[Senate Hearing 110-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
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.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
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.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
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.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
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.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
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.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
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.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
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.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
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.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
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 citzens 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 linding 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.]