are concerned that the agency no longer has
adequate resources to carry out its mission or to properly maintain its
infrastructure. I urge the Subcommittee to increase the Bureau's core
activities, including the operation and maintenance of facilities
designed to provide reliable supplies of water and power to Western
farmers and communities.
It is for the above reason that the Western Water Industry has come
together in an ``Invest In the West'' campaign to push for an increase
the Bureau's Budget to $1 billion over the next five fiscal years. NUAC
is proud to be a part of the West-wide coalition on this issue that
includes the Western Coalition of Arid States, the WateReuse
Association, the Family Farm Alliance, the national Water Resources
Association, the Association of California Water Agencies, the Oregon
Water Resources Congress, the Upper Missouri Water Association and the
Water users Association.
drought emergency assistance
NUAC has been an active participant in the efforts of the Interim
National Drought Policy Commission's efforts to produce a report and
plan for moving forward 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 2002.
NUAC believes and would ask that Congress consider that given the
drought problems in this country, that a budget of $5 million be
included in this program for fiscal year 2002. 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 only $500,000 for
the program for fiscal year 2002. 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 $7.507 million for this program for fiscal year 2002. 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 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 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 2002 request for the projects that are underway under the
Title XVI program. The $19.5 million requested is substantially below
the $30.5 million provided by Congress, for fiscal year 2001 and we
would request that you consider increasing the funding at least up to
that level this year. The funding provided 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 project. We believe there is a need
for a serious discussion among water policy leaders on how to fundthe
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. It is important that discussions continue how and for
what type of research does need to take place and the role Reclamation
should play in that agenda. We believe the results of those discussions
would be beneficial in terms of laying the groundwork for any future
legislative changes to the program and NUAC looks forward to continuing
to be a part of that effort.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony for the record
on these programs.
______
Letter From Elmer McDaniels
Tumalo Irrigation District,
Bend, Oregon, April 16, 2001.
Senator Pete Domenici,
Chair, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: The Tumalo Irrigation District (TID) in
Bend, Oregon respectfully requests your support for inclusion of
$600,000 in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water appropriations bill
for the District's Bend Feed Canal Project. The 106th Congress
authorized the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the further
construction associated with the project in the amount of $2.5 million.
The TID is proposing to pipe a critical portion of our open canals,
essentially eliminating water loss and enhancing public safety along
the project's approximate 14,500 foot length. The conserved water would
be used to deliver enhanced water to the TID irrigators even in drought
years, as they currently receive inadequate water in 8 of 10 years. It
will also increase stream flows in Tumalo Creek and the Deschutes
River.
The TID Board of Directors has expressed its willingness to pay
their share of the estimated $5 million project cost of this important
project which would benefit both the District and the general public.
We appreciate the previous funding that we have received for work in
this area and look forward to your favorable consideration of our
request.
Sincerely,
Elmer McDaniels,
Manager.
______
Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Beverly
Bridgewater, President 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 2002 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, Umatilla Boundary
Change Environmental Assessment projects and funding for implementation
of herbicide monitoring programs.
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 Interim 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.
With a recent court ruling, irrigation districts are required to
have an NPDES permit under the Clean Water Act for application of
herbicides to canals. Monitoring of these systems will be crucial to
maintaining the ability to deliver an uninterrupted supply of water to
the irrigators. We are requesting funding in the Bureau of Reclamation
program for assistance in this effort.
OWRC also requests that the Subcommittee support efforts to
increase the overall budget of the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau's
budget was reduced by 36 percent from fiscal year 1991 through fiscal
year 2000. Because of that trend, many communities in the West are
concerned that the agency no longer has adequate resources to carry out
its mission or to properly maintain its infrastructure. I urge the
Subcommittee to increase funding for the Bureau's core activities,
including the operation and maintenance of facilities designed to
provide reliable supplies of water and power to Western farmers and
communities.
Thank you for considering our requests and we look forward to
favorable action by the Subcommittee.
Projects and Programs in fiscal year 2002 Bureau of Reclamation Budget
that OWRC Supports
Crooked River Project......................................... $696,000
Deschutes Ecosystem Restoraton Project.....................\1\ 2,000,000
Deschutes Project............................................. 498,000
Deschutes Project, Wickiup Dam................................12,000,000
Eastern Oregon Projects....................................... 607,000
Grand Ronde Water Optimization Study.......................... 150,000
Klamath Project...............................................13,010,000
Oregon Investigations Program................................. 457,000
Rogue River Basin Project, Talent Division.................... 479,000
Tualatin Project.............................................. 256,000
Tualatin Valley Water Supply Feasibility Study................ 100,000
Umatilla Basin Project (Phase III)............................ 50,000
Umatilla Project.............................................. 2,636,000
Broader Programs:
Columbia and Snake River Salmon Recovery Project..........11,000,000
Endangered Species Recovery Implementation................ 1,971,000
Requests for New Money....................................
Tumalo Irrigation District, Bend Feed Canal............... 600,000
Umatilla Boundary Change Environmental Assessment
(Hermiston-West Extension).............................. 100,000
Umatilla Boundary Change Environmental Assessment (West
Extension).............................................. 100,000
Herbicide Monitoring Program in Irrigation Canals......... 100,000
\1\ Fiscal Year 2002 Budget request was $500,000.
Prepared Statement of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District
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 a
series of rural water projects to serve municipal, rural and industrial
water needs 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. In addition,
Garrison Diversion programs and funding are the key to future economic
development, recreation, tourism and wildlife enhancement in our state.
The President's budget request includes $25,900,000 for the
Garrison Diversion Unit. An additional $14,100,000 is needed to
continue the important work of the MR&I program to serve Indian and
non-Indian needs on four North Dakota reservations, as well as a
variety of projects across the state. Additional appropriations will
continue a very successful effort to develop rural water supply systems
across the state. This funding impacts the lives of families and
business owners statewide who are working to provide a basic water
infrastructure that will serve as a base for efforts to stop the
devastating out migration of North Dakota's most valuable resource, her
young people.
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. 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. Additional funding is desperately needed to continue this
important program. We concur that this need is of the highest priority.
The Dakota Water Resources Act provides for a full evaluation and
completion of an Environmental Impact Statement on the ways to meet the
water quality and quantity needs in the Red River Valley. Funding is
needed to continue this important work already underway.
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.
Of additional concern, Mr. Chairman, is the overall Bureau of
Reclamation budget. Current trends show this budget number has been
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 would strongly request that you support efforts to increase the
overall budget of the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau's budget has
been cut 36 percent from fiscal year 1991 to fiscal year 2000. This is
the primary Federal agency that we rely upon for funding of our
infrastructure needs. We know the Bureau of Reclamation has a $5
billion backlog of work. That work, which includes our project, as well
as any new authorizations in this Congress, will not be addressed in a
timely manner if the Bureau continues to be cut and underfunded. We
support the western water industry's campaign to increase the Bureau's
Water and Related Resources budget over a five-year period from its
present $719,000,000 to $1,000,000,000.
______
Letter From Gail L. Achterman
Deschutes Basin Resources Conservancy,
Bend, Oregon, April 16, 2001.
Senator Pete Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and
Water, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
Dear Chairman Domenici: The Deschutes Basin Resources Conservancy
(DRC) in Bend, Oregon respectfully requests your support of inclusion
of $2 million in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water Appropriations
bill for DRC's programs that were authorized for $2 million per year in
Public Law 106-270. The Administration fiscal year 2002 request of
$500,000 is woefully inadequate for DRC to carryout its mission as
originally authorized by Congress in 1996.
The DRC is a community-based cooperative endeavor that believes
economic progress and natural resource conservation must both be
accommodated to benefit the basin and its residents. Our goal is to
improve water quantity and quality in the Deschutes Basin. Since 1998,
when we first received funding, the DRC has supported 21 restoration
projects. We have,been able to leverage the Federal money that we have
received for work in the Basin on one to five basis $1 Federal to $5
Non-Federal.
The Federal money we receive allows DRC to bring together state,
Federal, Tribal and local governmental entities with private interests
in our area to carryout out basin wide ecosystem restoration. As part
of our 2001 program we are establishing innovative programs such as the
Deschutes Water Bank that will assist in efforts throughout the region
to efficiently transfer water to meet the region's changing needs. We
are on the cutting edge of new water quality approaches through our
Carbon Sequestration program whereby farmers in the Basin are
converting from traditional tillage to no-till methods so that soil
erosion will decrease and carbon stored in the soils will increase.
The DRC appreciates the past support of the Subcommittee and looks
forward to your future support. Thank you for making this letter a part
of your hearing record on the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water
Appropriations Budget for the Bureau of Reclamation.
Sincerely,
Gail L. Achterman,
Executive Director.
______
Prepared Statement of Washoe County, Nevada
Washoe County, Nevada, submits the following testimony in support
of the Spanish Springs Valley Wastewater Reclamation Project unit of
the Truckee River Reclamation Project authorized in Public law 106-554
as an amendment to the Bureau of Reclamation Title XVI program. The
objectives of the Truckee River Reclamation Project are to treat and
recycle existing wastewaters for multiple uses within the watershed to
augment the local water supplies and to provide a high quality return
flow to the Truckee River to meet the requirements of the Pyramid Lake
settlement and the protection of the Paiute Indian Nation.
The limited watershed of the Truckee River and the many demands
upon it for environmental needs, protection of tribal uses, and
domestic and commercial needs in the burgeoning communities of Reno and
Sparks compels water recycling and reuse as the river continues its
course to Pyramid Lake, an acknowledged national resource and a site of
significance to the Paiute Nation. This region of northern Nevada
relies upon the Truckee River as its major source of water. The Truckee
River Reclamation Project has these various objectives as its goal.
The Spanish Springs area is the fastest growing suburban area of
Reno. While new subdivisions constructed after 1996 have connected to
the community sewer system, there are approximately 2000 homes which
rely on septic tanks for wastewater treatment. This is a lost
opportunity to enhance the water supply to the region. Connection of
these homes to the community sewer system would take some of the
pressure off of Truckee River water supplies by creating additional
wastewater effluent for non-potable water uses. The community
represents a moderate income area and lacks the financial resources to
accomplish this project on its own.
Washoe County is working with the Spanish Springs community to
develop a wastewater facilities plan, scheduled to be complete by
February 2002. This plan will provide for the collection and treatment
of septic tank flows which are otherwise lost to the groundwater
aquifer. These flows will become part of the non-potable wastewater
effluent supply which reduces demands on Truckee River water.
The total cost of the Spanish Springs Reclamation Project was
originally estimated at $30 million, $23 million for wastewater
reclamation/water quality protection and $7 million for extension of
the water reuse system to the Spanish Springs Valley. Current
estimates, as a result of further facility planning and preliminary
design work on the water reuse system are: $39 million for the
wastewater reclamation project and $7.6 million for the extension of
the water reuse system.
The septic tank conversion project will be phased over a number of
years to lessen the impact to the community of this large scale
endeavor. The extension of the water reuse system will commence in
fiscal year 2003. Following is an anticipated schedule of expenditures
over the first three years of implementation of the project:
fiscal year 2002
Budget.--$400,000 ($100,000 Federal Request)
Wastewater Reclamation/Water Quality Protection: Activity.--
Completion of Facility Plan and Final Design of Phase I.
fiscal year 2003
Budget.--$13,100,000 ($3,275,000 Federal Request)
Wastewater Reclamation/Water Quality Protection: Activity.--
Construction of Phase I improvements, conversion of approximately 250
on-site treatment systems. Design of Phase II improvements.
Water Reuse System Extension: Activity.--Construct extension of
water reuse system to Spanish Springs Valley unincorporated area.
fiscal year 2004
Budget.--$5,500,000 ($1,375,000 Federal Request)
Wastewater Reclamation/Water Quality Protection: Activity.--
Construction of Phase II improvements, conversion of additional 250 on-
site treatment systems. Design of Phase II improvements.
______
Prepared Statement of the MNI Wiconi Project
fiscal year 2002 construction budget request
The Mni Wiconi Project beneficiaries (as listed below) respectfully
request appropriations for construction in fiscal year 2002 for the
project in the amount of $47,503,000 as follows:
Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System:
Core Facilities (Pipelines and Pumping Stations).... $17,481,000
Distribution System on Pine Ridge................... 7,868,000
West River/Lyman-Jones Rural Water Systems.............. 8,908,000
Rosebud Sioux Rural Water System........................ 11,892,000
Lower Brule Sioux Rural Water System.................... 1,354,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Mni Wiconi Project.......................... 47,503,000
Additionally, operation, maintenance and replacement funds in the
amount of $6,500,000, an increase over last year's budget of $6,000,000
and reflective of the growing operational capability of the project, is
requested. This brings the total funds request to $54,003,000 for
fiscal year 2002.
The subcommittee is asked to note that the total budget requests of
the Administration over the last several years have been relatively
unchanged. Thus, as the OMR budget has increased to address increasing
service to more people, there has been less funding available each year
for construction. We are hopeful that the subcommittee can give
attention to the fact that the project is now mid-way in construction
and needs, at a minimum, a constant or increasing construction budget
that can bring the project to conclusion in a reasonable time frame.
need for osrwss to reach murdo in fiscal year 2002--major milestone
The Oglala, Lower Brule and Rosebud Sioux Tribes have not yet been
informed of the President's request for the fiscal year 2002
construction budget for the Mni Wiconi Project as required by the
Indian Self-Determination Act (Public Law 93-638, as amended). The
funding request presented above is reasonable and within the capability
of the sponsors to utilize.
The principle elements in the budget for fiscal year 2002, delayed
by inadequate funding in fiscal year 2001, are $17.481 million for the
Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System (OSRWSS) core and funds for
OSRWSS, Rosebud, Lower Brule and West River/Lyman-Jones to build
distribution systems that will interconnect with the OSRWSS core
facilities. The OSRWSS core system funds and most of the funds
designated for distribution systems are needed to complete the project
to Murdo in fiscal year 2002, 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 2002 is
the most significant event in the project to date. The requested
funding level is needed to achieve the objective and to permit
interconnection to the OSRWSS core for delivery to approximately 50
percent of the project water users.
Important to note is the fact that the intake and treatment plant
on the Missouri River will be fully operational in summer 2001 and will
deliver water to Vivian where the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe is building a
core pipeline 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 2002 will permit completion of 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 2002, 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 2002.
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 2002 funds are required
to complete those projects.
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, the Subcommittee is respectfully requested to take
cognizant of the fact that fiscal year 2002 will conclude with
construction of facilities that permit sponsors and the Subcommittee to
bring the end of the project into sight. While amendment of the
legislation is required to extend the completion date beyond fiscal
year 2003 to as distant as fiscal year 2007, the Subcommittee has
consistently supported the project, and the end can now be visualized.
Key to the conclusion of the project in fiscal year 2003 and beyond is
the completion of the OSRWSS core to the northeast corner on the Pine
Ridge Indian Reservation were most on the remaining 50 percent of the
design population resides. Toward this end, funds are included in the
fiscal year 2002 budget to build the connecting pipelines between the
northeast corner of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and the central
portion of the Reservation near Kyle. Rosebud is similarly engaged in
the construction of major connecting pipelines that will join the
OSRWSS core near Murdo and deliver water southerly to the central
portions of the Rosebud Indian Reservation and to service areas for
West River/Wyman-Jones. Funds in fiscal year 2002 are necessary to
ensure that when water reaches the northeast corner of the Pine Ridge
Indian Reservation from the OSRWSS core, pipelines and related
facilities are available to receive and deliver Missouri River water
into the Reservation.
unique needs of this project
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 need for creating jobs and improving the quality of life on
the Pine Ridge and other Indian reservations of the project area.
Employment and earnings among the Indian people of the project area
is expected to positively impact the high costs of health-care borne by
the United States and the Tribes. Our data suggest clear relationships
between income levels and Federal costs for heart disease, cancer and
diabetes. During the life of the Mni Wiconi Project, mortality rates
among the Indian people in the project area for the three diseases
mentioned will cost the United States and the Tribes more than $1
billion beyond the level incurred for these diseases among comparable
populations in the non-Indian community within the project area. While
this project alone will not raise income levels to a point where the
excessive rates of heart disease, cancer and diabetes are significantly
diminished and the projected $1 billion in costs due to excessive rates
of incidence is not eliminated, the employment and earnings stemming
from the project will, nevertheless, reduce mortality rates and costs
of these diseases.
TABLE 1.--1990 BUREAU OF CENSUS ECONOMIC STATISTICS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per capita families below
-------------------------------- Unemployment
Indian reservation/state Income Poverty level (percent)
(dollars) (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 the
historical experience of broken commitments to the Indian people by the
Federal Government is difficult to overcome. The argument was that
there is no reason to trust and that the Sioux Tribes are being 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 2002.
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. 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 2002 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. 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. With
adequate funds, this critical segment of the project can be initiated
in fiscal year 2002 and concluded to coincide with the westward
construction of the OSRWSS core to the northeast corner of the
Reservation. This component of the Oglala system has been deferred 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
Mni Wiconi core pipeline construction makes it possible for WR/LJ
to serve it's membership. Having the OSRWSS water treatment plant on
line and completing the core pipeline to Murdo in fiscal year 2002 are
major milestones in Mni Wiconi project development. Efforts undertaken
over 30 years ago by the project originators are bearing fruit.
Completion of projects under construction this year is our highest
priority. The Ft Pierre West project serves WR/LJ users that are
closest to the water source and have anxiously awaited operation of the
treatment plant. The Mellette East and Kennebec North projects will
benefit from the Rosebud core pipeline that is now in service and the
Lower Brule core line that is under construction, thereby bringing
quality water service to WR/LJ and Tribal members in these chronically
short water areas.
Completion of the core pipeline to Murdo will further the delivery
of quality water to population centers along Interstate Hwy 90 and
service to great numbers of America's traveling public. The realization
of the health and economic benefits of quality water, which have long
been a vision of the Mni Wiconi project sponsors, will began to take
place. Bringing quality water to rural residents of the region will
remove the burden of hauling their drinking water. Providing reliable
water supplies to livestock producers in the region removes the
economic threat of having to liquidate their herds in times of drought.
Continuing appropriations for the Mni Wiconi project has provided
hope to those not yet served. Those members that will be served last
are developing faith that their needs will be addressed. WR/LJ with
reach 34 percent completion with the requested fiscal year 2002
appropriation. Those members see hope in continued progress of the Mni
Wiconi project.
rosebud rural water system
For the Rosebud Sioux Tribe the second year of new millennium may
be the most challenging in the history of the Sicangu Mni Wiconi. The
proposed work plan has two primary objectives; the connection with the
OSRWSS Core at Murdo and additional distribution and service lines.
The connection to the OSRWSS core will reduce the dependence on
interim ground water supplies in Mellette County. It will provide a
reliable source of high quality water for economic development, the
residents in the rural areas near Corn Creek and the WR/LJ Mellette
East Project. The Corn Creek area, located in western Mellette County,
suffers from both a lack of water and low quality where it is
available. This project expands on the work started in 2001 and will
require additional funding in 2003. The Tribe recently completed an
engineering review session the results of which should reduce the
amount of funding required in 2003.
Additional distribution and service lines are planned for the
Spring Creek/Grass Mountain area. These connections will utilize
improvements completed in 2000, 2001 and scheduled for completion to
bring water to several rural homes in Crazy Horse Canyon. Many of the
private wells in this area have concentrations of arsenic that exceed
the recently revised primary drinking water standard. The final project
proposed is additional distribution and service lines in eastern Todd
County near Okreek. For water to be available for this area the interim
supplies currently being utilized in portions of Mellette County will
have to be replaced with water supplied from the OSRWSS Core pipeline.
lower brule rural water system--distribution
The Lower Brule Rural Water System's (LBRWS) new microfiltration
water treatment plant has been in operation for slightly more than a
year and continues to provide high quality water to the communities of
Lower Brule and West Brule and some scattered homesites on the
Reservation. As well as providing high quality water for use on the
Reservation, the new plant provides water to West River/Lyman Jones's
(WR/LJ) Reliance service area including the Town of Reliance through
the West Brule to Reliance core pipeline. WR/LJ is also utilizing the
water to flush their newly constructed lines between Reliance and
Vivian as well as filling and testing their Vivian elevated tank.
Cooperation and communication between the sponsors on the timing and
need of water for flushing and testing has developed into a very good
working relationship.
The Fort George Butte--County Line Road pipeline is complete and
the Vivian to Presho pipeline is nearly complete, both of which will be
tested and placed into operation as soon as water is available from the
Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System (OSRWSS) core pipeline. These
pipelines will initially serve only WR/LJ users until the on-
Reservation distribution system can be constructed.
LBRWS has committed current funding for the construction of the
Presho to Kennebec and Kennebec North pipelines during the 2001
construction season. This will result in the core pipeline from Vivian
to Kennebec serving WR/LJ service areas along the pipeline and the
cities of Vivian, Presho and Kennebec. If adequate funds are available,
the pipeline north of Kennebec will be extended from the Reservation
boundary to State Highway 1806 on the Reservation.
In order to include Lower Brule in the Mni Wiconi Project, a cost
estimate was hurriedly put together and included in the Final
Engineering Report without review. After the Project received funding
and construction began, the LBRWS quickly realized that the original
estimated cost was severely under estimated. The Bureau of Reclamation
confirmed the error in the original estimate in their Cost Containment
Report dated October 1999.
Primarily, as a result of the severely under estimated cost in the
Final Engineering Report, the LBRWS has reached its authorized ceiling
with the receipt of the 2001 funds. However, an amendment to increase
the ceiling for Lower Brule has been requested and LBRWS is proceeding
with the optimism that the amendment will be approved in a time frame
that will not impact the progress that is currently being made. To that
extent, LBRWS is requesting $1,354,000 in fiscal year 2002 funds. This
amount would provide adequate funds to construct the Kennebec to
Reliance core pipeline and complete the core pipeline to be provided
under the LBRWS. This will allow service to all of the cities and rural
users in the WR/LJ system in Lyman County.
The completion of the core pipeline will allow LBRWS to turn its
focus to the on-Reservation distribution service areas, with current
cost estimates totaling $6,886,000. The first of these to be
constructed will be the Fort Hale Service Area, which was previously
designed but not constructed due to lack of funding and a commitment to
complete construction of the core pipeline prior to beginning the
distribution lines. Again, completion of the core pipeline between
Kennebec and Reliance and the distribution pipeline to serve our on-
Reservation users will only be possible with an increase in its
authorized cost ceiling of $8,240,000.
On a related topic, the Mni Wiconi Act authorized in Public Law
100-516 was amended by Public Law 103-434 to authorize and fund a
wastewater needs assessment for the three Tribal Reservations within
the Project. This assessment has been completed and costs have been
identified, however, further analysis will be needed at the time
funding is obtained to update the cost of the necessary improvements.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Salem, Oregon
The City of Salem requests your consideration in obtaining $200,000
in additional funding from the United States Bureau of Reclamation for
the continued development of a natural treatment system being built by
the City of Salem, Oregon. Salem has been working since 1996 to develop
a natural reclamation system (NRS) to complement Salem's existing
secondary wastewater treatment plant. This natural system uses
treatment wetlands composed of shallow marshes to treat wastewater
prior to the water either being returned to the Willamette River or
possibly being reused as a valuable source of irrigation water.
The Salem Natural Reclamation System was originally authorized by
Congress in 1998 as amendments to the Reclamation Wastewater and
Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575). This
law authorizes the United States Bureau of Reclamation to participate
in the (1) planning, (2) design and (3) construction of the NRS with
the Federal share of the project to not exceed 25 percent of the total
cost of the project. The original cost estimate for the Natural
Reclamation System was $35 million. The City of Salem wants to thank
you again for this authorizing legislation.
The process the City of Salem is following to develop the full
scale Natural Reclamation System is to first build a demonstration
project at Salem's Willow Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant, operate and
test the demonstration system over a four-year period, and finally,
depending on the outcome, make a decision on the full-scale system by
the year 2005. The 2005 date fits with the planned expansion of the
Willow Lake Treatment Plant.
Actual cost-share funding of the project is to be obtained from the
Bureau of Reclamation for each phase of work through a Cost Sharing
Agreement between the City and the Bureau. The planning study for the
Natural Reclamation System was completed by the City's consultant,
CH2M-Hill, in December 1999, and a cost sharing agreement with the
Bureau of Reclamation was completed in June 2000. The City received
$50,000 from the Bureau in July 2000 for 25 percent of the planning
study and wants to again thank both you and the Bureau for this
support.
Next, the City had our consultant, CH2M-Hill, prepare design
drawings and specifications for the Natural Reclamation System. Part of
the design process has been the establishment of a citizens' advisory
committee to learn about the NRS project and help make the project
successful. The Bureau of Reclamation staff are involved with this
committee. The cost of the design is slightly more than $800,000, and
the 25 percent share would be $200,000. The City is interested in
amending the cost sharing agreement with the Bureau in order to receive
these funds.
Finally, bid opening for the construction of the demonstration
Natural Reclamation System was held April 4, 2001. The City received
eight bids on the demonstration project and the low bid should be
awarded within the next few weeks. Construction of the demonstration
system should begin soon and should be completed by next spring 2002.
In summary, the City of Salem has appreciated the support on this
project from Congress and the Bureau of Reclamation and hopes you will
be able to provide additional funding.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Commission of Nevada
introduction
It has long been said that the Colorado River is the lifeblood of
the West. Today, the Colorado River supplies vital water and power
resources for more than 20 million people in Arizona, California and
Nevada.
Concerns have been raised about the reliability of these water and
power resources following the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1994
designation of critical habitat for four endangered fish species in the
Colorado River Basin.
In response, representatives of the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Arizona, California, and Nevada, Native American tribes,
along with various stakeholders and water and power agencies along the
lower Colorado, have formed a regional partnership, which is developing
a first-of-its kind multi-species conservation program aimed at
protecting sensitive, threatened and endangered species of fish,
wildlife and their habitat.
The partnership formed a 35-member steering committee, which has
been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an Ecosystem
Conservation and Recovery Implementation Team (ECRIT) under the Federal
Endangered Species Act. The steering committee has retained the
services of professional facilitator and technical consultant teams to
help develop a plan for the conservation program. The conservation plan
is scheduled for completion in Fall 2002.
program description
The multi-species conservation program will work toward the
recovery of listed species through habitat restoration and species
conservation, and reduce the likelihood of additional species listings
under the Federal and California Endangered Species Act.
The MSCP planning area includes the historic floodplain of the
lower Colorado River and reservoir full-pool elevations from Lake Mead
to the Southerly International Boundary with Mexico. MSCP habitat
restoration and preservation activities are intended to address the
following habitat types: aquatic, wetland/marsh, riparian and upland
desert fringe. It is the intent of the MSCP to re-vegetate native
cottonwood-willow and mesquite trees in the floodplain, and remove the
non-native salt cedar, or tamarisk, that has become established.
The MSCP will be implemented over a 50-year period. The long-term
program is also intended to accommodate current water diversions and
power production and optimize opportunities for future water and power
development. This comprehensive program will provide long-term
environmental compliance for participating Federal agencies, pursuant
to Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act, and non-Federal
agencies under Section 10. California Agencies will also pursue
programs and actions to achieve compliance with California
Environmental Quality and Endangered Species Acts.
Over the past four years, interim conservation measures (ICMs) have
been developed and implemented to address the immediate critical needs
for certain endangered species. ICMs benefiting the endangered
razorback sucker, bonytail, and southwestern willow flycatcher were
initiated.
program development cost
Current, program development costs are projected at about $6.7
million over five years for planning needs and implementation of ICMs.
A Federal/non-Federal cost-sharing agreement is in place for
development of the program and implementation of interim conservation
measures. The Federal and non-Federal participants shared program
development costs on a ``50/50'' basis. Among the non-Federal
participants, the shares were distributed as follows: 50 percent of the
non-Federal share was borne by California, 30 percent by Arizona, and
the remaining 20 percent by the State of Nevada.
program implementation
The MSCP will be implemented over the fifty-year period beginning
in late-2002. However, MSCP proponents are desirous of implementing a
series of ``pilot projects'' in order to begin evaluating potential
habitat restoration and species conservation technologies within the
planning area. Additionally, the pilot projects would be supplemented
with species and habitat monitoring and research programs, providing
the basis for a comprehensive adaptive management approach.
colorado river indian tribes pilot project proposal
The Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT) have played an active role
in the restoration of critical habitats for the past eight years. Since
1993, the tribe has restored, preserved and protected over 2,000 acres
of riparian, wetland, and aquatic resources on the Lower Colorado
River. In particular, the Ahakhav Tribal Preserve project has served as
a model for riparian habitat restoration in the southwestern United
States for Native American Tribes, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and various other public and private
agencies. More importantly, it serves as a model for the Lower Colorado
River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP).
Located just south and west of Parker, Arizona, in La Paz County,
the Ahakhav and Deertail Backwater Restoration Pilot Project is located
on the Colorado River on the Colorado River Indian Reservation. The
Ahakhav and Deertail Restoration Pilot Project provides numerous
opportunities for MSCP covered species conservation and native habitat
restoration. Many of the nearly 100 species proposed for coverage, or
receiving benefits from MSCP conservation, occur on lands within the
pilot project area. Anticipated actions for this pilot project include
enhancement of riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitats and continued
collaboration with ongoing Native American, Federal, and state
environmental planning efforts, specifically the MSCP.
pilot project area description
The Ahakhav and Deertail backwaters extend from Rivermile (RM) 169
to 174 on the Colorado River. This restoration pilot project plans to
restore native riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitats modified through
development of the Colorado River water and hydroelectric power
resources over the past century. This proposed pilot project would
restore over 1,000 acres of native riparian habitat, 200 acres of open
water, 250 acres of wetland/marsh complex, and 200 acres of fallowed
agricultural land. Over 300 species of birds, 32 species of mammals, 19
fish species, 20 species of reptiles, and 9 amphibian species utilize
the sites. In addition, 29 threatened or endangered species are
expected to benefit from the proposed pilot project, including the
endangered southwestern willow flycatcher, Yuma clapper rail, and
razorback sucker.
pilot project actions
In keeping with the overarching intent of the MSCP, habitat
restoration at these sites is the primary component of the project.
This MSCP pilot project seeks to restore wildlife habitat and some
measure of pre-development hydraulic conditions in this area. This will
be accomplished through re-excavation and re-connection of historic
channel features, installation of water control structures, conversion
of agricultural land and riparian re-vegetation activities. The
following is a list of pilot project goals and objectives:
--Excavate historic channel features to improve water quality and
flow in existing wetlands;
--Convert fallowed agricultural lands into cottonwood-willow forests;
--Re-vegetate stands of native cottonwood, willow, and mesquite trees
in areas where exotic plant species have invaded;
--Implement pre- and post-restoration monitoring to measure success
and aid in the development of future maintenance and
restoration activity recommendations; and
--Provide environmental and cultural education and low-impact
recreational opportunities for surrounding communities.
pilot project funding
It is proposed that the CRIT Ahakhav and Deertail Restoration Pilot
Project of $2.5 million be funded through the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, Lower Colorado River Operations
(LCROP) budget line item.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California
introduction
It has long been said that the Colorado River is the lifeblood of
the West. Today, the Colorado River supplies vital water and power
resources for more than 20 million people in Arizona, California and
Nevada.
Concerns have been raised about the reliability of these water and
power resources following the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1994
designation of critical habitat for four endangered fish species in the
Colorado River Basin.
In response, representatives of the U. S. Department of the
Interior, Arizona, California, and Nevada, Native American tribes,
along with various stakeholders and water and power agencies along the
lower Colorado, have formed a regional partnership, which is developing
a first-of-its kind multi-species conservation program aimed at
protecting sensitive, threatened and endangered species of fish,
wildlife and their habitat.
The partnership formed a 35-member steering committee, which has
been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an Ecosystem
Conservation and Recovery Implementation Team (ECRIT) under the
federaly Endangered Species Act. The steering committee has retained
the services of professional facilitator and technical consultant teams
to help develop a plan for the conservation program. The conservation
plan is scheduled for completion in Fall 2002.
program description
The multi-species conservation program will work toward the
recovery of listed species through habitat restoration and species
conservation, and reduce the likelihood of additional species listings
under the Federal and California Endangered Species Act.
The MSCP planning area includes the historic floodplain of the
lower Colorado River and reservoir full-pool elevations from Lake Mead
to the Southerly International Boundary with Mexico. MSCP habitat
restoration and preservation activities are intended to address the
following habitat types: aquatic, wetland/marsh, riparian and upland
desert fringe. It is the intent of the MSCP to conserve, protect, and
re-vegetate native cottonwood-willow and mesquite trees in the
floodplain, and remove the non-native salt cedar, or tamarisk, that has
become established.
The MSCP will be implemented over a 50-year period. The long-term
program is also intended to accommodate current water diversions and
power production and optimize opportunities for future water and power
development. This comprehensive program will provide long-term
environmental compliance for participating Federal agencies, pursuant
to Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act, and non-Federal
agencies under Section 10. California Agencies will also pursue
programs and actions to achieve compliance with California
Environmental Quality and Endangered Species Acts.
Over the past four years, interim conservation measures (ICMs) have
been developed and implemented to address the immediate critical needs
for certain endangered species. ICMs benefiting the endangered
razorback sucker, bonytail, and southwestern willow flycatcher were
initiated. LCR MSCP Interim conservation measures have been previously
awarded to the CRIT for habitat restoration projects associated with
the Ahakhav Tribal Preserve.
program development cost
The cost to develop the long-term conservation plan is projected to
be approximately $6.7 million over five years for planning needs and
implementation of ICMs. A Federal/non-Federal cost-sharing agreement is
in place for development of the program and implementation of interim
conservation measures. The Federal and non-Federal participants shared
program development costs on a ``50/50'' basis. Among the non-Federal
participants, the shares were distributed as follows: 50 percent of the
non-Federal share was borne by California, 30 percent by Arizona, and
the remaining 20 percent by the State of Nevada.
program implementation
The MSCP will be implemented over the fifty-year period beginning
in late-2002. However, MSCP proponents are desirous of implementing a
series of ``pilot projects'' in order to begin evaluating potential
habitat restoration and species conservation technologies within the
planning area. Additionally, the pilot projects would be supplemented
with species and habitat monitoring and research programs, providing
the basis for a comprehensive adaptive management approach.
colorado river indian tribes pilot project proposal
The Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT) have played an active role
in the restoration of critical habitats for the past eight years. Since
1993, the tribe has restored, preserved and protected over 2,000 acres
of riparian, wetland, and aquatic resources on the Lower Colorado
River. In particular, the Ahakhav Tribal Preserve project has served as
a model for riparian habitat restoration in the southwestern United
States for Native American Tribes, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and various other public and private
agencies. More importantly, it serves as a model for the Lower Colorado
River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP).
Located just south and west of Parker, Arizona, in La Paz County,
the Ahakhav and Deertail Backwater Restoration Pilot Project is located
on the Colorado River on the Colorado River Indian Reservation. The
Ahakhav and Deertail Restoration Pilot Project provides numerous
opportunities for MSCP covered species conservation and native habitat
restoration. Many of the nearly 100 species proposed for coverage, or
receiving benefits from MSCP conservation, occur on lands within the
pilot project area. Anticipated actions for this pilot project include
enhancement of riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitats and continued
collaboration with ongoing Native American, Federal, and state
environmental planning efforts, specifically the MSCP.
pilot project area description
The Ahakhav and Deertail backwaters extend from Rivermile (RM) 169
to 174 on the Colorado River. This restoration pilot project plans to
restore native riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitats modified through
development of the Colorado River water and hydroelectric power
resources over the past century. This proposed pilot project would
restore over 1,000 acres of native riparian habitat, 200 acres of open
water, 250 acres of wetland/marsh complex, and 200 acres of fallowed
agricultural land. Over 300 species of birds, 32 species of mammals, 19
fish species, 20 species of reptiles, and 9 amphibian species utilize
the sites. In addition, 29 threatened or endangered species are
expected to benefit from the proposed pilot project, including the
endangered southwestern willow flycatcher, Yuma clapper rail, and
razorback sucker.
pilot project actions
In keeping with the overarching intent of the MSCP, habitat
restoration at these sites is the primary component of the project.
This MSCP pilot project seeks to restore wildlife habitat and some
measure of pre-development hydraulic conditions in this area. This will
be accomplished through re-excavation and re-connection of historic
channel features, installation of water control structures, conversion
of agricultural land and riparian re-vegetation activities. The
following is a list of pilot project goals and objectives:
--Excavate historic channel features to improve water quality and
flow in existing wetlands;
--Convert fallowed agricultural lands into cottonwood-willow forests;
--Re-vegetate stands of native cottonwood, willow, and mesquite trees
in areas where exotic plant species have invaded;
--Implement pre- and post-restoration monitoring to measure success
and aid in the development of future maintenance and
restoration activity recommendations; and
--Provide environmental and cultural education and low-impact
recreational opportunities for surrounding communities.
pilot project funding
It is proposed that the CRIT Ahakhav and Deertail Restoration Pilot
Project of $2.5 million be funded through the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, Lower Colorado River Operations
(LCROP) budget line item, for which Federal, tribal, and state MSCP
participants shall receive credit as part of their long-term
conservation commitments.
______
Prepared Statement of the Arizona Department of Water Resources
Your support and leadership are requested in securing additional
fiscal year 2002 funding for the Department of the Interior with
respect to the Federal/State/tribal Lower Colorado River Multi-Species
Conservation Program (LCR MSCP). The LCR MSCP is the multi-stakeholder
process, organized in 1995, that is developing a long-term endangered
species and habitat conservation program for the mainstream of the
Lower Colorado River in the States of Arizona, California and Nevada.
This comprehensive program, when completed and implemented in 2002, is
intended to meet the needs of over 100 species and aquatic, wetland and
riparian habitats along the Lower Colorado River from Lake Mead to the
Southerly International Boundary with Mexico.
The purpose of the LCR MSCP is to provide Federal, State and tribal
managers and users of the Lower Colorado River's water and
hydroelectric power resources with a 50-year environmental compliance
program meeting the needs of the Federal and California Endangered
Species Acts, California Environmental Quality Act, California Natural
Communities Conservation Planning Act and National Environmental Policy
Act. This long-term compliance program is required in order for the
Lower Colorado River Basin States to continue current River operations
and accommodate future water and power operations.
The Arizona Department of Water Resources (Department) is the state
agency charged with protecting Arizona's interests and rights in the
water resources of the Colorado River System. In this capacity, the
Department and approximately 35 other organizations and agencies,
Federal, State and tribal, are members of the LCR MSCP Steering
Committee, and have been designated as an ``Ecosystem Conservation
Recovery Implementation Team'' (ECRIT) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for the purpose of the preparing the LCR MSCP, pursuant to
Section 4(f)(2) of the Federal Endangered Species Act.
The purpose of this request for additional funding for the Bureau
of Reclamation's Lower Colorado Region Lower Colorado River Operations
Program (LCROP) budget line item, is in support of a critically needed
habitat restoration project on the Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT)
reservation near Parker, Arizona. The CRIT Ahakhav and Deertail
Backwater Restoration Project proposal to restore approximately 1,500
acres of native aquatic, wetland and riparian habitat will provide
immediate benefits to many Federally listed threatened and endangered
species, as well as many state-listed or sensitive species. Enclosed
with this letter is written testimony which describes the LCR MSCP and
restoration project in more detail in support of our request.
The Colorado River Indian Tribes are an active participant in the
LCR MSCP and are a recognized leader in the implementation of habitat
restoration activities associated with the re-establishment of native
riparian habitat along the Lower Colorado River. The CRIT habitat
restoration is intended to kickoff implementation of the larger, more
comprehensive species conservation and habitat restoration effort being
developed through the consensus-based LCR MSCP.
The State of Arizona's Water Protection Fund, a riparian
restoration and enhancement program, funded two other complementary
restoration projects on CRIT lands. Those projects were recently
completed, and have resulted in the successful restoration of over 175
acres of riparian and wetland habitat. The State of Arizona contributed
more than $1.3 million towards the implementation of these
complementary projects.
The Department recognizes that the Bureau of Reclamation's LCROP
budget line item is used for a variety of programs important to the
Lower Colorado River Basin States. Specifically, Reclamation's
continued compliance with the terms and conditions of the 1997 U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion for current River
operations is critical to maintaining the status quo. For this reason,
the Department respectfully requests that the LCROP line item budget be
increased by $2.5 million in support of the CRIT Ahakhav and Deertail
Backwater Restoration Project, on behalf of the LCR MSCP process.
The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
water and hydropower resource to the 17 million residents of southern
California. Preservation and conservation of the Lower Colorado River's
habitat and species is of major importance not only to the southwestern
United States, but also to the Country as a whole.
The Department greatly appreciates your support of the LCR MSCP's
CRIT Ahakhav and Deertail Backwater Restoration Project proposal, and
again asks for your assistance and leadership in securing additional
funding for this important project.
______
Prepared Statement of the Lower Colorado River Basin States--Arizona,
California and Nevada
introduction
It has long been said that the Colorado River is the lifeblood of
the West. Today, the Colorado River supplies vital water and power
resources for more than 20 million people in Arizona, California and
Nevada.
Concerns have been raised about the reliability of these water and
power resources following the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1994
designation of critical habitat for four endangered fish species in the
Colorado River Basin.
In response, representatives of the U. S. Department of the
Interior, Arizona, California, Nevada and Native American tribes, along
with various stakeholders and water and power agencies along the Lower
Colorado River, have formed a regional partnership, which is developing
a first-of-its kind Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP) aimed at
protecting sensitive, threatened and endangered species of fish,
wildlife and their habitat.
The partnership formed a 35-member steering committee, which has
been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an Ecosystem
Conservation and Recovery Implementation Team (ECRIT) under the Federal
Endangered Species Act. The steering committee has retained the
services of professional facilitator and technical consultant teams to
help develop a plan for the MSCP. The MSCP is scheduled for completion
in Fall 2002.
program description
The MSCP will work toward the recovery of listed species through
habitat restoration and species conservation, and reduce the likelihood
of additional species listings under the Federal and California
Endangered Species Act.
The MSCP planning area includes the historic floodplain of the
Lower Colorado River and reservoir full-pool elevations from Lake Mead
to the Southerly International Boundary with Mexico. MSCP habitat
restoration and preservation activities are intended to address the
following habitat types: aquatic, wetland/marsh, riparian and upland
desert fringe. It is the intent of the MSCP to re-vegetate native
cottonwood-willow and mesquite trees in the floodplain, and remove the
non-native salt cedar, or tamarisk, that has become established.
The MSCP will be implemented over a 50-year period. The long-term
program is also intended to accommodate current water diversions and
power production and optimize opportunities for future water and power
development. This comprehensive program will provide long-term
environmental compliance for participating Federal agencies, pursuant
to Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act, and non-Federal
agencies under Section 10. California agencies will also pursue
programs and actions to achieve compliance with California
Environmental Quality and Endangered Species Acts.
Over the past four years, interim conservation measures (ICMs) have
been developed and implemented to address the immediate critical needs
for certain endangered species. ICMs benefiting the endangered
Razorback Sucker, Bonytail, and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher were
initiated.
In addition, implementation of this pilot project will enhance two
other restoration projects, a riparian restoration and enhancement
program, recently completed on CRIT lands and funded by the State of
Arizona's Water Protection Fund. Those projects have resulted in the
successful restoration of over 175 acres of riparian and wetland
habitat. The State of Arizona contributed more than $1.3 million
towards the implementation of these complementary projects.
program development cost
Current program development costs are projected at about $6.7
million over five years for planning needs and implementation of ICMs.
A Federal/non-Federal cost-sharing agreement is in place for
development of the program and implementation of interim conservation
measures. The Federal and non-Federal participants shared program
development costs on a ``50/50'' basis. Among the non-Federal
participants, the shares were distributed as follows: 50 percent of the
non-Federal share was borne by California, 30 percent by Arizona, and
the remaining 20 percent by Nevada.
program implementation
The MSCP will be implemented over the fifty-year period beginning
in late-2002. However, MSCP proponents are desirous of implementing a
series of ``pilot projects'' in order to begin evaluating potential
habitat restoration and species conservation technologies within the
planning area. Additionally, the pilot projects would be supplemented
with species and habitat monitoring and research programs, providing
the basis for a comprehensive adaptive management approach.
colorado river indian tribes pilot project proposal
The Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT) have played an active role
in the restoration of critical habitats for the past eight years. Since
1993, the tribe has restored, preserved and protected over 2,000 acres
of riparian, wetland and aquatic resources on the Lower Colorado River.
In particular, the Ahakhav Tribal Preserve project has served as a
model for riparian habitat restoration in the southwestern United
States for Native American Tribes, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and various other public and private
agencies. More importantly, it serves as a model for the Lower Colorado
River MSCP.
Located just south and west of Parker, Arizona, in La Paz County,
the Ahakhav and Deertail Backwater Restoration Pilot Project is located
on the Colorado River on the Colorado River Indian Reservation. The
Ahakhav and Deertail Restoration Pilot Project provides numerous
opportunities for MSCP covered species conservation and native habitat
restoration. Many of the nearly 100 species proposed for coverage, or
receiving benefits from MSCP conservation, occur on lands within the
pilot project area. Anticipated actions for this pilot project include
enhancement of riparian, wetland and aquatic habitats and continued
collaboration with ongoing Native American, Federal and State
environmental planning efforts, specifically the MSCP.
pilot project area description
The Ahakhav and Deertail backwaters extend from Rivermile (RM) 169
to 174 on the Colorado River. This restoration pilot project plans to
restore native riparian, wetland and aquatic habitats modified through
development of the Colorado River water and hydroelectric power
resources over the past century. This proposed pilot project would
restore over 1,000 acres of native riparian habitat, 200 acres of open
water, 250 acres of wetland/marsh complex and 200 acres of fallowed
agricultural land. Over 300 species of birds, 32 species of mammals, 19
fish species, 20 species of reptiles and 9 amphibian species utilize
the sites. In addition, 29 threatened or endangered species are
expected to benefit from the proposed pilot project, including the
endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Yuma Clapper Rail and
Razorback Sucker.
pilot project actions
In keeping with the overarching intent of the MSCP, habitat
restoration at these sites is the primary component of the project.
This MSCP pilot project seeks to restore wildlife habitat and some
measure of pre-development hydraulic conditions in this area. This will
be accomplished through re-excavation and re-connection of historic
channel features, installation of water control structures, conversion
of agricultural land and riparian re-vegetation activities. The
following is a list of pilot project goals and objectives:
--Excavate historic channel features to improve water quality and
flow in existing wetlands;
--Convert fallowed agricultural lands into cottonwood-willow forests;
--Re-vegetate stands of native cottonwood, willow and mesquite trees
in areas where exotic plant species have invaded;
--Implement pre- and post-restoration monitoring to measure success
and aid in the development of future maintenance and
restoration activity recommendations; and,
--Provide environmental and cultural education and low-impact
recreational opportunities for surrounding communities.
pilot project funding
It is proposed that the CRIT Ahakhav and Deertail Restoration Pilot
Project of $2.5 million be funded by increasing the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, Lower Colorado River Operations
(LCROP) budget line item.
______
Letter From Jim Geringer
State of Wyoming, Office of the Governor,
Cheyenne, WY, April 4, 2001.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici, Chairman,
Hon. Harry Reid, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Domenici and Ranking Minority Member Reid: This
letter is sent in support of fiscal year 2002 funding for the Bureau of
Reclamation's Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. I request,
inclusion of this letter into the formal hearing record concerning
fiscal year 2002 appropriations.
The Colorado River provides municipal and industrial water for more
than 18 million people in seven states. It also provides irrigation
water for about 2 million acres of land. The salinity of the river is
high, in almost equal part, because of natural features such as
underlying salt formations and saline springs and the use of water by
man. Over-application of irrigation water by agriculture is also a
large contributor of salt to the river, as irrigation water seeps
through saline soils and returns to the river.
The 1944 Mexico Treaty obligates the United States to provide 1.5
million acre-feet of water to Mexico, but does not address quality.
Mexico filed a formal protest in the 1960's when the salinity levels of
water being delivered pursuant to the Treaty increased sharply. Several
minutes to the Treaty were negotiated, including Minute 242, to address
the water quality concerns voiced by Mexico. That minute requires that
the average annual salinity of the Colorado delivered upstream from
Morelos Dam (Mexico's principal diversion dam) does not exceed the
average salinity of the water arriving at Imperial Dam by a specified
amount.
The Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation of the 1972
amendments to the Clean Water Act required the seven Basin states to
adopt water quality standards for salinity levels in the Colorado
River. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum was created as
an interstate coordination mechanism in 1973, consisting of
gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,
New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. To address salinity problems, and ensure
the United States could meet its obligation to Mexico, the Congress
passed the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974. Title I
addressed the United States' obligations to Mexico to control river
salinity concentrations, while Title II of the Act authorized measures
upstream of Imperial Dam and directed the Secretary of the Interior to
construct several salinity control projects, most of which are located
in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Title II of the Act, which was amended
in 1984 and 1995, directed the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a $75
million pilot program to award grants on a competitive-bid basis for
salinity control projects. Cost savings under this pilot program have
far exceeded expectations--down to about $30 per ton of salt control,
from the previous average of about $80 per ton. The Forum was heavily
involved in the development of the 1974 Act and has continued to have a
very active role in overseeing the Federal agencies' salinity control
program efforts.
For the past 28 years, the seven-state Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Forum has actively assisted the Federal agencies,
including the Bureau of Reclamation, in implementing this unique,
collaborative and important program. At its recent October 2000
meeting, the Forum recommended that the Bureau of Reclamation should
expend $17,500,000 in fiscal year 2002. This funding level is
appropriate to reduce a growing ``backlog'' in meeting the pace of salt
loading reductions necessary to control the salinity of Colorado River
waters so as not to exceed the numeric salinity concentration criteria
contained within the water quality standards for the Colorado River.
Failure to maintain the standards' numeric criteria could result in the
imposition of state-line water quality standards and impair the
Colorado River Basin states' ability to develop their Compact-
apportioned water supplies. ``Catch-up'' funding in the future will
require expending greater sums of money, increasing the likelihood that
the numeric salinity criteria 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.
The State of Wyoming greatly appreciates the Subcommittee's support
of the Colorado River Salinity Control Program in past years. We
respectfully suggest this important basin-wide water quality
improvement program merits continued funding and support by your
Subcommittee.
Best regards,
Jim Geringer,
Governor.
______
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.
Public Law 104-20 reconfirmed the Bureau of Reclamation's role. A total
of $17.5 million is requested for fiscal year 2002 to implement the
authorized salinity control program of the Bureau of Reclamation. The
President's request for funding is not known at this time. An
appropriation of $17.5 million for Reclamation's salinity control
program is necessary to protect water quality standards for salinity,
to 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 salinity standards for 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 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. I am New Mexico's
representative to the Forum. The Forum has become the primary means for
the 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. Damages in the United States may soon be approaching $1 billion
per year. Every salinity concentration increase of 30 milligrams per
liter in the Colorado River causes salinity damages of approximately
$100 million in the United States and threatens the quality of water
delivered to Mexico that is protected by treaty under Minute No. 242 of
the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), United States
and Mexico.
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 to protect the quality of the water that the United
States is obligated to deliver to Mexico. The amount of appropriations
requested in the previous President's budget request was inadequate to
protect the quality of water in the Colorado River and prevent
unnecessary salinity damages in the states of the Lower Colorado River
Basin. Although the United States has always met the water quality
standard for salinity of water delivered to Mexico under Minute No. 242
of the IBWC, the United States through the U.S. Section of IBWC is
currently addressing a request by Mexico for better quality water.
Congress amended the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in
July 1995 (Public Law 104-20). The salinity control program authorized
by Congress by the amendment 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 2002. The Basin States
cost sharing adds 43 cents for each Federal dollar appropriated.
Public Law 106-459 of last year gives the Bureau of Reclamation
additional spending authority for the salinity control program. 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.
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 by the Forum's Executive Director, Jack
Barnett, in request of this appropriation, and the recommendation of an
appropriation of the same amount by the Federally chartered Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council.
______
Prepared Statement of the California Society of Professional Engineers
The California Society of Professional Engineers recommends your
support of the fiscal year 2002, Federal Water Appropriations as
recommended by the California Water Commission.
We have tracked the screening processes of the Commission each year
as the final recommendations are developed. The Commission's process
includes several discussions with clients, proponents, opponents, and
the agencies as to their capabilities. We can assure you that the
projects and funding levels recommended are needed, are sound and will
contribute to economic, health, environmental and social benefits for
California's citizens.
We call emphasis to the need to continue to support all projects
associated with the CALFED Bay-Delta program, as this is the lynchpin
necessary to complete in order to move on to other projects affecting
conveyance and delivery of water to end use consumers.
The California Society of Professional Engineers is a 50-year old,
2500-member organization of professional engineers of all disciplines
and areas of employment (construction, education, government, industry
and private practice).
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Oceanside
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 a Bureau of
Reclamation project and two Army Corps of Engineers projects that are
critically important to our community.
First, the City of Oceanside requests $407,675 from the Bureau of
Reclamation, Title 16 Water Reuse, for the expansion of the City's
Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Research and Development
Project.
The City of Oceanside has been authorized to design, plan and
construct a 3 million gallon per day expansion of its Mission Basin
Brackish Groundwater Desalting Research and Development Project. The
additional funding will reduce the impact of the Mission Basin Brackish
Groundwater Desalting Research and Development project expansion on the
ratepayer, as well as reduce the amount of imported water purchased by
the City to supply its residents. The project will lessen the demand
for imported water from the Colorado River and environmentally
sensitive Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Creating local, highly
reliable water supplies is a goal of the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California, the San Diego Water Authority and the California
State Legislature.
The City has received $1,852,325 to date in federal appropriations
for this project. The actual cost to expand the project's capacity by 3
million gallons per day is $9.04 million. Therefore, a residual of
$407,675 is allowed for the 3 million gallon per day expansion.
Second, the City of Oceanside requests $1 million from the Army
Corps of Engineers' General Investigations (GI) Account to continue a
special Oceanside Shoreline Study to determine how to mitigate the
erosion of Oceanside's beaches resulting from the construction of the
Camp Pendleton Marine Base Harbor.
Section 415 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
authorizes the City's requested Shoreline Special Study at full federal
expense. Total cost of the three-year project is approximately $2
million. A total of $325,000 was included in the fiscal year 2001
Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for this study. The
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 1950-52. 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.
Finally, the City of Oceanside requests $1.27 million from the Army
Corps of Engineers' Operations and Maintenance (OM) Account for
maintenance dredging for the entrance to Oceanside and Camp Pendleton
Marine Corps Base Harbor. (This request for funding is for year two of
a three-year contract. It has also been included in the fiscal year
2002 Administration Budget).
In 1960, Congress authorized (Public Law 85-500) full federal
funding for maintenance of the Oceanside Harbor in recognition of the
fact that the harbor entrance was constructed as an emergency wartime
measure in 1942. To this day, the Oceanside Harbor entrance continues
to serve the vital military installation of Camp Pendleton Harbor. In
1992, the Harbor District partnered with the federal government in a
local cost share agreement to modify the harbor entrance and the
authorized channel depth to reduce storm damage, provide surge
protection to the harbor's infrastructure, and provide significant
reduction of navigational hazards that have produced 11 deaths, 49
serious injuries, 134 boating accidents and $1.5 million of damage to
vessels in the harbor entrance.
Oceanside Harbor is the only harbor between San Diego and Dana
Point in Orange County. The State of California and the Federal
Government have designated it as a harbor of refuge. The Oceanside
Harbor would experience severe negative impacts should the dredging
project not be funded. Such action would prevent access to the Pacific
Ocean to the United States Navy and Marine Corps as joint users of the
entrance channel. The economic impact upon the local fishing fleet, the
commercial sport fishing fleet and the 1,000 recreational vessels
berthed here, as well as the businesses supported by the harbor, would
be critically impacted.
This maintenance program is essential for the safe navigation into
Oceanside Harbor and the U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton Harbor.
The program also provides beach sand restoration, shoreline protection,
recreational and commerce benefits. In fiscal year 2001 $2.035 million
was budgeted for this project. Third year funding is estimated to be
approximately $1 million.
Mr. Chairman, again, on behalf of the City of Oceanside, I request
the Committee's support for these three critically important projects.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colusa Basin Drainage District--California
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 2002 budget request of the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
The Colusa Basin Drainage District respectfully requests that the
Subcommittee support an appropriation of $500,000 in the Bureau of
Reclamation budget for planning and design of flood control and
watershed enhancement elements of the Colusa Basin Integrated Resources
Management Plan authorized by the 106th Congress.
The cost-shared program is designed to address flooding problems
and provide opportunities for future conjunctive use of water resources
to meet the diverse needs of agricultural, urban and wildlife interests
in the 650,000-acre Colusa Basin on the western side of the Sacramento
Valley.
The District has secured State cost share funding for the site
specific feasibility study of addressing flooding through structural
and non-structural methods in three watersheds in the northern portion
of the District. Past hydrologic studies show storms in this area
caused the most damage to homes, agricultural land and public
infrastructure. In fact, damage to public infrastructure is estimated
to be 65 percent of the losses.
The program includes 10,000 acres of environmental restoration
measures, small-scale detention reservoirs on intermittent streams that
are prone to rapid flooding. The program will be implemented over a 20-
to 25-year period on a willing-landowner basis. Any incidental water
supplies created by the program will be devoted to environmental
purposes.
We thank the Subcommittee for its past support and request that
Reclamation continue to play a significant role in this project that is
a model for the State and nation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Northern California Water Association
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is David Guy,
Executive Director of the Northern California Water Association. I
appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the
water suppliers and individual farmer members of the Northern
California Water Association (NCWA). We submit the following testimony
in support of our request that an additional $9,000,000 (above the
President's request) be earmarked in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations bill, under Bureau of Reclamation,
Central Valley Project, Miscellaneous Project Programs, Anadromous Fish
Screening Program, for fish screen projects on the Sacramento River.
These screens represent classic ``win-win'' projects to benefit both
the economy and the environment and are broadly supported in our
communities.
northern california water association mission and membership
The NCWA mission is to promote the economic, social and
environmental viability of Northern California by enhancing and
preserving the water rights and supplies of our members. Our
Association was formed in 1992 to provide agricultural water suppliers,
farmers and landowners a united regional voice on California water
policy. NCWA is committed to constructive leadership in the pursuit of
real solutions to California's water problems. NCWA today represents
nearly 70 agricultural water suppliers and individual farmers who
irrigate over 850,000 acres of Northern California farmland.
NCWA's membership is geographically diverse, extending from the
Coast Range to the Sierra Nevada foothills, and from Redding to
Sacramento. Our members rely on the waters of the Sacramento, Feather,
Yuba and American Rivers, smaller tributaries and groundwater to
produce nearly every type of food and fiber grown in the region. These
waters provide equally important fish and wildlife habitat and
recreational uses.
The Sacramento Valley's initiative and effort to help protect
salmon and other aquatic species is unprecedented and is now recognized
as one of the most exciting and progressive voluntary salmon
restoration efforts in the United States. Today, over a dozen NCWA
members, representing over 500,000 acres of irrigable land, are in
various stages of developing screens to prevent fish entrainment at
their diversions. As a result, nearly 75 percent of all agricultural
water use from the Sacramento River will soon flow through new, state-
of-the-art, fish screens.
Since 1994, many NCWA members have initiated far-reaching efforts
to screen diversions, refurbish fish ladders, construct siphons, remove
dams, create habitat conservation plans and implement other habitat
improvement projects to enhance the environment. We submit this request
for funding, and your support, for our member agencies' ongoing efforts
to enhance fishery protection and water infrastructure efficiency in
the Sacramento Valley.
statutory/program authority
The Central Valley Improvement Act (CVPIA; Public Law 102-575,
Title 34) and the CalFed Program both emphasize the importance of
providing additional anadromous fish species protection on the
Sacramento River. The primary objective of the CVPIA Anadromous Fish
Screen Program (CVPIA Section 3406(b)(21)) is to protect juvenile
salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, bass and shad from entrainment. The
Secretary of the Interior is required by the CVPIA to assist the State
of California in developing and implementing measures to avoid losses
of juvenile anadromous fish resulting from unscreened or inadequately
screened diversions.
sacramento river fish screen projects
The Natomas Mutual Water Company, Reclamation District 108 and
Sutter Mutual Water Company are at the forefront of efforts to provide
anadromous fish species protection on the Sacramento River. By
consolidating existing diversions, installing new screening technology
and upgrading and integrating distribution facilities, Natomas, RD 108
and Sutter are not only improving fishery protection, but also are
simultaneously increasing water operation/management efficiencies.
Natomas Mutual Water Company (Natomas) has completed the
feasibility, preliminary design and environmental evaluation work
associated with consolidation of five Sacramento River diversions into
two screened facilities. The project will remove pumping from an area
(``Natomas Cross Canal Channel'') that can be preserved for both fish
passage as well as provide new protections for terrestrial species by
preserving and enhancing important habitat.
The consolidation of diversions and upgrading of associated
infrastructure will allow the Natomas project to also assist
neighboring communities in achieving regional water management
improvements by connecting the Sacramento and American Rivers for the
first time, thus making regional groundwater recharge and banking
possible while reducing diversion impacts on the American River. Over
fifty regional water, business, environmental and public interest
groups support this project. Thus the consolidated diversion and new
screen facility is an important component for future integrated water
resources management and cooperation in the American River basin.
Reclamation District 108 (RD 108) last year completed construction
of a $12 million screen on the Sacramento River. The project, located
at the district's Wilkins Slough diversion, protects migrating
endangered winter-run Chinook salmon, as well as the spring-run Chinook
and steelhead trout. The design for the new screen facility was chosen
after several years were spent examining the performance of alternate
screen technologies. The district held dedication ceremonies for the
completed project on April 14, 2000.
RD 108 is currently developing a new fish screen project that will
consolidate its three largest unscreened river diversions into one
pumping plant with a new fish protection screen facility. This project
is under reconnaissance investigation, scheduled for completion in
April 2001. Total preliminary cost for design and construction of these
facilities is estimated at $12 million. Funding assistance for the
reconnaissance investigation has been received from the California
Department of Fish and Game.
Sutter Mutual Water Company (Sutter Mutual) is proceeding with a
fish screen feasibility study concerning its diversion on the
Sacramento River at Tisdale Weir. This is the last major unscreened
diversion on the Sacramento River, and thus a priority project for the
California Department of Fish and Game, CalFed and the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation. A feasibility study, funded by the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, is scheduled for completion in June 2001. Consolidation of
one or two other Sutter Mutual diversions into an upgraded diversion at
Tisdale is being investigated as part of the feasibility study.
Feasibility, preconstruction engineering and design should be completed
in the fall of 2002, with the project constructed and operational by
the fall of 2003 or 2004. Early estimates indicate a total cost of $18-
$30 million, depending on the results of the feasibility of
consolidating the Sutter Mutual diversions.
Individually and together, these projects to consolidate and screen
diversions and improve water supply infrastructure and efficiencies
represent the best efforts of local communities working with state and
federal agencies to provide state-of-the-art fishery protection in
conjunction with efficient water delivery to meet agricultural and
human needs. We strongly urge and respectfully request your support for
$9,000,000 in addition to the President's budget request for Sacramento
River Fish Screen Projects, under the Bureau of Reclamation, Central
Valley Project, Miscellaneous Project Programs, Anadromous Fish
Screening Program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Board of
Directors
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Donald
Bransford, President of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Board of
Directors. I appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony on
behalf of the water suppliers, individual farmer members, and farm
families dependant on Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District.
The Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (``GCID'') is located in the
heart of the Sacramento Valley and is the largest and one of the oldest
diverters of water from the Sacramento River. GCID diverts water from
the Sacramento River through a 65-mile long irrigation canal into a
complex system of over 430 miles of laterals. The water is delivered to
more than 1,200 families who farm approximately 141,000 acres of
valuable, productive, agricultural land. Farmers within GCID grow such
diverse crops as rice, wheat, tomatoes, cotton, corn, walnuts, almonds
and pistachios, which are shipped across the nation and the world. More
than $270 million of agricultural products are produced annually on
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District farms, helping to sustain an estimated
12,000 jobs in the region.
GCID is also the sole source of surface water deliveries for three
wildlife refuges--the Sacramento, Delevan, and Colusa National Wildlife
Refuges--that comprise some 20,000 acres of critical wildlife habitat.
Winter water supplied by GCID to thousands of acres of rice land also
provides a rich oasis for migrating waterfowl.
Specifically, GCID has three requests of the Energy and Water
Development Subcommittee in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill.
First, GCID requests the Subcommittee's support for a an allocation of
$6,600,000 in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill,
under Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Management and
Development, to continue work on the GCID fish screen improvement
project. The amount requested is $6,000,000 more than the budget
request for the project. The additional funds are needed to begin to
reimburse GCID for costs incurred by the District that have yet to be
cost-shared by the Bureau of Reclamation.
The GCID Fish Screen Improvement Project is critical to the
protection of five runs of anadromous fish in the Sacramento River,
including the winter-run Chinook salmon. It has consistently been among
the highest priority fish protection projects in the Central Valley.
The project is also critical to the restoration of full water
deliveries to more than 1,200 families who farm approximately 141,000
acres of valuable, productive, agricultural land.
Pursuant to the authorization provided in the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) is the lead Federal agency working in cooperation with
GCID and the California Department of Fish and Game as co-lead state
agencies, to implement long-term fish protection at GCID's Sacramento
River diversion near Hamilton City.
A final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
was completed and reviewed extensively, resulting in the selection of
the preferred fish screen alternative in early 1998. The preferred
alternative for the Fish Screen Improvement Project consists of two
important elements, the fish screen extension and the gradient
facility. Construction of the fish screen extension and related channel
improvements began in spring of 1998 and will continue into early 2001.
An appropriation of $500,000 in fiscal year 2001 was granted to
continue construction on the new fish screen facility at the site.
These funds were appropriated as a non-reimbursable construction
expense under the CVP, Sacramento River Division as set forth in the
authorizing language of the CVPIA.
Reclamation staff estimates a need for an appropriation of $2.6
million for fiscal year 2002 for the fish screen extension portion of
the Project. These funds will be necessary in fiscal year 2002 to cover
the costs of the intensive hydraulic and biological testing during
fiscal year 2001 that must be performed after completion of
construction. The testing is necessary to confirm that the screen is
functioning as designed and to ensure that off-site mitigation work
stays on schedule.
GCID urges support for a total of $6.6 million for the project, $4
million above the budget request, to begin reimbursing the district for
costs incurred by the District in excess of the District's required
cost share. GCID's growers have contributed to GCID's share of the cost
of the permanent fish facility. To date, GCID has expended more than
$12 million on construction of the fish screen extension, biological
monitoring, environmental review of the long-term solution, land
acquisition, environmental mitigation and downstream channel
improvements. This represents $4 million more than the District's
authorized cost share.
Second, GCID requests an appropriation of $4,000,000 in the Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Bill, under Corps of Engineers,
Construction General, to continue hydraulic and biological testing on
the gradient restoration facility and initiate bank stabilization work
in the vicinity of River Mile 208. This represents an increase of
$1,716,000 above the budget request of $2,284,000 for the project. The
project is critical to stabilizing the Sacramento River at GCID's
diversion and ensuring the long-term viability of the new fish screen
structure at the Hamilton City Pumping Plant under inevitable changing
river conditions.
Restoring the gradient on the Sacramento River near Hamilton City
is an essential component of the Fish Screen Improvement Project
(Project). When fully constructed, the Project will vastly improve the
passage of fish in the reach of the River near GCID's diversion. The
design of the
Gradient Facility is based upon natural riffles observed in the
Sacramento River. By mimicking a natural riffle, the Gradient Facility
will provide for fish passage and recreational boating through the
Facility. It will stabilize the river elevation and improve the
effectiveness of the new fish screen built at GCID's pump station.
In 1999, GCID urged support of a proposed post-authorization change
under Section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 from a
total project cost for the Gradient Facility of $20.7 million to $26
million. As a result, a post-authorization increase to $26 million was
approved. In 1999, GCID also urged support of a post-authorization
change to include bank protection work in the vicinity of River Mile
208 as part of the Gradient Facility. As a result, for the protection
of the Gradient Facility and Fish Screen Extension, a post-
authorization change to include work at River Mile 208 was approved.
For fiscal year 2001, GCID received support of appropriations in
the amount of $4.1 million for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
to complete design, plans and specifications, award construction
contracts and construct the Gradient Facility. The construction
contract for the Gradient Facility was awarded on February 24, 2000,
and construction of the Gradient began in April 2000.
Again, the optimum schedule indicates a need for $4 million in
fiscal year 2002 to complete the Gradient Facility element of the
project. GCID urges support for this amount to ensure that this portion
of the Project proceeds as scheduled. Upon completion of construction
in mid-2001, funds will be necessary to cover the intensive hydraulic
and biological testing that must be performed. The testing is necessary
to confirm that the screen is functioning as designed. Funds will also
be necessary for planting of on-site vegetation, for off-site
mitigation work required to compensate for the Project's impacts to
habitat and for completion of design plans, specifications, award of
contracts and construction of bank protection in the vicinity of River
Mile 208.
Third, GCID requests an additional $2 million in the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Bill, under Bureau of Reclamation,
Water and Related Resources (CVP, Sacramento River Division) to carry
out detailed, site-specific environmental assessment and permitting
work on, as well as to facilitate non-Federal participation with
respect to, a Sites Reservoir, including an evaluation of the
utilization of both the GCID Main Canal and the Tehama-Colusa Canal as
a means to convey water into that proposed reservoir.
With a storage capacity of 1.6 million-acre feet of water, the
proposed Sites Reservoir Project is an important part of the solution
to California's water supply and water quality problems. Sites
Reservoir has been identified within the Sacramento Valley in northern
California as a potential element of an integrated water supply program
involving state, local and Federal entities and agencies. The funds
requested will be used to carry out detailed, site-specific
environmental assessment and permitting work on, as well as to
facilitate non-Federal participation with respect to a Sites Reservoir,
including an evaluation of the utilization of both the GCID Main Canal
and the Tehama-Colusa Canal as a means to convey water into that
proposed reservoir.
Sites Reservoir is one of the two potential storage projects
identified in the CALFED Record of Decision (ROD) for further study.
Sites Reservoir could enhance water management flexibility in the
Sacramento Valley. The ROD further notes that the Sites Reservoir would
increase reliability of supplies for a significant portion of the
Sacramento Valley and also provide storage and operational benefits for
other CALFED programs, including water quality and the Environmental
Water Account (``EWA'').
In a more recent development, Mr. Chairman, the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) on April 26, 2001 issued an order to
stay the contentious Phase 8 Bay-Delta water rights hearings. The
decision initiates an integrated water management program designed to
protect Northern California water rights by assuring that the
Sacramento Valley will receive full water supplies--both now and into
the future. Projects will be developed to provide water for farms,
cities and fish and wildlife in the Sacramento Valley, while also
helping to meet environmental needs and improve water supplies and
quality in other parts of the state.
The agreement, as part of this integrated program, contains a
strong commitment to Sites reservoir and local water management
projects in Northern California. Given that the Bureau of Reclamation
was a principal signatory to this agreement, it is appropriate that the
agency be provided additional resources to help Federal water users in
the region to accelerate work on Sites Reservoir.
Finally, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has the authority to study
Sites (Public Law 89-561, 80 Stat. 707) and this is not a new study.
The Bureau or Reclamation's last study on Sites was completed in 1981.
Again, on behalf of GCID's Board of Directors and all of the farm
families in our region, I strongly urge you to approve this request.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these prepared remarks.
______
Prepared Statement of the Central Montana Resource and Conservation
area, Inc.
fiscal year 2002 appropriations request
The Central Montana Resource and Conservation Area, Inc., in
association with six (6) small communities and numerous ranchers, in
four counties, in central Montana, respectfully request funds in the
Bureau of Reclamation budget to investigate the engineering viability
and costs of the Musselshell Valley Regional Water Project, in the
amount of $375,000 as set out below:
Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriations Request
Item Amount
Exploratory Water Wells....................................... $195,000
Technical Investigations...................................... 160,000
Reclamation Oversight......................................... 20,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 375,000
need for project
Drought, inability to meet existing and future Safe Drinking Water
Act requirements, exceedingly poor water quality of unregulated
contaminants and inability of income levels within the regional project
boundaries to support the development of individual projects are
factors that underscore the need for this project, shown in location on
Figure 1. Each community has expended their own funds in search of
better water. Having found none, other than extensive individual
treatment, this is the only alternative.
The project would serve a current population of 4,330 summarized as
follows:
Musselshell Valley Regional Population
Estimated
Current
Community Population
Judith Gap........................................................ 138
Harlowton......................................................... 1,075
Ryegate........................................................... 302
Lavina............................................................ 178
Roundup........................................................... 2,078
Melstone.......................................................... 121
Musselshell....................................................... 40
Spring Water Colony............................................... 96
Rural Ranchers.................................................... 304
______
Total......................................................... 4,332
Roundup.--Poor quality of water in the Roundup public water system
demonstrates the need for improvement and, while different from other
communities, draws attention to other problems in the region. The
source of public water supply in Roundup is a well drilled into an
abandoned coal mine. As shown in the table below, problems with this
water supply include high concentrations of dissolved iron and
manganese, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide and total dissolved solids.
The relatively high concentrations of magnesium and sodium combine
with the sulfate to form magnesium sulfate (Epson salt) and sodium
sulfate (Glauber's salt) which make the water slightly bitter and which
act as a laxative for people not accustomed to the water. There are
additional concerns about treatment requirements when the proposed
sulfate rule is put into effect. The waters in the developed parts of
the mine exhibit the characteristics shown in the following table.
ROUNDUP WATER QUALITY INDICATORS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At current At increased
Contaminant Recommended pumping levels pumping levels
limits (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Dissolved Solids.......................................... 500 2,800 4,000
Sodium.......................................................... n.a. 450 670
Magnesium....................................................... n.a. 120 150
Sulfate......................................................... 250 1,400 1,400
Iron............................................................ .300 4.100 N/A
Manganese....................................................... .050 .330 .368
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are additional concerns about the adequacy or longevity of
the water supply from the underground coal mine. Tests conducted in
1995 indicate that increased pumping from the mine will result in a
decrease in water quality. Water quality in the undeveloped part of the
mine will become a larger component of the pumped water if the pumping
rate is increased.
Judith Gap.--Judith Gap obtains its public water supply from a well
completed in the basal Kootenai sandstone (Third Cat Creek sand).
Problems include lack of backup pumping capacity and dissolved iron in
the water.
Harlowton.--Harlowton obtains public water supply from three wells
(detailed below) completed in the Claggett Shale and Eagle Sandstone.
The principal problem with the public water supply system is aging
facilities, namely the water wells. Water quality problems contribute
to the need to replace the aging water wells. Five wells have been
drilled for public water supply at Harlowton over five decades;
however, only three of the wells remain in service. Of those three
wells, only two are used most of the time because water quality is poor
and the casing is deteriorating at the other well. Gasoline product was
recently discovered in the upper part of the Claggett Shale near the
City reservoir site. Although a remediation program has been
implemented, this raises concerns about contamination of the existing
wells, particularly those with deteriorated casing.
Thompson Well.--The Thompson well was completed in June 1949 with a
reported yield of 716 gpm from a total depth of 390 feet. Over the
years, the casing has deteriorated such that it is presently not
possible to install a pump below about 120 feet and a restriction is
present at 30 feet due to failing casing. Well yield has been reduced
to 175 gpm, and it is only a matter of time before this well will fail
completely. The well produces water high in iron. The iron
concentration of 0.68 mg/l and the sulfate concentration of 393 mg/l
exceed National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations. Recommended upper
limits are 0.3 mg/l for iron and 250 mg/l for sulfate. The total
dissolved solids concentration for 1,100 mg/l is more than twice the
National Secondary Drinking Water recommendation of 500 mg/l.
Prichard Well.--The Prichard well was completed in August 1961 at a
total cased depth of 1,220 feet. The well is a flowing artesian well
with an initial yield reported in 1961 of more than 1,000 gpm. The well
was used at a flow rate of 400 to 500 gpm historically, however, the
rate is presently reduced to about 375 gpm because the deteriorating
well casing allows sand to enter the well in addition to small
fragments of rusted casing and cement from behind the casing. Water
from the well is corrosive due to a hydrogen sulfide content of 0.84
mg/l, a factor contributing to the casing deterioration. The strong
sulfur odor from the water is partly, but not completely, mitigated by
strong chlorination to oxidize the sulfide and by a chemical treatment
system. Total dissolved solids concentrations in the well water exceed
the National Secondary Drinking Water recommended upper limit of 500
mg/l. This well is the principal source of water at Harlowton.
South Well.--The South well was completed in 1975 at a total depth
of 921 feet and, although a flowing well, is equipped with a pump to
increase the well yield to 280 gpm. The well is in good condition;
however, it yields water with a hydrogen sulfide concentration of 0.26
mg/l. Although the hydrogen sulfide concentration in this water does
not pose as serious an odor problem as that from the Prichard well, the
water is corrosive and O & M requirements for the pump house valves and
plumbing and for pump column replacement are greater than normal.
Ryegate.--Ryegate provides public water supply from shallow wells
along the Musselshell River. The groundwater level in the wells
fluctuates in response to changes in the river level, and the well
yields fluctuate accordingly. The alluvial aquifer along the river is
thin such that the alluvium does not provide significant groundwater
storage and the well yields are therefor dependent upon local recharge
from the surface flow in the river. This has two undesirable results:
(1) the well yields become inadequate in years when surface flow in the
river is low and (2) water from the wells has been determined to be
Groundwater Under Direct Influence of Surface Water (GWUDISW) and
therefore must be treated under the Surface Water Treatment Rule
(SWTR). The Ryegate public water supply system presently does not have
surface water treatment capabilities.
Lavina.--Lavina does not have a public water supply system. Private
wells provides water to individual homes. Similar to Ryegate, the wells
are completed in the shallow alluvium along the Musselshell River with
well depths ranging from 18-30 feet in depth. Such wells are subject to
contamination by animal wastes and other pollutants on the land surface
and, similar to Ryegate, the shallow groundwater may be under the
influence of surface water and, while not regulated as a public water
system subject to SDWA regulation, is potentially contaminated with
pathogens and poses a significant health risk. The groundwater level
here is also influenced by changes in river flow.
Melstone.--The public water supply at Melstone is obtained from the
surface flow of the Musselshell River and is treated in a surface water
treatment plant. Wells filled at Melstone in the past have not been
successful in providing an adequate water supply with acceptable water
quality. The principal problem with the present water supply is that
Melstone is far enough downstream on the Musselshell River that the
surface water flow ceases unless it is supported by releases from the
Deadman Basin Reservoir. In periods of drought, storage in the
reservoir is not adequate to maintain surface flow to Melstone. The
community residents must seek alternative sources of water supply.
Finally, the regional water project is needed to combine local,
Montana and Bureau of Reclamation funding into an affordable project.
The ability of water users in the public water systems and in the rural
areas to pay for the initial investment in a suitable water system,
adequate in supply and capable of meeting present and future regulatory
requirements, is limited by income levels averaging $16,725.00
annually.
plan to address regional project needs
Despite the inadequacies of year-round streamflow in the
Musselshell River and the poor quality of water in groundwater
resources relied upon by the regional communities, the area is blessed
with high quality water in the Madison Aquifer on the northwestern
flank of the Big Snowy Mountains. This regional water project proposes
to develop a well field in the Madison Aquifer about seven miles
southeast of Moore, Montana. An alternative would locate a well field
about 1.5 miles west of Garneill, or 5 miles north of Judith Gap, on
the northeastern flank of the Little Belt Mountains. These well fields
are in favorable terrain to develop groundwater with wells less than
2,000 feet deep. The proposed investigation would permit exploration of
the Madison Aquifer in the area of the proposed well field near Moore.
As many as two exploratory wells would be drilled.
The ultimate plan for development will provide for as many as six
high capacity wells and the treatment of raw water derived from the
well field. Pipeline with diameters ranging from 2 to 16 inches would
be constructed over distances totaling 342 miles to serve six
communities as identified above and 152 rural connectors. Only three
pumping stations and two reservoirs would be required. The plan would
serve a population of 4.332 (given above) at an estimated cost
(reconnaissance level) of $34 million. The funds sought through the
fiscal year 2002 appropriations process would provide for significant
improvement in the cost estimates and the status of knowledge
respecting the Madison Aquifer, the latter based on exploratory
drilling of the wells.
Based on the ability to pay analysis to be concluded in the
proposed investigation, a non-federal cost share of 20 percent may be a
reasonable funding proposal. Assuming the reconnaissance level cost
estimate is accurate, the project would seek approximately $27.2
million in federal cost share through the Bureau of Reclamation budget,
and the remaining costs ($6.8 million) would be divided equally between
the local water users and the State of Montana, provided the Montana
Legislature finds the project worthwhile and authorized funding from
the regional water project fund.
local project support
Attached to this testimony are a letter from the Governor of
Montana, the Honorable Judy Martz, letters from the Montana House and
Senate representatives from the project area, the Montana Department of
Environmental Quality, and from participating communities. These
letters demonstrate broad support for an investigation of the type
described here.
Letter From Judy Martz
State Office of the Governor, of Montana,
Helena, Montana, March 23, 2001.
Hon. Pete Domenici,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water
Development, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20515.
Dear Chairman Domenici: I would appreciate the support of your
Subcommittee for the $375,000 requested by the Musselshell Valley
Regional Water Project for fiscal year 2002 for planning of their
project with local communities, farmers and ranchers.
The federal appropriations requested will permit the project to
progress, a project that will greatly improve the quality of life in
Central Montana where water supplies and water quality are in need of
significant improvement.
Respectfully,
Judy Martz,
Governor.
______
Letter From Jerry C. Burns, P.E.
Montana Department of Environmental Quality,
Billings, Mt, March 16, 2001.
Mr. J. Jay Erdie,
President, Central Mt RC&D Area, Inc., Roundup, Montana.
Dear Mr. Erdie: Thank you for submitting a copy of the fiscal year
2002 Appropriations Request for the above referenced project, and for
the opportunity to comment. The following comments regarding the need
for the project are based partly on first hand knowledge of the water
systems and on records in the Department of Environmental Quality
Public Water Supply Program. I have worked in this program for the past
22 years. My comments regarding the proposed water supply source are
based on recent conversations with the Montana Bureau of Mines and
Geology.
Need for Project:
Roundup.--In addition to the stated needs, which are consistent
with our records, the interference with disinfection and the
infiltration gallery pose sanitary risks to health. Break point
chlorination can not be practiced due to high levels of iron and
manganese. Therefore, adequate chlorine residuals cannot be maintained
throughout the distribution system. The secondary water supply source
is an infiltration gallery that appears to be under the direct
influence of surface water. Also, the present piping at the clearwell
allows water from the well to recharge the infiltration gallery. This
connection between sources needs to be corrected and the surface water
influence needs to be addressed. Filtration or elimination of the
gallery will likely be required.
Ryegate.--The infiltration wells have been determined to be under
the direct influence of surface water. The Department of Environmental
Quality will be issuing a letter in the near future requiring
compliance with the Surface Water Treatment rule within 18 months of
receipt of the letter.
Lavina.--The Town is not served by a public system. However, the
school is classified as a public water supply system. The well is
shallow and has a history of coliform violations. This well has also
been threatened by an underground gasoline tank leak from a nearby
service station.
Melstone.--Raw water shortages and operational problems have
plagued this system. Operational problems have resulted in treatment
technique violations.
Judith Gap.--Judith Gap has a history of intermittent bacterial
problems. The wells in town have been abandoned due to a petroleum
release. Leaving only one well to serve the town.
Harlowton.--Our records agree with the stated problems, and also
show that Harlowton has at times experienced severe water shortages as
a result of the aging water supply wells.
Plan to Address Regional Project Needs:
The Madison Aquifer has a very good potential for providing the
necessary quality and quantity. I recommend working closely with the
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology for locating test wells.
I strongly support efforts to correct the deficiencies with systems
included in this proposal and to develop a regional water system. With
the new and upcoming regulations in the Safe Drinking Water Act, it is,
and will continue to be, very difficult for small communities to
provide the technical and financial resources to stay in compliance.
Small communities with surface water systems will experience the most
difficulty.
Please feel free to use this letter as a letter of support for the
project. If you or anyone reading this letter has any questions or
would like information out our Public Water Supply files, please call
me at 247-4445.
Sincerely,
Jerry C. Burns, P.E.,
Billings Regional Office.
______
Letter From Alan J. Olson
Montana House of Representatives,
Helena Montana, March 6, 2001.
Mr. J. Jay Erdie, Inc.,
President, Central Mt RC&D Area, Roundup, MT.
Dear Mr. Erdie: I am very interested in the regional water project
being proposed by the RC&D. The project would service most of the
communities and surrounding areas in my House District.
I know of the struggles these communities have faced with adequate
water quantities and quality over the years. The City of Roundup has to
get their municipal water from an abandoned coal mine. The water is
nearly undrinkable. The water for the other communities up and down the
river valley is also extremely poor, not to mention their dependence on
the continued flow of the Musselshell River. Again, this year flows do
not look promising.
Knowing how low the income levels are for this area, I am happy to
see this regional approach to finding a long term solution that may be
affordable for the area citizens. I am totally in support of the
project and would be glad to assist you where possible.
Sincerely,
Alan J. Olson,
House District 8.
______
Letter From Almeda F. Moore
City of Roundup,
Roundup, Montana, March 6, 2001
Mr. J. Jay Erdie,
Chairman, Central Mt RC&D Area, Inc., Roundup, MT.
Dear Mr. Erdie: The City of Roundup is very supportive of the
proposed Musselshell Valley Regional Water Project. We have spent
nearly three years and $50,000 searching for an alternative water
source near Roundup. There is no such thing.
In addition we have spent several thousands of dollars
investigating water treatment options and costs. The total capital cost
is staggering, and added to the on-going projected operations and
maintenance costs it is prohibitive. It is not clear how and at what
additional cost we could handle the waste stream resulting from water
treatment.
We support the proposed regional water project because water was
identified by the public as our number one priority in our Capital
Improvement Plan. We believe that a regional approach, though quite
expensive in front-end capital cost, would be financially manageable
for continued operations and maintenance costs, and would result in the
best and most stable water supply we could ever hope for.
Sincerely,
Almeda F. Moore,
Mayor.
______
Letter From John Peccia
City of Harlowton,
Harlowton, Montana, March 14, 2001.
J. Jay Erdie,
President, Central Mt RC&D Area, Inc., Roundup, MT.
Dear Mr. Erdie: The Mayor and City Council of Harlowton whole
heartedly support the collective effort to solve the regional water
quality and quantity problems that have plagued the Musselshell Valley
for years.
Harlowton acquires its water from a series of wells in the
vicinity. Even when fully operational, our water quality has been very
poor, in many cases fax less than secondary national drinking water
standards. Age and deterioration have left us with only three of the
original five wells, and those remaining are producing at reduced
levels.
Hill water treatment for compliance with current and future
standards is far beyond the financial means of this relatively poor
community. This is especially true with the local debt our citizens
have recently encumbered with our new wastewater treatment project.
Please keep us informed as this proposal progresses. We offer our
assistance wherever possible.
Sincerely,
John Peccia,
Mayor.
______
Letter From Mark Solnosky
Town of Ryegate,
Ryegate, Montana, March 14, 2001.
Mr. J. Jay Erdie,
President, Central Mt RC&D Area, Inc., Roundup, MT.
Dear Mr. Erdie: The Town of Ryegate gets its water from the
alluvial gravels adjacent to the Musselshell River. As a result, we are
dependent upon the flows of the river. Recently we were informed that
our water was classified as groundwater, under the influence of surface
water, by the Water Quality Bureau of the State of Montana. This will
require treatment of some form that a community of our size cannot
afford.
The proposal put forth by our area RC&D for a regional water system
is totally supported by the Mayor and City Council of Ryegate. This
proposal appears to solve the individual potable water supply problems
of the entire Musselshell Valley. We appreciate your efforts as this
area of Montana is in dire straits when it comes to safe, clean
drinking water.
Sincerely,
Mark Solnosky,
Mayor.
______
Letter From James C. Pinkerton
Town of Melstone,
Melstone, Montana, March 14, 2001.
Jay Erdie,
Chairman of Central Montana, Roundup, MT.
Dear Mr. Erdie: The Melstone City Council would just like to
confirm the fact that we are in full support of the Musselshell Valley
Water Project. We are very excited about being part of the project and
are willing to help in any way.
Thank you for including us.
Sincerely,
James C. Pinkerton,
Mayor.
______
Letter From Janet M. Summers
Town of Lavina,
Lavina, Montana, March 16, 2001
Mr. J. Jay Erdie,
President, Central Mt RC&D Area, Inc., Roundup, MT.
Dear Mr. Erdie: The Town of Lavina has never had a potable water
system. We do have a sanitary sewer collection and lagoon system that
we are in the process of upgrading.
We would like in the future to provide the community with a potable
water system and increased fire protection, but we are faced with the
same quality and quantity problems encountered up and down the
Musselshell Valley. Presently, water is obtained from individual
private shallow groundwater wells which depend on the flow in the
Musselshell River. This flow varies from feast to famine, as the river
is entirely unpredictable, The quality of this shallow water is
marginal at best.
The Mayor and Town Council would like to go on record as supporting
the investigation of the feasibility of this project and request your
assistance in providing the basic element of life to our citizens.
Sincerely,
Janet M. Summers,
Mayor.
______
Prepared Statement of the Crow Creek Sioux
Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Request
The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe respectfully requests fiscal year 2002
appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation from your subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development. Funds will be used to finalize all pre-
authorization documents (Special Study and Environmental Assessment)
underway and supported by the subcommittee since fiscal year 1995. The
amount requested is $179,000 as set out below:
Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Request
Tribal Administration and Coordination........................ $69,600
Finalize Special Study and Conduct Value Engineering.......... 37,560
Finalize Environmental Assessment............................. 30,575
Reclamation Oversight......................................... 41,265
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 179,000
Proposed Activities
The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, in cooperation with the Bureau of
Reclamation, has concluded draft documents: ``Special Study, Crow Creek
Sioux Municipal Rural and Industrial Water Project'' and the
environmental assessment for the referenced project. The Bureau of
Reclamation has reviewed the draft documents and has made formal
comments on the documents that will pen-nit the Tribe to finalize them.
The request for funds is to provide the means to conclude the Special
Study and the environmental assessment during this session of Congress
when draft bills will be presented to the South Dakota delegation by
the Tribe for consideration of a project authorization. This is not a
new project concept but one that has been in development for more than
five years with the support of the Bureau of Reclamation and periodic
line-item appropriations by Congress. The request for this year will
finalize the planning phase of the project and permit the Tribe to
advance to the construction phase given an authority through enabling
legislation.
This has been a long process. Requirements for the planning phase
of the project have evolved to meet requirements of Bureau of
Reclamation oversight. Reclamation has advised us of the need for
additional funds to complete the necessary work. Reclamation should be
consulted for their concepts on the remaining requirements.
In addition to the completion of the documents, it is expected that
value engineering of the preferred project alternative will be
conducted to determine if savings can be realized while meeting the
objectives to develop a safe and dependable supply of water for the
Crow Creek Indian Reservation.
Exigent Conditions
There is an immediate need to construct facilities to distribute
Missouri River water and improve water quality throughout the Crow
Creek Indian Reservation. This action will reduce health risks to the
membership of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and other residents of the
Reservation. With the exception of the community of Fort Thompson,
water supplies and water quality are deplorable throughout the
Reservation. There is an immediate need to extend pipelines from Fort
Thompson to the community and day school at Stephan where water quality
is extremely poor, and existing wells are limited in capacity.
Inspired by efforts of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, including the
planning for the Reservation municipal, rural and industrial water
system, the water treatment facilities at Fort Thompson have been
improved with microfilters that produce a high quality water for
residents of the community. The new water treatment facilities are
incorporated as a part of the Reservation-wide project and, with
construction of necessary pipelines, will permit delivery of high-
quality water north to Stephan.
The need for the Reservation-wide project is underscored by the
recent population releases from the 2000 census. Our planning had
projected population increases on the Reservation from 1990 to 2000 at
a rate of 14.3 percent. The actual rate of growth experienced in the
last decade was 26.7 percent, significantly greater than the seemingly
liberal projection made from the 1990 census.
The subcommittee is respectfully requested to carefully consider
our needs and provide the necessary funding to complete the planning
stage of our project.
Project Construction Costs and Recommended Project Alternative
Costs of alternatives, including construction contracts and non-
contract costs, range from $15,403,000 (Alternatives b, d and e) to
$17,853,000 (Alternative a). After accounting for funding already
authorized by Congress for the Mid-Dakota project that could be
transferred to the reservation project by amended legislation
(Alternatives a and b) or used within the reservation in general
conformity to plans by Mid-Dakota, additional funding authorization
from Congress ranging from $10,634,000 (Alternatives b, d and e) to
$12,946,000 (Alternative a) is required.
Based on the least cost scenario and self-determination, the Crow
Creek Sioux Tribe's preferred project alternative is Alternative a
($12,946,000 in new funding authority; see description below): source
of water on Lake Sharpe near Fort Thompson constructed, operated.,
maintained and replaced by the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe. Environmental
factors, such as cultural and historic resources, and identifiable
impacts on physical and biological resources are not significantly
different between alternatives and had least influence on the
recommended alternative.
Five alternatives for developing the project were:
--A project constructed, operated, maintained and replaced by the
Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and meeting all needs through year 2030
within the Crow Creek Indian Reservation. Source of water would
be the Missouri River with modifications to the existing intake
and water treatment plant at Fort Thompson.
--A project constructed, operated, maintained and replaced by the
Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and meeting all needs through year 2030
within the Crow Creek Indian Reservation. Source water would be
the Missouri River from the intake and water treatment plant
constructed by Mid-Dakota on Lake Oahe. The reservation system
would be connected to the Mid-Dakota system along the northern
and eastern borders of the reservation. Mid-Dakota would sell
water to the Tribe as a bulk user.
--A project constructed, operated, maintained and replaced by the
Crow Creek Sioux Tribe to service the Fort Thompson and Crow
Creek community areas, and rural areas in between, from intake
and water treatment plant at Fort Thompson. The balance of the
project would be constructed, operated and maintained by Mid-
Dakota with water supply from the Mid-Dakota intake and water
treatment plant.
--A project constructed, operated, maintained and replaced
exclusively by Mid-Dakota to service the entire reservation
with water supply from the Mid-Dakota intake and water
treatment plant.
--A project constructed by Mid-Dakota throughout the reservation and
operated, maintained and replaced by the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe
with water supply from the Mid-Dakota intake and water
treatment plant.
--Future Operation, Maintenance and Replacement (OMR) Costs.
Future operation, maintenance and replacement costs, including
staff, equipment. electricity, chemicals and all other materials
necessary for repair and replacement, have an estimated range in cost
from $597,195 (Alternative a) to $826,185 (Alternatives b, d and e).
Present Value of Net Costs
Net costs were estimated as the present value of the costs of
construction and OMR less the off-setting value of construction and OMR
earnings by members of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, an under-employed
labor force. Present value of net costs ranges from $15,348,180
(Alternative a) to $22,673,000 (Alternatives d and e).
Construction Schedule
A construction schedule beginning in fiscal year 2003 and ending in
fiscal year 2006 is proposed. Construction and non-contract employment
would provide 131 full-time equivalent man years of employment. Annual
levels of funding needs would range from $2,135,000 in fiscal year 2003
to $6,736,000 in fiscal year 2005.
Environmental Factors
Pipelines proposed for the project range from 1.5 to 12 inches in
diameter and have lengths ranging from 269.8 miles (Alternative c) to
276.4 miles (Alternative a). From five to seven pump stations with
horsepower ranging from 103.0 to 164.5 are representative of the
alternatives. From six to eight reservoirs with up to 495,000 gallons
of capacity are proposed. Future population growth will require
approximately five acres of new wastewater lagoons by year 2030.
Approximately 70 wetlands will be crossed by the project on the
basis of the current layout, which will be modified in later designs to
avoid wetlands. As many as 31 perennial stream crossings will be made.
Nearly 43 miles of prime farmlands will be crossed by pipelines where
most of the farmlands are defined as ``prime'' if irrigated in the
future. Approximately 23 miles of unstable soils will be crossed. Up to
134 miles of trust lands (slightly less than 50 percent of the total)
will be crossed by pipelines.
An Environmental Assessment and a class I cultural resource
inventory and descriptive report have been prepared.
Population
The statistical summary below shows that population of the Crow
Creek Indian Reservation in 1990 was 1,756 persons. 1,532 Indian
persons and 224 non-Indian persons. Based on the rate of growth in the
Indian and non-Indian population over the past several decades, year
2030 population estimates were made resulting in a future population of
3,417. These estimates recognize a relatively high growth rate within
the Indian population and out-migration of non-Indians.
Income and Employment
Median household income in 1990 on the Crow Creek Indian
Reservation averaged $12,763 as contrasted with averages for the state
of South Dakota of $22,503. The Indian labor force on the reservation
represented 55.7 percent of the population and 29 percent were
unemployed. Across the state of South Dakota. 74.3 percent of the
population was in the labor force, and 4. 1 percent were unemployed.
Income levels on the reservation are extremely low, and unemployment is
extremely high.
Ability to Pay
Consistent with the income levels described above, annual residual
household income on the reservation is $8,924 after deducting the costs
of housing and electricity from median household income. Results from
the American Housing Survey of 1993, showed that 80 percent of those
surveyed were paying $13.59 per month for water and sewer for
comparable levels of residual income. Sewer costs on the reservation
are $13 per month leaving $0.59 per month for water bill payments if
residents of the reservation are expected to pay as much as 80 percent
of the population with comparable income in the American Housing
Survey.
Existing Public Water Systerms and Water Quality of Sources
Existing public water systems in the communities of Fort Thompson,
Stephan, Big Bend and Crow Creek serve a population of 1,520. The
maximum flow capacity of the systems is 53O gallons per minute, and
reservoirs with 241,000 gallons of capacity are available.
Fort Thompson receives water from the Missouri River, which has
good-quality water (479 milligrams per liter total dissolved solids as
contrasted with the suggested level for secondary contaminants of 500
milligrams per liter). Crow Creek community receives its water from
wells with total dissolved solids of 706 milligrams per liter. Stephan
and Big Bend also receive water from wells with total dissolve solids
ranging from 1,500 to 1.928 milligrams per liter. Wells serving the
households in the rural areas have water quality ranging from an
average 702 milligrams per liter total dissolved solids to a maximum of
4,440.
Future Water Sources
The best available source of future water for the reservation is
the Missouri River with water quality reflective of Fort Thompson. The
annual flow of the Missouri River at Pierre is 15,873,000 acre-feet
annually as contrasted with the largest stream on the reservation (Crow
Creek) with an average annual flow of 13,749 acre feet. The Missouri
River is dependable with minimum monthly flow of 192.000 acre-feet.
Periods of no flow are experienced on all reservation streams.
Groundwater sources are generally (but not universally) adequate for
single households in the rural areas and water quality ranges from good
to poor. Nitrates may be increasing in groundwater sources, and there
is evidence of copper exceeding maximum contaminant levels in rural
water, but the source of copper is unknown and can be naturally
occurring or introduced through the plumbing.
Note: the reporting is from the draft Special Study, which will
change in detail. but not substance, in the final report to be
concluded.)
______
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 2002 to implement the needed and authorized program.
Failure to appropriate these funds will result in significant economic
damage in the United States and Mexico. The President's request for
funding is not known at this time. Studies have shown that
implementation of the program has fallen behind the needed pace to
control salinity concentrations. Water quality commitments to
downstream U.S. and Mexican water users 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 water
quality standard mandated levels 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 $75 million in additional
damages in the United States. The Forum, therefore, believes
implementation of the program needs to be accelerated to a level beyond
that requested by the past President.
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.
overview
In 2000, Congress reviewed the program as authorized in 1995.
Following hearings, and with Administration support, the Congress
passed legislation that increased the ceiling authorized by this
program by $100 million. Reclamation is now prepared to receive
proposals to move the program ahead and the Basin states have funds
available to cost-share up-front.
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 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 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 in control.
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 and to reduce downstream damages 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 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. 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. The result is that salt
loading is being prevented at costs often less than half the cost under
the previous program. Congress this last year recommitted its support
to the revised program when it enacted Public Law 106-459. The Basin
states are, pursuant to Public Law 104-127 (FAIRA), cost sharing up-
front on an annual basis, which adds 43 cents for every federal dollar
appropriated. 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 funding identified above for the implementation
of the newly authorized program, the Salinity Control Forum urges the
Congress to appropriate necessary funds needed 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 this
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 their
Compact-apportioned waters of the Colorado River.
______
Prepared Statement of the Tucson Regional Water Council
The Tucson Regional Water Council (TRWC) thanks you for the
opportunity to provide testimony concerning the Bureau of Reclamation's
fiscal year 2002 budget request. TRWC is a non-profit organization in
Tucson, Arizona, whose members are water providers, business and
professional people, and concerned citizens dedicated to ensuring a
long-term, stable quality water supply for southern Arizona. Our 260
members appreciate the Committee's long support of the Central Arizona
Project. We are grateful to you and your colleagues for your years of
dedication to this project.
The TRWC wishes to address the Bureau of Reclamation's budget that
pertains to water resources in southern Arizona and, in particular, the
Bureau's plans that continue to positively impact our Central Arizona
Project water planning.
Colorado River water delivered by the Central Arizona Project will
be part of the City of Tucson's water supply starting in April. This
new supply enables the City to turn off groundwater wells that are
pumping water from underneath the metropolitan area, which should halt
further subsidence. The other CAP contract holders in the metropolitan
area, particularly those located north of the City of Tucson, are
proceeding with their plans to develop the necessary infrastructure to
receive and deliver Colorado River water. In August 2000, the Bureau of
Reclamation's Phoenix Area Office published an appraisal study titled
``Alternatives for Using Central Arizona Project Water in the Northwest
Tucson Area.'' It is vital for the well being of the residents of these
areas to have access to a renewable water supply and to partner with
the Bureau of Reclamation in developing delivery systems.
In addition, in order to fully utilize CAP water, users must have
reliability features as part of the Central Arizona Project. It is
imperative for the Bureau of Reclamation to proceed with their planning
for Tucson Reliability and for the Northwest region. We respectfully
request that the Bureau of Reclamation budget line item: Tucson
Reliability Division be approved. This line item allows the Bureau to
continue its planning process.
In addition, work done by the Bureau of Reclamation in southern
Arizona is necessary for this region to continue its water resources
planning. We are experiencing great growth, which requires coordination
with other agencies. Valuable services provided by the Bureau through
its inter-regional budget items include environmental and interagency
coordination, general planning activities, providing technical
assistance, and planning investigations programs.
Of particular importance is the on-going Bureau Investigations
Defined Program for southern Arizona, the Southern Arizona Water
Management Study. This study is assisting the State of Arizona, several
municipalities in southern Arizona, and two Indian Nations in
coordinating planning efforts and Central Arizona Project water
exchanges. The study is instrumental in identifying long-range water
needs, water supply and treatment management options, and developing
efficient water management strategies.
The Tucson Regional Water Council is closely associated with the
Bureau under the Tucson Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Study, which
is funded under Title XVI--Water Reclamation and Reuse Program. The
study, which is known locally as the Regional Effluent Planning
Partnership, is in its fourth year. Regional participants meet monthly
to cooperatively plan for use of reclaimed wastewater, this regions
only water resource that will increase in the future. We are in the
process of developing the Feasibility Study report, which includes
projects from three municipalities.
The Bureau of Reclamation is providing water management and
resource planning services that are crucial for southern Arizona
residents. We respectfully request that the Bureau receive its full
funding requests for fiscal year 2002.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of South Dakota
The Perkins County Rural Water System in South Dakota, which was
authorized by Congress through passage of Public Law 106-136 during
1999, has submitted a request to your subcommittee for federal fiscal
year 2002 funding. I am writing in support of their request.
Perkins County has a shortage of good quality water. During times
of drought, conditions become desperate. Perkins County experienced
drought conditions last summer. Dams dried up and people had to haul
water for livestock and domestic use.
Several years ago, local people in Perkins County had a vision to
bring high quality Missouri River water to the county and proceeded to
work out an innovative agreement to extend the North Dakota Southwest
Pipeline to Perkins County. The North Dakota Southwest Pipeline is a
federal project that draws water from the Missouri River and runs south
through southwestern North Dakota. The significant federal investment
in the Southwest Pipeline Project indicates the recognition of the
severe water problems that exist in this area.
The people of Perkins County and the rest of South Dakota have
invested much time, effort, and funding to bring the Southwest Pipeline
from North Dakota to the South Dakota border. In fact, South Dakota has
already invested $1.1 million from the state Water and Environment Fund
to reserve capacity in the Southwest Pipeline. I just authorized an
additional $150,000 loan to help local sponsors complete the Final
Engineering Report required by the federal project authorization. This
report will be completed later this summer so that any federal funding
obtained can be used immediately for final design and construction.
This federal, state, and local partnership has worked hard and well
to bring quality Missouri River water to the Perkins County border.
However, now is the time to complete construction of the distribution
system in Perkins County and get the people the water they so
desperately need. By approving the funding request from Perkins County
Rural Water System, you will be helping to make that happen.
I make this request knowing that federal budget restraints and
limited resources prevent many projects from being funded or receiving
the full request. I also understand that tough decisions concerning the
types of projects that are to receive federal assistance will have to
be made as the appropriation process is completed. But, it would be
very unfortunate if this needed project is delayed further.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of the Perkins County
Rural Water System budget request. If I can be of any assistance,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
______
Prepared Statement of the Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc.
The Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc. respectfully submits
this written testimony to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development for appropriations for fiscal year 2002.
Perkins County is located in northwestern South Dakota on the North
Dakota state line. We are the second largest county in South Dakota and
have a total of 2,866 square miles. Perkins County has a population of
3,542 people, of which 2,065 live in the two incorporated towns of
Lemmon and Bison. Number one business in our county is agriculture and
support services for the farmer and rancher. We have three
manufacturing plants in Lemmon that employ approximately 130-140 full
time jobs. Other large employers in Perkins County are federal
government offices, state highway district offices, rural electric
offices, county government, hospital and clinic and three school
districts. Perkins County and the rest of northwestern South Dakota is
a semi-arid climate with an annual precipitation of 14 inches, of which
76 percent falls normally in April through September.
History of this project goes back to 1982 when a group of farmers
and ranchers in Perkins County were contacted by Southwest Pipeline
Project in North Dakota if they would be interested in obtaining water
to serve Perkins County. At that time, approximately 100 farms and
ranches and the towns of Bison and Lemmon were interested, so Perkins
County was included in their feasibility study. In November of 1992,
Southwest Water Pipeline Project had grown to the point that Perkins
County was contacted about receiving water from the project and to be
included in the engineering design work. A committee of interested
landowners and representatives from the two incorporated towns were
organized through the Perkins County Conservation District/Natural
Resources Conservation Service. From this committee, nine directors
volunteered to serve on a board to study the feasibility of rural water
for the county. In March of 1993, Perkins County Rural Water System,
Inc. was organized as a non-profit organization. Two grants were
obtained from the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural
Resources for $50,000 each to do a feasibility study. At the same time,
the Directors were able to acquire good intention fees from rural
landowners, state land, federal land, and the two towns for a total of
$28,250 to cost share the state money on an 80-20 share basis. A
feasibility study was conducted for Perkins County Rural Water by KBM,
Inc. of Grand Forks, North Dakota, and the Alliance of Rapid City,
South Dakota in 1994. In the 1995-96 South Dakota legislature, we
obtained state authorization and appropriation of one million dollars.
This money was used to up-size the pipe in North Dakota for our
capacity and for administration costs of Perkins County Rural Water. We
have signed a contract with the North Dakota State Water Commission to
deliver 400 gallons per minute to the border. We have also signed
contracts with both towns to be the sole supplier for their water
systems. We have had a very good response from the rural farmers and
rancher in that 50 to 60 percent have signed and paid for water
contracts delivered to their farmstead. The total for those contracts
equals $81,500 plus obligations of another $72,000 when the project
becomes a reality. To the ranchers and farmers of Northwestern South
Dakota, that is a substantial investment for them to make. We also will
be signing a contract with a grazing association that run livestock on
US Forest Service land. In the fall of 1999, we received federal
authorization with the 106th Congress for a 75 percent grant of twenty
million dollars. We were unable to obtain appropriations in 2000 for
the 2001 budget though we were able to obtain a loan from the State of
South Dakota for $150,000 to operate till fiscal year 2002. The budget
presented has been sent to the Bureau of Reclamation in Bismarck, North
Dakota to be entered in their budget processing for 2002 thru 2003.
During our feasibility study, conducted by the combination of two
engineering firms of the Alliance of South Dakota and KBM, Inc. of
North Dakota, several alternatives were looked at to provide Perkins
County with quality water. These alternatives were pumping water from
Shadehill Lake or from deep-water wells drilled into the Fox Hills
formation. Due to the high salt content, both of these sources would
have to use reverse osmosis treatment that is very costly to build and
operate. Buying bulk water from a large rural water system turned out
to be the most feasible. Water from Southwest Water Authority is
already treated at a large treatment plant and distributed to the
border of North Dakota and South Dakota.
The quality of water in Northwestern South Dakota is the main
concern for the health and well being of the people. Although the water
in Perkins County typically meets the primary standards established by
the US EPA, most of the chemicals in the water are exceedingly high by
the State of South Dakota standards. Due to the fact that new standards
by the EPA are set each year, it will be impossible for small water
systems such as those in our towns to comply. Just across the line in
North Dakota, two small towns have exceeded the fluoride levels from
the same aquifer that water is pumped in South Dakota. At this time,
fluoride in the Town of Lemmon is within one to two tenths of the MCL
set by EPA through the Safe Drinking Water Act. In the deep wells of
both Bison and Lemmon, the total dissolved solids, sulfates, and sodium
consistently exceed the recommended levels set by EPA. Sodium is the
major concern with the water in Perkins County. Running at 450 parts
per million and above, the medical community has problems with people
who have to be on a salt free diet. In the rural areas, bacteria
contamination has been noted in wells that are dug into shallow
aquifers. There are two letters in the appendix that relate to both the
medical and the rural problems. Also, the rural population has noticed
declining water levels in these same wells due to drought and over use.
We are currently in a drought that has dried up any surface water
supplies for livestock. If water had been available, some ranches would
not have had to sell or ship livestock out of the county last fall.
In Table 1, we show construction costs of our project, which
includes approximately 375 miles of pipeline along the support
appendages. A map of the total system is appendix one. We will have
reservoirs strategically located within the county to use for both
storage and pressure to be able to provide the quantity of water that
the people of Perkins County needs. The connection to Southwest Water
Pipeline is included at 5.5 million dollars. This money will cover the
capitalization of the pipeline to provide PCRWS with the water needed
to operate. Since we have paid and will pay for the construction on
both sides of the border, we will be able to obtain water at the cost
of operation and maintenance. With State money, we have been able to
pay for our share of the up sizing of the pipe that has been
constructed in the last 3-4 years to the border. Also included is 1.75
million dollars for public water system's upgrading within the county
that have deteriorated to the point that they could not afford to
purchase our water.
In Table 2, we have included the operation's cost of the system.
This table includes total operation costs, debt service and reserve
payments when the system is operating at peak capacity.
Table 3 includes the request for fiscal year 2002. The request is
1.25 million dollars higher than requested for 2002. Since we did not
receive any money for 2001, our time line is moving up for completion
of the project. We are able to do this much construction work in one
year and hope to finish the project in 4-5 years with this size
appropriation per year.
At the end of the report, we have included letters representing
people who have a problem with the water quality in Perkins County.
They include the county extension educator, doctors in our local
hospital and a letter from the Town of Lemmon stating the problems that
they have with the current water status. Also there is a letter from
our engineering firm showing how the system may save money because of
the low pipe price at this time.
One of the reasons given for not obtaining money for fiscal year
2001 is that we are categorized as a new project. This is not totally
true. Our start began in 1986 with the congressional approval of
Southwest Water Authority (SWA) in North Dakota. We were going to
attach an amendment increasing the ceiling level of SWA, but both the
state and our congressional delegation believed it would be faster if
we went with stand-alone legislation. Since the whole project costs $20
million dollars, we could be built in four to five years. Other wise
our contracts would be too small for the larger construction firms to
bid.
Water quality and quantity in Perkins County has been a plague for
the county over many years. Droughts, both long and short term, are a
fact of life for the people in this area. Being able to obtain quality
water during these periods and having a backup system for other times
would make the life in the county easier. Due to our isolation from
major water supplies, this may be our only chance to obtain water at an
affordable cost.
At the present time, we are working on our final engineering
report, environmental and cultural resources reports, and, with a 50-60
percent signup rate, we are still signing up farmers and ranches. Upon
obtaining the amount requested, we would be able to start construction
in the spring of 2002 and have the system built in 3-4 years. We know
that funds are hard to obtain, but finding quality water in our area is
even harder. Thank you for reading our report and, on the behalf of the
people of Perkins County South Dakota, we hope you can find the funds
to build our system.
TABLE 1.--PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION--SOUTHWEST PIPELINE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item No. units Units Unit price Extended price
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobilization......................................... 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00
Water Main:
1.5" PVC......................................... 671,400 If 2.00 1,342,800.00
2.0" PVC......................................... 228,500 If 2.10 479,850.00
3.0" PVC......................................... 222,000 If 2.25 499,500.00
4.0" PVC......................................... 283,800 If 2.50 709,500.00
6.0" PVC......................................... 379,500 If 4.00 1,518,000.00
8.0" PVC......................................... 204,500 If 6.75 1,380,375.00
1.0" Poly........................................ 300 If 4.50 1,350.00
4.0" Poly........................................ 4,500 If 12.25 55,125.00
1.0" Curb Stop....................................... 6 ea 175.00 1,050.00
1.5" Curb Stop....................................... 166 ea 275.00 45,650.00
Water Meters:
Residential Meters............................... 172 ea 275.00 47,300.00
2" Water Meters.................................. 17 ea 450.00 7,650.00
4" Meter Station..................................... 1 ea 12,000.00 12,000.00
8" Meter Station..................................... 1 ea 15,000.00 15,000.00
Frost Proof Water Meter.............................. 27 ea 950.00 25,650.00
Water Service Installation........................... 184 ea 100.00 18,400.00
River Crossings...................................... 13 ea 5,000.00 65,000.00
Non-cased Bore....................................... 94 ea 600.00 56,400.00
Cased Bore........................................... 8,600 If 50.00 430,000.00
Gate Valves:
2"............................................... 85 ea 300.00 25,500.00
3"............................................... 15 ea 375.00 5,625.00
4"............................................... 36 ea 400.00 14,400.00
6"............................................... 50 ea 475.00 23,750.00
8"............................................... 40 ea 620.00 24,800.00
Pressure Reducing Valves............................. 40 ea 11,000.00 440,000.00
ARV Station.......................................... 193 ea 1,200.00 231,600.00
Reservoir Pumping Station............................ 4 ea 175,000.00 700,000.00
Booster Stations..................................... 4 ea 150,000.00 600,000.00
Signs................................................ 418 ea 21.00 8,778.00
Seeding.............................................. 225 Ac. 300.00 67,500.00
Gravel............................................... 18,000 Ton 10.00 180,000.00
Municipal Improvements............................... 1 LS 1,750,000.00 1,750,000.00
Reservoir (2,000,000 Gal)............................ 1 LS 1,200,000.00 1,200,000.00
Connection to SW Pipeline............................ 1 LS 5,500,000.00 5.500,000.00
----------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--Construction......................... .............. ......... .............. 17,532,553.00
==========================================================
US Bureau of Rec. Admin.............................. .............. ......... .............. 544,494.00
Engineering:
Design & Construction Admin...................... .............. ......... .............. 496,107.00
Construction Observation......................... .............. ......... .............. 340,000.00
Additional Services.............................. .............. ......... .............. 160,000.00
Legal & Administration............................... .............. ......... .............. 100,000.00
Contingencies & Construction Int..................... .............. ......... .............. 826,846.00
----------------------------------------------------------
Total project costs............................ .............. ......... .............. 20,000,000.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Cost of Perkins County Rural Water
COST OF CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING...................... $14,500,000.00
COST OF UPFRONT AND INCREMENTAL COSTS................... 5,500,000.00
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS............................... 20,000,00.00
========================================================
____________________________________________________
PROJECTED FUNDING:
GRANT FUNDS:
FEDERAL 75 percent.............................. 15,000,000.00
STATE 10 percent................................ 2,000,000.00
LOAN FUNDS: LOCAL 15 percent........................ 3,000,000.00
YEARLY OPERATIONAL & MAINTENANCE (w/o water)............ 161,000.00
DEBT SERVICE (40 years @ 6 percent)..................... 179,000.00
ANNUAL RESERVE ($350,000 after 20 years)................ 17,500.00
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
TOTAL............................................. 357,500.00
========================================================
____________________________________________________
PROJECTED WATER USAGE:
RURAL............................................... 48,600,000
CITIES.............................................. 85,800,000
GRAZING ASSOC....................................... 75,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
TOTAL (gal/yr).................................... 209,400,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
COST OF WATER:
Minimum monthly charge ($40.00 per month)........... 84,000.00
Pasture taps ($175 per year)........................ 21,875.00
Grazing Assoc. ($175 per year)...................... 2,450.00
O&M cost ($1.38/1000 gal)........................... 289,800.00
========================================================
____________________________________________________
TOTAL............................................. 398,125.00
Table 3.--Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc. Budget fiscal year
2002
ITEM EXTENDED PRICE
FINAL ENGINEERING (COMPLETION) ADMIN. (INCLUDES BOR
COST)............................................... $380,000.00
50 PERCENT LEMMON INFRASTRUCTURE........................ 720,000.00
50 PERCENT MAINLINE TO LEMMON........................... 550,000.00
VAULT AND PIPE TO ND-SD BORDER.......................... 100,000.00
50 PERCENT MAINLINE TO BISON............................ 900,000.00
LODGEPOLE POCKET........................................ 600,000.00
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
TOTAL............................................. 3,250,000.00
______
Letter From Clark B. Johnson
City of Lemmon,
Lemmon, SD, March 6, 2001.
Perkins County Rural Water System Inc.
Bison, SD.
Dear Perkins County Rural Water: We write this letter in support of
funding that can be obtained to expedite the construction of the
Perkins County Rural Water System. The City of Lemmon is being held in
a very ``crucial'' situation. Many blocks of the city water mains are
in desperate need of replacement before pipeline water can be delivered
to our system. Lemmon is experiencing many and increasing numbers of
water main breaks. However, some existing wells are planned to be used
in conjunction with pipeline water for fire protection and watering of
city parks. This entire project needs to be designed with all factors
considered so that precious tax dollars are not wasted in joining the
two systems. Consequently, Lemmon cannot go forward with this critical
project until significant dollars are appropriated so they are assured
this project will become a reality. Meanwhile, the city continues to
experience an increasing number of pipeline failures.
Lemmon's existing water supply continues to be a public health
hazard. The water source is high in flouride and sodium. High levels of
flouride and sodium are health hazards that will be eliminated when
pipeline water is delivered to the Lemmon area.
One should also note, the tremendous support the system has
received in the immediate rural area around the city. These rural
residents have already paid at least $475 each in hopes of obtaining
quality water sometime in the future. The rural signups are a testament
to the poor quality of rural water. When people voluntarily part with
their own money--there is a problem.
We hope these concerns will help you to obtain funding for the
Perkins County Rural Water System.
Sincerely,
Clark B. Johnson,
President of the Council, City of Lemmon.
______
Letter From Robert E. Grossman, MD
West River Health Services,
Hettinger, ND, February 28, 2001.
Paul Adcock,
Manager, Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc.; Bison, SD.
Dear Mr. Adcock: I would heartily endorse your water project. I do
feel that the benefits from decreased sodium, specially in light of the
high elderly population and the large number of patients with cardiac
disease, the new water is a wonderful resource.
As a physician who cares for many people in that area, I would
definitely endorse the water project for Perkins County.
Sincerely,
Robert E. Grossman,
MD, FAAFP.
______
Letter From Vincent Gunn
South Dakota State University,
Bison, South Dakota, February 28, 2001.
Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc.,
Bison, South Dakota.
Dear Sirs: As a SDSU County Educator for Agronomy, I am writing
this letter to express the Great Need for improving the water quality
in Perkins County located in northwestern South Dakota.
I have personally collected water samples from many drinking water
sources located throughout Perkins County. Almost all the human water
samples are contaminated with excessive sodium (about 1600 to 2400
ppm), total dissolved solids, non-sodium salts such as sulfates, and
fluoride. These high levels of salts and solids present health hazards
to the water consumer that need to be corrected.
During the past six months I have been testing livestock water for
total salts after reports were received of cattle, sheep and horses
being killed in Perkins County, South Dakota. Excessive salts such as
sodium and sulfates were found in the livestock drinking water. The
water killed cattle at the 7800 parts per million level that is
substantially lower than the supposedly 10,000 parts per million ``book
value'' salt concentration level required to kill livestock.
Likewise, many houseplants, trees, and shrubs cannot tolerate the
high salt level found in our human drinking water. Many well-documented
circumstances have been seen with the Perkins County human drinking
water killing plants.
Please find us a water source that is safe for human, livestock,
and plant health.
Sincerely,
Vincent Gunn,
SDSU County Educator.
______
Letter From Jim West
KBM, Inc.,
Grand Forks, North Dakota, February 28, 2001.
Paul Adcock,
Mgr., Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc., Bison, SD.
Dear Paul: Yesterday, a Mr. Roger Fjeldahl from Northern Pipe
Products Inc. was in my office and indicated that PVC pipe was at very
low price. Apparently, last fall PVC pipe prices fell, and they are
very attractive from a funding point of view.
If you or your funding institution is interested in low prices, it
would be prudent to obtain money as soon as possible to began
installation of pipe. The pipe prices will probably continue to
escalate upward for the next seven years.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jim West,
Vice President.
______
Prepared Statement of the Tucson Regional Water Council
The Tucson Regional Water Council (TRWC) thanks you for the
opportunity to provide testimony concerning the Bureau of Reclamation's
fiscal year 2002 budget request. TRWC is a non-profit organization in
Tucson, Arizona, whose members are water providers, business and
professional people, and concerned citizens dedicated to ensuring a
long-term, stable quality water supply for southern Arizona. Our 260
members appreciate the Committee's long support of the Central Arizona
Project. We are grateful to you and your colleagues for your years of
dedication to this project.
The TRWC wishes to address the Bureau of Reclamation's budget that
pertains to water resources in southern Arizona and, in particular, the
Bureau's plans that continue to positively impact our Central Arizona
Project water planning.
Colorado River water delivered by the Central Arizona Project will
be part of the City of Tucson's water supply starting in April. This
new supply enables the City to turn off groundwater wells that are
pumping water from underneath the metropolitan area, which should halt
further subsidence. The other CAP contract holders in the metropolitan
area, particularly those located north of the City of Tucson, are
proceeding with their plans to develop the necessary infrastructure to
receive and deliver Colorado River water. In August 2000, the Bureau of
Reclamation's Phoenix Area Office published an appraisal study titled
``Alternatives for Using Central Arizona Project Water in the Northwest
Tucson Area.'' It is vital for the well being of the residents of these
areas to have access to a renewable water supply and to partner with
the Bureau of Reclamation in developing delivery systems.
In addition, in order to fully utilize CAP water, users must have
reliability features as part of the Central Arizona Project. It is
imperative for the Bureau of Reclamation to proceed with their planning
for Tucson Reliability and for the Northwest region. We respectfully
request that the Bureau of Reclamation budget line item: Tucson
Reliability Division be approved. This line item allows the Bureau to
continue its planning process.
In addition, work done by the Bureau of Reclamation in southern
Arizona is necessary for this region to continue its water resources
planning. We are experiencing great growth, which requires coordination
with other agencies. Valuable services provided by the Bureau through
its inter-regional budget items include environmental and interagency
coordination, general planning activities, providing technical
assistance, and planning investigations programs.
Of particular importance is the on-going Bureau Investigations
Defined Program for southern Arizona, the Southern Arizona Water
Management Study. This study is assisting the State of Arizona, several
municipalities in southern Arizona, and two Indian Nations in
coordinating planning efforts and Central Arizona Project water
exchanges. The study is instrumental in identifying long-range water
needs, water supply and treatment management options, and developing
efficient water management strategies.
The Tucson Regional Water Council is closely associated with the
Bureau under the Tucson Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Study, which
is funded under Title XVI--Water Reclamation and Reuse Program. The
study, which is known locally as the Regional Effluent Planning
Partnership, is in its fourth year. Regional participants meet monthly
to cooperatively plan for use of reclaimed wastewater, this regions
only water resource that will increase in the future. We are in the
process of developing the Feasibility Study report, which includes
projects from three municipalities.
The Bureau of Reclamation is providing water management and
resource planning services that are crucial for southern Arizona
residents. We respectfully request that the Bureau receive its full
funding requests for fiscal year 2002.
______
Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) is
pleased to submit the following testimony for the record, regarding
programs contained in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's, the Department
of Energy's and the Army Corps of Engineers' fiscal year 2002 budget
for your Subcommittee's hearing record.
MWD strongly recommends your approval of a Reclamation and Corps of
Engineers fiscal year 2002 budget that includes $263.6 million in
funding for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. We urge your support for
reauthorization of the California Water Supply and Ecosystem
Enhancement Act (California Bay-Delta Act). In addition, MWD urges your
support for the San Joaquin Water Supply and Exchange Program, as part
of the reauthorization of the California Bay-Delta Act. We ask for your
support for additional federal funding for Reclamation's Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Program. We request that Congress appropriate
$17.5 million 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 Recovery Implementation effort that will provide for
conservation of endangered and threatened species and habitat along the
lower Colorado River, and requests an additional $2.5 million for the
Lower Colorado River Operations Program, which provides mitigation for
impacts associated with Reclamation's projects.
California has developed a Colorado River Water Use Plan
(California Plan) to provide a framework for the agencies which rely on
river water to reduce diversions to within California's 4.4 million
acre-foot per year normal apportionment. Successful implementation of
the California Plan is vital to the water supply reliability of the
State of California, and is critical to the Colorado River interests of
the six other Colorado River Basin states and Mexico. MWD supports
Reclamation funding of $2 million for Salton Sea Habitat Enhancement
activities in support of environmental permits required to proceed with
the California Plan. Two water management reservoirs near the All-
American Canal, an 8,000 acre-foot reservoir to the east of the
Imperial Valley, and a 3,000 acre-foot on the western side of the
Valley would help facilitate the implementation of the California Plan
and could be of significant benefit to the other Colorado River Basin
states and Mexico. Reclamation funding of $2.8 million is needed in
fiscal year 2002 in order to provide for environmental impact analysis,
and if a decision is made to move forward, the initial stage of project
design.
MWD supports the recommendation by the National Drought Policy
Commission that drought planning assistance funding needs to be
increased at the national level and recommends the Bureau's drought
planning program be increased to $5 million. Finally, MWD desires your
support of funding necessary for work required to remove radioactive
uranium mill 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.
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA--RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2002 APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations Bill MWD Recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation:
California Bay-Delta $210.9 million
Ecosystem Restoration.
Salton Sea Habitat $2 million
Enhancement Activities.
Water Management $2.8 million
Reservoirs near the All-
American Canal.
Colorado River Basin $17.5 million plus sufficient funds for
Salinity Control required operation and maintenance of
Program--Title II. constructed units and for plan
formulation
Endangered Species $12.179 million
Conservation/Recovery
Projects.
Lower Colorado River $2.5 million above President's budgeted
Operations Program. amount (Support 3 state/federal/tribe
effort)
Land and Water $7 million
Conservation Fund.
Water Conservation Field $500,000 for MWD
Services Program Earmark.
National Fish and $1.3 million for LCR MSCP (Support 3
Wildlife Foundation. state/federal/tribe effort)
Office of Native American $250,000 for LCR MSCP (Support for 3
Affairs. state/federal/tribe effort)
Drought Assistance $5 million
Program.
Brackish Water $3 million
Desalination.
Department of Energy: Removal $10 million
of Radioactive Tailings in
Moab, Utah.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: $52.7 million
Bay-Delta Related Activities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Accardo, Joseph Jr., Executive Director, Port of South Louisiana,
letter from.................................................... 477
Achterman, Gail L., Executive Director, Deschutes Basin Resources
Conservancy, letter from....................................... 669
Alabama State Docks, prepared statement.......................... 644
Alachua County Board of County Commissioners, Alachua County,
Florida, prepared statement.................................... 416
American:
Chemical Society, prepared statement......................... 399
Museum of Natural History, prepared statement................ 413
Public Power Association, prepared statements389, 400........
Rivers, prepared statements452, 556, 610.....................
Phytopathological Society, prepared statement................ 428
Society:
For Microbiology, prepared statement..................... 392
Of Civil Engineers, prepared statement................... 578
Of Mechanical Engineers, prepared statement.............. 588
Of Plant Physiologists................................... 428
Wind Energy Association, prepared statement.................. 442
Anderson, Maj. Gen. Phillip R., Division Engineer, South Atlantic
Division, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 99
Arizona Department of Water Resources, prepared statement........ 679
Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee:
(Colorado), prepared statement............................... 534
(Kansas), prepared statement................................. 535
(Oklahoma), prepared statement............................... 538
Prepared statement........................................... 530
Arnold, Brig. Gen. Edwin J., Jr., Division Engineer, Mississippi
Valley Division, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the
Army, Department of Defense--Civil............................. 99
Association:
For the Development of Inland Navigation in America's Ohio
Valley, prepared statement................................. 519
Of State Dam Safety Officials, Inc., prepared statement...... 576
Of State Floodplain Managers, Inc., prepared statement....... 454
Baker, Kenneth E., Acting Deputy Administrator for Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security
Administration, Department of Energy........................... 141
Statement of................................................. 195
Barrett, Lake H., Acting Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management, Department of Energy......................... 351
Prepared statement........................................... 353
Batemon, Stanley D., Chairman, St. Clair County Commission,
letter from.................................................... 489
Berggren, Robert B., General Manager, Pleasant Hill Recreation &
Park District, letter from..................................... 594
Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah, question
submitted by................................................... 364
Biggs, Otha Lee, President, Monroe County Commission and Judge of
Probate, letter from........................................... 487
Biomass Energy Research Association (BERA), prepared statement... 431
Board of:
Levee Commissioners for the Yazoo Mississippi Delta, prepared
statement.................................................. 542
Mississippi Levee Commissioners, prepared statement.......... 527
Supervisors, Contra Costa County, California, prepared
statements450, 591.........................................
Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc., prepared statement.............. 383
Bowman, Admiral Frank L., Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion
Program, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department
of Energy...................................................... 141
Opening statement............................................ 177
Prepared statement........................................... 180
Browne, John C., Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory,
prepared statement............................................. 77
Bucknam, Charles H., prepared statements613, 649.................
Business Council for Sustainable Energy, prepared statement...... 420
Butte County, CA, prepared statement............................. 455
Byard, Jim, Jr., Mayor, City of Prattville, letter from.......... 485
Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia, question
submitted by................................................... 368
Caddo/Bossier Port Commission, prepared statement................ 629
California:
Reclamation Board, prepared statement........................ 508
Society of Professional Engineers, prepared statement........ 684
Castro, Brig. Gen. Randal R., Division Engineer, Pacific Ocean
Division, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 99
Central:
Arizona Water Conservation District, prepared statement...... 652
Montana Resource and Conservation Area, Inc., prepared
statement.................................................. 690
Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation District, prepared
statement...................................................... 490
Chambliss, Clyde, Chairman, Autauga County Commission, letter
from........................................................... 483
City of:
Crookston, Minnesota, prepared statement..................... 604
Folsom, California, prepared statement....................... 598
Gridley, prepared statement.................................. 404
Huntington Beach, prepared statement......................... 566
Inglewood, California, prepared statement.................... 566
Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners, prepared statement 561
Miami Beach, Florida, prepared statement..................... 574
Newark, New Jersey, prepared statement....................... 571
Norwalk, prepared statement.................................. 565
Oceanside, prepared statement................................ 684
Phoenix, prepared statement.................................. 491
Roseville, California, prepared statement.................... 597
Sacramento, prepared statement............................... 465
Salem, Oregon, prepared statements598, 674...................
Santa Barbara, California, prepared statement................ 570
Stillwater, Minnesota, prepared statement.................... 601
Clark County Regional Flood Control District, prepared statement. 551
Coachella Valley Water:
District, prepared statement................................. 517
District; Imperial Irrigation District; Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California; and San Diego County Water
Authority, prepared statement.............................. 652
Coalition:
Of EPSCoR States, prepared statement......................... 599
Of Northeastern Governors, prepared statement................ 403
Cochran, Hon. Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, statement of.. 101
Colorado River:
Basin Salinity Control Forum, prepared statement............. 699
Board of California, prepared statements463, 677.............
Commission of Nevada, prepared statement..................... 675
Colorado School of Mines, prepared statement..................... 615
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, prepared statement.. 513
Colusa Basin Drainage District--California, prepared statement... 686
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, prepared
statement...................................................... 493
Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association, Inc., prepared
statement...................................................... 480
County of:
Sonoma, California, prepared statement....................... 517
Tulare, California, prepared statement....................... 464
Crow Creek Sioux, prepared statement............................. 696
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho:
Question submitted by........................................ 211
Statement of................................................. 301
Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from Idaho, statement of.......... 302
Decker, Dr. James, Acting Director, Office of Science, Department
of Energy...................................................... 219
Prepared statement........................................... 236
Statement of................................................. 233
Delesdernier, Captain Mark, Jr., President, Crescent River Port
Pilots' Association, letter from............................... 480
Dixon, Dr. Robert, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Power
Technologies, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Department of Energy........................................... 219
Prepared statement........................................... 224
Statement of................................................. 221
DOE University Research Program in Robotics (URPR), prepared
statement...................................................... 393
Domenici, Hon Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico:
Opening statements of1, 23, 81, 99, 141......................
Questions submitted by16, 45, 199, 280, 286, 293, 362........
Statement of................................................. 299
Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota, statement
of............................................................. 100
Doyle, Robert, Assistant General Manager, Land Division, East Bay
Regional Park District, letter from............................ 592
Dozier, Richard T., President, Montgomery Marina, Inc., letter
from........................................................... 488
Eastern Municipal Water District, prepared statement............. 635
Farish, Anne H., Mayor, City of Monroeville, letter from......... 484
Fifth Louisiana Levee District, prepared statement............... 448
Fernbach, Paul, Regional Commissioner, Pleasant Hill--Martinez
Soccer Association, letter from................................ 595
Flowers, Lt. General Robert B., Commander and Chief of Engineers,
Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army, Department
of Defense--Civil1, 99.........................................
Prepared statements7, 110....................................
Statements of5, 108..........................................
Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and Dry Prairie Rural
Water, prepared statement...................................... 660
Fricks, William M., Chairman, Rome City Commission, letter from.. 490
Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, prepared statement...... 668
Geothermal:
Energy Association, prepared statement....................... 381
Resources Council, prepared statements.....................377, 436
Geringer, Jim, Governor, Office of the Governor, State of
Wyoming, letter from........................................... 682
Gimello, Richard, Executive Director, New Jersey Maritime
Resources, State of New Jersey, Department of Transportation,
prepared statement............................................. 581
Gioconda, General Thomas F., Acting Deputy Administrator for
Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration,
Department of Energy........................................... 141
Statement of................................................. 185
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Board of Directors, prepared
statement...................................................... 688
Glidewell, Sue L., Mayor, City of Rainbow City, letter from...... 485
Gordon, General John, Under Secretary of Energy for Nuclear
Security and Administrator, National Nuclear Security
Administration, Department of Energy23, 141....................
Prepared statements32, 149...................................
Statements of23, 26, 143.....................................
Gowan, Lynn A., Acting Chairman, Montgomery County Commission,
letter from.................................................... 487
Graham, David, on behalf of the Institute for Defense Analysis... 53
Green Brook Flood Control Commission, prepared statement......... 470
Griffin, Brig. Gen. Robert H., Division Engineer, Great Lakes and
Ohio River Division, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of
the Army, Department of Defense--Civil......................... 99
Gulf Intracostal Canal Association, prepared statement........... 645
Hector, Louis J., Vice President, Transportation and
Infrastructure, State of New York, Empire State Development
Corporation, prepared statement................................ 581
Hicks, Kathy, Mayor, City of Walnut Creek, letter from........... 593
Hoffmeister, Laura M., Mayor, City of Concord, letter from....... 592
Hollings, Hon. Ernest F., U.S. Senator from South Carolina,
questions submitted by50, 373..................................
Huntoon, Carolyn L., Ph.D., Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of
Environmental Management, Department of Energy................. 299
Prepared statement........................................... 307
Statement of................................................. 305
Integrated Petroleum Environmental Consortium, prepared statement 410
International Association of:
Fire Fighters, prepared statement.................. 380
Fish and Wildlife Agencies, prepared statement............... 637
Johnston, Ronald, Program Director, Cup Completion Act Office,
Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior.............. 81
Prepared statement........................................... 89
Jordan, James T., President, J.T. Jordan Cotton, Inc., letter
from........................................................... 486
Jordan, Terry T., Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal District, letter
from........................................................... 478
Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, prepared statement..... 596
Kiedrowski, Ronald L., Interim City Manager, City of San Pablo,
letters from................................................... 596
Larrabee, Richard M., Director, Port Commerce Department, The
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, prepared statement.. 581
Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Inc., prepared statement..... 460
Little River Drainage District, prepared statement............... 448
Lorino, Michael R., Jr., President, Associated Branch Pilots,
letter from.................................................... 479
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, prepared statement...... 638
Los Osos Community Services District, prepared statement......... 544
Louisiana Governor's Task Force on Maritime Industry, prepared
statement...................................................... 473
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute (LRRI), prepared
statement...................................................... 415
Lower Colorado River Basin States--Arizona, California and
Nevada, prepared statement..................................... 680
Low Impact Hydropower Institute, prepared statement.............. 439
Madsen, Brig. Gen. Peter T., Division Engineer, South Pacific
Division, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 99
Magwood, William D. IV, Director, Office of Nuclear Energy,
Science and Technology, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and
Technology: 219
Prepared statement........................................... 252
Statement of................................................. 249
Martz, Judy, Governor, Office of the Governor, State of Montana,
letter
from........................................................... 693
Mathis, Joseph F., Executive Director, Prattville Area Chamber of
Commerce, letter from.......................................... 488
McDaniels, Elmer, Manager, Tumalo Irrigation District, letter
from........................................................... 666
McDonald, J. William, Regional Director, Pacific Northwest
Region, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior...... 81
Prepared statement........................................... 84
Statement of................................................. 82
Melcher, Brig. Gen. David F., Division Engineer, Southwestern
Division, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 99
Merced Irrigation District, prepared statement................... 472
Metropolitan:
St. Louis Sewer District, prepared statement................. 462
Water District of Southern California, prepared statement.... 708
Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, prepared
statement.................................................. 467
Mid-Dakota Rural System, Inc., prepared statement................ 654
Miller, Rebecca A., prepared statement........................... 651
Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association, prepared statement 631
MNI Wiconi Project, prepared statement........................... 670
Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA), prepared
statement...................................................... 457
Moss Landing Harbor District, prepared statement................. 620
Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington:
Questions submitted by280, 285, 374..........................
Statement of................................................. 348
NAPA River Flood Control Project, prepared statement............. 546
National:
Agriculture Water Council, prepared statement................ 665
Corn Growers Association, prepared statement................. 428
Audubon Society, prepared statement.......................... 640
Hydrogen Association, prepared statement..................... 423
Mining Association, prepared statement....................... 607
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, prepared statement...... 683
New York University, prepared statement.......................... 407
Northern California Water Association, prepared statement........ 686
Nuclear:
Energy Institute, prepared statement......................... 424
Waste Strategy Coalition, prepared statement................. 396
Oregon Water Resources Congress, prepared statement.............. 667
Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc., prepared statement...... 702
Pontchartrain Levee District, prepared statement................. 618
Port:
Of Garibaldi, prepared statement............................. 568
Of San Diego, prepared statement............................. 630
Poso Creek Improvement Joint Powers Agreement Agencies, prepared
statement...................................................... 464
Powell, Phil, Mayor, City of Centre, letter from................. 484
Red River:
Valley Association, prepared statement....................... 623
Waterway Commission, prepared statement...................... 629
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada:
Opening statement of......................................... 219
Prepared statements62, 344...................................
Questions submitted by212, 272, 283, 292, 365................
Statements of2, 101, 344.....................................
Rhoades, Brig. Gen. M. Stephen, Division Engineer, North Atlantic
Division, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 99
Richard, Roger P., Executive Director and CEO, Port of Greater
Baton Rouge, letter from....................................... 477
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
prepared statement............................................. 632
Robinson, C. Paul, Director, Sandia National Laboratories,
prepared statement............................................. 66
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, prepared statement......... 646
San Bernardino County Administrative Office, prepared statement.. 553
Sanguinetti, Phillip A., President, The Anniston Star, letter
from........................................................... 483
Santa Clara Valley Water District, prepared statement............ 495
Santa Cruz Port District, prepared statement..................... 545
Schlesinger, Dr. James, on behalf of the Panel to Assess the
Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear
Stockpile...................................................... 53
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Seminole Tribe of Florida, prepared statement.................... 515
Smith, David, President, Pleasant Hill Baseball Association,
letter from.................................................... 594
Smith, Sandy, Executive Director, Monroeville Area Chamber of
Commerce, letter from.......................................... 486
Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), prepared statement... 429
South Dakota School of Mines & Technology, prepared statement.... 446
Southeastern:
Federal Power Customers, Inc., prepared statement............ 451
Universities Research Association, prepared statement........ 444
Southern Nevada Water Authority, prepared statement.............. 455
St. Francis Levee District of Arkansas, prepared statement....... 529
State of:
Illinois, prepared statement................................. 505
South Carolina, prepared statement........................... 559
South Dakota, prepared statement............................. 701
Steamship Association of Louisiana, prepared statement........... 387
Stepan, J. Craig, General Manager, Warrior & Gulf Navigation
Company, letter from........................................... 489
Strock, Brig. Gen. Carol A., Division Engineer, Northwestern
Division, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 99
Tarter, C. Bruce, Director, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, University of California, prepared statement....... 72
Thompson, Hon. Fred, U.S. Senator from Tennessee, statement of... 25
Tornblom, Claudia L., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Management on Budget), Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department
of the Army, Department of Defense--Civil...................... 99
Prepared statement........................................... 104
Statement of................................................. 102
Tucson Regional Water Council, prepared statements701, 707.......
Tule River Improvement Joint Powers Agreement Agencies, prepared
statement...................................................... 465
University:
Corporation for Atmospheric Research, prepared statement..... 405
Of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, prepared statement.. 419
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement.... 584
Van Winkle, Major Gen. Hans A., Deputy Commanding General (Civil
Works), Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 99
Ventura Port District, prepared statement........................ 622
Vining, Robert, Chief, Program Management Division, Corps of
Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army, Department of
Defense--Civil................................................. 99
Wallace, Jamie D., President, Selma and Dallas County Chamber of
Commerce, letter from.......................................... 489
Water Replenishment District of Southern California, prepared
statement...................................................... 558
West Tennessee Tributaries Association, prepared statement....... 616
Wolf, Robert, Director, Program Budget and Liaison, Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior........................ 81
Prepared statement........................................... 180
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Additional committee questions................................... 16
Civil works program.............................................. 7
Corps officers involved in the Upper Mississippi and Illinois
navigation
study.......................................................... 4
Federal role in addressing the nation's water resources needs.... 4
Other observations............................................... 9
Proposed South Carolina Port on Savannah River................... 15
Upper Mississippi and Illinois navigation study.................. 8
Water resources planning and the national interest............... 7
What we are doing................................................ 9
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
National Nuclear Security Administration
Ability to meet military requirements48, 49......................
Acceleration of decline in facilities............................ 48
Additional committee questions45, 199............................
Adequacy of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.................. 200
Administration:..................................................
Strategic review212, 213.....................................
Support for nonproliferation programs........................ 205
Advanced hydrotest facility at LANL.............................. 210
APT and AAA...................................................... 209
Background....................................................... 77
Backlog of maintenance........................................... 45
BN-350 reactor................................................... 211
Budget priorities................................................ 147
Butler-Cutler report............................................. 50
Certifiable pits schedule........................................ 192
Certification of stockpile....................................... 193
Challenges and advances of the stockpile stewardship program..... 187
Condition of the nuclear weapons stockpile....................... 199
Costs of infrastructure repair................................... 43
Critical skills.................................................. 203
Cyber security................................................... 201
Defense PA&E review of April 2000................................ 47
Environmental management funding................................. 50
Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization initiative33, 69..
Findings......................................................... 56
Fiscal year 2002 Department of Energy budget request............. 182
Five-year:
Budgeting plan............................................... 47
Plan for national ignition facility.......................... 194
Foster panel recommendations46, 202..............................
Goal 1: Stockpile stewardship.................................... 154
Goal 2: Securing nuclear facilities, materials, information, and
expertise worldwide............................................ 161
Goal 3: Detecting, deterring, and impeding proliferation......... 166
Goal 4: Providing naval nuclear reactors......................... 170
Goal 5: Vitality and readiness of the NNSA enterprise............ 171
Goal 6: Creating a well-managed organization..................... 172
Hazardous activities............................................. 215
Headquarters reorganization...................................... 42
Highly technical and specialized employees....................... 182
How to use additional resources.................................. 199
Improvements are still needed.................................... 153
Industrial partnerships.......................................... 204
Infrastructure23, 212............................................
As a morale and recruitment issue............................ 49
Funding...................................................... 193
Initiative................................................... 42
Kansas City plant............................................ 29
Size/composition............................................. 26
Status....................................................... 186
International programs status.................................... 197
IPP program status............................................... 196
Laboratory directed research & development204, 208...............
LANL infrastructure.............................................. 28
Livermore lab building 132....................................... 29
Management....................................................... 31
Microsystems and engineering sciences applications (MESA) complex 201
Mission accomplishments.......................................... 151
Modern pit production facility................................... 51
Morale issues.................................................... 40
MOX:
Facility status.............................................. 197
Program status............................................... 190
MPC&A program status............................................. 196
National ignition facility202, 215...............................
Status....................................................... 191
Naval:
Reactor budget request summary............................... 178
Reactor's accomplishments.................................... 146
Reactors Department of Energy budget detail.................. 184
Nevada:
Operations facility.......................................... 29
Test site.................................................... 213
Infrastructure........................................... 28
NNSA accomplishments............................................. 144
Nuclear:
Cities initiative............................................ 207
Status................................................... 196
Non-proliferation area status................................ 195
Test readiness and long-term pit production.................. 147
Observations..................................................... 150
Ongoing reviews and their effect on the budget request........... 146
Overall cost to rebuild the infrastructure of the complex........ 45
Pantex infrastructure............................................ 29
Pit production................................................... 195
And certification............................................ 203
Plutonium pits................................................... 214
Polygraphs....................................................... 208
And employee morale.......................................... 209
Program:
Infrastructure and administrative requirements............... 185
Technical requirements....................................... 184
Progress on the accelerated strategic computing initiative....... 217
Recapitalization:
Funding...................................................... 30
Initiative30, 46.............................................
Recommendations.................................................. 56
Recruitment...................................................... 41
Reinvestment rates compared to industry and Department of Defense 49
Retirement systems............................................... 209
Safety and security record....................................... 205
Sandia infrastructure............................................ 28
Second line of defense program status............................ 197
Size of the future nuclear weapon stockpile...................... 200
Status of:
Complex...................................................... 27
Defense nuclear non-proliferation program.................... 148
Of MOX facility program...................................... 189
NNSA......................................................... 143
Stockpile stewardship program................................ 185
Stockpile requirements........................................... 44
TA-55 at Los Alamos National Lab................................. 44
Tritium.......................................................... 216
Extraction facility.......................................... 30
Modernization and consolidation.............................. 51
Upgrades to the advanced test reactor............................ 211
Value of nuclear power........................................... 181
Weapons complex.................................................. 31
Y-12:
Infrastructure............................................... 29
Plant........................................................ 30
Chain of command......................................... 42
Infrastructure........................................... 41
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
Office of Environmental Management
Accomplishments and progress in fiscal year 2001................. 308
Additional committee questions................................... 362
Benefits of cooperation with foreign waste management programs... 365
Budget priorities................................................ 306
Challenges to the Yucca Mountain site............................ 352
Clean up progress................................................ 305
Compliance agreements342, 359, 363...............................
Continuing the investment in science and technology.............. 314
Contractor financial issues...................................... 358
Disposal of waste at the Nevada test site........................ 366
Efficiency goals................................................. 307
Ensuring we use resources effectively............................ 316
Environmental management program373, 374.........................
Excess facilities................................................ 368
Fiscal year 2002 activities...................................... 354
Funding for research and development............................. 361
Giving priority to the highest risk materials and wastes......... 311
Hanford:
River corridor cleanup project............................... 376
Tri-party agreement renegotiations........................... 375
Worker layoffs............................................... 376
Improving:
Contract management.......................................... 317
Project management........................................... 316
Industry and university program.................................. 370
INEL buried waste--Idaho......................................... 343
Linking sites through integration................................ 318
Litigation....................................................... 356
Local oversight funding.......................................... 366
Meeting:
Commitments.................................................. 374
Long-term stewardship responsibilities....................... 315
New responsibilities......................................... 313
The challenge of the environmental legacy.................... 308
MOAB mill tailings site346, 348, 364.............................
Remediation plan............................................. 347
Surveillance at the.......................................... 347
National Energy Technology Laboratory............................ 369
Nuclear power plants............................................. 367
Office of:
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management........................ 351
River Protection:
Funding349, 374..........................................
Building new double-shell tanks.......................... 376
Future funding for the WTP............................... 375
Renegotiation of Bechtel contract........................ 375
Performance:
Based contracts.............................................. 363
Measures..................................................... 354
Possible renegotiation of Bechtel Washington contract............ 350
Preparations for Yucca Mountain repository....................... 351
Program management and integration............................... 356
Providing effective Federal oversight............................ 319
Safety first..................................................... 311
Savannah River Ecology Laboratory................................ 373
Summary of:
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation request....................... 353
The fiscal year 2002 budget.................................. 319
Supporting the closure of major sites............................ 313
The fiscal year 2002 request..................................... 310
Total systems life cycle costs................................... 366
Transportation of waste.......................................... 365
Vitrification technology......................................... 367
Waivers for disposition of scrap metals from radiological areas.. 368
Waste:
Acceptance, storage, and transportation...................... 355
Funding...................................................... 359
Isolation pilot plant........................................ 362
Management education and research consortium (WERC)361, 362,
364........................................................
Working with our regulators and other stakeholders............... 318
Yucca Mountain:
Radiation standards.......................................... 357
Site time table.............................................. 357
Office of Power Technologies, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Office of Science
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
Additional committee questions................................... 272
Advanced:
Accelerator applications program251, 294.....................
Radioisotope power systems................................... 258
Scientific computing legislation............................. 265
Attracting scientists............................................ 285
Basic energy sciences............................................ 244
Biological and environmental research............................ 245
Biomass.......................................................... 273
Biomass v. solar................................................. 282
Budget:
Development.................................................. 296
For Science.................................................. 286
Distributed energy resources..................................... 223
Energy:
Efficiency................................................... 278
Policy report................................................ 270
Research analyses............................................ 248
Supply R&D programs--technical information management........ 249
Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory...................... 285
Facility operations.............................................. 286
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.................................. 225
For renewable energy......................................... 269
Fusion energy sciences246, 283...................................
Generation IV.................................................... 250
Nuclear energy systems initiative292, 293....................
Technologies................................................. 263
Genomes to life program235, 284, 286, 287........................
Geothermal....................................................... 272
High energy and nuclear physics234, 235..........................
High energy physics.............................................. 246
High temperature superconductivity center........................ 283
Hydrogen......................................................... 273
Infrastructure................................................... 264
At the science labs.......................................... 287
Nuclear facilities management................................ 261
Looking to the future--fiscal year 2002.......................... 238
Low dose radiation effects program............................... 290
Medical isotope program.......................................... 259
Million solar roofs.............................................. 274
Mining Industry of the Future Program............................ 266
Multiprogram energy laboratories--facilities support............. 247
Nanotechnology research.......................................... 289
National:
Energy problem............................................... 222
Nuclear Security Administration labs......................... 296
Nuclear:
Energy research initiative................................... 264
Energy technologies program.................................. 250
Physics...................................................... 247
Power plants249, 266.........................................
Safety....................................................... 268
Our accomplishments and recent successes......................... 237
Performance measures............................................. 243
Program direction/organizational issues.......................... 262
Project management environment................................... 285
PubSCIENCE....................................................... 290
Purex reprocessing technology.................................... 268
Questions submitted to the:
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology............. 292
Office of Power Technologies, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy..................................................... 272
Office of Science............................................ 283
Recycling spent nuclear fuel..................................... 267
Reliability274, 282..............................................
Renewable energy:
R&D.......................................................... 223
Resources.................................................... 225
Renewables....................................................... 275
Report to Congress on thorium fueled reactor assemblies.......... 295
Research:
And development.............................................. 255
On brain imaging............................................. 288
Safeguards and security program support.......................... 248
Science:
Program direction............................................ 248
Programs--advanced scientific computing research............. 244
Solar............................................................ 274
Spallation neutron source234, 288................................
Status of nuclear engineering programs........................... 294
Superconductivity................................................ 273
The revitalization of the nuclear power option................... 252
Underground science at the waste isolation pilot project......... 290
University:
Nuclear science and engineering program...................... 264
Reactor fuel assistance and support.......................... 257
Research reactors............................................ 252
Wind............................................................. 272
Wind energy...................................................... 271
Working with NNSA labs280, 281...................................
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Additional committee questions91, 125............................
American River Watershed:
(Common features), California................................ 139
(Folsom Dam modifications), California....................... 139
Animas-La Plata.................................................. 94
Assessing the Nation's needs for water and related land resources
management..................................................... 111
Beach re-nourishment policy change............................... 126
Bluestone Dam safety project..................................... 133
Budget:
Impacts...................................................... 93
Process...................................................... 91
California:
Bay-delta restoration........................................ 87
Power........................................................ 83
Central Valley project restoration fund83, 87....................
Challenges based on listening sessions........................... 112
Corps backlog.................................................... 127
Dam safety and facilities operation.............................. 91
Devils Lake, North Dakota........................................ 137
Direct program................................................... 111
Feasibility and reconnaissance studies........................... 137
Fiscal year:
2000 accomplishments highlights.............................. 88
2002 Army civil works program................................ 104
Highlights of the........................................ 104
2002 budget request.......................................... 85
Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries construction--
Yazoo Basin, Mississippi....................................... 131
Government Performance and Results Act........................... 107
Grand Forks, North Dakota-East Grand Forks, Minnesota............ 138
Greenbrier basin flood control project........................... 133
Impact of the President's budget request......................... 128
Impacts to operations and maintenance budget cuts................ 132
Infrastructure129, 130...........................................
Initial assessment of circumstances.............................. 112
Lower Mud River.................................................. 136
Middle Rio Grande project endangered species..................... 95
Mission.......................................................... 85
New Mexico problems.............................................. 90
Operation and maintenance........................................ 139
Other accounts................................................... 88
Policy and Administration and Loan Program....................... 83
Project:
Cost increases............................................... 131
Planning and review.......................................... 107
Reclamation's commitment......................................... 84
Redirecting congressional priorities............................. 131
Reimbursed program............................................... 111
Robert C. Byrd locks and dam, WV & Ohio.......................... 132
Rural water programs............................................. 91
Safety of dams evaluation and modification program............... 92
South Sacramento County streams, California...................... 139
Summary of civil works program budget............................ 111
Title XVI program................................................ 93
Total budget request............................................. 83
Upper Mississippi and Illinois navigation study, Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri and Wisconsin.............................. 126
Wahpeton, North Dakota and Breckenridge, Minnesota............... 138
Water and related resources83, 86................................
New FTE...................................................... 93
West Virginia Tug Fork flood protection projects................. 134
Wheeling Creek channelization project............................ 136
Winfield locks and dam, WV....................................... 132
Yazoo basin, backwater pump, Mississippi......................... 131
Zero growth budget............................................... 90
-