[Senate Hearing 114-800]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-800
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 5055/S. 2804
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2017, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Defense--Civil
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
31-304 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi Chairman
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland,
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama Vice Chairwoman
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine PATTY MURRAY, Washington
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MARK KIRK, Illinois JACK REED, Rhode Island
ROY BLUNT, Missouri JON TESTER, Montana
JERRY MORAN, Kansas TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana BRAIN SCHATZ, Hawaii
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
STEVE DAINES, Montana CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
Bruce Evans, Staff Director
Charles E. Kieffer, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California,
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky Ranking
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama PATTY MURRAY, Washington
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine JON TESTER, Montana
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland (ex
officio)
Professional Staff
Tyler Owens
Adam DeMella
Meyer Seligman
Hayley Alexander
Doug Clapp (Minority)
Chris Hanson (Minority)
Samantha Nelson (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
HEARINGS
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Page
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.................................... 1
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation........... 31
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary.................... 101
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration... 169
----------
BACK MATTER
List of Witnesses, Communications, and Prepared Statements....... 201
Subject Index.................................................... 203
Department of Energy......................................... 203
National Nuclear Security Administration................. 203
Office of the Secretary.................................. 203
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.................................... 204
U.S. Army Corps and Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation.......... 204
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:34 p.m. in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Alexander, Murkowski, and Feinstein.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN G. BURNS, CHAIRMAN
ACCOMPANIED BY:
HON. KRISTINE SVINICKI, COMMISSIONER
HON. WILLIAM OSTENDORFF, COMMISSIONER
HON. JEFF BARAN, COMMISSIONER
opening statement of senator lamar alexander
Senator Alexander. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development please come to order.
Today's hearing will review the President's fiscal year
2017 budget request for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
This is our first budget hearing this year. We expect to
have three more budget hearings in the coming weeks. Senator
Feinstein and I will each have an opening statement, and let
me--it gives me an opportunity to say again what a delight it
is to serve with her, to serve with somebody who has such good,
strong knowledge of the subject, but also who, as a former
mayor of a big city, knows how to make a decision. So it's nice
to work with her in an effective and bipartisan way. And we
find areas where we can put our heads together and come to an
agreement and get a result, which makes service in the Senate
much more satisfying to me. So I thank her for the way she does
things.
I will then recognize each Senator for up to 5 minutes
after we have our opening statement for an opening statement,
alternating between the majority and minority in the order in
which they arrive, and will then turn to Chairman Burns to
present testimony on behalf of the Commission. I will then
recognize the Senators for 5 minutes of questions each,
alternating from side to side.
Our witnesses today include Stephen Burns, chairman of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Welcome, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Kristine Svinicki, welcome. Good to see you
again.
Commissioner William Ostendorff. This will be the last
hearing for Commissioner Ostendorff because he has announced he
will be leaving the Commission at the end of his term in June,
and returning to teach at the U.S. Naval Academy. He has been a
strong and effective member of the Commission, and we thank him
for that and wish him well in his new role.
Commissioner Jeff Baran. Welcome to you, Jeff.
As I said, we are here to review the proposed 2017 budget
request for the Commission, which is the independent Federal
agency responsible for regulating the safety of our Nation's
commercial nuclear power plants and other nuclear materials.
The budget request is $970.2 million. That's a decrease of
$19.8 million from fiscal year 2016. The decrease is, in my
opinion, a positive step toward making the Commission's budget
reflect its actual workload.
I also thank the chairman and the Commission for working
together to identify more ways to reduce spending and reduce
the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) funding needs for the
coming year. And long as I talk about it, I thank you for
working together because there was a time on the Commission
when that wasn't going on, and for the last few years, it's
been obvious to me that there is a collegial atmosphere there,
and that obviously makes for a better functioning entity.
We want to work closely with the Commission to make sure
our bill reflects the savings, making the best use of taxpayer
dollars. However, we want to make sure we continue to invest in
nuclear power, which provides more than 60 percent of our
country's carbon-free electricity.
At a time when the President and many in the country see
climate change as a major issue, it's difficult for me to see
why we should not make nuclear power a primary solution, or one
of the primary solutions, to dealing with that problem because
of our expertise at it and because of the amount of carbon-free
electricity it produces.
Safely extending our existing reactors, licensing new
reactors, including small reactors, solving the nuclear waste
stalemate, are all important to the future of the industry--of
nuclear energy. And I will focus my question on four main
areas: solving the nuclear waste stalemate is something Senator
Feinstein and I are dedicated to; safely extending licenses for
existing reactors, which seems to me to be the logical way, at
least for the next 20 years or so, to produce the largest
amount of carbon-free electricity in the country; licensing new
reactors; and making sure that the Commission is operating
efficiently. Let me take those one by one.
To be sure that we have a strong future for nuclear energy,
we must solve the 25-year-old stalemate about what to do about
waste from the reactors. Last year, Senator Feinstein and
Senators Murkowski, Cantwell, and I reintroduced bipartisan
legislation to create temporary and permanent facilities to
store and dispose of our nuclear fuel. Our bill was consistent
with the recommendations of the President's Blue Ribbon
Commission on America's Nuclear Future.
Senator Feinstein and I, with the support of leaders of the
authorizing committee, plan to include in the Energy and Water
bill we're drafting this year, a pilot program for nuclear
waste storage and language that allows the Secretary of Energy
to contract with private storage facilities, as we have in the
past. These new storage facilities and repositories would not
take the place of Yucca Mountain in my opinion--we have more
than enough waste to fill Yucca Mountain to its legal
capacity--but, rather, would complement it.
I strongly believe that Yucca Mountain can and should be
part of the solution. Federal law designates Yucca Mountain as
the Nation's repository for nuclear fuel. The Commission's own
scientists have told us that we can safely store nuclear waste
there for up to 1 million years. But regardless of where we
build permanent repositories, we still need facilities where we
can consolidate all of the used fuel that is currently located
at more than 75 sites around the country. The Blue Ribbon
Commission concluded, ``That it would be prudent to pursue the
development of consolidated storage capability without further
delay,'' and Senator Feinstein and I agree with that
recommendation.
Over the last 4 years, we have heard from communities and
States who are interested in hosting a consolidated storage
site. I support moving forward with a consolidated storage on
as many tracks as we can at once, whether it's at a private
facility or one built under our own pilot program. And it's
important to make sure the Commission is ready to act
expeditiously.
I understand that at least one private company is planning
to submit an application to the Commission later this year for
a license to build and operate a consolidated storage facility,
and there may be others. I want to make sure the Commission has
all the resources it needs in fiscal year 2017 to complete a
review of such applications.
And I also want to be clear that, in my opinion, the
Commission should continue licensing activities for Yucca
Mountain. The Nuclear Waste Fund, which is money that utilities
have collected from customers on their monthly bills from 1983
until 2013, and paid to the Government to dispose of their used
nuclear fuel, plus accrued interest, will have a balance of
about $37.5 billion at the end of the year, and there are still
several steps to go in the licensing process of Yucca Mountain.
The Government has been prevented from collecting fees
since 2013, when the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said
the Federal Government should comply with the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act as it's currently written--that is, open Yucca
Mountain--or until Congress enacts an alternative nuclear waste
management plan. Yet, for the sixth year, the Commission has
not requested any funding to continue licensing activities for
Yucca even though the Commission will run out of money later
this year for that purpose, and there are still several more
steps that need to be taken.
Number two, safely extending licenses for existing
reactors. Instead of building more windmills, which only
produce 14 percent of our carbon-free electricity despite 25
years of multibillion dollar subsidies, or solar farms, which
produce 1 percent of our carbon-free electricity, the best way
to make sure the United States has a reliable source of cheap,
efficient, carbon-free electricity is to extend the licenses of
the nuclear reactors that are today already operating and
producing 60 percent of our carbon-free electricity. Most of
our 100 reactors have already extended their operating licenses
from 40 to 60 years. Some utilities are planning to begin the
process to extend these licenses from 60 to 80 years.
The Commission told the subcommittee in last year's hearing
that it had already developed the framework to safely extend
licenses beyond 60 years, and I want to make sure the
Commission has the resources it needs to take any final--any
additional steps prior to receiving those applications.
Number three, licensing new reactors. In addition to the
reactors we already have, the Commission needs to be ready to
review applications for new reactors, especially including
small modular reactors. I understand that NuScale may file an
application for design certification of a small reactor with
the Commission later this year. Last week, NuScale received a
permit from the Department of Energy, which will allow the
company to build a small modular reactor module within 10 years
on the property of the Idaho National Laboratory and use the
site for 99 years for its operation.
This new reactor design has been supported by the
Department of Energy's small modular reactor program, which
this subcommittee has funded since 2012. The subcommittee has
also provided the NRC with funding to prepare to receive
applications for small modular reactors. I want to make sure
the Commission is ready to review this new technology once it
receives its application. I also understand the Commission has
requested $5 million to look at advanced reactor designs, and I
would like to understand more about your plans for those funds.
And, finally, making sure that the Commission is running
efficiently. One of the challenges is to make sure the agency
is running efficiently and focusing on the right goals. That's
part of management.
In the 2000s, the Commission began planning to receive a
large number of applications for new reactor licenses, and the
Congress increased the Commission's funding from $470 million
in fiscal year 2000 to a high of $1.043 billion in 2014, a
doubling of funding. But most of these expected licenses were
never actually submitted, which has left the Commission's
workforce and budget out of balance with its actual workload.
In June 2014, the Commission began an effort, known as
Project Aim, to address this imbalance by looking at the work
that would be needed over the next several years and then
aligning its workforce and budget with that forecast. As a
result of this effort, the Commission's budget has decreased.
In fact, this year's budget request is about $74 million less
than what the Commission received in 2014.
Last year, we worked with the Commission to cut its budget
request by about $30 million. I am pleased that this year's
budget request continues in that direction. I understand the
Commission's staff has identified an additional $32 million in
savings that could be applied to this year's budget request. I
want to make sure the bill that Senator Feinstein and I and the
committee members will be drafting reflects these additional
savings so taxpayer money is wisely and effectively spent.
I look forward to working with the Commission as we begin
putting together our Energy and Water Appropriations bills. My
hope would be that our bill would be one of the first on the
floor, and that Senator McConnell and Senator Reid can put it
up there and we can begin an appropriations process of the kind
the Senate should have, and that we haven't had for a while.
And I will now recognize my distinguished Ranking Member,
Senator Feinstein, for an opening statement.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Lamar Alexander
We're here today to review the President's fiscal year 2017 budget
request for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the independent Federal
agency responsible for regulating the safety of our Nation's commercial
nuclear power plants and other nuclear materials.
The budget request for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is $970.2
million dollars. This is a decrease of $19.8 million dollars from
fiscal year 2016. This decrease from last year's appropriations bill is
a positive step toward making the Commission's budget reflect its
actual workload.
I also appreciate the Commission's efforts to identify more ways to
reduce spending and reduce the NRC's funding needs for the coming year.
We want to work closely with the Commission to make sure the Energy and
Water Appropriations bill we are drafting reflects those savings,
making the best use of taxpayer dollars.
However, we also want to make sure we continue to invest in nuclear
power, which provides more than 60 percent of our country's carbon-free
electricity. Safely extending licenses for our existing reactors,
licensing new reactors, including small modular reactors, and solving
the nuclear waste stalemate are all important to the future of nuclear
energy.
Today, I will focus my questions on four main areas:
1) Licensing facilities for used nuclear fuel and solving the
nuclear waste stalemate;
2) Safely extending licenses for existing reactors;
3) Licensing new reactors; and
4) Making sure the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is operating
efficiently.
licensing facilities for used nuclear fuel
To ensure that nuclear power has a strong future in this country,
we must solve the 25-year-old stalemate about what to do with used fuel
from our nuclear reactors.
Last year, Senators Feinstein, Murkowski, Cantwell, and I
reintroduced bipartisan legislation, to create temporary and permanent
facilities to store and dispose of our used nuclear fuel, consistent
with the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's
Nuclear Future.
Senator Feinstein and I, with the support of the leaders of the
authorizing committee, plan to include in the Energy and Water bill
we're drafting this year, a pilot program for nuclear waste storage and
language that allows the Secretary of Energy to contract with private
storage facilities, as we have in the past. These new storage
facilities and repositories would not take the place of Yucca
Mountain--we have more than enough waste to fill Yucca Mountain to its
legal capacity--but rather would complement it.
I strongly believe that Yucca Mountain can and should be part of
the solution. Federal law designates Yucca Mountain as the Nation's
repository for used nuclear fuel, and the Commission's own scientists
have told us that we can safely store nuclear waste there for up to 1
million years.
But regardless of where we build permanent repositories, we still
need facilities where we can consolidate all of the used fuel that is
currently located at more than 75 sites around the country. The Blue
Ribbon Commission concluded that ``it would be prudent to pursue the
development of consolidated storage capability without further delay,''
and Sen. Feinstein and I agree with that recommendation.
Over the last 4 years, we have heard from communities and States
who are interested in hosting a consolidated storage site. I support
moving forward with consolidated storage on as many tracks as we can,
whether it's at a private facility or one built under our pilot
program, and it is important to make sure that the Commission is ready
to act expeditiously.
I understand that at least one private company is planning to
submit an application to the Commission later this year for a license
to build and operate a consolidated storage facility, and there may be
others. I want to make sure that the Commission has all the resources
it needs in fiscal year 2017 to complete a review of these
applications. I also want to be clear that the Commission should
continue licensing activities for Yucca Mountain.
The Nuclear Waste Fund, which is money that utilities have
collected from customers on their monthly bills from 1983 until 2013
and paid to the government to dispose of their used nuclear fuel plus
accrued interest, will have a balance of about $37.5 billion at the end
of the year, and there are still several steps to go in the licensing
process for Yucca Mountain.
The government has been prevented from collecting fees since 2013,
when the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court said the Federal
government should comply with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act as it is
currently written--i.e. open Yucca Mountain--or until Congress enacts
an alternative nuclear waste management plan.
Yet for the sixth year, the Commission has not requested any
funding to continue licensing activities for Yucca Mountain, even
though the Commission will run out of money later this year for that
purpose and there are still several more steps that need to be taken.
safely extending licenses for existing reactors
Instead of building more windmills, which only produce 14 percent
of our carbon-free electricity, or solar farms, which only produce 1
percent of our carbon-free electricity, the best way to make sure the
United States has a reliable source of cheap, efficient, carbon-free
electricity is to extend the licenses of the nuclear reactors that are
already operating.
Most of our 100 reactors have already extended their operating
licenses from 40 to 60 years, and some utilities are planning to begin
the process to extend these licenses from 60 to 80 years.
The Commission told the Subcommittee in last year's hearing that it
had already developed the framework to safely extend licenses beyond 60
years, and I want to make sure that the Commission has the resources it
needs to take any additional steps it needs prior to receiving those
applications.
licensing new reactors
In addition to the reactors we already have, the Commission also
needs to be ready to review applications for new reactors, including
small modular reactors.
I understand that NuScale may file an application for design
certification of a small modular reactor with the Commission later this
year. Last week, NuScale received a permit from the Department of
Energy, which will allow the company to build a small modular reactor
module within 10 years on the property of Idaho National Laboratory and
to use the site for 99 years for its operation.
This new reactor design has been supported by the Department of
Energy's small modular reactor program, which this subcommittee has
funded since 2012. The subcommittee has also provided the NRC with
funding to prepare to receive applications for small modular reactors.
I want to make sure the Commission is ready to review this new
technology once it receives an application.
I also understand that the Commission has requested $5 million to
look at advanced reactor designs, and I'd like to understand more about
the Commission's plans for these funds.
making sure the nuclear regulatory commission is running efficiently
One of the challenges for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is to
make sure the agency is running effectively and focusing on the right
goals.
In the early 2000s, the Commission began planning to receive a
large number of applications for new reactor licenses, and Congress
increased the Commission's funding from $470 million in fiscal year
2000 to a high of $1.043 billion in fiscal year 2014. But most of these
expected licenses were never actually submitted, which has left the
Commission's workforce and budget out of balance with its actual
workload.
In June 2014, the Commission began an effort, known as Project Aim,
to address this imbalance by looking at the work that would be needed
over the next several years and then aligning its workforce and budget
with that forecast. As a result of the first step of this effort, the
Commission's budget has decreased. In fact, this year's budget request
is about $74 million dollars less than what the Commission received in
2014.
Last year, we worked with the Commission to cut its budget request
by about $30 million dollars, and I'm pleased this year's budget
request continues in the right direction. I understand that the
Commission's staff has identified an additional $32 million in savings
that could be applied to this year's budget request. I want to make
sure the bill Sen. Feinstein and I are drafting this year reflects
those additional savings so taxpayer money is used effectively.
I look forward to working with the Commission as we begin putting
together our Energy and Water Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2017,
and also with my Ranking Member, Senator Feinstein, who I will now
recognize for an opening statement.
Senator Alexander. Senator Feinstein.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Well, thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I
think you have made a very erudite and important statement, and
I tried to listen to it carefully. I have come to have great
respect for your knowledge, your acumen, and your ability to
sit down and work out a solution. So, unfortunately, we have
tried with the House, and not been as successful as we might
have been, but, you know, hope springs eternal----
Senator Alexander. Right.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. And I would really hope
that this year we could make some progress with respect to a
nuclear waste policy. And I understand your priorities.
And I guess what I ask you to do, and others to do, is
understand that I was a young child when the bombs were leveled
at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And I was old enough to read, so I
read every newspaper I could get and saw pictures that were
etched in my consciousness for the rest of my life. So I became
very much aware, and I tried to follow Chernobyl and people
going back to Chernobyl even after all these decades and
finding how hot the radiation is. I remember watching a
television program on it when they went to where the uniforms
were stored in a building from the first people onsite, Russian
soldiers and others, that first went into Chernobyl. And I
don't know how many of them lived, but the uniforms all these
decades later--they had Geiger counters, and the Geiger
counters just went ballistic. So they're all still very, very
hot. And I think we have to really at times be brought back to
the reality.
I think a lot of my concern is because I'm on the Pacific,
I'm a westerner, and I happen to believe that the Pacific Ocean
is in fact a ring of fire for big earthquakes, and, therefore,
seeing that waste is properly disposed of so that it can't be
done or the spent fuel pools won't split, as they have in
Fukushima, and the other problems that Fukushima has had have
been solved.
Since our last meeting--and I want to very much compliment
Southern California Edison because they have--are in the
process of decommissioning with the NRC their two big reactors.
And I think as the Commission knows, and we know, they have
maybe 4,000 elements in spent fuel pools that are just a few
yards from the beach, and 6 million people live on the other
side. I know what the problem was in the faulty steam
generator, and I think they did the right thing by
decommissioning those reactors, but there is still a lot to
worry about.
We have another utility company that is located, again, on
the ocean. I've been there. And they have taken a lot of
precautions, but there are earthquake fractures and faults that
run not too far away. So all of that is an increasing concern
for me. But the need for a nuclear waste policy, which you have
so well described and which we together, as well as with the
authorizers, have worked on for, what, 4 years now?
Senator Alexander. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. And we've gone through three chairs of
the Energy Committee, and it's still sitting there, and it's
sitting there because of a conflict with Yucca. And I'm really
concerned about that because we cannot be stopped by Yucca from
doing good public policy around nuclear. You pointed out that
it's 60 percent of our clean power, and it's very cheap. Well,
if we're moribund, if we're in stasis, and we can't do anything
to see that we can fix the problems, it's a very difficult time
that we're going to have.
So I couldn't ask for anyone more reasonable, more
informed. And I really hope that we can spend some time and try
to see if we can't get these problems resolved. We've tried
before, but we have to succeed. So that's the need for our
nuclear waste policy, and as you pointed out, ensuring the
safety of nuclear plants, particularly after Fukushima, and
applying the regulations to aging plants.
It's my understanding that spent nuclear fuel is piling up
at reactor sites around the country, 74,000 metric tons of it
to date. Approximately 130 million people live within 50 miles
of a storage site for commercial or government-owned spent
nuclear fuel and other high-level waste. I mentioned in
California alone, they shut down San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station, stores the 4,000 highly radioactive spent fuel
assemblies just yards from the ocean. Reactors are being given
license extensions, even though we have no long-term plan to
store the waste they produce. This is very hard for me.
So I think NRC needs to play a key role in helping us solve
that problem, notably by being ready to review license
applications for spent fuel storage sites as we envision in our
Appropriation bill. NRC will also need to ensure that storage
and transportation equipment and the procedures for handling
spent fuel are fully protective of human health and the
environment.
So what Senator Alexander and I have done, and Senators
Murkowski and Cantwell, we hope we can push to get that Nuclear
Waste Policy Act into law. But we're nearing the fifth
anniversary of the Fukushima disaster, which showed us how
nature can quickly overwhelm even the best designed safety
systems.
Diablo Canyon, as I mentioned, sits on two major faults,
and it could be subject to some of the same risks as Fukushima.
Some post-Fukushima analysis argued that the Japanese
regulatory structure was too close to the nuclear industry it
was regulating, which contributed to the disaster, and so we
can't allow that to happen here. The NRC must be independent,
tough-nosed, and puts reactor operations above all.
Finally, the fleet of nuclear reactors in our country is
aging. Of the 99 operating reactors, as you pointed out, Mr.
Chairman, 81 have been granted license extensions to operate
for 60 years; another 11 have applications pending before the
Commission. In addition, NRC has implemented the subsequent
license renewal program to license reactors out to 80 years,
and expects its first application in 2019.
To me, this gives me pause, and I think it should give us
all pause. As these plants age, and the stresses of operations
and exposure to radioactivity take their toll, I hope that the
NRC takes a rigorous, evidence-based approach to ensuring that
all of the systems that comprise a nuclear power plant function
are safe and secure. The consequences of failure, however small
the chances, are really too grave to ignore.
I understand the NRC has undertaken an effort called
Project Aim--A-I-M--to make sure its budget and workforce are
in line with the agency's future needs. The goal of the
project, as I understand it, is to reduce funding and staffing
levels by 10 percent by 2020. With its 2017 budget request, the
NRC will have reduced staff by 280 employees, and funding by
$74 million from 2014 levels. That's a very big decline. The
nuclear industry has applauded this effort and called for
deeper cuts.
Now, I'm all for increasing Government efficiency, but I
really grow concerned when an industry champions less oversight
of its operations. So let me repeat: the American people need
NRC to be a strong, independent, and capable regulator, and the
nuclear industry should be held accountable to it for the
safety of all reactors, both operating and retired.
So I think we should sit down and talk about this. You
know, I still--I went to San Onofre. I looked at the steam
generator that was a Mitsubishi product. It was not like-for-
like, but believed to have alloys that were much improved. I
was told about where the punctures were, and at that time, it
was limited to one of the pair. Well, the other one began then
to develop punctures. I'm not an expert, so I don't know. I
know whether it's vibration or exactly what it was. And
apparently the company felt it strongly enough to shut them
both down and decommission them. Right in my State, that's a
very major occurrence because this is a huge company, which I
think they serve 16, 19 million people. It's enormous. And so
they have had to find substitute power, which they have been
able to do I think in a very solid way. But I am really worried
about all this waste.
And I'll say one other thing. As we have kind of looked
into the WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant) facility in New
Mexico, and we found that this most revered lab, Los Alamos,
contracted with a contractor that put the wrong kitty litter in
these drums, so they began to explode, and the facility is now
out of--not out of business, but out of business temporarily
for I think--how many years is it?
Senator Alexander. It's been 2 years so far.
Senator Feinstein. Two years so far, and I gather another 2
at least.
Senator Alexander. Well, it should be back this year.
Senator Feinstein. It should be back this year. Well,
that's good news. I did not know that. But to think that the
most capable people in a nuclear-related lab contracted out and
made a mistake. See, I can't forget that, and it does condition
my thinking.
Accidents do happen, and I think maintaining a robust NRC
is our stop against incidents. So I'll be very--I don't want to
see the NRC, in any way, shape, or form, be able to come in, in
a year and say, ``Well, you cut us back, so we couldn't do this
or that or the other thing.'' And I think we need to take a
very sober appraisal of, A, what we believe they should be
doing, the priority items, and see that they are well and
professionally staffed to do that.
So I hope we can make progress this year on our nuclear
waste policy. I know that I am grateful to you because you have
put the pilot in the bill every year, and I have kind of come
down off my high horse on the advanced modular nuclear reactors
a little bit.
Senator Alexander. You did exactly that. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. But the high horse is still there about
more when you don't have a place for the waste.
Senator Alexander. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. So it's a great treat to work with you,
Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. We
certainly don't want you back on your high horse. That would
not be good, so we'll redouble our efforts.
Well, that's a very compelling statement, and I thank you
for it. And I think--let me suggest that we each take about 10
minutes with our questions. We're the only two here--and if the
other Senators come, why, we'll let them--we'll cut it back to
five when they get here. But that will give us a chance to have
more of a conversation.
Let me start--oh, that's right. I forgot. The next thing is
for Chairman Burns to give his testimony, and then we will ask
our questions, and maybe by that time there will be other
Senators.
So, Mr. Chairman, welcome.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN G. BURNS
Mr. Burns. Thank you, Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member
Feinstein. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
to discuss our budget request for fiscal year 2017.
As you know, and you said, the NRC is an independent agency
established to license and regulate and oversee the civilian
use of radioactive material and facilities in the United
States. And the resources we're asking for in fiscal year 2017
will allow us to continue to uphold our important safety and
security mission.
The proposed budget is $970.2 million and 3,462 full-time
equivalent staff, which represents a decrease of $20 million
and about 90 full-time equivalents from the fiscal year 2016
enacted budget. In addition, there is a provision for about
$12.1 million for the budget for our inspector general.
For further context, our request is $74 million and 280
FTEs less than our fiscal year 2014 enacted budget. And the
request reflects our continued focus on our mission, our
important safety and security mission, while it also achieves
some resource savings and improves our efficiency. As we
continue to work through the Project Aim initiative, we
anticipate additional savings.
We are required to recover, by law, approximately 90
percent of our budget through fees, and, accordingly, about
$861.2 million of the fiscal year 2017 budget request would be
recovered from NRC licensees, resulting in a net appropriation
of $121.1 million.
Let me highlight some of the work we will achieve. We will
continue our licensing and oversight activities for 100
operating nuclear power reactors, and 31 research and test
reactors. The NRC expects to continue reviewing three new
reactor combined license applications, and, additionally, the
NRC will continue the inspections of four nuclear--new nuclear
units under construction in Georgia and South Carolina, and
will also continue our vendor inspection program.
We expect to review one small modular reactor design
certification, that's the NuScale design that was mentioned
earlier, and we will review three applications for medical
isotope facilities.
The budget request provides funding for licensing reviews
and oversight activities at reactors undergoing
decommissioning, as well as continued oversight over waste and
spent fuel storage facilities. We expect to review one
application for a spent fuel storage facility.
We'll continue to license and oversee the safe and secure
use of radioactive materials. In fiscal year 2017, the NRC will
complete about 2,000 materials licensing actions and about 900
routine health and safety inspections in this area.
Of note, our budget request includes $5 million in non-fee
billable activities to develop regulatory infrastructure to
effectively review advanced reactor applications.
As we continue to work through the Project Aim initiative,
we are confident the agency is on the right track. We have
already identified savings through a comprehensive evaluation
that involves staff and stakeholder input. Still, we remain
mindful of the importance of our highly skilled technical staff
in carrying out our mission, and while our size may change to
reflect efficiency gains, the need for the service we provide
to the American people remains unchanged.
I want to highlight one other area where we are focusing on
improvement. We're cognizant of the committee's concerns
regarding early Commission involvement in rulemaking, and we
have approved a new approach to do so, to enhance the
involvement of the Commission, and we'll provide requested
information to the committee next month, as provided in the
committee's report on the fiscal year 2016 appropriation.
On behalf of the Commission, I thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today, and I know you share
our dedication to the vital mission of the NRC. And we'd be
pleased to answer your questions.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen G. Burns
Good afternoon, Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. My colleagues and I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) fiscal year 2017 budget
request.
As you know, the NRC is an independent agency established to
license and regulate the civilian use of radioactive materials in the
United States to ensure adequate protection of public health and
safety, promote the common defense and security, and protect the
environment. The resources we are requesting for fiscal year 2017 will
allow the NRC to continue to uphold our important safety and security
mission.
We'd like to underscore that this budget request reflects a
substantial reduction from the 2016 enacted budget. Project Aim is
delivering on the promise to achieve efficiencies in both corporate and
programmatic areas. The NRC has taken a hard look at the proposed
budget, and is proposing reductions in both full-time equivalents (FTE)
and contract support dollars that represent real savings. As we
continue our work through the Project Aim initiative, we anticipate
additional savings and efficiencies to come.
To put this in context, the fiscal year 2017 budget request
reflects a decrease of $73.7 million and 279.7 full-time equivalent
employees from the fiscal year 2014 enacted budget. We believe this
fiscal year 2017 budget request reflects our continuing focus on our
important mission while achieving resource savings and improving the
agency's efficiency and effectiveness.
In fiscal year 2017, the NRC will continue licensing and oversight
activities for 100 operating commercial nuclear power reactors,
including the Watts Bar Unit 2 nuclear power station slated to begin
commercial operation later in calendar year 2016, and 31 research and
test reactors. The resources we have requested for fiscal year 2017
also support ongoing work associated with implementing lessons learned
from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident in Japan.
While we expect the bulk of the most safety significant enhancements to
be completed in calendar year 2016 and to bring to closure our work on
most of the longer-term ``Tier 2 and 3'' issues, resources requested
for fiscal year 2017 support the continued implementation of the ``Tier
1'' enhancements, including seismic and flooding hazard reevaluations,
spent fuel pool instrumentation and mitigation of beyond design basis
events.
During fiscal year 2017, the NRC expects to continue reviewing
three new reactor combined license applications. Additionally, the NRC
will continue to conduct inspections of four new reactor units under
construction--Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, and
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3--and will continue to
carry out its vendor inspection program for both new and operating
reactors. The NRC also expects to receive and begin review of one small
modular reactor design certification application from NuScale.
Further, the NRC plans to review three applications for medical
isotope production facilities, including reviewing an operating license
for one facility and conducting environmental and safety reviews of
construction permits at two others.
The fiscal year 2017 budget request includes $5 million in non-fee
billable activities related to developing the regulatory infrastructure
for advanced nuclear reactor technologies. This funding would prepare
the NRC to undertake effective and efficient licensing reviews of
advanced reactor technologies consistent with the maturity and
development pace of the technologies. The intended activities to be
initiated in fiscal year 2017 would fall into three categories:
licensing infrastructure, technical preparation, and outreach.
Additionally, the fiscal year 2017 budget request provides funding
for licensing reviews and oversight activities at power reactors
undergoing decommissioning, including Kewaunee Power Station, San
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3, Crystal River 3
Nuclear Power Plant and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant.
The fiscal year 2017 budget request also ensures the NRC can
continue to license and oversee the safe and secure use of radioactive
materials used for medical, academic, industrial and research purposes.
The NRC and Agreement states oversee approximately 21,000 specific
materials licensees. In fiscal year 2017, the NRC will complete
approximately 2,000 materials licensing actions and approximately 900
routine health and safety inspections, as well as reactive and follow-
up inspections.
In fiscal year 2017, the NRC will continue its oversight over
nuclear waste and spent fuel storage facilities, certify storage and
transportation containers and respond to events involving our
licensees. The NRC expects to review one application for an interim
consolidated storage facility.
In fiscal year 2017, the NRC's research program will continue to
support the NRC's regulatory activities by evaluating and resolving
safety issues for NRC-regulated nuclear power plants, other nuclear
facilities and materials users that the agency regulates. The NRC will
further enhance its regulatory programs through coordination and
cooperation with other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, and
international organizations and foreign governments. The NRC will
continue to support international conventions on safety and treaty
compliance, and support a wide range of activities to help foreign
regulatory counterparts develop or enhance their programs and their
controls over radioactive sources.
the changing regulatory environment
Before I get into the specifics of the NRC's fiscal year 2017
budget request, I would like to talk about our Project Aim effort to
find efficiencies, use resources wisely, and streamline processes and
regulatory decisionmaking while continuing to meet our critically
important safety and security mission.
Since 2001, the agency grew significantly to enhance its security
and incident response regulatory structure, and to prepare for the
projected growth in nuclear power in the United States. That forecast
in growth has been adjusted downward in response to changes in the
nuclear industry. As is appropriate, the NRC is being scrutinized by
its stakeholders for its response to these changes and the resulting
use of resources. The agency can and should maintain focus on our
mission while we take a hard look at our workload and how to achieve
efficiencies.
We are confident that the agency is on the right track. Over $9
million in savings has already been identified through a comprehensive
evaluation that involved staff at all levels of the agency, as well as
stakeholder input. The savings, particularly in the areas of
rulemaking, travel and corporate support are significant. However,
through Project Aim, we are seeking additional efficiencies. Corporate
efficiencies include centralizing financial management and human
capital staff, and reducing information technology security costs. The
NRC's safety and security mission remains paramount as actions are
taken to re-baseline the agency.
The Project Aim Steering Committee has delivered to the Commission
a rebaselining paper that outlines additional proposed efficiencies.
While still under Commission review, the now-public paper reflects more
than 140 activities that could be eliminated or reduced over the next 6
months, for a savings of about $41.1 million in fiscal year 2017. Total
potential reductions identified over 18 months is $49.5 million. The
staff will later submit to the Commission a paper outlining additional
areas for longer-term efficiencies and projected workload changes
through fiscal year 2020.
However, we cannot emphasize strongly enough that the NRC's ability
to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety and the
common defense and security will always be our main concern. While our
size may change to reflect workload reductions and efficiency gains,
the need for the great majority of the services we provide the American
people remains unchanged.
As we proceed, the agency remains mindful of the importance of its
highly skilled technical staff and the need to maintain our expertise.
We must keep a focus on knowledge management as some senior staff
retire and new experts take their place. We must not forget that the
success of the agency is due, in no small part, to the quality and
dedication of the agency's people. Remaining one of the best places to
work in the Federal Government is important to our ability to continue
to recruit the most talented candidates, and retain our skilled and
knowledgeable technical experts.
I want to highlight one other area where the Commission is focusing
on improvement: the Commission's involvement in the rulemaking process.
Over the last several years, the Commission has revised its rulemaking
processes to improve its understanding of, and, where possible, reduce
the cumulative effects of regulations. These new processes include
increased opportunities for stakeholder interactions and feedback,
publishing draft supporting guidance concurrent with proposed rules,
requesting specific comment on the cumulative effects of regulations in
proposed rules, and developing better-informed implementation
timeframes.
We are cognizant of the Committee's concerns as expressed in the
fiscal year 2016 Joint Explanatory Statement regarding the timing of
Commission involvement. The Commission directed the NRC staff last
September to propose a plan for increasing the Commission's involvement
in the rulemaking process before significant resources are expended.
The Commission has just issued its direction on the proposed plan,
which presented eight recommendations to better define and enhance the
Commission's role in the early stages of rulemaking. We believe our
approved approach meets the intent expressed in the report language and
we will provide the requested information to the Committee in March
2016.
fiscal year 2017 budget request
The NRC's proposed fiscal year 2017 budget is $970.2 million and
3,462 FTE, excluding the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The
proposal represents a net decrease of $19.8 million from the fiscal
year 2016 enacted budget, as well as a decrease of 90 FTE.
The OIG's component of the fiscal year 2017 budget is $12.1
million, of which $11.2 million is for auditing and investigation
activities for NRC programs and $1 million is for auditing and
investigation activities of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
(DNFSB). These resources will allow the OIG to carry out its mission to
independently and objectively conduct audits and investigations to
ensure the efficiency and integrity of the NRC and DNFSB, to promote
cost-effective management, and to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and
abuse.
Under the provisions of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1990, as amended, the NRC fiscal year 2017 budget request provides for
90 percent fee recovery, less the amounts appropriated for generic
homeland security activities, waste incidental to reprocessing
activities and DNFSB activities. Accordingly, $861.2 million of the
fiscal year 2017 budget will be recovered from fees assessed to NRC
licensees, resulting in a net appropriation of $121.1 million. This
appropriation is an increase of $2.1 million compared with the fiscal
year 2016 enacted budget due to the inclusion of $5 million in non-fee-
billable resources for advanced nuclear reactor technology.
The NRC carries out its safety and security activities through two
major programs: Nuclear Reactor Safety, which includes both Operating
Reactors and New Reactors, and Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety,
consisting of fuel facilities, nuclear materials users, decommissioning
and low-level waste, and spent fuel storage and transportation.
Compared to the fiscal year 2016 enacted budget, the NRC's Nuclear
Reactor Safety Program decreased by $3 million and 61.9 FTE; the
Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety Program, including Decommissioning
and Low-Level Waste, decreased by $1.8 million and 28.1 FTE.
I would now like to highlight portions of the fiscal year 2017
budget request.
nuclear reactor safety
Operating Reactors
The fiscal year 2017 budget request for the Operating Reactors
Business Line is $587.5 million, a decrease of $1.7 million from the
fiscal year 2016 enacted budget. This reflects declining or completed
workload associated with, among other activities, implementation of the
Fukushima lessons learned, license renewals and National Fire
Protection Association 805 license amendment requests.
New Reactors
The fiscal year 2017 budget request for new reactors is $169.9
million, which represents a funding decrease of $1.4 million when
compared with the fiscal year 2016 enacted budget. The decrease is a
result of delays in application submittals, and project slowdowns or
suspensions. The New Reactors Business Line is responsible for the
regulatory activities associated with siting, licensing, and overseeing
construction of new nuclear power reactors.
nuclear materials and waste safety
Fuel Facilities
The fiscal year 2017 budget request for fuel facilities is $41.5
million, which represents an overall funding decrease of $2.9 million
when compared with the fiscal year 2016 enacted budget. The Fuel
Facilities Business Line supports licensing, oversight, rulemaking,
international activities, research, generic homeland security, and
event response associated with the safe and secure operation of various
operating and new fuel facilities such as conversion, enrichment, and
fuel fabrication facilities, and nuclear fuel research and pilot
facilities.
Nuclear Materials Users
The fiscal year 2017 budget request for nuclear material users is
$92.5 million, which represents a funding increase of $0.9 million when
compared with the fiscal year 2016 enacted budget.
The Nuclear Materials Users Business Line supports the safe and
secure possession, processing, handling of nuclear materials in many
diverse applications, along with associated activities related to
licensing, oversight, rulemaking, international engagements, research,
generic homeland security, event response, and State, Tribal, and
Federal Program interfaces. This increase is due to the resumption of
security rulemakings and to address an industry petition for
rulemaking. These were delayed in fiscal year 2016.
Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation
The fiscal year 2017 budget request for spent fuel storage and
transportation is $37.2 million, which represents an overall funding
increase of $1.1 million when compared with the fiscal year 2016
enacted budget. The Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Business Line
supports licensing, oversight, rulemaking, international activities,
research, and generic homeland security associated with the safe and
secure storage and transportation of spent nuclear fuel and other
radioactive materials. This increase is due to safety and environmental
reviews of an interim consolidated storage facility and related safety
analysis.
Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste
The fiscal year 2017 budget request for decommissioning and low-
level waste is $41.6 million, which represents an overall funding
decrease of $1 million when compared with the fiscal year 2016 enacted
budget. The Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste Business Line supports
licensing, oversight, rulemaking, international activities, and
research associated with the safe and secure operation of uranium
recovery facilities, removal of nuclear facilities from service and
reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits termination
of the NRC license, and disposition of low-level radioactive waste from
all civilian sources. The Commission has directed staff to proceed with
a decommissioning rulemaking that would establish clear requirements
for decommissioning reactors. Comments from stakeholders are being
collected through March 18 of this year with the bulk of the work on
the regulatory basis and proposed rule completed by the end of fiscal
year 2017.
closing
As I said at the onset, this budget request represents a
substantial reduction from the 2016 enacted budget. The President's
Budget takes advantage of the Project Aim-identified efficiencies, and,
as we continue our work, we anticipate additional savings and
efficiencies to come.
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my formal testimony on the
NRC's fiscal year 2017 budget request. On behalf of the Commission, I
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. We look forward to
working with you on the 2017 budget and going forward. I know you share
our dedication to the vital mission of the NRC.
I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have.
Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
And we'll each take 10 minutes for questions, and then
we'll go from there.
CURRENT STATE OF THE POWER REACTOR FLEET
Mr. Chairman, it sounded like you mentioned seven reactors.
You're monitoring four and are considering three more
applications. Is that right?
Mr. Burns. We have the four----
Senator Alexander. Tell me--tell me where they are.
Mr. Burns. Okay. We have the two Vogtle plants in Georgia
and the two Summer plants in South Carolina are under
construction.
Senator Alexander. Okay.
Mr. Burns. In the last year, we have approved the combined
license applications for the Fermi Unit 3 and the South Texas
Unit 3 and 4 plants. Now, what the companies there have
indicated----
Senator Alexander. Is that two more?
Mr. Burns. That's--well, actually, it would be three--
actually it would be three more plants.
Senator Alexander. Okay.
Mr. Burns. Now, what they've indicated they're going to do
is in effect--they've gone through the process of receiving the
license, but they're going to bank--if you will, bank the
license until they determine probably in early 2020 or
thereabout, whether they would proceed, you know, whether the
conditions are right to proceed with construction of those
plants.
Senator Alexander. Yes. So----
Mr. Burns. And we also have a couple other plants which we
expect to see from I think Duke, I think it's the Lee and the
Levy plant this year, which we would also be asked to act on a
combined license for.
Senator Alexander. Those are new.
Mr. Burns. Those would be new sites, yes.
Senator Alexander. So four under construction.
Mr. Burns. Four under construction.
Senator Alexander. Three new reactors in Texas that are in
the application process.
Mr. Burns. Well, two in Texas that received the combined
license. They could proceed with construction today.
Senator Alexander. Yes. And where's the third?
Mr. Burns. In Fermi, which is in Michigan, near the
Michigan-Indiana border.
Senator Alexander. Yes. And then two more?
Mr. Burns. Yes. It's--is it two or--it's two--it's two
more. Under the Duke Power and the locations, I've----
Senator Alexander. Yes. So that's four----
Mr. Burns. In the southeast----
Senator Alexander. That's four, three, and two.
Mr. Burns. Yes.
Senator Alexander. The way I'm hearing you, that's seven
and nine.
Mr. Burns. Yes. Yes. And then----
Senator Alexander. They're potential new reactors.
Mr. Burns. Yes, the--yes.
Senator Alexander. In various stages of----
Mr. Burns. Yes.
Senator Alexander. Now, how many reactors--we have 100
today, right? With the opening of Watts Bar, if you count Watts
Bar.
Mr. Burns. Correct.
Senator Alexander. But how many are being decommissioned or
closed?
Mr. Burns. Well, there are announcements for two sites in
the Northeast--the FitzPatrick plant in upstate New York, and
the Pilgrim plant south of Boston--which Entergy has announced
that it would be closing down. I think FitzPatrick in 2017,
and----
Senator Alexander. What about the California sites that we
talked about?
Mr. Burns. Well, San Onofre has already been closed. The
other----
Senator Alexander. So that's already in your----
Mr. Burns. Yes. Yes.
Senator Alexander. So you know of two sites that would be
closed.
Mr. Burns. In addition to sites that are already under
decommissioning, such as the San Onofre site in Southern
California.
SAFETY RECORD OF U.S. REACTORS
Senator Alexander. Yes. So it's 100 potentially, plus 7,
minus 2, potentially, that we know.
Let me start this out by asking you a few questions about
the safety record, because Senator Feinstein very properly
brings this up. How many in the United States--we have 100
reactors--how many deaths have there been in the history of our
commercial nuclear program associated with reactor accidents,
with the failures of the reactor?
Mr. Burns. With--from a radiation-induced accident, none
that I know of.
Senator Alexander. Okay. Let me ask Mr. Ostendorff--
although I could ask you--how many deaths have there been
associated with Navy reactors?
Mr. Ostendorff. None.
Senator Alexander. Three Mile Island was our most
celebrated nuclear accident in the United States. That was in
1978? No----
Mr. Ostendorff. '79.
Mr. Burns. Nine. Nine.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. 1979. How many people were
hurt at Three Mile Island?
Mr. Burns. From radiation, none.
Senator Alexander. None. And that's despite the fact that
there has been monitoring probably still going on, maybe not,
but there was monitoring at least for many years of individuals
in that area to make sure that no one had radiation sickness as
a result of the accident.
So no, no let me go further than that. We have used fuel,
which we would like, both of us, and Senator Murkowski is now
here, chairman of our authorizing committee, we have used fuel
on 75 sites or so around the country that we would like to
begin to move to either a consolidated site, or I would like to
move to Yucca Mountain. What is the Commission's view of the
safety of the storage of the used fuel on those--at those 75
sites?
Mr. Burns. We believe it's safe. We monitor it. We, in
some--we will license the fuel storage at those sites, and we
monitor and inspect it. We also license and review the casks,
and we believe it's safe, can be safely held there.
Senator Alexander. Yes. Okay.
Senator Feinstein, we have Senator Murkowski here now. I
think what I'll do is stop my questions at 5 minutes and go to
you for your questions, and then go to Senator Murkowski. Would
that----
Senator Murkowski. That is fine.
Senator Alexander. We're glad you're here.
So Senator Feinstein.
DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT
Senator Feinstein. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
As part of its response to Fukushima, the NRC has asked all
nuclear plants for information regarding seismic and flooding
hazards, as I understand it. And I think this analysis is of
particular importance in Diablo Canyon, which sits on the
California coast near a series of fault lines. For each fault
line, I understand--and correct me if I'm wrong--the NRC will
compare the newest evidence of potential ground movement
against the design tolerances of the plant. Is that correct?
Mr. Burns. Yes. Yes, that's my understanding. We have them,
as we have plants across the United States, doing a seismic
reevaluation. I believe the Diablo Canyon final report is due
in about a year. In the meantime, we believe that the plant is
safe to operate taking into account knowledge that's been
developed regarding the faults and the new designs that we know
of with respect to seismic activity.
Senator Feinstein. Right. And if I understand this
correctly, your staff has confirmed that the new seismic data
is, quote, of sufficient quality and suitable, end quote, for
conducting this final risk analysis. And then that report will
be out in September of 2017. Is that correct?
Mr. Burns. That's correct.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. So can you talk a little bit--
because this is one reactor that's had a lot of public concern
around it, as you know--why does it take so long to complete
the risk analysis? And what makes you confident that there are
no safety concerns in the interim?
Mr. Burns. Well, Diablo Canyon, I think as you are well
aware, since its original licensing, there has been a high
degree of focus on seismic--the seismic profile, the seismic
design basis for the plant, and as new knowledge is developed,
as the science developed, that's fed into it. Why we're
confident with respect to the safety of the plant, pending the
evaluation, is because the parameters that have been used in
licensing allow a very robust design, they envelop some of what
we are seeing from the potential information from other fault
lines or other material.
Part of the reason it takes that long is to do the science
well, and also, you know, the availability of top experts to
conduct that work. Again, I want to assure you, from our
standpoint, we believe that pending the outcome of those
evaluations and what it may show, we think the plant is safe to
operate.
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION
Senator Feinstein. Got it. Thank you. I want to get in my
time the second reactor site, which is the decommissioning at
San Onofre. I understand they're moving ahead with expanding
their dry fuel storage area, and their plans include
demolishing the reactor buildings on an expedited timeframe,
potentially concluding work in 2027. And I understand that you
have issued all the necessary approvals, and if the State does
the same, physical dismantlement could become--could begin next
year. Is that correct?
Mr. Burns. That's my understanding.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Can you confirm that the NRC will
continue to inspect the site and oversee the decommissioning
program to ensure safety?
Mr. Burns. Yes. That's part of our normal program. It would
be not only for San Onofre, but the other sites that are under
decommissioning.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Now, what are the biggest risks in
your view to completing the decommissioning process in a safe
and timely manner?
Mr. Burns. I think if I--Senator, one of the things I
learned from a site visit to the Zion plant, which is north of
Chicago undergoing decommissioning, it's not so much the
biggest risk, but the biggest challenge and I think the biggest
focus is sound planning, because you want to be able--you want
to--when you're taking apart the facility, you want to do it in
a way that minimizes occupational exposure of radiation to
workers, but not only that, you also have to worry about making
sure you're not getting overexposure to heavy metals and other
types of chemicals that may have been used appropriately at the
site. So my sense is it's sound planning.
I met with the folks from San Onofre, as I think some of my
colleagues are----
Senator Feinstein. Good.
Mr. Burns [continuing]. And, again, I think they have--my
sense is that they have that understanding, that good planning
as you go into the process for not only the dismantling, but
the planning for the spent fuel storage pad and the dry
storage, is underway. So I think keeping a good focus on that
planning, from my standpoint, is the biggest challenge.
Senator Feinstein. Let me ask you this, Does the NRC have
contact with the CEO, who actually, you know, made the
decision, and I think is a very constructive and cautious
individual who wants to do the right thing? Do you keep in
touch, or is it with the technical staff that you keep in
touch?
Mr. Burns. Well, sometimes I forget maybe the titles, but I
met with the manager, actually I saw him yesterday at another
conference, who is responsible for laying out the planning for
it. So we do have interaction. I think they try to reach out to
us to let us know where their plans are. So there's an
engagement, I think, both at the management level within the
company, as well as, importantly--obviously importantly--the
technical level within the agency.
Senator Feinstein. Well, the reason I ask is I know
technical people and professional people are very good, but I
think it's very important that the person of a big company who
makes the decisions really keeps in contact, or you keep in
contact with him, so that he gets firsthand information in the
case anything goes a little out of the normal. And would you
agree to do that?
Mr. Burns. Certainly.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
We welcome Senator Murkowski, chairman of the Energy
Committee.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. Appreciate the opportunity to
be with you to discuss some of the nuclear issues, and again to
thank you both for your leadership as we try to figure out some
solutions when it comes to nuclear waste. I know we haven't
picked up that baton yet in 2016, but I think the commitment
still is there. Know that I certainly share that with you, that
we're going to figure this out. So thank you for that.
And thank you to our commissioners for the work that you
do.
And, Commissioner Ostendorff, I understand that you're
going to be signing out of here at the end of this fiscal year,
so thank you for your service.
SMALL MODULAR REACTORS
I want to direct my questions this afternoon to small
modular reactors and where we are, and just kind of have some
sense of understanding, because what I'm hearing are just
horror stories in terms of the length of time that this process
is taking and the costs involved.
So we understand that NRC is preparing to receive full
license applications for SMRs. So the question is, How long do
you expect that a full application review of an SMR would take?
Have you identified some of the barriers that we clearly know
are in place, either legislative or regulatory, so that we can
have a more expedited and yet thorough review of these full SMR
applications? And I throw that out to all of you here.
Mr. Burns. I'll start off, and please--and joined by my
colleagues.
One of the things I want to make sure when we talk about
small modular reactors is what we do expect to receive. We
expect to receive an application from NuScale at the end of
this year for a small modular reactor. It's a light-water
reactor base. But I want to make sure I distinguish between
small modular reactors we may receive in the next few years and
the longer term look at advanced reactors, which are non-light-
water reactor designs, which are coming, and which we've been
having a lot of engagement with the Department of Energy with
some vendors on.
Back to your question in terms of what we have before us.
We've been interacting with NuScale to make sure we both
understand each other before the application comes in and so
that we're well prepared for it. Again, I expect we will
receive it at the end of this year. My expectation is the
design certification would take on the order of about 3 to 4
years for the review of that application.
Senator Murkowski. So it is correct--I'm told that they
will--they expect to have spent--``they'' being NuScale--$1.1
billion by the time construction begins on their first NuScale
unit. That's a cost, I'm told, of about $268 billed per NRC
man-hours given the review time that has been outlined.
So in terms of cost to the agency to do all this, cost to
the entity that's making the application, can't we build a
better mousetrap here?
Mr. Burns. Well--go ahead, Commissioner.
Mr. Ostendorff. I just want to clarify one thing. The last
2 weeks I've had a chance to speak at two conferences with the
NuScale Chief Operating Officer Mike McGough. It was out at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory the week before last, and last week I
spoke at Platts. Mike McGough was at both of these sessions,
and he is their primary face in Washington, D.C. And I want to
separate out the regulatory cost from the total cost.
Senator Murkowski. Okay.
Mr. Ostendorff. I think the total cost you're talking
about, Senator, is about the same number I've heard. That is
not all regulatory cost. That is the cost to go and design,
hire staff, and do test work to ensure there's a safe design
that can be submitted. When I asked Mike McGough, ``What is
your concern with the NRC and our regulatory hat as far as the
cost?'' he says that that cost is a small proportion, or is a
small portion, of their overall cost.
Last June, June 2015, the NRC published a Federal Register
Notice, 118 chapters, was called the ``Design Specific Review
Standards'' that would be the guidebook that our staff would
use to review that NuScale license application, which has not
yet come in to the agency, but is expected in December of this
year. And I asked Mike, ``How is that going? How is your
company looking at this design specific review standard
process?'' He told me he's satisfied with it.
So I think there's a lot of numbers that get thrown around
and so forth. I don't believe the $1.1 billion is anywhere
close to regulatory costs, which is a lot, lot lower than that
number.
Senator Murkowski. So----
Mr. Ostendorff. And we can provide feedback to you.
Senator Murkowski. Well, and I think it would be helpful to
have a handle on what real numbers are. But further to the
point, I think there's a recognition that this is--this is
lengthy, it's complicated, and it's expensive, and if there are
ways that we can be more efficient, not only with the
Commission's time, but again for the applicants, are there ways
that we can work to enhance efficiencies, either through the
regulatory or the legislative track? And I guess that's what I
would hope for.
And I think, Chairman Burns, you mentioned working with
folks within DOE. Are we seeing greater communication back and
forth so that everybody is working together? I want to know
that we're not at odds with one another as we're trying to
enhance these efforts.
Mr. Burns. No, I don't think we're at odds. What we do, we
have good communication with DOE. Obviously, we have the arm's
length relationship because we have the regulatory
responsibility, they have more of the research and development
responsibility.
But we, for example, in the advanced reactor areas, we held
a workshop last May with DOE and invited people who are
interested in potentially advanced designs to come to that.
We're having another workshop co-sponsored with DOE this coming
June. I meet with John Kotek about quarterly--you know, three
to four times a year--on issues. We're looking for again in the
advanced reactor area. They did some work, which we have under
review with respect to how the general design criteria that
have been largely used in light-water reactor applications, how
do they line up with these non-light-water reactor designs that
may be coming in?
So I think we've got good communication, and we'll continue
to work within our respective scope of responsibilities well
together.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. So I
thank you for the opportunity to ask these questions, but to
each of you, know that this is something that I'm going to
continue to press and inquire on because my observation--or at
least the people that are coming to me are saying it's lengthy,
it's costly, there must be some way that we can be a little
more efficient there.
But thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Mr. Chairman, have you requested sufficient funding in your
budget to perform the review of the small modular reactor
application when it comes?
Mr. Burns. Yes, we have.
Senator Alexander. And are the regulations in place that
you need to have in place in order to review the design?
Mr. Burns. Yes. We have the basic design certification
framework. And as Commissioner Ostendorff discussed, we have
this design--help me out here.
Mr. Ostendorff. Design specific review standards.
Mr. Burns. Thank you. Design specific review standards that
will help and carry out the review.
CONSOLIDATED INTERIM STORAGE
Senator Alexander. Let me switch to something that I know
Senator Feinstein is interested in, and I believe Senator
Murkowski, too, and that's the--you said you expected to
receive one application for a private consolidated storage
facility this year. Is there a possibility there might be more
than one?
Mr. Burns. Yes, there could be more than one. We expect
from waste control specialists in western Texas sometime within
the next 2 to 3 months, I believe, and then the Holtec or Eddy
Lea Alliance, which is on the other side of the border in New
Mexico, later this year, I don't have the exact timeframe and--
--
Senator Alexander. Yes. And, of course, my view is that we
ought to proceed on all these tracks at once. Senator
Feinstein--I don't want to speak for her--she is not prepared
to say the same thing on Yucca Mountain, but I don't--I think
we ought to move on all the tracks at once if we want to do
something about nuclear waste. How long would you expect the
Commission's review of the application for a private storage
facility to take?
Mr. Burns. I would expect about a 3- to 4-year period. Now,
that may--if there is a hearing requested and a hearing
granted, there might be somewhat more time on that, but
generally about a 3-year period.
Senator Alexander. Do you have sufficient resources to
review the application? Have you requested enough funding in
the new budget to continue that review into next year?
Mr. Burns. We have in the request specifically requested or
have funds specifically provided for, for one--for at least one
application. If we get the second application, we would look at
reprioritizing some work and do it, but we would--we would----
Senator Alexander. So the answer would be yes.
Mr. Burns. Yes, we would go, yes, and continue forward with
the review.
Senator Alexander. Do you have all the legal authorities
that you need to license a private consolidated storage
facility?
Mr. Burns. Yes. Yes, we do. And we have done--we have
actually done this kind of review at an earlier time for a
facility that did not go forward.
ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTORS
Senator Alexander. You mentioned advanced nuclear reactors.
What kind of reactors do you consider to be advanced reactors?
This is different than small modular reactors.
Mr. Burns. Right. This would be different types of design,
a high-temperature gas reactor, a pebble-bed reactor, and
modernized forms of some reactors, a molten-salt reactor. There
are different types of designs.
Senator Alexander. And what kind of work are you doing on
those types of designs?
Mr. Burns. Well, we have some limited work that we're doing
now. With the $5 million off fee proposal, we would continue
work on regulatory infrastructure addressing some of these
issues about readiness to handle those. There are some
technical--I think some technical issues we would do, and then
also engagement with the companies or entities who may be
interested in it, and also continue an engagement
internationally, for example, the Generation IV Forum, which is
a group of countries, including the United States, that is
interested in the potential advanced reactor design.
Senator Alexander. I wonder if any of the other
commissioners would have any comment about the role of advanced
nuclear reactors in the future for our country.
Mr. Ostendorff. I'll comment, Senator, because I had a
chance just 2 weeks ago to be out in your State at Oak Ridge to
talk at a conference on advanced reactor technology
development. And there's a lot of interest out there. There
were 21 different vendors that were represented at this
conference for 2 days. As the chairman mentioned, there are
technologies being discussed. There are non-light-water
reactors, very different from our current reactor fleet, very
different from small modular reactors. I heard one that was
being discussed that was a lead-bismuth design. I never heard
of that before, but in addition to pebble-bed and molten-salt,
as the chairman mentioned.
So there's a lot of interest in different technologies. I
think most of these are very interesting, and some of them have
promise, but I think at the end of the day, the vendors and the
investors, especially the venture capital community, is trying
to look at, Does this make economic sense? So I think the
economic question is perhaps the biggest one rather than a
technical question.
Senator Alexander. Yes, Commissioner.
Ms. Svinicki. Chairman Alexander, may I state or bring to
the subcommittee's attention that although it is true that
these advanced reactor types are very different than what we
have in commercial generation now, the history of nuclear power
development in the United States, is that actually many of
these concepts are where we began as a country. If you visit
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory, you
find that we developed small scale prototypes of some of the
sodium-cooled reactors.
So it's a very interesting challenge to try to access some
of that knowledge from 50, 60 years ago, and many of those
leading experts have retired, but there is in the Department of
Energy, and Atomic Energy Commission history a lot of relevant
information, and in this country, we tried a lot of these
things.
Senator Alexander. That's very interesting.
Commissioner Baran.
Mr. Baran. I'll just briefly add, going back to the budget
piece of this, I think the approach of funding advanced reactor
activities separate from the fees licensees pay actually make a
lot of sense here because I'd have a hard time justifying
charging current plants for the work we're doing to get ready
for future advanced reactor applications. I think having it
separate from the fees is a fairer approach, but it makes sure
that we have the funds we need to move forward on some of these
regulatory and technical issues.
Senator Alexander. Thank you. Thank you for that.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
The chairman asked the questions, you know, how many people
have died as a product of a nuclear accident, and it hasn't
happened. That sort of really isn't my goal in this. My goal is
I know what can happen, and the key is to prevent it from
happening.
CRYSTAL RIVER NUCLEAR PLANT
Let me ask you some questions about the Crystal River plant
in Florida, which I gather operated for 36 years. We're talking
about 80-year licenses now. And apparently the concrete began
to separate in the dome, and that led to its shutdown. Could
you tell me a little bit about that and what happened? Because
if we're going to go for 80-year licenses, we ought to--and I
just went into the faulty steam generators in San Onofre, and I
suppose they could have, you know, patched them and kept
operating, but they did the responsible thing and
decommissioned it. And that--I've been there, and that site has
been impeccably maintained by Southern California Edison, at
least what somebody who is not a professional could see.
So could you talk about, just a little bit about, what
happened at Crystal River in Florida?
Mr. Burns. Yes, I can. We can provide you maybe some--
probably more granular information than I probably have. But
what--the issue of concrete degradation at Crystal River, as I
understand it, was in part because of some of the evolution or
operations they undertook there, which had an adverse impact on
the concrete. And noting that, when we look at subsequent
license renewal, and we look at the things that we are most
concerned about, in terms of aging management, particularly
when you talk about passive long-lived components, well, one of
them is--one of the issues is for us, and that we do, do and
have done research on, are doing research on, and will look at
as part of the renewal review, is the question of long-term
adequacy of concrete structures at a site. So that is certainly
something we look at in terms of and is of concern to us, as
is, for example, the integrity of the reactor pressure vessel,
certain piping, certain cabling, on the long term.
Senator Feinstein. Do you have people that know what to
look for? And has the Commission seen the concrete degradation
at Crystal River?
Mr. Burns. I believe--I believe we have--yes, I believe our
inspectors have looked at it and--because when I think it was
discovered several years ago, my understanding is the licensee
was considering whether or not it would restart the facility,
whether it would do appropriate repair work, could do
appropriate repair work, ultimately made a business decision to
shut the facility down.
Senator Feinstein. Yes.
Mr. Burns. But it is something we certainly were aware of.
They--when discovering those conditions, they would have had to
report those conditions to us, and we would have seen it
through our inspection program. So, yes, in that sense, very
much so something we were aware of, became aware of.
Senator Feinstein. Commissioner Ostendorff.
Mr. Ostendorff. I just wanted to add one specific aspect to
Crystal River. There was a maintenance error by the utility.
Let's pretend that this water bottle is the containment, and
pretend there's a rubber band around the circumference of this
water bottle. The water bottle is being compressed by this
rubber band. Now think that this is a containment made of
concrete, and there's a cable, rather than a rubber band,
around this bottle. Improper detensioning of that cable during
maintenance is what caused the crack----
Senator Feinstein. Is it improper----
Mr. Ostendorff. Detensioning. There's this cable that was
supposed to be----
Senator Feinstein. Detensioning, which means loosening?
Mr. Ostendorff. It means loosening.
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
Mr. Ostendorff. Take the rubber band off.
Senator Feinstein. Right.
Mr. Ostendorff. And so when that cable was detensioned
improperly, you had irregular application of forces to the
containment, and that was the root cause of why the concrete
cracked.
Senator Feinstein. Well, is that possible in other plants
or is it isolated to Crystal River?
Mr. Ostendorff. Well, I think the procedure itself could
happen someplace else. I think that Duke Energy learned a very
expensive lesson here in that maintenance error. I want to make
sure it was maintenance error that caused the concrete to fail.
We have a lot of people that do detailed reviews of concrete
structures in nuclear power plants around the country. There's
been a concern that the Seabrook plant in New Hampshire that we
have spent a lot of time with industry and outside research
groups to understand and are satisfied with the concrete
structure at Seabrook. But there's a lot of attention paid to
this particular area.
Senator Feinstein. Well, that's good, but how was it
brought to your attention about Crystal River?
Mr. Ostendorff. Well, this was a pretty catastrophic
failure. I think Commissioner Svinicki probably has been to the
plant, and we've both been there. You see the cracks on the
containment itself that occurred, you know, I don't know, like
6 or 8 feet long, something like that, after the cable was
taken off inappropriately.
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
Mr. Ostendorff. It was visually detected by the licensee
and at the same time by our resident inspectors.
LESSONS LEARNED FROM FUKUSHIMA
Senator Feinstein. Yes. If someone were to ask this
question--and I'm about to--what were the lessons for NRC from
Fukushima?
Mr. Burns. Well, I'll start. I think our primary lesson,
which actually reinforced a concept that we had adopted or
pursued after the terrorist attacks in 2001, and that was being
prepared for things that you don't expect to happen that may go
beyond where the design is, and that is, for example, if you
lose--what happens at Fukushima is they lose electric power
that allows them to proceed with cooling of the reactors there.
So the primary lesson, and where I think that the agency
has had and that the industry had, is, How do you cope with
those things if those worst case things and beyond your design
basis things happen? So positioning additional diesel
generators to provide power, pumps because you may have lost
important pumps, cabling, electrical supply, positioning those
things onsite, and what the industry has also done is it's
established two----
Senator Feinstein. I don't mean to interrupt you.
Mr. Burns. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. But does that mean a secondary system of
redundancy?
Mr. Burns. It's redundant equipment that can go in and be
used to help with the recovery, for example, of electricity if
you need electric power within the plant.
Senator Feinstein. Well, why are they still pumping
radioactive water into the ocean?
Mr. Burns. Who----
Senator Feinstein. At Fukushima.
Mr. Burns. I don't know that they are pumping radioactive
water----
Senator Feinstein. I believe they are.
Mr. Burns [continuing]. Into the ocean because the Japanese
have been----
Senator Feinstein. There is still some that apparently goes
into the ocean. At least I read about that in a magazine.
Mr. Burns. Yes. Yes. Well, the Japanese have been
extraordinarily conservative about what they will allow to go
into the ocean, in fact, to the point that some--that they
have--they control water, they decontaminate the water of the
very--sort of high-level radionuclides and leave--you basically
have tritiated water, tritium----
Senator Feinstein. Yes.
Mr. Burns [continuing]. Water with tritium. So they've been
extraordinarily--trying to be extraordinarily careful about
that.
Senator Feinstein. Well, what I was told, it's a no fishing
zone, and so I asked, ``Why is it a no fishing zone?''
Mr. Burns. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. It's because of water going into the
ocean that's contaminated. So----
Mr. Burns. Yes. I am not particularly--I would have to say
I am not particularly aware of what their current restriction
is. Certainly, they had, after the accident, restrictions. I
don't know what they are today.
Senator Feinstein. I'll find out.
Mr. Burns. But what I'm trying to help visualize is that
before you get to that state is look--thinking about ways of if
you've lost certain systems in the plant, restore them to the
point that you can get the safe shutdown so you don't have the
melted reactor core, that you provide--that you mitigate the
consequences of the accident and prevent releases to the extent
you can.
Senator Feinstein. Commissioner.
CRYSTAL RIVER NUCLEAR PLANT
Mr. Ostendorff. Senator, I would like to provide a
clarification to my response on Crystal River. I should have
told you a significant fact. At the time this containment
cracking occurred in the concrete, the reactor was fully shut
down and cooled down. It was in a maintenance period. I did not
tell you that. I apologize.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. That's helpful. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Mr. Chairman, isn't the--isn't----
Are you ready for me to----
Senator Feinstein. I'm finished.
LESSONS LEARNED FROM FUKUSHIMA
Senator Alexander. Mr. Chairman, isn't the answer to
Senator Feinstein's question that the lesson from Fukushima is
that you need to make sure you have water to cool the reactors
or the spent fuel rods?
Mr. Burns. Yes. I would say you need--one thing that you
need, you need electricity because----
Senator Alexander. Well, no, no. In the answer, you needed
water.
Senator Feinstein. Yes, I----
Mr. Burns. You need a cooling water----
Senator Alexander. I'm not asking you how you get the
water----
Mr. Burns. Okay.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. I'm saying in the problem,
you didn't have water to cool the rods or the reactors.
Senator Feinstein. Sufficient.
Senator Alexander. Isn't that right?
Mr. Burns. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Senator Alexander. Right. And then you can go into a whole
bunch of explanation about how you have redundant ways to do
that, but it was a fairly simple problem, if I'm correct. You
didn't have water to cool rods that were in the reactor or that
were used fuel.
Mr. Burns. And most--I would say the primary reason for
that is the tsunami knocked out the diesel generators.
Senator Alexander. Yes, but if you're analyzing the
problem, the problem was you needed water.
Mr. Burns. Correct.
Senator Alexander. Right. And the response has been, if I'm
not mistaken, that you've begun a process throughout our
reactors in the United States to create redundant ways to
provide water in case of unanticipated problems so that that
doesn't happen here.
Mr. Burns. Correct. You're trying to get to safe shutdown,
and that's what those redundant systems will help you do.
That's what we're looking at.
Senator Alexander. Right. But basically so that it's not
held out to be some big scientific mystery----
Mr. Burns. No.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. You just need to make sure
water is there to cool the--to cool the--now, tell me if I'm
wrong about that, but I think that in the end is the problem,
that the water is available for the rods and the reactor and/or
in spent fuel.
Mr. Burns. That's correct. So you achieve then a safe
shutdown and equilibrium.
Senator Alexander. I mean, walking around Watts Bar, which
is just about to begin to produce electricity in our region,
you know, I saw--and I think that was the first of the new
plants that had newly redundant--or one of the first, maybe the
first--that newly redundant facilities to try to take into
account Fukushima. Is that correct, as you came out of your
review of the Fukushima disaster and what we do about it here?
Mr. Burns. Yes. I think that's correct. They were one of
the first with this flex equipment.
Senator Alexander. And they made a decision, I think, to go
in an accelerated way basically to do almost anything that was
suggested that might avoid that sort of problem. That was the
sense I got.
Mr. Burns. Yes. They--yes, certainly, I--and I think
probably given where they were in terms of licensing and coming
on as a new plant, they wanted to get that done, and also it
helps in terms of Unit 1 needs--needed support as well.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN LICENSING
Senator Alexander. Right. Let me just ask you some
questions about Yucca Mountain, which shouldn't take long to
answer.
Is the Commission following the court's order?
Mr. Burns. Yes, we are.
Senator Alexander. The next step in the licensing process
is to complete the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
How much will that cost?
Mr. Burns. I believe that the remaining--I think that costs
about $3 million.
Senator Alexander. I've got $1.1 million. Would that be
right?
Mr. Burns. Okay. That was probably accurate.
Senator Alexander. Do you have $1.1 million to do that?
Mr. Burns. Yes. And we expect to issue it by mid-year.
Senator Alexander. By mid-year of this year.
Mr. Burns. This year. This year.
Senator Alexander. Thank you. Would you agree the next step
of the licensing process is to restart the hearings before the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board?
Mr. Burns. Yes. A next step would be the hearing process.
Senator Alexander. I believe that you testified last year
that--that--well, it would take an additional $330 million to
obtain the construction authorization for Yucca Mountain. Does
that sound correct?
Mr. Burns. Yes. That's the estimate we've had.
Senator Alexander. Do you have the $330 million to do that?
Mr. Burns. No, that would have to be appropriated.
Senator Alexander. Mm-hmm. Why was that not in the
President's--in the budget request?
Mr. Burns. This is the administration's budget. The
administration did not provide for additional funds on Yucca
Mountain.
Senator Alexander. Yes. Well, we--you know, I think it's
fair to characterize--and she will correct me if I'm wrong--we
are united on the urgent desire to break the nuclear waste
stalemate; we're not on what to do about Yucca Mountain. For
me, it seems to me plain that it's the law, that the court has
ordered moving ahead. Your own environmental scientists have
said that it's safe for 1 million years. We get frequent
lectures about the importance of following science, and
following the law and following science, we would then have a
place to put a great deal of the spent nuclear fuel we have at
sites all around the country, and we could also get agreement
with the House of Representatives to move ahead with our short-
term repositories in our private facilities.
So we will keep working on our part. That's not necessarily
your problem. But you're going to be continuing to hear from me
that I think that you should follow the law and follow the
science and move ahead with Yucca Mountain. Senator Feinstein,
I don't have any other questions.
Senator Feinstein. I have--I would like to.
Senator Alexander. You're welcome to ask anything you would
like.
FUKUSHIMA
Senator Feinstein. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
put in the record a February 10 ``Washington Post'' article,
``How Is Fukushima's Clean-Up Going 5 Years After Its Meltdown?
Not So Well.'' And my staff has prepared a couple of brief
papers on Fukushima clean-up, that radioactive water remains a
big problem at Fukushima. Initially water used to cool the
reactor cores was stored in huge tanks, but they have leaked
and continue to do so. There are about 1,000 tanks on the site
holding 750,000 tons of water. And that goes on.
A second one on the NRC has required two types of actions
following the Fukushima disaster.
And a third one on the number of fish with excessive levels
of radiation have been significantly reduced.
So I would ask that those documents be entered into the
record, if I might.
Senator Alexander. They will be.
[The link for ``Washington Post'' article follows:]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/five-years-after-
nuclear-meltdown-no-one-knows-what-to-do-with-fukushima/2016/02/10/
a9682194-c9dc-11e5-b9ab-26591104bb19_story.html?utm_term=.c73d78c27db8.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Any other questions or comments?
Senator Feinstein. No, I think I'm fine.
And let me thank you all for your service. I think it's a
very serious thing because we all look at things, and unless
something has happened, you know, it's hard to believe that
it's going to happen on a major basis. And maybe because I live
in a State where everywhere is 5 miles from an earthquake
fault, I know it can happen. And so that kind of changes your
view of things, because it's on your watch, and if you know
something can happen, you have an obligation to do something
about it.
Someday I'll tell the chairman a story of how I learned
that when I was mayor of San Francisco.
Senator Alexander. I think you've already told me.
Senator Feinstein. I've already told you, but I really----
Senator Alexander. And you did the right thing about the
baseball stadium; right?
Senator Feinstein. That's right.
Senator Alexander. No, no. She is making very good points,
and I know that it's points that each of you agrees with
because that's what you do every day. And I would also join
Senator Feinstein in thanking you for your service.
Commissioner Ostendorff, thank you for your term of
service.
Senator Feinstein. Yes.
Senator Alexander. But thanks to every one of you and to
your technical staff, some of whom are here. I've been to the
reactors with you and I've seen the technical staff and how it
operates and the rigor of it, which is pretty obvious, even to
a layman. And I think it's a pretty remarkable record that we
have in the United States. It's not--of course, a reactor, if
there is a problem, could cause severe damage to property and
to people. Fortunately, that hasn't happened to us in the
United States, either in the military or in our commercial
reactors, and that's because you're accountable and you've made
the operators accountable, and we have a very strict safety
protocol.
So as long as we are a country that uses 25 percent of all
the electricity of the world, more or less, and as long as one
of our major national priorities, at least a majority of the
people, is to do what we can to reduce the human effect on
climate change, and as long as 100 nuclear reactors produce 60
percent of our carbon-free electricity at a pretty low cost,
and it's reliable as well, I think we ought to do all we can to
create an environment in which we can continue to operate
nuclear reactors safely.
So we'll look forward to working with you on the budget. I
think you actually have an exciting period of time coming up as
these different forms of reactors--small, advanced, whatever
they may turn out to be--come along, and we look forward to
working with you on them.
I also want to thank you for being responsive to our staff
on both sides of the aisle.
Senator Feinstein. Yes.
Senator Alexander. That's very important, when we ask
questions, we get answers, and I think so far we're doing--we
feel pretty good about that, and we thank you for that.
Senator Feinstein, I think, unless you have further
comments, that concludes the hearing.
Senator Feinstein. No. Well done, Mr. Chairman.
And let me just, too, say thank you. I mean, this is a very
big deal, what you do, so I for one am very, very grateful.
Thank you.
Mr. Burns. Thank you.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Alexander. It's adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., Wednesday, February 24, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:33 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Alexander, Cochran, Murkowski, Hoeven,
Lankford, Feinstein, Tester, Udall, and Coons.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
HON. JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
(CIVIL WORKS), CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL,
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE--CIVIL
ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS P. BOSTICK, LIEUTENANT GENERAL,
COMMANDING GENERAL AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
------
ESTEVAN R. LOPEZ, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ACCOMPANIED BY TOM ISEMAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, WATER
AND SCIENCE
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER
Senator Alexander. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development will please come to order.
Today's hearing will review the President's fiscal year
2017 budget request for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
the Bureau of Reclamation, which is part of the Department of
Interior. This is the subcommittee's second budget hearing this
year, and we will have two more budget hearings in the coming
weeks.
Now, we are going to change our procedure just a little
bit, but it will not hurt to have a little more relaxed and
informal hearing. We have four votes on the Senate floor that
are scheduled to begin now, and I will give my opening remarks,
and then will turn to Senator Feinstein for her remarks. Once
Senator Feinstein and I have given our opening statements, we
will take a brief recess to allow Senators to vote and come
back, or if a Senator is here, we will just continue the
hearing, alternating in between Senator Feinstein as Chairman
of the Committee.
To allow Senators enough time to ask their questions, I am
going to ask each Senator to withhold their opening remarks,
and I ask unanimous consent that any written statements
Senators would like to submit be included in the hearing
record.
Our witnesses' written testimony, which we have, will also
be included in the hearing record, and I would ask you to
withhold your opening statements. And then as soon as Senators
arrive, we will recognize them one by one for their 5 minutes
of questions and conversations. And if there is anything in
your opening statement that you would like to say when you
answer questions, there will be plenty of time to say that.
So basically during these votes, which are going to last
about an hour and a half, we will have alternating Senators.
But I hope we can continue to have our hearing all the way
through the end--to the end. Several Senators had expressed an
interest in coming today, and I know for certain that Senator
Feinstein will be here.
Our witnesses today include Jo-Ellen Darcy, the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Ms. Darcy has been
serving as the Assistant Secretary since 2009, and she has told
me this may be her last budget hearing before this committee. I
want to thank her for her many years of public service. I have
enjoyed working with her both publicly and the visits we have
had in our offices, and including her time working on the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. So thank you,
Secretary Darcy, for being here today.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy
Thank you Chairman Alexander and distinguished members of the
subcommittee for the opportunity to present the President's Budget for
the Civil Works program of the Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year
2017. We are pleased to have an opportunity to further expand on the
Administration's priorities and goals. Those priorities include
promoting resilient communities to address current and future impacts
of climate change and sea level rise; fostering and maintaining strong
partnerships with local communities; and practicing sustainability and
sound stewardship across all our missions. I also want to take this
opportunity to touch on points that this Committee has raised in the
past.
This year's Civil Works Budget reflects the Administration's
priorities through targeted investments in the Nation's water resources
infrastructure that will reduce flood risk to communities; facilitate
commercial navigation; and restore degraded aquatic ecosystems.
The 2017 Civil Works Budget provides $4.62 billion in discretionary
appropriations for the Army Civil Works program, focusing on
investments that will yield high economic and environmental returns or
address a significant risk to safety.
The Budget focuses on funding our three major mission areas:
--42 percent of funding is allocated to commercial navigation,
--26 percent to flood and storm damage reduction, and
--8 percent to aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Other practical, effective, sound investments include allocating
$196 million of the Budget to hydropower, $200 million to regulatory
activities, and $103 million to the clean-up of sites contaminated
during the early years of the Nation's nuclear weapons program.
The Civil Works program, which this Budget supports, relies on the
strong relationships between the Corps and local communities; these
strong relationships allow us to work together to meet their water
resources needs across all of our missions, as well as to address
broader water resources challenges that are of concern at the national
or regional level.
The Budget supports a Civil Works program that has a diverse set of
tools and approaches to working with local communities, whether this
means funding studies and projects with our cost-sharing partners, or
providing planning assistance and technical expertise to help
communities make better-informed decisions.
planning modernization
The Budget supports the continued implementation of Corps efforts
to modernize its planning process. The Budget provides funding in the
Investigations account for 49 feasibility studies, and funds 12 of them
to completion.
The Budget reflects full implementation of the SMART (Specific,
Measurable, Attainable, Risk Informed, Timely) planning initiative,
under which each feasibility study is to have a scope, cost, and
schedule that have been agreed upon by the District, Division, and
Corps Headquarters. The Budget supports efficient funding of these
studies.
Studies generally are funded with the presumption that they will
complete in 3 years and for $3 million ($1.5 million Federal). In the
first year, the Corps will work to identify the problem, develop an
array of alternatives, and begin the initial formulation. The bulk of
the study costs are anticipated to be incurred during year two, as the
alternatives are narrowed down and a Tentatively Selected Plan is
identified, which requires more detailed feasibility analysis and
formulation. During the third year, the focus is on completing the
detailed feasibility analysis, State and agency review, and finalizing
the Chief's Report. There are some exceptions to this funding stream,
such as where an increase in the study cost or an extension in the
study schedule is appropriate based on factors such technical
complexity, public controversy, the need for more detailed work to
address a specific issue, or the overall cost of a proposed solution.
Over the past 3 years, the Corps began 29 new studies and resumed
10 studies. The fiscal year 2017 Budget focuses on managing these and
other ongoing studies and bringing them to a conclusion. It includes
funding for 14 studies and three preconstruction engineering and design
efforts previously funded only through the annual Corps work plans.
Among the studies budgeted for the first time this year are two of the
feasibility studies that were recommended as focus areas in the North
Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study, nine studies that are starting in
fiscal year 2016, and three disposition studies under the Disposition
of Completed Projects remaining item.
The Water Resources Priorities Study is one of the 10 studies
started in the fiscal year 2016 work plan. This study will address the
critical need to develop a baseline assessment of the Nation's
vulnerability to flood damages on both a national and regional scale.
First, a baseline assessment will identify and analyze the key drivers
of flood risks, including the ways in which some of those risks are
changing or expected to change over time. The study will then examine
the effectiveness of existing Federal, State, and local programs, and
develop recommendations to improve these programs to reduce the
economic and life safety risk associated with large-scale flood and
storm events in ways that will also promote the long-term
sustainability of communities and ecosystems.
The Budget also helps to further combat the spread of invasive
species by its proposals for funding work associated with the Great
Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study (GLMRIS). The Budget
supports efforts to reduce the risk of interbasin transfer of aquatic
nuisance species through the Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS) in the
vicinity of Brandon Road Lock and Dam. The Brandon Road effort will
assess the viability of establishing a single point to control the one-
way, upstream transfer of aquatic nuisance species from the Mississippi
River basin into the Great Lakes basin near the Brandon Road Lock and
Dam located in Joliet, Illinois. The Budget includes funding to
continue this effort.
Among the 12 feasibility studies funded to completion is the
Mississippi River Hydrodynamic Model--Delta Management Study under the
Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Program. This greater than
$25 million study effort will identify options to address the long-term
sustainability of the lower Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and provide
a model to assess the effects on navigation and sediment dynamics along
the Mississippi River main stem associated with combinations of
Mississippi River diversions.
Investigation funds are also provided to continue to support State
and local flood risk mitigation priorities through the ``Silver
Jackets'' program. The Corps currently supports participation on
``Silver Jackets'' team in 44 States and the District of Columbia
through which technical assistance activities are being implemented
that support State and local community flood risk and floodplain
management priorities.
construction
The Budget for the construction program includes funds to complete
six construction projects, continue 27 ongoing projects, and start one
new project. The one new construction project, Mud Mountain Dam in
Washington State, involves construction of a fish passage facility to
address a Biological Opinion.
Flood and Storm Damage Reduction
The Budget includes $404 million for flood and storm damage
reduction projects and remaining items, and funds the American River
Watershed (Folsom Dam Modification), CA project and the Topeka, KS
project to completion.
Over the last several years, Congress has funded the dam safety
program at a lower level than the Budget, based on revisions of
capabilities that the Corps has provided to Congress subsequent to the
Budget submission. These revisions--often but not always showing a
lower capability than requested in the Budget--are caused by a variety
of factors, including savings from contract awards, process
efficiencies, and changed conditions. The Budget includes $239 million
(not including $21 million for the Dam Safety remaining item) for the
dam safety program that, when coupled with anticipated unobligated
carryover balances on these important projects, will ensure that each
of the Dam Safety Action Classification (DSAC) I and DSAC II projects
funded in the Budget is able to progress efficiently and effectively to
implement a risk reduction strategy for these structures.
Coastal Navigation
The Budget includes $105 million for coastal navigation and
remaining items and funds the Oakland Harbor, CA (50-foot Deepening)
project and the Delaware River Deepening, NJ, PA, & DE project to
completion. The Savannah Harbor Expansion Project, GA project is funded
at $42.7 million, which is over a 100 percent increase from the fiscal
year 2016 Budget. The Columbia River at the Mouth, OR & WA project is
funded at a level that will enable efficient progress toward mitigating
the life safety risk that is presented by the deteriorated jetties.
Inland Navigation
The Budget funds inland waterways construction and remaining items
at $246 million, of which $33.75 million will be financed through the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF) for the Olmsted Locks and Dams, IL &
KY project, which at $225 million is funded at the highest amount ever
budgeted for this project. With the passage of the Water Resources
Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014), the Olmsted Locks and
Dam, Ohio River, Illinois and Kentucky project is now cost-shared 85
percent General funds and 15 percent IWTF. This change reduced the cost
of this project to the navigation users by around $500 million, and
increased the amount that Federal taxpayers will have to pay by an
equivalent amount. In the ABLE Act, the Congress also increased the tax
on diesel fuel used in commercial transportation on certain of the
inland waterways. As a result of both of these changes, over the next
few years there will be somewhat more money in the IWTF to support the
user-financed share of inland waterways capital investments.
The Administration--as it has in recent years--will propose
legislation to reform the way that we finance capital investments for
navigation on the inland waterways. The Administration's proposal
includes a new user fee to produce additional revenue to help finance
long-term future investments in these waterways to support economic
growth. We would like to work with the Congress to enact this
legislation.
The Corps is also finalizing a Capital Investment Strategy for the
inland waterways. The Corps has coordinated this effort with
stakeholders and the Inland Waterways Users Board to provide an
opportunity for their input. The process will include an estimate of
the investment need over the next 20 years and objective nationwide
criteria to provide a framework for deciding which capital investments
should have priority for funding from a national perspective. While
this Strategy will provide a benchmark, it is a conceptual plan and
does not take the place of normal Budget processes or commit the
Government to future actions.
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
The Corps continues to contribute to the Nation's efforts to
restore degraded environments; to that end, the Budget for the Corps
funds restoration of several large aquatic ecosystems that have been a
focus of interagency collaboration, including the California Bay-Delta,
the Chesapeake Bay, the Everglades, the Great Lakes, and the Gulf
Coast. Other funded efforts include the Columbia River, and priority
work in the Upper Mississippi and Missouri Rivers.
operation and maintenance
The Budget provides $2.705 billion for Operation and Maintenance,
with $1.122 billion for operation and $1.414 billion for maintenance,
and an additional $169 million for remaining items. This encompasses a
wide range of activities, from operating and maintaining our locks and
dams to monitoring the condition of dunes and berms that reduce the
risk of flooding in a hurricane from wave action and storm surges,
running the Corps recreation facilities that are visited by millions of
Americans each year, and helping us be responsible stewards of the
lands associated with Corps projects and operate them in an
increasingly sustainable fashion.
For example, the Budget helps us maintain and improve our efforts
on sustainability. We are reducing the Corps' carbon footprint by:
--increasing renewable electricity consumption,
--reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and
--reducing non-tactical vehicle petroleum consumption.
We are also making important investments to promote the sustainable
management of Corps-owned lands, waters and cultural resources. The
Budget provides $9.6 million to update 24 Master Plans and initiate
work on 26 others that govern how we manage our facilities, which will
helps us make better decisions about how to use the land and keep it
healthy; $12 million to address impacts from invasive plants and
animals at Corps facilities; and $6.9 million for enhancements and
protections for habitat in support of the National Strategy to Promote
the Health of Honey Bees and other Pollinators.
The Budget also provides $35.5 million for the levee safety
program, which will help ensure that Federal levees are safe and in
line with the Federal Emergency Management Administration standards.
The overall condition of the inland waterways has continued to
improve over the last few years. The number of lock closures due to
preventable mechanical breakdowns and failures lasting longer than one
day and lasting longer than one week has decreased significantly since
fiscal year 2010. However, the lock closures that do occur result in
additional costs to shippers, carriers, and users. That is why the
Budget continues to provide a high level of funding to operate and
maintain the inland waterways, with emphasis on those that together
carry 90 percent of the commercial traffic.
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
The Budget provides $951 million from the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund (HMTF) to maintain coastal channels and related work, which is the
highest amount ever budgeted. This includes almost 11 percent for Great
Lakes harbors, 10 percent for emerging harbors, $856 million from the
O&M Account, $2 million from the Mississippi River & Tributaries
account, and $65 million from the Construction account.
research and development
Research, Development, and Technology is a component of the Science
and Technology portfolio of the Corps and continues to address key
strategic technology needs to inform policy-making and business
processes. The fiscal year 2017 Budget includes $18.1 million for
research and development. This funding will be used to extend the
service life of water resources infrastructure through research, use of
novel materials, and technology transfer. The Research, Development,
and Technology program enhances our capabilities to facilitate marine
transportation, assist flood and coastal storm preparation and recovery
efforts, restore aquatic ecosystems, pursue sustainable environmental
management, and respond to changing environmental conditions.
remaining items
The Budget includes $276 million for remaining items, including $55
million in the Investigations account, $44 million in the Construction
account, $169 million in the Operation and Maintenance account, and $8
million in the Mississippi River and Tributaries Account.
Annual funding for these remaining items is determined based on
current needs, such as the increased focus on technical assistance to
States and local communities to improve resilience to climate change.
regulatory program
The Budget includes $200 million for the Regulatory program.
alternative financing and public-private partnerships
As part of looking to the future of the Army's Civil Works program,
we continue to consider potential tools to expand and strengthen our
already strong partnerships, especially in the area of Alternative
Financing. As part of this effort, we are actively talking with
potential non-Federal partners about their ideas for how we can work
together and soliciting suggestions and best practices from others in
the Federal Government with experience in this area.
Increasingly, some non-Federal sponsors have been contributing or
advancing funds for work that is authorized to be funded at Federal
expense. In such cases, the project beneficiaries assume more (or all)
of the cost. Before entering into an agreement to accept such funds,
the Corps carefully evaluates its overall workload to ensure that
execution of the proposed work will not adversely affect our directly-
funded programs, projects and activities.
veterans curation program
Finally, this Budget provides $6.5 million for the Veterans
Curation Program, which was started in 2009 with support from the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This program offers veterans
the opportunity to learn tangible work skills and gain experience by
rehabilitating and preserving federally owned or administered
archaeological collections found at Corps projects.
Thank you all for attending today. General Bostick will provide
further remarks on the Army Corps of Engineers 2017 Budget.
Senator Alexander. Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick is
the Chief of Engineers for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He
has been serving as Chief of Engineers since 2012. Time goes
awfully fast. This will be his last hearing before this
subcommittee I am told, and I want to thank General Bostick. He
has been responsive and straightforward to me as well as to
other Senators, and I am deeply grateful for his many years of
service to our country.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am honored to testify before your committee today, along with the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, the Honorable Jo-Ellen
Darcy, on the President's fiscal year 2017 Budget for the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Civil Works Program. This is my fourth
and final time before this Subcommittee to testify on the Civil Works
budget; thank you for your support in the past, and I look forward to
continuing to work together during the remainder of my tenure as Chief
of Engineers.
I have been in command of the Corps for nearly 4 years, and I want
to briefly update you on the four Campaign Plan Goals for the Corps.
First, Support National Security. The Corps supports the National
Security efforts of the United States. We continue working across the
globe with presence in more than 110 countries, using our Civil Works,
Military Missions, and Water Resources Research and Development
expertise to support our Nation's Combatant Commanders. We are proud to
serve this great Nation and our fellow citizens, and we are proud of
the work the Corps does to support America's foreign policy. Civilian
Army Corps employees from across the Nation have volunteered--and
continue to volunteer--to work, in a civilian capacity, to provide
critical support to our military missions abroad and humanitarian
support to the citizens of those nations. Many of these volunteers have
served on multiple deployments.
Second, Transform Civil Works. The four elements of the Civil Works
Transformation strategy will make the Corps more efficient and
effective while continuing to support the Nation by addressing some of
our greatest infrastructure needs. Civil Works Transformation focuses
on modernizing the project planning process; enhancing the budget
development process through a more streamlined process and the use of a
systems approach, to identify and deliver more holistic outcomes to the
Nation; evaluating the portfolio of existing water resources projects
to support risk-informed investment decisions, identify priorities, and
develop better solutions to water resources problems; and improving
methods of delivery to produce and deliver quality products and
services.
Since the inception of Civil Works Transformation efforts in 2008,
58 Chief's reports have been completed, with 45 Chief's Reports
completed in the last 4 years alone; we are learning and continue to
become more efficient in our processes.
Third, we must continue to be proactive and develop better
strategies to Reduce Disaster Risks, as well as respond to natural
disasters when they do occur, under the National Response Framework,
National Disaster Recovery Framework, Public Law 84-99 as amended, and
Corps project authorities for flood risk management. I continue to be
amazed at the work the Army Corps does in this arena. For example, the
Corps provided technical expertise to the State of South Carolina
during its historic flooding last year by assisting in inspecting over
600 locally owned dams to assess dam safety vulnerability. More
recently, the Corps teamed with local communities and State-led Army
National Guard units during the Mississippi River floodfight to help
impacted communities in the flood's aftermath. Additionally, I am
pleased to report to you that all of the Federal flood risk reduction
systems along the Mississippi performed as designed, demonstrating the
effectiveness of the investments made.
Fourth, Prepare for Tomorrow. This is about our people--ensuring we
have a pipeline of the best Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics personnel, as well as strong Workforce Development and
Talent Management programs. Efforts to tailor development programs to
employee aspirations is helping to maximize talent retention and is
instilling a career of service culture. We take seriously the
importance of engaging and retaining our talented workforce and have
significantly improved our agency ranking in the Federal Employee
Viewpoint Survey over the past year, on the list of best places to work
in the Federal Government. Equally important is helping the Nation's
Wounded Warriors and transition out of active duty to find fulfilling
careers. Last year, we set a goal to assist 150 transitioning Wounded
Warriors. I am proud that we achieved more than double that goal. We
assisted over 300 Wounded Warriors in finding permanent positions
within the Corps and other organizations. Over the past 3 years, we
have helped 631 Wounded Warriors find meaningful careers.
We are equally focused on Research and Development efforts to help
solve a host of the toughest challenges facing the Army and the Nation.
Our Civil Works Program research and development efforts provide the
Nation with innovative engineering products, some of which can have
applications in both civil and military infrastructure spheres. By
creating products that improve the efficiency of the Nation's
engineering and construction industry, and through providing more cost-
effective ways to operate and maintain public infrastructure, Civil
Works program research and development contributes directly to the
national economy.
summary of fiscal year 2017 budget
The fiscal year 2017 Civil Works Budget is a performance-based
budget, and reflects a focus on the work that will provide the highest
net economic and environmental returns on the Nation's investment or
address a significant risk to safety. Investments by the Civil Works
program will reduce the risks of flood impacts in communities
throughout the Nation, facilitate comercial navigation, restore and
protect significant aquatic ecosystems, generate low-cost renewable
hydropower, and support American jobs. Continued investment in critical
Civil Works infrastructure projects is an investment in the Nation's
economy, security, and quality of life--now and in the future.
The Budget focuses on high-performing projects and programs within
the three main water resources missions of the Corps: commercial
navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem
restoration. The fiscal year 2017 Budget includes $4.62 billion in
gross discretionary funding for Civil Works activities throughout the
Nation, including the construction of water resources projects that
will provide high economic, environmental and public safety returns on
the Nation's investment.
The Budget also proposes the necessary level of funding for the
Regulatory program to protect and preserve water-related resources of
the Nation.
investigations program
The fiscal year 2017 Budget provides $85 million in the
Investigations account, and $7 million in the Mississippi River and
Tributaries account to evaluate and design projects within the Corps
three main mission areas, with emphasis on those that are potentially
the most promising on a performance basis; and for related work,
including some research and development. The Budget also supports the
Corps planning and technical assistance programs, including using its
expertise to help local communities increase their resilience to, and
preparedness for, flood risks such as the flood risks in coastal
communities associated with hurricanes and sea-level rise.
construction program
The Budget provides $1.09 billion for the construction program in
the Construction account, and $64 million in the Mississippi River and
Tributaries account, prioritizing projects with the greatest net
economic and environmental returns per dollar invested, as well as
projects that address a significant risk to safety. The Budget includes
funds for one high-priority construction new start: Mud Mountain Dam,
Washington. In keeping with our Civil Works transformation strategy,
the Budget provides construction funding to complete six projects, and
deliver their benefits to the Nation.
The goal of the construction program is to produce as much value as
possible for the Nation from the available funds. The Corps uses
objective performance measures to allocate this funding. For projects
that are being funded primarily due to their economic return, these
include benefit-to-cost ratios. For projects funded on the basis of
their environmental return, priority is given to those projects that
are highly effective at restoring degraded structures, functions or
processes of significant aquatic ecosystems on a cost-effective basis.
The selection process also prioritizes dam safety assurance, seepage
control, static instability correction projects, and those that address
a significant risk to safety.
operation and maintenance (o&m) program
All structures age and, over time can deteriorate, causing a
potential decline in reliability. With proper maintenance and periodic
rehabilitation, however, we can extend the effective life of most of
the facilities owned or operated by, or on behalf of, the Corps for
many years. As stewards of this infrastructure, we are working to
ensure that key features continue to provide appropriate levels of
service to the American people.
The Corps is working to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
its operation and maintenance program. The Budget focuses on
investments that address infrastructure maintenance needs on a risk
assessment basis. In fiscal year 2017, the Corps will further expand
the implementation of a modern asset management program, dedicating an
increased amount of its O&M funding to the key features of its
infrastructure and for work that will reduce long-term O&M costs in
real terms. The Budget also supports an energy sustainability program
and pursues efficiencies in the acquisition and operation of our
information technology.
The Budget for the operation and maintenance program provides
$2.705 billion in the O&M account, and $151 million in the Mississippi
River and Tributaries account, with a focus on the operation and
maintenance of key commercial navigation, flood risk management,
hydropower and other facilities. The Budget gives priority to coastal
ports and inland waterways with high levels of commercial traffic, and
includes $951 million for work financed through the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund. The Budget also funds some small ports, with emphasis on
those that support significant commercial fishing, subsistence, or
public transportation benefits. The Budget provides O&M funding for
safety improvements at Federal dams and levees based on the risk and
consequence of a failure. According to our analyses, 297 of the 709
dams in our current inventory have required some form of modification
or interim risk reduction measure, or may require them over the next 50
years, if they are to continue to serve their authorized purposes. Many
interim risk reduction measures have been implemented already and
additional measures are considered and evaluated as new and existing
issues are identified.
Generally, the O&M program supports completed works owned or
operated by the Corps, including administrative buildings and
laboratories. Work to be accomplished includes: operation of locks and
dams along the inland waterways; dredging of inland and coastal Federal
channels; operating multi-purpose dams and reservoirs for flood risk
reduction, hydropower, recreation, and related purposes; maintenance
and repair of facilities; monitoring of completed projects; and general
management of Corps facilities and the land associated with these
purposes including work to serve as a responsible steward of the
resources on Corps lands.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget provides $194 million in the O&M
account for hydropower activities in order to maintain basic power
components such as generators, turbines, transformers and circuit
breakers at Corps hydropower facilities to keep them operating
efficiently and effectively. The Corps is the largest hydropower
producer in the U.S., operating 24 percent of the Nation's hydropower
capacity.
reimbursable program
Through the Interagency and International Services (IIS)
Reimbursable Program, the Civil Works program assists other Federal
agencies, State, local, Tribal governments, and those of other
countries with timely, cost-effective solutions to support their
programs. These agencies can turn to the Corps, which already has these
capabilities, rather than develop their own internal workforce and
expertise to oversee project design and construction. Such
intergovernmental cooperation is effective for agencies and the
taxpayer, and uses the skills and talents that we bring from our Civil
Works and Military Missions programs. The work is principally technical
oversight and management of engineering, environmental, and
construction projects--the work itself is typically performed by
private sector firms--is financed by the agencies we service. IIS
Reimbursable Program activities in support of our domestic stakeholders
totaled $657 million in fiscal year 2015. We only accept agency
requests that are consistent with our core technical expertise, in the
national interest, and that can be executed without impacting our
primary mission areas.
emergency management
The fiscal year 2017 Budget provides $30 million in funding for the
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account to enable the Corps to
prepare for emergency operations in response to natural disasters. The
Budget for the emergency management program also includes $4.5 million
for the National Emergency Preparedness Program.
An additional $3 million is included in the Investigations account
for the Corps participation in the development and expansion of
intergovernmental teams, known as Silver Jackets, which collaboratively
reduce the risks associated with flooding and other natural hazards.
The Silver Jackets program is an innovative program, which provides a
national forum to address State and local flood risk management
priorities. Each team is developed at the State level. The teams share
lessons learned at the State level with each other, and each team works
to apply the available Federal and State resources effectively to meet
its State's flood risk management priorities. There are now 45 active
teams (44 States and the District of Columbia); our goal is to have a
Silver Jackets team for every State. The flooplain management program
of the Corps complements this effort by providing technical assistance.
conclusion
The fiscal year 2017 Budget represents a continuing, fiscally
prudent investment in the Nation's water resources infrastructure and
restoration of its aquatic ecosystems. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
is committed to a performance-based Civil Works Program, based on
innovative, resilient, and sustainable risk-informed solutions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of Subcommittee. This concludes
my statement. I look forward to answering any questions you or other
Members of the Subcommittee may have.
Senator Alexander. Estevan Lopez is Commissioner of the
Bureau of Reclamation. As far as I know, he is not going
anywhere right now.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Estevan Lopez
Thank you Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, and members
of this Subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss with you the
President's fiscal year 2017 Budget for the Bureau of Reclamation. I
appreciate the time and consideration this Subcommittee gives to
reviewing and understanding Reclamation's budget, projects, and
programs and I look forward to working with the Committee in the future
as Reclamation continues to address water issues in the West.
Reclamation is committed to prioritizing and implementing its overall
program in a manner that serves the best interest of the American
public.
The Budget sustains our efforts to deliver water and generate
hydropower, consistent with applicable Federal and State law, in an
environmentally responsible and cost-efficient manner. It also supports
the Administration's and Department of the Interior's (Department)
priorities to ensure healthy watersheds and sustainable, secure water
supplies; build a landscape-level understanding of our resources;
celebrate and enhance America's great outdoors; power our future;
strengthen Tribal nations; and engage the next generation.
The extreme and prolonged drought facing the western States affects
major U.S. river basins throughout the West. Exceptional drought in
many western States, specifically California, Nevada, Washington, and
Oregon, affects households across the country because of the adverse
impact on agricultural production. Drought is estimated to cost the
Nation billions of dollars and impact thousands of jobs. In California
alone, the estimated cost of the 2015 drought on agriculture--crop
production, livestock, and dairies--is $2.7 billion with a total loss
of 21,000 seasonal and part-time jobs. The effects of the current
drought on California's Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, its
water, its agricultural economy, and its communities are particularly
acute. The Colorado River Basin--crucial for seven States and several
Tribes, in addition to two countries--is also enduring historic
drought. Nearly 40 million people rely on the Colorado River and its
tributaries for some, if not all, of their municipal needs. The Basin
is experiencing the worst drought in recorded history; the period from
2000 through 2015 was the driest 16-year period in more than 100 years
of record keeping. In 2015, Lake Mead, behind the Hoover Dam on the
Colorado River, has declined to its lowest elevation since the 1930's.
Snowpack, which functions as reservoir storage for many western basins,
is diminishing.
Water year 2016 is shaping up to be influenced by the periodic ``El
Nino'' anomaly associated with warmer ocean temperatures in portions of
the Pacific, a phenomenon that generally leads to a wetter than normal
year in areas of the western U.S., including California. However, one
wet year alone will not alleviate the impacts of the multi-year
drought. This water year exists against the backdrop of long-term
sustained climatic change; both short-term and long-term droughts are
expected to intensify. Although Reclamation continues to emphasize
strategic priorities and operational activities to understand, and
effectively adapt to, the risks and impacts of a changing environment
on western water management, groundwater must be replenished before
runoff can fill rivers and reservoirs, and the hydrologic system as a
whole will need time to recover. As one of the Nation's primary
suppliers and protectors of water, Reclamation needs to continue to
plan and prepare for the next drought and its successors, despite
cautious optimism in 2016.
This Budget addresses Reclamation's priorities by allocating funds
based on objective and performance-based criteria to most effectively
implement its management responsibilities for water and power
infrastructure in the West. Reclamation's goals and priorities--
including water supply reliability and power generation, climate
variability adaptation, water conservation, aging infrastructure, sound
science to support critical decisionmaking, and ecosystem restoration--
were balanced in the formulation of the fiscal year 2017 budget.
Reclamation continues to look at ways to more efficiently plan for the
future challenges confronting water resources management, and to
improve the way it does business.
In order to meet Reclamation's mission goals, we are building a
landscape-level understanding of our resources and the protection and
restoration of the aquatic and riparian environments influenced by our
operations. This budget is focused on meeting National priorities for
Indian water rights settlements, ecosystem restoration, and healthy
watersheds and sustainable, secure water supplies. Further details of
these efforts will now be discussed.
water and related resources
The fiscal year 2017 Budget for Water and Related Resources,
Reclamation's principal operating account, is $813.4 million, a
reduction of $305.6 million from 2016 enacted. This reflects the
budgetary shift of $106.2 million from this account to establish a
separate Indian Water Rights Settlement Account, and $36.0 million to
establish a separate discretionary account within the San Joaquin River
Restoration Fund.
The Budget includes a total of $383.5 million at the project and
program level for water, energy, land, fish and wildlife resource
management, and development activities. This provides for planning,
construction, water sustainability activities, management of
Reclamation lands, including recreation areas, and actions to address
the impacts of Reclamation projects on fish and wildlife.
The Budget also provides a total of $429.9 million at the project
level for water and power facility operations, maintenance, and
rehabilitation activities. Reclamation emphasizes safe, efficient,
economic, and reliable operation of facilities, ensuring systems and
safety measures are in place to protect the facilities and the public.
Providing adequate funding for these activities continues to be one of
our highest priorities.
highlights of the fiscal year 2017 budget for water and related
resources
I would like to share with the Committee several highlights of
Reclamation projects and programs within the Administration's Budget.
The Budget continues to promote and support efficient water management,
increased renewable energy production, the construction of new
infrastructure and sound maintenance of existing facilities,
restoration of aquatic environments, and the continued use of applied
science and new technologies to help safeguard sustainable water
deliveries and energy production. As a result, Reclamation continues to
play an important role in providing a strong foundation for economic
activity across the American West.
WaterSMART Program.--One method Reclamation employs to stretch
water supplies in the West and prepare for these ongoing challenges is
the WaterSMART (Sustain and Manage America's Resources for Tomorrow)
Program. The programs included in WaterSMART are collaborative in
nature and work to effectively achieve sustainable water management.
WaterSMART Grants, Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse, and the Water
Conservation Field Services Program, along with other Reclamation
activities, support the Department's Priority Goal for Water
Conservation. The Basin Studies component of WaterSMART supports the
Department's priority goal Ensuring Healthy Watersheds and Sustainable,
Secure Supplies.
In the fiscal year 2017 Budget, the Administration proposes to fund
WaterSMART at $61.5 million. The WaterSMART components include:
WaterSMART Grants funded at $23.4 million; the Basin Study Program
funded at $5.2 million; the Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse
Program funded at $21.5 million; Water Conservation Field Services
Program, funded at $4.2 million; the Cooperative Watershed Management
Program, funded at $1.8 million; the Drought Response program, funded
at $4.0 million; and the Resilient Infrastructure program, funded at
$1.5 million.
Rural Water Projects.--Congress specifically authorized Reclamation
to undertake the design and construction of six projects intended to
deliver potable water supplies to specific rural communities and Tribes
located primarily in Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South
Dakota. The fiscal year 2017 Reclamation budget includes $38.1 million
for rural water projects; $18.6 million of that total is for operation
and maintenance of completed tribal systems, while the remaining $19.5
million is for continued construction for authorized projects.
Dam Safety Program.--A total of $86.1 million is provided for
Reclamation's Safety of Dams Program, which includes $64.5 million to
correct identified safety issues. Funding also includes $20.3 million
for safety evaluations of existing dams and $1.3 million to oversee the
Interior Department's Safety of Dams Program.
Site Security.--A total of $26.2 million is provided for Site
Security to ensure the safety and security of the public, Reclamation's
employees, and key facilities. This funding includes $4.1 million for
physical security upgrades at high risk critical assets and $22.1
million to continue all aspects of Bureau-wide security efforts,
including law enforcement, risk and threat analysis, personnel
security, information security, risk assessments and security-related
studies, and guards and patrols.
Powering Our Future.--The Budget includes $1.3 million to support
Reclamation's Sustainable Energy Strategy and actions identified
through the Sustainable Hydropower MOU with our partners at the
Department of Energy (DOE) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This
funding will provide for increased hydropower development at existing
Reclamation facilities, and will allow Reclamation to work with Tribes
to assist them in developing renewable energy sources. These important
projects will assist in the production of cleaner, more efficient
energy and will support the Renewable Energy Resource Development
Priority Goal.
Strengthening Tribal Nations.--The fiscal year 2017 Reclamation
budget supports the Strengthening Tribal Nations initiative through a
number of activities and projects. For example, the budget includes
$10.4 million for Reclamation's Native American Affairs Program in
support of Reclamation activities with Tribes, including technical
assistance, Indian Water Rights Settlement negotiations, implementation
of enacted settlements, and outreach to Tribes; and $15.7 million to
continue the operation and maintenance associated with the delivery of
up to 85,000 acre-feet of water to the Ak-Chin Indian Community in
Arizona. Ongoing authorized rural water projects also benefit both
tribal and non-tribal communities. Projects in the fiscal year 2017
Budget benefiting Tribes include the rural water component of the Pick-
Sloan Missouri Basin Program, Garrison Diversion Unit; Fort Peck
Reservation/Dry Prairie; and Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana; and
operation and maintenance funding only for tribal features of the Mni
Wiconi Project following completion of construction. Numerous other
projects and programs, such as the Columbia/Snake River Salmon Recovery
Program, Klamath Project, and the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement
Project also benefit Tribes. In fiscal year 2017, $106.2 million for
planning and construction of three recent Indian Water Rights
Settlements is being proposed in a new separate account as described
below.
River Restoration.--To meet Reclamation's mission goals of securing
America's energy resources and managing water in a sustainable manner
for the 21st century, our programs also focus on the protection and
restoration of the aquatic and riparian environments influenced by our
operations. Ecosystem restoration involves many activities, including
Reclamation's Endangered Species Act recovery programs, which directly
address the environmental aspects of the Reclamation mission. In fiscal
year 2017, a total of $135.5 million in the Budget for Reclamation
projects and programs directly supports the goals of the America's
Great Outdoors Program, through local and basin-wide collaboration in
watershed partnerships. Several of the programs are described below.
The Budget has $27.3 million for Endangered Species Act Recovery
Implementation programs within the Bureau of Reclamation, including
$19.9 million in the Great Plains Region to implement the Platte River
Endangered Species Recovery Implementation program. Within California's
Central Valley Project, $11.8 million is for the Trinity River
Restoration Program, with an additional $1.5 million from the Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund.
Many other projects and programs also contribute to ecosystem
restoration including the Lower Colorado River Multi-species
Conservation Program, Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act
Collaborative Program, the Columbia/Snake River Salmon Recovery
Program, and the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project.
Research and Development.--Reclamation continues to promote
research and development to advance the science and technology that
supports best management of the country's natural resources and
heritage. In fiscal year 2017 the research and development (R&D) budget
totals $28.6 million, with $22.8 million for Science and Technology and
$5.8 million for the Desalination and Water Purification Research
Program. Scientific discovery, technological breakthroughs, and
innovation are the primary engines for expanding the frontiers of human
knowledge, which are vital for responding to the challenges and
opportunities of the 21st century. Scientific and engineering
innovation promotes sustainable economic growth and job creation, moves
us toward a clean energy future, and helps us manage competing demands
on environmental resources.
Desalination and water purification research strives to produce new
clean water technologies, reduce costs, and decrease environmental
impacts while converting unusable waters into viable water supplies.
Reclamation's budget for these efforts also supports the
Administration's science and technology priorities, including
sponsorship of technology prize competitions, to spur innovative
breakthroughs and research related to climate adaptation and clean
energy.
In addition to the highlights just discussed, the fiscal year 2017
Water and Related Resources budget provides $110.8 million to operate,
manage, and improve California's Central Valley Project; this amount
reflects the shift of $36.0 million for a separate discretionary
account within the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund, as discussed
below. The next three accounts are also related to California water and
restoration.
san joaquin river restoration fund
Reclamation proposes $36.0 million of current funds for the San
Joaquin River Restoration Fund account in fiscal year 2017. The fiscal
year 2017 Budget funds activities consistent with the settlement of
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Rodgers as authorized by the San
Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Act includes a provision
to establish the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund to implement the
provisions of the Settlement. The Settlement's two primary goals are to
restore and maintain fish populations, and restore and avoid adverse
impacts to water supplies. Under the Settlement, the legislation
provides for nearly $2.0 million in annual appropriations from the
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund for this purpose.
central valley project restoration fund
The fiscal year 2017 Budget includes a total of $55.6 million for
the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund (CVPRF). This amount is
determined on the basis of a 3-year rolling average not to exceed $50.0
million per year and indexed to 1992 price levels. These expenditures
are offset by collections estimated at $55.6 million from mitigation
and restoration charges authorized by the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act.
california bay-delta restoration
The fiscal year 2017 Budget provides $36.0 million for California
Bay-Delta Restoration. The account focuses on the health of the Bay-
Delta ecosystem and improving water management and supplies. The Budget
will support the coequal goals of environmental restoration and
improved water supply reliability, under the following program
activities including: $2.2 million for a Renewed Federal State
Partnership, $5.3 million for Smarter Water Supply and Use, and $28.5
million for Habitat Restoration. These program activities are based on
the Interim Federal Action Plan for the California Bay-Delta issued
December 22, 2009.
indian water rights settlements
In fiscal year 2017, Reclamation will enhance support of Tribal
nations. The fiscal year 2017 Budget proposes $106.2 million for Indian
Water Rights Settlements (IWRS), in a new account of the same name.
Reclamation is proposing establishment of an Indian Water Rights
Settlements account to assure continuity in the construction of the
authorized projects, and to highlight and enhance transparency in
handling these funds. This account is proposed to cover expenses
associated with Indian water rights settlements contained in the Claims
Resolution Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-291) and the Navajo-Gallup Water
Supply Project within Title X of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act
of 2009 (Public Law 111-11).
Of this amount, $6.4 million is for the Aamodt Settlement (Pueblos
of Nambe, Pojoaque, Tesuque and San Ildefonso in New Mexico); $12.8
million for the Crow Settlement (Crow Tribe in Montana); $87.0 million
for the Navajo-Gallup Settlement (Navajo Nation in New Mexico). These
settlements will provide permanent water supplies and offer economic
security for the Tribes and pueblos described above. The agreements
will build and improve reservation water systems, rehabilitate
irrigation projects, construct a regional multi-pueblo water system,
and codify water- sharing arrangements between Indian and neighboring
communities.
Per the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, in addition to the
discretionary funding included in this Budget, additional mandatory
funds have already been made available to Reclamation, in order to
realize the deadlines mandated in the settlement acts. The White
Mountain Apache Tribe activities will continue in fiscal year 2017
using mandatory funds.
policy and administration
The fiscal year 2017 Budget for Policy and Administration, the
account that finances Reclamation's central and regional management
functions is $59.0 million. The account supports activities necessary
for the management and administration of Reclamation that are not
chargeable directly to a specific project or program, such as corporate
oversight, policy and overall program management, budget preparation,
finance and procurement, and management of safety and health, human
resources, and information technology.
permanent appropriations
The total permanent appropriation of $106.8 million in fiscal year
2017 primarily includes $103.6 million for the Colorado River Dam Fund.
Revenues from the sale of Boulder Canyon power are placed in this fund
and are available without further appropriation to pay for operation
and maintenance of the project and other costs.
2016 through 2017 priority goals
Priority goals are a key element of the President's agenda for
building a high-performing government. The priority goals demonstrate
that our programs are a high value to the public and they reflect
achievement of key Departmental milestones. These goals focus attention
on initiatives for change that have significant performance outcomes,
which can be clearly evaluated, and are quantifiable and measurable in
a timely manner. Reclamation's participation in the Water Conservation
and Supply Enhancement, Renewable Energy Resource Development, Climate
Change Adaptation, and Engaging the Next Generation priority goals
helps to achieve these objectives.
Water Conservation and Supply Enhancement.--The fiscal year 2017
Budget will enable Reclamation to achieve water conservation capability
for agricultural, municipal, industrial, and environmental uses in the
western United States by 1,040,000 acre-feet/year cumulatively (since
2009) through September 30, 2017. This will be accomplished through the
use of the WaterSMART Program to assist communities in stretching water
supplies while improving water management and increasing the efficient
use of water. By the end of fiscal year 2015, Reclamation had already
exceeded the prior goal of 975,000 acre-feet through partnerships with
States, Tribes, irrigation and water districts and other organizations
with water or power delivery authority.
Renewable Energy Resource Development.--The Budget also supports
efforts to increase approved capacity authorized for renewable energy
resources affecting Department of the Interior managed lands to at
least 16,600 Megawatts (since 2009) by September 30, 2017. Reclamation
contributes to the Departmental goal primarily through the Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) on Hydropower with the Departments of Interior,
Energy, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), signed March 24,
2010. The MOU encourages the development of sustainable hydropower at
Federal facilities in order to help meet the Nation's needs for
reliable, affordable, and environmentally sustainable hydropower by
prioritizing goals and coordinating hydropower research and development
efforts through studies and assessments. The Budget includes $1.3
million for Reclamation to implement an automated data collection and
archival system to aid in hydropower benchmarking, performance testing,
and strategic decisionmaking.
Climate Change Adaptation.--Consistent with the direction in the
President's 2013 Climate Action Plan, Reclamation is developing and
implementing approaches to understand, and effectively adapt to, the
risks and impacts of a changing environment on western water
management. Some examples include:
--The Basin Study Program takes a coordinated approach to assess
risks and impacts; develop landscape-level science; communicate
information and science to other entities and agencies; and
work closely with stakeholders to develop adaptation strategies
to cope with water supply and demand imbalances in a
collaborative manner.
--The Drought Response Program will implement a comprehensive new
approach to drought planning and will implement actions to help
communities manage drought and develop long-term resilience
strategies.
--Through the Resilient Infrastructure Program, Reclamation will
proactively maintain and improve existing infrastructure for
system reliability, safety, and efficiency for water
conservation to prepare for extremes and to support healthy and
resilient watersheds. Reclamation will continue to develop,
implement, and test an enhanced decisionmaking criteria
framework for selecting resilient infrastructure investments
and will identify opportunities to integrate operational
efficiencies more compatible with climate variability
adaptation goals, as part of the Bureau's ongoing
infrastructure investments.
--Reclamation's Science and Technology Program conducts water
resources research to improve capability for managing water
resources under multiple stressors, including a changing
climate. This research agenda will collaborate with and
leverage the capabilities of the Interior Climate Science
Centers.
Reclamation's WaterSMART Grants, Water Conservation Field Services,
and Title XVI Programs are enabling the West to better adapt to the
impacts of a changing environment by helping to conserve tens of
thousands of acre-feet of water each year in urban and rural settings,
on both large and small scales.
Engaging the Next Generation.--By September 30, 2017, the
Department of the Interior will provide 100,000 work and training
opportunities over four fiscal years, 2014 through 2017, for
individuals ages 15 to 35 to support the Department's mission. In
fiscal year 2017, Reclamation will continue to provide work and
training opportunities by leveraging funding through agreements with
21st Century Conservation Service Corps partners. Reclamation will
continue to use the Public Land Corps Act authority and the Youth
Conservation Corps Act to enter into partnership agreements. These
agreements will be used to assist on-the-ground projects and
internships involving youth in cooperative efforts in cultural and
natural resource conservation related to Reclamation projects. In
addition, a partnership agreement with the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation will help provide additional youth conservation employment
opportunities.
President's Build America Investment Initiative.--To help advance
the goals and priorities of the Department, a new Center for Natural
Resources Investment was recently launched by the Department as part of
the President's Build America Investment Initiative. Reclamation fully
supports this activity, as the new center will promote increased
private investment in water infrastructure and facilitate locally-led
water exchange agreements in the western United States to increase
resilience of water supplies and drive additional investment in
conservation technologies.
Appropriations/Authorization Language Proposals.--The
Administration is proposing two significant changes in authorizations,
for which language is included in the fiscal year 2017 Budget. The
first is to extend the California Federal Bay-Delta Authorization Act,
as amended, from 2017 through 2018, so the CALFED program can continue
its mission--even more important given the current drought. Language is
also included to increase the authorized appropriations ceiling of
Section 9504(e) of the Secure Water Act of 2009 from $350 million to
$400 million to provide the appropriations ceiling needed for much of
the funding for Reclamation's WaterSMART program, one of our most
effective programs.
conclusion
Importantly, the fiscal year 2017 Budget demonstrates Reclamation's
commitment to addressing the water and power demands of the West in a
fiscally responsible manner. This Budget continues Reclamation's
emphasis on managing, operating, and maintaining its public
infrastructure and delivering water and power in an environmentally and
economically sound manner, in the interest of the American public.
Reclamation is committed to working with its customers, States, Tribes,
and other stakeholders to find ways to balance and support the mix of
water resource demands in fiscal year 2017 and beyond.
This completes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
Senator Alexander. And Tom Iseman, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of Interior,
is also here.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas Iseman
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, and members of the
Subcommittee, I am Tom Iseman, Interior's Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Water and Science, and I appreciate the opportunity to talk with
you about the water related programs of the Department of the Interior,
and the President's 2017 Budget. My office oversees the Bureau of
Reclamation and U.S. Geological Survey activities.
This is a strong budget that builds on our accomplishments. Our
request enables us to carry out our important missions--maintain our
core capabilities, meet commitments, and invest in key priorities. The
investments in this request show the Administration remains focused on
meeting the Nation's greatest challenges looking forward and ensuring
our economy works for all.
Our budget is part of the President's broader strategy to make
critical investments in domestic and national security priorities while
adhering to the bipartisan budget agreement signed into law last fall,
and lifts sequestration in future years to continue investment in the
future. This Budget recognizes the importance of the programs of
Reclamation and the USGS to the overall strength of the Nation's
economy, and its infrastructure. To put this into perspective, the U.S.
Department of the Interior Economic Report for fiscal year 2014 States,
Interior-managed lands and activities contributed about $360 billion in
national economic output, supporting an estimated two million jobs. Of
this, Reclamation's contribution, including recreation activities, was
$48.4 billion, supporting over 360,000 jobs.
At the same time, the Department of the Interior's 2017 proposed
investments lay the groundwork for promoting renewable energy
development, wise water utilization, managing the Nation's lands
responsibly, helping to protect communities in the face of climate
change, and investing in science to inform natural resource management.
This request addresses significant resource challenges for the Nation,
including water availability, particularly in the arid West, and makes
important investments in America's water infrastructure.
Interior's 2017 budget includes $1.0 billion for research and
development activities throughout the Department, an increase of $84.5
million from the 2016 enacted level. Activities supported include
scientific analysis of natural systems and applied field research to
address specific problems, such as thawing permafrost, invasive
species, and flooding. With multiple science programs across the
Department's bureaus and offices, science coordination remains a
critical component in the process of effective science application.
Interior is well served by the deployment of science advisors in each
bureau. These advisors serve critical roles within the organizations
and across the Department by sharing information application. The
Interior 2017 budget reflects high priority needs identified for
scientific research across the Department, which is the foundation for
the $28.6 million requested for research and development for
Reclamation. This request supports the Administration's efforts to
collaborate with non-Federal partners on advanced water treatment and
clean water technologies while conserving scarce Western water and
protecting species habitat.
the 2017 budget advances a record of achievement
This budget builds on a record of achievement across Interior's
diverse mission in general, as well as within Reclamation's specific
mission. To support the Powering Our Future Initiative, the 2017
Reclamation budget includes $1.3 million to implement an automated data
collection and archival system to aid in hydropower benchmarking,
performance testing, and strategic decisionmaking; investigate
Reclamation's capability to integrate large amounts of renewable
resources such as wind and solar into the electric grid; and work with
Tribes to assist in developing renewable energy sources. These
important projects will assist in the production of cleaner, more
efficient renewable energy.
In addition, the 2017 budget sustains President Obama's strong
commitment to tribal self- determination, strengthening tribal nations,
and investing in the future of Native youth, as illustrated by
Reclamation's continuing investment in endangered species recovery,
rural water, and water rights settlement programs. In fact, the
Department's overall budget continues to address Indian water rights
settlement commitments and programs to support Tribes in resolving
water rights claims, developing water sharing agreements, and
supporting sustainable water management.
Interior continues to engage in innovative efforts to leverage
youth engagement and partnerships to advance the Department's
extraordinary mission, and Reclamation is a contributor to this effort.
Bureau of Reclamation projects funded from 2010 through 2015
exceeded the cumulative water savings target of 910,000 acre-feet of
water/year, achieving savings of over 970,000 acre-feet, roughly the
amount of water needed for household use in Phoenix and the surrounding
area each year. The budget keeps Reclamation on track to conserve
1,040,000 acre-feet by the end of fiscal year 2017.
promotes the conservation and protection of america's natural and
cultural resources
America's public lands and waters offer space to get outside and
get active, and provide living classrooms with hands-on opportunities
to build skills. The Administration launched the Every Kid in a Park
Initiative to inspire the next generation to discover all America's
public lands and waters have to offer. Starting with the 2015-2016
school year, all fourth grade students and their families are able to
receive free admission to all national parks and other Federal lands
for a full year. Reclamation's mission goals of securing America's
energy resources and managing water in a sustainable manner for the
21st Century demands a focus on the protection and restoration of the
aquatic and riparian environments influenced by its operations.
Ecosystem restoration involves many activities, including Reclamation's
Endangered Species Act recovery programs, which directly address the
environmental aspects of Reclamation's mission. In 2017, a total of
$135.5 million in Reclamation's budget directly supports the goals of
America's Great Outdoors Initiatives, through local and basin-wide
collaboration in watershed partnerships. This supports efforts to
manage and promote the health and resilience of ecosystems on a
landscape scale, including a continued focus in priority landscapes
such as the California Bay-Delta.
implements the president's climate action plan
As manager of roughly 20 percent of the land area of the United
States and a partner with tribal, Federal, State, local, and
territorial government land managers, the Interior Department works to
address the challenges of natural hazards brought on by a changing
climate as an integral part of its mission. The budget includes funding
to improve the resilience of communities and ecosystems to changing
stressors, including flooding, severe storm events, and drought as part
of the Administration's effort to better understand and prepare for the
impacts of a changing climate.
Healthy communities require secure, sustainable water supplies.
This is particularly challenging with record drought conditions and
increasing demand taxing watersheds throughout the country, especially
in the arid West. To help increase the security and sustainability of
Western watersheds, the budget continues investment in the Department's
WaterSMART program to promote water reuse, recycling, and conservation,
in partnership with States, Tribes, and other partners. Funding is also
included for research, development, and challenge competitions to find
longer term solutions through new water technologies. The budget
invests in the Nation's water infrastructure to ensure millions of
customers receive the water and power that are the foundation of a
healthy economy.
improves oversight and use of federal dollars
Interior has several multi-year efforts underway to reduce its
nationwide facilities footprint, and improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of its information technology infrastructure and
financial reporting capabilities. Funding for these specific efforts is
included in the Department's budget request. Reclamation is
participating in these efficiency endeavors, as well as improving
reporting and increasing data quality and transparency, as envisioned
in the DATA Act. Reclamation is also implementing the Federal
Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act, to improve
standardization of information technology investments by strengthening
the role of the Department's Chief Information Officer in strategic
planning, budget formulation and execution, and acquisition of
information management and technology activities.
natural resource investment center
The Department has established a Natural Resource Investment Center
to spur partnerships with the private sector to develop creative
financing opportunities that support economic development goals while
advancing the Department's resource stewardship mission.
The Center will use market-based tools and innovative public-
private collaborations to increase investment in water conservation and
critical water infrastructure, as well as promote investments that
conserve important habitat in a manner that advances efficient
permitting and meaningful landscape-level conservation. The Center will
work closely with the private sector and others to identify innovative
ideas and financing options for projects that conserve scarce Western
water resources and protect species habitat.
reclamation highlights
The 2017 budget for Reclamation and the Central Utah Project
Completion Act (CUPCA) totals $1.1 billion and focuses on investments
in Indian water rights settlements, ecosystem restoration, healthy
watersheds and sustainable, secure water supplies.
Funding for Water and Related Resources shows a reduction of $305.6
million from 2016, reflecting the shift of $106.2 million to the
requested new Indian Water Rights Settlements account and $36.0 million
for a separate discretionary account within the San Joaquin River
Restoration Fund.
Reclamation requests establishment of an Indian Water Rights
Settlements account in 2017 to assure continuity in the construction of
the authorized projects and to highlight and enhance transparency in
handling these funds. The budget includes $12.8 million to implement
the Crow Tribe Rights Settlement Act, $6.4 million for the Aamodt
Litigation Settlement Act, and $87.0 million for the Navajo-Gallup
Water Supply Project.
The extreme and prolonged drought facing the western States affects
major U.S. river basins in virtually every western State. The effects
of the current drought on California water, its agrarian economy, and
its communities are particularly acute. According to the Economic
Analysis of the 2015 Drought for California Agriculture by California
Department of Food and Agriculture, University of California-Davis and
California Department of Water Resources, the estimated cost of the
2015 drought on California agriculture-crop production, livestock, and
dairies is $2.7 billion with a total loss of 21,000 seasonal and part-
time jobs. The Colorado River Basin-- crucial for seven States and
several Tribes, in addition to two countries--is also enduring historic
drought. Nearly 40 million people rely on the Colorado River and its
tributaries for some, if not all, of their municipal needs. The Basin
is experiencing the worst drought in recorded history; the period of
2000-2015 was the driest 16-year period in more than 100 years of
record keeping.
watersmart, water conservation field services and title xvi programs
Reclamation's WaterSMART program, requested at $61.5 million, is
helping to address the drought and other water supply issues across the
West. WaterSMART Grants, Water Conservation Field Services, and Title
XVI Programs, along with other Reclamation activities are enabling the
West to better adapt to the impacts of a changing environment by
helping to conserve tens of thousands of acre-feet of water each year
in urban and rural settings, and on both large and small scales. The
Drought Response Program will implement a comprehensive new approach to
drought planning and will implement actions to help communities manage
drought and develop long-term resilience strategies. Reclamation
continues to promote research and development through its Science and
Technology and Desalination and Water Purification Research Programs to
produce new clean water technologies, reduce costs, and decrease
environmental impacts while converting unusable water into viable water
supplies. The 2017 budget includes $8.5 million for an X-Prize
competition to encourage innovative water purification and treatment
technologies.
WaterSMART enables the USGS and Reclamation to make focused and
leveraged investments to address water resource challenges. The USGS
budget provides an increase of $18.4 million for science to support
sustainable water management, nearly doubling the investment made in
2016. As climate models forecast increasingly frequent and more intense
droughts, improving water management science is a paramount concern for
land and water management agencies, States, local governments, and
Tribes. The USGS budget would improve water use information and
research, provide grants to State water resource agencies, and create
hydrologic models and databases for better decision support. The USGS
budget also includes $3.9 million for drought science and $4.0 million
to develop methods to assess regional and national water use trends
during drought.
central utah project completion act
The Central Utah Project Completion Act, or CUPCA, Office is a
Department of the Interior program that reports directly to the Office
of Water and Science. The fiscal year 2017 Budget proposes $5.6
million, a reduction of $4.4 million from 2016 enacted, and includes
$1.3 million to be transferred to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Commission. The 2017 reduction in construction funding is
the result of difficult choices necessitated by the constrained fiscal
environment. The Budget provides funding through the CUPCA office to
continue the partnership with the Central Utah Water Conservancy
District in completing the Spanish Fork Canyon-Provo Reservoir Pipeline
(Northern Pipeline) of the Utah Lake System delivering 30,000 acre-feet
of water to Salt Lake County; required program oversight activities;
and endangered species recovery program implementation.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the President's 2017
budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation and CUPCA. This budget is
responsible, and proposes to maintain core capabilities with targeted
investments to advance water conservation and the stewardship of water
resources. I thank you again for your continued support of our mission.
I look forward to answering questions about this budget. This concludes
my statement.
Senator Alexander. As I said, we are here today to review
the President's fiscal year 2017 budget request for the Corps
of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, and I am going to
focus my questions on three main areas. Number one, making
investments in our Nation's water infrastructure a priority. We
have made some real progress there in the last few years.
Properly maintaining our inland waterway system. We have also
made progress there. And deepening and widening our coastal
harbors. We have made progress there, and I would like to keep
making that progress.
Number one, in my opinion we should be spending more, not
less, on our Nation's water infrastructure. Last year, Congress
made record investments in our water infrastructure by
providing nearly $6 billion to the Corps of Engineers, the
largest amount of funding for the Corps in a regular
appropriations bill. Instead of building on that investment,
however, the President's budget request this year proposes to
cut funding for the Corps of Engineers to $4.620 billion, which
is $1.4 billion, or a 23 percent, cut below fiscal year 2016.
This is an enormous step backwards. In fact, if we simply
approve the President's request, the Corps of Engineers would
receive less than what Congress appropriated in fiscal year
2006, setting us back more than a decade. And if we look at the
condition of the locks and dams that the Corps operates across
the country, for example, we should be able to see exactly why
these investments are needed.
The National Academy of Sciences in 2011 said that the
Corps has 138 locks in operation that are over 50 years old,
and that the average age of our locks is 58 years. These locks
are critically important to jobs. They ought to be among our
highest priorities in Federal spending and support. Using locks
is the only way for inland waterway shippers to move things
like grain, steel, fertilizer, and coal up and down rivers. And
having to unexpectedly shut them down for extended periods of
time could be catastrophic for agriculture and other
commodities that rely on them to get their goods to the market.
Yet as these facilities age, major upgrades, maintenance,
sometimes replacement is required, so I think it is fair to ask
why would the President cut funding for the Corps of Engineers
at a time when more investment is needed? I believe President
Obama should make funding our Nation's waterways a priority,
but this year's budget request certainly does not reflect that,
and I am going to ask our witnesses why that is the case.
PROPERLY FUNDING OUR INLAND WATERWAY SYSTEM
The President's budget request proposes significant cuts to
our 12,000-mile inland waterway system. Critical projects, such
as replacing Chickamauga Lock in Tennessee, have been piling up
for years due to a lack of funding, and many of us in Congress
have recognized that we needed to take steps to increase
funding for the Corps of Engineers to address this backlog.
First, Congress passed a law that reduced the amount of
money that comes from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund to
replace Olmsted Lock, a project in Illinois and Kentucky that
was soaking up almost all the money that is available for
inland waterway projects. Second, Congress worked with the
commercial waterways industry to establish a priority list for
projects that needed to be funded on which Chickamauga ranks
near the top in fourth place.
And third, 2 years ago, working together in a bipartisan
way, we increased the user fee that commercial barge owners
asked to pay in order to provide more money to replace locks
and dams across the country, including Chickamauga Lock. These
user fees are deposited into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
These steps increased the amount of funding that was available
for inland waterway projects from about $85 million--at least
the amount of money from the trust funds that was available
from $85 million in 2014 to now $106 million this year.
Overall, these changes permitted us to spend over $400
million on our locks and inland waterways when they were
matched with funds from the General Treasury. Yet the
President's budget request only proposes to spend $34 million
instead of $106 million from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund,
leaving about 75 percent of the available funds unspent. That
means, in effect, that we would be collecting taxes from
commercial barges to go through the locks in order to improve
the locks, and then we would be keeping the money, putting it
in the bank, and not spending it for the intended--for the
intended reason.
The budget request also proposes to fund a single project,
Olmsted Lock, and eliminates funding for three other projects
that received funding last year, Monongahela Kentucky Locks and
Chickamauga Lock. Replacing Chickamauga Lock is important to
all of Tennessee, and if Chickamauga Lock closes, it will throw
150,000 more trucks onto I-75, yet the Administration continues
to not include it in the budget. I have worked with Secretary
Darcy and General Bostick, and I thank them for this, over the
past few years with the money that we have appropriated here in
the Congress. And I deeply appreciate the fact that we found a
way to restart construction on Chickamauga Lock, which has now
been funded for two consecutive years.
But this budget proposal is a huge step backwards in this
area, and I will be asking witnesses today why the
Administration has not proposed to spend all the funds that
have been collected, especially since commercial barge owners
asked Congress to increase user fees they pay to improve our
inland waterway infrastructure. We hear about unhappy Americans
today in this election season. I would think one reason they
would be unhappy if we raise their taxes at their request to
improve the locks, and then took the money and did not spend it
for the reason that we said we were raising the taxes.
DEEPENING AND WIDENING OUR COASTAL HARBORS
The budget request also fails to make critical investments
in our Nation's harbors. To maintain our economic
competitiveness, our harbors need to be able to accept the
larger ships that are expected to come through the Panama
Canal. Significant work and funding is necessary to deepen and
widen our coastal harbors to accommodate these bigger ships,
yet the Administration's budget proposes major cuts for this
program as well.
To ensure that these critical investments are made to our
harbors, Congress enacted spending targets for the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund in the 2014 Water Resources Reform and
Development Act. The target for fiscal year 2017 is about $1.18
billion, yet the Administration only proposes to spend $986
million, a shortfall of $194 million.
Now, we are talking about harbors that need work badly--
Mobile, Charleston, Savannah, New York, Jacksonville. These are
important to the future of our country. For 2 years, we have in
Congress done what we said we would do and matched our targets
for these critical investments. Yet the Administration would
knock us back by about $200 million this year. So I will ask
our witnesses how they plan to make these important upgrades to
our harbors without requesting sufficient resources to do it.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
I would also like to recognize our witnesses from the
Department of Interior and Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau of
Reclamation delivers water to one of five farmers in the West,
irrigating more than 10 million acres of some of the most
productive agricultural land in the country. We have a farmer
from the West on our committee. My guess is that he will
probably have some questions in this area. Although Reclamation
does not manage water resources in Tennessee, I know of its
deep importance to Senator Feinstein and other Senators on this
subcommittee, and we look forward to hearing your testimony.
Now, Senator Feinstein is not here, and what I think we
will do is, Senator Tester, because of the votes today, what
we--have you voted already? So what we decided to do was to go
ahead and try to make the hearing a movable feast here, and
they are going to submit their questions for the record, and
Senators will have a chance to ask questions as they come in.
If Senator Feinstein arrives, she will make her opening
statement and ask her questions. If she does not before I
leave, then I will turn to you and let you--if I may do that,
and let you take questions.
INLAND WATERWAYS
Let me start with a few questions, and then I will go--then
I will go vote. Ms. Darcy, we worked well together to improve
funding for inland waterways, but this budget is a big
disappointment. Can you explain why the Corps' proposed budget
does not seem to reflect the President's statements that we
should be investing more in our Nation's infrastructure?
Ms. Darcy. Senator Alexander, given the fiscal realities
that we are facing, the President's overall budget for the Army
Civil Works Program is what is affordable at this time given
all the other competing requirements for the budget, including
even deficit reduction. So at this time, it is what is
affordable for us to be able to move forward with inland
waterways as well as others in the overall President's budget.
Senator Alexander. But we collected money from the
commercial users of the locks. I mean, it is one of those
unusual circumstances where the barge owners came and said
would you please raise our taxes and use those taxes to improve
the locks and the waterways. And so, we have done that, and you
cooperated with that last year very well, and that permitted us
to match the user fee money with appropriations and have more
than $400 million.
Yet this year if we take the President's budget, we would
only have about $225 million, and we would be leaving $72
million in taxes that we collected unspent. What should I say
to those commercial barge owners who paid extra taxes so we
would use it to improve the locks when we not use it?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, as you know, with any funding coming
out of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, which is collected from
the taxes, there has to be a match from the General Treasury
from our budget, a 50/50 match for everything within the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund. In the 2017 budget, the President funded
Olmsted Lock and Dam at $33.5 million out of the Trust Fund,
because there was a change made in the law year before last
that the cost share for Olmsted would not be 50/50. It would be
15 percent from the Trust Fund and 85 percent from the General
Treasury.
In order to meet that match, the remaining money in the
Trust Fund could not be matched for the other projects. In
2017, we are funding Olmsted Lock's capability, and then in the
coming years, as you say, there is an unexpended balance in the
Trust Fund. I think it will be $106 million.
But over time, when we are buying down and completing
Olmsted, which we expect to have completed in 2018, we will be
able to free up other monies and match them with the Trust Fund
in the out-years for other projects on the capital strategies
list for inland waterways.
Senator Alexander. Let me stop my questioning just for a
moment. Senator Cochran, have you already voted?
Senator Cochran. Yes and no.
Senator Alexander. So you have to go over and vote?
We have got about three minutes left I think in the voting.
Would you like to make your opening statement before we go
vote?
Senator Cochran. I have to go vote.
Senator Alexander. Okay. Well then, why don't we do this.
Why don't you and I go vote, and then we will come back, and
then I will recognize you. And, Senator Tester, would you
assume control of the committee here?
Senator Tester. That is a dangerous thing.
Senator Alexander. I know, but I trust you.
Senator Tester. I will do it.
Senator Alexander. And when Senator Feinstein comes, if you
could hand over the gavel to her?
Senator Tester. I would be more than happy to do that. I
will hold the fort down while you are gone doing your job.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Senator Tester [presiding]. Thank you. Thank you all for
being here. I appreciate your work. And thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for the flexibility.
RURAL WATER PROJECTS
I am going to be starting with you, Commissioner Lopez. I
believe we have got a half a dozen major rural water projects
that are in progress, that are being constructed. I think the
request this year is $19.5 million for construction on those
six projects. I think it is probably north of $1 and a half
billion if we are going to complete them all right now, and
that might be pretty conservative, quite frankly.
Montana has two of them that are pushing between $250 and
$300 million each, give or take a few million dollars, and the
request is for $19.5 million. Now in past years we plussed that
account up, I think $47 million last year and $31 million the
year before that. I guess I do not know how the Department is
doing its budget, but is it--are we coming in at such a low
number just assuming we are going to bump it up, and then you
can look fiscally conservative, and we do not look so fiscally
conservative? What is the thought process behind that, because
$19.5 million is not even close to keeping up with the rate of
inflation.
Mr. Lopez. Good afternoon, Senator, and thank you for your
question. My answer is very similar to Secretary Darcy's
earlier remarks, working within the fiscal constraints that we
are. Much of our infrastructure is quite old, 50 to 100 years
old. So the vast majority of our funds go towards the
continuing O&M and upkeep of that existing infrastructure. We
try and maximize the amount that remains for this construction
of new projects. Unfortunately, it is a very small remainder.
Senator Tester. Yeah, I would guess. And one of the
problems is that, you know, we are probably--I hope we plus
this up again. But if you came asking for a few more bucks, we
might be able to get more than just what we are going to plus
it up by, because, I mean, the need here is for $100 million,
not $19.5 million, and I think you agree with that. It could
easily be used when you get these water projects done, move
onto the next piece of infrastructure, and be done with it. Is
there a long-term plan as far as--or a short-term plan--I do
not care, either one--within the Agency to complete these
projects?
Mr. Lopez. Within the current budget constraints, we are
doing what we can. We do thank Congress for the plus up. It
certainly has helped us get moving along, but it has been
inadequate.
Senator Tester. So what you are saying is that as long as
we are under these budget constraints, they will continue to--
these projects will continue to flounder for dollars.
Mr. Lopez. Senator, unfortunately we have to maintain our
existing infrastructure and make sure that that continues to
function.
Senator Tester. Okay. Well, there was a proposal out there
that my predecessor, Max Baucus, I believe, put forth about
taking a funding stream out of the Reclamation Fund. Is that
something that you think is appropriate? Is that something you
would support?
Mr. Lopez. Senator, obviously I would have to coordinate
with the Administration as to an Administration position.
However, I think your idea was the original intent of that
Reclamation Fund----
Senator Tester. Yes, it is.
Mr. Lopez [continuing]. To plow back into investment and
infrastructure. It seems like that would be a wise use of some
of that money.
Senator Tester. I will take that as an endorsement. Thank
you.
Mr. Lopez. I think it was.
IRRIGATION WATER
Senator Tester. Assistant Secretary Darcy, my guess is at
this point in time in your life, you would like to see the term
``intake dam'' go away. It has been--I am going to tell you
from my perspective it has been--I do not know if we would go
as far as calling it a nightmare, but it has not gone smoothly,
let us just put it that way. There is active litigation
currently on this project. I do not want you to get into those
details.
But could you comment on what you are doing to make sure
that the irrigators have access to irrigation water that they
would normally get from intake? I think it is about 52,000
acres.
Ms. Darcy. We are trying to maintain existing operations.
However, as you know, building the intake structure is
currently under litigation, and we are forbidden from going
forward with construction. But we have let a construction
contract, so we would be ready to go if and when the litigation
is resolved.
Senator Tester. So do you anticipate that litigation is
going to be solved by this month?
Ms. Darcy. I would not say this month, Senator.
Senator Tester. Oh, okay.
Ms. Darcy. I would like to say this fall.
Senator Tester. Okay. Well, that is instructive. Here is
the problem. Are these folks going to have water this season? I
do not know what they are planning, but they could be putting
in the ground at the end of this month, like I say, depending
on what the crop is. It could be in April. It could be in May.
It could be in June. That is long before fall. Are they going
to have water this year?
Ms. Darcy. I would have to say I do not know.
Senator Tester. Whoa.
Ms. Darcy. General Bostick? I do not know.
Senator Tester. That is not the right answer.
Ms. Darcy. I know.
Senator Tester. Can somebody else shed some light on it?
General Bostick. A lot of our effort to move forward is
going to depend on the completion of the EIS, and that EIS is
not going to be completed until the fall. But once that is
completed, then we can move forward with the construction.
Senator Tester. I gotcha.
General Bostick. Beyond that, it would be difficult for us
to commit. I know the water is needed earlier than that, but it
would be difficult to do without the court ruling to move
forward.
Senator Tester. So by fall, just so you know, I mean, you
guys--I hope you know this. By fall, the growing season is
over. So is there anything we can do? Talk to me, please.
General Bostick. I think we can continue to work to
accelerate it as much as we can.
Senator Tester. So that you know, I do not know what crop
insurance does in cases like this for these guys. I do not know
if they can easily convert back to a dry land system. I doubt
it. I do not know if Mother Nature will smile upon them this
year so they will not need as much water. But we could--without
irrigation water, we really--I mean, these guys could be--
literally lose the farm. And I do not know their operations,
but I do know that if it was my operation and I was counting on
irrigated yield to pay my bills and I got dry land yield, it
would be very difficult to maintain that operation. So----
Mr. Lopez. Senator, if I may.
Senator Tester. Sure, go ahead.
Mr. Lopez. If I may address that just a little bit. We are
working with the Lower Yellowstone Board of Control to seek an
extension of a permit that would allow the continued rock
piling of that diversion weir to try and get water this season.
Obviously it is not certain that we will be totally successful,
but we are going to do everything that we can to make sure that
the farmers get some water.
Senator Tester. You know what. Thank you. I mean, that is
all I can ask for, you do everything you can do to make sure
those folks get their water, and they will get their water. I
appreciate that.
I feel bad not to--not having more questions for you
because I have got time, and usually this never happens, okay.
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
I guess what I will say is that I appreciate what you are
doing, and I do appreciate the work everybody at this table and
their priorities for the fiscal year. I think the issue when it
comes to infrastructure is it is expensive, and it is needed.
You talked about 50 to 100, and probably east of Mississippi it
is 150 years old some of that water infrastructure. And it is
in dire need of rebuild or replace.
And in some cases in Montana it is in dire need of just
getting water in places that do not have water. It is
critically important if we are going to have any kind of
economy. And so, hopefully through your work, and if you
continue to lay out the case and be honest with Congress about
what the needs are and what your capacity is under the current
budget restraints, we will get enough votes in this outfit to
try to get some solid infrastructure improvements around this
country. It is something that my parents' generation got.
Unfortunately my generation does not, at least the ones that
serve here in Washington, DC.
So thank you for your work, whether it is in recreation, or
flood protection, or hydropower production, or irrigation for
agriculture, or drinking water. I certainly appreciate what you
do.
With that, I guess if I was in the military, I would say
``at ease, smoke them if you got them.'' But we are in a
building that you do not do that in, and I will wait for
Senator Feinstein's arrival, and we will go from there.
Okay. We will recess until the Chair, or Vice Chair, or a
member of this Committee shows, and then I can go vote. Thank
you all.
[Recess.]
Senator Alexander [presiding]. The committee hearing will
resume. Thanks to the witnesses. I understand we exhausted
Senator Tester.
He missed his opportunity of a lifetime, but he appreciated
the chance to question you. I will proceed with some of my
questions until another Senator arrives, particularly Senator
Feinstein, Senator Cochran I know, and we will talk a little
bit. And I will defer to them whenever they come or as other
Senators come. We have three more votes, but still we should be
able to give Senators an opportunity to have a good discussion.
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK
General Bostick, I want to go back Chickamauga Lock on
which I have worked with you before. I generally do appreciate
the work that you and Secretary Darcy have done in the past 2
years to restart Chickamauga Lock. I know you have looked at it
carefully. You have stayed within your--within the established
priorities within your Department. But you had sufficient funds
to spend $3 million in 2015 of unallocated money, and then this
past year the funding that Congress provided gave sufficient
funds to do what you needed to do with the first three
priorities on that priority list and left $29 million for work
on the fiscal year 2016 work plan for Chickamauga Lock.
I am perplexed about why the Corps would want to restart a
project and then not propose to fund it until it is finished.
So let me ask you this. How much funding could Chickamauga Lock
use during fiscal year 2017?
General Bostick. Senator, you are asking about the
capabilities, and I thought I would first talk about how we
look at the capability on a project.
Senator Alexander. That would be fine.
General Bostick. When we look at the civil works budget, it
is a performance-based budget as we look at our projects. We
look at each project based on what we can obligate each year,
and that would be what we call the capability. It is also
important to understand that when we look at capability, we
identify the capability for each project without regard to the
amount of money that we might have for the whole civil works
budget. So if you added the capability of every project, it
would obviously be more than the capability that we could
execute in a given year.
Given that, $37 million would be the capability of Chick
Lock in fiscal year 2017.
Senator Alexander. So, well, thank you for such a precise
answer. So if you sufficiently funded the first three
priorities on your list, then the question would be whether you
had $37 million for Chickamauga Lock, which is fourth. Is that
also correct?
General Bostick. If we sufficiently funded the first three
projects, would we have----
Senator Alexander. No. I guess the way you would be looking
at it. Let us go back to this year. I think what you did this
year, you looked at the first three priorities on your capital
list and determined that you had a sufficient amount of money.
What would the capability be for each of those.
General Bostick. Correct.
Senator Alexander. You did that, and you had $29 million
left, and you spent that on Chickamauga Lock. Is that basically
right?
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
General Bostick. The $29 million, correct. That was out of
the work plan.
Senator Alexander. So in the next year it would be--$37
million would be the amount you could spend if you had it
available.
General Bostick. $37 would be what we could obligate in
fiscal year 2017.
Senator Alexander. Thank you for your answer. I am now
going to call on Senator Feinstein for her opening statement. I
know that Senator Cochran, the committee's chairman is coming,
hoping to--he was here earlier, hoping to make a statement. And
we will continue until every Senator has a chance to do that,
and we will go back and forth to voting. Senator Feinstein.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And,
first of all, let me give my apologies to you and to our
witnesses as well as to the people that were here. As you know,
I had an amendment on the floor and spoke on it, and at least
am pleased that it passed unanimously. So that is the good news
part of this.
I want to welcome our witnesses. I want to thank you for
your testimony today. And, General Bostick, I understand you
are retiring this year, so I want to extend my gratitude for
your service to this country. It is very much appreciated.
General Bostick. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. You have served with distinction within
the Army, both at home and abroad, and we are very proud of
you. So thank you. And you have done work on behalf of
California, which I thank you for.
Turning the President's 2017 budget request, Mr. Chairman,
I have to say I am disappointed in the proposals from both
agencies represented here today. A 23 percent drop in the
Corps' budget and a 13 percent drop in Reclamation's budget is
simply unacceptable when one considers all of the water
resource needs our Nation faces. The work your agencies do to
provide tangible benefits to more people on a daily basis than
perhaps anything else funded in our bill.
You are responsible for providing drinking water, water to
produce food. You are tasked with protecting lives, homes,
businesses from floods. You maintain navigation channels and
ports. You restore the ecosystem to help combat climate change.
So it is disappointing that every year we go through the same
exercise of examining an Army Corps budget that has been cut by
over $1 billion from the previous year's enactment level, and
that is not your doing. It is the executive branch's doing.
It seems to me your job is already difficult enough, and I
am not pleased to have to play these games with the
Administration for yet another year. So I hope we can come to
some agreement on numbers that allow you to do the job well.
I am equally disappointed with Reclamation's proposed
budget, which is a 13 percent decrease from fiscal year 2016.
The subcommittee has undertaken herculean efforts to provide
$150 million more than was requested over the last 2 years to
address the drought facing the West. And so, once again the
Administration did not propose to continue that funding. That
is $150 million that we put in that they did not continue, and
indeed did not request any additional funding for the drought.
That, as a Californian, is really unacceptable.
My constituents are also the President's constituents, and
I am really frustrated that the Administration seems unwilling
to help me do something about this drought. One El Nino year
alone will not be enough to end this drought, and Californians
are really hurting. It should matter.
It is a huge State, 40-plus million people. Sixty-nine
communities in our State have significant water supplies and
water quality issues. Our economy lost $42.7 billion from the
drought last year. One million acres of California farmland was
fallowed in 2015. The drought has led to 35,000 permanent jobs
lost. Land subsidence from pumping too much groundwater has
caused large areas of the San Joaquin Valley to sink by as much
as two inches per month. As a result, bridges, aqueducts, and
roads have already begun to crack.
Fifty million large trees are dead or likely will die.
Another--and get this number--888 million trees experienced
loss of canopy cover since 2011. And I said to my staff,
Commissioner, this cannot be right, and they said, oh, yes, we
have checked it, it is.
There are two themes I want to highlight today. The first
is data versus intuition, and the second is win-win scenarios.
Commissioner Lopez, this subcommittee has provided the Bureau
with extraordinary resources over the past 2 years to provide
more water to people in the West. Yet I continue to hear that
water pumping decisions are still being based on intuition of
when protected fish might be near the pumps rather than when we
know they are actually present.
For example, Interior may reduce pumping if even one smelt
this size is found as far away as 17 miles from the pumps near
a monitoring station called Prisoner's Point. But outside,
biologists and scientists believe that Reclamation is reducing
pumping prematurely. These experts believe that the Agencies
could continue with higher pumping levels, even if smelt are
found at a monitoring station that is only 12 miles from the
pumps. Why? Because they can still move back.
So we need to know who is right, and that is why I believe,
and what we have proposed, is daily boat monitoring in turbid
waters because that water is critical to making an informed
decision and increasing the Agencies' operational flexibility.
Reclamation has been given significant funds to make more data
driven decisions grounded in the latest science, and so I hope
you will do so.
Secretary Darcy, while water supply is not your primary
mission, I believe that water supply can be achieved also
during the course of the Corps' traditional work on flood
protection, navigation, and ecosystem restoration. I believe
there are numerous opportunities for the Corps to find these
win-win scenarios, and you have done a good job, and I just
want to encourage you to look for doing that.
For example, seismic retrofits could be coupled with dam
raises, and we have that in one proposal of such in the San
Joaquin Valley. Better weather forecasting resulting in less
water being unnecessarily released from damns. I met with the
Army Corps head from Sacramento yesterday about Folsom Dam.
Folsom Dam is just 60 percent filled, and yet they are
releasing water because of the possibility of rain, which could
possibly produce flooding.
Now, I do not know if 60 percent is the right level to
begin that--to do that or not, but I really think in view of
the drought we ought to take a look at that. And ecosystem
restoration projects can provide for additional groundwater
recharge as well.
So, Mr. Chairman, let me say one thing. We have worked well
together, and I have so appreciated your leadership over these
many years. But this drought is the hardest thing I have ever
done in my 23 years in the Senate. And I really want to make
sure that the two agencies testifying today are working hand-
in-hand with each other, with other Federal agencies, and with
State and local partners. We are the most populous State in the
Union, a significant source of our Nation's food, at least 50
percent. That means that drought is a problem for the whole
Government and will require a whole of Government solution.
So, Mr. Chairman, what I am saying today is I look forward
to working with you. You have always been a great one to work
with, and I really appreciate it. And I hope that we will be
able to reallocate some funds to solve some of these big
problems. So thank you very much.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. We have
had an excellent working relationship on this committee and
with the witnesses. For the information of Senators, what we
decided to do today, we dispensed with their testimony. That
has been submitted to the record. We dispensed with opening
statements except for the chair and the ranking member. And
because of the votes we are giving Senators an opportunity to
take their five minutes in terms of questions or statements in
order.
And so, Senator Feinstein, if I may suggest, I am going to
ask you to chair for the next few minutes, and I will go take
the--I will vote early on vote three, and then I can get back
here I think in time for you to go.
Senator Feinstein. Good.
Senator Alexander. And after you are through, if Senator
Cochran comes back, he would be next. And if he is not, Senator
Murkowski would.
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
Senator Alexander. So if you could please do your questions
and then go to the next Republican member, I will be back by
that time.
WATER PUMPING DECISIONS
Senator Feinstein [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
My main question is on delta operations, and I am concerned
that Reclamation has pumped less water in 2016 during this El
Nino year than it did in 2015 when California was in extreme
drought. Flows were as high as 50,000 CFS in the Sacramento
River, yet the Agencies reduced pumping to the low end of the
biological opinions because of one smelt.
I continue to hear that water pumping decisions are still
being based on when protected fish might be near the pumps
rather than when we know they actually are present. For
example, Interior may reduce pumping even if one smelt is found
as far as 17 miles away, as I have said, at Prisoner's Point.
And I mentioned what outside biologists and scientists believe.
I will not go into that again.
So here is the question. What are you doing to test whether
or not smelt identified past the Prisoner's Point monitoring
station can still survive and make their way back out to the
central delta.
Mr. Lopez. Senator, first of all, let me start by saying
that I understand your frustration and that of the water users.
We are equally frustrated. Having said that, I need to answer
this by talking a little bit about what I understand the fish
agencies are relying on.
And basically what they are concerned about is that once
fish get to that point, Prisoner's Point and south of there,
they are essentially entrained in the system. If they get into
that area, they are not going to survive, nor are they going to
spawn.
Senator Feinstein. Excuse me. As long as we concur that
Prisoner's Point is 17 miles from the pumps, right? That is
all.
Mr. Lopez. That is correct.
Senator Feinstein. Please continue.
Mr. Lopez. So we operate the pumps under the biological
opinions, and the Fish and Wildlife Service regulate the
conditions of the biological opinion of the smelt. They have a
Smelt Working Group that is, in essence, the best minds on the
issues of the smelt and its survivability.
They are of the opinion that once smelt get to that point
around Prisoner's Point and points south, if the flow into the
Old and Middle River is reversed, the smelt essentially moves
on towards the pumps, they become entrained there, and they
will not survive. So they are concerned about smelt even at a
very long distance away from the pumps.
In fact, what has happened in recent timeframes of high
flows, as you have mentioned, the Smelt Working Group has
recommended even lower pumping rates than what we have done.
But David Murillo, our regional director of the Mid-Pacific,
whom you know well, he and the fish agencies have a very good
working relationship. They have agreed to essentially try
something that is beyond what has been recommended, and that is
what they have been doing.
One of the reasons that they are trying to prevent the
entrainment is that we had an instance in the winter of 2012-
2013 where the smelt did get entrained in that area. Once they
got entrained, they got pulled into the pumps and we reached
the take limit, and at that point we had to re-consult, and
then we were even further constrained on pumping.
Senator Feinstein. Let me ask you this question. Would you
be willing to sit down with those biologists and agencies that
believe that in the distance from 17 miles away and 12 miles
away that those fish can still return, that they will not be
entrained, would you at least sit down with them and listen?
Mr. Lopez. Senator, absolutely, I would.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. I will set it up.
Mr. Lopez. However, I also want to mention that the entity
that has to be convinced is the Fish and Wildlife Service and
their biologists. They, in essence, regulate what we do.
Senator Feinstein. We will include them, too.
Mr. Lopez. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. But, look, I do not intend to quit, so I
am going to be at this, and there are so many conflicting
opinions. Maybe if we get them in one room and listen to them,
it might be profitable. So I very much appreciate that.
Senator Murkowski, welcome. You have a heavy load today I
know.
KING COVE
Senator Murkowski. We are all busy, and I apologize. We are
all kind of jumping up and down like jack-in-the-boxes here to
go vote because this is so important. I have what I hope will
be three very quick questions.
The first one is relating to King Cove. Senator Feinstein
indicates she is not giving up. I am not ever giving up on King
Cove and getting my 10-mile--the people of King Cove a 10-mile,
one-lane gravel non-commercial use road.
I am told, because I had the Secretary of Interior before
me today in Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and last week
in Energy, that the study that she asked the Corps to do about
alternatives for King Cove was done by the Corps. When I asked
her if she could make that public, she said she did not know if
she could. She was going to have to check with the Corps. And I
said, well, conveniently, I have got the Corps in front of me
this afternoon, so I will ask if we will be able to get a copy
of that report that was requested by the Secretary.
Ms. Darcy. Senator, I am----
Senator Feinstein. Excuse me. Ms. Darcy, if you could wait.
I will go down and vote, and you just continue on. Is that
agreeable, Senator?
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski [presiding]. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Darcy. Senator, in response to your question, we did a
report at the request at the Department of Interior for the
non-road alternatives. And I will personally ask the Secretary
of the Interior if we can make it public.
Senator Murkowski. I would appreciate that. I think the
people of King Cove would appreciate that, so I will look
forward to that.
ARCTIC DEEP PORT STUDY
Let me ask you about the Port of Nome, and more
specifically to a deepwater port in the Arctic. As you know, I
have been a long proponent of making sure that we have
infrastructure in the Arctic as we see developments taking
place up north, and the increased traffic in the Bering, the
Beaufort, and the Chukchi.
Last year, the Corps placed a strategic pause on the
proposed port in Nome. When the President was up in September,
he announced the need for a deepwater port that would be north
of Dutch Harbor. Given the President's support for this, why
have we not included construction funding going forward in this
next fiscal year?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, the Arctic deep port study that you are
referencing was indeed put on pause last October in conjunction
with the local sponsor, the State of Alaska. Since that time
and since the President's visit, we are now going to look at
further scoping of that study, because it was limited to just
some economics involving oil and gas. But there are other
things that we think can be included in this, for instance,
that the Port of Nome may be considered a port of national
significance, in addition to the fact that it could possibly
house the Coast Guard's icebreaker in the future, as well as
other benefits that could come from that.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate the additional scoping, and
I think that it is important that--life safety reasons. Like
the socioeconomic benefit that accrues to a community, to a
region when you have a port that is accessible that can reduce
the cost of goods that come in, reduce the cost of fuel that
comes in, just the general cost of living.
But I do find it just really quite surprising that the
assessment for a port could have been built upon one project
without recognition of, again, the expanded role, the
activities in the region. This is one of those areas where when
you talk to the people, whether they are in Nome or anywhere
south of that, they say the Arctic is more than just oil and
gas exploration.
It is just more than just shale up north. It is about
having infrastructure to accommodate a reality, a daunting
reality that--it is almost as if a new ocean has been
discovered at the top of the globe. And so, how are we
preparing for that? You cannot really be in the game, you
cannot be that Arctic participant unless we have that system of
ports. So know that we are going to continue to press on this.
SECTION 107 SMALL NAVIGATION PROGRAM
The last thing that I wanted to ask you, and I actually
have constituents that are waiting to see me from the community
of St. George on the Pribilof Islands. I had asked about the
Section 107 Small Navigation Program last year. Many of my
constituents have thanked me for advocating on behalf of that
program because it really is a great fit, a great fit for these
small villages, these small communities that are trying to
construct a small harbor, break water. But the waiting between
WRRDA (Water Resources Reform and Development Act) bills has
been a little bit lengthy, and just these are projects, as you
and I know, just compete on that national scale.
And what I would ask from you is just further commitment
from you, from your staff to continue to work with my office so
this Section 107 Program can continue to benefit these small
communities. I know for a fact that the people of St. George
that are waiting for me as I go to this next vote are going to
want to know that this type of support is going to continue.
Ms. Darcy. Yes, the CAP programs are an important part of
our entire program, and we have three 107 projects now ongoing
in Alaska. And that program is one that it is for smaller
projects that do not need the full-blown WRDA authorization,
and that is why it has been successful, especially in small
communities like those in Alaska.
LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS EXPORTS
Senator Murkowski. Well, we will work with you on that. And
since nobody is back, I will take an opportunity. I was in
Houston last week at CERAWeek, which is the big oil and gas
summit really in the country. And a lot of discussion about the
fact that we had just seen that Wednesday the first shipment of
LNG leaving Louisiana to head out to Brazil. Obviously exports
of LNG (liquefied natural gas) are a big deal for me both
because of the Alaska LNG project and because of the energy
bill that we are working on that would expedite these
approvals.
SABRINE-NECHES WATERWAY
The Sabine-Neches Waterway is probably one of the more
important waterways in the Nation. By all accounts it is poised
to play a key role in the buildout of LNG exports from the
United States, specifically Louisiana and Texas. So if you
could just give us a quick update on the 2014 authorization
that we need to deepen that waterway.
Ms. Darcy. You are talking about Sabine-Neches?
Senator Murkowski. Yes.
Ms. Darcy. That project currently has a benefit to cost
ratio that does not compete well for budgeting at a 7 percent
rate. However, our Galveston district is doing and economic
update and that economic update I think will be approved in the
third quarter of this year. So with an uptick in the economics,
there is a possibility that the benefit-to-cost ratio would be
improved and make it more competitive for budgeting.
Senator Murkowski. Do you anticipate that that would, given
what we expect to see coming out of Louisiana and coming out of
Texas with LNG exports?
Ms. Darcy. I think in considering those, since the 4-year
ban has been lifted and that can happen now, that will change
the economics.
Senator Murkowski. And that will be included as part of
your analysis.
Ms. Darcy. It will be considered in it, yes.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. I appreciate that. I am going to
utilize a little bit of executive authority and call a recess
for the committee until other members get back so that I do not
miss this important vote. So we are recessed to the call of the
chair.
Senator Alexander [presiding]. Thank you for your
flexibility. The hearing will come to order. That was the last
vote, so Senators will be here, and Senator Coons was here
earlier, so I will call on Senator Coons at this point for his
five minutes of statements and questions.
Senator Coons. Thank you very much, Chairman Alexander.
Thank you both for your forbearance and for your sound and
solid leadership of this subcommittee and others. Thank you for
your service and for the opportunity to talk with you today
about the Army Corps of Engineers.
DELAWARE RIVER DREDGING
I have been particularly pleased with the service of the
colonel who is charged with the Philadelphia district,
Lieutenant Colonel Mike Bliss. And I am grateful for your
continued support for a project that is near and dear to my
constituents, the Delaware River dredging. I am pleased there
is another $55 million overall in the work plan to complete the
project, so I just want to start by saying thank you since I
know not every opportunity is taken to thank you for budget
support and for leadership.
DELAWARE BEACH PROTECTION
If I might, Assistant Secretary Darcy, I just want to talk
about Delaware's beaches. We have several world-class beaches.
They are a key driver of tourism in our region, and they are
essential to the economy of southern Delaware. We had a
significant storm recently that imposed some very hard damage.
We were grateful for previous investment in beach nourishment
that protected those beaches, but most of what had been
provided in recent years was torn away. That has left a lot of
our coastal communities and their infrastructure exposed. I am
hopeful that we can work together to find resources.
The President's budget, to my disappointment, did not
include funding for Bethany Beach or South Bethany Beach, and
as the project information reports from the Philadelphia
district come into your office describing damage to Delaware's
beaches, I am hopeful that you conclude that the Flood Control
and Coastal Emergencies Act Funds that remain unspent from
Sandy could be used for Rehoboth, Bethany, and South Bethany.
Do you think that is possible or likely, and if not, what
else do you think we could do to rebuild Delaware's beaches and
its coastal defenses?
Ms. Darcy. As you say, Senator, we are in the PIR stage
which will inform as to what damages were done and what the
actual cost of those repairs will be.
As far as using Sandy supplemental funds, I am going to
have to defer because I believe that those can only be used for
damages that were incurred from Super Storm Sandy as opposed to
subsequent storms. That is something we will check into if the
need for the repairs is unmet.
Senator Coons. Given just a visual inspection as well as
detailed reports from local government leaders suggest to
Delaware's congressional delegation that there will be some
significant needs here, what funding source do you think is
most likely relevant or appropriate to take action this year?
Ms. Darcy. Probably the FCCE account. That is our Flood and
Coastal Emergencies account, but it would depend on how they
are evaluated as far as relative to the most recent storm.
Senator Coons. I will join comments made by other of my
colleagues earlier in this hearing that it is disappointing
that the Administration's funding request is insufficient for
what are the likely needs of the whole country. As a member of
this subcommittee, I am happy to commit to continuing to
support needed increased funding that will make it possible for
you to address the needs of Delaware and many other States.
PORT OF WILMINGTON
Let me also turn to the Port of Wilmington. It is on a
dredging cycle that really is not sufficient to meet the needs
of this port. It is a relatively small port, but it is an
important port for my home State. It silts in about every 6 to
9 months, and right now it is causing havoc with the number of
customers at the port. I am hopeful that going forward you will
consider including funding for two dredging cycles a year. Is
this something you are familiar with?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, I am aware that we did provide 2016 O&M
dredging for this port at $3.845 million, and also in the
President's 2017 budget request we have $4.355 million for the
next dredging cycle. So I think an additional dredging cycle is
what your question is, sir?
Senator Coons. Yes.
Ms. Darcy. I believe that currently we are budgeting on a
single dredging cycle, and that is what I think those numbers
reflect.
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
Senator Coons. Well, I will urge you to reconsider, based
on experience at the port, two dredging cycles a year. Let me
in my closing moments simply recommend to you again funding for
the Delaware River Basin Commission. Although there is a
congressionally approved compact that requires a Federal
contribution, the Federal contribution has been forthcoming, I
think, in 19 of the last 20 fiscal years.
HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND
I also am an advocate for the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund. You have made some significant, I think, improvements.
The request is higher. Our funding has improved, but it is
still 20 percent less this year than what was appropriated
last. I think it would make a significant different for harbors
across the country, not just in my home State of Delaware.
So please note me as an advocate for working to ensure that
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is put to its appropriate
purposes, and that we invest to the level we need to in order
to ensure that our export and import businesses that go through
our vital ports and harbors are appropriately maintained.
Ms. Darcy. Yes, sir.
Senator Coons. Thank you very much.
Senator Alexander. Senator Udall, I think we have other
Republican members coming, but since you are here, I will call
on you. And what we have done is because of the votes, we have
asked the witnesses to put their statements in the record,
Senators have put their opening statements in the record, and
now you have five minutes for statements or questions, whatever
you would like. Senator Udall.
NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER PROJECTS
Senator Udall. Senator Alexander, Chairman Alexander, thank
you very much. And I guess I lucked out with not having to
alternate here.
I want to thank you both for working with the Albuquerque
District to fund some important New Mexico projects over the
last few years. New Mexico often has a tough time in the
President's budget request, so additional discretionary funds
that this committee provides and your hard work is really
critical in my State.
We have had some good success funding flood control
projects in Alamogordo, Socorro, the Southwest Valley, and
others, and I am very relieved that we have continued the New
Mexico Acacias Program. I hope you know what that is, Honorable
Jo-Ellen Darcy.
Ms. Darcy. I visited about 4 years ago.
Senator Udall. Good. Good. And to support the historic--
these are various, you know, historic irrigation canals that
also help our local ecosystems and manage water flows.
Additionally, I am pleased that for 2016, the Corps has
funded the Rio Grande Environmental Management Program for the
first time. It will be important to continue that effort which
will link together stakeholders and watershed information to
encourage collaboration on water challenges and minimize the
potential for counterproductive conflicts. And finally, I am
glad we are making progress on reimbursements under the
Environmental Management Accounts, specifically for Rio Rancho
in 2016. We talked about this issue last year, and I wanted to
thank you for your attention to this issue.
The Corps signed agreements years ago with a variety of New
Mexico communities to fund water projects, and we need to close
these accounts out. So given our recent success--hopefully this
is an easy question--will you continue to work with this
committee and stakeholders in New Mexico to advance these kinds
of projects in a fiscally responsible way if this committee
continues to provide additional discretionary funding for the
Corps?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, Senator.
GILA RIVER DIVERSION PROJECT
Senator Udall. Thank you very much. And now turning to the
commissioner of Bureau of Reclamation Estevan. Good, solid New
Mexican is back here. Good to see you again.
Commissioner Lopez, I want to touch on an issue that is
very important to me and one I know you are familiar with, the
proposed Gila River diversion project. The Gila River is the
crown jewel of the Southwest and one of the last remaining
free-flowing rivers in the United States. The river provides
amazing opportunities for recreation, wildlife habitat
protection, and has unique historic value. And, of course, we
are also very sympathetic to the water needs of nearby
communities and the agricultural needs.
I understand why any proposal that could mean more water
resources is a discussion worth having, but from everything I
have seen, this project simply does not add up. My
understanding is that a diversion has the potential for about
14,000-acre feet of water, but with significant technical
challenges, and only in a wet year that will not happen very
often, with construction costs estimated near a billion dollars
and would need NEPA approval for disturbing a relatively
untouched river system. In short, this does not seem like a
viable or wise project.
I understand that the environmental review process is the
next step, and the Bureau of Reclamation along with the New
Mexico Interstate Stream Commission are joint leads on this.
What kinds of analyses will be included in your comprehensive
review process? Will the costs associated with this project be
fully reviewed in an objective way, because I have said, and
please go ahead with those, Estevan, and then I will just
finish with these last couple of questions.
Mr. Lopez. Good afternoon, Senator. It is good to see you.
Senator Udall. It is a pleasure. Great to see you.
Mr. Lopez. And so, to date New Mexico has yet--the New
Mexico Unit entity has yet--to propose a project, so we have
not yet begun that process. Once they do, it will be a few
months before we begin a public scoping process. We would
develop a full range of alternatives that would be evaluated in
that process, and we would assure that there is a robust
analysis that would comport to the Federal principles,
requirements, and guidelines for water and land related
resource implementation studies. That was part of the agreement
that was entered into last November.
Specifically, you asked what type of studies would be
looked at. We would intend to look at the impacts on fish and
wildlife, hydrology, land use, cultural resources, recreation,
and ecosystems, and, by all means, the economics of any
proposal that comes forth. We are committed to a robust
evaluation of this. As you say, the Gila is truly a jewel in
the Southwest, and it is something that needs to be protected.
Senator Udall. Thank you. And, Senator Alexander, I will
submit the rest of my questions to Mr. Lopez for the record.
But I just want to say that I have seen estimates that range
from half a billion to $1 billion for construction. I cannot
see any White House Office of Management and Budget clearing a
new billion-dollar Federal water supply project with such
limited potential. So thank you, and I will submit additional
questions, and look forward to your answers.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Senator Lankford.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DISPOSITION STUDIES
Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all
for being here and for the work that goes into this. General
Bostick, good to see you again. Let me pepper you with
questions. It is so good to see you. How about that?
We have talked a couple of times before about the 2014
water bill that put into it a request to the Corps to say give
us an inventory that is not needed--this was the quote--``not
needed for the mission of the Corps of Engineers.'' Obviously
it is trying to determine if there may be any properties or
entities that are anywhere within the Corps of Engineers that
are not needed so that we can spend money on what is essential
for the Corps.
How is that study, that assessment going, and when can we
expect to have that report?
General Bostick. It is good to see you again, Senator.
There are a number of activities going that I think are related
that I wanted to highlight and talk about. And the first is the
deauthorization report that we had to come back to Congress
with, $18 billion worth of deauthorizations.
Senator Lankford. If my memory serves me correctly, about
$14 billion in that $18 billion request.
General Bostick. We were able to come up with $14 billion,
but in coming with that, we had to do an assessment of many of
our projects, so the assessment is underway. We are not
complete. We still have a lot of work to do. It is not directly
tied to the 6002 report, but it is related. The other thing
that----
Senator Lankford. So give me a ballpark on timing when that
assessment might be complete.
General Bostick. I cannot give you a ballpark time on that.
What we are trying to do, because we have not started the 6002
report because we have put all of our focus on trying to get
the deauthorization report accomplished. We did that, and now
we are doing the annual deauthorization, and we will be
finished with that in September of 2016.
I think combining the two efforts, we will be closer to
doing an overall assessment. What we have done is completed an
overall operational assessment of our projects, but we have not
made an assessment of which ones we should retain, which ones
we should divest ourselves of, and which ones should be
repurposed. That is going to be a longer effort.
Senator Lankford. Sure. Well, that is why we started it
early because you know my next question on that is the disposal
process, and once we determine some of the things that might.
And I say ``might'' because we are not asking you to choose
those, but at least to start to put together a list of things
that are not central to the mission of the Corps. Once we have
that list, we have got to work through the process of how do we
actually dispose of that.
Any ideas at this point on disposal authorities that the
Corps may need once that list is out there?
General Bostick. Well, you do have authorities under
Section 216, and rather than waiting until we have the complete
report finished, we are starting now with disposition on two
projects, disposition studies on the Kentucky River Lock and
Dam and the West Pearl Navigation Project. So those disposition
studies will go on this year.
Many activities are working in parallel. We are not going
to wait until the complete report is done, but we are using the
deauthorization requirement, both the annual and the one time
report required in WRRDA, and also moving forward with 216
authorities.
Senator Lankford. Okay. That will be one of those things we
will want to talk about at length is if there are additional
authorities or ways we can help in that process. Obviously if
we have an area where we are not authorizing or allowing or
transferring, we do not want it to be more expensive than
actually maintaining it. We want to actually have an efficiency
of the process with this so you all do not have to worry about
that.
ACCEPTING NON-FEDERAL FUNDING DURING EMERGENCIES
Let me ask about another question that came up from the
2014 WRRDA, and that is accepting materials and services from
non-Federal entities in the case of an emergency situation.
Obviously this has implications around the country, especially
in inland waterways and places where we may have an emergency
situation.
Congress passed that, and asking for a set of--asking for
implementation. We were pretty clear to give that authority. I
am trying to figure out if the Corps has the implementation on
that, the guidelines for that done at this point. Are those
guidelines complete?
General Bostick. Yes, we are finalizing initial
Implementation Guidance on that. I think where we are finding
challenges at the local level is we can accept funds on an
emergency disaster type situation, but we cannot accept funds
for some of our projects where we have not been able to
maintain them.
Senator Lankford. So what about--this is an emergency
situation just starting with that. What about services? You
accept services. So if someone had materials, had equipment,
had personnel, a contractor that was there, and a State or a
private entity said this is an emergency, we want to be able to
help with that. Are you all in a position now with these
guidances to be able to accept those goods or services in the
time of an emergency?
General Bostick. If it is related to a disaster, my answer
would be yes.
Senator Lankford. Okay. Yeah, all these are contingent on
an emergency. That was the definition that was on it, which is
left open of what is an emergency. When I talked to several of
the folks in the different areas, there seems to be a hesitancy
in the field and in the regional offices to accept goods or
services or be able to discuss that even of what the process
would be in case of an emergency.
Those folks want to plan contingencies, and what I hear is,
well, we are studying it. There are not those guidelines in
place in the field. So I do not know if those guidelines had
just been released or not, but the individuals that this would
actually affect cannot plan their contingencies because they do
not know how to connect to the Corps at this point in case of
an emergency.
General Bostick. We will go back and redouble our efforts
to make sure that the Implementation Guidance that we will put
out is understood in terms of what they can and cannot accept.
Senator Lankford. Okay. If there are additional authorities
that are needed on that, we just need to know because if this
is going to be an issue of, yes, we technically can, Congress
gave us permission, but there are liability risks, and who is
going to pay for what if it breaks. And suddenly we are in a
position where there is actually not done what Congress said we
could do, and there is some gap in it, we need to know in that
process so we can actually resolve this. So can you help us
with that?
General Bostick. We will follow up.
Senator Lankford. Great. Thank you. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Lankford.
Senator Hoeven.
RED RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
begin by thanking Secretary Darcy, also General Bostick, and I
see that you brought Colonel Price with you as well. Thank you
for your help and your commitment to move forward with
permanent flood protection both in the Minot region as well as
in the Fargo/Moorhead region in the Red River Valley. It is
much appreciated and very important for both regions, so I
would like to thank all of you. I would also like to thank the
chairman of this committee. I appreciate it very much.
My first question would be to Secretary Darcy and also to
General Bostick. And that is in terms of moving forward with
the Red River permanent flood protection, if you would please
describe for me how you anticipate approaching the Minnesota
DNR process.
Ms. Darcy. In the 2016 work plan when we funded this
project for $5 million, there was a provision that said that in
order to work through the current issues with the DNR, that we
would need to have all of those issues addressed before May of
this year when the Environmental Impact Statement is due. And
then I would need to make a determination as to whether those
conditions were met by July of this year in order for us to be
able to execute a Project Partnership Agreement by August 30th
of this year.
Senator Hoeven. And I would ask both you, Secretary Darcy,
and General Bostick to address, your thoughts on the DNR
process, but then also how you are going about addressing
upstream concerns as well in regard to the project.
General Bostick. I do not have anything else to add beyond
what Secretary Darcy talked about on the DNR.
Senator Hoeven. Okay. And then both of you, just your
thoughts on, again, working to bring everybody together and
advancing the project, but also working with upstream
interests.
Ms. Darcy. Because this is a two-State project, we always
have to consider the upstream impacts as well as the
downstream. In this particular situation, given the alternative
financing arrangements, we need to be able to work with the
upstream interests in order to be able to go forward with both
the upstream portion as well as the downstream portion because
the downstream portion is the Federal part of the project, and
the upper portion is what the local sponsor as well as their
private partners are going to be able to finance.
ALTERNATIVE FINANCING
Senator Hoeven. And if you would, either or both of you
talk for just a minute about the unique public/private
financing model, and what you hope to accomplish here, and how
you see that can provide benefits not only here, but to the
Corps in general going forward.
General Bostick. When you look at some of the work that we
are doing now, just the work that we are currently putting
money in our overall program, it would cost about $19.7 billion
of additional funds to finish that work currently in
construction. And we receive about a billion dollars in
construction each year so, on average, it is going to take
about $20 billion or 20 years to finish the work that we are
currently doing at this rate.
I think it is very important that we look at alternative
means of financing where we bring in the private sector, the
public sector, to see if we can accelerate these projects
because when you take that long to complete these projects, the
benefits are not accruing obviously, and the BCRs come down,
and the people are just unsatisfied. So I think alternative
financing is something that we must do. This is a first effort
to move out on them.
Senator Hoeven. Madam Secretary, did you have anything you
wanted to add?
Ms. Darcy. I would concur with General Bostick's comments,
and the fact that this is one of the first times the Army Corps
of Engineers has approached a project in this way, it shows
that we are open to looking at alternative ways of financing
these projects with limited funding. In this instance because
there are upstream concerns as well as downstream, we are going
to take a really close look at all of this. I am going to have
someone from my staff work with the upstream States in the next
month to try to make sure that we can get this all agreed to in
the timeframe that we have.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you. And also, I want to, I guess,
again emphasize the creativity that you are showing in both of
these projects, not only the public/private partnership, but
also in Minot you are--by providing for a study, you are
allowing the State and locals to go forward and build flood
protection while we are working on a--on the Federal portion of
the project.
That is the kind of creativity that is not only going to
save billions of dollars across the country for the Corps and
for the Federal Government, but it is going to get these
projects done sooner. So that creativity in the case of the
Minot region is enabling them to start building using State and
local funds. And so, I think, you know, just incredibly
important that you are providing this flexibility, and, again,
I want to thank you for that.
And, Mr. Chairman, I do have some more questions. I will
certainly defer until the next round, but I just wanted you to
be aware.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Senator Hoeven. Just to--we will
have a second round of questions. Just a comment on that. This
has been an interesting discussion with me. The leadership of
the committee has worked with Senator Hoeven and with the Corps
of Engineers on a new approach toward dealing with this backlog
of important projects. And it will be interesting to see if
this significant State and local contribution, when matched
with the Federal flexibility and Federal dollars, provides a
way in the future to take that $20 billion figure and move more
rapidly in it.
So I appreciate the flexibility that you have shown in your
leadership of the Corps to work with this committee and with
Senator Hoeven on that issue. I think taxpayers would be
pleased with us for seeing how this works, and particularly
taking a project where there has been such a significant State
and local investment. It is easy for me to say because North
Dakota is a long way from Tennessee.
Let me ask two or three questions here, and then I will go
to Senator Feinstein, and then we will see if other Senators
have other questions.
HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND
Let me talk about the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. This
is something that--well, a few years ago several of us,
including Senator Feinstein, reared back and asked our staff
what would a great country like the United States--what kind of
harbors do we need, particularly in light of the widening of
the Panama Canal. We came up with a figure, and Congress passed
a bill, set a target, and we have met that target for a couple
of years.
Now, we are talking about ports like Los Angeles, Long
Beach, Oakland, Mobile, Savannah, Charleston, Memphis,
Louisiana, Cleveland Harbor. These are important parts of our
commerce in this country, and for two straight years this
committee has been able to meet our goals in terms of deepening
these harbors so the ships can do their work there and not do
it in ports in other places in the world.
Now, we also collect money from the private sector when
they come into the harbors. So my question, Secretary Darcy, is
how much money do you expect to collect in fiscal year 2017 in
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, I believe that the Treasury has made an
estimate that in 2017 we would be collecting $1.6 billion. I
think it is down from what Treasury projected in 2016. I think
it is $1.6 billion.
Senator Alexander. Okay. How much----
Ms. Darcy. In collections in 2017.
Senator Alexander. In collections in 2017 to the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund is the Treasury estimate. How much does
the budget propose that we spend of that $1.6 or $1.7 billion?
Ms. Darcy. The President's budget request for the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund is $951 million for fiscal year 2017.
Senator Alexander. So we are collecting taxes for a
dedicated purpose at about $1.6 or $1.7 billion to deepen ports
to improve commerce, but we are just going to keep the money
and not spend it even though we take it. And as a result of
those kinds of practices, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
today has over $9 billion in it, money that was collected from
ports, from people doing business in the port with the
expectation that it would be spent to keep the ports in good
shape and we are just stacking it up in the Federal bank.
INLAND WATERWAY TRUST FUND
We talked a little earlier about the Inland Waterway Trust
Fund. We do not want that to happen there. We do not have much
money in the Inland Waterway Trust Fund that is unspent. Am I
correct about that?
Ms. Darcy. Currently, I think the unspent balance in the
Inland Waterway Trust Fund is $106 million for 2017.
Senator Alexander. The unspent, but we could spend that
for--I mean, that is yet to be determined how much of that we
are going to spend, correct?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, because that would have to be matched with
other revenues from the budget.
Senator Alexander. But if we matched it in 2017 as we did
in the current year, then there would be almost no unspent
money in the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. Am I correct about
that?
Ms. Darcy. If there was a 50 percent match coming from
General Treasury and coming from the Corps budget to match,
that is possible.
Senator Alexander. But on the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund, we already got $9 billion that should have been spent on
our harbors, yet the President's budget only asks for $986
million, about $194 million short of the target that Congress
set for this year. So we are going to continue to build up the
unspent money in the trust fund. I am very concerned about
that.
NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY
Let me ask you a different--completely different question.
TVA, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers all
mitigate the loss of fish caused by the dams that they operate.
This is a general subject that Secretary Darcy and I have
discussed before, but not a specific one. The Corps of
Engineers purchases fish from the National Fish Hatchery at
Dale Hollow and Irwin to restock fish in the Cumberland River
where there are dams and excellent fishing, by the way. TVA is
mitigating that loss of dam--loss of fish due to the dams. It
operates on the Tennessee River.
So you are already doing what I think you should be doing.
But my question is, does your budget request sufficiently
reimburse the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure our Nation's
mitigation fish hatcheries can continue to meet the mitigation
needs?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, it does, Senator.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Secretary Darcy, and I
greatly appreciate your personal attention to that.
I am about out of time, so why do I not go to Senator
Feinstein, and then I see Senator Hoeven, I think, also has
questions.
BOAT TURBIDITY STUDIES
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, you and I and certain members in the House of
Representatives were able to get $100 million in the omnibus
for drought. That money is still there. The President did not
ask for the money to be continued in 2017; however, it is there
for the remainder of the year. And I am wondering, Commissioner
Lopez, would it be possible to use some of that money to begin
to do boat turbidity studies in the turbid waters both 12 miles
and 17 miles from the pumps to determine with some accuracy the
degree of smelt that are present?
Mr. Lopez. Senator, I think that we have created a spending
plan for that money, and we have tried to build in maximum
flexibility to use that in the way that is going to be deemed
the most useful. So I think that we can. I think my answer to
your question is that we can expend some of that money for
those purposes.
I have recently seen some correspondence in preparing for
this hearing that calls into question the utility of that sort
of thing simply because there are so few smelt that are out
there. But I can certainly look into that, and I think we do
have a mechanism by which we could use some of that money for
that purpose.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I thank you very much for that.
Now, we know the smelt gravitate toward turbid waters.
Mr. Lopez. That is right.
Senator Feinstein. And so, it seems to me that the
monitoring should be in the turbid places, and the turbid
places where decisions are made about operations of the pumps.
We are in a drought emergency proclaimed by the governor. It
seems to me that this is an appropriate use of that money, and
I would like very much to work with you to see that the
appropriate monitoring gets set up as quickly as possible
because time is a-wasting. If we have El Nino, it is going to
be in the next couple of months or this month and maybe through
March, so this means moving with it. So I am going to get out
my needle and start poking at you, and I thank you for that
answer.
SHASTA DAM AND LOS VAQUEROS
I would also like to ask this question, and I go to pages
407 and 408 of the omnibus. 407 stated that ``The commissioner
of Reclamation shall complete the feasibility studies,'' and in
this section on 407 it refers to Shasta Dam. That was completed
in December of 2015. The next section on 408 refers to sites in
Los Vaqueros by November 30th, 2016. Will you complete those
studies?
Mr. Lopez. Senator, for both Sites and Los Vaqueros, we
need to work with non-Federal partners to fund even the study
portions of these. And to date, we do not have those agreements
in place, further----
Senator Feinstein. Commissioner, it is has been 9 years. We
are in our 10th year.
Mr. Lopez [continuing]. The proponents, the Sites JPA and
Contra Costa, have both recently--as recent as last week, come
to us and asked that we actually slow the process down a little
bit to be more in line with the State's process of the funding
proposals that will be taken in November of 2017. They want to
assure that the study we do comports not only with our
requirements, but whatever requirements the State is going to
have. And so, we are working with them to try and position----
Senator Feinstein. Well, let me say something. This is a
law. It is not ``may complete.'' It is ``shall complete.'' So
if you would relay to the Sites JPA my concern that this has
taken too long, and you are now mandated by law to complete
these studies. Sir, I suggest you do it.
SAN LUIS EXPANSION
There is a third one, and that is the feasibility study
that has to do with the San Luis expansion, ``shall be
completed not later than December 31, 2017.'' This is not up to
the Sites JPA to make these decisions. You have the law.
Mr. Lopez. Senator, going back to sites, we do have that
mandate. You are absolutely correct. We recognize that. What we
do not have is we do not have the funds to do the work that
is----
Senator Feinstein. Then I suggest you use some of the
drought $100 million to get it done.
Mr. Lopez. We will look into it, Senator.
Senator Feinstein. But really, sir, you have got one
California Senator that is going to ride this. We worked hard
to get these things in that omnibus, and they are there now.
And it is not ``may,'' it is ``shall.'' And I think--I have met
with the committee. I think they are doing very good work, but
they are not the law, and this is the law. So you can quote me,
and if they have a problem, they can come see me, okay?
Mr. Lopez. Senator, I will convey that to them.
SEISMIC SAFETY PROJECTS
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Secretary Darcy, there are
four critical seismic safety projects, California VA projects:
L.A., San Francisco, Long Beach, and San Diego. And they will
be part of this new construction partnership between the Army
Corps and the VA. And I would like to ensure that they proceed
as quickly as possible because the seismic risk in California
is not going down. It is going up. So when do you expect to
execute the joint agreement with the VA regarding the new
collaboration?
Ms. Darcy. I do not know. I am going to ask General Bostick
if he might know. He has been working more closely with the VA
on these issues than I.
General Bostick. I have worked with Secretary McDonald very
closely in discussions on how some of these projects would
transfer. The first one obviously was the Aurora Hospital in
Colorado, and we are complete with that transfer, and we are
starting to work on it. We are taking each of these one at a
time and assessing them on a case-by-case basis, but moving out
as rapidly as we can. Much of----
Senator Feinstein. Could you give me some times, please? I
do not want to ask your successor 10 years from now, if I am
still alive, what happened.
General Bostick. The overall understanding is already
completed. If it is over $100 million, as in the cases of the
California hospitals, there is already agreement that the Corps
will take those on. The next step is to determine if the
designs are appropriate for us to move out and award a
contract. That work is ongoing.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Well, that is good news. Do you
have a specific timeline for when seismic safety projects can
proceed?
General Bostick. I do not have a timeline, but I will
respond----
Senator Feinstein. May I ask that perhaps before you leave
you could get a timeline? You set the course for your
successor?
General Bostick. I will do that.
Senator Feinstein. This is important, so thank you. And is
there any--do you have any thoughts on how this collaboration,
and maybe it does not affect these projects. But will they
introduce of themselves time delays?
General Bostick. I cannot speak to the group of them in
total, but if the project has not started, and some of these
are brand new projects if they have a design, then we can just
take that design if the design is adequate, then we can move
out and award a contract. In the case of Aurora, for example,
that took us a lot longer, a number of months in order to
transition that one. So I would say it is a case-by-case
situation, but I think it could be a clean transfer depending
on the design.
Senator Feinstein. So my job would be to see if the VA
facilities in L.A., San Francisco, Long Beach, and San Diego
have a design. Is that correct?
General Bostick. We can work on that, Senator.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Well, we will check.
General Bostick. We will follow up with you on that.
Senator Feinstein. And I would appreciate it if you could
let me know.
General Bostick. We will.
Senator Feinstein. The question is do they have a design,
and I thank you, General, very much.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thanks you. Thank you, Senator
Feinstein.
Senator Hoeven, whatever time--take time to ask whatever
questions you may have.
LAKE TSCHIDA
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner
Lopez, we have discussed Lake Tschida, Heart Butte Dam a number
of times. You have been out, and I appreciate you coming out. I
am drafting legislation to try to address this issue. We
continue to work on trying to find a solution.
Specifically, my legislation would direct the Bureau to
allow permittees in the trailer areas around Lake Tschida to
keep their existing trailers on the lots as long as they comply
with anchoring requirements set forth by the Bureau. These
permittees have made investments and improvements to the lots
and trailers over the years, all with the consent of the
Bureau. I think this would be a good compromise to ensure dam
safety while also allowing trailer owners to get full use out
of the investments that they made honestly with the approval of
the Bureau.
So my question is, would you be willing to work with me to
find agreement on legislative language that would satisfy the
Bureau's concerns while giving fair treatment to the trailer
owners around the lake?
Mr. Lopez. Senator, I would certainly be willing to work
with you on trying to develop legislation that would meet both
those needs. You know my concerns about the trailers being
within the flood pool and the concerns that that creates for
us. If there is legislation to be worked on, we would work with
you on it.
MARKET RENT SURVEYS
Senator Hoeven. Thank you. I appreciate that. The other
question I have is in regard to some of the recent market rent
surveys that have been done by the BOR. As a result of those
surveys, rents will double at Heart Butte Dam, Lake Tschida,
but they triple at the Jamestown Reservoir and the Dickinson
Reservoir. And my understanding is that any rents received go
into maintenance and management of the reservoir.
And so, my first question is, is the Federal Government
making a profit on this, or is all that money being put back
into management and maintenance at those reservoirs?
Mr. Lopez. Senator, I do not believe we are making any
profit on anything, and the money that we collect is used in
the O&M of those reservoirs.
Senator Hoeven. Well, and essentially where I am going with
this is, you know, those are very significant increases. We are
hearing from the people that live around those reservoirs and
have homes around those reservoirs. And there is a real concern
that the rents are being raised well above what is going into
management and maintenance at the reservoir, and well in excess
of what those management and maintenance needs or expenses are.
And that is a real concern because I think those rents are
supposed to be limited to the management and maintenance need
costs of those specific reservoirs. And so, I would ask that
you work with us to look at those and make sure that the
increases are not unreasonable, and that the money is not being
used for some other purpose.
Mr. Lopez. Senator, I commit that we will look into that
question, and assure that we are not collecting any more than
we can use for those purposes.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Commissioner. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are all the questions I had. I
appreciate it.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Senator Hoeven. I have got a
couple of questions.
INLAND WATERWAYS
Secretary Darcy, back to inland waterways. When we took the
big step forward on inland waterways, Congress, among other
things, got an agreement about what the priorities are for the
inland waterways. The users agreed to that as well, and that
helped us have some priority. That was the 2010 Capital
Development Plan. Last year--the Congress then asked--told you
to do a 20-year plan, but in our appropriations bill last year
we said you should use the 2010 Capital User Development Plan
priorities until we have a chance to review the new plans.
So my question is, will the Corps' new plan keep the list
of priorities in the 2010 Capital Development Plan that has
been endorsed by the inland waterway users?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, we will be having the new capital
investment strategy delivered to you all before the month is
out, so we will be able to discuss the specifics of that while
you are putting together the bill for this year. I have not
reviewed the final study to be quite honest with you, so I
cannot answer whether they are the same priorities or not. But
as I say, we will be getting that to you before the month is
out, so.
Senator Alexander. Well, you know the priority I am
interested in.
Ms. Darcy. Let me guess.
REHABILITATION PROJECTS
Senator Alexander. Yeah. And along that line, as you make
your review, let me ask you to comment on something that really
affects all of your projects, and that is the economic analysis
that you use to justify a project, which I would assume you are
going through now as you make up--as you finish this new plan.
Funding the projects is largely based on their so-called
benefit-to-cost ratio. The higher the ratio, the better the
chance the project gets funded, the higher up the priority
list.
I am concerned that the economic analysis for a project may
not accurately take into account the true benefits. For
example, your economic analysis may--let us take the
Chickamauga Lock, for example. In 2004, 2.7 million tons of
cargo were moving through the lock every year. That was 12
years ago. Today it is closer to one million tons.
Now, one big reason it has gone from 2.7 to one million
tons is because the lock is in bad shape and needs to be
replaced. And so, if you based your benefit-to-cost ratio upon
the current lock cargo, it would not be realistic because when
you fix the lock, one would assume that you would be back up to
some number. I do not know what number. Maybe it would be 2.7,
or maybe it would be more, maybe it would be a little less.
But do you not think that has become outdated or
inappropriate to base your benefit-to-cost ratio on the way
things are today in a lock that has for 12 years been in such
bad shape that a lot of cargo simply could not go through it?
Ms. Darcy. I do agree, Senator, because in our equations
that we developed for rehabilitation projects, I do not think
that we take into account the historic significance of these
projects. And I think that we are losing those benefits in
making a future calculation.
As you know, rehabilitation projects do not compete well in
the budget because they have a lower benefit-to-cost ratio
because of that. I think we need to look at how we do the
evaluations for the benefit-to-cost ratio and rehabilitation
projects in a different way, and account for not only historic
patterns--historic benefits that they have brought, but without
that lock, what would have been lost if we did not have that
lock. That calculation, and all of the benefits that it has
brought not only up until one point in time, but historically,
I think needs to be calculated for a rehabilitation project.
COMPLETING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Senator Alexander. Well, that is important testimony coming
from someone with your experience both in Congress and in your
current position. And finally, there also ought to be something
to consider--I mean, should we not complete projects we have
already started to build? For example, in Kentucky Lock we have
already spent $471 million, and on the Chickamauga Lock, we
have already spent $216 million. And as we have discussed, over
the last 2 years working with Congress, you restarted
construction.
But should we not take into account the fact that we
complete projects that we have already started to build?
Ms. Darcy. I think we should take that into consideration,
and I think finishing what you have started is a laudable goal.
It is just not always one that we are able to achieve in the
current fiscal situation.
Senator Alexander. There were several rules of life I
learned from my parents, and one that I learned from my father
was finish what you start, which turns out to be a pretty good
rule of life, and might even be good for the Corps of
Engineers.
I do not have any more questions. I will ask Senator
Feinstein if she does, and then after that, her comments, we
will conclude the hearing.
RESPONDING TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Senator Feinstein. I have one, and I think it will surprise
you. Madam Secretary, this committee held the Army Corps fiscal
year 2016 budget hearing last year on February 11, after which
members of this subcommittee submitted about 50 questions for
the record. Believe it or not, we just received the responses
to those questions yesterday evening, so it took a full year
after the hearing to get the answers back to us.
I do not think you find that acceptable, and I do not find
it acceptable. So can you help me understand why it took the
Corps over a year to provide the responses to questions from
this subcommittee?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, it is an unacceptable time, and for
that I apologize. There is a lengthy review process within the
Administration that takes place in order to respond to
questions, and it is too long. And I will try to come through
with a commitment to make it a shorter time because I will not
be here a year from now, so I want to be able to get you the
answers to your questions in a more timely manner this year.
Senator Feinstein. Well, let me ask you, what do you think
is a reasonable response time, because we are going to submit
some questions from this hearing. And, candidly, I would like
them back in a couple of weeks because there are issues that
are pressing.
Ms. Darcy. They are answers to questions that you need the
answers to in order to formulate your bill.
Senator Feinstein. That is right.
Ms. Darcy. And, you know, that happens this summer and this
fall. I think 3 months is more than enough time for us to be
able to respond to your questions.
Senator Feinstein. So are you saying you put a response
time of 3 months, and that we would have our questions answered
in 3 months?
Ms. Darcy. That is my goal.
Senator Feinstein. What do you think?
Senator Alexander. Well, if you had not asked that, I was
going to. So here is what I think. My guess is that part of the
fault lies with the Office of Management and Budget. I do not
expect you to comment on that. But I think here is what we
ought to do. I think----
Senator Feinstein. Well, can I? Are you saying the Office
of Management and Budget reviews the answers to questions?
Senator Alexander. My guess is they do, right?
Ms. Darcy. That is correct.
Senator Feinstein. They do?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Alexander. Yeah, that is the way they work.
Senator Feinstein. Ask her if she could tell us why.
Ms. Darcy. Okay.
Senator Alexander. Why?
Ms. Darcy. Any of the responses that come to Congress from
agencies are reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Senator Feinstein. Oh, my god.
Senator Alexander. Well, I would say to Senator Feinstein,
and, you know, I would guess that the idea of underfunding the
inland waterways and the Harbor Maintenance Account did not
come from the Army Corps of Engineers, but probably came from
the budget process. And so, here is what I think we should do.
Three months, Senator McConnell, and he has talked to
Senator Reid about this. We hope to move rapidly on the
appropriations process this year. We hope to keep big
controversial riders off the committee bill.
Senator Feinstein. Good.
Senator Alexander. And they can debate them on the floor if
they want to do that, and hopefully Senator Feinstein and I
could do that. So we are moving pretty fast. This is our second
hearing. We have got two more, and we would like to be finished
by when, Tyler?
[Off audio.]
No, with the bill.
Well, he said early May. I am thinking maybe mid-April
would be--would be better. So 3 months, that is just 6 weeks
away. So I would suggest Senator Feinstein and I write a letter
both to the Corps of Engineers and to the Office of Management
and Budget and say we find this unacceptable. You have said you
are going to do your best to get answers in at least by 3
months, that we are moving on a fast pace on appropriations.
And there may be some questions that we would like to have an
answer to more rapidly than that.
You have got a background of work on the Hill, and we can
talk with you about that in an informal way. But it is very
important to us to know your thinking before we write the bill.
Senator Feinstein. Yes, that is right.
Senator Alexander. So we will formally write the letter
would be my suggestion if you would agree.
Senator Feinstein. That is fine with me.
Senator Alexander. And then we will ask staff to work with
you informally on the questions that we think are the most
important to us as we draft the bill. We would like to be among
the first in line when we present a bill to Senator McConnell
and Senator Reid to put on the floor, and I am hoping it is
mid-April or not long after that when we are finished with the
bill.
Senator Feinstein. And I hope that we can keep our
questions relatively limited to the need for this particular
session and our budget--our appropriations bill.
Senator Alexander. Yeah, so we will work with you. I mean,
Senator Feinstein and I will work with you, and if you say,
look, I have got 100 questions here, are there 20 that are more
important, we will help you--we will help prioritize that. And
that will be easier for you to give us responses to that. And
there may be some cases where you could simply give us an oral
response.
Senator Feinstein. That is right.
Senator Alexander. Just answer a question, and we do not--
we will not have to go through a lengthy process. Senator
Feinstein, do you have other questions or comments?
Senator Feinstein. No, I am fine. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Well, I want to thank all the witnesses
for being here today. I am sorry about the voting interrupting,
but I think we Senators had a chance to ask their questions and
to make their testimony. We, again, thank Secretary Darcy and
General Bostick for working with us, especially since this may
be their last hearing before the subcommittee.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
The hearing record will remain open for 10 days. Members
may submit additional information or questions for the record
within that time if they would like. We would like to have all
responses to questions to be provided within 30 days of
receipt. You said 3 months. For the priority questions or most
questions, we would like to ask for 30 days.
[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. Jo-Ellen Darcy
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
Question. Currently, the General Reevaluation Report (GRR) and
accompanying Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the
Port of Mobile is ongoing. Together, they are expected to take
approximately 4 years to complete, which is around 2019 or 2020.
Secretary Darcy, can you give me an update on the status of this
undertaking and what, if anything, can be done to expedite this
process?
Answer. Preparation of the Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement, will require consultation with various resource agencies to
satisfy the National Environmental Protection Act requirements.
Coordination with a wide variety of Federal, State, and local agencies
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries
Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, Alabama Department of
Environmental Management, Alabama Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources, the State Historic Preservation Office, etc.) is
currently on-going. Coordination is also ongoing with State and Federal
Environmental Agencies to include discussion of the modeling needs of
the project and begin the process of identifying realistic beneficial
use opportunities for the dredged material from this project. Sediment
removed in association with the potential deepening and widening of up
to 37 miles of channel could generate up to 63 million cubic yards of
material. Currently, the U.S. Army Engineer Research Development Center
is collecting data to establish the existing and baseline environmental
conditions of the project area. The Corps has met with the USFWS and
work has begun on the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report.
Additionally, the documentation of the existing conditions for the
benefit-cost analysis is complete. This task included gathering
economic and demographic data, close review of Mobile Harbor's
operational practices and trends, and gathering historical commodity
flows and fleet data. Coordination is ongoing with the Corps' Institute
of Water Resources and the Port to determine the commodity forecast for
the Port, which is a critical step in the benefit analysis.
The proposed study duration was initially 56 months, but has been
expedited to allow the study to be completed in 48 months. Currently,
no additional measures have been identified that would allow the study
schedule to be further accelerated.
Question. Assistant Secretary Darcy, an issue of importance to the
State of Alabama is the ongoing water dispute involving Georgia,
Florida, Alabama, and the Army Corps of Engineers. This Committee,
included language in the last year's appropriations bill specific to
this issue. In addition, the 2013 WRDA Conference Report contained
language in Section 1051 that encouraged the governors of Alabama,
Florida, and Georgia to reach a compromise to once and for all resolve
this matter stating that ``[a]bsent such action, the Committees of
jurisdiction should consider appropriate legislation to address these
matters including any necessary clarifications to the Water Supply Act
of 1958 or other law.'' Unfortunately, a resolution to this decades
long dispute does not seem any closer than when it began. On May 4,
2015, the Corps signed a Record of Decision regarding a Water Control
Manual (WCM) update that applies to the ACT River Basin. Both States of
Alabama and Georgia have filed lawsuits relating to the ACT WCM, with
no resolution in sight.
Subsequently, on October 2, 2015, the Corps released a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) pertaining to the WCM for the ACF
River Basin. In comments recently submitted regarding the ACF DEIS,
Alabama, Florida, and even the Environmental Protection Agency noted
multiple concerns that the current proposal is contrary to legal
rationale, public policy, and prioritizes one State's water needs over
others. Assistant Secretary Darcy, can you respond directly to and
elaborate on the concerns surrounding both the ACT WCM and the proposed
ACF WCM? In addition, given its troubled history of decisionmaking in
both the ACT and ACF basins, wouldn't it be best to leave such
decisions to the affected States to work out their difference regarding
these basins without unproductive Corps interference, including Federal
legislation enabling such, if necessary?
Answer. The purpose of Water Control Manuals is to determine how
Federal projects should be operated for their authorized purposes, in
light of current conditions and applicable law. The Corps commenced its
most recent efforts to update the master water control manuals for the
systems of Federal improvements in the Alabama, Coosa, and Tallapoosa
(ACT) and Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint (ACF) River Basins in
October 2007 and January 2008, respectively. The purpose of the updates
is to reflect changes in water usage and best practices about water
resource management.
The water control manual updates will not determine how the waters
of either basin will be allocated among the States. However, the
Department of the Army has continuously expressed to the Governors of
Alabama, Florida, and Georgia the Army's willingness, within the limits
of its authority, to adjust the operation of the Corps projects in the
ACT and ACF systems to accommodate any allocation of waters within
those basins upon which the three States agree, and to provide
technical assistance if requested by the States in reaching an
agreement.
The Corps is currently in the process of reviewing public comments
submitted on the draft EIS and water control manuals for the ACF basin.
The Corps is considering all comments, and is committed to working with
State and Federal agencies and stakeholders to address concerns. A
final EIS and approval of the updated ACF master manual are anticipated
by March 2017.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
veterans affairs construction projects
Question. Secretary Darcy, the 2016 Defense Authorization Act
directed the Department of Veterans Affairs to work with the Army Corps
to make the VA construction process more efficient, and Congress
provided an additional $100 million to compensate the Corps for this
new mandate.
There are four critical seismic safety projects at California VA
facilities (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Long Beach, and San Diego) that
will be part of this new construction partnership between the Army
Corps and the VA, and I want to ensure that they proceed as quickly as
possible, given the seismic risk in California.
When do you expect to execute the joint agreement with the VA
regarding the new collaboration?
Answer. The Corps and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have
already entered into the initial Inter-Agency Agreements (IAA) for two
of the four of the projects in question. The San Francisco IAA was
signed on November 13, 2015 and the Long Beach IAA was signed on
February 4, 2016. The agreements for the two remaining projects, West
Los Angeles Buildings 205/208 and San Diego are expected to be signed
in the coming months. As the projects proceed towards construction
award this will require the agencies to modify these IAAs.
The Corps will make every effort to process IAA modifications in a
timely manner and ensure that these projects are completed efficiently.
The Corps will remain vigilant to avoid unnecessary cost growth and
incorporate sound engineering practices to protect public safety.
Question. Do you have a specific timeline for when seismic safety
projects in California can proceed?
Answer. Based on an initial assessment of the projects, the Corps
is forecasting a spring 2017 construction award for most portions of
the Long Beach, San Francisco, San Diego, and West Los Angeles
projects. San Diego and West Los Angeles projects were already
completely designed under contract by the VA, and Long Beach and San
Francisco are anticipated to have completed designs in June 2016 and
November 2016, respectively. The construction award date in spring 2017
is a forecast, because the Corps must also perform a Design and Cost
Validation process in order to accept these projects. Once the Corps
completes this process, and they are satisfied that the technical
solution, design and construction approach, and cost is appropriate,
they can work to solicit and award the projects. As the Corps continues
with this assessment phase of the individual project designs, they will
refine schedules accordingly with the intent of saving time, where
possible, while still implementing sound engineering practices. The
duration for construction completion for each project is still pending
further evaluation and will be based on the required work for each of
the facilities.
Question. How will you ensure that the new collaboration does not
introduce lengthy delays into the process?
Answer. There have been many discussions between the VA and the
Corps to reduce delays and gain efficiencies where practicable. On the
other hand, the new collaboration may itself lead to some delay in
execution. Introducing a new responsible design and construction agent
requires that the agency assume many significant responsibilities; the
Corps must ensure that the work already done meets public safety needs,
application of sound engineering practices, and code requirements, and
that in entering into this collaboration, it does so with a goal of
achieving and managing cost and schedule expectations. Public safety,
sound engineering, the maintenance of professional relationships, and
the appropriate due diligence to cost and execution issues are
paramount. The Corps assessment process evaluates the technical
solution and design approach, estimated construction cost, and
forecasted construction duration to ensure that expectations are met
and public safety is assured.
The Corps understands that many areas of California have seismic
risks, and will work with the VA to mitigate risk and avoid unnecessary
delays.
south san francisco bay shoreline
Question. The San Francisco Bay region is extremely vulnerable to
rising sea levels as a result of climate change. Nearly 200 square
miles of the communities in the region sit in low-lying areas along the
shoreline, including some that are more than 13 feet below sea level.
The South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study was originally
authorized by Congress in 2002, but the Chief's Report was only just
completed in December of 2015, more than a decade later.
Secretary Darcy, as you well know, this project is very important
to me. It will restore 2,900 acres of former salt ponds, create a new
recreation area, and construct a four mile long levee to protect homes,
high-tech businesses, and the new Silicon Valley water purification
center. This work is very important to the local economy, safety, and
quality of life for my constituents.
I want to thank you for including $3 million in the fiscal year
2016 work plan for pre- construction engineering and design work for
Phase 1 of the project.
What is the timeline for this step in the process, and when do you
expect the project to be ready for construction?
Answer. The next scheduled milestone is execution of a Design
Agreement for Preconstruction, Engineering and Design (PED) with the
non-Federal partners. The current schedule identifies completion of PED
by September 2017.
Question. How long do you estimate Phase 1 construction will take?
Answer. The Corps estimates that it would take around 4 years to
construct phase I of this project once physical construction begins,
assuming the availability of funding at the maximum level that the
Corps can efficiently and effectively use for this project.
Question. Do you plan to prioritize funding the in fiscal year 2017
work plan for studies for the next phase of this project?
Answer. Should the Congress provide additional funding for which
this study of the next proposed phase of this project would qualify,
the study would be considered for funding in the 2017 Corps work plan
along with other programs, projects, and activities across the Nation
in competition for the available Federal resources.
california drought and army corps ``big picture''
Question. California's population has grown to 40 million people
according to recent census data. However, the State's water
infrastructure is largely unchanged from when it was built 50 years ago
when California was home to only 16 million people.
The drought in California is a powerful example of how important it
is for our country to keep up with changing water infrastructure needs.
I understand that the Army Corps has conducted a large-scale study
to assess flood risks and ecosystem restoration opportunities in
California's Central Valley and in the Delta.
I also understand that there have been studies of individual
watersheds in and around the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins.
Given continuing population growth and more unpredictable weather
as a result of climate change, it is more important than ever that the
Federal Government looks at water infrastructure in a ``big picture''
way rather than on an individual study-by-study basis.
Secretary Darcy, what steps has the Corps taken to look at water
infrastructure in a holistic way and ensure that different individual
projects are incorporated into a ``big picture'' understanding of
future needs?
Answer. California's water resources management challenges are
complex. As the Corps carries out its missions of flood and storm
damage reduction, commercial navigation, and aquatic ecosystem
restoration in this State, we are mindful that tens of millions of
people live and work there.
In Northern California, an example of a Corps effort in support of
watershed-level planning is the Sacramento and San Joaquin
Comprehensive Basin Study (also known as the Central Valley Integrated
Flood Management Study (CVIFMS)), which focuses on the Sacramento River
Basin. CVIFMS is intended to be a Federal companion to the California
Department of Water Resources' Central Valley Flood Protection Plan,
which is the State's plan for long-term sustainable flood management in
the Central Valley. The goals of CVIFMS are to:
--Develop and share a consistent and mutually complementary system-
wide strategy for flood risk reduction and environmental
stewardship with the State of California;
--Provide a blueprint to connect water resources management actions
across the Sacramento, Yuba, American, and Feather River
watersheds.
In evaluating water resources options in the Sacramento River
Basin, the Corps is building on earlier studies, such as the American
River Common Features and West Sacramento General Reevaluation Reports,
and the Sutter Basin Feasibility Study, to update the system's multi-
purpose performance baseline. The Corps work on CVIFMS continues to
inform other studies, such as the Sacramento River General Reevaluation
Study which began in July 2015, and has enabled the Corps to
strategically align many of its regional, interagency activities.
In Southern California, the Corps is currently working with the
Responses to Climate Change team and in particular with regard to
impacts to Corps' projects due to extreme drought. A Drought
Contingency Plan (DCP) Project Delivery Team (PDT) is working to assess
the applicability of current available Drought Contingency Plans
documents, as well as the need for updating these documents. The DCP
PDT consists of Corps personnel nation-wide, with at least one
representative from each Division. This endeavor to derive updated
guidance for preparation of DCPs is still ongoing.
Question. When evaluating projects, particularly in California,
does the Corps consider how they impact the State's overall water
supply infrastructure and needs?
Answer. The Corps' role in water resources management is focused on
its three main missions--flood and storm damage reduction, commercial
navigation, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The Bureau of
Reclamation has responsibility for the Federal Government's involvement
in water supply planning and operations in California.
However, the Corps is cognizant of California's significant water
supply challenges. While Corps studies and projects focus on its three
main mission areas, the Corps works with the Bureau of Reclamation, the
California Department of Water Resources, as well as other Federal,
State, and local agencies, in order to ensure the Corps work in
California complements their effort on water supply.
An example of this coordination is the Joint Federal Project at
Folsom Dam. This project is a cooperative effort between the Corps and
the Bureau of Reclamation. Once completed, it will help to further
reduce the flood risk in the Sacramento region; and at the same time,
Reclamation (which is the owner and operator of the dam) will have more
flexibility in maintaining water storage levels at the Dam.
Also, at the request of the non-Federal sponsors, the Corps is
currently working on two Feasibility Studies to conserve water for
Whittier Narrows Dam and Prado Dam. The dams' original authorization
are for flood control, however the Feasibility Studies will look at
water conservation opportunities such as permanent changes to dam
operations and the timing of water releases following storm events.
Constraints for these studies include ongoing dam safety issues as well
as the inherent flood risk in these areas with unpredictable flash
flooding. The local sponsor for the Whittier Narrows Dam Water
Conservation Feasibility Study is the Los Angeles County Department of
Public Works. The Prado Basin Ecosystem Restoration and Water
Conservation Study is a dual-purpose study that includes both aquatic
ecosystem restoration and options for a change to the water control
plan for water conservation year-round at a higher elevation at Prado
Dam. The local sponsor for the Prado Basin study is the Orange County
Water District.
Question. Does the Corps have a system-wide strategy to address
water and ecosystem problems in the Sacramento--San Joaquin River
Delta?
Answer. The Corps Central Valley Integrated Flood Management Study
(CVIFMS) is exploring options for system-wide flood risk management and
ecosystem restoration strategy in the Sacramento River Basin, the San
Joaquin River Basin, and the Bay-Delta. As mentioned above, the first
phase of CVIFMS focuses on the Sacramento River Basin, while the next
phase would focus on the San Joaquin River Basin.
army corps projects and water supply
Question. Secretary Darcy, I understand that the Corp's primary
mission is flood protection. However, there are many instances in which
flood protection projects also impact other important issues like water
storage and ecosystem restoration.
For example, seismic retrofits on a dam can also be used to raise
the height of a dam and store more water. Better forecasting of
impending storms can result in more scientific decisions on when to
release water from a reservoir and when to hold it, potentially
providing water supply benefits.
Secretary Darcy, how does the potential for these ``win-win'' type
of outcomes influence the Corps' internal policies and evaluation of
projects?
Answer. The Corps agrees that projects do not necessarily have to
be constrained to benefit only one purpose. The Corps seeks to achieve
multiple public benefits at individual projects to maximize returns on
Federal, State, and local investments. The Corps has extensive
experience managing reservoirs for multiple project purposes throughout
the United States, but the consideration of multiple project purposes
is a matter of making trade-offs. Currently, the Sacramento River
General Reevaluation Report underway is investigating both flood risk
reduction and ecosystem restoration opportunities in the lower
Sacramento River Basin.
With regard to reservoir operations, the Corps incorporates
flexibility to consider other objectives like water supply storage when
applicable. The Corps has always relied on weather forecasting as one
of a wide range of factors to determine when reservoir releases should
be made or held back to meet its public safety mission and other
objectives. Improved forecasting has allowed the Corps to adapt and be
more agile in responding to changing conditions.
The Corps water control manuals are not static, and are
continuously examined to determine if revisions are necessary based on
engineering manuals and regulations. In addition, especially during
times of significant drought, the Corps may allow for temporary
deviations of water control manuals in order to increase water supply
through conservation measures. As discussed below (Question #6), the
Corps has almost completed the Folsom Water Control Manual Update
project for the Folsom Dam; the update incorporates the use of
forecasts in flood release operations. Lessons learned at Folsom, as
well as at Lake Mendocino, could inform operations at other projects,
and help the Corps and its partners achieve the multiple purposes that
these reservoirs serve.
The Corps will continue to consider and evaluate opportunities for
multi-purpose water management strategies at both Corps-owned and
operated dams and those ``Section 7'' dams where the Corps may not own
or operate the facility but has purchased flood pool space and provides
oversight in accordance with the Water Control Manual, in consultation
with stakeholders, and in accordance with law and policy.
Question. Are there any legislative barriers that hinder the Corps
in assisting with drought mitigation, especially in light of the
ongoing investments the Army Corps is making in California water
infrastructure from a flood control and ecosystem restoration
standpoint?
Answer. No. There are no legislative barriers. The Corps is closely
coordinating with other Federal, State, and local partners to determine
how they can help support other agencies' objectives--such as water
storage and supply --while operating within its defined main missions,
which are flood and storm damage reduction, commercial navigation, and
aquatic ecosystem restoration.
For example, 15 Federal, State, and local agencies have agreed to
coordinate with one another to identify and potentially implement
compatible Federal and non-Federal actions in the Yolo Bypass to
achieve multiple public benefits, including flood risk reduction, fish
and wildlife habitat restoration, water quality and supply
improvements, agricultural land preservation, recreation.
Question. In general, what is the Corps doing to help with drought
conditions in California?
Answer. The Corps has collaborated and communicated with the State,
resulting in conservation measures in some California reservoirs,
which, in turn, has helped to mitigate the effects of the drought on
urban, agricultural, and environmental sectors.
Below are some of the Corps ongoing activities:
Water Management.--The operations manuals for many Corps dams
includes a specific subset of instructions for drought conditions that
allow flexibility in making flood releases from the Corps ``flood
control space'' while the drought continues. The Corps water management
team is fully engaged with other State and Federal agencies regarding
operations and conditions, and is responsible for responding to
deviation requests from our local water partners at Corps-owned dams.
Water releases are closely coordinated and managed with local water
users, power generating partners, and the Corps water management team,
including times when drought conditions dictate that water releases
fall below required or recommended flows.
Emergency Operations.--Under the Flood Control and Coastal
Emergency Act (Public Law 84- 99, as amended), the Corps can provide
emergency water assistance due to drought. The Corps has the authority
to transport emergency water supplies of clean drinking water for human
consumption to any locality designated as a drought distressed area.
Affected localities also have the option of purchasing storage space
where available at Corps reservoirs. Also, the Corps is authorized to
construct wells in drought distressed areas if the option is not
commercially available.
Regulatory Division.--During drought conditions, local water
interests may consider temporary and permanent measures to improve
water extraction such as pumps, siphons, wells, and dredging. Most
activities fall under the Corps Nationwide Permit Program or the
District's general permit for emergency actions, pursuant to Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
In some emergency situations, procedures may be approved by the
Corps to issue a permit more quickly following informal coordination
with resource agencies. For example, the Corps expedited a permit that
allowed the California Department of Water Resources to construct a
large temporary drought barrier in June 2015 to hold back saltwater
from the interior Delta, and thus protect its freshwater supply.
Contracting.--PL 84-99 emergency response requests typically come
with a contracting component--such as contracting for emergency
services, supplies, construction, or system design. Contracting
Division has the authority to streamline the contracting process where
appropriate. Additionally, the Corps could modify existing contracts to
change water use or conservation measures at our sites.
Real Estate Division.--Where needed, the Real Estate Division is
authorized to procure land or buildings that might be needed to store
water for pumping or for staging water bottle distribution.
The Corps currently has a deviation to the water control plan in
effect for Whittier Narrows Dam for the purpose of water conservation.
Last flood season the Corps had a short-term deviation in effect for
Prado Dam and the Corps is considering a request for a 5-year deviation
for Prado Dam. The deviations allow the Corps to impound additional
water for water conservation purposes. In fiscal year 2016, Whittier
Narrows Dam conserved 1,300 acre-feet of water from the deviation.
Similarly, Prado Dam conserved 7,300 acre-feet.
beneficial use of clean dredge material
Question. I understand that more than 400 ports and 25,000 miles of
navigation channels are dredged throughout the United States to keep
ship traffic operating efficiently. The operations and maintenance of
our ports falls under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers.
Aquatic ecosystem restoration is also a critical mission of the
Army Corps. Coastal resilience projects, like wetland construction,
often require additional clean sediment material. This is true in many
places all along the California coastline.
It seems to me that there is an opportunity here for a ``win-win''
scenario by using clean material dredged from ports for ecosystem
restoration projects that have a need for additional dredged material.
Secretary Darcy, does the Corps have a process for pairing up
projects so that material dredged from one project can be used in a
second project?
Answer. Yes. There is coordination across Corps mission areas that
can reduce overall costs. The beneficial use of dredged material is
considered when and where practicable. The Corps also has a Regional
Sediment Management Program to establish regional management strategies
and link sediment management actions at authorized Corps projects.
Management activities with other Federal agencies, State, and local
governments are coordinated within the boundaries of physical systems,
including inland watersheds, rivers, estuaries, and the coast.
Question. Given the need for dredged material in ecosystem
restoration projects, does the Army Corps currently view dredged
material as a resource, rather than just as a waste product from
waterways?
Answer. Yes. The Corps considers dredged material as a resource and
has been using dredged material beneficially for decades. There are
numerous examples of the Corps using dredged material to nourish
eroding shorelines and create offshore berms to reduce wave energy and
provide a sand source for littoral drift. Dredged material has also
been used to create wetlands, oyster reefs, submerged aquatic
vegetation, bird islands, and other aquatic habitat, as well as to
restore Brownfields, cap landfills, and enrich soil for agriculture.
Dredged material has even been used as a construction product. Examples
include restoration of the Middle Harbor Enhancement Area using dredged
material from the Oakland Harbor project; construction of the Senator
Paul S. Sarbanes Poplar Island Ecosystem Restoration project with
dredged material from the Baltimore Harbor & Channels project;
restoration of wetlands in the Mississippi River Delta using dredged
material from the Mississippi River Baton Rouge to the Gulf project;
and the use of sand from many coastal projects to re-nourish beaches
and reduce erosion. While many of these beneficial use alternatives can
be costly, some can be accomplished as the least cost alternative.
Question. Are there any barriers to using dredge materials more
productively other than cost?
Answer. There are many factors that must be considered in deciding
whether or not dredged material can be used beneficially, and where the
material can be placed. These include, but are not limited to, the type
of material (whether it is sandy, rocky, fine- grained, etc.), whether
or not there is contamination in the dredged material, the needs of any
biological resources that would be benefitted, time of year
restrictions for the dredging and placement activities, and type and
availability of equipment required to place the material. For instance,
it is not good practice to use fine-grained or contaminated material to
re-nourish beaches or create oyster bars.
updating dam operation manuals
Question. The technical decisions made by reservoir operators
regarding when to release water have become particularly important
during the prolonged California drought. We want to make sure that we
are not wasting even a single drop of water by releasing it when we
don't have to.
In California, I understand that many regions receive a large
portion of their annual rainfall from intense, but geographically
narrow storm events called Atmospheric Rivers.
It seems to me that if we are better able to predict these storm
events and the amount of precipitation they bring, we would be able to
make more informed decisions about how we operate and manage our dams
and reservoirs.
I believe this is another instance of bureaucratic inertia rather
than prioritization of the latest science. We must ensure that the
Federal Government is actually using the latest science to make
informed water decisions.
Secretary Darcy, how is the Corps incorporating the latest science
regarding Atmospheric Rivers into the way it operates dams?
Answer. The Corps is closely following the latest science on
Atmospheric Rivers. In operating Corps-owned dams, and in managing
flood releases at Section 7 dams, the Corps has incorporated the latest
science. Corps dams are designed for extreme weather events. Given the
fact that the Corps dams are designed for the extreme events, the
agency must also balance the needs for flood control and other
authorized purposes, relying heavily on several tools to ensure that
the water conservation efforts do not compromise the safety of the dam.
Such tools include: (1) Weather forecasts from the National Weather
Service and private weather contractors; (2) Flow forecasts from the
River Forecast Center; and (3) Corps Water Management System (CWMS)
numerical models that can predict the water level at the dams from
forecasted precipitation.
The Corps continues to evaluate its portfolio of dams with regard
to risk and vulnerability to an array of potential scenarios that might
impact the overall safety of the facilities. This could be attributed
to a host of factors, including extreme design events and loading
scenarios, as well as hydrologic and seismic events, and pertinent
maintenance challenges associated with aging infrastructure. One of the
contributing factors that is evaluated is the development of inflow
frequency curves that explore the full range of loading conditions
(including extreme events). This will help dam operators estimate how
frequently the extreme events occur at each dam and how those loading
events influence decisions with respect to Federal investment
strategies to address infrastructure needs. Specifically, the Corps has
almost completed the Folsom Water Control Manual Update project which
is incorporating the use of forecasts in the flood release operations
rule set for that Section 7 reservoir.
The Corps is currently participating in a 5-year research study to
investigate use of the latest science in forecasting of the Atmospheric
Rivers. If promising, the results of the study could be incorporated
into operation of reservoirs. The study is known as the Forecast-
Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO) research in Lake Mendocino, and it
is a pilot study that would use atmospheric river (advanced hydro-
meteorological) forecasting data to inform water management decisions
in a manner which reflects current and forecasted conditions. The study
was scoped in 2014, and began in 2015. The research is projected to be
a 5-year effort, and the results may indicate whether this technology
can be applied in actual operations of certain projects. The Corps is
participating in this pilot project with a consortium led by Scripps
Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes, along with the Sonoma
County Water Agency, California Department of Water Resources and State
Climate Office, Bureau of Reclamation, NOAA's National Weather Service,
Earth Systems Research Laboratory, and Restoration Center, USGS, and
the private sector.
Question. How does the Corps prioritize which dam operations
manuals need to be updated and when?
Answer. Updates are prioritized based on several factors, such as
significance of the changes to original design components, operations,
hydrology, environmental changes and/or a need to evaluate proposed
changes to existing water control plans, vulnerability of the
populations downstream of the dam, and interest from downstream
partners. Prioritization of water control manual updates must also be
made alongside other competing demands within the Corps budget.
Question. What is the Army Corps' basis for refusing to accept non-
Federal contributions to pay for upgrades to these flood control
manuals?
Answer. The Corps can--and does--accept funding to update manuals
for Corps- operated and maintained dams. Paragraph (5)(B) of Section
1046(a) in WRRDA 2014 states, ``The Secretary [of the Army] may accept
and expend amounts from non-Federal entities and other Federal agencies
to carry out this subsection and reviews of project operations or
activities resulting from those reviews.'' This only applies to
projects that are ``operated and maintained by the Secretary [of the
Army]'', meaning projects operated and maintained by the Corps of
Engineers. Section 1046 does not allow the Corps to accept funds for
projects operated and maintained by other agencies.
Question. How is the Corps ensuring that rigid water release
schedules do not undermine other Federal efforts to increase water
storage?
Answer. The Corps uses operational flexibility afforded by the
water control manuals to store water for the longest period of time
possible, helping meet the needs of partners without compromising the
flood control mission. The water release schedules prescribed by the
Corps consider the most recent forecasts available as well as the
results of coordination with our partners. Water release schedules are
reevaluated on a 6-hour basis during flood events and daily during non-
flood events to ensure that changes to the reservoir, stakeholder
concerns, and forecasts are appropriately considered. The Corps also
has a process for deviations from control plans, outlined in ``Guidance
on the Preparation of Deviations from Approved Water Control Plans,''
Regulation No. 10-1-04, dated 18 December 2014. This allows the Corps
to operate reservoirs to meet flood control requirements while
considering other objectives, such as increased water storage.
Question. How has California's drought affected the Corps'
management of Federal dams?
Answer. In general, the drought decreased the amount of water
coming into and being stored in Corps reservoirs, which reduced the
number of occasions where water was released solely for flood control
reasons. It has also showcased the importance of coordination with
partners, especially when the storage levels in the reservoirs entered
the flood control space. Consistent communication between the Corps and
its partners has helped keep all parties aware of upcoming water
demands, inflow and precipitation forecasts, and changes to reservoir
release schedules.
Question. When updating operation manuals, is the Corps accounting
for its other missions, like aquatic ecosystem restoration, to ensure
that water storage and releases benefit the California water system in
multiple ways?
Answer. The Army Corps always considers its missions and the
reservoirs' authorized purposes, including when updating water control
manuals. The Corps works collaboratively with Federal and non-Federal
partners to update water control manuals to identify and incorporate
benefits for different missions, and Corps partners have opportunities
to provide comments before any documents are finalized.
merced army corps project
Question. Merced County, a rural county in California, has been
struggling for years to complete project elements of the Merced Streams
Group that was authorized in 1944. One major project element of the
Merced Streams Group that is yet to be completed is a flood control
system on the Black Rascal Watershed.
It is my understanding that the project has remained stalled due
scarce Federal resources, delays, and errors on the part of Corps
district staff.
In 2013, the Corps advised Merced County that it could use local
dollars to move forward with a cost share agreement. In 2015, however,
the Corps reversed its position and said only Federal funds could be
used.
Secretary Darcy, can you explain the current situation with Merced
County and what needs to be changed to allow them to use local dollars
to advance the project?
Answer. Pursuant to the Corps' contributed funds authority (33
U.S.C. 701h), the Corps may accept such funds only if Federal funds
have been appropriated for the study. That has not occurred because
studies elsewhere in the Nation were considered a higher priority for
the available Federal funds. In addition, the proposed work was
considered in formulation of the original Merced County project
authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944 (Public Law 78-534). It was
not part of the recommended plan due to concerns involving impacts to
federally listed species.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
Question. Assistant Secretary Darcy, on February 11, 2016, I sent
you a letter signed by 13 of my colleagues asking the Army Corps to
finalize and publish implementation guidance for Section 2106 of the
Water Resources and Development Act (WRRDA). WRRDA was signed into law
in June 2014. This Subcommittee secured $25 million in funding for
Section 2106 in the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus Appropriations bill. And
yet, the Army Corps has still not completed implementation guidance. It
is critical that this is done as soon as possible so that eligible
ports have access to the appropriated funding and can maximize the
effectiveness of Section 2106. When do you expect to issue guidance for
Section 2106? Has the Army Corps met with eligible ports to understand
how Section 2106 funds could be maximized on a port by port basis?
Answer. The Corps expects to finalize implementation guidance for
Section 2106 in the coming months. Individual Corps districts
coordinated with eligible ports to determine how they would utilize the
Section 2106 funds. In addition, the Corps Headquarters has been
working to develop criteria to allocate those funds, in consultation
with the American Association of Port Authorities. Corps Headquarters
has also been consulting with U. S. Customs and Border Protection on
how payments will be made to shippers and importers in those cases
where ports elect to provide those payments.
Question. Congress created Section 2106 so that donor ports and
energy transfer ports can better address competitiveness by maintaining
infrastructure through expanded uses and environmental remediation and
by establishing a rebate program for importers and shippers to reduce
cargo diversion to non-U.S. gateways. It is critical that the Army
Corps provide ports the necessary flexibility to target the rebate
program to cargo that is most at risk of diversion to non-U.S. ports.
How will the Army Corps work with eligible ports to address cargo
diversion? With respect to infrastructure improvements through expanded
uses and environmental remediation projects, how will the Army Corps
ensure eligible ports can define project parameters and contract the
work themselves to ensure timely and cost effective project delivery?
Answer. Section 2106 specifies that payments may be provided to
importers entering cargo or shippers transporting cargo through that
port. The Corps has no authority to provide ports the flexibility to
target the rebate program to cargo that is most at risk of diversion to
non-U.S. ports. The Corps will issue implementation guidance and work
with the ports to define the process and infrastructure improvements
under expanded uses and environmental remediation projects, whether the
ports decide to perform the work themselves or have the Corps perform
the work for them.
Question. Washington State is the leading shellfish producing State
in the Nation, employing over 2,700 people around the State, including
in rural areas. The Army Corps, through the Seattle District, regulates
the shellfish industry under Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act
authorities. In 2007, the Army Corps adopted Nationwide Permit 48 (NWP
48) to permit existing shellfish farms, and an updated NWP 48 was
adopted in 2012 to cover shellfish farms through March 2017. Since 2007
and the initial NWP 48, Washington growers have submitted approximately
1,000 requests for NWP 48 verification. I am very concerned by reports
that none of these requests have been approved.
The commercial shellfish industry contributes over $184 million
annually to the Washington State economy, and shellfish are important
economically and culturally to tribal and non- tribal harvesters. In
all industries, including shellfish growing, certainty for participants
is important for success. I understand that the Army Corps is working
with Federal partners, including the National Marine Fisheries Service
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to complete action on Endangered
Species Act permitting requirements through a Programmatic Biological
Assessment. Can you provide me with an update on when this process will
be completed? How does the Army Corps plan to communicate with the
regulated community as the Programmatic Biological Assessment is being
finalized and once the regulations have been implemented on how they
can obtain verifications?
Answer. At this time, a Section 7 ESA consultation is underway
between the Corps and the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (the Services) for aquaculture activities.
This consultation is the result of several years of coordination among
the Corps and the Services. Once this consultation is completed, many
activities with pending requests for verification under NWP 48 may be
verified. Any automatic verification of the pending projects before
completion of this consultation would not be compliant with the
Endangered Species Act or the ``endangered species'' general condition
for the NWPs. Both the Services have indicated they will complete their
consultations this spring.
Question. I also understand the Army Corps is reviewing options to
update regulations of shellfish growers under the Clean Water Act. As
this effort continues and potential pathways are explored, can you
share your plan for communication and engagement with interested
stakeholders, including the State of Washington, Federal agencies,
shellfish growers, and tribes? Increased transparency and communication
with interested parties, including explanations of regulatory authority
under the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act, are of great
interest to me and I ask that you submit an update and expected
timelines on these efforts to me in writing.
Answer. Following receipt of the final Biological Opinions, the
Corps' Seattle District intends to host an open house to explain to
shellfish growers and all other interested parties the conditions of
the Biological Opinions and the next steps for the pending
applications.
Question. The Amy Corps, through the Northwest Division, plays an
important day-to-day role in implementing the Columbia River Treaty as
a member of the U.S. Entity. The U.S. Entity engaged in a multi-year
process with tribal nations and domestic stakeholders throughout the
Pacific Northwest to reach a regional consensus to modernize the
Columbia River Treaty. The ``Regional Recommendation for the Future of
the Columbia River Treaty after 2024'' was presented to the
Administration in December 2013, and the Administration has since
developed a high-level consensus position for negotiations with Canada
based upon these recommendations.
Twice the entire Northwest Congressional Delegation wrote the
Administration asking to begin formal negotiations with Canada.
Unfortunately, we keep being told negotiations could begin soon and
little progress has been made.
Assistant Secretary Darcy, my constituents are greatly concerned
about the impacts a change in Administration may have on these
negotiations. I urge you to encourage the Administration to begin
formal negotiation with Canada as soon as possible.
Answer. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northwestern Division
Commander, as a member of the U.S. Entity for the Columbia River
Treaty, has informed the Department of State that the U.S. Entity is
ready to support and assist in the negotiations with Canada on the
future of the Columbia River Treaty.
Question. Assistant Secretary Darcy, as we have previously
discussed, the Mud Mountain Dam project is of great importance to me,
my constituents, and Washington State. I appreciate the time and energy
you have put into finding a path forward with NOAA to ensure the Army
Corps meets its Endangered Species Act and tribal trust
responsibilities by replacing the diversion dam and building a new fish
trap facility.
While I am pleased that the fiscal year 2017 budget request
provides $22.35 million and a construction new start for Mud Mountain
Dam, I firmly believe this project is not a new start. Similar projects
have not been subject to this hurdle, for example the Columbia River
Fish Mitigation and Missouri River Recovery Program projects. Replacing
the old barrier structure and fish trap facility is a continuation of
the Army Corps' Endangered Species Act and tribal trust
responsibilities and are simply requirements to mitigate the original
construction and ongoing operation of Mud Mountain Dam for flood
control.
Assistant Secretary Darcy, how is the Mud Mountain Dam project
different than the Columbia River Fish Mitigation or Missouri River
Recovery Program? Can you explain why a Biological Opinion which will
bring an existing Army Corps project into compliance is a new start?
Further, I ask that you work with me to ensure there are no funding
gaps for this critical project if Congress passes a Continuing
Resolution before a full-year fiscal year 2017 appropriations measure.
Answer. Multiple construction actions have been occurring over
numerous years on the Columbia and Missouri in an effort to mitigate
the impacts of ongoing operation of Federal projects to threatened and
endangered species and their habitat, while at Mud Mountain Dam the
plan is to initiate new construction to replace a 100-year old
facility. The Mud Mountain Dam was determined to be a new start due to
the scope and cost of this new investment.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
Question. After many years of strong support from the Army Corps,
there was no funding for continuation of construction of the McCook
Reservoir of the Chicagoland Underflow Plan in the Administration's
fiscal year 2017 Budget. The project was authorized in 1988, and the
Army Corps' own documentation since then shows that it has always been
considered one flood protection project, and it has consistently
received funding. The reservoir provides $100 million in annual
benefits to 3.1 million people in 37 counties, including the City of
the Chicago. It is 65 percent complete, and enjoys a three to one
benefit cost ratio. Stopping construction of this project does not make
sense.
Why was funding discontinued in the President's budget? Will you
commit to seeking its inclusion in the Army Corps' fiscal year 2017
work plan?
Answer. The 2016 Corps work plan added $5 million above the Budget
level in order to provide the full amount that the Corps estimated it
would need to complete ``Stage I'' of the McCook Reservoir project. The
December 2011 consent decree with EPA and the Department of Justice
requires the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
(MWRD) to ensure that the first of two McCook Reservoirs is in
operation by December 31, 2017. The focus of the Corps funding to date
has been to help MWRD meet its December 31, 2017 deadline by
constructing part of the infrastructure called for in the consent
decree. The Corps has now funded all of the authorized Federal share of
that work, which will enable MWRD to collect and hold combined sewer
overflow in this reservoir during a storm.
The 2017 Budget does not include funding for ``Stage II'' of the
McCook Reservoir project. Should the Congress provide additional
funding for which this project would qualify, this project would be
considered for funding in the 2017 Corps work plan along with other
programs, projects, and activities across the Nation in competition for
the available Federal resources.
Question. Investment in flood prevention in the Metro East region,
including protecting our levees, is vital to protecting Metro East
communities.
Will the Assistant Secretary commit continued open dialogue with
the local Flood Prevention District? Will the Assistant Secretary
commit to providing regular updates to me or my staff as they happen?
Answer. The Metro East levee system consists of 75.8 miles of
levees located in Madison, St. Clair, and Monroe Counties in Illinois.
The Corps is working on this project with the Southwestern Illinois
Flood Protection District Council (FPD) and the local levee districts
to reduce the risk of under-seepage at these levees. The Corps welcomes
the views of all interested parties, including the FPD, the local levee
districts, and the public. Should the FPD or the local levee districts
have any questions or concerns, they may contact the Corps at the
district office, division, or headquarters levels, or my staff. The
Corps provides periodic updates to my office on this project. I would
be happy to work with you and your staff as well, in order to help keep
you informed of the project status.
______
Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick
Questions Submitted by Senator James Lankford
Question. Section 1024 of WRRDA provides that the Corps can accept
materials and services from a non-Federal entity in an emergency
situation if the Secretary deems it to be in the public interest.
Considering maintenance needs of Corps assets system-wide, this would
seem to be a good opportunity to leverage stakeholder resources. It is
my understanding that this section has not yet been implemented.
Does the Corps have draft implementation guidelines yet? Could we
have a copy?
Answer. The Corps is currently preparing implementation guidance
for Section 1024 of WRRDA 2014.
Question. Has this information been shared with stakeholders that
depend on waterway systems to ensure it is workable from the private
partner perspective?
Answer. The Corps has discussed this provision with interested
stakeholders. Their input is being taken into consideration during the
preparation of the implementation guidance.
Question. How does the Corps interpret ``emergency''? With
substantial maintenance needs across the system, it is very possible
that failures could occur outside of a situation in which there is an
emergency declaration. Would these types of failures be eligible for
private repair funding?
Answer. Section 1024 authorizes the acceptance of materials and
services to repair, restore, or replace a water resources development
project that has been damaged or destroyed as a result of an emergency.
Section 1024 is not limited to situations where there has been an
emergency declaration by the President.
The Corps does not view Section 1024 as allowing the Corps to
accept services or materials to address general repair and maintenance
needs. However, the Corps is authorized under 33 U.S.C. 701h to accept
contributed funds from non-Federal public entities and from nonprofit
entities, with the consent of the affected local Government, for that
purpose.
Question. Has the Corps settled how to handle issues regarding who
liable for damage or injuries caused during emergency repairs using
private funds? Do you have all the authority you need to settle
questions over liability and licensing?
Answer. Yes, we have all the authority needed to resolve questions
over liability and licensing. Based on discussions with stakeholders,
we expect to be able to address this concern.
Question. What is the timeline for having guidelines in place and
allowing private partners to assist with emergency repairs?
Answer. This guidance is being developed and we anticipate issuing
it later this year.
Question. Stakeholders in Oklahoma have expressed an interest in
allowing assets to be used by the Corps at no cost, but have been told
that regulations prohibit them from accepting use of resources. For
instance, private entities may have a dredge that they would like to
offer to the Corps to use upon request. What is the rationale for not
accepting this assistance?
Answer. In general, the Corps needs specific authority to use
equipment being provided at no cost, rather than obtaining such
equipment using Federal procurement authorities and regulations. We
anticipate the Corps would in many cases be able to accept and use a
dredge provided for the purpose of repairing or restoring a project
damaged or destroyed as a result of an emergency under Section 1024,
but cannot answer more specifically until the implementation guidance
is issued.
Question. In the 2014 reauthorization of the Water Resources Reform
and Development Act (WRRDA), Congress included a provision requiring
the Corps to conduct an assessment of all of their properties to
determine which are ``not needed for the mission of the Corps of
Engineers'' (Section 6002). The intent of this language was to assess
how Congress could help unburden the Corps from the considerable
backlog in maintenance needs.
In the hearing, it was stated that the Corps has not yet started
this assessment. When will this task be undertaken? When can we expect
to see the draft report? When can we expect to have the final report?
Answer. Implementation guidance for Section 6002 of WRRDA 14 was
issued on August 7, 2015. The Corps periodically reviews the need for
the Federal properties at its projects and uses existing property
disposal methods for those properties if they are no longer needed to
accomplish the agency mission. These efforts are ongoing.
Question. The Corps has previously shared that the disposal process
for unneeded properties is so cumbersome and costly that it is often
easier and less expensive in the short run to simply maintain unneeded
assets. Would granting the Corps disposal authority independent of GSA
assist in making the disposal process more manageable? What does the
Corps need from Congress to be able to divest of unneeded assets in a
cost-effective manner?
Answer. Generally, GSA is responsible for the disposal of real
property that is no longer mission-critical to Federal agencies. This
authority works well for land and general use improvements. In some
cases, the Corps will seek to dispose of lands associated with a
project as part of an effort to deauthorize the project. In those
cases, the Corps generally would perform a study and seek
deauthorization of the project prior to submitting the disposal package
to GSA. These studies evaluate environmental concerns, safety concerns
and the concerns of non-Federal interests. New processes are now in
place to reduce the time required to fund, study and make
recommendations as appropriate addressing the proposed end state of the
project. To further reduce the timeline, future studies will include a
recommended disposal plan, where feasible, for Congressional
consideration.The 2016 Corps work plan and the 2017 Budget included
funding for studies on the disposition of assets that no longer have a
strong Federal interest; the Corps has completed the first of these
studies and is preparing to start five more in 2016.
Question. The Corps was directed to produce a list of at least $18b
in projects that are eligible for deauthorization because a significant
amount of time has lapsed without getting funded. This list was
produced in October of last year and found a sizable--$14b--amount of
old, unfunded projects. An earlier report from GAO found that the Corps
does not have written guidance for their districts requiring them to
track studies and projects that have been authorized but not funded,
leading to incomplete information regarding projects that may be
eligible for deauthorization.
Has the Corps provided a written policy for districts to follow
regarding cataloging all authorized projects and studies? If it has
not, when will an internal policy setting how to track this information
be set? Will the Corps then reassess the deauthorization list?
Answer. Yes, the Corps provided written implementation guidance to
its divisions and districts for Sections 6001 of the Water Resources
Reform and Development Act of 2014 and Section 1001 (b )(2) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended. The Corps is
developing an authoritative database for authorized projects and will
use it to provide the Backlog Report and annual Minimum Funding Lists
in accordance with Section 6001. As projects are identified for
deauthorization eligibility they will be included in future annual
deauthorization processes consistent with amendments to Section 1001
(b)(2).
The Corps is currently developing written guidance for
deauthorizing studies in accordance with Section 710 of WRDA 1986, and
is developing an authoritative database of studies to support this
effort.
Question. Does the list published in the Federal Register in
October 2015 reflect information gathered from all of the districts?
Answer. Yes, the list published in the Federal Register in October
2015 reflects information gathered from all of the Corps districts.
______
Questions Submitted to Estevan R. Lopez
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
Question. Please explain why the Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) did not require any new data in 2004, when it changed the
Technical Memorandum and currently does not require data regarding the
performance of steel water pipe or ductile iron pipe with bonded
dielectric coatings in highly corrosive soils but requires significant
data regarding other corrosion protection methods for ductile iron
pipe.
Answer. Reclamation prepared the Technical Memorandum (TM) in
response to Congressional direction received in 2003 (H.R. REP. NO.
108-212, at 106) (2003),\1\ and it was first published in 2004. The
data as well as the recommendations in the TM encompass all types of
buried metallic pipe. Reclamation's technical staff reviewed and
evaluated industry standards, national consensus standards, independent
engineering studies, and performance data from Reclamation projects as
well as other Federal and non-Federal pipeline owners and water
utilities. Reclamation also met with representatives from the Ductile
Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA) in May of 2003 and January of
2004 to discuss technical issues and literature regarding corrosion
mitigation of ductile iron pipe prior to publication of the TM.
Reclamation also indicated that any other information DIPRA wished to
provide would be welcomed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The relevant text from the House Report states: ``The Committee
is concerned that the Bureau of Reclamation is not adhering to its
guidelines, described in the ``Corrosion Prevention Criteria and
Requirements'', with respect to the use of ductile iron pipe and steel
pipe. With respect to both products, the Bureau of Reclamation should
be attempting to establish good engineering practices which address the
long-term value and cost effectiveness of facilities constructed over
time. The Committee recognizes that additional work is needed to
develop a more definitive corrosion standard on which to decide the
best product for a particular application. Accordingly, the Committee
directs the Commissioner of Reclamation to conduct a study on the
current corrosion criteria and to report to the Committee on
Appropriations by March 1, 2004, on its recommendations for a more
definitive standard. Until a more appropriate standard is in place,
which reflects the basic principle of long-term cost effectiveness, the
current criteria should continue to be used.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reclamation evaluated the technical content of the available
literature, the thoroughness of the analyses, the reasonableness of the
conclusions, and finally, the likely objectivity of the author(s).
Reclamation then used its best technical judgment to perform what we
believe is a balanced assessment of the available information and to
develop a reasonable set of recommendations designed to meet
Reclamation's 50-year minimum project service life.
During this evaluation, Reclamation found a number of respected
studies which raised significant technical concerns regarding corrosion
under unbonded dielectric coatings, including polyethylene encasement
(PE). Reclamation also found that the effectiveness of PE had been the
subject of debate within the pipeline and corrosion industries for
years and that the results of engineering studies on the subject differ
widely. In addition, Reclamation found that many professionals in these
industries question the effectiveness of a cathodic protection system
to counter the effects of corrosion under intact PE.
As a result of that review, Reclamation concluded that many
corrosion engineers believe that buried pipes, which need a high level
of corrosion protection, should have a bonded dielectric coating and
cathodic protection. This conclusion is supported by the National
Association of Corrosion Engineers' (NACE) International Standard
Practice SP0169 ``Control of External Corrosion on Underground or
Submerged Metallic Piping Systems''.
During its evaluation of these analyses and data, Reclamation
balanced these technical concerns against the relatively good
performance record of ductile iron pipe with PE and recommended the use
of PE on all sizes of ductile iron pipe in all but the most severely
corrosive environments (i.e. soil resistivity 2000 ohm-cm). In those
severely corrosive environments, bonded dielectric coating and cathodic
protection (CP) was recommended for all metallic pipe types (including
ductile iron pipe).
Based on this work, Reclamation prepared a draft of the current TM
and sought review from a variety of sources. Reclamation employed a
Consultant Review Board (CRB) to conduct an independent technical peer
review of Reclamation's draft TM. To staff the CRB, Reclamation
contracted with two private sector corrosion engineers from CH2M Hill
and Schiff and Associates, as well as a materials scientist with the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). In addition, a
contract was issued for two additional materials scientists with NIST
to serve as independent ``referees'' to evaluate the three reviewers'
conclusions. After incorporating the CRB's input, the updated draft TM
was sent out for Reclamation-wide review in May, 2004.
In July, 2004, Reclamation met with representatives of DIPRA to
discuss the Design Decision Model (DDM) for selection of a corrosion
control system on ductile iron pipe which DIPRA had developed in
concert with CORRPRO (a large corrosion control company). Reclamation's
process to evaluate the information in DIPRA's presentation was the
same process used to evaluate all other technical reports we reviewed
in preparation of the TM (i.e., Reclamation evaluated the technical
content of DIPRA's presentation, the thoroughness of the analyses
presented, the reasonableness of the conclusions, and finally, the
likely objectivity of the author(s)). The comments from the
Reclamation-wide review and DIPRA's input were incorporated, and the TM
was finalized later in July, 2004.
Reclamation has remained actively engaged in this issue since the
2004 TM was issued. We continue to monitor technical literature on this
subject and actively seek additional viewpoints from other
organizations. Through these efforts, we have discovered many other
organizations have concerns with the use of PE on ductile iron pipe.
These organizations include non-Federal water resource agencies and
other Federal agencies such as the Department of Transportation (DOT),
Department of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Reclamation continuously seeks
information on this issue by having its technical staff serve on
national technical society committees such as the American Water Works
Association (AWWA) Standards Committee A21 ``Ductile Iron Pipe'' and
the NACE International Task Group 014 ``Corrosion and Corrosion Control
for Cast-and Ductile-Iron Pipe.''
In the judgment and expertise of Reclamation, the technical
positions outlined in the TM are fundamentally sound and represent a
reasonable position in light of the available data, industry standards
and practice, and scientific understanding of the issues. The 2008-2009
National Academy of Science's (NAS) review of the TM concluded that
ductile iron pipe with PE and CP is not likely to provide a reliable
50-year service life in severely corrosive soils ( 2,000 ohm-cm) and
bonded dielectric coating with CP would be more effective. In reaching
this conclusion, the committee evaluated data from all sources,
including the DOT data provided by Reclamation and the data and
analysis provided and presented by DIPRA.
The NAS report confirms Reclamation's concern with the durability
of ductile iron pipe with polyethylene encasement and cathodic
protection installed in severely corrosive soils. Also, while the NAS
committee could not assure that Reclamation's recommended corrosion
protection system (bonded dielectric coating with cathodic protection)
would provide a reliable 50-year service life for ductile iron pipe
installed in these soils, the report does state that this system
substantially improves the chances of achieving this level of
reliability.
Reclamation agrees the collection of additional performance data
recommended by the NAS committee will be beneficial as the agency seeks
to refine its technical position in an updated TM. Reclamation has
awarded a Grant Agreement to collect and compile water pipeline field
performance data to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
(Virginia Tech). This agreement has a completion date of December 31,
2017.
During a July 2015 meeting between Reclamation, and representatives
from the ductile iron pipe industry, DIPRA proposed that Reclamation
change its corrosion prevention criteria for ductile iron pipe in soils
having resistivity values equal to or less than 2,000 ohm-cm from
bonded dielectric coating and cathodic protection, to a zinc
metallizing with enhanced polyethylene encasement (V-BIO) and cathodic
protection. Following the meeting, DIPRA provided several documents to
support their position that their proposal would perform well in
severely corrosive soils.
Reclamation's review of the submitted data focused on ascertaining
the data covering field performance of zinc coated ductile iron pipe in
severely corrosive soils. However, the majority of the supplied data
was in reference to the use of conventional polyethylene encasement to
protect ductile iron pipe in corrosive soils. Of the few documents
submitted in support of zinc coated pipe, the majority of them were
very old references published in the 1970s and 1980s that provided
limited performance data. Also, none of the documents addressed the
long-term performance of enhanced PE (V-BIO), and none addressed the
performance of the proposed combination of zinc metallizing, V- BIO,
and cathodic protection. Based on this review, Reclamation concluded
that while zinc or zinc with PE may provide some improvement over bare
pipe or pipe with PE wrap alone in some soils, there is no evidence
that this system will provide the same level of long term protection as
a bonded dielectric coating with cathodic protection in severely
corrosive soils.
The fiscal year 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act (PL 114-113)
directed Reclamation to contract with one of the Department of Energy's
(DOE) national laboratories with expertise in materials and corrosion
disciplines to develop performance data for zinc-coated ductile iron
pipe applications in highly- or severely-corrosive soils. The
laboratory will also independently evaluate and recommend, based on the
performance data and any other relevant data or information the
laboratory may obtain, whether the material meets the corrosion
protection requirements in the TM. On May 11, 2016, Reclamation awarded
an Interagency Agreement to DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory to
perform this study.
Question. Is it Reclamation's position that data is not required
for a method of corrosion protection if there is a national or
international standard for that method of corrosion protection?
Answer. Yes, Reclamation uses national consensus standards to guide
its technical decisions where the use of those standards is
practicable. Where those standards do not exist, do not address
Reclamation's technical needs, or conflict, Reclamation develops its
own internal technical documents to guide the development of designs
for Reclamation designed and/or funded projects. It is Reclamation's
position that methods and practices contained in a national standard
have more weight than methods that are provided for information only
and specifically identified as not being a part of the national
standard.
--For example: The NACE International Standard Practice SP0169,
``Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged
Metallic Piping Systems,'' presents acknowledged practices for
the control of external corrosion on buried or submerged steel,
cast iron, ductile iron, copper, and aluminum piping systems.
Section 5.1.2.3 states: ``Pipeline external coating systems
shall be properly selected and applied to ensure that adequate
bonding is obtained. Unbonded coatings can create electrical
shielding of the pipeline that could jeopardize the
effectiveness of the CP system.'' (PE is an unbonded
coating.)The AWWA Standard C105 ``Polyethylene Encasement for
Ductile- Iron Pipe Systems'' is a material and installation
standard. Appendix A of that document provides a method to
determine if PE should be used for corrosion protection of
ductile iron pipe systems, butis specifically identified as not
a part of the ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.5 standard.
Question. Based upon significant concerns, Congress has included
directives to Reclamation for 5 years regarding its Technical
Memorandum. Among the concerns are that Reclamation is holding
different materials to different standards and increasing project
costs. In addition, Congress noted in the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated
Appropriations Act Explanatory Statement for Energy and Water that
``[y]et another claim that Reclamation has always been in compliance
and no changes are necessary is not a satisfactory response.'' Please
provide the changes that Reclamation has made in the implementation of
the Technical Memorandum and in the treatment of different materials to
address these concerns.
Answer. The TM's corrosion control recommendations for both steel
and ductile iron pipe in severely corrosive soils are the same--bonded
dielectric coating with CP.
Reclamation uses the Technical Memorandum as a starting point for
its decisions relative to the corrosion protection of buried metallic
pipe, but it considers other factors and resources for its technical
decisions related to corrosion protection. Reclamation relies on site-
specific design data such as soil chemistry, national standards (e.g.
NACE SP0169 and ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.5), and engineering judgment to
guide decisions on the design of corrosion mitigation measures for
Reclamation's buried metallic pipelines. The appropriate usage of the
TM was reinforced by a February 24, 2010 memorandum from Reclamation's
Deputy Commissioner--Operations to Reclamation's Leadership Team.
To allow additional flexibility in the application of the TM,
Reclamation policy provides a process by which a deviation from design
criteria and engineering and technical standards can be vetted and
approved by the local Reclamation executive. This process, as it
relates specifically to requests to deviate from the corrosion
mitigation design criteria in the TM, was clarified by a March 13, 2015
memorandum from Reclamation's Deputy Commissioner--Operations to
Reclamation's Leadership Team.
Question. Please list any and all standards of evaluation
(viability, betterment, etc.) that Reclamation has used to evaluate the
various materials and methods of corrosion control in the Technical
Memorandum from 2003 until today. Please provide the year, standard and
type of material/corrosion protection.
Answer. Reclamation does not use a ``betterment'' standard for
corrosion control of buried metallic pipe. Reclamation has identified a
target performance level of zero external corrosion induced leaks/
ruptures/failures which would require the pipeline to be taken out of
service during the minimum service life (i.e. 50 years) for the
pipelines Reclamation designs and/or funds. Reclamation believes that
the target performance level is reasonable in light of the types of
pipelines that it typically constructs, but one which may not always be
achieved due to a variety of factors including unseen imperfections and
the number of variables involved with pipe installation in the field.
The materials used and the type of corrosion protection needed varies
depending on design parameters and soil conditions in the installation
area.
Question. Please provide any and all performance standards that
Reclamation has used to evaluate the various materials and methods of
corrosion control in the Technical Memorandum from 2003 until today.
Please provide the year, standard and type of material/corrosion
protection.
Answer. Reclamation has identified a target performance level of
zero external corrosion induced leaks/ruptures/failures which would
require the pipeline to be taken out of service during the minimum
service life (i.e. 50 years) for the pipelines Reclamation designs and/
or funds. Reclamation believes that the target performance level is
reasonable in light of the types of pipelines that it typically
constructs, but one which may not always be achieved due to a variety
of factors including unseen imperfections and the number of variables
involved with pipe installation in the field. The materials used and
the type of corrosion protection needed varies depending on design
parameters and soil conditions in the installation area.
Question. Reclamation has acknowledged that some adjustment is
necessary for the performance figures for ``significant incidents'' for
oil and gas pipelines in soils of unknown corrosivity in the 2008
National Academies of Science report to provide a more accurate
comparison with ductile iron water pipe with polyethylene encasement in
highly corrosive soils. Please provide those adjustments and the basis
for those adjustments.
Answer. The noted text is taken from Section 4 of the 2009 NAS
Report which concluded that ductile iron pipe with PE and CP is not
likely to provide a reliable 50-year service life in severely corrosive
soils ( 2,000 ohm-cm) and a bonded dielectric coating with CP would be
more effective. At the start of the NAS Committee's deliberations, they
asked Reclamation to provide a quantitative benchmark against which
they could measure the performance of ductile iron pipe installed in
severely corrosive soils with PE and CP, in lieu of Reclamation's
stated target performance level of zero external corrosion induced
leaks/ruptures/failures which would require the pipeline to be taken
out of service during the minimum service life (i.e., 50 years).
Specifically they asked if Reclamation would accept a similar
failure rate for ductile iron pipe installed in severely corrosive
soils with PE and CP, as they would get from steel pipe installed in
severely corrosive soils with a bonded dielectric coating and CP.
Reclamation responded that this would be a reasonable benchmark which
led to the NAS Committee requesting information on Reclamation's
experience related to the performance (i.e., failure rates) of steel
pipe installed in severely corrosive soils, with a bonded dielectric
coating, and cathodic protection. In response to this question,
Reclamation conducted a review of available data on Reclamation's and
other organizations' pipelines.
During this review, Reclamation reached out to the U. S. Department
of Transportation (DOT), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety, to see if they had the
quantitative performance data requested by the Committee. Reclamation
acknowledges that this data was related to steel pipelines carrying
materials other than water, but believes the causes and rates of
external corrosion and protection against such corrosion are the same
regardless of the product being carried. Reclamation therefore
concluded that the DOT database was the best source of quantitative
data on this issue at that time.
Reclamation focused their review of the significant incidents
tracked in the database to those pipelines that most closely matched
the Committee's interest (i.e., coated steel pipe installed with
cathodic protection) and, like most of Reclamation's projects, were
transmission lines versus smaller distribution lines. Reclamation also
limited their review to significant incidents that were caused by
external corrosion. Focusing on this subset of data within DOT's
database, Reclamation was able to compute an average annual failure
rate for these pipelines of 0.0000444 failures per mile per year (based
on about 93,000 miles of installed steel pipe). Using the results of
this analysis, a 450-mile long steel pipeline installed with coating
and cathodic protection could be expected to experience one failure due
to external corrosion during the first 50 years of service.
The DOT database does not include information on the soil
conditions in which the pipelines are installed, so Reclamation was not
able to further screen the data to include only pipe installed in
severely corrosive soils. At that time, Reclamation noted that it was
not able to quantify the impact this issue would have on the calculated
performance data noted above, but some adjustment to the computed
failure rate may be warranted to compensate for this uncertainty in
soil conditions across the data set. However, as Reclamation also
noted, even with an adjustment to the computed failure rate, it
believed the analysis supported their original response to the
Committee's question of what Reclamation defines as reliably providing
a minimum service life of 50 years for our pipelines.
The data gathering and analyses currently being planned pursuant to
the grant agreement awarded to Virginia Tech to collect and compile
water pipeline field performance data should provide more useful data.
Question. Please explain why Reclamation used the performance of
oil and gas pipelines in soils of unknown corrosivity as a proxy for
the performance of steel water pipe in highly corrosive soils in a life
cycle analysis when Reclamation had data regarding steel water
pipelines in highly corrosive soils at the time it used the oil and gas
data.
Answer. The life cycle analysis was conducted in August 2009 using
best available data at the time. As stated in Commissioner Connor's
letter to DIPRA dated January 29, 2010, ``Our analysis showed the
present worth of these additional capital costs for CP along with the
additional OM&R costs associated with long term operations of the CP
system was about 5 percent of the total project cost. Thus, the life
cycle cost of a cathodically protected ductile iron pipeline with
polyethylene encasement was about 5 percent higher than the life cycle
cost for a similarly protected steel pipeline with a bonded dielectric
coating. A summary of these analyses is shown in Attachment 3.''
Referring to Attachment 3, Scenario 3 which removes pipe repair costs
from the analysis, the life cycle cost of a cathodically protected
ductile iron pipe with polyethylene encasement was calculated to be 4.7
percent higher than the life cycle cost for a similarly protected steel
pipe with a bonded dielectric coating. Reclamation's conclusion from
their life cycle analysis is independent of pipe repair costs.
The data gathering and analyses currently being planned pursuant to
the grant agreement awarded to Virginia Tech to collect and compile
water pipeline field performance data will provide the foundation for
assessing life cycle costs on a broader basis.
Question. In the same life cycle analysis, Reclamation used the
failure of one ductile iron water pipeline in highly corrosive soils as
a proxy for the performance of ductile iron pipe in highly corrosive
soils when Reclamation had aggregate data regarding ductile iron
pipelines in highly corrosive soils. Why did Reclamation use the single
data point instead of the aggregate data?
Answer. The life cycle analysis was conducted in August 2009 using
best available data at the time. As stated in Commissioner Connor's
letter to DIPRA dated January 29, 2010, ``Our analysis showed the
present worth of these additional capital costs for CP along with the
additional OM&R costs associated with long term operations of the CP
system was about 5 percent of the total project cost. Thus, the life
cycle cost of a cathodically protected ductile iron pipeline with
polyethylene encasement was about 5 percent higher than the life cycle
cost for a similarly protected steel pipeline with a bonded dielectric
coating. A summary of these analyses is shown in Attachment 3.''
Referring to Attachment 3, Scenario 3 which removes pipe repair costs
from the analysis, the life cycle cost of a cathodically protected
ductile iron pipe with polyethylene encasement was calculated to be 4.7
percent higher than the life cycle cost for a similarly protected steel
pipe with a bonded dielectric coating. Reclamation's conclusion from
their life cycle analysis is independent of pipe repair costs.
The data gathering and analyses currently being planned pursuant to
the grant agreement awarded to Virginia Tech to collect and compile
water pipeline field performance data will provide the foundation for
assessing life cycle costs on a broader basis.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
Question. Commissioner Lopez, I am concerned that Reclamation has
pumped less water in 2016 during this El Nino year than it did in 2015,
when California was in extreme drought. Flows were as high as 50,000
cubic feet per second in the Sacramento River, yet the agencies reduced
pumping to the low-end of the biological opinions because of one smelt.
I continue to hear that water pumping decisions are still being
based on when protected fish might be near the pumps rather than when
we know they actually are present. For example, Interior may reduce
pumping if even one smelt is found as far away as 17 miles from the
pumps near a monitoring station called Prisoner's Point.
But outside biologists and scientists believe that Reclamation is
reducing pumping prematurely. These experts believe that the agencies
could continue with higher pumping levels even if smelt are found at a
monitoring station that is only 12 miles from the pumps.
What are you doing to test whether or not smelt identified past the
Prisoner's Point monitoring station can still survive and make their
way back out to the central Delta?
Answer. Addressing this issue is challenging and would require
tagging and marking studies similar to those conducted on salmonids.
Until very recently, tags small enough to use in smelt have not been
available/tested. The use of such technology to evaluate the movements
of wild or other smelt in the Delta is needed, but as far as we are
aware is in the planning stages only.
Reclamation is participating in efforts to apply this technology to
the study of smelt movement and survival in the southern Delta.
Projects stemming from the following proposal are ongoing with some of
the work soon to be published in a leading journal:
Assessing Tagging-Related Mortality and Tag Retention in Adult
Delta smelt to Support Field Investigations in Clifton Court
Forebay and the Skinner Fish Facility (Grimaldo et al.--SFCWA
Research Grant Proposal)
Due to the threatened and endangered status of the salmonid species
in the Delta, most tagging/marking studies involving salmonids use
hatchery produced specimens and not wild fish. The Delta smelt
population is currently not augmented via hatchery-produced specimens.
In addition, the use of wild smelt for such studies would be
problematic due to the endangered status of the species and its
population levels, which are currently at an all-time low. Efforts to
identify individual wild fish by unique physical markings and
characters are ongoing and may have applicability to Delta smelt in the
future.
Question. If you aren't doing this monitoring, can you start doing
it with some of the $100 million in drought funding from December's
Omnibus appropriations bill?
Answer. If the monitoring work is conducted during fiscal year
2017, current drought funding could be used to fund studies focused on
developing and applying methods to determine smelt movements and
survival in the southern Delta. Efforts are being made in this area.
Question. What is the Bureau of Reclamation doing to address other
threats to smelt, such as ammonia from sewage discharges and predation
by other species?
Answer. Since 2010, Reclamation funded studies that address ammonia
loading and its potential effects on Delta smelt and the Delta
ecosystem. There is no evidence of acute ammonia toxicity to Delta
smelt or any other fish in the Delta. Some studies indicate the
possibility of chronic effects in larval Delta smelt and their copepod
prey when exposed to high concentrations under laboratory conditions.
Some earlier research suggested that ammonium may inhibit diatom
production in Suisun Bay under certain combinations, but recent does
not support this hypothesis. Ammonium, may degrade delta smelt habitat
by favoring Microcystis, a potentially toxic form of phytoplankton. The
Sacramento regional wastewater treatment facility, one of the sources
of ammonium loading to the Delta, is upgrading its plant to advanced
tertiary treatment methods and completion is expected by 2020. This
action will eliminate almost all of its contribution to Delta ammonium
loading.
Predation is a common natural interaction within ecologic
communities and occurs at some level for a multitude of fish species.
Reclamation continues to support research related to predation,
including several specifically focused on predation of Delta smelt.
Question. How is the Bureau of Reclamation working with other
Federal agencies, like National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Fisheries and Fish and Wildlife Service, to develop and
implement system-wide capabilities to monitor and track fish migrations
into and out of the Delta?
Answer. Reclamation has and continues to provide funding to NOAA
Fisheries and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to monitor and track
ESA-listed fish species, both in and out of the Delta. Reclamation
continues to work with a consortium of multiple agencies (including
NOAA Fisheries and FWS) within the framework of the Interagency
Ecological Program and beyond to monitor and track fish in the Delta.
Over twenty separate monitoring activities within this program occur
year-round, but with increased effort from fall through early summer.
Beyond their ongoing tracking, Reclamation has provided FWS with
$3.8 million this year to fund additional studies, including whether
the viability measuring point can be moved from the current 17 mile
marker at ``Prisoner's Point.'' This study will take several years. To
date, however, FWS maintains the measuring point at ``Prisoner's
Point.''
Additionally, Reclamation's Tracy Fish Collection Facility has one
of the most extensive long- term monitoring programs within the Delta,
sampling every 2 hours on a continual basis. Monitoring and sampling
activities include fish (covering the full range of life stages), water
quality parameters and genetic material.
Question. How is the Bureau of Reclamation working with other
Federal agencies, like NOAA Fisheries and Fish and Wildlife Service, to
research and evaluate the impacts of Delta operations on fish behavior
and potential mortality?
Answer. Reclamation continues to work with a consortium of multiple
agencies (including NOAA Fisheries and FWS) within the framework of the
Interagency Ecological Program (IEP). The IEP provides relevant and
timely ecological information for management of the Bay-Delta ecosystem
and the water that flows through it. Priorities within the program
include:
--Improving the understanding of abundance, distribution, life
history diversity, and life stage requirements of Delta smelt,
longfin smelt, salmonids, steelhead and green sturgeon to
inform management decisions.
--Improving smelt, salmonid and sturgeon real-time monitoring,
indirect mortality, and entrainment prediction tools to reduce
take and increase operational flexibility of the State and
Federal water project pumps.
--Improving chinook and steelhead viability in the Delta with an
initial emphasis on south Delta salmon survival through studies
and modeling.
--Understanding the factors impairing water beneficial uses to inform
management decisions.
Reclamation has supported a number of studies on juvenile salmonid
survival in relation to Delta operations. These studies include:
--A 6 year fish tracking and monitoring study of San Joaquin
steelhead survival (called for in NOAA Fisheries biological
opinion).
--Fish tracking and monitoring studies of juvenile Chinook movement
in relation to Delta Cross Channel operations (with FWS and the
U. S. Geological Survey (USGS)).
--Physical and non-physical barrier studies at Head of Old River and
Georgiana Slough (with the California Department of Water
Resources and USGS).
--Chinook salmon survival studies based on coded wire tag recoveries
(with FWS).
The majority of projects are coordinated with NOAA Fisheries and
FWS with multiple project work teams (Chinook salmon, smelt, sturgeon,
steelhead, delta rearing, Sacramento River monitoring, hatchery, and
collaborative adaptive management team) and the Delta Operations groups
continuously seeking ways to understand fish behavior, mortality and to
improve survival.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
Question. Commissioner Lopez, farmers in the Odessa Subarea of the
Columbia Basin Project have faced significant challenges for several
years as groundwater from the aquifer has been declining. This rapid
decline has put agriculture production and commercial, municipal, and
industrial water uses at risk. According to a study conducted by
Washington State University, $840 million and 3,600 jobs are at risk if
agriculture producers in the Odessa Subarea no longer have access to
groundwater from the aquifer and no alternative water solution is in
place.
I appreciate your ongoing work with the State of Washington and the
three impacted irrigation districts to prevent further depletion of the
Odessa Subarea aquifer and deliver much needed surface water to
agricultural lands within the Columbia Basin Project. Renewing the
Master Water Service Contract with the East Columbia Basin Irrigation
District (ECBID) last year was a significant milestone in this process.
This will ensure ECBID can move forward with the development of the
first of seven planned pressurized delivery systems to provide surface
water to 87,700 acres of the Odessa Subarea in the Columbia Basin
Project.
I understand that additional amendments to the Water Service
Contract are needed for 70,000 acres within the Odessa Subarea. What is
the current status of this amendment and when do you expect it to be
completed?
Answer. Work on the amendment to the Master Water Service contract
is in progress. Evaluation of the existing annual water service rate
and completion of the rate-setting process are underway. Reclamation
completed a draft payment capacity study in March 2016 and received
comments from the irrigation districts in May 2016. Reclamation is
reviewing the districts' comments and finalizing this study, which is
needed to complete an ability to pay study. Reclamation has several
other actions to complete as part of this process, including
environmental compliance, reviewing land eligibility, completing a
basis of negotiation, preparing the contract amendment, and negotiating
the contract with ECBID. Additionally, Reclamation is required to
provide a 60-day public notice prior to contract execution. We expect
this process to be complete by the end of calendar year 2016.
Question. Are you aware of any challenges that may delay completion
of this work?
Answer. We do not expect any delays. Unanticipated factors,
including litigation or a significant change request from ECBID could
delay completion of the process. The requirement for a 60-day public
notice prior to contract execution was factored in to the completion
date noted in the previous question.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Alexander. Thank you for being here today.
The subcommittee will stand adjourned.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good work.
[Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., Wednesday, March 2, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:37 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Alexander, Graham, Hoeven, Lankford,
Feinstein, Udall, Shaheen, and Coons.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST J. MONIZ, SECRETARY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER
Senator Alexander. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development will please come to order.
Today's hearing will review the President's fiscal year
2017 budget request for the Department of Energy. This is the
subcommittee's third budget hearing this year. We will have our
final hearing on the National Nuclear Security Administration's
budget next week.
I would add that Senator McConnell has said to the
Republican Caucus that he hopes we move rapidly on
appropriations bills this year. He would like to start April
15. He said that after he received a letter from the Democratic
leadership, urging him to do that.
In past years, this committee has been able to work well
together, whether we had a Democrat or Republican chairman, and
agree on a bill with our members in the House and be one of the
first bills ready for consideration for the floor. I hope we
can do that again.
In doing that, I hope that we will have plenty of policy
items in the budget, and I hope so-called controversial riders
will not be added in the subcommittee or committee, so we can
get the bill to the floor. If anybody thinks they have 60 votes
to put something controversial on the bill, they can offer it
on the floor or they can run for the House of Representatives.
Those are the two ways to do that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Alexander. We will see. That will be our goal. I am
hopeful we can do that.
Senator Feinstein and I will each have an opening
statement. I will then recognize each Senator for up to 5
minutes for an opening statement, alternating between the
majority and minority in the order in which they arrived. We
will then turn to Secretary Moniz for his testimony on behalf
of the Department of Energy. And then I will recognize Senators
for 5 minutes of questions each, alternating back and forth.
I want to thank the Secretary for being here. We enjoy
working with him. He is responsive to our questions, and he is
competent in his work. We thank him for his service to the
country.
Of course, it is a delight to work with Senator Feinstein
on these important issues. We work well together. We have
differences of opinion, but in the end, we come to a result.
Our witness today is Secretary Moniz, who has been
Secretary since 2013. The department's energy budget request is
about $32.5 billion, an increase of $2.9 billion over what
Congress provided last year.
PRIORITIES
Governing is about setting priorities. Given our current
fiscal constraints, especially on nondefense spending, we are
going to have to make some hard decisions this year. That is
why we are holding the hearing, to talk about the most urgent
priorities.
I would like to focus on three main areas, one doubling
basic energy research; two, the future of nuclear energy;
three, keeping large projects on time and on budget.
I see Senator Graham here. He and all of us really are
concerned about these large projects in the department, and we
will get into that more later.
DOUBLING BASIC ENERGY RESEARCH
Doubling basic energy research, that is one of the most
important things we could do. I think Republicans and Democrats
agree that government-sponsored research has and continues to
be important for our continued prosperity and job creation.
Doubling basic energy research is a goal I have long supported.
We have increased investment in basic energy research, both
through our national labs and through the ARPA-E agency, which
was created as part of the America Competes legislation 10
years ago and passed unanimously by the Senate. It authorized
Congress to double funding for basic research over 7 years.
Last month, Senator Durbin and I cosponsored an amendment
to the energy bill that is being worked on in the Senate that
increases the authorized funding levels for the Office of
Science by about 7 percent a year, which would double the
Office of Science's budget from a little over $5 billion today
to more than $10 billion in 10 years. The Senate adopted our
amendment.
The President has also proposed to invest more in basic
research, including the Mission Innovation proposal, a pledge
launched by the United States and 19 other countries at the
climate summit in Paris to double Federal clean energy research
over the next 5 years.
The problem is that the President's budget request proposes
$2.259 billion in new mandatory funding for the Department of
Energy. The mandatory funding would be used to support clean
energy proposals and replace several proposed cuts to programs
that were currently funded with discretionary spending. These
new mandatory spending proposals include $1.3 billion for the
21st Century Clean Transportation Plan; $674 million to replace
discretionary spending cuts in cleanup programs that is
especially concerning to me; $100 million for new Office of
Science university grants; and $150 million to support ARPA-E
(Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy).
However, the President's commitment to double Federal clean
energy research comes at the expense of other resources and
agencies, and he proposes to pay for this new mandatory
spending with new tax increases.
This is not a realistic proposal. The budget writers know
this. Congress is not going to enact $3.4 trillion in new tax
increases over the next 10 years to pay for an additional $682
billion in mandatory spending spread across Federal agencies
over the next 10 years.
Senator Murray and I just finished a hearing this morning
on our biomedical innovation project, and there is mandatory
spending discussions there to replace the increases that we
made this past year in funding for the National Institutes of
Health.
This kind of budgeting is at best unhelpful, at worst
misleading.
First, the President has underfunded the Army Corps of
Engineers by $1.4 billion and the cleanup of former Cold War
sites by $674 million. That makes it very difficult to draft an
appropriations bill, much less fund the proposed new
investments in Mission Innovation.
Second, while I have called for doubling our investment in
basic research, I have also recommended paying for increases
like that by ending subsidies for mature technologies like wind
and oil and gas subsidies.
For example, we could start by eliminating the wind
production tax credit in 2016 and putting the $4 billion this
subsidy costs taxpayers over 10 years toward doubling energy
research, and we could phase out subsidies for oil and gas.
Legislative proposals similar to the one I supported in
February to repeal oil and gas subsidies save $24 billion over
10 years, which could be spent on research and development.
Out of control mandatory spending on entitlements, which is
projected to increase nearly 80 percent over the next 10 years,
is already crowding out discretionary spending. Here is the
most important point. Over the next 10 years, discretionary
spending, the money we are talking about to fund cancer
research in this morning's hearing, or Office of Science
research in today's hearing, discretionary spending, that part
of the budget is 32 percent of total Federal spending. If
things continue at the pace they are on, it will be 22 percent
in 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
So this share of the budget is going from 32 percent to 22
percent. So the more responsible proposal about mandatory
spending would be to reduce mandatory spending by $682 billion,
so we could have more money for cancer research and energy
research, rather than to propose more mandatory spending paid
for by taxes.
The United States faces a choice between falling further
behind competitors or advancing technologies, but we have to be
responsible fiscally.
Supercomputing is one priority we agree on. It is critical
to our competitiveness. By next year, the world's fastest
computer will again be in the United States. I am glad to say
it is in Tennessee through the joint collaboration of Oak
Ridge, Argonne, and Lawrence Livermore in California. That
computer will be called Summit. It will help researchers better
understand materials, nuclear power, and energy breakthroughs.
The next generation on the exascale is essential to both our
country's competitiveness and national security.
FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
Now, as for nuclear energy, nuclear energy provides 60
percent of our Nation's carbon-free electricity, 60 percent,
and it must be part of any realistic energy plan. It is
reliable. Unlike solar and wind, nuclear power works when the
sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. It is safe. We
have never had anyone die in a nuclear accident at any of our
commercial reactors or in our naval fleet.
The Department of Energy, Mr. Secretary, has an important
role in many of the key challenges in advancing nuclear power,
for example, safely extending the life of existing nuclear
reactors already operating, the quickest and easiest and best
way to provide ourselves with carbon-free electricity for the
next 20 years; solving the nuclear waste stalemate, a goal that
Senator Feinstein and I are united on; developing new nuclear
technologies such as accident-tolerant fuels, small reactors,
advanced reactors.
Regarding nuclear waste, Federal law makes the Government
responsible for disposing of used nuclear fuel. The Government
continues to fail in this.
I believe Yucca Mountain can and should be part of the
solution, but we have more used fuel than Yucca Mountain's
legal capacity. Senator Feinstein and I will again introduce a
pilot program for nuclear waste storage in our appropriations
bill, as we have for the past 4 years, to complement, not
substitute, for Yucca Mountain.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman testified they
expect to see license applications for commercial sites to
store used nuclear fuel later this year. I am going to ask
about your views on the role that commercial sites could play
in the management of used nuclear fuel.
Finally, as we look to the future, the department is
funding key R&D (Research and Development) that will design the
nuclear reactors of the future, whether we are talking about
small reactors or advanced reactor technology.
LARGE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
The last item is keeping large projects on time and on
budget. The department is responsible for some of the largest
and most expensive construction projects in the Federal
Government--for that matter, in the country--including the
uranium processing facility in Tennessee and the MOX fuel
fabrication facility in South Carolina. The department is a
partner in the international thermonuclear experimental reactor
known as ITER in France.
Now that you are no longer recused from discussing fusion
energy and you know so much about it, we are looking for your
recommendations about what to do.
Over the past 5 years, Senator Feinstein and I have worked
hard with the department to keep costs under control. We have
made some real progress with a uranium facility in Tennessee. I
am glad to hear that the department continues to follow the red
team's recommendation.
It has a capped cost of $6.5 billion, and a completion date
of 2025. And we meet regularly to make sure it is proceeding on
time and on budget.
Your budget request also proposes shutting down the MOX
fuel facility in South Carolina and replacing it with a new
plan to dispose of the plutonium in South Carolina. We have
talked about that many times. I am sure Senator Graham will
have questions about that, as I will as well.
I hope to hear the details about your alternative to dilute
the plutonium material. I want to make sure we have a clear
plan for getting the plutonium out of South Carolina, as the
department has committed to do.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Lamar Alexander
The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development will please come
to order.
Today's hearing will review the President's fiscal year 2017 budget
request for the Department of Energy.
This is the Subcommittee's third budget hearing this year, and we
will have our final hearing on the National Nuclear Security
Administration's budget next week.
I want to thank Secretary Moniz for being here today, and also
Senator Feinstein, who I will be working with to draft the Energy and
Water Appropriations bill which funds basic science research and
discovery, as well as cleanup of former Cold War sites, and maintains
our Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile.
Our witness today includes Dr. Ernest J. Moniz, Secretary of
Energy.
Secretary Moniz has served as Secretary of Energy since May 2013,
and I thank the Secretary for his leadership and the efforts he has
made to work with Congress. I greatly appreciate your leadership on
innovation and our energy future.
We're here today to review the President's fiscal year 2017 budget
request for the Department of Energy, a Federal agency with three
critical missions: nuclear security, science and energy, and
environmental management.
The Department of Energy's budget request for fiscal year 2017 is
about $32.5 billion dollars. This is an increase of about $2.9 billion
over what Congress provided last year.
Governing is about setting priorities, and given our current fiscal
constraints--especially on non- defense spending--we are going to have
to make some hard decisions this year to make sure the highest
priorities are funded.
And that is why we are holding this hearing: to give Secretary
Moniz an opportunity to talk to us about the Department of Energy's
most urgent priorities so Senator Feinstein and I can make informed
decisions as we begin to put together the Energy and Water
Appropriations bill over the next few weeks.
Today, I'd like to focus my questions on three main areas, all with
an eye toward setting priorities:
1. Doubling basic energy research;
2. The future of nuclear energy;
3. Keeping large projects on time and on budget.
doubling basic energy research
Supporting government-sponsored basic research is one of the most
important things our country can do to encourage innovation, help our
free enterprise system create good jobs, and make America competitive
in a global economy.
Doubling basic research is a goal I've long supported.
We have increased investment in basic energy research through both
our national laboratory system and the Advanced Research Projects
Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), which Congress created as part of America
COMPETES in 2007, which was passed unanimously by the Senate and
authorized Congress to double funding for basic research over 7 years.
Last month Senator Durbin and I co-sponsored an amendment to the
Energy bill that increases the authorized funding levels for the Office
of Science by about 7 percent per year which would double the Office of
Science's budget from a little over $5 billion today to more than $10
billion in 10 years. The Senate adopted our amendment by voice vote.
The President has also proposed to invest more in basic research,
including the Mission Innovation proposal--the pledge launched by the
U.S. and 19 other countries at the Climate Summit in Paris to double
Federal clean energy research over the next 5 years.
The problem is that the President's budget request proposes $2.259
billion in new mandatory funding for the Department of Energy. The
mandatory funding would be used to support clean energy programs and
replace several proposed cuts to programs that are currently funded
with discretionary spending.
These new mandatory spending proposals include:
--$1.3 billion for 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan
Investments;
--$674 million to replace discretionary spending cuts in cleanup
programs;
--$100 million for new Office of Science University Grants;
--And $150 million to support ARPA-E.
However, the President's commitment to double Federal clean energy
research comes at the expense of other resources and agencies and he
proposes to pay for this new mandatory spending with new tax increases.
The budget writers know this isn't a realistic proposal. Congress
is not going to enact $3.4 trillion in new tax increases over the next
10 years to pay for an additional $682 billion in mandatory spending
across all Federal agencies over the next 10 years.
The President's budget request this year is at best unhelpful, and
at worst it's misleading.
First, the President has underfunded the Army Corps of Engineers by
$1.4 billion and the cleanup of former Cold War sites by $674 million.
This makes it very difficult to draft an appropriations bill, much less
fund the proposed new investments in Mission Innovation.
Second, I've called for doubling our investment in basic scientific
research, but I've also recommended paying for increases by ending
subsidies for mature technologies like wind and oil and gas subsidies.
For example, we could start by eliminating the wind production tax
credit in 2016, and putting the $4 billion this subsidy costs taxpayers
over 10 years toward doubling energy research.
Or, we could phase out subsidies for oil and gas. Legislative
proposals similar to the one I supported in February to repeal oil and
gas subsidies could save $24 billion over 10 years, which could be
spent on research and development.
Out-of-control mandatory spending on entitlements, which is
projected to increase nearly 80 percent over the next 10 years, is
already crowding out discretionary spending.
Over the next 10 years, discretionary spending will decrease from
32 percent of total Federal spending in 2015 to about 22 percent in
2026.
The United States faces a choice between falling further behind
competitors like China, or advancing technologies that can make us
safer and more competitive.
But we have to be fiscally responsible and carefully invest our
limited resources in programs that can achieve results.
For example, supercomputing is one priority we agree on--and it is
critical to our economic competitiveness and a secure energy future.
By next year, the world's fastest supercomputer will again be in
the United States, and in Tennessee through the joint Collaboration of
Oak Ridge, Argonne and Lawrence Livermore (CORAL).
That computer will be called Summit, and it will help researchers
better understand materials, nuclear power, and energy breakthroughs.
Funding the next generation, known as exascale, is essential to our
both our country's competitiveness and national security.
Exascale computers will be capable of a thousand-fold increase in
sustained performance over today's petascale computers--which have been
operating since 2008.
the future of nuclear energy
Nuclear power provides 60 percent of our Nation's carbon-free
electricity, and it must be a part of any realistic energy plan.
It is reliable--unlike solar and wind, nuclear power works when the
sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing.
It is safe--we've never had anyone die in a nuclear accident at any
of our commercial reactors or in our naval fleet.
The Department of Energy has an important role in many of the key
challenges in advancing nuclear power, including:
--Safely extending the life of the nuclear reactors already operating
today;
--Solving the nuclear waste stalemate; and
--Developing new nuclear technologies such as accident tolerant
fuels, small modular reactors, and advanced reactors.
Safely extending the operating licenses of commercial reactors from
60 to 80 years, where possible, is an important step to maintaining our
largest source of carbon-free electricity.
I'd like to hear today what the Department of Energy is doing to
achieve this goal and whether there are any additional steps we should
be taking.
Regarding nuclear waste, Federal law makes the government
responsible for disposing of used nuclear fuel, and the government
continues to fail in this responsibility.
I believe that Yucca Mountain can and should be part of the
solution, but we have more used fuel than Yucca Mountain's legal
capacity.
Senator Feinstein and I will again include a pilot program for
nuclear waste storage in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, as
we have for the past 4 years to complement Yucca Mountain.
The NRC Chairman recently testified that they expect to see license
applications for commercial sites to store used fuel later this year.
I'd like to hear your views on the role commercial sites could play in
the management of used nuclear fuel.
Finally, as we look to the future, the Department is funding key
research and development that will help design the nuclear reactors of
the future.
Small modular reactors offer an additional source of clean, cheap,
reliable energy, and have the potential to make nuclear power available
to places that could not otherwise build large-scale reactors. The
Department's work to support licensing a small modular reactor
continues, and I would like to your views on the progress of this
important work.
The Department is also doing research and development to address
technical, cost, safety and security issues with advanced reactor
technologies. I look forward to hearing the progress you are making in
this area, and am particularly interested in your estimate for when the
first application for certification would be filed with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
keeping large projects on time and on budget
The Department of Energy is responsible for some of the largest
construction projects in the Federal Government, including the Uranium
Processing Facility in Tennessee and the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility
in South Carolina; and the Department is a partner in the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor known as ``ITER'' in France.
Now that you are no longer recused from discussing fusion energy
and the ITER project specifically, I want to discuss the future of U.S.
participation in the project, and when we can expect to receive your
recommendations and details on the new cost of the project.
Over the past 5 years, Senator Feinstein and I have worked hard
with the Department to keep costs under control and to make sure hard-
earned taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. We need to make sure these
projects are on time and on budget.
Senator Feinstein and I have focused much of our oversight on the
Uranium Processing Facility in Tennessee, and I am glad to hear the
Department continues to follow the Red Team's recommendations.
I look forward to a detailed update in the near future, including
whether the project is still on time and on budget, and when the design
will be 90 percent complete. We set a target of completion in 2025 at a
cost of $6.5 billion and we need to know if that is achievable.
Your budget request also proposes shutting down the MOX fuel
facility in South Carolina and replacing it with a new plan to dispose
of the plutonium in South Carolina. We have talked about this project
many times.
Today, I hope to hear the details about your alternative to dilute
the plutonium material and permanently dispose of it. Specifically, I
want to make sure you have a clear plan for getting plutonium out of
South Carolina as the Department has committed to do.
Senator Alexander. Senator Feinstein.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I think
you know that I treasure the relationship that we have, and
particularly our ability to work closely together in solving
some problems.
I am not going to repeat what you said. I find myself
generally in agreement with it. But I am really very concerned,
because it seems to me we are between a rock and a hard place
with this. We do not yet have an allocation, and yet there are
a number of conflicts within this budget.
Let me just thank you for the leadership and cooperation on
finding a nuclear waste facility. I would be hopeful that the
Secretary will be able to tell us in his remarks that the law
is such that the private Texas facility can go ahead. I think
that is extraordinarily important.
I hope, Mr. Secretary, that you will choose to speak about
it.
I also want to congratulate the Secretary, because I have
not had this chance, on his successful negotiations at the
Paris agreement on climate change. I think it is becoming very
clear that unless we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, we
are going to see catastrophic sea level rise, devastating
droughts, more wildfires, more habitat loss, greater ranges of
exposures for disease, and massive international refugee
crises.
I say that as a Californian who is now in the midst of an
unprecedented drought with just terrible results, land
subsidence, 888 million trees losing their capacity, 10 million
of them dead, 69 communities without water. It goes on and on
and on.
So we do not want the climate to go the way it is set to
go. It is my understanding that we must contain temperature
rise to 2 degrees or less by 2100 or we court disaster.
Although this is a significant and difficult challenge, I
think it can be done. For the first time, 195 countries have
mutually pledged to constrain their greenhouse gas emissions in
order to slow the changes in our climate, working not only to
avoid the 2 degree increase, but toward a goal of a 1.5 degree
increase.
But even the most optimistic assessment of the first round
of international commitments is that they would still allow
global temperatures to rise by even 2.7 degrees. That clearly
is insufficient in terms of the danger that we prompt by so
doing.
Secretary Moniz, you have championed the idea of using
technology to make this goal easier to achieve, and you have
worked to secure pledges from 19 other countries to double
research and development funding for technologies that can
lower temperature rise. I understand this is known as Mission
Innovation and that it is complemented by a private-sector
initiative led by Bill Gates to bring these new technologies to
the market.
Our commitment is to double U.S. clean energy research and
development over 5 years. Much of that needs to be funded by
this subcommittee.
In view of what the chairman has just said, that is going
to be a most difficult task to carry out. As I said, we do not
have an allocation, but the likelihood of our having sufficient
money even to fund what we are responsible for right now that
we cannot do based on this President's budget is alarming to
me.
I believe that if somehow we can get a sufficient increase
in our allocation, that we should, in fact, make Mission
Innovation a priority.
But one big obstacle to achieving this is the fact that the
administration's budget request zeros out funding for uranium
cleanup, which was $674 million in fiscal year 2016.
Now, that is a real Hobson's choice. There is not one of
us, I think, that understands that uranium cleanup should be
canceled out, and yet where is the money to come from? I gather
the budget assumes that the cleanup program will become a
mandatory funded program, which means it goes out of the budget
because it is mandatory. Whatever its cost, it is paid for. But
there is no indication this is going to happen.
So we will have to appropriate money for those activities
within the bounds of our overall resources unless somebody is
able to tell us where to get $674 million.
Also, as we deal with the impacts of climate change and
promote infrastructure resiliency, I do not believe that
Congress will accept the administration's proposal to cut
funding for the Army Corps of Engineers by $1.3 billion or the
Bureau of Reclamation by $163 million.
These are the Hobson's choices within our budget. The Corps
is really our only infrastructure program. It is our
government's only navigation infrastructure account.
Reclamation brings water to our cities and farms. And both play
an important role in responding to climate change.
So, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Secretary, to be brief, I have
outlined nearly $1 billion of responsibilities for money that
we will likely not have.
So, Mr. Secretary, I know I speak for this whole committee.
We would very much like to work with you and our other
colleagues to identify the ways we can best use the funding
that is available to develop the new technologies, specifically
the R&D that will make the difference in our fight against
climate change. But we also have to fund uranium cleanup, the
Bureau of Reclamation, and the Army Corps of Engineers, in
particular.
I might just say that of the congressional interest, the
Army Corps always crops up, Mr. Chairman, in requests for more
members. I have come over the years to really believe that it
is a very important program. It sounds kind of prosaic because
it has always been there, but in terms of our rivers, our
waterways, it is kind of the be-all and end-all.
So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and look forward to working
with you.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. We will
now have opening statements from other Senators who are here.
Senator Lankford. Senator Murray.
Mr. Secretary, we look forward to your testimony.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST J. MONIZ
Secretary Moniz. Thank you, Chairman Alexander and Ranking
Member Feinstein, and members of the subcommittee for the
chance to appear here to discuss our budget proposal for fiscal
year 2017.
As you have said, it totals $32.5 billion in discretionary
and mandatory spending. First, I do want to emphasize that the
request for annual appropriations is $30.2 billion, an increase
of 2 percent over the fiscal year 2016 enacted appropriation.
Both the national security appropriations request and that for
the domestic appropriations would each increase by 2 percent.
This is supplemented, as you have mentioned, by $2.3
billion in new mandatory spending authority, including $750
million for R&D and $674 million for uranium enrichment D&D
(Decontamination and Decommissioning), the latter from the USEC
(United States Enrichment Corporation) Fund.
I do want to emphasize that the $1.6 billion USEC Fund is
an existing, not new, mandatory spending account. Our proposal
is in keeping with the spirit of the current authorization that
revenues from the beneficiaries of past uranium enrichment
services rather than taxpayers at large be used to pay for the
cost of D&D of the now shuttered facilities.
Indeed, in 2000, Congress recognized the applicability of
the USEC Fund to support Portsmouth and Paducah D&D. The USEC
Fund is one of three Federal funds totaling nearly $5 billion
that can be used in this manner.
Finally, in this introduction I want to acknowledge that
underpinning all of our priorities is stewardship of the
department as a science and technology powerhouse with an
unparalleled network of 17 national laboratories. We are
working hard to strengthen the strategic relationship between
the department and our national laboratory network.
I also want to highlight the crosscutting R&D initiatives
in the budget. Among these initiatives are our largest
increases. Our proposed increases are for modernization, the
energy and water nexus, and the exascale high-performance
computing initiative to support everything from nuclear weapons
to energy technologies to cancer solutions.
The supporting budget details for each of these areas are
provided in a 40-page statement for the record, and I request
that it be inserted into the record and use the rest of my time
to describe our Mission Innovation initiative and why it merits
your support.
The fiscal year 2017 budget includes an increase of 21
percent in discretionary spending for clean energy R&D
activities that support the U.S. Mission Innovation pledge. The
President's budget proposes this 21 percent increase in
discretionary funds within the overall discretionary budget
cap. The mandatory request is incremental but the discretionary
is within the cap.
Mission Innovation is an unprecedented global initiative by
20 countries that have pledged to seek a doubling of public
clean energy R&D over 5 years. The Mission Innovation countries
represent over 80 percent of global government investment in
clean energy R&D. So this entails a highly leveraged
opportunity to drive energy innovation.
This is a key to cost reduction in clean energy. That in
turn is key to increasing ambition and driving us to a clean
energy future.
Mission Innovation is long overdue. In 2010, the American
Energy Innovation Council, comprised of CEOs from multiple
sectors, recommended that the government triple its investment
in clean energy R&D, and the council made three key points.
First, innovation is the essence of America's strength.
Second, public investment is critical to generating the
discoveries and inventions that form the basis of disruptive
energy technologies. And third, the costs of RD&D are tiny
compared to the benefits.
The pledge to seek to double the level of government
investment over 5 years is ambitious but needed. Bill Gates, a
leader of the AEIC, has recently met with a number of Members
of Congress and has reiterated the need for greatly increased
government-sponsored energy R&D.
The objective of Mission Innovation is to greatly expand
the suite of the investable opportunities in clean energy
technologies. The United States and global clean energy markets
have been growing rapidly and should pick up the pace even more
as the world's nations implement the Paris agreement.
Picking up the pace of our own clean energy innovation will
result in commensurate benefits for our economy, environment,
and security.
The scope of Mission Innovation spans the entire innovation
cycle from the earliest stage of invention through initial
demonstrations with a weighting toward the early stages and all
clean supply and demand technologies and infrastructure
enablers.
Mission Innovation is complemented by the Breakthrough
Energy Coalition that was launched simultaneously with Mission
Innovation. It is spearheaded by Bill Gates, launched with 28
investors from 10 countries.
The coalition committed to providing investment in new
technologies originating from the expanded innovation pipelines
in the Mission Innovation countries from early-stage R&D
through ultimate market deployment.
These investors are committed to a higher risk tolerance
and patience for return than is typical combined with a
willingness to take the most promising innovations all the way
past the finish line to deployment. That is another important
leveraging of Mission Innovation.
In particular, I want to single out the fiscal year 2017
budget proposal for $110 million to establish regional clean
energy innovation partnerships as not-for-profit consortia
competitively selected for a fixed period to manage regional
clean energy R&D programs focused on the energy needs,
policies, resources, and markets of the individual regions. The
program design and portfolio compositions for each partnership
will be based on regional priorities.
As research portfolio managers, not performers, the
partnerships will connect resources and capabilities across
universities, industry, innovators, investors, and other
regional leaders to accelerate the innovation process within
each region. This approach tracks recommendations from the
National Research Council's Rising to the Challenge, which
noted that until very recently, U.S. Federal agencies have done
little to support State and regional innovation cluster
initiatives and recommended that, and I quote, ``Regional
innovation cluster initiatives by State and local organizations
should be assessed and, where appropriate, provided with
greater funding and expanded geographically.''
The Mission Innovation budget also supports increased
investments in successful ongoing innovation programs at
universities, national labs, and companies, such as ARPA-E,
Energy Frontier Research centers, advanced manufacturing
centers, bioenergy centers, advanced transportation technology,
advanced nuclear reactor technology, and next-generation carbon
capture technologies, to name a few.
That concludes my summary. I thank the subcommittee for its
interest in support of our programs. I look forward to our
discussion and to working together over the next months.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ernest J. Moniz
Chairmen Cochran and Alexander, Vice Chairwoman Mikulski and Vice
Chairman Feinstein, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Department of
Energy's (DOE) Budget Request for fiscal year 2017. I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss how the Budget Request advances the Department
of Energy's missions.
advancing nuclear security, science & energy, and environmental cleanup
The Department of Energy requests $32.5 billion for fiscal year
2017, an increase of $2.9 billion from the fiscal year 2016 enacted
level of $29.6 billion. The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request consists of
$30.2 billion in discretionary funding--$640 million above the fiscal
year 2016 enacted appropriation--and $2.3 billion in new mandatory
spending proposals requiring new legislation.
The DOE Budget Request supports a broad portfolio of programs,
including support for the National Laboratory system of 17 laboratories
to carry out critical responsibilities for America's security and
economy in three areas:
--Building the Future through Science and Clean Energy;
--Ensuring Nuclear Security; and
--Organizing, Managing and Modernizing the Department to Better
Achieve its Enduring Missions.
Underpinning all of these priorities is stewardship of the
Department as a science and technology powerhouse, with an unparalleled
network of national laboratories, harnessing innovation to successfully
address national security, create jobs and increase economic
prosperity, boost manufacturing competitiveness, mitigate and adapt to
climate change, and enhance energy security.
Energy has been an important driver for recent U.S. economic
growth, due to expanded domestic energy production and reduced
petroleum imports; increased energy efficiency and productivity; and
significant cost reduction and expanded market application of a variety
of clean energy generation and energy-efficient industrial, commercial
and consumer energy products. DOE has advanced this technology-based
energy revolution by supporting the scientific foundations of energy
sciences and technology, clean energy and manufacturing technological
innovation, early commercial demonstration and deployments, and new
technologies and standards to enhance end use energy efficiency. For
example, because of DOE technology successes, favorable policies, and
other factors, the cost of utility-scale photovoltaic solar power fell
59 percent and power purchase agreements for wind power fell 66 percent
from 2008 to 2014. Yet work remains to enhance energy security and U.S.
clean energy competitiveness while enabling global climate goals.
The DOE fiscal year 2017 Budget Request includes a programmatic
level of $12.9 billion for energy, science, and related programs, an
increase of $2.8 billion from the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The
fiscal year 2017 Budget includes $11.3 billion in discretionary
funding--$1.2 billion above fiscal year 2016-- and $1.6 billion in
mandatory spending proposals to support increased investment in
leading-edge science and technology; new research facilities to advance
the frontiers of science; advanced manufacturing institutes;
implementation of the Administration's strategy for nuclear waste
management; and crosscutting initiatives to further technological
innovation using an enterprise-wide approach to research efforts. The
Budget Request takes steps to implement recommendations from the first
installment of the Quadrennial Energy Review (QER), released in 2015,
to strengthen U.S. energy infrastructures and enhance our collective
energy security.
The Request supports ongoing implementation of the President's
Climate Action Plan and builds on the systems-based analysis of the
Quadrennial Technology Review (QTR) released in 2015. The fiscal year
2017 Budget Request also takes a significant first step toward
fulfilling the United States' pledge to seek to double Federal clean
energy research and development investment over the next 5 years as
part of Mission Innovation, an initiative launched by the U.S. and 19
other countries to accelerate widespread clean energy technology
innovation and cost reduction. The Request provides a total of $5.86
billion in discretionary funding for clean energy activities that span
the full range of research and development from use-inspired basic
research to demonstration, representing an increase in discretionary
funding of over 21 percent above the fiscal year 2016 baseline of $4.82
billion. DOE's funding is 76 percent of the $7.7 billion government-
wide Mission Innovation investment in fiscal year 2017.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request also includes mandatory funding
for clean energy R&D that complements activities supported by
discretionary funding. The Request includes $150 million in mandatory
funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA-E) as
part of the ARPA-E Trust proposal that seeks $1.85 billion in mandatory
funding over 5 years to reliably increase the program's
transformational clean energy technology R&D. In addition, as part of
the $1.3 billion mandatory proposal for the DOE portion of the
Administration's 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan, the Request
includes $500 million in fiscal year 2017 to scale-up clean
transportation R&D through initiatives to accelerate cutting the cost
of battery technology; advance the next generation of low carbon
biofuels, in particular for intermodal freight and fleets; and
establish a mobility systems integration facility to investigate
systems level energy implications of vehicle connectivity and
automation.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request provides a programmatic level
of $12.9 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA), $357 million above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level, to
support DOE's nuclear security responsibilities. The Budget Request
includes funding to maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear
deterrent without underground nuclear explosive testing, including life
extension programs for major weapons systems and modernization of the
Nation's research and production infrastructure.
The Request also ensures that the United States is ready to respond
to nuclear and radiological incidents at home and abroad and supports
programs that reduce the threats of nuclear proliferation globally,
including supporting implementation and monitoring of the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran to verifiably prevent Iran from
obtaining nuclear weapons. Finally, DOE's Request for nuclear security
supports activities that provide safe and effective propulsion for the
U.S. nuclear Navy.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request includes $6.8 billion for
Departmental management and performance programs, including
environmental cleanup programs to meet the nation's Manhattan Project
and Cold War legacy responsibilities. The Request includes $6.1
billion, which includes $5.4 billion in discretionary funding and
proposes $674 million in mandatory spending from the United States
Enrichment Corporation Fund, to uphold the U.S. Government's commitment
to States and communities to remediate the environmental legacy of over
six decades of nuclear weapons and nuclear research, development, and
production. The Request supports major management reforms, including
new project oversight, assessment, and cost estimation initiatives as
part of ongoing efforts to strengthen effective project and program
management across the enterprise. The Request also supports continued
implementation of a new and improved Human Resource Management service
delivery business model and efforts to improve information technology
management and further strengthen cybersecurity.
science and energy
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request provides a programmatic level
of $12.9 billion for science, energy, and related programs, which is
$2.8 billion above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level and includes
$11.3 billion in discretionary funding and $1.6 billion in mandatory
spending. The Department's science and energy programs invest in all
stages of innovation across a diverse portfolio of clean energy
technologies to enhance economic competitiveness in a low-carbon world
and secure America's long-term energy security. The Request takes the
first step in fulfilling the U.S. Government's pledge to Mission
Innovation, an unprecedented global initiative across 20 nations to
double public clean energy research and development (R&D), in
conjunction with commitments for private investments led by a coalition
of 28 private investors from ten countries. The Request also continues
to implement the President's Climate Action Plan through the
development and deployment of clean energy technologies that reduce
carbon pollution. Following COP-21, these investments will be a
critical next step in enabling the transition to a low carbon energy
future through innovation and cost reduction.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request sustains DOE's role as the
largest Federal sponsor of basic research in the physical sciences and
constructs and operates cutting-edge scientific user facilities at the
National Laboratories to maintain the nation's preeminence in science
and innovation. The Request supports transformational R&D in critical
technology areas, including advanced manufacturing, renewable energy,
sustainable transportation, energy efficiency, electricity grid
modernization, advanced nuclear reactors, and fossil energy with carbon
capture and storage. The Request builds on the analytical foundation
provided by the Department's 2015 Quadrennial Technology Review (QTR),
as well as the recommendations of the 2015 Quadrennial Energy Review
(QER), by funding measures to strengthen U.S. energy infrastructures
and enhance our collective energy security posture.
mission innovation: enabling a clean energy future
The President's fiscal year 2017 Budget Request takes a significant
first step toward fulfilling the U.S. pledge to seek to double Federal
clean energy research and development investment over the next 5 years
as part of Mission Innovation, an initiative launched by the U.S. and
19 other countries to accelerate widespread clean energy technology
innovation and cost reduction. It is a widely-shared view that
innovation is essential for economic growth by providing affordable and
reliable energy for everyone, is critical for energy security, enhances
U.S. competitiveness, and is the key to a transition to a clean energy
future. Each of the 20 participating countries, which together
represent over 80 percent of global governmental clean energy research
and development, will seek to double its governmental investment in
clean energy research and development over 5 years. While each country
will determine its own doubling plan and portfolio, the collection of
countries will provide new opportunities for synergies and
collaboration.
The need for a substantial investment in clean energy research and
development is clear. Many studies have examined the contribution of
technological innovation to U.S. economic growth. In 2010, the American
Energy Innovation Council, comprised of Chief Executive Officers from
multiple industries, called for the tripling of energy research and
development, citing the need for a dramatic expansion of the energy
innovation pipeline to meet critical national priorities. Another
report that same year from the President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology also recommended accelerating the pace of
technology innovation to meet economic competitiveness, environmental
and energy security needs. The need for greater regional innovation
efforts was highlighted in a 2012 National Research Council report
calling for the establishment of regional innovation cluster
initiatives that build upon existing knowledge clusters and comparative
strengths of a geographic region.
The President's fiscal year 2017 Budget takes a significant first
step toward fulfilling the U.S. pledge to seek to double Federal clean
energy research and development investment over the next 5 years by
providing $7.7 billion across 12 Federal agencies, with DOE responsible
for approximately 76 percent of that government-wide total. The DOE
fiscal year 2017 Request provides a total of $5.86 billion in
discretionary funding for clean energy research and development. This
funding represents an increase of over 21 percent above the fiscal year
2016 baseline of $4.82 billion of appropriated funds.
The Budget supports clean energy activities that span the
innovation spectrum from use-inspired basic research to demonstration,
and encompasses all clean energy technologies, including renewable
energy, energy efficiency, sustainable transportation, nuclear energy,
fossil energy, and the electricity grid of the future. The DOE program
components supporting Mission Innovation include elements of use-
inspired basic research sponsored by the Office of Science, ARPA-E and
portions of the applied energy programs that support clean energy
research, development, and demonstration activities. Overall, programs
supporting Mission Innovation comprise slightly more than half of the
total President's fiscal year 2017 Budget Request for science and
energy, including ARPA-E.
The increased investments proposed in the fiscal year 2017 Budget
support a broad-based strategy for accelerating the innovation process.
The strategy emphasizes investments strategically targeted to support
innovative platforms for early stage research and technology
development, as well as development and demonstration activities that
target cost-reduction and advance transformational concepts that can
achieve meaningful scale. For example, the President's fiscal year 2017
Budget supports an expansion of promising existing programs, such as
Energy Frontier Research Centers, ARPA-E, Clean Energy Manufacturing
Institutes, the BioEnergy Research Centers, SuperTruck II, and advanced
carbon capture technology pilot projects. The fiscal year 2017 Budget
also supports new initiatives, such as $110 million to establish
regional clean energy innovation partnerships, $45 million to expand
R&D collaborations between innovators and small businesses and the DOE
National Laboratories, and an advanced materials crosscutting
initiative.
The President's fiscal year 2017 Budget also includes mandatory
funding for clean energy R&D that complements activities supported by
discretionary funding. The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request includes
$150 million in mandatory funding for ARPA-E as part of the ARPA-E
Trust proposal for $1.85 billion in new mandatory spending authority
over 5 years. The mandatory spending authority will complement annual
appropriations by enabling ARPA-E to support projects of a different
character than can otherwise be funded under the current program. For
example, the mandatory funding will support projects that are larger in
scale and address more complex energy challenges that have large
transformative potential. As part of the Administration's 21st Century
Clean Transportation Plan, the President's fiscal year 2017 Budget
Request also includes $500 million in mandatory funding at DOE in
fiscal year 2017 to scale-up clean transportation R&D through
initiatives to accelerate cutting the cost of battery technology;
advance the next generation of low-carbon biofuels, in particular for
intermodal freight and fleets; and establish a smart mobility research
center to investigate systems level energy implications of vehicle
connectivity and automation.
Mission Innovation investments will be leveraged by private capital
that drives innovation and clean energy deployment. The initiative is
complemented by a separate private sector-led effort, the Breakthrough
Energy Coalition (Coalition), as increased government investment, while
necessary, is insufficient by itself. This parallel initiative includes
over 28 investors from 10 countries and will supplement the large and
growing private sector investment in commercialization of clean energy
technologies by targeting new investments at an earlier stage of the
innovation cycle and managing these investments through the completion
of the innovation process, including the formation of new companies and
the commercial introduction of new products and processes. The
Coalition will be investing in technologies and projects originating in
the Mission Innovation participating countries.
Together, these initiatives will drive innovation essential for
economic growth enabled by affordable and reliable energy, for energy
security, for U.S. competitiveness, and for a transition to a low
carbon energy future.
integrating science and energy programs across the doe enterprise
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request further strengthens DOE and its
national missions by fully integrating across its science and energy
programs, and across the DOE enterprise with the national laboratories
as strategic partners.
DOE has continued to strengthen and institutionalize its strategic
relationship with the National Laboratories through organizations and
forums such as the Laboratory Policy Council, the Laboratory Operations
Board, and the annual National Laboratories Big Ideas summits, which
convene DOE and the Laboratories on a regular basis. DOE is sustaining
this strategic partnership through these ongoing collaborations and
through new efforts, such as a comprehensive report on the National
Laboratories. The Request also outlines how DOE will implement
recommendations of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB)
taskforce on the national laboratories and the Commission to Review the
Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories (CRENEL). Last week,
the Department submitted its detailed response to the final CRENEL
report that addresses the Commission's findings and recommendations.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget also supports DOE's crosscutting
initiatives that leverage the science, technology, and engineering
capabilities across programs and National Laboratory partners. DOE
first proposed the crosscutting initiatives in fiscal year 2015 to
enhance enterprise-wide planning and improve collaboration across
organization boundaries for key science and technology areas with
impact across DOE's missions. Each crosscutting initiative reflects a
comprehensive and integrated work plan to optimize programmatic
objectives and efficiently allocate resources. The crosscutting
initiatives help bolster DOE's efforts to institutionalize enhanced
program management and coordination across program offices, while
accelerating progress on key national priorities.
DOE has 2 years of experience with integrated planning and program
management across program offices, enabling accelerated progress on key
national priorities. The fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016
appropriations have provided DOE with funding for the crosscutting
initiatives, including $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2016 coordinated
across all three Under Secretaries. Moving forward, the fiscal year
2017 Budget Request continues six existing crosscutting initiatives,
and proposes a new initiative, Advanced Materials for Energy
Innovation. Together, the initiatives closely coordinate the $1.5
billion request, a $330 million increase, in crosscutting R&D across
the enterprise in seven technology areas:
--Electricity grid technology modernization accelerates the
development of the technologies and tools to enable
modernization of the grid to support U.S. economic growth,
environmental quality and security objectives.
--Subsurface science, technology, and engineering coordinates efforts
to develop next-generation technologies for energy generation,
storage, and disposal applications through mastery of the
subsurface, with a science-based focus on advanced imaging of
geophysical and geochemical signals.
--Supercritical carbon dioxide technology enables large-scale
commercialization of the supercritical carbon dioxide
(sCO2) power cycle, which has the potential for
higher thermal efficiencies with lower capital cost compared to
steam-based power systems and can provide significant benefits
for electric power generation, including reducing the costs of
carbon capture and storage.
--Energy-water nexus accelerates the Nation's transition to more
resilient and sustainable coupled energy-water systems,
including a new effort on desalination technology and regional
data, modeling and analysis test beds.
--Exascale computing, a joint Science-NNSA collaboration,
significantly accelerates the development and deployment of
capable exascale computing systems, applications and software
infrastructure to meet national security needs and to provide
next-generation tools for scientific discovery;
--Cybersecurity protects the Department of Energy enterprise from a
range of cyber threats and improves cybersecurity in the
electric power and oil and natural gas subsectors; and
--Advanced materials for energy innovations, which have the potential
to revolutionize entire industries by employing advanced
synthesis, modeling, and characterization to accelerate and
reduce the cost of materials qualification in a wide variety of
clean energy applications.
science: providing the backbone for discovery and innovation
DOE's Office of Science is the largest Federal sponsor of basic
research in the physical sciences, supporting more than 24,000
investigators at over 300 U.S. academic institutions and the DOE
laboratories. The Office of Science provides the backbone for discovery
and innovation, especially in the physical sciences, for America's
research community.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request provides $5.67 billion for
Science, $325 million above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level, to lead
basic research in the physical sciences and develop and operate
cutting-edge scientific user facilities while strengthening the
connection between advances in fundamental science and technology
innovation. The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request includes a proposal for
$100 million in mandatory funding for university grants that will be
made available through a competitive, merit-based review of proposals
solicited from and provided by the university community in the Office
of Science mission areas.
The Budget Request provides major increases for advanced scientific
computing research, basic energy sciences, and biological and
environmental research, and funding to operate the Office of Science's
scientific user facilities at optimal levels in support of more than
31,000 researchers from universities, national laboratories, industry,
and international partners.
Sustaining Leading-Edge Discovery Science
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request sustains leading-edge discovery
science through support for the High Energy Physics and Nuclear Physics
programs, a 14 percent increase in investments in Scientific
Laboratories Infrastructure, and the new $100 million mandatory
proposal for university grants.
In these discovery science programs, Office of Science has
contributed to many major recent accomplishments, including
collaborating with two international experiments that led to the Nobel
Prize in physics for discovering oscillations in neutrinos (fundamental
building blocks of our universe that remain poorly understood);
contributing to the discovery of three of the four new superheavy
elements in the periodic table; opening the most advanced storage-ring-
based light source facility, the National Synchrotron Light Source II
(NSLS-II); and continuing effective execution of major ongoing science
construction projects--the Linac Coherent Light Source II (LCLS-II) and
the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB)--on schedule and within
budget.
For High Energy Physics, the request provides $818 million, $23
million above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level, to understand how the
universe works at its most fundamental level by discovering the most
elementary constituents of matter and energy, probing the interactions
among them, and exploring the basic nature of space and time. The
Request implements activities and projects based on the High Energy
Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP) May 2014 strategic plan, including $45
million, an increase of $19 million, to support design for a
reconfigured international Long Baseline Neutrino Facility hosted at
Fermilab and initial construction for the Deep Underground Neutrino
Experiment in South Dakota.
For Nuclear Physics research, the Budget includes $636 million, $19
million above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level, to discover, explore,
and understand nuclear matter in a variety of different forms,
including continued construction of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams
(FRIB).
Expanding Use-Inspired Research
The Office of Science funds basic science programs that support
use-inspired research towards energy and other applications. The Budget
Request provides funding to increase operation of the National
Laboratory user facilities to optimal levels to accommodate increases
in Mission Innovation work. The Request also expands investments in
foundations for key technology crosscutting areas, including advanced
materials, the subsurface, and the energy-water nexus.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request includes $1.94 billion for
Basic Energy Sciences, $88 million above the fiscal year 2016 enacted
level, to provide the foundations for new energy technologies, to
mitigate the environmental impacts of energy use, and to support DOE
missions in energy, environment, and national security by
understanding, predicting, and ultimately controlling matter and
energy. The Budget Request provides $143 million, an increase of $33
million, to initiate five new Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs)
and continue to support the existing EFRCs.
The Request provides $662 million for Biological and Environmental
Research, $53 million above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level, to
support fundamental research and scientific user facilities to achieve
a predictive understanding of complex biological, climatic, and
environmental systems for a secure and sustainable energy future,
including an expanded focus on regional energy-water systems. The
Request provides $90 million, a $15 million increase, to expand
technology transfer activities during the last year of a 10-year
program at the three existing Bioenergy Research Centers (BRC). The
Request also includes $10 million for a new initiative in microbiome
research that builds on the Department's experience in fundamental
genomic science of plants and microbes to understand the fundamental
principles governing microbiome interactions in diverse environments.
For Fusion Energy Sciences, the fiscal year 2017 Budget Request
includes $398 million, $40 million below fiscal year 2016. The Request
will continue to support research to understand the behavior of matter
at high temperatures and densities and to develop fusion as a future
energy source. The Budget Request also includes $125 million for the
U.S. contribution to the ITER project, a major fusion research facility
being constructed by an international partnership of seven governments.
The Department submitted in mid-February an interim report to Congress
on the status of ITER, and we are scheduled to deliver a report in
early May with recommendations related to the project.
Investing in High Performance Computing to Support Frontier Science
The Budget Request provides $663 million for Advanced Scientific
Computing Research (ASCR), $42 million above the fiscal year 2016
enacted level, to support research in advanced computation, applied
mathematics, computer science and networking, as well as development
and operation of high-performance computing facilities.
Under this program, DOE has implemented the President's Executive
Order on National Strategic Computing Initiative through a multi-year
joint program between the Office of Science and NNSA to achieve capable
exascale computing. As part of the President's national initiative, DOE
announced a $200 million supercomputer award for Argonne National
Laboratory, part of a joint Collaboration of Oak Ridge, Argonne, and
Lawrence Livermore (CORAL) initiative to develop supercomputers that
will be five to seven times more powerful than today's fastest systems
in the United States.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget includes $190 million across three
Office of Science programs, joined by $95 million in NNSA, to
accelerate development of capable exascale computing systems with a
thousand-fold improvement in performance over current high-performance
computers in support of the President's National Strategic Computing
Initiative. Within the Request, the Office of Science will transition
exascale funding to a formal Exascale Computing Project, which will
follow DOE project management guidelines under DOE Order 413.3b. The
Budget also provides $46 million to re-compete the SciDAC partnerships,
with new activities to include accelerating the development of clean
energy technologies.
The Request funds research on high-performance computing
applications unique to the biomedical research community, including $9
million for the President's BRAIN Initiative, in close coordination
with the National Institutes of Health. This funding will bring to bear
DOE national laboratory capabilities in big data analytics, modeling
and simulation and machine learning to support biomedical research
challenges in cancer and BRAIN. In other DOE science programs, the
Request also enables development of accelerator applications, including
advanced proton and ion beams for the treatment of cancer, in
coordination with NIH.
energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request provides a programmatic level
of $6.6 billion for energy research, development, demonstration, and
deployment activities, of which $5.2 billion is discretionary funding--
an increase of $928 million from fiscal year 2016. The Request supports
a diverse portfolio of energy technologies, including renewable
electricity, energy efficiency and advanced manufacturing, sustainable
transportation, fossil energy, nuclear energy, and a modernized grid.
DOE recently completed the 2015 Quadrennial Technology Review
(QTR), a systems-based analytical foundation to inform program research
priorities across DOE's entire portfolio of energy and science programs
by examining the most promising research, development, demonstration,
and deployment (RDD&D) opportunities across energy technologies to
effectively address the nation's energy needs. The 2015 QTR builds upon
the first QTR conducted in 2011 by describing the nation's energy
landscape and the dramatic changes that have taken place over the last
4 years and identifying the RDD&D activities, opportunities, and
pathways forward to help address our national energy challenges.
Improving Cost and Performance of Renewable Electricity Technologies
DOE's fiscal year 2017 Budget Request for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE) invests $621 million in renewable energy
generation technologies, an increase of $143 million from fiscal year
2016. Innovations, favorable policies, and other factors have led to
significant cost and performance improvements across the spectrum of
renewable energy technologies, as documented in Revolution . . . Now\1\
report. To name a few examples, the cost of utility-scale photovoltaic
solar power fell 59 percent from $5.70 per watt in 2008 to $2.34 per
watt in 2014; power purchase agreements for wind power fell 66 percent
from 7 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 to 2.4 cents per kilowatt-hour
in 2014; and the median installed price of residential photovoltaic
solar power fell 51 percent from $8.80 per watt in 2008 to $4.30 per
watt in 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/11/f27/Revolution-Now-
11132015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Request provides $285 million, an increase of $44 million, to
continue the SunShot Initiative on a path to achieve solar cost parity
without subsidies by 2020. The Budget includes $156 million for Wind
Energy, an increase of $61 million, to continue efforts to achieve a
16.7 cents per kilowatt-hour cost target for offshore wind by 2020,
including $30 million for offshore wind demonstration projects and $25
million to establish an Offshore Wind R&D Consortium.
The Budget Request provides just under $100 million, $29 million
above fiscal year 2016, for geothermal technologies, including $35
million to select the final site and team for FORGE, a field laboratory
for enhanced geothermal systems, beginning with a down-selection from
five to three teams.
The Request also provides $80 million for water power technologies,
a $10 million increase, including $25 million to continue the HydroNEXT
initiative focusing on innovative, low-cost water diversion
technologies to enable new stream reach hydropower, to progress to a
cost target of 10.9 cents per kilowatt-hour by 2020 from small, low-
head new stream developments. The Request also includes $55 million,
$11 million above fiscal year 2016, to support marine and hydrokinetic
technologies, including a grid-connected open-water test facility and
development of concepts for revolutionary wave-energy converters.
Improving Energy Efficiency and Advanced Manufacturing Technologies
The fiscal year 2017 Budget for EERE includes $919 million, $198
million above fiscal year 2016, to invest in the development of
manufacturing technologies and enhanced energy efficiency in our homes,
buildings and industries.
In 2015, DOE issued 13 final energy efficiency standards as part of
the Administration's goal to reduce carbon pollution. Standards issued
to date will achieve cumulative reduction of 2.3 billion metric tons
cumulatively by 2030. To accelerate innovation in energy efficiency and
manufacturing programs, DOE continues to fund R&D at the Manufacturing
Demonstration Facility, funds continuing work at the Critical Materials
Institute, and is implementing a total of five Clean Energy
Manufacturing Institutes in fiscal year 2016 as part of the National
Network for Manufacturing Innovation.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request provides $14 million in EERE
for the sixth Clean Energy Manufacturing Institute and $25 million to
establish a new Energy-Water Desalination Hub to serve as a focal point
for enabling technologies for de-energizing, de-carbonizing, and
reducing the cost of desalination.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget provides $169 million, an increase of
$83 million, for emerging technologies that reduce building energy
consumption, including $40 million for an R&D effort to transition to
refrigerant technologies with low global warming potential, and the
Budget provides $15 million for a new metropolitan systems initiative
to use new sensing, communication and computation capabilities to
create actionable information for decision-makers on clean energy
issues. The Request also provides $230 million, an increase of $15
million, to support weatherization retrofits to approximately 35,700
low-income homes nationwide; $70 million to support State energy
offices; and $26 million for a new Cities, Counties, and Communities
Energy Program to provide support to local governments, public housing
authorities, non-profits and other stakeholders to catalyze more
extensive clean energy investments in revitalization efforts.
Advancing Sustainable Transportation
The fiscal year 2017 Budget provides $853 million in discretionary
funding, $217 million above fiscal year 2016, for sustainable
transportation including vehicle, bioenergy, and hydrogen and fuel
cells technologies.
In fiscal year 2016, DOE will achieve high-volume modeled costs for
batteries of $250 per kilowatt-hour--down from the current cost of $289
per kilowatt-hour--towards a goal of $125 per kilowatt-hour in 2022 as
part of the EV Everywhere Grand Challenge. EERE will initiate
SuperTruck II, with up to four new competitively awarded projects to
improve freight efficiency of heavy-duty vehicles. The programs will
achieve at least 1.15 billion gallons per year savings from Clean
Cities' initiatives and fund, with the Departments of Agriculture and
Defense, three commercial-scale biorefineries to produce military
specification drop-in fuels.
The fiscal year 2107 Budget includes $469 million for vehicle
technologies, $159 million above fiscal year 2016, including $60
million to fully fund the multi-year SuperTruck II program to double
freight truck efficiency by 2020, and $283 million, an increase of $102
million, for continuing the EV Everywhere program to enable domestic
production of plug-in electric vehicles that are as affordable and
convenient as gasoline vehicles by 2022. The Budget provides $279
million for bioenergy technologies, $54 million above fiscal year 2016,
including $52 million to continue R&D efforts on converting cellulosic
and algal-based feedstocks to bio-based gasoline and diesel.
The fiscal year 2107 Budget Request includes an additional $1.3
billion mandatory proposal for DOE to expand investments in low-carbon
transportation technologies and fueling infrastructure as part of the
Administration's 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan. The proposal
for DOE would invest $500 million in clean transportation R&D, $750
million in regional fueling infrastructures for low-carbon fuels, and
$85 million in the deployment of clean vehicle fleets for local
governments and first responders.
Crosscutting Innovation Initiatives for Energy
The Request for EERE includes $215 million for new crosscutting
innovation initiatives to enable the acceleration of clean energy
innovation and commercialization in the United States by strengthening
regional clean energy innovation ecosystems, accelerating next-
generation clean energy technology pathways, and encouraging clean
energy innovation and commercialization collaborations between our
National Laboratories and American entrepreneurs.
The Request includes $110 million to support Regional Energy
Innovation Partnerships, a new competition to establish regionally-
focused clean energy innovation partnerships around the country. These
regionally focused and directed partnerships will support regionally
relevant technology-neutral clean energy RD&D needs and opportunities
to support accelerated clean energy technology commercialization,
economic development, and manufacturing.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request also includes $60 million for a
Next-Generation Innovation funding opportunity to accelerate next-
generation clean energy technology pathways by supporting research,
development, and demonstration (RD&D) projects with the greatest
potential to change the trajectory of EERE core program technology
pathways. The Request includes $20 million for a new Small Business
Partnerships program to competitively provide technology RD&D resources
to small businesses through the DOE's National Labs to support their
efforts to commercialize promising new clean energy. The Request also
includes $25 million for Energy Technology Innovation Accelerators that
will leverage the technical assets and facilities of the National
Laboratories to enable American entrepreneurs to conduct RD&D that
leads to the creation of new clean energy businesses.
Expanding Transformational ARPA-E Programs
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request provides $500 million for the
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA-E), which fills a
unique role in identifying scientific discoveries and cutting-edge
inventions and accelerating their translation into technological
innovations. Of this, $350 million is requested in discretionary
funding, $59 million above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level, to fund
additional early-stage innovative programs as well as to exploit the
technological opportunities developed in previous ARPA-E programs.
ARPA-E has achieved considerable results to date. Through early
2015, 141 ARPA-E project teams have completed funded work. Thirty four
ARPA-E projects attracted more than $850 million in private sector
follow-on funding, and over 30 ARPA-E teams formed new companies. Eight
companies had commercial sales of new products resulting from ARPA-E
projects, and more than 37 ARPA-E projects partnered with other
government entities for further development. At the annual ARPA-E
Summit being held this week, we will be announcing updated numbers
demonstrating further success with ARPA-E's portfolio of projects.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request will expand support for the
current core portfolio of early stage innovation programs, including
the release of 7-8 funding opportunity announcements (FOA) for new
focused technology programs. Possible areas of focus for these FOAs
include advanced sensors and analytics for energy management and
improved light metals production to transform vehicle light-weighting.
The Request also supports the continuation of the Innovative
Development In Energy-Related Applied Science (IDEAS) FOA, which
provides a continuing opportunity for the rapid support of early-stage
applied research to explore innovative new concepts with the potential
for transformational and disruptive changes in energy technology.
Across all activities, ARPA-E will continue to emphasize supporting
commercial readiness for highly successful projects.
In addition, the fiscal year 2017 Budget Request includes a new
legislative proposal for the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy
Trust, which provides $150 million in fiscal year 2017 and a total of
$1.85 billion in mandatory funds over 5 years to add a new focus on
innovative systems level development that will deliver larger, more
rapid benefits to the economic, environmental, and energy security of
the United States. These projects are of a different character than can
otherwise be funded with annual discretionary appropriations, and
include, for example, potentially transformative technologies facing
significant technical challenges in scale-up, projects that integrate
multiple technical advances, and projects that address system-level
transformation of energy cycles. The proposed new mandatory spending
authority will accelerate transformational changes on energy systems.
Revitalizing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request provides $994 million for
Nuclear Energy, $8 million above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level, to
help meet energy security, proliferation resistance, and climate goals.
These funds will to support the diverse civilian nuclear energy
programs of the U.S. Government, leading Federal efforts to research
and develop nuclear energy technologies, including generation, safety,
waste storage and management, and security technologies.
In 2015, the program funded the second 5-year program of the
Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors (CASL) Hub
and new R&D programs for two advanced reactor technologies, pebble bed
and chloride fast reactors. The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request
provides $73.5 million for ongoing R&D in advanced reactor technologies
and continued R&D support for light water reactors (LWR), $59 million
for accident tolerant fuels, and $35 million for LWR sustainability.
Funding is also requested to continue the GAIN initiative to provide
streamlined access for advanced reactor developers to access the world-
class nuclear energy R&D capabilities at the national laboratories. The
Request includes $89.6 million to continue funding for a cost-shared
cooperative agreement for licensing technical support of a small
modular reactor design, including support for a small modular reactor
design (SMR) certification application to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) by December 2016, for application review by the NRC,
and to continue development of permit and license applications for the
first domestic SMR deployments.
In 2015, DOE's nuclear energy program awarded a contract for a deep
borehole field characterization test and issued an Invitation for
Public Comment to initiate the dialogue on a consent-based siting
process to support a consolidated commercial used fuel storage, a
permanent repository and a separate disposal path for defense waste.
The Request continues implementation of the Administration's Strategy
for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High Level
Radioactive Waste by providing $76.3 million, an increase of $53.8
million, for integrated waste management system activities in the areas
of transportation, storage, disposal, and consent-based siting. The
Request includes $39.4 million for consent-based siting, including $25
million for grants to States, Tribes, and local governments. The
Request also includes $26 million to complete characterization of a
field test borehole and to initiate drilling.
Enabling Fossil Energy to Compete in a Low-Carbon Energy Future
The Budget Request provides $600 million for Fossil Energy Research
and Development ($240 million of which is available through repurposing
of prior-year balances), $32 million below the fiscal year 2016 enacted
level, to advance research and development in carbon capture and
storage, advanced energy systems, cross-cutting areas, and fuel supply
impact mitigation.
In fiscal year 2016, DOE is reaching several milestones in its
support for carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS). DOE
completed funding of two large-scale industrial CCUS projects that are
in operation to demonstrate the feasibility and economics of carbon
capture on an ethanol facility and the technology for carbon capture on
a hydrogen production unit. Through cost-shared cooperative agreements,
DOE is supporting two large-scale, coal-based CCUS demonstration
projects utilizing coal gasification and post-combustion carbon capture
technologies, with construction to be completed in 2016.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request provides $50 million, an
increase of $20 million, to support initial construction of three
large-scale pilot projects of advanced, second generation, post
combustion carbon capture technologies critical to reducing cost and
increasing efficiency of CCUS technologies. The Request includes $24
million to initiate the design and construction of a supercritical
carbon dioxide (CO?) pilot plant test facility at the 10 megawatt-
electric (MWe) scale, and $31 million to initiate design of a natural
gas combined cycle (NGCC) demonstration facility employing CCUS
technology.
The budget includes the reallocation of funding from CCUS
demonstration projects that have not reached financial close to fund
other projects and new initiatives, including the use of $240 million
in prior-year balances.
Also in support of CCUS technologies, the President's fiscal year
2017 Budget Request makes available $5 billion in proposed investment
and sequestration tax credits for qualified commercial CCUS projects.
These tax credits are complemented by an existing $8.5 billion
available through DOE's loan guarantees for advanced fossil energy
projects to help provide critical financing to support new or
significantly improved advanced fossil energy projects, and additional
mixed-use authority for loan guarantees in the fiscal year 2017 Budget
that can be used for advanced fossil and other technologies.
Expanding Technology Commercialization and Deployment
Significant advances have been made in recent years in
commercializing and deploying innovative technologies have been made.
In 2015, DOE received 30 out of 100 R&D Magazine awards for outstanding
technology developments with promising commercial potential, and the
Administration announced new investment commitments from the
institutional investment community of $4 billion for deployment of
clean energy technologies. The renewable energy production tax credits
were also extended by the Congress in December 2015.
To expand the commercial impact of DOE's portfolio of research,
development, demonstration, and deployment activities in the short,
medium and long term, DOE established the Office of Technology
Transitions (OTT) in 2015 to oversee and advance DOE's technology
transfer mission. The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request provides $8.4
million for the OTT to expand the commercial impact of the DOE
portfolio of activities. The Request provides for coordination of
technology-to-market activities across the Department and the
implementation of the Technology Commercialization Fund (TCF),
approximately $20 million in fiscal year 2017, to catalyze seed-stage
funding for collaborations with private sector partners on high
potential energy technologies at the National Laboratories. The Budget
Request for OTT also supports implementation of the Clean Energy
Investment Center (CEIC) to provide better information on investable
opportunities resulting from DOE R&D.
DOE's Loan Programs Office, in its role accelerating the domestic
commercial deployment of innovative and advanced clean energy
technologies, has maintained a financially sound portfolio of loans and
loan guarantees. The $32 billion portfolio of loans, loan guarantees,
and conditional commitments has been supported by $18 billion in
financing from project sponsors, and 22 projects with DOE-backed loans
and loan guarantees have now successfully completed construction and
initiated operation. DOE has received new applications seeking over $20
billion in Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) and Title
XVII loans and loan guarantees.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request supports the Department's
continued oversight of more than $30 billion in loans, loan guarantees,
and conditional commitments, as well as its administration of remaining
loan and loan guarantee authority to finance projects in the areas of
advanced nuclear energy, renewable energy and efficient energy,
advanced fossil energy, and advanced technology vehicles manufacturing.
The fiscal year 2017 Request also proposes an additional $4 billion of
mixed-use loan guarantee authority for innovative energy projects that
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The fiscal year 2017 Request also includes $23 million for the
Office of Indian Energy, $7 million above the fiscal year 2016 enacted
level, to support DOE's partnership with the Department of the Interior
to address the need for clean, sustainable energy systems on Indian
lands through expanded technical assistance and grant programs.
Enabling Secure, Modern, and Resilient Energy Infrastructures
The Department's energy programs also support a secure, modern and
resilient energy infrastructure, including for the electric power grid.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request continues a focus on this mission
by providing increased investments in the electricity grid of the
future.
DOE has also taken major steps in implementing the Grid
Modernization Initiative, supported by a Grid Modernization National
Laboratory Consortium comprising 400 partners, including the release of
DOE's new comprehensive new Grid Modernization Multi-Year Program Plan
and the announcement of a $220 million funding opportunity for the
National Labs and partners.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request includes $262 million for
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, $56 million above the
fiscal year 2016 enacted level, for grid modernization research to
support a smart, resilient electric grid for the 21st century and the
storage technology that underpins it, as well as funding critical
emergency response and grid physical security capabilities. The Request
provides $14 million to establish a new competitively-selected Grid
Clean Energy Manufacturing Innovation Institute as a part of the multi-
agency National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, to focus on
technologies related to critical metals for grid application, and
advances will be broadly applicable in multiple industries and markets.
The Request for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability also
provides $45 million for energy storage R&D, an increase of $24
million, and $30 million for smart grid R&D. To fortify grid security
and resilience, the Request includes $46 million to advance
cybersecurity technologies and $18 million for infrastructure security
and energy restoration activities. The Request provides $15 million for
a new State energy assurance program that supports regional and State
activities to continually improve energy assurance plans, improve
capabilities to characterize energy sector supply disruptions,
communicate among the local, State, regional, Federal, and industry
partners, and identify gaps for use in energy planning and emergency
response training programs. The Request also provides $15 million to
launch a new State distribution-level reform program for competitive
awards to States to utilize a grid architecture approach to address
their system challenges.
The Budget Request also includes $257 million for the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve (SPR), $45 million above the fiscal year 2016 enacted
level, to increase the system's durability and reliability and ensure
operational readiness. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 requires the
Department to submit to Congress a Strategic Review of the SPR by May,
2016. The Act also authorized DOE, subject to appropriation, to sell up
to $2 billion in SPR oil to fund SPR infrastructure modernization. The
results of the SPR Strategic Review will inform SPR infrastructure
modernization and shall result in an fiscal year 2017 budget amendment
related to SPR modernization.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request provides $31 million for Energy
Policy and Systems Analysis to continue serving as a focal point for
policy coordination within the Department on the formulation, analysis,
and implementation of energy policy and related programmatic options
and initiatives that could facilitate the transition to a clean and
secure energy economy.
EPSA also serves as the Secretariat of the multi-agency Quadrennial
Energy Review (QER), and provides systems analysis to support this
Administration's initiative. The Administration expects to complete the
second installment of the QER in 2016, focused on the electricity
sector.
The Budget Request also includes $84 million for the power
marketing administrations, including the Western Area, Southeastern,
Southwestern, and Bonneville Power Administrations.
Enhancing Collective Energy Security in Global Energy Markets
While DOE's work in global energy security is not a major budgetary
issue, it is an important issue for the Nation. DOE has pursued an
increased global focus on collective energy security-- energy security
for the United States and its allies--in the last several years.
For example, as part of this effort and supported by our Office of
International Affairs, the G-7 recently reached an agreement to enhance
cybersecurity assessments of energy systems. The fiscal year 2017
Budget Request supports DOE's efforts to enhance collective energy
security by providing $19 million for the Office of International
Affairs, which coordinates the Department's activities to strengthen
international energy technology, information and analytical
collaborations.
In the area of energy exports, DOE has released a two-part LNG
export study for public comment evaluating the impact of increasing LNG
exports from 12 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) to 20 Bcf/d. The
study will be used in the public interest evaluation of pending
applications to export LNG to non-FTA countries. DOE also chaired the
International Energy Agency Ministerial resulting in a plan to assess
energy security implications of natural gas supply.
Following the North American ministerial in 2014, Canada, Mexico,
and the United States have worked together to produce new integrated
mapping and information products. The Budget Request for the Energy
Information Administration provides $131 million, a $9 million
increase, to build upon enhancements like these in carrying out EIA's
data collection and analysis mission.
The increase will provide greater regional detail and analysis of
petroleum data, enhance commercial building energy efficiency data. The
Budget will also extend analysis of international data to include
Canada-Mexico collaboration and Asia and expand collection of
transportation energy consumption data.
nuclear security
The President's 2015 National Security Strategy, the 2010 Nuclear
Posture Review (NPR), and the ratification of the New Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty underscored the importance of the DOE's nuclear
mission and the lasting mandate for DOE to maintain a safe, secure, and
effective stockpile for as long as nuclear weapons exist. DOE advances
the President's vision to eliminate and secure nuclear material, reduce
nuclear stockpiles, and increase global cooperation.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request proposes $12.9 billion for the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), $357 million above the
fiscal year 2016 enacted level, to invest in our nuclear security by
modernizing and maintaining our nuclear security enterprise,
refurbishing and extending the life of our nuclear deterrent, reducing
the threats of nuclear proliferation, and supporting the safe and
reliable operation of our nuclear Navy. As part of an overall focus to
modernize nuclear security research and production infrastructure, the
overall NNSA budget includes a total of $1.8 billion in proposed
infrastructure investments, including $575 million for the new Uranium
Processing Facility.
The Request for NNSA includes $413 million for NNSA Federal
Salaries and Expenses for the salary, benefits, and support expenses of
1,715 Federal full-time equivalents (FTEs) to provide appropriate
Federal oversight of the nuclear security enterprise responsible for
managing and executing NNSA's weapons activities and nonproliferation
missions.
Stewardship of the Nuclear Deterrent
August of 2015 marked the 20th anniversary of President Bill
Clinton's announcement that the United States would pursue negotiations
for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and maintain the U.S.
nuclear arsenal without nuclear explosive tests. This was an important
milestone for a science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program that
successfully pushed the limits of modern science and engineering to
maintain the stockpile without underground nuclear explosive testing.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request includes $9.2 billion for
Weapons Activities, $396 million above the fiscal year 2016 enacted
level, to build on these accomplishments as NNSA sustains a credible
and effective nuclear deterrent while continuing to reduce the size of
the active stockpile. The Budget Request supports the work, as laid out
in the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan, of the science-based
Stockpile Stewardship Program to ensure a safe, secure and effective
nuclear stockpile in the absence of underground nuclear explosive
testing through a sustained, long-term research program.
NNSA has achieved major accomplishments in that mission, such as
substantial progress on its Life Extension Programs (LEPs), including
those for the B61-12, W76-1, W80-4, and W88 Alt 370 with conventional
high explosive (CHE) refresh. The Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition
and High Yield Program increased the number of experiments, or ``shot
rate,'' at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's National Ignition
Facility from 191 in 2014 to 356 in 2015. NNSA received the first
hardware delivery for Trinity, NNSA's next generation high performance
computer, and completed the first subproject for the Uranium Processing
Facility, Site Readiness, on time and under budget.
The fiscal year 2017 Request includes $1.3 billion for LEPs and
major alterations (Alts), $38 million above fiscal year 2016. In
particular, the Request continues timely execution of the B61-12 LEP
and the W80-4 LEP. These are the first two steps in implementing the
Nuclear Weapons Council-approved ``3+2'' strategy to consolidate the
stockpile to three ballistic missile warheads and two air delivered
systems, reducing the number of weapons in the deployed stockpile and
simplifying maintenance requirements.
The Request provides $223 million to support completing production
of the W76 by 2019 and $616 million to deliver the B61-12 first
production unit by 2020. It also supports transitioning the W88 Alt 370
with CHE refresh to Production Engineering in February 2017 with $281
million and provides $220 million, an increase of $25 million, to
maintain the schedule of the first production unit for the W80-4 LEP by
2025. The Budget Request also provides $69 million, $17 million above
the fiscal year 2016 enacted level, to make progress towards meeting
the President's commitment to accelerate dismantlement of retired U. S.
nuclear warheads by 20 percent.
The Budget Request for Weapons Activities provides $2.7 billion for
Infrastructure and Operations, $443 million above fiscal year 2016. The
Request ensures no increase in the backlog of deferred maintenance. The
Request will dispose of the Kansas City Bannister Federal Complex, and
upgrade aging infrastructure to address safety and programmatic risks,
improve productivity, and lower operating costs. The Request for
Infrastructure and Operations also provides $575 million, $145 million
above fiscal year 2016, to continue the phased approach for
constructing the Uranium Processing Facility, including completion of
the design and continued construction on approved subprojects. The
request also provides $160 million to continue work on the Chemistry
and Metallurgy Research Replacement project to support the plutonium
strategy.
As part of the Office of Science-NNSA collaboration on the Exascale
Computing Initiative, the Budget includes $95 million for exascale
computing, $31 million or 48 percent above fiscal year 2016, to develop
exascale-class high performance computing to meet the needs for future
assessments, LEPs, and stockpile stewardship.
The Request for Weapons Activities also includes $283 million for
Secure Transportation Asset, $46 million above fiscal year 2016, to
continue asset modernization and workforce capability initiatives
including conceptual design and systems prototyping of the new Mobile
Guardian Transporter.
Controlling and Eliminating Nuclear Materials Worldwide
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request includes $1.8 billion for
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, $132 million below the fiscal year
2016 enacted level, to continue the critical missions of securing or
eliminating nuclear and radiological materials worldwide, countering
illicit trafficking of these materials, preventing the proliferation of
nuclear weapon technologies and expertise, ensuring that the United
States remains ready to respond to high consequence nuclear and
radiological incidents at home or abroad, and applying technical and
policy solutions to solve nonproliferation and arms control challenges
around the world. Note that while the overall program level for DNN is
down, the programmatic funding level in the fiscal year 2017 Budget
Request is roughly flat with fiscal year 2016 due to the availability
of prior-year carryover balances and termination of the Mixed-Oxide
(MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility Project.
DOE has taken major steps in the nuclear threat reduction missions.
We recently issued the first nonproliferation strategic plan, Prevent,
Counter and Respond--A Strategic Plan to Reduce Global Nuclear
Threats,\2\ to define and describe our missions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/
NPCR%20Report_FINAL_4-14-15.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supported largely by the DNN program and capabilities, we also
provided scientific technical analysis to support the U.S. delegation
during the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiations.
Following finalization of the agreement, twenty nine scientific leaders
deeply familiar with nuclear issues (familiar names such as Garwin,
Drell, Dyson, Hecker, Richter, and others), focusing on the agreement's
nuclear dimensions, wrote to the President: ``This is an innovative
agreement, with much more stringent constraints than any previously
negotiated nonproliferation framework.'' These experts were referring
to aspects of the agreement such as weaponization constraints and bans
on nuclear weapons R&D that mark an unprecedented approach to such
agreements--and highlight the critical role that DOE plays in providing
unparalleled scientific and technical capabilities.
As part of NNSA's goal to minimize and, when possible, eliminates
weapons-usable nuclear material around the world, we have also recently
completed removal or confirmed disposition of fissile nuclear material,
bringing the number of countries free of all highly enriched uranium
(HEU) to 28, plus Taiwan. We have also down-blended additional HEU to
achieve a cumulative total of 150 metric tons of U.S. excess, weapons-
usable HEU.
And in the area of nuclear counterterrorism and incident response,
NNSA realigned its counterterrorism and counterproliferation functions
to more efficiently respond to nuclear or radiological incidents
worldwide and to sustain counterterrorism capabilities through
innovative technology and policy-driven solutions. The program
continues to train and exercise to strengthen emergency preparedness
and response capabilities, including nuclear forensics operations,
domestically and worldwide.
Looking ahead, the fiscal year 2017 Budget Request will support
continued successful execution of the mission to control and eliminate
nuclear materials worldwide. NNSA will support the President's fourth
and final Nuclear Security Summit in March-April 2016, continuing the
President's aim to achieved tangible improvements in the security of
nuclear materials and stronger international institutions that support
nuclear security.
DOE and its national laboratories will continue to provide
technical support to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
including to implement the JCPOA, and will remain highly engaged in
providing training and technologies and other support to support the
IAEA. The Request includes $13 million to support implementation of the
JCPOA, including $10 million to support JCPOA material management
activities and $3 million for technical and in-kind support for the
U.S. interagency process and the IAEA.
In the area of plutonium disposition, the Budget Request will
terminate the Mixed Oxide (MOX) approach and move to a dilute and
dispose approach that will be faster and significantly less expensive
than the MOX option. Specifically, the fiscal year 2017 Budget Request
provides $270 million, $70 million below fiscal year 2016, to terminate
the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility, and an additional $15 million to
pursue a dilute and dispose (D&D) approach that will disposition
surplus U.S. weapon-grade plutonium by diluting it and disposing of it
at a geologic repository. The Department will complete pre-conceptual
design for the D&D option and begin conceptual design in late fiscal
year 2017.
In other nonproliferation areas, the Request includes $272 million,
$37 million above fiscal year 2016, to sustain emergency response and
nuclear counterterrorism capabilities that are applied against a wide
range of high-consequence nuclear or radiological incidents and
threats. It proposes $394 million for the Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation Research and Development program to advance technical
capabilities to monitor foreign nuclear weapons program activities,
diversion of special nuclear material, and nuclear detonations. The
Request provides $341 million for Material Management and Minimization
to support HEU and plutonium disposition, the conversion of research
reactors and medical isotope production facilities from the use of HEU
to the use of low enriched uranium (LEU) fuels and targets, and removal
of excess HEU and separated plutonium. The Request also provides $337
million for Global Material Security to build international capacity to
secure, and prevent smuggling of, nuclear and radiological material
through equipment installations and upgrades, and capacity-building
workshops and trainings. In addition, the Request provides $125 million
for the Nonproliferation and Arms Control program to strengthen the
nonproliferation and arms control regimes by enhancing international
nuclear safeguards; controlling the spread of nuclear material,
equipment, technology, and expertise; and verifying nuclear reductions
and compliance with nonproliferation and arms control treaties and
agreements.
Advancing Navy Nuclear Propulsion
Finally for NNSA, the Naval Reactors program continues its
tradition of providing the design, development and operational support
required to provide militarily effective nuclear propulsion plants and
ensure their safe, reliable and long-lived operation. In carrying out
this mission, the Naval Reactors program has marked many major
accomplishments.
The program continues to provided technical support and 24/7
reachback support for the Navy's nuclear fleet of 73 submarines and 10
aircraft carriers. The program successfully achieved criticality in the
first reactor of the new Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier, and
continued reactor plant design for the Ohio-class submarine replacement
and advanced technology development in refueling of S8G land-based
prototype reactor, including the insertion of new materials and
technology for the Ohio-class submarine replacement. Naval Reactors
also operated the MARF (Modifications and Additions to a Reactor
Facility) and S8G land-based prototype reactors, delivering 2,832
trained nuclear operators to the fleet--a 17 percent increase over
fiscal year 2014.
The Request includes $1.4 billion for Naval Reactors, an increase
of $45 million from the fiscal year 2016 level, to support U.S. Navy
nuclear propulsion. The Request provides $214 million to continue
development of the Ohio-class submarine replacement reactor, and $124
million to continue refueling of the Land-Based Prototype reactor.
In support of necessary facilities for handling naval spent nuclear
fuel, including the capability to receive, unload, prepare, and package
naval spent nuclear fuel, the Request provides $100 million to complete
design and initiate construction of a new Spent Fuel Handling
Recapitalization Project at Naval Reactors Facility in Idaho.
management and performance
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request provides $6.8 billion for
Departmental management, performance, and related corporate support
activities to position the Department to meet the nation's Manhattan
Project and Cold War legacy responsibilities and to continue
institutionalizing an enterprise-wide focus on improving the efficiency
and effectiveness of DOE programs through the effective management of
DOE's infrastructure and workforce.
Strengthening Project Management
The Department is aggressively pursuing implementation of a
Secretarial initiative to improve project management. We have made
progress to that end through several recent initiatives and reforms,
including establishing independent project review capabilities within
each Under Secretary organization, as well as a central Project
Management Risk Committee (PMRC). We have also formalized the role of
the Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board (ESAAB) and instituted
process changes to ensure that the ESAAB takes a proactive role in
reviewing major projects. In addition, we established a new independent
office on project management oversight and assessments.
It is notable the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has
narrowed the focus of its watch list to DOE's major projects, and we
continue to work towards improving our implementation of those
projects. The Department's continuing goal is to control costs to
within 10 percent of the baseline estimate for at least 90 percent of
our construction projects.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request includes several proposals to
further implement these project management improvements. The Request
provides $18 million for the independent office of Project Management
Oversight and Assessments (PMOA). With senior management focus on DOE's
total project portfolio, DOE will be able to hold contractors and
programs accountable for large and at-risk projects, receiving early
warning notifications and quarterly updates.
The Budget Request also includes $5 million to establish an
independent office, similar to that at the Department of Defense, to
set cost estimating policy and provide timely unbiased program
evaluation analysis and cost estimation.
Cleaning up Nuclear Legacy Waste
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request includes $6.1 billion for
Environmental Management (EM), $99 million below the fiscal year 2016
enacted level, to address its responsibilities for the cleanup of large
quantities of liquid radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel,
contaminated soil and groundwater, and deactivating and decommissioning
excess facilities used by the nation's nuclear weapons program. The
$6.1 billion Request includes $5.4 billion in discretionary funding and
proposes $674 million in mandatory funding from the USEC Fund, for
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning (UED&D) Fund
activities.
While difficult challenges lie ahead with some of our remaining
Environmental Management projects, it is important to note that when
the program started, there were 107 sites to be closed-- and today we
have cleaned up all but 16 sites. The remaining sites will not be
simple to remediate, but we started with over 3,000 square miles to
remediate, and only 300 square miles remain.
In our ongoing efforts to remediate our legacy sites, we have
continued construction activities necessary to initiate direct feed of
Low Activity Waste (LAW) at Hanford, and we have continued technical
issue resolution of the Pretreatment and High Level Waste facilities at
the same site. We have cleaned up and demolished more than 800
facilities at Hanford, and we have remediated over 1,200 waste sites
along the River Corridor. At the Savannah River Site, we have closed
the seventh waste tank, and we have revitalized the EM Technology
Development and Deployment Program in response to a Secretary of Energy
Advisory Board (SEAB) recommendation.
Looking forward, the fiscal year 2017 Budget Request includes $271
million to maintain critical progress toward resuming waste emplacement
in the underground at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) by the end
of 2016. WIPP, the Nation's only mined geologic repository for the
permanent disposal of defense-generated transuranic waste, suspended
operations following a February 5, 2014 fire involving an underground
vehicle and an unrelated radioactive release that occurred February 14,
2014. The Request for WIPP includes activities to resume waste
emplacement operations by the end of 2016, including continued
implementation of corrective actions and safety management program
improvements, completion of Operational Readiness Reviews and
commencement of waste emplacement operations. Activities include mine
stabilization, mining, mine habitability activities in all underground
areas, continued decontamination of contaminated areas, and upgrades,
support for completion of repairs of New Mexico Roads used for the
transportation of DOE shipments of transuranic waste to WIPP, and
community and regulatory support. The budget supports the Central
Characterization Project and maintains shipping capability between the
generator sites and WIPP. The Request also includes funding to support
progress in design of a new permanent ventilation system that is needed
to support normal operations.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request provides $1.5 billion for the
Office of River Protection, $86 million above the fiscal year 2016
enacted level, to support the Department's proposal to amend the
Consent Decree between DOE and the State of Washington for completion
of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant and retrieval of waste
from 19 Single Shell Tanks. The Budget Request would enable
construction of a new facility to allow DOE to begin treating low level
waste by the end of 2022, avoiding the need to wait for completion of
other facilities affected by the technical issues. The Request
continues construction of the low activity waste (LAW) facility, the
analytical laboratory, and balance of facilities while addressing
technical issues with the pretreatment facility and the high-level
waste facility as well as support for the planning and design of the
LAW pretreatment system at the tank farms.
The Request also provides $800 million for cleanup of the Richland
Site. Cleanup activities include soil and groundwater remediation,
facility decontamination and decommissioning, stabilization and
disposition of nuclear materials and spent nuclear fuel, and
disposition of waste other than the tank waste managed by the Office of
River Protection. The fiscal year 2017 Request for Richland will
provide for continued achievement of important cleanup progress
required by the Tri-Party Agreement. The Budget Request for Richland
supports completion of cleanup at the Plutonium Finishing Plant,
planning and initiation of procurement in preparation for cleanup of
the 324 site, and other activities. The decrease of $191 million from
fiscal year 2016 is attributed to completed scope and facility
modifications to prepare for installation of sludge removal systems for
the K West Basin, as well as purchase of the engineered containers for
sludge repackaging; and completion of remediation in the 300 area, 100K
area and 618-10 trenches.
The Request provides $1.5 billion, $111 million above fiscal year
2016, for the Savannah River Site to support remaining construction and
commissioning of the Salt Waste Processing Facility, processing 19
million gallons of salt waste and nuclear materials in H-Canyon, and
site-wide infrastructure. The Request will ramp up commissioning of the
Salt Waste Processing Facility to enable start-up in 2018. The Request
devotes significant funding to support the Liquid Tank Waste Management
Program, as the liquid waste tanks pose the highest public, worker, and
environmental risk at the site. The Request also supports the Savannah
River Site to operate H Canyon in a safe and secure manner, provides
safe, secure storage for spent (used) nuclear fuel in L-Area, and
supports continuity of K-Area operations to include maintaining K-Area
to store special nuclear material safely and securely. The increase
over fiscal year 2016 provides additional support leading to startup of
Salt Waste Processing Facility in 2018; supports tank closure and bulk
waste removal activities to meet fiscal year 2016 enforceable
milestones; and provides additional funding for Salt Disposal Unit #7
design activities.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request includes $370 million, $32
million below fiscal year 2016, for the Idaho Site to support key
requirements to continue progress in meeting the Idaho Settlement
Agreement commitments. The Idaho Cleanup Project is responsible for the
treatment, storage, and disposition of a variety of radioactive and
hazardous waste streams, including removal and disposition of targeted
buried waste sitting above the Snake River Plain Aquifer. The project
is also responsible for removing or deactivating unneeded facilities,
and removing DOE's inventory of spent (used) nuclear fuel and high-
level waste from Idaho. The Request will continue retrieval and
processing of transuranic waste via the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment
Project and the Remote-handled Waste Disposition Project. It will also
support continued progress toward closing the tank farm, including
continued treatment and disposition of sodium bearing waste and
progress toward buried waste exhumation under the Accelerated Retrieval
Project. The decrease from the fiscal year 2016 level is attributed to
progress in treatment, packaging, and certification of Idaho Settlement
Agreement remote-handled transuranic waste, delays in processing waste
at the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit, and a one-time funding increase
in fiscal year 2016 for procurements.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request provides $391 million for
cleanup at the Oak Ridge site, including $178 million in proposed
mandatory funding, to support direct shipments of Uranium
Solidification Project material, continue design and construction of
the Mercury Treatment Facility, continue contact- and remote-handled
debris processing at the Transuranic Waste Processing Facility, and
continue the K-27 Decontamination and Decommissioning project. The
Request will maintain the facilities in a safe, compliant, and secure
manner as well as operate waste management facilities. The Request will
continue development of Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act documentation for the new On-Site
Disposal Facility. The processing of legacy transuranic waste debris
will continue at the Transuranic Waste Processing Center and technology
maturation and design will continue for the Sludge Processing Facility
Buildout project. Additionally, the Request supports direct disposition
of Consolidated Edison Uranium Solidification Project material from
Building 3019, assuming resolution of stakeholder concerns.
The Budget Request includes $323 million, including $258 million in
proposed mandatory funding, to support the deactivation and
decommissioning project at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in
Piketon, Ohio. In addition to supporting deactivation and
decommissioning of gaseous diffusion plant facilities and systems,
disposal of waste, small equipment removal, and other related
activities, the request also includes funding for design and
construction of a potential on-site landfill for the disposal of waste
generated from the demolition of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant
and associated facilities. In addition, the Request will continue the
safe operation of the DUF6 Conversion facility that converts depleted
uranium hexafluoride into a more stable depleted uranium oxide form
suitable for reuse or disposition. The Request for the Portsmouth is
supplemented by continuing transfers of uranium for cleanup services at
the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.
The Request provides $272 million for the Paducah site, including
$208 million in proposed mandatory funding, for a multifaceted
portfolio of processing and cleanup activities. In addition to ongoing
environmental cleanup and DUF6 operations, the Budget Request supports
activities to continue the environmental remediation and further
stabilize the gaseous diffusion plant, including uranium deposit
removal, facility modifications, surveillance and maintenance, and
activities to remove hazardous materials. The Request supports the
design of the Paducah potential On-Site Waste Disposal Facility
project, if the project is selected as the appropriate remedy.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request includes $30 million to expand
the technology development program through carefully targeted projects
to develop and demonstrate new technologies and approaches tailored to
the specific contamination issues at individual sites. The fiscal year
2017 Budget Request includes an emphasis on robotics research and
development of test beds in support of DOE's cleanup mission.
Refinancing Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
Continued progress towards decontaminating, decommissioning, and
remediating the former gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment sites, and
towards meeting our uranium/thorium reimbursement commitments, remains
a priority for DOE. We have made significant strides at the Oak Ridge,
Portsmouth, and Paducah sites, but we have an estimated $22-24 billion
in remaining cleanup costs.
Throughout the history of these sites, the government has collected
funds from the public and private entities that utilized the enriched
uranium produced at the facilities to pay for operation, privatization,
and cleanup of these three sites--some provided by utility fees, and
others provided by Congress. Three government accounts-- Uranium
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, Uranium Supply and
Enrichment Activities Account, and the United States Enrichment
Corporation (USEC) Fund--hold nearly $5 billion of these funds.
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request proposes to make progress on
our cleanup missions at Paducah, Portsmouth, and Oak Ridge, and the
Title X Uranium/Thorium Reimbursement Program by harnessing some of
these funds through a mandatory proposal to make available $674 million
from the United States Enrichment Corporation Fund.
Through the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Congress authorized annual
deposits to the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
(UED&D) Fund from an assessment on nuclear utilities for 15 years--from
fiscal years 1993 through 2007. The Budget Request proposes to
reinstate these fees to offset proposed new mandatory spending for
uranium enrichment cleanup. The Budget also includes $155 million of
defense funding for deposit into the UED&D Fund, reflecting the shared
responsibility of both industry and the Federal Government for these
costs.
Investing in Departmental Infrastructure
The fiscal year 2017 Budget Request supports safe and reliable
world class facilities by investing in new infrastructure in all
mission areas and establishing a sustainable trajectory for the
Department's existing infrastructure.
As part of our effort to manage the enterprise's infrastructure in
a sustainable manner to support DOE missions, beginning in fiscal year
2016, we have implemented a policy to halt increases in deferred
maintenance across the DOE complex. We have also taken steps to bolster
DOE's enterprise-wide inventory by compiling the first uniform
assessment of general purpose infrastructure at all National
Laboratories and NNSA plants and sites through the National Laboratory
Operations Board (LOB), and forming a LOB working group to assess and
prioritize the disposition of excess facilities.
Building on these efforts, the fiscal year 2017 Budget Request
continues a comprehensive program of infrastructure modernization and
improved maintenance across the complex, including expanded funding for
general purpose infrastructure projects. The Budget proposes, for
example, $200 million for the disposal of the Kansas City Bannister
Federal complex. Finally, we are seeking to improve the energy
efficiency and sustainability of government facilities, including use
of Energy Savings Performance Contracts.
Building and Supporting the Energy Workforce
DOE's continues to work to attract, manage, train and retain the
best workforce to meet its future mission needs.
In support of managing the workforce and hiring new personnel, we
have activated two Consolidated Human Resources (HR) Service Centers,
at Cincinnati and Oak Ridge, as part of a new service delivery model to
consolidate 17 current HR service centers to five, which should allow
for a more efficient and effective HR model across DOE. The fiscal year
2017 Budget Request completes the HR Shared Services Centers
consolidation and invests in implementing recommendations resulting
from a talent management study conducted in fiscal year 2016, which
will help to develop a corporate approach to talent acquisition in
order to consistently and effectively attract, develop, and retain the
best workforce to meet mission needs.
The DOE Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and related
offices continue to build the information technology (IT)
infrastructure in support of DOE's mission needs. DOE is expanding
Multifactor Authentication Program for improved cyber security. The
fiscal year 2017 Budget Request strengthens cybersecurity across the
enterprise with an investment of $285 million, an increase of $23
million across 13 offices and the Working Capital Fund.
The $93 million fiscal year 2017 Budget Request for CIO, $20
million above fiscal year 2016, also supports several critical IT
improvements, including implementation of Federal Information
Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) requirements to provide a
common baseline for roles, responsibilities, requirements, and
authorities for the management of IT in Federal civilian agencies. The
Request also includes efforts to modernize and further secure the
Department's IT infrastructure, including core networking layers, data
centers, and access technologies.
The Department has established a Labor-Management Forum to further
encourage opportunities for collaboration and partnership between
contractors and management.
The Department has established the Office of Energy Jobs
Development, consolidating ongoing activities across the Department
formerly coordinated via the Jobs Strategy Council. The Request
includes $3.7 million to support the office and to compile survey data
and deliver the energy jobs and workforce report that would detail job
growth/shifts in the energy and advanced manufacturing industries; fill
the gaps that currently exist in data gathering on renewable energy,
energy efficiency, and advanced manufacturing jobs; and compile data on
energy job skill needs of employers and public agencies.
advancing doe's critical missions
In conclusion, the fiscal year 2017 Budget Request of $32.5 billion
invests in its science and technology capabilities, its workforce, and
its critical infrastructure to advance DOE's core missions.
The Request supports the Department's efforts in science and energy
to enable a clean energy future through innovative lower-cost energy
technologies; to support secure, modern and resilient energy
infrastructure and emergency response capabilities; and to provide the
backbone for discovery and innovation, especially in the physical
sciences, for America's research community.
The Request invests in the Department's nuclear security missions
to maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent without
nuclear explosive testing; to modernize the nuclear security research
and production infrastructure; to reduce global nuclear security
threats; and to propel our nuclear Navy.
And the Request continues taking steps to further the Department's
management and performance missions to clean up from the Cold War
legacy of nuclear weapons production; to manage infrastructure in a
sustainable manner to support DOE missions; and to attract, manage,
train and retain the best workforce to meet mission needs.
Thank you, and I would be pleased to answer your questions.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Secretary. We have good
attendance. We will go right to questions and take 5-minute
rounds.
But if Senators want to stay and ask a second 5-minute
round of questions, we will provide time for that.
OFFICE OF SCIENCE FUNDING
Let me begin, Mr. Secretary. I am for doubling energy
research, but that costs about $5 billion. I mean, if we
doubled the energy research in the Office of Science, that
would be going from about $5 billion to about $10 billion. Is
that about right?
Secretary Moniz. About 20 percent of the Office of Science
budget is part of the Mission Innovation base.
Senator Alexander. But generally speaking.
Secretary Moniz. If the Office of Science as a whole were
doubled----
Senator Alexander. No, no, I am talking--the amount of
Federal Government energy research is about $5 billion. Is that
about right?
Secretary Moniz. Well, we have $4.8 billion in DOE
(Department of Energy) and $6.4 billion across the government.
Senator Alexander. So it is about $5 billion in DOE. If we
double that, that would be $10 billion, just the Energy part.
We are talking here about where we find the money.
ENERGY SUBSIDIES
But we are subsidizing windmills for the 23rd year at $4
billion. Two decades ought to be long enough to turn that into
a mature technology.
We have $24 billion in subsidies for oil and gas over the
next 10 years.
Why isn't a place to get the money for doubling clean
energy research by phasing out subsidies to mature
technologies? Why shouldn't we do that?
Secretary Moniz. Well, they are certainly different levels
of maturity. The administration has supported the idea of
reducing and eliminating many of the fossil fuel subsidies.
Senator Alexander. What about the windmills? They do not
produce much energy, and 22 or 23 years ought to be long enough
to allow them to be competitive. That is $4 billion over 10
years right there.
Secretary Moniz. Of course, we are very pleased, actually,
with extensions of the wind and solar credits over a fixed time
in the----
Senator Alexander. I am saying if we got rid of them, we
could use it for clean energy research. We have to set
priorities somewhere.
Secretary Moniz. The continuing incentive we think is very
important. It is the combination of technology and deployment
that right now is helping drive costs down quite dramatically.
Senator Alexander. I do not think it is a very complicated
equation. I think instead of tax credit for mature technologies
to subsidize wind developers, most of that money goes to rich
people who take tax deductions, and to subsidize oil and gas
production, we could give tax credit for the R&D that you want
and that would be one way to find the money.
NUCLEAR WASTE
May I ask you some questions about nuclear waste storage
and whether there is a role for private storage options? Is it
likely that the department will receive an application from a
private entity that may be seeking a license, or that the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be receiving an application
from a private entity that would store used nuclear fuel?
Secretary Moniz. First, the answer is yes, we certainly do
see a role for private storage. My understanding is the NRC may
be receiving an application this year.
Senator Alexander. What are the benefits of private storage
in terms of technical feasibility, schedule, cost, and
management flexibility?
Secretary Moniz. Well, the devil is in the details, but we
think that private storage could have advantages in accelerated
schedule potential, more flexibility, and also getting a
confirmed cost up early. So I think there could be many
advantages.
Senator Alexander. Last year, Senator Feinstein and I
included in the Senate energy and water appropriations bills
language to clarify the department's authority to pursue
private storage options. Do you support that language?
Secretary Moniz. Yes, I do.
Senator Alexander. Thank you. My own view is that we should
proceed on all tracks at once toward a solution, to finding a
place to put used nuclear fuel.
Number one in my book would be Yucca Mountain, although
that is certainly not unanimous in the Senate, and we have a
stalemate there. But we have said many times that even if we
filled up Yucca Mountain, we would still need other storage
sites. Is that not true?
Secretary Moniz. Yes, it is. We have a request for
information out across-the-board for storage and repository
solutions.
Senator Alexander. So Senator Feinstein and I, both on the
authorizing committee and in the Appropriations Committee,
supported measures to create new repositories. So Yucca
Mountain, the new repositories that we have talked about, and
then a third option would be the private storage opportunities
we talked about.
As I understand it, they could be large enough to be a
significant opportunity, these private commercial storage
sites, to receive a large part of the used nuclear fuel that is
today stranded at reactor sites that have been closed.
Secretary Moniz. Yes, I agree with that.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein.
ENERGY SUBSIDIES
Senator Feinstein. I was just saying, Mr. Chairman, to the
staff that I think we ought to take a real look at those
subsidies that have existed for more than 20 years. It seems to
me that the new energy architecture ought to be able to prove
itself in terms of its market acceptance within a 20-year
period and not be continued beyond that. So I would agree with
you on that point.
NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE
I would like to ask some questions about the Texas
privately owned and operated storage facility. The NRC told us
that this facility could get a license and start operating with
no additional action from Congress.
Do you agree with that, Secretary Moniz?
Secretary Moniz. I certainly would take the NRC judgment at
face value for the NRC. At DOE, our general counsel does
believe we have authority to move forward with that.
My understanding is the private entities would sure like
some of the clarity that Congress could bring to it, for
example, the language you introduced last year.
Senator Feinstein. I do not recall the language right now,
but I think my point, and I think the chairman's point has
been, if you can do it, why not go ahead and do it?
Secretary Moniz. Well, again, I think getting clarity from
congressional action, would I think help a lot with the private
entities. But eventually, there will be issues that need to be
clarified, such as how will liability be addressed, what are
issues in terms of when does ownership convert to Federal
hands, et cetera? So I think that is something we can work
with.
Senator Feinstein. Can you put that together and submit it,
if you need to submit it? I do not think you need to submit it
to the Congress. You could submit it I guess to the White House
for approval. But I do not understand why this does not go
ahead.
Every time we have some hope for a new nuclear waste
facility, something stops it.
Secretary Moniz. Well, we are in discussion. We have had
discussions in the past with the Texas group, for example. As I
said, we are very supportive of that going forward. The first
step is getting to the NRC.
Senator Feinstein. I guess I am beginning to feel
inordinate frustration because the chairman, I, the chairman of
the Energy Committee, three chairs, and the ranking of the
Energy Committee, we put together a bill for a nuclear waste
policy and it sits and sits and sits.
Yet we are supposed to go ahead and now go into the area of
small, modular nuclear reactors, that also produce waste but no
place for the waste. I think it just puts more and more people
in jeopardy of one day an accident.
So I have said this probably two dozen times, if there is
going to be a future, a real future for nuclear, there has to
be a place to put the waste.
Now that we have one, and we know that you are cleared to
go ahead and sanction it and work out the legal anomalies or
difficulties, my thinking is that you should do just that.
Secretary Moniz. Well, we are, in fact, evaluating and
working on all the options going forward. As you know, I fully
support the waste bill that you and your colleagues worked on.
I think it is right on. And we need to move forward on the
storage option, whether it is public or private, especially so
that we can move the fuel from shutdown reactors quickly.
We will work on that with you, obviously.
Senator Feinstein. Not work with us. Will you move ahead
and if the Texas operator has a good proposal that meets your
concerns, will you move ahead with it?
Secretary Moniz. Yes, if they are licensed by the NRC, we
are completely prepared to work with them and move ahead, yes.
Senator Feinstein. Again, the NRC told us that the facility
could get a license and start operating with no additional
action from the Congress.
Secretary Moniz. But they have not filed for a license. We
expect that to come later in this year. Until that happens,
were a little bit limited, but we are certainly discussing this
at length and getting prepared.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Senator Graham.
MIXED OXIDE FUEL FABRICATION FACILITY
Senator Graham. From one program to the next. Now let us
talk about MOX.
Mr. Chairman, I think you have been kind enough to listen
to my request to have a more in-depth study of this. Five
minutes I do not think is going to do it justice. This is a
monumental decision for the country and certainly South
Carolina.
Mr. Secretary, last year, you had $345 million for
construction of the MOX program, is that correct, in your
budget?
Secretary Moniz. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. This year, it was zero. Is that correct?
Secretary Moniz. Yes, we proposed I think $275 million for
starting termination.
Senator Graham. To terminate the program. I just want the
committee to look at this. This is a facility in South
Carolina. You are welcome to come visit. We will be glad to
host you.
In 2013, this is what it looked like. It was 56 percent
complete, the actual MOX facility. In 2016, this is what it
looks like today. It is a pretty mammoth place, 70 percent
complete. The contractor says $3 billion gets us to where we
need to be. We have spent $5 billion to date, and that is what
we have for the $5 billion.
Now, the bottom line is, in 2010, we signed an agreement
with the Russians to take the 34 metric tons of excess
plutonium and put it through the MOX system, so it cannot be
used for weapons in the future. Is that correct?
Secretary Moniz. That is correct. If I may, I would just
say, as you know, we do not agree with the numbers. And
secondly, this is only one plant in the whole----
Senator Graham. Right, there are two others. But you do
agree that place is real?
Secretary Moniz. Oh, I have been there.
Senator Graham. We have paid $5 billion.
Secretary Moniz. It is big.
Senator Graham. It would be a hell of a basketball court.
Secretary Moniz. It is big.
Senator Graham. I do not know what we will do with it.
But the bottom line, now, in 2010 was the new approach you
are talking about studied as an alternative to MOX? What is the
new approach, very quickly?
Secretary Moniz. The new approach is actually the old
approach of dilution and disposal, as we have done for roughly
5 tons.
Senator Graham. Was the old approach studied in 2010?
Secretary Moniz. I do not believe so. I was not here at the
time, but I do not believe it was looked at carefully. I think
also in 2010----
Senator Graham. So how can it all of a sudden be the best
alternative when no one looked at it in 2010?
Secretary Moniz. I think one of the issues is that in 2010,
I think, first of all, the cost escalation was not fully
appreciated. And frankly, the contractors have badly
underestimated costs.
Senator Graham. In 2016, the NDAA act said that you needed
to rebaseline this project. Have you done that yet?
Secretary Moniz. That is ongoing. The Army Corps of
Engineers is doing that.
Senator Graham. So in 2010, this new technology we are
talking about today actually existed. Did anybody look at it
and say this is better than MOX?
Secretary Moniz. Again, I am speculating. In 2010, the
issue was MOX was the program of record with the Russians. But
again, the costs subsequently were recognized as being much
higher.
Senator Graham. So is the situation for MOX, we just missed
it really badly on MOX, in terms of actual cost?
Secretary Moniz. I think, yes. The cost, as you know,
multiplied dramatically.
Senator Graham. So how much did we miss it by? A thousand
percent?
Secretary Moniz. No, probably a factor of three, something
like that.
Senator Graham. So we missed it by a factor of three.
Secretary Moniz. Probably.
Senator Graham. Has anyone been fired?
Secretary Moniz. Again, we should talk----
Senator Graham. If you run a private business, and somebody
created a project and you are $5 billion into it, and you find
out it actually costs three times more than everybody thought,
would you fire somebody?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I did not say three times, by the
way, from today, I meant from the original cost estimate.
Senator Graham. Okay. Would you fire somebody?
Secretary Moniz. Look, the contractor has had severe
reassignments of----
Senator Graham. I just want the committee to know the
contractor would be willing to do a fixed-price contract.
Secretary Moniz. Well, you and I discussed that with them
at some point. And as we know, they came back in an
unresponsive fashion.
Senator Graham. Well, I disagree with you. But how much did
the new technology cost?
Secretary Moniz. We estimate probably around $15 billion
lifetime costs.
Senator Graham. How much time have you spent studying that?
Secretary Moniz. Well, again, this is an old technology
with essentially no technology risk.
Senator Graham. The pathway forward for this new
technology, do you have to get an agreement with the Russians
before you can implement the new technology?
Secretary Moniz. Yes, we have a well-defined, exercised,
successfully----
Senator Graham. How far along are you with the Russians?
Secretary Moniz. We have had informal discussions, which
have been positive. But frankly, until I think we have a signal
in terms of which way we are going----
Senator Graham. So we are going to change course and hope
the Russians agree later?
Secretary Moniz. Well, we are in a situation where the
MOX----
Senator Graham. Is that what you are saying?
Secretary Moniz. The MOX approach has extreme
uncertainties, the biggest one of all is finding $1 billion a
year.
Senator Graham. Well, it is not uncertain, it is just too
expensive, you believe. It will work, won't it?
Secretary Moniz. Presumably. There is a higher----
Senator Graham. It works in France----
Secretary Moniz. We assume it will work, of course.
Senator Graham. [continuing]. Doesn't it?
Secretary Moniz. It turns out that argument was used by the
contractors mistakenly.
Senator Graham. It doesn't work in France?
Secretary Moniz. It works in France in a very different
process under a very different regulatory regime, not using
weapons plutonium, which brings in additional complications.
Senator Graham. My time is up, but it seems to me that we
started a project that apparently nobody knows if it even
works. Somebody should be fired for that.
Secretary Moniz. We expect it will work.
Senator Graham. Well, okay. You are going to take this
diluted material and put it where?
Secretary Moniz. Well, we know that 13 tons certainly
without permit or land withdrawal modifications, could be in
WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant). And the first six tons from
South Carolina----
Senator Graham. Okay, where is WIPP?
Secretary Moniz. That is in New Mexico.
Senator Graham. Have you talked to Senator Udall about
this?
Secretary Moniz. We have had informal discussions, yes.
[Laughter.]
Secretary Moniz. As with the Russians.
The first six tons, as I say, have long----
Senator Graham. Informally, you may get about 20-something
tons of plutonium blended down, so I want you to know that
formally.
The stuff at Texas, where does it go?
Secretary Moniz. I'm sorry?
Senator Graham. Does it all go through this blended
process, all 34 tons?
Secretary Moniz. Well, the proposal would be that all 34
tons----
Senator Graham. Does the $15 billion include all 34 tons?
Secretary Moniz. Oh, yes. Yes, it did.
Senator Graham. It did? Are you sure about that?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I will check just to make absolutely
sure. But----
Senator Graham. I think you might want to check.
Secretary Moniz. All right.
Senator Graham. Finally, what legal changes would be
necessary to change course? Would any changes in the law be
required?
Secretary Moniz. Changes of law? Well I am not the lawyer.
Senator Graham. Have you talk to the lawyer?
Secretary Moniz. What we know is the first----
Senator Graham. Have you talked to the lawyer about what
will happen----
Secretary Moniz. The first 13 tons, as I say, no
requirements----
Senator Graham. There are 34 tons. I am not worried about
13. What about the entire 34 tons?
Secretary Moniz. That is uncertain in terms of what would
be required.
Senator Graham. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Graham.
I am going to interject here. Senator Graham and I and the
Secretary and Senator Feinstein all talked about this. This is
a major decision that Congress has to deal with and that the
administration needs to deal with. It does require more than a
5-minute opportunity to ask questions, even in a second round,
so we need to schedule additional time, Senator Feinstein and
Senator Graham and other members of the committee who may be
interested, to deal with this responsibly.
We are talking about huge amounts of money here. You are
suggesting it may be $1 billion a year, or a half billion
dollars a year. We have spent a lot of time on it, so we need
to spend more and take our stewardship very seriously. I have
committed to Senator Graham that we will do that.
Secretary Moniz. As always, I am happy, of course, to have
that discussion.
Senator Alexander. Thank you very much, Senator Graham.
Senator Coons.
NATIONAL LABORATORIES
Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Alexander and Ranking
Member Feinstein. I appreciate your strong and bipartisan
leadership of the subcommittee, and our chance to work
together.
Secretary Moniz, thank you for your service, for your
testimony, and for your very capable leadership of the
department. I am going to touch on a series of issues that are
across two priority areas and then ask you to respond with the
remaining time.
First, on clean energy issues, thanks for your willingness
to come to Delaware May 13 for our lab summit. As you know, I
visited a number of the national labs, and I hope you will
discover Delaware to be an open and supportive place that I
hope will enter into some public-private collaborations that
will benefit from the strength and reach of our labs.
Secretary Moniz. The home of the first catalysis center at
a university.
Senator Coons. Correct. I am thrilled, as always, with what
you know about Delaware.
The independent review of national labs was released last
December and had 36 general recommendations. I am interested in
your views on whether Congress has an appropriate role and what
it would be in terms of authorizing and appropriating some of
those next steps.
CLEAN ENERGY
Second, just in terms of the midterm clean energy issues,
you have placed a great priority on clean energy innovation.
Many of us have supported the doubling of research investment
called for by the initial COMPETES Act. ARPA-E has made great
strides. I was pleased to again be invited to speak at their
summit.
In addition to ARPA-E, DOE has the energy hubs EFRCs and
NNMIs, and there are now regional clean energy partnerships. I
hope you will speak to them and how, as building blocks of the
whole innovation pipeline, they fit into your overall plan.
And I hope you will talk about how we sustain something
like the Mission Innovation commitment, a commitment to
doubling investment in the clean energy transition.
JOINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF ACTION
Additionally, in visiting the IAEA headquarters back in
January, I was told that as the world's nuclear watchdog, they
need a reliable, long-term source of funding to implement the
JCPOA and to accomplish their broader nonproliferation goals. A
recent GAO report said that IAEA faces potential budget and
human resources challenges in order to take advantage of the
searching, inspection, opportunities that the JCPOA opened.
How is the department helping the IAEA overcome these
challenges? How are the national labs assisting in the
recruiting, hiring, and training, which I understand to be a
long and expensive process?
Ali Akbar Salehi, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of
Iran, just announced that they will be using some of their
sanctions relief to train their next generation of nuclear
scientists. Is this something about which you think we ought to
be concerned? And do you see that as an appropriate use of
their funds?
Those are all my questions, and I welcome you using the
rest of my time to answer them, as possible.
Secretary Moniz. Okay, well, thank you, Senator Coons. I
will have to be brief on each of them.
CRENEL REPORT ON NATIONAL LABORATORIES
First, on the CRENEL report, the congressionally charged
report on the laboratories, first of all, I think charging that
panel is indicative of the interest certainly in this group. I
want to emphasize that the panel, first of all, endorsed
strongly the idea that this laboratory system is very
important.
Secondly, they also honed in on something that I completely
agree with that, frankly, for a long time--bluntly, I would say
from the end of the Cold War--there has been an increasing kind
of transactional approach rather than a strategic approach to
laboratory management. I think there is plenty of credit to go
around.
As the committee acknowledged, we have made some real
progress in terms of restoring this more strategic work with
laboratories. I could describe examples. But we have a way to
go, and we are still looking at it.
We have sent the report to Congress. We accept and will
follow through on almost every recommendation. There are a
couple that present some problems, but we stay in touch with
the cochairs, and I think this has been a very, very good
process. I can get more specific if you like off-line.
MISSION INNOVATION
In terms of Mission Innovation, you have kind of actually
said at all, that there are certainly new thrusts, but I do
want to emphasize an important strengthening of some of the
very successful programs that have been working with
universities and labs and industries.
ARPA-E
You mentioned ARPA-E, so there is a good example where,
with approximately 200 projects now finished, 36 companies have
emerged. The fact that in their open call last year a
successful program was able to support only between 2 percent
to 3 percent of the projects kind of suggests we are leaving an
awful lot of innovation on the table.
CLEAN ENERGY
As we go into this world, putting aside one's view of
specifics of the Paris agreement, the fact is every country in
the world is committed to pursuing a clean energy future. That
market, which has been booming, is going to boom even more. We
should be there, keeping our innovation advantage in moving
forward.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Coons. We need to
keep moving.
Secretary Moniz. Okay, I can come to Iran later on.
Senator Alexander. Senator Lankford.
LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS EXPORTS
Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks for being here as well. I have a couple things
just on multiple subjects here, so I will kind of rapidly run
through some of these.
The Department of Energy is currently taking the
applications for LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) exports to non-FTA
countries. That has been a process that is ongoing. Is there a
set timeline at this point about how long it takes to go
through an application process at DOE, those LNG exports?
Secretary Moniz. No, there is no set timeline. However, I
would----
Senator Lankford. What is a typical length of time to get
an application done right now?
Secretary Moniz. Recent experience has been weeks to a
month, following FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission)
approval of the EIS.
Senator Lankford. Okay, so FERC first and then DOE,
correct? So that has been a quick process. It has not been an
issue?
Secretary Moniz. I do not think so, no. Right now, we have
no applications to actually work on, having come through FERC.
Senator Lankford. Okay, you have done the study of the 12
to 20 Bcf (Billion Cubic Feet) per day of exports. That is out
for comment at this point. Tell me what you think the process
is at this point with that study now that it is out, now that
it has comments?
Secretary Moniz. Well, actually, the comment period has now
ended, so we are now going through the comments. Then we
prepare a response and then issue the report, either in its
current or modified form.
Senator Lankford. Right. That is what I was trying to pick
up, the timeline for that. When do you think that final report
will be out there? Or modified report?
Secretary Moniz. We have no fixed time, but I will guess
that we are talking within a month or two.
Senator Lankford. Okay. Great. The findings at that point
that I saw were marginally positive impact on the
macroeconomics, no big issues, same as what it was with the
earlier study as well. That was about 3 years ago.
GRANTS
Okay, let me walk through some of the grant issues. We are
talking about a lot of increases in grant dollars. One of the
questions that I always have is, how do we track that? Once you
release a grant dollar out, for effectiveness, for use, how it
is going, the diversity of the different groups that get it. So
let me just ask a couple questions on it.
When you start to track through this, how do you evaluate
the performance of the grant money? Do you have a set formula
for that? Do you have a set of criteria that we are releasing
these grant dollars for this particular project, and this is
the end goal? Or is it more open than that? Basically, I am
asking, how do we help look back on the money and say, the
money was spent, was that spent wisely?
Secretary Moniz. It actually varies by program. I will give
just maybe two examples.
For example, we just mentioned ARPA-E. That is a case where
the program managers are very active and engaged with the
projects all along, monitoring success, guaranteeing early
rather than late failure, if that is where it is going. Whereas
in the Office of Science, if it is a university grant, it is
more that the universities execute and produce their published
papers and reports.
Senator Lankford. So what I want to be able to evaluate is,
before the money goes out the door, we have a set of evaluation
metrics that we know about this grant, whether it is going to a
university or somewhere else. Are you confident at this point
every one of these grant opportunities go out there with a way
to measure success on these?
I understand this is research, so not everything turns out
positive. I get that. That is why you do research. I am trying
to figure out how we evaluate the metrics of this at the end.
Do you feel confident that every one of these grant
opportunities, regardless of how it goes out the door, has
evaluation metrics?
Secretary Moniz. Well, again, if we are not using metric in
an overly formal sense, because it is done differently in each
program, then I would say the answer is yes.
Senator Lankford. Okay, that will be one of the things I
want to be able to track on it. How do you track, at this
point, research that would be done by the public sector and
research that would be done only by us? What we are trying to
determine often is, what is the research that will not be done
unless we do it cooperatively as a Nation, that would be
beneficial to the Nation long-term, rather than dipping into
research that some corporation would have done, but they would
be glad for the American taxpayer to pay for it instead? But if
we pay for, great, they would love to have the research done,
but we do not need to do that research, they would do it. Does
that make sense?
Secretary Moniz. Sure. I mean, that is part of the judgment
of the research managers have to use. Although I would slightly
modify it and say that sometimes the judgment is not just that
it would not be done otherwise, but that we may feel that there
is a major public benefit to an acceleration of it. Then we
might do some cost-sharing to incentivize earlier work by the
private sector.
Senator Lankford. Okay, so then at that point, we are
helping the private sector do their research or we take it away
from them, and we would take it on? If you are seeing something
that is ongoing that the public sector is already doing and we
can accelerate it?
Secretary Moniz. Or they are not doing it yet, but we would
like them to get into it and accelerate. That is where we are
assigning the public benefit, in those cases. But again, in
other cases, obviously, most cases, it is about something that
would not otherwise be done.
In particular, the biggest criterion is capturing
especially precompetitive work that one individual entity would
not otherwise capture the benefits of and, therefore, would be
reluctant to invest in it.
AGENCY-TO-AGENCY RESEARCH
Senator Lankford. Right. And the final issue, and I do not
want you to have to answer this, because I am out of time on
it, is the agency-to-agency. This is one of the areas I want us
to provide more oversight as a committee to be able to ask just
the basic questions. Could it be done? Is it being done by
another agency? Could it be done by an outside agency, if the
taxpayer doesn't do it, freeing up dollars for us to be able to
do other things? And finally, good evaluation tools, so at the
backside of it, we can evaluate how it was used.
To me, that is a philosophical oversight issue that we can
take on as a committee, and I would look to be able to partner
with you on the things that you have already learned that we
can continue to use in the years ahead.
Secretary Moniz. Okay.
Senator Lankford. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Lankford.
Senator Murray.
HANFORD SITE
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Moniz, let me start with the Hanford site in
central Washington. Year after year, I have found the
President's budget to be shortsighted and inadequate when it
comes to Hanford. This is really troubling because, as you well
know, the Federal Government has a legal and a moral obligation
to clean up Hanford and the other nuclear waste sites across
the Nation.
Now I do appreciate your focus on the tank farms and waste
treatment plant and implementing direct, low-feed waste to
begin processing waste as early as 2022. But I find it
unacceptable that the President's budget essentially robs
Richland operations to pay for the Office of River Protection's
waste treatment mission. It is really critical that we finish
the job on all fronts.
I have a hard time seeing how that will get done when the
administration has once again cut RL (Richland Operations
Office) by $190 million. That is nearly double the amount that
was cut last year.
With those kinds of significant cuts, how is the
administration going to meet its legally binding commitments to
the Tri-Cities community?
Secretary Moniz. Well, certainly, as you say, Senator
Murray, first of all, within a limited total budget, we are
trying to make sure we address the priorities, including those
areas that I think have the highest risk, which especially is
liquid waste at a variety of sites.
Now coming to Richland, first of all, and I think you would
agree, that we have made very substantial progress in the last
year, certainly along the river corridor, for example. And the
fiscal year 2017 budget will have major progress, complete the
demolition of the plutonium finishing plant, move sludge from
the K area away from the river, pumping the plateau, a lot of
progress on the landfill.
Senator Murray. I appreciate that. But several of the high-
risk projects that are close to the Columbia River and the City
of Richland, specifically the 324 building and the 618-10
burial grounds, they are underfunded in the President's budget,
despite this subcommittee's clear support for completing them.
So I want to ask you for your commitment that these
critical projects will be funded, and if you could give me a
detailed plan on how you are going to do that.
Secretary Moniz. Sure, we certainly will do so. But I would
emphasize that building 324, we are doing the procurements we
need and will in fiscal year 2017, for the novel robotics
technologies that we are going to need. So we can't just go in
and move the dirt out until we develop the robotics.
But we hear you, and we will respond to that.
Senator Murray. Okay, well, we made a decision to focus
cleanup on the reactors in the 300 area that is closest to the
Columbia River and City of Richland. We have made great
strides. But I really fear that this budget overall really
foreshadows a decision by DOE to claim victory at RL and walk
away from all the other cleanup RL is responsible for on the
central plateau. RL still has a long list of cleanup on the
central plateau, about 1,000 waste sites. We have 500
facilities, contaminated groundwater, all pose risk to the
public, to the environment, and to the work force.
Every year that those are not addressed, DOE spends
millions of dollars on surveillance and maintenance.
So it is really critical that we know we have a commitment
to that and not set it aside as we try to get all the critical
work done on that. So I just wanted to make that point to you
today.
Secretary Moniz. Yes. We are trying to prioritize the
risks. But let's work together on that. We will come back with
a plan.
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY
Senator Murray. Okay. And finally, I want to ask you about
the Columbia River Treaty. In December 2013, the administration
was presented a regional consensus to modernize the Columbia
River Treaty. It was a multiyear process involving our
Northwest tribes and all of our stakeholders, and the entire
Northwest delegation urged the administration to begin formal
negotiations with Canada. But not a lot of progress has been
made.
My constituents are really concerned about the impacts the
change in administration will have on these negotiations, and I
wanted to urge you today to push the administration to begin
these formal negotiations with Canada, and I really hope that
you will proactively raise the Columbia River Treaty when Prime
Minister Trudeau visits the United States this week.
Secretary Moniz. If I may say, Senator Murray, because we
agree with you, and, as you know, Bonneville is our lead
negotiator in that, that I met with Secretary Kerry last week,
and we both agreed about the importance of pushing this along.
There is a negotiator and we certainly would like to----
Senator Murray. We have had a negotiator for a while. We
need this to get started, because we cannot afford to wait,
once the new administration, whoever it is, to reeducate
everybody, have new people appointed, and get it started. It
needs to get started now.
Secretary Moniz. Agreed.
Senator Murray. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Murray.
Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is good to see you, Mr. Secretary. I saw you not too
long ago, I think at our Energy Committee.
Secretary Moniz. Sorry.
Senator Hoeven. I say, I think we saw each other at our
Energy Committee not too long ago.
Secretary Moniz. Yes, we did.
Senator Hoeven. So it is nice to have you back.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
Senator Hoeven. It is good to see you again.
CARBON CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION
I know this will surprise you immensely, but I am going to
follow up on something we talked about there.
We have companies in North Dakota, as you know, having been
to North Dakota are capturing CO2 and sequestering
it. You are at the Dakota Gasification Company where they are
capturing. It is a coal-fired electric plant. Actually in their
case, they convert coal to synthetic natural gas. But then they
capture the CO2, and we pipe it off to the oil
fields and use it for tertiary oil recovery.
We have other companies with power plants, coal-fired
electric power plants, now they produce electricity, not
synthetic methane. But they are trying to develop and implement
post-combustion carbon capture retrofits to existing plans
greater than 350 megawatt equivalent.
Since you are a nuclear physicist, I know you understand
that perfectly.
They are, in fact, working with a very outstanding
organization, which I know you are also well aware of, and I
think our chairman may be as well, the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory located in the State of Tennessee.
So my simple question to you is, in your budget, you have
$170 million proposed for large-scale, carbon capture
sequestration demonstration projects. I am wondering if this
would be the kind of thing that you would seek to participate
in funding and developing in concert with some of our companies
that are trying to lead the way forward with this post-
combustion carbon capture technology, actually implementing it,
and working with such outstanding organizations as the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory.
Secretary Moniz. I would like to associate myself with your
quality statement about the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
First, yes, first of all, we are continuing some large-
scale capturing demonstrations. But as you have said, in the
fiscal year 2017 budget, we want to emphasize getting into
smallish pilot projects of more novel technologies, chemical
looping, oxy-combustion, et cetera. I think what you are
talking about sounds like----
Senator Hoeven. This is oxy-combustion.
Secretary Moniz. Yes, I believe, again, I do not know all
the details, but I believe it involves oxy-combustion and
supercritical CO2, which we are also supporting in
the fiscal year 2017 budget.
So again, I think what we need is to have perhaps a group
come in and provide a briefing on exactly what the cycle is. If
it is a novel cycle, then that will be a question of going
through a proposal process with our group.
But we think this is a good time to really start pushing
our next generation capture cycles.
Senator Hoeven. But am I right, this is the kind of project
that you are looking at using that funding for?
Secretary Moniz. I do not know enough about it. From what I
have heard----
Senator Hoeven. You are not going to commit right here and
now.
Secretary Moniz. No, I am not. But it looks encouraging.
Senator Hoeven. Good.
Secretary Moniz. If it combines oxy and CO2
supercritical, that is already an interesting cycle.
Senator Hoeven. And the State of North Dakota is already
working with these projects through our energy council, wherein
the State participates through funding and other support as
well as the University of North Dakota through the Energy and
Environmental Research Center, which I think you have also
visited.
Secretary Moniz. I visited, and we support.
Senator Hoeven. Okay, thank you.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Alexander.
Good to see you again, Secretary Moniz. You are working
hard on so many different issues, and many of them impact New
Mexico, as you know.
CONTRACT TRANSITIONS AT THE NATIONAL LABORATORIES
We have two national security labs, Sandia and Los Alamos,
that are doing very important national security work on
preserving the stockpile and the capabilities.
As you know, these major programs include the life
extension projects. There is an issue I want to raise there,
because you have pending contract negotiations for both Sandia
and Los Alamos. I am concerned about losing sight of the ball
during these transitions.
Can we have your commitment you will work to ensure the
transitions at the labs are as seamless as possible, and that
we do not lose focus of the important national security work
during this period?
Secretary Moniz. Yes. And I can assure you that we are
already thinking hard about that issue of the transitions.
Senator Udall. Good. Thank you.
Secretary Moniz. Of all the labs, actually, especially
those in New Mexico.
Senator Udall. Especially those, and I believe the one in
California that the ranking member, Senator Feinstein, also----
Secretary Moniz. I meant because of the contracts.
Senator Udall. Yes, the contracts on those.
OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSITIONS
Now you and I have visited, and you had a visit to New
Mexico, on technology transfer. We were very grateful to have
Jetta Wong, the director of DOE's Office of Technology
Transitions, out to New Mexico last fall to meet with some of
the laboratory personnel at Sandia and Los Alamos.
Expanding technology transfer I think is critical to
maximize the economic impact of taxpayer dollars at the labs,
so that innovations can move from the lab to the marketplace.
I support a permanent line item for the Office of
Technology Transitions and its critical missions.
My question is, does $8.4 million in your request provide
the resources needed to administer the technology
commercialization fund and coordinate tech transfer initiatives
across all 17 national labs? And does the OTT (Office of
Technology Transitions) have the flexibility it needs to
effectively match funds with private partners?
Secretary Moniz. Well, first, we do think the $8.5 million,
roughly, is sufficient for the office to do that. Of course,
that is working with the technology transitions offices in the
various laboratories.
There is one issue of flexibility where I am concerned. It
is not about the matching funds per se, but the question about
whether the technology commercialization fund must be spent
exactly proportionally to each office's contribution versus
allowing some more flexibility. Otherwise, it is very small,
individual pots.
But that is one area where I would say it may be
challenging.
Senator Udall. If there is any help we can give on that,
please let us know.
Secretary Moniz. Great.
MISSION INNOVATION
Senator Udall. I am also very interested in this Mission
Innovation that I think you and I have spoken about, a new
initiative to double funding in DOE's clean energy research
portfolio over the next 5 years.
Could you tell us a little bit about that and how you see
that moving forward to meet the energy challenges of the
future?
Secretary Moniz. Again, I think this is really about the
highest priority right now in terms of moving forward in the
energy space. It will both enhance critical programs that we
already have. We have mentioned ARPA-E several times, but there
are others, the Energy Frontier Research Centers at both
laboratories and universities, the bioenergy centers, a whole
set of them, the hubs, which are principally at the
laboratories.
They will be within that new area. For example, we propose
a significant expansion, actually a tripling of the Energy-
Water Nexus Crosscut. That would include a new hub focused on
desalinization, energy efficient desalinization, very
important. We also have a large grid program, actually, the
labs put together a grid program. And last year we committed
over $200 million to lab-led programs on the grid.
But in addition, there will be some new thrusts, one of
which I mentioned in my opening statement is we proposed $110
million to go toward new regional energy partnerships with the
idea that that can stimulate innovation ecosystems across our
entire country.
WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PROJECT
Senator Udall. Great. I just wanted to double-check with
you on the opening of WIPP. I understand that you have it on
track to reopen.
Secretary Moniz. We believe that we are on still on track
for late this year, to begin placing TRU waste.
Senator Udall. And one of the important things there is
making sure that it reopens safely----
Secretary Moniz. Absolutely.
Senator Udall. [continuing]. In terms of the employees and
everyone. As you know, that has been my main concern with WIPP.
But thank you very much for the job you are doing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Mr. Secretary, for being here this afternoon.
SITING AND PERMITTING ENERGY PROJECTS
The agency's 2015 quadrennial energy review calls for more
public participation in the siting and permitting process for
energy projects. We have two projects in New Hampshire that
there is a great deal of concern about in the communities that
they are going through. One is in the northern part of State
called Northern Pass, which is a project bringing down
waterpower from Hydro-Quebec. The other is a gas pipeline that
is going through the southwestern part of the State.
I just wonder if you can talk about the importance of
public engagement in siting and permitting these kinds of
energy projects, because I think it is fair to say that the
people who are going to be affected by those projects feel
like, while there have been public hearings and there is a
process in place, many people do not feel like that process is
really taking into account what their concerns are and has
responded adequately to that.
So can you talk about that and also talk about whether
there is more that FERC can do to address public concerns
because they have, from the public perspective, a very opaque
process for how they operate and what their decisions depend
on.
Secretary Moniz. I can certainly speak more about the DOE's
approach. I certainly agree with the importance of input,
including being sometimes patient, in terms of going through
the process.
NORTHERN PASS
To take Northern Pass, I think the process has already
resulted in changes in the proposal. I think it was 50 miles,
roughly, more now going underground, which was a positive. That
was filed. We have reopened public comment.
Frankly, I think there are four meetings this week in New
Hampshire, public meetings on that. And frankly, we appreciated
working with you and the delegation in terms of how the
scheduling and locations would be optimally set.
So we will be getting the feedback from this week's
meetings on Northern Pass.
With regard to FERC, I really cannot say too much in terms
of how they might modify processes. I think you would have to
ask Norman Bay.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Senator Shaheen. We have tried that.
I want to switch to energy efficiency, because I was
pleased to see that the budget request includes strong funding
for energy efficiency programs and EERE (Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy).
As I know you are aware, because you are from New England,
we have faced very high energy costs for decades in the
Northeast. For many businesses, next to the cost of personnel
and product costs, it is often the next highest cost of doing
business in New England.
Secretary Moniz. And a competitive question, therefore.
Senator Shaheen. Yes. One of the things that for many of
those small businesses that has been very helpful has been
their ability to be more energy efficient and to access
assistance with that energy efficiency.
So can you talk about initiatives within EERE that will
help small businesses as they are trying to facilitate the
deployment of energy efficiency technologies?
Secretary Moniz. Certainly, again, I really appreciate your
strong focus on efficiency because, again, I have said it
before, but I would like to repeat it, I have never seen a
credible solution to meeting our long-term goals without major
demand-side contribution.
Senator Shaheen. Right.
Secretary Moniz. So it is critical.
So we are working across-the-board. We are working with
buildings, in particular commercial buildings. Things like the
Better Buildings Challenge are critical. That has been
tremendously successful. And it is really just using our
convening power as opposed to budget. So this kind of branding
and a critical requirement to share best practices, that is
having a huge impact.
Of course, on weatherization for homes, we do propose a
several percent increase in the budget. Another different
direction--okay, I will mention first the R&D.
On the R&D, we propose a substantial increase in terms of
the technology development for building efficiency. That has
multiple aspects.
In terms of standards, I would note that we just put out a
notice of proposed rulemaking on general service lamps. By the
way, I also just did something for the NHL, who has made a huge
move toward LEDs and other energy efficiency activities.
Senator Shaheen. By NHL you mean National Hockey League?
Secretary Moniz. National Hockey League.
Senator Shaheen. I just want to clarify that. Right.
Secretary Moniz. Believe it or not, the National Hockey
League and NASCAR are two organizations that are really pushing
hard on clean energy. We are working with them. With NHL, it is
LEDs, refrigeration, and other kinds of issues.
But also I would note that in just the last year, this is
quite relevant to small businesses and commercial enterprises,
we put out a consensus standard done with the stakeholders as
opposed to a more formal DOE rulemaking on commercial furnaces,
the rooftop kind of boxes. That is a very big deal. It is the
biggest efficiency rule that we put out, and it was done on a
consensus basis representing the different relevant sectors.
So it is really across the board, from R&D to standards to
convening and getting best practices shared.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I assume you would agree with
me that it would be very good for us to pass the energy bill
that is currently on the floor the Senate?
Secretary Moniz. Maybe even a further strengthened one.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND
Mr. Secretary, Senator Feinstein asked you about the $674
million that the President's budget allocates from the USEC
Fund, in fact, for cleaning up uranium enrichment sites in
Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio. That $674 million is not now
authorized for that purpose, is that correct?
Secretary Moniz. Well, my understanding is that those are
existing funds that have been put there--as I said, in 2000----
Senator Alexander. No, I don't think that is correct. I
think they are authorized for USEC. They are not authorized to
clean up uranium enrichment sites.
Secretary Moniz. I will correct this for the record, if it
is incorrect, but I believe in 2000, there was specifically a
designation of part of that fund for cleanup, for D&D.
Senator Alexander. Staff says it is a small portion that
never got used.
Secretary Moniz. It was a small portion, but as a reminder,
all of that fund bears interest, and it is now a very
substantial amount.
Senator Alexander. It is a substantial fund. But the bottom
line I think, if we cannot use that fund, there are zero
dollars in your budget for cleaning up uranium enrichment sites
in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio. Isn't that correct?
Secretary Moniz. We certainly need to continue that work.
And again, we proposed a way of going back to the initial
concept, that the users pay with a very, very small fee.
Senator Alexander. I think the answer is there is zero,
unless we can use the USEC money, right?
Secretary Moniz. Our proposal is to use the USEC Fund.
Senator Alexander. Right. But I am not convinced that we
have the authority to use it. So why have you not asked
Congress to reauthorize the money so that we can use it for the
purpose you intend?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I think our budget proposal to the
Congress----
Senator Alexander. But it would require new legislation,
would it not? I mean, wouldn't the Energy Committee have to
reauthorize the use of the money for the purpose you now
intend?
Secretary Moniz. First of all, we have, of course,
discussed this with the Energy Committee last week.
Senator Alexander. But you have not sent them any
legislation.
Secretary Moniz. Again, I do not want to get onto shaky
ground with that, in terms of what is needed. My impression is
that certainly Congress could go forward with that fund, but it
would require----
Senator Alexander. With all respect for you, and you know I
have a lot for you, I think you are already on shaky ground
here.
Secretary Moniz. I mean, we certainly can be forthcoming
with a proposal for legislation.
Senator Alexander. I think basically the administration has
done something that other administrations have done for things
they think Congress will find other money for. The Army Corps
of Engineers is the second example. They know Congress cares
about that because people care about it, so they underfund it,
knowing that we will have to make up the money, which we did
last year.
And you know that we have to clean up the uranium
enrichment sites in those three States, so basically you put
zero in the budget for it, knowing we are going to have to use
discretionary money, and that means reduce other funding.
So I would ask that if you want us to use that, that you
consider sending promptly up to the Congress a request for the
authority to do it----
Secretary Moniz. Okay.
Senator Alexander. [continuing]. If it is needed. Let me go
back----
Secretary Moniz. We will follow up on that, Mr. Chairman.
CARBON USE AND REUSE
Senator Alexander. [continuing]. To something we discussed
privately before. I am not a scientist and I do not pretend to
be, but my common sense is pretty good.
We are in a swivet in this country and the world over
climate change and the need to produce carbon-free electricity.
And we figured out a way in our power plants to get rid of
sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury, and a number of other elements.
As a result, the air in Tennessee around the Smoky
Mountains is a lot cleaner. You can actually see the Smokies.
People like that.
We have not really figured out as well a commercially
viable way to capture carbon and do something with it if it
comes out of a power plant, out of a coal-fired power plant or
out of a gas-fired power plant.
There is a limited mechanism we have for capture and
sequestration, which could be available some places. But even
if it is available, it is very expensive. And the process of
carbon capture for any purpose is expensive.
Would it not be a huge priority for this clean energy
research to see if we can reduce the cost of carbon capture and
find some commercially viable use for what we capture? Wouldn't
that permit us to use unlimited amounts of coal and gas, and
reduce poverty around the world, and reduce the cost of
electricity?
Secretary Moniz. We totally agree. I think we are doing
that. Maybe we could do more, but we are doing that across-the-
board.
So first of all, again, the fiscal year 2017 budget
specifically has the proposal for doing three novel
technologies, obviously, with the hope that they would also be
lower cost.
I do want to emphasize, even with conventional capture, the
costs have been coming down with more and more use. And also
the enhanced oil recovery, when the oil prices were higher,
especially, provided a substantial offset against the cost.
That is another issue lower oil costs have impacted.
So we are working on the front-end of different capture
technologies, not just with different solvents but with
different processes like chemical looping.
Then on the backside, one example of a hub is the one that
is basically working on sunlight to fuels, which means sunlight
plus water plus CO2 to fuels.
Senator Alexander. Is that the ARPA-E company?
Secretary Moniz. No, no. This is a hub, combination of
Caltech and Berkeley doing that. But I think ARPA-E also has a
program for this.
The trick is the product has to be something with enormous
use in the economy because of the magnitude of the
CO2.
Senator Alexander. Right, I understand. You can turn it
into limestone, but who needs that much limestone, or whatever
it is.
My time is up, but it just seems to me that, from a common-
sense point of view, that is the holy grail of clean energy
research, because if you can actually figure out how to make a
commercially viable use of capturing carbon and then using it,
holy smokes.
Secretary Moniz. Mr. Chairman, I think, to me that is
exactly the kind of big thing we would like to do in Mission
Innovation.
And by the way, I think I can say that when Bill Gates uses
a prime example, that is the one he uses.
Senator Alexander. Senator Feinstein.
WATER DESALINATION
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I have
four questions, but the first one is kind of interesting.
I am a big believer in desal. I would like to see it go
ahead. There are 27 proposals for the coast of California. I
saw where you have a proposal for $45,100,000 for one of these
hubs on desal. So I thought, well, is this to develop a third-
stage membrane to improve the reverse osmosis process, and I
took a look at the budget.
Mr. Secretary, let me tell you what this says: The Energy-
Water Nexus Crosscutting Initiative, which draws on ideas--this
is under this section--presented in DOE's report ``The Water-
Energy Nexus Challenges and Opportunities,'' is an integrated
set of cross program initiatives that builds and deploys on a
DOE mission critical data modeling and analysis platform to
improve understanding and informed decisionmaking.
It goes on like that. I come to the end, I mean, I do not
understand a single word in this. And yet, at least my approval
has to go on this.
Why does your staff write budgets like this?
Secretary Moniz. I will have to ask them.
[Laughter.]
Secretary Moniz. If I could say it in English, $25 million
of it will be the desal hub, looking at novel technologies. We
will be looking at wastewater utilization, at the issues of how
one moves water over large distances, all of which, of course,
are quite relevant to California, for example.
Senator Feinstein. Yes, but stop. I understand the big
problem is that the energy coefficient is not positive, ergo
the need for a better membrane, reverse osmosis membrane. So
the needed research is to come up with what is called a third-
stage membrane. So I wanted to see if this is it. But nowhere
on page 62 is there any specific information as to what would
be funded in this desal hub.
So I am sure not going to vote for it until I know what it
is going to do, because I know what the need is for the third-
stage membrane.
Secretary Moniz. We will send to you a white paper.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Well, that I can understand.
Secretary Moniz. Right.
NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY
Senator Feinstein. Let me talk about the National Ignition
Facility. It was supposed to have achieved limited controlled
fusion burn, also called ignition, in 2012. Now I am told it
will be as long as 10 years before ignition will be achieved,
if ever.
The question is, what is the present status of the ignition
effort? The last time I was there, they were not going for
ignition. They were going for other things.
Can you share your view of the likelihood of NIF (National
Ignition Facility) ever achieving ignition?
Secretary Moniz. So I think it is important as a prologue
to say that there is a lot of work, critical work, frankly,
most of the stockpile stewardship work, without ignition, has
made major contributions, especially in exploring extreme
pressure regimes for weapons.
And also, the other piece of good news is last year there
were a record number of shots, I think 350, if I recall
correctly.
But on ignition, that has proved very elusive. They are
still looking at different designs of targets to try to get
there. I have to be honest. I cannot sit here and in any sense
guarantee that it will reach ignition. I can say that it has
provided extremely useful and important data for the stockpile
stewardship program.
Senator Feinstein. As you know, this is a very expensive
program. If it is not going to reach its goal, which I
understand it may never be able to produce fusion----
Secretary Moniz. As I said, I certainly would not
guarantee--yes, ignition or fusion.
However, frankly, I think it should have been phrased
differently--I do not mean by you; I mean by them--because the
real goal, the key goal, was exploring extreme regimes of
pressure and temperature of relevance to nuclear weapons, and
that has been done.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I was here when Pete Domenici was
on the committee and opposed this. We voted for it. And here we
are 10 years-plus later, and it is not there.
Now here is another one.
I am sorry, may I take a couple minutes?
Senator Alexander. Sure.
INTERNATIONAL THERMONUCLEAR EXPERIMENTAL REACTOR
Senator Feinstein. ITER. If the United States remains a
partner, the ITER project would require a yearly appropriation
soon of between $250 million and $400 million. It is my
understanding that such a funding level would make ITER the
single most expensive Office of Science project on a yearly
basis. Such a funding requirement would negatively impact our
ability to invest in new or upgraded scientific facilities such
as the light sources.
Today, in the fiscal year 2017 budget request, fusion
energy science is the lowest priority of science programs. It
was cut by 9 percent while other programs went up from 3
percent to 7 percent.
So the fiscal year 2016 bill requires you to make a
recommendation to Congress by May 6, 2016, on whether the
United States should remain a partner in the ITER project or
withdraw. What is your current thinking?
Secretary Moniz. Senator Feinstein, first of all, let me
just note that while the total budget went down in fusion, the
ITER request is up slightly, I think $10 million, at least
provisionally until we make the May report. But a big part--I
can say this now that I am no longer recused. A big part of
that is the elimination of the MIT program in that budget.
With regard to ITER, we will have a report in April that
will be a key piece of information for the May report. I would
say for sure that the management has really significantly I
think been upgraded with Mr. Bigot as the director general.
But we have to see in April what the project review
information is. Then we will get back to Congress in early May.
Senator Feinstein. Well, this is an international program.
I do not know why we need to participate, candidly. If we
continue to do so, the costs are huge. I mean, I am really a
doubting Thomasina there.
LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM
Let me ask you another one, and that is loan guarantee
program number two. There is already $4 billion in loan
authority tied to uranium enrichment. $2 billion of the
enrichment loan authority is tied to the conditional loan
guarantee with Areva, a French state-owned company. This
conditional loan guarantee was made in 2010. In May, it will be
6 years.
To my staff's knowledge, and therefore, my knowledge, there
has been no tangible action related to the Areva conditional
loan in years.
The other $2 billion in uranium enrichment loan authority
was previously widely viewed as tied to USEC, and USEC has gone
through bankruptcy, and the department just closed the project
in Ohio.
So question: Why not reclassify the existing $4 billion
uranium enrichment loan authority for fossil and renewable
energy rather than seek new loan authority?
Secretary Moniz. Well, we would similarly need the
authority of Congress to do that.
Senator Feinstein. Is that your proposal?
Secretary Moniz. No, our proposal was $4 billion of
additional authority, but if one chose instead to try to
relabel it--as you said, that is for fossil efficiency and
renewables. The nuclear loan program does have considerable
amount of remaining authority, but we do not have the authority
to transfer that to renewables.
Senator Feinstein. Could the chairman and I and you, could
we sit down and discuss this?
Secretary Moniz. Sure, I would be delighted.
Senator Feinstein. Maybe at the end of the discussion, at
least I will know exactly the pros and cons of this.
Secretary Moniz. Yes. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. We have yet to receive a proposal
from the department as to how much crude oil the SPRO intends
to sell in fiscal year 2017, for the purpose of SPRO
modernization. When can we expect to see a budget amendment
from the department proposing that sale?
Secretary Moniz. We are working to get that as soon as
possible. The report is due in May, and we would like to try to
accelerate that. We are working hard at that. I cannot give you
a fixed date, but we have every motivation to try to get that
to you as soon as we can.
Senator Feinstein. Yes, thank you.
Secretary Moniz. And we would like to start that program in
fiscal year 2017.
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
What do you think the chances are that we could--are we wed
to that loan guarantee of Areva? Nothing has happened. It is 6
years, no tangible action.
Secretary Moniz. I cannot discuss an individual
application, however----
Senator Feinstein. It was for USEC.
Secretary Moniz [continuing]. I would just note that right
now the whole uranium enrichment market is, if anything,
oversupplied, and I think there is not a strong commercial
motivation right now.
Senator Feinstein. Okay, so what you are saying is that we
really do not need it, so I assume you will take some action to
change that.
Secretary Moniz. I will consult with the program in terms
of what action we take.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Do you have any other questions?
Senator Feinstein. No, that is fine.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Secretary. It seems to me
that Senator Feinstein has raised some issues we need to
pursue.
INTERNATIONAL THERMONUCLEAR EXPERIMENTAL REACTOR
The ITER decision, it may be a nice thing to participate
in, but we have real, pressing budget priorities here that we
are going to have a hard time meeting, and we are counting on
you with your background to help us make a correct decision on
that, not just whether it is something that might be nice, but
whether it is more important than the other options that we
have to fund.
URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND
Number two, that $674 million is a problem. You know that.
I know that. If you really think you want to use some of that
$1.8 billion to help pay for it, then we need to get resolved
the authority to do that.
Secretary Moniz. So we will follow your suggestion about
presenting some language.
MIXED OXIDE FUEL FABRICATION FACILITY
Senator Alexander. And three, Senator Feinstein and I both
want to continue a deliberate focus on MOX. We have discussed
it in-depth before. When we dealt with the uranium facility, we
had a red team to take a look at it. It came back with a
recommendation. We adopted the recommendation. We have a cap of
$6.5 billion and a date of 2025, and we have a path toward
getting there, so we have resolved that.
The MOX is a different kind of problem. You have
recommended that we switch from one way of dealing with the
plutonium to another. Your red team, that separate red team,
told us basically that the cost might save us $500 billion a
year.
Secretary Moniz. $500 million.
Senator Alexander. $500 million a year. I have to get my
b's and m's right. $500 million a year.
Secretary Moniz. It may be $600 million or $700 million,
actually.
Senator Alexander. So you are saying it could be $500
million to $700 million or $800 million a year for many years
that might be the difference in spending.
So we have an obligation to the taxpayer to address that
question and to do it promptly. I think you are correct to try
to address it in the budget, and we need to take sufficient
time to deal with it.
We know that requires a discussion with Russia. We know
that we have to have a place to put the plutonium. We also know
that there is a place to put the plutonium today, as soon as
WIPP opens, which you would expect to be later this year. Is
that correct?
Secretary Moniz. Initial operations.
Senator Alexander. Initial operations. There is a backlog
of material to go to WIPP, and the South Carolina plutonium
would have to get in line. But my understanding is that all 13
tons of plutonium that are now in South Carolina could go into
the WIPP facility once it reopens without changing the law and
adding new land. Is that correct?
Secretary Moniz. Correct.
Senator Alexander. But that still leaves open the question
of what to do about the entire 34 tons that we are obligated to
deal with and what about an agreement with Russia.
So Senator Graham and others are right to want an answer to
that. The taxpayers are going to want to know from us why we
are spending $500 million to $800 million a year on something
where we could have saved that much money, if that is true, and
when we have very pressing other needs, for example, cleaning
up uranium enrichment, clean energy investment, the Office of
Science investments.
So I will be working with Senator Feinstein and Senator
Graham and others who are interested to set up a scheduled
discussion to permit us to deal with the MOX issue on a
deliberate basis.
Secretary Moniz. Great. I am certainly happy to work with
you on that.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Alexander. Well, the hearing record will remain
open for 10 days. Members may submit additional information or
questions for the record within that time, if they would like.
The subcommittee requests all responses to questions for the
record to be provided within 30 days of receipt.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Dr. Ernest J. Moniz
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question. The fiscal year 2016 Energy and Water Appropriations bill
provided $62,100,000 for the Advanced Fuels program to continue
implementation of accident tolerant fuels development. It is my
understanding that implementing the second phase of DOE's proposed fuel
Development plan, which follows the completion of Phase 1 this fall,
would require an increase in funding of approximately $15 million. The
Department's budget request for fiscal year 2017 reduces funding for
the ATF program by $3 million.
Can you please explain to the Committee the why Department has not
requested the necessary funds to this program?
Answer. The development of advanced light water reactor fuel with
enhanced accident tolerance continues to be a high priority for the
Office of Nuclear Energy. The Department is working toward the goal set
by Congress after the Fukushima accident to install test fuel rods or
an assembly in a commercial power reactor by 2022. The fiscal year 2017
Budget Request for the Fuel Cycle R&D Advanced Fuels subprogram
balances work toward this near term goal with research on longer-term
Advanced Light Water Reactor (LWR) fuel concepts, long term
transmutation fuel concepts, cross cutting infrastructure development,
and modeling and simulation support.
Phase 2 of the Accident Tolerant Fuel (ATF) program is planned to
begin in fiscal year 2017 and will be a 6-year effort to develop and
qualify a small number of the most promising concepts. The number of
concepts under investigation in fiscal year 2017 and beyond will drop
sharply relative to the number of concepts that underwent preliminary
investigations in Phase 1 due to down selecting to the most promising
concepts from Phase 1.
Question. Congress has been supportive of the Administration's
efforts to promote the use of safe and clean nuclear energy, including
Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D)
program. The Committee and the Congress have continued to encourage the
Department to support the development and evaluation of nuclear power
technologies that are safer, create less waste, less costly, and more
proliferation-resistant. It is my understanding that the Department
recently awarded two contracts through the Advanced Reactor Concepts
program.
Please detail for the members of this Subcommittee the projected
cost of delivered power for each of these applications, in addition to
the estimated amount and type of waste each applicant's reactor would
produce.
Answer. The two awards issued by the Advanced Reactor Technologies
(ART) program are at the early conceptual design phase, which limits
the quantitative information available to accurately project costs of
delivered power and waste generation. At this stage of development, one
awardee's concept is indicating the potential for the costs of
delivered power to be lower cost than conventional light water reactor
technology based on innovative design features and, due to a liquid
fuel form, it is expected to have a lower volume of waste than
conventional light water reactor technology. The other awardee's
concept draws heavily on NE's R&D program and is estimating higher
efficiency electricity production that could contribute to a lower cost
of power than conventional light water reactor technology, as well as a
significant reduction in waste generation through the use of high burn-
up fuel.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
Question. What are the Department's plans to continue the ongoing
and vital environmental cleanup operations at the Paducah site
following July 2017, when the current, 3-year deactivation contract is
scheduled to end?
Answer. The Department has an active procurement for a follow-on
contractor at the Paducah Site that will provide continuity for the
environmental cleanup operations and facility deactivation. The draft
Request for Proposal has been made available to the industry. We also
held an Industry Day from May 17-19, 2016. The Department is actively
executing a plan that will allow for a seamless transition to the next
contractor.
Question. I have concerns about the lack of commitment for ongoing
clean coal research in the President's fiscal year 2017 budget. For
example, the President's budget proposes to reprogram $240 million out
of the Fossil Energy Research and Development budget, which is
currently committed to a clean coal project in its final stages of
development. Congress explicitly appropriated funding for clean coal
projects, like this one. Do you intend to continue funding this project
to bring it to completion in the current fiscal year?
Answer. Following an extensive and careful review, DOE's Office of
Fossil Energy (FE) determined that advancing any additional Federal
funds would not substantively increase the likelihood of Texas Clean
Energy Project (TCEP) or Hydrogen Energy California Project (HECA)
success, and that no additional taxpayer funds should be put towards
these projects. A recent DOE Office of Inspector General audit report
reached a similar conclusion to FE's in regards to not advancing any
additional Federal funds to the TCEP project. DOE previously suspended
HECA project funding in January 2015 for failing to make sufficient
progress--most notably, not securing an approved site for the
sequestration of the site's carbon dioxide after more than 6 years of
effort. President's proposed fiscal year 2017 budget would use around
$211 million from TCEP project funds and around $29 million from HECA
project funds to secure the required $240 million for fiscal year 2017
FE R&D budget.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
Question. Domestic manufacturers of residential water heaters in
the State of Alabama have recently expressed concern about the lack of
a final rule from the Department of Energy (DOE) relating to new
efficiency standards. While interim guidance and a subsequent rating
became effective on July 13, 2015, the DOE has not yet published the
final conversion factor associated with this rule.
It is my understanding that DOE is continuing to work on this
matter and that this conversion factor allows manufacturers to
correctly rate existing products using the newly-established universal
efficiency descriptor, or UEF, without incurring the expense of
physically retesting individual and multiple products. Moreover, this
new metric also allows consumers to more effectively compare a broad
selection of water heating products and their efficiency to ensure the
most appropriate fit for their needs. Such a model was outlined by
Congress in the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act
(AEMTCA), on December 18, 2012, which also directed the DOE to
promulgate implementing regulations.
Secretary Moniz, does the DOE have a timeframe in which a final
rule and conversion factor will be released? Secondly, can I have your
assurance that an appropriate period of time, preferably at least 1
year to phase in all existing models, will be incorporated in any final
regulation to avoid disruption in the marketplace and compliance under
the new UEF?
Answer. The development of a mathematical conversion to a new
efficiency metric from a prior metric is a complex task that must be
given careful consideration in order to denominate standards and
ratings in the new metric that are equivalent to those under the
previous metric. This process requires a large amount of product
testing and analysis, and an opportunity for stakeholders to provide
comments, all of which can be time-intensive activities. The Department
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) on April 14, 2015 that
proposed a mathematical conversion and accompanying standards
denominated in the new efficiency metric. 80 FR 20116. The Department
also convened a public meeting to discuss its proposed conversions as
set forth in the NOPR, a meeting which generated significant
stakeholder comment. After the publication of that NOPR, the industry
trade association--the Air-conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute (AHRI)--provided additional test data to DOE to be used in
the development of the mathematical conversion factor. During this
period, DOE also conducted further testing of its own. Accordingly, DOE
undertook a re-analysis to incorporate such additional data and is
currently developing a supplemental NOPR that proposes a mathematical
conversion factor and accompanying standards based on the expanded
dataset. The Department plans to publish the supplemental NOPR in early
summer and a final rule later this year.
EPCA contains requirements to ensure that manufacturers' products
that currently comply with Federal standards remain compliant after the
conversion factor is issued. Specifically, EPCA requires that a covered
water heater must be considered to comply with the final rule and with
any revised labeling requirements established by the Federal Trade
Commission to carry out the final rule if the covered water heater was
manufactured prior to the effective date of the final rule and complied
with the efficiency standards and labeling requirements in effect prior
to the final rule (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)(5)(K)). The Department plans to
adopt an approach that would determine compliance consistent with the
requirements of EPCA.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham
Question. Secretary Moniz--On March 3, 2016, in response to a
question by Senator Cassidy about the contractor's commitment to the
MOX project you said: ``If I--may--if I may say precisely what the
discussion was, the definition of fixed cost that came back was fixed
cost unless we go over by a lot, and then you [DOE] pay. It's [the]
truth.'' Later, on March 9, 2016, in response to my question during the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water hearing, you
commented on the contractor's commitment to a plan for fixed-cost
pricing: ``You and I discussed that with them at some point and as we
know they came back in an unresponsive fashion.''
It is my understanding that the contractor made you an offer on
February 20, 2014 to provide fixed cost pricing, in exchange for DOE's
taking responsibility for changes to project scope or design that are
ordered by DOE. Are you aware of a last-best offer made to DOE by the
MOX contractor--in writing--on February 20, 2014? Are you also aware,
to quote the offer, that it would ``allow [the contractor] to move as
much as 100 percent of the scope into the fixed price `Bucket' in the
future? Finally, did DOE ever respond to the contractor's final offer,
on February 20, 2014, in writing?
Answer. The Department is aware of the proposal that the MOX
contractor sent to the Department in February 2014, but considered it
unresponsive as it still contained exclusions and would at best cover
only 75 percent of the remaining costs. This risk allocation is
particularly important given the nature and extent of the remaining
work to finish construction, startup, and operations of the MOX
facility leaving approximately $10 billion subject to cost
reimbursement, with no cost cap and potentially several billion in cost
overruns as MOX Services has demonstrated on the work they are
currently performing. In short this proposal did not meaningfully
reduce risk to the Department since it moved additional scope into the
fixed price category only after achieving milestones or triggers, many
of which would not occur until the end of the project. We verbally
communicated our rejection of it during discussions with the MOX
contractor.
Question. Secretary Moniz--On March 1, 2016, during the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water hearing, you stated
that an analysis conducted by High Bridge Associates on the potential
criticality problems at WIPP that may arise from packing 47 metric tons
of plutonium at the facility, along with the transuranic waste that
would go to WIPP, was evaluated by the Sandia National Laboratory. Can
you provide me, along with the appropriate congressional committees,
with a copy of the Sandia National Laboratory's analysis?
Answer. Yes, this analysis will be made available. A copy is
provided for the record.
Question. Secretary Moniz--On February, 23, 2016 and March 1, 2016,
respectively, you and NNSA Administrator Klotz hinted at the potential
need for a secondary repository, other than WIPP, to accommodate the
total 47 metric tons of plutonium. At the Senate Armed Services
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing on February 23, 2016,
Administrator Klotz responded with the following statement regarding my
question about where DOE would send the diluted Savannah River and MOX-
bound Plutonium: ``We would send it to either WIPP or a repository like
WIPP.'' Similarly, on March 1, 2016, during the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water hearing, you stated: ``We're not
saying that necessarily all of that [Savannah River and otherwise MOX-
bound plutonium] goes to New Mexico.'' Given these statements, has the
Administration identified potential states and sites for another
repository? Where are these sites located? What work has been done to
determine the viability to use alternate disposal sites?
Answer. In response to the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying
S. 1356, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016,
the Department prepared a report that provides additional information
relevant to these questions. The Department submitted the report to the
Senate Armed Services Committee in May 2016.
Question. Secretary Moniz--In all of your recent testimony to
Congress regarding the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement
of 2000 (PMDA), you have referred to ``informal discussions'' with both
the Russian government and with ROSATOM, the Russian-owned nuclear
power company and government agency responsible for implementing the
PMDA. It is acknowledged that, in order to uphold the PMDA, the
abandonment of MOX and a move towards the ``Dilute and Dispose''
alternative would require prior approval by the Russians. However,
there is much debate over whether the Russians would (1) be willing to
come to the negotiating table and (2) want something in return. If
Russia does not agree to move forward with the Dilute and Dispose
option, will the United States still proceed with this alternative
disposal method?
Answer. The PMDA (paragraph 1 of Article III) clearly provides a
path for the Parties to agree on methods of disposition that do not
entail irradiation as fuel in reactors (``any other methods that may be
agreed by the Parties in writing''). We expect that Russia will work
with us as we pursue a different method to achieve what is a mutually
beneficial goal, just as the U.S. supported Russia's reassessment of
its plutonium disposition strategy a few years ago.
The U.S. Government has had an ongoing dialogue with Russian
officials regarding the multiple analyses of plutonium disposition
alternatives. The U.S. Government has requested formal consultations
with Russia regarding the dilute and dispose method under the
provisions of the PMDA. It is premature to discuss concerns with this
approach before formal consultations begin.
Question. Secretary Moniz, while I disagree with your plan for
cancelling the MOX project, I know you share my feeling that the
Savannah River Site is a national asset in many areas, including
national security and innovate technology. Please give me your vision
for the future of the site over the next 5 years, and the next 10
years?
Answer. In support of the DOE Strategic Plan, the Savannah River
Site (SRS) is in the process of developing a joint Office of
Environmental Management (EM)/National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) site-wide Strategic Plan addressing focus areas of Nuclear
Security, Environmental Stewardship and Science and Energy. Completion
of the SRS Strategic Plan is expected by the end of calendar year 2016.
The focus areas of the plan include high level waste cleanup (including
commissioning and startup of the Salt Waste Processing Facility);
management and disposition of nuclear materials; continued optimization
of the Savannah River National Laboratory in support of EM technology
needs; and national security (e.g., tritium requirements).
______
Questions Submitted by Senator James Lankford
Question. The Department of Energy closed the public comment period
for the study on exporting 12-20 bcf/day of LNG in February; this study
found a ``marginally positive'' impact of higher LNG export volumes.
When will the Department finish responding to public comments on the
study?
Answer. The 2014 EIA LNG Export Study and DOE-commissioned 2015 LNG
Export Study (together, ``Studies'') examined the effects of LNG
exports from 12 to 20 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day (Bcf/
day). The Studies and all comments were entered into the legal
proceedings of all pending non-free trade agreement (FTA) LNG export
applications. The Department will summarize issues raised in the public
comments on the Studies and respond to these issues in the next final
non-FTA LNG export order that would cause cumulative approved non-FTA
LNG exports to exceed 12 Bcf/d.
Question. The latest DOE approval brought total authorized exports
to 11.80 bcf/day, making it likely that the next application before the
Department will breach the 12 bcf/day volume. When will DOE be able to
act on applications that would bring the total above 12 bcf/day?
Answer. The Department has established a pattern of issuing final
decisions on applications to export LNG to non-FTA countries promptly
after FERC has issued an order denying rehearing requests on projects
in which an environmental review was required and in which DOE was a
cooperating agency. In these cases, DOE had begun work on the public
interest review of these export applications while the environmental
review of the project at FERC was ongoing. Accordingly, DOE has begun
conducting public interest reviews of applications linked to
proceedings at FERC that are currently pending a FERC final order on
rehearing. These include applications by Lake Charles Exports, LLC and
Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. In keeping with past practice, DOE
expects to issue a final order promptly after FERC issues a final order
on rehearing for either the Lake Charles or Jordan Cove liquefaction
projects. If DOE authorizes the export volumes requested in one of
these two applications, the total volume of approved, long-term LNG
export authorizations to non-FTA countries would exceed 12 Bcf/d.
Question. DOE provides significant funding in the form of grants,
particularly out of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account.
This year DOE is asking for a 104 percent increase in spending in this
area, bringing the EERE budget to $4.233 billion for fiscal year 2017.
Congress and the Department have proper controls in place to ensure
that the goals of these programs are being met and funds are not being
used on projects that do not have a Federal interest.
What controls does DOE have in place to ensure that this money is
spent on research that would not be done at universities or by the
private sector without Federal involvement and investment?
Answer. Applied research areas are defined in both the DOE and EERE
strategic plans, as well as the multi-year plans maintained by EERE
technology program offices. EERE regularly hosts workshops and
publishes Requests for Information to help further define and regularly
update these plans. All DOE funding for university and private sector
execution are competitively awarded through Funding Opportunity
Announcements (FOAs). Elements of the process used for these awards
include:
--Deputy Assistant Secretaries approve requirements for FOAs. Their
formal approval review assesses every project relative to five
core questions:
--Impact--Is this a high-impact problem? If successfully developed
it should make material contributions toward national
energy goals.
--Additionality--Will EERE funding make a large difference relative
to existing funding from other sources, including the
private sector?
--Openness--Are we focusing on the broad problem we are trying to
solve and open to new ideas, approaches, and performers?
--Enduring Economic Impact--How will EERE funding result in
enduring economic impact for the United States?
--Proper Role of Government--Why is this investment a necessary,
proper, and unique role of government rather than something
best left to the private sector to address?
--Independent experts score proposals during the pre-award merit
review process prior to selection and award.
--Statements of Project Objectives establish milestones and success
metrics for each project. Progress and expenditures are managed
through EERE's Active Project Management program.
--A peer review process provides objective progress reviews
throughout a project's lifecycle and can inform program
decisions going forward. EERE engages experts, including
experts from industry and from other Federal agencies, to
review our project portfolios for effectiveness, currency and
impact.
Question. Does the Department have guidelines and metrics to
evaluate the performance of grants once they are awarded? What are
these metrics?
Answer. Yes, the Department has put in place the following
processes to establish metrics and then evaluate the performance of
financial assistance awards: Statements of Project Objectives establish
performance milestones throughout the execution phase of projects.
Those milestones serve as the project metrics for performance
monitoring and management. Progress and expenditures are managed
through EERE's Active Project Management program. Project managers
assess performance against milestones, as well as cost and schedule,
quarterly.
--Project managers are required to perform quarterly, written
projects assessments, an annual site visit for applicable
projects and at least two face-to-face meetings with performers
each year.
--Invoice approval policy requires project manager confirmation of
reasonableness and activity completion and separate contracting
officer verification of cost allowability. Contracting officers
perform final invoice approval.
Annual peer reviews provide objective performance reviews by
experts not directly involved in the project's management. EERE engages
experts, including those from industry and from other Federal agencies,
to review our project portfolios for effectiveness, currency and
impact.
Question. Does the Department have robust cross-agency coordination
to ensure that another agency is not undertaking the same research,
such as NSF, EPA, etc.?
Answer. Yes, EERE has very robust cross-agency coordination through
a number of activities including Memorandums of Understanding (MOU),
joint merit reviews and other activities performed as part of long-
range program planning and annual project activities.
EERE engages with experts during development of our Multi-Year
Program Plans and technology roadmaps to ensure we are only addressing
the most pressing issues that require public investment. EERE engages
industry and government experts prior to publication of Funding
Opportunity Announcements through workshops, RFIs and pre-funding merit
reviews. EERE does broad outreach to ensure that we access the most
diverse set of experts.
EERE has also partnered with the Department of Interior on an MOU
for hydropower, with the Department of Commerce for manufacturing, with
the Department of Agriculture on biomass research, and with the Federal
Highway Administration for the Smart City Challenge, as well as many
other collaborative relationships across government and industry.
Specific examples of inter-agency collaboration include:
EERE launched the Manufacturing Innovation through Energy and
Commerce (MITEC) pilot in four states--Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, and
Virginia. The program will provide small businesses access to the
advanced tools, technology transfer expertise, and research
capabilities of the Department of Energy's (DOE) national laboratories
and to the technical assistance and business development resources of
the Department of Commerce's Hollings Manufacturing Extension
Partnership (MEP), which is a program within the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST). This new interagency partnership
strives to broaden the commercial impact of the DOE's national labs and
equip American entrepreneurs and businesses with the resources and
support they need to develop new products, commercialize clean energy
technologies and expand into global markets.
--EERE and DOE partnered with the Department of Transportation (DOT)
through an MOU on Smart Transportation Systems and Alternative
Fuel Technologies to accelerate research, development,
demonstration and deployment of innovative smart transportation
systems and alternative fuel technologies.
--EERE collaborated with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and SAE International to launch Green Racing, which uses
motorsport competition to develop and test cleaner fuels and
more efficient vehicle technologies that manufacturers can
transfer to consumer vehicles.
--EERE's battery program collaborates extensively with the
Interagency Advanced Power Group, EPA, NASA, the National
Science Foundation, DOT and DoD.
Question. Nuclear energy could become more critical in our nation's
energy mix should regulations like the EPA's 111b and 111d be upheld by
the courts. Yet, only a handful of new reactors have been licensed by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since 1979. What is causing the lack
of new, approved nuclear energy projects?
Answer. There are several factors that have contributed to the lack
of new nuclear project starts in the U.S. over the past few decades.
One issue is that relative to other types of generation, nuclear plants
have high capital costs (but they tend to have low O&M and fuel costs).
The upfront costs of nuclear are high in part because the cost of
commodities (such as steel and concrete) has increased, as has labor,
and large, specialized nuclear components (such as steam generators and
reactor coolant pumps). In addition, electricity prices in many regions
are low, driven largely by low natural gas prices. U.S. utility
decisions to add or replace electric generation capacity are based on
these economics, and with the capital cost of building a natural gas
plant significantly less than that of a similarly sized nuclear plant
and with no projected rise in gas prices in the near future, nuclear
power in some cases does not appear to be competitive to the domestic
utility decision makers. This picture, however, can vary substantially
by region: the competitiveness of nuclear depends on local factors
including fuel and power prices, market structures, and policies.
Question. Each new reactor is estimated to cost between $5 billion
to $7 billion. What is behind this considerable construction cost? What
steps could be taken to lower this cost and bring more nuclear energy
online?
Answer. Nuclear new build projects have become very expensive
largely due to strict construction standards, increasing nuclear safety
regulations, and high labor costs here in the U.S. and abroad. Safety
features necessary for the current generation of reactors, such as
massive containment domes and multiply redundant cooling and backup
systems, make up a significant portion of such costs. The Department
has taken steps to address the high cost of nuclear builds by
supporting new designs that: (1) are more passively safe than designs
in the existing fleet and require fewer redundant safety systems; (2)
are constructed with modular components that are manufactured in
factory environments and assembled at the construction site; and (3)
are standardized (contrasted with the one-off designs of the past that
have unique components and requirements) and are expected to result in
consistency in construction, operation and regulation. The Department
supported the development of two domestic Generation III+ large light
water reactor (LWR) designs under the Nuclear Power 2010 program, and,
as a result, four Westinghouse AP1000 reactors are currently being
built in the Southeastern U.S. The Department is currently supporting
the development of standardized, passively safe small modular reactors
(SMRs), which could address many of the cost issues currently impacting
the industry. SMRs are about a third or less of the size of the large
LWRs; all components can be fabricated in a factory environment, which
is expected to improve quality and reduce construction costs; and are
sized to replace many of the aging fossil power generation plants that
will be retired over the next decade. The Department expects the first
SMR project to be constructed in the 2025 timeframe and is currently
considering program options to continue to accelerate the
commercialization of SMRs in the U.S.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
Question. Secretary Moniz, I remain concerned with the pattern I am
seeing within the budget requests for Richland Operations (RL) at
Hanford. The Administration made a decision to focus cleanup on the
reactor areas and the 300 Area closest to the Columbia River and City
of Richland, and you have made great strides with this cleanup under
the 2015 Vision. However, I fear the fiscal year 2017 budget request,
as well as last year's budget request, is leaving key projects in the
2015 Vision unfinished. Specifically, the 324 Building and the 618-10
burial ground projects have not been funded by the Administration 2
years in a row. While I recognize that we are operating in times of
constrained budgets, I ask that you provide me a detailed explanation
of DOE's rationale for advancing other work within RL's
responsibilities instead of completing the 2015 Vision.
Answer. Richland's budget request supports continued cleanup
progress at the Hanford Site, including the River Corridor. The
Richland budget request is designed to maintain safe base operations;
maintain surplus nuclear facilities; continue groundwater remediation;
continue Plutonium Finishing Plant demolition, capping and
demobilization; enable progress on River Corridor cleanup activities;
and support K West Basin sludge removal progress in alignment with Tri-
Party Agreement milestones. At this level, Richland will also fund
limited work scope associated with infrastructure upgrades and site-
wide essential services for Richland and the Office of River
Protection.
Further, the fiscal year 2016 Energy and Water Development and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act directed the Department to provide
to Congress a report on its 5-year plan for the River Corridor Closure
Project that explains any deviations from previously made agreements.
This report is currently in development, and is anticipated to be
submitted to Congress later this year.
Question. Similarly, I am concerned that with the 2015 Vision
nearing completion, DOE will in turn slow cleanup work at RL and delay
the projects RL is responsible for on the Central Plateau. Even with
completion of work along the Columbia River, RL has much work to do on
the Central Plateau, including remediation and demolition of 1,000
waste sites, 500 facilities, and contaminated groundwater. Many of
these are highly contaminated with radioactive and chemical waste,
posing a risk to the public, environment, and workforce.
Secretary Moniz, I strongly encourage DOE to develop and begin
executing the next Vision for RL to address the critical Central
Plateau cleanup work. Furthermore, I ask that you provide an outline of
the Central Plateau cleanup plans covering at least the next 5 years
and the funding needs to advance this work.
Answer. As directed by Congress in the fiscal year 2016 Energy and
Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act the
Department is currently working on a report that will provide a 5-year
plan for the River Corridor Closure Project that explains any
deviations from previously made agreements. This report is anticipated
to be submitted to Congress later this year. The Department is prepared
to address additional questions regarding future cleanup activities,
including Hanford's central plateau work scope, through a detailed
briefing to you or members of your staff.
Question. Secretary Moniz, I appreciate the commitment DOE has
shown to protecting the Hanford workforce and addressing the risks
associated with chemical vapors in the tank farms. We owe the men and
women who work at Hanford the highest safety standards.
In February 2015, DOE released an implementation plan for the
``Hanford Tank Vapor Assessment Report'' (Report) which is split into
two phases to address the 47 recommendations within the Report. It is
my understanding that $61 million was provided in fiscal years 2015 and
2016 funding and that the fiscal year 2017 budget request includes $33
million to support the implementation plan.
Secretary Moniz, I commend the actions DOE has already taken.
However, I understand the workforce remains on supplied-air respirators
and to date no new personal protective equipment has been deployed for
use by the workforce. Can you please provide status report on the
implementation plan and what progress DOE has made to date? Has Phase 1
been completed? And when does DOE expect to begin Phase 2? Finally, I
ask that you continue to make funding the implementation plan a
priority as you develop the fiscal year 2018 budget request.
Answer. In February 2015, a Vapors Implementation Plan was issued
by Washington River Protection Solutions LLC to address the vapor
issues in the Hanford tank farms. DOE's Office of River Protection
expects Phase 1 of the plan to be completed by the end of fiscal year
2016. Presently, the Office of River Protection and, Washington River
Protection Solutions, are testing application of an integrated suite of
advanced monitoring and detection technology and software to the
Hanford tank farm area. These technologies include infrared cameras,
portable area sensors equipped with multiple chemical sensors, in-stack
and area vapor detection equipment and portable meteorological
stations. Because these technologies need to be tailored to the hazards
encountered in the tank farm area, bench scale testing has been
completed and a pilot scale test will be conducted in the A and AP Tank
Farms this summer. Full scale deployment with the appropriate
adaptation will occur after the pilot.
Bench scale testing can be described as testing conducted under
laboratory conditions, using simulated vapors, while pilot scale
testing will be integrated testing conducted at the A and AP tank farms
to determine the effectiveness in the natural environment. While some
of these technologies have been used in other industries, they are used
in configurations that may be different from those anticipated to be
needed in the tank farm environment; hence, testing is necessary to
confirm their effectiveness for this application.
Question. The Texas Clean Energy Project (TCEP), funded under the
Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI), is a first-of-a-kind commercial
power plant that will employ innovative technology to capture 90
percent of the plant's carbon emissions. I understand that several
contracts and agreements, including a key engineering, procurement, and
construction contract, have been finalized by TCEP since December 2015
and that TCEP could reach financial close this year. To achieve this,
Summit Power Group of Seattle, Washington, the developer of TCEP,
recently requested $11 million in obligated funding under CCPI program.
This previously awarded CCPI funding would be matched with at least $4
million in private cost-share contributions. This request has been
denied by the Department.
Secretary Moniz, while I recognize it has taken longer than planned
for TCEP, like many projects in the CCPI program, to reach financial
close and begin construction, I respectfully request that you
reconsider this decision given TCEP's recent progress. Further, I ask
that you provide a full explanation on the Department's initial
decision to withhold funding this project.
Answer. Following an extensive and careful review, DOE's Office of
Fossil Energy (FE) determined that advancing any additional Federal
funds would not substantively increase the likelihood of Texas Clean
Energy Project (TCEP) success, and that no additional taxpayer funds
should be put towards the TCEP project. A recent DOE Office of
Inspector General audit report reached a similar conclusion to FE's in
regards to not advancing any additional Federal funds to the TCEP
project. DOE recently extended the no-cost TCEP cooperative agreement
through July 1, 2016, so project developers have additional time to
secure alternative sources of financing.
Question. Switching gears to the Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA). Throughout my career I have worked to ensure BPA maintains the
flexibility it needs to provide reliable, low-cost power in the Pacific
Northwest.
Congress explicitly gave BPA its own Federal authorities to carry
out administrative and operational functions in a business-like manner
consistent with sound business practices and Federal guidelines.
Secretary Moniz, I appreciate your work to date in respecting BPA's
authority to set policies that support the Pacific Northwest and its
ratepayers. However, as we move to the end of this Administration and a
time of transition, I ask for your assurances that DOE will continue to
recognize BPA's unique authorities.
Answer. The Department appreciates the unique role that BPA plays
as a Federal electric utility working in a commercial energy market.
The Department also recognizes that BPA carries out its commercial
business primarily pursuant to Federal statutes specifically applicable
to BPA. The Department recognizes that the Federal authorities in these
statutes cover many administrative and operational functions, to be
carried out using sound business principles.
The Department will continue to respect the Federal laws
specifically applicable to BPA, and will assure that any necessary
Secretarial delegations of authority or Department directives to the
BPA Administrator remain consistent with these Federal authorities.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
Question. I think that you will agree that the country is currently
witnessing significant transformations in our electricity production.
In New England, for example, we are seeing a steady shift to natural-
gas fired generation and more and more generation from renewable and
demand resources. These changes have brought with it a large number of
proposed projects to build and expand the region's upon current natural
gas pipeline and electricity transmission infrastructure.
We have two projects in particular that require Federal siting:
Northern Pass, a proposed electric transmission line, which requires a
Presidential Permit from DOE since the line would cross the
international border into Quebec; and the Kinder Morgan Northeast
Energy Direct gas pipeline project that currently has an application
pending with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
Through the application process for both projects, I have regularly
heard from many of my constituents in New Hampshire who are frustrated
about the lack of information from DOE and FERC about the review
process, and their belief that public input play only a minimal role in
the review and approval process for energy infrastructure projects.
That's why I read with interest the recommendations in your
agency's 2015 Quadrennial Energy Review (QER) that echoed the concerns
of Granite Staters and called for more public participation in the
siting and permitting process. Specifically, the QER recommends that
the agency deploy initiatives that:
--prioritizes meaningful public engagement through coordination with
state and local governments; and
--establishes regional and state partnerships to better engage
impacted communities.
Can you discuss the importance of public engagement in the siting
and permitting process for energy infrastructure projects, and what
actions has DOE implemented, or will implement in the future, to meet
the QER recommendations?
Answer. Public engagement is essential for the credibility of the
siting and permitting process for energy infrastructure projects. The
first installment of the Quadrennial Energy Review (QER), which focused
on energy transmission, storage, and distribution infrastructure,
identified early and robust stakeholder engagement as a recognized best
practice that can reduce delays and improve projects. The QER found
that Federal agencies, by conducting public outreach and engaging with
diverse sets of stakeholders, can avoid, minimize, and mitigate issues
that might delay a siting or permitting decision.
The Department is actively engaged in the implementation of
recommendations from the QER related to the siting and permitting of
energy infrastructure, which include:
--Prioritizing meaningful public engagement through consultation with
Indian Tribes, coordination with state and local governments,
and facilitation of non-Federal partnerships; and
--Establishing regional and state partnerships and co-locating
dedicated cross-disciplinary energy infrastructure teams.
As a member of the Administration's Interagency Rapid Response Team
for Transmission (RRTT), DOE works with eight interagency partners to
improve the overall quality and timeliness of electric transmission
infrastructure permitting, review, and consultation by the Federal
Government on both Federal and non-Federal lands. The Administration
created the RRTT in 2013, and following the QER's release, the RRTT has
continued to apply a uniform approach to consultations with Tribal
governments and to use Integrated Federal Planning to coordinate
statutory permitting and review among Federal and state agencies. DOE
also maintains an online dashboard listing the required permits; agency
points of contact; milestones and due dates; and descriptions of
progress for seven RRTT pilot projects.
RRTT initially focused on the selected pilot projects because, when
constructed, they will help increase electric reliability, integrate
new renewable energy into the grid, and save consumers money. The pilot
projects are geographically diverse and cross through 12 states:
Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada, Wyoming, Utah,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Wisconsin. They were carefully
selected from lists produced through American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act-funded, independent, broad stakeholder processes led by the Western
Electricity Coordinating Council in the Western Interconnection, and by
the Eastern Interconnection States' Planning Council for the Eastern
Interconnection.
The Department's Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability (OE), working in collaboration with interagency partners
pursuant to Executive Order 13604 and the June 2013 Transmission
Presidential Memorandum, sought public input on a draft Integrated
Interagency Pre-Application (IIP) Process. The proposed IIP Process is
intended to improve interagency and intergovernmental coordination
focused on ensuring that project proponents develop and submit accurate
and complete information early in the project planning process to
facilitate efficient and timely environmental reviews and agency
decisions. In February 2016, DOE published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in the Federal Register (81 FR 5383) to amend its
regulations for the timely coordination of Federal Authorizations for
proposed interstate electric transmission facilities pursuant to
Section 216(h) of the Federal Power Act. The proposed amendments are
intended to improve the pre-application procedures and result in more
efficient processing of applications. While the proposed IIP rule does
not apply to electric transmission projects crossing the Nation's
international borders with Canada and Mexico, DOE has and will continue
to encourage potential applicants to engage in pre-application
coordination activities with DOE, other agencies, and stakeholders.
DOE is also pursuing future actions to meet the QER's
recommendations. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act
(Public Law 114-94) implemented many of the QER's siting and permitting
recommendations. Among other things, Title XLI of the law establishes a
Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, of which DOE is a
member, to oversee the timely processing of permits and reviews. The
law also enables agencies to recover reasonable costs for such
activities and standardizes processes for resolving disputes.
Additionally--and consistent with guidance issued in a September 2015
Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies (M-15-20) \1\
from the Office of Management and Budget and the Council for
Environmental Quality--the law requires expanded use of an online
dashboard to track major infrastructure projects under Federal review.
Use of the Dashboard will improve agencies' communication with project
sponsors, enhance interagency coordination, and increase the
transparency and accountability of the permitting process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Office of Management and Budget. ``Memorandum for Heads of
Federal Departments and Agencies: Guidance Establishing Metrics for the
Permitting and Environmental Review of Infrastructure Projects.''
September 22, 2015 (M-15-20). https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/
files/omb/memoranda/2015/m-15-20.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 41002 of the FAST Act also requires the interagency governance
structure to issue annual best practice recommendations that (1)
enhance early stakeholder engagement provided in public comments; (2)
increase transparency; (3) reduce information collection requirements
and other administrative burdens; (4) improve coordination between
Federal and non-Federal governmental entities, including through the
development of common data standards and terminology across agencies;
and (5) create and distribute training materials useful to Federal,
state, Tribal, and local permitting officials.
Many of the provisions included in the FAST Act align with the QER
as well as ongoing Administration activities. The Department will
continue its work to implement the various provisions and guidance to
improve public engagement during Federal permitting and review
processes.
Question. As a follow-up to the previous question, are there any
priority actions Congress should be considering that would assist DOE
in encouraging robust public participation in these permitting and
siting processes?
Answer. The QER underscored the value of robust public
participation and found that the local nature of permitting decisions
requires close stakeholder interaction and appropriate knowledge of
local resource concerns to be addressed in the permitting process.
Collaboration between Federal agencies and state, Tribal, and local
governments that share permitting and review responsibilities for
infrastructure projects is essential to moving a project quickly and
efficiently.
DOE continues to work with the Administration to build a robust
infrastructure that safeguards communities and the environment while
also strengthening the economy and creating new jobs. The
Administration's ongoing efforts, as well as the permitting provisions
contained in the FAST Act (Public Law 114-94), underscore the shared
commitment of the Administration and Congress to improve the Federal
permit review process for major infrastructure projects. As part of
this process, DOE is committed to identifying ways to improve public
participation and looks forward to continuing this work with Congress.
Question. Last year, at the 21st United Nations Climate Change
Conference, President Obama and several world leaders launched
``Mission Innovation'', a landmark commitment to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by investing in public-private global clean energy
innovation. The President's commitment to ``Mission Innovation'' and to
new funding for a wide range of research, development, and deployment
activities is significant and impressive.
How will ``Mission Innovation'' and other cross-cutting U.S.
programs be implemented to maximize the public's investment, and what
effect will Mission Innovation have on U.S. leadership in energy
efficiency and clean energy?
Answer. Mission Innovation is a government-wide effort and will be
coordinated and executed as such to help maximize investment and
effectiveness. Within DOE specifically, Mission Innovation will build
on the Department's track record of success in developing and
implementing clean energy research, development and demonstration
(RD&D) programs. With its world-leading national laboratories and
through its current role as the international secretariat for Mission
Innovation collaboration, the Department has a strong foundation on
which to build its portfolio to help address domestic and global
opportunities and challenges.
Over the next two decades, the global clean energy market will come
to be measured in trillions of dollars, and the U.S. has the tools, the
talent and the industry to lead this revolution. However, other nations
are making substantial progress as well, spurred by the combined
motivations of addressing climate imperatives and winning market share
in the emerging clean energy economy. Supporting a government-wide 5-
year doubling path for clean energy RD&D funding is critical to ensure
the Nation's continued leadership in clean energy technology
development and to keep the U.S. on the cutting edge of potential
breakthrough technology research.
Question. President Obama has articulated a goal of doubling U.S.
energy productivity. The Department of Energy, under your leadership,
is working to implement policies that will put the U.S. on track to
meet this goal.
What is the current status of U.S. efforts to meet this goal, and
are there any priority actions Congress should be considering that
would push the U.S. further along its path to meet this goal?
Answer. In response to the President's goal, the Department
partnered with the Council on Competitiveness and the Alliance to Save
Energy (the Partners) to launch the Accelerate Energy Productivity 2030
Initiative in the fall of 2014. Since the launch, the effort has
further built awareness and engagement around the President's goal by
showcasing business and policy strategies within the private sector and
all levels of government that are driving improvements in energy
productivity across economic sectors. The Partners led five events and
a webinar series, collected 11 ``Success Stories,'' and have received
endorsements for the goal from over one hundred and thirty
organizations to date. The Partners also released a strategic Roadmap
(http://www.energy2030.org/roadmap) outlining a set of pathways and
identifying specific actions that a broad range of stakeholders can
take to help us achieve the national goal of doubling energy
productivity by 2030. Moving forward, the initiative will focus on
operationalizing strategies included in the Roadmap, connecting
stakeholders with technical assistance resources, and hosting an
executive roundtable. These efforts will further help identify emerging
strategies and ultimately inform sound policy that will bolster energy
productivity in the United States.
Between 1990 and 2015, the Energy Information Administration
reports U.S. energy productivity rose by 58 percent. Current efforts
must accelerate substantially, however, to push the U.S. further along
its path to meet the goal of further doubling energy productivity by
2030. Congressional support for the President's Budget Request for
programs directed at improved energy efficiency will help us build on
the progress already being made in this area.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher A. Coons
iran and international atomic energy agency
Question. When I visited the IAEA in January, I was told that the
agency needs a ``reliable, long-term'' source of funding to implement
the JCPOA and accomplish broader non-proliferation goals. A recent GAO
report said the IAEA faces potential budget and human resource
challenges as a result of the JCPOA. Can you describe how the DOE is
helping the IAEA overcome these challenges? How do our National Labs
assist the IAEA's recruiting and hiring, which I understand is a very
long and expensive process?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) provides technical support
to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and voluntary
financial contributions to the IAEA through reimbursable work
agreements with the Department of State in support of the IAEA's
safeguards mission. With these financial contributions, the IAEA is
able to hire Americans into cost-free positions for 3-5 year
assignments in the IAEA's Department of Safeguards supporting
technology development and evaluation activities, software development
and analysis positions, as well as IAEA training programs. The IAEA
also can purchase needed safeguards monitoring equipment with these
funds. In-kind technical support includes development of safeguards
technology and concepts, periodic expert consultations, training
support for IAEA inspectors, and analysis of samples through the IAEA's
Network of Analytical Laboratories.
DOE also maintains a program of safeguards human capital
development activities at our National Laboratories to attract, train,
and retain experts in nonproliferation and IAEA safeguards efforts.
This program brings undergraduate and graduate students into the
laboratories on internships and fellowships and sends laboratory
specialists out into the university environment to give seminars and
training classes. The over-arching goal of this program is to ensure
that there is a pipeline of talented individuals working within the DOE
complex to support the IAEA; in many cases these individuals take up
short-term or permanent positions directly with the IAEA.
As mentioned above, DOE works to ensure there is a pipeline of
capable safeguards practitioners in the National Laboratory system. In
support of sending as many of these individuals as practical to Vienna
to work with the IAEA, DOE and the Department of State provide funding
to the IAEA to hire our laboratory experts on 3-5 year assignments
throughout the Department of Safeguards. Brookhaven National Laboratory
maintains a recruitment list of prospective applicants from the
laboratory and university systems and ensures that those individuals
are regularly made aware of employment opportunities.
Question. Ali Akbar Salehi, head of the Atomic Energy Organization
of Iran, reportedly announced that Iran will use part of its sanctions
relief to hire and train a new generation of nuclear scientists. How
will this training affect Iran's nuclear program in the next 15 years?
How will an increased number of highly-trained nuclear scientists allow
Iran to expand its nuclear program after much of the JCPOA ``sunsets''
in 15 years?
Answer. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)
significantly constrains the research and development that Iran's
nuclear scientists can pursue. At the same time, the JCPOA redesigns
and dismantles a significant portion of Iran's infrastructure,
effectively cutting off Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon.
Without the JCPOA, Iran would have an unconstrained R&D program.
The JCPOA establishes strict limits on advanced centrifuge R&D,
testing, and deployment in the first 10 years, and after the initial 10
year period Iran must abide by its enrichment and enrichment R&D plan
submitted to the IAEA under the Additional Protocol, and pursuant to
the JCPOA, which will result in certain limitations on enrichment
capacity and ensure only a measured, incremental growth in its
enrichment capacity consistent with a peaceful nuclear program.
The JCPOA in no way authorizes, allows, or encourages future
Iranian nuclear weapons activity, which will always be prohibited under
the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Instead, the
JCPOA provides unparalleled insight into every part of Iran's nuclear
program. Certain transparency measures will last for 15 years, others
for 20 to 25 years, and some will last forever--such as Iran's
adherence to the Additional Protocol. With this transparency, if Iran
tried to reverse course and break out, we would see it and have time to
respond with a much greater understanding of their program.
We expect a gradual development process to take place with respect
to Iran's nuclear program past year 10. We expect this process to be
shaped in such a way that it continues to build the world's confidence
that Iran's program remains exclusively peaceful.
Certain transparency measures will last for 15 years, others for 20
to 25 years, and some will last forever--such as Iran's adherence to
the Additional Protocol. With this transparency, if Iran tried to
reverse course and break out, we would see it and have time to respond
with a much greater understanding of their program.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Alexander. Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us
today. The subcommittee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., Wednesday, March 9, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:34 p.m. in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Alexander, Graham, Feinstein, and Udall.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
National Nuclear Security Administration
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL FRANK G. KLOTZ, U.S.
AIR FORCE (Retired), UNDER SECRETARY FOR
NUCLEAR SECURITY AND ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
BRIGADIER GENERAL STEPHEN L. DAVIS, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE,
PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR MILITARY
APPLICATIONS
ANNE HARRINGTON, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE
NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
ADMIRAL JAMES F. (FRANK) CALDWELL, JR., UNITED STATES NAVY,
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR OFFICE OF NAVAL
REACTORS
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER
Senator Alexander. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development will please come to order.
As I was saying to Senator Feinstein, my co-chairman in
effect, both Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer were saying
yesterday that Senator McConnell hopes to begin the
appropriations process on the floor on April 18. Senator
Schumer said he intended to support having an appropriations
process, and the Democrats have all written Senator McConnell
saying they want one. It looks like everybody wants an
appropriations process this year, so we're hoping very much
that's possible. And Senator Feinstein and I will work with our
House committee chairs to try to make ours one of the first
bills that's available to the majority leader to bring to the
floor. We hope to do it in a bipartisan way. And if there are
controversial amendments, we hope those will be offered on the
floor of the Senate rather than in the committee.
This afternoon, we are having a hearing to review the
President's fiscal year 2017 budget request for the National
Nuclear Security Administration. Senator Feinstein and I will
each have an opening statement. I will then recognize each
Senator for up to 5 minutes for an opening statement,
alternating between the majority and the minority in the order
in which they arrived.
We will then turn to our witnesses for their testimony.
General Klotz will present testimony on behalf of the National
Nuclear Security Administration. And we'll include the full
written statements of all the witnesses in the record. After
General Klotz, Senators will then be recognized for 5 minutes
of questions each.
First, I would like to thank our witnesses for being here,
and also Senator Feinstein, an exceptional co-chairman of this
committee. We work together regardless of which party has the
majority and usually come up with a pretty good result for the
country.
Our witnesses today include Lieutenant General Frank Klotz,
Administrator of the NNSA (National Nuclear Security
Administration); Brigadier General S.L. Davis, Principal
Assistant Deputy Administrator for Military Applications; Ms.
Anne Harrington, Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation; and Admiral Frank Caldwell, Deputy
Administrator for Naval Reactors.
NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency within the Department of
Energy that's responsible for a vital mission, managing our
nuclear weapons stockpile, reducing global dangers posed by
weapons of mass destruction, and providing the Navy with safe
and effective nuclear power. This is the subcommittee's fourth
hearing this year on the President's budget request.
NNSA has an important national security mission, but faces
many challenges. We'll have to make some hard decisions on the
most important priorities.
The President's 2017 budget request is $12.9 billion, an
increase of 2.9 percent over the fiscal year 2016. The focus of
my questions today will be on four main areas: one, keeping
critical projects on time and on budget, that is a major
priority of Senator Feinstein and of mine; two, effectively
maintaining our nuclear weapons stockpile; three, supporting
our nuclear Navy; and four, maintaining our vital nuclear
workforce.
PROJECT OVERSIGHT
NNSA is responsible for three of the largest construction
projects in the Federal Government: the Uranium Facility in
Tennessee, the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility in South Carolina;
and the Plutonium Facility in New Mexico. Combined, these
projects could cost more than $20 billion to build, and over
the past 4 years, Senator Feinstein and I have worked hard to
keep costs from skyrocketing. We want to make sure that hard-
earned taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and that these
projects are on time and on budget.
We have focused most of our oversight on the Uranium
Facility in Tennessee for the past 5 years. We asked for a Red
Team review headed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory Chief Thom
Mason to review the project, which recommended ways to get it
back on track. We said that the project had to be completed by
2025 with a cost of no greater than $6.5 billion and that the
design had to be at least 90 percent completed before we even
began construction of the nuclear facility. We urged the
Department to take aggressive steps to get costs under control
so we could meet these goals.
The facility is off to a good start, but there is a lot
more work to do. I am going to ask you more today about the
Uranium Facility, particularly about your schedule for
completing the design and when you anticipate construction can
begin.
I would also like to discuss the MOX Facility in South
Carolina. You have proposed that we stop construction of the
MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility and recommended that Congress
fund a different process called Dilute and Disposal. You've
said the Dilute and Disposal alternative will cost less,
actually a lot less, and get the material out of South Carolina
much sooner than if we continue to fund MOX.
General Klotz, I am particularly interested in your plan
for dealing with the 13 tons of plutonium that are currently in
South Carolina, and ask that you address this either in your
opening statement or questions.
EFFECTIVELY MAINTAINING NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Another major part of your budget maintains our nuclear
weapons stockpile, and I want to make sure we're spending those
dollars effectively. The budget request includes $1.3 billion
to continue the four ongoing life extension programs, which fix
or replace components in weapons systems to make sure they're
safe and reliable. The work must be done, but life extension
programs are very expensive, so they need to be properly
managed. I will ask you about that today.
SUPPORTING OUR NUCLEAR NAVY
Naval Reactors is responsible for all aspects of nuclear
power for our submarines and aircraft carriers. Naval Reactors
has a lot on its plate right now. They are designing a new
reactor core for the next class of submarines, refueling a
prototype reactor, and building a new spent fuel processing
facility. In addition, you have to support the day-to-day
operation of 73 submarines and 10 aircraft carriers, including
a total of 97 operating reactors. You have about the same
number of operating reactors that we have in the commercial
world.
The small nuclear reactors that Naval Reactors designs and
oversees have had an impeccable safety record for more than 60
years. There has, I believe, never been a reactor accident.
While life extension programs provide the opportunity to
maintain vital skills in many areas, now moving on to those,
they do not exercise all of the skills needed for a healthy
weapons program.
When I had the opportunity to talk to Admiral Caldwell
about the Naval Reactors program last week, he told me about
his technical base, the men and women who respond when our
ships are at sea. I would like to hear more today about that.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Lamar Alexander
We're here today to review the president's fiscal year 2017 budget
request for the National Nuclear Security Administration, a semi-
autonomous agency within the Department of Energy that is responsible
for managing our nuclear weapons stockpile, reducing global dangers
posed by weapons of mass destruction, and providing the Navy with safe
and effective nuclear power.
This is the Subcommittee's fourth hearing this year on the
president's budget request, and I look forward to hearing our
witnesses' testimony.
The National Nuclear Security Administration, or NNSA, has an
important national security mission, but faces many challenges. That's
why we need to do what we were sent here to do--to govern.
Like last year, we will have to make some hard decisions so we can
continue to fund the most important priorities.
The president's fiscal year 2017 budget request for the NNSA is
$12.9 billion, an increase of $357 million (or 2.9 percent) higher than
the fiscal year 2016 enacted level.
Today, I'd like to focus my questions on four main areas:
1) Keeping critical projects on time and on budget;
2) Effectively maintaining our nuclear weapons stockpile;
3) Supporting our nuclear Navy; and
4) Maintaining our vital nuclear workforce.
keeping critical projects on time and on budget
The NNSA is responsible for three of the largest construction
projects in the Federal government: the Uranium Processing Facility in
Tennessee; the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility in South Carolina; and the
Plutonium Facility in New Mexico.
Combined, these projects could cost more than $20 billion dollars
to build, and over the past 4 years, Senator Feinstein and I have
worked hard to keep costs from skyrocketing. We want to make sure hard-
earned taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and that these projects are on
time and on budget.
Senator Feinstein and I have focused much of our oversight on the
Uranium Processing Facility in Tennessee over the past 5 years.
We asked for a Red Team review of the project, which recommended
ways to get it back on track.
We said the project had to be completed by 2025 with a cost no
greater than $6.5 billion, and the design had to be at least 90 percent
completed before we began construction of the nuclear facilities. We
urged the Department to take aggressive steps to get costs under
control.
The Uranium Processing Facility is off to a good start, but there's
a lot more work to be done.
I'm going to ask you more today about the Uranium Processing
Facility, particularly about your schedule for completing the design
and when you anticipate construction can begin.
I'd also like to discuss the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility in South
Carolina. The NNSA has proposed that we stop construction of the MOX
Fuel Fabrication Facility and recommended that Congress fund a
different process, called Dilute and Disposal.
You have said that the Dilute and Disposal alternative will cost
less, and get the material out of South Carolina much sooner than it
would if we continue to fund MOX.
General Klotz, I am particularly interested in your plan for
dealing with the 13 tons of plutonium currently in South Carolina, and
ask that you address this in your opening statement.
effectively maintaining our nuclear weapons
Another major part of the NNSA's budget maintains our nuclear
weapons stockpile, and I want to make sure we are spending taxpayer
dollars effectively.
The budget request includes $1.3 billion to continue the four
ongoing life extension programs, which fix or replace components in
weapons systems to make sure they're safe and reliable.
This work must be done--but life extension programs are very
expensive, so they need to be properly managed.
I will ask you today whether you will be able to meet your
production deadlines on time and on budget.
supporting our nuclear navy
Naval Reactors is responsible for all aspects of nuclear power for
our submarines and aircraft carriers.
Naval Reactors has a lot on their plate right now--they are
designing a new reactor core for the next class of submarines,
refueling a prototype reactor, and building a new spent fuel processing
facility.
In addition, Naval Reactors supports the day-to-day operations of
73 submarines and 10 aircraft carriers--including a total of 97
operating reactors.
The small nuclear reactors that Naval Reactors designs and oversees
have had an impeccable safety record for more than 60 years; there has
never been a reactor accident.
maintaining our vital nuclear workforce
While life extension programs provide the opportunity to maintain
vital skills in many areas, they do not exercise all of the skills
needed for a healthy weapons program.
When I had the opportunity to talk to Admiral Caldwell about the
Naval Reactors program last week, he told me about his ``technical
base''--the men and women who respond when our nuclear ships at sea
have a problem.
I'd like to hear more from the witnesses today about the challenges
they face in maintaining the needed skills within their workforce, and
what they are doing to make sure they have the right skills to meet
their important missions.
Senator Alexander. With that, I would recognize Senator
Feinstein to make her opening statement.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
think you know how much I respect you. And to the panel, I want
to say welcome. And this is one of the best parts of working in
the Senate, that you can work with somebody you respect, that
you work out differences of opinion that he gives on some, I
give on some, and for some reason, it all works. I wish we
could do more of that.
So thank you, Senator Alexander.
As you said, NNSA's overall request is a 3 percent increase
in fiscal year 2016, but, and I want to talk about this for a
minute, the nonproliferation program sees a 7 percent decrease,
and I am a strong proponent of that program. Compared to 2010,
the fiscal year 2017 request for weapons is a $2.9 billion
increase. I think that's very difficult for me. The
nonproliferation program request is a $300 million decrease
from its peak in fiscal year 2012, General. The nonprogram is
down $500 million, while weapons program's budget continues to
climb. ``Why?'' I ask.
General, your appearance here today is 2 weeks before the
final Nuclear Security Summit, where 50 countries will gather
to discuss ways to further strengthen nuclear security measures
and cooperation. I think it was in Prague in 2009 that
President Obama committed to locking down all vulnerable
nuclear materials in 4 years. That time has passed. The
administration has made great strides toward that goal and has
further reduced the dangers of nuclear terrorism since that
time.
I'll give you a few examples: removal of over 3,800
kilograms of plutonium and highly enriched uranium; removal of
42,000 high-priority radioactive sources, such as cesium and
kobalt, that can be used in a dirty bomb; conversion of 23
reactors from use of highly enriched uranium to low-enriched
uranium; and installation of more than 400 fixed and mobile
detectors in 43 countries. I congratulate you, and that's very
important to me. And yet, even with these accomplishments,
nuclear material is still obtainable and attractive to
criminals and terrorists.
A recent article by the Center for Public Integrity brings
some information on nuclear smuggling out of the shadows. There
have been 20 reported nuclear material interdictions in Europe
and Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union. In some cases,
smugglers were attempting to move significant quantities of
highly enriched uranium, and in others, it appears to just be
small samples with the promise of bigger things. It has been
openly reported that a cache of highly enriched uranium went
missing in Russia after the end of the Cold War. The
substantial success in securing border crossings around Russia
is helping to prevent this material from making its way to the
United States. The worsening economy in Russia, the rise of the
Islamic State in particular, and I deal with a lot of that on
the Intelligence Committee, and the fear that one group or
another gets some form of dirty bomb, and the chaos spreading
from the Middle East into Europe tells me now is not the time
to let down our guard on nuclear security.
But on the weapons side of NNSA, all I see is unrestrained
growth. I understand that the nuclear weapons complex needs to
improve its infrastructure. No problem. NNSA reports a $3.2
billion facility maintenance backlog, and the $400 million
increase in its fiscal year 2017 budget request is largely
dedicated to halting the growth of that maintenance back
deficit, as I understand, and obviously, I think we both
support that.
But the budget for nuclear weapons just seems to keep
growing. A 45 percent head--excuse me--increase since 2001. I
almost said ``hedge'' because I very much believe that it's
very wasteful to have a hedge at 3 to 1, and one day we have to
have the courage to do something about that. But there is more
to come. Warhead life extension programs, construction of the
Uranium Processing Facility, the Plutonium Facility, the
reactor for the Ohio-class replacement submarine, will all
demand higher spending levels in the next 5 to 10 years, and
this doesn't include projects for which NNSA has not budgeted
for, such as new component manufacturing facilities or new
science facilities.
According to your budget request, spending on weapons is
projected to grow another $1.3 billion over the next 5 years to
$10.5 billion. I'm really going to have a great deal of trouble
supporting that. By comparison, the nonproliferation spending
is projected to grow only $300 million. Importantly, that
assumes that MOX, funded out of nonproliferation, is stopped,
deemed to be too costly to continue to proceed with. So the
question comes, What is the alternative and that cost?
In the area of warheads and new facilities, NNSA's
management record, candidly, although I think it's better, does
not inspire confidence. Rather, the history of cost growth and
schedule slippages suggests that even more money will be
required than currently projected. So where does it end and how
much is enough? Outside of MOX, I don't see tough choices being
made. I just see more money for weapons and less money for
everything else.
Since it met its 2013 goals for locking down nuclear
materials, NNSA has pushed out the goals and milestones for
their nonproliferation efforts. For example, work in securing
4,400 radiological facilities that was to be completed by 2022
now won't be done until 2033, obviously extended by 10 years.
In some cases, the work has become more technically and
diplomatically difficult, and we understand that, but it's also
true that the nonprobudget has seen a steady decline since
2012.
Now, I don't believe we should or can sacrifice our ongoing
efforts in nuclear security on the altar of our nuclear weapons
stockpile. So I look forward to discussing this issue with you
and our witnesses today. And I hope I can count on you to take
a measured and reasonable approach to these matters.
So, General, thank you, and I welcome you.
Senator Alexander. Senator Udall, would you like to make an
opening statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM UDALL
Senator Udall. Yes, just briefly. And I don't think I'll
take all my time, but I just want to welcome and greet General
Klotz for being here.
I really enjoyed visiting with you in my office within the
last week or so about many of the big issues facing the NNSA
and the other witnesses here today, Deputy Administrator
Harrington, Brigadier General Davis, and Admiral Caldwell.
Thank you for being here and thank you for your service to the
country. I think it's terrifically important the work that you
do. And as you know, New Mexico's two national labs are a
critical part of the NNSA's infrastructure and provide
indispensable support for your mission to keep the Nation's
stockpile safe, reliable, and secure.
At Sandia National Laboratory, they've hired 35 percent of
their current staff in the last 5 years to support the life
extension projects that are going on there. And at Los Alamos,
the lab is embarking on plans to revitalize Cold War era
infrastructure. And I couldn't agree more with both the
chairman and the co-chairman that we need to keep our costs
under control, but we also need to do the job right. I don't
think there's any doubt about that.
I'm going to focus my questions today on when we talk about
cost control, the big project they're working on at Sandia is
the B61. The B61, the trend has been to keep it within budget
and to do it on time, and I'm wondering, what are the lessons
there? Because I think that we have done a good job in that
respect.
And then I would like to ask about how much NNSA budgets
need to increase to address the aging stockpile. You all know
that that's an issue that's out there. And then there is a GAO
report on the plutonium infrastructure strategy, and they
raised some issues there, and I'm going to ask about that and
where we're headed on that plutonium infrastructure strategy.
All of this costs money. We need to keep the budgets under
control, but as I said, we need to do it right. And I thank you
again for your service.
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Senator Udall.
At this time, we'll turn to General Klotz, who will present
testimony on behalf of the National Nuclear Security
Administration.
General Klotz.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL FRANK G. KLOTZ
General Klotz. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, Senator
Udall, thank you for the opportunity to present the President's
fiscal year 2017 budget request for the Department of Energy's
National Nuclear Security Administration. We value this
committee's leadership in national security as well as its
robust and abiding support for the missions and the people of
NNSA.
As you rightly pointed out, our budget request, which
comprises more than 40 percent of DOE's budget, is $12.9
billion, an increase of nearly $357 million, or 2.9 percent,
over the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The budget request
continues the administration's unwavering commitment to NNSA's
important and enduring missions. These missions are defined in
the NNSA's Strategic Vision, which we released last year and
which is available on our website, and they include to maintain
a safe, secure, and effective nuclear weapons stockpile without
nuclear explosive testing, to prevent, counter, and respond to
the threat of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism, and
to support the capability of our nuclear-powered Navy to
protect American and allied interests around the world.
To succeed, NNSA must maintain crosscutting capabilities
that enable each of our core missions. These crosscuts focus on
advancing science, technology, and engineering, supporting our
people in modernizing our infrastructure, and developing a
management culture focused on safety, on security, and on
efficiency, adopting the best practices in use across the
government as well as in the commercial world.
The budget materials and briefings that we have provided
describe NNSA's major accomplishments in 2015 as well as the
underlying rationale for our budget proposal for fiscal year
2017.
Let me just briefly highlight a few of the points here.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS STOCKPILE
First and foremost, the United States has maintained, as I
said, a safe, secure, and effective nuclear weapons stockpile
without nuclear explosive testing now for over 20 years. As a
result of the funding provided by this Congress and supported
by this subcommittee, and the significant improvements NNSA has
made in program management over the past 2 to 3 years, all of
our life extension programs, or LEPs, and major alterations are
on schedule and within budget.
NNSA's science and technology base also continues to yield
critical modeling and simulation data and to deploy
increasingly capable high-performance computing in support of
stockpile stewardship. Last year, for example, the National
Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory increased
its shot rate, its experiment rate, from 191 in 2014 to 356 in
2015, an 86 percent increase. Our budget request also supports
the recapitalization of NNSA's aging research and production
infrastructure, most notably at the facilities where we perform
our major uranium, plutonium, tritium, and other commodity
operations. Of significance, NNSA completed the first sub-
project for the Uranium Processing Facility at Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, on time and millions of dollars under budget.
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
This year's request for the defense nuclear
nonproliferation account, as has already been pointed out, is
6.8 percent lower than the fiscal 2016 enacted level, for two
reasons. First, prior year carryover balances are available to
execute several programs in this mission space. And secondly,
we propose terminating the Mixed Oxide Fuel, or MOX,
Fabrication Facility project.
While the administration remains firmly committed to
disposing of surplus weapons grade plutonium, it is clear from
independent analyses that the MOX fuel approach is
unsustainable given the enormous costs involved. The already
proven Dilution and Disposal alternative would enable the
plutonium to be disposed of decades sooner than the MOX
approach and at less than half the cost and with far fewer
risks. In fact, 4.8 metric tons of plutonium have already been
diluted and disposed of in this manner, demonstrating beyond
doubt the feasibility of this approach.
The new approach will enable us to be more responsible
stewards of taxpayer dollars while upholding our commitment to
dispose of surplus weapons grade plutonium more quickly. That's
why the President's fiscal year 2017 budget request proposes
that the Department pursue the Dilution and Disposal approach
as the path forward and begin termination of the MOX project.
In addition, the Department could dispose of all the
surplus plutonium in South Carolina using the Dilute and
Dispose approach under its current authorizations, getting the
plutonium out of the State decades earlier than under the MOX
approach.
NAVAL REACTORS PROGRAM
The request for our third appropriations, the Naval
Reactors program keeps pace with mission needs and continues
NNSA's commitment to three major initiatives: the Ohio-class
reactor plant system development, the Land-Based S8G Prototype
refueling overhaul in upstate New York; and the spent fuel
handling recapitalization project in Idaho. And, of course,
Admiral Caldwell is far better prepared than I to answer any
questions that you may have in this area.
MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE
For each of these missions, NNSA is driving improvements in
management and governance. For all of our programs, we have
instituted rigorous analyses of alternatives, defined clear
lines of authority and accountability for Federal and contract
program management, improved cost and schedule performance, and
ensure that Federal project directors and contracting officers
have the appropriate skill mix and professional certifications
to effectively manage NNSA's work. Our budget request for
Federal salaries and expenses reflects an increasing emphasis
on improving program and project management across all of our
mission pillars.
So in closing, the nuclear security enterprise continues to
make significant process--progress. Through disciplined careful
planning, consistent funding, and your continued strong
support, we believe we can make smart investments to build on
that progress and to meet new challenges in the future.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today, and we look forward to addressing your questions.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Frank G. Klotz
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the President's
fiscal year 2017 budget request for the Department of Energy's (DOE)
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). It is a pleasure to be
here this afternoon. We value this Committee's strong support for the
nuclear security mission, and for the people and institutions that are
responsible for executing it.
The President's fiscal year 2017 budget request for NNSA is $12.9
billion, this is an increase of $357.5 million or 2.9 percent over the
fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The request is approximately 43 percent
of the DOE's total budget, and 67 percent of DOE's total 050 budget.
The NNSA has a unique and special responsibility to maintain a
safe, secure, and effective nuclear weapons stockpile for as long as
nuclear weapons exist; to prevent, counter, and respond to evolving and
emerging nuclear proliferation and terrorism threats; to provide
nuclear propulsion to our Navy as it protects American and Allied
interests around the world; and to support our outstanding NNSA Federal
workforce. By supporting overall growth, this budget request represents
a strong endorsement of NNSA's vital and enduring missions, and is
indicative of the Administration's unwavering commitment to a strong
national defense.
NNSA's missions are accomplished through the hard work and
innovative spirit of a highly talented Federal and Management and
Operating (M&O) workforce committed to public service. To provide this
team the tools they need to carry out their complex and challenging
task, both now and in the future, we must continue to modernize our
scientific, technical, and engineering capabilities and infrastructure.
In doing so, we are mindful of our obligation to continually improve
our business practices, and to be responsible stewards of the resources
that Congress and the American people have entrusted to us.
The fiscal year 2017 budget request also reflects the close working
partnership between NNSA and the Department of Defense (DoD). NNSA
works closely with DoD to meet military requirements, support our
Nation's nuclear deterrence capabilities and modernize the nuclear
security enterprise. I would also note, that as in previous years, DoD
is carrying in its fiscal year 2017 budget request separate funding in
fiscal year 2018 and beyond that will be reallocated annually to NNSA's
Weapons Activities and Naval Reactors.
I want to thank the committee for its support of the fiscal year
2016 budget request and look forward to your continuing support in
fiscal year 2017. We have made some tough decisions and tradeoffs to
meet both military commitments and nuclear security priorities. Without
congressional support, modernization of our nuclear enterprise,
implementation of our long-term stockpile sustainment strategy, and
sustainment of our nonproliferation and prevention and response
capabilities could be at risk. The program we have proposed is highly
integrated and interdependent across the four accounts.
Details of the fiscal year 2017 budget request for the NNSA follow:
weapons activities appropriation
For the Weapons Activities account, the fiscal year 2017 budget
request is $9.2 billion, an increase of $396.2 million, or 4.5 percent
above the fiscal year 2016 enacted levels. This account provides funds
for the Defense Programs portfolio, which is responsible for all
aspects of the stockpile stewardship, management, and responsiveness
programs; the enterprise-wide infrastructure sustainment activities
managed by our Office of Safety, Infrastructure, and Operations; NNSA's
physical and cybersecurity activities; and the secure transportation of
nuclear materials.
Maintaining the Stockpile
Last year, the work of the science-based Stockpile Stewardship
Program (SSP) allowed the Secretaries of Energy and Defense to certify
to the President for the 20th time that the American nuclear weapons
stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable, without the need for
underground explosive nuclear testing. This achievement is made
possible each year by essential investments in state-of-the-art
diagnostic tools, high performance computing platforms, and modern
facilities, which are staffed by NNSA's world-class scientists,
engineers, and technicians.
For Directed Stockpile Work (DSW), the fiscal year 2017 budget
request is $3.3 billion, a decrease of $57.3 million, or 1.7 percent
below the fiscal year 2016 enacted levels. These reductions will not
restrict NNSA's ability to annually assess system performance and
reliability or maintain the schedule for Life Extension Programs (LEP).
The major LEPs are a fundamental part of this account. The $222.9
million requested for the W76-1 warhead LEP directly supports the Navy
and will keep the LEP on schedule and on budget to complete production
in fiscal year 2019. We continue to make good progress on the B61-12
LEP, which will consolidate four variants of the B61 gravity bomb and
will improve the safety and security of the oldest weapon system in the
U.S. nuclear arsenal. With the $616.1 million requested, we will remain
on schedule to deliver the First Production Unit (FPU) in fiscal year
2020.
NNSA is responsible for the refurbishment of the nuclear explosives
package and new bomb electronics, while the Air Force will provide the
tail kit assembly under a separate acquisition program. When fielded,
the B61-12 bomb will support both Air Force strategic long-range
nuclear-capable bombers and dual-capable fighter aircraft, providing
extended deterrence to our allies and partners, and allow retirement of
the last megaton class weapon in the inventory, the B83 gravity bomb.
In July 2015, we began Phase 6.2 (Feasibility Study and Design
Options) for the W80-4 cruise missile warhead LEP. The fiscal year 2016
budget request included $195 million to accelerate the FPU by 2 years
to fiscal year 2025, a decision made by the Nuclear Weapons Council
(NWC) in late 2014. The fiscal year 2015 budget request included $10
million to start the program. We had initially planned a ramp-up of
Phase 6.2 study activities beginning in fiscal year 2016 to support the
NWC FPU decision. However, as a result of the fiscal year 2016
continuing resolution, we were unable to begin the planned ramp-up
activities until just recently. Furthermore, because of the delay in
receiving fiscal year 2016 funding, the program cannot execute the full
fiscal year 2016 enacted amount this year. As a result, a significant
amount of the program's fiscal year 2016 funding will carry over into
fiscal year 2017. Consequently, the fiscal year 2017 budget request is
$25.3 million over the fiscal year 2016 budget request, rather than
$117 million over the fiscal year 2016 budget request, as previously
projected. While this delayed start will affect planned technology
maturation activities in Phase 6.2A (Design Definition and Cost Study),
we still fully expect to meet the planned FPU date in fiscal year 2025
to support the Air Force Long Range Stand Off (LRSO) program.
In fiscal year 2015, the NWC approved additional scope for the W88
Alteration (ALT) 370 to meet an emerging requirement. NNSA is now
accelerating the new Conventional High Explosive (CHE) refresh work to
match the original ALT schedule. As a result, we are synchronizing the
full program to transition seamlessly to the Production Engineering
phase in February 2017. In preparation for that phase transition, NNSA
will publish a baseline cost report by the end of this fiscal year.
This budget request reflects these efforts and includes $281.1 million
in fiscal year 2017 to support the FPU in fiscal year 2020.
Also within DSW, the fiscal year 2017 budget request includes $1.3
billion for Stockpile Systems and Stockpile Services. These programs
sustain the stockpile pursuant to the direction given in the
President's Nuclear Weapon Stockpile Plan (NWSP). In doing so, the
programs deploy unique skills, equipment, testers, and logistics to
enable the daily operations of the nation's nuclear deterrent.
Specifically, these programs produce and replace limited life
components (LLCs) such as neutron generators and gas transfer systems,
conduct maintenance, surveillance, and evaluations to assess weapons
reliability, detect and anticipate potential weapons issues such as the
recent CHE refresh issue mentioned above, and compile and analyze
information during the Annual Assessment process.
The pursuit and application of technological advancements to
enhance safety and security while reducing life cycle costs of the
stockpile runs through all of these activities. The development of
Integrated Surety Architectures enhancing transportation safety and
security is an example of these efforts.
Within DSW, the fiscal year 2017 budget request also includes
$577.8 million for the Strategic Materials account to maintain NNSA's
ability to produce the nuclear and other materials needed to support
the enduring stockpile. This program includes Uranium Sustainment,
Plutonium Sustainment, Tritium Sustainment, Domestic Uranium Enrichment
(DUE), lithium and other strategic materials. Funding for Uranium
Sustainment will enable enriched uranium operations in Building 9212, a
Manhattan Project-era production facility at the Y-12 National Security
Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to end in fiscal year 2025, and allow
the bulk of this obsolete building to shut down. The sustainment and
modernization of enriched uranium capabilities and the acceleration of
Area 5 de-inventory will reduce safety and mission risks in the near
term.
Plutonium Sustainment funds replacement and refurbishment of
equipment and the critical skills needed to meet the pit production
requirements as outlined in the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for fiscal year 2015.
Tritium Sustainment ensures the Nation's capability and capacity to
provide the tritium necessary to meet national security requirements,
either through production at Tennessee Valley Authority nuclear power
plants or by recovering and recycling tritium from returned gas
transfer systems.
The DUE program continues its efforts to ensure that we have the
necessary supplies of enriched uranium for a variety of national
security needs.
The fiscal year 2017 budget request also includes $69 million for
Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition, an increase of $16.9 million,
32.7 percent above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level, which includes
funds to support the President's goal to accelerate the dismantlement
rate of previously retired weapons by 20 percent. This will enable NNSA
to dismantle the weapons retired prior to fiscal year 2009 by 2021,
rather than the original goal of 2022. It will also result in increased
Management and Operating staff at both the Pantex Plant in Amarillo,
Texas and the Y-12 National Security Complex.
For Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), the fiscal
year 2017 budget request is $1.9 billion, an increase of $36.2 million,
2 percent above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. This includes
$663.2 million for the Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) Program,
an increase of $31 million for the Advanced Technology Development and
Mitigation (ATDM) subprogram that supports high performance computing
on the path to exascale, and $87.1 million for Advanced Manufacturing
Development (AMD), a decrease of $43 million. The decrease reflects a
realignment from technology development investments to address higher
NNSA priorities. The budget request focuses on continued investment in
advanced manufacturing opportunities and improving the manufacturing
processes for components that support multiple weapons to maximize the
benefits of these investments. Advanced Manufacturing invests in
technologies that will reduce the time and cost of current
manufacturing methods, replaces obsolete processes, and supports
manufacturing developments for future weapon upgrades. Additive
Manufacturing, also known as 3-D printing, aids in developing and
manufacturing components for stockpile and weapon technology
applications. The overall RDT&E request reflects small increases for
the Science Program ($442.0 million, an increase of $18.9 million) to
achieve two subcritical experiments per year before the end of the
FYNSP, and begin alterations to U1a tunnel complex at Nevada to prepare
for these experiments: Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High
Yield Program ($523.9 million, an increase of $11.9 million) and the
Engineering Program ($139.5 million, an increase of $8.1 million).
The Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield program has
spearheaded ongoing improvements in management and operational
efficiencies at NNSA's major high energy density (HED) facilities,
including the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory (LLNL) in California and the OMEGA facility at the
University of Rochester in New York. In fiscal year 2015, NIF markedly
improved its shot-rate efficiency with over 350 key experiments
performed (compared to 191 in fiscal year 2014) in support of the SSP.
This level of effort represents an 85 percent increase over the
previous year and an 18 percent increase over its goal for 2015.
NNSA has taken major steps in high performance computing to deliver
on its missions and play a leading role to support the President's
Executive Order on the National Strategic Computing Initiative (NSCI).
In 2015, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and Sandia National
Laboratories (SNL) received the first hardware delivery for NNSA's next
generation high performance computer, Trinity. This computer will
initially have eight times more applications performance than the Cielo
machine it is replacing. NNSA also continued its CORAL collaboration
with LLNL, the DOE Office of Science national laboratories at Oak Ridge
and Argonne, IBM, and other vendors. CORAL will help develop next
generation computing platforms to dramatically improve our ability to
run increasingly complex codes and will be a significant step on the
path to exascale computing.
NNSA collaborates with the DOE Office of Science while making these
much needed investments in exascale computing. The fiscal year 2017
budget request includes $95 million from NNSA for the development of
capable exascale systems.
Defense Programs also maintains the vitality of the broader
National Security Enterprise. An important aspect of this effort is
investing in Laboratory-, Site- and Plant-Directed Research and
Development (LDRD/PDRD). Independent reviews have consistently affirmed
the importance of the program to the long-term vitality of the labs.
LDRD/PDRD provides basic research funding to foster innovation and to
attract and retain young scientific and technical talent and is
critical to the long-term sustainment of our national laboratories.
Congressional support is essential to ensuring that we have both the
workforce and the new developments necessary to support the nation's
security into the future.
Improving Safety, Operations and Infrastructure
NNSA's ability to achieve its mission is dependent upon safe and
reliable infrastructure. The age and condition of NNSA's infrastructure
will, if not addressed, put the mission, the safety of our workers, the
public, and the environment at risk. More than half of NNSA's
facilities are over 40 years old while 30 percent of them date back to
the Manhattan Project era. The fiscal year 2017 budget request for
Infrastructure and Operations is $2.7 billion, an increase of $442.8
million, 19.4 percent above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. This
funding will help NNSA modernize and upgrade aging infrastructure and
address safety and programmatic risks through strategic investments in
both general purpose infrastructure and program-specific capabilities
that directly support our nuclear weapons and nonproliferation
programs.
To support critical programmatic activities, we are making
important strides in recapitalizing our aging infrastructure and
capabilities. In fiscal year 2015, NNSA funded new and continuing
projects to enhance or replace programmatic capabilities and address
the risks posed by the aging infrastructure. NNSA's investment in these
projects is vital to the revitalization of the NNSA enterprise. The
fiscal year 2017 budget request provides funding for more than 70
recapitalization projects. The request will also support general
purpose infrastructure and program-specific capabilities through Line
Item Construction projects. These projects include, for example, the
Uranium Processing Facility (UPF), the Chemistry and Metallurgy
Research Replacement (CMRR) project, the U1a Complex Enhancements
Project (UCEP) in support of the Enhanced Capabilities for Subcritical
Experiments (ECSE) portfolio, the Albuquerque Complex Project to
replace the current inadequate facilities, and a project to expand the
electrical distribution system at LLNL.
One of the most worrisome of the NNSA infrastructure challenges is
the excess facilities that pose risks to our workers, the environment,
and the mission. While many of these facilities will ultimately be
transferred to the DOE Office of Environmental Management for
disposition, NNSA is focusing on reducing the risk where it can. In
fiscal year 2015, NNSA successfully demolished our second non-process
contaminated building at Y-12 within the past two calendar years. The
fiscal year 2017 budget request supports a number of activities to
continue to address excess facilities. These activities include the
transition of the Kansas City Bannister Federal Complex to the private
sector for environmental remediation and redevelopment, risk reduction
activities at Alpha-5 and Beta-4 at Y-12--both of which are highly
process-contaminated--and disposition of more uncontaminated facilities
across the NNSA enterprise.
Our Secure Transportation Asset (STA) program provides safe, secure
movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear material, and weapon
components to meet projected DOE, DoD, and other customer requirements.
The fiscal year 2017 budget request of $282.7 million includes an
increase of $45.6 million, 19.2 percent above the fiscal year 2016
enacted levels, to continue asset modernization and workforce
capability initiatives. These initiatives include: (1) restoration of
Federal agent strength levels to meet the goal of 370; (2) the
Safeguards Transporter (SGT) Risk Reduction Initiatives to manage the
SGT beyond its design life; (3) development and testing of the selected
alternative for the SGT replacement, the Mobile Guardian Transporter
(MGT); and (4) replacement of vehicles and tractors.
The Office of Defense Nuclear Security (DNS) develops and
implements sound security programs to protect Special Nuclear Material
(SNM), people, information, and facilities throughout the nuclear
security enterprise. The fiscal year 2017 budget request is $670.1
million, a decrease of $12.8 million, or 1.9 percent below the fiscal
year 2016 the enacted level of $682.9 million due to one-time dedicated
increases in fiscal year 2016. After adjusting for an fiscal year 2016
one-time $30 million designated plus up and $13 million dedicated line
item construction amounts for each year, the remaining fiscal year 2017
operating request of $657.1 million is an increase of $17.2 million, or
2.7 percent above the fiscal year 2016 enacted operating level of
$639.9 million. The request manages risk among important competing
demands as NNSA continues to face the challenges associated with an
aging physical security infrastructure that must be effectively
addressed in the coming years. To this end, DNS is conducting a Site
Condition Review (SCR) of the physical security systems at all
locations to facilitate the development of an enterprise-wide security
systems upgrade and refresh strategy. This effort will identify and
manage current and future security improvements and upgrades on a 10-
year planning cycle and includes determining the condition of critical
security equipment and infrastructure. A final report of this effort
will provide DOE/NNSA leadership and Congressional stakeholders with
consolidated and up-to-date information to enable informed decisions
for fiscal planning and programming.
The SCR is being conducted within the context of important
organizational improvements and management strategies published in the
June 2015 Security Roadmap. The document establishes a clear vision and
path forward to correcting identified security issues and promoting
sustained performance within the NNSA security program. The Security
Roadmap is a multi-year effort that implements key recommendations for
improvement identified in past assessments; it includes a total of 57
strategic initiatives covering culture, process, infrastructure, and
workforce challenges. As of the end of 2015, DNS has completed six of
the initiatives and is currently working on another 20 initiatives. The
remaining 31 initiatives are pending formal initiation.
For Information Technology and Cybersecurity, the fiscal year 2017
budget request is $176.6 million, an increase of $19 million, or 12.1
percent above fiscal year 2016 enacted levels. This increase will fund
much needed improvement to the Information Technology and Cybersecurity
program, including Continuous Diagnostic and Mitigation (CDM),
Telecommunications Security, infrastructure upgrades for the Enterprise
Secure Computing Network (ESN), Public Key Infrastructure (PKI), Energy
Sciences Network (ESnet) program, and an increased Information
Technology budget. This cybersecurity program continuously monitors
enterprise wireless and security technologies (e.g., identity,
credential, and access management) to meet a wide range of security
challenges. In fiscal year 2017, NNSA plans to continue the
recapitalization of the Enterprise Secure Network, modernize the
cybersecurity infrastructure, implement the Identity Control and Access
Management project at NNSA Headquarters and site elements, and
implement all Committee on National Security Systems and PKI
capabilities.
defense nuclear nonproliferation appropriation
The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN), fiscal year 2017 budget
request is $1.8 billion, a decrease of $132.4 million, 6.8 percent
below the fiscal year 2016 enacted levels. This appropriation covers
NNSA's nuclear threat reduction mission. DNN addresses the entire
nuclear threat spectrum by helping to prevent the acquisition of
nuclear weapons or weapon-usable materials, technologies, and
expertise, countering efforts to acquire such weapons, materials, and
technologies, and responding to nuclear and radiological incidents. The
fiscal year 2017 budget request funds two mission areas under the DNN
appropriation: the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program and the
Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response (NCTIR) Program.
Nonproliferation Efforts
NNSA made significant progress in nuclear threat reduction in 2015.
Working with foreign partners, the Office of Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation removed approximately 170 kilograms of highly enriched
uranium (HEU) and plutonium from several civilian sites; successfully
down- blended additional HEU to achieve a cumulative total of 150
metric tons of U.S. excess, weapons-usable HEU (approximately 6,000
nuclear weapons worth of material); recovered more than 100,000 curies
of disused or orphaned radioactive material; ensured the United States
remains on track to fulfill the commitments made at the 2014 Nuclear
Security Summit; and supported the Secretary of Energy's efforts to
develop the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) by providing
scientific expertise and technical options to the United States
negotiating team.
The Material Management and Minimization (M\3\) program provides an
integrated approach to addressing the threat posed by nuclear materials
through a full cycle of materials management and minimization. The
primary objective of the program is to achieve permanent threat
reduction by minimizing and, when possible, eliminating weapons-usable
nuclear material around the world. The fiscal year 2017 budget request
is $341.1 million, an increase of $24.5 million, 7.7 percent above the
fiscal year 2016 enacted levels. This funding increase will accelerate
reactor conversions in Kazakhstan and in the United States, as well as
initiate the critical decision process to support the dilute and
dispose program for domestic plutonium disposition.
The Global Material Security (GMS) program works with partner
nations to increase the security of vulnerable nuclear and radiological
materials and improve their ability to detect, interdict, and
investigate illicit trafficking of these materials. The fiscal year
2017 budget request for this program is $337.1 million, a decrease of
$89.6 million, 21 percent below the fiscal year 2016 enacted level.
This decrease is possible because GMS is completing its work to protect
the remaining International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Category I
radiological sources in the United States to meet our 2014 Nuclear
Security Summit commitment, and because GMS is committed to reducing
its prior year carryover balances.
The Nonproliferation and Arms Control (NPAC) program supports the
nonproliferation and arms control regimes by developing and
implementing programs to strengthen international nuclear safeguards;
control the spread of nuclear and dual-use material, equipment,
technology and expertise; verify nuclear reductions and compliance with
nonproliferation and arms control treaties and agreements; and address
other nonproliferation and arms control challenges. The fiscal year
2017 budget request will fund safeguards and export control activities,
including efforts specifically in support of JCPOA implementation. This
funding also supports statutorily mandated activities such as technical
reviews of export licenses and interdiction cases, technical support
for the negotiation and implementation of civil nuclear cooperation
agreements (123 Agreements), and upgrades to the 10 CFR 810
authorization process. The fiscal year 2017 budget request for this
program is $124.7 million, a decrease of $5.5 million, 4.2 percent
below the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. This decrease primarily
reflects a return to baseline funding following the one-time increase
of $3.5 million by Congress in the fiscal year 2016 budget for
improvements in the export control process, as well as cost-savings in
export licensing activities achieved through operational efficiencies.
The DNN Research and Development (DNN R&D) program supports
innovative unilateral and multi-lateral technical capabilities to
detect, identify, and characterize (1) foreign nuclear weapons
programs, (2) illicit diversion of special nuclear materials, and (3)
nuclear detonations. To meet national and Departmental nuclear security
requirements, DNN R&D leverages the unique facilities and scientific
skills of DOE, academia, and industry to perform research, including
counterterrorism-related R&D. The fiscal year 2017 budget request for
this program is $393.9 million, a $25.4 million or 6.1 percent decrease
below fiscal year 2016 enacted levels. The decrease in funding reflects
projected savings resulting from a reduction in planned activities for
arms control-related R&D and a return to the baseline Nuclear
Detonation Detection (NDD) program after development of an initial
mitigation path for supply chain interruptions.
Nonproliferation Construction consolidates construction costs for
DNN projects. Currently, the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) is
the only project in this program; however, the fiscal year 2017 budget
request terminates the MOX project. The Department will complete pre-
conceptual design for the dilute and dispose approach to establish
Critical Decision-0 (CD-0), Approve Mission Need, and begin conceptual
design in late fiscal year 2017. The fiscal year 2017 budget request of
$270 million will be used to bring an orderly and safe closure of the
MFFF. The scope and costs will be refined in subsequent budget
submissions when the termination plan for the MFFF project is approved.
Nuclear Counterterrorism and Emergency Operations
DOE has adopted an enterprise-wide approach to strengthen overall
preparedness to respond to a broad spectrum of potential emergencies.
These emergencies include natural phenomena, such as adverse weather
events or earthquakes, and man-made events, such as accidents or acts
of terrorism. To better accomplish this mission, in November 2015, NNSA
reorganized the Office of Emergency Operations and the Office of
Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation.
Both of these organizations are supported under the Nuclear
Counterterrorism and Incident Response (NCTIR) Program. In fiscal year
2016, the NCTIR program transitioned to the DNN account in order to
align all NNSA funding to prevent, counter, and respond to nuclear
proliferation and terrorism. The fiscal year 2017 budget request
includes $271.9 million to support the NCTIR program, an increase of
$37.5 million, 16 percent above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level.
Within NCTIR, NNSA continues to work domestically and around the world
to prepare for and improve our ability to respond to radiological or
nuclear incidents.
Our counterterrorism and counterproliferation programs are part of
broader U.S. Government efforts assessing the threat of nuclear
terrorism and to develop technical countermeasures. The scientific
knowledge generated under this program ensures that NNSA's technical
expertise on nuclear threat devices, including improvised nuclear
devices (INDs), supports and informs broader U.S. Government nuclear
security policy and guides nuclear counterterrorism and
counterproliferation efforts, including interagency nuclear forensics
and DoD contingency planning.
NNSA's emergency response teams must deploy and respond with the
most up to date equipment. The current equipment is aging, increasing
maintenance expenses, and has started to impact NNSA's ability to
perform its emergency response mission. The Radiological Assistance
Program (RAP) remains the nation's premier first-response resource to
assess a radiological incident and advise decision-makers on necessary
steps to minimize hazards, but its effectiveness is beginning to be
compromised by obsolete equipment. To ensure that NNSA is able to
execute its radiological emergency response mission, RAP's equipment
must be recapitalized regularly. Additionally, NNSA is acquiring state-
of-the-art, secure, deployable communications systems that are
interoperable with our Federal Bureau of Investigation and DoD mission
partners, ensuring decision makers receive real-time technical
recommendations to mitigate nuclear terrorist threats.
The Office of Emergency Operations is now aligned to focus on its
core Department-wide all- hazards and complex-wide emergency management
mission. The fiscal year 2017 budget request for this office is $34.7
million, an increase of $9.6 million, or 38 percent above the fiscal
year 2016 enacted level. This will improve the emergency management
system through an enterprise-wide approach that effectively increases
the Department's all-hazards emergency preparedness and response
capability during complex, cascading, or enduring incidents, and more
effectively calls upon and leverages the assets, resources, and skills
across the DOE complex. The Emergency Operations Center (EOC) will
continue to be the 24/7/365 single-point-of-contact for Departmental
and interagency notifications regarding situations requiring
centralized management such as, national emergencies, heightened
international tension, Departmental emergencies, natural disasters, or
acts of terrorism. The program also manages the Emergency
Communications Network, and Continuity Programs for all of DOE,
including NNSA. The Office of Emergency Operations will continue to
work within the DOE to develop plans to replace the existing EOC and to
improve the Department's capabilities to respond to emergencies.
naval reactors appropriation
Advancing Naval Nuclear Propulsion
NNSA supports the U.S. Navy's ability to protect and defend
American interests across the globe. The Naval Reactors Program remains
at the forefront of technological developments in naval nuclear
propulsion and ensures a commanding edge in warfighting capabilities by
advancing new technologies and improvements in naval reactor
performance and reliability.
In 2015, Naval Reactors enabled U.S. nuclear powered warships to
operate for another year safely and effectively, steaming more than two
million miles in support of national security missions. Initial reactor
start-up was achieved in the lead reactor plant of pre-commissioning
unit (PCU) Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), the first new design aircraft
carrier propulsion plant in 40 years. This historic milestone
represents the culmination of almost 20 years of dedicated and
sustained effort by Naval Reactors and its field activities, our
Department of Energy laboratories, nuclear industrial base suppliers,
the Navy design team and the nuclear shipbuilders. This is the first
step in fully testing the integrated operations of the propulsion
plant, culminating in sea trials this spring. Finally, we continued our
reactor plant design and reactor core manufacturing development efforts
in support of the new design Ohio-class Replacement reactor plant,
including the life-of-ship core.
The Naval Reactors fiscal year 2017 budget request is $1.42
billion, an increase of $45 million, 3.2 percent above the fiscal year
2016 enacted level. In addition to supporting today's operational
fleet, the requested funding will enable Naval Reactors to deliver
tomorrow's fleet by funding three national priority projects, and
recruiting and retaining a highly skilled work force committed to the
Navy and the nation. The projects include (1) continuing design of the
new reactor plant for the replacement of the Ohio-class SSBN, which
will feature a life-of-ship core and electric drive; (2) refueling a
Research and Training Reactor in New York to facilitate Ohio-class
Replacement reactor development efforts and provide 20 more years of
live reactor based training for fleet operators; and (3) building a new
spent fuel handling facility in Idaho that will facilitate long term,
reliable processing and packaging of spent nuclear fuel from aircraft
carriers and submarines.
Naval Reactors has requested funding in fiscal year 2017 to support
these projects, and to fund necessary reactor technology development,
equipment, construction, maintenance, and modernization of critical
infrastructure and facilities. By employing a small but high-performing
technical base, the teams at our four Program sites--the Bettis Atomic
Power Laboratory in Pittsburgh, the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory and
Kesselring Site in greater Albany, and our spent nuclear fuel
facilities in Idaho--we can perform the research and development,
analysis, engineering and testing needed to support today's fleet at
sea and develop future nuclear- powered warships. Importantly, our labs
perform the technical evaluations that enable Naval Reactors to
thoroughly assess emergent issues and deliver timely responses that
ensure nuclear safety and maximize operational flexibility. This
technical base supports more than 15,000 nuclear-trained Navy sailors,
who safely maintain and operate the 98 nuclear propulsion plants in the
fleet 24 hours per day, 365 days per year around the globe. It will
also facilitate delivery, as directed by Congress, of our conceptual
plan for potential naval application of low enriched uranium.
nnsa federal salaries and expenses appropriation
The NNSA Federal Salaries and Expenses (FSE) fiscal year 2017
budget request is $412.8 million, an increase of $49.1 million, 13.5
percent above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The fiscal year 2017
budget request provides funding for 1,715 full-time equivalents (FTE)
and support expenses needed to meet mission requirements. We are
actively engaged in hiring to that number in a thoughtful and strategic
manner. The fiscal year 2017 budget request will support 1,715 FTEs, an
increase of 60 FTEs (25 above the authorized 1,690) above the
anticipated number of FTEs in fiscal year 2016, and request an
additional 25 for a total of 1,740 FTEs in fiscal year 2018 and the
outyears. The exact number of FTEs will be determined following a
detailed staffing review. It also provides for a 1.3 percent cost of
living increase and a 5.5 percent increase for benefit escalation. In
addition, the request provides funding for additional Federal
Background Investigations for security clearances and provides
additional funding to the Department's Working Capital Fund, primarily
for Office of Personnel Management (OPM) credit monitoring and the
Department's accounting systems (iMANAGE).
In fiscal year 2017, NNSA will continue its efforts to meet current
and future workforce needs by analyzing how evolving missions are
affecting job requirements. Reshaping of the workforce over the next
several years will be essential, including identifying the right
staffing size and skill sets and implementing professional development
plans now and in the future. NNSA will also continue to streamline its
operations, particularly in travel and support services, to provide a
lean and efficient organization.
management and performance
To enhance our ability to carry out our mission and execute this
budget request, we will continue to focus on improving our project
management and cost estimating capabilities. In keeping with the
Secretary of Energy's increased focus on Management and Performance,
NNSA is committed to managing its operations, contracts and costs in an
effective and efficient manner. The NNSA's Office of Acquisition and
Project Management (APM) is driving continued improvement in contract
and project management practices. APM is leading NNSA's effort to
institute rigorous analyses of alternatives, provide clear lines of
authority and accountability for Federal and contractor program and
project management, improve cost and schedule performance, and ensure
Federal Project Directors and Contracting Officers with the appropriate
skill mix and professional certifications are managing NNSA's work.
NNSA participates in the Secretary of Energy's Project Management Risk
Committee as a means to institutionalize and share best practices
across the Department. NNSA established the Office of Project
Assessments, reporting directly to the Principal Deputy Administrator,
ensuring senior leadership visibility and accountability throughout the
Enterprise for project performance. This office generated $33 million
in cost avoidances as a result of their independent project peer
reviews.
Since 2011, NNSA has delivered approximately $1.4 billion in
projects, a portion of NNSAs total project portfolio, $70 million (or 5
percent) under original budget. Significant examples in the last year
include the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) Site Readiness
Subproject, which delivered $20 million under budget; Y-12's Nuclear
Facility Risk Reduction Project, which delivered $6 million under
budget and 11 months ahead of schedule; and LANL's Transuranic Waste
Facility Project, which is on track to complete $3 million under
budget. Using the Department's best practices, the UPF and Chemistry
and Metallurgy Research Replacement Facility Projects were restructured
into smaller more manageable subprojects, significantly reducing
project delivery risk.
NNSA is committed to encouraging competition and increasing the
universe of qualified contractors, by streamlining its major
acquisition processes. The most significant example was the competitive
award of the Kansas City National Security Campus M&O contract, awarded
without protest, saving taxpayers $150 million and increasing the use
of small businesses. As an affirmation of the quality of NNSA's
acquisition management team, only four out of 103 competitive
procurements were protested, with NNSA winning all protests. Finally,
NNSA exceeded its small business goal by over 20 percent, awarding $233
million to small business in fiscal year 2015.
NNSA will continue to focus on delivering timely, best-value
acquisition solutions for all of our programs and projects. NNSA will
use a tailored approach to contract structures and incentives that is
appropriate for the unique missions and risks at each site. Our M&O
contractors are responsible for disparate activities, ranging from
research and development to industrial production. Accordingly, we will
work to develop the right incentives for each circumstance and for each
of our contracts.
cost estimating and program evaluation
The Office of Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation (CEPE)
continues to develop its capabilities to provide trusted independent
cost and resource analysis of NNSA's programs and projects. As detailed
in its implementation plan, the number of CEPE Federal staff will grow
from a target of 15 in fiscal year 2016 to 18 in fiscal year 2017. CEPE
will conduct independent cost estimates on the B61-12 LEP and W88 Alt
370 in fiscal year 2016 and the W80-4 LEP in fiscal year 2017. CEPE is
also institutionalizing best practices for analysis of alternatives and
leads the corporate process to build the NNSA budget.
conclusion
The NNSA performs vital activities at home and throughout the world
in support of the nuclear security mission. Its success in addressing
21st century challenges hinges upon the technology, capabilities, and
infrastructure entrusted to the organization.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
______
Prepared Statement of Admiral James F. Caldwell
A strong Navy is crucial to the security of the United States. Navy
warships are deployed around the world every hour of every day to
provide a credible ``forward presence.'' With over 45 percent of the
Navy's major combatants being nuclear powered, including 10 aircraft
carriers, 14 ballistic missile submarines, 55 attack submarines, and 4
guided missile submarines--it is vital that these ships are ready when
and where our Nation needs them. In addition to supporting these
nuclear powered combatants, Naval Reactors has also safely maintained
and operated two nuclear powered land-based prototypes--both over 38
years old--to conduct research and development and two Moored Training
Ships--both over 51 years old--the oldest operating pressurized water
reactors (PWRs) in the world. These land-based prototypes, Moored
Training Ships, and Naval Nuclear Power Training Command train over
3000 sailors per year to operate our naval nuclear propulsion plants.
Our ballistic missile submarine force remains on patrol, marking
over 60 years of peacekeeping capability through strategic deterrence.
The Navy had 34 submarine deployments and 26 strategic deterrent
patrols during 2015. In addition, at any given time, there were always
at least 56 of 71 submarines deployed or on stand-by to deploy within a
few days. Our carriers, USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) and USS Theodore
Roosevelt (CVN 71) completed successful deployments to the Central
Command area of responsibility, and the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76)
turned over with the USS George Washington (CVN 73) to serve as the
forward-deployed carrier in Japan.
This past year, we also saw the christening of the attack submarine
PCU Illinois (SSN 786) and keel laying for the PCU Colorado (SSN 788)
and PCU Indiana (SSN 789), our fifteenth and sixteenth Virginia-class
submarines. We've also added another attack submarine to our force by
commissioning USS John Warner (SSN 785), and began a program that
delivers two Virginia-class submarines annually. In 2015, we laid the
keel for the second Ford-Class CVN, PCU John F. Kennedy (CVN 79). We
currently have 12 submarines and one next generation aircraft carrier
in various phases of construction at our shipyards. Initial reactor
start-up was achieved in the lead reactor plant of PCU Gerald R. Ford
(CVN 78), the first new design aircraft carrier propulsion plant in 40
years. This historic milestone represents the culmination of almost 20
years of dedicated and sustained effort by Naval Reactors and its field
activities, our Department of Energy laboratories, nuclear industrial
base suppliers, the Navy design team and the nuclear shipbuilders. This
is the first step in fully testing the integrated operations of the
propulsion plant, culminating in sea trials this spring. Finally, we
continued our reactor plant design and reactor core manufacturing
development efforts to support of the new design Ohio-class Replacement
reactor plant, including the life-of-ship core.
The firm support of this subcommittee last year enabled safe
operation of the fleet, Naval Reactors mandatory oversight, and
continued progress on key projects. Naval Reactors' budget request for
fiscal year 2017 will continue this work. The funding request is for
$1.420 billion, an increase of $45 million (3 percent) over the fiscal
year 2016 enacted funding level. In addition to supporting today's
operational fleet, the requested funding will enable Naval Reactors to
deliver tomorrow's fleet by funding three national priority projects
and recruiting and retaining a highly skilled work force committed to
the Navy and the nation. The projects are:
--Continuing to design the new reactor plant for the replacement of
the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine, which will feature
a life-of-ship core and electric drive;
--Refueling a Research and Training Reactor in New York, to
facilitate Ohio-class Replacement reactor development efforts
and provide 20 more years of live reactor based training for
the fleet operators; and
--Building a new spent fuel handling facility in Idaho that will
facilitate long term, reliable processing and packaging of
spent nuclear fuel from aircraft carriers and submarines.
Naval Reactors has requested funding in fiscal year 2017 to support
these projects, and to fund necessary reactor technology development,
equipment, construction, maintenance, and modernization of critical
infrastructure and facilities. By employing a small but high-performing
technical base, the teams at our four Program sites--the Bettis Atomic
Power Laboratory in Pittsburgh, the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory and
Kesselring Site in greater Albany, and our spent nuclear fuel
facilities in Idaho--we can perform the research and development,
analysis, engineering and testing needed to support today's fleet at
sea and develop future nuclear-powered warships. Importantly, our labs
perform the technical evaluations that enable Naval Reactors to
thoroughly assess emergent issues and deliver timely responses that
ensure nuclear safety and maximize operational flexibility. This
technical base supports more than 15,000 nuclear-trained Navy sailors,
who safely maintain and operate the 97 nuclear propulsion plants in the
fleet 24 hours per day, 365 days per year around the globe. It will
also facilitate delivery, as directed by Congress, of our conceptual
plan for potential naval application of low enriched uranium.
The requested increase in funding is also required to support the
planned ramp up of design efforts for the new reactor plant for the
Ohio-class SSBN Replacement--the Navy's number one acquisition
priority. Providing unparalleled stealth, endurance, and mobility, our
ballistic missile submarine force has delivered more than 60 years of
continuous at-sea deterrence, and continues to be the most survivable
leg of the nuclear triad. Ohio-class Replacement SSBN activity this
year includes reactor plant design and component development to support
procurement of long lead components starting in fiscal year 2019.
Progress in these areas in fiscal year 2017 maintains schedule
alignment with the Navy as the program moves forward to construction
start in fiscal year 2021 while retiring technical risk and targeting
cost reduction.
Related to Ohio-class Replacement and the Program's training needs,
the fiscal year 2017 budget request will support the land-based
prototype refueling overhaul at the Kesselring Site in upstate New
York. In fiscal year 2017, Naval Reactors will continue the core
manufacturing work needed for the refueling overhaul, which will also
enable timely construction of the life-of-ship core for Ohio-class
Replacement. Further, plant service-life engineering design will be
completed in fiscal year 2017 to ensure that the land-based prototype
overhaul, performed concurrently with refueling, supports 20 additional
years of research, development and training.
The Naval Reactors fiscal year 2017 budget request also contains
funds to continue the Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project.
After many years of funding reductions, Naval Reactors greatly
appreciates Congressional support for this much needed project in
fiscal year 2016, where we received the full request of $86 million.
Congressional support in 2016 enabled progress, design, and planning
for site preparations and long lead material procurements in fiscal
year 2017. We will use the $100 million requested in fiscal year 2017
to finalize key facility and equipment requirements and advance
facility design to support establishing the Performance Baseline in
fiscal year 2018 and the start of construction in fiscal year 2019.
Continued Congressional support will help ensure that the facility in
Idaho is ready to receive spent nuclear fuel from the fleet in fiscal
year 2025. Because the new facility's capabilities are required to
support aircraft carrier refuelings and defuelings, any delay to the
project schedule would require procurement of additional shipping
containers to temporarily store naval spent nuclear fuel at a cost of
approximately $150 million for each year the project is delayed.
At the requested funding level, Naval Reactors can safely maintain
and oversee the nuclear-powered fleet. Naval Reactors can also continue
to advance the Ohio-class Replacement and Land-based Prototype
Refueling Overhaul, continue progress on the Spent Fuel Handling
Recapitalization Project, and meet our environmental responsibilities.
Naval Reactors is committed to executing our projects on time and
on budget, and continuing the search for the safest and most cost
effective way to support the nuclear fleet. I respectfully urge your
support for aligning funding allocations with the fiscal year 2017
budget request.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, General Klotz.
We will now begin a round of questions.
URANIUM PROCESSING FACILITY
I want to ask about the big construction projects. And let
me take just a minute on the Uranium Facility before I go to
MOX. When do you expect the design to be 90 percent complete?
General Klotz. We expect the design for the project to be
90 percent complete at the--towards the end of next year, 2017.
Senator Alexander. So that means you would expect to begin
construction of the Uranium Facility toward the end of 2017?
General Klotz. We might not actually begin construction at
that time. I would have to give you a specific time in terms of
which we actually begin construction, but as you know, because,
as you rightly pointed out, we meet routinely with you,
Senator, and with Senator Feinstein, to go over that. And, in
fact, our staffs are working to schedule, as soon as we get
past the budget hearings, a discussion on that. But as you
know, we have broken the overall project up into several sub-
projects, one of which the site rating sub-project, as I
mentioned in the opening statement, was completed last year,
February of last year, for $65 million, which was $20 million
under the budget.
Senator Alexander. Well, I congratulate you on that, and I
think it's important to point out that over the last 5 years
that project has gone from skyrocketing out of control to a
managed process. Are you on a path that you believe is on time
and on budget, meaning no more than $6.5 billion by 2025?
General Klotz. Yes, sir. As recommended by the Red Team,
chaired by Dr. Thom Mason, the director of Oak National
Laboratory, we are implementing every one of the
recommendations in that, and we are going to deliver that
facility at $6.5 billion by 2025.
MIXED OXIDE FUEL FABRICATION FACILITY
Senator Alexander. Since we're talking about billions,
let's go to MOX. You said the Dilute and Dispose procedure
could be less than half the cost of the current MOX procedure.
What kind of dollars are we talking about?
General Klotz. We have conducted several reviews over the
past year, one by another Red Team chaired by Dr. Mason, of Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, and two congressionally mandated
independent assessments by The Aerospace Corporation.
Consistently these reviews have concluded that the projected
life-cycle cost of the MOX fuel approach for plutonium
disposition will be in the range of $30 to $50 billion, and
possibly even higher, and will require approximately $800
million to $1 billion annually for decades to come for the life
of the MOX fuel program.
Senator Alexander. And the cost of the alternative
proposal?
General Klotz. Half or better.
Senator Alexander. So we're talking about, according to
those figures, saving a half billion dollars a year?
General Klotz. Yes, sir. Or as the Secretary testified just
a week ago at this very same place, perhaps maybe even more.
Senator Alexander. How much excess plutonium is covered
under the agreement with Russia?
General Klotz. Sir, 34 metric tons.
Senator Alexander. And how much excess plutonium is
actually in South Carolina?
General Klotz. Approximately 13 metric tons.
Senator Alexander. Can all of those 13 tons in South
Carolina be sent to WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant), that
is, in New Mexico, under current law?
General Klotz. Yes, sir, that is correct. And, in fact, in
December of just last year, DOE issued its preferred
alternative for disposing of 6 metric tons at Savannah River,
not under the Plutonium Management Disposition Agreement that
you were referring to, by diluting it and disposing of it at
WIPP. And we are now in the process of finalizing a record of
decision, announcing the decision to prepare 6 metric tons for
eventual disposal at WIPP, and we can also, under existing
statutory authorities, we can put the other 7 metric tons that
are at Savannah River into WIPP.
Senator Alexander. So there are 13 tons of plutonium in
South Carolina.
General Klotz. That is correct.
Senator Alexander. Six of them, six of those tons, have
nothing to do with the Russian agreement.
General Klotz. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. Seven do.
General Klotz. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. And you're going to take--which tons go
first to New Mexico?
General Klotz. The six that are not part of the agreement.
Senator Alexander. And under existing agreements, there is
room in the New Mexico facility for all 13 tons.
General Klotz. That is correct, sir.
Senator Alexander. You have previously stated that nearly 5
tons of plutonium have already been disposed of at WIPP using
the same process you plan to use for the 6 tons in South
Carolina that have nothing to do with the Russian agreement. So
is the process of disposing of plutonium by Dilute and Dispose
well understood? Are you comfortable with it? Is it a competent
process?
General Klotz. Yes, sir. As I said, we have done it before.
We understand how to do that process, and it's very well
understood.
Senator Alexander. How long will it take to complete the
disposal of the 6 tons of material in South Carolina that are
not part of the Russian agreement?
General Klotz. Well, we'll have to do some things to speed
up our capability of doing that. Right now, DOE plans to ramp
up operations at Savannah River to dilute a small quantity,
perhaps 150 kilograms per year of plutonium, over the next 2 to
3 years. We would also further increase throughput to
approximately half a metric ton per year for a relatively small
amount of funding, say, $5 million over 3 years.
Additionally, NNSA has already begun design work with money
that was appropriated in the 2016 appropriations bill for two
additional glove boxes that will increase our ability to dilute
to over 1 metric ton a year, and we expect these glove boxes to
be in place during the mid-2020s. So that's when we can really
seriously begin moving the 6 metric tons to WIPP.
By comparison, the MOX approach, if we followed that, the
first metric ton of plutonium would not be processed until the
2040s, and only if Congress can begin funding the project now
at about $1 billion a year.
Senator Alexander. Well, my time is up, but to summarize,
you have testified that in your opinion and based on
independent studies, that Congress might spend more than a half
billion dollars more pursuing the MOX facility as opposed to
Dilute and Dispose, so it's about half the cost or better. And,
finally, you've said you could get all 13 tons that are now in
South Carolina of plutonium, only 7 of which have anything to
do with the Russian agreement, that you can get them out of
South Carolina and into the WIPP facility much faster than you
could using the current MOX procedure, and that under current
authorities, you have permission--you wouldn't have to change
the law in order to send those 13 tons to WIPP. Am I correct?
General Klotz. Yes, sir. That's all correct.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
And thanks to my colleagues for letting me go over a little
bit.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NUCLEAR CRUISE MISSILE
General Klotz, I recently met with Admiral Haney, the head
of Strategic Command, regarding the new nuclear cruise missile
and its refurbished warhead. I came away unconvinced of the
need for this weapon. The so-called improvements to this weapon
seem to be designed candidly to make it more usable, to help us
fight and win a limited nuclear war. I find that a shocking
concept. I think this is really unthinkable, especially when we
hold conventional weapons superiority, which can meet
adversaries' efforts to escalate a conflict. So maybe you can
succeed where Admiral Haney did not.
Let me ask you this question, Why do we need a new nuclear
cruise missile?
General Klotz. Well, thank you very much for the question,
Senator, and let me just state at the outset, defining the--but
I will answer your question--defining the military requirements
is the responsibility of the Department of Defense, which
obviously includes the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, and the Commander of Strategic Command.
Senator Feinstein. Don't bucket your view.
General Klotz. But we accept the responsibility for
building the warhead that goes in it. But let me just say since
when I was in uniform, I had command of Air Force Global Strike
Command, and, therefore, of the cruise missiles that the Air
Force and the Department of Defense are proposing to replace.
My sense at the time, and still is the case, is that the
existing cruise missile, the air-launched cruise missile, is
getting rather long in the tooth with the issues that are
associated with an aging weapons system. It was first deployed
in 1982, and, therefore, it is well past its service life.
In the meantime, as you know from your work on the
Intelligence Committee, there has been an increase in the
sophistication and capabilities, as well as proliferation, of
sophisticated air missile defenses around the world. Therefore,
the ability of the cruise missile to pose the deterrent--the
capabilities necessary to deter is under question. Therefore, I
think just based on the aging and the changing nature of the
threat, we need to replace a system which we've had, again,
for--since the early 1980s with an updated variant.
I guess I didn't convince you any more than Admiral Haney
did.
Senator Feinstein. I'm trying to figure out how to say it
so that it's polite.
[Laughter.]
Senator Feinstein. No, you didn't convince me because this
just ratchets up warfare and ratchets up deaths, and, you know,
even if you go to a low kiloton, 6 or 7, it's a huge weapon.
And I thought there was a certain morality that we should have
with respect to these weapons. And if it's really mutual
deterrence, I don't see how this does anything other than it's
like the drone. The drone has been invented. It's been armed.
Now every country wants one. So they get more and more
sophisticated. To do this with nuclear weapons I think is
awful. And when I talked when I came here--now, I'm probably
the only one here that was a child when those weapons went off,
and as the chairman has heard me say before, I was in San
Francisco, across the Pacific from where it happened, a small
kid, it made a profound difference to me. You know, I remember
jumping under the desks, I remember the exploding--Barry
Goldwater's campaign of the daisy that exploded with one, and I
saw bodies, I saw what happened to people.
I know a little bit about the sophistication of our
weapons, not as much as you do, but I think there is a very
definite morality in what we have. And I talk to people, well,
the size is a deterrent. This is not a deterrent. All this
means is that others will be doing the same thing. I don't want
North Korea with a 6-kiloton nuclear cruise missile.
And somehow I think we lose our moral authority when we
build new nuclear weapons. I don't see any way--you know,
there's a certain moral code any way I can vote to support
this, and I want you to know it. If you have anything you would
like to say, I would love to hear it.
General Klotz. Well, first of all, Senator, I obviously
respect your opinion, but I think on this, we have a
fundamental disagreement. In my view, the moral approach is to
develop a deterrent capability which poses the prospect to any
potential adversary that they should never use nuclear weapons
against the United States or those of our allies across the
globe. We maintain the capability of having a deterrent by
having systems which cannot be negated, defeated, nullified by
any adversary, either by offensive attack or by defensive
capabilities that they may have. And so as we're faced with the
prospect of potential adversaries having vastly improved
conventional--vastly improved missile and air defenses, then we
need to make sure that----
Senator Feinstein. Do you admit, Admiral, that we have very
big conventional weapons?
General Klotz. Yes, I do.
Senator Feinstein. The biggest in the world?
General Klotz. And Air Force Global Strike Command, which I
used to command, had responsibility for one of those.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Isn't that enough?
General Klotz. In a world armed with nuclear weapons,
regrettably so, I think that in order to deter nuclear attack
or the threat of nuclear attack against us or allies, we need a
corresponding nuclear deterrent. That's my belief.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Well, let me go to--can I do one
other question quickly?
Senator Alexander. Sure.
Senator Feinstein. What is the cost of the 3 to 1 hedge?
Staff has tried to get those numbers, but have been unable to.
I would like to ask that you provide it.
General Klotz. We will provide that.
[The information follows:]
The U.S. nuclear stockpile is made up of warheads in three
categories--deployed warheads, logistics spares, and hedge. The
deployed warheads are warheads located at operational bases, and must
be fully maintained in a ready-to-use status at all times. Logistics
spares are warheads retained (by DoD or DOE) to facilitate the
logistics of warhead surveillance, maintenance, and refurbishment to
ensure the required number of warheads in the other categories is
maintained. Hedge warheads mitigate the risk of technical failure of
any single weapon type or delivery system at a given time.
The number and type of warheads in the hedge depends on a number of
factors, including the size and composition of the U.S. stockpile and
the status of life extension efforts. Additional warheads of a type
being refurbished may be retained temporarily (unrefurbished) as risk
mitigation for a potential technical issue in the newly refurbished
warheads.
By far the largest cost of maintaining this hedge is the cost of
refurbishing the warheads that will be retained over the longer term as
part of the hedge. Based on current life extension program (LEP)
estimates and projections of the future size and composition of the
stockpile (as reflected in the Nuclear Weapons Council's current
Requirements Planning Document), over the next 25 years the cost of
refurbishing warheads for inclusion in the hedge is approximately $3.5-
$5.6 billion in fiscal year 2016 dollars (or 11-22 percent of the cost
of LEPs for the warheads that would comprise the hedge at that time).
Strategies that reduce the number of hedge warheads in future stockpile
configurations (such as our current 3+2 strategy) will keep this
refurbishment cost from rising above this level.
The cost, if any, for specific surveillance and assessment of the
hedge would be small since the warheads in the hedge are the same as
those being surveilled and assessed in the other stockpile categories.
Some small costs may associated with maintenance of hedge warheads
when included in work scope associated with non-hedge counterparts,
such as an alteration or modification. In this way they retain
technical parity with warheads in other categories.
It is expected that the size of the hedge can be reduced as we
implement a 3+2 strategy for the stockpile, with three ballistic
missile warheads and two others, one for the LRSO and another for
gravity bombs. This strategy will allow the U.S. to minimize the size
of the stockpile, consistent with our commitments under the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty, while adequately hedging against technical
risk.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Senator Graham, is your schedule such
that I can go to Senator Udall since he's been here?
Senator Graham. Absolutely. He can go first.
Senator Alexander. All right.
Senator Udall, why don't you go ahead since you came early?
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION BUDGET
Before we get into some of the details on the upcoming
budget, I would like to step back and take a look at the
overall funding picture. How does this budget compare to the
NNSA's budget request in the year of the previous
administration, fiscal year 2008? Where are we in terms of up,
down, on that?
General Klotz. Well, I think a good round number for how
much the overall NNSA budget has increased since then is about
40 percent.
Senator Udall. 40 percent----
General Klotz. Maybe closer to 37 percent.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS STOCKPILE
Senator Udall. Okay. And my understanding is that there is
an incredible amount of scientific and technical work that
needs to be done in future years as the stockpile ages and
needs further work to keep it safe, secure, and reliable. Do
you expect future NNSA budgets to need to increase further to
continue to address the aging stockpile?
General Klotz. Yes, sir, we do. And in our budget
submission for this year, we included our projections for the
future years' nuclear security program out through the year
fiscal year 2021, and it shows an increase in all of the budget
lines each of those years except for 1 year for Naval Reactors.
And I will say right up front that there will probably be
some additional costs which we will add there because one of
the things we have done, and part of the management
improvements, is to be much more rigorous about how we do
analysis of alternatives, define mission requirements, and do
independent cost reviews, and some of the things that are--we
know we're going to have to pay for in the so-called outyears,
we still have to baseline those and come in with the costs.
CMR FACILITY
Senator Udall. Now, I would like to move on to the work to
replace the aging CMR Facility at Los Alamos. The GAO report,
which was released this month, highlighted the plutonium
infrastructure strategy, and I'm quoting from them now,
``Uncertain and possibly underestimated,'' and that, ``This
uncertainty is due to the fact that NNSA has not yet determined
the number of additional modular buildings that may be
required,'' at the Los Alamos Lab. Where are we on this issue?
Where do you see this going at this point in terms of the
demands that are on you from various agencies?
General Klotz. Well, thank you for that question. In fact,
that is one of the lines in our future years' budget that will
change as time goes through. And, you know, I agree with the
GAO's assessment, but one of the reasons why that's the case is
the GAO has been very clear in reports over the past decade or
so that the NNSA and the DOE need to do a better job in terms
of defining requirements, holding to those requirements, doing
analysis of--rigorous analysis of alternatives cost
estimations. So we need to do that process with the modules. We
are beginning the analysis of alternatives of how we create the
additional space at Los Alamos that we need to carry out the
congressional mandate to produce--or demonstrate a capability
to produce war reserve plutonium pits in the years ahead. So
until we have that and until we can baseline the cost of that,
we won't know for certain what the costs are.
There's a tendency in Washington, both on the executive
side and I would dare say on the congressional side as well, to
ask for a number very, very early on in a project. I think
until you have done that kind of analysis, any number you have
is a guess. We would like to be more precise and more accurate
in terms of providing what we think the costs will be.
Senator Udall. And the budget includes funding for the
initial design and development of a trusted strategic radiation
hardened advanced microelectronics capability, which Sandia
plays an important role supporting through the Trusted Foundry
at the Microsystems and Engineering Science Applications,
what's called the MESA Complex. Do you agree that the core
competency on microsystems design at Sandia is an important
national security asset?
General Klotz. Absolutely. And, in fact, our only facility
for producing radiation hardened microelectronics that can
operate in a nuclear environment is MESA, the Microsystems
Engineering Science Applications at Sandia National Laboratory.
It, too, is another facility which has been around for a while
and is a little long in the tooth, but more importantly, the
technology in this area continues to evolve. Sandia is still
producing chips using 6-inch silicon wafers. Industry has
already moved on to 8-inch and projected to go even further. So
there are things we need to do to the facility to sustain it.
There are things we need to do to the capabilities within MESA
to make sure that we can continue to provide this vital
capability.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, General.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Senator Udall.
Senator Graham.
EXCESS PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION
Senator Graham. Thank you, General. The agreement with the
Russians covers how much plutonium?
General Klotz. 34 metric tons.
Senator Graham. Where is the 34 metric tons located?
General Klotz. 7 of those metric tons are at Savannah River
now. The remainder is primarily in storage at Pantex near
Amarillo, Texas.
Senator Graham. So when you talk to Senator Alexander about
13 tons at the Savannah River site, 6 of it was not covered by
the agreement. Is that correct?
General Klotz. That's correct. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. So what are we going to do with the
material in Texas?
General Klotz. The material in Texas would ultimately be
slated for being turned into--being processed in a way that it
could be diluted and then ultimately disposed of ----
Senator Graham. Where is that going to be done at?
General Klotz. We expect it would be done in Savannah
River.
Senator Graham. Do you require any legal changes to get it
to the WIPP program?
General Klotz. We do not require--we have statutory,
sufficient statutory, authority to dispose of all 13 metric
tons that are currently at Savannah River.
Senator Graham. That's not my question. Does the statutory
authority cover the 21 tons in Texas?
General Klotz. We expect that we would probably have to do
some work on statutory authorities associated with that.
Senator Graham. Do you expect probably maybe?
General Klotz. Probably.
Senator Graham. No, absolutely you would.
General Klotz. Absolutely.
Senator Graham. Good. Do you have any agreement with the
Russians to change course?
General Klotz. We do not have an agreement with the
Russians to change course, but, as you know, there is a
provision within the agreement to--for the parties to----
Senator Graham. Where are we at in that agreement?
General Klotz. As the Secretary has testified just a week
ago----
Senator Graham. So what do the Russians say?
General Klotz. The Russians are saying when you have a
solid way forward--first of all, they have--the technical
people I have talked with indicate an understanding of why we
would want to do this and the technical aspects of it.
Basically they've said----
Senator Graham. So what do the Russians want in return?
General Klotz. Well, when they--when you are ready to go
forward----
Senator Graham. So let's see if I got this. We're going to
change the entire program, then we're going to go to the
Russians and see if they're okay with it? Is that the plan?
General Klotz. I--that is the----
Senator Graham. That's the plan. That's a lousy plan. That
is absolutely the dumbest friggin' plan I could think of, to
change course and hope the Russians would agree and not know
what they're going to charge you for it. Now, other than that,
things are going great.
Now, in 2001, we made a decision about MOX, to reject the
dual strategy. 2014, or 2010, I guess it was, we signed an
agreement with the Russians that we're going to MOX out 34
metric tons. In 2016, we got a building, $5 billion worth, 90
percent, 70 percent complete, and we're going to stop and start
all over again. Is that the plan?
General Klotz. Well, you know, we don't agree that it's 70,
80, 90 percent.
Senator Graham. Well, you can come and look at the damn
thing.
General Klotz. I have.
Senator Graham. Okay. Is it big?
General Klotz. It is big.
Senator Graham. Well, it cost $5 billion, I can promise you
that. And I think it's 70 percent. What are we going to do with
the building?
General Klotz. We would have to see what--what--if we----
Senator Graham. Have you talked to anybody from New Mexico
about their view of taking all this material?
General Klotz. As the Secretary told you last week, he has
informally approached----
Senator Graham. Well, have you----
General Klotz. Have I personally? I have talked----
Senator Graham. Excuse me. We've informally talked to New
Mexico. We now admit that you absolutely have to have a
statutory change to cover the 21 metric tons. We're talking
informally to the Russians. We're going to change the entire
scope of the program and hope they agree with it. Is that
pretty much where we're at? And we have no clue what we're
going to do with this building.
Thank you.
Senator Alexander. General Klotz, I've got some questions
on another subject. This--the MOX subject is one that Senator
Feinstein and I, Senator Graham, as well as Senator McCain and
Senator Reed, are going to continue to address in the next few
weeks.
INTERIM STORAGE OF USED NUCLEAR FUEL
Let me ask you and maybe Admiral Caldwell and maybe Ms.
Harrington, the interim storage for used Navy fuel, building a
new storage site for used fuel, but Admiral Klotz, that's
temporary storage, right?
Admiral Caldwell. Sir, I think that question is directed to
me, sir.
Senator Alexander. Okay, sir. That's temporary.
Admiral Caldwell. The fuel that we're storing in Idaho is
stored for interim----
Senator Alexander. That means temporary.
Admiral Caldwell. Yes, sir; it does.
Senator Alexander. So you'll need somewhere to put it, an
additional site. Would that fuel be eligible for Yucca
Mountain?
Admiral Caldwell. Yes, sir; it would be. The fuel we have
out there today is packaged for interim storage, and it's
packed in steel containers with concrete overpacks. Those steel
containers are designed to last up to 10,000 years in the
environment that we did the calculations for. And then the
overpacks are designed to last at least 100 years.
Senator Alexander. Yeah. But to reiterate, your site is a
site for temporary storage.
Admiral Caldwell. That's correct, sir.
Senator Alexander. And it needs a permanent repository such
as Yucca Mountain.
Admiral Caldwell. That's absolutely correct, sir.
Senator Alexander. Yeah. Senator Feinstein and I are
working on as many paths as we can toward places for safe
storage of used nuclear fuel.
General Klotz, you proposed work on a separate repository
for defense waste separate from Yucca Mountain, they would only
be able to accept waste from our defense sites, which doesn't
include used fuel from commercial power reactors like the
reactors that are closed in California with what we call
stranded fuel. This would have to be built with funds that
could be used for life extension programs or other
infrastructure. Why would we build a separate repository for
defense waste? Why wouldn't we just put all that stuff in Yucca
Mountain?
General Klotz. Senator, I know the proposal, but to be
perfectly honest, that is a project, a program, which resides
elsewhere within the Department of Energy, not within NNSA. So
I would have to get back to you on any specifics as far as----
Senator Alexander. But if we spent money on a separate
defense waste repository, it would have to come out of some of
your funds----
General Klotz. It would depend on which--again, whether
it's 050 money or not, and I just don't have the granularity of
knowledge to respond to that.
LOW-ENRICHED URANIUM NAVAL CORES
Senator Alexander. Let me ask one of you on a different
question. You've done some good work on the last several years
converting research reactor fuel from highly enriched uranium
to low-enriched uranium, and you're down now I think to about
six high-performance reactors that are still fueled with highly
enriched uranium. Why don't you spend your time and money
developing a way to have low-enriched fuel for the Navy vessels
instead of worrying about the last six high-performance
reactors?
Admiral Caldwell. Sir, thanks for the question. Low-
enriched uranium, from a military standpoint, there is no
advantage to using that in a naval reactor plant. We use highly
enriched uranium today, we've used it for decades, because it
allows us to put the energy that we need to into a reactor core
so that we can operate those ships for conceivably the life of
the ship or for very long periods of time.
The reason why one might consider pursuing a low-enriched
uranium naval core would be for the United States to be able to
take a leadership role in development of low-enriched uranium
and to be able to do that from a nonproliferation standpoint.
The other reason why one could consider it is because we
need to sustain the workforce, the highly skilled workforce,
that does this work for naval nuclear propulsion plants. That
workforce is heavily taxed right now with the development of
the Ohio replacement. Once that work tapers off, we're going to
need some work to keep that workforce active and viable for
future reactor plants.
So where we are today is we are continuing our work on
highly enriched uranium. If I was to go to low-enriched
uranium, it would require me to refuel ships more frequently
than I do today. It would require us to take ships offline and
remove them from the operational availability. To give you some
example of that, we're developing the Ohio Replacement to last
for 42 years without refueling. A low-enriched uranium core
would require at least one refueling. The Ford reactor plant
for the new carrier is designed to have one refueling. A low-
enriched uranium core might take two or more, at the cost of
maybe $1 billion apiece. With the Ohio Replacement program,
the fact that we don't refuel it saves the Nation $40 billion
total ownership cost for that class of submarine.
So from a military standpoint, we want to have the ships
operating more, we want to have--reduce the time that they're
in the yards. If you use low-enriched uranium, we would have to
deal with even more waste, we would have to deal with different
types of waste, because the waste generated from low-enriched
uranium is different from highly enriched uranium. And,
additionally, the Navy might have to go purchase more ships to
make up for the lost operational availability. So from a
military standpoint, highly enriched uranium does what we need
it to do.
Now, that all said, we were asked to develop a conceptual
plan for developing a low-enriched uranium core for naval use.
We have a draft report that's working its way through the Navy
and through the Department of Energy; we're coordinating that.
It lays out a program that would take 10 to 15 years at the
cost of $1 billion to simply develop a low-enriched uranium
core. Beyond that, it would take another 10 years to deploy
that core, actually build it. So you're talking about
technology that would take 25 years or so before it would come
to fruition. Success could not be guaranteed, but if the
conceptual plan lays out a plan to go look at that for
consideration in a carrier plant, a larger plant, where you can
put more fuel in it, probably not viable for a submarine plant,
which is small.
So that conceptual plant is working its way through.
Success could not be guaranteed. It costs a substantial amount
of money. And if I was directed to go do that kind of work, I
would need money above and beyond what I have today to support
today's Navy.
Senator Alexander. Thank you. I get the impression you
think the idea of low-enriched uranium fuel for the Navy
vessels isn't such a hot idea.
Admiral Caldwell. I think there is some value in being able
to sustain my workforce, so let me amplify that.
Senator Alexander. Yeah, well, my time is about up, but I
think that was a good complete answer----
Admiral Caldwell. There is one aspect of this, though, sir.
To go to low-enriched uranium, I have to develop an advanced
fuel system. That advanced fuel system could have benefit for a
low-enriched uranium core or a highly enriched uranium core. So
there could be some benefit in going down the path to sustain
my workforce and expand the technology that we have.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Admiral.
Senator Feinstein, I don't have any other questions, so
I'll let you ask whatever you would like.
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE
Senator Feinstein. I have one because I mentioned in my
opening remarks that $3.2 billion in deferred maintenance of
facilities, a huge sum, I don't think I need to say that,
actually. So, General Klotz, in your plans, to what extent is
NNSA looking at alternative approaches for addressing the
problem, such as reducing the number of facilities or
consolidating functions?
General Klotz. Thank you very much. You're right, we have a
very substantial backlog of deferred maintenance. Again,
referring to my previous military career, I found that the
first dollar usually goes to the pointy edge of the spear, or
for the men and women who carry the spear, and then every year
a decision is made to accept risk on facilities and
infrastructures, and, you know, defer it one more year. Well,
one more year becomes two more years, becomes 10 more years,
and then ultimately you get to a tipping point in terms of our
facilities, and I think that's where we are in NNSA and in
other parts of the deal, in the laboratories that are out there
with some facilities dating back to the Manhattan Project that
you referred to earlier.
So Secretary Moniz laid down a--threw down the gauge a
couple years ago and said that he wanted to arrest the halt in
the growth of deferred maintenance for the Department of Energy
as a whole, including NNSA. So with the fiscal year 2016 budget
that thankfully you all enacted at the end of last year, we've
essentially halted it at the 3 point I think 7, is what I would
say, $3.7 billion level, and with 2017, we actually start to go
down.
Now, we're exploring alternative ways of financing new
facilities to get out of these old facilities that include
using third-party financing. We have an enormous successful
example of that in the Kansas City National Security Campus,
which we reduced, got out of an old building that dated back to
World War II, reduced our footprint from 3 million down to 1
million square feet. We've asked for money in this budget to
demolish that particular facility.
So we're serious about looking for, whether it's a capital
construction project or a third-party financing or an operating
lease approach to do that, we're looking for new facilities to
get our people in, and at the same time, to reduce the
footprint and to demolish the buildings that are there now.
The one problem we do have with demolishing some of our
buildings is if they are contaminated, we have to go through a
very long tedious and expensive process of cleaning up the
contamination before we can turn it over to that part of DOE
that does the demolition.
Senator Feinstein. Well, let me--what are your estimates?
How--the $3.2 billion in deferred maintenance, did you have
specific plans for meeting that, or are you just going to
ignore it?
General Klotz. No, we have a specific plan, and we'd be
happy to share that plan for you in terms of----
Senator Feinstein. I would appreciate it.
General Klotz. Yes, ma'am. I'd be delighted to do it.
Senator Feinstein. And your staff.
General Klotz. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Feinstein. That would be just fine.
General Klotz. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. That's it, I think, unless we
want to debate a nuclear cruise missile more, which I don't
think you do.
[Laughter.]
General Klotz. I'd love to come up and just sit down with
you in your office and pursue that further.
Senator Feinstein. Sure. I'd be happy to, actually.
Senator Alexander. I might come watch.
[Laughter.]
General Klotz. I'll invite Admiral Haney to come over.
Senator Alexander. It would be better than the Republican
debates.
[Laughter.]
Senator Alexander. Probably more informative.
Senator Feinstein. I don't belittle people.
Senator Alexander. No, no, no, you don't. I'm not getting
into this with--I'm sorry--I'm sorry I even brought it up.
The hearing record will remain open for 10 days. Members
may submit additional information or questions for the record
within that time. The subcommittee requests all responses to
questions for the record be provided within 30 days.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
I want to thank General Klotz, Admiral Caldwell, Ms.
Harrington, and General Davis, I want to thank all four of you
for being here and thank you for the work you do for our
country. We'll look forward to following up with you.
The committee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., Wednesday, March 16, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Alexander, Senator Lamar, U.S. Senator From Tennessee:
Opening Statements of
Prepared Statements of
Baran, Hon. Jeff, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.... 1
Bostick, Thomas P., Lieutenant General, Commanding General and
Chief of Engineers............................................. 31
Prepared Statement of........................................ 36
Questions Submitted to....................................... 91
Burns, Hon. Stephen G., Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.. 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 11
Summary Statement of......................................... 10
Caldwell, Admiral James F. (Frank), Jr., United States Navy,
Deputy Administrator for Office of Naval Reactors.............. 169
Prepared Statement of........................................ 186
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 156
Coons, Senator Christopher A., U.S. Senator From Connecticut,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 166
Darcy, Hon. Jo-Ellen, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works), Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 31
Prepared Statement of........................................ 32
Questions Submitted to....................................... 80
Davis, Brigadier General Stephen L., United States Air Force,
Principal Assistant Deputy Administrator for Military
Applications................................................... 169
Durbin, Senator Richard J., U.S. Senator From Illinios, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 90
Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California:
Questions Submitted by
Statements of
Graham, Senator Lindsey, U.S. Senator From South Carolina,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 158
Harrington, Anne, Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation............................................... 169
Iseman, Tom, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Water and Science....... 31
Prepared Statement of........................................ 45
Klotz, Lieutenant General Frank G., U.S. Air Force (Retired),
Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator,
Department of Energy........................................... 169
Prepared Statement of........................................ 178
Summary Statement of......................................... 175
Lankford, Senator James, U.S. Senator From Oklahoma, Questions
Submitted by
Lopez, Estevan R., Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior..................................... 31
Prepared Statement of........................................ 39
Questions Submitted to....................................... 93
McConnell, Senator Mitch, U.S. Senator From Kentucky, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 156
Moniz, Hon. Ernest J., Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Energy........................................... 101
Prepared Statement of........................................ 112
Questions Submitted to....................................... 156
Summary Statement of......................................... 110
Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator From Washington, Questions
Submitted by
Ostendorff, Hon. William, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission..................................................... 1
Shaheen, Senator Jeanne, U.S. Senator From New Hampshire,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 163
Shelby, Senator Richard C., U.S. Senator From Alabama, Questions
Submitted by
Svinicki, Hon. Kristine, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission..................................................... 1
Udall, Senator Tom, U.S. Senator From New Mexico, Statement of... 175
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
National Nuclear Security Administration
Page
CMR Facility..................................................... 193
Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation........................... 186
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................................. 177
Appropriation................................................ 182
Deferred Maintenance............................................. 198
Effectively Maintaining Nuclear Weapons
Excess Plutonium Disposition..................................... 194
Interim Storage of Used Nuclear Fuel............................. 196
Keeping Critical Projects on Time and on Budget.................. 172
Low-Enriched Uranium Naval Cores................................. 197
Maintaining our Vital Nuclear Workforce.......................... 173
Management and:
Governance................................................... 177
Performance.................................................. 185
Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility............................ 188
NNSA Federal Salaries and Expenses Appropriation................. 185
National Nuclear Security Administration Budget.................. 193
Naval Reactors:
Appropriation................................................ 184
Program...................................................... 177
Nuclear:
Cruise Missile............................................... 190
Weapons Stockpile
Project Oversight................................................ 170
Supporting Our Nuclear Navy
Uranium Processing Facility...................................... 188
Weapons Activities Appropriation................................. 178
Office of the Secretary
ARPA-E........................................................... 139
Additional Committee Questions................................... 155
Advancing:
DOE's Critical Missions...................................... 130
Nuclear Security, Science & Energy, and Environmental Cleanup 112
Agency-to-Agency Research........................................ 141
CRENEL Report on National Laboratories........................... 138
Carbon:
Capture and Sequestration.................................... 143
Use and Reuse................................................ 150
Clean Energy
Columbia River Treaty............................................ 143
Contract Transitions at the National Laboratories................ 145
Doubling Basic Energy Research
Energy:
Efficiency................................................... 147
Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment......... 118
Subsidies
Future of Nuclear Energy
Grants........................................................... 140
Hanford Site..................................................... 141
Integrating Science and Energy Programs across the DOE Enterprise 115
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
Iran and International Atomic Energy Agency...................... 166
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action............................... 138
Keeping Large Projects on Time and on Budget..................... 107
Large Construction Projects...................................... 104
Liquefied Natural Gas Exports.................................... 139
Loan Guarantee Program........................................... 153
Management and Performance....................................... 126
Mission Innovation
Enabling a Clean Energy Future............................... 114
Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility
National:
Ignition Facility............................................ 151
Laboratories................................................. 137
Northern Pass.................................................... 147
Nuclear:
Security..................................................... 123
Waste........................................................ 131
Storage.................................................. 132
Office of:
Science Funding.............................................. 130
Technology Transitions....................................... 145
Priorities....................................................... 102
Science:
and Energy................................................... 114
Providing the Backbone for Discovery and Innovation.......... 116
Siting and Permitting Energy Projects............................ 146
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund
Waste Isolation Pilot Project.................................... 146
Water Desalination............................................... 151
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Advanced Nuclear Reactors........................................ 22
Changing Regulatory Environment.................................. 12
Consolidated Interim Storage..................................... 22
Crystal River Nuclear Plant
Current State of the Power Reactor Fleet......................... 15
Diablo Canyon Power Plant........................................ 17
Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request.................................. 13
Fukushima........................................................ 29
Lessons Learned From Fukushima
Licensing:
Facilities for Used Nuclear Fuel............................. 5
New Reactors................................................. 6
Making Sure the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is Running
Efficiently.................................................... 6
Nuclear:
Materials and Waste Safety................................... 14
Reactor Safety............................................... 14
Safely Extending Licenses for Existing Reactors.................. 6
Safety Record of U.S. Reactors................................... 16
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station............................ 18
Small Modular Reactors........................................... 19
Yucca Mountain Licensing......................................... 28
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
2016 through 2017 Priority Goals................................. 43
2017 Budget Advances a Record of Achievement..................... 45
Accepting Non-Federal Funding During Emergencies................. 68
Additional Committee Questions................................... 80
Alternative Financing............................................ 70
and Public-Private Partnerships.............................. 35
Arctic Deep Port Study........................................... 61
Army Corps Projects and Water Supply............................. 84
Beneficial Use of Clean Dredge Material.......................... 86
Boat Turbidity Studies........................................... 73
Bureau of Reclamation............................................ 50
California:
Bay-Delta Restoration........................................ 42
Drought and Army Corps ``Big Picture''....................... 83
Central:
Utah Project Completion Act.................................. 48
Valley Project Restoration Fund.............................. 42
Chickamauga Lock................................................. 55
Completing Construction Projects................................. 78
Construction..................................................... 33
Program...................................................... 37
Corps of Engineers Disposition Studies........................... 67
Deepening and Widening Our Coastal Harbors....................... 50
Delaware:
Beach Protection............................................. 63
River Basin Commission....................................... 64
River Dredging............................................... 63
Emergency Management............................................. 39
Gila River Diversion Project..................................... 66
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
Highlights of the fiscal year 2017 Budget for Water and Related
Resources...................................................... 40
Implements the President's Climate Action Plan................... 46
Improves Oversight and Use of Federal Dollars.................... 46
Indian Water Rights Settlements.................................. 42
Inland:
Waterway Trust Fund.......................................... 72
Waterways
Investigations Program........................................... 37
Irrigation Water................................................. 53
King Cove........................................................ 60
Lake Tschida..................................................... 75
Liquefied Natural Gas Exports.................................... 62
Market Rent Surveys.............................................. 76
Merced Army Corps Project........................................ 88
National Fish Hatchery........................................... 72
Natural Resource Investment Center............................... 47
New Mexico Rural Water Projects.................................. 65
Operation and Maintenance........................................ 34
(O&M) Program................................................ 38
Permanent Appropriations......................................... 43
Planning Modernization........................................... 33
Policy and Administration........................................ 43
Port of Wilmington............................................... 64
Promotes the Conservation and Protection of America's Natural and
Cultural Resources............................................. 46
Properly Funding Our Inland Waterway System...................... 49
Reclamation Highlights........................................... 47
Red River Flood Protection....................................... 69
Regulatory Program............................................... 35
Rehabilitation Projects.......................................... 77
Reimbursable Program............................................. 38
Remaining Items.................................................. 35
Research and Development......................................... 35
Responding to the Subcommittee's Questions for the Record........ 78
Rural Water Projects............................................. 52
Sabrine-Neches Waterway.......................................... 62
San Joaquin River Restoration Fund............................... 42
San Luis Expansion............................................... 74
Section 107 Small Navigation Program............................. 61
Seismic Safety Projects.......................................... 74
Shasta Dam and Los Vaqueros...................................... 73
South San Francisco Bay Shoreline................................ 82
Summary of Fiscal Year 2017 Budget............................... 37
Updating Dam Operation Manuals................................... 87
Veterans:
Affairs Construction Projects................................ 82
Curation Program............................................. 36
Water:
Infrastructure Improvements.................................. 54
Pumping Decisions............................................ 59
Related Resources............................................ 40
SMART, Water Conservation Field Services and Title XVI
Programs................................................... 47
-