[Senate Hearing 110-442]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-442
Senate Hearings
Before the Committee on Appropriations
_______________________________________________________________________
Energy and Water
Development
Appropriations
Fiscal Year
2008
110th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
H.R. 2641/S. 1751
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
Energy and Water Development Appropriations, 2008 (H.R. 2641/S. 1751)
S. Hrg. 110-442
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 2641/S. 1751
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2008, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Defense--Civil
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
Nondepartmental Witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
33-914 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
__________
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont TED STEVENS, Alaska
TOM HARKIN, Iowa ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
PATTY MURRAY, Washington MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
BEN NELSON, Nebraska LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
Terrence E. Sauvain, Staff Director
Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
PATTY MURRAY, Washington THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
JACK REED, Rhode Island KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
Professional Staff
Doug Clapp
Roger Cockrell
Franz Wuerfmannsdobler
Scott O'Malia (Minority)
Brad Fuller (Minority)
Administrative Support
Robert Rich
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Department of Energy:
Office of Environmental Management........................... 1
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.............. 20
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of
Engineers--Civil............................................... 53
Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation................ 74
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Department of Energy: Office of Science.......................... 167
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Department of Energy............................................. 221
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration... 321
Nondepartmental Witnesses
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of
Engineers--Civil............................................... 393
Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation................ 460
Department of Energy............................................. 487
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:21 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Dorgan, Murray, Domenici, Bennett, Craig,
and Allard.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Environmental Management
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES A. RISPOLI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF ENERGY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
opening statement of senator byron l. dorgan
Senator Dorgan. I call the hearing to order. Let me
apologize for the delay, but we have had two votes on the floor
of the Senate and they are just finishing.
This is the first hearing of the Energy and Water
Subcommittee this year and the first since I have assumed the
chairmanship, and I am pleased to be in this role and working
on so many interesting and divergent issues. I am also pleased
to be working with my colleague Senator Domenici. I visited the
National Laboratory at Sandia in New Mexico with Senator
Domenici 2 weeks ago. I saw some of the scope of the
subcommittee's jurisdiction during that visit and was very
impressed, very interested.
Today we have two important programs to hear from, the
Office of Environmental Management and the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management. I am going to put most of my
opening statement into the record so that we can hear the
witnesses, but let me say that the Radioactive Waste Office has
the immediate task of submitting a license for the Yucca
Mountain waste repository to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
by June 2008. The Environmental Management Office has the
immediate and long-term task of cleaning up the contamination
from nuclear weapons facilities that date back to the Second
World War. It is clear to me as I look at the budget that we
have some very serious budget problems and we will evaluate
some of those today.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I am going to put the rest of my statement in the record. I
will be using a portion of that discussion during the question
period. I want to thank both Mr. Sproat and Mr. Rispoli for
being with us today.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Byron L. Dorgan
The hearing will come to order. Thank you all for being here today.
This is the first hearing of the Energy and Water Subcommittee this
year and the first of my chairmanship.
I am happy to be in this role and excited by the prospect of
working on so many interesting and divergent issues. I am also pleased
to be working with my colleague, and long-time chairman of this
subcommittee, Senator Domenici.
I visited Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico with Senator
Domenici two weeks ago.
During that visit I saw some of the scope of this subcommittee's
jurisdiction and my colleague's wealth of experience on these matters.
Today, we have two important programs to hear from--the Office of
Environmental Management and the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management.
The Radioactive Waste office has the immediate task of submitting a
license for the Yucca Mountain waste repository to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission by June, 2008.
The Environmental Management (EM) office has the immediate and
long-term task of cleaning up the contamination from nuclear weapon
facilities that date back to World War II.
It is clear the proposed budget for the EM program is inadequate.
The EM program has recognized the shortfall in requested funding
and has proposed to focus fiscal year 2008 cleanup on the highest risk
activities across the complex. This is obviously wise.
But I'm concerned by the budget's implied premise that it is okay
to delay addressing lower risk activities.
It is very clear that this budget will lead to missed milestones
set out in cleanup agreements with the States. In fact, the Department
is already stating it intends to work with the States to modify these
cleanup agreements.
I find it unfortunate that the administration proposes to modify
cleanup agreements based purely upon lack of funding.
Nuclear waste cleanup is difficult work involving some of the most
dangerous materials on earth. We all understand that difficulties arise
in this type of work that leads to missed milestones.
But, as I understand it, the States are often understanding in
these circumstances and have agreed to make changes to the agreements
when legitimate obstacles to cleanup have arisen.
It seems too much to ask that States agree to milestone changes
simply because the Federal Government proposes to short-change such an
important program.
I'm also concerned by a fiscal year 2008 budget document statement
that says the life-cycle cost of the EM program is estimated to have
increased by $50 billion.
We need a better explanation for this estimated cost increase and
what the Department is doing to reverse this escalation.
The Department of Energy's own website has a section on the history
of the EM program and its origins in the weapons programs that produced
the contamination. The website notes that scientists in the weapons
program early on advised that the resulting waste stream presented
grave problems.
DOE's website then notes, ``The imperatives of the nuclear arms
race, however, demanded that weapons production and testing be given
priority over waste management and the control of environmental
contamination.''
This historical observation about the Cold War period still seems
applicable today.
The Department's budget proposes some big increases in a few
programs, but proposes severe decreases for Environmental Management.
I'm concerned that we are again prioritizing other activities while
not fully recognizing the risk of nuclear waste contamination or our
obligation to cleanup.
This subcommittee has members with a keen interest in seeing the
Federal Government live up to its responsibility at these waste sites.
I look forward to working with them toward this goal.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Rispoli, if you will please present
your testimony, we will include your entire testimony as part
of the record and you may summarize.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES A. RISPOLI
Mr. Rispoli. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon,
Chairman Dorgan, and I look forward to seeing other members of
the subcommittee, I am sure. I am happy to be here today to
answer your questions on the fiscal year 2008 budget request
for the Environmental Management program. I would like to thank
you and your subcommittee for your support in this program.
As you know, the EM program has solved a number of cleanup
challenges, including Rocky Flats, Fernald, and other major
facilities that process significant amounts of plutonium and
uranium and at one time presented challenges that seemed
unanswerable. We are making progress on many other complex
challenges that the program still faces. EM has been able to
achieve notable results by addressing these challenges through
risk reduction and prioritization and judicious use of the
resources that you entrust to us on behalf of the American
people.
I realize that maybe we will not get the full benefit of
this, but I would like to just quickly run through just some of
the posters here that give you the idea of the before and after
of what we have accomplished, some of the sites that we have
closed literally just in the past year and a half. So I would
like to start with the Rocky Flats poster. You can see the
before and after, a significant cleanup effort, 3.6 million
square feet of buildings demolished; the site will become a
wildlife refuge.
The next poster is Fernald in Ohio. It is not much of a
smaller site. Secretary Bodman and I were there with the
Administrator of the EPA just last month to celebrate the
closure of Fernald as well as other Ohio sites, and we will
have a couple of shots of those as well. This will also become
parkland, wetlands, prairie. You will notice on the right-hand
side of the after that there actually is a 75-acre on-site
disposal cell.
The next two are Columbus and Ashtabula, Ohio. We
celebrated those at the same ceremony. Columbus is a Battelle
Memorial Institute property. It is about 31 acres and it is now
available for reuse by the owner. The Ashtabula project is a
similar privately owned property, 42 acres, also available for
reuse by the owner.
The next shot is Miamisburg, Ohio. Miamisburg also
processed nuclear materials. In the case of Miamisburg you will
notice there are three significant buildings still there that
can be spotted in the before shot, and that is because this
particular site is being taken over by a community reuse
organization and the site will be put to a constructive reuse.
Some ongoing projects at other places: Oak Ridge, for
example, where we have a very large, significant EM site, but
at Oak Ridge, this is a picture of the Melton Valley before and
after, where we removed 600,000 tons of rock and millions of
cubic yards of soil that was contaminated.
At Savannah River, recently I went to the T Area
celebration, where we demolished 28 facilities and took care of
problems immediately adjacent to the Savannah River.
We have a picture here next of a truck pulling into the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico with the first
remote-handed transuranic waste shipment. We have since
accomplished five shipments. This is very recent, within the
past month. We have since completed five shipments of
transuranic waste from the Idaho facility to the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant after getting--obtaining, with the help
of the regulator in the State of New Mexico and the EPA, the
permits that we needed to be able to do this, a very
significant accomplishment for us.
I would like to show you a shot of a troubled project. This
is the K Basins at Hanford. It has been a very, very difficult
and challenging project. Spent nuclear fuel on the left below
22 feet of water, that we had to retrieve and then deal with
all of the disintegrated pieces that derived from that fuel,
again through 22 feet of water, with workers working with
manipulators straight down through that to maneuver and pick up
the pieces. You can see pictures of them in the center as well
as on the right side of the cleanup as it was completed.
This is important. These basins are very close to the
Columbia River and it is important to us to get these emptied
out so that we can get on with ensuring that there is no
contamination to the river from those.
The Idaho poster shows a very significant event. The
Department had statutory authority to, after waste was removed
from tanks, to close the tanks by grouting them with only de
minimis material left in the tanks. It is a relatively new
statutory authority, section 3116 of the 2005 National Defense
Authorization Act, and this was the first application of that
authority, at Idaho during the week of Thanksgiving, 2006.
These cleanup successes were accomplished by the
collaboration of DOE, the Congress, the States, and the
national regulatory agencies, Indian nations, and communities,
focusing on a common vision. All these completions and
accomplishments should be recognized as results derived from
partnerships that were founded on mutual respect and
collaboration.
The task before us is very complex. We face challenges of
having to develop and deploy new technologies as we proceed. We
recognize our regulatory commitments and must focus on our
urgent risks. At the same time, we are improving our management
performance and incorporating new project scope, and in many of
the projects we discover that the contamination is far greater
than we had anticipated. But despite all of these, we are
resulting and achieving progress.
First and foremost, safety is our top priority. We will
continue to maintain and demand the highest safety performance.
We believe that every one of our workers deserves to go home as
healthy as he or she was when they came to work in the morning.
One of my goals as Assistant Secretary is that at least 90
percent of our portfolio will meet or beat our cost and
schedule targets. Over the past year, we have personally
conducted quarterly performance reviews of all of our projects
with our leadership team. I can tell you today that we have
shown measurable improvement, but we have yet to realize the
full potential of implementing our management systems. So we
will renew our emphasis on applying these principles as we go
forward. We have not yet attained the appropriate skills mix to
most effectively implement our procurement and project
execution strategies, so we are in the process of strengthening
those capabilities.
Based on the results we are already seeing, I am optimistic
that we can fulfill these multi-year objectives to be a truly
high-performing organization.
As Secretary Bodman stated yesterday before the House
Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, the
Federal Government has an obligation to address the
environmental legacy of nuclear weapons production. Our request
of $5.655 billion consists of three appropriations: defense
environmental cleanup, non-defense environmental cleanup, and
the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
Fund.
In keeping with the principles of reducing risk and
environmental liabilities, our 2008 request will support the
following priority activities. First is stabilizing radioactive
tank wastes in preparation for treatment. This is about 31
percent of our request. We consider it to be the most clear and
imminent risk that we address in our program. Storing and
safeguarding nuclear materials and spent nuclear fuel, which is
about 17 percent of our request. Dispositioning transuranic
low-level and other solid waste, about 16 percent of our
request; and remediating major areas at our sites and
decontaminating and decommissioning excess facilities, which is
about 26 percent of our request. Examples of milestones and
planned activities by site-specific categories can be found in
my formal statement, Mr. Chairman, that I request be accepted
for the record.
This budget requests and reflects difficult decisions to
focus funding on activities we have identified to reduce the
highest risks we face. Some of these funding decisions are not
driven by existing compliance agreements. Therefore, this
budget request does not cover some of the lower risk-reducing
activities required under existing compliance agreements.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, let me assure
you that we will continue to work with this subcommittee and
our regulators in implementing our risk reduction approach,
using the resources you provide to ensure the best possible
protection for the public. Challenges lie ahead, but we are
focused on our objectives--safety, performance, cleanup, and
closure. I look forward to continuing to work with this
subcommittee and the Congress to address your concerns and
interests, and I would be pleased to answer your questions
during the hearing. Thank you, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. James A. Rispoli
Good morning, Chairman Dorgan and members of the subcommittee. I am
pleased to be here today to answer your questions on the President's
fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Department of Energy's
Environmental Management (EM) program. I want to thank the subcommittee
for support of the EM program.
The EM mission was undertaken to address the safe and successful
cleanup of the Cold War legacy brought about from five decades of
nuclear weapons development and government-sponsored nuclear energy
research. This mission, as I pointed out last year, is both inherently
challenging and innately beneficial to the American people. As this
committee knows the EM program has solved several cleanup challenges,
including Rocky Flats and Fernald, that at one time seemed
unanswerable. We are also making progress on the many other complex
challenges that the program still faces. Since I last appeared before
this committee, EM has been able to achieve notable results by
addressing these challenges through a risk reduction and prioritization
strategy and a judicious use of the resources that Congress entrusts to
us. EM is implementing this prioritized, risk reduction strategy
supported by the crucial tenets of safety, performance, cleanup, and
closure.
The President's fiscal year 2008 budget request will allow this
prioritized work on these important cleanup and closure projects to
continue across the complex. For the EM program, the President's budget
request for fiscal year 2008 is $5.66 billion. We've been able to
achieve a decrease of $173 million from the fiscal year 2007 request by
employing a thoughtful balance of reducing risk and completing cleanup
for the EM program. Nearly half of our budget request will go towards
our highest risks activities in stabilizing tank waste, nuclear
materials, and spent nuclear fuel, and another quarter is going to
clean up contaminated soil, groundwater, and unused facilities. With
this request, we are continuing on our strategic course to address high
priority-tank waste treatment and radioactive waste disposition while
preserving our site completion and closure drive.
With this budget request, the Defense Waste Processing Facility at
Savannah River Site (SRS), the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Facility
at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and the Toxic Substance Control Act
Incinerator at Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) will continue to operate,
along with the initiation of operations at the Depleted Uranium
Hexafluoride (DUF6) conversion facilities in both Ohio and
Kentucky. Design and construction will continue at the Waste Treatment
Plant at Hanford, the Sodium-Bearing Waste Treatment Plant at INL, and
the Salt Waste Processing Facility at SRS. Tank farm operations will
continue at Hanford, INL, and SRS along with spent nuclear fuel
receipt, storage, and cleanup.
At the SRS, this request will support ongoing nuclear material
processing in H-Canyon and plutonium vitrification design to support
ultimate disposition. At Hanford, it supports consolidation of
plutonium and unirradiated category 1 and 2 nuclear fuel to an off-site
location, pending a consolidation decision. Consolidation of enriched
uranium from INL to an off-site location, and design and long-lead
procurement for the U-233 disposition project at Oak Ridge Reservation
is also supported in this request.
This request enables transuranic (TRU) waste projects to continue
with priority for INL and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) TRU
waste. Other contact and remote-handled TRU shipments to the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) are also supported. Low-level radioactive
waste and mixed low-level radioactive waste activities will be
supported at Hanford, Nevada Test Site (NTS), INL, SRS, and ORR.
The request will allow high-priority waste retrieval, soil and
groundwater remediation, and decontamination and decommissioning (D&D)
of excess facilities at Hanford, INL, SRS, ORR, Portsmouth, Paducah,
LANL, and other sites. In addition, the request supports targeted
technology development and deployment in support of high-level waste,
soil and groundwater, and facility D&D.
With this budget request, EM will achieve our goals for risk
reduction and cleanup completion at:
--Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory-Site 300, California;
--Inhalation Toxicology Laboratory, New Mexico;
--Pantex Plant, Texas;
--Sandia National Laboratory, New Mexico; and,
--Argonne National Laboratory-East, Illinois.
As cleanup work is completed at sites with continuing missions, EM
will transfer long-term surveillance and monitoring activities to the
cognizant program office or, for those sites without a continuing
mission, to the Office of Legacy Management.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request will allow the EM cleanup
program to reduce risk, honor commitments and produce results worthy of
the investment of the American people. We are committed to ensuring
strong management of this complex cleanup work to secure safe and
efficient progress that protects the public, our workers, and the
environment. We have shown we can deliver meaningful results. Your
continued support will allow us to deliver results important for today,
as well as for generations to come.
RISK REDUCTION RESULTS
The results being delivered by the EM program's risk reduction and
prioritization strategy are proving that linking safety, performance,
cleanup, and closure can lead to significant outcomes. We are
communicating and discussing our challenges with our State and Federal
regulators, Congress, the communities, and other interested parties. We
believe that reasonable solutions are best found through open
interaction with all interested parties. Recently, we celebrated
another success at the completion ceremonies for the Fernald, Ashtabula
and Columbus sites. Cleanup successes achieved with the assistance of
representatives from Congress, the State and national regulatory
agencies, and the communities, collaborating and focusing on a common
vision. It is the latest demonstration of our progress following the
earlier completion of cleanup at Rocky Flats in Colorado, the Kansas
City Plant in Missouri, and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory-
Main Site in California. All these completions should be recognized as
results that have been borne from partnerships founded on mutual
respect and collaboration.
EM has also made other significant progress:
--Stabilizing and packaging for disposition all plutonium residues,
metals, and oxides (SRS and Hanford);
--Producing well over 2,000 cans of vitrified high-level waste from
radioactive tank liquid wastes (SRS and the West Valley
Demonstration Project);
--Retrieving and packaging for disposal over 2,100 metric tons of
spent nuclear fuel from the K-Basins on the Hanford site to
protect the Columbia River;
--Characterizing, certifying, and shipping close to 37,000 cubic
meters of TRU waste from numerous sites to WIPP for permanent
disposal;
--Disposing of more than 965,000 cubic meters of legacy low-level
waste and mixed low-level waste (contaminated with hazardous
chemicals); and
--Eliminating 11 out of the 13 high-risk material access areas
through material consolidation and cleanup.
In addition, on a site-specific level, we have:
--Initiated pre-conceptual design of the Plutonium Disposition
Facility at SRS;
--Completed disposal at WIPP of all legacy drummed TRU waste from
SRS;
--Completed demolition of the 232-Z facility at Hanford;
--Completed clean up at the Melton Valley area and the D&D of three
gaseous diffusion buildings at the ORR (K-29, 31 and 33) at
ORR;
--Disposed of over 8,500 tons of scrap metal from the Portsmouth
site; and
--Completed the first remote-handled TRU waste shipments to the WIPP
from INL.
SOLVING THE CHALLENGES
The task before us is extremely complex. We sometimes face the
challenge of having to engineer new approaches or invent new
technologies as we proceed. Technologies were not available or
sufficiently effective, our regulatory environment has continued to
change, performance issues have hindered progress, new scope has been
added to our program, and greater than anticipated contamination has
been found for some existing cleanup. But ingenuity and hard work are
resulting in progress.
DOE is committed to resolve this cleanup in partnership with our
stakeholders and regulators. The consequences of inaction pose
unacceptable risks to our environment and the public.
In continuing to address these challenges, EM is focusing its
cleanup efforts on the reduction of high risk issues to most
efficiently invest the department's fiscal year 2008 funding request.
We intend to overcome these challenges in collaboration with our
partners, dealing openly with any impacts to previously predicted cost,
schedule and performance. I want to assure you that we will meet these
challenges with the energy and dedication that have demonstrated our
steadfastness to our mission and our commitment to the public.
First and foremost, safety is our top priority. We will continue to
maintain and demand the highest safety performance. We have taken
measures to fully integrate safety into our project designs at an
earlier stage while assuring our line project teams have the necessary
experience, expertise, and training. Every worker deserves to go home
as healthy as she or he was when they came to work in the morning.
Safety will remain a cornerstone in the execution of our mission
objectives.
We are actively engaged, both within the department and externally
with our regulators and stakeholders, in identifying issues that impact
our mission objectives. We have been challenged by lower than expected
performance levels, increased scope, and unrealized planning
assumptions. As we identify issues that could affect future performance
and regulatory commitments, we are taking significant steps to improve
our operations in planning and executing our work. We are applying
lessons learned to help prevent future occurrences that will impact our
planning and commitments.
One of my goals as Assistant Secretary is that at least 90 percent
of our ``projectized'' portfolio will meet or exceed our cost and
schedule targets. We have begun the process of integrating our
management tools into our business processes. Over the past year, I
have personally conducted Quarterly Performance Reviews of all EM
projects with our leadership team. I report to you that we have showed
progress but we have yet to realize the full potential of implementing
our management systems and better applying risk management principles--
that is, identifying project uncertainties and developing mitigation
measures. Some of our projects have fallen short of expected
performance, but we are engaging our field management contractors with
state-of-the-practice project management methods.
Over the last year, it has become apparent that we have not yet
attained our full potential in our procurement and execution of
projects. We have instituted measures to strengthen our emphasis on
program execution. This multi-year objective already is producing
results that should provide more effective management in the future.
This initiative is being coupled with additional training for Federal
managers and staff to enhance project management and acquisition
skills. This integrated approach will deliver dividends for our
managers in the long term.
We are improving our ability to ensure that proper procurement
vehicles are available to meet our acquisition strategies. We are
taking a new look at contract types and fee structures within our
contracts. EM must acquire the best services including those of small
business, to meet our business objectives and to become a top-
performing organization.
I have asked my senior leadership at Headquarters and in the field
to take immediate actions to ensure that everyday operating processes
reflect lessons learned. Lastly, in conjunction with the National
Academy of Public Administration, EM has undertaken a review of our
organization and its associated functions and authorities. To date, the
process has identified areas for improvement, along with some
refinements of our organizational alignment. During the next few
months, EM will be implementing the resulting recommendations to ensure
we have an organizational structure that will enhance our ability to
respond to the needs of the mission.
THE FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST
The department's fiscal year 2008 budget request for defense EM
activities totals $5,655 million. The request consists of three
appropriations, Defense Environmental Cleanup, Non-Defense
Environmental Cleanup, and the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request reflects safety as its utmost
priority. The Office of Environmental Management is committed to our
safety principles and to maintaining the highest safety performance to
protect the workers, the public and the environment.
The budget request reflects prioritizing program work to balance
the goals of risk reduction; completing ongoing work to achieve
completion at four sites; and, meeting our environmental commitments.
For fiscal year 2008, EM's funding priorities are listed in order of
risk, to best address our cleanup challenges:
--Requisite safety, security, and services across EM cleanup sites;
--Radioactive tank waste storage, treatment, and disposal;
--Spent nuclear fuel storage, receipt, and remediation;
--Solid waste (transuranic, low-level, and mixed low-level wastes)
treatment, storage, and disposal;
--Special nuclear materials storage, processing, and disposition;
--Soil and groundwater remediation; and
--D&D of contaminated facilities.
Examples of milestones and planned activities for fiscal year 2008
by site-specific categories are:
Hanford
Richland
Consolidate, package, and remove of spent nuclear fuel and other
radioactively-contaminated elements within the K Basins (K-East and K-
West).--The K Basins project is a high priority, risk reduction
activity due to its close proximity to the Columbia River. The goal of
this project is removal of all spent nuclear fuel, radioactive sludge,
contaminated K Basin water, and radioactive debris from the K Basins.
The endpoint of the K Basins cleanup will mean the removal of more than
55 million curies of radioactivity that pose a threat of leakage to the
surrounding environment, including the Columbia River.
Amplify River Corridor remediation activities for Reactor Areas D,
F, and H.--The River Corridor Closure Project will complete remediation
of contaminated waste sites; the D&D and demolition of facilities that
are adjacent to the Columbia River; and placement of eight reactors
into an interim safe storage condition. The work performed within the
River Corridor Closure Project includes digging up contaminated soil,
constructing interim safe storage (cocooning) of the reactors,
demolishing facilities in the old reactor complexes and facilities in
the 300 Area, disposing of waste in the Environmental Restoration
Disposal Facility, and constructing surface barriers or caps over
contaminated sites.
Continue retrieval of contact handled suspect transuranic waste and
scheduled shipments to WIPP.--The Hanford Site contains thousands of
containers of suspect transuranic waste, low-level, and mixed low-level
wastes. The end point of this project will include the retrieval of
contact-handled suspect transuranic waste in the low-level burial
grounds, the treatment of mixed low-level waste, the disposal of low-
level waste, and certification and shipment of transuranic waste to
WIPP.
Continues on track groundwater/vadose zone remediation
activities.--Due to 40 years of vast weapon production processes,
Hanford's groundwater has been contaminated with carbon tetrachloride,
chromium, technetium 99, strontium, and uranium plumes. EM is dedicated
to preventing the potential for contaminates reaching the groundwater
by: decommissioning an additional 100 unused groundwater wells;
monitoring 700-plus wells for contaminants of concern above drinking
water standards; and, commencing design of final remediation actions to
address carbon tetrachloride and technetium plumes.
Office of River Protection
Sustain tank farm closure processes and maintain the tanks in a
safe and compliant condition.--The radioactive waste stored in Hanford
tank farms has been accumulating since 1944. Due to the age of the
tanks, a number have leaked in the past into surrounding soil and
groundwater. In order to reduce the risk of future tank leaks into the
environment, the overall objectives of this project include the
stabilization of radioactive waste stored underground in tanks,
including retrieval, treatment, disposal, and closure of the
facilities.
Progress on path forward for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization
Plant.--The Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) is critical
to the completion of the Hanford tank waste program by providing the
primary facility to immobilize (vitrify) the radioactive tank waste at
the Hanford Site. The WTP complex includes five facilities: the
Pretreatment Facility, the High-Level Waste Facility, the Low-Activity
Waste Facility, the Balance of Facilities, and the Analytical
Laboratory. In fiscal year 2008, the WTP project team plans to
complete: close-in of the annex building in the Low-Activity Waste
Facility; installation of roofing and completion of the building shell
for the Analytical Laboratory; construction of the water treatment
building in the Balance of Facilities; and renewal of construction for
the High-Level Waste Facility and the Pretreatment Facility.
Idaho
Transfer spent nuclear fuel from wet to secure dry storage.--
Promote the safe and secure receipt, dry storage, and packaging and
future transfer of the spent nuclear fuel to a Federal geologic
repository.
Continue shipments of transuranic waste to the WIPP.--Maintain
program activities that support waste characterization, packaging, and
transportation of remote-handled transuranic waste to WIPP that lead to
reduced surveillance and operation costs.
Pursue ongoing sodium-bearing waste treatment facility
construction, including efforts to gain necessary regulatory approvals
for sodium bearing waste treatment and disposal.--The overall objective
of this project is treatment and disposal of the sodium-bearing tank
wastes, closure of the tank farm tanks, and performance of initial tank
soils remediation work. Construction and operation of the sodium-
bearing waste facility will reduce potential risk to human health and
the environment by preventing the potential migration of contamination
into the Snake River Plain Aquifer, which is a sole-source aquifer for
the people of Southeastern Idaho.
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Characterize, certify, and ship above-grade transuranic waste
inventory.--The Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition Project
includes the treatment, storage, and disposal of legacy transuranic and
mixed low-level waste generated between 1970 and 1999 at LANL. Final
disposal of the legacy transuranic waste from LANL will reduce risk to
workers, as well as reduce security costs associated with transuranic
waste.
Promote soil and water remediation and monitoring.--The LANL Soil
and Water Remediation Project's objective is to identify, investigate
and remediate, when necessary, areas with chemical and/or radiological
contamination attributable to past Laboratory operations.
In fiscal year 2008, in order to fulfill the objective of
protecting and monitoring the regional aquifer, as well as long-term
surveillance and monitoring to provide necessary safeguards and
protection for surface and ground waters, the following activities are
planned:
--Perform groundwater monitoring at all major watersheds: LA/Pueblo;
Mortandad; Canon de Valle; Sandia; and in close proximity to
the major waste sites;
--Conduct stormwater sampling and implement erosion control measures;
--nstall and monitor four wells in Pajarito and Bayo canyons; and
--Complete construction of 260 Outfall Corrective Measures for
alluvial and surface water treatment system.
Oak Ridge
Continue design of U-233 down-blending project and begin Building
3019 modifications.--Down-blending the Building 3019 inventory for
disposition is in accordance with the national non-proliferation goals
by making the U-233 material unsuitable for use in weapons and reducing
security costs at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Ship contact-handled transuranic waste to WIPP.--Process 250 cubic
meters of contact-handled transuranic debris and 170 cubic meters of
remote-handled transuranic debris with shipments to the WIPP; and
continue to dispose of low-level/mixed low-level waste at the NTS.
Complete the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment fuel salt removal
remediation project.--Upon completion of active remediation,
surveillance and maintenance activities of the Molten Salt Reactor
Experiment facility will be provided until decontamination and
decommissioning of the site has occurred.
Decontaminate and decommission building K-25 and K-27, including
completing demolition of the K-25 west wing.--Surveillance and
maintenance of the K-25 and K-27 buildings will be continued in order
to maintain safe conditions. Demolition of K-25 east wing and K-27 will
occur after the decontamination and decommissioning process.
Paducah
Complete construction and startup of the deleted uranium
hexafluoride conversion facility (DUF6).--The Paducah
DUF6 conversion facility is scheduled to begin operation in
fiscal year 2008. The DUF6 conversion facility will convert
depleted uranium hexafluoride into a more stable form, depleted uranium
oxide, which is suitable for reuse or disposition. The depleted uranium
oxide will be sent to a disposal facility, the hydrogen fluoride by-
products will be sold on the commercial market, and the empty cylinders
will be sent to disposal or reused.
Store, treat, and dispose of legacy waste and newly generated
waste.--The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant is responsible for some
waste streams generated by the United States Enrichment Corporation's
operation of the Plant. In fiscal year 2008, we plan to complete
expansion of five new sections of on-site landfill for non-hazardous
waste disposal; perform ongoing characterization, packaging, treatment
and disposal of 50 cubic meters of newly generated waste (mixed and
low-level); and complete legacy low-level waste characterization,
packaging, and disposal. The continued shipment and disposal of the
waste will reduce potential for release into the environment from aging
containers.
Portsmouth
Finalize construction and startup of the uranium hexafluoride
conversion facility.--The Portsmouth DUF6 conversion
facility is scheduled to begin operation in fiscal year 2008. Like the
Paducah facility, the DUF6 conversion facility will convert
depleted uranium hexafluoride into a more stable form, depleted uranium
oxide, suitable for reuse or disposition.
Store, characterize, treat, and dispose of legacy waste generated
by activities at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.--We will
continue to characterize, treat, and dispose of any newly generated
waste; develop the management and disposal of low-level waste
associated with 438 converter shells in storage with potentially
classified waste; disposition of excess site equipment (vehicles,
scrap, etc.) and disposition of poly bottle solutions which contain
liquids with high fissile material and are required to be treated prior
to disposal.
Continue transition activities from cold shutdown mode to
decommissioning.--In fiscal year 2008, there is an increase in funding
to support the transition of the Gaseous Diffusion Plant from a cold
shutdown to decontamination and decommissioning. Activities include:
conducting environmental monitoring and reporting for groundwater,
surface water, sediment, biological, vegetation, and associated sample
collection; performing enhanced uranium deposit mitigation measures for
criticality concerns in the process buildings to eliminate near-term
safety issues; and initiating soil and groundwater investigation and/or
remediation underneath approximately 140 buildings.
Savannah River Site
Consolidate on-site Plutonium to K Area.--In order to meet the
Department's Design Basis Threat criteria, plutonium at SRS is being
consolidated into one Category 1 Special Nuclear Materials Storage
Facility. The receipt, storage, and disposition of these special
nuclear materials at the SRS allows for de-inventory and shutdown of
other DOE complex sites, while providing substantial risk reduction and
significant mortgage reduction savings to the Department.
Ship all legacy transuranic waste to WIPP and treat low-level waste
and mixed low-level waste.--In fiscal year 2008, SRS plans to dispose
of transuranic waste previously characterized as mixed low-level waste;
dispose of low-level waste and newly generated waste, including soil,
groundwater and decontamination and decommissioning wastes; dispose of
mixed low-level waste inventory and newly generated waste; and dispose
of hazardous waste inventories, thus reducing potential exposure to
project workers.
The end-state for this project is the shipment of all legacy
transuranic waste to the WIPP, the treatment of PUREX waste, and the
elimination of all legacy inventories and disposition of newly
generated low-level waste, mixed low-level waste, and hazardous waste.
Continue groundwater corrective actions across the Site.--The SRS
is working to prevent the spread of contamination into adjoining
groundwater aquifers and nearby surface waters. Existing contamination
in vadose zones, groundwater and surface water/sediments are currently
being cleaned up, thereby reducing the risk to site workers, the public
and the environment.
Treat, stabilize, and dispose legacy radioactive waste stored in
underground storage tanks.--The continuation of the design and
construction of the Salt Waste Processing Facility will aid the Defense
Waste Processing Facility in the process of safely disposing of the
liquid tank wastes. The Salt Waste Processing Facility will separate
the high-activity fraction from the low-activity fraction of the salt
waste stored in the underground tanks at the SRS. The completion of the
Salt Waste Processing Facility will support the mission of SRS in
meeting its Federal Facilities Agreement commitments for waste tank
disposition.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Operate the WIPP in a safe manner to support disposal capabilities
for transuranic waste.--The WIPP in Carlsbad, New Mexico, is the
nation's only mined geologic repository for the permanent disposal of
defense-generated transuranic waste. All of the defense-generated
transuranic waste from eligible generator sites must come to WIPP for
receipt, handling, and disposal.
CONCLUSION
The fiscal year 2008 budget request enables risk reduction to
continue. Challenges lie ahead but we are focused on our objectives and
our strategy. Safety, performance, cleanup, and closure underpin our
actions and initiatives. We are committed to work with all interested
parties to resolve issues. We look forward to continuing to work with
this subcommittee and the Congress to address your concerns and
interests. Our success relies on our effective partnerships with our
regulators, the communities, and our contractors to produce progress in
accomplishing meaningful results for the American public.
I look forward to a continuing dialog with you and the
subcommittee. This concludes my formal statement for the record. I will
be pleased to answer any questions at this time.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Rispoli, thank you very much.
We will hear from Mr. Sproat and then ask questions. But we
have been joined by the ranking member, former chairman of this
subcommittee, Senator Domenici. Senator Domenici, welcome.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
pleased to say a few words and thank you for that.
First, thanks to the witnesses for coming. I look forward
to working with you as we put together this balanced bill for
fiscal year 2008. I am glad that you are starting out this way,
which would indicate to me that you want to get a bill; you do
not want to go through what we did last year, with no bill.
I look forward to addressing many important issues
revolving around research programs that can have a real impact
on our energy security and will support cutting edge scientific
research. We will also face a number of challenging issues,
such as Katrina recovery and environmental cleanup. I
appreciate your willingness, Mr. Chairman, to visit New Mexico
to tour our great labs and hear from the people who have
devoted their professional careers to supporting our Nation's
security and nuclear deterrent. You did that with me and I am
most appreciative and will not forget that.
Mr. Chairman, you have also selected a great staff. Doug
Clapp and Franz Wuerfmannsdobler are exceptional and will serve
the subcommittee well. Along with my two veteran people, I
think we have a good team. Roger Cockrell is the best guy in
town and you kept him on water projects and he will serve us
well, Democrat and Republican.
I noted earlier that there are many challenging matters.
Two of those issues are the topic of the hearing today, Yucca
Mountain and environmental cleanup. Yucca Mountain, the budget
provides $494 million and makes the development and submission
of the license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) in 2008 a top priority.
I am going to skip through the Yucca, assuming that you
have covered most of it, and go to the matter that is haunting
the laboratory at Los Alamos with reference to cleanup. I think
you know there is a big problem there. But I would say with
reference to Yucca just one thing. Last year Senator Reid and I
developed legislation to address the potential that waste might
remain on site well past 2017, opening date for Yucca Mountain.
As Mr. Sproat pointed out in the written testimony, at the
Federal Government legal liability increases by $500 million
annually each year Yucca Mountain is delayed. Is that correct?
Mr. Sproat. That is correct.
Senator Domenici. I will continue to work with the majority
leader and the chairman to see if we can find an acceptable
compromise that will reduce our legal liability in the near
future. I hope you can think about that and work with us on
that. That is a lot of money going right out the window for
nothing.
Mr. Sproat. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. The budget provides for environmental
management at $5.6 billion for defense and non-defense. The
budget is in steady decline from the fiscal year 2006 level
that was a record at $7.3 billion. This is a reduction of
nearly 25 percent. You have got a real job.
In particular, I am concerned at what this will mean to Los
Alamos. Just 2 years ago the Department entered into a consent
agreement, Mr. Chairman, with Los Alamos and the State to clean
this up by 2015. That is a very important document and a very
important commitment. Unfortunately, the budget requests for
the past 2 years have been wildly inconsistent and insufficient
to deliver on the agreed-upon cleanup milestones.
I have spoken with Secretary Bodman regarding my
frustration with the lack of funding consistency and I believe
the Department needs to set a budget baseline that matches our
cleanup goals and then deliver on these commitments, not 1 year
but multiple years. We simply cannot continue to make
environmental management the bill payer for every new important
R&D program.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I also realize that I need to make this appeal directly to
OMB. I will do that, which has held the Department's budget
flat. But when you have a consent agreement it would seem to me
that you have got to pay for it. I understand the Secretary
will go to New Mexico and try to work out something that is
more doable, but yet over 12 or 15 years will do the job. We
will all be interested in whether that works.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Pete V. Domenici
Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome you to your first budget
hearing as chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee. I look
forward to working with you as we put together a balanced bill for
fiscal year 2008.
I look forward to addressing many important research programs that
can have a real impact on our energy security and will support cutting
edge scientific research. We will also face a number of challenging
issues, such as the Katrina recovery and environmental cleanup.
I appreciate your willingness to visit New Mexico to tour one of
our great labs and hear from the people who have devoted their
professional careers to supporting our Nation's security and nuclear
deterrent.
It means a lot to me that you would make your first laboratory
visit in New Mexico.
Mr. Chairman, you have also selected great staff--Doug and Franz
are exceptional and will serve the subcommittee well. We will also
continue to share the services of Roger Cockrell--the best water guy in
town.
Mr. Chairman, as I noted earlier there are many challenging policy
matters facing this subcommittee. Two of those issues are the topic of
this hearing today--Yucca Mountain and environmental cleanup.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN
This budget provides $494 million and makes the development and
submission of the license application to the NRC in 2008 a top
priority.
I believe that the Secretary recognizes the importance of ensuring
that the license is of the highest quality and can be vigorously
defended in 2008.
The Department has taken a new approach to standardizing the
canisters used to package and ship spent nuclear fuel to the repository
for storage. I am interested in this approach, but want to make sure
this solution will cut costs.
I know the Department is very serious about completing Yucca
Mountain by 2017; but the Congress still must pass authorizing
legislation in order for Yucca Mountain to stay on even this new
schedule. Although, I will assist in anyway I can in moving this
legislation, I am not confident that this language will pass without
significant changes, if at all.
Last year, Senator Reid and I developed legislation to address the
potential that waste might remain on site well past the proposed 2017
opening date for Yucca Mountain. As Mr. Sproat pointed out in his
written testimony that the Federal Government's legal liability
increases by $500 million annually each year Yucca Mountain is delayed.
I will continue to work with both the majority leader and Chairman
Dorgan to see if there is an acceptable compromise that will reduce our
legal liability in the near future.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
The budget provides $5.6 billion for defense and non-defense
cleanups. This budget is on a steady decline from the fiscal year 2005
record level of $7.3 billion. This is a reduction of nearly 25 percent.
I understand the Department has attempted to prioritize cleanups
based on risk in order to fit within the budget constraints. But the
facts paint a very different picture. The budget cuts will undermine
the Department's existing cleanup obligations and will push back
completion dates.
In particular, I am concerned about what this will mean for Los
Alamos. Just 2 years ago the Department entered into a Consent
Agreement with the State to cleanup the site by 2015.
Unfortunately, the budget requests for the past 2 years have been
wildly inconsistent and are insufficient to deliver on the agreed upon
cleanup milestones.
I have spoken with Secretary Bodman regarding my frustration with
the lack of funding consistency. I believe the Department needs to set
budget baselines that match our cleanups goals and then deliver on
these commitments year after year.
We simply can't continue to make environmental management the bill
payer for every new important R&D initiative. I also realize I need to
make this appeal directly to OMB, which has held the Department's
budget flat.
Nevertheless, I am committed to work with the laboratory, the State
of New Mexico, the Department and Chairman Dorgan to find the
appropriate level of funding for this cleanup effort.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Domenici, thank you very much.
CONSEQUENCES OF A REDUCED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUDGET
Senator Dorgan. Let me make a comment that I did not make
at the start of this and then I am going to call on Senator
Murray for a moment. I was looking back at the web site of the
Department of Energy. They note that scientists early on in the
weapons programs in this country's effort to produce nuclear
weapons advised that the resulting waste stream presented very
grave problems, but the DOE's own web site says: ``The
imperatives of the nuclear arms race, however, demanded that
the weapons production and testing be given priority over waste
management and the control of environmental contamination.''
Well, we understand what happened and the Department of
Energy's web site describes why it happened. Now there is a
responsibility to address it, and I am very concerned about the
proposed budget. What we are confronted with is a requirement
to address these issues with a budget that is dramatically
reduced, a budget that I think will result in substantially
missed milestones. I am going to ask about that.
But I know that both of you will be required today to
support the President's budget. That is your role. But I do
want to ask questions about the consequences. What are the
consequences of a budget that is a 23 percent reduction in 4
years for the EM budget? What is the basis of that, with so
much cleanup work yet to be done across these complexes? How
can such a great reduction in funding be proposed and what
would be its consequences?
So I will ask those questions, but I wanted to, following
Senator Domenici's comments, make those observations. I am
going to call on Senator Murray.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, I will just submit an opening
statement for the record. Just let me thank you for having this
hearing. I look forward to working with you and Senator
Domenici on the critical issues that your subcommittee is going
to have to address this year, and I want to thank Mr. Rispoli
and Mr. Sproat for being here today.
I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the importance
of cleaning up waste across the DOE complex, but particularly
at Hanford in my home State. I do want to just say quickly I am
pleased the administration is keeping its commitment to getting
the vit plant back on track and fully funded. It is a long
process. We are in it for the long haul and I appreciate that.
I have a number of questions and I will be asking them
after we have heard the testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patty Murray
Thank you Chairman Dorgan for calling this meeting to examine DOE's
cleanup efforts across the country and thank you Mr. Rispoli and Mr.
Sproat for coming here to testify today.
I glad to have the opportunity to talk about the importance of
cleaning up waste across the complex and particularly at Hanford in my
home State.
I am pleased that the administration is keeping its commitment to
getting the vit plant back on track and fully funded.
I know that this is a long process and I am it in it for the long
haul. There are several important projects ongoing at Hanford and today
I would just like to ask a few particular questions of you Mr. Rispoli.
Senator Domenici [presiding]. Thank you very much.
The chairman asked if I would just proceed with where he
was going and ask you, Mr. Sproat to, wherever you were on the
testimony, proceed.
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD F. SPROAT III, DIRECTOR
Mr. Sproat. I had not started. Thank you, Senator.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senator Domenici, Senator
Murray. Thank you very much and I appreciate the invitation of
the subcommittee to talk about the President's fiscal year 2008
appropriations request for the Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management, of which I am the Director. We have
responsibility, as you know, to design, build, license, and
operate the Yucca Mountain repository, the national high-level
waste repository.
Fiscal year 2008 is a major critical year for the national
repository program. This is the year when we have major
deliverables that are due: the supplemental environmental
impact statement for the repository, certifying the licensing
support network and submitting the license application to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The President's budget request, $494.5 million, will allow
us to achieve those milestones, which are on the critical path
to opening this repository by 2017, which is our best
achievable date. In my written testimony, which I ask be
introduced in the record, there are more specifics about our
deliverables for 2008 and the other descriptions of funding of
State and local oversight associated with the repository is
also mentioned in that formal statement.
Let me talk a little about the impact of the fiscal year
2007 final appropriations, final authorization. For fiscal year
2007, which as you know has only been passed here in the past 3
or 4 days, the President----
Senator Domenici. You mean appropriations, not
authorizations.
Mr. Sproat. I am sorry, appropriations.
The President asked for $544.5 million for the Yucca
Mountain program, of which was appropriated $444.5 million,
which was $100 million less than what the President asked for.
So right now my management team and I are in the middle of the
effort to understand the impacts of that on the program. While
we are still evaluating the impacts of the final 2007
appropriation, it is likely but not yet certain that we will
not be able to meet our best achievable schedule for opening
the repository by March 2017. A 1-year slip is likely, but we
are still evaluating the recovery options. So I have not given
up on that 2017 date.
However, we will meet our commitment to deliver the license
application for the repository to the NRC by mid-2008. It is
certain, however, that we will have a reduction in force,
across the program later in fiscal year 2007 and in 2008, even
with the full fiscal year 2008 appropriation request of $494.5
million. Exactly how much of a reduction in force and when it
will occur we are still evaluating.
What I would like to talk about next is the issue of our
ability to access or not access the Nuclear Waste Fund. I know
certain members of this committee are probably very familiar
with this issue. By 2009, fiscal year 2009, there is going to
be a major turning point for this program. Sustained funding
well above current and historic levels will be required
starting in fiscal year 2009 if we are to complete this
repository in 2017.
The current funding levels will not be adequate to support
design and, if necessary, concurrent capital purchases,
construction, transportation infrastructure, and the
transportation and disposal casks that we will need to begin to
design and purchase to open the repository by 2017. Now, one of
the problems, I think as the committee is well aware, is that
the Nuclear Waste Fund was created by the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act and is funded by a one mill per kilowatt-hour fee on all
nuclear generation in the country. As of today, the fund has a
balance of approximately $19.5 billion--that is with a ``b''--
which is invested in U.S. Treasury instruments. The Government
receives approximately $750 million per year in revenues from
ongoing nuclear generation and the fund averages about a 5.5
percent annual return on its investments.
At the present time, due to technical scoring requirements,
the Department cannot access the Nuclear Waste Fund receipts,
interest, or corpus for their intended use without having a
significant negative impact on the Federal budget deficit. In
the legislation that the administration submitted to Congress
last year and again we submitted yesterday, the President
proposes fixing this problem by reclassifying mandatory Nuclear
Waste Fund receipts as discretionary in an amount equal to
appropriations from the fund for authorized waste activities.
Funding for the program would still have to be requested
annually by the President and appropriated by the Congress from
the Nuclear Waste Fund.
While the lack of access to the fund is not critical to the
program in fiscal year 2008, it will have a serious consequence
in fiscal year 2009 and beyond. For each year beyond 2017 the
repository opening is delayed, the Department estimates that
U.S. taxpayers' potential liability to contract holders will
increase by approximately $500 million per year. This will be
in addition to the estimated current potential liability of
approximately $7 billion. There will also be added additional
costs associated with keeping the defense waste sites,
particularly the one in Senator Murray's site, open longer than
originally anticipated.
So in summary, the President's fiscal year 2008 budget
request will provide the needed funds to allow us to submit the
construction application for Yucca Mountain in mid-2008, which
is on the critical path. The significant reduction in the
fiscal year 2007 funds will present challenges that I and my
management team are working on and it puts in jeopardy our
ability to meet the March 2017 date, but we are still working
on some potential work-arounds.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Each year's delay beyond March 2017 will result in an
increase in taxpayer liability, and therefore I respectfully
urge the Congress to consider and pass the President's fiscal
year 2008 budget request and the proposed Nuclear Waste
Management and Disposal Act which we sent up to the Hill
yesterday.
With that, I would be pleased to answer any questions the
committee may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Edward F. Sproat III
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Edward F. Sproat
III, Director of the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM). I appreciate the invitation to
appear before the committee to discuss the President's fiscal year 2008
budget request for my office which has the responsibility to design,
license, construct, and operate a repository for the disposal of high-
level radioactive waste, as defined in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
(NWPA) of 1982, as amended.
When I first came to this program last summer I outlined four
strategic objectives to implement the President's priorities during my
tenure. They are:
--Submit a high-quality and docketable License Application to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) no later than Monday, June
30, 2008;
--Design, staff, and train the OCRWM organization such that it has
the skills and culture needed to design, license, and manage
the construction and operation of the Yucca Mountain Project
with safety, quality, and cost effectiveness;
--Address the Federal Government's mounting liability associated with
unmet contractual obligations to move spent nuclear fuel from
nuclear plant sites; and
--Develop and begin implementation of a comprehensive national
transportation plan that accommodates State, local, and tribal
concerns and input to the greatest extent practicable.
The President's fiscal year 2008 budget request of $494.5 million
for this program is supportive and vital to achieving these objectives.
FISCAL YEAR 2008 KEY ACTIVITIES
Fiscal year 2008 will be a critical year for the program. It is
imperative that the DOE submit a high-quality License Application to
the NRC in 2008. This activity is on the critical path to opening the
repository and allowing the Department to meet its contractual
obligations to begin accepting and removing spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste from 131 sites around the country. This
budget request will provide the funding needed to complete that License
Application.
In fiscal year 2008, our objectives are to:
--Submit a License Application for the repository to the NRC;
--Certify the Licensing Support Network in accordance with NRC
requirements and regulations;
--Complete the Supplemental Yucca Mountain Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS);
--Begin the defense of the License Application after submittal;
--Design the standard canisters to be used by the industry to package
and ship spent nuclear fuel to the repository;
--Perform critical personnel safety upgrades at the Yucca Mountain
site;
--Perform the analysis and deliver the report to Congress required by
the NWPA on the need for a second repository; and
--Resolve comments and issue the final EIS for the Nevada Rail Line
which is required to transport spent nuclear fuel to the
repository.
In addition to the specific deliverables outlined above, the budget
request also includes funds for the following activities:
--Funding for payments-equal-to-taxes to the State of Nevada and Nye
County, Nevada, where Yucca Mountain is located. Our fiscal
year 2008 request also includes funding for the State of Nevada
and affected units of local government as well as funding for
the University System of Nevada and Nye County and Inyo County,
California, for independent scientific studies.
--Funding for cooperative agreements with State regional groups and
other key parties involved in transportation planning. NWPA
Section 180(c) pilot grants will also be pursued to support
operational preparedness training and to refine the Section
180(c) program.
--Funding for program management and integration of the project
components through formal baselines, procedures, and the system
requirements hierarchy, and for resolving cross-cutting issues
that impact the waste management system. This area has been
weak in the past and is now targeted by senior management for
improvement.
--Funding for program direction which supports Federal salaries,
expenses associated with building maintenance and rent,
training, and management and technical support services, which
include independent Nuclear Waste Fund audit services,
independent technical and cost analyses, and University-based
independent technical reviews.
impact of fiscal year 2007 final budget authorization
The President's fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Yucca
Mountain Program was $544.5 million. The final budget authority
received for fiscal year 2007 was $444.5 million, a $100 million
reduction. While we are still evaluating the impact of the final fiscal
year 2007 appropriation in conjunction with the President's fiscal year
2008 request, it is likely but not yet certain, that we will not be
able to meet our Best-Achievable Schedule (attached) for opening the
repository by March 2017. A 1-year slip is likely, but we are still
evaluating recovery options. We will, however, meet our commitment to
deliver the License Application for the repository in mid-2008.
IMPLICATIONS OF NON-ACCESS TO THE NUCLEAR WASTE FUND
The NWPA established the requirement that the generators of high-
level nuclear waste must pay for its disposal costs. As a result, the
Nuclear Waste Fund was created and is funded by a 1 mil per kilowatt-
hour fee on all nuclear generation in this country. As of today, the
Fund has a balance of approximately $19.5 billion which is invested in
U.S. Treasury instruments. The government receives approximately $750
million per year in revenues from on-going nuclear generation and the
Fund averages about 5.5 percent annual return on its investments. At
the present time, due to technical scoring requirements, the Department
cannot access the Nuclear Waste Fund annual receipts, interest or
corpus, for their intended use without a significant negative impact on
the Federal budget deficit. Because the monies collected are counted as
mandatory receipts in the budgetary process, spending from the Nuclear
Waste Fund is scored against discretionary funding caps for the
Department. In legislation the administration submitted to Congress
last year and has submitted again to this Congress, the President
proposes fixing this problem by reclassifying mandatory Nuclear Waste
Fund receipts as discretionary, in an amount equal to appropriations
from the Fund for authorized waste disposal activities. Funding for the
Program would still have to be requested annually by the President and
appropriated by the Congress from the Nuclear Waste Fund.
While lack of access to the Fund is not critical to the program for
fiscal year 2008, it will have serious consequences in fiscal year 2009
and beyond. Over the past 6 months, we have been developing a projected
budget authority needs estimate by fiscal year through repository
construction. It is based on projected funding requirements for
construction of the repository and the transportation infrastructure
needed to meet the Best-Achievable Schedule opening date of March 2017,
assuming enactment of the Nuclear Waste Management and Disposal Act
that the administration has introduced. Sustained funding well above
current and historic levels will be required if the repository is to be
built. Funding at current levels in future years will not be adequate
to support design and the necessary concurrent capital purchases for
repository construction, the transportation infrastructure, and the
transportation and disposal casks.
For each year beyond 2017 that the repository's opening is delayed,
the Department estimates that U.S. taxpayers' potential liability to
contract holders who have paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund will
increase by approximately $500 million. This will be in addition to the
estimated current potential liability of approximately $7.0 billion due
to the Department's not beginning removal of spent nuclear fuel in 1998
as required by contract. There will also be added costs associated with
keeping defense waste sites open longer than originally anticipated.
The Department has not yet estimated those costs. It can be seen,
however, that each year of delay in opening the repository has
significant taxpayer cost implications, as well as the potential for
delaying construction of needed new nuclear power plants. Therefore,
the administration believes it is in the country's best interest to
expedite construction of the repository and the transportation
infrastructure necessary to bring both defense and commercial spent
nuclear fuel and high-level waste to Yucca Mountain.
In summary, the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request will
provide the needed funds to allow submittal of the construction License
Application for Yucca Mountain by mid-2008. The significant reduction
in requested funding for fiscal year 2007, however, will present
challenges and puts in jeopardy the Department's ability to meet the
March 2017 opening date. And, each year's delay beyond the March 2017
date will result in increased potential taxpayer liability to utility
contract holders as well as increased costs for storage at defense
waste sites across the country. I respectfully urge the Congress to
consider and pass the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for
the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
I would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have
at this time.
BEST-ACHIEVABLE YUCCA MOUNTAIN REPOSITORY SCHEDULE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milestone Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design for License Application Complete November 30, 2007.
Licensing Support Network Certification December 21, 2007.
Supplemental Environmental Impact May 30, 2008.
Statement (EIS) Issued.
Final License Application Verifications May 30, 2008.
Complete.
Final Rail Alignment EIS Issued........ June 30, 2008.
License Application Submittal.......... June 30, 2008.
License Application Docketed by NRC.... September 30, 2008.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEST-ACHIEVABLE REPOSITORY CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milestone Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start Nevada Rail Construction......... October 5, 2009.
Construction Authorization............. September 30, 2011.
Receive and Possess License Application March 29, 2013.
Submittal to NRC.
Rail Access In-Service................. June 30, 2014.
Construction Complete for Initial March 30, 2016.
Operations.
Start up and Pre-Op Testing Complete... December 31, 2016.
Begin Receipt.......................... March 31, 2017.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The schedule above is based on factors within the control of DOE,
enactment of the Nuclear Waste Management and Disposal Act,
appropriations consistent with optimum Project execution, issuance of
an NRC Construction Authorization consistent with the 3-year period
specified in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and the timely issuance by
the NRC of a Receive and Possess license. This schedule also is
dependent on the timely issuance of all necessary other authorizations
and permits, the absence of litigation related delays and the enactment
of pending legislation proposed by the administration.
Senator Domenici. Proceed. Do you want to go ahead?
Senator Murray. My understanding is Senator Dorgan had to
step out for just a short while. So if it is okay with you,
Senator Domenici, I will go ahead and start with my questions,
and then I am hopeful--oh, he is back.
Senator Domenici. He has finished his statement.
Senator Dorgan [presiding]. Thank you very much. I
apologize. I had a relative that had a little fender-bender.
She is fine, but needed to talk to her dad, and it was not her
fault.
Senator Craig. Of course, dad. I've been there.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you both.
Mr. Sproat, I apologize for having missed your testimony.
Mr. Sproat. That is all right.
Senator Dorgan. But I have read your testimony and I
appreciate your being here.
I will proceed to questions and I will defer my questions.
Senator Domenici, do you want to begin?
NUCLEAR WASTE FUND LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I just want to extend--I
know you have had this, but here is a very interesting proposal
that is included in his testimony that we have not had come up
from the administration before. I am not so sure that--I do not
think we ought to throw it away. This $19 billion sitting
around in the fund is not being used and the fact that we
continue to appropriate for the repository is driving some
programs into bankruptcy while this grows. And they have an
idea on how to moderate it and I think maybe we should look at
it a little. It would just be saying maybe it ought to be used
for its intended purpose.
Mr. Sproat. What it is intended to be used for.
Senator Dorgan. All right. Did you wish to ask questions
now?
Senator Domenici. No.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Murray, why don't you proceed.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
SUPPLEMENTAL BULK VITRIFICATION TECHNOLOGY
The environmental management budget literature indicates
that liquid tank waste is the highest priority issue, but there
is a reduction in funding for the work done in the tank farm
activities and there is zero funding requested for the
supplemental treatment. I understand the need to thoroughly
investigate potential technology, but this budget runs out of
money prior to the cold test in June. Can you explain the logic
in that, Mr. Rispoli?
Mr. Rispoli. I believe, Senator, that you are addressing
the testing for the demonstration project, which is a----
Senator Murray. Could you turn on your microphone.
Mr. Rispoli. Sorry. Thank you.
I believe you are discussing the supplemental bulk
vitrification technology, which is a supplemental technology
that we have been talking about for several years now. We met
with--I met with the contractor and the contractor's team just
last week. As you know, they have performed engineering scale,
one-sixth scale tests on the technology, and they would like to
do a full-scale test this summer.
I would point out that in a review of that particular
project that was done independently, a technical review, we did
find a number of technical issues. The contractor as a result
of that review has been working on those technical issues and
they believe that they have solved the most significant one at
least, which is the migration of a highly radioactive
technetium, which is soluble, to the surface, which would not
then accomplish its intended purpose of encapsulating it in the
glass.
They would like to demonstrate this in a full-scale test
this summer. We have worked with them and we believe we can
accomplish that full-scale test this summer.
Senator Murray. Do you have money in the budget to do that?
Mr. Rispoli. We believe we can--yes. Yes, Senator, we
believe we can accomplish that this summer.
Senator Murray. Okay, very good.
FISCAL YEAR 2008 FUNDING FOR HAMMER PROGRAM
Let me ask you about the funding for HAMMER. Year after
year we get budgets with no request for HAMMER. You know what
the facility is. It is a facility that trains many people
actually, but our workers in particular, emergency responders
and others dealing with hazardous material. Safety is, as you
know, at the Hanford site a top concern and we want to make
sure they have the best training possible.
I am concerned because we continue to see no funding, no
funding in the CR, or in the fiscal year 2008 request. Did you
ask for funding for the HAMMER facility?
Mr. Rispoli. The HAMMER facility we intend to fund by
having the contractors at Hanford buy their training through
the HAMMER facility. That has been a model that has worked
successfully. We do not envision that the HAMMER facility will
not be supported. We believe we have a strong base of support
for that facility from within the budget at Hanford through the
contractors that require the training for their workers.
Senator Murray. Do you need any additional funding for
HAMMER outside of that?
Mr. Rispoli. Pardon me, Senator?
Senator Murray. Do you need any additional funding for
HAMMER outside the private contractors?
Mr. Rispoli. I believe that we can attain the support
required for the HAMMER facility through that mechanism.
Senator Murray. Can you give me the budget for that
separately from this and show me how that works on paper?
Mr. Rispoli. Yes, I can.
[The information follows:]
HAMMER Funding
The base cost of the facility is $6.4 million. This is funded by
distributing the cost proportionally to each project at Hanford. The
cost to conduct classes is funded through fees paid by attendees for
each class.
HANFORD SITE MANAGERS VACANCIES
Senator Murray. Okay. I wanted to ask you about the lack of
communication between management at the Hanford site and people
back at headquarters. I understand that has been partly
responsible for the struggles at the Hanford Vitrification
plant. I know that you are working on that, but we are facing a
situation today where two of our top manager positions are
going to be vacant. We have Roy Schepens and the pending
retirement of Keith Klein. There are three contracts that are
scheduled for competition and there is a lot of work to be done
at the site. There have been a lot of changes in the contractor
teams and now the Federal leadership is in transition. It seems
like a lot of musical chairs out there at a time when we
specifically need continuity and leadership.
Can you tell me where you are on those positions?
Mr. Rispoli. Yes, I can, Senator. Thank you. You are
correct. Senator and members of the subcommittee, we are losing
two highly skilled long-term professionals to retirement at the
site out there. Roy Schepens is already physically retired and
Keith Klein announced his retirement. In fact, he has been
aspiring to do this for quite some time. It is the culmination
of a remarkable career.
I can tell you that this week we are interviewing for Roy
Schepens' replacement at headquarters. I would also tell you
that we actually did something a little different for the
Federal Government. We hired a search firm because we realized
that not everyone would look to the Government web site to look
for this type of a position if, for example, they are in
private industry.
So we did everything we could to shake the trees to get
qualified people to apply.
Senator Murray. Are you finding qualified people?
Mr. Rispoli. Well, I personally know none of the names, but
that is the way it is supposed to be. It has been paneled.
There have been a group of experts, including some people who I
am sure you would know, that went through and reviewed the
candidates and then forwarded them to the selecting official
for interviews and selection. The interviews again started this
week. I am very optimistic that that process will have yielded
some viable candidates that we can look at for that position.
In the case of Keith Klein, we do have some time because
his retirement is not until the end of May. But again, given
the time that it takes, we know that in fact Mike Weis, the
deputy manager, will be the acting manager there. I believe you
know Mike Weis. I am sure that he himself will be a contender
for that position. We all have a very high degree of confidence
in him and I believe that that will work out very well.
I might also mention that Shirley Olinger will be the
acting manager of the Office of River Protection and she has
been the deputy there for quite some time as well.
So I think in the management end for this interim period we
are in good hands. For the one that was more imminent, we are
interviewing now and we can go forward. You are correct in that
we have three contracts that are being advertised. I will tell
you that--you may recall from last year that we did appoint a
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition and Project
Management. We are managing these efforts centrally. The work
is done in the field, but we are managing the time lines
separately. Having visited there myself, I can tell you that
the team working on those procurements is robust, they are
competent, they are qualified. They have got people that have
done this before. And that, coupled with our new headquarters
structure and oversight, I feel that we can get through this
period even with the loss of the two managers that are out
there.
With all of that said, Senator, I know that it is going to
be--for the people of the community, they are going to see it
as a tumultuous period. I think we just have to get through
this together.
Senator Murray. I appreciate your personal attention to
that.
Mr. Chairman, I have some other questions I wanted to
submit for the record if I could.
Senator Dorgan. Without objection.
Senator Murray. And I appreciate your accommodation today.
Senator Dorgan. Without objection. Thank you very much,
Senator Murray.
Mr. Rispoli. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, do you want to go?
Senator Dorgan. I will defer.
Senator Domenici. Do you have time to hold the whole
meeting? I cannot do the whole.
Senator Dorgan. Yes.
Senator Domenici. I thank you.
MISSED CLEANUP MILESTONES AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LAB
I want to ask some questions that are parochial and if I
get to the others, fine. But I want to talk to you, Mr.
Rispoli, about Los Alamos missed milestones. The Department has
proposed $140 million for Los Alamos--write that down--which is
insufficient to clear up and clean up the milestones contained
within the consent order that the Department entered into with
the State in 2005. According to that June 15, 2006, baseline
for the project, which assumes completion of all consent order
milestones, the budget for Los Alamos would be $283 million,
more than double the request.
If the Department remains on its current path proposed as
part of the 2007-2008 budgets, cleanup milestones will be
missed and the cleanup will be delayed 2 years beyond the
consent order deadline of 2015.
Now, sir, I am not sure that I understand how you can
justify a budget that forces the Department to miss agreed-upon
milestones and will result in fines and other penalties from
the State. Can you tell me how you intend to keep the cleanup
on schedule with the budget baseline you have offered for the
2008 budget?
Mr. Rispoli. Senator, thank you. There are actually two
parts to my answer on your question. As you know, we have been
funding in the current fiscal year, we have been funding at a
rate of about $141 million per year, which is the same rate
that we were funding at in the prior fiscal year. We did that
notwithstanding that we were in a CR situation and that the
budget for 2007 had about $90 million. We recognized that were
we not to fund at the $141 million level that we would have
jeopardized milestones in the current fiscal year.
I personally met with Mr. Curry in his offices in Santa Fe.
He has met with me here in Washington. I have met with his
senior-most staff. We recognize that and we believe that we
needed to provide the funds to the lab to be able to attain
those milestones.
With all of that said, as you know, the State has issued
four and is considering issuing a fifth notice of violation in
2007, none of which are related to funding shortfalls. They are
basically all conduct of operations. We, both myself and
Administrator Tom D'Agostino, are personally aware of the
problem. We both talk with the contractor about this issue and
it is a very difficult issue. I think we are making headway. I
think we will be seeing some changes in the way that the
laboratory itself approaches the management of that portion of
the work, which I think is a good thing.
I would also mention that in the competition for this
contract the contractor who won, the LANS organization, did in
fact envision efficiencies, to be able to address going forward
in a more efficient way. For example, we believe that at Los
Alamos today, it costs us at least five times more per drum of
transuranic waste to ship it to WIPP than it does anywhere else
in the complex. So we do believe that we can attain
efficiencies with the new kind of thinking that the contractor
said they would bring to this issue.
Looking forward to the second part of your question, we
know that the milestones created by the recent agreement needed
to have a new cost and schedule baseline. The laboratory worked
up a new cost and schedule projection so that we would know how
to fund it. However, despite two tries to get that estimate
through an independent audit, it has not passed.
So the challenge we have is until we really know what those
efficiencies will bring and what this new cost and schedule can
do, we do not know what the right amount of funds are to put on
it. We know that we have been funding at $141 million per year.
We know that we have been not missing milestones with that
level of funding. I would tell you that we need to reassess
that once we have an independent audit of the cost and schedule
for the environmental work at Los Alamos.
Senator Domenici. Well, look. I have done the charts and
looked at them. You are going to miss the milestones, there is
no question, by 2 years. And it is important to me that I know
that you are working with Mr. Ron Curry. He is New Mexico's
environmental man. It is my understanding that that
relationship between the Environment Department and Los Alamos
is not very good. Are you doing anything to improve it or do
you know whether anything is happening out there that might
improve it?
Mr. Rispoli. Senator, I will tell you that I agree fully
with you that the relationship has not been good. I think in
fairness that the relationship between myself and Mr. Curry is
strong and between his senior staff and us is strong. I think
it is also noteworthy that the Federal Government changed its
environmental manager. They have appointed Mr. George Rael of
the NNSA to be the new leader of the environmental program for
the Federal staff. And you probably heard the press release
today that the laboratory itself will be placing a new manager
in charge of the environmental program there.
I do think that Mr. Curry and I are clearly in agreement
that we want to have a good relationship and I do believe that
these steps will get us where we want to be.
Senator Domenici. Could you please explain to me and the
committee who is responsible for paying these fines? Is it DOE,
University of California, or LANS?
Mr. Rispoli. My understanding, Senator, is that because, in
the case of the Los Alamos operation, that not all of the fines
are attributable to LANS. In other words, some of them are, but
some of them were direct contracts from the Los Alamos site
office with contractors to do the work. My understanding is
that the fines will, at least most of them will be borne by the
Federal Government.
I am aware that in one case the contractor indicated they
would take a fine, but I believe in most cases it would be the
Federal Government.
Senator Domenici. Do you have any idea, just looking at
them out there, to tell the chairman how many thousands of
dollars they are allegedly fining us in those five fines, four
fines?
Mr. Rispoli. Senator, I only have one with me. That one
alone is $402,000 and it is a potential notice of violation. I
can get you the answer for that for the record.
Senator Domenici. Would you get us the answer for the
record?
Mr. Rispoli. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
Fines Assessed Against DOE and Los Alamos National Security (LANS)
In the past eight months, the New Mexico Environment Department
(NMED) has assessed penalties against the Department and/or Los Alamos
National Security, LLC (LANS) for five alleged violations of the
Consent Order or other hazardous waste regulations. As of March 22,
2007, the five violations and the responsible parties are summarized
below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual Fine
Description Date NMED Proposed Fine (Responsible Party)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improper disposal of debris from 7/12/06................ $88,930................ $51,000 (DOE to
Incinerator Ash Pile. pay).\1\
Late Investigation Report submittal 9/12/06................ $30,000 plus $3,000/day $120,000 (DOE to
on Incinerator Ash Pile. from Oct 12 until pay).\1\
project completion.
Failure to report new release 9/15/06................ $795,620............... TBD (UC and/or LANS to
associated with chromium groundwater pay--responsibility
contamination. under negotiation).\2\
Improper removal of hazardous waste 10/25/06............... $402,600............... TBD (UC to pay).\2\
from Sigma Mesa D&D project.
Failure to comply with Work Plan 12/7/06................ $1,000/day for first 30 $30,000 paid to date,
provisions for Material Disposal days (paid) plus but continuing at
Area-C characterization. $3,000/day until new $3,000/day (starting 1/
report submitted. 5/07) until report is
submitted) (LANS to
pay).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The National Nuclear Security Administration agreed to pay these penalties.
\2\ DOE has directed the fines to the contractor, but negotiations are still pending regarding eligibility for
reimbursement under the contracts.
As a general rule, LANS, the current Management & Operating (M&O)
contractor, has the responsibility (and University California (UC)
before it) for performing environmental remediation at Los Alamos
National Laboratory (LANL). However, to reduce costs, some years ago
DOE decided to contract directly with companies outside the M&O
contractor to perform several environmental remediation projects,
including remediation work on the Incinerator Ash Pile in TA-73. In the
two cases of penalties associated with the Airport Ash Pile, listed as
items #1 and #2 above, DOE has acknowledged that it is responsible for
paying the penalties and LANS was not responsible for any activities
that led to the alleged violations.
Under the current M&O Contract, LANS is responsible for paying for
violations associated with environmental remediation work they are
responsible for (see #5 above). The previous M&O contractor, the
University of California, was likewise responsible under its M&O
contract for fines and penalties. Some of the actions that led to the
assessment of penalties occurred prior to the date that LANS took over
the contract, June 1, 2006. As a result, UC may have responsibility for
certain of the penalties and/or both UC and LANS may share in the
liability (see #3 and #4 above). No final determinations have yet been
made with respect to these penalties.
Senator Domenici. I am finished. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rispoli. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Craig.
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE
Senator Craig. Jim, let us stay on the cleanup theme for a
moment because it is important for all of us and our labs to
try to stay on those schedules as much as we can. How do you
rate the Idaho cleanup contractor's performance, let us say
compared with other cleanup projects at DOE?
Mr. Rispoli. I believe that the Idaho contractors are
both--are doing very well. I think that they are performing at
a level that we feel comfortable with. I am not suggesting that
they are earning every penny of their fee because I do not
honestly know to that level of detail. But I do know that when
I look across the program that Idaho is performing very well
for us.
Senator Craig. It is my understanding that they have come
in in most instances ahead of schedule and under budget with
most of their cleanup effort. Is that not true?
Mr. Rispoli. In most areas that is true. As you know, even
in one facility, the Advanced Mixed Waste, we had to make up
for a lot of lost time and were successful in doing that. But
yes, Senator, I would agree.
Senator Craig. Do you believe the best performers should be
rewarded with additional funds to accelerate project schedules
to achieve real cleanup results or would you expect good
performers to do more with less because of their successes?
Mr. Rispoli. I think the answer is a little bit of both.
But I would offer to you that in many cases contracts provide
incentives for contractors who can deliver more with less. In
other words, we try to incentivize our contractors to do
exactly that, that if they can perform work in a less than full
funding situation they would then have opportunity to earn more
fee.
Senator Craig. Could you please provide me, and I think all
of us would be interested in, a copy of the remaining fiscal
year 2007 EM budget when finalized and an explanation as to any
impacts it would have on these projects? Of course, I am
interested in the Idaho cleanup.
Mr. Rispoli. You mean for the continuing resolutions?
Senator Craig. That is correct.
Mr. Rispoli. Yes, Senator. That is--right now the
continuing resolution is with OMB. It is in the final stages of
being prepared to be brought to the Congress. But I would be
happy to do that in a separate meeting with you.
Senator Craig. Rumors abound and we would like to put those
away.
Mr. Rispoli. Yes, sir.
PROPOSED LEGISLATION FOR NUCLEAR WASTE FUND
Senator Craig. Ward, again thank you for being before the
committee and the working relationship we have with you. How
confident are you in your ability to complete the Yucca
Mountain license application by June 2008? You have discussed
that some.
Mr. Sproat. Senator, assuming that we receive the full
amount that the President requested for fiscal year 2008, which
is $494.5 million, I am 100 percent confident we will meet that
date.
Senator Craig. Does this require the Fix Yucca legislation
you proposed, that was proposed by DOE yesterday?
Mr. Sproat. No, Senator, it does not. In other words, the
Fix Yucca legislation--and I am prepared to talk about any
parts of that you would like--is not a prerequisite to the
submittal of the license application. Parts of it are a
prerequisite before the NRC would be able to grant us a
construction authorization, primarily land withdrawal.
Senator Craig. What is your opinion of the Domenici-Craig
Nu Way bill from the last Congress? Does the certainty of
interim storage of defense waste at Yucca hurt or help this
project?
Mr. Sproat. I believe it would help this project because,
No. 1, I believe it would give us legislative clarity, if you
will, regarding the Department's authority to do interim
storage of high level waste and naval spent nuclear fuel, which
right now we believe--and it has been looked at by a number of
people over a number of years. We currently believe we do not
have that legislative authority to do that. So that certainly
would give us that authority and capability and would allow us
to move forward with, probably on an expedited basis, on
figuring out how to make that happen.
Senator Craig. Thank you. Thank you both.
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Craig, thank you very much.
Senator Bennett.
ATLAS MILL SITE CLOSURE DATE
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, you probably will not be surprised that I
want to talk about the Atlas Mill site. By nodding, I guess you
are prepared to----
Mr. Rispoli. Yes, sir, I am.
Senator Bennett [continuing]. To talk about that.
We know that the first recommendation--or first comment
perhaps is a better term--that came out of the Department as to
when this would be done was it would take about 7 to 10 years,
and that would put it 2017, 10 years from today.
Secretary Bodman before the Energy and Commerce Committee
on the House side said it will occur around 2028. So he has
added another 10 years to the 10 years that was the outside
date we had, and I am not sure whether he is anticipating that
that would take place in 1 year or if it would start in 2028
and then take another 7 to 10 years.
I am sure it comes as no surprise that Secretary Bodman's
testimony set off a lot of alarm bells down in that part of my
State. I would like to have you talk to us about that and tell
us what you think is really going to happen, how much it is
going to cost, and therefore help me understand what my
responsibilities on this subcommittee ought to be to try to see
to it that we get as close to the original projected date as we
possibly can.
Mr. Rispoli. Thank you, Senator Bennett. We are in the
process now of evaluating proposals that we have in hand from
the contractor community to do that. We expect to have an award
this summer. The process that we would have in the Department,
the 2028 is a good planning figure. That is the planning figure
that we use, but it is exactly that. It is a planning figure,
because the process that we would have will require the
contractor to propose what technology, what efficiencies, and
so forth they would employ.
We are assuming there will be one trainload per day, one
trainload per day that would be hauling that material out to
Crescent Junction. We are assuming a certain type of conveyor
system to load the train cars, for example. But until we
evaluate the proposals and develop a cost and schedule that can
be independently audited, the 2028 number, while a good number
and the best we have, is a planning number. It could be
significantly better than that depending upon the contract
mechanism chosen.
Of course, the other factor then is the annual funding.
This year we are looking in the 2008 budget about $23 million
is in the budget for the funding. I think until we evaluate the
proposal and look at what is the proper baseline, I think that
we are at that early stage where we just do not know. As soon
as we finish that evaluation, we will have a much better handle
on what would a reasonable schedule and baseline be.
The 2028 is a good number, as I say, but we still have
quite a ways to go in the evaluation process.
Senator Bennett. Let me say back to you what I think I
heard so you can tell me whether I am right or not. By midyear
this year, you will have an understanding of which contractor
you want and how that contractor will go about it?
Mr. Rispoli. Yes, sir.
Senator Bennett. And at that point, presumably you will
know how soon the contractor can begin?
Mr. Rispoli. At that point we would be ready to send in an
independent review team to review the contractor's numbers, to
say yes, this is a valid cost and schedule. So that will
actually begin happening this summer, and typically the process
is just a few months after that when we would know whether it
is a valid cost and schedule.
Senator Bennett. So let us go through it. Let us just put
some dates on it. Let us say you know by July. You pick the
contractor. Let us give you 90 days, August, September, and
October, so you will know by November whether the contractor is
good or not. Assuming that he or she is, you will know in
November what the time schedule will be?
Mr. Rispoli. I think that is a reasonable time line, yes,
sir.
Senator Bennett. So let us say that the first shipments can
then start, what, 5 years from November? Will it take them that
long to put the conveyor belt in or whatever, or 5 months? Or
do you have any sense of the timing?
Mr. Rispoli. No, sir, I do not know that yet, because I do
not know what technologies or what approaches those who are
bidding will actually propose to us. So I cannot say when they
would have the system in place to begin loading the rail cars
and moving the material away from there to Crescent Junction.
Senator Bennett. Well, let us assume for just a minute that
the contractor physically could do it in a year, within a year
after November, so that it could start moving as early as
November of 2008.
Mr. Rispoli. I think that is a reasonable--at this point in
time, I think that is a reasonable assumption. I would offer to
you that actually once we have the proposals evaluated it would
be very appropriate at that time for me to visit with you and
give you more detail, once that is available information.
Senator Bennett. Okay. But what I want to nail down and be
absolutely sure, Secretary Bodman's use of the term ``2028''
did not signal a determination on the part of the Department to
put this off an extra 10 years?
Mr. Rispoli. I think the Secretary was referring to the
best number we have today, which is a 2028 number based upon an
assumption of costs and assumption of annual funding profile. I
think that once we see what the approach is and what the actual
cost is likely to be, we can evaluate that and see how good or
how not good the 2028 number is. But we just do not have a
better number today.
Senator Bennett. I understand that. But again, what I hear
you telling me is that the Department's use of the 2028 as a
planning date is not a signal that they have decided to slow
this down or delay it?
Mr. Rispoli. I would not take it to be that, no, sir. I
would agree with you. That is true.
Senator Bennett. Because that is the signal that got sent
in the press, that they were thinking, gee, this could be done
by 2018. On the timetable we have talked about, 2018 is logical
if they start in November of 2007. It takes them a year to get
the thing in place, 2008, and it takes them 10 years to get it
done, it is 2018. So 2028, that is the outside year that you
think it could happen if the Congress does not fund it properly
or if the contractor runs into unforeseen difficulties. But for
planning purposes, you say this will be done by 2028, but that
is not the statement we are going to delay it to 2028?
Mr. Rispoli. That is true because, as I mentioned earlier,
we know we are going to move it by train. We know that our
planning today is one train per day. That may or may not be
optimal. It may be the best that can be done, depending upon
the physical parameters, traffic and things like that.
Senator Bennett. When you brief me later this year, we can
go into all of those. But the point I wanted to make and that
you now have confirmed is that Secretary Bodman's testimony was
not a statement that the Department wants to delay this
project.
Mr. Rispoli. I do not think that we took it as a delay.
Again, it was just a planning number that we had, and that is
the number we gave to the Secretary to use based upon what we
know today, which is not very much.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you.
Senator Allard.
LESSONS LEARNED APPLICATIONS TO OTHER CLEANUP SITES
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
being late. I apologize for not hearing the testimony because
you did talk about Rocky Flats, which I think is a success
story that we do not talk enough about.
Mr. Chairman, when I first got involved with Rocky Flats
having been elected to the U.S. Senate, it was a cleanup
project laid out over 70 years, $35 billion in costs. We were
able to put together an accelerated program of cleanup, bring
it down to 10 years, and we were able to finish that project 1
year ahead of the redone schedule with savings of hundreds of
millions of dollars. I think one of the key aspects of good
cleanup were the incentives that we built into the contract
which really kept things moving.
We had very cooperative employees with the Department of
Energy working out there and citizens in the area, who made it
their goal to get the cleanup done. The agency had bought into
it. But I do think that there are a lot of lessons to be
learned by this.
Are we going to apply some of the lessons learned in this
cleanup to other sites? Because this is the largest cleanup I
think in the world, frankly, where we have had a success story
like this, where we have been under budget and ahead of
schedule. I would like to know if there are lessons learned
here that can be applied to other projects where we might have
nuclear cleanup.
Mr. Rispoli. Senator Allard, absolutely. And I believe that
we actually touched on this at the ceremony itself out in
Colorado last year. We are addressing lessons learned from
Rocky Flats in a couple of ways. I will mention two of them.
The first is that we have established a lessons learned
section of our internal house web site, you might say. So that
not only for the Rocky Flats situation, but many others as
well, we can better share lessons learned. We are so spread out
geographically that we realize that oftentimes different
organizations are facing similar challenges, and so use the
electronic media as best we can to get that out.
The other is that at the Rocky Flats cleanup not only the
prime contractor, but even a number of the subs had people with
a lot of experience. As that job closed down, they have
actually sent those people to other places to help with similar
situations in other places.
PREPARED STATEMENT
But I believe that you are absolutely right. We had some
tremendous success there. I would likewise say we gave in our
opening a few photos of places that are not as big, but
certainly just as significant, such as the Fernald site in
Ohio, where we again had similar successes in lessons learned,
and we are working to promulgate those.
Senator Allard. While I think about it, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to make my full statement a part of the record if I
might.
Senator Dorgan. Without objection.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Wayne Allard
Thank you, Chairman Dorgan, for holding this hearing today. I am
proud of the work that Senator Domenici accomplished last year and I
look forward to working with you as the new Chairman, as well as the
other members of this committee. I would also like to thank the panel
for coming today and offering their testimony.
This is my third year on this subcommittee, and I like to take
advantage of all the opportunities to hear from the Department of
Energy's EM Assistant Secretary about Rocky Flats. I think it is
important for many reasons to talk about this success story, because if
you were to visit the site today, you would see what Rocky Flats looked
like more than 50 years ago. It is pristine and quiet with little to
remind you that it once was the place of the most dangerous building in
the United States.
I remember the time-frame when the Department of Energy, then the
Atomic Energy Commission, established Rocky Flats as a nuclear weapons
production facility. I remember the decades of production and the many
workers who toiled to protect our country--24 hours a day, 7 days a
week.
The first time I toured Rocky Flats--with the site's extensive
security controls, enormous concrete buildings, and tons of weapons-
grade plutonium still on site--it was unimaginable what it would look
like today. I remember the worries of security threats, wide-spread
contamination, industrial pollution, and radioactive fall-out. And,
most importantly, I remember the early estimates for cleaning-up Rocky
Flats--70 years and $35 billion.
So, Mr. Chairman, I thought I would again touch on this success
because we are fortunate to have come so far and to have achieved so
much. The picturesque Rocky Flats that exists today seemed like a dream
just 10 years ago. Few believed the site could be successfully cleaned-
up. Even fewer believed that the clean-up could be completed early--15
months ahead of the already accelerated schedule and hundreds of
millions of dollars below budget. We in Congress, and the Department of
Energy, need to celebrate this success and hopefully channel it into
other clean-ups around our country.
Again, thank you Mr. Chairman for bringing us here today, and I
look forward to the testimony of the witnesses.
CLEANUP FUNDING STRATEGY
Senator Allard. The other idea when we were working on
this--I was on the authorizing side in the Armed Services
Committee and this was under my jurisdiction at the time. Part
of the thinking was that once we get Rocky Flats clean then
that begins to free up dollars for cleaning up other sites. Is
that happening, and we are getting expedited cleanup in some of
these other sites?
Mr. Rispoli. I think that right now we are looking at over
the next, in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, at a number of sites--it
is in my statement for the record; it is also in the budget--
that are being cleaned up. I believe what we are looking at
after that are essentially the really big sites that we will be
at for a long time, driven more by schedules and technology
problems, such as Hanford, Savannah River, Oak Ridge.
In fact, at Oak Ridge we will even be adding more. I
reviewed a proposal just yesterday that will add even more
square footage to the program for D&D such as we did at Rocky
Flats.
Senator Allard. Well, I hope that you continue to push
cleanup on those other sites, because they were also
cooperative in this effort. There was an extra amount of
dollars that went to the cleanup of Rocky Flats to speed up
cleanup, so we could point to a success story. The idea was
that once we got it cleaned up it would free out other dollars
so that they could proceed at a more rapid pace in getting
their cleanup problems handled. So I hope that you keep that in
mind when you are putting together your budgets and working
with those other areas.
GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP
Can you give us an update on where the Department is on the
Global Nuclear Energy Plan proposed by the administration
several years ago?
Mr. Rispoli. Unfortunately, Senator, I cannot. I am not----
Senator Allard. Can you, Mr. Sproat?
Mr. Sproat. Just so I am clear, Senator, are you talking
about the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership?
Senator Allard. Yes, I am.
Mr. Sproat. That is not under my area of responsibility and
I would prefer that if you would like an update on that, let me
take that question for the record and ask Assistant Secretary
Spurgeon to come back and brief you on that. That is under his
area of responsibility.
Senator Allard. This is where we have the MOX and all that
and it is now a MOX Plus facility.
Mr. Sproat. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. All right. If you could respond to the
record, I would appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative
The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) is funded under the
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) within the Office of Nuclear
Energy. AFCI activities are currently focused on developing a detailed
roadmap for implementing the GNEP initiative, including supplying
information to support a Secretarial decision on the path forward for
GNEP. The Secretarial decision on the path forward for GNEP, and
subject to compliance with all applicable law and regulation, longer-
term, AFCI activities are anticipated to include supporting supply
arrangements among nations to provide reliable fuel services worldwide
for generating nuclear energy. There has already been considerable
progress internationally to encourage such arrangements.
The GNEP Statement of Principles has been endorsed by Japan and
France and is currently being considered by Russia, China, and the
United Kingdom. A U.S.-Russian Action Plan was submitted to President
Bush and President Putin in December 2006. Similar action plans are
being prepared for Japan and France. Domestically, the Department has
sought input from the private sector to assist the Department in
developing an appropriate business model for the proposed nuclear fuel
recycling center and advanced recycling reactor components of GNEP,
including potential scope, cost, schedule, and technical risk.
DOE is also working with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to
provide information regarding potential commercial separations plants
and advanced reactor concepts. DOE is working to develop a Memorandum
of Understanding on interactions with the NRC for GNEP similar to that
which is in place regarding the Next Generation Nuclear Plant.
Mr. Rispoli. I would point out that the MOX facility in
particular at the Savannah River site is an NNSA project, and I
think that all of it is kind of held together and has to be
dealt with in the context of the nuclear future for the Nation.
But the MOX project in particular, if you have a question on
it, that would be appropriate for the NNSA.
Senator Allard. Okay, I appreciate it. And it all has to
happen together.
Mr. Rispoli. I think they are all interconnected, yes, sir.
Senator Allard. Yes. And I think that we need to look at
reprocessing our nuclear rods. We have got technology now where
we can, with the reprocessed rod we bring the waste stream down
to 5 percent. It is highly toxic, but we bring it down to 5
percent, which I think helps take care of some of our storage
issues. And with the new technology it is much more difficult
to convert to a nuclear weapon, I understand. So I think that
it would help quell some of the opposition that we have had in
the past when we looked at reprocessing rods.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Allard, thank you very much.
We are coming up on some very big decisions in these areas,
the MOX facilities, Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)
and Reliable Replacement Warhead program (RRW), many of which
are related and have significant consequences. We likely will
be holding some hearings in this subcommittee on those very
issues. I have not set a date, but I expect to do that.
Let me just say that I went to graduate school in Colorado,
knew of and saw Rocky Flats at the time, and about 2 weeks ago
flew over Rocky Flats on a commercial airline going from Denver
to North Dakota. It is quite remarkable to look down and see
what has been done at that site. I was duly impressed, and I
appreciate your raising that issue. That is, I think, an
example of great success.
MISSED MILESTONES CONSEQUENCES
Mr. Rispoli, you heard the comment that I and my colleague
Senator Domenici offered about the 23 percent reduction over 4
years in funding. I respect that you are here to represent the
President's request to Congress and you would not be a very
diligent subordinate if you did not fully support that. But
clearly there are consequences to that, and can you tell me the
milestones that will be missed? You talked about meeting 90
percent of the milestones. What about the milestones that are
missed, and is the budget request simply a reflection that
these are lesser priorities than the other issues?
Mr. Rispoli. Mr. Chairman, if I may address it this way,
everywhere that we operate we have milestones that are
established by some sort of an agreement, whether it be a tri-
party agreement with the EPA and the State or a consent order
with the State or some other agreement. We have milestones. And
intrinsic, built into all of those agreements generally is a
provision to renegotiate milestones as you face technical
difficulties and the State recognizes that you have made every
effort to comply.
So a normal process is in fact that we need to recognize
that and address milestones that for one reason or another
cannot be met.
Senator Dorgan. Yes, but this is not about technical
difficulties. I am talking about funding.
Mr. Rispoli. Yes, I understand.
Senator Domenici. And with so much cleanup work yet to be
done and your description to Senator Allard of the big projects
yet to be started, how does one justify reducing funding for
these things? How do you justify it?
Mr. Rispoli. I understand the question, yes, Senator. What
we did was--and this may not be on the mark to answer your
question. What we did was we recognized all the milestones and
within those milestones we applied a risk-based approach to
where do we get the greatest risk reduction for the funds that
you appropriate and give us to operate our program.
In so doing, there were some milestones that we believe
related to low-risk activities, generally but not always,
generally D&D of a building, for example, or D&D of a number of
buildings. And those came to the bottom of the list. So when it
was time to make budget decisions, we tried to focus the
resources where the greatest risk reduction would be and leave
for the lower end some of the D&D and other related types of
activities.
And you are correct that the budget could not cover all of
those, but that is the rationale that we used.
Senator Dorgan. But that is still not quite responsive. You
are talking about how you focused. I am asking the question of
why, given the body of work in front of us--which, and I am new
to this, but it appears to me to be very substantial--why on
earth would we be talking about a 23 percent reduction in
funding over 4 years?
Mr. Rispoli. Yes, sir, it is a significant difference when
you look across the years. I would point out that the annual
cost for funding, for example, Rocky Flats, Fernald, all these
other closure sites, was about $1 billion a year and those
sites did complete. So when you look at the difference between
a year or 2 ago and today, we would certainly recognize that $1
billion worth of annual requirement basically was completed,
and so we had to redirect our resources and attention to other
places.
Senator Dorgan. But would you agree it is counterintuitive,
given the amount of work and given the fact that we will miss
milestones, not for technical reasons but because we are
suggesting this is not a high enough priority to even maintain
level funding, to be talking about budget cuts in this area?
Mr. Rispoli. I understand your question, Senator, and I am
not disagreeing with your point at all. But I would also point
out that at the time those milestones were set up it assumed
technologies that did not exist or in some cases, like at
Hanford, we have had to use two or even three technologies
instead of one. We assumed that certain regulatory things would
be in place. They were not in place. There were extra
quantities of things that had to be done that resulted in
consuming more resources to get the work done.
So there are many, many factors to this that led to a
funding profile that got us to where we are today.
Senator Dorgan. Is the reduction in funding in recent years
a component of what has led to the estimated increase in the
life cycle costs of the program?
Mr. Rispoli. Any life cycle cost is a balance--I believe
again you are correct--it is a balance between the amount that
you can provide to that project on its funding curve and the
life and the duration of the project. Certainly, in general if
you have a shorter duration you would have a lower cost.
Senator Dorgan. Do not misunderstand the intent of my
questions. Because we have got competing interests for funding
in this subcommittee, with some very big projects and some very
important ones, I am trying to understand the circumstances
that have led to certain requests, in this case a request for a
budget cut in an area that seems to me to be in significant
need of perhaps, at minimum, level funding, given the workload
in front of us.
Well, you have done the best you can to avoid directly
answering my questions. But I think if I can find an
interpreter I will understand what you have said. Again, I am
not making fun of you. I understand your role here. Your role
here is to support the President's budget. Ours is to try to
evaluate with limited resources and nearly unlimited needs and
wants, how to allocate and economize.
So I appreciate you being here. And I did start in a very
positive way, talking about Rocky Flats.
Mr. Rispoli. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. When we get these projects completed and
you look at it, it is almost breathtaking to see because you
would not believe it could be done until you have seen it after
the fact. And I appreciate that.
Mister--is it ``SPROUT'' or ``SPROAT?''
Mr. Sproat. ``SPROAT.''
YUCCA MOUNTAIN UPDATED BASELINE
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Sproat, does the Department of Energy
plan to update these 6-year-old cost estimates for the project
before it submits the license application?
Mr. Sproat. Yes, Senator, we do. As a matter of fact, when
we set the new best achievable milestones schedule for the
repository last summer, basically at that point in time we were
rebaselining the project, saying--taking a look at how long it
would take to build the repository, the railroads, the
transportation infrastructure. That required us to go back and
take a look at what our budget authority request annual
requirements should be between now through repository
construction.
We did that. We had it reviewed by an independent outside
engineering construction firm. We incorporated their comments.
That work has been completed. I just got released from the
Office of Management and Budget this week to release those
figures. Right now what we are doing is packaging those figures
in a way that when people read it they can make sense out of
it, and I suspect we will be able to send that revised budget
authority request case flow up here to the Hill within the next
2 weeks.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN REDUCTION IN FISCAL YEAR 2008 TRANSPORTATION REQUEST
Senator Dorgan. The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the
program sought $67.7 million for transportation. In 2008 you
are requesting $15 million for transportation. Can you describe
to me what that precipitates, what does that mean?
Mr. Sproat. The basic reason that reduction was made is
because we do not need the money in fiscal year 2008.
Senator Dorgan. Okay, so it is a timing issue.
Mr. Sproat. That is exactly right. The primary reason is
that in early--in 2006, we were prepared to make a record of
decision of selecting what is called the Caliente route, the
Nevada Rail Line route through Nevada to the repository. At
that point in time, though, the Walker River Payute Tribe, who
owns the land, came to us and said: We would like you to
evaluate an alternative route through our reservation. They had
previously not been willing to do that.
As a result, and taking a look at that potential route, we
see a significant opportunity for both schedule and dollar
savings. So we are currently doing an environmental impact
review of that route. As a result, that is pushing off the
record of decision for the Nevada Rail Line for about a year.
So we are putting a lot of money into transportation this
year through the environmental impact statement work, but the
record of decision to decide which rail line we are going to go
with is not going to be made until probably about a year plus
from now, and therefore we do not need as much money in
transportation as we did in 2007.
Senator Dorgan. A quick question. Does the DOE have the
authority to commence construction of a rail spur to Yucca
Mountain in the absence of the NRC construction authorization
for the repository?
Mr. Sproat. We believe we do. However, we have requested
clarification of that authority in our legislation that we sent
up here to the Hill yesterday. We do believe we have that
authority, but we suspect that without clear legislative
direction we will probably end up in some legal lawsuits and
litigation regarding that. So that is why we are including that
in our legislation.
Senator Dorgan. Your program will not be a stranger to
legal action, will it?
Mr. Sproat. No, sir, it will not.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Dorgan. Let me thank both of you very much for
being here and for being involved in these programs. Both are
important programs.
Do my colleagues have any additional questions?
If not, we will be sending some additional questions to you
and ask for your response.
We will leave the record open until this Friday, March 9,
at 5 o'clock, so the questions can be submitted.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. James A. Rispoli
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
los alamos missed milestones
Question. Mr. Rispoli, the Department has proposed $140 million for
Los Alamos cleanup, which is insufficient to the cleanup milestones
contained within the Consent Order the Department, has entered into
with the State in 2005. According to the June 15, 2006 baseline for the
project, which assumes completion of all the Consent Order Milestones,
the budget for Los Alamos should be $283 million more than double the
request. If the Department remains on the current path proposed as part
of the fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 budgets, cleanup
milestones will be missed and the cleanup will be delayed by 2 years
beyond the Consent Order deadline of 2015. Mr. Rispoli, I am not sure I
understand how you can justify a budget that forces the Department to
miss agreed upon milestones and will result in fines and other
penalties from the State. Please clarify.
Answer. The President's request for fiscal year 2008 for LANL is an
appropriate amount and is based on the Consent Order requirements in
the budget year and the site contractor's performance since assuming
responsibility for cleanup in mid-fiscal year 2006. The contractor
continues to develop the legacy cleanup program baseline, and when
complete later this year we anticipate that a new baseline will be
validated. We anticipate that this will be accomplished in time to
inform the fiscal year 2009 budget process.
The budget level that your question refers to for Consent Order
compliance ($283 million) is consistent with an amount that the Los
Alamos site contractor has identified as part of a proposed revision to
the legacy cleanup program cost and schedule baseline which it
submitted to the Los Alamos Site Office. This revised amount addresses
all aspects of cleanup scope at the site (soil and water remediation,
legacy transuranic waste disposition, and decontamination and
decommissioning), not only the environmental restoration activities
that are subject to the requirements of the Consent Order. This
revision has undergone an external independent review by the
Department's Office of Engineering and Construction Management that
revealed a number of deficiencies that require corrective actions.
Question. Mr. Rispoli, can you tell me how you intend to keep
cleanup on schedule with the budget baseline you have offered in the
2008 budget?
Answer. The Los Alamos site contractor has developed and submitted
to the Los Alamos Site Office a proposed revision to the legacy cleanup
program cost and schedule baseline. This revision has undergone an
external independent review by the Department's Office of Engineering
and Construction Management that revealed a number of deficiencies that
require corrective actions. That process is continuing, and when
complete later this year we anticipate that a new cost and schedule
baseline will be validated. We anticipate that this will be
accomplished in time to inform the fiscal year 2009 budget process.
RENEGOTIATING THE LANL CONSENT ORDER
Question. Last week, I spoke with Secretary Bodman about the
challenges facing the Los Alamos National Lab in complying with the
various cleanup milestones. It was his belief that he needed to take
action to find a workable cleanup strategy within the existing budget
constraints. I believe it is important for the Department to implement
a cleanup strategy that is sustainable within the existing budget
constraints.
I expect the State to push back in a very public fashion and I
understand their frustration, but no matter how many fines or penalties
the State levies it will not do anything to cleanup the sites. We need
a partnership between the State and the Department to negotiate
realistic cleanup goals. Can you tell me what your plan is to
prioritize cleanup at LANL and work with the State on a path forward?
Answer. The Department is committed to the cleanup of the Los
Alamos National Laboratory. Our priorities at the site are to reduce
risks, to improve our performance such that we can meet the
requirements of the Consent Order, and to accomplish these goals
efficiently. To meet these priorities, we have to make some changes.
These changes have started already, and include personnel changes on
the environmental side at the contractor level. We have also made a
significant management change at the Los Alamos Site Office with the
reassignment of Dan Glenn, previously the Pantex Site manager, to Los
Alamos. He brings a fresh perspective to assessing and addressing the
problems at Los Alamos. He also brings his experience in developing and
implementing ideas leading to the successful resolution of complex
issues at the Pantex site in Texas that should improve performance at
Los Alamos. We anticipate that this kind of fresh start at both the
contractor and Government management levels will foster improved
relations with the State.
We are in the midst of the validation process for a new,
comprehensive and integrated baseline for the complete scope of the Los
Alamos legacy waste cleanup. When this baseline is in place, we expect
to see improved activity planning and efficient execution of the
cleanup work at the site.
Question. Based on your current budget request, will this result in
delaying the cleanup beyond the existing 2015 deadline?
Answer. We recognize that without efficiencies in work performance
at the site and an executable comprehensive cost and schedule baseline
for the work, we will have difficulty in meeting the overall cleanup
date of 2015 in the consent order. When the Department completes its
review of the new proposed cleanup baseline for Los Alamos and is able
to validate it later this year, we will assess whether the completion
date for overall cleanup of the site as contained in the consent order
is still achievable.
FINES
Question. Mr. Rispoli, it is my understanding that there is some
sort of provision in the consent order that says if the Department does
not provide adequate clean up funding the Lab cannot be held
responsible. Is that true?
Answer. Section III.K.3 of the consent order states that no
provision of the consent order shall require the Government to obligate
or pay funds in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act, and that
payment or obligation of funds by the Government for activities
required by the Order shall be subject to the availability of
appropriated funds. Based on this provision, the site cleanup
contractor would not be responsible for non-performance if sufficient
funds were not appropriated.
LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY (LANL) SAFETY CONCERNS
Question. Mr. Rispoli, it is my understanding that the relationship
between the New Mexico Environment Department and Los Alamos is not
very good. I understand that LANL had safety concerns with the drilling
operation, what were those concerns and do you believe they were
justified?
Answer. The hazards involved in drilling four boreholes between two
pits at Material Disposal Area C were a major concern for the
Department. The borehole drilling was potentially dangerous because it
risked penetrating the radionuclide inventory and compressed toxic
gases at the landfill. Material Disposal Area C is a 1960s vintage
disposal area and, as is the case with many of these old landfill
sites, the actual distance between the pits cannot be determined
reliably from the design drawings from that era. Similarly, the
integrity of the soil ridges between the waste pits is difficult to
determine after so many years since placement of the wastes.
Therefore, the contractor had to rely on geophysics data to
determine the safe drilling locations for the boreholes. Upon review of
the geophysics data by all parties, Los Alamos Nuclear Services, NNSA,
and the New Mexico Environment Department, resolution was reached that
placement of four boreholes between waste pits in one location of
Materials Disposal Area C could be accomplished after taking worker and
environmental risks into account. The drilling was done using a geo-
probe to confirm the existence of the boundary between waste pits
without entering the waste pits. Safety procedures required that the
geo-probe insertion and subsequent drilling be done by workers in level
B protection consisting of breathing air and chemical protection suits.
The use of level B protection also involves physical risk to the worker
during the drilling activities as their vision and movement is
restricted by their trailing breathing air hose apparatus. To mitigate
this additional hazard, mockups were conducted of all activities with
the protective clothing to ensure that the work could be conducted
safely and that the field procedure could be implemented as written.
These precautions and appropriate work planning enabled the drilling to
be completed without incident.
The Department requires that all work be done safely at every site.
Given the nature of the hazards involved, I believe the concerns were
justified and the contractor took the appropriate safety measures to
implement the requirements set forth in the consent order.
TECHNICAL AREA-21
Question. Mr. Rispoli, in fiscal year 2007 the Department requested
$18 million in funding to initiate decommissioning of TA-21--a former
plutonium facility--in order to characterize the extent of the
contamination beneath this facility. However, the fiscal year 2008
request does not provide any funding to support this cleanup which has
a cleanup deadline of 2013. Every year this project goes without
funding is another year delay in the consent order. Mr. Rispoli, your
fiscal year 2007 budget requested $18 million for TA-21 cleanup, since
Congress didn't spell out how the funds are to be used, can you tell me
if you intend to use the funds to begin the D&D work?
Answer. As part of the prioritization process that is associated
with the development of the Environmental Management budget, my office
examines the requirements to ensure safety, to provide essential
services, and to undertake environmental compliance and risk reduction
activities throughout the DOE complex. Typically, decontamination and
decommissioning activities are not associated with high priority risk
reduction requirements. The work at Technical Area 21 at Los Alamos
falls into this latter category. In addition, Los Alamos does not have
an approved cost and schedule baseline for the work. Once the cost and
schedule estimates are independently verified, we will have a higher
confidence level. We anticipate that this independent verification will
be accomplished in time to inform the fiscal year 2009 budget process.
At that time, the Department will review activities for Los Alamos
National Laboratory cleanup including the decontamination and
decommissioning work scope.
Question. Without any funding requested in your fiscal year 2008
budget how do you intend to recover from this delay and meet the 2013
consent order milestone for this project?
Answer. As part of the prioritization process that is associated
with the development of the Environmental Management budget, my office
examines the requirements to ensure safety, to provide essential
services, and to undertake environmental compliance and risk reduction
activities from across the DOE complex. Typically, decontamination and
decommissioning activities are not associated with high priority risk
reduction requirements. The decontamination and decommissioning work at
Technical Area 21 does not yet have an approved cost and schedule
baseline. An appropriate confidence level in the scope, cost, and
schedule profiles for these work activities is needed before we
proceed. This confidence would be indicated by the validation of the
baseline that is expected later this year, in time to inform the fiscal
year 2009 and out-year budget process. At that time the Department will
review activities for Los Alamos National Laboratory cleanup and
whether the completion data for overall cleanup of the site as
contained in the Consent Order is still achievable.
LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY
Question. Mr. Rispoli, the lab has been working hard to accelerate
the disposal of high priority drums of TRU waste at WIPP.
Unfortunately, this involves sorting through more than 12,000 drums of
waste and then verifying their contents. This has been slowed by the
NNSA Site Office's unwillingness to accept responsibility for the
accelerated cleanup plan. It is my understanding that the Defense
Nuclear Facility Safety Board supports the accelerated approach, but
the NNSA Site Office has not yet signed off on this new plan.
Do you favor the accelerated approach proposed by the contractor
and do you believe it will result in the acceleration of shipments to
WIPP?
Answer. The Administrator of the NNSA has directed his Headquarters
Chief of Nuclear Safety to work with the NNSA site office and the
contractor to identify and implement an acceptable plan to dispose of
the high priority drums presently stored above ground in fabric
structures. This approach is focused on accelerating the safety
documentation as well as the necessary upgrades to nuclear facilities
required to characterize and package high priority drums for disposal
at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). In addition, the NNSA team
is poised to evaluate and approve innovative approaches in the work
plan that meet the intent of federal requirements and DOE Orders to
ensure that the project is achievable. The project is now on an
aggressive schedule with the goal of initiating shipments of high
priority waste later this year and completing by January 2008. These
shipments are among the Department's top priorities for waste shipments
destined for disposal at the WIPP.
ACCELERATION OF TRU WASTE TO WIPP
Question. What can your office do to help the LANL site office
become more comfortable with this strategy?
Answer. The Office of Environmental Management and the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) are collaborating in various
aspects of the project to ship the high priority drums of above-grade
stored legacy transuranic waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. In
addition, the Waste Isolation Pilot Project office will support the
shipping schedule that will be identified under this project. I have
directed my staff to be mindful of your concerns regarding the LANL
site office in their continuing regular interactions with NNSA.
SANDIA CLEANUP
Question. Mr. Rispoli, your fiscal year 2008 budget does not
provide any funding to complete the remaining cleanup project at Sandia
National Lab. It is my understanding you are waiting for the State of
New Mexico to give the final approval before you place a cap on the
landfill. Why has the State not approved this final action and what
source of funding do you intend to use to complete this project?
Answer. The Sandia Site Office has been working closely with the
New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) to satisfy additional requests
for information to support the proposed regulatory decision to allow
placement of a permanent cap on the mixed waste landfill. This has
resulted in additional scope being added to the project in the form of
a requirement for development and application of a contaminant fate and
transport model, collection of soil gas samples from the landfill and
immediate surroundings, participation in a formal public review and
comment resolution on the Corrective Measures Implementation Plan, a
Corrective Measures Implementation Report, and a Long-term Monitoring
and Maintenance Report. These products must be delivered and accepted
by NMED and the process activities completed before approval can be
provided for installation of the final landfill remedy. Some measures,
such as preparation of the landfill surface to allow emplacement of the
cap sub-grade soil layer, have been permitted by the regulators, and
this work has been completed.
We had not anticipated the extent of these additional requirements.
Unexpended project funds from fiscal year 2006 are being used to fund
this work but the additional scope requires funds that exceed the
available balances. Under the Revised Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, 2007, the Department has provided an additional $4.7
million to support these activities.
CONSOLIDATION OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL
Question. Mr. Rispoli, the Department has inventories of special
nuclear material including plutonium, highly enriched uranium and spent
fuel that exceeds our national security mission needs and is very
costly to secure. As I have expressed several times before, I believe
the Department needs to work quickly to consolidate and dispose of this
material to reduce costs and eliminate the proliferation risks. Can you
please explain to the subcommittee your strategy for the consolidation
of this material and challenges you face in consolidating this
material?
Answer. The Department's Nuclear Materials Disposition and
Consolidation Coordination Committee (NMDCCC), established in 2005 to
address nuclear material consolidation and disposition issues, recently
completed an implementation plan (IP) for consolidation and disposition
of surplus non-pit, weapons-usable plutonium. While the IP recommends
consolidating this material to the Savannah River Site (SRS), any
decisions on proposed consolidation and disposition are subject to
review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), other
applicable laws, and a final determination by the Secretary.
Challenges facing the Department for consolidating plutonium
include completing required environmental reviews, assuring support
from the South Carolina Congressional delegation and local authorities,
and complying with legal requirements. For example, prior to shipping
additional weapons-usable plutonium to SRS, Public Law 107-107,
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, requires
submittal to Congress of a plan for disposal of plutonium that would
have been disposed of using the Plutonium Immobilization Plant that was
cancelled in 2002.
With respect to highly enriched uranium (HEU) and spent fuel, the
deputy secretary has approved the Enriched Uranium (EU) Disposition
Project which would provide for continued operation of SRS's H-Canyon
facilities. As part of the project, surplus HEU materials currently
managed by the Environmental Management Office, the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA), and Naval Reactors will be sent to SRS
and processed in the H-Canyon facilities for disposition purposes.
Spent fuel currently stored at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and
in various domestic facilities and other countries, that is aluminum-
clad (this is the only type of cladding material that is compatible
with the H-Canyon processing capabilities) will also be shipped to SRS
and be disposed of through processing in H-Canyon, along with the
aluminum-clad spent fuel already at SRS. The uranium from processing
the spent fuel and HEU materials is planned to be blended down to a low
enrichment and sold to the Tennessee Valley Authority for use in
manufacturing fuel for its commercial nuclear plants. As a result,
additional waste will be generated from continued operation of H-
Canyon, but that amount is relatively small. Approximately 225
additional Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) canisters will
result from operation of H-Canyon through 2019. There is sufficient
space in the site tanks to store this waste prior to transferring it to
DWPF for vitrification. The EU disposition plan also includes
processing in H-Canyon of approximately two metric tons of weapons-
usable plutonium that cannot be disposed of using the Mixed-Oxide (MOX)
Fuel Fabrication Facility or the proposed Plutonium Disposition Project
due to specific contaminants. Therefore, H-Canyon processing is
critical to our efforts to consolidate plutonium.
MIXED-OXIDE (MOX) FUEL FABRICATION FACILITY VS.VITRIFICATION
Question. Mr. Rispoli, your budget requests $15 million to perform
design work on the Plutonium Vitrification Demonstration project in
South Carolina. As I understand it, this facility will be able to
handle up to 13 tons of plutonium that can not be processed through the
MOX plant. Could you explain to the subcommittee why you are pursuing
this project and why this is not an acceptable solution for the 34 tons
of U.S. surplus weapons grade plutonium the United States and Russia
have agreed to eliminate from their stockpiles.
Answer. We have proposed the Plutonium Vitrification Disposition
Project in order to be able to disposition plutonium that, because of
isotopic content and impurities such as chlorides and fluorides, are
not suitable for processing in the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility as
currently designed. This plutonium was to be disposed of using the
Plutonium Immobilization Plant, but construction of that facility was
cancelled in April 2002 when the decision was made to proceed with only
the MOX plant. We are required by law to have a disposition path out of
the State for all surplus plutonium stored at the Savannah River Site
(SRS) and the proposed Plutonium Vitrification Disposition Project,
together with the MOX plant and continued operation of the H-Canyon
facilities, will ensure there is a disposition path for all plutonium
currently at SRS or that may be sent there in the future. The proposed
Project is subject to review pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and compliance with other applicable laws relating to
potential consolidation and disposition of plutonium at SRS.
The current concept, process, and planned capability of the
Plutonium Vitrification Disposition Project would be unsuitable to
disposition the additional 34 metric tons (MT) of surplus plutonium
planned to be processed in the MOX facility. Significant changes would
be required in the design, footprint, process and throughput of the new
project. It is envisioned that the proposed Plutonium Vitrification
Disposition Project would be designed to fit in the basement of an
existing facility and sized to disposition up to approximately 13 MT of
lower purity plutonium by vitrifying it in lanthanide borosilicate
(LaBS) glass. LaBS glass is well suited for plutonium with higher
quantities of impurities and does not degrade the quality and
performance of the product for long-term storage and disposal. However,
when mixed with plutonium, LaBS glass produces a significant radiation
field. This effect is manageable for vitrifying the plutonium not
suitable for the planned MOX facility, but would not be desirable for a
significantly longer campaign such as the additional 34 MT of higher
purity plutonium. That is because in order to maintain the radiation
exposure to operators as low as reasonably achievable, it would take
about an additional 20 years of operation to vitrify the additional 34
MT of plutonium or require a substantially more complex and costly
facility. Therefore, adding the 34 MT of surplus plutonium planned to
be processed in the MOX facility to the 13 MT planned to be vitrified
would likely require changing the waste form from glass to ceramic in
order to eliminate high radiation.
Although the reaction that causes the high radiation levels does
not occur when the plutonium is mixed with ceramic, the ceramic does
not accept impurities and maintain its quality as well as glass. Much
of the 13 metric tons of plutonium contains significant impurities that
could result in cracking of the ceramic pellets. The cancelled
Plutonium Immobilization Plant that was to immobilize plutonium in
ceramic required blending a large amount of pure plutonium with the
impure plutonium in order to dilute the impurities to an acceptable
level. There is not enough pure Pu in the 13 metric tons to dilute the
impurities to an acceptable level.
The lanthanide borosilicate glass planned to be used in the
vitrification process is preferred over ceramic for vitrifying
relatively lower quantities of impure plutonium not only because it can
accommodate more impurities than the ceramic, but also because addition
of the lanthanide allows a larger amount of plutonium to be included in
each can of glass. Also, the change would require construction of a new
and larger facility (similar to that of the cancelled Plutonium
Immobilization Plant) vs. modification of an existing facility because
production of the ceramic waste form requires much more space than
exists in the K-Area facility.
Additionally, the Plutonium Vitrification Disposition Project would
utilize the can-in-canister concept where small cans of vitrified
plutonium are placed inside Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF)
canisters and the canisters are then filled with high activity waste
glass. The cans of vitrified plutonium need the high-level waste glass
to surround them in order to qualify the waste package for disposal at
Yucca Mountain; this high-level waste glass also provides resistance to
proliferation. With a ceramic waste form and the additional 34 MT of
plutonium, approximately 100,000 cans of ceramified plutonium would be
generated, requiring 3,600 DWPF canisters of high activity glass. That
would require processing beyond the planned DWPF completion date of
2026 by approximately a decade and require about 2,000 more DWPF
canisters of glass waste than will be produced from processing all of
the Savannah River tank waste. Taking into account the additional waste
resulting from the entire Enriched Uranium Disposition Project through
2019, which is approximately 200 to 250 additional DWPF canisters,
there is simply not enough high-level radioactive glass at SRS to over-
pour the plutonium glass or ceramic generated from 13 MT of plutonium
to meet the spent fuel standard required to assure proliferation
resistance in the repository. Since neither the plutonium-ceramic nor
the vitrified plutonium can be sent to the geologic repository without
being inside DWPF canisters filled with glass waste, this approach is
not viable.
For all these reasons, the proposed Plutonium Vitrification
Disposition Project is not viable for the disposition of the plutonium
destined for the MOX plant.
WASHINGTON STATE--HIGH LEVEL WASTE VITRIFICATION PROJECT
Question. Mr. Rispoli, the Department has faced enormous challenges
in containing the cost of this massive project to vitrify the millions
of gallons of high level waste stored in underground tanks in
Washington. This project was originally budgeted for $5.7 billion in
2003. Today, after several independent evaluations, the Department
estimates that the total projects cost will be $12.3 billion and will
be completed by 2019. Can you please explain why the original baseline
was so low and why you believe this new cost estimate will not escalate
further over the next decade?
Answer. The Department of Energy, with the advice and assistance of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has implemented several major
initiatives to ensure that we fully understand what is required to
successfully complete the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) project and begin
plant operations.
The major reasons for the increases in the estimated cost and the
delays in schedule result from faulty initial estimates and the overly
optimistic treatment of uncertainty and risk for the following: (1)
design of novel technology for a large, complex nuclear-chemical plant
(pulse jet mixing pumps, non-Newtonian fluids, etc), (2) quantity,
procurement and availability of equipment and materials, (3)
availability and productivity of professional and craft labor, and (4)
environmental and safety regulatory compliance (fire proofing, seismic
ground motion, etc.). These were further aggravated by conditions
created by deficiencies in the acquisition strategy and management
approach. It is important to note that the March 2003 performance
baseline was established with a design completion of 30 percent, using
a majority of estimating tools which were based on parametric costs
from similar facilities. The December 2006 performance baseline was
established with a design completion of 78 percent, using a majority of
estimating tools which were based on costs from material take-offs.
This provides a more highly detailed cost estimate that enables higher
confidence.
The Department has increased its confidence in the success of this
project as a result of implementing several key actions that addressed
its project management capability, management of calculating technical
risks, and the project's cost and schedule baseline. Over the past 18
months, the Department has retained a broad range of external, senior
professionals from private industry, academia, and other government
agencies to thoroughly review the key elements of the WTP. Key
initiatives to reinforce the confidence in the project are as follows:
Strengthen Project Management
The Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management has
established a Headquarters' senior-level waste treatment and
immobilization plant oversight team. The team is fully engaged in all
aspects of the project;
The Department commissioned an independent expert team that
completed an after action fact finding review to better understand the
management issues associated with the project. All of the
recommendations have been or are in the process of being addressed;
DOE has recruited talented personnel in the areas of contracting,
procurement, contract law, and project management;
The WTP contractor is implementing an earned value management
system (EVMS) to track variances to the baseline. The system is being
independently certified to be fully compliant with the requirements of
the American National Standards Institute/Environmental Industry
Association (ANSI/EIA) 748-A-1998. This system, currently in use by the
contractor as a management tool, will accurately report project cost
and schedule performance;
A structured daily, weekly, and monthly project reporting system is
in place, and a Quarterly Performance Review is conducted by the
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management;
The Secretary of Energy is engaged in the WTP project and meets
with senior principals of Bechtel National Inc. on a regular basis.
Verify Technology
The Department commissioned a broad group of distinguished
independent senior professionals from private industry and academia to
thoroughly review all technology aspects of the WTP process flow sheet.
The flow sheet report was finalized in March 2006 and identified 28
issues that have already been or currently are being addressed;
DOE is on a path forward to having the final earthquake seismic and
ground motion criteria approved by the Secretary of Energy. DOE has
retained the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to oversee the drilling of
one core hole and three deep boreholes to confirm the geophysical
properties of the layers of bedrock below the WTP project site.
Borehole drilling commenced in June 2006 and was completed in October
2006. We forecast that the Secretary of Energy will approve the final
seismic and ground motion criteria by September 2007;
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has been actively
engaged in the seismic issue and all safety related technical issues
from the commencement of the project. Also, I meet monthly with the
Board to share information and discuss issues.
Establish a Credible Project Cost and Schedule
In August 2006, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers delivered to the
Department an independent review of the contractor's May 2006 estimate-
at-completion, which provided a qualified validation of the cost and
schedule baseline--with the addition of $650 million and three months
of schedule contingency.
In addition, two other external independent reviews were
implemented (March 2006 and October 2006) to confirm the quality of the
WTP cost and schedule baseline and project management systems.
In December, 2006, as a result of the independent reviews, the
Department's Office of Engineering and Construction Management
validated a final total project cost of $12.263 billion and schedule
completion date of November 2019. The revised project cost and schedule
was approved by the Deputy Secretary of Energy on December 22, 2006.
Based on the actions we have taken and the reviews by independent
industry experts, the project is now reinforced with a strong project
management framework, a clear understanding of the technical issues,
and a credible project cost and schedule baseline.
WASHINGTON STATE--TRI-PARTY AGREEMENT
Question. Mr. Rispoli, in 1989 the Department entered into a Tri-
Party Agreement between the U.S. EPA, the State of Washington and DOE
to set cleanup milestone for Office of River Protection. Since the
agreement has been signed, the Department has been forced to work
through hundreds, if not thousands of changes to this agreement and
renegotiate revisions to the compliance orders. It seems inevitable
that the Department will miss milestones and will be forced to
renegotiate the consent agreement when neither party fully understands
the extent and the nature of the existing contamination. It appears
that the Department is accepting an enormous amount of risk to sign-up
to an enforceable agreement without understanding the full extent of
the cleanup. How has the Department worked through the thousands of
missed agreed upon milestones?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) remains committed to the
cleanup at the Hanford site in accordance with the Tri-Party Agreement
(TPA). It is important to remember that the TPA is a ``living''
document that was designed to be updated. For example, there are TPA
milestones that call for new milestones to be defined at specified
points in time. Similarly, new sections are added to the TPA, as
appropriate. To clarify, DOE has missed relatively few agreed upon
milestones. In fact, DOE has completed 96 percent of the milestones
within schedule from the start of the TPA. There were originally 161
milestones, and today there are 950 completed milestones and 235
milestones to go for a total of 1,185 milestones. In accordance with
the terms of the TPA, there have been 442 approved change requests, 6
amendments, and 3 modifications known as ``Director's Determinations.''
As with any ``living'' document, the TPA parties explore
opportunities to improve safety, effectiveness, efficiency, and
flexibility of the Hanford cleanup. To do this, the parties engage in
regular dialog to ensure the milestones make sense and further the
intent of the TPA.
Question. What has been the process for the Department to engage
the other interested parties to work out an achievable solution?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE), the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the State of Washington have engaged in a series
of large and small group meetings to understand technical and schedule
issues regarding the Waste Treatment Plant, supplemental treatment for
low-activity tank waste, tank waste retrieval, and groundwater
remediation. The goal of all of the parties remains safe, timely, risk-
informed cleanup of the Hanford site.
______
Questions Submitted to Hon. Edward F. Sproat III
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
SECOND REPOSITORY
Question. Mr. Sproat, I read an article that quoted you as saying
that the threat of a second nuclear fuel repository would convince
Congress to approve the legislation the administration sent up
yesterday. I couldn't disagree more with this analysis. For Members to
take your threat seriously it must be believable and I don't believe
your statement is. Of all the options we have before us today,
including GNEP, do you believe this administration would endorse the
creation of a second repository?
Answer. This was never intended to be threat of a second
repository; rather, it was meant to communicate a statutory
requirement. Section 161(b) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), as
amended, requires the Secretary of Energy to report on the need for a
second repository. That report is required to be submitted to the
President and the Congress between January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2010.
Without passage of the provisions in the administration's proposed
legislation that would remove the administrative capacity limitation
provisions in section 114(d) of the NWPA limiting the capacity of Yucca
Mountain to 70,000 metric tons of heavy metal until a second repository
is operational, this report will likely conclude that a second
repository is needed to dispose of the commercial spent nuclear fuel
from the existing fleet of commercial reactors and the remaining
defense high-level radioactive waste that cannot be disposed within the
70,000 metric ton limit. While GNEP spent nuclear fuel recycling has
the potential to reduce the volume of spent nuclear fuel to be disposed
of in Yucca Mountain it will be many years before there is sufficient
information on which to make reasonable projections as to when and to
what extent advanced recycling facilities will be deployed.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN AUTHORIZATION
Question. Yesterday, the administration sent up legislation,
identical to the version from the 109th Congress, which I introduced on
behalf of the administration. It is my understanding that passage of
this legislation is critical if you are to meet the 2017 operations
goal you have set for the project. If Congress fails to enact this
legislation, what impact will this have on the opening or operations of
Yucca Mountain?
Answer. First, without passage of the administration's legislation
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission cannot grant a construction
authorization for Yucca Mountain because permanent land withdrawal is
required as a condition to receive a construction authorization.
Second, without the funding reform proposed in the legislation, the
Department is highly unlikely to have sufficient budget authority
available to construct the repository to our best-achievable schedule
for initial repository operation in 2017.
CANISTER HANDLING AND STORAGE
Question. Mr. Sproat, the budget discusses a new canister storage
approach that will simplify the canister handling operations at Yucca
Mountain. Can you please explain this new approach has [sic] how it
will impact the overall project costs? What do utilities think of this
new approach?
Answer. The canistered approach, utilizes the transportation, aging
and disposal (TAD) canister for the receipt of most of the commercial
spent nuclear fuel expected to be disposed of at Yucca Mountain. The
use of the TAD canister will eliminate hundreds of thousands of
individual spent fuel assembly handling operations at the Yucca
Mountain facilities, which will allow the Department to simplify the
design of the repository surface facilities and their operations. This,
in turn, will result in less costly facilities and reduced operating
costs. Regarding overall program costs, any increased program costs for
the purchase of the TAD canisters is expected to be off-set by
programmatic savings in facility construction and operations. The
Department cannot speak for utilities as to their views; on this
approach. However, during the development of the TAD performance
specification requirements, the Department did attend several industry
meetings to receive technical input for the TAD performance
specification. At these meetings the industry was generally supportive
of the canister development effort.
GOVERNMENT LEGAL LIABILITY
Question. Mr. Sproat, included in your statement you indicate that
Federal Government's legal liability for failure to accept spent fuel
by 1998 will increase by $500 million annually after 2017. This will be
on top of the existing $7 billion liability. Why isn't the
administration doing anything in the meantime to reduce or eliminate
this well defined problem? Why wait until 2017?
Answer. If the Department starts accepting spent nuclear fuel in
2017, we estimate that the liability to the U.S. Government to be $7
billion; that liability will grow by $500 million per year every year
the repository is further delayed. The Department believes that the
best approach to limiting the Government's liability is to begin
acceptance of commercial spent fuel at the repository at the earliest
possible date. The passage of the administration's proposed legislation
to ensure the timely opening of Yucca Mountain is the most significant
step urgently needed to limit the liability. The Department also
believes that an interim storage facility at another location could not
be sited, licensed, constructed and begin operations appreciably sooner
than the Yucca Mountain repository begins accepting spent fuel.
Moreover, under the current law, an interim storage facility could not
be constructed until after NRC grants a construction authorization for
the repository and then only an amount of spent fuel equivalent to
10,000 metric tons of heavy metal could be accepted at the storage
facility until the repository begins operations, at which time the
limit would increase to 15,000 metric tons.
Question. Why hasn't the administration considered an interim
strategy to stage the fuel or set it aside for recycling in light of
the looming legal liability?
Answer. The Department's best-achievable schedule for commencing
operations of the Yucca Mountain repository is 2017. The Department
believes that interim storage could not be undertaken appreciably
sooner than when Yucca Mountain could be open. Moreover, under the
current law, an interim storage facility could not be constructed until
after NRC grants a construction authorization for the repository and
then only an amount of spent fuel equivalent to 10,000 metric tons of
heavy metal could be accepted at the storage facility until the
repository began operation, at which time the limit would increase to
15,000 metric tons.
NEVADA RAIL LINE
Question. Mr. Sproat, this budget requests $15 million to support
work on the Nevada rail line, yet the legislation you have just sent to
the Hill requires Congress to withdraw land for this rail line. Why
would we spend any amount of funding in this project until we are
certain that we can get access to the land we will need to build the
project?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2008 budget requests $15
million for transportation projects, which includes $5 million for work
with States, Tribes, and other stakeholders on national transportation
planning efforts. The $10 million requested for work on the Nevada Rail
Line Project will be used to complete the environmental impact
statement on possible rail alignments. This information is necessary to
define the ultimate path a rail line to Yucca Mountain would take in
Nevada and to support the granting of either a permanent withdrawal of
lands or a right-of-way for the Nevada Rail Line. The proposed
legislation would withdraw land for the repository but not for the
Nevada Rail line.
LAYOFFS
Question. Mr. Sproat, the Department recently announced layoffs of
contractor staff in order to restructure the workforce. Can you tell me
how this will impact the project and if you expect additional layoffs
during this fiscal year?
Answer. The OCRWM prime contractor, Bechtel SAIC Company (BSC)
located in Nevada developed a workforce restructuring plan (WRP) that
is consistent with the level of funding provided in fiscal year 2007.
The WRP will result in layoffs of approximately 65 BSC employees. This
will allow BSC to assess and realign, where necessary, those skills
that are essential to successfully completing the License Application
by February 2008. The funding reduction and the WRP have no impact on
the license application submission, but the program will defer non
license application related activities in fiscal year 2007. Because the
funding received by the program for fiscal year 2007 was $100 million
less than the President requested, we do anticipate making additional
reduction in force later in fiscal year 2007 and in fiscal year 2008.
The timing and size of those further reductions are currently being
evaluated.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Dorgan. This hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 3:32 p.m., Wednesday, March 7, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:33 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Dorgan, Landrieu, Reed, Domenici,
Bennett, Craig, and Allard.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN
Senator Dorgan. I'm going to call the hearing to order.
This is the hearing of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development and we will take testimony today on the budget
request and justifications for the Department of the Army, Army
Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Department of the Interior.
My ranking member is Senator Domenici. He is, at the
moment, in the Budget Committee. They are marking up the budget
document. I don't know how long he will be there but it might
take some while. So he has indicated it's fine to begin without
him because he is busy on budget votes.
I'm joined by my colleague, Senator Craig, and we have two
panels today. I am going to have both panels seated together
and I appreciate that. We have a series of six votes today that
start at 3:45 and because of that, I think because we have six
votes that will be sequential, they will take us probably 1\1/
2\ hours to 1 hour and 40 minutes to complete. I want to try to
do a good hearing and a complete hearing but try to complete it
as efficiently and effectively as we can before we start those
votes. Because if we would have to recess and then come back 1
hour or 1 hour-plus later, that would not be helpful to
anybody.
I'd like to make a brief opening statement and then I'm
going to call on Senator Craig.
Today the subcommittee will take testimony on the fiscal
year 2008 budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers and
the Bureau of Reclamation. General Strock is with us today from
the Corps of Engineers. Sir, my understanding is that this will
be your final hearing with us and you will soon retire from the
Army. Let me thank you for your service to our country and
thank you for appearing before this committee a number of times
and we look forward to a smooth transition with your successor,
General Van Antwerp when he is confirmed.
Let me say that the President's budget for the Corps of
Engineers proposes $4.87 billion. That's nearly $500 million
below the enacted level of fiscal year 2007, $5.34 billion. The
highlights of the fiscal year 2008 budget include general
investigations' proposed 45 percent decrease, $90 million down
from the current year--excuse me, proposed at $90 million, $73
million less than the current year enacted. General
construction is proposed at a 38 percent decrease from current
year. We have a very substantial backlog in unconstructed
projects. I'm very concerned about both of these
recommendations, frankly.
The Mississippi River and Tributaries is proposed at $260
million, a decrease of 35 percent from the current year. The
O&M, operations and maintenance general, is proposed at an
increase of 25 percent. This increase is somewhat less than it
sounds because of the $286 million shifted from the
construction account to O&M for the sake of budget
transparency.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request is assembled along the
Corps' eight business lines. I'm going to put a statement in
the record speaking about the investigation accounts and the
construction funding and some other thoughts about it.
Let me just say even as I include my whole statement in the
record that I'm disappointed by the budget because frankly, as
I think our witnesses know and I hope the administration knows,
we have a substantial amount of work to be done. We have
projects that are not yet funded. We have projects underway
that are not funded adequately and I frankly don't understand
the budget request. I understand we have to tighten our belts
but I also understand there is a very big difference between
spending and investing and I think when you take a look at all
of the appropriations requests that we receive in the Congress,
if ever you would classify projects as investments, you would
classify these projects as investments. These, in many cases,
are water projects, public works projects that will provide
dividends for years to come to this country. So I don't view
this as typical spending. We are providing flood control, we
are saving substantial money in flood control projects, we are
investing in water projects that enhance our economy and
provide opportunities that weren't otherwise provided.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So I'm very concerned about the budgets. With respect to
the Bureau of Reclamation, again I think we have budgets here
that come to us probably expecting the committee to add back
funding. Maybe that's the case. If it is, my hope will be that
this expectation is realized because I think the Corps of
Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation are critical to a whole
range of things that represent the public good in our country
and we must provide adequate funding for the things that they
undertake on our behalf.
I'm going to call on Senator Craig and ask that my entire
statement be part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Byron L. Dorgan
Good afternoon--the hearing will come to order.
Today, the subcommittee will take testimony on the fiscal year 2008
budget requests for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of
Reclamation.
The hearing will consist of two panels. The first panel will
consist of witnesses from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Testifying for them will be: John Paul Woodley, Principle Deputy,
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, and Lieutenant General
Carl A. Strock, Chief of Engineers for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
At the conclusion of this panel, we will observe a short break and
seat the panel for the Bureau of Reclamation. Testifying for the Bureau
of Reclamation will be: Mark Limbaugh, Assistant Secretary for Water
and Science, Department of the Interior, and Robert Johnson,
Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation. Mr. Woodley, General Strock, thank
you for appearing before us today.
General Strock, I understand that this will be your final hearing
with us as you will soon retire from the Army. I want to thank you for
your service to this committee and the Nation. I look forward to a
smooth transition with your successor, General Van Antwerp, when he is
confirmed.
The President's budget for the Corps of Engineers proposes $4.87
billion, which is $469 million below the fiscal year 2007 enacted
amount of $5.34 billion.
Several of the highlights for the fiscal year 2008 budget include:
--General investigations is proposed at $90 million, down 45 percent
($73 million) from the current year. Even if we were going to
consider the proposed cancellation of $50 million of fiscal
year 2007 funds, this account would still be 20 percent below
the fiscal year 2007 enacted amount.
--Construction, general is proposed at $1.523 billion, a decrease of
38 percent ($813 million) from the current year which certainly
doesn't help to reduce the more than $40 billion backlog in
unconstructed projects. I am not sure whether we will be able
to make up the entire deficit in this account.
--Mississippi River and Tributaries is proposed at $260 million, a
decrease of 35 percent ($137 million) from the current year.
--Operation and maintenance, general is proposed at $2.471 billion,
an increase of about 25 percent ($496 million). I wish this is
as good as it sounds. However, this increase is inflated by
$286 million that was shifted from the construction account to
O&M for the sake of ``budget transparency''.
BUDGET PRIORITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
Your fiscal year 2008 budget request is assembled along the Corps'
eight business lines: Emergency Management; Environment; Flood and
Coastal Storm Damage Reduction; Hydropower; Navigation; Recreation;
Regulatory; and Water Supply.
In the GI account, the budget proposal arbitrarily limits funding
to $90 million. The only justification used is that since the Corps
civil works program already has a large backlog of ongoing construction
work, there is no need to study and design additional projects. There
are many reasons why this is a shortsighted budgetary view:
--The planning program in the Corps' GI account is the entry point
for Federal involvement in solutions to water resource problems
and needs.
--It assumes that the country will stop growing and that new
investment opportunities will not be present.
--In truth, as the country grows, new investment opportunities will
be presented and some previously authorized projects may no
longer make sense or may be less competitive.
Construction funding within the budget was prioritized primarily by
the use of the benefit to cost ratio. While this is a more equitable
way to compare projects than previous measures, it still does not get
to the heart of your budgeting dilemma. That is, that your program has
been underfunded for years.
Your budget proposes that 16 high priority projects consume some 51
percent of the construction budget. The remaining 52 projects that you
recommended have to split the remaining 49 percent of the construction
budget. This will lead to these 52 projects limping along for another
year. Meanwhile the other 250 or so projects that are on-going from
previous years are not even addressed in the budget.
Our national water resource needs continue to grow as our
population grows and shifts around the country. The American Society of
Civil Engineers has again graded our infrastructure as a ``D''. How
does this budget address this abysmal grade? It doesn't!
You are budgeting in large measure as if there is a finite group of
projects that once they are finished, investment in our national
infrastructure will be complete. Then all that will be required is
funding to maintain this infrastructure. You are not providing
sufficient funding to maintain what we have, much less provide for the
future.
Finding a new and better prioritization system will not solve the
problems of consistently underfunding infrastructure. Sure you may
succeed in prioritizing your agency into irrelevance, but that does not
help the problem nor can we allow that to happen.
The only way to solve this problem, is for the administration to
provide more funding for these infrastructure investments. If they
won't then the Congress will certainly try. Note that I did not say
spend more money, I said invest more. The funding that we provide is
for investments not only for today but in our future.
BUDGET PROPOSALS
The fiscal year 2006 budget has a number of proposals, some new for
this year, some recycled from previous years.
The budget has again proposed the elimination of continuing
contracts in favor of multiple year contracting. I will have a number
of questions for you concerning this proposal.
The budget again proposes a beach policy that has been previously
rejected by the Congress. I think it is safe to assume that the
modified policy will also be rejected.
Finally, I find it fascinating that the administration has proposed
considerable authorizing language as a part of the budget. Perhaps you
should consider proposing an administration WRDA bill to address these
needed authorizing provisions.
It is obvious from this budget proposal that the Congress has
considerable work ahead. The President has proposed considerable
infrastructure investments, unfortunately, they are not in our country,
but in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I look forward to working towards preparing a responsible budget
for our national infrastructure.
Our second panel will consist of witnesses from the Department of
Interior. Testifying will be: Mark Limbaugh, Assistant Secretary for
Water and Science, Department of the Interior, and Robert Johnson,
Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation.
The two major project accounts for the Department of Interior under
the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water subcommittee are the Central
Utah Completion Act Account and the Bureau of Reclamation.
THE CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT
The Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992 authorized this
element of the Colorado River Storage Project to be completed by the
Central Utah Conservancy District.
The Central Utah Project Completion account is proposed at $43
million for fiscal year 2008, an increase of nearly 27 percent ($9
million) from the current year.
The increase in this account is primarily due to construction
contracts planned for the project in fiscal year 2008.
THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
The Bureau of Reclamation is proposed at $958.4 million for fiscal
year 2008, a decrease of 6.5 percent ($66.6 million) from the current
year.
This budget includes: $816.2 million for the Water and Related
Resources account, $51.6 million for the Central Valley Project
Restoration Fund, $31.8 million for the California Bay-Delta
Restoration account, and $58.8 million for the Policy and
Administration account.
Major projects funded in Water and Related Resources include: $27.2
million for the Central Arizona Project, $124.8 million for
California's Central Valley Project, $58 million for the Animas-La
Plata Project in Colorado, $55 million for rural water projects, and
$77 million for continued work to ensure the safety of dams.
ISSUES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
I am concerned that funding for rural water projects is declining.
We have people in my home State that can see Lake Sakakawea from their
house, yet 50 years after the lake was constructed, they still have to
haul water to their homes each and every week whether it is -35 degrees
or 100 degrees outside. It should not be that way. Not in this country.
The budget proposal further drags out completion of these projects and
the delivery of fresh water to these impacted communities.
Under Water 2025, $11 million is proposed to meet the challenge of
preventing crises and conflicts over water in the west. Ten million
dollars of the funds are proposed for the 50:50 challenge grant program
which relies on local initiative and innovation to identify and
formulate the most sensible improvements for local water systems.
Another area of the budget that has been seriously underfunded is
water reclamation and reuse. Water reclamation and reuse is a vital
component of increasing near term water supplies for the West. The
Federal share for most of these projects is about 25 percent or $20
million whichever is less. In many cases, the few Federal dollars
involved are the difference as to whether these projects can move
forward or not. The Federal dollars are leveraged against other funding
to make these projects a success. Only about $10 million was provided
for these projects in the budget request. Congress normally provides
$25-30 million.
The administration has proposed $1 million to develop and
administer the Loan Guarantee program. This new program is intended to
address aging water infrastructure issues in the West. It was
authorized by the Reclamation Rural Water Supply Act of 2006.
Title I of this act requires the Secretary to establish a formal
rural water supply program for rural water and major maintenance
projects. The Secretary is also to establish programmatic and
eligibility criteria along with other reporting requirements and
criteria for appraisal and feasibility studies. I am glad to see that
you are funding this initiative and hope that you will include rural
water supply as a bigger part of your budget for fiscal year 2009.
I look forward to working with you gentlemen as we prepare the
fiscal year 2008 budget for your agencies.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, I will adhere to your
admonition about time because we do want to hear these folks
who are before us. I must also say to the panel, a lot of what
the Senator has said, I agree with. It's probably the result of
him coming from the High Plains and me coming from the high
desert. Like no one else, our States appreciate and understand
water.
But let me welcome, of course, Assistant Secretary Woodley
and General Strock. Again, thank you for your service.
Commissioner Johnson and the Assistant Secretary are in the
back of the room and he'll be forward. Are you going to have
everybody at the table?
Senator Dorgan. Yes.
Senator Craig. Then Commissioner Limbaugh, why don't you
move down and let me ask that you go over to the right side.
There you go. So we'll get you all at the table. There we go.
I want to thank you all for your willingness to work with
our offices on a variety of issues from the Corps helping
deliver clean drinking water to many of my Idaho constituents,
the Bureau of Reclamation storing Idaho's most precious
resource, water. I sat through several budget hearings so far
and one trend remains true. Declining budgets are a part of the
current fiscal reality that we're all dealing with. I realize
and understand you all are forced to balance priorities with
the current fiscal constraints and I appreciate what a
difficult task that must be.
Now, let me turn my focused comments specifically to the
Army Corps of Engineers. First I want to start by thanking
members of the Corps that have served our country in Iraq. You
will play a vital role, not only domestically but
internationally as we pursue stable environments, both in
Afghanistan and Iraq. We thank you for your service there.
Second, thank you for your diligent work in my State, as I
mentioned earlier, in drinking water, waste water
infrastructure. Some may argue this isn't part of your core
mission. However, you all do phenomenal work in my State and
generally, complete projects within a reasonable timeframe,
within budget, for which I commend you and thank you.
The Corps also plays a vital role in operating and
maintaining our national waterways. As has just been mentioned,
Idaho ships a significant number of products on the Snake and
Columbia systems. It is important that we maintain those while
dredging has gone on. The reality of infrastructure
maintenance, aging locks, aging gates--all of those kinds of
things to sustain a very critical transportation system is
important. So I am concerned about that. I'm also concerned
about the administration's proposal that would create a lock
tax. As you know, shippers already pay a fuel tax. I'm
interested in hearing how this new tax will access--will be
accessed as well as where the revenue might end up. If it's
just a new source of revenue that gets dumped into the General
Fund, I don't think any of our users are all that interested.
Dedicated revenues that end up replacing used infrastructure
makes--could make some sense.
The Bureau of Reclamation, as you know well, Commissioner
and Assistant Secretary--water is what makes the West what it
is today. We have a problem with aging infrastructure and I
appreciate your helping find long-term solutions to those
problems. I commend the administration for acting quickly,
setting up a guarantee loan program. Although it is only set at
$1 million, I'm encouraged. I think it is a step clearly in the
right direction that begins to address some of the ways we
solve some of these problems. We need to continue looking for
creative financing packages for our water users so they can
rehabilitate their infrastructure in an efficient and cost
effective way.
We in the West are no longer at the frontier. We are a
developed economy in an aging infrastructure and with a
developed economy, it has resources properly leveraged that can
assist itself when government becomes a cooperating partner and
I'm not here nor are any of my users here to suggest that the
government ought to be the only partner or that it ought to be
the only supplier of resource. I've been supportive of the 2025
Program as well as Title 16 Program and I hope to see those
programs continue to yield results.
One last thing--this is not only directed at your agencies
but also at the Federal agencies that have provided budgets in
Congress. It's been difficult to decipher which programs have
received increases, which have received decreases and more
specifically, what was enacted in the 2006 versus what is
requested now. This information isn't widely available, has
been tough not only to find areas to look at, understand and/or
criticize. These are the realities of what we're working with
now and I hope the administration works on this for the next
year so that we all have a better understanding of where we
are.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to all of your
testimony.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Craig, thank you very much. To my
other colleagues, let me say that we have six votes starting at
3:45 and so I want to try to see if we can get the witnesses to
make their statements and I want to make sure we have ample
opportunity at the hearing to ask questions as well. If you'd
like to make a very brief opening statement, I'll recognize
that but I----
Senator Bennett. I've got a page and a half, Mr. Chairman.
Will that be enough?
Senator Dorgan. Why don't you proceed?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT
Senator Bennett. Okay. I just wanted to address the Army
Corps and thank them for their excellent work in Utah. We've
had their quick response to devastating floods in Washington
County and I enjoyed working with them.
But I do have a significant issue that I want to call
General Strock's and Secretary Woodley's attention to. The Army
Corps has made good progress in rural Utah by providing
financial and technical assistance for water infrastructure
projects. Rural Utah 595 Program--you're nodding, you're
familiar with that. It makes it possible for rural cities and
counties to build the critical water projects that otherwise
they couldn't afford. So the Congress has supported this
program and I'm asking for the subcommittee's continued
support.
But the committee--although the committee has provided
specific funding to the rural Utah account, on two separate
occasions, the Army Corps has reprogrammed nearly $1.5 million
to spend on projects in other States and these missing funds
could complete several infrastructure projects in Utah that are
now on hold because of the lack of funding.
I raised this concern with the Division Commander,
Brigadier General McMahon, last week when he came to see me and
he assured me that the Corps was simply borrowing the money and
the funds would be replaced. I'm not familiar with that process
in the Federal system, how you borrow money that has been
earmarked for one purpose and use it for another. Maybe we
ought to be paid interest. I don't know. But I understand that
the Corps has formulated its work plan for fiscal 2007 and in
that work plan, it did not include funds to restore those that
were borrowed from the rural Utah account. So I want to raise
the issue here and have a response on the record for replacing
the funds and would like to know when they will be replaced.
So that's my issue, Mr. Chairman and I raise it and it's
there to be responded to either in the question period or if
we're all drawn away from votes, on the record. Thank you very
much.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Bennett, thank you very much.
Senator Landrieu.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Landrieu. I'm going to waive my opening statement
and will submit it for the record but I do need several
questions after the testimony.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Thank you Chairman Dorgan and thank you Assistant Secretary Woodley
and General Strock for appearing before this committee. Today, we are
here to discuss the very important matter of the Corps budget and I
appreciate the chance to share my thoughts with this committee and with
you the leadership of the Corps.
I find the President's budget request for the Corps for fiscal year
2008 is once again woefully inadequate. The President's budget requests
a mere $4.87 billion while we all know there is substantially more
needed. Additionally, I am troubled by the continuation of the downward
trend of investment in the country's infrastructure, specifically civil
works projects. Specifically for Louisiana, several important projects
have either been omitted or under funded in the President's budget
request, such as: Morganza to the Gulf, SELA and others. While the
Corps' regular fiscal year 2008 budget request is cause enough for
concern, I am also concerned by the supplemental appropriations request
the administration is asking Congress to consider.
The piece-meal approach to hurricane recovery is still not
sufficient. The request to reprogram, rather than appropriate $1.3
billion to cover identified shortfalls for hurricane recovery is not a
sustainable approach. Many Americans and most Louisianans recall the
President's commitment from Jackson square to rebuild the devastated
region; however the rhetoric has not matched the funding request.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul will not provide adequate protection to
prevent future disasters. Accordingly, I urge the Corps to deliver an
estimate of the full cost of hurricane protection system recovery so
Congress can develop a comprehensive path forward.
The path forward must involve comprehensive wetland, navigation and
flood protection planning. In the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water
Appropriations bill, this committee directed the Corps to develop a
``full range of flood control, coastal restoration and hurricane
protection measures exclusive of normal policy considerations'' in
close coordination with the State of Louisiana. I remain concerned that
the Corps will not follow Congress' intent in either presenting options
outside of normal policy considerations or in the development of plans
with sufficient input for Louisiana's interests. The State of Louisiana
has developed its plan for flood control, coastal restoration and
hurricane protection and I urge the Corps to incorporate the State's
findings into its Cat 5 plan.
Finally, I look forward to having some of my questions answered and
I again thank the chair for the opportunity to speak here today.
Senator Dorgan. General Strock and Secretary Woodley, thank
you both for appearing on behalf of the Corps. We appreciate
once again your willingness to be here to present statements
and answer questions. Why don't you proceed as you wish, Mr.
Secretary.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR.
Mr. Woodley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief
and I want to begin my testimony by paying tribute to my
colleague who is retiring later this year, the 51st Chief of
Engineers. Lieutenant General Strock will be concluding a very
distinguished career in which he served as Chief of Engineers
at perhaps the most challenging time in that agency's long and
storied history. So I want to put that directly before the
committee before I say anything else.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Secretary, the committee shares your
gratitude and the ``thank you'' that we would offer General
Strock for his service to our country as well.
Mr. Woodley. We have requested a 3 percent increase over
our fiscal year 2007 request this year, providing $2.5 billion
for the operation and maintenance account as the chairman
noted, which represents a 9 percent increase over our request
for fiscal year 2007.
We have prioritized to--first of all, dam safety to
continue to repair those projects that are in danger and to
work on--give special priority to those projects that protect
human health, human safety and property.
We've also asked for an increase of funding in the
Regulatory program to $180 million. This funding will be used
for permit processing, enforcement and compliance, including
our increased workload that we are anticipating because of
recent judicial determinations by the Supreme Court.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We will be working with stakeholders as Senator Craig
indicated, to see what kind of solution we can reach about the
depletion of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. That fund is very
close to depletion because of the enormous investments that we
are making in the Nation's waterway infrastructure and
construction and some kind of action, we believe, should be
taken to address the question of the depletion of that fund.
So those are the highlights of our submission. I very much
appreciate the opportunity to appear and address your questions
today.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Paul Woodley, Jr.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee: thank
you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee, and to
present the President's budget for the Civil Works program of the Army
Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2008.
OVERVIEW
The fiscal year 2008 budget for Army Civil Works provides funding
for development and restoration of the Nation's water and related
resources within the three main Civil Works program areas, namely,
commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction, and
aquatic ecosystem restoration. The budget also supports hydropower,
recreation, environmental stewardship, and water supply services at
existing water resources projects owned or operated by the Corps.
Finally, the budget provides for protection of the Nation's regulated
waters and wetlands; cleanup of sites contaminated as a result of the
Nation's early efforts to develop atomic weapons; and emergency
preparedness. The budget does not fund work that should be the
responsibility of non-Federal interests or other Federal agencies, such
as wastewater treatment and municipal and industrial water treatment
and distribution.
Total new discretionary funding in the fiscal year 2008 budget is
$4.871 billion for fiscal year 2008, the highest amount ever in a Civil
Works budget. Within this total, we have allocated $2.471 billion to
activities funded in the operation and maintenance (O&M) account. This
is the highest funding level for operation and maintenance ever
proposed in a President's budget or enacted by the Congress. It is 9
percent above the fiscal year 2007 budget level for the O&M account and
$206 million above fiscal year 2006 enacted, after accounting for the
$296 million that the budget has proposed to transfer in fiscal year
2008 from construction to operation and maintenance.
The budget also includes a fiscal year 2007 recommendation to re-
allocate up to $1.3 billion of emergency supplemental appropriations
enacted in fiscal year 2006. This would enable the Corps to use
available, unobligated funds for measures that will provide a better
overall level of protection for the New Orleans metropolitan area in
the near-term. This proposal is discussed further below.
A 5-year budget development plan (FYDP) is under development and
will be provided to the relevant committees of Congress. The FYDP
includes two scenarios or projections: one based on the President's
proposed fiscal year 2008 budget; and one above that level based on the
most recently enacted appropriations (fiscal year 2006) at the time the
budget was prepared. The projections are formula driven. They do not
represent budget decisions or budget policy beyond fiscal year 2008,
but they can provide perspective on the Army Civil Works program and
budget.
Enclosure 1 displays the current estimate for the distribution of
new discretionary funding among eight appropriation accounts, eight
program areas plus executive direction and management, and five sources
including the general fund of the Treasury and trust funds. Enclosure 2
is a crosscut between appropriation accounts and program areas.
PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING
The fiscal year 2008 budget reflects a performance-based approach
to budgeting. Competing investment opportunities for studies, design,
construction, and operation and maintenance were evaluated using
multiple metrics. We used objective, performance criteria to guide the
allocation of funds among construction projects (see below).
The budget includes initiatives leading to the development of a
more systematic, performance-based budget and improved asset
management. For instance, to improve investment decision making, the
budget funds the development of economic models for navigation and
methods for evaluating the benefits of aquatic ecosystem restoration
efforts. To help identify, evaluate, and establish priorities for the
maintenance and rehabilitation of existing flood and storm damage
reduction, commercial navigation, and hydropower assets, the budget
provides funding to develop asset management systems and risk-based
condition indices. Finally, the budget presents information for
operation and maintenance activities by river basin and by mission
area, setting the stage for improved management of Civil Works assets
and more systematic budget development in future years.
The focus on Civil Works program performance has a number of
foundations. First, the Civil Works Strategic Plan, which was updated
in 2004, provides goals, objectives, and performance measures that are
specific to program areas as well as some that are crosscutting.
Second, each program area has been assessed using the Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART). Summaries of all completed civil works
program assessments can be found on the administration's new website,
www.ExpectMore.gov. Both the Civil Works Strategic Plan and the PART-
based program evaluations are works in progress and will continue to be
updated.
HIGHLIGHTS--WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNTS
Studies and Design
The fiscal year 2008 budget provides $90 million for the
Investigations account and $1 million for studies in the Mississippi
River and Tributaries account. The budget funds the 67 most promising
studies and preconstruction engineering and design (PED) activities.
Performance was assessed based on the likelihood in the near-term of
meeting the construction guidelines discussed below. For instance,
among the projects in PED, the projects with benefit-cost ratios of 3.0
to 1 or higher received funding.
Within the $90 million, $13 million is for the Louisiana Coastal
Area study and science program for coastal wetlands restoration; $22
million is for other project-specific studies and design; $10 million
is to continue the national inventory of flood and storm damage
reduction projects; $17 million is for research and development; and
$28 million is for other coordination, data collection, and study
activities. Priorities within research and development include the
Navigation Economic Technologies research program and the development
of benefit evaluation methods for aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Construction
The budget provides $1.523 billion in the Construction account and
$108 million for construction projects in the Mississippi River and
Tributaries account.
Many more construction projects have been authorized, initiated,
and continued than can be constructed efficiently at any one time. The
funding of projects with low economic and environmental returns and of
projects that are not within Civil Works main mission areas has led to
the postponement of benefits from the most worthy projects, and has
significantly reduced overall program performance.
To remedy this situation and to achieve greater value to the Nation
from the Civil Works construction program, the budget focuses
significant funding on the projects that yield the greatest return to
the Nation, based upon objective performance criteria. The budget again
proposes performance guidelines to allocate funds among construction
projects. The most significant change is the inclusion of benefit-cost
ratio (BCR) as a metric, rather than remaining benefit-remaining cost
ratio. The BCR compares the total benefits to the total costs of a
project at its inception, and provides a way to establish priorities
among projects.
Under the guidelines, the budget allocates funds among construction
projects based primarily on these criteria: their BCR; their
contribution to addressing a significant risk to human safety or to dam
safety assurance, seepage control, or static instability correction
concerns; and the extent to which they cost-effectively contribute to
the restoration of nationally or regionally significant aquatic
ecosystems that have become degraded as a result of Civil Works
projects, or to a restoration effort for which the Corps is otherwise
uniquely well-suited. The construction guidelines are provided in
Enclosure 3.
The construction projects funded in the budget include 6 national
priorities; 11 dam safety assurance, seepage control, and static
instability correction projects; and 41 other, high-performing
projects. The budget also funds ongoing continuing contracts, but no
new contracts, for 11 projects with BCRs between 1.5 to 1 and 3.0 to 1.
Operation and Maintenance
The budget proposes $2.471 billion for the Operation and
Maintenance account and $151 million for maintenance activities in the
Mississippi River and Tributaries account. Even after adjusting for the
reassignment of work, discussed below, this amount is the highest
funding level for operation and maintenance ever proposed in a
President's budget.
The budget emphasizes performance of existing projects by focusing
on the maintenance of key commercial navigation, flood and storm damage
reduction, hydropower, and other facilities. The proposed funding would
enable the Army Corps of Engineers to carry out priority maintenance,
repairs, and rehabilitations, and priority initiatives such as the
development of asset management systems.
The operation and maintenance program now includes four types of
activities that were funded in the Construction program until last
year. The budget transfers responsibility and funding for these
activities--compliance with Biological Opinions at operating projects
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, rehabilitation of existing
projects, use of maintenance dredging material, and replacement of sand
due to the operation and maintenance of Federal navigation projects--
because they are integrally connected to the operation and maintenance
of Corps projects. The reassignment to the Operation and Maintenance
program is needed to improve accountability and oversight, reflect the
full cost of operation and maintenance, and support an integrated
funding strategy for existing projects. The budget includes proposed
appropriations language to cover funding for these activities in the
Operation and Maintenance account.
The budget proposes that Congress allocate operation and
maintenance funding by river basin, rather than on a project-by-project
basis. The justification materials present a current estimate for each
basin of the distribution of proposed funding among the flood and
coastal storm damage reduction, commercial navigation, hydropower,
stewardship, recreation, and water supply program areas. Should
operation and maintenance work be funded using this framework, managers
in the field would be better able to adapt to uncertainties and better
able to address emergencies as well as other changed conditions over
the course of the fiscal year, consistent with congressional
appropriations decisions. The Corps has displayed its current project-
by-project estimates for the fiscal year 2008 operation and maintenance
program on its website.
HIGHLIGHTS--PROGRAM AREAS
The Army Civil Works program includes eight program areas, plus the
oversight/executive direction and management function. The eight
program areas are commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm damage
reduction, environment, recreation, hydropower, water supply, emergency
management, and the regulatory program. Budget proposals for the nine
areas are discussed below.
Flood and Coastal Storm Damage Reduction, and Emergency Management
The fiscal year 2008 budget provides $1.384 billion for flood and
coastal storm damage reduction, and $45 million for emergency
management.
Among the 69 construction projects funded in the fiscal year 2008
budget, 46 are for flood and coastal storm damage reduction, including
8 dam safety and seepage control projects and 34 projects that address
a significant risk to human safety or have high benefit-cost ratios.
The budget emphasizes natural disaster preparedness and flood and
coastal storm damage prevention. Specifically, the budget includes $40
million in the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account to fund
preparedness for flood and coastal emergencies and other disasters.
This is a 25 percent increase for preparedness activities compared to
the fiscal year 2007 budget, and is needed to maintain and improve our
ability to respond to disasters. The budget also includes $20 million
in multiple accounts to apply lessons learned from Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita (including the 12 follow-on actions identified by the Chief of
Engineers and stepped-up cooperation with Federal Emergency Management
Agency programs for flood plains), $10 million to continue to inventory
and assess flood and storm damage reduction projects across the Nation,
and $10 million to continue to assess the safety of the Corps portfolio
of dams (including improving ordinary, but essential, inspection
procedures).
The budget provides funding for all work currently planned to
remedy the most serious (Action Class I and II) dam safety, seepage,
and static instability problems at Corps dams. The planning, design,
and construction of these projects are funded at the maximum amount
that the Corps estimates that it can use efficiently and effectively.
The budget continues to support Federal participation in initial
construction, but not in re-nourishment, at beach nourishment projects
that provide storm damage reduction or ecosystem restoration outputs.
Commercial Navigation
The fiscal year 2008 budget provides $2.009 billion for the
commercial navigation program area.
The amount budgeted for inland waterway construction projects
(replacements and expansions in the Construction Account, and
rehabilitations in the Operation and Maintenance account) is about $418
million, the highest amount ever included in a President's budget. Half
of the funding, or $209 million, would be derived from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund. The funding in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
will not be sufficient after fiscal year 2008 to support this level of
investment in our principal inland waterways.
The administration is developing and will propose legislation to
require the barges on the inland waterways to pay a user fee. The user
fee will address the decline in the balance in the Inland Waterways
Trust Fund, which affects the government's ability to finance a portion
of the continuing Federal capital investment in these waterways. The
legislation will be offered this spring for consideration by Congress.
The budget focuses operation and maintenance funding on those
waterway segments and commercial harbors that support high volumes of
commercial traffic, with emphasis on the heavily-used Mississippi,
Ohio, and Illinois waterways. The budget also funds harbors that
support significant commercial fishing, subsistence, public
transportation, harbor of refuge, national security, or safety
benefits.
The budget continues the policy of funding beach replenishment,
including periodic re-nourishment, where the operation and maintenance
of Federal navigation projects is the reason for the sand loss on
shorelines.
Environment
The fiscal year 2008 budget provides $514 million for the
environment program area.
The budget includes $274 million for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
of which $162 million is for the Corps of Engineers share of the South
Florida/Everglades restoration effort. Of this amount, $35 million is
for the Modified Water Deliveries project, a key element of this effort
that both the National Park Service and the Corps are funding. The
budget provides $23 million for the Upper Mississippi restoration
program and $13 million for the Louisiana Coastal Area restoration
effort and its science program. The costs of compliance with Biological
Opinions at existing projects are not included in the above figures.
The budget includes these costs as part of the joint operation and
maintenance costs of the affected projects and allocates these costs
among the program areas served by the projects.
The budget provides $110 million for environmental stewardship.
Corps of Engineers-administered lands and waters cover 11 million
acres, an area equal in size to the States of Vermont and New
Hampshire. Funded activities include shoreline management, protection
of natural resources, support for endangered species, continuation of
mitigation activities, and protection of cultural and historic
resources.
The budget provides $130 million for the Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) to clean up contamination at sites
resulting largely from the early atomic weapons program. This funding
will enable continued progress toward completion of remedial actions at
a number of sites.
Regulatory Program
The fiscal year 2008 budget provides $180 million to the Corps
Regulatory Program to protect wetlands and other waters of the United
States. This represents a $22 million increase over the fiscal year
2006 enacted level of $158 million, and a $55 million increase since
2001. The funding will be used for permit processing, for enforcement
and compliance actions and for jurisdictional determinations, including
additional workload necessitated by the Supreme Court's Carabell and
Rapanos decisions.
Investing in the Regulatory Program is a win-win proposition. The
added funds will enable most public and private development to proceed
with minimal delays, while ensuring that the aquatic environment is
protected consistent with the Nation's water quality laws.
Recreation
The fiscal year 2008 budget provides $267 million for recreation
operations and related maintenance.
To help finance recreation modernizations, the budget includes an
initiative based on a promising model now used by other major Federal
recreation providers such as the National Park Service and the Forest
Service. The administration is re-proposing legislation for the Corps
to generate additional revenue to help upgrade and modernize the
recreation facilities at the sites where this money is collected.
Specifically, the legislation includes authority for the Corps to
charge entrance fees and other types of user fees where appropriate,
and to cooperate with non-Federal park authorities and districts. The
Corps would keep collections above an annual baseline amount.
Hydropower
Hydropower is a renewable source of energy. The Civil Works program
is the Nation's largest producer of hydroelectric energy, and provides
3 percent of the Nation's total energy needs.
The fiscal year 2008 budget provides $291 million for hydropower.
This total includes $159 million for hydropower operation and
maintenance costs, $43 million for the costs of replacements at four
hydropower projects, and $89 million for the costs allocated to
hydropower from multipurpose projects and programs. The replacement
projects will help to reduce the forced outage rate, which is well
above the industry average.
Water Supply
On average, Civil Works projects provide 4 billion gallons of water
per day to meet the needs of municipal and commercial users across the
country. The budget includes $4 million for operation and maintenance
costs allocable to water storage.
Executive Direction and Management
The fiscal year 2008 budget provides $177 million for the Expenses
account.
Within this amount, $171 million is for the management and
executive direction expenses of the Army Corps of Engineers, both at
its Headquarters and Major Subordinate Divisions, as well as support
organizations such as the Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity,
the Institute for Water Resources, and the Finance Center.
In addition, the budget proposes to consolidate funding for
activities related to oversight and general administration of the Civil
Works program within the Expenses account, including funding for the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works). Of the
$177 million for the Expenses account, $6 million is for the Office of
the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), including some
indirect and overhead costs that previously were centrally funded by
the Army.
OTHER BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS
Protection of Greater New Orleans
The fiscal year 2008 budget also recommends, as part of a fiscal
year 2007 supplemental appropriations package, enactment of a statutory
provision to authorize the Secretary of the Army to reallocate up to
$1.3 billion of the emergency supplemental appropriations that were
provided in fiscal year 2006, but that remain unobligated. The
recommended statutory language would reallocate unobligated funds
appropriated by Public Law 109-234 (the ``Fourth Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act of 2006'') to fund activities specified in Public
Law 109-148 (the ``Third Emergency Supplemental Act of 2006''), and
would reallocate unobligated funds among certain activities specified
in the third emergency supplemental appropriations act of 2006. Within
the total amount that would be reallocated, $270 million would be
reallocated from the Construction account to the Flood Control and
Coastal Emergencies account.
The fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental appropriations were
initially allocated based on ``rough order of magnitude'' estimates by
the Corps of the amount of work that would be required to rebuild,
complete, and raise the levees in New Orleans. Their estimate of the
cost of the work necessary to accomplish these objectives is expected
to increase greatly as a result of various engineering forensic
investigations and assessments, a review of new storm surge data,
increased material costs, and other factors. The earlier cost and
schedule estimates have proven to be low, and actionable re-estimates
will not be available until this summer. Without the reallocation of
the fiscal year 2006 funds that were allocated in law, important work
to increase the level of protection in some areas could not be
completed in concert with similar work in other areas. The proposed re-
allocation would enable the Corps to best apply available funding to
those measures that will increase in the near-term the overall level of
protection for the New Orleans metropolitan area.
General Provisions
The budget includes bill language to authorize continuation of
limits on reprogramming with certain changes; replace the continuing
contract authority of the Corps with multi-year contracting authority
patterned after the authority available to other Federal agencies; and
prohibit committing funds for ongoing contracts beyond the appropriated
amounts available, including reprogramming.
The budget also includes bill language to authorize the following:
continuation of the national levee inventory and assessment;
continuation of activities in Missouri River Basin to comply with the
Endangered Species Act; completion of the two Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal invasive species barriers in Illinois, subject to appropriate
cost-sharing; and completion of the McAlpine Lock and Dam, Kentucky and
Indiana, project.
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT PROPOSAL
I am working with others in the administration towards the goal of
developing a legislative framework that will reflect the
administration's priorities for a Water Resources Development Act for
consideration by Congress. This proposal or a subsequent legislative
proposal will support the budget's recommendations for the Civil Works
program as addressed in my testimony today.
In the coming weeks I hope to be able to make a proposal that will
help accomplish the principles, policies, and practices that have
proven to be successful in the past, and will seek to create incentives
for their improvement. Working together, I believe the administration
and the Congress can make very substantial improvements in the Civil
Works program, and I look forward to offering a proposal that I trust
you will find helpful.
PRESIDENT'S MANAGEMENT AGENDA
The Army Civil Works program is pursuing five government-wide
management initiatives, as are other Federal agencies, plus a sixth
initiative on real property asset management. ``Scorecards'' for the
Army Corps of Engineers and other Federal agencies can be found at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/results/agenda/scorecard.html.
Under these initiatives, the Corps is improving its efficiency
through recently completed public-private competitions. In addition,
the Corps is undertaking two efforts (for Logistics Management and the
Operation and Maintenance of Locks and Dams) to improve its performance
through re-engineering of internal business processes, rather than
through public-private competitions.
The Corps has also made great progress in working with the Office
of the Department of Defense Inspector General on the fiscal year 2006
audit. The Corps is continuing to work towards the goal of obtaining an
unqualified opinion, on its accounts, and has been a leader within the
Department of Defense in this area. The Corps is committed to
addressing any concerns that may arise during the audit.
CONCLUSION
In developing this budget, the administration made explicit choices
based on performance. The increase in O&M funding, transfer of
activities from construction to O&M, emphasis on high-performing
construction projects, and increase for preparedness for flood and
hurricane emergencies and other natural disasters, for example, all
reflect a performance-based approach.
At $4.871 billion, the fiscal year 2008 Army Civil Works budget is
the highest Civil Works budget in history. This budget provides the
resources for the Civil Works program to pursue investments that will
yield good returns for the Nation in the future. The budget represents
the wise use of funding to advance worthy, mission-based objectives. I
am proud to present it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for this
opportunity to testify on the President's fiscal year 2008 budget for
the Civil Works program of the Army Corps of Engineers.
ENCLOSURE 1.--DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL WORKS
BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2008--SUMMARY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requested New Appropriations by Account:
Investigations..................................... $90,000,000
Construction....................................... 1,523,000,000
Operation and Maintenance.......................... 2,471,000,000
Regulatory Program................................. 180,000,000
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries... 260,000,000
Expenses........................................... 177,000,000
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies.............. 40,000,000
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.... 130,000,000
----------------
TOTAL............................................ 4,871,000,000
================
Requested New Appropriations by Program Area:
Commercial Navigation.............................. 2,009,000,000
(Inland and Intracoastal Waterways)............ (1,052,000,000)
(Channels and Harbors)......................... (957,000,000)
Flood and Coastal Storm Damage Reduction........... 1,384,000,000
(Flood Damage Reduction)....................... (1,356,000,000)
(Coastal Storm Damage Reduction)............... (28,000,000)
Environment........................................ 514,000,000
(Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration)................ (274,000,000)
(FUSRAP)....................................... (130,000,000)
(Stewardship).................................. (110,000,000)
Hydropower......................................... 291,000,000
Recreation......................................... 267,000,000
Water Supply....................................... 4,000,000
Emergency Management............................... 45,000,000
(Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies)........ (40,000,000)
(National Emergency Preparedness).............. (5,000,000)
Regulatory Program................................. 180,000,000
Executive Direction and Management................. 177,000,000
----------------
TOTAL............................................ 4,871,000,000
================
Sources of New Appropriations:
General Fund....................................... 3,889,000,000
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund...................... 735,000,000
Inland Waterways Trust Fund........................ 209,000,000
Special Recreation User Fees....................... 37,000,000
Disposal Facilities User Fees...................... 1,000,000
----------------
TOTAL............................................ 4,871,000,000
================
Additional New Resources:
Rivers and Harbors Contributed Funds............... 445,000,000
Coastal Wetlands Restoration Trust Fund............ 81,000,000
Permanent Appropriations........................... 9,000,000
----------------
TOTAL............................................ 535,000,000
----------------
Total New Program Funding........................ 5,406,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENCLOSURE 2.--DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL WORKS BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2008
[CROSSCUT BETWEEN APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS AND PROGRAM AREAS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flood/ Aq. Ec. Hydro- Water Emerg. Regul. Ovrsgt/
Navigation Storm Recreation Restor. Stewrdshp. FUSRAP Power Supply Mgmt. Prog. ED&M TOTAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigations........................................... 19 41 .......... 30 .......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 90
Construction............................................. 572 665 .......... 241 .......... ......... 45 ......... ......... ......... ......... 1,523
Operation & Maint........................................ 1,383 475 251 1 106 ......... 246 4 5 ......... ......... 2,471
MR&T-I................................................... .......... 1 .......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1
MR&T-C................................................... 10 96 .......... 2 .......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 108
MR&T-M................................................... 25 106 16 ......... 4 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 151
FUSRAP................................................... .......... ......... .......... ......... .......... 130 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 130
FC&CE.................................................... .......... ......... .......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 40 ......... ......... 40
Regulatory............................................... .......... ......... .......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 180 ......... 180
Expenses................................................. .......... ......... .......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 177 177
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL.............................................. 2,009 1,384 267 274 110 130 291 4 45 180 177 4,871
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosure 3.--Department of the Army Corps of Engineers--Civil Works
Budget, Fiscal Year 2008
CONSTRUCTION PERFORMANCE GUIDELINES
1. Project rankings.-- All ongoing specifically authorized
construction projects, including projects funded in the Mississippi
River and Tributaries account, will be assigned based upon their
primary purpose to one of the main mission areas of the Corps (flood
and storm damage reduction; commercial navigation; aquatic ecosystem
restoration) or to hydropower. Flood and storm damage reduction,
commercial navigation, and hydropower projects will be ranked by their
total benefits divided by their total costs (BCR), calculated at a 7
percent real discount rate. Aquatic ecosystem restoration projects will
be ranked by the extent to which they cost-effectively contribute to
the restoration of a nationally or regionally significant aquatic
ecosystem that has become degraded as a result of a civil works
project, or to a restoration effort for which the Corps is otherwise
uniquely well-suited (e.g., because the solution requires complex
alterations to the hydrology and hydraulics of a river system).
2. Projects funded on the basis of their economic and environmental
returns.--Ongoing flood and storm damage reduction, commercial
navigation, and hydropower construction projects with a BCR of 1.5 or
higher and ongoing aquatic ecosystem restoration construction projects
that are cost-effective in contributing to the restoration of a
nationally or regionally significant aquatic ecosystem that has become
degraded as a result of a civil works project or to a restoration
effort for which the Corps is otherwise uniquely well-suited will
receive at least the amount needed to pay estimated contractor earnings
required under ongoing contracts and related costs. In allocating funds
among these projects, priority will be given to those with the highest
economic and environmental returns.
3. Projects funded to address significant risk to human safety.--
Flood and storm damage reduction projects that are funded to address
significant risk to human safety will receive sufficient funding to
support an uninterrupted effort during the budget year.
4. Projects with low economic and environmental returns.--Ongoing
flood and storm damage reduction, commercial navigation, and hydropower
construction projects with a BCR below 1.5 will be considered for
deferral, except for flood and storm damage reduction projects that are
funded to address significant risk to human safety. Likewise, ongoing
aquatic ecosystem restoration construction projects that do not cost-
effectively contribute to the restoration of a nationally or regionally
significant aquatic ecosystem that has become degraded as a result of a
civil works project, and do not cost-effectively address a problem for
which the Corps is otherwise uniquely well-suited, will be considered
for deferral.
5. New starts and resumptions.--The budget could include funds to
start up new construction projects, or to resume work on ongoing
construction projects on which the Corps has not performed any physical
work under a construction contract during the past 3 consecutive fiscal
years, only if the project would be ranked that year in the top 20
percent of the ongoing construction projects in its mission area. The
term ``physical work under a construction contract'' does not include
activities related to project planning, engineering and design,
relocation, or the acquisition of lands, easements, or rights-of-way.
For non-structural flood damage reduction projects, construction begins
in the first fiscal year in which the Corps acquires lands, easements,
or rights-of-way primarily to relocate structures, or performs physical
work under a construction contract for non-structural project-related
measures. For aquatic ecosystem restoration projects, construction
begins in the first fiscal year in which the Corps acquires lands,
easements, or rights-of-way primarily to facilitate the restoration of
degraded aquatic ecosystems including wetlands, riparian areas, and
adjacent floodplains, or performs physical work under a construction
contract to modify existing project facilities primarily to restore the
aquatic ecosystem. For all other projects, construction begins in the
first fiscal year in which the Corps performs physical work under a
construction contract.
6. Other cases.--Projects will receive the amount needed to ensure
that they comply with treaties and with biological opinions pursuant to
the Endangered Species Act, and meet authorized mitigation
requirements. Dam safety assurance, seepage control, and static
instability correction projects that are funded in the construction
program will receive the maximum level of funding that the Corps can
efficiently and effectively spend in each year.
Senator Dorgan. General Strock.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL CARL STROCK, CHIEF OF
ENGINEERS
General Strock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your
permission, I'll submit my full statement for the record.
Senator Dorgan. Without objection.
General Strock. I'm honored to be testifying before you
today with Mr. Woodley and my Director of Civil Works, Major
General Don Riley and our Director of Programs, Mr. Gary Loew
as well as our colleagues from the Bureau of Reclamation.
Sir, this is a performance-based budget that reflects the
realities of a national budget that must address recent
national disasters and the ongoing global war on terror. The
fiscal year 2008 budget focuses construction funding on 69
projects that will provide the highest economic and
environmental returns on the Nation's investment.
The 69 projects include 6 national priority projects, 11
dam safety projects and 52 other ongoing projects. These
projects are critical to the future success of our water
resources and this funding will be used to improve the quality
of our citizens' lives and to contribute to national economic
growth and development. This budget uses objective performance
measures to establish priorities among projects and proposes
changes to the Corps' contracting practices to increase control
over future costs. We believe that focusing our effort on
funding and completing a smaller, more beneficial set of
projects will improve overall program performance and will help
the Nation realize the net benefits, per dollar, from its
investment much sooner.
The Corps has learned many lessons in the past year, since
Hurricane Katrina struck the gulf coast in 2005. The lessons
learned provided great insight into changes that need to be
made with respect to parts of our organizational culture, in
the planning, execution and life cycle management of projects
and in how we communicate risk to the American public and our
decision makers.
In light of this, as an institutional response, I issued my
12 Actions for Change in August in recognition of the need to
continue to change our organization to better serve the Nation.
These 12 actions also commit the Corps to ensuring the American
public has the information necessary to fully understand and
make decisions about risk when they live behind or near a Corps
of Engineers project.
The fiscal year 2008 budget includes $2.47 billion for
operation and maintenance and $158 million under the
Mississippi River and Tributaries Program. I can assure you
that I will continue to do all that I can to make these
programs as cost effective and as efficient as possible.
Domestically, the Corps of Engineers volunteers from across
the Nation continue to respond to the call to help construct
and improve a comprehensive hurricane and storm damage
protection system along our gulf coast. This critical work they
are doing will reduce the risk of future storms to people and
communities in the region.
Over the past year, Corps dams, levees and reservoirs again
provided billions of dollars in flood damage reduction and
protected lives, homes and businesses in many parts of the
Nation following heavy rains.
Internationally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continues
to support the mission to help Iraq and Afghanistan build
foundations for democracy, freedom and prosperity. Many USACE
civilians, each of whom is a volunteer and soldiers are
providing engineering expertise, quality construction
management and program and project management in those nations.
The often unsung efforts of these patriotic men and women
contribute daily toward this Nation's goals of restoring the
economy, security and quality of life for all Iraqis and
Afghans.
In closing, sir, the Corps is committed to staying on the
leading edge of service to the Nation. In support of that,
we're working with others to continue to transform our Civil
Works Program. We're committed to change that ensures an open,
transparent and performance based Civil Works budget.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you very much
for the honor to serve you over the last 3 years. It has been a
wonderful experience for me. I regret that I will not be
working with you into the future but I wish you the very best
of luck in pursuit of a sound water resources policy for the
Nation. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Carl Strock
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee: I am
honored to be testifying before your subcommittee today, along with the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), the Honorable John Paul
Woodley, Jr., on the President's fiscal year 2008 budget for the United
States Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Works Program.
My statement covers the following 3 topics:
--Summary of Fiscal Year 2008 Program Budget;
--Construction Program; and
--Value of the Civil Works Program to the Nation's Economy, and to
the Nation's Defense.
summary of fiscal year 2008 program budget
Introduction
The fiscal year 2008 Civil Works budget is a performance-based
budget, which reflects a focus on the projects and activities that
provide the highest net economic and environmental returns on the
Nation's investment or address significant risk to human safety. Direct
Program funding totals $5.406 billion, consisting of discretionary
funding of $4.871 billion and mandatory funding of $535 million. The
Reimbursed Program funding is projected to involve an additional $2
billion to $3 billion.
Direct Program
The budget reflects the administration's commitment to continued
sound development and management of the Nation's water and related land
resources. It proposes to give the Corps the flexibility and
responsibility within each major watershed to use these funds to carry
out priority maintenance, repairs, and rehabilitations. The budget
incorporates objective performance-based metrics for the construction
program, funds the continued operation of commercial navigation and
other water resource infrastructure, provides an increase in funding
for the regulatory program to protect the Nation's waters and wetlands,
and supports restoration of nationally and regionally significant
aquatic ecosystems, with emphasis on the Florida Everglades and the
Upper Mississippi River. It also would improve the quality of
recreation services through stronger partnerships and modernization.
Additionally, it emphasizes the need to fund emergency preparedness
activities for the Corps as part of the regular budget process.
Reimbursed Program
Through the Interagency and Intergovernmental Services Program we
help non-DOD Federal agencies, State, local, and tribal governments,
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 financed 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 2008 is projected to be $2.0
billion to $3.0 billion. The exact amount will depend on assignments
received from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
hurricane disaster relief and from the Department of Homeland Security
for border protection facilities.
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
The goal of the construction program is to produce as much value as
possible for the Nation from available funds. The budget furthers this
objective by giving priority to the continued construction and
completion of those water resources projects that will provide the best
net returns on the Nation's investment for each dollar invested
(Federal plus non-Federal) in the Corps primary mission areas. The
budget also gives priority to projects that address a significant risk
to human safety, notwithstanding their economic performance. Under
these guidelines, the Corps allocated funding to 69 construction
projects, including 6 national priority projects; 11 other dam safety
assurance, seepage control, and static instability correction projects;
and 52 other ongoing projects.
The budget uses objective performance measures to establish
priorities among projects, and through a change in Corps contracting
practices to increase control over future costs. The measures proposed
include the benefit-to-cost ratios for projects with economic outputs;
the extent to which the project cost-effectively contributes to the
restoration of a nationally or regionally significant aquatic ecosystem
that has become degraded as a result of a Civil Works project or to an
aquatic ecosystem restoration effort for which the Corps is otherwise
uniquely well-suited; and giving priority to dam safety assurance,
seepage control, static instability correction, and projects that
address a significant risk to human safety. Resources are allocated
based on Corps estimates to achieve the highest net economic and
environmental returns and to address significant risk to human safety.
This approach significantly improves the realization of benefits to the
Nation from the Civil Works construction program and will improve
overall program performance by bringing higher net benefits per dollar
to the Nation sooner.
Maintenance Program
The facilities owned and operated by, or on behalf of, the Civil
Works Program are aging. As stewards of this infrastructure, we are
working to ensure that its key features continue to provide an
appropriate level of service to the Nation. Sustaining such service
poses a technical challenge in some cases, and proper operation and
maintenance also is becoming more expensive as this infrastructure
ages.
The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) program for the fiscal year
2008 budget consists of $2.471 billion in the Operation and Maintenance
account and $158 million under the Mississippi River and Tributaries
program, with a focus on the maintenance of key commercial navigation,
flood and storm damage reduction, hydropower, and other facilities.
Specifically, the operation and maintenance program supports the
operation, maintenance, repair and security of existing commercial
navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and hydropower works
owned and operated by, or on behalf of, the Corps of Engineers,
including administrative buildings and laboratories. Funds are also
included in this program for national priority efforts in the Columbia
River Basin and Missouri River Basin to support the continued operation
of Corps of Engineers multi-purpose projects by meeting the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Other work to be
accomplished includes dredging, repair, aquatic plant control, removal
of sunken vessels, monitoring of completed costal projects, and
operation of structures and other facilities, as authorized in the
various River and Harbor, Flood Control, and Water Resources
Development Acts.
value of the civil works program to the nation's economy and defense
We are privileged to be part of an organization that directly
supports the President's priorities of winning the global war on
terror, securing the homeland and contributing to the economy.
The National Welfare
The way in which we manage our water resources can improve the
quality of our citizens' lives. It has affected where and how people
live and influenced the development of this country. The country today
seeks economic development as well as the protection of environmental
values.
Domestically, USACE personnel from across the Nation continue to
respond to the call to help re-construct and improve the hurricane and
storm damage reduction system for southeast Louisiana. The critical
work they are doing will reduce the risk of future storms to people and
communities in the region.
Over the past year, Corps dams, levees and reservoirs again
provided billions of dollars in flood damage reduction and protected
lives, homes and businesses in many parts of the Nation following heavy
rains.
Mr. Chairman, we will continue to work with you, this subcommittee,
and other Members of Congress on the ongoing study, and the
authorization and funding proposed by the administration, for
modifications to the existing hurricane protection system for New
Orleans. The budget's recommendation, as part of a fiscal year 2007
supplemental appropriations package, to re-allocate up to $1.3 billion
of emergency supplemental appropriations enacted in fiscal year 2006
will enable the Corps to use available, unobligated funds for measures
that will provide a better overall level of protection for the New
Orleans metropolitan area in the near-term.
Research and Development
Civil Works Program research and development provides the Nation
with innovative engineering products, some of which can have
applications in both civil and military infrastructure spheres. By
creating products that improve the efficiency and competitiveness of
the Nation's engineering and construction industry and providing more
cost-effective ways to operate and maintain infrastructure, Civil Works
Program research and development contributes to the national economy.
The National Defense
Internationally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continues to
support the mission to help Iraq and Afghanistan build foundations for
democracy, freedom and prosperity.
Many USACE civilians--each of whom is a volunteer--and soldiers are
providing engineering expertise, quality construction management, and
program and project management in those nations. The often unsung
efforts of these patriotic men and women contribute daily toward this
Nation's goals of restoring the economy, security and quality of life
for all Iraqis and Afghanis.
In Iraq, the Gulf Region Division has overseen the initiation of
more than 4,200 reconstruction projects valued in excess of $7.14
billion. Of those, more than 3,200 projects have been completed.
These projects provide employment and hope for the Iraqi people.
They are visible signs of progress.
In Afghanistan, the Corps is spearheading a comprehensive
infrastructure program for the Afghan national army, and is also aiding
in important public infrastructure projects.
CONCLUSION
The Corps of Engineers is committed to staying at the leading edge
of service to the Nation. In support of that, I have worked to
transform our Civil Works Program. We're committed to change that
ensures an open, transparent, and performance-based Civil Works
Program.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. This
concludes my statement.
Senator Dorgan. General Strock, thank you very much. Next
we will hear from Secretary Limbaugh and Commissioner Johnson.
Secretary Limbaugh is from the Department of the Interior and
represents, with Mr. Johnson, the budget for the Bureau of
Reclamation. You may proceed.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
STATEMENT OF MARK LIMBAUGH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
WATER AND SCIENCE
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Chairman,
distinguished members of the committee, it's an honor to be
here today on behalf of Secretary of the Interior, Dirk
Kempthorne, to present the 2008 budget request for the Bureau
of Reclamation and the Central Utah Project Completion Act
Office.
With me here today is Commissioner Bob Johnson and Reed
Murray, the Program Director for the Central Utah Project
Completion Act Office.
Interior's mission lies at the confluence of people, land
and water and Interior employees fulfill a mission that spans
12 times zones and stretches pole to pole and we operate in
every single State and the U.S. Territories. So how we do our
jobs in Interior and at the Bureau of Reclamation affects
whether 31 million people have drinking water when they turn on
their tap or irrigation water for farms that produce 60 percent
of the Nation's produce.
Our work contributes to the energy security of the Nation
through the Hydropower produced by Reclamation projects.
Now three themes occur in our efforts to manage the
Interior's broad portfolio. First is pursuit of management
excellence. Second are partnerships and third is the use of
science that informs our decisions. Applying these themes, the
Bureau of Reclamation has embarked on a Managing for Excellence
Initiative to enhance transparency, accountability and
effectiveness in its future business operations.
Now in partnership with many of our water contractors,
power customers and stakeholders, Reclamation manages and
delivers water while addressing competing needs through
adaptive management programs, endangered species recovery and
habitat conservation programs and innovative water management
solutions in places like the Grand Canyon, the Platte River,
the CALFED program in California and the incredible work we've
done in partnership with the seven basin States in the Colorado
River Basin.
Reclamation has also teamed up with the U.S. Geological
Survey to update our water management predictive models by
incorporating the latest in climatic science and data that
reflect our constantly changing snow melt and run-off patterns.
So in formulating the 2008 budget, the Department committed
to ensure that our programs, including the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Central Utah Project Completion Act, would
maintain a high level of service to the American people and
reach even higher levels of excellence.
The President's 2008 budget request for the Department of
the Interior is $10.7 billion of which $958.4 million is for
the Bureau of Reclamation. The request for the Central Utah
Project Completion Act is $43 million, to continue with
planning and construction of that project in cooperation with
our partner, the Central Utah Water Conservation District.
Now, the 2008 budget highlights two initiatives in the
Bureau of Reclamation. To help Reclamation's water contractors
address the impacts of drought and the many other water supply
challenges, the President's budget includes $11 million to
continue our Water 2025 Competitive Grants program. Continuing
that challenge grant program will allow Reclamation to promote
innovative, collaborative solutions in areas of the West where
we are now experiencing or can predict that we will be
experiencing conflict over water, all the while leveraging a
small Federal investment with cost-share partners. We will
again, Mr. Chairman, send legislation to the Congress
requesting permanent authorization for this program in order to
keep this valuable cooperative, competitive grant program
alive.
Another priority is a new program that Senator Craig
mentioned, our Loan Guarantee program. Now, we propose $1
million to kick that program off and we're trying to help
address the challenges of financing improvements to an aging
Federal infrastructure. This Loan Guarantee program will allow
our contractor water users access to capital markets that they
probably wouldn't have without it in order to assist the Bureau
of Reclamation in rebuilding and preparing its infrastructure
for the future.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to highlight two long-term
issues that we're addressing in the 2008 budget request. First,
our 2008 budget will help launch the recovery of the San
Joaquin River in California. Now, this restoration program,
which has authorizing legislation before the Congress now, is a
result of an agreement that settles litigation that has been
spanning 18 years. We applaud the farmers and the fishermen,
the environmentalists and the public officials who have come
together and worked out an agreement in order to both improve
the environment and protect the local economy in California.
Second, the recently-initiated Platte River Recovery
program is equally innovative, covering three States, thousands
of farmers, hundreds of agricultural dependent-communities and
four endangered and threatened species. In partnership with the
Federal Government, this recovery program will permit existing
water and power users in the Platte River Basin to continue
operating while allowing for future growth, all in compliance
with the Endangered Species Act.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So Mr. Chairman, in closing, I again thank you for the
opportunity to appear before this committee. I look forward to
working with you and the members of the committee on issues
related to the Bureau of Reclamation's Central Utah Project
Completion Act and other issues that come before us and
certainly look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Limbaugh
Good morning. I am pleased to be here today on behalf of the
Secretary to discuss the President's fiscal year 2008 budget for the
Department of the Interior and, in particular, the Bureau of
Reclamation. I appreciate the opportunity to highlight our priorities
and key goals.
Developing a budget for the Department of the Interior is an
extraordinary exercise. We have an extensive mandate that rivals just
about any governmental agency in its breadth and diversity--and its
importance to the everyday lives of our citizens. Our 73,000 employees
live and work in communities across America and its territories. We
have 2,400 field offices. We manage 145,000 assets--second only to the
Department of Defense. Our work stretches from pole to pole from
wildlife refuges in the Arctic to scientific research at the South
Pole.
Managing one in every 5 acres in the United States, we oversee land
and resources that stretch across 12 time zones from the Caribbean to
the Pacific Rim. The sun literally never sets on the Department of the
Interior. We have the third largest contingent of Federal law
enforcement officers, with 3,400 officers and agents. We oversee over
800 dams and irrigation projects. Interior-managed lands and water
generate one-third of the Nation's domestic energy supply. The
Department serves American Indians, including 561 federally recognized
Tribes, Alaska Natives, and our Nation's affiliated island communities.
We undertake research and provide information to understand the Earth
and assist us in the management of the Nation's water, biological and
mineral resources, and monitor all manner of natural hazards including
volcanoes, earthquakes, and landslides. We also work with States to
restore abandoned mine land sites and protect communities.
BUDGET OVERVIEW
Our overall 2008 request for the Department of the Interior is
$10.7 billion. Permanent funding that becomes available as a result of
existing legislation without further action by the Congress will
provide an additional $5.1 billion, for a total 2008 Interior budget of
$15.8 billion.
The budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central
Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA) programs under the purview of this
subcommittee is $1 billion; the Bureau of Reclamation's proposed budget
is $958.4 million and the CUPCA proposed budget is $43.0 million.
With enactment of the fiscal year 2007 Joint Resolution, we now
have a full year appropriation of $1.0 billion for the Bureau of
Reclamation and $34.0 million for CUPCA. This does not include
additional funds that are authorized and will be provided for 50
percent of the January 2007 pay raise. Based on direction in the Joint
Resolution we are preparing a detailed operating plan for these two
agencies for fiscal year 2007. Once our operating plans are approved we
will submit them to Congress on March 17. At that time we will be able
to provide comparisons at the program level with the 2008 budget
request.
The comparisons in our 2008 budget are with the third 2007
continuing resolution, which was in effect through February 15.
Throughout this testimony the comparisons will be on that basis.
The Department's 2008 budget is carefully crafted within the
President's commitment to continue to fund the Nation's highest
priorities while eliminating the deficit in 5 years. The administration
is on track to achieve this goal.
At the heart of Department's 2008 budget are four major initiatives
including:
--The National Parks Centennial Initiative to enhance National Parks
as we approach their 100th anniversary in 2016;
--The Healthy Lands Initiative, which will allow access to public
lands for a number of uses and provide for energy for the
Nation while also protecting critical lands and habitat;
--The Safe Indian Communities Initiative to combat the
methamphetamine crisis on Indian lands; and
--The Improving Indian Education Initiative that will enable Indian
children to grow up in an environment that allows them to
achieve their dreams.
THE NATIONAL PARKS CENTENNIAL INITIATIVE
The President's 2008 parks budget totals a historic $2.4 billion.
The park operating budget, at $2.1 billion, provides an increase of
$290 million over the continuing resolution spending level, the largest
increase in park operations funding ever proposed. This is $258.3
million over the 2006 level and $230 million over the President's 2007
budget for parks.
Within our operating budget increase, we propose a $100 million
Centennial Commitment over 10 years, for a total of $1 billion
dedicated to park operations. Our Centennial Initiative will also
inspire philanthropic organizations and partners to donate $100 million
per year over 10 years to the National Park Service. The Centennial
Challenge Federal Fund will match all private donations up to an amount
of $100 million. These Federal mandatory matching funds and
philanthropic contributions, together with the $100 million annual
Centennial Commitment in discretionary funds for park operations, would
infuse up to $3 billion into the park system over the next decade.
HEALTHY LANDS INITIATIVE
Another priority for the Secretary is the Healthy Lands Initiative,
which will ensure continued access to public lands for traditional uses
and recreation, while maintaining strong environmental protections for
wildlife and habitat.
As activities on public land increase, we are seeing growing
conflicts among recreation users, energy developers, hunters, ranchers,
and others all competing to protect, access, and use these public
lands. Several Interior bureaus will join together to identify,
restore, and mitigate the potential impacts of increased energy
production in wildlife-energy interface areas and potentially prevent
the listing of certain species such as sage grouse.
Focused on six strategic areas, these funds will transform land
management from the current parcel by parcel approach to landscape-
scale decision making, drawing upon partnerships and new policy tools
to provide increased access for energy and other uses, while
simultaneously preserving important habitat corridors and sites for the
benefit of species. In 2008, including this increase, over 400,000
acres will be restored in partnership with Federal leaseholders,
private landowners, State, local, and tribal governments--to benefit
wildlife. The Healthy Lands Initiative includes $22.0 million to fund
partnerships with local communities, conservation groups, and companies
to rehabilitate and protect working landscapes.
THE METHAMPHETAMINE CRISIS IN INDIAN COUNTRY
I would like to highlight two other 2008 priorities for the
Department of the Interior, our Safe Indian Countries and Indian
Education Initiatives. While I recognize that the Senate Indian Affairs
Committee has jurisdiction over these matters, I also know many of you
represent States and tribes that are struggling with the impacts
associated with methamphetamine.
Methamphetamine is a highly addictive synthetic stimulant that
creates intense euphoric highs for periods up to 24 hours. It is
inexpensive and, unfortunately, has rapidly become the drug of choice
for an increasing number of Americans.
The social effects of methamphetamine use are tragic. Addicted
mothers are giving birth to drug-addicted babies. The drug is fueling
homicides, aggravated assaults, rape, child abuse, and other violent
crimes. Violent crime in Indian Country is reaching crises levels at
twice the national average.
Our budget includes $16 million for a Safe Indian Communities
initiative that reconfigures and tailors our focus to combat organized
crime, break up drug trafficking, and interrupt the drug supply.
IMPROVING INDIAN EDUCATION
Improving Indian education is also a priority. One of only two
school systems operated by the Federal Government, the Bureau of Indian
Education should oversee schools that are models of performance for the
No Child Left Behind Act. Yet only 30 percent of the schools in the
Bureau of Indian Education system are meeting NCLB goals.
In recent years, we have improved school facilities by replacing 32
schools and renovating another 39 schools. It is now time to focus on
the classroom. Our 2008 budget proposes to invest $15.0 million to
improve the performance of students in Indian schools. Additional
funding will provide educational program enhancements and tools for
lower performing schools and educational specialists to guide Indian
schools in achieving academic success. The request also provides
additional funding for transportation to reduce the redirection of
education dollars to pay for buses and fuel.
INTERIOR PRIORITIES FOR WATER PROGRAMS
The Department, through the Bureau of Reclamation, is the largest
supplier and manager of water in the 17 western States. The 2008 budget
emphasizes Reclamation's core mission of delivering water and power.
Reclamation priorities include a focus on ensuring facility integrity
and site security and resolving major western water challenges.
In addition to the initiatives I described, Interior's 2008 budget
requests resources for priority programs in the Bureau of Reclamation
and CUPCA. The 2008 budget for the Bureau of Reclamation includes four
major initiatives, including:
--Improving and diversifying water supplies to prevent crises through
cooperative, cost sharing efforts funded by Water 2025;
--Development of a Loan Guarantee Program that will help water
districts to repair aging infrastructure; and
--The California Bay-Delta Restoration program which supports the
efforts of a consortium of Federal and State agencies that are
working to improve the health of the ecosystem and water
management and supplies;
--Improvements in the safety and reliability of Bureau of Reclamation
facilities through the Safety of Dams Program.
WATER 2025, PREVENTING CRISES AND CONFLICTS
The 2008 budget includes $11.0 million for Water 2025. The
overarching goal of Water 2025 is to meet the challenge of preventing
crises and conflicts over water in the West. Water 2025 will achieve
this by increasing the certainty and flexibility of water supplies,
diversifying water supplies, and preventing crises through
cooperatively adding environmental benefits in many watersheds, rivers,
and streams.
The 2008 Water 2025 request includes $10.0 million for the 50/50
challenge grant program, which relies on local initiative and
innovation to identify and formulate the most sensible improvements for
local water systems. The request also includes $1.0 million for system
optimization reviews for Reclamation to work on a 50/50 cost-share
basis with local entities to assess the potential for water management
improvements.
The administration will submit legislation for the authorization
necessary to accomplish the goals of this program.
LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM
The 2008 request includes $1.0 million for the Loan Guarantee
program which is a critical component of Interior's strategy to address
aging water infrastructure challenges in the West. The Loan Guarantee
Program uses a business-like approach that recognizes the inability of
many water districts to secure funds for expensive rehabilitative
repairs without the capability to use Federal facilities as collateral
to obtain bank financing. The program was authorized by the Reclamation
Water Supply Act in 2006.
The loan program will allow water districts to obtain long-term
loans to address major rehabilitation and replacement projects, thereby
addressing the key issue facing Reclamation's aging infrastructure. The
$1.0 million included in the 2008 budget will be used for setting up
the administrative components of the Loan Guarantee Program.
CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION
The 2008 budget includes $31.8 million for CALFED. The CALFED Bay-
Delta Authorization Act was signed into law in 2004. A Consortium of
Federal and State agencies works collaboratively, funding and
participating in the CALFED program. Their efforts focus on improving
the health of the ecosystem and water management and supplies. In
addition, CALFED addresses the issues of water supply reliability,
aging levees, and threatened water quality.
The Bay-Delta system is critical to California's economy because
the two rivers that flow into the Bay-Delta provide potable water for
two-thirds of California's homes and businesses and irrigate more than
7 million acres of farmland on which 45 percent of the Nation's fruits
and vegetables are grown. The Bay-Delta system also provides habitat
for 750 plant and animal species, some listed as threatened or
endangered.
Funding for California Bay-Delta Restoration is requested in the
following program areas: $7.0 million for the environmental water
account; $8.5 million for the storage program; $5.0 million for water
conveyance, $1.5 million for ecosystem restoration; $4.8 million for
water quality; $3.0 million for science; and $2.0 million for
Reclamation's oversight function to ensure program balance and
integration.
SAFETY OF DAMS PROGRAM
A total of $77.0 million is requested for the Safety of Dams
program, an increase of $8.0 million from 2007 that is primarily for
corrective actions at Folsom Dam. The Dam Safety program continues to
be one of Reclamation's highest priorities. The program helps ensure
the safety and reliability of Reclamation's dams by focusing funding
and resources on those facilities, which pose the highest risk to the
downstream public. The program includes: investigation, identification,
evaluation, decision-making and risk reduction activities. The program
accomplishes three main tasks: Safety Evaluations of Existing Dams,
Initiating Safety of Dams Corrective Actions, and conducting the DOI
Dam Safety program.
By focusing on the safety and reliability of Reclamation's dams,
the Dam Safety program plays a vital role in accomplishing the
Department's end outcome goal of delivering water consistent with
applicable State and Federal law in an environmentally responsible and
cost efficient manner. The efforts of the Dam Safety program are
currently measured by the percent of water infrastructure in fair to
good condition as measured by the Facility Reliability Rating.
MAINTAINING CORE PROGRAMS
The 2008 request for Reclamation's principal operating account is
$816.2 million, which is an increase of $60.3 million over the 2007
continuing resolution. The budget proposal continues to emphasize
assuring operation and maintenance of Bureau of Reclamation facilities
in a safe, efficient, economic, and reliable manner; ensuring systems
and safety measures are in place to protect the public and Reclamation
facilities; working smarter to address the water needs of a growing
population in an environmentally responsible and cost-efficient manner;
and assisting States, tribes, and local entities in solving
contemporary water resource issues. Funding for each project or program
within Reclamation's budget request is based upon Departmental and
bureau priorities, compliance with the Department of the Interior
strategic plan, and performance accomplishments.
The 2008 request includes a total of $429.5 million for water and
energy, land, and fish and wildlife resource management development
activities. Funding in these activities provides for planning,
construction, water conservation activities, management of Reclamation
lands including recreation, and actions to address the impacts of
Reclamation projects on fish and wildlife.
Reclamation's 2008 budget assumes enactment of two legislative
proposals. First, a proposal for the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program
would re-allocate the repayment of capital costs of the program. Power
customers would be responsible for repayment of all construction
investments from which they benefit. This change would increase
reimbursements to the Treasury from power customers by $23.0 million in
2008. A legislative proposal will be transmitted to the appropriate
congressional authorizing committees for consideration.
Second, the 2008 budget also reflects the settlement of an 18-year
legal dispute, Natural Resources Defense Council v. Rodgers, over the
Bureau of Reclamation's operation of Friant Dam near Fresno,
California. Reclamation's budget presumes that implementing legislation
will be enacted. Bills have already been introduced in the Senate and
the House, as S. 27 and H.R. 24, which would implement the proposed
Settlement. Consistent with this legislation, Reclamation's 2008 budget
would redirect approximately $7.5 million per year of payments from the
Central Valley Project Friant Division and $9.8 million from the
Reclamation Fund into the newly-created San Joaquin Restoration Fund,
which would be available without further appropriations to implement
the provisions of the settlement.
ACHIEVING KEY GOALS
I would like to call the attention of the subcommittee to our
mission goals and the efforts we are making to achieve results for the
Nation in areas that touch on the issues and programs of interest to
the subcommittee.
Achieving Energy Security.--In his State of the Union address,
President Bush underscored that America must enhance energy security.
The Department of the Interior plays a key role in advancing this goal.
Nearly one-third of the energy produced in the United States each year
comes from public lands and waters managed by Interior. To carry out
the goals of the Energy Policy Act and enhance the availability of
affordable oil, gas, and alternative energy sources, the 2008 budget
for Interior programs includes $481.3 million for energy programs, an
increase of $25.5 million over the 2007 continuing resolution. With
these resources, the Department will enhance energy security through
increased production, protect the environment, promote conservation,
and expand the use of new technologies and renewable energy sources.
Cooperative Conservation.--Through partnerships, Interior works
with landowners and others to achieve conservation goals across the
Nation and to benefit America's national parks, wildlife refuges, and
other public lands. The 2008 budget includes $324.0 million for the
Department's cooperative conservation programs, $34.6 million over
2007. These programs leverage Federal funding, typically providing a
non-Federal match of 50 percent or more. They provide a foundation for
cooperative efforts to protect endangered and at-risk species; engage
local communities, organizations, and citizens in conservation; foster
innovation; and achieve conservation goals while maintaining working
landscapes.
Refuge Operations and Species Protection.--Targeted increases for
the National Wildlife Refuge System and other FWS species conservation
programs will focus new resources on conserving and restoring the
habitat necessary to sustain endangered, threatened, and at-risk
species and prevent additional species from being listed under the
Endangered Species Act. A program increase of $4.7 million for refuge
wildlife and habitat management will allow the refuge system to
increase the number of recovery plan actions completed in 2008 by 111;
protect or restore an additional 57,983 acres; and fill three new
positions to manage the new Northwestern Hawaii Marine National
Monument. The 2008 budget also includes $2.2 million in programmatic
increases for the recovery of the gray wolf and the Yellowstone grizzly
bear.
Healthy Forests Initiative.--The 2008 budget for the Healthy
Forests Initiative, a total of $307.3 million, supports the
Department's efforts to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire and
improve forest and rangeland health. The 2008 budget request funds the
Hazardous Fuels Reduction program at $202.8 million, an increase of
$3.0 million for fixed costs over the 2007 level. An additional $1.8
million in the hazardous fuels program will be shifted from program
support activities to on-the-ground fuel reduction to help treat high-
priority acres.
Wildland Fire Management.--The 2008 budget proposes $801.8 million
to support fire preparedness, suppression, fuels reduction, and burned
area rehabilitation. This amount represents a net increase of $32.6
million above 2007, including an increase of $37.4 million for
suppression operations. This budget will fully fund the expected costs
of fire suppression in 2008 at $294.4 million, based on the 10-year
average. The 2008 Preparedness program is funded at $268.3 million, a
net reduction of $6.5 million from the 2007 level. A significant
portion of this reduction will be achieved by eliminating management
and support positions and lower-priority activities. The 2008 Wildland
Fire Management program will realign its preparedness base resources to
better support initial attack capability, which will include the
addition of over 250 firefighters. These actions will help maintain
initial attack success.
Oceans Conservation.--Interior bureaus conduct ocean and coastal
conservation activities that significantly advance understanding of the
processes and status of ocean and coastal resources. The 2008
President's budget includes $929.5 million to support the President's
Ocean Action Plan. This funding will allow Interior bureaus to continue
their high-priority work within the U.S. Ocean Action Plan and includes
an increase of $3.0 million for USGS. In 2008, USGS will begin to
implement the Oceans Research Priorities Plan and Implementation
Strategy by conducting observations, research, seafloor mapping, and
forecast models. USGS will also begin to implement an interagency
national water quality monitoring network. Also included is $600,000
for three new positions to support management of the new Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument.
Indian Trust.--The 2008 request for Indian Trust programs is $489.9
million, $17.6 million above 2007. The Indian Land Consolidation
program is funded at $10 million, $20.7 million below 2007. The 2008
budget also includes $4.6 million in reductions to reflect efficiencies
and improvements in services to beneficiaries, the completion of trust
reform tasks, the completion of project task efforts, and management
efficiencies. The budget includes a $3.6 million increase for the
Office of Historical Accounting to assist with the increased workload
associated with additional tribal trust lawsuits.
Payments in Lieu of Taxes.--PILT payments are made to local
governments in lieu of tax payments on Federal lands within their
boundaries and to supplement other Federal land receipts shared with
local governments. The 2008 budget proposes $190 million for these
payments. The 2008 request is a reduction of $8 million from the 2007
level. This level of funding is significantly above the historical
funding level for PILT. From the program's inception in 1977 through
2001, the program was funded in the range of $96-$134 million.
CONCLUSION
We believe that the Department's 2008 budget will--in its
entirety--make a dramatic difference for the American people. We will
better conserve our public lands. We will improve our national parks.
We will protect our wildlife and its habitat. We will help craft a
better future for Indian country and particularly for Indian children.
We will better manage and protect water and related resources and
produce the energy that America needs to heat our homes and run our
businesses. This concludes my overview of the 2008 budget proposal for
the Department of the Interior and my written statement. I will be
happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Senator Dorgan. Secretary Limbaugh, thank you very much.
Mr. Johnson.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. It's my pleasure to be here. This is my first
opportunity to testify before this committee and I look forward
to working with you now and in the future.
The overall fiscal year 2008 appropriation request for
Reclamation totals $958.4 million. This request provides
funding for multiple priorities of the Reclamation program,
consistent with the President's objective of achieving a
balanced budget by 2012. I would like to, in my oral
presentation, highlight three broad categories of activity that
comprise the major portion of the Reclamation budget.
First, our budget reflects the need to maintain our
existing portfolio of projects. Reclamation has over 472 dams,
348 reservoirs, 58 powerplants and many other water delivery
facilities. Our infrastructure provides water to 31 million
people and 10 million acres of irrigated farmland. We generate
42 billion kilowatt hours of electricity annually, enough to
provide power for a population of about 8 million.
Our predecessors gave us a magnificent infrastructure that
has helped meet our water needs in the American West amazingly
well. Much of that infrastructure is 50 to 100 years old and
its proper operation and maintenance is our top priority.
Approximately $380 million of the Reclamation budget, about 40
percent, is dedicated to making sure that our facilities are
operated and maintained in a safe and reliable fashion.
Second, we frequently find ourselves having to manage our
projects to meet changes in social and public values that are
embodied in the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act,
the National Environmental Protection Act and other State and
Federal environmental laws. In many cases, meeting these
requirements have been manifested in the development of broader
river management and/or restoration plans. Implementation of
these plans is becoming a significant element of the
Reclamation program. Reclamation's involvement is almost always
necessary to meet its obligations associated with the operation
and maintenance of its projects.
Reclamation is currently involved in environmental
restoration management programs on the Colorado, Middle Rio
Grande, Platte, Klamath, Columbia, San Joaquin, Trinity and
Sacramento Rivers. We anticipate that our efforts on these and
other river systems will continue to be a significant part of
the Reclamation program well into the future. Our 2008 budget
request includes about $150 million for these activities.
Finally, Reclamation continues to be actively involved in
programs to develop new water supplies and infrastructure. In
total, these programs represent approximately $175 million of
our 2008 request. Examples of ongoing activities in our 2008
budget include the Animas-La Plata Project. This project is
located in southwestern Colorado and will provide water
supplies to settle the water right claims of the Ute Mountain
Ute and Southern Ute Indian Tribes. It will provide municipal
and industrial water to rural communities in the Four Corners
areas of Colorado and New Mexico and it will provide water
service to parts of the Navajo Indian Reservation.
Second, rural water programs. The Reclamation budget
includes funding for water systems to deliver surface water to
Indian and non-Indian communities in the rural Great Plains.
These projects provide good quality water to rural areas where
existing water supplies are either non-existent or of very poor
quality.
Three, water re-use projects. Under title XVI of Public Law
102-575, Reclamation continues to provide some funding for
development of projects that re-use existing waste water
supplies. Located primarily in southern California, these
projects provide drought-proof supplies that we hope meet
increasing demands for water caused by fast-growing urban
populations.
Fourth, Indian water distribution systems in Arizona. Under
the authority of the Central Arizona Project, Reclamation is
funding construction of water delivery systems to serve
Colorado River water to Indian tribes in central Arizona. These
systems provide new water supplies to settle Indian water right
claims and meet economic development needs on the reservations.
Finally, water conservation programs. Through the Water
2025 program and our Water Conservation Field Services program,
Reclamation provides funding for implementation of water
conservation projects. Using a challenge grant approach, these
programs are competitive and usually leverage non-Federal
funding to maximize the effectiveness of the Federal
investment. These programs have been successfully applied in
all 17 reclamation States.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In conclusion, our budget represents a proper balance
between maintaining our infrastructure and meeting our
environmental compliance obligations with river restoration
plans and also providing money for the development of new water
supplies.
Mr. Chairman, thank you and I'd be happy to answer
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert W. Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Domenici and members of the
subcommittee, for the opportunity to appear in support of the
President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Bureau of
Reclamation. With me today is Bob Wolf, Director of Program and Budget.
Since this is my first opportunity to present the President's
budget, I would like to make two introductory comments. First, I truly
appreciate the time and consideration this committee gives to reviewing
and understanding Reclamation's budget and its support for the program.
Second, while the development of an annual budget is a long and complex
task, it is truly rewarding to see our institution work so hard to
prioritize and define our program in a manner that serves the public
and those who rely on Reclamation for their water and power.
Our fiscal year 2008 request has been designed to support
Reclamation's efforts to deliver water and generate hydropower,
consistent with applicable State and Federal law, in an environmentally
responsible and cost-efficient manner.
The funding proposed is for key projects and programs that are
important to the Department and in line with administration objectives.
The budget request also supports Reclamation's participation in efforts
to meet emerging water supply needs, to address water shortage issues
in the West, to promote water conservation and improved water
management, and to take actions to mitigate adverse environmental
impacts of projects.
The fiscal year 2008 request for Reclamation totals $958.4 million
in gross budget authority and is partially offset by discretionary
receipts in the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ($51.3
million).
WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
The fiscal year 2008 request for Water and Related Resources is
$816.2 million. More specifically, the request for Water and Related
Resources includes a total of $429.5 million for water and energy,
land, and fish and wildlife resource management activities (which
provides for construction, management of Reclamation lands, and actions
to address the impacts of Reclamation projects on fish and wildlife),
and $386.7 million for facility operations, maintenance, and
rehabilitation activities.
Providing adequate funding for facility operations, maintenance,
and rehabilitation continues to be one of Reclamation's highest
priorities. Reclamation continues to work closely with water users and
other stakeholders to ensure that available funds are used effectively.
These funds are used to allow the timely and effective delivery of
project benefits; ensure the reliability and operational readiness of
Reclamation's dams, reservoirs, power plants, and distribution systems;
and identify, plan, and implement dam safety corrective actions and
site security improvements.
Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2008 Request for Water and Related
Resources Include
I would like to share with the committee several highlights of the
Reclamation budget:
Water 2025 ($11 million).--Water 2025 is a high priority for the
Secretary of the Interior and will focus financial and technical
resources on areas in the West where conflict over water either
currently exists or is likely to occur in the coming years.
The overarching goal of Water 2025 is to meet the challenge of
preventing crises and conflict over water in the West. Water 2025 will
contribute to meeting this goal by increasing certainty and flexibility
in water supplies, diversifying water supplies, and reducing conflict
through the use of market-based approaches and enhancing environmental
benefits in many watershed, rivers and streams consistent with State
and Federal laws.
With $11 million, Water 2025 will continue to be a multifaceted
program with projects that embody the overarching goal of preventing
crises and conflict over water in the West. Leveraging limited Federal
dollars through the Challenge Grant program will continue to be a major
component of Water 2025. The Challenge Grant program will focus on
projects that improve water management through conservation,
efficiency, and water markets, as well as collaborative solutions to
meet the needs of the future. Beginning with fiscal year 2007, a system
optimization review component has been added to ensure existing water
management systems are operated to maximize water deliveries.
Modernization of existing systems will occur within the framework of
existing treaties, interstate compacts, water rights, and contracts.
In addition to the program and policy priorities reflected in the
fiscal year 2008 budget request, the Department intends to re-submit
permanent authorizing legislation this spring to support the Water 2025
program.
Loan Guarantee Program ($1 million).--The fiscal year 2008 request
includes funding for a Loan Guarantee program, which is an important
component of Interior's strategy to address aging water infrastructure
challenges in the West. The loan guarantee program, which is a
business-like approach that recognizes the inability of many water
districts to fund expensive rehabilitative repairs without the
capability to use Federal facilities as collateral to obtain bank
financing, was authorized by Title II of Public Law 109-451, the Rural
Water Supply Act of 2006.
Klamath Project in Oregon and California ($25 million).--The fiscal
year 2008 request will continue and increase funding for Reclamation to
collaborate with other Federal and State agencies, tribes and the
public to develop a basin-wide recovery plan that addresses water
supply, water quality, fish habitat, and fish populations.
Lower Colorado River Operations Program in California, Arizona and
Nevada ($15.4 million).--The fiscal year 2008 request will provide
funds for the work necessary to carry out the Secretary's
responsibilities as water master of the lower Colorado River. The
fiscal year 2008 request funds measures under the multi-species
conservation program to provide long-term Endangered Species Act
compliance for lower Colorado River operations for both Federal and
non-Federal purposes.
Middle Rio Grande in New Mexico ($23.2 million).--The fiscal year
2008 request will continue funding for endangered species activities
and Reclamation's participation in the Middle Rio Grande Endangered
Species Act Collaborative Program as well as repair of priority river
maintenance sites.
Animas-La Plata in Colorado and New Mexico ($58 million).--The
fiscal year 2008 request includes $58 million to continue construction
of the project's major features, Ridges Basin Dam and Durango Pumping
Plant and the Ridges Basin Inlet Conduit. The project is critical to
implementation of the Colorado Ute Settlement Act. Funding will be
primarily directed to these three features while other key features are
held for future implementation.
Savage Rapids in Oregon ($15 million).--The fiscal year 2008
request will provide funds for continuing construction of the pumping
facilities. Removal of this irrigation diversion dam and the
installation of pumping facilities will allow the local farming
community to continue irrigated agriculture and remove a migration
barrier for the threatened Southern Oregon and Northern California coho
salmon.
Columbia/Snake River Salmon Recovery in Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and
Washington ($15 million).--The fiscal year 2008 request will address
the requirements in the biological opinions issues in December 2000 by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and in November 2004 by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries). The
2004 biological opinion has been remanded to NOAA Fisheries and a new
biological opinion is due in July 2007. During the remand, the 2004
biological opinion remains in place as Reclamation continues to
implement actions identified in the 2004 updated proposed action. These
requirements include significantly increased regional coordination
efforts; actions to modify the daily, weekly, and seasonal operation of
Reclamation dams; acquisition of water for flow augmentation; tributary
habitat activities in selected subbasins to offset hydrosystem impacts;
and significantly increased research, monitoring, and evaluation. The
request includes funding for the Nez Perce Water Settlement Act.
Platte River Endangered Species Recovery Program ($9.6 million).--
The fiscal year 2008 budget request is for Federal participation in the
Platte River Recovery Implementation Program. The agreement for the
program was signed by Secretary Kempthorne and the Governors of
Nebraska, Colorado and Wyoming in late 2006.
Site Security ($35.5 million).--An appropriation in the amount of
$35.5 million is requested for site security to ensure the safety and
security of the public, Reclamation's employees and key facilities.
This funding includes $11.7 million for physical security upgrades and
$23.8 million to continue all aspects of Reclamation-wide security
efforts, including law enforcement, risk and threat analysis,
implementing security measures, undertaking security-related studies,
and maintaining guards and patrols on the ground.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request assumes annual costs associated
with guard and patrol activities will be treated as project O&M costs
subject to being reimbursed based on project cost allocations. These
costs in fiscal year 2008 are estimated at $22.1 million of which $18.9
million will be reimbursed. Of the funding to be reimbursed, $11.6
million will be in direct up-front funding from power customers, while
$7.3 million in appropriated funds will be reimbursed by irrigation
users, M&I water users, and other customers in the year in which they
were incurred through Reclamation's O&M allocation process. Reclamation
will continue to treat facility fortification, studies, and anti-
terrorism management-related expenditures as non-reimbursable.
Safety of Dams ($77 million).--Assuring the safety and reliability
of Reclamation dams is one of the Bureau's highest priorities. The Dam
Safety Program is critical to effectively manage risks to the
downstream public, property, project, and natural resources. The fiscal
year 2008 request provides for risk management activities at 361 dams
and dikes, which would likely cause loss of life if they were to fail.
In fiscal year 2008, large-scale, ongoing corrective action work is
planned at Folsom Dam. Reclamation is working closely with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers to coordinate this work with the flood control
efforts to minimize Federal costs and duration of work.
Rural Water ($55 million).--The fiscal year 2008 request continues
funding for ongoing rural water projects. This includes funding for
Municipal, Rural, and Industrial (MR&I) systems for the rural water
components of the Pick Sloan-Missouri Basin Program--Garrison Diversion
Unit (North Dakota), the Mni Wiconi Project (South Dakota), and the
Lewis and Clark Project (South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota).
On December 22, 2006, the President signed Public Law 109-451, the
Rural Water Supply Act of 2006. Title I of the statute requires the
Secretary to establish a formal rural water supply program for rural
water and major maintenance projects in the 17 western States. The Act
requires the establishment of programmatic and eligibility criteria for
the rural water program along with other reporting requirements and
criteria for appraisal and feasibility studies. Implementation of the
Act will allow the Department, the administration and Congress to set
priorities and establish clear guidelines for project development to
help meet the water supply needs of rural communities throughout the
West.
Science and Technology (S&T) ($13.4 million).--The fiscal year 2008
request includes funding for the development of new solutions and
technologies which respond to Reclamation's mission-related needs. We
feel our S&T work is important and will contribute to the innovative
management, development, and protection of water and related resources.
Of the amount requested, about $4.4 million is planned for internal
desalination Research & Development conducted by Reclamation.
policy and administration
The $58.8 million request in fiscal year 2008 is a slight increase
and includes funding for labor cost increases due to cost of living
raises and inflationary costs for non-pay activities. Funding requested
will be used to: (1) develop, evaluate, and direct implementation of
Reclamation-wide policy, rules, and regulations, including actions
under the Government Performance and Results Act, and implement the
President's Management Agenda; and (2) manage and perform functions
that are not properly chargeable to specific projects or program
activities covered by separate funding authority.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND
This fund was established by the Central Valley Project Improvement
Act, title XXXIV of Public Law 102-575, October 30, 1992. The request
of $51.6 million is expected to be offset by discretionary receipts
totaling $51.3 million, which is the maximum amount that can be
collected from project beneficiaries under provisions of section
3407(d) of the Act. The discretionary receipts are adjusted on an
annual basis to maintain payments totaling $30 million (October 1992
price levels) on a 3-year rolling average basis. The request of $51.6
million was reduced by $7.5 million (i.e., would have been $59.1
million) due to a legislative proposal, which redirects $7.5 million
collected from the Central Valley Project Friant Division water users
to the new San Joaquin River Restoration Fund for fiscal year 2008.
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.
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION FUND PROPOSED LEGISLATION
The 2008 budget also reflects the settlement of NRDC v. Rodgers.
The administration will submit authorizing legislation, the San Joaquin
River Restoration Settlement Act, which includes a provision to
establish the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund. Under the settlement,
the legislation proposes to redirect approximately $17.3 million per
year of payments from the Central Valley Project, Friant Division water
users into the Fund which would be available without further
appropriations to implement the provisions of the settlement.
Previously, $7.5 million of these funds went into the Central Valley
Project Restoration Fund.
CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION FUND (CALFED)
Title I of Public Law 108-361, titled the Calfed Bay-Delta
Authorization Act, was signed by the President on October 25, 2004. The
act authorized $389 million in Federal appropriations over the period
of fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2010. For fiscal year 2008,
$31.8 million is requested to enable Reclamation to advance its
commitments under the CALFED Record of Decision and with a focus
towards implementation of priority activities included in the Calfed
Bay-Delta Authorization Act that will contribute to resolving water
resource conflicts in the CALFED solution area. Funds will specifically
be used for the environmental water account, feasibility studies of
projects to increase surface storage and improve water conveyance in
the Delta, conduct critical science activities, implementation of
projects to improve Delta water quality, ecosystem enhancements, and
program planning and management activities.
FISCAL YEAR 2008 PLANNED ACTIVITIES
Reclamation's fiscal year 2008 priority goals are directly related
to continually fulfilling our progress in water and power contracts
while balancing a range of competing water demands. Reclamation will
continue to deliver water consistent with applicable State and Federal
law, in an environmentally responsible and cost-efficient manner.
Reclamation will strive to deliver 28 million acre-feet of water to
meet contractual obligations while addressing other resource needs (for
example, fish and wildlife habitat, environmental enhancement,
recreation, and Native American trust responsibilities). Reclamation
will work to maintain our dams and associated facilities in fair to
good condition to ensure the reliable delivery of water. Reclamation
will strive to meet or beat the industry forced outage average to
ensure reliable delivery of power. Reclamation will reduce salinity by
preventing an additional 18,500 tons of salt from entering the water
ways.
Moreover, the fiscal year 2008 budget request demonstrates
Reclamation's commitment in meeting the water and power needs of the
West in a fiscally responsible manner. This budget continues
Reclamation's emphasis on delivering and managing those valuable public
resources. Reclamation is committed to working with its customers,
States, tribes, and other stakeholders to find ways to balance and
provide for the mix of water resource needs in 2008 and beyond.
MANAGEMENT STUDIES
Reclamation continues to make significant advancements in its quest
for management excellence. Reclamation's Managing for Excellence Action
Plan reflects specific actions to realize the underlying principles of
the President's Management Agenda. The National Academy of Sciences, at
Reclamation's request, completed and published its study in 2006 to
assist Reclamation in determining the appropriate organizational,
management, and resource configurations to meet its construction and
related infrastructure management responsibilities associated with
fulfilling its core mission of delivering water and power for the 21st
century.
The Managing for Excellence action plan, developed in response to
the Academy's report, outlines a process and timeframe for identifying
and addressing the specific actions that can be taken to increase
transparency, efficiency, and accountability within Reclamation. As of
the end of January 2007, Reclamation has completed approximately 50
percent of the 41 action items identified. Although the philosophy of
Managing for Excellence will continue into the future, the Managing for
Excellence Action Plan will conclude after December 2007 and
implementation will continue as part of Reclamation's normal business.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, Please allow me to express my sincere appreciation
for the continued support that this committee has provided Reclamation.
This completes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions
that you may have at this time.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Johnson, thank you very much. I'm going
to ask a couple of questions and then turn to my colleagues.
We've been joined by Senator Jack Reed as well. Senator Reed,
others made a very brief statement. Would you like to make a
comment?
Senator Reed. I'll just put that in the record, Mr.
Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Jack Reed
Senators Dorgan and Domenici, it is an honor to serve with you
again on the Appropriations Committee. I look forward to working with
you on this subcommittee given the importance of energy and water
programs to Rhode Island.
Good afternoon, Secretary Woodley and Lieutenant General Strock, I
look forward to hearing your testimony. I want to commend the work of
Colonel Thalken, Bobby Byrne, and the New England District. With over
400 miles of coastline, the Corps has a number of ongoing navigation
and ecosystem restoration projects in Rhode Island that are extremely
important to my State's economy and environment.
The Corps also provides an important service in the inspection of
our Nation's dams and levees. I am interested in your efforts to help
local communities and States ensure that these critical infrastructure
projects are sound and able to protect the lives and properties for
which they were designed. I am also interested in the Corps efforts to
restore aquatic ecosystems given the number of ongoing projects in
Rhode Island to protect our coastal ponds.
Senator Dorgan. All right. I'm going to ask a series of
questions about the Missouri River System and the eighth year
of the drought now, ninth year of the drought in Montana and
that system. But I withhold on those questions. I'm just going
to ask a question to, I would say, Secretary Woodley and
General Strock, on the issue of the pumps in New Orleans, which
I expect you would come here and expect to get a question
about.
I've read the reports, the Associated Press reports and so
on and I would like to have both of you comment publicly about
it. The story that is told in these reports is that a
substantial amount of money was committed to rush to put in
pumps to protect New Orleans but the pumps apparently, while
costing $26.6 million, came from a company that the U.S.
Justice Department had sued just 4 years ago. Those pumps
apparently did not work. People inside the Corps of Engineers
questioned whether the pumps should be purchased, alleged that
they would not work. In any event, at least the stories about
this suggest that it was a profound waste of the taxpayers'
money, an unwise decision in contracting. I want to ask you
what we should make of these stories and what the Corps' view
is of what has happened there.
Mr. Woodley. Senator, the provision of pumping capacity to
complement the temporary closure structures on the drainage
canals at Lake Pontchartrain, is perhaps the single aspect of
the project that has taken more of my personal attention than
any other. I have been very deeply involved in it and have
followed it very closely. I can tell you that the challenges of
that effort should not be minimized. We're not talking about
the kind of pump that you put in your birdbath. These are very
serious installations of enormous capacity, capacity almost
unknown elsewhere in the Nation.
They were accomplished in time for the beginning of the
2006 hurricane season on a schedule of unprecedented speed and
scope and overcoming enormous challenges of the hydraulics and
the planning and construction by people who were extremely
dedicated to the work. I am not familiar with the
technicalities of it. I do not pretend technical expertise. I
do know that a great deal of technical expertise and scrutiny
has been given to this and I believe that at the end of the
day, when the full story is told that it will be a rather
different story from the impressions and implications that we
have from the initial report.
Senator Dorgan. Well, let me ask a specific question then.
Is it the case that a mechanical engineer from Corps wrote a
memo to Corps officials saying the equipment being installed
was defective, warned that the equipment would break down
should they be tasked to run at a normal use, as it be required
and that when the pumps were installed, they were defective,
have broken down sufficient so that you've had to withhold 20
percent of the funding of the contract?
General Strock. Sir, I should probably answer that as the
Corps of Engineers representative here. I am not aware of a
member of the Corps of Engineers that expressed those concerns
but his or her concerns, I think, are valid. The fact is, as
the Secretary has said, this is a very, very complex and large-
scale operation. I'm not sure that anything like this has ever
been done before. In addition to focusing on the complexity,
I'd also like to recognize that this is a tremendously
important function, too. Our task is to keep the waters of Lake
Pontchartrain out of the city in the event of another storm
surge but we must do that in a way that does not interfere with
the city's ability to pump rainwater that falls inside the
city. So we know how important this is.
Sir, the process that would normally be followed for a
project of this size and complexity would take about 3 years to
accomplish. It's been about 18 months since the Corps got this
mission and by the end of April, we will have those pumps
operating effectively. We know what the problems are and we
have the solutions in place. The normal protocol is to test
pumps in the factory. You can do that with pumps below 42
inches in diameter. With pumps the size of these, there is no
protocol for factory testing and we have not been able to
identify a factory in the United States that can test these in
the factory as the Hydraulic Institute likes to do.
Our Engineering Research and Development Center worked with
the Hydraulic Institute and proposed a protocol of field
testing. That protocol was reviewed and approved by the
Hydraulic Institute, which is the authoritative body in these
matters and those tests have been conducted in the field. They
did determine problems. We experienced significant vibrations
in the pumps. We know why that occurred. We are making fixes to
that.
So sir, this is not unexpected. The process of
certification and testing of the pumps, which would normally be
done in a factory had to occur in the field in this case. We
were faced with the challenge of running things through the
normal process and having no pumping in place or very little
pumping in place for the 2006 hurricane season. We chose to
accept a calculated risk and put something in place that would
have an effect at the beginning of the hurricane season.
So sir, I offer no apologies for this, for the efforts of
the Corps of Engineers. There may be some issues you touched on
that I'm not familiar with that I will look into. The matter of
the Department of Justice investigation, we were aware of that
during the contract award process. Unless a contractor has been
debarred or specifically proposed for debarment, we cannot
prohibit a contractor--cannot deny an award to a contractor and
that process had not occurred with the contractor.
Senator Dorgan. General, thank you. I will have some other
questions. Let me just point out on debarment. It's pretty hard
to get debarred these days. That's a particular concern I have.
General Strock. Yes sir, but as the law says, unless they
are debarred, we cannot----
Senator Dorgan. You cannot consider----
General Strock. We cannot prevent them from----
Senator Dorgan. You can't consider other issues? But my
point is that there are a whole lot of companies, I think, out
there of which significant questions have been raised in
contracting that are not debarred and that I would hope we
would think twice before contracting with again.
But having said that, we've been joined by the ranking
member, Senator Domenici. Senator Domenici, we have a series of
six votes starting in 35 minutes. I'm going to start a series
of 5-minute rounds. I apologize for that but if you have an
opening comment, I'd be happy to recognize you for that and
then I'm going to call on Senator Craig and we'll just use the
early-bird rule.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I want to take just a
couple of minutes to explain where I have been. I happen to
also be on the Budget Committee. Today, the Budget Committee
was finishing its work, fellow Senators and that meant under
their rules, you must be present in the room to vote. You can't
vote by proxy. So we had a full house of Senators voting for
the last 2\1/2\, 3 hours and that meant I could not be in two
places. I knew that you all would be here and get the job done
and I'm going to return it now to you, Mr. Chairman and then my
turn will come. If it doesn't, I'll do my homework another way.
Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you, Senator Domenici. I did mention
the Budget Committee responsibilities you have and I appreciate
you being here.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Pete V. Domenici
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a couple of moments
and address a couple of priority issues.
Like all of my colleagues, I continue to eagerly await the final
decision by the Corps on which priorities they will choose to fund for
the fiscal year 2007 budget. I sincerely hope that the Corps will not
focus only on its priorities, but will continue to provide funding to
the many ongoing projects and studies that were funded in fiscal year
2006.
As part of the fiscal year 2008 budget the administration has
indicated that the Inland Waterway Trust Fund may go broke within a
couple of years due to the large amount of rebuilding needs. The
administration has indicated that they will be submitting a legislative
proposal to replace the current 20-cent per-gallon diesel fuel tax with
a user fee.
As the author of this current fee, I have more than a passing
interest as to how this matter is resolved. It is vital to our economy
that we sustain a viable, operating inland waterway system. The
continued effectiveness of the system will be determined if there is a
reliable source of funding.
The responsibility for solving this problem falls to EPW and the
Finance Committee, but the solution will have a big impact on this
subcommittee in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I want to address an issue that I believe you and I
share a similar interest--drought relief.
As you are well aware many communities and rural areas in the West
and Midwest are experiencing a severe drought. I believe we need to
find solutions to address our long term water needs and we need more
resources committed to this effort.
Two programs that have not received sufficient attention in this
budget are Water 2025 and the reclamation and reuse programs managed by
the Bureau. I think everyone would agree that $11 million requested for
Water 2025 will not provide the long term solutions we will need.
Another area that has been seriously underfunded is water
reclamation and reuse. This activity is a vital component of increasing
near term water supplies for the West. The Federal dollars are
leveraged to make these projects a success. Only about $10 million was
requested for these activities in fiscal year 2008. I am proud of the
fact that Congress has consistently provided between $25 million to $30
million for this important work.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with you to bring greater
attention to this issue and work to raise awareness among our
colleagues. When compared to the budget priorities of this
administration, which increasingly includes large amounts of funding
for environmental infrastructure projects, it is not at all
unreasonable for this subcommittee to focus more resources on
addressing water shortages. I am certain it will pay off in the future.
Mr. Chairman, another priority of this subcommittee has been the
recovery of the gulf coast following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Over
the last several supplemental requests this subcommittee has provided
over $6 billion in rebuilding assistance to the gulf coast.
This region was devastated by these storms, and I am proud to say
this subcommittee worked hard to address critical infrastructure
repairs and upgrades that are needed in this region.
I am interested in hearing from General Strock and Assistant
Secretary Woodley regarding the rebuilding efforts.
I am also interested to know if the Corps has been a good steward
of the Federal resources. I am concerned about recent press reports of
extraordinary price inflation and poor quality work being performed in
Louisiana. I hope our witnesses can address these concerns.
Mr. Chairman, before I close I would like to thank General Strock
for all his hard work during the hurricane recovery efforts. The
General is retiring from the Army and this will be his last hearing
before this subcommittee.
General, I am sorry you are going, but I greatly appreciate your
hard work and dedication to this country.
Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have
several questions. I'll ask a couple of them and submit the
rest for the record so that we can save time and everybody get
a round.
To the Corps, does the 2008 budget request provide
sufficient funding to complete the Snake River Programmatic
Sedimentation Management Plan by its 2009 due date and if not,
how does the Corps intend to provide potential navigation
maintenance if it is not needed prior to the completion of the
plan?
General Strock. Sir, I'll need to take that for the record.
I don't have the specifics on that study in front of me.
Senator Craig. Okay. We'll take that for the record then
and anticipate you responding to it. To the Bureau, Mark, can
you please describe in more detail the new Loan Guarantee
program that you've outlined? For instance, what kind of
strings are attached to these loans and what kind of interest
rates and loan durations can we look forward to?
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Craig, thank you. Before
I answer that, I too want to add, I was remiss in not adding my
goodwill to General Strock. Under his leadership, we have,
between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of
Engineers, we've probably worked closer and better together
than ever before. So thank you, General Strock.
To answer your question, Senator, we are in the process of
developing the rules and regulations for that program. It's my
understanding in talking with the Department of Agriculture,
who we will be working very closely with to try to administer
this program without increasing the bureaucratic side of
operating a program such as this. The way it works is we would
only have to appropriate a percentage of the total loan volume
out there as it pertains to the default rate or the possible
estimated default rate.
So this would allow us to be able to allow our contractors
to obtain financing for their share of improvements to our
system, which currently, we're just doing under the Operation
and Maintenance contracts that we have. It's burdensome on them
to have to come up with large amounts of money in 1 year or 2
years from the rate payers. So this would allow a tool in the
toolbox, if you will, in order to finance their share.
The interest rates are generally lower than the normal
commercial rates, from what I'm told. I have not done any
recent analysis of those rates and what levels they are but
they are very close to the municipal rates that are currently
available under the tax free municipal bonds, which are also an
opportunity for some of these contractors to use.
But I guess the point is, Mr. Chairman and Senator Craig,
this program is something that we don't have right now and what
we're trying to do is take care of a problem that we see out
there in as fiscally responsible way as possible, not to hit
our appropriations budget as much as it would have if we did
direct loans but also to add a tool in the toolbox that our
contractors can use to keep these facilities viable into the
next century.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Secretary, thank
you for those thoughts and as you work through this, keep us
informed. You participated with me in the Center for the New
West in looking at creative, out-of-the-box ideas that I think
added a dynamic, like you say, a valuable tool in the process
and Commissioner Johnson, you've been there looking at this.
We've got a lot of work to do across the country and to be able
to leverage resources in a way that multiples them beyond our
capability here is, I think, a very valuable approach. So I'll
watch this very closely to see if we can't assist you in making
it happen sooner and enhancing it if at all possible.
Mr. Limbaugh. We will keep you informed.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Craig, thank you very much. Senator
Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I got my question
asked in my opening statement so I won't ask it again and see
if you remember it well enough to give me an answer.
General Strock. Yes, Senator, we certainly do but on
something on the detail of a program like that, we would have
to take that for the record and get back to you. I can assure
you that of course, any re-programming of any kind at this
time, under the rules established by the committee would have
to be submitted to both houses for a concurrence of some
nature. But we will definitely be working on that. We recognize
that prior reprogrammings have, in many cases, created an
obligation on the part of the agency to seek repayment at the
earliest possible time, especially when the funding could be
usefully utilized within the program, as you indicate that it
can be now. So we're very concerned about that and we'll
definitely be getting back to you directly.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. I like the phrase, the earliest
possible time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much, Senator Bennett.
Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you. I want to begin by saying the
three gentlemen representing the Corps before me have been
personally supportive of our efforts in New Orleans and in the
gulf coast to rebuild. I've spent many hours with you all,
walking levees, looking at flood walls, walking through
neighborhoods assuring people. So I want to start with a
personal thank you to you.
But after being close up for 18 months, I've come to the
conclusion that you all may be stuck in an agency that is
dysfunctional and I believe that your wholly inadequate budget
is what this committee is discussing. I have two or three
specific questions but for this committee, because I intend to
stay on this committee for several years to try to fix it, I
want to say to the chairman, I thank him for taking his time to
ask the question about the pumps and I'll get to that in a
minute.
But the overall budget for this Corps, the way I'm looking
at it, is a construction budget of all new construction for the
whole country--for the whole country--of $1.5 billion of new
construction, $2.4 billion for operation and maintenance, $180
million for regulatory and then there are other things. Is this
what is reflected in the documents that you've submitted?
I want to show you all a chart that I had my office do
since I couldn't get this information from anywhere. We just
did it ourselves. This is a frightening chart. This shows the
fall-off in appropriations of Civil Works projects in this
country since 1929. We are funding less than one-tenth of the
GDP of Civil Works projects in 2007 than we did in 1929.
And in the year 2005, which is not even on this chart, I
want the chairman and the ranking member to know, the levees in
New Orleans broke. That is the end of the story. That's the
only story that needs to be told. That's what happens when a
government like ours will not fund critical infrastructure
operation and maintenance and construction. Levees break.
Cities and communities are ruined.
The problem I have, Mr. Chairman, with this budget is it's
the same budget. Nothing has changed. Nothing. Nothing has
changed. There is no money in this budget for SELA. There is no
money in this budget for adequate levee construction. I don't
know how many people have to die. I don't know how many homes
have to be lost. I don't know how many businesses have to be
ruined to change the budget.
Now, there is no sense in my arguing this with you because
you all are not in charge of the budget. But I'm going to ask
this chairman publicly to have someone from the administration
that is in charge of the budget, appear before this committee.
I would like to ask OMB that controls the budget to appear
because I'm going to ask them how they justify this budget.
Maybe pre-Katrina. You never really would know what would
happen when levees broke so we could sort of pretend we didn't
have to do anything. But after Katrina?
This is my question. The chairman asked his question of
this but the memo was written by a Corps, according to the AP,
by Maria Garzino, a Corps mechanical engineer overseeing
quality assurance at a MWI test site in Florida. In her memo,
she warned that the pumps would break down should they be
tasked to run under normal use, as would be required in the
event of a hurricane. The pumps failed less strenuous testing
than the original contract called for, according to the memo.
Originally, each of the 34 pumps was supposed to be load
tested, made to pump water. Of the eight pumps that were load
tested, one was turned on for a few minutes. The other was run
at a third of the operating pressure. Three of the other load
test pumps experienced catastrophic failure and these are the
pumps that we have installed in the canals that flooded the
city of New Orleans and hurricane season is 2 months away. So
you can imagine the calls that I'm getting to my office today,
trying to explain this and my time is up.
So I want to say, I have many questions I'm going to
submit. But I am going to call for a full investigation of how
these pumps were purchased, how they were installed, why they
don't work but more importantly, Mr. Chairman, I think we have
to get to the bottom of a budget that is wholly inadequate, not
just for south Louisiana but I think it is inadequate for the
other 49 States that are represented in this Nation and I think
it is a dangerous budget and I think people's lives are at risk
because I've seen their lives lost because of the levees
breaking. I could go on but nothing has changed in this budget
and I'm going to continue to press to get more funding, more
fuller funding and more organizational reform at the Corps of
Engineers. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Landrieu, thank you very much.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
gentlemen, thank you. Secretary Woodley and General Strock, in
the wake of Katrina, you've conducted a review of levee systems
throughout the country. One of them was in Woonsocket, Rhode
Island and you discovered some deficiencies, which the local
officials have estimated would cost $2 million to repair and
also, there are some indications of even more serious
structural issues.
My first question is, is this a one-shot sort of inspection
or do you have a regular program to inspect the structural
aspects of these levies?
General Strock. Sir, this was not a one shot effort. We
have a program entitled, Inspection of Completed Works. When
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers works in partnership and
constructs levees, they are turned over to a local sponsor for
operation and maintenance. It is their responsibility to
provide 100 percent of that O&M. We have a periodic inspection
requirement that ensures that they are performing the
maintenance and that's important that they do that so we can
ensure that they are maintaining the Federal specifications
when they are in the Federal program, as the levee in
Woonsocket is, then in the event of a compromise of that
structure under-load, if a storm overwhelms it and it needs
repair, then we can go in and have the authority to repair
that.
If they do not maintain it, then when those structures are
damaged, we do not have the authority to go in and conduct
repairs. So this is a periodic inspection. The difference this
time is we learned very well in New Orleans that we had to re-
emphasize the rigor of this program and for that reason, we had
about 120 communities that were required to show us that they
have a plan to improve the operation and maintenance of those
levees.
Senator Reed. Well, it struck me that this was--if there
was ongoing inspections, they wouldn't have quite this
liability that they would have been corrected or at least have
been on notice and I think a lot of the community leaders were
surprised when the inspection took place and the extent of your
criticism was known.
Is this--again, you might have an inspection program on
paper but is this done on a yearly basis? Is it done rigorously
or is it now something?
General Strock. Sir, it's done every 2 years and we saw a
wide variety. We saw many cases where there were repetitive
deficiencies noted on the levees and we simply didn't present
an ultimatum to the community as we have now. We have just
recognized that we have to get tough, if you will, on the
operation and maintenance responsibilities. It's all about
public safety. It is regrettable if we let things slip over the
years but we have to draw the line now and that's what we're
going to do.
Senator Reed. Well, going forward and that's what I think
our major objective should be is that this is one of 100-plus
levee systems around the country in small communities. I'm
wondering within your request of funding, will there be any
Federal dollars requested to help these communities? And it's
not just for Rhode Island, I would suspect it's probably every
one of these facilities. And again, these are small communities
who are struggling to do all sorts of things and the idea that
within 1 year, because of your--as you described ultimatum,
they have to put in millions of dollars of sophisticated
engineering work without any help. Have you considered that in
your request?
General Strock. Sir, we don't currently have the authority
to provide the assistance. We don't have the appropriation to
do that and it's a policy call about whether to apply for that
kind of capability, which we have not made at the Corps of
Engineers.
Senator Reed. Well, I would hope that if--it seems to me,
the only way this is going to get done, frankly--otherwise
you're going to have communities that just have a stark choice.
They don't have the resources and the real consequences that
imperil Federal flood insurance for the surrounding communities
and that's--that leaves a too unacceptable sort of option. So
we've got to something at every level and also local State
level. But I would hope we could get our heads together and
come up with something.
General Strock. Yes, sir. And sir, I'll provide you the
details on Woonsocket about the specifics of the progress at
that particular level.
Senator Reed. Colonel Thalken, by the way, your Commander,
is an excellent district engineer and he's been very
cooperative with us. He and his civilian colleagues should be
complimented for the effort in New England. Please pass that on
to him.
General Strock. I agree, sir, and thank you.
Senator Reed. One of the other areas that was illustrated
in Katrina that made us all sort of sit up and take notice is
the poor state of flood mapping. You have inundation maps, FEMA
has flood maps. Your inundation maps will show much larger
flooding in CAT 2 and 3 storms and many communities are living
in sort of a never-never land where they look at 20-year-old
FEMA maps and they think they can build in a particular where
your inundation map shows already flooding in a serious storm.
My time is expiring but I would hope that we could work
together to ensure that we have a consistent mapping program
that reflects your information and the FEMA information and do
it in a way that all the communities know where they stand.
General Strock. FEMA does have the lead on the Map
Modernization program, sir, and we work very closely with them.
Senator Reed. I have other questions, Mr. Chairman and I'll
submit them. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much. Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I think it probably is best for us that I came along kind of
late today because frankly, I've been at this so long that I am
truly sick and tired of the kind of budgets we are getting from
the executive branch of Government for the Corps of Engineers
and the Bureau of Reclamation. I truly believe, Mr. Chairman,
that we don't have enough time. If we had enough time, we could
spend the next 6 or 7 months, this committee, just traveling
this country to find out where--where we are not doing our job.
It's got to be rampant.
These little tiny budgets that you're sending up here to
accomplish what we know is the problem is an absolute joke.
Some people spent a lot of their time the last 15 years beating
up on the Corps for not doing what people thought they should.
I never was on that side. I tried my best to work with the
Corps but I thought for the most part, they tried very hard. I
still feel that way.
I think you can slack off and make mistakes but I tell you,
that one card that the Senator from Louisiana put up showing
just one line, linear, what's happening to the projects of the
Corps of Engineers is absolutely--it just convinces you that
somebody doesn't care.
To me, Mr. Chairman, you asked me a moment ago, what about
OMB? They don't testify. What about OMB? They sit in the back
room and there is no question they underfund this and they
know, for most of the time--look at me. I've been chairman up
here. They got a good sucker like me that I was both Budget
Committee Chairman and chairman of this subcommittee and I'd go
fight to get them an extra $3 billion or $4 billion every year.
They knew it. I think I contributed to making it worse. They
just come along and fund everything less, figuring somebody,
some dodo down there in the Senate or the House will come along
with an extra $3 billion or $4 billion. But that isn't right.
We took it away from other programs here, the way we budget.
So I have a whole bunch of questions here I'm going to give
you. I want them answered, if you don't mind, to the committee.
They are about my State. They are about drought out there and
there will be one in there that will be directed to you, Mr.
Chairman, seeing if you might come out there and go visit these
drought areas one day, one time.
But I actually don't think we can put a budget together
that is meaningful that spends the kind of money that the White
House has sent up here for the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Corps of Engineers. I think it's just as well let a few kids
get down there with crayons and let them draw some things.
They'll do just as well as we do. Because we don't know what we
can do with this little tiny bit of money they've given us and
the messages have been there. Now they are falling apart and
who is to blame? And then we just had Katrina knock us in the
head. It's no longer cheap. This is big, big time business.
So I've got about 10 for you and I hope you answer them. I
know you're leaving us, General, as I understand it. I met your
successor. He's not here today but he's going to do fine and we
look forward to working with him. He will do a good job, trying
to bear with it and I hope the first time we get him up here
that we impose on his good judgment the fact that he is also
responsible to us, not just to the OMB and executive branch. If
they want to come up here and testify, they better not come up
here with budgets like this because they are going to be
insulted because all they do is infuriate us.
I mean, nice, decent Senators see this kind of junk and
then we say, what is happening? If we wait another 5 years
before we get started, we'll never fix this stuff. You all know
that. You can't do it, that's all. So I'm not even going to ask
you a question. I'm just going to tell you, whatever your
problems are, we can fix those. But we can't fix the problems
of these--of all of this work that is under-funded and falling
apart and conduct oversight hearings on whether we bought
things from the right supplier or not, when the whole thing is
falling down.
You know, I was also the one that came along and put that
tax on barges. You remember. I don't know if any of you were
around. I was the Lone Ranger then but I did win. It was a
terrific, exciting day on the floor when we took a vote and
every big Senator that was from the South wanted to continue
the way we were and I'll be darned if I didn't win and they had
to pay a little bit of money for the Inland Waterways. But then
you know, it doesn't get spent anyway but we should shock them
a little more and make the program a real good one, in my
opinion. But anyway, we'll see.
Mr. Chairman, we've got a lot of work to do and I thank you
for your dedication. But we can't get it done unless we hit
them hard because it's not going to work out. It's just going
to be us up here working and they're not going to be working.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Domenici, thank you very much.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Allard.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I do have a
statement I'd like to have you put in the record, if you would,
please.
Senator Dorgan. Without objection.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Wayne Allard
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for holding this hearing. I
would also like to extend a special welcome to Commissioner Johnson, as
I believe that this is the first time he has appeared before our
subcommittee. I am currently moving back and forth between this hearing
and mark-up in the Budget Committee, so I appreciate the chance to be
here.
Those of us in the West are well aware of the important work that
the Army Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation has done over the years.
The projects developed by both of these entities are vital in supplying
water to many people in rural areas of my home State of Colorado. The
value of these projects has become even more evident during the
prolonged drought that Colorado--and the entire West--continues to
experience.
Mr. Woodley, I am grateful for the work that the Army Corps has
done and continues to do in Colorado, especially with the Fountain
Creek and Chatfield Reallocation Studies. I must however express my
disappointment with the fact that, although both of these studies could
be completed with another year of funding, neither project was included
in the President's proposed budget again this year. I will have
questions about these projects later in this hearing.
I would also like to bring up a concern that is emerging with
Bureau projects throughout the West, which I will also follow-up on
with some questions. Mr. Commissioner, as I am sure you are aware, many
federally-owned Bureau of Reclamation projects are at or past their
life expectancy and are in severe need of rehabilitation. While the
cost of rehabilitation is generally one-half to one-third of the cost
of replacing a project, this is more than many communities can afford.
The Bureau has maintained that rehabilitation is the same as operations
and maintenance, which in many cases was turned over to local operating
agencies long ago.
It seems to me, however, that these two things are not the same. No
matter how many oil changes or tune-ups you perform on a car, it will
eventually no longer be serviceable. The same can be said of these
projects. Local entities have worked diligently over the years to care
for, and make repairs to, these projects. But eventually they reach the
end of their operational life, and more extensive help is needed.
Especially in light of ever increasing Federal water standards and ever
diminishing water supplies. I believe that the Federal Government
should play a role in assisting local communities in the rehabilitation
of federally-built, federally-owned projects.
Again, thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman. I look
forward to working with you, the Ranking Republican Member Mr. Domenici
and our colleagues to ensure that these two important agencies are able
to continue moving forward with the important services that they
provide to our communities.
Senator Allard. Well, I have some of the same concerns, I
guess, that Senator Domenici raised. In the State of Colorado,
for example, we have a Fountain Creek Water Study that we
started in 2001 and then in the President's budget, he doesn't
continue the study. Isn't that a waste of taxpayer dollars to
put out some money at the first part and then you don't put any
more and you haven't even completed the study? I don't
understand the thinking when you get these projects. It seems
to me that when you get a study started, you complete it and
find out what the results are and if you decide at that point
you didn't want to move on, you've got the basis of the study
and that's understandable. But why stop in the middle of the
study and run the risk of wasting taxpayer dollars on the first
half of the study because you didn't complete the last half.
So my question is, is how do you determine your priorities
and some of your funding and in particular, on issues like
that? That really is a perplexing problem for me. I don't
understand how you set your priorities when you let things like
that happen. Secretary Woodley?
Mr. Woodley. Senator, I can tell you that I believe that
would be a study funded in our General Investigations account
and that account is the single account, I would say, which is
under the greatest pressure in all of our budget. That is the
most difficult thing to budget something in, in my budget
process. I'm an advocate for a strong investigations and
studies program because I believe that it pays enormous
dividends for the Nation. There is a view within the
administration that the studies have an element to them that is
counterproductive because they tend to--they lead to new
proposals for new projects as opposed to working on our backlog
of existing projects.
Senator Allard. Yes, but Secretary, why would you start a
study and then not complete it? Not provide money to complete
it? I mean, you really haven't answered my question. I can
understand your frustrations. There are a lot of requests but
it seems to me, it's even more imperative that you focus your
resources on what you have, complete those and then take the
next step and we're all better off if we do that.
Mr. Woodley. I think your point is very well taken,
Senator.
General Strock. Senator, if I could, from the Corps' side
on this?
Senator Allard. Yes. I didn't hear your response, Secretary
Woodley.
Mr. Woodley. I said it was very well taken.
Senator Allard. Oh.
Mr. Woodley. I said that I believe that the Senator's point
is very well taken, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. So his proposition that withdrawing funding
in the middle of a study is not the right thing to do?
Senator Allard. Yes, that's--can we change the budget
proposal?
Mr. Woodley. That's what I said, Senator. Except to the
extent that of course, that the President's budget is totally
without flaw.
Senator Allard. Lieutenant General.
General Strock. Yes, sir. I certainly agree with what
Secretary Woodley has said here. Where the Corps is concerned,
though, we do have some flexibility in this current fiscal year
work plan and studies like this, which are underway, are being
considered in the development of that work plan. We do not want
to stop a study if we don't have to. Unfortunately, that work
plan has not been approved and I can't share with you where
Fountain Creek is going to fall out in that. But I can assure
you we understand the importance of this study and in putting
together our work plan, we took that into consideration.
Senator Allard. You know, we have flooding problems on that
creek. We have discharge problems in that creek. We have a lot
of things that are happening in regard to that creek and I have
a hard time understanding, if we're really interested in water
quality and being able to manage our river and waterways, why
more attention isn't paid to that particular project and it
affects more than just the Fountain Creek. You've got the
downstream aspect of it, which the Arkansas River and a lot of
interest there that are very keen, all the way down to the
gulf, as to what is happening on that little creek because it
drains out of such a large metropolitan area, which is Colorado
Springs.
General Strock. And that is absolutely consistent with our
new approach, doing things on a more watershed and basin wide
basis to understand the cumulative benefits and impacts that
works within the watersheds. So absolutely, Fountain Creek is a
great example of that.
Senator Allard. Well, you know, I guess we're a little
unique in the State of Colorado. We're head waters some six,
seven major drainage systems. We have four--we're broken down
into four districts and so I guess our interests get kind of
divided out. The other thing that I want you to take a look at
is the Chatfield Reallocation Study. It's one of those projects
that is just an emerging problem. We've got some farmers who
are going to be without water because of some water management
issues in the State of Colorado and it seems like we have
plenty of storage capacity, more than what we need for flood
control, considering all the other resources we have on there
but if we could just have a study again, I think it would help
us on that. So I hope you can take a look at it. I've got a
number of other questions that I'd like to raise with you but
the fact that I'm running out of time and we're getting ready
to have a vote here, we'll send those to you and if you could
give us a response, I'd appreciate it.
General Strock. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Allard, thank you.
Senator Landrieu. Mr. Chairman, could I say one more thing
before I leave and I really appreciate again, you using your
time for the questions but I want the record to reflect, I'm
also very concerned about the recommendation to move $1.3
billion--$1.3 million--billion; thank you, Roger--$1.3 billion
from one set of levee projects, flood control, to another. I'm
going to oppose that. I understand that in the past, it's been
done but I'm not going by the past anymore.
If there was enough money in the pot, I could understand
moving it around, based on what you're ready to fund. But when
the pot is only one-fourth or less filled, moving money around,
once it has been allocated, only makes it that much harder for
those of us that have to fight to get it for you. So I am
opposed to it. The chairman knows that and I hope it is not
reflected in the budget that we submit to the full committee.
Mr. Woodley. Senator, in response to that, the important
thing is that the money be made available to the effort that
must go forward. We are now in a state where we need additional
money. If you can find a better source for that----
Senator Landrieu. Well, then go get--let me suggest where
you can get it from. You can go to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and
you can ask the President for an additional $1.3 billion. You
will not get it from this Senator or this committee. Thank you.
Mr. Woodley. In that event, Senator, there will be delays
in the process and the program.
Senator Dorgan. Well, we have a vote that is starting but I
have about--well, I have time so I'm going to ask you all some
questions as well and let me say this. Senator Domenici and I
think Senator Allard and Senator Landrieu all expressed
concerns I have.
You're all up here representing the President's budget. I
understand that. On the other hand, I cannot believe that you
are satisfied to be here representing, for example, in the
Construction account, a very substantial decrease for the
Corps. A 38 percent decrease given what Senator Landrieu showed
you on that chart. I mean, I can't believe you're here thinking
that makes a lot of sense.
So you, I guess, are tied to saying to me you support the
President's budget. We can't get the Director of OMB up here
but everyone in this room, I would think, understands that,
given what we have to do, cutting the construction budget of
the Corps of Engineers by 38 percent makes no sense at all.
My understanding is that in the Corps budget you proposed
67 projects for construction. Now we have about 300 projects
that we fund. That means about 230 projects you're proposing
that we not fund. Are you saying to us you don't support those
projects? You don't want--I guess what you're saying to us is
that you don't want those projects funded. Is that what you're
saying to the country? And if so, why? Why would you say that?
Mr. Woodley. We're saying that within the constraints of
the amounts that we've been allocated, that the projects we're
recommending are the highest priorities but generally, we agree
completely that this budget does not fund all of the good
things that the Corps of Engineers could accomplish in fiscal
year 2008.
Senator Dorgan. So some of the projects that you are not
funding do have merit you say?
Mr. Woodley. Yes, Mr. Chairman, they certainly do.
General Strock. Sir, if I could just chime in on that. In
my humble opinion, all of those projects do. We have the most
rigorous process in government to make recommendations to the
administration and Congress on what could be done with our
investments. We have a $1.3 billion backlog in O&M right now
that should be done but we also have a--if you'd look just at
those budgeted projects, we have about a $9 billion backlog in
construction and with the full suite of projects, it's about a
$50 billion backlog.
So clearly, there is a need there and there is
justification. Having said that, sir, I do understand the
context in which we're working and I know that the funds are
not unlimited, either to the Congress or the President. So we
just make our level effort to have a process in which we can
prioritize using performance based metrics where the money
should be sent, where these investments should be made to
produce the highest returns. It is tough but we think we have
done about as well as we can, given those constraints on the
availability of funds.
Senator Dorgan. Yes, but because you're confronted with a
Hobson's choice doesn't justify making the wrong choice,
consistently the wrong choice and it seems to me, although I
understand your point, that your point is that you're saying to
me there are 230 other projects that have merit but we won't go
ahead and complete them. We won't work on them this year at
all. I mean, is that Byzantine, as my colleagues, Senator
Allard suggests? We have 240, roughly 230 ongoing projects that
are underway and you say, ``Sorry.'' Tell everybody in the
country that is looking at these projects, expecting these
projects, that they are not the priority that you thought they
were. We're not going to do it.
General Strock. Sir, the challenge we have on that is that
for years, we--as we encountered this situation, we spread the
available budget thinner and thinner and thinner and it got to
the point that no project was receiving sufficient funds to
complete anything. So we decided, with the administration, to
try to concentrate the available funding into projects that
could be completed and begin to return on those investments.
And we've attempted to do that, sir, to pick out those high
performing projects that will do that for us. And it is
regrettable. They are clearly--all of our projects that I
recommend to you will have a 1 to 1 return on investment as a
minimum or higher.
Senator Dorgan. Or higher?
General Strock. Higher, yes sir. Today, in order to reach
the funding cutoffs, they had to have at least a 1.5 benefit-
to-cost ratio for us, where economics are concerned.
Senator Dorgan. You all can't, I guess, express publicly
the frustration I express. I understand what has happened to
our fiscal policy. We were told, and I did not support it,
``Katy, bar the door. Let's give very big tax cuts.'' That
reduces our revenue stream and then we have people come, and by
the way, the same people who sat at these tables telling us
that we're going to have future expected budget surpluses--
people representing the President, who knows whether they felt
that was the right thing or not, to the table representing the
President and say, ``We're out of money'' so therefore these
projects, that have merit and invest in the infrastructure of
this country, we can't possibly do them. Why? Well, we gave the
store in tax cuts and it didn't quite work out. We had a
recession. We had a terrorist attack and two wars. So we pump
up $500 billion, $450 billion, none of which we pay for. I
mean, it's unbelievable to me. So I know you're here speaking
for others and I know that if I ask you a question and ask you
to be completely candid about your personal feelings, you will
not do that because you're here representing the President's
budget.
I'm telling you, I agree with a couple of my colleagues
here. This makes no sense and I've just taken over the
chairmanship of this committee. I don't have the foggiest idea
how we put this together but I'll guarantee this--when we make
choices about this, we're not going to take a look at 240
projects and say, yes, those projects are underway. Yes, they
have merit. But this country really thinks that it doesn't
matter and we'll just stop them. That is not what this
committee is going to do.
Now let me just say this. I've seen the Corps of Engineers
walking the dikes in Grand Forks. I saw the dikes fail. I
watched the Corps of Engineers people working 24 hours a day in
a heroic struggle to fight a flood after an entire American
city, the largest since the Civil War, was evacuated into big
hangers on an Air Force base. I watched all that. I have
enormous admiration for the Corps of Engineers and the men and
women who work there. By the same token, I am the most
frustrated person in the world about the Corps of Engineers for
other reasons and General, you know that. I've said that
before.
I've watched the Bureau of Reclamation people, over
Thanksgiving weekend, work 24 hours a day to try to get water
back into the Fort Yates Standing Rock Indian community because
the water was gone. The intake silted in because of the
Missouri River problems. I watched these people from the Bureau
of Reclamation work right through, around the clock. I have
great admiration for their dedication and what they've done.
And yet, I have to tell you, I also am very, very
frustrated by the Bureau of Reclamation, which brings me to
this question of the Missouri River. And it's probably a proxy
for a lot of other frustrations and concerns around this
country but let me describe it and then I'm going to ask you a
couple of questions.
The Missouri River System division built some dams on that
river. We didn't go ask somebody if you could build a dam in
North Dakota and flood 500,000 acres, the size of Rhode Island,
permanently. We didn't go say, ``Let's give away 500,000 acres
of our State. We'll take a flood that comes and stays so they
can play softball in the spring in St. Louis.'' We didn't do
that. The Federal Government came to us and said, you know
what? You're a sparsely populated State. You've got the
Missouri River. Can you put a dam and create a big old flood
there that stays there forever, the size of Rhode Island and if
you do that, we'll give you something. So that's the cost. We
got the cost. We got the flood that comes and stays and we'll
give you Reclamation, we'll give you a whole irrigation, a
whole series of things, rural water and so we got this flood
that comes and stays. Then we didn't get the benefits, as you
know. We got a miniscule portion of the benefits and
incidentally, this budget that is being proposed will continue
to diminish the opportunities for us to get the full benefits.
But having said all that, now we have a reservoir, a big
reservoir up there that goes up and down like a cork. Now we're
in the eighth year of a drought, ninth year for Montana. We
should have 55 million acre feet of water in that Missouri
River System. There is about 34 million acre feet. Already
there should have been sirens going off and bells and whistles
and people saying, ``Wait a second. We've got a huge drought, a
big problem.'' That has not been the case. There have been a
few minor adjustments here and there but we still release
gushing water to support a minimum of an industry down south at
the expense of a major industry up north.
Having said all that, we're in a situation now, I mentioned
the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, where we're out of water
over the Thanksgiving Day holiday. The city of Parshall is up
there currently trying to figure out, if they are going to have
water. Walhalla will be out of water in August.
So I asked the question of the Corps and the Bureau: How
are you going to help us deal with this? I know you can't
control how much water is in the snow pack and how much is
going to come into the system. But the fact is, if it's going
to be 20 or 30 percent less again this year, let's deal with
these things. Let's not tell the communities, ``we're sorry,
you're on your own.''
Now I noticed that neither of your budgets have any money
in it, at least that I can see, for drought issues, to be able
to give your agencies the opportunity to deal with the drought
issues on the Missouri River, as an example. To Mr. Johnson and
Secretary Limbaugh, is there any money in your budget request
for drought issues on the Missouri?
Mr. Johnson. A small amount for administration. I think it
is a little less than $500,000.
Senator Dorgan. Five hundred thousand dollars?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, around that ballpark.
Senator Dorgan. For administration?
Mr. Johnson. Well, yes, for----
Senator Dorgan. That's not drought. There may be a drought
in administration from here to there but I'm talking about
drought relief money. There's nothing really requested.
Mr. Johnson. Well, the drought--we do--we have two parts to
our Drought Act. One is emergency response and the other one is
contingency planning.
Senator Dorgan. Let me ask about the emergency----
Mr. Johnson. Doing drought planning. So the money would be
for helping do drought plans.
Senator Dorgan. You do have an emergency account for
drought but there is no money in it and no money requested?
Mr. Johnson. That's correct, yes.
Senator Dorgan. All right. And why would that be the case
if we're in the eighth year of a drought in our region, in the
Missouri River System? Why has there not been a request?
Mr. Johnson. Well, I think particularly on the Missouri
River Basin, the Dakota Resources Act provides us the ability
to deal with the tribes there and the problems that we're
having on the Missouri River. So we have another source of
funding there to try to deal with that. One of the problems we
have--
Senator Dorgan. But you are limited to that because you
don't have other drought money?
Mr. Johnson. Right. We don't have other money but we do
have those funds to help and we have plans in place to address
the problems on the reservations if they occur.
Senator Dorgan. All right. General Strock or Secretary
Woodley, have you requested money for drought issues on the
Missouri River?
General Strock. Very much like the Bureau, sir, minimal
amounts in the funding but we do have the authorities when the
emergencies exist, to move money to that account, much like we
do in flood control and coastal emergencies. We have those
authorities, we have used those in the Upper Missouri and we
are watching very closely Walhalla and Parshall. We know there
is a danger there. The current projections for snow pack tell
us we probably won't have a problem this year but if we do, we
have the authorities to go in and help, as we have in the past.
Senator Dorgan. Wouldn't it have made more sense though,
for both of your agencies to suggest we put a little money in
the accounts? And I'm going to help you, no matter what your
response is, I'm going to try to help you this year do that.
General Strock. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. But again, I'm perplexed why we would not
get a budget request that reflects reality.
General Strock. That is the approach we take in our flood
control. We have some money in the account, ready to use if we
need it. But I assure you, sir, if there is an emergency, we
will be there to do what needs to be done.
Senator Dorgan. Yes but General, I'm telling you, I have
meetings out there with all these folks. I just had a meeting
1\1/2\ weeks ago, 60 to 80 people come from all the communities
up and down and the Bureau and the Corps is there, wonderful
people. But you know what they say to me? They say, well, we
don't have money in these accounts. That's what they say. And
then I come to a budget hearing and realize you're not asking
for money in the accounts. That's why there is no money in the
accounts.
General Strock. Sir, we'll look into that. The implication
is, therefore we cannot help and I'll make sure that they
understand what our authorities are and what we can do to help.
But thank you, sir.
Mr. Woodley. Senator, we would address that with the $40
million that we have requested for the flood control and
coastal emergencies account on the water intake issue. So there
is not--it is not specific to North Dakota but it is a flood
control and coastal emergencies account request of $40 million
to have on hand if the emergency develops, which we all are
obviously concerned that it will.
Senator Dorgan. But with due respect, my understanding is
that account is not considered overfunded. If anything, it is
considered dramatically underfunded, even at $40 million. And
we're not exactly a coastal state, as you know.
Mr. Woodley. But that is the funding that would be
available. It is underfunded today because it was not funded in
fiscal year 2006 and I believe that the request in fiscal year
2006 was not supported by the committee and therefore, it is
not available for funding under the continuing resolution.
Senator Dorgan. Let me--I guess the vote has started and I
will have to depart in a bit. But let me again express to you
that none of this is to diminish your service. You come here in
good faith, representing a budget from the administration but
you understand, I hope, that this has not been one side of the
political aisle ragging away at this budget. Almost all of
those you have heard from say, this isn't a real request. This
must have been knifed badly by the Office of Management and
Budget. I know you can't answer the question but I still want
to ask the question. I assume that you asked for considerably
more money than this budget request comes to us with. I mean, I
assume that the budget that you sent up the road in this budget
process in the administration requests significantly more,
would that be correct, Secretary Woodley?
Mr. Woodley. Let me answer that by saying, Senator, that
this program offers substantial opportunities for worthwhile
investments in water resources that are not reflected in the
budget and that is, I think, not a controversial statement.
That is something that anyone could demonstrate with a very
minimal knowledge and study of the program.
General Strock. And sir, where the Corps is concerned, we
have expressed a capability to do more if more funding were
available and expressed what we would do with that money.
Senator Dorgan. I want to make a final point. We, in the
upper reaches of the Missouri, and I'm going to be parochial
about the Missouri River system, feel aggrieved, as you know,
by the management of this system. The river system has had a
change in management planning and I did not think that change
was particularly constructive because it still flushes far too
much water downstream for a very miniscule industry. The barge
industry has now shrunk to just a minnow of an industry and
yet, instead of during drought retaining water in the upstream
reservoir which you would normally do, well you'd easily
conclude that during a drought, you try to conserve to the
extent you can. Instead of doing that, we're still pursing an
antiquated management plan that is almost unbelievable.
You may say that's the fault of Congress. We've got some
work to do and I tell you what, I'm determined to make a change
there. But I also think that the Corps of Engineers should have
long ago decided that you shouldn't have to get down to 31,000
million acre feet before you take the kind of measures you
ought to take to retain water in the upper reservoirs. We're at
34,000 million acre feet now. That should long ago have
triggered the response that I would have expected from the
Corps, General Strock.
General Strock. Sir, if I might point out, what triggered
the revision of the Master Manual was the drought of the 1980's
and at that time, the trigger for navigation preclude was 20
million acre feet. So this revised Master Manual raises that by
10 million acre feet and I think we've tried to accommodate the
best we can. And sir, it is not about navigation versus
recreation. We're also under a mandate to abide by a biological
opinion of the Fish and Wildlife Service that found our
operations to be jeopardizing several threatened and endangered
species. We have hydropower to consider, sir. All the mission
areas of the Corps are involved in the Missouri River and it is
one of the largest challenges I've ever dealt with and I've
personally dealt with its challenges, you know, sir. We tried
to do the best we could to strike the right balance between all
the competing problems. The basic challenge for us is that we
are in a drought and we're in the business of distributing
shortages so no one is happy right now.
Senator Dorgan. The fact is, the President went to Missouri
during a campaign and said, I'm with you. With respect to the
Missouri River system, the reason we've not made the changes
that we should make is because there was a heavy dose of
politics involved in it. Now you run the Corps. I know you're
not involved in politics. I'm not alleging that but the fact
is, the way that Missouri River system has been managed has
been much to the detriment of the upstream States. I believe
that the change that was made, was made because of substantial
pressure over a long period of time and it took 12\1/2\ years,
even then, 12\1/2\ years to revise the Master Manual and even
that revision didn't get what I thought was a fair result for
the upstream States.
General Strock. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. General Strock, I didn't mean to make your
last day here an unpleasant one.
General Strock. Sir, it was not at all unpleasant.
Senator Dorgan. But I want to be honest about our feeling
about things. I hope that I conveyed to you, you've got men and
women in the Bureau and the Corps that we admire. I want to
work with your agencies. I want this committee to provide the
kind of funding that is necessary to address these serious
issues.
ADDITIONAL PREPARED STATEMENT
The subcommittee has received a statement from Reed R.
Murray, Program Director, Central Utah Project Completion Act
Office, Department of the Interior which will be included for
the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Reed R. Murray, Program Director, Central Utah
Project Completion Act Office, Department of the Interior
My name is Reed Murray. I serve as the Program Director of the
Central Utah Project Completion Act Office under 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 2008 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 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 Mitigation Commission, and the Ute Indian Tribe, and to
assist in administering the responsibilities of the Secretary under the
act.
The 2008 request for the Central Utah Project Completion Account
provides $43 million for use by the District, the Mitigation
Commission, and the Department to implement titles II-IV of the act,
which is $8.9 million more than 2007. This funding level, if maintained
in the out years, will allow the project to be completed by the
scheduled date of 2021.
The request for the District includes $39.6 million to fund the
designs, specifications, land acquisition, and construction of the Utah
Lake System ($23.6 million); to continue construction on the Uinta
Basin Replacement Project ($9.5 million); to implement water
conservation measures ($5 million); and to implement groundwater
conjunctive use projects ($1.5 million).
The request includes $976,000 for the Mitigation Commission to
implement the fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and
conservation projects authorized in title III ($715,000) and to
complete mitigation measures committed to in pre-1992 Bureau of
Reclamation planning documents ($261,000).
Finally, the request includes $2.4 million for the Program Office
for operation and maintenance costs associated with instream flows and
fish hatchery facilities ($789,000) and for program administration
($1.6 million).
In conclusion, we appreciate the opportunity to testify before the
committee and would be happy to respond to any questions.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Dorgan. Additional questions will be submitted for
the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Departments for response subsequent to
the hearing:]
Questions Submitted to John Paul Woodley, Jr.
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES LAND TRANSFER
Question. Secretary Woodley, can you update us on the transfer of
lands at Lake Sakakawea to the Three Affiliated Tribes?
Answer. The Corps of Engineers continues to research and develop
responses to comments that were received on the draft Effects Report,
released in June 2006. All responses will be integrated into the final
Effects Report.
Question. What are the remaining steps?
Answer. The Corps is following a three step process. Phase I is
called Determination of Authority and will determine if the Corps has
been given the authority to declare lands no longer needed for
construction, maintenance, and operation as lands to be held in trust
for the benefit of the Three Affiliated Tribes. Phase II is called
Development and will be where criteria, restrictions, land
determination, and agreements will be discussed and determined. Phase
III, called Implementation, will be where the decisions made in Phase
II will be implemented.
Question. Is there any time schedule for completing the transfer?
Answer. If and when a decision is made to transfer the proposed
24,000 acres it will take approximately 12 to 18 months to complete
real estate transfer packages.
ESA COMPLIANCE ISSUES IN O&M
Question. For fiscal year 2008, your budget has again proposed that
environmental compliance activities on the Columbia/Snake and Missouri
River systems be funded as a part for the individual projects that make
up the system in O&M rather than in the construction account which is
the tradition.
Secretary Woodley, What is the rational for this change? How does
this make your budget more transparent? Wouldn't you agree that
including these items in the O&M projects and then aggregating the O&M
projects into a region, actually makes the budget more opaque?
Answer. We have made this change to improve accountability and
oversight in their appropriate business line categories, reflect the
full cost of operating and maintaining the existing projects, and
support an integrated investment strategy for work at operating
projects. These are activities, in most part, that are conducted to
comply with the Endangered Species Act at operating projects. In
addition, their costs are allocated among project purposes rather than
to Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration. This explains much of the shift in
costs among business programs. The full list and specific reasons are
as follows:
Endangered Species Act Biological Opinion compliance at operating
projects.--These projects are Columbia River Fish Mitigation, Chief
Joseph Dam modifications, Howard Hanson Dam modifications, Willamette
River Temperature Control, and Missouri River Fish and Wildlife
Recovery.
Renourishment to restore sand lost to shorelines from Federal
navigation operation and maintenance.--This includes the specifically
authorized Assateague, Maryland, Lower Cape May Meadows, New Jersey,
and about eight projects for storm damage reduction. This also includes
the section 111 (Mitigation of Shore Damages) CAP program. The funds
for this work would be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Disposal of material from maintenance dredging.--This includes the
program for Dredged Material Disposal Facilities at operating projects,
plus the Indiana Harbor disposal facility project. Funds for dredged
material disposal facilities will be derived from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund.
Rehabilitation Projects.--These are projects that maintain and
restore levels of service, but for which the extent of the work is not
large enough to constitute a capital replacement. For fiscal year 2008,
the ongoing work at Locks and Dams 11, 19, and 24 migrates to the O&M
account. Previously unfunded rehabilitation projects at Locks and Dam
27 and Markland Locks and Dam will be initiated in O&M.
Beneficial use of material from maintenance dredging.--For fiscal
year 2008, this includes Poplar Island, Maryland. In the future,
Houston-Galveston and Hamilton Wetlands island projects will migrate;
section 204 (Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material) and section 145
(Placement of Dredged Material on Shores) CAP Programs.
While the placement of funds for these activities have shifted from
Construction to O&M the accountability for their performance continues
to be monitored on a specific item by item basis through the Project
Management review process at their respective Districts. The ESA
compliance activities in particular are done to meet very specific
milestones and targets for habitat and species improvements as required
in BiOp and the law and therefore these specific items must be followed
closely or risk failing their checkpoints, regardless in what account
they are funded.
Question. What assurance do we have that ESA compliance activity
funds provided on these O&M projects won't be siphoned off to fund
other maintenance needs at the individual projects?
Answer. The amount proposed in the President's budget is adequate
to do both ESA and O&M activities. The O&M program has strict rules and
regulations regarding the movement of funds. In addition, any funding
reductions would lead to a reprioritization of the ESA and O&M regional
needs.
MAJOR REHABILITATIONS IN O&M
Question. Your budget has proposed moving major rehabilitation
projects from CG to O&M. As I understand the major rehab projects
generally consist of work on aging locks, or power plants where the
result may be a project that is operationally improved from its pre-
rehab state. Major rehabs do not include constructing additional lock
chambers or other major work or simple maintenance.
History has obviously been ignored in this decision. Note that many
years ago, major rehabilitations were funded in O&M. Work, at that
time, included no operational improvements, just rehabbing the
structure as it existed. It was funded with 100 percent O&M funding.
However, due to O&M funding shortages, major rehabs were becoming
backlogged. In an effort to resolve this situation, Congress and the
administration agreed that major rehabs could be undertaken to not only
modernize facilities such as locks, but to provide operational
improvements as well.
To help fund navigation rehabs, the administration and Congress
agreed that these major rehabs would be funded in the Construction
Account, and that half the costs would come from the Inland Waterways
Trust Fund. The caveat in this agreement was that these would be
considered new investment decisions for the country, and would
therefore be considered new construction starts, having to compete with
other new starts in the budget. This in not an unreasonable position,
considering the rehabbed project would be operationally better than
what was originally constructed.
Now we have come full circle, there is a backlog of major rehabs.
Your budget proposal recommends moving these projects back to O&M.
Secretary Woodley, what is the basis for this recommendation? Why
is O&M a better choice than CG?
Answer. The administration is proposing that rehabilitations be
funded out of the Operation & Maintenance, General appropriation when
the rehabilitations are limited to work that will repair and restore
the capability of a project and will not change the authorized project
purpose or operational capability. Since this work is more closely
aligned with the existing project authorizations, and the magnitude of
the work is less than that of a replacement, the work was moved to the
O&M appropriation. Rehabilitations that will result in replacements of
locks or improved operational capability will continue to be funded out
of the Construction appropriation due to the larger magnitude of the
work and change in project outputs.
Another issue that accompanies this for navigation major rehabs is
funding. The administration also proposes that the Corps be allowed to
use funds from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF) in the O&M
account. Currently, the IWTF can only be used in the Construction
Account. The IWTF was established to pay half the cost of construction
projects in the Construction Account. Access to the IWTF is needed in
O&M for rehab projects to continue to cost share these projects.
Question. Secretary Woodley, the budget proposal indicates that the
administration is concerned that the IWTF may go bankrupt within a few
years. How does this proposal improve the situation?
Answer. Section 1405 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
makes amounts in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund available for
construction and rehabilitation expenditures for navigation projects on
the inland and coastal waterways of the United States. The Corps is not
proposing to use the IWTF to fund routine operations and maintenance
activities. Changing rehabilitations from one appropriation to another
(Construction or Operations & Maintenance) would not impact the balance
within the IWTF. The amount withdrawn from the IWTF would be the same
regardless of what appropriation is used since rehabilitations are
eligible for cost sharing from the IWTF whether they are funded from
the Construction or the O&M appropriations so the proposal is neutral
in that regard.
Question. Secretary Woodley, the administration has committed to
proposing legislation to replace the IWTF diesel tax with a user fee
later this year. How will this fee be assessed as well as collected?
Will there be tollbooths on the inland waterways? Are you going to
propose the IWTF to be taken off budget?
Answer. The administration is finalizing the details of its
proposal for a new lock user fee and expects to submit its proposal to
the Congress in 2008. The Department of the Treasury will be
responsible for promulgating regulations for the assessment and
collection of the user fee.
REGIONAL O&M BUDGETING
Question. Secretary Woodley, could you explain this concept of
Regional O&M budgeting to me? It appears to me that you assigned region
numbers to projects and then added the projects together to establish
the region amount.
Secretary Woodley, how does aggregating projects in that manner
improve O&M budgeting?
Answer. Aggregating Operation & Maintenance, General appropriation
(O&M) funding by regions or systems adheres to the principles of
managing by watersheds or basins. It will allow O&M needs to be
assessed within the regional goals and the resource within a particular
region to then be directed to the most critical needs, including those
that arise outside the normal budgeting and appropriation cycle. It
could also allow more flexibility to address critical needs.
Question. Secretary Woodley, wouldn't you agree that regional
budgeting tends to make you lose sight of the unique individual project
issues that a project by project budget makes you examine?
Answer. I would respectfully disagree. Although the O&M
requirements are developed and then presented on a regional basis, the
basic O&M requirements, start at the individual project level as viewed
within the control of the required goals and objectives. Thus each
project's unique characteristics are the foundation of the budget
development and so considered within the larger parameters of the
region or system.
Question. Secretary Woodley, why not propose a single river basin
as a demonstration and then develop the fiscal year 2009 budget from
its inception for this basin as a system?
Answer. We are considering that in the development of the fiscal
year 2009 budget. We are thinking about organizing the O&M program by
``systems'' that better matches our watershed management principles,
operational objectives and performance goals with the budget. We are
also considering developing an infrastructure management plan for each
system as well that will establish a 5 year plan for that system into
the future.
Question. Secretary Woodley wouldn't funding O&M by regions as
proposed, limit your flexibility rather than enhance it? As it
currently stands you have reprogramming authority for each line item at
50 percent of the appropriated amount or $2 million, whichever is less.
Under the proposed reprogramming guidance that changes to a flat $3
million for everything but studies. That appears to limit you to $3
million per region were we to appropriate by region. What are your
thoughts on this?
Answer. Budgeting by regions as the administration prepares, would
allow more flexibility to address needs. Within a region or system, the
overall funding can be better allocated to individual projects based on
current needs, once O&M funds are appropriated. A better match of
current critical needs to current funding within the region or system
can be made during allocations. It would reduce reprogramming actions.
CONTINUING CONTRACTS, CARRYOVER AND REPROGRAMMING
Question. Secretary Woodley, the administration has proposed
revisions to current Corps construction contracting authorities. Will
you explain the contracting language that your budget proposes?
Answer. In section 103 of the General Provisions of the Budget
Appendix, the administration proposes amending section 2306c of title
10, U.S.C. by replacing continuing contracts with multiyear contract
authority. The proposal also requires authorization for contracts over
$100 million and notification for contracts with contingent liability
over $20 million. The advantages to this approach are that the Congress
through its oversight, and the agency, through its more intensive
management of such large contracts, would have greater control over
expenditures. The multiyear contract authority expands an existing
multiyear funding authority codified in title 10, United States Code
and available within the Department of Defense. It also applies to the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Coast Guard.
The proposed legislation would repeal the Corps existing continuing
contract authority, effective October 1, 2008. It also would amend an
existing title 10 authority for multi-year services contracting to
include multi-year civil works contracting. Under this amended
provision, the head of an agency may enter into contracts for
``services associated with the Civil Works program'' and obligate only
the amount needed each year plus the amount of expected termination
costs. The Corps would need specific statutory authority to use the
multi-year contract authority for any contract over $100 million.
Furthermore, the Corps would need to notify the specified committees at
least 30 days prior to awarding any contract with a contingent
liability (i.e., expected termination cost) exceeding $20 million.
The Secretary of the Army must also ensure that the Corps limits
the duration of each multi-year contract to the term needed to achieve
a substantial reduction of costs on the margin. By law, multiyear
contracts under this authority are limited to 5 years, but, the
Secretary of the Army may approve a contract period of greater than 5
years if he determines that a period of longer than 5 years is
necessary to achieve the substantial cost reduction and if he notifies
specified congressional committees at least 30 days prior to contract
award.
Question. Secretary Woodley, How much funding did the Corps
carryover from fiscal year 2006 due to the limitations imposed by
Congress in the fiscal year 2006 E&W Bill? I am not addressing
emergency funds, only those provided in regular appropriations bills.
Answer. The Corps carried over a total of $2,445 million, not
including Emergency Supplemental funds, from fiscal year 2006 in the
four accounts most sensitive to the limitations, i.e. Investigations,
Construction, Operation and Maintenance and Flood Control, Mississippi
River and Tributaries. Of this amount $1,006 million was obligated and
$1,439 million was unobligated. This compares with a total carryover
averaging $550 million over the previous 10 years and with $798 from
fiscal year 2005 into fiscal year 2006.
Question. In your view, how much of that was due to reprogramming
restrictions and how much too contracting restrictions? No matter how
you divide it, that is a lot of money. You are basically saying that
you were unable to execute nearly 25 percent of your program in fiscal
year 2006 due to legislative restrictions. Will this new language
improve project execution so that we won't see a repeat of that large
of a carryover into fiscal year 2009? How?
Answer. By virtue of the significant increase in carryover compared
to other years, the legislative restrictions were a major factor in
underutilization of available funds in fiscal year 2006; however, our
records are not sufficiently detailed to quantify exactly how much is
attributable to the new rules versus other factors. The new language
proposed by the administration, if enacted, is expected to allow more
realistic scheduling with multi-year contracts as well as provide more
flexibility in management of available funds while addressing
congressional priorities. Much carryover is a function of funds being
in the wrong place plus a need for more careful scheduling and an
emphasis on meeting commitments. In addition to the new reprogramming
and contracting language proposed by the administration, the Corps has
aggressively taken positive steps to write up-to-date guidance and
provide increased training for program development, defense and
execution. Furthermore, a command emphasis has been placed on meeting
commitments, that is, carrying out the schedules upon which the
provided funds are based.
Question. Secretary Woodley, Do you believe that the reprogramming
language proposed in your budget will improve the ability of the Corps
to utilize scarce funds? If so, how?
Answer. Once funds are appropriated; there are physical variables
that are unknown until a program, project or activity (PPA) is
underway. The O&M program, in particular, is subject to weather-related
emergencies, major accidents and structural failures that require
immediate action without administrative delays to obtain committee
concurrence. The reprogramming language proposed as sections 101a(4)
and (5) under General Provisions in the Budget Appendix provide more
flexibility to address these unknowns by raising the thresholds from $2
million to $3 million. Section 101a(6) recognizes the urgency of taking
action to respond to a flood, hurricane, or other natural disaster.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
Question. The Office of Management and Budget's fiscal year 2008
cross-cut budget for the California Bay-Delta Restoration Program
(CalFed) shows a total of $32.6 million in Army Corps of Engineers
CalFed-related spending. This is a significant decrease from $76.6
million in the fiscal year 2007 budget and $80.7 million in fiscal year
2006 obligated funding. This represents a 60 percent decline in Corps
CalFed-related spending in just 2 years. Why has the Corps CalFed-
related spending declined so sharply?
Answer. The main reason for the sharp decline in the CalFed-related
budget in fiscal year 2008 is mainly due to the major decrease in the
Santa Ana River portion of this funding. Previous year budgets for the
Santa Ana River project ranged from $22 to $57 million; in fiscal year
2008 this has dropped to $7.5 million. This decrease was mainly due to
the development of new budget criteria which limited the types of work
that we could actually include in the budget. Another contributing
factor to this decline were the new rules on the Continuing Authority
Program including the moratorium on signing agreements, and limits set
by Congress on starting new phases or starting anything not named.
Question. The 2004 CalFed authorization (Public Law 108-361)
authorized $90 million for the Corps to improve the stability of the
highly vulnerable levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In its
May 2006 Report to Congress on the CalFed Levee Stability Program, the
Corps described a so-called ``Strategy for Action'' that proposed $18
million for levee stability funding and several million more in
additional feasibility studies for fiscal year 2008.
Nevertheless; despite this major, bipartisan authorization by
Congress, and detailed proposals from the Corps on funding, the
President's budget proposes no funding for Delta levee stability
projects. Why is there no funding proposed in fiscal year 2008 for this
major priority?
Answer. Senator, there was a 180 day report that was prepared but
contained no specific project details. The report laid out a strategy
but was not a decision document per se nor contained specifics about
projects to construct. Without any specific details or an
administration approved report, the project did not fit into any of the
construction guidelines that the administration used in prioritizing
projects for this years budget.
Question. Isn't there a similarity here to the Army Corps of
Engineers' failure to heed warnings of a potential flood control
disaster in New Orleans, given the widespread recognition of the high
risk for levee failure that would cut off the drinking water supply for
over 20 million people?
Answer. In evaluating this as well as other projects within the
universe of those eligible for inclusion in the budget, the guidelines
allow for strong consideration of significant impacts to people in
terms of risk to life. The Corps conducts a full screening of the
factors involved in this metric such as the velocity and depth of
potential flows during a flood event, the warning times for escape, the
population at risk within the floodplain. This project did not fit into
that guideline category, either for inclusion in the budget.
Question. The Napa River Flood Protection project is a 100-year
flood protection project coupled with recreation and the restoration of
over 730 acres of San Francisco Bay estuary. The Corps recently
analyzed these wetlands and rated them at the highest possible level of
ecosystem restoration under Corps guidance.
Upper Newport Bay is one of the last remaining coastal wetlands in
Southern California. The Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration
project undertaken by the Corps increases the quality of wetlands
habitat, which supports federally endangered species, and improves
water quality.
While multipurpose projects such as these are encouraged in the
Corps planning process, there is no budget guidance that recognizes the
array of project benefits for such projects. Would you consider
changing the budgeting process to recognize a project's full array of
benefits?
Answer. Evaluating multi-output projects continues to be a
challenge and the Corps is advancing the evaluation process for such
projects. In particular, they are refining the Environmental benefits
evaluation process to incorporate the many facets of environmental
project outputs and then combining them with other project outputs to
make a comprehensive analysis for the budget prioritization process.
SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Question. Funds are needed in fiscal year 2007 to make progress on
addressing two outstanding obligations associated with the Sacramento
River, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, Gradient Facility project: an
outstanding obligation associated with a revegetation/mitigation
contract of approximately $115,000 and settling a dispute with
neighboring Butte County over damages incurred to Butte County roads
during the construction process, an obligation that could exceed
$300,000. While no funds were appropriated for this project
specifically in fiscal year 2006, this is an on-going project and these
two project obligations were incurred prior to fiscal year 2006.
Therefore, funding these two pre-existing project obligations
represents an eligible use of fiscal year 2007 funds. Do you agree,
and, if not, why not?
Is it your intent to address both of these pre-existing obligations
using funds provided to the Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2007?
Answer. The fiscal year 2007 work plan guidelines prevented us from
providing fiscal year 2007 funds to GCID. We were able to reprogram
carried over fiscal year 2006 funding from Hamilton Wetlands to GCID to
make the outstanding contract payment. Regarding the dispute/claim, a
hearing was held in front of the Armed Services Board of Contract
Appeals in February 2007, and we are still awaiting their decision.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
BACKLOG OF AUTHORIZED WORK
Question. The Corps has a backlog of authorized projects that are
slowly being constructed or have not even started with construction.
Currently, this backlog is $40 billion to $45 billion. Additionally,
the next WRDA bill will likely authorize another $12 billion of
projects. Therefore, a conservative estimate of the backlog after the
WRDA bill will be at least $50 billion. The administration has
requested about $1.5 billion for construction in fiscal year 2008.
Based on your current budget request and your 5 year plan, how long
will it take for us to catch up on the backlog?
Answer. The administration is proposing to reduce the backlog by
the amount in the budget, which is a little over $1.6 billion. Our
five-year development plan indicates that, under either of the two
scenarios, the funding requirements for projects in the fiscal year
2008 budget will tail off over time, and hundreds of millions of
dollars will become available through fiscal year 2011 to finance
additional work. Likewise, the requirements of projects in the fiscal
year 2008 budget for studies and Preconstruction Engineering and Design
tail off, leaving tens of millions of dollars for additional planning
and design work to prepare projects for construction.
DECLINING INVESTMENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP
Question. As a percentage of GDP, our current investment in civil
works is less than one-tenth of what it was in the mid 1930s and less
than one-sixth of what it was in the early 1960s.
This budget puts our Nation at risk. What is your plan for dealing
with this gross under-investment in civil works?
Answer. The budget reflects the appropriate level of investment for
the Corps Civil Works program. It focuses resources on completing
ongoing projects and maintaining our existing investments. The
discretionary part of the budget is under extreme pressure due to the
many other competing investment needs. The administration believes it
must reduce the backlog of ongoing construction projects before we can
provide for additional studies. With the funding that is available, we
attempt to fund the highest performing projects. Overall, my vision
plan is reflected in the Civil Works Strategic Plan, dated March 2004
with the goals being:
--Provide sustainable development and integrated management of the
Nation's water resources.
--Repair past environmental degradation and prevent future
environmental losses.
--Ensure that operating projects perform to meet authorized purposes
and evolving conditions.
--Reduce vulnerabilities and losses to the Nation and the Army from
natural and man-made disasters, including terrorism.
--Be a world-class public engineering organization.
The 5-Year Development Plan supports the Strategic Plan by
continuing our focus during fiscal year 2008-2012 on the ongoing
construction projects and activities that provide the highest net
economic and environmental returns on the Nation's investment, as well
as on the most productive operation, maintenance, and repair
activities, and on activities in the FUSRAP program, the Regulatory
Program, and Emergency Management that contribute to performance goals.
BEACH POLICY
Question. Storm damage reduction projects along our coasts provide
tremendous benefits to our national economy. Beaches are the leading
tourist destination in the United States. California beaches alone
receive nearly 600 million tourist visits annually. This is more
tourist visits than to all of the lands controlled by the National Park
Service and the Bureau of Land Management combined. Beach tourists
contribute $260 billion to the U.S. economy and $60 billion in Federal
taxes. People from over 400 congressional districts throughout the
United States own property in the Bogue Banks Area of North Carolina.
Similar ownership is true in other coastal communities demonstrating
the national implications of these projects.
Also, these projects are justified on the basis that they provide
storm damage reduction benefits. As these are National Economic
Development benefits within one of your prime mission areas of flood
control it puzzles me as to why both yours and prior administrations
refuse to budget for these projects. As more and more of our population
migrate towards the coasts, it will become imperative to provide
protection to these areas. The only other option is to continue paying
disaster payments when these communities are impacted.
Secretary Woodley, with this major impact on our national economy,
what is the administration's justification for the proposed change in
beach policy? A change, I would note, that Congress has consistently
rejected.
What would you recommend to make these projects more competitive in
the budget process?
Answer. The administration's budget policy is to put beach
nourishment projects on the same footing as other projects, in that the
Federal Government would participate financially in initial
construction but non-Federal interests would be responsible for follow-
on costs, in this case renourishment costs, except where a Federal
navigation project has caused the erosion. This policy is a component
of the administration's overall efforts to direct Civil Works funds to
the most productive uses.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
FUNDING FOR THE INLAND WATERWAY TRUST FUND
Question. Secretary Woodley, the budget proposal indicates that the
administration is concerned that the Inland Waterway Trust Fund may go
bankrupt within a few years. As a solution, the administration has
committed to proposing legislation to replace the existing diesel tax
with a user fee later this year.
How will this fee be assessed as well as collected and will this
change the way the funds are allocated in the future?
Answer. The details of the nature of the user fee, and how it will
be assessed, collected, and allocated have not been developed. The
details of the proposal will be developed over the next several months
through a process that will include consultation with other interested
Federal agencies, the users of the system, and other stakeholders.
Question. Will this proposal seeks to take the waterway trust fund
off budget?
Answer. The decision on whether to recommend taking the waterway
trust fund off budget has not been made. That issue will be considered
as the details of the proposal are developed.
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECTS
Question. Secretary Woodley, since you have held this position, I
have been working on four critical projects along the Rio Grande
corridor that include the following four elements.
--Bosque Restoration Project.--This project would provide a workable
open space for the city of Albuquerque and river habitat
restoration.
--Middle Rio Grande Flood Protection.--The Corps is currently
evaluating the levees to determine if they have reached their
design lifetime and to provide assistance in rehabilitation of
levees where necessary.
--Bosque Wildfire Rehabilitation.--This element provides recovery
from a damaging series of fires between Bernalillo and Belen
that pose a grave threat to human health, and to construct
access points to the river for fire fighting.
--Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program.--A
partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation to manage water
flows on the Rio Grande and provide endangered species
protection and recovery.
Unfortunately the President's fiscal year 2008 budget proposal only
provides $311,000 for only one of the four elements. The fiscal year
2006 budget provided $5,847,000 to support the management of all four
elements.
Please explain how the Corps plans to meet all four critical
obligations with the funding proposed in the fiscal year 2008 budget?
Answer. Sir, funds to complete the feasibility study for the Bosque
Restoration Project are in the President's budget for fiscal year 2008.
No funds are in the 2008 budget for the Middle Rio Grande Flood
Protection Project or the Bosque Wildfire Rehabilitation Project. Work
will stop on those projects once fiscal year 2007 funds have been
expended. Funds for the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species
Collaborative Program are provided through the Bureau of Reclamation's
appropriation.
Question. Although the Corps has proposed a systems management
approach to managing major O&M responsibilities, why can't the Corps
seem to integrate these activities along middle Rio Grande?
Answer. Sir, the Corps of Engineers is moving towards a systems/
watershed approach for preparing our annual budget request and planning
and executing work. But, the budget supports only that work that is
high-performing and contributes to the Corps main water resources
development missions, namely commercial navigation, flood and coastal
storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Question. Additionally, what role can the Corps undertake in
reformulating the current Biological Assessment for the Rio Grande to
bring the management of the river back to a more balanced condition?
Answer. Sir, I believe that the Corps of Engineers, with its
expertise in flood control, ecosystem restoration, and water resources
planning can greatly contribute to reformulating the Biological
Assessment. How the Biological Opinion is reformulated will impact
virtually all of the Corps studies, designs, and projects on the Rio
Grande. The Bureau of Reclamation is currently the lead agency for the
Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program. The
Corps is actively participating in efforts to reformulate the
Biological Assessment and is providing technical and management
support. Funding for these activities performed by the Corps is
provided by the Bureau of Reclamation.
ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Question. Secretary Woodley, the Acequias Irrigation System Program
was established to help small irrigation districts with historic
significance to maintain their irrigation facilities. This program also
helps mitigate downstream flooding. The Corps has resolved several
significant operational issues with the State of New Mexico over the
last 5 years. However the President's fiscal year 2008 budget proposal
does not include any funding for this critical program.
Please explain how the Corps of Engineers will continue to support
these historic irrigation systems without financial resources?
Answer. Sir, the Corps would not be able to support these historic
irrigation systems without financial resources. The project was a low
priority for funding under the fiscal year 2008 budget construction
guidelines. Any additional reconnaissance studies the local sponsor has
identified for future rehabilitation may similarly not be a funding
priority.
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES BUDGET
Question. The Corps of Engineers has several continuing authority
programs. These programs provide the flexibility needed to address
relatively small projects throughout the country. I was unsettled to
see that the Presidents fiscal year 2008 budget proposal decreased the
funding over the 2006 enacted levels by more than 65 percent.
Is the President's budget proposal an attempt to eliminate these
programs?
Answer. No Senator, the administration does not intend to eliminate
these continuing program authorities. The fiscal year 2008 budget
proposes to use available funding to continue ongoing phases for the
highest performing projects.
Question. Does the Corps believe that the flexibility provided by
these continuing authorities is no longer necessary or important to the
Nation?
Answer. No, we value these programs as they have the potential to
solve many of our domestic infrastructure and environmental needs. The
projects can be implemented in a short period of time and at little
cost to address water resources problems.
Question. How can the Corps attempt to meet the anticipated needs
of the projects within these programs with the proposed budget?
Answer. The projects in the continuing authority's universe
competed for funding using objective metrics that were very similar to
those used for specifically authorized projects. The highest performing
projects were funded for the phase continuing from the fiscal year 2007
budget.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND
Question. My State of Texas has some of the Nation's largest ports
and they pay a significant portion of the funds that go into Harbor
Maintenance Fund. However, I continue to hear from my ports that the
fund is idle. Can you tell me the status of the Harbor Maintenance
Fund?
Answer. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) was established by
the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986. The WRDA of 1986
provides for a Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) to be collected on the
value of cargo imported, moved into a foreign trade zone or moved
domestically. The HMT is also assessed on the value of passenger
tickets. HMT revenues are collected by the Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection and deposited into the U.S. Treasury. The Department of the
Treasury maintains accountability for the fund and transfers money out
of the fund to reimburse authorized expenditures. The U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) does not receive direct appropriations from the
HMTF and therefore USACE expenditures for navigation projects are
limited to Congressional appropriations.
Question. How much does the fund contain today?
Answer. The estimated balance in the HMTF, after anticipated
transfers to the U.S. Treasury for fiscal year 2007 expenditures by
USACE and other agencies, is approximately $4 billion.
Question. What are the requirements for using funds in the Harbor
Maintenance Fund?
Answer. The HMT is used to recover 100 percent of the USACE
eligible operations and maintenance (O&M) expenditures for commercial
navigation, along with 100 percent of the O&M cost of the St. Lawrence
Seaway by the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. Section 201
of WRDA 96 authorizes the recovery of Federal expenditures for
construction of confined disposal facilities required for operation and
maintenance of any harbor or inland harbor; dredging and disposal of
contaminated sediments that are in or that affect the maintenance of
Federal navigation channels; mitigation of operation and maintenance
impacts, and operation and maintenance of dredged material disposal
facilities. During the 103rd Congress, legislation was enacted which
allows the Department of the Treasury, the USACE, and the Department of
Commerce to share a maximum total of $5 million per year for expenses
incurred in the administration of the HMT.
Question. How do you prioritize projects for funding?
Answer. There continues to be keen competition for limited
Congressional appropriations to perform USACE's navigation mission.
USACE therefore prioritizes navigation projects for inclusion in the
President's budget in order to reduce the risk of failure and increase
the reliability of our projects, and maximize public benefits for the
investment. Factors such as volume and value of cargo moved, benefits
of the project, criticality of work to be performed, anticipated
impacts of not performing the work, legal mandates, safety issues,
environmental compliance, etc. are used to prioritize projects.
Question. How much has been paid out of the fund annually over the
past 5 years?
Answer. The following table reflects HMT receipts and HMTF
transfers to the U.S. Treasury, in thousands of dollars, for fiscal
years 2002 through 2006:
HMT RECEIPTS AND HMTF TRANSFERS TO THE U.S. TREASURY FOR FISCAL YEARS 2002 THROUGH 2006
[in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor
Fiscal Year Maintenance USACE Other Agency Total
Tax Receipts Transfers Transfers Transfers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002............................................ 652.9 639.9 16.3 656.2
2003............................................ 758.0 568.9 17.0 585.9
2004............................................ 869.7 630.9 17.3 648.2
2005............................................ 1,047.9 687.2 18.7 706.0
2006............................................ 1,206.5 779.0 19.0 798.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. If funds have not been expended out of the fund, why is
that the case?
Answer. Annual reimbursements from the HMTF are limited to
congressional appropriations. Annual HMT revenue has consistently
exceeded annual expenditures resulting in a growing HMTF balance.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
Question. Please share how the Army Corps set its priorities for
its budget request this year. I am specifically looking for information
that would lead me to understand why funding for the completion of the
Fountain Creek Watershed study and funding for the Chatfield
Reallocation Study were not included?
Answer. Chatfield was not in the Corps' 2008 budget as it was not
in the 2007 budget the initial criteria under the guidelines. Funding
priority is given to studies funded in the previous year.
______
Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Carl Strock
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
Question. How will we easily be able to tell how much we are
investing in these endangered species recovery efforts?
Answer. To assist us in capturing this information, we will develop
a new system to closely monitor and track funds expended for recovery
efforts and will make that information available upon request.
Question. General Strock, How have the reprogramming restrictions
imposed by the fiscal year 2006 E&W Act affected your ability to
effectively and efficiently manage the Civil Works program?
Answer. The reprogramming and contracting guidance contained in the
fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act and/or
subsequent delays in obtaining approvals have adversely impacted
performance rates so that, in some cases, weather or environmental
windows were missed, contract options could not be taken advantage of
and a larger carryover of unobligated or unexpended funds occurred with
work still not accomplished. On the other hand, these restrictions have
resulted in greater discipline at all management levels in preparing
cost estimates, expressing capabilities and applying available funds as
intended by the Congress.
Question. General Strock, You are soon to retire so I'll ask you an
unfair question that I know Secretary Woodley would have to avoid or be
very careful to answer--as the outgoing Chief, what changes would you
recommend to Corps contracting and reprogramming guidance in order to
give your successor the flexibility needed to manage the Civil Works
program?
Answer. As mentioned earlier, the reprogramming and contracting
guidance contained in the Fiscal Year 2006 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act has effectively brought about greater care in
estimating, expressing capabilities and managing funds on hand;
however, more flexibility is needed to efficiently utilize available
funds for the purposes intended by the Congress. I believe the proposed
contracting and reprogramming language set forth in the President's
budget, if adopted, provides that flexibility.
MISSOURI RIVER
Question. Gentlemen, it should come as no surprise to you that we
are suffering through our eighth year of drought in North Dakota. What
is the situation and outlook for Missouri River runoff this year?
Answer. Drought continues to persist in the Missouri River Basin.
Moderate to severe drought exists in much of Montana and Wyoming and
the western portions of the Dakotas and Nebraska. The remainder of the
basin is essentially drought free. Current storage in the Missouri
River Mainstem Reservoir System is 37.3 MAF, 17.5 MAF below normal, but
2.6 MAF higher than one year ago. The 2007 runoff forecast above Sioux
City, Iowa is for 21.2 MAF, 84 percent of normal.
Question. How will this impact operation of the Missouri River?
Answer. Service to all of the congressionally authorized project
purposes is reduced due to the ongoing drought, currently in its eighth
year. The upper three reservoirs are drawn down 24 to 34 feet and
releases from all projects are much below normal. Due to excellent
runoff below the reservoir system, releases from Gavins Point were at
record low levels during March, April and May of 2007, and were well
below normal the remainder of the year. Power production at the Corps
hydropower facilities in 2007 is expected to be a record low 5.0
billion kWh, only half of normal. Lower reservoirs and releases have
reduced access at many boat ramps and marinas throughout the region,
and have made access for municipal and industrial water supply more
difficult. None the less, all municipal water intakes have remained
operational throughout 2007, and are expected to remain viable in 2008.
Although the Corps made significant efforts on behalf of fish and
wildlife during 2007, the drought continues to reduce the benefits of
those efforts. All three of the upper reservoirs rose significantly
during the forage fish spawn; however reports from the North Dakota
Game and Fish Department indicated that the smelt spawn in Garrison was
poor due to the lack of proper substrate at the current reservoir
level. Efforts to conserve cold water habitat in Garrison reservoir
were expanded this year, saving an estimated 800,000 acre-feet of cold
water in the reservoir. Fledge ratios for both the interior least tern
and piping plover were below the fledge ratio goals outlined in the
2003 Biological Opinion, however there were a record number of terns
present in the region during the nesting season. Spring pulses from
Gavins Point dam for the benefit of the endangered pallid sturgeon were
not implemented in 2007 due to the low system storage.
Question. Do you anticipate a normal navigation season?
Answer. The 2007 navigation season was shortened 35 days and
minimum service flow support was provided throughout the shortened
season. The 2008 navigation season will start on the normal opening
date of April 1 at the mouth with minimum service flow support. The
season length will be determined based on the July 1 storage check, but
is estimated to range from 17 to 60 days based on studies provided in
the draft Annual Operating Plan.
Question. How much more should I expect the level of Lake Sakakawea
to drop under the operations of the Master Manual for fiscal year 2008?
Answer. If runoff in 2008 is near lower quartile levels, conditions
at Garrison are expected to be similar to those experienced in 2007.
With runoff above lower quartile, reservoir levels will improve,
averaging about 7 feet higher than in 2007 for median runoff
conditions, to as much as 15 to 20 feet higher with upper decile runoff
conditions. However, if the drought deepens and runoff declines to
lower decile conditions, the reservoir could be 5 feet lower in 2008
than it was in 2007, and could fall below the record low pool of
1,805.8 feet msl by early 2009.
Question. How will this continued fall of Lake Sakakawea affect the
Snake Creek Embankment? Will we have to draw down Lake Audubon further
than we already have?
Answer. Lake Audubon is historically maintained by the Bureau of
Reclamation at a near constant elevation of 1,847.2 feet from spring
through Labor Day. After Labor Day, the lake level is lowered to
1,845.0 feet and held constant at this elevation throughout the ice
fishing season. Lake Audubon reached its annual winter target elevation
of 1,845.0 feet the first week of November 2007. The recently completed
draw down was conducted in accordance with normal lake operation and no
further drawdown is planned at this time.
The Corps of Engineers implemented a 43 foot maximum water level
difference between Lake Audubon and Lake Sakakawea in March 2007 based
on the results of an underseepage evaluation. This restriction will
remain in effect until additional data is obtained and can be evaluated
under more severe lake and reservoir fluctuations.
As of November 6, 2007 Lake Sakakawea was at elevation 1,813.1 feet
and Lake Audubon was at elevation 1,845.0 feet, resulting in a water
level difference of 31.9 feet. Current forecasts indicate that Lake
Sakakawea will continue to slowly recede until the latter part of
February 2008 and then rise to its peak elevation around mid-summer.
Under the November 1, 2007 basic and lower basic simulations, Lake
Sakakawea is projected to recede to 1,809.1 feet and 1,808.0 feet,
respectively, by the end of February 2008. Utilizing the lower basic
simulation, the projected maximum water level difference at the end of
February will be 37.0 feet, which is well below the allowable 43 feet
maximum difference.
Question. How will the continued drop in water levels on Lake
Sakakawea impact various water intakes that draw from the lake as well
as those that draw from the river?
Answer. Under all runoff conditions simulated in the 2007-2008
Annual Operating Plan, all of the water intakes on Garrison reservoir
remain operational throughout 2008. Releases from Garrison will be
scheduled at a level sufficient for the intakes below the dam to remain
operational throughout the year.
Question. Why have you not proposed at least a token amount of
funding for drought in your budget, when you know that the west has
been suffering an extended drought?
Answer. The Corps has proposed funding for control of noxious weeds
associated with lower reservoir levels resulting from the drought. The
Corps also provides significant funding for cultural resources within
the basin which may be impacted by drought conditions.
Question. What is your funding capability for drought emergency
assistance?
Answer. Emergency assistance due to drought is generally requested
due to the loss of water meant for human consumption within a
community. Under Public Law 84-99 the Corps is authorized to provide
technical assistance to a local community facing an emergency. The
Corps may also provide temporary emergency water assistance for human
consumption/usage to a drought distressed area to meet minimum public
health and welfare requirements. Corps assistance is supplemental to
State and local efforts. Corps assistance under this authority may
include transport of water to local water points, distribution of
bottled water, temporary connection of a new supply to the existing
distribution system, and installation of temporary filtration. Several
areas are considered in determining the amount of Federal direct
assistance; such as economic impact to the community, environmental
issues, weather impacts, other water sources (wells), long term lake
level projections, and good engineering judgment.
A-76 AND HPO
Question. In 2001 and 2002, OMB imposed arbitrary numerical
privatization quotas on agencies. The practice was prohibited by
Congress in February 2003, unless there was ``considered research and
sound analysis of past activities (that) is consistent with the stated
mission of the executive agency.'' In July 2003, OMB repudiated the use
of government-wide quotas. Nevertheless, the Corps of Engineers (CoE)
appears to be following the arbitrary quota imposed by OMB in 2002,
according to CoE documents. Why did the Congressional prohibition and
the OMB repudiation have no affect on CoE's numerical privatization
quota? Was there any of the legally required ``considered research and
sound analysis of past activities (that) is consistent with the stated
mission of the executive agency'' done in connection with this? How
many additional Federal employees are CoE obligated to OMB to review
for privatization under OMB Circular A-76?
Answer. The Corps is not pursuing any privatization activities.
Question. CoE's decision to attempt to review the locks and dams
personnel for privatization generated strong bipartisan, bicameral
opposition. Even CoE management conceded that at least part of the
workload performed by locks and dams personnel is inherently
governmental. Would CoE have begun this OMB Circular A-76 privatization
review if it had not had a ``commitment'' to OMB to review for
privatization at least 7,500 jobs? Are there actions that CoE can
undertake on its own to increase the efficiency of locks and dams
operations or operations generally? Do CoE managers believe that they
are obligated to strive to generate efficiencies? If there were no A-76
quota for CoE to fulfill, could taxpayers and lawmakers on this
subcommittee count on CoE management to always strive to make the
agency's operations more efficient?
Answer. The Corps is not studying the locks and dams personnel for
A-76 competition. Rather, the Corps has initiated an internal study of
business processes to improve efficiency and effectiveness of the
Nation's inland waterway system. Any resulting changes will be
implemented over a period of 5 years. We do not anticipate any adverse
impact on the workforce.
Question. How many months old is the A-76 privatization review of
information technology and how many employees are involved? According
to an October 12, 2006, GovExec.com story, ``Information technology
management at the Army Corps of Engineers is being stressed to the
breaking point by staff shortages resulting from a stalled public-
private job competition, according to senior Corps officials. I have
been informed that an early September meeting of senior IT leaders at
the agency reflected concern that IT services are suffering from
significant attrition at ``virtually every Corps [information
management] office,'' according to a summary of the meeting at distributed by the agency's Chief
Information Officer, Wilbert Berrios. Some have lost as much as 35
percent of their workforce since the inception of a competitive
sourcing process more than 2 years ago. ``We are one missed signal away
from a train wreck,'' officials warned at the September 6 meeting in
Jekyll Island, GA., according to the summary, with staffing levels only
``one person deep in several critical areas.'' Do you agree with that
account? If not, why not?
Answer. The Information Management/Information Technology (IM/IT)
competition resulted in a win by the in-house team (called the Most
Efficient Organization (MEO)). MEO was issued the formal notice in
April 2007 and began the transition in May 2007. Currently the MEO are
recruiting from the existing IM/IT employees and are well underway to
assume full responsibility for IM/IT service delivery by May 2008. We
do not foresee any disruption of service during the transition period.
Question. While not quite as long as the infamous Walter Reed
privatization review, the CoE information technology A-76 is certainly
one of the longest reviews since the circular was revised in May 2003,
is it not? And like Walter Reed, if this GovExec.com count is to be
believed, the affected workforce has been significantly disrupted. With
respect to CoE's information technology privatization review, assume
that the contractor's appeal will not prevail. After taking into
account the dangerous levels of workforce disruption caused by the
privatization review, the costs of carrying out the privatization
review, and the costs of transitioning the workforce into the new
organization, how much will there be left in unverified, projected
savings? Please state each component in detail.
Answer. The court case was settled and, as mentioned above, the MEO
started the transition in May 2007. Projected savings is about $500
million over a 6-year period. The savings are based on the MEO's bid
and derived from the MEO's technical solution using the best business
processes.
Question. How many jobs and what sort of jobs will be reviewed
under the new HPO? I understand that the HPO will involve 3,500
employees in the locks and dams, maintenance fleets, and district
offices, as opposed to 2,000 employees in the locks and dams? Will the
HPO be far more wide-ranging than the A-76 review?
Answer. Under the HPO initiative, the Corps is studying the
business processes rather than reviewing jobs. There are approximately
3,000 positions engaged in the operations and maintenance of navigation
locks and dams. The Corps does not anticipate any negative impact on
employees.
Question. What guidelines are you working under regarding the HPO?
I understand that the guidelines from OMB can all fit on one side of a
single piece of paper. Would CoE need legislation or for the Congress
to undertake any action to plan for or to implement the HPO?
Answer. The Corps is using accepted practices for internal business
process re-engineering such as Lean Six Sigma. No legislation is
required for studying an HPO. However, before implementing the
resulting organization, congressional approval may be required.
Question. Will the HPO involve privatization, job loss, or forced
reapplications for employment for the in-house workforce? Is the HPO
based on any budget assumptions? If so, what are they?
Answer. HPO will not involve privatization, job loss, or forced
reapplication. No budget assumptions or targets are driving this
initiative.
Question. Has the HPO team begun work? When will the HPO team
finish work? How long will it take before the HPO plan is implemented?
How will the team incorporate the views of non-management employees?
How many non-management employees will be on the HPO team? How many
union members will be on the HPO team?
Answer. The HPO team for locks and dams started the study in
January 2007 and is scheduled to complete its work in July 2008. After
that, there is a 5-year transition to attain the end-state
configuration. The team is made up of a typical cross section of the
locks and dams personnel, including lock masters, operations managers,
and other district employees, The HPO team is totally independent of
the Corps management and empowered to do the study without any
interference. Team members have been visiting project sites, meeting
with employees, and soliciting input by various means from all
employees.
Question. It seems that an extraordinary number of important issues
could be dealt with by the HPO team, but it is unclear what they might
consider or how broad the mandate is. For example, it appears that the
HPO plan could propose reducing hours at some locks and dams, reducing
capabilities at some CoE district offices, or using one CoE district's
maintenance fleet in another CoE district even if that means the first
CoE district's maintenance backlog might be ignored. Will such issues
or similar issues be seriously considered? Is there any limitation on
the consideration of such or similar issues? If so, what are they?
Answer. The main thrust of the HPO study is to provide a safe,
reliable, efficient and effective operations and maintenance for the
U.S. Inland Marine Transportation System. It is not intended to cut
corners or reduce capabilities.
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM
Question. I realize that the Continuing Authorities Program is a
sideline to your major mission areas. We annually fund about $150
million to this program, where you usually budget less than $50
million. However, you need to understand that it is a program that is
very important to my colleagues and hundreds of local communities
across the country. The Congress has been concerned about the
management of this program. We recognize that we have contributed to
some of the management issues by recommending more projects that
funding was available for. In fiscal year 2006 and continuing in fiscal
year 2007 there is a moratorium on projects within the CAP program from
advancing to the next stage of project development.
What measures have we put in place to more effectively manage the
program?
Answer. The following actions have been taken to improve management
for CAP.
In February 2006 we established a national Program Manager for CAP
to manage and analyze large and complex data and this has greatly
improved the overall management of CAP.
In June 2006, we provided Congress with a 5 Year Program Management
Plan (PMP) for CAP. The intent is to review and update the PMP
annually. Implementation of the PMP will be an improvement action.
Beginning with the fiscal year 2008 budget, we've implemented a
performance based method for development of the CAP budget. This is a
new approach for CAP budget development. It should help improve CAP by
providing a clear and consistent method analyzing CAP for budgetary
purposes.
For the fiscal year 2007 program we developed a ranking methodology
using appropriate criteria for determining fiscal year 2007
allocations. The method helped improve CAP by providing a clear method
for allocating fiscal year 2007 funds.
Question. What is the outlook for fiscal year 2007?
Answer. For fiscal year 2007 CAP funding requests exceeded
available funds by $33,069,000. Therefore we developed a ranking
methodology using appropriate criteria that was implemented to
prioritize requests and optimize use of available funds. CAP funds for
fiscal year 2007 are fenced by section. In addition, the moratorium on
execution of new FCSA's and PCA's continues in fiscal year 2007. The
fencing and moratorium restrictions create challenges in optimal
management of CAP funding.
Question. Will all funding provided in each section of the program
be utilized in current project development phases and will some
projects be ready to move to the next phase?
Answer. The CAP Fiscal Year 2007 Work Plan funds $124,616,000 at
this time with a reserve of $13,786,000. The plan provides $89,104,000
to complete 163 project phases, $28,721,000 for continuing work, and
$6,791,000 to initiate new phases.
Under the current PCA moratorium, we are only able to move projects
into construction if full funding is available to fund the entire
construction. This significantly limits the number of CAP projects that
can move into construction during fiscal year 2007.
Under the current FCSA moratorium, we are required to limit Federal
funding for feasibility work at $100,000. This restriction has caused
numerous CAP projects to cease or postpone feasibility work.
Question. Will we propose a package of projects to move forward?
When?
Answer. We provided detailed lists of active CAP projects to
Congress in June 2006. Those reports showed FCSA and PCA execution
status, allocation history, obligation capabilities through fiscal year
2011, and estimated Federal costs. The June 2006 reports did not make
specific recommendations regarding which projects should be considered
for moving forward. It would be a better management approach if
decisions regarding selection of CAP projects to forward were made
using the performance based budgeting method and the fiscal year 2007
allocation methods mentioned earlier. The nature of CAP is that these
are smaller projects with less certainty regarding costs, scope, and
sponsor commitments. Flexibility of management is highly desirable due
to the nature of the program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
LATEST $1.3 BILLION FUNDING NEED
Question. Secretary Woodley, your testimony referred to the
administration's request for reprogramming $1.3 billion in emergency
supplemental appropriations from last year to cover shortfalls in
hurricane protection projects in Louisiana. The Corps is developing
estimates of future funding shortfalls with a goal of having complete
estimates this summer.
Does the administration intend to request supplemental
appropriations when the future shortfalls are identified?
Answer. Emergency authority and funding was provided by Congress
and we are executing this mission in that manner. The Corps of
Engineers is working with the resources provided to restore and improve
the Hurricane Protection System as authorized and funded in fiscal year
2006. This is the number one domestic priority of the Corps of
Engineers, and we are committed to executing this mission in the most
efficient and expeditious manner possible. The Corps continues to
develop new information and incorporate it into our planning process,
constantly working to improve the reliability of our cost estimates and
construction schedule estimates. We are committed to developing and
communicating these estimates in a transparent manner. We will ensure
that the Congress and the administration have the information that they
require in order to identify an appropriate vehicle for funding the
completion of the 100-year system.
Sufficient unobligated funds exist in the 4th supplemental
appropriation to cover immediate work on those measures that will
reduce the risk for the New Orleans metropolitan area with the proposed
$1.3 billion reprogramming. This work includes floodwalls and levees
that are ready for contract award. Fiscal Year 2006 4th Supplemental
funds proposed for reallocation are not required until later in the
year when designs and required environmental documentation are
complete. The Corps is currently updating cost-estimates for the
remaining work, and it would be premature to request additional funding
until the Corps finishes these revisions. Funds reappropriated from the
4th Supplemental will need to be replenished by additional
appropriations at some future date, possibly in the fall of 2007.
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Question. On March 8, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff
agreed with me that levees should be categorized as critical
infrastructure.
I would like to ask the Corps to begin the appropriate
conversations and collaboration with the Department of Homeland
Security to expedite the inclusion of levees as critical infrastructure
and report back to me within 6 weeks on your progress. Can the Corps do
this?
Answer. Yes, Senator we can do this. Levees are already included
within the framework of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan
(NIPP). As established in the Dams Sector Specific Plan released in May
2007: ``The Dams Sector is comprised of the assets, systems, networks,
and functions related to dam projects, navigation locks, levees,
hurricane barriers, mine tailings impoundments, or other similar water
retention and/or control facilities.'' It is important to highlight
that ``levees'' is used in this context to designate flood damage
reduction systems (dikes, embankments, levees, floodwalls, pumping
stations, etc.); also including conventional dams that perform critical
functions as part of flood damage reduction systems. Therefore levees
are clearly part of the Dams Sector as one of the 17 Critical
Infrastructure and Key Resources (CI/KR) sectors established by the
NIPP. The Dams Sector is currently pursuing the formal establishment of
a Levee Sub-Sector which will include the creation of the corresponding
Levee Sector-Coordination Council.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
KIKIAOLA HARBOR, ISLAND OF KAUAI, HAWAII
Question. Please provide me with a status of the project.
Answer. Sir, funding for the project is being considered during
development of the Civil Works Fiscal Year 2007 Work Plan. The Honolulu
District is updating the plans, specifications, and permits in
preparation for advertisement and award of a construction contract.
Question. My records indicate that there were five reprogramming
actions taken on the project beginning in 1980, 2001, 2002, 2003, and
2005, and totaling $10,045,000. What are the chances of the Corps
restoring these funds for the Kikiaola project? If so, does the Corps
have a time table as to when these funds can be restored?
Answer. Sir, any funds included for the project in the Corps of
Engineers Fiscal Year 2007 Work Plan would be applied toward the Corps'
commitment to restore previously reprogrammed funds. The Work Plan will
be provided to the Committees shortly.
Question. I understand that $15,000,000 in construction funds is
needed in fiscal year 2008. Does this amount take into account the
$10,045,000 that was reprogrammed by the Corps since 1980? Please
explain how, if any, would the Corps factor in any reprogrammed
amounts.
Answer. Sir, whether a project has experienced previous net
revocations is a consideration in development of the fiscal year 2007
Work Plan. Any funds allocated to the project would be applied toward
the commitment to restore previously revoked funds.
Question. Would the $15,000,000 be sufficient to complete the
Kikiaola Light Draft Harbor project?
Answer. Yes, sir. The $15,000,000 would be sufficient to complete
the project based on our current cost estimates.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
BUDGET REQUEST
Question. The Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007
included a provision directing the Corps to assume responsibility for
the annual operations and maintenance of the Fox Point Hurricane
Barrier in Providence, Rhode Island. The Corps is to assume
responsibility within 2 years after the date of the enactment of the
Act, which I believe is October 17, 2008. Could you tell me where the
Corps is in the process of taking over operations and control of the
hurricane barrier? The Corps did not request funding for this project
in the fiscal year 2008 budget, is not funding needed at this time? Do
you plan to request funding in the President's budget request for
fiscal year 2009?
Answer. We have not received any funding to date for this effort.
We have met with the city of Providence to develop a strategy; however,
we have not initiated this work because of funding delays and at this
time it is unlikely that we will be able to perform all of the tasks
necessary to take over operation and maintenance of the project by 17
October 2008. We have Construction funds currently available; however,
these funds are for the purpose of reimbursing the city of Providence
for the Federal share of their costs in making eligible repairs to the
Fox Point Hurricane Barrier. We are not authorized to use these funds
for the purpose of completing tasks necessary to take over operation
and maintenance of the project. The fiscal year 2009 budget to be
released in February 2008 and as of yet have not made any decisions for
that budget.
Question. The Corps has a number of ongoing projects in Rhode
Island to assist with navigation and aquatic ecosystem restoration.
These projects are funded under the Continuing Authorities Programs;
yet, there is no funding request in the fiscal year 2008 budget for
these projects. Could you tell me why the administration's budget
request does not provide a list of these ongoing projects in each State
and the amount of funding needed for their completion? Could you
provide a national list of projects currently funded under the Corps'
Continuing Authorities Program and the cost to complete work on these
projects? Also, why does the administration not provide specific
funding requests for these projects in its budget?
Answer. Yes, sir the list requested is attached. Competition for
Constructions funds is very keen and the budget presented the best
allocation of funds among all the competing interest.
FIVE YEAR CAPABILITIES FOR CAP PROJECT PHASES IN FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET
[in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost to
Project Name CAP Section No. MSC DISTRICT Complete
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KWETHLUK, AK................................ 14 POD............... POA............... 100
TALLAHATCHIE RIVER, SITE 3, TALLAHATCHIE 14 MVD............... MVK............... 621
COUNTY, MS.
14 OLD FORT NIAGARA, YOUNGSTOWN, NY......... 14 LRD............... LRB............... 100
27TH STREET BRIDGE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO.... 14 SPD............... SPA............... 322
ALDEN SEWER DISTRICT NO. 2.................. 14 LRD............... LRB............... 100
ARGOSY ROAD BRIDGE, RIVERSIDE, MO........... 14 NWD............... NWK............... 650
BARNES CO., KATHRYN, ND..................... 14 MVD............... MVP............... 300
BATESVILLE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, WHITE 14 SWD............... SWL............... 477
RIVER, AR.
BEAR CREEK, ROLAND, STORY CO., IA........... 14 MVD............... MVR............... 90
BEAVER CK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, 14 LRD............... LRL............... 100
GREENE, CO.
BELLE ISLE, DETROIT, MI..................... 14 LRD............... LRE............... 50
BELPRE, OH SEWER AND WATERLINE PROTECTION... 14 LRD............... LRH............... 80
BIG SISTER CREEK, N. COLLINS................ 14 LRD............... LRB............... 100
BLACK RIVER, RIVER DRIVE.................... 14 MVD............... MVP............... 500
BLANCHARD RIVER, OTTAWA, OH................. 14 LRD............... LRB............... .........
BRITTON ROAD BRIDGE, JONES, OK.............. 14 SWD............... SWT............... 40
CANADAWAY SEWERLINE......................... 14 LRD............... LRB............... 250
CASS LAKE, LEECH LAKE TRIBE................. 14 MVD............... MVP............... 225
CAULKS CREEK, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MO.......... 14 MVD............... MVS............... 421
CHAGRIN RIVER, GATES MILLS, OH.............. 14 LRD............... LRB............... .........
CITY OF BLUFFTON, WELLS CO (SEC. 14)........ 14 LRD............... LRL............... 100
COAL CREEK, ALBIA, MONROE CO., IA........... 14 MVD............... MVR............... 125
COAL CREEK, ALBIA, MONROE CO., IA........... 14 MVD............... MVR............... 38
CONWAY, CROWS RUN, PA....................... 14 LRD............... LRP............... 126
CROOKED CREEK, MADISON, IN.................. 14 LRD............... LRL............... 220
CUYAHOGA RIVER, BATH ROAD................... 14 LRD............... LRB............... .........
CUYAHOGA RIVER, VAUGHN RD................... 14 LRD............... LRB............... 100
DEERFIELD TOWNSHIP, WARREN CO............... 14 LRD............... LRL............... 100
DELAWARE CANAL, PAUNNACUSSING CREEK, BUCKS 14 NAD............... NAP............... 750
COUNTY, PA.
DES MOINES RVR, KEOSAUGUA, VAN BURNE CO., IA 14 MVD............... MVR............... 90
DUNKARD CREEK, BLACKVILLE, PA............... 14 LRD............... LRP............... 39
EAST FORK BIG CREEK, BETHANY, MO............ 14 NWD............... NWK............... 69
EAST LIVERPOOL, OH.......................... 14 LRD............... LRP............... 129
EAST POINT, NJ.............................. 14 NAD............... NAP............... 360
EAST VALLEY CREEK, ANDOVER.................. 14 LRD............... LRB............... 100
EIGHTEENMILE CREEK, NEWFANE................. 14 LRD............... LRB............... 100
EIGHTEENMILE CREEK, NORTH CREEK RD.......... 14 LRD............... LRB............... 100
ELIZABETH RIVER, VALLEYVIEW ROAD, HILLSIDE, 14 NAD............... NAN............... 800
NJ.
ELK RIVER, SHERBURNE CO..................... 14 MVD............... MVP............... 600
ELLICOTT CREEK, NORTH FOREST RD., AMHERST... 14 LRD............... LRB............... 100
ERIE BASIN MARINA, BUFFALO, NY.............. 14 LRD............... LRB............... 100
FT. ABERCROMBIE, ND......................... 14 MVD............... MVP............... 960
FT. ABERCROMBIE, ND......................... 14 MVD............... MVP............... 40
GRAND RIVER (NOWS), GRAND HAVEN, MI......... 14 LRD............... LRE............... 50
GRAND RIVER, PAINESVILLE, OH, SR84 BRIDGE... 14 LRD............... LRB............... .........
GRAYCLIFF HOUSE, EVANS, NY.................. 14 LRD............... LRB............... 80
GREEN HILL RD., ASHTABULA RIVER, PLYMOUTH 14 LRD............... LRB............... 100
TOWNSHIP.
HANLOCK RD., ASHTABULA RIVER, PLYMOUTH 14 LRD............... LRB............... 100
TOWNSHIP.
HIGHWAY A, TURKEY CREEK, MO................. 14 MVD............... MVS............... 35
HODGENVILLE, KY............................. 14 LRD............... LRL............... 200
HOLMES BAY [STATE HIGHWAY RTE 191], WHITING, 14 NAD............... NAE............... 675
ME.
HURON RIVER, S.R. 99........................ 14 LRD............... LRB............... 100
IA RVR, IA CITY, JOHNSON CO., IA............ 14 MVD............... MVR............... 90
IA RVR, SAC & FOX SETTLEMENT, TAMA COUNTY, 14 MVD............... MVR............... 348
IA.
KANAWHA RIVER, CHARLESTON, WV (MAGIC ISLAND 14 LRD............... LRH............... 960
TO PATRICK STREET).
KENOSHA HARBOR, RETAINING WALL, KENOSHA, WI. 14 LRD............... LRE............... 700
KEUKA LAKE, HAMMONDSPORT.................... 14 LRD............... LRB............... 100
KINNICKINNIC RIVER STORM SEWER, MILWAUKEE 14 LRD............... LRE............... 130
COUNTY, WI.
MIDDLE BASS ISLAND, OH, DEIST ROAD.......... 14 LRD............... LRB............... .........
MONONGAHELA RIVER, W. ELIZABETH, PA......... 14 LRD............... LRP............... 70
MT. PLEASANT AVE., MALAPARDIS BROOK, 14 NAD............... NAN............... 650
HANOVER, NJ.
NOKOMIS RD, TEN MILE CREEK, LANCASTER, TX... 14 SWD............... SWF............... 516
NORTH PARK.................................. 14 LRD............... LRC............... 1,300
NORTH SHORE DRIVE, SOUTH BEND, IN........... 14 LRD............... LRE............... 65
OAKLAND SEWAGE FACILITY, TN................. 14 MVD............... MVM............... 46
OHIO RIVER, HUNTINGTON, WV SEVENTH STREET 14 LRD............... LRH............... 380
WEST SEC. 14.
OHIO RIVER, HUNTINGTON, WV SEVENTH STREET 14 LRD............... LRH............... 40
WEST SEC. 14.
OHIO RIVER, HUNTINGTON, WV STAUNTON AVENUE 14 LRD............... LRH............... 140
SEC. 14.
OHIO RIVER, HUNTINGTON, WV STAUNTON AVENUE 14 LRD............... LRH............... 40
SEC. 14.
OLD CHAPPELL HILL ROAD, DAVIS CREEK, 14 SWD............... SWF............... 180
WASHINGTON COUNTY, TX.
OUACHITA RIVER, CITY OF MONROE, LA.......... 14 MVD............... MVK............... 60
PARTRIDGE BROOK, WESTMORELAND, NH........... 14 NAD............... NAE............... 381
PATUXENT RIVER, PATUXENT BEACH ROAD, MD..... 14 NAD............... NAB............... 700
PEPPER'S FERRY RWTR, RADFORD, VA SEC. 14.... 14 LRD............... LRH............... 40
PIPE CREEK, HAYES HOLLOW RD................. 14 LRD............... LRB............... 100
PLATTE CITY SEWER, PLATTE CITY, MO.......... 14 NWD............... NWK............... 260
PLATTE RIVER BRIDGE, CONCEPTION, MO......... 14 NWD............... NWK............... 227
POWERS BLVD, COLORADO SPRINGS, CO........... 14 SPD............... SPA............... 441
QUODDY NARROWS, SOUTH LUBEC ROAD, LUBEC, ME. 14 NAD............... NAE............... 202
RANSOM CREEK, HOPKINS ROAD, AMHERST, NY..... 14 LRD............... LRB............... 730
RED DUCK--NINETH STREET, KY., NO. 14........ 14 MVD............... MVM............... 595
RED LAKE RIVER, MN.......................... 14 MVD............... MVP............... 960
RED LAKE RIVER, MN.......................... 14 MVD............... MVP............... 40
ROCKPORT, IN................................ 14 LRD............... LRL............... 200
ROUTE YY, WORTH COUNTY, MO.................. 14 NWD............... NWK............... 227
ROUTE YY, WORTH COUNTY, MO.................. 14 NWD............... NWK............... 99
SALAMANCA, NY............................... 14 LRD............... LRP............... 70
SAND COVE PARK, SACRAMENTO RIVER, CA........ 14 SPD............... SPK............... 59
SAND HILL BRIDGE, MEDICINE CREEK, GRUNDY 14 NWD............... NWK............... 305
CO., MO.
SAND HILL BRIDGE, MEDICINE CREEK, GRUNDY 14 NWD............... NWK............... 79
CO., MO.
SARTELL, MN................................. 14 MVD............... MVP............... 500
SEC. 14 LINCOLN BOROUGH, PA................. 14 LRD............... LRP............... 70
SHOTWELL CREEK, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MO........ 14 MVD............... MVS............... 203
SIX-MILE CREEK, ITHACA, NY.................. 14 LRD............... LRB............... .........
SOUTH BRANCH, RAHWAY RIVER, WOODBRIDGE, NJ.. 14 NAD............... NAN............... 550
SOUTH FORK CLEAR CREEK, ROUTE FF, MARYVILLE, 14 NWD............... NWK............... 189
MO.
SOUTH HARRISON COUNTY, IN................... 14 LRD............... LRL............... 200
SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY, CAMPUS ROAD, BATON 14 MVD............... MVN............... 204
ROUGE, LA.
SPRINGDALE CREEK SPRINGDALE CEMETARY PEORIA, 14 MVD............... MVR............... 90
IL.
ST JOHNS LANDFILL, OR....................... 14 NWD............... NWP............... 809
STRANGER CREEK AT K-32, KS.................. 14 NWD............... NWK............... 428
STRANGER CREEK AT K-32, KS.................. 14 NWD............... NWK............... 73
STURGEON RIVER, HOUGHTON COUNTY, MI......... 14 LRD............... LRE............... 280
THIEME DRIVE, FORT WAYNE, IN................ 14 LRD............... LRE............... 60
TONAWANDA CREEK, LOCKWOOD, NIAGARA COUNTY... 14 LRD............... LRB............... 100
TONAWANDA CREEK, NEWSTEAD................... 14 LRD............... LRB............... 100
TONAWANDA CREEK, RIDDLE ROAD, NY............ 14 LRD............... LRB............... .........
TONAWANDA CREEK, TONAWANDA CREEK RD., 14 LRD............... LRB............... 100
AMHERST.
TOWN OF PORTER.............................. 14 LRD............... LRB............... 100
TOWN OF WELLS, NY........................... 14 NAD............... NAN............... 500
TUCKER ROAD, COMITE RIVER, LA............... 14 MVD............... MVN............... 200
TUSCARAWAS CO., RD. 1, (JOHNSON HILL), OH... 14 LRD............... LRH............... 295
U.S. HIGHWAY 71 BRIDGE, RED RIVER, OGDEN, AR 14 SWD............... SWL............... 465
WALKER LANE, WASHINGTON, WV, SECTION 14..... 14 LRD............... LRH............... 80
WALNUT BOTTOM RUN, ING-RICH ROAD, BEAVER 14 LRD............... LRP............... 77
FALLS, PA.
WEST FORK MEDICINE CREEK, GALT BRIDGE, MO... 14 NWD............... NWK............... 119
WEST FORK MEDICINE CREEK, GALT BRIDGE, MO... 14 NWD............... NWK............... 11
WESTFIELD RIVER, AGAWAM, MA................. 14 NAD............... NAE............... 155
WESTFIELD RIVER, OLD RTE. 9, CUMMINGTON, MA. 14 NAD............... NAE............... 188
WESTON, WV (US RT 19 S)..................... 14 LRD............... LRP............... 90
WHITE RIVER, AUGUSTA, AR.................... 14 SWD............... SWL............... 100
WHORTON BEND ROAD, ETOWAH CO., AL........... 14 SAD............... SAM............... 524
UNALAKLEET STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, 103 POD............... POA............... 400
UNALAKLEET, AK.
BAYOU TECHE-CHITIMACHA...................... 103 MVD............... MVN............... 200
COMMERCIAL PORT ROAD, GUAM 000.............. 103 POD............... POH............... 1,977
F-1 FUEL PIER, GUAM......................... 103 POD............... POH............... 550
FORT SAN GERONIMO, PR....................... 103 SAD............... SAJ............... 300
GOLETA BEACH, CITY OF GOLETA, CA............ 103 SPD............... SPL............... 2,015
GOLETA BEACH, CITY OF GOLETA, CA............ 103 SPD............... SPL............... 300
INDIAN RIVER INLET, SUSSEX COUNTY, DE....... 103 NAD............... NAP............... 544
LAKE ERIE AT PAINESVILLE.................... 103 LRD............... LRB............... .........
LAKE ERIE ATHOL SPRINGS, NY................. 103 LRD............... LRB............... 1,050
LAKEVIEW PARK............................... 103 LRD............... LRB............... 100
LASALLE PARK, BUFFALO, NY................... 103 LRD............... LRB............... .........
LELOALOA SHORE PROTECTION, AMERICAN SAMOA... 103 POD............... POH............... 1,663
NANTASKET BEACH, HULL, MA................... 103 NAD............... NAE............... 81
PHILADELPHIA SHIPYARD, PA................... 103 NAD............... NAP............... 2,802
PLEASURE ISLAND, BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD....... 103 NAD............... NAB............... 300
PORTER COMMUNITY PARK....................... 103 LRD............... LRB............... 100
PUERTO NUEVO BCH, PR........................ 103 SAD............... SAJ............... 73
TARPON SPRINGS, FL.......................... 103 SAD............... SAJ............... 922
VETERAN'S DRIVE SHORELINE, ST. THOMAS, 103 SAD............... SAJ............... 281
U.S.V.I..
KAHO'OLAWE SMALL BOAT HARBOR, HI............ 107 POD............... POH............... 494
MACKINAC ISLAND HARBOR BREAKWATER, MI....... 107 LRD............... LRE............... 200
APRA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, GUAM................ 107 POD............... POH............... 620
ARKANSAS RIVER, RUSSELLVILLE HARBOR, AR..... 107 SWD............... SWL............... 2,746
BASS HARBOR, TREMONT, ME.................... 107 NAD............... NAE............... 144
BLACKWATER RIVER, HAMPTON HARBOR, NH........ 107 NAD............... NAE............... 144
BLYTHEVILLE HARBOR, AR...................... 107 MVD............... MVM............... 3,280
BUCKS HARBOR, MACHIASPORT, ME............... 107 NAD............... NAE............... 42
BUFFALO INNER HARBOR, NY.................... 107 LRD............... LRB............... 3,600
CHARLESTOWN BREACHWAY & NINIGRET POND, 107 NAD............... NAE............... 301
CHARLESTOWN, RI.
CHEFORNAK NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, 107 POD............... POA............... 400
CHEFORNAK, AK.
CLEVELAND LAKEFRONT STATE PARK, OH.......... 107 LRD............... LRB............... .........
COLD BAY NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS............ 107 POD............... POA............... 400
COOLEY CREEK, OH............................ 107 LRD............... LRB............... .........
DOUGLAS HARBOR, AK.......................... 107 POD............... POA............... 2,778
EAST BOAT BASIN, SANDWICH, MA............... 107 NAD............... NAE............... 100
EAST TWO RIVER, TOWER, MN................... 107 MVD............... MVP............... 350
ELIM NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, ELIM, AK...... 107 POD............... POA............... 400
ESCANABA, MI................................ 107 LRD............... LRE............... 309
FISHERMANS COVE, NORFOLK, VA................ 107 NAD............... NAO............... 252
GALVESTON ISLAND HARBOR, GALVESTON, TX...... 107 SWD............... SWG............... 599
GRAND MARAIS, MN............................ 107 LRD............... LRE............... 200
GRAND PORTAGE HARBOR, MN.................... 107 LRD............... LRE............... 130
GUSTAVUS NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, AK........ 107 POD............... POA............... 250
IGIUGIG NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, IGIUGIG, AK 107 POD............... POA............... 400
KNIFE HARBOR, MN............................ 107 LRD............... LRE............... 100
KOKHANOK HARBOR, AK......................... 107 POD............... POA............... 400
NANTICOKE HARBOR, MD........................ 107 NAD............... NAB............... 300
NANWALEK NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, AK........ 107 POD............... POA............... 250
NASSAWADOX CREEK, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, VA.... 107 NAD............... NAO............... 608
NEW RIVER INLET, ONSLOW CO., NC............. 107 SAD............... SAW............... 80
NFTA BOAT HARBOR............................ 107 LRD............... LRB............... 100
NORTH KOHALA NAVIGATION, HI................. 107 POD............... POH............... 520
NORTHERN MICHIGAN COLLEGE, TRAVERSE CITY, MI 107 LRD............... LRE............... 1,314
NORTHWEST TENNESSEE REGIONAL HARBOR, LAKE 107 MVD............... MVM............... 3,110
COUNTY, TN.
OAK BLUFFS HARBOR, OAK BLUFFS, MA........... 107 NAD............... NAE............... 360
OHIO RIVER, PROCTORVILLE, OH., SEC. 107..... 107 LRD............... LRH............... 200
OLCOTT HARBOR, NEWFANE, NY.................. 107 LRD............... LRB............... .........
ONTONAGON RIVER, MI......................... 107 LRD............... LRE............... 125
OUTER COVE MARINA, CNMI..................... 107 POD............... POH............... 570
OYSTER POINT MARINA......................... 107 SPD............... SPN............... 650
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL....................... 107 SAD............... SAJ............... 250
POINT JUDITH HARBOR, NARRAGANSETT, RI....... 107 NAD............... NAE............... 100
PORT FOURCHON EXTENSION, LAFOURCHE PARISH, 107 MVD............... MVN............... 500
LA.
PORT GRAHAM NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, PORT 107 POD............... POA............... 160
GRAHAM, AK.
PORT HUENEME, CA............................ 107 SPD............... SPL............... 4,000
RHODES POINT, MD............................ 107 NAD............... NAB............... 3,600
ROUGE RIVER, MI............................. 107 LRD............... LRE............... 320
ROUND POND HARBOR, BRISTOL, ME.............. 107 NAD............... NAE............... 80
SEWARD MARINE INDUSTRIAL CENTER NAVIGATION 107 POD............... POA............... 400
IMPROVEMENT, AK.
SHALLOTTE RIVER, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NC....... 107 SAD............... SAW............... 49
SMALL NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, ILIAMNA, AK.. 107 POD............... POA............... 290
ST LAWRENCE, AK............................. 107 POD............... POA............... 9,600
ST. JEROME CREEK, ST. MARY'S COUNTY, MD..... 107 NAD............... NAB............... 300
ST. JEROME CREEK, ST. MARY'S COUNTY, MD..... 107 NAD............... NAB............... 100
TATITLEK, AK................................ 107 POD............... POA............... 3,105
TATITLEK, AK................................ 107 POD............... POA............... 294
TELLER NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, TELLER, AK.. 107 POD............... POA............... 200
TWO HARBORS, MN............................. 107 LRD............... LRE............... 212
WALNUT CREEK ACCESS AREA, ERIE COUNTY, PA... 107 LRD............... LRB............... .........
WALTER SLOUGH, DARE COUNTY, NC.............. 107 SAD............... SAW............... 448
WESTPORT, MA................................ 107 NAD............... NAE............... 531
WOODS HOLE GREAT HARBOR, FALMOUTH, MA....... 107 NAD............... NAE............... 150
WURTLAND, KY (NAVIGATION CHANNEL 107 LRD............... LRH............... 7,300
IMPROVEMENT).
WURTLAND, KY (NAVIGATION CHANNEL 107 LRD............... LRH............... 50
IMPROVEMENT).
111 FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH..................... 111 LRD............... LRB............... 100
111 VERMILLION, OH.......................... 111 LRD............... LRB............... 100
AGUADILLA COASTLINE, PR..................... 111 SAD............... SAJ............... 3,250
CAMP ELLIS, SACO, MAINE..................... 111 NAD............... NAE............... 247
LORAIN HARBOR, OH........................... 111 LRD............... LRB............... 100
MATTITUCK HARBOR, NY........................ 111 NAD............... NAN............... 300
MOBILE PASS, AL............................. 111 SAD............... SAM............... 777
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC., SECTION 933...... 145 SAD............... SAW............... 4,100
21ST AVE WEST CHANNEL, DULUTH, MN........... 204 LRD............... LRE............... 20
BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, MILE 6.0-0.0, 204 MVD............... MVN............... 100
PLAQUEMINES PH, LA.
BLACKHAWK BOTTOMS, DES MOINES COUNTY, IA.... 204 MVD............... MVR............... 306
CALCASIEU RIVER, MILE 5.0-14.0, CAMERON 204 MVD............... MVN............... 1,125
PARISH, LA.
ISLE AUX HERBES............................. 204 SAD............... SAM............... 250
MAUMEE BAY HABITAT RESTORATION, OH.......... 204 LRD............... LRB............... 1,500
MRGO MILE -3 TO -9 MARSH RESTORATION, 204 MVD............... MVN............... 1,071
(2001), PLAQUEMINES PH.
WANCHESE MARSH CREATION AND PROTECTION, NC.. 204 SAD............... SAW............... 20
WYNN ROAD, OREGON, OH....................... 204 LRD............... LRB............... 600
DAUPHIN ISLAND PARKWAY, AL.................. 204 SAD............... SAM............... 450
HELEN WOOD PARK, AL......................... 204 SAD............... SAM............... 1,600
OTTAWA RIVER, OH............................ 204 LRD............... LRB............... 600
RESTORATION OF THE CAT ISLANDS CHAIN, WI.... 204 LRD............... LRE............... 205
BEAVER CREEK & TRIBS, BRISTOL, TN........... 205 LRD............... LRN............... 800
CHIPPEWA RIVER AT MONTEVIDEO, MN............ 205 MVD............... MVP............... 3,472
EAST PEORIA, IL............................. 205 MVD............... MVR............... 100
FARGO, RIDGEWOOD ADDITION, ND............... 205 MVD............... MVP............... 2,035
HEACOCK CHANNEL, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, 205 SPD............... SPL............... 5,300
RIVERSIDE, CA.
205 LIMESTONE CREEK, FAYETTEVILLE, NY....... 205 LRD............... LRB............... .........
ABERJONA RIVER, WINCHESTER, MA.............. 205 NAD............... NAE............... 150
AITKIN, MN.................................. 205 MVD............... MVP............... 5,673
AITKIN, MN.................................. 205 MVD............... MVP............... 216
AMBERLEY CREEK, CINCINNATI, OH.............. 205 LRD............... LRL............... 350
ARCHEY FORK CREEK, CLINTON, AR.............. 205 SWD............... SWL............... 108
ARROYO, PR (205)............................ 205 SAD............... SAJ............... 271
ATHENS, OH RICHLAND AVE. CORRIDOR........... 205 LRD............... LRH............... 200
BALDWIN CREEK, NORTH ROYALTON, OH........... 205 LRD............... LRB............... .........
BANLICK CREEK, KENTON CO., KY............... 205 LRD............... LRL............... 200
BAYOU CHOUPIQUE CAP 205..................... 205 MVD............... MVN............... 200
BAYOU QUEUE DE TORTUE, VERMILION PARISH, LA. 205 MVD............... MVN............... 125
BEAVER CREEK, FRENCHBURG, KY................ 205 LRD............... LRL............... 150
BEML MILL BROOK HIGHLAND PARK, NJ........... 205 NAD............... NAN............... 300
BEN HILL COUNTY, GA......................... 205 SAD............... SAS............... 1,200
BEPJ POPLAR BROOK........................... 205 NAD............... NAN............... 850
BIG SISTER CREEK, ANGOLA.................... 205 LRD............... LRB............... 100
BLACK ROCKS CREEK, SALISBURY, MA............ 205 NAD............... NAE............... 250
BLACKSNAKE CREEK, ST. JOSEPH, MO............ 205 NWD............... NWK............... 3,639
BLACKSNAKE CREEK, ST. JOSEPH, MO............ 205 NWD............... NWK............... 6
BLASDELL STP................................ 205 LRD............... LRB............... 100
BOCA DE CACHETA, PR......................... 205 SAD............... SAJ............... 250
BREAKNECK CREEK, FRANKLIN................... 205 LRD............... LRB............... 100
BRUSH CREEK, GLADY FORK, PRINCETON, WV...... 205 LRD............... LRH............... 50
BUCKEYE LAKE, OH............................ 205 LRD............... LRH............... 858
BUCKEYE LAKE, OH............................ 205 LRD............... LRH............... 75
BYRUM CREEK, ANDERSON COUNTY, SC............ 205 SAD............... SAS............... 275
CANE BEND, BOSSIER PARISH, LA............... 205 MVD............... MVK............... 150
CANISTEO MINE PIT LAKE, MN.................. 205 MVD............... MVP............... 2,300
CANISTEO MINE PIT LAKE, MN.................. 205 MVD............... MVP............... 275
CASHIE RIVER, WINDSOR, NC................... 205 SAD............... SAW............... 70
CAZENOVIA CREEK, STEVENSON STREET, BUFFALO.. 205 LRD............... LRB............... 100
CEDAR RIVER, CEDAR FALLS UTILITIES, CEDAR 205 MVD............... MVR............... 350
FALLS , IA.
CEDAR RUN, PA............................... 205 NAD............... NAB............... 200
CITY OF BLUFFTON, WELLS CO (SEC 205)........ 205 LRD............... LRL............... 200
CITY OF DELPHI, CARROLL CO (DEER CK LEVEE).. 205 LRD............... LRL............... 200
CITY OF FLEMING-NEON, LETCHER, CO........... 205 LRD............... LRL............... 200
CITY OF WHITTIER, CA........................ 205 SPD............... SPL............... 1,200
CONCORDIA, KS............................... 205 NWD............... NWK............... 125
COSGROVE CREEK FLOOD CONTROL, CALAVERAS 205 SPD............... SPK............... 750
COUNTY.
COUSHATTA INDIAN RESERVATION FDR PROJECT, 205 MVD............... MVN............... 125
ALLEN PARISH, LA.
COWSKIN CREEK, WICHITA, KS.................. 205 SWD............... SWT............... 1,100
CROWN POINT BASIN, JEFFERSON PARISH, LA..... 205 MVD............... MVN............... 350
DAM BREAK EARLY WARNING SYSTEM, SILVERTON, 205 NWD............... NWP............... 425
OR.
DETROIT BEACH, LAKE ERIE, FRENCHTOWN 205 LRD............... LRE............... 1,380
TOWNSHIP, MI.
DETROIT BEACH, LAKE ERIE, FRENCHTOWN 205 LRD............... LRE............... 50
TOWNSHIP, MI.
DRY CREEK, CHEYENNE, WY..................... 205 NWD............... NWO............... 32
DUCK CREEK, OH FWS.......................... 205 LRD............... LRH............... 200
EIGHTEENMILE CREEK, BOSTON.................. 205 LRD............... LRB............... 100
EIGHTEENMILE CREEK, HAMBURG................. 205 LRD............... LRB............... 100
ELIZABETHTOWN, KY........................... 205 LRD............... LRL............... 150
ELKTON, MD.................................. 205 NAD............... NAB............... 300
EST LA GRANGE ST. CROIX..................... 205 SAD............... SAJ............... 350
EUREKA CREEK, MANHATTAN, KS................. 205 NWD............... NWK............... 3,123
FARMERS BRANCH, TARRANT COUNTY, TX.......... 205 SWD............... SWF............... 7,189
FISH CREEK/CUYAHOGA RIVER, KENT............. 205 LRD............... LRB............... 100
FORT YUKON FLOOD CONTROL, FORT YUKON, AK.... 205 POD............... POA............... 75
FRED CREEK, TULSA, OK....................... 205 SWD............... SWT............... 350
FULMER CREEK, VILLAGE OF MOHAWK, NY......... 205 NAD............... NAN............... 1,112
GOOSE CREEK, JACKSON, MO.................... 205 MVD............... MVS............... 109
GRAND RIVER, HARPERSFIELD DAM............... 205 LRD............... LRB............... 100
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS, OH....................... 205 LRD............... LRH............... 200
H0ODS CREEK, BOYD COUNTY, KY................ 205 LRD............... LRH............... 37
HAIKEY CREEK, BIXBY, OK..................... 205 SWD............... SWT............... 4,125
HATCH, NM................................... 205 SPD............... SPA............... 400
HEBER SPRINGS, CLEBURNE CO., AR............. 205 SWD............... SWL............... 50
HESHBON TO HEPBURNVILLE, LOWER LYCOMING 205 NAD............... NAB............... 600
CREEK.
HESTER, ADAMSON & HEARTSILL CREEKS, 205 SWD............... SWL............... 166
GREENWOOD, AR.
HIDDEN VALLEY, NEEDMORE BRANCH, GREENE 205 SWD............... SWL............... 150
COUNTY, MO.
HIGH SCHOOL BRANCH, NEOSHO, MISSOURI........ 205 SWD............... SWL............... 100
HIGHWAY 164 BRIDGE, LITTLE PINEY, 205 SWD............... SWL............... 70
HARGARVILLE, AR.
HINKSTON CREEK, MT STERLING, KY............. 205 LRD............... LRL............... 200
HOMINY SWAMP, WILSON, NC.................... 205 SAD............... SAW............... 100
HOWELL CREEK, WEST PLAINS, MO............... 205 SWD............... SWL............... 100
HUBBLE CREEK, JACKSON, MO................... 205 MVD............... MVS............... 106
HUGHES CREEK, KANAWHA COUNTY, WV., SEC. 205. 205 LRD............... LRH............... 200
INDIAN CREEK, CEDAR RVR, CEDAR RAPIDS, IA... 205 MVD............... MVR............... 408
IRONDEQUOIT CREEK, PENFIELD, NY............. 205 LRD............... LRB............... .........
JACKSON BROOK, MORRIS CITY, NJ.............. 205 NAD............... NAN............... 800
JAM UP CREEK, MOUNTAIN VIEW, MO............. 205 SWD............... SWL............... 100
JEAN LAFITTE, FISHER SCHOOL BASIN, LA....... 205 MVD............... MVN............... 1,851
JORDAN, MN.................................. 205 MVD............... MVP............... 243
KEOPU-HIENALOLI STREAM, ISLAND OF HAWAII, HI 205 POD............... POH............... 6,110
KESHEQUA CREEK, NUNDA....................... 205 LRD............... LRB............... .........
KINGS POINT, WARREN COUNTY, MS.............. 205 MVD............... MVK............... 135
KNOX COUNTY, KELSO CREEK, IN................ 205 LRD............... LRL............... 302
KULIOUOU STREAM, OAHU, HI................... 205 POD............... POH............... 397
LAC QUI PARLE RIVER, DAWSON, MN............. 205 MVD............... MVP............... 869
LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA........................ 205 MVD............... MVN............... 800
LAMOTTE CREEK, PALESTINE, IL................ 205 LRD............... LRL............... 95
LEWIS CREEK, BULVERDE, TX................... 205 SWD............... SWF............... 290
LINE CREEK, CHICKASHA, OK................... 205 SWD............... SWT............... 350
LITTLE BRAZOS RIVER, TX..................... 205 SWD............... SWF............... 3,500
LITTLE DUCK CREEK, OH....................... 205 LRD............... LRL............... 350
LITTLE FOSSIL CREEK, HALTOM CITY, TX........ 205 SWD............... SWF............... 4,762
LITTLE RIVER DIVERSION, DUTCHTOWN, MO....... 205 MVD............... MVM............... 709
LOCKPORT TO LA ROSE, LAFOURCHE PARISH, LA... 205 MVD............... MVN............... 2,011
LONG HILL TOWNSHIP.......................... 205 NAD............... NAN............... 3,115
LOUISIANA, MO............................... 205 MVD............... MVS............... 113
LOVINGTON, IL............................... 205 MVD............... MVS............... 166
MACOMB COUNTY, MI........................... 205 LRD............... LRE............... 361
MAD CREEK, MUSCATINE, IA.................... 205 MVD............... MVR............... 3,492
MAGAZINE BRANCH, ELK RIVER, CHARLESTON, WV.. 205 LRD............... LRH............... 75
MAGAZINE BRANCH, ELK RIVER, CHARLESTON, WV.. 205 LRD............... LRH............... 302
MAGPIE & DON JULIO CREEKS, SACRAMENTO, 205 SPD............... SPK............... 1,585
CALIFORNIA.
MASCATATUCK RIVER LOG JAM, SCOTT CO, IN..... 205 LRD............... LRL............... 40
MCKINNEY BAYOU, TUNICA COUNTY, MS........... 205 MVD............... MVK............... 3,445
MEREDOSIA, IL............................... 205 MVD............... MVS............... 87
MILL CREEK, GARFIELD HEIGHTS................ 205 LRD............... LRB............... .........
MILLWOOD, GRASSY LAKE, AR, SECTION 1135..... 205 SWD............... SWL............... 5
MINNESOTA RIVER, GRANITE FALLS, MN.......... 205 MVD............... MVP............... 6,578
MONTOURSVILLE, LYCOMING COUNTY, PA.......... 205 NAD............... NAB............... 600
MORRIS CREEK, KANAWHA AND FAYETTE COUNTIES, 205 LRD............... LRH............... 200
WV., SEC. 205.
MOYER CREEK, VILLAGE OF FRANKFURT, NY....... 205 NAD............... NAN............... 890
NEWPORT, MN................................. 205 MVD............... MVP............... 2,250
NORTH RIVER, PEABODY, MA.................... 205 NAD............... NAE............... 100
OAK CREEK FLORENCE CO BE710................. 205 SPD............... SPA............... 500
ONONDAGA CREEK, SYRACUSE.................... 205 LRD............... LRB............... 100
PAILET BASIN, JEFFERSON PARISH, LA.......... 205 MVD............... MVN............... 300
PALAI STREAM, HAWAII, HI.................... 205 POD............... POH............... 4,859
PALAI STREAM, HAWAII, HI.................... 205 POD............... POH............... 62
PALO DURO, CANYON, TX (LOCAL FLOOD 205 SWD............... SWT............... 350
PROTECTION PROJECT).
PECAN CREEK, GAINESVILLE, TX................ 205 SWD............... SWF............... 4,091
PLATTE RIVER, FREMONT, NE................... 205 NWD............... NWO............... 190
PLATTE RIVER, SCHUYLER, NE.................. 205 NWD............... NWO............... 320
PLEASANT CREEK, GREENWOOD, IN............... 205 LRD............... LRL............... 300
POST OAK CREEK, CORSICANA, TX............... 205 SWD............... SWF............... 323
PRAIRIE CREEK, RUSSELLVILLE, AR............. 205 SWD............... SWL............... 155
RANDOLPH, NE................................ 205 NWD............... NWO............... 224
RED DUCK CREEK, KY., NO. 205................ 205 MVD............... MVM............... 476
RED OAK, IOWA............................... 205 NWD............... NWO............... 276
RICHLAND CREEK, NASHVILLE, TN............... 205 LRD............... LRN............... 300
RIO CULEBRINAS-AG205........................ 205 SAD............... SAJ............... 230
RIO DESCALABRADO (205)...................... 205 SAD............... SAJ............... 216
RIO EL OJO DE AGUA, PR., BER................ 205 SAD............... SAJ............... 5,519
RIO GRANDE AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARY, EAGLE 205 SWD............... SWF............... 432
PASS, TX.
RIO GUAMANI, GUAYANA, PR., BEGUM............ 205 SAD............... SAJ............... 200
RIO JACAQUAS, PR (205)...................... 205 SAD............... SAJ............... 300
RIO LOCO, GUANICA, PR....................... 205 SAD............... SAJ............... 268
RIO OROCOVIS, PR (205)...................... 205 SAD............... SAJ............... 303
RIO PATILLAS, PR (205)...................... 205 SAD............... SAJ............... 185
ROCKFORD, MN................................ 205 MVD............... MVP............... 200
ROSETHORNE BASIN, JEAN LAFITTE, LA.......... 205 MVD............... MVN............... 2,000
ROSSVILLE, KS., SEC. 205.................... 205 NWD............... NWK............... 100
SALCHA FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, SALCHA, AK... 205 POD............... POA............... 150
SANDY CREEK, TN., NO. 205................... 205 MVD............... MVM............... 8,130
SAUGATUCK RIVER, WESTPORT, CT............... 205 NAD............... NAE............... 71
SCOTTS CREEK, SC., CAP 205.................. 205 SAD............... SAC............... 156
SEDGEWICK, KS, LITTLE ARK RIVER WATERSHED... 205 SWD............... SWT............... 350
SIX MILE CREEK, ITHACA...................... 205 LRD............... LRB............... 100
SNOQUALMIE RIVER, WA (BESNQ)................ 205 NWD............... NWS............... 75
SOUTH SUBURBAN AREA OF CHICAGO, IL.......... 205 LRD............... LRC............... 300
ST. MARY'S RIVER, FORT WAYNE, IN............ 205 LRD............... LRE............... 50
STEELE CREEK, VILLAGE OF ILION, NY.......... 205 NAD............... NAN............... 500
STONY CREEK, ROCKY MOUNT, NC................ 205 SAD............... SAW............... 70
SUN VALLEY, EL PASO, TX..................... 205 SPD............... SPA............... 265
TONGUE & YELLOWSTONE RVRS, MILES CITY, MT... 205 NWD............... NWO............... 400
TOOKANY CREEK, CHURCH ROAD, PA.............. 205 NAD............... NAP............... 4,804
TOOKANY CREEK, GLENSIDE ROAD, PA............ 205 NAD............... NAP............... 4,828
TOWN BRANCH, CORSICANA, TX.................. 205 SWD............... SWF............... 268
TOWN BRANCH, NEWARK, AR..................... 205 SWD............... SWL............... 50
TOWN OF CARENCRO, LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA...... 205 MVD............... MVN............... 6,000
TUSCARAWAS CO BEAVERDAM CREEK............... 205 LRD............... LRH............... 200
VILLAGE OF RUSSELLS POINT, LOGAN CO......... 205 LRD............... LRL............... 200
WAIAHOLE-WAIAKANE VALLEY, OAHU, HI.......... 205 POD............... POH............... 650
WAIAKEA STREAM, HAWAII, HI.................. 205 POD............... POH............... 666
WAILELE STREAM, OAHU, HI.................... 205 POD............... POH............... 961
WEST VIRGINIA STATEWIDE FLOOD WARNING SYSTEM 205 LRD............... LRH............... 2,015
WHITE RIVER, ANDERSON, IN................... 205 LRD............... LRL............... 340
WHITE SLOUGH BE608.......................... 205 SPD............... SPN............... 1,648
WHITEWATER RIVER, AUGUSTA, KS............... 205 SWD............... SWT............... 380
WILD RICE & MARSH RIVERS, ADA, MN........... 205 MVD............... MVP............... 3,175
WILLIAMSTOWN, WV............................ 205 LRD............... LRH............... 300
WILLOWWOOD ADDITION, EDMOND, OK............. 205 SWD............... SWT............... 270
WINNEBAGO RVR, MASON CITY, IA............... 205 MVD............... MVR............... 225
WV RALEIGH CO., NORTH SAND BRANCH........... 205 LRD............... LRH............... 100
WYNNE, AR NO. 205........................... 205 MVD............... MVM............... 1,125
ZIMBER DITCH, STARK CO, OH.................. 205 LRD............... LRH............... 350
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FOR ROSE BAY, 206 SAD............... SAJ............... 4,362
VOLUISIA CO., FL.
ARKANSAS RIVER FISHERIES HABITAT 206 SPD............... SPA............... 25
RESTORATION, PUEBLO, CO.
BOTTOMLESS LAKE STATE PARK, NM.............. 206 SPD............... SPA............... 1,452
CLEAR LAKE, IA.............................. 206 MVD............... MVR............... 2
CONFLUENCE POINT STATE PARK, MO............. 206 MVD............... MVS............... 186
EUGENE DELTA PONDS, OR...................... 206 NWD............... NWP............... 1,485
GOOSE CREEK, CO............................. 206 NWD............... NWO............... 27
JACKSON CREEK, GWINETT CO., GA.............. 206 SAD............... SAS............... 600
LYNCHES RIVER, LAKE CITY, SC................ 206 SAD............... SAC............... 350
ORLAND PARK, IL............................. 206 LRD............... LRC............... 2,800
ST. HELEN-NAPA RIVER RESTORATION............ 206 SPD............... SPN............... 150
STORM LAKE, IA.............................. 206 MVD............... MVR............... 10
WWTP, STEPHENVILLE, TX...................... 206 SWD............... SWF............... 1,508
5TH AVE DAM REMOVAL, COLUMBUS, OH........... 206 LRD............... LRH............... 2,250
ALLATOONA CREEK, COBB CO., GA............... 206 SAD............... SAM............... 300
ALLEN CREEK, HALL CNTY, GA.................. 206 SAD............... SAS............... 275
ARCOLA CREEK, MADISON, OH................... 206 LRD............... LRB............... 600
ARKANSAS RIVER, ARK CITY, KS................ 206 SWD............... SWT............... 1,120
ARROWHEAD CREEK AT WILSONVILLE, OR.......... 206 NWD............... NWP............... 1,313
ARROYO LAS POSITAS, CA...................... 206 SPD............... SPN............... 161
BAYOU GROSSE TETE RESTORATION, IBERVILLE 206 MVD............... MVN............... 125
PARISH, LA.
BEARGRASS CREEK, LOUISVILLE, KY., WETLANDS & 206 LRD............... LRL............... 350
REPARIAN RESTORATION.
BEAVER RUIN CREEK, GWINETT CO., GA.......... 206 SAD............... SAS............... 345
BELLE ISLE PIERS, DETROIT, MI............... 206 LRD............... LRE............... 50
BELLE ISLE STATE PARK, LANCASTER COUNTY, VA. 206 NAD............... NAO............... 754
BIG COTTON INDIAN CREEK, GA................. 206 SAD............... SAS............... 275
BIG FISHWIER CREEK, FL...................... 206 SAD............... SAJ............... 163
BIRD ISLAND RESTORATION, MARION, MA......... 206 NAD............... NAE............... 2,270
BLACK LAKE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION............ 206 POD............... POA............... 3,460
BLACK LAKE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION............ 206 POD............... POA............... 3,460
BLOOMINGTON, IN, WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT....... 206 LRD............... LRL............... 150
BLUE HOLE LAKE, NM.......................... 206 SPD............... SPA............... 224
BLUE RIVER, CO (SEC. 206)................... 206 SPD............... SPK............... 213
BOOTHEEL CREEK, FL.......................... 206 SAD............... SAJ............... 200
BOQUERON REFUGE, PR......................... 206 SAD............... SAJ............... 345
BRIGHTWOOD LAKE, CONCORD.................... 206 LRD............... LRB............... 100
BROWNSVILLE BRANCH, LONOKE CO, AR........... 206 MVD............... MVM............... 239
BRUSH NECK COVE, WARWICK, RI................ 206 NAD............... NAE............... 180
BUTLER CREEK, GA............................ 206 SAD............... SAM............... 3,700
C-1 REDIVERSION/LAGOON RESTORATION, BREVARD 206 SAD............... SAJ............... 200
COUNTY, FL.
CABIN CREEK, SPALDING CNTY.................. 206 SAD............... SAS............... 275
CABIN CREEK, WEST VIRGINIA.................. 206 LRD............... LRH............... 213
CAMP CREEK, ZUMWALT PRAIRIE PRESERVE, OR.... 206 NWD............... NWW............... 531
CANOA RANCH AQUATIC RESTORATION, AZ......... 206 SPD............... SPL............... 362
CANONSBURG LAKE, PA......................... 206 LRD............... LRP............... 300
CARPENTER CREEK, WASHINGTON................. 206 NWD............... NWS............... 1,754
CARPINTERIA CREEK PARK, CA.................. 206 SPD............... SPL............... 140
CARSON RIVER CITY, NV....................... 206 SPD............... SPK............... 500
CASS RIVER, CITY OF VASSAR, MI.............. 206 LRD............... LRE............... 73
CEDAR LAKE, IN.............................. 206 LRD............... LRC............... 7,560
CHAPEL BRANCH, SC........................... 206 SAD............... SAC............... 340
CHAPEL BRANCH, SC........................... 206 SAD............... SAC............... 167
CHARITON RIVER/RATHBUN LAKE WATERSHED, IA... 206 NWD............... NWK............... 4,171
CHATTACHOOCHIE RIVER DAM REMOVAL, GA........ 206 SAD............... SAM............... 2,000
CHENANGO LAKE, NY........................... 206 NAD............... NAB............... 200
CHEROKEE CREEK AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM 206 SWD............... SWT............... 195
RESTORATION, OK.
CHINO CREEK, CA............................. 206 SPD............... SPL............... 292
CHIPPOKES STATE PARK, SURRY COUNTY, VA...... 206 NAD............... NAO............... 1,177
CHRISTINE AND HICKSON DAMS.................. 206 MVD............... MVP............... 230
CIENEGA CREEK AQUATIC RESTORATION, AZ....... 206 SPD............... SPL............... 100
CITY CREEK, UT.............................. 206 SPD............... SPK............... 225
CITY CREEK, UT.............................. 206 SPD............... SPK............... 145
CLEAR LAKE, IA.............................. 206 MVD............... MVR............... 2,467
CLEARWATER LAKE, GOGEBIC COUNTY, MI......... 206 LRD............... LRE............... 75
CODORUS CREEK, PA........................... 206 NAD............... NAB............... 1,200
COFFEE LAKE AT WILSONVILLE, OR.............. 206 NWD............... NWP............... 250
CONCORD STREAMS RESTORTION, CONCORD, NC..... 206 SAD............... SAW............... 1,030
CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY, WI.................... 206 LRD............... LRE............... 341
CONFLUENCE GREENWAY......................... 206 MVD............... MVS............... 244
COTTONWOOD CREEK, ARLINGTON, TX............. 206 SWD............... SWF............... 150
CROW CREEK AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, 206 SWD............... SWT............... 195
TULSA, OK.
CRUTCHO CREEK, OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OK., 206 SWD............... SWT............... 250
(ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PR).
CUYAHOGA RIVER STREAM PROJECT, AKRON, OH.... 206 LRD............... LRB............... 40
DAVIS LAKE RESTORATION...................... 206 SAD............... SAJ............... 300
DEEP RUN/TIBER HUDSON, MD................... 206 NAD............... NAB............... 400
DENTS RUN, MD............................... 206 NAD............... NAB............... 1,500
DETROIT RIVER, CITY OF TRENTON, MI.......... 206 LRD............... LRE............... 325
DOWAGIAC RIVER, CASSOPOLIS, MI.............. 206 LRD............... LRE............... 909
DRAYTON DAM................................. 206 MVD............... MVP............... 300
DRY BRANCH CK, CITY OF LAWRENCE, MARION, CO. 206 LRD............... LRL............... 100
DUCK CREEK/FAIRMOUNT PARK WETLAND RESTOR 206 MVD............... MVR............... 516
SCOTT COUNTY, IA.
DUCK CREEK/FAIRMOUNT PARK WETLAND RESTOR 206 MVD............... MVR............... 78
SCOTT COUNTY, IA.
EAST FORK WHITE RIVER, COLUMBUS, IN......... 206 LRD............... LRL............... 80
EKLUTNA, AK................................. 206 POD............... POA............... 200
EL PASO, RIO BOSQUE WETLANDS RESTORATION, TX 206 SPD............... SPA............... 175
ELIZ RIVER, GRANDY VILLAGE, NORFOLK, VA..... 206 NAD............... NAO............... 956
ELIZ RIVER, OLD DOMINION UNI DRAINAGE CANAL, 206 NAD............... NAO............... 195
NORFOLK, VA.
ELIZ RIVER, SCUFFLETOWN CREEK, CHESAPEAKE, 206 NAD............... NAO............... 101
VA.
ELIZ RIVER, WOODSTOCK PARK, VIRGINIA BEACH, 206 NAD............... NAO............... 621
VA.
EMIQUON FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION.............. 206 MVD............... MVR............... 4,644
ENGLISH CREEK............................... 206 SPD............... SPL............... 1,122
EUGENE FIELD, IL............................ 206 LRD............... LRC............... 600
FAIRMOUNT PARK AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM 206 SPD............... SPL............... 297
RESTORATION, CA.
FALL BROOK, PA.............................. 206 NAD............... NAB............... 500
FALLS RUN, WHEELING CREEK, BELMONT, OH...... 206 LRD............... LRP............... 119
FILBIN CREEK, SC............................ 206 SAD............... SAC............... 257
FOREST PARK, ST. LOUIS, MO.................. 206 MVD............... MVS............... 225
FOX RIVER/TICHIGAN LAKE, WATERFORD, WI...... 206 LRD............... LRE............... 75
FREEBORN COUNTY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MN... 206 MVD............... MVR............... 214
FREEMAN LAKE WILDLIFE REFUGE, ELIZABETHTOWN, 206 LRD............... LRL............... 181
KY.
GALLA CREEK, AR............................. 206 SWD............... SWL............... 793
GALVESTON COUNTY MUD 12 EXOSYSTEM 206 SWD............... SWG............... 200
RESTORATION.
GIWW-MAD ISLAND MARSH, TX................... 206 SWD............... SWG............... 4,950
GOOSE POND/MIAMI OXBOW...................... 206 LRD............... LRL............... 98
GRAND (NEOSHO) RIVER ABOVE MIAMI, OK........ 206 SWD............... SWT............... 206
GRAND MARAIS RIVER, RLWSD................... 206 MVD............... MVP............... 1,285
GRAND MARAIS RIVER, RLWSD................... 206 MVD............... MVP............... 200
GRASS LAKE, FOX RIVER, IL................... 206 LRD............... LRC............... 1,435
GREEN RIVER, UT............................. 206 SPD............... SPK............... 100
GREENBURY POINT, MD......................... 206 NAD............... NAB............... 700
GROVER'S MILL POND, TWP OF WINDSOR, MERCER 206 NAD............... NAP............... 800
COUNTY, NJ.
GUM THICKET CREEK, NC....................... 206 SAD............... SAW............... 155
HAY CREEK, ROSEAU COUNTY, MN................ 206 MVD............... MVP............... 3,666
HERON HAVEN, NE............................. 206 NWD............... NWO............... 459
HIGGINS LAKE, MI............................ 206 LRD............... LRE............... 75
HOCKING RIVER WETLANDS, LANCASTER, OH....... 206 LRD............... LRH............... 662
HOCKING RIVER WETLANDS, LANCASTER, OH....... 206 LRD............... LRH............... 264
HOFFMAN DAM, IL............................. 206 LRD............... LRC............... 5,522
HOGAN'S CREEK, FL........................... 206 SAD............... SAJ............... 200
HOMER LAKE, ST. JOSEPH RIVER................ 206 LRD............... LRE............... 469
HORICON MARSH, WI........................... 206 MVD............... MVR............... 300
HORSESHOE LAKE RESTORATION, ALEXANDER 206 MVD............... MVS............... 2,193
COUNTY, IL.
HORSESHOE LAKE RESTORATION, ALEXANDER 206 MVD............... MVS............... 10
COUNTY, IL.
HOUGHTON LAKE, ROSCOMMON CO, MI............. 206 LRD............... LRE............... 517
HUFF RUN, BELDON SITE, OH................... 206 LRD............... LRH............... 734
HUFF RUN, BELDON SITE, OH................... 206 LRD............... LRH............... 309
HUNTSVILLE SPRING BRANCH, HUNTSVILLE, AL.... 206 LRD............... LRN............... 800
HURON RIVER, ROCKWOOD, MI................... 206 LRD............... LRE............... 75
IA RVR/CLEAR CREEK, JOHNSON COUNTY, IA...... 206 MVD............... MVR............... 1,580
IA RVR/CLEAR CREEK, JOHNSON COUNTY, IA...... 206 MVD............... MVR............... 80
INCLINE & 3RD CREEKS, NV.................... 206 SPD............... SPK............... 400
INDIAN CREEK ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, 206 NWD............... NWW............... 3,664
CALDWELL, ID.
ISSAQUAH CREEK, WA.......................... 206 NWD............... NWS............... 709
JACKSON FISH PASSAGE PROJECT................ 206 MVD............... MVR............... 83
JANES-WALLACE MEMORIAL DAM, SANTA ROSA, NM.. 206 SPD............... SPA............... 200
JOHNSON CREEK/SPRINGWATER, OR............... 206 NWD............... NWP............... 608
JOHNSON POND, LYNDONVILLE, NY............... 206 LRD............... LRB............... 279
JONESBOROUGH (206), TN...................... 206 LRD............... LRN............... 215
KANKAKEE, KANKAKEE COUNTY, IL............... 206 MVD............... MVR............... 196
KELLOGG CREEK, OR........................... 206 NWD............... NWP............... 357
KETTLE MORAINE WET PRAIRIE RESTORATION, WI.. 206 MVD............... MVR............... 300
KEYSTONE HERITAGE PARK WETLAND RESTORATION, 206 SPD............... SPA............... 200
EL PASO, TX.
KICKAPOO CREEK, CONCHO RIVER, UPPER COLORADO 206 SWD............... SWF............... 242
RIVER BASIN, TX.
KINNICKINNIC RIVER, WI...................... 206 MVD............... MVP............... 200
KINNICKINNIC RIVER, WI...................... 206 MVD............... MVP............... 50
KOONTZ LAKE, IN (SEC. 206).................. 206 LRD............... LRE............... 6,302
LA STATE PEN, LAKE KILLARNEY RESTORATION, W 206 MVD............... MVN............... 1,600
FELICIANA PAR, LA.
LAKE ANNA, LOUISA, ORANGE AND SPOTSYLVANIA 206 NAD............... NAO............... 347
COUNTIES, VA.
LAKE AUSTIN ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, AUSTIN, 206 SWD............... SWF............... 170
TX.
LAKE BELLE VIEW AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM 206 MVD............... MVR............... 3,798
RESTORATION, WI.
LAKE CONNESTEE, SC.......................... 206 SAD............... SAC............... 115
LAKE CONNESTEE, SC.......................... 206 SAD............... SAC............... 27
LAKE CYPRESS SPRINGS, FRANKLIN COUNTY, TX... 206 SWD............... SWF............... 175
LAKE LOU YAEGER RESTORATION, IL............. 206 MVD............... MVS............... 175
LAKE MAUVAISTERRE, JACKSONVILLE, IL......... 206 MVD............... MVS............... 202
LAKE NATOMA, CA............................. 206 SPD............... SPK............... 437
LAKE TSALA APOPKA........................... 206 SAD............... SAJ............... 6
LAKE VERRET RESTORATION, ASSUMPTION PARISH, 206 MVD............... MVN............... 706
LA.
LEMAY WETLAND RESTORATION (SECTION 206)..... 206 MVD............... MVS............... 66
LEXINGTON ROAD PARK GREENWAY--JEFFERSON 206 LRD............... LRL............... 84
COUNTY.
LICKING RIVER DAM REMOVAL, FALMOUTH, KY..... 206 LRD............... LRL............... 100
LITTLE CUYAHOGA RIVER, AKRON, OH............ 206 LRD............... LRB............... 60
LITTLE RIVER WATERSHED, HALL COUNTY, GA..... 206 SAD............... SAM............... 3,918
LOCKPORT PRAIRIE NATURE PRESERVE, WILL 206 LRD............... LRC............... 1,171
COUNTY.
LONG LAKE, IN............................... 206 LRD............... LRC............... 900
LOWER BLACKSTONE RIVER, RI.................. 206 NAD............... NAE............... 150
LOWER BOULDER CREEK, CO..................... 206 NWD............... NWO............... 811
LOWER HEMPSTEAD HARBOR, VILLAGE OF SEA 206 NAD............... NAN............... 500
CLIFF, NY.
LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER VALLEY, MILWAUKEE, WI. 206 LRD............... LRE............... 75
LOWER TRUCKEE RIVER, PAIUTE................. 206 SPD............... SPK............... 100
LOWER WHITE ROCK CRK, DALLAS, TX............ 206 SWD............... SWF............... 250
LYNCHES RIVER, LAKE CITY, SC................ 206 SAD............... SAC............... 1,250
MALDEN RIVER ECOSYSTEM, MA.................. 206 NAD............... NAE............... 81
MALLETT'S CREEK, WASHTENAW COUNTY, MI....... 206 LRD............... LRE............... 388
MANHAN DAM, EASTHAMPTON, MA................. 206 NAD............... NAE............... 410
MANHASSET BAY, TOWN OF NORTH HEMPSTEAD, NY., 206 NAD............... NAN............... 350
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
MARION MILL POND, VILLAGE OF MARION, OSCEOLA 206 LRD............... LRE............... 414
COUNTY, MI.
MARYVILLE, TN............................... 206 LRD............... LRN............... 275
MENOMONEE, WI............................... 206 LRD............... LRE............... 150
MENTOR MARSH................................ 206 LRD............... LRB............... 100
MILFORD POND, MILFORD, MA................... 206 NAD............... NAE............... 4,300
MILL CREEK ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION............ 206 SAD............... SAW............... 25
MILL CREEK RESTORATION AT MOREA, SCHUYLKILL 206 NAD............... NAP............... 215
COUNTY, PA.
MILL POND RESTORATION, NASHUA, NH........... 206 NAD............... NAE............... 150
MILL POND, LITTLETON, MA.................... 206 NAD............... NAE............... 100
MILL RIVER, STAMFORD, CT.................... 206 NAD............... NAE............... 2,988
MINERAL BAYOU, DURANT, OK................... 206 SWD............... SWT............... 133
MISSION CREEK, CA........................... 206 SPD............... SPL............... 406
MISSOURI STREAM RESTORATION, MO............. 206 NWD............... NWK............... 100
MOKUHINIA/MOKUULA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, 206 POD............... POH............... 1,356
MAUI, HI.
MONGAUP WATERSHED ENVIRON. RESTORTION, 206 NAD............... NAP............... 165
LIBERTY, SULLIVAN, NY.
MOSES LAKE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, TEXAS 206 SWD............... SWG............... 30
CITY, TX.
MUD CREEK, GREAT SOUTH BAY, PATCHOGUE, NY... 206 NAD............... NAN............... 250
MULBERRY PLANTATION, SC..................... 206 SAD............... SAC............... 197
NANTICOKE CREEK, LUZERNE COUNTY, PA......... 206 NAD............... NAB............... 830
NARROWS RIVER, NARRAGANSETT, RI............. 206 NAD............... NAE............... 180
NASHAWANNUCK POND, EASTHAMPTON, MA.......... 206 NAD............... NAE............... 715
NC OYSTER RESTORATION, NC................... 206 SAD............... SAW............... 130
NEPONSET RIVER, BOSTON, MA.................. 206 NAD............... NAE............... 200
NFTA OUTER HARBOR........................... 206 LRD............... LRB............... 100
NINIGRET & CROSS MILLS PONDS, CHARLESTOWN, 206 NAD............... NAE............... 800
RI.
NIPPERSINK CREEK............................ 206 LRD............... LRC............... 750
NOISETTE CREEK, SC.......................... 206 SAD............... SAC............... 194
NORTH BEACH, MD............................. 206 NAD............... NAB............... 600
NORTH FORK GUNNISON, CO (206)............... 206 SPD............... SPK............... 3,725
NORTH OTTAWA, MN............................ 206 MVD............... MVP............... 4,597
NORTH OTTAWA, MN............................ 206 MVD............... MVP............... 100
NORTH PARK, ALLEGHENY COUNTY................ 206 LRD............... LRP............... 3,272
NORTH SATUS DRAIN, YAKIMA, WA............... 206 NWD............... NWS............... 135
NORTHWEST BRANCH, ANACOSTIA RIVER, MD....... 206 NAD............... NAB............... 2,500
OAKS BOTTOM, OR............................. 206 NWD............... NWP............... 103
OHIO RIVER GARVIN BROWN NATURE PRESERVE, 206 LRD............... LRL............... 302
JEFFERSON COUNTY, K.
OHIO RIVER, HAYS KENNEDY PARK, LOUISVILLE, 206 LRD............... LRL............... 100
KY.
OLMOS CREEK, RESTORATION, SAN ANTONIO, TX... 206 SWD............... SWF............... 749
ORE KNOB, NC AQUATIC RESTORATION............ 206 LRD............... LRH............... 900
OSGOOD POND RESTORATION, MILFORD, NH........ 206 NAD............... NAE............... 65
OTSEGO LAKE, MI............................. 206 LRD............... LRE............... 75
PAINT BRANCH FISH PASSAGE, MD............... 206 NAD............... NAB............... 400
PAINTERS CREEK, MN.......................... 206 MVD............... MVP............... 2,787
PARADISE CREEK, CITY OF MOSCOW, ID.......... 206 NWD............... NWW............... 2,717
PAUL DOUGLAS WOODS, SOUTH BARRINGTON, IL.... 206 LRD............... LRC............... 597
PECK LAKE, GENEVA, IL....................... 206 LRD............... LRC............... 475
PIGS EYE LAKE............................... 206 MVD............... MVP............... 410
PITCHER LAKE OXBOW RESTORATION.............. 206 LRD............... LRL............... 99
POCOTALIGO RIVER AND SWAMP ECOSYSTEM 206 SAD............... SAC............... 494
RESTORATION, SC.
PORT OF SUNNYSIDE, WA....................... 206 NWD............... NWS............... 4,365
PORT OF SUNNYSIDE, WA....................... 206 NWD............... NWS............... 68
POTASH BROOK, NY............................ 206 NAD............... NAN............... 500
QUINCY BAY, IL.............................. 206 MVD............... MVR............... 300
QUONOCHONTAUG POND, CHARLESTOWN, RI......... 206 NAD............... NAE............... 70
RANSOM CREEK, AMHERST....................... 206 LRD............... LRB............... 100
RED OAK CREEK TRIBUTARY, RED OAK, TX........ 206 SWD............... SWF............... 175
REEDY RIVER, SC............................. 206 SAD............... SAC............... 674
REEDY RIVER, SC............................. 206 SAD............... SAC............... 247
REEVES CREEK, CLAYTON CNTY.................. 206 SAD............... SAS............... 275
RINCON CREEK................................ 206 SPD............... SPL............... 393
RIO GRANDE, LAREDO, TX...................... 206 SWD............... SWF............... 2,277
RIO GRANDE, LAREDO, TX...................... 206 SWD............... SWF............... 61
ROSCOE'S CUT, MACINTOSH..................... 206 SAD............... SAS............... 150
RUN POND COASTAL ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MA.. 206 NAD............... NAE............... 195
SALMON RIVER, CHALLIS, ID................... 206 NWD............... NWW............... 3,315
SALT RIVER RESTORATON, CA................... 206 SPD............... SPN............... 350
SAN MARCOS RIVER, SAN MARCOS, TX............ 206 SWD............... SWF............... 439
SAV HARBOR ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION............ 206 SAD............... SAS............... 275
SAXIS ISLAND, ACCOMACK COUNTY, VA........... 206 NAD............... NAO............... 1,503
SAXMAN RUN.................................. 206 LRD............... LRP............... 188
SECORD AND SMALLWOOD LAKES, GLADWIN COUNTY, 206 LRD............... LRE............... 381
MI.
SHAMROCK LAKE, CITY OF CLARE, MI............ 206 LRD............... LRE............... 75
SHERADEN PARK & CHARTIERS CR, PA............ 206 LRD............... LRP............... 500
SHIREY BAY/RAINEY BRAKE WMA................. 206 SWD............... SWL............... 50
SOUNDVIEW PARK, CITY OF BRONX, NY........... 206 NAD............... NAN............... 400
SOUTH FORK NOOKSACK RIVER, WA............... 206 NWD............... NWS............... 82
SOUTH NEWPORT RIVER 207..................... 206 SAD............... SAS............... 300
SOUTH PARK LAKE............................. 206 LRD............... LRB............... .........
SOUTHAMPTON CREEK, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION 206 NAD............... NAP............... 139
SPRING CREEK, NY............................ 206 NAD............... NAN............... 350
SPRING LAKE, MI............................. 206 LRD............... LRE............... 75
SPRING LAKE, SAN MARCOS, TX................. 206 SWD............... SWF............... 1,241
SPRINGFIELD MILLRACE, OR.................... 206 NWD............... NWP............... 3,134
SQAW CREEK, IL.............................. 206 LRD............... LRC............... 2,947
SQUAK VALLEY PARK RESTORATION, WA........... 206 NWD............... NWS............... 619
STEVENSON CREEK, CLEARWATER, FL............. 206 SAD............... SAJ............... 2,867
STORM LAKE, IA.............................. 206 MVD............... MVR............... 2,172
SULPHUR CREEK AQUATIC RESTORATION, LAGUNA 206 SPD............... SPL............... 1,200
NIGUEL, CA.
SWEETWATER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA........ 206 SPD............... SPL............... 1,585
SWEETWATER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA........ 206 SPD............... SPL............... 285
SYRACUSE LAKEFRONT, ONONDAGA, NY............ 206 LRD............... LRB............... .........
TAMARISK ERADICATION, CO.................... 206 SPD............... SPK............... 304
TEN MILE RIVER, RI.......................... 206 NAD............... NAE............... 935
THOMPSON CREEK RESTORATION.................. 206 SPD............... SPN............... 400
THREE CREEKS ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, OH.. 206 LRD............... LRH............... 902
THREE CREEKS ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, OH.. 206 LRD............... LRH............... 412
TIDAL MIDDLE BRANCH, MD..................... 206 NAD............... NAB............... 500
TILLAMOOK BAY & ESTUARY, OR................. 206 NWD............... NWP............... 150
TOLEDO BEND RESERVOIR, TX & LA.............. 206 SWD............... SWF............... 300
TREATS POND, COHASSET, MA................... 206 NAD............... NAE............... 700
TURKEY CREEK REST., FL...................... 206 SAD............... SAJ............... 320
TURTLE BAY, CA.............................. 206 SPD............... SPK............... 250
UNDERWOOD CREEK, WAUWATOSA, WI.............. 206 LRD............... LRE............... 295
UNIVERSITY LAKES RESTORATION, EAST BATON 206 MVD............... MVN............... 1,000
ROUGE PARISH, LA.
UPPER JORDAN RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, UT 206 SPD............... SPK............... 3,270
UPPER YORK CREEK DAM REMOVAL, CA............ 206 SPD............... SPN............... 550
VALLEY CREEK PARK WETLAND RESTORATION, EL 206 SPD............... SPA............... 175
PASO, TX.
VERMILLION RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, 206 MVD............... MVN............... 1,000
LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA.
WALNUT BRANCH, SEGUIN, TX (SEC. 206)........ 206 SWD............... SWF............... 1,488
WANAMAKER WETLANDS, KS...................... 206 NWD............... NWK............... 150
WATAUGA, NC, AQUATIC RESTORATION............ 206 LRD............... LRH............... 2,240
WATAUGA, NC, AQUATIC RESTORATION............ 206 LRD............... LRH............... 230
WATKINS CREEK, ST. LOUIS, MO................ 206 MVD............... MVS............... 200
WEBER RIVER, UT (SEC. 206).................. 206 SPD............... SPK............... 100
WEST JORDAN RIVER, UT....................... 206 SPD............... SPK............... 480
WEST JORDAN RIVER, UT....................... 206 SPD............... SPK............... 7
WESTERN BRANCH, PATUXENT, MD................ 206 NAD............... NAB............... 1,200
WESTERN CARY STREAMS RESTORATION, CARY, NC.. 206 SAD............... SAW............... 30
WESTMORELAND PARK, OR....................... 206 NWD............... NWP............... 1,661
WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 206 SPD............... SPK............... 200
FACILITY, LODI, CA.
WHITEBREAST WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, 206 MVD............... MVR............... 3,945
IA.
WHITEBREAST WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, 206 MVD............... MVR............... 121
IA.
WILSON BAY RESTORATION, JACKSONVILLE, NC.... 206 SAD............... SAW............... 2,356
WILSON BRANCH, SC........................... 206 SAD............... SAC............... 44
WILSON PARK CREEK, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WI..... 206 LRD............... LRE............... 75
WINDOM FISH PASSAGE, MN..................... 206 MVD............... MVR............... 225
WINNAPAUG POND, WESTERLY, RI................ 206 NAD............... NAE............... 1,120
WISWALL DAM, DURHAM, NH..................... 206 NAD............... NAE............... .........
WOLF PEN CREEK, COLLEGE STATION, TX......... 206 SWD............... SWF............... 300
WOOD CANYON AQUATIC RESTORATION, LAGUNA 206 SPD............... SPL............... 661
NIGUEL, CA.
WOOD CANYON AQUATIC RESTORATION, LAGUNA 206 SPD............... SPL............... 50
NIGUEL, CA.
WWTP, MERIDIAN, TX.......................... 206 SWD............... SWF............... 246
ZEMUARRY PARK LAKE RESTORATION, TANGIPAHOA 206 MVD............... MVN............... 225
PARISH, LA.
BLACKWELL LAKE, BLACKWELL, OK............... 208 SWD............... SWT............... 310
DICKENSON COUNTY, VA., SEC. 208............. 208 LRD............... LRH............... 60
ALLIN'S COVE, BARRINGTON, RI................ 1135 NAD............... NAE............... 5
BAYOU DESIARD, MONROE, LA................... 1135 MVD............... MVK............... 1,707
BOYD'S SALT MARSH RESTORATION, RI........... 1135 NAD............... NAE............... 203
DELAWARE BAY OYSTER RESTORATION, NJ......... 1135 NAD............... NAP............... 783
ECOSYSTEM REVITALIZATION @ ROUTE 66......... 1135 SPD............... SPA............... 3,637
KANAHA POND WILDLIFE SANCTUARY RESTORATION, 1135 POD............... POH............... 1,690
MAUI, HI.
LAKE ST. JOSEPH, TENSAS PARISH, LA.......... 1135 MVD............... MVK............... 142
LOWER KINGMAN ISLAND........................ 1135 NAD............... NAB............... 110
PRISON FARM SHORELINE HABITAT, ND........... 1135 NWD............... NWO............... 74
RATHBUN LAKE HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECT, IA 1135 NWD............... NWK............... 858
BENNINGTON LAKE DIVERSION DAM, WA........... 1135 NWD............... NWW............... 338
BLOOMINGTON AREA RESTORATION, LONG BRANCH 1135 NWD............... NWK............... 25
LAKE, MO.
BLUE VALLEY WETLANDS, JACKSON CO., MO....... 1135 NWD............... NWK............... 19
FERN RIDGE LAKE MARSH RESTORATION, OR....... 1135 NWD............... NWP............... 30
GREEN RIVER DAM, OUTLET WORKS MODIFICATIONS, 1135 LRD............... LRL............... 200
KY.
LOWER COLUMBIA SLOUGH, OR................... 1135 NWD............... NWP............... 1,605
STEEP BANK CREEK, FELSENTAL NWR, AR......... 1135 MVD............... MVK............... 59
WALLA WALLA RIVER SECTION 1135, OR.......... 1135 NWD............... NWW............... 824
ACADEMY CREEK, HALL CNTY.................... 1135 SAD............... SAS............... 275
AGUA FRIA RIVER RIPARIAN RESTORATION........ 1135 SPD............... SPL............... 96
AMITE RIVER DIVERSION SPOIL BANK GAPPING, 1135 MVD............... MVN............... 125
LIVINGSTON PH, LA.
AQUATIC HABITAT RESTORATION @ PUBLO OF SANTA 1135 SPD............... SPA............... 335
ANA, NM.
ARK. RVR ENV REST, LK DARDANELLE, 1135 SWD............... SWL............... 10
RUSSELLVILLE & FT. SMITH, AR.
ARKANSAS RIVER, GARDEN CITY, KS............. 1135 SWD............... SWT............... 145
ASHLEY CREEK ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, UT...... 1135 SPD............... SPK............... 259
ASSUNPINK CREEK, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION.. 1135 NAD............... NAP............... 2,976
AUGRES RIVER, ARENAC COUNTY, MI............. 1135 LRD............... LRE............... 284
BACK RIVER, CHATHAM COUNTY, GA.............. 1135 SAD............... SAS............... 275
BATTLE ISLAND, WI........................... 1135 MVD............... MVP............... 530
BATTLE ISLAND, WI........................... 1135 MVD............... MVP............... 50
BAYOU MACON, E&W CARROLL & FRANKLIN 1135 MVD............... MVK............... 2,647
PARISHES, LA.
BAYOU MACON, LAKE VILLAGE, AR............... 1135 MVD............... MVK............... 600
BELHAVEN HARBOR ENVIRON, NC................. 1135 SAD............... SAW............... 170
BELLEVIEW WETLANDS, CO...................... 1135 NWD............... NWO............... 150
BIG LAKE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OK.......... 1135 SWD............... SWT............... 408
BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, CLARKSDALE, MS......... 1135 MVD............... MVK............... 168
BLOOMINGTON AREA RESTORATION, LONG BRANCH 1135 NWD............... NWK............... 150
LAKE, MO.
BLUE VALLEY WETLANDS, JACKSON CO., MO....... 1135 NWD............... NWK............... 941
BRAIDED REACH............................... 1135 NWD............... NWS............... 4,765
BRAIDED REACH............................... 1135 NWD............... NWS............... 256
BROAD MEADOWS MARSH RESTORATION, MA......... 1135 NAD............... NAE............... 1,888
BUFFALO RIVER HABITAT....................... 1135 LRD............... LRB............... .........
BULL CREEK CHANNEL ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA 1135 SPD............... SPL............... 2,090
C-102/103 RESTORATION, DADE COUNTY, FL...... 1135 SAD............... SAJ............... 200
C-7 MIAMI-DADE, FL.......................... 1135 SAD............... SAJ............... 224
C-9, MIAMI-DADE, FL......................... 1135 SAD............... SAJ............... 250
CALOOSAHATCHEE OXBO......................... 1135 SAD............... SAJ............... 330
CANNON BRAKE/LOWER VALLIER, ARK & JEFFERSON 1135 MVD............... MVK............... 1,157
COUNTIES, AR.
CAYUGA LAKE INLET, ITHACA................... 1135 LRD............... LRB............... 200
CDF NO. 3, OREGON, OH....................... 1135 LRD............... LRB............... 100
CITY OF RICHLAND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, WA.. 1135 NWD............... NWW............... 1,327
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH......................... 1135 LRD............... LRB............... 225
CROCKERY CREEK LAMPREY BARRIER, MI.......... 1135 LRD............... LRE............... 100
CUCAMONGA AND DEER CREEK CHANNELS ECOSYSTEM 1135 SPD............... SPL............... 152
RESTORATION, CA.
DADE COUNTY, FL............................. 1135 SAD............... SAJ............... 217
DILLON LAKE, OH., SECTION 1135.............. 1135 LRD............... LRH............... 900
DUCK CREEK, STODDARD COUNTY, MO............. 1135 MVD............... MVM............... 3,243
DUMP LAKE, YAZOO COUNTY, MS................. 1135 MVD............... MVK............... 116
EAGLELAND HABITAT RESTORATION, SAN ANTONIO, 1135 SWD............... SWF............... 328
TX.
EAST HARBOR STATE PARK, WEST HARBOR, OH..... 1135 LRD............... LRB............... 96
ESTRAL BEACH, NEWPORT, MI................... 1135 LRD............... LRE............... 75
FAIRMOUNT DAM, PA........................... 1135 NAD............... NAP............... 1,452
FLINT RIVER AND SWARTZ CREEK, FLINT, MI..... 1135 LRD............... LRE............... 390
FRAZIER/WHITEHORSE OXBOW LAKE WEIR, LA...... 1135 MVD............... MVK............... 1,269
GERRITESEN CREEK, BROOKLYN, NY.............. 1135 NAD............... NAN............... 3,700
GULL POINT, PRESQUE ISLE, ERIE, PA.......... 1135 LRD............... LRB............... .........
HNC MILE 12-31.4 RESTORATION, TERREBONNE 1135 MVD............... MVN............... 2,500
PARISH, LA.
HOOSIC RIVER, TOWN OF ADAMS, MA............. 1135 NAD............... NAN............... 400
HOVEY LAKE WILDLIFE AREA HABITAT 1135 LRD............... LRL............... 480
DEVELOPMENT, IN.
HOYT LAKE--SCAJAQUADA CREEK, BUFFALO, NY.... 1135 LRD............... LRB............... 100
INDIAN RIDGE MARSH, CHICAGO, IL............. 1135 LRD............... LRC............... 1,244
JOE CREEK HABITAT RESTORATION, TULSA, OK.... 1135 SWD............... SWT............... 3,775
JOPPA PRESERVE RESTORATION, TX.............. 1135 SWD............... SWF............... 3,905
KALAMAZOO RIVER, BATTLE CREEK, MI........... 1135 LRD............... LRE............... 409
KAUNAKAKAI STREAM ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, 1135 POD............... POH............... 342
MOLOKAI, HI.
KAWAINUI MARSH ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, 1135 POD............... POH............... 4,034
OAHU, HI.
KEITH LAKE FISH PASS, JEFFERSON COUNTY, TX.. 1135 SWD............... SWG............... 200
KIDS CREEK, TRAVERSE CITY, MI............... 1135 LRD............... LRE............... 50
LAKE CHAMPLAIN SEA LAMPREY BARRIERS......... 1135 NAD............... NAN............... 200
LAKE FAUSSE POINT ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, ST. 1135 MVD............... MVN............... 250
MARY PARISH, LA.
LAKE GEORGE RESTORATION, YAZOO COUNTY, MS... 1135 MVD............... MVK............... 1,160
LAKE JESSUP................................. 1135 SAD............... SAJ............... 2,862
LAKE POYGAN, WI............................. 1135 LRD............... LRE............... 627
LAKE ST. JOSEPH, TENSAS PARISH, LA.......... 1135 MVD............... MVK............... 3,329
LAS CRUCES DAM ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, 1135 SPD............... SPA............... 450
DONA ANA COUNTY, NM.
LEWISVILLE LAKE, FRISCO, TX................. 1135 SWD............... SWF............... 1,430
LONG BRANCH LAKE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION...... 1135 NWD............... NWK............... 174
LONGWOOD COVE WETLANDS, GAINESVILLE, GA..... 1135 SAD............... SAM............... 2,250
LOWER CACHE RIVER, AR., 1135................ 1135 MVD............... MVM............... 750
LOWER DECATUR BEND, NE., IA................. 1135 NWD............... NWO............... 2,392
LOWER DEER CREEK, MS........................ 1135 MVD............... MVK............... 171
LOWER OBION RIVER & VICINITY, DYER COUNTY, 1135 MVD............... MVM............... 2,709
TN.
LOWER ROUGE, ROTUNDA DR. AND I-94, MI....... 1135 LRD............... LRE............... 2,710
MANISTEE RIVER LAMPREY BARRIER, MI.......... 1135 LRD............... LRE............... 100
MAPES CREEK, WA............................. 1135 NWD............... NWS............... 1,961
MARK TWAIN LAKE FISH HABITAT, MO............ 1135 MVD............... MVS............... 150
MILLWOOD, GRASSY LAKE, AR., SECTION 1135.... 1135 SWD............... SWL............... 50
MONROE LAKE, IN, MOIST SOIL UNITS........... 1135 LRD............... LRL............... 100
MORDECAI ISLAND COASTAL WETLANDS, NJ........ 1135 NAD............... NAP............... 750
MORGANZA FOREBAY RESTORATION, POINTE COUPEE 1135 MVD............... MVN............... 225
PH, LA.
MT. ETNA/MT. HOPE WETLANDS, SALAMONIE LAKE, 1135 LRD............... LRL............... 142
IN.
MURPHY SLOUGH, CA........................... 1135 SPD............... SPK............... 291
NB PENTWATER RIVER LAMPREY TRAP, MI......... 1135 LRD............... LRE............... 100
NFTA OUTER HARBOR........................... 1135 LRD............... LRB............... 100
NMLC, BUZZARD BAY, MA....................... 1135 NAD............... NAE............... 430
NORFORK TAILWATER RESTORATION, AR........... 1135 SWD............... SWL............... 50
NORTH NASHUA RIVER, FITCHBURG, MA........... 1135 NAD............... NAE............... 110
NORTHPORT HARBOR, TOWN OF HUNTINGTON, NY.... 1135 NAD............... NAN............... 350
O.C. FISHER LAKE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, TX.. 1135 SWD............... SWF............... 3,791
OLD MAIN STEM TRINITY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, 1135 SWD............... SWF............... 175
DALLAS, TX.
OLD RIVER NORTH, CONCORDIA PARISH, LA....... 1135 MVD............... MVK............... 175
OLD TRINITY RIVER CHANNEL WILDLIFE 1135 SWD............... SWF............... 1,949
RESTORATION, DALLES, TX.
PALM RIVER RESORATION....................... 1135 SAD............... SAJ............... 356
PINE MOUNT CREEK............................ 1135 NAD............... NAP............... 2,900
PONCE DE LEON AIWW.......................... 1135 SAD............... SAJ............... 109
POND CREEK, NJ.............................. 1135 NAD............... NAP............... 750
RAHWAY RIVER, CITY OF RAHWAY, NJ............ 1135 NAD............... NAN............... 300
RATHBUN SHORELINE SITE RESTORATION APPANOOSE 1135 NWD............... NWK............... 412
& MONROE CO., IA.
RESTORATION OF GRASS DALE, DE............... 1135 NAD............... NAP............... 1,012
ROCHESTER HARBOR NAVIGATION CHANNEL, NY..... 1135 LRD............... LRB............... .........
ROCK CREEK @ BOYLE PARK, LITTLE ROCK, AR.... 1135 SWD............... SWL............... 660
ROCK CREEK @ BOYLE PARK, LITTLE ROCK, AR.... 1135 SWD............... SWL............... 150
ROUGE RIVER OXBOW, WAYNE CO., MI............ 1135 LRD............... LRE............... 415
RUFFY BROOK AND CLEARWATER RIVER............ 1135 MVD............... MVP............... 1,054
SALT CEDAR INVASIVE SPECIES ERADICATION/ 1135 NWD............... NWK............... 125
RESTORATION, NE.
SAND HILL RIVER............................. 1135 MVD............... MVP............... 818
SARASOTA BAY RESTORATION, FL................ 1135 SAD............... SAJ............... 400
SCHMIDT CREEK, PRESQUE ISLE COUNTY, MI...... 1135 LRD............... LRE............... 50
SEA LAMPREY BARRIER, MANISTIQUE, MI......... 1135 LRD............... LRE............... 349
SEA LAMPREY BARRIER, PAW PAW, MI............ 1135 LRD............... LRE............... 725
SHELBYVILLE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA 1135 MVD............... MVS............... 3,530
RESTORATION, IL.
SHELDON'S MARSH, HURON/SANDUSKY, OH......... 1135 LRD............... LRB............... 151
SHORTY'S ISLAND............................. 1135 NWD............... NWS............... 4,365
SHORTY'S ISLAND............................. 1135 NWD............... NWS............... 679
SMITHVILLE ACQUATIC PLANTINGS............... 1135 NWD............... NWK............... 520
SMOKES CREEK, ERIE COUNTY, NY............... 1135 LRD............... LRB............... 499
SPUNKY BOTTOMS ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, IL.... 1135 MVD............... MVS............... 97
STEAMBOAT CREEK, WASHOE COUNTY, NV.......... 1135 SPD............... SPK............... 120
STEAMBOAT CREEK, WASHOE COUNTY, NV.......... 1135 SPD............... SPK............... 129
STEEP BANK CREEK, FELSENTAL NWR, AR......... 1135 MVD............... MVK............... 739
SUCKER RIVER, ALGER COUNTY, MI.............. 1135 LRD............... LRE............... 87
TAPPAN LAKE, OH., SEC. 1135................. 1135 LRD............... LRH............... 826
TAYLOR BAY, WOODRUFF COUNTY, AR............. 1135 SWD............... SWL............... 124
TAYLORS BAYOU, PORT ARTHUR, TX.............. 1135 SWD............... SWG............... 370
TIMES BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT, 1135 LRD............... LRB............... .........
BUFFALO, NY.
TRAIL CREEK, LAPORTE COUNTY, IN............. 1135 LRD............... LRE............... 50
TUJUNGA WASH ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, CA.. 1135 SPD............... SPL............... 500
UMBRELLA CREEK, CAMDEN CNTY................. 1135 SAD............... SAS............... 200
UPPER DEER CREEK, MS. DELTA, MS............. 1135 MVD............... MVK............... 161
UPPER ROUGE, MICHIGAN AVE. TO ROTUNDA DR., 1135 LRD............... LRE............... 2,710
MI.
VIRGINIA BEACH KEY, FL (SEC. 1135).......... 1135 SAD............... SAJ............... 300
WELLS LOCK AND DAM, ELIZABETH, WV........... 1135 LRD............... LRH............... 250
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY...................... 1135 NAD............... NAB............... 4,300
WHITTIER NARROWS NATURE CENTER & WILDLIFE 1135 SPD............... SPL............... 1,559
REFUGE RESTORATION.
WHITTIER NARROWS NATURE CENTER & WILDLIFE 1135 SPD............... SPL............... 270
REFUGE RESTORATION.
WILLS CREEK, MASON MINE 280, OH............. 1135 LRD............... LRH............... 1,150
WILLS CREEK, MASON MINE 280, OH............. 1135 LRD............... LRH............... 50
WOOD DUCK MARSH, IA......................... 1135 NWD............... NWK............... 100
WOODSON BRIDGE, CA (SEC. 1135).............. 1135 SPD............... SPK............... 300
WOODSON BRIDGE, CA (SEC. 1135).............. 1135 SPD............... SPK............... 150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional information in the form of Budget Justification Sheets
is posted at: http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwb/just_states/
just_states.html
The CAP projects approved for fiscal year 2008 budgeting are listed
under the FDR, NAV, and ENV business line sections in the
justifications.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
REBUILDING THE GULF COAST
Question. General Strock, can you please provide an update on the
progress the Corps making with regard to levee improvements, canal
upgrades and increased pumping capacity in New Orleans?
Answer. Sir, we are making steady progress on the environmental
assessments, designs and initiation of levees and floodwall
improvements throughout the Greater New Orleans area. For the hurricane
protection system we have awarded 34 construction contracts to date for
levees and floodwalls, and pump station repairs. We are prepared to
award 30 more contracts within the next 60 days subject to favorable
bids and availability of funds.
We have completed construction of temporary gates on the outfall
canals at Lake Pontchartrain which provide protection from hurricane
surge. These temporary gates provide protection to the canals beginning
this hurricane season.
The previously installed pumps at the three outfall canals are
being modified to achieve their full design capacity. All pumps will be
modified, reinstalled and tested by June 1. By 1 June with the addition
of portable pumps at 17th Street Canal, we will achieve a capacity of
5,200 cubic feet per second at 17th Street Canal, 2,200 cubic feet per
second at Orleans Canal, and 2,800 cubic feet per second at London
Avenue Canal.
Work is underway to install additional pumps at 17th Street Canal
and London Avenue Canal. By mid-August we will achieve pumping capacity
of 7,600 cubic feet per second at 17th Street Canal and 5,000 cubic
feet per second at London Avenue canal.
Question. Can you also address the issue of poor quality control by
contractors supporting the rebuilding effort?
Answer. Sir, any allegation of poor quality control is taken very
seriously and immediately addressed by the Corps. For the rebuilding
effort we have a comprehensive quality management plan for all phases
of the ongoing work. This is the basis for assuring that we deliver the
hurricane protection system to meet all safety, regulatory,
environmental and legal requirements. We implemented quality control
and quality assurance procedures from the outset. These procedures were
thoroughly reviewed by representatives of the Army Audit Agency
embedded with Task Force Guardian. Army Audit Agency auditors reported
very favorably on those procedures, which continue today and will
continue through completion of hurricane protection system.
Question. Are you confident the Corps is doing its best to control
costs on this massive project?
Answer. Sir, we are aware of increases in construction costs in the
Greater New Orleans area in the post-Katrina environment. The Corps is
aggressively seeking ways to manage construction costs by using
innovative acquisition strategies including ``Design-Build'' and ``Best
Value'' approaches to encourage innovation. We are implementing value
engineering and earned-value management, and are seeking external
reviews by industry experts and academia to ensure we do all we can to
deliver this system in a cost efficient manner.
ALBUQUERQUE LEVEES
Question. General. Strock, the Corps of Engineers abruptly
announced 122 levees of concern in a press event last month. This
public event highlighted the national concern about the adequacy of
flood control, changes in levee design requirements, and the efficacy
of the Corps inspection of completed works program.
For 3 years, I have supported evaluation of levees in New Mexico
with focus on the Albuquerque system and I am anticipating completion
of a project report outlining rehabilitation needs this summer.
However, the lack of coordination of the Corps national
communication approach and the New Mexico specific activities was
disconnected and has created a great deal of local confusion.
Please explain how the Corps proposes to approach the need for
rehabilitation of flood control in New Mexico and the Nation as a whole
that was highlighted by the recent levee restoration program
announcements?
Answer. Sir, there has been a recent surge of concern regarding the
condition of levees throughout the Nation as a result of Hurricane
Katrina. Following release of the listing of national levees of
concern, the Corps has notified levee project owners/sponsors and the
appropriate local, State, and Federal agencies of projects with
unacceptable inspection ratings. The Corps is currently working to
ensure maintenance requirements are being met and will permit sponsors
to have a one-year maintenance deficiency grace period to make repairs
and corrections before a levee is removed from the Rehabilitation and
Inspection Program under Public Law 84-99.
On a national and regional level, the Corps is coordinating its
levee inventory information with the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) for its use in making decisions in the National Flood
Insurance Program. Although these are separate programs, data from the
levee inventory will be available to support levee certification as
part of FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program.
In 2005, Congress provided the Corps of Engineers with
authorization and funding to evaluate the condition of the Albuquerque
Levees. This evaluation, scheduled for completion in May 2007, will
describe the existing condition of the levee system and determine the
extent and costs of rehabilitation needed. Additional authorization and
funding would be required to proceed with levee rehabilitation.
Question. Please explain how the Corps will balance competing
Federal requirements for endangered species issues and habitat
protection and flood control along the Middle Rio Grande?
Answer. Sir, the Corps will coordinate with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), the State of New Mexico and our numerous
stakeholders regarding threatened and endangered species within any
project location in relation to the Albuquerque Levees. Species
potentially occurring within proposed project areas include the
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Rio Grande silvery minnow Critical
Habitat, and the Bald Eagle.
Based on this coordination, a formal consultation with the USFWS
and a Biological Assessment regarding these species may be required.
Additional coordination with the USFWS for preparation of a Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act Report would also be required.
The Corps would work closely with USFWS as well as other
stakeholder agencies such as the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
District, City of Albuquerque, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish,
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Environmental Protection Agency and local
villages and pueblos as well as interested parties such as Tree New
Mexico, Hawks Aloft, and others to coordinate issues and comments in
order to protect species and their habitat while implementing proposed
construction.
Most of the potential construction areas would be located within
and adjacent to the existing levee alignment. Much of the vegetation in
these areas consists of native cottonwood, Gooding's willow and non-
native vegetation such as salt cedar, Russian olive, Siberian elm and
Tree of Heaven. Currently, these species are not being removed while
the levee integrity is being evaluated. If the proposed action were to
remove trees within a certain distance of the levee, many of them would
be non-native species but some would be the native species listed
above. These native species, and future woody species that would have
occupied this space, would potentially need to be mitigated for in some
way.
CENTRAL NM ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM (SEC. 593) AND NEW
MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM
Question. In what way will the Corps accelerate the resolution of
these administrative issues so that the section 593 and 595 programs
can proceed and be effective?
Answer. Sir, we have recently resolved the administrative issues
regarding the use of State grant funds for section 593 and 595 projects
that have executed Project Cooperation Agreements (PCAs). Subject to
the availability of funds and consistent with administration policy, a
three party Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) can be executed for each such
project to permit use of the State of New Mexico funding. For future
projects, we are negotiating with the State on the use of a modified
section 593/595 PCA format that will include the State as a limited
participant, for purposes of reviewing and commenting on documents, and
providing and receiving funds. This should meet the needs of both the
State and the Government.
R&D
Question. Can you please provide my office a briefing on the
results of these multiple demonstration programs, plans for continued
development and propagation of these advanced decision approaches, and
an assessment of whether additional authorities are needed to fully
implement the program in IWR and the R&D programs?
Answer. Yes Senator, we can arrange a briefing for you. A
representative from my staff will contact your office in the near
future.
Question. Flooding, levee management, supplying water resources,
maintaining irrigation works, reducing storage loss in reservoirs, and
ecological restoration are all dependent on sound understanding of
sediment movement. The Corps has an advanced program for research for
eastern river systems. It is time to expand this program dramatically
for rivers in the arid southwest.
Can you please provide my office a briefing on the status of the
Southwest Flood Damage Development and Demonstration Program, an
overall program plan for continued research and expansion of the
program as well as an assessment of any authorities needed to continue
this critical work?
Answer. Yes Senator, we can arrange a briefing for you. A
representative from my staff will contact you office in the near
future.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
Question. Although the committee has provided specific funding to
the Rural Utah 595 account, the Army Corps has on two separate
occasions reprogrammed nearly $1.5 million dollars to spend on projects
in other States. These missing funds could complete several
infrastructure projects in Utah that are now on hold because of lack of
funding for this program. The Army Corps has assured me that these
``borrowed'' funds will be replaced, but has not given a timeline. Will
you please provide your timeline for replacing these funds?
Answer. Sir, due to restricted funding levels and the Army Corps'
limited ability to reprogram funds, there is no existing timeline to
reprogram funds to the Rural Utah & 595 account to replace funds that
were reprogrammed out of the program in prior years. However, we are
committed to reviewing funding opportunities in future years to
identify possible methods for reprogramming funds back into the Rural
Utah program. For the current fiscal year (2007), we believe that there
are sufficient unobligated funds available within the Rural Utah
program to support any funding needs that may arise.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Larry Craig
SNAKE RIVER PROGRAMMATIC SEDIMENT
Question. Does the fiscal year 2008 budget request provide
sufficient funding to complete the Snake River Programmatic Sediment
Management Plan by its 2009 due date? If not: How does the Corps intend
to provide potential navigation maintenance if it is needed prior to
completion of the plan?
Answer. The fiscal year 2008 budget does not provide sufficient
funding to complete the plan by the date identified in the settlement
agreement, which was December 2009. There was no funding budgeted for
fiscal year 2006 and the entire fiscal year 2007 was spent in a CRA.
Walla Walla District was only able to fund some scoping activities and
minor base-line condition evaluations during this period. However, the
bulk of the cost and schedule for the development of the management
plan is associated with base-line conditions data collection in the
areas of sediment transport and deposition, aquatic habitat, and water
quality. To date, we have not been able to initiate any of this data
collection. It has been determined that 3-years worth of data is
required to obtain valid information in these areas. This information
is critical to ensure that the results of the plan are credible and
defensible. As a result of funding limitations the past 2 years, the
schedule for this plan has slipped 2 years. The current schedule for
the completion of this plan is now December 2011, subject to the
availability of funding.
The Corps typically dredges within the Snake River navigation
channel every 3 to 5 years, the last time was in 2006. We are aware of
two areas in the Snake River navigation channel that are already
experiencing some sediment deposition. As a result, we fully recognize
that some dredging of the navigation channel may be required to
maintain adequate navigation prior to completing the management plan in
2011. Therefore, we are closely monitoring the areas currently
experiencing problems, and are developing contingency plans in case
interim dredging is necessary.
Question. I'm curious about the Corps' position on whether or not
intrastate waters are jurisdictional under 404?
Answer. Some intrastate waters may be found jurisdictional under
the Clean Water Act (CWA) where they are in accordance with the Rapanos
decision (2006). For example, lakes that are determined to waters of
the State (i.e., the Great Salt Lake) are jurisdictional under the CWA.
Waters that are determined to navigable waters will also be
jurisdictional. Where the water body (i.e., lake) flows into a
tributary system that flows into traditional navigable water are also
likely to be jurisdictional. Truly isolated waters, including wetlands
that are non-navigable, intrastate and lack a link to interstate or
foreign commerce are not jurisdictional under the CWA, as per the
SWANCC decision (2001).
Question. When can we expect new ``Waters of the U.S.'' guidance in
relation to the Rapanos decision?
Answer. The Corps and EPA have signed an implementation memo
explaining the Rapanos decision and the new program requirements. This
document and other supporting documents can be found at: http://
www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/cwa_guide/cwa_guide.htm. We are
inviting public comments on case studies and experiences applying the
guidance during the first 6 months of implementation. Furthermore, we,
within 9 months from the date of issuance, will reissue, revise, or
suspend the guidance after carefully considering the public comments
received and field experiences with implementing the guidance. We will
determine our course of action following a review of the comments.
ENERGY AND WATER QUESTIONS
Question. During the hearing were raised to suggest that upstream
lake levels are low. Is it not true that there currently is an historic
drought in the basin and can you describe the extent of the drought?
Answer. The Missouri River Basin is currently experiencing its 8th
consecutive year of drought. Total System Storage is currently 37.3
million acre-feet (MAF). Since operation of the System began in 1967,
the Basin has experienced two extended drought periods; the drought
which extended from 1989-1993 and the current drought. Total System
Storage reached a record low of 33.9 MAF on February 8, 2007. The three
upper Mainstem reservoirs, Fort Peck, Garrison, and Oahe experienced
record low pools levels of 2,196.2 mean sea level (msl) 1,805.8 msl,
and 1,570.2 msl respectively.
Question. The Corps undertook a decade-plus long process to revise
the Master Manual. Did the Corps not modify the manual to provide
additional water for lake storage at the expense of traditional
downstream needs deemed priorities by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeal
in the case of Operation of the Missouri River System Litigation (421
F. 3d 618) decided on August 6, 2005, which the Supreme Court refused
to consider on appeal and issued that decision on April 24, 2006?
Answer. Following the 14-year Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir
System Master Water Control Manual Review and Update Study, in March of
2004 the Corps of Engineers modified the Master Water Control Manual
(Master Manual) to include more stringent drought conservation
measures. Since 2004 these measures have resulted in shorter navigation
seasons and lower releases to support navigation as compared to what
would have occurred under the provisions of the previous Master Manual.
The shorter navigation seasons and lower releases have retained more
water in the System since 2004 than would have been the case under the
previous Master Manual.
The navigation preclude level in the previous Master Manual was set
at 21 MAF. The 2004 Master Manual revision increased that level to 31
MAF. The water stored in the System has not fallen below the 31 MAF
navigation precludes since the revision in 2004. Therefore that change
to the previous Master Manual has had no effect during the current
drought.
The Master Manual was again revised in 2006 to include provisions
for a ``spring pulse,'' as required by the 2003 Amended Biological
Opinion for the Missouri River Mainstem System.
On June 21, 2004, the United States District Court for the District
of Minnesota issued a decision in a series of consolidated cases by
Basin States, tribes and stakeholders challenging the 2004 Revised
Master Manual and the 2003 Amended Biological Opinion for the Missouri
River Mainstem System. The District Court's decision by Judge Paul A.
Magnuson upheld both the revised Master Manual and 2003 Amended
Biological Opinion. On August 6, 2005 the United States Court of
Appeals in a consolidated opinion affirmed Judge Magnuson's decision.
Subsequent petitions for certiorari were denied by the United States
Supreme Court.
Question. It was suggested that water releases exist to provide
Missouri River navigation. While that is also true, can you please
describe how releases are also provided to support endangered species
protection, drinking water supply, hydro energy production, downstream
energy production cooling capacity, and Mississippi River navigation .
. . not only Missouri River navigation as suggested?
Answer. Releases are made from the System to support numerous
downstream economic uses and protect environmental resources. Along
with navigation, these economic uses include river recreation,
municipal and industrial water supply (including cooling water for
thermal power plants); and irrigation. Access to water has been a
challenge during the current drought due to low river levels. These low
river levels have also raised concerns related to the ability of
thermal power plants to meet water quality standards for cooling water
discharges to the river. Considerable investments have been made by
several entities to modify their intake structures to deal with these
low water conditions. Releases are also managed to protect threatened
and endangered bird species that nest below the System during the
summer months. And the spring pulse is designed to benefit the
endangered pallid sturgeon.
Question. Are these multiple uses a reality that the Assistant
Secretary may consider mentioning when discussing the suggestion that
lake levels should be maximized?
Answer. Yes, the multiple uses are a reality that the Assistant
Secretary mentions in discussions regarding reservoir levels. The
Assistant Secretary has not proposed that the System be operated to
maximize reservoir levels. Rather, the System is managed to serve the
multiple project purposes authorized by Congress.
Question. During this drought, is it true that very significant
reductions have imposed upon navigation, and that pain is not limited
to recreational fishing?
Answer. The extended drought has negatively impacted all project
purposes throughout the Basin, with the exception of flood control, and
many of the people that live and work in the Basin. This includes
impacts to navigation, water supply from both the river reaches and the
reservoirs (including irrigation), hydropower, upstream fisheries and
recreation along the river reaches and the reservoirs.
Question. During this drought, is it true that reductions have
placed burdens on large urban downstream water supply and all other
downstream needs?
Answer. Considerable investments have been made by water supply
entities in the lower river to modify their intake structures to deal
with the low water conditions during drought. Water supply entities in
St. Joseph, Missouri and in both Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City,
Kansas have modified their intakes to ensure operation at lower river
levels.
The thermal power, municipal and industrial water intake owners
downstream of Gavins Point Dam identified expenditures of $18.77
million from 2000 to 2004 to access the river at the lower drought
operations. They estimated that by 2010 they will have invested $286.1
million in new structures, enhancements or other measures to access
water during critical low water conditions especially during the non
navigation periods and also during ice periods.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
Question. I appreciate that the Albuquerque District office has
been working closely with the two communities--Grenada and Creede--who
are likely to be facing compliance letters related to some maintenance
issues with their levees. I would just like to request a commitment
from you that the Corps will continue to work with those communities
and will keep my office fully informed as this process continues to
move along.
I understand that the Corps' tamarisk removal project in Colorado
has been very successful and is nearing completion. Could you please
give me an update on that project?
Because this project has been so successful and because tamarisk
poses such a problem in Colorado, does the Corps have any plans to
conduct additional removal projects in the State?
Answer. Our section 206 Tamarisk Eradication project is in
Feasibility phase. We anticipate completing the Detailed Project Report
(including the Environmental Assessment, Engineering Report, and Real
Estate Report) in December 2008. If the moratorium on new CAP phases is
lifted by that time, SPD would then request funding to go to 100
percent plans and specs. The PCA would also be prepared and ready for
signatures at that time.
______
Question Submitted to Mark Limbaugh
Question Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
RURAL WATER
Question. Secretary Limbaugh, Your budget proposes $55 million for
rural water projects. This amount seems to go down annually. How are we
ever going to finish any of these projects with such meager funding?
Answer. Reclamation is making significant progress in funding rural
water projects throughout North and South Dakota and Montana. The Mid-
Dakota rural water project was completed in fiscal year 2006. Also,
numerous rural water projects serving nearly 150,000 people in North
Dakota have been completed as part of the Garrison Diversion Unit.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
Question. Secretary Limbaugh, can you explain why drought
assistance was given so little funding in your budget?
Answer. Reclamation prepares its budgets 2 years in advance.
Consequently, we are unable to forecast this kind of emergency.
However, we make every effort to address the greatest need with the
funds available and to put our efforts into funding on-the-ground
activities.
Question. What drought assistance can you offer?
Answer. The Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991
(Public Law 102-250) as amended, authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation
to undertake drought relief measures through emergency assistance
(Title I) and planning activities (Title II). Title I provides for
construction, management and conservation measures to alleviate the
adverse impacts of drought, including the mitigation of fish and
wildlife impacts. Title I also authorizes temporary contracts to make
available project and nonproject water and to allow for the use of
Reclamation facilities for the storage and conveyance of water.
Under Title I authority, Reclamation has constructed many wells for
drinking water for smaller financially-strapped entities (towns,
counties, tribes) that do not have the financial capability to deal
with the impacts of drought. In many cases, Reclamation is the ``last
resort'' for these communities.
Question. Are the communities suffering from drought aware of the
assistance that you can offer?
Answer. Each of Reclamation's regional offices and many of the area
offices have collateral duty personnel involved with the Drought
Program. Additionally, regional directors and area managers are in
communication with their stakeholders to remain current on the emerging
needs of their areas. Information about the various programs
Reclamation has is made available for consideration.
______
Questions Submitted to Robert W. Johnson
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
MINNOW SANCTUARY
Question. The Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives specified in the
2003 Fish and Wild life Service's Biological Opinion on the Rio Grande
Silvery Minnow required the construction of two minnow refugia. In
order to comply with this mandate, I have secured funding for the
construction of a minnow sanctuary.
What is the status of the sanctuary's construction and when will it
be completed?
Answer. Reclamation awarded a contract for the third, and final,
phase of construction in 2007, and expects to complete construction by
the summer of 2008.
Question. Does the USBR have sufficient funding in fiscal year 2007
to complete construction of the Minnow Sanctuary or will additional
fiscal year 2008 funds be required?
Answer. Sufficient funds have been appropriated in fiscal year 2008
to complete construction of the minnow sanctuary. A contract for the
final phase of construction was awarded on December 6, 2007, and
construction is expected to be completed by October 2008.
Question. Will you please provide my office with a long-term
operations plan for the Sanctuary?
Answer. Yes, Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service are
developing an operations plan and will provide it to your office once
finalized.
Question. Can the BOR commit to provide my office monthly reports
on the progress of the Sanctuary construction similar to those provided
for the Tularosa Basin Desalination Facility?
Answer. Yes, Reclamation will provide these reports to your office.
CARLSBAD IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Question. The Carlsbad Irrigation District faces significant
rehabilitation needs on Brantley, Avalon and Sumner Dams along the
Pecos River. The President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2008 is
only $2,891,000, a decrease of over $700,000 from the current year
representing a decrease of 50 percent in the operations and
rehabilitation component of the budget.
How can these rehabilitation activities progress with decreasing
operations and maintenance budgets?
Answer. Rehabilitation planning and implementation on the Carlsbad
Project is the responsibility of the Carlsbad Irrigation District with
Reclamation as a cost-share partner. Sufficient appropriated funds have
been requested by Reclamation for its estimated cost-share amount for
the rehabilitation.
Question. Can the BOR commit to transfer the funding for the Pecos
River Basin Water Salvage program to the Carlsbad Irrigation District
for implementation of the invasive species control activities?
Answer. Yes, BOR transfers both Federal and State funds based on
monthly costs submitted by the Carlsbad Irrigation District.
EXCESS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY ISSUES
Question. Historically the Bureau of Reclamation allowed irrigation
districts to access excess Government equipment to implement
maintenance on federally managed facilities. Two years ago this policy
was abruptly reversed. Equipment acquired this way avoids waste and
abuse of Government resources and has been instrumental in dealing with
southern New Mexico flooding this last summer.
Will the BOR rectify this situation by restoring the ability of the
irrigation districts to access the Excess Government Equipment list?
Answer. Public Law 89-48, June 14, 1965, states in part ``. . . In
order to encourage the assumption of irrigation districts . . . of the
operation and maintenance or works constructed to furnish or distribute
a water supply, the Secretary is authorized to use appropriated funds
available for the project involved to acquire movable property for
transfer under the terms and conditions hereinbefore provided, at the
time operation and maintenance (O&M) is assumed.''
The Reclamation Supplement to Federal Property Management
Regulations further provides direction if additional equipment is
required at the time of transfer, by allowing it to be obtained in the
same manner and from the same sources as prescribed for the initial O&M
requirement but with a 1-year time frame. Thus Reclamation allows the
water user organizations to still acquire needed excess property for 1
year after the O&M transfer to them. The provisions of this authority
does not include the replacement or upgrade of equipment previously
transferred to a water users' organization. The irrigation districts
will continue to have access to the Excess Government Equipment list
with a 1-year time frame provision, which will require irrigation
districts to compete with other entities for acquisition of Excess
Government Equipment.
CHIMAYO AND ESPANOLA WATER SYSTEMS
Question. The two rural northern New Mexico communities of Chimayo
and Espanola are currently developing and rehabilitating their water
systems. Under Public Law 108-354 both communities may receive support
from the BOR to complete their water systems. The President's fiscal
year 2008 budget does not include funds to support these two rural
programs.
Can the BOR explain their approach to support this type of rural
community and the specific decision to not provide funding in fiscal
year 2008?
Answer. Public Law 108-354 requires that a feasibility study be
completed within 3 years of the legislation. Work has only just begun
on the plan. Until the entities can provide a comprehensive plan for
the projects including cost sharing it is felt that a request for
Federal dollars can be delayed. The $1,000,000 already obligated to the
City of Espanola under this authority remains unexpended.
ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT
Question. Despite past claims of mismanagement and poor planning
and oversight, the A-LP project is now proceeding at an acceptable
rate. The President's budget calls for $58 million for the project in
fiscal year 2008. However, some of the project beneficiaries claim that
the project requires $75 million in fiscal year 2008 to keep it on
schedule and to keep total project costs to a minimum.
Do you believe that the $58 million requested is adequate to keep
the project on schedule?
Answer. Yes, the amount requested is adequate to maintain the
current schedule. This schedule reflects a ``projected'' delay to the
overall project completion of approximately 1 to 1\1/2\ years as
compared to earlier project schedules. The most significant impact to a
single feature is a delay of 1\3/4\ years in delivering water to The
Navajo Nation at Shiprock, New Mexico.
Question. What precautions are being taken to ensure that there are
not further cost overruns with the project?
Answer. We have refined and streamlined reporting within
Reclamation for the A-LP. The Four Corners Construction Office is
responsible for all matters pertaining to the construction of the
project. This office is managed by a Project Construction Engineer who
reports directly to the Regional Director of the Upper Colorado Region
in Salt Lake City, Utah. The construction office continually evaluates
ways to save costs and still maintain the project features. Cost
tracking procedures implemented in 2004 now relate all project costs to
the cost estimate (indexed for inflation) for early detection of
problems. This cost information is shared with the Project Sponsors on
a bi-monthly basis.
Question. Will providing greater appropriations in the near-term
keep down the total cost of the project?
Answer. Yes. The project schedule is driven by available funds. The
more funds that are available, the sooner the project can be completed.
Future costs driven by inflation will be kept in check.
LOAN GUARANTEE
Question. What progress have you made with respect to the Aamodt,
Abeyta, and Navajo settlements?
Answer. The Aamodt and Abeyta settlements both seek Federal
contributions of water or funding to acquire water. The Bureau of
Reclamation has completed a study of evaporation surplus at Cochiti
reservoir to determine if additional water from that source would be
available to supplement un-contracted San Juan Chama supplies, and we
have met with the parties and provided draft copies of the study to
them and asked for comments. The study showed that some surplus is
available. At the direction of the Secretary, Counselor Bogert has met
with the parties to both settlements in New Mexico several times since
this spring, most recently in October 2007, to discuss water supply
issues. The United States has presented the parties with a proposed
level of Federal contribution in Aamod and Abeyta. In the meantime,
consultations with the President's Office of Management and Budget and
Department of Justice are on-going.
With respect to the Navajo settlement, the Department has been
working to develop information to assist in developing a possible
solution, including a draft environmental impact statement on the
proposed pipeline and the hydrologic determination on water
availability in New Mexico. The Department will have an updated
appraisal-level estimate of the costs of constructing the pipeline
completed this year.
Question. When do you anticipate you will complete your study to
determine if there is additional water available from the San Juan-
Chama Project as a result of an over-estimation of evaporative loss
from Cochiti Reservoir?
Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation has completed a study of
evaporation surplus at Cochiti reservoir to determine if additional
water from that source would be available to supplement un-contracted
San Juan Chama supplies. The Department provided copies of the study to
the parties and asked for their comments. The study showed that some
surplus is available.
Question. When will you provide the parties to the Abeyta
settlement an official administration position on their proposed
settlement?
Answer. The administration provided the position on this settlement
at the beginning of September 2007.
Question. Please explain why the San Joaquin Settlement and the
Arizona Water Settlement received favorable treatment from OMB while
the New Mexico Indian water rights settlements have not.
Answer. OMB's analysis of Indian water rights settlements is
predicated upon the ``Criteria and Procedures for the Participation of
the Federal Government in Negotiations for the Settlement of Indian
Water Rights Claims'' (55 FR 9223). With respect to Federal
contributions, the Criteria and Procedures provide that Federal
contributions to a settlement should not exceed the sum of the
calculable legal exposure and additional costs related to Federal trust
or programmatic responsibilities. Of particular interest to the
administration in determining calculable legal exposure is the
liability facing the United States if no legislative settlement is
reached. In the case of the Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act, the
settlement concluded a lawsuit over the financial repayment obligation
of Arizona water users for the Central Arizona Project (CAP), with
significant amounts of money at stake. The San Joaquin Settlement
referred to in this question was not an Indian water rights settlement,
but the calculable legal exposure was part of the analysis. The San
Joaquin settlement would bring to an end a multiyear lawsuit, and
continued litigation would expose the parties to the risk of
significant costs. In situations where the proposed Federal
contribution outweighs the litigation exposure, administration support
for a settlement requires that the additional contribution be closely
related to programmatic responsibilities.
Question. Do you believe that your proposed budget of $34 million
for the Indian Land and Water Claims Settlement Fund is adequate to
settle unresolved Indian land and water claims in fiscal year 2008?
Answer. The Indian Land and Water Claims Settlement Fund line item
in the budget is adequate for its intended purpose of fulfilling BIA's
commitment under enacted Indian land and water settlements. Funding for
ongoing negotiations to settle unresolved Indian land and water claims
is provided under several other items in the DOI budget, including
Water Resources Management in BIA's budget.
Question. How do you plan to secure a commitment from OMB that a
reasonable Federal contribution will be made available for the New
Mexico Indian water rights settlements?
Answer. We will continue to meet within the Office of Management
and Budget and the Department of Justice to keep them informed of
developments in the New Mexico settlements and identify approaches to
these settlements that are fair to taxpayers as well as the settling
parties.
RURAL WATER
Question. Fifty years after Garrison Dam was constructed and Lake
Sakakawea was impounded, many of my constituents are still without a
good source of drinking water. I am not talking about people far
removed from the project; I am talking about people whose homes are
within sight of Lake Sakakawea. These people do not have good water
when there is a lake right in front of them that could provide for
their needs. That was part of the bargain that we thought we made. We
gave up land in return for water when and where we need it. We gave up
the land, but you still haven't come through with the water.
Costs continue to escalate on these projects. Benefits to the
public are deferred. What do you recommend to make these projects more
of a budget priority for Reclamation?
Answer. Reclamation balances many priorities including funding
ongoing construction projects such as rural water, while maintaining
existing infrastructure and other ongoing priorities, all within the
budget targets that have been established.
Question. As you recall, The Fort Yates intake was silted over in
2003 and left the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe with no water source.
Thanks to considerable efforts of the tribe and your personnel, a
temporary water intake was installed. It is still in use today?
Are there plans for a permanent fix?
Answer. The Tribe's engineering firm has studied several alternate
plans for intakes that serve Fort Yates as well as the future needs of
the entire Reservation.
Question. What are they?
Answer. As a result of the fiscal year 2008 appropriations, the
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe water treatment plant near Wakpala, South
Dakota will have the capacity to serve the entire reservation.
Reclamation concurs with this decision as it provides for the intake
location that should remain viable under nearly any lake condition and
will also minimize operation and maintenance costs.
Because it is estimated to take 3 years to allow enough funding and
time to construct the new Wakpala intake, water treatment plant and
connecting pipeline to the Fort Yates system, the existing water
treatment plant and temporary intake that serves Fort Yates will need
to remain in service for the same time period. Reclamation is working
with the tribe to take some precautionary measures to ensure these
current features at Fort Yates remain operational until such time as
the new source of water from Wakpaka is made available.
Question. Is there a schedule for this work?
Answer. As a result of the fiscal year 2008 appropriations, the
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe water treatment plant near Wakpaka, South
Dakota will have the capacity to serve the entire reservation.
Reclamation concurs with this decision as it provides for an intake
location that should remain viable under nearly any lake condition and
will also minimize operations and maintenance costs.
Because it is estimated to take 3 years to allow enough funding and
time to construct the new Wakpala intake, water treatment plant and
connecting pipeline to the Fort Yates system, the existing water
treatment plant and temporary intake that serves Fort Yates will need
to remain in service for the same time period. Reclamation is working
with the Tribe to take some precautionary measures to ensure these
current features at Fort Yates remain operational until such time as
the new source of water from Wakpaka is made available.
Question. Lake Oahe has essentially retreated out of North Dakota,
thanks to the mismanagement of the river by the Corps of Engineers, so
that this intake is now a river intake, instead of the lake intake they
had. Unfortunately, there appears to be a migrating sandbar that could
cut-off the tribe's intake from the river.
What measures is Reclamation prepared to take to ensure that this
intake does not get cut-off from the river?
Answer. Reclamation has developed and exercised contingency plans
with the tribe in the event the existing river intake stops
functioning. These plans include connecting portable pumps to the
intake. Further measures include excavation and/or dredging the
material to reconnect the intake to the river. We continue to evaluate
additional measures that would redirect river flow towards the intake,
preventing sandbars from forming.
Question. Do you have sufficient funding for these measures?
Answer. Reclamation has developed cost estimates for dredging this
material in the event it blocks the intake. Reclamation estimates
dredging cost to be approximately $150,000. Work would need to be
reprioritized and funds shifted to cover this type of extraordinary
operation and maintenance work.
Question. On a similar note, the intake at Wakpala on the
Reservation is in serious danger of being out of the water this year.
Have you developed contingency plans to deal with this contingency?
Answer. Reclamation has prepared contingency plans to address the
loss of water supply to the Wakpala water treatment plant. Since this
plant serves a relatively small population, the immediate response is
to truck water from the City of Mobridge to the water treatment plant.
Further options are being investigated including installing backup
groundwater wells and extending the intake as the lake recedes.
Question. What is the most likely scenario?
Answer. The Army Corps of Engineers reservoir forecast for Lake
Oahe through February 2008 predicts sufficient water depth over the top
of the Wakpala Intake to sustain normal operations.
Question. Is there a permanent solution that could solve both of
these problems?
Answer. The tribe's engineering firm has studied options to serve
the entire reservations needs (including both Fort Yates and Wakpala).
Based on these studies, the tribe's preferred long-term solution is to
construct a new surface water intake near the Indian Memorial
Recreation Area, south of Wakpala, and a new water treatment plant to
serve the entire southern portion of the reservation. Their preferred
plan also includes improvements to the existing Fort Yates intake and
water treatment plant to serve the northern portion of the reservation.
The Wakpala intake and water treatment plant facilities are estimated
to cost $23.9 million and the Fort Yates intake and water treatment
plant improvements are estimated to cost $2.3 million. The highest
priority and first phase of the Wakpala facilities will involve
construction of the new intake and raw water pipeline at an estimated
cost of $4.5 million to address the immediate low water conditions. The
Supplemental Appropriations Act signed on May 27, 2007 appropriated
$4.5 million to begin design and construction of the new Wakpala
Intake. Designs have been completed and the contract is expected to be
advertised and awarded in December 2007. Construction is scheduled to
begin in the spring of 2008 and the intake should be operational by the
end of the year.
Question. What is the range of costs that we would be considering
for a permanent fix?
Answer. The tribes preferred plan to meet the reservation-wide
needs, as described above, is estimated to cost a total of $26.2
million. Reclamation has advised the tribe that the Fort Yates well
field, with a capacity to meet the needs of the northern portion of the
reservation, may be a more reliable option and is estimated to cost
$9.2 million. This option at Fort Yates together with the tribes
preferred plan at Wakpala would result in a total cost to secure a
reservation-wide water supply of $33.1 million. A new intake and water
treatment plant to completely replace the existing Wakpala and Fort
Yates facilities and meet the full reservation-wide needs was also
evaluated. This alternative would consist of a new intake near the
Indian Memorial Recreation Area, a new water treatment plant, storage
facilities, and additional transmission pipelines to interconnect the
southern and northern portions of the reservation-wide system. This
alternative is estimated to cost over $50 million.
Question. Is there work on this that could be undertaken in fiscal
year 2007 and fiscal year 2008? Could you provide me with this
additional funding amount?
Answer. In fiscal year 2007, work continued on the groundwater
investigations in the Fort Yates area. These investigations, including
drawdown tests and pilot wells, are expected to be complete in 2008. If
the project is found to be feasible and sufficient funds are made
available, design and specifications for the $9.2 million project to
serve the northern portion of the reservation could begin in fiscal
year 2008. Construction of the well field and treatment facilities
could start, pending the availability of funds, in the later part of
2008 and extend into 2009. If the Tribe continues to prefer the Fort
Yates intake improvement alternative at a cost of $2.3 million, design
and construction could be initiated in fiscal year 2008.
Designs and specifications for the $4.5 million replacement intake
and raw water pipeline at Wakpala were completed in fiscal year 2007.
Construction is expected to begin in the spring of 2008.
Question. Could you provide me with this additional funding amount?
Answer. Sufficient funds are currently available to complete
construction of the new Wakpala Intake in 2008. After a final decision
is made in early 2008 on the preferred Fort Yates water source,
Reclamation will look at the funding needs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
SACRAMENTO VALLEY INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Question. The Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water
Management Plan received $2,000,000 in fiscal year 2006, as well as, an
allocation of $1,200,000 in the House reported bill and $2,000,000 in
the Senate reported bill during the fiscal year 2007 appropriations
process. As you know, preliminary California Department of Water
Resources' study results suggest Sacramento Valley's groundwater
formations may offer, as much as, several hundred thousand acre-feet in
additional water supplies for agricultural, environmental, and
municipal uses. The funds approved by the committees in fiscal year
2007 are needed to continue the efforts begun in fiscal year 2006 to
better characterize the process for groundwater recharge of and
production from the main groundwater aquifer systems. Do you agree that
the work underway in this initiative holds great promise for increasing
the available water supply for agricultural, environmental and
municipal uses?
Answer. Yes, Reclamation believes the Stony Creek Fan/Lower Tuscan
Investigation Project (an element of the Sacramento Valley Integrated
Regional Water Management Plan) holds promise for increasing the
available supply of water for agricultural, municipal and environmental
purposes, by providing additional conjunctive use capability and by
laying a foundation for future development of water banking capacity in
the Sacramento Valley.
Question. In your fiscal year 2007 work program, will the Bureau of
Reclamation support an allocation of $2,000,000, again, the same level
approved in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations process, for the
Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, and, if
not, what level of funding is the Bureau of Reclamation recommending
for this initiative?
Answer. Reclamation would need a report from the project proponents
showing supporting analysis and data demonstrating the potential water
supply benefits of this project. In addition, Reclamation assumes that
cost-sharing would be a condition of any such funding.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
DROUGHT
Question. When do you anticipate the remaining wells will be
completed?
Answer. In keeping with the work initiated in 2006, we have
completed well drilling for the communities of Las Vegas, Ruidoso, and
Ruidoso Downs, New Mexico. Drilling on the well for Capitan, New
Mexico, will be completed within weeks. An equipment breakdown has
caused a minor delay. As you know, we were not as successful with the
well in Cloudcroft, New Mexico. Although drilling was completed, the
quality of the water was not fit for human consumption and the yield
was insufficient. Consequently, that well has been abandoned.
Question. Please explain why completion of the wells has taken as
long as it has.
Answer. Ruidoso Downs was the only community of the five who had a
plan in place. Consequently, it was necessary to procure the services
of a contractor for the permitting, design, and monitoring of the
wells, along with a well driller. Severe geologic formations, equipment
breakdowns requiring competition with oil drillers for the same kind of
equipment, and well conditions contributed to the time required for
completion.
Question. Is additional funding necessary for their completion?
Answer. No additional funding is required. Funding for the five
well projects has been sufficient.
Question. What additional emergency drought activities should the
Bureau of Reclamation undertake to address yet another year of
devastating drought in the Southwest?
Answer. The Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991
(Public Law 102-250) as amended, is specific in authorizing the kinds
of activities the Bureau of Reclamation can undertake. Public Law 102-
250 authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to undertake drought relief
measures through emergency assistance (Title I) and planning activities
(Title II). Title I provides for construction, management and
conservation measures to alleviate the adverse impacts of drought,
including the mitigation of fish and wildlife impacts. Title I also
authorizes temporary contracts to make available project and nonproject
water and to allow for the use of Reclamation facilities for the
storage and conveyance of water.
Reclamation's regional offices will identify and prioritize
specific projects to be undertaken with drought program funding.
Reclamation staff understands the on-the-ground impact of the drought
conditions currently affecting parts of the West, and has the technical
expertise to evaluate the priority of projects proposed to cope with
those conditions. Projects will be selected for funding based on their
priority and the availability of funds.
WATER 2025
Question. Please describe Reclamation's future vision for the Water
2025 program and any necessary authorities needed to implement the
program.
Answer. Reclamation envisions the Water 2025 program as a tool to
meet the challenge of preventing crises and conflict over water in the
West. This is being accomplished through the most effective low-cost
options for increasing water supplies that are available, including:
(1) water efficiency and conservation; (2) water markets; (3)
collaboration; and (4) technology. In order to move forward,
Reclamation needs Water 2025 program authority. On April 13, 2007, the
administration transmitted a draft bill titled Reclamation Water
Management Improvement Act that would authorize the Water 2025 program.
Question. Please describe the major accomplishments of the Water
2025 after its 4 years of existence.
Answer. Since the inception of the program, the Water 2025 program
has experienced many achievements that assist water managers in
stretching scarce water supplies, thereby reducing the likelihood of
conflicts over water.
Over 122 Challenge Grants in 17 western States have leveraged $25.5
million in Federal funding with local partnerships into $96 million in
water management improvements. In 2007 alone, Secretary Kempthorne
announced $9.2 million in Water 2025 Challenge Grants, targeting 44 new
projects across the Nation that will conserve water resources and
modernize water storage and delivery systems.
The projects selected for award through the Challenge Grant program
incorporate the following improvements:
--Forty-two of the projects, collectively, will convert 134 miles of
earthen canals to pipeline.
--Seventy-four of the projects include installation of water
measurement devices, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
(SCADA) systems and automated water delivery systems.
--Thirty-six of the projects include water marketing plans.
--The 122 projects, upon completion, will save approximately 400,000
acre-feet per year.
In fiscal year 2008, Reclamation initiated a process to provide
System Optimization Review grants, which are intended to fund a broad
analysis of system-wide efficiency rather than project-specific
planning. The final product of each grant will be a report with a plan
of action that focuses on improving efficiency and system operations on
a regional or basin perspective.
Question. Specifically, how have funds that have been appropriated
for the program reduced conflict amongst water users?
Answer. To date, 16 projects are complete. Each Water 2025 project
results in water better managed or saved and collaborative
relationships developed that will reduce crisis and conflict over water
in the west. Below are some specific examples.
--In Lewiston, Idaho, the Lewiston Orchards Irrigation District--
serving 18,000 customers--will save 450 acre-feet per year as a
result of a Water 2025 project. The saved water will reduce the
impact from a settlement with the Nez Perce Tribe over instream
flows in the Sweetwater Creek.
--The Central Oregon Irrigation District, a fiscal year 2004 and
fiscal year 2006 Challenge Grant recipient, established a water
bank in the Deschutes Basin and formed an alliance of seven
irrigation districts, six cities, three tribes and the
Deschutes Resource Conservancy (the ``Deschutes Water
Alliance'' or the ``Alliance'').
--In Utah, the Sevier River Water Users Association, a partnership of
canal companies and river commissioners, used their fiscal year
2005 Challenge Grant to enlarge the existing Supervisory
Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to allow for
expansion of real-time monitoring and control systems in a
five-county area.
--A fiscal year 2005 Challenge Grant to the Yuma County Water User's
Association will save 8,500 acre-feet per year that benefit the
junior water users of the Central Arizona Project, which serves
fast growing metropolitan areas. The 8,500 acre-feet per year
is enough to serve approximately 25,000 households.
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT
Question. The USBR is tasked with providing water in order to
comply with the Fish and Wildlife Service's 2003 Biological Opinion.
However, it is unclear where the USBR will obtain this water once the
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority begins diverting
its allocation of San Juan-Chama Project water. The President's fiscal
year 2008 USBR budget proposes a 17 percent decrease to the Middle Rio
Grande Project from fiscal year 2006 enacted levels. Additionally, the
needs in the basin are increasing dramatically, including:
--Repairs on high-priority irrigation system levees;
--Meeting Endangered Species Act requirements;
--Developing an intergraded management plan; and
--Modernizing stream gagging.
At the same time, the administrations fiscal year 2008 request is
17 percent below the fiscal year 2006 budget for the Middle Rio Grande
Project.
How can the Bureau of Reclamation meet all these increasingly
important obligations with a decrease in Federal spending?
Answer. For fiscal year 2008 the request for priority site levee
maintenance of $10,195,000 is more than what was enacted in fiscal year
2007 ($7,382,000) and should be sufficient to continue repairs. In
developing its budget request, Reclamation anticipated funding
contributions from Federal partners for the non-water ESA activities of
the Collaborative Program such as minnow rescue, species and water
quality monitoring and research, and habitat planning, construction,
and monitoring activities.
Question. Does the Department of the Interior support authorization
of the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program?
Answer. Yes, DOI supports the authorization of the Middle Rio
Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program. The success of the
Program will depend on the non-Federal and other Federal partner
contributions in addition to Reclamation.
Question. San Juan-Chama Project water cannot be used for meeting
the requirements of the ESA unless it is acquired by a ``willing seller
or lessor.'' If water cannot be acquired from project contractors,
where do you anticipate you will get the water to meet the requirements
of the ESA in 2008?
Answer. Some San Juan-Chama Project water will be available for
Reclamation to lease on a voluntary basis in 2008. Most of the
supplemental supply that will help meet Biological Opinion flow
requirements is previously leased SJ-C water that is still in storage.
In addition, operational flexibilities by the Middle Rio Grande
Conservancy District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contribution to
silvery minnow spawning/recruitment flows, and other voluntary
contributions will collectively assist in meeting ESA requirements.
Question. What are you doing to address this potential problem?
Answer. Reclamation in cooperation with the Collaborative Program
stakeholders is working on development of a sustainable biological
opinion which will contain shared responsibilities for water management
among all of the stakeholders.
TITLE XVI
Question. Secretary Limbaugh, You requested $11 million for Water
2025 in your budget. How do you reconcile requesting funding for this
unauthorized program when you have so many unmet authorized needs in
the Title XVI program?
Answer. The Water 2025 program is a high priority program to
address the critical need for funding to prevent crises and conflicts
over water in the West. Through the Water 2025 program, the $11 million
requested will result in over $40 million of water infrastructure
investment. The Bureau of Reclamation must balance competing priorities
for funding within the Federal Government and within Reclamation.
Reclamation's budget reflects this balance.
Question. How much did you provide for these projects in your
budget?
Answer. The overall fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Title
XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program is $10.1 million and provides
$9.3 million in funding for nine authorized projects, including eight
construction projects and one desalination demonstration project. The
funding level reflects Reclamation's balance of the many competing
priorities for funding within the Federal Government and within
Reclamation.
Question. Why is this program so unpopular?
Answer. The administration continues to support the Title XVI Water
Recycling and Reuse Program when it is focused on using Federal funds
to develop innovative ways to recycle or reuse water and to construct
projects that will help alleviate water crises or shortages in the
West. Budget requests reflect a priority of completing those projects
that have already been authorized for construction.
Question. Is there anything Congress can do to modify this program
to make it more likely to be funded?
Answer. Public Law 102-575, Title XVI, as amended, gives
Reclamation ample authority to investigate and identify opportunities
for reclamation and reuse of wastewater and to conduct research for the
reclamation of wastewater and naturally impaired ground and surface
waters. In making its budget requests, Reclamation has placed priority
on meeting funding obligations for projects authorized in previous
years.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Larry Craig
LOAN GUARANTEE
Question. Can you please describe in more detail the new loan
guarantee program? For instance, what kinds of strings are attached to
these loans and what kind of interest rates and loan duration?
Answer. Title II of Public Law 109-451 provides the Secretary of
the Interior authority to issue loan guarantees to assist in financing
rural water supply projects; extraordinary maintenance and
rehabilitation of Reclamation project facilities; and improvements to
infrastructure directly related to a Reclamation project. Borrowers
would apply for a loan from private lending institutions as defined in
the statute. Interest rates for the guaranteed portion of the loan
would not exceed a level that the Secretary determines to be
appropriate with consideration of the private sector prevailing rate.
For example, the Federal funds rate or higher. Loans may be provided
for terms of up to 40 years. The Bureau is continuing to address the
administrative requirements and the potential benefits of the program.
We will keep the Committee informed of our progress.
MINIDOKA SPILLWAY REPLACEMENT
Question. I'm concerned with what is occurring at the Minidoka Dam
in Idaho. This is an aging dam that wasn't built to standard. This
project supplies water for a lot of farmers, and assessments are
already fairly expensive. Now the Bureau wants to replace the dam
structure, leaving the irrigation district with a $10 million plus bill
to pay back in about 3 years. Is this a situation where the loan
guarantee can help or is there another way we can keep from bankrupting
these farmers?
Answer. Minidoka dam was built to the standards of the day in 1906.
The structure has been modified three times to provide additional
benefits such as power generation and flood control. After over 101
years of service, the spillway portion of the dam is in need of
replacement. Over the past 10 years, Reclamation has endeavored to
address these concerns including repayment options with the appropriate
Districts. As you are aware, the Rural Water Act of 2006 (Public Law
109-451), was enacted on December 22, 2006. Among other things, this
law directs the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate a regulation
prior to issuing loan guarantees. Instead of relying on a loan
guarantee, the districts have the option of raising their water
assessments to users, thus giving them the adequate funds to begin
construction or acquire non-Federal funding.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
DESALINATION RESEARCH
Question. I am interested in the process and the schedule the
administration will undertake to develop both a short and long-term
strategy within your desalination research program for a viable R&D
program that will enable communities to utilize saline aquifers.
Please describe what the guiding principles/goals of the program
would include.
Answer. Over the past 10 years, as the demand for water quality and
water quantity has increased, desalination technologies have improved
and costs have been reduced. More and more western rural and larger
communities are implementing groundwater desalination facilities to
augment their water supplies. Reclamation believes there are
opportunities to further reduce the hurdles that limit the wide use of
existing technology, such as the problems of inland concentrate
management, and high energy consumption.
Within this setting, Reclamation's vision is to provide
opportunities that expand water supplies in a sustainable manner for
western rural communities, Native Americans, and the western basins
supporting Reclamation projects. Our goal is to advance the state of
the art in high risk, applied research and development to reduce the
cost of treating impaired waters, consistent with the administration's
R&D investment criteria, and to use partnerships to accelerate the
implementation of improved technology.
Question. Please describe which broad BOR mission areas would be
supported by the desalination research.
Answer. The research serves our broad mission of increasing the
usable water supplies for Reclamation projects, rural communities, and
Native Americans.
Question. What portion of the funds do you intend to provide for
in-house research vs. extramural grants?
Answer. Reclamation's R&D request for desalination research
conducted in-house consists of about $1 million through the Science and
Technology Program and an additional $680,000 through the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Project (Title I). Reclamation's request
for extramural desalination research consists of about $2.3 million
through the Desalination and Water Purification Research Program and an
additional $500,000 through the Water Reclamation and Reuse Program
(Title XVI).
Question. Please describe how you intend to coordinate with other
Federal/State/local and commercial entities within the desalination
research program.
Answer. Reclamation has contracted with the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) to provide a contemporary assessment of the potential
for desalination technologies to meet current and future water supply
needs. The NAS report will also recommend appropriate roles for the
Federal Government, private sector, State, and local communities in
pursuing future research.
The report was slated for completion in December 2007. By mid-2008,
Reclamation plans to evaluate the NAS findings and update Reclamation's
research strategies as appropriate. We will continue to work within
existing water research coordination forums such as the Subcommittee on
Surface Water Availability and Quality within the White House Office of
Science and Technology, interagency groups such as the Interagency
Consortium for Desalination Research and the Multi-State Salinity
Coalition, as well as research and industry associations such as the
American Membrane Technology Association, the International
Desalination Association, the WateReuse Foundation, and the
International Water Association--North American Membrane Research
Conference.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION--GILA RIVER SETTLEMENT
Question. Please explain why USBR funds for participating in this
process are not included in the fiscal year 2008 budget.
Answer. Reclamation's fiscal year 2008 budget request does include
$250,000 within the Colorado River Basin Project-Central Arizona
Project item to continue collecting and evaluating necessary
preliminary environmental data to assist the State of New Mexico in
deciding whether to build a New Mexico Unit. Current efforts focus on
supporting New Mexico's collaborative efforts to create a planning
process for evaluating the best use of potential withdrawals and
funding provided under the Central Arizona Project, as modified by the
Arizona Water Settlement Act, for the southwestern planning region of
New Mexico.
Question. How do you respond to the claim that the USBR and Fish
and Wildlife have been less than cooperative in participating in the
development of an environmental assessment?
Answer. Reclamation is an active participant in the state of New
Mexico decisionmaking process and has been since the Arizona Water
Right Settlement Act was passed. A formal environmental assessment
under NEPA and other environmental compliance activities including
those under the Endangered Species Act will be performed when specific
alternatives are proposed. Based on New Mexico's process for finalizing
their decision to the Secretary by 2014, we anticipate the evaluation
of alternatives and associated environmental compliance activities to
begin in approximately 2010.
Reclamation is an active participant in the State of New Mexico's
decisionmaking process and has been since the AWSA was passed. Both
Reclamation and FWS signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the New
Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, the Southwest New Mexico Water
Planning Group, and the New Mexico Office of the Governor in March 2006
creating the Gila-San Francisco Coordinating Committee (GSFCC) to
collaboratively evaluate the environmental effects of potential water
withdrawals. Reclamation is a member of the GSFCC, one of the co-chairs
of the Technical Subcommittee, a member of the Public Involvement
Subcommittee, a member of Sandia National Laboratories decisionmaking
model development team to assist in regional planning efforts, and an
active participant in other collaborative efforts including the Gila
Science Forums.
Question. How do you plan to improve the Department's participation
in the development of an environmental assessment?
Answer. Reclamation is identified as the lead agency for
environmental compliance with New Mexico as joint lead if they so
request. In this role, Reclamation will continue to actively
participate in all activities associated with the New Mexico Unit of
the Central Arizona Project under the terms of the Arizona Water
Settlements Act, and with the Gila-San Francisco Coordinating Committee
and other committees as appropriate as New Mexico works through the
collaborative decisionmaking process to determine the viability of a
New Mexico Unit and other water utilization alternatives to meet water
supply demands in the Southwest Water Planning Region of New Mexico.
The Fish and Wildlife Service's support of Reclamation's environmental
compliance activities is a key element in successfully fulfilling
Reclamation's role.
RURAL WATER
Question. What is the status of the USBR development of eligibility
criteria that are due no later than December 22, 2007?
Answer. Public Law 109-451, the Rural Water Act of 2006 (the
``Act''), requires Reclamation to develop three sets of criteria to
implement the Rural Water Program, within specified timeframes. The
criteria include eligibility and prioritization criteria, which are due
within 1 year after enactment of the Act; criteria for the evaluation
of appraisal investigations, due within 1 year after enactment; and
criteria for the evaluation of feasibility studies, due within 18
months after enactment. Based on the language in the Act, Reclamation
has determined that it is required to follow the rulemaking process in
the Administrative Procedures Act in developing the criteria. Instead
of conducting three separate rulemakings, Reclamation will include all
three sets of criteria in a single rule. We believe this is a more
timely and efficient option than conducting multiple rulemakings.
However, because of the specific procedural requirements associated
with the rulemaking process--which includes a 60-day public comment
period--Reclamation will not be able to publish the rule by December
22, 2007. Reclamation has developed a comprehensive draft of the rule,
which includes all three sets of criteria. The draft rule is being
reviewed internally, and we expect to publish it as an Interim Final
Rule in the summer of 2008.
Question. When does the USBR anticipate initiating the assessment
of rural water needs?
Answer. Section 104 of Public Law 109-451 requires the Secretary,
in consultation with several other Federal departments and agencies, to
undertake a comprehensive assessment of rural water programs and
activities, to be completed by December 2008. Reclamation has begun
this effort and expects to have the Assessment completed by the
December 2008 deadline.
LOAN GUARANTEE
Question. What progress has been made in implementing the loan
guarantee program authorized under title II?
Answer. The Bureau is continuing to address the administrative
requirements of the program including proposed rules and eligibility
requirements. We will keep the Committee informed of our progress.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
Question. There is potential that projects will be forced to return
O&M to Reclamation when they cannot fund necessary replacement. Should
this happen, how will Reclamation address problems at projects that
fail?
Answer. Reclamation continues to proactively seek assistance for
responsible operating entities to be able to fund necessary
replacements of project facilities and avoid the return of facilities
to Reclamation for operation.
Reclamation works with the local operators of our facilities to
provide recommendations to reduce the risk of failure and to keep those
facilities operable. However, if such entities are unable to afford the
full cost of operation, maintenance and replacement (OM&R) of the
facilities, then Reclamation has a limited set of options. If the
entity cannot meet its OM&R responsibility (to fund necessary
rehabilitation work), as stated in the provisions of its contract,
Reclamation would have the option of reassuming the OM&R responsibility
of the project facilities and billing the entity for all associated
OM&R costs. In the extreme, Reclamation could choose to stop operation
of the facility indefinitely and minimize OM&R costs for the local
beneficiaries.
Question. Does it not make sense for the Bureau to assist these
projects before failures actually occur?
Answer. In accordance with Reclamation law and contractual
arrangements, Reclamation cannot directly provide financial assistance
to the responsible operating entities in the OM&R of these project
facilities. However, through its existing oversight and administrative
activities, Reclamation can and will continue to provide some limited
engineering and technical support in maintaining these project
facilities for delivery of authorized project benefits. Additionally,
Reclamation has been actively involved in seeking financial assistance
for these entities.
Question. Some Bureau projects utilize an off-river reservoir which
depends largely on ``connecting structures''--often a canal system--to
get water in and out of the reservoir. At such projects, without the
canals, the dam would be useless and unnecessary. Why does the Bureau
of Reclamation seem to place lower importance on these connecting
structures even though they are a vital part of the project itself ?
Answer. Historically, since 1948, Reclamation has consistently
provided formal, routine condition assessments/inspections of all such
``connecting structures'' under Reclamation's ``Review of Operation and
Maintenance Program.'' Reclamation is acutely aware of the operational
importance of these canal systems and structures to convey and deliver
project benefits, whether it is to a dam/reservoir or directly to a
canal distribution system. However, high- and significant-hazard dams,
which have the potential to cause loss of life or significant property
damage should they fail, receive a deservedly higher level of condition
assessment attention.
Question. Given geographical and geological uniqueness and varied
construction dates I find it difficult to believe all Bureau of
Reclamation projects are identical. Is it the opinion of the Bureau of
Reclamation that all repayment contracts include ``replacement'' even
when it is not stated in the contracts?
Answer. All Reclamation projects are indeed not identical, as you
state. However, Reclamation laws and authorities do provide a generally
consistent way in which to administer contracts relative to these
projects and related O&M of these facilities. Under the terms of O&M
contracts (not repayment contracts) with operating entities and project
beneficiaries, replacements and rehabilitation are considered
``maintenance.'' Within the context of managing Reclamation's
infrastructure, the O&M of project works involves a wide range of
activities. These O&M activities encompass those actions necessary to
achieve continued structural integrity and operational reliability in
delivering authorized project benefits. Maintenance tasks include major
repairs, rehabilitation, and equipment/facility replacements and
additions.
Question. I would like to ask that you answer this question to my
office in writing, as a follow-up to this hearing: What is the Bureau
of Reclamation's official definition of ``operations and maintenance''
and ``operations, maintenance and replacement''?
Answer. Within the context of managing Reclamation's water and
power infrastructure, the operation and maintenance of project works
involves a wide range of activities. These operations and maintenance
activities encompass those actions necessary to achieve continued
structural integrity and operational reliability in delivering
authorized project benefits. Additionally, as stated in Reclamation's
``Report to the Congress, Annual Costs of Bureau of Reclamation Project
Operation and Maintenance for fiscal years 1993-97,'' dated September
1998, ``the most visible maintenance tasks are the major repairs and
rehabilitations, equipment and facility replacements, and facilities
additions that are accomplished at every project over time.'' As such,
the ``maintenance'' term includes ``replacements'' and, therefore, the
definitions for both ``operations and maintenance'' and ``operations,
maintenance, and replacement'' are considered to be synonymous.
Similarly, for contract administration purposes within Reclamation,
replacements have always been included as part of maintenance
responsibilities and costs.
DROUGHT
Question. Commissioner Johnson, what are the drought conditions in
the west like today?
Answer. All of Reclamation's 17 western States are experiencing
some level of drought conditions ranging in intensity from abnormally
dry to extreme. Areas of concern include the southern third of
California through Arizona which has experienced rainfall under 50
percent of normal over the past 60 days. In the upper portion of the
Great Plains including portions of North and South Dakota, drought
conditions are spreading. Much of the West is experiencing above normal
temperatures.
Question. Commissioner Johnson, How much funding could you utilize
for the remainder of fiscal year 2007 and early fiscal year 2008 for
drought assistance?
Answer. The funding provided in the supplemental appropriations,
U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, Public Law 110-28, May 25,
2007, is sufficient for the needs of the Drought program.
Question. Commissioner Johnson, how much funding could you utilize
for the remainder of fiscal year 2007 and early fiscal year 2008 for
drought assistance?
Answer. The funding provided in the supplemental appropriations,
U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, Public Law 110-28, May 25,
2007, is sufficient for the needs of the Drought program.
LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM
Question. I have noticed in your budget that you are providing $1
million to initiate implementation of the Loan Guarantee Program for
rural water projects. As more than half of your projects are more than
50 years old, I expect that this program has raised considerable
interest in the West. How do you envision this program working?
Answer. The law provides authority to issue loan guarantees for
three categories of projects: (a) rural water supply projects; (b)
repair and rehabilitation of Reclamation facilities; and (c)
improvements to water infrastructure directly related to Reclamation
projects.
The Bureau is continuing to address the administrative requirements
and the potential benefits of the program. We will keep the committee
informed of our progress.
Question. What will be the eligibility criteria?
Answer. Eligibility criteria, developed through the formal
rulemaking process, would include factors such as financial capability
for repayment, engineering need and feasibility, historical diligence
in performing routine operation and maintenance, environmental impacts,
and efficiency opportunities.
Question. Will this solve the recapitalization problems for many of
the older projects in the West?
Answer. This would not likely solve the recapitalization problems
of older projects in the West, but will be a valuable tool to assist in
meeting this challenge.
Question. Will this serve the small water districts?
Answer. Yes, smaller water districts would be an important focus of
the program.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Dorgan. I thank all of you for being here. I'm
sorry about the brevity but I must now go run and catch this
vote. This hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., Thursday, March 15, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:03 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Dorgan, Murray, Domenici, Craig, and
Allard.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Science
STATEMENT OF HON. RAYMOND L. ORBACH, DIRECTOR
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN
Senator Dorgan. The hearing will come to order. This is the
Senate Appropriations Committee, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development. We are reviewing today the fiscal year 2008
budget request for the Department of Energy's Office of
Science. Mr. Orbach, we welcome you. Thank you for being here.
The proposed budget for the Office of Science is $4.397
billion. That represents 18 percent of the Department of
Energy's total budget and an increase of $600 million above the
Office of Science's budget in the year 2007.
Mr. Orbach, perhaps sometime you can whisper to us the
secret of your relationship with OMB, that you come here with a
proposed $600 million budget increase. You, indeed, are a rare
species in this coming fiscal year. However it happened,
though, we think this is a good outcome. We're committed to
improving our Nation's ability to compete in the ever-changing
global market place and we recognize that we have to improve
our Nation's capabilities in mathematics and the sciences if
we're going to continue to lead the way in innovation.
This is particularly true in the physical science fields,
where the Department of Energy is the leader among Federal
agencies. In the future our country will have to maintain
leadership in innovation and development and the Office of
Science will be one of the keys in our success in doing that.
A substantial increase in funding raises some different
questions than when programs face significant decreases. But
underlying both circumstances is the basic question of whether
there is a plan to accommodate the change in funding and, if
so, what is that plan? A doubling of funding over 9 years, for
example, is an admirable goal, but we have to make sure there
exists a plan that meets a defined goal.
Further, we have to have a plan to maintain our base
infrastructure in order to take advantage of investments in new
instruments and new facilities. It's not enough to make
investments in new instruments and facilities here at home, or
in partnerships abroad, if we don't maintain our base programs
and facilities.
So the Office of Science is exploring the development of a
number of new projects that also could have significant future
costs, significant costs if taken to construction. And we need
to know that out year budgeting will assume, or is assuming the
construction, operation, and the research cost associated with
each of those projects.
So, Dr. Orbach, thank you for your work. I look forward to
hearing your testimony. But, first, I will turn to my
colleagues for any opening statements they have.
Senator Domenici.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
We're moving in a direction--this small office becoming a
very large and powerful one. Maybe it can stay small and be
powerful and you've alluded to how that might be done in early
parts of your comments. But, in any event it's going to have a
much bigger impact, somewhere, somehow, that seems quite
obvious to me.
I think you would be interested to know that Chairman
Bingaman and I introduced an amendment to the budget resolution
to increase funding for science research by $1 billion. In
addition to fully funding the President's budget request, it
also adds funding to funds like the America Competes Act. Mr.
Chairman, I hope that you will look at this amendment.
Dr. Orbach, you have had a very important job. It is your
responsibility to challenge our labs with new and exciting
scientific goals, as well as making investment in facilities
and infrastructure to ensure U.S. leadership. The Energy Policy
Act included a provision elevating your position from Director
to Under Secretary to give you responsibility to set the
science policies for the labs, including all of the NNSA
facilities. And you will note that, the labs continue to
support the best science in the world. Unfortunately, the
funding provided by the Office of Science to these labs remains
disproportionately low. The NNSA labs have great facilities
that have been exclusively tools of the weapons program that
should be incorporated into the Office of Science programs.
Facilities, such as the Z machine and the MESA at Sandia will
be open to tremendous new research opportunities to scientists
and must be thought of as national user facilities.
I understand that you are making some progress to develop a
multi-agency board that will develop a high energy density
plasma program consistent with the direction that I included in
the 2006-2007 Energy and Water bills.
I want you to know that I appreciate this bill. I still
expect to see a viable research program that supports non-
weapons research on facilities like NIF and Z. I would also
like to remind you of the tremendous computational capability
and experience at the NNSA labs. As you know, it was the NNSA
stockpile stewardship mission that fostered the undeveloped,
high performance computing architecture that enabled this
country to be the world leader in computing. Unfortunately, I
don't believe the Department has dedicated sufficient resource,
nor demonstrated its commitment to developing the next
generation of architecture that will enable our country to
sustain its world leadership in this field.
Finally, let me say that I believe we need to work hard to
address our climate challenges, and science will play a
critical role in this, I believe. And, I believe we have two
paths to reduce the man-made greenhouse gas emissions. And
unless we pursue both, we won't be effective at all.
First, of course, is to reduce our dependence on foreign
oil with biomass and alternative energy as well as developing
low emission energy sources such as nuclear power.
Implementation of EPACT and the American Competitiveness
Initiative will ensure we are on the right path.
The second is to ensure that large, fast growing economies
like China and India adopt these same technologies. We need to
join with these countries as full partners to ensure that
technology development and adoption occurs. Without it, we
won't be successful. I'm committed to developing a full
partnership with China and India, but they need to recognize
that this isn't a free ride. It is a partnership. They need to
dedicate the resources to solving this problem.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Pete V. Domenici
Dr. Orbach, it is a pleasure to welcome you back to the
subcommittee. I am pleased with the fiscal year 2008 budget request for
the Office of Science because it continues to support objectives
provided for in EPACT and sustains the President's commitment to double
funding for basic science research over the next decade.
This research is vital to our economic competitiveness and our
ability to reduce our dependence on foreign energy, including solving
some of the long term R&D challenges associated with solar, biomass,
hydrogen and nuclear power.
Dr. Orbach, you have another important responsibility and that is
to challenge our labs with new and exciting scientific goals as well as
making investments in facilities and infrastructure to ensure U.S.
leadership.
The Energy Policy Act included a provision elevating your position
from Director to Under Secretary to give you the responsibility to set
the science policy for all the labs, including NNSA facilities.
As you well know, NNSA labs continue to support some of the best
science in the world and have been recognized with Nobel prizes, E.O.
Lawrence Awards and dozens of R&D 100 Awards. Unfortunately, the
funding provided by the Office of Science remains disproportionately
low.
The NNSA labs have great facilities that have been the exclusive
tools of the weapons program that should be incorporated into the
Office of Science research programs. Facilities such as the Z machine
and MESA at Sandia will open up tremendous new research opportunities
to scientists and must be thought of as national user facilities.
I understand that you are making some progress to develop a multi-
agency advisory board that will develop the high energy density plasma
program consistent with the direction that I included in the fiscal
year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 Energy and Water bills.
I want you to know that I appreciate this effort, but I still
expect to see a viable research program that supports non weapons
research on facilities like NIF and Z.
I would also like to remind you of the tremendous computational
capability and experience at NNSA labs. As you know, it was NNSA's
Stockpile Stewardship mission that necessitated the development of the
current high performance computing architecture that has enabled this
country to be the world leader in computing.
As a result, this has also enabled the Office of Science to deploy
some of the fastest computers in the world at Oak Ridge, Berkeley and
Argonne National labs.
Unfortunately, I don't believe the Department has dedicated
sufficient resources, nor demonstrated its commitment to developing the
next generation architecture that will enable our country to sustain
its leadership in this field.
We continue to have two separate computing programs and this budget
diverts resources to DARPA to support a separate R&D program. That must
change.
These problems can be solved, but it will force the Office of
Science and NNSA to work together on improving scientific research at
all of our labs.
Dr. Orbach, I hope I can count on your support to breakdown the
walls of bureaucracy to solve this problem.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Craig.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief. Mr. Secretary,
thank you, for being here and thank you for coming to the Idaho
lab, the INL, last August. We appreciated your presence there,
and I am told you left impressed with the resource and the
talent that is available. We have some phenomenal assets and
when I'm sitting here listening to Senator Domenici, I'm
thinking about the old admonishment in front of the United
Nations, ``swords into plow shares.'' And, the ability for us
to use these phenomenal laboratories that were once, in part,
related to the cold war, some of them more so than others.
Now with assets that they have, that were once for war, can
not only be made for peace, but we've already begun to use the
tremendous capabilities and talents that are there for those
purposes. We have, at our laboratory, some of those unique
resources, as you know, the advanced test reactor, the ability
to relate it, not just to a Federal mission, but to private and
quasi-public relationships, I think is extremely valuable. It
is a national asset, unique in many ways, that--something I'll
discuss with you later on in questioning, but making it a user
facility, I think, becomes increasingly important as we work
with and--I was just visiting with Clay Sell today and Dennis
Spurgeon. New partnerships between the Federal Government and
the private sector. The Federal Government used to be this
great black box and DOE especially, into which all things went,
especially money.
Today we have phenomenal demand for what can be produced.
We don't have the resources, unless we partner and we leverage
with the private sector. Not just our private sector, but the
world's private sector. Because most of what we want to do
needs to be very transparent and available to the rest of the
world, whether it's clean energy sources, whether it's human
health, and all of those types of things. I'm pleased to see
that we're focusing. We've spent a lot of money, appropriately
so directed at, by the biological sciences over the last
decade. Now I think it's time we pony up on the physical
sciences because they're merging out there in a way that
probably we could never predicted a decade ago. And, in that is
great opportunity.
Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Allard.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this
hearing. And, welcome, Mr. Secretary. As you know, Mr.
Chairman, you and I are co-chairmen of the Senate Renewable
Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus. And, I represent a State,
which, we have the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
They're doing a lot of good work. They're working on basic
technologies, moving those into the marketplace. I think that's
a proper focus. And as a scientist, myself, I consider myself
an applied scientist. Being a veterinarian, I understand how
good basic research has to be done in order for me as a
veterinarian, to be able to take care of the livestock
industry, or pet animals, whether it's working for the CDC Lab,
or FDA, or whatever. And, it all comes down to a lot of good
basic research that has to be done.
I note that the Office of Science is the primary agency in
the Federal Government in energy-related basic research. I
think this a very important distinction that should be pointed
out. While basic scientific research is the basis for applied
sciences and leads to scientific advancement, it is often not
profitable, so industry struggles to invest in basic research.
This is where the government comes in, by funding basic
research. It is picked up by industry and the advanced science
communities.
I've had time to go and visit many of our laboratories,
been out to Lawrence Livermore, been to Sandia Laboratory that
Senator Domenici mentioned, Los Alamos Lab, and have been
following much of the research in MOx Plus, for example. And, I
feel that this is where it all starts.
We heard a presentation this morning from Ron Sega who was
talking about our satellite program. He talked about his cycle
of development. It all starts with good scientific basic
research. And then you develop it to applied, then you get your
prototype level, and then you get into the production stage.
And, so I really can't stress how important I think your job is
and responsibilities are.
More attention today is being focused on clean energy and
energy efficiency technologies due to ever-increasing supply
constraints and demand increases, diversification of our energy
portfolios becoming more important than ever. This means the
development of alternative energy sources is also more
important than ever. Renewable energy is a very important way
that we can begin to reduce the demand for oil, and thereby
help to make our country more secure. Research and the input of
both government and industries are very important allowing
these opportunities to live up to their potential.
We must continue to provide incentives for the
implementation of renewable technologies and for the
infrastructure necessary to support these renewable sources.
These technologies are a necessary step in balancing our
domestic energy portfolio, increasing our Nation's energy
security, and advancing our country's technological excellence.
So, I look forward to working with the committee to ensure
research and development, in all fields of energy technology,
are funded in a manner that is responsible, but sufficient to
ensure that the development and implementation of new
technologies continues.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Murray.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, thank you to you and Senator
Domenici for having this important hearing. I think the Office
of Science is very important and investment in research and
development is obviously critical. Dr. Orbach, I'm glad to see
you again. This hearing gives us another opportunity to talk
about the Capability Replacement Laboratory for PNNL. This
project is a top priority for the lab and I have a couple of
questions regarding the funding for that project. As you know
there were no funds in the fiscal year 2007 budget request but
Congress added $10 million to the Office of Science for the
effort. I was pleased to hear from you recently that the
additional $10 million would be included in the fiscal year
2007 work plan. However, I understand that funding is being
held in reserve and can't be utilized until OMB approves the
third party financing package. I also understand the fund
requested in the fiscal year 2008 budget will also be held in
reserve pending OMB approval.
Would you share with the committee what you intend to do to
prevent delay of this critical project?
Senator Dorgan. Senator, actually, Mr. Orbach has not yet
given his opening statement.
Senator Murray. Oh, I apologize. I came in late and didn't
realize we had not heard Dr. Orbach's opening statement.
Senator Dorgan. I would like to give him the opportunity to
give his opening statement.
All right. Thank you very much.
Senator Cochran has submitted a statement that he would
like placed in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming the Under
Secretary for Science, Dr. Raymond Orbach. I am pleased that we were
able to increase the budget for the Office of Science under the
Continuing Resolution for fiscal year 2007.
As Under Secretary for Science and Director of the Office of
Science, Dr. Orbach has had the responsibility of overseeing research
and development at 17 national laboratories across the country,
including both the National Nuclear Security Laboratories and the
Office of Science Laboratories. I am pleased that the fiscal year 2008
budget includes funding to continue the American Competitiveness
Initiative, a program that has become increasingly important to our
scientific community in America.
Of particular interest to me is the Basic Energy Sciences program
which supports the Advanced Energy Initiative and biomass production
research. Mississippi has much to contribute in the emerging biomass
arena, and it is my hope that the universities and scientists in
Mississippi might work with your researchers in the Office of Science
to further develop this field.
It is a pleasure to welcome you to the committee. I look forward to
hearing your testimony.
Senator Dorgan. Secretary Orbach, thank you very much.
Please proceed. Your entire statement will be a part of the
permanent record, and you may summarize.
STATEMENT OF HON. RAYMOND L. ORBACH
Dr. Orbach. Thank you, Chairman Dorgan, Senator Domenici,
members of the committee. And, indeed, I will answer those
questions.
I'm very grateful. Thank you for this opportunity for me to
present the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for the
Department of Energy's Office of Science.
As some of you noted, we are the primary agency in the
Federal Government for energy-related basic research. Our
office interfaces with the Department's applied research and
defense programs upon which our Nation relies for both energy
security and national defense. Our goal is to underpin the
applied research programs with the finest basic science and, at
the same time, to energize our basic research with the insights
and opportunities that come from advanced applied research.
Transformational basic science discoveries are essential
for the success of the Department's efforts in such renewable
energy sources as hydrogen, solar power, and bio-fuels. And in
electrical energy storage, which is critical for many renewable
energy sources because they are intermittent. We are one
department and we have been working very hard to strengthen the
relationship between the Department's basic and applied
research programs.
Let me say a few words this afternoon about the critical
role that basic science plays in addressing our Nation's energy
challenge and the role of the Office of Science. First,
cellulosic ethanol. To make this bio-fuel truly cost effective,
we must produce ethanol from cellulose efficiently. The problem
is that the lignins surrounding the cellulose in plants inhibit
currently available enzymes from breaking down the cellulose to
sugars that then are fermented into ethanol.
The Office of Science will be deploying three new
innovative bioenergy research centers, studying both microbes
and plants, developing new methods, based on processes actually
found in nature, to create the breakthroughs we need.
I can give you an example. Our Department of Energy Joint
Genome Institute recently announced in conjunction with the
U.S. Forest Service, the identification of the metabolic
pathway in a fungus found in the bowels of insects that holds
the secret to effective fermentation of the sugar xylose, a key
to making cellulosic ethanol cost-effective.
Second, intermittent sources of electricity, such as solar
and wind. The key to base-load electrical generation from these
intermittent renewable sources is electrical energy storage. In
April of this year, we'll be bringing together leading
scientists, technologists, and industry at a major workshop to
chart a transformational path forward for electrical energy
storage. We shall be considering super-capacitors and other
innovative approaches based on the latest advances in material
science and nanotechnology to change the way we approach
electrical energy storage. Solving this problem is a key to
enabling renewable energy to make major contributions to
electric base-load generation.
These are examples of our mission in the Office of Science.
To invest in basic research designed to create transformational
breakthroughs for our Nation. Supporting transformational
research also means providing cutting-edge scientific
facilities through our national laboratories that will allow
scientists from universities and the private sector to do the
analysis that will give them an advantage over their colleagues
in other countries, thereby contributing to American
competitiveness. It means educating, training, and sustaining a
world-class scientific workforce, thousands strong, 25,500 in
our fiscal year 2008 budget in universities and laboratories
across our Nation for the sake of our country's future.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We are not doing this in a vacuum. Other nations are
increasing their investment in basic research because they know
those who dominate science will dominate the 21st century
global economy. The President's fiscal year 2008 budget request
for the Office of Science totals $4.4 billion, an increase of
15.8 percent or $600 million over the fiscal year 2007
appropriation. It is an important milestone on the path towards
doubling Federal support for basic research and the physical
sciences over the next 10 years.
And, in my view, an indispensable investment in our
Nation's energy security and America's continued
competitiveness in the global economy.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Raymond L. Orbach
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on the Office of Science's fiscal year
2008 budget request. I appreciate your support for the Office of
Science and basic research in the physical sciences, Mr. Chairman, and
your understanding of the importance of this research to our Nation's
energy security and economic competitiveness. I also want to thank the
members of the committee for their support. I believe this budget will
enable the Office of Science to deliver on its mission and enhance U.S.
competitiveness through our support of transformational science,
national scientific facilities, and the scientific workforce for the
Nation's future.
The Office of Science requests $4,397,876,000 for the fiscal year
2008 Science appropriation, an increase of $600,582,000 over the fiscal
year 2007 appropriated level. The fiscal year 2008 budget request for
the Office of Science represents the second year of the President's
commitment to double the Federal investment in basic research in the
physical sciences by the year 2016 as part of the American
Competitiveness Initiative. It also represents a continued commitment
to maintain U.S. leadership in science and recognition of the valuable
role research in the physical sciences plays in technology innovation
and global competitiveness.
With the fiscal year 2008 budget request the Office of Science will
continue to support transformational science--basic research for
advanced scientific breakthroughs that will revolutionize our approach
to the Nation's energy, environment, and national security challenges.
The Office of Science is the Nation's steward for fields such as high
energy physics, nuclear physics, heavy element chemistry, plasma
physics, magnetic fusion, and catalysis. It also supports unique
components of U.S. research in climate change and geophysics.
Researchers funded through the Office of Science are working on
some of the most pressing scientific challenges of our age including:
(1) Harnessing the power of microbial communities and plants for energy
production from renewable sources, carbon sequestration, and
environmental remediation; (2) Expanding the frontiers of
nanotechnology to develop materials with unprecedented properties for
widespread potential scientific, energy, and industrial applications;
(3) Pursuing the breakthroughs in materials science, nanotechnology,
biotechnology, and other fields needed to make solar energy more cost-
effective; (4) Demonstrating the scientific and technological
feasibility of creating and controlling a sustained burning plasma to
generate energy, as the next step toward making fusion power a
commercial reality; (5) Using advanced computation, simulation, and
modeling to understand and predict the behavior of complex systems
beyond the reach of some of our most powerful experimental probes, with
potentially transformational impacts on a broad range of scientific and
technological undertakings; (6) Understanding the origin of the
universe and nature of dark matter and dark energy; and (7) Resolving
key uncertainties and expanding the scientific foundation needed to
understand, predict, and assess the potential effects of atmospheric
carbon dioxide on climate and the environment.
U.S. leadership in many areas of science and technology depends in
part on the continued availability of the most advanced scientific
facilities for our researchers. The Office of Science builds and
operates national scientific facilities and instruments that make up
the world's most sophisticated suite of research capabilities. The
resources available for scientific research include advanced
synchrotron light sources, the new Spallation Neutron Source, state-of-
the-art Nanoscale Science Research Centers, supercomputers and high-
speed networks, climate and environmental monitoring capabilities,
particle accelerators and detectors for high energy and nuclear
physics, and genome sequencing facilities We are in the process of
developing new tools such as an X-ray free electron laser light source
that can image single large macromolecules and measure in real-time
changes in the chemical bond as chemical and biological reactions take
place, a next generation synchrotron light source for X-ray imaging and
capable of nanometer resolution, and detectors and instruments for
world-leading neutrino physics research. SC will also select and begin
funding in fiscal year 2007 for three Bioenergy Research Centers to
conduct fundamental research on microbes and plants needed to produce
biologically-based fuel.
Office of Science leadership in support of the physical sciences
and stewardship of large national research facilities is directly
linked to our historic role in training America's scientists and
engineers. In addition to funding a diverse portfolio of research at
more than 300 colleges and universities nationwide, we provide direct
support and access to research facilities for thousands of university
students and researchers. Facilities at the national laboratories
provide unique opportunities for researchers and their students from
across the country to pursue questions at the intersection of physics,
chemistry, biology, computing, and materials science. About half of the
annual 21,000 users of the Office of Science's scientific facilities
come from universities. The fiscal year 2008 budget will support the
research of approximately 25,500 faculty, postdoctoral researchers, and
graduate students throughout the Nation, an increase of 3,600 from
fiscal year 2006, in addition to supporting undergraduate research
internships and fellowships and research and training opportunities for
K-14 science educators at the national laboratories.
The approximate $600 million increase in fiscal year 2008 from the
fiscal year 2007 appropriated level will bring manageable increases to
the Office of Science programs for long planned for activities. The
fiscal year 2008 request will allow the Office of Science to increase
support for high-priority DOE mission-driven scientific research and
new initiatives; maintain optimum operations at our scientific user
facilities; continuing major facility construction projects; and
enhance educational, research, and training opportunities for the
Nation's future scientific workforce. The budget request will also
support basic research that contributes to Presidential initiatives
such as the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and the Advanced Energy
Initiative, the Climate Change Science and Technology Programs, and the
National Nanotechnology Initiative.
The following programs are supported in the fiscal year 2008 budget
request: Basic Energy Sciences, Advanced Scientific Computing Research,
Biological and Environmental Research, Fusion Energy Sciences, High
Energy Physics, Nuclear Physics, Workforce Development for Teachers and
Scientists, Science Laboratories Infrastructure, Science Program
Direction, and Safeguards and Security.
OFFICE OF SCIENCE FISCAL YEAR 2008 PRESIDENT'S REQUEST SUMMARY BY PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2008 Request vs.
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2007 Fiscal Year -------------------------------
2006 Approp. 2007 Request Approp.\1\ 2008 Request Request Approp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Energy Sciences................................... 1,110,148 1,420,980 .............. 1,498,497 +77,517 ..............
Advanced Scientific Computing Research.................. 228,382 318,654 .............. 340,198 +21,544 ..............
Biological and Environmental Research................... 564,077 510,263 .............. 531,897 +21,634 ..............
High Energy Physics..................................... 698,238 775,099 .............. 782,238 +7,139 ..............
Nuclear Physics......................................... 357,756 454,060 .............. 471,319 +17,259 ..............
Fusion Energy Sciences.................................. 280,683 318,950 .............. 427,850 +108,900 ..............
Science Laboratories Infrastructure..................... 41,684 50,888 .............. 78,956 +28,068 ..............
Science Program Direction............................... 159,118 170,877 .............. 184,934 +14,057 ..............
Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists....... 7,120 10,952 .............. 11,000 +48 ..............
Safeguards and Security................................. 68,025 70,987 .............. 70,987 .............. ..............
SBIR/STTR............................................... 116,813 .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of Science.......................... 3,632,044 4,101,710 3,797,294 4,397,876 +296,166 +600,582
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2007 program allocation plan not yet finalized.
FISCAL YEAR 2008 SCIENCE PRIORITIES
The challenges we face today in energy and the environment are some
of the most vexing and complex in our history. Our success in meeting
these challenges will depend in large part on how well we maintain this
country's leadership in science and technology because it is through
scientific and technological innovation and a skilled workforce that
these challenges will be solved.
President George W. Bush made this point in his State of the Union
Message on January 23, 2007, when he stated,
``It's in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply--
the way forward is through technology . . . We must continue changing
the way America generates electric power, by even greater use of clean
coal technology, solar and wind energy, and clean, safe nuclear power.
We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid
vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel
fuel. We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol--
using everything from wood chips to grasses, to agricultural wastes . . .
``America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will
enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. And these
technologies will help us to be better stewards of the environment, and
they will help us confront the serious challenge of global climate
change.''
In 2006, the President announced a commitment to double the budget
for basic research in the physical sciences at key agencies over 10
years to maintain U.S. leadership in science and ensure continued
global competitiveness. This commitment received bipartisan support in
both the House of Representatives and the Senate and the fiscal year
2008 budget request for the Office of Science represents the second
year of this effort. Through the fiscal year 2008 budget, the Office of
Science will build on its record of results with sound investments to
keep U.S. research and development at the forefront of global science
and prepare the scientific workforce we will need in the 21st century
to address our Nation's challenges.
Determining and balancing science and technology priorities across
the Office of Science programs is an ongoing process. Several factors
are considered in our prioritization, including scientific
opportunities identified by the broader scientific community through
Office of Science sponsored workshops; external review and
recommendations by scientific advisory committees; DOE mission needs;
and national and departmental priorities. In fiscal year 2008, we will
support the priorities in scientific research, facility operations, and
construction and laboratory infrastructure established in the past few
years and outlined in the Office of Science Strategic Plan and Twenty-
year Facilities Outlook, in addition to national and departmental
priorities and new research opportunities identified in recent
workshops.
National initiatives in hydrogen fuel cell and advanced energy
technologies will be supported through our contributions to basic
research in hydrogen, fusion, solar energy-to-fuels, and production of
ethanol and other biofuels from cellulose. We will also continue strong
support for other administration priorities such as nanotechnology,
advanced scientific computation, and climate change science and
technology.
The Office of Science will support three Bioenergy Research Centers
in fiscal year 2008 as part of the broader Genomics: GTL program. These
centers, to be selected in fiscal year 2007 and fully operational by
the end of 2008, will conduct comprehensive, multidisciplinary research
programs focused on microbes and plants to drive scientific
breakthroughs necessary for the development of cost-effective biofuels
and bioenergy production. The broader GTL program will also continue to
support fundamental research and technology development needed to
understand the complex behavior of biological systems for the
development of innovative biotechnology solutions to energy production,
environmental mitigation, and carbon management.
The Office of Science designs, constructs, and operates facilities
and instruments that provide world-leading research tools and
capabilities for U.S. researchers and will continue to support next
generation tools for enabling transformational science. For example,
the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS), the world's forefront neutron
scattering facility, increases the number of neutrons available for
cutting-edge research by a factor of 10 over any existing spallation
neutron source in the world. SNS was completed and began operations in
2006 and in fiscal year 2008 full operations are supported and
additional experimental capabilities continue to be added.
When it comes on line, the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) at
the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) will produce X-rays 10
billion times more intense than any existing X-ray source in the world,
and will allow structural studies on individual nanoscale particles and
single biomolecules. Construction of LCLS continues in fiscal year
2008.
A next generation synchrotron light source, the National
Synchrotron Light Source-II (NSLS-II), would deliver orders of
magnitude improvement in spatial resolution, providing the world's
finest capabilities for X-ray imaging and enabling the study of
material properties and functions, particularly at the nanoscale, at a
level of detail and precision never before possible. Its energy
resolution would explore dynamic properties of matter as no other light
source has ever accomplished. Support for continued R&D and project
engineering and design (PED) are provided in fiscal year 2008.
All five of DOE's Nanoscale Science Research Centers (NSRCs) will
be operating in fiscal year 2008. These facilities are the Nation's
premier nanoscience user centers, providing resources unmatched to the
scientific community for the synthesis, fabrication, and analysis of
nanoparticles and nanomaterials.
We will fully fund the programs for advanced scientific computing,
including: continued support for high-performance production computing
at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC),
which will increase capacity to 100-150 teraflops in fiscal year 2007;
support for advanced capabilities for modeling and simulation of
scientific problems in combustion, fusion, and complex chemical
reactions at Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Leadership Computing
Facility, which should deliver 250 teraflops computing capability by
the end of fiscal year 2008; and support for the upgrade to 250-500
teraflop peak capacity of the IBM Blue Gene P system at Argonne
National Laboratory's Leadership Computing Facility to extend
architectural diversity in leadership computing.
The Office of Science continues to be a partner in the interagency
Climate Change Science Program focusing on understanding the principal
uncertainties of the causes and effects of climate change, including
abrupt climate change, understanding the global carbon cycle,
developing predictive models for climate change over decades to
centuries, and supporting basic research for biological sequestration
of carbon. We also continue to support research in geosciences and
environmental remediation towards the development of scientific and
technological solutions to long-term environmental challenges.
The Office of Science will continue to actively lead and support
the U.S. contributions to ITER, the international project to build and
operate the first fusion science facility capable of producing a
sustained burning plasma to generate energy on a massive scale without
environmental insult. The historic international fusion energy
agreement to build ITER with six other international partners was
signed in November 2006.
We continue strong support for experimental and theoretical high
energy physics and the study of the elementary constituents of matter
and energy and interactions at the heart of physics. Full operations at
the Tevatron Collider at Fermilab and the B-factory at SLAC are
supported to maximize the scientific research and data derived from
these facilities. Full operation of the neutrino oscillation experiment
at Fermilab and start of fabrication of a next generation detector are
supported to provide a platform for a world-leading neutrino program in
the U.S. International Linear Collider (ILC) R&D and superconducting
radio frequency technology R&D are supported to enable the most
compelling scientific opportunities in high energy physics in the
coming decades.
Our research programs in nuclear physics continue to receive strong
support. Operations at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and
additional instrumentation projects for RHIC are supported for studies
of the properties of hot, dense nuclear matter, providing insight into
the early universe. We will also support operations at the Continuous
Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF), the world's most powerful
``microscope'' for studying the quark structure of matter, and project
engineering and design and R&D for doubling the energy of the existing
beam at CEBAF to 12 gigaelectron volts (GeV). Support for R&D to
develop advanced rare isotope beam capabilities for the next generation
U.S. facility for nuclear structure and astrophysics is also provided.
The standard of living we enjoy and the security of our Nation now
and in the future rests on the quality of science and technology
education we provide America's students from elementary through
graduate school and beyond. The fiscal year 2008 budget will provide
support for over 25,500 Ph.D.s, graduate students, engineers, and
technical professionals, an increase of 3,600 over the number supported
in fiscal year 2006. The Office of Science will also support the
development of leaders in the science and mathematics education
community through participation of K-14 teachers in the DOE Academies
Creating Teacher Scientists program, formerly the Laboratory Science
Teacher Professional Development program. This immersion program at the
national laboratories is an opportunity for teachers to work with
laboratory scientists as mentors and to build content knowledge,
research skills, and lasting connections to the scientific community,
ultimately leading to more effective teaching that inspires students in
science and math. The year 2008 will also mark the 18th year of DOE's
National Science Bowl for high school students. National Science Bowl
events for high school and middle school students, which will involve
17,000 students across the Nation this year, provide prestigious
academic competitions that challenge and inspire the Nation's youth to
excel in math and science.
SCIENCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
For more than 50 years, the Office of Science (SC) has balanced
basic research, innovative problem solving, and support for world-
leading scientific capabilities, enabling historic contributions to
U.S. economic and scientific preeminence. American taxpayers have
received good value for their investment in basic research sponsored by
the Office of Science; this work has led to significant technological
innovations, new intellectual capital, improved quality of life, and
enhanced economic competitiveness. The following are some of the past
year's highlights:
Nobel Prize in Physics.--The 2006 Nobel Prize in physics was
awarded to Dr. George Smoot (DOE Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
and University of California, Berkeley) and Dr. John Mather (NASA
Goddard Space Flight Center) for their discovery of ``the blackbody
form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation,'' the
pattern of minuscule temperature variations in radiation which allowed
scientists to gain better understanding of the origins of galaxies and
stars. These two American scientists led the teams of researchers who
worked on the historic 1989 NASA COBE satellite. The results of their
work provided increased support for the ``Big Bang'' theory of the
universe and marked the inception of cosmology as a precise science. SC
supported Dr. Smoot's research during the period in which he worked on
the COBE experiment, and continues to support his research today. One
of the principal instruments used to make the discoveries was built at
SC-supported facilities at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and
DOE's National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center
supercomputers were used to analyze the massive amounts of data and
produce detailed visual maps.
Advancing Science and Technology for Bioenergy Solutions.--
Harnessing the capabilities of microbes and plants holds great
potential for the development of innovative, cost-effective methods for
the production of biofuels and bioenergy. Sequencing of the poplar tree
genome was completed as part of a DOE national laboratory-led
international collaboration; the information encoded in the poplar
genome will provide researchers with an important resource for
developing trees that produce more biomass for conversion to biofuels
and trees that can sequester more carbon from the atmosphere. The DOE
Joint Genome Institute (JGI) marked a technical milestone this year
with the 100th microbe genome sequenced; Methanosarcina barkeri fusaro
is capable of living in diverse and extreme environments, produces
methane from digesting cellulose and other complex sugars, and provides
greater understanding of potential new methods for producing renewable
sources of energy. A chemical imaging method developed using a light-
producing cellulose synthesizing enzyme allowed researchers to observe
the enzyme as it deposited cellulose fibers in a cell, providing
greater understanding of the mechanism for cellulose formation.
Delivering Forefront Computational and Networking Capabilities for
Science.--Several 2006 advances in computing, computational sciences,
and networking enabled greater opportunities for computational research
and effective management of data collected at DOE scientific user
facilities. NERSC began to increase its peak capacity by a factor of
100 and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Leadership Computing
Facility doubled its capability to 54 teraflops to provide additional
resources for computationally intensive, large-scale projects. The
Energy Sciences Network expanded in 2006 to include the Chicago and New
York-Long Island metropolitan area networks (MANs), bringing dual
connectivity at 20 gigabits per second and highly reliable, advanced
network services to accommodate next-generation scientific instruments
and supercomputers. Chemistry software using parallel-vector algorithms
developed by researchers at ORNL has enabled computations 40 times more
complex and 100 times faster than previous state-of-the-art codes. The
development of a multiscale mathematical framework for simulating the
process of self-organization in biological systems has led to the
discovery of a previously unidentified cluster state, providing
possible applications to modeling microbial populations.
Advances in Basic Science for Energy Technologies.--Current and
future national energy challenges may be partially addressed through
scientific and technological innovation. Some recent accomplishments in
basic science that may contribute to future energy solutions include
the following. Basic research on the molecular design and synthesis of
new polymer membranes has lead to the discovery of a new fuel cell
membrane that is longer lasting and three times more proton conductive
than the current gold standard for proton exchange membrane fuel cells.
Computational studies showing that in titanium-coated carbon nanotubes
a single titanium atom can adsorb four hydrogen molecules opens new
ways that the control of matter on the nanoscale can lead to the
creation of novel materials for hydrogen storage. Recent work
demonstrating that visible light can split carbon dioxide into carbon
monoxide and a free oxygen atom, the critical first reaction in
sunlight-driven transformation of carbon dioxide into methanol, makes
it feasible to consider harnessing sunlight to drive the photocatalytic
production of methanol from carbon dioxide. Demonstration of the effect
known as carrier multiplication in which a single photon creates
multiple charge carriers during the interaction of photons with a
nanocrystalline sample could lead to substantial increases in solar
cell conversion efficiency.
Maintaining World-leading Research Tools for U.S. Science.--The
Office of Science continues to construct and maintain powerful tools
and research capabilities that will accelerate U.S. scientific
discovery and innovation. The following highlight a few recent
accomplishments. Construction and commissioning of the Spallation
Neutron Source (SNS), an accelerator-based neutron source that will
provide the most intense pulsed neutron beams in the world for
scientific research and industrial development, was completed and began
operations. Full operation of four of the five DOE Nanoscale Science
Research Centers began in 2006, providing resources unmatched anywhere
in the world for the synthesis, fabrication, and analysis of
nanoparticles and nanomaterials. A nanofocusing lens device at the
Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory has set a world's
record for line size resolution produced with a hard X-ray beam and
enables such capabilities as three-dimensional visualization of
electronic circuit boards, mapping impurities in biological and
environmental samples, and analyzing samples inside high-pressure or
high-temperature cells. A new record for performance, a 77 percent
increase in peak luminosity in 2006 from the previous year, was
achieved at the Tevatron, the world's most powerful particle collider
for high energy physics research at Fermilab. Evidence of the rare
single top quark was observed at Fermilab in 2006, bringing researchers
a step closer to finding the Higgs boson. The Large Area Telescope
(LAT), a DOE and NASA partnership and the primary instrument on NASA's
GLAST mission, was completed in 2006 and will be placed in orbit in the
fall of 2007 to study the high energy gamma rays and other
astrophysical phenomena using particle physics detection techniques.
During the 2006 operation of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider
(RHIC), polarized protons were accelerated to the highest energies ever
recorded--250 billion electron volts--for world-leading studies of the
internal quark-gluon structure of nucleons.
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE
The path from basic research to technology development and
industrial competitiveness is not always obvious. History has taught us
that seeking answers to fundamental questions can ultimately result in
a diverse array of practical applications as well as some remarkable
revolutionary advances. Working with the scientific community, the
Office of Science invests in the promising research and sets long-term
scientific goals with ambitious annual targets. The intent and impact
of our performance goals may not always be clear to those outside the
research community. Therefore the Office of Science has created a
website (www.sc.doe.gov/measures) to better communicate to the public
what we are measuring and why it is important.
Further, the Office of Science has revised the appraisal process it
uses each year to evaluate the scientific, management, and operational
performance of the contractors who manage and operate each of its 10
national laboratories. This new appraisal process went into effect for
the fiscal year 2006 performance evaluation period and provides a
common structure and scoring system across all 10 Office of Science
laboratories. The performance-based approach focuses the evaluation of
the contractor's performance against eight Performance Goals (three
Science and Technology Goals and five Management and Operation Goals).
Each goal is composed of two or more weighted objectives. The new
process has also incorporated a standardized five-point (0-4.3) scoring
system, with corresponding grades for each Performance Goal, creating a
``Report Card'' for each laboratory.
The fiscal year 2006 Office of Science laboratory report cards have
been posted on the SC website (http://www.science.doe.gov/
News_Information/News_Room/2007/Appraisa_%20Process/index.htm).
SCIENCE PROGRAMS
Basic Energy Sciences
Fiscal Year 2007 Request--$1,421.0 Million; Fiscal Year
2008 Request--$1,498.5 Million
Basic research supported by the Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program
touches virtually every aspect of energy resources, production,
conversion, efficiency, and waste mitigation. Research in materials
sciences and engineering leads to the development of materials that may
improve the efficiency, economy, environmental acceptability, and
safety of energy generation, conversion, transmission, and use.
Research in chemistry leads to the development of advances such as
efficient combustion systems with reduced emission of pollutants; new
solar photo-conversion processes; improved catalysts for the production
of fuels and chemicals; and better separations and analytical methods
for applications in energy processes, environmental remediation, and
waste management. Research in geosciences contributes to the solution
of problems in multiple DOE mission areas, including reactive fluid
flow studies to understand contaminant remediation and seismic imaging
for reservoir definition. Research in the molecular and biochemical
nature of photosynthesis aids the development of solar photo-energy
conversion and biomass conversion methods. BES asks researchers to
reach far beyond today's problems in order to provide the basis for
long-term solutions to what is one of society's greatest challenges--a
secure, abundant, and clean energy supply. In fiscal year 2008, the
Office of Science will support expanded efforts in basic research
related to transformational energy technologies. Within BES, there are
increases to ongoing basic research for the hydrogen economy and
effective solar energy utilization. The fiscal year 2008 budget request
also supports increased research in electric-energy storage,
accelerator physics, and X-ray and neutron detector research.
BES also provides the Nation's researchers with world-class
research facilities, including reactor- and accelerator-based neutron
sources, light sources (soon to include an X-ray free electron laser),
nanoscale science research centers, and electron beam micro-
characterization centers. These facilities provide outstanding
capabilities for imaging and characterizing materials of all kinds from
metals, alloys, and ceramics to fragile biological samples. The next
steps in the characterization and the ultimate control of materials
properties and chemical reactivity are to improve spatial resolution of
imaging techniques; to enable a wide variety of samples, sample sizes,
and sample environments to be used in imaging experiments; and to make
measurements on very short time scales, comparable to the time of a
chemical reaction or the formation of a chemical bond. With these
tools, we will be able to understand how the composition of materials
affects their properties, to watch proteins fold, to see chemical
reactions, and to understand and observe the nature of the chemical
bond. For fiscal year 2008, BES scientific user facilities will be
scheduled to operate at an optimal number of hours.
Construction of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) was completed
in fiscal year 2006 ahead of schedule, under budget, and meeting all
technical milestones. In fiscal year 2008 fabrication and commissioning
of SNS instruments will continue, funded by BES and other sources
including non-DOE sources, and will continue to increase power towards
full levels. Two Major Items of Equipment are funded in fiscal year
2008 that will allow the fabrication of approximately nine to ten
additional instruments for the SNS, thus nearly completing the initial
suite of 24 instruments that can be accommodated in the high-power
target station.
All five Nanoscale Science Research Centers will be fully
operational in fiscal year 2008: the Center for Nanophase Materials
Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Molecular Foundry at
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Center for Nanoscale
Materials at Argonne National Laboratory, the Center for Integrated
Nanotechnologies at Sandia National Laboratories and Los Alamos
National Laboratory, and the Center for Functional Nanomaterials at
Brookhaven National Laboratory. In fiscal year 2008, funding for
research at the nanoscale increases for activities related to the
hydrogen economy and solar energy utilization.
The Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) at the Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center (SLAC) will continue construction at the planned
levels in fiscal year 2008. Funding is also provided for primary
support of the operation of the SLAC linac. This marks the third year
of the transition of linac funding from the High Energy Physics program
to the Basic Energy Sciences program. The purpose of the LCLS Project
is to provide laser-like radiation in the X-ray region of the spectrum
that is 10 billion times greater in peak power and peak brightness than
any existing coherent X-ray light source and that has pulse lengths
measured in femtoseconds--the timescale of electronic and atomic
motions. The LCLS will be the first such facility in the world for
groundbreaking research in the physical and life sciences. Funding is
provided separately for design and fabrication of instruments for the
facility. Project Engineering and Design (PED) and construction for the
Photon Ultrafast Laser Science and Engineering (PULSE) building
renovation begins in fiscal year 2008. PULSE is a new center for
ultrafast science at SLAC focusing on ultrafast structural and
electronic dynamics in materials sciences, the generation of attosecond
laser pulses, single-molecule imaging, and understanding solar energy
conversion in molecular systems. Support continues for PED and R&D for
the National Synchrotron Light Source-II (NSLS-II), which would be a
new synchrotron light source, highly optimized to deliver ultra-high
brightness and flux and exceptional beam stability. This would enable
the study of material properties and functions with a spatial
resolution of one nanometer (nm), an energy resolution of 0.1
millielectron volt (meV), and the ultra-high sensitivity required to
perform spectroscopy on a single atom, achieving a level of detail and
precision never possible before. NSLS-II would open new regimes of
scientific discovery and investigation.
The Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC)
program is a set of coordinated investments across all Office of
Science mission areas with the goal of using computer simulation to
achieve breakthrough scientific advances that are impossible using
theoretical or laboratory studies alone. The SciDAC program in BES
consists of two activities: (1) characterizing chemically reacting
flows as exemplified by combustion and (2) achieving scalability in the
first-principles calculation of molecular properties, including
chemical reaction rates.
Advanced Scientific Computing Research
Fiscal Year 2007 Request--$318.7 Million; Fiscal Year 2008
Request--$340.2 Million
The Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program is
expanding the capability of world-class scientific research through
advances in mathematics, high performance computing and advanced
networks, and through the application of computers capable of many
trillions of operations per second (terascale to petascale computers).
Computer-based simulation can enable us to understand and predict the
behavior of complex systems that are beyond the reach of our most
powerful experimental probes or our most sophisticated theories.
Computational modeling has greatly advanced our understanding of
fundamental processes of nature, such as fluid flow and turbulence or
molecular structure and reactivity. Soon, through modeling and
simulation, we will be able to explore the interior of stars to
understand how the chemical elements were created and learn how protein
machines work inside living cells to enable the design of microbes that
address critical energy or waste cleanup needs. We could also design
novel catalysts and high-efficiency engines that expand our economy,
lower pollution, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Computational science is increasingly important to making progress at
the frontiers of almost every scientific discipline and to our most
challenging feats of engineering. Leadership in scientific computing
has become a cornerstone of the Department's strategy to ensure the
security of the Nation and success in its science, energy,
environmental quality, and national security missions.
The demands of today's facilities, which generate millions of
gigabytes of data per year, now outstrip the capabilities of the
current Internet design and push the state-of-the-art in data storage
and utilization. But, the evolution of the telecommunications market,
including the availability of direct access to optical fiber at
attractive prices and the availability of flexible dense wave division
multiplexing (DWDM) products gives SC the possibility of exploiting
these technologies to provide scientific data where needed at speeds
commensurate with the new data volumes. To take advantage of this
opportunity, the Energy Science Network (ESnet) has entered into a long
term partnership with Internet 2 to build the next generation optical
network infrastructure needed for U.S. science. To fully realize the
potential for science, however, significant research is needed to
integrate these capabilities, make them available to scientists, and
build the infrastructure which can provide cybersecurity. ASCR is
leading an interagency effort to develop a Federal Plan for Advanced
Networking R&D. This plan will provide a strategy for addressing
current and future networking needs of the Federal Government in
support of science and national security missions and provide a process
for developing a more detailed roadmap to guide future multi-agency
investments in advancing networking R&D.
ASCR supports core research in applied mathematics, computer
sciences, and distributed network environments. The applied mathematics
research activity produces fundamental mathematical methods to model
complex physical and biological systems. The computer science research
efforts enable scientists to perform scientific computations
efficiently on the highest performance computers available and to
store, manage, analyze, and visualize the massive amounts of data that
result. The networking research activity provides the techniques to
link the data producers with scientists who need access to the data.
Results from enabling research supported by ASCR are used by scientists
supported by other SC programs. This link to other DOE programs
provides a tangible assessment of the value of ASCR's core research
program for advancing scientific discovery and technology development
through simulations. In fiscal year 2008 expanded efforts in applied
mathematics will support critical long-term mathematical research
issues relevant to petascale science, multiscale mathematics, and
optimized control and risk analysis in complex systems. Expanded
efforts in computer science will enable scientific applications to take
full advantage of petascale computing systems at the Leadership
Computing Facilities.
In addition to its research activities, ASCR plans, develops, and
operates supercomputer and network facilities that are available 24
hours a day, 365 days a year to researchers working on problems
relevant to DOE's scientific missions. Investments in the ESnet will
provide the DOE science community with capabilities not available
through commercial networks or the commercial internet to manage
increased data flows from petascale computers and experimental
facilities. In fiscal year 2008 ESnet will deliver a 10 gigabit per
second (gbps) core Internet service as well as a Science Data Network
with 20 gbps on its northern route and 10 gbps on its southern route.
Delivery of the next generation of high performance resources at the
National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) is
scheduled for fiscal year 2007. This NERSC-5 system is expected to
provide 100-150 teraflops of peak computing capacity. The NERSC
computational resources are integrated by a common high performance
file storage system that enables users to use all machines easily.
Therefore the new machine will significantly reduce the current
oversubscription at NERSC which serves nearly 2,000 scientists
annually.
In fiscal year 2008, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
Leadership Computing Facility (LCF) will continue to provide world
leading high performance sustained capability to researchers through
the Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment
(INCITE) program. The acquisition of a 250 teraflop Cray Baker system
by the end of fiscal year 2008 will enable further scientific
advancements in areas such as combustion simulation for clean coal
research, simulation of fusion devices that approach ITER scale, and
quantum calculations of complex chemical reactions. In addition,
further diversity with the LCF resources will be realized with an
acquisition by Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) of a high performance
IBM Blue Gene/P with low-electrical power requirements and a peak
capability of up to 100 teraflops in 2007, and further expansion to
250-500 teraflops in fiscal year 2008 will bring enhanced capability to
accelerate scientific understanding in areas such as molecular
dynamics, catalysis, protein/DNA complexes, and aging of material. With
the ORNL and ANL LCF facilities SC is developing a multiple set of
computer architectures to enable the most efficient solution of
critical problems across the spectrum of science, ranging from biology
to physics and chemistry.
The Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC)
program is a set of coordinated investments across all SC mission areas
with the goal of using computer simulation and advanced networking
technologies to achieve breakthrough scientific advances via that are
impossible using theoretical or laboratory studies alone. In fiscal
year 2006 ASCR recompeted its SciDAC portfolio, with the exception of
activities in partnership with the Fusion Energy Sciences program that
were initiated in fiscal year 2005. The new portfolio, referred to as
SciDAC-2, enables new areas of science through Scientific Application
Partnerships; Centers for Enabling Technologies (CET) at universities
and national laboratories; and University-led SciDAC Institutes to
establish centers of excellence that complement the activities of the
CETs and provide training for the next generation of computational
scientists.
Advancing high performance computing and computation is a highly
coordinated interagency effort. ASCR has extensive partnerships with
other Federal agencies and the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA). Activities are coordinated with other Federal efforts through
the Networking and Information Technology R&D (NITR&D) subcommittee of
the National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology.
The subcommittee coordinates planning, budgeting, and assessment
activities of the multi-agency NITR&D enterprise. DOE has been an
active participant in these coordination groups and committees since
their inception. ASCR will continue to coordinate its activities
through these mechanisms and will lead the development of new
coordinating mechanisms as needs arise such as the ongoing development
of a Federal Plan for Advanced Networking R&D.
Biological and Environmental Research
Fiscal Year 2007 Request--$510.3 Million; Fiscal Year 2008
Request--$531.9 Million
Biological and Environmental Research (BER) supports basic research
with broad impacts on our energy future, our environment, and our
health. By understanding complex biological systems, developing
computational tools to model and predict their behavior, and developing
methods to harness nature's capabilities, biotechnology solutions are
possible for DOE energy, environmental, and national security
challenges. An ability to predict long-range and regional climate
enables effective planning for future needs in energy, agriculture, and
land and water use. Understanding the global carbon cycle and the
associated role and capabilities of microbes and plants can lead to
solutions for reducing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
Understanding the complex role of biology, geochemistry, and hydrology
beneath the Earth's surface will lead to improved decision making and
solutions for contaminated DOE weapons sites. Understanding the
biological effects of low doses of radiation can lead to the
development of science-based health risk policy to better protect
workers and citizens. Both normal and abnormal physiological
processes--from normal human development to cancer to brain function--
can be understood and improved using radiotracers, advanced imaging
instruments, and novel biomedical devices.
The fiscal year 2008 BER request continues expansion of the
Genomics: GTL program. This program employs a systems approach to
biology at the interface of the biological, physical, and computational
sciences to determine the diverse biochemical capabilities of microbes,
microbial communities, and plants, with the goal of tailoring and
translating those capabilities into solutions for DOE mission needs. In
fiscal year 2005 BER engaged a committee of the National Research
Council (NRC) of the National Academies to review the design of the
Genomics: GTL program and its infrastructure plan. The NRC committee
report, Review of the Department of Energy's Genomics: GTL Program was
released in fiscal year 2006 and provided a strong endorsement of the
GTL program, recommending that the program's focus on systems biology
for bioenergy, carbon sequestration, and bioremediation be given a
``high priority'' by DOE and the Nation. The report also recommended
that the program's plan for new research facilities be reshaped to
produce earlier and more cost-effective results by focusing not on
particular technologies, but on research underpinning particular
applications such as bioenergy, carbon sequestration, or environmental
remediation.
In response, SC revised its original single-purpose user facilities
plan to instead develop and support vertically-integrated GTL Research
Centers to accelerate systems biology research. BER will support the
development of three Bioenergy Research Centers to be selected and
initiated in fiscal year 2007, and fully operational by the end of
2008. All three centers will conduct comprehensive, multidisciplinary
research programs focused on microbes and plants to drive scientific
breakthroughs necessary for the development of cost-effective biofuels
and bioenergy production. These centers will not only possess the
robust scientific capabilities needed to carry out their broad mission
mandates, but will also draw upon the broader GTL program for
technology development and foundational research. The vertically-
integrated GTL Research Centers will not require construction of
facilities. Moreover, the competition to establish and operate them is
open to universities, non-profit research organizations, the national
laboratories, and the private sector--an approach that is new for the
Department. The first three research centers will focus on bioenergy
research. The Department announced the solicitation for Bioenergy
Research Centers in August 2006, and proposals were due on February 1,
2007.
Development of a global biotechnology based energy infrastructure
requires a science base that will enable scientists to control or
redirect genetic regulation and redesign specific proteins, biochemical
pathways, and even entire plants or microbes. Renewable biofuels could
be produced using plants, microbes, or isolated enzymes. Understanding
the biological mechanisms involved in these energy producing processes
will allow scientists and technologists to design novel biofuel
production strategies involving both cellular and cell free systems
that might include defined mixed microbial communities or consolidated
biological processes. Within the Genomics: GTL program, BER supports
basic research aimed at developing the understanding needed to advance
biotechnology-based strategies for biofuel production, focusing on
renewable, carbon-neutral energy compounds like ethanol and hydrogen,
as well as understanding how the capabilities of microbes can be
applied to environmental remediation and carbon sequestration.
In 2003, the administration launched the Climate Change Research
Initiative (CCRI) to focus research on areas where substantial progress
in understanding and predicting climate change, including its potential
causes and consequences, is possible over the next 5 years. In fiscal
year 2008, BER will contribute to the CCRI by focusing on (1) helping
to resolve the North American carbon sink question (i.e., the magnitude
and location of the North American carbon sink); (2) deployment and
operation of a mobile ARM facility to provide data on the effects of
clouds and aerosols on the atmospheric radiation budget in regions and
locations of opportunity where data are lacking or sparse; (3) using
advanced climate models to simulate potential effects of natural and
human-induced climate forcing on global and regional climate and the
potential effects on climate of alternative options for mitigating
increases in human forcing of climate, including abrupt climate change;
and (4) developing and evaluating assessment tools needed to study
costs and benefits of potential strategies for reducing net carbon
dioxide emissions.
In fiscal year 2008, BER will continue to support research aimed at
advancing the science of climate and Earth system modeling by coupling
models of different components of the earth system related to climate
and by significantly increasing the spatial resolution of such models.
SciDAC-enabled activities will allow climate scientists to gain
unprecedented insights into interactions and feedbacks between, for
example, climate change and global cycling of carbon, the potential
effects of carbon dioxide and aerosol emissions from energy production
and their impact on the global climate system. BER will also add a
SciDAC component to GTL and Environmental Remediation research. GTL
SciDAC will initiate new research to develop mathematical and
computational tools needed for complex biological system modeling and
for analysis of complex data sets, such as mass spectrometry
metabolomic or proteomic profiling data. Environmental Remediation
SciDAC will provide an opportunity for subsurface and computational
scientists to develop and improve methods of simulating subsurface
reactive transport processes on ``discovery class'' computers.
Research emphasis within BER's Environmental Remediation Sciences
subprogram will focus on issues of subsurface cleanup such as defining
and understanding the processes that control contaminant fate and
transport in the environment and providing opportunities for use or
manipulation of natural processes to alter contaminant mobility. In
fiscal year 2008, BER will support the development of two additional
field research sites (for a total of 3), providing opportunities to
validate laboratory findings under field conditions. The resulting
knowledge and technology will assist DOE's environmental clean-up and
stewardship missions. Funding for the William R. Wiley Environmental
Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL) at Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory (PNNL) will be increased in fiscal year 2008 to maintain
operations at full capacity.
Also continuing in fiscal year 2008 is BER support for fundamental
research in genomics, medical applications and measurement science, and
the health effects of low dose radiation in fiscal year 2008. Resources
are developed and made widely available for determining protein
structures at DOE synchrotrons, and for DOE-relevant high-throughput
genomic DNA sequencing. Building on DOE capabilities in physics,
chemistry, engineering, biology and computation, BER supports
fundamental imaging research, maintains core infrastructure for imaging
research and develops new technologies to improve the diagnosis and
treatment of psycho-neurological diseases and cancer and to improve the
function of patients with neurological disabilities like blindness.
Funding for Ethical, Legal, and Societal Issues (ELSI) associated with
activities applicable to SC, increases to support research on the
ecological and environmental impacts of nanoparticles resulting from
nanotechnology applied to energy technologies.
High Energy Physics
Fiscal Year 2007 Request--$775.1 Million; Fiscal Year 2008
Request--$782.2 Million
The High Energy Physics (HEP) program provides over 90 percent of
the Federal support for the Nation's high energy physics research. This
research advances our understanding of the basic constituents of
matter, deeper symmetries in the laws of nature at high energies, and
mysterious phenomena that are commonplace in the universe, such as dark
energy and dark matter. Research at these frontiers of science may
uncover new particles, forces, or undiscovered dimensions of space and
time; explain how matter came to have mass; and reveal the underlying
nature of the universe. HEP supports particle accelerators and very
sensitive detectors to study fundamental particle interactions at the
highest possible energies as well as non-accelerator studies of cosmic
particles using experiments conducted deep underground, on mountains,
or in space. These research facilities and basic research supported by
HEP advance our knowledge not only in high energy physics, but
increasingly in other fields was well, including particle astrophysics
and cosmology. Research advances in one field often have a strong
impact on research directions in another. Technology that was developed
in response to the pace-setting demands of high energy physics research
has also become indispensable to other fields of science and has found
wide applications in industry and medicine, often in ways that could
not have been predicted when the technology was first developed.
In fiscal year 2008 HEP supports core experimental and theoretical
research to maintain strong participation in the Tevatron, Large Hadron
Collider (LHC) at CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear
Research), and B-factory physics program, and supports research
activities associated with development of potential new initiatives
such as International Linear Collider (ILC) R&D, neutrinos, dark
energy, and dark matter. HEP places a high priority on maximizing
scientific data derived from the three major HEP user facilities: the
Tevatron Collider and Neutrinos at the Main Injector (NuMI) beam line
at Fermilab, and the B-factory at SLAC. HEP will continue to lead the
international scientific community with these world-leading user
facilities at Fermilab and SLAC in fiscal year 2008, but these
facilities will complete their scientific missions by the end of the
decade. Thus, the longer-term HEP program supported in fiscal year 2008
begins to develop new cutting-edge facilities in targeted areas (such
as neutrino physics) that will establish U.S. leadership in these areas
in the next decade, when the centerpiece of the world HEP program will
reside at CERN.
In fiscal year 2008 HEP continues to support software and computing
resources for U.S. researchers participating in the LHC program at CERN
as well as pre-operations and maintenance of the U.S.-built systems
that are scientific components of the LHC detectors. R&D in support of
the proposed ILC is maintained in fiscal year 2008 to support U.S.
participation in a comprehensive, coordinated international R&D program
and to provide a basis for U.S. industry to compete successfully for
major subsystem contracts, should the ILC be designed and then built.
The long-term goal of this effort is to provide robust cost and
schedule baselines to support design and construction decisions for an
international electron-positron linear collider. The ILC would provide
unprecedented power, clarity, and precision to unravel the mysteries of
the next energy frontier, which we will just begin to discover with the
LHC. In 2006 the ILC Reference Design Report was completed, and in
fiscal year 2007 further work toward the design, including some site-
specific studies and detector studies, will be performed. In fiscal
year 2008 further work on both accelerator systems and detector studies
will be performed.
To provide a nearer-term future HEP program, and to preserve future
research options, R&D for accelerator and detector technologies,
particularly in the growing area of neutrino physics, will continue in
fiscal year 2008. With Tevatron improvements completed, much of the
accelerator development effort at Fermilab in fiscal year 2008 will
focus on the neutrino program to study the universe's most prolific
particle. The Neutrinos at the Main Injector (NuMI) beam allows studies
of the fundamental physics of neutrino masses and mixings using the
proton source section of the Tevatron complex. The NuMI beam has begun
operations and will eventually put much higher demands on that set of
accelerators. A program of enhanced maintenance, operational
improvements, and equipment upgrades is being developed to meet these
higher demands, while continuing to run the Tevatron. Fabrication of
the NuMI Off-axis Neutrino Appearance (NOnA) Detector, which was
originally proposed as a line item construction project in fiscal year
2007 under the generic name of Electron Neutrino Appearance (EnA)
Detector, is funded in fiscal year 2008 and will utilize the NuMI beam.
This project includes improvements to the proton source to increase the
intensity of the NuMI beam. Meanwhile, fabrication will begin for the
Reactor Neutrino Detector and two small neutrino experiments, the Main
Injector Experiment n-A (MINERnA) in the MINOS near detector hall at
Fermilab and the Tokai-to-Kamioka (T2K) experiment using the Japanese
J-PARC neutrino beam. R&D will continue for a large double beta decay
experiment to measure the mass of a neutrino. These efforts are part of
a coordinated neutrino program developed from an American Physical
Society study and a joint HEPAP/Nuclear Sciences Advisory Committee
(NSAC) subpanel review.
To exploit the unique opportunity to expand the boundaries of our
understanding of the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the universe, a
high priority is given to continued operations and infrastructure
support for the B-factory at SLAC. Final upgrades to the accelerator
and detector are scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2007, and B-
factory operations will conclude in fiscal year 2008. HEP support of
SLAC operations decreases in fiscal year 2008 as the contribution from
BES increases for SLAC linac operations in preparation for the Linac
Coherent Light Source (LCLS).
As the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) accelerator nears its turn-on
date in 2007, U.S. activities related to fabrication of detector
components will be completed and new activities related to
commissioning and pre-operations of these detectors, along with
software and computing activities needed to analyze the data, will
ramp-up significantly. Support of an effective role for U.S. research
groups in LHC discoveries will continue to be a high priority of the
HEP program. R&D for possible future upgrades to the LHC accelerator
and detectors will also be pursued.
Enhanced support for R&D on ground- and space-based dark energy
experimental concepts, begun in fiscal year 2007, will be continued in
fiscal year 2008. These experiments should provide important new
information about the nature of dark energy, leading to a better
understanding of the birth, evolution, and ultimate fate of the
universe. For example, the Super Nova/Acceleration Probe (SNAP) will be
a mission concept proposed for a potential interagency-sponsored
experiment with NASA, and possibly international partners: the Joint
Dark Energy Mission (JDEM). DOE and NASA are jointly funding a National
Academy of Sciences study to determine which of the proposed NASA
``Beyond Einstein'' missions should launch first, with technical design
of the selected proposal to begin at the end of this decade. JDEM is
one of the candidate missions in this study. In fiscal year 2008,
fabrication for the Dark Energy Survey Project will begin.
The HEP program re-competed its SciDAC portfolio in fiscal year
2006. Major thrusts in theoretical physics, astrophysics, and particle
physics grid technology will be supported through the SciDAC program in
fiscal year 2008, as well as proposals in accelerator modeling and
design to be selected in fiscal year 2007. These projects will allow
HEP to use computational science to obtain significant new insights
into challenging problems that have the greatest impact in HEP mission
areas.
Nuclear Physics
Fiscal Year 2007 Request--$454.1 Million; Fiscal Year 2008
Request--$471.3 Million
The Nuclear Physics (NP) program is the major sponsor of
fundamental nuclear physics research in the Nation, providing about 90
percent of Federal support. Scientific research supported by NP is
aimed at advancing knowledge and providing insights into the nature of
energy and matter and, in particular, at investigating the fundamental
forces which hold the nucleus together and determining the detailed
structure and behavior of the atomic nuclei. NP builds and supports
world-leading scientific facilities and state-of-the-art
instrumentation to carry out its basic research agenda--the study of
the evolution and structure of nuclear matter from the smallest
building blocks, quarks and gluons, to the stable elements in the
universe created by stars, to unique isotopes created in the laboratory
that exist at the limits of stability and possess radically different
properties from known matter. NP also trains a workforce needed to
underpin the Department's missions for nuclear-related national
security, energy, and environmental quality.
Key aspects of NP research agenda include understanding how the
quarks and gluons combine to form the nucleons (proton and neutron),
what the properties and behavior of nuclear matter are under extreme
conditions of temperature and pressure, and what the properties and
reaction rates are for atomic nuclei up to their limits of stability.
Results and insight from these studies are relevant to understanding
how the universe evolved in its earliest moments, how the chemical
elements were formed, and how the properties of one of nature's basic
constituents, the neutrino, influences astrophysics phenomena such as
supernovae. Knowledge and techniques developed in pursuit of
fundamental nuclear physics research are also extensively utilized in
our society today. The understanding of nuclear spin enabled the
development of magnetic resonance imaging for medical use. Radioactive
isotopes produced by accelerators and reactors are used for medical
imaging, cancer therapy, and biochemical studies. Advances in cutting-
edge instrumentation developed for nuclear physics experiments have
relevance to technological needs in combating terrorism. The highly
trained scientific and technical personnel in fundamental nuclear
physics who are a product of the program are a valuable human resource
for many applied fields.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request supports operations of the four
National User Facilities and research at universities and laboratories,
and makes investments in new capabilities to address compelling
scientific opportunities and to maintain U.S. competitiveness in global
nuclear physics efforts. In fiscal year 2008 support continues for R&D
on rare isotope beam development, relevant to the next-generation
facilities that will provide capabilities for forefront nuclear
structure and astrophysics studies and for understanding the origin of
the elements from iron to uranium.
When the universe was a millionth of a second old, nuclear matter
is believed to have existed in its most extreme energy density form
called the quark-gluon plasma. Experiments at the Relativistic Heavy
Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) are
searching to find and characterize this new state and others that may
have existed during the first moments of the universe. These efforts
will continue in fiscal year 2008. The NP program, together with the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), will continue
construction of a new Electron Beam Ion Source (EBIS) to provide RHIC
with more cost-effective, reliable, and versatile operations. Research
and development activities, including the development of an innovative
electron beam cooling system for RHIC, are expected to demonstrate the
feasibility of increasing the luminosity (or collision rate) of the
circulating beams by a factor of 10, which would increase the long-term
scientific productivity and international competitiveness of the
facility. Support for participation in the heavy ion program at the
Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN allows U.S. researchers the
opportunity to search for new states of matter under substantially
different initial conditions than those provided at RHIC. The interplay
of the different research programs at the LHC and the ongoing RHIC
program will allow a detailed tomography of the hot, dense matter as it
evolves from the ``perfect fluid'' (a fluid with zero viscosity)
discovered at RHIC.
Operations of the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility
(CEBAF) at Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (TJNAF) in
fiscal year 2008 will continue to advance our knowledge of the internal
structure of protons and neutrons. By providing precision experimental
information concerning the quarks and gluons that form protons and
neutrons, the approximately 1,200 experimental researchers who use
CEBAF, together with researchers in nuclear theory, seek to provide a
quantitative description of nuclear matter in terms of the fundamental
theory of the strong interaction, Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). In
fiscal year 2008, the accelerator will provide beams simultaneously to
all three experimental halls and funding is provided for engineering
design activities for the 12 GeV CEBAF Upgrade Project. This upgrade is
one of the highest priorities for NP and would allow for a test of a
proposed mechanism of ``quark confinement,'' one of the compelling,
unanswered puzzles of physics.
Efforts at the Argonne Tandem Linear Accelerator System (ATLAS) at
ANL and the Holifield Radioactive Ion Beam Facility (HRIBF) at ORNL
will be supported in fiscal year 2008 to focus on investigating new
regions of nuclear structure, studying interactions in nuclear matter
like those occurring in neutron stars, and determining the reactions
that created the nuclei of the chemical elements inside stars and
supernovae. The GRETINA gamma-ray tracking array, which continues
fabrication in fiscal year 2008, will revolutionize gamma ray detection
technology and offer dramatically improved capabilities to study the
structure of nuclei at ATLAS, HRIBF, and elsewhere. The Fundamental
Neutron Physics Beamline (FNPB) under fabrication at the SNS will
provide a world-class capability to study the fundamental properties of
the neutron, leading to a refined characterization of the weak force.
Support continues in fiscal year 2008 for the fabrication of a neutron
Electric Dipole Moment experiment, to be sited at the FNPB, in the
search for new physics beyond the Standard Model.
Funds are provided in fiscal year 2008 to initiate U.S.
participation in the fabrication of an Italian-led neutrino-less double
beta decay experiment, the Cryogenic Underground Observatory for Rare
Events (CUORE). A successful search for neutrino-less beta decay will
determine if the neutrino is its own antiparticle and provide
information about the mass of the neutrino. Neutrinos are thought to
play a critical role in the explosions of supernovae and the evolution
of the cosmos. A successful search for neutrino-less beta decay will
determine if the neutrino is its own antiparticle and provide
information about the mass of the neutrino.
Following the re-competition of SciDAC projects in fiscal year
2006, NP currently supports efforts in nuclear astrophysics, grid
computing, Lattice Gauge (QCD) theory, and low energy nuclear structure
and nuclear reaction theory. NP is also supporting R&D in an
international effort to develop a larger, more sensitive neutrino-less
beta decay experiment.
Fusion Energy Sciences
Fiscal Year 2007 Request--$319.0 Million; Fiscal Year 2008
Request--$427.9 Million
The Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program advances the theoretical
and experimental understanding of plasma and fusion science, including
a close collaboration with international partners in identifying and
exploring plasma and fusion physics issues through specialized
facilities. The FES program supports research in plasma science,
magnetically confined plasmas, advances in tokamak design, innovative
confinement options, non-neutral plasma physics and high energy density
laboratory plasmas (HEDLP), and cutting edge technologies. FES also
leads U.S. participation in ITER, an experiment to study and
demonstrate the sustained burning of fusion fuel. This international
collaboration will provide an unparalleled scientific research
opportunity with a goal of demonstrating the scientific and technical
feasibility of fusion power. Fusion is the energy source that powers
the sun and stars. Fusion power could play a key role in U.S. long-term
energy plans and independence because it offers the potential for
plentiful, safe, and environmentally benign energy. On November 21,
2006, the DOE signed the ITER agreement with its counterparts in China,
the European Union, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the Russian
Federation, formalizing this historic arrangement for international
scientific cooperation.
The U.S. Contributions to ITER project is being managed by the U.S.
ITER Project Office (USIPO), established as an Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL)/Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL)
partnership. The fiscal year 2008 request for the U.S. Contributions to
ITER project reflects a significant increase in procurement,
fabrication activities, and delivery of medium- and high-technology
components, assignment of U.S. personnel to the International ITER
Organization abroad, and the U.S. share of common costs at the ITER
site in Cadarache, France, including installation and testing. These
costs are part of the Total Estimated Cost (TEC) for the U.S.
Contributions to ITER project. There is a second category of costs,
Other Project Costs (OPC), which is for the supporting research and
development activity for our U.S. Contributions. Together the TEC and
OPC make up the overall Total Project Cost which is $1,122,000,000.
In support of ITER and U.S. Contributions to ITER, FES has placed
an increased emphasis on its national burning plasma program--a
critical underpinning to the fusion science in ITER. FES has enhanced
burning plasma research efforts across the U.S. domestic fusion
program, including: carrying out experiments on our national FES
facilities that are exploring new modes of improved or extended ITER
performance with diagnostics and plasma control that can also be
extrapolated to ITER; developing safe and environmentally attractive
technologies that could be used in future upgrades of ITER; exploring
fusion simulation efforts that examine the complex behavior of burning
plasmas in tokamaks; and integrating all that is learned into a
forward-looking approach to future fusion applications. The U.S.
Burning Plasma Organization has been established to coordinate these
efforts.
Section 972(c)(5)(C) of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005,
required the Secretary of Energy to provide ``a report describing how
United States participation in the ITER will be funded without reducing
funding for other programs in the Office of Science (including other
fusion programs) . . .''. This report as well as all the other
requirements for FES in EPAct have been or are in the process of being
completed. The Department's fiscal year 2008 budget provides for modest
increases for all programs within the Office of Science and supports
the ITER request of $160,000,000 from new funds in the FES budget
request.
FES supports the operation of a set of experimental facilities.
These facilities provide scientists with the means to test and extend
our theoretical understanding and computer models--leading ultimately
to improved predictive capabilities for fusion science. Research and
facility operations support for the three major facilities is
maintained in fiscal year 2008. Experimental research on tokamaks is
continued with emphasis on physics issues of interest to the ITER
project. The DIII-D tokamak at General Atomics will operate for 15
weeks in fiscal year 2008 to conduct research relevant to burning
plasma issues and topics of interest to the ITER project as well as
maintain the broad scientific scope of the program. The Alcator C-Mod
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology will operate for 15 weeks
and the National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) at the Princeton
Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) will operate for 12 weeks. Fabrication
of the major components of the National Compact Stellarator Experiment
(NCSX) at PPPL continues and assembly of the entire device will be
completed in fiscal year 2009.
Funding for the FES SciDAC program continues in fiscal year 2008
for the development of tools that facilitate international fusion
collaborations and initiate development of an integrated software
environment that can accommodate the wide range of space and time
scales and the multiple phenomena that are encountered in simulations
of fusion systems. Within SciDAC, the Fusion Simulation Project is a
major initiative involving plasma physicists, applied mathematicians,
and computer scientists to create a comprehensive set of models of
fusion systems, combined with the algorithms required to implement the
models and the computational infrastructure to enable them to work
together.
FES will issue a joint solicitation in fiscal year 2008, with the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), focused on academic
research in high energy density laboratory plasmas, which supports the
Department's programmatic goals in inertial confinement fusion science.
Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists
Fiscal Year 2007 Request--$10.9 Million; Fiscal Year 2008
Request--$11.0 Million
The Department of Energy has played a role in training America's
scientists and engineers for more than 50 years, making contributions
to U.S. economic and scientific pre-eminence. The Nation's current and
future energy and environmental challenges may be solved in part
through scientific and technological innovation and a highly skilled
scientific and technical workforce. The Workforce Development for
Teachers and Scientists (WDTS) program acts as a catalyst within the
DOE for the training of the next generation of scientists. WDTS
programs create a foundation for DOE's national laboratories to provide
a wide range of educational opportunities to more than 280,000
educators and students on an annual basis. WDTS's mission is to provide
a continuum of educational opportunities to the Nation's students and
teachers of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).
WDTS supports experiential learning opportunities that compliment
curriculum taught in the classroom and: (1) build links between the
national laboratories and the science education community by providing
funding, guidelines, and evaluation of mentored research experiences at
the national laboratories to K-12 teachers and college faculty to
enhance their content knowledge and research capabilities; (2) provide
mentor-intensive research experiences at the national laboratories for
undergraduate and graduate students to inspire commitments to the
technical disciplines and to pursue careers in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics, thereby helping our national laboratories
and the Nation meet the demand for a well-trained scientific/technical
workforce; and (3) encourage and reward middle and high school students
across the Nation to share, demonstrate, and excel in math and the
sciences, and introduce these students to the national laboratories and
the opportunities available to them when they go to college.
In fiscal year 2008, the DOE Academies Creating Teacher Scientists
(DOE ACTS) program, formerly the Laboratory Science Teacher
Professional Development (LSTPD) program, will support the
participation of approximately 300 teachers. All 17 of DOE's national
laboratories will participate in this program. Each national laboratory
can elect to implement either or both of the two types of teacher
professional development models in DOE ACTS: (1) Teachers as
Investigators (TAI) is geared towards novice teachers typically in the
elementary to intermediate grade levels; and (2) Teachers as Research
Associates (TARA) for teachers with a stronger background in science,
mathematics, and engineering.
The Science Undergraduate Laboratory Internship (SULI) program,
which provides mentor intensive research experiences for undergraduates
at the national laboratories, will support approximately 340 students
in fiscal year 2008. The Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator
Fellowships, the College Institute of Science and Technology (CCI)
program, the Pre-Service Teacher activity for students preparing for
teaching careers in a STEM discipline, and the National and Middle
School Science Bowls will all continue in fiscal year 2008.
Science Laboratories Infrastructure
Fiscal Year 2007 Request--$50.9 Million; Fiscal Year 2008
Request--$79.0 Million
The mission of the Science Laboratories Infrastructure (SLI)
program is to enable the conduct of DOE research missions at the Office
of Science laboratories by funding line item construction projects and
the clean up for reuse or removal of excess facilities to maintain the
general purpose infrastructure. The program also supports Office of
Science landlord responsibilities for the 24,000 acre Oak Ridge
Reservation and provides Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) to local
communities around ANL, BNL, and ORNL.
In fiscal year 2008, SLI will fund four construction subprojects:
Seismic Safety Upgrade of Buildings, Phase I, at the Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory (LBNL); Modernization of Building 4500N, Wing 4,
Phase I, at ORNL; Building Electrical Services Upgrade, Phase II, at
ANL; and Renovate Science Laboratory, Phase I, at BNL. Funding for
fiscal year 2008 includes $35,000,000 held in reserve pending
resolution of issues related to capability replacement and renovation
at PNNL. If the issues are resolved, DOE will initiate a reprogramming
request to use these funds to replace and/or upgrade mission-critical
facilities currently located in the Hanford Site 300 Area. The SLI
program continues funding for demolition of the Bevatron at LBNL in
fiscal year 2008, and funding is also provided for the demolition of
several small buildings and trailers at ORNL.
Science Program Direction
Fiscal Year 2007 Request--$170.9 Million; Fiscal Year 2008
Request--$184.9 Million
Science Program Direction (SCPD) enables a skilled, highly
motivated Federal workforce to manage the Office of Science's basic and
applied research portfolio, programs, projects, and facilities in
support of new and improved energy, environmental, and health
technologies. SCPD consists of two subprograms: Program Direction and
Field Operations.
The Program Direction subprogram is the single funding source for
the Office of Science Federal staff in headquarters responsible for
managing, directing, administering, and supporting the broad spectrum
of Office of Science disciplines. This subprogram includes planning and
analysis activities, providing the capabilities needed to plan,
evaluate, and communicate the scientific excellence, relevance, and
performance of the Office of Science basic research programs.
Additionally, Program Direction includes funding for the Office of
Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) which collects, preserves,
and disseminates DOE research and development (R&D) information for use
by DOE, the scientific community, academia, U.S. industry, and the
public to expand the knowledge base of science and technology. The
Field Operations subprogram is the funding source for the Federal
workforce in the Field responsible for management and administrative
functions performed within the Chicago and Oak Ridge Operations
Offices, and site offices supporting the Office of Science laboratories
and facilities.
In fiscal year 2008, Program Direction funding increases by 8.2
percent from the fiscal year 2007 request. Most of the increase will
support an additional 29 FTEs, to mange the increase in the SC research
investment that is a key component of the President's American
Competitiveness Initiative; four new FTEs to support NSLS-II, and ITER
project office activities; and 35 FTEs--the staff of the New Brunswick
Laboratory--transferring from the Office of Security and Safety
Performance Assurance. Twenty-four FTEs are reduced across the SC
complex in fiscal year 2008 consistent with SC's corporate workforce
planning strategy. The SCPD fiscal year 2008 increase also supports a
2.2 percent pay raise; an increased cap for SES basic pay; other pay
related costs such as the Government's contributions for employee
health insurance and Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS);
escalation of non-pay categories, such as travel, training, and
contracts; and increased e-Gov assessments and other fixed operating
requirements across the Office of Science complex.
Safeguards and Security
Fiscal Year 2007 Request--$71.0 Million; Fiscal Year 2008
Request--$71.0 Million
The Safeguards and Security (S&S) program ensures appropriate
levels of protection against unauthorized access, theft, diversion,
loss of custody, or destruction of DOE assets and hostile acts that may
cause adverse impacts on fundamental science, national security, or the
health and safety of DOE and contractor employees, the public, or the
environment. The Office of Science's Integrated Safeguards and Security
Management strategy uses a tailored approach to safeguards and
security. As such, each site has a specific protection program that is
analyzed and defined in its individual Security Plan. This approach
allows each site to design varying degrees of protection commensurate
with the risks and consequences described in their site-specific threat
scenarios. The fiscal year 2008 budget includes funding necessary to
protect people and property at the 2003 Design Basis Threat (DBT)
level. In fiscal year 2008, funding for the Cyber Security program
element addresses the promulgation of new National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) requirements that are statutorily
required by the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) to
improve the Federal and Office of Science laboratory cyber security
posture.
conclusion
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing this opportunity
to discuss the Office of Science research programs and our
contributions to the Nation's scientific enterprise and U.S.
competitiveness. On behalf of DOE, I am pleased to present this fiscal
year 2008 budget request for the Office of Science.
This concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you might have.
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AT NREL
Senator Dorgan. Dr. Orbach, thank you very much. I want to
ask a series of questions and then I will turn to my
colleagues.
First and foremost, my colleague from Colorado mentioned
that NREL, I had the opportunity to be in Golden, Colorado
recently, is also working on issues like cellulosic ethanol.
Tell me what the relationship is between your Office of Science
and the three facilities you're going to designate, how that
relates to NREL, what the coordination is, and so on?
Dr. Orbach. We work very closely, Mr. Chairman, with NREL,
and, in fact, we fund research at NREL. And, very generally, we
support the basic end of the research continuum that leads to
market placement of these new technologies. NREL focuses on the
applied research, the step needed to take the basic ideas and
convert them to the market. It's not a sharp division. In order
to communicate, we need to understand the applied sector and
they also do basic research, so that we can communicate most
effectively. So, our relationship with NREL is a very close
one, we work very closely with the program in the Department,
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy for joint workshops and
joint enterprises.
Senator Dorgan. So the significant difference here is
applied versus basic?
Dr. Orbach. That's correct.
ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH
Senator Dorgan. In 2008 the budget proposes $340 million
for advanced scientific computing research. These funds will
help complete the acquisition of a 250 teraflop system at Oak
Ridge. What's the relationship between the computing facility
at Oak Ridge, when it's completed, with the computing facility
at Argonne or at Berkeley, for example?
Dr. Orbach. Well, the one at Berkeley is what we call a
capacity machine, which services about 2,500 users. The machine
at Oak Ridge is what we call a capability machine. We reserve
it for a smaller number so they can get larger amounts of time.
There are only about 400 users at Oak Ridge.
Also, the architectures are different. We're exploring
speeds that have never been achieved before. Nobody knows which
scientific problems are most efficient on which architecture.
So, at Oak Ridge, you'll find an architecture which is a Cray
architecture. At Argonne, you'll find a Blue GeneP architecture
and you'll find a Power5 architecture at NERSC at Berkeley. We
believe that different science problems will be solved more
efficiently on different machines. We don't know. So, we want
to have the opportunity to explore which machine is best for
which class of scientific problems.
CARBON SEQUESTRATION
Senator Dorgan. Let me also ask you about the role of the
Office of Science in carbon sequestration. You're doing
research in those areas?
Dr. Orbach. Yes, we are.
Senator Dorgan. Again, basic research as opposed to applied
research?
Dr. Orbach. That's correct, sir. We have it in two of our
programs: biological and environmental research and basic
energy sciences. The latter focuses on the geologic issues
associated with carbon storage. The former talks about the
earth and the ability to store carbon in roots, in the surface,
also with biological microbes, for example, that will absorb
carbon dioxide. It looks at the biological side for
sequestration.
TRANSITION OF RESEARCH INTO THE MARKETPLACE
Senator Dorgan. You know, there's a phrase that people
refer to. I was unaware of it, but it is called the DOE's
valley of death. Have you heard of that?
Dr. Orbach. Yes.
Senator Dorgan. And, it's a phrase that people use to
describe, I guess, how too little research really translates
into new technologies that move to the marketplace. And,
therefore, the valley of death. There seems to me to be a fair
question about how effectively we translate the product of
research into practical applications in the marketplace. Tell
us a little about your view of that.
Dr. Orbach. Well, it's very difficult. We're not the only
country that struggles with that transition. The applied
programs, in fact, are charged with that responsibility, but
we're trying something new. The bioenergy research centers are
a construct where we hope that the private sector will join
with us in the basic research. The Federal money buys down the
risk for the private capital so they can invest smaller amounts
with this very high risk, as it is basic research. But, what
we're hoping is that with the private sector as a partner, that
when basic research pays off, they will then transfer that to
the marketplace. So, we're looking at new methods. The Energy
Policy Act gave us the Other Transactions Authority, so we have
new funding structures now, that we can use with the private
sector. We are attempting to come up with innovative ways to
cross the ``valley of death.''
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Orbach, sometimes those of us without
strong science backgrounds have difficulty visiting with
scientists because we don't always understand exactly what
they're saying. We have great respect for those that work in
the sciences, obviously, but would you do me a favor? Would you
send the committee a list, with an analysis, of a dozen or so
of the most interesting, promising, perhaps some controversial,
but breathtaking research projects that you see in your agency
and in the future of your agency so that we can try to
understand? If you can translate all that into the kind of
thing that those of us who are non-scientists can understand I
think it would give us a better idea of what you are doing and
what you see ahead of you. But, I for one, appreciate your
being here and appreciate especially the importance of this
office. It is not the highest profile office in the Federal
Government, but in many ways it holds the key to tomorrow's
opportunities for our country.
[The information follows:]
Interesting and Promising Research Projects in DOE and in the Future of
DOE
We are very grateful to the chairman for giving us this opportunity
to explain the significance of what we do in terms that non-scientists
can understand. Before we describe some of the projects we view as most
promising, just a few words to put our answer into context:
To describe the far-reaching impact of DOE Office of Science-
supported research on our economy, our technology, and our national
life over the past five decades--and to predict the potential of Office
of Science-supported research to transform Americans' lives for the
better in the decades ahead--is an exciting task. Numbers only begin to
tell the story. Forty-five Nobel laureates. Scores of fundamental
discoveries in a wide array of fields from high energy physics, to
biological research, to high-speed computing (the Office of Science
website lists just a ``top 100''). Countless new products,
technologies, and even whole industries owe their existence to
scientific research first supported by the Office of Science. But lists
alone barely convey the true scope of the transformation we have
generated, or the potential for new discoveries to transform our
Nation's future.
Our lives have been fundamentally reshaped by Office of Science-
supported discoveries. The entire field of nuclear medicine arose
largely as an outgrowth of ``accelerator science'' spearheaded by the
Office of Science and its predecessor agencies to support research in
high energy and nuclear physics. At the core of MRIs are
superconducting magnets, a technology first successfully developed by
Office of Science-supported scientists at Fermilab to build the atom-
smashing Tevatron. PET Scans grew out of pioneering advances by the
Office of Science and predecessor agencies in particle accelerators,
biological radiotracer molecules, photodetectors, and high-speed
computers. Today particle accelerators producing X-rays, protons,
neutrons, or heavy ions--once built mainly as research tools for
physicists--provide advanced cancer treatment for millions of patients
and are found at every major medical center in the United States.
The Information Age itself would have been impossible without the
fundamental breakthroughs produced by research supported by the Office
of Science--including key discoveries essential to the development of
the Standard Model of high energy physics. Our world of ``smart''
cellular phones, cameras, music players, and appliances rely on the
utilization of such phenomena and tools as the giant magnetoresistive
effect and plasma chambers first investigated by Office of Science-
sponsored researchers.
In short, Office of Science-sponsored discoveries are part of the
very fabric of our contemporary high-tech world--a legacy of its
historic role as the primary Federal sponsor of basic research in the
physical sciences.
Here are some of the most promising major areas of research we are
pursuing today:
Harnessing Nature for New Sources of Energy.--Since initiating the
Human Genome Project in 1986, DOE has played a leading role in
advancing modern biotechnology. We are applying these advances and
sophisticated new tools to the task of probing microbes for solutions
to energy production, carbon capture, and environmental cleanup. One of
the most promising potential applications of biotechnology today lies
in bioenergy production. Microbes are experts at harvesting energy from
almost any form, from solar radiation to photosynthesis-generated
organic chemicals to minerals in the deep subsurface. For example,
there are some 200 microbes in the hindgut of the termite. They
contribute to the termite's super-efficiency in breaking down cellulose
into sugars that can be fermented into fuel. We now have at our
disposal the tools and insights for cracking nature's code for
accomplishing these marvels. Developing cost-effective ways of
producing ethanol from cellulose is the key to making ethanol truly
commercially viable, and biotech likely holds the solution to this
challenge; biofuels also are one major means of reducing net carbon
dioxide emissions into the atmosphere.
Our Joint Genome Institute is already sequencing the DNA in these
microbes to identify the metabolic pathways by which these micro-
organisms accomplish their mission. To seize upon these and other
scientific opportunities, the Office of Science is establishing three
new Bioenergy Research Centers, funded at $25 million each per year for
5 years, to bring together multidisciplinary teams of top scientists to
accelerate the breakthroughs necessary for the development of cost-
effective production of cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels.
Universities, national laboratories, nonprofit organizations, and
private firms have been invited to compete for these grants, singly or
in partnerships. Proposals were due on February 1, 2007; awards will be
announced this June; and Centers will be underway by early in fiscal
year 2008. We estimate biofuels can replace 30 percent of the
transportation fuels we currently consume, reducing our dependence on
imported oil, and providing energy security for our Nation.
Making Fusion Power a Reality.--Fusion powers the sun and the
stars. Through our participation in ITER, a major international fusion
research project, we are seeking to overcome the technical barriers to
bringing fusion energy to the electric grid. In November 2006, the
United States signed an agreement with 6 other partners. Scientists
supported by the DOE Office of Science will be working side by side
with counterparts from China, the European Union, India, Japan, the
Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation to build and operate a
reactor that demonstrates the scientific and technological feasibility
of fusion energy.
The fusion process occurs in the sun or stars when lighter
elements, hydrogen for example, fuse together under incredibly high
temperatures (10-100 million degrees Celsius) to make heavier elements,
thereby releasing energy and forming a stew of charged subatomic
particles known as plasma. The key challenge is containing this plasma
on earth. ITER will contain the plasma through use of extremely
powerful magnetic fields. ITER, if successful, will put the world one
step away from construction of a commercial fusion power plant. Fusion
has the potential to provide abundant, clean, carbon-free energy for
the world's growing electricity needs.
Extending the Frontiers of Science with the World's Fastest
Computers.--The supercomputer is science's newest and most powerful
tool, enabling researchers to model and simulate experiments that could
never be performed in a laboratory. Some see computer modeling and
simulation as a new ``third pillar'' of scientific discovery, side by
side with scientific experiment and scientific theory. Supercomputing
has enormous implications for U.S. competitiveness, for it holds out
the promise of enabling U.S. industry to perform ``virtual
prototyping'' of complex systems and products, substantially reducing
development costs and shortening time to market. The Office of Science
has been leading the way in developing the Nation's civilian
supercomputing capabilities, acquiring ever-faster machines, nurturing
the complex software development knowledge necessary to take advantage
these unprecedented processing capabilities, and helping to bootstrap
the U.S. supercomputer industry. Thousands of scientists from DOE labs
and universities are taking advantage of these capabilities. Two
private firms, Pratt & Whitney and Boeing, won time on the Office of
Science fastest computer as part of the INCITE competition--in which
national laboratory, university, and corporate researchers vie for time
on Office of Science machines--and are performing important simulations
of turbine operation and aerodynamic design. This has reduced their
cost of production and time to market, giving them more of a
competitive edge over their rivals on the international scene.
The Office of Science is building the world's most powerful
supercomputing centers for open science. The Oak Ridge National
Laboratory Leadership Computing Facility includes a Cray XT4 system
that will be upgraded to 250 teraflop (trillions of calculations per
second) peak capability. The Argonne National Laboratory Leadership
Computing Facility will acquire an IBM Blue Gene/P this year with a
peak capability of 100 teraflops. We are exploring these two different
computer system architectures because we believe that different
architectures will be better suited for different types of scientific
problems. The National Energy Research Computing Center will reach 100-
150 teraflop peak capacity this year and will serve over 2,500
scientists from DOE laboratories, universities, and companies,
nationwide. Office of Science computing capabilities are expected to
reach a petaflop (1,000 teraflops) by the end of 2008, far ahead of any
foreign competition.
Leading the Nanotech Revolution.--The Office of Science is
positioning the United States as the global leader of the
nanotechnology revolution, perhaps the most economically promising
technological revolution of our era. Our five Office of Science-
supported Nanoscale Science Research Centers (four of which are now
operational, with a fifth coming on line this year) provide our
Nation's research community with the world's most advanced tools for
exploring and manipulating matter at the nanoscale. Coupled with the
world-leading high-intensity light sources at our National
Laboratories, which enable scientists to image matter at the molecular
level, these capabilities will have a dramatic impact on our national
economy and energy security in the coming years. Fundamental research
at the nanoscale may lead to methods to split water with sunlight for
hydrogen production; technologies for harvesting solar energy with
greater power efficiency and lower costs; super-strong lightweight
materials to improve efficiency of vehicles; ``smart materials'' that
respond dynamically to their environment; and low-cost fuel cells,
batteries, supercapacitors, and thermoelectronics.
Manipulating matter at the atomic scale takes us into the realm
where the chemical, physical, optical, and mechanical properties of
materials can be dramatically different, creating the potential for the
basis of new technologies. For example, both diamonds and graphite
found in pencil lead are made of the same element--carbon. Their vastly
different properties arise from differences in the arrangement of
carbon atoms at the atomic scale. Carbon nanotubes (where the carbon
atoms are arranged in a tube shape, a nanometer in diameter and with
walls a single atom thick) have the right properties to be the building
blocks for a range of novel energy technologies and electronic devices:
they are incredibly tiny, stronger than steel, can withstand high
temperatures, and have a range of controllable electronic properties.
Nanotubes are already finding applications in energy technologies such
as novel Lithium-ion batteries and supercapacitors; but realizing the
full potential of nanotubes will require addressing challenges
associated with fabricating and manipulating these molecular scale
objects.
The Big Bang Machine.--Researchers at Brookhaven National
Laboratory's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) are pushing the
frontiers of human knowledge by using a powerful particle accelerator
to recreate conditions as they existed in the universe just
microseconds after the Big Bang. In a headline-making development, RHIC
has identified a new and entirely unexpected form of matter, a
``perfect liquid'' composed of quarks and gluons, the tiny components
that make up the core of atoms. Work at RHIC will provide scientists
with a deeper fundamental understanding of nuclear matter and its
interactions, knowledge that is likely to prove invaluable not only to
research in nuclear physics, but also to research in energy, materials
science, astrophysics, and national security.
RHIC accelerates two beams of gold nuclei to high energies and
brings them into head-on collisions inside state-of-the-art detectors
designed to observe the particles that emerge. The collision
disintegrates the nuclei and momentarily produces the unimaginably hot
and dense matter called the quark-gluon plasma.
Understanding our Climate.--The Office of Science leads Federal
agencies in the field of climate modeling. Office of Science-supported
researchers are advancing climate models through the use of
sophisticated field measurement tools as well as the Office of
Science's supercomputing resources, the fastest in the world available
for civilian research. Ultimately we need to be able to understand the
factors that determine the Earth's climate well enough to predict
climate and climate impacts decades or even centuries in the future.
Advanced climate and Earth system models are needed to describe and
predict the roles of oceans, the atmosphere, sea ice, and land masses
on climate, including the interactions and feedbacks between the
various components of the climate system. The role of clouds and
aerosols in controlling solar and terrestrial radiation onto and away
from the Earth also needs to be better understood if we are to reduce
uncertainty in climate prediction. The Office of Science is addressing
this need through the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) program
which is providing scientists new insights into the effect of aerosols
from air pollution on clouds and the consequent heating and cooling of
the atmosphere.
Restoring Sight to the Blind.--Diseases of the retina are the
leading cause of blindness in the United States. The Artificial Retina
Project, involving six DOE national laboratories, three universities,
and an industrial partner, is utilizing the DOE labs' unique expertise
in materials science, advanced microelectronics, and micro-fabrication
to design and construct the most advanced device to restore sight to
the blind. The pliable, biocompatible 60-electrode artificial retina
has been approved by the FDA for human trials. Plans call for 30
patients to receive artificial retinas this year.
The artificial retina captures visual signals and sends them to the
brain in the form of electrical impulses. The device is a miniature
disc that contains an array of electrodes that can be implanted in the
back of the eye to replace the damaged retina. Visual signals are
captured by a small video camera located in eyeglasses worn by the
blind person and processed through a microcomputer worn on a belt. The
signals are transferred to the electrode array in the eye. The array
stimulates the optical nerves which then carry a signal to the brain.
The Office of Science goal for the project is to develop the technology
to fabricate a 1000-electrode device that should allow a blind person
to read large print and recognize faces. Technologies developed for
this project may also be applicable to the general field of neuron
prostheses.
The Elusive Higgs . . . Solving the Mystery of Mass.--The Standard
Model of particle physics, developed with the contributions of numerous
Office of Science-supported scientists and Office of Science
experimental facilities over many years, is an extraordinarily
powerful, accurate, and far-reaching physical theory that explains the
behavior of matter down to the level of tiny quarks. Yet a critical
piece of this theory--the so-called Higgs particle--has never been
observed. According to the Standard Model, the Higgs particle and its
associated field are actually responsible for giving all matter its
mass. Yet the Higgs remains the only particle predicted by the Standard
Model that has not yet been detected. Discovery of the Higgs and its
properties--or discovery of some tantalizing alternative possibilities
instead of the Higgs--would open new vistas in particle physics and
provide new clues to some of the deepest mysteries of space, time, and
matter. Recently, work at the Tevatron at Fermilab in Illinois--
currently the world's most powerful particle accelerator--zeroed in on
a lower range for the Higgs mass that suggest it might conceivably be
detected at the energies achieved at the Tevatron. This would be the
crowning discovery of the Standard Model and would mark the birth of a
``new physics'' with the potential to transform our basic understanding
of the physical universe.
Using Microbes to Clean-up the Environment.--The Office of Science
is looking at ways microbes can be used to degrade or transform
contaminants such as toxic metals and radionuclides. Microbes have
evolved over 3.5 billion years as masters at living in almost every
environment. Thriving in some of the harshest environments on the
planet, these single-celled organisms have developed powerful and
diverse capabilities that, if harnessed through biotechnology, may
provide cost-effective restoration strategies for many of the
contaminated sites DOE is committed to cleaning up. Through research in
areas such as genomics, geochemistry, imaging, and modeling and
simulation, Office of Science-sponsored scientists are studying the
complex interactions of microbes with contaminants in the subsurface
environment and exploring remediation methods that rely on naturally
occurring microbes. Several potential candidates are already being
tested in the field. Geobacter species, for example, can transform
uranium from a soluble form to an insoluble form, effectively removing
it from groundwater and preventing its further mobility. A Shewanella
species commonly found in soils is capable of reducing a wide range of
organic compounds, metal ions, and radionuclides to less toxic forms or
forms that are immobilized in the soil.
Building New Tools for Basic Science.--The world-leading large
scale instruments designed, built, and operated by the Office of
Science and its predecessor agencies--synchrotron light sources,
neutron scattering facilities, and particle colliders--have not only
driven entire fields like high energy and nuclear physics, but have
also become essential tools for studying and understanding the
arrangement of atoms in biological molecules, pharmaceuticals, and
materials from metals to ceramics to plastics. Particle accelerators
have been the primary sources of light and other forms of radiation for
these facilities. Critical to development of the next generation of
scientific user facilities--ones that will allow researchers to observe
matter (and its components) at increasingly smaller scales and follow
atomic motions and chemical reactions in real time--are advances in
accelerator sciences such as superconducting radiofrequency (SCRF)
technology.
The Office of Science is leading a national effort at several
national laboratories and universities aimed at developing SCRF
accelerator technology. This technology utilizes the remarkable
properties of superconducting materials to greatly reduce the size and
cost of accelerators while increasing their efficiency. These advances
are being driven, in part, by the scientific opportunities at the very
highest energies--SCRF is critical to realizing the proposed
International Linear Collider, a thirty kilometer long particle
collider which will be capable of exploring fundamental physics
questions such as the physics responsible for the origin of mass as
well as the nature of dark matter. However, the impact of this
technology will be far wider, enabling next generation accelerator-
based facilities such as free electron lasers (FELs), which will
provide world-leading tools for transformational basic science in areas
such as materials, nanotechnology, and biotechnology in the coming
decades. The many applications of FELs include industrial processes
such as laser penning to toughen ship propellers, high power laser
weapons systems for naval defense, laser surgery, as well as imaging
fundamental chemical and biological processes.
Basic research in science pursues the frontiers of discovery. While
we expect discoveries to follow our instincts, we are often surprised,
sometimes with wonderful consequences. What we have listed above is our
present understanding of things to come, but there will be more--
opportunities that we did not anticipate. With sufficient investment
and consistent support, we can discover, apply, and improve the quality
of our lives.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Domenici.
CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH
Senator Domenici. Let me just echo what you just said. You
will find within the Federal Government and outside the Federal
Government are gigantic research institutions and researchers
that will be knocking at your door and trying to become part of
the success that is, what they hope it's going to be because of
what you have and what we have made available to you and what
we're going to give you and the challenge we are going to place
upon you. We wish you very, very much success.
Climate research, which is being spoken of very, very
heavily by many, many people. The Department has requested $138
million to support climate change research. It is my
understanding that this supports DOE's role in the
administration's multi-agency climate change research
initiative. It appears, from budget documents, that the
Department has primary responsibility for carbon science cycle
and the climate impacts. That doesn't mean you're in charge of
the whole program, but obviously this does give you a very big
role in climate change research by the United States and on
behalf of the Department of Energy.
We very much want to help you with that as the source of
your money, the source of your policy direction. There are so
many things that one would ask, but this is not the time. This
is, sort of, an opening round here. Staff will initiate a
number of other ones and many will be submitted on behalf of
both sides of the isle. So, we won't be trying for one-side to
get up on, take over from the other. This is going to be a very
wonderful venture together. And, I look forward to it and I
hope you do. We have some great laboratories that you are going
to be working with and when they see the relationship that is
given to them in this legislation, in this funding, they will
be very, very surprised.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding to me and I appreciate
the opportunity to work with you on this committee with him and
other people in these areas.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Craig.
IMPORTANCE OF NEUTRON SOURCES
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And,
again, Mr. Secretary, we thank you for being here. As you can
hear by our chairman and ranking member, there are tremendously
high levels of expectation and we're all very excited about
getting more heavily involved in both basic research and then
its application.
I had mentioned earlier, you were at the National Lab in
Idaho. You visited and you saw, it's my understanding, the
Advanced Test Reactor. It's a valuable national asset and the
question is, how to make the ATR a successful national user
facility. You manage many user facilities successfully and
because of your experience in this area, I would like to ask
that you work very closely with DOE NE too, and Assistant
Secretary Dennis Spurgeon, in an effort to make the ATR a
world-class user facility.
You know and I'm told that all neutrons are not created
equally. The Office of Science uses HFIR at Oak Ridge for basic
neutron physics research, while Navy DOE NE uses the ATR for
nuclear energy research. How important is it for science that
you have access to these complementary neutron sources for
varying fluxes and energies?
Dr. Orbach. It's extraordinarily important because the
excitations we look at, in various structures, have different
energies. And they also are sometimes very difficult to see
with low fluxes. The power of the ATR is exceptional and it's
an exceptional resource in that regard.
Senator Craig. Well, I look forward to working with you and
you working with the lab. As I say, we have these marvelous
resources at hand, and now we're in the business of
transforming them into plow shares. And that's an exciting
opportunity for us and for the world and we thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Allard.
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
EARMARKS
Senator Allard. I want to cover the renewable energy lab
there in Colorado at Golden. They do basic research and as well
as applied research. And one of the criticisms I've gotten from
the lab is that they begin to count on a certain amount of
money and then all of sudden earmarks come in and take away
from what they were counting on in the budget process. What
portion of your budget is dispersed based on earmarks and what
portion is given out in grants?
Dr. Orbach. Well, I can only give you the fiscal year 2006
numbers, because the fiscal year 2007 grants are still
underway.
In 2006, we had $129 million that were congressionally
directed out of a total budget of $3.6 billion.
Senator Allard. Three-point-six billion dollars?
Dr. Orbach. Yes.
Senator Allard. Okay. All right. And, how much of your
proposed funding will be directed to programs--well, let me
see, no--and how has that split changed over the last 5 to 10
years?
Dr. Orbach. It's increased quite substantially. In previous
years it was around $60 million, but it more than doubled in
fiscal year 2006.
Senator Allard. So, you're saying from fiscal year 2005 to
fiscal year 2006 that earmarks doubled?
Dr. Orbach. Yes.
Senator Allard. Really. That is a very significant
increase. And, then in the bill that we had last year I think
there was a lot of earmarks in that again. So, that trend was
continuing. It started out that way at least, didn't it?
Dr. Orbach. The fiscal year----
Senator Allard. It never made it to the floor, maybe, did
it?
Dr. Orbach. I'm sorry.
Senator Allard. Did it make it to the floor? I was trying
to remember, on the Energy Bill. I don't think it did.
Dr. Orbach. Well, the Senate bill did not make it to the
floor. The House bill passed.
What we are doing is that I sent out a letter, actually
today and tomorrow, to all those who received congressionally
directed funds in fiscal year 2006 and gave them the
opportunity to apply through our normal process of peer review
in fiscal year 2007.
Senator Allard. Based on ability to do the research?
Dr. Orbach. Based on the mission of the Department and the
quality of the research that will be determined through peer
review.
Senator Allard. Research institutions in Colorado and
agencies seem very comfortable with the grant process where
you're rewarded the grant based on your ability to do the
research and your proven record of performance. And so, I'm
very comfortable with that grant process. And, you know, we'll
be looking at ways with what we can do to make sure we sustain
the grant process.
Dr. Orbach. Thank you.
Senator Allard. Now, as I mentioned, renewable energy and
energy efficiency are important to me and the chairman has a
specific interest in that too. How much of your proposed
funding will be directed to programs that involve research in
renewable energies and conservation?
Dr. Orbach. I can give you some specific numbers, but it's
a very complex calculation. And the reason is that many of our
research programs support renewable research, but indirectly.
For example, our light sources for structures for biological
systems, the Joint Genome Institute. I would prefer to answer
that for the record, if I could, in detail, but also to go into
the richness of the way in which we support renewable energy.
The AEI, the Advanced Energy Initiative, that's one crosscut
that we've done, is around $700 million. That includes fusion
energy. And so, part of this depends on how you define
renewables. And, I would prefer that, so as not to mislead you,
to give you the numbers for the record, but the numbers in our
biology and environmental research exceed $100 million in the
2008 budget, $75 million of which are the three bioenergy
centers that we'll be funding in fiscal year 2008.
Senator Allard. Well, I'm interested in how much goes
toward renewable energy. I assume maybe the chairman of the
committee might be too. So, I would get those figures to me and
I think the committee----
Dr. Orbach. It's a very significant fraction, but I would
urge you to include the resources that we use for the purposes
of renewable energy.
[The information follows:]
Proposed Funding for Research Programs in Renewable Energies and
Conservation
The DOE Office of Science supports an enormous range of basic
scientific research relevant to renewable energy and energy efficiency.
To convey the full scope of this research and the relevant funding, I
would like to take a moment to explain the complex process by which
basic research ultimately informs, shapes, and transforms our energy
economy by providing new technologies, approaches, and products.
Basic research differs from applied research in a key respect: in
basic research there is often no one-to-one correspondence between a
discovery or breakthrough, on the one hand, and an application, on the
other. Breakthroughs often lead to multiple applications. Applications
often rely on multiple breakthroughs. The relationship between the
explicit goal of a basic research program and its ultimate impact on
the energy economy may be quite unexpected and surprising.
For example, as I pointed out in my opening remarks, one of the
major breakthroughs needed to make intermittent renewable energy
sources such as solar and wind power part of electrical baseload is a
major improvement in our methods of electrical storage. A major
breakthrough in electrical storage would likely change the entire
technological and economic calculus affecting solar and wind power. It
could bring solar and wind into their own.
But, for budget purposes, analysts would not tend to classify
funding for research in electrical storage as research in renewable
energy--even though it could have a far more profound effect on the
technological and commercial viability of these renewables than some of
the research that is focused more explicitly on solar and wind
technologies themselves.
There is a second and related point. Basic research in the physical
sciences today is critically dependent on advanced facilities and
instruments. The materials research sponsored by our Basic Energy
Sciences (BES) program--which has enormous implications for both energy
efficiency and the development of more effective solar and other
renewable energy sources--relies on a set of advanced, high-intensity
light and neutron sources. These light sources--and we own and are
building the very best in the world--are expensive to create, and a
large portion of BES's budget goes to the construction and operation of
these facilities. Yet they provide the critical tools our scientists
need to push the boundaries in such areas of research. BES's four
Nanoscale Science Research Centers (soon to become five) provide tools
that will revolutionize materials, create vast new energy efficiencies
throughout the economy, and also enable us to overcome at the nanoscale
many of the barriers that prevent solar and other renewable energy
sources from being truly efficient. Our Joint Genome Institute (JGI),
built and operated by our Biological and Environmental Research (BER)
program, is playing a critical role in the biofuels revolution. JGI is
using its high-throughput capabilities to sequence the genomes of key
bioenergy crops such as the poplar tree and key organisms, such as the
200 microbes in the hindgut of the termite, which hold Nature's secret
to the super-efficient breakdown of cellulose, a critical step in
producing cellulosic ethanol.
Yet if a conventional budget analyst were asked to identify our
funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency, none of these
facilities might show up in the analyst's total, because they are not
classified in that way--even though they are playing a critical role in
our ability to make progress in these fields.
A third point is that many of the breakthroughs we achieve in the
search for more efficient materials and motors, or more effective
conversion of solar energy to fuels, will have multiple applications
throughout the economy, improving quality of life for Americans and
strengthening U.S. global economic competitiveness. The National Energy
Policy noted that the U.S. economy grew by 126 percent since 1973, but
energy use increased by only 30 percent. Half to two-thirds of these
energy savings came from technological improvements throughout the
American economy, but of course these technological improvements also
had a major effect on the strength of the U.S. economy and Americans'
quality of life.
So I want to encourage the committee to view this basic research
and its relevance in its totality.
With that preface, here is a programmatic profile of where our
transformational basic research relevant to renewable energy and energy
efficiency is to be found.
Basic Energy Sciences ($1.5 billion under the fiscal year 2008
request). BES is our largest ``use-inspired'' energy-related research
program. Virtually every research program under BES's Materials Science
and Engineering Division is pursuing research relevant to increased
efficiency in energy production and use through the development of
lighter-weight, stronger materials, more efficient engines, and more
effective transmission and storage of electrical power, to name only a
few examples. The Chemical Sciences, Geosciences, and Biosciences
Division is also providing transformational research aimed at
efficiencies through improved catalysis and combustion. In addition,
within the BES program, $94.6 million is specifically directed toward
research in renewable energy, including solar, biomass, hydrogen, and
wind.
Biological and Environmental Research (Genomics: GTL Program:
$154.8 million under the fiscal year 2008 request; Joint Genome
Institute: $60 million under the fiscal year 2008 request). BER's GTL
program is devoted to basic research aimed primarily at discoveries
relevant to renewable energy, providing the Nation's major thrust
toward basic science breakthroughs leading to the development of cost-
effective commercially viable cellulosic ethanol and other forms of
biofuels. GTL is the heir to the Human Genome Project, which the DOE
Office of Science (then known as Energy Research) initiated in 1986.
GTL has been applying the major advances in biotechnology that have
grown out of that monumental effort to the advanced study of microbes
and plants for energy production, environmental remediation, and carbon
sequestration. This includes $75 million for the establishment of three
new Bioenergy Research Centers, for which proposals have been received;
results of this competition will be announced in June. In addition, as
mentioned, BER's Joint Genome Institute is playing a critical role by
providing high throughput sequencing of the plants and microbes for
biofuels.
Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) ($427.9 million under the fiscal year
2008 request). Fusion is not usually classified as a renewable energy
source, but it offers essentially the same benefits: a theoretically
almost limitless supply of energy with minimal impact on the
environment. Fusion holds out the promise of delivering plentiful,
clean, carbon-free energy using elements that are available in abundant
quantities on earth with virtually no adverse environmental impact. As
the planet's consumption of energy rapidly increases, fusion holds out
one of the most formidable potential solutions to growing global energy
demand; and, like renewables, fusion will produce energy that is carbon
dioxide and greenhouse gas free. Side by side with renewables and
greater energy efficiencies throughout our economy, fusion in all
likelihood will play a major role in our energy portfolio of the
future. The request includes $160 million for the U.S. contribution to
ITER, the major international fusion reactor that the United States has
joined with the European Union, Japan, China, the Russian Federation,
South Korea, and India to build, starting this year.
Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) (approximately 25
percent of the $340.2 requested for the program in fiscal year 2008).
Finally, though the amounts are difficult to quantify because of the
in-kind nature of the contribution, the Advanced Scientific Computing
Research program contributes substantially to Office of Science efforts
on renewable energy, energy efficiency, and fusion energy by providing
computer time, resources, and technical assistance at its
supercomputing facilities. ASCR provides a very small amount (a few
million dollars) of direct support for renewables research but provides
a significant amount for relevant research (about 25 percent of the
program) through partnerships with BES, BER, and FES. These
partnerships include the Fusion Simulation Project, computational
chemistry, materials simulations, computational biology, and supporting
efforts in computer science and applied mathematics. In addition, the
National Energy Research Scientific Computing (NERSC) facility provides
computing time to researchers supported by the Office of Science. Over
60 percent of the fiscal year 2007 allocations at NERSC are to BES
(chemistry, materials, geosciences, and engineering), FES, or BER
researchers. The ASCR Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on
Theory and Experiment (INCITE) program provides access and computing
time to the best research from academe, industry, and government labs
without regard to source of support. In 2007, nearly half of the INCITE
projects are in fusion, materials, chemistry, engineering, or biology
representing over 35 million hours of computer time for research in
these areas.
This answer necessarily excludes crucial areas of basic science
research for which the Office of Science is steward, including climate
modeling, research toward environmental remediation of DOE sites, and
fundamental research in nuclear and high energy physics, among others.
Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect some of the fundamental
research in nuclear and high energy physics to also have energy
implications, but on a much longer time scale. This very fundamental
research provides the broader scientific foundation for our ``use-
inspired'' basic research related to energy.
Senator Allard. That would be fine.
Dr. Orbach. Good.
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Murray.
300 AREA AT PNNL
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, we'd love to
have you come out and visit PNNL and see some of those great
research projects. It really is amazing what they're doing.
And, going back to my questioning. You know that the
replacement of the 300 Area is top priority for PNNL, and as I
said, it's apparently hung up over this third party financing
that OMB is demanding. If you can share with this committee how
you're dealing with that, I would really appreciate it.
Dr. Orbach. Well, it's important to us too. What we have
done, and thanks to you for the help you have given us in
fiscal year 2007, is to steer $10 million in 2007, which would
complete the $20 million that fits the profile for the physical
sciences facility and the 325 building. The replacement process
is a package and it relies on the third party financing of two
buildings. We have worked very closely with the laboratory and
we believe we now have a package that will meet the
requirements for third party financing. We have had to take
into account market prices. It's really a good value for the
taxpayer and we believe that we now have a package which the
taxpayer will find valuable.
Senator Murray. And will OMB approve it?
Dr. Orbach. We will be submitting it to OMB. We hope to
have final release from our department by the end of this week
and then submit it to OMB. We have an understanding with them
that within a month we will get a response. So that we can
release those funds, hopefully, by the end of April or
beginning of May.
Senator Murray. Okay. Do you have a contingency plan if
they say no?
Dr. Orbach. We would probably go back to the drawing board
and try and fix the third party financing. We think this will
work, but third party financing of two parts is essential to
successful departure from the 300 Area. And, I'd hate to give
them up. We have both a biology and a computational facility.
PNNL's role in computation is going to be very important in the
future and that building is a stand alone building, which
primarily will be Department of Homeland Security, large data
sets. I think that's essential for the future of the
laboratory. So, I'm going to do the best I can to get those
third party packages approved.
Senator Murray. Okay. Well, so within 1 month we should
hear from OMB on----
Dr. Orbach. Yes. My best estimate is that it will leave the
Department, hopefully, by the end of this week and then we have
an understanding with OMB that we'll get a response within
roughly 1 month.
Senator Murray. Well, there are two other Federal partners,
NNSA and DHS, DHS you mentioned. Neither of them have any funds
in the fiscal year 2008 budget request, and I was told that if
funds were added by Congress to the Department of Homeland
Security budget in 2007, which I was able to do, that they
would include funds in 2008. We added $2 million, yet there are
no funds in the budget request. Are you working with NNSA and
DHS to ensure adequate funds are included?
Dr. Orbach. Yes. We're working very closely with them. We
have an MOU that you're aware of. The funding in 2007 has $7.9
million from NNSA and $2 million from DHS in addition to our
$10 million. The $2 million is set, so is the $7.9 million, so
I think we can deliver on the 2007 committment. We're sort of
taking one year at a time. In 2008, for the reasons you
understand----
Senator Murray. They did not include any money in the 2008
request.
Dr. Orbach. Yes. I have spoken with Admiral Cohen about
that and we hope that some resolution will be found.
Senator Murray. Will be found. Okay, that's not a very
definitive answer. I hope that as a steward of the PNNL and all
the laboratories that you really take a leadership role and
push them in coming together with us on that.
Dr. Orbach. I will promise you that. I have been doing it
and I will continue to do that.
5-YEAR PLAN
Senator Murray. Okay. I also was disconcerted that the 5-
year plan made no mention of this project either. And I was
curious if this is a priority and we're all moving toward, why
it wasn't part of the 5-year plan?
Dr. Orbach. Well, the 5-year plan came to us at a bizarre
time. We didn't have a 2007 budget and we were trying to put
together the 5-year plan. So we didn't know how the 2007 budget
would fit into the 2008 and then, from then on. It's not a one-
year-at-a-time, but a continuum. And, frankly, we had no time
to go through the review process with OMB that we normally
would in a 5-year plan. So, what you have, as you noted, is
really just a simple extrapolation of the 2008 budget out for 5
years on a proportional basis. It's not a 5-year plan, it's
2008----
Senator Murray. It's a budget based on current numbers and
it's not a plan.
Dr. Orbach. That's correct. It's based on the President's
request for 2008 and then extrapolated out.
Senator Murray. It's disconcerting to see that because we
need that kind of leadership in the 5-year plan to make sure
we're all----
Dr. Orbach. Absolutely, and in the previous year, in fiscal
year 2007, we had a 2006 budget so we could put a 5-year plan
together. But, the budget process this year just didn't give us
the opportunity to do that.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patty Murray
Thank you Chairman Dorgan for holding this hearing today and giving
us the opportunity to discuss these important DOE programs.
I'm very pleased the Administration is continuing to increase
funding for basic and physical sciences. It is vital to build robust
research and development budgets and to maintain a healthy level of
investment in our national laboratory system in order to attract the
best and brightest minds in the sciences.
If the United States is to remain on the cutting edge of research
and development, the work of the Office of Science is a resource we can
not afford to under fund. As a long time advocate of increased funding
for the Office of Science, I'm pleased to see the administration has
requested $4.4 billion for fiscal year 2008. These investments are
necessary to keep us on track as leaders in discovery and technology
advancements.
I also take great pleasure in representing one of our national
laboratories. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory does cutting
edge work that is an integral part of the future growth of Washington
State and our Nation. It's important to make full use of all our
resources to advance science, and the national lab system should play a
key role.
One critical project the PNNL has been working on in Washington
State is the capability replacement project. I look forward to getting
the opportunity to ask you several questions on that project shortly
and other matters vital to the Hanford cleanup project.
Thank you for coming today to testify, Dr. Orbach.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Murray, thank you very much.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
Secretary Orbach, my colleague Senator Allard is
absolutely correct that many of us will be interested in the
issue of renewable energy and the work that you're doing in
those areas and will want to keep abreast of the relationship
with the other parts of the Energy Department that are doing
research in those areas as well.
Senator Domenici, did you have additional questions?
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I believe that if we do,
and I would prefer to submit them through my staff to the
Secretary if you don't mind and then back to the committee. I
would wrap it up from my standpoint by saying, while your
office has been kind of put in the limelight, by the
President's remarks in his State of the Union Address and some
that followed. For many of us, we now know that you have a very
broad charter. You are not limited to one thing or another. You
have a very broad base of activities that come within your
jurisdiction and in your power. And, I hope, and from what I
can see, I think I'm right, that our chairman is going to be
looking for places where we can make a real contribution to
America's energy unpreparedness, in terms of our being too
heavily committed and too big a user of petroleum products for
our lifestyle, which carries with it significant negative
baggage. And, you have been given an opportunity to do, to lead
a research effort in a number of areas to change that situation
that exists and is not doing us a bit of good as a people.
That's a fun situation to be in, if in fact you are given
some tools.
Dr. Orbach. Senator, thank you. We have an opportunity here
that I think we have not had before. The scientific community
understands exactly your words and has made decisions, personal
decisions to get involved in energy research. What we are going
to do is the best basic research in the world that, as I said
in my opening remarks, will make renewables contribute in a
significant fashion, not at the 1 and 2 percent, but at the 30
percent level in our economy.
Senator Domenici. That's your goal, you say.
Dr. Orbach. Yes.
MAJOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Senator Dorgan. Secretary Orbach, I too am going to send
you a list of questions and I'm interested in visiting some of
the laboratories and to try to see some of the work, visit with
the scientists, and so on. It must be almost nirvana to be able
to hire scientists to operate a department like yours and just
inquire what's happening in the universe. So, I imagine that
you have some unbelievably bright staff, some of America's
best, working on some breathtaking scientific projects. I'm
also going to be asking our staff here to do some visits to the
laboratories and will keep in close touch with you.
I want to ask, you don't have any major construction
projects in your 2008 budget request, but we know of course
that you have several projects envisioned in the longer term.
The International Linear Collider, the ITER and the National
Synchrotron Light Source II, apparently. Do you have the out-
year cost estimates for these projects? How confident are you
in the estimates? Will you be able to accommodate, you think,
in future budgets, large construction projects? Are these
projects or other projects, in your 20-year facilities plan or
is that 20-year facilities plan being modified to accomplish
these projects? So, these are, I'll let you answer that
question, but these are the kind of questions we're also going
to submit to you because we want to work with you to make sure
that you have a funding plan for the longer term, not just
2008, a funding plan that works.
Dr. Orbach. Yes, actually, we take pride in that. The
Spallation Neutron Source was just finished last year. It was
$1.4 billion. It came in slightly under budget and slightly
ahead of schedule. Project management is very, very serious to
us. In terms of ITER, we can give you the explicit numbers out
to 2014 when the construction is intended to end. And, we have
been the primary driver for project management in the ITER
construction process.
Senator Dorgan. What does ITER look like physically?
Dr. Orbach. It's huge. It's about eight stories high. It
looks like a donut. It's a way of containing a fusion plasma at
200 million degrees of sufficient density to generate half a
gigawatt of power. So, it's a big donut. If you imagine a donut
and you put your hand in the middle and open up your fingers,
you have a d-like cross section, and that's now thought to be
the appropriate geometry for stability of these plasmas at
these huge temperatures. It will burn deuterium and tritium.
These are two isotopes of hydrogen. It's the way the sun works.
And, they will produce nothing but energy and helium gas. It's
completely benign.
Senator Dorgan. You know, Secretary Orbach, your
personality changes when I ask you a question that allows you
to provide an answer you know I won't understand.
Dr. Orbach. I'm sorry. I think----
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Dorgan. But, let me tell you something. I hope I
speak for Senator Domenici as well. If he understood all that,
then I'm in serious trouble as a chairman. We really are very
interested in these things and interested in what our
scientists are doing. And, I asked the question to elicit your
response. I hope that our subcommittee, all of the members of
our subcommittee will be interested in working with you on
these really fascinating projects.
[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 Dianne Feinstein
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
Question. The Department of Energy's Office of Biological and
Environmental Research (DOE-OBER) has a robust program for monitoring
carbon cycles on land, but does not address ocean carbon. DOE
traditionally has not examined ocean acidification in the context of
global warming. Increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide make the ocean
more acidic, and ocean acidification has a large impact on global
carbon cycles. Please answer the following questions:
Do you believe that monitoring of oceanic carbon cycles is within
the scope of the Office of Biological and Environmental Research?
Answer. The uptake of carbon dioxide by the ocean has a chemically
well-understood effect on the acidity of ocean water. Since the
industrial revolution, the pH of the ocean has been reduced slightly.
This fact was brought to the attention of the scientific community in
part through global ocean carbon cycle modeling carried out at DOE
laboratories, with the support of the Biological and Environmental
Research (BER) program. Changes in ocean pH may have an effect on the
ocean carbon cycle in the future, and the BER climate modeling program
will attempt to account for those effects in the development of the
coupled climate-carbon cycle models supported by the program. The BER
climate change research program conducts basic research and develops
advanced climate modeling. Supported research includes studying the
effects of climate change on important terrestrial ecosystems, but does
not include environmental monitoring. Monitoring of the oceanic carbon
cycle is outside the present scope of BER; however, it is supported by
other Federal agency partners in the Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP), including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
Question. If so, how much of the 17 percent increase in funding
provided by the President's fiscal year 2008 budget would be needed to
initiate such a program? Is more funding needed? If so, how much?
Answer. As stated above, environmental monitoring is outside the
scope of the BER basic research program. Monitoring of ocean carbon
cycles is supported by other Federal agencies.
Question. If not, how can other Federal agencies best take
advantage of DOE's expertise in this realm? What types of programs do
you envision where the Office of Biological and Environmental Research
provides important support to this national need?
Answer. One of the most robust methods of studying the carbon cycle
of the entire ocean, and the chemistry of ocean water, including its
acidity, is through detailed, three-dimensional models of the
biogeochemistry of the ocean. When such a model is coupled to a model
of the atmosphere, uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide by the ocean is
accounted for. This approach is central to the BER climate modeling
program, which includes leading-edge three-dimensional modeling of the
coupled atmosphere-ocean system. Other Federal agencies can best take
advantage of DOE's expertise in this realm by communicating their
process research results to the modeling teams so that the models
account for the most up-to-date scientific results.
Question. The Department of Energy's Office of Biological and
Environmental Research (DOE-OBER) has developed unique capabilities to
monitor and predict chemical and physical interactions between fluids
and subsurface environments. This capability is essential to
understanding the behavior of carbon dioxide in the deep subsurface;
and the application of this knowledge to the permitting and monitoring
of carbon sequestration sites. Please answer the following questions:
In addition to technology development, what efforts are you making
to improve our scientific understanding of the behavior of carbon
dioxide at potential sites for geologic carbon sequestration?
Answer. Within the Office of Science, the Basic Energy Sciences
(BES), Biological and Environmental Research (BER), and Advanced
Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) programs support research that
underpins efforts to understand the behavior of carbon dioxide
sequestered in deep geological formations. BES-supported research
focuses on areas where improved understanding is needed to evaluate the
potential for deep underground sequestration, including understanding
the mechanical stability of porous and fractured reservoirs/aquifers,
understanding multiphase fluid flow within the aquifers, and
understanding the geochemical reactivity within the reservoirs/
aquifers. BER supports research towards the development of methods or
strategies to enhance carbon sequestration in long-term stable forms in
plants and soils. This research includes the development of functional
genomic, genetic, and proteomic approaches that may lead to improved
biomass systems for carbon fixation and sequestration. ASCR leads the
development of high-performance computers for related scientific
applications and supports research in multiscale mathematics and
computation science needed to develop optimal codes for modeling
complex systems such as subsurface biogeochemical processes. ASCR has
also partnered with BER to support research on groundwater reactive
transport modeling and simulation through the Scientific Discovery
through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) program.
Additionally, the Office of Science has led a series of workshops
that engaged the broader scientific community to identify the
challenges associated with terrestrial and subsurface geological carbon
sequestration and promising research areas that, if pursued, could lead
to further understanding of related biochemical and geochemical
processes and enable the development of long-term sequestration
technology options. More information on these workshops can be found in
the subsequent reports: ``GTL: Genomics Roadmap--Systems Biology for
Energy and Environment,'' August 2005 (http://genomicsgtl.energy.gov/
roadmap); the Basic Research Needs for Geosciences: Facilitating 21st
Century Energy Systems workshop held in February 2007, (report to be
released soon); and Computational Subsurface Sciences Workshop, held in
January 2007 (http://subsurface2007.labworks.org/report/).
Question. At the current level of investment, how long before we
have sufficient scientific knowledge to begin permitting various sites
around the country in the near future?
Answer. Sufficient scientific understanding currently exists to
support planned large-scale demonstrations of carbon sequestration in
depleted oil and gas reservoirs. Only after these large-scale
demonstrations are conducted will there be sufficient understanding of
the long-term stability and environmental impacts of geological storage
of carbon dioxide in such reservoirs. DOE's Office of Fossil Energy is
pursuing this applied research and development path. Knowledge about
deep saline aquifers is far less extensive, and many substantial issues
need to be addressed through research and demonstration before it will
be possible to permit sequestration in saline aquifers at a commercial
scale.
Question. In addition to current efforts in carbon capture and
sequestration technology; what additional programs are needed to
develop carbon sequestration science to the point where we can safely
permit and monitor sequestration sites? How much additional funding is
needed to implement these programs?
Answer. The Office of Science, in coordination with the Office of
Fossil Energy, is supporting a range of basic research activities that
will provide a sound scientific basis for carbon sequestration. Such
research includes the study of geophysical imaging methods needed to
measure and monitor below-ground reservoirs of carbon dioxide resulting
from geological sequestration, multiscale modeling to understand and
visualize saline aquifers and other geological reservoirs, and studies
to enhance long-term sequestration processes and the stability of
stored carbon in terrestrial vegetation and soils. The recent Office of
Science-led workshops on Basic Research Needs for Geosciences:
Facilitating 21st Century Energy Systems, February 2007, and
Computational Subsurface Sciences Workshop, January 2007, identified
priority research areas needed to develop carbon sequestration science.
The results of these workshops will help inform ongoing research
planning and future budget requests.
Question. In fiscal year 2007, some compromises had to be made for
new facility construction and for user facility operations in the
synchrotron radiation/photon science area. How do you see the fiscal
year 2008 budget addressing the objective of maintaining the on-time,
on-budget completion of major construction projects and also achieving
a level of funding for facility operations which is needed to ensure
scientific accomplishment commensurate with the large investments that
have been made in major scientific user facilities?
Answer. To support users and to maintain the facilities and
instruments, the fiscal year 2008 budget funds facility operations
generally at or near optimal levels, with the exception of Fusion
Energy Sciences facilities, which would be operated at about half of
optimal levels as part of a balanced fusion program, consistent with
the fiscal year 2007 request and fiscal year 2006 appropriation. The
fiscal year 2008 budget provides funding for the major construction
projects and major items of equipment at a level that assumes full
funding of construction in fiscal year 2007; i.e., the fiscal year 2008
budget was submitted to Congress prior to passage of the final fiscal
year 2007 appropriation. Therefore, impacts on construction projects
from the fiscal year 2007 appropriation are not addressed in the fiscal
year 2008 budget.
Question. California is, and has been an R&D leader, contributing
greatly to the U.S. economy through its scientific and technical
talent. The challenge is sustaining this talent with increasing
pressures on the Federal budget. The Nation needs to leverage its
investments across agencies and throughout the U.S. scientific
enterprise to effectively and synergistically apply its world-class R&D
capabilities. I am interested in how the DOE plans to leverage the
investments and accomplishments of the NNSA complex, such as its
tremendous supercomputing capability and the fusion capability of the
National Ignition Facility, to support our civilian science programs?
Will you and the Office of Science be able to reap benefits from the
investments made to develop NNSA's scientific capabilities to support
DOE's national security mission? How do you plan to leverage the
capabilities at universities, Office of Science laboratories, and the
NNSA laboratories to capitalize on the strengths and capabilities
across the DOE complex?
Answer. The Office of Science (SC) utilizes investments made by
NNSA in the field of High Energy Density Physics (HEDP) as well as in
high-performance computing in a number of ways.
Increased cooperation between these two programs will have benefits
for both. The NNSA HEDP infrastructure, represented by facilities such
as the National Ignition Facility (NIF) in California, OMEGA at the
University of Rochester, and the Z-Pinch at Sandia, are all used by SC
funded researchers to advance the field of High Energy Density
Laboratory Plasmas (HEDLP), which is a subset of HEDP. These facilities
will be used by SC to perform research on extreme states of matter, for
example, simulating in a laboratory physical properties of phenomena
that once could only be viewed from afar by telescope. These facilities
may also serve to move forward research on inertial fusion energy.
Many of the facilities that NNSA uses for stockpile stewardship,
including Z-Pinch, Omega, and NIF (which will begin operations in
2010), can be used for both national security and energy-related HEDP
research. The joint NNSA-SC Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) HEDLP program
is currently being put together. A workshop to consider integration of
NNSA and FES program elements is planned for May 2007. Details of the
joint HEDLP program are contained in the DOE NNSA and SC fiscal year
2008 President's Budget Request narratives.
In the area of computation, there has been a high level of
collaboration to advance the state-of-the art in computation. NNSA is a
world leader in mission-driven computation for its stockpile
stewardship program. SC laboratories have assisted in the development
of software codes, for instance, and have also benefited from NNSA's
experience in running machines like Cray's Red Storm and the IBM
BlueGene/L.
Researchers from NNSA and SC labs as well as university researchers
are already reaping benefits from the array of facilities within the
DOE complex. We are examining ways to increase collaboration with NNSA
facilities without compromising national security or NNSA's mission. We
expect this collaboration to develop further and help keep the United
States at the forefront of many areas of physical science.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
LOW DOSE RADIATION EFFECTS RESEARCH
Question. Dr. Orbach, you and I have worked on understanding the
effects of low dose radiation for some time. It appears that the
science indicates that the linear no-threshold model theory does not
hold up scientifically.
Can you tell me what the conclusions of the Department's research
indicate and when you will complete this evaluation?
Answer. Until recently, biophysical models of response to radiation
exposure have assumed independent action of ionization events in cells
and tissues. The models assume that the single cell is the unit of
function. The models also assume that every ionization event increases
the probability of DNA breaks. Together, these physical/biological
assumptions supported linear, no-threshold models of radiation risk and
cancer. Historically, measurements of initial radiation damage such as
cell death, chromosome aberrations, or micronuclei formation in
cellular systems showed a fairly linear response with dose, but these
experiments seldom encompassed the lower doses of interest.
New research from DOE's Low Dose Program directly challenges the
old fundamental assumptions. The new findings provide compelling
evidence that ionization events in cells and tissues are not completely
independent and that tissues have surveillance mechanisms that
dramatically affect the development of cancer and the behavior of
cancer cells. The research is establishing the importance of studying a
tissue's biological response to an exposure, rather than studying just
the initial events within an individual cell.
This new research includes recent studies that highlight biological
signaling between irradiated cells and nearby non-irradiated cells.
This crosstalk cannot be explained with the older biophysical
paradigms, which assume that the single cell is the unit of function.
These data also show that cells within a tissue are not independent of
each other in a multi-cellular organism. Indeed, the signaling from
non-irradiated cells can actually eliminate damaged cells from a
tissue. These and other results are consistent with the conclusions of
the recent French National Academy Report ``Dose-effect Relationships
and Estimation of the Carcinogenic Effects of Low Doses of Ionizing
Radiation'' (March 2005).
We believe that investments being made to study the effects of low
doses of radiation in 3 dimensional tissues, a significant advance over
traditional isolated cell approaches, will provide substantial results
in the next 3 to 5 years. Research to understand the variability and
genetic susceptibility of individuals to low doses of radiation is much
more difficult but will have significant payoffs in 5 to 7 years.
Question. How will you work to see that this information is used to
make informed decisions about environmental and worker safety?
Answer. In addition to verifying and expanding research findings,
we are working to communicate the new biological paradigms to the
larger scientific communities in the United States and around the
world. We feel that the quickest and most appropriate route to
establish the need for reconsideration of risk estimate models is to
gain understanding and acceptance from the scientific community first,
while informing the regulating agencies and the general public along
the way.
The growing body of research from the Low Dose Program now provides
a scientific basis for reconsideration of models used to set regulatory
standards. The Low Dose Program is supporting research to help in the
development of new mechanistic models that would incorporate all
aspects of radiation biology, from cellular and molecular actions
within tissues, to the evolution of cancer as a multi-cellular disease.
Ongoing research in the Low Dose Program and advances in systems
biology hold promise in providing this modeling framework, which can
facilitate moving new biological paradigms into the regulatory process.
SCIENTIFIC INTERACTION WITH CHINA
Question. I have been talking for quite some time about the need
for a U.S. global climate change policy that incorporates all world
economies, including the developing world. The foundation of our
success will be the development of affordable technologies.
Today, the United States is the largest emitter of greenhouse
gases, but China will soon overtake us in this regard. I believe it is
critical that we engage China as a partner in our efforts to curb
reductions in greenhouse gases. We need to launch a serious, ambitious
effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in both of our nations
through technology deployment and other coordinated efforts.
Please tell me about the current collaborative efforts between the
United States and China to advance technologies that will reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, including any bilateral R&D programs.
Answer. The fossil energy protocol is a bilateral agreement on
energy technology cooperation that has a goal of reducing the impact of
China's growing demand on global hydrocarbon markets; some of the
activities in the Protocol relate to modeling and technologies for
control of greenhouse gas emissions in China. Additionally, both China
and the United States are charter members of the Carbon Sequestration
Leadership Forum (CSLF), which is an international climate change
initiative focused on development of improved cost-effective
technologies for the separation and capture of carbon dioxide for its
transport and long-term safe storage. The United States and China are
co-sponsors of a CSLF-recognized project for ``Regional Opportunities
for CO2 Capture and Storage in China''.
Question. Can you please tell me what additional steps this
administration plans to take to address this important issue?
Answer. The fossil energy protocol was renewed in 2006 for an
additional 5 years.
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS
Question. I am pleased to see that the fiscal year 2008 budget
request would increase this account to $11 million, an increase of 57
percent over the operating plan for fiscal year 2007.
I believe the Department of Energy can make an important
contribution to the quality of math and science teaching in this
country, which is so critical to our Nation's continued economic
competitiveness.
I understand that the Department is developing a strategic plan for
the scale-up of its activities in this area.
Could you describe the main elements you are including in this
strategic plan?
Answer. A strategic plan is being developed in the Office of
Science for its Office of Workforce Development for Teachers and
Scientists (WDTS). It is not a Departmental-wide blueprint for this
program area. As the strategic plan is under development, I regret that
I am unable to provide a substantive answer to your question at this
time. As to a ``scale-up'' of our activities, I point you to
recommendation number five of the just-released interagency Academic
Competitiveness Council report (located at http://www.ed.gov/about/
inits/ed/competitiveness/acc-mathscience/index.html), which states that
``funding for Federal STEM education programs designed to improve STEM
education outcomes should not increase unless a plan for rigorous,
independent evaluation is in place, appropriate to the types of
activities funded.'' We have begun working with the other members of
the Council under the auspices of the National Science and Technology
Council to implement the recommendation in this report. Overall, the
fiscal year 2008 request to Congress of $11.0 million is an increase of
38 percent over the fiscal year 2007 appropriated level of $8.0
million.
Question. How will you ensure that the expanded program will
include the widest possible cross-section of our Nation's educational
system?
Answer. In January 2007, WDTS held a series of 9 focus groups
designed to gather advice and information from a very wide cross-
section of STEM education leaders from universities, educational
associations, under-represented populations, the private sector, other
Federal agencies, and other groups. These entities remain part of the
planning process for WDTS and will help ensure that the program
includes the widest possible cross-section of participants from our
Nation's educational system.
HIGH ENERGY DENSITY PHYSICS
Question. Dr. Orbach, as you are aware, this subcommittee has
carried language in the fiscal year 2006 and draft fiscal year 2007
bill directing the Department to integrate the Federal research in High
Energy Density Physics among DOE's Office of Science and the NNSA and
other Federal agencies.
I want to thank you for supporting the multi agency effort to
establish the High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas program, including
the establishment of a multi agency advisory group to oversee the
establishment of research priorities and goals.
One objective of my proposal was to expand the use of critical NNSA
facilities such as the Z machine for non weapons research.
What is the DOE's plan to maintain the United State's leadership in
this area of science?
Answer. As part of the new joint program on High Energy Density
Laboratory Plasmas (HEDLP), SC and NNSA are initiating a series of
focused workshops to engage the research community in identifying
promising research opportunities that merit increased investment as the
joint program is implemented. The first workshop is scheduled for this
May. These workshops will examine the use of NNSA facilities for world-
class HEDLP science. The workshops will be used to guide development of
new research efforts in fiscal year 2009, which will be competitively
solicited and peer reviewed, to ensure top-quality science for this
investment.
Question. Has the Department included any funding for this
scientific research as a joint program? If not, why not?
Answer. Funding will be provided from existing support for HEDLP
within SC's Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program and NNSA in fiscal
year 2008. As the program matures, it is expected to compete for
funding against the other programs in SC and NNSA.
Question. What is the Department's plan for stewardship of this
important area of scientific research?
Answer. HEDLP will be nurtured under the joint program by NNSA and
FES to steward this emerging field of physics. DOE plans to establish a
new advisory committee to give technical advice and help develop a
scientific roadmap for the joint program.
INTEGRATION OF SCIENCE AND THE NNSA
Question. With passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, your
position has been elevated to the Under Secretary level. In this
position, you now have responsibility for setting the scientific agenda
for both the Office of Science labs as well as integrating the
capabilities of the NNSA facilities, which have tremendous scientific
capabilities and facilities. This budget is the first year that you
would have had to integrate the research at all labs.
How has this budget request changed to integrate research of NNSA
and Office of Science facilities?
Answer. The Office of Science (SC) and NNSA have always had a high
level of collaboration in a number of areas, including high-performance
computing and high-energy density physics (HEDP). These collaborations
are being expanded, and new areas are currently being added. I think
the key to any collaboration is to take advantage of both NNSA and SC
strengths. Increased cooperation between these two programs will have
benefits for both.
In the area of computation, there has been a high level of
collaboration to advance the state-of-the-art in computation. NNSA is a
world leader in mission-driven computation for its stockpile
stewardship program. SC laboratories have assisted in the development
of software codes, for instance, and in turn have benefited from NNSA's
experience in running machines such as Cray's Red Storm and the IBM
BlueGene/L.
Many of the facilities NNSA uses for stockpile stewardship,
including Z-Pinch, Omega, and the National Ignition Facility (which
will begin operations in 2010) can be used for HEDP and energy-related
HEDP research. The joint NNSA-SC Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program
in High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas (HEDLP) is currently being
put together. A workshop to consider the integration of NNSA and FES
program elements is planned for May 2007. Details of the joint HEDLP
program are contained in the NNSA and SC fiscal year 2008 President's
Budget Request narratives.
Question. Which NNSA research facilities do you believe offer the
best opportunity to support the Science research priorities?
Answer. There are a number of ongoing collaborations between NNSA
in computation and HEDLP. With the start of the joint program in HEDLP,
and the workshop planned for May, we expect to learn more about how to
maximize the potential for collaboration. At a minimum, I expect this
cooperation will improve the effectiveness of both programs' missions
and use of facilities.
HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING
Question. High Performance Computing developed by the NNSA to
support the weapons stockpile stewardship program, and the research
within the Office of Science has enabled breakthrough advances in
science and engineering in the United States. These advances contribute
to the Nation's economic competitiveness. Even today, industry looks to
the Department to define future computing architecture and code
development.
What is the DOE long term strategy to keep the Nation at the
forefront of High Performance Computing?
Answer. As a partner in the President's American Competitiveness
Initiative, we are committed to keeping America at the forefront of
High Performance Computing (HPC) and the computational sciences. The
first petascale computer resource for open science will be operating at
the Leadership Computing Facility (LCF) at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory in late 2008. Experts expect that, for at least the next
decade, chip transistor counts will continue to follow Moore's law, but
fundamental physics will significantly limit chip speeds. Consequently,
increased parallelism will be essential for continued chip performance
improvement, and increased transistor counts will allow radical
departures from traditional CPU designs. To prepare for future systems,
we are partnering with the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA), the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the
National Security Agency (NSA) through the High Productivity Computer
Systems program to foster development of the next generation of
hardware. Further, SC and NNSA have entered into a research contract
with IBM to develop the next generation of the IBM Blue Gene.
In addition, we will redirect a portion of our computer science
research portfolio to address major obstacles constraining the ability
of a broad range of computational scientists to use petascale computers
effectively in areas important to DOE missions. Also, our Scientific
Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) program has created a
powerful, integrated research environment for advancing scientific
understanding through modeling and simulation. Through SciDAC, applied
mathematicians, computer scientists and computational scientists are
working in teams to create the comprehensive, scientific computing
software infrastructure needed to enable scientific discovery in the
physical, biological, and environmental sciences at the petascale and
to develop efficient and scalable data management and knowledge
discovery tools for large data sets. Further, SciDAC-2 expanded the
original program by collaborating with the NNSA and the National
Science Foundation as new funding partners.
Finally, we will continue the successful Computational Science
Graduate Fellowship with NNSA to develop the next generation of
computational science leaders.
Question. What is the DOE doing to establish a R&D roadmap with
industry and labs to support long term research of advanced computing
architecture concepts, algorithms, and software in order to meet the
next technological changes?
Answer. The 2004 report of the Federal High-End Computing
Revitalization Task Force (HECRTF) coordinated by the National Science
and Technology Council (NSTC) established the R&D roadmap, which we are
actively pursuing through government-wide interagency working groups.
Both the Office of Science (SC) and NNSA are formal mission partners in
Phase III of the DARPA High Productivity Computing Systems (HPCS)
research program. Phase III of the HPCS program is focused on the
generation of HPC systems that will be available from Cray and IBM in
the 2011 timeframe. In addition, both SC and NNSA will participate in
an NSA workshop which is intended to bring together key experts across
related interdisciplinary fields to consider and define the
opportunities and challenges in six technical thrusts for improving
power efficiency, chip input/output (I/O), interconnect, resilience,
productivity, and file system I/O.
The long term architectural strategy for system vendors is in a
period of significant change. Both SC and NNSA are working with vendors
to help them better understand our mission needs. Examples include
working with Cray on its XMT multithreaded architecture and with IBM on
the Road Runner architecture and the design of the next generation of
the Blue Gene architecture.
SC and NNSA continue to work together in the area of HPC software
environments. A recent example is SC participation in the NNSA workshop
on its TriLab L2 petascale user environment milestone that was held
after the 2007 Advanced Simulation and Computing principal investigator
meeting. As a next step, SC and NNSA are co-sponsoring a workshop on
petascale tools in Washington, DC this August. Results from this
workshop will inform SC funding plans in petascale tool research to
meet both SC and NNSA needs.
INTEGRATION OF HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING AMONG SCIENCE AND NNSA
Question. Both the DOE/Office of Science (SC) and NNSA have
national High Performance Computing programs for their respective
missions. Both offices support acquisition plans with decidedly
different goals. The Office of Science seeks to expand computing
capacity to other labs, while the NNSA is seeking to reduce the number
of labs with High Performance Computing from 3 to 2 labs.
What is the plan within DOE to acquire new high performance
computing platforms and how is it integrated and coordinated between
the Office of Science and the NNSA?
Answer. To support open scientific discovery, we must maintain our
balanced high performance computing (HPC) resources portfolio that
includes two types of HPC facilities. In the case of the National
Energy Research Scientific Computing (NERSC) Center, we have
established a mission-critical high performance production computing
center. NERSC provides HPC resources for open science to support the
needs of the Office of Science program offices. Currently, NERSC
supports over 400 projects with 2,500 users and is predominately
characterized by capacity computing. Within the current NERSC funding
profile we have established a stable 3-year upgrade cycle which is
consistent with the life cycle of HPC production resources.
The second priority in our ``Facilities for the Future of Science:
A Twenty Year Outlook'' is establishment of HPC capability computing
facilities. In contrast to NERSC, which supports thousands of users
with small allocations of time, the high performance computing
resources at the Leadership Computing Facilities (LCFs) at Oak Ridge
and Argonne provide large allocations to a small number of projects
with the potential for breakthrough scientific impact. Because access
to capability computing is so important to our national
competitiveness, we have made the HPC resources at the LCFs available
to the open scientific community, including industry, through the
Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment
(INCITE) program. Over the past 3 years we have focused our efforts on
establishing capability computing centers to provide a variety of HPC
resources for open science.
In 2003, we signed a memorandum of understanding with NNSA to
establish a framework for planning and coordinating research,
development, engineering, and test and evaluation activities related to
high-end technical computing. The acquisition of both the Red Storm
(Cray XT3) computer at the LCF at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the
proposed IBM Blue Gene/P at the Argonne LCF were a result of a
partnership between NNSA Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) and
the Office of Science. More recently, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, and IBM have entered a
research and development contract to develop the next generation of
Blue Gene-based products. Oak Ridge is working with Sandia National
Laboratories and Cray to develop a quad-core version of the Catamount
operating system. As we go forward, we will continue to rely on our
close collaboration with NNSA in the area of high performance computing
research and testbeds. However, NNSA's requirements for classified
computing are inconsistent with the Office of Science's mission to
support open science; therefore, ASCR does not share production systems
with NNSA-ASC.
GENOME RESEARCH
Question. Are we making sufficient investments in the scientific
underpinnings that would support our Nation's biofuels goals?
Answer. The Department recognizes the significant scientific and
technological barriers that need to be overcome in order to achieve our
Nation's biofuels goals, and is investing a significant portion of our
research budget to support fundamental research underpinning microbial
and plant research relevant to biofuels. Three GTL Bioenergy Research
Centers, representing a total investment of $375 million over the next
5 years, will conduct comprehensive, multidisciplinary, and integrated
basic research programs in bioenergy-related systems and synthetic
biology. Research at the Centers will focus on developing the science
underpinning biofuel production that will ultimately lead to technology
deployable in the Nation's energy economy. The Centers will draw
heavily on technology and basic science generated in the entire
portfolio of Genomics: GTL activities. The Department also provides
significant investments in a broad suite of scientific user facilities,
such as the Production Genomics Facility and structural biology user
stations at DOE synchrotrons and neutron sources, with unique
instrumentation, computational capabilities, and experimental capacity
to enable scientists in universities, Federal laboratories, and
industry to conduct research underpinning the goals of biofuels
production.
Question. With the need to support the DNA characterization of many
more plants to support our biofuels goals, why has the Department
reduced funding for the Joint Genome Initiative?
Answer. The DOE Joint Genome Institute (JGI) receives a significant
fraction of the overall budget for Biological and Environmental
Research (BER), indicating our commitment to provide genome sequencing
resources supporting the Department's missions and its biofuels goals.
The level of fiscal year 2008 funding has increased significantly
relative to that of fiscal year 2006. The budget request for the JGI,
in addition to reflecting a realistic funding balance among the entire
portfolio of BER research supporting our biofuels goals, also reflects
the need to replace aging sequencing equipment with more advanced
instrumentation capable of greater throughput. JGI receives funds from
sources other than the ``operating'' line in the budget. In fiscal year
2008, $10 million is requested for JGI from the Genomics: GTL
Sequencing portion of the BER budget. JGI also receives funding from
external sources. In fiscal year 2006, JGI received $2.9 million for
sequencing from ``work for others''; about $1.3 million of which was
from the intelligence community and the rest from a variety of other
sources.
CLIMATE RESEARCH
Question. Dr. Orbach, the Department has requested $138 million to
support Climate Change Research. It is my understanding that this
supports DOE's role in the Administration's multi agency Climate Change
Research Initiative. It appears from budget documents, the Department
has primary responsibility for carbon cycle science and climate
impacts.
Can you please explain the administration's research priorities and
how the Department supports those efforts?
Answer. The administration's Climate Change Research Initiative
(CCRI) is a set of cross-agency activities in areas of high priority
climate change research where substantial progress is anticipated over
the next 2 to 4 years. The specific focus areas include: climate
forcing (atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols);
climate observations, climate feedbacks, and sensitivity; climate
modeling, including enabling research; regional impacts of climate
change, including environment-society interactions; and climate
observations.
In fiscal year 2008, the Biological and Environmental Research
(BER) program will continue to participate in specific research areas
of the CCRI. These areas include climate forcing, climate modeling, and
climate change observation. Climate forcing, which includes modeling
carbon sources and sinks, especially those in North America and
quantifying the magnitude and location of the North American carbon
sink, is a high priority need identified in the interagency Carbon
Cycle Science Plan. In climate modeling, DOE's contribution to the CCRI
will continue to involve the production of future potential climate
scenarios for use in assessing the environmental implications of
different future possible climate states. In the climate observations
area of the CCRI, the DOE Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM)
program mobile facility will be deployed to a location where data are
needed to fill gaps in understanding key atmospheric properties and
processes, and their effect on the Earth's radiation balance and
climate. The Integrated Assessment Research contribution to the CCRI
will continue to be the development of tools for use in assessing the
costs and benefits of human-induced climate change, including those
associated with different policy options for mitigating such change.
The requested BER budget to support these specific CCRI activities in
fiscal year 2008 is $23.7 million. The remainder of BER's $138 million
climate change research request supports research in the long-standing
U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and climate change
mitigation research.
Question. Does the Office of Science support climate research
modeling to determine what effect climate change may have on regional
rainfall patterns? What does the DOE research tell us?
Answer. The BER climate modeling program supports the development
and testing of coupled ocean-atmosphere-land surface climate models.
Those models are used to project climatic change based on specified
atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Those model runs are
performed at horizontal grid cell resolution of about 150 kilometers
(or about 90 miles). There are systematic biases in the precipitation
patterns in these model runs, particularly in the tropics due to
processes like convection that are apparently not being represented
accurately in the atmospheric component of the model. Researchers are
working in a concerted way to address these systematic biases. Such
biases notwithstanding, results such as earlier spring snow melt over
large parts of the Southwestern United States and a northward shift of
storm-tracks are fairly robust results in the climate change
projections so far.
CARBON SEQUESTRATION
Question. The Department plays a large role in supporting carbon
research, including the possibility for long term sequestration within
the Climate Change Research program.
What is your opinion of the technological potential for this
country to safely sequester large amounts of carbon?
Answer. Carbon capture and storage technologies through geological
storage and terrestrial sequestration provide options for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. Successful research, development, and
demonstration are expected to result in widespread, safe deployment of
these technologies.
Question. How long do you believe it will be before we will be able
to utilize large scale carbon sequestration in this country?
Answer. Although several commercial-scale projects currently
operate outside the United States, we believe it will be several years
before the United States will be able to utilize large-scale carbon
sequestration. Sufficient scientific understanding currently exists to
support planned large-scale demonstrations of carbon sequestration in
depleted oil and gas reservoirs. Only after these demonstrations are
conducted, however, will there be sufficient understanding of the long-
term stability and environmental impacts of geological storage of
carbon dioxide in these reservoirs to proceed on a large scale.
Knowledge about deep saline aquifers is far less extensive, and many
substantial issues must be addressed through research and demonstration
before we could consider permitting the injection of carbon dioxide
into saline aquifers at a commercial scale.
Question. What does the scientific data indicate about our domestic
capacity to store CO2?
Answer. Scientific data indicate that the United States has a large
number of geological formations amenable to storage of large quantities
of carbon dioxide--e.g., oil and gas reservoirs, unminable coal seams,
and deep saline reservoirs. Current estimates indicate that hundreds of
years of total domestic carbon dioxide emissions could be stored in
such formations. In a recent Department study led by the National
Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL)--``Carbon Sequestration Atlas of
the United States and Canada''--the DOE Regional Carbon Sequestration
Partnerships identified over 3.5 trillion tons of possible carbon
dioxide storage capacity in the U.S. and Canada. Again, greater
scientific understanding and demonstration of feasibility are needed
before use of such storage capacity on a commercial scale can be safely
implemented. There is also significant potential for terrestrial carbon
sequestration in soils and plants, which is an ongoing area of research
for the Office of Science as well as other Federal agencies.
OFFICE OF SCIENCE--ENERGY-WATER PROGRAM
Question. The Energy Policy Act of 2007 included in section 979 an
authority for the Office of Science to pursue research, development,
demonstration, and commercial applications to address issues associated
with the management and efficient use of water in the production of
energy. As you are well aware, water plays a big role in the production
of electricity, and the development of technologies to minimize water
usage will be critical in areas facing drought conditions.
Unfortunately, the budget request doesn't provide any funding to
support this important activity.
Can you tell me what if anything the Department is doing to carry
out the direction in section 979?
Answer. The Department is undertaking activities responsive to
section 979. For example, Science (SC), Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE), and Environmental Management staff are working together
to track existing DOE-wide research, development, and demonstration
projects relevant to water needs in energy production. SC and EERE
representatives participate in the National Science and Technology
Council's Water Availability and Quality Subcommittee. SC and EERE
representatives are working with the national laboratories to develop a
broad-based understanding of technology and development needs that
could improve water efficiency for energy production. Lastly, the
Department is in the process of preparing a report to Congress
responsive to section 979(f).
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH FUNDING
Question. I understand there has been discussions about changing
the funding model for the Office of Biological and Environmental
Research to adopt a block funding model that would send the bulk of
research funding to a single ``core lab.'' I believe this would
discourage competition among labs to come up with creative research and
discourage the development of broad multidisciplinary approach at each
lab.
Is the Department considering changing the BER program to a block
funding model?
Answer. BER will transition its research and technology development
portfolio at the national laboratories into one with three key thrusts.
First, BER will maintain its use of and reliance on rigorous merit-
review for research selection. Second, it will focus on support of
team-based research efforts. Third, it will fund a portfolio of
laboratory research focused on one or more BER Scientific Focus Areas.
There is no plan to support a Scientific Focus Area exclusively at a
single ``core'' national laboratory. The purpose of this new funding
strategy is to better align BER's approach with that used by the other
major DOE Office of Science programs.
Question. Would this approach impede the other DOE labs from
promoting relevant new ideas and quickly responding to emerging
national problems when a single lab has been designated for funding as
the lead lab?
Answer. Impeding competition is contrary to the principles in the
Administration's R&D Investment Criteria, and any new approach should
encourage, not impede, competition.
JOINT DARK ENERGY MISSION
Question. Over the past few years, this committee has consistently
demonstrated its strong support for the Joint Dark Energy Mission.
However, other priorities in the Office of Sciences 20 Year Facilities
Plan are moving forward, even some ranked lower than the Joint Dark
Energy Mission (JDEM). This program seems to be stuck and moving
nowhere--especially in light of the Department's budget priorities.
I am specifically concerned that the Administration's fiscal year
2008 request for JDEM will hinder the Department's capacity to move
forward aggressively either in partnership with NASA or as a single
agency mission in 2008.
Unfortunately, this budget reduction may also discourage
international collaborations interested in a near term launch.
What do you and the Office of Science plan to do in the remainder
of 2007 and in 2008 to get JDEM moving? What can Congress do to help
you ensure that JDEM doesn't become a missed opportunity?
Answer. The DOE fiscal year 2007 appropriation and the President's
fiscal year 2008 budget request have allocated resources for continuing
the dark energy program, including funding R&D for the SuperNova/
Acceleration Probe (SNAP), a concept for JDEM. In addition, there is
funding for mid-term or longer-term ground- or space-based dark energy
R&D of approximately $3 million in fiscal year 2007 and $5.8 million
requested for fiscal year 2008. This research will be competitively
selected.
In fall 2006, DOE and NASA began jointly funding a National
Research Council (NRC) study, to be completed by September 2007, to
advise NASA on which of the 5 proposed NASA Beyond Einstein missions,
including JDEM, should be developed and launched first. If the
recommended top priority by the NRC study is JDEM, DOE and NASA could
request to proceed jointly on this mission, leading to construction and
launch during the next decade.
In response to a Congressional directive for DOE to begin planning
for a single-agency dark energy mission and explore other launch
options, DOE has been investigating a scenario of participation with
international partners, in particular France and Russia.
There are also other international efforts towards a space-based
dark energy mission. CNES is supporting an equivalent amount of R&D
towards DUNE, a French dark energy concept. The European Space Agency
(ESA) has recently completed a feasibility study for a dark energy
mission and is planning to have a competition and decision in 2009 for
its next mission.
DOE and CNES officials have discussed a possible partnership and
have agreed to work together until fall 2007 to document possible
cooperation on the SNAP mission. Whether CNES will eventually
participate in SNAP, DUNE, or other missions depends on the results of
the NRC study and other policy considerations. DOE officials have also
discussed possible Russian collaboration with the Federal Agency for
Science and Innovations of the Russian Federation. The Department's
path forward will be determined following the results of the NRC study
and we continue to support dark energy R&D.
CLIMATE MODELING
Question. The DOE plays a leadership role in the Nation's Climate
Change Science Program that includes self-consistent modeling of the
world's atmosphere, land, and oceans. For more than 20 years, Los
Alamos National Laboratory scientist [sic] have utilized their
substantial know-how and computational facilities to develop the best
ocean and sea ice models, and have applied them to the coupled earth
system models. This is a strong successful collaboration among the best
and brightest from almost every national laboratory. What is the Office
of Science program strategy for modeling and remote sensing in response
to recent observations of the Greenland ice melt? Isn't there a sense
of urgency to produce even more accurate sea ice predictions as Arctic
ice thins, and also to build a model of Greenland glacial melting?
Answer. The BER strategy is to continue its support for the
leading-edge coupled ocean-sea ice modeling (COSIM) group at LANL as
part of BER's broader climate change research subprogram. DOE
researchers examined Arctic sea-ice under various emission scenarios
for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report using the Community Climate
System Model. Because Arctic sea-ice is already in the ocean, its
melting does not directly affect sea level, though it does affect
navigability of the northern ocean. Researchers at LANL are currently
examining the Greenland ice melt using an interactive ice-sheet model
coupled to the other components of the climate model: land surface,
sea-ice, and atmosphere. Ice-sheet models need to resolve fast-flow
features such as ice streams, subglacial process physics, and marine
processes, and also to include stress coupling. Thus, the challenge to
get all these extremely complex processes well-represented in the
models is immense. For glacial melt, the increased lubrication of
glacier beds by increased summer melt water that drains down crevasses
and moulins to the beds needs to be represented in the land-ice models.
DOE does not carry out remote sensing, but we do use the results of
remote sensing supported by other Federal agencies to evaluate or test
the results of our modeling activities.
COMPUTER QUESTIONS
Question. These big parallel supercomputers have always been very
difficult to program and the knowledge to do so is only understood by
specialists that exist in our Nation's National Laboratories and
Universities. Now that computer manufacturers have started to produce
multi-core processors, the technology needed for advancement in
scientific understanding has become even more complicated and
inaccessible.
Can you describe the complete DOE investment strategy in this area,
and speak specifically to how these investments go beyond simply
supporting procurement of large hardware and represent tangible
investments in the specialized scientists needed to make these machines
available to the country?
Answer. As a partner in the President's American Competitiveness
Initiative, we are committed to keeping the United States at the
forefront of High Performance Computing (HPC) and the computational
sciences. In addition to acquiring large high performance computing
resources that will generate millions of gigabytes per year of data,
ESnet has entered into a long term partnership with Internet 2 to build
the next generation optical network infrastructure needed for U.S.
science. Further, SC will redirect a portion of its computer science
and research portfolio to address major obstacles that would constrain
the ability of a broad range of computational scientists to use
petascale computers effectively in areas important to DOE's missions.
Within our Applied Mathematics research program, for example, we are
conducting a petascale data workshop to identify the next-generation
mathematical techniques that will enable scientists to extract the
scientific phenomena buried in massive complex data sets.
Through our Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing
(SciDAC) program, applied mathematicians, computer scientists, and
computational scientists are working in teams to create the
comprehensive, scientific computing software infrastructure needed to
enable scientific discovery in the physical, biological, and
environmental sciences at the petascale and to develop efficient and
scalable data management and knowledge discovery tools for large data
sets. In 2006, we re-competed SciDAC (SciDAC-2) and introduced the
concept of SciDAC Institutes to increase the presence of the program in
the academic community and to complement the efforts of the SciDAC
Centers. Our SciDAC Institutes will infuse new ideas and community
focus into the SciDAC program, as well as provide students with
valuable computational science experiences. In addition to SciDAC
Institutes, SciDAC-2 expanded the original program by collaborating
with the NNSA and the National Science Foundation as new funding
partners.
Finally, SC and NNSA will continue the successful Computational
Science Graduate Fellowship to develop the next generation of
computational science leaders.
Question. There is a trend toward managing and extracting
actionable knowledge from very large amounts of data. This trend has
grown faster than traditional scientific simulation and has immediate
importance in national security matters.
How do you plan to ensure that your investment strategy is
applicable to these new trends?
Answer. Using the NSTC High-End Computing Revitalization Task Force
report as our roadmap, we are undertaking a broad investment strategy
for the deployment and utilization of new HPC resources. Our Leadership
Computing Facilities provide architectural diversity so that
researchers have the resources they need to tackle challenging
scientific questions. The first petascale computer resource for open
science will be operating at the Leadership Computing Facility (LCF) at
Oak Ridge National Laboratory in late 2008. Additionally, the HPC
resources at NERSC have undergone a significant upgrade so that they
can continue to meet SC mission-critical needs and help prepare our
researchers to make optimum use of the Oak Ridge LCF, as well as the
LCF at Argonne National Laboratory. Because access to capability
computing is so important to our national competitiveness, we have made
the HPC resources at the LCF available to the open scientific community
across Federal agencies and national laboratories, in universities, and
in industry, through the Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on
Theory and Experiment (INCITE) program.
We are coupling our investment in hardware with a corresponding
investment in our base computer science and applied mathematics
research programs to develop system software and tools as well as new
algorithms for analysis of multi-scale and complex data. Through our
SciDAC Outreach Center we are disseminating SciDAC accomplishments to
the broader HPC community.
Within DOE, NNSA and SC have entered a research and development
contract with IBM to develop the next generation of Blue Gene-based
products. Oak Ridge is working with Sandia National Laboratories and
Cray to develop a quad-core version of the Catamount operating system.
Although the two programs are managed differently because of the NNSA's
requirements for classified data, SC and NNSA will continue and grow
our close collaboration in high performance computing research and
testbeds.
Within the broader community, we closely coordinate our activities
with other Federal agencies through the Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development (NITRD) subcommittee of the
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). Lastly, both SC and
NNSA are formal mission partners in Phase III of the DARPA High
Productivity Computing Systems (HPCS) research program. Phase III of
the HPCS program is focused on the generation of HPC systems that will
be available from Cray and IBM in the 2011 timeframe.
Question. DOE has two major programs in computational sciences: the
Office of Science program and the NNSA ASC program. These two programs
seem to be managed very differently, and I am struck by the lack of
synergy between them. Further, NSF and DARPA are pushing their own
computer initiatives.
Why isn't the DOE maintaining its leadership for the country in
terms of a national investment strategy for technology and scientific
investment for computing, computational sciences, and computer sciences
for the future?
Answer. DOE continues to maintain a leadership role in
computational science and high end computing systems for open science.
The first petascale computer resource for open science will be
operating at the Leadership Computing Facility at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory in late 2008. Within SciDAC we created a powerful,
integrated research environment for advancing scientific understanding
through modeling and simulation. NSF and NNSA have joined SC as funding
partners for SciDAC-2. Through the INCITE program, we are making 80
percent of the leadership computing facilities available to the open
science community through a peer-reviewed process.
Question. It appears that there is very little mission coordination
among the various agencies in order to sustain a long term R&D program
that goes beyond the purchase of a faster computer.
How are you going to bring these various pieces together?
Answer. Through the American Competitiveness Initiative, we will
continue to work with our partners within DOE and NITRD on a national
roadmap for the future. In addition, the Office of Science has focused
partnerships with the mission agencies including NNSA, NSA, DOD, and
DARPA.
SUPERCONDUCTIVITY
Question. Given the fundamental science challenges inherent in
superconductivity and recent successes in technology demonstration
projects using second generation coated conductors, what is the Office
of Science investment strategy for seizing basic and applied research
opportunities in this area?
Answer. In May, 2006, SC's Office of Basic Energy Sciences
sponsored a workshop entitled Basic Research Needs for
Superconductivity. The workshop identified seven ``priority research
directions'' and two ``crosscutting research directions'' that capture
the promise of revolutionary advances in superconductivity science and
technology. The first seven directions set a course for research in
superconductivity that will exploit the opportunities uncovered by the
workshop panels in materials, phenomena, theory, and applications.
These research directions extend the reach of superconductivity to
higher transition temperatures and higher current-carrying
capabilities, create new families of superconducting materials with
novel nanoscale structures, establish fundamental principles for
understanding the rich variety of superconducting behavior within a
single framework, and develop tools and materials that enable new
superconducting technology for the electric power grid that will
dramatically improve its capacity, reliability, and efficiency for the
coming century. The seven priority research directions identified by
the workshop take full advantage of the rapid advances in nanoscale
science and technology of the last 5 years. Superconductivity is
ultimately a nanoscale phenomenon. Its two composite building blocks--
Cooper pairs mediating the superconducting state and vortices mediating
its current-carrying ability--have dimensions ranging from a tenth of a
nanometer to a hundred nanometers. Their nanoscale interactions among
themselves and with structures of comparable size determine all of
their superconducting properties.
The workshop participants found that superconducting technology for
wires, power control, and power conversion had already passed the
design and demonstration stages. Second generation (2G) wires have
advanced rapidly; their current-carrying ability has increased by a
factor of 10, and their usable length has increased to 300 meters,
compared with only a few centimeters five years ago. However, while 2G
superconducting wires now considerably outperform copper wires in their
capacity for and efficiency in transporting current, significant gaps
in their performance improvements remain. The fundamental factors that
limit the current-carrying performance of 2G wires in magnetic fields
must be understood and overcome to produce a five- to tenfold increase
in their performance rating.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Dorgan. We thank you very much for coming here
today and thank you for your work.
This hearing's recessed.
[Whereupon, at 2:54 p.m., Wednesday, March 21, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:33 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Dorgan, Murray, Reed, Domenici, Craig,
Bond, Allard, and Stevens.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS R. SPURGEON, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY NUCLEAR ENERGY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN
Senator Dorgan. We'll call the hearing to order. This is
the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development. We thank our witnesses for being here today. This
is a hearing on the Office of Nuclear Energy, the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of Fossil
Energy and the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability.
We're here to take testimony from the four program offices
I've just described within the Department of Energy which
oversee major aspects of the U.S. Government's energy R&D
demonstration and deployment programs. I have a great deal of
interest in these issues, as do others on this subcommittee,
and I look forward to hearing today from our witnesses.
Passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT), thanks to
my colleagues, Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman and their
leadership, was, I think, a step in the right direction. I was
pleased to be on the authorizing committee and to be a part of
the work in the passage of that legislation.
But it was only a step. More needs to be done and we will
continue to work in the authorization process to do that. The
Energy Policy Act, however, only has its full impact if it is
properly funded and implemented. Our ability to meet head on
the challenges that we tried to describe in our Energy Policy
Act will be hobbled by continued baby steps if we do not fully
fund many of the issues that we care about. We need to be more
deliberate, I believe, in addressing the major challenges that
are associated with energy, since it is the central
underpinning of our other economic, social, environmental, and
foreign policy goals.
So I believe we should set goals. We need to know where we
are going and how we are going to get there; so there are two
points that I think are very relevant to this hearing.
First, we need to do a much better job of investing in our
energy future. Second, we need to begin making these
investments within and across entire energy systems rather than
picking and choosing pieces of an energy puzzle.
Note chart 1. In December 2006, a Government Accountability
Office (GAO) study gave us this information. The total budget
authority for energy research and development has dropped by
over 85 percent in real terms between 1978 and 2005. We need to
put our energy challenges front and center and we will never be
able to move forward with declining investments like that.
Research and development figures in a chart like this should
indicate increasing funding but regrettably, that has not been
the case.
Chart 2 shows that of the Energy Department's $24.3 billion
budget request for 2008, only $3.1 billion is directed toward
energy matters. Let me say that again: Of $24.3 billion in the
Department of Energy budget request, $3.1 billion is directed
toward energy matters and of that only $2.5 billion is directed
at energy technology programs. While I realize the Department
has very broad and important mandates, this means that, in
simple terms, only $1 in $8 in the Department of Energy request
is actually going toward energy issues.
On the second point, energy systems have many elements to
them and we must undertake improvements along the R&D chain to
these systems as wholes. We have two major systems at work, the
transportation system and a power generation system. We must be
prepared to understand these systems and address them at every
stage, not just in bits and pieces.
For example, if we want to promote renewable fuels, and I
do, then we need to look at feed stocks, bio-refineries, fuel
transportation, infrastructure, vehicles, public education, and
marketplace acceptance. The Department of Energy suggests it
does not pick winners and losers but I think in many ways
that's very disingenuous.
We can see many examples where, with tight budgets and
different priorities, some areas have been done well and others
not so well. One needs to look only at the Department's fiscal
year 2007 spending plan. It demonstrates that two of our
witnesses' programs had windfall budget increases while two saw
cutbacks.
The Department's consistency in those areas, I think, is an
inconsistency in following through on long-term commitments and
recognizing the Government's role in investing and directing
policies along each stage of the energy system. I understand
that we have limited resources and nearly unlimited wants. But
we must find a way of addressing those key areas that are
crucial to our energy success in the future.
If our energy policy is going to be central to our Nation's
future, and energy will be central to our Nation's future, then
we're not going to be able to do it on the cheap or do it at
the margins. I'm very interested in hearing today from the four
witnesses, whose direct activities in the Department of Energy
are, I believe, essential and central to the question of
whether we will succeed in meeting our energy needs.
Senator Domenici.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I realize that we have a
full load of witnesses and many people here to hear what they
have to say, including Senators but I would like to give just a
brief opening statement. It will not be long.
First let me say, I greatly appreciate the statement you
made. I listened to it attentively. Obviously, I'm not sure
that I agree with the conclusions that were arrived at by you
and your helpers. But I do agree wholeheartedly with the
premise and the thesis of what you've said.
Actually, Mr. Chairman, we didn't have a Department of
Energy for a long time. It was a Department put together by
just piecing all kinds of agencies and then for a long time,
nobody knew what the Department of Energy was supposed to do.
You knew that from afar. I knew it from inside. We didn't know
whether we were supposed to be for nuclear power. We didn't
even know if there should be nuclear power mentioned within the
Department of Energy for a number of years, Senator Bond. It
just wasn't even thought of. So that accounts for many of the
ups and downs that you have spoken of.
Today, these four witnesses from the Department of Energy
represent major energy supply R&D accounts. They've developed
innovative research initiatives such as cellulosic biomass
programs, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP),
FutureGen and Solar America, which have the potential of
deploying cleaner burning fossil fuel technology as well as
zero emission technologies such as nuclear, solar and wind
generation.
This budget supports many of the research priorities
included in EPACT, the bill you alluded to that we passed 2\1/
2\ years ago. One important goal of EPACT has been to make sure
that innovative energy technology doesn't stay in the lab but
will be deployed to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as well
as our country's less dependence on foreign energy sources.
It is a fact that our energy markets are based on low cost,
conventional generation. High cost renewable energy
technologies face a serious challenge in the cost competitive
environment.
In addition to supporting additional R&D efforts, I've been
focused on implementing the title XVII Loan Guarantee Program.
This initiative can be effective--an effective tool in the
leveraging of the Federal balance sheet to make the first of a
kind renewable and alternative energy technology cost
competitive.
I've been surprised by the challenges facing the
implementation of loan guarantee programs that we provided in
the energy bill, especially in light of the fact that the
export/import bank provides $18 billion in loan coverage to
support U.S. commercial investments overseas. This is twice the
level provided to support DOE's title XVII.
I know investment overseas is important but I believe we
have a serious problem when the administration provides greater
assistance to support the sale of nuclear reactors to China
than it provides for the deployment of nuclear reactors in our
own country. I believe that's wrong and I think somehow we must
fix it. It is very hard for us to fix it. I mean, we are going
to have to pass specific laws that specifically direct whatever
it is we want in this area that we're talking about in terms of
loan guarantees.
I'd like to also make a brief point about the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership--GNEP. This is a very exciting
initiative. It proposes to close the nuclear fuel cycle. I
understand there could be questions about it but I think once
it gets on the table, let's the daylight see it all and see how
it comes out. It is apt to be a very exciting thing that we
should put together and work on.
PREPARED STATEMENTS
I ask that the balance of my statement be made a part of
the record and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me an
opportunity to address these issues and thank you, witnesses.
It's good to have you all here.
Senator Dorgan. Without objection. Senator Reed has also
submitted a statement for the record.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Pete V. Domenici
Mr. Chairman, today we have four witnesses representing the
Department of Energy's major energy supply R&D accounts. These offices
have developed innovative research initiatives such as the cellulosic
biomass program, GNEP, FutureGen and Solar America, which have the
potential of deploying cleaner burning fossil fuel technology as well
as zero emission technologies such as nuclear, solar, and wind
generation.
This budget supports many of the research priorities included in
EPACT. One important goal of EPACT has been to make sure that
innovative energy technology doesn't stay in the lab but will be
deployed to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as well as make our
country less dependent of foreign energy sources.
It is a fact that our energy markets are based on low cost,
conventional generation and that high cost, renewable energy
technologies face a serious challenge in a cost competitive
environment.
In addition to supporting additional R&D efforts, I have been
focused on implementing the title 17 loan guarantee program. This
initiative can be an effective tool in leveraging the Federal balance
sheet to make the first of a kind renewable and alternative energy
technologies cost competitive.
I have been surprised by the challenges facing the implementation
of the loan guarantee program, especially in light of the fact that the
Export-Import Bank provides $18 billion in loan coverage to support
U.S. commercial investment overseas. This is twice the level provided
to support DOE's title 17 program.
I know investment overseas is important, but I believe we have a
serious problem when the administration provides greater assistance to
support the sale of nuclear reactors to China, than it provides for the
deployment of nuclear reactors in our own country.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a brief point about the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). This is a very exciting initiative.
It proposes to close the nuclear fuel cycle and make a significant
reduction on our spent fuel inventories.
The world has begun to embrace nuclear power as a cost effective
energy solution that does not contribute to greenhouse gases. Today,
there are plans to build an additional 200 new nuclear plants in
countries all across the world.
I commend the administration for their efforts to develop a
comprehensive plan that will address spent fuel management and to
optimize this energy resource in a safe and secure manner.
This issue is not going away and this country should be part of the
global solution.
I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses, who are working
very hard to make our country more energy independent and to reduce
greenhouse gas emission to the lowest levels possible.
Gentlemen, I appreciate your service very much.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Jack Reed
Chairman Dorgan and Senator Domenici, I want to thank you for
holding this hearing to review the Department of Energy's fiscal year
2008 budget request. Federal funding for energy efficiency and
renewable energy programs is very important to me. I want to express my
disappointment at the Department of Energy's budget proposal for the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The fiscal year 2008
budget proposes only $1.24 billion for EERE--a $230 million decrease
compared to the fiscal year 2007 Continuing Resolution funding level.
Our Nation faces significant challenges as we strive to ensure our
energy security, reduce the economic risks of high energy prices, and
address global climate change. Energy efficiency and renewable energy
programs that improve technologies for our homes, our businesses, and
our vehicles must be the ``first fuel'' in the race for secure,
affordable, and clean energy.
Energy efficiency is the Nation's greatest energy resource. We now
save more energy each year from energy efficiency than we get from any
single energy source, including oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear
power. A 2001 National Research Council report found that for every
dollar invested in the 17 Department of Energy energy-efficiency
research and development programs, nearly $20 is added to the U.S.
economy in the form of new products, new jobs, and energy cost savings
to American homes and businesses.
Unfortunately, under this administration, efficiency funding has
fallen alarmingly since 2002. Adjusting for inflation, funding for
efficiency has been cut by one-third. The fiscal year 2007 Continuing
Resolution provided $1.473 billion for efficiency and renewable energy.
I want to thank Senators Dorgan and Domenici for this increased
funding. The $300 million added in fiscal year 2007 will help to
restore the cuts of recent years, but increased investment is
necessary. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized over $3.8 billion
for the EERE account. In order to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels
and enhance our energy security, this is a time to grow our Nation's
investment in energy efficiency, not cut funding.
I want to add that I am disappointed that the Department of
Energy's fiscal year 2007 spending plan submitted to Congress cut
funding to the Weatherization program. The Senate passed an amendment
to the Supplemental Appropriations bill to restore funding to $237
million. While I hope this amendment will prevail in conference, it is
my hope that the Department will reconsider its spending plan and
restore the funding for weatherization while maintaining funding for
other programs in the intergovernmental account.
In closing, I want to say that I am glad to see the
administration's support for cellulosic ethanol and an increase in
funding to support cost-shared projects with industry for enzyme
development to produce low cost sugars from biomass and for improved
organism development for converting those sugars to ethanol. I want to
make sure that the Department of Energy is aware of important research
being conducted by the University of Rhode Island and Brown University
in this field. Researchers in my State are developing biotechnology
strategies to increase biomass of native grasses and enzymes for post-
harvest digestion of cellulose to improve efficiency of cellulosic
ethanol production.
Senator Dorgan. My colleagues, I would prefer to go to the
witnesses but if you have a very brief opening statement that
you feel like you must make, I'd certainly be happy to respect
that.
Senator Bond. That's a challenge, Mr. Chairman. I was going
to spend most of my time praising you and the ranking member
for the money you put in, the $300 million increase in funding
through the continuing resolution.
Senator Dorgan. Take as much time as you want.
Senator Bond. For efficiency of renewable energy. I
strongly support renewable energy, nuclear power, clean coal
research. We have a lot of problems in Missouri if we have
carbon caps or taxation. For low-income people, LIHEAP only
covers one-sixth of them. We've lost jobs overseas from the
increased cost of natural gas.
These impose tremendous burdens and the best way we can
work, I think, for the future, is through clean coal technology
because right now, I just heard--I don't know, I just heard
this fact that by 2012, the timeframe when Kyoto is going to go
into place--by that time, China and India will build almost 800
new coal-fired powerplants. The combined carbon emissions from
those plants will be five times as much as the total reductions
mandated by the Kyoto Accords and even though nobody is meeting
them and we can't get China and India to meet them and curb
their growth unless we are able to provide them the technology.
I commend the President's Asia Pacific Partnership because
that--developing the technology here, making it comparable in
cost to current technology for coal-fired energy is absolutely
essential. We've got to get over the foot dragging and the
bureaucracy, get the money released for the EPA Act and I
support your efforts and more authorization. I just think this
is a critical element if we're going to take care of the needs
in our country and not see our efforts overwhelmed by the
growth in new coal-powered plants in China and India.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you, Senator Bond. Others?
Senator Craig. With reason and concern, I will only accept
a slight bump up in the Idaho Lab budget. Other than that, I'll
make my comments during the questioning period.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you, Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Dennis, did you hear that?
Mr. Spurgeon. Yes, sir, I heard that.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Allard.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, I have some comments. I'll
just submit them in the record.
Senator Dorgan. Without objection.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Wayne Allard
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. I think it
is very appropriate that you have asked the offices that are
responsible for dealing with some of the most common ways of producing
electricity to be here with the Office of Delivery and Reliability. And
as we are all aware, no amount of electricity does us any good if we
cannot get it to where it is needed.
No one can argue that we are dangerously reliant on foreign sources
of energy. We must decrease our reliance on foreign sources of energy
by diversifying our energy sources and increasing conservation. I have
long felt that a balanced energy portfolio that takes no technology off
of the table is what is best for this Nation.
For this reason I am a strong supporter of nuclear energy. Nuclear
generation facilities produce vast and reliable quantities of
electricity. I am pleased with the recent movement toward increasing
our nuclear capacity, which has been the result of the Energy Policy
Act passed in 2005. I am hopeful that we can continue this progress.
I would like to extend a special welcome to Mr. Karsner, who
oversees the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which in
turn oversees the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado.
NREL makes a major contribution to the development of renewable energy
technology and the technologies that are developed at NREL will remain
vital to our Nation's energy progress.
Renewable energy is a very important way that we can begin to
reduce the demand for oil and, thereby, help make our country more
secure. There are great opportunities for solar, wind, geothermal,
biomass, fuel cells and hydro to make significant contributions.
Research and the input of both government and industry partners are
very important to allowing these opportunities to live up to their
potential.
Finally, fossil energy will remain important to energy production
in this country. Technological advancements have made the use of coal
cleaner and more efficient than ever before. In the United States we
have vast amounts of domestic resources from traditional oil, coal and
gas resources to unconventional sources such as oil shale. I firmly
believe that we can and must continue to use these resources
responsibly.
I look forward to working with the committee to ensure that
research and development in all fields of energy technology are funded
in a manner that is responsible, but sufficient to ensure that the
development and implementation of new technologies continues.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much. Well, let me, on
behalf of the entire subcommittee, thank the witnesses. We will
begin today by hearing from the Honorable Dennis Spurgeon, who
is the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Nuclear Energy. Mr.
Spurgeon, let me say to all four of you that your full comments
will be made a part of the permanent record and you may
summarize. Mr. Spurgeon.
STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS R. SPURGEON
Mr. Spurgeon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman
Dorgan, Ranking Member Domenici and members of the
subcommittee, it is a pleasure to be here today to discuss the
fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Department of Energy's
Office of Nuclear Energy.
The Office of Nuclear Energy has made progress in the last
several years in advancing our Nation's energy security and
independence in support of the Department's strategic plan. It
is my highest near-term priority to enable industry to deploy a
new generation of nuclear power plants. We have also made steps
toward the developing of advanced nuclear reactor and fuel
cycle technologies while maintaining a critical national
nuclear infrastructure.
Today, 103 nuclear reactors generate roughly 20 percent of
America's electricity, with the 104th reactor, Browns Ferry
Unit 1, about to enter service. U.S. electricity demand is
anticipated to grow 50 percent in the next 25 years, the
equivalent of 45 to 50 1,000 megawatt nuclear reactors must be
built just to maintain that 20 percent share.
The United States is at a critical juncture in the future
of nuclear power in the United States. Unlike many of our
international research partners, our nuclear industry has not
been heavily supported, financially and politically, over the
past 30 years. Today, the need for increased electrical
generation capacity is clear and hopefully undisputed.
NUCLEAR POWER 2010
Fortunately, we do have a growth option that allows us to
have a diversified electrical generation portfolio that
includes a significant carbon emissions-free component and that
is nuclear power. To support near term domestic expansion of
nuclear energy, the fiscal year 2008 budget requests $114
million for the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, to support
continued cost shared efforts with industry to reduce the
barriers to deployment of new nuclear power plants in the
United States.
In the past few weeks, we have seen major milestones met in
the expansion of safe and clean nuclear power. In early March,
the NRC voted to approve the early site permit for the Exelon
Generation Company's Clinton site in central Illinois and 2
weeks ago, the NRC approved the early site permit for the
Entergy Corporation's Randolph site in Mississippi. The
approval of these two sites is a step toward the ordering of
new nuclear powerplants for construction on American soil, a
feat that hasn't happened in 30 years.
Why nuclear power? Nuclear power is the only proven base
load producer of electricity for new capacity that does not
emit greenhouse gases. It is vital that our current fleet of
reactors be expanded in order to meet our needs for carbon-
free, dependable electric power.
GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP
Any serious effort toward expanded global use of nuclear
energy will inevitably require us to address the spent fuel and
proliferation challenges that accompany such an expansion. To
meet these challenges, President Bush initiated the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership or GNEP, a comprehensive approach to
enable the expansion of nuclear power in the United States and
around the world, to promote nonproliferation goals, to more
efficiently use our nuclear fuel resources and to help resolve
nuclear waste management issues.
Domestically, GNEP provides a solution to the ever-growing
issue of spent nuclear fuel. In conjunction with Yucca
Mountain, GNEP provides a solution that outlines a closed fuel
cycle, where energy is harvested from spent fuel before the end
product is disposed of in a permanent geologic repository. The
spent fuel will be recycled in a manner that will be more
proliferation resistant than current processes used around the
world. A closed fuel cycle will also alleviate some of the
burden placed on Yucca Mountain and will possibly eliminate the
need for a second geologic repository throughout the remainder
of this century. We reiterate though that no fuel cycle
scenario will eliminate the need for a geologic repository.
We are all aware of the enormous amount of energy available
from nuclear fission. One pound of uranium fuel in a reactor
makes the same amount of electricity as 125 million pounds of
coal. Recycling, as we planned in GNEP, while decreasing the
overall mass of spent nuclear fuel, will also make it possible
to use the energy remaining in the used fuel. A recycling
facility processing fuel from existing U.S. light water
reactors could recover the energy equivalent of the oil
delivered by the Alaska Pipeline.
Internationally, GNEP promises to address the growing
global energy demand in an environmentally friendly manner. A
global regime of countries able to provide a complete portfolio
of nuclear fuel services, including Russia, France and possibly
Japan, China and Britain, will provide these services to
countries wanting to use nuclear power to meet their basic and
growing energy needs without the cost and risk associated with
the nuclear fuel cycle infrastructure. By providing these
services to other countries, we hope to dissuade future states
from developing enrichment capabilities like we are
encountering in Iran today.
The fact is, the United States is not currently positioned
to be an active member of the global regime. We have limited
enrichment capabilities and no back end recycling capabilities.
Creating the capabilities needed to participate in the global
expansion of nuclear power will take at least 15 to 20 years,
meaning that in order to become an active participant of the
global nuclear expansion, we need to begin now.
Taking those necessary steps enables us to better assure
that the imminent expansion will be safe, beneficial and will
not promote the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The Department requests $405 million in fiscal year 2008 to
begin work on developing a detailed, technically sound roadmap
for implementing all aspects of the GNEP vision.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the support we have received
from the subcommittee as we seek to address the challenges
surrounding the global expansion of nuclear power. We remain
confident and optimistic about the role of nuclear energy in
providing a solution to our Nation's energy stability and
independence.
I would be pleased to answer your questions, sir.
Senator Dorgan. Secretary Spurgeon, thank you very much for
your testimony. We appreciate it.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dennis R. Spurgeon
Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Domenici, and members of the
subcommittee, it is a pleasure to be here to discuss the fiscal year
2008 budget request for The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of
Nuclear Energy.
The Department of Energy's strategic plan portrays a long-term
vision of a zero-emission future, free from the reliance on imported
energy. A portfolio of nuclear programs is provided for in this plan
for near-term, medium-term, and long-term sustained advances in nuclear
technology.
The Office of Nuclear Energy has made progress in the last several
years in advancing our Nation's energy security and independence in
support of the Department's strategic plan. The Department remains
committed to enabling industry to deploy a new generation of nuclear
power plants. We have also made steps forward in developing advanced
nuclear reactor and fuel cycle technologies while maintaining a
critical national nuclear infrastructure.
Today, 103 nuclear reactors generate roughly 20 percent of
America's electricity, with the 104th reactor, Browns Ferry unit 1,
about to enter service. U.S. electricity demand is anticipated to grow
50 percent over the next 25 years--the equivalent of 45 to 50 one-
thousand megawatt nuclear reactors must be built just to maintain that
20 percent share. With nuclear power as the only proven base load
producer of electricity that does not emit greenhouse gases, it is
vital that our current fleet of reactors be expanded in order to meet
our needs for carbon-free, dependable and economic electric power.
Any serious effort to stabilize greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,
while providing the increasing amounts of energy needed for economic
development and growth, requires the expanded use of nuclear energy.
This will inevitably require us to address the spent fuel and
proliferation challenges that confront the expanded, global use of
nuclear energy. To meet these challenges, the Department initiated the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), a comprehensive approach to
enable an expansion of nuclear power in the United States and around
the world, promote non-proliferation goals, and help minimize the
amount of nuclear waste disposal.
GNEP is a perfect example of where global cooperation is required
to address a changing global energy landscape. The United States has a
unique opportunity to influence global energy policy, and more
specifically global nuclear energy policy. However, for the United
States to have influence abroad, we must have an established domestic
policy supportive of a significant role for nuclear power in our energy
future, an aggressive nuclear research and development program, and a
viable nuclear technology infrastructure. Through the GNEP program, we
are pursuing in parallel the development of the policies, technologies,
and facilities necessary for the United States to be a global leader in
the nuclear energy enterprise and to ensure our energy security and
national security objectives.
The Department's fiscal year 2008 budget request proposes an $874.6
million investment in nuclear research, development and infrastructure
for the Nation's future. This budget request supports the President's
priorities to enhance the Nation's energy security while enabling
significant improvements in environmental quality. Our request supports
development of new nuclear generation technologies and advanced energy
products that provide significant improvements in sustainability,
economics, safety and reliability, and proliferation and terrorism
resistance.
While we have made progress in all program areas, much remains to
be done. Our fiscal year 2008 request moves us in the right direction
and I will now provide you a report of our activities and explain the
President's request for nuclear energy.
NUCLEAR POWER 2010
To support near-term domestic expansion of nuclear energy, the
fiscal year 2008 budget requests $114 million for the Nuclear Power
2010 program to support continued cost-shared efforts with industry to
reduce the barriers to the deployment of new nuclear power plants in
the United States. The technology focus of the Nuclear Power 2010
program is on Generation III+ advanced, light water reactor designs,
which offer advancements in safety and economics over the existing
fleet of nuclear power plants already operating in the United States.
To reduce the regulatory uncertainties and enable the deployment of new
Generation III+ nuclear power plants in the United States, it is
essential to demonstrate the untested Federal regulatory processes for
the siting, construction, and operation of new nuclear plants. In
addition, design finalization of two standard plant designs and NRC
certification of these Generation III+ advanced reactor concepts are
needed to reduce the high initial capital costs of the first new plants
so that these new technologies can be competitive in the deregulated
electricity market and deployable within the next decade.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request continues the licensing
demonstration activities started in previous years. Activities include
completion of the last Early Site Permit demonstration projects and
continuation of the New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration projects
that will exercise the untested licensing process to build and operate
new nuclear plants and complete and obtain certification of two
advanced Generation III+ advanced reactor designs. Engineering
activities in support of the submission of two combined Construction
and Operating License (COL) applications to the NRC will continue. In
addition, two reactor vendors will continue first-of-a-kind design
activities for two standard nuclear plants.
In the past few weeks we have seen major milestones met in the
expansion of safe and clean nuclear power. Earlier this month the NRC
voted to approve the Early Site Permit for the Exelon Generation
Company's Clinton site in central Illinois, and just yesterday the NRC
approved the Early Site Permit for the Entergy Corporation's Grand Gulf
site in Mississippi. The approval of these two sites is a step towards
the ordering of new nuclear power plants for construction on American
soil, a feat that hasn't happened in 30 years. With nuclear power as
the only proven base load producer of electricity that does not emit
greenhouse gases, it is vital that our current fleet of reactors be
expanded in order to meet our needs for carbon-free, dependable and
economic electric power.
The project teams, Dominion Energy and NuStart Energy Development
LLC., involved in the licensing demonstration projects represent power
generating companies and reactor vendors that operate more than two-
thirds of all the U.S. nuclear power plants in operation today. As a
result of the Nuclear Power 2010 program and Energy Policy Act of 2005
financial incentives (e.g. standby support), 14 power companies have
announced their intentions to apply for combined construction and
operating licenses. Several have specifically stated that they are
building on work being done in the Nuclear Power 2010 program as the
basis for their applications.
The United States is at a critical juncture in the future of
nuclear power in the United States. Unlike many of our international
research partners, our nuclear industry has not been heavily supported
financially and politically over the past 30 years. Today the need for
increased electrical generating capacity is clear and hopefully
undisputed. Fortunately, we do have a growth option that allows us to
have a diversified electrical generation portfolio that includes a
significant carbon emissions-free component, and that is nuclear power.
To realize this option, we are asking private companies to build plants
whose collective cost could be a significant percentage of their net
worth. This represents an enormous financial risk that few companies or
lenders will be willing to assume without demonstrated certainty in the
regulatory process and project cost.
If one accepts the fact that we need more electrical generation
capacity, and if one desires to have a component of that new capacity
that is carbon free, and one recognizes the financial considerations
associated with such a large private investment in technologies that we
have not supported in 30 years, then the importance of this program to
our future energy security is self-evident. These companies will be
building new generating capacity in the very near future, but the
question they must first answer is whether this generation will come
from clean, safe, nuclear technologies or not.
If widely deployed in the United States these new technologies will
create significant business opportunities and will support the rapid
growth of heavy equipment fabrication, high technology and commercial
construction industries in this country. Moreover, these American
technologies and industrial capabilities will be highly competitive
internationally and would support our leadership role in the global
expansion of safe, clean nuclear power.
ADVANCED FUEL CYCLE INITIATIVE
One of the most important and challenging issues affecting future
expansion of nuclear energy in the United States and worldwide is
dealing effectively with spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. For
the medium-term, the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) will develop
fuel cycle technologies that will support the economic and sustained
production of nuclear energy while minimizing waste in a proliferation-
resistant manner. To support the development of these technologies, the
fiscal year 2008 Budget request includes $395.0 million for AFCI.
AFCI's near-term goals are to develop and demonstrate advanced,
more proliferation-resistant fuel cycle technologies for treatment of
commercial light water reactor spent fuel, to develop an integrated
spent fuel recycling plan, and to provide information and support on
efforts to minimize the amount of material that needs disposal in a
geologic repository. AFCI conducts research and development of spent
fuel treatment and recycling technologies to support an expanding role
for nuclear power in the United States and to promote world-wide
expansion of nuclear energy in a proliferation-resistant manner as
envisioned for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). AFCI is
the U.S. technology component of the GNEP.
Specifically, in fiscal year 2008, the Department intends to
complete industry-led conceptual design studies for the nuclear fuel
recycling center and the advanced recycling reactor Demonstration
Analysis. Additionally, DOE will continue start-to-finish
demonstrations of recycling technologies, which are expected to produce
separated transuranics for use in transmutation fuel development, as
well as conduct systems analysis and advanced computing and simulation
activities focused on a variety of deployment system alternatives and
supporting technology development. As part of GNEP Technology
Development, the Department also intends to evaluate small,
proliferation-resistant reactors for potential U.S. manufacture and
export to reactor user nations.
GNEP seeks to bring about a significant, wide-scale use of nuclear
energy, and to take actions now that will allow that vision to be
achieved while decreasing the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation and
effectively addressing the challenges of nuclear waste disposal. GNEP
will advance the nonproliferation and national security interests of
the United States by reinforcing its nonproliferation policies and
limiting the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies, and
will eventually eliminate excess civilian plutonium stocks that have
accumulated. The AFCI budget request supports the Department's goal of
realizing the GNEP vision. AFCI activities in fiscal year 2007 and
fiscal year 2008 are focused on developing a detailed roadmap for
implementing all aspects of the GNEP vision and informing a Secretarial
decision in June 2008 on the path forward for GNEP.
Long-term goals for AFCI/GNEP will develop and demonstrate an
advanced, more proliferation-resistant closed nuclear fuel cycle system
involving spent fuel partitioning and recycling of long-lived
radioactive elements for destruction through transmutation in fast
reactors that could result in a significant increase in the effective
capacity of the planned Yucca Mountain repository. This capacity
increase could ensure enough capacity to accommodate all the spent fuel
generated in the United States this century from any reasonably
conceivable deployment scenario for nuclear energy. Yet, under any fuel
cycle scenario a geologic repository is necessary. Therefore, GNEP and
Yucca Mountain are proceeding on parallel tracks.
GENERATION IV NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS INITIATIVE
The fiscal year 2008 budget request includes $36.1 million to
continue development of next-generation nuclear energy systems within
the Generation IV program. For the long term, the Generation IV program
will develop new nuclear energy systems that can compete with advanced
fossil and renewable technologies, enabling power providers to select
from a diverse group of options that are economical, reliable, safe,
secure, and environmentally acceptable. In particular, the Next
Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) reactor concept will be capable of
providing high-temperature process heat for various industrial
applications, including the production of hydrogen in support of the
President's Advanced Energy Initiative.
The NGNP, with an investment of $30 million within the Generation
IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative, will utilize a Generation IV Very
High Temperature Reactor configured for production of high temperature
process heat for the generation of hydrogen, electricity, and other
industrial commodities. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT)
authorized the Department to create a two-phased NGNP Project at the
Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The Department is presently engaged in
Phase I of the EPACT defined scope of work which includes: developing a
licensing strategy, selecting and validating the appropriate hydrogen
production technology, conducting enabling research and development for
the reactor system, determining whether it is appropriate to combine
electricity generation and hydrogen production in a single prototype
nuclear reactor and plant, and establishing key design parameters.
Phase I will continue until 2011, at which time the Department will
evaluate the need for continuing into the design and construction
activities called for in Phase II.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request maintains critical R&D that
will help achieve the desired goals of sustainability, economics, and
proliferation resistance. Further investigation of technical and
economical challenges and risks is needed before a decision can be made
to proceed with a demonstration of a next-generation reactor.
NUCLEAR HYDROGEN INITIATIVE
Hydrogen offers significant promise as a future energy technology,
particularly for the transportation sector. The use of hydrogen in
transportation will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign sources of
petroleum, enhancing our energy security. The fiscal year 2008 budget
request for the Office of Nuclear Energy includes $22.6 million to
continue to develop enabling technologies, demonstrate nuclear-based
hydrogen production technologies, and study potential hydrogen
production strategies to support the President's vision for a future
hydrogen economy.
Currently, the only economical, large-scale method of hydrogen
production involves the conversion of methane into hydrogen through a
steam reforming process. This process produces ten kilograms of
greenhouse gases for every kilogram of hydrogen, defeating a primary
advantage of using hydrogen--its environmental benefits. Another
existing method, electrolysis, converts water into hydrogen using
electricity. Electrolysis is typically used for small production
quantities and is inherently less efficient because electricity must
first be produced to run the equipment used to convert the water into
hydrogen. Additionally, the environmental benefits of electrolysis are
negated unless a non-emitting technology, such as nuclear or renewable
energy, is used to produce the electricity. The Nuclear Hydrogen
Initiative is developing processes that operate across a range of
temperatures for the various advanced reactors being researched by the
Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative. These processes,
coupled with advanced nuclear reactors, have the potential for high-
efficiency, large-scale production of hydrogen.
The objective of this program is to demonstrate the technologies at
increasingly larger scales ultimately culminating in an industrial
scale that would be technically and economically suited for commercial
deployment. Fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 activities were
focused on the validation of individual processes and components;
fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 are focused on the design,
construction and operation of integrated laboratory scale experiments.
In fiscal year 2008, the Department will complete construction of
integrated laboratory-scale system experiments and begin testing to
enable the 2011 selection of the technology that could be demonstrated
in a pilot scale hydrogen production experiment.
RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
The Office of Nuclear Energy's fiscal year 2008 budget request also
includes $53.0 million to maintain critical research and production
facilities for medical isotopes and radioisotope power systems at the
Idaho National Laboratory, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Los
Alamos National Laboratory, the Sandia National Laboratory, and the
Brookhaven National Laboratory. This request also includes funding for
University Research Reactors.
These funds assure that the infrastructure for the facilities meet
essential safety and environmental requirements and are maintained at
operable user-ready levels. Programmatic activities, including
production and research, are funded either by other DOE programs, by
the private sector, or by other Federal agency users.
The Department seeks $14.9 million to maintain one-of-a-kind
facilities at the Idaho, Oak Ridge, Brookhaven, and Los Alamos National
Laboratories for isotope production and processing. These isotopes are
used to help improve the accuracy, effectiveness, and continuation of
medical diagnoses and therapy, enhance homeland security, improve the
efficiency of industrial processes, and provide precise measurement and
investigative tools for materials, biomedical, environmental,
archeological, and other research. Actual operations, production,
research or other activities are funded either by other DOE programs,
by the private sector, or by other Federal agency users.
The Department also maintains unique facilities and capabilities at
the Idaho, Oak Ridge, and Los Alamos National Laboratories that enable
the Department to provide the radioisotope power systems for space
exploration and national security applications. The fiscal year 2008
budget requests $35.1 million to maintain the basic facilities and
associated personnel whereas mission specific development or hardware
fabrication costs are provided by the user agencies. This arrangement
is essential in order to preserve the basic capability regardless of
periodic fluctuations in the demand of the end product users.
Finally, the Department requests $2.9 million in fiscal year 2008
to provide research reactor fuel to universities and dispose of spent
fuel from university reactors. Currently, there are 27 operating
university research reactors at 27 institutions in the United States.
Many of these facilities have permanent fuel cores and therefore do not
require regular fuel shipments. However, DOE supplies approximately a
dozen universities with fresh fuel and shipments of spent fuel as
needed.
IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
The Department is working to transform Idaho National Laboratory
into one of the world's foremost nuclear research laboratories. As
such, the fiscal year 2008 budget request seeks $104.7 million for the
Idaho Facilities Management Program to maintain and enhance the
laboratory's nuclear energy research infrastructure.
The Idaho Facilities Management Program operates and maintains
three main engineering and research campuses and the Central Facilities
Area at the Idaho National Laboratory. The 3 main engineering and
research campuses are: (1) the Reactor Technology Complex which houses
the world-renown Advanced Test Reactor, (2) the Materials and Fuels
Complex, and (3) the Science and Technology Campus. As the Idaho
National Laboratory landlord, the Office of Nuclear Energy also
operates and maintains the Central Facilities Area at Idaho National
Laboratory, providing site-wide support services and from which various
site infrastructure systems and facilities, such as electrical utility
distribution, intra-laboratory communications systems, and roads are
managed and maintained. Also included within the Central Facilities
Area is the Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory operated
by the Office of Nuclear Energy.
IDAHO SITE-WIDE SAFEGUARDS & SECURITIES
The mission of the Idaho Site-wide Safeguards and Security program
is to protect the assets and infrastructure of the Idaho National
Laboratory from theft, diversion, sabotage, espionage, unauthorized
access, compromise, and other hostile acts that may cause unacceptable
adverse impacts on national security; program continuity; or the health
and safety of employees, the public, or the environment.
The fiscal year 2008 Budget Request includes $72.9 million to
provide protection of nuclear materials, classified matter, government
property, and other vital assets from unauthorized access, theft ,
diversion, sabotage, espionage, and other hostile acts that may cause
risks to national security, the health and safety of DOE and contractor
employees, the public or the environment.
UNIVERSITY REACTOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
While the University Educational Assistance program has concluded,
funding will continue to be provided to the Nation's nuclear science
and engineering universities through our applied research and
development programs by means of our Nuclear Energy Research Initiative
(NERI). NERI funds are competitively awarded to support research
objectives of the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, the Generation IV
Energy Systems Initiative and the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative. By
increasing the opportunities for university participation in our
research programs, the Department seeks to establish an improved
education and research network among universities, laboratories,
industry and government. Approximately $62 million in funding for
universities is included in the research programs for fiscal year 2008,
a 21 percent increase over the fiscal year 2007 request.
CONCLUSION
This concludes my prepared statement. Your leadership and guidance
has been essential to the progress the program has achieved thus far
and your support is needed as we engage the task ahead of investing in
our energy security.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Dorgan. Next, we will hear from Secretary Karsner.
Secretary Karsner is Assistant Secretary for the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Secretary Karsner, we
welcome you.
STATEMENT OF HON. ALEXANDER KARSNER, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND
RENEWABLE ENERGY
Mr. Karsner. I appreciate that. Chairman Dorgan, Ranking
Member Domenici, members of the subcommittee, thank you for
this opportunity to testify on the President's fiscal year 2008
budget request for the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, EERE.
The request includes $1.24 billion for EERE, approximately
$60 million more than the fiscal year 2007 request to Congress.
To be clear, my statement today is presented primarily in
comparison with the administration's fiscal year 2007 request;
however, because the Department has now submitted its fiscal
year 2007 operating plan, I'm also going to highlight some of
the key allocations from that appropriation.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request addresses pressing
energy and environmental challenges by accelerating the
development of renewable energy and advanced energy efficiency
technologies. Much of EERE's funding is an integral part of the
President's Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI). The AEI was
launched in 2006 to confront our Nation's addiction to oil,
lessen dependence on foreign resources and reduce emissions by
developing clean sources of electricity generation.
In the 2007 State of the Union Address, the President
raised the bar further by seeking legislative action to reduce
gasoline consumption by 20 percent within the decade, the 20 in
10 plan. The 20 in 10 legislative proposals include an
increased alternative fuel standard and reduced fuel
consumption through raising and reforming corporate average
fuel economy with a CAFE&ogram.
The President's budget request increases funding for
programs that support the 20 in 10 goal, including biomass and
biofuels R&D to expand the availability of alternative
transportation fuels. While the fiscal year 2007 continuing
resolution is a substantial increase over the President's
fiscal year 2008 budget proposal, the funds will be used to
accelerate critical components of the Advanced Energy
Initiative. EERE is directing an additional $30 million to
commercial biorefinery demonstrations, $10 million additional
for plug-in hybrid battery development, and over $100 million
for improvements at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
NREL. The increase will accelerate the completion of NREL's
research support facility, a state-of-the-art building complex.
As a national model of LEED certified advanced design, it's
going to showcase the renewable energy and energy efficiency
technologies that NREL develops and reduce its operating costs.
Preliminary analyses indicate the potential to achieve up to
$122 million of life cycle savings.
The increase will also support expansion of NREL's
Integrated Bio-Refinery Research Facility, which provides the
industry with a very unique test bed for emerging technologies.
Returning to fiscal year 2008, EERE's overall budget
request reflects the goals of accelerating new energy R&D and
expanding commercialization and deployment of emerging
technologies. The request for biomass and biorefinery systems
R&D is $179.3 million, an increase of $29.6 million or almost
20 percent over the previous year. This proposal highlights the
essential role of the Biofuels Initiative in increasing
America's energy security.
The program is focused on making cellulosic ethanol cost-
competitive by 2012. EERE will continue to support cost-shared
efforts with industry to develop and demonstrate cellulosic
biorefinery technologies that enable the production of
transportation fuels and co-products. In addition, EERE is
engaging in cost-shared projects with industry for enzyme
development and for improved organism development or
ethanologens for converting the sugars into ethanol. These two
projects address major barriers to meeting our 2012 targets.
For the Vehicle Technologies Program, the Department is
requesting $176.1 million for fiscal year 2008 to advance the
development of energy-efficient, environmentally friendly,
flexible platform technologies for cars and trucks that use
significantly less oil and enable industry to comply with the
proposed reformed CAFE standards. This request is $10.1 million
higher than the fiscal year 2007 request and will advance the
state of the art for energy storage batteries, power
electronics and motors, and drive systems and testing needed to
accelerate the viability and delivery of plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles.
Battery technologies have made significant progress,
reducing the cost of next generation hybrid vehicle batteries
in each of the past 3 years, from almost $1,200 per vehicle to
$750 per vehicle. In fiscal year 2008, we expect to bring that
down further to $625 per vehicle and to increase our emphasis
on batteries specifically optimized for plug-in hybrid
applications.
Next, hydrogen is an important element of our strategy for
energy security and environmental stewardship. The President's
$309 million budget request for the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative
fulfills his 5-year commitment of $1.2 billion. The portion of
this under EERE is $213 million, which reflects a $7.2 million
increase over the fiscal year 2007 budget request.
Much progress has been made since the announcement of the
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative in 2003. The research has reduced the
high volume cost of automotive fuel cells from $275 per
kilowatt in 2002 to $107 per kilowatt in 2006, a major step
toward the ultimate cost target of $30 per kilowatt.
Our research is going to continue to sharpen its focus to
meet hydrogen production objectives through renewable pathways,
including performing with bioderived liquids and electrolysis.
For solar energy, the fiscal year 2008 request is $148.3
million, a level that is nearly twice the enacted 2006 level.
The Department's photovoltaic R&D focuses on those technology
pathways that have the greatest potential to achieve more cost
competitiveness and grid parity by or before 2015. Industry-led
partnerships with universities, State groups and national
laboratories, known as Technology Pathway Partnerships, will
continue in fiscal year 2008 to address the issues of cost,
performance, and reliability.
Other priority key program areas of EERE include Building
Technologies, which targets the long-term goal in 2020 of net-
zero energy buildings--houses that can produce as much energy
as they use on an annual basis. We're going to help industry
produce a white light-emitting diode, or LED, lamp, which has
already set the world record for LED brightness and efficacy in
a power chip.
Wind energy focuses on reducing wind power costs and
removing siting and transmission barriers to expand and use
wind energy up to potentially 20 percent of our grid capacity
in the United States.
Industrial Technologies, which in addition to leveraging
successful partnerships with energy intensive industries, will
support the development of next generation technologies that
can revolutionize the U.S. industrial processes and deliver
dramatic energy and environmental benefits.
PREPARED STATEMENT
My written statement, of course, includes greater detail on
these and other programs but this concludes my opening remarks
and I'm happy to answer any questions the subcommittee members
may have of me.
Senator Dorgan. Secretary Karsner, thank you very much for
your testimony.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Alexander Karsner
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to testify on the President's fiscal year 2008 budget
request for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE).
The President's fiscal year 2008 budget request includes $1.24
billion for EERE, approximately $60 million (5 percent) more than the
fiscal year 2007 request to Congress. To be clear, because of timing in
drafting this testimony and finalizing the Department's operating plan
for the fiscal year 2007 year-long Continuing Resolution (CR), my
written testimony on the fiscal year 2008 budget request is presented
primarily in comparison to the administration's fiscal year 2007
request. EERE received a $300 million increase in funding under the CR.
I am grateful to Congress for its vote of confidence in the energy
efficiency and renewable energy programs, but note that this level is
above the allocation in the President's request. In allocating the
additional $300 million, EERE will accelerate the priorities reflected
in administration initiatives such as the ``20 in 10'' plan and the
Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI), while still carrying out
implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT).
The fiscal year 2008 budget request addresses pressing energy and
environmental challenges facing our country today by accelerating the
development of both renewable energy technologies to increase the
amount of clean energy produced in the United States and advanced
energy efficient technologies, standards, and practices that use less
energy. Much of EERE's funding is an integral part of the President's
AEI, launched in 2006 to confront our addiction to oil, lessen
dependence on foreign resources, and reduce emissions by developing
clean sources of electricity generation. Together, new technologies can
help change the way we power our homes, businesses, and automobiles.
In his 2007 State of the Union address, the President raised the
bar by seeking legislative action for our country to reduce gasoline
consumption by 20 percent in the next 10 years, the ``20 in 10'' plan.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request increases funding for programs that
may help the Nation achieve the ``20 in 10'' goal, including, for
example, biomass/biofuels R&D that may help to expand the availability
of alternative transportation fuels.
EERE's applied science R&D contributes to the foundation for
transforming the Nation's energy options and energy use. For example,
one of this year's R&D 100 awards went to the Department's Idaho
National Laboratory for its work with Xtreme Xylanase, an enzyme
produced by bacteria found in the hot, acidic waters of Yellowstone
National Park. Work on Xtreme Xylanase was funded in part by EERE's
Biomass Program. The metabolic versatility of this enzyme (it breaks
down cellulose and hemicellulose over a broad range of temperatures and
acidic pH conditions) could help make cellulosic ethanol more
efficiently and economically. In the field of solar energy, a new
world-record 40 percent efficient concentrating photovoltaic solar cell
was developed as a result of collaboration between DOE, the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, and Spectrolab. For general lighting
applications with solid-state lighting, Cree, Inc., with DOE R&D
funding, has released the new XLamp 7090 power white light-emitting
diode (LED), setting a world record for LED brightness and efficacy (at
85 lumens/Watt) in a power chip.
It is essential, however, that, we work not only to accelerate R&D
for new energy technologies, but address the accelerated adoption of
technologies into commercial products that are widely available at
reasonable cost to all Americans. Thus, in addition to its historical
role of leading Federal applied science on emerging technologies, EERE
is taking aggressive steps to catalyze the rapid commercialization and
deployment of critical energy advances through innovative partnerships
and collaboration with lenders and investment groups, the States, and
industry leaders. We seek to help enable and accelerate market
transformation toward the use of more efficient and cleaner
technologies.
EERE's overall budget request reflects the funding needed to meet
our goals. The following EERE programs target and support sectors of
energy use and supply that will help lead our Nation to a secure energy
future:
BIOMASS AND BIOREFINERY SYSTEMS R&D
The fiscal year 2008 budget request for Biomass and Biorefinery
Systems R&D is $179.3 million, an increase of $29.6 million, almost 20
percent above the fiscal year 2007 request. This proposed funding
increase reflects the essential role of the Biofuels Initiative in
increasing America's energy security. Biomass is the most viable
renewable option for producing liquid transportation fuels in the near
term, with the potential to help reduce our dependence on imported oil.
The focus of the program is to make cellulosic ethanol cost-
competitive by 2012. EERE will continue in fiscal year 2008 to support
its cost-share efforts with industry to develop and demonstrate
technologies to enable cellulosic biorefineries for the production of
transportation fuels and co-products. The fiscal year 2008 funding
increase also supports the validation of advancing biomass conversion
technologies and feedstocks in biorefineries at approximately 10
percent of commercial scale. This effort enables industry to resolve
remaining technical and process integration uncertainties for the
``next generation'' of biorefinery process technologies being examined
at a significant, but less-costly scale. Ultimately, 10-percent scale
demonstrations have the potential to reduce the overall cost and risk
to industry along with improving the likelihood of obtaining financing
for commercial-scale facilities.
The fiscal year 2008 funding increase will also support EERE cost-
shared projects with industry for enzyme development for producing low
cost sugars from biomass and for improved organism development or
``ethanologen'' for converting those sugars to ethanol. These two
industry cost-share projects address major barriers to meeting the 2012
cost goal. Overall knowledge gained from section 932 projects, 10
percent validation scale projects, enzyme development, and ethanologen
R&D, combined with other key R&D activities, should accelerate
industry's ability to produce cost-competitive cellulosic ethanol.
To address biomass resource availability and feedstock
infrastructure to reduce the cost and improve the storage of delivered
biomass in different geographical areas of the United States, EERE will
continue to support the Regional Feedstock Partnership work with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and land grant colleges. These
partnerships will help identify the regional biomass supply, growth,
and biorefinery development opportunities.
In order to capture and coordinate Federal-wide activities
supporting the President's goal, the Biomass Program is developing a
National Biofuels Action Plan commissioned through the Biomass Research
and Development Initiative. The Biomass Program will also establish the
framework for an ethanol reverse auction in accordance with section 942
of EPACT 2005. The auction will award incentives on a per gallon basis
of cellulosic biofuels produced.
VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
In fiscal year 2008, the Department is requesting $176.1 million
for the Vehicle Technologies Program to advance development of
increasingly more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly,
flexible platform technologies for cars and trucks that will use
significantly less oil and enable the auto industry to comply with
reformed CAFE standards. This request is $10.1 million higher than the
fiscal year 2007 request, and will advance the state of the art for
energy storage batteries, power electronics and motors, and the hybrid
drive systems and testing needed to accelerate manufacturing viability
and delivery of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
Activities in the Vehicle Technologies Program contribute to two
cooperative government/industry activities: the FreedomCAR and Fuel
Partnership (where CAR stands for Cooperative Automotive Research) and
the 21st Century Truck Partnership. The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership
is a collaborative effort among the U.S. Council for Automotive
Research (USCAR--representing the three domestic automobile
manufacturers), five energy suppliers, and DOE for cooperative, pre-
competitive research on advanced automotive technologies having
significant potential to reduce oil consumption. The 21st Century Truck
Partnership focuses on commercial vehicles. The partnership involves
key members of the commercial vehicle industry, (truck equipment
manufacturers and engine manufacturers) along with three other Federal
agencies. The R&D centers on improving advanced combustion engine
systems and fuels and on reducing vehicle parasitic losses, meaning
frictional and aerodynamic losses, extra loads like air conditioning,
and other vehicle inefficiencies that increase fuel consumption.
Vehicle Technologies Program activities that support the goals of
the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership focus on high-efficiency and
flexible platform vehicle technologies such as advanced combustion
engines and their enabling fuels, hybrid vehicle systems (including
plug-in hybrids), high-power and high-energy batteries, lightweight
materials, and power electronics. These technologies could lead to
substantial oil savings if adopted by industry participants and
included in their manufacturing plans.
The FreedomCAR goals include reducing the volume production cost of
a high-power 25kW battery for use in hybrid passenger vehicles from
$3000 in 1998 to $500 by 2010. In 2006 we projected through the
modeling of research data that lithium ion battery cost could be
reduced to $750 per 25 kW battery system when produced in mass
quantities. This year's request increases the emphasis on plug-in
hybrid vehicle component technologies. Cited by the President as a key
part of the strategy for reducing America's dependence on oil, these
technologies offer the potential to make significant additional
improvements in petroleum reduction beyond that achievable with
standard hybrid configurations.
Combustion engine efficiency has made good progress over the past 3
years (2004-2006), with our R&D increasing the efficiency of light-duty
passenger vehicle diesel engines from 35 to 41 percent. This means that
if manufacturers were to produce these more efficient engines, a car
that previously got the CAFE average of 27 miles per gallon on gasoline
could potentially get 37 miles per gallon with an advanced, clean
diesel. In fiscal year 2008, we expect to reach 43 percent efficiency
for passenger vehicle diesel engines, approaching the 2010 goal of 45
percent. These advanced combustion engines have the potential to
achieve the efficiency goals for cars and trucks while maintaining cost
and durability with near-zero emissions. Battery technologies have also
made significant progress toward program goals, having reduced the cost
of next-generation hybrid vehicle batteries in each of the past 3
years, from almost $1,200 per vehicle at the beginning of fiscal year
2004 to $750 at the end of fiscal year 2006. In fiscal year 2008, we
expect to bring that down to $625 per vehicle, and to increase our
emphasis on batteries specifically optimized for plug-in hybrid
vehicles to have battery technology ready by 2014 that will enable
automobile manufacturers to economically produce competitive plug-in
hybrid vehicles having a 40 mile all-electric range.
R&D programs will also continue to accelerate materials research
directed at light, strong vehicle structures to enable the production
of lighter vehicles that could result in higher efficiency fleets, and
to develop thermoelectric materials for efficient energy recovery from
heat. Other activities will focus on expanding efforts to promote the
adoption and use of petroleum-reducing fuels, technologies, and
practices, principally by working with industry partners, fuel
providers, Clean Cities coalitions and their stakeholders, and end-
users on activities ranging from using more alternative fuel vehicles
and renewable fuel blends to driving smarter, minimizing wasteful idle
time, and purchasing vehicles that get better fuel economy.
Accordingly, the Vehicle Technologies Deployment budget request
(including Clean Cities) will increase by over 100 percent relative to
the fiscal year 2007 request.
HYDROGEN TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
Hydrogen is an important element of our Nation's long-term strategy
for energy security and environmental stewardship. It could enhance our
energy security by providing a transportation fuel that may be produced
from a variety of domestic resources; and it should serve our
environmental interests by allowing vehicles to operate using fuel
cells, without generating any tailpipe emissions. The Department's
research is focused on pathways that produce and deliver hydrogen from
diverse origins including emission-free nuclear, and renewable
resources.
The President's $309 million fiscal year 2008 budget request for
DOE for the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative fulfills his commitment of $1.2
billion over 5 years. The portion of this under our purview in EERE is
$213 million, which reflects a $17.2 million increase over the fiscal
year 2007 budget request. The proposed increase will accelerate and
expand efforts to research and develop hydrogen-storage systems to
improve performance, and fuel cell materials and components to reduce
their cost, and improve durability. It will also support accelerating
cost reduction of renewable hydrogen production technologies as well as
critical delivery technologies.
Much progress has been made since the announcement of the Hydrogen
Fuel Initiative in 2003. The research has reduced the high-volume cost
of automotive fuel cells from $275 per kilowatt in 2002 to $107 per
kilowatt in 2006--a major step towards the ultimate cost target of $30
per kilowatt. In fiscal year 2008, we will continue projects on fuel
cell catalysts and membranes, and cold-weather start-up and operation.
In addition to reducing cost and improving performance, this work will
help us achieve our 2010 durability target of 5,000 hours, which should
enable a vehicle lifetime of 150,000 miles.
We have also achieved our 2006 hydrogen cost goal of $3 per
gasoline-gallon-equivalent for hydrogen produced by distributed
reforming of natural gas, a potentially economical early market
pathway. Our research will sharpen its focus to meet the same objective
through renewable pathways--including reforming of bio-derived liquids
and electrolysis. We are also working with the Department's Offices of
Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, and Science to develop nuclear-based
hydrogen production, hydrogen from coal--exclusively with carbon
sequestration--and longer-term biological and photoelectrochemical
hydrogen production pathways.
Our diverse hydrogen-storage portfolio is also showing promising
results, with innovative materials being developed in areas such as
metal hydrides, chemical hydrides, and carbon-based materials. Research
conducted at our ``Centers of Excellence,'' and by independent
projects, has continued to increase material storage capacity.
Substantial breakthroughs are required to reach our goal of providing
consumers with enough storage for a 300-mile driving range, without
compromising a vehicle's interior space.
Developing hydrogen technologies that can be manufactured
domestically will also improve our economic competitiveness. Our
manufacturing R&D effort addresses the need for high-volume fabrication
processes for fuel cells and many other components, which are all
currently built one-at-a-time. This is essential to lowering the cost
of these technologies, and to developing a domestic supplier base.
In addition to these R&D activities, we are addressing other
challenges significant to realizing the benefits of hydrogen fuel
cells. Our Technology Validation Program has brought together teams of
automobile manufacturers and energy companies to operate and evaluate
fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen stations under real-world conditions.
To date, the program has placed 69 fuel cell vehicles on the road,
served by 10 hydrogen fueling stations.
Furthermore, we are working to ensure safe practices, and--through
support of existing codes and standards development organizations--we
are laying the groundwork for developing technically sound codes and
standards, which are essential to implementing hydrogen technologies.
Finally, our education activities focus on overcoming the knowledge
barriers inherent in the introduction of new technology. Last month, we
released a multimedia web-based course that introduces hydrogen to
first responders. In the coming year, we will continue to expand the
availability of training and conduct outreach to raise awareness of the
technology.
The effects of the Department's broad-based efforts in the Hydrogen
Program are being seen nationwide, and progress has been substantial.
Investments are not only occurring at the Federal level, but also at
state and local levels. These diverse investments increase our
probability of success in overcoming existing technological barriers,
which will allow industry to make fuel cell vehicles that customers
will want to buy, and encourage investment in a hydrogen refueling
infrastructure that is profitable.
SOLAR ENERGY PROGRAM
The Solar Energy Program sponsors research, development, and
deployment of solar energy technologies and systems that can help our
Nation meet electricity needs and reduce the stress on our electricity
infrastructure. Through the Solar America Initiative (SAI), the Solar
Program aims to accelerate the market competitiveness of solar
electricity as industry-led teams compete to deliver solar systems that
are less expensive, more efficient, and highly reliable. The Solar
Program supports three technology areas: photovoltaics (PV),
concentrating solar power (CSP), and solar heating and lighting. The
fiscal year 2008 budget request for Solar Energy is $148.3 million, a
level that is nearly twice the enacted fiscal year 2006 level.
To lower costs more rapidly and improve performance, the
Department's PV R&D, budgeted in fiscal year 2008 at $137.3 million,
focuses on those technology pathways that have the greatest potential
to reach cost-competitiveness and grid parity by or before 2015.
Industry-led partnerships with universities, state groups and National
Laboratories, known as ``Technology Pathway Partnerships,'' will
continue in fiscal year 2008 to address the issues of cost,
performance, and reliability associated with each pathway. Work on PV
modules, the heart of PV systems, will be conducted, as well as other
``balance-of-system'' components.
To catalyze market transformation, DOE will promote the expansion
of the solar marketplace by seizing opportunities for growth and by
lowering barriers to entry. The Department will provide technical
outreach to States and utilities, continue pressing work on codes and
standards issues, and solicit new applications for its Solar America
Cities activity. These market transformation activities help pave the
way for technologies developed by our industry partnerships to enter
the marketplace.
We will emphasize the importance of interconnection standard
procedures and net metering regulations that are designed to
accommodate solar and other clean distributed energy systems. A
precondition for large-scale solar market penetration in America is to
have the proper means for homeowners and businesses to connect solar
systems to the grid, as well as to be paid for excess electricity they
feed back into the grid. We are working with our colleagues in the
Department's Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability to
develop ``best practice'' recommendations for States to use as they
undertake consideration of interconnection procedures and net metering
regulations and make implementation decisions pursuant to sections 1251
and 1254 of EPACT 2005. Fiscal year 2008 funding will also be used to
offer technical outreach to States and utilities to enhance solar
connectivity issues.
Work will continue on the multi-year solicitations launched in
fiscal year 2007 that promote adoption of market-ready solar
technologies and a new effort will support benchmarking, modeling, and
analysis for the systems driven approach, and market, value and policy
analysis needed to support the SAI. EERE's PV activities are
increasingly coordinated and when possible convergent with solar energy
activities in the Building Technologies and the Federal Energy
Management programs, and the research activities of the DOE Office of
Science.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request for CSP--systems that utilize
heat generated by concentrating and absorbing the sun's energy to drive
a heat engine/generator to produce electric power--is $9.0 million. The
development of advanced thermal energy storage technologies will be
expanded, along with continued support to develop next generation
parabolic trough concentrators, solar engines, and receivers. For
distributed applications, research will focus on improving the
reliability of dish systems through the operation and testing of
multiple units. Technical assistance will be provided to industry in
its development of a 1.0 MW dish system in California that is expected
to be the precursor of several much larger plants. Technical support
will also be provided to the Western Governors' Association and several
southwestern utilities to assist their CSP deployment activities.
The Solar Heating and Lighting program, a $2.0 million request,
will focus on R&D to reduce the cost of solar heating in freezing
climates. The program will also support collaboration with EERE's
Building Technologies programs to integrate photovoltaic systems, solar
water heating, and solar space heating into home design and structure.
Such deployment efforts will help to seize market expansion
opportunities.
BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
Energy use by residential and commercial buildings accounts for
over one-third of the Nation's total energy consumption, including two-
thirds of the electricity generated in the United States. Addressing
that significant sector of energy consumption, the $86.5 million
requested this year for the Building Technologies Program represents a
$9.1 million increase of 12 percent over the fiscal year 2007 request.
The funding supports a portfolio of activities that includes solid
state lighting, improved energy efficiency of other building components
and equipment and their effective integration using whole-building-
system design technique, the development of codes and standards for
buildings and appliances, and education and market introduction
programs, including ENERGY STAR and EnergySmart Schools.
Funding for Residential Buildings Integration aims to enable
residential buildings to use up to 70 percent less energy, and to
integrate renewable energy systems into highly efficient buildings to
achieve the long-term goal in 2020 of net Zero Energy Buildings--houses
that produce as much energy as they use on an annual basis. During
fiscal year 2008, research for production-ready new residential
buildings that are 40 percent more efficient will continue for four
climate zones.
The $19.3 million request for solid state lighting will advance
development of the organic and inorganic LEDs that has the potential to
double the efficiency of fluorescent lighting technology. The fiscal
year 2008 requested funding will be used to develop general
illumination technologies with the goal of achieving energy
efficiencies of up to 93 lumens per Watt with improved visual comfort
and quality of light and focus on applied research that enables the
industrial base to manufacture LEDs.
The fiscal year 2008 request reflects the Department's commitment
to clear the backlog of equipment standards and test procedures that
had accumulated in the prior 12 years and meet the statutory schedule
for rulemakings for new products covered by EPACT 2005. The Department
will continue to implement productivity enhancements that will allow
multiple rulemaking activities to proceed simultaneously, while
maintaining the rigorous technical and economic analysis required by
statute.
Funds for the Building Technologies Program will also support
development of highly insulating and dynamic window technologies and
integrated attic-roof systems needed to achieve long-term zero energy
building goals. Efforts to accelerate the adoption of efficient
building technologies by consumers and businesses include expanded
ENERGY STAR specifications and labels for more products, promotion of
advanced building efficiency codes, and public-private partnerships to
advance efficient schools, hospitals, commercial lighting, and home
building.
FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) assists Federal
agencies, including DOE, in increasing their use of energy efficiency
and renewable energy technologies through alternative financing
contract support and technical assistance, and coordinates Federal
reporting and evaluation of agency progress each year. As the single
largest energy consumer in the United States, the Federal government
must set an example and lead the Nation toward becoming a cleaner, more
efficient consumer by using existing energy efficiency and renewable
energy technologies and techniques. On January 24, 2007, President Bush
signed a new Executive Order to strengthen the environmental, energy,
and transportation management of Federal agencies which includes a
requirement for agencies to reduce their energy intensity by 3 percent
each year until 2015, compared with a 2003 baseline.
The fiscal year 2008 request for FEMP is $16.8 million, a slight
decrease of $0.1 million from the fiscal year 2007 request. We are
requesting $7.9 million for FEMP alternative financing programs that
help agencies access private sector financing to fund energy
improvements without the use of current appropriations. We expect to
achieve not less than $160 million in private sector investment through
Super ESPCs, Energy Savings Performance Contracts, and Utility Energy
Service Contracts (UESCs), which will result in about 15 trillion Btus
in energy saved over the lifecycle of the projects. Furthermore, we are
requesting $6.5 million for Technical Guidance and Assistance to help
Federal energy managers identify, design, and implement new
construction and facility improvement projects that incorporate energy
efficiency and renewable energy. FEMP will assist Federal agencies in
meeting the increased energy efficiency goals, established by the new
Executive Order, by orienting its Technical Guidance and Assistance,
Training, and Outreach activities towards attracting private-sector
financing for investment into energy efficiency at Federal facilities.
In addition to the focus on facility energy consumption, FEMP also
tracks alternative fuel use in Federal vehicle fleets.
In fiscal year 2008, the Departmental Energy Management Program
(DEMP) is being discontinued. FEMP will still provide policy guidance
and technical assistance to the Department, but DOE has determined that
the management of energy efficiency and renewable investments at its
facilities can be more effectively conducted by those facilities. While
not reported separately, DOE national labs and other facilities spend
significant funding (direct and indirect) on energy efficiency
improvements, while also using ESPCs and UESCs where appropriate.
WIND ENERGY PROGRAM
The Wind Program focuses on reducing wind power costs and removing
barriers to resource utilization of wind energy technology in the
United States. The program's fiscal year 2008 request is $40.1 million.
As a result of 30 years of R&D, wind turbines can now provide cost-
effective, reliable clean energy in high wind speed areas. While we
will continue to do R&D to improve wind energy technologies in low wind
speed areas, we are also focusing on near-term actions to remove
existing barriers to increasing the use of wind energy, building on the
current robust market for wind energy in the United States. These
efforts could help to set the path for the wind industry to accelerate
its penetration of delivered emission-free energy, significantly
expanding beyond the roughly one percent of installed electrical
generating capacity today.
The program is expanding application and deployment-related
activities. The $12.9 million requested for Systems Integration and
Technology Acceptance will help wind technologies entering the market
to overcome key obstacles such as grid integration, siting, permitting,
and environmental barriers. In addition, there will be increased
support to address issues of pre-competitive turbine reliability and
performance via efforts of National Laboratories and Cooperative
Research and Development Agreements or ``CRADAs'' with industry. The
Wind Program will also establish a Federal interagency siting group to
minimize regulatory delays on wind projects.
The Wind Program is funding a broader effort on distributed wind
technologies and applications to advance the full scope of diverse
opportunities for wind energy on the distribution side of the electric
power system.
A U.S. wind industry-wide roadmapping analysis, being supported by
the DOE wind program, is underway to determine the technical
feasibility for wind energy to generate 20 percent of our Nation's
electricity. To achieve this vision it would require grid
modernization, expansion, and integration, and removal of other
deployment barriers. Success would enable delivery of more than 300
gigawatts of new, clean, affordable, and domestic production capacity
to our urban load centers and be a substantial contributor to economic
growth, manufacturing, and rural prosperity. EERE will work with DOE's
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability on several
studies aimed at expanding electricity transmission between remote wind
resources and urban areas.
WEATHERIZATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAM
In fiscal year 2008, we are requesting $204.9 million for
Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities, a $20.1 million
decrease from the fiscal year 2007 request. The reduction is primarily
related to the decrease in the amounts requested for the Weatherization
Assistance Program, which will enable greater investments in advanced
R&D within the EERE portfolio to address national priorities: reducing
dependence on foreign oil, accelerating the development of clean,
emission-free electricity supply options, and developing highly
efficient new technologies, products, and practices for our homes and
buildings.
The requested $144 million for the Weatherization Assistance
Program will fund energy efficiency audits and upgrades for at least
54,599 low-income homes. DOE works directly with States and certain
Native American Tribes that contract with local governmental or non-
profit agencies to deliver weatherization services to homes in need of
energy assistance.
The $45.5 million requested for the State Energy Program provides
financial and technical assistance to State governments, enabling them
to target their high priority energy needs and expand clean energy
choices for their citizens and businesses. This request includes $10.5
million for a competitive solicitation that will seek regional and
state partnerships to replicate smart energy policies and programs
among States. The regional context is outlined in EPACT and aligns with
our electricity transmission infrastructure.
Clean electricity generation is targeted by the Renewable Energy
Production Initiative, which provides financial incentive payment to
public and Tribal utilities and not-for-profit electric cooperatives
for renewable generation systems that use solar, wind, geothermal, or
biomass technologies. The Tribal Energy Program aims to facilitate the
installation of 100 MW of renewable energy generation by Native
American tribes by 2010.
The Asia Pacific Partnership (APP) for Clean Development and
Climate requests funding at the $7.5 million level. This international
partnership is an important and innovative accord to accelerate the
development and deployment of clean energy technologies among the six
member countries: Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea, and the
United States. Representing about half of the world's economy,
population, energy use, and emissions, the six countries have agreed to
work together and with private sector partners to set and meet goals
for energy security, national air pollution reduction, and global
warming, employing policies and practices that promote sustainable
economic growth and poverty reduction, while addressing the serious
challenge of climate change.
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
Industry consumes more energy than the residential, commercial, and
transportation end-use sectors, and it is also the Nation's second
largest emitter of CO2. Advancements in industrial energy-
efficient technology could improve U.S. competitiveness, and contribute
to our national effort to reduce oil imports, alleviate natural gas
price pressure, and pre-empt the need for new power plants and
consequent emissions.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request for Industrial Technologies is
$46.0 million, a $0.4 million increase over the fiscal year 2007
request. The program will leverage its innovative technology transfer
practices and partnerships with energy-intensive industries, while
shifting toward more crosscutting and higher-impact R&D activities that
will bring innovative energy solutions to a much broader group of
industrial companies, at a more accelerated pace.
The Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) has a track record for
moving innovative technologies from R&D through commercialization and
onto the floors of industrial plants. In 2006 alone, 8 technologies
funded by ITP received prestigious R&D 100 awards. New technologies
emerging from ITP's R&D program are being adopted to help solve some of
industry's toughest energy and competitiveness challenges. In many
cases, this is occurring through the industrial energy assessments that
ITP is conducting at 250 of the Nation's largest energy-consuming
manufacturing plants as part of Secretary Bodman's ``Easy Ways to Save
Energy'' initiative. We estimate that ITP-sponsored technologies and
deployment activities have contributed to industrial energy savings of
over $3.1 billion in one year (2004).
The $7.2 million requested for the new activity, Energy-Intensive
Process R&D, will support R&D in 4 crosscutting areas to better deliver
technology solutions for the industrial processes that consume the most
energy. These four areas are Energy Conversion Systems, Industrial
Reaction and Separation, High-Temperature Processing, and Fabrication
and Infrastructure. One example of a technology that cuts across the
industrial sector to deliver savings is ITP's ultra-high efficiency,
ultra-low emissions, industrial steam generation ``Super Boiler.''
Since steam is used in every major sector, the potential benefits are
tremendous. The Super Boiler is 10 to 20 percent more efficient than
current technology and can reduce NOX emissions to below 5
parts per million, which represents an approximately 90 percent
reduction in emissions from a conventional boiler.
The $4.9 million request for the new Inter-Agency Manufacturing R&D
activity working with the National Science and Technology Council will
support the development or adaptation of next-generation technologies
that can revolutionize U.S. industrial processes and deliver dramatic
energy and environmental benefits. These next-generation technologies,
such as entirely new processing routes and supply chains, can have
broad applications across industry, yet they typically require the type
of high-risk, high-return R&D that one industry cannot usually
undertake. Our initial research focus will include development of
techniques and processes needed for nanomanufacturing. We aim to help
transform industrial processes by enabling the mass production and
application of nano-scale materials, structures, devices, and systems
that provide unprecedented energy, cost, and productivity benefits in
manufacturing.
Deployment efforts such as ``Best Practices'' activities and
Industrial Assessment Centers will continue to deliver the results of
energy-efficiency R&D and energy-saving practices to industrial plants
nationwide. A vehicle for educational outreach, the university-based
Industrial Assessment Centers train engineers and scientists in the
energy field, providing opportunities for students to conduct energy
assessments at no cost to small and medium-sized manufacturing plants
in the United States.
FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
The fiscal year 2008 budget request of $7.0 million for Facilities
and Infrastructure, an increase of $1.0 million from the fiscal year
2007 request, supports the operations and maintenance of the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, CO. NREL is a single-
purpose National Laboratory dedicated to R&D for energy efficiency,
renewable energy, and related technologies that provides EERE, as well
as DOE's Office of Science and the Office of Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability, with R&D, expert advice, and programmatic counsel.
PROGRAM DIRECTION AND PROGRAM SUPPORT
The Program Direction budget supports the management and technical
direction and oversight needed to implement EERE programs at both
headquarters and the Project Management Center. Areas funded by this
request include: Federal salaries, information systems and technology
equipment, office space, travel, and support service contractors. The
fiscal year 2008 budget request for Program Direction totals $105.0
million, a $14.0 million increase over the fiscal year 2007 request.
This increase reflects EERE's updated staffing needs, which more
closely align critical skills to mission requirements and adds staff to
support technical program staffing shortfalls and implementation of the
AEI and EPACT 2005 priorities.
The Program Support budget request provides resources for
crosscutting performance evaluation, analysis, and planning for EERE
programs and for technical advancement and outreach activities. The
information developed by the Program Support components provides
decision makers at every level the information they need to make
choices related to energy alternatives that can help the Department
achieve its goals. The fiscal year 2008 budget request for Program
Support activities totals $13.3 million, representing a $2.4 million
increase from the fiscal year 2007 budget request. The increase
reflects the expansion of EERE's market transformation and
commercialization analysis and expanded efforts in the Technology
Advancement and Outreach Office.
CONCLUSION
Accelerating research, development, and deployment of America's
abundant clean sources of energy and making more efficient use of all
energy consumed is central to EERE's mission, and to a secure and
competitive economic future that enhances our environmental well-being
for our Nation and our world. We believe the administration's fiscal
year 2008 budget request for energy efficiency and renewable energy
programs strategically positions the stepping stones that will
continuously catalyze and accelerate new energy sources, technologies,
and practices into the marketplace, and hasten the transformation of
how our homes, businesses, and vehicles use energy.
This concludes my prepared statement, and I am happy to answer any
questions the Committee members may have.
Senator Dorgan. Next we will hear from the Honorable Tom
Shope, the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Fossil Energy.
Mr. Shope, thank you for being with us.
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS D. SHOPE, ACTING ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR FOSSIL ENERGY
Dr. Shope. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Ranking
Member Domenici and members of the subcommittee. It is an honor
for me to appear before you today to present the Office of
Fossil Energy's proposed budget for fiscal year 2008.
Fossil Energy's $863 million budget request for fiscal year
2008 will allow the office to support the President's top
initiatives for energy security, clean air, climate change and
coal research as well as DOE's strategic goal of protecting our
national and economic security by promoting a diverse supply
and delivery of reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound
energy.
Let me begin the presentation of our budget with coal, our
most abundant and lowest cost domestic fossil fuel. Coal today
accounts for nearly one-quarter of all of the energy and more
than one-half of the electricity produced in the United States.
Because coal is so important to our energy future, our proposed
budget of $448 million for the President's coal research
initiative, related fuel cell R&D and program direction
accounts for more than one-half of our total budget. Our
overarching goal is to conduct research and development that
will improve the competitiveness of domestic coal in future
energy markets, allowing the Nation to tap the full potential
of its abundant fossil energy resources in an environmentally
sound and affordable manner.
This year's request completes 3 years ahead of schedule the
President's commitment to invest $2 billion on clean coal
research over 10 years. Our coal research initiative is broken
down into the following components. We are requesting $73
million for the Clean Coal Power Initiative, a cooperative,
cost-shared program between the Government and industry to
demonstrate emerging technologies in coal-based power
generation so as to help accelerate commercialization. Work on
promising technologies selected in two prior solicitations will
continue in fiscal year 2008 and we plan to announce a third
solicitation during the year.
The first of a kind, high priority FutureGen project will
establish the capability and feasibility of co-producing
electricity and hydrogen from coal with near zero atmospheric
emissions, including carbon dioxide. FutureGen's proposed
budget of $108 million for fiscal year 2008 will be used to
support detailed plant design and procurement and other
preliminary work. Technology development supporting FutureGen
is embodied in our Fuels and Power Systems Program. Included in
the Program's proposed budget for fiscal year 2008 of $245.6
million, you will find the research and development for carbon
capture and sequestration, membrane technologies for oxygen and
hydrogen separation, advanced combustion turbines, fuel cells,
coal to hydrogen conversion and gasifier related technologies.
The high priority carbon sequestration program with a
proposed budget for fiscal year 2008 of $79 million for
developing a portfolio of technologies with great potential to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The goal is to achieve
substantial market penetration after 2012. In the long term,
the program is expected to contribute significantly to the
President's goal of developing technologies to substantially
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition, the network of seven regional carbon
sequestration partnerships and the International Carbon
Sequestration Leadership Forum established by DOE in 2003 will
continue their important work, including conducting vital,
diverse geologic CO2 storage tests. Research and
development carried out by the Coal to Hydrogen Fuels Program,
funded at a proposed $10 million, will make the future
transition to a hydrogen-based economy possible by reducing the
costs and increasing the efficiency of hydrogen production from
coal.
We have requested $62 million in fiscal year 2008 to
continue the important work of a Solid State Energy Conversion
Alliance, the goal of which is to develop the technology for
low cost, scalable, and fuel flexible fuel cell systems.
Consistent with our fiscal year 2006 and 2007 budget
requests, the Petroleum Oil Technology and Natural Gas
Technologies Research and Development Programs are proposed to
be terminated in fiscal year 2008. However, the Office of
Fossil Energy will continue to carry out important
responsibilities in the oil and natural gas sector, such as
management of the ultra-deep water and unconventional resources
research program mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
In addition, fossil energy will continue to authorize
natural gas imports and exports, collect and import data on
natural gas trade, operate the Rocky Mountain Oil Field Testing
Center and oversee the Loan Guarantee Program for the Alaska
Natural Gas Pipeline.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs the strategic
petroleum reserve to prepare to increase its oil storage to 1
billion barrels. Additionally, the President recently
recommended expanding the reserve's capacity to 1.5 billion
barrels. Our budget request of $331 million, almost double last
year's request, will fund the reserve's continued readiness as
well as the immediate filling of the reserve to its current
capacity of 727 million barrels. The budget includes $168
million to begin expansion at existing and new sites towards
the 1.5 billion barrels.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, this
completes my prepared statement. I'd be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Senator Dorgan. Secretary Shope, thank you very much for
your testimony.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas D. Shope
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it's a pleasure for me to
appear before you today to present the Office of Fossil Energy's (FE)
proposed Budget for fiscal year 2008
Fossil Energy's $863 million budget request for fiscal year 2008,
one of the largest FE requests made by this administration, will allow
the Office to achieve 2 fundamental objectives: first, to support the
President's top priorities for energy security, clean air, climate
change and coal research; and second, to support the Department of
Energy's strategic goal of protecting our national and economic
security by promoting a diverse supply and delivery of reliable,
affordable, and environmentally-sound energy.
More specifically, the proposed budget emphasizes early initiation
of an expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; rapid development
of technologies to manage and dramatically reduce atmospheric emissions
of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use in power
generation and other industrial activity; and design and other
preparatory work on the FutureGen project to combine in one plant the
production of electric power and hydrogen fuel from coal with near-zero
atmospheric emissions.
THE PRESIDENT'S COAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE
I will begin the detailed presentation of our proposed budget with
coal, our most abundant and lowest cost domestic fossil fuel. Coal
today accounts for nearly one-quarter of all the energy--and about half
the electricity--consumed in the United States. Because coal is so
important to our energy future, our proposed budget of $448 million for
the President's Coal Research Initiative, related fuel cell R&D and R&D
by Federal employees within program direction accounts for more than
half our total budget.
I should mention here that our fiscal year 2008 Budget focuses our
research and development on activities that support the President's
Advanced Energy Initiative and key provisions of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005. These activities will be conducted largely through cost
sharing and industry collaboration. As a result of the evaluations
under the Research and Development Investment Criteria, and the Program
Assessment Rating Tool, activities throughout the program emphasize
research and development for technologies that will be used in the
FutureGen project.
The goal of the overall coal program, which includes the
President's Coal Research Initiative, is to conduct research and
development that will improve the competitiveness of domestic coal in
future energy markets. The administration strongly supports coal as an
important component of our energy portfolio. This year's budget request
completes the President's commitment to invest $2 billion on clean coal
research over 10 years, 3 years ahead of schedule. Our coal budget
request is broken down into the following components:
Clean Coal Power Initiative
We are requesting $73 million in fiscal year 2008 for the Clean
Coal Power Initiative (CCPI), a cooperative, cost-shared program
between the Government and industry to demonstrate emerging
technologies in coal-based power generation so as to help accelerate
commercialization. CCPI allows the Nation's power generators, equipment
manufacturers and coal producers to help identify the most critical
barriers to coal use in the power sector. Technologies to eliminate the
barriers are then selected with the goal of accelerating development
and deployment of applications that will economically meet
environmental standards while increasing plant efficiency and
reliability. Work on promising technologies selected in two prior
solicitations will continue in fiscal year 2008, and we plan to
announce a third solicitation during the year, which will focus on
advanced technology systems that capture carbon dioxide for
sequestration and beneficial reuse.
Some activities of the Clean Coal Power Initiative will help drive
down the costs of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) systems
and other technologies for near-zero atmospheric emission plants that
are essential to the FutureGen concept.
FutureGen
FutureGen is a high-priority project that will establish the
capability and feasibility of co-producing electricity and hydrogen
from coal with near-zero atmospheric emissions including carbon
dioxide. FutureGen is a public/private partnership designed to
integrate technologies that ultimately will lead to new classes of
plants that feature fuel flexibility, multi-product output, electrical
efficiencies of over 60 percent, and near-zero atmospheric emissions.
FutureGen's goals include electricity at costs no more than 10 percent
above power from comparable plants that are incapable of carbon
sequestration. The capture and permanent storage of atmospheric carbon
emissions is a key feature of the FutureGen concept, as is the
capability to use coal, biomass, or petroleum coke. The project should
help retain the strategic value of coal--the Nation's most abundant and
lowest cost domestic energy resource. FutureGen's proposed budget of
$108 million for fiscal year 2008 will be used to support detailed
plant design and procurement, as well as ongoing permitting,
preliminary design and site characterization work.
To help fund both the CCPI and FutureGen projects in fiscal year
2008, our proposed Budget redirects $58 million in unexpended sums and
$257 million in deferred appropriations from the original Clean Coal
Technology program. Specifically, the Budget proposes to transfer $108
million of the $257 million deferral to the FutureGen project, and
cancel the remaining $149 million from the deferral. Of the unobligated
balances carried forward at the start of fiscal year 2008, $58 million
is transferred to the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI).
FUELS AND POWER SYSTEMS
Technology development supporting FutureGen is embodied in the core
research and development activity of the Fuels and Power Systems
program. The Fuels and Power Systems program's proposed budget for
fiscal year 2008 is $245.6 million. Of this total amount, $183.6
million will fund research and development for carbon capture and
sequestration, membrane technologies for oxygen and hydrogen
separation, advanced combustion turbines, coal-to-hydrogen conversion,
and gasifier-related technologies. The remaining balance of $62 million
will support Fuel Cells.
The program breaks down as follows:
Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
With proposed funding of $50 million for fiscal year 2008, the
Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle program will continue
to concentrate efforts on gas stream purification to meet quality
requirements for use with fuel cells and conversion processes, on
impurity tolerant hydrogen separation, on elevating process efficiency,
and on reducing the costs and energy requirements for oxygen production
through development of advanced technologies such as air separation
membranes.
Advanced Turbines
A funding request of $22 million will allow the Advanced Turbines
program to continue its concentration on the creation of a turbine-
technology base that will permit the design of near-zero atmospheric
emission IGCC plants and a class of FutureGen-descended plants with
carbon capture and sequestration. This research emphasizes technology
for high-efficiency hydrogen and syngas turbines and builds on prior
successes in the Natural Gas-based Advanced Turbine Systems Program.
Advanced Research
The Advanced Research program bridges basic and applied research to
help reduce the costs of advanced coal and power systems while
improving efficiency and environmental performance. The proposed $22.5
million budget for Advanced Research will fund projects aimed at a
greater understanding of the physical, chemical, biological and thermo-
dynamic barriers that currently limit the use of coal and other fossil
fuels.
Carbon Sequestration
The Carbon Sequestration program, with a proposed budget for fiscal
year 2008 of $79 million, is developing a portfolio of technologies
with great potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This high-
priority program's primary concentration is on dramatically lowering
the cost and energy requirements of pre- and post-combustion carbon
dioxide capture. The goal is to have a technology portfolio by 2012 for
safe, cost-effective and long-term carbon mitigation, management and
storage, which will lead to substantial market penetration after 2012.
In the long term, the program is expected to contribute significantly
to the President's goal of developing technologies to substantially
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Carbon Sequestration program's activities in fiscal year 2008
will concentrate on research and development projects for carbon
dioxide (CO2) capture and storage, as well as measurement,
monitoring and verification technologies and processes.
In coordination with the current partnerships, the program will
determine the ``highest potential'' opportunities for the initial
expedited round of large scale sequestration tests in saline, coal,
and/or oil and gas bearing formations. This work will begin with a
physical characterization of the surface and subsurface, reservoir
modeling, and NEPA review.
The Partnerships will also move on to the next phase of the Weyburn
project, where CO2 is being injected into a producing
oilfield. Weyburn's success would deliver both decreased carbon
emissions and increased domestic oil production.
Finally, DOE formed the international Carbon Sequestration
Leadership Forum (CSLF) in 2003 to work with foreign partners on joint
carbon sequestration projects, and to collect and share information.
That work will in continue in fiscal year 2008.
Several members of the CSLF have also signed on to the FutureGen
project, and others have signaled strong interest in joining.
Fuels
Research and development carried out by the Coal-to-Hydrogen Fuels
program, funded at a proposed $10 million, will make the future
transition to a hydrogen-based economy possible by reducing the costs
and increasing the efficiency of hydrogen production from coal. This
program is an important component of both the President's Hydrogen Fuel
Initiative and the FutureGen project.
Fuel Cells
Within Fuel Cells, we have requested $62 million for fiscal year
2008 to continue the important work of the Solid State Energy
Conversion Alliance, the goal of which is to develop the technology for
low-cost, scalable and fuel flexible fuel cell systems that can operate
in central, coal-based power systems as well as in other electric
utility (both central and distributed), industrial, and commercial/
residential applications.
Research by Federal Staff
In addition to the funding levels reflected for Fuels and Power
Systems, there is $20 million provided within the Program Direction
account that directly supports the President's Coal Research
Initiative, plus $1 million for fuel cells. This funding supports
Federal staff directly associated with conducting the research
activities of specific Fuels and Power Systems subprograms.
Petroluem and Natural Gas Technologies
Consistent with the fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 Budget
Requests, the Petroleum-Oil Technology and Natural Gas Technologies
research and development programs will be terminated in fiscal year
2008.
The Oil and Gas group will manage the Ultra-Deepwater and
Unconventional Resources Research Program mandated by the Energy Policy
Act of 2005. However, I should point out that the 2008 Budget proposes
to repeal this legislation, consistent with the fiscal year 2007 Budget
Request.
In addition, FE will continue to authorize natural gas imports and
exports, collect and report data on natural gas trade, and operate the
Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center.
FE will also oversee the loan guarantee program for the Alaska
Natural Gas Pipeline.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) exists to ensure America's
readiness to respond to severe energy supply disruptions. The Reserve
reached its highest inventory level--700 million barrels of oil--in
2005 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs DOE to fill the SPR to its
authorized 1 billion barrel capacity, as expeditiously as practicable.
Additionally, in the 2008 Budget, the President proposed expanding the
Reserve's capacity to 1.5 billion barrels.
Our budget request of $332 million for fiscal year 2008--almost
double last year's request--will fund the Reserve's continued readiness
through a comprehensive program of systems maintenance, exercises, and
tests, as well as beginning expansion to 1 billion barrels at existing
and new sites and NEPA work to expand to 1.5 billion barrels. DOE will
begin immediately to fill the reserve to its current capacity of 727
million barrels through purchases of oil with available balances as
well as through placement of the Department of the Interior's royalty
in-kind oil into the SPR.
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve
The Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve was established in July 2000
when the President directed the Department of Energy to establish a
reserve capable of assuring home heating oil supplies for the Northeast
states during times of very low inventories and significant threats to
immediate supply. The Reserve contains 2 million barrels of heating oil
stored at commercial terminals in the Northeast and is in good
condition. The current 5-year storage contracts expire in September
2007. A request for bids was issued in February 2007. The proposed
fiscal year 2008 budget requests $5.3 million for continued operations.
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserve
The fiscal year 2008 budget request of $17.3 million for the Naval
Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserve (NPOSR) will allow it to continue
environmental remediation activities and determine the equity
finalization of Naval Petroleum Reserve 1 (NPR-1); operate NPR-3 until
its economic limit is reached, and while operating NPR-3, maintain the
Rocky Mountain Oilfield Test Center..
Because the NPOSR no longer served the national defense purpose
envisioned in the early 1900s, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1996 required the sale of the Government's interest in
Naval Petroleum Reserve 1 (NPR-1). To comply with this requirement, the
Elk Hills field in California was sold to Occidental Petroleum
Corporation in 1998. Subsequently, the Department transferred 2 of the
Naval Oil Shale Reserves (NOSR-1 and NOSR-3), both in Colorado, to the
Department of the Interior's (DOI) Bureau of Land Management. In
January 2000, the Department returned the NOSR-2 site to the Northern
Ute Indian Tribe. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 transferred
administrative jurisdiction and environmental remediation of Naval
Petroleum Reserve 2 (NPR-2) in California to the Department of the
Interior. DOE retains the Naval Petroleum Reserve 3 (NPR-3) in Wyoming
(Teapot Dome field).
ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUND
The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996
authorized the settlement of longstanding ``school lands'' claims to
certain lands by the State of California known as the Elk Hills
Reserve. The settlement agreement between DOE and California, dated
October 11, 1996, provides for payment, subject to appropriation, of 9
percent of the net sales proceeds generated from the divestment of the
Government's interest in the Elk Hills Reserve. Under the terms of the
Act, a contingency fund containing 9 percent of the net proceeds of the
sale was established in the U.S. Treasury and was reserved for payment
to California.
To date, DOE has paid $300 million to the State of California. The
first installment payment of the settlement agreement was appropriated
in fiscal year 1999. While no appropriation was provided in fiscal year
2000, the Act provided an advance appropriation of $36 million that
became available in fiscal year 2001 (second installment). The next 4
installments of $36 million were paid at the beginning of fiscal year
2002, fiscal year 2003, fiscal year 2004, and fiscal year 2005
respectively. A seventh payment of $84 million was made in fiscal year
2006.
The fiscal year 2008 budget proposes no funding for the Elk Hills
School Lands Fund. The timing and levels of any future budget requests
are dependent on the schedule and results of the equity finalization
process.
FOSSIL ENERGY'S BUDGET MEETS THE NATION'S CRITICAL ENERGY NEEDS
In conclusion, I'd like to emphasize that the Office of Fossil
Energy's programs are designed to promote the cost-effective
development of energy systems and practices that will provide current
and future generations with energy that is clean, efficient, reasonably
priced, and reliable. Our focus is on supporting the President's top
priorities for energy security, clean air, climate change, and coal
research. By reevaluating, refining and refocusing our programs and
funding the most cost-effective and beneficial projects, the fiscal
year 2008 budget submission meets the Nation's critical needs for
energy, environmental and national security.
Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, this completes my
prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have at this time.
Senator Dorgan. Finally, we will hear from the Honorable
Kevin Kolevar, Director of the Office of Electricity Delivery
and Energy Reliability. Director, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN M. KOLEVAR, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY
Mr. Kolevar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on the President's
fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Office of Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability.
The mission of the Office is to lead national efforts to
modernize the electricity delivery system, enhance the security
and reliability of America's energy infrastructure, and
facilitate recovery from disruptions to energy supply.
The President's budget request includes $114.9 million for
OE in fiscal year 2008, which represents a 16 percent decrease
from the fiscal year 2007 operating plan. This request includes
$86 million for Research and Development activities, $11.6
million for Operations and Analysis activities and $17.4
million for Program Direction.
I will first address the activities of OE's Research and
Development program. Our request of $86 million for fiscal year
2008 will fund the following four main activities--high
temperature superconductivity, visualization and controls,
energy storage and power electronics, and renewable and
distributed systems integration. The development of these
advanced electricity technologies will influence the future of
all aspects of the electric transmission and distribution
systems.
The first activity I would like to highlight is the science
and development of high temperature superconductivity.
Superconducting cables transmit electricity through conductors
of temperatures approaching absolute zero, thus preventing
resistance to electrical voltage, which allows large amounts of
electricity to be transmitted over long distances with little
line loss. Superconductivity, therefore, hold the promise of
alleviating capacity concerns while moving power efficiently
and reliably.
Another critical piece of a resilient and reliable modern
grid is enhancing the security of our control systems. Our
visualization and control activity focuses on improving our
ability to measure and address the vulnerabilities of control
systems. The research in this area will allow us to detect
cyber intrusion, implement protective measures and response
strategies, and sustain cyber security improvements over time.
Using our understanding from previous energy storage
demonstration activities, we are researching and developing
new, advanced higher energy density materials and storage
devices for utility scale application. The program also focuses
on research in power electronics to improve material and device
properties that are needed for transmission level applications.
Finally, in 2007, the renewable and distributed systems
integration activity will complete the transition away from
generation technology activities and will then focus on grid
integration of distributed and renewable systems in 2008. This
is a logical step in advancing clean energy resources to
address future challenges.
I will now discuss DOE's Permitting, Siting and Analysis
Office, which is tasked with implementing mandatory EPACT
requirements to modernize the electric grid and enhance the
reliability of the energy infrastructure. These requirements
include analyzing transmission congestion, proposing energy
corridors for the Secretary's consideration and coordinating
Federal agency review of applications to site transmission
facilities on Federal lands. The President's budget requests
$5.7 million for this Office in fiscal year 2008.
On August 8, 2006, the Department published its National
Electric Transmission Congestion Study in compliance with
section 1221(a) of the Energy Policy Act. This study
highlighted more than 15 geographic areas where electric
congestion or capacity constraints exist. The Department has
announced that, due to the significant public interest in the
national corridor issues, before the Secretary designates any
national corridor, he will first issue any designations in
draft form to facilitate focused review and comment by affected
States, regional entities, and the general public.
Another major effort involves the implementation of section
368 of the Energy Policy Act, which requires the designation of
energy right-of-way corridors on Federal lands in the 11
contiguous western States. The agencies plan to publish a draft
programmatic environmental impact statement for the designation
of the energy corridors in the late spring of this year and
will solicit public comments.
Finally, this Office is preparing to implement DOE's
responsibilities under the new section, 216(h) of the Federal
Power Act. Section 216(h) provides for the Department to act as
the lead agency for purposes of coordinating all applicable
Federal authorizations and related environmental reviews
required to site an electro-transmission facility.
OE's Office of Infrastructure Security and Energy
Restoration facilitates the protection of the Nation's critical
energy infrastructure. This Office is responsible for
coordinating and carrying out the Department's obligations for
critical infrastructure identification, prioritization,
protection, and national preparedness within the energy sector.
The President's 2008 budget request includes $5.9 million for
this Office.
In times of declared emergencies, this Office coordinates
Federal efforts under the National Response Plan to assist
State and local governments and the private sector in the
restoration of electrical power and other energy-related
activities. DOE personnel deployed in regions affected by
large-scale electrical outages to assist in recovery efforts.
The Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration Office also
works with States to foster greater awareness of the regional
scope of energy interdependencies and to develop energy
assurance plans that address the potential cascading effects of
energy supply disruptions.
In his 2007 State of the Union Address, the President
emphasized the importance of continuing to change the way
America generates electric power and highlighted the
significant progress we have already made in integrating clean
coal technology, solar and wind energy, and clean safe nuclear
energy into the electric transmission system.
Technology such as power electronics, high temperature
superconductivity and energy storage hold not only the promise
of lower costs and greater efficiency but also directly enhance
the viability of clean energy resources by addressing issues
such intermittency, controllability and environmental impact.
We cannot simply rely on innovative policies and
infrastructure investment. We must also invest Federal dollars
in the research, development, and deployment of new technology
in order to improve performance and ensure our national
security, economic competitiveness, and environmental well-
being.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I look forward
to any subcommittee questions.
Senator Dorgan. Dr. Kolevar, thank you very much for your
statement.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kevin M. Kolevar
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to testify on the President's fiscal year 2008 budget
request for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
The mission of the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability (OE) is to lead national efforts to modernize the
electricity delivery system, enhance the security and reliability of
America's energy infrastructure, and facilitate recovery from
disruptions to energy supply. These functions are vital to the
Department of Energy's (DOE) strategic goal of protecting our national
and economic security by promoting a diverse supply and delivery of
reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible energy.
The President's fiscal year 2008 budget includes $114.9 million for
OE in fiscal year 2008, which is an 8 percent decrease from the fiscal
year 2007 request. This includes $86.0 million for Research and
Development activities, $11.6 million for Operations and Analysis
activities, and $17.4 million for Program Direction. As DOE is
currently preparing a spending plan in accordance with the terms of the
2007 Continuing Resolution, my testimony on the fiscal year 2008 budget
request reflects a comparison to the administration's fiscal year 2007
request.
When Thomas Edison opened the Pearl Street Station in lower
Manhattan on September 4, 1884, he could hardly have foreseen the role
electricity would play in the development of American society. Although
the demand for electric lighting and power initially drove the
station's construction, electricity ultimately stimulated and enabled
technological innovations that reshaped America. Today, the
availability and access to electricity is something that most Americans
take for granted. Most people cannot describe what it is or where it
comes from. Yet, it is vital to nearly every aspect of our lives from
powering our electronics and heating our homes to supporting
transportation, finance, food and water systems, and national security.
The Energy Information Administration has estimated that by the
year 2030, U.S. electricity sales are expected to increase by 43
percent from their 2005 level. Although this is a positive indicator of
a growing economy, it is also a significant amount of new demand on an
electricity infrastructure that is already stressed and aging. With
this in mind, OE's fiscal year 2008 budget request reflects a
commitment to implement the directives of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPACT), support research of breakthrough technologies, and coordinate
Federal response to temporary disruptions in energy supply to ensure a
reliable and secure electricity infrastructure for every American in
the coming decades.
Meeting our future electricity needs will not be solved by focusing
only on expanding our generation portfolio or on energy conservation.
Perhaps the greatest challenge today, as it was in Edison's time, is
building the elaborate network of wires and other facilities needed to
deliver energy to consumers reliably and safely.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The fiscal year 2008 budget request of $86.0 million for the
Research and Development (R&D) program within OE funds 4 activities:
High Temperature Superconductivity; Visualization and Controls; Energy
Storage and Power Electronics; and Renewable and Distributed Systems
Integration.
Over the past 18 years, DOE has invested more than $500 million in
the science and development of high temperature superconductivity.
Superconductivity holds the promise of addressing capacity concerns by
maximizing use of available ``footprint'' and limited space, while
moving power efficiently and reliably. It also supports advanced
substation and interconnection designs that allow larger amounts of
power to be routed between substations, feeders, and networks using
less space and improving the security and reliability of the electric
system.
Today, the High Temperature Superconductivity activity continues to
support second generation wire development as well as research on
dielectrics, cryogenics, and cable systems. This activity is being
refocused to address a near-term critical need within the electric
system to not only increase current carrying capacity, but also to
relieve overburdened cables elsewhere in the local grid. The
superconductivity industry in the United States is now at the critical
stage of moving from small business development to becoming a part of
our manufacturing base.
Enhanced security for control systems is critical to the
development of a reliable and resilient modern grid. The Visualization
and Controls Research & Development activity focuses on improving our
ability to measure and address the vulnerabilities of controls systems,
detect cyber intrusion, implement protective measures and response
strategies, and sustain cyber security improvements over time. The
fiscal year 2008 request reflects an increase of $7.75 million related
to support this effort.
This activity is also developing the next generation system control
and data acquisition (SCADA) system that features GPS-synchronized grid
monitoring, secure data communications, custom visualization and
operator cueing, and advanced control algorithms. Advanced
visualization and control systems will allow operators to detect
disturbances and take corrective action before problems cascade into
widespread outages. The need to improve electric power control systems
security is well-recognized by both the private and public sectors.
The Energy Storage and Power Electronics activity proposes an
increase of $3.80 million in fiscal year 2008 to: (1) leverage
understanding gained from previous Energy Storage demonstration
activities to research and develop new advanced higher energy density
materials and storage devices for utility scale application; and (2)
focus on enhanced research in Power Electronics to improve material and
device properties needed for transmission-level applications.
Large scale, megawatt-level electricity storage systems, or
multiple, smaller distributed storage systems, could significantly
reduce transmission system congestion, manage peak loads, make
renewable electricity sources more dispatchable, and increase the
reliability of the overall electric grid.
The Renewable and Distributed Systems Integration Research &
Development activity completed the transition away from generation
technology activities in fiscal year 2007 and will focus on grid
integration of distributed and renewable systems in fiscal year 2008,
which is a logical step in advancing clean energy resources to address
future challenges.
PERMITTING, SITING, AND ANALYSIS
In fiscal year 2008, the Department is requesting $5.7 million for
the Permitting, Siting, and Analysis (PSA) Office within the Operations
and Analysis subprogram, which implements mandatory requirements set by
EPACT to modernize the electric grid and enhance reliability of the
energy infrastructure by contributing to the development and
implementation of electricity policy at the Federal and State level.
The Permitting Siting and Analysis Office is also tasked with analyzing
transmission congestion, proposing energy corridors for the Secretary's
consideration, and coordinating Federal agency review of applications
to site transmission facilities on Federal lands.
The Department published its National Electric Transmission
Congestion Study on August 8, 2006, in compliance with section 1221(a)
of EPACT, which requires DOE to prepare a study of electric
transmission congestion every 3 years. The study named more than 15
areas of the Nation with existing or potential transmission congestion
problems. The study identifies Southern California and the East Coast
from New York City to Washington, DC, as ``Critical Congestion Areas,''
because transmission congestion in these densely populated and
economically vital areas is especially significant.
During the development of the study, which relied on extensive
consultation with States and other stakeholders, the Department
provided numerous opportunities for discussion and comment by States,
regional planning organizations, industry, and the general public. OE
intends to supplement the tri-annual Congestion Studies study by
publishing annual progress reports on transmission improvements in the
congested areas.
Section 1221(a) also requires the Secretary to issue a report based
on the August 8 Congestion Study. In this report, if consumers in any
geographic area are being adversely affected by electric energy
transmission capacity constraints or congestion, the Secretary may, at
his discretion, designate such an area as a National Interest Electric
Transmission Corridor (National Corridor).
Because of the broad public interest in the implementation of
section 1221(a), the Department invited and received over 400 public
comments on the designation of National Corridors. The Department
continues to evaluate these comments, and has not yet determined
whether, and if so, where, it would be appropriate to propose
designation of National Corridors. Prior to issuing a report that
designates any National Corridor, the Department will first issue a
draft designation to allow affected States, regional entities, and the
general public additional opportunities for review and comment.
Another major effort involves the implementation of section 368 of
EPACT, which requires the designation of energy right-of-way corridors
on Federal lands in the 11 contiguous Western States. An interagency
team, with DOE as the lead agency, conducted public scoping meetings
concerning the designation of corridors in each of the 11 contiguous
Western States. The agencies plan to publish a draft Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement for the designation of the energy
corridors in late spring of 2007 and will solicit public comments.
In August 2006, DOE and 8 other Federal agencies signed a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that clarifies the respective roles
and responsibilities of Federal agencies, State and tribal governments,
and transmission project applicants with respect to making decisions on
transmission siting authorizations. DOE is preparing to implement its
responsibilities under the new section 216(h) of the Federal Power Act
to coordinate with these 8 other Federal agencies to prepare initial
calendars, with milestones and deadlines for the Federal authorizations
and related reviews required for the siting of transmission facilities.
DOE will maintain a public website that will contain a complete record
of Federal authorizations and related environmental reviews and will
work closely with the lead Federal NEPA agency to encourage complete
and expedited Federal reviews. DOE is currently considering the
procedures it will use in carrying out this program.
INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AND ENERGY RESTORATION
The President has designated the Department of Energy as the Lead
Sector Specific Agency responsible for facilitating the protection of
the Nation's critical energy infrastructure. The Infrastructure
Security and Energy Restoration (ISER) activity of the Operations and
Analysis subprogram is responsible for coordinating and carrying out
the Department's obligations to support the Department of Homeland
Security in this important national initiative. The fiscal year 2008
request is for $5.9 million in funding for Infrastructure Security and
Energy Restoration within the Operations and Analysis subprogram.
The Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration activity
fulfills DOE's responsibilities as defined in Homeland Security
Presidential Directives 7 and 8 for critical infrastructure
identification, prioritization, and protection and for national
preparedness. In times of declared emergencies, this Office also
coordinates Federal efforts under the National Response Plan to assist
State and local governments and the private sector in the restoration
of electrical power and other energy-related activities.
In the event of a large-scale electrical power outage caused by
natural disasters such as hurricanes, ice storms, or earthquakes, DOE
personnel will deploy to the affected region to assist in recovery
efforts. During the 2005 hurricane season, DOE was specifically
deployed to respond to 5 hurricanes: Dennis, Katrina, Ophelia, Rita and
Wilma. In such instances, DOE coordinates all Federal efforts to assist
local authorities and utilities in dealing with both measures to
restore power and to resolve other issues related to fuel supply.
The Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration Office also
fosters greater awareness of the regional scope of energy
interdependencies by working with States to develop energy assurance
plans that address the potential cascading effects of energy supply
problems. Exercises are conducted with States and Federal partners to
help sharpen this focus. Finally, staff work with States and DHS in
emergency situations to help resolve issues brought on by temporary
energy supply disruptions, such as the winter 2007 propane shortage in
Maine.
CONCLUSION
In his 2007 State of the Union address, President Bush emphasized
the importance of continuing to change the way America generates
electric power and highlighted significant progress in integrating
clean coal technology, solar and wind energy, and clean, safe nuclear
energy into the electric transmission system.
Technologies such as power electronics, high temperature
superconductivity, and energy storage hold the promise of lower costs
and greater efficiency, and also directly enhance the viability of
clean energy resources by addressing issues such as intermittency,
controllability, and environmental impact.
Federal investment in the research, development, and deployment of
new technology combined with innovative policies and infrastructure
investment, is essential to improving grid performance and ensuring our
energy security, economic competitiveness, and environmental well-
being.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to
answering any questions you and your colleagues may have.
FOSSIL ENERGY BUDGET
Senator Dorgan. Let me begin with a couple of questions and
then I'll call on my colleagues.
First, Secretary Shope, the ability to use the abundant
supplies of coal that we have in this country depends a lot on
the research and development capability in the fossil energy
R&D programs. I was looking at your numbers and if you take out
the 25 percent for FutureGen and then take out the strategic
petroleum reserve money, isn't it then the case that the
administration budget is proposing less money for fossil energy
R&D?
Mr. Shope. Well Senator, we do take a portfolio approach to
not only the coal aspect of the program, the entire fossil
energy program, as I mentioned, focusing on energy security
both in the domestic economic impacts as well as economic
opportunities that it provides. So when we talk about our coal
budget, we really are looking at a $426 million coal budget
going forward. That's the amount of money we will be advancing
in 2008.
Senator Dorgan. But isn't that a substantial reduction?
Mr. Shope. Compared to our 2006 budget, we had $366 million
that was applied in 2006.
Senator Dorgan. Applied by 2007 numbers?
Mr. Shope. In 2007, we're going to be applying $425
million.
COAL RESOURCES
Senator Dorgan. My point was not about your portfolio
approach, admirable as that might be. My point was with respect
to the use of our coal resources, abundant resources that can
probably only be used in the future, in the way that many of us
would like them to be used, if we, through research and
development, unlock the mystery of this technology to be able
to sequester carbon and burn coal in a way that's clean,
doesn't just spoil our atmosphere and so on. My question is, if
you remove SPRO and remove FutureGen, isn't the case, with
respect to the issue of being able to use our coal resources
and able to devote research and development funds, that there
is a substantial reduction there?
Mr. Shope. If you're looking at strictly the MMG research
and the research and development, our fuels and power systems,
that's correct. There's a decrease in there but there is an
increase again--we've looked at our program and said, what is
it that we need to accomplish our goals?
Senator Dorgan. I understand that but then how does one
justify at this moment--it seems to me that we've come to an
important intersection here in energy policy. Some regions have
coal resources, others have oil, nuclear power and so we're
talking about a lot of issues here. We have hundreds of years
of coal resources. We can only use them, in my judgment, if
we're able to make the investment to unlock the mystery of how
to avoid putting effluents into the air and causing all kinds
of issues. How do we use research and development to get to
that point? So how does one justify coming to this
intersection, saying to us, ``Oh, by the way, with respect to
that account, we want to cut funding.''
Mr. Shope. Well, Senator, I agree with your statements
about that. That's exactly what we need to do is to move
forward and we're looking for a technology approach forward. I
would say to you that the research and development--we still
have a very active, vibrant portfolio in our research and
development area. But we also are looking forward to moving
these--the technologies out, getting them applied. So that's
why we do have the FutureGen project going forward. It's part
of our--that's actually a research project in and of itself so
all the money that we are using in FutureGen are research
dollars.
But in addition, we're trying to look at carbon capturing
storage, the issue that is really preeminent in our program and
saying we need to move forward and get these technologies
deployed so we'll increase in our sequestration budget as well,
to bring this to fruition.
Senator Dorgan. You know, the problem is, it's never much
fun to inquire of someone who I think, in a less guarded
moment, would probably say, I understand your point. We should
be asking for more money but this is the President's budget.
I'm here to support the President's budget. That's what I'm
paid for. So I can't get, perhaps, as candid an answer as I
would hope on whether it makes a lot of sense at this
intersection, to cut that portion of the budget. It just seems
nuts to me. With all due respect, if we want to use that
resource, we're going to have to find ways to be able to use it
and unlocking those ways, in my judgment, would require some
directed funding to our priorities. We're going to do that
rather than cutting funding.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY BUDGET
But I understand your answers, Mr. Secretary. I don't mean
to badger you. Let me ask Secretary Karsner a similar type of
question. You and I visited the Renewable Energy Laboratory at
Golden, Colorado. I was enormously impressed by it. I, of
course, have a great interest in all of these accounts and a
good many of them are going to be decreased, as you know and I
suspect if I asked you the same question, I'll get an answer--
--
Mr. Karsner. I support the President's budget.
Senator Dorgan. So is there any chance after the hearing,
we could have a cup of coffee and find out where I could ask
you the same questions? But more seriously, you know, we here
in Congress added money to this bill, as you know $300 million.
When you take that with the 2007 level and then the plus up of
$300 million, the 2008 request, in virtually every area, with,
I think, maybe two exceptions, is going to be a cut in funding
2008 versus 2007.
We're talking, on the authorizing committee, Senator
Bingaman, Senator Domenici, myself and Senator Craig, and
others about this notion of how to put together another follow-
on energy bill and what parts are necessary, so we understand
the urgency. It seems to me there is a confluence of events
here with respect to what has become sort of a consensus on
climate change, our vulnerability with respect to oil and
foreign oil. There is a greater urgency to these issues and it
seems to me out of step with that greater urgency to see
proposed reductions in spending in most of the accounts dealing
with renewable and energy efficiency issues. Would you agree
with me, Secretary Karsner?
Mr. Karsner. In substance, in the character of what you're
saying, I do agree. I think the differential is largely
accounted for by the idiosyncrasies of the budgeting process.
This 2008 budget originated more than 2 years ago, just as I'm
currently preparing a 2009 budget 2 years into the future for
an administration I won't be a part of. Technology, of course,
moves much faster, as do these priorities, and when we had the
opportunity for the spend plan, which is really the first
budget that I've had the opportunity to exercise influence
over, it does very accurately reflect our priorities in a
contemporaneous, real-time snapshot of the portfolio approach
and there is a heavier emphasis on efficiency.
Senator Dorgan. I think it is important to note that the
Congress, on a bipartisan basis, in putting together the fiscal
year 2007 appropriation bills, combined, I believe, 10 bills
into one omnibus because we were required to do that.
Republicans and Democrats together said ``You know what? We're
under funded in the renewables area and so we added to all of
these accounts.'' There are priorities that come from the
administration and then priorities that come from the Congress
and we will try to work our will in terms of what we believe
the right priorities will be. I mentioned the renewable energy
and fossil fuel accounts and I think it's important to
understand that there is a renewed urgency here with respect to
both and so your area is going to be critically important to
us. We need to get out of your area some very significant
opportunities and changes for the future.
NUCLEAR ENERGY BUDGET
Secretary Spurgeon, can you tell me how the $114 million
for shared costs of efforts to reduce barriers to deploy
nuclear power, would be spent? I don't quite understand from
the description how that would be dispersed.
Mr. Spurgeon. It's spent through two consortia. The NuStart
Consortia, which consists of 10 electric generating companies
plus two manufacturers and the Dominion Power Group, which has
one utility and manufacturer and architect engineers associated
with it. The whole objective of the Nuclear Power 2010 Program
is to remove the barriers to entry of these first nuclear
powerplants into the marketplace. So what we are doing is we're
spending money on design standardization costs. We're spending
money in design standardization and in preparing the combined
operating licenses for two different types of reactors, one a
boiling water reactor and the second, a pressurized water
reactor.
So it's to get the first ones through the process so that
those that follow can reference the first ones and shorten the
time scale and thus, cost for introducing nuclear power in the
United States.
ELECTRICITY DELIVERY TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES
Senator Dorgan. I don't know as much about that area.
That's why I asked the question. I will submit further
questions as well, just so that I understand more. And,
finally, then I will turn to my colleagues.
Director Kolevar, it seems to me that we have not seen any
substantial change in the technology of delivering electricity
for perhaps three-quarters of a century. We string lines and we
run electricity over the lines and we run these lines through a
corridor. I know some companies are working on new
technologies--composite conductors, to name one, and there are
others. If we could see dramatic advances there, we might be
able to use existing corridors to double or triple the
capability of moving electricity to where it's needed and
that's part of what your investment is about, I understand.
With what hope can we approach a future with new
technologies for the transmission of electricity? Thus far, we
have had very few advances in those areas.
Mr. Kolevar. You're correct, Mr. Chairman. It is certainly
challenging space. There have been a variety of new
technological advances that we have not seen penetrate the
system in any significant fashion. I do believe the opportunity
is there for a couple of reasons. One, the system today is
increasingly stressed and in two parts of the country, we
either came close to or experienced blackouts. I think that
will drive greater technological penetration of transmission
scale applications and distribution scale applications that can
enhance reliability.
I also think it's the case that the work that is going on
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in pushing new mandatory
reliability standards will help some of these technologies to
be pushed into the market.
ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY BUDGET
Senator Dorgan. Director Kolevar, I'll give you the
opportunity to learn from Secretary Shope on this subject but
you're probably not happy to see a $132 million research and
development budget drop to $86 million. I assume that this is
probably not advancing our pursuit of new technologies.
Mr. Kolevar. We were able to leverage a number of synergies
in the program where we saw the drop that you reference from
fiscal year 2006 to 2008. Mr. Chairman, I would also note that
the majority of that reduction was scheduled for phase-out. It
was in some reciprocating engine work and in some combined heat
and power work where we had achieved or came very close to
achieving some pre-established milestones. There was a general
thought that when we achieve what we set out to achieve that we
ought to then discontinue that project and focus on some other
applications.
Senator Dorgan. Would you prefer at least the minimum level
of funding for the pursuit of research and development for new
technology in electric transmission?
Mr. Kolevar. I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.
At the minimum 2008 level?
Senator Dorgan. At least in the pursuit of research and
development and in the area where there has been so little
progress for so long and where so much is necessary for us to
be able to produce in one area and transmit to another. I was
wondering whether you would prefer level funding, at a minimum
level, for this function of research and development.
Mr. Kolevar. Yes, sir. Level funding at a minimum would be
appreciated.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you. Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Well, Mr. Chairman, you succeeded.
Senator Dorgan. I did. I didn't want to mention that but I
did.
Senator Domenici. Three witnesses and three shots but you
got there. Let me make an observation first. Obviously, he's
sitting in the chair and I'm sitting next to him as ranking
member. That got turned around just a few months ago but I
think that it should be--it would be appropriate for me to
indicate to the four of you that I can recall your coming
before the subcommittee to get confirmed for your jobs and I
was obviously sitting in this position with my friend and
ranking member--who came before the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, which frequently gets confused with this
subcommittee. This isn't the subcommittee.
And I was quite impressed when we finished getting all of
you, the four of you, that this late in this administration, we
were going to get such qualified people. I openly expressed
myself as saying that the Secretary of Energy and his Under
Secretary, Clay Sell, have done some exciting work in getting
the four of you to take these jobs. And I repeat that. I hope
you're as enthused now as you were when you told us why you
would take this job, knowing full well that whether it is a
Republican or a Democrat, there is a big chance you will not be
around for 5 or 6 years to see your dreams achieved.
I do believe I was right in my assessment about you. Your
work has been exciting. I think you are challenged even though
you had a terrible start with the lousy work that the United
States Senate did and we were in charge, not them, in not
getting an appropriation bill and then throwing upon you the
kind of appropriation that we did and then you having to
address questions like you are here, when this appropriation
process is all out of focus for the year 2005, 2006, 2007, and
2008. But I commend you.
PREVENTING REGIONAL BLACKOUTS
Now I want to just start with you on the right hand side.
When we passed the energy bill, the authorizing bill, those of
us who were very thrilled with the bill had a check-off list
and almost everybody had one item that said that if this works,
it should not be too long before America can say, we will not
have any more regional blackouts in our grid across the
country. I didn't ask you, Director Kolevar, whether I could
make that statement. We thought that's what we did. I'm sure
Senator Craig said the same thing. He had it on his list. What
we had done is created authority in you so that we should avoid
the pitfalls that cause the grid failures.
Now quickly, without too much elaboration, did we give you
the right authority and are you pursuing--is this being pursued
with vigor so that what we told the American people may become
a reality in terms of the stability of the grid system?
Mr. Kolevar. Yes, sir, I would say that you did. We believe
that the provisions contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
when executed, will dramatically assist reliability of the
overall transmission and distribution systems.
Senator Domenici. I want to say to you, I think they're
right and I certainly would not want you to operate under this
law if it is deficient. If it is, I think you ought to tell us
because we don't want you to go 4 years or so trying to give us
stability in the grid and then tell us, the law was short. You
got it?
LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM
Mr. Kolevar. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. Now let me move over to Secretary
Karsner.
Secretary Karsner, I'll try to hurry up but I can't resist.
If you or any of the other witnesses are talking about a budget
and you're talking about the amount of money the Federal
Government is putting into an account and you look to the
energy bill and found that there is a section that provides for
loan guarantees for new technology or technologies that
implement this act, would it be fair to think that you would
assume that maybe some loan guarantees would be added to your
portfolio so that more money could be spent by the
entrepreneurs and business people that took advantage of this
law?
Mr. Karsner. That would be fair.
Senator Domenici. Let me just say, that is fair and that
is--the chairman knows that and he was not talking against that
in his questions but the truth of the matter is and Senator
Craig, would you believe that we still do not have a packaged
set of regulations from the Department of Energy----
Senator Craig. Twenty months after the passage of the act.
Yes, I'm counting, month by month, week by week, day by day.
Senator Domenici. No, I'm telling you that I understand
that every time we turn around, we run into another stalwart
and they are stalwarts--in this administration that say, I
don't like loan guarantees and therefore, they get them
stalled. We write them. They pass judgment based on their
existence in life and say, well, I don't like them. I submit
and Mr. Chairman, that on loan guarantees, when we're finished,
even though we're not an authorizing committee, that we ought
to ask our staff how to write loan guarantee provisions in this
bill that if signed by the President, we will be rid and
finished with them having any judgment with reference to how to
write the loan guarantee bills. And I'm going to try to do
that, if you would help, we'll do it bipartisan and get it
written and get that out of the way so loan guarantees will be
finished in terms of having to look at authorizing language.
Would that help you and would that help you, Secretary Shope,
in your part of this law, too?
Mr. Shope. The loan guarantee provisions are beneficial to
our program.
Senator Domenici. Not yours; Secretary Karsner?
Mr. Karsner. They are essential to the growth of
commercialization in our----
Senator Domenici. What about you, Secretary Spurgeon?
Mr. Spurgeon. Essential.
Senator Domenici. Even in the big nuclear program, you need
it?
Mr. Spurgeon. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. Oh and the administration loves the
nuclear program. Have they said anything to you as to why we
can't get the loan guarantees going?
Mr. Spurgeon. Senator Domenici, the administration--the
Department of Energy is moving very aggressively to implement
the loan guarantee program. Now that we have the requisite
authorization to move forward with creating the office, which
was established, which was received 1 month ago. It is a matter
of public record that the Department has prepared a notice of
proposed rulemaking and that has been received and is under
review at the Office of Management and Budget as of March 16.
Senator Domenici. So you must be part of driving this
thing?
Mr. Spurgeon. Yes, sir.
COAL USAGE
Senator Domenici. Well, that's good. I like the way you
drive things. It's apt to get done. It's very important that
you understand what's going on or it won't happen. We'll be
through another Congress.
I have one last question to ask of the Secretary who is in
charge of coal. People think that the United States is going to
stop using coal because of environmental problems. Everything I
read about the future says that there will be more coal used in
the next decade than this previous--this decade past. Is that
the assumption you're operating under?
Mr. Shope. Yes, it is, Senator. I would agree with that.
Senator Domenici. And is it not true that we must convert
coal to things like liquids and other usable products and that
requires a lot of technology and innovative--and money to be
invested?
Mr. Shope. It does, Senator and it is part, again, of the
President's alternative fuel strategy to include clean coal to
liquids technologies, to make it part of our strategy. So yes,
the entire use of coal is essential to our Nation's energy
security.
GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP
Senator Domenici. My last question is, who knows anything
about the GNEP Program? Secretary Spurgeon, how much money did
the President put in to start this program?
Mr. Spurgeon. To start it in 2008?
Senator Domenici. Yes.
Mr. Spurgeon. Four hundred and five million dollars, sir.
Senator Domenici. That's what you are here asking us for.
Mr. Spurgeon. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. That won't get you ready in terms of
specifications?
Mr. Spurgeon. Yes, sir. That gets us to the point where we
can define a technology pathway forward with sufficient
information so that we're not guessing at what the right answer
might be. We need to offer it to the Secretary for the
Secretary to make a decision on a pathway forward and you need
to inform that decision by good information from industry, from
our national laboratories and from our universities.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't make an
opening statement so let me react not unlike the ranking member
has, by agreeing certainly with the premise of your opening
statement as it relates to our energy future and where we need
to go and what we've done to date and what I hope we will do in
the future.
Let me also say that last Wednesday, I stood on the top of
a reactor core, EBR-1. For those of you who don't know what
EBR-1 was, it's now an historic site. I didn't think we'd been
involved in the nuclear business long enough to describe it as
a historic event but it was, is an historic site so designated
by President Lyndon Johnson. EBR-1 was first constructed in
1949. It started producing power in 1951. It lit the first
light bulb ever powered by nuclear generated electricity in
1951 out on the high deserts of Idaho.
When I was standing on top of that reactor core, Dennis, I
thought, oh, if we had only continued from that point forward
at the rate we were moving at that time. We might not even be
so dependent upon the Middle East today or anybody else for
that matter and my guess is, we wouldn't be generating
electricity at the rate of only 20 percent total nuclear. It
would be substantially greater than that and we'd have the
waste problem solved a decade or so ago. But we stalled out
politically. We simply--we were fearful of where we were even
though the technology argued there was nothing to fear. We've
changed that. We've adjusted and thank goodness America is
awakening to a new reality and that new reality is embodied in
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that deals primarily with power
generation, in something that the chairman and I introduced
just recently that deals primarily with transportation sector
fuels, the SAFE Act and all I am saying to all of you in your
presentation today is, too many good ideas and not enough
money.
Because we can help drive industry in the right direction
by creating some of the safeguards, some of the buffers and
some of the incentives. But the marketplace is doing a
marvelous job at this moment. I say this publicly and loudly,
even though I don't like saying it. The good news of last year
is that we got $3 gas. We may get it again this summer. The bad
news is we got $3 gas but the good news, is it's probably
creating and generating in the marketplace, one of the greatest
resurgent and investment in energy than the total energy
portfolio ever in the history of our country. And that's good
because I find it shameful of a great power to be so reliant
upon those who would jerk our diplomatic chain and change our
foreign policy in a way simply so that we can continue to serve
our habits and I'm talking about hydrocarbon habits.
NEXT GENERATION NUCLEAR POWERPLANT
Now, having said that, let me switch back to EBR-1 or
should I fast-forward to GNEP and NGNP because that's really
where we are today. Since the time that Pete Domenici and I and
Jeff Bingaman and everybody else on that committee crafted
EPACT, 33, 34 nuclear reactors on the drawing board? What is it
today, Dennis?
Mr. Spurgeon. The number can be either but it's either 33
or 34.
Senator Craig. Somewhere in that range. Now, let me say
this to you as a statement because I don't disagree with any
direction you're headed in. I just wish we could head there a
little faster. You're going to find too many of us on this--not
too many of us on this subcommittee would in any way disagree
with you as it relates to nuclear power and the role it plays
and the value of it in the future--our security, our
competitiveness, reduction of greenhouse gases--all of that.
And I would suspect that you would not hear any complaints from
myself, Senator Domenici or the chairman regarding the strong
emphasis you've placed on the budget for securing nuclear power
through your R&D efforts in the advanced fuels cycle initiative
or NGNP or GNEP.
My only advice to you would be that you remain flexible. In
dealing with both chambers, both parties as it relates to a
broad goal that we all seem to support. The resurgence of
nuclear power in the United States, I think, is upon us. I'm
not sure where a new administration will take us but I'm
confident that the two committees of authority in the House and
the Senate, in a bipartisan way, will advance the cause we
started with the passage of EPACT.
However, you may find that the narrow goals of GNEP that
must follow may not be pursued as aggressively as some of us
might like. Instead, we all need to keep focused on moving the
ball forward for nuclear and maintaining the momentum of what
we've done. I think you understand what I'm saying. If the
nuclear budget remains whole but it doesn't reflect exactly
what any one of us might ask for, we can all agree that the
nuclear resurgence continues and will be as a positive step
forward for this country. My guess is that we'll tinker around
the edges and we may add a few dollars here or there to all of
your budgets. They are woefully inadequate.
I'm willing to shift the priorities in the entire budget to
give you greater ability in your budget. I am just growing so
very tired, as the American people are, of finding this great
Nation jerked around by puppet governments around the world,
largely because of a dependency we've now developed and a lack
of vision decades ago in where we needed to get.
Thank you all for your presentations today. You are very
skillful in doing it. If the Secretary had been here, he'd have
got 10 minutes. You each got 10 minutes. So we were glad to see
you and not the Secretary.
Because I think it was important that all that you said be
said for the sake of the country and the policy you project.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Craig, thank you very much. Senator
Allard?
NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVE CERTIFICATION
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank all of you
for your testimony. Secretary Shope, you're familiar with the
naval oil shale reserve legislation and the agreement that was
worked out by the Department of Energy and the Department of
the Interior when there was a transfer of management of that
particular property in Colorado?
Mr. Shope. I am, yes sir.
Senator Allard. My understanding is that the Department of
the Interior is ready to certify that you're not ready to
certify because you're waiting for a cleanup to be completed.
What is your estimate it is going to cost to finish that
cleanup?
Mr. Shope. Again, Senator, the reserve has been transferred
to the Department of the Interior, so actually----
Senator Allard. I'm sorry. I got that turned around.
Mr. Shope. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. I apologize for that.
Mr. Shope. So we actually will wait until the Department of
the Interior certifies the plant.
Senator Allard. They need to certify and I've been told
that we're waiting for your certification but you're not
willing to give that until they have cleaned up the Anvil Point
facility.
Mr. Shope. Senator, I'll have to take that particular
question for the record because that's inconsistent with what
my current knowledge is of that matter, Senator.
Senator Allard. Okay, well that's what we've been told by
the Department of Energy is that you're waiting for the cleanup
of that and we've been estimated that the cleanup is around $13
million at the high end. It's not anticipated to go over $13
million--that's a high figure and yet, there is revenue being
generated from that property now. I've been told that equals
about $70 million. The legislation directs that the revenue
from the natural resources on that property be returned to the
local communities and the State of Colorado and you have $13
million of outside costs and you're holding $70 million in
there that you're not redistributing back to the State of
Colorado.
It seems to me that there ought to be more of a concerted
effort to get that return. Why are you sitting on that money?
Mr. Shope. Well again, Senator, the Department of the
Interior has the lead on it. We would certify after their
certification--and you're indicating----
Senator Allard. According to our information, they have
certified it.
Mr. Shope. And that has not been made known to me but I
will immediately look into it and address that in the record.
Senator Allard. They had indicated--they indicated to my
staff that they are willing to certify. The legislation
requires joint certification, which means the Department of
Energy also has to certify. So that's our understanding and I
would hope that you would get back to us because that's
important. For the life of me, I don't understand why you're
sitting on $70 million when the maximum estimate on cleanup on
that is around $13 million. Heck, even if you wanted to raise
your estimate to $20 million, if you could get the other $50
million or so to the local communities because they're being
impacted right now because of the oil shale development that is
happening in that particular area of the State. So they need
that to meet their challenges that they are facing with that
development. So, we'll continue to stay in touch with you on
that and if you'll respond back. We'll get a formal question to
you and then if you could respond back to us, we'd appreciate
it.
Mr. Shope. Absolutely, Senator.
[The information follows:]
Anvil Points Mine Site
When the management of Anvil Points mine site was transferred to
the Department of the Interior there was environmental remediation work
that needed to be completed. The Department of the Interior assumed
responsibility for the cleanup of Anvil Points; however, the Secretary
of Energy must approve the cleanup plan.
To the best of our knowledge the Department of the Interior has
completed a feasibility study and the detailed engineering plan. The
final cleanup plan appears to be in draft form; however, the cleanup
plan has not been submitted to the Department of Energy for approval.
It is also our understanding that part of the cleanup plan involves
removal of the mine access road. However, before this can happen the
U.S. Geological Survey must get into the mine and remove drilling cores
that have been stored there.
The Department of Energy remains ready to review and approve the
Anvil Points environmental remediation plan once it is submitted by the
Department of the Interior.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART) SCORES
Senator Allard. Also, you're familiar with the PART Program
of the President. I suppose all of you have done that. It's
where you measure--you put goals out there that are measurable
and then you are evaluated. Actually, the Department of Energy
has done better than most of the agencies and I want to
compliment you on that.
But there are six areas in which I think there are some
issues that need to be addressed and I'm just going to call
them quickly to your attention. In the Department--and I'm not
calling these up because I support them but what I want to make
sure is that the taxpayer dollars that are going in there are
creating results. There are two programs that have been
measured and this is done by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), by the way. There are two areas where you have
been rated as ineffective. I don't know who has jurisdiction
over the Natural Gas Technology Program.
Mr. Shope. I do, Senator.
Senator Allard. Why is that rated ineffective?
Mr. Shope. It's rated ineffective based upon the other
priorities within the Office of Fossil Energy. So it's
ineffective in the sense of--not that the program is
mismanaged, not that there has been any inappropriate
activities or misspending of money----
Senator Allard. What's happening to the money they're
getting?
Mr. Shope. It's now being effectively utilized, all the
dollars have been and our reviews demonstrate that. What the
ineffectiveness refers to is the balance of putting money
toward natural gas research and development in light of the
high costs, the high price of hydrocarbons as they are being
received today.
Senator Allard. Is that a correctable problem?
Mr. Shope. Well, we corrected it by terminating the
program.
Senator Allard. Okay, so it's terminated.
Mr. Shope. At the end of 2008.
Senator Allard. Okay, very good. All right, what about oil
technology? That's rated as ineffective.
Mr. Shope. Again, the same thing. This is not ineffective
in the sense of mismanagement or any inappropriate--it's a
matter, is this--is the taxpayer dollars being best spent by
investing in this research in 2008?
Senator Allard. It will be terminated?
Mr. Shope. Yes.
Senator Allard. It will be terminated. All right. Now there
are some that don't demonstrate any results. It's all--there is
the National Nuclear Infrastructure Program and they haven't
bothered to set any goals at all or measure them so why haven't
they bothered to do that? I guess that's you, Secretary
Spurgeon.
Mr. Spurgeon. I think that's another program within the
Department that's being referred to there, sir.
Senator Allard. And that will be terminated or what?
Mr. Spurgeon. I'm not sure which program that is, so. I
think it's a Defense program.
Senator Allard. It's called the national nuclear
infrastructure. If you go on Expectmore.gov on the Internet,
you'll see it there.
Mr. Spurgeon. Let me take that for the record for the
Department, sir.
[The information follows:]
Program Assessment Rating Tool
The National Nuclear Infrastructure Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART) is focused on activities carried out by the Office of Nuclear
Energy's Idaho Facilities Management and Radiological Facilities
Management programs at Idaho National Laboratory (INL).
Performance measures were established for the INL during the fiscal
year 2005 merger of the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory (INEEL) and the Argonne National Laboratory-West (ANL-W).
The National Nuclear Infrastructure PART assessment was completed
during the fiscal year 2006 budget formulation process, concurrent with
activities associated with creation of INL.
The overall rating of ``Results Not Demonstrated'' is not due to
the lack of performance measures, but the inability to demonstrate
results against the established performance measures during the short
period of time between the establishment of the new laboratory and
completion of the PART assessment. The Department continues to track
its performance against cost and schedule baselines. Further, the
Department employs a Facility Operability Index performance measure
that assesses the readiness of the infrastructure to support NE, other
DOE and Work-For-Others milestones. The Department continues to
evaluate and look for improvements in the operation of INL.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART) SCORES
Senator Allard. All right. And then on the University
Nuclear Education Program--results not demonstrated. Why is
that?
Mr. Spurgeon. What was that, Senator?
Senator Allard. It's the University Nuclear Education
Programs. Results are not demonstrated. In other words, they
haven't been able to establish goals that show that they're
getting anything accomplished.
Mr. Spurgeon. We have a--I think our university dollars are
being very well spent. It's sometimes very difficult to
quantify goals for research that is happening and support of
developing education programs for us. I'll give you a better
answer than I'm able to give up here.
Senator Allard. When they make application, you can insist
on them giving you----
Mr. Spurgeon. We are. We are moving the university research
programs to be program based and so that we will be able to
have a better measure of performance against objective.
[The information follows:]
PART Score for University Nuclear Education Program
The mission of the University Reactor Infrastructure and Education
Assistance program has been to enhance the national nuclear educational
infrastructure to meet the manpower requirements of the Nation's
energy, environmental, health care, and national security sectors. More
specifically, the program was designed to address declining enrollment
levels among U.S. nuclear engineering programs.
A PART assessment was completed for the University Reactor
Infrastructure and Education Assistance program during the fiscal year
2007 budget formulation process. The assessment, conducted under the
title ``University Nuclear Education Programs,'' determined that
enrollment target levels of the program had been met and that Federal
assistance was no longer needed to encourage students to enter into
nuclear-related disciplines. Since the late 1990s, enrollment levels in
nuclear education programs have tripled, reaching upwards of 1,500
students in 2005, the program's target level for the year 2015. In
addition, the number of universities offering nuclear-related programs
also has increased. These trends reflect renewed interest in nuclear
power. Students continue to be drawn into this course of study and
universities, along with nuclear industry societies and utilities,
continue to invest in university research reactors, students, and
faculty members. However, the assessment also concluded that the
program performance measures that did not clearly communicate the
linkage between Federal funding and growth in enrollment in nuclear-
related disciplines. This led to the rating of ``Results Not
Demonstrated''.
The Department is using part of its fiscal year 2007 funds to
support all students currently on an Office of Nuclear Energy
fellowship or scholarship for the period of their initial appointment.
No student is in danger of losing his/her funding assuming that they
stay within the original guidelines of the program with regard to
course of study and grades. No additional funds are requested in fiscal
year 2008 for these activities, effectively closing out the program.
However, $2.9 million was requested in fiscal year 2007 to provide
fresh reactor fuel to universities and to dispose of spent fuel from
university reactors. Under the fiscal year 2007 CR, these activities
are also being funded. In fiscal year 2008, $2.9 million is requested
for these activities under Research Reactor Infrastructure, within the
Radiological Facilities Management program.
In addition to funding research reactor activities, the Department
remains committed to supporting university research through its Nuclear
Energy Research Initiative (NERI). In fiscal year 2007, $38.3 million
will support NERI grants to universities within NE's R&D programs. The
fiscal year 2008 budget request includes $58.6 million to support NERI
grants to universities within NE's R&D programs.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART) SCORES
Senator Allard. Now there's one other program, the State
energy programs. What's happening there? They are--who has
those?
Mr. Karsner. That's me.
Senator Allard. Why aren't those--why aren't there any
results being demonstrated there?
Mr. Karsner. I can't speak to the report. I feel like there
are results being demonstrated there but I'm happy to analyze
that report.
Senator Allard. The Office of Management and Budget did an
evaluation on that and said they----
Mr. Karsner. It will not be the first time I disagree with
the Office of Management and Budget.
Senator Allard. Well, if you could get something back to us
on those. As policy makers, if we knew----
Mr. Karsner. Absolutely, sir.
[The information follows:]
State Energy Program PART Score
In 2004, the State Energy Program (SEP) received a rating of
``Results Not Demonstrated'' for the OMB Performance Assessment Rating
Tool (PART) exercise. This rating is ``given when programs do not have
acceptable long-term and annual performance measures'' (quoted from OMB
PART Tool Guidance No. 2007-02, Jan 29, 2007). The Program had offered
information for the PART based on an evaluation conducted by Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (ORNL). OMB cited the need for a more comprehensive
impact methodology for the study as well as an independent evaluator.
DOE has taken several actions in response to OMB's concerns. In
2005, SEP requested an independent review of the ORNL report by the
Board of Directors of the International Energy Program Evaluation
Conference, Inc. This independent review found the ORNL study to be a
``reasonable foundation from which to estimate the national effects of
the SEP program.'' In 2006 the program finalized the SEP Strategic
Plan, which established long-term goals, objectives, and strategies to
set a new direction for the program in response to the OMB assessment.
In 2007 SEP initiated a comprehensive evaluation of the program by an
independent evaluator to quantify program performance and identify
areas for improvement.
UNIVERSITY NUCLEAR EDUCATION PROGRAM
Senator Allard. Some of these programs, I think--they look
good and sound good so I want to--and like all the rest, I want
to see us move forward on that. So I just want to follow up
that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Dorgan. Yes?
Senator Domenici. With reference to the program you asked
about, it referred to----
Senator Dorgan. University, yes.
Senator Domenici. I want to say that in 1995, when there
was nothing going on and this Senator decided we should get
started on some and we started by putting back into the
university system what had been there for many years and
terminated and that was some assistance to encourage youngsters
who had the proclivity for nuclear engineering and the like,
excited them about--and it was working and we spent about $25
million a year at the maximum and then the President, because
he didn't have enough money, terminated it and I don't think
I've been able to put it back. But that's the history.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you for that response and I'd agree
that we need to encourage students to get into these areas.
It's probably important when you have a shortage there.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this hearing and Senator Domenici and all of our panelists. I
think it's been a very interesting discussion. I think we all
are looking for ways to provide alternative energy and I think
there are a lot of great ideas out there. This has been a great
panel and chance to hear all that. I was out in my state over
the last week and had a chance to talk to my sorghum grain
farmers there, very interested in the opportunities that are
out there and obviously, my dairy farmers are talking about
biowaste. We've got nuclear, biodiesel, hydrogen--so many
opportunities and a lot of work ahead of us.
I think we have to remember, we've got to be careful what
we do. Every source of energy seems to have a challenge to it
and how we move forward is really important but I appreciate
all the work that you're doing.
VEHICLE EFFICIENCY
Secretary Karsner, let me start with you. I really
appreciate the President's initiative to cut our dependency on
oil through the greater use of biofuels but there are other
things we can do as well. We not only need to introduce
alternative fuels but we have to look at how we can get
efficiency in vehicles as well. Your efficiency programs--we've
seen a significant increase in the 2007 spending plan and the
increase in the 2008 EERE budget seems to emphasize funding for
hybrid electric systems and decreases funding for research and
materials and advance combustion. According to the Department's
own estimates, these activities would have a lot more dramatic
and near term impact on CO2 emissions and reducing
our dependency. Can you comment on whether you agree that
improvements in combustion processes could greatly enhance our
fuel economy by new lightweight materials, things like that?
Mr. Karsner. I do agree that improvements will remain a
central focus. I think some of the diminishing, programmatic
budgeting there might reflect some of these successes,
actually. In other words, there are natural limits to what
gains can be had from the physical properties of internal
combustion efficiency and it's going to ultimately be balanced
against the emissions that come out of those engines. So the
idea is, optimizing the efficiency to the maximum degree as a
physical device and minimizing the emissions in some of those
cases, for example, heavy trucks, is what that applies to.
We're getting right up to that optimum barrier.
Senator Murray. Do you think we know everything we need to
know?
Mr. Karsner. No, absolutely not.
Senator Murray. Okay. Well, how much of the 2007 spending
plan was directed to advanced combustion R&D?
Mr. Karsner. I can report back with the precise numbers but
we did have a substantial increase in the 2007 spend plan to
vehicle technologies.
[The information follows:]
Funding For Advanced Combustion R&D
For fiscal year 2007, $49,706,000 is being directed to advanced
combustion R&D in the Vehicle Technologies Program.
FUNDING FOR ADVANCED COMBUSTION RESEARCH
Senator Murray. And your 2008 is reduced funding?
Mr. Karsner. Well, of course, the 2008 was submitted ahead
of the 2007, so as Senator Dorgan pointed out, it's a bit of an
anomaly this year.
Senator Murray. Okay. Well, it just seems to me that we
need to keep focusing on all kinds of programs and reducing the
research on that is not going to help us improve our--or help
us get off our dependency of oil. So I'm a little bit concerned
about that.
BIOFUELS
I also wanted to ask you, DOE seems to be putting a lot of
their focus on cellulosic ethanol but there are other biofuels
that contribute to the mix as my farmers tell me, constantly.
What is the Department doing to support really a diversified
approach to reducing our Nation's dependence with fuel such as
biodiesel or biomethane?
Mr. Karsner. Well, of course, we support all biofuels and
of course, the President's approach is to have the broadest
scope available to alternative sources to gasoline. That's the
subject of a hearing tomorrow but the administration endorses
all of those.
Some of them are more mature than others in terms of their
efficiency process and their competitiveness so they don't need
the level of breakthrough that cellulosic ethanol needs. The
other sort of metric that we look at is the quantitative or
volumetric capacity to make an impact of those biofuels and,
although all of these are important and we want to maximize
what each of them can contribute, there is no question that
ethanol, through various forms of biomass, volumetrically will
contribute much, much more than any of those that you named and
so that's why it gets a greater emphasis.
Senator Murray. Are there projects out there that do cross
funding that help both of them----
Mr. Karsner. Well, codes and standards, by way of example--
in fact, I would say we have more emphasis on the codes and
standards for biodiesel so that we can certify them. Since we
have a fairly competitive biodiesel industry that is growing
very rapidly, it's very important to us that engine
manufacturers be able to warrant the use of those in different
ambient conditions so that's a big focus with biodiesel. We've
just certified B-5 in some of the engines. I understand we're
looking at B-20 levels and so codes and standards will be one
of those that is cross funded.
GRID RESEARCH AT PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY
Senator Murray. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that and
Director Kolevar, I just wanted to mention, I heard Senator
Dorgan talking to you about the grid and modernizing our grid
and moving to better technologies and what we needed to do and
I just wanted to make sure you knew about the Pacific Northwest
National Lab and the work that they're doing out of my State to
help efficiency on the grid. Have you ever visited there?
Mr. Kolevar. I have not, Senator. I intend to this year.
I'm aware they're pulling real time data from Bonneville Power
and visualizing, from a layman's perspective and then in more
detail on some of the work that is going on there. It sounds to
be very promising.
Senator Murray. Yes, the Grid Wise Program is really
starting to look at how we can really focus on some
efficiencies and better transmission. We'd really love to have
you come out and take a look at it. Mr. Chairman, you might
want to, too. I think you're right to mention that we need to
have some efficiencies with that system and there is some work
being done. I think we need to do more but we'd love to have
both of you visit. So, thank you very much.
RETRIEVABLE ENERGY IN SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL
Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much. Just a couple other
queries. Secretary Spurgeon, you talked about the closed fuel
cycle. Can you tell me, just for my own information, how much
energy is retrieved from spent fuel? You talked about
retrieving the energy from spent fuel. What percent of the
energy?
Mr. Spurgeon. Well, if we do a recycle and if we just
recycle one time, in a light water reactor, you would recover
20 percent roughly of the input fuel. Now there are ways,
looking to the future, where you could recover substantially
more than that. But just one recycle and that's where I made
the comparison base when I said as much as the Alaska Pipeline
provides in energy value. It's just based on one recycle, 20
percent saving existing reactors, not including new ones that
might be built in the future.
WEATHERIZATION
Senator Dorgan. Secretary Karsner, the issue of
weatherization. I did not ask you about that. I assumed since I
come from North Dakota that you would have expected me to so I
don't want to disappoint you here. As you know, in the
weatherization account, the proposal is to make a cut in that
account. It was $242 million in fiscal year 2006. In fiscal
year 2008, it will be $144 million, which is the budget
request. Tell me what you think the consequences of that would
be, to cut $100 million from weatherization?
Mr. Karsner. Well, there are lots of consequences. One of
the primary consequences is that we have more funding to
accelerate biofuels for national security and lower greenhouse
gas emissions. That's on the positive side. On the negative
side, it will mean, because that is an additive program for
returns; that is, that there is a correlation between dollars
spent and houses weatherized. It will obviously mean a
diminution in the amount of houses we can achieve in a fiscal
year.
Senator Dorgan. I've been out to watch what they do in the
weatherization program to substantially improve some of these
older homes in order to reduce the amount of heat loss. Is that
program effective? Also, is it a part of our energy efficiency
efforts? Because we're saving energy by insulating homes and so
on, so tell me how you view that program.
Mr. Karsner. I view any efficiency improvements as
effective but with a limited pool of dollars and an enormous
task, as I said, for the larger aggregate goals of lowering
greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing national security, it
has the unfortunate disposition of competing against other
efficiency investments in our applied research and development
portfolio that have enormous returns that are multiplicative
across the population. Although this is a very important
segment of the population and it is a worthy program to focus
on, in the context of competing in our portfolio to achieve
those same efficiency objectives, the returns are very, very
low.
Senator Dorgan. Are these mostly lower income people that
are competing?
Mr. Karsner. For the weatherization dollars?
Senator Dorgan. Right.
Mr. Karsner. It is all low income people.
Senator Dorgan. So the competition, we've put them in here
as the lower income people that own old homes that are leaking
heat and terribly inefficient, trying to struggle through the
winter to pay a heat bill. They're put in competition with all
the other accounts and so they get hit with a $100 million
reduction in funding. Is that something you support?
Mr. Karsner. Well, I don't support the phrasing of it in
that particular way but I do support the cut in the sense that
I have to look at it as a portfolio. I have no other choice but
to look at the precious taxpayer dollars that way. In fact in
reality, this cut is really restoring what the Clinton
administration budgetary year appropriations were in terms of
apportionment of the portfolio. The President, in his first
term push for poverty alleviation, substantially injected new
funding into the weatherization program, I think at a time
before most of the other technologies were reasonably
commercial where they are today and at a time before we felt
this kind of pressure from $3 gas and other pressing
priorities.
So we are sort of putting it back into balance to where it
had historically been, which still makes it one of the largest
programs in the Nation's applied research and development
portfolio for new energy developments. And these are difficult
choices but we feel like turning the housing stock itself
quicker in the aggregate through working on the building
envelope, insulation, better windows across the board is at
least as important ultimately.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Karsner, we added $25 million in the
Supplemental here in the Senate for weatherization. Do you
support that?
Mr. Karsner. No, I do not.
Senator Dorgan. Do you oppose it?
Mr. Karsner. I do oppose that.
Senator Dorgan. Why?
Mr. Karsner. The first reason is a little bit personal. We
submitted a $160 million budget for fiscal year 2007 and though
we had the authority of the spend plan through Congress'
generous markup of our budget, of my own volition and push, I
sought to meet the Senate written mark of $204 million and
added $40 million to the weatherization program in the spend
plan. Much of that money this late in the year will roll over
into next year so it is well funded to begin with and it is at
the level that the Senate itself had written into the budget,
albeit I understand it was the last Senate. Every new dollar
that we add for that is taking a dollar away from the other
efficiency programming markups that we have and the returns on
those are 20 to 1, according to the National Academy of
Sciences, and I think the returns are too big to forfeit.
Senator Dorgan. Let me--well, first of all, thank you. You
know, while we might agree and disagree about certain
priorities and the importance of certain accounts, I agree with
Senator Domenici's statement earlier. I think all four of you
are significant public servants whose background and
capabilities give you the opportunity to do a good job for this
country and coming to serve in an administration that is not so
long for this town, what 20 or 21 months left? I mean, you've
not signed on for a 6- or 8-year term in most cases.
You've come from various disciplines to assume leadership
in these accounts and I appreciate that. I think all four of
you have a lot to offer this country, even when we might
disagree about priorities. It's my intent that I and the other
members of this subcommittee work with you as we want to learn
from you and want to help you meet the challenges ahead. While
we might disagree on the exact amounts that should be invested
in certain activities, at the end of the day, I think, we all
share a common interest in success in your four areas. All four
of these areas are very, very important as functions in the
Department of Energy and your coming here today to respond to
our questions and to give us a glimpse of what you're doing is
very important.
I understand Senator Domenici has made a career of this
during the Clinton administration, having agency witnesses come
up and defend the President's budget. That's what they're paid
to do. It's what they are required to do and if they didn't do
that, they'd probably go back and find out that their desk was
cleaned out. So it is a little frustrating for us sometimes but
having recognized that, we appreciate working with you and we
appreciate you being here today.
Senator Domenici, do you have anything to add at the
conclusion?
Senator Domenici. One last one. First, Mr. Chairman, I want
to thank you for your last remarks. I have great admiration for
a Senator who speaks as you have just spoken and I don't know
you that well even though we've been here a long time but the
more I learn, the more I like what I hear and I thank you for
that.
I want to say and ask which one of you would be--would
represent global warming, the problems with global warming,
proposed solutions. Which one would have----
Mr. Karsner. I think that's the Department, sir.
Senator Domenici. The Department. So we'll talk to the
Department on that, okay? I think that's okay. I'll talk to the
Department because I want to just make a statement.
You know, we're soon going to be called upon to perhaps
vote on a program, an American program to help contain
CO2, one way or another. There are various ways to
do that, one of which is the simplest one was to put a tax on
carbon.
I think that has lost favor quite a bit. In between there,
there are various ways. I'd just like to make a point that I
have spent a substantial amount of time and continue to spend
more on analyzing the amount of CO2 that China and
India are producing and emitting and the lack of positive
action on the part of either of those countries to diminish the
carbon dioxide and to the contrary, a dramatic increase in
power plants that are fed by dirty coal. That's your area,
Secretary Shope. You know about that. You're not in charge of
the big picture but you know about that. They are unfortunate--
they have a lot of coal but it's dirty coal. At least the Lord
could have made it clean and it wouldn't have had an ambient
problem. They don't even clean up the first stage in the
countries I just spoke of. They burn it without anything on
there to clean up the pollutants as it is burned.
But I'm going to close with this remark. As of now, we
understand that they produce in China--not India, China, about
one reactor that is somewhere between 500 and 750 kilowatts--
megawatts, excuse me, a week, about one a week. Now, you can't
hardly imagine that being an American even though we claim we
are the biggest gobblers of energy and we do nothing like that,
such that if we were asked to spend great amounts of money to
constrain carbon dioxide, the question will be asked of those
who are for it, what is China and India going to do?
And if the answer is nothing, then it would appear to me
that the American people would have a very big, big issue to
raise with the Congress that would do something because all we
would do would be to tie our own hands and legs, do nothing
significant to help the problem of CO2 in the outer
atmosphere because, as a matter of fact, it is global in nature
not American. And I'm not going to support unilateral
containment without some hope--no, without some real evidence
that China and India will join us in research and development
and expenditure of substantial money to contain CO2
in their countries.
I think that's important that those of us who are involved
get our heads together and see what all this means. It may mean
that China might have to think a little sooner rather than
later about what they'll do because I don't know that we'll sit
by and buy their products forever either at the prices that are
reduced because they spend nothing to clean it up while we
spend much. That's a true impediment to us selling any products
worldwide or vice versa. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Domenici, thank you. If in fact it
is a global economy and we all live in the same fishbowl then
global pollution affects all of us as well and the Senator has
expressed himself with respect to a vote on the Kyoto Treaty,
believing that you cannot begin to deal with these issues,
leaving China and India out of the equation. Especially because
it's a global economy, those industries, those manufacturing
plants and others that want to belch pollutants into the air
have no regulatory costs of doing so and can simply move their
plant overseas, fire their American workers and accelerate the
job loss in this country.
Having said all that, I think the testimony today, for
example, with respect to the search for new technologies, the
search for carbon sequestration, the search of this country to
unlock the mysteries from these new technologies is very
important because I assume that we will want very quickly to
share those technologies with everyone around the world. I
would say to you, Senator Domenici, I was persona non grata in
my State for some long while with the coal industry when I
served in the State capitol. I was one of those that led the
fight to demand that, with respect to strip mining of coal,
there would be segregation of topsoil, that companies ensure
the contouring of the land for reclamation and that every new
plant producing electricity had to have the latest available
technology, wet scrubbers for instance.
You can well imagine the way the industry responded. I was
an enemy of the industry. Well, guess what? Twenty years later,
twenty-five years later, they are all glad they did it and all
of us in North Dakota are glad they did it.
We produce a lot of coal. We're the first State in the
country to meet the ambient air standards, even though we had
substantial plants, because we spent the money to put those wet
scrubbers on. We now see contoured land that looks great. It
was land from which coal seams were extracted and topsoil was
segregated and the contour was redone. You drive past there
these days and see the vegetation, you can't tell there was
coal mined from it.
It is always harder at ground zero to begin to push these
issues. You're absolutely right. If we decide to proceed and
China and India do nothing, we will have accomplished very
little and yet, in many ways, just as with stopping the spread
of nuclear weapons, it falls on our country's shoulders. We
must at least, at a minimum, begin a series of no regret steps
as we begin to address all of these issues.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
So, Senator Domenici, you and I will have a lot of work to
do and I'll enjoy doing it with you because you have a great
deal of experience and have offered a lot to this subcommittee
over many, many years.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Dennis R. Spurgeon
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP
Question. I have heard Secretary Bodman talk about the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) as being an initiative that will take
a couple of decades. Yet, your testimony refers to a Secretarial
decision in June 2008. Further, your testimony refers to the
development of commercial-scale reprocessing facilities in conjunction
with industry. I understand many in industry feel more research and
development is necessary on GNEP before moving forward on facilities.
So, I am confused by the disconnect between Secretary Bodman's own
observation of GNEP being a couple decade long process and this rush to
a Secretarial decision in June 2008 and development of commercial scale
reprocessing facilities.
First, can you please explain to me what the Secretarial decision
in June 2008 will be about? And second, can you explain why we would be
turning so soon to development of commercial scale facilities?
Answer. The Secretarial decision in 2008 is intended to determine
the GNEP path forward. The Department intends for this decision to
include a decision on whether or not and how to proceed with a nuclear
fuel recycling center and an advanced recycling reactor. This will
require compiling information regarding the requisite technologies,
economics, and environmental impacts. The specific elements supporting
the decision are a credible technology pathway and progress on its
implementation; a business plan; definition of a government-private
partnership that could be formed; completion of NEPA requirements; and
a nonproliferation assessment.
In addition, a path forward on the Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility is
anticipated to be part of the Secretarial decision.
The Department's work with industry at this stage will focus our
research and development in support of future commercial-scale
facilities. Engaging industry at this time could save the United States
nearly a decade in time and a substantial amount of money, while still
engaging and reinvigorating the nuclear community with new facilities
and continued long-term R&D. Development of a credible U.S. program for
construction of commercial fuel cycle facilities is a critical element
of a strategy to convince other States considering nuclear energy
programs that they can rely on the United States for their fuel cycle
needs. Making the United States an influential participant in fuel
cycle technology is vital to fulfilling the GNEP vision.
Question. Under GNEP, I understand it will take one new fast
reactor to burn the reprocessed fuel from approximately every three to
four light water reactors. If this is correct and today there are 103
existing light water reactors, we will need 25 to 34 new fast reactors
to burn just the reprocessed fuel from existing light water reactors. I
understand the nuclear power industry is not interested in building
fast reactors. For GNEP to work properly, will the Federal Government
have to build 30+ fast reactors or will industry be mandated to build
them?
Answer. Deployment of advanced fast reactors is currently
envisioned as a commercial activity, with revenues being generated from
the production of electricity while the transuranic material is
simultaneously consumed. One goal for GNEP is to establish a business
case that supports the commercial deployment of advanced recycling
reactors, which are fast reactors. The number of advanced recycling
reactors required to use the fuel recovered from LWR spent nuclear fuel
depends on a number of factors. For example, a key factor is the rate
at which an advanced recycling reactor would destroy the transuranic
elements, recovered from the spent nuclear fuel, while generating
electricity. Other factors include the initial core loading of an
advance recycling reactor and the ability to recycle the spent fuel
from the advanced recycling reactors.
Question. A primary goal of GNEP is to develop a reprocessing
technology that is ``proliferation resistant.'' Some claim DOE's
proposed separations technologies all provide less than 1 percent of
the International Atomic Energy Agency's ``self-protection'' standard
for plutonium. Given these considerations, how can DOE's GNEP proposal
meet the nonproliferation goal?
Answer. One goal of GNEP is to develop a reprocessing technology
that is ``more'' proliferation resistant than those currently used
throughout the world which separate pure plutonium. The separations
technologies being considered by the Department would not separate pure
plutonium and would, therefore, be more proliferation resistant than
those currently in use. The Department's fiscal year 2008 budget
request supports over $88 million for further research and development
on advanced reprocessing technologies.
Question. Another goal of GNEP is to confine reprocessing and
uranium enrichment to ``countries that already have substantial, well-
established fuel cycles.'' Does DOE's fiscal year 2008 budget request
include funds for cooperation with the Korea Atomic Energy Research
Institute (KAERI) for pyroprocessing research and development?
Answer. Bilateral collaboration with South Korea on nuclear energy
R&D occurs under the International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative
(I-NERI). All I-NERI joint projects employ cost sharing on an
approximately equal basis by the participating countries. Each country
is responsible for funding its side of joint projects. In the case of
the United States, current-year approved program budgets provide the
funding for our contributions to the joint projects. As part of I-NERI
collaborations, Korea, as represented by KAERI, is actively engaged in
relevant work in fiscal year 2007 and supported in the fiscal year 2008
budget request.
It is important to note, however, that KAERI does not process spent
fuel or special nuclear material as part of this cooperation. All
pyroprocessing-related research and development activities involving
use of spent fuel or special nuclear material under these I-NERI
projects or work-for-others programs is done at DOE National
Laboratories. Annual meetings between the U.S. Government, National
Laboratory and KAERI officials have been instituted since 2006 to
monitor cooperative activities in the area of pyroprocessing and
advanced fuel cycle technologies.
Question. Does DOE intend to offer the Republic of Korea, a country
that the United States to date has not permitted to reprocess due to
proliferation concerns, a role in GNEP as a ``supplier'' country?
Answer. The Republic of Korea has the sixth largest nuclear power
program in the world. The Government of the Republic of Korea has made
the decision not to possess reprocessing or enrichment facilities and
is limiting the scope of its research and development on pyroprocessing
technologies. Nevertheless, the Republic of Korea is actively engaged
in the development of advanced reactor and fuel cycle technology,
nuclear safety, radioactive waste management, and other related work
programs on the national, bilateral and multilateral levels. We gain a
great deal by working with these experts. The Republic of Korea is
engaged in research and development that supports GNEP involving small-
reactors, advanced burner reactors, computer modeling, safeguards and
basic science, but not separations of spent fuel.
At this point, DOE has not specifically invited countries to
participate in GNEP as ``supplier countries.'' It is generally
anticipated that the expansion of civilian nuclear power could be
provided by countries already possessing the infrastructure to
manufacture nuclear power plants as well as provide fuel supply
services.
Question. Which countries has DOE invited to participate in GNEP as
``supplier'' countries?
Answer. At this point, DOE has not specifically invited countries
to participate in GNEP as ``supplier countries.'' It is generally
anticipated that the expansion of civilian nuclear power could be
provided by countries already possessing the infrastructure to
manufacture nuclear power plants as well as provide fuel supply
services.
Question. Which countries has DOE invited to be ``users''?
Answer. DOE believes it is advantageous to seek partnerships for
the expansion of civilian nuclear power worldwide by providing support
on infrastructure development for countries newly considering nuclear
power (e.g., legal, regulatory, safety, knowledge base, experience,
etc.). DOE does not plan to invite countries as ``users'' or
``suppliers,'' but rather seeks partners. The GNEP partnership is open
to all countries agreeing to the statement of principles. The benefit
of partnership is having access to products and services on the front
and back end of the fuel cycle while relieving countries of the
liability, infrastructure and expense associated with such facilities.
Ultimately, there will be technology partners, materials partners
(e.g., uranium) and infrastructure partners. In December 2006, the
United States co-hosted, along with several other IAEA Member States
(Canada, China, France, India, Japan, Russia, and South Korea), a
workshop in Vienna, Austria, on ``Issues for the Introduction of
Nuclear Power.'' Twenty-six countries currently without nuclear power--
yet considering it as a potential addition to the energy portfolio--
attended this workshop.
NUCLEAR ENERGY'S ROLE
Question. The Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy
Outlook 2007 reference case indicates that nuclear power provided 19
percent of the Nation's electricity in 2005 and is expected to provide
15 percent of the Nation's electricity in 2030.
How do you reconcile the fact that, even as the U.S. Government is
providing greater Federal assistance to the nuclear power industry
through various research programs and deployment incentives than ever
before, that portion of electricity generated from nuclear power
facilities is expected to decrease as a percentage of our overall
electricity production in the next 25 years?
Answer. As you know, there has been no new construction of nuclear
plants in the United States in 30 years. However, nuclear power still
supplies a significant percentage of our electrical needs, because
plant efficiencies have increased electricity production equivalent of
27 1000 megawatt plants without new construction. As such, there is
little additional efficiency to be gained with the existing fleet of
reactors.
According to the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual
Energy Outlook 2007, America's demand for electric power is projected
to increase at an average annual rate of 1.5 percent between now and
2030. In the Annual Energy Outlook 2007, EIA assumes that the
equivalent of 12 new nuclear plants (1,000 megawatts each) would be
built by 2030. The capacity lost from the few currently operating
plants that will be retired by 2030 is assumed to be offset by power
uprates at existing plants and the restart of TVA's Browns Ferry Unit
One. Therefore EIA estimates total nuclear capacity to increase from
100 GW today to 112 GW in 2030. Based on EIA's assumptions, all the
nuclear plants operating in 2030 would produce only about 15 percent of
the generation mix in the United States.
The Department is aggressively pursuing actions through our Nuclear
Power 2010 program to ensure the growth of electricity produced by
nuclear power. To date, 15 power companies have notified the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission of their intentions to submit 19 applications for
combined Construction and Operating Licenses for 33 new reactor plants.
Therefore, we expect that much more than the 12 gigawatts of new
nuclear capacity projected by EIA will be realized before 2030. New
nuclear plants would only need to be brought on line at a rate of three
or four per year, a rate lower than that already proven achievable in
some years in the 1970s, in order for nuclear power to provide 20
percent of the mix in 2030.
______
Questions Submitted to Hon. Dennis R. Spurgeon
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
GNEP ADVANCED FUEL CYCLE FACILITY--LUXURY OR NECESSITY?
Question. Mr. Spurgeon, the Department has requested funding for
the Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility. This new research facility is
intended to perform all of the critical advanced reactor fuel
development. However, it seems to me that this brand new facility
actually duplicates the numerous older facilities located across the
DOE complex that are still in use today.
This funding would go a long way in upgrading several existing
facilities and would have the added benefit of supporting a diverse
scientific mission such as medical isotopes, environmental
characterization, and support for the space mission.
This new facility seems to be more of a luxury, rather than a
necessity.
Can you please explain your rationale for deciding to build a
single brand new facility rather than make the necessary investments in
our existing laboratory infrastructure?
Answer. The Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility (AFCF) project is in the
early stages of the conceptual design; no decision has been made to
construct the facility and DOE is evaluating reasonable alternatives.
The Department is aware that facilities exist that, with refurbishment
or upgrades, could perform some, but not all, of the functions
currently planned for the AFCF. A full examination of the trade-offs
between constructing a new facility and upgrading existing ones is
required in accordance with the Department orders for a major system
acquisition.
The AFCF would allow the Department to perform R&D, technology
development, and demonstrate the integrated operations and processes
involved in the recycling of spent nuclear fuel. These operations would
include receiving the spent nuclear fuel, separating its various
constituents, fabricating new fuel, containing transuranic elements,
for an advanced recycling reactor, manufacturing lead test assemblies
that are necessary for fuel qualification, and waste handling. This
facility would have a continuous throughput rate from start to finish,
from reprocessing both spent thermal and fast reactor fuel to
fabricating new fuel types yet to be fully developed. Currently, no
single facility with that capability exists.
NP 2010 PROGRAM
Question. Mr. Spurgeon, your budget provides $113 million for the
Nuclear Power 2010 program. This is significantly below the $183
million needed to fulfill the 50/50 cost share agreement to prepare the
detailed engineering designs needed to resolve the technical,
engineering and regulatory challenges needed to license a new reactor.
What is the Department's justification for failing to meet its cost
share commitment and how will this impact the cost and schedule of this
project?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) is meeting its cost-share
funding commitment for these important nuclear energy projects. DOE
remains committed to spend $586.5 million as Federal cost share as
agreed to with industry. DOE's cost-share primarily supports the
demonstration of the ``untested'' regulatory process for the combined
Construction and Operating Licenses for two new nuclear plants. It also
supports the completion of the first-of-a-kind engineering for two
reactor designs. The designs will be completed in sufficient detail to
give power companies the cost and schedule information they need to
make plant orders. If the fiscal year 2008 budget request of $114
million is appropriated by Congress, DOE will have provided industry
with over $300 million of the $586.5 million total of Federal cost
share by the end of fiscal year 2008.
In November 2006, the industry proposed DOE increase its cost-share
for these two projects by $161 million to a new total DOE cost-share of
$727 million. With this increase, industry proposes activities worth
$183 million in fiscal year 2008. DOE declined this industry request
because its cost and scope went beyond DOE's original commitments.
Question. Based on the budget shortfall, are you able to predict
which design, engineering, or regulatory activities will not be funded.
Do you believe this will impact one reactor design over the other?
Answer. DOE does not believe one particular reactor design would
have an advantage over the other based on DOE's fiscal year 2008 budget
request.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request of $114 million for the Nuclear
Power 2010 program is sufficient for funding necessary activities in
fiscal year 2008. The request is consistent with the agreed-to cost-
share funding commitment.
NP 2010 PROGRAM REFORMS
Question. Last year, I raised a number of tough questions about the
cost controls of the NP 2010 program and whether or not the NuStart
team would be able to deliver on the budget commitments they had agreed
to. This criticism seemed to force the reactor vendors to sharpen their
pencils and improve the work product.
Do you believe the DOE's private partners have made the necessary
improvements to get this program back on track?
Answer. Given that these are uncharted waters for industry and DOE,
substantial improvements have occurred on the NuStart and Dominion
projects and the Department recognizes some risks remain. These known
risk areas and the contingency plans to address them are under constant
NuStart and Dominion management review.
One of the more substantial improvements has been the integration
of the reactor vendor engineering and power company combined
Construction and Operating License (COL) application development
efforts. These integration efforts are evident through formal review
teams such as the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor and the AP
1000 Engineering Review Teams and the Design Control Document/
Construction and Operating License Integration Team. DOE believes these
industry efforts significantly improve the likelihood two COL
applications will be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in
the first quarter of fiscal year 2008.
Question. Are you confident that this program will be able to
deliver two reactor designs that the NRC will be able to license?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) is highly confident the
licensing demonstration projects with Dominion and NuStart will yield
approved Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) design certifications and
combined Construction and Operating Licenses (COL) for the two advanced
light water reactor designs: the Westinghouse Advanced Passive (AP)
1000 and the GE Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR). The
NRC already certified the reactor design for the AP 1000 in December
2005. NRC has projected the ESBWR design certification could occur in
fiscal year 2010. DOE expects COL applications to be submitted to NRC
in the first quarter of fiscal year 2008 and NRC issuance of approved
licenses in fiscal year 2010.
FOREIGN INTEREST IN NUCLEAR ENERGY
Question. Mr. Spurgeon, it seems everyday that I pick up a
newspaper, another country or company is announcing that they are going
forward with a new nuclear plant, or expanding their existing fleet to
meet their growing energy needs. Countries such as India, China,
Pakistan, Russia, Romania, Finland, Argentina and the United States all
have plants under construction. Worldwide there are another 200 new
plants on the drawing boards.
The countries that have expressed an interest in a nuclear plant
also need to make plans for uranium fuel supplies and a solution for
their nuclear waste. Not all of these questions have been answered and
this has forced the IAEA to think about how the world can safely expand
civilian nuclear power without increasing the proliferation threat.
It occurs to me that the rest of the world is moving ahead with
civilian nuclear power regardless of what the United States does.
What do you think about the worldwide nuclear effort and how will
GNEP play a role in this?
Answer. Worldwide, nations are becoming more concerned with meeting
energy demands, providing energy security and engaging in energy
practices that are acceptable for sustaining the environment. DOE sees
nuclear power as a safe, clean, and efficient means to meet these
needs. The expansion of nuclear power can satisfy these needs and must
be expanded in a safe and proliferation resistant manner. For that
reason, DOE, through the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP),
plans to assist countries newly interested in nuclear power to work
toward developing sound infrastructure. In December, 2006, the U.S. co-
hosted a workshop in Vienna, Austria, on ``Issues for the Introduction
of Nuclear Power.'' Twenty-six countries currently without nuclear
power--yet considering it as a potential addition to the energy
portfolio--attended this workshop.
While a key goal of GNEP is expansion of nuclear energy, GNEP has
other roles. Another key objective of GNEP is to reduce the
proliferation risks that might otherwise be associated with the global
expansion of nuclear energy. GNEP supports the goals and objectives
outlined in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which calls for diversifying
the U.S. energy supply with sources such as nuclear power which is an
important emissions-free component of the U.S. energy portfolio. GNEP
provides a vision for future energy needs worldwide in a way that
reduces waste burdens and proliferation risks. GNEP aims to reinforce
nonproliferation policies by offering reliable nuclear fuel services to
discourage the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies. GNEP
also aims to draw down and eventually to eliminate excess stocks of
separated civil plutonium that have accumulated. In addition, GNEP
facilities aim to reduce proliferation and security risks by using
materials that are less easily used in nuclear weapons than separated
plutonium.
GNEP
Question. Mr. Spurgeon, the budget request for the GNEP program is
extremely complicated. The budget seems to fund three separate
activities including fundamental R&D, technology design and then a
third category known as ``technology development.'' This third
category, which consumes one-third of the GNEP budget, seems to
duplicate the other activities.
Can you please clarify this and provide me with a detailed written
accounting of the spending plan for the GNEP Technology Development
Account.
Answer. The GNEP Technology Development activity includes
activities within the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative that provide
support to each of the three Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)
projects: the nuclear fuel recycling center, advanced recycling
reactor, and an advanced fuel cycle research facility. Whereas the work
associated with GNEP R&D activities such as Separations and Advanced
Fuels Development involves basic research and bench-scale or
laboratory-scale experiments of a variety of potential technologies,
the Technology Development activity funding will be used to further
develop technology that has been shown to be feasible at the laboratory
or engineering scale, as well as to optimize design parameters and size
equipment. This account also supports the small reactor and
international collaboration efforts.
As the Department continues its research and development, industry
engagement, and other activities, the specific allocations for fiscal
year 2008 for GNEP Technology Development activity could change.
However, for fiscal year 2008, the Department currently anticipates
allocating approximately $50 million for the nuclear fuel recycling
center, $34 million for an advanced recycling reactor, $38 million for
an advanced fuel cycle research facility, $6 million for international
collaborations and agreements, and $5 million for grid-appropriate
reactors in developing countries.
GNEP--COORDINATING RESEARCH WITH OTHER NE PROGRAMS
Question. The committee would like to understand the Department's
view on the plans to tie together the various elements that make up its
nuclear programs such as NGNP and GNEP. First, there is the potential
to cooperate on fuel technologies that would benefit the high
temperature gas reactor being considered for NGNP as well as Advanced
Reactors being developed under the GEN IV program.
Will the Department conduct the appropriate analysis high
temperature gas cooled reactor's capability to burn nuclear waste and
the potential for synergy with the NGNP and GNEP?
Answer. One of the key objectives of the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP) is to make nuclear power an attractive alternative
to fossil fuels for developing countries around the world. Because the
power demand requirements are limited for these countries, they will
likely need smaller reactors. A Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR),
such as that being developed in the Next Generation Nuclear Plant
(NGNP) program, is a small modular reactor design that could
potentially be well suited in meeting the objectives of GNEP for global
deployment of nuclear power to developing countries. While the
Department (DOE) has conducted studies regarding the use of VHTRs for
actinide destruction, DOE chose to utilize fast reactors initially for
this component (actinide destruction) of the GNEP mission, while DOE
continues research and development on VHTR and other technologies. The
decision to use fast reactors is detailed in DOE's December 2006
report, The U.S. Generation IV Fast Reactor Strategy. The Sodium-Cooled
Fast Reactor (SFR) was chosen as the most promising fast reactor
concept for meeting DOE's strategic goals. The United States has
extensive experience with SFRs, and an SFR deployed as the Advanced
Burner Reactor under GNEP could be operational in the 2020-2025
timeframe.
DOE is performing research and development on the NGNP consistent
with the timeline established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Additional research and development on the use of high-temperature gas-
cooled reactor for actinide burning could be performed after the
underlying concepts supporting VHTR operation with uranium have been
thoroughly validated.
COOPERATIVE NUCLEAR FUEL RESEARCH WITH RUSSIA
Question. I understand that NNSA, in conjunction with Rosatom, is
developing the technology such as fuel and advanced power conversion
systems for high temperature gas cooled reactors in a cost-shared
program whose purpose it is to ultimately burn surplus Russian weapons
plutonium.
How much has been committed to this program and under what program?
What is the nature of the research and how will this benefit the GNEP
effort? Is this research being coordinated with NE?
Answer. Between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2006, the
Department provided $17.1 million to Russian Institutes to develop the
Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR) for plutonium disposition
in Russia. During that timeframe, Rosatom provided an equivalent $17.1
million of matching Russian funds as well. This program is managed
through the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and has
been in place for over 8 years. The current scope of this cooperation
is to conduct research and development in high risk technology areas
such as the development of plutonium particle fuel and power conversion
unit technologies. The advanced recycling reactor component of the GNEP
program may benefit from this effort as it continues to develop
advanced fuel forms and power conversion technologies. The Office of
Nuclear Energy receives and considers reports summarizing the Russian
GT-MHR research program.
Question. Based on the Russian's level of indecision on MOX; why
does the Department believe this would be a prudent use of resources at
this time. Is this being cost shared?
Answer. The Russian view of weapon grade plutonium is that it is a
valuable national resource and that disposition in Russian Light Water
Reactors (LWRs), such as the VVER, is not the most efficient use of
this resource. Originally, both the United States and Russia had agreed
to MOX disposition in LWRs. However, over time, the Russians expressed
misgivings with LWR disposition, although they have never specifically
excluded use of LWRs for disposition. The Russians have since proposed
consideration of two additional approaches, which they consider to be a
more efficient use of their plutonium. These two additional approaches
are disposition in the BN-800 fast reactor, which is under construction
(the plutonium disposition program has always considered the
disposition of a limited quantity of plutonium in the BN-600 fast
reactor); and development of a High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor for
possible use for plutonium disposition, should this reactor become
available in time.
The current Russian proposal includes cost sharing in every
scenario under discussion, including LWRs, although specific details
have yet to be negotiated.
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
Question. Mr. Spurgeon, much of the focus of the Department since
the passage of the Energy Policy Act 2005 toward nuclear power has been
on the development of new nuclear reactors. As you know, there are
other valued components of the domestic nuclear fuel cycle. Currently,
our country has only one functioning aging enrichment facility and
another soon to come on-line in the next few years. These facilities
will provide the fuel of the nuclear renaissance in America and build
upon the President's energy security programs.
Can you tell me what the Office of Nuclear Energy is doing to
encourage development in the front end of the U.S. nuclear fuel cycle,
in the enrichment areas of the fuel cycle?
Answer. With 104 nuclear power plants currently licensed in the
United States and the announcements by power companies for license
applications for over 30 new plants, the Department of Energy (DOE)
believes that U.S. energy security would be significantly enhanced by
private sector investment in new domestic uranium enrichment capacity.
Currently, the aging and energy-intensive gaseous diffusion plant at
Paducah, Kentucky is the Nation's only operating enrichment plant.
Three private companies, General Electric (GE), Louisiana Energy
Services (LES), and USEC Inc. (USEC) are at various stages of deploying
new U.S. enrichment plants featuring advanced technology. LES is the
furthest along with construction having started on its National
Enrichment Facility in New Mexico that will utilize gas centrifuge
technology commercially deployed by Urenco in Europe. USEC and GE are
working to demonstrate commercial viability of the American Centrifuge
and SILEX projects, respectively.
With respect to the Department working with private enrichers, DOE
and USEC signed an agreement in June 2002, whereby USEC Inc. made a
commitment to deploy an enhanced version of DOE's previously developed
gas centrifuge technology at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant
site. USEC, in order to demonstrate its American Centrifuge, is funding
a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with the DOE's Oak
Ridge National Laboratory. In December 2006, DOE and USEC signed a
long-term lease agreement for USEC to build its commercial plant at DOE
facilities at Portsmouth, Ohio. At the same time, DOE granted USEC a
patent license for DOE's gas centrifuge technology that requires USEC
to pay royalties to the U.S. Government on annual sales of enriched
uranium from centrifuge plant production. While LES and GE are pursuing
other technical approaches, DOE encourages all three companies in their
efforts to deploy reliable and competitive advanced enrichment
technology.
Question. Does the Department need any new authorities in this
regard?
Answer. Both LES and USEC are seeking to use DOE's uranium
inventories to facilitate the startup of their new enrichment
facilities. At this time, DOE does not need additional authorization to
sell or transfer uranium to a private company.
______
Questions Submitted to Hon. Alexander Karsner
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
BALANCING RENEWABLE AND EFFICIENCY FUNDING
Question. DOE has strongly backed many of the programs in your
office and the President highlighted initiatives to be pursed by the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in his State of the
Union address. This includes work on hydrogen technology, biomass and
biorefinery R&D, solar energy, and vehicle technologies. These are all
important.
However, it seems that there is much greater emphasis on targeted
renewable energy programs than other programs within your office such
as energy efficiency programs, the Weatherization Assistance Program,
and the State Energy Programs. In your opinion, do you have the right
balance between the renewable side of your office and the energy
efficiency side of your office? Why are these energy efficiency
programs not seeing the same funding increases as the renewable energy
programs are?
Answer. Yes, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
maintains a balanced portfolio that supports achievement of programs'
goals and ensures optimal use of resources.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request includes increases for many of
our energy efficiency programs. The Building Technologies Program
budget request is $9.1 million greater than the fiscal year 2007
request, the Vehicle Technologies Program budget request is $10.1
million greater than the fiscal year 2007 request and the Industrial
Technologies Program is $435,000 greater than the fiscal year 2007
request.
Many of the Department's efficiency programs have very high returns
at low cost, such as FEMP, appliance standards, energy efficiency
building codes, ``Save Energy Now'', and Energy Star rating system, to
name a few.
BALANCING RESEARCH WITH DEPLOYMENT FUNDING
Question. I recognize that money at DOE is being devoted to R&D
but, voluntary deployment and market transformation programs also are
needed to move new technologies into the marketplace, and standards and
codes are needed to set a minimum threshold for using cost-effective
technologies. By some accounts, just over 50 percent of your $1.24
billion in your fiscal year 2008 budget request is for research and
development activities. Is this an appropriate amount? What portion of
funding is being applied to renewable energy R&D and what portion to
energy efficiency R&D? What is the Department doing, beyond the basic
R&D, to transition new technologies into the marketplace on the
efficiency side?
Answer. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
maintains a balanced portfolio of programs to advance renewable power
generation, diversify transportation fuels, and promote energy
efficiency. In our fiscal year 2008 request, almost 52 percent is R&D
with the balance invested in regulation, commercialization and grant
programs. This balance is appropriate because many of the Department's
efficiency programs are lower cost programs, such as FEMP, appliance
standards, energy efficiency building codes, ``Save Energy Now'', and
Energy Star rating system, to name a few.
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
programs related to energy efficiency comprise approximately 46 percent
of the total EERE proposed fiscal year 2008 budget (including program
direction and support funds).
The Department's approach to promoting new technologies couples
technology push with market demand pull, and works to address barriers
to the market adoption of advanced technologies through various program
initiatives. For example, the Department plans to lead by example with
the Executive Order 13423 and become an early adopter of energy
efficient and renewable energy technologies. By identifying markets
where the life-cycle costs of advanced energy technologies currently
form a compelling economic argument, the Federal Government will create
demand pull which will increase the economies of scale and drive the
technologies down the cost curve. The Department is also looking to
stimulate the commercialization of advanced technologies by bridging
the gap between R&D and the market place. To this end, the Department
has designated a Director of Commercialization and Deployment, located
within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program, to oversee
and guide our deployment-related efforts. However, ultimately
commercialization decisions are up to industry.
WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Question. The Weatherization Assistance Program funding has been
cut from $242.5 million in fiscal year 2006 to $204.5 million in the
fiscal year spending plan, and the fiscal year 2008 request is for $144
million. That is a 41 percent cut from fiscal year 2006. Why is the cut
so significant? Is the Department still interested in moving the
Weatherization Assistance Program to another Federal agency?
Answer. The 2007 operating plan optimizes resources and provides
the appropriate amount of resources to support the achievement of goals
and priorities. We have chosen to prioritize investments in energy
efficiency and renewable energy R&D that have multiplicative returns
such as improvements to appliances and the building envelope that
affect the whole American population rather than additive returns not
associated with technological R&D that target a single segment of the
population. For example, the National Academy of Sciences studied the
benefits of the energy efficiency portfolio and found that the return
on the research and development (R&D) investment was roughly 20 to 1.
In contrast, the Weatherization Assistance Program has a return on
investment of 1.5 to 1.
The Department of Energy has no current proposal to move the
Weatherization Assistance Program to another Federal agency.
APPLIANCE STANDARDS
Question. As you know, DOE has been plagued for years by long
delays in issuing appliance efficiency standards. So far, you seem to
be meeting the aggressive schedule you set last year for getting the
required standards out, and I am pleased that you asked for additional
funds. However, a recent GAO report said additional changes are needed
in the program, and I am concerned that recent proposed standards have
been weak and are not using the tremendous potential of this program to
address our energy needs.
The GAO report said the program faces a 600 percent increase in
workload with a 20 percent resource increase in the fiscal year 2007
budget. Have you analyzed the staffing and funding requirements to
carry through the standards plan, and can you share that with us?
Answer. Yes, the Department has conducted a thorough assessment of
resource needs for the efficiency standards program. On January 31,
2006, the Department submitted an aggressive plan to Congress,
addressing both the history and the future plans for the Appliance
Standards Program. That plan does in fact commit to a rulemaking
schedule that is six times the historical rulemaking rate for this
program. The actions detailed in that plan are expected to dramatically
increase the efficiency of the process and the output rate. In addition
in our fiscal year 2007 operating plan, we have directed resources
necessary to improve the program. Early improvements in the program are
evidenced by the timely issuance of final test procedures for various
products and final standards for commercial products, as set out in the
plan DOE provided to Congress. . Changes in our process include
implementing product bundling within a single rulemaking and organizing
staff into seven technology teams.
Since committing to this schedule for the standards program, the
Department has met 100 percent of its scheduled deadlines. We have
completed eight rulemakings since EPACT 2005, including test procedure
rulemakings and codification of prescribed standards, and have made
significant progress on others that were underway prior to EPACT 2005.
In 2006, we initiated standards rulemaking for 12 additional products
and remain on schedule for all future deadlines.
Question. Some of the largest possible savings, for example from
standards on furnace fans and refrigerators, are not included in the
plan, and thus will not be considered for at least 5 years. Can you
tell us how much additional resources you would need to begin work on
the most important standards now?
Answer. You correctly note that the plan did not include provisions
for new refrigerator and furnace fan efficiency standards. Current
statutory requirements for refrigerator standards have been met and
refrigerators of today consume approximately 70 percent less energy
than they did in the early 1970s. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave
DOE the authority to set standards for furnace fans but did not specify
a statutory deadline. The plan provided to Congress is focused on
implementing all statutorily required rulemakings, which are numerous.
We continue to evaluate our published schedule for opportunities to
accelerate and expand to additional products, such as furnace fans,
while staying on schedule.
Question. DOE has rejected some recent suggested standards because
they were not deemed consistent with current law. Do you need any
additional legal authority to issue standards that make the most sense
for consumers?
Answer. In February, Secretary Bodman sent legislation to Congress
requesting authorization to streamline the standards process and bring
more efficient products to market sooner. This fast-track legislative
proposal would allow the Department to move directly to a Final Rule
for certain products when a clear consensus for a standard exists among
manufacturers, efficiency advocates, and other stakeholders. By using
this process, we would be able to promulgate an energy efficiency
standard directly when all relevant interests jointly have negotiated
and submitted an agreed proposed standard that meets all statutory
criteria. In some cases, directly issuing a final rule would shorten
the time to a completed standard by nearly a third and shave months off
the rulemaking process. To be clear, if the Department determines that
a consensus does not exist, this proposal would not preclude
rulemaking; it would simply require the Department to use the
traditional three-stage process.
Other pending legislative proposals would fix various problems with
the existing statute, provide DOE with needed flexibility in some
areas, establish statutory efficiency standards for several products,
and mandate DOE to develop standards for other products. We are hopeful
that constructive legislation in this area will be enacted before the
end of this year.
BUILDING CODES
Question. A small DOE program to assist States in setting and
achieving compliance with their building energy codes leverages a few
million dollars to improve the efficiency of every new building in much
of the country. It has been rated the most cost-effective of all DOE
programs assisting States. Yet the proposed fiscal year 2008 budget
request would cut it.
Several studies have shown we are wasting huge amounts of energy
because of poor compliance with codes. EPACT 2005 authorized a program
to help States improve compliance. With so much building occurring
around the country, wouldn't this be a good time to add a little
funding to help make sure these buildings are up to code?
Answer. Yes, we are currently restarting and reinvigorating the
codes program under the fiscal year 2007 Continuing Resolution which
provided approximately $2 million to the State building energy codes
activities. The fiscal year 2008 request is $3.8 million. The
Department has effectively provided technical assistance and training
through the Building Energy Code Program website,
(www.energycodes.gov), technical support, web-based training, stand-up
training, webcasts, and Setting the Standard newsletter. Efficient use
of funds allows the Department to continue to provide assistance to
improve compliance to national, regional, and State building code
officials and stakeholders. For example, there are over 3 million hits
a month on the Department's www.energycodes.gov website and some 6,000
residential code compliance tools are downloaded monthly by designers,
builders and code officials. The Department trains approximately 2,000
code officials, designers, and builders to implement these codes and
updates and improves the core materials and code compliance software to
reflect recent changes in the model energy codes and emerging energy
efficiency technologies.
FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Question. I understand that you are big supporter of improving
energy efficiency in Federal facilities. I am concerned about the
ability of your office to sufficiently train, educate, and support
other agencies of the Federal Government related to the Federal Energy
Management Program (FEMP). In January, President Bush signed an
Executive Order with new and updated energy savings targets and other
requirements. Yet the proposed budget would cut the Federal Energy
Management Program, which leads the Government-wide effort to save
energy, by another 12 percent.
What is DOE's role in implementing the new Executive Order? What
funding is provided in the budget for this purpose?
Wouldn't additional funding for FEMP save the Federal Government
more money than it would cost by reducing energy waste?
Answer. The Department's role is to provide specific and
authoritative guidance to Federal agencies on the provisions of the
Executive Order and to support agency efforts to meet the goals through
assistance with third party financing and design assistance. Virtually
all of FEMP's fiscal year 2008 budget request of $16.8 million will be
used for the implementation of the Executive Order and associated
statutory requirements in some way.
The private sector will be the most important funding source for
saving energy at Federal agencies. FEMP's third party financing
activities, in conjunction with the private sector, can potentially
fund projects needed to meet the Executive Order goals.
PUBLIC EDUCATION
Question. Public education is the quickest way to reduce energy use
and address current energy prices and supply-demand imbalance. Yet
there is almost no money for public education on energy efficiency in
the budget, despite a $90 million authorization in EPACT 2005.
How much funding would be available for proactive energy-efficiency
public education programs under this budget? Where is that funding in
the budget?
What is your plan for using those funds, including plans for
partnering or contracting with other organizations?
Answer. Within our fiscal year 2008 budget request, we include $4.9
million in funding to support public information activities within our
Program Support budget line and within each program's budget.
The funding supports a range of activities and programs including
websites, Energy Saver fact sheets, development of publications, the
EnergyStar program, and the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Information Center. In the past we have partnered with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Alliance to Save Energy,
retailers and utilities to promote energy efficiency through public
awareness campaigns such as ``Powerful Savings,'' ``Easy Ways to Save
Energy'' and the ``Power Is In Your Hands.'' We have also collaborated
with EPA and retailers to promote EnergyStar qualified products through
the EnergyStar program. The 2008 budget supports our partnerships with
business and non-governmental organizations to help leverage funding to
promote education on energy efficient technologies and products as well
as alternative sources of energy and fuel.
OIL SAVINGS
Question. In the State of the Union address, President Bush called
for reducing our gasoline use by 20 percent in 10 years. This budget
increases some budget areas important to that goal, such as DOE's
Biomass program, but decreases others, including DOE's Vehicle
Technologies program.
If we are serious about addressing our ``addiction'' to oil, don't
you think we need to invest more in vehicle efficiency as well as in
new fuels, and in improving trucks and buses as well as cars?
Answer. The Department's balanced portfolio of investments
addressing both efficiency improvements and alternative energy sources
outlined in the 2008 budget optimizes the use of resources and supports
the achievement of stated goals. The 2008 Budget for the Vehicle
Technologies Program is approximately $10 million above the 2007
request. Most of the increase is to support the development of plug-in
hybrid technologies, which show great promise of increasing light duty
vehicle fuel economy.
Question. The president's goal assumes a 4 percent annual fuel
economy improvement in new cars and light trucks, but the light truck
fuel economy standards issued so far only increase by 2 percent a year.
What will change to get a 4 percent increase in the future? Do we need
more research to support this goal?
Answer. The President's goal to reduce gasoline consumption is
ambitious and would require the use of more advanced fuel economy
technologies in the new vehicle fleet. The Department believes that
accelerated consumer adoption of hybrid and plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles and advance combustion engines offers the potential to
significantly reduce oil consumption in the near-term. However, any
requirements to improve new car and light truck fuel economy would also
have to be technologically feasible, economically practicable, and
ensure that vehicle safety is not compromised.
The Department of Energy's role in this effort is to accelerate
advanced technology vehicles including through significant new
investments in advanced batteries for hybrid and plug-in hybrid
electric vehicle applications. Also, the Department is continuing
research and development of advanced combustion engines to address the
technical barriers to the commercialization of more efficient advanced
internal combustion engines. Specific goals for combustion research are
to improve, by 2012, the efficiency of internal combustion engines from
30 percent to 45 percent for light-duty applications while meeting
cost, durability, and emissions constraints.
EPACT 2005 AND GEOTHERMAL PROGRAMS
Question. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides specific
directives for DOE's renewable energy research efforts. In general, the
overall approach is spelled out in section 931, which states: (a)(1)
OBJECTIVES.--The Secretary shall conduct programs of renewable energy
research, development, demonstration, and commercial application,
including activities described in this subtitle. Such programs shall
take into consideration the following objectives: (A) Increasing the
conversion efficiency of all forms of renewable energy through improved
technologies. (B) Decreasing the cost of renewable energy generation
and delivery. (C) Promoting the diversity of the energy supply. (D)
Decreasing the dependence of the United States on foreign energy
supplies. (E) Improving United States energy security. (F) Decreasing
the environmental impact of energy-related activities. (G) Increasing
the export of renewable generation equipment from the United States.
Subsection (c) of this section of EPAct specifically provides
direction for geothermal energy research. It states:
GEOTHERMAL.--The Secretary shall conduct a program of research,
development, demonstration, and commercial application for geothermal
energy. The program shall focus on developing improved technologies for
reducing the costs of geothermal energy installations, including
technologies for: (i) improving detection of geothermal resources; (ii)
decreasing drilling costs; (iii) decreasing maintenance costs through
improved materials; (iv) increasing the potential for other revenue
sources, such as mineral production; and (v) increasing the
understanding of reservoir life cycle and management.
For the fiscal year 2007 Spending Plan and the fiscal year 2008
budget request, how do the Department's decisions in each of those
documents with respect to the geothermal energy research and
development program comport with the statutory direction provided by
Congress in section 931 of Public Law 109-58?
Answer. Since the 1970s, the Department of Energy has conducted a
research and development program in geothermal technology valued in
excess of $1.3 billion. That investment has helped to produce the
strong market for geothermal energy we see today. In fiscal year 2007
and fiscal year 2008, the Department requested zero funds for the
Geothermal Program because the program has achieved key research
objectives for conventional hydrothermal technology development and
there are substantial incentives that support the near-term development
of the technology and deployment of the geothermal resource base.
Consequently, power production from high-temperature, shallow resources
is now a relatively mature technology. Projects under construction, or
which have both power purchase agreements and are undergoing production
drilling, amount to 489 megawatts in eight Western States. The fiscal
year 2007 operating plan for the Department included $5 million to
support geothermal power co-produced with oil and gas demonstration
efforts, for an evaluation of enhanced geothermal systems to help
industry prioritize its technology needs, and to bring to completion
selected projects on exploration, drilling, and/or conversion
technologies. In addition, some fiscal year 2006 unspent or uncosted
funds will also be used to conclude research projects on exploration,
drilling, and/or conversion technologies.
GEOTHERMAL PROGRAM AND THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS
Question. The administration's repeated efforts to close down and
defund the geothermal research program also appears to contradict the
recommendations of the last external review of the Department of
Energy's renewable programs, the 2000 report of the National Research
Council entitled Renewable Power Pathways. That National Research
Council's examination of the geothermal program states in clear terms
the importance of the program, and the recommendation that it continue
to be funded: ``In light of the significant advantages of geothermal
energy as a resource for power generation, it may be undervalued in
DOE's renewable energy portfolio.''
Does the Department agree with the National Research Council that
the U.S. geothermal resource base holds significant potential to
contribute to national energy needs?
What actions did the Department take to implement the
recommendations made by the National Research Council in 2000?
Has the Department had further communications with the National
Research Council about its assessment and any follow-up by the
Department?
Answer. Yes, the U.S. geothermal resource base is large, and can
contribute to diversification of our national energy portfolio through
increased private sector development. DOE's Geothermal Program has
achieved its key research objectives for conventional geothermal
resources. There are substantial incentives that support development of
the geothermal resource base without further investment in R&D. The
fiscal year 2007 operating plan for the Department included $5 million
to support geothermal power co-produced with oil and gas demonstration
efforts, for an evaluation of enhanced geothermal systems to help
industry prioritize its technology needs, and to bring to completion
selected projects on exploration, drilling, and/or conversion
technologies. In addition, some fiscal year 2006 unspent or uncosted
funds will also be used to conclude research projects on exploration,
drilling, and/or conversion technologies.
Since 2000, the Department has taken actions to implement all 10
recommendations made by the National Research Council. These actions
include new or expanded research initiatives, technology demonstration
projects, increased collaboration with other agencies, and improved
international cooperation.
The Geothermal Program has not had any further communication with
the National Research Council; however the Department has continued to
work with the National Research Council in other areas of renewable
energy.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
GEOTHERMAL TERMINATION
Question. The President's budget for fiscal year 2008 proposes to
eliminate funding for geothermal energy research. Based on reports by
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, the Geothermal Energy Association estimates
that, with a relatively small amount of research funding, geothermal
energy can meet up to 20 percent of U.S. power needs by 2030. Please
answer the following questions:
Given the critical need to develop low-carbon electricity
generation technologies, why does the DOE propose to stop conducting
research into geothermal energy?
Answer. The Department's geothermal program has achieved its key
research objectives and there are substantial incentives that support
the near-term development of the technology and deployment of the
geothermal resource base. Geothermal power production from high-
temperature, shallow resources is now a relatively mature energy
technology. Projects under construction, or which have both Power
Purchase Agreements and are undergoing production drilling, amount to
489 megawatts in eight Western States. The Western Governors
Association geothermal task force recently identified over 100 sites
with an estimated 13,000 megawatts of near-term power development
potential.
WIND AND SOLAR PRODUCTION COSTS
Question. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has
released a report suggesting that, for less than the cost of a single
clean-coal power plant, the United States could conduct the research
needed to enable production of up to 100 GWe of low carbon energy from
enhanced geothermal systems by 2050. How much would it cost for EERE
research programs to enable production of 100 GWe of energy from wind
and solar sources by 2050?
Answer. The primary factors contributing to production of 100 GWe
of wind and solar energy are no longer exclusively or even
substantially driven by government funded research projects. The rate
at which potential capacity is converted to productive projects will
depend on the amount and type of private capital investments in
projects, and on the durability and scope of policy incentives. The
goal of the Wind Program and Solar Program is to enable these renewable
energy technologies to compete with conventional electricity throughout
the Nation by helping to reduce costs. Under the President's Solar
America Initiative, the goal is to improve the performance and reduce
the cost of solar energy systems to make photovoltaics cost-competitive
with conventional electricity sources by 2015. The President's fiscal
year 2008 budget request of $40 million for wind and $148 million for
solar contributes to these goals being met. Also, the Department's
investment in technology development of next-generation systems may
help enable solar companies to invest more private capital in scaling
up manufacturing, as well as accelerate cost reductions to help
increase demand for solar as it reaches cost-competitiveness in more
markets.
If the research goals are met, DOE estimates 177 GW of wind power
and 190 GW of solar power by 2050. These estimates are in accordance
with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) analysis that
accompanies the President's budget.
ENHANCED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS
Question. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) report
only considers the potential to tap geothermal energy from putative
``Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS).'' What is the additional untapped
capacity of more conventional geothermal technologies? How much of this
capacity could be tapped by 2030 with sustained investment of $50-$100
million per year? By 2050?
Answer. Currently, conventional geothermal production is
approximately 3,000 MWe. A recent Western Governor's Association report
indicates that there is potential for up to 5,600 MWe by 2015.
The rate at which potential capacity is converted to productive
projects will largely depend on the amount and type of private capital
investments in projects.
Question. In the Energy Policy Act (EPACT), the Secretary of Energy
was instructed to ``promulgate regulations which describe in detail
methods for calculating and verifying energy and power consumption and
cost, based on the provisions of the 2005 California Non-Residential
ACM manual.'' Please answer the following questions:
What is the DOE's progress towards this goal?
Can DOE provide a detailed comparison between proposed regulations
and the California Non-Residential ACM manual, with justification for
deviations? If not, how much additional funding is needed to complete
this effort?
If such funding were provided, when would these new regulations be
issued?
Answer. EPACT section 1331 directs the Secretary of the Treasury,
in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to promulgate methods of
calculation for energy consumption and cost. On June 26, 2006, the
Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
issued Notice 2006-52, Deduction for Energy Efficient Commercial
Buildings, that set interim guidance relating to the deduction for
energy efficient commercial buildings under 179D of the Internal
Revenue Code. The Department of Energy provided technical guidance for
the Notice. It is my understanding that Treasury elected to adopt the
provisions of the California ACM manual that do not conflict with
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2001.
At this time, the IRS has only promulgated interim guidance in
advance of proposed regulations. The justification for any potential
deviation from the California manual and proposed Federal rules would
rest with the Department of Treasury.
At this time, I am not able to provide an answer as to when the
Department of Treasury might request funding for this rule nor when
Treasury might promulgate a proposed rule.
Question. Can DOE provide similar updates for progress towards all
other energy efficiency regulatory requirements of the Energy Policy
Act (EPACT)?
Answer. I am pleased to report progress on a number of energy
efficiency requirements of EPAct. On January 31, 2006, the Department
submitted a report to Congress on its standards activities prepared in
response to section 141 of EPACT 2005. The report publicly laid out our
action plan and schedule for rulemakings out to the year 2011. Since
committing to this schedule for the standards program, the Department
has met 100 percent of its targets. We have completed eight rulemakings
since EPACT 2005, including test procedure rulemakings and codification
of prescribed standards, and have made significant progress on others
that were underway prior to EPACT 2005. The Department has also
established guidelines regarding the use of energy metering in Federal
buildings, as outlined in section 103. A standard for premium efficient
electric motors was published in the Federal Register on August 18,
2006, per section 104. The section 109 requirement for a determination
on whether the revised ASHRAE (American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers) code requires revisions
to Federal building performance standards is on track. In addition, an
acquisition plan for an energy efficiency pilot program for states has
been completed and a procurement requirements document developed to
fulfill section 140.
GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP
Question. The Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-
NE) has given many different reasons for the need to invest in the
nuclear fuel reprocessing aspects of the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative
through the program known as the ``Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP).'' This initiative represents a significant change from long-
standing U.S. nuclear policy, but no consensus has been established and
program goals have not yet been fully vetted by an independent
authority. The President's budget requests an increase of $152 million
over fiscal year 2007 levels for this program, and an even greater
increase with respect to fiscal year 2006 levels. These increases are
much greater than the combined increases for research into all
renewable resources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biological.
Please answer the following questions:
What is the primary justification for this program? In order of
priority, what are the secondary justifications for this program?
Answer. Today, 103 nuclear reactors generate roughly 20 percent of
America's electricity. U.S. electricity demand is anticipated to grow
50 percent over the next 25 years--the equivalent of 45 to 50 one-
thousand megawatt nuclear reactors must be built just to maintain that
20 percent share. With nuclear power as the only proven base load
producer of electricity that does not emit greenhouse gases with the
ability to increase output substantially, it is vital that our current
fleet of reactors be expanded in order to meet our needs for carbon-
free, dependable and economic electric power.
Any serious effort to stabilize greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,
while providing the increasing amounts of energy needed for economic
development and growth, requires the expanded use of nuclear energy.
This will inevitably require us to address the spent fuel and
proliferation challenges that confront the expanded, global use of
nuclear energy. To meet these challenges, the Department initiated the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), a comprehensive approach to
enable an expansion of nuclear power in the United States and around
the world, promote non-proliferation goals, and help minimize the
amount of nuclear waste disposal.
Additionally, many formerly non-nuclear countries are now
considering the nuclear option to meet their energy needs. It is vital
for the United States to be able to influence the safety, security and
proliferation characteristics of nuclear reactors intended for these
emerging nuclear states, as well as position U.S. industry for
leadership in this growing international market. Together with the
assurance of reliable fuel services, GNEP provides an attractive energy
solution for many countries that could serve to eliminate the need for
them to develop the more proliferation-vulnerable parts of the nuclear
fuel cycle. Coupled with the spent fuel recycling and actinide burning
technologies of GNEP, the United States has the potential to meet its
growing energy demands and those of developing countries in a manner
that minimizes potential negative impact to the United States and the
world.
Question. The GNEP implementation plan calls for rapid construction
of demonstration facilities for nuclear fuel reprocessing. Can you
provide a consensus statement from our international partners
describing what their contribution will be and what their requested
contribution from the United States is?
If such a consensus is not available, then what level of funding is
needed to establish the needed international consensus prior to
building new facilities on U.S. soil? Please justify.
Answer. Discussions are currently in progress with several of our
international partners to help define the parameters of and potential
deployment strategies for the GNEP facilities. Those discussions are
not yet at the point where a consensus on the amount of cost sharing,
or if cost share at all, could be established. At this time, given the
undefined technical, political, financial, and strategic aspects of
GNEP, it is not possible to pursue quantitative discussions with our
partners. Likewise, those same undefined factors render it impractical
to make a reasonable estimate of the level of funding required to
establish an international consensus prior to constructing the GNEP
facilities in the United States. When GNEP has developed sufficiently
to develop those estimates, the Department would be able to provide
them.
Question. In his statement, Assistant Secretary Spurgeon stated
that ``Any serious effort to stabilize greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere, while providing the increasing amounts of energy needed for
economic development and growth, requires the expanded use of nuclear
energy''. No further documentation was provided to support this
conclusion. Can DOE provide a comparison of the complete lifecycle
costs to produce nuclear energy and safely manage nuclear waste as
compared to producing a comparable amount of energy from renewable
energy resources? If such a comparison cannot be provided, then please
provide scientific, peer-reviewed support for this statement.
Answer. A recent study by the European Commission (``External
Costs--Research results on socio-environmental damages due to
electricity and transport,'' European Commission, 2003, p. 12, [http://
ec.europa.eu/research/energy/pdf/externe_en.pdf]) states, ``Nuclear
power in general generates low external costs, although the very low
probability of accidents with very high consequences and the fuel cycle
impacts are included. It is also a technology with very [lifecycle] low
greenhouse gas emissions.'' On page 13 of the report, a table shows
that nuclear power's external costs are on a par with renewables. While
this study considered European experiences, it is expected the
situation in the United States would not differ significantly.
Other reports may contradict this. What can be said is that there
is currently in operation no clean, base-load, fossil-fuel power-
generation technology; solar and wind power have great potential in
their limited ranges of operations; hydroelectric is essentially fully
subscribed; and that leaves nuclear power. Nuclear power now provides
over two-thirds of our Nation's non-emitting electricity while
renewables, primarily hydropower, account for the rest. Until such time
as we can efficiently store the power produced by wind and solar power,
they will continue to augment but cannot replace base-load power
generation. Nuclear power is the only non-emitting technology that is
ready today to be deployed in quantities sufficient to meet our growing
demand for electricity.
FOSSIL ENERGY
Question. The Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy (DOE-
FE) has proposed extensive new investments in coal energy, yet proposes
cuts in funding for oil and gas research. Acting Assistant Secretary
Shope justifies this change with an argument that can be summarized as,
``because coal is a critical domestic energy resource today, it will
continue to be so in the future.'' This may happen, but continued
innovation may well replace coal with improved new technologies. Coal
is a valuable energy resource over the near-term, but its long-term
future is still uncertain. Please answer the following questions:
A recent study by the Climate Group indicates that the global
market for biofuels, wind power, solar photovoltaic, and fuel cells
will be $167 billion by 2015; with $523 million of venture capital
invested in these technologies in California in 2005. What is the
comparable global market for clean coal technologies? How will
continued investment in coal research and development improve American
competitiveness in a global, carbon-constrained economy? How does the
return on investment for coal compare to that for other technologies?
Answer. Recent estimates indicate large markets for clean coal
technologies through the near-term and continuing out to 2030. The
International Energy Agency (IEA) World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2006
projects that coal will remain the dominant source of electricity to
2030 in both scenarios investigated (a reference scenario and an
alternate scenario that significantly reduces the rate of increase in
demand and emissions). Coal-based power generation in 2030 will be at
least 60 percent higher than today, remaining the world's largest
source of electricity in 2030. Investment in electricity generation is
expected to exceed $5.2 trillion cumulatively by 2030, resulting in
more than 5000 GW of new capacity. Over 144 GW of integrated
gasification combined cycle (IGCC) capacity is expected over that
timeframe. Assuming a conservative capital cost of $1,000 per kilowatt
for new coal plants, this equates to roughly a $150 billion market for
the expected new IGCC plants alone.
With the increased demand for coal, R&D investments in clean coal
technology development aimed at near-zero emissions, while improving
its efficient use, could help coal remain a competitive and
environmentally-sound energy option for future generations of power
plants, as well as for production of alternative fuels. As energy
demand rises, coal will continue to compete by deploying new systems
and innovative technologies that will keep it, and the existing fleet
of coal-fueled generating stations, viable well into the future.
We will continue to rely on all forms of energy sources to meet the
growing energy needs. Coal will continue to be relied upon for baseload
power generation. Continued investment in coal R&D (including low cost
carbon capture and storage) will help produce clean, economical, and
efficient coal-based power plants to keep the United States at a
competitive advantage and poised to take advantage of global
opportunities even in a carbon-constrained scenario. Meeting future
global energy needs will require the introduction of a variety of
technologies to meet growing electricity demands with stringent
emission regulations. Coal will remain in the near-term and beyond.
Question. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has recently
completed a series of studies indicating that only 10-20 percent of
total U.S. coal resources may be economically recoverable. How does
this compare with prior estimates by the Department of Energy? If the
USGS estimates are correct, to what extent does this limit the
capability of coal to power America's future?
Answer. The Department of Energy's coal resource estimates are all
based on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data. It is our understanding
that USGS has not completed any full basin studies that validate the
findings of the several local studies referred to. We look forward to
reviewing the systematic inventory of the U.S. coal reserve base
currently underway by the USGS, once it is available. The coal resource
in the United States is vast; estimated to be 4,000 to 9,600 billion
tons. Current usage is about 1 billion tons/year. Coal will be able to
power America for the foreseeable future.
Question. Energy experts at the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI) have suggested that the technology to separate carbon dioxide
from the emissions of coal fired utilities is ready for commercial
demonstration, and that the biggest challenge is demonstrating the
ability to safely sequester carbon dioxide. Is this true? If so, then
why does the proposed fiscal year 2008 budget direct significantly more
funding to research into coal combustion and carbon dioxide separation
than to research into carbon sequestration?
Please provide a comparison between total requested funding for
carbon sequestration, and that for coal combustion and carbon capture.
Answer. The emphasis of the funding for Carbon Sequestration
(capture and storage) remains focused on the storage component of
sequestration, including CO2 field injection tests. However,
cost and efficiency penalties of existing capture technologies remain a
challenge in terms of affordability and net plant output impacts. While
certain post-combustion CO2 capture technologies, such as
amine-based systems, could be ready for commercial demonstration in the
next several years, several other advanced systems are only at the
laboratory, bench-, and pilot-scale stage of development. Because of
differences in plant age, size, configuration, and other site-specific
factors, it is expected that a suite of CO2 capture
technologies will be employed by electric utilities in order to achieve
significant reductions in emissions from coal-based power plants
without significantly increasing the cost of electricity.
The Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that based on current
amine scrubbing technology, the removal of CO2 from the flue
gas of an existing coal-fired power plant would constitute as much as
90 percent of the total cost of carbon capture, transport, and storage.
Hence, the criticality of continued research and development of
CO2 capture technologies. DOE's coal program targets
improved performance and cost savings based on a system-wide approach
that targets the most effective avenues for advancing carbon capture
and storage technology. DOE conducts R&D on technologies that will
enable carbon capture and storage in the following program areas:
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, Turbines, Sequestration, Fuels,
Fuel Cells, and Advanced Research.
The DOE Carbon Sequestration Program aims to develop technologies
that will lower both the cost of the carbon capture technology, but
also the amount of additional power capacity required due to efficiency
loses. It is the goal of the Program, by 2012, to develop technologies
resulting in less than a 20 percent increase in the cost of electricity
for post-combustion capture and oxycombustion technologies. Pre-
combustion (integrated gasification combined cycle related)
technologies are targeting less than a 10 percent increase in the cost
of electricity. Of the approximately $86 million requested for the
Carbon Sequestration Program (including roughly $7 million of R&D by
Federal employees under the Program Direction line item), about $15
million (or about 18 percent) is intended to be used for carbon capture
technology research. These technologies are based on application to
both coal combustion and gasification systems.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
EPACT AND EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS
Question. Mr. Karsner, you have recognized energy efficiency as a
critical response to the Nation's energy challenges, but the budget
proposed by the President does not. Funding for the President's
Advanced Energy Initiative programs is coming mostly from cuts in
efficiency programs. Given that efficiency is the Nation's fastest and
most abundant clean energy resource, how can you justify a budget that
continues to cut research, development, and deployment in this
strategically critical area? Do you believe that the funding for
energy-efficiency programs in the budget match the Nation's need for
saving energy? What would be the impacts of the proposed budget cuts,
including for industrial and vehicles R&D, and for weatherization
assistance?
Answer. The fiscal year 2008 budget adequately funds a balanced
portfolio of activities at levels that support achievement of programs'
goals. It is important to note that the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE) programs related to energy efficiency comprise
approximately 46 percent of the total EERE proposed fiscal year 2008
budget (including program direction and support funds). For example,
the Building Technologies Program budget request is $9.1 million
greater than the fiscal year 2007 request and the Vehicle Technologies
Program budget request is $10.1 million greater than the fiscal year
2007 request and the Industrial Technologies Program is $435,000
greater than the fiscal year 2007 request.
EERE maintains a balanced portfolio that uses an integrated
strategy of energy efficiency and renewable energy to increase our
energy security and reduce our dependence on oil. The 2008 budget
request optimizes resource use and appropriately funds all energy
efficiency programs to support achievement of stated goals.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request includes funding increases for
both the Industrial Technologies Program and the Vehicle Technologies
Program. In general we have chosen to prioritize investments in energy
efficiency and renewable energy R&D that have multiplicative returns
such as improvements to appliances and the building envelope that
affect the whole American population rather than additive returns not
associated with technological R&D that target a single segment of the
population. For example, the National Academy of Sciences studied the
benefits of the energy efficiency portfolio and found that the return
on the research and development (R&D) investment was roughly 20 to 1.
In contrast, the Weatherization Assistance Program has a return on
investment of 1.5 to 1.
Question. Mr. Karsner, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005)
authorized a number of new energy-efficiency programs on public
education, utility efficiency programs, building codes, appliance
rebates, and other areas. Are any new energy-efficiency programs
authorized in EPACT funded in the proposed budget? Does this budget
allow you sufficient funding to implement the energy bill, including
the added requirements on the appliance standards, Federal energy
management, and Energy Star programs?
Answer. Yes, we are implementing numerous energy efficiency
programs authorized by EPACT 2005. Here are some selected examples. The
fiscal year 2008 requests funds for the establishment of new
EnergyStar qualification levels for clothes washers, as directed in
EPACT section 131; the issuance of grants to establish Advanced Energy
Efficiency Technology Transfer Centers as directed in EPACT section
917; reporting on the establishment of a program to inform the public
on various aspects of energy efficiency as directed in section 134 and
developing the next generation of low-emission, high efficiency diesel
engine technologies as directed in section 754. We have also requested
funds under section 140 to provide financial assistance to States to
carry out energy efficiency pilot programs.
Yes, the fiscal year 2008 budget request includes adequate funding
for a balanced portfolio that supports achievement of goals, including
sufficient funding for appliance standards, Federal energy management
and EnergyStar.
WEATHERIZATION FUNDING DECREASE
Question. Mr. Karsner, I led a bipartisan letter to Secretary
Bodman supporting the fiscal year 2007 funding level of $242.5 million
for Weatherization. You chose to cut that program to $204.5 million,
and in recent House testimony I think you referred to Weatherization as
a ``welfare program.'' As you know, in the fiscal year 2007
Supplemental Appropriations bill passed by the Senate, we included an
additional $25 million for Weatherization. Weatherization provides
almost 25 percent in energy savings for every house we improve, and
well over 100,000 homes were done this past year. It is clearly a
successful deployment program that helps lower-income homeowners and
neighborhoods today. It is not a welfare program, it is an energy
program. With the administration's support and focus on reducing energy
demands, why wouldn't you also strongly support Weatherization?
Answer. The 2008 budget optimizes resources and adequately supports
the achievement of the program's goals and priorities. We have chosen
to prioritize investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy R&D
that have multiplicative returns such as improvements to appliances and
the building envelope that affect the whole American population rather
than additive returns not associated with technological R&D that target
a single segment of the population. The National Academy of Sciences
studied the benefits of the energy efficiency portfolio and found that
the return on the research and development (R&D) investment was roughly
20 to 1. In contrast, the Weatherization Assistance Program has a
return on investment of 1.5 to 1.
INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FUNDING DECREASE
Question. Mr. Karsner, the industrial energy efficiency program has
been slashed from well over $100 million just a few years ago to
approximately $50 million in fiscal year 2007. The fiscal year 2008
budget request would further reduce this effort. With over one-third of
our energy use in this sector, what is the justification for this cut?
Answer. The fiscal year 2008 request for the Industrial
Technologies Program (ITP) is $435,000 higher than the fiscal year 2007
request. Also, under the discretion given to the Department by Congress
under the fiscal year 2007 Continuing Resolution, this program was
increased by $11 million. ITP has historically worked with the eight
most energy-intensive manufacturing industries to research, develop,
and implement advanced technologies that save energy, reduce costs, and
improve environmental performance. These activities have contributed to
significant reduction in energy use. As the program evolves, we are
seeking more effective and efficient ways to develop technologies that
are high impact and applicable to multiple industries. ITP has
developed a new strategy with more emphasis on crosscutting R&D which
will allow ITP to continue partnership with end-user industries while
broadening industry participation to include other growth industries
and technology developers.
MATERIALS MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL MATERIALS
Question. Mr. Karsner, in fiscal year 2006, research and
development for the materials manufacturing industry was $21 million.
There is only $9 million in your budget for fiscal year 2008, a 55
percent cut, and research and development for industrial materials is
slashed by 57 percent to $5 million. These low numbers reflect a
decision to back away from development of key new technologies that
could significantly strengthen our manufacturing global competitiveness
while reducing carbon emissions in a sector that consumes more energy
than any other sector of the economy. Materials manufacturers co-fund
this research and development effort and outlined a program in the
range of $250 million to support the development of the next generation
of production process technologies needed by their industries to be
able to dramatically reduce their energy use per unit of output, cut
carbon emissions, and compete globally. What is the rationale for
cutting back investment in research and technology in materials
manufacturing and industrial materials?
Answer. The Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) has invested
approximately $21 million in fiscal year 2006 through the Industries of
the Future on technology development, focusing on industry-specific
research needs. However, ITP is seeking more effective and efficient
ways to develop technologies that have higher impacts and are
applicable to multiple industries. ITP has developed a new strategy
with more emphasis on crosscutting R&D which will minimize duplicative
efforts and allow ITP to develop technologies meeting the needs of
multiple industries. This approach will also accelerate technology
development with broader industry participation to include other growth
industries and technology developers. Materials manufacturing R&D will
continue to play an important part of this program.
``SAVE ENERGY NOW'' CAMPAIGN
Question. Mr. Karsner, EERE has implemented the ``Save Energy Now''
campaign to audit the 200 largest industrial customers/facilities in
the United States. Could you specifically detail what facilities have
been audited and most importantly, what energy measures have been
implemented in those facilities? If changes have not been implemented,
could you please explain why? Do you think funding support through the
industrial program would help on the implementation side?
Answer. As of December 31, 2006, the first 200 Energy Savings
Assessments, with the firms listed in the following pages, were
conducted. Several companies had more than one plant audited.
Approximately half a billion dollars per year in energy savings was
identified from those audits. Typical energy savings identified
consisted of 5 to 15 percent of a plant's total energy use, consistent
with a potential reduction of 3.3 million tons per year in
CO2 emissions. The audited firms are being contacted 6
months, 1 year, and 2 years after the audit to determine implementation
of these recommendations. To date, the energy measures most commonly
implemented in the plants as a result of these audits are in the areas
of process heat and steam.
It is entirely the choice of the audited company as to whether
savings recommendations are implemented and the cost-effectiveness of
the recommendations is dependent on interest rates, and equipment,
labor, materials prices, and other considerations in addition to the
energy prices. Often the purchases must wait for the next capital
acquisition cycle or the next time that the plant shuts down for
routine maintenance. Nevertheless, as of April 24, 2007, $116 million
of the potential $494 million per year of energy savings has already
been implemented or is in the process of being implemented.
The fiscal year 2008 budget funding level is appropriate and
sufficient to support achievement of the program's mission and goals.
The program is not designed to be an implementation mechanism--it is
the choice of the audited company as to whether it is worthwhile and
cost-effective to implement the audit findings. The Save Energy Now
initiative has demonstrated it can provide useful information to inform
these industry decisions.
APPLIANCE EFFICIENCY STANDARDS
Question. Mr. Karsner, DOE has been plagued for years by long
delays in issuing appliance efficiency standards. So far you seem to be
meeting the aggressive schedule you set last year for getting the
required standards out, and I am pleased that you asked for additional
funds. However, a recent GAO report said additional changes are needed
in the program, and I am concerned that recent proposed standards have
been weak and are not using the tremendous potential of this program to
address our energy needs.
The GAO report said the program faces a 600 percent increase in
workload with a 20 percent resource increase in the fiscal year 2007
budget. Have you analyzed the staffing and funding requirements to
carry through the standards plan, and can you share that with us?
Some of the largest possible savings, for example from standards on
furnace fans and refrigerators, are not included in the plan, and thus
will not be considered for at least 5 years. Can you tell us how much
additional resources you would need to begin work on the most important
standards now? DOE has rejected some recent suggested standards because
they were not deemed consistent with current law. Do you need any
additional legal authority to issue standards that make the most sense
for the American people?
Answer. Yes, the Department has conducted a thorough assessment of
resource needs for the efficiency standards program. On January 31,
2006, the Department submitted an aggressive plan to Congress,
addressing both the history and future plans for the Appliance
Standards Program. That plan does in fact commit to a rulemaking
schedule that is six times the historical rulemaking rate for this
program. The actions detailed in that plan will dramatically increase
the efficiency of the process and the output rate. In addition, in the
2007 operating plan and 2008 budget, the Department directed resources
to support these efforts. Changes in our process include implementing
product bundling within a single rulemaking and organizing staff into
seven technology teams.
Since committing to this schedule for the standards program, the
Department has met 100 percent of its scheduled deadlines. We have
completed eight rulemakings since EPACT 2005, including test procedure
rulemakings and codification of prescribed standards, and have made
significant progress on others that were underway prior to EPACT 2005.
In 2006, we initiated standards rulemaking for 12 additional products
and remain on schedule for all future deadlines.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
LOAN GUARANTEE REGULATIONS
Question. I understand that the Department sent its proposed draft
regulations at the end of March to OMB for approval. It has been nearly
3 weeks without any action.
Based on the delays in approving the regulations, will you be able
to meet the August deadline for the implementation of regulations as
established in the Joint Funding Resolution?
Answer. The Department is working to meet the August 2007 deadline
contained in the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007,
Public Law 110-5. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the
Federal Register on May 16, 2007 and is open for public comment until
July 2, 2007. It is not possible to guarantee that the rule will be
completed by the August deadline but an aggressive effort is underway
to make that happen.
LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAMS (TITLE 17 OF EPACT)
Question. The Export-Import Bank of the United States is planning
to provide over $18 billion in new loan guarantees in fiscal year 2008,
more than double the level proposed for the Department of Energy. A
portion of these loan guarantees will be for new advanced technology
power generation facilities being built overseas.
Can you explain why the administration has such a difficult time in
providing adequate loan authority to implement a no-cost loan guarantee
program at the similar level as we support foreign economic development
under the Export-Import Bank program?
Answer. The nature of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 Title XVII loan
guarantee program is unique among other Federal loan guarantee programs
in that it encourages the employment of new or significantly improved
and innovative technologies to reduce or sequester pollutants or
greenhouse gas emissions, while at the same time requiring a
``reasonable prospect of repayment.'' Other programs are primarily
concerned with commercial market risk. To manage the inherent risks of
this loan guarantee program, DOE is planning for an initial small
portfolio of projects in order to gain experience and expertise and to
ensure that the program is implemented correctly.
LOAN GUARANTEE--TECHNICAL EVALUATION AND FINANCIAL EVALUATION
Question. It is my understanding that the Department is attempting
to recruit staff that has strong project development experience to
evaluate these applications from a financial standpoint.
At the same time, the evaluations are currently undergoing a
technical evaluation by DOE staff to determine whether or not the
technology is commercially viable.
How are the evaluations proceeding and when do you expect these
evaluations to be completed?
Answer. The Department is completing a preliminary review of the
143 pre-applications submitted in response to the August 2006
solicitation and guidance has been issued to program offices to begin
the technical reviews of the pre-applications. Until the program
offices have had the opportunity to complete the technical reviews on a
sufficient number of pre-applications, the Department cannot say
precisely how long it will take to complete the evaluations.
Separately, the Loan Guarantee Office will be reviewing each pre-
application for compliance with the financial, commercial, and other
criteria set forth in the August 2006 solicitation and accompanying
guidelines. Ultimately, the goal is to complete the pre-application
evaluations this summer.
DEPLOYING NEW TECHNOLOGY
Question. Mr. Karsner, our energy sector has developed around low
cost energy technologies such as coal. We have spent decades and
billions of dollars supporting alternative energy sources such as wind
and solar, yet these technologies still only make up a small portion of
our generation mix. Tax credits have helped, but the intermittent
nature of these incentives has undermined their effectiveness.
It appears that we need to come up with a new model that will
encourage the commercial deployment of alternative energy sources
utilizing private capital. Obviously, this is something we have
attempted through the loan guarantee program, but I wonder if we need a
larger more aggressive solution in order to transform our energy
sector--similar to the Export Import Bank or Overseas Private
Investment Corporation.
I assume you have met with investors and venture capital groups
interested in deploying new technology. What is the major concern of
these groups and what can we do to encourage investment in new
alternative energy technology to get it out of the lab and into the
market?
Answer. In general, investment decisions center on maximizing the
expected return for a given level of risk. With respect to alternative
energy technology investments in particular, private sector investors
repeatedly voice at least three primary concerns: an unstable and
irregular policy environment and the negative economic incentive to
build first-of-a-kind plants.
By creating a stable and standardized policy environment with
reasonable investment incentives, the Federal Government can help to
lower risk and to increase private sector support of alternative energy
technologies.
Question. What about the deployment of high cost investments such
as nuclear power?
Answer. The principal causes of the financial risk surrounding
nuclear power are political and regulatory uncertainties. By
demonstrating the new Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing process,
codified at 10 CFR part 52, via our partnership program, Nuclear Power
2010, the political and regulatory uncertainties of nuclear power would
be significantly reduced. Further, the Department has just released a
Notice of Public Rulemaking and has not yet solicited expressions of
interest for loan guarantees by the nuclear power utilities, so it is
not clear how the industry will respond to such an offering.
Consequently, it is too early for the Department to assess whether a
more aggressive solution would be needed to encourage more nuclear
power plant construction.
BATTERY R&D
Question. Mr. Karsner, your budget for Vehicles Technology is
presented in a new format that provides fewer details about specific
research projects.
I am interested to learn what the budget provides for battery R&D.
As you are well aware the gasoline/electric hybrid car technology has
become very popular. However, batteries continue to be the greatest
technology challenge facing auto manufacturers.
How much funding has the President requested for battery research
in fiscal year 2008 and how has that changed over the past 2 years?
Answer. The fiscal year 2008 budget includes $42 million to support
advanced battery R&D, such as batteries for plug-in hybrid vehicles.
This includes work on long-life, abuse-tolerant lithium batteries and
more advanced high-power batteries along with power-control systems and
components that are optimized for plug-in hybrids. The fiscal year 2008
request for energy storage R&D is a 70 percent increase over the fiscal
year 2006 appropriations, and is level with the fiscal year 2007
operating plan.
Question. Please explain to the subcommittee what your goals are
for battery research? What can we expect in terms of performance
improvements over the next 5 years?
Answer. Energy storage research aims to reduce costs and help
overcome specific technical barriers related to performance, life, and
abuse tolerance. The current cost of high energy, plug-in hybrid
vehicle battery is $1,000/kWh; our cost goal in support of the AEI is
to reduce the cost of these batteries to $300/kWh by 2014. These
barriers are being addressed collaboratively by the DOE's technical
research teams and battery manufacturers.
SOLAR ENERGY
Question. Mr. Karsner, during the past 6 years there has been
explosive growth (+45 percent) in solar cell manufacturing worldwide.
However, the United States currently produces only about 10 percent of
the solar cells produced worldwide and has only grown by 7 percent
since 2001. The current manufacturing leaders are Japan and Europe.
Clearly there are many factors that contribute to this outcome, but
I am interested to know if the United States is behind because we lack
the technical capability or if policies being pursued in Europe and
Japan are driving this demand growth.
Answer. The capabilities in U.S. industry and at national
laboratories and universities are strong. Indeed, U.S. companies are
producing the highest-performance products in a variety of PV
technologies, including crystalline silicon, amorphous silicon, and
concentrating PV. Additionally, the leading global producer of
polysilicon feedstock is a Michigan-based subsidiary of Dow-Corning
(Hemlock Corporation).
The United States has lost market share in solar photovoltaic (PV)
manufacturing because in recent years solar companies have sited
manufacturing facilities near locations with the highest demand for the
technology. Installations have increased significantly in Japan and
Germany due to their long-term policies and incentives. Similarly, the
solar manufacturing capacity in these countries has increased steadily
as well, a fact that can be linked to the policies. For example, the
German feed-in tariff program guarantees the owner of the panel a
steady price for generated energy (that is even higher than the price
of electricity) for 20 years following the installation; this tariff
established a long-term, stable investment environment that has been
attractive to companies looking to site facilities for adding
manufacturing capacity. In addition, Germany and the European Union
have also bundled cash grants, cost savings and other incentives for
companies building new manufacturing facilities--offsetting up to 40
percent of the capital expenditure required to build a new plant--which
has resulted in U.S. companies announcing plans to site facilities in
Germany.
Question. What is the Department of Energy doing to improve the
efficiency and deployment of solar technology in the United States?
Answer. The Solar America Initiative (SAI) in February 2006 will
make solar photovoltaics (PV) cost-competitive by 2015. Achieving the
goal of the SAI will require a significant investment in reducing the
cost of PV systems. Funding in fiscal year 2007 for the Solar America
Initiative totals $159 million.
There are critical areas where the Department is focusing its
efforts to help increase efficiency, cost-effectiveness and deployment
of solar technologies. First, solar thermal concentrating solar power
plants (CSP) have the potential to contribute significantly to
electricity supply in the Southwest, home to 15 of the 20 fastest-
growing metro areas in the country. Second, by focusing on the
development of building efficiency design and technologies coupled with
distributed PV, the Department could help enable Americans nationwide
to buy new ``zero energy'' homes and to work in ``zero energy'' office
buildings--which will produce as much energy as they use.
Question. What can we expect in terms of technology or
manufacturing improvements over the next 5 years?
Answer. On March 8, 2007, under the SAI, the Department announced
the selection of 13 industry-led solar technology development projects
expected to receive up to $168 million in Federal funding over the next
3 years (subject to appropriations). These projects may ultimately help
to expand the annual U.S. manufacturing capacity of PV systems. These
projects are specifically focused on developing new photovoltaic
components or manufacturing equipment, or even complete photovoltaic
systems.
CELLULOSIC BIOMASS--REVERSE AUCTION
Question. The fiscal year 2008 budget request includes $5 million
to develop options to establish a reverse auction for biofuels as
proscribed in section 942 of EPACT. This incentive program is intended
to help make cellulosic biofuels cost competitive by 2015. It is my
understanding that the reverse auction would require DOE to solicit
bids from eligible producers. The lowest bid on a per gallon basis
would receive the incentive funding.
This is a first of a kind proposal for biofuels. Do you believe
that we are ready technologically or economically, to support this
auction?
Answer. The Department is evaluating section 942 of EPACT 2005,
which directs the establishment of a reverse auction incentive program
for the production of cellulosic biofuels. The fiscal year 2008 budget
request includes $5 million to develop background knowledge and
evaluate options for this incentive program.
IMPROVED BUILDING EFFICIENCY
Question. Mr. Karsner, the fiscal year 2008 budget requests an
increase in funding for building efficiency R&D including improvements
to window, lighting, and insulation designs. At the same time, funding
for weatherization has been reduced.
Are you able to quantify the benefits of investing in innovative
building technologies over the weatherization program? In other words,
can we save more energy by investing in building technologies R&D and
deployment as opposed to the weatherization assistance?
Answer. EERE is evaluating the potential benefits of the Building
Technologies Program and the Weatherization Assistance Program. In
addition, the National Academies of Science has indicated that the
Weatherization Program's return on investment is 1.5 to 1, compared to
an approximately 20 to 1 return on investment for the Building
Technologies Program.
CONCENTRATING SOLAR
Question. I have been very interested in the commercialization of
the concentrating solar power (CSP) technology. What is DOE's plan for
supporting this dish technology deployment in the fiscal year 2007 and
fiscal year 2008 budgets?
In the fiscal year 2006 budget, DOE provided about $3.3 million to
Sandia to support the development of a 1 MW dish engine pilot project.
Is the plan to increase that funding in fiscal year 2007 budget to
continue these efforts? If so, for how much money and when will it
become available?
Answer. The Department is working with industry on the development
of two CSP technologies: parabolic trough and dish-engine systems. The
Department is providing technical assistance to the first commercial
U.S. CSP project, a 64 MW trough system near Las Vegas, by Solargenix/
Acciona Solar Power, which is expected to become operational in May
2007. Stirling Energy Systems (SES), a dish system developer, plans to
commercialize dish technology through two projects (300 MW and 500 MW)
in California. The Department is supporting the SES effort by providing
technical assistance in improving the reliability of their Stirling
engine, and helping in the design-for-manufacture of the system. The
effort will continue through fiscal year 2008.
In fiscal year 2007, the Department is funding Sandia at the $1.5
million level to support technical assistance to SES for system
deployment. At this time, Sandia has access to the entire $1.5 million.
As I understand it, there are two solar projects targeted to start
actual construction (``hardware in the ground'') in late 2008 or early
2009. A major program to commercialize the dish engine systems for
high-volume, low-cost manufacture is underway. When the transformation
from low-volume to high-volume production of this hardware is
completed, it will pave the way for U.S.-based companies to take a very
big step into the large-scale solar market.
Question. How can the Department most effectively support the
commercial deployment of this technology in the near term in order to
realize large scale commercial deployment?
Answer. We believe our support for technical assistance to
companies pursuing trough and dish technologies as designed and funded
in the fiscal year 2008 budget is very effective. Large scale, near-
term CSP commercialization is ultimately the decision of industry and
depends on competitive Net Present Value (NPV) assessments by capital
markets, which can only be realized through life cycle cash flows.
EXISTING BIOMASS AWARDS
Question. Recipients of the alternative hydrogen production and
utilization competitive grants (No. DE-PS26-06NT42801) are telling
Congress that DOE's fiscal year 2008 budget does not includes funds for
their awards and that they need to cease work.
Can you clarify the funding commitment for this competitively
awarded program to the subcommittee and provide details on how DOE will
fund the competitively awarded grant in the future?
Answer. The fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Fuels program
is $10 million, which is a reduction of $12 million from the fiscal
year 2007 operating level. Fiscal year 2008 funding will only support
areas of research and development (R&D) that are central to the
production of hydrogen from coal. We will continue Hydrogen from Coal
Research to develop improved, novel technology for the production of
hydrogen including research in scale-up technologies which will
simultaneously produce and separate coal-derived hydrogen from the
other gas constituents in one membrane reactor. All research in high-
hydrogen content liquid fuels will be terminated because these are
mature but evolving technologies where the private sector has the
resources and incentives to conduct R&D. All research in hydrogen
utilization for mobile applications (e.g., car engines) will be
terminated because this research is conducted by the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). This research terminated within
the Office of Fossil Energy would include projects selected as a result
of Funding Opportunity Notice No. DE-PS26-06NT42801 since they are
aimed at ethanol production and mobile applications of hydrogen
utilization. Termination of this work is proceeding in an orderly
manner and contractors have been properly notified.
DEPLOYMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
Question. In a GAO report to Congress dated December 2006, it is
repeatedly stated that DOE has made steady incremental progress in
making each of the renewable energy technologies more cost competitive.
As I have mentioned in my opening statement, I am more concerned at
this point about deployment of these technologies.
What is the Department doing to take these technologies that are
more cost competitive and fully deploy them into the marketplace?
Answer. The Department's approach to promoting new technologies
couples technology push with market demand pull, and works to address
barriers to the market adoption of advanced technologies through
various program initiatives. For example, the Department plans to lead
by example with the Executive Order 13423 and become an early adopter
of energy efficient and renewable energy technologies. By identifying
markets where the life-cycle costs of advanced energy technologies
currently form a compelling economic argument, the Federal Government
will create demand pull which will increase the economies of scale and
drive the technologies down the cost curve. The Department is also
looking to stimulate the commercialization of advanced technologies by
helping to bridge the gap between R&D and the market place. To this
end, the Department has designated a Director of Commercialization and
Deployment, located within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Program, to oversee and guide our deployment-related efforts. However,
commercialization decisions are ultimately up to industry.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question. Secretary Karsner, it is my understanding that your
office is willing to consider funding for renewable energy programs
through an ``unsolicited proposal'' process. Mississippi State
University has submitted an unsolicited proposal to your office for its
Sustainable Energy Research Center (SERC), a program which was funded
in fiscal year 2006 and included in the fiscal year 2007 Senate Energy
and Water Appropriations report. What is the status of this proposal?
Will the SERC receive fiscal year 2007 funding?
Answer. On February 27, 2007 the Office of the Biomass Program
received the SERC unsolicited proposal via email. The Program responded
on March 6, 2007 by directing Mississippi State University to the
formal channels for submitting an unsolicited proposal and by inviting
them to meet with the Program. For any proposal to be considered
unsolicited, it must be unique and not covered by any current or
proposed solicitation. The Biomass Program hosted Dr. Glenn Steele and
Dr. William Batchelor at DOE on April 12, 2007 and informed them of
upcoming competitive solicitations that would be applicable to their
area of focus. We will provide a formal response to the unsolicited
proposal. Currently, the Program is in the process of preparing that
response.
The Office of Biomass Program is in the process of evaluating the
SERC proposal. The Program needs to make a determination that the
proposal is meritorious and compliant with criteria for unsolicited
proposals, and meets and supports the Program's Research, Development
and Deployment plans to be recommended for funding.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY
Question. What is being done to increase available transmission
from the often remote sites where renewable energy is produced to the
more populated areas where the electricity is needed and how are your
offices working together on that?
Answer. The transmission grid needs to be sufficiently large and
robust to accommodate the increased level of renewable energy resources
that are becoming available, as well as to meet the many other
challenges of the 21st century.
The Department is implementing the provisions of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (EPACT) to help ensure that consumers receive electricity
over a dependable, modern infrastructure. These provisions include
EPACT section 368 that requires designation of energy corridors on
Federal lands; section 1221(a) that requires a study of electricity
transmission congestion once every 3 years, coupled with the authority
given to the Secretary of Energy to designate national interest
electric transmission corridors; and the new Federal Power Act section
216(h) that requires the Department to act as the lead agency for
purposes of coordinating all applicable Federal authorizations and
related environmental reviews to site an electric transmission
facility.
The Department also provides technical assistance to States,
regional bodies, and others on issues such as methods and tools to
increase regional planning and coordination of transmission, improving
transmission siting, better understanding the location of suitable
renewable resources (``resource characterization''), and improving the
ability of the grid to plan for and operate with renewables that are
intermittent (``grid integration issues''). Technical assistance is
provided to the Department's Power Marketing Administrations as they
explore what role they can play in providing access to additional
renewable generation through transmission. With some types of
assistance, such as renewable grid integration, the technical
assistance is informed by research and development that is sponsored by
the Department.
At the distribution level of the grid, the Department continues to
provide technical assistance to States that wish to adopt more
favorable interconnection standards, metering, demand response, and
related methods that enable greater use of distributed renewables
generation. For example, the Department funded the national voluntary
``IEEE 1547'' interconnection standard that is referenced in EPACT
section 1254 regarding ``Interconnection Standards'' for States to
consider.
In addition, using funding under the Renewable & Distributed
Systems Integration activity line of the fiscal year 2007 Operating
Plan, the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) is
soliciting for projects that would integrate renewable and distributed
energy systems into the grid. By successfully demonstrating this
integration, the use of renewable and distributed energy technologies
to support electric distribution operations should substantially
increase for supplying power and other ancillary services during peak
load periods. The project would also demonstrate the ability of these
technologies to reduce power required by the distribution feeder. This
will be accomplished through modeling, design, integration, and R&D of
renewables and distributed energy integration into the distribution
system; low-cost sensors; advanced monitoring; and consumer
information.
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
typically focuses research and development activities on improving the
efficiency, cost, and emissions profiles of generation technologies,
including renewables.
OE and EERE understand that for this policy to succeed, it is
crucial to collaborate not only on grid-scale innovations, but also on
bringing the applications to the consumer. In coordinating near-term
and long-term goals, OE and EERE remain alert to changes in need and
demand. Both offices also support State and regional efforts to
integrate renewable and distributed energy resources in their electric
system planning efforts. In this spirit, OE and EERE have formed a
focus group to concentrate on integration issues with renewables. OE
and EERE are closely coordinating fiscal year 2007 activities under the
operating plan in this area.
Question. I am also curious what research is being done to develop
electricity storage, especially electricity manufactured from renewable
sources?
Answer. The energy storage program of the Office of Electricity
Distribution and Energy Reliability has conducted a research program on
basic storage mechanisms, devices, and systems for over a decade. The
program is considered worldwide to be one of the leaders in this field.
Research is conducted on advanced batteries, flow batteries,
supercapacitors, and flywheels, as well as the necessary megawatt level
power electronics. Major demonstrations are fielded in partnership with
utilities, the California Energy Commission (CEC), and the New York
State Energy Development Authority. In particular, we are involved with
the CEC in the development of a microgrid which incorporates 500kW of
supercapacitors to harmonize wind and hydro power. We also work with
the Bonneville Power Administration on a power electronics device which
will smooth short term wind and wave power fluctuations when combined
with storage. A project with the Iowa municipalities explores the
possibility of using 200MW of compressed air storage in conjunction
with a 75MW wind farm and inexpensive off-peak power.
Energy storage can significantly increase the integration of
renewable sources of energy into the electric system. Storage increases
the reliability of intermittent resources like wind and photovoltaics,
allowing these sources to become relatively constant sources of power.
Renewable power produced in off-peak periods can be stored and used
during periods of greater demand, thus making renewables dispatchable.
Likewise, energy storage can bridge the gap during decreased periods of
renewable production and, when combined with appropriate electronics,
it can also eliminate short term flutters that decrease power quality
and impact digital equipment on the grid.
______
Questions Submitted to Hon. Thomas D. Shope
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
FOSSIL ENERGY BUDGET REQUEST
Question. Your testimony suggests that your fiscal year 2008 budget
request of $863 million is one of the largest fossil energy requests by
this administration. Yet, there are only two large program requests in
your budget--a doubling of funds for the FutureGen project and a
doubling of funds for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) expansion.
The FutureGen request now makes up 25 percent of the coal R&D request.
With the extraction of the requests for FutureGen and the SPR
expansion from your budget request, are you not actually cutting many
other fossil energy R&D programs?
Answer. The FutureGen project is a key Presidential priority in the
Office of Fossil Energy's portfolio and is an important component of
the Coal Research Initiative. It remains a significant step towards
realizing the goal of creating a near-zero atmospheric emission energy
option for coal. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve provides an emergency
oil stock to bolster U.S. energy security and a possible mitigation
when disruptions in commercial oil supplies threaten the U.S. economy.
We believe the current budget represents a balanced Fossil Energy
Program portfolio that addresses all of the highest priority
requirements to meet the program goal.
COAL R&D RESEARCH FUNDING
Question. The President's fiscal year 2008 Budget Request
recommends $245.6 million for the coal R&D program, is approximately
$55.7 million less than the fiscal year 2006 enacted budget level. This
is largely due to some programs being zeroed out or severely cut back.
This includes the Innovations for Existing Plants (IEP) program and the
Advanced Research program. For example, defunding the IEP program will
eliminate work for testing mercury control technologies and research on
the energy-water nexus. This program is extremely important in
validating mercury control technologies to insure different coals will
be competitive under the mercury control (mercury MACT) rules, which
require utilities to begin making reductions of mercury from their
emissions by 2012. Without this program, there is a very real
possibility that technologies will not be available by 2012 that can
capture the mercury emitted from the combustion of coals.
Why has the Department requested elimination or reduction of
important coal research and development programs?
Answer. The fiscal year 2008 Coal Research and Development budget
request proposes a balanced research and development (R&D) program
portfolio in support of the overall goal of near-zero atmospheric
emissions coal.
Within the Advanced Research Program, bioprocessing was determined
too long term to have an appreciable impact and certain other topics
are not focused on technology being developed in the Coal R&D Program
aimed at achieving the overall goal of near-zero emissions coal.
The IEP Program was developing low-cost technologies for reducing
emissions from existing coal power plants and has been very successful.
However, the industry now has regulatory drivers to incentivize them to
continue development and deployment on their own of such technologies.
EPA promulgated the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to reduce
emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides and the Clean Air
Mercury Rule (CAMR) to reduce mercury emissions. These regulations
provide industry with incentives to fund R&D for technologies for low-
cost compliance to meet the emissions standards. Therefore, further
Federal investment in mercury removal and other emission control
technology is not needed.
CARBON SEQUESTRATION FUNDING
Question. The carbon sequestration program request is proposed at
$79 million for fiscal year 2008, and the Department funded $100
million in the fiscal year 2007 Spending Plan. I have noted that the
DOE budget justification states that DOE will conduct demonstrations in
3 or 4 sites across the country with the $79 million sequestration
budget, as opposed to conducting large-scale demonstrations in each of
the 7 regional sequestration partnerships--which is necessary to insure
this technology can be used in every region of this country.
Are the funds requested for fiscal year 2008 sufficient enough to
conduct the several large-scale carbon sequestration demonstrations in
every region of this country that are necessary to insure carbon
sequestration is a valid option to insure carbon capture and storage
from coal fired power plants? What is the Department's longer-term
strategy related to the carbon sequestration program?
Answer. The Department's long-term strategy is to conduct large-
scale field tests to determine that carbon capture and storage is a
safe, effective approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In 2007,
the program is beginning work on the ``highest potential''
opportunities for an initial expedited round of four large scale
sequestration tests (approximately 1 million tons CO2 per
year for each site). DOE has provided additional funding in the fiscal
year 2007 budget for the Carbon Sequestration Program to award these
initial large volume sequestration tests. The fiscal year 2008 budget
request is sufficient to continue the four large-volume sequestration
injection projects that were accelerated with additional funding
received in fiscal year 2007.
CLEAN COAL POWER INITIATIVE FUNDING
Question. The DOE request for the Clean Coal Power Initiative
(CCPI) is $73 million for fiscal year 2008. Although this has increased
by $68 million over the President's request of $5 million in fiscal
year 2007, it still seems inadequate. The CCPI program is the only
mechanism through which those clean coal technologies can be
demonstrated in order to determine their commercial acceptable. It is
through the demonstration program at DOE that this country has achieved
significant reductions in NOX, SOX and
particulate matter because of technologies that were developed and
demonstrated with DOE support. As a result, our Nation has
significantly reduced criteria pollutants from coal-fired power
generation, while both maintaining low cost electricity for the
consumer and increasing the amount of coal-fired electric power
generation over the last 3 decades. Given the success of this program,
it would be a prudent decision to increase the budget for this program
so that DOE can work with industry to conduct several large scale
projects to demonstrate carbon capture and sequestration technologies
that can be applied to both the existing fleet and new coal plants if
we are going to achieve meaningful reductions of carbon dioxide
emissions.
Is it not the case that, of the $73 million requested in fiscal
year 2008, $58 million was returned from a previous project that did
not go forward? Does this mean that the Department is only asking for
$15 million in new funding for the CCPI program in fiscal year 2008?
The Department has made much larger requests for the CCPI program in
previous years so why is the Department not committed to funding this
program to the same extent in fiscal year 2008?
Answer. The Department's strategy has been to accumulate sufficient
funds over several years and issue a solicitation to support the Clean
Coal Power Initiative (CCPI). The $68 million increase for CCPI in
fiscal year 2008 over the fiscal year 2007 request is derived in part
from the transfer of $58 million in balances from the Clean Coal
Technology Program that are no longer needed to complete active
projects. This increase allows for the solicitation of a third round of
demonstration projects in fiscal year 2008. In addition the fiscal year
2007 funding level which was increased by $55 million over the request
will be used for the third round solicitation.
RESCISSION OF $149 MILLION FROM THE CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY ACCOUNT
Question. The President's fiscal year 2008 budget request
recommends rescinding $149 million of previously appropriated clean
coal technology funds. Rescinding these dollars would effectively
cancel that money for future clean coal demonstration projects and send
these funds back into the Federal Treasury. The clean coal program is
under funded in a time when accelerated investments in coal technology
development have never been more important. We should not be rescinding
clean coal funds, but adding new funds to the program to insure we
develop, in a timely manner, cost effective coal technologies.
Why does the administration insist on rescinding this funding,
which was previously appropriated and can be directed for clean coal
demonstration projects in future years?
Answer. All project funding commitments in the CCT Program have
been fulfilled and only project closeout activities remain. The
administration proposes to transfer $108 million of the $257 million
deferral to the FutureGen project, and cancel the remaining $149
million. Of the $66 million in unobligated balances carried forward at
the start of fiscal year 2008, $58 million is transferred to the Clean
Coal Power Initiative (CCPI). CCPI will complete the Round 3
solicitation using unobligated funds from projects that were selected
but not awarded, plus appropriations that have not yet been committed
to projects. We believe that the cumulative available funding will be
sufficient for a Round 3 CCPI solicitation.
UNIVERSITY OIL AND GAS RESEARCH FUNDING
Question. I am very concerned about the impacts of the cuts in oil
and gas research funding for a number of reasons but am particularly
worried about the impacts of these cuts on the education of our next
generation of energy technologists who are graduate students today.
Can you tell me how many universities will be affected by the
scheduled elimination of almost all oil and gas R&D by DOE in its
fiscal year 2007 Spending Plan?
Can you please list those universities that currently receive
funding? Can you tell me if and when you intend to issue a stop work
order to these institutions?
Will these universities be forced to shut down their oil and
natural gas research programs?
Answer. There are 25 projects at universities that will be affected
by the funding reduction in the operations plan. Federal funding for
oil and gas research and development activities is not needed because
industry has the incentives and resources to accomplish such activities
on its own. Given the private sector's incentives and capabilities, we
believe that private industry is best positioned to fund R&D at
universities and elsewhere, which will provide educational
opportunities for our next generation of energy technologists.
The universities that currently receive funding are: University of
Alaska, Fairbanks; University of Alabama; University of Arkansas;
University of Arizona; Baylor University; California Institute of
Technology; Carnegie Mellon University; Clemson University; Colorado
School of Mines; Stanford University; University of Illinois;
University of Kansas; Florida International University; Georgia Tech
University; Kansas State University; Louisiana State University;
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Michigan Tech University;
Western Michigan University; University of Mississippi; Mississippi
State University; University of Southern Mississippi; Montana State
University; Montana Tech--Bureau of Mines; New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology; State University of New York; University of
Columbia; University of Oklahoma; Oklahoma State University; Prairie
View A&M University; University of North Carolina; University of Tulsa;
University of Pittsburgh; Penn State University; University of Texas--
Austin; University of Texas--Bureau of Economic Geology; Texas A & M
University; University of Houston; Rice University; University of Utah;
West Virginia University; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute; and the
University of Wyoming.
The Oil and Natural Gas program has previously sent letters to all
program participants notifying them of the potential shortfalls in the
fiscal year 2007 budget. These researchers are currently working using
existing (prior year) funds. Subsequently, all universities with
existing cooperative agreements impacted by the decrease in funds were
contacted and informed of the lack of funding for fiscal year 2007. The
majority of DOE projects are grants or cooperative agreements, for
which a stop work order is not issued.
Each university program will have to examine its particular
situation. In many cases, other Government and/or industry funding may
be available to the university.
NATURAL GAS CARTEL
Question. In his 2006 State of the Union speech, President Bush
indicated he wanted to reduce our reliance on ``imported energy
sources.'' At the same time, DOE and FERC have launched an aggressive
campaign to import more liquefied natural gas (LNG) into the United
States.
The two largest suppliers of imported liquefied natural gas to the
United States are Trinidad Tobago and Algeria. Trinidad Tobago has only
around 23 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves and will ultimately have
to get gas supplies from Venezuela if it wants to continue its
liquefaction enterprise. Algeria is a member of OPEC. Further, I note
that Russia, Iran, Qatar, Algeria, and Venezuela announced recently
they are meeting in Doha this week to discuss forming a natural gas
cartel. This is very troubling.
Finally, I would point out that according to DOE's 2003 National
Petroleum Council Gas Supply Study, the United States has almost 60
years of technically recoverable natural gas, but we need new
technologies to produce them.
How does the administration's policy of reducing our reliance on
imported energy sources square with its policies to encourage the
imports of very large volumes of LNG, especially in light of this very
disturbing news about a possible gas cartel?
Answer. Historically, U.S. imports of natural gas have come
primarily from Canada by pipeline with small amounts of LNG imported
from various countries. In the Energy Information Administration's most
recent Annual Energy Outlook natural gas imports from Canada are
forecast to decline and LNG imports are expected to rise to fill this
gap.
The administration's role in addressing LNG imports is to ensure
that importing facilities are permitted in a timely manner. The market
will decide what facilities are economic, which ones will be built, and
how much LNG to import. Furthermore, we don't believe intense
discussions of a gas cartel are likely to result in the development of
a cartel at this point, considering the relative infancy of the global
LNG spot market.
The administration's policy of reducing our reliance on imported
energy also includes research and development that will strengthen the
Nation's energy security. For example, the administration has proposed
to make the R&D investment tax credit permanent. Under the Advanced
Energy Initiative, the 2008 Budget includes initiatives for hydrogen
fuel, biofuels, plug-in hybrid vehicles, clean coal, nuclear, and solar
photovoltaics to help displace future demand for oil and natural gas.
The administration also supports removing unnecessary barriers to
developing existing reserves of oil and gas including, for instance,
the environmentally responsible exploration and development of reserves
in Alaska.
Question. Is the administration aware of the fact that if all LNG
import facilities approved by the administration were built and
operating at capacity we would be importing almost 60 percent of our
natural gas most of it from many of the same countries that hold us
hostage to imported oil?
Answer. The administration is responsible for permitting proposed
LNG import facilities. However, the market will decide which ones will
ultimately be built and become operational. It is unlikely that it
would be economical to construct every LNG import facility that has
been proposed, and historically LNG importing facilities have typically
operated below their peak capacity levels. Also, Australia and Norway,
countries that are viewed as reliable energy suppliers, are developing
LNG exporting facilities that could supply U.S. markets.
Question. Who are the 10 largest U.S. investors and partners in
building and operating regasification facilities in the United States?
Answer. There are currently only five built and operating LNG
import terminals in the United States. These include the Distrigas
terminal in Everett, Massachusetts owned by Suez; the Cove Point,
Maryland terminal owned by Dominion; the Elba Island, Georgia terminal
owned by El Paso; the Trunkline terminal in Lake Charles, Louisiana
owned by Southern Union; and the Energy Bridge terminal in the Gulf of
Mexico offshore Louisiana owned by Excelerate Energy.
Question. Why would the administration propose eliminating all
funding at DOE for natural gas supply research when we have 60 years of
technically recoverable gas reserves in the United States but need new
technologies to produce them?
Answer. Natural gas production is a mature industry that has every
incentive, particularly at today's prices, to enhance production and
continue research and development of technologies on their own. There
is no need for taxpayers to subsidize natural gas companies in these
efforts.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
FUTUREGEN
Question. Mr. Secretary, in 2004, the President announced the
initiation of the FutureGen project, a $950 million, 10-year
demonstration project to construct the world's first coal-fueled, near-
zero emissions electricity and hydrogen power plant.
I have been supportive of the concept behind FutureGen. FutureGen,
if successful in meeting the intended goals, could be a major
breakthrough for a clean and efficient use of coal and good for the
economic and environmental well being of our country and the world.
However, ever since the inception of this project, I have been very
vocal about my major concerns about the project--namely how the
administration intends to pay for its $700-plus million share of this
project without robbing the basic Fossil Energy research and
development programs and the total cost growth potential of this
project, given increasing costs of construction and the types of
unanticipated costs that usually accompany first-of-its-kind projects.
The Department of Energy's press release, dated April 10,
announcing that the price of construction materials and equipment,
labor, and other heavy construction expenses have significantly driven
the estimated total costs of the FutureGen project to $1.7 billion
through fiscal year 2016 came as no surprise to this Senator. Even with
the Department assuming $300 million in anticipated power sales to
offset the costs of the project, the Federal Government is still left
with a hefty cost share of $1.1 billion--at least $300 million more
than anticipated.
Despite the many inquiries I have submitted to the Department of
Energy in the past, the Department has never been able to adequately
explain to me how it is planning to fund its $700 million-plus share
for the FutureGen project. Can you explain to me how the Department
plans to pay for this major escalation of an additional $300 million?
Answer. The initial cost estimate for FutureGen was developed by
the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), which estimated the
total cost of the FutureGen Project at approximately $950 million in
constant 2004 dollars. This cost estimate was included in the 2004
Report to Congress. While the Department has acknowledged that costs
for some of the currently planned components of the FutureGen plant
have generally increased, the Department has made no commitment beyond
the $39 million Government cost-share in Budget Periods Numbers 0 and
1. Budget Period No. 1 will begin the detailed design for the plant and
re-scoping of the project may be necessary to remain within budget. The
cost for the FutureGen Project is shared between the Department of
Energy, the FutureGen Industrial Alliance, and contributions from
foreign governments. The Department anticipates requesting sufficient
appropriations for the Government's cost-share for FutureGen to meet
the objectives and schedule for this initiative.
Question. I have helped to provide funding for many major
Government construction projects in the past and know that
unanticipated costs are commonplace. Beyond inflation increases that
DOE has just projected, how does the Department plan to cope with
unforeseen costs that might arise with the construction of this first-
of-its-kind project? How much funding has been set aside for future
contingencies?
Answer. The project is structured in phases such that progression
to the next phase depends on the successful accomplishment of
objectives and milestones from each preceding phase.
To date, the cost basis estimate has remained the same as the
original cost estimate identified in the March 2004 Program Summary to
Congress. Contingencies are inherent in the base cost estimate as a
function of design definition and technology development. The inherent
contingency in the FutureGen cost estimate is consistent with industry
recommended practices for a conceptual design with substantial advanced
technologies. The costs associated with these contingencies are
included in anticipated funding profile.
Cost and schedule risks are very real for large, first-of-a-kind
projects and cannot be eliminated completely until construction is
completed. We are making our best efforts to maintain budget for this
important validation of the coal-based near-zero atmospheric emissions
concept.
Question. In fiscal year 2008, the FutureGen program is funded at
$108 million, a 500 percent increase from the fiscal year 2006 level,
while the Natural Gas R&D program, the Oil R&D program, and the
Innovations for Existing Plants program under the Coal R&D program were
zeroed out. This is a very disturbing trend, and one that I suspect
will only worsen as the project goes to construction in future years.
Will you be cutting into the Coal R&D program even deeper to fund cost
growths in FutureGen?
Answer. During the 2000 campaign, the President committed to spend
$2 billion over 10 years on clean coal technology. The budget completes
that commitment 3 years ahead of schedule, with $385 million in funding
for the Coal Research Initiative in 2008. The funding levels in the
budget for clean coal activities are among the highest in this
administration and also from any President in the last 2 decades.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request for FutureGen, when adjusted
for inflation, is consistent with the funding profile as disclosed in
the FutureGen Program summary as reported to Congress in fiscal year
2004. The fiscal year 2008 funding request is to cover NEPA compliance,
significant design activities, and procurement of long-lead items.
FutureGen is integral to the Coal R&D program, and continual
investments in the coal R&D program are necessary in order to support
the development of technologies to drive towards the goal of near-zero
atmospheric emissions coal, which includes the integrated, scale-up
testing of the necessary R&D.
The Natural Gas research and development (R&D), the Oil R&D, and
the Innovations for Existing Plants programs are proposed for
termination because the Federal R&D role in these areas have been
completed and industry should take on that responsibility. The oil and
gas industry has the incentives and resources to accomplish oil and gas
R&D without additional Federal subsidies, which are unwarranted in
today's price environment. Promulgation of CAIR and CAMR provided a
market incentive for developing many advanced, cost-effective emissions
controls and has ended the need for Federally funded R&D in areas under
the Innovations for Existing Plants program. The current fiscal year
2008 budget request has been formulated based on the needs of the
Fossil Energy Program and is consistent with meeting the goals and
objectives of the Department's Strategic Plan.
Question. What role will the National Energy Technology Laboratory
play in FutureGen? Enough to support the approximately 1,200 Federal
and contractor staff who currently support Fossil Energy Research and
Development program?
Answer. The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) has the
lead responsibility for managing the FutureGen project as well as the
many other projects that it has under its purview to advance the
Department's goals and carry out its mission.
Question. If FutureGen is successful, will the Department be able
to deploy FutureGen-type technologies in other locations across the
country in coming decades or will additional resources, studies, tests,
and demonstrations to expand deployment of these technologies be
necessary?
Answer. The goals of the FutureGen project are to prove the
technical feasibility and economic viability of a near-zero atmospheric
emission coal energy option, thus leading to the broad acceptance of
the concept. The FutureGen project has been designed to operate under
real-world conditions and at large enough scale to adequately prove the
viability of the concept. The key is to prove that near-zero
atmospheric emissions coal is technically viable and that its costs are
not prohibitive. The coal research and development program of which
FutureGen is a part, is designed to advance the development of
technologies that reach the goal of near-zero atmospheric emissions
while increasing efficiencies, increasing clean energy production, and
decreasing costs. Ultimately, the market will determine when and how
many of these plants are deployed, yet a successful operation of the
first FutureGen plant is an important prerequisite to the widespread
deployment of near-zero atmospheric emission coal plants.
CLEAN COAL POWER INITIATIVE
Question. The administration has included $73 million for the Clean
Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) in the fiscal year 2008 budget, which is a
considerable improvement over the $5 million that the President sought
in his fiscal year 2007 budget request.
I understand that two CCPI Round II projects are experiencing cost
growths. Will the fiscal year 2008 CCPI funds be used to make up these
cost growths and how much would be made available to each project? How
much fiscal year 2008 funding and how much prior-year funding will be
applied to a third CCPI solicitation?
Answer. Additional funding provided by DOE to an awarded project to
help cover project cost growth due to the increase in material,
equipment, and skilled labor cost comes from unobligated funds
appropriated to the coal demonstration program before fiscal year 2006.
These are funds previously committed to projects which have withdrawn
from the demonstration program since selection and would be used for
the Round III solicitation absent cost growth in projects from previous
rounds. Funds provided to a project to cover cost growth will not be
available to fund projects selected in CCPI Round 3. No fiscal year
2008 funds will be used to cover any cost growth for existing projects
but cost growth will reduce the funding available for the next round of
solicitations. The CCPI program operates under the fiscal constraints
of the Clean Coal Technology program, so the maximum allowable increase
in the Government share to these projects is 25 percent over the
Government's original estimate of costs. In the case of the Southern
Company, Orlando IGCC project, this means a maximum increase in the
Government share of $59 million, and $59 million in cost growth has
been approved. In the case of the Western Greenbrier Cogen. WVa FBC
project, this means a maximum potential increase in the Government
share of $28 million, but no cost growth has been approved. Combined,
the maximum potential net reduction in the planned fiscal year 2008
CCPI solicitation is $87 million, of which $59 million has been
approved.
CCPI will complete the Round 3 solicitation using unobligated funds
from projects that were selected but not awarded, plus appropriations
that have not yet been committed to projects. We believe this
cumulative amount is sufficient for proceeding with a Round 3 CCPI
solicitation.
COAL-TO-LIQUIDS INITIATIVE
Question. It is my understanding that the coal-to-liquids process
is only commercially feasible when the price for crude oil is at $40
per barrel or higher. What is the Department of Energy doing to provide
price guarantees or other financial incentives for investors? Does the
administration support legislation that promotes coal-to-liquids
projects?
Answer. The Department is closely following the response to the
incentives established by the Energy Policy Act (EPACT) of 2005 which
include coal-to-liquids deployment projects being eligible for
incentives such as tax credits and/or loan guarantees as authorized in
EPACT.
The President has set a goal of increasing the supply of renewable
and alternative fuels, including coal-derived liquid fuels, by setting
a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable
and alternative fuels in 2017--nearly five times the 2012 target now in
law. In 2017, this will displace 15 percent of projected annual
gasoline use.
The administration wants to work with Congress to allow coal-
derived liquids to be eligible under the proposed alternative fuels
standard. The standard should be structured to allow the market to
determine the most efficient way to meet the standard, including to
what extent coal-derived fuels will be used.
Question. I understand that there are environmental concerns
associated with the coal-to-liquids process. What support can the
Office of Fossil Energy provide to industry in identifying ways to
incorporate the capture and storage of carbon dioxide emissions from
the coal-to-liquids process and from using the fuel produced by the
process?
Answer. The Office of Fossil Energy is supporting industry in this
area through its carbon sequestration technology development effort.
This Carbon Sequestration Program includes laboratory and pilot-scale
research aimed at developing new technologies and systems for
greenhouse gas mitigation, which could be applied to coal-to-liquids
processes as well as other industrial processes, though the primary
objective is to apply them to power generation systems. In 2007, the
program is beginning work on the ``highest potential'' opportunities
for an initial expedited round of large scale sequestration tests
(approximately 1 million tons CO2 per year for each site).
DOE has provided additional funding in the fiscal year 2007 budget for
the Carbon Sequestration Program to award several large volume
sequestration tests.
IMPACT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET ON THE NATIONAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
LABORATORY
Question. If this fiscal year 2008 budget is enacted, how many
Federal, contractor, and construction jobs will be eliminated at the
National Energy Technology Laboratory, which is based in Morgantown,
West Virginia; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Tulsa, Oklahoma; with
smaller offices in Tulsa, Oklahoma; and Fairbanks, Alaska?
Answer. We are managing our human resources effectively to achieve
our program goals and do not anticipate significant changes in staffing
levels.
Question. In the past, NETL has received approximately $2 million
per year in General Plant Projects, which covers critical maintenance
needs. Can you tell me why the past several Fossil Energy budgets have
zeroed out funds for critical maintenance at the major NETL sites, all
of which are more than 40 years old? Will this impact the health and
safety of the workers?
Answer. NETL received almost $2 million in fiscal year 2006 for
General Plant Projects and $4 million in fiscal year 2007. It is
anticipated that NETL has sufficient funds to continue these activities
in fiscal year 2008.
CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY EXPORTS INITIATIVE
Question. I initiated the Clean Energy Technology Exports (CETE)
Initiative in the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Appropriations
bill. The administration then completed a 5 Year Strategic Plan in
2002. From fiscal year 2004-2006, I helped provide $1.6 million in
funding to help further this initiative.
Please provide me with a detailed account on how these appropriated
funds were utilized.
Answer. The Department remains committed to the goals of the Clean
Energy Technology Export (CETE) Initiative. I have attached a matrix of
our spending allocations in 2005 and 2006. In summary, we have funded
programs that support direct partnership with industry, as well as
programs that coordinate interagency efforts and improve the efficacy
of Federal activities to support deployment.
CETE PROJECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding Amount
Activity/Short Title Project Partners/ Leverage Summary Comments (In thousands)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2005
CETE Website........................ GETF........................ Provides central site for $25
CETE info dissemination,
and to summarize
opportunities from other
donor organizations like
EBRD, ADB and GEF. Allows
both novice and
sophisticated market
players to find appropriate
points of contact for
questions. Could eventually
be used to track
performance metrics.
DOE-USAID Hydropower Partnership.... U.S. Hydropower Council for Fiscal year 2005 focus on 100
International Development. project development and
$200k from USAID and closure in India, Mexico
private sector. and Guatemala. Track record
of success. Multiple
private sector partners.
Sustainable Finance................. Resource Mobilization Continue work in Poland and 175
Advisors (RMA). $200k from Mexico. Initiate work in
U.K. Govt, NADBank and Philippines to build
World Bank. portfolio of viable EE
projects for investment.
Initiated study on
Financing Mechanisms to
support clean energy with
input from private partners
and U.S. agencies.
Supported Resource Guide as
outreach tool for U.S.
exporters.
Management Plan..................... ORNL........................ ............................ 75
Tsunami Study....................... Argonne..................... ............................ 75
Sustainable Communities............. GTI......................... ............................ 35
Green Olympics/Beijing.............. ORNL........................ ............................ 45
REEEP............................... ............................ ............................ 50
Africa Geothermal................... ............................ ............................ 15
===============
Fiscal Year 2006
CETE Website........................ Global Environment Provides central site for 40
Technology Foundation CETE info dissemination,
(GETF). and to summarize
opportunities from other
donor organizations like
EBRD, ADB and GEF. Allows
both novice and
sophisticated market
players to find appropriate
points of contact for
questions. Could eventually
be used to track
performance metrics.
DOE-USAID Hydropower Partnership.... U.S. Hydropower Council for Fiscal year 2006 focus on 150
International Development. project development and
$400k from USAID and closure in India and
private sector. Guatemala. Track record of
success with more than $50
million in projects
finalized in the past 2
years. Multiple private
sector partners.
Sustainable Financing for EE........ Resource Mobilization Expect to close on $10 100
Advisors (RMA). $500k from million in EE project with
Philippine Govt, NADBank, U.S. partners in Mexico in
USTDA and World Bank. next 6 months. New deals in
Poland and Philippines in
next 18 months.
Africa Geothermal Mission........... EERE, Govt of Kenya......... Reverse trade mission 30
bringing officials from
Kenya to U.S. Geothermal
Conference to meet multiple
vendors.
Energy Efficiency Initiative in IRG, Govt of Ukraine. $600k Create audit fund and 50
Ukraine. from USAID. project development support
with U.S. ESCO's and local
partners in Ukraine. CETE
money will piggyback USAID
to help engage U.S.
technology vendors.
Clean Tech in Thailand with Southern FE, SSEB, Govt of Thailand.. Good exposure to technology 40
States Energy Board (SSEB). vendors in 16 States
through SSEB. Track record
of success. Multiple SME
private partners. Potential
projects include biomass/
coal hybrid and upgrades to
existing thermal plants.
India Coal Beneficiation............ FE, Govt. of India.......... Builds on previous studies. 45
Necessary to mitigate
negative environmental
impacts of near-term coal
expansion in huge market.
Multiple potential private
partners. Could expand
under Asia Pacific
Partnership. Possible USAID/
India buy-in.
China Ombudsman for Renewable....... U.S. companies attending Goal is to set up side 29
Renewable Conference. meetings with interested
parties in China around
conferences where U.S.
companies are participating
and/or exhibiting. First
event is in September 2006.
China Combined Heat and Power (CHP). LBNL, U.S. CHP Association.. Seed funding to develop a 45
market plan, consider tech
options and get U.S.
vendors involved. Huge
market potential.
Caribbean--New Energy sources....... IDB, CARICOM, USAID......... Support for new initiative 20
to explore alternatives to
fossil fuel in the broad
Caribbean market. Launch
Conference in September.
CETE funding used to engage
U.S. vendors for wind,
hydropower and biofuels
technology.
PI-Kazakhstan Nuclear power tour.... ORNL. Nuclear Energy Responds to S-1 trip. 45
Institute (NEI), Govt of Reverse trade mission to
Kazakhstan. visit U.S. sites with
potential vendors and
investors. Large market and
potential for U.S. sales.
PI-Kazakhstan Petrochemical Industry GOK......................... Responds to S-1 trip. ..............
Tour. Reverse trade mission. U.S.
industry interest unclear.
---------------
Total....................... ............................ ............................ 594
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fiscal year 2006, we instituted performance metrics to measure
the specific and tangible impact of the CETE program and we also
solicited input on jointly funded projects. As a result, we are now co-
funding projects with USAID, TDA and the DOE Offices of Fossil Energy
and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
We have supported programs in 13 different countries in partnership
with more than 20 private companies and 10 international organizations.
Our funding is being leveraged at least 2:1 with other resources from
private partners and other donor organizations.
The programs we are supporting are intended to benefit multiple
projects with multiple U.S. vendors and developers, and yet could not
be accomplished by any one U.S. company acting alone.
Regarding interagency coordination, we host CETE Working Group
meetings on a quarterly basis. Representatives from all nine
participating agencies regularly attend. We have also developed the
``Clean Energy Exports Assistance Network'' (www.cleean.net) as a tool
to better inform U.S. clean technology partners of specific energy
market conditions and opportunities, and to better coordinate
interagency resources.
We also supported the preparation of a report titled ``Financing
Mechanisms for Clean Energy Technology Exports'' with input from
industry and CETE participating agencies. The report may be found at
the website.
Question. Because the Department of Energy has discretion to fund
programs though the fiscal year 2007 Joint Funding Resolution, what is
the Department doing to further develop and integrate the CETE
Initiative into its overall international energy technology deployment
strategies?
What does the Department plan to do to continue to pursue the goals
of the CETE Initiative in fiscal year 2008?
Answer. The Office of Policy and International Affairs and the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy are working together
to define useful projects for fiscal year 2007 and an overall strategy
for programs in fiscal year 2008. The goal is to focus on projects that
may create lasting institutional abilities, and that have the potential
to transform markets.
Programs we are considering in fiscal year 2007 include further
input to the website (www.cleean.net), and a training program on clean
energy technologies for foreign service and foreign commercial service
officials. We also plan to support industry events focused on new
market opportunities in China, Central American, and the Caribbean.
In fiscal year 2008, we want to pursue a strategy of integrating
the CETE goals into our international programs by ensuring better
industry participation and more effective coordination with other
agencies and with large donor organizations such as the World Bank and
the Global Environment Facility. We expect to narrow our focus to fewer
strategic markets, and to support activities in those markets that
offer the greatest potential for commercial implementation.
Question. How is the Department and the administration integrating
CETE with other administration activities such as the Asia-Pacific
Partnership?
Answer. As you know, the CETE program encompasses all clean
technologies and is global in focus whereas the Asia-Pacific
Partnership (APP) has seven technology-based working groups and is a
partnership of six countries: Japan, Australia, S. Korea, India, China
and the United States. Further, the goals of the CETE program are to
support the efforts of U.S. industry, while the APP more broadly
supports green-house gas emission reductions with participation by
industries from all member countries.
Question. How is the Department working with other Federal agencies
as well as the private sector on all of these initiatives?
Answer. Despite the differences in focus, we are coordinating
efforts through the CETE interagency working group and on the website
(www.cleean.net). Many of our industry partners under the CETE umbrella
also participate in the APP. We anticipate that some projects supported
under the CETE program in India and China may be good candidates for
funding under the APP and vice-versa.
GAO REPORT
Question. In December 2006, the GAO issued a report entitled ``Key
Challenges Remain for Developing and Deploying Advanced Energy
Technologies to Meet Future Needs.''
The report summarized that despite the United States being more and
more reliant on imported energy resources, the DOE's total budget
authority for fossil energy R&D dropped from $1.9 billion (in real
terms) in fiscal year 1979 to $434 million in fiscal year 2006. With
the Energy Information Administration projecting that total U.S. energy
demand will increase by about 28 to 35 percent between 2005 and 2030,
GAO recommended that the Congress consider further stimulating the
development and deployment of a diversified energy portfolio by
focusing R&D funding on advanced energy technologies.
I note with disappointment that DOE had no comment on this
recommendation. Would you please provide me with your comments on GAO's
recommendations?
Answer. The GAO report provides valuable information that will be
useful to the Department and the Government (in general terms) in
connection with our research and development activities. Success in R&D
is measured by its transition to commercial application. Examples in
the oil and gas sector include down-hole telemetry, horizontal
drilling, 3-D seismic analyses, and polycrystalline diamond drill bits,
all of which have been adopted by the industry. Examples in the area of
renewable energy are geothermal energy and hydropower, both now
considered as fully developed technologies. The GAO report also notes
that there is over $5 billion in tax expenditures (financial
incentives) targeted at energy suppliers and users of advanced
technology. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 augments these incentives
with an estimated $11 billion worth of additional financial incentives
over 10 years. The primary role for Government in this area is to fund
high-risk, basic energy research, as was explicitly outlined by this
administration in the Research and Development Investment Criteria
issued in 2003. The GAO study fails to take stock of the increases over
the last 2 decades in funding in this area, offsetting some of the
declines in applied R&D. Taking into account all of these factors, we
believe that DOE R&D is sufficient to meet our Nation's energy needs.
OIL AND GAS PRICE RELATIONSHIP
Question. Would you please provide comments on EIA forecasts of
natural gas and oil prices in its Annual Energy Outlook (2005 to 2007).
It appears that each year, EIA significantly underestimates future
prices of these fuels, specifically:
In EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2006 and 2007, natural gas price
forecasts depart from a traditional price relationship to oil based on
Btu parity, as demonstrated in the 2005 version. This departure is
evident in both the reference case and the high oil price scenario.
What is the basis for this significant departure? Why do industry
analysts continue to stick with the traditional gas-oil price
relationship while EIA sees the price ratio as almost doubling as in
the high oil price case? (EIA)
Answer. The historical record shows substantial variability in oil
and natural gas prices and in the relationship between them. The ratio
between the annual average prices of a barrel of West Texas
Intermediate (WTI) oil and one million British Thermal Units (BTU) of
natural gas at the Henry Hub has varied since 1990 from a high of 14.5
to a low of 5.7.
Historically, fuel switching between oil and gas was thought to
have been a major contributor to the price relationship, but there has
recently been some decline in the capacity to switch between these
fuels in many end-use applications. While oil and natural gas continue
to compete in some applications, oil and natural gas prices are also
linked to the availability of alternative sources of supply;
competition between coal, nuclear power, renewables, and natural gas as
fuels for electricity generation; the availability and cost of inter-
fuel conversion technologies, such as gas-to-liquids; environmental
restrictions; and the relative importance of transportation costs in
the total delivered price of energy from each source, which affects the
regional scale of inter-fuel competition. EIA expects there to be a
relationship between oil and natural gas prices that varies somewhat
depending on many factors, not necessarily a constant ratio of price
between oil and gas that is closely linked to the ratio of their energy
content that some industry analysts expect.
Tighter markets, as we have experienced in recent years, result in
greater price impacts from similar shifts in demand or supply than
would be seen in looser markets. On the supply side, higher oil prices
result in increased drilling for oil and thus higher costs for oil and
gas drilling, placing upward pressure on gas prices. Higher oil prices
also generally result in increased cash flow and the potential for
greater investment in oil and gas prospects, placing downward pressure
on gas prices. Over the longer-term, world markets will play a larger
role in determining the relationship between oil and natural gas prices
in the United States due to increasing trade in liquefied natural gas.
This relationship will be influenced by worldwide fuel switching
capability, exploration and production costs (E&P) costs, and the
potential for a growing gas-to-liquids market.
Numerous changes occur from one Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) to
another. Nothing was specifically implemented in the model to change
the oil-to-natural gas price relationship. For example, natural gas
prices in the AEO2006 and AEO2007 are higher compared to the AEO2005,
partially as a result of much higher costs. Higher prices resulted in
slower projected growth in residential, commercial, and industrial gas
consumption through conservation and inter-fuel substitution. In the
power generation market, higher natural gas prices dramatically lower
the future natural gas generation share and raise the coal share from
what it might have been with lower natural gas prices. However,
notwithstanding the possibility of significant policy changes affecting
energy use over the next 25 years, AEO reference case projections
generally assume that current laws and policies remain in place
indefinitely, in order to provide a baseline for policy analyses
requested by Congress and the administration. Should future policy
actions to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions preclude significant
growth in coal-fired generation, and if new nuclear power plants that
would be economically attractive under such circumstances are blocked
by other concerns, continued growth in gas-fired generation would
likely reduce the future ratio of oil-to-natural gas prices from that
projected in AEO2007.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
ELK HILLS
Question. As compensation for the Federal Government's sale of the
Elk Hills Reserve, Congress mandated in the fiscal year 1996 National
Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 104-106) that 9 percent of the
net sales proceeds be provided to California for its claims to State
school lands located in the Reserve. Of the $317.7 million owed to the
State under the terms of this settlement, approximately $300 million
has been paid to date.
The Department of Energy's fiscal year 2008 budget does not provide
for the remaining compensation. It is my understanding that California
has already agreed to allow the Department to hold $6 million of the
remaining compensation as a ``worst case scenario'' to complete the
equity finalization process. The State is willing to come to a
compromise with the Department over the remaining payment, and has
offered to complete the claim with a final appropriation of $9.7
million. Would this be an acceptable solution to the Department, and if
not, why?
Answer. If the State of California wishes to submit a proposal to
the Department, we are open to considering it.
Question. What is the Department's timeline to complete this
settlement with the State of California?
Answer. The equity finalization process is a complicated matter,
and thus the timeline is uncertain.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
CARBON SEQUESTRATION
Question. Mr. Shope, as you are well aware, coal is the most
CO2 intensive source of energy. Today, 75 percent of coal
reserves are held by the United States, Russia, China, India and
Australia, and it is clear that coal will be a major energy provider
for each of these nations for the foreseeable future.
The recently released MIT report, The Future of Coal, stresses the
importance of large-scale demonstration projects for carbon capture and
storage technologies. The authors conclude that projects inject less
than 1 million tons of carbon dioxide per year and will not be large
enough to replicate the geological stresses that a full commercial
scale operation would produce. I understand that the current carbon
injection projects are on a much smaller scale.
Do you agree that such large-scale demonstrations are needed, and
in what timeframe? What is the Department doing to expand its R&D
efforts in this area?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) agrees that large-scale
projects are necessary to demonstrate that carbon sequestration
technologies are necessary to replicate commercial-scale operations.
DOE has been planning for large-scale sequestration tests since 2004.
The Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships are currently conducting
some smaller tests that are helping to build the infrastructure and
demonstrate the technology on a small scale. In 2007, the program is
beginning work on the ``highest potential'' opportunities for an
initial expedited round of large scale sequestration tests
(approximately 1 million tons CO2 per year for each site).
DOE has provided additional funding in the fiscal year 2007 budget for
the Carbon Sequestration Program to award several large volume
sequestration tests. The DOE is in the process of negotiating these
large volume tests with the Regional Partnerships and plans to make
some of the awards by the end of fiscal year 2007. The Regional
Partnerships have come forward with a portfolio of project
opportunities, a variety of geologic conditions, and future
commercialization opportunities.
Question. Has the Department developed a R&D roadmap to address the
challenges facing adoption of carbon capture and sequestration?
Answer. The DOE Carbon Sequestration Program issues a revised
roadmap annually in May. It contains a discussion of the program's
structure, challenges, and goals for technology development. This
roadmap can be downloaded from the following website: http://
www.netl.doe.gov/publications/carbon_seq/refshelf.html.
CHINA--CARBON SEQUESTRATION COLLABORATION
Question. The MIT study also calls for up to 10 other large-scale
demonstration projects in other countries. China in particular is
building coal-fired power plants at a spectacular rate.
Would you support a major initiative to partner with China to
develop carbon capture and storage technologies?
Answer. The Department is actively engaged with China on the
development of carbon capture and storage technologies. China is
involved in the FutureGen Alliance. China is also a member of the
Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, whose purpose is to make
information on viable carbon capture and storage projects broadly
available internationally and identify and address wider issues
relating to carbon capture and storage. Finally, carbon sequestration
is within the purview of the Asia Pacific Partnership's Cleaner Fossil
Energy Task, in which both China and the United States participate. We
look forward to continued collaborations with China in the area of
carbon capture and storage.
Question. In your view, how can we best encourage China to
collaborate with the United States in developing these technologies?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) will continue to encourage
China through involvement in the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum,
the FutureGen Alliance, and the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean
Development and Climate. China is a member of the Carbon Sequestration
Leadership Forum, whose purpose is to make information on viable carbon
capture and storage projects broadly available internationally and
identify and address wider issues relating to carbon capture and
storage. China is also involved in the FutureGen Alliance. Finally, the
DOE and China are members of the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean
Development and Climate, which has a mission to promote the technical
transfer and demonstration of clean coal technologies. We would look
forward to this continued collaboration with China.
CARBON CAPTURE R&D
Question. Developing carbon capture and storage technologies will
require progress on several research fronts. First, the costs of carbon
capture must be brought down to affordable levels. Second, the
feasibility of injection technologies must be demonstrated at
commercial scales. Third, monitoring and verification technologies must
be developed.
Which of these research areas do you believe to be the most
challenging given today's technologies?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) believes that the
demonstration of carbon storage at the appropriate scale and the
development of low-cost carbon capture technologies are equally
important. The need to demonstrate carbon storage at scale is needed to
stress the injection operations and determine the effects on the
storage formations. Different geological conditions and settings need
to be assessed to show that the capacity and injectivity exists for
full scale deployment. Protocols for the site selection,
characterization, well construction, permitting, monitoring, and
closure need to be developed from these projects so that full scale
deployment can occur. Carbon capture technologies exist today in
industrial applications, but have not been demonstrated at full scale
in conjunction with electricity generation. In addition, the commercial
systems that exist today would increase the cost of electricity by
approximately 30 percent to 80 percent, for pre and post combustion
technologies, respectively. Novel capture technologies are being
researched in the laboratory and have the potential to reduce the
increase in cost of electricity to DOE's goal of not more than 10
percent. Continued research and demonstration of these technologies is
needed at a pilot-scale and in full-scale integrated demonstration.
Monitoring, mitigation, and verification technologies are necessary but
new technologies are not critical to deployment of carbon capture and
storage as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology. Existing
technologies can be adapted for monitoring CO2 in geologic
formations. Advancement in this area could improve our knowledge of the
fate of CO2 and drive down the associated cost of
monitoring.
Question. In your view, how should the Office of Fossil Energy
allocate its resources between these areas?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) has issued a roadmap for
technology development, which is working to stage the funding
requirements for the capture and storage demonstration projects. Early
emphasis is on the demonstration of storage projects and bringing down
the cost of CO2 capture. As the capture program has success
in developing novel technologies for low cost capture, DOE is
supporting pilot and demonstration tests to demonstrate that these
capture technologies are ready for commercial deployment.
Question. How should the Federal Government and the private sector
share the cost burden of developing these technologies?
Answer. The Department's Carbon Sequestration Program administers
research and development awards through cooperative agreements, which
require that participating organizations provide a minimum of 20
percent cost share. For demonstration projects selected under a Clean
Coal Power Initiative solicitation, the recipient would need to provide
a minimum of 50 percent cost-share and agree to a schedule to reimburse
the Government based on future revenues from sales of the
commercialized technology.
TAXATION OF COAL R&D DOLLARS
Question. Under the Clean Coal Power Initiative, Round 2, the
Department of Energy has authorized funding of various private sector
projects to demonstrate advanced clean coal technology, including
advanced gasifier technology.
It is my understanding that the IRS has changed its long standing
policy toward Federal research funding to make these funds taxable as
corporate income. The practical effect of this policy change is that
one branch of government is providing funding to encourage a public
purpose activity, while another branch of government is reducing that
funding by taxing it.
I have worked too hard on this subcommittee and as Chairman of the
Energy Committee to make Federal energy R&D research a priority. Now to
have the IRS change it's policy to levy a huge tax on the Federal R&D
funds would be devastating in our effort to increase our energy
independence.
Can you please explain the logic behind this decision and what
impact it will have on Federal R&D efforts to have upwards of one-third
of the funding going toward tax payments instead of research?
Answer. I would refer you to the Department of Treasury for an
explanation and rationale of their decisions.
Question. Has Secretary Bodman contacted Treasury Secretary Paulson
to discuss this matter?
Answer. The Department of Energy has been in contact with the
Treasury Department to understand the rationale behind this ruling and
what options may be available under current law to utilize allocated
research and development funding.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVES ROYALTY DISTRIBUTION
Question. As you may be aware, when Congress transferred Naval Oil
Shale Reserves (NOSR) Numbers 1 and 3 from the Department of Energy to
the Department of the Interior in 1998 the legislation stated that DOI
could not begin the ``normal'' process of royalty distribution until
DOE was compensated for their ``original investment'' and for the costs
of cleanup of the Anvil Points facility. To ensure this happened
section 7439 (f)(2) of the Transfer Act stated that the Secretaries of
Interior and Energy must jointly certify to Congress that the monies
have been recouped prior to making revenue available for distribution
to the State of Colorado.
Oil and gas receipts collected from production within NOSR Number 3
have now far surpassed the estimate of what was needed to fully
reimburse DOE for their original investment as well as covering the
cost of environmental remediation at the Anvil Points site. It is my
understanding that the agencies will not agree to certification until
the necessary clean-up is complete. As you and I both know, that will
likely take several more years.
I was serving in the Senate at the time and played an active role
in the passage of this provision. It is my view that DOE and DOI have
misread the intent of Congress in determining that the clean-up must be
complete. Can you please tell me what this position was based on?
Answer. Although the Department of the Interior assumed
responsibility for the environmental remediation of Anvil Points, the
Secretary of Energy must certify that there are adequate funds in the
account to offset all costs incurred by the Government, including the
Department of the Interior's proposed cleanup plan. It is our
understanding that Department of the Interior has not finalized its
cleanup plan; consequently the cost of that plan remains to be
estimated.
At such time as the Department of the Interior completes the plan
along with the estimate of costs, the Department of Energy stands ready
to quickly review and certify whether the funds generated exceed the
total costs. We will continue to work closely with the Department of
the Interior to facilitate the completion of the necessary measures to
initiate the appropriate distribution of the royalty payments from the
former Reserves.
______
Questions Submitted to Kevin M. Kolevar
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
CONSOLIDATION OF RESEARCH PROGRAMS
Question. I have noticed that the Distributed Energy Systems has
been renamed to Renewable and Distributed Systems Integration. The
funding has been reduced and the focus changed to distributed
generation technologies on the utility side of the meter. What has
happened to development of technologies on the customer side of the
meter? Has it been reduced, eliminated, or moved to another research
area? Why was this done?
Answer. The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability's
(OE) Distributed Energy Systems budget line has been renamed to reflect
the fact that distributed generation technologies have been completed.
The Distributed Energy Program has met its performance targets of: (1)
achieving three integrated energy systems (combined heat and power
systems) of greater than 70 percent efficiency; (2) demonstrating a 38
percent efficient microturbine; and (3) demonstrating a 44 percent
efficient reciprocating engine. The research efforts will now address
Renewable and Distributed Systems Integration (RDSI), as reflected in
the budget request. This research will concentrate on the integration
of renewable and distributed energy technologies into the grid at the
distribution system level.
The successful demonstration of this integration could
substantially increase the use of renewable and distributed energy for
supplying power and other ancillary services during peak load periods
in support of electric distribution operations. These projects will
also demonstrate the ability of these technologies to reduce power
required to the distribution feeder. This will be accomplished through:
modeling, design, integration, and RD&D of renewables and distributed
energy integration into the distribution system; low-cost sensors;
advanced monitoring; and consumer information. The goal of RDSI is to
demonstrate a peak load reduction of 20 percent by 2015 and improve
asset management on distribution feeders. This will be accomplished
through the implementation of distributed energy (including renewables)
and energy management systems that are cost competitive with system
capacity upgrades.
The development of technologies on the customer side of the meter
is the responsibility of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy. Currently, only renewable technologies that can be placed on
the utility side of the meter are being supported in this office. The
Distributed Energy activities were moved by Congress in the fiscal year
2006 appropriations.
Question. DOE has developed programs such as GridWise and GridWorks
to facilitate grid systems integration while fostering development of
the ``smart grid'' concept. Your office has restructured and
streamlined your R&D programs in fiscal year 2007 and into fiscal year
2008.
Thus, what is the status of these efforts? What has your office
done since the 2003 Blackout to address the role of advanced
technologies to avoid similar situations and to coordinate with the
private sector to shepherd these technologies into the marketplace?
Answer. In fiscal year 2005, the Department issued a solicitation
and awarded cooperative agreements in support of the Gridwise and
Gridworks research plans. Some of these awards are completed and others
are still in progress. The Department remains committed to completing
the activities initiated under this solicitation for Gridwise and
Gridworks. As a result of these activities, the Department has
recognized the need to promote advanced grid control technologies
(Gridwise) and improved hardware (Gridworks) in a systematic manner.
We have identified the causes of the 2003 blackout and have made
progress in implementing the recommendations made by the U.S.-Canada
Power System Outage Task Force (Task Force). The most important
recommendation of the Task Force was for the U.S. Congress to enact
legislation to make compliance with reliability standards mandatory and
legally enforceable, which the Congress did in the Energy Policy Act of
2005. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission implements this policy
through oversight of the North American Electric Reliability Council as
the Nation's ``Electric Reliability Organization.''
The electricity delivery system is extremely complex and remains
subject to combinations of mechanical and human failures. Although
improvements have been made to the grid since 2003 in areas such as
operator training, we can never entirely prevent blackouts from
occurring. What we can do is improve our ability to identify and
isolate problems on the grid when they arise. That is why my office
works with transmission system operators on the next level of
technologies that will increase the ability of operators to receive
real-time information regarding transmission problems.
It is also important that we are not just prepared for a blackout
similar to that of August 14, 2003; we must be well-prepared for a
wider range of possible events. The Office of Electricity's (OE)
Infrastructure Security and Energy Reliability program provides hands-
on expertise to assist in the recovery of the transmission network, no
matter what the cause of the failure. Finally, under authority from the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, OE assists State and regional planners by
identifying areas of electric congestion, coordinating Federal
authorizations required to site new transmission, and where
appropriate, designating national interest electric transmission
corridors to enable the FERC, under certain circumstances, to site
transmission facilities.
HIGH TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTIVITY RESEARCH
Question. I note that the funding level for high temperature
superconductivity research and development has been cut by 42 percent
from the funding level in fiscal year 2006. Why such a significant cut?
What technology applications are being reduced because of these cuts?
Answer. The cut was to focus the high temperature superconductivity
program on higher priority wire development and cable demonstrations
(including fault current limiters). The cut in high temperature
superconductivity reflects phasing out of motor research and completing
flywheel cooperative agreements.
ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION AND ENERGY DELIVERY
Question. I have noted your office's work on determining areas of
congestion and defining national corridors as well as your work in
siting and permitting. North Dakota has a variety of energy resources
that are stranded and that are not able to move to markets. What is
your office doing to help promote and expand transmission delivery and
efficiency in North Dakota and around the country?
Answer. My office is involved in four major activities to help
transmission delivery and improve efficiency in North Dakota and around
the country.
First, in August 2006, in accordance with section 1221(a) of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT), the Department of Energy (DOE)
released the National Electric Transmission Congestion Study
(Congestion Study), which examined transmission congestion and
constraints and identified constrained transmission paths in many areas
(except Texas) that are facing growing demand. The congestion study
identified three categories of congestion areas that merit further
attention throughout the continental United States. The third type of
congestion areas in the study, ``Conditional Congestion Areas,''
identified areas where congestion is not presently acute, but could
become so if considerable new electric generation were to be built
without associated transmission capacity. The region from the Dakotas-
Minnesota falls into this category because it contains potential
locations for new large-scale wind and coal generation that could serve
distant load centers.
Second, in addition to fulfilling the EPACT requirement that the
Department update the Congestion Study every 3 years, DOE will also
issue annual reports in the interim that detail the progress made in
addressing the congestion challenges as identified in the 2006
Congestion Study. My office is preparing a draft for the Department's
Congestion Alleviation Update that will be published in fall 2007. This
update will detail the transmission, generation, and demand reduction
activities that have occurred in the areas of transmission congestion
that the Department identified in its August 2006 study.
Third, my office is implementing two other areas of EPACT that
relate to transmission delivery. One of these is in accordance with
EPACT section 368 and is a joint effort with the Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, and Interior to designate energy
corridors on Federal lands for oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines in
addition to electricity transmission and distribution facilities. A
record of decision for the 11 contiguous Western States, is expected to
be completed in fiscal year 2008. Corridor designation for the Eastern
United States, Alaska, and Hawaii will begin in early fiscal year 2008.
The second area of EPACT is in accordance with the new Federal Power
Act section 216(h) created under EPACT section 1221(a). The Department
is now beginning this process of coordinating all applicable Federal
authorizations and related environmental reviews that are required to
site an electric transmission facility.
Fourth, my office has been and continues to support the efforts of
States and transmission planners to work on a regional basis to better
coordinate electric infrastructure improvements. For example, for a
number of years we have given direct funding support, as well as in-
kind support from various technical analyses and studies, to the
Western Governor's Association for its ``Committee on Regional Electric
Power Coordination,'' which is an ad-hoc group of Western State
officials who meet regularly to better coordinate and encourage needed
electric infrastructure improvements in the Western Interconnection. A
number of regional and sub-regional transmission planning and study
groups in the West have emerged as a result of the encouragement of
these State officials and their Governors. In fact, the Department
reviewed many of the documents these groups have produced in conducting
analysis for the Congestion Study. As a result of the Congestion Study,
the western region, with oversight by a body of State officials, has
now developed regional transmission planning through the Western
Electricity Coordinating Council.
Similarly, in the Eastern Interconnection, grid planners are
undertaking efforts to conduct interconnection-wide analyses. The new
Eastern Reliability Working Group has brought together all of the
regional transmission operators, independent system operators, and
reliability councils in the Easter Interconnection.
The Office of Electricity also coordinates with the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to provide technical assistance
to transmission planners and grid operators seeking to integrate wind
generation into the transmission grid. This includes working with the
Midwest Independent System Operator to identify possible transmission
upgrades that will enable wind generation in North Dakota to be
developed.
LOAN GUARANTEE QUESTIONS
Question. Since the passage of the fiscal year 2007 Joint Funding
Resolution, the Department has moved forward on several fronts related
to the loan guarantee program. Please tell the committee where the
Department stands in terms of setting up the new loan guarantee office,
issuing final regulations for this program, and reviewing the pre-
applications submitted last year.
Answer. The Department has advertised the position for the Director
of the Loan Guarantee Program Office. A number of resumes have been
received to date, and the Department will review the resumes for
qualified candidates. In addition, two senior Department of the
Treasury employees with experience in Federal loan guarantee programs
have joined the Loan Guarantee Program Office on 6 month details to
help establish the office. Once the Director has been hired, the
Director will make a determination on required staffing expertise and
those positions will be recruited.
With respect to the issuance of final regulations, the Department
is working to meet the August 2007 deadline contained in the Revised
Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, Public Law 110-5. A Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on May 16,
2007 and is open for public comment until July 2, 2007.
Finally, the Department is completing a preliminary review of the
applications to determine which applications are responsive to the
solicitation. Guidance has been issued to program offices to begin the
technical reviews of the pre-applications. Separately, the Loan
Guarantee Office will be reviewing each pre-application for compliance
with the financial, commercial, and other criteria set forth in the
August 2006 solicitation and accompanying guidelines. Ultimately, the
goal is to complete the pre-application evaluations this summer.
Question. With all of these activities underway, when do you think
that the Department can reasonably expect to make the public
announcements regarding awards to industry?
Answer. The Department anticipates that it will take until at least
the first quarter of calendar year 2008 to issue the first loan
guarantees.
Question. In the fiscal year 2007 Long-term Funding Resolution,
Congress provided funding to support establishment of a loan guarantee
office. Congress authorized up to $4 billion in loan guarantees to be
available immediately and directed that no loan guarantee awards can be
made until final loan guarantee regulations are in place, 6 months from
the date of enactment of the fiscal year 2007 Long-term Funding
Resolution. Furthermore, in fiscal year 2008, the Department is seeking
additional funding to support the loan guarantee office, and you are
requesting $9 billion in additional authority with a caveat that this
amount would be reduced from amounts previously provided.
If the request is for $9 billion to be reduced by the amount
previously provided, is that amount previously provided, the $2 billion
the Department previously announced would be available late last year
or the $4 billion that the Long-term Funding Resolution provided?
Answer. As the Department anticipates that it will take until at
least the first quarter of calendar year 2008 to issue the first loan
guarantees, DOE anticipates issuing $9 billion in loan guarantees in
fiscal year 2008.
Question. Does the Department believe that new coal and nuclear
power plants are very capital intensive and thus requiring additional
assistance to construct first-of-a-kind technologies? The committee is
aware of information that the costs of these plants are very large
relative to the market capitalization of some of the utility companies
that are interested in constructing such facilities.
What is the Department's current assessment of the economic
viability of new commercial coal and nuclear power plants?
How would Federal loan guarantees affect the relative economics of
these new coal and nuclear power plant projects?
In view of the uncertainties and regulatory risks associated with
the initial deployment of a new fleet of IGCC carbon capture-ready and
nuclear power plants, in your judgment would the loan guarantee program
play an important role bringing these planned projects to fruition?
Answer. Advanced, environmentally friendly, clean coal technologies
are poised to enter the market, but some require a price premium
relative to more conventional technology. In spite of the higher cost,
the private sector has shown great interest in these technologies. The
2008 budget continues robust funding for the President's Advanced
Energy Initiative to develop and accelerate the deployment of advanced
energy technologies, including new coal and nuclear technologies. Long-
term regulatory drivers, such as the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
and the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), also provide an incentive for
the private sector to invest in these technologies.
The Department received 143 pre-applications requesting more than
$27 billion in loan guarantee protection for this initial round of
guarantees. Twenty-three projects, representing $16 billion in loan
guarantees were for advanced fossil technology.
Loan guarantees, along with other provisions in the Energy Policy
Act of 2005, can play a role in accelerating the deployment of advance
coal and carbon capture technologies.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
DISTRIBUTED GENERATION
Question. Mr. Kolevar, the 2008 request essentially zeroes out the
Distributed Energy Resource program, which used to be a $60 million
program aimed at helping Combined Heat and Power and other clean and
efficient technology get onto the grid. This program was shifted to the
Office of Energy Distribution and Energy Reliability last year and now
is slated for elimination. Has EDER abandoned its commitment to develop
clean distributed generation, and focus only on transmission and power
delivery issues?
Answer. The focus on the development of distributed generation
technologies has been completed. The Distributed Energy Program has met
its performance targets of: (1) achieving three integrated energy
systems (combined heat and power systems) of greater than 70 percent
efficiency; (2) demonstrating a 38 percent efficient microturbine; and
(3) demonstrating a 44 percent efficient reciprocating engine. The
research has now shifted to Renewable and Distributed Systems
Integration (RDSI) work. This research will concentrate on the
integration of renewable and distributed energy technologies into the
grid at the distribution system level. By successfully demonstrating
this integration, the use of renewable and distributed energy in
support of electric distribution operations should substantially
increase for supplying power and other ancillary services during peak
load periods.
These projects will also demonstrate the ability of these
technologies to reduce power required to the distribution feeder. This
will be accomplished through modeling, design, integration, and RD&D of
renewables and distributed energy integration into the distribution
system; low-cost sensors; advanced monitoring; and consumer
information. The goal of the RDSI is to demonstrate peak load reduction
of 20 percent by 2015, and improve asset management on distribution
feeders with the implementation of distributed energy (including
renewables), and energy management systems that are cost competitive
with system capacity upgrades.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
OFFICE OF ENERGY ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY
Question. Mr. Kolevar, I understand that your office has had the
responsibility for complying with section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act
that requires the Secretary to designate ``National Interest Electric
Transmission Corridors''
We all know how difficult it is to site electric transmission
lines, but with a projected 19 percent increase in electricity demand
over the next decade; we must work through the NIMBY issues.
What is the status of this report and what are the next steps in
designating these critical infrastructure corridors.
Answer. Section 216(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes
the Secretary, in his discretion, to designate geographic areas where
transmission congestion or constraints adversely affect consumers as
national interest electric transmission corridors (National Corridors).
On April 26, 2007, DOE issued two draft National Corridor designations,
in relation to the two Critical Congestion Areas identified in the
Department's August 2006 Congestion Study. The first is the draft Mid-
Atlantic Area National Corridor and the second is the draft Southwest
Area National Corridor. If, after consideration of all comments on
these drafts and consultation with the affected States, the Secretary
of Energy decides that designation of either or both areas is
appropriate, he will issue one or more orders doing so.
DOE welcomes comments on the draft National Corridor designations
and has opened a 60-day public comment period, which will end on July
6, 2007. Please refer to the Federal Register Notice for information on
the comment process. The full text of the notice is available at http:/
/nietc.anl.gov. During the public comment period, the Department
intends to hold seven public meetings to discuss these drafts.
In 2006, the Department announced that, in addition to the
statutory requirement under section 216(a) of FPA that the Department
release a congestion study every 3 years, DOE would issue annual
progress reports in addition to the triennial studies. Accordingly, the
Department is beginning a review of mitigation activities underway in
each of the congestion areas identified in last year's Congestion
Study. The activities that will be examined include the status of
transmission projects that are proposed, permitted and completed since
last August. We will also be identifying new or proposed local
generation, demand response programs, and energy conservation and
efficiency programs affecting congestion in the identified congestion
areas. The Department intends to issue this congestion alleviation
progress report in fall 2007.
ENERGY STORAGE R&D
Question. Mr. Kolevar, your fiscal year 2007 spending plan provides
only $5 million to support R&D storage. This level of funding is
woefully inadequate considering the biggest challenge to the deployment
of renewable generation is the intermittent nature of these
technologies. It is vitally important that your office work with Asst.
Secretary Karsner's team to ensure that energy storage R&D compliments
the renewable research.
Can you explain why this important R&D effort has received so
little in spending? If Congress provided and additional $5 million or
$10 million how would you spend this funding?
Answer. Funding requests for energy storage research during the
last 5 years have fluctuated between approximately $5 million and $3
million. However, this amount has been augmented by up to $11 million
in congressionally directed funding and by some $7 million in annual
cost share from our State and utility partners. The program is
considered worldwide as one of the leaders in this field.
An extra $5 million or $10 million would expand the scope of OE's
research program.
ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY
Question. Mr. Kolevar, your fiscal year 2007 spend plan recommends
a significant increase in funding for infrastructure security, which
was not included in your fiscal year 2007 request and it is unclear
from the spend plan how this funding is being used and for what
purpose.
Is this funding being used to improve foreign energy infrastructure
security--are these Middle East countries?
Answer. In fiscal year 2007 the Office of Electricity (OE) has been
tasked as the technical lead assisting the State Department in
executing the Critical Energy Infrastructure Protection (CEIP)
initiative, which is overseen by the National Security Council (NSC).
The Department of Energy's (DOE) role is to assess and advise foreign
countries who have requested U.S. assistance on needed improvements to
their energy infrastructure security. Our teams of expert teams travel
to the host country and assess current security measures and recommend
improvements. The host country funds and implements the actual
improvements that are identified in the development of a CEIP security
program.
The specific countries targeted by this program were selected by
the intelligence community, were coordinated through the interagency
process, and were provided in a report to the NSC. To date, CEIP
Initiative activities have been limited to the Middle East, although
DOE and the Department of Homeland Security have provided similar
support to Canada and Mexico because of the interconnected nature of
our energy systems.
Question. Is this funding being cost shared by the nation that is
benefiting from this security evaluation? Is there any reason why the
country can't or should not pay for this activity?
Answer. Each host country has shared the cost of the consultation
with the U.S. Government, although specific cost-sharing mechanisms
vary depending on the country. The Office of Electricity funds travel
and lodging of U.S. Government employees and required security training
for U.S. Government employees traveling to dangerous areas. It also
provides for the participation of contractors with specific expertise
relevant to energy security in a high-threat environment and Federally-
funded national lab experts and scientists. Finally, OE reimburses U.S.
Embassies for their support efforts. All participating host foreign
nations have agreed to pay for the technical experts' internal travel
while in country. They have also provided aircraft and watercraft that
the teams have needed and have supported the teams' security needs.
While DOE helps to evaluate security requirements, the host country has
the sole responsibility for funding all such security enhancements to
the critical energy infrastructure.
Question. Is this a free service we intend to provide to other
countries in the future or, do we have a special obligation to these
nations?
Answer. The United States is not responsible for the entire cost of
the consultation--the costs are shared with the host nation. The fiscal
year 2007 initiative is limited to those nations the intelligence
community has identified in a classified document to the NSC.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Dorgan. We thank the witnesses for appearing. This
hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., Wednesday, April 11, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:35 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Dorgan, Murray, Feinstein, Reed,
Domenici, Craig, and Allard.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
National Nuclear Security Administration
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS P. D'AGOSTINO, ACTING UNDER
SECRETARY FOR NUCLEAR SECURITY AND
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION
ACCOMPANIED BY:
WILLIAM H. TOBEY, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE NUCLEAR
NONPROLIFERATION, NATIONAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
ADMIRAL KIRK DONALD, DIRECTOR, NAVAL NUCLEAR PROPULSION, U.S.
NAVY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN
Senator Dorgan. This is a hearing of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. We will be joined
shortly by ranking member, Senator Domenici. And, I welcome
Senator Craig.
The hearing today will be for the purpose of reviewing the
fiscal year 2008 budget request for the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA). The proposed budget for NNSA is
nearly $9.4 billion. That's 39 percent of the Department of
Energy's total budget for fiscal year 2008, an increase of $306
million above fiscal year 2007's operating plan, but only a $71
million increase over the administration's fiscal year 2007
budget request. The weapons activities request is $6.5 billion.
The nuclear nonproliferation request is $1.67 billion. This
represents about 18 percent of the NNSA total budget. The
remainder of the NNSA's budget is made up of $808 million for
naval reactors and $394 million for the Office of the
Administrator.
NNSA's fiscal year 2008 budget request appears measured
when weighed against fiscal year 2006 and 2007, but if you go
back a few years, we see a very substantial increase in funding
has taken place in these accounts. In 2001, NNSA's budget was
$6.7 billion. That has grown by about $2.7 billion in the past
eight fiscal years.
I'm trying to, as a new chairman of this subcommittee,
understand as much as I can about what this budget means, what
these activities are. This is, obviously, an interesting,
complicated area of the Federal budget and it's an interesting
and complicated set of policy issues.
Mr. D'Agostino, you represent an organization that is
involved in very important and very complicated matters. And,
we appreciate your being here today to testify. You are
involved in our nuclear weapons programs in this part of our
Department of Energy. There's not much that we do that is more
important than those issues, including the issue of
nonproliferation. Mr. Tobey, you are involved in that issue.
I'll be asking some questions later about the issue of the
construct of nuclear weapons, the RRW program, the issue of the
nonproliferation efforts that are underway. This is a, just a
critically important function of our Government. We need to try
to make sure we get this right. It's about national security.
It's about stopping the spread of nuclear weapons around the
world, stopping the spread of nuclear technology.
We face, at this time, very significant issues with
countries like Iran and North Korea over the issue of
enrichment capabilities and nuclear weapons production. The
list of nuclear weapon countries, both rogue and nonrogue,
could very well grow in future years. If that's the case, that
will, in my judgment, increase the threat to our country.
And so, all of these things are very, very important. I
can't have answers, don't have answers to all of the questions
that are posed by these issues that we'll talk about today.
But, I think we need to continue to explore and ask questions
about them all and try to understand where we're headed.
Let me call on Senator Craig. If you have any opening
comments, Senator Craig.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG
Senator Craig. Well, Mr. Chairman, there is a portion of
this budget that I know a good a deal about, so let me tell you
about it. And, I say that because few understand and oftentimes
are quite surprised when I say out in the middle of the high
deserts of Idaho rests a nuclear submarine or at least the
ingredients of it as it relates to nuclear propulsion. And, I
say that because I'm talking about the construct, or the
construction of, in 1953, a Nautilus prototype reactor, which
really started our nuclear Navy and I suspect--Admiral, did you
train in Idaho?
Admiral Donald. I did not, sir.
Senator Craig. You did not.
Mr. D'Agostino. I did. Yes, sir, I did.
Senator Craig. There, Mr. D'Agostino did. And, quite often
when you talk to those of the nuclear Navy, they will have
spent time in Idaho. Now, having said that, that is really, as
we all know, one of the great success stories of the nuclear
side of us, as a country. Not only what we've done with the
nuclear Navy, the successes, the changes in the type of
reactors, the fuel cycle.
I say this publicly, loudly, as often as I can, had we been
as dedicated to the commercial side of nuclear electrical
generation as we were to nuclear propulsion and the refinement
of reactor and fuel cycle, we would without question be leading
the world today in highly efficient reactors of a kind that we
are attempting to imagine. But, we're not there because we
stopped. We did not do that with the nuclear Navy.
Also, I will say that in 1967, the advanced test reactor at
the INL, our national lab, began to tackle the nuclear fuels
reliability and materials testing issue. It was commissioned in
1967 to support the Navy's nuclear propulsion program. And, all
I can say is that all of us can be extremely pleased with those
successes. There is none finer in the world today than what we
have accomplished with our nuclear Navy.
And, as a result of that, I am, you know, pretty open,
pretty direct, and extremely proud that so much of that was
accomplished at the national laboratory in southeastern Idaho.
So, obviously I look at the broader issues involved in this
portion of the budget, but I focus very closely on a portion of
it that deals with the Idaho facility and the ongoing work that
we do and the science. The Office of Energy, Nuclear Energy and
Science and transitioning the ATR to a national users facility
that industry and the academic community can access for all
that we're attempting to do today, Mr. Chairman, as it relates
to the dynamics of the nuclear industry and the fuels that will
ultimately be part of that growing industry as we now see it.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Craig----
Senator Craig. Again, gentlemen, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Mr. Chairman, I have no opening statement.
Thank you though.
Senator Dorgan. Let me make one additional comment, because
I think it's important to say that the issues we will talk
about today, RRW, nonproliferation, and so on, are not issues
that we deal with in isolation. These issues are part of a
larger national and international discussion about nuclear
weapons policies, about stock, our stockpile, reliability,
about nonproliferation, about test ban treaties, and so on.
There's a, so my point is, these are big issues. You know, we
work everyday in areas here in Congress that have some big
issues and some small issues. These are very big issues that
have national and international consequences.
And, Mr. D'Agostino, thank you for being here. It's been a
pleasure to meet you and begin to work with you in these
months. And, I would include your entire statement as a part of
the permanent record and ask you to summarize and introduce as
well, Admiral Donald and Mr. Tobey.
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS P. D'AGOSTINO
Mr. D'Agostino. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I'm Tom D'Agostino, the Deputy Administrator for
Defense Programs and I'm accompanied today by Will Tobey, on my
left, who is the Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation. And, Admiral Kirk Donald, on my right, the
Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors.
As you mentioned earlier, the President's fiscal year 2008
budget request for the NNSA is $9.4 billion. It supports three
basic national security missions. The first is to assure the
safety, security, and the reliability of the U.S. nuclear
stockpile, while at the same time transforming that stockpile,
making it smaller essentially, and the associated
infrastructure. The second major mission is to reduce the
threat posed by nuclear proliferation. The third is to provide
a reliable and safe nuclear reactor propulsion system for the
United States Navy.
In order to accomplish this mission, we developed a vision,
which we call Complex 2030. And simply put, this vision has
four main portions to it. The first is to transform the nuclear
weapons stockpile by making it smaller, by making it safer, and
by making it more secure. The second element is to reduce the
size of the nuclear weapons infrastructure, decreasing the
footprint in the United States of that infrastructure and the
impact on the environment. The third is to change the way we do
business, drive more efficient business processes. And, the
fourth is to sustain and improve the science and technology
base that's gotten us to this point and allows us to have such
a strong national security.
I'm pleased to report today that stockpile stewardship is
working. This program has successfully sustained the safety,
security, and reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal without
the need to conduct an underground nuclear test. Many actions
to transform the size and operations of the complex, transform
the stockpile, and drive the science and technology base are
well underway.
We are reducing the number of sites with large quantities
of special nuclear materials and consolidating these materials
within the remaining sites. We're maintaining an accelerated
rate of dismantlement of retired warheads. We want to take
these weapon systems apart. We are reconstituting the nuclear
weapons production capability and we have revived our ability
to extract tritium for use in the stockpile at our new tritium
extraction facility in South Carolina.
I'd like to emphasize that our recent Reliable Replacement
Warhead announcement addressed the selection of a baseline for
further study. It was not an announcement to actually, or a
decision to actually, build a replacement warhead.
Over the next 9 to 12 months, our plans are simply to
develop a detailed cost, scope, and schedule baseline for a
Reliable Replacement Warhead for the Trident submarine launched
ballistic missile. With this baseline, we'll be able to develop
the details and the plans necessary for us to evaluate whether
we need to make a decision on further reducing the number of
life extensions that we have planned and reducing the overall
size of the stockpile itself. We will work very closely with
the Congress as we move forward, to ensure that we proceed in a
step-wise measured and well understood manner in this respect.
One of the major benefits of a Reliable Replacement Warhead
approach is that it reinforces our nonproliferation commitments
and objectives. This strategy will allow us to increase our
warhead dismantlement rate, sending a strong message to the
world that we're taking meaningful steps toward further
stockpile reductions. Additionally, increased long-term
confidence and the credibility of the U.S. nuclear deterrent
will assure allies and obviate any need for them to develop and
field their own nuclear forces.
Finally, the improved security features of a Reliable
Replacement Warhead concept will prevent unauthorized use,
should this warhead ever fall in the hands of terrorists. In
the area of nuclear nonproliferation, the NNSA has worked with
over 100 international partners to detect, prevent, and reverse
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We're securing
and reducing the quantity of nuclear and radiological
materials, bolstering border security overseas, strengthening
international nonproliferation and export control regimes, and
conducting cutting-edge research and development of nuclear
detection technologies. All of these are key mission areas for
the nonproliferation program.
Meeting our commitment under the Bratislava Agreement, to
conclude security upgrade activities at the Russian nuclear
sites by the end of 2008, is our highest priority. As a result
of our efforts to accelerate this work, we are well positioned
to successfully reach this milestone on schedule. In addition
to our work with Russia, some of the highlights in the 2008
budget include completing installation of radiation detection
monitors at ports in Belgium, Oman, and the Dominican Republic
and continuing the MOX fuel fabrication facility project to
eventually dispose of surplus U.S. plutonium and support in the
U.S. role in international nonproliferation efforts.
The Naval Reactors Program includes development work
necessary to ensure nuclear propulsion technology provides
options for maintaining and upgrading current capabilities, as
well as meeting future threats to U.S. security.
A majority of funding supports the top priority of ensuring
the safety and reliability of the 103 operating naval nuclear
propulsion plants. This work involves continual testing,
analysis, and monitoring of plant and core performance, which
becomes more important as the reactor plants age.
The nature of this business demands a careful and measured
approach to developing and verifying nuclear technology.
Designing needed component systems and processes and
implementing them in existing and future plant designs.
Long-term program goals have been to increase core energy,
to achieve life-of-the-ship cores and to eliminate the need to
refuel nuclear powered ships. Efforts associated with this
objective have resulted in plant core lives that are sufficient
for a 30-plus year submarine and an extended core life planned
for the next generation aircraft carrier.
In summary, there is an effective synergy between the
NNSA's weapons activities and nonproliferation activities. For
example, we have dismantled more than 13,000 weapons since
1988. Plans are operationally deployed, United States, Russian,
and strategic nuclear warheads will not exceed 1,700 to 2,200
by December 2012. In 2003, the Department of Energy completed
dismantlement of most nonstrategic nuclear warhead, nuclear
weapons, limiting our stockpile of these systems to less than
one-tenth of cold war levels.
In 2004, President Bush approved a plan that will cut the
U.S. stockpile by almost one-half from the 2001 level. And, by
the end of 2012, the Department's efforts will have reduced the
stockpile to its smallest level in several decades. In addition
to weapons dismantlement, the Department is making tremendous
progress to reduce and eliminate fissile material made surplus
to defense requirements.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I'm confident the NNSA is heading in the right direction in
the coming fiscal year. This concludes my statement and I look
forward to your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas P. D'Agostino
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal
year 2008 budget request for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA). This is my first appearance before this
committee as the Acting Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and NNSA
Administrator, and I want to thank all of the members for their strong
support for our vital national security missions.
In the 7th year of this administration, with the strong support of
Congress, NNSA has achieved a level of stability that is required for
accomplishing our long-term missions. Our fundamental national security
responsibilities for the United States include:
--assuring the safety, security and reliability of the U.S. nuclear
weapons stockpile while at the same time transforming the
stockpile and the infrastructure that supports it;
--reducing the threat posed by nuclear proliferation; and
--providing reliable and safe nuclear reactor propulsion systems for
the U.S. Navy.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request for $9.4 billion, an increase
of $306 million from the fiscal year 2007 operating plan, supports the
crucial missions to ensure the Nation's nuclear security.
WEAPONS ACTIVITIES
Stockpile Stewardship is working--the nuclear weapons stockpile
remains safe, secure and reliable. Throughout the past decade, the
Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) has proven its ability to
successfully sustain the safety, security and reliability of the
nuclear arsenal without resorting to underground nuclear testing. The
SSP also enables the United States to provide a credible strategic
deterrent capability with a stockpile that is significantly smaller. To
assure our ability to maintain essential military capabilities over the
long-term, however, and to enable significant reductions in reserve
warheads, we must make progress towards a truly responsive nuclear
weapons infrastructure as called for in the Nuclear Posture Review
(NPR). The NPR called for a transition from a threat-based nuclear
deterrent, with large numbers of deployed and reserve weapons, to a
deterrent that is based on capabilities, with a smaller nuclear weapons
stockpile and greater reliance on the capability and responsiveness of
the Department of Defense (DOD) and NNSA infrastructure to adapt to
emerging threats.
To meet these objectives, we developed a transformation vision and
strategy, the cornerstones of which are Complex 2030 and the Reliable
Replacement Warhead (RRW). We are boldly moving forward to implement
this strategy now, bringing us closer to achieving an even smaller
stockpile, one that is safer and more secure, one that offers a reduced
likelihood that we will ever again need to conduct an underground
nuclear test, and ultimately, one that enables a much more responsive
nuclear weapons infrastructure.
Over the next several years, our performance will not only be
measured by the success of our continuing efforts to maintain the
nuclear stockpile, but also, by the success of our efforts to plan and
achieve a truly responsive nuclear weapons infrastructure for the long-
term strategic needs of the Nation. What do we mean by ``responsive
nuclear weapons infrastructure?'' By ``responsive'' we refer to the
resilience of the nuclear enterprise to unanticipated events or
emerging threats, and the ability to anticipate innovations by an
adversary and to counter them before our deterrent is degraded.
Unanticipated events could include complete failure of a deployed
warhead type or the need to respond to new and emerging geopolitical
threats.
The elements of a responsive infrastructure include the people, the
science and technology base, the facilities and equipment to support a
right-sized nuclear weapons enterprise as well as practical and
streamlined business practices that will enable us to respond rapidly
and flexibly to emerging needs. More specifically, a responsive
infrastructure must provide proven and demonstrable capabilities, on
appropriate timescales, and in support of national security
requirements.
We are focused on four implementing strategies to achieve our
transformational objectives: (1) transform to a modernized, more cost-
effective safe and secure complex; (2) transform the nuclear stockpile
in partnership with the DOD; (3) create a fully integrated and
interdependent complex; and, (4) drive the science and technology base
essential for long-term national security.
We are taking many concrete steps today to make this transformation
vision a reality. The completion of a Supplemental Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Complex 2030 in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will mark the most
significant of these steps. Although the original notice of intent for
the PEIS did not include a Consolidated Nuclear Production Center
(CNPC), we have determined that it is important to include this concept
as an alternative to be evaluated in the draft PEIS. The scoping period
concluded in January 2007, and a Record of Decision for the future
configuration of the Complex is anticipated in 2008. While we await the
results of the NEPA process, many actions to transform the stockpile,
transform the operation of the Complex, and drive the science and
technology base are already well underway. Specifically, we are:
--Reducing the number of sites with Category I/II special nuclear
material (SNM) and consolidating such material within the
remaining sites. This process has begun with the initial
shipment in 2006 of plutonium from Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL) and the removal of Category I/II material
from Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Technical Area 18.
Within the next 5 years, we expect to eliminate the need for
Category I/II SNM security at Sandia National Laboratory (SNL).
--Dramatically accelerating the dismantlement of retired weapons. The
Pantex Throughput Improvement Program has resulted in a
significant improvement in throughput and we expect our
dismantlement rate for fiscal year 2007 to exceed that of
fiscal year 2006 by nearly 50 percent. Additional activities
are also underway to increase the rate at which weapons can be
dismantled and dispositioned at Y-12.
--Reconstituting the Nation's nuclear weapon production capability by
implementing our plans to ramp up to 30-50 pits per year at
LANL by 2012.
--Reviving our ability to extract tritium for use in the stockpile at
the new Tritium Extraction Facility at the Savannah River Site
(SRS).
--Developing a weapons program Science and Technology roadmap to
define the full set of capabilities needed to sustain the
future stockpile.
--Streamlining and improving business practices by adding multi-site
incentives to current contracts, enhancing line management
structures to strengthen accountability, consolidating facility
organizations and establishing a systems integration structure.
To foster confidence in the transformation process and to ensure
that the Complex remains focused on meeting our current commitments, we
established a ``Getting the Job Done'' list for the nuclear weapons
complex in April 2006. By January 2007, the following commitments were
complete: (1) delivering B61-7 and B61-11 Alt 357 Life Extension
Program (LEP) first production units; (2) delivering the full
capability of the Advanced Simulation and Computing Purple Machine; (3)
updating pit lifetime estimates; (4) supporting the Nuclear Weapons
Council (NWC) decision in November 2006 to proceed with the RRW
strategy; and (5) extracting tritium for use in the stockpile at the
new Tritium Extraction Facility.
The weapons complex is also on track to fulfill the remaining
fiscal year 2007 commitments of: (1) continuing to deliver our products
(e.g., limited life components) to DOD; (2) eliminating the backlog of
surveillance units consistent with an enhanced evaluation strategy
(except the W84 and W88); (3) accelerating the dismantlement of retired
weapons in fiscal year 2007 by 50 percent; (4) delivering the W76-1 LEP
first production unit; and (5) certifying the W88 with a new pit and
manufacturing 10 W88 pits in fiscal year 2007. Delivery on these and
future near-term commitments during transformation of the weapons
complex is essential to the continued safety, security and reliability
of the stockpile.
Another area where we are making tremendous progress to transform
the Complex is in our efforts to secure nuclear weapons, weapons-usable
materials, information, and infrastructure from theft, compromise or
harm. We established and staffed within the Office of Defense Nuclear
Security, a Program Evaluation Office to ensure the effectiveness of
both our implemented security programs and security line management
oversight. Additionally, we have met the requirements of the 2003
Design Basis Threat and are firmly on track to meet the requirements of
the 2005 DBT at all sites by fiscal year 2011. We are also rapidly
improving our cyber security standards and practices. As the committee
is aware, we recently experienced a major cyber security incident at
LANL. While this incident has highlighted some additional areas for
improvement, NNSA has been vigorously implementing measures over the
last 2 years to strengthen the cyber security posture across the
Complex. We are strongly committed to and are actively addressing the
issues identified by the LANL incident and applying the lessons learned
complex-wide. Sustaining and improving the security of the nuclear
weapons complex is an integral component of NNSA's core mission, and
thus represents one of our highest priorities.
As we continue to draw down the stockpile, we have become concerned
that our current path--successive refurbishments of existing warheads
developed during the cold war and to stringent cold war
specifications--may pose an unacceptable risk to maintaining high
confidence in system performance over the long-term. Specifically, the
directors of our nuclear weapons laboratories have raised concerns
about their ability to assure the reliability of the legacy stockpile
over the very long-term absent nuclear testing. Our DOD partners share
these concerns. The evolution away from tested designs through a LEP
approach, resulting from inevitable accumulations of small changes over
the extended lifetimes of these highly optimized systems, is what gives
rise to these concerns.
Our decision to embark on the path to an RRW does not result from a
failure of the stockpile stewardship program, as some have suggested,
but is a reflection of its success. The SSP has revealed the need to
pursue this new RRW path. Moreover, aggressive pursuit of the new
scientific tools currently in use and being developed under the SSP is
essential, not only to sustain existing warheads as long as they are
needed, but to our efforts to design, develop and produce replacement
warheads that are safer, more reliable, and cost-effective over the
long term without nuclear testing.
We are pursuing the RRW strategy to ensure the long-term
sustainment of the military capabilities provided by warheads in the
existing stockpile, not to develop warheads for new or different
military missions. Another major driver for the RRW approach was the
realization after 9/11 that the security threat to our nuclear
stockpile had fundamentally changed. The security features in today's
stockpile are commensurate with technologies that were available during
the cold war and with the threats facing the United States at that
time. Major enhancements in security are not readily available through
system retrofits via the LEP approach.
We believe that features of the RRW concept will serve as the key
``enabler'' for achieving a smaller, more efficient and responsive
infrastructure and opportunities for a smaller stockpile. The RRW will
relax cold war design constraints that maximized yield to weight ratios
and thereby allows us to design replacement components that are easier
to manufacture, are safer and more secure, eliminate environmentally
dangerous materials, and increase design margins, thus ensuring long-
term confidence in reliability. Moving forward with the RRW program
will further allow us to take advantage of the scientists and engineers
who are retiring soon and who possess the unique skills and experience
of designing, developing, and producing nuclear weapons.
Moreover, the benefits of the RRW approach reinforce our
nonproliferation commitments and objectives. Because these warheads
would be designed with more favorable performance margins, and be less
sensitive to incremental aging effects, they would reduce the
possibility that the United States would ever be faced with a need to
conduct a nuclear test to diagnose or remedy a stockpile reliability
problem. This will bolster efforts to dissuade other countries from
testing. Moreover, once a transformed production complex demonstrates
that it can produce replacement warheads on a timescale in which
geopolitical threats could emerge, or respond in a timely way to
technical problems in the stockpile, then we can eliminate many spare
warheads, reducing further the nuclear stockpile. The RRW strategy will
allow us to increase our warhead dismantlement rate, sending a strong
message to the world that we are taking meaningful steps towards
further stockpile reductions. Additionally, increased confidence in the
U.S. nuclear deterrent will assure allies and obviate any need for them
to develop and field their own nuclear forces. Finally, the improved
security features of RRW will prevent unauthorized use should a warhead
ever fall into the hands of terrorists.
On November 30, 2006, the NWC established the feasibility of the
RRW program as a long-term strategy for maintaining a safe, secure and
credible nuclear deterrent. On March 2, 2007, the Nuclear Weapons
Council (NWC) approved a design for a joint NNSA and U.S. Navy program
to provide a replacement warhead for a portion of the Nation's sea-
based nuclear weapons. We have begun the process for the RRW design
definition and cost study, the results of which will inform the
decisionmaking process within the administration and Congress as to
whether to proceed to the next phase, engineering development.
NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
Acquisition of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
capabilities, technologies, and expertise by rogue states or terrorists
stands as one of the most potent threats to the United States and
international security. The continued pursuit of nuclear weapons by
terrorists and states of concern underscores the urgency of NNSA's
efforts to secure vulnerable nuclear weapons and weapons-usable nuclear
materials, to improve capabilities to detect and interdict nuclear
weapons or materials, to halt the production of fissile material, and
ultimately, to dispose of surplus weapons-usable materials. The fiscal
year 2008 budget request will enable NNSA to continue the activities
that support these crucial threat reduction initiatives.
Preventing access to nuclear weapons and material has many
dimensions. Our number one highest priority is to keep these dangerous
materials out of the hands of the world's most dangerous actors. Absent
access to sufficient quantities of key fissile materials, there can be
no nuclear weapon. Much of our emphasis has focused on Russia because
that is where most of the poorly secured material was located. We have
made remarkable progress cooperating with Russia to strengthen
protection, control, and accounting of its nuclear weapons and
materials. Meeting our commitment under the Bratislava Joint Statement
to conclude security upgrade activities at Russian nuclear sites by the
end of 2008 will be our chief priority in fiscal year 2008. As a result
of our efforts to accelerate this work in the wake of 9/11 and the
momentum created by the Bratislava process, we are well-positioned to
reach this significant milestone on schedule. Although our direct
upgrade efforts are drawing to a close after over a decade of work, we
will continue to work cooperatively with Russia to ensure the long-term
sustainability of the systems and procedures we have implemented.
Not all nuclear material of concern is located in Russia. We are
working with other partners to secure weapons-usable nuclear materials
worldwide and to strengthen security at civil nuclear facilities. One
area of concern is research reactors, which often use a highly enriched
uranium (HEU) fuel suitable for bombs. Our Global Threat Reduction
Initiative (GTRI) seeks to convert research reactors worldwide from HEU
to low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel and further to repatriate U.S. and
Russian-supplied HEU from these facilities to its country of origin. A
major accomplishment was the return of 268 kilograms of Soviet-origin
HEU from Germany to Russia, where it will be down blended to LEU fuel.
This repatriation operation represents the largest shipment of Soviet-
origin HEU conducted to date under the GTRI.
We are taking aggressive steps to interdict weapons-usable nuclear
materials and to prevent dissemination of nuclear related technology
via strengthened export controls and improved international
cooperation. As a complement to improving physical security, the Second
Line of Defense Program works to enhance our foreign partners' ability
to interdict illicit trafficking in nuclear materials. Under this
program, we deploy radiation detection systems at high-risk land-border
crossings, airports and seaports, increasing the likelihood of
interdiction of diverted nuclear materials entering or leaving the
country.
The Megaports Initiative, established in 2003, responds to concerns
that terrorists could use the global maritime shipping network to
smuggle fissile materials or warheads. By installing radiation
detection systems at major ports throughout the world, this initiative
strengthens the detection and interdiction capabilities of our partner
countries.
To prevent the diffusion of critical technologies, we are training
front line customs officers around the world. We are working to
implement U.N. Security Council Resolution 1540, which establishes a
requirement to criminalize proliferation involving non-state actors and
encourages states to strengthen export control laws and improve
enforcement. Because keeping terrorists from acquiring materials will
be easier if we limit enrichment of uranium or reprocessing of spent
fuel, the President proposed in 2004 a new initiative, the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), which would provide nations which
refrain from developing or deploying enrichment and reprocessing
technology assured access to the benefits of nuclear power.
These are critical steps but they alone cannot address the problem.
Indeed, there is enough fissile material in the world today for tens of
thousands of weapons. An integral part of our strategy, therefore, has
been to induce other states to stop producing materials for nuclear
weapons, as the United States did many years ago. We recently tabled a
draft treaty at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva to do just
that. We also supplement international diplomatic efforts with
bilateral programs. For example, Russia still produces weapons-grade
plutonium, not because it needs it for weapons, but because the
reactors that produce it also supply heat and light to local
communities. We are replacing these reactors with fossil fuel plants.
By 2008, two of the existing three plutonium-producing reactors in
Russia will shut down permanently, with the third shut down by 2010.
As previously indicated, there are a number of effective synergies
between NNSA's weapons activities and our nuclear nonproliferation
objectives. For example, we are disposing of the substantial quantities
of surplus weapons grade material that resulted from the thousands of
warheads that we have dismantled by down-blending it to lower
enrichment levels suitable for use in commercial reactors. We are also
working with Russia to eliminate Russian HEU. Under the HEU Purchase
Agreement, nearly 300 metric tons of uranium from Russia's dismantled
nuclear weapons--enough material for more than 11,000 nuclear weapons--
has been down-blended for use in commercial reactors in the United
States. Nuclear power generates 20 percent of American electricity and
half of that is generated by fuel derived from Russian HEU. As a
result, one-tenth of the U.S. electrical energy need is powered by
material removed from former Soviet nuclear weapons. In addition to the
efforts on HEU, the United States and Russia have each committed to
dispose of 34 metric tons of surplus weapon-grade plutonium.
If we are to encourage responsible international actions, the
United States must set the example. We have dramatically improved
physical security of U.S. nuclear weapons and weapons usable materials
in the years since the attacks of 9/11. We recently withdrew over 200
metric tons of HEU from any further use as fissile material in nuclear
weapons, a portion of which will be devoted to powering our nuclear
navy for the next 50 years, obviating the need over that period for
high-enrichment of uranium for any military purpose. Seventeen tons
will be blended down and set aside as an assured fuel supply as part of
global efforts to limit the spread of enrichment and reprocessing
technology.
The risk of nuclear terrorism is not limited to the United States
and the success of our efforts to deny access to nuclear weapons and
material is very much dependent on whether our foreign partners share a
common recognition of the threat and a willingness to combat it. Last
July, just before the G-8 summit, Presidents Bush and Putin announced
the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism to strengthen
cooperation worldwide on nuclear materials security and to prevent
terrorist acts involving nuclear or radioactive substances. Paired with
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1540, we now have both the legal
mandate and the practical means necessary for concrete actions to
secure nuclear material against the threat of diversion.
NAVAL REACTORS
Also contributing to the Department's national security mission is
the Naval Reactors Program, whose mission is to provide the U.S. Navy
with safe, militarily effective nuclear propulsion plants and ensure
their continued safe, reliable and long-lived operation. Nuclear
propulsion enhances our warship capabilities by providing the ability
to sprint where needed and arrive on station, ready to conduct
sustained combat operations when America's interests are threatened.
Nuclear propulsion plays a vital role in ensuring the Navy's forward
presence and its ability to project power anywhere in the world.
The Naval Reactors Program has a broad mandate, maintaining
responsibility for nuclear propulsion from cradle to grave. Over 40
percent of the Navy's major combatants are nuclear-powered, including
aircraft carriers, attack submarines, and strategic submarines, which
provide the Nation's most survivable deterrent.
FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST BY PROGRAM
The President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for NNSA totals
$9.4 billion, an increase of $306 million or 3.4 percent over the
fiscal year 2007 operating plan. We are managing our program activities
within a disciplined 5-year budget and planning envelope, and are
successfully balancing the administration's high priority initiatives
to reduce global nuclear danger as well as future planning for the
Nation's nuclear weapons complex within an overall modest growth rate.
The NNSA budget justification contains information for 5 years as
required by sec. 3253 of Public Law 106-065. This section, entitled
Future Years Nuclear Security Program, requires the Administrator to
submit to Congress each year the estimated expenditures necessary to
support the programs, projects and activities of the NNSA for a 5-year
fiscal period, in a level of detail comparable to that contained in the
budget.
The fiscal year 2008-2012 Future Years Nuclear Security Program--
FYNSP--projects $50 billion for NNSA programs though 2012. This is an
increase of about $1.5 billion over last year's projections in line
with the administration's strong commitment to the Nation's defense and
homeland security. The fiscal year 2008 request is slightly smaller
than last year's projection; however, the outyears are increased
starting in 2009. Within these amounts, there is significant growth
projected for the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs to support
homeland security, including new initiatives and acceleration of threat
reduction programs and increased inspection of seagoing cargoes
destined for ports in the United States.
WEAPONS PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
The fiscal year 2008 budget request for the programs funded within
the Weapons Activities Appropriation is $6.51 billion, an approximately
3.8 percent increase over the fiscal year 2007 operating plan. It is
allocated to adequately provide for the safety, security, and
reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile and supporting facilities
and capabilities.
This request supports the requirements of the SSP consistent with
the administration's NPR and subsequent amendments, and the revised
stockpile plan submitted to the Congress in June 2004. Our request
places a high priority on accomplishing the near-term workload and
supporting technologies for the stockpile along with the long-term
science and technology investments to ensure the design and production
capability and capacity to support ongoing missions. This request also
supports the facilities and infrastructure that must be modernized to
be responsive to new or emerging threats.
The Department has made significant strides over the past year to
transform the nuclear weapons complex. The ``Complex 2030'' planning
scenario was introduced in 2006 and has already resulted in a number of
accomplishments. We have not created a separate budget line for our
transformational activities in the fiscal year 2008 President's
Request. Implementation actions to bring about transformation are
incorporated into existing program elements: Directed Stockpile Work
(DSW), Campaigns, Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF),
and Secure Transportation Asset. The approach to transformation relies
extensively on existing line program organizations taking
responsibility for individual actions required to change both the
stockpile and its supporting infrastructure. While the administration
continues to assess the plans and funding projections for certain
elements of NNSA's complex transformation strategy, this budget
contains resources to support a number of transformational initiatives
underway within our base program activities.
In fiscal year 2008, we are requesting $1.45 billion for DSW, an
increase of $21.5 million over the fiscal year 2007 operating plan. We
will continue an aggressive dismantlement plan for retired warheads and
consolidation of special nuclear material across the nuclear weapons
complex. Both of these efforts will contribute to increasing the
overall security at NNSA sites. In fiscal year 2007, funding was
increased to cover upfront costs associated with tooling procurement,
procedure development, Safety Authorization Basis work, hiring of
production technicians, and equipment purchases, which will support
future-year dismantlement rates. The fiscal year 2008 request reflects
the required funding to support the planned dismantlement rates
reported to Congress. Funding at higher levels was unnecessary once the
dismantlement process was improved with fiscal year 2005 and fiscal
year 2006 funding. In May 2006, the NWC directed that the W80 LEP be
deferred to support NNSA efforts to transform the nuclear weapons
complex and continue work on a RRW. At the same time, the B61 and W76
LEP workloads are increasing, since they both will have entered the
production phase by fiscal year 2008. DSW also supports routine
maintenance and repair of the stockpile and supports managing the
strategy, driving the change, and performing the crosscutting
initiatives required to achieve responsiveness objectives envisioned in
the NPR. Our focus remains on the stockpile, to ensure that the nuclear
warheads and bombs in the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile are safe,
secure, and reliable.
Progress in other elements of the SSP continues. The fiscal year
2008 request for the six Campaigns is $1.87 billion, a $113 million
decrease from the fiscal year 2007 operating plan. The decrease in
program funding is required to balance overall weapon activity
priorities, specifically the transition of the W76 LEP from R&D to
production, the consolidation of computing facilities, and a large
decrease in Readiness Campaign activities associated in part to the
transition of Tritium Extraction Facility to full operations. The
Campaigns focus on scientific and technical efforts and capabilities
essential for assessment, certification, maintenance, and life
extension of the stockpile and have allowed NNSA to continue ``science-
based'' stockpile stewardship. These Campaigns are evidence of NNSA's
excellence and innovation in science, engineering and computing that,
though focused on the nuclear weapons mission, have broader application
and value. The use of DOE Office of Science facilities in supporting
Stockpile Stewardship science and engineering will increase modestly at
the same time that access to NNSA's science facilities is extended to a
broader community of users.
Specifically, $425.8 million for the Science and Engineering
Campaigns provides the basic scientific understanding and the
technologies required to support DSW and the completion of new
scientific and experimental facilities in the absence of nuclear
testing.
The Readiness Campaign, with a request of $161.2 million, develops
and delivers design-to-manufacture capabilities to meet the evolving
and urgent needs of the stockpile and supports the transformation of
the nuclear weapons complex into an agile and more responsive
enterprise. In February 2007, startup of the Tritium Extraction
Facility at the Savannah River Site was completed, making possible the
use of new tritium in the U.S. stockpile for the first time in 18
years.
The Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) Campaign is a key
example of NNSA excellence and innovation in science and engineering,
establishing world leadership in computational simulation sciences with
broad application to national security. The request of $585.7 million
for the ASC Campaign supports the development of computational tools
and technologies necessary to support the continued assessment and
certification of the refurbished weapons, aging weapons components, and
the RRW program without underground nuclear testing. As we enhance and
validate the predictive science capabilities embodied in these tools,
using the historical test base of more than 1,000 cold war era nuclear
tests to computer simulations, we can continue to assess the stockpile
to ensure that it is safe, secure, and reliable.
The $412.3 million request for the Inertial Confinement Fusion
Ignition and High Yield Campaign is focused on the execution of the
first ignition experiment at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) in
2010, and provides facilities and capabilities for high-energy-density
physics experiments in support of the SSP. To achieve the ignition
milestone, $147 million will support construction of NIF and the NIF
Demonstration Program and $232.2 million will support the National
Ignition Campaign. The ability of NIF to assess the thermonuclear burn
regime in nuclear weapons via ignition experiments is of particular
importance. NIF will be the only facility capable of probing in the
laboratory the extreme conditions of density and temperature found in
exploding nuclear weapons.
NIF will join the Z pulsed-power machine at Sandia National
Laboratories and the Omega Laser at University of the Rochester's
Laboratory for Laser Energetics as world leading facilities in
providing quantitative measurements that close important gaps in
understanding nuclear weapons performance. NIF, Omega, and Z are
complementary in their capabilities, allowing scientists from both
inside and outside the nuclear weapons complex to contribute to a
better understanding of the high energy density physics of nuclear
warheads. NIF will provide the only access in the world to
thermonuclear ignition conditions and the Omega laser with its
symmetric illumination and very high repetition rate provides a large
amount of quantitative information. The Z facility is especially suited
for accurate measurement of materials properties that are crucial to
weapons performance. These facilities will be operated as national user
facilities in order to obtain the best return on investment and maximum
contribution to the Stockpile Stewardship mission.
The Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign request of $281
million builds on the success of manufacturing and certifying a new W88
pit in 2007 and addresses issues associated with manufacturing future
pit types including the RRW and increasing pit production capacity at
LANL. There are plans to increase pit production capacity at LANL to
meet national security needs. LANL is not only an interim capability
for pit manufacturing at the present time, but it serves as the United
States' sole capability. We continue to be the only nuclear weapon
state without a true manufacturing capability.
READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES (RTBF) AND FACILITIES AND
INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION PROGRAM (FIRP)
In fiscal year 2008, we are requesting $1.96 billion for the
maintenance and operation of existing facilities, remediation and
disposition of excess facilities, and construction of new facilities.
Of this amount, $1.66 billion is requested for RTBF, an increase of $49
million from the fiscal year 2007 operating plan, with $1.36 billion
reserved for Operations and Maintenance and $307 million for RTBF
Construction. Some new facility construction (e.g., NIF, MESA, TEF, and
DARHT) is budgeted in applicable Campaigns.
This request also includes $293.7 million for the Facilities and
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP), a separate and distinct
program that is complementary to the ongoing RTBF efforts. The FIRP
mission is to restore, rebuild and revitalize the physical
infrastructure of the nuclear weapons complex, in partnership with
RTBF. This program assures that facilities and infrastructure are
restored to an appropriate condition to support the mission, and to
institutionalize responsible and accountable facility management
practices. In response to NNSA's request, Congress extended the FIRP
end date from 2011 to 2013 to enable successful completion of the FIRP
mission. The Integrated Prioritized Project List (IPPL) is the vehicle
that the FIRP program will rely on to prioritize and fund outyear
projects to reduce legacy deferred maintenance. These projects
significantly reduce the deferred maintenance backlog to acceptable
levels and support the SSP mission and transformation of the complex.
These activities are critical for the development of a more
responsive infrastructure and will be guided by decisions resulting
from the Complex 2030 Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.
Since a significant fraction of our production capability resides in
World War II era facilities, infrastructure modernization,
consolidation, and sizing consistent with future needs is essential for
an economically sustainable Complex. Facilities designed according to
modern manufacturing, safety, and security principles will be more
cost-effective and responsive to a changing future. For example, a
facility could be designed to support a low baseline capacity and
preserve the option, with a limited amount of contingent space, to
augment capacity if authorized and needed to respond to future risks.
Having a reliable plutonium capability is a major objective of NNSA
planning. Options for plutonium research, surveillance, and pit
production are being evaluated as part of the Complex 2030 NEPA process
with a Record of Decision anticipated in 2008. The baseline Complex
2030 planning scenario relies on Los Alamos National Laboratory
facilities at Technical Area 55 to provide interim plutonium
capabilities until a consolidated, long-term capability can be
established. This interim strategy relies on the proposed Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) to achieve
all the objectives of (1) closing the existing Chemistry and Metallurgy
Research (CMR) facility, (2) replacing essential plutonium capabilities
currently at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and (3) achieving
a net manufacturing capacity of 50 pits per year. However, the
increasing cost of the CMRR-NF and the need to ensure that near- and
long-term planning for plutonium facilities are integrated requires
that we complete our Complex 2030 decision process before committing to
construction of the CMRR-NF. Since the CMRR Radiological Laboratory,
Utility, and Office Building (CMRR-RLUOB) is required under all
scenarios, this project will proceed as planned.
The Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility (HEUMF) and the
proposed Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) will allow a reduction of
the high security area at the Y-12 National Security Complex from 150
acres to 15 acres. This reduction will combine with the engineered
security features of the two structures to meet the DBT at
significantly reduced costs, to lower non-security costs, and to
provide a responsive highly enriched uranium manufacturing capability.
UPF planning is consistent with the timing of decisions from the
Complex 2030 PEIS process.
SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET
In fiscal year 2008, the budget request includes $215.6 million for
Secure Transportation Asset (STA) Program, an increase of $6 million
from the fiscal year 2007 operating plan, for meeting the Department's
transportation requirements for nuclear weapons, components, and
special nuclear materials shipments. The workload requirements for this
program will escalate significantly in the future to support the
dismantlement and maintenance schedule for the nuclear weapons
stockpile and the Secretarial Initiative to consolidate the storage of
nuclear material. The challenge to increase secure transport capacity
is coupled with and impacted by increasingly complex national security
concerns. To support the escalating workload while maintaining the
safety and security of shipments, STA is increasing the number of
SafeGuards Transporters (SGT) in operation by 2 per year, with a target
total of 51 in fiscal year 2014. Due to resource constraints, SGT
production has been slowed from three to 2 per year, extending the
original 2011 endpoint target date.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS AND OPERATIONS
The Environmental Projects and Operations/Long-Term Stewardship
Program is requested at $17.5 million in fiscal year 2008. This program
serves to reduce the risks to human health and the environment at NNSA
sites and adjacent areas by: operating and maintaining environmental
clean-up systems; performing long-term environmental monitoring
activities; and, integrating a responsible environmental stewardship
program with the NNSA mission activities.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS INCIDENT RESPONSE
The Nuclear Weapons Incident Response (NWIR) Program responds to
and mitigates nuclear and radiological incidents worldwide as the
United States Government's primary capability for radiological and
nuclear emergency response. The fiscal year 2008 request for these
activities is $161.7 million, of which $28 million is reserved for the
implementation of two new initiatives that will strengthen the Nation's
emergency response capabilities--the National Technical Nuclear
Forensics (NTNF) and the Stabilization Implementation programs.
The National Technical Nuclear Forensics Program will establish a
DOE capability to support post-detonation activities and enhance DOE
Technical Nuclear Forensics capabilities. The development of this
capability will facilitate the thorough analysis and characterization
of pre- and post-detonation radiological and nuclear materials and
devices as well as prompt signals from a nuclear detonation. Developing
forensic capabilities of this nature is crucial to the overall
objective of nuclear material or device attribution.
Stabilization is a new concept and a new capability aimed at using
advanced technologies to enhance the U.S. Government's ability to
interdict, delay and/or prevent operation of a terrorist's radiological
or nuclear device until national assets arrive on the scene to conduct
traditional ``render safe'' procedures. NNSA has actively sponsored new
research in this area and, additionally, is leveraging emerging
technologies that have been demonstrated successfully by the DOD in
support of the global war on terrorism. In the implementation phase,
NNSA will transfer these matured projects into operational testing,
potentially followed by their transition into the collection of tools
available to Federal response teams.
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
The fiscal year 2008 request for Defense Nuclear Security is $744.8
million, an increase of $121 million above the fiscal year 2007
operating plan. This increase will accommodate the increased cost of
sustaining the implementation of the 2003 DBT and the phased
implementation of the 2005 DBT in 2008 and the outyears. Full
implementation of the 2005 DBT will occur at: the Pantex Plant in
fiscal year 2008; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in fiscal year
2008; the Nevada Test Site in fiscal year 2009; the Y-12 National
Security Complex in fiscal year 2011; and, LANL in fiscal year 2011.
During fiscal year 2008, the program's efforts will largely be focused
on eliminating or mitigating identified vulnerabilities across the
nuclear weapons complex by bolstering protective force training,
acquiring updated weapons and support equipment, improving physical
barrier systems and standoff distances, and reducing the number of
locations with ``targets of interest.'' Physical security systems will
be upgraded and deployed to enhance detection and assessment, add delay
and denial capabilities, and to improve perimeter defenses at several
key sites.
The fiscal year 2008 request for Cyber Security of $102.2 million
is focused on sustaining the NNSA infrastructure and upgrading elements
designed to counter cyber threats and vulnerabilities from external and
internal attacks. This funding level will support cyber security
revitalization, identify emerging issues, including research needs
related to computer security, privacy, and cryptography. Additionally,
the funding will provide for enhancement, certification, and
accreditation of unclassified and classified systems to ensure proper
documentation of risks and justification of associated operations for
systems at all sites. The funding within this request will also be
applied to foster greater cyber security awareness among Federal and
contractor personnel. NNSA will sponsor a wide range of educational
initiatives to ensure that our workforce possess the ever-expanding
cyber security skills critical to safeguarding our national security
information. Funding provided to NNSA sites will be conditioned upon
their implementation of a risk-based approach to cyber security.
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program mission is to detect,
prevent, and reverse the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
(WMD). Our nonproliferation programs address the danger that hostile
nations or terrorist groups may acquire weapons-usable material, dual-
use production or technology, or WMD capabilities. The fiscal year 2008
request for these programs totals $1.673 billion, a slight decrease
from the fiscal year 2007 operating level. This reduction is the result
of NNSA achieving and approaching important milestones in our nuclear
security work in Russia, including the completion of major security
upgrades at several sites under the Material Protection, Control, and
Accounting (MPC&A) Program and the anticipated end of construction of a
fossil fuel plant in Seversk by the end of calendar year 2008 under the
Elimination of Weapons Grade Plutonium Production (EWGPP) Program.
GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE
The administration's fiscal year 2008 request of $119 million for
the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) is an increase of $4
million over the fiscal year 2007 operating plan. The GTRI reduces the
risk of terrorists acquiring nuclear and radiological materials for an
improvised nuclear or radiological dispersal device by working at
civilian sites worldwide to: (1) convert reactors from the use of WMD-
usable HEU to LEU; (2) remove or dispose of excess WMD-usable nuclear
and radiological materials; and (3) protect at-risk WMD-usable nuclear
and radiological materials from theft and sabotage until a more
permanent threat reduction solution can be implemented. Specific
increases in the GTRI budget reflect, for example, the serial
production and delivery of 27 100-ton casks for transportation and
long-term storage of 10,000 kg of HEU and 3,000 kg of plutonium removed
from the BN-350 reactor site in Kazakhstan.
INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL PROTECTION AND COOPERATION
NNSA's International Material Protection and Cooperation fiscal
year 2008 budget request of $372 million is a decrease of $101 million
from the fiscal year 2007 operating plan. This decrease reflects the
successful completion of nuclear security upgrade work at Russian
Strategic Rocket Forces and Russian Navy sites. International material
protection work continues in other areas, including the continuation of
security upgrades at a significant number of sites within the Russian
nuclear complex, including those operated by the Federal Atomic Energy
Agency (Rosatom), and the 12th Main Directorate of the Ministry of
Defense. Security upgrades for Russian Rosatom facilities will be
completed by the end of 2008--2 years ahead of the original schedule,
consistent with the Bratislava Initiative.
The MPC&A Program is also focused on reducing proliferation risks
by converting Russian HEU to LEU and by consolidating weapons-usable
nuclear material into fewer, more secure locations. In fiscal year
2008, we will eliminate an additional 1.2 metric tons of HEU for a
cumulative total of 10.7 metric tons.
Our Second Line of Defense (SLD) Program, a natural complement to
our efforts to lock down vulnerable nuclear material and weapons,
installs radiation detection equipment at key transit and border
crossings, airports and major ports to deter, detect and interdict
illicit trafficking in nuclear and radioactive materials. During fiscal
year 2008, the SLD Program plans to install detection equipment at an
additional 51 strategic overseas transit and border sites. Under the
Megaports Initiative, we have deployed radiation detection and cargo
scanning equipment at six ports to date in Greece, the Netherlands,
Bahamas, Sri Lanka, Singapore and Spain. During fiscal year 2008, we
plan to install detection equipment at three additional large ports:
the port of Antwerp in Belgium, the port of Caucedo in the Dominican
Republic, and the port of Salalah in Oman.
Additionally, we are joining elements of the Megaports Initiative
and the Container Security Initiative (CSI) under a new maritime
security initiative, the Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) Phase I. This
new initiative is a partnership between host governments, commercial
container shipping entities and the U.S. Government that serves to
increase the number of containers physically scanned for nuclear and
radiological materials and to create a detailed record of each U.S.-
bound container. Data from radiation detection equipment provided by
NNSA and from non-intrusive imaging equipment provided by the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will enhance the identification
of high-risk containers and facilitate the prompt resolution of
potential nuclear or radiological threats.
NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
While the thrust of GTRI and MPC&A is to secure nuclear sites,
convert reactors, and repatriate fuel from reactors worldwide, NNSA's
Office of Nonproliferation and International Security (ONIS) provides
technical and policy expertise in support of U.S. efforts to strengthen
international nonproliferation arrangements (e.g., the Nuclear
Suppliers Group, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 and
the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism). The ONIS staff also
fosters implementation of global nonproliferation requirements through
engagement with foreign partners and the redirection of WMD expertise,
and helps develop and implement mechanisms for transparent and
verifiable nuclear reductions. The fiscal year 2008 budget request for
the Office of Nonproliferation and International Security is $124
million. This request includes funds for providing technical support to
strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards system and
supports programs to improve foreign governments' export control
systems. This request will augment U.S. nonproliferation cooperation
with China and India, and enhance transparency and scientist
redirection activities with Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Libya and
Iraq.
The budget request also supports activities to build up the
nonproliferation component of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP) initiative. While GNEP is a long-term vision for the future of
expanded use of nuclear power, NNSA plays an important role by
providing leadership and technical expertise in the areas of safeguards
technology, safeguards cooperation, and fuel supply arrangements to
mitigate the proliferation risks that otherwise might accompany the
expansion of nuclear power around the world envisioned by GNEP.
ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS GRADE PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION
Turning to programs that focus on halting the production of nuclear
materials, the Elimination of Weapons Grade Plutonium Production
(EWGPP) Program staff are working toward completing the permanent
shutdown of two of the three remaining weapons-grade plutonium
production reactors in Seversk and Zheleznogorsk, Russia. The fiscal
year 2008 budget request of $182 million is a decrease of $44 million
from the fiscal year 2007 operating plan, reflecting the planned
completion of the fossil fuel heat and electricity facility at Seversk.
The budget request provides the funding required to shut down these
reactors permanently and to replace the heat and electricity these
reactors supply to local communities with energy generated by fossil
fuel plants by December 2008 in Seversk and by December 2010 in
Zheleznogorsk. The reactors will be shut down immediately once the
fossil-fuel plants are completed, eliminating the annual production of
more than one metric ton of weapons-grade plutonium.
FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION
In addition to curbing the production of dangerous nuclear
materials, NNSA is working to reduce the existing stockpiles of nuclear
materials in both Russia and the United States. To that end, the fiscal
year 2008 Fissile Materials Disposition budget request of $609 million
will contribute to the elimination of surplus U.S. and Russian weapon-
grade plutonium and surplus U.S. highly-enriched uranium. Of this
amount, $522.5 million will be allocated toward disposing of surplus
U.S. plutonium, including $333.8 million for the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel
Fabrication Facility and $60 million for the Pit Disassembly and
Conversion Facility (PDCF) and the Waste Solidification Building. Of
the remaining amount, $66.8 million will be devoted to the disposition
of surplus U.S. HEU and $20.2 million will be focused on supporting
activities common to both programs.
This budget request also provides funding for ongoing efforts to
dispose of surplus U.S. HEU, including down blending 17.4MT of HEU in
support of establishing the Reliable Fuel Supply Program, available to
countries with good nonproliferation credentials that face a disruption
in supply that cannot be corrected through normal commercial means.
This initiative marks the first step towards a key GNEP policy aim of
creating a reliable nuclear fuel mechanism, providing countries a
strong incentive to refrain from acquiring enrichment and reprocessing
capabilities.
NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The fiscal year 2008 budget requests $265 million for
Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development. This effort
includes a number of programs that make unique contributions to
national security by researching the technological advancements
necessary to detect and prevent the illicit diversion of nuclear
materials. Within the Proliferation Detection Program, fundamental
research is conducted in fields such as radiation detection, which
supports national and homeland security agencies. It also advances
basic and applied technologies for the nonproliferation community with
dual-use benefit to national counter-proliferation and counter-
terrorism missions. Specifically, this program develops the tools,
technologies, techniques, and expertise for the identification,
location, and analysis of the facilities, materials, and processes of
undeclared and proliferant WMD programs. As the sole provider for the
science base to the U.S. national nuclear test monitoring system, the
Nuclear Explosion Monitoring Program produces the nation's operational
sensors that monitor from space the entire planet to detect and report
surface, atmospheric, or space nuclear detonations. This program also
produces and updates the regional geophysical datasets enabling
operation of the Nation's ground-based seismic monitoring networks to
detect and report underground detonations.
NAVAL REACTORS
The Naval Reactors fiscal year 2008 budget request of $808 million
is an increase of $26 million from the fiscal year 2007 operating plan.
Naval Reactor's development work ensures that nuclear propulsion
technology provides options for maintaining and upgrading current
capabilities, as well as for meeting future threats to U.S. security.
The majority of funding supports Naval Reactor's number-one
priority of ensuring the safety and reliability of the 103 operating
naval nuclear propulsion plants. This work involves continual testing,
analysis, and monitoring of plant and core performance, which becomes
more critical as the reactor plants age. The nature of this business
demands a careful, measured approach to developing and verifying
nuclear technology, designing needed components, systems, and
processes, and implementing them in existing and future plant designs.
Most of this work is accomplished at Naval Reactors' DOE laboratories.
These laboratories have made significant advancements in extending core
lifetime, developing robust materials and components, and creating an
array of predictive capabilities.
Long-term program goals have been to increase core energy, to
achieve life-of-the-ship cores, and to eliminate the need to refuel
nuclear-powered ships. Efforts associated with this objective have
resulted in planned core lives that are sufficient for the 30-plus year
submarine (based on past usage rates) and an extended core life planned
for CVN 21 (the next generation aircraft carrier). The need for nuclear
propulsion will only increase over time as the uncertainty of fossil
fuel cost and availability grows.
Naval Reactors' Operations and Maintenance budget request is
categorized into six areas: Reactor Technology and Analysis; Plant
Technology; Materials Development and Verification; Evaluation and
Servicing; Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) Operations and Test Support; and
Facility Operations.
The $218 million requested for Reactor Technology and Analysis will
support work that ensures the operational safety and reliability of
reactor plants in U.S. warships and extends the operational life of
Navy nuclear propulsion plants. This work includes continued
development of the Reactor System Protection Analysis for the next
generation aircraft carrier, CVN 21. These efforts also support
continued work on core design concepts for submarines.
The increasing average age of our Navy's existing reactor plants,
along with future extended service lives, a higher pace of operation
and reduced maintenance periods, place a greater emphasis on our work
in thermal-hydraulics, structural mechanics, fluid mechanics, and
vibration analysis. These factors, along with longer-life cores, mean
that for years to come, these reactors will be operating beyond our
previously-proven experience base.
The $115 million requested for Plant Technology provides funding to
develop, test, and analyze components and systems that transfer,
convert, control, and measure reactor power in a ship's power plant.
Naval Reactors is developing components to address known limitations
and to improve reliability of instrumentation and power distribution
equipment to replace aging, technologically obsolete equipment.
Development and application of new analytical methods, predictive
tests, and design tools are required to identify potential concerns
before they become actual problems. This enables preemptive actions to
ensure the continued safe operation of reactor plants and the
minimization of maintenance costs over the life of the ship. Additional
technology development in the areas of chemistry, energy conversion,
instrumentation and control, plant arrangement, and component design
will continue to support the Navy's operational requirements.
The $110 million requested for Materials Development and
Verification supports material analyses and testing to provide the
high-performance materials necessary to ensure that naval nuclear
propulsion plants meet Navy goals for extended warship operation and
greater power capability. These funds support the test assemblies for
use in ATR, post irradiation examination of the materials tested at
ATR, and destructive and non-destructive examinations of spent navy
nuclear fuel and reactor component materials.
The $204 million requested for Evaluation and Servicing sustains
the operation, maintenance, and servicing of Naval Reactors' operating
prototype reactor plants. Reactor core and reactor plant materials,
components, and systems in these plants provide important research and
development data and experience under actual operating conditions.
These data aid in predicting and subsequently preventing problems that
could develop in fleet reactors. With proper maintenance, upgrades, and
servicing, the two prototype plants will continue to meet testing needs
for at least the next decade.
Evaluation and Servicing funds also support the implementation of
the dry spent fuel storage production lines that will put naval spent
fuel currently stored in water pools at the Idaho Nuclear Technology
and Engineering Center (INTEC) on the Idaho National Laboratory (INL)
and at the Expended Core Facility (ECF) on the Naval Reactors facility
in Idaho into dry storage. Additionally, these funds support ongoing
decontamination and decommissioning of inactive nuclear facilities at
all Naval Reactors sites to address their ``cradle to grave''
stewardship responsibility for these legacies and minimize the
potential for any environmental releases.
The $58.8 million requested for Advanced Test Reactor Operations
and Test Support sustains the ongoing activities of the INL ATR
facility, owned and operated by the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE),
Science and Technology.
In addition to the budget request for the important technical work
discussed above, facilities funding is required for continued support
of Naval Reactor's operations and infrastructure. The $60 million
requested for facilities operations will maintain and modernize the
program's facilities, including the Bettis and Knolls laboratories as
well as ECF and Kesselring Site Operations (KSO), through capital
equipment purchases and general plant projects.
The $10 million requested for construction funds will be used to
support the project engineering and design of a materials research
technology complex and ECF M290 receiving and discharge station and to
support the design and construction of a shipping and receiving and
warehouse complex.
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
This account provides for all Federal NNSA staff in Headquarters
and field locations except those supporting Naval Reactors and the
Secure Transportation Asset couriers. The fiscal year 2008 budget
request is $394.7 million, an increase of $54 million over the fiscal
year 2007 operating level.
This budget request is consistent with the funding trajectory
needed for personnel support in an account that is comprised of over 70
percent salaries and benefits. NNSA needs to attain a steady-state
staffing level of about 1,950 FTEs in fiscal year 2008 to support
current mission needs and to implement workforce planning for
succession. Information Technology (IT) for the Federal staff is also
included in this account, and the fiscal year 2008 IT Request reflects
efficiencies planned for A-76 efforts initiated in fiscal year 2006.
The outyear budget addresses significant challenges due to the impacts
of escalation on payroll and needed support to the NNSA Federal staff.
The budget request includes funding for activities that were
previously funded by the former Offices of Environment, Safety, and
Health and Security and Safety Performance Assurance that transferred
to the NNSA. Pursuant to section 3117 of the John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007 (Public Law 109-364),
beginning in fiscal year 2008, the functions, personnel, funds, assets,
and other resources of the Office of Defense Nuclear
Counterintelligence of the NNSA are transferred to the Secretary of
Energy, to be administered by the Director of the Office of
Counterintelligence of the Department of Energy.
historically black colleges and universities (hbcu) support
A research and education partnership program with the HBCUs and the
Massie Chairs of Excellence was initiated by Congress through earmarks
in the Office of the Administrator Appropriation in fiscal year 2005,
fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007. The NNSA has implemented an
effective program to target national security research opportunities
for these institutions to increase their participation in national
security-related research and to train and recruit HBCU graduates for
employment within the NNSA. The NNSA goal is a stable $10 million
annual effort. In fiscal year 2008, the Office of the Administrator
appropriation will provide continued funding of $1 million to support
certain HBCU activities. The programs funded in the Weapons Activities
Appropriation will provide approximately $4 to $6 million of support to
HBCU programs. In addition, the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Appropriation will provide approximately $2 to $3 million to this
program. Lastly, the Naval Reactors Program will fund approximately $1
million of HBCU programs in fiscal year 2008.
CONCLUSION
I am confident that NNSA is headed in the right direction in the
coming fiscal year. The budget request will support continuing our
progress in protecting and certifying our Nation's strategic deterrent,
transforming our nuclear weapons stockpile and infrastructure, reducing
the global danger from proliferation and weapons of mass destruction,
and enhancing the force projection capabilities of the U.S. nuclear
Navy. It will enable us to continue to maintain the safety and security
of our people, information, materials, and infrastructure. Taken
together, each aspect of this budget request will allow us to meet our
national security responsibilities during the upcoming fiscal year and
well into the future.
A statistical appendix follows that contains the budget figures
supporting our Request. I look forward to answering any questions on
the justification for the requested budget.
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Tables
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION--APPROPRIATION AND PROGRAM
SUMMARY
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year 2007 Fiscal Year
2006 Current Operating 2008
Appropriations Plan Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA):
Office of the 354.2 340.3 394.7
Administrator............
Weapons Activities (after 6,355.3 6,275.6 6,511.3
S&S WFO offset)..........
Defense Nuclear 1,619.2 1,683.3 1,672.6
Nonproliferation.........
Naval Reactors............ 781.6 781.8 808.2
-----------------------------------------
Total, NNSA............. 9,110.3 9,081 9,386.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: The fiscal year 2006 column includes an across-the-board
rescission of 1 percent in accordance with the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2006, Public Law 109-148.
The NNSA budget justification contains information for 5 years as
required by sec. 3253 of Public Law 106-065. This section, entitled
Future Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP), requires the
Administrator to submit to Congress each year the estimated
expenditures necessary to support the programs, projects and activities
of the NNSA for a 5-year fiscal period, in a level of detail comparable
to that contained in the budget.
OUT-YEAR APPROPRIATION SUMMARY--NNSA FUTURE YEARS NUCLEAR SECURITY PROGRAM (FYNSP)
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal
Year 2008 Year 2009 Year 2010 Year 2011 Year 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NNSA:
Office of the Administrator.......................... 395 405 415 425 436
Weapons Activities (after S&S offset)................ 6,511 6,705 6,904 7,111 7,324
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation..................... 1,673 1,798 1,845 1,893 1,942
Naval Reactors....................................... 808 828 849 870 892
------------------------------------------------------
Total, NNSA........................................ 9,387 9,736 10,013 10,299 10,594
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEAPONS ACTIVITIES--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year 2007 Fiscal Year
2006 Current Operating 2008
Appropriation Plan Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weapons Activities:
Directed Stockpile Work.... 1,372,327 1,425,722 1,447,236
Science Campaign........... 276,670 270,458 273,075
Engineering Campaign....... 247,907 162,786 152,749
Inertial Confinement Fusion 543,582 489,706 412,259
Ignition and High Yield
Campaign..................
Advanced Simulation and 599,772 611,973 585,738
Computing Campaign........
Pit Manufacturing and 238,663 242,392 281,230
Certification Campaign....
Readiness Campaign......... 216,567 201,713 161,169
Readiness in Technical Base 1,654,840 1,613,241 1,662,144
and Facilities............
Secure Transportation Asset 209,979 209,537 215,646
Nuclear Weapons Incident 117,608 133,514 161,748
Response..................
Facilities and 149,365 169,383 293,743
Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program..
Environmental Projects and ............. ........... 17,518
Operations................
Safeguards and Security.... 797,751 761,158 881,057
Other...................... ............. 17,000 ...........
----------------------------------------
Subtotal, Weapons 6,425,031 6,308,583 6,545,312
Activities..............
Use of Prior Year Balances:
Security Charge for -32,000 -33,000 -34,000
Reimbursable Work.........
Use of Prior Year Balances. -37,734 ........... ...........
----------------------------------------
Total, Weapons Activities 6,355,297 6,275,583 6,511,312
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law Authorization: John Warner National Defense Authorization Act
for fiscal year 2007 (Public Law 109-364).
OUT-YEAR FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal
Year 2009 Year 2010 Year 2011 Year 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weapons Activities:
Directed Stockpile Work. 1,483,417 1,520,502 1,558,515 1,597,478
Science Campaign........ 282,741 275,622 270,390 275,626
Engineering Campaign.... 147,090 144,448 142,614 145,417
Inertial Confinement 406,098 413,186 411,851 407,487
Fusion Ignition and
High Yield Campaign....
Advanced Simulation and 598,241 583,643 570,873 582,243
Computing Campaign.....
Pit Manufacturing and 291,945 339,462 357,622 347,269
Certification Campaign.
Readiness Campaign...... 190,477 184,703 180,357 183,946
Readiness in Technical 1,698,403 1,765,458 1,862,729 1,952,633
Base and Facilities....
Secure Transportation 228,300 237,749 253,037 262,118
Asset..................
Nuclear Weapons Incident 169,835 178,327 187,243 196,605
Response...............
Facilities and 286,572 297,096 304,330 312,000
Infrastructure
Recapitalization
Program................
Environmental Projects 32,471 29,923 30,864 31,574
and Operations.........
Safeguards and Security. 924,410 969,881 1,017,575 1,067,604
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Weapons 6,740,000 6,940,000 7,148,000 7,362,000
Activities...........
Security Charge for -35,000 -36,000 -37,000 -38,000
Reimbursable Work......
-------------------------------------------
Total, Weapons 6,705,000 6,904,000 7,111,000 7,324,000
Activities...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year 2007 Fiscal Year
2006 Current Operating 2008
Appropriation Plan Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation:
Nonproliferation and 312,658 270,387 265,252
Verification Research and
Development...............
Nonproliferation and 74,250 128,911 124,870
International Security....
International Nuclear 422,730 472,730 371,771
Materials Protection and
Cooperation...............
Global Initiatives for 39,600 ........... ...........
Proliferation Prevention..
HEU Transparency 19,288 ........... ...........
Implementation............
Elimination of Weapons- 187,100 225,754 181,593
Grade Plutonium Production
Fissile Materials 468,773 470,062 609,534
Disposition...............
Global Threat Reduction 96,995 115,495 119,626
Initiative................
----------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense Nuclear 1,621,394 1,683,339 1,672,646
Nonproliferation........
Use of Prior Year Balances..... -92,215 ........... ...........
----------------------------------------
Total, Defense Nuclear 1,619,179 1,683,339 1,672,646
Nonproliferation........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: The fiscal year 2006 Current Appropriation column includes
additions for international contributions to the Elimination of
Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production Program in the amount of
$12,677,000, and the use of prior year balances in the amount of
$2,215,000 for an approved appropriation transfer action to the Office
of the Administrator.
Public Law Authorization: John Warner National Defense Authorization Act
of 2007, (Public Law 109-364).
OUT-YEAR FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal
Year 2009 Year 2010 Year 2011 Year 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation:
Nonproliferation and 305,105 335,564 353,047 364,528
Verification Research
and Development........
Nonproliferation and 133,041 158,693 166,479 174,276
International Security.
International Nuclear 408,209 402,458 407,161 414,009
Materials Protection
and Cooperation........
Elimination of Weapons 138,929 24,507 ......... .........
Grade Plutonium
Production.............
Fissile Materials 660,796 771,190 802,786 813,378
Disposition............
Global Threat Reduction 151,920 152,588 163,527 175,809
Initiative.............
-------------------------------------------
Total, Defense Nuclear 1,798,000 1,845,000 1,893,000 1,942,000
Nonproliferation.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAVAL REACTORS--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year 2007 Fiscal Year
2006 Current Operating 2008
Appropriation Plan Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval Reactors Development:
Operations and Maintenance 734,877 747,648 765,519
(O&M).....................
Program Direction.......... 29,997 31,380 32,700
Construction............... 16,731 2,772 10,000
----------------------------------------
Total, Naval Reactors 781,605 781,800 808,219
Development.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law Authorizations: Public Law 83-703, ``Atomic Energy Act of
1954'' ``Executive Order 12344 (42 U.S.C. 7158), ``Naval Nuclear
Propulsion Program'' Public Law 107-107, ``National Defense
Authorizations Act of 2002'', title 32, ``National Nuclear Security
Administration'' John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2007, (Public Law 109-364).
OUT-YEAR FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal
Year 2009 Year 2010 Year 2011 Year 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval Reactors Development:
Operations and 771,700 795,700 822,500 836,800
Maintenance............
Program Direction....... 33,900 35,100 36,400 37,700
Construction............ 22,400 18,200 11,100 17,500
-------------------------------------------
Total, Naval Reactors 828,000 849,000 870,000 892,000
Development..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Dorgan. Mr. D'Agostino, thank you very much for
your testimony.
I'd like to ask a few questions, then I will call on my
colleagues and then I will finish with the remainder of my
questions so that my colleagues have ample time as well.
RELIABLE REPLACEMENT WARHEAD
Let me ask first about the RRW program. I want to have you
tell us how that came to be. What was, what created the
existence of RRW? Some colleagues here in the Congress say that
is an outgrowth of the program that was rejected, the Earth
Penetrater Bunker Buster program and it morphed into an RRW
program. Can you tell me, what is the origin of the RRW
program?
Mr. D'Agostino. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. But, I'd like to
dispel the notion that it is an outgrowth of any, so-called
bunker buster. The RRW program is a natural piece or element in
the stockpile stewardship strategy. As you're aware, in the
early 1990s the country decided to forego underground testing
and a few years after that we endorsed a strategy of stockpile
stewardship. This is the idea of spending resources into
upgrading our science facilities to understand what happens as
weapons age and to embark, essentially, on what we are in right
now, a life extension program strategy.
Life extension program means taking the existing warheads
that we have and investing money to build those warheads
exactly like they were built 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago to
make sure that they would perform as in the past because we
aren't going to do a test anymore, underground test.
RRW came out as a result of confluence of two things. One,
our science tools expanded greatly. Our computing capability,
the models and codes that we use to simulate the aging
warheads, as well as this life extension program, made us
realize that we're dealing with warheads that were designed
quite differently. They were designed to maximize the yield of
a warhead to the weight of the warhead itself. We wanted the
most tightly designed warhead on the top of that missile
because the Department of Defense, at the time, was interested
in lots of weapons and being able to launch them long
distances. And, it was also at a time when we were constantly
designing new warheads every 10, 20 years we were exercising
our capability. We never worried about the aging of weapons.
And so, as we looked at what happens in the future, can a
weapon that was designed to be replaced every 20 to 25 years
last 30, 40, 50, 60 years? And, especially what does that do to
our margins and more importantly, what does that do to our
confidence? We don't want to be in a situation where we have to
conduct an underground test.
So, we decided to embark on an RRW approach because our
concern was that we wanted to be able to add more design margin
into the warhead. We wanted to put security features into the
warhead which addressed the future threats, not the threats
that we had in the past. And, we're also concerned about not
wanting to replicate cold war processes and cold war techniques
because these are very expensive.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. D'Agostino, I want to be able to ask
you a second question.
Mr. D'Agostino. Oh,----
Senator Dorgan. Thank you.
Mr. D'Agostino. [continuing]. Certainly.
Senator Dorgan. I want to ask a couple questions about RRW.
I do have some questions for Mr. Tobey. But, several weeks ago,
you and General Cartwright were in front of the Senate Armed
Services Committee. Senator Reed asked you a question and I
reviewed that because part of RRW relates to the question of
whether there needs to be testing. And, let me read you the
transcript because I want to try to understand what this means.
Quoting Senator Reed, ``If it becomes clear at some point
that it is not possible to certify without testing, would you
support terminating the effort?'' General Cartwright, ``I would
come back to this subcommittee and tell you why we've got to
that position and what the criteria or what the detail was
behind that and then we would have that discussion.'' Then
Senator Nelson said, ``If it becomes clear at some point that
it wouldn't be possible to certify the RRW without nuclear
testing, would you support terminating the effort?'' Mr.
D'Agostino, you indicated, I'm quoting you, ``I would say that
because it's one of the most significant criteria that we've
had to proceed down this path, we would have to examine that. I
mean, we'd have to say, `Why would we go forward and continue
with the effort.' ''
Today's testimony, you talk about offering a reduced
likelihood that we will ever again need to conduct an
underground nuclear test. The question is, is there any reason
for someone to read some subtle shift here? It seemed to me
there might be a subtle shift. I think most of us proceed under
the assumption that the, the understanding is, that RRW will
not require testing. Is that still your position?
Mr. D'Agostino. My position is certification of an RRW
design will not require underground testing. There's a broader
question: As weapons age there's no guarantee, in fact no one
can guarantee today's stockpile might not require an
underground test. We don't know all of the details on how
materials age. And so, to certify the RRW, in my view, based on
the information I've reviewed and the proposal submitted by Los
Alamos and Lawrence Livermore, would not require underground
testing to certify it.
I'd like to add, because the design margins on the RRW are
based solidly on tested history that already existed. The
country's invested a lot of money in developing a nuclear test
database. Taking advantage of that I'm confident that what we
have in an RRW design, at this point, again, it's only on paper
and that's where it will stay until we decide to move forward,
but that we are further away and have a reduced likelihood
compared to a cold war stockpile. I'm concerned that if we stay
with a cold war stockpile, as it currently exists, that our
chances are testing are much greater than if we shifted to an
RRW strategy.
Senator Dorgan. The, my understanding is that the State
Department has not done any studies. And, I wonder if the
Department of Energy has with respect to whether the activities
of an RRW will have any impact on our objectives with respect
to nonproliferation. I mean, this will be a larger
international debate. Has there been an analysis of that, the
consequences of that by the Department of Energy? I believe it
has not been done by the Department of State.
Mr. D'Agostino. If I could answer that, I could ask Mr.
Tobey to follow with me. When we, before we made an RRW
decision and announcement, we did consult with our allies in
NATO and we also talked to Russia and China about the strategy
we're approaching. In almost all cases, we had, it was well
understood why we were proceeding down this path. There was no
study to my knowledge, per se, of directly taking, essentially
a straw vote if you will, on exactly how things were done.
Mr. Tobey. Mr. Chairman, we have given that matter some
thought. And, I think, frankly, the questions that you're
asking are exactly the right ones.
In analyzing nonproliferation or disarmament impacts of
such a system, I think the right questions relate to whether or
not such a system would reduce or increase the need for nuclear
testing, whether it would reduce or increase pressures to, or
would enable a reduction or an increase, pressure for an
increase in the size of arsenals, and whether or not it would
improve the safety and security in weapons. I think by most
standards, and certainly the objectives of the RRW Program
would be to lead to conditions that would actually improve
nonproliferation and disarmament objectives. So therefore, it
is entirely consistent with our nonproliferation policy.
Senator Dorgan. I have one additional question, then I will
defer to my colleagues and then I will ask some questions at
the end.
Back in 1974, then Secretary of State indicated that he
felt it was urgent to create ``global standards for nuclear
security.'' And, it's been now roughly 30 years. We're still
not quite there. We do have some standards, but without the
kind of definition, I think, most people feel is necessary. Mr.
Tobey, can you describe to me what efforts are underway, from
your standpoint, with respect to those issues?
Mr. Tobey. Certainly, and one of the most important
nonproliferation efforts we have underway is meant to address
exactly that. Last year, Presidents Bush and Putin, just before
the G-8 Summit in St. Petersburg, announced the global
initiative to combat nuclear terrorism. I think there are two
ways to look at this program. One, it's an effort to apply the
lessons we've learned and the standards we've developed and the
practices we put into place in former Soviet states worldwide.
Another one is to allow for the practical means to
implement the legal requirements of U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1540. We've started with a small core of states, the
G-8 plus four others, Kazakhstan, Australia, China, and Turkey.
We were joined later by Morocco. We adopted, first, the
statement of principles. We've since had a meeting to adopt a
work program and we hope to greatly expand the organization in
a meeting next month in June in Kazakhstan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Tobey, thank you very much.
We've been joined by the ranking member, Senator Domenici.
I will call on Senator Domenici, then I will call on Senators
in order of appearance.
Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I think that would be a bit
unfair, so I would ask that we not do it. And, because I was
late and it was my own fault. I attest that to everyone. Please
don't think it was more important than any old meeting. I just,
it just got away from me. So, you can assume it was a very fun
meeting or a lot of fun or something.
I just didn't get away from it. And, I looked up and I
thought, ``My God, D'Agostino is finished and I'm almost
finished.''
So, I would rather go about third and that will be fair for
you and fair for me.
Senator Dorgan. All right. Well, as former chairman you
certainly, we would certainly want to recognize your right to
proceed next----
Senator Domenici. I'll go after----
Senator Dorgan [continuing]. As ranking member. All right.
Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP
The NNSA's 2008 budget includes $10 million for
nonproliferation activities within Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP). Is this enough to provide the global
security that is required for a program of this magnitude?
Mr. Tobey.
Mr. Tobey. Senator, I think it's a good start. As you know,
we're at the very early stages of the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership. I think it would be fair to regard GNEP as a
nonproliferation program. I believe it is such for four
reasons. First, it should diminish incentives on States to have
indigenous enrichment programs. Second, it should allow us to
reduce separated stock, stockpiles of separated plutonium.
Third, we intend to use it to improve proliferation resistant
reactor technology. And fourth, we aim to improve safeguards
technology.
Senator Craig. So, you referenced it as a good start,
therefore, I used the word is it enough, is it adequate based
on where we are with this initiative, to fund it appropriately?
Mr. Tobey. Yes sir, it is. I meant good start in the sense
that the GNEP program will proceed. We will need to spend more
money on nonproliferation efforts related to it in the future.
Senator Craig. Europeans have been recycling used nuclear
fuel for over 30 years without an incident or hint of separated
material theft. Are you looking at their programs and
incorporating their experiences into GNEP?
Mr. Tobey. We're certainly looking at their programs.
Although I think what we're trying to do is to reach a
situation in which we would not have, as I mentioned, separated
stocks of plutonium, pure plutonium or nearly pure plutonium,
which are a greater nonproliferation threat. If you look at
incidents that have been made public about nuclear materials
that have gotten loose I think it would tend to indicate that
those are the cases in which we need to be concerned about. So,
we hope to use advanced technology to avoid pure plutonium or
nearly pure plutonium.
Senator Craig. I think my concern, as it relates to the
program and the long-term character of getting it online,
costs, and all of that, is that as much of the successes around
the world that we can incorporate, we ought not be spending our
time, therefore, reinventing when there are successes out there
that are measurable and usable.
Mr. Tobey. Well, we certainly would like to learn from the
experience of others. I think we would also like to be
technology leaders, in this regard. And hopefully improve the
nonproliferation characteristics of the technology for
recycling fuel.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Craig, thank you.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And, thank you gentlemen for your testimony.
PIT PRODUCTION/RELIABLE REPLACEMENT WARHEAD
Mr. D'Agostino, do you know how many and what types of pits
the complex would require to make in 2030 as part of your
forward looking analysis?
Mr. D'Agostino. I'm sorry Senator Reed. I missed the first
part of the question.
Senator Reed. Do you know how many and what type of pits
the complex will be required to make in 2030, if you're doing
your 2030 planning now?
Mr. D'Agostino. Right now our plan is to build an interim
capability of between 30 and 50 pits by the 2012 timeframe and
to increase our capability, given our current requirements. The
DOD, the Department of Defense, which sets the requirements for
the Department of Energy, has currently projected, based on
what I would say a pre-RRW type stockpile, of a need to go to
about 125 pits per year. Which is the idea of being able to,
over a 40-year period, replace the pits in the ongoing in
steady state, nuclear stockpile. Every 30 or 40 years you'd be
replacing a pit. The size, the number and type of pits, are
clearly very dependant on the size of the stockpile itself and
so there's that linkage there.
Senator Reed. And, also dependant upon the progress on the
RRW?
Mr. D'Agostino. I think so for a couple of reasons. One,
because of the RRW, we'll have an opportunity when we look at
the RRW replacement strategy to look at pits that we already
have built, essentially, in the past that can potentially be
reused in future stockpiles.
As you're probably aware, we had tasked our laboratories to
take a hard look at the design and to look at the lifetimes of
plutonium metal and the pits itself. That analysis was
completed last year and we had the JASONS take an independent
look at that and they validated the fact that our plutonium pit
life, metal life times are a bit longer than we had expected.
Up to between 85 and 100 years in some cases. That's good news
because it provides us the flexibility to look at pits that
we've already built. And, I think, ultimately, will allow us to
have the smallest plutonium capability that the country might
need instead of getting in to building a pit capability of 125
and up. We might be looking at 125 and down from the size of
plutonium capability.
Senator Reed. The pit manufacturing and certification
campaign also includes $24.9 million for the consolidated
plutonium center.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, sir.
Senator Reed. Specifically indicate how you're going to
spend that money.
Mr. D'Agostino. That money would be used to do preliminary
design. I don't like to look at it as a building right now
because it's far from that. It's to do the studies that need to
be done to determine the exact size that it needs to be to
handle our future stockpile, and to take a look at the
technologies that might need to be in this facility.
As I mentioned earlier in my opening, one of the answers
that I gave earlier, we're interested in making a design that's
manufacturing a simple and as environmentally safe and as
worker safe as possible. In the past, that was not a
consideration. It's not that people in the past didn't care
about these topics, it's that 30-40 years later we know a lot
more about impacts of these materials on human safety. So,
those types of studies, technology development activities and
siting studies to support the work that we're going to be doing
because we're looking at a number of different sites. That's
what the $24 million is for.
Senator Reed. I think the chairman opened up some very
important questions with respect to RRW and I want to follow
up. Some of these are very specific.
First, the RRW schedule presently is in phase what?
Mr. D'Agostino. Right now we are in what we call phase 2A,
which is a design definition and cost study phase. That's what
I would propose that we were going to be doing in fiscal year
2007. That's what we were authorized to do, and into fiscal
year 2008. That phase is very important because it will
provide, what I call the detailed cost, the detailed scope, and
the detailed schedule. That is not just the Department of
Energy's cost, scope, schedule, but includes our work with the
United States Navy, because it's their interface with the Navy
systems. That needs to be done in order for us to be in a
situation where we can look at how that influences the size of
the stockpile, our life extension strategy, and the number of
different types of systems, which I think are so important for
both the committee and as well as myself to understand.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
I have additional questions, but I'll wait for another
round, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY
And, I just have a quick parochial issue I wanted to query
you about. And, it's an issue of the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory that's in my home State of Washington and I think
you're aware of the need to replace the unique facility that
supports an important national security mission. It's going to
be affected by the Hanford clean up schedule. And, I wanted to
thank you for your active support in this project that involves
partners from the Office of Science and Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) as well. And, I noticed that the NNSA budget
does not include funds in 2008 for this project, and I wanted
to find out from you if you continue to support this project.
Mr. D'Agostino. I'll answer the question. I'd like to ask
my colleague to amplify if he could. I appreciate your
comments. We do support this project. The type of relationship
we have with the Department of Homeland Security and my sister
organization within the Department, the Office of Science, lays
out what I would say, a commitments page on how we are going to
integrate funding requests. In fiscal year 2008, the NNSA
element of that is zero dollars. There are more details and
probably Will can take it from here and talk about how we've
integrated the three organizations together.
Senator Murray. Mr. Tobey.
Mr. Tobey. Certainly, Senator Murray. The zero dollars is
really a reflection of the fact that the NNSA has been out
ahead of the other two partners, well ahead of the other two
partners in our spending rate on this. And frankly, I think it
just made sense for us to be at approximately the same rate of
spending as the other two partners. It doesn't reflect a lack
of support for the program.
Senator Murray. And, I assume that you would not object if
money's added to the budget for this project?
Mr. Tobey. Well, of course I support the President's
budget, Senator.
Senator Murray. Okay. Well, I would then ask, I assume
you're going to request additional, or sufficient funding in
the 2009 request for where you need to be.
Mr. Tobey. We're certainly going to try and make sure that
we support the project, we would very much like it to go
forward. We would like the spending for it to be proportionate
among the partners that are funding it.
Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. D'Agostino.
Mr. D'Agostino. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Murray. We do appreciate your support of this. This
is very critical and we want to make sure it continues to move
forward. And, we know the importance of all the partners
involved in it, but we've got to keep it moving. So, thank you
very much.
Mr. D'Agostino. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you, Senator Murray.
Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Feinstein, it's good to see you here. I didn't
think I would see you on this issue as soon as this. And, I
assume I will hear you address this issue in a negative manner,
the new nuke formation. I hope not.
PREPARED STATEMENT
But, I want to say, I have an opening statement that I
would just ask you make a part of the record.
Senator Dorgan. Without objection.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Pete V. Domenici
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome our witnesses. We
have Tom D'Agostino, Acting Administrator for NNSA who is joined by
Admiral Kirkland Donald, Naval Reactors, and Mr. Will Tobey, Nuclear
Nonproliferation.
Gentlemen, I appreciate your participation and hard work at the
NNSA. You have a challenging job and these budgets make your job an
even greater challenge.
Mr. D'Agostino, I would like to congratulate you for executing the
Reliable Replacement Warhead design competition and making a difficult
selection between the two extremely innovative designs.
As an original sponsor of the RRW program, I continue to believe
that this program provides the best opportunity to transform the
stockpile and reduce the overall number of warheads and weapons
systems.
It is clear to me that without a demonstrated capacity to produce a
weapon that applies state-of-the-art use controls, increased
reliability margins, and the ability to be certified without testing,
military leaders will not accept a significantly smaller stockpile than
we have today as they manage future risks through a massive inventory
of weapons. Mr. D'Agostino, I want to compliment you for your advocacy
of this program. You have worked hard to articulate the vision for this
program since its inception in the fiscal year 2005 Energy and Water
Conference Report.
However, if this program is to survive and we are to realize the
goal of a smaller deterrent, then it is vital for this administration
to defend this program.
Today, I will be sending a letter to the Secretary of Defense,
Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor urging them to
take a more active role in supporting the RRW program and to answer the
concerns that have been raised with the creation of the RRW weapon
system.
This administration has a strong record on reducing our nuclear
stockpile. They are committed to reducing the stockpile to its lowest
levels since the Eisenhower Administration, and the RRW is consistent
with this objective.
For anyone interested in further reducing our nuclear stockpile and
building on the current momentum--now is the time for action, and the
RRW program is the right vehicle.
Now let me turn to the other aspects of this budget request.
I do have concerns about the cuts to the science, engineering and
experimental activities that support the science-based stockpile
stewardship activities. Funding for these activities has been cut by
more than $113 million in this request. I believe the focus on
transformation puts too much emphasis on facilities and not enough on
science.
Going forward it is vital that we sustain our scientific
capabilities, especially with an RRW design. The JASONs, an independent
team charged with evaluating the RRW program, also indicated that
resolving important scientific questions is critical to having
confidence in the stockpile without underground testing.
The facts speak for themselves; all three of the labs received a
net reduction in funding, while funding for the manufacturing plants
was increased despite the fact there is $60 million in unobligated
balances at the plants.
I am surprised by the differences between the Office of Science and
NNSA budget requests for fiscal year 2008. The Office of Science is
committed to fully utilizing its experimental facilities and expanding
its computational and simulation capabilities.
The NNSA budget has taken the opposite strategy and reduced funding
for science and experimental activities and proposes to reduce the
number of NNSA computers from three machines to two.
I do not believe this strategy is sustainable.
Now let me turn to Nonproliferation. One of the most challenging
projects before this subcommittee has been the MOX plant. This facility
remains the preferred alternative to eliminating 34 tons of excess
weapons-grade plutonium and fulfills our commitments under the Fissile
Materials Agreement with Russia.
I am told by NNSA that the MOX plant remains the most cost
effective and timely solution to eliminate this material.
I continue to support this initiative and believe DOE should do
more to dispose of excess plutonium as a means to mitigate the rising
security costs. The fiscal year 2008 request includes $881 million for
security, an increase of $120 million above the fiscal year 2007 level.
I am concerned that security costs continue to take a larger and larger
bite out of the mission.
Mr. D'Agostino, your testimony only makes brief mention of your
consolidation efforts. I would like to learn more about NNSA's strategy
to permanently dispose of our excess material and put a stop to the
rising security costs.
Mr. Chairman, I believe we need to give very close scrutiny to the
level of assistance we are providing Russia. When we initiated many of
the projects under the Cooperative Threat Reduction initiative, Russia
did not have the financial means to protect and secure nuclear material
within its country.
Now, that picture has changed and Russia enjoys a budget surplus as
they have profited immensely from the high price of crude oil and
natural gas. I no longer support providing massive subsidies to
Russia's military establishment and believe they should now be expected
to pay for their full share of the nonproliferation obligations.
I intend to work with the NNSA to identify areas where we can
reduce our subsidies to Russia.
Finally, I would like to make mention of the success of the Naval
Reactor program. This program supports the safe and reliable operations
of 103 nuclear plants in our naval warships.
I am very proud of the long-term record of success of this program
and I wish you well in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your patience and I will have several
questions for our witnesses.
Senator Domenici. But, I want to say, for a small
committee, we have a very big sized plate that is full, not
just full of money, but full of some of the most important
issues to the American people that any subcommittee, any full
committee should have, much less this small subcommittee that
you chair. That people wonder, what in the world is energy and
water anyway.
And, we have a series of funds in here for Russia. Let's go
back about 8 or 10 years, and I want to look at this with you
very in-depth because I'm wondering whether we ought to give
them anything. I was the proponent of the Russian programs.
But, Russia's got more money than we do to spend. If they don't
care about the nonproliferation, I'm just wondering why we
should. These are nonproliferation programs, pure American
dollars. That's one program.
We've got GNEP in here, at least we've got to fund some of
it. It's a huge program to finish the closed fuel cycle on
nuclear energy, of nuclear waste and the development of nuclear
power. Big monster program with three or four stopover points
where buildings would be built, technology would be applied
that is, as much as the biggest we've got around would be built
anew. Do we do it or not? Do we have enough money? Good
questions. Clearly, we have some big problems with whether or
not the entity that you run today, Mr. D'Agostino, NNSA,
whether it's working right or not. We're not going to have a
long time in my opinion.
Mr. D'Agostino. Right.
Senator Domenici. Before it's determined that you cleaned
it up and fixed it, or you didn't and it failed.
Mr. D'Agostino. Right.
RELIABLE REPLACEMENT WARHEAD
Senator Domenici. That's a giant job after we had so much
faith in that new approach to handling the weaponry. Then we
have last, but not least, the RRW program.
I want to say to you, sir. If you represent the
administration, and if they favor this program like I assume
they do. And, if they assume, like I do, that it is a
tremendous approach to reducing the stockpiles of nuclear
weapons dramatically in the United States, both in number and
size, within a reasonable time. And, that the same should occur
and accrue to the Soviet Union, Russia, who has big monsters
and they keep rebuilding them, monstrous bombs. And, we are
supposed to set the world on edge here by telling that we are
for the newest of technology in the RRW and to get on with the
first, the second little batch of funding, which is going to
bring a huge debate. And sir, if you represent the
administration, you better leave this hearing and advise them
that we better hear from some very big members of this
administration who are charged with this problem and who have
credibility. Because they are going to be attacked, this
program is going to be attacked as being not what we say it is,
or what you say it is, but something else, without any
question.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. The opposite. I have found lacking, and I
told the chairman, I found lacking the Secretary of Defense's
ideas and yet, this is a defense program as much as it is not.
I found that Secretary Rice was not forthcoming, at least had
not been. And, I found that the Secretary of Defense has not
been forthcoming. And, I believe that in short order this
subcommittee ought to know from all of them, how they stand and
why, and can we really do this, and is it good for the country
and why.
It's not too tough for me. I don't need much explaining
right now. I'm not that smart, but I got a jump start because
we funded a little bit of it last year. I think you know that.
But, to me, if we can not convince people that it is time to
have a new generation, completely different kind of nuclear
weapons, a complete gigantic build down.
Incidentally, this administration has a done a terrific job
of building down the nuclear stockpile. They are the only
administration that comes close to reducing to the levels of
the Eisenhower administration, in reducing warheads that
Americans had available for war use. This administration did it
in spades. Now they want, without testing, they aren't saying,
``Let us test.'' They're adding to this that they won't test,
right? Is that right, Mr. D'Agostino?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, sir. To certify the warhead, that's
right.
Senator Domenici. This whole new thing will say, ``We'll
produce the weapon and we'll produce assurance it will work. It
will be small, it will be different, and you won't have to test
it.'' Right?
Mr. D'Agostino. That's right, sir. That's right. To certify
the warhead we will not have to test. I believe it will reduce
the likelihood, certainly, especially compared to the stockpile
we have right now, we would ever need to test.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I have about 20 more that
I'll put in later. I do want to thank you for your diligence
and say what a great start this subcommittee's had, and is
going to have under your leadership. In my opening remarks, if
I don't get any more of them in here, I will put them in the
record.
I'll close by saying, Admiral, I hope that every time you
appear before this subcommittee, the fact that you are asked no
questions does not mean that, that we have anything but the
greatest admiration for the work you do. If every department of
the Federal Government could accomplish its mission pursuant to
its goal as set and never miss the pencil point, we would have
short hearings and great praise.
Admiral Donald. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. It's an
honor to appear before this subcommittee, and I do appreciate
the support the subcommittee's provided over the years to this
program. It's been a large part of the success.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Domenici, thank you.
Senator Allard.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a statement
I'd like to make a part of the record if I might.
Senator Dorgan. Without objection.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Wayne Allard
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing today
on the National Nuclear Security Administration budget request for the
coming fiscal year 2008.
Over the years I have consistently supported sustaining our nuclear
weapons stockpile, as well as efforts to develop concepts for future
weapons. I believe that our Nation's national security is strengthened
by our possession of such weapons.
Some opponents of these weapons believe that they are a threat to
our civilization. Others believe our possession of such weapons raises
the possibility that they might be used. Many believe that if the
United States dismantled its nuclear stockpile, then other nations
would follow suit. And, unfortunately, some believe that nuclear
weapons should be destroyed no matter the cost to our national
security.
These arguments do not always reflect the global security
environment. First, as more than 50 years of deterrence has proven, the
best way to ensure that a nuclear weapon is not used is to have a
strong national defense, including nuclear weapons.
Additionally, opponents have attacked the Bush Administration's
nuclear weapons initiatives over the past few years, including the
feasibility study for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, the
development of Advanced Concepts, enhanced test readiness, and the
construction of a new modern pit facility.
The question that I continue to raise is where do we go from here?
After the test moratorium went into effect and the stockpile
stewardship program ramped up, most of our efforts became centered on
sustaining our current nuclear stockpile. Given the political dynamics
of the post-cold war era, this strategy seemed to make sense. But, we
must all recognize that this decision only put off, at least for the
time being, a larger policy decision about the future of the U.S.
nuclear weapons stockpile. We must face the facts that our current
stockpile is on average approaching 20 years in age.
Again, thank you Mr. Chairman for bringing us here today and I look
forward to hearing Mr. D'Agostino's testimony today on these and many
other issues.
SECURITY AT NATIONAL LABORATORIES
Senator Allard. It seems like the Department of Energy
consistently has problems that raise concerns about being able
to protect our Nation's secrets. And, we've just got a
inspector general's report, March 2007, where we have computers
that are missing, as far as inventories are concerned. And, I'm
brought back to--was it 1997, 1998 I--think, Senator Domenici,
where we had computer and security problems related to
computers at Los Alamos and our national laboratories.
Senator Domenici. Yes.
Senator Allard. And, we are back in with the agencies that
have some of our Nation's top secrets losing computers again.
And, I'm wondering if you can explain to us how that happens?
Mr. D'Agostino. This is my question?
Senator Allard. Yes.
Mr. D'Agostino. Admiral?
Senator Allard. How do you pronounce your name?
Mr. D'Agostino. D'Agostino, Senator.
Senator Allard. D'Agostino. Okay.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes.
Senator Allard. Got you.
Mr. D'Agostino. Thank you. It's hard. I believe you might
be referring to the counterintelligence laptops.
Senator Allard. This is an inspector general report and it
was on the counterintelligence section, yes.
Mr. D'Agostino. That's right. With respect to control of
material, of computers and security in general because I think
it's not just a problem that exists at one site. It's something
that the Secretary and I are very concerned about across all
areas.
Most recently, as you are well aware, we had a concern at
Los Alamos National Laboratory last fall that resulted in
multiple inspections by the inspector general, and the
Government Accountability Office to look at what is going on
with respect to cyber-security. We call it cyber-security. What
we have found as a result of that, we had too many directives
that were issued, by memo or email and not enough, actually,
written down in a clear concise way and put into the contracts
themselves. So the contractors had, what I would say, is too
much conflicting information.
Since that time, the Secretary had directed our Chief
Information Officer to look at this particular problem
specifically and the inspector general investigation that was
done. He commissioned a special task force to look at that
specific problem. Mr. Pike, who is the Chief Information
Officer, provided a report. I was part of that task force that
looked at that. We came out with a number of recommendations to
deal with it.
The Secretary is implementing those recommendations, in
fact, two of the biggest recommendations were to start from
scratch and simplify the cyber-security directives to make sure
that it's clear what we expect from our contractors, how we
expect our contractors to perform. And, more importantly, put
those requirements in the contracts themselves.
Those contract modifications are being put into the
contracts themselves and then the next step is follow through
with oversight by the Federal site offices and headquarters to
make sure that we tie expectations and performance, money, and
reward fee that we have to it. I can't explain that specific
incident and I apologize. I don't have the details behind that
particular incident on the laptops, but I know the Secretary is
very concerned about this particular problem and we're taking a
look at it, not just at the nuclear weapons laboratories and
not just across the eight nuclear weapons sites, but across all
17 laboratories within the Department of Energy.
Senator Allard. It's my experience here in the Senate that
this is a chronic problem with the Department of Energy losing
track of computers. We always set up a committee to check it
out and recommendations are applied and, you know, 4 or 5 years
later it erupts again. And, I'm hoping that somebody around
here is beginning to take this problem seriously. I think it's
intolerable, from my point of view.
Mr. D'Agostino. Right.
Senator Allard. My question is, do you have money to make
sure that you have proper controls over our Nation's classified
information?
Mr. D'Agostino. I know the answer to that question is yes
and I'll explain how. In fact, right now within the NNSA our
cyber-security budget has gone up by more than 15 percent
compared to fiscal year 2007. But, actually there's more to it
than that.
For fiscal year 2009--we're putting our budget together for
that right now--we're applying what we call risk-based and risk
management decision processes to make sure that we know what it
takes to fund that area. My expectation in 2009 is we'll be
seeing additional resources in this area to address these
particular problems. Resources are part of the problem, but the
other part of the problem is attitude and understanding and
having clear expectations.
The one thing I've learned in this job over the last couple
of years and in Defense programs is that setting clear, simple
expectations is very important, having the expectations defined
in contracts and in performance expectation, performance
evaluation plans, and tying financial resources to those
expectations so it actually drives behavior. I think that's how
were going to get to solving this problem.
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, I have one more question. I
can either ask it now, if you'd like, or wait for another
round.
Senator Dorgan. You may proceed.
Senator Allard. Okay, thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Then I'll call on Senator Feinstein.
Senator Allard. Thank you.
MIXED OXIDE FUEL FABRICATION FACILITY
I strongly support the Mixed Oxide Program in Savannah. I
think it's also referred to as MOX Plus, am I correct?
Mr. D'Agostino. We just call it MOX.
Senator Allard. Okay. When do you plan to complete your
design work for the facility and then when do you plan on to
begin construction and have you got any thoughts about cost
scheduling?
Mr. Tobey. Senator, the design is some 90 percent complete
at this point. Small portions of the designs balance will go on
for years because it just makes sense to do some of the design
as the building is completed. We're ready to begin construction
as soon as we're permitted by law, after August 1 of this year.
And, it would, the construction would go on for some 15 years,
is the baseline.
Senator Allard. And, when do you think you'll be able to
process materials?
Mr. Tobey. The construction will be complete in 2016. We'd
be able to process materials immediately thereafter.
Senator Allard. Thank you.
Mr. Tobey. And, it would run for 15 years after that.
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Allard, thank you.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. D'Agostino, I want to thank you for the time you spent
with me on Monday.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, ma'am.
RELIABLE REPLACEMENT WARHEAD
Senator Feinstein. I want to say that you're a straight
shooter and that you're honest and direct. And, I want you to
know that I really appreciate this.
Mr. D'Agostino. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. I believe I now have a very good idea of
what is involved in this warhead. This is a real point of
conscious for me. I grew up following Hiroshima, 15 kilotons,
and Nagasaki, 7 kilotons. And, I saw the wake of that all
during my childhood. And, the mushroom cloud was the thing we
most feared growing up----
Mr. D'Agostino. Right.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. In this very great country.
A December 2006 report by the national laboratories, has showed
us that the plutonium pits have a lifespan of at least 85
years. And, it's my understanding that next week, the American
Association for the Advancement of Science is expected to issue
a report calling on the administration to develop a bipartisan
policy on the future of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons
policy before moving ahead with the RRW. My vote on this,
depends on whether I believe this is, in fact, a new nuclear
warhead. I told you that Monday. I have thought about it all
day Tuesday. I've gone over in my mind, those things that we
shared in that classified briefing.
I worked with Sam Nunn, when he was in the Senate of the
United States. And, I want to quote for a moment, his testimony
on March 29 before the House Energy and Water Appropriations
Subcommittee. And he noted, and a quote, ``On the RRW itself,
if Congress gives a green light to this program in our current
world environment. I believe that this will be misunderstood by
our allies, exploited by our adversaries, complicate our work
to prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons and make
resolution of the Iran and North Korea challenges all the more
difficult.'' That's Sam Nunn, who's the chairman of the Nuclear
Threat Reduction. And, I think very well respected for his
background and work in this area.
I would hope that every member of this subcommittee would
get a classified briefing on this proposed new, proposed change
in the warhead. Let me ask this question. Has the NNSA assessed
the impact of the United States development of a new warhead on
U.S. nonproliferation efforts, including efforts to convince
other countries not to acquire nuclear weapons? And, how do you
justify this cost to our nonproliferation efforts?
Mr. D'Agostino. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate your
comments earlier.
I'm going to answer it and I'd like Mr. Tobey, as well, to
talk a little bit about the international piece. His folks
spend a tremendous amount of time overseas talking about this
very subject. I don't recall if you were in the room when I
responded earlier to the idea.
Before we made the announcement on the Reliable Replacement
Warhead concept, we did talk to our allies, the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO), as well as other allies, including
Russia and China about the strategy and the understanding that
we want to reduce the size of our stockpile. As I mentioned to
you earlier this week, I'm committed to making sure that when
we reduce the size of our stockpile and we look at a future
nuclear deterrent, that my responsibility is to make sure that
that deterrent is as safe and as secure as humanly possible, as
our technology allows it to be. I'm convinced that our cold war
stockpile has, even though we assess it on an annual basis
right now.
Senator Feinstein. You assess that it's safe and secure on
an annual basis?
Mr. D'Agostino. Assess it, assess it's safe and secure on
an annual basis. That over time, we'll be put into a situation
where this country will be faced with a question that I don't
want the President, whomever the President may be in the
future, to have to decide whether we need to conduct an
underground test. I want to stay as far away from the
underground test question as possible.
The question in my view, becomes if there is a future
nuclear deterrent, and I do understand Senator Nunn's comments,
then how should, what should it look like? I believe it should
be small, as small as possible.
I believe the nuclear footprint on the United States, how
many sites and the size of the sites and how much money the
Nation invests over a lifetime, should be commensurate with
that. I believe that the Nuclear Posture Review that was put
out a few years ago, which was the concept of replacing the
large number of nuclear warheads as a nuclear deterrent during
the cold war is not as good as having a small number of very
safe and secure warheads with the ability of the Nation to
respond in the future.
Right now we are faced, I believe, with a fairly important
point, as you are absolutely right, on what strategy is the
right strategy. I'm concerned that if we go down a track of,
without considering this, without understanding what RRW really
means, then we won't actually have the information that I can
present to you and say, ``This is what it really means with
respect to how small the stockpile can be.''
Senator Feinstein. Which you don't have yet.
Mr. D'Agostino. I don't have that, that's right, ma'am.
And, that's what I'd like to do in the next 9 to 12 months, is
to develop the cost, the schedule, and scope with the United
States Navy to give you a real number. How much it costs? What
are the offsets? How small does the stockpile get as a result
of this? What does this mean to nuclear testing, exactly what
does this mean to nuclear testing? And, how many more nuclear
weapons should we be dismantling? I want to be able to put that
in writing, almost like a contract, if you will.
Senator Feinstein. Could you speed it up and do it before
we vote on whether to approve this appropriation?
Senator Dorgan. Would the Senator yield on that point?
Does the appropriation request for this coming fiscal year
also include some small amount of money for an RRW-2, which
would be a follow up, follow-on contract? And, if so, what,
what's the purpose of talking about a second RRW before the Air
Force, prior to making the decision the Senator from California
is asking?
Mr. D'Agostino. That's a good question, sir. We have to
look at our B61 bomb. The B61 bomb is an Air Force bomb. It was
designed in the early 1960s, essentially, almost 40, 45, 50
years ago. It's got vacuum tubes inside the system itself. We
have other concerns that I'll be glad to talk specifically in a
classified session, I'll be glad to talk about that.
And so, the idea was, do we--right now, we're going to be
doing a life-extension plan, starting in the 2012, 2010 to 2012
timeframe. And the question is, does it make sense to rebuild a
bomb? As we will do if we don't move forward in a different
direction or we build bombs the same way we did back in the
1950s and 1960s? I think that's irresponsible to do that. The
technology has changed so much in the last 50 years. The
threats have changed so much in the last 50 years. It would be
irresponsible for us to replicate the past.
I don't think it's right for our workforce, it makes them
work on components like Beryllium. Beryllium is a very
hazardous material, and causes berylliosis, which is a disease
we didn't know about 50 years ago. In fact, this Nation is
spending money right now, essentially compensating our workers
who, over the past 40 years have devoted their life to national
security, and now are finding themselves sick. I don't want to
get into that in the future.
Senator Feinstein. Would you go back to your proposal?
Mr. D'Agostino. I think it would make sense and I want to
make sure the subcommittee gets the detailed information on the
cost, the scope and the schedule of what an RRW could do, and
that's what we're working on right now. We are authorized and
appropriated to do that, and we are doing that. And it's going
to carry forward into 2008.
When we get that information together, and when we can look
at what this means to the size of the stockpile, to what things
we take off the table from our current plans, and how does this
impact the actual infrastructure--and I use that term to
describe buildings and processes--and how much money we save
from that, I think the actual data that I have right now is
compelling, but I want it to be, what we call, budget quality.
In other words, the quality that I feel I can stand behind, and
come to this.
Senator Feinstein. I thought what you had said to me
earlier, that it might be possible to actually speed up the
reduction of the nuclear fleet, so to speak.
Mr. D'Agostino. Oh, okay, yes, ma'am. We were talking about
dismantling warheads.
Senator Feinstein. Right.
WARHEAD DISMANTLEMENT
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, ma'am. A little bit different from
RRW, we're going as quickly as possible given the resources to
work with the Navy to get the picture right.
On dismantlements, what we did last year was we made a
unilateral decision outside of the Defense Department space, to
accelerate by about 25 percent, on average, our dismantlements
of cold war nuclear warheads.
In fact, in fiscal year 2007, this year, we're in right
now, we had made a commitment, I made the commitment to the
Secretary, and the Secretary talked to the Secretary of
Defense, of a 49 percent increase in the number of warheads
we're dismantling, compared to fiscal year 2006.
In all likelihood, we're going to not only hit that target,
we're going to exceed it. We'll probably dismantle twice as
many warheads this year as last year. The key will be keeping
on that pace year in and year out. Right now, even though we've
dismantled 13,000 warheads in the timeframe I mentioned
earlier, in the 1990s, and we have a number of warheads to
dismantle, that what we've got is a plan that takes us out into
the early 2020 decade. And, ultimately, in the end, we need to
pull that date, the end date, up forward.
Senator Feinstein. How many warheads are in the RRW, long-
term program?
Mr. D'Agostino. If you take the concept to its end. If we
believe that we're going to have fewer and safer and securer,
it would be the number of warheads that I can talk about
publicly, it's the Moscow Treaty number of 1,700 to 2,200
warheads plus, a number of what we call reliable spares.
Because, when we say operationally deployed, these are
warheads that are with the Department of Defense, whether
they're in silos or at Navy bases, and we need to maintain a
fraction of that number within the Department of Energy because
we do surveillance. We take some systems out and we replace
them to check on their quality.
That is ultimately the number that you need to understand
and that I need to understand that the Department of Defense
can collectively come to. I have in my mind what it could be,
it would be not appropriate, I don't believe, to discuss it in
public until I've had a chance to talk to the Defense
Department.
Senator Feinstein. So, we could sit down with you, again,
in a classified way and go over some of this?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, ma'am----
Senator Feinstein. Because it's very important.
Mr. D'Agostino. [continuing]. Yes ma'am, I'd be glad to do
that, I will look forward to it, thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Feinstein, thank you.
I think that might be a good idea, I'm interested in this
issue of deployed weapons, versus total weapons, and the
circumstances surrounding that, weapons spares, et cetera.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. And I think that is most appropriately
discussed, I think, in a classified setting.
Senator Domenici, did you have other questions you wish to
ask?
Senator Domenici. First I want to say to the members of the
subcommittee that are here, and in particular, Senator
Feinstein, that it is quite amazing, as a Senator, to be able
to say in the record this afternoon that great issues like the
one we are discussing are frequently done without a lot of
television, via a hardworking subcommittee. I'd say this one
works hard, it couldn't produce anything if it didn't, it's so
complex, unless we just abdicated to someone and said, ``We
don't want to do anything,'' and your questioning indicates to
me that you can join in a discussion that is predicated upon
good sense of the past, and some good thinking about the
future, even if it's in the most complicated, and almost
horrific context, that has to do with building nuclear weapons
and dismantling and destroying them.
I do want to say to you that someone like me whose age you
would just have to guess, because I'm in such great shape,
nobody knows I'm a very old man, and people think I'm 55--
pretty good, right? But, what I wanted to say to you, whatever
generation I came from, I had the same recollection of the
bombs, and I learned an awful lot more about it by being not
too far from Los Alamos for my childhood.
When we used to drive to Los Alamos as a family, in our
family car, just for the pleasure of being turned down by the
armed guards at Los Alamos who would tell this wonderful little
American family, ``Well, you can go no further, make a U-turn
and go home.'' And we used to all wonder in our car, and talk
with my dad, who had only a fourth grade education, about all
of the things we imagined that were going on behind that high
wall. That was it, that was the central focus for all of the
building that has occurred since then, that you are aware of.
I then involved myself very deeply in the next phase around
here, which had to do with stopping testing, underground
testing, unless the American future was at stake. And, I
learned all I could about that, and for the first time, in
spite of my great friend Sam Nunn, who just called me yesterday
for a wonderful, ever-so-often conversation, if I had that I
would have asked him about it, but I forgot. Because we agree
on most things, but I would ask him if he would sit down with
me, and discuss the alternatives, which I think he must do.
Because his voice is too loud to remain unfettered, he must
tell us what he will do, if he won't do this.
Because that's going to end up being the question--if we're
not going to do this, in terms of a dismantlement and change,
what are we going to do? Are we going to leave this stockpile
as our legacy, this one, and say, ``We just hope we never have
to test.'' I don't want to do that, because I feel kind of
confident that this subcommittee could make a good decision.
And I think we ought to make the decision, not leave it for 10
years from now, when somebody will make it secretively, and
you'll hear about it as a puff out there in Nevada, because we
can't tell the world what we did.
MIXED OXIDE FUEL FABRICATION FACILITY
Now, having said that, I wanted to ask you about MOX, and
the facility--how is it coming, and if we budget what the
President asks for, where will we be? Whose got MOX?
Mr. D'Agostino. Well, I'm going to ask Mr. Tobey to comment
on that, and I can follow through.
Mr. Tobey. Senator, as you probably know, we are ready to
start construction after August 1 of this year. We're eager to
do so, we believe it's an important program. It's consistent
with U.S. national security and nonproliferation interests. We
would aim to have the facility complete by 2016, and to operate
it for at least 15 years thereafter.
Senator Domenici. What is it going to do, so we'll all have
on the record--we're going to build this building and do
something, what are we going to do?
Mr. Tobey. In the first instance, we will dispose of at
least 34 metric tons of U.S. plutonium access to defense needs.
Senator Domenici. Where did we get that?
Mr. Tobey. Pardon me?
Senator Domenici. Where did we get that?
Mr. Tobey. From the dismantlement of weapons.
Senator Domenici. Our own?
Mr. Tobey. Yes sir. And it will also, it is part of an
agreement with Russia under which Russia would also dispose of
34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium.
Senator Domenici. And I'm very glad to say, as a member of
this subcommittee, I had something to do with that. In fact, I
sat over there in Russia, with the President of the United
States, seeing if they would agree. They agreed, and it took 3
more years before we could get started. Now, we have people
saying, we shouldn't build in the United States--shouldn't
proceed in the United States.
I knew all the answers that I, questions I asked, but it's
absolutely impractical to me to have a facility that over the
ages, we could not build because of political problems. It
approved on all sides, and then the Russians agree to dismantle
and deliver the equivalent of 34 tons of plutonium to be run
through a MOX facilitating plant to produce mixed oxide fuel.
That's what it is, isn't it?
Mr. Tobey. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. Where it gets its name--that's going to
be reusable, isn't it?
Mr. Tobey. Yes, it would become fuel for U.S. reactors.
Senator Domenici. Fuel for U.S. reactors----
Mr. Tobey. With significant value.
Senator Domenici [continuing]. And we have people not
wanting to do it. I wonder what they would want to do with the
residual that is high-flying plutonium. And we get to run it
through this piece of equipment, and it changes from that to
something much less maligned than its current status, is that
right?
Mr. Tobey. Yes, sir, it is. There are no good alternatives,
certainly none that would provide the nonproliferation
benefits. And frankly, simply continuing to store the material,
using 50-year life cycle costs, is the most expensive thing we
could do with it.
Senator Domenici. You got it.
Mr. Tobey. And, given that the half-life of plutonium is
24,000 years, it's not unreasonable to use a 50-year life cycle
cost standard.
Senator Domenici. I thank you very much, and I want to say
to the chairman that I would like to join in a more in-depth
briefing if you would like that, and of course, the Senator
from California wants to do that, and I would like to go with
you so we don't have to do it twice if you think that's a good
idea.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Domenici, I think what we will do
is arrange a classified briefing and invite members of the
subcommittee to it, so that we can have a fuller discussion in
a classified setting of all of these issues.
Mr. Tobey. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Reed. I have no further questions.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
RELIABLE REPLACEMENT WARHEAD
I want to just cover some specifics. I think the questions
have been asked, but I just want to nail things down. We're in
phase 2A right now in the RRW, when do you anticipate
requesting permission from the Nuclear Weapons Council and the
Congress to start phase 3?
Mr. D'Agostino. Senator, I'd expect it'll take us 9 to 12
months to finish this phase 2A activity, probably putting us in
the January/February timeframe of next year, roughly. Then we
would take that decision to the Nuclear Weapons Council. I sit
on the Nuclear Weapons Council with Mr. Krieg and others from
the Defense Department.
We will look at that phase 2A study. In particular, we will
look at what it does to what we call the nuclear weapons
stockpile memorandum. This is a memorandum the President
ultimately signs and sends over to Congress, which provides the
details on the size of the stockpile. And, I think what I--not
only do I believe as a matter of course, but I think it's
important for this Congress is to understand how RRW drives the
size of that and provides the details of the stockpile.
We will have a vote within the Nuclear Weapons Council on
whether to move forward on what we call phase 3, which is a
little bit of a development phase, or design development phase,
where we would do some engineering work. We would run more
calculations, maybe do some materials tests, so that would be
later on next year.
Senator Reed. Later on, being July, June, August--just to--
--
Mr. D'Agostino. We're having our first meeting with the
Navy out at Lawrence Livermore on May 1, so I'll have a
schedule, probably in another 2 months that I can come talk to
you about, sir.
Senator Reed. Just, specifically, and you've already, I
think, answered this in response to other questions--the RRW
design is a new warhead, will be a new warhead, correct?
Mr. D'Agostino. It is a new design for an existing warhead.
I'm not a lawyer, but it's an existing military capability.
It's a replacement warhead, but it's a new design for that
warhead.
Senator Reed. The warhead is the one for the Navy program,
the D-5 missile program?
Mr. D'Agostino. It's to replace the W76, that's right, sir.
Senator Domenici. Senator?
Senator Reed. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. Can I ask you if you would do me a favor?
Senator Reed. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. Out in the audience are 10 trainees from
the NNSA Training Program, Mr. D'Agostino, it's your training
program for students from up in your country?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, Senator, they are what we call Future
Leaders. The average age in the NNSA is close to 50 years, and
we recognize that we need to train and bring in the best folks
we can, similar to the model that Admiral Rickover and Admiral
Donald go off and interview and bring in bright people, bring
new ideas into the organization. Ten of them are here, sir.
Senator Domenici. Could they stand up?
Mr. D'Agostino. Sir.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate you
permitting us to do this, and could I just welcome them, thank
you for coming, and we hope you have a good time.
Mr. D'Agostino, thank you for being so cordial to them.
Mr. D'Agostino. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it, it's good
to see them here. I appreciate having them here.
Senator Dorgan. All of us welcome you, and we hope that
you've enjoyed the subcommittee hearing, and we appreciate your
service to our country by serving in public service, which is a
very honorable and important thing to do. So, we welcome you
here.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. I think a critical question here, with
respect to RRW is the issue of testing. Is it a specific
objective of the program to be able to eliminate the need for
testing in the future? Yes or no, is that going to be a
specific objective?
Mr. D'Agostino. I want to be very precise in my answer, I
think it's a little bit more difficult than a yes or no. But,
here's what I'm going to say--we will not move forward with
RRW, if it requires a test to certify that warhead. That is not
something I would recommend to the Nuclear Weapons Council. It
would be a long discussion in the Nuclear Weapons Council
before that happened.
Now, we do assess, on an annual basis, our stockpile for
testing. I can't predict what might happen 40 years from now,
as that warhead ages, but that's not, my view, is not moving
forward.
Senator Reed. Because Admiral Donald's been so cooperative,
he never gets asked a question.
NAVY HOME PORTING
Admiral Donald--how does your Office of NAVSEA and the
Department of Energy participate in the overall EIS process for
Navy home porting changes for potential additional submarines
for Guam? In 20 words or less.
Admiral Donald. Yes, sir, we participate with the Navy
anytime there's an environmental impact statement or a home
port change or a significant--potential significant impact to
the environment. We participate as part of that team, obviously
with concerns about the facilities that may be needed to
support the nuclear-powered ships in the area, obviously with
our environmental record, that subject is a matter of public
record as well. And that's part of that consideration should
that, any expansion be required in that area.
NONPROLIFERATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Senator Reed. Thank you, sir. The chairman's been very
kind, but I have one additional question, Mr. Tobey. You might
want to take this for the record, because we, we talked about
this before, I think, in the Armed Services Committee, which
is--if additional funding were available for nonproliferation
research and development, how would you use it? And--would you
like to take that one back and send us a note, or----
Mr. Tobey. I think I actually would like to answer that, if
that's all right, Senator?
If the Congress appropriated, and the President signed
additional funding for research and development, I think we
would direct that funding toward greater efforts on
radiological detection. That's a critical effort that will
support our abilities across the board, as you may understand,
and as we've discussed. We're moving our efforts from those
that are concentrated mainly on the former Soviet states, to
threats that are originating elsewhere, and also from the
immediate facilities that house nuclear weapons and material
where our work is coming to closure, to being more vigilant on
borders, and in other places.
And, in order to meet the emerging threat, we do need to
work on radiological detection, we are working on radiological
detection, and the President's budget does support that. But,
that would be an area of additional interest.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, you've been very kind.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Reed, thank you very much.
These are--as I indicated when I started--very complicated
issues. And I have tried very hard to meet with a lot of
people, study these issues, try to understand these issues in
recent months. And there's a lot to know, and a lot to
understand, and many answers that you don't have, Mr.
D'Agostino, and I don't have, and Senator Domenici doesn't
have--but we have to try to, as best we can, think through
these issues, in the context of what is in the best long-term
interest of this country.
The survival of this planet, I think, depends on our
getting these things right. We've been very lucky that for 60
years, we have not had another nuclear weapon used in anger.
Because once one is, a planet in which there are 15,000 to
20,000 nuclear weapons, and the release of them back and forth,
this civilization will cease to exist, at least as we know it.
I said earlier, at another hearing, that I very much
opposed and felt it reckless for those at a time, who talked
about the potential use of nuclear weapons, the need to build
new nuclear weapons, the need to build designer nuclear
weapons, the need to be able to burrow into caves and create
bunker busters, and some talked about nuclear weapons were
simply another weapon, and they were usable, were needed to be
used under certain circumstances, I view that as pretty
reckless, and pretty troubling, personally.
Because there are a lot of nuclear weapons that exist, and
because our country has signed up to a treaty that says we
agree to some sort of goal at some point, not described with
respect to time, that we would like to abolish nuclear weapons.
Because of all of that, I mean, the question for all of us now
is how do we reach into the future, and describe a future
without nuclear weapons, or at least moving toward the
reduction of nuclear weapons?
I want to just tell you, I read a book awhile back that
describes something I'd previously read in a--I believe, Time
or Newsweek, about October 11, I believe it was exactly 1 month
after September 11, 2001. A time during which a CIA agent code
named Dragon Fire reported that a small, I believe 10 kiloton,
at least, a small Russian nuclear weapon had been stolen, and
had been smuggled into either New York City or Washington, DC,
by terrorists, and was to be detonated in a major American
city. That didn't hit the press, was not a part of a public
story, but for about 1 month, at least, there was great, great
concern about whether or not that report was accurate.
It was later discovered to have not been an accurate
intelligence report, but in the post-mortem, the evaluation was
that it was perfectly plausible, that perhaps someone could
have stolen a 10 kiloton nuclear weapon. Perhaps, if stolen,
and gotten by a terrorist organization, it was plausible that
it could have been smuggled into an American city, and
plausible that such a weapon could have been detonated. And
then we wouldn't be talking about several thousand casualties,
we'd perhaps be talking about several hundred thousand
casualties.
That is the angst about the potential loss of, or stealing
of one nuclear weapon. One. There are about, we believe, 20,000
on this Earth. I think the survival of our planet depends on
our getting all of this right--we've been very lucky for 60
years. Maybe we'll be lucky for the next 600 years, I don't
know.
We have, in fact, a Stockpile Stewardship program in this
country, that goes on, has gone on for some while. That means
that we work on the weapons that exist, to make sure that they
are weapons that are available in the event that we were
threatened as a country, so there's nothing new about stockpile
stewardship, about people in your organization that routinely
do this kind of work.
The RRW program, my colleague from California raises
definitional questions, I don't know the answers to those. I
think the discussions that will continue now in the early
stages of this program, we'll try to find those definitions,
and try to think through--what are the consequences, Senator
Domenici asked, what are the consequences of not proceeding?
Senator Feinstein would ask, what are the consequences of
proceeding? That's the sort of thing, it seems to me, that this
country needs to grapple with as a set of policies.
Senator Domenici today has said that--and he showed me the
letters--that he has written to the Secretary of State,
Secretary of Defense, and one other--and I think, this is--as
I--the reason I describe all of this at the end of this
hearing, is this is not just some other issue. Senator Domenici
is right--this subcommittee has in its lap some very serious
questions to answer.
You, Mr. D'Agostino, run an organization that is very, very
important, and also needs to get this right, working with us to
get it right, and I've said previously, with some of the folks
who have appeared, I'm impressed with the quality of some of
the folks who have come to public service, I'm very impressed,
Mr. D'Agostino, with your willingness to sit with us----
Mr. D'Agostino. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan [continuing]. You and I have had a chance to
visit on a couple of occasions, and have traveled to New Mexico
to Sandia. I thank you for serving our country.
I'm not sure how I come out on all of this at this point.
I'm trying to understand it all, it's very complicated. And I
don't think my colleague, Senator Domenici, would allege it's
simple at all----
Senator Domenici. Oh.
Senator Dorgan [continuing]. It's very complicated, for
everybody on all sides.
But I pledge that I, and I think all members of this
subcommittee want to try to find a way to get to the right
answer here on these issues. Because I think the survival of
the planet, at some point, I don't think it's expressing it too
starkly--depends on our doing the right thing.
And, so I want to thank the witnesses for coming. Mr.
Tobey, thank you, you have a very important part of this. I'm
going to submit to you some questions, and Mr. D'Agostino, I'm
going to submit some additional questions to you.
Mr. D'Agostino. Sure.
Senator Dorgan. Admiral, thank you for your service.
And, let me again, to the new leaders, say to you--I think
public service is an unbelievable honor. Those of you who come
to Government and say, ``I want to be a part of this,'' thanks
for doing that, and it's nice to see an agency that worries
about the future. I think it's sort of crass and unbelievably
inept of you, Mr. D'Agostino, to define 50 years of age as old.
Mr. D'Agostino. I apologize.
Senator Dorgan. But, we welcome to those of you, if you
choose to have them, it does you no service on this
subcommittee, does it?
But in any event, thanks for being worried about renewal
for those old codgers who are nearing 50.
Mr. D'Agostino. I don't have much hair.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Domenici, thank you, and let me
thank the witnesses, this hearing is recessed.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. D'Agostino. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Yes?
Senator Domenici. I just want to say, and then you
certainly are welcome to comment, you used the word that we
have been ``lucky'' for the last 60 years, I think you really
mean, we have been fortunate. We have not been lucky--we have
spent more brain power of the highest quality, and more money,
if money means anything, than on any other issue or program
that has to do with military, we've spent more on nuclear
weapons and the defense that goes with them, and defending from
them, and making sure they're never used. Because most of what
we spend money on is to make sure nobody uses them, because
they know they can't use them, because they know for absolutely
for certain, that it would be a useless gesture. We spend much
on that. And there's much to learn from how well we've done as
we move ahead with what we contemplate in the future.
And I know what you meant, and you know what I meant. I
sounded flippant a couple of times, in speaking about Sam Nunn,
I didn't intend to be, and you don't intend to be, and use any
of the words here, they're all most difficult.
Senator Dorgan. No, I think, but I use the word luck for
this reason. I think in 1945 had someone said, ``You know what?
We're going to build thousands of additional nuclear weapons,
thousands of them, and by the way, in the next 62 years, none
will be used in anger, that's going to require some
unbelievably good work, and a little luck.''
Senator Domenici. You got it.
Senator Dorgan. I think most people would believe that to
be the case.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
The subcommittee will submit the balance of the questions
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 to Hon. Thomas P. D'Agostino
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
COMPLEX 2030
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, Last year GAO reviewed the NNSA's Complex
2030 and had several recommendations that NNSA address as part of its
$1.5 billion transition plan. The GAO was critical of the NNSA decision
to proceed with a plan, without knowing the military requirements for
the stockpile.
GAO recommended that DOD should provide clear, long-term
requirements for the stockpile, including quantity, type and mission.
Based on this information NNSA could then develop cost estimates based
on the military requirements and then develop a transformation plan to
support the preferred stockpile.
Mr. D'Agostino, it appears that without the Department of Defense
requirements it would be tough to develop an accurate or precise
transformation plan.
Has the Department of Defense provided its long-term requirements
for the stockpile? What about pit capacity and future RRW requirements?
Answer. The President defines the size and composition of the
nuclear weapons stockpile by his Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan (NWSP),
which is reviewed annually. The official requirements documents, such
as the NWSP, may lag expectations relative to the size and composition
of the future stockpile. Consequently, our transformation plans must be
sufficiently robust to cover a realistic range of future requirements.
With the President's commitment to achieving the smallest possible
stockpile size consistent with national security, future production
requirements are likely to support a much smaller stockpile. In
evaluations led by the Department of Defense, we have established a
range of possible stockpile scenarios that bound the most likely threat
environments of the future. For each scenario, we have determined
warhead production capabilities and capacities, including the
manufacturing quantities needed for plutonium and highly enriched
uranium components. Thus, the range of possible scenarios provides
bounds for production capabilities and capacity ranges that we might
need in the future. The capabilities to design, certify, and produce
Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) concepts and to manufacture 125
(net) pits per year are consistent with these evaluations.
As warhead quantities are reduced, it is important to recognize
that defining future capability requirements becomes more important
than specifying capacities. We must have a given capability (e.g.,
manufacturing uranium parts with specific characteristics) regardless
of whether we are making one or several hundred warheads. We frequently
find that the capacity provided by the mere existence of a specific
capability is sufficient to provide quantities needed to support a
small stockpile. For example, a new plutonium facility designed
according to modern lean manufacturing, safety, and security practices
could have a minimum capacity in the range of 125 RRW pits per year and
a lower value for legacy pits. Reducing the design capacity further
would not result in significant reductions in facility square footage
or cost. However, eliminating a specific capability requirement reduces
the floor-space and fixed-cost for maintaining that capability in a
state of readiness. One benefit of an RRW approach is that fewer
challenging or problematic capabilities must be maintained when
compared to legacy systems, thus, enabling better optimization of the
Complex in the long-term.
Question. Without the DOD requirements, how has the NNSA adopted
the transformational plan? What if one or more of the elements such as
the RRW isn't implemented?
Answer. We need to transform the nuclear weapons complex
infrastructure whether we proceed with Reliable Replacement Warhead
(RRW) concepts or retain legacy designs. However, RRW concepts enable
better optimization of the Complex in the long-term because some
specific capabilities (e.g., beryllium component production) do not
have to be retained. A primary objective of nuclear weapons complex
transformation is to establish a responsive infrastructure capability
that is sustainable and cost-effective for the long-term. There are key
capabilities that must be present to meet this objective. The Complex
must have functional capabilities to: (1) design, develop, and certify
nuclear weapons; (2) manufacture and surveillance of plutonium
components; (3) manufacture and surveillance of uranium components; (4)
produce and manage tritium; (5) manufacture and surveillance of non-
nuclear components; (6) assemble and disassemble nuclear weapons and
components; (7) storage and transport of nuclear weapons and material;
and (8) provide the science, engineering, and technology essential to
our nuclear deterrent and our ability to respond to technological
surprise. In the absence of detailed projections of stockpile size and
composition for future decades or without an RRW, transformation plans
must be sufficiently robust to cover a realistic range of future
requirements.
Question. Have you reviewed the GAO findings and how has this
changed your strategy as a result?
Answer. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) findings in
Views on Proposals to Transform the Nuclear Weapons Complex (GAO-06-
606T) reiterated that decisions regarding nuclear weapons complex
transformation must be based on good information. We concur and thus
the GAO findings have not changed our strategy. Specific findings
identified four actions that the GAO felt were critical to successful
transformation:
--Clear long-term requirements from the Department of Defense (DOD)
for the nuclear stockpile.
The National Nuclear Security Administration has been working
jointly with the DOD to establish a range of possible stockpile
scenarios that bound the most likely threat environments of the future.
For each scenario, we have determined required warhead production
capabilities and capacities, including plutonium and highly enriched
uranium operations with some sprint capacity. This set of possible
scenarios bounds the range of production capacities that we might need
in the future to plan proposed production facilities. Given that
stockpile projections will never be exact or remain stable for decades
into the future, bounding future estimates of required production
capabilities and capacity ranges are sufficient.
--Accurate cost estimates of the proposals for transforming the
weapons complex.
We have undertaken a process in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act before issuing a Record of Decision containing
specifics for the plan to transform the physical infrastructure of the
Complex. Transforming the physical infrastructure is costly and impacts
other transformation actions. Cost estimates of the alternatives for
transforming the weapons complex are being prepared in parallel with
the ongoing preparation of the Complex 2030 Supplement to the Stockpile
Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
(PEIS). Business case studies are progressing concurrently with the
PEIS, which are considering life cycle costs, decontamination and
demolition costs, present worth analyses, cash flow analyses,
qualitative analyses, and comparative costs. These business case
studies will be instrumental in determining the course of action to be
chosen in the late 2008 Record of Decision.
--A clear transformation plan containing measurable milestones.
We are committed to establishing annual ``Getting the Job Done''
lists and multi-year Complex 2030 transformation progress measures.
These represent measurable milestones that are meaningful to
stakeholders. However, a number of the progress measures of greatest
interest to stakeholders are dependent on the Complex 2030 Record of
Decision to be released in late 2008.
--An Office of Transformation with the authority to make and enforce
its decisions on transformation.
In order for transformation to be successful, new approaches must
be firmly anchored in the culture of the entire enterprise. This means
implementing line organizations and programs must own the new
approaches to ensure changes are sustainable and will outlast any
single office. The Office of Transformation, which was established in
June 2006, is my agent of change within the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) for nuclear weapons complex transformation. It is
establishing transformation implementation strategies and ensuring
ownership of changes by existing line organizations. While the Office
of Transformation has my full support, I am the one responsible for
seeing that the commitments we make to transformation are implemented.
I have the authority to make and enforce decisions on transformation.
Let me clarify one comment about the cost of transformation. There
is no $1.5 billion transition plan in our documents or the April 2006
GAO report. Some media and non-governmental organizations have
incorrectly quoted a November 2006 GAO report estimating a total $150
billion cost of the NNSA nuclear weapons enterprise over the next 25
years as equal to the cost of transformation. NNSA plans to achieve
transformation to Complex 2030 through existing programs and management
structure, and within projected funding levels. If major new facilities
are justified, incremental funding requests for capital projects will
be supported by business case analyses.
CLOSING LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY
Question. Some Members of Congress have suggested closing LANL. It
strikes me that this would be contrary to our Nation's national
security needs and unachievable based on the LANL mission
responsibilities.
It's no secret that I am a supporter of our national laboratories
and I believe we should continue to take necessary steps to improve the
safety and security at the labs--as well as make the necessary
investments to continue to support world class scientific research.
Mr. D'Agostino, can you detail for us why we need LANL and what
role they play in our national security.
Answer. From a National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
perspective, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is responsible for
the majority of warheads in the nuclear weapons stockpile. Personnel at
the laboratory are intimately involved with the maintenance,
surveillance, and assessment of the warheads designed at LANL. LANL
plays a key role in the annual assessment of the safety and reliability
of the nuclear weapons stockpile, in the absence of nuclear testing. We
are presently still tied to our underground test data for our legacy
systems. Advances in science and technology enable a Reliable
Replacement Warhead (RRW) strategy and will provide a future predictive
capability for legacy and RRW-type systems; LANL is critical in the
advance of our science and technology base. The experienced staff and
the premier facilities at LANL are key to our nuclear weapons program.
LANL also contributes to other aspects of national security such as
threat reduction and support to the Department of Defense and the
Department of Homeland Security and analysis of intelligence
information. Overall, LANL is a critical contributor of science and
technology that underpins U.S. national security.
Question. Can you also elaborate the practical impacts to science
and research if we were to shut down the lab and divide up the
workforce?
Answer. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) continues to have a
critical role in the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
science and research program through its people and facilities. Closing
LANL would seriously damage the science and research for the Stockpile
Stewardship Program.
People can be encouraged to move but a move cannot be mandated.
With the demographics of the designer community, it is likely that we
would lose the majority of the remaining experienced designers. In
addition, we will also loose experienced staff in other LANL areas of
key technical expertise: weapons materials and chemistry support for
the complex, nuclear physics, and computational science.
Within the areas of defense science and research, LANL provides at
least three major and unique elements required for Stockpile
Stewardship: neutron cross-sections to reduce uncertainties in nuclear
weapon performance calculations; radiography to assess implosion
performance; and an integrated plutonium production and research
facility. LANL's Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) is a multi-
purpose facility that supports materials research and hydrodynamics
research through proton radiography and neutron scattering in a
classified environment. This is unique in the complex and has supported
Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) designs already, as well as
supporting improved understanding and predictive capability for legacy
as well as RRW designs. LANSCE also supports basic neutron science
through the Lujan Center. The Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test
(DARHT) Facility is a unique radiographic facility and, when the second
axis becomes available with multi-pulse capability, DARHT will be
unique in the world. The multi-axis and multi-pulse capabilities of
DARHT will significantly enhance our understanding of the implosion
phase of nuclear weapons, especially as we assess the legacy systems or
implement improved safety and surety features without nuclear testing.
The plutonium complex at LANL has an integrated research capability to
support the pit manufacturing activities. Such capabilities could not
be replicated somewhere else without a severe loss of capability and a
decade gap in restarting the operations. Superblock, which NNSA is
presently committed to move out from, does not have the capacity to
take over all TA-55 functions.
In addition, LANL has numerous smaller scale research and
development (R&D) capabilities required for Stockpile Stewardship,
responding to emerging threats, and advancing science broadly for
national security. Among these are the capability for classified
beryllium manufacturing R&D, plutonium-238, high explosives chemistry,
actinide chemistry, uranium R&D, and tritium R&D. LANL is an
international leader in criticality science and its applications in
safety, materials transportation and detection. LANL makes significant
contributions in astrophysics, climate analysis, biology and forensics.
Shutting down LANL and reassigning people would have an immediate and
possible irreparable impact on the nuclear weapons program and, to a
lesser degree, the broad national security science infrastructure.
RELIABLE REPLACEMENT WARHEAD
Question. As you know, I was hopeful that the New Mexico RRW design
team would be named the lead design. However, that was not the case.
You selected the Livermore design based on several criteria, but it was
clear that avoiding underground testing was a key driver in your
decision.
As an original sponsor of the RRW design competition I continue to
support the project as it is vital if we are to transform the stockpile
to a significantly smaller stockpile that is cheaper and safer to
maintain.
Your budget provides $88 million for the RRW program. Can you
please tell me how this funding will be spent and how this will support
a Congressional decision to proceed with the engineering design
authorization next year?
Answer. The fiscal year 2008 request funds the Reliable Replacement
Warhead (RRW) Phase 2A study. The National Nuclear Security
Administration's (NNSA) intent is to develop high fidelity baseline
schedules and cost estimates. The laboratories will further refine the
concept design and work with the plants concurrently during the Phase
2A study to support a sound planning effort. This activity will
include: some revising and extending of the selected design, analyzing
and scheduling the required development work, planning and executing
any required peer reviews, developing the detail cost estimate. As and
example the certification plan will be prepared in detail including
identifying and scheduling the hydrodynamic experiments required and
computational analyses necessary for certification. Some computations
and potentially some technology tests will be performed during the
study to assure that the project scope is correctly assessed. NNSA will
return to Congress at the appropriate time to seek both authorization
and appropriations to proceed into the engineering development phase,
if the Nuclear Weapons Council decides to proceed with development of
the RRW.
Question. Can you tell me what role Los Alamos will play in the RRW
design and how they will be integrated into the project?
Answer. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) will lead the
independent peer review team for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW)
and participate in development of technologies and advanced science
analysis for potential insertion in the future stockpile. Until a long-
term pit manufacturing capability is in place, the pit manufacturing
facility at LANL will implement the manufacturing process for the RRW
pits eventually manufacture them during Phase 3A.
COMPLEX 2030--FACILITIES BEFORE SCIENCE
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, I am deeply concerned about the funding
profile for the Science and Technology accounts within the NNSA.
It is clear from recent budget requests that the NNSA has put more
emphasis on facilities and security than on supporting the science
based stockpile stewardship activities.
However, considering the fact that the Complex 2030 transformation
is based around the Reliable Replacement Warhead, I believe this
warrants more scientific research in order to develop the weapon system
without underground testing.
The JASONs study group, which is undertaking a review of the RRW
design, found that, ``though we see no insurmountable obstacles to
certification of the RRW at present, there are substantial scientific
challenges to developing a new stockpile system . . .''
Mr. D'Agostino, how can you meet all the life extension
responsibilities for existing weapons systems and support the RRW
program with declining science and technology budgets?
Answer. The current Life Extension Programs for the B61 and W76 are
either in the production phase or entering into the production phase at
the end of this fiscal year. The research for these existing life
extensions is largely complete. The National Nuclear Security
Administration strategy provides that Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC)
approved Life Extension Programs would continue as directed, but
Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) programs would be developed to
replace legacy Life Extension Program efforts. In the science and
technology arena, we are committed to the work required to support the
stockpile and to develop predictive capabilities. We are at a period
where we are completing the construction of major science facilities,
and the associated development and construction costs are decreasing.
We are moving to exploit these new facilities to advance the science
and technology base for the program. However, we believe that we can do
more within the present planned budgets by integrating our science and
technology efforts across the laboratories, for example: ensuring
access to the premier facilities and computational capabilities and
developing integrated science and technology roadmaps. The broader
science and technology needed to support the health of our nuclear
weapon design and production can be augmented via enhanced integration
with other agencies, and broader interaction with the general
scientific community. The Complex would then be operated in a more cost
effective manner. The combination of these factors (replacing life
extensions with RRW, reductions in construction costs, and integration
of resources) should allow us to meet needs within decreased science
and technology budgets.
Question. Can you please provide for me in writing your science and
engineering R&D plan for the next 5 years that will answer the
technical questions surrounding the RRW program and show me where this
plan is financed in our budget?
Answer. Science and engineering research and development (R&D)
necessary for fundamental support of Weapon Activities as well as
direct support of the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program is
programmed within Defense Programs' Campaign structure. The Science,
Engineering, Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield, and
Advanced Simulation and Computation Campaigns together comprise about
$1.42 billion in the fiscal year 2008 budget, while an additional $0.44
billion is requested for addressing manufacturing and production
readiness in the Readiness and Pit Manufacturing and Certification
Campaigns. The basic R&D activities within each Campaign are described
in the fiscal year 2008 budget request, consistent with the Program
Plans maintained for each of the six Campaigns. Collectively the R&D
activities that the Campaigns undertake are described in the fiscal
year 2007-2011 Stockpile Stewardship Plan. As a relevant technology
becomes more mature and the technical questions more unique to the
specific weapon, the effort shifts to Directed Stockpile Work and the
RRW program.
An integrated planning effort by the program efforts above, the
predictive capability framework, is ongoing to ensure timely delivery
of science and technology to the program. The end goal of a predictive
capability for nuclear weapons should in of itself increase efficiency
by ensuring validated models that can be applied to all systems to
increase confidence and decrease the repeat work frequently done system
by system. The predictive capability framework plan will be completed
this fiscal year. Due to the complexity of these activities, some of
the scientific advances cannot be completed in time for the first RRW
certification process, but the first RRW is designed to have sufficient
margin and tie to nuclear test history to offset the higher
uncertainties.
INSUFFICIENT FUNDING FOR Z OPERATIONS
Question. In the fiscal year 2007 NNSA budget, hearing last year
Ambassador Brooks promised that I would be pleased with the funding
provided for Z machine--I am not pleased. This budget continues to
support past practice of providing everything and more for NIF, while
providing insufficient funding for Z.
This budget continues funding Z from three separate accounts and
fails to fully fund operations at a full shift. This is in direct
contrast with the priorities of the Office of Science budget, which
makes operational runtime a top priority.
(NNSA provided $26 million to High Average Power Laser R&D in
fiscal year 2007, which NNSA admits has little to no bearing on the
weapons program)
Why does the Department continue to play games with the Z budget
when it funds projects like the High Average Power Laser program that
does not support the weapons program?
Answer. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has
requested $63.9 million for operation and use of the Z Facility at
Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) in fiscal year 2008. These funds are
provided for activities in pulsed power fusion and other areas of high-
energy-density weapons physics. This amount of funding will enable a
solid program of experiments which meets high priority NNSA
requirements as defined in joint plans developed by the Science,
Inertial confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield, and Advanced
Simulation and Computing Campaigns. Compared to the fiscal year 2007
request, funding was shifted from other activities in fiscal year 2008
to increase funding for Z activities to this level. Requested
enhancements of the SNL pulsed power program beyond this level were
carefully considered, but determined to be of insufficient priority for
funding based on program requirements.
NNSA allocated $26 million to Inertial Fusion Technology for these
activities ($10 million for the Nike laser at the Naval Research
Laboratory and $16 million for the High Average Power Laser (HAPL)
program) in the fiscal year 2007 Operating Plan submitted to Congress
on March 16, 2007. No funds are requested for the Nike or HAPL
activities in the fiscal year 2008 budget request due to the need to
fund higher priority activities.
Question. Why does the Department continue to fund Z from 3 or more
accounts, when NIF is funded from a single account (Inertial
Confinement Fusion)?
Answer. Funding for the Z facility at Sandia Laboratories is
currently provided from three different accounts: Readiness in
Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF), the Inertial Confinement Fusion
(ICF) program, and the Science Campaign. Funding provided by the ICF
program and the Science Campaign covers their areas of responsibility,
namely, pulsed power fusion and non-ignition weapon physics,
respectively. The Department is aware of the unintended confusion
arising from these multiple categories. In the fiscal year 2009 budget
submission, the National Nuclear Security Administration has proposed
consolidating all operational funding for Z in the ICF Campaign in the
same manner as currently done for Omega and the National Ignition
Facility.
CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH FACILITY REPLACEMENT
Question. The Departments commitment to long-term support of the
CMR-Replacement facility seems to have changed substantially over the
past 2 years.
Mr. D'Agostino, when you attended the groundbreaking in Los Alamos,
you declared this facility vital to the mission. The fiscal year 2006
budget request proposed $160 million for fiscal year 2008 and now the
fiscal year 2008 request has been reduced to $95 million. Your budget
request now seems to reflect a wait and see attitude as it pertains to
the CMR-Replacement.
At the same time, the NNSA has provided $25 million to initiate
design work on the Consolidated Plutonium Center as part of your
Complex 2030 plan, despite the fact that the Defense Department has not
provided you with a total pit requirement or justification for any
additional pits beyond what can be already produced.
With flat budgets, I do not believe the NNSA has the luxury of
spending money on new facilities without a clear justification or need.
Mr. Schoenbauer, do you recall when the House and Senate Energy and
Water bill eliminated funding for the proposed Modern Pit Facility in
fiscal year 2006?
Answer. The termination of the Modern Pit Facility project did not
eliminate the need to manufacture plutonium pits in sufficient
quantities to support the nuclear weapons stockpile. In the year 2000,
our plutonium strategy assumed two facilities to meet our long-term
mission requirements. One facility would support plutonium research and
development (R&D) and surveillance and a second would support pit
manufacturing at a capacity greater than 50 net pits per year to the
stockpile. The Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR)
Facility and other buildings in the Los Alamos National Laboratory
(LANL) TA-55 complex were to execute plutonium R&D mission. The Modern
Pit Facility, as a separate facility at a site to be determined, was to
execute the mission to manufacture pits in sufficient quantities to
support the legacy stockpile.
The events of September 11, 2001, evolving information on plutonium
aging, current stockpile projections, and development of reliable
replacement warhead concepts have changed our strategy from the year
2000. Increasing physical security costs for special nuclear materials
(SNM) are driving us to fewer sites with Category I/II quantities of
SNM and increased reliance on hardened, engineered-security facilities.
Thus, our Complex 2030 planning scenario assumes that we will have
Category I/II quantities of plutonium at only one site (e.g., a
consolidated plutonium center (CPC)) in the long-term for R&D,
surveillance and manufacturing. Los Alamos is one of five sites under
consideration for the plutonium mission.
Our Complex 2030 planning scenario also assumed that we would rely
on TA-55 at LANL, supported by a CMRR, for interim pit production until
a CPC became available in 2022. Our business case analyses indicated
this was an appropriate choice for a CMRR with a total project cost
estimate in the range of $850 million. In late 2006, LANL completed an
independent review of the planned CMRR and the revised the cost
estimate for the Nuclear Facility (NF) approximately doubled. This
greatly weakened the business case for CMRR-NF to only support interim
pit production and would have required an unacceptable budget re-
alignment over the next 5 years to retain the original CMRR schedule.
Thus, our revised CMRR approach to best manage risks includes: (1)
completing the CMRR Radiological Laboratory and Utilities Office
Building; (2) continuing with design of the CMRR-NF, and (3) deferring
commitments to construct the CMRR-NF until completion of the Complex
2030 Record of Decision in late 2008. In parallel with preparation of a
Complex 2030 Supplement to the Stockpile Stewardship and Management
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, we are evaluating business
cases for all plutonium facility alternatives. These alternatives
include several CMRR-NF options and long-term consolidation of all
plutonium functions to Los Alamos.
Question. What makes you think that by changing the name and
doubling the request, we would be interested in funding a similar
facility, just 2 years later?
Answer. The consolidated plutonium center (CPC) is not a name
change for the Modern Pit Facility. The CPC would be the one site in
the nuclear weapons complex in long-term for all research and
development, surveillance and manufacturing involving Category I/II
quantities of plutonium. The CPC would represent a consolidation of
many functions performed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Building 332, and Los Alamos National Laboratory plutonium facilities.
The fiscal year 2008 funds are requested to provide conceptual CPC
design definition and alternative evaluations necessary to support
upcoming plutonium facility decisions. These alternative evaluations
include options for Los Alamos as a possible site for a CPC.
EXPERIMENTAL HYDRO TESTS
Question. What impacts do you foresee on hydro testing as a result
of funding reductions you have recommended within the Directed
Stockpile Work Account?
Answer. The total funding for the hydrodynamic experimental program
in the Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) account is not changing. However,
the total funding has been re-aligned from one line (Stockpile
Services) to three lines: Stockpile Systems, Life Extension Programs,
and Stockpile Services. The reason for this change was to fund
activities more consistent with the scope of the newly established DSW
Work Breakdown Structure.
Question. What are the likely impacts to the Life Extension Program
as a result of reductions in funding for hydro tests in fiscal year
2008?
Answer. No major impact. All major hydrodynamic experiments funded
by the Directed Stockpile Work Hydrodynamic testing program scheduled
to support current Life Extension Programs have been conducted.
HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, as you know, the NNSA and its
laboratories have developed the world's fastest computing architecture.
This was developed in response to establishment of the stockpile
stewardship program and the necessity to simulate weapons performance
in order to maintain the existing underground testing moratorium.
I am concerned that NNSA does not have a long term R&D strategy to
keep the Nation at the forefront of High Performance Computing. It is
my understanding that both NNSA and the DOE Office of Science are
contributing less than $20 million to be a minority partner in a much
larger DOD R&D program.
Due to the rapid technological advance in this field, I believe the
Department of Energy must establish a 10-year R&D roadmap for High
Performance Computing by integrating the NNSA and Office of Science
efforts.
Why doesn't the NNSA and the DOE Office of Science work together on
a joint engineering R&D program to develop the next computing
breakthrough rather than take a minor stake in a DOD computing R&D
program as provided in this request?
Answer. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has a
proven track record of successful research and development (R&D).
However, while computing R&D is important to providing the capabilities
we will need to be successful, it is not our main driver. Our system
investments are strongly influenced by NNSA mission need. We are
investing in the Roadrunner architecture, which we took unilateral
responsibility for developing, but are expanding to include a wider
science community. We are also acquiring a capability to attack the
problem of quantifying and aggregating uncertainties in our simulation
tools with a system designated ``Sequoia,'' to be located at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory. This too will be a unilateral effort to
start, but will involve a larger community as it takes shape. We
exercise strong control over Roadrunner and Sequoia as we expect those
machines to make critical mission contributions to the NNSA.
NNSA's advanced architecture investments include an important, co-
funded collaboration with the Office of Science for Blue Gene R&D to
capitalize on the success of Blue Gene/L and produce future generations
of high-performance, low-power systems.
Our participation in the Department of Defense High Productivity
Computing Systems (HPCS) program, which includes participation by other
Government agencies, including the DOE Office of Science, is but one
investment in our portfolio of advanced system developments. While we
invest a small amount in HPCS compared to the source selection
authority, we participate as an equal in technical debates. The Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) recognizes that much of the
technical experience of designing and deploying supercomputers lies in
other agencies. Consequently, our small investment belies our larger
technical influence. The result is a win-win situation for both DARPA
and NNSA.
Currently NNSA is meeting other programmatic needs for computing
R&D and contributing meaningfully to the Nation's overall computing
R&D. All of these investments are captured in the Advanced Simulation
and Computing (ASC) program 2020 Roadmap as well as the ASC Platform
Acquisition Strategy.
Question. Do you believe the NNSA labs could contribute to the
development of a High Performance R&D program that would support
research into advanced architectures, software and algorithm
development?
Answer. The National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA)
laboratories could and they do make such contributions. The Advanced
Simulation and Computing (ASC) program and the NNSA laboratories have
historically been world leaders in these areas and continue to be so
today. Our need to predict with confidence the performance of a nuclear
weapons systems will drive us to exa-scale computing, 1,000 times peta-
scale, by 2018 as defined in our Roadmap. We are focused on and driven
by that need for predictivity not only for Stockpile Stewardship, but
also for broad national security issues. As a consequence, we are
investing in advanced architectures, operating environments and
algorithms that we believe are essential to meeting our mission
responsibilities. We share our technology advances and should
participate in any national program to advance architecture, software
and algorithm development.
Question. I find it a little disappointing that the Office of
Science is expanding its purchase of high performance computers for DOE
labs as part of the American Competitiveness Initiative, while NNSA is
cutting the number of high-speed computers it supports from 3 to 2. Why
is the Office of Science expanding, while NNSA is contracting?
Answer. Funding for the Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC)
program has been declining since fiscal year 2005, while the American
Competitiveness Initiative is infusing new money into basic science.
With respect to ASC, the nuclear weapons complex has been challenged to
reduce its footprint. One method being pursued is to reduce duplicate
capabilities across the complex and computer operations is one area
where such savings are possible. It should be noted that the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has drawn down by moving to two
major facilities, one in New Mexico and one in California. The enabling
technologies associated with secure distance computing make it possible
for scientists at one site to compute seamlessly and effectively at any
other of the Department's classified sites and thus the ability for
computing to meet mission needs is not eroded. Our consolation was
motivated by both budget constraints and NNSA's commitment to support
the transformed ``Complex 2030.''
The Office of Science has been explicitly funded to increase its
capability at the high end of computing and simulation. While NNSA will
be more challenged by budget tightening, our mission will force us to
continue our long tradition of supporting American competitiveness. Our
recent partnerships in bringing Red Storm and Blue Gene to market are
stellar examples of improving our Nation's competitiveness while
supporting our primary mission driver. NNSA's mission is national
security and classified while the Office of Science's is general and
open. The Department of Energy is well positioned for collaboration
with all the elements of the American Competitiveness Initiative.
Question. In your budget justification I can find no mention of the
Roadrunner platform, but did see that the Department is ready to
embrace a new system called Sequoia. What is the Department's strategy
on deployment on new computing platforms?
Answer. Both Roadrunner and Sequoia are included in the National
Nuclear Security Administration's Platform Acquisition Strategy, and
are key steps in achieving our long range strategic goal of predicting
with confidence the performance of a nuclear weapon. The Roadrunner
final delivery is scheduled for fiscal year 2008, pending a favorable
technical review of this high-risk, high-reward system. Sequoia final
system delivery is scheduled for fiscal year 2011, also pending
favorable technical reviews, with delivery of a smaller-scale early
technology system in late fiscal year 2008 on which to begin software
porting and scaling in preparation for the final system. Both system
delivery schedules are contingent on projected budget appropriations
ESTABLISHMENT OF A JOINT HIGH ENERGY PLASMA PROGRAM
Question. The fiscal year 2006 Conference Report and the fiscal
year 2007 Senate E&W bill urged the Department to bring together the
NNSA and the Office of Science to support a joint high energy density
physics program to provide non-weapons scientists access to NNSA
facilities such as Z machine. This would also expand the R&D
possibilities for weapons programs as well. While it is still in its
early stages, I want you to know I appreciate your efforts to enable
this level of cooperation.
However, I am disappointed to find out that this program, which
supports research in high-energy physics consistent with the ICF
program is largely funded out of the Science Campaign.
Considering that the ICF campaign is flush with cash and has
expanded every year, what is the justification for not funding this
research out of this program?
Answer. Both the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
and the Office of Science recognize the importance of stewarding high
energy density physics and have established a joint program in high
energy density laboratory plasmas (HEDLP). The funding request for this
program is more than $24 million, split almost equally between NNSA and
the Office of Science. Due to the late date in the fiscal year 2008
budget request preparation cycle when the joint program was
established, the fiscal year 2008 request supports the joint program
which represents primarily existing activities.
In formulating the fiscal year 2008 submission, funding for
university grants and centers in HEDLP were moved from the Inertial
Confinement Fusion (ICF) Ignition and High Yield Campaign to the
Science Campaign. This was done in order to simplify program execution
by placing all university accounts in a single Budget & Reporting
Classification code. Thus, the joint program has not placed additional
financial burdens on the Science Campaign. Programmatic oversight of
university activities will continue to be performed by the ICF Ignition
and High Yield and Science Campaigns as it has in the past, and the ICF
Ignition and High Yield Campaign will serve as the NNSA integration
point for execution of the NNSA and Office of Science joint program.
The President's request for the ICF Ignition and High Yield
Campaign has decreased annually since 2005.
Question. Can you identify other NNSA programs that are appropriate
for similar collaboration? What about High Performance Computing?
Answer. The Office of Defense Programs within the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) and the Office of Science created the
Defense Programs/Office of Science Strategic Council to appropriately
integrate strategic planning on science of significant mutual interest.
The goal is to assure senior planning leaders, including the Deputy
Administrator for Defense Programs and the Under Secretary of Energy
for Science, have awareness of each organization's plans and budgets to
enable these program elements to leverage total value.
The Council exchanges information at least two strategic times
during the budget process: (1) as budgets are in final preparation for
submission to the Office of Management and Budget and (2) after
submission of the President's budget to Congress as staff briefings and
testimony are being prepared. Such exchanges are deemed necessary to
guarantee planning information is shared at these strategic planning
phases.
With respect to high performance computing, the NNSA requirement
for classified computing is inconsistent with the Office of Science's
mission to support open science. Consequently, the two offices do not
share production computing systems. In addition, NNSA supercomputers
are sized to meet mission needs and operate 24 hours per day performing
weapons calculations.
RELIABLE REPLACEMENT WARHEAD-2
Question. The Nuclear Weapons Council has directed the Department
to proceed with a RRW-2 conceptual study. As part of this study, will
the NNSA consider the reuse of existing pits as a priority? With the
positive news on pit aging, it only makes sense to consider using pits
that are already in the stockpile.
How would pit reuse impact the administration's Complex 2030
strategy? How many fewer pits would be required as a result of such a
reuse decision?
Answer. Pit reuse has the potential to relax near-term demand for
quantities of new pits manufactured at the interim Los Alamos National
Laboratory production facilities. This provides additional time to
improve long-term pit manufacturing capacities. Long-term demand for
new pits would not be significantly reduced unless we forego the safety
and security advantages that can only be provided through newly-
manufactured Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) pits. If we want to
achieve proposed RRW safety and security objectives without an
underground nuclear test, the number of existing pits applicable for
reuse in RRWs is limited to the hundreds, not thousands.
Plutonium aging results should not be extrapolated to have a much
broader meaning in predicting the life of legacy stockpile weapons than
is technically justified. The plutonium aging study only addressed one
particular aging phenomenon (intrinsic radiation damage) in one
component (a pit) among dozens of nuclear explosive package components
and thousands of other components in a typical nuclear weapon.
NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY
Question. It is my understanding that the NIF project is now in its
final year of construction and will cost $3.5 billion, nearly $2.5
billion over estimate and 7 years late. Now NNSA will proceed with the
National Ignition Campaign, which is estimated to cost over $4 billion,
and it is already experiencing programmatic and budget growth just as
the construction project enjoyed. As an example of this lack of budget
discipline, I understand the NIC program will now support direct drive
experiments on what was billed as an indirect drive machine.
What assurances does this subcommittee have that this program will
stick to the programmatic and budget discipline we were promised when
the program was re-baselined in 2005?
Answer. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) Construction Project
is now over 90 percent complete and has maintained the identical scope
and essentially the same schedule and budget that were determined and
agreed to when it was rebaselined in 2001. The only minor changes to
the schedule and budget were in response to Congressional redirection
in 2005.
The National Ignition Campaign (NIC) was initiated in June 2005. It
is being pursued under the discipline of Enhanced Management methods
including earned value accounting. It has not experienced any scope or
budget growth beyond the $1.6 billion that was specified in its
original baseline (detailed in the NIC Execution Plan which was signed
by all of the participating organizations: General Atomics, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia
National Laboratories and the Laboratory for Laser Energetics at the
University of Rochester); in fact the fiscal year 2008 submission
reduces the NIC approximately $8 million below the June 2005 baseline.
The rigorous reporting required under Enhanced Management and a
detailed milestone structure provides the basis for monitoring
programmatic and budget discipline.
The NIC involves preparation of the NIF for experimentation in
conjunction with NIF Project completion, and is thus a highly facility
intensive activity. NIF completion and the NIC are managed as an
integrated activity using the same discipline and successful project
management tools developed for the NIF Project. The execution of
complex ignition experiments in late fiscal year 2010, only 1\1/2\
years after NIF Project completion, would not be possible without this
discipline.
Question. The National Ignition Campaign (NIC) goal is to conduct
ignition experiments on NIF in 2010. The baseline approach is indirect
drive with beryllium ablators. Please provide information and
justification for all other elements within NIC that are NOT directly
related to the baseline approach? For example, is it credible to
believe that the direct drive approach--including the necessary
targets--can be ready for experiments in the same time frame? What is
the metric for switching ignition baselines in the NIC program?
Answer. Direct drive both reduces risk for the indirect drive
program and provides an additional ignition option, which is prudent
given the unprecedented challenge of achieving ignition in the
laboratory.
Direct drive studies at Omega are currently examining physics and
technology issues critical to the success of indirect drive. An
important recent example is the University of Rochester achievement of
record compressed densities in cryogenic deuterium-tritium capsules.
This critically important result provided important new knowledge
regarding capsule physics and the operation of cryogenic systems. This
knowledge will directly benefit the indirect drive program.
From its inception, the National Ignition campaign (NIC) has
included direct drive as a backup risk mitigation strategy (contained
in the approved NIC Execution Plan). A milestone in fiscal year 2009
provides a decision point for moving forward with facilitization of
polar direct drive on the National Ignition Facility (NIF). The
mainline strategy remains indirect drive, and the bulk of NIF resources
will be devoted to it. Only if major unforeseen problems arise with
indirect drive will a change to direct drive be considered. No
provision is being made to conduct direct-drive ignition experiments
(with appropriate targets etc.) in the same time frame as indirect-
drive experiments. However, the direct drive concept will continue to
be developed and tested on the Omega laser system at the University of
Rochester as part of the NIC effort in order to minimize the delay in
achieving ignition in the unlikely event that the indirect approach
fails, and because the direct-drive approach may provide higher gain at
lower energy than indirect-drive ignition, potentially providing
additional capabilities for Stockpile Stewardship in the post-NIC time
frame.
Many of the key scientific and technical issues associated with
ignition are common to both direct and indirect drive. Because of this
commonality, the University of Rochester team provides scientific
leadership for both direct drive and certain key aspects of indirect
drive. It is thus appropriate to consider the University of Rochester
program not as a ``backup'' but rather a critical intellectual
component of the Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield
Campaign and the NIC.
SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES ION BEAM LABORATORY
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, I understand the Sandia has managed the
MESA project in such a fashion that it will come in under budget and
ahead of schedule. The lab has proposed to use the budget savings to
support a small project known as the Ion Beam Lab, which has fallen
into disrepair.
Does NNSA support this project? When do you expect to provide
approval for this funding transfer to occur?
Answer. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
supports building a replacement Ion Beam Laboratory at Sandia National
Laboratories in New Mexico. The project team has submitted a
justifiable mission need for the project which is under review. NNSA
has provided justifications in the President's fiscal year 2008 budget
requesting Congress to authorize the project. Upon congressional
authorization and completion of the Microsystems and Engineering
Sciences Applications (MESA) facility, NNSA will request Congress to
approve transferring the uncosted balance from MESA project to start
the Ion Beam Laboratory in fiscal year 2009. MESA is scheduled to be
completed at the end of fiscal year 2008 and we expect the cost under-
run to be sufficient to pay for the project capital costs. Additional
expenditures from the operating expense funds will be required to
complete the Ion Beam Laboratory.
HEAVY WATER INVENTORY
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, it is my understanding that the
Spallation Neutron Source located at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
is in need of heavy water to support experiments on that machine. I
recall that the Savannah River Site is storing a large amount of such
material that it might provide to this Office of Science laboratory.
Can NNSA help the Oak Ridge Lab and provide sufficient quantities of
heavy water to support the experiments on the SNS?
Answer. The Savannah River Site does hold a large inventory of
surplus heavy water, assigned to the Office of Environmental Management
(EM) for disposition. The quality of this material is lower (more
tritium contamination) than the material in the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) reserve, but portions of this material
may be adequate to meet Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) requirements.
There is also a possibility the material may not meet the SNS
requirements. In that case, this material could be used as barter to
exchange for material meeting the SNS specification, from a commercial
heavy water producer. There is material in the NNSA inventory that
meets the SNS requirements, but it is critical that this material be
retained to support planned Defense Programs activities. NNSA cannot
replace the material from commercial sources due to use restrictions.
The NNSA will work with EM and the Office of Science to identify
suitable materials at Savannah River, and to have those materials
transferred to SNS.
SECURITY GUARDS AT PANTEX ON STRIKE
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, I understand the security guards at the
Pantex Plant have been on strike since Sunday evening and you are
operating the plant using security personnel from various sites around
the complex.
Can you please update us on the status of the negotiations and if
you are optimistic this strike can be resolved in the near future?
Answer. Negotiations have been ongoing since February 22, 2007. The
Pantex Guards Union (PGU) voted to strike effective April 16, 2007, at
0001 hours. BWXT and the PGU have continued to negotiate since then,
although the Federal mediator and negotiating parties agreed to a week-
long ``cooling off '' period that ended May 2, 2007. The PGU has
offered various reasons for maintaining the work stoppage but the most
recent central issues appear to be wages, medical benefit cost shares,
and the desire for two additional paid days off each year. We are
optimistic that an agreement can be reached quickly if both sides
continue to negotiate in good faith.
Question. How long can the Department sustain it security readiness
using this substitute guard force?
Answer. Security of the Pantex Plant will not be degraded at any
time during the strike, regardless of its duration. Contingency force
planning assumptions called for up to 60 days of continuous security
readiness while maintaining plant operations through the use of non-
union augmentation personnel from other sites and the Office of Secure
Transportation. If the strike begins to approach the 60 day threshold,
several additional alternatives will have to be considered, including
but not limited to additional contingency force augmentation and a
reduction of plant operations.
MOX PROGRAM
Question. The Department recently produced the independent cost
estimate and corrective action plan for the Mixed Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility as required by the Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 2007. The new project baseline is now $4.7 billion. In
addition, you have agreed to the recommendations for the Inspector
General to improve project oversight, establish achievable milestones,
and include performance goals into future contract negotiations. With a
new project baseline are you prepared to move forward with construction
once the congressional moratorium expires in August?
Answer. Yes, DOE is prepared to move forward with construction once
the congressional moratorium expires in August.
MOX ALTERNATIVES
Question. I noticed in the budget request that the Office of
Environmental Management has decided to proceed with a $500 million
vitrification plant for an estimated 13 tons of non-MOXable plutonium.
This plant seems to confuse many people who believe this is an
acceptable solution for the weapons grade material identified for
destruction in the MOX facility. Can you please clarify the
Department's position regarding its plutonium disposal strategy?
Answer. The Department's proposed baseline approach for disposition
of surplus weapons-usable plutonium consists of a MOX Fuel Fabrication
Facility, a Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility, and a Waste
Solidification Building to dispose of at least 34 metric tons (MT) of
weapon-grade plutonium, a proposed Plutonium Vitrification process to
vitrify up to 13 MT of non-pit plutonium, and the operation of the H-
Canyon/HB-Line facilities to process approximately 2 MT of plutonium
bearing materials. DOE is currently evaluating the cost and feasibility
of reducing or eliminating the mission that is currently being
considered for the small-scale plutonium vitrification process and
fabricating more surplus plutonium into MOX fuel. If feasible, it could
permit DOE to use the MOX Facility and H-Canyon/HB-Line facilities to
dispose of approximately 43 MT of surplus plutonium.
Question. Specifically, can the Department add the 34 tons of
weapons grade material to the smaller vitrification plant? What impact
would it have on the cost and schedule of this project? Are there any
technical challenges that remain unanswered?
Answer. No. The small-scale vitrification process cannot be scaled-
up to dispose of an additional 34 metric tons of weapon-grade
plutonium. The radiation exposure from vitrifying plutonium in
lanthanide borosilicate glass for up to 13 metric tons is manageable
because the process will limit worker radiation exposure to levels well
within acceptable limits. However, managing worker radiation exposure
becomes problematic for much greater quantities of plutonium.
Therefore, DOE would have to consider using ceramic immobilization
instead. However, the amount of time needed to immobilize an additional
34 metric tons of surplus plutonium with high level waste would extend
beyond the planned operating life of the Defense Waste Processing
Facility at the Savannah River Site, and an insufficient quantity of
high-activity waste remains to be processed at the Defense Waste
Processing Facility to immobilize all of the surplus plutonium.
Moreover, immobilization of plutonium in a ceramic form has never been
done before and would require significant research and development
before the facility could be designed and constructed. This approach is
likely to take an additional 12-14 years before operation could begin
and would likely result in significant cost increases and schedule
delays. There would also be legal, political, and environmental
concerns with redirecting the disposition strategy at this point.
GNEP AND MOX
Question. I have heard speculation that the MOX facility could be
easily redesigned to process spent nuclear fuel and could serve as both
a recycling facility and fuel fabrication facility. Has the Department
looked at modifying this facility to serve as either a spent fuel
recycling facility or as a fuel fabrication facility for advanced
reactors? If so, what do you believe is the most promising option for
expanding the mission of this facility? How will this impact the
schedule and cost of this project?
Answer. The MOX Facility is a fuel fabrication facility and does
not have the capability to recycle spent nuclear fuel; a separate,
dedicated recycling facility would be required. With regard to
fabricating fuel for advanced reactors, the MOX Fuel Fabrication
Facility may be capable of fabricating start-up fuel for fast reactors
as part of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), if an oxide
fuel form is selected for that program. Currently, DOE is evaluating
both metal and oxide fuel forms for the start-up fuel. A decision on
the fuel form for fast reactors will be made at a future time. The MOX
Facility would not be able to produce transmutation fuel loads for
advanced fast reactors as envisioned by GNEP because that fuel would
contain all the transuranic elements from the recycled light water
reactor fuel.
Given that the necessary GNEP fuel-related decisions are in the
future, it is not reasonable to delay construction of the MOX facility
to incorporate the potential GNEP required design and construction
changes. Continued delays in MOX construction will result in increased
costs and postpone the start of facility operations. DOE will continue
to evaluate the option to use the MOX Facility in support of fast
reactor start-up fuel as the requirements for GNEP are developed. In
2008, the Secretary of Energy plans to determine a path forward for
GNEP.
In addition to the possibility of fabricating start-up fuel for
GNEP advanced reactors, the MOX Facility could potentially provide the
following capabilities:
--Disposition of additional surplus impure plutonium (currently
planned for the proposed Plutonium Vitrification process at the
Savannah River Site), if the chemical and isotopic impurities
can be economically removed from the material; and
--Disposition of additional weapons plutonium (beyond the 34 MT) that
is expected to be declared surplus as plutonium requirements
are reevaluated, in connection with transformation of the
nuclear weapons stockpile.
RUSSIA'S MOX COMMITMENT
Question. It is my understanding that the Russians have proposed to
fulfill their commitment under the Fissile Materials Agreement to burn
the plutonium in the existing BN-600 reactors and add an additional 6
reactors to burn MOX fuel. This will of course require the Russians to
build a MOX fabrication facility. As far as I can tell, the Russians
have yet to provide a firm commitment on their funding or schedule.
In addition, Russia's financial outlook has changed substantially
from when this program was initiated. Russia now enjoys a budget
surplus and earned $315 billion in oil and gas revenue last year, an
increase of 96 percent from 1999.
Will U.S. negotiators demand to see a much larger contribution to
the project costs from the Russians?
Answer. Rosatom recently provided DOE with a proposed technical
plutonium disposition plan that is consistent with Russia's future
nuclear energy strategy. Under this plan, Russia would irradiate
weapon-grade plutonium as MOX fuel in fast reactors. Although no
agreement has been reached on specific cost sharing arrangements
pending final Russian Government approval of its technical disposition
program, senior Rosatom officials have indicated that Russia could
provide significant funding. We are currently reviewing Russia's
proposed disposition plan to ensure that it is technically and
financially credible, and will be discussing it further with Russian
officials in the near future.
EXPANSION OF MOX
Question. When this program was first conceived back in 1998, the
United States identified upwards of 50 tons of weapons-grade plutonium
that was excess to the mission. Is this material still available and
theoretically able to be used in producing Mixed Oxide Fuel?
Answer. In 1995, the U.S. Government declared 52.5 metric tons (MT)
of plutonium (both weapon-grade and non-weapon-grade) excess to
national security needs. Of that quantity, approximately 4 MT have been
retained for a non-military programmatic use, approximately 3 MT of
scraps and residues have been disposed of at the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant, and approximately 7 MT in the form of spent fuel are designated
for direct disposal in a high-level waste geologic repository. Of the
remaining approximately 38.5 MT, a minimum of 25.6 MT is suitable for
fabrication into MOX fuel, an additional approximately 4 MT is
considered likely to be suitable for MOX fuel, and another
approximately 5 MT might be suitable for MOX fuel after additional
material analysis and characterization can be performed. To the extent
the latter approximately 9 MT proves unsuitable for MOX, that material
could be vitrified, and would be replaced in the 34 MT planned for
disposition under the 2000 U.S.-Russian Plutonium Management and
Disposition Agreement with future declarations of additional excess
plutonium from weapons pits. The remaining approximately 4 MT (out of
the approximately 38.5 MT) is considered unsuitable for use as MOX
fuel, and would be disposed of either through vitrification or
processing through Savannah River Site's H-Canyon/HB-Line facilities
and subsequent disposal with the SRS waste stream. See chart below.
Question. Would the economics or design of the plant change
significantly if a policy decision were made to increase the amount of
plutonium to be processed through this plant?
Answer. The MOX facility is nominally designed for a 40-year life.
The 34 metric tons disposition mission will require approximately 13
years. As a result, the MOX facility is capable of fabricating
significant additional quantities of plutonium into MOX fuel. Once
built, it will cost approximately $185 million per year to operate the
MOX facility. Changes to the design of the facility are dependent on
the specific characteristics of the plutonium to be fabricated into
fuel in the future.
NNSA'S PLUTONIUM CONSOLIDATION AND DISPOSITION STRATEGY
Question. I am very concerned about the growing security budget and
the financial impact it has on the defense and nonproliferation
missions. Instead of waiting for a new multi billion dollar
consolidated plutonium facility that is still years away from
construction, I am more interested in taking steps now to consolidate
and dispose of excess plutonium.
Can you please provide me with a written explanation of the
Department's overall plutonium disposition strategy that includes
schedule, estimated cost and potential impact it might have on out-year
security funding.
Answer. The Department has prepared a ``Business Case, Proposed
Baseline Approach for Disposing of Surplus Plutonium,'' dated April
2007 (attached). The estimated cost, schedule, and future year funding
requirements are contained in the Business Case.
BUSINESS CASE--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S PROPOSED BASELINE APPROACH FOR
DISPOSING OF SURPLUS PLUTONIUM, APRIL 2007
Executive Summary
This report presents DOE's plan to dispose of inventories of
surplus weapons-usable plutonium \1\ and includes a discounted cash
flow analysis which takes into account the time value of money.\2\ Data
contained in the analysis are based on information provided by the
National Nuclear Security Administration and the offices of
Environmental Management and Nuclear Energy with input provided by Dr.
David Kosson, Chair of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Vanderbilt
University; Dr. Ian Pegg, Professor of Physics and Associate Director
of the Vitreous State Laboratory, Catholic University; and Dr. David
Gallay, Program Director, LMI Government Consulting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This report addresses surplus weapons-usable plutonium covered
by Public Law 107-107 and section 4306 of the Atomic Energy Defense
Act, as amended. Surplus weapon-grade plutonium, as defined in the
U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (less than
10 percent Pu-240 and withdrawn from nuclear-weapons programs) is a
subset of surplus weapon-usable fissile materials.
U.S. national security and nonproliferation objectives include the
disposition of 43 MT of surplus plutonium by rendering it unusable for
nuclear weapons use and encouraging Russia to dispose of its surplus
weapons plutonium. The 43 MT includes plutonium which has been declared
surplus and some plutonium which may be declared surplus to national
security defense needs in the future. This does not include surplus
plutonium that already has a disposition pathway such as spent fuel,
scraps, and residues. The analyses pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act addressed the environmental impacts of
disposition of up to 50 MT of such surplus weapons-usable plutonium,
including plutonium that may be declared surplus in the future.
\2\ This is consistent with the information used previously in
DOE's 2006 report entitled, Disposition of Surplus U.S. Materials,
Comparative Analysis of Alternative Approaches, and with DOE's 2007
Business Case Analysis of the Current U.S. Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel
Strategy for Dispositioning 34 Metric Tons of Surplus Weapon-Grade
Plutonium, although those reports: (1) do not discount future cash
flows, and (2) the earlier studies analyzed the combined plutonium and
uranium storage costs in lieu of the plutonium storage cost as
described in this study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's proposed baseline approach is designed to accomplish the
following three objectives:
--Dispose of \3\ approximately 43 metric tons of surplus weapons-
usable plutonium (both weapon and non-weapon grade) so that
this material is rendered inaccessible and unattractive for
weapons use while protecting human health and the environment.
This goal is consistent with long-standing United States
national security and nonproliferation policy with respect to
eliminating, where possible, the accumulation of stockpiles of
highly enriched uranium and plutonium;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The phrase ``dispose of '' is used in this paper, consistent
with the phraseology appearing in the 2000 U.S.-Russia Plutonium
Management and Disposition Agreement. This paper addresses the costs of
disposition prior to ultimate disposal (of mixed oxide spent fuel and
vitrified plutonium with high-level waste) in the planned geologic
repository for spent fuel and high-level waste at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Encourage Russia to dispose of 34 MT of its surplus weapons
plutonium consistent with the September 2000 U.S.-Russia
Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement; and
--Consolidate surplus non-pit plutonium currently stored throughout
the DOE Complex in order to reduce the risks associated with
storage of such materials at multiple sites and to help reduce
storage and safeguards and security costs for nuclear
materials.
DOE's current proposed baseline approach \4\ for disposing of
approximately 43 metric tons of surplus plutonium involves the
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The proposed actions described in the following bullets are
subject to appropriate review under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), subsequent decisions, and compliance with other applicable
law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Construct and operate a Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication
Facility, a Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF), and
a Waste Solidification Building (WSB) to dispose of at least 34
MT of weapon-grade plutonium;
--Design, construct and operate a small-scale plutonium vitrification
process in the basement level of the K-Reactor Building to
vitrify up to 13 MT of non-pit plutonium \5\ with high level
waste; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This 13 MT includes approximately 2 MT of material currently
proposed to be processed in the HB-Line, and vitrified in the Defense
Waste Processing Facility and approximately 4 MT of material currently
proposed to be fabricated into MOX fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Operate the existing H-Canyon/HB-Line facilities to process
approximately 2 MT of plutonium-bearing materials for disposal
through the Savannah River Site radioactive waste system (for
vitrification with high level waste in the Defense Waste
Processing Facility) concurrent with the recovery of enriched
uranium for subsequent down-blending to low enriched uranium
and sale.
Based on a recent review by outside experts (cited above), and an
assessment by Shaw-AREVA MOX Services (MOX contractor) of what
plutonium materials can likely be fabricated into MOX fuel, DOE is
currently evaluating the cost and feasibility of reducing or
eliminating the mission that is currently being considered for the
proposed small-scale Plutonium Vitrification process. Preliminary
indications are that this approach could result in cost savings of
approximately $500 million (estimated total project cost in constant
2006 dollars, excluding operating costs), although actual savings may
change as the design of the small-scale Plutonium Vitrification process
progresses. The Department is evaluating the feasibility of the
following approach:
--Construct and operate a Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication
Facility, a Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF), and
a Waste Solidification Building (WSB) to dispose of at least 39
MT of weapon-grade plutonium;
--Operate the existing H-Canyon/HB-Line facilities to process
approximately 4 MT of plutonium-bearing materials for disposal
through the Savannah River Site radioactive waste system (for
vitrification with high level waste in the Defense Waste
Processing Facility) concurrent with the recovery of enriched
uranium for subsequent down-blending to low enriched uranium
and sale.
Constructing and operating a Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication
Facility at the Savannah River Site for disposing of surplus plutonium
is in the U.S. national interest and consistent with national security
and nonproliferation objectives. Doing so will convert plutonium into
forms not readily usable for weapons, and will encourage Russia to
dispose of 34 metric tons of its excess weapons plutonium in accordance
with the 2000 U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition
Agreement. Proceeding with the U.S. MOX program will also help reduce
storage costs for nuclear materials, reduce safeguards and security
costs, and support the Department's efforts to consolidate nuclear
materials throughout the DOE Complex. The Department of Energy believes
that irradiating plutonium as MOX fuel in existing commercial reactors
is a prudent and effective means for disposing of surplus plutonium
compared to other less mature disposition technologies.
MOX is a proven technology that has been in widespread use in
Europe for over three decades. Moreover, the design of the U.S. MOX
facility is 90 percent complete, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) has issued a construction authorization, and DOE's contractor has
submitted a license application to the NRC for operation of the MOX
facility. In addition, MOX fuel lead assemblies, made from surplus
weapons plutonium, are currently being successfully tested in a
commercial reactor in South Carolina. Thus far, DOE has spent
approximately $735 million on the MOX program for design, licensing,
and site preparation activities as well as for the fabrication and
irradiation of MOX fuel lead assemblies.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The approximately $735 million in sunk costs are not included
in this baseline financial analysis. Sunk costs were included in the
calculation of life cycle costs provided to the House Committee on
Appropriations in March 2007, in accordance with specific direction
from that Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's proposed baseline approach provides a disposition path for
the currently identified surplus plutonium that is or will be declared
surplus in the future. It enables the Department to consolidate special
nuclear material (SNM), including the removal of all surplus plutonium
from Hanford as well as reducing the inventory of surplus plutonium at
the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and the Los Alamos
National Laboratory (LANL) by 2009. This would result in a reduction of
existing Category I special nuclear materials storage (CAT I)
facilities, and ultimately would result in the fewest number of DOE CAT
I storage facilities, at the earliest date in time. The proposed
consolidation would also facilitate the Department's plan to achieve
its ``Complex 2030'' objectives, a more modern, smaller and efficient
weapons complex.
As evidenced in the financial analysis, this proposed baseline
approach would recover uranium and plutonium from the disposition of
surplus fissile materials for energy production providing over $2
billion in revenues \7\ (in constant 2006 dollars) to the U.S.
Treasury. Included in this proposed baseline approach is approximately
2 MT of plutonium-bearing materials to be processed through H-Canyon/
HB-Line at Savannah River. The net present value cost of this proposed
approach (i.e. MOX, the proposed small-scale Vitrification, and H-
Canyon) over a 28-year period is approximately $11.1 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Revenue is comprised of approximately $1.5 billion from the
sale of MOX fuel and $700 million from the sale of uranium from
dismantled nuclear weapons pits. Both are based on the prevailing price
of uranium, which has been extremely volatile in recent years The
discounted cash flow analysis used in this Business Case conservatively
assumes that uranium and enrichment market prices that prevailed in
November 2006 will prevail throughout the period of interest when the
fuel materials will enter the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to encouraging Russia to dispose of 34 metric tons of
weapons plutonium, the capability to disassemble large numbers of
nuclear weapons pits in the United States and fabricate the resulting
plutonium into MOX fuel utilizes a mature technology and could
potentially provide the following capabilities:
--Disposition of additional weapons plutonium (beyond the 34 MT) that
is expected to be declared surplus as plutonium requirements
are reevaluated, in connection with transformation of the
nuclear weapons stockpile. While additional declarations would
have to be approved by the President based on advice from the
Secretaries of Defense and Energy, the MOX and PDCF facilities,
once constructed and operating, could readily be used for this
purpose. The Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs will
specifically raise this request with the Nuclear Weapons
Council.
--Currently, DOE is evaluating both metal and oxide fuel forms for
use as the start-up fuel for fast reactors in support of the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). A decision on the
fuel form for the fast reactors will be made at a future time.
Given that the necessary GNEP fuel-related decisions are in the
future, it is not reasonable to delay construction of the MOX
facility to incorporate the potential GNEP required design and
construction changes. Continued delays in MOX construction will
result in increased costs and postpone the start of facility
operations. DOE will continue to evaluate the option to use the
MOX facility in support of fast reactor start-up fuel as the
requirements for GNEP are developed. In 2008, the Secretary of
Energy plans to determine a path forward for GNEP.
--Disposition of additional impure plutonium, e.g. plutonium
containing levels of chlorides, fluorides and Pu-240, currently
proposed to be dispositioned in DOE's proposed small-scale
Plutonium Vitrification process. The Department is evaluating
the cost and technical feasibility of maximizing the use of the
MOX facility and reducing the mission that is currently being
considered for the proposed small-scale Plutonium Vitrification
process.
In conclusion, DOE's proposed baseline approach for disposing of
surplus plutonium (MOX, the proposed small-scale Plutonium
Vitrification process, and H-Canyon) would meet U.S. national security
and nonproliferation objectives for disposing of 43 MT of surplus
plutonium by rendering it unusable for nuclear weapons use, and
encouraging Russia to dispose of its surplus weapons plutonium. In
addition, the proposed baseline approach will help reduce storage costs
for nuclear materials, reduce safeguards and security costs, and
support the Department's efforts to consolidate nuclear materials
within the DOE Complex.
BACKGROUND
The end of the cold war left a legacy of surplus weapons-usable
fissile materials both in the United States and the former Soviet
Union, leaving substantial quantities of plutonium, no longer needed
for defense purposes. The global stockpiles of weapons-usable fissile
materials pose a danger to national and international security in the
form of potential proliferation of nuclear weapons and the potential
for environmental, safety, and health consequences if the materials are
not properly safeguarded and managed. In September 1993, in response to
these concerns, President Clinton issued a Nonproliferation and Export
Control Policy which committed the United States to seek to eliminate,
where possible, the accumulation of stockpiles of highly enriched
uranium or plutonium, and to ensure that where these materials already
exist, they are subject to the highest standards of safety, security,
and international accountability.
In early 1994, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences issued a
report evaluating a number of plutonium disposition alternatives
ranging from sending it into space to burying it under the ocean floor,
before recommending two promising alternatives for further study: (1)
fabrication and use as fuel, without reprocessing, in existing or
modified nuclear reactors, or (2) immobilization in combination with
high-level radioactive waste. To achieve a high degree of proliferation
resistance, the National Academy of Sciences recommended that the
national objective should be to make the surplus weapon-grade
``plutonium roughly as inaccessible for weapons use as the much larger
and growing quantity of plutonium that exists in spent fuel from
commercial reactors,'' a state they defined as the spent fuel standard.
This standard would require a form from which extraction and use in
weapons of any residual plutonium and other fissile materials would be
as difficult or unattractive as the recovery of residual plutonium from
spent commercial fuel.
On March 1, 1995, approximately 200 metric tons of U.S.-origin
weapons-usable fissile materials were declared surplus to U.S. defense
needs (38.2 MT of weapon-grade plutonium and 174.3 MT of highly
enriched uranium). In addition, DOE announced that it had 14.3 metric
tons of other than weapon-grade plutonium that would be included in the
disposition program.
Subsequently, the Department of Energy convened a team of
laboratory, independent oversight and interagency experts to determine
a range of reasonable disposition alternatives. Following a number of
nationwide scoping meetings, the team released a screening report in
March 1995 that pared 37 potential disposition options down to 11; 5
for reactor, 4 for immobilization and 2 for direct geologic disposal
(deep borehole). The screening process led the Department to conclude
that going beyond the spent fuel standard using advanced technologies,
such as fast reactors and accelerators, was not appropriate. Such
advanced options were found to require substantial additional research
and development, with related increased costs and time, in order to
provide the same assurance of technical viability as other, more
readily available technologies.
At the April 1996 Moscow Nuclear Safety Summit, the leaders of the
seven largest industrial countries and the Russian Federation issued a
joint statement endorsing the need to render the surplus fissile
materials (both highly enriched uranium and plutonium) in Russia and
the United States to a high degree of proliferation resistance.
Subsequently, former Russian President Yeltsin declared up to 50 metric
tons of plutonium and 500 metric tons of highly enriched uranium as
surplus to Russia's defense needs in September 1997.
Following the preparation of a Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement which evaluated various storage and disposition options, DOE
issued a Record of Decision (ROD). In the 1997 ROD, DOE decided that it
would consolidate the storage of weapons-usable plutonium at upgraded
and expanded existing and planned facilities at the Pantex Plant in
Texas and the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina, and continue
the storage of weapons-usable HEU in upgraded facilities at DOE's Y-12
Plant at the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee. After certain
conditions were met, most plutonium stored at the Rocky Flats
Environmental Technology Site in Colorado would be moved to Pantex and
SRS. Plutonium stored at the Hanford Site, the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), and the Los Alamos
National Laboratory (LANL) would remain at those sites until
disposition (or moved to storage prior to disposition). In accordance
with the ROD, DOE would provide for disposition of surplus plutonium by
pursuing a strategy that allowed: (1) immobilization of surplus
plutonium for disposal in a repository pursuant to the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act, and (2) fabrication of surplus plutonium into mixed oxide
(MOX) fuel for use in existing domestic commercial light-water
reactors.
In July 1998, the Department issued a draft Surplus Plutonium
Disposition Environmental Impact Statement (SPD EIS) which analyzed
candidate sites for plutonium disposition. The environmental
consequences of siting, constructing, operating, and ultimately
decommissioning the facilities under consideration for the plutonium
disposition mission at one or more of four DOE sites was described in
the draft SPD EIS issued in July 1998. In addition to assessing the
environmental consequences of the disposition alternatives, DOE
analyzed the cost and schedule differences between alternatives, taking
into account information obtained during site visits, similar nuclear/
industrial project costs, informal vendor quotations, previous
estimates for similar equipment, parametric cost models, site-specific
labor rates, and operational staffing requirements and salaries. A cost
report was issued in July 1998 that focused on the differences in cost
for siting the facilities at the different locations. In September
1998, at the Clinton-Yeltsin Summit, the two leaders committed their
countries to enter into a bilateral plutonium disposition agreement.
In April 1999, DOE issued a Supplement to the draft SPD EIS, to
address, among other things, impacts at the specific reactor sites
which were identified pursuant to the contract with DOE's newly
selected MOX contractor. In November 1999, DOE issued the Surplus
Plutonium Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement. This
follow-on EIS evaluated the environmental impacts of conducting
plutonium disposition activities at the following DOE locations:
Hanford, Savannah River, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory (INEEL) and the Pantex Plant. This was followed, in January
2000, by a decision that: the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility,
the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, and the Plutonium
Immobilization Facility would be located at SRS; up to 33 MT of
plutonium would be fabricated as mixed oxide fuel at the Savannah River
Site; and up to 17 MT of plutonium would be immobilized at the Savannah
River Site.\8\ The Department reasoned that pursuing this approach
provided the best opportunity for U.S. leadership in working with
Russia to implement similar options for reducing Russia's excess
plutonium. Further, it would send the strongest possible signal to the
world of U.S. determination to reduce stockpiles of surplus weapons-
usable plutonium as quickly as possible and in an irreversible manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ About 4 MT of the 17 MT has been subsequently designated for
programmatic use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also in November 1999, DOE issued an additional cost report,
Plutonium Disposition Life-Cycle Costs and Cost-Related Comment
Resolution Document, which provided the full life-cycle costs for the
Preferred Alternative as stated in the draft SPD EIS.
Making good on a pledge made at a 1998 Summit, the United States
and Russia entered into a Plutonium Management and Disposition
Agreement in September 2000 that committed each country to dispose of
34 metric tons of surplus weapon-grade plutonium.
In 2001, DOE undertook a review of U.S. plutonium disposition
cooperation with Russia so as to identify a more cost-effective
approach. The review considered more than 40 approaches for plutonium
disposition, with 12 distinct options selected for detailed analysis
(six MOX-based reactor disposition options, two advanced reactor
disposition options, and four non-reactor options (immobilization and
long-term storage). This resulted in a refined approach under which the
United States would rely on the irradiation of MOX fuel to dispose of
surplus plutonium. After preparation of a Supplemental Analysis
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, the Department
issued an amended Record of Decision which, among other things,
cancelled immobilization. Under the new approach, 34 MT of surplus
plutonium would be fabricated into MOX fuel, including approximately
6.5 metric tons of impure plutonium previously destined for
immobilization.
In 2006, DOE again evaluated its strategy for disposing of
currently identified surplus weapons-usable plutonium, plus 26 MT of
surplus highly enriched uranium for which viable disposition paths had
not been identified. DOE's 2006 report titled, Disposition of Surplus
U.S. Materials, Comparative Analysis of Alternative Approaches showed
that all of the ``going forward'' various alternatives were within a
few percentages of each other (in constant 2006 dollars), illustrating
that monetary cost was not a major discriminating factor. In the case
of storage, DOE would still have to incur the cost of disposition at
the conclusion of the storage mission.
In March 2007, the Department also submitted to Congress a report
titled, Business Case Analysis of the Current U.S. Mixed Oxide (MOX)
Fuel Strategy for Dispositioning 34 Metric Tons of Surplus Weapon-Grade
Plutonium, which included a business case rollup of going forward costs
(in constant 2006 dollars) of various disposition alternatives. This
report reconfirmed that the MOX approach was the most suitable
disposition alternative and showed that continued storage was the most
expensive alternative over time.
DESCRIPTION OF DOE'S SURPLUS FISSILE MATERIALS
In accordance with the U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and
Disposition Agreement, the MOX facility will fabricate at least 34 MT
of surplus weapon-grade plutonium into MOX fuel for subsequent
irradiation in existing commercial reactors. The majority of the
material is comprised of surplus pits, clean plutonium metal, and clean
oxide (approximately 25.6 MT). The remaining quantity of plutonium is
comprised of weapon-grade oxides that are acceptable to the MOX process
and from future weapons dismantlements. Some of the metal and oxides
are impure, and until physical sampling, analysis and characterization
can be performed on individual cans containing this material, the final
quantities could vary. Based on currently available information, the 34
MT of weapon-grade plutonium is comprised of the following:
--25.6 MT of surplus plutonium pits, clean metal, and clean oxide;
--Approximately 4 MT of other metal and oxide; and
--Approximately 4.4 MT from future declarations of additional surplus
pits.
In August 2006, DOE identified a small-scale plutonium
vitrification process that could be used to dispose of up to 13 MT of
plutonium. This 13 MT includes 4 MT of other metal and oxide that DOE
currently believes are suitable for MOX and approximately 2 MT that is
currently planned to be processed in the H-Canyon facility.
Based on currently available information, the 13 MT of plutonium is
proposed to be distributed among the three facilities (MOX, the
proposed small-scale Plutonium Vitrification process, and H-Canyon)
based on the following material characteristics:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disposition Approach Quantity Characteristics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOX................................. 4 MT Other Metal & Oxide:
Clean WG (Weapon-
Grade) (less than 10
percent Pu-240) Oxide
and Slightly Impure WG
Oxide.
Plutonium Vitrification Facility.... \1\ 5 MT Impure Metal & Oxide:
Clean FG (Fuel-Grade)
(greater than 10
percent but less than
19 percent Pu-240)
Metal; Clean FG Oxide;
Impure Plutonium Oxide
with Chloride; Impure
Plutonium Metal with
Chloride.
\2\ 2 MT Impure Metal & Oxide:
Power-Grade Oxide (19+
percent Pu-240); Fast
Flux Test Facility
Green Fuel (70 percent
Uranium); Plutonium
Oxide with Fluoride;
Plutonium Oxide with
Beryllium (Be);
Plutonium Oxides and
Metal with Thorium.
H-Canyon............................ 2 MT Very Impure Materials:
Material from 3013
Container
Surveillances;
Plutonium-Beryllium
Metal; Plutonium-
Vanadium Metal; Pu-
Depleted Uranium
Metal; Plutonium-
Tantalum Metal; and
Oxide with High
Uranium Content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As discussed elsewhere in this analysis, some or all of this
material may be fabricated into MOX fuel in the MOX facility.
\2\ As discussed elsewhere in this analysis, some of this material may
be processed in H-Canyon.
DOE will evaluate how to maximize the use of the MOX Facility for
disposition of the non-pit plutonium currently being considered for the
proposed small-scale Plutonium Vitrification process which is in the
very early stages of design (less than 5 percent complete). DOE will
continue to address technical and cost uncertainties as part of the
Conceptual Design process and will arrive at a decision as to the need
for the Plutonium Vitrification project as part of Critical Decision-1,
planned for late 2007. The following is a graphical presentation
showing the potential pathways for disposing of 52.5 MT of U.S.
weapons-usable plutonium, which was declared surplus in 1995 (including
spent fuel and fresh fuel retained for programmatic use), as well as
plutonium which may be declared surplus in the future:
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF DOE'S PROPOSED BASELINE PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION
APPROACH
DOE's proposed baseline approach includes a MOX Fuel Fabrication
Facility, a Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF), and a Waste
Solidification Building (WSB) to dispose of 34 MT of weapon-grade
plutonium; a proposed Plutonium Vitrification process in the basement
level of the K-Reactor Building to vitrify an expected 7 MT of non-pit
plutonium (but potentially up to 13 MT of non-pit plutonium) currently
unsuitable for fabrication into MOX fuel; and the H-Canyon/HB-Line
facilities to process approximately 2 MT of plutonium bearing materials
at the Savannah River Site to recover enriched uranium for subsequent
down-blending and sale.
DOE uses a discounted cash flow analysis (or DCF) as the basis for
its Business Case which takes into account the time value of money. The
DCF method determines the present value of future cash flows by
discounting them to the present using the U.S. Government's appropriate
discount rate, as prescribed by OMB. This is necessary because cash
flows (project related cost outflows and revenue stream inflows from
the sale of MOX fuel and down-blended low enriched uranium) occur in
different time periods. This approach is consistent with the
information used previously in DOE's 2006 report entitled, Disposition
of Surplus U.S. Materials, Comparative Analysis of Alternative
Approaches, and with DOE's 2007 Business Case Analysis of the Current
U.S. Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Strategy for Dispositioning 34 Metric Tons
of Surplus Weapon-Grade Plutonium, although those reports do not
discount future cash flows.
The underlying conditions of the economic analysis are as follows:
--The analysis is based on estimates published previously in DOE/NNSA
budget documentation (updated, where appropriate) and on the
approved, externally reviewed and validated MOX total project
cost baseline. The analysis did not independently develop or
verify any of those estimates.
--Revenues from the sale of MOX reactor fuel and uranium from
dismantled pits are included, where applicable.
--All cash flows represent relevant differences in expected current
and future costs and revenues among the alternatives. Previous
sunk costs are not considered.
--The net present value costs are in discounted 2006 dollars.
--The common time period is 2007 through 2034 and therefore includes
current year expenditures.
--The discount rate (representing the Government's time value of
money) is 3 percent, as prescribed in OMB Circular A-94.
The ``going forward'' cost, in net present value terms and
excluding sunk costs, of DOE's proposed baseline approach is
approximately $11.1 billion. A detailed analysis and assumptions
follow:
NET PRESENT VALUE COST TO DOE OVER A 28-YEAR PERIOD--MOX, VITRIFICATION
AND H-CANYON OPERATIONS
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Present
Cost Element Value Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOX..................................................... 3,402
PDCF.................................................... 2,214
WSB..................................................... 544
Other Plutonium Disposition Costs \1\................... 333
Vitrification........................................... 797
H-Canyon................................................ 340
Storage................................................. 3,426
---------------
Net Present Value................................. 11,056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes estimated costs associated with reactor modifications,
reactor irradiation services, procurement of uranium feed materials,
and fuel qualification.
Assumptions:
--MOX construction begins August 1, 2007; the facility becomes
operational in 2016 and operates through 2029.
--PDCF becomes operational in 2019 and operates through 2026.
--WSB becomes operational in 2013 and operates through 2029.
--Proposed Plutonium Vitrification process becomes operational in
2013 and operates through 2019.
--For surplus non-pit plutonium, approximately 2 MT is processed
through H-Canyon/HB-Line, approximately 4 MT is processed
through the MOX facility, and the remaining 7 MT is vitrified
in the proposed Plutonium Vitrification process.
--All cash flows are represented in 2006 (real) dollars.
--Consolidation of surplus, non-pit plutonium to SRS begins in 2007
and is completed in 2009.
--H-Canyon/HB-Line are maintained as a safeguards Category II
facility.
--The primary mission for H-Canyon/HB-Line is to process aluminum
clad spent fuel and recover enriched uranium, which continues
through 2019. The costs associated with the ``with other
missions'' are the costs attributable to operating the facility
for processing plutonium whereas the costs associated with the
``without other missions'' are the costs to operate the
facility if the plutonium mission carries the full costs of
facility operations. The numbers are derived from the actual
annual operating costs.
--The MOX total project cost is based on the current approved project
baseline ($4.8 billion). Note: The Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (Public Law 110-5) provides
that the Secretary of Energy may not make available funds for
construction activities for the MOX facility until August 1,
2007. This delay results in an increase to the MOX total
project cost which is included in the net present value
calculations.
--The project cost for PDCF and WSB is based on the project data
sheet in the fiscal year 2008 President's budget.
--The project costs for Plutonium Vitrification are based on the pre-
conceptual cost range approved at CD-0, and are the same as
those appearing in the fiscal year 2008 President's budget.
--Costs for all storage facilities are based on actual operating
costs and/or those costs projected by each of the sites.
--Storage costs for LLNL and LANL continue until programmatic
materials are removed consistent with Complex 2030 goals in the
years 2014 and 2022 respectively. Pantex storage costs continue
due to continued storage of programmatic material. Storage
costs are based on the total, actual operating costs of the
storage facilities for both surplus and non-surplus
programmatic materials. These costs include security costs and
the required staffing to operate and maintain a Category 1
Security facility. Such costs are incurred regardless of the
quantity of materials stored in the facility and would be
incurred so long as surplus or programmatic materials are
stored at the facilities. The facilities at Pantex, LLNL, and
LANL contain both programmatic and surplus materials and
accordingly, storage costs would be incurred until all of the
materials (surplus and programmatic) have been removed. For
these reasons, it is not appropriate to allocate incremental
storage costs for only surplus plutonium.
--The estimated nearer-term plutonium storage costs of $3.4 billion
represent the storage costs to the Department until removal of
surplus plutonium from Hanford, LLNL, and LANL pursuant to
DOE's Complex 2030 and material consolidation goals. If
consolidation of the surplus plutonium does not proceed and the
materials continue to be stored at present locations, then an
incremental storage cost of approximately $6 billion would be
incurred, in addition to the future cost to dispose of the
materials at a later time. Storage (without disposition) would
be the most expensive option because the discounted (net
present value) storage costs are within 10 percent of the
proposed baseline approach and do not account for the
additional cost to dispose of the material.
--The net present value costs are consistent with the information
used previously in DOE's 2006 report entitled, Disposition of
Surplus U.S. Materials, Comparative Analysis of Alternative
Approaches, and with DOE's 2007 Business Case Analysis of the
Current U.S. Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Strategy for Dispositioning
34 Metric Tons of Surplus Weapon-Grade Plutonium, but differ in
that: (1) the earlier studies did not discount the costs, and
(2) the earlier studies analyzed the combined plutonium and
uranium storage costs in lieu of the plutonium storage cost as
described in this study. If DOE continues to store surplus
materials at Hanford, LANL, and LLNL, cost savings from
removing plutonium pursuant with Complex 2030 initiative and
materials consolidation would not be realized.
--Costs are included for construction of six magazines to increase
storage efficiency for surplus pits in Zone 4 at Pantex.
--Costs of operating H-Canyon/HB-Line without other missions
represent the total cost of operating H-Canyon/HB-Line and are
based on actual annual operating costs. This scenario would
occur if other planned missions do not take place and H-Canyon/
HB-Line was operated solely for plutonium disposition.
--Revenues from the sale of MOX fuel and the uranium from dismantled
pits are based on the price of uranium as of November 2006.
--A terminal value is used to assign an equivalent financial value to
those activities assumed to continue indefinitely, such as
storage and surveillance and monitoring.
evaluation of alternative storage and disposition approaches
The following section compares the Department's proposed baseline
approach with other storage and disposition approaches on the basis of
nonproliferation aspects, institutional factors, technical maturity and
technical uncertainty, and cost and schedule considerations. Plutonium
disposition approaches are grouped into two distinct categories. Those
approaches in the first category meet U.S. national security and
nonproliferation objectives concerning the disposition of surplus
plutonium by rendering it unusable for nuclear weapons, and encourage
Russia to dispose of its surplus weapons plutonium. Specific approaches
in this category include: DOE's proposed Baseline Approach (MOX, the
proposed small-scale Plutonium Vitrification process and H-Canyon/HB-
Line) and Maximize Utilization of MOX and H-Canyon/HB-Line. The second
category contains those approaches that fail to accomplish these
objectives and include: large-scale (41 MT) Immobilization Facility and
H-Canyon, Consolidate and Vitrify (13 MT) Non-Pit Plutonium at SRS
While Continuing to Store Surplus Pits at Pantex, Consolidate the
Storage of Non-Pit Plutonium (13 MT) at SRS and Store Surplus
Plutonium (43 MT) In-Place at Current Locations.
APPROACHES THAT MEET U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY AND NONPROLIFERATION
OBJECTIVES
Proposed Baseline Approach (MOX, Plutonium Vitrification and H-
Canyon).--The proposed baseline approach consists of: (1) construct and
operate a MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility, a Pit Disassembly and
Conversion Facility, and a Waste Solidification Building to dispose of
34 MT of weapon-grade plutonium; (2) design, construct and operate a
plutonium vitrification process in the basement level of the K-Reactor
Building to vitrify up to 13 MT of non-pit plutonium; and (3) operate
the existing H-Canyon/HB-Line facilities to process approximately 2 MT
of very impure plutonium bearing materials at the Savannah River Site,
along with the mission to recover enriched uranium for subsequent down
blending and sale.
DOE's proposed baseline approach for disposing of surplus plutonium
meets all of the programmatic objectives. The detailed design of the
MOX facility is about 90 percent complete, and the technology has been
in use throughout Europe for three decades. The proposed Plutonium
Vitrification process, on the other hand, is in the very early stages
of design (less than 5 percent complete). As such, there remains
uncertainty associated with the design and cost estimates and
therefore, future cost growth is likely. DOE will continue to address
technical and cost uncertainties as part of the Conceptual Design
process. The MOX fuel fabrication facility, once operational, could
potentially provide the following capabilities: disposition of
additional plutonium from future weapons dismantlement, if declared
surplus; possible fabrication of start-up fuel for GNEP fast reactors
depending on fuel form selected and the 2008 determination of the GNEP
path forward by the Secretary of Energy; and disposition of additional
surplus impure plutonium (currently planned for Plutonium
Vitrification), if the chemical and isotopic impurities can be
economically removed from the material. This approach will incur
additional costs if there is delay in pursuing the currently planned
program.
Maximize Utilization of MOX and Operate H-Canyon (MOX and H-
Canyon).--Construct and operate a MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility, a Pit
Disassembly and Conversion Facility, and a Waste Solidification
Building to dispose of approximately 39 MT of weapon-grade and fuel-
grade plutonium, and to operate the existing H-Canyon/HB-Line
facilities to process approximately 4 MT of certain impure and very
impure plutonium bearing materials at the Savannah River Site, together
with the mission to recover enriched uranium for subsequent down
blending and sale.
As with the proposed baseline approach, this approach meets all of
the programmatic objectives. Overall, it has the highest degree of
technical maturity and is therefore likely to have the least unplanned
programmatic cost growth. The proposed small-scale Plutonium
Vitrification process is in the very early stages of design (less than
5 percent complete). As such, there remains uncertainty associated with
the design and cost estimates and therefore, future cost growth is
likely. DOE will continue to address technical and cost uncertainties
as part of the Conceptual Design process. Engineers are currently
evaluating the cost and technical feasibility of maximizing the use of
the MOX facility and reducing the mission that is currently proposed
for the small-scale Plutonium Vitrification process. If feasible, it
could permit DOE to use MOX and H-Canyon to dispose of the
approximately 43 metric tons of surplus plutonium. Preliminary
indications are that this approach may result in cost savings of
approximately $500 million (estimated total project cost in constant
2006 dollars, excluding operating costs) when compared to the proposed
baseline approach, although actual savings may change as the design of
the small-scale Vitrification process progresses. Moreover, this
approach would require minor modifications to the H-Canyon. As
mentioned above, the MOX fuel fabrication facility, once operational,
could potentially provide the following capabilities: disposition of
additional plutonium from future weapons dismantlement, if declared
surplus; and possible fabrication of start-up fuel for GNEP fast
reactors depending on a decision by the Secretary of Energy on the
scope of the GNEP program scheduled for June 2008.
APPROACHES THAT FAIL TO MEET U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY AND
NONPROLIFERATION OBJECTIVES
Immobilization Facility and H-Canyon.--Under this approach, DOE
would design, construct, and operate a new, large-scale (approximately
41 MT) stand-alone Plutonium Immobilization Plant (using ceramification
technology, since immobilization of such a large amount of plutonium
would not be feasible using vitrification in a borosilicate glass due
to the high radiation levels produced). A Pit Disassembly and
Conversion Facility would be needed to take apart nuclear weapons cores
and convert the resulting plutonium metal to an oxide form for
ceramification as would a Waste Solidification Building. Operation of
the existing H-Canyon/HB-Line facilities would be used to process
approximately 2 MT of plutonium bearing materials at the Savannah River
Site, together with the mission to recover enriched uranium for
subsequent down blending and sale.
This approach is likely to be seen by Russia as being inconsistent
with the U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement and
is unlikely to encourage Russia to dispose of its surplus weapon-grade
plutonium. Russia continues to view immobilization as another form of
storage because it does not degrade the isotopics of the weapon-grade
plutonium as would irradiation in a nuclear reactor. Therefore, Russia
continues to believe that weapon-grade plutonium from the immobilized
waste form could be retrieved for use in new nuclear weapons. This
approach does support the program objectives of consolidating and
disposing surplus plutonium in support of Complex 2030 and related DOE
goals. Plutonium immobilization maintains the commitment to U.S.
nonproliferation goals by potentially dispositioning 43 MT of plutonium
in an intrinsically theft resistant form. The ability to complete the
41 MT immobilization mission with high level waste located at the
Savannah River Site is not possible, however, because of an
insufficient quantity of high level waste needed to fill the waste
canisters, in order to provide an intrinsically self protecting theft-
resistant form. Immobilization \9\ of plutonium in a ceramic matrix
also has a high degree of technical uncertainty because of the
relatively low technical maturity associated with this technology. As a
result, substantial future cost growth to accomplish plutonium
immobilization is likely, and the overall programmatic cost is expected
to be greater than DOE's current planned baseline program. In addition,
significant program delays are likely because of the currently low
technical maturity of this option, coupled with required new
evaluations associated with such a major program change (e.g.,
extensive research and development, facility design and construction
are likely to mean that an Immobilization Facility could not become
operational for an additional 12-14 years).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Immobilization of plutonium in a ceramic form has never been
done before and designs for an immobilization facility do not exist.
This approach would require extensive research and development followed
by a detailed engineering effort to design an immobilization facility.
This approach is likely to take between 10-12 years before construction
can begin and result in significant cost increases and schedule delays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidate and Vitrify Non-Pit Plutonium at SRS and Continue to
Store Pits at Pantex.--Design, construct and operate a Plutonium
Vitrification process in the basement level of the K-Reactor Building
to vitrify up to 13 MT of non-pit plutonium; operate the existing H-
Canyon/HB-Line facilities to process approximately 2 MT (included in
the preceding 13 MT) of plutonium bearing materials at the Savannah
River Site, with the mission to recover enriched uranium for subsequent
down blending and sale, and continue to store DOE's inventory of
surplus pits at Pantex.
This alternative approach would result in the disposition of
approximately 13 MT of mostly non-weapon-grade plutonium but leaves
thousands of surplus nuclear weapon pits in storage at Pantex. Thus,
this approach does not meet U.S. national security and nonproliferation
objectives with respect to rendering DOE's entire inventory of surplus
plutonium unusable for future weapons use and does not encourage Russia
to dispose of its surplus weapons plutonium. Upgrades would be needed
at Pantex to continue to store the surplus nuclear weapons pits. As
stated previously, the proposed small-scale Plutonium Vitrification
process is in the very early stages of design (less than 5 percent
complete). As such, there remains uncertainty associated with the
design and cost estimates and therefore, future cost growth is likely.
Consolidate the Storage of Non-Pit Plutonium at SRS.--Under this
approach, DOE would: consolidate the storage of up to 13 MT of non-pit
plutonium from Hanford, Los Alamos National Laboratory and Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory at SRS; continue to operate the existing
H-Canyon/HB-Line facilities to process approximately 2 MT of plutonium
bearing materials together with the mission to recover enriched uranium
for subsequent down blending and sale; and continue to store
indefinitely DOE's inventory of surplus nuclear weapons pits at Pantex.
This alternative approach would not meet U.S. national security and
nonproliferation objectives with regard to disposing of 43 MT of
surplus plutonium by rendering it unusable for nuclear weapons use and
would not encourage Russia to dispose of its surplus weapons plutonium.
Since it would also fail to provide a disposition pathway out of the
Savannah River Site for surplus plutonium brought there for
disposition, existing law currently prohibits the further shipment of
this plutonium to SRS under certain circumstances to achieve
consolidation. This approach would not prevent the accumulation of
stockpiles of surplus plutonium, deferring final disposition decisions
and costs until the future. Upgrades would still be needed at Pantex to
continue to store thousands of surplus nuclear weapons pits.
Store Surplus Plutonium In-Place at Current Locations.--DOE would
continue to store surplus plutonium at current locations, i.e.,
Savannah River Site, Pantex, Hanford, Los Alamos National Laboratory
and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Under this approach, the
existing H-Canyon/HB-Line facilities would process approximately 2 MT
of plutonium bearing materials already at the Savannah River Site, with
the mission to recover enriched uranium for subsequent down blending
and sale.
This alternative approach would not meet U.S. national security and
nonproliferation objectives. It would not meet U.S. obligations under
the 2000 U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement and
would not encourage Russia to dispose of its surplus weapons plutonium.
This approach would defer final disposition decisions and costs until
some time in the future. Storage costs, discounted to the present, are
within approximately 10 percent of DOE's planned baseline disposition
costs, over the equivalent time period.\10\ At the conclusion of the
storage period, DOE would still have to fund an expensive disposition
program, or continue to pay storage costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The 2007 Business Case Analysis of the Current U.S. Mixed
Oxide (MOX) Fuel Strategy for Dispositioning 34 Metric Tons of Surplus
Weapon-Grade Plutonium showed that storage costs in constant 2006
dollars for 50 years of storage would be $15.45 billion and would
exceed the base case costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
DOE's proposed baseline approach for disposing of surplus plutonium
(MOX, proposed small scale Plutonium Vitrification process, and H-
Canyon) would meet U.S. national security and nonproliferation
objectives for disposing of 43 MT of surplus plutonium by rendering it
unusable for nuclear weapons use, and would provide the best chance of
encouraging Russia to dispose of its surplus weapons plutonium. In
addition, the proposed baseline approach would help reduce storage
costs for nuclear materials, reduce safeguards and security costs, and
support the Department's efforts to consolidate nuclear materials
within the DOE Complex.
The detailed design of the MOX facility, a key element of the
baseline approach, is about 90 percent complete, and the technology has
been in use throughout Europe for three decades. The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) has authorized construction and DOE's contractor has
submitted a license application to the NRC for operation of the MOX
facility. In addition, MOX fuel lead assemblies, containing surplus
weapons plutonium, are currently being successfully tested in a
commercial nuclear reactor in South Carolina and the irradiation of MOX
fuel will generate electricity through which revenues are produced for
the U.S. Treasury. Moreover, the MOX fuel fabrication facility, once
operational, could potentially provide the following capabilities:
disposition of additional plutonium from future weapons dismantlement,
if declared surplus; possible fabrication of start-up fuel for GNEP
fast reactors depending on a decision by the Secretary of Energy on the
scope of the GNEP program scheduled for June 2008; and disposition of
additional surplus impure plutonium (currently planned for Plutonium
Vitrification), if the chemical and isotopic impurities can be
economically removed from the material.
CYBER SECURITY FUNDING--INSUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS THE RISK
Question. It is clear that the cyber budgets have failed to keep
pace with the enormous investment in physical security, despite the
fact that every day of the year our classified network is attacked
thousands of times by foreign entities looking for access to our
national security secrets.
Has the NNSA requested a risk analysis of the Department's massive
physical security buildup vs. the limited investment it has made in
cyber security?
Answer. In December 2006, the NNSA Chief Information Officer (CIO)
requested that a cyber security risk analysis be completed by each
Site. The preliminary analyses were to be completed by February 2007,
and the final analyses and reports are due to be completed in May 2007.
After the NNSA CIO works with sites to identify and quantify the risks,
the Administrator must review the risks of both cyber and physical and
distribute the budget submission accordingly. In addition to the risk
analysis, in 2007, the NNSA OCIO will publish a cyber security threat
statement and risk assessment methodology to be used consistently
across the NNSA complex.
Question. Considering that our country is constantly under cyber
attack, wouldn't you agree that an independent review of the investment
over the past several years would be helpful to know if we accurately
assessed the risks by making physical security our priority?
Answer. Independent reviews of cyber and physical security are
conducted annually by the Office of Independent Assessment (OA) and by
the Office Inspector General (OIG). Cyber security has increasingly
become a priority over the past several years, and budget requests
reflect a change in the ``balancing'' of risks based on a
revitalization of the cyber security program within DOE and NNSA.
Loss of Personal Data
Question. It greatly disturbs me that a subcontractor was able to
walk out of Los Alamos lab with classified material last October, but I
am equally frustrated with the numerous instances where the Federal
Government has failed to protect personal information of employees.
Last year, computer hackers were able to steal 1,500 names from NNSA's
Albuquerque Service Center.
What is the Department doing to encrypt and protect personal
employee data to ensure that information has the same level of
protection that applies to classified information?
Answer. The Department's CIO published policy on the handling of
Personally Identifiable Information (PII) in July 2006. The NNSA CIO
further published implementing guidance in August 2006 that outlines
the requirements for protection and reporting of PII and PII related
information. These guidelines are in compliance with the OMB
requirements for PII. In addition, the DOE and NNSA procured encryption
software for use throughout the Department to facilitate the
requirements implementation.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Dorgan. This hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., Wednesday, April 18, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
----------
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 2008
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Prepared Statement of the Fifth Louisiana Levee District
The Board of Commissioners for the Fifth Louisiana Levee District
respectfully requests that construction funding for Mississippi River
Levees be increased from the $28,767,000 contained in the proposed
budget for fiscal year 2008, to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers'
capability of $98,352,000, and the Mississippi River Levee maintenance
allocation be increased from the proposed $10,726,000 to $34,538,000.
Reduced funding, combined with the inability to let construction
contracts under a continuing contract clause, has left thousands in
Louisiana vulnerable to the adverse effects of a deficient levee
system. Construction of levee enlargements is essential if the levee is
to contain high river stages that are sure to come eventually.
The effect of fully funded contracts for levee construction, now
required under Public Law 109-103, (Sec. 106 and 108), adopted by the
109th Congress in 2005, as opposed to the previous system of continuing
contract clauses, has virtually halted enlargement of the Mississippi
River Levee System in Louisiana. This comes at a time when the State of
Louisiana is still reeling from the effects of devastation caused by
serious lack of funding for levees in the past. Administration after
administration has cut funding for levee systems and flood control,
providing less and less with each new Federal budget. The current
proposed budget is no exception, with only $260,000,000 allocated for
the entire Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) project. We request
that be increased to the Corp's capabilities of $500,000,000.
Less than $10 billion has been invested in the MR&T Project since
its authorization following the great flood of 1927, a fraction of the
billions that have been spent trying to restore the damage to lives and
property created by levee failures following Hurricane Katrina.
Billions spent that have made almost no impact.
We urge Congress to increase funding to the Corps of Engineers in
fiscal year 2008, to ensure that the Corps is not forced to halt of
delay contracts for levee construction essential to the well-being of
this Nation. It is vital that the MR&T project(s) be completed at the
earliest possible date. This can only be accomplished through adequate
funding and repeal of the mandate for contracts to be fully funded
prior to the beginning construction. Prior to August 2005, the MR&T
projects had a performance-to-cost ratio of 24-to-1 on work completed.
Hurricane Katrina changed that ratio drastically. The economic
justification for increased funds for levee construction in Louisiana
cannot be questioned or disputed.
______
Prepared Statement of the Clark County Regional Flood Control District
Testimony for the United States Army Corps of Engineers Tropicana
and Flamingo Washes Flood Control Project, Las Vegas, Nevada.--
$12,500,000 construction appropriations, which includes appropriations
for work performed pursuant to Section 211 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996.
Presented herewith is testimony in support of $12,500,000 for the
final construction appropriation necessary for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to complete the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes flood
control project (hereafter referred to as the Project) in Clark County,
Nevada, and 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.
The President's fiscal year 2008 Civil Works budget request to
Congress identifies no funding for this Project. It is imperative that
we receive the requested Federal funding to protect residents of the
rapidly growing Las Vegas Valley in Southern Nevada from devastating
floods.
Some history of previous funding requests and budgeting challenges
associated with bringing this Project to a close need to be explained
and outlined. On March 6, 2006, we learned that fiscal year 2004 and
2005 appropriations for the Project were reprogrammed to other projects
in the Los Angeles District in the amount of approximately $7,000,000.
While a commitment was made to us by the Corps to reinstate these funds
in fiscal year 2006, they were not made available to us due to language
changes in the Conference Report that accompanies H.R. 2419. In order
to see the construction of the Project continue, we asked and received
permission to use the $3 million of Section 211 funds from fiscal year
2006 appropriations to increase funding of Construction General. We
also contributed an additional $1 million to the Project by advancing
our 5 percent cash commitment earlier than originally anticipated.
These steps were necessary to prevent the Project from shutting down in
mid-construction. In fiscal year 2007, we submitted testimony
requesting $22 million for Construction General and Section 211. We now
learn that under current Continued Resolution Authority, the Project
may receive Federal funding in fiscal year 2007 in the amount of only
$12.4 million--the lesser of the two budgets authorized by the House
and Senate. This is almost $10 million less than the original request.
And to further muddy the waters, the President's fiscal year 2008 Civil
Works budget request to Congress identifies no funding to complete this
Project.
Because the Corps' budget requests are made well in advance of the
fiscal year 2008 budget being announced, the Corps may have assumed--
that if we had received the $22 million request in 2007--the Project
would have been completed and no further funding for Section 211 or
construction would have been requested or necessary. Clearly, now,
that's not what occurred and another $12.5 million is necessary to
bring the Project to a close and provide what is due under Section 211.
The non-Federal sponsors are, therefore, requesting $12.5 million
for both the final construction funding and reimbursement to the local
sponsors of this Project. Funding at this level will allow the Federal
commitments made in the past to be finally realized and completed in
fiscal year 2008.
The Feasibility Report for the 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 $281.7 million
(allocations $239.1 million), allowing continued Project construction.
The total cost of the flood control portion of the Project is currently
estimated at $336.3 million, higher than originally anticipated
primarily due to the delay in Federal appropriations which has resulted
in increases in real estate and construction costs.
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 recognized the 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 is substantial and
includes features that were designed by the non-Federal sponsors and
constructed by either the Federal Government or the non-Federal
sponsors. The language contained in the fiscal year 2000 Energy and
Water Development Bill, Senate Report 106-58, states in part, ``The
Committee expects . . . every effort to even out reimbursement payments
to lessen future budgetary impacts.'' To date, only $13.5 million has
been reimbursed of the previously authorized $20.6 million.
The local community had constructed certain elements of the Project
prior to the execution of the PCA. These Project elements required
modifications in order to fit into the Corps' plan and fulfill the need
for a ``total fan approach'' to the flooding problems in the Las Vegas
Valley. The work performed by the non-Federal sponsors, construction of
Red Rock Detention Basin and Flamingo Detention Basin, has been
accounted for in Section 104 credits and totals $9,906,000.
We have already realized some benefits from construction of flood
control features on the Project We have removed 18.7 square miles of
flood zones from Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood
Insurance Rate Maps. This was accomplished through the completion of
various project elements. We anticipate removal of additional flood
zones when the Project is completed.
In summary, the 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 $12.5 million, in fiscal year 2008, in order
to meet prior requests to complete the Project and 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 preventing 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, we believe a thorough
analysis will show that there is substantial future Federal savings in
disaster assistance that supports sufficient appropriations through the
Civil Works Budget.
las vegas growth, specific project benefits and flooding history
The Las Vegas Valley continues to experience unprecedented growth.
In the past 20+ years, people have moved into our area from all parts
of the Nation to seek employment, provide necessary services, retire in
the Sunbelt, and become part of this dynamic community. Approximately
6,000 people relocate to the Las Vegas Valley every month of the year.
Currently the population exceeds 1.9 million. The latest statistics
show that more than 31,000 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 metropolitan areas in
the Nation.
The Project being constructed by the Corps is designed to collect
flood flows from a 174-square-mile contributing drainage area. The
Project includes three debris basins, five detention basins, 28 miles
of primary channels, and a network of lateral collector channels. The
debris basins collect flood flows from undeveloped Federal lands at the
headwaters of the alluvial fans and trap large bedload debris before it
enters the channels and causes erosion damage. The detention basins
greatly reduce the magnitude of the flood flows so that the flows can
be safely released and conveyed through the urbanized area at non-
damaging rates. A primary system of channels collects outflows from the
debris and detention basins and conveys these floodwaters through our
urban area. Lateral collector channels, which are funded locally,
collect runoff from smaller developed watersheds and deliver it to the
primary channels. 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 Project
are critical.
In recent history, 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 greatest
rainfall depths occurred over the southwest portions of the Las Vegas
Valley resulting in significant flows in the Tropicana and Flamingo
Washes. The runoff 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 during this flood event,
one of which was a drowning in the Flamingo Wash. Damages to public
property caused by this storm were estimated at $20.5 million. 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 Project
had been fully implemented. However, those features of the Project that
were completed did help to mitigate damages.
On August 19, 2003 another flash flood hit the Las Vegas Valley and
damaged hundreds of homes and businesses. Again in the winter of 2004-
2005, the area experienced heavier then normal rainfall amounts. That
winter brought twice the area's average annual rainfall causing
flooding along the Virgin and Muddy Rivers in Clark County, Nevada.
Several areas in the Las Vegas Valley also experienced drainage
problems. While the flood control features built as part of the Project
helped to protect vast areas of our community, storms of this magnitude
only reinforce the need to expeditiously build all flood control
projects in the Las Vegas Valley.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona
RIO DE FLAG FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Domenici, and distinguished members
of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify on behalf of
the city of Flagstaff, Arizona in support of $8 million in the Army
Corps of Engineers budget for the Rio de Flag flood control project in
fiscal year 2008 and for an increased authorization, or 902(b) fix, for
the project. The Rio de Flag flood control project is critically
important to the city, to northern Arizona, and, ultimately, to the
Nation.
As you may know, Mr. Chairman, with this subcommittee's help over
the last 3 fiscal years, Rio de Flag received more than $11 million to
continue construction on this important project. We are extremely
grateful that the subcommittee boosted this project well above the
President's request both years, and we would appreciate your continued
support for this project in fiscal year 2008.
Like many other projects under the Army Corps's jurisdiction, Rio
de Flag received no funding in the President's fiscal year 2008 budget,
although the Corps has expressed a capability of $8 million to continue
construction on the project. We are hopeful that the subcommittee will
fund the Rio de Flag project at $8 million when drafting its bill in
order to keep the project on an optimal schedule.
Flooding along the Rio de Flag dates back as far as 1888. The Army
Corps has identified a Federal interest in solving this long-standing
flooding problem through the Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona--
Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Study (EIS). The
recommended plan contained in this feasibility report was developed
based on the following opportunities: (1) flood control and flood
damage reduction; (2) environmental mitigation and enhancement; (3)
water resource management; (4) public recreation; and (5) redevelopment
opportunities. This plan will result in benefits to not only the local
community, but to the region and the Nation.
The feasibility study by the Corps of Engineers has revealed that a
500-year flood could cause serious economic hardship to the city. In
fact, a devastating 500-year flood could damage or destroy
approximately 1,500 structures valued at more than $450 million.
Similarly, a 100-year flood would cause an estimated $100 million in
damages. In the event of a catastrophic flood, over half of Flagstaff
's population of more than 60,000 would be directly impacted or
affected.
In addition, a wide range of residential, commercial, downtown
business and tourism, and industrial properties are at risk. Damages
could also occur to numerous historic structures and historic Route 66.
The Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), one of the primary
east-west corridors for rail freight, could be destroyed, as well as
U.S. Interstate 40, one of the country's most important east-west
interstate links. Additionally, a significant portion of Northern
Arizona University (NAU) could incur catastrophic physical damages,
disruptions, and closings. Public infrastructure (e.g., streets,
bridges, water, and sewer facilities), and franchised utilities (e.g.,
power and telecommunications) could be affected or destroyed.
Transportation disruptions could make large areas of the city
inaccessible for days.
Madame Chairwoman, the intense wildfires that have devastated the
West during the last several years have only exacerbated the flood
potential and hazard in Flagstaff. An intense wildfire near Flagstaff
could strip the soil of ground cover and vegetation, which could, in
turn, increase runoff and pose an even greater threat of a catastrophic
flood.
In short, a large flood could cripple Flagstaff for years. This is
why the city believes it is important to ensure that this project
remains on schedule and that the Corps is able to utilize its expressed
capability of $8 million in fiscal year 2008 for construction of this
flood control project.
In the city's discussions with the Corps, both the central office
in Washington and its Los Angeles District Office also believe that the
Rio de Flag project is of the utmost importance and both offices
believe the project should be placed high on the subcommittee's
priority list. We are hopeful that the subcommittee will consider this
advice and also place the project high on its priority list and fully
fund the project at $8 million for fiscal year 2008.
It is important to note that the city has secured the necessary
property rights to begin construction, and the city is prepared to
assume the costs for the non-Federal portion of the cost-sharing
agreement.
Finally, I strongly support inclusion of a 902(b) fix that was
included in the fiscal year 2007 Senate Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill (as Section 113), which will increase the
authorization of the project from $35 to $54 million, but was not
included in the final bill due to the passage of the continuing
resolution for fiscal year 2007. Nevertheless, because of the Corps'
commitment to this project, on November 9, 2006, the Corps announced
that they had approved a waiver to their policy to allow the
construction contract award of Clay Avenue Wash Detention Basin prior
to reauthorization of the total project. The current estimate for
construction of the basin is $4.6 million. Without this increased
authorization for the project, it cannot move forward as planned.
Therefore, it is critically important that this provision is inserted
in the bill:
``Sec. __. The project for flood damage reduction, Rio de Flag,
Flagstaff, Arizona, authorized in section 101(b)(3) of the Water
Resources Development Act, 2000, is modified to authorize the Secretary
to construct the project, at a total cost of $54,130,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $34,970,000, and an estimated non-federal
cost of $19,160,000.''
As you may know, project construction and implementation of Rio de
Flag was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of
2000. The total project cost is now estimated to be $54,100,000 in and
above the reconnaissance study or the feasibility study. The non-
federal share is currently $24,000,000 and the Federal share is
currently $30,000,000. Final project costs must be adjusted based on
Value Engineering and final design features. It is important to note
the City of Flagstaff has already committed more than $10,500,000 to
this project, and an additional $2,000,000 in excess of its cost share
agreement. This clearly demonstrates the city's commitment to
completing this important project. Through this investment in the
project, the city has entered into the Project Cooperation Agreement
(PCA) with the Department of the Army.
The city of Flagstaff, as the non-federal sponsor, is responsible
for all costs related to required Lands, Easements, Rights-of-Way,
Relocations, and Disposals (LERRD's). The city has already secured the
necessary property rights to begin construction in 2004. Implementation
of the city's Downtown and Southside Redevelopment Initiatives
($100,000,000 in private funds) are entirely dependent on the
successful completion of the Rio de Flag project. The Rio de Flag
project will also provide a critical missing bike/pedestrian connection
under Route 66 and the BNSF Railroad to replace the existing hazardous
at grade crossings.
Both design and construction are divided into two phases. Phase I
construction commenced in 2004. Phase II of the project commenced in
2005.
Mr. Chairman, the Rio de Flag project is exactly the kind of
project that was envisioned when the Corps was created because it will
avert catastrophic floods, it will save lives and property, and it will
promote economic growth. In short, this project is a win-win for the
Federal Government, the city, and the surrounding communities.
Furthermore, the amount of money invested in this project by the
Federal Government--approximately $30 million--will be saved
exponentially in costs to the Federal Government in the case of a large
and catastrophic flood, which could be more than $450 million. It will
also promote economic growth and redevelopment along areas that are
currently underserved because of the flood potential.
In conclusion, the Rio de Flag project should be considered a high
priority for this subcommittee, and I encourage you to support full
funding of $8 million for this project in the fiscal year 2008 Energy
and Water Development Appropriations bill. I also strongly support the
inclusion of an increased authorization, or 902(b) fix, for the project
from $35 to $54 million. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Paul Latture II,
Arkansas Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee,
from Little Rock, Arkansas.
It is my privilege to present this statement on behalf of the
Arkansas 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. Jack Long, Little Rock;
Mr. Jeff Pipkin, Russellville; Mr. Scott McGeorge, Pine Bluff; and Mr.
Buck Shell, Van Buren.
The public investment in the McClellan-Kerr has paid significant
dividends over the life of the project. The most recent investment
included the completion of the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam. Since the
opening of Montgomery Point, there has been a 10 percent increase in
total tonnage on the system. In 2005, there was an 8 percent increase
in tonnage. This is a direct result of the increased reliability of the
system. Without Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, the river system would
have been closed 25 percent of the time, according to Corps of
Engineers officials. We fully expect that tonnage will continue to
increase. But maintaining the high reliability of the system depends on
protecting the investment by funding projects such as the significant
backlog of Operations and Maintenance that has built up over the years,
by completing the Arkansas-White River Cut-off study and construction,
and by fulfilling the wish of Congress in completing the 12-foot
channel project.
Mr. Chairman, Public Law 108-137 authorized a 12-foot channel on
the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. The Corps is now
obligated to operate and maintain the system as a 12-foot channel. Over
90 percent of the system currently is adequate for a 12-foot channel.
Deepening the remainder of the channel to 12 feet will allow carriers
to place 43 percent more cargo on barges, which will reduce the amount
of fuel consumed and emissions released. Funds in the amount of $7.0
million were allocated in fiscal year 2005. Those funds were used to
complete the Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement with
the balance used on engineering, design, and construction activities.
Environmental benefits include the creation of new aquatic habitat
through new dike construction and the construction of Least Tern
islands through beneficial use of dredged material. The Corps of
Engineers has developed a comprehensive plan to execute the project in
the States of Arkansas and Oklahoma to the best advantage of both
States and the best use of the funds.
Therefore, we request $40 million to maintain the authorized depth
and execute the plan to its full capability in fiscal year 2008. This
investment will increase the cost competitiveness of this low cost,
environment-friendly transportation mode and help us combat the loss of
industry and jobs to overseas.
Arkansas-White Rivers Cutoff Study is to determine a permanent
solution to prevent the developing cutoff from joining the Arkansas and
White River near the confluence of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River
Navigation System and the Mississippi Rivers. If not corrected this
occurrence could have a dramatic adverse affect on the navigation
system. Unless corrected, this will effectively drain the water from
the navigation system and halt the movement of commerce on the system.
We request an appropriation of $3.5 million of which $400,000 will
complete the study and $3.1 million will be used for design and
construction activities at Jim Smith Lake and along the banks of the
Arkansas and White Rivers to support navigation.
Maintenance of the Navigation System.--In preparation for the
deepening of the navigation system from 9 to 12 feet, there is a
backlog of maintenance items that has been deferred due to insufficient
budgets to allow proper maintenance. These maintenance items are
required even to support navigation at the 9-foot depth in order to not
jeopardize the reliability of the system. Therefore, we request funding
for the Little Rock District of the Corps of Engineers to be at least
$26 million for the upcoming fiscal year for routine and deferred
channel maintenance. These funds would be used for such things as
repair of bank stabilization work, needed advance maintenance dredging,
and other repairs needed on the system's components that have
significantly deteriorated over the past three decades.
Mr. Chairman, we respectfully request that the committee consider
these requests as the most important to our transportation system at
this time. We must maintain this country's transportation
infrastructure or little else will matter in the future.
______
Prepared Statement of the Board of Levee Commissioners for the Yazoo-
Mississippi Delta
On behalf of the thousands of citizens in its 10-county district in
Mississippi, the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee Board respectfully urges
Congress to fund the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project (MR&T)
to the full U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' 2008 capability of $500
million.
While the totality of the Mississippi Valley Flood Control
Association's requested fiscal year 2008 Civil Works Requested Budget
(documentation for which is attached) represents badly needed work
items throughout the Mississippi Valley, we shall speak specifically to
those critically important flood control needs within our levee
district in this space allotted us.
The Mainline Mississippi River levee system is one of the great
engineering successes in America. For 75 years it has protected lives
and livelihoods within the shadow of the Father of All Waters, and it
will continue to do so in the years ahead--but only if properly
strengthened and maintained. We urge Congress to appropriate the needed
$98.352 million to maintain our levees and keep our citizens safe and
dry. Within that we will be able to do two seepage control projects at
Farrell and Trotter's.
It is only through a lack of required funding that one of the most
successful and non-controversial flood control projects in the United
States has come to a grinding halt in our district. The Upper Yazoo
Project (UYP), which our board is proud to sponsor, is the prototypical
example of what a flood control project should be--effective,
environmentally sound, universally favored. While flood control efforts
in other areas are threatened or stalled by lawsuits and citizen
upheaval, the UYP has everyone's blessing, and is absent only the funds
to complete it.
Restoring the Yazoo/Coldwater/Tallahatchie river system to its flow
capacity and stopping interbasin transfer of flood waters, the UYP is
about two-thirds complete. The city of Greenwood, Mississippi, is
already receiving its benefits. But upstream, such areas as Marks,
Lambert, Moorhead, Mississippi Delta Community College, Tutwiler,
Glendora, Sumner and Webb are not--and will not unless Congress
dedicates the $22.5 million which the Corps of Engineers needs for
scheduled work in 2008.
We implore Congress to appropriate the needed $22.5 million for the
UYP so that structures might be constructed, a bridge relocated, and
another section of the river system restored to its proper capacity.
Thousands of our citizens remain unprotected from flood waters; we turn
to Congress to give them relief.
Working hand-in-hand with the UYP in a common sense approach to
flood control is the Mississippi Delta Headwater Project, through which
waters and the stream-filling silts which they carry, are controlled.
The UYP would clear out our waterways, the Delta Headwater Project
would reduce the rate at which they would re-silt. We urge Congress to
appropriate the needed $25 million for this effort to continue in 2008.
Without proper mitigation practices, of course, all flood control
projects would be threatened. Our levee district is very concerned that
mitigation lands, once acquired, are not being rapidly enough turned
over to Federal and State wildlife management agencies to ensure the
desired public benefits. A lack of management monies is frequently
blamed for that, so we are asking that adequate funds be appropriated
and designated for proper management authority and practice on
mitigation lands.
Mississippi's four flood control reservoirs play a critical role in
managing water from the hills and avoiding untimely releases into the
low-lying Delta where they can wreak havoc. But as critical as these
facilities are, they are aging and maintenance monies are deeply needed
to ensure their integrity. Therefore we ask that respective maintenance
funds be allocated for these reservoirs as follows:
--Sardis Lake--$14.784 million.
--Arkabutla Lake--$9.975 million.
--Enid Lake--$10.927 million.
--Grenada Lake--$11.299 million.
Due to the nature of its alluvial soils, bank stabilization is a
critical need in the Delta and within our district. In the past, the
Corps had the authority to prioritize this pervasive problem and deal
directly with those situations in which significant public importance
was involved--hospitals, major thoroughfares, schools and the like. One
example in our district is where bank failure threatens major
transportation arteries near the Rising Sun community south of
Greenwood. But the empowering language for such no longer exists. We
urge that either this language be restored for such projects
nationwide, or, in the alternative, we urge Congress to specifically
allocate the needed $820,000 needed to address this problem which
potentially affects thousands.
The Big Sunflower River Maintenance Project is jointly sponsored by
Mississippi's two levee boards. The Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement for this project, which would restore flood control
capacities to 130 miles of channels by removing sediment built up over
the past 40 years, will be released later this year and we request that
$2.5 million be appropriated to allow right-of-way acquisition to
continue and to award the dredging contract.
The Corps of Engineers has the capacity to Initiate Tributaries
Reformulation on inland feeder streams, many of which lie in our
district, and we urge that Congress appropriate the $2 million Corps
2008 capacity for this needed work.
In another issue specific to our district, funds are needed to
initiate a study of Gunn Bayou, south of Belzoni. Poor drainage causes
localized flooding in this area.
There are, however, two policy issues which combine to potentially
threaten not only these, but every flood control project in the
country--the recently abandoned principles of Continuing Contracts and
Reprogramming. Now absent these two longstanding practices, the Corps
has lost the flexibility to continue works in progress and reallocate
funds by priority. We urge Congress to restore the practices of
Continuing Contracts and Reprogramming throughout the MR&T.
Finally, through the implementation of revised Levee Certification
guides and some unfortunate and ill-advised flood insurance zone
language, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has created a
situation in which both future investment in the Delta and homeowner
finances are threatened. The new FEMA levee protection guide and
subsequent flood zone rating appears to ignore the protection afforded
by the levee system for 75 years and stands to send homeowner insurance
costs skyrocketing, according to one estimate, anywhere from 500 to
1,600 percent.
We urge Congress to seriously review and address this issue.
______
Prepared Statement of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee
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.
A. Earnest Gilder, Muskogee; Mr. Terry McDonald, Tulsa; and Mr. Lew
Meibergen, Enid, who also serves as Chairman of the combined Arkansas
River Basin Interstate Committee representing the five States within
the Arkansas River Basin.
Mr. Chairman, Public Law 108-137 authorized a 12-foot channel on
the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. The Corps is now
obligated to operate and maintain the system as a 12-foot channel. Over
90 percent of the system currently is adequate for a 12-foot channel.
Deepening the remainder of the channel to 12 feet will allow carriers
to place 43 percent more cargo on barges, which will reduce the amount
of fuel consumed and emissions released. Funds in the amount of $7.0
million were allocated in fiscal year 2005. Those funds were used to
complete the Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement with
the balance used on engineering, design, and construction activities.
Environmental benefits include the creation of new aquatic habitat
through new dike construction and the construction of Least Tern
islands through beneficial use of dredged material. The Corps of
Engineers has developed a comprehensive plan to execute the project in
the States of Arkansas and Oklahoma to the best advantage of both
States and the best use of the funds.
Therefore, we request $40 million to maintain the authorized depth
and execute the plan to it's full capability in fiscal year 2008. This
investment will increase the cost competitiveness of this low cost,
environment-friendly transportation mode and help us combat the loss of
industry and jobs to overseas.
Tow Haulage Equipment--Oklahoma.--We request funding of $6.5
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
$6.5 million. This project will involve installation of tow haulage
equipment on W.D. Mayo Lock and Dam No. 14, Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam
No. 15, and Webbers Falls Lock and Dam No. 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 locks.
Arkansas-White Rivers Cutoff Study is to determine a permanent
solution to prevent the developing cutoff from joining the Arkansas and
White River near the confluence of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River
Navigation System and the Mississippi Rivers. If not corrected this
occurrence could have a dramatic adverse affect on the navigation
system. Unless corrected, this will effectively drain the water from
the navigation system and halt the movement of commerce on the system.
We request an appropriation of $3.5 million of which $400,000 will
complete the study and $3.1 million will be used for design and
construction of a permanent fix at Jim Smith Lake.
Maintenance of the Navigation System.--In preparation for the
deepening of the navigation system from 9 to 12 feet, there is a
backlog of maintenance items that has been deferred due to insufficient
budgets to allow proper maintenance. These maintenance items are
required even to support navigation at the 9 foot depth in order to not
jeopardize the reliability of the system. Therefore, we request
additional funding in the amount of $1,549,000--plus the amount from
Little Rock, over and above normal funding, for deferred channel
maintenance. These funds would be used for such things as repair of
bank stabilization work, needed advance maintenance dredging, and other
repairs needed on the system's components that have deteriorated over
the past three decades.
In addition to the system-wide needed maintenance items mentioned
above, the budget for the Corps of Engineers for the past several years
has been insufficient to allow proper maintenance of the McClellan-Kerr
Arkansas River Navigation System--Oklahoma portion. As a result, the
backlog of maintenance items has continued to increase. If these
important maintenance issues are not addressed soon, the reliability of
the system will be jeopardized. The portion of the system in Oklahoma
alone is responsible for returning $2.6 billion in annual benefits to
the regional economy. The fiscal year 2006 O&M President's budget for
Tulsa District was $8.2 million less (over 11 percent) than the fiscal
year 2005 appropriation, which will result in no funding being
available for critical infrastructure maintenance in fiscal year 2006.
The fiscal year 2007 O&M President's budget is currently proposed at
$72.4 million which is presently $10 million more than the fiscal year
2006 budget. This $10 million increase is offset by higher energy,
labor, and construction costs. We therefore request that $2.1 million
be added to the budget to accomplish critical infrastructure
maintenance items on the Oklahoma portion of the system as follows:
McClellan-Kerr.--$600,000 to repair plate seals for the weirs;
Robert S. Kerr.--$1,500,000 to repair erosion and construct
emergency mooring wood dolphins.
Mr. Chairman, we respectfully request that the committee consider
these requests as the most important to our transportation system at
this time. We must maintain this country's transportation
infrastructure or little else will matter in the future.
______
Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
(UMRBA)
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's UMRBA
Request Recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction General:
Upper Miss. River Restoration 23.46 33.52
Program (aka EMP)..................
Lock and Dam 3 (Major .............. 5.0
Rehabilitation) \1\................
Lock and Dam 11 (Major 6.3 6.3
Rehabilitation) \1\................
Lock and Dam 19 (Major 0.70 1.47
Rehabilitation) \1\................
Lock and Dam 24 (Major 0.34 0.49
Rehabilitation) \1\................
Locks 27 (Major Rehabilitation) \1\. 7.54 11.26
Upper Mississippi and Illinois .............. 16.2
Rivers Navigation and Ecosystem
Sustainability Program (if
construction is authorized)........
Operation and Maintenance: O&M of the 187.23 279.41
Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers
Navigation System \2\..................
General Investigations: Upper .............. 24.0
Mississippi and Illinois Rivers
Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability
Program (PED)..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding for major rehabilitation projects would be shifted to the
O&M account under the President's budget proposal. Major
rehabilitation would still be cost-shared 50 percent from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund.
\2\ The administration has modified the structure of the O&M account in
its fiscal year 2008 budget. Rather than budgeting for individual
projects, the O&M request is organized by region and by business line
within region. The UMRBA is addressing its testimony to that portion
of the Region 7 navigation business line that is attributable to O&M
of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers navigation system. Thus,
we have disaggregated numbers from the President's budget.
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. Of particular
interest to the basin States are the following:
upper mississippi and illinois rivers navigation study
It has been more than 2 years since the Corps completed its 14-year
Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers Navigation Study, issuing the
final feasibility report in September 2004 and the Chief's Report in
December 2004. While Congress has not yet authorized the recommended
integrated plan for navigation improvements and ecosystem restoration,
it has provided preconstruction engineering and design (PED) funding to
insure that necessary planning and design work can proceed, in
anticipation of construction authorization. Congress appropriated $13.5
million for PED in fiscal year 2005 and $10.0 million in fiscal year
2006. A similar bridging strategy will be necessary in fiscal year 2008
if authorization remains pending.
PED.--The UMRBA supports $24.0 million for PED in fiscal year 2008,
despite the fact that the administration has once again not included
PED in its budget request. Many of the large scale projects, such as
new locks or fish passage at dams, require 3 years or more of PED
before they can move to construction. It is thus critical that PED work
continue without pause and be sustained over time. In the past, PED
funding has been directed to both navigation improvements and ecosystem
restoration projects. This has not necessarily meant providing
identical amounts to these two major components on an annual basis, but
has involved attempting to ensure meaningful and substantial progress
in planning for both navigation improvements and ecosystem restoration.
If the Corps were to receive PED funding of $24.0 million in fiscal
year 2008, it is anticipated that approximately $1.5 million would be
directed to program management and completion of the economic
reevaluation interim report, with the $22.5 million balance divided
roughly evenly between navigation measures (including small scale
measures and lock design at three sites) and ecosystem restoration plan
formulation and evaluation. (Note.--The PED allocation for fiscal year
2007 remains to be determined. It is imperative that the Office of
Management and Budget permit the Corps to allocate reasonable and
necessary funds to PED in fiscal year 2007. Approximately $18.0 million
is needed for fully functional PED this year.)
Construction.--If the integrated navigation and ecosystem
restoration program is authorized for construction this year,
construction could be initiated on several projects in fiscal year
2008. In that event, UMRBA would recommend construction funding of
$16.2 million. This funding would support mooring cells at 3 sites,
switchboats, channel work upstream of Lock 22, fish passage at L&D 22,
and several other ecosystem restoration projects, with approximately
$7.6 million going to navigation improvements and $8.6 million going to
ecosystem projects. This initial fiscal year 2008 construction
increment would also enable the Corps to launch major construction
activities, including work on large scale measures, in fiscal year
2009, with full program implementation possibly beginning in fiscal
year 2010.
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM (AKA EMP)
In fiscal year 2007, the Upper Mississippi River Restoration
Program, commonly known as the Environmental Management Program (EMP),
marked 20 years as the premier program for restoring the river's
habitat and monitoring the river's ecological health. Members of
Congress, agency leaders, stakeholder groups, and members of the public
all joined the Corps of Engineers in celebrating the EMP's many
successes, including both significant contributions to river science
and dramatic on-the-ground habitat improvements. Given this tremendous
record of success, the UMRBA is pleased that the administration has
again identified the EMP as one of six construction projects considered
to be national priorities. Even with this emphasis, however, the
administration has requested only $23.46 million for the EMP in fiscal
year 2008. This would continue the trend of the past 10 years, in which
the annual EMP appropriation has fallen short of the authorized funding
level. The UMRBA strongly urges Congress to appropriate full funding of
$33.52 million for the EMP in fiscal year 2008.
The administration's proposed $23.46 million budget would support
planning, engineering, design, and construction work on 23 habitat
restoration projects. In addition, the fiscal year 2008 request would
support modest expansion of targeted research and data acquisition and
management efforts under the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program
(LTRMP), which has suffered substantially from the funding shortfalls
in recent years. However, to realize its full promise, the EMP requires
funding at the full authorized amount of $33.52 million. This would
support construction on three additional projects. It would also permit
accelerated work on several other projects, thereby increasing overall
program efficiency. Finally, funding at the full capability level would
support LTRMP research on critical science questions and the
acquisition of data needed for balanced river management, such as LIDAR
terrain data. Therefore, the UMRBA urges Congress to fund the EMP at
its full authorized amount of $33.52 million.
UMRBA remains concerned about a 2006 directive from OMB that $3
million of fiscal year 2007 EMP funding be devoted to development of a
``10-year aquatic ecosystem restoration plan.'' Such a plan is
unnecessary and would duplicate plans that the Corps completed as part
of the 2004 Navigation Study. It is unclear whether OMB will renew this
directive now that fiscal year 2007 funding allocations are being made,
or attempt to apply it in fiscal year 2008. However, given the backlog
of EMP habitat restoration projects awaiting construction, and the vast
number of unmet needs under the LTRMP, it would be misguided to divert
construction funds from this important work to develop a plan that is
largely duplicative. Congress should direct the Corps to use EMP funds
exclusively for construction of habitat restoration projects and long
term monitoring, as authorized in the 1999 Water Resources Development
Act.
UMRBA recognizes that one of the biggest challenges facing future
restoration efforts on the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) will be
integrating the work that is currently done under EMP with the new
ecosystem/navigation authority being proposed. Congress is currently
considering authorization of a new dual-purpose authority for the
Corps, as recommended in the navigation feasibility study. For now,
however, the EMP remains the single most effective and long-standing
UMR ecosystem restoration program. Moreover, the EMP's monitoring
element is entirely unique and would not be replicated under some
versions of the proposed new authority. Therefore, fully funding the
EMP is as important today as it has ever been. The EMP must not
languish as questions related to future program streamlining and
coordination are being addressed.
MAJOR REHABILITATION OF LOCKS AND DAMS (L&D)
Most of the locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi River System
are over 60 years old and many are in serious need of repair and
rehabilitation. For more than 20 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 navigation reliability and safety.
The UMRBA supports the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request
for major rehabilitation work at L&D 11 ($6.3 million) and supports
increasing the President's request for rehabilitation work at L&D 19
($1.47 million), L&D 24 ($0.49 million), and Locks 27 ($11.26 million).
Funding at these levels will permit timely and efficient rehabilitation
of these critical navigation structures. Major rehabilitation of L&D 11
and L&D 19 could be completed in fiscal year 2008. The planned work
spans a broad range, including gate repair/replacement, concrete work,
and mechanical and electrical upgrades.
The UMRBA also supports funding for a major rehabilitation project
that is not included in the President's request: L&D 3 at $5.0 million.
Navigation safety and embankment failure have been a concern for over
20 years at L&D 3, and river pilots agree that this is the most
dangerous stretch of the Upper Mississippi to navigate. Should there be
an accident, the adjacent embankments, which have been severely
weakened by age and past accidents, could be breached. In this event,
commercial navigation would be curtailed and two large power plants
would be forced to shut down.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) OF THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER
NAVIGATION SYSTEM
The Corps 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, stream gaging and water level regulation, and routine care
and operation of 29 locks and dams on the Mississippi River and 7 locks
and dams on the Illinois River. The fiscal year 2008 budget request
totals approximately $187.23 million for O&M of this river system.
These funds are critical to the Corps' ability to maintain a safe and
reliable commercial navigation system, while protecting and enhancing
the river's environmental values.
Unfortunately, the President's fiscal year 2008 budget represents a
further widening of the gap between the amount requested and the amount
required for adequate operation and maintenance of the navigation
system. In fiscal year 2006, the gap between the President's request
and the Corps' capability was $52.14 million. In fiscal year 2008, this
shortfall has increased to $92.18 million. For segments of the Upper
Mississippi System, this will mean multiple years during which
resources have not supported even baseline operation and maintenance,
resulting in an increasing backlog, elimination of important stream
gages, and a growing risk of failures and service interruptions.
Responses to these continued fiscal pressures may include reductions in
lock operating hours and cancellations of ongoing contracts. Funding
beyond the President's request is needed to restore basic service
levels, coordinate major maintenance with major rehabilitation at L&D
11 and 19, and undertake a variety of other critical O&M work.
The UMRBA supports increased funding for O&M of the Upper
Mississippi and Illinois River System to meet routine operation and
maintenance needs, and to address the growing unfunded maintenance
backlog. The Upper Mississippi River System is simply too valuable to
invite disaster through chronic underfunding of basic O&M. For fiscal
year 2008, O&M funding totaling $279.41 million is needed on the Upper
Mississippi River System to address ongoing needs and critical backlog
items.
INLAND WATERWAYS USER FEES
In releasing the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for
the Corps of Engineers, Assistant Secretary of the Army John Woodley
announced that the administration plans to propose a new inland
waterways user fee. There are many important unknowns, including most
notably the form and magnitude of this new fee and its relationship to
the existing inland waterways fuel tax, authorized as part of the 1986
Water Resources Development Act. Given the lack of specifics, the UMRBA
has not taken a position, but would urge Congress to proceed with great
care in response to any such proposal. The impacts on operators and
shippers are potentially profound and issues such as economic
disruption, equity among waterways beneficiaries, and implications for
the Nation's intermodal system must be fully understood and evaluated.
The UMRBA States would be very concerned with any proposal that would
undermine the vitality and efficiency of the Upper Mississippi River
System, which is so central to the region's economy.
______
Prepared Statement of the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association
My name is M.V. Williams and I reside in Germantown, Tennessee. I
am the president of the West Tennessee Tributaries Association. It is
also my pleasure and a privilege afforded me by the other nine members
of the executive committee, to serve as chairman of that committee that
has the responsibility for the management and direction of the
Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association in accordance with
policies duly adopted by the association. This statement on behalf of
the association presents their views on the fiscal year 2008 budget for
the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project and their request for
$500 million.
Since there are new members on the subcommittee and to refresh the
memory of those that have served previously, 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 Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri,
Arkansas, Mississippi 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 River Valley. These organizations and agencies are
political subdivisions of the various States in which they are
organized and function. We provide an agency through which all the
people of the Mississippi River Valley may speak and act jointly on all
flood control, navigation, bank stabilization and major drainage
problems. We have appeared before the subcommittee and served the
people in the Mississippi River Valley for over 70 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. Since 1935, our president and two vice presidents
have been members of the United States Congress, a fact of which we are
extremely proud. Our president this year is that great public servant
and one of the real heroes of the Vietnam conflict, the Congressman
from the Third District of Iowa, the Honorable Leonard Boswell. Our two
vice presidents are Congressmen Roger Wicker from Mississippi and
Edward Whitfield from Kentucky.
The value of flood control and economic reality of the need for
waterborne commerce is well known by the Congress. Therefore I will not
go into details but for the sake of confirming what is already known,
let me tell you that since 1928 the Nation has invested $12 billion for
the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. For that investment the
Nation has realized a return of $425.5 billion that includes savings on
transportation costs and flood damages prevented. That's a return on
investment of $35.50 for every $1 invested. What a wonderful investment
of taxpayers' dollars.
Today we find ourselves 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 than has been requested by the executive
department. We hope that happens again this year.
We are in Washington for our 72nd Annual Spring Meeting and as
improbable as it may seem we find the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
under fire from within the executive branch 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. My war of participation was World War II
which as all of you know involved numerous amphibious landings. Leading
each of those landings were the U.S. Army Amphibious Engineers who were
competently led by General Daniel Noce who served as District Engineer
in the Memphis District during the record flood of 1937. General Noce
was well aware of the training and experience that both young army
officers and civilians had gained while part of the Mississippi Valley
Division and he recruited the cadre of the amphibious engineers from
that group. In fact the Corps of Engineers has defended our Nation from
the War for Independence to the war on terror, from Bunker Hill to
Baghdad. I know of no justification for the attitude that some have
taken concerning the Corps of Engineers. This attitude is having and
will continue to have a detrimental impact on economic development in
this country.
I am well aware that the purpose of this statement is to discuss
fiscal year 2008 appropriations for the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Project but I believe it is appropriate to mention at this
time new policies being implemented by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency in their map modernization program. This program is a 5-year
program that was initiated in 2004 and consists of updating the flood
insurance rate maps. We've been told that 20 percent of all counties
nationwide are scheduled for update.
Of great concern to us and should be of concern to everyone is a
new zone designation known as Zone X (shaded) which will be all the
areas outside the 100-year flood zone protected by levees. In the case
of the lower Mississippi River Valley, from approximately Cape
Girardeau, Missouri to the Gulf of Mexico, this is an area of some
35,000 square miles or 22,400,000 acres. A warning will be placed on
the new flood insurance rate maps that will, among other things, state
that within this area communities should issue evacuation plans and
encourage property owners to purchase flood insurance.
This large area that is protected not only by the Mississippi River
and Tributaries Levees but also by the entire Comprehensive Flood
Control System consisting of not only levees but bank revetments, river
cut-offs, floodways, floodwalls, diversions, flood storage reservoirs,
control structures and many other improvements that have made certain
that no Mississippi River Main Line Levee has failed since 1928, the
year that the Congress directed the Corps of Engineers to build the
system. There have been a number of floods of record proportions since
then but not one failure. The design flood for the Mississippi River
and Tributaries Project is to protect against a flood predicted by the
weather bureau as the ``maximum possible'' and provides for the
disposal of all water predicted as possible.
This unwarranted new Zone X on Flood Insurance Rate Maps will have
a dramatic and costly burden on all the residents, businesses and
industries along the lower Mississippi River and its tributaries and
this economic disaster will be felt over this entire Nation. The
language proposed will frighten lenders and companies looking for
industrial sites, impact crop loans as well as causing millions of
dollars to be spent for unnecessary flood insurance premiums. This is
such a serious matter that we would suggest strongly that the
appropriate congressional committees hold hearings on this matter to
determine what if any engineering basis the Federal Emergency
Management Agency used to develop this new policy.
Again, 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 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 collective opinion that to meet the requirements outlined
above, the appropriation for the Mississippi River and Tributaries
Project for fiscal year 2008 should be $500 million. In order to
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 underway, the appropriation
request is justified and should be considered as a wise investment in
the future well-being of this great Nation.
As we noted in our statement last year, of utmost importance to the
overall success of the project is the completion of the work in both
Louisiana and Mississippi to bring the deficient levees up to the
required grade and section. Additional funds are needed here and
because of the scope of the work the restrictions on reprogramming
authorities and the elimination of the use of continuing contracts both
need to be waived in order that this work to protect thousands of acres
of valuable land and the lives of thousands of citizens can be
completed as rapidly as possible. Because of these restrictions,
contracts had to be shut down at considerable cost and the loss of
valuable construction time. We ask the subcommittee for help in this
important matter.
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 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 2008.
MISSISSIPPI VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION--FISCAL YEAR 2008 CIVIL
WORKS REQUESTED BUDGET--MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECT AND STATE MVFCA REQUEST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SURVEYS, CONTINUATION OF PLANNING AND ENGINEERING &
ADVANCE ENGINEERING & DESIGN:
Memphis Harbor, TN.................................. ..............
Germantown, TN...................................... ..............
Lower Steele Bayou.................................. ..............
Homochitto River.................................... ..............
Fletcher Creek, TN.................................. ..............
Memphis Metro Storm Water Management, TN............ ..............
Bayou Meto, AR...................................... $2,550,000
Southeast Arkansas.................................. 800,000
Coldwater Basin Below Arkabutla Lake, MS............ 425,000
Quiver River, MS.................................... ..............
Spring Bayou, LA.................................... 500,000
Point Coupee to St. Mary Parish, LA................. ..............
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway Land Study, LA........... 200,000
Alexandria, LA to the Gulf of Mexico................ 1,950,000
Morganza, LA to the Gulf of Mexico.................. 6,350,000
Donaldsonville, LA to the Gulf of Mexico............ 3,500,000
Tensas River, LA.................................... ..............
Donaldsonville Port Development, LA................. ..............
Collection & Study of Basic Data.................... 495,000
---------------
TOTAL GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS...................... 16,770,000
===============
CONSTRUCTION:
St. John's Bayou-New Madrid Floodway, MO............ 13,300,000
Eight Mile Creek, AR................................ ..............
Helena & Vicinity, AR............................... ..............
Grand Prairie Region, AR............................ 37,800,000
Bayou Meto, AR...................................... 22,450,000
West Tennessee Tributaries.......................... ..............
Nonconnah Creek, TN................................. 500,000
Wolf River, Memphis, TN............................. ..............
August to Clarendon Levee, Lower White River, AR.... ..............
St. Francis Basin, MO & AR.......................... 7,000,000
Yazoo Basin, MS..................................... 67,125,000
Atchafalaya Basin, LA............................... 34,000,000
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, LA...................... 10,894,000
MS Delta Region, LA................................. 722,000
Channel Improvements, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS & LA... 64,547,000
Mississippi River Levees, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS & 98,352,000
LA.................................................
---------------
SUBTOTAL--CONSTRUCTION............................ 356,690,000
SUBTOTAL--MAINTENANCE............................. 283,669,000
---------------
SUBTOTAL--MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES......... 657,129,000
LESS REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS & SLIPPAGES.................. 157,129,000
---------------
GRAND TOTAL--MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES...... 500,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development (LADOTD)
On behalf of LADOTD and the Association of Levee Boards of
Louisiana (ALBL), we present recommendations for fiscal year 2008
appropriations for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects in
Louisiana.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 totally devastated Louisiana
and had a ripple effect throughout the Nation. Over 1,500 Louisiana
residents lost their lives, over 200,000 homes were severely damaged or
destroyed, and over 400,000 Louisiana citizens are still displaced. The
true cost of these storms in lives, property, and wetlands loss--will
never be known. Coastal Louisiana may never fully recover. All of the
coastal infrastructure--ports, oil and gas pipelines, refineries (two
large refineries in St. Bernard parish were out of service for months),
chemical plants, production platforms, offshore supply depots,
navigation channels, locks, etc.--were severely damaged whether or not
they were protected by levees. The impact on Louisiana left a ripple
effect on the economy of the whole country which cannot be ignored.
Energy prices increased significantly because of the disruptions in
production, delivery and refining. Damages to Louisiana's deepwater
ports, which export nearly 60 percent of the Nation's grain products,
disrupted agricultural markets worldwide. This was truly a national
tragedy requiring a national response. The levee system intended to
protect the New Orleans area completely failed. Worse yet, the project
remains incomplete 40 years after authorization--due mostly to funding
constraints. Ironically, one protection system, Larose to Golden
Meadow, survived these two storms, but has been completely overlooked
for accelerated funding. Present funding is not enough to bring it to
100 percent completion, and when complete, this would still not provide
protection against the 1 percent chance of flooding.
It is equally tragic that another protection system still remains
incomplete and vulnerable to a project flood. The Mississippi River and
Tributaries Project (MR&T) has been underway since 1928 and isn't
scheduled for completion until beyond 2031. Flooding from the
Mississippi River would produce damages of a magnitude much greater
than what was experienced during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. A far
greater portion of the State would be impacted. For these reasons, we
consider the administration's proposed budget for the MR&T Project of
$260 million for fiscal year 2008 to be entirely unacceptable. This
amount is not enough to adequately fund the Corps projects in the New
Orleans and Vicksburg Districts, let alone the entire Mississippi River
Valley. We strongly support the Mississippi Valley Flood Control
Association's request of $500 million for the MR&T Project.
Supplemental funding has previously been received to complete
numerous on-going hurricane protection projects and the SELA project.
This is not enough, however, to provide protection against the 1
percent chance, or greater, of flooding in any given year. We
respectfully encourage this committee to look at newly revised cost
estimates and necessary funding required to raise the system to a
protection level above the original project storm. Although these
projects are important, there are still numerous other projects for
navigation, flood protection, and coastal restoration that either are
unfunded or lack adequate funds to continue in a timely manner. In
making the following funding recommendations for Louisiana projects
regarding specific construction, studies, and operation and maintenance
items, we would hope that Congress and the administration will honor
their prior commitments to infrastructure development and continue to
fund our requests. We believe these types of water resources projects
are the most cost effective projects in the Federal budget, having to
meet stringent economic criteria not required by other programs.
FLOOD CONTROL, NAVIGATION, HURRICANE PROTECTION & WATER RESOURCES
PROJECTS SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS FISCAL YEAR 2008 FOR
LOUISIANA
LADOTD & ALBL requests funding for the following projects that
differs from what is in the fiscal year 2008 administration budget or
is a project of particular importance for the State. Those items that
have been appropriately funded have not been included.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADMINISTRATION LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA PROJECTS BUDGET REQUEST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS:
STUDIES:
Amite River--Ecosystem .............. $1,000,000
Restoration, LA................
Amite River & Tributaries, LA .............. 1,000,000
Bayou Manchac..................
Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, .............. 500,000
Boeuf & Black..................
Calcasieu Lock, LA.............. .............. 600,000
Calcasieu River Basin, LA....... $395,000 395,000
Calcasieu River & Pass .............. 360,000
Navigation, LA.................
Plaquemines Parish, LA.......... .............. 500,000
Southwest Coastal LA Hurricane .............. 2,000,000
Protection, LA.................
St. Charles Parish Urban Flood .............. 400,000
Control, LA....................
West Baton Rouge Parish, LA..... .............. 543,000
West Shore--Lake Pontchartrain, .............. 778,000
LA.............................
Bossier Parish Levee & FC....... .............. 300,000
Cross Lake Water Supply......... .............. 384,000
PED:
Bayou Sorrel Lock, LA........... 1,371,000 2,500,000
Port of Iberia, LA.............. .............. 1,500,000
Southwest, AR (AR, LA).......... .............. 400,000
NEW STUDIES:
Baptiste Collette, LA........... .............. 300,000
Donaldsonville Port Development. .............. 500,000
Red River Waterway, LA-12 Foot .............. 100,000
Channel........................
CAP:
Port Fourchon Enlargement, LA... .............. 1,300,000
CONSTRUCTION GENERAL:
Comite River, LA................ .............. 24,000,000
East Baton Rouge Parish, LA..... .............. 2,000,000
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal .............. 6,000,000
Lock, LA.......................
Larose to Golden Meadow......... .............. 14,700,000
Southeast, LA................... .............. 169,000,000
Red River Below Den Dam (AR, LA) .............. 10,000,000
Red River Emergency (AR, LA).... .............. 6,000,000
J Bennett Johnston WW, Miss. R. 1,500,000 15,000,000
to Shreveport..................
Ouachita River Levees........... .............. 1,600,000
Ouachita River Bank .............. 5,000,000
Stabilization..................
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE GENERAL:
Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, 6,717,000 42,000,000
Boeuf & Black..................
Arataria Bay Waterway........... .............. 3,800,000
Bayou Lacombe................... .............. 900,000
Bayou Lafourche................. 1,273,000 3,500,000
Bayou Segnette.................. .............. 1,500,000
Bayou Teche..................... 209,000 209,000
Calcasieu River & Pass.......... 16,108,000 32,000,000
Calcasieu River Dredge Disposal 2,000,000 2,000,000
Plan...........................
Freshwater Bayou................ 5,570,000 11,000,000
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway...... 21,851,000 36,000,000
Houma Navigation Canal.......... 135,000 4,200,000
Mermentau River................. 1,685,000 6,300,000
Mississippi River, Baton Rouge 59,424,000 120,000,000
to the Gulf....................
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet at 290,000 6,000,000
Veince.........................
Waterway Empire to the Gulf..... .............. 5,000,000
WW. IWW to Bayou Dulac.......... .............. 250,000
Ouachita & Black Rivers (AR, LA) 9,865,000 20,143,000
Bayou Bodcau.................... 766,000 2,226,000
Caddo Lake...................... 196,000 261,000
Wallace Lake.................... 211,000 278,000
Bayou Pierre.................... 35,000 35,000
J Bennett Johnston Waterway..... 10,431,000 16,471,000
Lake Providence Harbor.......... 25,000 546,000
Madison Parish Port............. 4,000 81,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES PROJECT SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED
APPROPRIATIONS FISCAL YEAR 2008 FOR LOUISIANA
LADOTD & ALBL requests funding for the following projects that
differs from what is in the fiscal year 2008 administration budget or
is a project of particular importance for the State. Those items that
have been appropriately funded have not been included.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADMINISTRATION LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA PROJECTS BUDGET REQUEST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FC, MR&T GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS:
Alexandria to the Gulf.............. $200,000 $1,950,000
Donaldsonville to the Gulf.......... .............. 3,500,000
Morganza to the Gulf, PED........... .............. 6,500,000
Spring Bayou Area, LA............... .............. 500,000
NEW STUDIES:
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System 200,000 200,000
Land Study, LA.....................
FC, MR&T CONSTRUCTION:
Atchafalaya Basin................... 23,800,000 34,000,000
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System... 1,800,000 10,000,000
Channel Improvement (N.O. Dist.).... 15,747,000 15,747,000
Mississippi Delta Region............ .............. 722,000
Mississippi River Levees, LA (N.O. 5,267,000 10,200,000
Dist.).............................
Mississippi River Levees (AR, LA, 18,500,000 47,300,000
MS) (V. Dist.).....................
Morganza to the Gulf (pending .............. 14,000,000
authorization in WRDA).............
Channel Improvement (AR, LA, MS) (V. 23,585,000 29,585,000
Dist.).............................
FC, MR&T MAINTENANCE:
Atchafalaya Basin................... 11,019,000 28,000,000
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System... 2,291,000 2,700,000
Baton Rouge Harbor (Devil's Swamp).. 17,000 70,000
Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries...... 41,000 41,000
Bonnet Carre Spillway............... 2,367,000 5,000,000
Channel Improvement (N.O. Dist.).... 12,025,000 16,500,000
Dredging (N.O. Dist.)............... 700,000 700,000
MS Delta Region..................... 125,000 225,000
Old River........................... 9,045,000 20,000,000
Mississippi River Levees (LA) (N. 3,702,000 3,774,000
Dist.).............................
Mississippi River Levees (AR, LA, 2,100,000 2,700,000
MS) (V. Dist.).....................
Revetments & Dikes (AR, LA, MS) (V. 15,400,000 15,400,000
Dist.).............................
Boeuf & Tensas Rivers............... 2,667,000 6,047,000
Red River Backwater................. 2,500,000 6,550,000
Lower Red River..................... 45,000 45,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that the needed additional funds to give the New
Orleans Area that protection that is needed is not included in the
above request. We believe it is proper that the funds for repairing and
improving the existing hurricane protection systems continue to be
provided through emergency supplemental appropriations so as not to
detract from projects that must go through the normal appropriations
process. We solicit your continued support in providing the
supplemental funding necessary to complete the work.
______
Prepared Statement of the Little River Drainage District
My name is Dr. Sam M. Hunter, DVM of Sikeston, Missouri. I am a
veterinarian, landowner, farmer and resident of Southeast Missouri.
I am the President of the Little River Drainage District, the
largest such entity in the Nation. Our District serves as an outlet
drainage and flood control District to parts of seven counties in
Southeast Missouri. We provide flood control protection to a sizable
area of Northeast Arkansas as well. Our District is solely tax
supported by more than 3,500 private landowners in Southeast Missouri.
My remarks will be directed toward the President's budget for the
Civil Works portion of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year
2008. The President's budget requests of $4.871 billion for Civil Works
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the next fiscal year is totally
inadequate and only represents 60 percent of the Corps capability. An
amount of $8 billion is more realistic.
Those funds when properly expended are INVESTMENTS yielding a
return of substantial benefits to the American taxpayer throughout this
Nation. They are used to prevent flooding to much of our valuable
farmland, to industrial sites, and to upgrade our ever aging locks and
dam system on our navigable streams which will prevent unscheduled lock
closures, modernize our hydro-electric plants, and restore some of our
environmental assets.
Over 50 percent of our locks and dams are 50 to 60 years old. These
facilities have exceeded their life expectancy by 10 to 20 years. In 10
years that percentage will have grown to almost 60 percent unless
improvements are made.
We are witnessing unscheduled lock outages now and to continue as
we are that number will continue to grow if we do not step forward with
a specific plan to restore, rebuild and reconstruct lock and dams on
our waterway systems. We already have leaking gates, crumbling lock
walls and frequent unscheduled closures occurring which hurt and
curtail economic growth to our Nation. Parts are actually having to be
made for some repairs because manufactures no longer exist and such
parts are not available.
Today our fuel needs alone are 75 percent dependent upon foreign
oil sources. Waterborne transportation is far more energy efficient
than truck or rail modes. Our Nation, our consumers and our producers
will all benefit from more use of our river navigation upgrades. Less
fuel would be needed to move mass quantities of goods, lives would be
saved due to the more safer means of transportation, the many miles of
highways throughout our Nation would not be adversely impacted, our
environment would be enhanced because of less exhaust emissions and our
farmers, manufacturers and other producers could compete with the world
markets.
Further, to have a modern water transportation system would provide
an excellent means to transport mass military equipment and troops
throughout our Nation should such a need arise. How sad it would be to
have an aging lock and dam system in place and fail during such a
crisis. This Nation can construct modern infrastructure for others but
seems to let its own taxpayers depend upon ancient features with no
immediate plans to improve them. We can and we must set in order a
program to modernize this valuable part of our infrastructure. It is
past time to get this done.
Our competing nations such as Brazil and China have committed much
more for fiscal year 2008. China has committed more than $12 billion to
their waterway infrastructure yet we are pleading for only two-thirds
of that amount. We have a backlog within this part of our
infrastructure of improvements that has grown from $200 million in 1998
to more than $1 billion in fiscal year 2008 just for operations and
maintenance. We appreciate very much Congress stepping forward as they
did in 2006 and increasing the needed funds substantially. You should
not be burdened with this task each year.
We believe Congress needs to intervene and reverse the trend of
OMB, and of past and present administrations. We have not seriously
invested in our waterway infrastructure for decades but we must. Local
economies will be affected positively by these investments. Local labor
will be used as well as local businesses who will provide needed
materials.
We believe the improvement and modernization and the growth of our
waterway infrastructure should be done, but we believe it needs to be
done with a plan. We believe the Corps of Engineers has the capability
and they should and must develop a plan for construction of any new
projects. We also believe they need to complete projects that are
already started before we begin new ones. We also believe the backlog
of operations and maintenance of the existing system needs to be done
before any new starts are authorized, however, there may be some
emergency new starts which would be wise to commence provided the funds
are available and provided a systematic modernization is ongoing. We
must get away from ``knee jerk'' emergency type repairs and
replacements.
We must prioritize projects and eliminate projects that are not
returning benefits back to this Nation. We must have our Federal
Government live up to the commitments they have made to the citizens of
this Nation. Private interest have made many investments based upon
faith in the Federal Government following through on what it promised
and what they had been told would be provided to them within a
reasonable period of time. If a project is to be funded entirely by the
Federal Government as directed by Congress then we must fulfill that
obligation. If local interest is to provide a portion of the cost then
local interest must meet that mandate as well. However, we do not need
to hold any projects up because local interests are not financially
able to meet their cost sharing needs provided that project returns a
benefit back to this Nation. Let us move forward with a plan and let us
work that plan and rebuild and bring our waterway infrastructure into
the 21st Century properly.
I will now turn my comments to one specific project which the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers has been authorized by Congress to administer,
namely, the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project (MR&T) and one
portion of that project which benefits the citizens of Southeast
Missouri and Northeast Arkansas, namely, the St. Francis Basin Project.
The Corps of Engineers has a stated capability of $500,000,000 for
fiscal year 2008 in the MR&T Project. We ask you to give consideration
to provide funding levels at $500,000,000. This will provide some
limited but needed new construction and some major maintenance. The
President's budget contains only $260,000,000 which is far from
adequate.
The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project was authorized
following a record flood in 1927 that inundated more than 26,000 square
miles of the Mississippi River Valley. Over 700,000 people were left
homeless and many lives were lost. Most, if not all, East-West commerce
was stopped and it adversely effected the economy and the environment
of our Nation. After that devastating event Congress in its infinite
wisdom passed a bill and established the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Project (MR&T) and authorized the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to develop a plan to prevent such a disaster in the future.
This project currently is a separate line item in the budget. To remove
it will destroy the continuity of this much needed project.
To date the MR&T Project has prevented flood damages and provided
other benefits resulting in acurrent benefit/cost ratio of $28 to $1.
Truly this is a wise investment for our Nation. Likewise countless
lives have been spared from the construction of this great project.
Also our Nation receives nearly $1 billion of navigational benefits
each year due to this project. It is readily seen this project had
merit from the beginning and continues to reward the citizens not only
of the valley itself but of the citizens of the entire Nation. It is a
wise investment for this country and it is good for our economy. It
will be a vital link to the defense of our Nation in the event of an
attack by our enemies. This project must be targeted for swift
completion and then properly maintained. What an investment for our
great Nation this project has been! Find any other project of any
nature which approaches this ratio.
Further, we are very concerned and strongly opposed to the
administration's recommendation in its fiscal year 2008 budget to use
funds from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund to pay for part of the
operation and maintenance cost of the inland waterways as well as some
construction. The trust fund was established in 1978 and was to be made
available for construction and rehabilitation for navigation on the
inland and coastal waterways not for operations and maintenance. This
is not what our Nation agreed to in 1978 and is not what was renewed
under WRDA in 1986. We petition this Congress to stand up and have our
Nation live up to the promises made to the contributors of that trust
fund and abide by past agreements.
Investing in our waterways is a great way to stimulate the economy
and at the same time be building and making investments into a system
for the future which will return back more dollars than expended. We
petition you to give this vital industry of our Nation a strong
endorsement and do all you can to ensure our waterways systems stay
competitive with our foreign competitors.
At a time when we need to stimulate our economy, at a time that
safety from terrorist activities needs to be enhanced and at a time
that many in our Nation are concerned about cleaner air, cleaner water,
etc., we have a great opportunity to meet those needs. We must make
sound investments into our infrastructure which will give back more
monies to the taxpayers of this country than was invested while at the
same time be increasing our defense capabilities should our Nation be
attacked from an outside force.
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 also has been a wise investment of our Federal tax
dollars. Few projects, such as this one, where funds are 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 obligatory part of the project and bring it to completion as
quickly as possible.
The amount allocated for maintenance in the St. Francis Basin
Project for fiscal year 2007 was $880,000,000. This is a funding level
that permits adequate funding to maintain the features within that
project on which the Corps of Engineers has made improvements and which
it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to maintain. As a
matter of information the Memphis District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
was able to execute 99 percent of the available funds for maintenance
within that project for fiscal year 2006.
The President's budget for fiscal year 2008 contains no monies for
construction whereas the Corps of Engineers has the capability of $7
million. We request $7 million for construction for this project.
The President's budget has $4.725 million for maintenance for the
St. Francis Project. The Corps of Engineers has a stated capability of
$23.475 million.
We believe the Corps could adequately use $15 million each year for
maintenance within this basin. We realize there are budgetary
restraints this year and respectively request Congress to approve
funding for maintenance in the St. Francis Basin Project for fiscal
year 2008 in the amount of $23.475 million. This should provide funds
for adequate maintenance of the features within this basin which need
attention annually.
Many positive changes have occurred to and within our sector of our
Nation because of this project. We who live there welcome these
changes. We, local interest, 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 time to
complete this wise investment for our Nation.
A question that could and should be asked is where will we get the
money? True, our Nation is facing record deficits but surely some of
the monies planned to be sent abroad to build, restore and improve
other nations' infrastructure could be reduced substantially and be
used for the benefit of our taxpayers and Nation. Please give this
proposal some thought.
I wish to thank you very much for your time and kind attention and
for taking the time to review the above. 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 once more and act accordingly.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of San Marcos, Texas
SAN MARCOS RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: on behalf of the city
of San Marcos, Texas, I am pleased to submit this statement in support
of our request for an earmark of $439,000 for a U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Section 206 Ecosystem Restoration Project for the San Marcos
River in the fiscal year 2008 bill.
The city of San Marcos seeks this allocation for the development of
the Detailed Project Report/Integrated Environmental Assessment (DPR/
EA) as the next step toward completing a $4,520,000 project with
Federal and local match to restore degraded aquatic and terrestrial
habitat in the upper San Marcos River.
San Marcos is located in south central Texas in Hays County,
approximately 30 miles southwest of Austin, Texas. The proposed
restoration area is located within the city limits of San Marcos along
and within the San Marcos River and its headwaters. The study area
consists of an approximate 1.0-mile stretch of the San Marcos River and
associated riparian corridor. The ecosystem restoration project will
restore and enhance degraded aquatic and terrestrial habitat along and
within the San Marcos River.
The spring-fed San Marcos River offers one of rarest aquatic
ecosystems found in the United States. The headwaters of the river
originate from underground springs from the Edwards Aquifer, producing
millions of gallons of crystal clear, constant temperature water daily.
The river creates a unique ecosystem supporting five threatened or
endangered species that live in the San Marcos River (San Marcos
salamander, fountain darter, Texas wild rice, San Marcos gambusia, and
Comal Springs riffle beetle).
The San Marcos River has attracted humans to its banks for more
than 12,000 years, making San Marcos one of the oldest continuously
inhabited places in the United States. The city of San Marcos has
strived for the past 40 years to protect the river by establishing
parks along its banks and restricting intense development.
Still, the constant use of the popular river over many decades has
impacted the riparian and aquatic habitat of the river, requiring
restoration of this valuable waterway. The San Marcos River and
associated tributaries have experienced aquatic ecosystem degradation
due to a variety of human factors. Impoundment of water upstream, in
its tributaries, and within the study area has altered the normal flow
regime of the San Marcos River. The native aquatic plant communities
within the San Marcos River have been diminished by invasive exotic and
generalist plant species.
Increased nutrient and sediment loads from overland surface flow,
tributary runoff, non-point sources and storm water drainage have
reduced water quality and in-stream habitat values within the river.
The majority of the bottomland plant community within the study area is
highly disturbed and fragmented due primarily to urban encroachment,
installation of hardpan surfaces, recreational disturbance and invasion
of non-native plant species.
This degradation has resulted in the loss of high quality in-stream
and riparian habitat for plant and wildlife species within the study
area. The proposed restoration plan will help restore aquatic and
terrestrial habitat that has degraded due to human activity, including
critical habitat for the federally-listed species.
The city of San Marcos applied for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Section 206 Aquatic Restoration Grant funds in 2002 to turn around the
trend toward degradation in our river corridor. A Preliminary
Restoration Plan (PRP) was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and submitted in March 2003. The PRP was approved and moved
forward to the next phase, the development of a Detailed Project Report
(DPR).
However, at this stage, Federal funding for this program was
reduced, placing the city of San Marcos PRP on the backburner. Funding
this project is essential to restore integrity to the San Marcos River,
the central point of our community for tourism, recreation, and quality
of life.
This project will directly benefit the environment by increasing
biodiversity, carrying capacity, stability and productivity of native
plant and wildlife species endemic to the area. Additional benefits
include improvement of existing recreational opportunities, enhancement
of water quality, and improvement of natural aesthetics.
Specifically, the project will restore and sustain approximately
22.0 acres of riparian woodland habitat, 6.0 acre of tall grass prairie
habitat, 4.0 acres of emergent wetland habitat and 16.0 acres of
aquatic habitat within a highly urbanized area. The total project cost
is estimated at $4,520,000, which will be cost-shared 65 percent
Federal Government and 35 percent city of San Marcos. The Federal share
is $2,938,000 with a local match of $1,582,000.
The only COE Section 206 projects that will now receive funding are
those that have congressional support.
Therefore, we ask you to approve a special appropriation earmark
for $439,000 for the San Marcos River Section 206 Project to fund the
restoration. Thank you for your consideration of this project.
______
Prepared Statement of the St. Francis Levee District of Arkansas
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association fiscal year 2008
Civil Works budget, Mississippi River and Tributaries Appropriations--
Requesting Appropriations of $7 million for Construction and $23.475
million for Maintenance and Operation in the St. Francis Basin Project
and a total of $500 million for the Mississippi River and Tributaries
Project. The reason for this seemingly large request is to be assured
that the Corps of Engineers may fully fund on-going and future
construction contracts as directed in the fiscal year 2006
appropriations act. Our requests are detailed in the tables attached to
this statement.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
My name is Rob Rash, and my home is in Marion, Arkansas, located on
the west side of the Mississippi River and in the St. Francis Basin. I
am the CEO/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, 7 miles above Helena,
Arkansas, a total 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 livelihood and prosperity. 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 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
security 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. The 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 project
completion is of paramount importance to the citizens of the Lower
Mississippi. Ten and Fifteen Mile Bayou improvements are just one of
many construction projects necessary for flood relief in the St.
Francis Basin. Ten and Fifteen Mile Bayou improvements were
reauthorized by Congress through the Flood Control Act of 1928, as
amended. Section 104 of the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2001
modified the St. Francis Basin to expand the project boundaries to
include Ten and Fifteen Mile Bayous and shall not be considered
separable elements. Total project length of 38 miles includes Ten and
Fifteen Mile Bayou, Ditch No. 15 and the 10 Mile Diversion Ditch that
provide flood control for West Memphis and Vicinity. Without additional
funds, construction would be delayed and West Memphis and Vicinity will
continue to experience record flooding as seen December 17, 2001. West
Memphis and Vicinity would experience immediate flood relief when the
first item of construction is completed.
Next I feel that it is imperative that I mention at this time new
policies being implemented by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
in their Map Modernization Program. This is a 5-year program that was
initiated in 2004 and consists of updating the Flood Insurance Rate
Maps. We've been told that 20 percent of all counties nationwide are
scheduled for update.
Of great concern to us and should be of concern to everyone is a
new Zone Designation known as Zone X (Shaded) which will be all the
areas outside the 100-year flood zone protected by levees. In the case
of the Lower Mississippi River Valley, from Cape Girardeau, Missouri to
the Gulf of Mexico, this is an area of some 35,000 square miles or
22,400,000 acres. A warning will be placed on the new Flood Insurance
Rate Maps that will, among other things, state that within this area,
communities should issue evacuation plans and encourage property owners
to purchase flood insurance.
This large area is protected by the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Levees but also by the entire Comprehensive Flood Control
System consisting of not only the well designed, well constructed, well
maintained, massive levees but also bank revetments, river cut-offs,
floodways, floodwalls, diversions, flood storage reservoirs, control
structures and many other improvements that have made certain that no
Mississippi River Main Line Levee has failed since 1928, the year that
Congress directed the Corps of Engineers to build the system. There
have been a number of floods of record proportions since 1928 but not
one failure. The American Taxpayer has invested billions of dollars in
this system and their money up to now has been well spent. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency seems to think it has been wasted. Not so!
The Design Flood for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project
is to protect against a flood predicted by the Weather Bureau as the
``Maximum Possible'' and provides for the disposal of all water
predicted as possible. This unwarranted new Zone X (Shaded) on Flood
Insurance Rate Maps will have a dramatic and costly burden on all the
residents, businesses and industries along the Lower Mississippi River
and its Tributaries and this economic disaster will be felt over this
entire Nation. The language proposed will frighten Lenders and
Companies looking for Industrial Sites, impact Crop Loans as well as
causing millions of dollars to be spent for unnecessary flood insurance
premiums. This is such a serious matter that we would suggest strongly
that the appropriate congressional committees hold hearings on this
matter to determine what if any engineering basis the Federal Emergency
Management Agency used to develop this new policy.
PROPOSED FUNDING
We support the amount of $500 million 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 capabilities of $7 million for the St. Francis Basin Project
construction funds and $23.475 million for the 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.
SUMMATION
With the tragedy that struck the Gulf Coast, we must now turn our
attention to the future and attempt to make certain that at least the
flooding does not take place again. We can prevent that; the Dutch, the
English and the Italians have done it and so can we if we treat flood
control as something that we must do. The citizens of this great Nation
deserve it.
There are four anomalies of nature that cause death and destruction
to our Nation. They are: (1) earthquakes; (2) hurricanes; (3)
tornadoes; and, (4) floods. The first three we can do very little if
anything about except to prepare for the worst. We can build protection
against floods, against the ``maximum probable flood,'' one that has an
``improbable occurrence but nevertheless a remotely possible one.''
In order to provide such protection we believe that three things
must be done.
First, the environmental laws, or at least the way they are
interpreted for flood control projects, must be changed or we stand to
lose more lives and have another absolute environmental catastrophe
such as the one we have witnessed in New Orleans and along the Gulf
Coast. Second, cancel all cost-sharing for flood control projects
unless we do intend to only protect those that can afford it and ignore
those that can not. Third, relax the requirements for the benefits-to-
cost ratio for flood control projects for one reason, it is impossible
to assign a dollar value to a human life. It is our opinion that these
things must be done, for without flood control, nothing else really
matters.
Again, we thank the Congress and this committee for all your help
in the past and thank you in advance for your kind considerations of
our requests for fiscal year 2008.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECT AND STATE MVFCA REQUEST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wappapello Lake, MO..................................... $14,000,000
Mississippi River Levees................................ 34,538,000
Mississippi River Channel Maintenance................... 72,549,000
Memphis Harbor, TN...................................... 2,866,000
Helena Harbor, AR....................................... 563,000
Greenville Harbor, MS................................... 372,000
Vicksburg Harbor, MS.................................... 445,000
St. Francis River & Tribs., AR.......................... 23,475,000
White River Backwater, AR............................... 1,440,000
North Bank, Arkansas River, AR.......................... 270,000
South Bank, Arkansas River, AR.......................... 257,000
Boeuf & Tensas Rivers, LA............................... 7,447,000
Red River Backwater, LA................................. 5,500,000
Yazoo Basin, Sardis Lake, MS............................ 14,784,000
Yazoo Basin, Arkabutla Lake, MS......................... 9,975,000
Yazoo Basin, Enid Lake, MS.............................. 10,927,000
Yazoo Basin, Grenada Lake, MS........................... 11,299,000
Yazoo Basin, Greenwood, MS.............................. 2,438,000
Yazoo Basin, Yazoo City, MS............................. 694,000
Yazoo Basin, Main Stem, MS.............................. 3,525,000
Yazoo Basin, Tributaries, MS............................ 1,018,000
Yazoo Basin, Whittington Aux Channel, MS................ 191,000
Yazoo Basin, Big Sunflower, MS.......................... 2,196,000
Yazoo Basin, Yazoo Backwater, MS........................ 979,000
Lower Red River, South Bank, LA......................... 80,000
Bonnet Carre, LA........................................ 4,857,000
Old River, LA........................................... 21,243,000
Atchafalaya Basin, LA................................... 28,641,000
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, LA.......................... 2,609,000
Baton Rouge Harbor Devil's Swamp, LA.................... 717,000
Mississippi Delta Region, LA............................ 225,000
Bayou Cocodrie & Tribs, LA.............................. 41,000
Inspection of Completed Works........................... 1,987,000
Mapping................................................. 1,521,000
---------------
TOTAL MR&T MAINTENANCE............................ 283,669,000
===============
CONSTRUCTION:
Surveying and Mapping............................... 16,770,000
St. John's Bayou-New Madrid Floodway, MO............ 13,300,000
Grand Prairie Region, AR............................ 37,800,000
Bayou Meto, AR...................................... 22,450,000
Nonconnah Creek, TN................................. 500,000
St. Francis Basin, MO & AR.......................... 7,000,000
Yazoo Basin, MS..................................... 67,125,000
Atchafalaya Basin, LA............................... 34,000,000
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, LA...................... 10,894,000
MS Delta Region, LA................................. 722,000
Channel Improvements, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS & LA... 64,547,000
Mississippi River Levees, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS & 98,352,000
LA.................................................
---------------
SUBTOTAL--CONSTRUCTION............................ 356,690,000
SUBTOTAL--MAINTENANCE............................. 283,669,000
SUBTOTAL--MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES......... 657,129,000
LESS REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS & SLIPPAGES.................. 157,129,000
---------------
GRAND TOTAL--MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES...... 500,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: This statement is
prepared by Peter Nimrod, Chief Engineer for the Board of Mississippi
Levee Commissioners, Greenville, Mississippi, and submitted on behalf
of the Board and the citizens of the Mississippi 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 Mississippi Levee District. The Mississippi
Levee Board and the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association
support an appropriation of $500 million for fiscal year 2008 for the
Mississippi River & Tributaries Project. This is the minimum amount
that we consider necessary to allow for an orderly completion of the
remaining work in the Valley and to provide for the operation and
maintenance, as required, to prevent further deterioration of the
completed flood control and navigation work.
It is apparent that the administration loses sight of the fact that
the Mississippi River & Tributaries Project provides protection to the
Lower Mississippi Valley from waters generated across 41 percent of the
continental United States. These waters flow from 31 States and 2
provinces of Canada and must pass through the Lower Mississippi Valley
on its way to the Gulf of Mexico. We will remind you that the
Mississippi River & Tributaries Project is one of, if not the most cost
effective project ever undertaken by the United States Government. The
foresight of the Congress in their authorization of the many features
of this project is exemplary.
The many projects that are part of the Mississippi River &
Tributaries Project not only provide protection from flooding in the
area, but the award of construction contracts throughout the Valley
provides assistance to the overall economy of this area that is also
encompassed by the Delta Regional Authority. The employment of the
local workforce and purchases from local vendors by the contractors
help stabilize the economy in one of the most impoverished areas of our
country.
Thanks to the additional funding provided by the Congress over the
last several years over and above the administration's budget, work on
the Mainline Mississippi River Levee Enlargement Project is continuing.
Of the original 69 miles of deficient levees in the Mississippi Levee
District, 12.7 miles of work has been completed, 19.3 miles are
currently under contract, and another 7.9 miles will be awarded in
fiscal year 2008. Right of way has been acquired and the bids for 3.4
miles of work were opened in November 2005. With the combined crippling
effect of the elimination of continuing contracts and the restrictions
on reprogramming authorities, this item was terminated. Of the 19.3
miles currently under contract, the Corps had to negotiate a work
``slow-down'' because of a lack of sufficient funds for the contractor
to work at full performance. This will push completion of these
deficient areas out another year! We are requesting $98.35 million for
construction on the Mainline Mississippi River Levees in the Lower
Mississippi Valley Division which will allow the Vicksburg and Memphis
districts to keep existing contracts on schedule and award contracts to
avoid any future unnecessary delays in completing this vital project.
We are all well aware that the Valley some day will have to endure a
Project Flood, we just don't know when. We must be prepared.
The President's fiscal year 2008 budget did not include funding for
any construction projects within the Yazoo Basin. These are all
projects authorized and funded so wisely by the Congress. This action
is especially difficult to understand during a time when our Nation
needs an economic boost. All of these projects are encompassed in the
footprint of the Delta Regional Authority, an area recognized by the
Congress as requiring special economic assistance to keep pace with the
rest of our great Nation. We can not lose sight of the fact that all of
these projects are required to return more than $1 in benefits for each
$1 spent. No project authorized and funded by the Congress should be
indiscriminately terminated without the benefit of having the
opportunity to complete the study process and subsequent construction
after complying with the Corps Policy and Guidelines.
The Final Report for the Yazoo Backwater Project will be released
this year. The Yazoo Backwater Project will provide economic and
environmental benefits to parts of six counties in the south
Mississippi Delta. This project will build a pump that will evacuate
floodwater that is generated over 4,093 square miles in the Mississippi
Delta. The pump will lower the 100 year flood event by 4.5 feet thereby
reducing urban and rural structural damages, providing benefits to the
remaining agricultural lands, and reducing the frequency and duration
of floods. Reforestation easements will be purchased on up to 55,600
acres of existing agricultural land which will provide benefits in
every environmental category--wetlands, terrestrial, aquatics, and
waterfowl resources as well as vastly improving water quality. The
recommended plan for the Yazoo Backwater Project will balance economics
with the environment. This is a model project that should be the
standard for future public works projects in the United States. We are
requesting this project be funded by the Congress in the amount of $15
million. These funds will allow the Corps to begin acquisition of the
reforestation easements and initiate the award of the pump supply
contract.
The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Big
Sunflower River Maintenance Project will be released later this year.
This maintenance project will restore flood control capacities to 130
miles of channels by removing sediment that has built up over the past
40 years since the channels were originally improved. Our request for
$2.196 million will allow right-of-way acquisition to continue and for
the award of the first dredging contract. The residents in the
Mississippi Delta continue to suffer damages from flooding while they
wait for this maintenance project to reach their area.
Work on the Delta Headwaters Project has proven effective in
reducing sediments to downstream channels. To discontinue this project
will only increase sediment in downstream channels diminishing water
quality, reducing the level of protection to the citizens of the Delta
and increasing required maintenance. We are requesting $25 million to
continue this project.
The Upper Yazoo Project is critical to the Delta. The Corps of
Engineers operates 4 major flood control reservoirs on the bluff hills
overlooking the Mississippi Delta. These reservoirs hold back heavy
spring rains and must have adequate outlet channel capacity to pass
this excess runoff during the summer and fall months. Without
completion of the Upper Yazoo Project, the Corps is forced to hold
flood water from the previous spring, thereby reducing the ability to
provide protection from the current year's flood water. We urge the
Congress to provide $22.5 million allowing construction to continue and
the award of additional channel enlargement items. With this
appropriation, work can be completed to Glendora which will provide
relief to Marks, Mississippi.
Maintenance of completed works cannot be overlooked. The four flood
control reservoirs overlooking the Delta have been in place for 50
years and have functioned as designed. Required maintenance must be
performed to avoid any possibility of failure during a flood event. We
are asking for $10.875 million for Arkabutla Lake, $15.042 million for
Sardis Lake, $10.927 million for Enid Lake, and $11.38 million for
Grenada Lake. Additional funding will be used to place rip rap, add
needed infrastructure, and repair and upgrade existing infrastructure
around all the lakes.
We are requesting $34.5 million for Maintenance of the Mainline
Mississippi River Levees in the Lower Mississippi Valley Division which
will provide for repair of levee slides, slope repair, and repair of
the gravel maintenance roadway which is so vital to access during high
water.
I have reviewed a great deal of information regarding the needs of
providing flood protection to our area. Another major feature of the
Mississippi River & Tributaries Project relates to navigation interests
along the Mississippi River. Several of our ports have been informed
that the President's budget does not include enough funding for
Critical Harbor Dredging necessary to keep these harbors opened for
navigation. Our port commissioners have been notified that lack of
annual dredging will cause these ports to be a hazard to navigation and
be shut down. This will impact the movement of over 4.5 million tons of
cargo being shipped on our waterways annually from these ports. This
equates to an additional 180,000 truck loads per year of products on
our highways. It is imperative that funding be made available for
Critical Harbor Dredging to allow continued operation of these
facilities, which are key features to the economic growth of the
region.
The Conference Report for Energy & Water Development Appropriations
Act, 2006 funded the MR&T Project with $400 million. Unfortunately, the
Conference Report included detrimental language that has crippled the
Corps ability to get the MR&T Project done in a timely, efficient, and
economically feasible way. The Conference Report eliminated the
Continuing Contracts Clause that allowed the Corps to bid projects
without all the funding in place before the project starts. This will
significantly slow down all of our Corps projects. There have been no
new starts in fiscal year 2006 or fiscal year 2007 for our critical
Levee Enlargement & Berms Project because of this elimination. The
Corps has used Continuing Contracts since 1922! The Corps of Engineers
must be able to utilize Continuing Contracts on the MR&T Project.
The Conference Report also included Reprogramming Authorities
restrictions which is limiting the Corps of Engineers ability to shift
monies within the MR&T Project. Reprogramming Authorities allow money
to move from one project that is behind schedule to another project
that is ahead of schedule. The reprogramming authority is now very
limited. Money is being wasted to ``slow-down'' and stop existing on-
going work because of the language! The Reprogramming Authority
restrictions must be relaxed for the MR&T Project in order for the
Corps of Engineers to make maximum use of appropriations that Congress
provides.
In conclusion, the Conference Report for 2006 was a record year for
funding levels for the MR&T Project. The inclusion of the detrimental
language of Reprogramming Authority restrictions and the elimination of
Continuing Contracts Clause has crippled the Corps of Engineers ability
to wisely spend that money that Congress has so wisely appropriated. We
must remove this detrimental language in the fiscal year 2008
appropriations. The President's fiscal year 2008 budget for the MR&T
Project provides only $260 million which is terribly inadequate and
will not allow the Corps to proceed in the most economical manner.
On another note, new policies are being implemented by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in their Map Modernization Program.
A new zone designation will show a shaded ``Zone X'' outside the 100
year flood zone but protected by levees. The entire Mississippi Delta
is protected by the levee! An attached ``Warning'' will be on new Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) stating that the levee could fail! This will
have a dramatic & costly affect to residents, businesses & industries
along the Lower Mississippi River. New businesses will be frightened to
build in a ``flood zone.'' Flood insurance rates will increase. Our
Mainline Mississippi River Levee system has not failed since the Corps
built the current levee system in 1928! This is a needless and reckless
act by FEMA as a result of failures on some hurricane protection levees
in New Orleans in 2005 during Hurricane Katrina.
As members of the Congress representing the citizens of our Nation
who live with the Mississippi River everyday, you clearly understand
both the benefits provided by this resource, and the destructive force
that must be controlled during a flood. On behalf of the Mississippi
Levee Board, I cannot express enough, our appreciation for your efforts
in providing adequate funding over the last several years that has
allowed construction to continue on our much needed projects and thank
you in advance for your kind considerations of our requests for fiscal
year 2008.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Arlington, Texas
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the city
of Arlington, Texas, I am pleased to submit this statement for the
record in support of our request for funding in the amount of $9.75
million in the fiscal year 2008 Appropriation Bill for Energy and Water
Development to support the city's continued efforts to reduce flood
damage, improve public safety, reduce erosion and sedimentation, and
enhance wildlife habitat and passive recreation within the Johnson
Creek corridor through Arlington, Texas.
PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Johnson Creek, a tributary of the Trinity River, has been the topic
of extensive study by the Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the city of
Arlington, Texas (city) since the early 1980's due to a history of
flooding, extensive erosion and sedimentation, recreational challenges
and opportunities, and important wildlife habitat.
In 1990, the Corps proposed to address flooding by planning and
allocating funds to channel and line with concrete substantial
stretches of Johnson Creek. The city rejected this plan on the grounds
that it provided flood relief at the expense of recreational
opportunities, wildlife habitat and economic development. The city
adopted in 1997 a more holistic alternative called the Johnson Creek
Corridor Plan that received wide community support but was not
fundable. In 1999, the Corps prepared an Interim Feasibility Report and
Integrated Environmental Assessment for Johnson Creek in Arlington. The
document recommended a National Economic Development (NED) Plan for
flood damage reduction that also addressed the city's desires for
enhanced wildlife habitat and recreation in the Johnson Creek corridor.
In 2000, the city adopted the Corps' 1999 plan to purchase homes within
the floodplain of Johnson Creek, create linear parks with trails, and
acquire and restore open space for wildlife habitat and recreation.
In 2004, subsequent to the city's contract with the Corps, the city
entered into a partnership with the Dallas Cowboys to build a new
football stadium adjacent to the Texas Rangers' venue and land
purchased and restored as part of the 1999 plan. In 2005, the Corps'
1999 plan was amended to remove approximately 90 acres of city-owned
land north of Union Pacific Railroad tracks.
During ecological investigations associated with design and master
plan development of the football stadium, a number of critical issues
arose that the 1999 plan (as amended in 2005) only partially addressed.
The city realized that a holistic, watershed approach, in conjunction
with maximizing the use of on-site best management practices (BMPs),
would be required to truly address flooding, water quality, and
wildlife habitat/recreation issues at Johnson Creek. The challenge was
that deviations from 1999 plan, which largely has been implemented,
require explicit authorization from Congress.
In March 2006, the city prepared a watershed conservation plan
entitled Johnson Creek: A Vision of Conservation that modifies the
1999/2005 authorized plan. The modified plan allows the city to: (1)
implement and modify, if necessary, unfinished components of the 1999/
2005 plan; (2) design and construct new bank stabilization, flood
control, recreation, and habitat restoration projects on public lands
and easements along Johnson Creek; (3) acquire and/or receive
reimbursement for an additional 90 acres of environmental lands within
Trinity River and/or Rush/Village Creek floodplain; and (4) obtain
reimbursement for new acquisitions, if desired, and for the use of city
parks for funded Federal projects.
Total project cost to implement the modified plan is estimated at
$79,997,666, including contingency. This includes $30,000,000 in sunk
costs for completed Johnson Creek projects.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The modified plan is divided into a minimum of two phases as
summarized below:
Phase 1 includes property between Sanford Street and Randol Mill
Road, plus a tributary of Johnson Creek south of the Dallas Cowboys
stadium project. Phase 1 was selected for a variety of reasons as
follow: (1) the riparian corridor has high potential for restoration to
improve wildlife habitat, water quality, and recreational
opportunities; (2) the property is owned by the city; (3) a significant
portion of existing environmental stresses, particularly erosion and
sedimentation, occur within this area; (4) the city has identified this
area as an entertainment district; and (5) this area includes the
future Dallas Cowboys stadium, the existing Texas Rangers stadium, and
a future Arlington, Texas town center called Glorypark. These
developers have all agreed to provide matching money for the city to
improve the green space within this corridor for environmental benefits
listed above. Phase 1 work will provide the catalyst and inspiration
for future work throughout the remainder of the watershed.
Phase 1 work is all new work and includes constructing a detention/
sedimentation basin and overflow swale just west of the Stone Gate
Mobile Park; bank stabilization and creek restoration including
additional overflow swales; installing a pedestrian bridge across
Johnson Creek; providing trails and other passive recreational
amenities; and enhancing remaining green space for wildlife habitat. A
regional detention/sedimentation basin proposed between Sanford Street
and Division Street may be included in Phase 1 work if funding becomes
available in time.
Phase 2 includes all remaining work upstream of the Phase 1 site
area between Sanford Street and Vandergriff Park, and 90 acres of
environmental land within Trinity River and/or Rush/Village Creek
floodplain. Within the Johnson Creek corridor, Phase 2 work will occur
within three main areas. At Vandergriff, Meadowbrook, and Julia Burgen
Parks, proposed activities include creating a detention/sedimentation
basin; restoring eroded creek banks and creek restoration; enhancing
passive recreational opportunities using trails and other amenities;
and enhancing wildlife habitat. Possible acquisition of three homes
between Collins Street and Park Row Avenue may also occur as part of
Phase 2.
The city has long recognized that the ecological health of Johnson
Creek and its contributing watershed are inextricably tied to the
quality of life of its residents. In this light, the city hopes to
develop a stronger link between its residents and its natural
surroundings by restoring the creek, and, in doing so, revitalizing the
community. Immediate local benefits include flood damage protection,
habitat restoration, improved water quality and public health,
increased access to Johnson Creek for passive recreation, elevated
community pride, and economic redevelopment. The project complements
larger, regional efforts to improve water quality and maximize the
function of floodplain communities in the Trinity River watershed.
Nearly all local benefits also contribute to statewide water quality,
stormwater management, flood control, and environmental planning
efforts by the North Central Texas Council of Government, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Corps
of Engineers, Texas Parks and Wildlife, and Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality.
FUNDING NEEDS
The modified plan, which includes completed components of the 1999/
2005 plan and new Johnson Creek projects as described above, has a
total estimated cost of $79,997,666, of which 35 percent will be
provided by the city.
For fiscal year 2008, the city of Arlington, Texas is seeking $9.75
million from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Programs account through
your Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee.
Thank you for your consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of Illinois
The State of Illinois supports the following projects in the
administration's fiscal year 2008 budget proposal:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SURVEYS:
Illinois River Basin Restoration.................... $400,000
Great Lakes Navigation System Study................. 800,000
CONSTRUCTION:
Chain of Rocks Canal................................ 4,500,000
Chicago Shoreline................................... 9,000,000
Des Plains River--Phase 1........................... 6,620,000
East St. Louis Flood Protection Rehab............... 2,500,000
Illinois Waterway, Lockport Lock & Dam (Dam Safety). 20,445,000
McCook and Thornton Reservoir....................... 33,500,000
Miss River Btwn. Ohio & Mo Rivers (Reg. Works)...... 2,100,000
Olmsted Lock & Dam.................................. 104,000,000
Upper Mississippi River Restoration................. 23,464,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 $142.4 million for
operation and maintenance for the Corps Districts in Illinois, the
administration has modified the structure of the O&M account by
shifting the funding for rehabilitation projects to this account. This
skews the O&M account funds, and the disaggregated numbers form the
administration's budget indicate the Corps' future viability and
commitment to maintain the inland waterway system, water supply and
recreational reservoirs, and to maintain an operational and forecast
dependent streamgaging network, can severely be impacted. As an
example, there is a need for an additional $14.7 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 $27.5
million.
Illinois also supports the administration's funding to the Corps
for Lake Michigan diversion accounting. However, we request an
additional $350,000 for the Corps to ensure that they have adequate
appropriations to reconvene the Technical Committee for the accounting
system to fulfill their dual measurement and accounting
responsibilities.
Additionally, the contamination in the Inner Harbor area of
Waukegan Harbor warrants designation of the harbor as an ``Area of
Concern'' by the International Joint Commission. There is an ongoing
USEPA Legacy Act project to identify an acceptable disposal site for a
total clean up of the contaminants in the inner Harbor. The Corps of
Engineers is a partner in that effort. One million dollars is the
minimum needed to complete maintenance dredging of the contaminated
outer harbor shoaling.
ADDITIONAL FUNDING PRIORITIES
The State of Illinois also recommends that additional funding be
provided for the following projects, which are listed in the general
priority order, in the fiscal year 2008 Corps of Engineers' budget:
Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier
The State of Illinois has been working closely with the Chicago
District and other Great Lakes agencies at both the Federal and State
level to keep Asian Carp from reaching the Great Lakes through the
Chicago Waterway system. We entered into a Project Cooperation
Agreement with the Corps to construct a second, more effective and
permanent electrical barrier in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
using the Corps' section 1135 program, and have contributed $1.8
million in State funds along with $475,000 from the other 7 Great Lakes
States to match the Corps' contribution. Also, there has been unanimous
agreement throughout the Great Lakes community that Congress needs to
authorize and fund the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to construct,
operate and maintain a barrier control system. However, for the first
time since Congress authorized the Corps to construct an aquatic
nuisance species demonstration barrier in 1990 at 100 percent Federal
cost, the President's proposed budget is asking the State of Illinois
to contribute 25 percent of the total cost to make this barrier
permanent. The President's proposed budget is also requiring the State
of Illinois to contribute an additional $1,725,000 (this is in addition
to the $1.8 million Illinois has already contributed along with
$475,000 from the other 7 Great Lakes States) to allow the Corps to
complete construction of Barrier II. Finally, this budget requires
Illinois to fully fund the operation and maintenance of both barriers,
which the Corps has estimated could run as high as $1.0 million per
year. Therefore, the State of Illinois urges that the Corps receives
$1.1 million to start construction on making the demonstration barrier
permanent, and $6.9 million to complete Phase IIB of the Barrier II
construction at full Federal expense, and an additional $1.0 million to
carry out the operation and maintenance of both Dispersal Barrier
projects annually.
The Chicago Harbor 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
2008 budget for this purpose. To rehabilitate the lock in fiscal year
2008, Illinois requests $7.0 million, which would primarily be used to
fund the fabrication of two new gates for the west end of the lock.
Illinois River Basin Restoration
Section 519 of Water Resources Development Act 2000 authorized the
Illinois River Basin Restoration. The fiscal year 2008 budget request
proposes $400,000 in General Investigations funds for a comprehensive
plan. However, the State of Illinois requests that this be increased to
$2.0 million in General Investigation funds to complete much of the
comprehensive plan that has been developed under other authorizations.
Additionally, the State of Illinois requests $8.5 million of
Construction General funds to continue construction in fiscal year 2008
of the projects that were authorized in section 519 as providing
substantial restoration and environmental benefits through the
comprehensive plan.
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 $68.3 million for the implementation of the six
recommended projects. The Federal share is approximately $44.4 million
(65 percent) and the estimated non-Federal cost is $23.9 million. While
$6.6 million is designated to the levee 37 element of this project in
this year's budget request, we are requesting an additional $3.0
million in the fiscal year 2008 budget to continue work with the
remaining elements of the project.
Upper Mississippi and Illinois Waterway System Navigation Project
It has been more than 2 years since the Corps completed the
feasibility phase of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Waterway System
Navigation Study, issuing the final feasibility report and Chief's
Report in 2004. While Congress has not authorized construction yet, it
has provided funding for Pre-construction, Engineering and Design
(PED). Thus, Illinois is requesting an appropriation of $24.0 million
for the Corps of Engineers to continue PED, and if authorized for
construction, we recommend construction funding of $16.0 million. The
proposed fiscal year 2008 budget contains no funding for this project.
Chouteau Island (Ecosystem Restoration)
The Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, is continuing the
feasibility study for ecosystem restoration for the Chouteau Island,
Illinois, project authorized under section 514 (Missouri and Middle
Mississippi Rivers Enhancement Project) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-53). The project is focusing on
ecosystem restoration on IDNR-owned land on Chouteau, Gabaret, and
Mosenthein Islands in Madison County. Illinois requests an
appropriation of $150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the
Feasibility Study and initiate Design for the Chouteau Island,
Illinois, project. The fiscal year 2008 budget contains no specific
funding for this project.
Peoria Riverfront Development
We request the addition of $250,000 in General Investigations funds
to finalize the design of the Lower Island of the Peoria Riverfront
project. The fiscal year 2008 budget contains no funding for this
purpose. The increase is needed to meet the design and construction
schedule.
Des Plaines River Feasibility Study--Phase Two
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 $25,000,000 in 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 of Illinois, Lake County, Cook
County, and Kenosha County all have appropriated funds under contract
for cost sharing in the Phase II study effort. Currently, the fiscal
year 2008 budget contains no funding to continue the Phase II study
effort. Illinois requests an appropriation of $500,000 of General
Investigation funds to continue the feasibility study in fiscal year
2008.
East St. Louis & Vicinity (Ecosystem Restoration & Flood Damage
Protection)
The Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, is continuing design of
the project for ecosystem restoration and flood damage reduction 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 ecosystem
restoration 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 continue the Pre-Engineering and Design and documentation
of the East St. Louis and Vicinity Project. Currently, the fiscal year
2008 budget contains no funding for this purpose.
KANKAKEE STATE LINE
We urge you to include $300,000 to fund the design and
implementation phase of the State Line Kankakee Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration Act Project that was authorized under section 206 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996, as amended. We are concerned
that the funding level for section 206 Continuing Authorities Projects
requested in the President's budget for fiscal year 2008 is not
adequate to insure continuation of this project.
Wood River Levee
The Wood River Drainage and Levee District protects an urban and
industrial area in the Mississippi River flood plain in Madison County,
Illinois, upstream of the city of East St. Louis. Problems with the
integrity of the flood protection system were documented during the
1993 flood including unexpected seepage problems that had to be handled
as an emergency. The proposed project addresses both design deficiency
and reconstruction issues. The design deficiency portion of the project
has been approved; the reconstruction portion requires new
authorization. The recommended actions are required to maintain the
system's authorized level of protection. Illinois requests an
appropriation of $700,000 for the design deficiency portion of the
project for the Corps of Engineers to execute a Project Cooperation
Agreement, construct a portion of the relief wells, and continue relief
well design. The fiscal year 2008 budget contains no funding for this
project.
Melvin Price Lock and Dam
The State of Illinois also requests $750,000 funding for the Corps
to continue the cost-shared recreation facilities with the city of
Alton and $2,400,000 to continue design and construction of punch list
items. The fiscal year 2008 budget contains no funding for this
project.
Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management Plan
Section 509 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
reauthorized the Upper Mississippi River System Environmental
Management Program (EMP). In its 20 years of existence, the EMP has
become the most significant effort to restore and protect the natural
resource values of the Upper Mississippi River. While $23.64 million is
in this year's budget request, we believe this level of funding is
below the point that Corps can efficiently continue with the program.
To pursue this program efficiently, we believe this program should be
pursued at the reauthorized level of $33.25 million as described in
section 509 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999.
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 3-year study to address water resource and related land
resource problems and opportunities in the Upper Mississippi and
Illinois River Basins. We are requesting that $686,000 be provided in
the Corps of Engineers General Investigations funding to advance the
Upper Mississippi Comprehensive Plan to completion.
Sections 204, 206, and 1135 Enhancement Projects
Section 204, 206, 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.
______
Prepared Statement of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and
the City of Mesa, Arizona
Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Domenici, and distinguished members
of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing us to testify on behalf of
the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) and the city of
Mesa in support of a fiscal year 2008 appropriation of $1.6 million for
the Va Shly'ay Akimel, Arizona, project of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. This project will restore a degraded stretch of the Salt
River in central Arizona, and it is critically important to the
environmental ecosystem for the tribe, the city, and the region.
Construction of dams on the Salt River has damaged vegetation and
wetlands along the Salt River basin. The Va Shly'ay Akimel project will
restore ecosystem functions and value to a 14-mile reach of the river,
within the Indian Community and the City of Mesa. The restoration
project will improve approximately 1,487 acres of habitat, including
883 acres of cottonwood/willow community, 380 acres of mesquite bosque,
200 acres of wetlands, and 24 acres of Sonoran Desert scrub shrub.
Restoration of this resource is particularly significant within the
urban setting because riparian areas in the Southwest represent only 1
percent of the landscape, yet the survival of 75-90 percent of wildlife
in the West is dependant on riparian areas. In Arizona, over 90 percent
of riparian areas have been lost due to impacts from European
settlement and urbanization.
Mr. Chairman, because of this subcommittee's efforts, over $4
million has been appropriated for the feasibility and preconstruction
engineering and design phases of the Va Shly'ay Akimel project over the
last 6 fiscal years. We are extremely grateful for the subcommittee's
ongoing support of the project.
As a result of this prior funding, substantial progress is being
made and the work needs to be continued. A Feasibility Study and
Environmental Impact Study were completed in January 2005, determining
the preferred plan for environmental restoration. Further project
accomplishments in fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 included
initiation of the design phase, mapping, completion of a value
engineering study, initiation of Geotech Investigations, and
preliminary engineering.
For fiscal year 2008, the Corps has a capability to utilize $1.6
million for continued PED, but the President's budget proposal only
includes $658,000 for the project. Therefore, we request that the
subcommittee will provide this higher level of funding in order to
contain long-term costs and maintain an optimal project schedule.
As non-federal sponsors of this project, the SRPMIC and the city of
Mesa fully recognize the importance of restoring the Salt River's
environmental integrity as soon as possible. As a consequence, the
tribe and city are committed to discharging the requisite cost-sharing
obligations associated with the project at the higher funding level
next year.
We also note that, as far as we know, this project is the only one
in the Nation featuring a joint cost-share agreement between an Indian
tribe and a local community. This makes it a unique project of the
Corps of Engineers. We believe that our example of municipal-tribal
cooperation can serve as a model for future joint projects of tribal
communities and local governments.
In conclusion, given the progress thus far, scope, and
environmental impacts, it is critically important that the Va Shly'ay
Akimel project remain on an optimal schedule. Again, because the Corps
has a maximum capability of fully utilizing $1.6 million for continued
PED on this project in fiscal year 2008, we ask that the subcommittee
fund that amount.
Thank you for your favorable consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation
District, Texas
We express full support of the inclusion of the full capability of
the USACE for fiscal year 2008 for construction of the project to
deepen and widen Cedar Bayou, Texas.
President's budget included $0.
Funds needed in fiscal year 2008--$9,056,000 (Construction
General).
HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
The Rivers and Harbor Act of 1890 originally authorized navigation
improvements to Cedar Bayou. The project was reauthorized in 1930 to
provide a 10-foot deep and 100-foot 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 study for an
improvement to a 12-foot by 125-foot channel from the Houston Ship
Channel Mile 3 to Cedar Bayou Mile 11 at the State Highway 146 Bridge.
The Texas Legislature created the Chambers County-Cedar Bayou
Navigation District in 1997 as an entity to improve the navigability of
Cedar Bayou. The district was created to accomplish the purpose of
Section 59, Article 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. Corps studies have indicated that the
preferred plan is to widen the channel to 100 feet and deepen it to 10
feet which is the current plan of action.
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 4 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, U.S. Filter,
Recovery Services and Dorsett Brothers Concrete, to name a few.
PROJECT COSTS AND BENEFITS
Congress appropriated $100,000 in fiscal year 2001 for the Corps of
Engineers to conduct the feasibility study to determine the Federal
interest in this improvement project. The study indicated a benefit to
cost ratio of the project of 2.8 to 1. The estimated total cost of the
project is $16.8 million with a Federal share estimated at $11.9
million and the non-federal sponsor share of approximately $4.9
million. Total annual benefits are estimated to be $4.8 million, with a
net benefit of $3 million. Congress thus far has appropriated nearly
$1.7 million for this project.
It has also become an important project for the Port of Houston
Authority--the Nation's busiest port in foreign tonnage. They hope to
institute a container on barge facility as soon as this project is
accomplished. We would appreciate the subcommittee's support of the
required add of the $9,056,000 for construction of this important
improvement project. The users of the channel deserve to have the
benefits of a safer, most cost-effective Federal waterway.
CURRENT STATUS
In July 2006, the project feasibility report was accepted and
approved by Asst. Secretary of the Army John P. Woodley. The PED will
be completed early fall this calendar year. The project will then be
ready for construction. The USACE capability of $9,056,000 for fiscal
year 2008 represents the total Federal share of construction of the
project.
______
Prepared Statement of the Brazos River Harbor Navigation District,
Freeport, Texas
We express full support of the inclusion in the fiscal year 2008
budget for the full capability of the USACE of $721,000--General
Investigation; $11,738,000--O&M.
President's budget included $721,000--General Investigation;
$5,735,000 O&M.
Additional funds needed for fiscal year 2008 $4,003,000--O&M.
HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
Port Freeport is an autonomous governmental entity authorized by an
act of the Texas Legislature in 1925. It is a deep-draft port, located
on Texas' central Gulf Coast, approximately 60 miles southwest of
Houston, and is an important Brazos River Navigation District
component. The port elevation is 3 to 12 feet above sea level. Port
Freeport is governed by a board of six commissioners (soon to increase
to seven) elected by the voters of the Navigation District of Brazoria
County, which currently encompasses 85 percent of the county. Port
Freeport land and operations currently include 186 acres of developed
land and 7,723 acres of undeveloped land, 5 operating berths, a 45-foot
deep Freeport Harbor Channel and a 70-foot deep sink hole. Future
expansion includes building a 1,300-acre multi-modal facility, cruise
terminal and container terminal.
Port Freeport is conveniently accessible by rail, waterway and
highway routes. There is direct access to the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway, Brazos River Diversion Channel, and, State Highways 36 and
288. Located just 3 miles from deep water, Port Freeport is one of the
most accessible ports on the Gulf Coast.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water Appropriations signed into
law included a $100,000 appropriation to allow the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) to conduct a reconnaissance study to
determine the Federal interest in an improvement project for Freeport
Harbor, Texas. The USACE, in cooperation with the Brazos River Harbor
Navigation District as the local sponsor, has completed that study. The
report indicates that ``transportation savings in the form of National
Economic Development Benefits (NED) appear to substantially exceed the
cost of project implementation,'' thus confirming ``a strong federal
interest in conducting the feasibility study of navigation improvements
at Freeport Harbor.'' Congress has to date appropriated over $2.6
million for this project.
Port Freeport has the opportunity to solidify significant new
business for Texas with this improvement project. In addition, the
improvement to the environment by taking a huge number of trucks off of
the road, transporting goods more economically and environmentally
sensitive by waterborne commerce is infinitely important to the
community, the State, and the Nation. Moreover, the enhanced safety of
a wider channel cannot be overstated. The emergence of an LNG facility
at Port Freeport--a joint venture of Conoco-Philips and Cheniere Energy
further solidifies the importance of keeping this critical waterway at
optimum depth and width.
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PORT FREEPORT
Port Freeport is 13th in foreign tonnage in the United States. It
is responsible for augmenting the Nation's economy by over $7 billion
annually and generating over nearly 24,000 jobs in Texas, over 7,000
direct. It also augments the economy by providing annual State and
local taxes of over $150,000 and an additional of over $300 million in
Federal tax revenues. Its chief import commodities are bananas, fresh
fruit and aggregate while top export commodities are rice and
chemicals. The port's growth has been staggering in the past decade,
becoming one of the fastest growing ports on the Gulf Coast. Port
Freeport's economic impact and its future growth is justification for
its budding partnership with the Federal Government in this critical
improvement project.
DEFENSE SUPPORT OF OUR NATION
Port Freeport is a strategic port in times of National Defense of
our Nation. It houses a critically important petroleum oil reserve--
Bryan Mound. Its close proximity to State Highways 36 and 288 make it a
convenient deployment port for Fort Hood. In these unusual times, it is
important to note the importance of our ports in the defense of our
Nation and to address the need to keep our Federal waterways open to
deep-draft navigation.
COMMUNITY AND INDUSTRY SUPPORT
This proposed improvement project has wide community and industry
support. The safer transit and volume increase capability is an
appealing and exciting prospect for the users of Freeport Harbor and
Stauffer Channel. The anticipated positive benefit to cost ratio that
was indicated from the Corps of Engineers reconnaissance study firmly
solidified the Federal interest.
WHAT WE NEED FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE IN FISCAL YEAR 2008
The administration's budget included the full Corps capability for
the continuation of the feasibility study which will be conducted at a
50/50 Federal Government/local sponsor share. This will keep this
project on an optimal and most cost-efficient time frame for the
Federal Government and the local sponsor. We respectfully request that
the full amount in the administration's budget remain in the Senate
mark-up. In addition, the Corps capability for maintenance dredging for
fiscal year 2008 is $11.738 million. The administration budget included
$5.735 million. We respectfully request the addition of $6,002,000 in
O&M.
______
Prepared Statement of the Red River Valley Association
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, Enclosure
1.
The resolutions contained herein were adopted by the Association
during its 82nd Annual Meeting in Shreveport, Louisiana, on February
22, 2007, and represent the combined concerns of the citizens of the
Red River Basin area as they pertain to the goals of the Association.
Enclosure 2 represents a summary of the projects and funding levels
supported by the Association.
The President's budget included $4.871 billion for the civil works
programs. Even though it is $138 million more than fiscal year 2007 it
is $458 million less than what Congress appropriated in fiscal year
2007, $5.329 billion (9 percent reduction). The problem is also how the
funds are distributed. A few projects received their full ``Corps
Capability'' to the detriment of many projects that received no
funding. The $4.871 billion level does not come close to the real needs
of our Nation. A more realistic funding level to meet the requirements
for continuing the existing needs of the civil works program is $8
billion in fiscal year 2008. The traditional civil works programs
remain at the low, unacceptable level as in past years. These projects
are the backbone to our Nation's infrastructure for waterways, flood
prevention, water supply and ecosystem restoration. We remind you that
civil works projects are a true ``jobs program'' in that up to 85
percent of project funding is contracted to the private sector; 100
percent of the construction, as well as much of the architect and
engineering work. Not only do these projects provide jobs, but provide
economic development opportunities for our communities to grow and
prosper, creating permanent jobs.
There are several policy changes proposed by the administration
that we have concerns with.
--Major rehabilitation and endangered species projects were moved
from the CG account to the O&M account. When you take out these
major rehab projects the O&M proposed budget is actually less
than fiscal year 2007. They have ``disguised'' an actual
reduction in O&M project funding.
--They also propose to continue using the Inland Waterway Trust Fund
(ITWF) to fund 50 percent of the major rehab projects that were
moved to O&M. The IWTF was authorized for CG projects, not O&M.
If this is allowed, it will then be easy to recommend that all
O&M funding be taken from the IWTF and this can never be
allowed to happen.
--Another proposal allocates O&M funding by region and eliminates
funding by individual project. We do not accept this concept
since you will loose ownership and identity of each project;
therefore, losing grass root support. If this was done, due to
reprogramming constraints, then reprogramming should be
addressed. Major reprogramming issues are with CG projects, not
with O&M projects.
We have great concerns over the issue of ``earmarks''. Civil Works
projects are not earmarks! Civil Works projects go through a process;
reconnaissance study, feasibility study, benefit-to-cost ratio test,
EIS, peer review, review by agencies, public review and comment, final
Chief of Engineer approval, authorization by all of Congress in a WRDA
bill and signed by the President. Soon they may be subject to
independent review. No other Federal program goes through such a
rigorous approval process. Each justified project ``stands alone'', are
proven to be of national interest and should be funded by project. For
most projects there is local sponsor cost sharing during the
feasibility study, construction and for O&M. Those who have
contributed, in most cases--millions of dollars--to the process, must
have the ability to have a say for their projects to get funded. That
voice is through their congressional delegation. If Congress provides a
lump sum appropriation, to the Corps, for GI, CG and O&M, who will
decide what gets funded? The answer is OMB and the administration.
Congress will have given up its responsibility to provide a national
budget. We believe that earmarks are not in the national interest, but
it does not pertain to the civil works program. For civil works it is
an issue of priorities and who will determine that, OMB or Congress! We
hope Congress keeps their responsibility to set civil works priorities.
We want to express our concern for ``fully funded'' contracts. In
our fiscal year 2007 testimony we addressed this concern stating: ``It
is possible that the Corps will have a carryover that exceeds $1
billion.'' In fact the Corps had a $1.4 billion carryover. Our fear
became reality and will grow to $3 billion at the end of fiscal year
2007 if this policy is not changed. Hundreds of projects are neglected
that could be funded each year and will drastically increase in cost
when actually done. This is a true waste of Federal funds and unfair to
local sponsors who also share the increase in cost. Another serious
consequence is that it neglects the workload distribution of Corps
Districts. Are we prepared to consolidate and close down Districts that
do not have the workload to support their current workforce?
The inland waterway tributary rivers continue to face scrutiny on
what determines a successful waterway. This has an impact on the
operations and maintenance funding a waterway receives. Using criteria
that only considers tons, actually moved on the waterway, neglects the
main benefit that justified the original waterway project,
transportation cost savings. Currently there is no criteria used to
consider ``water compelled rates'' (competition with rail). We know
that there are industries not using our waterway because rail rates
were reduced, to match the waterborne rates, the same year our waterway
became operational. If the operation of our waterway were terminated
the rail rates would increase. Many industries have experienced great
``national'' transportation savings without using the waterway, which
is why the project was authorized.
The main problem is that there is no ``post-project'' evaluation
for navigation projects. We support the development of such an
evaluation and volunteer the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway and our
efforts to develop one. Such an evaluation could be made once every 5
years to insure the waterway continues to meet the determined criteria.
We also believe any evaluation adopted must have input from and be
validated by the administration, Congress and industry. Too much money
has been expended to use an evaluation that is unfair and disregards
the true benefits realized from these waterway projects.
I would now like to comment on some of our specific requests for
the future economic well being of the citizens residing in the four
State Red River Basin regions.
Navigation.--The J. Bennett Johnston Waterway is living up to the
expectations of the benefits projected. We are extremely proud of our
public ports, municipalities and State agencies that have created this
success. This upward ``trend'' in usage will continue as new industries
commence operations. At the Port of Shreveport-Bossier ``Steelscape''
became operational in April 2006 processing steel, eventually employing
250 people and moving 500,000 tons per year on the Waterway. A major
power company, CLECO, is investing $1 billion in its Rodemacher Plant
near Boyce, Louisiana, on the lower Red River and is expected to move
over 3 million tons of Coal and ``petroleum coke'', by the Waterway, in
2009. These projects are a reality and there are many more customers
considering using our Waterway.
You are reminded that the Waterway is not complete; 6 percent
remains to be constructed, $121 million. We appreciate Congress's
appropriation level in fiscal year 2006 of $13 million; however, the
President's fiscal year 2007 budget drastically cuts that to $1.5
million, which is unacceptable. There is a capability for $19.5 million
of work, but we realistically request $12 million to keep the project
moving toward completion.
Now that the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway is reliable year round we
must address efficiency. Presently a 9-foot draft is authorized for the
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway. All waterways below Cairo, Illinois are
authorized at 12-foot, to include the Mississippi River, Atchafalaya
River, Arkansas River and Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. A 12-foot channel
would allow an additional one-third capacity, per barge, which will
greatly increase the efficiency of our Waterway and further reduce
transportation rates. This one action would have the greatest, positive
impact to reduce rates and increase competition, bringing more
industries to use waterborne transportation. We request a 1-year
reconnaissance study be funded to evaluate this proposal, at a cost of
$100,000. Fact: approximately 95 percent is already at 12-foot year
round.
The feasibility study to continue navigation from Shreveport-
Bossier City, Louisiana, into the State of Arkansas will be completed
in calendar year 2007. There is great optimism that the study will
recommend a favorable project; however, the administration must
consider the benefit analysis by modern day criteria, not by 25-year-
old standards. Benefit analysis is by administration policy and they
can consider externality benefits that impact society today. This
region of SW Arkansas and NE Texas continues to suffer major
unemployment and this navigation project, although not the total
solution will help revitalize the economy. We request funding of
$400,000 to initiate planning, engineering and design, PED.
Flood Prevention.--The recent events in New Orleans have
demonstrated what will happen when we ignore our levee systems. We know
the Red River levees in Arkansas do not meet Federal standards, which
is why we have the authorized project, ``Red River Below Denison Dam,
TX, AR & LA''. Now is the time to bring these levees up to standards,
before a major flood event, which will occur.
We continue to consider flood control a major objective and request
you continue funding the levee rehabilitation projects ongoing in
Arkansas. Five of 11 levee sections have been completed and brought to
Federal standards. Appropriations of $5 million will construct one more
levee section in Lafayette County, AR.
The levees in Louisiana have been incorporated into the Federal
system; however, they do not meet current safety standards. These
levees do not have a gravel surface roadway, 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 will cause rutting, which can
create conditions for the levees to fail. A gravel surface will insure
inspection personnel can check the levees during the saturated
conditions of a flood. Funding has been appropriated in the past and
approximately 50 miles of levees in the Natchitoches Levee District
were completed this year. We request $2 million to continue this
important project in Louisiana.
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 in Louisiana. These bank stabilization projects
are compatible with subsequent navigation into Arkansas and we urge
that they be continued in those locations designated by the Corps of
Engineers to be the areas of highest priority. We appreciated the
congressional funding in past fiscal years and request you fund this
project at a level of $6 million in fiscal year 2008.
Water Quality.--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
also has an exceptionally favorable benefit-to-cost ratio.
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. The re-evaluation report was completed and the Director
of Civil Works signed the Environmental Record of Decision. The plan
was found to be economically justified. This year the ASA (CW) directed
that construction would not proceed until a local sponsor was found to
assume 100 percent of the O&M for the project. This is based on a
policy decision, although legal decisions state otherwise. We strongly
disagree with this position, since the current local sponsor signed a
cooperation agreement that did not include responsibility for O&M, no
project documents require this and the project truly benefits four
States, which makes it unreasonable to place the O&M burden on one
local sponsor. Since 1987 the Federal Government has funded over $1.5
million per year for O&M. Completion of this project will reclaim Lake
Kemp as a usable water source for the City of Wichita Falls, Sheppard
AFB and the region. This project will provide improved water quality
throughout the four States of the Red River providing the opportunity
to use surface water and reduce dependency on ground water. We request
appropriations of $2,500,000 to continue the Wichita River features in
Texas.
Over the past year there has been a renewed interest by the Lugart-
Altus Irrigation District to evaluate construction of Area VI, of the
Chloride Control Project, in Oklahoma. They have obtained the support
of many State and Federal legislators, as well as a letter from the
Oklahoma Governor in support of a re-evaluation report. We request an
appropriation of $1,625,000 to continue with this effort. Total request
for the Chloride Control Project.--$4,125,000.
Water Supply.--Lake Kemp, just west of Wichita Falls, TX, is a
major water supply for the needs of this region. Due to siltation the
available storage of water has been impacted. A reallocation study is
needed to determine water distribution needs and raising the
conservation pool. Total O&M of $892,000 is requested for fiscal year
2008 ($210,000 is required for the base annual O&M, $467,000 for the
study and $215,000 for backlog grouting & dam repair).
Operation & Maintenance.--Full O&M capability 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.
We are sincerely grateful to you for the past support you have
provided our 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, Enclosure
2.
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. The Civil Works
program directly relates to national security by investing in economic
infrastructure. If waterways are closed companies will not relocate to
other parts of the country--they will move over seas. If we do not
invest now there will be a negative impact on our ability to compete in
the world market threatening our national security.
enclosure 1.--red river valley association
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 81 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, Levee
and Drainage Districts, Industry, Municipalities and other local
governing entities in developing the area along the Red River.
The Resolutions contained herein were adopted by the Association
during its 82nd Annual Meeting in Shreveport, Louisiana on February 22,
2007, 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 Municipal, Industrial and Agricultural
Uses;
--Hydroelectric Power Generation;
--Recreation; and,
--Navigation.
The Red River Valley Association is aware of the constraints on the
Federal budget, and has kept those constraints 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.
RED RIVER VALLEY ASSOCIATION FISCAL YEAR 2008 APPROPRIATIONS--CIVIL WORKS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year President RRVA Fiscal
2006 2007 Fiscal Year Year 2008
Approp. Approp. 2008 Budget Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Studies (GI):
Navigation into SW Arkansas: Feasibility................ 150 ........... ........... 400
Red River Waterway, LA--12 Channel, Recon............... ........... ........... ........... 100
Bossier Parish, LA...................................... 75 ........... ........... 300
Cross Lake, LA Water Supply Supplement.................. 99 ........... ........... 384
SE Oklahoma Water Resource Study: Feasibility........... 40 ........... ........... 300
SW Arkansas Ecosystem Restoration: Recon Study.......... 100 ........... ........... 200
Cypress Valley Watershed, TX............................ ........... ........... ........... 100
Sulphur River Basin, TX................................. 152 ........... ........... 1,000
Washita River Basin, OK................................. ........... ........... ........... 250
Mangum Lake, OK......................................... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Wichita River Basin, TX, Watershed Rehab: Recon......... 50 ........... ........... 100
Red River Above Denison Dam, TX & OK: Recon............. ........... ........... ........... 100
Red River Waterway, Index, AR to Denison Dam............ ........... ........... ........... ...........
Mountain Fork River Watershed, OK & AR, Recon........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Construction General (CG):
Red River Waterway:
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.................... 13,000 ........... 1,500 12,000
Index to Denison Reach, Bendway Weir Demo (Note.-- ........... ........... ........... ...........
Need language for full federal funded).............
Chloride Control Project, TX & OK....................... 1,500 ........... ........... 4,125
Wichita River, TX................................... 1,125 ........... ........... 2,500
Area VI, OK......................................... 375 ........... ........... 1,625
Red River Below Denison Dam; AR & LA:
AR & LA Levee Rehabilitation........................ 3,000 ........... ........... 5,000
Bowie County Levee, TX.............................. ........... ........... ........... ...........
Red River Emergency Bank Protection..................... 3,200 ........... ........... 6,000
Big Cypress Valley Watershed, TX: Section 1135.......... 530 ........... ........... 500
Palo Duro Creek, Canyon, TX: Section 205................ ........... ........... ........... 200
Millwood, Grassy Lake, AR: Section 1135................. 100 ........... ........... 350
Little River County/Ogden Levee, AR, PED................ ........... ........... ........... 300
McKinney Bayou, AR, PED................................. ........... ........... ........... ...........
Operation and Maintenance (O&M):
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA........................ 11,804 ........... 10,431 14,000
Lake Kemp, TX--Total Need............................... ........... ........... ........... 892
Basic Annual O&M.................................... ........... ........... ........... 210
Reallocation Study.................................. ........... ........... ........... 467
Dam Repair/Grouting................................. ........... ........... ........... 215
Lake Texoma, TX & OK--Total Need........................ ........... ........... ........... 9,587
Basic Annual O&M.................................... ........... ........... ........... 7,087
Suppl. EIS.......................................... ........... ........... ........... 500
Backlog Maintenance................................. ........... ........... ........... 2,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE.--Due to Continuing Resolution (CR)--Rules and funding levels for fiscal year 2007 are not known for this
submission.
______
Prepared Statement of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
FISCAL YEAR 2008 WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECT REQUEST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MURRIETA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT: Construction $13,000,000
General................................................
HEACOCK AND CACTUS CHANNELS: Special Authorization under 16,000,000
WRDA...................................................
FUNDING FOR CERTIFICATION OF CORPS LEVEES: Inspection of ( \1\ )
Completed Works........................................
NORCO BLUFFS BANK STABILIZATION PROJECT: Construction 1,000,000
General................................................
SAN JACINTO & UPPER SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WATERSHEDS 532,000
SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN (SAMP): General
Investigations.........................................
SANTA ANA RIVER--MAINSTEM: Construction General......... 67,840,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To be determined.
riverside county flood control and water conservation district board of
supervisors resolution no. f2007-01 supporting federal appropriations
for flood control projects for fiscal year 2008
WHEREAS, the United States House of Representatives Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and the
United States Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development are holding hearings to consider
appropriations for Flood Control and Reclamation Projects for fiscal
year 2008 and have requested written testimony to be submitted to the
committees during March 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District supports the continuation of construction efforts on the
critical flood control project on Murrieta Creek; the furtherance of
construction activities on the Santa Ana River Mainstem project,
including Prado Dam; the establishment of Special Legislation
addressing the design and construction of the Heacock and Cactus
Channels providing flood protection to March Air Reserve Base; the
repair and completion of the Norco Bluffs Bank Stabilization Project:
the establishment of a National Policy addressing the certification of
Corps constructed levees, and the continuation of Corps efforts in
completing the Special Area Management Plan for the San Jacinto and
Santa Margarita River Watersheds; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District in regular session
assembled on February 6, 2007 that they support appropriations by
Congress for fiscal year 2008 for the following projects:
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECT REQUEST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Murrieta Creek Flood Control,Environmental restoration $13,000,000
and Recreation Project: Construction--General..........
Heacock and Cactus Channels (MARB): Special Legislation. 16,000,000
Norco Bluffs Bank Stabilization Project: Construction-- 1,000,000
General................................................
Certification of Corps Constructed Levees: National ( \1\ )
Policy.................................................
San Jacinto & Upper Santa Margarita River Watersheds 532,000
(Riverside County): Special Area Management Plan (SAMP)
Santa Ana River Mainstem: Construction--General......... 96,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To be determined.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Manager-Chief Engineer is
directed to distribute certified copies of this resolution to the
Secretary of the Army, Members of the House of Representatives
Committee on Appropriations and Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development, the Senate Committee on Appropriations and Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development, and the District's Congressional
Delegation--Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, Congressmen
Ken Calvert and Darrell Issa, and Congresswoman Mary Bono.
MURRIETA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND RECREATION
PROJECT
Murrieta Creek poses a severe flood threat to the cities of
Murrieta and Temecula. Overflow flooding from the undersized creek with
a tributary watershed area of over 220 square miles has periodically
wreaked havoc on the communities--most recently in 1993 when nearly $20
million in damages was incurred by the public and private sectors. As
the area continues to develop, the potential damages (direct and
indirect) will only continue to increase. In 1997 the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers initiated studies on the Creek. The final outcome of this
endeavor was congressional authorization in 2000 of the $90 million,
multifaceted project known as the Murrieta Creek Flood Control,
Environmental Restoration and Recreation Project.
This project is being designed and will be constructed in four
distinct phases. Phases 1 and 2 include channel improvements through
the city of Temecula. Phase 3 involves the construction of a 250-acre
detention basin, including 160 acres of new environmental habitat and
over 50 acres of recreational facilities. Phase 4 will include channel
improvements through the city of Murrieta. Equestrian, bicycle and
hiking trails as well as a continuous vegetated habitat corridor for
wildlife are components of the entire 7-mile long project.
The Omnibus Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2003 provided $1
million for a new construction start for this critical public safety
project and construction activities commenced in the fall of 2003 on
Phase 1. Appropriations for fiscal year 2004 and additional funds
allocated allowed the Corps to continue construction on Phase 1, which
was completed in December 2004. Phase 2 traverses Old Town Temecula,
one of the hardest hit areas during the flooding of 1993. The Corps
anticipates having a Phase 2 construction contract ready to award in
the winter of 2007. The District, therefore, respectfully requests the
committee's support of a $13,000,000 appropriation in fiscal year 2008
to allow the Corps to complete the Design Documentation Report, and
initiate construction on Phase 2 of the long awaited Murrieta Creek
Flood Control, Environmental Restoration and Recreation Project.
HEACOCK AND CACTUS CHANNELS--PROTECTION OF MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE
Heacock and Cactus Channels are undersized, earthen channels that
border the eastern and northern boundary of the March Air Reserve Base
(MARB). Substantial vegetation becomes established within both channels
and impedes the conveyance of tributary storm flows to an existing
outlet located downstream. Storm flows overtop the Cactus Channel and
traverse MARB causing major disruption of the Base's operation,
including the fueling of airplanes and transport of troops and
supplies. The record rainfall of 2004/2005 also caused extensive
erosion along Heacock Avenue jeopardizing existing utilities within the
road right of way and cutting off access to approximately 700
residences within the city of Moreno Valley.
Under section 205 of the Continuing Authorities Program (CAP), the
Corps received $100,000 in fiscal year 2005 and completed an Initial
Appraisal Report which determined the feasibility of proceeding with a
project to provide flood protection to this sensitive area. With the
$546,000 received in fiscal year 2006 the Corps completed a Project
Management Plan, executed a Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement and is
nearing completion of the Feasibility Study. However, this study found
that MARB would receive approximately 85 percent of the benefits from
constructing this project making the use of section 205 funds
inappropriate. Therefore, the project will require Special
Authorization under WRDA to approve and authorize the project and
appropriate the $16,000,000 needed to provide flood protection to the
base.
The District requests support from the Committee for Special
Authorization under WRDA approving the project and authorizing
appropriations of $16,000,000 to complete the design and construct the
project providing this critical military installation flood protection.
CERTIFICATION OF CORPS CONSTRUCTED LEVEES
As part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Map
Modernization Program, the District, as well as all other agencies,
cities and counties in the Nation are being required to provide
certification of the reliability of all levee structures providing
flood protection to our citizens. Many of these projects were
constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and in these cases,
FEMA is requesting that the certification be provided by the Corps.
Certification involves an extensive amount of geotechnical analysis,
including field and lab material testing, slope stability and seepage
checks, hydrologic and hydraulic verification and other costly and time
consuming activities, as well as the review of operation and
maintenance records. These projects have an established Federal
interest. Therefore, a National Policy needs to be established
addressing the need for these federally constructed projects to be
certified by the Corps and authorizing the Corps to perform the
required analysis. Furthermore, the Corps should also be authorized to
provide Federal assistance for design and construction costs associated
with any necessary rehabilitation, repair or reconstruction of projects
that are found not to meet the CFR 65.10 FEMA criteria. Non-conforming
levees put the public at risk and should be a Federal priority. Within
our District, there are three Corps constructed levees requiring this
Federal certification: Santa Ana River Levees constructed in 1958,
Chino Canyon Levee constructed in 1972 and San Jacinto River Levee
constructed in 1982.
The District requests support from the committee for the
establishment of a National Policy addressing this issue and the
authorization and funding needed for the Corps to meet its obligations
to the numerous local sponsors of federally constructed levees
throughout the country. The Los Angeles District needs an appropriation
of $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 under the Inspection of Completed
Works--CA Operations and Maintenance Appropriation 3123 to accomplish
the needed certification work.
NORCO BLUFFS BANK STABILIZATION PROJECT
The Norco Bluffs Bank Stabilization project consists of a soil
cement toe protection structure constructed to the 100-year flood level
at the base of the bluff, and a stable earthen buttress fill
constructed to the top of the bluff along the Santa Ana River, in the
city of Norco. The bluff stabilization work extends easterly from the
Interstate 15 bridge to near Center Avenue. The estimated total cost of
the project was approximately $14 million. The Corps received a total
of $7.2 million in construction funds in the fiscal year 1998, fiscal
year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 Federal budgets for the project. Since
the available Federal funding fell short of that necessary to construct
the entire project at once, the project was broken into two phases and
Phase 1 was completed in May 2000. This included a soil cement toe
protection structure along the entire length of the project, as well as
construction of approximately 1,300 feet of buttress fill in the most
critical reach of the bluffs, between Valley View and Corona Avenues.
The Phase 2 contract involved the construction of the balance of the
buttress fill and construction of most of Phase 2 was completed in
December 2003, with the exception of hydroseeding the slopes, which was
deferred until the appropriate season to ensure successful
establishment of the native vegetation. Unfortunately, the record
rainfall of the 2004/2005 season caused damages to the project that
must be repaired in order to complete the project.
The District requests support from the committee for a fiscal year
2008 appropriation of $1,000,000 to complete the repairs, hydroseed the
slopes and turn the project over to the District.
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.
For fiscal year 2008, an appropriation of $67,840,000 is necessary
to provide funding for the following activities: $20,000,000 for Reach
9 of the Santa Ana River immediately downstream of Prado Dam,
$2,840,000 for the Seven Oaks Dam project and $45,000,000 for Prado
Dam.
The District respectfully requests that the committee support an
overall $67,840,000 appropriation of Federal funding for fiscal year
2008 for the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency
Dear Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA), its member agencies and
the millions of people that may be directly or indirectly impacted by
floods in Sacramento, we extend our sincere appreciation to the
committee for the past consideration and support extended to the
ongoing local, State and Federal effort to reduce flood risk in the
Capital of California.
According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Sacramento's
flood risk continues to be the highest of major urban areas in the
country. Located at the confluence of the Sacramento and American
Rivers, the Sacramento floodplain contains 165,000 homes, over 488,000
residents, 1,300 government facilities including the State Capital, and
businesses providing 200,000 jobs. It is the hub of a 6-county regional
economy that provides 800,000 jobs for 1.5 million people. A major
flood along the American River or the Sacramento River would cripple
this economy, cause between $7.0 billion and $16.0 billion in direct
property damages and likely result in significant loss of life.
The devastating flood of February 1986 revealed that Sacramento's
defenses provided less than 100-year flood protection, far less than
previously thought. SAFCA was created in 1989 to work with the Corps
and the State to improve the Sacramento region's flood protection as
rapidly as possible. Much progress has been made since then, with a
combined investment of over $428 million in levee improvements,
reservoir operations, and floodplain restoration. Nevertheless, much
remains to be done. In collaboration with the Corps and the State,
SAFCA is pursuing completion of levee improvements needed to achieve
the minimum 100-year level of flood protection, while advancing
measures which will lead to better than 200-year flood protection over
the next decade.
SAFCA's Federal fiscal year 2008 Federal budget requests are shown
in order of priority in Table 1. Consistent with previous years'
requests, SAFCA top priority is achieving 100-year level flood
protection for the Sacramento area. While this goal has now been
achieved for most of the community, work along the tributaries of
Morrison Creek needs to move forward at Corps capability to achieve
this level of protection for about 6,000 residential properties (about
16,000 people). Therefore the South Sacramento Streams Group Project
remains the top priority.
The American River Common Features Project needs to continue at
capability as well, to complete project elements needed to safely
convey 160,000 cfs in the Lower American River.
The Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project relies on the authority of the
Folsom Dam Modifications Project and Reclamation's Dam Safety Program
for the construction of an auxiliary spillway on the south abutment of
the dam. This is the cornerstone of Sacramento's 200-year flood
program, for which planning and design need to proceed at Corps
capability levels. SAFCA supports the continuing planning for up to a
3.5 foot raise of Folsom Dam embankments, as well as construction of
the Folsom Dam Bridge through fiscal year 2008.
TABLE 1.--FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2008 APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed 2008 SAFCA 2008
PROJECT Federal Budget Request Feb Requested
Feb 2007 2007 Increase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Sacramento Streams Group: Construct levee and channel 8.000 11.000 3.000
improvements to prevent flooding in south Sacramento where
floodwaters from four creeks threaten 100,000 residents........
American River Common Features: Raise and reinforce levees to 12.000 34.800 22.800
assure 100-year flood protection for the urban Sacramento area
from the American and Sacramento Rivers........................
Folsom Dam Outlet Modifications: Enlarge and retrofit Folsom Dam 6.000 6.000 ..............
outlet gates to more efficiently manage flood storage in Folsom
Reservoir......................................................
American River Plan (Folsom Dam Mini-Raise): Continue design of 4.500 5.000 1.500
the Folsom Mini-Raise..........................................
American River Plan (Folsom Dam Mini-Raise, Bridge Component): 14.000 46.700 31.700
Construct permanent bridge to replace the Folsom Dam Road......
Natomas Phase I Reimbursement: Previously appropriated funds, .............. 4.500 4.500
not yet received by SAFCA for federally authorized and
completed work on the North Area Local Project.................
Sacramento River Bank Protection: Repair critical erosion sites 21.528 64.800 43.272
and mitigate for impacts throughout the Sacramento River Flood
Control System, including the urban Sacramento area............
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................................... 66.028 172.800 106.772
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updates on progress on each of the referenced projects is provided
in the following paragraphs.
SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS GROUP PROJECT
This project will provide a minimum of 100-year flood protection
from the Morrison Stream Group, including Morrison Creek, Florin Creek,
Elder Creek, and Union House Creek when completed. This project
protects the existing community, as well as helps facilitate the city's
economic development goals for the South Sacramento region. SAFCA, the
State, and the Corps are working together to expedite construction of
this project. Levee improvements around the Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant were completed in 1996. The Morrison Creek north levee
from the Sacramento River east to the Union Pacific Railroad, and north
to Brookfield Drive were completed in 2005-2006. In 2007 levee
improvements will be constructed on Morrison Creek and tributaries as
far east as Franklin Boulevard. SAFCA's goal is to implement Phase 2
levee improvements eastward to Highway 99 by 2012 to provide 100-year
flood protection from Morrison Creek flooding.
AMERICAN RIVER COMMON FEATURES PROJECT
American River Levees
Construction of the Mayhew levee improvements has been a high
priority and construction is planned for late summer 2007. Additional
levee improvements to address gaps in the slurry walls along the
American River levees on both sides of the river, and to provide levee
height parity are expected to go to construction in 2008. This work
will go a long way towards meeting the goal of safely conveying 160,000
cubic feet per second through Sacramento, which will be required to
provide 200-year flood protection on the American River.
Natomas General Re-evaluation Report (GRR)
The Corps is studying alternatives for levee improvements needed to
provide the Natomas basin with 200-year flood protection. The Corps
study will proceed concurrently with SAFCA's construction of those
improvements. The State Reclamation Board has requested section 104
Credit for levee improvements constructed by SAFCA, with the goal of
obtaining Federal reimbursement for State and SAFCA funding for
construction of these improvements over the next several years. Funding
for the Corps study effort is needed to keep the Corps study on
schedule for completion of the GRR in 2009, thus paving the way for
Congressional reimbursement for State and SAFCA expenditures in 2010
and beyond.
Pocket General Re-Evaluation Report (GRR)
SAFCA has initiated reconnaissance planning for measures which may
be needed to provide 200-year flood protection for the Sacramento River
East levee south of the American River. SAFCA will request that the
Corps initiate a second GRR under the American River Common Features
Authority, with the goal of expediting the alternative formulation
process for any levee improvements which may be needed in this reach.
FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS: JOINT FEDERAL PROJECT
This project will include construction of a new auxiliary spillway
on the east abutment to Folsom Dam. This new spillway will both provide
sufficient release capacity to allow Folsom Dam to control the 200-year
flood, as well as to safely pass a Probable Maximum Flood without
overtopping the dam. Since June of 2005 the Corps, Reclamation, the
State of California, and SAFCA have rapidly advanced planning for this
project, including a joint EIR/EIS, a Corps Post Authorization Change
(PAC) Report by the Corps, and a Reclamation Dam Safety Modifications
Report. All these reports will be completed by late Spring 2007,
setting the stage for excavation to begin on the auxiliary spillway and
related Reclamation dam safety work in October 2007. The project will
be jointly constructed by the Corps and Reclamation, with the State and
SAFCA serving as non-Federal cost sharing partners. The Corps will
continue to design their portion of the JFP with construction starting
in following years.
FOLSOM DAM RAISE PROJECT
Based on current Corps design studies, a raise of up to 3.5 feet of
the dikes and wingdams around Folsom Lake may be constructed under this
project authority in conjunction with the Folsom Dam Modifications
project. The Folsom Dam Bridge, an authorized part of this project, is
currently under construction by the Corps, with a planned opening for
traffic by the end of 2008. Ecosystem restoration is also an authorized
component of this project, focusing on improving salmonid habitat in
the Lower American River through improved temperature control for
Folsom Dam releases.
NATOMAS PHASE I REIMBURSEMENT
SAFCA is seeking reimbursement for work completed on Natomas levees
under Federal authority. A total of $21 million in reimbursements have
been authorized and appropriated, of which $16.5 million has been paid
to SAFCA, leaving about $4.5 million which has been appropriated but
not reimbursed to SAFCA. SAFCA needs the $4.5 million to help fund
SAFCA's flood control improvement efforts.
SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT
During the Construction season of 2006, an impressive amount of
bank protection was completed along the Sacramento River including nine
critical erosion sites along the Sacramento River east levee protecting
Sacramento. The work has continued in 2007, during which another three
sites were under construction. This program, executed by the Corps in
close collaboration with the State, has been very effective in rapidly
addressing serious erosion defects in levees protecting the Sacramento
area and in other parts of the central valley. Additional funding, as
well as new implementation authority, will be needed to continue
repairs of critical erosion issues within the river system.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Corn Growers Association
The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) appreciates the
opportunity to share with the subcommittee our energy and water
development appropriations priorities for fiscal year 2008. In general,
our appropriations priorities include an overall increase in U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' funding to address the needs of our failing inland
waterways system; $24 million for pre-construction engineering and
design (PED) for the project entitled ``UMR-IWW System Navigation
Study, IL, IA, MN, MO, & WI'' (Authority: section 216, Flood Control
Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-612)); and continued support for the
Department of Energy's Biomass Technologies Program.
NCGA represents nearly 33,000 corn farmers from 46 States. NCGA
also represents more than 300,000 farmers who contribute to corn check
off programs and 26 affiliated State corn organizations across our
country, working together to create new opportunities and markets for
corn growers.
America's corn producers continue to make a significant and
important contribution to our Nation's economy. Over the last 5 years,
the Nation's corn crop has averaged 10.3 billion bushels resulting in
an annual average farm gate value of almost $22 billion. The relatively
stable production over the past 10 years, made possible by innovation
in production practices and technological advances, has helped to
ensure ample supplies of corn for livestock, an expanding ethanol
industry, new biobased products and a host of other uses in the corn
industry.
Key to our success is reliable, cost-effective and efficient
transportation--whether by barge, truck or rail. Competition among
these modes of transportation helps farmers receive their farm inputs,
meet their customers' demand for timely delivery of products and
successfully compete with foreign producers. Without a competitive
transportation system, the promise of expanded trade and commercial
growth is empty, job opportunities are lost, and we will be unprepared
for the global challenges of this new century.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Our country's inland navigation system plays a critical role in our
Nation's economy, moving more than a billion tons of domestic commerce
valued at more than $300 billion. Each year, more than 1 billion
bushels of grain (over 60 percent of all grain exports) move to export
markets via the inland waterways system. Inland waterways relieve
congestion on our already over-crowded highways and railways that run
through cities. One jumbo barge has the same capacity as 58 trucks or
15 rail cars. A typical 15-barge tow on our Nation's rivers is
equivalent to 870 trucks.
Additionally, navigation offers transportation with unparalleled
environmental benefits. Barges operate at 10 percent of the cost of
trucks and 40 percent of the cost of trains, while releasing 20 times
less nitrous oxide, 9 times less carbon monoxide, 7 times less
hydrocarbons, and burning 10 times less high-price fuel.
Unfortunately, investment in the inland waterways system has not
kept pace with its needs and is deteriorating. Funding (in constant
dollars) for operations and maintenance (O&M) on America's inland
navigation system has remained flat for more than two decades. During
this period, an increasing amount of routine maintenance on waterways
infrastructure has been deferred. This deferred maintenance has become
unfunded maintenance, and the aging waterways infrastructure, combined
with the growing O&M backlog, has created today's average of 30
unscheduled lock shutdowns per year.
Over the past 5 years the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reported
more than 150 emergency lock closures on America's inland navigation
system. Several high-profile closures have raised reliability concerns
among shippers, carriers, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
ultimately consumers who pay increased costs for expensive
transportation delays.
Tight O&M funding and the resultant ``fix-as-fail'' policy have led
to a self-defeating cycle where routine maintenance dollars are now
needed for emergency repairs. As critical maintenance needs grow, they
become candidates for major rehabilitation--a trend that is not good
for the waterways industry or for the Nation.
NCGA is appreciative of the successful efforts made by this
subcommittee in recent years to increase the budget for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. NCGA strongly supports continuing this trend with a
significant increase over last year's funding levels to address the
critically needed repairs and delayed construction schedules facing the
Corps. It's important to get our inland waterways infrastructure back
on track so we can meet the ever-increasing demands of the global
marketplace.
PRE-CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN
The Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway's infrastructure
was built in the 1930's with a life expectancy of 50 years. As a
result, the infrastructure is approaching 80 years of age, is
undersized for efficient passage of today's tows, and is deteriorating
from a lack of investment in both operation and maintenance and
necessary capital improvements to rehabilitate these antique
structures. As with our highways and interchanges, the purpose of
modernization on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers is to make
the entire system more efficient.
NCGA supports funding pre-construction engineering and design as a
means to accelerate the precursor to construction of 7 new 1,200 foot
locks on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway in
anticipation of authorization through the Water Resources Development
Act. Specifically, NCGA requests $24 million in PED funding for Locks
20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 on the Upper Mississippi and the LaGrange and
Peoria locks on the Illinois Waterway (Project: ``UMR-IWW System
Navigation Study, IL, IA, MN, MO, & WI'' Authority: section 216, Flood
Control Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-612)).
The PED program is overseen by the Navigation & Ecosystem
Sustainability Program (NESP), formed with the conclusion of the
navigation study. NESP continues the research and monitoring
recommended under the dual purpose river plan outlined in the Corps of
Engineers' November 2004 Chief 's Report.
In previous years, PED funding was used for preparations of a re-
evaluation report and detailed planning and design activities including
8 projects for navigation efficiency and 19 projects for ecosystem
restoration. Projects included lock design, fish passage studies,
detailed planning and design for mooring cells and switch boat
implementation and detailed planning for ecosystem restoration projects
including island building, backwater restoration, side channel
restoration, wing dam alteration, island-shoreline protection and dam
embankment lowering.
We strongly encourage the committee to support continued PED
funding as part of an initial process to modernize our aging and
deteriorating infrastructure and for much needed ecosystem restoration
for the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.
BIOMASS TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
The United States needs to displace imported petroleum with
ethanol. Corn grain ethanol is the only economically viable solution
over the next decade and is one of the leading ways to start weaning
the United States from imported oil. Using starch from corn grain to
produce ethanol provides farmers with higher profit margins even while
fuel customers pay lower prices. Over the next decade, corn grain can
meet all of the growth in ethanol demand and still meet growth in the
livestock feed, human food and export sectors.
The current Federal biomass technologies program is focused on
long-term cellulose research. Cellulose research will not have any
meaningful economic impact for a decade or more. A successful research
and development (R&D) portfolio always balances near, mid and long-term
goals, and biomass research should use a similar strategy.
In the near term, R&D investments in corn grain ethanol production
technology could have a strongly positive economic impact while
immediately decreasing dependence on imported oil. Examples of R&D
investment opportunities include improving production and utilization
of animal feed (DDGS), co-production of biobased chemicals, utilization
of corn kernel fiber, and decreasing natural gas use in ethanol plants.
Sufficient supply of affordable ethanol will ensure the markets and
infrastructure will be poised for the larger impacts coming in the mid
to long-term.
NCGA recommends the committee commit at least 25 percent of the
fiscal year 2008 allocation for the biomass technologies program
towards near-term research that enables corn grain.
Thank you for the support and assistance you have provided to corn
growers over the years.
______
Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation
We respectfully request fiscal year 2008 appropriation of funds for
two priority watershed restoration and agricultural water supply
protection projects in Oregon and Washington, the Umatilla Basin Water
Supply Project (previously funded under the Umatilla Basin Project
Phase III, OR) and the Walla Walla General Investigation Stream Flow
Restoration Feasibility Study (previously funded under the Walla Walla
River Watershed, OR & WA).
--For the Umatilla Basin Water Supply Project, Oregon, we request an
appropriation of $1 million in the Bureau of Reclamation,
Pacific Northwest Region, Water and Related Resources budget.
This request will build upon the $450,000 committed by the
Bureau of Reclamation to the Project in fiscal year 2007.
--For the Walla Walla River Watershed, Oregon and Washington, we
request an appropriation of $650,000 in the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Portland Division, Walla Walla District, General
Investigations budget. This project is also known as Walla
Walla River Basin Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact
Statement.
Both the Umatilla Basin Water Supply Project and the Walla Walla
General Investigation Stream Flow Restoration Feasibility Study are
ongoing projects and have had administration and/or congressional line
item funding in past fiscal years.
UMATILLA RIVER BASIN, OREGON WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
By letter dated March 19, 2007, the Office of the Secretary of
Interior responded favorably to the formal requests of the Washington
and Oregon delegations and of the Confederated Umatilla Tribes,
Westland Irrigation District and Governor Theodore Kulongoski to
initiate Umatilla Basin water development projects and concurrent
settlement of the Tribe's reserved water rights. Counselor to the
Secretary, L. Michael Bogert, wrote ``I will ask the Secretary's Indian
Water Rights Office to appoint an Assessment Team . . .'' and ``I will
also ask the Bureau of Reclamation to move forward with a concurrent
appraisal level study of water supply options, including a full Phase
III exchange . . . to help resolve the Tribe's water rights claims.''
The Bureau of Reclamation, subsequent to issuance of the March 19
letter from Counselor Bogert, has committed $450,000 to fiscal year
2007 work on the Umatilla Basin water supply appraisal study.
The Umatilla Basin Water Supply Project is authorized by the
Reclamation Feasibility Studies Act of 1966, 80 Stat. 707, Public Law
89-561 (Sept. 7, 1966).
The fiscal year 2008 request of $1 million to the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation will follow up the $450,000 fiscal year 2007 work and
should complete the majority of the estimated 2-year appraisal level
study. It is anticipated that the full appraisal study project will be
completed in 2009 in order to inform the concurrent Interior Department
Indian Water Rights Assessment Team's work products. In 2009, Interior
should have a clear project or suite of projects necessary to satisfy
water rights of the Confederated Umatilla Tribes on the Umatilla Indian
Reservation and in the Umatilla River.
This fiscal year 2008 request follows on the work of the Bureau of
Reclamation, authorized by the Umatilla Basin Project Act of 1988
(Public Law 100-557; 102 Stat. 2782 Title II), to construct and operate
the Phase I Exchange with West Extension Irrigation District and the
Phase II Exchange with Hermiston and Stanfield Irrigation Districts.
Heralded as one of the most successful stream flow restoration and
salmon recovery projects in the Columbia River Basin, the Umatilla
Basin Project resulted in partially restored stream flows in the
Umatilla River and successful reintroduction of spring Chinook, fall
Chinook and Coho salmon. After nearly a century of dry river bed in
summer months and extinction of all salmon stocks, there has been an
Indian and non-Indian salmon fishery nearly every year in the Umatilla
River since the project was completed in the mid-1990s.
Completion of the Water Supply Study and the concurrent Tribal
Water Rights Assessment is supported and endorsed by the Honorable
Governor Ted Kulongoski and by local irrigation districts including
specifically Westland Irrigation District, the Umatilla County
Commission, and local municipalities including specifically the City of
Irrigon.
walla walla basin, oregon and washington, gi feasibility study
In its sixth and final full year prior to completion, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' feasibility study will select the project necessary
to restore stream flows in the Walla Walla River. Drained nearly dry
during summer months by irrigation in Oregon and Washington, the Walla
Walla River is within the aboriginal lands of the Confederated Umatilla
Tribes and the complete loss of salmon violates the agreement by the
United States in the Treaty of 1855 to protect these fish.
Approximately $2.6 million of Federal funds have either been
budgeted or appropriated through fiscal year 2007 (this includes an
estimate $300,000 for fiscal year 2007 based upon continuing resolution
uncertainties).
The Feasibility Study Project is authorized by the Senate Committee
on Public Works, July 27, 1962 (Columbia River and Tributaries), 87th
Congress, House Document No. 403 and initiated as a result of a
positive Reconnaissance Report for the Walla Walla River Watershed
(1997) under a General Investigation study.
The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation is the
formal sponsor of the Corps of Engineers Feasibility Study and has
provided over $3.1 million in in-kind contributions. Additionally, the
State of Washington Department of Ecology has provided $400,000 to the
Feasibility Study.
Support for the completion of the Feasibility Study and moving to
construction of the project is strong and diverse and includes the
Honorable Governor of Washington Christine Gregoire, the Honorable
Governor of Oregon Ted Kulongoski, the Walla Walla Watershed Alliance,
the Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council, basin irrigation districts,
local State legislators and many local and regional advocacy groups.
In closing, the CTUIR appreciates the opportunity to provide this
testimony in support of adding funds for the ongoing projects, Umatilla
River Basin Water Supply Project, Bureau of Reclamation, and for the
Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla River Basin Watershed Restoration
Feasibility Study. Both projects are critically important to protecting
existing agricultural economies, completing future water supply
development and concurrently restoring stream flows and recovering
threatened salmon and other Columbia River Basin fish stocks.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's recommendations for the
Army Corps of Engineers' fiscal year 2008 appropriations. We understand
that the Subcommittee's ability to fund programs within its
jurisdiction is limited by the tight budget constraints but appreciate
your consideration of these important programs.
The Nature Conservancy is an international nonprofit organization
dedicated to the conservation of biodiversity. Our mission is to
preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the
diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need
to survive. Our on-the-ground conservation work is carried out in all
50 states and in 30 countries with the support of approximately one
million members. To date, we have helped conserve more than 117 million
acres and 5,000 river miles around the world. The Conservancy owns and
manages approximately 1,400 preserves throughout the United States--the
world's largest private system of nature sanctuaries. However, we
recognize that our mission cannot be achieved by protected areas alone;
thus, our projects increasingly seek to accommodate compatible human
uses, especially in the developing world, to address sustained human
well-being.
The Conservancy has several concerns with the new starts/project
advancement ban in the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations
bill. As the largest nonfederal sponsor of ecosystem restoration
projects (by number of projects, not total funding), this policy has
significantly impacted the Conservancy's ecosystem restoration efforts.
The ban has halted a number of restoration projects that are widely
supported by local communities, that are important to biodiversity, and
that have received significant prior investment of both federal and
nonfederal resources. The Conservancy urges the Subcommittee not to
renew the ban on new starts/project advancement.
The Conservancy urges the Subcommittee to support the following
appropriation levels in the fiscal year 2008 Energy and Water
Development Appropriation bill:
Construction General Priorities
Section 1135: Project Modification for the Improvement of the
Environment.--The Section 1135 Program authorizes the Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to restore areas damaged by existing Corps projects.
This program continues to be in extremely high demand with needs far
greater than the $30 million appropriated in fiscal year 2006. While we
recognize that the fiscal year 2006 appropriations were in excess of
the authorized levels, funding shortfalls continue to hold up many
important projects. The Conservancy is the nonfederal cost share
partner on five ecologically significant Section 1135 projects
including Spunky Bottoms (IL), a floodplain restoration/reconnection
project on the Illinois River that needs $150,000 to continue planning;
Chain Bridge Flats (DC), a floodplain restoration on the Potomac River
that needs $210,000 to initiate the reconnaissance phase; Jim Woodruff
Lock and Dam Fish Passage (FL), a river habitat restoration on the
Apalachicola River that needs $100,000 to initiate the reconnaissance
phase; and Village of Oyster Ecosystem Restoration (VA), a restoration
of intertidal wetlands and upland habitat that needs $99,000 to
continue the feasibility study. In order to reduce the funding backlog,
the Conservancy strongly encourages full funding of $25 million for
Section 1135 in fiscal year 2008, an increase over the President's
$11.2 million request.
Section 206: Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration.--Section 206 is a newer
program that authorizes the Corps to restore aquatic habitat regardless
of past activities. This is another popular restoration program with
demand far exceeding both the authorized level and the fiscal year 2006
appropriation. The Conservancy is the nonfederal cost-share partner on
four Section 206 projects that restore important habitats, including
Camp Creek (OR), a headwaters stream restoration project that needs
$525,000 to continue the feasibility study; Bootheel Creek (FL), a wet
flatwood and depression marsh habitat restoration project that needs
$85,000 to initiate the planning and design analysis phase; and Emiquon
Preserve (IL), a floodplain reconnection and restoration project that
needs $300,000 to continue planning. To reduce the funding backlog, the
Conservancy strongly encourages $25 million for Section 206 in fiscal
year 2008, an increase over the President's $11.3 million request.
Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program.--
The Environmental Management Program (EMP) is an important Corps
program that restores habitat and conducts long-term resource
monitoring of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. EMP is a
unique federal-state partnership involving five states (IL, IA, MN, MO
and WI). EMP was reauthorized in WRDA 1999 with an increased
authorization of $33.2 million. The Conservancy supports full funding
of $33.2 million for fiscal year 2008, an increase over the President's
$23.5 million request.
Estuary Habitat Restoration Program.--The Estuary Restoration Act
was approved by Congress in 2000 to recognize the importance of a
national strategic plan and multi-level partnerships to address
problems plaguing our nation's estuaries. With a goal of restoring a
million acres of estuary habitat by 2010 through the Estuary Habitat
Restoration Program, the Act encourages coordination among all levels
of government, and engages the strengths of the public, nonprofit and
private sectors. The Conservancy supports the President's $5.0 million
request for the Estuary Habitat Restoration Program to promote
restoration projects that benefit fish, shellfish and wildlife; improve
surface and groundwater resources; provide flood control; and enhance
recreational opportunities.
Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery.--The Missouri River
contains more than 500 species of mussels, fish, amphibians, reptiles,
birds and mammals, five of which are either listed or candidates for
listing under the Endangered Species Act. The Corps has completed 30
projects along the river in the lower four states (IA, KS, MO and NE)
resulting in more than 40,000 acres of restored aquatic and floodplain
habitat. This program enhances these restorations and complements
protection and restoration efforts by many federal agencies. The
Conservancy supports $85.0 million in fiscal year 2008 and pending
passage of the Water Resources Development Act, supports using funding
basin-wide, including $15 million for the Yellowstone River Intake
project in Montana.
South Florida Everglades Ecosystem Restoration Program.--The
Everglades are home to a profusion of birds and wildlife with at least
347 bird species recorded in Everglades National Park alone. For the
last sixty years, the Corps has built projects that shunted water away
from the Everglades. These flood control projects and agricultural and
urban development have degraded the wetlands ecosystem. Restoration of
this globally significant region is a priority for the Conservancy. The
Conservancy requests $249.1 million in the South Florida Everglades
Ecosystem Restoration Program in fiscal year 2008, an increase over the
President's $162.4 million request. This request includes funds for
five programs: Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park
($35 million), Critical Projects Construction ($8.3 million), Kissimmee
River Restoration Construction ($50 million), Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan (CERP) Project Construction ($35 million), Central &
Southern Florida Project ($120.8 million).
Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters.--Assessments of Puget Sound's
nearshore habitat indicate that the ecological health of the ecosystem
is in steep decline. As urban areas continue to expand, an
extraordinary heritage of native species and ecosystems is at risk. The
Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Program provides funding for early
action projects to restore the Puget Sound and its watershed.. The
Conservancy requests $5.0 million for Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters
in fiscal year 2008. Identification of these early action projects is
informed by the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration General
Investigation, for which the Conservancy requests $1.9 million in
fiscal year 2008, an increase over the President's $400,000 request.
General Investigation Priorities
Penobscot River Restoration.--This project involves the purchase
and decommissioning of three dams on the Penobscot River, New England's
second largest river. Two dams will be removed and a state-of-the-art
fish bypass will be constructed around the third. Restoration of
massive runs of migratory fish in the Penobscot River will expand
recreational fishing opportunities and tourism resources, will provide
culturally significant fishing resources to the Penobscot Indian
Nation, and will greatly enhance recovery of Atlantic salmon and other
ESA-listed species. The Conservancy supports $450,000 in fiscal year
2008. This study is not included in the President's Budget.
Hamilton City Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration.--
This project will increase flood protection for Hamilton City. CA and
surrounding agricultural lands and restore over 1,500 acres of riparian
habitat. Currently, the town is only marginally protected by a degraded
private levee. The PED phase for this project is nearly complete.
Pending fiscal year 2007 funding and passage of WRDA, the project will
be ready to begin construction next year. The Conservancy supports $1.6
million in fiscal year 2008 to complete PED and $7.5 million to begin
construction. This study is not included in the President's Budget.
Savannah Basin Comprehensive Water Resources Study--Phase II.--The
Savanna River basin is experiencing tremendous growth, increasing
demands on this limited water resource. Phase I of the study evaluated
water management in the reservoirs based on current operations and
indicated that future needs may not be met under current management
practices. Phase II evaluates implementation of a new set of rules
(e.g. hydropower contracts, recreation needs, ecological flows) that
could meet future demands while protecting essential river habitat.
Without Phase II, changes in dam operations are limited by outdated and
unsustainable management rules. The Conservancy supports $250,000 in
fiscal year 2008. This study is not included in the President's Budget.
Willamette River Floodplain Study.--This project contributes to
long-term restoration of floodplain habitat, an important step toward
the recovery of several ESA-listed threatened fish species. The
restoration goals include increasing floodplain connectivity and
replanting riparian forests, which will contribute to the Corps'
ability to reduce river temperatures and meet their obligations under
the Clean Water Act. The Conservancy supports $436,000 in fiscal year
2008. This study is not included in the President's Budget.
Lower Mississippi River Resource Assessment.--This study will
assess management, habitat and public access issues in the Lower
Mississippi River Valley (LMV). Restoring and actively managing the
natural resources of the LMV will contribute to the recovery of nine
ESA-listed species without impacting navigation or flood control.
Restored functionality of wetlands will also help attenuate floods and
capture river sediment, reducing stress on the flood control system and
the amount of nutrients transported down river to the Gulf of Mexico.
The Conservancy supports $500,000 in fiscal year 2008. This study is
not included in the President's Budget.
Connecticut River Watershed Study.--This project will restore 410
miles of river flow and thousands of acres of associated riparian,
aquatic and floodplain natural communities in the Connecticut River
Basin. The basin is a priority landscape for the Conservancy due to the
high-quality tributary systems, unique natural communities and
multitude of ESA-listed species. The study identifies dam management
modifications for environmental benefits while maintaining beneficial
human uses such as water supply, flood control and hydropower
generation. The Conservancy supports $450,000 in fiscal year 2008. This
study is not included in the President's Budget.
Yellowstone River Corridor Comprehensive Study.--This study is
assessing cumulative effects to the Yellowstone system and will develop
conservation-based management practices for the river main stem. As the
longest free-flowing river in the lower United States, the Yellowstone
is a rare model of the structure and function of large western rivers.
It supports a wide variety of fish, including the ESA-listed pallid
sturgeon. The Conservancy supports $1 million in fiscal year 2008, an
increase over the President's $200,000 request.
Thames River Basin.--The Thames River Basin is the second largest
freshwater contributor to Long Island Sound and provides critical
connective habitat between freshwater and marine systems. This study
will evaluate options to restore more natural flows and improve
watershed management to reduce nutrient inputs, as well as options for
ecological restoration throughout the Basin. The Conservancy supports
$450,000 in fiscal year 2008. This study is not included in the
President's Budget.
Operations and Maintenance Priority
Bill Williams River--Alamo Dam.--Due to the historic loss of
woodland habitat in the Southwest and limited restoration ability along
other portions of the Colorado River, the Bill Williams River corridor
provides critical opportunities for both conserving and restoring
habitat. This plus-up request will provide additional baseline
information about the geomorphology and sediment transport
characteristics of the Bill Williams River and continue critical long-
term hydrologic and biological monitoring in order to construct a
programmatic plan to support adaptive management of the river system.
The Conservancy supports $250,000 plus-up over the President's
Operations and Maintenance request of $1,783,000, for a total of
$2,033,000 in fiscal year 2008.
Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's
comments on the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. We recognize that
you receive many worthy requests for funding each year and appreciate
your consideration of these requests and the generous support you have
shown for these and other conservation programs in the past. If you
have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or
Jason Albritton, Policy Associate (703/841-4105).
______
Prepared Statements of the Santa Clara Valley Water District
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT--COYOTE CREEK WATERSHED STUDY
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, protected homes and
businesses from storms which generated 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.--In May 2002, the House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure passed a resolution
directing the Corps to ``. . . review the report of the Chief of
Engineers on Coyote and Berryessa Creeks . . . and other pertinent
reports, to determine whether modifications of the recommendations
contained therein are advisable in the interest of flood damage
reduction, environmental restoration and protection, water conservation
and supply, recreation, and other allied purposes . . .''
Fiscal Year 2006 Administration Budget Request and Funding.--The
Coyote Watershed Study was one of only three ``new start'' studies
proposed for funding nationwide in the administration's fiscal year
2006 budget request. Congress did not include funding for the study in
the final fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill.
Fiscal Year 2007 Funding.--An appropriation add-on of $100,000 was
requested in fiscal year 2007, and $100,000 was included in the Senate
Appropriation bill. No funds were appropriated in the fiscal year 2007
Corps Work Plan.
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $100,000 to
initiate a multi-purpose Reconnaissance Study within the Coyote Creek
Watershed.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT--COYOTE/BERRYESSA CREEK PROJECT, BERRYESSA CREEK
PROJECT ELEMENT
Background.--The Berryessa Creek Watershed is located in northeast
Santa Clara County, California, near the southern end of the San
Francisco Bay. A major tributary of Coyote Creek, Berryessa Creek
drains 22 square miles in the city of Milpitas and a portion of San
Jose.
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 upstream of 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) 2005 report, a 1 percent or
100-year flood could potentially result in damages exceeding $179
million. Benefit-to-cost ratios for the 6 project alternatives being
evaluated range from 2:1 to 7.3:1.
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/
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. This was
not acceptable to the local community. The Corps and the District are
currently 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 $5 million, and should be
completed in the spring of 2007.
Fiscal Year 2007 Funding.--$100,000 in the fiscal year 2007 Corps
Work Plan for the Coyote/Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project to
continue the General Reevaluation Report and environmental documents
update.
Fiscal Year 2008 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 $1.35
million, in addition to the $950,000 in the Administration's fiscal
year 2008 budget request, for a total of $2.3 million for the Berryessa
Creek Flood Protection Project element of the Coyote/Berryessa Creek
Project.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT--GUADALUPE RIVER 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 $576 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
effects, and project monitoring and 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 modified the project to
resolve major mitigation issues and allowed the project to proceed.
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2002 was signed into
law on November 12, 2001. This authorized the modified Guadalupe River
Project at a total cost of $226.8 million. Subsequent to the
authorization, the project cost has been raised to $251 million.
Construction of the last phase of flood protection was completed in
December 2004 and a completion celebration held in January 2005. The
remaining construction consists of railroad bridge replacements and
mitigation plantings. The overall construction of the project including
the river park and the recreation elements is scheduled for completion
in 2006.
Fiscal Year 2007 Funding.--$5.6 million in the fiscal year 2007
Corps Work Plan to continue Guadalupe River Project construction.
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $8 million
to continue construction of the final phase of the Guadalupe River
Flood Protection Project.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT--LLAGAS CREEK PROJECT
Background.--The Llagas Creek Watershed is located in southern
Santa Clara County, California, serving the communities of Gilroy,
Morgan Hill and San Martin. Historically, Llagas Creek has flooded in
1937, 1955, 1958, 1962, 1963, 1969, 1982, 1986, 1996, 1997, 1998, and
2002. The 1997, 1998, and 2002 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 requirements. 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. Project economics are currently being updated as directed by
Corps Headquarters to determine continued project economic viability.
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 had not received adequate
funding 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). Since the transfer of responsibility to the Corps, the District
has been working with the Corps to complete the project. Efforts are
underway to reauthorize the project at its current project cost in the
recently introduced Water Resources Development Act of 2007.
Fiscal Year 2007 Funding.--$250,000 in the fiscal year 2007 Corps
Work Plan.
Fiscal Year 2008 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 $368,000 in
fiscal year 2008 for planning, design, and environmental updates for
the Llagas Creek Project.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT--SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION AND
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT
Background.--The San Francisquito Creek watershed comprises 45
square miles and 70 miles of creek system. The creek mainstem flows
through five cities and two counties, from Searsville Lake, belonging
to Stanford University, to the San Francisco Bay at the boundary of
East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. Here it 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. The upper watershed
tributaries are within the boundaries of Portola Valley and Woodside
townships. The creek flows through residential and commercial
properties, a biological preserve, and Stanford University campus. It
interfaces with regional and State transportation systems by flowing
under two freeways and the regional commuter rail system. San
Francisquito Creek is one of the last natural continuous riparian
corridors on the San Francisco Peninsula and home to one of the last
remaining viable steelhead trout runs. The riparian habitat and urban
setting offer unique opportunities for a multi-objective flood
protection and ecosystem restoration project.
Flooding History.--The creeks mainstem has a flooding frequency of
approximately once in 11 years. It is estimated that over $155 million
in damages could occur in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties from a 1
percent flood, affecting 4,850 homes and businesses. Significant areas
of Palo Alto flooded 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 4-feet deep. Overflow in 1982 caused extensive damage to private
and public property. The flood of record occurred on February 3, 1998,
when overflow from numerous locations caused severe, record
consequences with more than $28 million in damages. 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 are anxious to avoid a repeat of the
February 1998 flood. Numerous watershed based studies have been
conducted by the Corps, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, Stanford
University, and the San Mateo County Flood Control District.
Grassroots, consensus based organization, called the San Francisquito
Watershed Council, has united stakeholders including local and State
agencies, citizens, flood victims, developers, and environmental
activists for over 10 years. The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers
Authority was formed in 1999 to coordinate creek activities with five
member agencies and two associate members. The Authority Board has
agreed to be the local sponsor for a Corps project and received
Congressional authorization for a Corps reconnaissance study in May
2002. The Reconnaissance Study was completed in March 2005 and the
Feasibility Study was initiated in November 2005.
Fiscal Year 2007 Funding.--$300,000 in the fiscal year 2007 Corps
Work Plan.
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested the
congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $700,000 to
continue the Feasibility Study.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT--SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE STUDY
Background.--Congressional passage of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1976, originally authorized the San Francisco Bay
Shoreline Study, and Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) was
one of the project sponsors. In 1990, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) concluded that levee failure potential was low because the
existing non-Federal, non-engineered levees, which were routinely
maintained by Leslie Salt Company (subsequently Cargill Salt) to
protect their industrial interests, had historically withstood
overtopping without failure. As a result, the project was suspended
until adequate economic benefits could be demonstrated.
Since the project's suspension in 1990, many changes have occurred
in the South Bay. The State and Federal acquisition of approximately
15,000 acres of South Bay salt ponds was completed in early March 2003.
The proposed restoration of these ponds to tidal marsh will
significantly alter the hydrologic regime and levee maintenance
activities, which were assumed to be constant in the Corps' 1990 study.
In addition to the proposed restoration project, considerable
development has occurred in the project area. Many major corporations
are now located within Silicon Valley's Golden Triangle, lying within
and adjacent to the tidal flood zone. Damages from a 1 percent high
tide are anticipated to far exceed the $34.5 million estimated in 1981,
disrupting business operations, infrastructure, and residences. Also,
historical land subsidence of up to 6 feet near Alviso, as well as the
structural uncertainty of existing salt pond levees, increases the
potential for tidal flooding in Santa Clara County.
In July 2002, Congress authorized a review of the Final 1992 Letter
Report for the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study. The final fiscal year
2004 appropriation for the Corps included funding for a new start
Reconnaissance Study.
Project Synopsis.--At present, large areas of Santa Clara, Alameda
and San Mateo Counties would be impacted by flooding during a 1 percent
high tide. The proposed restoration of the South San Francisco Bay salt
ponds will result in the largest restored wetland on the West Coast of
the United States, and also significantly alter the hydrologic regime
adjacent to South Bay urban areas. The success of the proposed
restoration is therefore dependent upon adequate tidal flood
protection, and so this project provides an opportunity for multi-
objective watershed planning in partnership with the California Coastal
Conservancy, the lead agency on the restoration project. Project
objectives include: restoration and enhancement of a diverse array of
habitats, especially several special status species; tidal flood
protection; and provision of wildlife-oriented public access. A Corps
Reconnaissance Study was completed in September 2004 and the
Feasibility Study was initiated in September 2005.
Fiscal Year 2007 Funding.--$1.3 million in the fiscal year 2007
Corps Work Plan to continue the Feasibility Study.
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding Request.--It is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $2.5 million
to continue the Feasibility Study to evaluate integrated flood
protection and environmental restoration.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT--UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER PROJECT
Background.--The Guadalupe River is one of two major waterways
flowing through a highly urbanized area of Santa Clara County,
California, the heart of Silicon Valley. Historically, the river has
flooded the central district and southern areas of San Jose. According
to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 1998 feasibility study, severe
flooding would result from a 100-year flooding event and potentially
cause $280 million in damages.
The probability of a large flood occurring before implementation of
flood prevention measures is high. The upper Guadalupe River overflowed
in March 1982, January 1983, February 1986, January 1995, March 1995,
and February 1998, causing damage to several residences and businesses
in the Alma Avenue and Willow Street areas. The 1995 floods in January
and March, as well as in February 1998, closed Highway 87 and the
parallel light-rail line, a major commute artery.
Project Synopsis.--In 1971, the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(District) requested the Corps reactivate an earlier study of Guadalupe
River. From 1971 to 1980, the Corps established the economic
feasibility and Federal interest in the Guadalupe River only between
Interstate 880 and Interstate 280. Following the 1982 and 1983 floods,
the District requested that the Corps reopen its study of the upper
Guadalupe River upstream of Interstate 280. The Corps completed a
reconnaissance study in November 1989, which established an
economically justifiable solution for flood protection in this reach.
The report recommended proceeding to the feasibility study phase, which
began in 1990. In January 1997, the Corps determined that the National
Economic Development (NED) Plan would be a 2 percent or 50 year level
of flood protection rather than the 1 percent or 100 year level. The
Corps feasibility study determined the cost of the locally preferred
100-year plan is $153 million and the Corps NED 50-year plan is $98
million. The District requested that the costs of providing 50-year and
100-year flood protection be analyzed during the preconstruction
engineering design phase. The Corps is now proceeding with the
preconstruction engineering design phase and has refined the NED Plan
to address the District's comments and Endangered Species Act issues
and has reevaluated the locally preferred plan for full Federal cost
sharing. The findings were submitted to Corps Headquarters for approval
in March 2004 in a Limited Reevaluation Report on the Proposed Project
Modifications. This report contains an evaluation of the revised NED
Plan project and the Locally Preferred Plan project, which costs $165
million with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1:1.42 and $212 million with a
benefit-to-cost ratio of 1:1.24, respectively. The Report was approved
by the Corps in October 2005. The report recommended full cost-sharing
on the Locally Preferred Plan project. Current efforts are underway to
reauthorize the project at its current project cost in the recently
introduced Water Resources Development Act of 2007.
Fiscal Year 2007 Funding.--No funds were appropriated in the fiscal
year 2007 Corps Work Plan for the Upper Guadalupe River Project.
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $10.5
million in fiscal year 2008 to complete final design and continue
construction on the Upper Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT--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 an August 2004 U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Economics Analysis, over 5,000 homes
and businesses in the cities of San Jose and Milpitas are located in
the 1 percent or 100 year flood area. Flood damages were estimated at
$455 million. Benefit to cost ratios for the 9 project alternatives
range from 2:1 to 3.1:1.
Study Synopsis.--Under authority of the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83-566), the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (formerly the Soil 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 currently scheduled
for completion in 2007.
Advance Construction.--To accelerate project implementation, the
District submitted a section 104 application to the Corps for approval
to construct a portion of the project. The application was approved in
December 2000. The advance construction is for a 2,600-foot long
section of bypass channel between Coyote Creek and King Road. However,
due to funding constraints at the District and concerns raised by
regulatory agencies, the design was stopped and turned over to the
Corps to complete.
Fiscal Year 2007 Funding.--$319,000 in the fiscal year 2007 Corps
Work Plan for continued project investigation.
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $109,000, in
addition to the $191,000 in the administration's fiscal year 2008
budget request, for a total of $300,000 for the Upper Penitencia Creek
Flood Protection Project to continue the Feasibility Study.
______
Prepared Statement of the Calaveras County Water District
Calaveras County (County) is located in the central Sierra Nevada
foothills about 25 miles east of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
(Delta). Ground elevations within the County increase from 200 feet
above mean sea level near the northwest part of the County to 8,170
feet near Alpine County. It is a predominately rural county with a
relatively sparse but rapidly developing population and limited
agricultural and industrial development. Calaveras County is located
within the watersheds of the Mokelumne, Calaveras, and Stanislaus
Rivers.
All three of these rivers flow west, running through San Joaquin
County into the Delta. Most of the County is underlain by the igneous
and metamorphic rocks of the Sierra Nevada. Alluvial deposits of the
Central Valley, which overlie the westward plunging Sierra Nevada, are
present along an 80 square-mile area located along the western edge of
the County and are part of the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin
(ESJCGB).
In the fall of 1946, the Calaveras County Water District (CCWD) was
organized under the laws of the State of California as a public agency
for the purpose of developing and administering the water resources in
Calaveras County. Therefore, CCWD is a California Special District and
is governed by the California Constitution and the California
Government and Water Codes. CCWD is not a part of, or under the control
of, the County of Calaveras. CCWD was formed to preserve and develop
water resources and to provide water and wastewater service to the
citizens of Calaveras County
Under State law, CCWD, through its board of directors, has general
powers over the use of water within its boundaries. These powers
include, but are not limited to: the right of eminent domain, authority
to acquire, control, distribute, store, spread, sink, treat, purify,
reclaim, process and salvage any water for beneficial use, to provide
sewer service, to sell treated or untreated water, to acquire or
construct hydroelectric facilities and sell the power and energy
produced to public agencies or public utilities engaged in the
distribution of power, to contract with the United States, other
political subdivisions, public utilities, or other persons, and subject
to the California State Constitution, levy taxes and improvements.
COSGROVE CREEK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
The Cosgrove Creek Flood Control Project will address flooding that
occurs along the lower reaches of the creek, as well as flooding that
occurs on Spring Creek. Flooding in these areas impacts over 400 people
and 100 structures located in the 100-year floodplain. Within the
context of the flood control effort, the project will also address
options for the beneficial use of peak flows and address other local
concerns such as the need for recreational opportunities in the area.
The Calaveras County Water District respectfully requests $100,000
for this project in fiscal year 2008 from the Corps of Engineers
Construction General account.
NEW HOGAN RESERVOIR/CALAVERAS COUNTY REGIONAL WATER AND WASTEWATER
FACILITY STUDY
This project will address regional water and wastewater facility
needs for the region. New uses for recycled water, including wetlands
creation, groundwater recharge and conjunctive use, are key elements of
the project and will meet critical water use efficiency and
environmental needs of the area. This project will also fund the New
Hogan Lake Reoperation study to examine if operation of the project
should be changed to more closely meet the contemporary needs of the
area, including problems associated with downstream flooding and
conjunctive use of water.
The Calaveras County Water District respectfully requests
$1,000,000 from the Corps of Engineers under section 205 in fiscal year
2008, switching to section 219 depending on WRDA.
______
Prepared Statement of the California State Coastal Conservancy
SUMMARY
The following testimony is in support of the California State
Coastal Conservancy's fiscal year 2008 Energy and Water Appropriations
requests. The Conservancy respectfully requests needed funding for the
following critical projects: $7.65 million for the Hamilton Bel-Marin
Keys Wetland Restoration Project, Army Corps of Engineers, Construction
General; $2.5 million for the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study,
Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations; $750,000 for the Napa
River Salt Marsh Restoration Project, Army Corps of Engineers, General
Investigations; $13.59 million for the Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem
Restoration Project, Army Corps of Engineers, Construction General;
$3,000,000 for the Matilija Dam Ecosystem Restoration Project, Army
Corps of Engineers, General Investigations and $300,000 for the San
Pablo Bay Watershed Restoration Program.
CONSERVANCY BACKGROUND
The California Coastal Conservancy, established in 1976, is a State
agency that uses entrepreneurial techniques to purchase, protect,
restore, and enhance coastal resources, and to provide access to the
shore. We work in partnership with local governments, other public
agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private landowners.
To date, the Conservancy has undertaken more than 950 projects
along the 1,100 mile California coastline and around San Francisco Bay.
Through such projects, the Conservancy: protects and improves coastal
wetlands, streams, and watersheds; works with local communities to
revitalize urban waterfronts; assists local communities in solving
complex land-use problems and protects agricultural lands and supports
coastal agriculture to list a few of our activities.
Since its establishment in 1976, the Coastal Conservancy has:
helped build more than 300 access ways and trails, thus opening more
than 80 miles of coastal and bay lands for public use; assisted in the
completion of over 100 urban waterfront projects; joined in partnership
endeavors with more than 100 local land trusts and other nonprofit
groups, making local community involvement an integral part of the
Coastal Conservancy's work and completed projects in every coastal
county and all 9 San Francisco Bay Area counties. In addition, we
currently have over 300 active projects that are benefiting the
citizens of California.
Hamilton Bel-Marin Keys Wetland Restoration Project
In fiscal year 2008 the California Coastal Conservancy is seeking
$7.65 million, consistent with Corps of Engineers' capability, for the
continued construction of this project.
This project is of critical importance as it will provide nearly
700 acres of restored tidal and seasonal wetlands at a former Army
base, in Marin County, California and provide much needed habitat for
several threatened and endangered species; as well as, shorebirds and
waterfowl migrating along the Pacific Flyway. In addition, this project
beneficially uses dredged material from the San Francisco Bay which
provides for increased navigation and maritime commerce for the Bay
Area, a much needed economic stimulus for the region.
The first phase of construction, which started last year, is taking
place on the former Army Airfield. Miles of levees are currently under
construction, after which the main runway and taxiways will be buried
under millions of cubic yards of clean dredged sediment. Subsequently,
the easterly levee will be breached allowing tidal waters to once again
flood the site. Later in the project, the Corps will work on the
adjacent Antenna field and Bel Marin Keys V property (subject to WRDA
approval) resulting in a total project area of nearly 2,500 acres. This
phased approach will be used to complete the design and construction
tasks in conjunction with the availability of land and dredged
material.
South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study
The Conservancy is seeking $2.5 million in funding in order to
continue the Feasibility Study for this project. The study was
initiated in fiscal year 2005 and has been ongoing, receiving $600,000
in funds in fiscal year 2006.
This project is of national significance as it will create the
largest restored wetland on the West Coast of the United States and
will provide extensive habitat for federally endangered species and
migratory waterfowl. In addition, the project is also critical to the
region as it will provide tidal and fluvial flood protection for the
South San Francisco Bay Area protecting approximately 42,800 acres,
7,400 homes and businesses, and significant urban infrastructure, to
include major highways, hospitals and airport facilities.
In order to continue to advance this important study it is
imperative that local interests and the Federal Government work
together to ensure a reliable funding stream for the project. In
accordance, substantial cost-sharing has already begun among the land
management agencies. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contributed $8
million toward the $100 million acquisition of the salt ponds. The
State of California provided $72 million and the Hewlett Foundation,
Packard Foundation, Moore Foundation, and Goldman Fund provided $20
million. The foundations are providing an additional $15 million for
restoration planning and $9 million for land management. The State of
California is providing $8 million for planning and $6 million for land
management.
Napa River Salt Marsh
For fiscal year 2008, we are seeking $750,000 in Federal funds in
order to complete preconstruction engineering and design (PED) for this
project which will allow construction to commence as soon as the
project is authorized by Congress. Last year, $125,000 was appropriated
to the Corps of Engineers for PED activities.
The funds requested would allow the Corps of Engineers to complete
design of the Napa River Salt Marsh Project. Upon authorization of the
project in WRDA, the Corps will be able to construct the project.
Construction of the project will provide extensive benefits to the
region, to include: providing extensive wetland habitat in San
Francisco Bay; the beneficial use for recycled water in the North Bay;
improve open space and recreational opportunities; and resolve urgent
issues associated with deterioration of the site's levee, water control
structures, and water quality.
The 10,000 acre Napa River Salt Marsh was purchased by the State of
California from Cargill in 1994 and is managed by the California
Department of Fish and Game. The State Coastal Conservancy has been the
non-Federal sponsor working with the Corps on the Feasibility Study.
The Corps' Feasibility Study was completed and the Chief's Report was
signed in December of 2004. Preconstruction engineering and design is
currently taking place with construction commencing once the project is
authorized in WRDA.
Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration
In fiscal year 2008, we are seeking $13.59 million in funding to
complete construction and avoid cost increases and project delays.
Upper Newport Bay, one of the largest remaining tidal wetlands in
Southern California, provides significant habitat for numerous
federally endangered species, migratory waterfowl and shorebirds along
the Pacific Flyway, and anadromous fish and other aquatic species. To
ensure the long-term viability of this diverse salt marsh ecosystem as
well as the stability of the region's ecosystem, the Army Corps of
Engineers and the County of Orange developed the Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Restoration Project, which was authorized in the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000.
The project will address the habitat conversion resulting from
sedimentation in the upper bay, increase the quantity and quality of
wetlands habitat, improve water quality by reducing sediment inflows
and algal blooms and preserve both Federal and local navigational
channels, which if unaddressed will require costly maintenance
dredging.
A construction contract was awarded in September 2005 and
construction is underway. The available funds (Federal and non-Federal)
will be expended by late summer 2006. The funding request of $18
million for fiscal year 2007 will complete construction of this project
and avoid cost increases from re-mobilizing equipment and inflation.
Matilija Dam Ecosystem Restoration Project
In fiscal year 2008 we are seeking $3 million for the Army Corps of
Engineers General Investigation account to complete the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers' engineering and Design work of the project.
The Matilija Dam Ecosystem Restoration Project is a project of
vital importance as the project seeks to remove the 200-foot tall
Matilija Dam on a tributary to the Ventura River. This critical project
is designed to reestablish runs of the endangered southern steelhead
trout and to allow sand to flow to coastal beaches. This project is one
of the largest dam removal projects in the Country and enjoys broad
support from many local, State and Federal agencies.
In order to remove the dam, 6 million cubic yards of sediments
trapped behind the dam will be moved or recontoured. A high flow
sediment bypass system will be constructed at a water diversion
downstream. A silt removal system will be installed along the diversion
canal. In addition, levees will be built in several places along the
river channel to protect property from flooding due to the expected
increases in stream channel elevation in the first years after removal
of the dam. The project also involves removal of invasive plants and
the installation of replacement water wells
San Pablo Bay Watershed Restoration Program
We are seeking $300,000 in fiscal year 2008 appropriations for the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers General Investigations account.
This critical program provides technical, planning and design
assistance to local partners in one of the Nation's most treasured
estuaries. Partnership collaboration and outreach guarantees that the
program provides the services needed by local entities to improve
habitat and flood protection throughout the watershed. By working with
local entities, long-term water resources protection and restoration
has increased.
The support of the program would facilitate technical and planning
assistance that will expand wetland habitat for numerous endangered
species, migratory waterfowl and shorebirds, andramodous fish and other
aquatic species. The project will also improve open space and
recreation opportunities as well as resolve the following; issues
surrounding levees on the Sears Point project, channel restoration on
Gallinas Creek, water quality issues on the Black Point Antenna Field
site as well as conduct environmental restoration and flood protection
surveys on Wildcat Creek.
We thank you for your consideration of these requests and look
forward to working with you on these and other matters throughout the
year.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Chemical Society
The American Chemical Society (ACS) would like to thank Chairman
Byron Dorgan and Ranking Member Peter Domenici for the opportunity to
submit testimony for the record on the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008. For fiscal year 2008, ACS
requests the Department of Energy Office of Science be fully funded at
the administration request of $4.398 billion.
ACS is a non-profit scientific and educational organization,
chartered by Congress, representing more than 160,000 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.
As Congress and the administration seek to bolster the economy,
economists agree that investments in basic research boost long-term
economic growth more than other areas of Federal spending. Numerous
recent reports cite the growing challenges American faces from global
competitors, including the National Academies of Science report Rising
Above the Gathering Storm.
Basic physical science investments foster the new technologies and
train the scientific workforce which drive the Nation's public health,
defense, energy security, and environmental progress. Although industry
funds the bulk of national R&D, the Federal Government provides 60
percent of basic research funding and, remarkably, 40 percent of
patents cite Federal research as their source. Yet Federal research in
the physical sciences and engineering has been cut in half since 1970
as a percentage of GDP. Fortunately, the President, top congressional
leaders, and members of science and industry have all recognized the
need to boost investment in physical sciences and engineering research.
This investment has never been more important given its central role in
advancing the Nation's economic, energy, and homeland security.
ACS Budget Recommendations
Current Federal efforts to advance energy efficiency, production,
and new energy sources while reducing air pollution and other
environmental impacts will demand increased investment in long-term
energy research. By supporting people, research, and world-class
science and engineering facilities, the Department of Energy's Office
of Science expands the frontiers of science in areas critical to DOE's
energy, environment, and national security missions.
The President's budget request represents leadership to ensure
American competitiveness and innovation by providing the largest
investment in DOE Office of Science in over 2 decades. Many in Congress
have joined with the President in calling for expanded investment in
basic physical science research. The President's request for $4.398
billion is essential to ensuring the strength of our innovation
economy.
Increases in the Office of Science will help reverse the declining
Federal support for physical science and encourage more students to
pursue degrees in these fields. The Office of Science is the largest
Federal supporter of research in the physical sciences, funding almost
40 percent of research in these fields. The Office of Science fosters
the new discoveries and technical talent that will continue to be
essential to advances in coal, hydrogen, biomass, genomics, and many
other technology areas. Additional funds should be directed to increase
the number of grants, especially in core energy programs, and to
improve research facilities. The Office is the primary source of
Federal support in many research areas essential to our energy security
and economy, such as catalysis, carbon cycle research, photovoltaics,
combustion, and advanced computing. Increased investment is also
important given the declining private support for long-term energy
research.
Increase Grants in Core Programs
ACS recommends that increases for the Office of Science be directed
to advancing core energy research across disciplines, which enables DOE
to respond rapidly to new challenges. For example, DOE capitalized on
long-term atmospheric chemistry research, particularly in aerosols, and
quickly developed a single anthrax-bacterium detector. DOE must
strengthen its ability to attract scientists and train the next
generation of scientists and engineers by increasing the number of
grants in its core programs without reducing their size and duration.
Current appropriations allow the DOE Office of Science to fund one
third the proposals as the National Institutes of Health and the
National Science Foundation. This rate is considerably lower than those
of other agencies and amounts to lost opportunities for both
significant discoveries and the education of the next generation of
scientists and engineers.
Within the Office of Science, ACS particularly supports the Basic
Energy Sciences and Biological and Environmental Research programs. As
the cornerstone of the Office, the Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program
supports an array of long-term basic research to improve energy
production and use and reduce the environmental impact of those
activities. The BES program manages almost all of DOE's scientific
user-facilities, and provides leading support for nanotechnology and
advanced computing research--two priority research areas that will have
important implications for energy efficiency and security. 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 DOE weapons production sites. ACS supports a strong role for DOE in
Federal efforts to advance pollution prevention and climate change
research.
DOE and the Scientific Workforce
As the largest supporter of research in the physical sciences, DOE
can greatly affect the training and number of scientists in industry,
government and academia. Inadequate investment in any research field
constricts the supply of trained scientists and engineers who apply
research and develop new technology. For instance, declining support
for nuclear science and engineering will greatly affect the nuclear
sector as a majority of today's nuclear scientists and engineers near
retirement. Another example is the synergistic relationship between the
need for radiochemists and NIH's ability to conduct clinical trials.
Advances in diagnosis and treatment in nuclear medicine are dependent
on the synthesis of highly specific radiopharmaceuticals that target
biological processes in normal and diseased tissues. The Office of
Science, through BER supported research, occupies a critical place in
the field of radiopharmaceutical research. The NIH relies on the Office
of Science's basic research to enable clinical trials.
Another way for DOE to help attract students and retain talented
scientists and engineers is to renew investments in scientific
infrastructure. The Office of Science operates one of the most
extensive and remarkable collection of scientific user facilities in
the world, providing tools for research for more than 25,000 scientists
funded by DOE, other Federal agencies, and industry. Many facilities
are in poor condition or have outmoded instrumentation. Additional
funding would allow for increased operating time, upgrades,
instrumentation, and technical support. The proposed cuts could result
in established facilities lying idle, allowing taxpayer investments to
go unused.
National laboratories also play an important role in providing
research and training opportunities to enhance the university
curriculum. ACS supports the initial plan by DOE to utilize its
national laboratories to help mentor and train science teachers.
Students at all levels clearly learn better when their teachers have a
deep understanding of the subject, and the first-rate multidisciplinary
research and scientific professionals at the national laboratories
certainly could be a rich resource for science and math teachers. ACS
urges stronger coordination among agencies with significant K-12 math
and science programs in order to maximize the Federal investment in
this area.
ACS praises the work of Department of Energy leadership, and
particularly Office of Science Director Ray Orbach, to establish a
vision of America's scientific future with the 20 year facilities plan
and a forward thinking departmental strategic plan. ACS views these
documents, along with the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board report
``Critical Choices: Science, Energy, and Security'' as key elements of
America's research and development portfolio. Growth in DOE Science
funding is essential to realizing the goals in these documents, and ACS
urges Congress to act to ensure this vision of a technologically
advanced and safe America comes to fruition.
______
Prepared Statement of the Napa County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
On behalf of the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District (District), I want to thank the subcommittee for this
opportunity to present our priorities for fiscal year 2008 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 the
Corps of Engineers award-winning Napa River Flood Control project and
we are requesting the subcommittee's full support of this project to
ensure that it stays on schedule. Specifically, we request the
subcommittee to support our request of $19 million from the Army Corps
of Engineers Construction General account for the Napa River Flood
Control Project. We are also seeking $3.615 million for the maintenance
dredging of the Napa River from the Army Corps of Engineers (Operation
and Maintenance, General account). The following text outlines these
projects and the need for the requested funding.
NAPA RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
Background
In the last 50 years, 19 floods have struck the Valley region,
exacting a heavy toll in loss of life and property.
The most recent flooding event, the New Years flood of 2006, to hit
our area is estimated to have caused some $70 million in damage within
the city of Napa--with the vast majority of that damage in areas that
will be protected by the Project that is currently under construction.
The flood in 1986 killed three people and caused more than $100
million in damage in 1986 dollars. 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 countywide.
Almost all of the damages from the 1986, 1995, and 1997 floods were
within the Project area.
Congress had authorized a flood control project in 1965, but due to
expense, lack of public consensus on the design and concern about
environment impacts, a project had never been realized. 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.
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 local runoff. Floods in the
Napa area have occurred in 1955, 1958, 1963, 1965, 1986 (flood of
record), 1995, 1997 and 2005. In 1998, the river rose just above flood
stage on three occasions, but subsided before major property damage
occurred. In December of 2002, flooding occurred from the Napa Creek at
the transition to the Napa River, resulting in damage to numerous
residents and several businesses.
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 leaders,
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.
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). Construction of the project began 2 years ago. 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. 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 dollars
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 4 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.
NAPA RIVER DREDGING PROJECT
The Napa River navigation project was authorized by the Rivers and
Harbors Acts of 1888, 1935, and 1946.
The Napa River is a shallow draft navigation channel which serves
light commercial and recreational traffic. The project is normally
dredged by the Corps of Engineers on a 6-year cycle, with the most
recent dredging begin completed in 1998. This dredging is 2 years
overdue and is causing not only impediment to commercial activity but
posing major obstacles for construction of the project from the river.
Maintenance dredging is required to restore depths required for
existing traffic and in anticipation of the additional boat traffic
resulting from replacement of Maxwell Bridge. The Napa County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District is responsible for providing a
suitable disposal site for the dredged material.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of St. Helena, California
City Of St. Helena
The city of St. Helena is located in the center of the wine growing
Napa Valley, 65 miles north of San Francisco. The area was settled in
1834 as part of General Vallejo's land grant. The city of St. Helena
was incorporated as a city on March 24, 1876 and reincorporated on May
14, 1889.
The city of St. Helena is a General Law City and operates under the
Council-City Manager form of government. St. Helena is a full service
city and encompasses an area of 4 square miles. The City Council is the
governing body and has the power to make and enforce all laws and set
policy related to municipal affairs. The official population of the
city of St. Helena as of January 1, 2003, is 6,041. Because of its size
and its rural nature, St. Helena has serious infrastructure, as well
as, flood protection and environmental needs that far exceed its
financial capabilities.
The city from its inception has served as a rural agricultural
center. Over the years, with the growth and development of the wine
industry, the city has become an important business and banking center
for the wine industry. The city also receives many tourists as a result
of the wine industry. While, the main goal of the city is to maintain a
small-town atmosphere and to provide quality services to its citizens,
this is becoming increasingly difficult. Regulatory, administrative and
resource requirements placed on the city through the listing of
threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act on
the Napa River, as well as significant Clean Water Act requirements
require the city with a small population base to face significant
financial costs.
The Napa River flows along the east boundary of the city of St.
Helena in northern Napa County. The overall Napa River Watershed
historically supported a dense riparian forest and significant wetland
habitat. Over the last 200 years, approximately 6,500 acres of valley
floor wetlands have been filled in and 45,700 acres of overall
watershed have been converted to urban and agricultural uses. This
degradation of natural habitats has had a significant effect on water
quality, vegetation and wildlife, and aquatic resources within the Napa
River Watershed.
Surface water quality of the Napa River is dependent upon time of
year, runoff from York and Sulphur Creeks, and urban area discharges.
During the winter months when stream flow is high, pollutants are
diluted; however, sedimentation and turbidity is high as well. During
the summer months when stream flow is low, pollutants are concentrated
and oxygen levels are low, thereby decreasing water quality.
Agricultural runoff adds pesticides, fertilizer residue, and sometimes
sediment. Discharges from urban areas can include contaminated
stormwater runoff and treated city wastewater. The Napa River has been
placed on the Clean Water Act 303(d) list and TMDL Priority Schedule
due to unacceptable levels of bacteria, sedimentation, and nutrients.
It is against this backdrop that the city of St. Helena faces its
biggest challenges.
St. Helena Comprehensive Flood Control Project
The project site is in the City of St. Helena in Napa County,
California (County), along the Napa River and adjacent areas. Within
and adjacent to this reach of the River, the city proposes various
flood control components, ranging from widening the floodplain and
constructing new floodwalls and levee, to relocating homes. An
additional component includes flood protection at the Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) south of the city.
With this project, the city of St. Helena seeks to develop and
implement a plan that will reduce damage resulting from Napa River
flooding in a manner that is economically feasible, acceptable from a
public policy standpoint, and environmentally sensitive. In particular,
the city wishes to reduce flooding in a manner that will result in
overall improvement to the health of the ecosystem in the project
reach.
The project will re-connect the Napa River to its historic
floodplain, thereby reducing water surface elevations through the area
by several feet, avoiding large flood control structures and
canalization, and would provide 100-year flood protection to the area.
It will also restore habitat of the natural floodplain terraces,
including riparian and aquatic habitat. Within and adjacent to this
reach of the river, the city proposes various flood control components,
ranging from widening the floodplain and constructing new floodwalls
and levee, to relocating homes. The St. Helena Comprehensive Project
will also restore native plant and tree communities through re-
vegetation efforts.
The city of St. Helena respectfully requests the committee's
support for $450,000 under the Corps of Engineers General
Investigations Account.
Upper York Creek Dam Removal And Restoration Project
The Upper York Creek Watershed originates at the western side of
the Napa Valley watershed and the creek flows through a narrow canyon
before joining the Napa River at a 225 foot elevation.
This project will improve fish passage and ecological stream
function for the York Creek, a key Napa River Tributary. The project
will open an additional 2 miles of steelhead habitat upstream from the
current dam location by removing an earthen dam and accumulated
sediment necessary to restore fish passage to provide unimpeded
upstream adult and downstream juvenile fish passage.
Revegetation, as part of the project, will restore a self-
sustaining native plant community that will help exclude non-native
invasive species.
The city of St. Helena respectfully requests the committee's
support for $1.371 million under the Corps of Engineers section 206
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Program to design and initiate
construction under a design build contract in fiscal year 2008.
St. Helena Napa River Restoration Project
The Napa River and its riparian corridor are considered Critical
Habitat for steelhead and salmon recovery. The steelhead is one of six
federally-listed threatened and endangered species within the Napa
River and its adjoining tributaries which requires attention. Current
conditions are such that natural habitats and geomorphic processes of
the Napa River are highly confined with sediment transport and
geomorphic work occurring in a limited area of the streambed and
channel banks. Napa River's habitat for the steelhead is limited in its
ability to provide prime spawning habitat. Limitations include
urbanization removing significant amounts of shading and cover
vegetation within and adjacent to the river; and a detrimental lack of
pool habitat.
In an effort to address these Federal environmental issues, the St.
Helena Napa River Restoration Project, a section 06 Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration Project, was identified in the Napa Valley Watershed
Management Feasibility Study of April 2001 as a specific opportunity
for restoration.
This project will develop riparian planting regimes to maximize
habitat values for species, in particular, steelhead, California
freshwater shrimp and young salmon.
This project will address the lack of shading and cover vegetation
along the river which has impaired the river's ability to serve as a
critical habitat for many different species of fish and wildlife. It is
necessary to ensure and improve the viability of Federal and State
listed species by providing rearing, resident and migratory habitat in
the project's three-mile stream corridor. The project will also work to
improve area habitat to benefit the migration of steelhead to high
value fisheries habitat in upper watershed channel reaches.
The city of St. Helena respectfully requests $300,000 in fiscal
year 2008 funding from the Corps of Engineers section 206 Aquatic
Ecosystem Restoration Program to complete the feasibility study. This
study will recommend actions not only for maximizing habitat for
species by removing obstacles and hard bank stabilization, but to
implement improvements to in-stream habitat such as woody debris,
boulders and establishment of pools.
______
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 priority for fiscal year 2008 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 the
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 support the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request
of $33,500,000 from the Army Corps of Engineers Construction, General
account in the fiscal year 2008 Energy and Water appropriations 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, connected to large CSO storage
reservoirs. The ``underground rivers'' are tunnels up to 35 feet in
diameter and 350 feet below the surface. All 109.4 miles of the tunnels
have just recently been completed. The tunnels capture the majority of
the pollution load by capturing all of the small storms and the first
flush of the large storms.
The completed O'Hare CUP Reservoir provides 350 million gallons of
storage. This Reservoir has a service area of 11.2 square miles and
provides flood relief to 21,535 homes in Arlington Heights, Des Plaines
and Mount Prospect. The Thornton and McCook Reservoirs are currently
under construction, but until and unless they are completed,
significant areas will remain unprotected. Without these reservoirs as
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, 823 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. Already, these counties have received millions of gallons of
additional 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, many 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 McCook 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 annual benefits of $115 million. The
total expected annual benefits of these projects are approximately
twice as much as their total annual costs. The District, as the local
sponsor, has acquired the land necessary for these projects, and will
meet its cost sharing obligations under Public Law 99-662.
These projects are a very sound investment with a high rate of
return. The remaining benefit/cost ratio for these 2 reservoirs
together is 3.0. 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 severe 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. It is important that we receive a total of $33,500,000 in
construction funds in fiscal year 2008 to maintain the commitment and
finish these projects. This funding is critical in order to construct
the McCook Reservoir Stage 1 Grout Curtain, Stage 2 Slurry Wall, and
Stage 1 Rock Wall Stabilization Contracts and to continue the
engineering design of other McCook and Thornton Reservoir projects. The
community has waited long enough for protection and we need these funds
now to move the project in construction. We respectfully request your
consideration of our request.
Summary
To emphasize the areas plight, I would like to relate a flooding
event that occurred when just under 4 inches of rain fell on the
greater Chicagoland area. Due to the frozen ground, almost all of the
rainfall entered our combined sewers, causing sewerage back-ups
throughout the area. When the existing TARP tunnels filled with
approximately 1.2 billion gallons of sewage and runoff, the only
remaining outlets for the sewers were our waterways. Between 9:00 p.m.
and 3:00 a.m., the Chicago and Calumet Rivers rose 6 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 and
regularity 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 1,443,000 structures within our jurisdiction, which
are subject to flooding at any given time. The annual damages sustained
exceed $150 million. With the TARP CUP Reservoirs in place, these
damages could be eliminated. We must consider the safety and peace of
mind of the 2 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 proceeds on schedule
through construction.
Therefore, we urgently request that a total of $33,500,000 in
construction funds be made available in the fiscal year 2008 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 Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS)
My name is Larry Libeu, and I am President of the Western Coalition
of Arid States. The Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS) is
submitting this testimony regarding the Presidents fiscal year 2008
budget request for the United States Army Corp of Engineers.
WESTCAS is a coalition of approximately 125 water and wastewater
districts, cities and towns and professional organizations focused on
water quality and water quantity issues in the States of Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Texas. Our
mission is to work with Federal, State and regional water quality and
quantity agencies to promote scientifically-sound law, regulations,
appropriations and policies that protect public health in the
environment of the arid West.
Providing adequate budget for the Army Corps of Engineers is
crucial for the immediate and long term delivery of adequate water
supplies, hydropower, flood control, and flood and coastal restoration
within the arid west. As such WESTCAS supports the performance criteria
established which will ensure projects are funded and completed within
a timely fashion. We also believe the issue of reprogramming of funds
out of projects needs to be addressed in a more thorough manner and
have welcomed your interest in this area of the Corps program.
We are greatly concerned that the Corps Construction budget is down
38 percent, the General Investigations are down 45 percent and the O&M
budget is ever increasing. The Corps infrastructure is one of the
foundations of our Nation's economy--and the infrastructure is aging.
When we look at the number of projects funded by Congress last year, it
appears the Corps is only submitting a budget that funds one-quarter of
that work. This is not a solution for success but a path way to
cataclysmic failure which could have devastating consequences to the
economy.
The Army Corps of Engineers provides funding and oversight for many
projects within the WESTCAS States including but not limited to the
following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alamogordo, New Mexico..................................... $4,200,000
National Dam Safety Program................................ 10,000,000
Oakland Harbor, California................................. 42,000,000
Sacramento River Bank Protection, CA....................... 21,528,000
Success Dam, Tule River, California........................ 18,000,000
Sims Bayou, Houston, Texas................................. 24,154,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As such, the Corps is a critical partner for WESTCAS organizations
to provide quality water services both today and tomorrow. We look with
interest in seeing the 5-year budget development plan that will be
provided to Congress in the near future. This will provide a level of
greater transparency and ability for the stakeholders of the Corps to
better understand future budgetary trends.
To that end, we believe it is important for the committee to
provide greater direction for the Corps to undertake an integrated
water management and watershed approach that will assist in focusing on
the needs of today and with projecting future needs. What we have
witnessed over the years of looking at agencies budgets is the lack of
intergovernmental cooperation and cooperative planning. The planning
should be taking place with the States and the interested parties at
the watershed level. We believe there is widespread support for such
approaches throughout the West.
We note a slight increase in the Corps Regulatory program, a
program to protect wetlands and other waters of the United States.
Permits, and the ability to get timely consideration of such is an
important element for our agencies. We are interested in seeing greater
detail with regard to the Corps request in this area since they
indicate the funding is needed because of the Supreme Court's Carabell
and Rapanos decisions. These cases hold the potential for greater
resource allocations on our members' part and believe this request
needs careful attention.
Though not in your jurisdiction, we look with interest on the
current Water Resources Development Act authorization effort because of
the consequences to future budgets of the agency. Reform is a good idea
if it is not used as a tool for delay. With the Corps having over a $50
billion backlog of projects it is important to recognize the need to
fund this budget at a level that meets the needs in a timely manner and
keeps the economy strong and protects the public.
Thank you for considering our request.
______
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Prepared Statement of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM, TITLE II, BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION
SUMMARY
This statement is submitted in support of fiscal year 2008
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, and reconfirmed the Bureau of
Reclamation's role by passage of Public Law 104-20. A total of $17.5
million is requested for fiscal year 2008 to implement the authorized
Colorado River salinity control program of the Bureau of Reclamation.
The President's appropriation request of $7.85 million, falling again
below previous appropriations for the program, is inadequate because
studies have shown that the implementation of the salinity control
program has fallen behind the pace needed to control damages from
salinity. An appropriation of $17.5 million for Reclamation's salinity
control program is necessary to protect water quality standards for
salinity and to prevent unnecessary levels of economic damage from
increased salinity levels in water delivered to the Lower Basin States
of the Colorado River. In addition, funding for operation and
maintenance of existing projects and sufficient general investigation
funding is required to identify new salinity control opportunities.
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. 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 could cause the numeric criteria
to be exceeded, and would result in unnecessary damages from higher
levels of salinity in the water delivered to Lower Basin States of the
Colorado River.
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, 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. 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.
Bureau of Reclamation studies show that quantified damages from the
Colorado River to United States water users are about $330,000,000 per
year. Unquantified damages are significantly greater. Damages are
estimated at $75,000,000 per year for every additional increase of 30
milligrams per liter in salinity of the Colorado River. Control of
salinity is necessary for the States of the Colorado River Basin,
including New Mexico, to continue to develop their compact-apportioned
waters of the Colorado River.
Timely appropriations for the funding of the salinity control
program are essential to comply with the water quality standards for
salinity, prevent unnecessary economic damages in the United States,
and protect the quality of the water that the United States is
obligated to deliver to Mexico. The Basin States and Federal agencies
agree that increases in the salinity of the Colorado River will result
in significant increases in damages to water users in the Lower
Colorado River Basin. An appropriation of only the amount specified in
the President's budget request is 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 International Boundary
and Water Commission, the United States through the U.S. Section of
IBWC is currently addressing a request by Mexico for better quality
water. Thus, continued strong support and adequate funding of the
salinity control program is required to control salinity-related
damages in the United States and Mexico.
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 2008. The Basin States
cost sharing adds $0.43 for each Federal $1 appropriated.
Public Law 106-459 gave the Bureau of Reclamation additional
spending authority for the salinity control program. With the
additional authority in place and significant cost sharing available
from 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. Some of the most
cost-effective salinity control opportunities occur when Reclamation
improves irrigation delivery systems concurrently with on-farm
irrigation improvements undertaken by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). The
Basin States cost-share funding is available for both parts, on-farm
and off-farm, and EQIP funding appears to be adequate to accomplish
needed on-farm work. Adequate funding for Reclamation off-farm work is
needed to maintain timely implementation and effectiveness of salinity
control measures.
Maintenance and operation of the Bureau of Reclamation's salinity
control projects and general investigations to identify new cost-
effective salinity control projects are necessary for the continued
success of the salinity control program. Investigation of new
opportunities for salinity control are critical while the Basin States
continue to develop and use their compact-apportioned waters of the
Colorado River. The water quality standards for salinity and the United
States water quality requirements pursuant to treaty obligations with
Mexico are dependent on timely implementation of salinity control
projects, adequate funding to maintain and operate existing projects,
and sufficient general investigation funding to determine new cost-
effective opportunities for salinity control.
Continued funding primarily through Reclamation's Facility
Operation activity to support maintenance and operation the Paradox
Valley Unit and the Grand Valley Unit is critically needed. General
Investigation funding through Reclamation's Colorado River Water
Quality Improvement Program has been lacking in the recent past, and
needs to be restored to a level that supports the need for
identification and study of new salinity control opportunities to
maintain the levels of salinity control to meet water quality standards
and control economic damages in the Lower Colorado River Basin.
I urge the Congress to appropriate $17.5 million to the Bureau of
Reclamation for the Colorado River Basin salinity control program,
adequate funding for operation and maintenance of existing projects and
adequate funding for general investigations to identify new salinity
control opportunities. 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 Jicarilla Apache Nation
INTRODUCTION
On behalf of the Jicarilla Apache Nation in New Mexico, I am
pleased to submit this statement regarding the fiscal year 2008
proposed budget for the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the
Interior. The Jicarilla Apache Nation (``nation'') is a federally
recognized Indian Tribe, and our Reservation is located in Northern New
Mexico. We have over 3,500 members and 85 percent of the population
lives on our Reservation in the town of Dulce, which serves as our
tribal headquarters. For the last 8 years we have been working with the
Federal Government to deal with a severe problem that has been plaguing
us--the failing public drinking water and wastewater systems on our
Reservation.
As more described below, the Nation has worked tirelessly to take
corrective action to address this public health crisis by committing
significant funds and resources, and by successfully working with
Congress to authorize a project to replace this dilapidated
infrastructure. The nation has done everything possible to implement
the statutory directive placed on the Secretary of the Interior to
comply with the law and construct our project. Unfortunately, since
Congress authorized the project which President Bush signed into law in
December 2002, the Bush administration has repeatedly failed to include
funding in its annual budget to Congress to develop and construct our
project. Notably, ours is the only project Congress has authorized
which is fully encompassed in an Indian reservation and which has 100
percent Indian project beneficiaries. We also understand our project is
the only one that acknowledges and mandates corrective action for the
Federal Government's liability in establishing and creating a deficient
and unsafe public drinking water system serving an Indian reservation
population.
The nation respectfully calls upon this committee to provide
funding in fiscal year 2008 for our project and see that the
administration is accountable for constructing it, as set forth in our
project's authorizing statute.
BACKGROUND
The problem with the condition of the current public water system
and waste water infrastructure on the Jicarilla Apache Reservation
stems from generations of neglect by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA), which, as creator, owner and operator of the system, did not
properly design, plan for, manage, repair and upgrade portions of the
system over the last 90 years. The system diverts water from the Navajo
River--a pristine water source, and its initial structures served the
original BIA facilities on the Reservation. As the community of Dulce
became the center of activity, members began moving there from other
areas of the Reservation. In response to the growth, the BIA expanded
the water line to allow members to access the water from common areas.
As the area grew with housing and other facilities, water lines were
extended, on an ad hoc basis, with no planning or recording. By the
1990's the community's system had every type of water piping, including
clay, asbestos lined, other metals, as even some wood piping has been
unearthed.
In October 1998, the system collapsed at the river and left the
nation without water for 6 days. The home of one of our elders burned
down, with no water to put out the fire. The National Guard brought in
bottled water and portable restrooms. The nation funded emergency
efforts to restore water delivery, and received no funding from the
BIA.
The BIA's neglect and failure to manage and maintain its public
water system serving our people has caused many dire health threats and
circumstances including degraded water quality in the lines, obsolete
and non-compliant sewage lagoon ponds which were operating without
properly permits because the ponds did not meet the Federal standards,
pollution from unlined sewage ponds spilling into the community and
into nearby arroyo which fed back into the Navajo River towards
downstream users. The most disturbing circumstance, however, is that a
large number of tribal members are experiencing serious intestinal and
other internal diseases, more community members have been diagnosed and
are dying from stomach and other forms of cancer. We suspect this can
be attributed to unsafe drinking water.
STATUTORY PROJECT AUTHORIZATION
A combination of the water outage and the dire health related
circumstances led the nation's leaders to go to Washington, DC to
request assistance to repair the Federal Government's broken system.
Our first step was to approach the BIA in Washington. They told us they
had no funds to address the problem. The nation sought help from other
Federal agencies, who were sympathetic but generally unable to assist
because the BIA owned and operated the system. They also informed us
that the enormity of the problems with the system required a
significant investment of resources that they would not be able to
accommodate.
We then turned to our delegation from New Mexico for help. Working
with them, the nation pursued the legislative route to authorize a
project specifically to repair the system. The idea was not to turn to
the BIA, which was not equipped to deal with a major water system
infrastructure improvement project, either as a technical or funding
matter. Based on our location in the Southwest and the work of the
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) working on significant projects in the
region, we decided to work toward authorizing a project through the
BOR. In 2000, Congress passed a bill which directed the Department of
the Interior, through the BOR, to do a feasibility study on upgrading
the system. See Public Law 106-243. The nation worked directly with the
agency on the study which was completed in September of 2002.
The study determined that $45 million would be needed to replace
the existing water delivery and wastewater infrastructure. The report
acknowledged the nation's efforts in taking on $15 million of debt to
improve portions of the system including: replacement of the diversion
structures and pipeline at the river and up to the water treatment
plant; building a new water treatment plant and expanding its capacity;
repairing and replacing old water towers; replacement of infrastructure
on the expansion Mundo Ranch property.
Based on this completed report, in 2001, our delegation introduced
legislation to direct the Secretary of the Interior to repair and
replace the infrastructure based on the recommendations in the
feasibility report; the legislation also authorized the Department to
expend funding to undertake this project. During this timeframe, with
Senator Domenici's leadership, Congress appropriated $2.5 million in
the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water Development bill for the
project's planning, design and other work needed to prepare for
initiation of the project's construction.
On December 13, 2002, President Bush signed into law Public Law
107-331, which includes as Title VIII our legislation, the Jicarilla
Apache Reservation Rural Water System Act, which directs the Secretary
of the Interior to proceed with a project to replace the defunct
infrastructure, as outlined and recommended in the feasibility report,
and which authorizes the appropriations of funds ($45 million) for our
project.
INADEQUATE FEDERAL FUNDING AND FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT THE LAW
Since the law's enactment, the nation has made repeated efforts to
secure funding for the development of our project through the Bureau of
Reclamation's account in the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill and through the Executive budget process. In spite
of our efforts, we were unable to secure funding in the fiscal year
2003 through fiscal year 2005 appropriations cycles. Finally, in fiscal
year 2006, Congress provided $250,000 for our project in the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations bill. Last year, the House bill
provided $500,000 for our project, but since Congress did not complete
this and other appropriations bills, it remains unclear whether we will
receive any funding this year.
Our efforts have been further stymied by the Bush administration's
failure to include any funds for our project in its annual budget
submission to Congress. We have visited with the Office of Management
and Budget, the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science and the BOR
Commissioner urging them to implement the law and take action to help
us address this serious pubic health crisis. Unfortunately, we have
been told that the Bush administration is not willing to provide
funding in its budget for ``new starts'' for water construction
projects, and we were further informed by OMB that under their
philosophy, local governments should bear the burden for public water
system. Contrary to these ``views'', the law requires the Secretary to
act, and the system at issue was federally owned and operated and its
defunct condition was caused exclusively by Federal neglect so the
nation should not be left with the burden of the Federal Government's
liability. On top of these considerations, the United States has a
trust responsibility to the nation, our citizens and our trust
resources. These are all compelling reasons to include funding for this
project in the budget process, and the administration must act to meet
its obligations.
With respect to section 104 of Public Law 109-451, we believe the
committee should provide the Department with additional direction to
make sure our project is funded on an expeditious and emergency basis.
We have waited far too long and our people have suffered enormously
while the administration refuses to address this on-going and shameful
situation on our Reservation, which was created by the Federal
Government itself.
In fact, this new law explicitly recognizes that such factors as
the ``urgent and compelling need'' for a rural water supply projects
that are necessary to ``improve the health'' and/or ``meet applicable
requirements established by law'' are factors for assessing the
priority of such projects. Both of these factors apply to this project.
On a regional level, the nation has been a good neighbor and
steward of our resources. We have helped water users in both the Rio
Grande and San Juan basins to resolve delicate water issues. We have a
proven record of managing our lands and water. All we are asking is for
support to ensure that, pursuant to statutory directives, the
Department meets its obligations and provides the people on the
Jicarilla Apache Reservation a safe and reliable source of drinking
water for the betterment of our citizens.
CONCLUSION
Since the legislation's enactment in December 2002, the nation has
been forced to borrow millions of additional dollars on the project
because of the urgency and crisis facing our people. The nation used
tax exempt bonds to pay for the repairs and has reached its debt
capacity. It is time for the Federal Government to step up to the plate
and meet its statutory and moral obligations owed to the nation. We are
asking for your help today! Please hold the Department of the Interior
accountable for constructing our project, as directed in the 2002
statute, and for requesting the necessary funding from Congress to do
so. We also respectfully ask that the committee grant the nation's
fiscal year 2008 $3 million funding request for our project.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our views, concerns
and requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California
This testimony is in support of fiscal year 2008 funding for the
Department of the Interior for the Title II Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program (Public Law 93-320). By statute, Congress
designated the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation
(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 (Public Law 92-500). 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 and 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.
To date, Reclamation has been successful in implementing projects
for preventing salt from entering the River system; however, many more
potential projects for salt reduction have been identified that could
be implemented through Reclamation's Basin-wide Salinity Control
Program. In the past, the Forum has presented testimony to Congress in
which it has stated that the rate of implementation of the program
beyond that which has been funded in the past is essential. This is
still the case, and California urges the Congress to fully fund
Reclamation's continuing implementation of this critical program.
In 2000, Congress reviewed the salinity control program as
authorized in 1995. Following hearings, and with the administration's
support, the Congress passed legislation (Public Law 106-459) that
increased the ceiling authorization for this program from $75 million
to $175 million. Reclamation has received proposals to move the program
ahead and the seven Basin States have agreed to up-front cost sharing
on an annual basis, which adds 43 cents for every Federal dollar
appropriated.
In recent years, the President's requests have dropped to below $10
million. In the judgment of the Forum, this amount is inappropriately
low. Water quality commitments to downstream United States and Mexican
water users must be honored while the Basin States continue to develop
their Compact apportioned waters from the Colorado River.
Concentrations of salts in the River cause about $330 million in
quantified damage in the United States. However significant
unquantified damages also, occur. For example, damages occur from:
--A reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use for leaching in the agricultural sector;
--A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector;
--An increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector;
--An increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
--A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector;
--Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling and reuse of the
water due to groundwater quality deterioration; and
--Increased use of imported water for leaching and the cost of
desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
For every 30 milligram per liter increase in salinity
concentrations, there are $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
administration.
Some of the most cost-effective salinity control opportunities
occur when Reclamation can improve irrigation delivery systems in a
coordinated fashion with the activities of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) program through working with landowners
(irrigators) to improve on-farm irrigation systems. With the USDA's
Environmental Quality Incentive Program, more on-farm funds are
available and adequate funds for Reclamation are needed to maximize
Reclamation's effectiveness in addressing water delivery system
improvements. The Forum, at its meeting in October 2006, in Scottsdale,
Arizona recommended a funding level of $17,500,000 for Reclamation's
Basin-wide Salinity Control 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 2008, 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 18 million residents of southern California,
including municipal, industrial, and agricultural water users in
Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, and
Imperial counties. Preservation and improvement of Colorado River water
quality through an effective salinity control program will avoid the
additional economic damages to users in California and the other States
that rely on the Colorado River.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
This testimony is in support of funding for the Title II Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program. The 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 2008 to implement the needed and authorized
program. Failure to appropriate these funds will result in significant
economic damage in the United States and Mexico.
In recent years, the President's requests have dropped to below $10
million. In the judgment of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Forum (Forum), this amount is inappropriately low. Water quality
commitments to downstream United States and Mexican water users must be
honored while the Basin States continue to develop their Colorado River
Compact-apportioned waters. Concentrations of salts in the river cause
about $330 million in quantified damage in the United States with
significantly greater unquantified damages. Damages occur from:
--a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use for leaching in the agricultural sector,
--a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector,
--an increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector,
--an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector,
--a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector,
--difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins,
--increased use of imported water for leaching and the cost of
desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
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 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 and Reclamation has a backlog of
proposals. Reclamation continues 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 No. 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 International
Boundary.
Some of the most cost-effective salinity control opportunities
occur when Reclamation can improve irrigation delivery systems at the
same time that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) program is
working with landowners (irrigators) to improve the on-farm irrigation
systems. Through the USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program,
adequate on-farm funds appear to be available and adequate Reclamation
funds are needed to maximize the effectiveness of the effort. These
salinity control efforts have secondary water conservation benefits at
the point of use and downstream at the point of reuse.
OVERVIEW
In 2000, the Congress reviewed the program as authorized in 1995.
Following hearings, and with administration support, the Congress
passed legislation that increased the ceiling authorized for this
program by $100 million. Reclamation has received cost-effective
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 originally
authorized by the 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 No. 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. The Congress revised the Act in 1984. That revision, while
leaving implementation of the salinity control policy with the
Secretary of the Interior, also gave new salinity control
responsibilities to the USDA and to the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM). The 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 cost share 30 percent of Federal
expenditures up-front for the salinity control program, in addition to
proceeding to implement salinity control activities for which they are
responsible in the Colorado River Basin.
The 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 the 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 pursuant
to requirements of the Clean Water Act, every 3 years the Forum
prepares a formal report analyzing the salinity of the Colorado River,
anticipated future salinity, and the program elements necessary to keep
the salinity at or below the concentrations in the river system in 1972
at Imperial Dam, and below Parker and Hoover Dams.
In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system,
the salinity concentrations at these three locations have been
identified as the numeric criteria. The plan necessary for controlling
salinity and reducing downstream damages has been captioned the ``Plan
of Implementation.'' The 2005 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, significant damages from the
higher salt concentrations in the water will be more widespread in the
United States and Mexico.
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, the 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 utilization of proposals from
project proponents, as well as 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. The Congress recommitted its support for the revised program
when it enacted Public Law 106-459. The Basin States' cost sharing up-
front 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 Energy and Water Development 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 most recently authorized program, the Forum urges the Congress
to appropriate funds requested by the administration 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 the Grand Valley Unit will be funded primarily through the
Facility Operations activity.
The Forum also supports funding to allow for continued general
investigation of the Salinity Control Program as requested by the
administration for the Colorado River Water Quality Improvement
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
Colorado River Compact-apportioned waters.
______
Prepared Statement of the San Diego County Water Authority
Dear Chairman Dorgan: your support is needed to secure adequate
funding for the Department of Interior for the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program (Program). To continue the essential work of
the Program, the Water Authority urges funding of $17.5 million for
fiscal year 2008. By statute, Congress designated the Department of
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to be the lead agency for
salinity control in the Colorado River Basin. The Program is carried
out through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (1974)
(Public Law 93-320) and the Clean Water Act.
The salinity control projects through the Program benefit water
users from seven States through more efficient water management and
reduced salinity concentrations in Colorado River water. The Colorado
River is the primary and single most important source of drinking water
for more than 3 million people in San Diego County. Excess salinity
causes economic damages in the San Diego region worth millions of
dollars annually.
Notably, concentrations of salts in the Colorado River annually
cause about $330 million in quantified damages in the United States.
For every 30 milligrams per liter increase in salinity concentrations
there are $75 million in additional damages in the United States.
Locally, impacts of excess salinity in the San Diego region include,
but are not limited to, the following:
--Reduced crop yields, impacting more than $1 billion of agricultural
products in the San Diego region.
--Decreased useful life of commercial and residential water pipe
systems, water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes
washers, and dishwashers.
--Increased household use of expensive bottled water and water
softeners.
--Increased water treatment facility costs and a decrease in the life
of the treatment facilities.
--Increased treatment to meet Federal and California wastewater
discharge requirements.
--Fewer opportunities for water recycling due to excess salt in the
product water, which limits usefulness for commercial and
agricultural irrigation.
To date, Reclamation has been successful in implementing projects
for preventing salt from entering the River system; however, many
potential projects for salt reduction have been identified that could
be implemented through the Program. The rate of implementation of the
Program beyond that which has been funded in the past is essential, and
the Water Authority urges Congress to fully fund Reclamation's
continuing implementation of this critical program.
Some of the most cost-effective salinity control opportunities
occur when Reclamation can improve irrigation delivery systems in a
coordinated fashion with the activities of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Environmental Quality Incentive Program through working
with landowners (irrigators) to improve on-farm irrigation systems.
Adequate funds from Reclamation are needed to maximize this coordinated
effort and effectiveness in addressing water delivery system
improvements.
The Program has proven to be a very cost-effective approach to
mitigate the impacts of increased salinity in the Colorado River, which
is an investment that avoids millions of dollars in economic damages
caused by excess salinity. In addition, the Program assists the
delivery of quality water to Mexico in accordance with Minute 242 of
the 1944 Water Treaty.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (California and the
other six Basin States) has recommended that a funding level of $17.5
million for Reclamation's Basin-wide Salinity Control Program is
necessary and appropriate to continue implementation of needed
projects.
The Water Authority supports the recommendation for funding and
urges this subcommittee to support this level of funding for fiscal
year 2008. The Water Authority appreciates your assistance in securing
adequate funding for this vital water resource.
______
Prepared Statement of the Mni Wiconi Project
Fiscal Year 2008 Request
The Mni Wiconi Project beneficiaries respectfully request
appropriations totaling $41.113 million for fiscal year 2008. The
request consists of $30.909 million for construction and $10.204
million for operation and maintenance (OMR) activities) in fiscal year
2008:
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year--
-----------------------------------------------
2007 House 2008 Budget 2008 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction.................................................... 22.914 .............. 30.909
OMR............................................................. 9.256 .............. 10.204
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... .............. .............. 41.113
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Funds
Construction funds would be utilized as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project area Millions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System:
Core................................................ $5.400
Distribution........................................ 11.085
West River/Lyman-Jones RWS.............................. 6.842
Rosebud RWS............................................. 6.482
Lower Brule RWS......................................... ..............
Reclamation Oversight................................... 1.100
---------------
Total............................................. 30.909
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown on the table below, the Project will be 73 percent
complete at the end of fiscal year 2007. Construction funds remaining
to be spent after fiscal year 2007 will total $119.184 million.
Amendment of the Project authorization is proposed for the first
session of the 110th Congress to extend the construction completion
date from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2012. Additional
administrative, overhead and other costs of the extension are projected
at $14.635 million, bringing total remaining costs at the end of fiscal
year 2007 to $133.820 million (in October 2006 dollars).
Cost indexing over the last 5 years has averaged from 4.83 percent
for pumping plants to 7.88 percent for pipelines, which are the notable
Project components yet to be completed (see chart below). Assuming an
average 5 percent inflation in construction costs during the remaining
5 years necessary to complete the Project, average funding of $30.909
million is required to complete the Project by fiscal year 2012. Costs
of extending the Project and cost indexing from fiscal year 2008
through fiscal year 2012 increase the remaining costs to $154.545
million. Therefore, the funding request for fiscal year 2008 is based
on the annual average of $30.909 million necessary to complete the
Project by the end of fiscal year 2012.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Federal Construction Funding (Oct 2006)........... $445,718,000
Estimated Federal Spent Through Fiscal Year 2007........ $326,533,882
Percent Spent Through Fiscal Year 2007.................. 73.26
Amount Remaining after 2007:
Total Authorized (Oct 2006)......................... $119,184,118
Overhead Adjustment for Extension to Fiscal Year $133,819,527
2012...............................................
Adjustment for 5 percent Annual Inflation........... $154,544,690
Completion Fiscal Year (Statutory Fiscal Year 2008; 2012
Public Law 107-367)....................................
Years to Complete....................................... 5
Average Annual Required for Finish...................... $30,908,938
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System
All of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, parts of the Rosebud
Indian Reservation and parts of West River/Lyman-Jones remain without
delivery of Missouri River water from the Oglala Sioux Rural Water
Supply System (OSRWSS) core pipeline, the central element of the Mni
Wiconi Project. The OSRWSS core pipeline will supply four rural water
systems, including three Indian Reservations.
The fiscal year 2008 funding level will connect Missouri River
water to the central portion of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation at
Kyle where it can deliver water to OSRWSS distribution systems built
previously. This will be the first opportunity to serve a significant
portion of the population on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation with
Missouri River water and discontinue use of inadequate and unsafe
groundwater supplies. Only 31 percent of the distribution system on the
Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is complete and 69 percent remains to be
completed.
OSRWSS will use $5,600,000 in fiscal year 2007 funds to begin
construction of the pipeline link between the OSRWSS North core and
South core. When completed, this essential pipeline will permit the
delivery of water to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and parts of
West River/Lyman-Jones by alternative pipeline routes, according to the
original strategy in the Final Engineering Report.
The Oglala Sioux Tribe supports the funding request of West River/
Lyman-Jones for fiscal year 2008 which focuses on building the OSRWSS
North Core westerly from Hayes toward Phillip in the West River/Lyman-
Jones service area. The intent is to complete the OSRWSS North Core and
all other OSRWSS core facilities in fiscal year 2008. West River/Lyman-
Jones is acting as the Tribe's contractor on the OSRWSS North Core.
The fiscal year 2008 funding request will complete the OSRWSS core.
Earlier stages of the OSRWSS core facilities served the Lower Brule
Indian Reservation, Rosebud Indian Reservation and eastern regions of
West River/Lyman-Jones beginning in year 2000. Missouri River water was
delivered to the northeastern corner of the Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation for the first time in fiscal year 2007 but only the far
northeastern corner of the Reservation was reachable. fiscal year 2008
funding of $11.085 million will permit construction of the main or
``backbone'' pipeline within the Reservation to Kyle and delivery of
Missouri River water to distribution systems built in advance.
West River/Lyman-Jones Rural Water System
Proposed fiscal year 2008 construction for WR/LJ includes Phase 2
of the North Core and distribution pipelines from existing core
pipeline to WR/LJ members between Ft. Pierre and the city of Philip.
Phase 1 of the North Core was constructed in fiscal year 2006 and
distribution pipelines are being extended to 200 WR/LJ members with
fiscal year 2006 & fiscal year 2007 funding. Funding provided in fiscal
year 2008 will complete construction of distribution pipelines that can
be served by Phase 1 of the North Core and initiate construction of
Phase 2.
The North Core pipeline is the permanent water source for half of
the WR/LJ membership. That membership includes the cities of Wall and
Philip which are presently served from wells. Construction of Phase 2
of the North Core remains a high priority because extended drought
conditions in Western South Dakota threaten production from these
groundwater sources. Upon completion the North Core will also provide
an alternate source of water to the South Core pipeline serving the
Oglala Sioux Tribe.
WR/LJ members proposed to be served in fiscal year 2008 are in
desperate need of water. Recent surveys indicate that most of those
members haul water for domestic use and half of them haul water for
livestock. Completion of a reliable supply of water meeting Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) standards offers immediate relief and
economic assistance to this drought affected area.
Rosebud Rural Water System (Sicangu Mni Wiconi)
The Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the Sicangu Mni Wiconi have made great
strides in improving the quality of life for people connected to the
Mni Wiconi Project. The progress made has not been without sacrifice
and many people remain to be served. Our plans for fiscal year 2008
address both these situations.
The major initiative for the Sicangu Mni Wiconi is the completion
of the Surface Water Improvements. The history of the Surface Water
Improvements goes back to 1998 when the Tribe agreed to export
groundwater from the Rosebud Well Field, in Southern Todd County to
drought stricken Mellette County as an interim source of supply. A 12-
inch pipeline was constructed from near the Well Field to the town of
White River with the understanding that a second pipeline and pump
stations would follow and the facilities would bring high quality
surface water to Todd County.
Providing high quality groundwater to WR/LJ and their customers in
Mellette County was not part of the original plan for the Sicangu Mni
Wiconi. In addition, the city of Mission has come to rely on water from
the Rosebud Well Field to meet their demands during periods of peak use
in the summer months. The combination of these two factors has resulted
in an immense burden on the Well Field. In summer months during periods
of peak demands the wells pump constantly and do not have adequate time
to recover.
The easements for the parallel pipeline were obtained in 1998 and
construction of the new pipeline will soon begin. However, available
funds in fiscal year 2007 are not sufficient for completion and the
majority of the Tribe's fiscal year 2008 request will go towards
completion of the pipeline and the two pump stations required to bring
the water to Todd County. These improvements will eliminate the stress
to the Rosebud Well Field and provide high quality surface water from
Mni Wiconi to Eastern Mellette and Todd County.
The remainder of the funding request is for service lines and
connections. The availability of high quality water has allowed people
to inhabit lands that were allotted to their grandparent or great
grandparent. People are anxious to live on their land and new homes are
``sprouting up'' around the Sicangu Mni Wiconi pipelines after they are
completed.
These smaller pipelines are also used to provide water to
livestock. The livestock business on range lands is an economic pillar
for the Rosebud Reservation. By providing water, the Mni Wiconi Project
helps improve the utilization of these lands, thereby improving the
situation for the livestock operator, the landowner and the reservation
economy.
Mni Wiconi means ``Water is Life'' and we see that this is true on
the Rosebud Reservation. Help us improve the quality of life for the
people that are still waiting.
Lower Brule Rural Water System--Distribution
The Lower Brule Rural Water System (LBRWS) has gained the support
of the other sponsors to complete its portion of the Project prior to
the completion of the other portions of the Project. This agreement to
complete the LBRWS first is due to the relatively small portion of the
Project that the LBRWS represents as well as the ability to save $1.5
million to the Project as a whole by doing so. As a result, LBRWS will
be completing its portion of the Project during 2007.
The LBRWS continues to be grateful to the other sponsors and
Congress for their cooperation and support in completing the funding of
the LBRWS in this manner, and especially the South Dakota delegation
past and present, for their continued support of this truly needed
project. It should be noted, however, that this will not end LBRWS's
involvement in the Project. LBRWS will continue to work with and
support the other sponsors in seeing the entire Project come to
fruition.
Operation, Maintenance and Replacement Budget
The sponsors will continue to work with the Bureau of Reclamation
to ensure that budgets are adequate to properly operate, maintain and
replace (OMR) the core and distribution systems. The sponsors will also
continue to manage OMR expenses to achieve a balance between
construction and OMR. The Project has been treating and delivering more
water each year from the OSRWSS Water Treatment Plant near Fort Pierre.
Completion of significant core and distribution pipelines has resulted
in more deliveries to more communities and rural users. The need for
sufficient funds to properly operate and maintain the functioning
system throughout the Project has grown as the Project has now reached
73 percent completion. The OMR budget must be adequate to keep pace
with the system that is placed in operation.
The Mni Wiconi Project tribal beneficiaries (as listed below)
respectfully request appropriations for OMR in fiscal year 2008 in the
amount of $10,204,000:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
System 2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSRWSS Off-Reservation Core............................. $2,300,000
OSRWSS Distribution..................................... 2,500,000
RRWS.................................................... 2,350,000
LBRWS................................................... 1,450,000
Reclamation............................................. 1,604,000
---------------
Total, Mni Wiconi................................. 10,204,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the Mni Wiconi Project
Senator Dorgan: We, the Mni Wiconi Project sponsors submit this
letter to you in order to supplement our fiscal year 2008 Mni Wiconi
Project Formal Testimony. Hopefully, this Supplemental Testimony will
assist all members of the subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
to further understand the truly unique needs of the Mni Wiconi Project.
This Project covers much of the area of western South Dakota that
is the Great Sioux Reservation established by the Treaty of 1868. Since
the separation of the Reservation in 1889 into smaller more isolated
reservations, including Pine Ridge, Rosebud and Lower Brule, relations
between the Lakota population and the non-Lakota settlers on Great
Sioux Reservation lands have been improving in successive generations.
The Mni Wiconi Project is perhaps the most significant opportunity in
more than a century to bring the diverse cultures of the two societies
together for a common good. After all, ``Mni Wiconi'' is a Lakota
phrase meaning ``water is life.'' Much progress has been made due to
the good faith and genuine efforts of both the Lakota and non-Lakota
sponsors. The Project is an historic basis for renewed hope and dignity
among the Lakota people. It is a basis for substantive improvement in
relationships.
Each year the Mni Wiconi Project sponsor 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 from 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 home 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.
Progress has been made in reducing the occurrence of these diseases.
At the beginning of the third millennium one cannot find a region
in our Nation in which social and economic conditions are as
deplorable. These circumstances are summarized in Table 1.\1\ Mni
Wiconi builds the dignity of many, not only through improvement of
drinking water, but also through direct employment and increased
earnings during planning, construction, operation and maintenance and
from economic enterprises supplied with Project water. We urge the
subcommittee to address the need for creating jobs and improving the
quality of life on the Pine Ridge, Lower Brule and Rosebud Indian
Reservations of the project area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table 1 was based on census data that understates population
and poverty on the reservations and overstates income when compared
with Interior sources. The purpose of Table 1 is to compare statistics
from a single source between decades, namely the United States Census,
but use of the data does not imply acceptance of census statistics by
the Tribes.
TABLE 1.--PROFILE OF SELECTED ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS--2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income
Change ---------------------- Familities
Indian Reservation/State 2000 from 1990 Per Median below Umemployment
population (percent) capita household poverty (percent)
(dollars) (dollars) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pine Ridge Indian Reservation........ 15,521 27.07 6,143 20,569 46.3 16.9
Rosebud Indian Reservation........... 10,469 7.97 7,279 19,046 45.9 20.1
Lower Brule Indian Reservation....... 1,353 20.48 7,020 21,146 45.3 28.1
State of South Dakota................ 754,844 8.45 17,562 35,282 9.3 3.0
Nation............................... 281,421,906 13.15 21,587 41,994 9.2 3.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment and earnings among the Lakota people of the Project area
are 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 Lakota 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-Lakota 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, the employment and earnings stemming from the
Project will, nevertheless, reduce mortality rates and costs of these
diseases. Please note that between 1990 and 2000 per capita income on
Pine Ridge increased from $3,591 to $6,143, and median household income
increased from $11,260 to $20,569, due in large part to this Project,
albeit not sufficient to bring a larger percentage of families out of
poverty (Table 1).
Financial support for the Lakota membership has already been
subjected to drastic cuts in funding programs through the Indian Health
Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This Project is a source of
strong hope that helps off-set the loss of employment and income in
other programs and provide for an improvement in health and welfare.
Tribal leaders have seen that Welfare Reform legislation and other
budget cuts nation-wide have created a crisis for tribal government
because tribal members have moved back to the reservations in order to
survive.
The Mni Wiconi Project Act (Public Law 100-516, as amended)
provides that the United States will work with us:
--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
. . .
Lakota support for this project from the Oglala, Rosebud and Lower
Brule Sioux Tribes has not come easily because the historical
experience of broken commitments to the Lakota people by the Federal
Government is difficult to overcome. The argument was that there is no
reason to trust the Federal Government and that the respective Sioux
Tribal Governments are being used to build the non-Lakota segments of
the project and the Lakota 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 to
complete the critical elements of the Project proposed for fiscal year
2008.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Commission of Nevada
As a Nevada representative of the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Forum, the Colorado River Commission of Nevada (CRC) supports
funding the fiscal year 2008 budget request for $17,500,000 for the
Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.
The CRC urges the Congress to appropriate funds requested by the
Administration to continue to maintain and operate salinity control
facilities as they are completed and placed into long-term operations.
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 the Grand Valley Unit
will be funded primarily through the Facility Operations activity. The
CRC also supports funding to allow for continued general investigation
of the Salinity Control Program as requested by the Administration for
the Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program.
Salinity remains one of the major problems in the Colorado River.
Congress has recognized the need to confront this problem with its
passage of Public Law 93-320 and Public Law 98-569. Your support of the
Forum's current funding recommendations in support of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program is essential to move the program
forward so that the congressionally directed salinity objectives
embodied in Public Law 93-320 and Public Law 98-569 are achieved.
______
Prepared Statement of the Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS)
The Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS) would like to submit
the following statement concerning the fiscal year 2008 Budget Request
for the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation. My name is
Larry Libeu and I am the President of the organization.
WESTCAS is a coalition of approximately 125 water and wastewater
agencies, cities and towns, and professional associated focused on
water quality and quantity issues in the States of Arizona, California,
Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Texas.
The Bureau's overall Budget for fiscal year 2008 is $958.4 million.
The portion of the Budget that WESTCAS has interest in, the Water and
Related Resources Account has $816.1 million dollars, which represents
a decrease of $17,227,000 from fiscal year 2007. It is within this
account that Water Reclamation/Reuse Title XVI is funded. The proposed
funding level for fiscal year 2008 is $10.1 million. The Title XVI
program was authorized by Public Law 102-575. This program provides a
central focus for Reclamation's efforts and expertise in planning,
environmental review and construction of new projects.
The Title XVI water recycling program within the BOR provides a
excellent cost-share mechanism for helping to drought proof the West.
Projects developed by this program allow agencies to reduce their
dependence on the scarce imported supplies from the Colorado River and
other western watersheds. WESTCAS believes that increased funding for
the program is needed to begin reducing the ever increasing backlog of
authorized, but unfunded projects as well as assist in addressing the
serious drought conditions throughout Reclamation states. We believe
that funding this at least at the level of $50 million a year is
necessary to clear the approximate backlog of $350 million for this
program.
We have two caveats in this regard. We believe the Committee should
provide directive language to the Bureau of Reclamation to convene a
meeting of all of the project sponsors for authorized projects in this
program, ask them to bring their construction schedules and financing
information so a 5 year schedule for completion can be worked out
consistent with increased levels of funding for the program. We would
be pleased to lend our expertise and experience to such a meeting. We
further believe, and we are just as disappointed as the Committee, that
the Bureau should have already produced an overall 5 year funding
program consistent with the directive in last years Committee report.
Our second caveat is for the Appropriations Committee to have a
dialogue with the authorizing Committees regarding this program
indicating that any new project for the Title 16 program will not be
funded until after the backlog of all ready authorized projects is
complete. Further, in order to receive funding, the priority should be
set by those projects that are consistent with the individual State's
Water Plan, and recommended and supported by that State's Governor and
shall not have elements funded by other Federal agency programs.
Priority shall be placed on cost effectiveness of the water and
technology being developed and how the project fits into the
comprehensive water plan for the area.
Another program that WESTCAS would recommend increased funding is
the Colorado River Salinity Control Program, Title II. Increased
agricultural use and drainage as well as continued degradation caused
by natural elements such as shale and return flows from urban centers
are creating an increased salinity content to the waters of the
Colorado River. WESTCAS firmly believes that this element of the
Bureau's budget should be funded at the $26 million level. This would
represent an increase of $13 million over the proposed fiscal year 2008
budget amount.
WESTCAS supports increased funding for the CAL-FED program. The
fiscal year 2008 budget indicates a decrease from prior years. WESTCAS
strongly recommends that this item in the Bureau's budget be increased
to $40.52 million. The current proposed budget has funding set at
$31.75 million. WESTCAS would recommend the following adjustments in
the BOR CAL-FED funding proposal: Los Vaqueros Storage Study, +$3.27
million, Lower San Joaquin River Fish Screen Projects, +$3.50 million,
Refuge Water Supply Diversification, +$.50 million, Environmental Water
Account +$3.0 million, and Administration -$1.50 million. With these
adjustments the new budget amount would be $40.52 million.
WESTCAS also would recommend increased funding for the Middle Rio
Grande Project to $24 million and the Lower Colorado River Operations
Program to $17 million.
We would like to be able to support funding for the Bureau's Water
2025 program, but absent authorization we withhold our support at this
time. We do believe greater integrated resource planning and water
resource planning is need for the West. We would hope the Committee
would consider using the information that is being developed by the
Western States Water Council report in this area as a tool for
evaluation future budget requests.
We also believe the Bureau of Reclamation should be doing more with
regard to drought preparedness. The title XVI program is important in
this regard, but it is not intended to be used throughout the West.
Relying on an ``emergency'' approach to drought is not an effective way
to address this issue. There are emergencies associated with drought,
but better planning and an ongoing well funded program in each of the
states is needed. We recommend at least $1 million per state to address
this ongoing issue.
We believe that overall a $150 million increase for the Bureau's
Water and Related Resources Account would be helpful in addressing the
water resource needs of the West before water quality and quantity
issues become a greater crisis as the infrastructure ages, the
population grows and environmental needs continue to be addressed.
______
Prepared Statement of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee: My name is Dave Koland; I
serve as the general manager of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy
District. The mission of Garrison Diversion is to provide a reliable,
high quality and affordable water supply to the areas of need in North
Dakota. Over 77 percent of our state residents live within the
boundaries of the District. I would like to comment on the impact the
President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Garrison Diversion
Unit (GDU) has on the effort to provide reliable, high quality and
affordable water supplies to the citizens of North Dakota.
The President's fiscal year 2008 budget request was pitifully
inadequate in meeting the commitments the Federal Government has made
to North Dakota. In return for accepting a permanent flood on 500,000
acres of prime North Dakota river valley the Federal Government
promised the State and tribes that they would be compensated as the
dams were built. The dams were completed over 50 years ago and still we
wait for the promised compensation. At the rate of payment the
President's budget proposes the Federal Government will not even be
able to stay current with the indexing applied by law on their
commitment to North Dakota.
The Municipal Rural & Industrial (MR&I) program was started in 1986
after the Garrison Diversion Unit (GDU) was reformulated from a
million-acre irrigation project into a multipurpose project with
emphasis on the development and delivery of municipal and rural water
supplies. The statewide MR&I program has focused on providing grant
funds for water systems that provide water service to previously
unserved areas of the State. The State has followed a policy of
developing a network of regional water systems throughout the State.
Every rural water system that has been built in North Dakota is still
operating. They are providing safe, clean water to their members,
paying 100 percent of the operation and maintenance costs, reducing
their debt, putting money in reserve, complying with every State and
Federal regulation, and doing so with a stable, affordable rate
structure.
North Dakota's Success Story
Rural water systems are being constructed using a unique blend of
local expertise, state financing, rural development loans, MR&I grant
funds to provide an affordable rate structure, and the expertise of the
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to deal with design and environmental
issues. The projects are successful because they are driven by a local
need to solve a water quantity or quality problem. The solution to the
local problem is devised by the community being affected by the
problem. The early, local buy-in helps propel the project through the
tortuous pre-construction stages.
The MR&I program has been so successful and so important to North
Dakota that the North Dakota Legislature loaned the program $18 million
to help deal with the severe lag time that has developed in the Federal
appropriations process.
The desperate need for clean, safe water is evidenced by the
willingness of North Dakota's rural residents to pay water rates well
above the rates EPA considers affordable. The EPA Economic Guidance
Workbook states that rates greater than 1.5 percent of the median
household income (MHI) are not only unaffordable, but also ``may be
unreasonable.''
The average monthly cost on a rural water system for 6,000 gallons
of water is currently $48.97. The water rates in rural North Dakota
would soar to astronomical levels without the 75 percent grant dollars
provided by the MR&I program. For instance, current rates would have to
average a truly unaffordable $134.19/month or a whopping 3.8 percent of
the MHI. Rates would have ranged as high as $190.80/month or a
prohibitive 5.3 percent of MHI without the assistance of the MR&I
program.
The people waiting for water in our rural communities are willing
to pay far more than what many consider an affordable, or even
reasonable, price for clean, safe water. But there is a limit to how
much they should be expected to pay.
Budget Impacts On Garrison Diversion Unit
Let me begin by reviewing the various elements within the current
budget request and then discuss the impacts that the current level of
funding will have on the program.
The President's budget request for fiscal year 2008 is $20.22
million. This year, Garrison Diversion Conservancy District is asking
the Congress to appropriate a total of $65 million for the GDU.
Attachment 1 is a breakdown of the elements in Garrison Diversion's
request. To discuss this in more detail, I must first explain that the
GDU budget consists of several different program items. For ease of
discussion, I would like to simplify the breakdown into three major
categories. The first I would call the base operations portion of the
budget request. This amount is nominally $23 million annually when you
include underfinancing. However, as more Indian MR&I projects are
completed, the operation and maintenance costs for these projects will
increase and create a need that will need to be addressed.
The second element of the budget is the MR&I program. This consists
of both Indian and non-Indian funding. The Dakota Water Resources Act
contains an additional $200 million authorization for each of these
programs. It is our intent that each program reaches the conclusion of
the funding authorization at the same time. We believe this is only
fair.
The MR&I program consists of a number of projects that are
independent of one another. They are generally in the $20 million
category. Some are, of course, smaller and others somewhat larger, but
one that is considerably larger is the Northwest Area Water Supply
Project (NAWS). The first phase of that project is under construction.
The optimum construction schedule for completion of the first phase has
been determined to be 5 years. The total cost of the first phase is
$125 million. At a 65 percent cost share, the Federal funding needed to
support that project is $81 million. On the average, the annual funding
needed for that project alone is over $16 million. Several other
projects have been approved for future funding and numerous projects on
the reservations are ready to begin construction. These requests will
all compete with one another for funding. It will be a delicate
challenge to balance these projects. Nevertheless, we believe that once
a project is started, it needs to be pursued vigorously to completion.
If it is not, we simply run the cost up and increase the risk of
incompatibility among the working parts.
An example of the former would be the certain impact of the
increased cost of construction over time through inflation but also by
protracting the engineering and administration costs.
The third element of the budget is the Red River Valley Water
Supply Project (RRVWSP) construction phase. The Dakota Water Resources
Act authorized $200 million for the construction of facilities to meet
the water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley
communities. Over 42 percent of North Dakota's citizens rely on the
drought-prone Red River of the North as their primary or sole source of
water. It is my belief that the final plans and authorizations, if
necessary, should be expected in approximately 3 years. This will
create an immediate need for greater construction funding.
This major project, once started, should also be pursued vigorously
to completion. The reasons are the same as for the NAWS project and
relate to good engineering and construction management. Although
difficult to predict at this time, it is reasonable to plan that the
RRVWSP features, once started, should be completed in approximately 3
years. This creates the need for additional funding of $30 million/year
starting in fiscal year 2009.
Using these two projects as examples frames the argument for a
steadily increasing budget. There is a need to accelerate the MR&I
program now to assure the timely completion of the NAWS project and
then to accommodate the need for additional construction funds when the
RRVWSP construction is underway.
It is simply good management to blend these needs to avoid drastic
hills and valleys in the budget requests. By accelerating the
construction of NAWS and other projects which are ready for
construction during the next few years, some of the pressure will be
off when the RRVWSP construction funding is needed. A smoother, more
efficient construction funding program over time will be the result.
Attachment 2 shows such a program. It begins with a $65 million
budget this year and gradually builds over time to over $140 million
when the RRVWSP construction could be in full swing (fiscal year 2010).
Mr. Chairman, this is why we believe it is important that the budget
resolution recognize that a robust increase in the budget allocation is
needed for the Bureau of Reclamation. We hope this testimony will serve
as at least one example of why we fully support the efforts to increase
the overall allocation in the Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related
Resources Account in fiscal year 2008 to a total of $1 billion.
The Bureau of Reclamation, Rural Development, Garrison Diversion
Conservancy District, North Dakota State Water Commission and local
rural water districts have formed a formidable alliance to deal with
the lack of a high quality, reliable water source throughout much of
North Dakota. This cost-effective partnership of local control, state-
wide guidance and Federal support has provided safe, clean, potable
water to hundreds of communities and thousands of homes across North
Dakota.
attachment 1--garrison diversion unit (gdu) justification for $65
million appropriation fiscal year 2008
North Dakota's Municipal, Rural and Industrial (MR&I) water supply
program funds construction projects state-wide under the joint
administration of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District (GDCD)
and the State Water Commission (SWC).
Northwest Area Water Supply Project (NAWS) is under construction
after 16 years of study and diplomatic delay. Construction costs
(Federal) are estimated to be $81 million. Designs are based on a 5-
year construction period; thus, over $16 million is needed for NAWS
alone.
Indian MR&I programs on four reservations are also under
construction. Tribal and State leaders have agreed to split the Indian
and non-Indian MR&I allocation on a 50/50 basis.
The SWC has advanced the MR&I program $18 million to allow
construction to continue on several critical projects. One project is
the $22 million Williston Water Treatment Plant upgrade.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF INDIAN MR&I SYSTEMS AND 4.76
JAMESTOWN DAM..........................................
===============
BREAKDOWN OF $51.29 MILLION CONSTRUCTION REQUEST:
Operation and Maintenance of existing GDU system.... 5.16
Wildlife Mitigation & Natural Resources Trust....... 3.49
Red River Valley Special Studies and EIS............ 5.51
Indian and non-Indian MR&I.......................... 42.00
Oakes Test Area and Miscellaneous................... 1.28
Under financing 5 percent........................... 2.80
---------------
Total for Construction............................ 60.24
===============
Grand Total....................................... 65.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statements of the Santa Clara Valley Water District
statement of support--san jose area water reclamation and reuse program
(south bay water recycling program)
Background.--The San Jose Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Program,
also known as the South Bay Water Recycling Program, will allow the
city of San Jose and its tributary agencies of the San Jose/Santa Clara
Water Pollution Control Plant to protect endangered species habitat,
meet receiving water quality standards, supplement Santa Clara County
water supplies, and comply with a mandate from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the California Water Resources Control Board to
reduce wastewater discharges into San Francisco Bay.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) 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 1A 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. Summertime
2004 deliveries averaged 10.6 million gallons per day of recycled
water. The system now serves over 517 active customers and delivers
approximately 7,200 acre-feet of recycled water per year.
Phase 2 is now underway. In June 2001, San Jose approved an $82.5
million expansion of the program. The expansion includes additional
pipeline extensions into the cities of Santa Clara and Milpitas, a
major pipeline extension into Coyote Valley in south San Jose, and
reliability improvements of added reservoirs and pump stations. The
District and the city of San Jose executed an agreement in February
2002 to cost share on the pipeline into Coyote Valley and discuss a
long-term partnership agreement on the entire system. 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 $26.62 million of the $35 million
authorization.
Fiscal Year 2007 Funding.--No funds were appropriated in fiscal
year 2007.
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $8.8
million, in addition to the $200,000 in the administration's fiscal
year 2008 budget request, for a total of $9 million to fund the
Program's work.
statement of support--san luis reservoir low point improvement project
Background.--San Luis Reservoir is one of the largest reservoirs in
California, and is the largest ``off-stream'' water storage facility in
the world. The Reservoir has a water storage capacity of more than 2
million acre-feet and is a key component of the water supply system
serving the Federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and California's State
Water Project. San Luis is used for seasonal storage of Sacramento-San
Joaquin delta water that is delivered to the reservoir via the
California Aqueduct and Delta-Mendota Canal. The San Luis Reservoir is
jointly owned and operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the
California Department of Water Resources.
The San Luis Reservoir provides the sole source of CVP water supply
for the San Felipe Division contractors--Santa Clara Valley Water
District (District), San Benito County Water District and, in the
future, Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency. When water levels in San
Luis Reservoir are drawn down in the spring and summer, high water
temperatures result in algae blooms at the reservoir's water surface.
This condition degrades water quality, making the water difficult or
impractical to treat and can preclude deliveries of water from San Luis
Reservoir to San Felipe Division contractors. In order to avoid the
``low point'' problem, the reservoir has been operated to maintain
water levels above the critical low elevation--the ``low point''--
resulting in approximately 200,000 acre-feet of undelivered water to
south of the Delta State and Federal water users
Project Goals and Status.--The goal of the project is to increase
the operational flexibility of storage in San Luis Reservoir and ensure
a high quality, reliable water supply for San Felipe Division
contractors. The specific project objectives are to: (1) Avoid supply
interruptions when water is needed by increasing the certainty of
meeting the requested delivery schedule throughout the year to south of
Delta contractors dependent on San Luis Reservoir; (2) Increase the
reliability and quantity of yearly allocations to south of Delta
contactors dependent on San Luis Reservoir; (3) Announce higher
allocations earlier in the season to south of Delta contractors
dependent on San Luis Reservoir without sacrificing accuracy of the
allocation forecasts. In addition to the above objectives, identify
opportunities to provide for ecosystem restoration.
Preliminary studies by the District have identified six potential
alternatives to solve the problem. More funding is needed to fully
explore these alternatives.
The passage of H.R. 2828 in 2004 reauthorized Federal participation
in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The San Luis Reservoir Low Point
Improvement Project was one of six new projects, studies or water
management actions authorized in the bill to receive a share of up to
$184 million authorized under the conveyance section of the bill.
Fiscal Year 2007 Funding.--$1.485 million was appropriated in the
fiscal year 2007 under the CALFED appropriation.
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
congressional committee support the administration's fiscal year 2008
budget request of $1.4 million for the San Luis Reservoir Low Point
Improvement Project. The San Luis request is included in the $50
million CALFED Bay-Delta appropriation request.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT--CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM
Background.--In an average year, half of Santa Clara County's water
supply is imported from the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta estuary (Bay Delta) watersheds through three water projects: The
State Water Project, the Federal Central Valley Project, and San
Francisco's Hetch Hetchy Project. In conjunction with locally developed
water, this water supply supports more than 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.
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 has developed 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 trillion
dollar economy and job base.
The passage of HR 2828 (Public Law 108-361) in 2004 reauthorized
Federal participation in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and provided $389
million in new and expanded funding authority for selected projects,
including the San Luis Reservoir Low Point Improvement Project. The San
Luis Project is one of six new projects, studies or water management
actions authorized to receive a share of up to $184 million under the
conveyance section of the bill. It is critical that Federal funding be
provided to implement the actions authorized in the bill in the coming
years.
Fiscal Year 2007 Funding.--$33.6 million was appropriated for
CALFED activities in fiscal year 2007.
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
committee support an appropriation add-on of $18.2 million, in addition
to the $31.8 million in the administration's fiscal year 2008 budget
request, for a total of $50 million for California Bay-Delta
Restoration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation
Honorable Chairman Byron Dorgan and members of the committee: We
respectfully request fiscal year 2008 appropriation of funds for two
priority watershed restoration and agricultural water supply protection
projects in Oregon and Washington, the Umatilla Basin Water Supply
Project (previously funded under the Umatilla Basin Project Phase III,
OR) and the Walla Walla General Investigation Stream Flow Restoration
Feasibility Study (previously funded under the Walla Walla River
Watershed, OR & WA).
--For the Umatilla Basin Water Supply Project, Oregon, we request an
appropriation of $1 million in the Bureau of Reclamation,
Pacific Northwest Region, Water and Related Resources budget.
This request will build upon the $450,000 committed by the
Bureau of Reclamation to the Project in fiscal year 2007.
--For the Walla Walla River Watershed, Oregon and Washington, we
request an appropriation of $100,000 in the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Portland Division, Walla Walla District, General
Investigations budget--to initiate Pre-engineering and Design
(PED) phase after fiscal year 2008 completion of Feasibility
Study. This project is also known as Walla Walla River Basin
Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement.
Both the Umatilla Basin Water Supply Project and the Walla Walla
General Investigation Stream Flow Restoration Feasibility Study are
ongoing projects and have had administration and/or congressional line
item funding in past fiscal years.
Umatilla River Basin, Oregon Water Supply Project
By letter dated March 19, 2007, the Office of the Secretary of
Interior responded favorably to the formal requests of the Washington
and Oregon delegations and of the Confederated Umatilla Tribes,
Westland Irrigation District and Governor Theodore Kulongoski to
initiate Umatilla Basin water development projects and concurrent
settlement of the Tribe's reserved water rights. Counselor to the
Secretary, L. Michael Bogert, wrote ``I will ask the Secretary's Indian
Water Rights Office to appoint an Assessment Team . . .'' and ``I will
also ask the Bureau of Reclamation to move forward with a concurrent
appraisal level study of water supply options, including a full Phase
III exchange . . . to help resolve the Tribe's water rights claims.''
The Bureau of Reclamation, subsequent to issuance of the March 19
letter from Counselor Bogert, has committed $450,000 to fiscal year
2007 work on the Umatilla Basin water supply appraisal study.
The Umatilla Basin Water Supply Project is authorized by the
Reclamation Feasibility Studies Act of 1966, 80 Stat. 707, Public Law
89-561, (Sept. 7, 1966).
The fiscal year 2008 request of $1 million to the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation will follow-up the $450,000 fiscal year 2007 work and
should complete the majority of the estimated 2 year appraisal level
study. It is anticipated that the full appraisal study project will be
completed in 2009 in order to inform the concurrent Interior Department
Indian Water Rights Assessment Team's work products. In 2009, Interior
should have a clear project or suite of projects necessary to satisfy
water rights of the Confederated Umatilla Tribes on the Umatilla Indian
Reservation and in the Umatilla River.
This fiscal year 2008 request follows on the work of the Bureau of
Reclamation, authorized by the Umatilla Basin Project Act of 1988 (100
Public Law 557; 102 Stat. 2782 Title II), to construct and operate the
Phase I Exchange with West Extension Irrigation District and the Phase
II Exchange with Hermiston and Stanfield Irrigation Districts. Heralded
as one of the most successful stream flow restoration and salmon
recovery projects in the Columbia River Basin, the Umatilla Basin
Project resulted in partially restored stream flows in the Umatilla
River and successful reintroduction of spring Chinook, fall Chinook and
Coho salmon. After nearly a century of dry river bed in summer months
and extinction of all salmon stocks, there has been an Indian and non-
Indian salmon fishery nearly every year in the Umatilla River since the
project was completed in the mid-1990s.
Completion of the Water Supply Study and the concurrent Tribal
Water Rights Assessment is supported and endorsed by the Honorable
Governor Ted Kulongoski and by local irrigation districts including
specifically Westland Irrigation District, the Umatilla County
Commission, and local municipalities including specifically the City of
Irrigon.
Walla Walla Basin, Oregon and Washington, GI Feasibility Study
In its sixth and final full year prior to completion, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' feasibility study will select the project necessary
to restore stream flows in the Walla Walla River. Drained nearly dry
during summer months by irrigation in Oregon and Washington, the Walla
Walla River is within the aboriginal lands of the Confederated Umatilla
Tribes and the complete loss of salmon violates the agreement by the
United States in the Treaty of 1855 to protect these fish.
Approximately $3 million of Federal funds have either been budgeted
or appropriated through fiscal year 2007 (this includes a estimate of
$797,000 for fiscal year 2007 based upon recent communication with
Corps of Engineers). As a result of the allocation of $797,000 in
fiscal year 2007, the Corps will finish the Feasibility Study in 2008
without additional appropriations and CTUIR's request for $100,000 will
enable the initiation of the next PED phase.
The Feasibility Study Project is authorized by the Senate Committee
on Public Works July 27, 1962 (Columbia River and Tributaries), 87th
Congress, House Document #403 and initiated as a result of a positive
Reconnaissance Report for the Walla Walla River Watershed (1997) under
a General Investigation study.
The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation is the
formal sponsor of the Corps of Engineers Feasibility Study and has
provided over $3.1 million in in-kind contributions. Additionally, the
State of Washington Department of Ecology has provided $400,000 to the
Feasibility Study.
Support for the completion of the Feasibility Study and moving to
construction of the project is strong and diverse and includes the
Honorable Governor of Washington Christine Gregoire, the Honorable
Governor of Oregon Ted Kulongoski, the Walla Walla Watershed Alliance,
the Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council, basin irrigation districts,
local State legislators and many local and regional advocacy groups.
In closing, the CTUIR appreciates the opportunity to provide this
testimony in support of adding funds for the ongoing projects Umatilla
River Basin Water Supply Project, Bureau of Reclamation, and for the
Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla River Basin Watershed Restoration
Feasibility Study. Both projects are critically important to protecting
existing agricultural economies, completing future water supply
development and concurrently restoring stream flows and recovering
threatened salmon and other Columbia River Basin fish stocks.
______
Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress
I am Anita Winkler, Executive Director, Oregon Water Resources
Congress. This testimony is submitted to the United States Senate
Appropriations Committee, Energy and Water Development Subcommittee,
regarding the fiscal year 2008 Budget for the Bureau of Reclamation and
Oregon Projects. The Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) was
established in 1912 as a trade association to support member needs to
protect water rights and encourage conservation and water management
statewide. OWRC represents non-potable agriculture water suppliers in
Oregon, primarily irrigation districts, as well as member ports, other
special districts and local governments. The association represents the
entities that operate water management systems, including water supply
reservoirs, canals, pipeline and hydropower production.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
OWRC continues to support an increase in funding for the Bureau of
Reclamation's Water and Related Resources program above the
administration's proposed fiscal year 2008 budget request for the
Bureau of Reclamation's programs west-wide. The administration's
current budget proposal is approximately $150 million less than what we
in the water community feel is necessary to carryout an effective 21st
Century water program for the West.
Water 2025
As our membership works to meet water-related challenges, we have
found the Water 2025 program of the Bureau beneficial in providing the
extra financial assistance necessary for the proper planning and
actions to help prevent future crisis.
OWRC supports the $11 million fiscal year 2008 budget request for
the Water 2025 program. Funding this program will support our member
districts' efforts to improve water delivery systems, conserve water,
and implement innovative projects to meet the water needs in our State.
With many Western States confronting significant budget deficits,
increased emphasis is being placed on targeted Federal aid. In
addition, we continue to be confronted by looming shortages associated
with the on going drought in the West. While we appreciate the
administration's request for $11 million for the Water 2025 program, we
believe this seriously under represents the need for this program and
the financial assistance in provides Western States to address water
supply needs. We support a larger appropriation for the program once it
is reauthorized and will provide a recommended dollar amount at that
time.
OREGON NEEDS
We are concerned with the overall reduction in the fiscal year 2008
request for Oregon projects in the Bureau of Reclamation's fiscal year
2008 budget compared to the fiscal year 2007 request. With the
exception of the Crooked River Project and the Savage Rapids Dam
Removal, every project is down in requested dollars. Given the aging
infrastructure, the surging population and environmental requirements
we feel this is shortsighted given the needs in the State. We recognize
that the Rural Water Supply Act passed in the last Congress instituting
a new loan guarantee program for the Bureau of Reclamation. We believe
this may prove to be an important new tool in the Reclamation Tool Box.
However, it should not be viewed as a substitute for a robust Water And
Related Resources Budget.
We are disappointed that Reclamation has not come forward with
their 5-year budgeting plan as requested by the committee, This
absence, coupled with not having the spending plan for the fiscal year
2007 funding provided make it difficult to provide more thorough
judgments and recommendations on the fiscal year 2008 budget request
Conservation Implementation
The largest need for funding for OWRC's members is to implement
water conservation projects. Irrigation districts in Oregon continue to
line and pipe open waterways to enhance both water supply and water
quality. But the ability to continue this work depends on some public
investment in return for the public benefits. Districts have conserved
water and provided some of the saved or conserved water to benefit the
fishery in-stream while also building reservoir supplies.
While some of these districts will continue to benefit from the
funding requested in the fiscal year 2008 Bureau budget request, others
are going through a reauthorization process or new authorizations for
projects in their districts that will continue this conservation ethic.
Rogue River Basin
Medford Irrigation District
Rogue River Valley Irrigation District
Talent Irrigation District
Grants Pass Irrigation District
Three contiguous districts in the Rogue Project (Medford, Rogue
River and Talent irrigation districts) are members of OWRC. We support
their ongoing program request in this area.
The Grants Pass Irrigation District (GPID) continues to address the
eventual removal of the Savage Rapids Dam. The $15 million in the
fiscal year 2008 budget is an important continuation of the effort to
address the agreements made in this area. OWRC supports the GPID
request.
Deschutes Basin
Tumalo Irrigation District
Deschutes Resource Conservancy
Ochoco Irrigation District
The Tumalo Irrigation District and the Deschutes Resource
Conservancy are currently working on new program and project
authorizations. We appreciated the committee efforts to add $1 million
in last years appropriation bill for the DRC.
The Ochoco Irrigation District (Prineville, Oregon) has worked with
the Bureau of Reclamation, along with the North Unit Irrigation
District (Madras, Oregon) for the better part of a decade to determine
the use of unallocated water in the district's reservoir. It is
important that this type of approach continues to address the needs in
these areas.
Umatilla/Columbia Basins
Stanfield Irrigation District
Westland Irrigation District
Hermiston Irrigation District
West Extension Irrigation District
East Valley Water District
East Fork Irrigation District
The Umatilla districts draw their water supply from the Umatilla
and Columbia Rivers. The districts have been in the process of
completing boundary changes and seeking supplemental contracts as part
of the conclusion of the boundary process. This process has taken
nearly a decade. The districts recognize the need to move forward with
Phase III of the project and support the $374,000 in the fiscal year
2008 Budget for project conservation assistance and water quality
improvements.
Eastern Basins
Burnt, Malheur, Owyhee and Powder River Basins Water Optimization
Study.
The irrigation districts in these basins continue to seek support
for this optimization study to seek alternatives for more effective
water management through conservation projects and enhancement of water
supply. This project has been identified by the Bureau of Reclamation
as a regional need.
OWRC supports the fiscal year 2008 Oregon Investigations program
request that contains $810,000 to continue studies for these basins as
well as several other basins in the State.
In addition, we support ongoing State of Oregon efforts on Water
Supply Investigations in the State. As districts and the State continue
their efforts at better planning, there is a fundamental need for
better information. This would help with assessing existing and future
water needs in Oregon, completing a comprehensive inventory of above
and below ground storage and quantify surplus winter water.
Klamath Basin
The Klamath Project districts continue to require support for the
work in their area. We appreciate the $25 million request for the
collaborative efforts of all involved and recommend continued scrutiny
by the committee to make sure the needs and issues of the water
community are met in this area. We continue to encourage the
administration and in particular, the various Department of the
Interior agencies, to work closely with the districts in the project
area on the overall funding and planning necessary for ongoing
solutions.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding the
fiscal year 2008 Federal Bureau of Reclamation budget. While we support
existing proposals, we feel that given the record-setting droughts we
have suffered in the past few years and in anticipation of another
drought this year, we need to support an increased budget to stabilize
the Nation's water supply for the many needs it must meet. Providing a
stable water supply feeds the economy locally and at the national
level. The needs in this area should not have to rely on emergency
approaches and funding to be addressed in a timely manner. There is a
storing need for integrated water management and systems and watershed
approaches. An emphasis on improved intergovernmental cooperation,
working with State, regional and local organizations can make for
better collaborative planning models for everyone to benefit. We would
encourage the subcommittee to request a briefing from the Western
States Water Council on the study they have underway in this policy
area.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and
Dry Prairie Rural Water
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request
The Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and Dry Prairie Rural
Water respectfully request fiscal year 2008 appropriations in the
amount of $36,851,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation from the
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 based on need to build critical project elements and is
well within capability to spend the requested funds as set out below:
FISCAL YEAR 2008 WORK PLAN--FORT PECK RESERVATION RURAL WATER SYSTEM
(PUBLIC LAW 106-382)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Peck Tribes:
Water Treatment Plant:
Phase I, Clear Well Wash Water Recover.......... $3,504,000
Phase II, Main Treatment........................ 22,475,000
FP OM Buildings..................................... 765,000
---------------
Total............................................. 26,744,000
===============
Dry Prairie:
Branch Pipelines:
St. Marie to Nashua and St. Marie to Opheim:
Federal..................................... 10,107,000
State and Local............................. 3,192,000
---------------
Total..................................... 13,299,000
===============
Total:
Federal............................... 36,851,000
State and Local....................... 3,192,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sponsor Tribes and Dry Prairie greatly appreciate the previous
appropriations from the subcommittee that have permitted building the
Missouri River intake, the critical water source, elements of the water
treatment plant, the Culbertson to Medicine Lake Pipeline Project and
branches serving rural users outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation.
Without funds to complete the water treatment plant, service to tribal
users and communities has not been possible within the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation.
The request is comparable to the average annual appropriations
needed to complete the project in fiscal year 2012 ($35,110,000), as
provided by the authorizing legislation, but is within our capability
to use:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Federal Funds authorized (October 2005 $)....... $258,977,000
Federal Funds Expended Through fiscal year 2006....... $48,318,000
Percent Complete...................................... 18.66
Amount Remaining...................................... $210,659,000
Average Annual Required for fiscal year 2012 Finish $35,110,000
(Public Law 106-382).................................
Fiscal year 2008 Amount Requested..................... $36,851,000
Years to Complete..................................... 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that cost indexing from last year due to inflation increased
the cost of the project from $247 million to $259 million, an increase
of $12 million. Increases in the level of appropriations are needed to
outpace inflation.
Proposed Activities
Public Law 106-382 (October 27, 2000) authorized this project,
which includes all of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in Montana and
the Dry Prairie portion of the project outside the Reservation.
FORT PECK INDIAN RESERVATION
On the Fort Peck Indian Reservation the Tribes have used
appropriations from previous years to construct the Missouri River raw
water intake, a critical feature of the regional water project. The raw
water pump station has also been constructed, and the raw water
pipeline between the Missouri River and the water treatment plant has
been constructed to within 2 miles of the water treatment plant. The
sludge lagoons at the water treatment plant are completed.
The critical Missouri River water treatment plant will begin
construction in spring 2007 and will use $15.3 million of funds on hand
to build the first two phases of the facility. An additional $3.5
million in fiscal year 2008 funds is needed to Complete Phase I and an
additional $22.475 million is needed to complete the main water
treatment plant process building in Phase II.
This project was delayed a year due to the reduction in level of
appropriations in fiscal year 2007 (from $16 million in fiscal year
2006 to $6 million in fiscal year 2007) and the uncertainty of adequate
funding to complete the project. The project was bid in fiscal year
2006 as a complete unit, combining Phase I and Phase II, but bidders
increased prices significantly to reflect the uncertainty of funding to
complete the project. The project has now been separated into the two
phases to accommodate the funding setback, but the separation into two
phases has increased the total cost of the facility.
The request for fiscal year 2008 does not provide for construction
of essential pipelines from the water treatment plant to the
communities of Poplar and Wolf Point. These are the principal core
pipelines that extend east and west of the water treatment plant to
serve the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and to eventually connect to Dry
Prairie facilities on the east and west boundaries of the Reservation.
The funds needed for the pipeline projects to Poplar and Wolf Point are
$11.0 and $4.0 million, respectively, in addition to the fiscal year
2008 funding request. These care critical elements of the work plan for
fiscal year 2009.
The pipeline project from the water treatment plant to Poplar will
provide a replacement water supply for the community of Poplar and a
rural section of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation contaminated by brine
from oil drilling operations, which is the subject of EPA orders
against the responsible oil company. There is urgency in completing the
pipeline to Poplar before the advancing plume of contamination reaches
existing community wells in Poplar. Projections of the date that
contamination will reach the Poplar community wells are variable, but
the anxiety of the Tribes' leadership and membership can be overcome by
completing the water treatment plant and connecting the pipeline to
Poplar in fiscal year 2009. This is a critical time frame for the
Tribes. The staff and members of the subcommittee are urged to review
this matter with the Tribes and Bureau of Reclamation to clarify the
urgency of the completing necessary project facilities and alleviating
the threat of contamination of the public water supply for the Tribes'
headquarters community of Poplar.
The Tribes will also use $765,000 for an administration, operation
and maintenance building. The Bureau of Reclamation can confirm that
the use of funds proposed for fiscal year 2008 is well within the
project's capability to spend.
DRY PRAIRIE
Dry Prairie has used previous appropriations to construct core
pipelines and a booster pump station from the community of Culbertson
to serve the communities of Froid and Medicine Lake. This project
represents a significant portion of the main core pipeline for the
eastern half of the Dry Prairie Project. Pipelines were sized to serve
the area north of the Missouri River, south of the Canadian border and
between the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the North Dakota border.
The project relies on interim water supplies. The regional water
treatment plant will provide finished water when pipelines are
constructed to the interconnection point for Dry Prairie between Poplar
and Culbertson, scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2012. The
project between Culbertson, Froid and Medicine Lake is in full
operation and serves the last two mentioned communities.
In fiscal year 2006 in first quarter fiscal year 2007, Dry Prairie
built branch pipelines and connected nearly 200 rural services to the
Culbertson to Medicine Lake pipeline in the eastern half of the Dry
Prairie Project. Bainville, McCabe and Dane Valley residents can be
served with the existing system capacity that is now constructed and in
operation.
The request for fiscal year 2008 funds of $10,107,000, supplemented
by a non-Federal cost share of $3,192,000, will be used to begin
construction of pipelines to rural services on the west side of the Dry
Prairie project between the communities of St. Marie and Nashua. An
existing water treatment plant owned by the Boeing Co., at the former
Glasgow Air Force Base will provide an interim water supply to serve
the west side project until the regional water treatment plant of the
Tribes is completed and pipelines from Wolf Point to Nashua can be
completed as scheduled in fiscal year 2012. The facilities constructed
on the west side of the project are the same facilities required after
connection of the regional water treatment plant. Therefore, no
duplication of facilities or increases in costs are associated with the
interim project.
Master Plan
The project master plan is provided for review as an attachment.
The request for fiscal year 2008 is shown in relation to the project
components that remain to be completed by 2012.
Administration's Support
The Tribes and Dry Prairie worked extremely well and closely with
the Bureau of Reclamation prior to and following the authorization of
this project in fiscal year 2000. The Bureau of Reclamation has heavily
reviewed and commented on the Final Engineering Report, and all
comments were incorporated into the report and agreement was reached on
final presentation. OMB reviewed the Final Engineering Report prior to
its submission to Congress in the final step of the approval process.
The Commissioner, Regional and Area Offices of the Bureau of
Reclamation have been consistently in full agreement with the need,
scope, total costs, and the ability to pay analysis that supported the
Federal and non-Federal cost shares. There have been no areas of
disagreement or controversy in the formulation of the project.
The Bureau of Reclamation collaborated with the Tribes and Dry
Prairie to conduct and complete value engineering investigations of the
Final Engineering Report (planning), the Culbertson to Medicine Lake
pipeline (design), the Poplar to Big Muddy River pipeline (design), the
Missouri River intake (design) and on the regional water treatment
plant (design). Each of these considerable efforts has been directed at
ways to save construction and future operation, maintenance and
replacement costs as planning and design proceeded. Agreement with
Reclamation has been reached in all value engineering sessions on steps
to take to save Federal and non-Federal costs in the project.
The Bureau of Reclamation conducted independent review of the final
plans and specifications for the Missouri River raw water intake, the
regional water treatment plant and the Culbertson to Medicine Lake
Project. The agency participated heavily during the construction phases
of those projects and concurred in all aspects of construction from
bidding through the completion of construction. (The regional water
treatment plant has not yet been constructed).
Cooperative agreements have been developed and executed from the
beginning phases to date between the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Tribes and between Bureau of Reclamation and Dry Prairie. Those
cooperative agreements carefully set out goals, standards and
responsibilities of the parties for planning, design and construction.
All plans and specifications are subject to levels of review by the
Bureau of Reclamation pursuant to the cooperative agreements. The
sponsors do not have the power to undertake activities that are not
subject to oversight and approval by the Bureau of Reclamation. Each
year the Tribes and Dry Prairie, in accordance with the cooperative
agreements, develop a work plan setting out the planning, design and
construction activities and the allocation of funding to be utilized on
each project feature.
Clearly, the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System is well
supported by the Bureau of Reclamation. Congress authorized the project
with a plan formulated in full cooperation and collaboration with the
Bureau of Reclamation, and major project features are under
construction with considerable oversight by the agency.
______
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Prepared Statement of the State Teachers' Retirement System
Summary
Acting pursuant to congressional mandate, and in order to maximize
the revenues for the Federal taxpayer from the sale of the Elk Hills
Naval Petroleum Reserve by removing the cloud of the State of
California's claims, the Federal Government reached a settlement with
the State in advance of the sale. The State waived its rights to the
Reserve in exchange for fair compensation in installments stretched out
over an extended period of time.
The State respectfully requests an appropriation of at least $9.7
million in the subcommittee's bill for fiscal year 2008, in order to
meet the Federal Government's obligations to the State under the
Settlement Agreement.
Background
Upon admission to the Union, States beginning with Ohio and those
westward were granted by Congress certain sections of public land
located within the State's borders. This was done to compensate these
States having large amounts of public lands within their borders for
revenues lost from the inability to tax public lands as well as to
support public education. Two of the tracts of State school lands
granted by Congress to California at the time of its admission to the
Union were located in what later became the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum
Reserve.
The State of California applies the revenues from its State school
lands to assist retired teachers whose pensions have been most
seriously eroded by inflation. California teachers are ineligible for
Social Security and often must rely on this State pension as the
principal source of retirement income. Typically the retirees receiving
these State school lands revenues are single women more than 75 years
old whose relatively modest pensions have lost as much as half or more
of their original value to inflation.
State's Claims Settled, as Congress Had Directed
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106) that mandated the sale of the Elk Hills Reserve to
private industry, Congress reserved 9 percent of the net sales proceeds
in an escrow fund to provide compensation to California for its claims
to the State school lands located in the Reserve.
In addition, in the Act Congress directed the Secretary of Energy
on behalf of the Federal Government to ``offer to settle all claims of
the State of California . . . in order to provide proper compensation
for the State's claims.'' (Public Law 104-106, 3415). The Secretary
was required by Congress to ``base the amount of the offered settlement
payment from the contingent fund on the fair value for the State's
claims, including the mineral estate, not to exceed the amount reserved
in the contingent fund.'' (Id.)
Over the year that followed enactment of the Defense Authorization
Act mandating the sale of Elk Hills, the Federal Government and the
State engaged in vigorous and extended negotiations over a possible
settlement. Finally, on October 10, 1996 a settlement was reached, and
a written Settlement Agreement was entered into between the United
States and the State, signed by the Secretary of Energy and the
Governor of California, under which the State would receive 9 percent
of the sales proceeds in annual installments over an extended period.
The Settlement Agreement is fair to both sides, providing proper
compensation to the State and its teachers for their State school lands
and enabling the Federal Government to maximize the sales revenues
realized for the Federal taxpayer by removing the threat of the State's
claims in advance of the sale.
Federal Revenues Maximized by Removing Cloud of State's Claim in
Advance of the Sale
The State entered into a binding waiver of rights against the
purchaser in advance of the bidding for Elk Hills by private
purchasers, thereby removing the cloud over title being offered to the
purchaser, prohibiting the State from enjoining or otherwise
interfering with the sale, and removing the purchaser's exposure to
treble damages for conversion under State law. In addition, the State
waived equitable claims to revenues from production for periods prior
to the sale. The Reserve thereafter was sold for a winning bid of $3.53
billion in cash, a sales price that substantially exceeded earlier
estimates.
The Money Is There to Pay the State
The funds necessary to compensate the State have been collected
from the sales proceeds remitted by the private purchaser of Elk Hills
and are now being held in the Elk Hills School Lands Fund for the
express purpose of compensating the State. Taking into account the 1
percent government-wide rescission in the fiscal year 2006 Defense
Appropriations Act, the Elk Hills School Lands Fund should have a
positive balance of at least $18.18 million.
Congress Should Appropriate $9.7 Million for the Fiscal Year 2008
Installment of Elk Hills Compensation
As noted above, the State's 9 percent share of the adjusted Elk
Hills sales price of $3.53 billion is $317.70 million. To date,
Congress has appropriated seven installments of $36 million and one
installment of $48 million that was reduced to $47.52 million by the 1
percent across-the-board rescission under the fiscal year 2006 Defense
Appropriations Act, for total appropriations to date of $299.52 million
of Elk Hills compensation owed to the State. Accordingly, the Elk Hills
School Lands Fund should have a positive balance of at least $18.18
million.
We understand that Department of Energy personnel have proffered 3
purported grounds for suspending further payments of Elk Hills
compensation to the State. Each of these is a ``red herring.''
Red Herring No. 1: Finalization of respective equity shares of
Federal Government and ChevronTexaco as selling co-owners of Elk Hills
oil field still not completed.--The President's fiscal year 2008 budget
request says that ``the timing and levels of any future budget request
[for Elk Hills compensation] are dependent on the schedule and results
of the equity finalization process'' between the Federal Government and
ChevronTexaco to determine the relative production over the years from
their respective tracts in the Elk Hills field (Fiscal Year 2008 Budget
Appendix, at p. 373). But DOE already has held back $67 million,
including $6.03 million from the State's share, to protect the Federal
Government's interests in a ``worst case scenario'' for this equity
process, which is in its final stages after nearly a decade. The State
has agreed to a ``hold-back'' of that amount to protect the Federal
Government's interest. This reduces the available balance in the Elk
Hills School Lands Fund to $12.15 million. Remaining uncertainty in the
equity process thus provides no basis for withholding further payment
of the State's Elk Hills compensation.
Red Herring No. 2: No payment can be made to the State because of
pending litigation between ChevronTexaco and DOE.--DOE has pointed to
pending litigation brought by ChevronTexaco against DOE in the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims (Docket No. 04-1365C) as a reason to suspend
further payments to the State. This litigation alleges DOE personnel
committed misconduct in the equity finalization process by having
improper ex parte contacts and having the same DOE staff serve as both
advocate for DOE's position and advisor preparing the decision
documents for the decisionmaker. However, the California State Attorney
General has analyzed this litigation and advised that this litigation
is a claim for money damages for DOE staff misconduct that has no
effect on the Federal Government's equity share, and so there is no
effect on the State's share of compensation. (See Memorandum of the
California State Attorney General, dated May 16, 2006). Indeed, under
the governing agreement between DOE and Chevron, Chevron had waived any
right to contest the final equity determination in court. Hence this
litigation provides no basis for withholding the rest of the State's
compensation.
Red Herring No. 3: No payment can be made to the State because the
State's share must be reduced by the equity finalization costs and
environmental remediation costs and the final amount of such costs is
not yet known.--The State's share of compensation is properly reduced
by the ``direct costs of sale'' as required by Congress. Since the sale
took place nearly a decade ago, those costs are fixed and known. The
State has agreed to bear its share of these sales expenses. However,
DOE is seeking to charge against the State's share two additional
categories of costs--costs of determining the equity ownership and
environmental remediation--that constitute ongoing costs of operating
the oil field, not sales expenses. The California State Attorney
General advises that these do not properly constitute sales expenses
chargeable against the State's share.
More specifically, the Settlement Agreement between the Federal
Government and the State provides that the Federal Government shall pay
the State ``nine percent of the proceeds from the sale of the Federal
Elk Hills Interests that remain after deducting from the sales proceeds
the costs incurred to conduct such sale.'' This reflects the
congressional direction that, ``In exchange for relinquishing its
claim, the State will receive seven [nine in the final legislation]
percent of the gross sales proceeds from the sale of the Reserve that
remain after the direct expenses of the sale are taken into account.''
(House Rept. No. 104-131, Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996, Public Law 104-106).
The State agrees that the $27.13 million incurred for appraisals,
accounting expenses, reserves report, and brokers' commission are
appropriate sales expenses. (See Letter of the California Attorney
General to DOE, dated February 10, 2005). Accordingly, the State's 9
percent share of these proper sales expenses reduces the available
balance of the Elk Hills School Lands Fund by $2.44 million to $9.7
million.
Costs of conducting the equity adjustment are properly viewed as
ongoing costs incurred due to the joint operation of the Elk Hills oil
field by the Federal Government and ChevronTexaco, since the equity
adjustment already was required under their joint operating agreement
and related to pre-sale production revenues. Similarly, costs of
environmental remediation of the Elk Hills field was a cost
attributable to the prior operation of the field, which created any
environmental problems that exist. The ongoing operational nature of
this cost is underscored by the fact that the Federal Government is
currently engaged in the phased environmental remediation of a Naval
Petroleum Reserve that it is not selling--NPR-3 (Teapot Dome), as
evidenced by its fiscal year 2006 budget request.
Conclusion
Therefore, of the current Elk Hills School Lands Fund balance of
$18.18 million, taking into account the ``hold-back'' for worst case
scenario under equity finalization and deducting the appropriate direct
costs of conducting the sale, the State respectfully requests the
appropriation of at least $9.7 million for Elk Hills compensation in
the subcommittee's bill for the fiscal year 2008 installment of
compensation, in order to meet the Federal Government's obligations to
the State under the Settlement Agreement.
______
Prepared Statement of the Consortium for Fossil Fuel Science (CFFS)
PRODUCTION OF TRANSPORTATION FUELS FROM COAL AND BIOMASS WITH REDUCED
CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS
Chairman Dorgan and members of the subcommittee: We request $3
million in funding for a congressionally directed project in the Fuels
Program of the Office of Fossil Energy budget to initiate a program of
research to produce transportation fuels from coal and biomass. The
focus of this program will be to minimize the amount of carbon dioxide
emitted by both the fuel conversion process and by fuel utilization to
achieve overall emissions comparable to or less than emissions
resulting from the production and utilization of similar transportation
fuels from petroleum.
OVERVIEW
Traditional petroleum fuels and vehicles will remain our dominant
transportation mode for at least the next 20 years. The United States
imports over 10 million barrels of oil per day at a cost exceeding $220
billion/year, most of it from unstable regions of the world. Expert
testimony has been presented to the Congress showing that the true cost
of imported petroleum goes far beyond the price of a barrel of crude
oil, with some estimates reaching to $825 billion for 2006. Increasing
global demand, coupled with an expected peaking in the world oil
supply, will cause shortages and markedly increased prices in the
future, which could lead to economic recessions due to ``oil shock.''
It is essential that we produce transportation fuels from our own
national resources, especially focusing on our most abundant energy
resource, coal. It is equally essential, however, that we do so without
harming the environment. The National Research Center for Coal and
Energy (NRCCE, West Virginia University) and the Consortium for Fossil
Fuel Science (CFFS, University of Kentucky) have formed an integrated
team of fuels experts from five universities (West Virginia University,
University of Kentucky, University of Pittsburgh, University of Utah,
and Auburn University) to conduct a basic research program focused on
producing Fischer-Tropsch fuels using mixtures of coal and biomass as
the feedstock. We believe that costs can be reduced, a superior
transportation fuel can be produced, and carbon emissions can be
minimized through such research.
The NRCCE and the CFFS have extensive experience and broad
expertise in research on the conversion of coal into clean liquid
transportation fuels and the conversion of coal into hydrogen. We have
made significant breakthroughs in such areas as: (1) catalysis of coal
conversion reactions; (2) C1 chemistry processes (including Fischer-
Tropsch (F-T) synthesis) to produce transportation fuels from coal-
derived syngas; (3) co-processing of coal with waste materials,
including plastic, rubber, and cellulose (biomass); (4) development of
novel processes to produce hydrogen from fossil fuels; and, (5)
environmental research.
We are now proposing a research program focused on development of
processes that use biomass as a co-feed with coal for the production of
clean transportation fuels with reduced carbon emissions.
The motivations for this approach include: First, co-feeding coal
with biomass will extend the lifetime of the Nation's coal resources;
second, we can make use of biomass wastes that are not currently
utilized; and, third, combined coal and biomass processes have the
potential to yield a significant net reduction in carbon dioxide
emissions compared to coal-only processes.
Recent studies indicate that the total carbon dioxide emissions
from a liquid fuel produced by F-T synthesis of syngas derived from
mixtures of coal and biomass may be reduced by as much as 60-80 percent
relative to those from the same fuel produced from coal alone.
GOALS OF THE PROGRAM
The primary goal of the NRCCE-CFFS research program is to develop
technology that will enable the United States to produce clean liquid
transportation fuel from its largest domestic energy resource, coal, in
a manner that is both sustainable and environmentally friendly.
Incorporating biomass into the feedstock can help to achieve these
objectives. A short summary of more specific goals is given below.
--Investigate the pyrolysis and gasification of coal-biomass mixtures
to determine the role that hydrogen from biomass can play in
the production of syngas with the optimum composition for the
production of liquid fuels (gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet
fuel). Improvements in the gasification step will have a great
impact on the ultimate cost of the liquid fuels produced from
syngas derived from coal-biomass mixtures, since gasification
costs are 60-70 percent of the total cost.
--Develop catalysts and thermochemical processes that will yield
transportation fuel products from coal-biomass mixtures with
properties better than those produced from petroleum, while
reducing the total carbon dioxide emissions from both
production and use of the fuels.
--Develop computational models to simulate catalytic chemical
reactions by quantum mechanics, thereby reducing the need for
experimental testing and decreasing the cost of the on-going
research program.
--Utilize systems analysis modeling to simulate plant performance and
cost factors in order to determine whether or not processes
developed in the laboratory are commercially viable.
--Produce hydrogen and synthetic natural gas from coal-biomass
mixtures while reducing the carbon dioxide footprint.
--Establish a more active collaboration with scientists at the
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) who are focused on
this and related areas of research. Develop an exchange program
in which professors and graduate students from the five
participating universities conduct research at NETL and NETL
scientists have access to facilities and expertise available at
the universities.
Legislation introduced in both houses of the 110th Congress
includes tax credits and loan guarantees to hasten the deployment of
plants which produce alternative fuels from coal. Widespread deployment
of such plants will require a large number of fuel scientists and
engineers. An ancillary benefit of our program will include educating
the U.S.-based human resource pool needed to meet personnel demands for
a coal-to-liquids industry.
SUMMARY
We request your support for $3 million in funding for this program
to the National Research Center for Coal and Energy (West Virginia
University) from the Fossil Energy budget for fiscal year 2008. The
funding will be shared with the other four CFFS universities (Kentucky,
Pittsburgh, Auburn, and Utah) to support the first year of a proposed
three-year research program for producing liquid transportation fuels
from coal and biomass. The NRCCE-CFFS consortium will provide $750,000
in cost-sharing.
Achievement of our program goals will accelerate the development of
a domestic industry for the production of clean liquid transportation
fuels using our own natural resources, thereby strengthening the energy
and economic security of our Nation. An alternative fuels industry will
also provide many new jobs in the mining industry, fuel synthesis
plants, and biomass processing.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony to the
subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors
The Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) is pleased to
provide this testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development regarding fiscal year 2008 appropriations for the Energy
Conservation and Renewable Energy programs of the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE). The Governors recognize the difficult funding decisions
which confront the subcommittee this year. We appreciate the
subcommittee's continued support for energy efficiency, energy
conservation, and renewable energy programs--all of which promote sound
energy management and improve the Nation's energy security. Consistent
with this thinking, the CONEG Governors request that funding for the
State Energy Program be increased to $74 million, and funding for the
Weatherization Assistance Program be provided at a level of $300
million in fiscal year 2008. The Governors support the President's
request to fund the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve at $7 million
and the Energy Information Administration at $105 million in fiscal
year 2008. At this time of heightened interest in expanded use of
indigenous renewable energy resources, we request that the subcommittee
require the Department of Energy to again provide modest funding of
$7.5 million to continue the critical networks and market development
work of the National Biomass Partnership (previously known as the
Regional Biomass Energy Program).
These very successful energy programs take on new significance as
the Nation strives to strengthen the security and reliability of
domestic energy supplies and to reduce dependence on foreign sources of
energy. Energy efficiency, conservation and renewable energy, which
offer near-term opportunities and results, are important complements to
longer-term Federal investments in domestic production and emerging
technologies. Federal resources for research and program implementation
must also emphasize programs that can bring alternative energy and
energy saving technologies quickly to the marketplace. The State Energy
Program, the Weatherization Assistance Program, and the Regional
Biomass Partnership provide established networks and Federal-State-
local government and private sector partnerships which can achieve
timely energy savings and encourage renewable energy development.
Modest Federal investment in these programs provides substantial
energy, economic and environmental returns to the Nation, leveraging
additional State and private sector investment, and contributing to
sound energy management. These resources are undisputed clear winners
when compared to conventional energy technologies.
State Energy Program (SEP).--The State Energy Program (SEP) is the
major State-Federal partnership program addressing energy efficiency
and conservation in all sectors of the economy. It assists States' work
in support of the national goals of greater energy efficiency, reduced
energy costs, and development of alternative and renewable energy
resources. The State Energy Program also helps States improve the
security of the energy infrastructure and prepare for natural
disasters. SEP programs increase the awareness of the opportunities
available in States to improve energy efficiency, reduce energy costs,
create jobs, and diversify energy use. Their transformative effects in
the market have been repeatedly demonstrated and proven.
Working with DOE, States tailor their renewable energy and energy
efficiency programs in a way that makes the most sense for their market
opportunities, thus maximizing the effectiveness of the program's
resources. For example, the Northeast States have used SEP supported
projects to provide technical assistance and financial incentives that
have spurred building designers and owners to adopt energy-efficient
design features in the commercial, institutional, multifamily, and
industrial sectors. Our States have also used SEP resources in programs
that monitor and enhance the reliability of the energy supply and
delivery infrastructures, support the timely updating of energy
emergency preparedness plans, and promote the use of alternative fuels
in the transportation sector and other initiatives that will lead to a
lowering of fuel consumption and cleaner air.
The modest Federal funds provided to the SEP are an efficient
Federal investment, as they are leveraged by non-federal public and
private sources. According to the most recent data from the Department
of Energy, for every $1 of Federal investment, $3.58 is leveraged by
State and local governments, and private companies and results in $7.23
in reduced energy bills. In its evaluation of the program, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory estimated that the program results in annual cost
savings of $256 million while providing environmental and public health
benefits through reduced energy use and emission reductions.
Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP).--Weatherization is taking
on an increased importance as an immediate, effective tool to manage
energy use, particularly at a time of high energy prices. Through a
network of more than 900 local weatherization service providers, the
Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) improves the energy efficiency
of more than 100,000 low-income dwellings a year, thereby reducing the
home energy bills of the Nation's most vulnerable citizens. Increased
and consistent funding is key to the effectiveness of this program that
invests in training weatherization personnel.
While an average household pays roughly 2.7 percent of annual
income on home energy, low income households pay more than four times
that amount. Some elderly recipients who live on fixed incomes pay as
much as 35 percent of their annual incomes for energy bills. WAP
provides immediate and lasting benefits and reduces the energy burden
of low-income families by improving energy efficiency and permanently
reducing home energy bills.
Weatherization can reduce, on average, heating bills by 31 percent
and overall energy bills by $358 per year at current prices through
energy efficiency measures that address a home's heating and cooling
systems, its electrical system, and electricity consuming appliances.
In terms of energy savings, weatherization clients save $1.83 for every
$1 of DOE investment, according to recent DOE information.
Weatherization services can also improve the safety of a home by
identifying carbon monoxide hazards from old boilers, furnaces and
water heaters, and fire hazards from outdated electrical equipment and
wiring.
The WAP also provides numerous non-energy benefits. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory has concluded that for every $1 of DOE investment,
there are non-energy benefits worth $1.88, and the WAP contributes to
more than 8,000 jobs nationwide. In addition, the decreased energy use
resulting from weatherization measures also provides environmental
benefits through decreased carbon dioxide emissions.
Renewable Energy and the National Biomass Partnership.--Renewable
energy plays a vital role in meeting the Nation's goal of reduced
reliance on imported fossil fuels, a more balanced, diverse energy
resource mix, and reduction of greenhouse gases. Modest but timely
support for research and commercialization opportunities for near-term
bioenergy technologies is a vital component in meeting that goal. Using
government funding to support private market development and technology
commercialization for biofuels offers one of the most promising hopes
for reducing the Nation's energy vulnerabilities. States contribute
significant resources to support the development of biomass fuels,
technology, and infrastructure. However, State funds are not available
for coordination of these activities across the Nation.
The National Biomass Partnership (formerly known as the Regional
Biomass Energy Program) brings together varied networks of State,
private, and Federal bioenergy activities, and is a critical link in
the chain of research, resource production and technology
commercialization. The Partnership has successfully contributed to the
adoption of State policies supportive of bioenergy resource and
technology development, public awareness of the benefits and uses of
bioenergy, greater leveraging of Federal funding and State resources,
and increased intensity of biomass use. For example, according to a
DOE-directed program review, the Northeast Regional Biomass Partnership
(NRBP) directly influenced $24 million in biomass investments--69
percent of the overall biomass investment made in the region in 2003.
It helped create biomass working groups in nine northeast States, which
along with the NRBP personnel, provided bioenergy education and
training to nearly 3,000 people in the region--and greater
participation in State-developed bioenergy policies and programs.
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.--The Nation's heightened
emphasis on energy security places renewed importance on the Northeast
Home Heating Oil Reserve. The Northeast, with its reliance upon
imported fuels for both residential and commercial heating, is
particularly vulnerable to the effects of supply disruptions and price
volatility. The Northeast region of the country is literally at the end
of the energy product pipeline. Any disruption along the delivery
infrastructure anywhere in the country negatively affects the
Northeast. The Reserve provides an important buffer to ensure that the
States will have prompt access to immediate supplies in the event of a
supply emergency.
Energy Information Administration (EIA).--EIA provides timely,
reliable and credible information and analysis on the energy produced,
imported and consumed in the United States. At this time of volatile
global energy markets and renewed focus on the safety and security of
the Nation's energy supply, the information provided by the Energy
Information Administration (EIA) is a vital tool in keeping energy
markets functioning efficiently. In addition, States rely on EIA data
as the core of their information for energy emergency planning.
Increased funding in fiscal year 2008 will help ensure that EIA can
continue to collect, analyze and make available this vital data.
In conclusion, the Coalition of Northeastern Governors request that
you provide $74 million for the State Energy Program, $300 million for
the Weatherization Assistance Program and $7.5 million for the National
Biomass Partnership in fiscal year 2008. These programs promote sound
energy management by encourage development of alternative energy
resources and helping manage the Nation's energy use. The Governors
also request $7 million for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve and
$105 million for the Energy Information Administration in fiscal year
2008. CONEG welcomes the opportunity to continue a dialogue on these
important matters as Congress and the administration consider budget
and energy project and policy initiatives.
______
Prepared Statement of Cummins, Inc.
Cummins Inc. is pleased to provide the following statement for the
record regarding fiscal year 2008 funding for programs in the
Department of Energy's Offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy; Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability; and Fossil Energy.
Cummins Inc., headquartered in Columbus, Indiana, is a corporation of
complementary business units that design, manufacture, distribute and
service engines and related technologies, including fuel systems,
controls, air handling, filtration, emission solutions and electrical
power generation systems. The funding requests outlined below are
critically important to Cummins' research and development efforts and
represent a sound Federal investment towards a cleaner environment and
improved energy efficiency for our Nation. We request that the
committee fund the programs as identified below.
OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies/Vehicle Technologies
Advanced Combustion Engine R&D.--Cummins recommends an increase in
the administration's request of $34.55 million by $15.20 million to
bring the program total to $49.75 million in fiscal year 2008. This
program includes two important research areas--the Heavy Truck Engine
and the Waste Heat Recovery programs. Both of these relate to heavy
duty diesel engines and are significantly under-funded in the
administration's fiscal year 2008 request. Formerly separate programs,
these research areas were folded into the umbrella Advanced Combustion
Engine R&D program in this year's request. The Heavy Truck Engine
portion of the administration's request was reduced to $3.2 million for
fiscal year 2008, down from $12.2 million in fiscal year 2007 and
fiscal year 2006. The requested increase would allow for funding for
heavy truck engine research of $15.4 million in fiscal year 2008. The
Waste Heat Recovery program of the administration's request was reduced
to zero, down from $4 million in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2006.
The requested increase would allow $3 million for waste heat recovery
research in fiscal year 2008. These programs are critically important
to the heavy duty diesel engine industry efforts to meet stringent
emissions requirements through better understanding of combustion
technologies. Heavy truck engines consume nearly 25 percent of all
surface transportation fuels used in the United States, and the Heavy
Truck Engine program is critical to engine manufacturers' efforts to
increase on-highway fuel efficiency while meeting EPA's near zero 2010
emissions regulations. Significant technology hurdles remain in the
areas of engine efficiency improvements, co-fuels development,
aftertreatment requirements and subsystem durability, on-board
diagnostics and fuel penalty minimization due to the use of
aftertreatment. Hybrid technologies are also becoming attractive for
heavy duty engine applications, warranting additional research effort.
The Waste Heat Recovery program is critical because over 50 percent of
fuel energy is lost in diesel engines through wasted heat in exhaust,
lubricants and coolants. This program is focused on identifying and
developing innovative energy recovery technologies, such as
thermoelectric, turbo-compounding and Rankine cycle technologies. It
seeks to improve truck energy efficiency by 10 percent through better
waste heat recovery technologies.
Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies/Fuel Technologies
Non-Petroleum Based Fuels and Lubricants.--Cummins recommends an
increase in the administration's request of $6.9 million by $3.0
million to bring the program total to $9.9 million in fiscal year 2008.
This program funds research to better understand renewable (such as
biodiesel and ethanol) and synthetic fuel properties and their effect
on engine system performance when blended with petroleum fuels. While
biodiesel fuel blends are becoming acceptable in the marketplace, their
effect on various engine components, including fuel systems, lubricants
and aftertreatment systems, is unknown. Current fuel filters are less
effective for separating emulsified water in biodiesel blends and are
likely to cause problems in the field. The increase in funding will
help develop efficient techniques to remove water from biodiesel fuel
blends, better understand biodiesel fuel effects on particulate
filters, and evaluate biodiesel and lubricant interactions.
Advanced Petroleum Based Fuels (APBF).--Cummins recommends an
increase in the Administration's request of $6.5 million by $1.0
million for a program total of $7.5 million for fiscal year 2008. This
requested increase would allow additional study of fuel properties to
enable heavy duty diesel engines to operate in the most efficient mode
while meeting future emissions standards. Engine companies are required
to prove emissions compliance for over 435,000 miles of useful engine
life. The goal of this program is to study the impacts of fuel and lube
oil sulfur content on durability and reliability of particulate
aftertreatment systems.
Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies/Materials Technologies
Propulsion Materials Technology--Heavy Vehicle Propulsion Materials
Program.--Cummins recommends an increase in the administration's
request of $4.8 million by $1.0 million to bring the program total to
$5.8 million in fiscal year 2008. This program supports research and
development of next generation materials to enable diesel engine
efficiency improvements, improved reliability and reduced
aftertreatment system costs. Traditional engine materials may not be
adequate for the next generation of advanced combustion concepts, such
as low temperature combustion (LTC). High pressure injection fuel
systems are needed to support these combustion technologies. Smaller
hole size and clearance in emerging fuel systems requires new material
capabilities to remove submicron particles from the fuel. Further
research is also needed on advanced materials to mitigate cost issues
relating to the use of precious metals required for advanced nitrogen
oxides (NOX) reduction technologies. Increased funding for
the program will support studies on a range of advanced materials
technologies, including lightweight high strength materials for engine
components, composites, catalysts and soot oxidation, filtration media
modeling and nano-fiber filter technologies.
Office of Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Program/Hydrogen
Technology
Transportation Fuel Cell Systems.--Cummins requests that the
committee support the administration's requested amount of $8.0 million
for fiscal year 2008. As designed, the program provides support for R&D
and system integration of energy efficient auxiliary power unit (APU)
technologies for mobile or off-road applications. The goal of this
effort is the demonstration of a solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) based APU
for Class 7/8 on-highway diesel trucks. Reduction of diesel fuel
consumed in the idling of large diesel trucks is widely recognized as
an important element in reducing exhaust emissions from heavy trucks.
It would also reduce our Nation's overall dependence on foreign sources
of oil. It is estimated that a potential reduction of up to 800 million
gallons of diesel fuel is possible annually if SOFC systems can be used
to provide the heating, cooling and electrical needs of truck fleets in
lieu of idling. In 2005, Cummins Power Generation and our partner,
International Truck and Engine Company, conducted analysis and design
work to accurately define the requirements for such an APU, and we
believe the goal is achievable. Increased funding in fiscal year 2008
would allow the demonstration of a practical SOFC prototype that is
integrated on a typical truck platform.
office of electricity delivery and energy reliability
Research and Development/Distributed Energy Resources
Distributed Generation Technology Development--Advanced
Reciprocating Engine Systems (ARES).--Cummins recommends an increase in
the administration's request of $0 million by $1.5 million to bring the
program total to $1.5 million in fiscal year 2008. The objective of
this program is to develop high efficiency, low emissions and cost
effective technologies for stationary natural gas systems between 500-
6,500 kw by the year 2010. Natural gas-fueled reciprocating engine
power plants are preferred for reliability, low operating costs and
point of use power generation. Technologies sponsored by the ARES
program have demonstrated 44 percent engine efficiency (an increase
from the 32-37 percent baseline) and higher power densities than
current products, with an expected reduction in life cycle costs and
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Improved combustion, air
handling and controls developments have been successfully implemented
in a field test engine and genset. Further technical challenges include
combustion development for system efficiency, nitrogen oxides
(NOX) reductions, advanced sensors and controls, hardware
durability and lower life cycle costs. The development of distributed
power generation supports national energy security needs, improves
protection of critical infrastructure to address homeland security
concerns, and decreases dependence on the national electrical grid
system through point of use energy production.
OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY
Office of Clean Coal and Natural Gas Power Systems/Fuel Cell Research
and Development
Innovative Concepts--Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance
(SECA).--Cummins requests that the committee support the
administration's request of $62.0 million for fiscal year 2008. The
goal of the SECA project is the development of a commercially viable 3-
10 kw solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) module that can be mass-produced in
modular form for RV, commercial mobile and telecommunications markets.
The modular nature of SOFCs makes them adaptable to a wide variety of
stationary and mobile applications. SOFCs can play a key role in
securing the Nation's energy future by providing efficient,
environmentally sound electrical energy from fossil fuels or hydrogen.
A Cummins prototype successfully completed Phase 1 of the SECA program,
operating for approximately 2,000 hours at Cummins Power Generation in
Minneapolis, and meeting (pending DOE confirmation) SECA targets for
durability and cost. Phase 2 of the program will bring a critical
transition from current fuels used with SOFC (LPG or natural gas) to
diesel fuel for mobile applications including RV, marine and truck
auxiliary power units (APUs). The program is moving forward toward
development, leading to possible commercial production in 2013. This
program combines the efforts of the DOE national laboratories, private
industry and universities. Federal funding is critical to support the
research needed to keep this technology moving from the laboratory to
commercial viability.
Thank you for this opportunity to present our views on these
programs which we believe are of great importance to our Nation's
energy and economic security as well as continued environmental
progress. These programs are critical to needed advancements in the
transportation and power generation sectors.
______
Prepared Statement of the University of Tulsa
Dear Respected Members, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on
Energy and Water: I respectfully ask for the continuation of the
funding of the project titled ``Development of Next Generation
Multiphase Flow Prediction Tools'' for the fiscal year of 2008. This
project was selected in response to DOE's Oil Exploration and
Production solicitation DE-PS26-02NT15375-02, Public Resources Invested
in Management and Extraction (PRIME), July 15, 2002. The project
started on June 1, 2003 and scheduled to be completed by August 31,
2008. The anticipated DOE contribution for 2008 is $107,940. This
funding is significantly leveraged by The University of Tulsa ($151,355
(58 percent of total cost)). In the rest of my testimony I would like
to emphasize the importance and results of the project.
The ``easy'' oil and natural gas finds are becoming a rarity as we
depleted them posing a significant problem of energy shortage. Oil and
gas industry, academia and government are working to improve enabling
technology to facilitate more production from existing resources and
exploitation of ``difficult to produce resources including ultra deep
water resources, heavy oils, and unconventional natural gases.''
The developments of fields in deep and ultra-deep waters (5,000 ft
and more) are becoming more common. It is inevitable that production
systems will operate under multiphase flow conditions (simultaneous
flow of gas-oil-and water possibly along with sand, hydrates (ice-like
structures, and waxes)). Recovery of resources from deep waters poses
special challenges and requires accurate multi-phase-flow predictive
tools for several applications, including the design and diagnostics of
the production systems, separation of phases in horizontal wells, and
multiphase separation. The available tools cannot properly account for
the three-phase flow. At best, they lump oil and water phases as a
single liquid phase, assuming homogeneous liquid flow. Therefore, the
development of revolutionary next-generation multiphase flow predictive
tools is needed.
Multiphase flow prediction is essential for every phase of
hydrocarbon recovery, from design to operation. Recovery from deep
waters poses special challenges and requires accurate multiphase-flow
predictive tools for several applications, including the design and
diagnostics of production systems, separation of phases in horizontal
wells, and multiphase separation. The overall objective of the proposed
work is to develop new technologies that will enable future
exploitation of hydrocarbons from deep waters through the development
of revolutionary next-generation predictive tools for the simultaneous
flow of gas-oil-water in pipes.
The novel software tool developed in this project help design
proper production and transportation systems. There are many impacts of
the new tool being developed. For the industry, it is imperative to
have accurate predictive tools for the production and transportation of
hydrocarbons and associated water. The lost production from a single
offshore pipeline due to inadequate design can cost $500,000 or more
per day. More importantly, the lack of technology can result in overly
conservative designs that can render some projects cost-prohibitive.
Any technological improvement towards increases in producible reserves
and efficient production practices, such as the novel software
developed in this project, will realize more hydrocarbon production and
increase U.S. employment. Moreover, the new technologies may give U.S.
companies a technological advantage to exploit similar fields or
technical services in other countries, creating possibly more job
opportunities for U.S. residents. For the public at large, the
availability of additional domestic hydrocarbon reserves will reduce
the dependency of the United States on hydrocarbon imports, bringing
more stability to U.S. energy markets and the U.S. economy as a whole.
Significant progress has been made in this project. The model,
engine of the software, has already been developed for the prediction
of flow behavior during production and transportation of gas, oil, and
water through wellbores and pipelines. Closure relationships describing
the distribution between the liquid phases--namely mixing and inversion
are proposed. Significant improvements are observed over the
predictions by the two-phase unified models that assume a fully mixed
liquid phase. The three-phase unified model is currently being enhanced
by improving the closure relationships. The model is being incorporated
in various software packages by the software companies.
In conclusion, DOE's contribution to this project has already been
invaluable. The results and deliverables of the project are being
incorporated in available design software for design engineers to use.
Moreover, two graduate students funded through the project are employed
in oil and gas by companies operating in the United States serving the
public through working on oil and gas development projects in the
United States. One more year of support is needed to fully complete the
project. We ask that the funding for this project to be continued in
fiscal year 2008.
______
Prepared Statement of the Gas Technology Institute
This submittal is intended for the Senate Subcommittee on Energy
and Water. Comments are for consideration for establishing the fiscal
year 2008 Fossil Energy Oil and Natural Gas Program budgets. Thank you
for the opportunity to provide the subcommittee with information for
use during deliberations.
Recently, a new record was established! The technically recoverable
gas resource base in North America hit a 30-year high based on the
latest estimate by the National Petroleum Council in their
comprehensive Year 2003 study. Our understanding of the gas resource
base has resulted in a five-fold increase over the last 30 years (See
Figure No. 1).
Figure 1.--Technically Recoverable Gas Resource Base Estimates (Tcf)
Modified from William Fisher, et. al. University of Texas
With the resource base at record highs--expectations might be for
gas prices to be at record lows. Having just paid our winter heating
bills everyone is aware of current natural gas prices. Understanding
this dichotomy requires and understanding of both our remaining oil and
gas resource base.
Our resource base while large and diverse is also heavily explored
and difficult to access. Oil and gas is found in rocks that are deeper
in depth onshore greater than 15,000 ft. Oil and gas is found in lower
permeability formations, in deeper waters offshore, in environmentally
sensitive areas (Rocky Mountains) and is at greater distances from
markets (Alaska). All of these factors combine to the point where our
large technically recoverable resource is also technically challenging.
The resource is there however . . . and located within North
America. Our remaining oil and gas endowment is a considerable asset
and is being overlooked.
We continue to drill an increasing number of oil and gas wells but
they produce less resource for many of the reasons just discussed.
Demand exceeds supply and we all know the consequence of that
situation whether the commodity be a gallon of gasoline or a gallon of
milk. We are experiencing record high oil and gas prices that will lead
to significant economic hardship if action is not taken.
The action to be taken is a renewed emphasis on technology. New
technology must be developed and applied. Ten years ago, Coalbed
Methane was part of the technical resource base with little production.
A focused research program initiated by the Department of Energy
resulted in gas production that now satisfies 7 percent of our gas
demand (Figure No. 2 Coalbed Methane Production).
Figure 2.--Coalbed Methane Production in the United States
Funding for Oil and Gas R&D was almost cut in half during the
1990's. Adequate gas supplies and $2.00 wellhead prices put pressure on
the bottom line. The industry, for sound business reasons, was not
investing in supply R&D sufficient to meet mid-term demand. The super-
majors, while they may have significant research budgets, have other
more profitable options overseas. The service companies, which meet
many of the research needs of large producers, do so at the direction
of their clients. The smaller independents, which develop most of our
onshore oil and gas resources, do not have the resources to invest in
the R&D. Now, with gas prices at $6.00 and oil at $60 abandoned R&D
capabilities are sorely missed.
We require a renewed focus on our domestic resource base to fully
utilize our significant and valuable natural gas and remaining oil
endowment. New technology is the key to converting ``Resource to
Production.''
The National Petroleum Council as part of their 2003 study on
natural gas estimated the impact of various actions on natural gas
supplies and prices. Figure No. 3 illustrates the fact that new
technology can have as high or greater impact than most other options.
With this level of impact new technology programs should be receiving
top priority during budget deliberations.
Figure 3.--NPC Sensitivity Studies on Gas Price and Supply
The Department of Energy Oil and Gas program is the last remaining
organized R&D effort with a focus on our remaining domestic oil and gas
resource base. Important projects have been developed in several
strategic areas including:
--Unconventional gas resources such as tight gas sands, coalbed
methane and gas from shales.
--Microhole drilling for remote exploration and minimum land impact.
--Stripper or low production oil wells.
--Environmental issues including water produced from oil and gas
operations.
--Access to Federal lands with minimum impact.
--Technology transfer for Independent producers.
Just when the need is greatest and at a time when research efforts
of this type should be significantly increased in size, the
administration has recommended that the programs be eliminated.
I strongly believe that meeting domestic oil and gas supply has
value to the Nation on par with all other federally supported programs,
and that congressional and administration program and funding
priorities should reflect that importance.
______
Prepared Statement of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC), I am submitting this
testimony in support of fiscal year 2008 funding for a new U.S.
Department of Energy program that would address a serious public safety
and environmental problem that affects all the states that historically
drilled for oil and gas. Specifically, IOGCC is supporting a $10
million appropriation to permanently plug abandoned and ``orphaned''
oil and gas wells.
The member states of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
account for more than 99 percent of the oil and natural gas produced
onshore in the United States. Formed by Governors in 1935, the IOGCC is
a congressionally-ratified interstate compact of 30 member states. The
mission of the IOGCC is two-fold: to conserve our nation's oil and gas
resources and to protect human health and the environment.
The orphan oil and gas well plugging program for states was
authorized in Section 349(g) and (h) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
For lack of congressional appropriation, the U.S. Department of Energy
has yet to establish the program, however, the section authorizes up to
$20 million annually in federal matching funds to states for the
purpose of plugging abandoned wells--some of which are over a century
old. The program matches existing state funds to speed the plugging and
clean-up of old wells for which there is no responsible party.
No new orphan wells can be created, since today's state regulatory
structures, which require adequate bonding or insurance coverage,
ensure that the costs of plugging will be covered if the responsible
party becomes unwilling or unable to perform the task. Plugging the
remaining orphan wells by supplementing state programs will create no
new bureaucracy and will provide a lasting solution to the problem.
States have taken the lead in addressing the orphan well issue, and
thousands of sites have been reclaimed and wells permanently plugged by
the states. All oil and gas producing states have established plugging
funds, but they are insufficient to address a timely cleanup and
plugging of the remaining orphan wells. It is estimated that
approximately 60,000 orphan wells remain that have the potential to
cause public safety or environmental harm. The requested $10 million
appropriation to match state oil and gas plugging funds will
permanently plug the nation's remaining orphan wells over the next 5
years.
The potential for groundwater contamination is the primary
environmental concern associated with orphan wells. Unplugged wells can
potentially serve as a conduit for the migration of fluids into a
ground water aquifer. In some cases, fluids could flow all the way to
the surface, potentially contaminating surface soils surrounding the
well.
Public safety is also in jeopardy from unplugged wells. Escaping
methane gas from undiscovered pre-Civil War era wells can migrate to
the surface where unsuspecting homeowners and businesses may be
required to evacuate until the danger can be ameliorated. Similarly,
farm equipment and equipment operators can be seriously injured by the
unearthing of unknown oil or gas wells buried under decades of soil on
agricultural land. States have excellent programs to find and identify
such public safety hazards, but plugging and cleaning up the sites is
dependent on adequate funding.
This program is not an earmark, but rather an authorized U.S. DOE
program. Funding of the orphan well plugging program would set in place
an efficient and simple program to direct funding to state plugging
efforts. The appropriation would be directed to the U.S. Department of
Energy, which in turn would utilize the IOGCC as the fund
administrator, as directed by the authorizing statute. IOGCC would help
ensure that federal dollars would be dedicated to dealing with the
wells that pose the greatest danger to public safety and the
environment. An IOGCC Task Force has developed a prioritization
schedule to guide the well selection process. States would match the
federal funding, and submit a completed plugging report to the IOGCC
for reimbursement. The long-range goal is to plug every orphan well in
the nation that poses a threat to the environment or public safety.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit our testimony. We urge the
Subcommittee's favorable consideration of this request. For questions
or further information, please feel free to contact Diane S. Shea,
IOGCC Washington Representative, at dsshea60@verizon.net, or 301-913-
5243.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, the
Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition (NWSC or Coalition) appreciates this
opportunity to present a Statement for the Record regarding the status
of the fiscal year 2008 Department of Energy (DOE) Budget Request.
ABOUT THE NWSC
The NWSC is an ad hoc group of state utility regulators, state
attorneys general, electric utilities and associate members
representing 46 member organizations in 26 states. The Coalition was
formed in 1993 out of frustration at the lack of progress DOE had made
in developing a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and
high-level radioactive waste (HLRW), as well as Congress's failure to
sufficiently fund the nuclear waste disposal program (Program) since
1982. The mission and purpose of the NWSC is to achieve:
--Removal of commercial spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste from temporary civilian and decommissioned storage sites
located in 33 states.
--Authorization of a temporary, centralized commercial spent nuclear
fuel storage facility.
--Appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF) sufficient to
enable the DOE to fulfill its statutory and contractual
obligations.
--Augmentation of transportation planning and regulations to
facilitate transportation systems plan.
--Capping of the NWF fee at the present one-tenth of a cent per
kilowatt-hour.
--Operation of a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain that is
capable of receiving waste as soon as possible upon
authorization by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
FISCAL YEAR 2008 APPROPRIATIONS
Fiscal year 2008 is a pivotal year for the Program, and the NWSC
strongly supports the DOE's fiscal year 2008 budget request. Congress
has the opportunity to determine the direction of the Program by
appropriating the full $494.5 million as requested by the DOE in its
fiscal year 2008 budget. As stated by Mr. Ward Sproat, Director, DOE/
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM), during his
March 7, 2007 testimony, it is absolutely vital for Congress to fully
fund the Program in order for the DOE to carry out the latest projected
Best-Achievable Schedule opening date of March 2017 for the permanent
repository that includes the filing of the license application to the
NRC in June 2008.
Other DOE objectives in the fiscal year 2008 request include
certifying the licensing support network, completing the supplemental
Yucca Mountain Environmental Impact Statement, designing the standard
canisters to be used by the industry, performing critical personnel
safety upgrades at the Yucca Mountain site, analyzing and reporting to
Congress on the need for a second repository, resolving comments and
issuing the final EIS for the Nevada rail line that is required to
transport SNF and HLRW to the permanent repository, and funding
independent scientific studies by the State of Nevada, Nye County, Inyo
County, the University of Nevada and affected units of local
government.
NUCLEAR WASTE FUND
There are adequate funds available in the NWF to implement the
federal policy for permanent disposal of SNF and HLRW, provided
Congress appropriates them. Since 1983, ratepayers from 41 states have
paid more than $28 billion, including interest, into the NWF. The NWF
was established by the U.S. Congress for safe, timely, and cost-
effective centralized storage and the development of a permanent
repository. The nation's ratepayers who receive electricity from
nuclear generating utilities pay over $750 million per year into the
NWF, and with interest credits, this amount exceeds $1.2 billion
annually. To date, approximately $10 billion has been spent to assure
the national repository is developed in the most responsible manner to
protect the health, safety, and security of every American, including
those in Nevada, as well as each of the States with a nuclear power
plant. The Fund now holds more than $18 billion, including interest.
Regrettably, the NWF account balance has been used to support other
programs and camouflage the federal deficit rather than to develop the
permanent repository. Consequently, more than 55,000 metric tons of SNF
and HLRW are presently stranded at more than 100 sites (commercial and
defense) in 39 states. The NWSC asks that Congress codify the NWF
annual receipts as offsetting collections to ensure that every cent
collected from the ratepayers will be delivered to the Program, as
intended by the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended (NWPA).
NUCLEAR WASTE FUND REFORM
NWSC members believe it is vitally important that Congress ensure
the Program is funded in a manner that will allow the DOE to implement
the federal Program in accordance with the NWPA. The Program is already
in default of the NWPA requirement to begin waste acceptance by 1998,
and continues to slip further behind schedule.
For instance, the DOE's fiscal year 2007 budget request for the
Program was $544.5 million. However, Congress appropriated $444.5
million, a $100 million reduction. Consequently, three dozen workers at
the Yucca Mountain project have already lost their jobs and several
hundred others may face layoffs in the months ahead. Such cuts will
likely result in further setbacks to the Program schedule.
Additionally, in March 2007 the DOE submitted to Congress the
``OCRWM Budget Projection fiscal year 2009-fiscal year 2023 Executive
Summary,'' that projected annual budget expenditures of integrated
Program needs through completion of the repository surface facilities.
The projected budget is based on funding requirements for construction
of the repository and the transportation infrastructure needed to meet
the Best-Achievable Schedule opening date of March 2017, assuming
enactment of the Administration's legislative proposal the Nuclear Fuel
Management and Disposal Act.
To help keep the Program on track and the Best-Achievable Schedule,
the NWSC strongly supports the Administration's proposal for reforming
the mechanism for funding the Program. In March 2007, the
Administration submitted to Congress a legislative proposal that, among
other things, would provide a stable source of funding for this Program
by reclassifying mandatory NWF receipts as discretionary, in the amount
equal to appropriations from the NWF for the disposal program. Funding
for the Program would still have to be requested annually by the
President and appropriated by the Congress from the NWF.
While not calling for carte blanche funds for the DOE without
Program oversight, the NWSC has been very supportive of the OCRWM
program over the years and has worked to ensure that Congress
appropriate sufficient funds for the nuclear waste transportation and
disposal program. We continue those efforts today as we encourage
Congress to introduce comprehensive legislation that reforms the NWPA,
such as the ``Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act,'' proposed by
the Administration on March 6, 2007. Congress has an opportunity to
enhance the management and disposal of SNF and HLRW, ensure protection
of public health and safety and the territorial integrity and security
of the permanent repository through legislative reform. Moreover,
reforming the annual funding for the Program, assures the 41 states'
ratepayers that their payments into the NWF are being used for their
intended purpose--the removal of SNF and HLRW from commercial and
decommissioned nuclear power plants.
Continued under-funding will have dire consequences on the
completion of the nation's permanent repository, the transportation
infrastructure system plans and the transportation and disposal of
canisters. As several members of Congress have commented in the past,
``This Program has been starved for funding''--the 2010 deadlines for
waste fuel acceptance at Yucca Mountain was, ``a pipe dream at existing
funding levels.'' We hope that the 2017 deadline is not another ``pipe
dream.''
LAWSUITS
It has been more than ten years since the DOE defaulted on its
obligations, as stated in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as
amended, to remove SNF and HLRW 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.''
More than 60 utilities have sued the federal government for damages
associated with DOE's default to meet its 1998 obligations. The 11th
Circuit Court of the U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled that these damage
payments will not come from the Nuclear Waste Fund. Meanwhile, the U.S.
Court of Claims has awarded more than $220 million to plaintiffs so
far. As stated in Mr. Sproat's testimony, DOE has estimated that each
year the repository's opening is delayed beyond 2017, the U.S.
taxpayers' potential liability to contract holders will increase by
approximately $500 million per year. The longer Congress withholds
adequate annual funding from DOE and declines to reform the NWPA, the
greater the potential liability will be to the nation's taxpayers.
If the DOE fails to meet vital Program milestones such as
submitting the license application to the NRC, the financial liability
the DOE faces through lawsuits will continue to mount. As the DOE
continues to delay honoring its contracts with utilities to remove
spent fuel from plant sites, both the amount of SNF and HLRW stored,
and the costs associated with storing it increase. NWSC members are
concerned about the increased costs that ratepayers must bear as a
result of these delays.
TRANSPORTATION--RIGOROUS SAFETY STANDARDS
The DOE has proven that it can safely transport SNF and HLRW from
plant sites across the nation. Since the 1960s, more than 3,000
shipments of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants, government
research facilities, universities and industrial facilities traveling
over 1.6 million miles, ``without a single death or injury due to the
radioactive nature of the cargo.'' \1\ This equates to more than 70,000
metric tons of SNF, an amount equal to what the NWPA authorizes for
Yucca Mountain. 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--not one.
If a repository is licensed at Yucca Mountain, the DOE projects
approximately 4,300 shipments over a 24-year period, averaging 175
shipments of spent nuclear fuel per year, a relatively small amount
compared with the approximately 300 million annual shipments of
hazardous materials (explosives, chemicals, flammable liquids,
corrosive materials, and other types of radioactive materials) that are
currently transported around the country every day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Conference of State Legislatures' Report, January
2000.
\2\ U.S. Department of Energy Report to the Committees on
Appropriations, January 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the DOE has safely and successfully made more than
5,542 transuranic waste shipments at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
(WIPP) in New Mexico as of March 12, 2007.\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 material. 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 nation's spent nuclear
waste disposal transportation program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S.DOE/Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Shipment Figures, March
2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Nuclear Regulatory Commission Testing Requirements, 10 CFR
Sections, 71.61, 71.71, and 71.73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
The federal government's failure to deliver extends back several
decades and the U.S. Congress must immediately address the growing need
of disposal of SNF and HLRW. Therefore, it is vitally important that
the leadership in Congress fully fund the nuclear waste disposal
program for fiscal year 2008 and pass legislation that reforms Program
funding for the continued progress of the permanent repository. While
the Program continues to face complex challenges, passage of
legislation will allow the Program to remain viable and afford the
opportunity for ultimate success.
In contrast, the NWSC does not support competing legislation that
would have the DOE take title of SNF at plant sites. This previously
introduced bill proposes stranding fuel indefinitely throughout the
nation while the nation's ratepayers continue to pay in perpetuity into
the NWF, which is not an acceptable option.
Based on DOE reports, the NWSC understands the Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership (GNEP) program would reduce the volume, heat and
toxicity of byproducts placed in the permanent repository. However,
this program does not diminish in any way the need for, or the urgency
of, a geologic permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, particularly
because the Navy, research and legacy fuel are not candidates for the
recycling program.
The DOE fiscal year 2008 budget contains $2 million for a study
ordered by Congress to determine whether a second repository should be
built, and where, as required under Section 161(b) of the NWPA. The DOE
has already stated that it would start its review with the two-dozen
candidate sites that were under consideration prior to selection of the
Yucca Mountain site. Therefore, it is clear that all states have a
stake in following through with the nuclear waste disposal policy that
Congress selected when it passed the NWPA and reinforced when it voted
in 2002 to support the President's selection of Yucca Mountain as a
site suitable for development of the national repository.
The members of the NWSC urge Congress to take a long-term view of
our nation's energy needs, national security interests, and fairness to
both ratepayers and electric utilities by appropriating full funding
for the Program for fiscal year 2008. The Coalition members believe
receipt of requested annual funding will make it possible for DOE to
meet its projected schedule and eventually bring the nuclear waste
disposal program to fruition as promised and mandated by the 1982
Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended.
______
Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research (UCAR)
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 70-university member 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. In addition to its member research
universities, UCAR has formal relationships with approximately 100
additional undergraduate and graduate schools including several
historically black and minority-serving institutions, and 40
international universities and laboratories. UCAR's principal support
is from the National Science Foundation with additional support from
other federal agencies including the Department of Energy (DOE).
DOE Office of Science
The atmospheric and related sciences community appreciates
Congress' continued support for the Administration's American
Competitiveness Initiative, and its goal to double the DOE Office of
Science budget by fiscal year 2016. We are pleased that the fiscal year
2008 request again makes the Office of Science a high priority. The
needs of the country demand that DOE continue to produce a world-class
program in science and energy security research. The Office of Science
manages fundamental research programs in basic energy sciences,
biological and environmental sciences, and computational science, and
supports unique and vital parts of U.S. research in climate change,
geophysics, genomics, life sciences, and science education. Continuing
to implement the doubling of basic research funding within DOE will
result in educating, training and sustaining thousands in the nation's
workforce (28,000 in fiscal year 2008) in our laboratories and
universities.
I urge the Subcommittee to fund the DOE Office of Science at the
level of the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request of $4.4
billion, and to enable the agency to apply that entire amount toward
planned agency research priorities. As Director of the Office of
Science Raymond Orbach recently stated, ``These are extraordinary times
for science.'' This investment in our country's scientific leadership
will enable many researchers to make extraordinary progress in numerous
areas of discovery.
Biological and Environmental Research (BER)
Within the Office of Science, the Biological and Environmental
Research (BER) program develops the knowledge necessary to identify,
understand, and anticipate the potential health and environmental
consequences of energy production and use. These are issues that are
absolutely critical to our country's well being and security, and now
more than ever, they are being scrutinized by Members of Congress and
the media in light of the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) report that states that warming of the climate is
``unequivocal.'' Peer-reviewed research programs at universities,
national laboratories, and private institutions play a critical role in
the BER program by involving the best researchers the nation has to
offer, and by developing the next generation of researchers.
Approximately 27 percent of BER basic research funding supports
university-based activities directly and 40 percent supports basic
research at national laboratories. All BER research projects, other
than those that have been in the ``extra projects'' category, undergo
regular peer review and evaluation.
The President's BER Request for fiscal year 2008 is $531.9 million,
a 15 percent increase over the fiscal year 2007 Joint Resolution. While
this is a substantial increase, it should be seen in the context of
past appropriations, the President's higher fiscal year 2007 request
for BER, and the decline of BER funding that has taken place in the
recent past. With the elimination of congressionally directed projects,
BER received a three percent increase in the final fiscal year 2007
Joint Resolution. The fiscal year 2008 request, therefore, makes up
much lost ground. I urge the Subcommittee to fund Biological and
Environmental Research at the level of the fiscal year 2008 Budget
Request, $531.93 million, a 4.5 percent increase over the fiscal year
2007 Request, and to enable BER to apply that entire amount toward
planned agency research priorities that are peer-reviewed and that
involve the best researchers to be found within the nation's university
research community as well as the DOE labs.
BER's Climate Change Research Program
The International Polar Year (IPY) 2007-2008 officially began March
1, with over 200 scientific projects planned, involving thousands of
scientists from over 60 nations examining a wide range of physical,
biological and social research topics. The scientific need to focus on
the remote areas of the Earth will provide better understanding of the
current global climate.
DOE's IPY activities are supported by the DOE Office of Science's
Climate Change Research Program in which research is focused on
understanding the basic chemical, physical, and biological processes of
the Earth's atmosphere, land, and oceans and how these processes may be
affected by energy production and use, primarily the emission of carbon
dioxide from fossil fuel combustion. DOE's Climate Change Prediction
Program's contribution to the IPY includes improving climate change
projections using state-of-the-science coupled climate models in time
scales of decades to centuries and space scales of regional to global.
BER's Climate Change Research also contributes substantially to the
nation's Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) goals of
understanding and predicting climate change, including its causes,
consequences, and potential for abrupt change. The long-term DOE goal
is to deliver improved climate data and models for policy makers and to
substantially reduce differences between observed temperature and model
simulations at regional scales. This work is critical to the ability of
policy makers and stakeholders to provide stewardship resulting in a
healthy planet--and it is particularly important as signs of
increasingly dramatic change in our climate and environment appear.
The Climate Change Research Request of $138.1 million for fiscal
year 2008 is a 2.4 percent increase over the fiscal year 2007 Request.
I urge the Subcommittee to fund Climate Change Research at an fiscal
year 2008 level that is consistent with the requested increase for BER
stated above, a 4.5 percent increase over the fiscal year 2007 Request,
for a total of $144.3 million, and to enable DOE to apply the entire
amount toward planned national research priorities.
Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR)
Within DOE's Office of Science, Advanced Scientific Computing
Research (ASCR) delivers leading edge computational and networking
capabilities to scientists nationwide, enabling advances in computer
science and the development of specialized software tools that are
necessary to research the major scientific questions being addressed by
the Office of Science. Development of this capacity is a key component
of DOE's strategy to succeed in its science, energy, environmental
quality, and national security missions.
ASCR's continued progress is of particular importance to
atmospheric scientists involved with complex climate 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 laboratory
approaches.
Within ASCR, several programs are of particular importance to
climate change computer modeling work. The Leadership Computing
Facility (LCF) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) provides a high
performance computing resource for the Climate Science End Station and,
in 2008, will continue its development into a world class facility with
over 80 percent of its resources being made available to unclassified
scientific research. In addition, the National Energy Research
Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) operated by Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, and the Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) are also
important enablers for climate research. These computational and
networking resources play a vital role in the progress of U.S. climate
research.
The high performance computing facilities for the Office of Science
serve thousands of scientists throughout the country at laboratories,
universities, and other Federal agencies. Computing time is awarded to
research groups based on peer review of submitted proposals. Basic
research accomplished at these facilities covers a wide range of
disciplines including climate modeling. ESnet enables researchers at
laboratories, universities and other institutions to communicate with
each other using collaborative capabilities that are unparalleled. This
high-speed network enables geographically distributed research teams to
collaborate effectively on some of the world's most complex problems.
Researchers from industry, academia and national labs, through this
program, share access to unique DOE research facilities, support the
frequent interactions needed to address complex problems, and speed up
discovery and innovation.
LCF, NERSC, and ESnet play complementary roles in advancing the
complex and challenging science of climate change and other scientific
areas of extreme importance to the security and quality of life of our
citizens. I urge the Committee to support the President's fiscal year
2008 request of $340.2 million for DOE Advanced Scientific Computing
Research, a 6.8 percent increase over the fiscal year 2007 request, and
to enable DOE to apply the entire amount toward planned national
priorities.
Scientific Discovery Through Advance Computing (SciDAC)
BER and ASCR partner to support SciDAC, a progressive, breakthrough
program that includes the creation of a first-generation Earth System
model based on the extremely successful Community Climate System Model.
A major SciDAC goal is to understand basic chemical, physical, and
biological processes of the Earth's atmosphere, land, and oceans and
how these processes may be affected by energy production and use. Much
of the research is designed to provide the data that will enable an
objective assessment of the potential for, and consequences of, global
warming. This work is becoming increasingly critical as evidence mounts
that regions of Earth are warming at an alarming rate. SciDAC research
activities are competed via a merit review process and carried out at
universities, national laboratories, and private institutions.
Fiscal year 2008 funding will provide support for SciDAC activities
including Centers for Enabling Technologies (CETs) that provide the
innovations in computational research and development for petascale
computational and data management endeavors, including climate
research.
BER funding for SciDAC is requested at $7.7 million for fiscal year
2008 with ACSR supporting SciDAC Computational Partnerships at $50.2
million, $21 million of which will fund the CETs. I urge the Committee
to support the President's fiscal year 2008 requests within BER and
ASCR for overall SciDAC funding.
DOE plays a vital role in sustaining U.S. scientific leadership and
generating U.S. competitiveness in a time when other countries are
investing heavily in scientific research and technology. On behalf of
UCAR and the atmospheric sciences research community, I want to thank
the Subcommittee in advance for your attention to the recommendations
of our community concerning the fiscal year 2008 budget of the
Department of Energy. We understand and appreciate that the nation is
undergoing significant budget pressures at this time, and support
absolutely the effort to enhance U.S. security and quality of life
through the American Competitiveness Initiative, of which the DOE
Office of Science is a critical component.
______
Prepared Statement of FuelCell Energy, Inc.
FuelCell Energy, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to submit this
statement in support of the Department of Energy's Fossil Energy, Fuels
and Power Systems, Fuel Cell Program. We urge the Subcommittee to
continue to support this breakthrough program by appropriating $80
million for development of this highly efficient, clean, and secure
energy technology.
DOE's Fossil Energy Fuel Cell Program, through the Solid State
Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) fuel cell activity, is developing
technology to allow the generation of highly efficient, cost-effective,
carbon-free electricity from domestic coal resources with near-zero
atmospheric emissions in central station applications. The program
directly supports the president's FutureGen project through the
development of cost-effective, highly efficient, power blocks that
facilitate sequestration in coal-based systems. The technology will
also permit grid independent distributed generation applications by
2010.
SECA fuel cell systems operating on coal gas are building blocks
for zero emissions power, the ultimate goal of the President's
FutureGen Program. These systems are projected to be available at a
cost of $400/kw. In addition, the technology developed in this program
will produce electricity at up to 60 percent efficiency in coal-based
systems, produce near-zero emissions, and be compatible with carbon
sequestration.
In all applications SECA fuel cells will be both low-cost, with the
above-stated goals of $400/kw, as well as highly efficient. Integrated
with coal gasification, such systems will approach 60 percent
efficiency compared to the existing coal-based power generation fleet
average of about 33 percent efficiency. In distributed generation
applications even higher efficiencies may be reached, and cogeneration
opportunities can further increase efficiency.
Along with these attributes fuel cells are one of the cleanest
technologies available in terms of atmospheric emissions, which
enhances their attractiveness for urban applications or applications in
areas of non-attainment for Clean Air Act emissions. They also provide
24 hour, silent operation.
Finally, coal-based fuel cell systems will increase energy security
by using domestic resources. In distributed generation applications
fuel cells can eliminate transmission and distribution system
infrastructure concerns and issues by providing generation near the
point of use and by being able to operate in a grid-independent mode.
The SECA Program consists of six integrated industrial
manufacturing teams designing fuel cell systems, developing the
necessary materials, and ultimately responsible for deploying the
technology. These teams are complemented by two to three dozen core
technology performers providing generic problem-solving research needed
to overcome barriers to low-cost, high performance technology as
identified by DOE and the manufacturing teams. The core technology
teams are universities, national laboratories, and other research
oriented organizations. This unique structure assures that a variety of
approaches to solving the problems associated with fuel cells will be
undertaken in a manner that will increase the chances of success for
this highly complex technology.
Several of the manufacturing teams are developing systems for
application to large central generation systems characterized by
FutureGen. The remaining manufacturing teams are developing fuel cells
for possible use in both these large systems as well as in distributed
generation applications such as auxiliary power units, military power
applications and remote or on-site power generation.
The DOE budget request for this program for fiscal year 2008 is
$62.0 million, approximately the same level anticipated for fiscal year
2007 funding. This level of funding will continue to support the
current program, which involves larger-scale Phase II development work
on the part of manufacturing teams in the program and continued effort
by the core technology performers. However, in order to deliver full
scale fuel cell system hardware for the FutureGen project additional
support is necessary to assist and accelerate the creation of
manufacturing capability by the formation of teams between existing
fuel cell stack developers and industry with the goal of delivering
hardware by the scheduled date of 2011 and also to keep the base
program on schedule.
We believe that the SECA fuel cell program has achieved the
progress to date as anticipated by the program managers, and will
continue to display such progress given sufficient funding support by
DOE and the Congress. Hybrid technology has been successfully
integrated into the program and an emphasis on use with coal-based
systems has been established. Industry partners in the program have
continued and increased cost-sharing support. All major stack
developers have met the initial goals of the program allowing
continuance to more advanced stages of development. This technology is
essential to meeting the efficiency and emissions goals of the
President's FutureGen program and will also provide low-cost, low-
emissions alternatives for distributed generation applications.
Therefore, we urge you to support our request for $80 million to
execute the DOE Fossil Energy, Fuels and Power Systems, Fuel Cell
Program in fiscal year 2008.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ground Water Protection Council
The following request by the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC)
is to restore Congressional appropriations of $64 million for the
Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy (FE) Research and
Development (R&D) program. This appropriation will continue to fund the
RBDMS system and electronic commerce applications at $1,500,000. These
programs developed by the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC)
streamline data management for oil and gas permitting, enhance oil and
gas production, and protect the environment. Restoring the funding for
these programs is an urgent priority for the continued development of
domestic oil and gas and sustained environmental protection.
The GWPC is a respected national organization of state ground
water, UIC, and oil and gas regulatory agencies with a successful track
record of providing solutions to ground water protection related issues
that are environmentally protective, scientifically based, cost
effective and publicly accepted. Through the GWPC, states work together
to strengthen their ability to protect ground water resources in more
effective and cost efficient ways. We are the proud recipient of the
Secretary of Energy's ``Energy 100 Award''--given to the top 100 most
successful and publicly beneficial projects (RBDMS) in the last 30
years of the USDOE.
RBDMS/CERA Accomplishments.--Data utilities from the Risk Based
Data Management System are used in 25 states and one Indian Nation.
RBDMS streamlines state oil and gas permit and response times, enhances
ground water protection, and provides improved public and industry
joint access to data, saving money for state and federal agencies,
increasing production for small independent domestic operators, and
creating real time efficiencies in state and federal domestic oil and
gas programs. Over the life of these successful programs, the states
have matched federal funding with their own funds at a 3:1 ratio.
RBDMS/CERA projects have resulted in:
--Improved Environmental Protection.--State agencies have achieved
higher levels of environmental protection through information
management tools developed with DOE FE R&D funding. For
example, current RBDMS application development efforts are
making it possible to overlay oil and gas well and coal mining
location information on source water protection area maps to
assess areas of review and protect underground sources of
drinking water. These same technologies are allowing regulatory
agencies to track the quality and quantity of fresh and
produced waters and to make important policy decisions about
how these resources should be managed.
--Increased Domestic Oil and Gas Production and Increased State
Revenues.--Regulatory agencies have documented that the
information access and technology research afforded by the DOE
FE R&D program has helped industry maximize the recovery of oil
and gas from marginal wells. Nationwide, many marginal wells
are being reworked and brought back online at a significant
cost savings. For example, in North Dakota, more than 250 wells
over the last 5 years have been re-entered and drilled
horizontally at a cost savings of at least $300,000. By keeping
these wells available, industry has saved in excess of
$75,000,000 in North Dakota alone. If such technology was not
made readily available through the DOE FE R&D program, many
wells with recoverable product would have been plugged or shut
in.
--Increased Data Sharing.--Improved access to oil and gas agency data
gives exploration geologists the ability to develop prospects
remotely and to drill and operate their leases more
efficiently. The DOE FE R&D funding has given regulatory
agencies the opportunity to share data with small, independent
operators that would not otherwise have the ability to access
such accurate information, thus aiding exploration and
development efforts.
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding for RBDMS/CERA.--DOE Fossil Energy
Research and Development program funding is a sound investment in
domestic energy production and environmental protection. The DOE FE R&D
program funds research projects that are encouraging small- and medium-
sized industry operators to expand into previously cost-prohibitive
areas increasing the industry's ability to make more knowledgeable
decisions about resource deployment, exploration, and well management
and is reducing overhead costs associated with regulatory compliance.
Fiscal year 2008 funding would provide:
-- E-Commerce.--The development of new RBDMS e-commerce applications
in fiscal year 2008 will increase environmental monitoring and
compliance and at the same time decrease both cost and time
allocation for small oil and gas producers. The result is money
saved by state governments and federal agencies and increased
domestic oil and gas production.
--Cost Effective Regulatory Approaches.--Cost Effective Regulatory
Approach (CERA) projects are designed to facilitate the
development of petroleum resources in an efficient and
environmentally friendly manner. For example, we are currently
working on minimizing ground water impacts from oil shale
production. Projects such as these are critical to the
continued enhancement of oil shale production capacity in the
United States.
--Energy-Water Nexus.--The USDOE has a goal of minimizing water
consumption by energy-producing industries. The GWPC will
develop software applications that will aid state agencies in
tracking water quality and quantity data related to oil and gas
production. Automated data will assist states in the analysis
of related water consumption.
-- CO2 Geosequestration.--Capture and geologic storage
(geosequestration) of CO2 from power plants is one
important tool for decreasing the release of this greenhouse
gas to the atmosphere. However, geosequestration of
CO2 in underground formations presents a potential
threat to underground sources of drinking water. The GWPC will
facilitate the development of regulations to manage
CO2 geologic sequestration by:
--Creating a stakeholders workgroup made up of state agencies,
environmental groups, energy resource companies and other
affected parties focused on regulatory needs.
--Evaluating the legal basis for regulations development including
federal and state authorities and rules.
--Working with the scientific and technical communities to
incorporate the best available information to assure the
process is environmentally sound.
--Expanding the successful RBDMS system to track and monitor
CO2 Geosequestration wells.
Many domestic oil and gas fields are no longer economical for the
major oil and gas companies to operate but still hold vast resources.
Without small independent operators, these resources would not be
recoverable. By increasing its recoverable resources by only 5 percent,
the United States would produce billions of barrels of additional
domestic oil. Conversely, failure to use new technologies to fully
recover these resources would result in the loss of billions of dollars
of revenues that would instead be sent overseas for oil imports.
About 5,000 domestic independent companies drill 90 percent of the
nation's wells and produce 68 percent of our domestic oil and 82
percent of the natural gas. While efficient in their operations, these
companies lack the necessary research programs to fully develop our
domestic resources. The partnerships created between these independent
producers and universities through the DOE FE R&D program are the focus
of 85 percent of the program's resources. The DOE FE R&D program
increases environmental protection, access to adequate supplies of oil
and gas, and tax revenues generated through oil and natural gas
production. This funding allows states to help expand oil production
while at the same time better protect the environment through increased
data access and more efficient data sharing between state agencies and
producers. RBDMS and CERA projects help further these benefits.
The Ground Water Protection Council requests continued funding in
the amount of $1,500,000 for RBDMS and CERA programs and encourages
restoration of Congressional appropriations of $65 million for the
Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy (FE) Research and
Development (R&D) program.
______
Prepared Statement of Southern Company Generation
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Southern Company
operates the Power Systems Development Facility (PSDF) (http://
psdf.southernco.com) in Wilsonville, AL for the U.S. Department of
Energy's (DOE's) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and
several industrial participants.\1\ The PSDF was conceived as the
premier advanced coal power generation research and development (R&D)
facility in the world. It has fulfilled this expectation. I would like
to thank the Senate for its past support of the PSDF and request the
committee's continued support. This statement supports the
Administration's budget request for DOE coal R&D which includes $25
million for work at the PSDF. These funds are necessary to conduct the
future test program agreed to with DOE which includes wide-ranging
support of the DOE Clean Coal Technology Roadmap. A major highlight of
the PSDF test program is carbon capture technology development for
coal-based power generation (see details below). Also included is
support for FutureGen--the integrated hydrogen and electric power
production and carbon sequestration research initiative proposed by
President Bush. DOE has identified the PSDF as one of the primary test
centers to support FutureGen through sub-scale component testing of
technologies under consideration for inclusion in the FutureGen full-
scale project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Current PSDF participants include Southern Company, the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), KBR, Siemens Power
Generation, Inc. (Siemens), Peabody Energy, the Burlington Northern
Santa Fe Railway Company, and the Lignite Energy Council. The Lignite
Energy Council includes major producers of lignite (who together
produce approximately 30 million tons of lignite annually); the
nation's largest commercial coal gasification project; and investor-
owned utilities and rural electric cooperatives from a multi-state area
that generate electricity from lignite, serving two million people in
the Upper Midwest region. The Council also has over 250 contractor/
supplier members who provide products and services to the plants and
mines. In addition to the Wilsonville plant site major work is planned
for the PSDF, or components are being developed at the following
locations: Grand Forks, ND (sub-scale gasifier testing), Houston, TX
(gasifier development); Orlando, FL (gas turbine low-NOX
burner), Pittsburgh, PA (filter fabrication), Deland, FL (filter
fabrication), and Holly Springs, MS (gasifier fabrication).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A key feature of the PSDF is its ability to test new coal-based
power generation systems at an integrated, semi-commercial scale.
Integrated operation allows the effects of system interactions,
typically missed in un-integrated pilot-scale testing, to be
understood. The semi-commercial scale allows the maintenance, safety,
and reliability issues of a technology to be investigated at a cost
that is far lower than the cost of commercial-scale testing. Capable of
operating at pilot to near-demonstration scales, the PSDF is large
enough to produce industrial scale data, yet small enough to be cost-
effective and adaptable to a variety of technology research needs.
In addition to semi-commercial scale testing, the PSDF has slip-
stream testing capability for cost effective technology screening.
Future test work at PSDF will include the scale-up and continued
development of several CO2 capture technologies being
developed either at DOE's NETL facility, at private R&D laboratories or
at PSDF. These CO2 capture technologies are envisioned for
integration with existing or future Integrated Gasification Combined
Cycle (IGCC) plants to reduce the cost penalties associated with the
removal of CO2 from syngas prior to combustion for power
generation. As a part of the effort to capture CO2,
substantial new technologies, such as improved catalysts for water gas
shift technology are needed and will be tested at PSDF. Also included
in the PSDF research plans are efforts to enhance the coal feeding
systems to enable wider ranges of coal as well as biomass to be
economically and reliably introduced into many different versions of
IGCC technology under consideration commercially today. PSDF has
already demonstrated proof-of-concept of this new DOE-funded fuel feed
system and will continue technology development to commercial ready
scale.
A part of DOE's goals are to encourage the commercial deployment of
technologies for which DOE has contributed R&D funding. Consistent with
these goals, the PSDF will also provide process technology support to
efforts to commercialize transport gasifier technology. DOE has
partnered with Southern Company and the Orlando Utilities Commission
(OUC) as part of a competitive solicitation under the Clean Coal Power
Initiative (CCPI) to build an advanced 285-megawatt transport gasifier-
based coal gasification facility at OUC's Stanton Energy Center in
central Florida. The facility will use sub-bituminous coal and include
state-of-the-art emission controls to demonstrate the cleanest, most
efficient coal-fired power plant technology in the world. In addition,
the PSDF will also provide process support to a recently announced
commercial deployment of the transport gasifier to be constructed in
Mississippi. This project will showcase the first ever application of
modern IGCC technology on Gulf Coast lignites. The PSDF will also
support the deployment of other emerging commercial technologies for
use on other IGCC systems, including coal feed and particulate control
technologies.
Southern Company also supports the goals of the Clean Coal
Technology Roadmaps developed by DOE, EPRI, and the Coal Utilization
Research Council (CURC). These Roadmaps identify the technical,
economic, and environmental performance that advanced clean coal
technologies can achieve over the next 20 years. Over this time period
coal-fired power generation efficiency can be increased to over 50
percent (compared to the current fleet average of 32 percent) while
producing de minimis emissions and developing cost-effective
technologies for carbon dioxide (CO2) management. EPRI
estimated the value of advanced coal R&D using the modern financial
technique called ``Real Options''. The major conclusion of this study
\2\ is that the value to U.S. consumers of further coal R&D for the
period 2007-2050 is at least $360 billion and could reach $1.38
trillion. But, for these benefits to be realized the critically
important R&D program outlined in the Clean Coal Technology Roadmap
must be conducted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPRI Report No. 1006954, ``Market-Based Valuation of Coal
Generation and Coal R&D in the U.S. Electric Sector'', May 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary
The United States has historically been a leader in energy
research. Adequate funding for fossil energy research and development
programs, including environmental and climate change technologies will
provide our country with secure and reliable energy from domestic
resources while protecting our environment. Current DOE fossil energy
research and development programs for coal, if adequately funded, will
assure that a wide range of electric generation and hydrogen production
options are available for future needs. Congress faces difficult
choices when examining near-term effects on the Federal budget of
funding energy research. However, continued support for advanced coal-
based energy research is essential to the long-term environmental and
economic well being of the United States. Prior DOE clean coal
technology research has already provided the basis for $100 billion in
consumer benefits at a cost of less than $4 billion. Funding the
Administration's budget request for DOE coal R&D and long-term support
of the Clean Coal Technology Roadmap can lead to additional consumer
benefits of between $360 billion and $1.38 trillion.
One of the key national assets for achieving these benefits is the
PSDF. The fiscal year 2008 funding for the PSDF needs to be $25 million
to support construction of new technologies that are critical to the
goals of the Clean Coal Technology Roadmap and to the success of the
development of cost-effective climate change technologies, of the type
that will be demonstrated in the FutureGen project. The major
accomplishments at the PSDF to date and the future test program planned
by DOE and the PSDF's industrial participants are summarized below.
PSDF Accomplishments
The PSDF has developed testing and technology transfer
relationships with over 50 vendors to ensure that test results and
improvements developed at the PSDF are incorporated into future plants.
Major subsystems tested and some highlights of the test program at the
PSDF include:
Transport Reactor.--The transport reactor has been operated
successfully on sub-bituminous, bituminous, and lignite coals as a
pressurized combustor and as a gasifier in both oxygen- and air-blown
modes and has exceeded its primary purpose of generating gases for
downstream testing. It is projected to be the lowest capital cost coal-
based power generation option, while providing the lowest cost of
electricity and excellent environmental performance.
Advanced Particulate Control.--Two advanced particulate removal
devices and 28 different filter elements types have been tested to
clean the product gases, and material property testing is routinely
conducted to assess their suitability under long-term operation. The
material requirements have been shared with vendors to aid their filter
development programs.
Filter Safe-Guard Device.--To enhance reliability and protect
downstream components, ``safe-guard'' devices that reliably seal off
failed filter elements have been successfully developed.
Coal Feed and Fine Ash Removal Subsystems.--The key to successful
pressurized gasifier operation is reliable operation of the coal feed
system and the filter vessel's fine ash removal system. Modifications
developed at the PSDF and shared with equipment suppliers allow current
coal feed equipment to perform in a commercially acceptable manner. An
innovative, continuous process has also been designed and successfully
tested that reduces capital and maintenance costs and improves the
reliability of fine ash removal.
Syngas Cooler.--Syngas cooling is of considerable importance to the
gasification industry. Devices to inhibit erosion, made from several
different materials, were tested at the inlet of the gas cooler and one
ceramic material has been shown to perform well in this application.
Syngas Cleanup.--A syngas cleanup train was constructed and has
proven capable of meeting stringent syngas decontamination
requirements. This module that provides an ultra clean slip stream is
now available for testing a wide variety of technologies.
Sensors and Automation.--More than 20 instrumentation vendors have
worked with the PSDF to develop and test their instruments under
realistic conditions. Automatic temperature control of the Transport
Reactor has been successfully implemented.
Fuel Cell.--Two test campaigns were successfully completed on 0.5
kW solid oxide fuel cells manufactured by Delphi on syngas from the
transport gasifier marking the first time that a solid oxide fuel cell
has been operated on coal-derived syngas.
PSDF Future Test Program
Future testing at the PSDF is focused on supporting CO2
capture technologies (of the type to be used by FutureGen) and the
Technology Roadmaps. These programs aim to eliminate environmental
issues that present barriers to the continued use of coal including
major reductions in emissions of SO2, CO2,
NOX, particulates, and trace elements (including mercury),
as well as reductions in solid waste and water consumption. Since
FutureGen will require testing evaluations and scale-up of emerging
technologies, DOE has identified the PSDF as a key location for support
testing of the new technologies prior to consideration for inclusion in
FutureGen.
With adequate funding, work at the PSDF will include:
H2/CO2 Separation Technologies.--Integrate
and test advanced and potentially lower cost H2/
CO2 separation technologies to assess their performance on
coal-derived syngas.
Water Gas Shift Enhancements.--A variety of water gas shift reactor
configurations and sizes can be tested at the PSDF. Optimizing the
operation of shift catalysts when exposed to syngas at the PSDF and
evaluating their economics will provide valuable input for the
FutureGen project.
Advanced Syngas Cleanup.--Test new advanced syngas cleanup systems
for reducing hydrogen sulfide, hydrochloric acid, ammonia, and mercury
to near-zero levels.
New Particulate Control Device Programs.--Evaluate alternative
filter system internal designs, on-line detector of particle
breakthrough, and improved resistance probes.
Improved Fuel Feed Systems.--Evaluate alternatives that have been
identified to conventional lock hopper feed systems and coal
preparation methods.
Biomass Co-Feed.--Evaluate co-feed options with biomass and coal.
Design and run a test to gasify up to a 20 percent mixture of biomass
with coal in the Transport Gasifier.
Transport Gasifier.--Continue transport gasifier testing to expand
useable feedstocks, including low- and high-sodium lignites and
bituminous coals as well as biomass mixtures with these coals and
provide syngas for testing of syngas clean-up and downstream systems.
Syngas Cooler.--Test alternative designs that are less complex,
have lower capital cost, and offer better control of the syngas exit
temperature.
High-Temperature Heat Exchangers.--Test high-temperature heat
exchangers as they become available for use in both advanced combustion
and gasification technologies.
Fuel Cell.--Support NETL fuel cell development with slip-stream
testing. Install and test a 5 to 10 MW hybrid fuel cell/gas turbine
module.
Sensors and Automation.--Evaluate automation enhancements that
simulate commercial control strategies. Further development at
gasification operating conditions is planned for measuring coal feed
rate, temperature, gas analysis, dust at low levels, and hazardous air
pollutants.
______
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 (all but Hawaii). Collectively, public power utilities deliver
electricity to one of every seven electric consumers (approximately 44
million people). We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement
outlining our fiscal year 2008 funding priorities within the Energy and
Water Development Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
Federal Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs)
Power Marketing Administration Interest Rate Proposal.--The
Administration's fiscal year 2008 budget includes a recommendation that
would raise electricity rates by changing the interest rate charged by
the Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA), the Southwestern Power
Administration (SWPA), and the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA)
on all new investments in projects whose interest rates are not set by
law. Specifically, the Department of Energy's (DOE) budget calls for
the these three Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) to set their
interest rates at the level that government corporations pay to borrow
funds from the federal government. To implement this proposal, DOE will
amend the regulation that governs how the PMAs establish their rates
and will do so administratively, without any consultation with or
action from Congress.
The Administration's budget proposes to increase the interest rate
charged on all new investments in these hydroelectric facilities to a
level that is charged to government corporations--the rate that
reflects the interest cost for the federal government to provide loans
to government corporations. SEPA, SWPA and WAPA are neither government
corporations nor do they borrow funds from the U.S. Treasury. All rates
are set to recover the dollars appropriated by Congress for the
investment in the hydroelectric facilities and to cover the cost to
operate these projects. If implemented, this proposal could increase
rates considerably for customers served by most of the Power Marketing
Administrations.
This proposal creates a serious precedent and should be rejected,
because: (1) the process for implementing the proposal can be done
without congressional involvement or approval; (2) the proposal would
arbitrarily raise revenue from electric customers for deficit
reduction; and (3) the proposal reverses decades of rate making
precedent and accepted cost recovery practices by administrative fiat.
We urge the Subcommittee to block the implementation of this proposal.
Bonneville Power Administration ``Net Secondary Revenue''
Proposal.--Also included in DOE's fiscal year 2008 budget is a proposed
administrative action that would direct the Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA) to use any net ``secondary market revenues'' in
excess of $500 million per year towards accelerated federal debt
repayment. Because the change would be made through the rulemaking
process, congressional approval is not needed for the policy to go into
effect. This proposal was strongly opposed by Congress in fiscal year
2007, and was ultimately blocked by Congress for that year. The Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) calculates that this plan would provide
a total of $924 million from fiscal year 2007-2016 from these ``higher-
than-historical net secondary revenues.'' OMB believes that this
measure is needed to free up BPA borrowing authority. However, experts
in the Northwest have calculated that the proposal would result in a 10
percent wholesale rate increase that BPA would be forced to pass on to
ratepayers. The Congressional Budget Office has calculated that the
effect of the Administration's proposal on the U.S. Treasury would be
$300 million over 10 years beginning in 2008. We urge the Subcommittee
to block the implementation of this proposal.
``Emergency'' Purchase Power and Wheeling.--This new Administration
proposal for fiscal year 2008 would require that any funds used from
the ``Continuing or Emergency Funds'' be paid back within a year of
being used. Like the Agency rate and net secondary revenue proposals,
this one can be implemented administratively. Currently, in most cases,
the PMAs have 3-5 years to recoup those funds from the customers--paid
back with interest. Emergency funds are available to the PMAs when an
unforeseen emergency situation (such as a drought) causes them to go
beyond their allotted ceiling for purchase power and wheeling
expenditures in a given fiscal year. Similar to the Agency rate
proposal, this change is unjustified from a practical standpoint and is
also problematic from a precedent-setting perspective. We urge the
Subcommittee to block implementation of this proposal.
Purchase Power and Wheeling.--We urge the Subcommittee to authorize
appropriate levels for use of receipts so that the Western Area Power
Administration (WAPA), the Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) and
the Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) can continue to purchase
and wheel electric power to their municipal and rural electric
cooperative customers. Although appropriations are no longer needed to
initiate the purchase power and wheeling (PP&W) process, the
Subcommittee continues to establish ceilings on the use of receipts for
this important function. The PP&W arrangement is effective, has no
impact on the federal budget, and is supported by the PMA customers who
pay the costs. We agree with the Administration's budget requests for
PP&W for fiscal year 2008, which are as follows: $425.2 million for
Western Area Power Administration (WAPA); $62.2 million for
Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA); and $45 million for
Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA).
Costs of Increased Security at Federal Multi-Purpose Projects.--
Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bureau of Reclamation
(Bureau) embarked upon an aggressive program to enhance the security of
federal dams to protect the facilities against terrorist attacks. Based
on historical precedent, the Bureau initially determined that the costs
of increased security measures should remain a non-reimbursable
obligation of the federal government. In fiscal year 2005, however, the
Bureau reversed its position and asked for some of these costs to be
reimbursed from power customers. That year, Congress disagreed with the
Bureau's request that these expenses be reimbursable, but the following
year, Congress directed that $10 million of the estimated $18 million
for guards and patrols be provided by reimbursable funding. The bill
also directed the Bureau to provide a report to Congress within 60 days
that would delineate the planned reimbursable security costs by
project. The report (issued in March 2006) was similar to the previous
(May 2005) report, except that it also included ``facility
fortification upgrades'' as a reimbursable cost. Previously, the Bureau
had assured its stakeholders that only the costs of guards and patrols
would be reimbursable. There has been some clarification on that
position, but it is not entirely clear how replacement/upgrades would
be treated. The Administration's fiscal year 2008 request for the
Bureau's site security is $35.5 million, of which $18.9 million (for
guards and patrols) would be designated reimbursable from water and
power customers. This additional obligation in essence makes everything
reimbursable at some point. Regardless of the details of the Bureau's
report, APPA continues to believe in the validity of the historic
rationale established in the 1942 and 1943 Interior Department
Appropriation Acts for treating costs of increased security at multi-
purpose federal projects as non-reimbursable obligations of the federal
government. We therefore urge Congress to add language to the Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2008 to clarify that all
costs of increased security at dams owned and operated by the Bureau be
non-reimbursable.
Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) and Renewable Energy
Programs.--The Department of Energy's REPI program was created in
1992's Energy Policy Act (EPAct) as a counterpart to the renewable
energy production tax credits made available to for-profit utilities,
and was recently reauthorized through 2016 in the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (EPAct05). EPAct05 authorizes DOE to make direct payments to not-
for-profit public power systems and rural electric cooperatives at the
rate of 1.5 cents per kWh (1.9 cents when adjusted for inflation) from
electricity generated from a variety of renewable projects. According
to DOE sources, in order to fully fund all past and current REPI
applicants, over $80 million would be needed for fiscal year 2008.
Despite the demonstrated need, however, DOE has asked for only $4.96
million for fiscal year 2008, citing budgetary constraints. We greatly
appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in this small but important
program as evidenced by its support of funding for the program either
at or above the Administration's budget requests in the last few years
despite the tight budgetary environment. We urge the Subcommittee to
continue its support with an even greater increase.
Storage for High-level Nuclear Waste.--We support the
Administration's efforts to finalize the location of a permanent
storage site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The Administration requested
$494.5 million for fiscal year 2008, a decrease of $50 million from its
fiscal year 2007 request, for the nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain. We encourage the Subcommittee to provide funding for the
project at or above the Administration's request.
Advanced Hydropower Turbine Program.--APPA is disappointed with the
Administration's decision to phase out this important program to
develop a hydroelectric turbine that will protect fish and other
aquatic habitats while continuing to allow for the production of
emissions-free hydroelectric power. We urge the Subcommittee to
consider providing funding for this important initiative.
Energy Conservation.--APPA appreciates the Subcommittee's interest
in energy conservation and efficiency programs at DOE and we hope that
the Subcommittee will once again allocate a funding level over and
above the Administration's request for fiscal year 2008.
Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.--APPA is
disappointed with the Administration's request of $204.9 million for
fiscal year 2008, a decrease of $20.1 million from its fiscal year 2007
request, for helping to increase the efficiency of commercial and
residential buildings, including weatherization assistance, and to
support the state and community energy conservation programs.
Clean Coal Power Initiative and FutureGen.--APPA supports the
Administration's request of $73 million for fiscal year 2008 for the
Clean Coal Power Initiative. This is consistent with the President's
commitment to fund this program at $2 billion over 10 years. We also
urge the Subcommittee to provide the $108 million in newly requested
funding for fiscal year 2008 for the FutureGen program.
Distributed Generation Fuel Cells.--APPA is disappointed with the
Administration's request of $62.03 million for fiscal year 2007 for
distributed generation fuel cell research and development, and urges
the Subcommittee to allocate additional funding for this program.
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and Vehicle Technologies.--APPA supports
the Administration's efforts to improve the feasibility of making
available low-cost hydrogen fuel cells, and supports its request of
$309 million for hydrogen research and development in fiscal year 2008.
APPA also supports the Administration's fiscal year 2008 request for
$176 million for vehicle technologies that would apply hydrogen fuel
cell technology to vehicles as well as provide for research for hybrid
and electric vehicle technologies to facilitate widespread deployment
of these technologies.
Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program.--APPA supports full
funding for the Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program at its
full authorized funding level. The purpose of the program is to provide
electric power to the estimated 18,000 occupied structures in the
Navajo Nation that lack electric power.
National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI).--APPA
supports the Administration's efforts to promote greenhouse gas
reductions through voluntary programs and investments in new
technologies. We encourage the Subcommittee to consider allocating
additional funds for the policy office of the NCCTI.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).--DOE has requested
$255.4 million for the overall operations of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) for fiscal year 2008. APPA supports this
request, which is an appropriate increase of $24.6 million over the
fiscal year 2007 request given FERC's additional responsibilities under
EPAct05.
______
Prepared Statement of the University of Tulsa
Background and Issues
September 11, 2001, confirmed that both Middle East oil dependence
and fragile infrastructure threaten national security. Domestic energy
systems aren't secure unless they're designed to make large-scale
failures impossible and local failures benign. Today the opposite is
true in the oil and gas sector: The United States' extraordinarily
concentrated energy flows could allow a devastating attack. Production
of oil and gas, especially in the United States are also dwindling with
each passing year. So has the ability to process the oil into valuable
products such as gasoline to drive our vehicles. The United States
depends on oil to move people and goods. Ninety five percent of the
energy for transportation in the United States comes from oil.
Transportation's demand for oil drives the market. Transportation
accounts for two-thirds of total U.S. petroleum use, and nearly all of
the high value petroleum products, like gasoline and distillate fuel.
In the past, dependence on oil has cost our economy dearly. Oil
price shocks and price manipulation by the OPEC cartel from 1979 to
2000 cost the U.S. economy about $7 trillion, almost as much as we
spent on national defense over the same time period and more than the
interest payments on the national debt. Each major price shock of the
past three decades was followed by an economic recession in the United
States. With growing U.S. imports and increasing world dependence on
foreign oil, future price shocks are possible and would be costly to
the U.S. economy.
On the government side, money has dried up, or is drying up, for
oil and gas research as well. The Gas Research Institute (GRI) at one
time funded close to $200 million per year in gas-related research.
GRI's support came from a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission-mandated
surcharge on interstate gas sales. The surcharge was phased out;
however, producing an estimated $70 million in 2001, $60 million in
2002-2004. In July 2005, Subtitle J Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional
Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Resources were passed into law. The
program under this subtitle addresses three areas: (1) Ultra-deepwater
architecture and technology in the Outer Continental Shelf to depths
greater than 15,000 feet, (2) unconventional natural gas and other
petroleum resources, and (3) the technology challenges of small
producers. The program guarantees to provide $50,000,000 per year with
the potential of an additional $100,000,000 per year over the next 10
years. These funds should provide some long term solutions, but it
should be noted that only a small portion of these funds (7.5 percent)
will be used on conventional oil and gas studies that benefit the small
producers. Furthermore, with this passage, additional pressure will be
applied to close the National Energy Technology Office in Tulsa
(formerly the National Petroleum Technology Office which was
consolidated into the NETL in December 2000). Ironically, the Energy
Bill provides almost no support for domestic oil production which
desperately needs new technologies for mature fields to continue to
support the Nation's energy future.
Research and Development (R&D) funding for major oil companies and
service companies hit bottom around 2003 and increased significantly
each year until at least 2005. The major oil companies during this
period were increasing funding at around 20 percent year-over-year and
the service companies were increasing funding at 10-15 percent. The
real issue is what are the major companies researching. In general it
is not things that benefit independent operations in the United States.
Major integrated oil and gas producers have largely moved offshore or
overseas. This has left onshore production increasingly in the hands of
small independent producers who lack the resources to conduct R&D.
TU has been one of the leaders in providing new technologies for
the oil and gas industry for almost a half century. DOE funding of our
programs over the past 10 years has been integral to our growth. This
growth is now being threatened. So, where will the funds come from to
support conventional oil and gas research?
SOLUTION
Ultimately, the solution to the oil dependence problem lies in
technological progress: developing technologies to find, process, and
use energy more efficiently, and by creating new energy sources that
can replace petroleum cleanly and inexpensively. However, if the
science is not done now, the technology will not be available in the
future when it is critically needed.
Energy security requires a program that focuses on infrastructure
security, energy diversification and energy efficiency while facing
energies challenges. This must be accomplished with environmentally
friendly technologies using global partnerships and collaboration
efforts. The University of Tulsa has many components of such a system
in place and is now working on a plan to include others. In the
meantime, our federal government must focus more of its funds on
conventional oil and gas upstream and downstream research while other
alternatives are developed, such as those through Subtitle J. These
technologies can't be abandoned because potential replacement
technologies are years away. It is critical that congress increase its
commitment to oil and gas research. According to House Rpt. 108-542
Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill, 2005:
``Oil and natural gas research is critical to improving current
technology and ensuring the best use of our domestic oil and gas
reserves. Despite the Committee's urging to the contrary, these
research areas continue to be seriously under funded in annual budget
requests.'' Unfortunately, trends in industry are working against this
need of additional funds as well.
The DOE allocates less than 0.3 percent of its budget to actual oil
and gas research yet ninety five percent of the energy for
transportation in the United States comes from oil. We urge you to
reverse the trend and insure that funding is in proportion to the
problems faced for the sake of our national security.
Complicating this year's funding issues is the Administration's
support for major hydrogen energy research at the expense of a 20
percent reduction in energy efficiency and renewable energy efforts at
DOE. The hydrogen fuel concept is not generating new energy, but merely
using hydrogen as a carrier for natural gas or other energy sources
without any infrastructure to support its wide deployment, whereas
energy efficiency is the cheapest and quickest way to create more
available energy for the Nation's future growth. Renewable energy is
critically important for Oklahoma which possesses abundant wind and
solar energy potential as well as a fledgling, but rapidly growing,
biofuel industry. Biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol R&D are very
important for the Nation while the corn ethanol boom actually diverts
much needed fossil fuels to its production at very little gain in
overall energy. Corn ethanol competes directly with beef and other
livestock production which will adversely impact Oklahoma and other
states. Further expanding its use at taxpayers' expense will not
achieve desired energy goals and will create problems in other
commodities.
We urge you to reduce hydrogen fuel research and continue robust
energy efficiency and renewable energy R&D at DOE as well as to
reinstate a federally managed oil and gas program which complements the
Energy Policy Act of 2005's consortium approach to natural gas R&D.
This will have the additional benefit of supporting academic programs
in petroleum, geosciences, and engineering which are shortchanged in
the Administration's new approach.
We thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony and look
forward to working with you to ensure that funding for conventional oil
and gas research continues.
______
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 four million annual visitors, its audience is one of the
largest 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 bioinformatics 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.
Support for Department of Energy Science Mission and Goals
The Department of Energy (DOE) is a leading science agency,
committed to enhancing U.S. competitiveness by providing world-class
scientific research capacity and by advancing scientific knowledge in
physical sciences and areas of biological, medical, environmental, and
computational sciences-including genomic science. The American Museum
of Natural History, in turn, is home to one of the world's largest
natural history collections and to a preeminent molecular research
program, which aligns with key areas of DOE's mission areas and
research priorities.
Building on its strengths in genomic science, in 2001 the Museum
launched the Institute for Comparative Genomics. The importance of
comparative genomics cannot be overstated, as investigating genomics
with a natural history perspective enlarges our understanding of the
evolutionary relationships among organisms, including threat agents,
and offers important applications for human health. The Institute's
research programs leverage the Museum's unique expertise in
evolutionary biology and draw on its unparalleled facilities, including
a 700 CPU parallel computing cluster (the fastest, we believe,
installed in an evolutionary biology laboratory and one of the fastest
in a non-defense environment), high throughput sequencing capacity, and
an ultra-cold tissue collection that stores specimens with preserved
DNA, as well as expertise in using remote sensing and Geographical
Information System (GIS) technologies to applied research questions.
The Institute has already enjoyed significant research
achievements, which include advancing understanding of bacterial
genomics and the evolution of pathogenicity, developing computational
techniques to analyze chromosomal sequence data, and winning grants to
lead international teams in assembling the ``Tree of Life'' and for
large-scale collaborative projects in the frontiers of integrative
biology and in plant genomics. Other current projects include
sequencing pathogens and, with NIH support, tracing the evolution of
pathogenicity and transfer of disease-causing genes over time and
between species-contributing to the advancement of national security
research by increasing the knowledge base of current pathogen
distribution and motility in the landscape. With this distinguished
record, the Institute now seeks to advance its microbial genomics and
computation research and training programs, including upgrading high
throughput instrumentation, expanding the supercomputing cluster for
biocomputation, supporting postdoctoral trainees to build the
scientific workforce to sustain America's competitiveness, and
expanding related public education and outreach in a teaching
laboratory located in the new Hall of Human Origins.
Recognizing its potential to support the Department of Energy in
its goals to strengthen U.S. scientific discovery and economic
competitiveness, advance the frontiers of knowledge in areas of
biological and computational sciences, and provide the laboratory
capabilities and infrastructure required for U.S. scientific primacy,
the Museum seeks in fiscal year 2008 to draw on the unparalleled
resources of its Institute of Comparative Genomics in a partnership
with DOE to advance these shared goals.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Wind Energy Association
increased r&d investments are crucial for wind energy to become a
mainstream power source and help significantly reduce global warming
pollution
The American Wind Energy Association \1\ (AWEA) appreciates this
opportunity to provide testimony for the record on the Department of
Energy's fiscal year 2008 wind energy program budget before the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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
developers, utilities, academicians, and interested individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For fiscal year 2008, the Bush Administration requested wind energy
research and development (R&D) investments of only $40.1 million--a $4
million cut below current spending. This funding request does not
recognize the strong contribution that wind energy is making--and can
make--to produce clean energy, new jobs, and significant reductions in
global warming pollution.
Request for the Department of Energy Wind Program: $110 million
AWEA requests a funding level of at least $110 million for the wind
energy program at the Department of Energy (DOE) to support 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.
AWEA would like to commend the DOE wind program for its efforts to
involve the industry in its program planning process. As a whole, the
department has solicited input from AWEA on the direction of its
program and has been responsive to comments received from the industry.
Overview
Wind energy could ``supply up to 20 percent of our nation's
electricity.''--President George W. Bush, February 20, 2006.
Wind energy development in the United States is coming off a record
year, with nearly 2,500 megawatts (MW) of new wind energy installed
across 22 states. The industry expects to break that record in 2007. At
the beginning of 2007, over 11,000 MW of wind energy facilities are
operating in the United States, producing the equivalent amount of
electricity needed to power about 3 million average American
households.
Wind energy works for the environment and the economy because it
generates energy without fuel, while providing a reliable hedge against
rising energy costs. In addition, wind lowers consumer energy prices by
offsetting increased costs in fossil fuels, offers significant rural
economic development opportunities for communities, strengthens the
nation's security by lessening our reliance on foreign sources of
energy, and provides clean, emission-free electricity.
The industry believes that with smart investments today, wind can
grow to supply fully 20 percent of America's electric power. During his
2006 State of the Union speech, President Bush stated that wind could
eventually supply 20 percent of our electric supply and proposed
spending more on R&D. With these factors in mind, wind energy is on the
verge of becoming a major player in energy supply for the nation.
However, a number of obstacles must be eliminated in order for wind to
reach its full potential and become fully cost competitive with
traditional energy technologies.
The work that takes place at DOE's wind program is a vital
component in helping to eliminate those obstacles. AWEA appreciates the
support the subcommittee has provided to the DOE wind program in recent
years.
For fiscal year 2008, the Administration requested only $40.1
million, which is a $4 million cut below current spending of $44
million. This funding request is not consistent with the President's
call for more R&D in this area and does not recognize the strong
contribution that wind energy is making--and can make--to produce clean
energy, new jobs, and significant reductions in global warming
pollution.
We strongly believe that the funding provided by the subcommittee
should reflect the important work conducted by the wind program and
respectfully request that funding be significantly increased above the
request level.
The wind energy program at the Department of Energy has a strong
history of success. Over the last twenty years, the cost of wind energy
has dropped by more than 80 percent, to a level that is close to
competitive with traditional energy technologies. The cost of wind
energy is currently between 5.5 to 9.5 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh),
not including the Production Tax Credit (PTC). Over the last 2 years,
however, the cost of wind energy--and all other sources of producing
electric power--has actually been going up due to increases in
commodity prices and short-term extensions of the renewable energy PTC.
Cost shared industry/government research and development activities
at DOE and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have played
an important role in this achievement. Programs such as Wind Powering
America have been extremely effective in educating interested parties
across the country on the benefits of wind power. We strongly support
the continuation of the project.
Utility-Scale, Land-Based Turbine Technology: $50 million
The requested funding for further development of utility-scale,
land-based turbine technology is very important to the wind industry.
The wind industry requests $50 million for this program in order to
reduce capital cost, improve capacity, and provide a foundation for
wind energy technologies.
The primary focus of this program is to reduce costs and increase
reliability of the technology. Federal investments are needed because
there are fundamental technical issues that are not yet understood that
are decreasing reliability and increasing costs. In addition, dramatic
cost reductions will almost certainly require application of unproven,
high risk concepts, such as those below:
Component Development
Rotor blades.--There are multiple opportunities for advanced
materials and blade configurations to reduce the cost of energy from
wind turbines. Promising areas for additional support are in developing
turbine blades that can be easily assembled on-site and developing
aeroelastically tailored blades, or blades that are able to change
shape in response to the wind as a means of limiting stress.
Controls Sensors.--Advanced sensors to monitor the loading and
position of wind turbine blades and other components that can be cost-
effectively combined with modern control theories.
Other Components.--Towers and drive train systems are other major
components where innovation is needed to reduce the cost of energy. In
particular, developing a tower system that addresses transportation and
installation constraints currently preventing further cost savings in
these areas is of crucial importance.
Advanced Controls and Models Research
The application of innovative turbine control strategies shows
considerable promise in helping to reduce loads and thus reduce the
cost of energy. Substantial work is needed to fully understand the
complex relationship between atmospheric conditions and wind turbine
dynamics and how to utilize controls to optimize performance and
minimize costs.
Resource Characterization
For advanced control theory to optimally reduce loads, the
characteristics of the atmosphere within which the turbines are
operating must be better understood. Research dollars focused on
achieving the best means of characterizing the variations in wind
across the rotors depending on wind speeds and height of the turbines,
tools to measure these characteristics, and models to represent the
inflow for analytical purposes are all important efforts.
Market Acceptance/Transformation: $34 million
We request $34 million for market acceptance/transformation
activities at DOE. Increased funding in this area would be targeted
toward better understanding the impact of wind turbines on wildlife as
well as developing tools and educational materials for policy makers
and regulators to assist them in better understanding the environmental
impact of wind energy projects. Funds are used for cost-shared research
programs with industry and wildlife organizations to address targeted
issues with avian and bat species.
States and permitting officials also seek technical assistance on
project siting issues. DOE could serve as a clearinghouse for
information and resources in these areas. Outreach to these audiences
is also required so permitting authorities feel they are making
informed choices. In addition, resources in this area would also be
used to develop updated resource maps at an elevation of 100 meters
above ground level. These maps have identified previously unknown wind
resources in several states, spurring interest in the resource from
state policy makers and regulators.
Reliability and Testing: $10 million
We would like to see $10 million provided for reliability and
testing. Increased funding in this area would be used for three primary
purposes:
--Support for a public/private partnership to build blade and
dynamometer test facilities;
--Initiation of research that will increase the reliability of wind
project energy projections, and;
--Expansion of research into the causes of premature failure of major
wind turbine components such as gearboxes and generators.
Advanced Applications: $10 million
The Advanced Applications research will be targeted toward the
integration of wind energy into generation of hydrogen, deep-water
offshore technology research, resource characterization, loads and
environment characterization and the environmental impacts of offshore
applications. The wind industry requests $10 million to fund research
in these areas. Such research is needed to identify the potential for
wind energy in these areas as well as position the United States to
play a leading role in the development of environmentally compatible
wind energy applications.
AWEA believes that offshore wind energy facilities can play an
important role in meeting the long-term energy needs of the country.
However, we also believe that the focus of the DOE program in the near
future should be placed on R&D efforts for land-based turbines.
Distributed Wind Systems (100 kW and below): $6 million
AWEA is encouraged by DOE's proposed increase for small wind R&D,
but believes an even greater emphasis is needed for this technology
(used to power an individual home, farm or small business). Distributed
generation with small customer-sited power plants has great potential
for reducing energy costs, promoting competition in the marketplace,
and strengthening the nation's electrical supply network.
This program has provided invaluable support for the development
and testing of more reliable small turbines for homes and businesses.
The development of computer simulation tools allows designers to
understand the furling behavior (when a turbine turns itself out of the
wind during periods of very high wind speeds) of the turbines. AWEA
believes that a $6 million DOE small wind budget would ensure that
additional support is provided for certification testing of small wind
generators. $6 million would also adequately fund research into
manufacturing techniques to produce high-volume, low-cost components,
with aerospace material properties and performance. These are all areas
where support is needed to reduce the cost of energy and increase the
reliability of small turbines.
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 had the resources to work with
America's small wind manufacturers to achieve cost reductions similar
to those achieved by the large, utility-scale wind industry. In some
states that provide a rebate for purchasers, small wind turbine
manufacturers have experienced a surge in sales, demonstrating the
public support for cost-effective small wind turbines.
ADDITIONAL WIND INDUSTRY PRIORITY
Wind Energy Integration Efforts within DOE's Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability Office (This funding is not located in the
DOE Wind Account.)
DOE has requested only $115 million--an 8 percent cut--for its
Electric Delivery and Energy Reliability Office responsible for
assisting in modernization of the electric grid, including transmission
corridor designation and federal line permitting under the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. This work is crucial to growing the wind industry
because it holds the key to moving wind energy from generally rural
areas where it is produced to population centers where it is needed.
Resources would be focused on continuing the educational activities
that allow utilities and policy makers to make informed decisions
regarding the impact of wind on the electric transmission system. As
the industry grows and the size of wind projects increases, additional
case studies showing the impact of these large projects on the grid are
needed. The industry has experienced considerable success in completing
integration studies of major portions of the Midwestern grid. These
studies have been well received by regulators and transmission
providers and have helped to quantify the impact of wind on the
transmission system. Similar studies of the western portion of the
country and studies of higher wind penetration levels are needed.
Additionally, educational materials for utility control room operators
to help them understand the impact of wind power plants and how they
can manage operational impacts with new forecasting tools would be
helpful.
CONCLUSION
The President and the Congress have called for an increased
commitment to the development of domestic renewable energy resources,
particularly wind energy, to meet our nation's growing demand for
electricity. Continued investments in wind energy R&D are delivering
value for taxpayers by developing a domestic energy source that
strengthens our national security, fosters rural economic development,
creates new high-tech jobs, and helps protect the environment.
While the wind industry continues adding new generation capacity, a
number of challenges still exist. Continued support for the Department
of Energy's wind program is vital to helping wind become a mainstream
energy source that helps significantly reduce global warming pollution.
We believe that the funds appropriated to the wind program need to be
commensurate with the President's call for more renewable energy, and
urge the subcommittee to approve a significant increase in funding for
the wind program.
AWEA appreciates the opportunity to provide this testimony to the
Subcommittee. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Research Center for Coal and Energy
PROGRAMS IN FOSSIL ENERGY, ENERGY EFFICIENCY, AND ENERGY RELIABILITY
Thank you for considering testimony from the National Research
Center for Coal and Energy (NRCCE) on programs in Fossil Energy, Energy
Efficiency, and Electricity Delivery. Comments and recommendations are
provided in the following sections of our testimony.
Office of Fossil Energy
Our focus is on the core Fossil Energy R&D program, for which the
Administration has recommended insufficient funding for fiscal year
2008.
Innovations for Existing Plants Program
The United States currently has more than 300 GW of coal-fired
capacity that supplies over 50 percent of the Nation's electricity.
Twenty years from now, most of these plants will still be providing
base-load power. The Innovations for Existing Plants Program addresses
the continuing critical role these plants will play in the future.
However, the Administration has chosen not to fund this program in
fiscal year 2008. It is prudent to invest in improving the operation of
our existing workhorse power generation fleet. Our nation will benefit
from advanced technology's ability to reduce the environmental impact
of energy generation. This program should be restored to its previous
level of $25 million for fiscal year 2008.
--Mercury Research.--Recent field tests on mercury control technology
have shown that more research is required to obtain sufficient
understanding of the chemistry of mercury for different coal
types and the effectiveness of capture processes. Of the
funding recommended, $10 million should be directed to the
control of mercury emissions.
--Optimal Water use in Power Generation.--Power generation accounts
for 40 percent of all water withdrawals in the United States,
second only to agriculture, and competes with other industrial,
agricultural, and consumer needs. Water scarcity exists not
only in the arid Western States but also in the East where even
large rivers like the Potomac and Susquehanna are unable to
support additional power plants. Of the funding recommended,
$10 million should be directed toward optimizing the use of
water in power generation.
--Use of Combustion By-Products.--The By-Products sub-element of the
Existing Plants Program keeps combustion by-products such as
coal ash and scrubber sludge out of waste streams from power
plants by developing environmentally friendly and economically
attractive alternative uses. Before this sub-program was
implemented, only 25 percent of combustion byproducts were
beneficially used. That number is now over 40 percent. Without
continued support, we expect increasing amounts of byproduct to
enter the Nation's landfills. Of the funding recommended, $3
million should be directed toward the combustion by-products
program.
Fuels Program
NRCCE recommends adding $9 million to the Fuels Program to
reinstate a national liquid fuels program as a major thrust area and $3
million for the advanced separations research program.
--Coal-to-Liquids.--The promise of coal-to-liquids (CTL) technology
for producing transportation fuels and chemicals has stimulated
expressions of interest from at least 10 governors, the U.S.
Department of Defense, and over 15 companies for constructing
plants to promote energy independence. Developers cite the need
for R&D to reduce plant costs, to improve conversion
efficiency, to reduce the environmental footprint of CTL
technologies, and to qualify CTL fuels for use in legacy and
future transportation vehicles.
We need a national advanced core research program to ensure success
of these new CTL plants, which in most cases will be first-of-a-kind
commercial deployments in the United States. Funds should be directed
toward computational research on process development and economic
modeling, co-production with biomass and other technology advances to
minimize CO2 emissions, and advanced research in catalysis,
wax separation, and reactor design engineering. Ancillary benefits
include educating the U.S.-based human resource pool needed to meet
personnel demands created by deployment of CTL industries on a large
scale. Of the amount recommended, $1 million should be directed to
continue the work initiated under Annex II of the U.S.-China Protocol
for Energy Research to obtain information about China's CTL technology
and the environmental /economic impacts of CTL plants in Shanxi
Province. This valuable information will be obtained at a small
fraction of the cost of financing a similar program in the United
States.
--Advanced Separations Research.--The current emphasis on obtaining
clean gas streams in gasification plants and on reducing
mercury and other pollutant emissions from pulverized coal
plants warrants continued research in advanced separations.
This research will yield cleaner coals that combust more
efficiently, thereby reducing carbon emissions as well.
Carbon Sequestration
The Zero Emissions Research and Technology (ZERT) Center is a
consortium of five national labs and two universities that conducts
coordinated research on geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide. The
Center's fundamental research complements the Regional Carbon
Sequestration Partnership and FutureGen programs and should be
continued at $8 million in fiscal year 2008.
Oil and Natural Gas Programs
The Fossil Energy program in oil and natural gas supports small and
independent producers--companies which do not have the money and may
not have the expertise to undertake advanced research to extract the
harder-to-get resources from mature fields. The oil and natural gas
programs are largely responsible for training our next generation of
petroleum engineers and geologists. Projects funded by the oil and gas
programs support more graduate student degrees in these areas than any
other single source. The natural gas program is laying the groundwork
for substantial future resource recovery, including production from
methane hydrates (which represent a potential 100 years supply for the
United States) and from deep reserves such as the three mile well
recently completed in Texas. The enhanced oil recovery program has the
potential to provide the United States with more than 89 billion
barrels of domestic oil that is currently not recoverable while
sequestering large quantities of CO2. Curtailment of these
programs will severely restrict our ability to produce our oil and gas
reserves. We recommend restoration of these programs to their previous
historic levels.
--Petroleum Technology Transfer Council.--We recommend continued
funding at a level of $2.8 million for the programs
administered by the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council
(PTTC). The PTTC, working regionally through 10 universities,
operates resource centers for oil and natural gas information,
training, and conferences, all directed to the needs of small
producers. PTTC programs play a critical role in providing
independent producers throughout the country access to the best
technology to explore for and to develop new and innovative
domestic energy opportunities while remaining competitive in a
global energy market. Federal support will be equally matched
with state and private dollars.
Advanced Research
NRCCE recommends the addition of $5 million to the Advanced
Research Program to support computational energy sciences and materials
research.
--Supercomputing Science Consortium.--One of the major components of
the Computational Energy Sciences program is support for
advanced computational research at universities and national
labs through time allocations at facilities such as the
Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center (PSC). This activity is
coordinated by the SuperComputing Science Consortium
(SC2), an organization consisting of the National
Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), the PSC, and higher
education and advanced research organizations in the region
near NETL. The SC2 also conducts activities at the
K-12 educational level that stimulate students to undertake
science and engineering careers. Of the funds recommended, $2
million should be directed to the Computational Energy Sciences
budget to support the SC2 program.
--Materials Research.--An expanded suite of advanced materials is
needed to improve the energy efficiency and environmental
performance of coal-based power systems. NRCCE recommends that
the Administration request for this program sub-element be
increased by $3 million to a level of $10.1 million for fiscal
year 2008. The additional funding should be directed toward the
development of specialty metals, new alloys, and surface
coatings that can function at substantially higher temperatures
and/or withstand highly corrosive environments in applications
such as sensors and controls, fuel cells, and harsh
environments in multiphase flow energy systems. Of the added
funding, $2 million should support initiatives at NETL-Albany
and universities, for which cost sharing from industry should
be required.
office of freedom car and vehicle technologies/eere
NRCCE recommends $3 million for two programs in vehicle
technologies that promote reduced emissions and energy savings in the
transportation sector.
--Transportable Emissions Testing Laboratory.--U.S. DOE established a
specialized Transportable Emissions Testing Laboratory in 1989
for research on improving fuel economy, advancing alternative
fuels technology, and reducing exhaust emissions of heavy duty
vehicles. The Laboratory provides valuable data to government
agencies to establish reasonable emission level standards and
to assess the effectiveness of new technologies. Heavy-duty
engine emission standards established in 2007, and increasing
interest in biodiesel, ethanol, hydrogen, natural gas and coal-
to-liquids fuel necessitate further advanced fleet performance
measurements. Of the funds recommended, the Transportable
Emissions Testing Laboratory program should be continued at $2
million in fiscal year 2008.
--Lightweight Composite Materials.--Advanced composite materials
improve energy efficiency by reducing structural weight to
allow a higher fraction of payload for vehicles limited to the
80,000 pound maximum weight restrictions on national highways.
Results from this program enable the design and fabrication of
lighter-weight trailers, trucks, and buses. Significant fuel
savings and reduced emissions are obtained through improved
fuel efficiency associated with lighter vehicles and/or a
reduced number of trips to deliver multiple payloads. Of the
funds recommended, the Lightweight Composite Materials for
Heavy-Duty Vehicles Program should be continued at $1 million
for fiscal year 2008.
OFFICE OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES/EERE
Wasted energy is the single largest source of currently available
energy in the United States. The Industrial Technologies Program (ITP)
in EERE is the DOE's lead agency for improving industrial energy
efficiency through high-value research, plant assessments, software
tools, and training. Enhanced industrial energy efficiency is the most
cost-effective strategy for improving U.S. industrial competitiveness
while reducing greenhouse gas emissions from energy-intensive
manufacturing plants. In addition, the U.S. trade deficit can be
reduced through export of industrial energy efficiency technologies and
equipment to developing countries such as China and India. The ITP
budget should be restored to its 2005 level of $73 million.
OFFICE OF ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY
In fiscal year 2006, the Subcommittee appropriated funds for the
Integrated Control of Next Generation Power Systems. This program
enhances the reliability and security of the power grid through
technology which is based on advanced communication, computer control,
and electronics that enable real-time detection of system problems. The
electrical circuits are then automatically reconfigured to minimize the
potential impact of a natural disaster, human error, or a terrorist
attack. This project will enable DOE to design system architectures to
effectively control the intelligent, interoperable electric grids of
the future. This program should be continued in fiscal year 2008 at $2
million.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Iron & Steel Institute
The basis for this testimony is to urge Congress to restore funding
of the Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) line item for Steel within
the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy section at the Department of
Energy [DOE] to the original level of $10 million.
The stated goal of the ITP is to reduce the energy intensity of the
U.S. industrial sector through coordinated research and development,
validation, and dissemination of energy-efficiency technologies and
operating practices. The Department of Energy and domestic steelmakers
co-fund cutting-edge research that addresses the needs of the nation
and our industry. The goal of these projects is to reduce energy
consumption [thereby diminishing the nation's dependence on foreign
sources of oil], lessen environmental impact [through emissions
reductions] and increase the competitiveness of domestic manufacturers.
Furthermore, what makes the ITP program so unique and appropriate is
that only those projects with ``dual benefits'' [i.e., a public benefit
such as reduced emissions or petroleum use, which justifies the DOE
investment; and an industry benefit such as a more efficient
steelmaking process, which justifies the industry investment] are
initiated. It is important to note that federal funding does not go to
steel companies, it is pooled with steel industry funds and awarded to
qualified universities, national labs, and private research
organizations through a competitive process.
In 2003, Congress appropriated $10 million to fund the Steel
component of ITP. Unfortunately, in recent years the program [and the
projects it supported] suffered deep budget cuts. This is the case once
again, as for fiscal year 2008, the administration requested
approximately $1.6 million.
It must be noted, that without restoring funding to fiscal year
2003 levels, true breakthrough programs cannot be fully developed.
Universities, research labs and steelmakers have reached the threshold
of what can be accomplished [in energy-efficiency improvements and
emissions reductions] under the current funding structure.
The chart below is representative of the gains in energy efficiency
made by materials manufacturers since 1990, i.e., during the time they
have partnered with DOE.
This chart clearly shows that steelmakers have become very
efficient for the processes they operate today. It is not coincidental
these gains have occurred during the time the DOE ITP program for Steel
was funded at $10 million annually. To make the type of gains in the
future that have been seen since 1990, new process development is
required and new process development requires funding be restored to
historical levels. Some of the most promising new process development
projects with the potential to reduce steelmaking CO2
emissions by more than 70 percent are Ironmaking by Molten Oxide
Electrolysis [now underway at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology] and Ironmaking by Flash Smelting using Hydrogen [University
of Utah]. Both of these technologies show great promise and need fiscal
year 2008 funding to proceed.
Summary
The Industrial Technology Program-Steel selects projects that have
both public and private benefits, justifying the investment of both DOE
and industry. In addition, the research is conducted at the most
qualified facilities in North America, with over 80 percent of funding
supporting tasks at universities, national labs and technology
developers, many of which are small businesses. ITP-Steel is a unique
and successful program that is not only beneficial to the domestic
steel industry; it is beneficial to the nation as we attempt to become
more energy-efficient while significantly improving the environment.
Please consider restoring ITP-Steel funding to the original level
of $10 million so that its public and private benefits can reach even
further into our economy. Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nuclear Engineering Department Heads
Organization (NEDHO) and the National Organization of Test, Research,
and Training Reactors (TRTR)
Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Domenici, members of the
Subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to the
Subcommittee regarding fiscal year 2008 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations legislation. Together, NEDHO and TRTR provide
representation for the entire U.S. academic nuclear engineering
community on issues related to federal policy and funding.
NEDHO and TRTR urge the Congress to provide funding for University-
based nuclear engineering programs and research reactor programs
commensurate with the authorized levels of the Energy Policy Act of
2005, which is $50.1 million for fiscal year 2008.
The chart below provides a recommended breakdown of funding.
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Item 2008 Funding Justification/Benchmark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research....................................... $30.1 Basic and mission-specific (applied)
research.
Facilities..................................... 10 University-based research reactor fuel,
instrumentation, safety, and security
upgrades.
People Support and infrastructure.............. 10 Nuclear Engineering/Health Physics
fellowships, scholarships, matching grants
and minority outreach.
-------------------
TOTAL REQUEST.............................. 50.1 Fiscal year 2008 funding level authorized in
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law
109-58).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you well know, Nuclear Science and Engineering (NSE) plays a
critical role in ensuring the U.S. energy supply, reduction of the
global warming gases, and the national security. With regard to energy
independence, nuclear reactors are currently generating about 20
percent of the nation's electricity needs, and have contributed to the
reduction of nearly 700 million tons of carbon dioxide and over one
million tons of nitrogen oxide. These are equivalent to 96 percent of
carbon dioxide and 41 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions from
automobiles in the United States.
In order to meet the anticipated increase in electricity demand,
utilities are planning to build new nuclear reactors. There will be a
corresponding increase in demand for scientists and engineers to
design, license, operate, and maintain these new reactors. Nuclear
utilities, nuclear vendors, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
need hundreds of well-trained nuclear engineers and scientists.
Moreover, a large number of nuclear scientists and engineers are needed
to work within the DOE complex in such programs as the NP2010,
Generation IV, Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, and the Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership (GNEP).
In its early years, nuclear science and engineering received
significant federal funding that led to major developments such as
nuclear submarines, research reactors, and commercial power reactors.
However, the TMI accident, cheap fossil fuels, significant delays in
construction of nuclear plants due to changing regulations, public
interventions, and a surplus of electricity led to a perception that
nuclear engineering was a field without a future and as a result,
undergraduate enrollments decreased. Graduate enrollments also
decreased but at a somewhat slower rate since they are not linked as
strongly to the nuclear power industry. This situation was exacerbated
by the reduction of federal support for NSE, including research
support, fellowships, and scholarships.
The downturn in enrollments and reduction in federal funding led to
the demise of over half of the NSE programs and university nuclear
reactors from 1980 to 2000, leading to a seven-fold reduction in the
number of BSE graduates over this period of time. Efforts to reduce and
reverse these alarming trends in enrollments, departments, and reactors
led to the revitalization of the University Programs within the Nuclear
Energy office of DOE including funding for fellowships/scholarships,
Nuclear Engineering Education and Research (NEER), Nuclear Energy
Research Initiative (NERI), University Reactor Sharing and University
Reactor Instrumentation programs, revitalization of radiochemistry,
DOE-Industry Matching grant, Innovations in Nuclear Infrastructure and
Education (INIE), and more recently, the Young Faculty awards. These
programs contributed mainly to the graduate education and training of
engineers and scientists needed for national laboratories, but they
also helped to improve departmental and reactor facility
infrastructure.
Historically, Congress has provided funding for the nuclear
engineering discipline through a separate line item in the U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy entitled ``University
Reactor Infrastructure and Education Assistance.'' This program has
received modest increases in funding since the end of the 1990s when it
was nearly zeroed out. In the fiscal year 2007, both the U.S. House and
Senate Energy and Water bills recommended funding of $27 million.
The existing funds are not stable and flexible enough to meet the
current and the anticipated demand for NSE graduates (BS, MS, and PhD)
over the next decade. Therefore, we believe that the nation's policies
on energy and national security require the significant expansion of
the U.S. nuclear engineering education enterprise. Driving factors for
this expansion include the anticipated Nuclear Power Renaissance,
increased focus and interest in developing advanced fuel cycle
technologies and reactor designs, and the expanding need for
development and deployment of nuclear materials detection technologies
for homeland security and monitoring and prevention of nuclear
proliferation.
The U.S. nuclear engineering education community stands ready to
meet these approaching challenges. However, it will require increased
resources from the federal government--beyond the levels enacted in
previous fiscal years--and include funding for scholarships and
fellowships, support of university-based reactor facilities, and basic
and applied research.
As such, NEDHO and TRTR believe the federal government should
provide funding for University-based nuclear engineering programs
commensurate with the authorized levels of the Energy Policy Act of
2005, which is $50.1 million for fiscal year 2008.
Also, as we are sure the committee is aware; the Administration has
proposed the termination of funding for the University Reactor
Infrastructure and Education Assistance account line in its fiscal year
2007 and fiscal year 2008 budget requests. DOE NE has indicated that
its preference is to fund academic nuclear engineering research efforts
through its existing program lines. This means the funds for
infrastructure and fellowships/scholarships are significantly reduced
or completely eliminated! It is quite unfortunate and unusual that in
this time of great need for new nuclear engineers and scientists, the
federal government is not providing funding for nuclear engineering and
education.
NEDHO and TRTR are not in a position to make recommendations as to
the specific budgetary mechanics of providing funding to university
programs. However, our two organizations believe strongly that
university funding must be increased, stabilized, and flexible to allow
for the current and expected growth to support expanded research, as
well as reinvestment in human, reactor infrastructure, and major
research equipment.
Finally, we recommend that the Subcommittee consider the recent
report by the American Nuclear Society, entitled ``Nuclear's Human
Element.'' NEDHO and TRTR endorse the principal findings and
conclusions of this report, which lays out a framework for improving
federal investments in nuclear science and engineering education in the
longer term. We believe to maintain the nation's competitiveness, it is
essential that Congress and the Executive Branch take the necessary
steps in establishing a strong and effective platform for meeting the
technological and human resources need in nuclear science and
engineering.
We look forward to working with you in formation and implementation
of a progressive program for nuclear engineering research and
education.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the North American Die Casting Association
As President of the North American Die Casting Association (NADCA),
I respectfully submit this testimony in support of the HyperCAST
funding request for $1.5 million in the U.S. Department of Energy,
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Vehicle Technologies Program
filed with the Subcommittee by Senators Edward Kennedy and Ken Salazar.
NADCA is the nation's leading not-for-profit technical organization
representing all facets of the U.S. die casting industry. NADCA exists
to support our domestic industry and to maintain our global competitive
lead through the continued development of cutting edge technology.
NADCA has decades of successful experience coordinating research
and development activities between various U.S. funding agencies (DOE
and DOD), government laboratories, universities, and metalcasting
companies. The technology and processes developed through these
programs is rapidly transferred by NADCA to small, medium and large
casting companies nationwide. Past programs have earned strong bi-
partisan support from Congress.
OVERVIEW
Congress has long recognized the overwhelming need to dramatically
curtail wasteful automotive and vehicle energy consumption in our
nation. Maximizing energy efficiency in our domestic transportation
system is a matter of economic security and environmental necessity.
The North American Die Casting Association is collaborating with
the U.S. Department of Energy, Vehicle Technologies Office in an effort
to rapidly and dramatically advance these goals. This innovative and
dynamic program is HyperCAST.
The HyperCAST program goal is to support our nation's
transportation energy efficiency goals by developing technology for
high performance, light weight, cast metal components for energy
savings in commercial and military vehicles and trucks.
The HyperCAST program will deliver a variety of important benefits
including:
--Providing significant new energy savings in transportation
technology, commercial and military vehicles and trucks;
--Developing new alloy and process development to maintain our
domestic casting industry as a technology leader in the world
market;
--Conducting university based research at Ohio State University, Case
Western Reserve, the Colorado School of Mines, and Worchester
Polytechnic Institute;
--Transfering new technology broadly to small and medium casting
shops across the United States . . . 80 percent of metalcasting
companies have fewer then 100 employees; and
--Matching every federal dollar with contributions from industry.
There is no doubt that enhanced fuel efficiency and alternative
fuel vehicles contribute to our nation's energy security. High
performance light weight components are necessary in making petroleum
fueled cars and trucks more energy efficient. In addition, advanced
high strength light weight materials and processes for the design of
components offer the greatest opportunities for the development of new
vehicles that do not require petroleum fuels.
The HyperCAST research is targeted at the development of high
performance light weight aluminum and magnesium castings for energy
efficient components for transportation. More specifically, this
project entails the development of materials and processes for cast
light weight frame, body, chassis and powertrain components for fuel
efficient passenger cars and both commercial and military trucks.
Therefore, the project is cross-cutting as it serves to meet goals of
the FreedomCAR and 21st Century Truck programs. The advanced materials
and processes developed will have a focus on fuel efficiency and cost
effectiveness.
These important technological advancements will also enhance the
U.S. metalcasting industry's ability to maintain a lead role in the
world market. It is technology that enables this vital industry to
compete globally and to keep jobs in the United States.
The objective of HyperCAST is to develop materials and processes
for high strength light weight cast components for vehicles that are
affordable and offer the potential for 60 percent weight reduction and
related improvement in energy efficiency. NADCA and university
researchers are confident that these goals can be met without
compromising vehicle performance, cost, safety or recyclability.
The following examples are offered to describe the energy saving
opportunities offered by the HyperCAST Program.
Example 1: A cast aluminum engine block with cast iron sleeves
currently weighs 85 pounds. Moving to a magnesium composite material
would result in about the same productivity improvement but would yield
a casting weight of 49 pounds--a savings of 36 pounds or 42 percent.
Example 2: An aluminum transmission case casting currently weighs
31 pounds. Casting this component with a new aluminum composite
material and considering a 20 percent strength increase would yield a
casting weight of 27 pounds. Produced as a magnesium composite
material, the casting would weigh 22 pounds--a savings of 9 pounds or
29 percent.
The HyperCAST numbers show a dramatic potential for improvement in
our nation's fuel efficiency and environmental impact. There is an
average of 280 pounds of aluminum in a car. It is estimated that the
HyperCAST technology can reduce that weight by 100 to 120 pounds
without compromising strength, safety or performance. In addition, for
every pound reduced automakers can cut two more pounds or 200 to 240
more pounds, from the drive train. Finally, for every pound reduced in
the car's weight, estimated at almost 360 pounds, an environmental
benefit will be realized through an annual reduction in carbon monoxide
of 2 pounds for every one reduced. That would be 720 pounds of carbon
monoxide reduced annually for every car manufactured with the HyperCAST
technology.
This project will utilize researchers from the premier universities
(Ohio State University, Case Western Reserve University, Colorado
School of Mines, and Purdue University) and government laboratories
with experience in cast materials and processes for the research
activities, premier casting companies for demonstration of the research
results, and the industry associations for coordination of efforts and
technology transfer. The request is supported by the following:
--Dr. Diran Apelian, Director of Metals Processing Institute at
Worcester Polytechnic Institute;
--Dr. John Moore, Head of the Metallurgy Department at the Colorado
School of Mines;
--Dr. David Schwam, Director of the Metal Casting Laboratory at Case
Western Reserve University;
--Dr. Allen Miller, Professor in College of Engineering at Ohio State
University;
--Tim Stewart, President and CEO of Yoder Industries in Dayton, OH;
--Richard Rogel, President and CEO of Empire Die Casting., Inc in
Macedonia, OH;
--Paul Head, Vice President of Operations at Empire Die Casting.,
Inc.;
--Robert Hopkins, Vice President of Administration at Empire Die
Casting., Inc.;
--Robert Stuhldreher, Director of Casting Operations at Metaldyne in
Twinsburg, OH;
--Scott A. Frens, Senior Sales & Tool Engineer at Fort Recovery
Industries in Fort Recovery, OH; and
--Barry S. Houndshell, Director of Manufacturing at Fort Recovery
Industries.
Finally, the technology developed will be distributed by NADCA
solely to North American metalcasters in order to provide the North
American industry with a globally competitive advantage and assist in
maintaining the viability of metalcasting in North America.
We hope we can depend on your support to fund this valuable and
important program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fuel Cell Power Association
The Fuel Cell Power Association appreciates the opportunity to
submit this statement in support of the Department of Energy's Fossil
Energy, Fuels and Power Systems, Fuel Cell Program. We urge the
Subcommittee to continue to support this breakthrough program by
appropriating $80 million for development of this highly efficient,
clean, and secure energy technology.
DOE's Fossil Energy Fuel Cell Program, through the Solid State
Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) fuel cell activity, is developing
technology to allow the generation of highly efficient, cost-effective,
carbon-free electricity from domestic coal resources with near-zero
atmospheric emissions in central station applications. The program
directly supports the president's FutureGen project through the
development of cost-effective, highly efficient, power blocks that
facilitate sequestration in coal-based systems. The technology will
also permit grid independent distributed generation applications by
2010.
SECA fuel cell systems operating on coal gas are building blocks
for zero emissions power, the ultimate goal of the President's
FutureGen Program. These systems are projected to be available at a
target cost of $400/kw. In addition the technology developed in this
program will produce electricity at up to 60 percent efficiency in
coal-based systems, produce near-zero emissions, and easily enables
carbon sequestration.
In all applications SECA fuel cells will be both low-cost, with the
above-stated goals of $400/kw, as well as highly efficient. Integrated
with coal gasification, the system's 60 percent efficiency compares
very favorably to the existing coal-based power generation fleet
average of about 33 percent efficiency. In distributed generation
applications even higher efficiencies may be reached, and cogeneration
opportunities can further increase efficiency.
Along with these attributes fuel cells are one of the cleanest
technologies available in terms of atmospheric emissions, which
enhances their attractiveness for urban applications or applications in
areas of non-attainment for Clean Air Act emissions. They have already
achieved NOX and SOX emission levels of less than
0.05 ppm compared to orders of magnitude higher for conventional
technologies. They also provide 24 hour, silent operation.
Finally, coal-based fuel cell systems will increase energy security
by using domestic resources. In distributed generation applications
fuel cells can eliminate transmission and distribution system
infrastructure concerns and issues by providing generation near the
point of use and by being able to operate in a grid-independent mode.
The SECA Program consists of six integrated industrial
manufacturing teams designing fuel cell systems, developing the
necessary materials, and ultimately responsible for deploying the
technology. These teams are complemented by up to three dozen core
technology performers providing generic problem-solving research needed
to overcome barriers to low-cost, high performance technology as
identified by DOE and the manufacturing teams. The core technology
teams are universities, national laboratories, and other research
oriented organizations. This unique structure assures that a variety of
approaches to solving the problems associated with fuel cells will be
undertaken in a manner that will increase the chances of success for
this highly complex technology.
Several of the manufacturing teams are developing systems for
application to large central generation systems characterized by
FutureGen. The remaining manufacturing teams are developing fuel cells
for possible use in both these large systems as well as in distributed
generation applications such as auxiliary power units, military power
applications and remote or on-site power generation.
The DOE budget request for this program for fiscal year 2008 is
$62.0 million, slightly below the fiscal year 2007 funding level of
$63.4 million. Funding of $65 million will continue to support the
current program, which involves larger-scale Phase II development work
on the part of manufacturing teams in the program and continued effort
by the core technology performers. However, in order to deliver full
scale fuel cell system hardware for the FutureGen project additional
support of $15 million is necessary to assist and accelerate the
creation of manufacturing capability by the formation of teams between
existing fuel cell stack developers and industry, with the goal of
delivering hardware by the scheduled date of 2011, and also to keep the
base program on schedule. A rapid advancement to large-scale
manufacturing is critical to the successful use of fuel cells in the
FutureGen project and subsequent use in Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle (IGCC) facilities on a commercial basis. Significant
funding over the next several years will allow development of such
capacity by 2010 so that fuel cell modules can be manufactured and
delivered to the FutureGen project by 2011. These large-scale modules
will lead to the higher efficiencies and cleaner performance necessary
to assure the use of clean coal technologies in the long run.
We believe that the SECA fuel cell program has achieved the
progress to date as reported by the program managers, and has excellent
prospects for achieving program objectives given sufficient funding
support by DOE and the Congress. Hybrid technology has been
successfully integrated into the program and an emphasis on use with
coal-based systems has been established. Industry partners in the
program have continued and increased cost-sharing support. All major
stack developers have met the initial goals of the program allowing
continuance to more advanced stages of development. This technology is
essential to meeting the efficiency and emissions goals of the
President's FutureGen program and will also provide low-cost, low-
emissions alternatives for distributed generation applications.
Therefore, we urge you to support our request for $80 million to
execute the DOE Fossil Energy, Fuels and Power Systems, Fuel Cell
Program in fiscal year 2008.
______
Prepared Statement of the Center for Plasma Science and Technology,
Florida A&M University, and the Department of Physics, West Virginia
University
Chairman Dorgan and Members of the Subcommittee: We request an
appropriation of $5 million to the Fusion Energy Science Program, U.S.
DOE Office of Science, for basic research on the control of turbulent
hot plasma in fusion power reactors. This program contributes to the
work of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER)
program, an international fusion effort to which the United States is
committed as a full partner.
Introduction
As global population increases and the standard of living of third
world countries rises, the demand for energy will increase
substantially over current levels. The report, Future of Coal, released
March 14, 2007 by researchers at MIT, projects that fossil energy will
be the dominant fuel source well into the future. Generating electric
energy and powering our transportation sector with fossil fuels will
substantially increase CO2 emissions, thereby exacerbating
concerns about greenhouse gas emissions which can alter the global
climate.
Near term, we accept the reality that fossil fuels will power the
global economy. Carbon sequestration offers the prospect of reducing
the environmental impact of fossil fuel use. Even with such advances,
however, we must recognize that fossil fuel resources are limited.
Beginning in 2020, the total world demand for energy will exceed
substantially all available energy from fossil, hydro and non-breeding
nuclear fission reactors, exceeding by 10 percent the total energy
available. The shortfall will grow to nearly 50 percent of the total
energy available by 2060. Longer term, science and technology must find
alternative sources of energy if we are to meet the needs of our global
population.
Since construction of a new power plant based on existing
technology can take as much as ten years from concept to operation, we
must act now to plan the orderly implementation of alternative sources
of electricity. Experience has shown that the odyssey of a new
technology from conception to commercial deployment can exceed 20
years.
Potential of Fusion Energy
Fusion energy is one of our global options for providing energy in
the future. Fusion processes create energy from super-hot plasmas using
magnetic confinement to avoid the problems of developing materials to
withstand temperatures exceeding 50,000 degrees K. Fusion energy
technology has emerged as a safe and reliable option with a large fuel
reserve--we can generate energy from sea water.
Among the many confinement options for fusion, a spheromak
configuration enables the attainment of the necessary high temperatures
without requiring massive magnets, extraordinary infrastructure
complexity and the associated costs for fusion conditions to be
achieved. The spheromak configuration, if successful, can provide
electricity from fusion on a scale which can be built by traditional
energy companies in the United States. However, much of the physics of
this option is still uncertain.
Spheromak Turbulent Plasma Experiment (STPX)
We request support from the Energy & Water Development Subcommittee
for a program of research called the Spheromak Turbulent Plasma
Experiment (STPX). This joint Florida A&M University (FAMU)-West
Virginia University (WVU) project is focused on developing basic fusion
science with tangible benefits to the nation.
At FAMU Center for Plasma Science and Technology, a spheromak will
be built by a team of faculty and students already significantly
involved in fusion funded research. A full spectrum of traditional and
innovative diagnostic techniques for the STPX will be developed at WVU
and a host of other collaborating Universities and National
Laboratories along with those developed at FAMU. Although similar in
size and generic features to an existing spheromak, the STPX detailed
design will be driven by the need to obtain the desired physics
outcomes. Our design will be dramatically different in several
important features from any existing fusion facility in the world.
STPX will make important and unique contributions to the Department
of Energy Fusion Science Mission through the development of a more
compact containment technology. In addition, 20 Ph.D. plasma physicists
from currently underrepresented groups will be produced in time to
support the U.S. contributions to ITER. These new scientists will
thereby be the next generation of the fusion scientific workforce, the
first group to benefit from the advances obtained through the ITER
project. More importantly, they will find employment in basic
scientific research.
The other benefits from our programs consist of contributions to
technologies for materials fabrication and processing (e.g., computer
chips), advanced lighting, and in transportation fuels synthesis.
Outcomes from Program
This project will use the three approaches of theory, experiment,
and simulation to quickly obtain information and develop the tools for
full kinetic modeling of the spheromak plasma's makeup. This project
will enable us to understand better how turbulent plasmas are heated, a
key step towards progress in controlled thermonuclear fusion as well as
towards understanding astrophysical systems. The relationships between
ion heating in fusion plasmas, reconnection events, and microparticle
transport will also be determined through this project in a manner
enabling the manipulation and enhancement of core plasma heating.
Period of Support
We seek a three-year commitment of support from the Subcommittee
totaling $15 million for construction and the development of diagnostic
tools and processes. FAMU will share the costs by providing renovated
housing for the STPX, (estimated cost share of $3.7 million), and the
infrastructure support normally associated with research projects.
Construction and diagnostics research will be finished in three years
with the expectation that we will generate our first plasma in May of
2011. We expect annual operations (at roughly $500K/yr) to be funded
after attaining first plasma through normal research funds from DOE,
NSF, and other public and private entities to FAMU, WVU, and other
participating institutions.
Summary of Request
We request support of $5 million for fiscal year 2008 from the
USDOE Office of Science, Fusion Energy Sciences Program, for the
Spheromak Turbulent Plasma Experiment.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony to the
Subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nuclear Energy Institute
On behalf of the nuclear energy industry, the Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI)\1\ appreciates the opportunity to provide the
subcommittee with its perspective on the nuclear-related programs under
the subcommittee's jurisdiction, and on the President's proposed budget
for those programs in fiscal year 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Nuclear Energy Institute is responsible for developing
policy for the U.S. nuclear energy industry. NEI's 297 corporate and
other members represent a broad spectrum of interests, including every
U.S. utility that operates a nuclear power plant. NEI's membership also
includes nuclear fuel cycle companies, suppliers of equipment and
services, engineering and consulting firms, national research
laboratories, manufacturers of radiopharmaceuticals, universities,
labor unions and law firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEI supports fiscal year 2008 funding for the following programs:
Office for the Energy Loan Guarantee Program ($8.4 million), Nuclear
Power 2010 ($183 million), Generation IV reactor programs ($100
million), Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative ($35 million), University
programs ($50.1 million), Office of Radioactive Waste Management
($494.5 million), Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (increased funding
over fiscal year 2007), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ($913
million).
The nuclear energy industry produces one-fifth of America's
electricity, and is preparing to build advanced-design nuclear power
plants to meet growing electricity demand. Nuclear energy is an
essential component of a diverse energy portfolio, and NEI appreciates
the leadership on nuclear energy's issues by members of this committee.
NEI's statement for the record addresses the industry's highest
priorities. In several cases, NEI believes America's energy security
justifies increases in fiscal year 2008 funding above the President's
request.
Establishing an Effective Energy Loan Guarantee Program.--The
energy loan guarantee program was created by the 2005 Energy Policy Act
to support private sector investment in advanced energy technologies,
including new nuclear power plants. The loan guarantee program is
designed to be self-financing, with project sponsors responsible for
underwriting the cost to the federal government of providing the credit
support. Properly implemented, there will be no cost to the taxpayer.
This program is essential for companies planning to invest billions
of dollars in licensing and construction of new nuclear power plants in
the United States. The electric industry faces major capital investment
requirements ($750 billion-$1 trillion) over the next 15-20 years (in
distribution, transmission, generation, and environmental control
technology). The capital investment required will strain the electric
sector's financing capability. The size of the capital investments (at
least $3-4 billion for new nuclear plants in today's dollars) is very
large relative to the size of the companies making the investments, and
the loan guarantee program provides the credit support necessary to
finance these new plants.
The nuclear industry believes that the loan guarantee program
requires disciplined management and rigorous project evaluation, with
the cost of loan guarantees covering the government's potential
exposure. NEI appreciates the subcommittee's leadership (in the fiscal
year 2007 continuing resolution) in providing the funding and statutory
language necessary to establish the Loan Guarantee Office at DOE. We
endorse the Department of Energy's request for $8.4 million to cover
the program's administrative costs in fiscal year 2008. The nuclear
industry notes, however, that the President's fiscal year 2008 budget
proposes a $9 billion loan volume limitation, with only $4 billion of
the $9 billion allocated to large power projects like nuclear power
plants. Given the cost of new energy infrastructure projects (including
new nuclear plants, coal gasification plants and coal-to-liquids
projects), a robust and viable loan guarantee program will require
larger annual loan volumes in future fiscal years.
Maintaining the Momentum in the Nuclear Power 2010 Program.--The
Nuclear Power 2010 Program supports the design and engineering work
necessary to bring two advanced reactor designs (the Westinghouse
AP1000 and the General Electric ESBWR) to the level of design
completion necessary for companies to develop firm cost estimates, and
to file applications for licenses to build and operate these plants.
Approximately two-thirds of the 33 new nuclear reactors announced
publicly depend on successful, timely completion of the first-of-a-kind
engineering on the two advanced reactor designs supported by the
Nuclear Power 2010 program. Through its investment in the Nuclear Power
2010 program, the federal government achieves enormous leverage on
behalf of the American taxpayer: The $727 million total expected
government investment in Nuclear Power 2010, matched by equal industry
funding, will stimulate tens of billions of dollars of investment in
new nuclear projects by 2015.
The Department of Energy's proposed fiscal year 2008 budget
proposes $114 million for Nuclear Power 2010. This level of funding
will not maintain the program's momentum, and NEI recommends fiscal
year 2008 funding of $183 million, to be matched equally by private
sector funding.
Ensuring Adequate Funding for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and
Oversight.--The industry supports NRC's fiscal year 2008 budget request
of $913 million to provide effective oversight of operating nuclear
plants, timely processing of applications for license renewal and
requests for power uprates, and efficient review of applications for
combined construction/operating licenses, early site permits and design
certification. We believe this level of funding should also ensure NRC
readiness to begin review of DOE's Yucca Mountain license application
next year. The industry also encourages the subcommittee to support
NRC's need for additional office space to fulfill its regulatory
responsibilities.
Given the increase in the NRC's budget--$200 million in the last
two years and $425 million in seven years--NEI urges the subcommittee
to require regular progress reports from the agency on the status of
its licensing and other regulatory activities. Such reporting will
allow the subcommittee to determine whether the agency is achieving the
desired operational efficiency--by reducing the time required to
process new plant license applications as it gains experience, for
example. The industry also urges the subcommittee to require greater
transparency in where NRC funds are being spent, by requiring full
disclosure of planned staffing and resource needs in individual NRC
divisions. This would demonstrate to Congress and the industry, which
pays up to 90 percent of NRC's budget, that more of the requested
budget is being allocated toward licensee-specific charges rather than
general license fees.
Developing An Integrated Used Fuel Management Program.--The nuclear
industry appreciates the subcommittee's leadership in the area of used
fuel management. In 2008, the federal government will be nine years
behind on its commitment to start moving used nuclear fuel from nuclear
power plants across the nation to a federal repository. The nuclear
industry supports the Administration's proposed budget of $494.5
million for fiscal year 2008 to enable the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management to submit a license application for the
Yucca Mountain project by June 2008.
The Yucca Mountain project is a key component of a three-part
integrated used fuel management strategy that includes: (1) interim
storage until recycling or permanent disposal--or both--are available;
(2) research, development and demonstration to close the nuclear fuel
cycle and reduce the volume, heat and toxicity of byproducts placed in
the repository; and (3) developing a permanent disposal facility.
Continued, demonstrable progress on all three elements of this
integrated used fuel management system is important to preserve
confidence in nuclear energy, and to support licensing and construction
of new nuclear plants.
The nuclear industry has consistently supported research and
development of the advanced fuel cycle technologies incorporated in the
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI). The industry recognizes that the
Congress has important questions about the Administration's Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). Nonetheless, the industry supports
increased funding for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative in fiscal year
2008 to continue this technology research and development program, and
to achieve better definition of the program, which is critical to a
long-term integrated strategy for used fuel management.
Preparing for the Next Generation of Nuclear Power Plants.--The
large light water reactors operating today are well-suited for baseload
electricity production, and the nuclear industry will continue to build
and operate these reactor types well into the 21st century. It is
clear, however, that the promise of nuclear energy technology extends
beyond electricity production to include production of hydrogen and
process heat. Next-generation high-temperature reactors, using advanced
hydrogen production technologies, can produce hydrogen for
transportation or for upgrading coal and heavy crude oils into usable
products, thereby relieving pressure on natural gas supply (the source
of most hydrogen produced today). High-temperature reactors can also
generate process heat for desalination, to extract oil from tar sands,
and for scores of other industrial applications.
This enormous potential justifies continued federal investment. NEI
urges the subcommittee's support for the next-generation nuclear plant
at the Idaho National Laboratory, funded through the Generation IV
Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative program. NEI recommends funding for
this program of $100 million in fiscal year 2008, higher than the $36.1
million proposed by DOE. NEI also recommends higher funding for the
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative--$35 million in fiscal year 2008, rather
than the $22.6 million proposed by DOE.
Investment in people is as important as investment in technology,
and the nuclear industry urges the subcommittee to restore funding of
$50.1 million in fiscal year 2008 for university programs managed by
the Office of Nuclear Energy to support vital research and educational
programs in nuclear science and health physics at the nation's colleges
and universities. NEI also encourages the subcommittee to consider
supporting a new program within the Office of Science for undergraduate
and graduate programs in radiochemistry and other disciplines important
to medical, energy and other applications of commercial nuclear
technology.
Conclusion: Closing the Energy R&D Gap.--NEI has recommended modest
funding increases, above the Administration's request, in several
strategic nuclear energy programs, including Nuclear Power 2010, the
Next Generation Nuclear Plant, the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, support
for university programs and others.
NEI sees a growing body of evidence that increases in energy R&D
will be necessary in the years ahead to create a sustainable energy
supply infrastructure that meets national needs. In an analysis
provided to the Congress in February, the Government Accountability
Office found that DOE's budget authority for renewable, fossil and
nuclear energy R&D declined by over 85 percent (in inflation-adjusted
terms) from 1978 through 2005. The need for new technologies to address
critical energy needs has not diminished over the same time period,
however, nor have the energy and environmental imperatives facing the
United States become any less urgent.
Similarly, the Electric Power Research Institute is conducting a
broad-based assessment of the electricity supply and demand-side
technologies necessary to achieve meaningful reductions in electric
sector greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Although still in
progress, EPRI's analysis demonstrates that a broad-based portfolio of
technologies and techniques--including substantial improvements in
efficiency, aggressive deployment of new nuclear and renewable
generating capacity, improvements in coal-fired power plant efficiency,
carbon capture and storage--will be required. EPRI's initial estimate
suggests that successful development and deployment of this portfolio
between now and 2030 will require additional R&D investment of
approximately $2 billion per year. Although the federal government
cannot be expected to finance all of that, there is clearly a need and
a rationale for increased federal support for energy research,
development, demonstration and deployment, in the nuclear energy area
and across the portfolio.
______
Prepared Statement of GE Energy
The following testimony is submitted on behalf of GE Energy (GE)
for the consideration of the Committee during its deliberations
regarding the fiscal year 2008 budget requests for the Department of
Energy (DOE). Among GE's key recommendations are: (1) an additional $73
million for the Nuclear Power 2010 program to develop new U.S. nuclear
generation; (2) $40 million in added funding for the GNEP program to
start the necessary activities for technology demonstration and to help
industry provide DOE with the information necessary to support the 2008
Secretarial Record of Decision; and (3) $18 million additional for the
Advanced Turbines program, DOE's major research effort focusing on gas
turbines for electricity production which also addresses key needs for
hydrogen turbines. Investments in these and the other important
programs discussed below will help to meet the challenges of assuring a
diverse portfolio of domestic power generation resources for the
future.
NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS
Nuclear Power 2010.--The NP2010 Program provides vital funding in
three areas that are essential to the development of new nuclear
generation capacity in this country. The program provides support for
the (1) certification of new reactor designs, such as GE's advanced
light water reactor technology (ESBWR); (2) advancement of detailed
design and deployment planning to support new nuclear plant
construction in fiscal year 2010; and (3) preparation, submittal and
NRC approval of two Combined Construction and Operating Licenses (COL).
These activities are currently advancing with co-funding support from
GE and Toshiba Westinghouse. Adequate DOE funding in fiscal year 2008
is necessary to maintain the schedules supporting certification, COL
license approval and construction initiation in fiscal year 2010.
The Administration has requested $110 million for fiscal year 2008
to support the NP2010 Program. This request is insufficient to keep the
program on schedule. This amount is below the amount that was
determined to be necessary for fiscal year 2008 at the time the initial
estimate of the total program development cost was provided by GE,
Toshiba Westinghouse, NuStart and Dominion in 2005. Since that time, as
new information has been developed, the Reactor Vendors and Industry
have recognized the need to accelerate detailed design and the
construction planning process to achieve enhanced certainty of cost and
schedule risks. At the same time, regulatory costs have increased. As a
result, the Reactor Vendors and Industry have determined that funding
of $183 million in fiscal year 2008 is required, an increase of $73
million above the Administration's budget request.
The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative and the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP).--The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP),
initiated in early 2006, benefits from the research and development
work conducted under the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI). GNEP
seeks to expand the use of nuclear power in a proliferation-resistant
manner, and to solve the nuclear waste issue by reducing the long-term
radiotoxicity of spent nuclear fuel. The key emphases are on solutions
for proliferation resistant fuel separations and long-term nuclear
waste reduction.
In January 2007, DOE released the updated GNEP Strategic Plan,
which outlines an implementation strategy to ``enable a world-wide
increase in the use of nuclear energy safely, without contributing to
the spread of nuclear weapons capabilities, and in a manner that
responsibly disposes of the waste products of nuclear power
generation.'' The GNEP Strategic Plan outlines government's and
industry's roles in the development of the technologies and facilities
required to implement the U.S. commitment to GNEP. To achieve a
commercial solution for GNEP, DOE recognized in the Strategic Plan the
need for industry involvement and active participation.
In support of the broad GNEP goals, and to help the DOE prepare for
the 2008 Secretarial Record of Decision to proceed with a government-
industry partnership to build a nuclear fuel recycling center and a
prototype advanced recycling reactor, DOE in January issued awards to
11 commercial and public consortia. GE has expressed interest in
designing, licensing, building and operating a demonstration nuclear
fuel recycling facility and advanced recycling reactor, and was among
those selected to conduct detailed siting studies for integrated spent
fuel recycling facilities as part of GENP. Pursuant to this DOE award,
GE is preparing a site characterization report for a site in Morris,
IL. GE's technology solution, called the Advanced Recycling Center, is
based on pyroprocessing and PRISM reactor technology developed during
the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor program. This technology is ready for
commercial-scale development and could provide an economically viable
technical solution to solving the nuclear waste issue. GE believes that
the GNEP program would be advanced if the Office of Nuclear Energy
updates the AFCI Comparison Report to Congress with qualitative and
quantitative information on the proven PRISM reactor and pyroprocessing
technologies.
For fiscal year 2008, an additional $40 million above the
Administration's budget request, for total GNEP funding of $435
million, is needed. Such additional funding should be used to help
industry conduct technology demonstration projects, such as the
demonstration of: (1) key reactor components (e.g., reactor vessel),
(2) electro-refiner based fuel separation, and (3) a reactor and fuel
separation simulator, and to provide the technical, economic and
business information to DOE necessary to support the 2008 Secretarial
Record of Decision. GE further recommends that adequate funding be
provided for pyroprocessing and the PRISM reactor in support of DOE's
GNEP policy goals.
FOSSIL ENERGY PROGRAMS
Cleaner coal technology is the key to maintaining coal as a
significant part of the U.S. energy mix into the future. DOE's Clean
Coal Power Initiative, Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, and
Carbon Sequestration Programs all have important roles to play in
advancing the solutions that allow coal to be used in the most
economical and environmentally acceptable manner.
Clean Coal Power Initiative.--GE supports the Administration's
request to increase the funding level for the Clean Coal Power
Initiative (CCPI) in fiscal year 2008. We encourage Congress to
recognize that a commercial demonstration program for advanced coal
power technologies provides a critical pathway for the technologies
that will preserve coal's place in the U.S. energy portfolio. There is
a continuing need for the CCPI to serve as the vehicle for the scale-
up, plant integration, and initial deployment of advanced IGCC
technologies, which will help IGCC technology move down the experience/
cost curve. Another critically important role of the CCPI going forward
will be in providing a means for the demonstration of carbon
sequestration technologies.
GE welcomes DOE's commitment to move forward with a third round of
the CCPI in fiscal year 2008. Further multi-project solicitations for
later rounds of projects targeting advanced technology systems for
CO2 capture and sequestration also will be required as part
of the overall response to the climate change challenges facing coal-
based generation.
IGCC.--IGCC, with its capability for pre-combustion carbon capture,
presents a significant advantage over combustion technology. Even with
its current 20 percent to 25 percent cost premium over pulverized coal
combustion, IGCC can provide a lower cost of electricity with carbon
capture. Based on the incremental cost that carbon capture will add to
all coal-based power generation, cost reduction must be pursued
vigorously for IGCC to realize its potential in maintaining coal
competitiveness in a carbon-constrained environment.
While widespread deployment is key to bringing IGCC costs down,
technology advancements also are needed to minimize the impact of
carbon capture. This requires a pipeline of new technologies that are
moving toward demonstration and deployment. While the development of
several large-scale commercial IGCC plants is underway, candidate
technology advancements have already been identified for the next
generation of IGCC. These technologies can significantly lower cost and
improve performance in key areas of carbon shift, CO2
capture, overall process efficiency plus advancing IGCC's economics for
application on subituminous coals. However, it will not be possible to
even begin moving these technologies forward without increasing the
fiscal year 2008 funding request for IGCC.
DOE's goal of a 10 percent premium for carbon capture with IGCC is
aggressive but appropriate to the magnitude of the economic benefit
that would be gained. Achieving this goal will require increased
funding for technology development. The Administration's proposal to
reduce funding for the IGCC program to $50 million in fiscal year 2008
is not sufficient to provide the resources that are needed. We
therefore urge that fiscal year 2008 funding for IGCC be increased by
$16 million.
Carbon Sequestration.--GE endorses the requested increase in
funding for carbon sequestration technologies. Carbon sequestration and
storage is a critical and necessary component of a total solution for
low carbon coal. A focus of the program activity needs to be on the
development of requirements for CO2 quality necessary for
long-term, secure and environmentally acceptable storage. These
requirements are needed for carbon capture system design that is
suitable for a wide variety of geological environments. The planning
for large-scale field tests needs to identify candidate sources of
large and reliable quantities of CO2.
Advanced Turbines.--GE recommends that funding be increased by $18
million to a total of $40 million for the Advanced Turbines program.
This program represents the Department's primary research effort
focusing on the development of enabling technologies for high
efficiency hydrogen turbines for advanced gasification systems. Gas
turbine R&D is focused on advanced combustion and high temperature
turbine technology for syngas/hydrogen fuels that will result from IGCC
and FutureGen type power plants. The program addresses those gas
turbine elements where the technology required for the use of syngas/
hydrogen fuels differs from the requirements for natural gas fueled gas
turbines. Unless the fiscal year 2008 budget for the Advanced Turbines
program is increased, funding will be inadequate for this promising
high priority work, and the progress and benefits of this research will
be delayed accordingly.
GE has experience with gas turbines operating on fuel blends
containing hydrogen, and has performed laboratory demonstration tests
on high hydrogen content fuel. This experience highlighted the need for
development of advanced combustion technology in order to drive down
NOX emissions and enable advanced hydrogen generation
processes. In addition, current strategies for effective integration of
all major subsystems need to be reviewed and redefined for use with
hydrogen fuel.
Continued funding of DOE's program is essential for FutureGen to
meet its goal of substantial improvement in the cost of carbon capture.
FutureGen is being structured to serve as a test bed for advanced
technology that is needed to reduce the performance penalty and improve
the economics of carbon capture. If it is to meet its goals, the
FutureGen program will need to draw on advancements resulting from the
Advanced Turbines program.
GE recommends the Committee's attention to the testimony submitted
by the Gas Turbine Association relative to the allocation of additional
funding above the budget submission within the Advanced Turbines
program budget. In particular, GE encourages the Committee to provide
adequate funding to sustain the University Turbine Systems Research
Program.
Advanced Research.--To enable future technological advances, within
the funds provided for Advanced Research, the emphasis should be placed
on investments to foster better understanding of gasification
fundamentals. An improved physics-based understanding of gasification
processes will facilitate improved gasifier and systems designs that
may achieve 45-50 percent efficiency with integrated CO2
separation, capture, and sequestration with near-zero emissions with
less than 10 percent increase in cost-of-electricity.
RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS
Solar.--GE Energy fully supports the DOE budget request for the
development of Solar technology. GE Energy is pleased to be able to
work with the DOE on the recently awarded Solar America Initiative.
This program involves a diverse team of industry, universities, and
national labs working together to develop the technologies needed to
drive down the cost of electricity to make solar competitive with other
power generation technologies, leading to widespread application in the
U.S.
______
Prepared Statement of the Health Physics Society (HPS) and the Health
Physics Program Directors Organization (HPPDO)
This written testimony for the record for fiscal year 2008 requests
$500,000 for the Health Physics Fellowships and Scholarships program
through the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE) to
help address the shortage of health physicists, which is an issue of
extreme importance to the safety of our nation's workers, members of
the public, and our environment.
Health Physics is the profession that specializes in radiation
safety, which is necessary for the safe and successful operation of the
nation's energy, healthcare, homeland security, defense, and
environmental protection programs. Although radiation safety is
fundamental to each of these vital national programs, there is no
single federal agency in the Executive Branch that serves as a home and
champion for the health physics profession. This is due to the fact
that health physics is a profession that cuts across all these sectors
and is necessary for all these sectors to exist. However, it is a
support profession for the principle disciplines in these programs,
such as engineers, medical professionals, law enforcement
professionals, military personnel, and environmental scientists, which
are championed by corresponding federal agencies.
As the nation's development and use of radioactive materials grew
following the end of World War II, the nation's energy, defense, public
health, and environmental protection needs for health physicists were
supported through student fellowships and scholarships largely from the
Atomic Energy Agency (energy and defense) and Public Health Service
(public health and environmental protection). However, over the years
agencies and their missions changed, the nuclear power industry
faltered and the DOE nuclear weapons complex downsized following the
end of the cold war. This resulted in the academic program support from
federal agencies dwindling until the last remaining support from DOE
was terminated in fiscal year 1999. This lack of academic support was
despite the continued need for health physicists in the energy,
defense, public health, and environmental protection programs and an
exponential growth for need in the medical and academic community.
As the health physics human capital crisis grew and loomed in the
early years of the 21st century, a sector receiving increasing
attention in the human capital shortage area was the nuclear energy
industry, particularly with its ability to provide energy without
producing ``greenhouse gases.'' Congress and the Department of Energy
(DOE) took action to add support to the nuclear engineering academic
programs through DOE programs in the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE)
(previously the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology) and
eventually agreed that this was an appropriate support mechanism for
the health physics academic program. In fiscal year 2005, just 3 years
ago, Congress appropriated money to DOE-NE for a health physics
fellowship and scholarship program as part of the University Reactor
Fuel Assistance and Support budget item. At that time, then Director of
DOE-NE, William Magwood, agreed this support was needed as he testified
to this Committee that the DOE recognized ``. . . a small but important
element [of the University Support budget item was] to provide
scholarships and graduate fellowships to students studying the vital
and too-often overlooked discipline of health physics.'' Shortly
thereafter, Congress reinforced its position that DOE needed to support
the health physics academic programs in provisions of Section 954 of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005. However, even though the need for
increased numbers of health physics professionals continued to exist,
after only two fiscal years of funding the NE Health Physics Fellowship
and Scholarship programs at minimal levels, the DOE has requested to
cease funding this Congressionally authorized program.
In their fiscal year 2008 Budget Request, DOE states ``Enrollment
target levels of the University Reactor Infrastructure and Education
Assistance program have been met and the program is no longer
considered essential to encourage students to enter into nuclear
related disciplines'' (emphasis added). Similarly, in the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) performance assessment of the University
Nuclear Education Programs, they conclude ``Enrollments have tripled
since the late 1990's, reaching upwards of 1,500 students. In addition,
more universities are offering nuclear-related programs and there is a
growing interest in nuclear energy'' and ``While enrollments have
reached the program's target level of 1,500 students ten years ahead of
schedule, the program is unable to demonstrate that it caused these
results.''
This DOE statement and the OMB assessment are patently wrong with
regards to health physics programs. Since DOE has only funded health
physics programs for 2 years, we do not believe they have ever
established ``target levels'' for health physics program enrollments
nor has there been time to assess the effect of those 2 years of
funding on health physics program enrollments. The DOE-NE HP fellowship
and scholarship program thus far has provided 3 graduate fellowships in
fiscal year 2006 and 0 undergraduate scholarships. In 2004, the HPPDO
developed a plan for revitalizing the academic programs to a level that
could meet the projected shortfall of health physicists. The HPPDO plan
calls for an initial target of 20 graduate fellowships and 20
undergraduate scholarships, i.e., target levels well above the actual
performance of the Nuclear Education Programs. In addition, the number
of health physics programs graduating at least 5 students annually
decreased from 20 programs in 1995 to less than half that number in
2005.
Although we consider it would take approximately $1,000,000 to get
to the HPPDO plan of 20 fellowships and 20 scholarships, we consider it
important to address immediately the HP Graduate Fellowship program so
we have between 15 and 20 fellows in a two-year Masters Degree program
and up to 10 undergraduate scholarships to start meeting our nation's
workforce needs for radiation safety personnel. Funding of $500,000
should allow for up to approximately 12 to 15 fellows and up to 10
scholarships with allowance for overhead administration costs.
Considering the DOE budgets for the HP Fellowship and Scholarship
programs for fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 combined have
totaled $500,000 and only produced 3 fellowships, we feel this request
is very modest and we recognize it will not begin to provide the long
term support that will eventually be required if we are to have enough
safety professionals for our energy, healthcare, homeland security,
defense, and environmental protection programs.
The Committee's favorable consideration of this request will help
meet our nation's radiation safety needs of the future.
______
Prepared Statement of the University of Texas at Austin
I draw the Subcommittee's attention to the importance of the
National Methane Hydrates R&D Program in the National Energy Technology
Laboratory of the Department of Energy. This is the premier federal
program that deals with a unique geologic phenomenon. Though this
program is housed in the Office of Fossil Energy, methane hydrates are
more than a large potential resource--they are fundamental to the
carbon cycle on our planet.
Methane hydrates present a basic science challenge of the first
order. The scientific community is only beginning to figure out where
hydrates are, how they got there, what quantities really exist, and
what would happen if the prevailing conditions of temperature,
pressure, salinity, and microbial symbiosis were to change. But even
from the little we know about hydrates so far, one important conclusion
emerges. The amount of carbon currently locked up in hydrates easily
exceeds the total carbon in all the oil, natural gas and coal on the
planet. So trying to make sense of how the carbon cycle works without
studying hydrates is like learning how to drive a car when you only
have a key to the glove box.
Methane is also a potent greenhouse gas, even more so than the
widely discussed carbon dioxide. The behavior of methane hydrate
deposits--when they form, when they dissociate, and how fast these
processes take place--very likely holds some of the keys to
understanding how Earth's climate has changed in the past. Fully
understanding the past would have enormous impact on predictions of how
our climate might change in the future. Considering the political,
social and economic ramifications of climate predictions, investment in
understanding the scientific basis for change is wise.
Energy supply and climate change both fall within DOE's core
mission. The National Methane Hydrates R&D Program in NETL is therefore
ideally situated to drive our nation's effort to understand the science
as well as the economics of these deposits. This is not news to this
Subcommittee, for the previous session of Congress recommended steadily
increasing support for the program over the next five years. I urge the
Subcommittee to maintain its commitment to this uniquely important
program.
______
Prepared Statement of NGVAmerica
Introduction
NGVAmerica appreciates the opportunity to provide the subcommittee
the following statement concerning the fiscal year 2008 appropriations
for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). NGVAmerica is a national
organization of over 100 member companies, including: vehicle
manufacturers; natural gas vehicle (NGV) component manufacturers;
natural gas distribution, transmission, and production companies;
natural gas development organizations; environmental and non-profit
advocacy organizations; state and local government agencies; and fleet
operators. NGVAmerica is dedicated to developing markets for NGVs and
building an NGV infrastructure, including the installation of fueling
stations, the manufacture of NGVs, the development of industry
standards, and the provision of training.
Summary of Appropriations Requests
Fund the NGV RDD&D Program at $20 Million for fiscal year 2008
Fund the Clean Cities Program at $20 million for fiscal year 2008
Clarify that Biogas-to-Biomethane Production Projects Qualify Under
Existing DOE-funded Programs
Statement in Support of Appropriations Request
Increasing the use of natural gas vehicles (NGVs) can: (1) reduce
America's dependence on foreign oil, (2) improve air quality in urban
areas, (3) reduce the production of greenhouse gases, and (4) pave the
way for the more rapid introduction of hydrogen transportation
technologies. However, to achieve all these benefits, more NGV RDD&D is
urgently needed.
DOE funding has been instrumental in supporting the development and
introduction of alternative fueled technologies. Over the years, DOE
funding has supported the development and refinement of natural gas
engines, fueling infrastructure, codes and standards, and fleet
demonstration projects. DOE emission testing programs and fleet case
studies also have been critical to demonstrating the real-world air
quality and economic benefits of using natural gas vehicles. DOE has
also been a key player in integrating new natural gas engines into new
vehicle platforms. As such, DOE has been an instrumental partner with
industry in developing new and better products. As a result of these
efforts, natural gas use for transportation displaced over 200 million
gallons of petroleum in 2006. Most of this fuel is consumed by high
fuel-use fleets (e.g., transit, refuse, and short-haul trucking)
located in major urban areas. NGVAmerica members have focused their
marketing efforts mostly on heavy-duty truck and bus applications.
Fleets operating these vehicles provide the best opportunity for
increased petroleum displacement as well as reduced emissions of
harmful pollutants.
Some of the major successes to date for our industry include full-
commercialization of several of the cleanest internal combustion
engines in the world, a growing share of the U.S. transit bus fleet,
the use of hydrogen-blended fuels, installation of stations that
simultaneously dispense CNG, LNG, hydrogen blends, and hydrogen, and
the production and use of biomethane fuel produced from landfills. Many
of our member companies also are experiencing a robust and growing
export market for NGV products as a result of increasing interest in
overseas markets. However, the U.S. market continues to represent a
challenge, particularly due to the lack of long-term governmental
support and a lack of vehicle product offerings.
DOE's efforts have led to some impressive developments over the
years. Many of the products developed or supported by DOE funding will
continue to provide benefits for many years. The heavy-duty vehicles
that DOE help demonstrate and deploy often continue in service for 10-
15, or more years. And because these applications mostly involve high
fuel use fleets, the continued use of these vehicles will displace a
large amount of petroleum. A single heavy-duty natural gas urban
transit bus, for instance, over its lifetime will displace between
175,000-200,000 gallons of petroleum. That is a far greater amount of
petroleum than even the most fuel-efficient light duty vehicle will
ever replace. The point is not to stop encouraging light duty fuel
efficiency but rather to highlight the potential petroleum displacement
of continuing to develop more heavy-duty natural gas applications.
The tax incentives enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
and SAFETEA-LU are helping to support the market for NGVs and other
alternative fuels. These incentives significantly improve the economics
for users of alternative fuels. Unfortunately, a compelling economic
case alone is not sufficient to commercialize new technologies,
particularly not when developing new products costs millions of dollars
and is fraught with risks. In transportation, this problem is
particularly acute because of the economic problems facing U.S.
manufacturers and the cost these manufacturers already must incur to
ensure their petroleum fueled products meet increasingly stringent
emission standards.
The NGV industry's RDD&D efforts are directed at bringing to market
advanced NGV technology that will extend NGV use into more applications
and lower the cost of purchasing and operating NGVs in all markets.
Significant NGV RDD&D is needed to (1) improve engine efficiency, (2)
further reduce engine emissions, (3) reduce the cost and improve the
reliability of fueling infrastructure and (4) demonstrate alternative
fuel systems in new applications--including natural gas/hybrid electric
applications. In order to achieve these objectives and deliver the
benefits provided by NGVs, our industry needs DOE to be a ready and
willing partner. Given the importance of this continued effort, we
request funding for the following specific activities:
Fund the NGV RDD&D Program at $20 Million for fiscal year 2008
At one time, the Department of Energy had a robust on-road NGV
RDD&D program based on a joint public/private sector plan. Several
years ago, DOE's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs
shifted emphasis to long-term, high-risk R&D (e.g., hydrogen vehicles).
Since then, the Administration has requested no funding for NGV RDD&D.
That is unfortunate since such a program is even more necessary today.
For NGVs to achieve their market potential, federally funded RDD&D is
needed to expand product offerings of engines to meet a wider range of
applications. In addition, the process of integrating those natural gas
engines into additional medium- and heavy-duty vehicle platforms must
be accelerated. Those platforms include school buses, transit buses,
trash trucks, delivery trucks and over-the-road trucks. Natural gas
hybrid-electric platforms must be expedited, too. In addition, the cost
and weight of compressed and liquefied natural gas on-board storage
systems must be reduced. Finally, work must continue on improving NGV
and NGV fueling safety codes and standards. Given the current priority
to move America away from reliance on foreign oil and the potential of
NGVs to play a significant role, Congress should restore funding for an
NGV RDD&D program.
Fund the Clean Cities Program at $20 million for fiscal year 2008
The Clean Cities program, which includes 89 public-private
partnerships operating in 39 states, is one of the most effective means
available for (1) educating the public about non-petroleum alternative
fuels, (2) accelerating the market penetration of those fuels and
vehicles and (3) laying the groundwork for public acceptance of
hydrogen-based transportation. Given the need to move America away from
dependence on petroleum-based fuels, increased funding for the Clean
Cities program is a prudent and necessary investment. The
Administration's request of $9.593 million for Clean Cities in fiscal
year 2008 is inadequate given the role that Clean Cities can play in
reducing U.S. oil dependence, which is an Administration and
Congressional priority. We recommend and support increasing the funding
level to $20 million.
Clarify that Biogas-to-Biomethane Production Projects Qualify Under
Existing DOE-funded Programs
Biomethane is a biofuel with huge potential to offset petroleum
reliance and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Analysis previously
conducted for DOE estimated that a feasible annual production capacity
in the United States is about 1.25 quadrillion Btu or 10 billion
gasoline-gallon-equivalent from landfills, animal waste and sewage
alone. However, biomethane use has been overshadowed by efforts to
produce renewable electricity and the promotion of ethanol. These
efforts should be viewed as complementary. Federal programs for the
production of all biofuels should be fuel neutral. As noted above, a
huge potential exists in the United States to produce biomethane from
landfill gas, animal and crop waste and sewage--an even cellulosic
energy crops. In Europe, biomethane from cellulosic crops is being
pursued as a viable alternative transportation fuel. There are a number
of new funding programs (demonstrations, production grants, loan
guarantees) enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These
programs in some cases have been narrowly tailored to exclude
applications that do not involve the production of electricity or, in
the case of transportation fuels, fuels that are not ethanol or
biodiesel. Congress should continue to fund these programs but clarify
that biomethane projects also qualify.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, natural gas vehicles help reduce America's use of
foreign oil, improve the air quality in our urban areas, reduce the
production of greenhouse gases, and pave the way for the more rapid
introduction of hydrogen transportation technologies. We greatly
appreciate your past support and consideration of these proposals.
______
Prepared Statement of the Independent Petroleum Association of America
On behalf of the Independent Petroleum Association of America
(IPAA), representing over 7,000 producers of domestic oil and natural
gas, I would like to bring to your attention a matter of significant
importance to America's independent oil and natural gas producers.
For the third consecutive year, the Administration's Budget request
for the Department of Energy (DOE) for fiscal year 2008 proposed to
eliminate the existing oil and gas technologies (core) programs, and in
addition, proposed to repeal the Sec. 999 or non-conventional onshore/
ultra-deep/small producer program authorized in the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 (EPACT). In the ``guidance'' document provided to DOE by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for fiscal year 2007, and in
accordance with the recent Continuing Resolution or ``CR,'' the core
program is assumed to be transitioning toward a ``close-out'' or
shutting down of most of it's current activities, allotting $2.7
million to be applied for close-out purposes. Similarly, the OMB
guidance document assumes that repeal of the Sec. 999 program is
imminent. IPAA would urge the subcommittee to consider rectifying this
``yo yo'' funding effect that serves to undermine the deliverability of
these two programs. Both the ``core'' program and the Sec. 999 program
are of vital importance to independent producers, who develop 90
percent of all U.S. wells, producing 82 percent of American natural gas
and 68 percent of all American oil. In fact, historically 85 percent of
the focus of the existing or ``core'' program has been devoted to the
exploration and production activities associated with the independent
producer.
Although the Sec. 999 program received $50 million in mandatory
funding annually in EPACT, it is not structured to assume all of the
functions of the core program, especially as they pertain to inherently
governmental functions or providing grants to university researchers.
The core program continues to house programmatic functions of equal
importance to independent producers, such as gas hydrates, the Stripper
Well Consortium, regulatory analysis, tech transfer and on-going
university research and development projects. These efforts
collectively represent important efforts related to development and
deployment of technologies that assist in maintaining and increasing
American oil and gas production. Therefore, IPAA requests that the core
program be appropriated $29.9 million to continue ongoing research and
development activities for fiscal year 2008. Regarding the Sec. 999
program, IPAA requests that the program receive an additional $25
million appropriation to apply to areas that are expected to be assumed
by Sec. 999, such as enhanced oil recovery for small producers and the
University Internship Program.
IPAA believes that during these times of elevated concerns over our
increasing reliance on foreign sources of oil, now is not the time to
diminish our efforts in the area of American produced oil and natural
gas. We thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
______
Prepared Statement of Austin Energy
This testimony supports funding for development and deployment of
plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) within the Department of Energy's
fiscal year 2008 budget request. Specifically, Austin Energy supports
the $80.6 million for Hybrid Electric Systems within the Vehicle
Technologies account of the Advanced Energy Initiative of the Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy budget. Within the Hybrid Electric
Systems sub-accounts, Austin Energy supports funding of: (1) $21
million for Vehicle and System simulation and testing; (2) $41.8
million for Energy Storage Research and Development; (3) $15.6 million
for Advanced Power Electronics and Electric Motors Research and
Development; and (4) $2.1 million for the SBIR/STTR program. Austin
would request that the Committee consider these funding requests within
the fiscal year 2008 budget request: (1) $10 million for Section 706 of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (``EPACT'')--Joint Flexible Fuel/Hybrid
Commercialization Initiative; (2) $15 million for Sections 711/911 of
EPACT--Hybrid Vehicles for system and component development for plug-in
hybrid vehicles; and (3) $2.5 million for Title 8 of EPACT--Advanced
Vehicles for a fuel cell vehicle developed with a plug-in hybrid drive
platform. Funding of $27.5 million within these three areas should be
included within the Hybrid Electric Systems sub-accounts section of the
Vehicle Technologies account of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy budget.
Austin Energy, the Nation's 10th largest community-owned electric
utility, serves 360,000 customers within the City of Austin and Travis
and Williamson Counties, Texas. Austin provides electricity to the
capital city of Texas through a diverse generation mix of nuclear,
coal, natural gas and renewable resources. Austin Energy has been
nationally recognized for its Green Choice renewable electricity
program. For the last four years Austin Energy has sold more renewable
electricity, primarily wind, than any other utility in the country.
Austin Energy has also been a national leader in energy efficiency.
Austin's Green Building program for both commercial and residential
buildings has been a national model in the use of sustainable building
technologies.
As the President has stated frequently in the last two years, the
United States needs to break its addiction to imported supplies of
petroleum. One of the principle uses of imported petroleum is to
produce gasoline to power the transportation sector, particularly
automobiles. Already popular hybrid vehicles demonstrate that there is
now a technologically feasible way to power automobiles with both an
internal combustion and an electric engine. The plug-in hybrid vehicle
is a modification of current hybrids. Plug-in hybrids can be charged
from the existing electrical grid by plugging the car into an ordinary
wall socket while the internal combustion engine can be a flexible fuel
engine that will run on domestically produced biofuels.
PHEVs will run on a dedicated electric charge for a number of miles
(20-60, depending on the size of the battery pack), then shift to
liquid fuel. The General Motors concept car, the Volt, unveiled at the
recent Detroit Auto Show in January of this year, is an example of this
type of vehicle. It has an all electric range of 40 miles.
PHEVs have the ability to significantly increase efficiency of fuel
use over both conventional cars and existing hybrids. Instead of the
constant switching between gasoline and electric power as is done in a
hybrid today, the PHEV runs on electric power until the batteries are
drained; only then does the fuel engine engage to power the car. If the
driver's daily commute is within the electric range (20-60 miles), or
if driving is within a small geographical area (city delivery trucks),
then gasoline consumption is minimized, thus starting us down the road
to reduced imports.
Austin Energy is convinced that PHEVs will be a significant
contributor to reducing our nation's reliance on imported oil. Unlike
other transportation alternatives, PHEVs require neither new fueling
infrastructure nor driver behavioral changes. The infrastructure for
PHEVs, standard electric sockets, already exists and Americans have
already become accustomed to plugging-in Blackberries, cell-phones and
lap-top computers. In the event that one forgets or is unable to plug-
in the car, it will run as usual on gasoline or flexible fuel.
The funding initiatives recommended by the President in the DOE
fiscal year 2008 budget submission will speed the day when PHEVs are
widely available to American citizens. DOE's research will help achieve
the battery technology needed to move the PHEV from a concept car to
automobile dealer showrooms. Other DOE programs support plug-in hybrid
technology developed as part of flexible fueling operations for cars as
well as integrated within the advanced fuel cell vehicle. PHEV
technology will complement any existing automobile fueling system or
one envisioned for the future. The DOE budget submission will provide
for deployment of PHEVs in demonstration activities to allow for
different commercial applications of the vehicles. PHEV technology is
adaptable to all vehicle platforms--from large trucks to commuter cars.
Austin Energy supports Congressional appropriations to increase the
availability of PHEVs and demonstrate its capacity as a solution to our
``oil addiction.'' Austin Energy is also willing to support the federal
effort by overseeing a national grass-roots campaign to demonstrate the
consumer market for PHEVs, a project underway for more than a year now.
Austin Energy's ``Plug-In Partners'' is an initiative to
demonstrate to the automobile manufacturers that a consumer market
already exists for PHEVs. Utility rebates and incentives, state, county
and municipal government endorsements, and citizen petitions are
evidence of an expanding interest in PHEVs. A key aspect of the Plug-In
Partners campaign is the ``soft'' fleet orders. Fleet owners, both
private and governmental, sign a pledge to strongly consider purchasing
a certain number of PHEVs when available from an original equipment
manufacturer. While the fleet owner understands that the cars are not
presently on line, the belief in the concept of a PHEV is sufficient
for them to make the soft fleet order. This helps demonstrate a market
to automakers. After one year of the Plug-In Partners campaign, over
8,400 vehicles have been pledged by soft fleet orders.
Austin Energy's Plug-In Partners campaign was founded nationally on
January 24, 2006 at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. This
past January, in the Russell Senate Office Building, Plug-In Partners
celebrated its one year anniversary. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah spoke
at both events of the importance of PHEVs to ending our reliance on
foreign oil. The Plug-In Partners campaign has been joined by more than
500 partners in 41 states, including the cities of Austin, Albuquerque,
Aspen, Baltimore, Boston, Boulder, Chicago, Cleveland, Colorado
Springs, Dallas, Fort Worth, Denver, Des Moines, Honolulu, Las Vegas,
Los Angeles, Kansas City, MO, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Philadelphia,
Phoenix, Portland, OR, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San
Francisco and Seattle. The New York State Energy & Research Development
Authority (NYSERDA), American Corn Growers Association, Soybean
Producers of America, Alliance To Save Energy, American Council on
Renewable Energy, American Wind Energy Association, Consumer Federation
of America, Energy Future Coalition, Environmental and Energy Study
Institute and the South Shore Clean Cities of Northeast Indiana support
the Plug-In Partners campaign. The Center for American Progress and Set
America Free are among the many public interest groups that are members
of the coalition. Finally, Plug-In Partners has been endorsed by the
American Public Power Association and almost 200 of its members around
the country as well as the Edison Electric Institute, National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association and the Washington Public Utility
District Association.
Austin Energy has also committed $1 million for rebates to Austin
Energy customers who purchase plug-in hybrids when they become
available.
The Congress, by funding DOE initiatives to develop and deploy
PHEVs, will help speed the commercialization by auto manufacturers and
will be a significant step in lessening American dependence on imported
oil.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
Officials
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Peter Smith of
New York and Chair of the National Association of State Energy
Officials (NASEO). NASEO is submitting this testimony in support of
funding for a variety of U.S. Department of Energy programs.
Specifically, we are testifying in support of no less than $80 million
for the State Energy Program (SEP). We wanted to take this opportunity
to thank the Subcommittee for its support for an increase for this
program in fiscal year 2007. We were also pleased that the Subcommittee
added $300 million to the final fiscal year 2007 Continuing Resolution
for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. Recently, 30
members of the Senate wrote to you to fund SEP at least at $74 million
and Weatherization at a $275 million level in fiscal year 2008. SEP is
the most successful program operated by DOE in this area. Within an $80
million funding level for SEP we would support the Administration's
proposed $10.5 million competitive program, but we do not support such
an effort at the proposed funding level of $35 million for the core SEP
activities. SEP is focused on direct energy project development, where
most of the resources are expended. SEP has set a standard for state-
federal cooperation and matching funds to achieve critical federal and
state energy goals. We also support $300 million for the Weatherization
Assistance Program (WAP). These programs are successful and have a
strong record of delivering savings to low-income Americans,
homeowners, businesses, and industry. We also support the increase
proposed in the President's budget for the Energy Information
Administration (EIA) to $105 million, including an increase of $600,000
for EIA's State Heating Oil and Propane Program, in order to cover the
added costs of increasing the frequency of information collection (to
weekly), the addition of natural gas, and increasing the number of
state participants. EIA's new state-by-state data is very helpful. EIA
funding is a critical piece of energy emergency preparedness and
response. This funding will permit EIA to maintain key Forms 182, 856
and 767 (involving crude oil and emissions). NASEO continues to support
funding for a variety of critical deployment programs, including
Building Codes Training and Assistance ($7.5 million), Rebuild America
($3.8 million), Energy Star ($6.8 million) and Clean Cities ($9.6
million). NASEO supports funding for the Office of Electricity Delivery
and Energy Reliability, at least at the fiscal year 2006 request of
$161.9 million, with specific funding for the Division of
Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration of $18 million, which
funds critical energy assurance activities. We strongly support the R&D
function, Operations and Analysis and Distributed Energy activities
within this office. The industries program should be funded at a $74.8
million level, equal to the fiscal year 2005 levels, to promote
efficiency efforts and to maintain U.S. manufacturing jobs, especially
in light of the loss of millions of these jobs in recent years.
Proposed cuts in these programs are counter-productive and are
detrimental to a balanced national energy policy. We remain concerned
that a number of programs authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPACT 2005) have received no funding. Of special interest are sections
124, 125, 126, and 128 of EPACT 2005. We were pleased that funding has
been provided for the pilot program under Section 140 of EPACT 2005.
Over the past five years, both oil and natural gas prices have been
rising in response to international events, increased domestic use and
the result of the 2005 hurricanes. We expect $60 oil to continue for an
extended period of time, with an expanded problem as summer approaches.
Gasoline prices have been spiking recently. In addition, we now have
quantifiable evidence of the success of the SEP program, which
demonstrates the unparalleled savings and return on investment to the
federal taxpayer of SEP. Every state gets an SEP grant and all states,
the District of Columbia and territories support the program.
In January 2003, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) completed a
study and concluded, ``The impressive savings and emissions reductions
numbers, ratios of savings to funding, and payback periods . . .
indicate that the State Energy Program is operating effectively and is
having a substantial positive impact on the nation's energy
situation.'' ORNL updated that study and found that $1 in SEP funding
yields: (1) $7.22 in annual energy cost savings; (2) $10.71 in
leveraged funding from the states and private sector in 18 types of
project areas; (3) annual energy savings of 47,593,409 million source
BTUs; and (4) annual cost savings of $333,623,619. The annual cost-
effective emissions reductions associated with the energy savings are
equally significant: (1) Carbon--826,049 metric tons; (2) VOCs--135.8
metric tons; (3) NOX -6,211 metric tons; (4) fine
particulate matter (PM10)--160 metric tons; (5)
SO2--8,491 metric tons; and (6) CO--1,000 metric tons. The
report done by DOE's Inspector General in April 2006 criticized DOE
monitoring of SEP but affirmed that state actions were consistent with
the applicable law and regulation. State monitoring and verification
has confirmed SEP's effectiveness.
State Energy Program Special Projects and Other Deployment
Programs.-- Through fiscal year 2005, SEP Special Projects provided
matching grants to states to conduct innovative project development. It
had been operated for ten years and has produced enormous results in
every state in the United States. We could support funding of DOE's
new, proposed SEP competitive program, but only within an $80 million
SEP appropriation. The other deployment programs, including Rebuild
America, Building Codes Training and Assistance, Clean Cities and
Energy Star, should receive funding of $27.7 million in fiscal year
2008.
Industrial Energy Program.--A funding increase to a level of $74.8
million for the Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) is warranted.
This is a public-private partnership in which industry and the states
work with the Department of Energy to jointly fund cutting-edge
research in the energy area. The results have been reduced energy
consumption, reduced environmental impacts and increased competitive
advantage of manufacturers (which is more than one-third of U.S. energy
use). The states play a major role working with industry and DOE in the
program to ensure economic development in our states and to try to
ensure that domestic jobs are preserved.
Examples of Successful State Energy Program Activities.--The states
have implemented thousands of projects. Here are a few representative
examples.
California.--The California Energy Commission has operated energy
programs in virtually every sector of the economy. The state has
upgraded residential and non-residential building codes, developed a
school energy efficiency financing program, industrial partnerships in
the food and waste industry, instituted a new replacement program for
school buses utilizing the newest natural gas, advanced diesel and
hybrid technologies. The buildings program has reduced consumption by
enormous amounts over the past few years, through alternative financing
programs and outreach. The state has worked closely with the western
governors to implement a variety of new programs. California's
greenhouse gas mitigation plans and a new solar initiative are moving
forward.
Colorado.--The state has initiated new energy legislation this year
and is greatly expanding both renewable energy and ethanol/biofuels
development. In addition, the state is working to assist new and
existing building energy efficiency projects. Fifty new building
projects have received assistance and the state has arranged $170
million of investments in 80 performance contracting projects.
Hawaii.--Three major pieces of energy legislation were passed in
2006. The state energy office is working with state agencies to satisfy
LEED Silver requirements and utilize Energy Star products. The state
has been promoting ethanol and biodiesel development, developing a new
Hawaii Energy Strategy in 2007, developing a major hydrogen energy
program and implementing a large Renewable Portfolio Standard. The
energy efficient buildings program has saved $10 million annually and
the ``Green Business Program'' has saved $175 in water, energy and
waste minimization for every $1 in SEP funds invested.
Idaho.--In Idaho the state has rated homes utilizing the Energy
Star tools and signed-up 93 new builders to participate in the program.
An aggressive energy efficiency financing program has produced more
than 2,500 loans, totaling over $16 million, resulting in significant
energy savings. The agricultural energy program has focused on reducing
irrigation costs and usage to improve agricultural productivity and
costs. The state has initiated a new industrial program.
Kentucky.--The programs supported by SEP have assisted in
construction of high energy performance K-12 schools, developed $45
million in energy savings performance contracts and funded energy
efficiency and renewable energy projects at universities and local
governments. The state is a leader in promoting Energy Star and they
have an R&D grant program for energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Louisiana.--The state energy office within the Department of
Natural Resources is still heavily involved in post-Katrina relief. In
addition, the state operates a cash rebate program of up to $2,000 for
homeowner energy efficiency improvements. Thus far, almost 16,000
rebates and loans have been issued totaling $21 million, and leveraging
$199 million more in private funds. The state has also been expanding
renewable energy development, working to enact stronger energy codes
and promoting alternative transportation fuels.
Mississippi.--The state operates an energy investment loan program
targeted to schools, hospitals and manufacturers. They are focused on
reducing energy consumption in state and school facilities and they
have developed 50 energy management plans. Mississippi has been very
active in the Energy Star program and has been attempting to conduct
post-Katrina reconstruction in an energy efficient manner. They have
also developed a rural business opportunity program.
Missouri.--The energy office in Missouri has been operating a low-
interest energy efficiency loan program for school districts, colleges,
universities and local governments. Thus far, public entities have
saved more than $75 million each year, with more than 400 projects. The
state energy office has also worked with the Public Utility Commission
and the utilities within the State to get $20 million invested in
residential and commercial energy efficiency programs. A new revolving
loan for bio-diesel has also been initiated.
New Jersey.--The state's Clean Energy Program has invested over
$124 million thus far with resulting bill reductions to consumers
projected to be almost $2 billion. 36 MW of solar has already been
installed, and the state is implementing rebates, net metering,
standardized interconnections and a Solar Renewable Energy Certificate
trading program. The state also has an alternative fuel, bio-heat and
bio-diesel rebate program.
New Mexico.--With new state legislation, the state energy office is
supporting and expanding renewable energy usage, tax incentives for
hybrid vehicles, school energy efficiency programs, technical
assistance to the wind and solar industries, and expansion of
geothermal resources. The state has arranged approximately 40 energy
performance contracts with annual energy savings in the millions. There
has also been an expansion in the use of ethanol and bio-fuels.
North Dakota.--As Kim Christianson testified before Chairman
Dorgan's Subcommittee on Energy on February 12, 2007, the state energy
office is supporting programs for wind, ethanol and bio-diesel
promotion. 578 MW of wind projects have been developed, with nine
ethanol and bio-diesel plants in various stages of development.
Projects in 412 buildings has led to $24 million in energy efficiency
improvements. The state has also funded energy efficiency programs for
local builders, schools and for lower income households.
Rhode Island.--The state has reorganized and elevated the energy
agency, instituted new renewable energy and energy efficiency programs,
joined with the neighboring states in expanded cooperative efforts and
also focused on energy emergency preparedness.
South Dakota.--The state has focused on supporting wind, ethanol
and bio-diesel development. In addition, a matching energy efficiency
grant program has been established for heating controls, lighting, etc.
The state also operates an energy loan program for state-run facilities
and a technical energy analysis program for those facilities.
Texas.--The Texas Energy Office's Loan Star program has long
produced great success by reducing building energy consumption and
taxpayers' energy costs through efficient operation of public
buildings. This saved taxpayers more than $200 million through energy
efficiency projects. Over the next 20 years, Texas estimates that the
program will save taxpayers over $500 million. In another example, the
state promoted the use of ``sleep'' software for computers, which is
now used on 136,000 school computers, saving 42 million kWh and
reducing energy costs by $3 million annually. The state has initiated
the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan/Texas Energy Partnership in 41 urban
counties to reduce emissions through cost-effective energy efficiency
projects.
Utah.--SEP funds have been utilized to support solar and wind
programs, as well as implementation of a stronger energy building code
through training programs. The state has also supported local
government energy efficiency and has developed a public building energy
efficiency pilot.
Washington.--The state energy agency works with the Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance to target over $20 million in funding for
energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. The state is also
closely involved in energy emergency preparedness and response. The
Resource Efficiency Managers Program, supported by SEP, conducts on-
site training for energy savings. For example, working with Ft. Lewis
and Puget Sound naval facilities, the program has saved over $2.5
million. A major focus on energy efficiency programs in buildings has
been successful.
West Virginia.--The energy office has focused on industrial energy
programs savings, including identified savings of $3.7 million in 2006
alone. Energy projects in the industrial sector have totaled $33
million during the past 10 years. The state has also supported dramatic
expansion of renewable energy programs and is projecting $3 million in
school energy cost savings each year through energy efficiency
programs. Other project areas include lighting demonstrations and
energy audits, poultry house bio-filters, building energy use in
conjunction with West Virginia University and innovative energy
technology opportunities in conjunction with Marshall University.
______
Prepared Statement of BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc.
GAS HYDRATE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT ON THE NORTH SLOPE OF ALASKA, APRIL
2007
The 2002 through present cooperative research between BP
Exploration (Alaska), Inc. (BPXA) and the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) in collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey is helping to
assess Alaska North Slope (ANS) methane hydrate resource potential.
Since gas hydrate resource potential is unconventional and unproven,
industry would not be able to perform this research without external
support. Industry provides shallow 3D seismic and well data and access
to infrastructure and DOE provides major research funding. This region
is unique in that it combines known gas hydrate presence and existing
production infrastructure. Continued full funding of the DOE Methane
Hydrate program authorized by the Methane Hydrate Acts of 2000 and 2005
is essential to the success of this research. Reservoir
characterization, reservoir modeling, and associated studies culminated
in the drilling of an approximately $4.3MM Stratigraphic Test well,
MtElbert-01, in early 2007. This well successfully acquired critical
gas hydrate-bearing formation and fluid data, which will help mitigate
potential recoverable resource uncertainty. Future production testing
is a key goal of the Federal Research and Development program and may
follow, but this remains to be decided following Stratigraphic Test
data analyses. Future studies, if approved, would acquire additional
static data and would include production testing, likely from a gravel
pad within production infrastructure.
Methane hydrate may contain a significant portion of world gas
resources within offshore and onshore arctic regions petroleum systems.
In the United States, accumulations of gas hydrate occur within
pressure-temperature stability regions in both offshore and also
onshore near-permafrost regions. USGS probabilistic estimates indicate
that clathrate hydrate may contain a mean of 590 TCF in-place ANS gas
resources (Figure 1). Over 33 TCF in-place potential gas hydrate
resources are interpreted within shallow sand reservoirs beneath ANS
production infrastructure within the Eileen trend (Figure 2). Regional
reservoir modeling studies indicate that from 0 to 12 TCF of this 33
TCF in-place might potentially be recoverable, but future exploitation
of gas hydrate would require developing feasible, safe, and
environmentally-benign production technology, initially within areas of
industry infrastructure. In the United States, the ANS onshore and Gulf
of Mexico (GOM) offshore are currently known to favorably combine these
factors. In addition to the clear benefits that would accrue to the
State of Alaska through realization of gas hydrate as an energy
resource, the information and technology being developed in this
onshore ANS program will be an important component to assessing the
possible productivity of the potentially much larger marine hydrate
resource. The resource potential of gas hydrate remains unproven, but
if proven, could lead to greater U.S. energy independence.
Although up to 100 TCF in-place gas may be trapped within the gas
hydrate-bearing formations beneath existing ANS infrastructure, it has
been primarily known as a shallow gas drilling hazard to the hundreds
of well penetrations targeting deeper oil-bearing formations and has
drawn little resource attention due to no ANS gas export infrastructure
and unknown potential productivity. There remain significant challenges
in quantifying the fraction of these in-place resources that might
eventually become a technically-feasible or possibly a commercial
natural gas reserve.
If gas can be technically produced from gas hydrate and if future
studies help prove production capability at economically viable rates,
then methane dissociated from ANS gas hydrate could help supplement
fuel-gas, provide additional lean-gas for reservoir energy pressure
support, sustain long-term production of portions of the
geographically-coincident 20-25 billion barrels viscous oil resource,
and/or potentially supplement conventional export-gas in the longer
term. Continued government-industry collaborative support of this
research is needed to help determine this future resource potential.
Figure 1.--ANS Gas Hydrate Stability Zone Extent. The USGS has
estimated 590 TCF methane in place in hydrate form in this region
(Courtesy USGS).
Figure 2.--Eileen and Tarn Gas Hydrate Trends and ANS Field
Infrastructure (modified after Collett, 1998).
______
Prepared Statement of the Alliance for Materials Manufacturing
Excellence
AMMEX organizations include the basic materials manufacturing
sector (aluminum, chemicals, forest products, glass, metal casting,
steel) in the U.S. economy along with several stakeholders in materials
manufacturing, such as the Northeast Midwest Institute, the National
Association of State Energy Officials and the American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy. We are writing to urge Congress to restore
funding to the Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) at the Department
of Energy at a level of $125 million dollars and to restore the
structure of the program to one that emphasizes new process development
is all six materials industries as opposed to cross-cutting research.
ITP is a true public-private partnership. DOE and materials
manufacturers jointly fund cutting-edge research that addresses the
needs of the Nation and materials manufacturers. All projects have the
shared goals of reducing energy consumption, reducing environmental
impact and increasing competitive advantage of U.S. materials
manufacturers. The program is unique because we select only projects
with ``dual benefits''--a public benefit such as reduced emissions or
petroleum use, and an industry benefit such as a more efficient
process.
The Department of Energy's Industrial Technology Program (ITP) and
U.S. materials manufacturers have a long history of joining forces to
develop and deploy new technologies which save energy, improve our
environment and enable U.S. materials manufacturers to have the world's
most advanced technology on the plant floor.
The chart below is representative of the gains in energy efficiency
made by materials manufacturers since 1990, i.e., during the time they
have partnered with DOE.
This chart also shows that materials manufacturers have become very
efficient for the processes they operate today and that to make the
type of gains in the future that have been seen since 1990, new process
development is required.
The chart below shows the funding history of the DOE ITP program
since 1990.
In the years 1990-1996 the program consisted largely of ``industry
funding'' and averaged $100 million annually. There were some ``cross-
cutting'' projects in this time, but they were a small percentage of
the total. Even in the years 1999-2003, spending on industry projects
[black] vs. crosscutting [white] was approximately 2:1.
Beyond 2003, the ITP program was not only the target of drastic
cuts but remaining funds were rebalanced to favor crosscutting vs.
industry specific projects. As shown in Figure 1, the level of energy
efficiency of materials industries dictates that new process
development (``industry specific'' projects) are required vs. the
crosscutting (incremental) projects.
Our request entails two parts:
--A return to a total program level of $125 million.
--A re-structuring of the program so as to return to the structure
that was so successful from 1990-2003--a focus on new process
development via industry specific research with at least a
ratio of 2:1 of new process research to crosscutting
(incremental) investments.
AMMEX members have identified their top new process development
concepts (not in priority order) which would be pursued at the funding
levels and structure defined above;
Aluminum
Improved, energy-efficient burners and furnaces for aluminum
melting.
Improved energy efficiency and recovery rates for recycling
technologies.
Chemicals
Development of alternative feedstocks for the chemical industry to
reduce dependence on petroleum and natural gas derived feedstocks.
Nano-manufacturing scale-up methodologies for key unit operations:
synthesis, separation, purification, stabilization, and assembly.
Development of low-energy, low-capital membrane or hybrid
separations technology.
Glass
Submerged Combustion Melter.
Waste Heat Recovery and Use as Electrical or Chemical Energy.
Low Residence Time Glass Refining Technologies.
Forest Products
Advanced water removal and high efficiency pulping.
Gasification of Spent Pulping Liquors and Biomass Residuals.
Metal Casting
Simulation of Dimensional Changes and Hot Tears.
Engineered Coatings for Aluminum Pressure Dies.
Developing a lightweight production cast aluminum metal matrix
composite alloy.
Steel
Ironmaking by Molten Oxide Electrolysis.
Ironmaking by Flash Smelting using Hydrogen.
Demonstration of the Paired Straight Hearth Furnace Process.
ammex member organizations
Kurtz Bros.
American Iron and Steel Institute
Glass Manufacturing Industry Council
Aluminum Association
Waupaca
American Foundry Society
Chemical Industry VISION 2020 Technology Partnership
American Forest and Paper Association
Hyatt Die Cast
North American Die Casting Association
National Association of State Energy Officials
Northeast Midwest Institute
Gibbs Die Casting
Intermet Corning Glass
Smith Foundry Co.
Anheuser Busch--Longhorn Glass
Glass Service, Inc.
Carteret Die Casting Corp
Leone Industries Glass Packaging
North Carolina Industries of the Future
Armstrong
North Carolina Industries of the Future
Diagnostic Instrumentation & Analysis Laboratory (Mississippi State
Univ.)
Society for Glass Science and Practices
Praxair, Inc.
Siemens Energy and Automation, Inc.
Gas Technology Institute
Nucast
Varicast
Clinkenbeard
AVALON Precision Casting Company
Industries of the Future West Virginia
Visteon
Bremen Castings Incorporated
Savannah River Technology Center
Indiana Industries of the future
Bridesburg Foundry
Oshkosh
Federal Bronze, A Division of the One Source Casting Corporation
West Virginia Development Office
Weyerhaeuser
Columbia Steel Casting Co., Inc.
Cunningham Pattern & Engineering, Inc.
GSC Investment Castings, Machining & Assembly
Delvest, Inc.
Fan Steel
Weatherly Casting & Machine Co.
Citation Innovative Metal Components
Magma
Atchison Casting
Yankee Casting
Saint Clair Die Casting, LLC
Ahresty
The BOC Group
Saint Paul Metalcraft Inc.
Thakar Aluminum Corporation
Eclipse Inc./Combustion Tec
Briggs & Stratton
Johns Manville a Berkshire Hathaway Company
University Center for Glass Research
Owens Corning
CPI Cast Products Inc.
Pennsylvania Industries of the Future
Callen Manufacturing Corporation
CertainTeed
ABCO Diecasters Inc.
Energy Industries of Ohio
U.S. Silica Company
Borax
A&B Die Casting
PPG Industries
Brillcast, Inc.
Durametal
May Foundry & Machine
NEENAH Foundry Company
Citation Innovative Metal Components
SECAT
______
Prepared Statement of IMPACT Technologies LLC
Dear Honorable Senators: I am a citizen, tax payer, small business
owner, engineer, inventor and developer of new technology covering
several industries. I am also a small oil producer and investor in the
oil and gas industry. I have worked for a very large (major) oil and
gas company (Chevron) and smaller independent oil and gas producers.
After establishing my own companies I have obtained bank financing,
industry financing, angel financing, personal investments, state
investment groups and directly with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
and other groups supported by DOE funding, including the Petroleum
Technology Transfer Council (PTTC), Stripper Well Consortium (SWC) and
several universities. In fact, I have invested my time by (previously)
serving on the governing boards of the SWC and PTTC.
The return on public investments (DOE, NASA, others) in properly
vetted technologies is tremendous. I have found that industry will not
support a new technology unless it is proven. For higher technologies
that proving process is expensive and risky--too risky or requiring too
long a time frame for all banks, most angel financing and too small for
venture capital groups. I have invested significant personal monies in
my own projects, but that will only go so far in developing significant
technologies. That investment GAP must be filled (fully or partially)
by public investment yielding tremendous returns in dollars and in
public good.
Industry wide, that tremendous return on public investment through
DOE has included the coal bed methane resource development (measured in
the trillion of cubic feet of natural gas) for the public benefit.
Unconventional oil and gas shale development will only occur with DOE
support of key technologies. The public investment of the DOE (directly
and through SWC) has allowed technologies to be developed and tested so
that private groups can then invest to take the products commercial.
Most of these technologies would not become commercial if not for this
public investment boost.
Specifically and on a more direct and personal level, approximately
$170,000 in DOE and SWC (cost share) funds has allowed Impact to design
and prove of a new, patented pump technology that will gross an
estimated $305 million over 10 years, generating taxes and jobs. This
new pump technology will impact the oil and gas, construction,
demolition, environmental and job shop industries. It will be licensed
to existing pump manufacturers after the 5 years. That small, but
significant, DOE and SWC investment will allow private angel investors
to see proven technology and feel comfortable enough to invest and take
the company to the next commercialization level. It will yield a direct
return on investment of over 1,800:1 not counting the benefits it will
generate for the impacted industries! It would not have occurred
without DOE and SWC funding.
A second technology now being commercialized by Impact is based on
a $180,000 (cost share) investment from DOE and the SWC plus (funds
used to leverage other state funds including) Oklahoma's OCAST
investment group. With that public investment Impact has built a
patented motor prototype and is now building on that success to
commercialize these new motors for drilling. This new motor technology
will impact the oil and gas, environmental, geothermal, resource
mining, utilities and construction industries. That DOE and SWC
investment will generate an estimated $228 million over 10 years, based
on our conservative business plan forecasts. That is a return on public
investment of over 1,300:1 not including the benefits to the impacted
industries and the public through taxes, jobs and improved competition!
A third technology Impact has developed with others is the SPI Gel
Technology which is directly a result of the Department of Energy's
investment in the Stripper Well Consortium. This is a new patent-
pending silicate based gel for reducing water production and pipe
repairs. It is environmentally safe for fresh water applications. We
are in the field test stage of this technology right now and will
license it out later this year. The public investment of $203,000 (cost
share) will return over a 1,000:1 return in gross sales and other
benefits to society through jobs, taxes and continued resource
production. This technology would not be developed without DOE and SWC
funds.
I have personally seen the investments of the DOE directly in and
through the SWC and PTTC on small oil and gas producers. These new
technologies are significant and will have a major impact on the public
energy resources. These investments are small but have a extremely high
return (over 1,000:1) and should be continued. These public funds fill
the gap between concept and private funding to commercialize good
ideas.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Mining Association (NMA)
NMA RECOMMENDATIONS
Department Of Energy (DOE)
$108 million for the FutureGen project; $257 million in previously
appropriated funds should be designated for FutureGen; $300 million for
base coal research and development programs; $273 million for the Clean
Coal Power Initiative (CCPI); $8.4 million for the loan guarantee
office and $9 billion cap on federal loan guarantee commitments; $15
million for DOE's participation in the Asia-Pacific Partnership on
Clean Development and Climate.
U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers
Civil Works Program.--$180 million for the Regulatory Program. See
the table below for NMA's list of priority lock and dam projects and
recommendations for levels of funding required for their completion.
BACKGROUND
Office of Fossil Energy
NMA strongly supports: the $108 million requested for the FutureGen
project; as a zero cost action, the $257 million in unused Clean Coal
Technology Program funds should be deferred to fiscal year 2009 for the
FutureGen project (this action is essential to maintaining private
sector cost-share and financing construction); and recommends at least
$300 million be appropriated for base coal research and development
programs.
In addition, NMA recommends that CCPI be funded at a level of $273
million, which would enable DOE to conduct a third solicitation
targeting advanced technology systems that capture carbon dioxide for
sequestration.
The FutureGen public-private partnership will design and build, in
the United States, the first-of-a-kind commercial-scale power plant
that will provide the technological capability to: (1) capture and
permanently store 90 percent or more of the plant's CO2
emissions; (2) power about 150,000 American homes with the clean
electricity it generates from coal; and (3) co-produce hydrogen and
potentially other useful by-products from coal.
The FutureGen Industrial Alliance, comprised of the largest coal
producers and users in the world, has signed a cooperative agreement
with the DOE to provide $250 million toward the cost of the project.
The alliance members have extensive experience in building large-scale
coal-fueled projects, while meeting budget and performance
requirements. The alliance remains committed to moving the FutureGen
project to its targeted completion in 2012, provided a multi-year
funding scenario is secure, and its funding does not come at the
expense of other coal research and demonstration programs.
Technological advancements achieved in the base coal research and
demonstration programs such as gasification, advanced turbines, and
carbon sequestration, provide the component technologies that will
ultimately be integrated into the FutureGen project. NMA believes these
programs should be funded at a level of at least $300 million (which
should include $109 for carbon sequestration--$30 million above the
president's fiscal year 2008 budget request). In addition, the advanced
turbine program should be funded at $40 million instead of the
requested level of $22 million. The increase in funding for these and
other programs will ensure the FutureGen project meets the intended
goals.
In addition, NMA recommends a $3 million level of funding for the
Center for Advanced Separation Technology (CAST), which is led by a
consortium of seven universities with mining research programs. The
advanced separation program conducts high-risk fundamental research
which will lead to revolutionary advances in separation processes for
the coal industry and develop technologies that crosscut the full
spectrum of mining and minerals industries.
Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP)
NMA supports the administration's total request of $52 million for
this partnership and specifically, the request of $15 million to fund
the U.S. DOE's participation.
The APP will spur development of cutting edge technologies and
practices that support economic growth while reducing emissions,
including greenhouse gas emissions. It will result in expansion of
market opportunities for U.S. mining and equipment companies and other
U.S. businesses.
The APP, involving the United States, Australia, China, India,
Japan and South Korea, is important for a number of reasons:
--It will result in real emissions reductions. With the participation
by China and India, APP is the only international agreement
addressing rapid emissions growth in the developing world,
which is forecast to surpass emissions of industrialized
nations in 2010. APP is a voluntary, technology-based approach
to emissions reduction geared towards future economic growth
and energy security and will be more effective than unrealistic
mandates or treaties.
--It builds on Methane-to-Markets and other successful programs that
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. coal industry has
captured and re-used 308 billion cubic feet of coal mine
methane--the equivalent of removing 40 million automobiles per
year from the roads. APP, working with the EPA's Methane-to-
Markets program will use U.S. experience and expertise to
accelerate large-scale capture and recycling of methane in
China and India.
--It helps preserve coal as an important energy source. The United
States, China, India and Japan will be at the center of a
significant rise in population, economic activity and energy
use in the next 50 years. Coal is essential to sustaining
America's competitiveness and vitality in a changing world, as
it is in China and India. APP supports improvements in
efficiency in both coal mining and use through the acceleration
of clean coal technologies, industrial technology strategic
planning and energy efficiency best practices.
--It creates new markets for U.S. companies in the emerging economies
of China and India.
U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers
Regulatory Program.-- NMA supports the Administration's request of
$180 million for administering the Corps' Clean Water Act (CWA),
Section 404 permit program and for implementing the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU).
The Corps' Regulatory Branch plays a key role in the U.S. economy
since the Corps currently authorizes approximately $200 billion of
economic activity through its regulatory program annually. The ability
to plan and finance mining operations depends on the ability to obtain
CWA Section 404 permits issued by the Corps within a predictable
timeframe. In addition, NMA recommends that a portion of such
regulatory program funding be used for implementing the MOU issued on
February 10, 2005, by the Corps, the U.S. Office of Surface Mining, EPA
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The MOU encourages a
coordinated review and processing of surface coal mining applications
requiring CWA Section 404 permits.
Below is a table indicating NMA's fiscal year 2008 Priority
Navigation Projects.
NMA FISCAL YEAR 2008 PRIORITY NAVIGATION PROJECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2007 Fiscal Year 2008 NMA
Construction Request Request Recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert C. Byrd Lock and Dams Ohio River, OH/WV......... $1,800,000 $1,000,000 $1,800,000
Kentucky River Lock Addition, Tennessee River, KY...... ................. $52,000,000 $52,000,000
Marmet Lock and Dam, Kanawha River, WV................. $50,800,000 $25,000,000 $27,000,000
McAlpine Locks and Dams, Ohio River, IN/KY............. $70,000,000 $45,000,000 $45,000,000
Locks and Dams 2, 3, 4, Monongahela River, PA.......... $62,772,000 $70,300,000 $70,300,000
J.T. Myers Locks and Dams, Ohio River, IN/KY........... ................. ................. $10,500,000
Olmsted Locks and Dams, Ohio River, IL/KY.............. $110,000,000 $104,000,000 $104,000,000
Winfield Lock and Dam, Kanawha River, WV............... $4,300,000 ................. .................
Emsworth Dam, Ohio River, PA........................... $17,000,000 $43,000,000 $43,000,000
Greenup Lock and Dam, Ohio River, KY/OH................ ................. ................. $12,100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the American Nuclear Society
Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Domenici, members of the
subcommittee, on behalf of the more than 10,000 members of the American
Nuclear Society, I am pleased to provide testimony on fiscal year 2008
appropriations for the U.S. Department of Energy.
First, as you know, ANS represents a diverse cadre of nuclear
professionals. As such, our members' opinions on nuclear issues are
often wide-ranging, and perhaps sometimes different from the
subcommittee. However, the ANS truly appreciates the thoughtful and
deliberate manner in which the subcommittee approaches issues related
to nuclear energy, science, and technology.
For fiscal year 2008, the ANS supports a strengthened portfolio of
Federal investments in nuclear energy, science and technology.
Specifically, the ANS recommends that the subcommittee fully fund the
DOE Office of Nuclear Energy's fiscal year 2008 request, including the
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, and
the Generation IV reactor programs.
The ANS also supports full funding for the Yucca Mountain
repository program, so that DOE can proceed with its plans to submit a
license application to the NRC by June 2008, and $913 million for the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The ANS is aware that the Bush administration has proposed
terminating funding for the University Reactor Infrastructure and
Education Assistance program line in its fiscal year 2007 and 2008
budget requests.
In response, the ANS created the Special Committee on Federal
Investment in Nuclear Education to review the issues and make
recommendations on the issue. This report, entitled ``Nuclear's Human
Element,'' focuses on longer term issues that need to be addressed by
Congress and the executive branch in order to ensure the health and
vitality of the U.S. nuclear science and engineering enterprise. It has
generated a lot of positive discussion within the nuclear community,
and we hope the subcommittee will use it to help guide the scope and
structure of future Federal investments in this area.
For fiscal year 2008, the ANS supports the request by the Nuclear
Engineering Department Heads Organization (NEDHO) and the National
Organization of Test, Research, and Training Reactors (TRTR) to provide
$50.1 million in fiscal year 2008 in funding for university-based
nuclear engineering programs, the level authorized by the Energy Policy
Act of 2005.
The ANS is aware that the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy has
indicated its desire to continue funding university programs through
its existing R&D programs and we recognize the debate over funding
vehicles is more nuanced than ``line-item or nothing.'' However, we
agree with NEDHO and TRTR that, regardless of the mechanism through
which it is provided, DOE funding for university programs must be
predictable, growth-oriented, and focused on longer-term scientific and
workforce development milestones.
Regarding the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), the ANS
recognizes that there are concerns about the aggregate costs and
technological pathways associated with implementation of the GNEP
initiative. However, the Society supports the administration's proposed
increase in fiscal year 2008 funding for the Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative which will allow the pertinent cost and design questions to
be explored at an expedient pace.
Finally, the ANS supports an fiscal year 2008 funding level of $100
million for the Next-Generation Nuclear Plant, funded through the
Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative account. The NGNP holds
great promise to employ nuclear energy to meet U.S. hydrogen production
and industrial process heat needs, and its development should be
accelerated to meet the milestones set forth in the Energy Policy Act
of 2005.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Geological Institute
To the chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for this
opportunity to provide the American Geological Institute's perspective
on fiscal year 2008 appropriations for geoscience programs within the
subcommittee's jurisdiction. The President's budget request for
Department of Energy (DOE) research programs provides no funding for
oil and gas research and development. Not only would the request
terminate basic research for oil and gas, it would also repeal the
ultradeep water and unconventional natural gas and other petroleum
research funding proposed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Given the
interest of the administration and Congress to reduce the Nation's
foreign oil dependence and reduce prices on oil and natural gas, it
seems like an inopportune time to eliminate programs that could help
with these objectives. We are especially concerned about the reduction
or outright termination of oil and gas research funding for
universities. These programs not only support innovations in oil and
gas exploration and extraction, but the teaching and training of the
next generation of professionals and faculty in these vital areas. AGI
applauds the requested 7 percent increase for the largest supporter of
physical science research in the United States, DOE's Office of
Science, and encourages the subcommittee's full support for this
increase. We also support increased funding requests for clean energy
research, which focuses spending on solar, biomass/biofuels, hydrogen
fuel, FutureGen and nuclear power, however, spending for other clean
energy alternatives, such as geothermal, could be included in
appropriations while remaining consistent with national needs and
objectives.
AGI is a nonprofit federation of 44 geoscientific and professional
associations that represent more than 100,000 geologists,
geophysicists, and other earth scientists. The institute serves as a
voice for shared interests in our profession, plays a major role in
strengthening geoscience education, and strives to increase public
awareness of the vital role that the geosciences play in society's use
of resources and interaction with the environment.
DOE FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
AGI urges you to take a critical look at the Department of Energy's
Fossil Energy Research and Development (R&D) portfolio as you prepare
to craft the fiscal year 2008 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill. Over the past 7 years, Members of Congress have
strongly emphasized the need for a responsible, diversified and
comprehensive energy policy for the Nation. The growing global
competition for fossil fuels has led to a repeated and concerted
request by Congress to ensure the Nation's energy security. Energy
Information Administrator Guy Caruso has noted the Nation's need for
fossil fuels over the next 30 years and thus the critical need to
continue R&D on fossil fuels and all other energy resources. The
President's proposal, which provides no funding for oil and gas R&D, is
short sighted and inconsistent with congressional concerns. No funding
for oil and gas R&D will hinder our ability to achieve energy stability
and security.
The research dollars spent by Fossil Energy R&D go primarily to
universities, State geological surveys and research consortia to
address critical issues like enhanced recovery from known fields and
unconventional sources that are the future of our natural gas supply.
This money does not go into corporate coffers, but it helps American
businesses remain competitive by giving them a technological edge over
foreign companies. All major advances in oil and gas production can be
tied to research and technology. AGI strongly encourages the
subcommittee to ensure a balanced and diversified energy research
portfolio that does not ignore the Nation's primary sources of energy,
fossil fuels, for at least the next 30 years.
Today's domestic industry has independent producers at its core.
With fewer and fewer major producing companies and their concentration
on adding more expensive reserves from outside of the contiguous United
States, it is the smaller independent producers who are developing new
technologies to extract our domestic resources efficiently and cleanly.
However, without Federal contributions to basic research that drives
innovation, small producers cannot develop new technologies as fast, or
as well, as they do today. The DOE program has produced many key
successes among the typical short-term (1 to 5 year) projects. And even
failed projects have proven beneficial, because they've often resulted
in redirection of effort toward more practical exploration and
production solutions. Ideally, DOE and private sector participants
share the programs R&D funding on a 50-50 basis, with the government
contributing actual dollars and the company contributing dollars or
``in kind'' products and services. To justify the use of public funds,
new technology developed from such projects is made available to
industry.
In 2003, at the request of the House Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee, the National Academies released a report entitled Energy
Research at DOE: Was It Worth It? Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy
Research 1978 to 2000. This report found that Fossil Energy R&D was
beneficial because the industry snapped up the new technologies created
by the R&D program, developed other technologies that were waiting for
market forces to bring about conditions favorable to commercializing
them and otherwise made new discoveries. In real dollars from 1986-2000
the government invested $4.5 billion into Fossil Energy R&D. During
that time, realized economic benefits totaled $7.4 billion. This
program is not only paying for itself, it has brought in $2.9 billion
in revenue.
Unfortunately, despite this success, the President's fiscal year
2008 budget request continues the alarming reduction of energy R&D
funding by eliminating all funding for our primary energy resources,
oil and gas. There has been an 85 percent drop in renewable, fossil and
nuclear energy R&D funding at DOE since 1978. Federal funding for
renewable, fossil and nuclear R&D has decreased dramatically from $5.5
billion in 1978 to $793 million in 2005 according to a Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled Key Challenges Remain for
Developing and Deploying Advanced Energy Technologies to Meet Future
Needs and released in December 2006. Such significant under-investment
in energy R&D over many decades hinders progress on cost-effective and
environmentally-sound exploration and extraction of raw energy
resources and clean and efficient development, production and use of
energy products.
The Federal investment in energy R&D is particularly important when
it comes to longer-range research with diversified benefits. In today's
competitive markets, the private sector focuses dwindling research
dollars on shorter-term results in highly applied areas such as
technical services. In this context, DOE's support of fossil energy
research, where the focus is truly on research, is very significant in
magnitude and impact compared to that done in the private sector, where
the focus is mainly on development. Without more emphasis on research,
we risk losing our technological edge in the highly competitive global
market place.
As we pursue the goal of reducing America's dependence on unstable
and expensive foreign sources of oil, we must continue to increase
recovery efficiency in the development of existing domestic oilfields,
conserving the remaining in-place resources. Since the 1980s, 80
percent of new oil reserves in this country have come from additional
discoveries in old fields, largely based on re-examination of
previously collected geoscience data. These data will become even more
important in the future with the development of new recovery
technologies.
Perhaps one of the most promising areas of R&D for domestic oil
supplies are in the ultradeep waters where drilling is allowed in the
Gulf of Mexico. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, set aside $50 million
annually from collected offshore royalties for ultradeep water and
other unconventional oil and gas R&D to support clean and efficient
exploration and extraction in the Gulf. The President's budget request
would repeal this program and provide no funding for ultradeep water
and other unconventional oil and gas R&D. AGI asks that you consider
R&D spending or other incentives to encourage the private sector to
invest in clean and efficient technological advances to enhance our
unconventional fossil fuel supply in offshore regions where drilling is
allowed and significant infrastructure already exists.
The research funded by DOE leads to new technologies that improve
the efficiency and productivity of the domestic energy industry.
Continued research on fossil energy is critical to America's future and
should be a key component of any national energy strategy. The societal
benefits of fossil energy R&D extend to such areas as economic and
national security, job creation, capital investment, and reduction of
the trade deficit. The Nation will remain dependent on petroleum as its
principal transportation fuel for the foreseeable future and natural
gas is growing in importance. It is critical that domestic production
not be allowed to prematurely decline at a time when tremendous
advances are being made in improving the technology with which these
resources are extracted. The recent spike in oil and natural gas prices
is a reminder of the need to retain a vibrant domestic industry in the
face of uncertain sources overseas. Technological advances are
necessary to maintaining our resource base and ensuring this country's
future energy security.
DOE OFFICE OF SCIENCE
The DOE Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic
research in the physical sciences in the United States, providing more
than 40 percent of total funding for this vital area of national
importance. The Office of Science manages fundamental research programs
in basic energy sciences, biological and environmental sciences, and
computational science and, under the President's budget request, would
grow by 7 percent from about $4.1 billion last year to $4.4 billion.
AGI asks that you support this much needed increase.
Within the Office of Science, the Basic Energy Sciences (BES)
program supports fundamental research in focused areas of the natural
sciences in order to expand the scientific foundations for new and
improved energy technologies and for understanding and mitigating the
environmental impacts of energy use. BES also discovers knowledge and
develops tools to strengthen national security.
The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) would remain the largest program in
the office with an increase of 5.5 percent from $1.420 billion in
fiscal year 2007 to $1.498 billion in fiscal year 2008 in the
President's request. Within the BES, Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and
Biosciences would receive a $15.4 million increase over their fiscal
year 2007 budget. AGI strongly supports the requested increases for
these programs.
DOE ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
Within DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the President's
fiscal year 2008 budget request would not support any R&D in geothermal
technology. AGI asks that the subcommittee consider supporting
geothermal R&D at the fiscal year 2006 level of $23 million.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alliance to Save Energy
The Alliance to Save Energy (the Alliance) is a bipartisan,
nonprofit coalition of business, government, environmental, and
consumer leaders committed to promoting energy efficiency worldwide to
achieve a healthier economy, a cleaner environment, and greater energy
security. The Alliance, founded in 1977 by Senators Charles Percy and
Hubert Humphrey, currently enjoys the leadership of Senator Mark Pryor
as chairman; Duke Energy President and CEO James E. Rogers is the co-
chairman; and Representatives Ralph Hall, Zach Wamp and Ed Markey and
Senators Jeff Bingaman, Susan Collins, Larry Craig and Byron Dorgan as
its vice-chairs. More than 120 companies and organizations support the
Alliance as Associates. The Alliance recommends increases of $41.3
million for several existing energy-efficiency deployment programs, and
$55 million for new programs in fiscal year 2008.
BACKGROUND
Energy Efficiency--Our Greatest Resource.--Gasoline, natural gas,
and electricity prices have all reached all-time highs in the last
couple of years. These price increases cost American families and
businesses over $300 billion each year. The President recognized energy
security as a major issue in the State of the Union message. And many
of the world's top scientists recently reaffirmed the urgent need to
address global warming in a timely manner. Energy efficiency is the
quickest, cheapest, and cleanest way to address the linked issues of
energy prices, energy security, air pollution, and global warming.
Energy efficiency already is the Nation's greatest energy resource--we
now save more energy each year due to actions since 1973 to increase
energy efficiency than we get from any single energy source, including
oil. But much more can and needs to be done.
A Record of Success.--DOE programs play a key role in developing
the energy-efficiency resource through the research and development
(R&D) of new energy-efficient technologies, and by helping to deploy
these technologies. A 2001 National Research Council report found that
every dollar invested in 17 DOE energy-efficiency R&D programs returned
nearly $20 to the U.S. economy in the form of new products, new jobs,
and energy cost savings to American homes and businesses. Environmental
benefits were estimated to be of a similar magnitude.
Efficiency-Related Budget Authorizations and Studies.--Several
reports and legislative authorizations have supported major increases
in funding for DOE energy efficiency programs. The Energy Policy Act of
2005 (EPAct 2005) authorized $865 million for energy efficiency R&D in
fiscal year 2007, more than $1 billion for deployment programs, and
additional funds for hydrogen and fuel cells and for electric energy
R&D. This follows calls for expanding energy efficiency research by the
National Commission on Energy Policy, the President's Committee of
Advisors on Science and Technology, the Energy Future Coalition, and
the President's National Energy Policy Development Group.
Summary of the President's Energy Efficiency Fiscal Year 2008
Budget Request.--The President's overall fiscal year 2008 budget
request for energy-efficiency programs within DOE's Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy is $515 million, down nearly $117
million (18 percent) from the fiscal year 2006 appropriated level. This
large cut follows a gradual slide from the $695 million that was
appropriated for these programs in fiscal year 2002. Funding for these
programs has decreased by one-third (37 percent) since 2002, after
adjusting for inflation. In addition, the request for electricity R&D
programs, many of which focus on efficiency, is $86 million, a decrease
of $50.3 million (37 percent) from the fiscal year 2006 appropriated
level. Several deployment programs, along with industrial R&D, have
experienced some of the biggest funding cuts.
ALLIANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to address the critical energy problems facing our Nation,
the Alliance recommends funding DOE energy-efficiency programs in line
with the EPAct 2005 authorized levels. Some specific funding requests
are outlined below:
It is important to maintain a broad portfolio of programs. The
impact of DOE energy-efficiency programs has been multiplied by the
combination of research to develop new technologies, voluntary
deployment and market transformation programs to move them into the
marketplace, and standards and codes to set minimum thresholds for
using cost-effective technologies. And while the combination of
programs has had tremendous impact, the government has often not been
successful at picking winning technologies.
Thus, it is important that the increases proposed in the
administration's budget and those proposed below not be paid for
through cuts to other highly-effective efficiency programs, which also
address critical national energy needs. While the fuel cell and
alternative fuels programs are important, they do not take the place of
core programs that can have broader, more certain, and more near-term
energy savings impacts. In particular, the Alliance opposes repeated
cuts that threaten the viability of Industrial Technologies research
programs and the dramatic proposed cuts to the distributed energy R&D
program and the Weatherization Assistance Program.
Key Existing Deployment Programs (Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy)
Building Energy Codes (Building Technologies).--While residential
and commercial building codes are implemented at the State level,
States rely on DOE for technical specifications, training, and
implementation assistance. The Alliance estimates that building energy
codes could save 7.2 quads of energy by 2025. The new 2006 IECC model
residential code includes measures to simplify the code and ease
implementation, and thus presents exciting opportunities to increase
code adoption and compliance. Yet the administration has proposed
cutting funding for building codes by one-third.
EPAct 2005 (sec. 128) authorized $25 million per year for building
codes, including $10 million for a new program to help States improve
compliance with their codes. Several studies have found poor rates of
compliance with building codes, causing unnecessary energy waste. This
new program would assist states that have adopted up-to-date building
codes to implement a plan to achieve 90 percent compliance through
better training, enforcement, or other measures. Thus the Alliance
recommends a $19.4 million increase above the fiscal year 2006
appropriated level, for a total of $25 million.
Federal Energy Management Program.--This program helped cut Federal
building energy use by 24 percent from 1985-2001--a reduction that now
saves Federal taxpayers roughly $1 billion each year in reduced energy
costs. But funding has steadily decreased for this program, even though
large savings remain untapped. EPAct 2005 and Executive Order 13423, in
addition to setting aggressive new Federal energy saving targets,
require DOE to implement rules, guidelines, and reports on the targets,
Federal building standards, Federal procurement, and metering. A needed
funding increase for this program will actually save taxpayers money in
lower Federal energy bills. The Alliance recommends a $5 million
increase above the fiscal year 2006 level, for a total funding level of
$24 million.
Equipment Standards and Analysis (Building Technologies).--
Appliance energy efficiency standards (e.g. for refrigerators) have
already reduced U.S. electricity use by an estimated 2.5 percent and
reduced peak power demand by the output of 70 power plants, at minimal
cost to the Federal Government, and saving consumers billions of
dollars in their energy bills. But the program is years behind on
issuing standards for close to 20 products. EPAct 2005 requires
additional rulemakings. DOE has issued an ambitious plan to catch up,
and has requested a $3.5 million increase to do so. But a new GAO
report says that is not enough to meet a 600 percent increase in
workload, and some of the most important standards are not even in the
plan. The Alliance recommends a $10 million increase over the fiscal
year 2006 level for total funding of $20.2 million.
New Deployment Programs (see also Building Energy Codes above)
Energy Efficiency Pilot Program (Office of Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability).--State and utility energy-efficiency programs have
been remarkably successful at reducing electricity demand, strain on
the grid, and the need for costly new power plants. However, they have
been starved for funds due to electric utility restructuring. A few
states are experimenting with innovative performance-based policies to
prioritize efficiency resources before increasing energy supplies.
EPAct 2005 (sec. 140) authorized $5 million per year for a new program
to provide funding to several States to assist in the design and
implementation of energy-efficiency resource programs that will lower
electricity and natural gas use by at least 0.75 percent a year. The
Alliance recommends $5 million for this new program.
Zero Energy Commercial Buildings Initiative (Building
Technologies).--Buildings are a major part of the problem and solution
of high natural gas and electricity use and climate change. The
buildings sector in the United States accounts for about 40 percent of
total energy consumption and 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions,
and about half of that is from commercial buildings. There is a growing
consensus on the need and opportunity for aggressive action to
dramatically improve building energy efficiency; the American Institute
of Architects (AIA) has called for reducing fossil fuel use in new and
renovated buildings by 50 percent by 2010 and eventually by 100
percent. DOE has a zero energy homes program, but achieving this goal
for the many kinds of commercial buildings is even more difficult and
more complicated. A large concerted multi-year initiative is critical
to achieve these deep savings throughout the commercial sector.
The Alliance, along with the AIA, American Society of Heating
Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers, Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, U.S. Green Building Council, and World Business
Council for Sustainable Development, are the founding sponsors of an
initiative for zero-energy commercial buildings by 2030. This public-
private collaboration will combine better tracking of real energy
performance, demonstrations of replicable solution packages for
different building types, strategic research, and a market
transformation plan. The Alliance recommends $20 million for this new
program in fiscal year 2008, to add to and complement the existing
funding request for commercial buildings R&D.
Energy Efficiency Public Information Initiative (Program
Support).--The quickest way to reduce energy demand and bring high
energy prices down is through consumer education. EPAct 2005 (sec. 134)
authorizes $90 million per year for a public education program to
provide consumers the information and encouragement necessary to reduce
energy use. Such programs have a proven track record of success, as in
the 2001 ``Flex Your Power'' campaign in California, which
significantly reduced consumer electricity demand and assisted in
avoiding further blackouts. DOE has contributed small amounts of
funding to effective education campaigns, but much more is needed. The
Alliance recommends $30 million for this new program in fiscal year
2008.
Additional Priorities
Industrial Best Practices (Industrial Technologies--
Crosscutting).--One of the most effective DOE industrial programs
conducts plant-wide energy assessments, develops diagnostic software,
conducts training, develops technical references, and demonstrates
success stories. Oak Ridge National Laboratory reports that DOE-ITP's
Best Practices outreach saved 82 trillion Btu in 2002, worth $492
million. The Alliance recommends a $3 million increase for Best
Practices, for total funding of $10.9 million.
Energy Star (Building Technologies).--Energy Star is the most
successful voluntary, public-private deployment program at EPA and DOE,
making it easy for consumers to find and buy numerous energy-efficient
products. And it functions on a very small budget. Every Federal dollar
spent on the Energy Star program results in an average savings of more
than $75 in consumer energy bills and a reduction of about 3.7 tons of
carbon dioxide emissions. With additional funding, the Energy Star
program could update its criteria, expand the program to other areas
and add more product categories. The Alliance recommends a $2 million
increase over the fiscal year 2006 appropriated level for total funding
of $7.9 million.
Building Technologies R&D.--Of all the DOE energy-efficiency
programs, Building Technologies continues to yield perhaps the greatest
energy savings. The 2001 National Research Council study found that
just three small R&D programs--in electronic ballasts for fluorescent
lamps, refrigerator compressors, and ``low-e'' glass for windows--have
already achieved cost savings totaling $30 billion, at a total Federal
cost of only about $12 million. Buildings R&D should be a priority for
funding increases, especially in the areas of Windows and Insulation
and Materials R&D.
Energy Information Administration (EIA) Energy Consumption
Surveys.--EIA's Energy Consumption Surveys provide unique and
invaluable data to policy makers, industry, and researchers. The
Alliance recommends an increase of $1.9 million, for total funding of
$5.5 million, in order to reinstate the residential transportation
survey, last conducted in 1994, and to conduct the Residential,
Manufacturing, and Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Surveys
(RECS, MECS, and CBECS) every 3 years, as required by the Energy Policy
Act of 1992, instead of the current 4-year schedule.
______
Prepared Statement of Western Michigan University (WMU)
R&D activities administered through DOE's Fossil Energy programs
play a vital role to discover, develop and produce a significant
portion of the Nation's domestic natural energy needs.
Western Michigan University (WMU) provides invaluable research to
develop new technologies for improved exploration and production of
hydrocarbons in an environmentally responsible manner. WMU also
disseminates this information through workshops to Michigan's small
independent oil companies that cannot develop such technologies on
their own.
Most of the oil companies in Michigan consist of a few employees,
often referred to as ``Mom and Pop'' independent producers. In the
Midwest, there are thousands of such companies that produce many tens
of millions of barrels of oil and equivalent natural gas a year.
Ten years ago, in a consortium with private industry, with funding
by DOE, WMU developed and proved a new drilling technology to recover
oil from abandoned fields. Subsequent application of this technology
has produced more than 20 million barrels of oil and more than 500
billion cubic feet of natural gas in Michigan. We are now studying the
origins and evolution of some of Michigan's major oil and gas
reservoirs and using newly developed computer-based 3D models for
predicting their distribution. This will create the ability to produce
energy more efficiently, in larger quantities, and with less drilling.
WMU is one of a limited number of universities nationwide capable of
this type of research.
WMU has presented its research results and techniques to several
thousand participants at interactive workshops for industry and
government. And WMU has an increasing enrollment of undergraduate and
graduate students who are being trained to meet an urgent need for
geoscientists.
WMU's website, which receives more than 6,000 hits per month,
connects producers, the research community and support services
industries that produce hydrocarbons.
This program would not be possible without DOE funding.
WMU is nearing the final year in our current multi-year research
program. To cut off funding now, as we are just coming to fruition with
new results and technologies would be such a loss of taxpayers' money
already invested.
There are those who ask why tax dollars should support oil and gas
research and programs such as ours at WMU. My response is that these
are vital to the Nation's security and to the domestic economy. This
research can improve the domestic supply of oil and gas, which in turn
will drive down the price. When constituents of each member of Congress
ask what the government is doing about the current high price of oil,
one logical response is to say that they support efforts that will
improve the domestic supply through R&D funds.
Eighty-five percent of DOE's R&D programs are tailored to the
exploration and development activities of the independent producer.
These small companies drill 90 percent of the Nation's oil wells and
they produce 85 percent of the Nation's natural gas. For these
companies, undertaking costly research activities is not a viable
option. They must gain education and access to technology from outside
their doors, a key function provided by WMU.
There is another benefit to government-supported R&D that is rarely
recognized--training urgently needed geoscientists. The research spawns
Master's and Ph.D. students who will take critical roles in an industry
that suffers from a shrinking population of professionals, particularly
American professionals. Where will the domestic industry be in the
future if skilled students do not enter the oil and gas industry? All
aspects of these professional jobs require increasingly complex skills
and abilities. Who will be the explorers and developers of oil and gas
for the next generation?
I urge you to reinstate full funding for the DOE Oil and Gas
research program at WMU. This is desperately needed for the American
economy and its security. We are increasingly dependent on foreign oil
and gas to run our economy. When will our dependency on imports be too
great? Sixty-five percent? We are there now! Seventy-five percent?
Eighty-five percent? I think that such high levels make us very
vulnerable to supply interruptions, huge price spikes, and an unstable
economy.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Forest & Paper Association
The Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance, a Special Project of the
American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) welcomes this opportunity
to provide the committee with its views on our industry's key public-
private partnerships within the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE) and to urge increased funding to adequately
address industry's challenges in fiscal year 2008. The Industrial
Technologies Program (ITP) and the Office of Biomass Programs (OBP)
provide vital funding for research, development, and demonstration
(RD&D) of technologies that dramatically reduce the forest products
industry's energy intensity and transforms our industry into producers
of carbon-neutral biofuels--thus addressing strategic national needs
associated with energy efficiency, energy security, diversified energy
supply, and environmental performance. We recommend industry specific
funding of $6 million for forest products industry in ITP. We support
the President's request for $179 million for Biomass and Biorefinery
Systems R&D in OBP and ask that the Committee work to ensure
eligibility of forest biorefineries in these programs and keep the
appropriations unencumbered to allow for full funding of competitive
biomass systems and biorefinery RD&D grants. Furthermore, we recommend
that the Committee restore OBP Platforms Research and Development
funding of $10 million for competitive R&D for black liquor
gasification, a key enabling technology of the forest biorefinery.
The Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance is an industry-led partnership
with government and academia that holds the promise of reinventing the
forest products industry through innovation in processes, materials and
markets. The collaborative, pre-competitive research, development, and
deployment supported through Agenda 2020 provide the foundation for new
technology-driven business models that will enable our industry to meet
competitive challenges, while also contributing solutions to strategic
national needs. The technology solutions developed through Agenda 2020
are aligned to provide solutions to the competitive challenges faced by
the U.S. forest products industry, which accounts for approximately 6
percent of the total U.S. manufacturing output, employs more than a
million people, and ranks among the top 10 manufacturing employers in
42 States with an estimated payroll exceeding $50 billion.
As is the case with many U.S. manufacturing industries, we face
serious domestic and international challenges. Since early 1997, 136
pulp and paper mills have closed in the United States, contributing to
a loss of 84,000 jobs, or 39 percent of our workforce. An additional
60,000 jobs have been lost in the wood products industry since 1997.
New capacity growth is now taking place in other countries, where
forestry, labor, and environmental practices may not be as responsible
as those in the United States. Several drivers have heightened the need
to develop new energy efficiency technologies: the recent volatility of
energy markets, especially for natural gas; renewed national focus on
climate change and environmental performance; and aging process
infrastructure. Global competition, coupled with massive industry
restructuring due to financial performance pressures from Wall Street,
continue to hinder the ability of U.S. companies to make new
investments. Each year without new investments, new technologies and
new revenue streams, we lose ground to our overseas competitors.
Currently, energy is the third largest manufacturing cost for the
forest and paper industry at 18 percent for pulp and paper mills--up
from 12 percent just 3 years ago. For some of our mills, the cost of
energy is about to eclipse employee compensation.
Since 1994, the forest products industry has been one of DOE's
``Industries of the Future,'' partnering with ITP through the Agenda
2020 Technology Alliance in RD&D that has yielded successful advances
towards our national energy and environmental goals. Agenda 2020 stands
as an example of successful industry-government collaboration to
develop technologies that hold the promise of reinventing industry,
while providing real solutions for strategic national energy needs.
Every Federal dollar spent on ITP saves $7.06 in annual energy costs
and 1.3 million in annual source BTUs (2004 estimates). As recently as
2003, the ITP/Agenda 2020 portfolio included a total shared DOE and
industry investment of almost $48 million, with nearly 55 percent
coming from direct project cost shares by industry.
Today, after several years of continuous and substantial cuts, the
ITP/Agenda 2020 budget has been reduced by over 83 percent since fiscal
year 2002. This undermines our progress in achieving crucial energy
efficiencies at a time when energy and response to climate change are
major factors in the survival of the U.S. forest products industry.
Projects rescoped or cut in recent years due to budget shortfalls
resulted in a lost energy savings potential of 5 trillion BTUs/yr.
Recent reductions make us unable to pursue projects in key priority
areas such as advanced water removal and high efficiency pulping, which
represents a lost savings potential of 100-200 trillion BTUs/yr. In
fiscal year 2008, a further funding reduction is proposed and emphasis
shifted from industry specific funding. Unfortunately, the type of
technologies that cross all industries are not those from which we can
achieve the maximum savings for energy and environmental emissions.
Furthermore, the proposed funding of $1.752 million, is barely
sufficient to fund ongoing projects, let alone address the high
priority R&D needs specific to the forest products industry that have
been jointly identified by industry with the DOE.
This comes at a crucial time when the forest products industry,
like many energy-intensive industries, is facing unprecedented
pressures due to the rising costs of energy and potential climate
change mandates. Although we are nearly 60 percent self-sufficient
(using biomass), it is imperative that we seek solutions as diverse as
fuel switching, finding new energy sources, and options for reducing
energy consumption. Thus we are in greater need than ever for the
technology-based energy efficiency solutions that could be provided
through our Agenda 2020 partnership with ITP. AF&PA's recommended ITP
funding for forest products research ($6 million) would help our
industry partially recover its capacity to develop and deploy vital
energy efficiency technologies. Restoring Agenda 2020 funding to pre-
fiscal year 2005 levels will not only help the competitive position of
American industry, but will also serve national strategic goals for
reduced dependence on foreign oil.
The Integrated Forest Products Biorefinery (IFPB) is a key Agenda
2020 technology platform and a top technical and economic priority for
our industry. The objective is to develop and deploy core technologies
that can be integrated into existing processing infrastructure, which
would be transformed into geographically distributed production centers
of renewable ``green'' bioenergy and bioproducts. This can be done
while co-producing existing product lines, creating higher skilled and
better paying jobs, strengthening rural communities, and opening new
domestic and international markets for U.S. forest products companies.
The IFBP technology has the potential to integrate agricultural
wastes, agricultural producers, forest landowners, agricultural
landowners, forest product producers, and the petrochemical industry to
produce clean renewable bio-fuels to support our local economies and
the Nation. Widespread application of this technology would not only
reduce environmental impact of burning fossil fuels, it would also
increase the viability of agricultural, forest products, and other
industries that use waste heat. It will create new high paying jobs,
both direct and indirect, increasing tax revenue. From an energy
perspective, the IFPB has the benefit of making the forest products
industry even more energy self-sufficient, serving the DOE strategic
goal of reduced energy intensity in industry by reducing fossil energy
consumption. In addition, the IFPB would permit the industry to become
a producer of renewable, carbon-positive bioenergy and biofuels,
contributing to DOE strategic goals to dramatically reduce dependence
on foreign oil and to create new domestic bioindustry.
AF&PA supports the President's announced $179 million budget
initiative in fiscal year 2007 for biorefinery research and
demonstration.--This initiative provides much needed funding to advance
core enabling IFPB technologies, as well as providing major capital
cost-share for commercial scale biorefinery demonstration. The forest
products industry is an ideal partner to develop and commercialize
integrated biorefineries. We have much of the infrastructure and
expertise--wood harvesting, transportation and storage, manufacturing
and conversion infrastructure, waste handling and recovery--needed to
achieve the goals of integrated biorefineries. By and large, they are
located in rural communities where they can help realize important
synergies between agricultural and forest-based feedstocks. Recent
estimates from Princeton University show significant potential for net
environmental benefits of IFPBs, inclusive of offsetting other fossil
fuel consumption in the mill. The industry-wide potential is to reduce
nearly 100 million tons of carbon emissions annually from IFPBs. The
study also estimates the cumulative value of savings due to reduced
CO2, SO2, and NOX emissions is $6
million to $40 billion.
However, private/public investments in RD&D are critical to bring
IFPB technologies into full commercial use. Co-investment for RD&D can
help mitigate the technical risks (especially integration with capital-
intensive, legacy infrastructure) of early adopters of emerging IFPB
technologies. Risk mitigation is an important factor in achieving the
benefits of IFPBs, especially for integrating biorefinery technologies
with existing manufacturing infrastructure. Federal support through
research funding and other investments, such as loan guarantees and tax
credits, is critical.
In order to achieve the promise of IFPB technologies for the
industry and for the Nation, we need greater stability and availability
of funds provided through the OBP budget. We urge the committee to
preserve the proposed $179 million funding of Biomass and Biorefinery
Systems R&D, so that there will be sufficient appropriations to fund
biorefinery demonstration and commercialization projects. We also urge
the committee to ensure that forest-based materials are eligible for
this and future biorefinery research and demonstration funding. Forest-
based materials can sustainably produce enough biofuels to displace up
to 10 percent of the country's petroleum production. They are a vital
feedstock for achieving reduced dependence on foreign oil and
facilitating bioindustries domestically and should be included in
programs for biomass and biorefinery RD&D.
A core enabling technology for part of the IFPB is black liquor
gasification (BLG), which converts the by-product of the chemical
pulping process into a synthetic gas. The synthetic gas can
subsequently be burned to directly produce clean, efficient energy, or
converted to other fuels such as hydrogen, renewable transportation
fuels, and/or other high value chemicals. If fully developed and
commercialized, a biorefinery based on BLG can produce up to 10 billion
gallons of other renewable transportation fuels, and as much as 20,000
MW of biomass power.
In fiscal year 2006, DOE eliminated funding for BLG and related
research, despite recent technical progress to bring the technology to
pre-commercial demonstration. BLG is a core enabling technology for the
IFPB, and is identified as a priority technology area for biorefineries
in technology roadmaps created by industry, as well as in research
plans developed by OBP to accelerate biorefineries and development of
national bioindustry. Critical research areas identified by OBP
include: integrated biorefinery support for thermochemical
biorefineries, products core R&D in chemicals and fuels from syngas;
thermochemical platform core R&D in BLG and syngas cleanup. AF&PA is
recommending that $10 million be restored in the OBP budget for
competitive research in these critical areas and to complete BLG core
research and projects that were eliminated in recent cuts. This funding
will provide the groundwork needed for next vital steps leading to
large-scale demonstration of biofuels and biochemicals production in
association with the industry's dominant Kraft pulping process.
We appreciate the committee's interest in ensuring sustained and
adequate funding for RD&D partnerships and look forward to working with
you to advance industry and national interests.
______
Prepared Statement of the Center for Advanced Separation Technologies,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Chairman Dorgan and Ranking Member Domenici of the subcommittee, I
represent the Center for Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST), which
is a consortium of seven leading U.S. mining schools. I appreciate the
opportunity to submit this testimony requesting your committee to add
$3 million to the 2008 Fossil Energy Research and Development budget,
U.S. Department of Energy, for Advanced Separations research. Research
in Advanced Separations Technology Development is authorized by the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, title IX, subtitle F, section 962. I am
joined in this statement by my colleagues from the consortium: Richard
A. Bajura: West Virginia University; Peter H. Knudsen: Montana Tech of
the University of Montana; Richard J. Sweigard: University of Kentucky;
Jan D. Miller: University of Utah; Ibrahim H. Gundiler: New Mexico
Tech; and Maurice C. Fuerstenau: University of Nevada-Reno.
funding request for center for advanced separation technologies
The Center for Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST) is a
consortium of seven universities with expertise in separations science
as applied to energy research. It was established in 2001 to develop
advanced technologies that can be used to efficiently produce cleaner
fuels in an environmentally acceptable manner and to study the basic
sciences and engineering involved. The new technologies developed and
the highly skilled personnel produced as a result of its research
activities will help the United States develop its domestic energy
resources and achieve energy independence.
The United States faces an energy crisis created by an imbalance
between domestic supply and demand. While the United States makes up
only 4.6 percent of the world's population, it consumes 24 percent of
the world's energy resources, 25 percent of oil, and 44 percent of
motor gasoline, while its domestic energy production lags behind. As a
result, the United States imported 30 percent of its energy needs in
2005, which is expected to grow in the future. On the other hand, the
United States has large amounts of untapped energy resources within its
borders, which include 271 billion tons of recoverable coal, 2.6
trillion barrels of oil in the form of oil shale, and 20 billion
barrels of oil in oil sands. In addition, the United States has 200,000
trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of methane (CH4) deposited in the form of
hydrates in ocean floors and permafrost. The amount of energy deposited
as methane hydrates alone far exceeds the amounts of all fossil energy
resources combined. There is a dire need to exploit these untapped
domestic energy resources by developing advanced separation
technologies.
Organization
The Center for Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST) was formed
initially between Virginia Tech and West Virginia University with the
objective of developing technologies that can help the U.S. coal
industry produce cleaner solid fuels with maximum carbon recovery in
environmentally acceptable ways. The scope of work was limited to
studies on solid-solid and solid-liquid separation methods that are
used in the coal industry. In 2002, five other universities listed
above joined the consortium to develop crosscutting technologies that
can also be used in a broader spectrum of the U.S. resources
industries. Therefore, the scope of CAST research was expanded to
include studies of chemical/biological separations and environmental
control.
By working together as a consortium, the center can take advantage
of the diverse expertise available in its member universities and
address the interests of different geographical regions of the country.
Working together as a consortium is consistent with the recommendations
of a recent National Research Council (NRC) report. It stated that
``consortia are a preferred way of leveraging expertise and technical
inputs to the mining sector,'' and recommended that DOE should support
``academia, which helps to train technical people for the industry.''
Progress And Next Step
At present, a total of 59 research projects are being carried out
at the 7 CAST member universities. Of these, 20 projects are in solid-
solid separation, 5 in solid-liquid separation, 15 in chemical/
biological separation, 9 in modeling and control, and 10 in
environmental control. These projects were selected by industry panels
in accordance with the priorities set forth in the CAST Technology
Roadmap, which was developed by an industry panel in 2002. Research
results are presented at workshops to provide a forum to exchange
ideas, create synergy, and interact with industry. The next workshop
will be held during July 24-26, 2007, in Blacksburg, Virginia.
Despite the high price of coal, many coal companies are losing
significant amounts of their mined coal due to the lack of appropriate
solid-solid and solid-liquid separation processes. In general,
efficiencies of removing ash, sulfur and mercury from coal using these
processes deteriorate sharply with decreasing particle size. As a
result, many companies discard coal fines to impoundments. According to
a National Research Council (NRC) report, the U.S. coal industry
discards approximately 70 to 90 million tons of fine coal annually,
which represents a significant loss of valuable national energy
resource and at the same time creates serious environmental concerns.
The NRC report was produced as a result of a congressionally directed
investigation of a major impoundment failure that occurred on October
11, 2000, in Martin County, Kentucky. The report recommended a study to
identify technologies that can eliminate (or reduce) the need for
slurry impoundments.
There are more than 760 impoundments in the eastern United States,
many of which are rated ``high risk.'' Companies have been recovering
some of the fine coal from the waste impoundments by taking advantage
of the section 29 Synfuels Tax Credit. However, this tax credit is due
to expire in 2007; therefore, there is an impending need to develop
advanced fine coal cleaning and dewatering technologies that can be
used not only to recover the fine coal from impoundments without the
benefit of a tax credit but also to eliminate the waste from the source
so that there is no need to create future impoundments.
For the reasons described above, CAST has been focusing on
developing advanced fine coal cleaning and dewatering technologies. In
one project, pilot-scale tests were conducted on the coal slurry from
an impoundment (Pinnacle) in Pineville, West Virginia. Based on the
successful test results obtained by CAST on the coal samples taken from
the impoundment, Beard Technologies constructed a recovery plant in
late 2006, and is currently in the process of shakedown testing. This
is the first plant designed to recover practically all of the coal in a
waste impoundment without the benefit of tax credit. If successful, the
company plans to build additional plants using the advanced separation
technologies developed by CAST. It is estimated that there are more
than 2.5 billion tons of coal discarded in numerous impoundments in the
United States.
In another fine coal dewatering project, CAST is developing a
hyperbaric centrifuge that can remove water from fine coal using a
combination of air pressure and centrifugal force. Recently, a semi-
continuous bench-scale test unit has been designed and constructed. In
a series of preliminary tests conducted on a coal sample finer than
0.15 mm in size, moisture was reduced to less than 10 percent by
weight, which is substantially lower than those obtainable using
conventional methods. Decanter Machine Company in Johnson City,
Tennessee, has acquired a license from CAST to market the new
technology, and is planning to construct a large-scale prototype unit
for onsite testing. There are several other dewatering research
projects carried out at CAST, all of which are promising. These include
a flocculant injection system, which is already in use in many coal
cleaning plants, and a deep-cone thickener which is designed to
increase the consistency of refuse materials (mainly clay) so that they
can be disposed of without using impoundments.
Traditionally, the western United States subbituminous coals are
not cleaned before burning for power generation. However, depletion of
higher quality reserves may soon force companies to remove impurities
prior to shipping to eastern markets. Unfortunately, the water-based
coal cleaning methods employed for cleaning eastern coal cannot be used
for the western coal due to the lack of water. To address this problem,
CAST researchers have been developing ways to clean western coal using
a dry solid-solid separation method. A pilot-scale test conducted
onsite showed that about one-quarter of the ash and one-third of the
sulfur can be removed with high recoveries. Further, the dry cleaning
process also removed more than 50 percent of the mercury originally
present in the coal. It is anticipated that the technology will be
commercialized in 2007.
CAST has also developed metallic filters that can remove mercury
from flue gas. The process has been tested successfully at an operating
power plant in Colstrip, Montana, with over 90 percent removal
efficiencies. The spent filter can be cleaned of the captured mercury
and reused, while the mercury stripped off the filter can be stored
permanently in stable forms.
Many of the separation technologies developed by CAST can also be
used to upgrade fertilizer minerals such as potash and phosphate. In
2006, Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, Inc. implemented a new method of
minimizing the harmful effect of clay in processing potash ores and
increased recovery by 6 percent. An improvement such as this has
allowed mining companies in New Mexico, which produce more than 70
percent of potash in the United States, retain 600 high-paying jobs. At
present, CAST is developing new methods of processing difficult potash
ores. These new methods will make it possible to mine 50 million tons
of langbeinite ores, which will greatly increase the life of the U.S.
potash industry.
The United States is the second largest copper producer in the
world; however, much of the ores are of too low grade to be
economically recovered using the conventional solid-solid separation
methods such as flotation. Therefore, CAST has been developing an
alternate method of extracting copper from low-grade ores using a
chloride-based leaching, followed by direct electrowinning of dissolved
copper. This could replace the traditional methods involving fine
grinding, flotation, and smelting, which are energy intensive and,
therefore, are not amenable for processing low-grade ores in western
United States. The energy savings that can be realized by using this
new method can be as high as 25 million Btu per metric ton of copper.
In addition to the more practical projects described above, CAST
has also conducted fundamental research. As an example, a mathematical
model has been developed to describe froth flotation--the most widely
used solid-solid separation process in both the coal and minerals
industries. The model is based on first principles so that it has
predictive and diagnostic capabilities. In another project,
computational fluid dynamic (CFD) simulation techniques have been
employed to design optimal flotation machines. This project is cost-
shared by Dorr-Oliver EIMCO, Salt Lake City, Utah, the world's largest
coal and minerals processing equipment manufacturer. In still another
project, the forces acting between two microscopic surfaces immersed in
water have been measured using an atomic force microscope (AFM) and a
surface force apparatus (SFA). The results showed that strong
attractive forces are present between hydrophobic surfaces, the origin
of which is not yet known. The new surface force, which is referred to
as ``hydrophobic force'' plays an important role in processing energy
minerals, such as coal, oil sands, oil shale, petroleum, and methane
hydrates, that are naturally hydrophobic.
Many of the separation processes being developed at CAST can be
used for water clean up. For example, the flotation technique which was
developed originally for separating one type of mineral from another is
used to remove suspended solids from waste water streams. Furthermore,
the basic scientific knowledge gained from the solid-liquid and
biological separations research at CAST can be used to remove toxic
elements present in waste water, mine effluents, and ground water.
Water treatment research is of critical importance worldwide,
particularly to the western United States which has been under drought
conditions since 1999. A recent study showed that by 2050 untreated
wastewater could reduce the supply of renewable water supply by one
third.
funding request and rationale
The United States is by far the largest mining country in the
western world. In 2005, the industry produced $73.8 billion worth of
raw materials, including $22.3 billion for coal, and $51.5 billion for
minerals. Australia is a smaller mining country, but has five centers
of excellence in advanced separations as applied to coal and minerals
processing. In 2005, Australia established the Mineral Science Research
Institute with a funding of $22.6 million for 5 years. In the United
States, CAST is the only consortium serving the U.S. energy and
minerals resources industry.
CAST is developing a broad range of advanced separation
technologies. Although it is a relatively new center, many of our
research projects have yielded technologies that have already been
deployed to industry. Many other promising projects are on-going and
require financial support. Continued funding will allow CAST to develop
advanced technologies that can be used to exploit the abundant national
energy resources in a manner that is acceptable to the environment. For
fiscal year 2008, CAST is requesting $3 million for its research
activities.
______
Prepared Statement of the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the
Petroleum Technology Transfer Council (PTTC) and its partners
throughout its domestic oil and natural gas industry network, I would
like to express our concern if Federal funding for technology research
and development is terminated.
The administration has proposed to completely stop Department of
Energy natural gas and oil R&D funding through the appropriations
process and to rescind R&D funding previously authorized in the 2005
Energy Policy Act (EPACT).
PTTC strongly opposes this policy and believes it will be harmful
over the near- and long-term. Among those that will be negatively
impacted are:
--The academic community where tomorrow's scientific professionals
gain valuable seasoning through participation in DOE-supported
projects in their graduate years;
--The young and newly trained scientific professional which is
already entering the workforce at near low historic levels; and
--The domestic petroleum supply, which is developed primarily by
independent producers that rely heavily on evolving
technologies to exploit mature and problematical petroleum
resources.
The R&D Consortium created and funded through EPACT, which will be
implemented by the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America
(RPSEA), enables focused research in areas critical to the U.S.'s
energy future: deepwater offshore and unconventional resources. These
needs should be addressed.
Still, there are significant R&D gaps that the Consortium will not
cover that must be supported through R&D funding through the
appropriations process:
--Enhanced oil recovery, particularly the interplay of CO2
flooding with carbon capture;
--Field demonstration and technology transfer of newly developed
technologies in topic areas outside those addressed by EPACT;
and
--Technology transfer for proven yet under-applied technologies.
Rightly so, there is recognition that alternative energy sources
are important to the U.S.'s energy future. It will take time for
alternative energy R&D spending to lead to sound and significant
sources of alternative fuels. The scientific professionals being
seasoned in today's natural gas and oil R&D programs will more than
likely be those participating in tomorrow's alternative energy
research. The academic pipeline that provides those professionals
cannot be stopped up by intermittent starts and stops of R&D funding.
Our country deserves better.
why the federal investment in research and development is important
PTTC primarily serves the upstream domestic energy industry by
facilitating the transfer of applied technology between technology
developers and independent producers who are the driving forces in the
domestic natural gas and oil exploration and production (E&P) industry.
Independents drill 90 percent of the U.S.'s natural gas and oil wells,
produce 82 percent of the natural gas and 68 percent of oil produced
domestically. According to the Independent Petroleum Association of
America (IPAA), independent producers have been recently investing 150
percent of their domestic cash flow back into domestic oil and natural
gas development. Much of that investment is for proven technology that
is essential for developing the more difficult to recover
unconventional resources that are a primary target of today's
exploration effort.
It's a reality that the ``easy'' natural gas and oil in the U.S.
has already been developed. Those resources that remain--deep water,
unconventional gas, enhanced oil recovery, even oil shale--are
increasingly complex, requiring both more manpower and new
technologies, not to mention a tremendous capital investment. Where
will those new technologies come from?
Major oil companies have scaled their R&D back, and what research
they do fund is focused on larger international opportunities. The
technology provider/service sector R&D dollars logically follow this
high volume, high profit mark. Technologies that are developed have
some application in mature U.S. producing basins, but they often need
adaptation and resizing/simplification. And when they are developed, it
is more costly for the service sector to connect with ``thousands'' of
dispersed independents.
Independents are the dominant players in the domestic industry and
their human resources have reached critical low levels. The few who do
have the capital and human resources--not already dedicated to drilling
and production activities--typically do not have the technical
experience or knowledge to effectively invest R&D dollars.
Collaborative research, partially supported with Federal funding to
keep it focused and broadly applicable, makes good economic sense.
History is well documented to show that federally funded R&D has led to
significant increases in domestic energy supplies. This research also
seasons scientific professionals emerging from the academic pipeline,
improving their productivity to successfully exploit natural gas and
oil reserves and making America more competitive in global energy
markets. This higher productivity leads to more natural gas and oil
recovery, faster.
In conclusion the Congress has a responsibility to the United
States to take logical actions towards a secure energy future. One of
those steps is continuing support for natural gas and oil R&D--to both,
recover more domestic oil and natural gas and to feed the pipeline for
future scientific professionals.
______
Prepared Statement of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Domenici and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the
appropriation to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and specifically
the Office of Fossil Energy. My testimony represents the views of an
organization of governors of 30 member States of the Interstate Oil and
Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC). These States account for virtually all
of the onshore domestic production of crude oil and natural gas.
The States strongly and unequivocally support an appropriation to
the Fossil Energy Research and Development ``Gas--Natural Gas
Technologies'' and ``Petroleum--Oil Technology'' programs in an amount
no less than that appropriated in fiscal year 2005 ($78.76 million),
which was the budget year before the President's budget called for the
complete elimination of funding for these vital functions. States
strongly oppose the administration's fiscal year 2008 budget request
that would terminate these programs, which would also effectively
eliminate the DOE's Office of Oil and Natural Gas within the Office of
Fossil Energy. This would be a colossal mistake for a variety of
reasons, set out more fully below. Taxpayers are very supportive of
Federal investments in energy security, and there is no better
investment than in Research and Development (R&D).
In spite of the fact that the country operates under a constant
threat of another ``energy crisis,'' government is proposing to do less
to ensure the Nation's resources are fully produced. The U.S. domestic
oil industry today is the Nation's largest single supplier of crude
oil, providing about 40 percent of the national demand for oil. The
rest is imported--and the percentage of imports grows every year--
making us more and more vulnerable to international crises and foreign
economic manipulation. Our dependence on others for our energy security
has never been greater. However, domestic natural gas suppliers provide
about 85 percent of all of the natural gas demand in the Nation, with
most imports coming from Canada. The United States even exports natural
gas and has an abundant supply.
One thing we can count on, however, is that domestic supplies of
crude oil and natural gas are our best hedge against this vulnerability
and increasing import dependency. In addition to energy security, there
are a myriad of other reasons why domestic production is preferable to
imports:
--Our domestic resources are produced under the world's most
effective environmental protections, which have been
established and are enforced primarily by the States.
--Domestic resources create high-quality jobs here at home and
provide the energy that powers our standard of living. For
example, few realize that stripper oil wells (wells producing
less than 10 barrels per day) account for about one-quarter of
the lower 48 States' onshore domestic oil production and
stripper gas wells (wells producing 60 Mcf per day or less)
about 10 percent of onshore domestic gas production. This is a
critical natural resource and it should not be abandoned in
favor of imported energy.
--Despite perceptions to the contrary, large quantities of oil and
natural gas remain onshore in the United States. These
resources represent the most stable and secure energy
available. These resources may exist in fields that have
already been discovered and await a new technology that results
in cost-effective recovery. Or they may lie in reservoirs yet
undiscovered due only to a lack of technology appropriate for
deeper horizons or greater geologic complexity. The bottom line
is vast reserves remain untapped. While recovery rates have
increased dramatically in the past 50 years and exciting new
tools have been developed for exploration, still more can be
done to reach the full production potential for reservoirs.
The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Oil and Natural Gas,
which is funded by the programs set forth above, is the only place in
the U.S. Government that is responsible exclusively for oil and natural
gas policy. It is also the only place in the U.S. Government that fully
understands and is thus able to represent within the administration the
critical importance of domestic oil and natural gas to our country, our
economy, and our national security. This resident expertise is a
national asset--one that is especially important as other agencies
embark on rulemaking and take other actions which impact our domestic
oil and natural gas industry. Terminating this office and its programs,
including its critical Research and Development programs, would be a
tragic mistake. For these reasons the IOGCC and its member States
strongly support the continued existence and viability of DOE's Fossil
Energy Office of Oil and Natural Gas and an appropriation in fiscal
year 2008 at least equal to the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
Turning to critical area of R&D specifically, many experts believe
R&D is the most important factor in maximizing the availability and
utilization of petroleum resources, especially domestic reserves.
A recent report compiled by the IOGCC confirms the declining trend
in R&D expenditures while the country is experiencing a corresponding
increase in reliance on imports. Major oil companies once poured
millions into research and development. Today, however, many large
companies have shirted their focus overseas and offshore. Eighty five
percent of the wells in the United States are drilled by independent
oil and natural gas producers (producing roughly 40 percent of the
domestic oil and 65 percent of the domestic natural gas). Such smaller
independents lack both the resources and infrastructure for significant
R&D and it is here where government--State and Federal--can fill an
obvious void.
The decline of Federal and private support for oil and gas research
is well documented. The reasoning for cutting government support seems
steeped in politics and a failure to understand the importance of
Federal R&D to our domestic oil and gas industry and our energy
security. However, this is a new era of uncertainty in our energy
security that requires a fresh look at spending priorities.
An IOGCC publication entitled ``Who Will Fund America's Energy
Future?'' states that ``A strong domestic energy policy demands a
strong R&D component. As the largest holder of domestic oil and gas
resources, the Nation benefits from their production. Domestic
production creates wealth for other royalty owners, contributes
significantly to State, Federal and local economies and tax bases,
offsets imports on a barrel-per-barrel basis, and cuts into trade
deficits that are running at record levels.''
If the United States is to maintain its ability to produce its
domestic supplies of oil and natural gas, Federal expenditures on R&D
must fill the leadership role left behind by private industry. Federal
funding on oil and natural gas must increase if the United States is to
maintain its ability to produce the domestic oil and natural gas
resources our country so desperately needs. But instead the
administration's budget for fiscal year 2008 eliminates oil and natural
gas research.
In fact, the proposed budget calls for cutting the petroleum
technology R&D program at the very moment that our country could
benefit the most from technology breakthroughs that can be applied to
our own resources.
Informed taxpayers support funding R&D to protect the environment
and produce more energy--precisely the mission of DOE's oil and gas
research program. Much promising work lies ahead including developing
new methods of drilling that reduce impacts to the environment;
inventing new materials that allow better, faster drilling; creating
new chemicals and biological tools that increase production;
identifying better uses of renewables in the production of fossil
fuels; minimizing waste; and creating high quality jobs.
There have been many success stories from the DOE oil and gas
research program. One recent, striking example of how DOE makes a real
contribution to advances in environmental protection, energy production
and innovation comes from a DOE-IOGCC project in California. Under
DOE's Preferred Upstream Management Practices (PUMP) program, the
project is proving that unmarketable gas can be used on site to provide
power to oil wells previously idle. At the same time, the project is
meeting the strict air quality standards in the Los Angeles area. DOE
funding for this project was matched 100 percent by other partners,
which enabled the government to double its R&D investment. Every
government program investment should be as effective.
This is but one example of DOE helping provide leadership in
demonstrating a technology that may have much broader implications for
operators in 30 other oil and gas producing States who now won't have
to reinvent the well in order to satisfy environmental restrictions and
the urgent need for domestic energy.
Through careful regulation, IOGCC member States have helped
maximize production and minimize wasteful practices that can lead to
the premature abandonment of reservoirs. States have also developed
innovative approaches to deal with temporarily idled wells, created
incentives that maximize production and supported R&D that improves
recovery rates and lowers finding costs.
Going forward, the IOGCC believes that a balanced and effective
energy policy must encompass a number of fundamental principles, with
R&D serving as a centerpiece in each. Other guiding principles include
conservation of resources both in the producing and consuming sectors,
encouraging domestic production to create economic growth and
stability, increasing access to public lands for responsible
development and prolonging production from wells at economic risk.
We strongly encourage the subcommittee's support of funding oil and
gas research and development as a positive step toward our national
security today and our energy security in the future.
______
Prepared Statement of Strand Energy, L.C.
Dear Sirs or Madams: I am the project manager for a small DOE award
(DE-FG26-00BC15254) granted to Strand Energy, L.C. (Strand) under the
Technology Development with Independents program which is administered
by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NPTL). This $75,000 grant
is for the optimization and implementation of an improved oil recovery
project in a small oil field operated by Strand and located in
southwest Arkansas, the St Mary Barker Sand Unit (SMWBSU).
I am writing you to present testimony concerning the benefits of
this award in fostering the development of technical skills for Strand
Energy that are allowing us to add value to this domestic energy asset
through local and regional job development and increased reserves that
are benefiting the citizens of Arkansas through increased tax revenues
and royalties. Specifically, the award has allowed Strand engineering
and geological staff to develop a skill set in the science of reservoir
modeling; computer characterization and simulation of reservoir
processes. This is guiding Strand in our efforts to reduce development
risk while increasing oil reserves for this property.
Although less than $5,000 of the $75,000 award has been used to
date it is expected the remainder of the award will be invested during
2007 and early 2008 in new technologies for this active small domestic
independent exploration, exploitation and production company operating
in the southwestern U.S. and specifically in adding further value to
the SMWBSU. Strand Energy and our Partners have invested to date in
access of $600,000 in equipment and well workovers in the SMWBSU
property to implement the improved oil recovery project.
The DOE-NPTL grant program requires that technologies and practices
developed as a result of the project award be published publicly to the
domestic oil and gas independents community. This will further benefit
development of our domestic energy resources through improved oil
recovery projects implemented by other active operators as well as by
Strand as we acquire additional mature oil properties for redevelopment
through secondary and tertiary recovery processes and practices
experienced successfully at the SMWBSU field.
I hope, as well as do the professors and graduate students I have
worked with on this project, that the DOE will be allowed to continue
the administration and development of additional programs like the
NPTL's Technology Development with Independents in the future.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coal Utilization Research Council
CURC submits this testimony in support of an increase of $288
million in the fiscal year 2008 Department of Energy Fossil Energy
budget request, as follows: $88 million for the Coal R&D program (for a
total of $333.5 million); and $200 million for the CCPI program (for a
total of $273 million). CURC supports the administration's request to
fund FutureGen at $108 million. Details supporting these
recommendations are discussed below.
INTRODUCTION
Coal is our country's most abundant, low cost source of fossil
energy providing more than one-half of the electricity generated
domestically and capable of supplying transportation fuels, chemical
feedstocks, and pipeline quality synthetic natural gas. The challenge
has been to sustain cost effective ways to use this abundant domestic
energy resource in a manner that continues to provide low cost power
and products for the American consumer while meeting environmental
goals and national energy security needs. In large measure, technology
is the means to these ends.
More than three decades of experience has proven that any barriers
to the use of coal can be overcome through the collaborative efforts of
industry and government in jointly pursuing technology solutions. Now,
global warming and concerns that the use of fossil fuels is an
important factor in causing changes to the climate are a central focus
of technology development. Equally important is the need for reliable,
safe, and cost effective energy (and electricity) for the American
consumer. These dual needs should be the focus of the Department of
Energy's clean coal program.
In light of the growing concerns over climate change and the need
for reliable, domestically secure energy resources, it is vitally
important that the DOE's technology research, development,
demonstration and deployment programs, undertaken in partnership with
the private sector, be robust and occupy a key spot on the national
agenda. Unfortunately, even while there is acknowledgement over the
importance of technology, there is not the corresponding commitment in
dollars and focus. The DOE fiscal year 2008 budget request must be
focused specifically upon the dual needs of energy security and
achieving our Nation's environmental goals, and that budget must be
dramatically increased if we are to succeed in developing technologies
to address these needs.
THE CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP
The CURC-EPRI Roadmap defines the steps necessary to achieve near
zero emissions from coal use, including the cost effective capture and
long-term storage of CO2. The Roadmap includes a technology
development program for carbon management, defined as the capture and
storage of carbon dioxide. The Roadmap targeted two approaches to
carbon management: (1) higher efficiency; and (2) capture and storage
of CO2 in geologic reservoirs. The goal of the Roadmap is to
have, by 2025, new combustion and gasification based systems that can
reduce emissions of traditional pollutants an order of magnitude beyond
the performance of current technologies, capture and store 90 percent
or more of the carbon in the coal, achieve improved efficiency over
today's systems, and do all of these things while maintaining
competitive low cost power generation. Our analysis suggests that the
combined Federal and industry investment necessary to achieve the goals
of the Roadmap is approximately $11 billion between now and 2025.
When the Roadmap costs were first estimated, the cost of steel and
other key power plant commodities had been relatively stable. In the
last 2 years, these prices alone have risen by more than 50 percent and
there is every likelihood that such prices will not lower. This means
that the estimate of the Roadmap's projected cost to develop and
demonstrate these improved technologies will likely increase
dramatically as well. That analysis is underway, but was not completed
in time for this written statement. At a minimum, demonstration
programs will be most clearly impacted by these increased costs.
Secondly, while much of technology development simply requires time to
initiate and complete, it is also true that focusing efforts upon
carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies and augmenting funding in
related areas will best insure the availability of such technologies in
a timely fashion. Adequate funding for CCS technology development and
demonstration is critical to addressing climate change; reduced funding
levels that stretch out the time required to complete RD&D is not an
option.
The ``good news'' finding from the Roadmap is that there is a clear
pathway to reach our technology performance goals for coal, and the
ultimate technology products will be highly competitive if we conduct
the needed RD&D. And industry stands ready to contribute its part, in
money and intellectual resources, to the program of collaborative
research. The ``bad news'' is that government funding, to date, has not
been adequate and moreover, the fiscal year 2008 budget request is not
sufficient. In sum, CURC believes that current funding for R&D is
substantially inadequate, and funding for demonstrations is totally
inadequate.
Recognizing the fact that we are operating within a severely
constrained budget, and Congress is intending to develop legislation to
address global warming, CURC believes that funds provided for the
entire DOE Clean Coal Program should focus primarily on those
technology development programs that will enable both short- and long-
term CCS technology development and an extended near term program for
mercury control technology. Activities that do not support these
activities should be considered lower priority and only funded if
additional funding is made available for those activities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Using the roadmap as a tool to identify our Nation's coal research,
development and development (RD&D) needs, CURC has examined the
President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for coal and submits the
following recommendations.
Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI).--The funding proposed for the
CCPI, $73 million in fiscal year 2008, is wholly inadequate to meet the
needs that this program was created to address. This is DOE's only
program that can support the demonstration of CO2 capture
technologies that might be retrofitted to the existing fleet of coal
fired power generation. Equally important, funding for this program
will support demonstrations of CO2 capture and storage
technologies integrated with advanced combustion and IGCC based
systems. The CURC-EPRI Roadmap recommends approximately $5.6 billion in
funding for these types of demonstrations through 2015. The President's
request is clearly not enough to fund the scale and magnitude of the
projects needed. CURC recommends that funding for CCPI in fiscal year
2008 be increased by an additional $200 million. Combined with other
resources currently available for the program, this should be
sufficient to allow a 3rd CCPI solicitation for project proposals to be
issued in calendar year 2007, with anticipated awards made in 2008.
CURC also recommends that the next CCPI solicitation primarily focus on
large scale, fully-integrated power generation and carbon capture and
storage demonstrations.
FutureGen.--The Roadmap recognizes the benefits to technology
development that the FutureGen project can provide and CURC supports
this important R&D program that can serve as a test bed for validating
technologies developed out of the DOE's R&D program. To succeed as
originally envisioned, basic R&D activities must continue to provide
the technology components needed in FutureGen. The administration seeks
to use previously appropriated funds to support FutureGen in fiscal
year 2008, which CURC supports. The administration also seeks to
rescind $149 million in prior year appropriations. CURC recommends that
this $149 million be deferred for future use. The FutureGen Industrial
Alliance has stated previously that FutureGen, CCPI and the coal R&D
programs each must be adequately funded because all of these programs
are necessary to support commercial deployment of advanced clean coal
technologies. CURC also endorses this position.
Coal R&D Program.--The coal R&D program should be focused on
technology R&D designed to address efficiency improvements to reduce
CO2 emissions and on alternative CO2 capture
technologies that might provide long term technology options, one
result of which would be to drive down the costs of carbon management.
CURC has concluded that the basic R&D needs identified in the CURC-EPRI
Roadmap cannot be met with the fiscal year 2008 budget request for the
coal R&D programs. CURC recommends that funding in fiscal year 2008 be
increased by $88 million, without funding for earmarks, and be directed
to the coal R&D program as follows:
--Innovations for Existing Plants (IEP).--Much progress has been made
in developing and deploying technologies to reduce emissions
from existing coal-fired power plants. However, there is a need
to focus additional attention on mercury emissions control.
Expert opinion concluded initially that controlling and
capturing mercury emitted from combusting bituminous coals
would be the least problematic, while the lower rank (western)
coals would be most challenging. With this focus, control
problems related to western coals have been solved, but
unexpected issues arose with bituminous coals and problems
remain in that area. It is imperative that funding for this
program be restored to $25 million in order to continue long-
term (more than 30 day) mercury control field tests so that
industry can be equipped with the technologies necessary to
comply with the USEPA Clean Air Mercury Rule.
--Carbon Sequestration.--CURC recommends an increase of $30 million
to support the front end of a multi-year carbon sequestration
RD&D program. CURC recommends that DOE expand the focus of the
program that is supporting novel approaches to capturing
CO2 from the existing fleet of coal plants as well
as pre- and post-combustion and oxy-coal combustion. CURC also
recommends that sufficient funds be made available to initiate
or complete the Phase II CO2 injection pilot-scale
tests in reservoirs other than oil/gas reservoirs, unless tests
in oil and gas reservoirs would add significant knowledge to
the monitoring, measurement and verification of injecting
CO2 into other reservoirs. It is very important that
these recommended additional funds support those projects that
advance the science of sequestration in reservoirs other than
oil/gas reservoirs, which is a commercial technology in use
today. Additionally, the DOE budget justification indicates 3
or 4 large scale CO2 injection demonstrations will
be initiated to validate carbon storage techniques through
Phase III of the regional partnerships. CURC supports the DOE
shift to Phase III, but recommends that DOE conduct numerous
large scale demonstrations in a variety of permanent storage
reservoirs other than applications for enhanced oil recovery,
which is a commercial activity. These demonstrations need to be
undertaken in multiple regions of the country with uniquely
different reservoir characteristics. Finally, every effort
should be made to couple Phase III demonstrations with coal-
based energy projects that include CO2 capture (if
such CCS projects are undertaken then significantly more
funding for demonstrations will be required).
--Advanced Turbines.--This program should be increased by $12 million
to insure that the development of the hydrogen turbine is not
delayed. The hydrogen turbine is an essential component of
FutureGen. It is also important that other advanced turbines
that will use synthesis gas derived from coal should be
supported, as well. In both instances, such turbines are
essential to increase plant efficiencies and reduce carbon
emissions. The primary objective of this program must be to
focus upon the development of large scale turbines needed to
support advanced generation coal power facilities. University
research programs to ensure long term technology development
are also important.
--Advanced Research.--CURC recommends an additional $8 million for
ultra supercritical materials research activities. This
program, which has been under funded for the past 2 years,
supports the development of high temperature materials that
will enable boiler systems and steam turbines to become more
efficient, resulting in the reduction of power plant
CO2 emissions. Advanced materials derived from a
successful high temperature materials program will enable
efficiency gains which, in turn, will reduce CO2
emissions. Therefore, this program is very important for its
applicability to new ultra supercritical and IGCC systems.
--IGCC.--CURC recommends an additional $5 million to continue
important ongoing R&D at the Power Systems Development Facility
and on alternative gasification based systems that are critical
to supporting both FutureGen and future gasification technology
needs.
--Coal to Liquids.--CURC recommends an increase of $8 million to
focus on coal to liquids activities. Any funding increase
should be directed towards activities that will achieve the
dual goal of increased energy security and reduced
CO2 emissions from coal to liquids facilities.
CURC is concerned that the practice of earmarking funds undermines
the competitive nature and fundamental goals of the DOE clean coal
program. Understanding that some earmarks may be consistent with the
DOE program goals and those of the CURC-EPRI Roadmap, CURC believes
that Congress and DOE should consider a set of principles to govern the
earmark process. These principles would insure that the earmarks have
been reviewed by Congress through hearings or through other measures to
make certain they are consistent with the goals of the program and
focus on the development of critical CCS technologies.
CONCLUSION
Continued long term use of coal, and realization of its benefits,
will only occur if an extensive commitment to technology development
allows coal to overcome environmental challenges. The fiscal year 2008
budget request does not reflect such a commitment. Congress must
support the development of FutureGen, and substantially increase
funding for the R&D and CCPI programs with broad support for the
development of both combustion- and gasification-based technologies, if
we are to develop effective technology solutions to address climate
change.
______
Prepared Statement of the Electric Drive Transportation Association
The Nation has come to understand that achieving real national
security and addressing climate change will require a concerted effort
to end America's oil dependence. The electric drive technologies being
developed by the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE), in particular, the Vehicle Technologies and
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies programs, are integral to the
success of that effort. As you assemble the fiscal year 2008 Energy and
Water Development budget, we respectfully request that you fund these
programs at levels commensurate with their major contribution to ending
our oil dependence.
At the Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA), our
mission is promotion of electric drive technologies, which reduce
petroleum consumption and decrease emissions of greenhouse gases and of
air pollutants. Using electricity, by itself or in conjunction with
another fuel, electric drive technologies power the wheels of vehicles
that are being used today throughout the transportation sector,
including passenger vehicles, trucks, tractors, locomotives and ground
support equipment. Electric drive also powers transportation
infrastructure, such as truck refrigeration and truck stop
electrification facilities, which allow idled trucks to power with
clean, alternative electricity.
Electric drive technologies also complement the national effort to
increase the use of biofuels with their ability to use renewable fuels
in hybrid applications and to use renewable power in exclusively
electric operation.
Multiple fuel and vehicle technologies, including hybrids, battery
electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, and plug-in versions of these
electric drive vehicles, need to be part of the national plan to end
America's oil dependence. A substantial and consistent level of Federal
support for research, development and deployment is essential to moving
these technologies fully into the mainstream.
EERE's Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Programs and the Vehicle
Technologies Programs are the leading edge of the Federal effort to
advance these technologies and to bring us closer to our energy goals.
For instance, increased energy storage technologies, such as advanced
batteries, are the foundation of the next wave of electric drive. They
are the key to commercialization of plug-in electric drives and will
accelerate advances in all electric drive vehicles. The
administration's $41 million request for energy storage research and
development is a step in the right direction. However, it is too small
a step when considered against what is at stake and what can be
achieved.
For Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technology Programs, the administration
wisely maintains its overall commitment to hydrogen and fuel cell
development, but the request falls short in two key areas. In the
Technology Validation program, hydrogen infrastructure and fuel cell
systems are certified under real world conditions. This work guides
research agendas and helps establish the ``real world'' data collection
necessary to develop fuel cell vehicles. However, DOE's allocation of
fiscal year 2007 funds for this work is unclear at this time and the
$30 million fiscal year 2008 program request is $3 million lower than
the fiscal year 2006 appropriated level and nearly a third ($9.5
million) lower than the 2007 request. We urge you to provide the
appropriate guidance and ensure continuous and credible funding for the
Technology Validation program's critical work.
An additional tool in speeding commercialization of hydrogen fuel
cells was created in the Title VII Federal procurement programs of
EPAct05. The programs were designed to use the power of the Federal
Government to promote increased overall fuel cell production and reduce
costs by helping Federal agencies defray the incremental costs of
purchasing hydrogen energy systems and fuel cell vehicles and
equipment. Unfortunately, these market transition programs have not yet
been funded and were not included in the administration's fiscal year
2008 request.
We ask you to implement the EPAct05 procurement programs with
sufficient funds to maximize agencies' hydrogen and fuel cell purchases
and leverage the Federal Government's purchasing power to increase and
build the market for these clean, efficient energy systems.
The Clean Cities program is another deployment program with a
record of success. The Clean Cities program consists of voluntary local
and regional coalitions working to build clean and efficient fleets,
including schools, airports, and municipal buses, with advanced
technology and alternative fuel vehicles. The program's ability to help
more communities reduce petroleum consumption is limited only by lack
of resources.
The administration's $9.6 million request for the program is a
welcome increase over the prior year's request, but still represents a
missed opportunity for oil savings and clean technology deployment. We
request that you provide technology- and fuel-neutral funds above the
requested level to maximize the program's proven ability to reduce
petroleum use and emissions while helping to commercialize new
technologies, fuels and infrastructure.
Other important demonstration and deployment efforts are advanced
in the EPAct fleet programs. By requiring the use of alternative
vehicles and fuels in Federal, State and utility fleets, the EPAct
program requirements reduce petroleum consumption while helping to
demonstrate and build markets for new technologies. Implementation of
the EPAct05 alternative compliance waiver, which recognizes hybrid
vehicles in compliance efforts for the first time, will also be part of
the program's fiscal year 2008 responsibilities.
The administration's request of $1.8 million will not support
effective implementation of these key fleet programs. We request that
you provide funding at a level that will allow the program to work as
intended and to secure the oil savings, environmental benefits and new
technology deployment that Congress intended.
EDTA appreciates the committee's support for EERE's vehicle and
hydrogen and fuel cell technology programs. We ask that you make the
necessary investments to help transform the fuel consumption of the
U.S. fleet with electric drive technologies and finally break our
dependence on oil. Only then can we achieve real national security and
a cleaner and more sustainable environment.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) is pleased to submit
the following testimony on the fiscal year 2008 appropriation for the
Department of Energy (DOE) science programs. The ASM is the largest
single life science organization with more than 42,000 members. The ASM
mission is to enhance the science of microbiology, to gain a better
understanding of life processes, and to promote the application of this
knowledge for improved health and for economic and environmental well-
being.
The DOE Office of Science supports research that drives discovery
and innovation to create alternative energy sources, efficient energy
production, and a sustainable environment. Increased resources for the
DOE Office of Science are necessary to meet these challenges and the
ASM supports the President's request of $4.398 billion for the DOE
Office of Science, an increase of $602 million over the fiscal year
2007 funding level.
The requested increase is consistent with the American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) and the Advanced Energy Initiative
(AEI). DOE supported research on microbial biology is essential in
meeting the goals of these initiatives. Microbial biology research is
critical for advances in bioenergy. Microbial research contributions
includes:
--Novel bioenergy production methods, and improved biofuel production
by microbes. Different microbes produce a variety of energy
products such as ethanol, hydrogen, oils and even electrical
current. Discovery of new processes that use microbes and
microbes that enhance the efficiency of these processes,
genetic engineering microbes that achieve this goal and
learning to manage consortia of microbes to optimize biofuel
production are all needs that will enhance the economics of
bioenergy.
--Discovery of novel plant cell wall decomposition enzymes. Microbes
have a tremendous diversity of undiscovered biochemical
capabilities, including enzymes that naturally recycle biomass.
Capturing this diversity for more efficient release of plant
carbon for conversion to energy is a central need for better
bioenergy processes.
--Efficient, sustainable plant-soil systems for biofuel production.
Healthy, low-cost, and productive plant communities require a
supportive soil microbial community to recycle nutrients,
protect against root pathogens, produce plant growth factors,
fix nitrogen and aid soil structure. Furthermore, management of
these plant-soil systems must be done to minimize greenhouse
gas production.
The ASM strongly encourages DOE to support a balanced research
portfolio as it seeks to increase production of bioenergy sources.
While the ASM recognizes that the AEI and ACI are critical for meeting
the Nation's competitiveness and energy challenges, it also encourages
the DOE to maintain support for other science and technology solutions
to long-term environmental challenges, such as climate change and
environmental remediation.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
Within the DOE Office of Science, the Biological and Environmental
Research (BER) division uses peer-reviewed research at national
laboratories, universities, and private institutions to build a
science, technology, and knowledge base for understanding and
harnessing the capabilities of microbial and plant systems that will
lead to cost-effective, renewable energy production, greater energy
security, clean-up of legacy wastes, and mitigation of increases in
atmospheric carbon dioxide. The ASM supports the President's request to
fund the BER at $510 million, an increase of $70 million over fiscal
year 2007 for base BER programs, with $75 million directed to GTL
Bioenergy Research Centers.
BER research programs such as the Genomic: GTL program,
Environmental Remediation Sciences Division (ERSD), the Joint Genome
Institute (JGI), and Climate Change programs are instrumental for
understanding microbial biology, how microorganisms interact with and
respond to their environments, and how microorganisms can be harnessed
to produce clean, efficient energy, remove excess carbon from the
atmosphere, and help clean up the environment.
The fiscal year 2008 request for BER would support about 1,500
graduate students and post-doctoral investigators at universities and
national laboratories. Fellowship programs are also supported by BER
for undergraduate and graduate students through its Global Change
Education Program. This support for undergraduate and graduate students
and post-doctoral investigators is critical for the development of the
next generation of scientists, engineers, and science educators.
GENOMICS: GTL
GTL research conducts explorations of microbes and plants at the
molecular, cellular, and community levels. The goal is to gain insights
about fundamental biological processes and, ultimately, a predictive
understanding of how living systems operate. The resulting knowledge
base--linked through DNA sequence and freely available--will catalyze
the translation of science into new technologies for energy and
environmental applications.
Microbes make up the foundation of the biosphere and sustain all
life on earth. DOE has sponsored the genome sequencing of key model
plants and some 200 microbes relevant for generating clean energy,
cleaning up toxic waste from nuclear weapons development, and cycling
carbon from the atmosphere.
In May 2006, the National Research Council of the National
Academies of Science completed an independent review of the Genomics:
GTL program that endorsed the systems biology approach of the program,
applauded the research conducted by its grantees, and recommended the
formation of interdisciplinary research centers focused on fundamental
research addressing DOE mission needs, including bioenergy. The DOE
embraced this recommendation, and is currently reviewing proposals for
GTL Bioenergy Research Centers. The administration requested that $75
million be provided in fiscal year 2008 for three of these centers. The
ASM believes the GTL Bioenergy Research Centers are an important step
forward to addressing national energy needs but they must be
supplemented by a vigorous and well funded research effort. Funding for
the GTL centers should not be at the expense of the core BER science
programs.
ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION SCIENCES DIVISION
The Environmental Remediation Sciences Division (ERSD) sponsors and
supports fundamental scientific research to understand the complex
physical, chemical, and biological properties of contaminated sites for
new solutions to environmental remediation. DOE is responsible for the
largest, most complex, and diverse collection of environmental
remediation challenges in the Nation.
DOE's remediation challenges occur in the field where highly
interactive natural processes, over a broad range of scales, control
the fate and transport of contaminants. The ERSD goal is to help
provide the basis for development of innovative remediation measures to
support decision making critical to long-term stewardship. Of the 144
sites where DOE has remediation, waste management, or nuclear materials
and facility stabilization responsibilities, nearly 100 have soils,
sediments, or groundwater contaminated with radionuclides, metals, or
organic materials.
The ASM is concerned with the steady decline in funding for the
ERSD from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2007. The ERSD research
conducted on microbes is an essential component in developing
effective, sustainable remediation technologies. ASM urges Congress to
provide at least the President's fiscal year 2008 request of $97.4
million for ERSD.
JOINT GENOME INSTITUTE
The DOE Joint Genome Institute (JGI) has completed the sequence of
the 100 microbial genomes and released this information for the benefit
of the global research community. The JGI is the primary source of
genomic data for non-medical microbiology and immensely benefits the
community.
The JGI's Community Sequencing Program (CSP) devotes all of its
sequencing capacity to the merit-reviewed sequencing needs of the
broader non-medical scientific community, while addressing the DOE
mission-relevant criteria of energy production, carbon sequestration,
research and bioremediation research, and low dose radiation research.
JGI is an integral component as the area of metagenomics for both
energy and carbon sequestration grows.
The ASM supports the President's fiscal year 2007 request of $62
million for JGI, a $10.5 million increase over fiscal year 2006, and a
$2 million increase over the President's fiscal year 2008 request.
CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH
The mission of the Climate Change Research subprogram is to provide
the scientific base for making predictions and assessments of the
potential effects of greenhouse gases and aerosol emissions on climate
and the environment, such as abrupt climate change, understanding the
global carbon cycle and the development of approaches for enhancing
biological carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems. The ASM
supports the President's fiscal year 2008 request of $138 million for
Climate Change Research.
Research exploring the responses and behavior of microorganisms in
ecosystems is necessary in understanding the changes in the expanded
plant and animal systems. Greater collaboration with the Genomics: GTL
program and climate change research would provide a stronger basis for
understanding the core elements of the ecosystem and its responses. The
ASM urges greater linkages between the GTL program and Climate Change
Research, similar to the current collaborative relationship between GTL
and the ERSD.
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
Cultivating a well-trained workforce of teachers and scientists is
vital for maintaining our Nation's competitiveness, and meeting the
challenges of the future. The ASM supports the President's request of
$11 million for Workforce Development for Scientists and Engineers
within the DOE Office of Science, through undergraduate research
internships, graduate and faculty fellowships, and pre-college
activities. These programs build links between the national
laboratories and the science education community, provides mentor
intensive research experiences at national laboratories for
undergraduate and graduate students, and encourages middle and high
school students in the fields of math and science.
CONCLUSION
The ASM supports the President's 16 percent increase for the DOE
Office of Science in fiscal year 2008, and urges Congress to provide
adequate funding for the BER, including ERSD, Genomics: GTL, JGI, and
Climate Change Research programs, which are essential in meeting DOE's
mission. The DOE Office of Science programs enhance U.S.
competitiveness through fundamental research for advanced scientific
breakthroughs that will revolutionize our approach to the Nation's
energy and environment challenges.
The ASM appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony
and would be pleased to assist the subcommittee as it considers the
fiscal year 2008 appropriation for the DOE.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Allard, Senator Wayne, U.S. Senator From Colorado:
Prepared Statements of.............................36, 96, 226, 352
Questions Submitted by.................115, 151, 152, 163, 299, 314
Statement of................................................. 171
Alliance for Materials Manufacturing Excellence, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 547
Alliance to Save Energy, Prepared Statement of the............... 555
American Chemical Society, Prepared Statement of the............. 451
American Forest & Paper Association, Prepared Statement of the... 559
American Geological Institute, Prepared Statement of the......... 553
American Iron & Steel Institute, Prepared Statement of the....... 523
American Museum of Natural History, Prepared Statement of the.... 516
American Nuclear Society, Prepared Statement of the.............. 552
American Public Power Association, Prepared Statement of the..... 512
American Society for Microbiology, Prepared Statement of the..... 572
American Wind Energy Association, Prepared Statement of the...... 517
Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, Prepared Statements of
the..........................................................397, 400
Austin Energy, Prepared Statement of............................. 540
Bennett, Senator Robert F., U.S. Senator From Utah:
Question Submitted by........................................ 149
Statement of................................................. 59
Board of Levee Commissioners for the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 398
Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 416
BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc., Prepared Statement of............. 545
Brazos River Harbor Navigation District, Freeport, Texas,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 426
Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator From West Virginia,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 304
Calaveras County Water District, Prepared Statement of the....... 448
California State Coastal Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the.. 449
Center for Advanced Separation Technologies, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Prepared Statement of the...... 562
Center for Plasma Science and Technology, Florida A&M University,
and the Department of Physics, West Virginia University,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 529
Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation District, Texas, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 424
City of Arlington, Texas, Prepared Statement of the.............. 419
City of Flagstaff, Arizona, Prepared Statement of the............ 396
City of Mesa, Arizona, Prepared Statement of the................. 424
City of San Marcos, Texas, Prepared Statement of the............. 412
City of St. Helena, California, Prepared Statement of the........ 455
Clark County Regional Flood Control District, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 394
Coal Utilization Research Council, Prepared Statement of the..... 568
Coalition of Northeastern Governors, Prepared Statement of the... 491
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 172
Question Submitted by........................................ 299
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 465
Colorado River Board of California, Prepared Statement of the.... 464
Colorado River Commission of Nevada, Prepared Statement of the... 473
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Prepared
Statements of the............................................438, 480
Consortium for Fossil Fuel Science (CFFS), Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 489
Craig, Senator Larry, U.S. Senator From Idaho:
Questions Submitted by.....................................149, 160
Statements of..........................................57, 170, 322
Cummins, Inc., Prepared Statement of............................. 493
D'Agostino, Hon. Thomas P., Acting Under Secretary for Nuclear
Security and Administrator, National Nuclear Security
Administration, Department of Energy........................... 321
Prepared Statement of........................................ 326
Questions Submitted to....................................... 366
Statement of................................................. 323
Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico:
Opening Statements of..............................16, 89, 168, 223
Prepared Statements of........................18, 89, 169, 224, 349
Questions Submitted by..112, 147, 157, 209, 278, 294, 312, 319, 366
Donald, Admiral Kirk, Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion, U.S.
Navy........................................................... 321
Dorgan, Senator Byron L., U.S. Senator From North Dakota:
Opening Statements of..........................1, 53, 167, 221, 321
Prepared Statements of....................................... 2, 55
Questions Submitted by....41, 49, 106, 115, 152, 275, 282, 300, 315
Electric Drive Transportation Association, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 571
Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California,
Questions Submitted by........................110, 157, 206, 287, 312
Fifth Louisiana Levee District, Prepared Statement of the........ 393
Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and Dry Prairie Rural
Water, Prepared Statement of the............................... 484
Fuel Cell Power Association, Prepared Statement of the........... 528
FuelCell Energy, Inc., Prepared Statement of..................... 506
Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 474
Gas Technology Institute, Prepared Statement of the.............. 496
GE Energy, Prepared Statement of................................. 533
Ground Water Protection Council, Prepared Statement of the....... 507
Health Physics Society (HPS) and the Health Physics Program
Directors Organization (HPPDO), Prepared Statement of the...... 536
Hutchison, Senator Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator From Texas, Questions
Submitted by.................................................114, 161
IMPACT Technologies LLC, Prepared Statement of................... 549
Independent Petroleum Association of America, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 540
Inouye, Senator Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 121
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, Prepared Statements of
the..........................................................499, 566
Jicarilla Apache Nation, Prepared Statement of the............... 461
Johnson, Robert W., Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior..................................... 81
Prepared Statement of........................................ 82
Questions Submitted to....................................... 152
Karsner, Hon. Alexander, Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.......... 234
Prepared Statement of........................................ 236
Questions Submitted to....................................... 282
Kolevar, Kevin M., Director, Office of Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability, Department of Energy....................... 250
Prepared Statement of........................................ 252
Questions Submitted to....................................... 315
Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 60
Questions Submitted by.....................................111, 120
Limbaugh, Mark, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, Bureau
of Reclamation, Department of the Interior..................... 74
Prepared Statement of........................................ 75
Question Submitted to........................................ 152
Little River Drainage District, Prepared Statement of the........ 409
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD),
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 407
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 457
Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 404
Mni Wiconi Project, Prepared Statements of the.................468, 471
Murray, Reed R., Program Director, Central Utah Project
Completion Act Office, Department of the Interior, Prepared
Statement of................................................... 105
Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator From Washington:
Prepared Statements of......................................20, 204
Statements of...............................................20, 172
Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 453
National Association of State Energy Officials, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 542
National Corn Growers Association, Prepared Statement of the..... 437
National Mining Association (NMA), Prepared Statement of the..... 550
National Organization of Test, Research, and Training Reactors
(TRTR), Prepared Statement of the.............................. 524
National Research Center for Coal and Energy, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 520
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 460
NGVAmerica, Prepared Statement of................................ 538
North American Die Casting Association, Prepared Statement of the 526
Nuclear Energy Institute, Prepared Statement of the.............. 531
Nuclear Engineering Department Heads Organization (NEDHO),
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 524
Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition, Prepared Statement of the...... 500
Orbach, Hon. Raymond L., Director, Office of Science, Department
of
Energy......................................................... 167
Prepared Statement of........................................ 174
Statement of................................................. 173
Oregon Water Resources Congress, Prepared Statement of the....... 482
Petroleum Technology Transfer Council, Prepared Statement of the. 564
Red River Valley Association, Prepared Statement of the.......... 427
Reed, Senator Jack, U.S. Senator From Rhode Island:
Prepared Statements of......................................86, 225
Questions Submitted by................................121, 292, 318
Rispoli, Hon. James A., Assistant Secretary of Energy for
Environmental Management, Office of Environmental Management,
Department of
Energy......................................................... 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 10
Questions Submitted to....................................... 41
Statement of................................................. 3
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 431
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, Prepared Statement of the.. 434
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 424
San Diego County Water Authority, Prepared Statement of the...... 467
Santa Clara Valley Water District, Prepared Statements of the..443, 478
Shope, Hon. Thomas D., Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil
Energy, Department of Energy................................... 244
Prepared Statement of........................................ 246
Questions Submitted to....................................... 300
Southern Company Generation, Prepared Statement of............... 509
Sproat, Hon. Edward F., III, Director, Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management, Department of Energy............. 20
Prepared Statement of........................................ 22
Questions Submitted to....................................... 49
Spurgeon, Hon. Dennis R., Assistant Secretary Nuclear Energy,
Department of Energy........................................... 221
Prepared Statement of........................................ 229
Questions Submitted to.....................................275, 278
Statement of................................................. 227
St. Francis Levee District of Arkansas, Prepared Statement of the 413
State of Illinois, Prepared Statement of the..................... 420
State Teachers' Retirement System, Prepared Statement of the..... 487
Strand Energy, L.C., Prepared Statement of....................... 568
Strock, Lieutenant General Carl, Chief of Engineers, Corps of
Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army, Department of
Defense--Civil................................................. 70
Prepared Statement of........................................ 71
Questions Submitted to....................................... 115
The Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statement of.................... 440
Tobey, William H., Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security Administration,
Department of Energy........................................... 321
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 504
University of Texas at Austin, Prepared Statement of the......... 537
University of Tulsa, Prepared Statements of the................495, 514
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA), Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 401
Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS), Prepared Statements
of the.......................................................459, 473
Western Michigan University (WMU), Prepared Statement of......... 558
Woodley, Hon. John Paul, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the
Army, Department of Defense--Civil............................. 53
Prepared Statement of........................................ 61
Questions Submitted to....................................... 106
Statement of................................................. 60
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Acequias Irrigation System....................................... 113
Additional Committee Questions................................... 106
Albuquerque Levees............................................... 147
A-76 and HPO..................................................... 117
Backlog of Authorized Work....................................... 111
Beach Policy..................................................... 112
Budget:
Priorities for Fiscal Year 2008.............................. 55
Proposals.................................................... 56
Request...................................................... 121
Central NM Environmental Infrastructure Program (sec. 593) and
New Mexico Environmental Infrastructure Program................ 148
Construction:
Performance Guidelines....................................... 69
Program...................................................... 72
Continuing:
Authorities:
Budget................................................... 114
Program.................................................. 119
Contracts, Carryover and Reprogramming....................... 109
Critical Infrastructure.......................................... 120
Declining Investment as a Percentage of GDP...................... 112
ESA Compliance Issues in O&M..................................... 106
Energy and Water Questions....................................... 150
Funding for the Inland Waterway Trust Fund....................... 112
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.................................... 114
Highlights:
Program Areas................................................ 63
Water Resources Development Accounts......................... 62
Issues for Fiscal Year 2008...................................... 57
Kikiaola Harbor, Island of Kauai, Hawaii......................... 121
Latest $1.3 Billion Funding Need................................. 120
Major Rehabilitations in O&M..................................... 107
Middle Rio Grande Projects....................................... 113
Missouri River................................................... 116
Other Budget Highlights.......................................... 65
Overview......................................................... 61
Performance-based Budgeting...................................... 62
President's Management Agenda.................................... 66
R&D.............................................................. 148
Rebuilding the Gulf Coast........................................ 147
Regional O&M Budgeting........................................... 108
Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District............... 111
Snake River Programmatic Sediment................................ 149
Summary of Fiscal Year 2008 Program Budget....................... 71
The Bureau of Reclamation........................................ 56
The Central Utah Project......................................... 56
Three Affiliated Tribes Land Transfer............................ 106
Value of the Civil Works Program to the Nation's Economy and
Defense........................................................ 73
Water Resources Development Act Proposal......................... 66
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Additional Committee Questions................................... 275
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative................................... 231
Anvil Points Mine Site........................................... 265
Appliance:
Efficiency Standards......................................... 294
Standards.................................................... 283
Balancing:
Renewable and Efficiency Funding............................. 282
Research With Deployment Funding............................. 282
Battery R&D...................................................... 296
BioFuels......................................................... 270
Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D.............................. 237
Building:
Codes........................................................ 284
Technologies Program......................................... 240
Carbon:
Capture R&D.................................................. 313
Sequestration................................................ 312
Funding.................................................. 301
Cellulosic Biomass--Reverse Auction.............................. 297
China--Carbon Sequestration Collaboration........................ 313
Clean Coal Power Initiative...................................... 306
Funding...................................................... 302
Clean Energy Technology Exports Initiative....................... 307
Coal:
R&D Research Funding......................................... 301
Resources.................................................... 255
-To-Liquids Initiative....................................... 306
Usage........................................................ 261
Concentrating Solar.............................................. 297
Consolidation of Research Programs............................... 315
Cooperative Nuclear Fuel Research With Russia.................... 281
Deploying New Technology......................................... 295
Deployment of Renewable Energy Technologies...................... 298
Distributed Generation........................................... 318
Electricity:
Delivery:
And Energy Reliability................................... 299
Budget............................................... 258
Technological Advances................................... 258
Transmission and Energy Delivery............................. 316
Elk Hills........................................................ 312
School Lands Fund............................................ 249
Energy:
Efficiency and Renewable Energy Budget....................... 256
Infrastructure Security...................................... 319
Storage R&D.................................................. 319
Enhanced Geothermal Systems...................................... 288
EPACT:
And Efficiency Programs...................................... 292
2005 and Geothermal Programs................................. 286
Existing Biomass Awards.......................................... 298
Facilities and Infrastructure.................................... 243
Federal Energy Management Program..............................241, 285
Foreign Interest in Nuclear Energy............................... 279
Fossil Energy.................................................... 290
Budget....................................................... 255
Request.................................................. 300
Fossil Energy's Budget Meets the Nation's Critical Energy Needs.. 250
Fuels and Power Systems.......................................... 247
Funding for Advanced Combustion:
R&D.......................................................... 270
Research..................................................... 270
FutureGen........................................................ 304
GAO Report....................................................... 310
Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative.................. 231
Geothermal:
Program and the National Research Council Recommendations.... 287
Termination.................................................. 287
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)........228, 262, 275, 280, 289
Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility--Luxury or Necessity?........... 278
Coordinating Research With Other NE Programs................. 280
Grid Research at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory........... 270
High Temperature Superconductivity Research...................... 316
Hydrogen Technology Program...................................... 239
Idaho:
Facilities Management........................................ 233
Site-Wide Safeguards & Securities............................ 233
Impact of the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget on the National Energy
Technology Laboratory.......................................... 307
Improved Building Efficiency..................................... 297
Industrial:
Efficiency Program Funding Decrease.......................... 293
Technologies Program......................................... 243
Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration................... 254
Loan Guarantee:
Program...................................................... 260
Programs (Title 17 of EPACT)................................. 295
Questions.................................................... 317
Regulations.................................................. 294
Technical Evaluation and Financial Evaluation................ 295
Materials Manufacturing and Industrial Materials................. 293
Natural Gas Cartel............................................... 303
Naval Oil Shale:
Reserve Certification........................................ 264
Reserves Royalty Distribution................................ 314
Next Generation Nuclear Powerplant............................... 263
Nuclear:
Energy Budget................................................ 257
Energy's Role................................................ 277
Fuel Cycle................................................... 281
Hydrogen Initiative.......................................... 232
Power 2010 (NP 2010).......................................227, 230
Program.................................................. 278
Reforms.............................................. 279
Office of Energy Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability..... 319
Oil:
And Gas Price Relationship................................... 311
Savings...................................................... 285
Permitting, Siting, and Analysis................................. 253
Preventing Regional Blackouts.................................... 260
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)............................ 266
Score for University Nuclear Education Program............... 267
Scores................................................265, 267, 268
Program Direction and Program Support............................ 244
Public Education................................................. 285
Radiological Facilities Management............................... 232
Rescission of $149 Million From the Clean Coal Technology Account 302
Research and Development......................................... 253
Retrievable Energy in Spent Nuclear Fuel......................... 271
``Save Energy Now'' Campaign..................................... 293
Solar Energy..................................................... 296
Program...................................................... 240
State Energy Program PART Score.................................. 268
Taxation of Coal R&D Dollars..................................... 314
The President's Coal Research Initiative......................... 246
University:
Nuclear Education Program.................................... 268
Oil and Gas Research Funding................................. 302
Reactor Infrastructure and Educational Assistance............ 233
Vehicle:
Efficiency................................................... 269
Technologies Program......................................... 238
Weatherization................................................... 271
And Intergovernmental Program................................ 242
Assistance Program........................................... 283
Funding Decrease............................................. 292
Wind:
And Solar Production Costs................................... 287
Energy Program............................................... 242
National Nuclear Security Administration
Additional Committee Questions................................... 366
Approaches:
That Fail to Meet U.S. National Security and Nonproliferation
Objectives................................................. 390
That Meet U.S. National Security and Nonproliferation
Objectives................................................. 389
Business Case--Department of Energy's Proposed Baseline Approach
for Disposing of Surplus Plutonium, April 2007................. 380
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility Replacement........... 371
Closing Los Alamos National Laboratory........................... 368
Complex 2030..................................................... 366
Facilities Before Science.................................... 369
Cyber Security Funding--Insufficient to Address the Risk......... 392
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................................. 335
Description of DOE's Surplus Fissile Materials................... 384
Elimination of Weapons Grade Plutonium Production................ 336
Environmental Projects and Operations............................ 334
Establishment of a Joint High Energy Plasma Program.............. 374
Evaluation of Alternative Storage and Disposition Approaches..... 389
Expansion of MOX................................................. 378
Experimental Hydro Tests......................................... 372
Financial Analysis of DOE's Proposed Baseline Plutonium
Disposition Approach........................................... 385
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget:
Request by Program........................................... 330
Tables....................................................... 339
Fissile Materials Disposition.................................... 336
Global:
Nuclear Energy Partnership................................... 345
Threat Reduction Initiative.................................. 335
GNEP and MOX..................................................... 378
Heavy Water Inventory............................................ 376
High Performance Computing....................................... 372
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Support...... 338
Insufficient Funding for Z Operations............................ 370
International Material Protection and Cooperation................ 335
Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility..........................354, 359
MOX:
Alternatives................................................. 377
Program...................................................... 377
National Ignition Facility....................................... 375
Naval Reactors.................................................330, 337
Navy Home Porting................................................ 362
NNSA's Plutonium Consolidation and Disposition Strategy.......... 379
Nonproliferation:
And International Security................................... 336
And Verification Research and Development.................... 336
Research and Development..................................... 362
Nuclear:
Nonproliferation............................................. 329
Weapons Incident Response.................................... 334
Office of the Administrator...................................... 338
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory............................ 348
Pit Production/Reliable Replacement Warhead...................... 346
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) and Facilities
and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP)............. 333
Reliable Replacement Warhead...............342, 350, 355, 361, 369, 374
Russia's MOX Commitment.......................................... 378
Safeguards and Security.......................................... 334
Sandia National Laboratories Ion Beam Laboratory................. 376
Secure Transportation Asset...................................... 333
Security:
At National Laboratories..................................... 352
Guards at Pantex on Strike................................... 376
Warhead Dismantlement............................................ 357
Weapons:
Activities................................................... 326
Program Activities........................................... 331
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
Additional Committee Questions................................... 41
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative................................... 37
Canister Handling and Storage.................................... 49
Fiscal Year 2008 Key Activities.................................. 22
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership................................ 37
Government Legal Liability....................................... 50
Impact of Fiscal Year 2007 Final Budget Authorization............ 23
Implications of Non-access to the Nuclear Waste Fund............. 23
Layoffs.......................................................... 50
Nevada Rail Line................................................. 50
Nuclear Waste Fund Legislative Proposal.......................... 25
Proposed Legislation for Nuclear Waste Fund...................... 32
Second Repository................................................ 49
Yucca Mountain:
Authorization................................................ 49
Reduction in Fiscal Year 2008 Transportation Request......... 40
Updated Baseline............................................. 40
Office of Environmental Management
Acceleration of TRU Waste to WIPP................................ 44
Additional Committee Questions................................... 41
Atlas Mill Site Closure Date..................................... 32
Cleanup Funding Strategy......................................... 36
Consequences of a Reduced Environmental Management Budget........ 19
Consolidation of Special Nuclear Material........................ 45
Contractor Performance........................................... 31
Environmental Management......................................... 19
Fines............................................................ 43
Assessed Against DOE and Los Alamos National Security (LANS). 30
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding for HAMMER Program...................... 26
HAMMER Funding................................................... 26
Hanford Site Managers Vacancies.................................. 27
Lessons Learned Applications to Other Cleanup Sites.............. 35
Los Alamos:
Missed Milestones............................................ 41
National Laboratory (LANL)................................... 44
Safety Concerns.......................................... 43
Missed:
Cleanup Milestones at Los Alamos National Lab................ 28
Milestones Consequences...................................... 38
Mixed-Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility vs.Vitrification..... 45
Renegotiating the LANL Consent Order............................. 42
Risk Reduction Results........................................... 11
Sandia Cleanup................................................... 44
Solving the Challenges........................................... 12
Supplemental Bulk Vitrification Technology....................... 25
Technical Area-21................................................ 43
The Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request.............................. 13
Washington State:................................................
High Level Waste Vitrification Project....................... 47
Tri-Party Agreement.......................................... 48
Yucca Mountain................................................... 18
Office of Science
Additional Committee Questions................................... 206
Advanced Scientific Computing Research........................... 192
Biological and Environmental Research............................ 206
Funding...................................................... 215
Carbon Sequestration...........................................192, 215
Climate:
Change Research.............................................. 197
Modeling..................................................... 216
Research..................................................... 214
Computer Questions............................................... 217
Earmarks......................................................... 199
Fiscal Year 2008 Science Priorities.............................. 177
5-Year Plan...................................................... 203
Genome Research.................................................. 213
High:
Energy Density Physics....................................... 210
Performance Computing........................................ 212
Importance of Neutron Sources.................................... 198
Integration of:
High Performance Computing Among Science and NNSA............ 213
Science and the NNSA......................................... 211
Interesting and Promising Research Projects in DOE and in the
Future of DOE.................................................. 194
Joint Dark Energy Mission........................................ 216
Low Dose Radiation Effects Research.............................. 209
Major Construction Projects...................................... 205
Office of Science--Energy-Water Program.......................... 215
Program Objectives and Performance............................... 180
Proposed Funding for Research Programs in Renewable Energies and
Conservation................................................... 200
Renewable Energy................................................. 204
Science:
Accomplishments.............................................. 179
Programs..................................................... 181
Scientific:
Interaction with China....................................... 210
Research at NREL............................................. 192
Superconductivity................................................ 218
300 Area at PNNL................................................. 202
Transition of Research Into the Marketplace...................... 193
Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists................ 210
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Achieving Key Goals.............................................. 79
Additional Committee Questions................................... 106
Animas-La Plata Project.......................................... 154
Budget Overview.................................................. 76
Bureau of Reclamation--Gila River Settlement..................... 161
California Bay-Delta Restoration................................. 78
Fund (CALFED)................................................ 85
Carlsbad Irrigation District..................................... 153
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.......................... 85
Chimayo and Espanola Water Systems............................... 153
Desalination Research............................................ 161
Drought........................................................157, 164
Excess Government Property Issues................................ 153
Fiscal Year 2008 Planned Activities.............................. 85
Healthy Lands Initiative......................................... 77
Improving Indian Education....................................... 77
Interior Priorities for Water Programs........................... 77
Loan Guarantee............................................154, 160, 163
Program.....................................................78, 164
Maintaining Core Programs........................................ 79
Management Studies............................................... 86
Middle Rio Grande Project........................................ 159
Minidoka Spillway Replacement.................................... 160
Minnow Sanctuary................................................. 152
Policy and Administration........................................ 85
Rural Water...............................................152, 155, 162
Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan...... 157
Safety of Dams Program........................................... 78
San Joaquin River Restoration Fund Proposed Legislation.......... 85
The Methamphetamine Crisis in Indian Country..................... 77
The National Parks Centennial Initiative......................... 76
Title XVI........................................................ 160
Water:
And Related Resources........................................ 83
2025......................................................... 158
Preventing Crises and Conflicts.......................... 78
-