[Senate Hearing 114-569]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-569
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 2028
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2016, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Defense--Civil
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
93-112 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
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 BRIAN 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)
Administrative Support
Samantha Nelson (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
HEARINGS
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Page
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army; Corps of
Engineers--Civil............................................... 1
Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation................ 22
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission............................... 73
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration... 113
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Department of Energy............................................. 149
----------
BACK MATTER
List of Witnesses, Communications, and Prepared Statements....... 203
Subject Index.................................................... 205
Department of Defense--Civil................................. 205
Department of the Army................................... 205
Corps of Engineers--Civil................................ 205
Department of Energy......................................... 205
National Nuclear Security Administration................. 206
Department of the Interior................................... 206
Bureau of Reclamation.................................... 206
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission........................... 207
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:28 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Alexander, Cochran, Collins, Murkowski,
Graham, Hoeven, Lankford, Feinstein, Tester, Udall, Merkley,
and Coons.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS P. BOSTICK, LIEUTENANT
GENERAL, COMMANDER
opening statement of senator lamar alexander
Senator Alexander. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development will please come to order.
This is the first hearing, not just of our subcommittee,
but of the entire Appropriations Committee.
How is that, Senator Feinstein? So we are the early birds.
I want to say at the outset what a privilege it has been to
work with the Senator from California over the last few years
when she has been chairman and I have been the ranking member.
Our seats have switched, but the relationship hasn't changed.
And I look forward to treating her with at least as much
courtesy as she has always treated me. I am going to see if I
can outdo her, because it is a treat to work with somebody who
is capable of making a decision, expressing herself well, and
easy to work with.
So, Senator Feinstein, I look forward to our continued good
relationship.
This morning, we are having a hearing to review the
President's fiscal year 2016 funding request and budget
justification for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Bureau of Reclamation, which is part of the Department of the
Interior. Senator Feinstein and I will each have an opening
statement, and then each Senator may have up to 5 minutes for a
statement in the order in which they arrived.
Senator Graham has let me know that he has a 3 o'clock
hearing, so if the Senators don't mind, I will try to work him
in before 3 o'clock, as a courtesy to him.
We will then turn to the witnesses for their testimony.
Each witness will have 5 minutes. We would appreciate you
summarizing your testimony in that time. We will include their
full statements in the record. Then Senators will be recognized
for 5 minutes of questions in the order in which they arrived.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here today, and
thank Senator Feinstein for working with me on this.
Our witnesses include Jo-Ellen Darcy, the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Welcome, Secretary
Darcy.
Estevan Lopez, Commissioner for the Bureau of Reclamation.
Mr. Lopez, welcome.
Jennifer Gimbel, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Water and Science for the Department of Interior. That is a
long title. Nice to see you.
And Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick, Chief of
Engineers for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We welcome you.
Governing is about setting priorities, and unfortunately,
the President's budget request for these agencies shows a
failure to do so, in my opinion.
The overall budget proposes spending that exceeds the
budget caps established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 by
about $74 billion. One of the priorities the President often
speaks about is our Nation's infrastructure. Yet despite all
the proposed new spending and all that talk, this proposal cuts
the Corps' budget by $751 million, or 14 percent below last
year's actual spending level.
This budget proposes cutting the Corps' funding to the
actual level of spending in 2007. We are literally moving
backward on an agency that is crucial to maintaining our
country's infrastructure.
The reason this is such a problem is that the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers touches the lives of almost every American.
The Corps maintains our inland waterways. It deepens and keeps
our ports open. It looks after many of our recreational waters
and land. It manages the river levels to prevent flooding. Its
dams provide emission-free, renewable, hydroelectric energy.
All of these activities attract the intense interest of the
American people and of their United States Senators.
I can recall when I was a member of the Environment and
Public Works Committee, after a flooding of the Missouri and
Mississippi rivers 4 years ago, a whole room full of Senators
showed up to ask for more money to deal with what went wrong
and what went right on the disaster relief efforts. So there is
a real interest in these proposals.
The reality is that for all the Corps does, there are many
things it could do better, and setting priorities in our
spending is one way to better invest taxpayer dollars.
An important example of the administration's failure to set
priorities in my home State of Tennessee is the lack of funds
in the President's budget request to restart replacement of
Chickamauga Lock. Congress has done its job over the last 3
years to move ahead promptly on replacing Chickamauga Lock, and
it is disappointing that the administration has failed to do
its job.
Here is what we have done. Congress, first, 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 of 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 Lock ranks near the top, in
fourth place.
And third, just this past year, working together, we
enacted a user fee increase 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 are three extremely important steps to give our
country the inland waterways that we need. These three things
taken together should make it possible for the Corps of
Engineers to move rapidly to begin to replace Chickamauga Lock.
The problem with Chickamauga Lock is it is made of aging
concrete. It could fail if we don't replace it. In fact, in
October of last year, the lock was closed for several days. It
was closed to all navigation traffic for emergency repairs
after an inspection revealed cracks in the concrete.
The project is not just important to Chattanooga, but to
all of eastern Tennessee because of the number of jobs
affected. We are almost out of time for a solution. The lock
could close in a few years unless progress is made.
That would throw 150,000 trucks on Interstate 75. It would
increase the cost of shipping to Oak Ridge, to the national
laboratory, and to the weapons areas, and to manufacturers
across the State.
So you can see how Chickamauga Lock, and other projects
like it across the country, ought to be a priority, and why the
Corps' budget should make it a priority.
In addition to the Corps, we fund the Bureau of
Reclamation. The Bureau of Reclamation delivers water to one in
five Western farmers, irrigating 10 million acres of some of
the most productive agricultural land in the world.
I would note that this is the first time that Commissioner
Lopez and Secretary Gimbel have appeared before this
subcommittee, and we welcome them both.
Without the infrastructure that these two agencies provide,
our Nation would be vastly different. With that in mind, we are
here today to discuss the administration's fiscal year 2016
budget request for both agencies. I will look forward to the
testimony.
Before I turn to Senator Feinstein for her statement, I
would like to note that this is Roger Cockrell's last hearing,
at least the last one he will attend in his capacity with us as
a staff member of the Appropriations Committee. He is retiring
at the end of the month, and we are going to miss him.
For the past 14 budget cycles, Senators on the
subcommittee, whether Republicans or Democrats, have been well
served by Roger's expertise on both the Corps of Engineers and
the Bureau of Reclamation. It is hard to think of anybody
inside or outside Washington who matches Roger in knowledge or
experience. It is hard to think of a water resources bill that
has not benefited from his guidance.
So, Roger, on behalf of the subcommittee, I wish to thank
you for your service over these many years and to wish you and
your family the best in your retirement.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Lamar Alexander
I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today, and also
Senator Feinstein, who I will be working with on the appropriations
bill that this subcommittee considers.
Our witnesses today include:
--Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
--Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick, Chief of Engineers for the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
--Estevan Lopez, Commissioner for the Bureau of Reclamation
--Jennifer Gimbel, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and
Science for the Department of Interior
This is my first budget hearing as chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy & Water Development.
Governing is about setting priorities, and unfortunately, the
president's budget request for these agencies shows a failure to do so.
The president's overall budget proposes spending that exceeds the
budget caps established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 by about $74
billion. One of the priorities he speaks about often is our Nation's
infrastructure.
Yet despite all that proposed new spending and all that talk, this
proposal cuts the Corps' budget by $751 million, or about 14 percent
below last year's actual spending level. This budget proposes cutting
the Corps' funding to the actual level of spending in 2007--we are
literally moving backward, on an agency that is crucial to maintaining
our country's infrastructure.
The reason this is such a problem is that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers touches the lives of all Americans. The Corps maintains our
inland waterways, keeps our ports open, looks after many of our
recreational waters and land, manages the river levels to prevent
flooding, and its dams provide emission-free, renewable hydroelectric
energy.
All of these activities attract the intense interest of the
American people, and of their United States Senators. I can recall
when, after the flooding of the Missouri and Mississippi rivers 4 years
ago, eight Senators showed up at a Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee hearing to discuss what went right and what went wrong with
disaster relief efforts.
The reality is that for all the Corps does there are many things it
could do better, and setting priorities in our spending is one way to
better invest taxpayer dollars.
An important example of the administration's failure to set
priorities is in my home State of Tennessee: the lack of any funds in
the president's budget request to restart replacement of Chickamauga
Lock. Congress has done its job to move ahead promptly on replacing
Chickamauga Lock, and it's disappointing the Obama administration has
failed to do its job.
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 of the
money that is available for inland waterway projects. Second, we 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, just this past year we enacted a user
fee increase that commercial barge owners asked to pay in order to
provide additional funds to replace locks and dams across the country,
including Chickamauga Lock.
Those three things taken together should make it possible for the
Corps of Engineers to move rapidly to begin to replace Chickamauga
Lock. The problem with Chickamauga Lock is it's made of aging concrete
and could fail if we don't replace it. In fact, in October of last
year, the lock was closed for several days to all navigation traffic
for emergency repairs after an inspection revealed cracks in the
concrete.
This project is important not just to Chattanooga, but to all of
East Tennessee because of the number of jobs affected. We are almost
out of time for a solution--the lock could close in a few years unless
progress is made, throwing 150,000 trucks on I-75 and increasing the
cost of shipping goods for Oak Ridge, Y-12, and manufacturers across
the State.
So you can see how Chickamauga Lock--and other projects like it
across the country--ought to be a priority, and why the Corps' budget
should be a priority.
In addition to the Corps, we fund the Bureau of Reclamation.
The Bureau of Reclamation delivers water to one in five Western
farmers, irrigating 10 million acres of some of the most productive
agricultural land in the world.
I would note that this is the first time that Commissioner Lopez
and Secretary Gimbel have appeared before this subcommittee, and we
welcome them.
Without the infrastructure that these two agencies provide, our
Nation would be vastly 2016 budget request for these two agencies. I'll
look forward to the testimony of our witnesses, but first would like to
hear from our subcommittee's ranking member, Senator Feinstein.
Senator Alexander. Now, Senator Feinstein.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to begin by saying what a sincere pleasure it
has been for me to work with you. I had the same relationship
with Senator Chambliss on Intelligence. Regardless of who is in
your seat today, I really believe we are a good working team.
Where we disagree, we work it out. Where we come together, I
think the Nation is better for it.
So it has been a really great pleasure for me to work with
you. I look forward to being ranking member on your
subcommittee. I look forward to our getting our nuclear waste
bill done that we have worked for 4 years now, put together
with Lisa Murkowski, and then Jeff Bingaman, and then Jeff left
and it was Wyden, and then Mary Landrieu, and now Maria
Cantwell. That has been a very high priority for me and I know
it is for you, too.
So it has been a very good relationship, and I really
appreciate it. I want you to know that.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. If I could just say a word about Roger,
too. I think you said it all, Mr. Chairman. But he joined the
committee in 2003. He had a 23-year career with the Army Corps
of Engineers' Vicksburg District. He has worked on 14
successive Energy and Water appropriations bills. He was
involved in supporting critical national projects like the
restoration of the Everglades. And I think most importantly, he
has detailed knowledge of the appropriations process and the
budgets of both the Corps and the bureau. And he was
instrumental in shaping the Federal Government's response to
hurricanes Katrina and Sandy.
He has been a tremendous resource for me personally. And,
actually, there is no one I would trust more than Roger
Cockrell when it came to this particular budget.
So, Roger, I am really so sorry that you are leaving. Our
side is, and it is great to know the other side is as well. We
all want to wish you the very, very best. So thank you so much.
Okay, Mr. Chairman, I very much agree with you about your
comments on the budget. I found it very surprising that there
was a 13.8 percent drop in the Corps' budget and a 2.2 percent
drop in Reclamation's budget.
Candidly, it is really not acceptable when we consider all
of the water resource needs our Nation faces. It is
particularly troubling when there is such a big push for
infrastructure spending elsewhere in the administration's
budget. I don't know how they came to leave this out here,
unless they knew that we were all passionate about it and we
would probably put the money back here, at least that is kind
of what I hope we do.
As I often say, the work these agencies do affects more
people on a daily basis than anything else in this bill. So I
am a big fan of both of your agencies.
You are responsible for improving our flood protection
systems, maintaining and improving navigation channels and
ports, providing ecosystem restoration, and perhaps most
importantly, providing water for irrigation and municipal and
industrial purposes.
It is clear that in order to maintain and modernize our
existing infrastructure to meet 21st century demands, we need
sufficient budgets to accomplish real benefit. This budget,
regretfully, does not do this.
The ports and channels handled by the Corps handled more
than 2.3 billion tons of cargo. Flood control infrastructure
owned or managed by the Corps prevents more than $36 billion in
annual damages. And Corps recreation facilities serve more than
370 million visitors each year. Most people don't know that,
that the Army Corps of Engineers runs these recreation
facilities.
So I think we need to help with this shoestring budget. I
am concerned that your budgets have been so tight for so long.
We talked about Chickamauga. Well, in my State I would talk
about the California drought.
We are in the fourth year of the worst drought. We've got
wells running dry. We have people unable to have drinking water
or bathing water. We have about 800,000 acres of land that is
being fallowed because farmers can't plant.
I must say that Reclamation has just been a tremendous help
to us in that regard, by working to run the systems, to work
with the State system, run both systems much more efficiently.
We need to keep this up.
What I am here to say is that I intend to work in every way
possible to be cooperative with the chairman and try to do
those things that can improve the situation for all of the
States that are represented here.
So I thank you, Mr. Chairman. That really completes my
remarks.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
We have a tradition in the subcommittee of giving the
Senators who are here an opportunity to make opening
statements, if they would like, up to 5 minutes. We will do it
back and forth in order of arrival. We will begin with Senator
Cochran.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the
opportunity of questioning our witnesses here today and to join
you in welcoming them to our hearing. I have prepared an
opening statement for the subcommittee's hearing. I will ask
unanimous consent that statement be printed at this point in
the record, and I will reserve my questions until the regular
order.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing to review the
President's fiscal year 2016 Budget request for the U.S. Army, Corps of
Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. I appreciate the good work
conducted by these agencies, and I look forward to learning more about
their fiscal year 2016 funding needs.
The activities carried out by the Army Corps help provide our
country with the basic necessities to survive and prosper. Its civil
works responsibilities support initiatives focused on navigation and
waterborne commerce, flood prevention and storm damage reduction,
environmental restoration, among other important activities. Without
adequate funding, the Corps cannot perform these functions effectively,
which would result in greater risk of catastrophic flooding and adverse
impacts on our Nation's economy.
Today I look forward to engaging in meaningful discussion with our
distinguished members of the panel, because I have deep concerns with
various aspects of the President's fiscal year 2016 Civil Works
request. As Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I am aware
of the challenges associated with outlining funding for all of the
executive departments and independent agencies within the Federal
Government. However, we cannot lose sight of the important work
performed by the Amy Corps and their responsibilities to the Nation.
The funding levels proposed by the administration for all of the
Corps important infrastructure accounts--Investigations, Construction,
Operation & Maintenance, and Mississippi River & Tributaries (MR&T)--
are far below the levels provided by Congress in the recently enacted
fiscal year 2015 Omnibus appropriations bill. On the other hand, the
President's budget requests increases for the Corps' regulatory
programs and agency expenses, which is again cause for concern.
Considering the President's comprehensive budget is expected to exceed
the caps for discretionary spending set by the Budget Control Act of
2011 by $74 billion, I question the level of priority this
administration is placing on our Nation's critical infrastructure.
Going forward, one of the most pressing issues this subcommittee
must address pertains to the President's request for the Mississippi
River & Tributaries (MR&T) project, which reflects neither the need nor
the importance of this valuable flood control program. For fiscal year
2016, the administration has requested $225 million for MR&T, which is
far below the amount Congress had annually provided over the last 30
years.
In light of my concerns about the Corps Civil Works budget, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to discuss these important matters so
they can be addressed in the appropriations process. These hearings are
designed for that specific purpose, and I am confident that our
subcommittee will benefit from the valuable insight provided today by
Lieutenant General Bostick and Assistant Secretary Darcy.
I appreciate today's witnesses appearing before this subcommittee,
and I look forward to hearing their testimony.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Cochran. It will be
included.
Next, Senator Merkley.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFF MERKELY
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is
the first hearing of the subcommittee that I have been a part
of as a new member, so I am delighted to join the subcommittee
on these issues of energy and water and, of course, today,
particularly water.
The Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation,
these organizations reverberate in so many issues that we
encounter in Oregon. So I look forward to hearing their
testimony and exploring ways that we can maximize the
effectiveness of their good work on the ground. Thank you very
much.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Merkley.
Senator Udall.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM UDALL
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, Chairman Alexander. I
am back on the subcommittee, and I look forward to it. I know
that you and Senator Feinstein work very well together, and I
look forward to being a part of that team. I really appreciate
your good bipartisan work.
I want to take a minute to congratulate Commissioner
Estevan Lopez, the new Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation. Estevan is a native New Mexican. We are proud of
him and pleased to have him represent our State in such an
important leadership role.
I want to welcome you to your first hearing as Commissioner
before this subcommittee.
Commissioner Lopez understands the issues that are
critically important to the West. He has more than 20 years of
experience in water management policy. We really look forward
to working with you on those issues.
As you all know, issues of drought and future water supply
are critically important to the State of New Mexico. Climate
change and prolonged drought have meant devastating wildfires.
Extreme weather events alter our watersheds. Competing
interests from municipalities, agriculture, wildlife, and
industry strain our limited water resources.
Programs that help provide sustainable water management are
crucial and need to be adequately funded. I am pleased to see
the President's budget has highlighted some of these priorities
to ensure support for important tribal water settlements and
grant programs, for instance, programs like WaterSMART, which
promotes public-private partnerships for much-needed
infrastructure funding.
I intend to work my colleagues to make sure that this
program and others like it have the resources they need.
With that, I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses
and yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Udall. Welcome to the
subcommittee. Welcome back.
And, Senator Merkley, welcome to you.
Senator Tester.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON TESTER
Senator Tester. I want to echo the statements of many of
the subcommittee participants in thanking Chairman Alexander
and Ranking Member Feinstein for your ability to work together
and your common-sense approach to everything in the Senate, but
especially this issue, water resources. It is very, very
important, and I want to thank the panelists for being here.
I just stepped in, I sat down, and I drink this water. I
did not think one thing about it. I just assumed that it would
be here, not a problem. And that is part of the problem. The
fact is that good water resources take planning and dollars,
because you have to have the infrastructure to support it. That
is your job, and it is our job to make sure you have the tools
and the resources to be able to do your job and do it right.
Everything from agriculture to recreation to just the basic
necessities of life is water.
I look forward to working with everybody at the table today
and a whole lot of other folks to make sure that we have the
water infrastructure in this country to meet the needs of a
21st century United States of America. So thank you all for
your work.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Tester.
Senator Collins and Graham, we want to give each of you a
chance to make an opening statement.
Senator Graham, you have a hearing at 3 p.m.?
Senator Graham. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We are doing the pay and
benefits reform commission.
Senator Alexander. Senator Collins, would you mind?
We will go to Senator Graham and then Senator Collins.
Senator Graham. This is an opening statement?
Senator Alexander. Yes.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM
Senator Graham. I thank you for coming.
Roger, you will be missed. You have done an incredible job
for a long period of time.
To our witnesses, you have been great working with
Charleston and other areas important to South Carolina. I will
come back and ask you questions about the Port of Charleston.
As to the committee, I hope we can find a way to fix
sequestration. You cannot get there from here. Anything and
everything should be on the table. The projects we need as a
Nation are enormous; the money is insufficient. If we do not
fix sequestration, we are going to run into infrastructure
nightmares all over the country.
I cannot think of a better duo to do this than our chairman
and ranking member.
Senator Alexander. We will count on you to be the platoon
leader.
Lindsey, I think we may have a vote around 3:45 or 4:00,
but we will arrange to give every Senator an opportunity to ask
the questions you want to ask of the witnesses, even if votes
come in the middle of it.
Senator Collins.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUSAN M. COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want
to thank you and the ranking member for holding this hearing
today to review the fiscal year 2016 budget submissions for the
Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation.
The Army Corps projects are particularly important in my
State, and they play such an important role in local economies.
There is an ongoing need to address the maintenance backlog and
to ensure that our ports and harbors are properly maintained.
A great example of that for which I want to thank the Army
Corps is the cooperative work that it did with the town of
Yarmouth this past fall to dredge the Royal River. The river
was gradually filling up to the point where it threatened the
survival of the marina that was located there and would have
affected the economy of the region.
The Army Corps worked very closely with the town, both
financially and in the timing, and I really appreciate that
project being done.
I also want to salute the efforts of the chairman and
ranking member for working with me and other members of the
subcommittee last year to include the $42.5 million for
operation and maintenance at small, remote, or subsistence
navigation harbors and waterways.
In a State like mine, with an extensive coastline, those
small harbors are just as critical to the coastal communities
as large, better-known harbors are in this country. They are
truly the economic lifeblood for many small and rural
communities. And the funding for their maintenance dredging is
critically important.
Sometimes that is not fully accounted for under the Corps'
budget metrics, which tend to favor larger ports. That is why
the money that has been set aside in recent years is so
important.
I am extremely pleased to learn that the Corps' business
fiscal year 2015 work plan includes $2.9 million for
maintenance dredging at Beals Harbor in Maine, and $1.2 million
for Pig Island Gut--that probably doesn't trippingly come off
the tongues of many here--which is also in the Beals area. If
all goes well, those projects, which are absolutely essential,
will begin this fall.
Finally, I want to associate myself with the comments made
by the chair and ranking member about the cuts to the Army
Corps budget. The cuts are deep. The needs are great. And I
hope we can work together to try to narrow the gap.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Collins.
Senator Lankford, each of the Senators has made a short
opening statement. You are welcome to make one too, if you
would like to do that.
Senator Lankford. Why don't I just submit one for the
record, so we can get on with the testimony?
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Lankford.
We will move on to the testimony. I have introduced the
witnesses, so, General Bostick, why don't we begin with you and
then go right down the line? If each of you would summarize
your remarks in about 5 minutes, we would appreciate it.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL THOMAS P. BOSTICK
General Bostick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I am honored to testify before your subcommittee
today along with the Honorable Jo-Ellen Darcy on the
President's fiscal year 2016 budget for the Civil Works Program
of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
This is my third time to testify before the subcommittee on
the civil works budget. Thank you for your support in the past,
and I look forward to your continuing efforts together in the
future.
I have been in command for nearly 3 years, and I would like
to provide a brief update on our four campaign goals, which
drive the organization.
First, support to national security. The Corps supports the
national security of the United States. We continue to work in
more than 110 countries using our civil works and military
missions, water resources, and research and development
expertise to support our Nation's combatant commanders. Army
Corps employees, both military and civilian from all across the
Nation, have volunteered and continue to volunteer to provide
critical support to our military and for humanitarian missions
abroad.
Second, transform civil works. Civil works transformation
focuses on four broad areas. First, we are modernizing the
project planning process. Second, we're enhancing the budget
development process through a systems-oriented approach that
includes significant collaboration. Third, we are developing an
infrastructure strategy to evaluate the current inventory of
projects that will help identify priorities and develop better
solutions to water resources challenges. And fourth, we're
improving methods of delivery, to produce and deliver sound
decisions, products, and services that will improve the ways in
which we manage and use our water resources.
Since the inception of civil works transformation in 2008,
42 chief's reports have been completed. During that 7-year
period, 13 chief's reports were completed in the first 4 years
and 29 chief's reports were completed in the last 3. This is
clear evidence that we are learning and becoming more efficient
in our processes.
In our third campaign plan goal, we must continue to be
proactive and develop improved strategies to reduce disaster
risks, as well as respond to natural disasters when they do
occur. I continue to be very impressed at the work of the Army
Corps of Engineers in this area.
One great example of this proficiency is with Hurricane
Sandy recovery work. The flood control and coastal emergency
program is over 95 percent complete. The Sandy operations and
maintenance program is over 70 percent complete and on schedule
to be 100 percent complete by the end of 2016.
I am pleased to highlight that the Army submitted the North
Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study on schedule to Congress and
the American people on 28 January 2015.
And our fourth goal is to prepare for tomorrow. This is
about our people, ensuring that we have a pipeline of talented
military and civilian teammates as well as a strong workforce
development and talent management program.
Equally important is helping the Nation's wounded warriors
and soldiers transition out of Active Duty to find fulfilling
careers. Last year, we set a goal to assist 125 transitioning
wounded warriors, and we exceeded that goal by more than 50
percent. Nearly 200 wounded warriors found permanent positions
within the Corps and other organizations.
We are also focused on research and development efforts
that will help some of the Nation's toughest challenges.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that you and other members refer to my
complete written testimony submitted to the subcommittee for
the fiscal year 2016 budget for specifics.
Thank you again for this opportunity. I look forward to
your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I am honored to be
testifying 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 2016 Budget for the Civil Works Program of
the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). This is my third
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.
I have been in Command of the Corps for nearly 3 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 of the United States. We continue working 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 them 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 systems-oriented approach and
collaboration; evaluating the current inventory of projects and the
portfolio of proposed water resources projects using an infrastructure
strategy to identify priorities and develop better solutions to water
resources problems; and improving methods of delivery to produce and
deliver sound decisions, products, and services that will improve the
ways in which we manage and use our water resources.
Since the inception of Civil Works Transformation efforts in 2008,
42 Chief's reports have been completed. In 7 years, 13 Chief's Reports
were completed in the first 4 years, and 29 Chief's Reports completed
in the last three; we are learning and becoming 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. One great example
of this proficiency is the Hurricane Sandy recovery work ongoing in
three of our Divisions. The Flood Control and Coastal Emergency (FC&CE)
program is over 95 percent complete. At the end of 2014, the South
Atlantic Division completed its Sandy Operation and Maintenance
program; with nearly 70 percent complete, both the North Atlantic
Division and Great Lakes and Ohio River Division O&M programs are on
schedule to be 100 percent complete by the end of 2016. And I'm pleased
to highlight that the Army submitted the North Atlantic Coast
Comprehensive Study to Congress and the public on 28 January 2015. This
2-year study addresses coastal storm and flood risk from New Hampshire
to Virginia and provides a Coastal Storm Risk Management Framework,
data, and tools such as the Sea Level Change Calculator that are now
available online to help all stakeholders better assess vulnerabilities
and adopt forward thinking floodplain management strategies.
Fourth, Prepare for Tomorrow. This is about our People--ensuring we
have a pipeline of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
workers, as well as Workforce Development and Talent Management.
Equally important is helping the Nation's Wounded Warriors and Soldiers
transitioning out of active duty to find fulfilling careers. I am proud
that last year we set a goal to assist 125 transitioning Wounded
Warriors, and we exceeded that goal by more than 50 percent. Nearly 200
Wounded Warriors found permanent position within the Corps and other
organization.
We are also focused on Research and Development efforts that will
help solve some of the toughest challenges facing the Army and the
Nation. Civil Works Program research and development provides the
Nation with innovative engineering products, some of which can have
applications in both civil and military infrastructure spheres. By
creating products that improve the efficiency of the Nation's
engineering and construction industry and providing more cost-effective
ways to operate and maintain public infrastructure, Civil Works program
research and development contributes to the national economy.
summary of fiscal year 2016 budget
The fiscal year 2016 Civil Works Budget is a performance-based
budget, which 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 in the
Civil Works program will reduce the risks of flood impacts in
communities throughout the Nation, facilitate waterborne
transportation, 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 2016 Budget includes $4.732 billion in
gross discretionary funding to fund 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. Second, in the Operation and Maintenance
program, the Budget focuses on investments that address infrastructure
maintenance needs on a risk assessment basis. The budget also proposes
an increase in funding for the Regulatory program to better protect and
preserve the Nation's water-related resources.
investigations program
The fiscal year 2016 Budget provides $97 million in the
Investigations account, and $10 million in the Mississippi River and
Tributaries account to fund projects, programs, and activities that
will enable the Corps to evaluate and design projects that are the most
likely to be high-performing within the Corps three main mission areas.
The Budget also supports the Corps planning and technical assistance
programs, including using its expertise to help local communities
increase their resilience to risks such as the flood risks in coastal
communities associated with sea level rise.
construction program
The goal of the construction program is to produce as much value as
possible for the Nation from the available funds. The Budget provides
$1.172 billion for the Construction account, and $62 million in the
Mississippi River and Tributaries account, to further this objective
and gives priority to the projects with the greatest net economic and
environmental returns per dollar invested, as well as to projects that
address a significant risk to safety. The Budget includes funds for
four high-priority construction new starts: Port Lions Harbor
(Deepening and Breakwater), Alaska; Coyote and Berryessa Creeks,
Berryessa Creek, California; Ohio River Shoreline, Paducah, Kentucky;
and Marsh Lake, Minnesota River Authority, Minnesota. In keeping with
our Civil Works transformation strategy, the Budget also allocates
construction funding to complete projects and deliver their benefits to
the Nation sooner.
The Corps uses objective performance measures to establish
priorities among projects. These include benefit-to-cost ratios for
projects that are being funded primarily due to their economic outputs.
For projects funded on the basis of their environmental return, those
projects that are highly effective at restoring degraded structure,
functions or processes of significant aquatic ecosystems on a cost-
effective basis are given priority. The selection process also gives
priority to dam safety assurance, seepage control, and static
instability correction projects and to projects that address a
significant risk to safety.
operation and maintenance program
All structures age over time with a potential decline in
reliability. With proper maintenance and periodic rehabilitation, we
can extend for many years the effective lifetime of most of the
facilities owned or operated by, or on behalf of, the Corps. As
stewards of this infrastructure, we are working to ensure that its key
features continue to provide an appropriate level of service to the
American people. In some cases, this is proving to be a challenge.
The Corps strives to continually improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of its investigations, construction, and operation and
maintenance programs. In fiscal year 2016, 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, while implementing an energy sustainability program and
pursuing efficiencies in the acquisition and operation of its
information technology.
The Budget for the operation and maintenance program provides $2.71
billion in the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) account, and $152
million in the Mississippi River and Tributaries account. Our focus in
this program is on the operation and maintenance of key commercial
navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, hydropower, and other
facilities. The Budget gives priority to those coastal ports and inland
waterways with the most commercial traffic, and includes $915 million
to be spent from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. The Budget also
funds small harbors that support significant commercial fishing,
subsistence, or public transportation benefits. The Budget provides
operation and maintenance funding for safety improvements at Federal
dams and levees based on the risk and consequence of a failure.
According to our analyses, almost half of the 707 Corps dams will
likely require some form of modification or risk reduction measure in
the future if they are to continue to serve their original purposes.
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 the locks
and dams along the inland waterways; dredging of inland and coastal
Federal channels; operating multiple purpose dams and reservoirs for
flood risk reduction, hydropower, recreation, and related purposes;
maintenance and repair of the facilities; monitoring of completed
coastal projects; and general management of Corps facilities and the
land associated with these purposes.
The fiscal year 2016 Budget provides $212 million in Operation and
Maintenance 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., producing 24 percent of the Nation's hydropower.
reimbursable program
Through the Interagency and International Services (IIS)
Reimbursable Program, the Civil Works program helps other Federal
agencies, State, local, and tribal governments, and other countries
with timely, cost-effective implementation of their programs. These
agencies can turn to the Corps of Engineers, 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 by using the skills and talents that we bring to our Civil
Works and Military Missions programs. The work is principally technical
oversight and management of engineering, environmental, and
construction contracts performed by private sector firms, and is
financed by the agencies we service. IIS Reimbursable Program
activities in support of our domestic stakeholders totaled $905 million
in fiscal year 2014. We only accept agency requests that are consistent
with our core technical expertise, in the national interest, and that
we can execute without impacting our primary mission areas.
emergency management
The fiscal year 2016 Budget proposes an increase 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 as well as $3 million
in the Investigations account for the Corps participation in the
development and expansion of interagency teams, known as Silver
Jackets, which collaboratively reduce the risks associated with
flooding and other natural hazards. The Silver Jackets is an innovative
program providing a common forum to address State and local flood risk
management priorities. Silver Jacket programs are developed at the
State level. Currently, there are 43 active teams (42 States and the
District of Columbia); the ultimate goal is to offer an interagency
team in every State.
conclusion
The fiscal year 2016 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, sustainable, risk-informed solutions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. This
concludes my statement. I look forward to answering questions you or
other members of the subcommittee may have.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, General.
Secretary Darcy.
STATEMENT OF HON. JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS
Ms. Darcy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
present the President's budget for the Civil Works Program of
the Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2016.
This year's civil works budget reflects the
administration's priorities through targeted investments in the
Nation's water resources infrastructure, including dams and
levees, navigation, and the restoration of ecosystems.
It supports a civil works program that relies on a
foundation of strong relationships between the Corps and local
communities, which allows us to work together to meet their
water resources needs.
The budget also helps us in our efforts to promote the
resilience of communities to respond to the impacts of climate
change. We are investing in research, planning, vulnerability
assessments, pilot projects, and evaluations of the value and
performance of nonstructural and natural measures.
The budget also helps us to maintain and improve our
efforts on sustainability. For example, 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 advancing our sustainability efforts by using
innovative financing techniques, such as energy savings
performance contracts.
We are making important investments to promote the
sustainable management of the lands around Corps facilities by
providing funds to update the plans that govern how we manage
our facilities and to help combat invasive species.
The budget also focuses on maintaining the water resources
infrastructure that the Corps owns and manages, and on finding
innovative ways to rehabilitate it, hand it over to others, or
retire it.
Here are some of the funding highlights for this year's
budget. It provides $4.7 billion in gross 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 public safety.
The budget focuses funding on our three major mission
areas, allocating 41 percent to commercial navigation, 27
percent to flood and storm damage reduction projects, and 9
percent to aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Other effective and sound investments include allocating 5
percent of the budget to hydropower, 2 percent to the cleanup
of sites contaminated during the early years of the Nation's
nuclear weapons program, and 4 percent to regulatory
activities.
Overall, the budget funds 57 projects, nine of those to
completion. It also funds 54 feasibility studies, 13 of those
to completion. The budget also includes four new construction
starts, two of which the Corps will complete in 1 year.
The budget funds inland waterway capital investments at
$974 million, of which $53 million will be derived from the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund. The budget provides $950 million
from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to maintain coastal
channels and related works, matching the highest amount ever
budgeted.
The $44 million is provided for our comprehensive levee
safety initiative that will help ensure that all Federal levees
are safe and in line with the Federal Emergency Management
Administration standards. This initiative will provide
nonfederal entities with access to levee data that will inform
them on safety issues.
The budget supports a Corps program that has a diverse set
of tools and approaches to working with local communities,
whether this means funding projects with our cost-sharing
partners or providing planning assistance and technical
expertise to help communities make better informed decisions.
This year, the President's civil works budget provides $31
million for the Corps to provide local communities with
technical and planning assistance to help them develop and
implement nonstructural approaches to improve their resilience
to the impacts of climate change.
We continue to contribute to the Nation's environmental
restoration and the budget provides funding to restore several
large ecosystems that have been the focus of interagency
collaboration, including the California Bay Delta, the
Chesapeake Bay, the Everglades, the Great Lakes, and the Gulf
Coast.
Other funded Corps efforts include the Columbia River,
portions of Puget Sound, and priority work in the upper
Mississippi, as well as Missouri rivers.
Finally, this budget provides $6 million for the Corps'
Veterans Curation Program, which was started in 2009 with
support from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The
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 the Corps' projects.
Mr. Chairman, if you could indulge me in having me give my
personal thanks to Roger Cockrell, as well. He has been a
longtime friend, a personal friend, as well as a friend to the
Army and a friend to the Corps of Engineers. He will be truly
missed.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy
Thank you Chairman Simpson 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
2016. We are pleased to have an opportunity to further expand on the
Administration's priorities and goals. Those priorities include
promoting resilient communities in the wake of the 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, including dams and levees, navigation, and the
restoration of aquatic ecosystems.
The 2016 Civil Works Budget provides $4.7 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:
--41 percent of funding is allocated to commercial navigation,
--27 percent to flood and storm damage reduction,
--And 9 percent to aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Other practical, effective, sound investments include allocating 5
percent of the Budget to hydropower, 4 percent to regulatory
activities, and 2 percent 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
This Budget supports the continued implementation of Corps efforts
to modernize its planning process. The Budget provides funding in the
Investigations account for 54 feasibility studies, and funds 13 of them
to completion.
Section 1002 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of
2014 repeals the requirement for the Corps to conduct a federally
funded reconnaissance study prior to initiating a feasibility study.
This creates an accelerated process which allows non-Federal project
sponsors and the Corps to proceed directly to the cost shared
feasibility study. The Budget reflects that change, and does not
propose any new reconnaissance studies.
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). For most
studies, the Corps estimates that it will spend $300,000 in the first
year, $700,000 in the second year, and $500,000 in the final year. 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 limited exceptions to this funding
stream, where the Corps has approved an increase in the study cost or
an extension in its schedule 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.
The Budget includes funding to complete two ongoing preconstruction
engineering and design efforts. Within the past year, the Corps has
initiated 19 new studies under the fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year
2015 work plans. The Budget does not propose additional new studies for
fiscal year 2016. Instead, the Corps would focus on managing its
existing portfolio of ongoing studies and bringing them to a
conclusion. However, the Budget does propose two important, new
initiatives in the Investigations account--the North Atlantic Coast
Comprehensive Study Focus Areas; and Disposition of Completed Projects.
Both of these are funded as remaining items.
North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study Focus Areas
The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013, tasked the Corps to
work with a variety of partners to conduct a Comprehensive Study of the
coastal areas affected by Hurricane Sandy to evaluate flood risks and,
as part of this study, to identify areas warranting further analysis
and institutional and other barriers to reducing flood risks. The Water
Resources Reform and Development Act, 2014, provided further
requirements to the study. In January of 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers released to the public the North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive
Study (NACCS) detailing the results of a 2-year effort to address
coastal storm and flood risk to vulnerable populations, property,
ecosystems, and infrastructure in the North Atlantic region of the
United States affected by Hurricane Sandy in October 2012.
Within the NACCS, nine focus areas were identified and analyzed.
There is a new remaining item included in the fiscal year 2016 Budget
in the Investigations account to follow on with additional analysis
into those focus areas; in-depth studies of three of the nine areas--
New York-New Jersey Harbor, the New Jersey Back Bays, and Norfolk,
Virginia--will be undertaken beginning in fiscal year 2016 under this
remaining item.
Disposition of Completed Projects
The Corps would use the funds provided under the new remaining item
for Disposition of Completed Projects to develop a process to help
identify projects that it could sell or transfer to other parties, and
to determine the viability of such a divestiture and what actions would
be necessary to make it happen. In the future, funds provided through
this line item would primarily be used to undertake studies or analyses
of options for candidate projects to support specific divestiture
recommendations.
construction
The Budget for the construction program funds 53 ongoing efforts,
and four new ones. It funds nine of them to completion. Several of
these efforts are in fact programs, which comprise multiple projects.
For transparency, the supporting budget justification materials for
each of these programs display their constituent parts separately. For
example, the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program includes many
projects. Some of these projects are part of an integrated, ongoing
Federal and State effort to restore the unique aquatic ecosystem of the
Everglades; while others primarily seek to restore the aquatic
ecosystems of surrounding areas. This year's Budget also presents the
main stem flood damage reduction features of the Lower Mississippi
River together, since they are the component parts of a single,
integrated project.
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, portions of
Puget Sound, and priority work in the Upper Mississippi and Missouri
Rivers.
The Budget requests funds sufficient to complete nine construction
projects. Among these is the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal
Barrier in Illinois; the Budget will allow the Corps to physically
complete Permanent Barrier I and appurtenant features. Finishing this
project has been a high priority of both the Administration and
Congress and I am pleased that the Corps will be able to deliver a
solution that will reduce the risk of migration of Asian carp and other
invasive species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River through
the Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS). After fiscal year 2016, work
for this project will be limited to operation and maintenance and will
be funded through the Operation and Maintenance account.
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 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. Carryover funds are being used to develop a scope, schedule,
and cost for a study. This is needed as a basis for further action to
undertake a feasibility-level evaluation of options to support a
decision. The Budget includes funding to continue this effort.
Another completion of note is the Main Tunnel System (Stage 1) of
the McCook Reservoir, Illinois project. The $9 million in the Budget
coupled with the additional funds provided in the fiscal year 2015 work
plan will allow the Corps to complete this work on a schedule that will
support the non-Federal sponsor, the Metropolitan Water District of
Greater Chicago, in meeting its requirements under the Clean Water Act
by December 2017.
Also funded to completion are two dam safety projects in Oklahoma--
Pine Creek Lake and Canton Lake--that will result in reduced dam safety
action classification ratings as a result of the construction.
Dam and Levee Safety
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 unforeseen changed conditions. The Budget includes
$310 million (not including $24 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 as efficiently and
effectively as possible toward risk reduction.
The Budget also provides $44 million for a comprehensive levee
safety initiative that will help ensure that all Federal levees are
safe and in line with the Federal Emergency Management Administration
standards.
Inland Waterways
The overall condition of the inland waterways has improved over the
last few years. The number of lock closures due to preventable
mechanical breakdowns and failures lasting longer than 1 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.
The Budget funds inland waterways capital investments at $974
million, of which $53 million will be derived from the Inland Waterways
Trust Fund (IWTF). 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 has proposed 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 from the users to help finance long-term future
capital investments in these waterways to support economic growth. We
would like to work with the Congress to enact this legislation.
The Corps also is working to develop a Capital Investment Program
for the inland waterways. It will coordinate this effort with
stakeholders and the Inland Waterways Users Board to provide an
opportunity for their input. The process will include development of
objective nationwide criteria to provide a framework for deciding which
capital investments should have priority for funding from a national
perspective.
operation and maintenance
The Budget provides $2.71 billion for Operation and Maintenance,
with $1.08 billion for operation and $1.44 billion for maintenance, and
an additional $186 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.
The Budget continues to support the Corps' actions to improve the
sustainability of our facilities and projects, by participating in
Energy Savings Performance Contracts, which are innovative tools that
enable us to work with non-Federal partners in financing improvements
that otherwise might be postponed due to competition for scarce Federal
dollars, and which can help to make upgrades to our facilities in ways
that have immediate positive impacts, such as by cutting power
consumption from lighting and buildings.
We are also making important investments to promote the sustainable
management of the lands around Corps facilities; the Budget provides
$2.3 million to update 22 of the Master Plans that govern how we manage
our facilities, which will helps us make better decisions about how to
use the land and keep it healthy, such as by combating invasive
species.
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
The Budget provides $915 million from the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund (HMTF) to maintain coastal channels and related work, matching the
highest amount ever budgeted. This includes $856 million from the O&M
Account, $2 million from the Mississippi River & Tributaries account,
and $57 million from the Construction account.
Levels of Service
At some of our navigation projects, we have adopted changes to the
level of service at low commercial use locks (those with less than
1,000 commercial lockages per year). The Corps has worked with
navigation stakeholders to reduce impacts to commercial users.
Generally, commercial traffic will be able to continue to use the locks
at certain times. The intent of this effort is to focus the available
Federal resources on maintenance that will extend the service life of
these or other navigation locks.
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 2016 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. Research, Development, and
Technology efforts address ways to maintain or improve the reliable and
efficient operation of marine transportation, continued development of
tools for flood and coastal storm preparation and recovery, and
capabilities that address ecosystem restoration, sustainable
environmental management, and changing environmental conditions.
remaining items
The Budget includes $61 million in the Investigations account, $47
million in the Construction account, and $186 million in the Operation
and Maintenance account for remaining items.
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.
This year, the President's Civil Works Budget provides $31 million
for the Corps to provide these resources to local communities, to
improve their resilience to the impacts of climate change and sea level
rise.
regulatory program
The Budget includes a $5 million increase from the fiscal year 2015
Budget level for the Regulatory program, which is necessary to
implement Clean Water Act (CWA) rulemaking activities while maintaining
staffing needs, adequate scientific and technologic support, and
Regulatory strategic priorities. This increase is based on estimates
derived from the EPA Economic Analysis to support revisions to the
definition of waters of the United States and would support certain
actions to facilitate implementation, such as changes to documentation
forms, training, science and technology development, and public
outreach. Without the increase over 2015 levels, resources could be
shifted away from permit evaluation, affecting processing times and
increasing the time it takes to render a permit decision.
alternative financing and public-private partnerships
As part of looking to the future of the Army's Civil Works program,
we are considering 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.
As part of this effort, we are considering new authorities, such as
Section 5014 of the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
(WIFIA), and other parts of WRDDA 2014. We are focusing on
understanding how we could structure programs to provide efficient
forms of Federal assistance and partnership under authorities,
including identifying potential challenges to implementation and what
additional tools we may need to successfully engage in public-private
partnerships. There are limitations on how such structures can be
applied to the Civil Works program, but we are working on developing
several pilots to flesh out opportunities associated with alternative
financing.
We are also considering other approaches to public-private
partnerships, such as by expanding use of existing authorities. In some
cases, non-Federal sponsors have expressed interest in contributing
funds to enable work to occur more quickly than it could with just
Federal funds. 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 directly-
funded programs, projects and activities.
veterans curation program
Finally, this Budget provides $6 million for the Corps' 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 2016 Budget.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Secretary Darcy.
Commissioner Lopez.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
STATEMENT OF HON. ESTEVAN LOPEZ, COMMISSIONER
Mr. Lopez. Thank you, Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member
Feinstein, and members of the subcommittee. It is an honor and
pleasure to appear before this subcommittee to discuss the
President's fiscal year 2016 budget for the Bureau of
Reclamation. I appreciate the time and consideration given to
understanding Reclamation's budget, projects, and programs. I
look forward to working collaboratively with you to continue to
address complex water issues in the West. I have submitted
detailed testimony for the record.
Reclamation's overall fiscal year 2016 budget is $1.1
billion. It allocates funds based on objective and performance-
based criteria designed to effectively implement Reclamation's
programs and management responsibilities for its water and
power infrastructure in the West. At this time, I would like to
give you some highlights of that budget.
The budget supports the Powering Our Future initiative by
including $1.3 million to implement an automated data
collection and archival system to aid in hydropower
benchmarking, performance testing, and strategic
decisionmaking; to investigate Reclamation's capability to
integrate large amounts of renewable resources, such as wind
and solar power to the electric grid; and to assist tribes in
developing renewable energy sources.
Reclamation's budget supports Interior's Strengthening
Tribal Nations initiative, through endangered species recovery,
rural water projects, and water rights settlement programs. The
budget includes $112.5 million for the planning and
construction of five recent Indian water rights settlements.
Reclamation's Native American Affairs Program is funded at
$10.9 million for activities with tribes, including technical
assistance, Indian water rights settlement negotiations, and
implementation of enacted settlements, as well as outreach to
Tribes.
The budget includes $36.5 million for rural water projects,
of which $18 million is for the operation and maintenance of
completed tribal systems. A remaining $18.5 million is for the
continued construction of authorized projects, which benefit
both tribal and nontribal communities.
The budget supports the Engaging the Next Generation
initiative by continuing to provide work and training
opportunities by leveraging funding through agreements with
conservation partnerships, such as the 21st Century
Conservation Service Corps.
The budget supports ecosystem restoration, providing $158
million to operate, manage, and improve California's Central
Valley Project (CVP), including $35 million in current
appropriation for the San Joaquin Restoration Fund. Within the
CVP total, the Trinity River Restoration Program is proposed at
$11.9 million with an additional $1.5 million in the Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund.
The budget provides $437.7 million at a project level for
water and power facilities operation, maintenance, and
rehabilitation activities. Reclamation's highest priority is
the safe, efficient, economic, and reliable operation of its
facilities, ensuring system and safety measures are in place to
protect those facilities and the public.
The budget provides $88.1 million for Reclamation's Safety
of Dams program, which includes $66.5 million to correct and
identify safety issues, $20.3 million for safety evaluations of
existing dams, and $1.3 million to oversee the Interior
Department's Safety of Dams program.
Consistent with the direction in the President's 2013
Climate Action Plan, Reclamation is developing and implementing
approaches for climate change adaptation to understand and
effectively adapt to the risks and impacts of a changing
environment on Western water management, including through
Interior's WaterSMART program.
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Gimbel is going to
describe the WaterSMART program, so I won't repeat that here.
The Science and Technology Program is funded at $16.6
million for water resources research to improve capability to
manage water resources under multiple stressors, including a
changing climate. Reclamation is committed to working with its
customers, Federal, State, and Tribal partners and other
stakeholders to find ways to meet our challenging water
resource demands in 2016 and into the future.
This completes my statement. I would be happy to answer
questions at the appropriate time.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. 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 2016 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.
Reclamation's fiscal year 2016 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
many major river basins in the Western States. The effects of the
current drought on California's Sacramento and San Joaquin River
Basins, water, its agricultural economy, and its communities are
particularly acute. Another basin crucial for seven States and a number
of Native American Tribes--in addition to two countries--is the
Colorado River Basin. Nearly 35 million people rely on the Colorado
River for some, if not all, of their municipal and industrial needs.
The Basin is currently experiencing a historic drought that has not
been witnessed in over 100 years of recorded history. Lake Mead, behind
Hoover Dam on the Colorado River, has reached its lowest level since
filled more than 75 years ago. Snowpack, which acts like reservoir
storage for many western basins, is below normal in many areas.
This budget addresses priorities by allocating funds based on
objective and performance-based criteria to most effectively implement
Reclamation's programs and its management responsibilities for its
water and power infrastructure in the West. Climate variability
adaptation, water supply, water conservation, improving infrastructure,
sound science to support critical decisionmaking, and ecosystem
restoration were balanced in the formulation of the fiscal year 2016
budget. Reclamation continues to look at ways to more efficiently plan
for the future challenges faced in water resources management and to
improve the way it does business.
This budget focuses on meeting National priorities for: Indian
water rights settlements, ecosystem restoration, and healthy watersheds
and sustainable, secure water supplies. 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. Ecosystem
restoration involves a large number of activities, including
Reclamation's Endangered Species Act recovery programs, which directly
address the environmental aspects of the Reclamation mission. This
includes increased efforts to support Platte River Recovery to meet key
timelines in the partnership with the States of Colorado, Nebraska, and
Wyoming. Reclamation is engaged in several river restoration projects.
water and related resources
The 2016 budget for Water and Related Resources, Reclamation's
principal operating account, is $805.2 million. The fiscal year 2016
budget shifts $112.5 million from this account to establish a separate
Indian Water Rights Settlement Account and $35.0 million for a separate
discretionary account within the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund.
The 2016 budget includes a total of $367.4 million at the project
and program level for water, energy, land, and fish and wildlife
resource management and development activities. Funding in these
activities 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 $437.7 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
Reclamation's highest priorities.
highlights of the 2016 budget for water and related resources
I would like to share with the committee several highlights of the
Reclamation budget. Reclamation's 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 ensure 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 for Ensuring Healthy Watersheds and Sustainable,
Secure Supplies.
In the 2016 budget, Reclamation proposes to fund WaterSMART at
$58.1 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
$20.0 million; Water Conservation Field Services Program, funded at
$4.2 million; the Cooperative Watershed Management Program, funded at
$250,000; the Drought Response program, funded at $2.5 million, and the
Resilient Infrastructure program, funded at $2.5 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 2016 Reclamation budget includes $36.5 million for rural
water projects, $18.0 million of that total is for operation and
maintenance of completed tribal systems and the remaining $18.5 million
is for continued construction for authorized projects.
Dam Safety Program--A total of $88.1 million is provided for
Reclamation's Safety of Dams Program, which includes $66.5 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--To support the Powering Our Future initiative,
the 2016 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 help integrate large amounts of
renewable resources such as wind and solar into the electric grid; and
work with Tribes to assist them in developing renewable energy sources.
These important projects will assist in the production of cleaner, more
efficient renewable energy.
Strengthening Tribal Nations--The 2016 Reclamation budget supports
the Strengthening Tribal Nations initiative through a number of
activities and projects. For example, the budget includes $10.9 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 $15.3 million to continue the
operation and maintenance associated with the delivery up to 85,000
acre-feet of water to the Ak-Chin Indian Community. Ongoing authorized
rural water projects also benefit both tribal and non-tribal
communities. Projects in the fiscal year 2016 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 2016, $112.5 million for planning and construction of five
recent Indian Water Rights Settlements is being proposed in a new
separate account as described below.
Ecosystem 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 2016, a total of $122.1 million in Reclamation's budget directly
supports the goals of the America's Great Outdoors Program, through
local and basin-wide collaboration in watershed partnerships.
The budget has $24.4 million for Endangered Species Act Recovery
Implementation programs including $17.5 million in the Great Plains
Region to implement the Platte River Endangered Species Recovery
Implementation program. Within California's Central Valley Project,
$11.9 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.
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 mission of the Department. In fiscal year 2016,
Reclamation will continue to provide work and training opportunities by
leveraging funding through agreements with 21st Century Conservation
Service Corps partners and through other conservation partnerships.
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, under existing
authorities, 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, and on both large and small scales.
The 2016 Water and Related Resources budget provides $123.0 million
to operate, manage, and improve California's Central Valley Project.
The next three accounts are also related to California water and
restoration.
san joaquin river restoration fund
Reclamation proposes $35.0 million of current funds for the San
Joaquin River Restoration Fund account in 2016. The 2016 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 2016 budget includes a total of $49.5 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 $49.5 million from mitigation and restoration
charges authorized by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
california bay-delta restoration
The 2016 budget provides $37.0 million for California Bay-Delta
Restoration, equal to the 2015 budget. 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: $1.7 million for a Renewed Federal State
Partnership, $7.2 million for Smarter Water Supply and Use, and $28.1
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 2016, Reclamation will enhance support of tribal nations. The
2016 budget proposes $112.5 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 the four 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, $6.0 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); $89.7 million
for the Navajo-Gallup Settlement (Navajo Nation in New Mexico); and
$4.0 million for the Taos Settlement (Taos Pueblo 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.
Construction will take place over time, and annual funding
requirements will vary from year to year. 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 2016 using mandatory funds.
policy and administration
The 2016 budget for Policy and Administration, the account that
finances Reclamation's central and regional management functions is
$59.5 million. The account supports activities necessary to the
management and administration the of the bureau which 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 $117.4 million in 2016
primarily includes $114.2 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 2018 priority goal for water conservation
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
priority goal helps to achieve these objectives.
The 2016 budget will enable Reclamation to achieve water
conservation capability for agricultural, municipal, industrial, and
environmental uses in the western United States by 975,000 acre-feet
(since 2009) through September 30, 2016. 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. Reclamation has already exceeded
the prior goal of 840,000 acre-feet by the end of fiscal year 2015 by
partnering with States, Indian Tribes, irrigation and water districts
and other organizations with water or power delivery authority to
implement programs resulting in water conservation.
Reclamation is participating in the following priority goals to
help achieve the objectives set out by the President: Water
Conservation, Renewable Energy, Climate Adaption, and Youth Employment
and Training. The Department is currently employing a set of internal
measures and milestones to monitor and track achievement of the
Priority Goals.
Reclamation is requesting two significant changes in authorizations
for which language is included in our fiscal year 2016 request. The
first is to extend the California Federal Bay-Delta Authorization Act,
as amended, from 2016 to 2018, so the CALFED program can continue its
critical mission--even more important given the current drought.
Language is also included as part of the 2016 Budget to increase the
authorized appropriations ceiling of Section 9504(e) of the Secure
Water Act of 2009 from $300 million to $400 million. The latter
provides much of the funding for Reclamation's WaterSMART program,
which is one of our most effective programs.
Importantly, the 2016 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
cost-effectively managing, operating, and maintaining its public
infrastructure, and in 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 2016 and beyond.
conclusion
This completes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Commissioner Lopez.
Ms. Gimbel.
STATEMENT OF JENNIFER GIMBEL, PRINCIPLE DEPUTY
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WATER AND SCIENCE
Ms. Gimbel. Good afternoon, Chairman Alexander, Senator
Feinstein, members of the subcommittee. I am Jennifer Gimbel,
Interior's Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and
Science. I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you about
Water and Related Programs at the Department of the Interior.
My office oversees the Bureau of Reclamation and USGS
activities. I am particularly pleased today to join Senator
Udall in introducing Commissioner Estevan Lopez. We are
fortunate to have someone of the caliber and with the
experience of Commissioner Lopez at the helm of the Bureau of
Reclamation.
I will highlight just a few of our overall programs with
respect to water challenges across the country.
It is well known that we are facing unprecedented pressure
on our water supplies all across the Nation, but particularly
in the West. We continue to experience drought not only in
California but on the Colorado River and the Rio Grande River
basins.
Population growth, aging infrastructure, a changing
climate, increased domestic energy development, and recognition
of ecosystem needs are all challenging the already scarce
supplies. This subcommittee is well aware of these challenges.
This administration continues to put high priority on
addressing these challenges both in the short- and long-term.
The specific focus of Interior's WaterSMART program is to
secure and stretch water supplies and to provide tools that
allow water managers to continue to move toward sustainability.
To date, Reclamation has helped to create an additional
supply of more than 860,000 acre-feet of water for the West.
That is enough water to supply nearly 1 million families of
four for a year.
In 2016, Reclamation proposes to fund WaterSMART at $58.1
million. Those programs include $23.4 million for the
WaterSMART water efficiency grants, $20 million for Title XVI
Water Reclamation and Reuse funding, and $5.2 million for Basin
Studies, which have broad State and local support.
Basin Studies are an excellent tool that allows Reclamation
to work with water managers and other water interests by
convening a collaborative and proactive analysis of particular
watersheds and working with stakeholders to identify options
and strategies to respond to changing needs and anticipated
shortages.
Although not under your jurisdiction, I thought you would
be interested to know that USGS is asking for $31 million under
the WaterSMART program to help understand the quantity and
quality of our water resources nationwide.
This year California is in the bull's eye with respect to
drought. Interior, with the Departments of Agriculture and
Commerce, is continuing to work with the State of California to
pursue projects that might help stretch California water
supplies. In December of this year, Reclamation and partner
agencies developed a draft Interagency 2015 Drought Strategy. I
know Senator Feinstein is very familiar with this strategy.
On the Colorado River, Reclamation has been working with
municipal providers in Arizona, California, Nevada, and
Colorado on a Colorado River System Conservation Pilot Program
to begin to address long-term imbalance on the Colorado River.
Finally, the Central Utah Project Completion Act Office, or
CUPCA, is under the auspices of the Office of Water and
Science. In this budget, we are no longer proposing that CUPCA
be integrated into Reclamation. We will keep it a separate
program in Interior, and we are requesting $7.3 million for the
budget for that this year.
The budgets of the Department of the Interior and the
Bureau of Reclamation support these water priorities. We very
much appreciate the support this subcommittee has shown for
Reclamation's mission and projects over the year. That
concludes my oral statement.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jennifer Gimbel
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein and members of this
subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the
President's fiscal year 2016 budget for the Department of the
Interior's Bureau of Reclamation and Central Utah Project Completion
Act. I would like to thank the members of this subcommittee for your
efforts to enact a fiscal year 2015 appropriation, and for your ongoing
support for our initiatives.
The 2016 budget request is $13.2 billion for the Department of the
Interior. The Secretary will testify later this month before various
Congressional committees on the Department's request. I am here today
to discuss the President's fiscal year 2016 budgets for the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Central Utah Project Completion Act, which is a
Department of the Interior program that reports to the Office of Water
and Science. My office is also responsible for the United States
Geological Survey, which is funded by the Interior and Environment
Subcommittee. As in the past, we are thankful to the subcommittee for
your continued support of these programs.
introduction
The Department of the Interior's mission affects the lives of all
Americans. Interior has stewardship of 20 percent of the Nation's
lands, oversees the responsible development of 21 percent of U.S.
energy supplies, is the largest supplier and manager of water in the 17
western States, maintains relationships with 566 federally recognized
Tribes, and provides services to more than two million American Indian
and Alaska Native peoples. This budget enables the Department to carry
out its important missions in resource stewardship, balanced
development of energy and mineral resources, water management and
conservation, providing opportunities to youth and veterans, resilience
in the face of a changing climate, advancement of self-determination
and stronger communities for tribal Nations, and fulfilling commitments
to Insular communities. The Interior Department's fiscal year 2016
budget maintains core capabilities to meet these responsibilities and
proposes investments in key priorities.
ensuring healthy watersheds and sustainable, secure water supplies
The 2016 budget addresses the Nation's water challenges through
investments in water conservation, sustainability, and infrastructure
critical to the arid Western United States and its fragile ecosystems.
Drought
Ongoing and multi-year droughts in California and across other
Western States are resulting in water shortages impacting agriculture,
municipalities and ecosystem functions and underscoring the importance
of improving the resilience of communities to the effects of climate
change. In 2014, Reclamation awarded $17.8 million in WaterSMART water
and energy efficiency grants and $20.0 million in Title XVI Water
Reclamation and Reuse projects that contribute significantly to drought
response and resilience. In November 2014, Reclamation awarded $9.2
million for 131 research projects within five research priority areas.
The research projects are leveraged with partners providing $3.8
million in non-Federal cost sharing.
The Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce are
continuing their work with the State of California to accelerate water
transfers and exchanges, provide operational flexibility to store and
convey water, expedite environmental review and compliance actions, and
to pursue new or fast-track existing projects that might help stretch
California's water supplies. In December 2014, Reclamation and partner
agencies developed a draft Interagency 2015 Drought Strategy for the
Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) which
outlines a preliminary framework for the Drought Contingency Plan for
Operations of the CVP and SWP, the Drought Contingency Biological
Monitoring Plan, and other Drought-Related Measures.
The U.S. Geological Survey is providing California managers and
residents with timely and meaningful data to help decisionmaking and
planning for the State's water resources as drought affects stream flow
across the State, reducing reservoir replenishment, and increasing
groundwater depletion. In December 2014, the USGS released an
interactive California Drought visualization Web site to provide the
public with atlas-like, State-wide coverage of the drought and a
timeline of its impacts on water resources.
In the Colorado River Basin, Reclamation is working with the seven
Basin States to craft new strategies to ensure critical infrastructure,
such as the Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams, continues to operate as
intended and to assist agricultural and municipal users in addressing
current and future water challenges. In July 2014, Reclamation and
municipal water providers in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Colorado
signed a landmark water conservation agreement called the Colorado
River System Conservation Program to address the long-term imbalance on
the Colorado River caused by years of drought conditions.
In the Klamath River Basin, Interior is working with other Federal
agencies, Oregon, California, Tribes and local stakeholders to
implement authorized actions designed to alleviate the impacts of
drought by reducing water demand in conjunction with activities that
improve habitat, and restore fisheries.
WaterSMART
The budget includes $89.0 million for WaterSMART programs in
Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey, a $22.1 million increase
from 2015, to assist communities in stretching water supplies and
improving water management. This funding supports the Department's goal
to increase by 975,000 acre-feet, the available water supply for
agricultural, municipal, industrial, and environmental uses in the
Western United States through water-conservation programs by the end of
fiscal year 2016. The budget includes $5.2 million for Reclamation's
Basin Studies program. The WaterSMART program's Basin Study component
leverages funding and technical expertise from the Bureau of
Reclamation in a collaborative effort with knowledgeable State and
local water practitioners. Basin Studies aim to identify practical,
implementable solutions to existing or anticipated water shortages and
to support related efforts to ensure sustainable water supplies. The
Basin Studies conducted to date advanced the state of knowledge about
the dynamics of each particular watershed and generated a collective
expertise to formulate constructive actions to address imbalances.
In addition to $1.1 billion requested for the Bureau of Reclamation
within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, the
budget also requests over $220 million for the U.S. Geological Survey's
water programs to provide scientific monitoring, research, and tools to
support water management across the Nation. USGS research conducted
under the Department's WaterSMART program includes characterizing long-
term trends in streamflow, assessing groundwater availability,
quantifying water losses to the atmosphere, estimating water use
requirements, and developing tools to understand the ecological impacts
of changes in water availability.
powering our future
To encourage resource stewardship and development objectives,
Interior is shifting from a reactive, project by project resource
planning approach to more predictably and effectively managing its
lands and resources. Interior's focus on powering America's energy
future supports an all-inclusive approach including conventional and
renewable resources on the Nation's public lands.
hydropower
Hydropower is a very clean and efficient way to produce energy and
is a renewable resource. Each kilowatt-hour of hydroelectricity is
produced at an efficiency of more than twice that of any other energy
source. Further, hydropower is very flexible and reliable when compared
to other forms of generation. Reclamation maintains 475 dams and over
8,000 miles of canals and owns 76 hydropower plants, 53 of which are
operated and maintained by Reclamation. On an annual basis, these
plants produce more than 40 billion kilowatt hours of electricity,
enough to meet the entire electricity needs of over 3.5 million
households.
The Department signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
Department of Energy and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 2010 to
increase collaboration among those agencies and strengthen the long-
term relationship among them to prioritize the generation and
development of sustainable hydropower. This Administration is committed
to increasing the generation of environmentally sustainable, cost-
effective hydropower on existing dams and conduits for our national
electricity supplies as efficiently as possible. Activities under this
MOU have been ongoing, and have resulted in accomplishments such as
assessments of potential conventional and pumped-storage hydropower
resources on Federal and non-Federal lands and facilities; a
collaborative basin-scale pilot project in the Deschutes Basin (Oregon)
and the Bighorn Basin (Wyoming and Montana); and grant opportunities
for research and development of new technologies.
Reclamation is supporting non-Federal development of hydropower
through Lease of Power Privilege (LOPP), and updated the LOPP Directive
and Standard in 2014 to incorporate the Bureau of Reclamation Small
Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act (PL 113-24) of 2013.
As a result of Reclamation's focus on non-Federal hydropower
development and the implementation of PL 113-24, there are now 9 LOPP
hydropower projects online with 19 additional projects moving through
the process. The LOPP process allows new hydropower development while
preserving, maintaining, and sometimes enhancing environmental
protections to ensure that any new projects will be developed in an
ecologically sensitive and environmentally sustainable manner.
Additionally, Reclamation is working with Federal and non-Federal
partners to restore species in ecosystems that were damaged by past
Federal multipurpose dam construction. For example, the budget includes
$18 million for restoration of endangered salmon on the Columbia and
Snake Rivers to ensure that the Federal Columbia River Power System can
meet Endangered Species Act requirements and Reclamation's Pacific
Northwest Region can continue to generate approximately 23.7 million
MWh of electricity (net) per year.
To further support the Powering Our Future initiative, the 2016
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 energy generated
by renewable resources such as wind and solar into the electric grid;
and work with Tribes to assist them in developing renewable energy
sources. These important projects will assist in the production of
cleaner, more efficient, ecologically sensitive, renewable energy.
strengthening tribal nations--indian water settlements
The Department's programs maintain strong and meaningful
relationships with native and insular communities, strengthen the
government-to-government relationships with federally recognized
Tribes, promote efficient and effective governance, and advance self-
governance and self-determination. The 2016 budget makes significant
new investments to improve Interior's capacity to work with and support
Tribes in the resolution of their water rights claims and develop
sustainable water sharing agreements and management activities.
Interior's investments in Indian Water Settlements total $244.5
million in Reclamation and Indian Affairs for technical and legal
support and for authorized water settlements, an increase of $73
million over 2015. This includes $40.8 million for Interior-wide
technical and legal support, and $203.7 million for settlement
implementation, of which $136.0 million is funded by the Bureau of
Reclamation. In 2016, Interior will complete the funding requirements
for the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act.
engaging the next generation
By September 30, 2017, the Department of the Interior will provide
100,000 work and training opportunities over 4 fiscal years, 2014
through 2017, for individuals ages 15 to 35 to support the mission of
the Department. To meet the Secretary's challenge to Engage the Next
Generation, Reclamation will strive to expand youth programs and
partnerships to accomplish high priority projects, promote quality
participant experiences, and provide pathways to careers for young
people through temporary positions with the bureau, as conservation
interns, or as part of conservation work crews in conjunction with
partnering organizations.
central utah project
The Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA), Titles II--VI of
Public Law 102-575, provides for completion of the Central Utah Project
(CUP) by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District (District). The
Act also authorizes funding for fish, wildlife, and recreation
mitigation and conservation; established an account in the Treasury for
deposit of these funds and other contributions; established the Utah
Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission to coordinate
mitigation and conservation activities; and provides for the Ute Indian
Rights Settlement.
The 2016 budget for the Department of the Interior's CUPCA program
is $7.3 million. Of this amount, $6.3 million will be expended from
this account and $1.0 million will be transferred to the Utah
Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for use by the Utah
Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission. The 2016 budget
provides funding to continue the partnership with the Central Utah
Water Conservancy District in the ongoing construction of the Utah Lake
System facilities. The 2016 budget will also continue Interior's
required program oversight activities and endangered species recovery
program implementation through the Department's CUPCA Office.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
President's 2016 budget for the Department of the Interior and the
Bureau of Reclamation. We have the opportunity to positively impact our
Nation's future for all generations through wise investments,
collaboration, and new and innovative ideas to meet the future needs
for the growth and prosperity of our Nation.
I look forward to working with the committee to implement this
budget. This concludes my testimony and I am happy to answer questions.
Senator Alexander. Thank you very much.
Now we will begin a round of 5-minute questions. We have a
vote at 3:45. What we will do is just go right on through the
vote, and I will go over and vote at about 3:45. We will just
pass the gavel around so we can keep going and give every
Senator a chance to ask his or her questions.
INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND
Let me begin, Ms. Darcy, if I may, with you. I am
disappointed that there is no funding in the President's budget
to begin replacement of Chickamauga Lock. But let me put it on
a more national scope than that.
Two or 3 years ago, several of us, Senator Graham, I,
others, sat down with the staffs of various Senators and said
let's put aside all the practical problems. What do we need to
do for a great country to have the kind of inland waterway
system that it should have? And the staff came back with a
plan. We talked with the Vice President about it and talked it
around ourselves. In fact, we have gotten it done.
As I mentioned earlier, number one, we passed a law that
excluded the Olmsted Lock or reduced the amount of money we
spent on the Olmsted Lock, because it was soaking up all the
money available for the inland waterway. Second, we worked with
the industry and with the administration and we established a
priority list of which inland water projects should go in
order, so it wouldn't be just a log-rolling exercise by
senators and congressmen. Then, third, we enacted a user fee
increase. In other words, the commercial users of the inland
waterways volunteered, and we approved at the end of last year
increasing the amount of money they pay to go through the
locks.
So we did all three of those things, and all three of those
things together should make it possible for the Corps over the
next several years to do what we need to do in our country for
inland waterways.
However, the Corps' budget does not propose to spend all of
the money that is available in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund,
specifically $57 million is not being spent, according to
information we have from your staff. So my question is, why did
we go to all the trouble to increase the user fee if you are
not going to spend it?
Ms. Darcy. Well, Senator, we are spending some of it. As
you know, the Inland Waterways Trust Fund funds every other
project but Olmsted on a 50-50 cost share. And the overall
budget number for us within our construction account needs to
be able to meet that other cost share.
In the case of Olmsted, we need to find 85 percent. And the
other projects that are funded in this year's budget
Monongahela Lock 2, 3, and 4, we had to find the 50 percent
within the rest of the budget.
Senator Alexander. You are saying you don't have enough
appropriated money to match the trust fund money?
Ms. Darcy. In the President's proposed budget, we do not
have an equal amount.
Senator Alexander. Well, it is disappointing to me and hard
to go back to the people whose taxes we raised, basically, and
say we took your money but we are just going to put it on the
shelf for a while. I would like to find a way, if I may,
working with you to be able to fully fund the plan for building
a great inland waterway system in this country. It will take
several years.
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK
General Bostick, let me go to you. It is my understanding
that between $3 million and $9 million could be appropriately
used this year to restart work on Chickamauga Lock.
For example, with just $3 million, the Corps could award a
base contract to get started on the highest priority and
earliest work, which is grouting the cofferdam. I am getting
down to details here, but that is what we need to do. If $6
million were available, the Corps could also start anchoring
the cofferdam and construct a small pile wall.
In other words, if you had $3 million, or if you had $6
million, and you decided to spend it, you could begin to do
work on the Chickamauga Lock, which is the fourth highest
priority, which we are going to do, and which is in danger of
being closed if we don't do this.
My understanding is also that your work plan does not
obligate nearly $6 million that could be spent on the lock or
other critical waterway projects. So why don't you spend the
available $6 million to get started on the Chickamauga Lock,
General Bostick?
General Bostick. First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank
you and the subcommittee for the work you have done. I think
all of those efforts to try to help our inland waterways are
going to pay off in the future, and some immediately.
From a bigger picture, part of what we have to do is really
look at the capital projects as a whole. And although we have
priorities, we don't feel like we have done all of our work to
properly assess those projects, and Chickamauga is one of them,
on the economic benefits and the requirements that they have in
maintenance.
So we are completing this capital projects report. That
should be done by the summer of this year. And I think that
will help us get a framework on how we should spend the
taxpayer dollars.
The other thing I would address is on the work plan. There
are opportunities in the months ahead to use that additional $6
million. We will have, by the end of the month, provided some
recommendations to Secretary Darcy, and she will work with the
administration to determine the way ahead.
Senator Alexander. Good. I have an opportunity to suggest
for you for that $6 million. I understand what you are saying,
but I hope you understand what I am saying. We have developed
the plan. We worked with you. We think you are doing a good job
with the money you have. But if we are going to raise that
money from the commercial barge people, we ought to spend it.
That is what it is for.
And if we have a lock on the priority list and with $3
million to $6 million we can move along with it, I would
suggest we do it.
My time is up. Senator Feinstein.
SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE STUDY
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
going to begin with a subject that I am very frustrated about,
and that is the South San Francisco Bay shoreline study. I have
had several conversations with Secretary Darcy about this, so,
General Bostick, I would like to involve you in this, too.
This bay line study was congressionally authorized in 2002.
That is 13 years ago. The work began in 2005. The purpose was
to recommend flood risk management and ecosystem restoration
projects along South San Francisco Bay for Federal funding.
The study continues to be a high priority for me and very
frustrating.
This portion of Santa Clara County shoreline is at great
risk from floods due to storms and high tides. And sea level
rise we know is going to occur in the future.
So, more than 10 years have passed. The study is not done.
In excess of $10 million has been spent. There was a 6-month
delay in 2005, 2006. There was a dispute between the Corps and
the local sponsors, who would be responsible for the mapping.
Between 2006 and 2010, there was a 2-year delay. Local sponsors
informed me that the Army Corps of Engineer's research and
development center took twice as long, 4 years instead of 2
years, and at twice the original cost, $4 million instead of $2
million, to complete the floodplain maps.
The project had to be re-scoped in January 2011 to focus on
the Alviso area to avoid the project getting further delayed.
There was then another 10-month delay between August 2013 and
June 2014, when the Corps raised concerns about how the project
would address sea level rise, even though the Corps had been
aware of the design assumptions since March 2011.
In mid-2014, I was told the chief's report would be done by
July 2015. A few months later, the schedule again slipped to
December 2015.
During this long process, the lack of a completed chief's
report has meant authorization of a potential project was
missed in 2007 and 2014. And last week, we suffered another
blow. The Corps unveiled its fiscal year 2015 work plan and
2016 budget and no money, zero, was allotted to completion of
this high-priority study.
So can you tell me how you plan to finish the chief's
report by December 2015 as promised without Federal funding in
the 2015 work plan and the 2016 budget?
General.
General Bostick. We currently have funds on hand to
continue to move the study forward.
Senator Feinstein. Could you tell me how much?
General Bostick. I would have to follow up with you on the
exact amount.
Senator Feinstein. Will you tell me how much?
General Bostick. We can. I don't have that number now,
Senator.
Senator Feinstein. So it is your intention to continue with
the study?
General Bostick. We will continue the study. We will at
some point need additional funds. As I talked about earlier, we
would work with Secretary Darcy on recommendations on how work
plan funds might be utilized.
Senator Feinstein. So you will meet the December 2015
deadline?
General Bostick. We will. We will meet the December 2015
deadline.
Senator Feinstein. Shall I ask you to raise your right
hand, and swear to God?
General Bostick. If you want me to raise my right hand, I
will do that, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Got it.
General Bostick. We are doing everything we can to stay on
top of this.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. It is really a high priority for
that area. As you know, there is a lot of high-tech right on
the water there. There are cities. There is a sewage treatment
plant that serves 1 million people. It could be catastrophic if
that area floods.
General Bostick. I understand.
Senator Feinstein. I am going to hold you to your word,
General. Thank you.
SALT PONDS
Now, while I have you, it has come to my attention that the
Corps is performing some type of wetlands evaluation pertaining
to salt ponds in the north end of San Francisco Bay near the
Port of Redwood City. I discussed it with one of the generals
this morning.
Apparently, these salt ponds are being considered for some
type of potential development, and the press has said that the
Army Corps is about ready to say that certain parts of the bay
behind a dike are not waters of the United States. It is my
understanding that that differs with the EPA.
It is a highly sensitive matter, and I would appreciate
knowing what the Corps' position is. I intend to go down there
and take a look myself next week.
General Bostick. We haven't come to a conclusion, at this
point. We are working with the EPA on this issue, and General
Peabody has been out there. He is going out again next week,
and will look at several sites and have an opportunity to talk
about this.
We are working very closely with EPA and Justice, to make
sure we come to the appropriate conclusion on the way ahead.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I would hope you would work with
me. I am kind of the mother of that whole salt ponds situation.
I got the funding. I got the State money. I got the private
money to buy the land from Cargill. I know exactly what has
been planned, and I am very concerned about this. What makes
our whole area is the bay, and we do not want it filled.
And I have the pleasure of speaking with General Peabody
next week. It is my intention to come down there on Tuesday,
General, at 11 o'clock, so I will take a look for myself.
General Bostick. We will absolutely work closely with you
on this, Senator.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Senator Cochran.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
presiding over this hearing and providing leadership for our
subcommittee. And my thanks for our panel coming here today to
talk about the President's budget submission for the Army Corps
of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation.
I have put my statement in the record describing the
steady, but sure decline of commitment from the Federal
Government for its inland waterways system maintenance,
projects such as the Mississippi River & Tributaries project,
similar projects but smaller throughout the country that have
come in for some of the lowest budget requests that I have seen
since I have been in Washington. We started out poor, and we're
getting poorer.
I wonder what the reaction of the administrators are as to
what kind of frustration you might be enduring, and what you
can suggest to the subcommittee for ways to ameliorate or help
minimize the practical consequences of this budget.
I don't want to just fuss about it, but I would like to get
into some of the specifics.
For example, on the Mississippi River & Tributaries
project, only $225 million is requested. That sounds like a big
number, but guess what? That is more than $100 million below
the average amount of funding provided by Congress over the
last 30 years.
What is your reaction, General, to the overview that this
presents to our subcommittee?
General Bostick. Senator, I can speak to it from a leader
standpoint and from one who has to execute the mission that the
country has asked us to do. It is challenging. It is very
challenging for us to execute our mission with the funding
levels that the taxpayers are able to afford and what the
country is able to afford.
We state what the priorities should be, and where the focus
should be. But at the end of the day, when the President looks
at the budget, when the Nation looks at the requirements across
this country, priorities have to be set. And I am not privy to
those. I respect all the decisions that are made.
What I would say in our area is we have to look at how we
become more efficient. I think we can become more efficient in
how we use taxpayer dollars. I think that we have to look at
alternative means of financing.
You gave us the opportunity through WRRDA with public-
private partnerships. I don't think the Federal Government,
even if it could pay all of the needs of the inland waterways--
and there are many needs that are there. I think we have to be
part of the solution to be innovative and creative in how we
move forward.
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION PROJECTS
Senator Cochran. One other example of the budget request
that is out of line with what has been the suggestion is the
Yazoo Backwater projects in the Mississippi Delta region are
also going to be subjected to substantial cuts. The combined
annual benefits of the projects, by comparison, are roughly
$77.7 million. But the budget submitted by the President, once
again, doesn't request funding for the headwaters project or
the Upper Yazoo project.
But given the importance to the lives of the people of that
region, and their property and the sustainability of the
economy in the region, it makes it clear that something has to
give or that project is going to be dead in the water.
The Federal Government has invested more than $700 million
up to this point in these projects. This is the construction
phase now that is over 30 years in the making. But because of
inadequate funding, it is going to be, as I said, dead in the
water.
I am going to ask you, if you can, to give the subcommittee
the benefit of your suggestions, as to how we can compromise,
if there is a way to come together with something less than had
been requested in the budget by the Congress and the reality of
how much you are likely to be permitted to spend by fiat of the
Federal Government, after we are completed with this
legislation.
Are there other comments that maybe the administration's
representative can give us some thought on?
Ms. Darcy. One of the issues that General Bostick mentioned
is one that we need to work on, collectively as a government,
and that is finding public-private partnerships or other
alternative financing mechanisms to try to meet some of the
needs that remain unmet, both with Federal dollars and local
dollars.
I think one point, Senator, is that in the 2015 work plan,
we did fund the Delta Headwaters in Mississippi.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, my time is up.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
At about 3:40, I am going to go vote and come right back,
so we will just let the hearing go straight through. I will ask
Senator Feinstein if she will wield the gavel during that
period of time, then I will take it back in time for her to
vote.
Senator Merkley.
SMALL SUBSISTENCE AND EMERGING HARBORS
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
your testimony.
Assistant Secretary Darcy, on our coast in Oregon, we have
a lot of very small ports that have a whole variety of their
economy affected by crabbing, shrimp, groundfish, salmon,
tourists, whale watching. Boats go out for every possible
reason. But the dredging of these ports was in the President's
proposed fiscal year 2015 budget, but they have all been zeroed
out for fiscal year 2016.
I am assuming, just to kind of shorten the conversation,
that the assumption is that here in Congress we will do a small
port carve-out as we have for the last few years, and then some
funds will be redistributed to the high dredging or high-need
areas. Is that the plan?
Ms. Darcy. No, Senator. What we have provided in the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund account is $91 million for small
subsistence and what are termed emerging harbors, which is 10
percent of the overall request for the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund.
Senator Merkley. And then there will be a work plan that
will come out as to where those funds will go?
Ms. Darcy. If the 2016 budget is enacted----
Senator Merkley. What I am trying to clarify is the fact
that those ports are zeroed out in the President's budget does
not mean that your intention is that the dredging stop on those
small ports.
Ms. Darcy. The dredging needs vary from year to year--what
we have determined for this fiscal year in the 2016 budget is
that it is not necessary to be funded in this fiscal year. We
have to go port by port to see which ones----
Senator Merkley. Right. So I will be in close communication
with you all about that. There are some ports that you can get
away with every other year dredging.
Ms. Darcy. And some every 5 years. It all depends on the
turbidity and the----
CROOKED RIVER PRINEVILLE RESERVOIR
Senator Merkley. I just want to make sure that the economy
of our Oregon coast doesn't shut down, as it has come close to
a number of times when dredging was not funded. So I will keep
an eye on that in conversation with you all.
Commissioner Lopez, one of the things that passed at
authorization at the end of last Congress was a resolution to
end 40 years of water wars on the Crooked River Prineville
Reservoir. There is a piece of that that requires developing a
water management plan, an annual release schedule, if you will.
I just want to draw that to your attention. I know that will
take some resources from the Bureau of Reclamation, but it is
going to be a critical part.
Crooked River is in the budget. But I just wanted draw it
to your attention and say, in this first year of implementation
of this agreement, after decades of fighting over the water,
how important it will be for us to make sure that it happens in
a timely and competent basis.
Mr. Lopez. Senator, I am aware of this legislation and I
know in the last couple of weeks there have been a whole series
of meetings between our area and regional staff with Oregon
State officials and water users out there to begin to map out
exactly how we go about the implementation of this, both moving
the Wild and Scenic River boundary and also doing some water
rights applications that need to be set in motion. We are
engaged in that and will continue to work on it.
WATER FOR IRRIGATION, STREAMS AND ECONOMY
Senator Merkley. Thank you. And I will mention in my last
few seconds here that the pilot project in Talent Irrigation
District with Bear Creek, the funding is much appreciated. That
was announced last week. Thank you.
It is basically a situation where piping is put into an
irrigation system to save water, and then more water can stay
in the streams, so diversion is eliminated, therefore, it's
better for the irrigators, better for the salmon.
This is a pilot project for a program called WISE, Water
for Irrigation, Streams and Economy. That larger project is one
that Oregon has set aside matching grants for. It is something
on which I would like to be a dialogue with you all about,
because it, certainly, has a huge potential impact doing right
by the irrigation districts and improving the streams and
habitat in the process.
Thank you very much.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Merkley.
Senator Feinstein has agreed to preside for the next few
minutes while I go cast an early vote. So the next Senator will
be Senator Lankford and then Senator Udall.
WATER RESOURCES REFORM DEVELOPMENT ACT
Senator Lankford. Thank you for allowing me to jump in the
conversation. It is good to see several of you again. I need to
ask some questions about the Water Resources Reform Development
Act, the WRRDA Act that we passed last year, one of the rare
things that did pass through Congress last year. And it has a
requirement to conduct an assessment of all the properties from
the Corps of Engineers to determine which are ``not needed for
the mission of the Corps of Engineers.'' So it is an inventory
statement and then a basic ability to be able to say these are
priority areas, these are possibly not priority areas. Has the
Corps begun that assessment, at this point?
General Bostick. We have begun that assessment. I believe
you are referring to the $18 billion of projects that we
believe we can recommend for deauthorization.
Senator Lankford. It is from WRRDA from last year. It is
just a list of all projects, so it is not just the new but it
is a current inventory of all projects nationwide.
General Bostick. Yes. We are working on that as well. We
think we have a pretty good handle on the infrastructure
assessment, and we feel like that is progressing well.
Senator Lankford. What is your best guess on when Congress
will have that report?
Ms. Darcy. Can I offer that? We will have the $18 billion
deauthorization report to Congress by this September.
Senator Lankford. Okay, by September. And the obvious next
question is then, there is a desire to say if there are certain
projects that are not priority projects, then there is the
opportunity to say these projects should be divested or find
other entities, whether it be States, counties, cities,
whatever it may be, that may want to take on the management of
that, if there are nonpriority projects.
What is the best way to be able to handle that disposition,
from the Corps' perspective?
General Bostick. We are required through WRRDA to provide a
list of $18 billion worth of projects that are authorized that
we believe we can deauthorize, and we will provide that list as
well.
Senator Lankford. It is not just a list of them. It is the
actual process of divesting. The obvious thing for the Federal
Government is we have a lot of extra real property laying
around. We have had a very difficult time transitioning it out
of Federal hands.
General Bostick. We had to divest of a project a couple of
years ago that we had been working on, and it took quite a long
time and quite a lot of money just to divest. I am not able to
tell you now that the process, once we have that list of how we
divest, what work we will need and support we will need from
Congress. But we will be happy to provide that. It is a
difficult process, as it is currently set up.
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
Senator Lankford. Okay. That is an understatement, to say
the least. We have had a tough time letting go of different
facilities and things. So one of the goals that I would have in
the days ahead is that, the Corps obviously will never have
enough money, but to make sure that the low-priority things
that we have, things that could be divested, the Corps doesn't
have to spend money on. That can be transitioned so that money
can then be spent on the things that are the high priorities or
that are essential, to help protect some of those dollars.
One of the questions from your statement, General Bostick,
you talked about one of the priorities was to modernize the
planning process of this. One of the struggles in the past has
been the Corps has so many projects going on at once. Is there
a plan to say we are going to invest more dollars faster in a
project in order to get this done, knowing that it is more
expensive to stretch it out over 10 years than it is to do it
in 5, but that means doing fewer projects, but the projects
that you do are cheaper and faster. Is that in the
conversation?
General Bostick. Absolutely. Secretary Darcy talked a bit
about this in her opening remarks, about completions. One of
the things we try to focus on, both with studies and
construction, is if this increment of funding will complete the
project. So one of the guiding principles is to look at
completions.
The other thing that we are doing on the front end is to
make sure on these chief's reports, and going back to what we
talked about on modernizing the process, is to say you can't
take 10 years, 15 years to study this. And we forced ourselves
to come inside that 3-year window, and we have done pretty well
with that. We had to do some exceptions, but that process is
allowing the whole process to go faster.
Senator Lankford. Anything that we can do to keep moving on
that. That Three Rivers project, obviously, is an example of
that, and all the conversations were so long. And now that is
moving and going, but there will be so many other areas to look
at and say, how can we get this done faster?
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES RULE
One last question on it is the issue of the increase in the
budget dealing with the regulatory activity. This a $5 million
increase. Obviously, there are other areas. Is that related to
the Waters of the U.S. Rule and anticipating increased
regulatory cost in that area?
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
General Bostick. Yes.
Senator Lankford. Do you know how much that is going to be
eventually? Is that just an initial guess, an assumption the $5
million is going to be the basic?
Ms. Darcy. It is an initial assumption, assuming that the
startup costs for doing the implementation once the rule is
final. And that initial $5 million is more than we had last
year.
Senator Lankford. Will there be an anticipation that this
subcommittee will be asked to have additional monies moved out
of other project areas into regulatory areas because of that
rule in the days ahead?
Ms. Darcy. No, sir.
General Bostick. We believe it is going to be initially
more expensive, but then it will come down and settle. What we
are doing now is hiring 125 regulators that we couldn't hire
because of sequestration and another 25 in order to handle
Waters of the United States, if it is passed.
Senator Lankford. Okay, thank you.
I yield back.
Senator Feinstein [presiding]. Senator Udall.
RIO GRANDE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Secretary Darcy, last year, the Corps held stakeholder
workshops in New Mexico and elsewhere to better understand the
specific concerns of stakeholders and their water resources
management priorities associated with the Rio Grande. I
appreciate these efforts. It is important that the Corps
continues to work with local interests and listen to local
people.
One program, in particular, that was highlighted as very
important is the Rio Grande Environmental Management Program.
On January 28, I along with Senator Heinrich wrote you a letter
urging you to include $150,000 in fiscal year 2015 study
funding for the Rio Grande Environmental Management Program.
Unfortunately, we received a response stating that funds were
not made available for this program due to other priorities.
This is an important program. I am hoping to work with you
to ensure this program is funded.
Can you talk a little bit about why this project is not
being funded in fiscal year 2015? Are there other accounts that
provide funds for similar work?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, you are correct. It was not included in
the 2016 budget. This is an environmental program. It is not a
project-specific program. So the development of what the
components of this program would be would need to be developed,
as well as finding a local cost-share sponsor. Then it would
still also have to compete with other new programs within our
larger program.
Senator Udall. Okay, thank you.
REIMBURSEMENTS
General Bostick, local communities in New Mexico and
elsewhere, I believe, in the country have advanced funding to
cover Federal costs in environmental infrastructure projects in
this country. They did this to accomplish needed projects more
efficiently and reduce overall costs to the Federal Government.
Two public entities in my State are owed money from the
Corps for these projects. When funds are appropriated in these
authorities, reimbursements are not being made to pay back
these costs. Will you continue to work with me to ensure that
these past owed reimbursements are paid back to these
communities in the future?
General Bostick. Senator, I am not aware of this issue, but
I am happy to look into it and work with you to close it out
and find out what we actually owe, and if so, we will clear it
up.
Senator Udall. It is a big issue, and it is more than just
the $10 million to the City of Rio Rancho. It is a big issue, I
think, across the country, is my understanding.
But thank you for your willingness to work with me on it.
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM
Commissioner Lopez, in your testimony, you highlighted
tribal priorities, and the one thing I struggle to comprehend
is the fact that many native communities in New Mexico do not
have adequate water infrastructure, and in some cases, no
running water at all, as you well know.
Does the Native American Affairs Program under the Bureau
of Reclamation aim to address some of these issues?
Mr. Lopez. Senator Udall, the Native American Affairs
Program is intended to certainly work on any technical issues
that a Tribe might have regarding its water supply. Further, it
gives us an opportunity to negotiate on the water right
settlements, if a particular tribe has outstanding claims that
have not yet been resolved.
So I think it does give us an avenue for beginning those
conversations and figuring out how we might begin to address
those issues.
Senator Udall. Great. Could you talk a little bit about
water leasing and why it is important? I know that that is part
of what some of the stakeholders in the Middle Rio Grande
Project want to do.
Mr. Lopez. Certainly. Senator, the Rio Grande, as you know,
is oversubscribed. In many years, essentially all of the water
was spoken for. But if it were not for leasing water, the river
would go dry, and there would be no water to sustain the
endangered species in the river.
Historically, Reclamation has leased San Juan-Chama water
from people who have not yet put that water to use.
Increasingly, that water is being put to use by the cities to
whom it is under contract. Therefore, it is increasingly
important that we find other leasing mechanisms, including
through willing buyer, willing seller methods, whereby a farmer
or a group of farmers might get together and decide that, in a
dry year, it is more advantageous for them to lease that water
and sustain the river, and thereby keep the endangered species
alive.
Senator Udall. Great. Thank you very much. And welcome,
again.
Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Senator Murkowski.
ARCTIC DEEP-DRAFT PORT STUDY
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
To the panelists, thank you for being here today and for
your work.
Secretary Darcy, I want to talk with you about some of our
civil works construction projects. I will start first by
thanking you. We have four new feasibility studies included. I
know that the communities of Kotzebue, St. George, Craig are
going to be pleased moving forward with this. The conversation
about the subsistence and small boat harbors, know how
critically important that is to us, as we try to develop these
small coastal economies, that the boat harbors and these
subsistence harbors are just so critically important.
I am going to be starting off I think every appropriations
hearing I'm participating in challenging agencies and members
of the administration as to where we are with implementation of
any aspect of an Arctic strategy.
So to my colleagues, you are just going to get used to
these questions, because it is very pressing to me.
As you know, Secretary Darcy, we are an infrastructure-poor
State. We face some challenging conditions when it comes to
construction of some of our infrastructure along our coastline.
We are, of course, trying to move forward with an Arctic deep
water port, and the port study has been underway for some
period of time. I am told that this report is going to be
issued by the Corps soon. But around here, you are never quite
sure what ``soon'' means.
Can you give me the status of the Arctic deep-draft port
study?
Ms. Darcy. The draft will be released in February 2015, and
we are tentatively expecting a civil works review board to be
scheduled for August.
Senator Murkowski. Okay, so as soon as this month, then?
Ms. Darcy. It says February 2015, so yes, ma'am.
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM
Senator Murkowski. Okay, we will be looking for that within
the next week to 10 days or so. Again, a critically important
initiative for us, and know that I will be asking you more
about what we can be doing in the intercoastal communities to
provide for that necessary arctic infrastructure when it comes
to ports and our harbors.
I wanted to ask, also, about where we are with the
continuing authorities program. As you know, we have many, many
small navigation projects where our harbors are at risk from
coastal erosion. We have different storm issues that we are
dealing with.
Barrow, for instance, is in need of beach restoration in
order to keep parts of town from basically being washed away
here, and Barrow is just one community. The situation is that
they can't wait for a period of years that it takes for the
funds to be appropriated for a feasibility study, and then for
the WRRDA Act to be passed and then more funds to be
appropriated for construction.
So, in looking at the budget, we see that section 107,
which is the navigation, and section 103, the beach restoration
of the continuing authorities program, is not receiving any
funding in fiscal year 2016. So I am trying to understand what
is going on within this category.
We have a significant reduction in funds between fiscal
year 2015 and fiscal year 2016. Are we phasing out the
continuing authorities program in general? What is happening
with this?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, we are not phasing out these programs,
because, as you pointed out, they are very important,
especially to some smaller communities. These programs and
projects, have a lower funding level and they don't go through
the feasibility and chief's report process. We have some
unobligated balances in those accounts, so that is one of the
reasons we did not fund some of them; we can carry those over
to this year.
Senator Murkowski. And you have sufficient balances, then,
that will allow you to address the unmet need at this point in
time?
Ms. Darcy. Within our budgetary constraints we do, yes,
ma'am.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. I am going to be coming back to
you, because I think you know that we have identified again,
many of these coastal communities where the dollar amount is
not high, but for purposes of what they are trying to do in
dealing with beach erosion and shoreline erosion issues and
just with sea level issues, it has to be addressed sooner than
later. And it is nice to know that you have unobligated
balances, but I am going to want to know for sure that we are
going to be able to address some of these needs.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. I thought you were going to get a
``yes'' there for a minute.
Senator Murkowski. I know, I know. We're working on it.
Senator Feinstein. Senator Coons.
HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND
Senator Coons. Thank you, Senator Feinstein and thank you,
Chairman Alexander. This is my first hearing as a member of the
E&W Appropriations Subcommittee, and I want to thank Roger for
his 35 years of service and say that hopefully my arrival has
nothing to do with your impending departure. Thank you for your
decades of good and faithful service here.
To Assistant Secretary Darcy, I just wanted to open by
thanking you for your continued support of a project that is
near and dear to my constituents, the Delaware River deepening
project. I very much appreciate the additional $62.5 million in
the fiscal year 2015 work plan that will fully fund the work
needed to be done in fiscal year 2016. This is a critical year
for this project that is of great impact to the whole region,
and I am glad it is going to be moving forward and being
completed.
One of my legislative priorities is to increase utilization
of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. I was somewhat
disappointed that fiscal year 2016 request doesn't meet the
target set out in WRRDA of $1.3 billion. The request of $915
million is the same level requested in 2015 and lower than
provided in the omnibus.
How will this lower request effectively maintain our
Nation's navigation channels and harbors, and maintain our
global competitiveness? So please, thank you, and question.
Ms. Darcy. Senator, the $915 million that is in the
President's budget for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, as I
said in my testimony, is the second year in a row that it has
been that high. Given our current budget constraints, this is
the amount that we think we can use in this fiscal year in
order to maintain, especially, the 59 busiest commercial
harbors in the country, which transport about 90 percent of the
traffic.
Also, this is in compliance with the set-aside. As Senator
Murkowski and others noted, we have a 10 percent, $91 million
allocation for small, subsistence, emerging harbors, which was
another requirement of the WRRDA bill.
NATURAL DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
Senator Coons. Thank you for the answer. I look forward to
working with you to find ways to strengthen support for smaller
harbors.
The North Atlantic Division just put out an impressive,
somewhat comprehensive report about the lessons learned from
Superstorm Sandy, which was a very expensive storm. The total
Sandy relief I think is $65 billion. And I was wondering if we
know how well shore protection and other vital Corps projects
helped to reduce the amount of damage from the superstorm, and
if you did any quantification of the damages and costs avoided
because of these vital Corps projects?
Ms. Darcy. I believe we did. I don't have the numbers at my
fingertips, but we can provide them for you. I think they were
in the Sandy report.
But I would just note that the day after the storm, General
Bostick and I went up to New York and New Jersey and flew over,
and you could see the difference between where there had been a
storm damage reduction project and where there had not been a
project. The damages were incredible.
The projects worked as designed in those places where they
had built a beach nourishment project.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Senator Coons. Well, I'm excited to see that the Silver
Jackets programs are expanded again in fiscal year 2016 to help
communities prepare for natural disasters. To me, one of the
core components of the emergency preparedness, emergency
management is preparing for climate change. It has been
estimated every dollar we invest in natural disaster
preparedness, we might be able to save up to $4 in emergency
response. Your citation of the Superstorm Sandy impacts
suggests that.
Could you elaborate on how we are preparing for the impact
of climate change and how that factors in to your investment
and decisionmaking for the Army Corps at the programmatic
level?
Ms. Darcy. Certainly, Senator.
Since 2009, the Corps of Engineers has been requiring
climate change to be factored into the mainstream lifecycles of
all of our projects, from the planning for future projects as
well as for looking at our ongoing projects. All new projects
and planning must comply, and apply these new policies and
guidance, including the three different scenarios for sea level
change over time. When we are looking at a project, we look at
it through the lens through those three possibilities.
For existing projects, we conduct progressively detailed
assessments to understand possible impacts. We have done a
coastal assessment of all of our projects to determine what it
is their vulnerabilities would be from not only different sea
level changes, but climate change as well.
So those are some of the things we have started to do
already.
Senator Coons. General Bostick.
General Bostick. The only other piece I would add, and I
talked about this briefly in my opening remarks, is that we are
looking at these watersheds as a system, more than individual
projects. How does a system of projects demonstrate the kind of
resilience that it needs in the face of disasters? We are
working with the industry. We are working with a lot of think
tanks and academia, to really understand how we do this. And
then is there a way that would lead to watershed-informed
budgeting.
There is a lot of work that I think can happen in this
particular area.
Senator Coons. Thank you, General Bostick. Thank you,
Secretary Darcy.
I am from the lowest mean elevation State, so I have an
abiding interest in how we deal with and plan for climate
change and its impact on our coasts and waterways.
Thank you very much.
Senator Alexander [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Coons.
Senator Tester.
RURAL WATER
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I once again want
to thank the panelists for being here today.
We are going to start with you, Commissioner Lopez. There
are a lot of rural water projects out there. Montana has a
couple right now. I was first introduced to those water
projects when I was running for the State Legislature. They
were $100 million projects. Now they are north of $300 million.
The same projects. Haven't added anything on. That is just the
way it has gone.
The allocation in this budget is anemic for those water
projects. I would make the claim it doesn't keep up with the
cost of inflation. Now we may add additional dollars like we
did last year, but it's not good.
Is there a plan for getting these projects fixed in a
timely manner? I mean, we are talking about projects that
connect up with Indian water settlements, where the water is
fairly critical if we are going to have economic development to
move those folks out of poverty.
Can you give me any insight on that, or do we just live
with getting a percentage point a year? What are we going to do
about it?
Mr. Lopez. Senator, in these constrained budget times, it
is extremely difficult to allocate additional funds to these
projects when our core mission requires so much of our budget.
We will continue to allocate as much of our budget as we
possibly can to move these projects forward.
I want to thank this subcommittee for the additional funds
that we received in 2015. But I think the best we can do is to
try to prioritize the projects. I think you know about our
criteria for prioritizing spending for the funds that we do
receive including serving Indian communities, which the
projects in your State do.
Montana projects are also some of the projects that are
further along, receiving additional priority, as does the
population these projects serve. So we will keep moving those
forward with the funds we are able to receive.
WATER SETTLEMENTS
Senator Tester. All right, which brings me to water
settlements, because they are tied together and we have a
number of them.
One of them is in the funding bill right now for Crow. It
is one of the five that is in there. Let me ask you this, there
are some, and I am one, who advocate taking money from the
reclamation fund to pay for some of these water settlements and
water projects, too. Give me your opinion on that. There is a
pretty healthy balance in that reserve fund.
Mr. Lopez. Senator, I know that the Administration had
looked at some options for funding some of these settlements,
including looking at taking some money from the Reclamation
Fund.
Senator Tester. Would the Administration support that, to
get right down to it?
Mr. Lopez. I can't speak for the Administration as a whole.
I think that we, certainly, recognize that.
Senator Tester. Okay, we will go a different route. Would
you support that?
Mr. Lopez. I would like to get these projects done,
Senator.
INTAKE DAM
Senator Tester. Okay. So would I. I mean, I just don't see
there ever being an end to it.
Secretary Darcy, it is always good to have you here. It
seems like we ask the same line of questions every year. I am
going to talk to you about Intake Dam and the fish passage for
the pallid sturgeon and its viability. I know there is a
lawsuit pending.
Does that lawsuit have merit, as far as the viability for
the fish passage, or is it without merit?
Ms. Darcy. I can speak to the merit on the project, not to
the merit of the lawsuit.
Senator Tester. I think they are suing because they don't
think the project will work.
Ms. Darcy. Yes, they don't think that the fish passage, as
designed, will accomplish the goals under the biological
opinion.
Senator Tester. That is correct.
Ms. Darcy. We believe that, as designed, it will meet the
needs of the endangered species that is part of the subject of
the biological----
Senator Tester. So you think you will win that suit?
Ms. Darcy. I don't know.
Senator Tester. Okay. Are you an attorney?
Ms. Darcy. No, sir.
MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE
Senator Tester. Lucky you.
There is about $47 million, I believe, in this year's
budget for that, for the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife
Recovery Program. Is that adequate? Is that what you asked for?
Ms. Darcy. In the 2015 work plan, we have $20 million for
the Intake and $20 million in the 2016 budget request.
HYDROPOWER
Senator Tester. Okay. One last question that deals with
something you said in your statement. You said that your budget
has 5 percent dedicated to hydropower. Do you have any projects
in mind?
Ms. Darcy. That is dedicated to our ongoing hydropower
projects. We don't have new start projects at that 5 percent.
That is mostly to continue to maintain our ongoing hydro
infrastructure.
Senator Tester. Let me ask you this, in the private
sector--and I will be quick.
I am sorry, Senator Hoeven.
In the private sector, they have redone, in Montana at
least, some of the hydro generation on the Missouri up by Great
Falls. It has created more electricity. I think it is easier on
the fish.
Has there been any discussion of doing that with Fort Peck?
Ms. Darcy. I do not know specifically about Fort Peck. I
know we are looking at trying to evaluate where we have
existing hydropower generation and projects, how we can make
them even more efficient, or possibly expand on them.
I don't know about Fort Peck. I thought we had a
conversation about Libby, but I'm not sure.
Senator Tester. I think it would be wise to look down that
line. I think it is a great way to expand.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Tester.
Senator Hoeven.
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess the first several questions are for either General
Bostick or Secretary Darcy. I want to thank all of you for
being here today and for the important work that you do.
General or Secretary, the first question I have is, in the
water bill, we authorize what is referred to as P3 funding,
meaning public-private partnerships where we would try to use
alternative delivery models and alternative means of financing
to actually make your dollars go further, to leverage the
Federal and get some of these projects going. And then we
authorize new starts and said you ought to use alternative
financing and delivery methods where you can, P3, the public-
private partnership model. And so what I want to know is, where
are you in that process? Have you picked any projects for the
P3 approach?
Ms. Darcy. In the current budget, we haven't picked one
specifically for the P3. We are looking at some pilots within
some projects, and we are also looking at other ways to
leverage P3.
I think you are interested in some of the proposals on the
Fargo-Moorhead.
Senator Hoeven. Very.
Ms. Darcy. That is an innovative way to help to finance.
That is like a P4.
Senator Hoeven. That is better yet, right?
Ms. Darcy. It is public-public-private-private, back to the
public, back to the Federal interests. But it is an innovative
way to finance, and I think it is something that we need to
take a very good look at, because if there is capital out there
that can be leveraged against these necessary projects, I think
it is something we have to do.
General Bostick. We have been looking at this very hard,
and we believe it is something we have to do. Last April, I met
with a group of investors and business leaders who are
interested in this sort of opportunity. We have created a small
office in the headquarters and have people who wake up every
day thinking about how to do this.
But it is a long road. We are trying to work within our
authorities, which makes it complex for investors. So we are
looking at the authorities that we have.
We have a couple pilots, in fact, that we are working to
try within our authorities execute a form of P3. There is more
work to be done.
This is something we believe in, and we're working hard at
it. We have a long road to go, but we are very much interested.
Senator Hoeven. So if you could get a P3 or maybe even a P4
candidate that, in fact, reduces the Federal share in half, and
increases the benefit-cost ratio by more than double, that
would make it an attractive candidate for selection by the
Corps to proceed to construction? I would ask both of you that
question.
Ms. Darcy. Yes. I think your point about doubling the
benefit-to-cost ratio is an important one to consider. That is
one we have to consider when we agree to budgets for projects.
Senator Hoeven. Have you looked at the P4 proposal put
forward for the Red River Valley project, the Fargo-Morehead
proposal for P4?
Ms. Darcy. We have. I know folks on both of our staffs have
met with the local sponsor to discuss it, yes.
Senator Hoeven. General.
General Bostick. I just had a high-level briefing on it,
but we are willing to take a deeper dive and make sure we
understand the mechanics of what is being discussed and
whether, within our authorities or by seeking others, there is
some way to do something. But within our authorities is where
we are currently focused. I'm happy to take a look at this.
Senator Hoeven. General, I would ask you would. I met with
General Peabody and other members of your staff. We talked
about the benefit-cost ratio and the importance of getting
above a 2.5 benefit-cost ratio. Then we also included language
in WRRDA that requires you to give consideration for
alternative methods of financing and the Public-Private
Partnership.
I think that the Fargo-Morehead project is an incredible
candidate that meets the requirements that are laid out for us.
So I would ask that you take a look at it.
You're willing to do that?
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
General Bostick. Yes, we are.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you. The other question I would ask
in that regard is, do you give consideration for local cost
share where both the nonFederal share is already in hand on the
part of the State and the local participants, and that it is
higher than your typical 35 percent cost share for nonFederal?
Do you give consideration for that, again, having the share
available and a higher percentage from the local and State
sponsors?
Ms. Darcy. It would be a consideration in our budgeting,
but it is not necessarily the criteria that is ultimately used
in making a budgeting decision. But it is an attractive
criteria to be able to consider.
General Bostick. I would only say it doesn't fit into our
current models of consideration. I think if we are going to go
forward with P3, we have to look at innovative and creative
methods. I'm not sure if this one fits into it, but I think we
have to look at it and see if it is something that we want to
consider.
Whatever we do, I think ultimately it will have to work for
the Nation as policy or law. We're just not there yet, but
we're going to look at it, Senator.
Senator Hoeven. Would you agree that if the local and State
sponsors come up with a higher share than the typical formula,
and reduce the Federal cost share, and they have their money
ready to go, would you say that that is a good thing, in terms
of evaluating projects?
General Bostick. It sounds good on the surface, Senator. We
just have to look at the details.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, General, and Secretary.
Mr. Chairman, I do have some other questions, so I would
ask the chairman's wishes as to whether I should proceed,
because I am over my time?
Senator Alexander. Thanks for asking. Why don't you take 2
or 3 more minutes, and we will see who else comes back.
STANDING ROCK RESERVATION
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, Secretary Darcy, I would like to switch gears.
On the Standing Rock Reservation, they are concerned that
their application for a permit to draw water out of the Oahe
Reservoir is being held up on the basis of water rights. So I'm
wondering if you have any familiarity with that issue and if
there is anything that you can either comment on now, or if in
fact you can lend your assistance, because what is coming back
from Chairman Archambault, the tribal chairman, and the tribal
council is that they feel that the Corps is telling them no,
they can't get a permit to draw water from the Missouri River
and the Oahe Reservoir that they need when, of course, they
feel, and they do, have water rights for the Standing Rock
Reservation.
Ms. Darcy. Senator, having tribal water rights for
withdrawals are tantamount to having the ability to draw. I
don't know the details of this particular situation, but I
would be happy to look into it because it sounds as though that
is not our usual mode of operating. If there is a tribal water
right to an existing water supply, then that would be granted.
Senator Hoeven. But you would agree that the tribe has
water rights?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, sir.
NEW STARTS
Senator Hoeven. Thank you. I appreciate your willingness to
look into it. We need to. We have been requested to by the
tribal chairman.
General Bostick, in the case of Minot, North Dakota, they
had a terrible flood in 2011. It overwhelmed the banks of the
Souris River. To date, in recovery, we have spent I think more
than $630 million in terms of flood recovery, just on the
Federal end and not counting the State and local share.
They are trying to do a permanent project, and they need to
get a study going in order to have a Federal project. But that
requires a new start. Only three new starts were authorized
under the WRRDA bill.
I'm wondering what can you tell me in terms of getting to a
new start, so we can do a study and evaluate a permanent
project for Minot. They are moving forward on what they can do,
but they also have to be careful there so that they don't
preclude the ability to get a Federal project and fail to meet
the benefit-cost ratio, if they take all the other actions on
their own.
So how do we get to a study so they can plan long-term for
their permanent flood protection?
General Bostick. Senator, I think we have to look at all of
these projects as we move forward. We have very limited new
starts that we are able to begin. From a performance-based
budgeting, and life safety, try to make the best judgments that
we can.
But in terms of the future, I would say we continue the
process that we have and look to see if there is any other
consideration that can be made in that particular case to see
if it would compete better than it has in the past.
Senator Hoeven. General, my earlier questions related to
actually having a project move forward to construction. This
question relates specifically to how you get the study done to
determine what the Federal project should be, particularly when
the locality and the State are spending money to improve their
flood protection but being told by the Corps that they could
damage their chances to get a Federal project, because of all
the actions they are taking to get flood protection in place
now, because they would reduce their ultimate benefit-cost
ratio.
You have a cutline, and OMB has a cutline, as to which
projects get funded based on that benefit-cost ratio. How do we
solve their dilemma, in terms of getting a study going so they
can protect themselves, which they are doing, but also plan for
a long-term permanent project?
General Bostick. I would have to follow up with you on
that.
Senator Hoeven. You understand the dilemma, sir?
General Bostick. I understand what you're saying.
Senator Hoeven. Okay. So we need your help, just as we did
in the case of the P3. We got good information from you. I
think we met your requirements. We need to have an
understanding of what we have to do in the Minot case.
General Bostick. Okay.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
TAXES AND USER FEES
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
First, all of us are urging you to do things you are not
doing. Let me thank you for something you are doing. Over the
last few years, different agencies of the Federal Government
have worked to keep the mitigation fish hatcheries open, two of
which are in Tennessee. And the Army Corps, the Board of
Reclamation provides some money for that, which you should, for
basically fish that are killed as a result of dams that you
operate.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has been very cooperative.
And now the Tennessee Valley Authority has gotten involved, and
there is a 3-year study going on which would keep the two major
fish hatcheries open at Dale Hollow and Irwin in Tennessee. The
study is looking for permanent solutions.
So I want that to be on your mind as the various agencies
come back with a permanent solution, the fact that the
Tennessee Valley Authority became a new player in this compact
and has provided additional funds and may make it possible for
us to have a permanent solution on those.
So we have all the departments represented here today
involved in that, and I thank you for it.
Let me go back to one other point that we started on at the
beginning. It is a problem that I don't expect you to solve
today, but it is one I am going to work with you to solve. That
is this business of collecting taxes and user fees and not
spending them on ports and inland waterways.
To start with inland waterways, every year since 2009, I
believe it is true we have spent basically everything we had in
the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
Isn't that right, Secretary Darcy?
Ms. Darcy. I believe there has been a balance but not a
large balance in years past.
Senator Alexander. Very, very little, I believe. So the
problem was we were told not enough money in the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund, so we go out and get the users, the big
commercial users, to agree to pay $.29 per gallon, I guess,
instead of $.20. We raised what should be another $30 million.
So the regular tax would provide about 85 percent. The new user
fee should get to be about 13 percent, in the first year, maybe
15 percent.
So what we have is this year you are carrying $16 million
to $19 million from last year that you are not spending. Then
there is 85 coming in from the $.20 fee that existed. Then we
have $15 million or so coming in from the new $.09, so you are
collecting $115 million, $53 million you are spending, but $57
million you are not spending.
So I have to go back to these users and say, I'm sorry, we
told you that we would fix the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and
keep the locks open if you would ante up and pay more, and now
they are paying more and we're not spending it.
Then there is the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, which we
collect taxes on cargo. We collect about $1.5 billion, $1.6
billion a year for the purpose of harbor work, like deepening
the harbor so we can be competitive in the world marketplace.
Yet, you're recommending spending $915 million out of the $1.5
billion or $1.6 billion. And you have about $8 billion in the
fund that is unspent, that is collected for that purpose and
unspent.
Now, part of that problem is the administration's, because
they don't give you the allocation to spend it. Part of it is
the Congress' fault, because we don't get the allocation to
spend it. But it doesn't make common sense that we would want
to be a great country with great ports and a great inland
waterway system, that we would be collecting money from taxes
on cargo and from users of inland waterway systems to
reconstruct those inland waterways and deepen those ports, and
we leave $57 million in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
unspent, and we have an $8 billion balance in the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund unspent.
Do you have any comment on that? Any suggestions on how we
can deal with that?
General Bostick. One thing first, as I said earlier, I
think many of the adjustments that have been made will help us
in the long term. If you look at the capital projects business
model, they recommend expenditures of approximately $380
million per year over 20 years to really get after the
infrastructure needs of the inland waterways. So while the
money is not spent this year, the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
and having that build up to a certain level is a good thing, I
think.
The other thing is that we are in a period of transition. I
think that the decision to make the percentage breakdown 85
percent of the general treasury for Olmstead was helpful, but
it allowed that fund to grow much higher than it would have
been in previous years. So I am not saying it is an anomaly,
but I think it is a one-time issue that we will deal with and
that will level off in the years ahead.
Senator Alexander. General, if you had more appropriated
dollars, could you spend more of the trust fund?
General Bostick. I think if the top line were higher, we
could use additional money on increments of work that would add
value. So yes, we could do that.
We clearly support the President's budget, because there
are priorities well beyond civil works that the Nation has to
deal with. And as I said earlier, with the budget we have, we
are trying to work alternative financing methods that will
bring in money that will allow us to address some of these
needs.
But at the end of the day, I think the Inland Waterways
Trust Fund growing is a good thing for us, and in the out-
years, we will continue.
Senator Alexander. Well, if you are looking for a public-
private partnership, you have it on the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund. I mean, you have the big users paying a higher user fee
to help fix the locks. So we have it. We just need to figure
out a way.
I know you would like to do everything that needs to be
done. I know that you want to do that. But what I would like to
do is to work with you both, in terms of our rules here in
Congress and the administration, and make sure that if we have
this money, we're collecting it and we have these important
goals for our country, that we are able to reach them. It
doesn't make much sense to the guy on the sideline to look at
that and say, okay, you want deeper ports and you want to fix
locks and you have the money in the bank but you won't spend
it. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
So I know what you want to do, and I would like to work
with you and see that we do more of it.
I don't know if other Senators are coming back. I see
Senator Lankford here, and I will be glad to call on him for
additional questions. And if Senators come back who haven't had
a chance to ask questions, we will let them do that. And if
Senator Feinstein comes back, of course, she can say she
whatever she wants to say. Then we will conclude the hearing.
Senator Lankford.
Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, which would mean
that our witnesses have an extra eye toward the door, hoping
that no one else walks it.
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES RULE
Senator Lankford. Every time the door opens, it is longer
for them.
Let me just ask a couple of quick questions, just a follow-
up. We talked a little bit about the Waters of the U.S. Rule,
and the $5 million that has been moved over asking for
additional money for the rulemaking authority on that. My
question is, do you expect a higher volume of permits under a
new definition of Waters of the U.S.? And what effect will that
have, long term, on manpower and time for permits and such?
Ms. Darcy. I think, initially, we will see an increase in
the number of permits. Our estimate in the economic analysis
that was done was about a 3 percent increase.
Senator Lankford. Do you have the manpower already to be
able to handle that increase?
Ms. Darcy. No, sir. That is why we have the additional $5
million in the regulatory request for 2016.
But over time, we anticipate that the manpower needs will
not be as great. We are trying to figure out how much money we
are going to need and how many people we are going to need. We
looked at what we did after the Rapanos guidance went out in
2008, and started using that as a benchmark as to what
additional needs might there be. A lot of the initial needs are
going to be for training our regulators for what impacts these
new jurisdictional determinations will need to be made, and
most of it is training, and, as General Bostick said,
additional personnel as well.
Senator Lankford. So your thought is that it will require
additional training for existing regulators, but once they get
the training, there won't be a need for additional individuals
to oversee this regulation?
Ms. Darcy. I think there will be an initial need for
additional regulators and also the training for existing
regulators, as well as new regulators. But I don't see that
growing over time. I think that is sort of like the startup
cost for getting us to where we need to be in order to
implement.
Senator Lankford. You don't see an additional--I am trying
to get a sense of it, because it seems like it broadens
tremendously the number of locations that would require a
permit or a new type of permit, or at least someone to go out
and take a look at it and be able to evaluate it. It looks like
it would increase the inventory by a pretty large margin.
So the assumption is that the people that you have on the
ground now, you will need very little change on that long term
to be able to handle that additional work?
Ms. Darcy. What we envision, Senator, is part of the rule
is to get better certainty into what is jurisdictional and what
is not, who was in and who is out. We do that by providing
definitions, some definitions for the first time in the
proposed rule, like a definition of tributary. That is the
first time that has ever been defined.
So if we have a bright line test so that people know they
are in or out, I think that it will, over time, reduce the
number of case-by-case specific determinations we have to make.
Right now, if a permit comes in and it's not currently a
regulated water, we have to go out and make case-by-case
specific determinations on whether there is a significant
nexus, whether there is a tributary. By defining tributary and
other things in the rule, we will know, because they are a
tributary, whether they need a permit or not.
Senator Lankford. It's no big surprise to you that many
people across the frigid plain are a little concerned that
every low spot on their land that is a dry low spot that holds
water when it rains suddenly gets defined as a tributary and
that bright line that you talk about seems a little fuzzy at
this point.
Ms. Darcy. Senator, we have received over 1 million
comments on this rule, and many of the comments are dealing
with being more specific in the definitions and getting some
more clarity, so we are taking those comments to heart before
we issue the final rule.
FEDERAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT
Senator Lankford. Okay. Let me ask about one another piece.
The Federal Flood Risk Management Standard, which is another
one of those things that as it comes through the process, there
are a lot of questions about, if individuals can get access to
data and the underpinnings of that and the scientific research
and how that came about, if there will be a significant moment
for not only receiving comment but knowing that their comment
is heard and acted upon.
Tell me the status on that and how much transparency there
will be in this process?
Ms. Darcy. The flood standard, as you know, is in the
public comment period for implementation, to have the public
comment on how this flood standard should be implemented. It is
out for a 60-day comment period.
We, the Corps of Engineers, along with the other Federal
agencies, are active in that process. That will be transparent.
I believe the comments will all be publicly available before we
finalize any implementation guidance.
Senator Lankford. Okay, all the data and the underpinnings
and the research for it, background, where will that be, as far
as availability?
Ms. Darcy. FEMA was one of the lead agencies on this
effort, and I believe it will be on FEMA's Web site. But we can
get back to you on that.
Senator Lankford. Yes. That has been an issue, that some of
these decisions have been made and they said the research and
data behind it is proprietary, so it cannot be released. So
there is a pretty significant change, and no one can see the
data. So I would like to have every opportunity that we can to
have peer-reviewed data that is available to people, and they
can actually interact with that data.
Ms. Darcy. I believe we are going to do that, but I will
get back to you with the website. Hopefully, we can provide
information.
Senator Lankford. I would like that very much, to be able
to have that kind of availability of data and that kind of
interaction.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Lankford.
I have an appointment with the President's nominee for
Secretary of Defense. I am going to go keep it. Senator
Feinstein is going to preside. She has a couple questions that
she is going to ask, and I trust her with the gavel. She is
experienced with it.
I have one question of clarification, General Bostick. Did
you say that there are $380 million of projects for the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund? What was the $380 million figure you
said?
General Bostick. This was an estimate of capital projects
business model. There is a capital projects business model, and
that effort showed that we need about $380 million per year
over a 20-year period to really address the infrastructure and
the needs of the inland waterways.
Senator Alexander. So that would do it? That is all it
takes, combined appropriated and trust fund money?
General Bostick. I don't know what the all the assumptions
are that went into that, but we can provide that to you.
Senator Alexander. I would like to see that. I would like
to see some estimate of what the backlog of projects is, what
the estimated work plan is over the next several years, and how
the funding that is expected to come in from the trust fund and
the appropriated funds meets what we need to do. We can talk
about that separately, but I would like to talk with you about
that.
General Bostick. We will do that, sir.
Senator Alexander. Thank you for coming. The hearing record
will remain open for a week for additional questions. And
Senator Feinstein will now preside and ask whatever questions
she would like to ask.
CALIFORNIA DROUGHT
Senator Feinstein [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. Be assured that I will behave.
Commissioner Lopez, I would like to thank the bureau for
working very hard to maximize water supplies in California
under the most difficult circumstances. The bureau has just
been terrific, and I have had nothing but positive feedback
about Reclamation, not only from many constituents but also
from the State people and State departments who depend on
various water project supplies.
I am also very pleased to see that Reclamation has
developed a spending plan to make good use of the $50 million
provided to the bureau to address the West's drought. Not only
California, but other States in the west will also benefit from
increased funding for increases to fight drought.
As you know, the drought in California shows no sign of
abating. Between December 21 and February 6, most of California
saw no measurable precipitation. Even after this past weekend's
storms, Shasta remains at 51 percent of capacity, Oroville at
45 percent, Folsom at 51 percent, and San Luis at 56 percent.
Snowpack statewide is at 27 percent of normal.
I mentioned how people are suffering from it. I also want
to mention that wildlife and refuges are suffering, too. The
fall trawl surveys showed record low numbers for Delta smelt.
Low water flows and higher than normal water temperatures have
killed off many endangered winter run salmon eggs and fries.
Habitat for migratory birds has shrunk dramatically. This
weekend's storm flows are expected to decrease quickly.
Until we see the next storm, if we see one at all, the
first question is, what do you think you can do to ensure the
maximum amount of water is captured and stored for human as
well as environmental use?
Mr. Lopez. Thank you, Senator. I think the best thing that
we can do is the continuing coordination with the regulatory
agencies, that is, the fish agencies, Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and EPA.
Oftentimes, those regulations, be they either biological
opinions or water quality issues, are really what is going to
constrain our ability to capture some of those flows when they
are happening.
We are, as you know, in very, very close daily coordination
with them. And I think that we have been trying to maximize
flexibilities, in terms of how much we are able to take. We are
monitoring the fish on a real-time basis to make sure we are
not reaching critical take limits. And we are adjusting the
pumping daily to keep all that going.
We continue to have challenges, as you know, with water
hyacinth that are blocking the CVP pumping facility. We are
working with a number of irrigation districts, the State and
others. They are lending us resources and manpower to try to
deal with those issues as well.
So we will continue to work in close coordination with all
the interested entities. Additionally, I think another key
element is that we continue to do all of what we are doing with
complete transparency. That is, the people who depend on us for
their water supply need to know why we are making the decisions
we are making and need to have confidence that they are well-
reasoned. We are also trying to make sure that we are
coordinating with Congress and making sure that you know what
is going on, as well.
These are all things that we will continue to do.
CALFED STORAGE PROJECTS
Senator Feinstein. Right. As you know, I'm very
disappointed. I know NMFS and Fish and Wildlife worked on a
plan, along with your agency, and the plan was turned down by
the director of the State board. I understand there is going to
be an appeal to the full board. I am very disappointed at that
action. So hopefully, we can reverse it. We'll see.
Last year, the State's voters voted overwhelmingly to
approve a $7.5 billion water bond, which includes $2.7 billion
for water storage. To determine whether that money can be
applied to one or more of the CALFED storage projects, the
State must know whether the projects are feasible or not by
2016.
This is a very high priority for me, and I would like to
run through the scheduled completion dates for each of the
projects, and you let me know whether the timeline has changed.
And if yes, what is the completion date to which you can commit
Reclamation? It is my understanding that we submitted this to
you so that you won't be blindsided by it.
Shasta Dam raise? The final documents were originally
scheduled to be released in either December 2014 or January
2015. What is the final completion date for the final
feasibility study and final environmental impact statement?
Mr. Lopez. Senator, these reports are undergoing the final
executive review right now. From our perspective, the technical
work has been completed. They are getting their final review,
and we hope that they will be available to you soon. But I
can't speak to the exact timeframe.
Senator Feinstein. Well, will it be 1 month, 2 months, 6
months, or 6 years? It has been 10 years so far.
Mr. Lopez. Senator, I think we are very, very close.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. I guess I will now know what you
mean by very, very close. You are new. We'll see.
Temperance Flat, I was told last year that the final study
and EIS will be ready by July of this year. Are they still on
target to be delivered in July of this year?
Mr. Lopez. Senator, I think my response is going to be
similar to my last one. I think that we are on track.
Reclamation is on track to complete the technical work by July,
and then it will require some time to complete Executive
Review. The timeframe for that review to be completed, I am not
certain how long that will take.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. But you are saying that the
technical work will be completed by July?
Mr. Lopez. Senator, I think we are on track to meet that
deadline.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Sites Reservoir, I understand the
bureau is working with the local joint powers authority, with
whom I just met a few days ago and was very impressed with what
they are putting together, to complete a project management
plan by the end of this month that would establish the
remainder of the feasibility study schedule.
Is delivery of the project management plan on schedule?
Mr. Lopez. Senator, as you speak, the Joint Powers
Authority met with us, as well. They are very engaged in
getting their piece of this puzzle put together, and we are
working with them on a Project Management Plan. If we can bring
that to fruition, I think we will remain on schedule for the
technical work.
What we are trying to do with all these studies is do them
sequentially, that is, Shasta first, then Temperance Flat, then
Sites, such that we don't spread ourselves so thin that none of
them move ahead.
We think we are on course to get to that endpoint and stay
on schedule, so that the decision can be made about this
reservoir as well.
Senator Feinstein. Sites, although it is the most
expensive, may just well turn out to be the best, because it
produces the most, although it is expensive. But if I
understood the joint powers agreement, they are going to
actively participate in the financing and are trying now to
raise money.
So I think if it is has a reasonable cost-benefit, and if
the feasibility is within a reasonable amount, I think that is
a very important reservoir to take a look at.
Los Vaqueros Phase 2 expansion. The first phase of
expansion was completed in 2012, and the locals are
contemplating a second expansion phase. Does Reclamation have
any information on the expected timeframe for a decision to be
made about Phase 2 work and the anticipated completion
timeline?
Mr. Lopez. Senator, I do not have a timeline for that one.
I would like to supplement my answer.
[The information follows:]
Regarding the San Luis Low Point Improvement Project, including a
dam raise alternative, is scheduled for final reports in December 2017.
Engineering analysis for the Safety of Dams (SOD) Corrective Action
Study is in progress. Seismic and constructability analyses are
scheduled for completion in 2015. This project relies on information
being developed via the SOD program to ensure a dam raise alternative
also resolves the potential seismic risk.
We had considered accelerating the schedule, but that effectively
eliminated the economies that could be achieved by addressing the
seismic issue in conjunction with the low point problem and other water
supply reliability issues. The point of the feasibility study is to
identify the economies that could be achieved by combining the seismic,
low point, and water supply reliability aspects, and we do not have any
specific details. The primary economy is gained from allocating the
cost of the dam raise among numerous purposes.
Senator Feinstein. Yes, would you? I will mark that down.
And last, San Luis Reservoir. An initial appraisal study
was completed in December 2013. Do you have an estimate for
when the draft and final feasibility studies will be completed?
Mr. Lopez. I was informed that we are on track to have a
draft by the summer of next year, the summer of 2016, with the
target of having a final in the fall of 2016.
Senator Feinstein. Isn't San Luis the one that doesn't take
very much? It has to undergo earthquake repair?
Mr. Lopez. I believe that is correct, Senator.
Senator Feinstein. So if I understand this, if the work
could be done when the earthquake repair is done, the amount is
not that great for a prudent raise. It is not a huge raise, but
it is a raise that could be very helpful. And as I understood
it, it costs in the millions, not the billions, low millions.
Mr. Lopez. Senator, what you are describing I believe is
correct, that if we could do both of these at the same time, we
should gain some economies. I don't have at my fingertips all
the details about it though.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Perhaps you would.
[The information follows:]
Reclamation and Contra Costa Water District are developing a
Project Management Plan to identify the tasks, schedule, and budget
necessary to complete a feasibility report and environmental documents
for the next phase. Reclamation will need a nonfederal cost share
partner to implement the Project Management Plan.
Senator Feinstein. And I thank you for the water hyacinth.
I have never seen anything quite like the photos that I have
seen of that mass that has grown.
I gather this is all imported, the hyacinth is not native.
Is that correct?
Mr. Lopez. Senator, I understand that it is a species that
has been introduced into the area. I don't know that from study
of my own. But I have been told that it probably came over on
the ballast of ships into the area. But it is, certainly,
established now.
Senator Feinstein. Alright.
Well, we had a very good meeting, and I look forward to
working with you, and I think getting those feasibility studies
done, as I said, it has been 10 years. It really has. And what
is emerging I think is very interesting as to what looks like
the most doable.
You and I both talked to that joint venture, and it was
very impressive. And to date, I know of no real opposition to
it. So if the Sites numbers could get done, that would be very
much appreciated, quickly.
Mr. Lopez. Senator, we understand the importance of moving
all of these forward, particularly last year and this year are
demonstrating the importance of storage. Obviously, the quicker
we can get all of these answers done, the better for all of us.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Feinstein. Thanks, commissioners. Thank you very
much, ladies and gentlemen.
As Senator Alexander stated, the hearing record will remain
open for 10 days. Members can submit additional information for
the record within that time, if they would like.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
federal flood risk management standard
Question. Please identify any non-government organizations or
individuals that had any role whatsoever in composing, editing,
drafting, reviewing or developing any part of the FFRMS, the draft
version of the Implementing Guidelines published in a Federal Register
Notice on February 5, 2015, pursuant to EO 13690. Identify the
individuals, their organizations, their roles in the process, including
any individuals or organizations that worked through a contractual
relationship with any office, agency or department of the Executive
Branch.
Answer. All activities associated with the FFRMS and its
Implementing Guidelines were facilitated through an interagency process
as part of the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (MiTFLG). The
membership of this group is listed on the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's (FEMA) Web site.
Question. Please identify the Governors, mayors, and other
stakeholders from whom input was solicited prior to the establishment
of the new FFRMS. Include the dates input was solicited, the dates any
response or input was provided, and a summary of any input and
responses that were considered in the development of the FFRMS.
Answer. The Corps was not involved in the process of soliciting the
views of Governors, mayors, or other stakeholders on the standard, and
as a result, cannot offer any comments on how this process was designed
and/or implemented.
Question. Please provide a detailed summary of the activities of
the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group since its inception relating
to the development of the FFRMS, including a list of Federal members.
Also provide a list of non-Federal members, including State, local and
tribal governments, private sector and non-government organizations,
and include a summary of their involvement in the development of the
FFRMS and the dates such involvement occurred.
Answer. FEMA, who serves as the chair of the MitFLG, will be in the
best position to provide detailed information about its membership and
associated activities supporting the development of the FFRMS. Also,
the membership of this group is listed on FEMA's Web site.
Question. Consistent with Executive Orders 13563 and 12866, please
detail the methods used in determining the costs, benefits or
scientific rationale of the FFRMS prior to its issuance, and provide
the results of any such analyses.
Answer. EO 13690 amends existing EO 11988 decisionmaking processes
for agencies to follow when conducting Federal actions in a floodplain.
Consideration of alternatives for determining the area where agencies
need to apply the existing EO 11988 decisionmaking process was
accomplished through an interagency process facilitated by the MitFLG.
Recommended options for assessing alternatives for Federal actions in
floodplains are consistent with projected scenarios for sea-level rise,
and are consistent with findings and recommendations put forth in the
recently released North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study, prepared by
the Corps.
Question. Please provide a detailed accounting of any activities to
engage the public and their representatives in Congress in the
development of the FFRMS prior to January 30, 2015, not otherwise
addressed herein.
Answer. As previously stated, the Corps was not involved in the
process of soliciting the views of stakeholders on the standard, and as
a result, cannot offer any comments on how this process was designed
and/or implemented. Currently, the MiTFLG is soliciting public comments
on the interagency Implementing Guidelines that could inform future
revisions to the FFRMS as part of its annual review as required in
Section 4(b) of EO 13690. In the months ahead, the Corps will seek
public dialogue as the agency develops its Implementing Guidance.
Question. Please provide a detailed accounting of any funds
expended to support the activities of the Water Resources Council,
including the source of all such funds. Identify any Executive Branch
personnel, including offices, departments, and agencies, utilized to
support the activities of the Water Resources Council. Also include the
dates any meetings of the Water Resources Council were held, attendance
at such meetings, and whether there was any public notice of any
meetings.
Answer. Executive Order 13690 establishes a Federal flood risk
management standard, a flexible framework to increase resilience
against flooding and help preserve the natural values of floodplains.
It also establishes a process for further soliciting and considering
public input, including from Governors, mayors, and other stakeholders,
prior to implementing this standard. Executive Order 13690 amends
Executive Order 11988. It sets up a process under which the Mitigation
Framework Leadership Group, after reviewing the public comments, will
provide recommendations to the Water Resources Council. The Water
Resources Council would then provide guidance to agencies on the
implementation of Executive Order 11988, as amended, consistent with
the Federal risk management standard.
The President issued Executive Order 13690 on January 30, 2015. The
Army Corps of Engineers will be involved in this process through the
Mitigation Leadership Framework Group, as a member of the Water
Resources Council, and as an implementing agency. The Army Corps of
Engineers will be available to participate in this process, as
appropriate, within its existing resource levels.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
kentucky lock project on the tennessee river
Question. What is the estimated completion date for the Kentucky
Lock project?
Answer. The completion date could depend on a range of factors,
including the availability of funding. At this point, the earliest that
the Corps estimates that it would be able to complete physical
construction would be in calendar year 2022.
Question. What are the annual funding levels assumed for this
estimated completion date?
Answer. The capability estimate for each study or project is the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimate for the most that it could
obligate efficiently during the fiscal year for that study or project.
However, each capability estimate is made without reference to the
availability of manpower, equipment, and other resources across the
Army Civil Works program, so the sum of the capability estimates
exceeds the amount that the Corps actually could obligate in a single
fiscal year. The Budget allocates funding among studies and projects on
a performance basis in a manner that will enable the Corps to use that
funding effectively. Consequently, while the Corps could obligate
additional funds for some studies and projects, offsetting reductions
within the Army Civil Works program would be required to maintain
overall budgetary objectives.
The funding stream below includes inflation. However, it must be
noted that funding for Kentucky Lock would be considered, along with
all other funding requirements for projects throughout the Nation.
Fiscal Year 2015--$15.0 million
Fiscal Year 2016--$50.6 million
Fiscal Year 2017--$51.7 million
Fiscal Year 2018--$50.5 million
Fiscal Year 2019--$69.0 million
Fiscal Year 2020--$95.2 million
Fiscal Year 2021--$85.1 million
Fiscal Year 2022--$28.8 million
Fiscal year 2023--$0.8 million
Question. What is the remaining benefit/remaining cost ratio for
the Kentucky Lock project?
Answer. The benefits and the costs of the project need to be
updated and therefore a current remaining benefit/remaining cost ratio
is not available.
Question. Does the cost to complete the Kentucky Lock project
increase annually as it remains in ``caretaker'' status?
Answer. In real terms, the cost to complete the project should not
increase.
fiscal year 2015 workplan/iwtf
Question. The fiscal year 2015 USACE work plan includes $6 M in
unobligated funding. Does the USACE intend to use this funding, and if
so, how?
Answer. Yes. These funds have not yet been allocated because a
useful increment of work has not yet been identified for those funds.
The remaining funds will be allocated coincident with identifying a
useful increment or increments of work for those funds.
section 1035 wrrda, floating cabins
Question. It is my understanding the USACE is currently developing
health and safety guidance regarding Sec. 1035 of the Water Resources
Reform and Development Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-121). I am told that
your agency has committed to considering input from interested parties
on this health and safety guidance prior to its finalization.
Will there be an opportunity for interested parties to view a draft
proposal of the guidance in an effort to provide comment prior to the
finalization of this guidance? If so, is there a date when stakeholders
may expect a draft proposal to be made available for review? If not,
please explain why stakeholders will not have the opportunity to
provide comment on this guidance.
Answer. In the fall of 2014, the Corps held a series of three
listening sessions for government entities and the public to learn
about and/or express their concerns or issues on any section of WRRDA
2014. Afterwards, the Corps extended the offer to accept, consider, and
address any concerns of marina operators or other constituents, but no
comments were provided to the Corps.
The Corps is in the final stages of preparing implementation
guidance that is within the parameters of Section 1035 of WRRDA 2014.
Once approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works,
the policy will be released to the public and to the Nashville District
for implementation. In addition, the Nashville District will notify
applicable marina operators of the policy and distribute it
accordingly. Marina operators will also be extended the opportunity to
meet with the Project Manager and any other District personnel
concerning questions and direction on submitting requests to expand the
marina outgrant to include floating cabins and/or concerning new marina
proposals to include floating cabins.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
continuing authorities program
Question. At the subcommittee hearing, I asked about funding for
the Continuing Authorities Program, specifically Sections 103 and 107.
These sections have not received much funding in recent years; in fact,
the Corps has not included them in the budget since 2011, although the
appropriations process has put money into those accounts.
What are the current unobligated balances of those accounts?
Answer. As of January 31, 2015, Section 103 had $8.63 million in
unobligated prior-year funds and $1.25 million in fiscal year 2015
funds, for an unobligated total of $9.88 million. Of this, $4.61
million is on projects and planned for obligation in fiscal year 2015
and fiscal year 2016, and $5.27 million is being held in Headquarters
pending execution of cost sharing agreements.
Section 107 had $7.08 million in unobligated prior-year funds and
$2.35 million in fiscal year 2015 funds, for an unobligated total of
$9.43 million. Of this, $4.09 million is on projects and planned for
obligation in fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016, and $5.34 million
is being held in Headquarters pending execution of cost sharing
agreements.
Question. How does the Corps plan to fund them going forward?
Answer. The available balances will be used to complete useful
increments of work, including completion of ongoing projects and
initiation of additional projects if affordable.
Question. Why are the funds not being used?
Answer. The funding in the sections either has been allocated to
projects or is being held in Headquarters pending execution of cost
sharing agreements.
Question. Can the small, rural communities of Alaska begin
feasibility studies or general investigations using funds from 103 or
107?
Answer. Based on guidance from Congress, new starts are allowed in
CAP where the Corps has completed a favorable affordability analysis.
The CAP affordability analysis is looked at over a 3 year period and
takes into account the anticipated funding, capability cost of active
projects, less attrition, and potential cost of new starts, less
attrition. Based on the cost of ongoing feasibility work, the cost of
scheduled construction for fiscal year 2016, and the potential future
costs of other ongoing projects (even after allowing for attrition as
some projects are discontinued), new starts in Section 103 and 107 do
not appear affordable at this time. For instance, in Section 103 there
are 3 projects with pending Project Partnership Agreements (PPAs) and a
total need of $7.2 million in Federal funds for construction. In
Section 107 there are 4 projects with pending PPAs and a total need of
$10 million in Federal funds for construction. The Corps will re-
evaluate affordability on a quarterly basis and, when possible,
consider additional projects.
arctic deep draft port
Question. I am enthusiastic about the release of the Corps' Draft
Report regarding the Deep Draft Arctic Port System Study. This is a
plan to build much needed infrastructure in the Arctic that will help
the people of Alaska lower their cost of living, drive the local and
State economies, and allow for a faster response in the event of an oil
spill in the region.
Can you please provide me with a detailed plan for how this project
will proceed?
Answer. Upon completion of public, technical, legal, policy and
independent external peer reviews, the next step would be for the
Arctic Deep Draft study team to develop responses to comments submitted
and modify the recommended plan as appropriate.
Question. What is the estimated timeline for the Review Board
Hearing and Chief's Report?
Answer. The Civil Works Review Board is currently scheduled for the
first quarter of fiscal year 2016. Upon completion of a successful
Civil Works Review Board and State and Agency Review of the project,
the final feasibility report will be forwarded to the Chief of
Engineers for review and approval.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
south san francisco bay shoreline study
Question. Can you tell me how you plan to finish the Chief's Report
by December 2015, as promised, without Federal funding in the fiscal
year 2015 Work Plan and in the fiscal year 2016 Budget?
Answer. We are considering all available options for completing
this report.
Question. If there are unallocated funds in the fiscal year 2015
Work Plan that can be applied toward the study, can you commit to me
that you will make the required sums available so that the study will
stay on schedule?
Answer. It is premature to make this commitment at this time as we
are still developing the fiscal year 2015 Work Plan. However, our goal
is to keep this study on an efficient schedule.
Question. Can you commit to me that the Chief's Report will in fact
be done by December 2015 with no further delays?
Answer. Our goal is to complete the Chief's Report by the end 2015
if there are not any unforeseen issues.
napa river flood control project
Question. The Napa River Flood Control Project was provided funding
in fiscal year 2014 to complete the bypass through the downtown area
thereby capturing a majority of the project benefits. However, it has
recently been determined that this work that was committed to in fiscal
year 2014 will cost more than was initially anticipated and additional
funds will be required. It would appear that sufficient funds remain
unallocated that could be used for this purpose.
Why were these funds not included in the fiscal year 2015 work
plan?
Answer. I became aware of the cost increase to complete this final
phase late in the process of developing the work plan and am still
gathering information regarding the scope and extent of the additional
funds needed to complete this project that was previously funded to
completion in fiscal year 2014.
california drought
Question. What is the Corps doing to help with drought conditions
in California?
Answer. First, the Corps implemented temporary deviations to
operations at Whittier and Prado Dams during the drought which has
allowed the maximum capture of over 22,000 acre feet of water. Other
deviation requests will likely be forthcoming.
Second, the California Department of Water Resources has been
meeting with the Corps about permits for salinity barriers in the
Delta. The Corps expects additional permit requests for other work,
including pumps, siphons, wells and pipe extensions.
Third, the Corps is engaged with other Federal, State and local
agencies to anticipate and assist in providing drought responses.
Regionally, the Corps is participating in forums conducted by the
California Office of Emergency Services, the lead State agency,
regional water planning bodies and directly with project partners.
Fourth, the Corps is providing technical assistance to local
communities. For example, the Corps provided technical assistance to
Redwood Valley Water District to place a temporary floating pump
platform in Lake Mendocino that will allow continued water withdrawal
if the lake level falls below the permanent intake.
The Corps remains engaged with the California Drought Task Forces
and is prepared to immediately act in processing deviations, regulatory
permits and emergency water assistance requests within existing
authorities. To improve longer-term drought resiliency, the Corps is
working with the National Weather Service on improving forecast-based
decision parameters for reservoir operations.
Question. Are there legislative or institutional barriers that
hinder the Corps in assisting with drought mitigation?
Answer. The Army Civil Works program's actions reflect its
authorities. In a drought, for example, the Corps may be able to take
steps to change project operations at a multi-purpose dam that includes
water supply as an ancillary project purpose. In some cases, the Corps
may also be able to provide certain emergency assistance under Public
Law 84-99.
harbor maintenance trust fund
Question. It is my understanding that your fiscal year 2016 request
for funding for activities that are reimbursed from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund is $915 million, exactly the same as your fiscal
year 2015 request.
As a percentage of the eligible work, what is the percentage that
the Administration budgeted?
Answer. The level of Federal spending to support harbor maintenance
and related work in the Budget reflects consideration for the economic
and safety return of these investments, as well as a comparison with
other potential uses of the available funds. The fiscal year 2016
Budget includes funding for about one-third of the potential eligible
work.
Question. What costs to the economy are associated with the
Administration's request?
Answer. Generally, the Corps considers costs and benefits in
recommending which work to fund. However, the Corps does not track
costs to the broader economy for the operation and maintenance work
that it performs, or does not perform.
Question. What types of benefits are not realized?
Answer. Harbor maintenance and its benefits vary by project.
Generally, the amount recommended in the Budget has a higher return
than other potential work. The benefits are of the same type, but
diminish with each added increment of funding. For example, more
funding could, in some cases, enable some of the vessels that use a
port to carry more cargo at high tide. At the current funding level,
they may need to wait for a low tide, when fully loaded. On the other
hand, regardless of the level of harbor maintenance, many ships may not
be fully loaded, and many others--due to factors such as their size,
and the density of their cargo--may be able to use it even when fully
loaded. In deciding how much funding to recommend, the Corps would
consider how many of the vessels that use that port are affected by the
current channel condition, based on actual usage patterns. The choice
may involve, for example, dredging one foot more in depth in certain
places, or two more feet in depth there. The first foot of additional
depth could have enough of an impact to solve the basic concern, but
not address it fully for every ship. In that case, the Budget might
fund the first increment of work but not the second. Finally, the port
can always decide to provide its funds to enable the Corps to perform
more work.
Most of the harbor maintenance work that the Corps performs
involves maintenance dredging. The Corps also performs other work with
these funds, such as operation and maintenance of coastal navigation
locks, construction and maintenance of dredged material placement site,
and repairs on jetties and breakwaters to maintain their effectiveness.
Question. How is it rational to be collecting a tax for the purpose
of maintaining harbors, yet not using it for that purpose?
Answer. Federal funding for maintenance dredging and related work
at our coastal ports should not be based on the level of the harbor
maintenance tax receipts. It should reflect consideration for the
economic and safety return of each investment, as well as a comparison
with other potential uses of the available funds.
Question. What was the total of the most recent amount of
collections from the HMT?
Answer. fiscal year 2014 collections included Harbor Maintenance
Tax receipts of $1.51 billion, plus $107 million in interest, for a
total income of $1.62 billion.
Question. What is the fiscal year 2016 target funding level for the
HMT according to the 2014 WRRDA?
Answer. Section 2101(a) of WRRDA 2014 identifies a level of
resources that is the target total budget resources for each fiscal
year. For fiscal year 2016, this level is $1.254 billion.
Question. For fiscal year 2015, Congress provided $1.1 billion to
be utilized for HMT activities. What types of activities were the funds
used for?
Answer. fiscal year 2015 Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund activities
included maintenance dredging of harbors and channels; maintenance of
breakwaters, jetties, bridges, and other coastal structures; operation
and maintenance of coastal locks, dams, and other infrastructure;
construction, operation and maintenance of dredged material placement
sites; removal of floating debris and aquatic growth; project surveys;
engineering and design and supervision and administration costs;
conduct of studies and preparations of reports for dredged material
management plans and major rehabilitations; environmental testing,
monitoring, and mitigation; retention of the Corps hopper dredges
WHEELER and McFARLAND in a Ready Reserve status; and collection of
Harbor Maintenance Trust fund data.
Question. How did these activities differ from those that the
Administration budgeted for in fiscal year 2016?
Answer. The fiscal year 2015 activities are very similar to those
activities that were budgeted in fiscal year 2016.
Question. Did the additional funds included in the fiscal year 2015
work plan provide benefits to the national economy that might not have
been realized if just the Administration request had been funded?
Answer. The fiscal year 2015 work plan funds provided for
additional maintenance of budgeted projects and maintenance of projects
that were not included in the fiscal year 2015 Budget.
Question. WRRDA 2014 provided a very elaborate and confusing
distribution of funding for HMT related activities. Did you follow this
distribution when allocating funds for the fiscal year 2015 work plan?
What about for the fiscal year 2016 budget request?
Answer. The Corps followed Congressional direction provided in
Section 105 of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2015, Division D of the Consolidated Appropriations
and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, when allocating funds in the
fiscal year 2015 Work Plan. The fiscal year 2016 Budget takes into
account some of the provisions of Section 2102 such as allocating not
less than 10 percent of HMTF funds to emerging harbors and Great Lakes
harbors.
Question. In either case, were there sufficient funds to undertake
all of the activities described in WRRDA 2014?
Answer. Yes. However, we allocated the funds in the fiscal year
2015 work plan and the fiscal year 2016 Budget based on a technical
judgment by the Corps of the best use of those resources.
Question. In the fiscal year 2016 budget request, how did the
Administration account for the WRRDA direction when allocating funds in
the budget request?
Answer. The fiscal year 2016 Budget takes into account some of the
provisions of Section 2102 such as allocating not less than 10 percent
of HMTF funds to emerging harbors and Great Lakes harbors.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
harbor maintenance tax
Question. As we all recall, getting the long overdue Water
Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) over the finish line was
an uphill battle. But ultimately the end result was an important step
forward for the Army Corps, water and navigation infrastructure, and
the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT). Specifically, Section 2102 of WRRDA
allows eligible ports to use funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund (HMTF) for expanded uses beyond the traditional operations and
maintenance uses. For many years some of the largest generators of HMT
funds, like the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma in my home State of
Washington, have received only minimal returns from the HMTF because
they are deep-water ports that require little maintenance dredging.
Additionally, Section 2106 of WRRDA allows the biggest HMT donor and
energy ports to receive funding for expanded uses or for rebates to
shippers and importers transporting cargo through their ports to
partially compensate for the inequities in the current HMT system
resulting in cargo diversion to non-U.S. ports.
WRRDA was signed into law on June 10, 2014, about 8 months ago, and
yet we still have not seen implementation guidance from the Army Corps
on Sections 2102 or 2106. In fact, there is very little of WRRDA to be
seen in the Army Corps' fiscal year 2015 Work Plan or the President's
fiscal year 2016 budget request. Our ports need the new tools
authorized in WRRDA to make infrastructure improvements and to remain
competitive in the global maritime economy.
Assistant Secretary Darcy, when can we expect the Army Corps'
implementation guidelines to be completed? I ask that you complete this
work quickly to ensure that the real changes Congress enacted can be
included in the Army Corps fiscal year 2016 Work Plan. Furthermore, I
urge the Army Corps to take steps to incorporate Sections 2102 and 2106
in the fiscal year 2017 budget request.
Answer. The Corps expects to complete implementation guidance for
Sections 2102 and 2106 this spring.
mud mountain
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. Appreciate the time and energy
you have put into finding a path forward with NOAA to ensure the Army
Corps meets both its Endangered Species Act and tribal trust
responsibilities by replacing the diversion dam and building a new fish
trap facility. But I must say I was deeply disappointed to learn that
no funding was included in the Army Corps' fiscal year 2015 Work Plan
or the President's fiscal year 2016 budget request to get design work
underway. In a recent phone call with me, you stated that upon
completion of the decision document the Army Corps would reprogram
funding in fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016 to begin the design
phase.
When can I expect the decision document to be completed? Further, I
ask that you keep me apprised of any reprogramming requests made by the
Army Corps to support this project.
Answer. The decision document, in the form of a letter report, is
scheduled to be submitted to my office for review this summer. I will
keep you apprised of any related reprogramming actions.
Question. Assistant Secretary Darcy, I need your commitment to work
with me to achieve the aggressive 2020 timeline for a new and
operational fish trap facility that the Army Corps has agreed to with
NOAA in order to meet its Federal obligations and the needs of the
community and ecosystem. Can I count on your commitment to this
project?
Answer. Yes, the Army remains committed to meeting the requirements
described within the 2014 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Mud
Mountain Dam (MMD) Biological Opinion (BiOp).
columbia river treaty
Question. The Army Corps, through the Northwest Division, plays an
important role implementing the Columbia River Treaty as a member of
the U.S. Entity. Together with the Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA), the Northwest Division engaged in a multi-year process with
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 and U.S. Department of
State in December 2013. Since then the Army Corps, BPA, and several
other Federal agencies have been participating in an Interagency Policy
Committee (IPC) process to determine the parameters for negotiations
with Canada based on the Regional Recommendation.
Assistant Secretary Darcy, as a participant in the IPC process, can
you share the timeline for formulating a consensus among the Federal
partners on these parameters? Furthermore, are there any specific
issues preventing the Federal partners from reaching consensus,
completing the IPC process, and beginning negotiations with Canada?
Answer. The IPC has been gathering more detailed information from
affected Federal agencies. It is anticipated that the IPC will convene
to formulate a recommendation to the Administration concerning the
National Interest Determination, but we have not been provided a
timeline for the IPC to formulate a recommendation. The U.S. entity is
not aware of any specific issues preventing consensus.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
funding for projects
Question. The Metro East community has taken significant steps to
ensure their share of funding for construction of the Metro East
levees, showing strong commitment to the project.
How many times has the Corps worked with a local sponsor who raised
more than half the cost of a Federal project? If the Corps has worked
with local sponsors who have raised more than the required match,
please list those projects.
Answer. With regard to construction of a Corps project, the
authorized non-Federal share can sometimes exceed 50 percent of the
cost. This is generally the case for hydropower infrastructure and for
some coastal navigation projects. It may also occur where the
authorized project is the locally preferred plan.
A non-Federal sponsor may also provide more than the authorized
non-Federal share of the costs under the authorities that allow the
Corps to accept advanced or contributed funds. On this basis, local
sponsors have paid more than 50 percent of the construction cost at
least four times in recent years: for construction of the Milwaukee
Harbor, WI; Miami Harbor, FL; Keystone Bridge, OK; and Sandbridge
Beach, VA projects. In addition, the Corps recently executed an
agreement for the non-Federal sponsor to advance all funds for
construction of the Mile Point, FL, project. Details for these projects
are included in the following table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total non-
Project name Type of Total project Non-Federal Additional Federal funds
funds cost cost share funds provided provided
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milwaukee Harbor, WI (Dredged Contributed $3,108,145 $1,709,480 $1,398,665 $3,108,145
Material Disposal Facility).
Miami Harbor, FL................... Advanced 181,553,000 71,553,000 110,000,000 181,553,000
Sandbridge Beach, VA............... Contributed 15,819,000 5,537,000 10,282,000 15,819,000
Keystone Bridge, OK................ Contributed 15,000,000 0 6,000,000 6,000,000
Mile Point, FL..................... Advanced 46,400,000 11,500,000 34,900,000 46,400,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced funds in excess of the required non-Federal cost share are
eligible for repayment, subject to the availability of appropriations.
Contributed funds are not eligible for credit or repayment.
water resources reform and development act--consolidation of geographic
projects
Question. In Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA)
2014, Congress instructed the Corps to allow for the consolidation of
geographically consecutive flood risk reduction projects at the request
of the local sponsor. The local sponsor of the Metro East Levee
projects made that request on June 19, 2014, and the spring
construction season is almost upon us.
Has the Corps developed the guidance necessary to implement this
section? If not, what are the specific challenges associated with
developing the guidance?
Answer. The Corps Headquarters is currently developing
implementation guidance for Section 3012 of WRRDA 2014. Section 3012 of
WRRDA is potentially applicable to many projects nationwide.
Consequently, we need to carefully evaluate the complexities of
implementing this provision, to ensure the guidance can be applied
through a fair and consistent process nationwide.
water resources reform and development act--public/private partnerships
Question. River commerce in America's heartland depends on the
system of locks and dams on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. I was
pleased to work with my colleagues in the 2007 reauthorization of the
Water Resources Development Act to authorize modernization and
expansion of the locks on these important Illinois waterways. These
improvements make commerce more efficient and guard against
catastrophic failures of current locks and dams as most of them reach
80 or so years old. At the same time, with current project delivery
schedules and the tight Federal budget, these improvements are not
expected to be realized until 2090 by some estimates. With that in mind
I introduced the Water Infrastructure Now Public Private Partnership
Act or WIN-P3, a version of which was included in the Water Resources
Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) 2014 (Section 5014). The pilot
program would provide an opportunity for private financing to come to
the table, accelerating project delivery of nationally significant
water infrastructure projects like the locks and dams on the
Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.
Please provide a detailed timetable for the development of the
Corps' Public Private Partnership Pilot Program, as authorized in
Section 5014 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA)
2014.
Answer. The Corps has been evaluating how it might participate in
public private partnerships in order to support the development and
implementation of water resources infrastructure With the passage of
Section 5014 of WRRDA, the Corps has reviewed the law to determine how
it can be applied in the best interest of the Nation. The first step
includes identifying any policy and legal issues and then finding
resolutions so that the Corps can enter into such partnerships.
mel price lock and dam
Question. The Mel Price Dam is a 100 percent Federal project that
has a major design flaw, which Army Corps studies have found this
situation puts the levee at an ``unacceptable level of risk.'' Despite
repeated calls to fix this problem the Corps has yet to finalize a
design to shore up this critical stretch of levee. This delay is
causing the Corps to spend millions each year in emergency measures to
keep the levee from failing. The fiscal year 2014 Omnibus included both
bill and report language directing the Army Corps to address the Mel
Price issue, and yet there is little progress toward that goal.
What is the status of selection of a third party to oversee the
Corps on its work on the Mel Price Lock and Dam repair project in
Southwestern Illinois, pursuant to the 2014 Omnibus?
Answer. The language in the Bill is in regards to conducting an
Independent External Peer Review (IEPR), which is a specific review
activity performed by professionals who are external to the Corps, at a
key point or points during the development of study reports and
designs. The IEPR team provides comments on study and construction
designs.
The IEPR for the recommended design in the study report is
currently planned to begin November 30, 2015 and complete January 15,
2016. The Corps is currently discussing procedural options that could
result in an earlier schedule for the IEPR. The study team continues to
move forward with its efforts while options are being discussed.
great lakes and mississippi river interbasin study
Question. The Corps released its Great Lakes and Mississippi River
Interbasin Study (GLMRIS) report in January 2014, which was intended to
identify options to prevent the transfer of aquatic nuisance species
between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River Basins. It is my
understanding that stakeholders have agreed on a series of short-term
steps the Corps could take to decrease the risk of Asian carp moving
into the Great Lakes.
How have your conversations with Federal, State, and local agencies
informed your next steps to prevent Asian carp from entering the Great
Lakes?
Answer. The Great Lakes Commission publicly identified
implementation of measures to reduce the risk of Asian carp, which
included modifications to the Brandon Road Lock and Dam. Additionally
the Chicago Area Waterway System Advisory Committee, a group of
governmental and non-governmental stakeholders representing commercial,
navigation, and environmental interests, identified actions such as
evaluating aquatic nuisance species controls at Brandon Road that can
reduce the risk of Asian carp reaching the Great Lakes Basin.
Question. Based on the evaluations presented in the GLMRIS Report
and in response to stakeholder input, the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works directed the Corps to proceed with a formal
evaluation of potential control technologies to be applied in the
vicinity of the Brandon Road Lock and Dam, located near Joliet,
Illinois.
How do the proposed actions at Brandon Road fit into these efforts?
Answer. See above response.
Question. How will the Corps use the $500,000 requested in the
fiscal year 2016 budget to implement these next steps?
Answer. Fiscal year 2016 funds will be used with anticipated fiscal
year 2015 carryover funds to continue the feasibility-level decision
document for the Brandon Road project.
water of the u.s.--rulemaking
Question. There has been a lot of confusion surrounding how the
proposed ``Waters of the U.S.'' rule would affect agricultural
communities, industry, and counties in my State.
Would the new rule expand Clean Water Act jurisdiction in the State
of Illinois? If so where?
Answer. In the economic analysis that was done for the proposed
rule, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated a slight
increase in jurisdictional waters nationally, of approximately 3
percent compared to current practice. The EPA is preparing an updated
economic analysis that will be published with any issued final rule
which will also include an updated estimate of any change in
jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
Question. How would the Corps' determination of `jurisdictional
waters' differ under the proposed rule from its practices under the
2007 guidance?
Answer. The agencies are proposing this rule to provide much needed
clarity regarding which waters are and which waters are not
jurisdictional under all sections and programs of the CWA. Our proposal
is consistent with the best available science and the agencies'
interpretation of the Supreme Court decisions; this proposed rule is
aimed at improving efficiency in making jurisdictional determinations.
The proposed rule retains much of the structure of the agencies'
longstanding definition of ``waters of the United States,'' including
many of the existing provisions that do not require revision in light
of the SWANCC and Rapanos Supreme Court decisions or other bases for
revision. Under the 2007 Rapanos guidance, updated in 2008, the
agencies are required to make case-specific significant nexus
determinations for certain categories of waters, including certain
adjacent wetlands and tributaries. The proposed rule will improve
clarity for regulators, stakeholders, and the regulated public. The
proposal accomplishes this by defining certain categories of waters
that under current policies require case-specific analyses, as
jurisdictional by rule ``waters of the United States.'' A case-specific
significant nexus determination would be required for waters that would
not be jurisdictional by rule as long as those waters do not meet one
of the exclusions included in the proposed rule. The proposed rule also
adds clarity by providing definitions of ``tributary,''
``neighboring,'' and ``significant nexus.'' Certain types of waters or
features are proposed to be excluded for the first time in rule
language, including certain ditches, stock ponds created by excavating
and/or diking dry land, and gullies, rills and non-wetland swales.
Question. While the intent of the proposed rule is to provide
clarity on the definition of ``waters of the U.S.'' (WoUS) subject to
jurisdiction under the CWA, many of the actual methods used in a
jurisdictional determination by the Corps are not expected to change.
For example, the Corps would continue to use desktop and field-based
tools, including remote sensing tools, existing methodology under the
wetland delineation manual and accompanying regional supplements, and
existing methodology for identifying the ordinary high water mark
including the manuals developed for certain regions of the country. In
addition, the options for requesting either an approved or preliminary
jurisdictional determination would remain available to landowners.
Would the proposed rule cause additional permitting requirements?
If so, how?
Answer. The proposed rule provides a definition of WoUS under the
CWA and does not modify any statutory provisions or regulatory
requirements associated with obtaining authorizations under section 404
of the CWA. The increase in jurisdictional tributaries, adjacent
waters, and other/isolated waters over current guidance would
correspond to an increase in the number of permits required. However,
there may be efficiencies gained as additional categories of waters
will be determined to be jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional by rule,
which previously required case-specific significant nexus
determinations.
The proposed rule does not modify or revoke any of the efficient
permit mechanisms currently available, including general permits. In
addition, the agencies' proposed rule would retain all existing Clean
Water Act exemptions and exclusions, including those associated with
certain activities such as normal farming, ranching and silviculture,
and maintenance of irrigation and drainage ditches.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Feinstein. I would really like to thank everybody
for being here today. I very much appreciate your interest in
this subject. So thank you for being here, and the subcommittee
will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:43 p.m., Wednesday, February 11, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:40 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Alexander, Murkowski, and Feinstein.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN G. BURNS, CHAIRMAN
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER
Senator Alexander. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development will please come to order. This afternoon we are
having a hearing to review the President's fiscal year 2016
funding request and budget justification for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. Senator Feinstein and I will each have
an opening statement, and then each Senator may have up to 5
minutes for an opening statement, alternating between the
majority and minority. Some Senators are fleeing before the
snow comes, so I do not know how many will be here, but we are
here. We will then turn to the witnesses for their testimony.
We are glad to have so many of you here, and this is really an
opportunity for us have to have a good discussion about nuclear
power, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I would like to thank our witnesses and introduce them in
this way. Mr. Stephen Burns is chairman of the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. Mr. Chairman, welcome. Kristine
Svinicki, good to see you again. Thank you for being here. Mr.
William Ostendorff, good to see you again, Commissioner. Thank
you for coming, Commissioner. Mr. Jeff Baran, welcome to the
hearing, also a member of the Commission, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
We are here today to review the 2016 budget request for the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is an independent agency
responsible for regulating the safety of our Nation's
commercial nuclear power plants and other nuclear materials. It
is the first time in a few years the subcommittee has had a
hearing to examine the Commission's budget. It is also the
first of several hearings that the subcommittee will hold this
year on nuclear power. These hearings are important because
nuclear power provides about 20 percent of our Nation's
electricity and more than 60 percent of our carbon-free
electricity, and I will have more to say about all that as we
go along.
I plan to focus my questions on four main areas: licensing
nuclear waste repositories, which is a passion of Senator
Feinstein as well as mine; number two, avoiding excessive
regulation; number three, licensing for new and existing
reactors; number four, making sure the Agency is running
effectively.
First on waste, we have to solve the 25-year stalemate
about what to do with used fuels from our 99 nuclear reactors,
as well as fuel from some that have already stopped operating.
We have to have a place to put the used fuel in order to ensure
that nuclear power has a strong future in this country. Later
this year, I look forward to reintroducing with Senator
Feinstein, and Senator Murkowski, and perhaps others,
legislation that would create temporary and permanent storage
sites for nuclear waste. Also, Senator Feinstein and I plan to
again include a pilot program for nuclear waste storage in the
water and appropriations bill as we have for the past 3 years.
Her idea, I strongly support it.
The new sites we would seek to establish through the
legislation that we are reintroducing would not take the place
of Yucca Mountain--we have more than enough waste to fill Yucca
Mountain to its legal capacity--but would rather complement it.
The legislation is consistent with the President's Blue Ribbon
Commission on America's Nuclear Future, but my own view is 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. The Nuclear Waste Fund, which is money that
utilities have paid the government to dispose of their used
nuclear fuel, has a balance of about $36 billion, and there are
still several steps to go in the licensing process for Yucca
Mountain.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a balance of unspent
funding that should be used to continue the licensing process.
More resources will be required, so I think it is fair to ask
why are those funds not requested in your budget. The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission recently completed the safety evaluation
report that said Yucca Mountain met all of the safety
requirements through the ``period of geologic stability.'' The
Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency define the
``period of geologic stability'' as 1 million years. To
continue to oppose Yucca Mountain because of radiation concerns
is to ignore science as well as the law.
The next steps on Yucca Mountain include completing a
supplemental environmental impact statement and restarting the
hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, which
were suspended in September 2011. Money is available for these
activities, and I would like to hear about your plans to use
it.
The second area of questioning is avoiding excessive
regulation. A couple of years ago, Senator Mikulski and I, and
Senator Burr, and Senator Bennett asked a group of
distinguished higher education officials to look at the Federal
rules and regulations governing higher education. They made
their report a couple of weeks ago, and it was a startling
report. And there are some--I would like for Senator Feinstein
to hear this part because California has a terrific system of
universities.
The commission that Senator Mikulski and I, and Bennett,
and Burr commissioned on regulation of higher education
reported about what they called a jungle of red tape that is
interfering with their ability to govern properly. Vanderbilt
University hired the Boston Consulting Group to assess how much
it cost Vanderbilt itself to comply with all the Federal rules
and regulations on higher education in 2014. And the answer was
$150 million, which is 11 percent of the university's operating
revenue or expenditures, and adds $11,000 to each student's
tuition.
Now, you may wonder what does that have to do with nuclear
power. It is the same kind of thing all throughout the
government. None of these rules and regulations, or almost
none, are put in by evil people, or intentioned. They just add
up over time. And to the extent excessive regulation makes it
more difficult for nuclear power plants to be extended and to
be operated economically, that is something I would like to
discuss. I wonder whether, for example, we know the answer to
the question how much does it cost a utility. How much does
regulation cost a utility for its operation?
Then there is the question of the licensing of new and
existing reactors. I proposed one time that we should build a
hundred new reactors. People thought that was kind of over the
top. But when you stop and think about it, we have the Center
for Strategic and International Studies saying that by 2020,
not long away, that as many as 25 of our 99 reactors may not be
operating. We have the various factors that are making it less
economic to operate nuclear reactors, such as the low price of
natural gas, the subsidies for wind power, which permit wind
producers in unregulated markets to basically pay the merchant
utility to take the wind power, and then the producer can still
make a profit. That means the nuclear power is less economic.
Excessive regulation may be a factor. Carbon rules from the EPA
that treat nuclear differently than other renewable sources may
be a factor.
And then we think about the fact that if about 20 percent
of our current capacity from coal goes offline by 2020 as
projected by the Energy Information Administration or is
entirely replaced by nuclear power, it would require building
another 48 new large reactors. So add to that, the third point,
which are the number of aging reactors, those that are getting
too old and which may not have their licenses extended. We
might need a hundred new reactors just to replace the ones we
already have, and I want to make sure that we do not end up
surprised by that.
Then we want to make sure that agencies run effectively.
Congress appropriated in the year 2000 about $470 million for
the Agency. The budget this year is $1 billion. Much of the
increase was due to the significant number of new reactor
licenses that were anticipated. However, most were never
actually submitted, so it is fair to ask whether this
additional funding is being used for unnecessary regulation.
Finally, let me just make this observation, and I will ask
Senator Feinstein then to take whatever time she would like. I
do not want the United States of America 10, 20, 30 years from
now to suddenly wake up and discover that we are a country
without nuclear power, and I think it is possible that could
happen. If CSIS says we may lose 25 reactors within the next 5
or 6 years, and big utility operators tell me they are not even
thinking about asking for extensions of the time their reactors
might stay online, say, from 60 to 80 years, because it is not
economic to operate them, if we suddenly find ourselves without
most of the 99 reactors we have, we know what will happen. We
have seen what happened in Japan. We have seen what happened in
Germany. And at a time when the President and many in America
feel that climate change is an urgent challenge for the world
and our country, the idea of deliberately allowing the 99
reactors which produce 60 percent of our carbon free emissions,
to allow that number to decline I think would be serious
malpractice by all of us involved, whether it is the Congress,
whether it is the Commission, whether it is the Department of
Energy.
So it is with that spirit that I am going to be approaching
this hearing and other hearings this year. I know that the
Regulatory Commission is not the Department of Energy. Its job
is safety, and it has a terrific record in that. I do not think
and I am sure it is true--any other form of energy production
in our country has a record of safety that exceeds nuclear
power. But I am going to be asking questions about what can you
also do to create an environment so that over the next 30 or 40
years at least, while we are doing research to find other sorts
of clean energy, that we do not find ourselves without large
amounts of renewable emissions and free electricity, which is
what Japan suddenly found, and which Germany has found. And it
does not work in a big manufacturing country given the current
mix of power generation.
So I welcome the commissioners. I thank you for your
service, and I look forward to Senator Feinstein's comments.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Lamar Alexander
We're here today to review the President's fiscal year 2016 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.
This is the first time in many years that the subcommittee has held
a hearing to examine the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's budget.
It is also the first of several hearings that the subcommittee will
hold this year on nuclear power. These hearings are important because
nuclear power provides about 20 percent of our Nation's electricity and
more than 60 percent of our carbon-free electricity.
I plan to focus my questions today on four main areas:
1. Licensing nuclear waste repositories;
2. Avoiding excessive regulations;
3. Licensing for new and existing reactors; and
4. Making sure the agency is running effectively.
licensing nuclear waste repositories, including yucca mountain
First, we must solve the 25-year-old stalemate about what to do
with used fuel from our nuclear reactors to ensure that nuclear power
has a strong future in this country.
Later this year, I will reintroduce bipartisan legislation with
Senators Feinstein, Murkowski and perhaps others, to create both
temporary and permanent storage sites for nuclear waste. Also, Senator
Feinstein and I plan to include a pilot program for nuclear waste
storage in the Energy and Water appropriations bill, as we have for the
past 3 years.
The new sites we'd seek to establish through the legislation
Senator Feinstein and I are reintroducing this year 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.
This legislation is consistent with the president's Blue Ribbon
Commission on America's Nuclear Future.
But let me be clear: Yucca Mountain can and should be part of the
solution. Federal law designates Yucca Mountain as the Nation's
repository for used nuclear fuel.
The Nuclear Waste Fund, which is money that utilities have paid the
government to dispose of their used nuclear fuel, has a balance of
about $36 billion and there are still several steps to go in the
licensing process for Yucca Mountain.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a balance of unspent funding
that you are supposed to use to continue the licensing process. But
more resources will be required, so I think it's fair to ask the
question:
Knowing that there are additional steps and they will cost money,
why would you not request additional funds in your budget?
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently completed the Safety
Evaluation Report that said Yucca Mountain met all of the safety
requirements through ``the period of geologic stability.''
The commission and the Environmental Protection Agency define the
``period of geologic stability'' as one million years. To continue to
oppose Yucca Mountain because of radiation concerns is to ignore
science--as well as the law.
The next steps on Yucca Mountain include completing a supplemental
environmental impact statement and restarting the hearings before the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, which were suspended in September
2011.
Money is available for these activities, and I want to hear why
there is no request to use it.
avoiding excessive regulations
Federal law requires that nuclear power plants be built safely, but
the law doesn't say it should be so hard and expensive to build and
operate reactors that you can't do it.
A 2013 report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies
found that up to 25 of our 99 nuclear reactors could close by 2020.
The decision to close a reactor could be due to a number of
factors, including the low price of natural gas, and the wasteful wind
production tax credit, which is so generous that in some markets wind
producers can literally give their electricity away and still make a
profit.
But the decision to close a reactor can also have to do with
excessive and unnecessary regulations. I want to work with the
commission to address this.
licensing for new and existing reactors
Over the next several decades, most of our 99 nuclear reactors will
go through the commission's license renewal process to extend their
licenses, which is critical to the future of nuclear power. I want to
make sure that the commission is prepared for this additional work.
I also want to make sure the commission has devoted the appropriate
resources to the licensing process to keep new reactors--like Watts Bar
2 in Tennessee--on time and on budget.
I have proposed that we build 100 new reactors, which may seem
excessive, but not if about 20 percent of our current capacity from
coal goes offline by 2020 as projected by the Energy Information
Administration. If this capacity were replaced entirely by nuclear
power it would require building another 48 new, 1,250-megawatt
reactors--which, by the way, would reduce our carbon emissions from
electricity by another 14 percent. Add the reactors we may need to
replace in the coming decades due to aging and other factors, and my
proposal for 100 may not seem so high.
Additionally, the commission needs to move forward with new small
modular reactors.
This subcommittee has provided funding to help small modular
reactors get through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing
process. I'd like to get your views on what you need to continue your
efforts.
making sure the agency is running effectively
One of the challenges for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is to
ensure that the agency is running effectively and focusing staff on the
right goals.
In fiscal year 2000, Congress appropriated about $470 million for
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The budget request this year is more
than $1 billion.
Much of the increase was due to the significant number of new
reactor licenses that were anticipated--however most were never
actually submitted. So, it is fair to ask whether this additional
funding is being used for unnecessary regulation.
conclusion
The best way to understand the importance of nuclear power is to
look at the stories of three countries: Japan, Germany and the United
Arab Emirates.
Japan and Germany have recently experienced what happens when a
major manufacturing country loses its nuclear capacity. In Japan, the
cost of generating electricity has increased 56 percent and Germany has
among the highest household electricity rates in the European Union--
both because they moved away from nuclear power.
The United Arab Emirates has shown what a country can do when a
country decides to take advantage of nuclear power. By 2020, the
Emirates will have completed four reactors that will provide nearly 25
percent of its annual electricity.
It will take building more nuclear reactors to avoid the path of
Japan and Germany, and today's hearing is an important step to making
sure the United States does what it must to unleash nuclear power.
I look forward to working with the commission and our Ranking
Member, Senator Feinstein, who I will now recognize for an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you very
much. I think that was an excellent opening statement. But I
also want to thank you for the great privilege of working with
you. We have worked as chairman and vice chairman. Both of us
have been alternating. And I just want you to know I do not
think I ever had a better person to work with in the Senate
than you.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. We figure out when we disagree what we
can do about that, and I give some of the time, and you give
some of the time, and I really think that is in the best
interest of our democracy and our country. So it is a great
treat for me to be here. You set up this hearing. I think it is
a real tribute to you that we have the chairman and three
members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission here today.
My remarks are going to be a little different because I
wanted to be on this committee because I am really concerned
about the nuclear waste that is scattered all over this
country, and I am going to talk a little bit about it. And I
view the NRC as a critical agency to regulate the nuclear power
plants and the use of radiologic and nuclear materials critical
not only to industry, but to the safety of our people.
So I want to make one other point. There is on the Pacific
Coast such a thing as a ring of fire, of big earthquakes, that
over the last several decades have been happening in Southeast
Asia, southern South America. The latest of these is Fukushima,
and Fukushima really caused me to open my eyes. And today's
witnesses are appearing 4 years after that earthquake triggered
a tsunami that flooded three Fukushima nuclear reactors,
causing them to melt down. More than 300,000 people were
evacuated from the surrounding area, and the disaster cost well
over $100 billion.
Some post-Fukushima analysis has argued that the Japanese
regulatory structure was too close to nuclear industry, to the
industry it was regulating, and that the dysfunction of that
regulatory system contributed to the disaster. And I want to
say we cannot allow that to happen in this country. To date,
the NRC has issued three orders and one request for information
and initiated a single rulemaking to codify those orders.
Industry has undertaken some upgrades to back up safety
equipment, spending around $4 billion on upgrades as required
by the NRC. This is a substantial amount, but not that much
when you consider the replacement value of the plants
themselves, and just a fraction of how much a disaster on the
scale of Fukushima would cost the United States. So I hope you
will tell this subcommittee how your actions have made a
Fukushima-like disaster substantially less likely in the United
States, and provide us with some reassurance that the NRC is
executing its role as the tough-nosed regulator it needs to be.
A second issue of great concern to me, as I mentioned, is
storage of nuclear fuel. Today, that fuel is piling up at
reactor sites around the country. To date, we have 78 sites in
the United States storing approximately 70,000 metric tons of
spent fuel. Of this total, roughly 20,000 metric tons is in dry
storage, and the rest in storage pools called spent fuels--
spent fuel pools. The United States nuclear plants continue to
discharge about 2,100 metric tons of spent fuel per year.
The United States taxpayers have paid $4.5 billion to
utilities to store waste at reactor sites, in part because we
lack a nuclear waste policy. And this is going to lead to an
additional $23 billion in penalties in the coming years, which
will be borne by taxpayers. This has driven the two of us to
call together the chair and ranking member of the energy
authorizing committee, and try to come up over--was it 3 or 4
years we have been working on it?
Senator Alexander. Three years.
Senator Feinstein. Three years to develop a spent--a
nuclear waste policy for our country. We have none. Believe it
or not, we came to agreement. We had in two Secretaries of
Energy. We had in the Blue Ribbon Commission. We discussed a
lot among ourselves. At the time, Senator Bingaman was chairman
of the committee, and so he was replaced by Senator Wyden, and
we had both of their support. And we had Senator Murkowski who
has been with us from the beginning, and so we have a Nuclear
Waste Policy Act now at the energy and water authorizing
committee.
The difficult part for me is that it has taken so long to
generate activity. And candidly, I do not believe the nuclear
industry itself has been as supportive of it as it should be.
And for me, this is a real test of that industry because if
nuclear power is, in fact, as the chairman indicated, to
continue to be part of our Nation's energy mix, for me this
situation is unsustainable.
In August of 2014, the NRC issued a final rule on the
continued storage of waste at nuclear power plants around the
country. That rule stated that spent nuclear fuel could be
stored indefinitely at nuclear sites. So just look at what
continues to happen at Fukushima. The reactor containment
vessels were breached during the accident, leaking the
radioactive water into the ocean. Those vessels continue to
leak to this day, even as the Japanese pump water into the
vessels to try to keep the highly radioactive fuel cool.
Efforts to contain the leaking water, such as building an
underground ice wall, have proved insufficient. The spent fuel
pools at Fukushima did not leak, but the temperature inside the
pools increased, and water quickly evaporated, so that only 20
feet of water covered the fuel instead of the standard 40 feet.
Fuel rods were damaged, and radiation was released to the
environment. Water had to be sprayed from above to keep the
fuel cool.
By the NRC's own estimates, nearly all of the spent fuel
pools in the United States are densely packed with spent fuel
and will be at capacity in 2015. The Union of Concerned
Scientists and others believe the risk of an accident and its
impacts can be significantly reduced by expediting the movement
of spent fuel from pools to dry casks, and I am inclined to
agree.
While the rule does not license storage of spent fuel at
any specific reactor site, it appears to give a carte blanche
to nuclear power plant operators to continue generating waste
without a permanent solution. This is unacceptable to me.
Previous waste confidence determinations were predicated on
reasonable progress by the Federal Government in implementing a
waste management program. However, the NRC has now stated that
a permanent home for spent nuclear fuel is not necessary for
the sustainment of growth of nuclear power. In my view, nowhere
does this new rule provide the basis for such a startling
reversal of a long-established regulatory framework. Instead,
it seems to be a rule designed solely to keep the nuclear
industry operating.
I deeply believe we desperately need a new policy on
nuclear waste, and this subcommittee has been committed to
making progress toward that goal. And that is why I am so happy
to be working with Senator Alexander on multiple fronts,
including within this subcommittee, the re-introduction of the
Nuclear Waste Administration Act.
Mr. Chairman and members, I think you sit at an important
juncture. The continued safe operation of nuclear power plants
is an important source of carbon free electricity. We all
understand that. But nuclear energy must be safe, and there
must be a sound policy that addresses the waste stream it
creates. And let me be candid with you. To me, storing this
stuff at waste sites, candidly, is not acceptable. I mean, I
look at San Onofre, two big reactors being de-conditioned,
2,800 rods in spent fuel pools in an area where six million
people live and, of course, very close to the Pacific Ocean. Is
that going to stay there forever?
If I understand your policy, and please correct me if I am
wrong, Commissioner Burns, but it could happen. And, you know,
I look back at Fukushima. The spent fuel pools did not
collapse, but what happened, as far as I related, and I believe
is true. California is a very earthquake prone State, and the
probabilities of a big earthquake in Southern California over
the next 30 years are way up. I think it is over 60 percent
probability now, so I feel I have reason to worry.
And candidly, if it is true that your Commission is saying
that it is perfectly fine to keep all this stuff at 78
different sites with all kinds of different geologic
compositions and all kinds of propensities for geologic
movement, I really cannot agree with that. So I wanted to just
put my cards on the table and tell you precisely how I feel,
and let you know that this is a very big issue for me. So I
thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein, and I
thank you for your comments. I mean, there is nobody I would
rather work with than you. I think as you can tell, we
sometimes come at a problem from different directions, but we
often end up pulling the wagon in the same direction, and
nuclear waste is certainly one of them that we feel that way.
So it is a great privilege for me to work with Senator
Feinstein.
Now, Mr. Chairman, why don't we start with you and ask you
to summarize your testimony, if you will, in about five
minutes. Then whatever the Commission protocol is, why do you
not just go down the line, and we will look forward to hearing
from the other commissioners after you.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF STEPHEN G. BURNS
Mr. Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking
Member Feinstein. My colleagues and I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss our fiscal
year 2016 budget request.
As you said, the NRC is an independent Federal agency
established to license and regulate the Nation's civilian use
of radioactive materials at nuclear installations to ensure
adequate protection of the public health and safety, to promote
the common defense and security, and protect the environment.
The resources that we are requesting in fiscal year 2016 will
allow us to continue to ensure the safe and secure use of
radioactive material in the United States.
I want to emphasize this progress that the NRC and the
industry have made in making safety enhancements at nuclear
facilities across the United States in response to the
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident in Japan. After
the event, the NRC took immediate action to evaluate the
lessons of the event, and to identify required enhancements at
U.S. nuclear power plants. Our primary focus throughout this
effort has been on the highest priority, safety significant
enhancements to maximize the safety value for nuclear power
plants.
A key element of the strategy has been the NRC's 2012
mitigating strategies order, which required licensees to ensure
that sites are prepared to respond to beyond design basis
accidents. Last year, the first plants completed implementation
of the mitigation strategy requirements, and more than half the
plants are scheduled to achieve full implementation by the end
of this year, and the remaining plants, with limited
exceptions, will complete the necessary actions by 2016.
New reactor licensing and oversight activities will
continue in 2016. We expect in this year to continue reviewing
a number of new reactor combined license applications, and to
complete three of these reviews. Additionally, the NRC will
continue to conduct inspections for new reactors under
construction at the Vogtle site in Georgia and the VC Summer
Plant in South Carolina. And we also will receive before us a
recommendation with respect to the licensing of Watts Bar Unit
2, to be operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority. We also
expect to review and begin the review of an application for a
small modular reactor in fiscal year 2016.
We acknowledge that we are in a changing environment. Since
2001, the Agency grew significantly to enhance security and
incident response, and to prepare for the projected growth in
the use of nuclear power in the United States. The forecast in
the growth has been adjusted downward in responses to changes
in the industry, and as is appropriate, the NRC is being
scrutinized by stakeholders for its reasonable use of
resources. The Congress has charged the NRC with a critical
mission, and the NRC can never lose sight of that. Still, we
can and should maintain focus on our mission while being
responsible and taking a hard look at whether we are using our
resources.
Our budget reflects the efforts to demonstrate our
responsiveness to this environment. Continuing with trends that
began in fiscal year 2014, the fiscal year 2016 request
reflects a reduction in both dollars and full-time equivalents
in recent years, but still will provide the necessary resources
to carry out our safety and security mission. As required by
law, our budget request also provides for a 90 percent fee
recovery less the amounts appropriated for certain specific
activities.
As a key step in our preparation to address our anticipated
environment, the NRC initiated a project called Project AIM
2020 last June to enhance our ability to plan and execute our
mission while adapting in a timely and effective manner to our
dynamic environment. Through a staff initiative that was
approved, the charter of which was approved by the Commission,
internal and external stakeholders were engaged to forecast our
future workload and operating environment.
The staff's recommendations were recently provided to the
Commission with a number of measures to transform the Agency
over the next 5 years to improve our effectiveness, our
efficiency, and agility. The report was provided to the
Commission on January 30, and a couple of weeks ago we released
it to the public and made copies available to our oversight and
authorization committees. While my colleagues and I want to be
timely in responding to the report, we want to do so
deliberately and smartly.
One other initiative I would like to mention before I close
is that the NRC has undertaken over the last several years
revisions to our rulemaking process to understand and, if
possible, reduce the cumulative effects of regulation. We are
continuing to engage our stakeholders on this subject, and we
will receive further recommendations from our staff for
additional improvements this spring.
In sum, we are cognizant of our changing environment. We
are committed to the safety and security mission of the Agency.
And we are committed to taking a hard look at ourselves to
ensure we are prepared for the future.
This concludes my formal testimony on the budget. On behalf
of the Commission, I thank you again for the opportunity to
appear before you, and we look forward to your questions. And
with that, I will turn it over to Commissioner Svinicki.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen G. Burns
Good morning, 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 2016 budget
request.
As you know, the NRC is an independent Federal agency established
to license and regulate the Nation's civilian use of radioactive
materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety,
promote the common defense and security, and protect the environment.
The resources that we are requesting for fiscal year 2016 will
allow the NRC to continue to ensure the safe and secure use of
radioactive materials in the United States. The NRC's principal
regulatory functions are to: establish regulatory requirements; issue
licenses consistent with those requirements to facility operators and
those who own, possesses, and use, radioactive materials; oversee these
licensees to ensure they operate safely and securely, and are in
compliance with NRC requirements; conduct research to support the NRC's
safety and security mission; and respond to emergencies involving
regulated activities. The NRC also participates in international work
that is integral to the agency's mandate.
The NRC regulates every aspect of the civilian use of radioactive
materials. This includes all of the steps and the facilities involved
in the nuclear fuel cycle, including extraction of uranium from ore,
conversion of the uranium into a form suitable for enrichment,
enrichment of uranium to a level and type suitable for nuclear fuel,
and fabrication of uranium into fuel assemblies for use in reactors.
When the fuel assemblies can no longer sustain efficient reactor
operations, they are removed from the reactors and stored as waste.
In fiscal year 2016, the NRC will continue licensing and oversight
activities for 100 operating commercial nuclear power reactors,
including the anticipated operation of the Watts Bar Unit 2 nuclear
power station. The resources that we have requested for fiscal year
2016 also support completion of the highest-priority actions on the
lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant
accident, including seismic and flooding hazard reevaluations.
I would like to take a moment to emphasize the significant progress
the NRC and the industry continue to make in implementing post-
Fukushima safety enhancements at nuclear facilities across the United
States. The NRC's primary focus throughout this effort has been on the
highest-priority, most safety-significant enhancements to maximize the
safety impact for nuclear power plants. The NRC's expectation is that
most licensees will complete implementation of the most safety-
significant enhancements by, or before, 2016.
A key element of the post-Fukushima safety enhancements is the
NRC's 2012 Mitigating Strategies Order, which required licensees to
ensure that sites are prepared to respond to beyond-design-basis
events. These requirements include procuring additional equipment to
maintain or restore core cooling, containment integrity, and spent fuel
pool cooling for all units at a site. Last year, the first plants
completed implementation of all mitigating strategies requirements.
More than half of nuclear power plants are scheduled to achieve full
implementation by the end of 2015, with the remaining plants to be
completed by 2016. The one exception to this schedule is that some
boiling water reactors are requesting schedule extensions for those
parts of the mitigating strategies affected by the NRC's revision to
the order on containment venting. During and after implementation of
the mitigating strategies requirements, the NRC will conduct
inspections to verify that nuclear power plants have put appropriate
strategies in place to mitigate beyond-design-basis events.
In the past year, both of the industry's National Response Centers
(in Phoenix, Arizona and in Memphis, Tennessee) have become
operational. Both centers contain multiple sets of emergency diesel
generators, hoses, and other backup equipment that can be delivered to
any nuclear power plant in the United States within 24 hours. These
response centers address a key element of the 2012 Mitigation
Strategies Orders, which was to provide sufficient offsite resources to
sustain plant safety functions indefinitely.
New reactor licensing and oversight activities are expected to
continue during fiscal year 2016. In fiscal year 2016, the NRC planned
to review nine new reactor combined license applications and to
complete three of these reviews. Additionally, the NRC will continue to
conduct inspections for new reactors under construction, namely, the
Vogtle Electric Generating Plants, Units 3 and 4; and Virgil C. Summer,
Units 2 and 3. The NRC also expects to receive and will begin to review
a small modular reactor application. In fiscal year 2016, the NRC
expects to complete the review of one construction permit application
for a medical isotope production facility and conduct environmental and
safety reviews of construction permits for two additional medical
isotope production facilities.
The NRC takes regulatory actions to ensure the safety and security
of radioactive materials by licensing and overseeing medical, academic,
and industrial and research users; nuclear waste and spent fuel storage
facilities; certifying storage and transportation containers;
responding to events; and overseeing decontamination and
decommissioning activities. In addition, under authority provided in
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the agency has agreements
with 37 States under which those States assume regulatory
responsibility for the use of certain radioactive materials. Combined,
the NRC and the Agreement States oversee over 21,000 material
licensees. The NRC further enhances its regulatory program through
coordination and cooperation with other Federal agencies, States,
Tribes, and international organizations and foreign governments.
the changing regulatory environment
Before I get into the specifics of the NRC's fiscal year 2016
budget request, I would like to take a moment to address the NRC's
efforts to address the changing environment in which we now find
ourselves. Since 2001, the agency has grown significantly to enhance
security and incident response and to prepare for the projected growth
in the use of 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 responsible use of resources. The Congress has
charged the NRC with a critical mission to ensure adequate protection
of public health and safety and the common defense and security, and
the NRC can never lose sight of this mission. Still, the agency can and
should maintain focus on our mission while also taking a responsible
and hard look at whether it is effectively using resources.
The NRC has proactively taken steps to address these issues in its
regulatory processes, budget, and fee collections.
I start with the NRC's budget. The NRC's fiscal year 2016 proposed
budget reflects the NRC's efforts to demonstrate its responsiveness to
the new environment in which we find ourselves. Continuing with trends
that began in fiscal year 2014, the fiscal year 2016 budget request
reflects a reduction in both dollars and full time equivalents from
budget proposals in recent years.
In addition, the NRC's proposed fiscal year 2015 fee rule, which
will be published for public comment in the coming weeks, will include
estimates for reductions in licensee annual and hourly fees that we
expect in our final fee rule. For power reactors, the estimated annual
fees will be $4.75 million per reactor which is down 5 percent from
fiscal year 2014. The NRC hourly rate is estimated at $268 in fiscal
year 2015, a drop from $279 in fiscal year 2104. These decreases are
primarily due to a reduced fiscal year 2015 Enacted Budget which allows
the NRC to utilize prior year carryover funds providing available
resources to meet the NRC's mission requirements. The fiscal year 2015
Enacted Budget also decreases 26.5 FTE from fiscal year 2014. These
savings were realized from projected workload reductions and overhead
efficiency measures. The fiscal year 2015 proposed fee rule will also
reflect a positive increase in the agency's staff productivity
assumption of 1,375 hours in fiscal year 2014 to 1,420 hours in fiscal
year 2015.
The NRC continues to focus on the transparency of the NRC Fee Rule
and has recently received a benchmarking report to assist us in looking
at the fee practices of other regulatory agencies. The NRC will hold a
public meeting on the fiscal year 2015 proposed fee rule during the
comment period to engage with stakeholders on our methodology and
presentation of license fees. This is a priority for our Chief
Financial Officer.
Perhaps the most significant NRC undertaking with respect to the
changing regulatory environment is Project Aim 2020. The NRC launched
Project Aim 2020 in June 2014 to enhance the agency's ability to plan
and execute its mission while adapting in a timely and effective manner
to a dynamic environment.
The Project Aim 2020 team gathered perspectives from internal and
external stakeholders to forecast the future workload and operating
environment in 2020. Based on analysis of these perspectives, and an
evaluation of the NRC's current State compared to the anticipated
future State, the staff identified key strategies and recommendations
to transform the agency over the next 5 years to improve the
effectiveness, efficiency, and agility of the NRC. The staff's efforts
are reflected in its report that was provided to the Commission on
January 30, 2015.
The Commission considers this report to be the beginning of a
dialogue about the future of the NRC. In that spirit, and in an effort
to emphasize the NRC's seriousness, the Commission made the report
available to the public on February 18. In addition, the Commission was
also briefed by the NRC staff on the report in a public meeting that
occurred on the same day. Advance copies of the report were also
provided directly to our Congressional appropriations and oversight
committees.
I will not go into great detail on the Project Aim 2020 report
except to note that it concludes that the NRC needs to function more
efficiently by: right-sizing the agency while retaining appropriate
skill sets needed to accomplish its mission; streamlining agency
processes to use resources more wisely; improving timeliness in
regulatory decisionmaking and responding quickly to changing
conditions; and promoting unity of purpose with clearer agency-wide
priorities.
I speak for my colleagues when I tell you that each member of the
Commission wants to be timely in acting on this report, but it also
wants to do so deliberately and smartly. Although the NRC recognizes
the need for change, it also is keenly aware that major organizational
change, if not done wisely, can have a detrimental effect on the
agency's mission and on the morale of its employees. The NRC has a
critical mission and some of the most dedicated, knowledgeable, and
highly-respected employees in the Federal Government. I can tell you
from my own recent international experience, the NRC is respected as a
world-class organization.
I cannot emphasize enough that the NRC's ability to protect public
health and safety and the common defense and security will always be
our main concern. Nevertheless, we can and should take a hard look at
how to ensure the agency carries out its mission effectively while also
being more efficient and fiscally responsible.
Project Aim 2020 is but one part of the self-assessment the NRC has
undertaken in recognition of the changing environment. For instance,
over the last several years, the Commission has revised its rulemaking
processes to understand, and if 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.
In addition, the NRC has sought industry volunteers to perform case
studies on the accuracy of cost and schedule estimates used in NRC's
regulatory analyses. Based on those results, additional regulatory
analysis process enhancements are planned to improve cost estimating.
We believe that applying these process enhancements will result in a
better understanding of the implementation costs associated with new
regulations for operating reactors.
With respect to cost benefit analysis, I note that the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) recently completed a report that concluded
the NRC needs to improve its cost estimating practices. Although the
NRC did not agree with all of GAO's specific recommendations, it did
agree generally that the NRC's regulatory analyses practices could be
improved, and has started to take steps, as described above, to do so.
In sum, as these examples have shown, the Commission is very
cognizant of our changing environment and is committed to taking a hard
look at itself to ensure that it is prepared for the future as it now
appears to exist.
fiscal year 2016 budget request
The NRC's fiscal year 2016 budget request provides the necessary
resources for to carry out the agency's mission for the American
public. The NRC's proposed fiscal year 2016 budget is $1,032.2 million,
including 3,754 full-time equivalents (FTE).
To fully understand the fiscal year 2016 proposed budget in
relation to the fiscal year 2015 Enacted Budget one must consider the
unique funding scenario for the NRC in the Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015. The fiscal year 2015
Appropriation Act reduced the fiscal year 2015 budget request for
salaries and expenses by $44.2 million to account for fee-based
unobligated carryover and a recognition of reduced workload and agency
productivity and efficiency gains. It also authorized the Commission to
reallocate the agency's unobligated prior-year carryover to supplement
its fiscal year 2015 appropriations. As a result, while the fiscal year
2016 Budget represents a $16.9 million increase over the fiscal year
2015 Enacted Budget, the NRC's total available resources in fiscal year
2015 are $1,049.5 million. For essentially the same workload with the
exception of the University Grants program, the NRC's fiscal year 2016
budget request is $17.3 million less (including a reduction of 37.5
FTE) compared to the total available fiscal year 2015 resources.
The NRC Office of Inspector General (OIG) component of the fiscal
year 2016 proposed budget is $12.1 million, including 63 FTE. The OIG
budget includes approximately $11.2 million for auditing and
investigation activities for NRC programs, and $1.0 million for the
auditing and investigations activities of the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB). These resources will allow the OIG to
carry out the Inspector General's mission to independently and
objectively conduct audits and investigations to ensure the efficiency
and integrity of NRC and DNFSB programs and operations, 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's fiscal year 2016 budget request provides
for 90 percent fee recovery, less the amounts appropriated for, (1)
waste incidental to reprocessing activities under Section 3116 of the
Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
2005, (2) generic homeland security activities, and (3) DNFSB
activities. Accordingly, approximately $910 million of the fiscal year
2016 budget request will be recovered from fees assessed to NRC
licensees. This will result in a net appropriation of $122 million.
The NRC continues to look for cost savings at the agency and has
taken cuts in overhead for the last 5 years. While the available
resources are comparable for fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016, the
NRC's fiscal year 2016 workload changes and efficiency savings allows
the agency to fund fact-of-life increases without an increase to the
overall budget. The NRC's fiscal year 2016 budget request reflects the
Office of Management and Budget guideline of a 1.3 percent increase in
salaries and benefits for a cost of living increase and accommodates
routine contract cost escalations.. The budget also adheres to
commitments to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
for NRC space usage. In fiscal year 2016, all NRC Headquarters
employees will be located in the three buildings of the White Flint
Campus and the Food and Drug Administration will occupy eight floors of
the newest building. NRC will continue to occupy five floors including
the Operations Center, Professional Development Center for staff
training courses, and the Data Center as well as office space to
support those programs.
I would now like to highlight the following portions of the fiscal
year 2016 Budget Request.
nuclear reactor safety
Operating Reactors
The Operating Reactors Business Line encompasses the regulation of
100 operating civilian nuclear power reactors and 31 research and test
reactors. The fiscal year 2016 budget request for Operating Reactors is
$601.7 million, which represents an overall funding decrease of $10.4
million when compared with the fiscal year 2015 Available Resources..
This funding level supports completing work related to implementation
of the lessons learned from the nuclear accident at the Fukushima
nuclear power plant in Japan, work on topical reports, and reducing the
number of pending licensing actions.
New Reactors
The New Reactors Business Line is responsible for the regulatory
activities associated with locating, licensing, and overseeing
construction of new nuclear power reactors. The fiscal year 2016 budget
request for New Reactors is $191.7 million, which represents an overall
funding decrease of $5 million when compared with the fiscal year 2015
Available Resources. The decrease is a result of delays in application
submittals, and project slowdowns or suspensions.
nuclear materials and waste safety
Fuel Facilities
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.
The fiscal year 2016 budget request for Fuel Facilities is $51.5
million, which represents an overall funding increase of $0.8 million
when compared with the fiscal year 2015 Available Resources.
Nuclear Materials Users
The Nuclear Materials Users Business Line supports the safe and
secure possession, processing, handling, and the many diverse uses of
nuclear materials, along with associated licensing, oversight,
rulemaking, international activities, research, generic homeland
security, event response, and State, Tribal, and Federal Program
activities.
The fiscal year 2016 budget request for Nuclear Material Users is
$87.4 million, which represents an overall funding decrease of $1.7
million when compared with the fiscal year 2015 Available Resources.
Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation
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.
The fiscal year 2016 budget request for Spent Fuel Storage and
Transportation is $43.8 million, which represents an overall funding
decrease of $2.4 million when compared with the fiscal year 2015
Available Resources. The decrease is in the oversight, research, and
rulemaking areas and does not represent a significant change in work
scope.
Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste
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 release of
the property and termination of the NRC license, and disposition of
low-level radioactive waste from all civilian sources.
The fiscal year 2016 budget request for Decommissioning and Low-
Level Waste is $44.1 million, which represents an overall funding
increase of $1.5 million when compared with the fiscal year 2015
Available Resources. The increase reflects greater resource needs to
support oversight of decommissioning of power reactors and uranium
recovery facilities licensing activities.
closing
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my formal testimony on the
NRC's fiscal year 2016 budget request. On behalf of the Commission, I
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. I look forward to
continuing to work with you to advance the NRC's important safety and
security missions. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that
you may have. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Chairman Burns. Commissioner
Svinicki.
STATEMENT OF KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, COMMISSIONER, U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Ms. Svinicki. Thank you, Chairman Alexander and Ranking
Member Feinstein, for the opportunity to appear before you this
afternoon. Our Commission's chairman, Stephen Burns, in his
statement on behalf of our Commission has provided a
description of the Agency's budget request as well as key
Agency accomplishments and challenges in carrying out NRC's
important mission, that of protecting public health and safety
and promoting the common defense and security. In light of his
summary, I will simply look forward to your questions. Thank
you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kristine L. Svinicki
Thank you, Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, and
members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to appear before you.
The Commission's Chairman, Stephen Burns, in his statement on behalf of
the Commission, has provided a description of the agency's budget
request, as well as key agency accomplishments and challenges in
carrying out the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC's) important
mission of protecting public health and safety and promoting the common
defense and security of our Nation.
I look forward to your questions on these topics. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF, COMMISSIONER, U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Ostendorff. Good afternoon, Chairman Alexander and----
Senator Alexander. Commissioner Ostendorff.
Mr. Ostendorff [continuing]. Ranking Member Feinstein. This
is my first chance to testify before this committee, and I am
grateful for the opportunity. I would like to acknowledge that
this is Chairman Burns' first appearance before Congress in his
new role as chairman, and we are very pleased to have him
leading this Commission.
The chairman has already provided an overview of the NRC's
changing--the changing environment and steps we are taking to
improve operations through Project AIM. I am in complete
alignment with his testimony. I will, however, make three very
brief points in the next few minutes.
The first concerns the status of post-Fukushima safety
enhancements. Along with Commissioner Svinicki, I have been
involved in all of the Commission's decisionmaking related to
what safety changes we should require as a result of the
operating experience from Fukushima. I clearly recall visiting
Watts Bar with Senator Alexander just a few weeks after the
Fukushima event. Looking back over the actions NRC has taken
over the past 4 years as a result of Fukushima lessons learned,
I firmly believe the Agency has acted on a foundational basis
of solid science and engineering.
We have appropriately given highest priority to those tier
one items associated with the greatest safety significance. I
will not go in any details here, but will make two very brief
comments. First, as a former Rickover era nuclear submarine
officer, and I spent 16 out of 26 years on sea duty operating
nuclear power plants on submarines, based on experience and my
experience as a Commissioner, I am very confident in the NRC's
safety actions we require post-Fukushima. And, second, as I
compare our actions and approach to that of the broader
international community, I am convinced we continue to be a
world leader in nuclear safety.
My second point relates to licensing of new reactors. When
I was sworn in as a commissioner on April 1st of 2010, NRC was
reviewing license applications for 26 reactors. As a member of
the Commission these past 5 years, I have voted to approve the
design certifications for the Westinghouse Safety 1000, the
combined construction operating licenses for Summer and Vogtle.
More recently, I voted to approve the GE-Hitachi Economic
Simplified Boiling Reactor Design certification.
But today we are in a different place, as Chairman Burns
noted. Rather than reviewing 26 reactor applications as we were
5 years ago, today we are reviewing seven applications for a
total of 11 reactors. I need not inform this committee of the
significant fact of life changes the nuclear industry has faced
since the heady days of a projected nuclear renaissance circa
2005-2008. The unexpected leap in shale gas reserves,
concurrent plummet in natural gas prices, flat or declining
electricity demand in certain areas, and other economic factors
have dramatically changed the landscape for projected nuclear
generation capacity.
While fully supporting achieving greater Agency
efficiencies in the Project AIM arena, both this Commission as
well as this committee and the broader Congress need to work
together to ensure that we do not lose those critical skill
sets used by our highly technical staff to review and license
new reactor technologies in the future. To do otherwise would
negatively impact our Nation's ability to pursue nuclear
technology options in the future. We should not let that
happen.
My third and final point concerns Yucca Mountain. As
evidenced in your statement, Senator Alexander, Senator
Feinstein, I know that you are very interested in our Nation's
spent fuel and disposal challenge, and we appreciate your
leadership in that area. I am very proud of our NRC's staff
work to complete and publish the final safety and evaluation
report for Yucca Mountain in January of this year. The Yucca
Mountain Safety Evaluation Report involved highly technical and
complex issues. Our staff successfully met the challenge and
did its job. We now look forward to progress towards a long-
term spent nuclear fuel disposal solution as mandated by the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act or that act as it may be amended going
forward.
In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today
and look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William C. Ostendorff
Good afternoon Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein and
distinguished members of the subcommittee.
This is my first time to testify before this Committee--I am
grateful for the opportunity. I would also like to acknowledge that
this is Chairman Burns first appearance before Congress in his new role
as Chairman. We are very pleased to have him leading the Commission.
The Chairman has already provided an overview of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) budget, the changing environment, and
steps we're taking to improve the operations of the NRC through project
AIM. I am in complete alignment with his testimony
I will make three brief points in the next few minutes that I
believe are relevant to this Committee.
The first concerns the status of post-Fukushima safety
enhancements. Along with Commissioner Svinicki, I have been involved in
all of the Commission's decisionmaking related to what safety changes
we should require as a result of the operating experience from the
tragic earthquake and tsunami in Japan 4 years ago. I clearly recall
visiting Watts Bar with Senator Alexander just a few weeks after the
Fukushima event.
Looking back over the actions the NRC has taken over the past 4
years as a result of Fukushima lessons learned, I firmly believe the
agency has acted on a foundational basis of solid science and
engineering. We have appropriately given highest priority to the Tier
One items associated with greatest safety significance. I will not go
into any details here--the Chairman's testimony does that. I will make
two comments. First, as a former Rickover era nuclear submarine officer
who spent 16 out of my 26 years in the Navy operating submarine reactor
plants, I am confident in the NRC's safety actions post-Fukushima. And
second, as I compare our actions and approach to that of the broader
international community, I am convinced we continue to be a world
leader in nuclear safety.
My second point relates to licensing of new reactors. When I was
sworn in as a Commissioner April 1, 2010, the NRC was reviewing license
applications for 26 reactors. As a member of the Commission these past
5 years, I have voted to approve design certifications for the
Westinghouse AP 1000 design certification, Summer and Vogtle combined
construction/operating licenses (or COL's) and more recently, I voted
to approve the design certification for the GE-Hitachi Economic
Simplified Boiling Water Reactor. The math is simple. Rather than
currently reviewing 26 minus 4 or 22 COLs, we are reviewing 9
applications. I need not inform this Committee the significant fact of
life changes the nuclear industry has faced since the heady days of a
rumored nuclear renaissance circa 20052008. The unexpected leap in
shale gas reserves and concurrent plummet in natural gas prices, flat
or declining electricity demand in certain areas and other economic
factors have dramatically changed the landscape for projected nuclear
generation capacity. While fully supporting achieving greater agency
efficiencies in the Project AIM arena, we--both the Commission and
Congress--need to work together to ensure that we do not lose those
critical skills sets used by our highly technical staff to review and
license new reactor technologies, including Small Modular Reactors, as
we proceed in the months and years ahead. To do otherwise would
negatively impact our Nation's ability to pursue nuclear technology
options in the future. We should not let that happen.
My third and final point concerns Yucca Mountain. I know that this
Committee is keenly interested in solving our Nation's spent fuel
disposal challenge. I have spoken over the past few years to both
Senator Alexander and Senator Feinstein and your staffs on the topic of
spent fuel. I am proud of our staff's work to complete and publish the
final safety evaluation report for Yucca Mountain in January of this
year. The Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation Report involved highly
technical and complex issues--our staff successfully met the technical
challenge and did its job. We now look forward to progress towards a
long-term spent nuclear fuel disposal solution as mandated by the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts
with you today and look forward to your questions.
Senator Alexander. Thank you. Commissioner Baran.
STATEMENT OF JEFF BARAN, COMMISSIONER, U.S. NUCLEAR
REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Baran. Thank you. Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member
Feinstein, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear today before the subcommittee. It is a
pleasure to be here with my colleagues to discuss NRC's fiscal
year 2016 budget request and the work of the Commission.
First and foremost, NRC is focused on our mission of
protecting public health and safety, yet the Agency faces a
different environment than what was expected just a few years
ago when substantial new reactor construction was anticipated
and no licensees had yet announced plans to shut down any
reactors. To meet our responsibilities now and in the future,
we need to enhance the efficiency, effectiveness, and agility
of the Agency.
In order to avoid disrupting the Agency's work, it is
important to set a thoughtful trajectory to the appropriate
resource and staffing levels over the next few years. We need
to make sure that we do a good job matching resources to
expected workload. Before I joined the Commission, my
colleagues had the foresight to initiate Project AIM, the
internal working group tasked with looking at the challenges--
or changes rather--NRC should make to prepare for the future.
This is a valuable and timely effort. The results of the team's
work were recently submitted to the Commission, and we are
actively deliberating on the recommendations.
While we work to increase the Agency's efficiency and
agility, we need to ensure that NRC also maintains its focus on
its ongoing safety work. Currently, five new reactors are being
built in the United States, and five reactors recently ceased
operations and are entering decommissioning. At the
construction sites, NRC is conducting oversight to ensure that
the new plants are built safely and in accordance with
regulatory requirements. For the decommissioning plants, the
Agency reviews requests for exemptions from some of the
requirements that apply to operating plants. Meanwhile, the NRC
staff is beginning a rulemaking to take a fresh look at a
number of decommissioning issues.
NRC is continuing to address post-Fukushima safety
enhancements and lessons learned. Progress has been made in
several areas, as my colleagues recognized, but we also
recognize that more work remains to be done. NRC also is
responsible for having an efficient and effective licensing
process for new designs and facilities. While NRC continues its
work on pending applications for new reactors, we need to be
ready to accept and review applications submitted for new
technologies. We are expecting to receive the first application
for a small modular reactor in 2016. NRC is already reviewing
an application for a new production facility for medical
isotopes, and anticipates additional applications of this type
in the future.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeff Baran
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today before the
Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be
here with my colleagues to discuss Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
(NRC's) fiscal year 2016 budget request and the work of the Commission.
First and foremost, NRC is focused on our mission of protecting
public health and safety. Yet the agency faces a different environment
than what was expected just a few years ago when substantial new
reactor construction was anticipated and no licensees had yet announced
plans to shut down any reactors. To meet our responsibilities now and
in the future, we need to enhance the efficiency, effectiveness, and
agility of the agency. In order to avoid disrupting the agency's work,
it is important to set a thoughtful trajectory to the appropriate
resource and staffing levels over the next few years. We need to make
sure that we do a good job matching resources to expected workload.
Before I joined the Commission, my colleagues had the foresight to
initiate Project Aim, an internal working group tasked with looking at
the changes NRC should make to prepare for the future. This is a
valuable and timely effort. The results of the team's work were
recently submitted to the Commission and we are actively deliberating
on their recommendations.
While we work to increase the agency's efficiency and agility, we
need to ensure that NRC also maintains its focus on its ongoing safety
work.
Currently, five new reactors are being built in the U.S. and five
reactors recently ceased operations and are entering decommissioning.
At the construction sites, NRC is conducting oversight to ensure that
the new plants are built safely and in accordance with regulatory
requirements. For the decommissioning plants, the agency reviews
requests for exemptions from some of the requirements that apply to
operating plants. Meanwhile, the NRC staff is beginning a rulemaking to
take a fresh look at a number of decommissioning issues.
NRC is continuing to address post-Fukushima safety enhancements and
lessons learned. Progress has been made in several areas, but we
recognize that more work remains to be done.
NRC also is responsible for having an efficient and effective
licensing process for new designs and facilities. While NRC continues
its work on pending applications for new reactors, we need to be ready
to accept and review applications submitted for new technologies. We
are expecting to receive the first application for a small modular
reactor in 2016. NRC already is reviewing an application for a new
production facility for medical isotopes and anticipates additional
applications of this type in the future.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Commissioner Baran. We have
been joined by Senator Murkowski, who is chairman of the Energy
Committee. And, Senator Murkowski, Senator Feinstein and I have
already commented on how we have worked with you on nuclear
waste. And I wonder if you have a statement that you would like
to make before we begin our questions.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the opportunity to just say briefly a couple of words here.
First, thank you for this hearing, as well as a series of
others that relate to our nuclear oversight and what your
subcommittee certainly has jurisdiction over. I am hopeful that
I can attend more of these because I do feel that it is
imperative that as we look to our energy portfolio as a Nation
that we be working actively to advance the nuclear portfolio
when it comes to our energy needs and our energy security.
And, Commissioner Ostendorff, you mentioned kind of where
we are currently in a post-Fukushima world with the low cost of
natural gas and the direction that is moving things. This is
something that I have long felt that the United States has
started to take a back seat when it comes to our leadership
role in advancing nuclear energy and the manufacturing end of
it, the workforce development, and I do not think that we
should be going backwards in this regard. I think we need to
assert that leadership and do so in a way that is smart and
safe, but again, really recognizing our full potential there.
And that is one of the reasons why I have enthusiastically
joined the Senator from California and the chairman of this
appropriations subcommittee in trying to figure out how we do
deal with the waste end of our nuclear situation and solution
in this country. And I am hopeful that along with Senator
Cantwell, we will be able to advance some of the constructive
ideas that have come from the Blue Ribbon Commission that we
have attempted to put into our legislation, build that out, and
ensure that we continue to have a leadership role with regards
how we address nuclear energy in this country.
So I look forward to more of these conversations and look
forward to the opportunity to ask a few questions this
afternoon. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. I know you
have other commitments this afternoon, and thank you for making
time to come. We know the difference between an authorizing
committee and an appropriations committee, and we are the
appropriations and you are the authorizing, and I am proud to
also be a member of your committee. I would like for the
Commission to know we are working hand-in-hand in this effort.
While we have a nuclear waste proposal that will go through
Senator Murkowski's committee, for the last two Congresses we
have also had through our Appropriations Committee, of which
she is also a member, a pilot project with her support and
agreement to try to advance our nuclear waste efforts on two
different fronts. So I appreciate her attitude, and we will
look forward to working with her.
Of course, Senator Feinstein's passion and urgency for
getting the nuclear waste out of the sites in California where
reactors are not operating in the 78 sites, getting it out of
spent fuel and dry cask to a single--the easiest way to do that
would be to take it all to Yucca Mountain. I mean, it is there,
the law says that is where the waste is supposed to go, and the
science now says it is safe. And the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia in 2013--directed the Commission to
resume its licensing activities for Yucca Mountain.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN LICENSING
So, Mr. Chairman, is the Commission complying with that
ruling?
Mr. Burns. Yes, Senator, I believe we are. As a result of
the court ruling, the court directed the NRC to expend the--
what was in effect--carryover funds that it had remaining and
had not expended at that respect, and to continue with Yucca
Mountain activities. What the Agency did do is it completed the
SER, I think as you noted during your statement. Recently, the
Commission approved going forward to complete a supplemental
environmental impact statement on certain issues. This was in
part because the Department of Energy declined to do so. But
with the funding we have left, and it was otherwise appropriate
for us to do that EIS, and there are some other activities.
I think that is on the order of something like about $4
million that is left from that funding, but at that point, we
have no other funding. And as the court indicates, the funding,
notwithstanding the authorizations in the Waste Policy Act, it
does also depend on further appropriation of money to the
various agencies.
Senator Alexander. Is the next step after the environmental
impact statement restarting the hearings before the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board?
Mr. Burns. Yes, that is essentially correct.
Senator Alexander. And what will that cost, and do you have
the money to do that?
Mr. Burns. I think the Agency, and I would ask my two
colleagues who are here before I return to the Agency to
correct me if I am wrong. I think the Agency has provided an
estimate of something like $330 million for the completion of--
an estimate of completion of Yucca Mountain related activities.
Mr. Ostendorff. I would just like to add to the chairman's
statement, there are approximately 280 legal contentions that
would need to be dispositioned by the Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board. That dollar estimate is an estimate. It is not
a precise number because the adjudication litigation process
sometimes is difficult to predict.
Senator Alexander. So to understand, you are saying roughly
to complete all of the activities between now and opening of
Yucca Mountain, it would be $330 million?
Mr. Burns. For the decision, yes. For the decision on the
licensing decision that the Agency is--which is part of our
regulatory----
Senator Alexander. So the last step before the opening of
Yucca Mountain is the issuing of a license. Is that right?
Mr. Burns. Well, the license is a construction
authorization. There is another--under the Waste Policy Act,
there is another--basically an operating license. But to take
it to a point toward construction----
Senator Alexander. Oh, okay. Is the $330 million just for
the construction license?
Mr. Burns. It is for, yes, this phase.
Ms. Svinicki. I should note, Mr. Chairman, as well that I
believe those are NRC's costs of $330 million. The applicant,
which is the Department of Energy in this case, would have
their own costs for supporting that adjudicatory proceeding.
Senator Alexander. The President's budget estimates the
Nuclear Waste Fund has a balance of $36 billion at the
beginning of fiscal year 2016. How much of that Waste Fund paid
in by utilities collected from electric bills could you use for
these costs associated with completing Yucca Mountain?
Mr. Burns. Well, the amounts that are collected in the
Waste Fund have to be appropriated to the Agency. We do not
have an authorization to just to tap the Waste Fund.
Senator Alexander. So you need for us to act to be able to
use those funds.
Mr. Burns. You would need--yes, correct.
PILOT PROGRAM FOR CONSENT-BASED STORAGE
Senator Alexander. Let me shift gears just a little bit. If
we were--if Senator Feinstein, and I, and Senator Murkowski
were to include in the energy and water appropriation bill
again this year a pilot program for consent-based storage of
nuclear waste, are you prepared to act quickly if this becomes
law? And give me a little idea about what has to happen if we--
assuming we pass--assuming that becomes law, then what happens?
I think you have an application, for example.
Mr. Burns. Well, for example, we have an application or are
about to get an application from a private corporation that is
interested in building a storage--above-ground storage facility
in the western part of Texas. We have the capability----
Senator Alexander. So that could be--that could be a
consolidated site, not a temporary? That could be a repository
of the kind envisioned by the pilot program that Senator
Feinstein talked about.
Mr. Burns. As I understand it, it could be there. There are
probably changes in the law in order to authorize it, but that
is something you could address in your--in your legislation.
Senator Alexander. Well, is the first step for it to then--
if that application were to come in, is the step then for you
to give a rule on whether or not it gets licensed or not? Is
that the----
Mr. Burns. Well, I think we would have a responsibility
regardless of, I think, the change to review the application
and make a decision on it. If there are other aspects because
of other changes in statute that would affect how it could be
used, we would certainly take those into consideration.
Senator Alexander. Well, my time is up, but is there
anything more that you could say to the three of us about, are
you prepared if we pass the pilot program to do the
Commission's part to implement it as rapidly as you could in a
safe and reliable way?
Mr. Burns. I do not think it is in the budget. We do not
have funding in the budget or in our request, so that would--
you know, obviously that would have to be addressed. And I have
to say, just if you would also give us the opportunity to look
at it, and we could advise you in terms of what it means in
terms of our processes. What I want to leave you with is,
again, the basic idea we have the capability to do this kind of
technical review.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me go to
Senator Feinstein. But I will ask staff to work with you and
your staff to make sure that as we write language for the
appropriations bill that we write it in a way that takes
advantage of your technical advice so that we--so that we speed
things up rather than slow things down.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Well, thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Burns, essentially what you are saying, if I
understand it, is that there is now a voluntary proposal to
provide a pilot nuclear waste facility in Texas. And so, there
could be a place that is voluntary that people wanted if such a
pilot facility were authorized by law. Is that correct?
Mr. Burns. That is correct. We expect to get the--an
application in the near future.
Senator Feinstein. Good. Good. I am happy to hear that. So
other than us authorizing it, there is nothing else that is
necessary from the Federal Government. Is that correct?
Mr. Burns. As I say, I think in terms of your
authorization, I think you would need to look--part of that
would be looking at the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which I
presume you would do, in terms of conforming changes. But off
the top of my head, I cannot think of anything else.
Senator Feinstein. Here is the thing. Pardon me?
Senator Alexander. Mr. Baran----
Senator Feinstein. Oh, sorry, I did not see that. Please.
Mr. Baran. No problem at all. I would just add, if what is
contemplated in Texas is consolidated internal storage whereby
the Department of Energy would contract with that eventual
applicant to take the spent fuel from various locations around
the country, then presumably the Department of Energy would
also need appropriations from Congress to enter into that
contract with the potential applicant we would have. That is
not the NRC part of this, but it is a piece of it.
Senator Feinstein. Right, and I think we understand that,
so I appreciate your making it clear. That is good.
Let me--for the past 30 years, it is my understanding that
you have allowed the licensing of nuclear power plants based on
the assumption that a permanent disposal site for waste would
be available within a reasonable timeframe. And as I understand
it, the Court of Appeals in 2012 required you to consider the
health and safety impacts of the possibility that a disposal
site might never be available. Is that correct?
Mr. Burns. Yes, I think that is correct.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. And so, the fact remains that the
NRC in its final rule digressed from 30 years of regulatory
precedent by allowing licensing actions to proceed without
concrete plans for a disposal site in the foreseeable future. I
gather that is correct.
Mr. Burns. Well, the decision--the decision that was made
after the court decision--what the court decision said is that
in the context it faced then, that the earlier so-called waste
confidence findings that the Agency had made since the late
1970s or the early 1980s, it would not satisfy. Recall, too,
that the basic finding with respect to waste confidence or
continued storage really deals with the Commission's
environmental review. It is a piece of environmental review for
individual licensing actions.
What the Agency did is in the absence of a firm date, if
you will, for a repository, it looked at the environmental
impacts of continued storage at sites. And, again, it is not a
decision that the Agency is making that that is the preferred
way of going, but looking at it, that the impacts are small and
did not prevent the continued licensing of facilities. That is
essentially what it is. And in that decision, we recently acted
on some petitions related to that position, and I believe we
are probably going to be taken to court again on that.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. And the rods now in spent fuels
that you say are safe essentially forever, I guess, are you
saying that they are safe for a millennium in spent fuels, and
that you can predict that there will be no catastrophic earth
movement, which has characterized planet earth over the
millenniums? Is that essentially what you are saying?
Mr. Burns. No. I think what I am saying is that with
respect to storage, and storage at sites takes into
consideration site characteristics, various phenomenon, part of
our looking at, you know, seismic flooding, things like that,
will take those issues into account. Eventually, spent fuel, it
does decay. For example, part of the reason to move it is that
some sites choose and choose fairly early on to move it to
dry--what we call dry storage is that it no longer needs to be
in a pool.
But because of the decay, because of the characteristics of
it, the staff and the Agency has made the determination it can
be safely stored. Whether that, again, from a national policy
perspective is the preferred long-term solution, I am not
saying that. What, again, I am saying is we have made the
technical judgment that it is safe as it is.
Senator Feinstein. Okay, I understand that. My time is up.
If there is a second round, I will----
Senator Alexander. There will be as many rounds as you
would like to have. Senator Murkowski, if I may ask a
clarifying question. I think I confused an issue. Mr. Chairman,
is it correct that if this application from West Texas
materializes, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approves
the application, that that applicant can then begin to receive
spent fuel from any of the 78 sites around the country without
any further action by us?
Mr. Burns. I believe that is correct, and, again, in
accordance with the terms of the license that would be issued.
Senator Alexander. So, Senator Feinstein, did you--I was
confusing--if the Texas application is approved----
Senator Feinstein. Right.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. They can go into business--
--
Senator Feinstein. Good.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. Without any further
action----
Senator Feinstein. Oh, that is good.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. By us is the way I--is the
way I understand it.
Senator Feinstein. Even now without passing the bill?
Senator Alexander. Even now without passing our bill,
correct?
Mr. Burns. That would be my understanding.
Senator Feinstein. Good.
Mr. Burns. I would note, for example, that the Agency had
an application several years ago for a private--it did not--it
was called private fuel storage. It was in Utah. Ultimately a
decision was made not to build it. But the Agency licensed--
approved the licensing of that several years ago. It may have
been a decade ago.
Senator Alexander. That is important for us to know and
understand, so if as we go along this afternoon there is a
different answer to that, let us know. And we will go to
Senator Murkowski.
DOD TESTING AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN
Senator Murkowski. I wanted to ask about something that has
come up in the news recently about possible Department of
Defense interest in conducting some tests at Yucca Mountain. I
for one have concerns with the possibility that Yucca would be
used for anything other than the statutory use as a repository
for the spent nuclear fuel and our high level defense waste.
Has anyone from DOD been in contact with you at the NRC
regarding using Yucca Mountain for purposes other than as a
repository?
Mr. Burns. I am not aware of that. My executive director
for operations, the chief officer is shaking his head no. I am
not aware.
Senator Murkowski. I am sure you have seen the same story.
Mr. Burns. My information is what I read, probably the same
thing you read in the newspaper.
SMALL MODULAR REACTORS
Senator Murkowski. Yes, okay. Well, I am trying to chase
rumors, so if anybody has more detailed information, I think it
would be helpful to know.
I wanted to ask quickly about where we are with SMRs, small
modular reactors. You have indicated that the Commission is
preparing to review the license applications. Kind of give me
some updates. What are the barriers right now, whether
legislative or regulatory, that could delay approval of the
SMRs?
Mr. Burns. Well, we expect--as I said in my opening
testimony, we expect to receive an application in 2016 from one
of those who indicated an interest. Some of it has been,
frankly, changing interest in terms of the market. I think a
lot of these things are probably outside the NRC's ken in terms
of what the interest is and potentially buying or procuring it.
I mean, our staff--what I would say, Senator, is that our
staff has engaged with those who have indicated interest in the
technology. We had a paper that came up several years ago,
actually before I left the NRC in 2012, to address some of the
issues. I think there are some issues we need to work through,
but I think we have been responsive in terms of assuring that
we--both through the licensing process and also regulatory
criteria.
And particularly for what we are seeing, which are
basically light water reactor based, the technology. What I
have said in some of the public speeches and all, is looking
down the path, to the extent you get smaller reactors or
technologies in the non-light water reactor, what we call--
sometimes call generation four reactors, there is some work
that needs to be done there. DoE has worked cooperatively with
the industry. We are looking at a report related to that. And I
think we are open to do that over the next few----
Senator Murkowski. Does that review also include then the
export possibility and ensuring that the licensing process will
make it easier to export our SMRs to other countries? Do you
consider that?
Mr. Burns. I might have to come back to you on the record
for that.
Senator Murkowski. Okay.
Mr. Burns. What I would say is generally, and looking at
the experience we have had with the larger reactor technology,
for example, the Westinghouse AP1000, General Electric ABWR. We
have certified those under our rules, and a lot of--the
countries who have been interested, for example, Japan and
China, who have built--have been building that technology, they
often look to our certification to do that.
So I think the basic subject or perhaps--I was thinking
about some discussion with our staff. I think the basics there
for export, the basic construct is there. And what often you
find is that the NRC's design review is considered a seal of
approval that is often recognized around the world.
COMPLIANCE COSTS
Senator Murkowski. With my remaining time, I wanted to
touch on just the cost of compliance with the NRC regulations.
As we speak to how we are going to move to this nuclear
renaissance that we once talked about so freely, it is
seemingly the cost of regulations that is the big barrier to
market for new nuclear projects. So what aspects of the
regulatory process can we modernize, can we streamline, can we
just be more efficient? How can we do a better job with this?
Mr. Burns. Well, one of the things the Commission started a
few years ago, again, was an effort nominally called cumulative
effects of regulation. And it was a way of trying to look at
the impact as regulations are proposed or developed, and in
terms of either staging, you know, the significance or the
value added, if you will. And some of that effort has continued
in communication with industry, and I think the Commission is
going to receive a paper or some information from the staff
later this month or next month that, again, includes comments
from stakeholders, industry and others.
One other thing I would do is that--we are trying to do as
well is we had a GAO report that critiqued the Agency in terms
of its cost benefit analysis. We might have some disagreements,
particular areas of disagreement with it. But we are looking at
that and doing things to improve our cost benefit analysis
where that is appropriate in the regulatory sphere.
Ms. Svinicki. Well, Chairman Burns did mention cost benefit
analysis. Just to put a finer point on that, it had been
pointed out to NRC that looking retrospectively at things that
we had put in place and the Agency's own cost estimates for
what it would cost the regulated community to put them in
place. We were confronted with data from the industry that
showed in some cases we were 10 orders of magnitude low. And,
of course, this gets into an impact's cumulative effect of
regulation so much because if our analyses of cost benefit are
not accurate, then we will impose things where, if we had
better cost estimates, we would find that the benefits do not
exceed the costs. And so, I think one of the most basic things
that regulatory agencies can do is to continue to refine and
improve cost benefit analyses techniques.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. I wanted to continue along Senator
Murkowski's questions. I think your--I love the concept of
cumulative--what did you call it?
Mr. Burns. Cumulative effects.
Senator Alexander. Well, that is true. I mean, we know that
is true. It is just human nature. I mentioned the higher
education report, Senator Murkowski, that we commissioned. I
mean, eight reauthorizations to the Higher Education Act since
1965, eight groups of well-meaning Senators, eight groups of
well-meaning legislators. Let us try this, let us try that, let
us try this.
And Vanderbilt does a study that shows it costs $150
million in 1 year for that one university to comply with all
these rules and regulations. They just build up over time, and
there is no countervailing discipline to remove them, and it
adds a lot of costs. I mean, in the university case, it is
$11,000 per student at that university on the tuition costs. So
that could make a little difference in the ability of an
operator--of a utility to say, will I extend a nuclear power
plant license? Will I open one? What will I do?
Let us take an example of that with the extension of
nuclear power. We have 99 reactors, is that right, today
operating?
Mr. Baran. That is correct, 99 operating.
Senator Alexander. And about how many of those are licensed
to operate for 60 years?
Mr. Baran. About 75.
Senator Alexander. About 75.
Mr. Baran. Yes.
Senator Alexander. And some of the others are newer, so
they would not yet be licensed. But a large number of those
will be thinking about going--applying for permission to go for
80 years. Is that correct?
Mr. Baran. There is interest in that, yes.
Senator Alexander. And scientifically or based on what your
Commission knows, is it true that a reactor can operate safely
for 80 years?
Mr. Burns. Again, if the technical criteria are met, I
think the answer is yes. I think the Commission last year, and
I might ask my colleagues who were engaged in this issue before
I returned to the NRC.
Senator Alexander. But if I am a utility operator, is the
Commission generally of the disposition that a properly
maintained reactor who meets the technical requirements should
be able to operate for 80 years instead of 60 years?
Mr. Ostendorff. I would just answer very briefly, Senator,
and maybe Commissioner Svinicki would like to supplement my
comments, because last year we were the two folks that were
here that voted on the subsequent license renewable policy
issue that came to the Commission last summer. And we
determined that our current regulatory framework without
modification is structured to allow an applicant to come in to
ask to operate from 60 to 80 years. We require basically
utilities to have an aging management program to look at such
things as buried piping, electrical cables, the impact of
neutron to radiation, reactor vessels, those types of material
issues.
But there can be a showing made, and so far industry has
done that up to 60 years that they can monitor material
degradation in a way that ensures safety.
Senator Alexander. Commissioner.
Ms. Svinicki. Just at bottom, Mr. Chairman, last year our
Commission affirmed that our regulatory framework is adequate
as it exists to evaluate 60 to 80 years. The demonstration will
have to be made site by site of each applicant that comes in.
They will have to provide the safety case.
Senator Alexander. Has anyone yet applied for an 80-year
license?
Ms. Svinicki. No, they have not, but industry has indicated
we might receive the first 60- to 80-year extension in the year
2018.
Senator Alexander. Well, here is what I am getting to. If
it is a legitimate concern of our country that we want lots of
low cost, reliable carbon free electricity, and if the 99
reactors provide 60 percent of that today, and if we open five
and close five in the same year, and if there are a number of
forces that make it difficult to start big new reactors right
now, a strategy for the President and the Congress, which might
be the easiest way to make sure over the next 30 or 40 years
that we have an adequate supply of reliable, clean, low cost
electricity free of carbon emissions, would be to make sure
that we do not have any unnecessary obstacles to a license
application to go from 60 to 80 years, if that is a safe thing
to do.
And that might also be a good time. You just did your
review about whether your regulatory structure allows that. It
might be a good time to do a review about whether they are
unnecessary obstacles in your regulations that would discourage
utilities from doing that. Without naming names, I was a little
surprised to learn from one utility executive that they were
only planning on asking for a 60- to 80-year extension for 30
percent roughly of their reactors, when, in fact, the other 70
percent are good solid reactors. Now, there are a whole
combination of reasons which make that uneconomic. But one of
the reasons sometimes is the cost of regulations, so that might
be an area where you could take a look and say it is in the
public interest to make sure that we create a welcoming
environment for those applications rather than an adversarial
environment, and still meet all of your safety objectives.
My time is up. Senator Feinstein, why don't you take the
time you would like for your questions, and then I will ask
some more. Do not feel constrained by any five-minute rule.
WASTE STORAGE
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. I appreciate that. If I
understand what I have been told, the NRC has made the judgment
that nuclear waste storage at the site of a reactor is forever
safe, and that waste need not be moved. How do you expect
communities to support further license extensions given that
you are now allowing plant owners to keep waste on site
indefinitely?
Mr. Burns. Senator, the issue--I mean, from the regulatory
standpoint, our job and our responsibility is to call the
technical shots as we see them. The question I think on local
support and those are issues that I fully recognize may have
some concern. Our job is to assure that we have oversight of
licensees to ensure that they are carrying out requirements
that apply to spent fuel storage or to safe operation, and
communicate to the public how we are doing that. That is, I
think, what we can--that is what we can do, I think.
Senator Feinstein. See, the problem is you have no way of
knowing what might happen 200, 300 years from now, no way. I
can think of a whole host of things that could happen that are
not predictable. Now, if you only use the predictable, maybe
you are right. But if you concede that there are things that
happen that are not predictable, that is another subject. So it
would seem to me that a public agency would want to protect the
public above all, and not just the public today or 50 years
from now, but the public that is forever going to be on
adjacent land. Anybody want to take that on?
Mr. Ostendorff. I would like to make a couple of----
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
Mr. Ostendorff. Thank you for the opportunity. I want to
make a couple of comments. One, NRC has not said let that waste
sit there indefinitely without ever taking a look at it.
Senator Feinstein. You said----
Mr. Ostendorff. We have not said leave it there and never
take a look at it.
Senator Feinstein. You have said it is safe.
Mr. Ostendorff. We have said that it is safe and secure,
but it also subject to ongoing monitoring programs. As one
example, Senator Feinstein, one of the steps, again, and we are
not as a Commission an advocate for indefinite storage onsite.
There are certain responsibilities that the Department of
Energy has in repository development under the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act that are their responsibilities, not ours.
But we have determined that this is fuel that is currently
stored onsite in dry casks that are on concrete pads. That fuel
is being stored safely and securely. If repositories were
delayed in being developed for whatever reason, then there are
steps that our staff has looked at to look at maybe after 100
years, there would be a replacement cask brought on board to
move that fuel that, as the chairman had noted, would have
undergone significant decay, move that fuel to a new cask. And
there would be ongoing monitoring steps.
As far as the other piece, I would tell you that in the
Fukushima regulatory actions we have required, we have required
seismic and flooding walk downs and hazard reevaluations. Those
seismic reevaluations apply to those locations where we are
storing spent fuel on sites today.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I can only speak for myself
representing a big State, highly earthquake prone with big
reactors. We have not gone to Diablo yet. This really changes
my support of the nuclear industry because if things are going
to be built that they are going to be there forever and never
moved, and subject to--I do not know what the monitoring regime
would have to be. I do not know what provisions would have to
be made for a real emergency, how you would move it out, you
know.
I do know that the CEO of PG&E has told me that they are
prepared to move dry casks to a repository. And now you are
saying, well, you do not need to do that particularly----
Mr. Ostendorff. Senator, I am not saying we should not do
that----
Senator Feinstein. Let me just finish, sir. I would say
particularly because of earth instability in that area, you
would want to get the stuff out of there. So this is--I mean,
it is hard for me to accept that you are saying one size fits
all, and we believe this is safe. Well, let me go into this SMR
that your Commissioner said was going to be licensed this year.
How many SMRs are they, of what size, the new scale
application?
Mr. Burns. Well, we have not received the application as
yet, and they would have to--what they are basically looking
for, as I recall, is a design certification or design approval
that you could--this is a design that could be applied. Right
now, we do not have a particular site that we have been asked
to license it at.
Senator Feinstein. We hear that it is four at 40 watts. Did
you say Idaho? To Idaho. Do you know anything about that?
Mr. Burns. As I say, at this point, where the particular
application might be, we do not have an application for the
particular thing.
Senator Feinstein. Okay, fair enough. Fair enough.
Mr. Burns. And we would license it under--in terms of if we
had a particular application to cite that design at a
particular site, we take into consideration the natural
phenomenon, the geology, soil structure, et cetera, that is at
that site.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. It is my understanding that these
are only really cost effective if you can site a number in one
place. In this case we could be wrong, but the information I
have received, it would be four--no, it would be six 40-watt
reactors sited at one place. I think it is on Federal land.
What would be the requirements for storage, and where would
they store the waste?
Mr. Burns. Well, again, like other licensed plants, they
would, absent a consolidated storage site or absent a
repository where after the decay of fuel after it is done
within the reactor, you would be talking about storage at the
site.
Senator Feinstein. Would this be underground? What would
the requirements be? My understanding is it is underground.
Mr. Burns. I think I have seen some--and I do not know all
the details of the design. I understand some of the designs for
the reactors themselves would be underground. I could not tell
you in terms of I do not know enough, and would be happy to try
to supplement for the record, what the expectation is with
respect to, in effect, the spent fuel storage, at least in
terms of temporary before potentially moving to like a dry
storage situation. But I just do not know.
STEAM GENERATORS AT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
Senator Feinstein. Well, let me just--let me just ask you
another thing because I am just a lay person, sort of a simple
soul. At Southern California Edison, what I understand happened
was not a like-for-like steam generator of one reactor, which
began to have holes in it, and then the second reactor had the
same problem. It was a Japanese designed reactor--Japanese
designed steam generator. The thought was that the alloys in it
were much more advanced and better to use.
Do you consider that kind of thing when you approve an
application as you will, for example, with the SMRs so that
situations do not happen like what happened to Southern
California Edison?
Mr. Burns. Yes. We look at the technical aspects of
equipment--the major equipment as well as the systems that are
used to operate the facility. As you indicated, the replacement
steam generators at San Onofre 2 and 3 had problems. Those were
things that our inspectors also noticed with it. And from the
standpoint both of the company making decisions with respect to
conformance to their license about operability as well as the
NRC in its oversight with respect to operability. So it is
something we look at. The design and quality is something we do
look at.
Senator Feinstein. Did you approve those steam generators?
Not you, but did the Commission? Did the Commission----
Mr. Burns. Well, I think my understanding is that the
company, Southern California Edison, replaced the steam
generators under provisions that allow for the exchange of
equipment. And after that happened, and as you indicate, during
some operation, they started finding anomalies consistent. And
consistent with their license and licensing basis, they began
to address that, identified that the quality was not there.
Anomaly, as I say, we approve basically systems, and we approve
the license and the conditions that they operate under.
Senator Feinstein. Well, in one case I think there was a
small--very small radioactive leak. This is why I am concerned
about the underground SMRs. You put everything underground, it
is pretty hard to get to it if you need to. And you can have
equipment problems just as much as in a big reactor, it seems
to me. Am I wrong?
Mr. Burns. Well, again, what we license to is not that
facilities will be perfect, that they are--will be perfect in
every way, that we have to have--the notion of defense in
depth, that thinking about if certain things go wrong how does
the machine respond? How do the people who run it respond? How
do we interact, interdict those potential problems?
That is part of both the design philosophy and the approach
both to the regulation and to oversight, because we do not
license assuming, in effect, a perfect world. We assume that
there may be things that go wrong, and if there are things that
go wrong, how do you prevent and basically minimize the
consequences of that in terms of designs. And that is--that
carries through not only, I think, really from day one.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Nobody----
Mr. Baran. I have a slightly more succinct version of that.
I think we do not know yet because we do not have the
application of what the specific design will be. But if we get
an application next for a small modular reactor design, if it
is going to be underground or if it is going to have
characteristics that are different from any other reactor
design, or even if it did not have characteristics different
from other reactor designs, they are going to have to
demonstrate to the NRC that that design is safe before we
certify it.
SAN ONOFRE DECOMMISSIONING
Senator Feinstein. Okay. The problem for me, and, again,
just a simple problem, is that it is all out of sight. Now, I
know there are technical ways of, I guess, bells ringing and
that kind of thing, but it is all out of sight. And now, I
mean, we have 2,200 megawatts going down. It is a huge amount
of power. And as long as we are on it, Mr. Chairman, can you
give us your take on where San Onofre is in the decommissioning
process?
Mr. Burns. Yes. The company has indicated what its plan is
for decommissioning. It is going to a plan that over, I think,
about a 20-year period, I think a little less than a 20-year
period, they would--basically other than, as we discussed, the
spent fuel pending removal to a continued or a consolidated
storage site or repository. What would happen is they plan to
take apart all the structures over that period.
Senator Feinstein. They are going to remove the reactors.
Mr. Burns. They are going to deconstruct the reactor
buildings. And also, you may recall unit one, which was an
early plant, is also on that site where they have done some of
that work. Actually I think they have done a fair amount of
that work, and then they would complete work that did not make
sense to do until Units 2 and 3 were decommissioned. So they
have communicated to the NRC its plans, and they have also made
some plans in terms of the spent fuel storage on site. I think
they have opted to use, in effect, instead of the stack that is
above ground sort of an in-ground storage option, which they
think has some advantages for them.
Senator Feinstein. Well, so the only thing that will
eventually be left for millenniums is the spent fuel.
Mr. Burns. Well, again, that is assuming that there is
never a repository built. I do not think that that is going to
be the case, and you and Senator Alexander----
Senator Feinstein. That is where we are going. That is
where we are going. And to me, I mean, this is almost
diabolical that you leave, you know, six million people in the
area without the benefit of power, but the spent fuel is there.
And, you know, I say this respectfully, but I think the
industry should think about this. I just do not think it is
right, and that is one of the reasons why I think we have to
press on and get repositories and get spent fuel. And you have
questions of what is happening at Hanford. You have got waste
up in Northern California, and that is just sort of my
neighborhood, let alone other places.
And, you know, it reminds me of old mines. I mean, we have
like 50,000 mine wells that are not covered in the State.
People can mine and walk off and leave the mess. And I really
feel that that spent fuel has to have a place to go, so maybe
it can be early in the line, I do not know. I think this is the
dilemma for the industry. I do not know how many rods there
will be, but there are 4,000 of them in spent fuel pools now--
256,000 rods in spent fuel pools, as I understand it
nationally. And I am told the prudent practice is to leave it
in for five to seven years, and then move it to dry casks.
And are you saying--I do not know, but are you saying in
your rule that you can leave it forever in a spent fuel pool,
or are you saying you should observe that five to seven years
and move it to dry cask storage?
Mr. Burns. Well, again, my understanding of the physical
and the attributes of it is that you want it in a spent fuel
pool for a certain number of years because the environment
there assures against criticality and et cetera. Part of the
reason utilities have moved to dry storage is you do not need
the wet--in effect, the wet storage after that period of time.
That is why you hear this term ``five to seven years.''
Senator Feinstein. Five to seven years.
Mr. Burns. Five to seven years. And my guess it is also,
from their standpoint, and I think you understand that as well.
If you are having to deal with a longer-term storage, it may be
more economical for them to dry storage as well. But
essentially what you want is for this first years after it
comes out of the reactor, in effect, until it cools in terms of
its radioactivity. You keep it in the wet pool, and then you
can move it to dry storage.
DRY CASK STORAGE SAFETY
Senator Feinstein. Well, let me ask you this. Is dry cask
storage safer than spent fuel pool storage?
Mr. Burns. I am not sure whether it is particularly safer.
I think it has advantages over it. I think we have determined
particularly--you know, particularly if you are looking at this
window of time, you need to keep it in wet storage. I think
there are advantages moving it to dry storage. It is, you know,
fairly, I think, easily monitored. You know, you are concerned
obviously with natural phenomena, but we have evaluated the
equipment. We have evaluated the equipment against earthquake,
you know, what happens in terms of the seismicity in a
particular site against tornado missiles. In other words, you
get a tornado moving through, things running out.
So we evaluate the storage options against that. And as you
say, it is an option many utilities have chosen to do because
it is a safe option, and my guess is, from their standpoint, an
economic option.
POTENTIAL TERRORIST THREAT
Senator Feinstein. Well, let me ask you. Do you evaluate a
potential terrorist attack on the facility?
Mr. Burns. I believe we--I believe we have, and at least
from the standpoint of what can you--what can you do. So my
understanding is that we have done that, yes.
Mr. Ostendorff. Yes. If I may, Senator, that is a very good
question on terrorist attack. Certainly there are a couple of
things. After 9/11, our predecessors on the Commission required
an aircraft impact rule for new reactors, and it was called
B.5.b firefighting explosion type mitigation strategies for
existing reactors. That was new after 9/11.
With respect to--on an ongoing basis, we have exercises to
evaluate the ability of a nuclear power plant to withstand a
terrorist attack. I participated as a commissioner just last
May in a hostile action based scenario at Diablo Canyon to look
at a terrorist activity. How could the onsite security forces
counter this terrorist attack? So we have a fairly
sophisticated program in that area. We are glad to provide
other briefings to you.
If I could very quickly, you had asked a question earlier.
I do not think we fully answered your question about the Idaho
situation for small modular reactors. The new-scale concept,
which Chairman Burns talked about, which we may receive a
license application in 2016, would be for a number--the concept
would be 45 megawatt reactors, perhaps four of those clustered
as one group of four reactors. These would be underground
designed theoretically to replace coal plants that would be
retired.
The underground concept has advantages from a security
standpoint from the avoidance of missile hazards. So I just
wanted to make sure that we provide that information to you,
and we can provide more.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you
very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN
Senator Alexander. No, thank you, Senator Feinstein. Very
interesting questions. Mr. Chairman, I think you have testified
that you are doing everything the courts ordered you to do in
terms of proceeding towards completing Yucca Mountain, correct?
Mr. Burns. Correct.
Senator Alexander. And is it true that if Yucca Mountain
were open, we could take all of the casks, all of the used fuel
out of California and Tennessee and everywhere else? We have
the 78 sites, and it could all be contained in Yucca Mountain?
Mr. Burns. As you alluded in your opening statement, Mr.
Chairman, I am not sure if you took all the spent fuel
currently--that currently exists that would be ready to be put
in a repository, that it would all fit in the Yucca site.
Frankly, I do not know the answer.
Senator Alexander. A lot of it would.
Mr. Burns. Well, yes.
NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY
Senator Alexander. I have been told all of it would, but
maybe a lot of it would or most of it would, but that is the
obvious way to me to get rid of it. I mean, for 25 years that
has been the law. We are told often, ``pay attention to
science.'' Science has now told us it is safe. You are doing an
environmental review. There are several other steps you need to
take, but if we want to get this fuel off these sites, that is
one way to do it.
Now, let me ask Mr. Ostendorff a couple of questions. The
Commission has held that used fuel can be safely stored on the
sites where it is produced, correct?
Mr. Ostendorff. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. And they have said it is safe whether it
is in pools or in dry storage.
Mr. Ostendorff. That is correct. And if I could, Senator,
last year--actually in 2013 our staff did a study on the spent
fuel pool looking at resilience against earthquakes, looking at
the experience in Japan, looking at what we understand about
spent fuel pool structures in this country. And we determined
that there is not a need from a safety standpoint to more
quickly move fuel from spent fuel pools to the dry casks.
Senator Alexander. But you are not saying that utilities
should not move it.
Mr. Ostendorff. No, sir.
Senator Alexander. You are just saying you have asked the
question whether it is safe or not, that based on scientific
standards it is safe.
Mr. Ostendorff. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. Now, you have a lot of experience with
reactors having served in the Navy. We have had Navy reactors
for, what 60 years?
Mr. Ostendorff. Since 1954.
Senator Alexander. Yes. How many deaths have we ever had a
result of the operation of a Navy reactor?
Mr. Ostendorff. None.
Senator Alexander. How many deaths have we ever had in the
United States as a result of the operation of a commercial
reactor?
Mr. Ostendorff. None.
Senator Alexander. How many people were hurt at Three Mile
Island, which is the most celebrated nuclear accident we have
had?
Mr. Ostendorff. None.
Senator Alexander. Does any other form of energy production
in the United States have that sort of safety record?
Mr. Ostendorff. I cannot speak to solar or wind, but I
would say that with respect to oil, gas, coal, it is my
understanding that nuclear has a better safety record.
Senator Alexander. Yes. Golden eagles do not like the
safety record of windmills. I know that.
But the fact is that no form of energy production in the
world really has a safety record that exceeds the production of
nuclear power in the United States, and I think it is important
that we emphasize that. And as far as finding a place to put
the waste, I mean, the problem with that is not you. It is us.
It is the politicians who are keeping Yucca Mountain shut,
and it is the politicians who are not opening new consolidated
repositories, as Senator Feinstein and I have proposed for the
last 3 years. If Congress would act on that and the President
would sign it, why I am sure that the first priority would be
sites where plants are closed, such as those in California, and
to move the stuff off there.
So I think, we ought to look in the mirror when the time
comes about--it is not the industry saying to us they would
like to keep it there. They would like to get rid of it. The
industry is collecting money--$35 billion from rate payers--and
it is not being used for the purposes being collected. We've
got electric bills all over the country that are too high.
We've got concerns from Senators like Senator Feinstein about
unused fuel in her State. But the obstacles here are the United
States Congress and the President of the United States. That is
us.
So I think it is very important for us to----
Senator Feinstein. It is not you, and it is not me.
FUKUSHIMA
Senator Alexander. No, but it is some people we know, but
we are working on that. Now, I have just a few more--I want to
underscore that. And let me go to Fukushima. Fukushima was a
terrible problem from a very simple cause. Mr. Ostendorff, the
problem at Fukushima was a very simple problem, was it not? I
mean, power failed, and there was no water to cool the reactor.
Mr. Ostendorff. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. That was it, right?
Mr. Ostendorff. Caused by a very significant tsunami
resulting from the earthquake.
Senator Alexander. But the only problem----
Senator Feinstein. Caused by siting them so close together,
you know, where they were sited.
Senator Alexander. But the bottom line is the only problem
you need to solve is you need water to cool the reactor, and
you need the power to pump the water. And I was at Watts Bar 2,
which is being opened in Tennessee, and they are taking action
based upon the rules that you have provided. They have got a
variety of ways to have power to pump the water in the event of
almost anything, and I do not think there is a terrorist
anywhere that could get into that building that they have got
that houses those redundant steps.
So based on what I have seen so far, at least at that site,
and what I have reviewed, you are taking steps to learn even
from the Fukushima incident. You are focused on trying to make
sure that all of our sites, you have got power to pump the
water to cool the reactors. Is that correct?
Mr. Ostendorff. Yes, sir, and 3 years ago, and Commissioner
Svinicki joined me in this when we were working together
because other commissioners had departed. But basically in
early 2012, we approved orders to require mitigating strategies
to deal exactly with the issues you are talking about:
additional cables to run power, additional pumps, portable
diesel generators, portable pumps, other ways of providing
makeup water.
WATTS BAR II
Senator Alexander. Now that I have wandered back to
Tennessee a little bit, what is left to do before the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission can approve the operating license in
Watts Bar 2?
Mr. Burns. Senator, we expect a report from our staff that
would come this spring, April-May timeframe. I think the
Tennessee Valley Authority has projected a June fuel load date.
We would need to make a decision on the staff's final
recommendation with respect to the licensing.
Senator Alexander. But if the staff's final recommendation
were positive, could the reactor start and power be generated
during 2015?
Mr. Burns. That is possible. That depends on their testing
program, you know, their fuel loading and their testing
program. And forgive me, Senator, I do not recall exactly what
TVA's, you know, planning schedule is at, but I think it is
towards the end of 2015.
Senator Alexander. Do you have sufficient resources at the
Commission to complete the licensing activities for Watts Bar
II this year?
Mr. Burns. Yes, we do.
COLLEGIALITY AT THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Senator Alexander. I have one last question. I used to be
on another committee, which was the Energy and Public Works
Committee. That was the last time I saw the whole Commission at
once. Two of you were there, Commissioner Ostendorff,
Commissioner Svinicki. It was a very unusual hearing because at
the time, collegiality was not a word that was being used at
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. There was an enormous lack
of it.
Let me ask the two of you since you have been there for a
while. What about collegiality at the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission? We were concerned in the Senate a few years ago
that the absence of that was causing operational problems. What
is it like today?
Mr. Ostendorff. I would add, Senator, that we had a very
challenging hearing before unit colleagues in December of 2011.
I would say that once we had a collegiality issue that was
related to, from my personal view, to one individual who is no
longer on the Commission. When that individual--when Allison
Macfarlane came in as chairman in July of 2012, those issues
went away. And I would say since that time period we have had
an extraordinarily positive collegial relationship amongst us,
and there is not any issues at all.
Senator Alexander. Commissioner Svinicki, what do you
think?
Ms. Svinicki. Well, I would note much as we have seen a
demonstration from the dais today that there is collegiality of
a body, and then there is collegiality between individual
members, I would say that even in some of the difficult periods
on this Commission, there has been tremendous one-on-one
collegiality. And I think the proof of that is in the fact that
the Commission's work and the Agency's work, I think, did not
suffer, and our important mission was always paramount amongst
the Commission.
And I think I credit also the Agency staff for not being
distracted by issues that were occurring at the Agency level.
At no time did I feel that our mission of protecting public
health and safety was in any way compromised, but it is
wonderful to have the colleagues that I have around me today.
Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Well, thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, I
would say that when the Senate functions, which it occasionally
does, it does so because of collegiality such as that exists
between the Senator from California and me. It makes life a lot
easier for everybody. And your functioning is essentially
important to this country.
I welcome you as chairman. Your background in France really
should provide you with a good perspective of how that country
operates nuclear power and lessons we might learn from there.
And just as one Senator, I want to help create an environment
in which you can succeed. I would like to encourage you to
proceed with your review of the cumulatively piling up of
regulations without any embarrassment because it happens to
every single agency, and there should be a disciplined approach
toward doing that.
I hope that you will take a look at the importance to this
country of the license extensions for reactors that want to go
from 60 to 80 years. That is the easiest, least expensive, most
important way to get carbon-free electricity from carbon-free
emissions, at least during this bridge period of time while we
decide what else we need to do. And I think it is appropriate
that you think about reducing your budget since the large
number of applications that might have been expected a few
years ago is less than expected.
I hope you will continue to be open to the small reactor
application when it comes. And I think Senator Feinstein, I can
speak for her on this I know. I am especially interested in the
application from West Texas or from anywhere else like that
because since--if you approve the application, that repository
can go into operation and begin to receive used fuel from sites
around the country. And if there were one or two of those, that
could happen even before our pilot project passes and becomes
law. If it does become law, which we hope it does, we hope you
will help us implement it as rapidly as we can because we both
want nuclear waste property stored in this country as we know
you do.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Feinstein, do you have anything else you would like
to add?
Senator Feinstein. I do not, except thank you, lady and
gentlemen, for being so game and answering these questions, and
I hope you accept it as a positive challenge. So thank you very
much for being here.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Stephen G. Burns
Questions Submitted by Senator James Lankford
Question. The rules governing the Commission allowed for a former
Chairman to keep his fellow commissioners poorly informed and pursue a
personal agenda without ever, technically, breaking laws or procedures.
What has the NRC done, if anything, to prevent such an abuse in the
future?
Answer. The existing laws governing the Commission provide a
framework for effective agency governance by a collegial Commission.
Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 provides that each
member of the Commission shall have full access to all information
related to the performance of his or her duties and responsibilities.
Further, Section 2(c) of the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1980 provides
that the Chairman is responsible ``for insuring that the Commission is
fully and currently informed about matters within its functions.''
The Commission's internal procedures have been updated in recent
years and set forth the procedures governing the conduct of business by
the Commission consistent with these legal requirements. The specific
procedures may be changed or waived by a majority of the Commission,
and questions regarding implementation and interpretation are decided
by the Commission as a collegial body, consistent with existing law.
The internal procedures are periodically reviewed by the Commission and
approved by majority vote.
Question. Senator Vitter and Representative Terry have proposed
codifying organizational operation procedures for the Commission, which
include explicitly making the Chairman responsible for keeping the
other Commissioners fully informed ``about matters within the functions
of the Commission''. If a majority of the other Commissioners determine
the Chairman has not been acting appropriately, this legislation would
provide a way to report that and allow Congress to evaluate whether a
change in leadership is needed. Would such a policy safeguard against
future abuses? If this type of policy is not needed, how can the
American public and the regulated community be assured that one member
of the Commission is not legally able to drive the agenda without
informed consent of the other Commissioners?
Answer. As discussed above, the law currently requires the Chairman
and the Executive Director for Operations, through the Chairman, to
keep the Commissioners fully and currently informed about matters
within their functions. Further, each Commissioner is required to have
full access to all information relating to the performance of his or
her duties. In this context, the Chairman is also ``governed by the
general policies of the Commission, and by such regulatory decisions,
findings, and determinations . . . as the Commission may by law,
including this Plan, be authorized to make.'' The internal Commission
procedures reflect these provisions. In addition, the Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Public Law 113-235)
established a requirement that the NRC Chairman inform the Commission
and the Congress should he or she begin performing functions under the
emergency authority provided for in section 3 of Reorganization Plan
No. 1 of 1980.
Question. With regard to the power reactor fees, the NRC takes the
amount of fees to be recovered and simply divides by the number of
reactors. In light of the reductions to the number of reactors--four
have gone offline in the past 2 years, with another one slated to go
offline soon--has the Commission revisited how they collect fees?
Answer. The agency has considered how fees are assessed to reactor
licensees. The NRC calculates the 10 CFR Part 171 annual fee based upon
the requirement of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-
90), to fairly and equitably collect fees in order to recover
approximately 90 percent of the agency's budget authority. The budgeted
resources for power reactors constitute approximately 86 percent of the
NRC's overall recoverable fee budget. The current methodology is used,
in part, to provide industry with a predictable annual fee cost while
also implementing the agency's responsibility to equitably assess fees.
Additionally, the NRC publishes its proposed fee rule annually, taking
public comment before issuing its final rule.
Question. Is the Commission concerned that with the competition of
other relatively cheap power sources, such as natural gas, this rather
arbitrary increase in fees is encouraging nuclear plants to close
sooner than they otherwise would?
Answer. While the Commission is aware of the economic pressures
resulting from competition in the energy sector generally, the
Commission's role as a regulator is to ensure that the Nation's nuclear
plants operate safely, consistent with the agency's health and safety
mission. The NRC formulates its budget based on estimates of the
activities that will be required to license and regulate safe and
secure use of nuclear materials during the year of execution. The
agency is concerned with carrying out its mission in the most efficient
way possible and is continually engaged in identifying how to fulfill
that mission with the appropriate level of resources.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
Question. As you know, the nuclear plant operator, NextEra, has
applied to renew its operating license for the Seabrook Station in
Seabrook, New Hampshire for an additional 20 years. Their current
license expires in 2030, which means if approved, Seabrook will have a
license to operate until 2050.
Seabrook Station has, however, encountered concrete degradation
issues due to alkali--silica reaction (ASR). Throughout the re-
application process NextEra has taken actions to understand and monitor
the extent of the plant's concrete degradation; however, I have heard
concerns from constituents about the testing being conducted to test
the long-term impacts of ASR, and I want to make certain it is being
conducted in a way that ensures precise results about the plant's
structural integrity.
For example, it is my understanding that NextEra is using a
combined crack indexing (CCI) measurement as the primary criterion for
assessing the progression of ASR. However, I have also heard that steel
reinforcement bars embedded in the building structure may reduce the
growth in the width of the cracks in the concrete. Moreover, in the
August 9, 2013 inspection report, NRC noted inconsistencies found in
tests at Seabrook between NextEra's CCI results and other measures of
concrete expansion due to ASR.
Given these variances in measurement, can you please explain NRC's
determination process to allow CCI testing as opposed to any other,
generally accepted methods of assessment to quantify the progression of
ASR?
Answer. In its license renewal application for Seabrook Station,
NextEra has proposed combined crack indexing as a method for assessing
the progression of alkali-silica reaction. However, the NRC is still
reviewing this proposal.
As part of the ongoing review, the staff issued requests for
additional information noting that it is not clear how combined crack
indexing accurately correlates cracking due to alkali-silica reaction
to structural degradation of affected structures. The requests for
additional information ask the licensee to ``(1) demonstrate the
adequacy of the parameters [cracking] proposed to be monitored or
inspected by the program to manage the effects of aging due to alkali-
silica reaction; and (2) clearly establish the link between the
parameters that will be monitored and how monitoring these parameters
will ensure adequate aging management such that the intended function
will be maintained during the period of extended operation.'' The
licensee is currently expected to respond to these requests in June
2015. The staff will evaluate the responses against guidance and
industry standards to ensure that the proposed monitoring program is
adequate to detect alkali-silica reaction and to properly correlate
alkali-silica reaction progression with structural degradation.
Question. I also understand that NextEra has commissioned replica
studies at the University of Texas in order to determine the long-term
effects of ASR on the power plant walls. However, I have heard concerns
that the concrete materials used in the study do not precisely mimic
the environmental conditions of the Seacoast region or the materials
used to build the Seabrook plant. Can you describe the Commission's
involvement in the replica studies and what the NRC is doing to ensure
the efficacy of the testing?
Answer. The NRC staff continues to monitor NextEra's testing
activities at the University of Texas as part of our oversight of
Seabrook Station, including conducting multiple inspections of these
activities. The inspections focused on how information gathered from
NextEra's test program is considered for applicability to the current
conclusions regarding alkali-silica reaction-affected structures at
Seabrook Station. While NextEra chose to conduct a large-scale testing
program at the University of Texas as a possible basis for developing
future actions to address the alkali-silica reaction issue, the NRC has
neither directed nor approved this test program. If the licensee
determines that future test results provide a technical basis to
resolve this non-conforming condition, the NRC would expect NextEra to
provide the results to the agency for our review and approval. Any
submittal by NextEra would need to demonstrate that the test program
and results accurately reflect conditions at the Seabrook Station.
______
Question Submitted to William C. Ostendorff
Question Submitted by Senator James Lankford
Question. Has anything materially changed regarding the volume and
quality of communication between the Chairman's office and your own
since 2010?
Answer. Yes. Since Chairman Macfarlane's arrival in July 2012, the
challenges we had as a Commission with the previous Chairman have gone
away. We are operating in an independent, impartial, collegial, and
professional manner and in accordance with the Commission's legal
obligations. This environment has continued with the arrival of
Commissioner Baran and Chairman Burns.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Alexander. Thank you. The hearing is adjourned.
Mr. Burns. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:24 p.m., Wednesday, March 4, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:04 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Alexander, Lankford, and Feinstein.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
National Nuclear Security Administration
STATEMENT LIEUTENANT GENERAL FRANK G. KLOTZ, U.S. AIR
FORCE (Retired), UNDER SECRETARY FOR
NUCLEAR SECURITY AND ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
DR. DONALD COOK, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE PROGRAMS
ANNE HARRINGTON, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE NUCLEAR
NONPROLIFERATION
ADMIRAL JOHN RICHARDSON, UNITED STATES NAVY, DIRECTOR, NAVAL
NUCLEAR PROPULSION, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR OFFICE OF
NAVAL REACTORS
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER
Senator Alexander. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water
will please come to order. This morning, we're having a hearing
to review the President's fiscal 2016 budget request for the
National Nuclear Security Administration.
Senator Feinstein and I will each have an opening
statement. I will then recognize each Senator who comes for up
to five minutes for an opening statement, alternating between
the majority and the minority in the order that they arrive. We
will then turn to witnesses for their testimony. General Klotz
will present testimony on behalf of the entire NNSA and we'll
include the full written statements of all the witnesses in the
record. Senators will then be recognized for five minutes each,
alternating between the minority and majority in the order that
they arrive.
First, I would like to thank our witnesses for being here,
and also Senator Feinstein, who I will be working with to draft
the appropriations bill for funds for the NNSA. Our witnesses
today include Lieutenant General Frank Klotz, Administrator of
the NNSA, Dr. Donald Cook, Deputy Administrator for Defense
Programs, Ms. Anne Harrington, Deputy Administrator for Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Admiral John Richardson, Deputy
Administrator for Naval Reactors.
We're here today to review the President's fiscal year 2016
budget request for NNSA, which is a semiautonomous agency
within the Department of Energy that's 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 propulsion. This is the subcommittee's
third hearing this year on the President's budget request, and
I look forward to hearing our witness testimony.
The NNSA has an important national security mission, but it
faces many challenges. That's why we need to do what we can
to--what we were sent here to do, and that is to govern.
Governing is about setting priorities, and we are going to have
to make some hard decisions this year to make sure the highest
priorities are funded. The President's 2016 budget request for
defense spending is nearly $38 billion higher than what is
allowed under the spending caps in the Budget Control Act. In
fact, spending this year is consistent with the Budget Control
Act fully funding, and NNSA's budget request alone would
require almost the entire increase in defense spending for all
defense programs, including the Department of Defense.
We will work with Senator Cochran and Senator Mikulski to
increase the subcommittee's defense spending allocation, but
we're going to need your help to understand the NNSA's most
urgent priorities, and that's why we're holding this hearing. I
would like to focus my questions on three main areas, all with
an eye toward setting priorities. First, keeping large
construction projects on time and on budget. Senator Feinstein
and I have worked pretty hard on that. Two, effectively
maintaining our nuclear weapons stockpile. And three, properly
supporting our nuclear Navy.
The first one: keeping the large construction projects on
time and budget. NNSA is responsible for three of the largest
construction projects in the Federal Government: the uranium
processing facility in Tennessee, the MOX fuel
fabricating facility in South Carolina, and the plutonium
facility in New Mexico. Combined, these projects could cost as
much as $20 billion to build. Over the past 4 years, Senator
Feinstein and I have worked hard with the NNSA to keep costs
from skyrocketing 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, because costs had increased
every time we would get a status update. Three years ago, we
began holding regular meetings with the NNSA administrator and
his team. We said we wanted 90 percent design completed before
we begin construction. We urge the NNSA to take aggressive
steps to get costs under control.
The administrator asked Thom Mason, the laboratory director
for the Oak Ridge National Lab in Tennessee to have a Red Team
to review the project. The result is that review may be a model
for how to keep these kinds of projects on time and on budget.
The Red Team's report included 17 recommendations, nearly all
of which the NNSA has now adopted to keep the uranium facility
within a $6.5 billion budget with completion by 2025.
Based on these recommendations, the uranium facility will
now consist of at least two buildings, one with high security,
one with less security, with construction of these buildings to
begin once their design is at 90 percent. As I understand it,
NNSA recently completed a portion of the site preparation for
this project under budget by $10 million. That is a good start,
and I'm sure I will hear more about that in a few minutes, but
there's a lot more work to do.
I'm 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 also want to ask
you about how you are applying the lessons we learned from the
Red Team review there to other big construction projects, and
look forward to any updates that you may be able to provide.
General Klotz, I know you're planning to go to Tennessee
tomorrow to see the progress. I appreciate your hands on
approach to making sure this project is delivered on time and
on budget.
Now on our nuclear weapons, another large portion of the
budget request is the work NNSA is doing to maintain our
nuclear weapons stockpile. 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 our weapons system to make
sure they are safe and reliable. These life extension programs
are needed, but they are very expensive, and I'll ask you today
whether you will be able to meet your production deadlines on
time and on budget.
And our Navy, Naval Reactors is responsible for all aspects
of the nuclear reactors that power submarines and aircraft
carriers. Naval Reactors is currently designing a new reactor
core that will not need to be refueled during the life of the
ship. This work will save taxpayers billions of dollars,
because it won't have to build two extra submarines to make up
for those that are not in service when they are not being
refueled. The small nuclear reactors that Naval Reactors
designs have had an impeccable safety record. For more than 60
years, there has never been a reactor accident resulting in a
death. Also, want to hear more about your plans for storing the
Navy's used nuclear fuel.
We talked a lot in our hearing last week with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission about Yucca Mountain storing used nuclear
fuel from commercial reactors, and I would like to hear from
you how this issue impacts your operations.
With that, I would recognize Senator Feinstein for her
statement.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
don't need to say what a pleasure it is to work with you. I was
listening to your opening statement and thinking about how
parallel our concerns are, and the meetings that we have had in
the last 3 years to try to see that the management of these
projects is more efficient and effective. And I think now, with
this new secretary, we are beginning to make some progress. And
so I so appreciate your leadership and our partnership. It's
very special.
This is a big increase. It is $1.2 billion over enacted
2015 levels. I just reached back and asked the staff, and asked
the question, have they ever gotten an increase this big? And
the answer was, well certainly not in the last 4 or 5 years. So
I think this increase really portends some danger for the
nuclear program.
I was looking at the CBO report, which points that out.
Now, this is the projected costs of the United States nuclear
forces 2015 to 2024. But as you know, the increase just there
is $348 billion, according to CBO, and that is an average of
$35 billion a year. I think we have very bright people at this
table, and in terms of what you say, I would really like to
know, what are we going to do to handle this? And I know there
are programs going on to handle it, so if you could put some of
those out on the table that we could take a look at them, that
would be very appreciated.
NNSA is currently undertaking three multibillion-dollar
projects to modernize nuclear weapons infrastructure and
recycle nuclear weapons material for peaceful use. The chairman
talked about them, UPF in Tennessee, CMRR in New Mexico, and
MOX in South Carolina. These projects have all seen
large increases in their estimated costs as well as schedule
delays. In response, the NNSA has taken a step back to re-
examine capability needs and alternative approaches.
For example, Los Alamos has developed an incremental
smaller scale approach to modernizing plutonium production
infrastructure, and the Secretary of Energy has rightly made
improving project management, as the chairman stated, more
broadly a focus of his tenure in the Department. I view these
all as very positive steps, but a lot of uncertainty remains.
Two of these projects, CMRR and UPF, are still in their
initial phases. Even though CMRR will expand use of one
building and reuse another, NNSA may also require the addition
of several modules for plutonium production with an as yet
unspecified cost and schedule. The cost and schedule for UPF
are still being developed and are expected later next year.
So I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we can have some meetings
when these costs are known, so that we can take a look at them
and see how we are going to handle them in the future years.
In fiscal year 2015, $715 million was provided to these
three projects. In fiscal year 2016, budget request increases
by $215 million, for a total of $931 million. So if you add up
the fact that smaller projects, or recapitalization efforts,
totals $117 million and $362 million respectively, we get that
$1.3 billion figure, and it's huge. The request for life
extension programs is that $1.3 billion, a $226 million
increase over 2015. Now, that is going to grow.
Last week, the chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council,
Frank Kendall, testified before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, and he said this. In 2021, we are going to start
having a problem finding ways to afford these systems. And I
think that is probably correct, and I think we have to come to
grips with that, and as a team, hopefully, be able to make some
decisions which can understand that we don't know where we are
going to be financially at that time.
Let me call attention to two specific issues. Despite a
$1.2 billion increase for NNSA, the science function within the
weapons activities account sees virtually no increase in the
President's budget request. With the end of explosive testing
of nuclear weapons, a science-based approach is the foundation
of our stockpile stewardship activities. Even with the science
function in this budget request, science and engineering are
cut in favor of computing and advanced manufacturing, and I
think we must maintain a robust science and engineering
capability.
Second, the defense nuclear nonproliferation account sees a
modest increase over last year. This is positive. But at a
comparable level, at $1.7 billion in 2016, nonproliferation
funding is still down, from $1.9 billion in 2014 and its high
of $2.3 billion in 2012. So I have always thought the
nonproliferation program was very vital, and I see it's on a
downward slope. The Megatons to Megawatts Program is just one
example. Ten percent of all U.S. electricity until 2019 will be
from former nuclear weapons. Also, NNSA has so far removed or
confirmed the disposition of 5,207 kilograms of highly enriched
uranium and plutonium around the world.
Some in Congress and elsewhere want to use the current
tension with Russia to walk away from the leadership role our
country has taken with regard to reducing proliferation
requests. I disagree with that decision. NNSA's
nonproliferation program will play a critical role in securing
materials around the world, helping with peaceful use of
nuclear power in developing countries, and fostering and
monitoring United States nuclear technology exports. In an
increasingly complex world, efforts to reduce nuclear risks
deserve funding and support.
So Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. I look
forward to hearing General Klotz's statement and our
conversation that we will have this morning. So thank you very
much.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. And let me
say, as I have said many times before, how much of a privilege
it is just to work with you. It makes life a lot easier, when
we are approaching big, difficult problems, to have a level of
trust and an interest in good management.
General Klotz, at this time, we will turn to you for your
testimony on behalf of NNSA, and after that, we will have
questions for you and the other witnesses. Welcome.
SUMMARY OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL FRANK G. KLOTZ
General Klotz. Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member
Feinstein, thank you for the opportunity to present the
President's fiscal year 2016 budget request for the Department
of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration.
I'm pleased to be joined by, as you recognized, Dr. Don
Cook, Ms. Anne Harrington, and Admiral John Richardson. We had
provided a written statement, and I appreciate your direction
that it be placed into the record.
We certainly value this Committee's strong leadership in
national security as well as its robust and abiding support for
the mission and the people of the NNSA. Our budget request,
which comprises more than 40 percent of DOE's budget, is $12.6
billion. This is, as has been pointed out, an increase of $1.2
billion, or about 10.2 percent over the fiscal 2015 and active
level.
This funding is extraordinarily important to NNSA's
important and enduring missions, to maintain a safe, secure,
and effective nuclear weapons stockpile without testing, to
prevent, counter, and respond to the threat of nuclear
proliferation and terrorism, and to support the capability of
our nuclear powered Navy to project power and to protect
American interests around the world.
By supporting growth in all four of our appropriations
accounts, this budget request represents a commitment by the
Administration to NNSA's vital and enduring mission and NNSA's
role in ensuring a strong national defense. This mission is
accomplished through the hard work and innovative spirit of a
very highly talented workforce, all of whom are committed to
public service. To provide them the tools that they need to
carry out their complex and challenging tasks, 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.
To this end, NNSA continues to make progress on key
surveillance and life extension programs, which directly
support the President's direction to maintain a safe, secure,
and effective nuclear arsenal, and funding at the 2016 budget
request level will ensure that these key life extension program
stay on track.
For NNSA's important mission to reduce nuclear dangers
across the world, the fiscal year 2016 budget request shifts
funding for our counterterrorism and emergency response
missions into the defense nuclear nonproliferation account in
order to better align our funds across the spectrum of
activities, which run from preventing, to countering, to
responding to global nuclear dangers. Additionally, the
nonproliferation programs have also been realigned into for
business lines that better reflect the core competencies
resident across that program in our labs and in our production
facilities.
And finally, the request for our Naval Reactors mission
provides funding for three major initiatives, the Ohio-Class
Reactor Plant System Development, the Land Based S8G Prototype
Refueling Overhaul, and the Spent Fuel Handling
Recapitalization Project in Idaho.
For all these missions, NNSA will continue to drive
improvements in the acquisition and project management
practices and policies as well as ensuring Federal oversight
across the enterprise. These highlights are just a hand full of
the critical national security work that this budget funds.
However, as you pointed out, the looming possibility of
sequestration is a major threat to carrying out all of these
missions. In developing the budget, NNSA was directed to
request the funds that we need to accomplish the missions that
we have been tasked to do, and this fiscal year 2016 budget
request reflects this direction.
Another round of sequester cuts would most certainly have a
devastating impact on important programs and projects,
including pushing them further out into the future or perhaps
having to cancel some altogether. It would also have grave
implications for the science, technology, and engineering work
that is taking place at our laboratories and plans, work that
underpins our nuclear security but also the broader national
security.
Again, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Feinstein, thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today. And we are
looking forward to answering any questions that you may have.
[The statement follows:]
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 2016 Budget Request for the Department of Energy's (DOE)
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). We value this
Committee's leadership in national security, as well as its strong and
abiding support for the mission and people of the NNSA.
The President's fiscal year 2016 Budget Request for NNSA, which
comprises more than 40 percent of the DOE's budget, is $12.6 billion,
up $1.2 billion or 10.2 percent over the fiscal year 2015 enacted
level. The NNSA has a unique and special responsibility for maintaining
a safe, secure, and effective nuclear weapons stockpile for as long as
nuclear weapons exist; preventing, countering and responding to
evolving and emerging threats of nuclear proliferation and terrorism;
and, supporting the capability of our nuclear-powered Navy to project
power and protect American and Allied interests around the world. By
supporting growth in each of our four appropriations accounts, this
budget request represents a strong endorsement of NNSA's vital and
enduring mission, and is indicative of the Administration's unwavering
commitment to a strong national defense.
The NNSA's mission is accomplished through the hard work and
innovative spirit of a highly talented workforce committed to public
service. To provide them 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 NNSA took several significant steps toward this
objective during the past year.
NNSA's fiscal year 2016 Budget Request reflects the close working
partnership between NNSA and the Department of Defense (DOD) in
providing for our Nation's nuclear deterrence capabilities and
modernizing the nuclear security enterprise. As in last year's Budget,
DOD is carrying a separate account in its fiscal year 2016 Budget
Request for the out years, fiscal year 2017 and beyond, which
identifies funds for NNSA's Weapons Activities and Naval Reactors. We
urge this Subcommittee's support for alignment of its appropriations
process and national defense or ``050'' allocations, including the
subcommittee 302(b) allocations, with the President's Budget. The
requested allocation supports NNSA and DOD priorities.
Tough decisions and trades in fiscal year 2016 have been made to
meet military commitments and nuclear security priorities. If the
request is not fully supported, modernization of our nuclear enterprise
and implementation of our long-term stockpile sustainment strategy
could be put at risk. The program we have proposed is highly integrated
and interdependent across the stockpile management, science and
infrastructure accounts.
Apart from the need for national defense allocation alignment, the
looming possibility of sequestration is a major threat to all NNSA
missions. The NNSA fiscal year 2016 Budget Request exceeds the caps set
on national security spending in the Budget Control Act (BCA); but is
necessary to meet our national security commitments. Reduced funding
levels will place these commitments at risk. We have made some tough
resource decisions across the NNSA, but the Secretary of Energy and I
believe that our enduring missions are too vital to the Nation's
security to be further constrained by the current BCA spending caps.
Details of the fiscal year 2016 President's Budget Request for the
NNSA follow: Weapons Activities Appropriation
The fiscal year 2016 Budget Request for the Weapons Activities
account is $8.8 billion, an increase of $666.6 million or 8.1 percent
over fiscal year 2015 enacted levels. It is comprised not only of the
Defense Programs portfolio, which is responsible for all aspects of
stockpile stewardship and management; but also the enterprise-wide
infrastructure sustainment activities managed by our Office of Safety,
Infrastructure and Operations, as well as our physical and
cybersecurity activities. It should be noted that in this budget
request we have moved NNSA's on-going emergency response and
counterterrorism and counterproliferation capabilities out of the
Weapons Activities account and into the Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation account. This action aligns activities for preventing,
countering and responding to global nuclear threats into a single
account.
maintaining the stockpile
Last year, we again successfully used science-based stockpile
stewardship to certify to the President that the American nuclear
weapons stockpile remains safe, secure, and effective-without the need
for underground nuclear testing. It is important to periodically remind
ourselves that we have been able to do this every year largely due to
the investments we have made and continue to make in state-of-the-art
diagnostic tools, high performance computing platforms, and modern
facilities staffed by extraordinarily talented scientists, engineers
and technicians.
For Directed Stockpile Work (DSW), the fiscal year 2016 request is
$3.2 billion, a $494.7 million increase over fiscal year 2015 enacted
levels, or about 18.4 percent. Approximately $133 million of this
increase reflects a restructuring of the accounts when compared to the
fiscal year 2015 budget request. These changes are discussed below.
With respect to the major life extension programs (LEP), we have
now passed the halfway mark in the production phase of the W76-1 LEP.
This LEP, which directly supports the Navy, is now on track and on
budget. Our fiscal year 2016 Request of $244.0 million will keep us on
track to complete production in fiscal year 2019.
We are also making significant progress in the engineering
development phase of the B61-12 LEP. The B61 is a gravity bomb
associated with Air Force long-range nuclear-capable bombers, as well
as dual-capable fighter aircraft. Working with the Air Force, we
successfully completed environmental flight tests on the F-15, F-16,
and B-2 aircraft on or ahead of schedule. The B6112 LEP will enter
Phase 6.4 Production Engineering in 2016; and, with the $643.3 million
requested, we will remain on track to deliver the First Production Unit
(FPU) in fiscal year 2020.
Based on results from the ongoing surveillance of the nuclear
weapons stockpile performed by NNSA's laboratories and plants, the
Nuclear Weapons Council decided that it was prudent to expand the
planned W88 Alteration (ALT) 370 to now include replacement of the
conventional high explosive in the warhead. The budget request reflects
this decision and includes $220.2 million to support the FPU in fiscal
year 2020.
The budget request also includes $195.0 million to support the
Nuclear Weapons Council decision to accelerate by 2 years an LEP of the
W80 to serve as the warhead for the Air Force's Long Range Stand-Off
system (LRSO). FPU is now slated for 2025.
This budget request also supports our goal of dismantling all
weapons retired prior to fiscal year 2009 by fiscal year 2022. In fact,
we have already dismantled more than 42 percent of these weapons in 38
percent of the time allotted. This funding will ensure that we stay on
track to meet our dismantlement commitment.
Within DSW, the budget request also includes $415.0 million for a
new ``Nuclear Materials Commodities'' subprogram to support the
investment needed in nuclear materials to maintain the viability of the
enduring stockpile. Included in this subprogram are Uranium
Sustainment, Plutonium Sustainment, and Tritium Sustainment which are
all crucial to sustain our stockpile, even as we move to lower levels
in our nuclear stockpile. Since last year, we have created and
empowered new program manager positions to oversee each of these
nuclear materials programs. Also included within DSW, is a subprogram
for Domestic Uranium Enrichment. Ensuring we have a domestic uranium
enrichment capability for national security needs is particularly
important in maintaining a domestic source of LEU to produce tritium
and for research reactor conversion program and eventually to produce
HEU for Naval Reactors fuel.
Consistent with the Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015, activities formerly carried
out under Campaigns are now included under Research, Development, Test,
and Evaluation (RDT&E). The funding request for RDT&E is about $1.8
billion, essentially the same as the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.
This includes $623.0 million for the Advanced Simulation and Computing
(ASC) Program, an increase of $25.0 million for the Advanced Technology
Development and Mitigation (ATDM) subprogram that supports high
performance computing; $130.1 million for Advanced Manufacturing
Development, an increase of $22.9 million. This funding will support
work related to electronics-based arming, fusing, and firing, as well
as other technologies that require significant technical effort to
ensure production readiness for manufacturing technologies needed to
replace sunset technologies. We continue to develop and mature additive
manufacturing technologies that can provide significant cost avoidance
by reducing costs to prototype and manufacture tooling and certain
weapons components. These increases are largely offset by relatively
small decreases in the Science (-$22.5 million for a total request of
$389.6 million), Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield
Program (-$10.4 million for a total request of $502.5 million), and
Engineering (-$4.6 million for a total request of $131.4 million)
Programs.
The Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield program has
spearheaded ongoing improvements in both 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). As a result of these improvements, LLNL has
been able to increase the shot rate at NIF. NNSA recently completed a
10-year HED Science Strategic Plan to guide work in this important
field.
Partnering with the DOE Office of Science, NNSA continues to make
much needed investments in exascale computing. NNSA's ASC Program
provides leading edge, high-end modeling and simulation capabilities to
sustain and modernize the stockpile today and into the future. The
fiscal year 2016 Request includes $64 million for the ASC's Advanced
Technology Development and Mitigation subprogram to pursue long-term
simulation and computing goals relevant to the exascale computing
needed to support the broad national security missions of the NNSA.
Both the NNSA and DOE's Office of Science continue to collaborate with
the Office of Science providing $209 million towards the development of
capable exascale systems.
Defense Programs also supports the vitality of the broader National
Security Enterprise. An important aspect of this is investing in
Laboratory-, Site- and Plant-Directed Research and Development (LDRD).
Independent reviews have consistently affirmed the importance of the
program to the long-term vitality of the labs. LDRD provides basic
research funding to foster innovation and to attract and retain young
scientific and technical talent. Congressional support is essential to
sustaining this essential national capability.
Finally, another important accomplishment within Weapons Activities
in 2014 was the renewal of the Mutual Defense Agreement with the United
Kingdom. Since 1958, this enduring agreement has enabled mutually
beneficial exchange of nuclear expertise between the United States and
UK, contributing to a long and proud history of defense cooperation
between our two Nations. In this case, the Administration and the
Congress worked closely together to achieve a shared goal. We are truly
grateful for your support.
improving safety, operations and infrastructure
In order to support all of these critical programmatic activities,
we are making important strides in recapitalizing our aging
infrastructure throughout the enterprise. In August 2014, DOE and NNSA
formally dedicated the new National Security Campus (NSC) in Kansas
City, Missouri. The former Kansas City Plant was relocated from the
Bannister Federal Complex, a 70-year-old facility, to the NSC with half
the footprint and a modern operating environment. The move was safely
and securely completed 1 month ahead of schedule and $10 million under
budget. The NSC manufactures or purchases 85 percent of the non-nuclear
components that make up our nuclear weapons, and thus plays a major
role in keeping the Nation's nuclear stockpile safe, secure and
effective.
The fiscal year 2016 request restructures many of the activities
formerly conducted under the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
(RTBF) into the Infrastructure and Safety program. This new program
will maintain, operate and modernize the NNSA general purpose
infrastructure in a safe, secure, and cost-effective manner.
Infrastructure and Safety efforts are organized around five elements--
Operations of Facilities; Safety Operations; Maintenance;
Recapitalization; and, Line Item Construction. Together, these elements
provide a comprehensive approach to arresting the declining state of
NNSA infrastructure. The fiscal year 2016 request for Infrastructure
and Safety is $1.5 billion and reflects an increase of $79.4 million
for comparable activities from the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. This
funding will allow NNSA to modernize and upgrade aging infrastructure
and address safety and programmatic risks.
We are developing a 10-year strategic plan that identifies the
activities NNSA is undertaking to arrest the declining state of NNSA
infrastructure, reduce Deferred Maintenance (DM), and dispose of excess
facilities. The major elements of the plan include improving
infrastructure decisionmaking with implementation of new, risk-informed
analytical methods to better evaluate the ability of an asset to
support program core capabilities; improving program management tools
through implementation of standardized and automated processes and
systems for scope, cost, and schedule management; accelerating
recapitalization and construction efforts to revitalize infrastructure
and make better use of the resources by strategically procuring common
systems and components used across the enterprise; and shrinking the
NNSA footprint by deactivating and disposing of excess facilities, with
increased focus on timely deactivation and on repurposing and reuse as
a strategy to avoid new construction. Within this 10-year plan, the
transferring of the old Kansas City Bannister Road facility to a
private developer to repurpose the site for local community use will
eliminate $250 million in DM. We recognize that these goals will not be
met quickly, and that arresting the declining state of NNSA
infrastructure will require steady commitment at all levels of the
organization over many years. We believe that the tools and processes
we are developing and implementing, along with sustained investment in
our infrastructure, will set NNSA on the right path to ensuring a
viable, safe, and effective nuclear security enterprise well into the
future.
The Infrastructure and Safety program addresses the needs of
program specific infrastructure, primarily the Uranium Processing
Facility (UPF) and the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement
(CMRR) project. RTBF provides a defined level of readiness and
capability through infrastructure investments and strategy development
that are dedicated to special nuclear material processing and inventory
management. The RTBF program accomplishes this mission by modernizing
stockpile stewardship and management infrastructure through capability
investments, strategic development, and line-item construction projects
for the sustainment or enhancement of capabilities. The fiscal year
2016 request is $1.1 billion, with a reduction of $1.4 billion, due to
the transfer of select activities to Infrastructure and Safety. For
comparability purposes, the fiscal year 2016 request for RTBF is
increased more than 50 percent to support a new source of high-purity
depleted uranium, to realign recapitalization of Defense Programs
capabilities through the Capabilities Based Investments (CBI), and to
increase funding for the UPF at Y-12 to $430.0 million and the CMRR
Project at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) to $156.0 million.
Last year, NNSA successfully executed one of the largest and most
complex contract transitions in the history of the Department with the
award of a contract to Consolidated Nuclear Security to operate and
manage both the Pantex Plant and the Y-12 National Security Complex.
The consolidated contract was written to require efficiencies and
improved operations as a requirement for continued performance beyond
the initial 5-year base period. This is a departure from other
management and operating contracts where efficiencies and effectiveness
are considered but are not mandatory.
Our Office of Secure Transportation (OST) provides safe, secure
movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear material, and weapon
components to meet projected DOE, DOD, and other customer requirements.
It continues to modernize assets by extending the life of the
Safeguards Transporter and is currently looking at options for the next
generation transporter, the Mobile Guardian Transporter. To meet an
increasing workload, OST is planning a small increase in the number of
Federal agents.
The primary mission of NNSA's Office of Defense Nuclear Security
(DNS) and the Chief Security Officer is to develop and implement sound
security programs to protect Special Nuclear Material (SNM), people,
information, and facilities throughout the nuclear security enterprise.
The NNSA's Defense Nuclear Security fiscal year 2016 request is $632.9
million. The request manages risk among important competing needs even
as NNSA continues to face the challenges associated with an aging
physical security infrastructure that must be effectively addressed in
the coming years. The request includes $13 million to initiate
installation of Argus at the Device Assembly Facility at the Nevada
National Security Site. Argus is the enterprise security system for
Category 1 SNM facilities that integrates access control, intrusion
detection, and video assessment of alarms to protect and control high-
consequence assets. DNS also has a prioritized list of smaller
infrastructure upgrade projects it will execute as General Plant
Projects within available O&M funding, for example, lighting systems
supporting perimeter camera assessment, replacement and upgrades to
Argus Field Processors, replacement of ported coax cables and buried
cable electronics that will extend lifecycles and delay total system
replacements. DNS initiated an Enterprise Vulnerability Assessment
process across the enterprise with a focus on standardizing how
vulnerability assessments are conducted and site protection strategies
are formulated.
The Information Technology and Cybersecurity fiscal year 2016
request is $157.6 million, a decrease of $22.1 million or about 12.3
percent from fiscal year 2015 enacted levels. The difference is
attributed to a one-time investment in fiscal year 2015 in the
Infrastructure Program to implement a more secure classified computing
environment. All activities related to the one-time increase were
completed. Information Technology and Cybersecurity supports the
nuclear security enterprise. This work includes continuous monitoring
and enterprise wireless and security technologies (i.e., identity,
credential, and access management) to help meet security challenges. In
fiscal year 2016, NNSA plans to complete 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 and coordinate all
Committee on National Security Systems and Public Key Infrastructure
capabilities. In addition, we will leverage the NNSA Network Vision
framework to increase the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of NNSA
Information Technology (IT) services.
defense nuclear nonproliferation appropriation
In fiscal year 2016, we have realigned the NNSA programs that
continue to support the President's Prague Agenda to address the threat
of nuclear proliferation and terrorism into the Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation (DNN) appropriation. NNSA's activities work across the
spectrum to prevent, counter and respond to the threat of nuclear and
radiological proliferation and terrorism. We work to prevent the
acquisition of nuclear or radiological materials, technology, and
expertise; we actively counter efforts to develop the materials and
scientific knowledge needed to construct a nuclear threat device; and
we are poised to respond to terrorist acts by searching for and
rendering safe any such devices.
The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN) account request is $1.9
billion, an increase of $325 million or about 20.1 percent from fiscal
year 2015 enacted levels. At first glance, this figure looks like a
very big increase but the number actually reflects a reorganization of
our budget to include the Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response
(NCTIR) and the Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation (CTCP)
Programs from the Weapons Activities account. For comparability
purposes, the DNN account increase is $101.0 million or over 5 percent
above fiscal year 2015 enacted levels. Additionally, we have combined
the NCTIR and CTCP programs into a single budget program line to
eliminate confusion about NNSA nuclear counterterrorism programs and
activities. We also changed the NCTIR name to Nuclear Counterterrorism
and Incident Response Program, reflecting this realignment. The DNN
Appropriation will now support two enduring mission areas: (1) The
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program and (2) The Nuclear
Counterterrorism and Incident Response Program. The Nuclear
Nonproliferation Program is also restructuring to place more emphasis
on capabilities as opposed to specific programs. This organizational
restructuring is reflected in the DNN budget restructuring.
To achieve all of these mission objectives, NNSA has restructured
the budget request under the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account
as follows:
--Material Management and Minimization
--Global Material Security
--Nonproliferation and Arms Control
--Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D
--Nonproliferation Construction
--Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response Program.
Together, this restructuring aligns funding for preventing,
countering, and responding to global nuclear dangers in one
appropriation.
nonproliferation efforts
The fiscal year 2016 request for the DNN Program, excluding NCTIR
and Legacy Contractor Pensions, is $1.6 billion, an increase of $67.9
million or about 4.4 percent above fiscal year 2015 enacted levels.
This past year was a big year for our nonproliferation efforts. Our
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation organization was responsible for many
of the significant deliverables at the third Nuclear Security Summit
held in The Hague last spring. Of particular note, Japan announced at
the Summit that it would work with us to remove and dispose of all
highly-enriched uranium (HEU) and separated plutonium from its Fast
Critical Assembly. NNSA is currently working with its counterparts in
Japan to resolve technical and logistical issues to complete this
effort in a timely manner.
Also during the Summit, the United States joined 22 countries in
signing up to a ``Gift Basket'' to secure all Category 1 radioactive
sealed sources by 2016. In the United States, there are approximately
465 buildings with Category 1 devices. Of these, NNSA has completed
security enhancements at 300 and is currently involved in a targeted
outreach campaign to engage the remaining 165 buildings by the end of
spring 2015.
And finally, NNSA partnered with five countries to remove 190 kg of
HEU and plutonium from civilian facilities; which brings our cumulative
total at the end of fiscal year 2014 to an impressive 5,207 kg; this is
more than enough material for 200 nuclear weapons. While relations with
Russia are severely strained, we anticipate that we will continue to
cooperate in efforts to repatriate Russian-origin weapons-usable HEU
material to Russia.
The Material Management and Minimization (M3) program presents an
integrated approach to addressing the persistent threat posed by
nuclear materials through a full cycle of materials management and
minimization efforts. Consistent with the priorities articulated in the
National Security Strategy of the United States and the Nuclear Posture
Review, 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. This program includes
elements of the former Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) and
Fissile Materials Disposition Programs. The fiscal year 2016 request
for this program is $311.6 million. For comparability purposes, the
request reflects an increase of $38.7 million or about a 14.2 percent
increase above the fiscal year 2015 enacted levels. The funding
increases are primarily for the removal of HEU from miniature neutron
source reactors in Africa as well as preparatory activities for future
shipments from Europe and Japan, which will proceed with appropriate
cost-sharing.
The Global Material Security (GMS) program supports the President's
nuclear and radiological security agenda and the Secretary's goal of
enhancing nuclear security through nonproliferation. We work with
partner countries to increase the security of vulnerable stockpiles of
nuclear weapons, weapons-usable nuclear materials, and radiological
materials, and to improve partner countries' abilities to deter,
detect, and interdict illicit trafficking. Elements of the former GTRI
program, International Material Protection and Cooperation (IMPC)
program, and Nonproliferation and International Security (NIS) program
are being combined in GMS, in order to better integrate capabilities
required to support DNN's enduring mission. The fiscal year 2016
request for this program is $426.8 million. For comparability purposes
the request reflects a slight increase of $2.5 million above the fiscal
year 2015 enacted levels. This increase will accelerate the protection
of International Atomic Energy Agency Category 1 radiological sources
in order to meet the 2014 Nuclear Security Summit commitment to secure
these sources by 2016.
The Nonproliferation and Arms Control (NPAC) program supports the
President's nonproliferation agenda and NNSA efforts to prevent the
proliferation or use of weapons of mass destruction by State and non-
State actors. To carry out the goals of this program, we work with the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and foreign partners to build
global capacity to safeguard nuclear materials and prevent illicit
transfers of dual-use materials, equipment, technology and expertise.
We also work with our partners and the IAEA to develop technologies and
approaches to verify and monitor current and future arms control
treaties and agreements. This funding also supports statutorily
mandated activities such as technical reviews of export licenses and
interdiction cases, and technical support for the negotiation and
implementation of civil nuclear cooperation agreements (123
Agreements), as well as international export control outreach
activities, and activities to support and improve the execution of the
NPAC 10 CFR Part 810 application process. The fiscal year 2016 request
for this program is $126.7 million, and reflects a slight increase of
$0.8 million above the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.
The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 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 the Department of Energy,
academia, and industry to perform research, including counterterrorism-
related R&D. DNN R&D conducts technology demonstrations, and develops
prototypes for integration into operational systems. The fiscal year
2016 request for this program is $419.3 million, a $25.9 million
increase or about 6.6 percent above fiscal year 2015 levels. Increased
funding is requested for nuclear and energetic materials
characterization experiments and development of advanced diagnostic
equipment capabilities, for long-range nuclear detonation detection,
and technical forensics research. This increase over fiscal year 2015
levels is partially offset by a return to baseline funding for the
Proliferation Detection subprogram after a one-time Congressional
increase in fiscal year 2015 for test bed development and field
experiments.
Nonproliferation Construction consolidates construction costs for
DNN projects previously contained within each program budget.
Currently, the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) is the only project
in this program. The fiscal year 2016 request for MFFF is $345 million
which is the same as the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The National
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015 and the Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015 directed the
Department to conduct additional analyses of the MFFF construction
project. These analyses will include independent cost and schedule
estimates, and examination of alternative approaches for disposition of
the 34 metric tons of weapon- grade plutonium and their relationship to
the Plutonium Management Disposition Agreement (PMDA). The Department
has requested Aerospace Corporation, a federally funded research and
development center, to perform these analyses. They will be completed
during fiscal year 2015, and will inform a final decision on the path
forward. The fiscal year 2016 request emphasizes that while the
Department continues to evaluate disposition paths (including the MFFF)
to determine the most responsible path forward, any viable alternative
will require a significant amount of funds to implement.
nuclear counterterrorism and emergency response
The fiscal year 2016 Request consolidates counterterrorism and
emergency response funding into a single Nuclear Counterterrorism and
Incident Response line in the amount of $234.4 million.
Within NCTIR, the Nuclear Counterterrorism Assessment program
represents the primary scientific program to assess the threat of
nuclear terrorism and develop technical countermeasures against it. The
knowledge generated under this program ensures that NNSA's technical
expertise on nuclear threat devices informs DOD and FBI emergency
response capabilities. We have taken steps to address funding
reductions to the nuclear counterterrorism activities. Over the last 2
years these activities, formerly known as Counterterrorism and
Counterproliferation within the Weapons Activities appropriation, have
been funded at a level significantly below the requested amount--70
percent of the Request in fiscal year 2014 and 60 percent in fiscal
year 2015. The fiscal year 2016 request would dedicate $57.8M to
Nuclear Counterterrorism Assessment in support of improvised nuclear
device analysis. Additionally, the request includes funds within
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D for materials characterization
experiments and other research, which supports nuclear counterterrorism
and incident response missions. Full funding of both lines will make it
possible to continue NNSA's vital counterterrorism work at the national
laboratories.
NCTIR continues to work domestically and around the world to
improve preparedness and emergency response capabilities. Its expert
scientific teams and equipment provide a technically trained, rapid
response to nuclear or radiological incidents worldwide. NCTIR assesses
nuclear or radiological threats and leverages that knowledge to provide
contingency planning and training to support national and international
counterterrorism and incident response capabilities. In 2014, NNSA's
emergency response teams deployed more than 100 times in support of law
enforcement and for major public events, such as the Super Bowl, and
conducted five large-scale field exercises with partners from the FBI,
DOD, and FEMA In addition, they deployed over 70 times in support of
DHS Domestic Nuclear Detection Office support to State and local first
responders. Internationally, NNSA conducted 16 training courses to
improve its foreign partners' emergency management capabilities and
continued to work bilaterally with Israel, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand,
Chile, China, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Taiwan, Canada, France,
Jordan, the Nordic countries, Armenia and Kazakhstan. New programs were
also started with Romania, Belarus and the Philippines. These
initiatives represent our effort to create a truly global defense
against the threat of nuclear terrorism.
NCTIR will also continue the initiative to equip cities with
stabilization equipment and training, to ensure a prompt and effective
response to nuclear terror threats.
NCTIR also executes the DOE's Emergency Management and Operations
Support program that manages the Emergency Operations Centers,
Emergency Communications Network, and Continuity Programs for all of
DOE, including NNSA.
naval reactors appropriation
Advancing Naval Nuclear Propulsion
During the past year, NNSA helped celebrate the 60th Anniversary of
the USS NAUTILUS first getting underway on nuclear propulsion. The
Naval Nuclear Propulsion program pioneered advances in nuclear reactor
and warship design--such as improving reactor lifetimes, increasing
submarine stealth, and reducing propulsion plant crewing. An example is
the technology being developed by Naval Reactors that will enable the
Ohio-Class Replacement submarine to be designed for a 40-plus year
operational life without refueling, resulting in significant savings.
During 2014, Naval Reactors continued its record of operational
excellence by providing the technical expertise required to resolve
emergent issues in the Nation's nuclear-powered Fleet, enabling the
Fleet to steam more 2 million miles. Through the work of its laboratory
and highly skilled personnel, Naval Reactors also advanced the Ohio-
Class Replacement and the S8G Prototype Refueling projects as well as
initiating integrated testing of the lead A1B reactor plant for the
next generation FORD-class aircraft carrier.
It is generally not well-known that if anything goes wrong with a
reactor on one of the Navy's nuclear carriers or submarines while they
are at sea, Naval Reactors' cadre of experts provide around-the-clock
technical support, and can often resolve the problem and prevent the
ship from having to return to port to be checked out and repaired--
which would be quite costly and disruptive to the Navy's deployment
schedules.
The budget request for Naval Reactors is $1.4 billion, an increase
of $141.6 million, about 11.5 percent from the fiscal year 2015 enacted
level. The request includes the base funding required to safely
maintain, operate and oversee the Navy's 83 nuclear-powered warships,
constituting over 45 percent of the Navy's major combatants. The
increase supports three high priority activities: $186.8 million to
continue development of the advanced Ohio-Class Replacement reactor;
$133 million to continue preparations for the refueling and overhaul of
the Land-Based Prototype reactor plant; and $86 million to continue the
design work of the Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project started
in fiscal year 2015. To this end, we would like to thank the
Subcommittee's support for appropriating $70 million for Spent Fuel
Handling Recapitalization Project in the fiscal year 2015 enacted
budget. These activities are essential to maintaining a credible sea-
based strategic deterrent, to maintain the research and training
capabilities of the Land-based Prototype, and to maintain the
capability to safely inspect, store and package naval spent nuclear
fuel.
nnsa federal salaries and expenses appropriation
NNSA Federal Salaries and Expenses (FSE) Request is $402.7 million,
essentially equal to the rate of operations in fiscal year 2015, but
8.9 percent above the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The Request
provides funding for 1,690 full-time equivalents (FTEs) and support
expenses needed to meet mission requirements. We are actively engaged
in hiring to that number in a thoughtful and strategic manner. I would
note that the Request represents an increase of only $1.5 million from
the fiscal year 2015 planned execution level of $401.2 million. This is
due to the fact that the fiscal year 2015 enacted level was
significantly below the request and we will need to use over $30
million of planned carryover to sustain the currently projected
operations of the NNSA Federal workforce. We built up that reserve
through prudent planning and execution to enable us to pay for large
one-time costs, such as the movement of much of our Federal workforce
in Albuquerque into newer leased space. The increase includes a 1.3
percent cost of living adjustment and benefits escalation, additional
support to stand up the Office of Cost Estimation and Program
Evaluation (CEPE) office in accordance with Section 3112 of the fiscal
year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and funding to
improve financial systems integration within the nuclear security
enterprise in accordance with Section 3128 of the fiscal year 2014
NDAA.
In fiscal year 2016, NNSA will continue its on-going efforts to
plan strategically 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 obtaining both the right staffing size and skill
sets. NNSA will also continue to identify efficiencies, particularly in
travel and support services, to provide a lean and efficient
organization and to support the President's Executive Order ``Promoting
Efficient Spending''.
management & 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,
the NNSA is committed to manage 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 the NNSA's effort to
deliver results by instituting rigorous analyses of alternatives,
providing clear lines of authority and accountability for Federal and
contractor program and project management, and improving cost and
schedule performance. NNSA participates in the Secretary's Project
Management Risk Committee as a means to institutionalize and share best
practices across the Department.
We have used strategic partnerships with the National Laboratories
to rethink some of our most challenging projects. As a result of the
Red Team review of the UPF at the Y-12 National Security Complex, led
by the director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and a similar
approach to the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR)
Facility capability at Los Alamos National Laboratory, we are
developing a disciplined, modular approach for both sites that will
remove risks early in the process, and establish a well-defined cost
and schedule, both of which were lacking in earlier efforts. This
process will be an important and recurring project management theme at
the NNSA and across the Department of Energy.
The CEPE was established in September 2014 pursuant to the fiscal
year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. This legislation
recognized the effort to improve cost estimating that the NNSA had
already started. The CEPE office is a prime example of actions taken to
improve our cost estimation efforts. Forging a strong partnership with
the Department of Defense (DOD) Office of Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation (CAPE), including joint training activities with CAPE, we
have made good progress in establishing CEPE as an independent office.
CEPE will provide independent cost estimating leadership, rigorous
program analysis, and prudent fiscal guidance. Getting CEPE fully
functional is a high priority for NNSA, and we will closely monitor its
progress as it grows into its full potential over the next few years.
conclusion
The NNSA executes vital missions to ensure nuclear security at home
and abroad. We do this by delivering the technology, capabilities and
infrastructure essential to a 21st century national security
organization. Our workforce continues to rise to the challenge and
deliver mission effective and cost efficient nuclear security solutions
critical for the NNSA to succeed in today's fiscal climate.
In closing, I would also like to mention that the President's
Budget Request is just the first in a series of documents slated for
release this spring. The most important of those yet to be released is
the NNSA Strategic Plan, last updated in May 2011. The goal of this
document is to provide a single integrated guidepost for NNSA's
leaders, our partners at the labs and plants, and Congress and our
external stakeholders. The new strategic plan will articulate a clear
direction and mission to everyone--no matter their rank or position.
Also to be released is the Congressionally-mandated Stockpile
Stewardship Management Plan (SSMP) which details NNSA's multi-year plan
for delivering a safe, secure and effective nuclear stockpile. And for
the first time, we plan to release a companion plan to the SSMP,
tentatively titled, ``Prevent, Counter and Respond'' to address our
plans for nonproliferation, counterterrorism and emergency response
programs. Finally, a report is being prepared for Congress in response
to the Final Report from the Congressional Advisory Panel on the
Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise, co-chaired by Norm
Augustine and Admiral Rich Mies.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
URANIUM PROCESSING FACILITY
Senator Alexander. Thank you, General Klotz. We will begin
five-minute rounds of questions, and I'll begin.
General, I would like to start with questions in this round
devoted to the uranium facility, where you're going tomorrow.
Am I correct that you're able to carry appropriated funds over
from 1 year to the next?
General Klotz. Yes, we are.
Senator Alexander. On that facility. And one of the
complaints we've sometimes had about inefficiency is that the
jerky quality of the appropriations process sometimes cause
wasted money, right?
General Klotz. It does.
Senator Alexander. So having a sustainable flow of dollars
based upon a plan can help save money as well by speeding
things up and avoiding the jerkiness of the process.
General Klotz. You're absolutely right, Senator.
Senator Alexander. The budget request for this year is $430
million. What do you need that much money for this year?
General Klotz. Well, in the coming year, we will use this
funding to develop the detailed design and safety analysis for
the three principal facilities which we will ultimately
construct. That's a mechanical and electrical building, it's a
salvage and accountability building, and it's the main process
building. It will also allow us to initiate the last phase of
some site preparation activities, including large-scale
excavation and backfill, in order to make the site ready to
start facility constructing activities in fiscal year 2017.
Senator Alexander. So it's all design and site preparation,
is that correct?
General Klotz. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. How----
General Klotz. Excuse me, Senator. There will also be some
long lead procurement things for specialty equipment, like the
specialized glove boxes that are necessary to work with net
radioactive materials. Those are very highly complex pieces of
equipment that require long lead times, so we need to begin the
process of procuring those.
Senator Alexander. When will the design of these buildings
be 90 percent complete?
General Klotz. We expect, on the current schedule, for that
to being during fiscal year 2017.
Senator Alexander. And can you confirm that the designs of
the uranium buildings will be 90 percent complete before the
construction begins?
General Klotz. Yes. For those three facilities, which are
the nuclear facilities associated--for the uranium processing
facility, we will be 90 percent complete before we begin
construction in accordance with our own Department of Energy
orders, 413.3B to be precise, that we follow very carefully.
Senator Alexander. So 2017 would be the date, the estimated
date, for 90 percent design completion.
General Klotz. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. And based on that date, will the
buildings be completed on time to meet your commitment to be
operational by 2025?
General Klotz. Yes, sir. It's still our intent to be on
track to have this work done, be out of building 9212, which,
as you know, is the oldest facility that we have there, by
2025, at a cap of $6.5 billion.
Senator Alexander. Well, that was going to be my last
question. Are you still on track to finish the facility under
the $6.5 billion cost cap?
General Klotz. Yes, sir, we are.
Senator Alexander. Well, I thank you for that. And Senator
Feinstein and I have been pretty aggressive the last 2 or 3
years on that. And I appreciate the response of NNSA, its work,
and that of the Red Team, because we basically have an
agreement, as I understand it, that construction won't begin
until we're 90 percent complete with design, and you said that
is expected to be in 2017, that the buildings will be completed
by 2025, and the budget cap is $6.5 billion or less.
General Klotz. Yes, sir. But it's important that we
continue to do some of the site preparation work that is
already underway. In fact, one of the reasons for going to Oak
Ridge tomorrow is to celebrate the completion of the first
subproject that we had in terms of preparing the site for the
construction of these three facilities. And in fact, we had
budgeted $65 million to do some road work associated with the
vehicles that will have to come in and out of the construction
site. We have done some grading. We've done potable water
lines. And as I said, we budgeted $65 million for that, and it
came in significantly below that.
Our next step in this process, which we are ready to begin
immediately, is to do what we call site infrastructure and
services subproject. Again, these are the things that any large
construction project would have to do. For instance, we will
need to put a concrete batch plant on the facility, and a very
unique concrete batch plant, because this has to pour nuclear
qualified concrete. As any construction project, we'll need to
build construction support buildings to house the people who
are doing work there, which will ultimately be 1,700
construction people doing that. And we estimate that that will
be a total of $78 million for a total project cost for this
particular aspect of the work. And as I said, we're ready to
start immediately, and we expect to have that completed in the
spring of 2018.
SAFETY
Senator Alexander. Well, my time is up, but I'm going to
ask this question, because it involves both Senator Feinstein
and me. I celebrate any example of your coming in under budget.
In multibillion-dollar projects, even $10 million is an
encouraging sign to me. And I like the idea that there seems to
be now clear accountability, someone's on the flagpole, for
meeting the goals that we have. We use the example of the
nuclear Navy. My staff reminded me that not only has the
nuclear Navy not had a reactor accident resulting in a death,
it hasn't had a reactor accident. Am I correct about that?
Admiral Richardson. Yes, sir, that's true.
Senator Alexander. Over 60 years. And a lot of that comes
because Admiral Rickover, who I believe interviewed you as
well, Mr. Richardson, is that----
Admiral Richardson. Several times, Senator, yes, before I
got it right.
Senator Alexander. And he probably told you that, if you
had a problem with a reactor, your career was over. Did he say
something like that?
Admiral Richardson. So that's a tenet of our program at
every level. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. So this accountability is important. So
one question would be, we've had meetings, Senator Feinstein,
with the accountability team at the uranium processing plant. I
wanted to suggest that maybe a good schedule for that might be
twice a year. We could do it more often, if you would like. And
you might suggest to us when it would be useful, most useful to
us and to you, to have just an informal meeting where we get an
assurance that we're on time and on budget.
Senator Feinstein. With the head of the project.
Senator Alexander. With the head of the project. So will
you think about that and suggest to us whether twice a year
with the head of the project sounds about right? And if so,
what times of the year would make the most sense?
General Klotz. Yes, sir. And thank you so much for that
offer, because we have really benefited from your strong
leadership, your insight, and your counsel, as we've moved
forward through this over the last couple of years. So we will
work with your staff and find the time.
I know you've got a very busy hearing schedule to finish.
And we would like to get in sooner rather than later to do
that. We're anxious to let you know the issues associated with
this particular project, the successes as well as the
challenges that lie before us. I think it's a good news story.
As I said, we benefit from your counsel.
Senator Alexander. Thank you. Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much. I hope to cover two
subjects in my 5 minutes. One is the hedge, and the second is a
new nuclear cruise missile.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS STOCKPILE
I wrote an op-ed which was in the Washington Post on
December 3 of last year on the hedge, and I just want to read a
small part from it.
Of our stockpile of 4,804 weapons, only 1,600 are currently
deployed, which means there are 3,204 backup weapons. We
maintain this hedge in case of problems with the deployed
weapons or if world events require additional deployments.
Having reserve weapons may be smart policy, but maintaining two
spares for each deployed weapon is excessive.
I would like your reaction to that, anyone on the panel,
and I would like your assessment of what could be saved if the
hedge were cut in half.
General Klotz. Let me, if I could Senator--thank you for
the question--make a general statement, and then I'd like to
pass it over to Dr. Cook, who has responsibility for all the
weapons activities within NNSA, for a more refined answer than
I'll be able to provide.
The whole objective of the campaign of life extension
programs we have for the existing weapons is not only to
sustain their life, but in the process, we will reduce the
number of weapons which we feel is prudent to have in terms of
hedge capabilities. That's the case with both the weapons that
will go on the sea launch, ballistic missiles, as well as the
gravity weapons we have. So that's part of our overall
strategy, that as we prepare these weapons to be extended
another couple of decades beyond which their original design
life is, we are looking to reduce the overall size of the
stockpile, the hedge requirements, but also the amount of
special nuclear material that makes up the entire stockpile.
Don.
Mr. Cook. Thank you very much for the question, Senator.
It's important to realize that NNSA executes and NWC approved
program, so they are partners in this. With regard to the
hedge, it is, in fact, a technical hedge, as you described, and
we are on a path to get reductions through appropriate
modernization via life extensions. That will give us increased
confidence that we can reduce the hedge. These decisions are
made within the entity that we work with on the DOD side.
To support what the administrator said, as a result of
doing the W76 life extension, for example, by the time we
conclude that, just a few years from now at the end of 2019, we
will have reduced the number of W76s by a full factor of two.
The 3 plus 2 strategy heads toward three ballistic systems,
that's a reduction from four, and just two elements in the air
carried leg, a modern gravity bomb, the B61 Mod 12, and the
modern cruise missile, the W80-4.
Again, as the administrator said on a few more details,
when we complete the B61 Mod 12, and we'll complete that in
fiscal 2020, the time right now is March 2020, we will again
have reduced the number of bombs by a factor of two. We will
have reduced the special nuclear material by a larger amount
than that, because we set the stage for the retirement of the
B83--1, the last megaton gravity bomb in the American arsenal.
As a result then, we've reduced the amount of special nuclear
material in the bomb leg, by more than 80 percent.
So those are also key to having greater confidence in the
ability of those systems to work. And as that is achieved, then
the technical hedge will be reduced. As an example, we are
ahead of by our dismantlement goals. We are able to take, as
time goes on, more dismantlement work load beyond 2022, which
is where we have it planned today.
Senator Feinstein. I very much appreciate the fact, Dr.
Cook, that you're looking at it.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have a classified briefing on
that subject, because I have some questions about it, and maybe
you'd like to join me.
Senator Alexander. Well, I would join you. I read your op-
ed, and those are very appropriate questions, important to our
national security, and they cost a lot of money. And so I'd
like to fully understand it, too, so why don't we schedule
that?
Senator Feinstein. That would be excellent. And include in
it the B61 and the number of B61s we have.
NUCLEAR CRUISE MISSILE
The next question is, why do we need a new nuclear cruise
missile? It's a $186 million increase, I think, over the 2015
level of $9 million, and the total cost runs $7 billion to $10
billion, and I know of no compelling case. So if there is one,
maybe you could relate it to us.
General Klotz. Well, thank you, Senator. In the same Senate
Armed Services Committee hearing that you referenced earlier,
the one that The Nuclear Weapons Council Chairman, Frank
Kendall, headed up, Admiral Cecil Haney, who is also the
Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, made the case this way.
The Air Force has had a cruise missile, the air-launched cruise
missile, for some decades. That missile, the missile itself,
not the warhead which we have responsibility for, but the
missile itself, is starting to show the signs of age, and that
is raising concerns about the long-term reliability of the
missile. There are also some aging concerns associated with the
support equipment that's associated----
Senator Feinstein. Could I stop you just for a minute?
General Klotz. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. How old is the missile when it begins to
show age?
General Klotz. I'd have to get back to you on the specific
life.
Senator Feinstein. If you would, I'd appreciate it.
General Klotz. Yes, we'll get back.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
General Klotz. Yes, we will talk to our friends in the Air
Force about that. The other issue that Admiral Haney expressed
concern about was increasing sophistication of air defenses
across the world and making sure that we have an air-launched
cruise missile capability that can deal with the types of
threats--and again, we can include that in our classified
discussion later.
We, at the NNSA, have a responsibility, obviously, for the
warhead that would go on a new Air Force cruise missile, which
they refer to as the Long-Range Standoff Capability System. So
we have, this past year, made a selection that we would use a
warhead from the family of warheads that the current air-
launched cruise missile uses. We are on a path to have that
first production unit of that particular warhead ready in 2027.
A decision was taken in the Nuclear Weapons Council, and
subsequently at higher levels within the Executive Branch, that
we ought to move the date for the first production unit of that
warhead 2 years to the left, to 2025, based on what the
military saw as a requirement for----
Senator Feinstein. Is to the left, is that----
General Klotz. I'm sorry, 2 years earlier.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
General Klotz. I apologize. And so that explains a
significant portion of the increase in the money that we have
requested for the warhead work, the life extension program that
would support the Air Force's Long-Range Stand-off System.
Mr. Cook. If I could follow up. Because of 2014 has elapsed
and the first production unit is moved up 2 years, in fact,
today, we are 3 years shorter within the first production unit.
What we learned on the W76 and the B61 programs was that we had
funded tech maturation later in the life extension, and it
should have been done earlier. In fact, GAO (Government
Accounting Office) did a report on the life extension programs,
and they especially----
Senator Feinstein. Can I stop you?
Mr. Cook. Surely.
Senator Feinstein. Tech maturation?
Mr. Cook. I'm sorry. Technology maturation for the
componentry and all the elements of the system really means
that they are mature enough to put into a committed life
extension program. In other words, we've resolved all the
difficulties, and we can confidently, on both the cost
estimates----
Senator Feinstein. Are you saying that came earlier than
you thought?
Mr. Cook. No. We did it later in W76 and in the B61, and we
paid for that through having to scramble later in the life
extension program. When the General Accountability Office
reviewed those two LEP's and the three plus two strategy and
where we're going, they suggested that we fund technology
maturation efforts as early as we could. And so, in fact, just
as you've said, while we had $9 million in 2015 and we're in
the first phase of a study to get the requirements right at 6/
1, in July of this year, we moved to the analysis of
alternatives and conceptual development.
Our earlier plan had been $28 million for 2027 first
production unit, but because that was moved up 2 years, we
requested an additional $167 million for a total of $195
million.
Senator Feinstein. Well, my number is wrong. I said $186
million. It's $195 million?
Mr. Cook. One hundred ninety-five million dollars, an
increase from last year's FY NSP for year 2016 of $167 million.
Senator Feinstein. Big jump. Thank you.
Mr. Cook. Yes. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Sure. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. Very
helpful. And we'll schedule that hearing. That would be helpful
for both of us, I think.
NAVAL REACTORS--SPENT FUEL STORAGE
Let me shift gears, Admiral Richardson. Let's talk a little
bit about Naval reactors. We talked two weeks ago, the big
thing for you in this budget is a new facility to inspect and
package that used nuclear fuel that comes to Idaho from the
reactors. That's a subject that Senator Feinstein and I have a
lot of interest in, is basically, you bring the fuel to Idaho,
and you need a facility to put it into dry cask storage, and
then the dry casks are stored temporarily in Idaho until a
repository is open to which they can be transferred, is that
correct?
Admiral Richardson. Yes, sir, Senator. That's a very
important facility for our program, as you said, because we
take all of our spent fuel from all of the submarines and
carriers and send it to Idaho in containers. And at that
facility, we have sort of a shipping and receiving element,
where we take the fuel from the ships, we bring it into a pool
for radiological reasons, and we do processing of those cores
in the pool, and then eventually transition the spent reactor
cores into dry storage, where we store them there----
Senator Alexander. How long are the rods typically in the
pool?
Admiral Richardson. It's an interesting question, because
we're really sort of making up for time now as we move material
through the pool and into dry storage. But we've got an
agreement with the State of Idaho to make that process and do
that transition in less than 6 years, and that's an executable
program for us.
Senator Alexander. You mean the material arrives, and
within 6 years, it's in a dry cask, is that what you're saying?
Admiral Richardson. Exactly. Yes, sir. We're processing a
lot of legacy fuel, but that's a good number in terms of the
capability of the system.
Senator Alexander. You also have an agreement with the
State of Idaho to remove all those dry casks by 2035, is that
right?
Admiral Richardson. Yes, sir. Our agreement with the State
of Idaho really has sort of two fundamental elements to it. One
involves exactly what we just talked about, the throughput of
the material through the pool and into dry storage, and we are
committed to take that inventory that we have right now, the
current inventory, and move all of that into dry storage by
2023. And then for the course that we receive after that, we
have that 6 year commitment to move them through the pool and
into dry storage in 6 years. So we will have eliminated our
backlog by 2023, and be on that 6-year thing.
Senator Alexander. So step one is to get everything into
dry storage within 6 years.
Admiral Richardson. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. But then step two is to get it all out
of Idaho, right?
Admiral Richardson. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. When is that supposed to be?
Admiral Richardson. The second element of our commitment
involves shipment to an eventual repository.
Senator Alexander. Yes, well, where are you going to take
it?
Admiral Richardson. Sir, that remains to be seen.
Senator Alexander. Yes. I had not understood, the relative
amount of material is smaller than I thought. I mean, compared
to the amount of the number--Senator Feinstein, I think you
might be interested in this, too. The material we have from our
commercial reactors is quite a bit of material. Sometimes, it's
described as nearly enough to fill up Yucca Mountain. But the
amount of material that goes into dry casks from our reactors
is relatively small space, is that--how would you describe
that?
Admiral Richardson. Yes, sir. We have about 30 tons of
heavy metal in Idaho right now of that type of material. That
represents about--well, you have 60 percent of that right now
in dry storage. The rest of it is moving through, as I said.
That's about 180 naval cores in dry storage, and those are
loaded into 110 casks. Those casks are ready for shipping when
a repository or interim storage facility is ready. But in
total, we estimate that that total inventory is really less
than 1/10 of 1 percent of the Nation spent fuel.
Senator Alexander. Yes, so 110 casks right now.
Admiral Richardson. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. You still need a permanent repository to
store your fuel.
Admiral Richardson. Senator, in order to meet our current
commitments with the State of Idaho, we have to be ready to be
among the earliest shipments to go when that repository is
ready, and then all of our spent fuel that arrives by 2026 has
got to be out of the State by the year 2035.
Senator Alexander. And your dry casks can go to the same
kind of repository that a dry cask could from a commercial
reactors used fuel, is that right?
Admiral Richardson. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. It could go to Yucca Mountain or to one
of the repositories that we're envisioning through the
legislation Senator Feinstein and I are working on.
Admiral Richardson. Yes, sir. We stay very engaged in those
conversations with the aim of making our casks ready to be
received by that facility.
Senator Alexander. If there were a private repository, not
operated by the Department of Energy but licensed by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that was willing to take your
used fuel, would it be appropriate to use such a repository for
that?
Admiral Richardson. Sir, if it had the appropriate
certifications and licensing, that would be potentially an
option.
Senator Alexander. Yes, there's one license today, but it's
not usable. That's in Utah. But in our hearing with the Nuclear
Regulatory commissioners last week, we heard about a proposed
application from West Texas which would be a privately operated
repository. First, it would have to be licensed by Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. But theoretically, if it's licensed by
the NRC, you don't think of a reason why you could not ship
your dry casks there.
Admiral Richardson. Yes, sir. As long as it's appropriately
certified, nothing comes to mind that would prevent us from
using a facility like that. Again, we would be engaged in the
details of that decision.
Senator Alexander. Senator Feinstein, I don't know if
you've heard him say, the Navy's dry casks in Idaho are about
1/10 of 1 percent the size of the used fuel mass from the
commercial reactors in the country. So it's not very much by
space.
Admiral Richardson. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. Senator Feinstein and I see we're joined
by the Senator from Oklahoma, and we'd be glad to put you in
the rotation after Senator Feinstein if you'd like.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I wanted
to spend a few minutes on the National Ignition Facility at
Livermore.
NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY
On February 6, I sent the Secretary a letter on the use of
plutonium at the National Ignition Facility, seeking assurance
regarding the necessity for such experiments and the safety
precautions for workers and the public. I received the response
yesterday, and I would like to put that letter, dated March 9,
from Secretary Moniz into the record, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. Let me quote from
the letter. Among the capabilities that the NIF brings to
stockpile stewardship, which is its primary mission, is the
ability to study materials compressed to extremely high
pressures. No other platform can reach the pressures that the
NIF can attain, and plutonium experiments in this regime are
providing invaluable insights required to underpin the codes
and models used to assess the performance and safety of our
Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile.
And then regarding the approval of these experiments, Dr.
Donald Cook approved conducting plutonium experiments at the
NIF after assessing myriad factors, including the technical
benefits and technical risks, the risk assessment and risk
management approach used by LLNL and the incremental costs
associated with these experiments.
Now, I asked a question about safety, and that is the use
of plutonium in that specific facility. And what the next
paragraph states is that workers have been trained and
extensive reviews were conducted to verify that the staff
procedures and safety systems were ready to proceed prior to
the planned experiments. And then it goes on to say, the amount
of plutonium used in these experiments is very small. In the
highly unlikely event of an accidental release, exposure to an
individual standing at the site boundary would be a small
fraction, less than .005 percent of the dose that individuals
would receive on a flight from San Francisco to Washington, and
less than .03 percent of the dose that an individual would
receive from a dental x-ray.
So I take you at your statement with respect to the safety
aspects of this. I have been concerned about Livermore being
able to reach its purpose. It's a very expensive facility. And
I wanted to spend a moment to see what you could tell me and
the chairman and the Senator about the likelihood of these
experiments being successful.
Mr. Cook. Well, thank you for the question. It's very well
stated. I appreciate your laying out the background that was in
the exchange of letters on safety.
On the front of how well NIF is being used, there was, 2
years ago, an effort to broaden the base of the use of NIF
comprehensively to the stockpile stewardship programs, that it
was not solely devoted to an attempt at achieving ignition, and
ignition and a drive toward it remains a core part of the
program.
But we had years of experiments built up with regard to
materials and the physics of nuclear weapons at the highest
pressure regimes, as you said, because that understanding is
the core research development, understanding that we need to
avoid ever having to return to underground testing. So for
example, today, more than half of the experiments are devoted
to a broad class of stockpile stewardship and less than half to
ignition, but progress has been made on all fronts. If you have
a second question, I'd be happy to entertain it.
Senator Feinstein. Yes, a second question would be, you
sort of moved over ignition pretty carefully and quickly, but
my understanding is that the strategies in place, and I
understand this is all pioneering work, that the strategies in
place to achieve ignition simply didn't work. And when I talked
to the people out there, what they said is they were going back
to basics, and they were going to come up with another
strategy. I gather that has not been possible, is that correct?
Mr. Cook. I believe that you got correct information from
the lab. And so what was done in the early years was testing
and basically an empirical change of parameters to see whether
ignition could be achieved in the very earliest years. That
could not be achieved. So, in fact, the lab did what it's good
at. It went back to basics, fundamental science, and found, as
they knew and had learned, that the model predictions, the
computations, were not reflective of reality. It isn't that
they were wrong codes. It's that an insufficient amount of
physics had been put in.
When that was in, then there was a drive toward improvement
of the conditions for an ignition. And in fact, Livermore did
achieve the point where, in the fusion fuel in the center of a
capsule, more fusion energy was produced than the thermal
energy that actually went into the compression of the very
spot. This is still short of ignition by quite a bit, almost a
factor of 100 in the number of neutrons produced. But there is,
in parallel with the other stewardship experiments, a solid
commitment to ignition. Step-by-step progress is being made,
and we get regular reports on that.
Senator Feinstein. Just one thing. So you're telling me
that there still is going to be an effort to achieve ignition.
Mr. Cook. There is absolutely an effort to achieve ignition
ongoing right now.
Senator Feinstein. And that has not been dropped?
Mr. Cook. No, it has not.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Senator Lankford.
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING OFFICE HIGH RISK LIST
Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
all being here. And I want to say what I know has already been
said as well, thank you for the work that you do. You do quiet
work that defends our Nation every day, and hardly anyone pays
attention to you, because you're doing your work well. And so I
appreciate what you're doing every day to be able to protect
the Nation and for what you have done for a long time in that.
Let me ask a couple of general questions on some things. I
know you're very aware of the GAO high risk list. The issue on
the high risk list has been cost estimates. You deal with very
difficult processes here. But the challenge is, GAO has
determined some of the projects that go all the way back to
1997, like the Savannah River project, that have far exceeded
the original estimates and the time here.
The concern is initially two things. One is, we have to
live and breathe based on cost estimates and what we think
something is going to cost, and we have to know we have a
reliable estimate coming to us. Second is, the GAO statement is
a little disconcerting.
They made this comment in their report. Since the project
began in 1997, the estimated cost of the project has increased
by more than $6.3 billion. The schedule has been delayed by
about 15 years. They stated, we found that, among other things,
NNSA had not analyzed the root causes of the construction cost
increases to help identify lessons learned and to help address
the agency's difficulty in completing projects within cost and
on schedule. They also mentioned in another spot that there was
a question that they had about the sense of urgency in setting
timelines to get some things completed to even determine how
this gets resolved.
So my question is, for the future, we've got to get good
estimates. I know you want to get good estimates. What is in
process right now, and when will that be done to make sure that
the lessons learned can be implemented?
General Klotz. Now, thank you, Senator, for that question.
And of course, one of the key objectives of Secretary Moniz and
of the current leadership of NNSA is to increase our skills and
our success in terms of doing the basics of large capital
construction projects that begin with good cost estimates, a
very rigorous process by which we identify the requirements
that we actually need, and assessment of alternatives for
satisfying those requirements.
We started to have some success in a couple of areas. For
the last 2 to 3 years, we have been off the GAO's list, high
risk list, for projects under $750 million. And earlier we were
discussing how a couple of those smaller projects have been
delivered actually early and under cost, which tells us that
the investment that we're making in terms of talent, expertise,
and experience in the area of large project management is
beginning to yield some results.
We still have three projects that are on the high risk
list, the GAO's high risk list, the uranium processing facility
at Oak Ridge, the replacement for the chemical and
metallurgical building in Los Alamos, and the MOX
Fuel Fabrication Facility in Savannah River. On the first two,
we have adopted a fundamentally different approach about how we
are going to construct these projects that is a mix of
repurposing existing facilities, changing the processes within
those facilities, and whether we do it more efficiently, more
effectively, and instead of building one big box building,
segregating work by the security requirements as well as the
safety or hazard requirements associated with that building.
We're a little more constrained by what we can do, and were
pursuing that in both of those, and I think with very promising
potential. We're little more constrained on the MOX
Fuel Fabrication Facility in Savannah River, because the
outside of the building has essentially been constructed, so
the freedom or design space that we have to affect that is
constrained.
Senator Lankford. So give me the top lesson learned here
and the thing that's going to be fixed in the timeframe on
that. So you mentioned several things there, as far as, it
sounds like, changing the way you do your contracting on the
smaller projects. Is that being implemented in the larger
programs for the future? And then I have one other follow up
question, if the Chairman will allow me another minute, as
well.
General Klotz. It is. Making sure that you have people who
actually know about the art and science of large project
construction, which were doing, hiring----
Senator Lankford. Most of the issues due to changes as you
went through it, or most of the issues were the initial
contract didn't understand completely what they were about to
do?
General Klotz. I think most of it had to do with locking in
a cost estimate before we had gotten to the 90 percent design
level. There's a lot of pressure as soon as we conceive of our
project to come up with a number. People want to know how much
it's going to cost. I think we have to be very, very
disciplined and make sure we have gone through that rigorous
cost estimating, analysis of alternatives, early design to
ensure that the cost estimate that we are planning on and that
we are communicating with Congress is, in fact, a realistic
one.
Senator Lankford. Right. The request for funding for this
next year's a little over 10 percent increase in funding,
obviously exceeds the budget caps and all that conversation
that's already happened somewhat here. The question that I have
is, how much of that money is related to some of these cost
overruns that we're now going to get on top of for some of
these big projects and call them done, so were not going to
have those same costs added, let's say, 5 years from now, so
were still catching up to some of the bad estimates from
before, and how much of them are just operational expenses?
General Klotz. I would like to get back with you on the
detail. I don't know that I've quite parsed it out that way.
The request that we have this year is based on what our current
estimates are, which we feel fairly confident about, more
confident that we could have said we were 2 or 3 years ago in
terms of the cost estimate.
Senator Lankford. Right.
General Klotz. And a lot of that depends, of course, on
level and consistent funding, because as you move the costs out
further, it will cost more.
Senator Lankford. It costs more. I understand that.
General Klotz. Yes, sir.
Senator Lankford. But I'm just trying to figure out the
breakdown here, how much of that is still catching up to bad
estimates from before, and how much of that is we're ahead of
it now, and our estimating better in new projects and new
tasks?
General Klotz. I'd like to ponder that question and get
back to you on that.
Senator Lankford. Thank you.
General Klotz. Thanks.
Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Lankford. Senator
Feinstein.
MOX
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much. I wanted to ask about
the mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility. And I think both the
chairman and I remain very concerned about the costs and the
schedule of the MOX facility. Now, this started out
costing $4 billion and being complete in 2016. It's now
expected to cost as much as $13 billion and not be ready until
the late 2020s. Now, we've been into this to a great extent I
think. We know that this is a treaty obligation, that the
Russians are building a fast reactor to deal with it and that
they are further behind than we are, at least that's the
information that I have. The goal of disposing of weapons grade
plutonium is certainly worthy, but the cost is enormous.
Last year when we did this, we saw there were no
alternatives, and that's one of the reasons why we continue to
fund it. So my question is this. And I guess Ms. Harrington,
it's for you. Where is the Department in evaluating
alternatives to MOX, or have you given up? General,
whatever, you're the boss man.
General Klotz. Let me go ahead and start, but I'd love to
give Ms. Harrington an opportunity, because she lives with this
every day. You're right. We are still, as an Administration,
committed to the plutonium management and disposition
agreement. This is an agreement, as you indicated, between us
and Russia, each of us to dispose of 34 metric tons of weapons
grade plutonium. This is a key objective that we have. And the
approach that we have adopted was to pursue a production
facility in Savannah River that would use this excess weapons
grade plutonium, mix it with uranium to produce a fuel, mixed
oxide, that could be burned in simple nuclear reactors. So
we've started on that project.
I recall my first hearing with this Congress was before
this Committee the day we had released a report from the
Department of Energy posted on the NNSA Web site that laid out
five different potential options for what we could potentially
pursue that needed to have greater fidelity and greater
costing. At the time, the Administration had proposed the
notion of putting the MOX Fuel Fabrication project
into cold standby. The Congress had different views. We were
instructed to continue construction for 2014. And in the fiscal
year 2015 Appropriations Act, our request for $221 million was
up to $345 million, and we were told to continue to construct
through fiscal year 2015, which we are doing.
So at the same time, the Congress asked us to do two
reports by an external federally funded research and
development corporation to give us and you independent cost
estimates of various options. The first of those reports, which
will identify two options, continuing with MOX Fuel
Fabrication Facility construction, and the other one, which we
call dilution and disposal, is due in mid-April. And I believe
the federally funded research and development corporation that
we have asked to do that is on track to do that. The second
one, which will identify a broader range of options, is due in
mid-September.
So as we build the budget request for fiscal year 2017, we
will continue the process of dialoguing with Congress on the
way forward, and we will have greater fidelity in terms of the
out year funding as it relates to MOX. Now, have I
left anything out?
Senator Feinstein. Before you leave, so is the commitment
to stay with MOX?
General Klotz. The commitment through this year, as
required, is to continue construction with the MOX
Fuel Fabrication Facility with the funds that were enacted in
2015, and we're doing that. Construction continues to go on.
The Secretary has been down there, along with members of the
South Carolina congressional delegation. I've been down there
twice. Our principal deputy assistant was down there yesterday.
Our deputy secretary has been there. This is a project which is
very, very high in our radar scope in terms of watching how it
proceeds.
Senator Feinstein. Can the $345 million be spent? What if
you decide to do something else?
General Klotz. Well, we can execute the $345 million. I
will tell you what Secretary Moniz has said publicly. This is
not optimal funding rate for construction of a large project
like this, but there is meaningful work that is being done in
terms of constructing this facility as we speak.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Ms. Harrington. The only thing I would go back to, Senator,
is the point you made that the up-and-down cycles of funding
are very disruptive to these kinds of projects. They make them
very difficult to manage. They make them almost impossible to
plan in a rational way, which is why we chose the $345 million
number. It would provide consistency across several years and
predictability in terms of the scope of construction that could
be achieved during that period. So I think there is a strong
rationale for why we put that particular number in the budget.
Senator Feinstein. It's just from my perspective. I don't
want to see us look back on this as we have looked back on one
other project and say, well $600 million has been wasted. So I
think it's really a hard problem for you all.
General Klotz. It is. And again, we're hoping that the
external look, as required by and requested by Congress, will
give us a more solid grounding in terms of the specific cost
estimates associated with the various alternatives.
Senator Feinstein. I hope so. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. General,
in the report, which is due April 16, do you plan to recommend
the lowest cost solution?
General Klotz. Again, Senator. I think we want to wait and
see what the report says and then engage, as we have, in
dialogue with members of Congress in terms of how best to
proceed.
Senator Alexander. Have you learned anything from the Red
Team review of the uranium project that you can apply to the
MOX and the plutonium project in Los Alamos? I know
they are different sorts of projects, but any lessons there?
Because the Red Team review seemed to be helpful and coming to
the current much better management situation it seems that you
have with the uranium project.
General Klotz. Yes, sir. On one level, yes. One of the
things that we did in response to the Red Team recommendations
was to strengthen our oversight of both programs and projects
within the NNSA and within the Department of Energy at large
and establishing a program manager for not only uranium and
plutonium and tritium, but also for the construction of--or for
how we dispose of weapons grade plutonium.
So we have stronger management oversight. But as I've
suggested to the Senator from Oklahoma, there, the facility,
the superstructure for the building, is essentially up. So some
of the things that we have adopted from the Red Team report in
terms of segregating work, dividing up hazard and the security
criteria into different facilities with varying cost per square
footage, are just not possible as far as the MOX
Fuel Fabrication Facility at this stage in the project.
Senator Alexander. One of the recommendations, I believe,
in the Red Team review was that it be a continuous sort of
review, that the Red Team not just go home, but every 6 months
or every year, it would do the same kind of thing, because it's
a big project, and there are bound to be surprises and changes
and alterations. Am I right about that? Is that planned?
General Klotz. That's right. In fact, we've already had our
first review late last year in that, and we will run them at
roughly 6-month intervals to do that. And indeed, we're doing
that across NNSA on other projects, but also across the
Department of Energy.
One of the things that came out towards the end of last
year was a directive from Secretary of Energy Moniz for large
projects that there be a continuous process internally and that
there be a periodic process independent of what goes on inside
the Department of Energy or NNSA with experts to review and
question, probe how we are proceeding on these large projects.
Senator Alexander. Well, I have no other questions. I'm
encouraged by that. I think the combination of the kind of
accountability that Naval Reactors have for their reactors and
this sort of continuous review, and an agreement with the
Congress about a time schedule, a budget, and that we don't
build until we have 90 percent of the design complete, I think
the combination of all those things has made some good progress
in terms of these big construction projects. And so, we'll
continue with that.
I don't have any other questions. Senator Lankford, do you
have any other questions?
NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
Senator Lankford. I have one other quick question. It deals
with the defense nuclear nonproliferation appropriation. The
request obviously goes up significantly. That's the combining
of several different programs behind the scenes on that. The
question is, talk me through the several million dollars in the
process of combining those two and why you think this will be
more effective. So why does the cost justify it, basically?
Ms. Harrington. Thank you for that question, Senator. We
took a long time to look at this restructuring. When we look at
the mission that we have to meet going forward and we project
over the horizon, and we've been doing studies along this line
for the past 2 plus years, trying to look at how the evolving
threat environment affects our implementation of mission. The
counterterrorism counter proliferation and the counterterrorism
incident response programs formerly were in the weapons
account, but they worked with the nuclear nonproliferation
programs. That is the sweet spot for these programs to work
together, because much of the drive behind the nonproliferation
programs is, in fact, counterterrorism.
So by pulling those programs out of the weapons account, it
leaves Dr. Cook with a clear pathway toward managing the
stockpile and focusing on that particular very important
mission, and it leaves the defense nuclear nonproliferation
appropriation covering the whole spectrum of prevent, counter,
and respond, as the administrator mentioned earlier. You will
hear this a lot from us, because this is a very important
continuum for addressing the threats that we currently
encounter in the world.
So for us, we currently, already, co-plan, co-train, co-
execute with those offices. Pulling them together into one
appropriation simply increases the opportunity for synergy,
increases the opportunity for efficiencies, for joint planning,
which is something that we have been encouraged to do.
Senator Lankford. No. I understand that, and that's great.
And the structure of it, you're right, make sense, and I'm sure
it's one of those things for several years everyone has looked
at and said, why are they over there, why are they doing that.
Part of my question is, why is it $100 million to make that
transition and that restructuring?
Ms. Harrington. It simply moves the funding that used to be
in the weapons account into the nonproliferation appropriation.
Senator Lankford. And so it has $100 million decrease in
the weapons account as well to be able to offset that? It looks
like it's going up but going up in both areas. We are not
seeing a decrease in one area and an increase in another.
General Klotz. Well, it's largely a transfer out of one
budget category into another budget category. But there is
increase in the defense nuclear nonproliferation account. If
you subtract out the money that was the transfer from
counterterrorism and incident response, we still show about a
4.4 percent increase in what one might call sort of core
nuclear nonproliferation activities which span the range of
trying to lock down special nuclear materials across the globe,
reduce dependence of commercial activities and universities on
highly enriched uranium, enhancing border crossings to prevent
smuggling of special nuclear materials, that whole range of
work continues. As Senator Feinstein noted in her opening match
for marks, it's showing an increase.
Senator Lankford. Incredibly valuable. I guess what I am
trying to figure out is, what part would have had a request for
increase before, regardless of where they're stationed, and
what part is the relocation cost? That's what I'm trying to
find out.
General Klotz. It's just an accounting. It's an accounting
shift from one part of the ledger to another part of the
ledger. There may be some increases, and will get back to you
with specific things that we're doing. In counterterrorism we
have to work very closely with State and local responders on
emergency communications, on training. There, quite frankly, is
a high demand for NNSA, Department of Energy services, by other
domestic agencies that might have to respond, God forbid, to a
terrorist threat or incident in the United States. We do a lot
of training with them. We do a lot of back-and-forth on
particular types of equipment and capability that are necessary
to do that.
And we also do that, quite frankly, with foreign partners
as well. As the interest in civil nuclear power goes up across
the world, there are going to be more and more countries that
have to deal with the safety and security issues associated
with nuclear materials, and we have deep expertise and
experience in this area that fits into this prevent, counter,
and respond spectrum that Ms. Harrington mentioned.
Senator Lankford. Right.
Ms. Harrington. Senator, I do have all the precise numbers,
the comparisons between 2015 and 2016. In the counterterrorism
and incident response areas, very, very modest. It's about a
$10 million increase over last year to account for a
significant drop in the counterterrorism, counter proliferation
budget that resulted from the Congressional action. We felt
strongly about restoring part of that. Some of that is for work
on standoff disablement. If, God forbid, we were ever to have
to encounter a trafficked nuclear weapon or an improvised
nuclear weapon, how could we safely manage it? That is the kind
of research that this will restore.
Senator Lankford. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, you began the hearing by asking Admiral Richardson
about the 60 year safety record of the nuclear program of the
Navy, of which we are all very proud, and he escaped any
questions. So I don't want him to feel lonely or unappreciated
or leave here.
Senator Alexander. Ask him a few. Ask him a few.
NAVAL REACTORS
Senator Feinstein. Okay. I will ask him a few. You mention
in your statement, which I have read, about highlights of
operations, that they include the nuclear powered aircraft
carrier, the George Bush CVN 77, the only coalition strike
option in the fight against ISIL militants, for 54 days
executing 20 to 30 sorties each day. Can you talk a little bit
about that, because this, to me, it's kind of present action,
and I would be very interested in knowing how it went, what
broke down, what was imprecise, what was very precise? Can you
summarize it in an unclassified setting for us?
Admiral Richardson. I'm sorry, ma'am, the details of the
strikes themselves?
Senator Feinstein. No, what you can say. If you did 20 to
30 sorties a day, I assume those were strikes?
Admiral Richardson. They were, ma'am. I would have to get
back to but the details on that. Our contribution to that was
really providing the technical support to keep the carrier on
station. And so that's one of the primary functions of my
technical support base is to support today's fleet operations,
and so the response of that team to respond to really a
continuous stream of technical requests and that sort of thing.
Senator Feinstein. Talk about the continuous stream of
technical requests with an ongoing mission of 20 to 30 sorties
a day.
Admiral Richardson. Right. And so, as you know, we are
primarily focused on continuity of power. It's our desire to
provide safe and effective reliable propulsion and power to the
aircraft carrier. And so as they work through their day to day
operations, technical issues come up. We respond to fleet
requests for help. We get about 12 of those per day from the
entire nuclear powered fleet. And so that is a major part of
our business and a significant portion of our budget request.
Some of the more significant accomplishments of that
technical base just this year alone could be directly
attributable to recovering literally 30 to 40 submarine and
aircraft carrier years of operation, as they resolve technical
issues, allowing those nuclear powered warships to continue to
execute their operations in support of the Nation's interests
around the world.
And if that capability did not exist, very, very talented
people supported by the appropriate facilities and equipment,
we would have to potentially pull those submarines and aircraft
carriers in and shut them down pending resolution. It's the
responsiveness of our team that allows them to remain on
station, to continue and to strike, or do whatever job they do.
General Klotz. Could I add something to that, Senator.
Senator Feinstein. Certainly.
General Klotz. And I say this--
Senator Feinstein. And if you would touch on the funding
request, which is $1.375 billion, and that's an 11 percent
increase of $136 million.
General Klotz. Sure. And I say this as a retired career Air
Force officer, that our Naval Reactors does extraordinarily
important work in the day-to-day operation of the U.S. Navy.
And one of the challenges that has happened over the last
couple of years since I've been in this seat, is a significant
reduction in the request of the Naval Reactors portion of the
budget, largely what we might call infrastructure or the base.
There's a lot of focus on the new reactor for the Ohio
replacement submarine or the new reactor for an aircraft
carrier, the research and development that they're doing. But
often what gets overlooked is that day to day operation that
allows the fleet to stay at sea rather than having to go back
to a port and fix it. So the allocation is extraordinarily
important so that we can continue to provide that kind of
support to the U.S. Navy as it carries out its global mission.
Admiral Richardson. Thank you, General. And so just to
describe our budget request, a majority of that request goes to
fund that technical support base at our labs and other
operating sites, to support not only today's nuclear fleet as
we have described, but also to operate the prototype reactors
which have a dual function, a research and development
function, that is the technical work that goes to de-risk the
new reactor core that we are going to put in the replacement
for the Ohio class, as well, the other purpose for those
reactors is a training function, where we train about 3,000
sailors, about 1,000 of those coming through our Department of
Energy facility in New York each year, and so there is this
continuous stream of operators to the fleet.
So the majority of that base funding goes to support those
people, really world-class technical base to get through the
technical issues, as well as there is operating and maintenance
of those prototype reactors, the spent fuel facility, Mr.
Chairman, that we talked about earlier, just to maintain those
facilities operating, dually required periodic and corrective
maintenance to keep those facilities operating.
And as the general said, in the past 5 years, those
facilities have been appropriated to about $550 million less
than the request, and we're trying to get back up on our plan
to stop backlogging maintenance on those facilities. So those
are the fundamental elements of our request in the base. And
then, ma'am, I know you're very conversant on the three
projects, the Ohio class replacement reactor, the refueling
that the general mentioned, and then the spent fuel facility
Idaho that we talked about earlier.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Admiral. Appreciate
it.
Admiral Richardson. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Senator Feinstein. I have no
other questions. Senator Lankford, do you have other questions?
Senator Lankford. No.
Senator Alexander. Well, thank you very much for this. In
summary, I'm encouraged based upon where we were 2 to 3 years
ago in terms of the big projects. And I would like to continue
to have our regular review of those things, so General Klotz,
if you could suggest to us. I'd like to ask you to pick the
times that make the most sense. I mean, if you're going to have
a Red Team review every 6 months, or if there is a budget event
coming, let's have the review--we don't want to make work. We
like to have a review at a logical time where you have
something to tell us and where we can ask questions. I'm
guessing spring and fall are a couple of good times. But think
about that, working with our staff, and then Senator Feinstein
and I will be available to you.
The hearing record will remain open for 10 days. Members
may submit additional information or questions for the record
if they would like.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Alexander. This subcommittee requests all responses
to questions for the record be provided within 30 days of
receipt. Thank you for being here today. This subcommittee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 11, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Alexander, Cochran, Murkowski, Graham,
Lankford, Feinstein, Murray, Udall, and Shaheen.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST J. MONIZ, PH.D., SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY FRANKLIN ORR, PH.D., UNDER SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND
ENERGY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER
Senator Alexander. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development will please come to order. This afternoon we are
having a hearing to review the President's fiscal year 2016
budget request for the Department of Energy. Senator Feinstein
and I will each have an opening statement. I will then
recognize each senator for up to five minutes for an opening
statement, alternating between the majority and the minority.
And then we will turn to Secretary Moniz. Secretary Orr is here
to answer questions relating to fusion science, not because
Secretary Moniz does not know anything about it, but because he
does. So under our brilliant rules, we do not get to ask him.
I am going to make one adjustment if it is necessary.
Senator Feinstein has an unavoidable conflict at about 3:15,
and I want to make sure that, she as well as I get to hear
Secretary Moniz's testimony, and that she gets to make her
opening statement and to ask her questions. So I may have
gotten out of order a little bit with the Senators, and I am
sure Senator Murray will be fine with--well, Senator Feinstein
has to leave at 3:15, and I wanted to give her a little--I want
to make sure she gets the chance to ask her questions before
she leaves.
Our witnesses today include Dr. Moniz and Dr. Orr. We are
here today to review the President's fiscal year 2016 budget
request for the Department of Energy, an Agency with three
critical missions: nuclear security, science and energy, and
environmental management. This is the subcommittee's fourth and
final hearing this year on the President's budget request, and
I look forward to hearing what the Secretary has to say.
The Department's budget request for 2016 is about $30.5
billion. This is an increase of about $2.5 billion over the
amount Congress appropriated last year. Governing is about
setting priorities, and given our fiscal constraints,
especially on non-defense spending, we are going to have to
make some tough decisions this year to make sure the highest
priorities are funded.
The President's entire discretionary budget request this
year exceeds the Budget Control Act's spending caps by about
$74 billion. This is not realistic. In fact, if we were to
fully fund just the Department of Energy's budget request of
$30.5 billion, our subcommittee would need almost the entire
increase available, about $3 billion, in both defense and non-
defense for fiscal year 2016 under the Budget Control Act
spending caps.
The real driver of our Federal debt is out of control
mandatory spending on entitlement programs. I plan to work with
our Republican majority, and I hope the President and Senate
Democrats who share the same concerns, to make the tough
choices so we can pass a real plan to fix the long-term debt,
while supporting other important priorities like national
defense, national labs, and medical research.
That is why we are holding this hearing, to give the
Secretary an opportunity to talk about the Department of
Energy's most urgent priorities so Senator Feinstein and I and
the other committee members can begin to put together our
appropriations bill over the next several weeks.
I am going to focus my attention on four areas: number one,
doubling basic energy research; two, reducing Federal spending
on mature technologies; three, leading the world in advanced
scientific computing; and four, solving the stalemate over what
to do with our country's nuclear waste. Just a few comments
about each of those areas.
I believe doubling basic energy research is one of the most
important things we can do. It is hard to think of any
important technological advance in the sciences--physics, and
biology in any event--since World War II that has not involved
at least some form of government-sponsored research, whether it
is the development of unconventional gas or the work being done
to develop small modular reactors. That is why it is so
important to double the more than $5 billion the U.S.
Department of Energy spends on basic energy research. That was
the goal set out in the America COMPETES legislation which
passed under President Bush with bipartisan support. That grew
out of the Rising Above-the-Gathering Storm report. The goal
was to double the Federal Government's investment in basic
research.
Two of the ways we have increased investment in basic
research are, one, our national lab system and, two, ARPA-E,
which Congress created as part of America COMPETES. The Office
of Sciences manages 10 of the 17 Department of Energy national
laboratories that are critical to our national competitiveness
and our way of life. They are home to the world's largest
collection of scientific user facilities operated by a single
organization, used by more than 31,000 researchers each year.
Since 2009, Congress has provided about $1 billion in
appropriations for ARPA-E, which has resulted in more than 400
projects. ARPA-E is successful because it stops funding
projects that do not meet their research milestones, and
funding is limited to 5 years.
The next priority is Federal spending on mature technology.
Washington has a bad habit of picking winners and losers and an
addiction to wasteful subsidies, and we need to end those
policies. The most conspicuous example of this is the wasteful
wind subsidy, which costs taxpayers about $6 billion every year
we extend it, enough to double basic energy research at the
Department of Energy.
President Obama's former Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, said
in 2011 that wind energy is a mature technology. There is a
place for limited, short-term subsidies to jump start
technologies, and I have supported some of those. But it is
long past time for wind to stand on its own in the market. The
subsidy for big wind has been renewed nine times since 1992. It
is so generous that wind producers can literally give their
electricity away in some markets and still make a profit. That
is called negative pricing, and it is distorting the market and
undercutting other forms of clean, reliable energy, such as
nuclear power.
The third area is leading the world in advanced scientific
computing. I got involved with super computing with Senator
Bingaman when I first became a Senator. At his direction, I
flew to Japan to see why they were first in the world and we
were not. I am glad to say that we have been with the Obama
Administration over the last several years. We see eye-to-eye
on the importance of these fast super computers, and I am glad
that because of a recent announcement, the Secretary was able
to make in the budget request that he includes that we will be
able to say that the world's fastest super computer would be,
again, in the United States by 2017.
Finally, I would like to discuss, and I will save most of
my comments for questions. The 25-year-old stalemate about what
we do about used fuel from nuclear reactors. I want to make
sure we have a strong future in this country for nuclear power.
It is essential, therefore, we have a permanent place to put
used nuclear fuel. The Federal Government is responsible for
disposing of that. It has failed in its responsibility even
though the rate payers have deposited billions to pay for it.
The government's failure to follow the law not only imperils
the future of nuclear power, it also results in wasting
billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars.
To help solve this stalemate, 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 3
years when she was the chairman. We have also introduced
legislation yesterday with Senator Murkowski and Cantwell to
create both temporary and permanent storage sites for nuclear
waste. The new sites we are seeking to establish would not take
the place of Yucca Mountain. We have more than enough used fuel
to fill Yucca Mountain, but rather would complement it. Our
legislation is consistent with the President's Blue Ribbon
Commission on America's Nuclear Future. The Secretary served on
that commission.
I should note that Federal law designates one repository
for our country's used nuclear fuel, Yucca Mountain. After
years of delay, Yucca Mountain can and should be part of the
solution to our nuclear waste stalemate. The regulatory
commission, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, recently completed
the safety evaluation report that said that Yucca ``met all of
the safety requirements through the period of geologic
stability.'' The Commission and the Environmental Protection
Agency defined that period as one million years. So to continue
to oppose Yucca Mountain because radiation concerns ignores
science as well as the law.
Secretary Moniz had an important announcement to make
yesterday on used nuclear fuel. I appreciate, and I know
Senator Feinstein appreciates, his putting a priority on the
subject. We are going to need your help, Mr. Secretary, to set
priorities and make tough funding decisions for the Department
this year.
With that, I would recognize 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 2016 budget
request for the Department of Energy, a Federal agency with three
critical missions: nuclear security, science and energy, and
environmental management.
This is the subcommittee's fourth and final hearing this year on
the President's budget request, and I look forward to hearing what
Secretary Moniz has to say about the department's priorities.
The Department of Energy's budget request for fiscal year 2016 is
about $30.5 billion. This is an increase of about $2.5 billion over the
amount Congress appropriated 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 tough decisions this year to make sure the highest
priorities are funded.
The President's entire discretionary budget request this year
exceeds the Budget Control Act spending caps by about $74 billion. This
is not realistic.
In fact, if we were to fully fund just the Department of Energy's
budget request of $30.5 billion, our subcommittee would need almost the
entire increase available--about $3 billion--in both defense and non-
defense for fiscal year 2016 under the Budget Control Act's spending
caps.
The real driver of our Federal debt is out-of-control mandatory
spending on entitlement programs.
I plan to work with our Republican majority--and, I hope, the
President and Senate Democrats who share the same concerns--to make
tough choices so we can pass a real plan to fix the debt while
supporting other priorities like national defense and national labs and
medical research.
And that is why we are holding this hearing: to give Secretary
Moniz an opportunity to talk 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 several weeks.
Today, I'd like to focus my questions on four main areas, all with
an eye toward setting priorities:
1. Doubling basic energy research;
2. Reducing Federal spending on mature technologies;
3. Leading the world in advanced scientific computing; and
4. Solving the stalemate over what to do with our country's nuclear
waste
doubling basic energy research
Doubling basic energy research is one of the most important things
we can do to unleash our free enterprise system to help provide the
clean, cheap, reliable energy we need to power our 21st-century
economy.
It's hard to think of an important technological advance since
World War II that has not involved at least some form of government-
sponsored research. Take, for example, our latest energy boom: natural
gas.
The development of unconventional gas was enabled in part by 3D
mapping at Sandia National Lab in New Mexico and the Department of
Energy's large-scale demonstration project. Then our free enterprise
system, and our tradition of private ownership of mineral rights,
capitalized on the basic energy research.
Another example is the work being done to develop small modular
reactors, which would allow nuclear power to be produced with less
capital investment and to be accessible in more places.
That's why it's so important that we work to double the more than
$5 billion the U.S. Department of Energy spends on basic energy
research. We set out on this goal with America COMPETES, legislation
that was first passed under President Bush with overwhelming bipartisan
support.
America COMPETES grew out of the ``Rising Above the Gathering
Storm'' report on American competitiveness, written by Norm Augustine.
The goal was to double the Federal Government's investment in basic
research, including math, the physical sciences and engineering.
Two of the ways we have increased investment in basic energy
research is through our national laboratory system and the Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), which Congress created as
part of America COMPETES to fund transformational energy technology
projects.
The Office of Science manages 10 of the 17 Department of Energy
national laboratories, including Oak Ridge National Laboratory in
Tennessee. These national laboratories are critical to our Nation's
competitiveness and our way of life.
The laboratories are also home to the world's largest collection of
scientific user facilities operated by a single organization, used by
more than 31,000 researchers each year.
Since 2009 Congress has provided about $1 billion in appropriations
for ARPA-E, which has resulted in more than 400 projects. ARPA-E is
successful because it stops funding projects that don't meet their
research milestones and funding is limited to 5 years.
reducing federal spending on mature technologies
That brings me to the next priority I'd like to discuss, which is
to reduce Federal spending on mature technologies. Washington has a bad
habit of picking winners and losers, and an addiction to wasteful
subsidies of all kinds--we need to end these policies.
The most conspicuous example of this addiction is the wasteful wind
subsidy--which costs taxpayers about $6 billion every year we extend
it, enough to double basic energy research at the Department of Energy.
President Obama's former Energy Secretary, Stephen Chu, said in
2011 that wind energy is a ``mature technology.''
There is a place for limited, short-term subsidies to jumpstart new
technologies, but it is long past time for wind to stand on its own in
the marketplace.
The subsidy for Big Wind has been renewed 9 times since 1992 and is
so generous that in some markets, wind producers can literally give
their electricity away and still make a profit.
This is called ``negative pricing'' and it shows that the wind
subsidy isn't just wasting money that could go toward other
priorities--it's distorting the market and undercutting other forms of
clean, reliable energy like nuclear power.
leading the world in advanced scientific computing
Supercomputing is critical to our economic competitiveness and a
secure energy future.
The United States faces a choice between falling further behind
competitors like China, or advancing technology that can make the
United States safer and more competitive in a global, 21st-century
economy.
In November of last year, I was glad to announce with you,
Secretary Moniz, that by 2017 the world's fastest supercomputer would
again be in the United States, and that it would again be at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory.
That computer will be called Summit, and it will help researchers
better understand materials, nuclear power, and new energy
breakthroughs. I am glad to have your support for this initiative, and
I appreciate that the President's budget request includes funding to
make Summit ready for users by 2018 and also for the next generation of
supercomputers.
Funding this next generation, known as exascale, is essential to
U.S. national security, competitiveness in science and technology and
to enable our free enterprise system to create the good-paying jobs of
the future.
Supercomputing has helped maintain our nuclear stockpile, allowed
manufacturers to make better products and save money and even allowed
scientists to map the human heart at one beat per second.
solving the nuclear waste stalemate
I'd also like to discuss solving the 25-year-old stalemate about
what to do with used fuel from our nuclear reactors, to ensure that
nuclear power has a strong future in this country.
Federal law makes the government responsible for disposing of used
nuclear fuel. Yet the government has failed in this responsibility,
even though ratepayers have deposited billions into the Nuclear Waste
Fund to pay for it.
The government's failure to follow the law not only imperils the
future of nuclear power in our country, but it also results in wasting
billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars to settle lawsuits by
utilities, who are stuck with the used fuel until the government takes
it.
To help solve this stalemate, 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 3 years.
We also introduced bipartisan legislation yesterday with Senator
Lisa Murkowski and Senator Maria Cantwell to create both temporary and
permanent storage sites for nuclear waste.
The new sites we are seeking to establish would not take the place
of Yucca Mountain--we have more than enough used fuel to fill Yucca
Mountain to its legal capacity--but rather would complement it.
Our legislation is consistent with the President's Blue Ribbon
Commission on America's Nuclear Future, and is the result of many
meetings with experts like Secretary Moniz, who served on the Blue
Ribbon Commission.
I should note that Federal law designates one repository for our
country's used nuclear fuel, Yucca Mountain. After years of delay, I
want to be clear: Yucca Mountain can and should be part of the solution
to our nuclear waste stalemate.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently completed the Safety
Evaluation Report that said Yucca Mountain met all of the safety
requirements through ``the period of geologic stability.'' The
commission and the Environmental Protection Agency define the ``period
of geologic stability'' as 1 million years.
To continue to oppose Yucca Mountain because of radiation concerns
is to ignore science--as well as the law.
Secretary Moniz, we are going to need your help to set priorities
and make tough funding decisions for the department this year, and I
look forward to your testimony.
With that, I would recognize Senator Feinstein to make her opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
agree with virtually all of your statement. And it is really a
pleasure for me to work with you over these many years, and I
think we have gotten some things done. I will put my written
remarks in the record if I may. And I just want to say that I
am delighted that we have finally introduced a waste policy act
bill for our country, which has no waste policy that we know
of, and which at the price of about $20 billion a year
registers debt because we are unable to carry out our mission.
And I understand we will owe about $20 billion by 2020. So this
is a step along the way.
And I want to point out that it is voluntary. If we have
learned anything it is that these facilities have to have the
approval of their community and their State. And so, the bill
we have submitted essentially achieves that, and also has the
Congress approving it as well. So it has been a long work in
progress.
We have had the pleasure of meeting with two Secretaries,
Secretary Chu and Secretary Moniz, with the Blue Ribbon
Commission, with virtually a number of other people. We have
discussed among ourselves different mechanisms. And, the four
of us have always come to agreement, and one more time we have
come to agreement in a bill that has now been introduced. And
hopefully Senator Murkowski will schedule it and have a
hearing, and it can move ahead. I view that as a very important
legislative endeavor.
The rest of my--I would rather save my time for the
questions if I may, and thank you very much.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. Here is
how we will proceed. I will ask Senator Murray to her opening
statement, and then we will go Secretary Moniz for his
testimony. Then we will go to Senator Feinstein for her
questions so that she has a chance to offer them before she
needs to leave.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will just save
my time for questions.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Murray. I might just
say that I am a fortunate chairman because the ranking members
that I work with are both here today, and I really appreciate
my ability to work with both of these senators. They are
direct. They are easy to work with. They state their positions,
and they look for results. So it makes my work here much more
useful.
Secretary Moniz, welcome. We look forward to your
testimony.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DR. ERNEST J. MONIZ
Secretary Moniz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I might say
that I enjoy working with all three of you as well. Ranking
Member Feinstein, Senator Murray, I am pleased to be here to
discuss our fiscal year 2016 budget request of $29.9 billion.
As you know, the Department is entrusted with a diverse
portfolio. It includes advancing the all-of-the-above energy
strategy, providing a good part of the backbone of basic
research in the physical sciences in this country, ensuring
nuclear security, and cleaning up the Cold War environmental
contamination. The request represents an increase, as you said,
of $2 and a half billion, or nine percent, above the fiscal
year 2015 appropriations level, and we feel supports a balanced
portfolio within those mission areas.
In funding for nuclear security activities, including NNSA
and defense-related environmental cleanup, that totals almost
$19 billion. Nearly 2/3 of our budget is in the defense line.
The non-defense line--science, energy, and other activities--
about $10.9 billion.
Let me just summarize a few highlights so that we can move
on to our discussion. First, in science and energy, that fiscal
year 2016 request is $5.3 billion for science, a 5 percent
increase. Among other things, we are very committed to continue
building and upgrading and operating our national research
infrastructure to really stay at the cutting edge of light
sources, super computer, neutron sources, and other large-scale
facilities that we make available to the national community.
As one highlight, just last month we completed--celebrated
the completion ahead of schedule and within budget of the
brightest light source in the world, the National Synchrotron
Light Source II at Brookhaven, and we have a number of other
upgrades at other places coming along. We have also
commissioned major facilities at Jefferson Lab and at
Princeton. We are now building a second generation light source
at SLAC, and the rare isotope beam facility at Michigan State.
So I just want to emphasize that it is a pattern of advancing
these important facilities for our user community.
The energy portfolio is about $5.38 billion in the
proposal. Over the past year we have seen accomplishments
across our all-of-the-above energy technology portfolio. We
have actually--we have sequestered now over nine million metric
tons of CO2 in DOE-sponsored projects. Two
cellulosic ethanol facilities that were partially supported by
DOE grants and loan guarantees have begun operating. We issued
last year 10 final appliance efficiency standards, which all
together will reduce CO2 emissions by over 435
million metric tons and save consumers about $80 billion
through 2030.
Advanced manufacturing is a key priority, and the budget
provides about $400 million to fully fund, and it is 5 years of
funding, of two new clean energy manufacturing institutes while
continuing funding for four institutes. Just last month we
announced the Manufacturing Innovation Institute for Advanced
Composites, which I think you are familiar with, Mr. Chairman.
This technology has the potential to revolutionize advanced
manufacturing with implications reaching from better wind
turbines to more efficient vehicles.
The budget increases our investments in sustainable
transportation, including $40 billion for technologies to
double freight truck efficiency by 2020. Also $253 million for
advancing the Electric Vehicle Everywhere Initiative to promote
that technology. In fossil energy, we will continue development
of carbon capture utilization and storage for coal plants, and
note this was done in concert with the new tax credits that are
proposed in the Administration's Power Plus Initiative for
carbon sequestration.
I would like to highlight our proposed increase in ARPA-E,
an increase of $45 million. We are now at the fifth anniversary
of the first ARPA-E grants, and now we can start talking about
the impressive successes in outcomes from that program,
including moving technologies to the marketplace.
And finally, the budget includes $63 million to initiate
two new programs of grants to States, one on reliability
planning and one on energy assurance planning. The forthcoming,
and it is forthcoming, quadrennial energy review will provide
supporting analyses for these initiatives.
Let me then turn briefly to national nuclear security. The
fiscal year 2016 budget allocates $11.6 billion to NNSA. The
budget supports a key objective to sustain the successful two-
decade now Scientific Stockpile Stewardship Program to maintain
a safe, secure, and effective nuclear weapon stockpile without
testing. The budget also includes funding increases to
modernize the stockpile through life extension programs and new
investments in the supporting infrastructure.
Last year in our nonproliferation programs, we removed or
disposed of almost 200 kilograms of vulnerable nuclear
materials out of six countries and expanded radiation detection
systems worldwide to prevent illicit trafficking of nuclear and
radiological materials. The budget includes $1.9 billion for
the Nonproliferation Office. The budget also includes
construction of the Mixed Oxide Project of Savannah River at
the same funding level as Congress appropriated in fiscal year
2015, while completing congressionally directed studies on
plutonium disposition costs and alternatives.
The budget also provides $1.4 billion for the Naval
Reactors Program to continue development of the Advanced Ohio
Class replacement reactor, support refueling of the land-based
prototype reactor, and expand design work for the Spent Fuel
Handling Recapitalization project.
Finally, within our management and performance portfolio,
the largest element by far is the Environmental Management
Program. The fiscal year 2016 budget request is $5.8 billion,
essentially equal to the fiscal year 2015 appropriation. We
know significant challenges remain, but for perspective, DOE
has cleaned up over 85 percent of sites and 90 percent of the
land area.
The fiscal year 2015 appropriation provided a large one-
time funding increase to implement the recovery plan for the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Bringing this facility back on
line is a very high priority, and we believe we are on schedule
to resume operations in about a year. The fiscal year 2015
funding also enabled us to complete demolition of the K25
Facility at Oakridge.
The fiscal year 2016 budget allocates increased funding for
a phased approach for the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant to
begin vitrifying low activity waste early next decade. We will
also operate the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit at Idaho, and
complete construction of the Salt Waste Processing Facility at
Savannah River. Finally, elsewhere within management and
performance, we continue to strengthen cross-program
coordination and to improve efficiency and effectiveness of
mission support functions.
That concludes my statement, and I look forward to our
discussion. Excuse my voice.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ernest J. Moniz
Chairmen Cochran and Alexander, Ranking Members Mikulski and
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 2016. 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
DOE is entrusted with a broad and diverse portfolio across its
three major mission areas of nuclear security, science and energy, and
environmental management. The budget request for fiscal year 2016 for
the Department of Energy is $29.9 billion, $2.5 billion above fiscal
year 2015 enacted, to support our mission responsibilities and to
continue improving our management and performance in support of those
missions.
For nuclear security, the budget includes $12.6 billion, an
increase of $1.2 billion over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level, to
support DOE's responsibilities of maintaining and modernizing, via life
extension programs, the nuclear deterrent without testing; controlling
and eliminating nuclear materials worldwide and providing nuclear and
radiological emergency response capabilities in an age of global
terrorism; and propelling our nuclear Navy.
For science and energy, the budget includes $10.7 billion, an
increase of $1.3 billion over the fiscal year 2015 enacted, to support
DOE's missions of enabling the transition to a clean energy future with
low-cost, all-of-the-above energy technologies; supporting a secure,
modern, and resilient energy infrastructure; and providing the backbone
for discovery and innovation, especially in the physical sciences, for
America's research community.
For environmental management, the budget includes $5.8 billion, to
support DOE's responsibility of cleaning up from the Cold War legacy of
nuclear weapons production.
Approximately $18.9 billion, or 63 percent of the Department's
budget request, is national security-related funding, including the
nuclear security and most of the environmental management programs. The
remaining 37 percent is for nondefense programs in energy, science, and
other programs such as building capabilities to respond to energy
disruptions, enhancing data collection and analysis in critical areas,
and supporting obligations for international cooperation in clean
energy and energy security.
science: leading edge research and world class research infrastructure
Starting with basic research, DOE's Office of Science is the
largest Federal sponsor of basic research in the physical sciences,
supporting 22,000 researchers at 17 National Laboratories and more than
300 universities. Informed by the latest science advisory council
reports and recommendations, the fiscal year 2016 budget request
provides $5.34 billion for Science, $272 million above the fiscal year
2015 enacted level, to continue 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.
One of the signature aspects of our basic science research program
is the Department's support for the construction and operation of major
user facilities at the national laboratories that serve over 31,000
scientists and engineers each year on an open-access basis. We are
committed to staying at the cutting edge of light sources, super
computers, neutron sources, and other facilities essential to advancing
our mission. In the last year, for example, we completed the brightest
light source in the world, the National Synchrotron Light Source II at
Brookhaven National Laboratory, ahead of schedule and on budget. We are
at the commissioning phase of the 12 GeV Upgrade to the Continuous
Electron Beam Accelerator Facility at the Thomas Jefferson National
Accelerator Facility, and the National Spherical Torus Experiment at
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory intends to begin research this
summer after a significant upgrade.
Looking forward in the fiscal year 2016 budget, we continue
construction of critical, new user facilities while ensuring increased
investment in national laboratory infrastructure renewal to help
sustain America's scientific enterprise. The Request supports a major
upgrade of the Linac Coherent Light Source at SLAC and construction of
the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams at Michigan State University. In
addition, the budget provides approximately $2 billion to fund
operations of our 27 existing scientific user facilities.
These facilities investments and research grants funded by the
Office of Science will ensure that we continue to support discovery
science, as well as science that underpins future energy and other
technologies.
For example, using the current Linac Coherent Light Source at SLAC,
scientists last year mapped for the first time the structure of a
protein within a living cell. This single example highlights the
tremendous benefits of our national laboratories in a broad range of
scientific and applied areas. In addition, the Office of Science
supports research at hundreds of universities in all 50 States through
competitive grants to advance our mission. For example, a university
group recently developed a new class of polymer-based flexible
electronics for solar cells and medical applications through DOE-funded
research.
High performance computing is a traditional area of strength and
responsibility for the Department of Energy that has been an important
component of U.S. leadership in science and technology more broadly.
The fiscal year 2016 budget grows our investment significantly to $273
million for a multi-year, joint Office of Science-National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) effort to achieve exascale computing--
computing platforms with 100 to 1000 times more computational power
than today's systems. This effort requires researchers and industry to
overcome a number of technical challenges, including energy and big
data management, as part of our push to develop enabling capabilities
for exascale computing. We recently announced the joint Collaboration
of Oak Ridge, Argonne, and Lawrence Livermore (CORAL) to advance within
an order of magnitude of the exascale target within a few years. In
addition, the Office of Science is supporting the Computational Science
Graduate Fellowship program to support training in advanced scientific
computing. These investments will ensure continued U.S. leadership of
this critical capability in a very competitive global environment.
The budget provides funding at the fiscal year 2015 level for the
U.S. contributions to the ITER project, a major international fusion
facility currently under construction in France. ITER will be the
world's first magnetic confinement long-pulse, high-power burning
plasma experiment aimed at demonstrating the scientific and technical
feasibility of fusion energy, and the request includes support for
important critical-path items.
We will continue in this budget to grow the Energy Frontier
Research Center (EFRC) program by initiating five new centers and
continuing support for existing Centers, for a total investment of $110
million in fiscal year 2016. This EFRC program is our flagship
investment in basic science that underpins future energy technologies.
With our budget request, we support Fermilab operations at a total
of $135 million for operations, which includes operations of the NOvA
neutrino experiment. We are also investing $20 million to move forward
planning and design for the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility at
Fermilab. Last year, the particle physics community came forward with a
visionary strategic plan for the High Energy Physics program, and our
budget request responds to their recommendations, specifically by
aiming to develop a strong international consortium for the next
generation of neutrino physics experiments.
energy
All-of-the-Above Energy Approach for a Clean Energy Economy
Preparing for the clean energy economy in order to address climate
change and energy security, principally through science and technology,
is an essential focus of the Department of Energy. The President's
Climate Action Plan is a guiding document for our efforts to mitigate
climate change risks through clean energy technologies. The
Administration remains committed to an all-of-the-above energy
approach, and we believe that we need to enable technologies across all
fuel sources to become competitors in a future clean energy
marketplace.
In the last year, we have seen important accomplishments across the
Department's technology portfolio that highlight our all-of-the-above
approach. We have geologically sequestered over 9 million metric tons
of CO2 through DOE-supported projects. Two commercial-scale cellulosic
ethanol facilities supported by DOE grants or loan guarantees have
commenced operations. We have commissioned one of the world's largest
battery storage systems at the Tehachapi Wind Energy Storage Project.
We have issued ten final appliance energy efficiency standards in
calendar year 2014, which altogether will help reduce carbon dioxide
emissions by over 435 million metric tons through 2030. Standards
enacted since 2009 are projected to avoid a cumulative total of 2.2
billion metric tons of carbon emissions through 2030. The Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) has achieved 70 percent
of the SunShot goal of cost parity for utility scale solar energy.
The Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy's (ARPA-E) grant
program has attracted more than $850 million in private follow-on
funding to 34 ARPA-E projects, with 30 ARPA-E teams forming new
companies.
EERE has launched the Frontier Observatory for Research in
Geothermal Energy (FORGE), a first-of-a-kind field laboratory to deploy
enhanced geothermal energy systems, and we have seen battery technology
improvements that are projected to reduce battery costs for electric
vehicles by 40 percent. The Office of Nuclear Energy has successfully
completed the first 5-year program at the Consortium for Advanced
Simulation of Light Water Reactors (CASL) nuclear modeling Hub at Oak
Ridge and has initiated a second award for design and licensing support
of a small modular nuclear reactor with advanced safety features.
Consistent with an all-of-the-above energy strategy, the DOE Loan
Programs Office has issued loan guarantee solicitations for innovative
technologies in four areas, including $4 billion for renewable energy
and energy efficiency, $8 billion for fossil energy, $12 billion for
nuclear energy, and $16 billion for advanced vehicle technology
manufacturing.
Projects that this program has supported include one of the world's
largest wind farms; several of the world's largest solar generation and
thermal energy storage systems; Tesla Motors; and more than a dozen new
or retooled auto manufacturing plants. This program's accomplishments
include issuing loan guarantees for projects that avoided more than 6.1
million metric tons of carbon dioxide cumulatively in 2014, and for
companies that produced more than 2.1 million fuel-efficient vehicles
in 2014. We are moving aggressively in finding good projects to deploy
innovative energy technologies using the remaining $40 billion in loan
authority in the coming years.
Together, these accomplishments illustrate how DOE's programs
invest in an all-of-the-above spectrum of energy technologies, and the
fiscal year 2016 budget request continues forward on that strategy with
a $5.4 billion request for our applied energy programs.
Advanced manufacturing will continue to be a major focus of our
investments. We will continue to help support an American manufacturing
renaissance. The fiscal year 2016 budget fully funds two new clean
energy manufacturing innovation institutes and continues funding for
four institutes, as part of the larger National Network for
Manufacturing Innovation, including the advanced composites
manufacturing institute in Tennessee the President announced in
January. To support these institutes, the Request provides $196 million
out of a total request of $404 million for EERE's Advanced
Manufacturing program.
In energy efficiency, the Request invests $264 million, an increase
of $92 million, to develop and promote the adoption of technologies and
practices that, when fully deployed, would reduce U.S. building-related
energy use by 50 percent from the 2010 Annual Energy Outlook baseline.
It also provides $228 million, $35 million above fiscal year 2015, to
support competitively selected projects, training and technical
assistance, and residential energy efficiency retrofits to
approximately 33,000 low-income households nationwide.
The FEMP budget includes $15 million for the Federal Energy
Efficiency Fund which provides direct assistance to agencies for
investing in priority energy projects for efficiency and renewables. By
providing direct funding and leveraging cost sharing at other agencies,
the fund creates greater opportunities to develop Federal projects that
may not otherwise be implemented.
The Request increases our investments in sustainable
transportation, including $40 million for the SuperTruck II initiative
to develop and demonstrate technologies to double class 8 freight truck
efficiency by 2020 from a 2009 baseline. The Request also continues our
focus on electric vehicles by investing $253 million in the EV
Everywhere initiative, which aims to enable domestic production of
plug-in vehicles that are as affordable and convenient as gasoline
vehicles by 2022. By continuing to make progress in core component
technologies such as the dramatic reductions we are seeing in battery
and fuel cell costs, we are looking to achieve transformative
performance improvements for electric vehicles in the marketplace.
In biofuels, the budget continues our focus on drop-in fuels, which
can take advantage of existing infrastructure, and we will provide $45
million for the jointly funded USDA/DOD/DOE commercial scale
biorefineries program to produce military specification drop-in fuels.
We will also continue research and development efforts on supplying,
formatting, and converting cellulosic and algae-based feedstocks to
bio-based gasoline and diesel, with a $138 million investment in the
fiscal year 2016 Request.
The budget continues to support accelerated advances in renewable
energy. The SunShot Initiative has helped accelerate the reduction in
solar costs, and our request of $337 million, an increase of $104
million, aims to continue progress to achieve cost parity without
subsidies by 2020. For wind energy, the Request of $146 million, an
increase of $39 million, includes funding for year 5 of a 6 fiscal-year
Offshore Wind Advanced Technology Demonstration program supporting
three offshore wind projects on track to begin operation in 2017. Our
request of $96 million for geothermal energy, $41 million above fiscal
year 2015, implements the FORGE, an experimental facility aimed to
advance enhanced geothermal systems, and pursues new approaches to
hydrothermal development with a special focus on collaborative efforts
with the Office of Fossil Energy on subsurface science, technology and
engineering.
As we witness the transformation of our Nation's electric grid, the
Department continues to drive electric grid modernization and
resilience. In May 2014, with cost-share funding provided by the Office
of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE), Southern
California Edison constructed and installed equipment for a prototype 8
megawatt/32 megawatt-hour battery storage plant for wind integration at
Tehachapi, CA. The Tehachapi Wind Energy Storage Project is positioned
to demonstrate the effectiveness of lithium-ion battery and smart
inverter technologies to improve grid performance and assist in the
integration of variable energy resources. In addition, we continue
improving the security of the Nation's energy infrastructure. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory announced in January 2015 the licensing of its
Hyperion software, which helps detect software that has been
maliciously altered. Today, more than 20 new technologies that OE
investments helped support are now being used to further advance the
resilience of the Nation's energy delivery systems.
In fossil energy, we will continue our across-the-board focus on
carbon capture and sequestration and improving the environmental
performance of natural gas development. In particular, the fiscal year
2016 budget includes funding to conduct initial R&D towards
demonstration of carbon capture and storage for natural gas plants.
While natural gas is an important bridge fuel, natural gas, as well as
coal, will need carbon capture and sequestration to compete in a future
clean energy economy.
And while the fiscal year 2016 budget does not request new
authority in these areas, the Department has $8 billion in loan
guarantee authority for advanced fossil technologies, as I mentioned
earlier, and the Department will continue to work with prospective
applicants. Through the President's budget request for the Treasury
Department, the Administration is also proposing a new, $2 billion
refundable investment tax credit, including support for the
infrastructure for carbon capture and sequestration, as well as a
sequestration credit for commercial carbon capture use and storage
(CCUS) deployment to allow for enhanced oil recovery or injection into
deep saline aquifers.
In the area of nuclear energy, the Request includes $62.5 million
to continue technical support for moving a small modular reactor to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing stage by the end of 2016, as a
step towards industry's demonstration of this important technology
early in the next decade. The Request includes $326 million to support
research and development on reactor aging issues, advanced reactor
concepts, and the fuel cycle. This request continues to support R&D on
nuclear fuel issues at the Idaho National Laboratory. It also supports
research on accident tolerant fuels and includes funding to continue
laying the groundwork for implementing the Administration's Strategy
for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Radioactive Waste, including a consent-based approach to the siting of
storage and disposal facilities for nuclear waste. The Request also
focuses resources on maintaining operational readiness at the Idaho
National Laboratory, including $23.2 million for major power
distribution infrastructure refurbishments and $11.7 million for
critical security infrastructure investments.
The Request includes $325 million for ARPA-E, an increase of $45
million from fiscal year 2015, to continue to grow this important
program. The program, which received its first appropriation in 2009,
is now showing impressive results. It has over 400 projects to date,
and the first group of completed projects has led to 30 new companies,
of which five have been acquired by large strategic investors.
Altogether, 34 ARPA-E projects have attracted over $850 million in
follow-on funding.
Through ARPA-E, we will continue to invest in early-stage
innovation with the potential to lead to transformational energy
technologies.
For the loan programs, while the Request does not propose new
authority for the Title 17 or Advanced Technology Vehicles
Manufacturing loan programs, the fiscal year 2016 budget does include
$9 million for credit subsidy to support a new loan guarantee
solicitation for new clean energy projects on Tribal Lands.
In addition to the new loan program, the Request provides $20
million for the Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs, an
increase of $4 million, for its technical and financial assistance
programs, with increased emphasis on remote communities and the
National Strategy for the Arctic Region.
The Department's final fiscal year 2015 budget supported a new
workforce development effort for graduate and post-doctoral training in
three areas of specific mission need for the Department: high
performance computing in the Office of Science, advanced manufacturing
in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and subsurface
topics and project management in the Office of Environmental
Management. These DOE traineeships are modeled in part after other
Federal programs for university-led graduate traineeships and include
components that are uniquely focused on DOE mission workforce training
needs. Our fiscal year 2016 budget request proposes to add a fourth
traineeship on radiochemistry, supported by the Office of Nuclear
Energy, where we see a specific mission need.
Transforming Energy Systems, Investing in Resilient Energy
Infrastructure
In addition to the clean energy investments I just discussed, our
Nation's energy infrastructure is an area that needs--and is now
getting--more attention.
We have had several recent accomplishments relating to our energy
infrastructure. Following the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, the Office
of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability committed $500,000,
along with EERE, totaling $1 million for Sandia National Laboratories
to provide technical assistance to New Jersey Transit and the Board of
Public Utilities to assess NJ Transit's energy needs and help develop a
conceptual design of an advanced microgrid system that will avoid
disruptions and make it easier to get the power back on after a major
disaster.
Led by our Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis, we have
also completed a nationwide public stakeholder process and analytical
work in support of the upcoming release of the first-ever Quadrennial
Energy Review (QER) of U.S. energy infrastructures.
The QER is a 4-year interagency process, with the first year
focusing on energy infrastructure--the transmission, storage, and
delivery of energy. We expect the first QER installment to be released
soon, and many of you may be interested in that document for its
systematic analysis of the breadth of challenges with our current
energy infrastructure. The QER will also include recommendations to
drive future program directions.
The electricity grid underpins many other infrastructures, and the
fiscal year 2016 budget Request includes $356 million, an increase of
$160 million, for a major crosscutting initiative led by the Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability to focus on the
modernization of the electricity grid. This initiative invests in
technology development, enhanced security, and modeling to enable the
electricity grid of the future. This initiative includes $10 million
for R&D to improve resilience of large-scale electricity transformers
and $14.5 million to transition to an integrated system at the
distribution level and develop a platform for market-based control
signals. In addition, the Request establishes a virtual collaborative
environment for conducting real-time advanced digital forensics
cybersecurity analysis, which can be used to analyze untested and
untrusted code, programs, and websites without allowing the software to
harm the host device.
The Request includes $15 million to develop advanced technologies
to detect and mitigate methane emissions from natural gas transmission,
distribution, and storage facilities, and $10 million to improve
methane leakage measurements.
We will focus new attention on State grants for energy assurance
and reliability, recognizing that many authorities and actions in this
area depend upon the States. The fiscal year 2016 Request includes
$35.5 million to provide grants to State, tribal, and local governments
to update energy assurance plans to address infrastructure resilience,
as well as $27.5 million that is part of the Grid Modernization
crosscutting initiative to provide competitive grants to States and
multi-State entities to address electricity reliability.
Finally, while we move toward implementation of recommendations on
the first installment of the QER on infrastructure, DOE will move
forward on future installments of the 4-year QER. The budget includes
$35 million for the Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis to
provide integrated energy systems analysis and follow-on QER support
activities.
In addition to the longstanding major mission areas of nuclear
security, science and energy, and environmental cleanup, emergency
response is an important mission for the Department. While we have had
an ongoing responsibility for nuclear and radiological incident
response, the Department has intensified its efforts for energy
infrastructure emergency response, working with FEMA. Our budget
proposes an increase from $6 million to $14 million for Infrastructure
Security and Energy Restoration, the lead program for these responses.
While the budget for this emerging responsibility is relatively small,
it is an increasingly important focus.
Enhancing Collective Energy Security
The Department's work in energy security is modest in budget
requirements but greatly important for the Nation. Particularly given
the events in Europe and Ukraine, we have an increased global focus on
collective energy security--energy security for the United States and
its allies.
In the last year, we worked with the G-7 and the European
Commission to achieve a G-7 Leaders Agreement on a new collective
energy security framework. Led by our Office of International Affairs,
we also worked directly with Ukraine to provided technical support in
developing its first ever energy emergency management plan, especially
for the winter. In December, we also signed a Memorandum of
Understanding with Canada and Mexico to initiate improved coordination
of North American energy data. Led by DOE's Energy Information
Administration (EIA), this will help us develop stronger active
collaboration moving forward.
To continue on this progress for collective energy security, the
fiscal year 2016 budget request includes $24 million for the Office of
International Affairs. While the funding level is not large compared
with other parts of the Department, the Office of International Affairs
is taking on increased responsibility, as I just highlighted, and
funding at this level is needed to fulfill its important mission and
strengthen international energy technology, information and analytical
collaborations.
Similarly, the budget increases investment in the EIA to $131
million, in order to fill gaps in current energy data, including
transportation of oil by rail and integrating energy data with Canada
and Mexico. The EIA recently initiated a data reporting program on oil
and natural gas production trends by region, and the requested increase
is needed to continue with this and other improvements in our data
collection, analysis, and reporting.
Last year, the Department also completed a 5 million barrel test
sale for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to look at
infrastructure challenges resulting in large part from pipelines now
flowing in opposite directions from when the SPR was originally
established. Through the test sale, we found challenges confronting the
SPR's distribution system, and the fiscal year 2016 budget proposes an
increase of $57 million above fiscal year 2015 for the SPR to begin
addressing the operational readiness issues found through the test sale
to enhance distribution flexibility and reliability and to begin to
address the existing backlog of deferred maintenance projects.
Strategic Partnerships with National Laboratories to Advance DOE
Missions
The Department is continuing its focus on building the strategic
partnership with the National Laboratories. DOE is a science and
technology agency, and our efforts across all of our mission areas are
heavily grounded in science and technology. The National Labs are a
major core asset in executing our missions, and strengthening our
partnerships is critical to our success.
We are doing that in a variety of ways. For example, DOE is
engaging the laboratories very early on in our program planning. The
National Laboratories Ideas Summit helped shape fiscal year 2016 budget
initiatives and was instrumental in forming a special consortium of 14
National Laboratories arranged to implement the crosscutting grid
modernization research.
We also have begun using the National Laboratories' expertise in
science and technologies in some of our major challenges outside of the
science and energy arena. When faced with what looked like major
problems with the cost and schedule of the Uranium Processing Facility
(UPF) at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, or the major
problem we had at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), we engaged
Laboratory leadership to help reformulate our approach to those issues.
In those two examples, Oak Ridge National Laboratory led the Red Team
review and restructuring of UPF, and the Savannah River National
Laboratory led the forensics effort to investigate the cause of the
failure of the waste canister at WIPP.
The Laboratory Operations Board (LOB), a body that we put in place
in 2013, performed the first-ever uniform assessment of general purpose
infrastructure at all Laboratories and NNSA plants. That has led to
identifying over $100 million in the fiscal year 2016 budget in new
investments for priority general purpose infrastructure projects guided
by LOB assessments, while also avoiding an increase in deferred
maintenance.
Finally, we have developed new strategies to strengthen
institutional capability of the National Laboratory system based on
advice from the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB).
Enhancing Impact: Crosscutting Initiatives in Key Technology Areas
The fiscal year 2016 budget expands the crosscutting initiatives
introduced in the fiscal year 2015 budget designed to advance key
technology areas that have multiple energy resource applications. Each
crosscut reflects an integrated plan of work to optimize programmatic
objectives by efficiently allocating resources. Through deliberate and
enterprise-wide planning and coordination of these research efforts,
the crosscutting initiatives will help bolster DOE's efforts to
institutionalize enhanced program management and coordination across
program offices, while accelerating progress on key national
priorities.
The programs and budgets within the three mission areas include
over $1.2 billion in crosscutting R&D across six initiatives focusing
on: electricity grid modernization, subsurface technology and
engineering, supercritical carbon dioxide technology, energy-water
nexus, exascale computing, and cybersecurity. These initiatives are the
product of a concerted coordination effort among all three DOE Under
Secretariats and program offices across the Department in close
collaboration with the National Laboratories.
The fiscal year 2016 budget continues to build on the five
crosscutting initiatives established in fiscal year 2015. The Exascale
Computing initiative invests to make progress toward a thousand-fold
improvement over current high performance computers. Grid Modernization
supports technology development, enhanced security, and stakeholder
support to enable evolution to the grid of the future. The Subsurface
Engineering initiative invests in new wellbore systems, seismic
research, and other areas supporting a wide variety of energy sources.
The Supercritical Carbon Dioxide initiative establishes a 10 MWe-scale
pilot Supercritical Transformational Electric Power facility aiming to
increase the efficiency of power generation, and the Cybersecurity
crosscutting initiative strengthens cybersecurity across DOE's Federal
and laboratory sites, and improves cybersecurity for the Nation's
electric, oil, and gas sectors.
The fiscal year 2016 budget also proposes one new crosscutting
initiative, the Energy-Water Nexus. This initiative recognizes that the
Nation's energy system uses large quantities of water, and the Nation's
water system uses large quantities of energy, and that DOE's
coordinated science and technology efforts can contribute to the
Nation's transition to more resilient energy-water systems.
nuclear security
The fiscal year 2016 budget request provides $12.6 billion for the
NNSA, an increase of $1.2 billion over fiscal year 2015, to carry out
our missions for the nuclear deterrent, nuclear nonproliferation
programs, and propulsion for the nuclear Navy.
Effective Stewardship of the Nuclear Deterrent
The Request includes $8.8 billion for Weapons Activities, $667
million above fiscal year 2015, to maintain a safe and effective
nuclear deterrent while continuing to reduce the size of the active
stockpile.
In pursuit of this mission, we have recently achieved a number of
major accomplishments. We have, first and foremost, had another year of
science-based certification of the stockpile as safe, secure, and
effective without nuclear testing. It is important to remember the
remarkable story that a science research program has enabled the
paradigm to shift since nuclear testing ceased to allow us to
consistently certify the stockpile as safe and reliable without
testing, even as it shrinks.
In the major life extension programs, we have now passed the
halfway mark in Life Extension Program (LEP) for the W76-1 warheads for
the Navy, and our fiscal year 2016 budget request of $244 million will
keep us on track to complete the program in 2019. We have conducted
successful first integration testing of the B61-12 LEP for the Air
Force on or ahead of schedule, and the Request of $643 million supports
delivery of the First Production Unit in 2020. By the end of fiscal
year 2024, completion of the B61-12 LEP will shrink the number of
active and inactive weapons, reduce the mass of nuclear material used
in these weapons, and allow us to retire the B83, the last U.S. megaton
class weapon. Our Request of $220 million for the W88 ALT 370 supports
delivery of the First Production Unit with conventional high explosives
refresh by fiscal year 2020.
This budget supports the Nuclear Weapons Council decision to
accelerate a new cruise missile capability, and the selection of the
W80 as the warhead for the Air Force's Long Range Stand-Off system
(LRSO). The fiscal year 2016 budget request includes $195 million to
accelerate the program by 2 years, to be completed in 2025, in order to
meet military requirements.
We have begun operations in the new Kansas City Responsive
Infrastructure Manufacturing and Sourcing (KCRIMS) facility with half
the footprint and an improved operating environment compared to the old
environment. And at the National Ignition Facility, we have
significantly increased the shot rate and achieved impressive advances
in experimental results in closer alignment with modeling predictions.
As I mentioned earlier, we have used strategic partnerships with
the National Laboratories to rethink some of our challenging projects.
As a result of the Red Team review of the Uranium Processing Facility
at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, led by the Director
of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and a similar review of the
Chemistry and Metallurgical Research Replacement Facility (CMRR)
capability at Los Alamos National Laboratory, we are developing a
disciplined modular approach for both sites that will remove risks
early in the process and build to a more rigorous budget and schedule.
This rigorous process will be an important and recurring project
management theme at the NNSA and across the Department of Energy--in
particular, at the Office of Environmental Management.
Controlling and Eliminating Nuclear Materials Worldwide
The fiscal year 2016 budget request includes $1.9 billion for
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, $325 million above fiscal year 2015,
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, and ensuring that the U.S. 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. The
Request is a $101 million, or 5 percent, increase from the comparable
fiscal year 2015 enacted level after adjusting for a budget structure
change moving counterterrorism efforts from the Weapons Activities
appropriation to the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation appropriation.
We have completed the removal or disposal of a total of 190
kilograms of vulnerable nuclear material, through bilateral agreements,
and trilateral agreements with Russia and countries with material of
Russian origin. Despite a difficult relationship at the moment, we are
continuing to work with Russia to repatriate weapons-usable material to
the United States or Russia.
In 2014, we obtained a pledge from Japan at the 2014 Nuclear
Security Summit in The Hague to remove and dispose of all highly-
enriched uranium and separated plutonium from the Fast Critical
Assembly in Japan. We also helped prevent the illicit trafficking of
nuclear and radiological materials, technology and expertise by
installing 37 fixed and 22 mobile radiation detection systems
worldwide.
The fiscal year 2016 budget request reorganizes the Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation program into four business lines: Global Material
Security; Materials Management and Minimization; Nonproliferation and
Arms Control; and Nonproliferation Research and Development. We have
also strengthened Counterterrorism and Emergency Response by
consolidating these efforts with Nuclear Nonproliferation programs in
one account. Together, these reorganizations create a clearer set of
business lines for the nonproliferation programs and represent the full
continuum of our nonproliferation efforts as we prevent, counter, and
respond to global threats.
In fiscal year 2015, the Congress appropriated $345 million to
continue construction of the mixed-oxide (MOX) project at Savannah
River. The fiscal year 2016 budget includes $345 million, which is the
current services projection from the fiscal year 2015 enacted level,
while we complete congressionally-directed studies on plutonium
disposition costs and alternatives.
Advancing Navy Nuclear Propulsion
The fiscal year 2016 budget request includes $1.4 billion for Naval
Reactors, $142 million above fiscal year 2015, to support the Navy
fleet and maintain progress on current efforts to refuel the land-based
research and training reactor. The Request increases funding for Naval
Reactor's core objective of ensuring the safe and reliable operation of
the Nation's nuclear fleet (73 submarines and 10 aircraft carriers),
constituting over 40 percent of the Navy's major combatants.
The Naval Reactors programs achieved some significant
accomplishments this year. In 2014, we began integrated testing of the
lead A1B reactor plant of the next-generation FORD-class aircraft
carrier and provided technical resolution support for the nuclear fleet
which steamed over 2 million miles.
The fiscal year 2016 budget provides $187 million to continue
development of the advanced Ohio-Class Replacement Reactor, and $133
million to initiate refueling of the Land-based Prototype reactor. We
also provide $86 million to continue construction of the Spent Fuel
Handling Recapitalization Project.
cleaning up the cold war nuclear weapons legacy
The fiscal year 2016 budget request includes $5.8 billion for
Environmental Management, $43 million below the fiscal year 2015
enacted level, to position DOE to meet the Nation's Manhattan Project
and Cold War legacy responsibilities. DOE is responsible for the
cleanup of millions of gallons of liquid radioactive waste, thousands
of tons of used nuclear fuel and special nuclear material, disposition
of large volumes of transuranic and mixed/low-level waste, huge
quantities of contaminated soil and water, and deactivation and
decommissioning of thousands of excess facilities.
I will discuss in a moment the difficult challenges we face with
some of our remaining Environmental Management projects. But I would
like to start by pointing out that when the program started, there were
107 sites to be closed, and we have cleaned up all but 16 sites. To be
sure, the remaining sites are not the simplest to remediate; however,
we started with over 3,000 square miles to remediate, and we're down to
only 300 square miles. And so, by some metrics, we have cleaned 90
percent of our total footprint. However, it will be decades before we
finish the most difficult remaining sites.
Though we are down to some of the most difficult sites, progress is
steady. Last year, we completed demolition of the K-25 facility at Oak
Ridge, the largest demolition project DOE has ever undertaken. We have
converted 15 million pounds of liquid waste into solid glass at the
Defense Waste Processing Facility at Savannah River, enabling closure
of six high level waste storage tanks.
We have put forward and are beginning to implement an alternative
phased approach to completing the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant (WTP).
We have cleaned up 479 square miles of the 586 square mile area at
Hanford, including 90 percent of the River Corridor.
Going forward in fiscal year 2016, recovery of the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant in New Mexico is one of our high priorities. The fiscal
year 2016 budget includes $248 million to implement the WIPP recovery
plan, leading to initial resumption of waste emplacement in the first
quarter of calendar year 2016. The fiscal year 2016 budget will also
support continued operations of the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit at
Idaho and work towards closing the tanks.
With $1.4 billion for the Office of River Protection, we will move
forward on our phased approach to begin vitrifying low activity waste
early next decade. The budget moves forward with construction of the
Low Activity Waste (LAW) facility at the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant,
including design of a new pretreatment system required for our phased
approach. We will also continue technical issue resolution at the site,
and we will bring the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) at Hanford, once
the highest risk nuclear facility at Hanford, down to slab-on-grade by
the end of fiscal year 2016.
Finally, we will continue construction and prepare for
commissioning of the Salt Waste Processing Facility at Savannah River,
which is on schedule to complete construction by December 2016.
management and performance: improving efficiency and effectiveness
Building on the Department's fiscal year 2015 emphasis on
management and performance, the fiscal year 2016 budget moves forward
on initiatives that continue to identify and institutionalize
improvements across the DOE enterprise.
In the Department's efforts to improve management and performance,
we have adopted project management reforms, including strengthening the
Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board (ESAAB) from an ad hoc
process into an institutionalized regular process for situational
awareness on project progress and issues, as they arise. ESAAB will be
supported directly by a Project Management Risk Committee, which brings
together DOE experts for a continuous look at the risk profile of major
projects and issues. We have also taken steps to improve the project
peer review process and institutionalize other project management
reforms.
We have also continually worked to improve management, increase
efficiency, and support diversity on a number of fronts. We have
recruited 30 high-level Ambassadors from industry, academia, and
nonprofits to increase participation of minorities in energy. We have
resolved hiring issues at the Bonneville Power Administration,
providing additional Human Resources training and restoring hiring
authority. The Department's management and operating contractors have
reduced pension plan liability by $100 million through lump sum
buyouts. Our management and operating contractors have also established
Health Reimbursement Accounts at 13 sites for their medical-eligible
retirees, reducing long term financial statement liability by $2.8
billion.
Going forward, the budget includes $25 million for the Office of
the Human Capital Officer to implement a new Human Resources service
delivery model to streamline our HR model and eventually consolidate 17
current service centers to five key delivery centers. We will also
implement a new Energy Jobs Council to improve calculation of energy
jobs data and strengthen technical support for State workforce
development programs. We will also continue to strengthen Departmental
cybersecurity programs, part of the Cybersecurity crosscutting
initiative, through an enterprise-wide cyber council established in
2013 for securing personal data, our nuclear security data, and the
privately-owned energy infrastructure.
advancing the president's vision: implementing doe's strategic plan
In conclusion, we have much to do to advance the President's vision
and implement DOE's Strategic Plan.
We will continue implementing the President's Climate Action Plan,
to reduce emissions at home and around the globe.
We remain committed to our all-of-the-above energy strategy, to
encourage innovation, create jobs, enable economic growth, and
contribute to domestic manufacturing and net exports.
We must maintain leadership in basic research in the physical
sciences--and increasingly in the life sciences, develop the next
generation of computation technology, and develop and maintain world-
class scientific user facilities.
We will continue to maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear
weapons stockpile in the absence of testing, and manage the
infrastructure needed to meet national security requirements.
We must continue to reduce the global nuclear terrorism threat
through measures to identify, control, and eliminate nuclear weapons
worldwide.
We will address the legal and moral imperative of cleaning up
legacy waste to protect human health and the environment.
We will strengthen DOE and its national missions through cross-
cutting initiatives that leverage the science, technology, and
engineering capabilities across programs and National Laboratory
partners.
And we will continually improve DOE effectiveness and efficiency
through project management reform and constant attention to maintaining
a safe and secure workplace.
Thank you, and I would be pleased to answer your questions.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. While you
recover there, I will say to Senators Lankford and Cochran, we
are going to call on Senator Feinstein first and give her an
opportunity to ask her questions since she has an Intelligence
Committee-related commitment and will leave early. Senator
Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
very much appreciate this privilege. I wanted to--oh, good.
Just a word to the distinguished chairman of the Energy
Committee, both Senator Alexander and I mentioned that we had
completed our joint effort at a nuclear waste policy act, and
have worked with you and two former Democratic members, or
ranking members, or chairs--Senator Bingaman and Senator Wyden,
Senator Landrieu, and now Senator Cantwell. Senator Cantwell
has gone on the bill, and my understanding is that our chairman
has introduced it this morning on behalf of the four of us, and
we are hopeful that you will see fit to have an early hearing
so that we can possibly develop a nuclear waste policy for our
country.
INTERNATIONAL THERMONUCLEAR EXPERIMENTAL REACTOR
Senator Feinstein. Well, thank you. Thank you very much,
Madam Senator.
I wanted to ask a question about--here we go--ITER. It is
behind schedule and over budget. In 2005, DOE's preliminary
cost estimate for United States contributions to ITER was
$1.122 billion, with completion in 2013. The current estimate
is $4.1 billion with completion in 2034 and '35. As we all
know, an independent cost review found that the costs could be
as high as $6.5 billion, and the date could slip further.
We discussed this at our last--during our last bill, and I
think both the chairman and I, we are seeing little benefit
from our participation in ITER. I do not believe that fusion
will be developed during my lifetime, and perhaps not the
lifetime of the younger members of this body. And it is
building a facility in another country that we may never see
benefits from. So I have some question about continuing this,
and particularly continuing it at the amount that it is
budgeted to be.
Dr. Orr or Secretary Moniz, I would love to have your
reaction and comment to those statements.
Secretary Moniz. I will have to defer to Secretary Orr, I
am afraid.
Mr. Orr. So, yes, it is my job to try to answer a
complicated question. The numbers you saw, of course, are
correct as we know them. The project has encountered some
serious delays, and there have been some management issues
raised as well. The current state of play is that there is a
new director-general who has been named, Bernard Bigot. He was
confirmed in early March. He has put together a plan that
would, if accepted fully by all the members, correct the
management issues that have been raised in the external
reviews. We think that the plan includes the right elements,
but obviously there is work to be done to implement that. The
next steps include building a realistic timeline for completion
of the project and a realistic budget. And we will, of course,
be watching very carefully as all of that develops.
As you know, we are committed to 9 percent of the project
costs, and the spending proposed for next year is consistent
with what we think the rate that the project can absorb that
funding. And I would also note that about 80 percent of that
funding that we commit actually goes to make the parts, the
equipment that we are committed to supply to the project, and
so, therefore, it is actually spent in this country.
Senator Feinstein. Well, it sounds to me like we have spent
a billion--$1.22 billion just now in getting ready to get a
project put together.
Mr. Orr. Yes, it is fair to say, I think, that the design
of the project in the early stages was not far along as it
needed to be to provide realistic cost estimates, and that is
being corrected now. That work has actually--the design work
has gone on, but now, of course, they have to implement it.
DEPARTMENT STAFF PARTICIPATION
Senator Feinstein. Yes, I guess this is a problem that I
certainly have is that you spend a billion, $1.22, and you do
not really have a project yet. My conclusion is, Mr. Chairman,
we ought to take another look at it, but I will move along.
The GAO has been working with DOE staff to review current
practices and share advice and best practices based on their
experience. GAO reports that in several instances, DOE staff
have been unresponsive or unhelpful. The GAO noted that
regarding reports on cost estimating and analysis of project
alternatives--here is a quote--``DOE's unspecified open-ended
date for responding to many of these recommendations may have
indicated a lack of urgency or concern about the need to
implement these recommendations.''
Mr. Secretary, can you instill a sense of urgency in your
staff to change the management culture and move it to
participating in this in an active way?
Secretary Moniz. I will certainly look into this. We have
made a point, in fact, of trying to speed up our responses. I
hope those of you here in Congress have noticed that the
responses have been--the time lag for response has been
decreased dramatically. We have done that with the DNFSB. I
will now look into the GAO as well.
AMERICAN CENTRIFUGE PROJECT
Senator Feinstein. Okay. And the last question is about the
American Centrifuge Project, and I do not like to ask this, but
I am going to. It was recently announced that Dan Poneman will
become the new CEO of Centrus, the company formerly known as
USEC. He served as Deputy Secretary of Energy from 2009 to
2014, serving under both Secretary Chu and yourself. He was
heavily involved in decisions to keep USEC afloat, particularly
when that is just what was being done. It was not meeting its
goals or timetables as I understand it.
I understand that there are restrictions on Mr. Poneman
relative to his contact with DOE for the balance of this
Administration, but this seems to ignore his potential
influence with career bureaucrats. And I am really less
concerned about the optics for Mr. Poneman than I am the
Department's. And given Mr. Poneman's direct role at DOE in
advancing USEC, how can anyone fully trust a DOE or contractor
decision which benefits Centrus?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I can assure you, first of all, that
we did make sure that Mr. Poneman had a refresher course on the
restrictions. We have also made sure to distribute those
guidelines to those in the Department. We will certainly try to
adhere absolutely to that wall as called for in those
restrictions. We will be having to make--as you infer, we will
be having to make some difficult decisions going forward. You
mentioned the ACP, for example. That is an area combining our
enrichment and tritium studies. We will be coming back to the
Congress soon, and that will cause implications for what is the
future of that project. But I can assure you that we will be
having no content----
Senator Feinstein. Is USEC able to perform adequately at
this point?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I cannot get into the company's
because I do not know the company's overall posture. But I
would say on the ACP, as you know, we took that away from them
and actually through Oak Ridge we are managing this project.
But in the meantime, the former USEC employees who ran those
machines are the ones that we need to hire to keep the machines
running until we make a decision.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL STORAGE
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. I will now
continue a round of questioning, and I will take five minutes,
and then go to Senator Murray, and then we will continue.
Mr. Secretary, I want to focus during this time on used
nuclear fuel. We have got Senator Murkowski here, who is the
chairman of the Energy Committee. Senator Feinstein is still
here. Senator Murray I know is interested in used nuclear fuel
because of the Hanford situation. Federal law says Yucca is--I
am going to ask you a large question and then just ask you to--
and then I am going to listen.
Yucca is the current repository. I fully support the
current licensing process, but Yucca's legal capacity is 70,000
metric tons of used fuel. We have already more than that, so we
have more than enough used fuel sitting safely at sites around
the country, more than enough to fill up Yucca Mountain. So the
conclusion we have come to is that whether you are for or
against Yucca Mountain--I am for it--we need new repositories.
We also have a small amount of used nuclear fuel from the
Navy reactors and submarines, and we have canisters of high-
level waste from the Manhattan Project. And you made an
announcement yesterday about defense and commercial fuel, which
is relevant to this. So it is clear we need new and temporary
and permanent storage sites.
So in addition to Yucca Mountain, we have the idea of the
pilot program, which comes from the Commission on which you
serve. Senator Feinstein and I will include that in the Energy
and Water bill. There is the legislation that we introduced
yesterday together for a long-term solution, also based in
large part upon the President Commission's recommendations.
That is two.
Another option that may be available is a private
consolidated storage site like the one recently proposed by a
group from West Texas, who have indicated their interest in
filing with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for an
application. What they have said is that they might build a
private site in units of 10,000, maybe 5,000 tons, but up to
40,000. So the site would be able to hold about half as much as
Yucca Mountain could if it were open. There is $36 billion of
money we have collected from electric bills of Americans to pay
for all of this. The Department of Education is supposed to be
taking titles.
So I am trying to get in my mind of these various proposals
which one is likely to come on first. I know Senator Feinstein,
for example, would like to get used fuel out of California from
closed plants to somewhere else. There are seven other sites
like that around the country.
So here are my questions. How realistic is the possibility
of an additional private repository? Do you think the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission needs any authority to license private
sites like the one proposed in Texas? Would you need any new
authority for the Department of Energy to be able to store used
fuel at a private facility assuming you are taking title and
storing it there? And will you work with the subcommittee to
give us technical advice on whatever we might do in the
appropriations bill that would keep this option on track if it
is a real option?
Secretary Moniz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I
completely agree with the inference that you made that we need
a comprehensive approach to both spent fuel and to defense
fuel, and we need to look at storage facilities, repositories,
and in the context of yesterday's announcement on defense
waste, potentially even other geological disposal pathways.
In terms of the timing, I think it is pretty clear, and the
Administration policy document of January 2013 reinforces the
Blue Ribbon Commission report. And I think your legislation
that moves towards a pilot scale storage facility is probably
the thing that we could bring on the fastest, 6 to 8 years
perhaps. Now, we had always been envisioning that in the
context of a Federal facility that the Blue Ribbon Commission
did and Administration policy did. I think this new dynamic by
the announcement out of Texas that you referred to is extremely
interesting, and we want--first of all, we want to learn about
that.
With regard to authorities, I think I am not in the best
position to talk about NRC, although NRC has worked in some
similar areas before. But with regard to our own authorities, I
would say that I do not quite know yet what those authorities
would be, but I can certainly imagine that, especially for a
private sector facility, that a certain clarification that
might come out of the legislative process could be quite
desirable. And we are certainly happy to work as often as you
would like in terms of discussing the technical aspects of
this.
Senator Alexander. Well, thank you for that. My time is up,
but we would, I think speaking for Senator Feinstein and
myself--and I will let Senator Murkowski speak for herself--we
would be interested in working on that in the next 3 or 4 weeks
to see, (A) what might appropriately be included in the
appropriations bill, if anything; and (B) what might need to
come before Senator Murkowski's committee with the whole
objective, if it is--it sounds to me like you believe the
private facility could be a realistic option. Then given our
desire to find a place to put used nuclear fuel, we need to
know what else do we need to do to put you in a position to
move that option along.
Secretary Moniz. Yes.
Senator Alexander. Senator Murray.
HANFORD RICHLAND
Senator Murray. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Moniz, in your testimony you said that it will be
decades before DOE finishes cleanup at most of our difficult
nuclear waste sites. The prospect of another 20, or 30, or 40
years passing before the Federal Government completes this
critical work at the Hanford site in Central Washington and
other sites throughout the Nation is pretty unacceptable.
And it strikes me that year after year Congress receives
budget requests that fail to meet the necessary investments to
fulfill the Federal Government's legal and moral obligations
here. And I am really concerned that the Administration has
once again cut Hanford Richland Operations by nearly $100
million just like last year. Tell us how the Administration is
going to meet its legal commitments under the Tri-Party
Agreement at this significantly reduced funding level.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you, Senator. First, of course, I
would like to talk about the entire Hanford site where we have
a net $100 million increase in the budget, but admittedly
Richland is down $100 million, and essentially the WTP is up
for us to move that forward.
On the Richland side, I would note that we have made
considerable progress opening up a good portion of the river
corridor and with the budget as proposed. And the EM budget
proposal is $200 million above last year's proposal to the
Congress, but about equal in appropriation. But going back to
Richland, we will still--I believe we are going to finish the
plutonium finishing plant down at this lab. But we will
continue to clean up the groundwater in the central plateau. We
will continue to make progress along the corridor. So I think
it is a strong program. Obviously the best, you know,
optimizing within our overall program.
Senator Murray. Well, I appreciate that, but there are
several high-risk projects close to the city of Richland, close
to the Columbia River, and Energy Northwest that remain. I am
really concerned the fiscal year 2016 budget request would
hamper this cleanup. And in the case of the 324 building and
the 61810 burial grounds, they would be stopped, or mothballed,
or kicked down the road. Those are projects that are well
underway, and we have spent $209 million on them combined. And
it seems to me that DOE is now trying to pull the plug on them,
which creates a safety risk, a cleanup delay, cost increases,
and missing those Tri-Party Agreement milestones.
The budget request that you gave cites technical challenges
when rationalizing the cuts to those projects, but no one has
been able to pinpoint for me what these technical challenges
are. So what is holding you back from continuing to make
progress on those projects?
Secretary Moniz. What I would suggest is maybe the best
thing is if we come in and talk with you or your staff as you
prefer and try to work through the whole program.
Senator Murray. Well, I mean, our subcommittee fought to
provide $45 million in additional funding for those projects
last year. And why has DOE not used that money to forward these
really critical projects.
Secretary Moniz. Again, let me look into in more detail,
Senator, and get back to you, and see what we can do to advance
those.
Senator Murray. Well, I would like that part of the public
record as well, so I think it is really important for this
committee to understand it. And I would hope that we can answer
in writing as well so that we can have that as part of the
record.
Secretary Moniz. We would be happy to. Thank you.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN
Senator Murray. Okay. And let me just mention one final
issue. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission completed its Safety
Evaluation Report earlier this year and found that it would be
safe to operate Yucca Mountain as its nuclear waste repository,
confirming what more than 30 years of independent studies have
found. While the fiscal year 2016 requests no funding to
restart the adjudication process with the Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board Panel, should Congress provide such funding, I
really urge you, Mr. Secretary, to follow the congressional
intent as directed in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and defend
DOE's Yucca Mountain license application as an active, engaged
participate in those proceedings.
Secretary Moniz. Do you want a response or not?
Senator Murray. I am hoping you just nodded.
Secretary Moniz. Sorry.
Senator Murray. I hope you just nodded. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Secretary Moniz. May I just note, Senator, that we do have
about $17 million of unobligated carryover funds and additional
obligated carryover funds. So right now, we have no request
from the NRC, and we think that in a contingency we have the
funds to cover any work that would be needed.
Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Murray. Senator
Lankford.
LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS EXPORTS
Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon,
gentlemen. Questions about the LNG (liquefied natural gas)
exports. I know that DOE has a new process on that working with
FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), now putting FERC
first in line and all that. I want to know how that is going at
this point, and if any additional legislation is needed to help
expedite the process and to make sure that is a consistent
process?
Secretary Moniz. Thank you, Senator. Let me first say that
I would not phrase as it having put FERC first in line in the
sense that FERC was always in the line in terms of needing to
do the EIS. What we did is to say that when projects are ready,
which is being interpreted as having gone through the EIS
process, that we will then have enough information for our
public interest determination, and then we will act.
Senator Lankford. Right. So how is that going?
Secretary Moniz. On our side it is going quite well. In the
last turnaround from the EIS at FERC, we responded literally
within a day actually. So I think once that information is
available on environmental impact, I think we are being pretty
expeditious.
Senator Lankford. Is there a need for additional
legislation to put timelines on some of the permitting at this
point, or where do you stand on that?
Secretary Moniz. Well, as we have said consistently, I
think we are executing very expeditiously. I understand that
Congress has some desire to provide some certainty over some
years, and with reasonable timing we could work with that. But
I think we are already responding quite well.
AGENCY DUPLICATIONS
Senator Lankford. Just the geopolitical issues that we face
right now with the export of LNG, you are extremely aware of as
well, and some sort of certainty to our allies and other
individuals that are interested in picking up that fuel is
extremely important right now based on a lot of our
negotiations.
Let me ask a couple of things on some agency duplications
and just how you manage these and how they work together. I
want to note the lanes of this. DOE has an Office of
International Affairs. The State Department has a Bureau of
Energy Resources. The DOE has the Indian Energy Policy and
Program Division. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has a Division
of Energy and Mineral Development. How is that going as far as
making sure that we have clear lanes of responsibility so we do
not have overlap and duplication? Obviously we have--both those
things we are interested in as a committee, but we do not want
to fund them twice basically. There are other examples I can
bring to bear as well. How do you manage that overlap of
programmatic definitions and cooperation where you need it?
Secretary Moniz. Yes. First of all, obviously number one is
we do have strong coordination. For example, the head of our
International Office and the head of the State DNR typically
meet once a----
Senator Lankford. Are those unique lanes of responsibility
or do you feel like they are overlap?
Secretary Moniz [continuing]. And then clearly having
different lanes of responsibility. Much of our responsibility
ends up being driven by our underlying technical energy
technology expertise. So, for example, if one takes China,
there we have the clean energy research center we put in some
funds, China matches, industry matches all of that. Our funds
are spent on American scientists and engineers. It is a very
technology driven program. That would be a DOE activity as
opposed to some of the more, let us call it, geopolitical
responsibilities at State.
CELLULOSIC ETHANOL
Senator Lankford. Okay. Let me ask you about a couple of
other grants that are sitting out there. You had mentioned
cellulosic and some of the advances in cellulosic ethanol. Did
you mention that there are a couple of companies that are
coming on board that are producing at this point that you are
doing grants for, or is it some of the research and
development?
Secretary Moniz. It is certainly R&D as well, but, no, we
also provided some grants to do some cost sharing to get
commercial scale activities going. In fact, in the last year
one in Iowa and one in Kansas will be producing about 25
million gallons of cellulosic.
Senator Lankford. Did we have grant money involved in the
QER facility in Mississippi that went bankrupt last year? The
largest cellulosic producer in the country closed in November
of 2014 after multiple years of trying to make the technology
work. What I am trying to figure out is if we are doing new
grants to new cellulosic companies, have we learned the lesson
of the cellulosic companies that already started, could not
make it go, and closed?
Secretary Moniz. Well, in general, I think we are having
very, very rigorous processes in our portfolio management,
strong risk management approaches. And I think our portfolios
are performing well overall.
Senator Lankford. Sure, I understand that. Do you know if
we had Federal dollars involved in the QER facility?
Secretary Moniz. I do not know that. We could respond for
the record.
Senator Lankford. It was the largest producer of cellulosic
ethanol in the country when it closed. Obviously we are
producing under a million gallons total in the entire country,
and it was the largest of those.
Secretary Moniz. Okay. We will look at that. Thank you.
Senator Lankford. Okay, thank you. I will yield back.
Senator Alexander. Senator Udall is next. While Senator
Feinstein is still here, I am going to ask Senator Murkowski as
chairman of the authorizing committee if she has anything she
wants to say before Senator Feinstein leaves, or if you have to
leave early. I want to make sure you have a chance to ask your
questions.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I do not want to preempt my
colleague on the other side, but I do want to make the
commitment to you, Mr. Chairman, and to your ranking member on
this subcommittee that as we move forward with this legislation
that we have worked so cooperatively on, that I really do hope
that we have full cooperation and participation from the
Secretary and from his team in identifying how we can truly
move this forward. So if it is something where we need to
understand a little bit more about what this private entity may
offer and what needs to be done to facilitate that, if that is
the best way to go. Know that I, too, am interested in
advancing legislation that will begin to make a difference as
we deal with our nuclear waste.
So I do not have a specific question to the Secretary
because quite honestly, Mr. Chairman, mine would have just
mirrored yours exactly in terms of now that we have this
legislation out there, what is the best way to proceed from the
Secretary's perspective. So I got that answer from him.
Senator Alexander. Well, thank you, and we will come back
to you then.
Senator Feinstein. May I add one thing?
Senator Alexander. Sure, of course.
Senator Feinstein. Is it necessary for anything for him to
proceed? Could he unilaterally approve a Texas facility I think
is a question worth asking.
Senator Murkowski. Yes.
Senator Alexander. Well, the application will be before the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission----
Secretary Moniz. NRC.
Senator Feinstein. But who would make the application?
Senator Alexander. They would make the application, but
there are some--but, Senator Feinstein, there are some
questions that probably need to be understood and resolved
about--I think the NRC is ready to act on an application should
it receive it. I think there are some questions that need to be
resolved about whether the Department of Education is prepared
and whether there are some things that we need to do make sure
that they might be able to do it in a more rapid way. Is that a
fair way to say it?
Secretary Moniz. Yes, I think it is, Mr. Chairman, and I
would add to that that part of it will depend upon things that
I just do not know.
Senator Alexander. Right.
Secretary Moniz. For example, what would be the business
model, and that might influence what kind of authorizations are
required.
Senator Alexander. Okay. Well, we will go to Senator Udall,
and then we will come back to you, Senator Murkowski. If you
have to leave, let us know, and we will work you in.
Senator Murkowski. If I can go after Senator Udall, that is
perfect. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Okay. Is that all right, Senator
Cochran? Thank you, Senator. I feel like a ringmaster here.
Thank you, Tom, for your patience, and we will go to Senator
Udall, then Senator Murkowski, and then Senator Cochran if that
is all right with Senator Cochran. Senator Udall.
WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Alexander. You are the
ringmaster, and you are doing a very good job of it, and that
is great. Secretary Moniz, wonderful to have you here and Dr.
Orr, and appreciate very much your staff and how they have been
working to ensure positive discussions with the State of New
Mexico on the State's fines for the accident that occurred at
the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP), and that Los Alamos
was involved in. And I am hopeful that those discussions are
going well.
But I just want to reiterate my view that the State of New
Mexico has a regulatory role, and I think you understand this
very well. This was something I fought hard for as New Mexico's
attorney general. We actually won a lawsuit against the
Department of Energy at the time. So I just want to take this
opportunity to remind you as discussions continue, that this is
a unique situation. You are dealing with the only State in the
Union that has ever accepted a nuclear waste facility, and I am
hopeful that a constructive dialogue over the State of New
Mexico's fines for the Department can continue along that line.
Now, can you talk to us a little bit about working
constructively to make sure this happens rather than heading
into a litigation track, which could take many, many years I
think, and are you committed to working with us to try to get
that situation resolved?
Secretary Moniz. Thank you, Senator, and I appreciate your
interest and support in this area to the extent possible. Let
me say that, yes, we very much would like to be able to resolve
this with the governor, with the New Mexico Environmental
Department, the discussions. Obviously I cannot go into the
details here since they are part of a resolution pathway we
hope, but we are very committed, and we are very encouraged
that the discussions are going on at a very professional level.
And I am hopeful we will be able to resolve this to the benefit
of all the citizens of New Mexico and the Department.
Senator Udall. Yes. No, that would be great. And as you
know, the Accident Investigation Board report is expected to be
released soon. Do you have any idea when that would be released
on the accident?
Secretary Moniz. I believe we are in the weeks time scale,
I believe. I can go check on that. The technical evaluation was
already presented to me.
Senator Udall. Okay, good. And as you know, that
contamination with the facility has been shut down. And so, I
think it is very important that we see it be reopened safely,
and I underline the ``safely.'' And so, I am hoping that we
take that cautious approach to make sure that workers are not
at risk. And will you commit to ensuring DOE does not repeat
these mistakes again and expose workers to unsafe situations as
well as radioactivity?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I can assure you that we are doing
all that we can in that dimension. First of all, at the very
beginning, frankly I insisted that we not set schedules before
we understood what the issues were for safety because otherwise
safety could be compromised. Now we feel comfortable in terms
of how the actions are going. We have a plan in terms of
sealing off the two panels, and we have a plan for looking at
all the other barrels that have some of the elements that have
been identified as the cause of the thermal reaction. So we
need to keep going as fast as we can to make sure that all of
those other barrels are safe. Every indication is they are. We
have done a lot of work on them already in terms of putting
into safe conditions.
B-61
Senator Udall. Yes, and thank you for that work. And just a
final question here on the B-61. I know you have made that a
priority in the budget, but do you worry that the threat of
sequestration might hurt our modernization in terms of the
stockpile in the nuclear enterprise?
Secretary Moniz. Absolutely, and, in fact, DOD and DOE, for
our different but complementary responsibilities for nuclear
security, have both said that sequestration caps will make it
very, very difficult. Frankly, if the budget that we have
requested in concert with the DOD and the Nuclear Weapons
Council is reduced substantially, I think there is no doubt
that we will have to work with DOD to push out military
capabilities that they very much want.
In fact, in this budget, the B-61, we would try to probably
hold that, but then the cruise missile, for example, would
almost certainly have to get pushed out substantially, as we
have already pushed out other parts of the stockpile
refurbishment.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman
Alexander. Thank you, Secretary.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Udall. Senator
Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Secretary,
welcome before the committee.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. I feel like I have got a second bite at
the apple because you were before the Energy Committee not too
many weeks ago, and I did have an opportunity to ask questions.
I would ask you, I did submit a series of questions for the
record. We still have not received responses on that, so if you
could have someone to check on the status.
Secretary Moniz. I will check.
Senator Murkowski. And we had also hoped to have a hearing
actually tomorrow, Thursday, on the QER and the release of
that. And we had hoped--we figured that we were going to be
setting this well enough in advance, so we have rescheduled
that for the 28th of April. Are we going to be good with our
timing so that you think we can proceed with that? We will have
had a chance to look at that QER that is going to be before the
Congress.
Secretary Moniz. I think we will be good with that.
Senator Murkowski. Okay, good.
Secretary Moniz. You will have time to review it in advance
as well.
Senator Murkowski. Well, we are looking for it with great
anticipation----
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
ARCTIC ENERGY SUMMIT
Senator Murkowski [continued]. As you and I have discussed.
We are hopeful that there will be a useful framework as we work
on our energy legislation, so we will look forward to that. At
the Energy Committee hearing, I did ask you about the Arctic
priorities contained within the Energy Department's budget, and
I am continuing to advocate on these issues that you know I
believe have great significance and priority.
We have an Arctic Energy Summit that is to be scheduled. It
is scheduled already. It is going to be in Fairbanks from
September 28th through the 30th. I do not know if you or your
staff have been notified of this, but as I have invited you to
Alaska to review our renewable energy resources, I would also
invite you to attend that summit or perhaps a designee if that
would be appropriate. I think it will be timely, and, again, an
issue that you have and I have discussion on.
Secretary Moniz. I will certainly look into my schedule,
but certainly I can assure you we will have senior
representation.
NATIONAL LABS
Senator Murkowski. Great, I appreciate that. Let me move to
our national labs. In recent weeks we have seen both this
congressionally directed commission to review the effectiveness
of our national energy labs as well as the Task Force on
National Labs highlight the level of bureaucracy that exists
between the Department and the labs. That is something that I
think most of us realize we did not need a report or a
Commission to determine that. We know that it is an issue.
Where do we go from here with that? What do we do with
these latest recommendations to ensure that we do have just a
greater connect or synchronization here?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I think we are making progress, and
I think that was acknowledged in the reports, but there is more
to do. I think the major overarching critique is that the
system has become too transactional as opposed to kind of
outcome oriented. And we have--frankly from day one I created
the Laboratory Policy Council and the Laboratory Operations
Board to address these issues, the bringing of--I would say
kind of restoring a more strategic relationship between the
Department and the labs. And I think we are getting some
traction, but we have to keep at it and sustain it. That is on
the strategic plane.
But then one comes to the operational level, we have two
task forces, one working and one just about to be charged,
which address these transactional issues. So one is a task
force headed by the head of the Office of Science looking at
what are the streamlining actions we can take on the M&O
contracting approach, and they will be reporting reasonably
soon. And our management and procurement people are all
involved in that, and so I am hoping for some interesting steps
that we can take quickly.
But then we are about to form another group, which is more
the ``revolutionary group,'' which is going to take one
particular site, which has some simplicities in its management
structures, governance structure, with regard to some of the
other laboratories. And at least in that case look to do a
pilot program for perhaps tweaking the very structure of the
M&O contract to help get around some of those transactional
issues.
Senator Murkowski. Well, it has long been a problem, so I
hope that this revolutionary approach pans out.
Secretary Moniz. That was in quotes.
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM
Senator Murkowski. I understood it, and I put it in quotes
as well. I want you to notice. Very briefly on this last
question. This is the 48th consecutive month that the ATVM
Direct Loan Program has been unable or unwilling to finalize a
new direct loan for an auto maker or a component supplier. So
it really begs the question in terms of why we would continue
to have this program on the books, why we would continue to
have taxpayer support there.
I have been critical of this program I think you know, and
have questioned the need and the justification for a direct
loan program for auto makers and these component suppliers. So
know that this is something that I am looking at. I do not know
how many applications you actually have that have been
submitted to DOE, and whether or not you are even considering
making a yes/no decision coming up. But you look at that
program in 48 months, and there has not been a loan made. It
does cause you to question why we are engaged in this.
Secretary Moniz. I certainly understand the question. Let
me just say that I think we have restructured not only the
ATVM, but the loan programs as a whole. And on the ATVM
Program, I think it was about a year ago when I and Peter
Davidson went out to make it clear that for one thing,
component suppliers were certainly eligible as they face
retooling challenges for the highly efficient vehicles that we
need by 2025. And secondly, that the program--that ATVM Program
had some problems in terms of its dealing with the applicants.
I believe we have cleaned that up, and we are getting a lot of
interest. We have an interesting proposal stream, and I think
you will see some outputs pretty soon.
Senator Murkowski. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you for
allowing me a little extra time. I want to note we have a group
of young Alaskans that are part of the Close Up Program that
have been watching this. I told them that while nuclear waste
is not necessarily something that we are worried about in
Alaska right now, these are national problems, these are
national issues, and these kids are getting a firsthand look at
it.
Senator Alexander. Well, and they are getting a chance to
see the chairman of the Senate's Energy Committee, which is
very important to Alaska, who is also a member of this
committee. So we welcome them. We are glad they are here. Thank
you, Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, sir.
Senator Alexander. And thanks to Senator Cochran, who is
chairman of our whole committee, for deferring to other
Senators. And we will call on him now, then we will go to
Senator Shaheen.
SPENT FUEL STORAGE
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I
was looking through the notes that I have been given by my
staff before the hearing, and we had been advised that there
was serious consideration given to placing in some Mississippi
reservoirs a repository for nuclear waste. Those who are
worried about that from a public safety point of view are
opposed to even, you know, talking about it, much less seeing
it happen because of fears, the fears of the unknown in large
part, but there may be reasons why they are justified. Could
you give us a status report here or submitted for the record,
whatever your choice is? I would like to know something about
the status now, and maybe something a little more elaborate to
put in the record.
Secretary Moniz. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of
all, I was aware--I think it was about a year ago when some
Mississippi community expressed in a storage facility and
others expressed lack of interest. But more generally, in our
fiscal year 2016 budget request we have about $30 million
requested to start a consent-based process to reach out to
communities, and States, and regions to see about potential
interest or interest in potentially hosting a storage facility,
above ground storage if you like, or potentially a repository.
So we will be--let me be very clear. We do not have the
authority to actually implement, to build a storage facility
without congressional action, but we can move on these early
stages and deal with communities, provide information, and see
if they would like to then be a part of a process going
forward.
Senator Cochran. Have you developed any sort of schedule in
terms of when you expect to make a decision as to what you
would recommend?
Secretary Moniz. No, I am afraid that is probably too
unclear at the moment, but we would like to move out in this
calendar year for sure with this outreach to communities. It is
not only about storage and repositories. It is also about
transportation issues, et cetera. So we would really like to
start laying the groundwork for what will be a set of consent-
based facilities for managing nuclear waste.
Senator Cochran. Is there contained in the budget request
that has been submitted by the Department any request for
funding for anything, any activities?
Secretary Moniz. Well, the $30 million that I just
mentioned just for this kind of initial planning and reaching
out to communities. So that is the near term thing, and we
envision having some town hall meetings, et cetera.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Secretary Moniz. Yes.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Cochran. Senator
Shaheen.
THERMAL BIOMASS
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary Moniz and Dr. Orr for being here this afternoon, and
for your service to the country. Secretary Moniz, I read with
great interest the President's recent executive order planning
for Federal sustainability in the next decade. I was pleased to
see that it recognizes thermal power as one of the ways in
which the Federal Government can address its energy needs. And
as I know you know, because you are from the northeast, we use
a great deal of home heating oil in the northeast. New
Hampshire has the second highest percentage of homes using home
heating oil. And one of the exciting things about thermal
biomass is that it offers an alternative for homes and
businesses in New Hampshire, and also contributes to our timber
economy in the State.
And I have had a chance to visit the White Mountain
National Forest supervisor's office in Campton, New Hampshire
where they have installed a 90 percent efficient gasification
pellet boiler system. That has been very beneficial to them.
And so, I wonder if you could talk a little bit about the
potential that you see in thermal biomass and what the role of
DOE can be in promoting that or encouraging its use, not just
across the Federal Government, but in other ways that are
beneficial to homeowners like in New Hampshire.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you. Well, thermal biomass, of
course, it tends to be regional in terms of its attractiveness.
Senator Shaheen. Right.
Secretary Moniz. And certainly in New England there is a
long history of doing it in industry--the paper industry, et
cetera, forestry. Then there is a second dimension comes in to
co-firing, for example, in parts of the country with, for
example, coal plants. One way of addressing CO2
emissions is by co-firing. In fact, some even would say that
with enough biomass co-firing and capture, one could even have
negative CO2 emissions. So that is a very
interesting development.
And then as you refer to the developments in terms of
pellets in pellet stoves is also something that actually has a
non-trivial potential if it were fully exploited. But these are
all interesting areas with----
Senator Shaheen. What do you mean by a non-trivial
potential?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I think in the sense of
participating--I mean, producing essentially heat, oil,
electricity at a significant level, not 50 percent of
electricity or heat, but not, .5 percent either. So somewhere
in between.
Senator Shaheen. And can you talk about the role of the
Department of Energy in encouraging, looking at the use of
thermal biomass throughout the Federal Government and what kind
of an alternative it might provide, and what other
opportunities there are for DOE to help educate people about
those opportunities?
Secretary Moniz. I think there are some programs that have
gone on in terms of also helping support pilot semi-commercial
scale projects, especially with wood biomass. But I have to say
perhaps we should go back and look at the question, whether we
need to take a more coherent view of that, and carry out some
of the educational activities that you said. I do not know,
Lin, if you want to add anything.
Mr. Orr. I do not have anything to add.
Secretary Moniz. Okay, thank you. We will do that.
SMART MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES
Senator Shaheen. That would be great. I would encourage you
to do that. I know that there is legislation that has
authorized but has never been appropriated money to encourage
some districting through biomass. So let me now switch to smart
manufacturing, again manufacturing, and the re-emergence of a
strong manufacturing based in this country is very critical to
our economy. And one of the concepts that seems to be most
promising to encourage manufacturing is the concept of smart
manufacturing, the encouragement of new technologies to help
with that.
Can you discuss what the potential is for deploying smart
manufacturing technologies and what DOE's role might be in
that?
Secretary Moniz. Certainly. The smart manufacturing is one
of a number of kind of enablers of a next generation of
manufacturing. Certainly one of the--in terms of DOE, a
specific initiative is that of establishing these national
manufacturing initiatives. And we have done so while we worked
with DOD to establish a pilot in Ohio for 3-D printing. But,
again, for example, our Oak Ridge Laboratory, for the chairman,
he knows very well. Our Oak Ridge laboratory, for example,
working with a small, private company printed the first car
using that technology. We then established another one on wide
band gap semi-conductors, another on composite materials. And
now we are in the process of running a competition for one on
smart manufacturing, integration of sensors, controls, real
time modeling, et cetera. And we think these kinds of
technologies, if we propagate them, and that is why these
institutes are really alliances of a number of academic
institutions and companies that we have to get this technology
out, not only to the very biggest companies, but to the mid-
size companies so that they can compete.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. My time is up. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. Senator
Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary,
thank you for your service. From my two cents worth, I think
you are doing a very good job.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
SEQUESTRATION
Senator Graham. I hope that does not hurt you with the
White House. But in 30 seconds--you may have already done
this--can you tell us what sequestration will do to your
Department if we do not find a replacement for these cuts?
Secretary Moniz. Yes, sequestration would be very, very
harmful. I think we would see a repeat of what we saw a few
years ago. And earlier we discussed it particularly in terms of
on the defense side, that our Stockpile Stewards Plan simply
could not be executed to meet military capabilities on the
schedule as desired.
On our civilian side as well, I should say, because it was
also said earlier that we are way under investing in clean
energy technology. So it is on both sides, certainly on the
stockpile side, that we have discussed before. It blows the
schedule.
Senator Graham. And the bottom line is that our nuclear
deterrent would be compromised.
Secretary Moniz. Yes. We could not meet the dates that DOD
is looking at to meet their military requirements.
MIXED OXIDE FUEL FABRICATION FACILITY
Senator Graham. I am not so sure that is a message we want
to send any potential enemy of the country. My favorite topic,
and I am sure yours, MOX (Mixed Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility). So just for the record, the
MOX Program is an agreement between Russia and the
United States to dispose of 34 metric tons of weapons grade
plutonium. It started back in the 90s, right?
Secretary Moniz. Each.
Senator Graham. Yes.
Secretary Moniz. Yes.
Senator Graham. That is equivalent to 17,000 warheads
someone told me. Is that about right?
Secretary Moniz. Yes.
Senator Graham. That is a lot of weapons material. And the
goal is to take that off the market forever and turn it into
commercial grade fuel here, the MOX Program.
Secretary Moniz. Correct.
Senator Graham. Take a sword and turning into a plowshare.
Secretary Moniz. Correct.
Senator Graham. In 2010, we signed an amendment to the
agreement with the Russians where we pledged to use
MOX as the disposition path.
Secretary Moniz. Correct.
Senator Graham. Taking weapons grade plutonium, blending it
down to create commercial grade fuel that would supply our
reactors. So at the end of the day we are about 60 percent
complete, is that right?
Secretary Moniz. On the MOX fabrication
facility. There are other facilities as well.
Senator Graham. Yes.
Secretary Moniz. Right.
Senator Graham. Okay. So we have had a funding problem. I
want to reduce costs. There are some studies being done as an
alternative to MOX. When can we expect those studies
to be submitted to the committee or to the Congress?
Secretary Moniz. Well, the first study is due April 15th,
and we are hoping to meet that date.
THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER
Senator Graham. Okay, thank you. And I just want to thank
you for helping us the best you can to lower costs. But as the
Chairman knows, this is a very big deal for South Carolina. We
have agreed to be a partner with the Federal Government, to be
the site that would accept the 34 metric tons of weapons-grade
plutonium, and build and utilize the technology that would turn
it from a sword to a plowshare.
I do appreciate the President's budget this year. It is
better than last, and I know we have got some out-year costs
that we have got to deal with, so I really appreciate your
effort to work with us. And I do not believe there is a viable
alternative that is cheaper or practical, so thank you very,
very much.
In terms of the future of nuclear power in this country,
how would you evaluate the future of nuclear power in this
country, and particularly on the waste side dealing with
nuclear waste? What do you see happening in the coming years?
Secretary Moniz. Well, with regard to the future of nuclear
power plants, first of all, I would just mention I think it is
very important how the plants in Georgia and South Carolina end
up coming in--with regard to budget and schedule, there have
been some problems, but we will see how that ends up. Another
direction, small modular reactors could be very interesting as
well on the----
Senator Graham. Are you open-minded to that concept of
small modular reactors?
Secretary Moniz. Absolutely.
Senator Graham. Yes, it makes perfect sense.
Secretary Moniz. I am very enthusiastic that we find out
what the cost is, et cetera. They have very attractive
features.
Senator Graham. I agree.
Secretary Moniz. On the waste side, well, we discussed it a
little bit earlier, and I would say that we think we have to
move out on three fronts. It used to be two perhaps, and
yesterday it became three. The one is we should be moving
towards interim storage, and especially a pilot project, as
soon as we can. We discussed earlier that may have the flavor
now of being a private as opposed to Federal. We are open to
discussion on that.
We are continuing to push for the science based on ultimate
geologies. We will need probably multiple repositories
eventually for civilian spent fuel, especially if the fleet
grows.
Senator Graham. And would you encourage it to grow? Would
we be smart as a Nation to increase our nuclear power
production capabilities?
Secretary Moniz. Well, as you know, I am very committed to
a low carbon future. And today, of course, nuclear----
Senator Graham. You cannot get there without nuclear.
Secretary Moniz. Nuclear is the biggest contributor today.
And, of course, if we do not have nuclear in the future, it
certainly makes it a lot harder to get there. And finally as we
announced yesterday, the President has authorized us to start
planning for a separate disposal track for defense waste, which
we think is a very, very good move for a whole variety of
reasons.
And I might just add in pursuing that, clearly a small
repository would be needed, but there may even be alternative
geological pathways, like the bore holes, so it gives us more
flexibility. And I think the whole system will move ahead
sooner in this approach.
Senator Graham. Well, thank you for your service. Dr. Orr,
thank you for your contributions to our country. And I look
forward to working with the Department. I think you are doing a
good job, and we have got some challenges, but I look forward
to working with you and the committee.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
NUCLEAR REACTOR LICENSE RENEWAL
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Graham. Dr. Moniz, I
know you have somewhere to go. I will ask a few more questions
of you. Following up on Senator Graham's comment, are you
concerned--the Center for Strategic and International Studies
reported that perhaps as many as 25 of our 99 reactors might
close by 2020. And in talking with utility executives, I am a
little surprised that a number of them are not planning at the
moment on asking for renewal of their licenses from 60 to 80
years. How many reactors do you think we will have in the
United States 10 years from now?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I think--I do not want to speculate
on the number. I think that CSIS number is probably rather on
the high side. But we do know that there are certainly another
handful or so at risk over these next years, depending on the
outcome of various regulatory structures, et cetera.
This question of 60 versus 80 years, I would just note that
if reactors go to 60 years, let us just say 60 years, then the
large wave of retirements would be starting around 2030. That
next decade would see a lot of retirements. And that is why if
you run that movie back and ask about capital planning
decisions, et cetera, at utilities, et cetera, having options
understood in that 2025 or so timeframe is really critical. And
that applies to the experience with building Gen 3 plus large
plants. It also applies to the small modular reactors, and that
is why our program on the SMRs has been really geared to trying
to get something operating in the first half of the next decade
so that it is there in time for this critical decision period
potentially.
SMALL NUCLEAR REACTORS
Senator Alexander. Well, I will give you credit for being a
consistent supporter of the small reactor research and support
for certification and licensing activities, even though we have
been disappointed with one of the grants, which was not your
fault. The Department has selected new scale power for the
Second Technical Support Award Program, and your budget
supports that. Are you at a point yet where some of the money
this next year would be used to help pick a site? Do you know a
site yet for the new scale project?
Secretary Moniz. No, we do not, but I believe they have
announced the intent to file at NRC at the end of next year.
Senator Alexander. So what will happen in the next year?
What is the status of the Small Reactor Program? Where are we?
Secretary Moniz. Well, the status is for them to complete
all of the design engineering work to the place where they can
apply to NRC. Being a light water-based reactor, we hope that
that could then go, which is where NRC, of course, has immense
experience, we hope that that could go reasonably quickly and
still hit something like a deployment date of, you know, 2022,
2023.
Senator Alexander. Are small reactors an option you think
will be important for the United States as it seeks to provide
more carbon-free base load electricity generation?
Secretary Moniz. It certainly could be. I think it is going
to depend upon the cost performance. But if the cost
performance is good, I see significant potential because it
certainly makes a much more attractive financing approach.
WIND
Senator Alexander. There are a variety of obstacles to
nuclear plants. The cost of regulation is one. The low cost of
natural gas is another. A third, according to some of the
utilities, is the big wind production tax credit in markets
which are not regulated. In some markets, the production tax
credit now in its 22nd or 23rd year is so rich for the
developers that they can actually pay the utility to take their
electricity so the developers still make a profit. And this has
the effect, according to the utilities, of what they call
negative pricing, and it is one more pressure--it undermines
their ability to operate other kinds of base load activities
like coal or nuclear power.
So the bottom line of that is one contributing aspect in
some markets of the difficulty of economically operating a
nuclear plant, much less building a new one, is the high
subsidy for wind, allowing it to undercut nuclear. Secretary
Chu in 2011 in response to my question said that wind was a
mature technology. It costs us about $6 billion a year every
time we renew that big production tax credit. I would like to
be spending the $6 billion on energy research instead of a
subsidy that 22 years ago jump started technology. Usually we
measure maturity in terms of age.
If Secretary Chu, a Nobel Prize winning scientist, said a
few years ago that wind power is a mature technology, would you
not agree that today it must be an even more mature technology?
Secretary Moniz. I do not follow the logic.
Senator Alexander. Well, if I am older than you are, and we
go 3 more years, am I not likely to be mature if I am older? If
wind was mature in 2011----
Secretary Moniz. The clock runs, I agree.
Senator Alexander. If wind was mature in 2011, is it not
even more mature today?
Secretary Moniz. But I would just note that--okay. I do not
know exactly what Secretary Chu was--how he was referring to--
--
Senator Alexander. I asked him the question is it a mature
technology. He said yes. That was 2011. Do you think it is a
mature technology?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I would say the technology continues
to evolve in very important ways. It certainly is not at its
asymptotic performance, if you like. The continued increase in
turbine size and blade size, et cetera, the ability to work at
lower wind speeds, these are all critical developments that are
still going on.
Senator Alexander. Well, in 22 years, should wind not be
standing on its own, especially if it is undercutting nuclear
power? I mean, wind is 4 percent of our electricity after
billions of dollars. Nuclear is 20 percent, but 60 percent of
our carbon-free electricity. Why would we want to have any sort
of policy that would undercut our ability to produce carbon-
free electricity that is base load, like wind, like nuclear?
Secretary Moniz. Again, I would say the Administration
clearly supports the PTC, and the tax credit also helps
incentivize not just the deployment of the same technologies,
but of these evolving technologies that are very important in
terms of efficiency, costs, and being able to work in a greater
variety of wind speeds, for example.
Senator Alexander. If you had $6 billion, would you rather
spend it each year on subsidizing a 22-year-old mature
technology or $6 billion of energy research?
Secretary Moniz. I think I would have to think about that.
MERCURY TREATMENT FACILITY
Senator Alexander. I hope you and the Administration will.
Let me switch to a more local concern since I have got you
captured here all by myself. Mercury containment is the highest
environmental priority in and around Oak Ridge in Tennessee due
to releases into the East Fort Poplar Creek, which runs through
the City of Oak Ridge. You have been attentive to that, and I
want to thank you for that. It is very important as we move
from concern about radiation, which is not completely gone, but
to begin to pay attention to the mercury contamination.
I believe your budget request includes some funding to
begin testing technologies to stabilize the mercury in the
soil. We are going to need to build a new mercury treatment
facility, which will be able to capture a majority of the
mercury before it can escape into the environment. When does
the Department project that the mercury treatment facility will
be started and completed?
Secretary Moniz. I had the impression it was in the next
couple of years, but I will have to get back to you on that,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Could you get back to me on that?
Secretary Moniz. Yes.
Senator Alexander. That is the most important new priority.
Secretary Moniz. I am sorry, I misspoke. 2022 is apparently
the target date.
Senator Alexander. For?
Secretary Moniz. For completion and operation.
Senator Alexander. 2022 is the target date for completion
of the mercury treatment facility. Has it started yet?
Secretary Moniz. I think it is going to start next year. It
is in the project engineering phase right now.
Senator Alexander. Design phase?
Secretary Moniz. Design phase, yes. Yes.
Senator Alexander. Thank you for that information. There is
a big increase in the Department's budget request for cleanup.
There is a big increase in the Department's request, but there
is a decrease in the request for cleanup. In Oak Ridge, funding
is down $65 million. Do you suspect that that is likely to
produce layoffs of workers who are involved in the cleanup, and
if it were to do that, would you not agree that it is wasteful
and inefficient to have to lay people off and then rehire them
again?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I do not know all the specifics, but
I know that certainly part of it is in things like the funding
requirements for, you know, contract and post-retirement issues
in terms of what is the contribution there. But certainly we
would not like to see any significant force reduction, but I
will have to look in more detail at the analysis of that.
EXASCALE SUPER COMPUTING
Senator Alexander. Would you take a look at that cleanup?
That is extremely important to us. Moving on to another--an
area where the Administration and the Congress have seen eye-
to-eye is in Exascale super computing, and I want to thank you
for the priority you placed on that. Give me a little update on
this super computer we call Exascale. What is the first step
toward developing it, and how much do you estimate it will
cost, and when can we expect it will be billed?
Secretary Moniz. First of all, let me note that there is an
intermediate step towards Exascale, which is the so-called
CORAL computing initiative. In fact, Oak Ridge will be the
first site for that. That will get up into probably the $150
petaflop region, and that would be in 2017, 2018 timeframe.
Senator Alexander. This was the announcement you made just
recently.
Secretary Moniz. About a month ago or so. Yes, that is
right. And Oak Ridge, Livermore, and Argonne are the three in
that CORAL initiative. The Exascale target date is maybe 8
years from now or so. A lot of work to do. The estimated
cumulative costs will be $2 to $3 billion. We actually have a
report from my Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, which we
will be happy to supply to you, which is an analysis of this,
and that is kind of the scale. And I think this year it is $325
million or so, and times eight or 10, you get into that region.
So it is a major effort.
I should emphasize that going to this scale, it is not
about the flops. It is about just managing huge data, so this
is really big data to be managed. There are energy management
issues. We have got to reduce the energy consumption by a
significant factor to make this practical. Many, many
challenges, but I think we have got to be out there in front.
Senator Alexander. Well, I believe you said it is not just
who has the biggest computer. It is also who has the personnel
to operate such.
Secretary Moniz. Right, because how you operate the
computer is very, very challenging.
SPALLATION NEUTRON SOURCE
Senator Alexander. Moving on the Spallation Neutron Source
at Oak Ridge, it is a one of a kind tool to discover how
materials and biology work. It is the world's most powerful
pulse neutron scattering facility. There are plans for a second
target station at the Spallation Neutron Source. When does the
Department plan to begin work on the second target station, and
how much funding could be used this year to begin work on such
a facility?
Secretary Moniz. The Spallation Neutron Source, first of
all, I just want to reinforce what you said. I mean, it is a
real gem and a very, very critical facility for our science.
There have been some issues, as you probably know, with the
current target station, but I think we are confident that those
issues will get resolved.
The second station, which I think would be more oriented
towards coal neutrons, is in the queue, but it has to be
prioritized now among other BES projects. So I have no fixed
date that I know of.
CLEAN LINE
Senator Alexander. One other question on wind. There is an
outfit called the Clean Line Energy Wind Project trying to sell
wind from Oklahoma to the Tennessee Valley Authority. TVA has
projected that by 2020, it will be about 40 nuclear, so that is
completely clean. About 10 percent hydro. That is completely
clean. That is 50 percent. Its new plants are natural gas. That
is pretty clean, much less emissions. TVA has got an emphasis
on efficiency.
Why does it make sense to buy from 700 miles away when you
can operate nuclear plants, clean up coal plants and gas
plants, and use hydro power? Is that not an example of carrying
things too far? And I know that at least one State, Arkansas,
has objected to the project. Does the Department plan to
override Arkansas's objection, and will you allow eminent
domain authority to be used for new transmission lines, which
will have to be stretched, I guess, from Oklahoma to Tennessee
to bring that wind power to the TVA?
Secretary Moniz. Well, that is the question of the Section
1222 authorities in terms of interstate transmission lines.
That project is now in the EIS phase, so we have to see what
the environmental impact statement is, and then move forward to
a decision. As you say, yes, it will cross Arkansas from
Oklahoma to Tennessee.
BASIC ENERGY RESEARCH
Senator Alexander. My last question is one in an area where
we agree. The Administration and the Congress over the last few
years have agreed on the importance of basic science funding.
The Congress enacted the America COMPETES legislation a few
years ago with strong bipartisan support, and President Bush's
support. President Obama has continued that. We have talked
about ARPA-E, which came out of the America COMPETES
recommendation. I have said in statement I would like to double
energy research. I have said a good place to get it would be to
take it away from the wind tax credit. But do you have any
comment to make, and the last question I will have for you,
about the importance of increasing basic science funding for
energy research in the United States and the advantages of it
to our country's future?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I certainly agree with you
completely that; (A) it is critical, and (B) we are under-
funding the American Energy Innovation Council already several
years ago. That is the council composed of a bunch of rather
recognizable CEOs, not directly in the energy business, that
made that point. They actually suggested a factor of three
rather than a factor of two in terms of the funding. That has
been repeated by others, by PCAST. There is actually some
simple arithmetic that tells you that this is kind of the scale
that we should be thinking about.
So I think the outcomes of that would be enormous. I think
I have every reason to believe that we have a lot of additional
creative and innovative capability in our country to fruitfully
use that kind of funding, as you said, the doubling perhaps of
energy. I think it would be a leader, taking us into a low
carbon future with technology costs just continuing to drop,
drop, drop, coming down. It would give us great export
potential. I think it is just a winner across the board. I
totally agree with you.
Senator Alexander. Well, Dr. Moniz, Dr. Orr, thank you both
for coming. I would say, Dr. Moniz, I want to thank you for
yourself in the Cabinet. That is not always an easy job, but
you come to it very well prepared because of your previous
service in Washington and your experience at MIT. And I think
both of us--those of us on the Democratic and Republican side
here--both appreciate your skill and the fact that you work
hard to stay in touch in with Congress. So we will look forward
to working with you in most areas to help create an environment
where you can succeed, and we will look for your help on a
whole variety of issues that we have discussed today, including
technical advice on nuclear waste, which, as you can see, now
has a pretty good head of steam----
Secretary Moniz. It sure does.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. On this committee and the
authorizing committee, so we need to take advantage of that
opportunity. So thank you for being here.
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. The subcommittee requests
all responses to questions for the record be responded--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:]
Question Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham
Question. I applaud the Department of Energy's (DOE) work on the
Grid Modernization Initiative, a critically important task for our
Nation's security and economic strength. As such, Congress has
previously funded the development of an industry-scale electric grid
test bed. While I believe there is a continued need for such a facility
to test additions to our electric grid and keep the grid secure, it
seems prudent to examine whether such a facility already exists. Do you
know of existing grid facilities that could serve in this capacity?
If such a facility does already exist, would the Department
continue to require the development of a new facility? If so, what is
the justification for duplicating limited Federal resources instead of
partnering with existing facilities?
Separate from building a new facility, how does the Department plan
to approach partnerships with any such facility for the testing and
development of electric grid security going forward?
Answer. The Grid Modernization Initiative (GMI) is working to
coordinate resources across the national laboratory complex and the
Nation. A consortium of national laboratories is proposing an
integrated network of test facilities across the laboratories, with
connections to university and industry test facilities to perform
coordinated testing that links testing assets across the Nation. The
GMI is not proposing construction of new facilities. Rather, this
effort reduces duplication, takes advantage of existing capabilities,
and ensures that our resources are directed in coordination toward the
multiple issues surrounding grid modernization. These issues include
advanced control systems performance and protection, cybersecurity,
resilience to natural disasters, new models and design platforms, and
device integration and testing.
Congress has funded (directly and indirectly) several facilities
across the DOE complex targeted at grid modernization activities. These
include:
--The Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) partnership with
Clemson, Duke Energy, and others.
--The Energy System Integration Facility (ESIF) at the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) for system testing of
renewable and energy efficiency technologies.
--Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's (PNNL) Energy
Infrastructure Operations Center and Electricity Infrastructure
Cybersecurity and Resilience Center for grid operations tools
development and cyber security research and response support.
--Idaho National Laboratory's (INL) extensive hardware testing and
distribution feeder test loop for supervisory control and data
acquisition (SCADA) testing and evaluation for security issues.
--Oak Ridge National Laboratory's (ORNL) extensive transmission cable
testing, power electronics testing labs, and the CURENT Center
for grid control research.
Universities and utilities expected to be linked into the national
laboratory testing network include Southern California Edison, Pacific
Gas and Electric, American Electric Power, Bonneville Power
Administration, Tennessee Valley Authority, Clemson, Florida State,
North Carolina State, Washington State, Arizona State, and others.
One goal of the GMI is to leverage these existing capabilities and
link sites to expand overall capabilities to avoid duplication across
the Nation.
To that end, rather than duplicating existing test bed
capabilities, four national laboratories (PNNL, NREL, INL, and ORNL)
have been coordinating the testing of advanced distribution circuits.
DOE and other organizations, including the Electric Power Research
Institute, the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel, and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), are considering
techniques that expand the virtual connection of these distributed
testing environments. In that way for example, renewable energy
generation assets at NREL could feed realistic signatures and behavior
to a control system test bed at PNNL, and cyber security threats could
be introduced to both systems under test from a third test bed resource
in Texas.
Newer capabilities at SRNL and NREL can test integrated
distribution systems up to 10MW in size, creating unique opportunity
for system simulation.
Robust information sharing and the resulting improvement in
situational awareness have always been a key goal in the energy
sector's Roadmap to Achieve Energy Delivery Systems Cybersecurity.\1\
Several milestones are focused on tools and capabilities that will
expedite the discovery, analysis, reporting, sharing, and mitigation of
cyber threats. These milestones were identified by industry with
concurrence from DOE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
Energy%20Delivery%20Systems%20Cybersecurity%20
Roadmap_finalweb.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Achieving information sharing and communication is the first of six
goals identified in DOE's Energy Sector Specific Plan as part of the
National Infrastructure Protection Plan: establish robust situational
awareness within the energy sector through timely, reliable, and secure
information exchange among trusted public and private sector security
partners.
We envision a robust, resilient energy infrastructure in which
business and service continuity is maintained through secure and
reliable information sharing, effective risk management programs,
coordinated response capabilities, and trusted relationships between
public and private partners at all levels of industry and government.
In its role as the Sector Specific Agency for Energy, DOE works
collaboratively with two energy Sector Coordinating Councils (SCCs),
one for electricity and one for oil and natural gas, and a Government
Coordinating Council with members from all levels of government
concerned with energy security. These coordinating councils represent
nearly all members of the energy community and are committed to working
closely with DOE and other government energy sector partners.
DOE works closely with the DHS's National Infrastructure
Coordinating Center and National Cybersecurity Communications and
Integration Center to enhance the efficient and effectiveness of the
Government's work to secure the energy sector.
A centerpiece of DOE's efforts in information sharing is the
Cybersecurity Risk Information Sharing Program (CRISP), which was
tested in 2013 and 2014 and is now expanding in partnership with the
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and the
Electricity Sector Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ES-ISAC).
This activity is rapidly expanding grid operator engagement in
information sharing both across industry and with appropriate Federal
entities. The ES-ISAC establishes situational awareness, incident
management, coordination, and communication capabilities within the
electricity sector through timely, reliable, and secure information
exchange. The ES-ISAC, in collaboration with DOE and the Electricity
SCC, serves as the primary security communications channel for the
electricity sector and enhances the ability of the sector to prepare
for and respond to cyber and physical threats, vulnerabilities, and
incidents.
Recent natural disasters have underscored the importance of having
a resilient oil and natural gas infrastructure and effective ways for
industry and government to communicate to address energy supply
disruptions. To this end, in 2013 I asked the National Petroleum
Council to give their advice through a study on Emergency Preparedness
for Natural Disasters. This study resulted in seven recommendations,
including leveraging the Energy Information Administration's (EIA)
subject matter expertise within the DOE Emergency Response Team to
improve supply chain situational assessments and recommending DOE and
States establish routine education and training programs for key
government emergency response positions. This report was delivered in
December 2014 and the recommendations are currently being implemented.
I stand ready to work with all Members to develop practical
solutions to address and respond to energy infrastructure security
issues.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
Question. Secretary Moniz, during the hearing I raised concerns
with the fiscal year 2016 Budget Request for Richland Operations at
Hanford, with a specific focus on the 324 Building and 618-10 and 11
burial ground projects. These cleanup projects are well underway and
are high risk projects located close to the City of Richland, Columbia
River, and Energy Northwest facility. As of January 2015, the
Department of Energy (DOE) has spent $61 million on the 324 Building
and this project is on track for completion of Phase 2 this summer. DOE
has spent $148 million on the 618-10 burial ground, which has resulted
in completing 75 percent of the trench cleanup and completing all
design preparations for cleanup of the vertical pipe units. And $8
million has been spent on the 618-11 burial ground.
I am disappointed that you were unable to explain the
Administration's proposed $97.2 million cut to the Richland Operations
budget, which would predominately come out of the River Corridor and
Other Cleanup Operations account through which these three projects are
funded. And I must point out that you failed to answer similar
questions on these cleanup projects posed by my colleagues Senator
Cantwell, Congressman Newhouse, and Congresswoman Herrera Beutler.
Slowing or halting work on these projects poses a safety risk, delays
cleanup, increases costs, and results in missing Tri-Party Agreement
milestones.
The fiscal year 2016 Budget Request cites technical challenges when
rationalizing the cuts to the 324 Building and 618-10 and 11 burial
grounds, however, no one has been able to pin-point for me what these
technical challenges are. Secretary Moniz, I again ask you to provide
me with an explanation as to what these technical challenges are and
what is holding you back from continuing to make progress on these
critical cleanup projects.
Answer. Completing cleanup at the Richland Operations Office is a
priority for the Department. There has been tremendous progress at
Richland, and our fiscal year 2016 budget request focuses on continuing
to make progress. Between now and the end of fiscal year 2016, we plan
to complete the design and mockup to ensure we know how to safely clean
up the 324 building, and complete trench work at the 618-10 burial
ground.
At 618-10, the technology to remediate vertical pipe units (VPU's)
has been successfully tested, but has not yet been deployed on actual
waste. DOE-RL believes this technology will be successful, but we must
increase our confidence that the technology will be successful when
used on actual waste.
Much of the waste in 618-11 is in a similar configuration; however,
618-11 also includes waste contained in caissons, which are underground
concrete vaults. The technology to remediate waste in caissons has not
been designed, tested or deployed. Additionally, 618-11 is adjacent to
an operating commercial nuclear power plant, and will require
additional controls to ensure the safety of plant workers.
Remediation of the highly radioactive soils under the 324 building
presents a number of technical challenges, including designing and
testing equipment to remotely excavate the extremely high dose rate
soils from under the building. The high dose presented by this waste
site will also affect any electronic equipment used in the process.
We share a similar goal of focusing on high-risk cleanup projects,
such as the Plutonium Finishing Plant and addressing the sludge in the
K Basin, while addressing technical challenges in other cleanup work.
Question. Secretary Moniz, the fiscal year 2015 Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act provided $45 million in
additional funding for the River Corridor and Other Cleanup Operations
account. This is additional funding that I fought to secure for DOE and
was designated for use by Richland Operations for the 324 Building and
618-10 and 11 burial grounds. Report language included in the Senate
Subcommittee mark for the fiscal year 2015 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill stated ``additional funding is provided for work
related to . . . cleanup of remaining 300 area waste sites,'' which
includes projects like the 324 Building and 618-10 and 11 burial
grounds. Furthermore, during consideration of the fiscal year 2015
Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill on the House floor
Chairman Simpson and Congressman Hastings clearly indicated that
additional funding included in the bill was intended for cleanup along
the Columbia River and for the River Corridor Closure project, which
again specifically includes the 324 Building and 618-10 and 11 burial
grounds.
It is my understanding that to date, DOE has not allocated the $45
million in funding towards these cleanup projects. Secretary Moniz, why
hasn't DOE used this funding to push forward on this critical cleanup
work? Furthermore, I ask that you provide in writing a detailed
explanation of how DOE intends to spend these funds in fiscal year
2015.
Answer. All funds have been allotted to the Richland Operations
Office (RL), and the funds provided for fiscal year 2015 activities
have been obligated to contracts consistent with the report language.
RL has worked with the River Corridor Remediation Contractor to refine
work planning for the remainder of fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year
2016. In fiscal year 2015, funding will enable RL to show progress in
the following areas:
--Continued remediation of the 618-10 burial ground, including drum
excavation in the trenches and installation of the Vertical
Pipe Unit (VPU) over-casings.
--Completion of the design for the remediation of the 300-296 waste
site under the 324 Building.
--Initiation of construction of mockup facility for remediation
efforts associated with the 300-296 waste site.
--Completion of disposition of 300 Area Surplus Facilities, excluding
the 324 Building.
--Completion of backfill of three deep-chromium contaminated waste
sites in the 100-D Area.
--Continued remediation of the balance of 100/300 Area waste sites to
include backfill and re-vegetation
--Continued operation and maintenance of Environmental Restoration
Disposal Facility (ERDF).
Question. Secretary Moniz, I appreciate the commitment DOE has
shown over the past year 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.
On February 10, 2015, DOE released an implementation plan for the
``Hanford Tank Vapor Assessment Report'' (Report). The implementation
plan is a formal phased approach to addressing potential chemical vapor
exposures and the 47 recommendations within the Report. It is my
understanding that $20 million was committed in fiscal year 2015
funding and that the fiscal year 2016 Budget Request includes $41
million to support Phase 1 of the implementation plan, which would
complete 30 of the 47 recommendations in the Report. Phase 2 would
begin in fiscal year 2017, and specific actions would be determined by
what is learned in Phase 1.
Secretary Moniz, I commend the actions DOE has already taken and
urge you to ensure that DOE does not stop its work upon the completion
of Phase 1 of the implementation plan. In addition, I ask that you
continue to make funding the implementation plan a priority as you
develop the fiscal year 2017 Budget Request and renew my request that
you add a specific line item into the fiscal year 2017 Budget Request
for this purpose.
The completion of the ``Hanford Tank Vapor Assessment Report''
resulted in immediate changes by DOE's contractor in November 2014 to
increase protective equipment requirements for the tank farms. Since
then, employees must wear supplied-air respirators when work is
conducted in the single shell tank farms and under circumstances where
chemical vapors are anticipated or known to occur in the double shell
tank farms. Since these requirements have been in place, DOE has been
successful in reducing chemical vapor exposures for employees. However,
on April 2, 2015, five employees working in a double shell tank farm
experienced chemical vapor related smells and three of the five
experienced symptoms. It is my understanding that the employees were
not in supplied-air respirators because the double shell tank farm had
an active ventilation system and no waste disturbing activity was
occurring.
Secretary Moniz, given this most recent chemical vapor experience
in a double shell tank farm I encourage DOE to reevaluate the supplied-
air respirator requirements established in November 2014 and determine
whether mandatory supplied-air should be extended to double shell tank
farms.
Each year DOE works with the Small Business Administration (SBA) to
establish small business prime contracting goals for the fiscal year.
Section 318 of the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act
made changes to allow DOE to count first tier subcontracts awarded by
Management and Operating contractors to small businesses toward this
annual small business contracting goal.
Secretary Moniz, has the Department used this new tool in setting
its small business prime contracting goals with SBA? If not, has SBA
prevented Section 318 from being implemented? Furthermore, I ask that
you provide in writing the small business prime contracting goal DOE
and SBA set for fiscal year 2014, fiscal year 2015, and fiscal year
2016.
Answer. This authority has not yet been used in setting the
Department's small business prime contracting goal. As this is a
monumental change to the small business contracting goaling process,
DOE continues to work with SBA to implement the new law. Section 318 of
the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act came into effect
through Public Law 113-76 on January 17, 2014. Subsequently, the
Department of Energy (DOE) recommended to the Small Business
Administration (SBA) that the DOE fiscal year 2014 small business goal
be adjusted upward to take into consideration the first-tier small
business subcontracts awarded by DOE's Management and Operating (M&O)
contractors, as reflected in statute.
In fiscal year 2014, SBA did not account for DOE's M&O contractors
in the way the statute intended. SBA has indicated that implementation
of this statute is complicated by the data systems used across the
Federal Government to collect information about subcontracts; the level
and type of data collected about subcontracts is not as detailed as
what is collected for prime contracts. DOE, SBA, and the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) in the Office of Management and
Budget collaborated to develop a plan to implement Section 318 in
fiscal year 2015. The plan will enable DOE to receive prime contracting
credit for its first tier small business subcontracts awarded by DOE's
M&O contractors while addressing SBA's concerns regarding DOE's
subcontract data quality and transparency. DOE expects to receive the
fiscal year 2016 small business goaling letter in the first quarter of
fiscal year 2016. The small business prime contract goal for DOE was
6.59 percent for fiscal year 2014 and 6 percent for fiscal year 2015.
Question. While I support Section 318, I remain concerned it will
not cover first tier subcontracts awarded by prime contractors working
on nuclear waste cleanup. In my home State of Washington, the prime
contractors at the Hanford site are committed to working with small
businesses. All of these prime contractors have small business
subcontracting goals ranging from 49 to 65 percent and all of them are
meeting these goals. Unfortunately, these first tier subcontracts are
not counted by DOE or SBA towards the prime contracting goals.
Secretary Moniz, I ask that you continue to work with me and SBA to
ensure prime contractors working on nuclear waste cleanup receive
proper recognition and consideration for their extensive work with
small businesses.
Answer. The Hanford prime contracts are not M&O contracts, which
are a DOE-specific type of contract used for long-term continuing
mission accomplishment, as opposed to the cleanup work performed under
the Hanford contracts that is aimed at completion of the cleanup. The
Hanford prime contractors thus are not covered by Section 318 of the
fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act. The Hanford prime
contractors' small business subcontracts are taken into account in the
overall evaluation of DOE's support to small business because they will
continue to be counted toward the DOE's subcontract goal.
Question. Secretary Moniz, I understand that several major prime
contracts within the Office of Environmental Management are due for re-
competition or extension in the next few years. This includes the
following contracts at the Hanford site: River Corridor Closure
contract held by Washington Closure Hanford, the Plateau Remediation
Contract held by CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company, and the Tank
Farm Contract held by Washington River Protection Solutions. Knowing
the complexity of these cleanup projects and accompanying contracts,
what steps is DOE taking to prepare for such a sharp increase in
contract re-competitions, to ensure qualified contractors submit
proposals to DOE for consideration, and to minimize disruption in
cleanup work and to local communities?
Answer. On average, the acquisition process for large cleanup
contracts begins at least 2 years ahead of the date individual
contracts must be awarded. A key part of that acquisition planning and
process is early outreach to determine if industry is well positioned
to meet potential mission needs at particular sites and to encourage
qualified contractors to participate. Activities include industry days
and site tours that provide opportunities to see the location where
work will be performed and an ability to interface with potential
teaming members, and quarterly outreach sessions open to any industry
participants. EM will continue to work closely with sites and affected
communities as these procurements progress.
Question. Secretary Moniz, as you are aware, the Office of
Environmental Management has been without a confirmed Assistant
Secretary for almost 4 years. The Administration's nominee, Dr. Monica
Regalbuto, was approved by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources on June 18, 2014 and by the Senate Armed Services Committee
on June 24, 2014 but the full Senate was unable to vote on her
confirmation before the end of the 113th Congress. With Dr. Regalbuto's
nomination being resubmitted to the Senate for consideration, Secretary
Moniz, I urge you to aggressively push her nomination forward with the
two committees of jurisdiction and Majority Leader McConnell.
National scientific user facilities like the Environmental
Molecular Sciences Laboratory and Atmospheric Radiation Measurement
User Facility located at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in
Washington State play a central role in the U.S. research ecosystem by
providing scientists access to unique instruments, expertise, and
facilities. Each year approximately 750 scientists use the
Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, while the Atmospheric
Radiation Measurement User Facility supports 900 users. As State and
Federal budgets endure continued downward pressure in the coming years,
the importance of user facilities will continue to grow as they are
shared resources available to the entire scientific community.
I am concerned that the fiscal year 2016 Budget Request proposes a
$2 million cut to the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory and
an additional $2 million cut to the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement
User Facility. Secretary Moniz, while these cuts seem small they could
have significant impacts to the availability of equipment and the
number of users that can take advantage of these important resources.
How does the fiscal year 2016 Budget Request continue to ensure that
scientific user facilities have the funding they need to serve the
scientific community and maintain U.S. global leadership in scientific
innovation?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2016 Budget Request supports a
balance of substantial investments in the Office of Science's research
programs, the operations of its existing 27 scientific user facilities,
and the construction of several new user facilities and major upgrades
to existing facilities. These user facilities are a major component of
our national research infrastructure, and were used by more than 32,000
users spanning more than 2,300 institutions in fiscal year 2014. Nearly
1,000 users affiliated with Washington State institutions used the
Office of Science user facilities in fiscal year 2014.
In formulating its budgets annually, the Office of Science
considers the long-range--5-to-10 year strategic planning processes,
aimed at identifying scientific leadership directions that demand
suites of instrumentation that are generally unavailable elsewhere. The
planning also evaluates facility construction needs, facility
efficiencies, and operations strategies in a variety of budget
scenarios. In fiscal year 2016, Environmental Molecular Sciences
Laboratory (EMSL) will address a more focused set of science challenges
that respond to needs of DOE biological and environmental research;
thus, research activity (and associated instrumentation) outside this
scope will be sunsetted and priority given to utilization of unique
observing technologies, such as the High Resolution Mass Accuracy
Capability (newly available in fiscal year 2016) and new capabilities
in the Radiological Annex and Quiet wing. In addition to supporting
EMSL at the level necessary to tackle identified biological and
environmental needs, we believe that the fiscal year 2016 Request
provides the resources for the Office of Science to successfully
deliver our highest priority investments in new and upgraded user
facilities while continuing to advance today's mission-driven research
objectives through our existing facilities.
Question. The Department of Energy, through the Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA), plays an important role implementing the Columbia
River Treaty as a member of the U.S. Entity. Together with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Northwest Division, BPA engaged in a multi-year
process with 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 and U.S. Department of
State in December 2013. Since then DOE, the Army Corps, and several
other Federal agencies have been participating in an Interagency Policy
Committee (IPC) process to determine the parameters for negotiations
with Canada based on the Regional Recommendation. Secretary Moniz, as a
participant in the IPC process, can you share the timeline for
formulating a consensus among the Federal partners on these parameters?
Furthermore, are there any specific issues preventing the Federal
partners from reaching consensus, completing the IPC process, and
beginning negotiations with Canada in 2015?
Answer. The Department of Energy shares your interest in the
Columbia River Treaty review. The Regional Recommendation for the
Future of the Columbia River Treaty after 2024 was negotiated by many
sovereigns and stakeholders over many years, and reflects a balance of
interests that the Department supports. My staff is working with the
U.S. Department of State, which has been designated as the lead agency
to coordinate and oversee the Federal interagency review process, to
assure that this significant Pacific Northwest matter is moving forward
and taking into consideration regional recommendations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
Question. Without the economy-wide investments in energy efficiency
made since 1973, it is estimated that today's economy would require 60
percent more energy that we currently consume. In fact, savings from
energy efficiency improvements over the last 40 years have reduced our
national energy bill by about $700 million. Many of these improvements
would not have been possible without the research, technical support
and market integration efforts from the energy efficiency programs at
DOE.
Still, there are large, cost-effective opportunities to increase
energy efficiency much further, which will cut energy bills, reduce
pollution and encourage economic growth. However, a variety of market
failures and market barriers contribute to keeping us from fully
realizing our energy efficiency potential. This includes: (1) Imperfect
information about available technologies in the marketplace and (2)
Split incentives like landlord-tenant relationships where a building
owner makes decisions about efficiency investments, but because she
doesn't pay the utility bill, there is no incentive to purchase more
efficient and cost-effective appliances.
DOE plays a vital role in helping leverage market forces and
overcoming these barriers. Can you discuss initiatives within EERE that
help with overcoming these types of market barriers when it comes to
achieving more national energy efficiency gains?
Answer. The Department of Energy plays an important role in helping
to reduce market barriers to the adoption of new technologies that are
market ready--such as a lack of reliable information and workforce
training gaps--through activities that include providing best practice
information, stakeholder outreach, sustaining and enhancing the clean
energy workforce, and providing reliable, objective data.
Select examples of activities within EERE that help with overcoming
market barriers include but are not limited to:
--Advanced Manufacturing Office. Combined heat and power (CHP) is a
proven approach to generate on-site electric power and useful
thermal energy efficiently from a single fuel source. Through
its Industrial Technical Assistance subprogram, the Advanced
Manufacturing Office (AMO) supports Combined Heat and Power
Technical Assistance Partnerships (CHP TAPs), which promote and
assist in transforming the market for CHP, waste heat to power,
and district energy with CHP technologies and concepts
throughout the U.S. Advanced Manufacturing's CHP efforts
support Executive Order 13624, which sets a national goal of
deploying 40 gigawatts of new, cost-effective industrial CHP in
the United States by the end of 2020. Through these
partnerships, the Department supports deployment of these
energy efficient technologies through a variety of services,
such as education and outreach that provide information on the
benefits and applications of CHP to State and local policy
makers, regulators, energy end-users, trade associations, and
others; and technical assistance to energy end-users and others
to help them consider whether CHP is a viable technical and
economic opportunity.
--Building Technologies Office. The Building Technologies Office
(BTO) pursues solutions identification and technology-to-market
initiatives through its Commercial Buildings Integration (CBI)
and Residential Buildings Integration (RBI) subprograms to help
reduce market barriers to widespread adoption of cost-effective
advanced building energy efficiency technologies and solutions.
Existing market barriers include high first cost, fragmented
market segments, lack of uniform data and data formats, and
insufficient availability of objective consumer information.
These contribute to the building trades' slow acceptance and
adoption of new technologies and practices. The CBI and RBI
subprograms' approach to reducing these barriers includes
partnerships with stakeholders to develop and share validated
data and best practices, improvement of building design and
audit tools, and the creation of reliable efficiency benchmarks
and databases to facilitate energy efficiency financing and to
define efficiency's value-add to consumers. The CBI and RBI
subprograms' efforts focus on developing, demonstrating, and
releasing a suite of cost-effective technologies,
specifications, tools, and solutions, as well as analyzing
their ability to deliver the intended energy savings.
--Federal Energy Management Program. Performance contracting includes
both Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) and Utility
Energy Service Contracts (UESC). ESPCs and UESCs allow the
Government to engage a third-party private sector energy
company to invest in needed energy projects and pay for the
investment through the energy, water, and operations and
maintenance (O&M) savings achieved over the life of the
contract. Federal ESPC and UESC projects can include energy and
water-efficiency improvements, renewable energy technologies,
renewable alternative fuel (biomass/landfill), combined heat
and power, advanced metering, and power management. These
projects must improve site or system-wide energy efficiency and
be life-cycle cost effective in order to guarantee the savings
needed to pay for the project. Using performance contracts also
provides agencies with access to private-sector expertise in
energy efficiency, renewable energy, water conservation, and
emissions reductions and can provide a mechanism for smart
project management that ensures building efficiency
improvements and new equipment without upfront capital costs.
--Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs. States face several
barriers in retrofitting their existing buildings to make them
more energy efficient, including the lack of requisite data to
track energy use in their buildings (imperfect information).
DOE's State Energy Program (SEP) has offered several
competitively awarded funding opportunities aimed at helping
States address market failures and market barriers, such as the
deployment of data management programs, promoting information
sharing to further the use of innovative financing mechanisms
such as energy savings performance contracting, and outreach
programs to decision makers. Since 2012, SEP has made 56
Competitive awards to 30 States in many of these areas,
developing model solutions, policies and programs that can be
replicated by other States and local government agencies.
Question. Can you discuss how EERE uses the Building Technologies
Program and Advanced Manufacturing Office (AMO) to help deploy
technologies once R&D in their respective economic sectors becomes
proven and ready for market?
Answer. The Department plays an important role in helping reduce
market barriers to the adoption of new technologies that are market
ready through activities that include providing best practice
information, stakeholder outreach, and providing reliable, objective
data.
Advanced Manufacturing
--The Advanced Manufacturing Office (AMO) orients activities in each
of its three subprograms to align with this investment
strategy. In the Advanced Manufacturing R&D Projects
subprogram, AMO takes into account down-stream R&D challenges
to better facilitate the ultimate transition of various
technologies into domestic industrial production facilities.
Facilities supported under the Advanced Manufacturing R&D
Facilities subprogram, such as Clean Energy Manufacturing
Innovation Institutes, are designed to both accelerate the
development and the implementation of cutting-edge energy
efficiency technologies applicable to energy-intensive and
energy-dependent industries and materials and technologies
broadly applicable to the manufacturing of clean energy
products. In addition, the AMO Industrial Technical Assistance
subprogram helps manufacturers utilize energy-saving, market-
ready technologies, such as combined heat and power, through
various activities, including market assessments, outreach and
information dissemination, and technical assistance.
Commercial Buildings Market Deployment
--The Building Technologies Office (BTO) has developed a model for
spurring market uptake of new technology through its High
Impact Technology (HIT) Initiative. The HIT is designed to
promote the voluntary uptake of emerging, cost-effective
energy-saving building technologies through partnerships with
the commercial buildings industry via the Better Buildings
Alliance, Federal leaders, regional non-profits, utilities, and
efficiency organizations. HIT technologies are high potential
technologies identified by DOE through scoring criteria based
on national energy saving potential, cost, technology
readiness, stakeholder interest, and help achieve the
Commercial Building Integration's (CBI) goals to promote
adoption and market uptake of energy efficiency technologies in
the commercial building sector. From there, CBI then designs
and conducts strategic deployment, dissemination and technical
assistance activities using stakeholder input regarding the
largest, most persistent barriers to adoption and can include
partnering with manufacturers to innovate based on demonstrated
industry demand, field testing, development of guides on how to
use or select of high-performing technologies, or cost-shared
technical assistance.
One example is the Lighting Energy Efficiency in Parking (LEEP)
Campaign, which BTO launched in 2012, building on several years
of BTO technology research, development, and demonstration and
the development of tools to drive high-efficiency lighting and
controls into the market. More than 100 organizations have
joined the campaign, and, with technical assistance from BTO,
have installed high-efficiency lighting or controls in over 445
million square feet of parking space. BTO's efforts to engage
market leaders to demonstrate high-efficiency lighting in
parking lots and structures has created momentum for further
market adoption.
Residential Buildings Market Deployment
--BTO's Building America Program advances technology deployment
through applied demonstration projects that cost-effectively
integrate innovative technologies and construction practices
into new and existing residential buildings systems, working
directly with builders and home improvement contractors.
Currently, the Building America Program is focusing on highly
efficient wall systems that minimize the transport of heat, low
load cooling equipment that effectively dehumidifies the home,
and proper ventilation levels for efficient homes. Building
America works directly with builders and contractors in the
market place to demonstrate the market viability of these
technologies. In addition, these innovative technologies and
building practices are highlighted in BTO's Building America
Solution Center, a web-based information source for these
technologies that contractors can access from the field.
BTO also deploys these innovations into the new homes market
through the DOE Zero Energy Ready Home Program, a voluntary
partnership program for builders, architects, utilities, energy
efficiency programs, lenders, and more. The DOE Zero Energy
Ready Home label signifies a whole new level of home
performance, with rigorous requirements that ensure outstanding
levels of energy savings, comfort, health, and durability. BTO
also works with EPA's ENERGY STAR New Homes Program to bring
these technologies to the marketplace. Many innovations
demonstrated by Building America have been included in codes
over the years.
Within the existing homes market, the Better Buildings Residential
Program (BBR) works with State and local energy efficiency
program partners to deploy proven whole-house and staged
upgrade solutions into our Nation's communities. Through the
Home Performance with ENERGY STAR Program and the Better
Buildings Residential Network, BTO utilizes market partnerships
and network effects to increase the deployment of energy
efficient, building science-based home performance improvement
opportunities among builders, contractors, and homeowners. Home
Performance with ENERGY STAR (HPwES) is a public-private
voluntary partnership which works with program partners to
promote and implement whole-house upgrade solutions for
improved, energy-efficient homes. The Better Buildings
Residential Network connects energy efficiency programs,
contractors, financial institutions, State and local
governments, nonprofits, and utilities to share best practices
and learn from one another.
Question. Another important component of DOE's work is ensuring
that relevant stakeholders in the business and advocacy communities
have the opportunity to engage with EERE to identify the right types of
R&D that DOE should be focusing on.
What processes are in place to ensure that the Building
Technologies and the Advanced Manufacturing Offices effectively target
and fund the type of technology research needed and wanted in the
private sector?
Answer. The Advanced Manufacturing Office (AMO) funds technologies
and processes that enable energy cost reduction and efficiency for the
Nation's most energy-intensive and energy-dependent industries, and
funds materials and enabling technologies with cross-cutting impact for
cost reduction and performance improvement broadly applicable to the
manufacturing of clean energy products. The Program identifies topical
thrusts within each of these two categories and uses them as organizing
priorities for existing and proposed technical work.
These thrusts are identified through extensive consultation with
private sector firms, non-profit, university and National Laboratory
partners through various forums, including technology analyses,
workshops, and by soliciting input from stakeholders through requests
for information prior to planning of the funding opportunity
announcements. Funded topics will be selected based on the
consideration of potential energy, environmental, and economic impacts,
as well as overall relevance to the private sector, including a topic's
additionality relative to existing public and private sector
investments, degree of technical uncertainty and risk associated with a
topic which limit potential private sector investment, whether
investment in a topic can be a catalyzing influence, and the
opportunity for long term impact of that topic on domestic
manufacturing.
Similarly, input from industry stakeholders is a critical component
of the Building Technology Office's (BTO) multi-year R&D and market
transformation strategy. BTO primarily seeks industry input through
three methods: Requests for Information (RFIs), which are delivered to
over 25,000 building energy efficiency stakeholders; Technology R&D
Roadmap Workshops; and events such as BTO's Annual Peer Review and
Merit Review, where independent experts provide robust, documented
feedback on BTO lab and FOA projects' alignment with our mission and
goals. Each major technology area that BTO works in--lighting, HVAC,
windows and building envelope, sensors and controls (in development)--
has a roadmap that guides and prioritizes our research over the coming
years. These roadmaps are developed with considerable input from
scientists, engineers, academia, and industry experts. Typically, we
invite these industry stakeholders to an all-day workshop that informs
the development of the roadmap, and will then seek their review
throughout its development. Similarly, the High Impact Technology
Catalyst, mentioned in response to Question #2, issues an RFI every
year to seek input from technology providers and technology end-users
(such as building owner/operators) on which technologies should be
considered for the Catalyst, and which market transformation methods
may prove the most effective.
Question. The success of the U.S. manufacturing base is vital to
our country's long-term economic well-being. Many of our domestic
companies, including those in New Hampshire, face real challenges when
it comes to remaining competitive in a global economy.
One of the most promising breakthroughs in helping companies deal
with these pressures is the concept of smart manufacturing. New
information and communications technologies (ICT) and supercomputing
simulations allow manufacturing companies to optimize their production
and supply networks by bringing together islands of information found
throughout the manufacturing chain in order to achieve significant
energy savings and increase productivity.
These types of technological innovations can help U.S. manufactures
become and remain cost effective, efficient, and sustainable. However,
there remain significant challenges to deploying these technologies
more widely.
In particular, how can DOE make sure that smart manufacturing tools
are made available to all manufacturing firms, particular small and
medium-sized companies who may have more limited technical and
financial resources?
Answer. While many Smart Manufacturing technology elements exist in
some form and level of maturity today, the scale of the required
industry collaboration and development needed for Smart Manufacturing
technology integration, open and interoperable platforms, and
widespread cost-effective adoption of these technologies is beyond the
scope of most individual private sector organizations, including small-
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). AMO supports the development of
innovative next generation manufacturing processes and production
technologies through the creation of collaborative communities with
shared research, development and demonstration (RD&D) infrastructure,
including Clean Energy Manufacturing Innovation Institutes, such as the
proposed Smart Manufacturing Institute. At the technical core of these
Institutes is shared RD&D infrastructure that contains equipment and
resources accessible to external parties for technology development
that would otherwise be cost prohibitive, particularly for SMEs. It is
expected that the Smart Manufacturing Institute will engage the
manufacturing community at all levels of the supply chain, including
large companies, potential end users, researchers, and SMEs involved in
critical development work and who will support the transition to
commercial applications, to ensure the Institute is focused on industry
relevant problems and increase likelihood of success.
Question. I was very pleased to see that the DOE released a Notice
of Intent (NOI) in December 2014 to propose its 3rd Nationwide Network
for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI), the Clean Energy Smart
Manufacturing Innovation Institute. I also understand that the AMO
hosted an Industry Day workshop in February 2015 held in Atlanta, GA,
to provide an opportunity for potential proposers to understand the
concept, vision and technology needs for the potential smart
manufacturing Institute.
Undoubtedly, the announcement and recent workshop has created
excitement among manufacturers, academic institutions, national labs
and State and local governments, all of whom welcome real-time control
of energy, productivity and costs for manufacturing facilities and the
benefits these advancements will bring to the sector. I understand the
issuance of the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for the
Institute was expected in March 2015, but an official FOA from DOE has
not yet been issued.
My concern is that the delay of the issuance of the FOA coincides
with the Department of Defense's announcement of their NNMI, competing
for an overlapping resource base for non-Federal cost sharing. For
furthering our joint interests and priorities for making smart
manufacturing a common practice and asset throughout the U.S. and
driving transformational gains in energy productivity with overall
improved manufacturing performance, issuing the FOA quickly is
important for aligning resources and partners adequately.
What are DOE's plans for the issuance of the FOA to ensure strong
participation in the Clean Energy Smart Manufacturing Innovation
Institute?
Answer. DOE's Smart Manufacturing Institute funding opportunity
announcement (FOA) is planned for release in mid-2015. The DOE hosted
an Industry Day on the Clean Energy Manufacturing Innovation Institute
on Smart Manufacturing in February 2015, which allowed potential
proposers to hear presentations from government officials about the
framework for a potential Institute, specific technical topic areas of
interest, and anticipated proposal requirements. The Industry Day was
strongly attended, and the Department anticipates strong interest in
the Institute FOA.
Question. I was pleased to hear about your commitment to ensuring
that the benefits of thermal biomass will receive more focus within the
Department of Energy. As we discussed during the hearing, I read with
interest the President's recent Executive Order, ``Planning for Federal
Sustainability in the Next Decade,'' and was pleased to see that it
recognizes the importance of thermal power by including it in the
Federal government's renewable energy procurement requirements. This is
of significant interest to me since I have long been a proponent of
thermal biomass.
What is DOE's role in assisting Federal agencies comply with the
new sustainability requirements pursuant to the President's recent
Executive Order ``Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next
Decade?''
Answer. The DOE's Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) works
with key individuals within agencies to improve the sustainability,
energy and water use of the Federal Government, which facilitates the
Government's ability to Lead by Example--encouraging establishment of
energy goals, facilitating innovative technologies and creating change
in the energy sphere. This mission helps serve the intent of the recent
Executive Order 13693, which is to maintain Federal leadership in
sustainability and greenhouse gas emission reductions. FEMP will
continue assisting agencies with proven strategies to achieve
sustainable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. FEMP will be
expanding its support for thermal renewable energy through two major
types of assistance FEMP provides to agencies: technical assistance and
alternative financing. For technical assistance, FEMP is already
working with agencies to identify their largest energy-consuming
campuses and then using FEMP's national laboratory experts and software
screening tools to comprehensively analyze their most promising
renewable energy, clean energy and energy efficiency opportunities. In
financing these projects, agencies will now try to incorporate thermal
renewable energy into on-site project acquisitions, energy purchase
agreements with third-party developers, energy savings performance
contracts and utility energy service contracts. FEMP will continue to
advise agencies on the issues involved with all of these financing
options, and provide agencies access to qualified energy service
companies.
Question. Will DOE--through the Federal Energy Management Program
(FEMP)--work with agencies on best practices for compliance? If so, how
can FEMP help ensure that thermal power options like biomass have a
viable opportunity to be used as a compliance option?
Answer. FEMP has and will continue to provide support for agencies
in meeting their clean energy goals, including both renewable electric
and thermal energy, as described in EO 13693. This support includes
project technical assistance, project procurement assistance, guidance
documents, training, and reporting. FEMP is responsible for tracking
progress towards the achievement of Federal clean energy goals, and as
such, advises agencies on how to report their renewable electric and
thermal energy data to ensure compliance with Federal laws and
requirements. FEMP will continue to help agencies identify existing and
new incentives and programs either the agency or developers can use to
reduce the cost of renewable energy and will continue to develop best
practices for compliance.
Question. You may recall that I sent a bipartisan letter to you and
EPA Administrator McCarthy regarding EPA's recently proposed regulation
to phase out certain hydrofluorocarbon substances having a relatively
high global warming potential under EPA's Significant New Alternatives
Policy Program, or ``SNAP'' program. Specifically, my concern relates
to the likely impact of the proposal on energy efficiency. As you know,
the proposal would require a change in the blowing agent used to make
several types of building insulations. As a result, the energy
efficiency gains provided by these products could be negatively
impacted because the alternatives are both less efficient and more
costly to manufacture, which would increase the price for consumers.
My interest is ensuring that the EPA's rule does not have
unintended consequences that results in achieving lower greenhouse gas
emission reductions than expected. Can you please tell me whether DOE
has reviewed the EPA proposal to identify how it may impact energy
efficiency in the insulation sector? Is there close coordination
between DOE and EPA on this rule?
Answer. DOE is aware of the concerns expressed by some parties
regarding SNAP rules and potential impacts upon energy efficiency. We
consulted with the EPA to ensure that they were aware of our
perspective on these issues. EPA has now issued their final rule in
this matter.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Christopher A. Coons
Question. Major issues--As you know, Delaware is an EPSCoR/IDeA
State, and the EPSCoR/IDeA programs have been beneficial for many
universities around the country. It has been brought to my attention
that there are some general concerns about how much the Department of
Energy is seeking for this program and how it is operating its EPSCoR
program in terms of the grant award process.
In fiscal year 2013, the 25 States and three territories eligible
for DOE EPSCoR received about 9 percent of all Office of Science
research award dollars. There are two individual non-EPSCoR States
that, on their own, were awarded more funding by the Office of Science
than all of the EPSCoR States combined. In fact, one of these non-
EPSCoR States' funding is more than double what half the States in the
Nation receive through the Office of Science. This year, your fiscal
year 2016 request once again keeps DOE EPSCoR flat while the EPSCoR
programs at the National Science Foundation and the IDeA program
National Institutes of Health continue to grow.
I am also concerned about how DOE EPSCoR handled last year's
Implementation Grant award process. The University of Delaware and two
other applicants were told in the fall that their proposals were being
held over for possible fiscal year 2015 funding consideration. The
University of Delaware was then informed, a few months later, that they
were no longer being considered for the award and that DOE EPSCoR would
only be considering funding of one additional proposal instead of all
three.
Can you explain why the DOE is not seeking additional funds for its
EPSCoR program while other agencies have continued to make larger
requests for their own programs? Can you also explain what happened
between the time when the University of Delaware was informed about
their potential award in the fall and subsequently when they were told
that they were no longer in consideration a few months later? As you
know, Congress provided $10 million last year for DOE EPSCoR, about
$1.5 million more than was requested. Why is only one award now being
made with those additional funds?
Answer. Year-to-year changes in the DOE Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) request are consistent on a
percentage basis with changes in the core research portfolio in Basic
Energy Sciences. The decision for declining the subject applications
was due to the consideration of the available budget and the desire to
have a future funding opportunity announcement with longer lead times.
The additional funding provided in fiscal year 2015 is being used to
minimize mortgages in future fiscal years of existing awards so as to
increase funding available for potential new awards under a future
funding opportunity announcement.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Alexander. Thank you for being here today. The
subcommittee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:11 p.m., Wednesday, March 25, 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, Jeff, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.... 90
Prepared Statement of........................................ 91
Bostick, Hon. Thomas P., Lieutenant General, Commander General
and Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army................. 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 12
Summary Statement of......................................... 10
Burns, Stephen G., Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.. 73
Prepared Statement of........................................ 83
Questions Submitted to....................................... 110
Summary Statement of......................................... 81
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 7
Questions Submitted by....................................... 61
Statement of................................................. 6
Collins, Senator Susan M., U.S. Senator From Maine, Statement of. 9
Cook, Dr. Donald, Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs,
National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy. 113
Coons, Senator Christopher A., U.S. Senator From Connecticut,
Question Submitted by.......................................... 201
Darcy, Hon. Jo-Ellen, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works), Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 15
Prepared Statement of........................................ 16
Durbin, Senator Richard J., U.S. From Illinois, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 68
Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California:
Questions Submitted by....................................... 64
Statements of
Gimbel, Jennifer, Principle Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water
and Science.................................................... 28
Prepared Statement of........................................ 29
Graham, Senator Lindsey, U.S. Senator From South Carolina:
Question Submitted by........................................ 190
Statement of................................................. 9
Harrington, Anne, Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, Department of Energy......................... 113
Klotz, Lieutenant General Frank G., U.S. Air Force (Retired),
Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator,
Department of Energy........................................... 113
Prepared Statement of........................................ 119
Summary of................................................... 117
Lankford, Senator James, U.S. Senator From Oklahoma, Questions
Submitted by
Lopez, Hon. Estevan, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior..................................... 22
Prepared Statement of........................................ 23
McConnell, Senator Mitch, U.S. Senator From Kentucky, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 62
Merkely, Senator Jeff, U.S. Senator From Oregon, Statement of.... 7
Moniz, Hon. Ernest J., Ph.D., Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Energy........................................... 149
Prepared Statement of........................................ 157
Summary Statement of......................................... 155
Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska:
Questions Submitted by....................................... 63
Statement of................................................. 92
Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator From Washington, Questions
Submitted by
Orr, Franklin, Ph.D., Under Secretary for Science and Energy,
Department of Energy........................................... 149
Ostendorff, William C., Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission..................................................... 88
Prepared Statement of........................................ 89
Question Submitted to........................................ 112
Richardson, Admiral John, United States Navy, Director, Naval
Nuclear Propulsion, Deputy Administrator for office of Naval
Reactors....................................................... 113
Shaheen, Senator Jeanne, U.S. Senator From New Hampshire,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 195
Svinicki, Kristine L., Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission..................................................... 87
Prepared Statement of........................................ 87
Tester, Senator Jon, U.S. Senator From Montana, Statement of..... 8
Udall, Senator Tom, U.S. Senator From New Mexico, Statement of... 8
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Additional Committee Questions................................... 61
Alternative Financing and Public-Private Partnerships............ 20
Construction..................................................... 18
Program...................................................... 13
Emergency Management............................................. 14
Investigations Program........................................... 13
Operation and Maintenance........................................ 19
Program...................................................... 13
Planning Modernization........................................... 17
Regulatory Program............................................... 20
Reimbursable Program............................................. 14
Remaining Items.................................................. 20
Research and Development......................................... 20
Summary of Fiscal Year 2016 Budget............................... 13
Veterans Curation Program........................................ 21
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Additional Committee Questions................................... 190
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Direct Loan Program... 178
Advancing:
Nuclear Security, Science & Energy, and Environmental Cleanup 157
the President's Vision: Implementing DOE's Strategic Plan.... 166
Agency Duplications.............................................. 173
American Centrifuge Project...................................... 168
Arctic Energy Summit............................................. 177
Basic Energy Research............................................ 189
B-61............................................................. 176
Cellulosic Ethanol............................................... 174
Clean Line....................................................... 188
Cleaning up the Cold War Nuclear Weapons Legacy.................. 165
Department Staff Participation................................... 168
Doubling Basic Energy Research................................... 152
Energy........................................................... 159
Exascale Super Computing......................................... 187
Hanford Richland................................................. 171
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor................. 167
Leading the World in Advanced Scientific Computing............... 153
Liquefied Natural Gas Exports.................................... 172
Management and Performance: Improving Efficiency and
Effectiveness.................................................. 166
Mercury Treatment Facility....................................... 186
Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility............................ 182
National Labs.................................................... 178
Nuclear:
Reactor License Renewal...................................... 184
Security..................................................... 164
Reducing Federal Spending on Mature Technologies................. 153
Science: Leading Edge Research and World Class Research
Infrastructure................................................. 158
Sequestration.................................................... 182
Small Nuclear Reactors........................................... 185
Smart Manufacturing Technologies................................. 181
Solving the nuclear waste stalemate.............................. 154
Spallation Neutron Source........................................ 188
Spent:
Fuel Storage................................................. 179
Nuclear Fuel Storage......................................... 169
The Future of Nuclear Power...................................... 183
Thermal Biomass.................................................. 180
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant...................................... 175
Wind............................................................. 185
Yucca Mountain................................................... 172
National Nuclear Security Administration
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Appropriation................... 123
Government Accounting Office High Risk List...................... 139
Improving Safety, Operations and Infrastructure.................. 121
Maintaining the Stockpile........................................ 120
Management & Performance......................................... 126
MOX................................................... 141
National Ignition Facility....................................... 135
Naval Reactors................................................... 145
Appropriation................................................ 125
Spent Fuel Storage........................................... 133
NNSA Federal Salaries and Expenses Appropriation................. 126
Nonproliferation Efforts......................................... 123
Nuclear:
Counterterrorism and Emergency Response...................... 125
Cruise Missile............................................... 131
Nonproliferation............................................. 144
Weapons Stockpile............................................ 130
Safety........................................................... 129
Uranium Processing Facility...................................... 127
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
2016 through 2018 Priority Goal for Water Conservation........... 27
Additional Committee Questions................................... 61
Arctic Deep Draft Port........................................... 64
Study........................................................ 43
CALFED Storage Projects.......................................... 58
California:
Bay-Delta Restoration........................................ 26
Drought
Central:
Utah Project................................................. 32
Valley Project Restoration Fund.............................. 26
Chickamauga Lock................................................. 33
Climate Change................................................... 46
Columbia River Treaty............................................ 67
Continuing Authorities Program
Crooked River Prineville Reservoir............................... 38
Engaging the Next Generation..................................... 32
Ensuring Healthy Watersheds and Sustainable, Secure Water
Supplies....................................................... 29
Federal Flood Risk Management.................................... 56
Standard..................................................... 61
Fiscal Year 2015 Workplan/IWTF................................... 62
Funding for projects............................................. 68
Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study............... 69
Harbor Maintenance:
Tax.......................................................... 66
Trust Fund
Highlights of the 2016 Budget for Water and Related Resources.... 24
Hydropower
Indian Water Rights Settlements.................................. 26
Inland Waterways Trust Fund
Intake Dam....................................................... 47
Introduction..................................................... 29
Kentucky Lock project on the Tennessee River..................... 62
Mel Price Lock and Dam........................................... 69
Mississippi:
Delta Region Projects........................................ 37
River and Tributaries........................................ 36
Missouri River Fish and Wildlife................................. 48
Mud Mountain..................................................... 67
Napa River Flood Control Project................................. 64
Native American Affairs Program.................................. 42
Natural Disaster Preparedness.................................... 45
New Starts....................................................... 51
Permanent Appropriations......................................... 27
Policy and Administration........................................ 27
Powering Our Future.............................................. 30
Project Prioritization........................................... 40
Public-Private Partnerships...................................... 49
Reimbursements................................................... 42
Rio Grande Environmental Management Program...................... 41
Rural Water...................................................... 46
Salt Ponds....................................................... 35
San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study................................ 34
San Joaquin River Restoration Fund............................... 26
Section 1035 WRRDA, Floating Cabins.............................. 63
Small Subsistence and Emerging Harbors........................... 38
South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study.......................... 64
Standing Rock Reservation........................................ 51
Strengthening Tribal Nations--Indian Water Settlements........... 31
Taxes and User Fees.............................................. 52
Water:
and Related Resources........................................ 24
for Irrigation, Streams and Economy.......................... 39
of the U.S.--Rulemaking...................................... 70
Resources Reform Development Act............................. 39
Consolidation of Geographic Projects..................... 68
Public/Private Partnerships.............................. 68
Settlements.................................................. 47
Waters of the United States Rule
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Additional Committee Questions................................... 110
Avoiding Excessive Regulations................................... 77
Closing.......................................................... 87
Collegiality at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission................ 109
Compliance Costs................................................. 98
DoD Testing at Yucca Mountain.................................... 97
Dry Cask Storage Safety.......................................... 105
Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request.................................. 85
Fukushima........................................................ 108
Licensing:
for New and Existing Reactors................................ 77
Nuclear Waste Repositories, Including Yucca Mountain......... 76
Making Sure the Agency is Running Effectively.................... 77
Nuclear:
Materials and Waste Safety................................... 86
Reactor Safety
Pilot Program for Consent-Based Storage.......................... 94
Potential Terrorist Threat....................................... 105
San Onofre Decommissioning....................................... 104
Small Modular Reactors........................................... 97
Steam Generators at Southern California Edison................... 103
The Changing Regulatory Environment.............................. 84
Waste Storage.................................................... 100
Watts Bar II..................................................... 108
Yucca Mountain................................................... 106
Licensing.................................................... 93
[all]